1 Tuesday, 8 February 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Registrar, good morning to you. Could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
10 Mr. Oric, good morning to you. Can you follow the proceedings in
11 a language that you can understand?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Yes, I
13 can follow the proceedings fully.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down.
15 Appearances for the Prosecution.
16 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,
17 lead counsel for the Prosecution, together with co-counsel, Ms. Patricia
18 Sellers, Ms. Joanne Richardson, and our case manager, Ms. Donnica
19 Henry-Frijlink. And also good morning to the -- my learned friends of
20 the Defence team.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, and good morning to you and your team.
22 Appearances for the Defence.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My name
24 is Vasvija Vidovic. Together with Mr. John Jones, I represent Mr. Naser
25 Oric. We are accompanied by our legal assistant, Ms. Cosic, and our case
1 manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, and good morning to you and your team.
3 Any preliminaries?
4 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we do have one preliminary, and that's
5 to update the Trial Chamber on the Rule 94 bis motion for the Prosecution
6 filed and that Defence had submitted a response. The Prosecution and the
7 Defence have had the time to have discussions, and our understanding is at
8 this point, the Defence has agreed to withdraw their motion -- their reply
9 to our motion, and that they will submit a different reply which is
10 basically to accept the expert statement of Dr. Stankovic and the attached
11 autopsy report. And then the Prosecution has agreed, if they do file that
12 response, then we will refrain from calling Dr. Stankovic to come to the
13 Tribunal to testify.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose -- thank you.
15 Yes, Mr. Jones.
16 MR. JONES: Yes, I can confirm that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope so.
18 MR. JONES: I imagine we'd need the leave of the Chamber in one
19 form or another to withdraw that response and file a new one. We would
20 still obviously want to take, as I mentioned to my learned friend, take a
21 couple of points, or at least have the right to raise a couple of points
22 in relation to the report that's set out in the current response, and
23 we'll reiterate them in this response. But it's just merely to reserve
24 our position with respect to the piece of paper allegedly found on the
25 corpse and identification by a family member. We want to preserve our
1 position on those two points. But apart from that, the arrangement is
2 precisely as Ms. Sellers has outlined.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And you have our authority to replace
4 your response with the new one.
5 MR. JONES: Thank you. And we'll file that very shortly.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 MR. JONES: We have one preliminary as well, and it's to
8 anticipate slightly because it concerns the next witness.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
10 MR. JONES: And it may even be prudent to go into private session
11 for --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 4722-4726 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 WITNESS: DRAGAN JANKOVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Jankovic. Welcome back. We are
2 going to continue with your testimony today, and I ask Mr. Jones, who is
3 co-counsel defending Naser Oric, to commence with his cross-examination.
4 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:
6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jankovic.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. I just have a few general questions about the project, as it was
9 described yesterday, which you undertook, and then we'll look at some of
10 your photographs.
11 Now, firstly, just to pin down precisely when you took the
12 photographs, you told us yesterday that they were taken in July and August
13 of 1994, but in your statement to ICTY investigators, you said the entire
14 project went on until July 1996. So my question is: Were all the
15 photographs taken in 1994 or were some, perhaps, taken as late as 1996?
16 A. In this case that we are dealing with now, all photographs were
17 taken in late August of 1994. The material was processed, and everything
18 was completed in September, in view of the fact that we needed to put it
19 down, we needed to type up the report, glue down the photographs. And all
20 of that work was completed in September.
21 Q. Okay, that's fine. Now, to summarise your work, and nothing that
22 is said is intended as a criticism of you or your methods, but isn't it
23 right you took 642 photographs of the alleged crime sites in July and
24 August of 1994 and you're not able to say for a single one, are you, when
25 any of the houses were damaged? Would that be correct?
1 A. Naturally not.
2 Q. All right. They could have been damaged in 1994, 1993, 1992, or
3 even before the war, for all we know.
4 A. I wouldn't be able to pinpoint any of the years that you have
5 mentioned. I simply am unable to be more specific.
6 Q. And as well as not being able to say when any damage was caused,
7 you're also not able to say, are you, who caused any damage. It could be
8 men, women, adults, children, Muslims, Serbs, anyone.
9 A. Naturally, I wouldn't be able to say that, and I've mentioned so
10 several times yesterday during my testimony.
11 Q. Yes. Well, that's clear, and that's why I would ask you why, in
12 your report by yourself and Mr. Zvonko Dzurdumovic - which perhaps you
13 could look at, it's P487 - in that report it was suggested that the damage
14 to the property was destroyed due to "the very intensive
15 combat activities of the Muslim military and paramilitary formations in
16 1992 and 1993," whereas, in fact, you don't know that, do you, and you
17 can't say that.
18 A. This statement, which can be found in line 4 of that report, I
19 believe, was a result of the information that we had received from
20 municipal authorities upon arriving in that area. This statement was not
21 a result of our own analysis. This is just something that we heard from
22 municipal authorities, from local guides. This is what they told us.
23 Perhaps we should have been more specific about the source of that
24 information in our report. But just so that you know, this is how it came
25 to be included.
1 Q. All right. So in summary, that's not something you're reporting,
2 that's not a finding which you're reporting.
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. And you didn't, in fact, sign the report, did you? I don't know
5 if you recall, or if you want to look at it.
6 A. I'm sure that I did sign it, but you might have a copy which
7 doesn't bear my signature. However, I did sign it. The report was
8 written by Zvonko Dzurdumovic, and I think that my signature was the
9 second one on the report.
10 Q. Okay, that's fine. The copy I had doesn't have your signature,
11 and I was wondering if that was why you hadn't signed it, because of this
12 additional information. Right.
13 Now, on the same subject, in the table which we saw, and also the
14 map, that's headed "Table of Documented Burned and Destroyed Facilities
15 During the Combat Activities in 1992 and 1993." So do you agree that, for
16 the same reason, that's not a finding you made, that's not something
17 you're reporting as being true, it's simply a title which appears?
18 A. That's certainly right. And it wouldn't have been logical to
19 include that kind of a statement in the report. This is something that we
20 heard from somebody else.
21 Q. Right. Heard but didn't verify.
22 A. That's what we heard, and it was almost impossible to verify it,
23 at least in our line of work.
24 Q. Now, would you agree that there are many different ways in which
25 property can be damaged during wartime, particularly if the houses are on
1 the front lines, as these were?
2 A. I certainly agree with your statement. There are many ways in
3 which these houses could have been damaged, and therefore, in our report,
4 we did not specify the causes of damage. I don't think that that's
5 specified in any part of our report.
6 Q. No. And if I set out a brief list, and you tell me if you agree
7 that these might be causes of property damage generally: Damage caused by
8 close combat activity from bullets, grenades, missiles, Zoljas. Would you
9 agree, firstly, with that list?
10 A. Such causes were certainly possible. Yesterday, we looked at one
11 of the photographs and I tried to tell you this precisely. It's difficult
12 to base a conclusion on one of the photographs, but I saw all of the
13 buildings at the time. And my conclusion was that they had been damaged
14 in different ways. I did not make this conclusion in relation to every
15 specific building or a description of the building as we found it.
16 Q. Right. So you concluded that the buildings had been damaged in
17 different ways, so there wasn't any pattern, there wasn't any system, to
18 how the houses had been destroyed, as far as you could see.
19 A. I'm not sure if my very generalised opinion is of any assistance
20 to this Court. I think there were about three different ways the damage
21 came about. I can't talk about the respective percentages, but there were
22 several different ways that led us to have certain beliefs and opinions on
23 how damage had come about.
24 Q. All right, thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser.
1 JUDGE ESER: Just for the matter of clarification, are you now
2 referring only to houses which have been shown yesterday, only on photos
3 which have been shown here, or are you referring to your whole -- to all
4 photos which you made? I think there were about 500, something like this.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last thing I said before you
6 addressed me, Your Honour, what I had in mind was the entirety of
7 photographs that we took and the entirety of buildings that we visited.
8 MR. JONES:
9 Q. Now, in the area you photographed, I think you told us that most
10 of the occupants of the houses had abandoned their houses either during or
11 shortly after the attack, and then didn't return for some time. So would
12 that be correct, firstly?
13 A. As far as I remember, I said yesterday that, when we photographed
14 these houses and when we marked them on our maps, we did not find the
15 actual owners. I'm not talking about the period between 1992 and 1994,
16 but rather about the specific point in time when we were doing our work.
17 That was the point in time I had in mind.
18 Q. I was wondering whether you had learned that many of these houses
19 had been abandoned for a long period of time, at the time you came to
20 photograph them, and that therefore the weather had taken its effect.
21 Without a roof, the rain, wind, and snow had caused a lot of damage.
22 A. Yes, the weather was definitely an important factor. If you look
23 at these photographs, you will see that there are different seasons,
24 factors such as frost and humidity caused important changes to these
25 buildings, making them exceedingly difficult to discuss. Now, as for the
1 exact extent of changes visible in a certain photograph, it's very
2 difficult for me to express myself in terms of percentages. But I do know
3 there were significant differences.
4 Q. Thank you. That's helpful. Now, I think you also acknowledged
5 that when these houses were abandoned, there were signs that people had
6 come by and strip the people of building materials, for example, the
7 window frame, the roof tiles, maybe the door, any timber. Is that a
8 phenomenon that you're familiar with or that you observed?
9 A. Yes, which I found very interesting, I must say.
10 Q. Did you also see, as you travelled through this area, that there
11 was a lot of building work, and actually observe people taking materials
12 from deserted or abandoned houses and building themselves new roofs and
13 now extensions and that sort of thing?
14 A. You're asking me whether I actually saw someone taking
15 construction material away from a given site. The answer is I didn't.
16 But we did find buildings in certain places that were substantially
17 ruined, and it was clear enough that someone had, in the meantime, covered
18 the building from the outside, the owner perhaps, in order to protect it
19 from the elements and such changes, as we referred to in my previous
21 Q. In some of the photographs, there's even the suggestion that a
22 house has been rebuilt or a roof has been replaced as a result of it
23 having been destroyed before. But isn't it right that, as far as anything
24 which you know, you don't know whether a roof was replaced because the
25 owner wanted a new roof, or whether a house was rebuilt because the owner
1 wanted to rebuild his house. That's not something you can help us with,
2 is it?
3 A. I believe I can, in fact, help you with that. Why was it that I
4 concluded that the owner had merely tried to protect his house, to
5 preserve it from further decay? Why? Because no further work was done on
6 the house, and there were no changes or extensions. The essential
7 features of the building remained the same. So the way I interpreted this
8 was, the owner took urgent steps to try to preserve the condition of the
9 house as it was, and perhaps give themselves a chance, at a later date, to
10 carry out further repairs. That was my conclusion.
11 Q. Well, let me put it this way: If you saw someone who had a newly
12 tiled roof, you wouldn't be able to say, would you, whether that person
13 had had a not very satisfactory roof or an old roof and they'd seen an
14 abandoned house with very nice roof tiles and they'd gone along and helped
15 themselves and given themselves a new roof? That's not something which
16 you would know, unless you were provided some specific information. Would
17 that be correct?
18 A. At this point in time, I am not really in a position to tell you
19 where a given house owner obtained the construction material for his own
20 house. But I am in a position to tell you that the building was damaged
21 in precisely that way on account of the blackenings and dark spots or
22 blots that we saw above certain windows and door frames. And that's why
23 I'm telling you they merely used sheeting to protect their house from the
24 elements, to preserve it from further decay. You could see that in some
25 places, the roof had burned through, or maybe the roof had, in fact, been
1 torn down. I really don't know, but I'm sure that the reason I'm giving
2 you is the reason why the house was covered in sheeting, or whatever
3 material was used.
4 Q. All right. Well, what I'm getting at is this: Didn't you
5 sometimes base yourself, when you say in the captions to your photographs
6 that a house has been rebuilt after some destruction has occurred, you
7 were basing yourself partly on what people told you.
8 A. No. The captions reflect our own impressions. If you've had a
9 thorough look, if you've gone carefully through our documents, you must
10 have realised that there are certain discrepancies between the captions.
11 They're not the same for each building. Some buildings were substantially
12 damaged and could no longer be used or inhabited. My caption in that case
13 was "House Destroyed." If it was a matter of partial destruction, and the
14 house could quickly be rebuilt, my caption was "Partially Destroyed."
15 What I wish to say is that, at the time I tried to distinguish
16 between the different degrees of destruction at first sight, on first
17 impression, just like that. And this is something that I tried to
18 specify. I believed at the time that this was an adequate approach for a
19 case like this, and given the nature of the documents that we were
20 expected to draft.
21 Q. Okay. You also mentioned yesterday that there was possibly a
22 compensation aspect, ultimately, to this project; that if someone's house
23 was documented as being destroyed during combat activities, then they be
24 entitled to compensation. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. So would you agree that in many cases, there would be a financial
2 motive for people to misinform you about how damage occurred to property,
3 or that a particular property belonged to a particular person?
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour, I would object on the basis that
5 this is speculative at this point.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you are right, Ms. Richardson. I would
7 either rephrase the question or leave it, omit it, completely, Mr. Jones.
8 MR. JONES: Yes, I'll move on and come back to it in a slightly
9 different way.
10 Q. You also told us that you thought, for this project to be viable,
11 if you like, that what should have been done is both documenting what
12 people said about how damage occurred to the property as well as having
13 fire experts and other experts attending to provide a proper examination.
14 I think you even said that the exercise would be pointless without that
15 component. So my question is: Given those -- that those things were not
16 done which, in your opinion, should have been done, do you consider that
17 this project was, at best, incomplete and, at worst, a failure?
18 A. I do, of course, have my own opinion on this. We are looking at a
19 very large number of houses spread throughout an area. It really depends
20 on what you want to achieve with these files; it really depends on what an
21 individual owner can attain in terms of his rights or entitlements, such
22 as compensation. This would have been a good start, to take a photograph
23 of their damaged houses. I do believe that I said at the outset of my
24 testimony yesterday that we had given a recommendation to the municipal
25 authorities that they should set up their own commissions that would visit
1 all the sites, all the buildings, and try to establish the cause of
2 damage, make lists of damage, be it furniture, construction material,
3 cattle, anything of value that used to be there. And then use these two,
4 including the initial document, to make a complete file, to see the whole
5 thing through, establish the cause of damage and thus continue this
6 process that we had only begun. That was the way we reasoned at the time
7 about this project.
8 Q. All right, thank you. Now, I'm going to move around a bit, so I'm
9 sure you can follow me. I have a couple of questions just about your
10 training as well.
11 You explained yesterday your task, how you would normally be
12 directed to take pictures by an investigating judge, so I think we're
13 clear about that. But just to be clear, you have no training as a fire
14 expert, do you, in analysing causes of fire, seats of fire, whether
15 they're caused by human agency or by some other cause? You wouldn't hold
16 yourself out as a fire expert.
17 A. Naturally, in our school in Belgrade, there is a subject that is
18 taught which relates to all the different areas covered by the work of a
19 crime technician. Once you've passed that exam, you have a set of basic
20 skills that allow you to draw conclusions on certain phenomena, but they
21 do not give you any degree of expertise in terms of carrying out any
22 further work in the lab or perhaps drawing up an expert opinion on a given
23 case. This is definitely not something I was trained for.
24 Q. No. If I understand correctly, your training was really to enable
25 you to do your job as a technician, as a photographer, as a
1 scene-of-crimes officer, to do your job properly, so you know roughly --
2 so that you'd know what to be looking for. Would that be a correct
4 A. Yes, of course. Even if we look at the case at hand, we never
5 even broached the subject of how the fire came about to begin with. We
6 looked at the very first thing. We tried to capture the image of the
7 place as it was by taking a photograph representing a general, broad view
8 of the location itself.
9 Q. All right, thank you. It was really because you were asked
10 yesterday, and you confirmed, that you had participated in investigations
11 of 200 fires, and so my question was, really, your participation was
12 limited to taking photographs and that sort of thing, wasn't it? You
13 weren't investigating the seat of the fire in those cases.
14 A. That goes without saying. In our work, we confined ourselves to
15 what a crime technician should do, and that -- I'm saying that in relation
16 to all the fires that we spoke about yesterday.
17 Q. All right. Now, you told us how you used local residents to
18 identify who were the occupants of houses, and we have that table with the
19 names of the people who identified the houses in each hamlet or village.
20 In many cases, you only had one person to identify all the houses, didn't
21 you, in a hamlet?
22 A. I can't remember specifically, but I think there were about ten
23 guides for the entire area. I can't remember the specific number of
24 guides for each individual building, but I think there were a total of
25 about ten.
1 Q. Yes. Well, we have one example as Najdan Mladzenovic identified
2 16 houses in Hranca. I'm going to ask you a bit about Hranca in a moment.
3 But did you check the information that the person gave you about
4 ownership against any official register of home ownership? In other
5 words, did you verify the occupancy information that you received?
6 A. No, we didn't verify that. However, in view of the fact that we
7 were advised by the municipal authorities as to who our guides would be
8 for specific areas, naturally, we assumed that those people really knew
9 the area well, and that our documentation could be used in the following
10 way: You could use other methods to verify and see for yourself; you were
11 now in a position to actually call one of the owners and verify this
12 information with the owners themselves.
13 After 1994, back in Belgrade, by coincidence, I had further
14 contacts with people from the area. They had, of course, no idea that
15 anything like this had been done at all. I asked them where they were
16 from, they said from such and such a hamlet. I showed them the
17 photographs, and they would then say, Oh, yes, this is my father's house.
18 Now, it was results like these that led me to believe that we had actually
19 done our job quite well, and that we had not gone wrong.
20 Q. Well, if I understand what you've said correctly, you had a
21 somewhat random confirmation from time to time of certain photographs that
22 were correctly labeled in terms of ownership, but you're not saying, are
23 you, that you verified the 642 houses by some secondary source, that your
24 primary source was correct?
25 A. You said that I'm not saying that. It's not that I'm not saying
1 that. The fact is we didn't verify ownership after we finished our work.
2 The reason was that the documents were to be forwarded to the persons that
3 they had been drafted for, after all. And then this person would be able
4 - that's what we hoped - to do the checks and verify everything himself.
5 Q. Thank you. The reason I asked -- we'll take the example of
6 Hranca. Are you aware that Hranca is a Muslim village from which Muslims
7 were expelled in May of 1992, and that their houses were burnt. Is that,
8 firstly, something you're aware of?
9 A. When you asked me today about the individual places we visited, I
10 find it very difficult to tell you about the respective percentages or
11 about the mixed population of certain villages. This was just not
12 something that I was familiar with. I was in the area for the first time
13 in my life. That's one thing.
14 Secondly, I didn't look into that at all. I did say in my
15 testimony yesterday, and I'll repeat it for you, we knew that there were
16 certain areas where the different ethnicities lived together. And it was
17 precisely for this reason that I was adamant that there should be an
18 international presence in our project. It was my desire at the time - it
19 still is and will always be - that such projects should be carried out by
20 a variety of different institutions which would enable them to cover an
21 area thoroughly and to avoid such discrepancies as we see today in
22 relation to this project. That would make our work a lot easier, and
23 yours too.
24 Q. Right. The reason I ask is, let's take the example of Hranca, and
25 your table says that Najdan Mladzenovic was your guide. My point is
1 really this: That if there were burnt Muslim houses, and Najdan
2 Mladzenovic said, That's the house of Mr. Simic, that's the house of Mr.
3 Jovanovic and told you they were Serb houses, you simply wouldn't know,
4 would you? And it wasn't something you verified.
5 A. What you're saying now is possible, that goes without saying.
6 However, I will give you my general view on this whole thing.
7 The work we carried out in the field, as I said yesterday, our
8 work in the field, international organisations refused to take part, but
9 they did monitor our work. Whenever we went to an area, and I suppose if
10 you called the guides and asked them the questions, that they will have to
11 answer, then we certainly took into account the fact that certain houses
12 that were not owned by a person that you may now claim is the owner, the
13 international organisations refused to take part in our work but maybe
14 there will be another task, another job, where they will have a chance to
15 get involved and make a greater contribution to the life of other
16 communities. If you superimpose these two jobs, then you end up covering
17 the entire area thoroughly. That was always my opinion. I stated this
18 opinion clearly at our meetings with the local authorities and back in
19 Belgrade. I realised that the UN were familiar with the lay of the land.
20 I copied some of their maps and reports, and I realised that those were
21 the same areas. I'm in a position to guarantee that this is, indeed, an
22 opinion that I stated in no uncertain terms at all of those meetings.
23 Q. Right, well, I'm sure that's correct, and I take your word for it.
24 I may have to ask you to keep your answers a bit shorter, though,
25 because we'd like to finish in the next half hour, or so. So, if
1 possible, if you could keep your answers a bit shorter.
2 A. [In English] Okay.
3 Q. I still want to ask you a bit about your project in relation to
4 destruction to Muslim villages and houses. Now, travelling through this
5 area, Bratunac, Kravica, et cetera, you no doubt travelled through Glogova
6 and other Muslim villages where houses had been damaged, where mosques had
7 been destroyed, that sort of thing. It's right, isn't it, that you didn't
8 take photographs of destroyed and burned Muslim houses in Glogova or
9 elsewhere or of destroyed mosques.
10 A. [Interpretation] I can't remember specifically about Glogova, but
11 we did not photograph such buildings. If we had, they would now be part
12 of our file. Each photograph that we took, each negative that was made,
13 was later developed and now forms part of the file.
14 Q. So this is -- right. So if you -- when you were looking around
15 this area with your local guide and you saw a destroyed house and your
16 local guide said that was a Muslim house that was burned or a mosque that
17 was dynamited, would you just put your camera down and walk away?
18 A. This may be a bit harsh, especially considering what I explained
19 to you a moment ago. I would not have laid down my camera, I would not
20 have tried to avoid it. If you want us to be brief about this, I believe
21 I've already explained my position on this.
22 Q. Yes. Well, let me come at it this way, and it is important. The
23 committee which tasked you with taking photographs was called the
24 Committee for the Information on the Committed Crimes against Humanity and
25 International Law, and you were tasked -- I'm taking that from your
1 report, and you were tasked with getting information on the damage caused
2 during the combat activities in the region. So the committee is not a
3 committee dealing only with crimes against Serbs, is it? And your mandate
4 didn't say, only look at crimes against Serb property. So my question
5 is: Did you -- and it's not a criticism -- but did you and Mr.
6 Dzurdumovic decide to include your mandate to exclude property of Muslims,
7 or did the committee make it clear to you that you were not to photograph
8 damaged Muslim property?
9 A. It was certainly not a decision that's Zvonko Dzurdumovic and I
10 made, that is, not to photograph the other houses. When we were given
11 this task, they told us that the task was about Serb houses.
12 I have to go back to my previous answer, and I'm restating my case
13 now, and will continue to do so in the future. My general position on
14 this is that other agencies should be involved on these projects so we
15 don't have to go over the whole thing five times. And this would also
16 allow us to have a better general impression of the situation. Now, that
17 is my position.
18 Q. Thank you. And, firstly, there's no need to restate your
19 position, and it's understood. The reason I'm asking is that, in your
20 work in Belgrade, you are, are you not, a crime technician, pure and
21 simple, and politics play no part in your work? But wasn't this
22 assignment different in that it wasn't neutral fact-finding and
23 photographing, but it was a war zone which Serbs had been involved, and
24 your project was a government initiative, initiated by the Republika
25 Srpska, and so there was an initiative, there was a public relations
1 exercise behind this project, namely, to show that Serbs were also victims
2 in this war. That's my question to you. Were you aware of an ideological
3 background to your work?
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour, if I just may. Mr. Jones has
5 finally put the question to the witness. It seems like he's -- he seems
6 to be making a number of statements prior to, and I think it seems to
7 compound the question being put to the witness. I think finally we got to
8 the question, but I would ask that he be instructed to keep his answers
9 short. It seems that the questions are very compound, and there are a
10 number of statements in them. And if we are to be fair to the witness, I
11 think we should ask him one question at a time.
12 MR. JONES: I don't know if instructing me to keep my questions
13 short would be terribly fair to my liberty as a professional. If my
14 question is too long, I can rephrase it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I'll go straight to the witness. Do you consider
16 yourself, do you feel confused by the way Mr. Jones is putting his
17 questions to you, particularly the last couple of questions?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not confused at all.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the impression I had as well, Ms. Richardson.
20 MS. RICHARDSON: That's fine. I'm just saying for the record when
21 the witness answers yes or no, or provides an explanation, then it's a bit
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, okay, but I think more or less we are
24 following, and when the witness says yes or no in unequivocal fashion or
25 manner, we will intervene. But I don't think there have been such cases
1 so far.
2 MS. RICHARDSON: Fine, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
4 MR. JONES: I can rephrase my question shortly.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But don't take it in any way as kind of
6 interference on the part of the Tribunal, but I don't think I would censor
7 you in the way that you have been putting your questions, particularly the
8 last few questions. To be honest with you, those were the areas I
9 intended to cover myself had you not dealt with them in your
11 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. I tried to take several
12 points at once, but I can put a short question now.
13 Q. Did you feel, Mr. Jankovic, that there was a sort of pressure on
14 you in conducting this exercise, a sort of public relations pressure from
15 the government?
16 A. I understood what this was all about, what you were discussing. I
17 will tell you what my position is, and also the position of my colleague,
18 with whom I worked.
19 At that time, while this was happening, and also today, I
20 personally was never interested in political aspects of that work. So
21 anything that you might want to ask me about that are not relevant, from
22 my point of view. In my personal position, and also in my work, I take
23 the view that there's no room for politics in that. Our work has
24 absolutely no political aspect whatsoever. This is something that doesn't
25 even come into our minds. I hope you understand that. Even in the
1 country where I live, and in the city where I live, that still holds true.
2 However, if it's important for the Court, I can tell you that I do not
3 belong to any political party. I'm simply a professional, and this has
4 been my attitude my entire life.
5 Q. Yes. Thank you for that candid answer. It's really this which
6 I'm -- one of the things I'm driving at, which is this: That you took 642
7 photographs, and it would appear from that that there was a very large
8 number of houses which were damaged. We're going to look at some of the
9 photographs in a moment, but I would suggest to you that, actually, a
10 large number of those houses aren't particularly damaged. And so my
11 question, really, was whether there was a pressure on you to produce a
12 very elevated number of photographs on the part of the committee which had
13 commissioned you, if you follow.
14 A. Excuse me for saying so, but you could have found an answer to
15 your question in my description of how we worked. No pressure was ever
16 exerted upon us. When we went out in the field to work with the guide,
17 the guide would tell us, This is a house that belongs to such and such
18 person. And throughout that time, our work was a product of cooperation
19 between three people working in the field. There was no pressure
20 whatsoever coming from any side.
21 Q. All right. Okay, well, two short subjects before we look at some
22 of the photographs.
23 First of all, you told us yesterday that you didn't photograph all
24 damaged houses. You accepted that maybe other houses were damaged which
25 you did not photograph. But it's also true, isn't it, that there were
1 many undamaged houses which you didn't photograph?
2 A. There were houses that were not damaged and there were also houses
3 whose owners were not known to the guide. As simple as that.
4 Q. And you also told us yesterday that, when you were speaking of
5 fire damage to a house, that you weren't basing yourself just on the
6 photograph but also on your memory, since you were there. It's right,
7 isn't it, that you were -- when you were taking these photographs, you
8 were rushing from house to house, from dawn 'til dusk, working 16 hours a
9 day. Firstly, would that be correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct. From dawn, as soon as it became light, then
11 we would take photographs, make sketches. I would write down my notes,
12 based on which we produced the documentation that you see today.
13 Q. This was ten years ago.
14 A. That's right, ten years ago.
15 Q. And these are 600 or so houses which, is it right, you had never
16 seen before and which were in an area which was unfamiliar to you.
17 A. That's correct. I probably would be able to find these houses if
18 I used a map. But if you were to ask me, for example, where the house of
19 such and such owner is located, I wouldn't be able to tell you.
20 Q. So isn't it right that you don't actually have any reliable
21 recollection today of each of these houses, where they were, what you saw
22 at the time, beyond what you can simply see in the photograph?
23 A. Yes, and that's quite logical.
24 Q. We'll look at some of the photographs now, and again it will only
25 be a sampling. You were shown --
1 MR. JONES: If I can ask the booth to switch on to Defence mode so
2 that we can show -- we'll deal with the photographs electronically, and
3 hopefully zap through them quite quickly.
4 Q. Now, you were shown at least two photographs yesterday in which
5 you agreed that a projectile had probably hit the building. That was one
6 of them. And I'll just read -- for the record, I'll just read the last
7 four digits of the ERN. They are all 0108. So this is 7870, and also
8 7874, you were shown. And I think you agreed also there that the roof
9 appeared to have been hit by a projectile.
10 Now, you were also shown 01087838, if we could have a look at
11 that. Now, there, when you were asked about that, you referred to
12 blackening above the window, suggesting smoke. But you didn't say
13 anything about what appears to be a hole in the roof. Do you see what
14 appears to have been a patched-up hole? And would you agree that that
15 could have been a shell hitting the house?
16 A. Yes. Let us remain in the domain of what was possible. Yes,
17 indeed, this is possible, what you said. But when I mentioned the black
18 marks above the door and the window, you will be able to see for yourself
19 that, on the upper floor, there are no such black marks. And I'm not
20 going to draw a conclusion for you, I will leave that to you.
21 Q. Yes. I won't ask you to express opinions about causes of damage
22 or anything like that, for all the reasons we discussed yesterday. It
23 will just be a question of you confirming appearances.
24 Now, if we look at 01087950, we'll look at a few others and just
25 tell us whether you agree that they could also show shell damage. Do you
1 agree with that picture, 7950?
2 A. That is possible, but we would need to see what the house looks
3 like from the other side. I believe that it was impossible to take the
4 picture from the other side, and this is why it was photographed only from
5 this side. Let us remain in the realm of what is possible, and this is
6 the only kind of an answer I can provide. If that is of any assistance to
7 you, we can proceed with an analysis of this photograph.
8 Q. That's fine. It will be a question of just briefly looking at a
9 number of photographs.
10 01087796. Again, isn't the substantial damage to the upper storey
11 compatible with a shell or some heavy calibre artillery hitting the top of
12 the house?
13 A. Yes, that's what we stated yesterday. Once again, we are still
14 assuming or supposing that that's what happened.
15 Q. Yes. In fact, there are a number of photographs of this nature,
16 and I won't go through all of them. It was just to be illustrative.
17 Now, your report also claims to document a desecration of
18 monuments. If we could just look briefly at 01087835. This is a
19 photograph of a plaque, the top part of which is intact and the bottom of
20 which is destroyed. Now, surely, you'd agree that any vandal wielding a
21 hammer could smash a plaque - Serb, Muslim, Croat, Gypsy, anyone? You're
22 not testifying, or appearing to suggest, that that plaque was damaged
23 during combat activities, are you, in any way?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If we look at 01087927, and there are a number of photographs of
1 this nature, you have photographs which are meant to show desecration of
2 religious monuments. But the fact is, isn't it, that that photo is
3 equally consistent with a stray bullet, shot in combat, hitting the
4 gravestone, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, I also put to you earlier that a lot of the photographs you
7 took which bear captions that houses were destroyed are only, if anything,
8 partially damaged houses. We can have a quick sampling.
9 01088042. We see some bullet holes there, and perhaps some window
10 frames that have been taken. But that's not a destroyed house, is it?
11 A. This is not a house, we couldn't call it that. As for the extent
12 of damage, I would leave it for somebody else to comment upon it. But
13 this is not a house that is inhabitable, not anymore.
14 Q. Let's look at 01088085. That house is, surely, habitable, isn't
15 it? It's even got window frames. Just a small bit of damage to the
17 A. As you can see, there's a caption under the photograph precisely
18 what we concluded. These are school apartments that had been damaged and
19 then repaired. If you were to ask me whether I remember this house, I
20 would have answered no; however, that's precisely why I took notes. This
21 house was repaired partially, which means that its previous condition was
22 somewhat different. What it was like, I don't know, and I didn't write
23 down anything about that.
24 Q. And how do you know that it's been repaired?
25 A. It states here, "Repaired." That means that some work had been
1 done. If it were up to me to conclude what was done, then I would say
2 that a new roof was put in place and that some further work was being
3 done. I assume that new windows were installed. As you can see, it has a
4 gutter which was not tied in with the rest of the construction. The roof
5 was set in place; however, the gutter was not linked to the rest of the
6 roof construction.
7 Q. Yes, but my question was, how do you know that this house, and
8 many of the other houses which are described as being repaired, how do you
9 know that they've been repaired? Surely, you're not basing yourself just
10 on your own caption.
11 A. It is based on my personal observations and also on what we heard
12 when we were there. If somebody tells you that a new beam was put in
13 place a month ago, then, yes, you draw certain conclusions based on that.
14 Q. That's what I was getting at earlier when I was asking whether you
15 based yourself on what people told you, because a person -- if a person
16 did tell you something like that, you basically just had to take their
17 word for it, didn't you? You had no way of verifying.
18 A. In certain cases, we were unable to draw a conclusion. We had to
19 rely on their words.
20 Q. That's why, also, I was asking earlier about compensation, because
21 isn't it right that someone who says, Yes, my house was destroyed, I
22 repaired it, their photograph appears in your album, that they now have a
23 claim for compensation based on that photograph.
24 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour, I would object again, speculation.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Objection sustained, Ms. Richardson.
1 MR. JONES:
2 Q. If we can look at 01088088, same point again, really. To all
3 appearances, that's a perfectly good house. In fact, it's a school, as I
4 see from the caption. You say it's been renovated, but you can't tell us
5 anything about what state it was in before it was renovated, can you?
6 A. I fully understand your question. Rest assured, I do understand
7 it. However, I can't answer it.
8 Q. Given that we're short of time, I'm going to skip through and just
9 really see a few more pictures.
10 If we could go to 01087912, and this goes to what you were told by
11 your local guides about places. This is a photo of the primary school in
12 Kravica. Now, did your guides tell you that that was the command of the
13 3rd Kravica Battalion, which was based in the school on the 7th of
14 January, 1993?
15 A. I told you that we did not discuss these topics. You asked me
16 about political aspects, and now I am adding a military aspect as well,
17 because we might come to it eventually. These are issues that the
18 commission did not deal with.
19 Q. If we look at 01087898, I'll ask you in relation to that picture,
20 7898, whether you keep a -- whether you keep a record -- we'll have the
21 picture in a second. Whether you keep a record of when each individual
22 photograph was taken? Do you have a record of each photograph, of
23 precisely when it was taken? That's the question, first of all, before we
24 see the picture.
25 A. Yes. If you allow me to refer to my notes, I will be able to tell
1 you the exact date when we visited this, and also the same for other
3 Q. Yes. Do you have your notes with you? Because for this
4 photograph, this is the Kravica Oka warehouse, you may be aware, between
5 1.500 and 2.000 Muslims were killed in cold blood in July 1995, and so we
6 would certainly be interested in verifying whether that picture was taken
7 before or after. You told us your pictures were taken in 1994, but if you
8 can verify for that picture that it was, indeed, taken then, that would be
10 A. These photographs were definitely made in 1994. What I don't know
11 is whether that was done on the 7th or on the 8th, because we began our
12 work on the 7th of July and concluded on the 16th of July. I think that
13 Kravica and Jezestica were done in the first stage of our work. If you
14 allow me to refer to my notes, I will be able to tell you the exact date
15 when this photograph was made.
16 Q. If you're sure of 1994, we can probably leave it there, given the
17 shortness of time.
18 If we could see 01088221.
19 A. I have something I wish to add. You asked me whether I was sure
20 that this was made in 1994. All of the photographs before you were made
21 in 1994, in a very specific time frame.
22 Q. All right, thank you. It was just to check, because, as I asked
23 you at the beginning, the project was completed in 1996, so that was why I
24 wanted to be sure.
25 Now, this photograph, I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be
1 seeing there. My question is: How did you even know that there were any
2 destroyed houses there when you took that picture?
3 A. This was based on trust. We had to rely on what guides told us.
4 That's the first thing.
5 The second thing is that, from this distance, you were able to see
6 that the house did not have the roof. If we were to enlarge this
7 photograph, and we didn't visit these houses for the reasons stated
8 yesterday and in my report, then let's leave it at that. Everybody can
9 make their own conclusions about the report that we produced.
10 Q. Yes. It was just really just to say this: Isn't it the case that
11 sometimes it's not actually photographic evidence which you're presenting;
12 in this case, its a photograph which is a proxy for documentary or
13 testimonial evidence, namely, that photograph is representing that people
14 told you there were destroyed houses there. The photograph doesn't
15 actually show that.
16 A. There are very few such photographs in the file. If you were to
17 go through the entire documentation, you would see that there may be just
18 a couple of photographs like this. As far as I was concerned, I would
19 have loved to go and see the houses themselves. However, as we had local
20 guides, and they told us that it wasn't a good idea to go see those
21 houses, then I hope you would agree with me that it was wise to follow
22 their advice.
23 Q. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Jankovic. As I say, nothing was
24 a criticism of your professionalism.
25 MR. JONES: I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. I'll try and make an effort
2 to finish with the witness now.
3 Is there re-examination, Ms. Richardson?
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honour, briefly. I don't know if you
5 want to --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. Then we'll have a break, a 25-minute break,
7 and then I suppose you will be here for not more than 15 minutes,
8 Mr. Jankovic, and then you can go back home. Twenty-five minutes from
10 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sorry, we are late, but we were in camera
13 discussing, of course, the matter that was raised earlier in relation to
14 the next witness' testimony.
15 Yes, re-examination, Ms. Richardson.
16 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Re-examined by Ms. Richardson:
18 Q. Just briefly, Mr. Jankovic, regarding your training as a crime
19 scene technician, and in this case where you documented a number of
20 damaged houses pursuant to the request of the commission, I'd just like
21 to clarify with respect to your training, and that includes on-the-job
22 training as well as courses and exams you've taken.
23 Now, is it a fact that those courses also included training in --
24 basic training in fires and how fires are started, et cetera, so that this
25 type of training and instructions will assist you in better performing
1 your job as a crime scene technician? Is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. So the training doesn't arrive -- rise to the level of that of an
4 expert, but it is pretty significant, since it assists with your job. And
5 when you arrive at a particular crime scene, the photographs that you take
6 very often become evidence in a number of cases.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, you were asked about damage to the houses, and we -- there
9 were pictures shown to you by myself yesterday, as well as Mr. Jones
10 today, regarding the damage. Some of the photographs were indicative of
11 weaponry being used and which caused the damage. But it was also put to
12 you today about weather damage. And could you tell us if it was your
13 impression, as you took those photographs, that the major cause of the
14 damage to the home was, indeed, from the weather or other natural
16 A. I've already commented on that today. The passage of time, as
17 well as the climatic conditions, were factors which contributed to the
18 fact that many indicia that might lead us to conclusions on how damage had
19 come about changed. There was a lot of moisture, humidity, which affected
20 the condition of the buildings because they were uncovered or unprotected.
21 Then winter came along and there was frost. There was damage to the
22 facades, to the walls. And this is something that I said in my testimony.
23 I said clearly that any elements which might have initially been there
24 for us to conclude how damage had come about were, in fact, annulled or
25 wiped up by the weather.
1 Q. Okay. But this was not the case with respect to all of the
2 houses. In fact, I believe you testified that there was some indication
3 that there had been a fire or that the damage had occurred as a result of
4 weaponry. So the additional damages that you're referring to, just for
5 clarification, the further damage which resulted from the weather, was
6 just in addition to the initial damage.
7 MR. JONES: Your Honour, first of all, this is comment by my
8 learned friend. Secondly, unless we have a specific photograph to know
9 what we're talking about, I don't know how this witness can answer in the
10 abstract for 642 houses. There are specific photographs which we were
11 thinking of showing the witness where it appears that houses have just
12 decayed with the passage of time. I think this exercise can only be
13 meaningfully carried out if we're talking about specific houses.
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Richardson.
16 MS. RICHARDSON: I understand Mr. Jones' point, and perhaps a
17 photograph would be appropriate at this time. But I would just like the
18 witness to comment on, just generally, whether it was his observation
19 that, while some of the homes appear, to him, damaged from the weather, in
20 fact, that there was other damage, and that other damage was either from
21 fire or weaponry, the very reason that he was taking the photograph to
22 begin with.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think that's a perfectly legitimate question.
24 Go ahead. Witness, please answer the question, and then we'll go
25 to specifics, because you've got to --
1 MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: -- you're being generic, as it is.
3 A. When we photographed the buildings, that represented their average
4 condition. If we were to comment on each and every one of the buildings,
5 we would then have to use all the photographs, which is too extensive a
6 task. If I were to use specific photographs at this point in time, as in
7 right now, it would be very difficult for me to say how certain changes
8 came about, whether it's because of the poor quality of construction
9 material that was used for building a certain house or other causes. I
10 think that would definitely take us too far, and I think all such
11 considerations would be pointless for the case in hand.
12 MS. RICHARDSON:
13 Q. All right. At the time you took the photograph, while you were
14 being escorted by the guide -- and that guide, I take it, was a local
15 person who was aware of the owner of the house and had some information
16 about how the damage occurred; is that correct?
17 A. That would remain within the sphere of hearsay. The guide tells
18 us that a certain house was set on fire. You accept that, but proving
19 that is a different thing, because what information is based on is just
20 the guide's knowledge of a certain event. But we would have to
21 investigate the whole case in order to reach the truth of how damage
22 occurred in the first place, which means that you would have to enlist the
23 help of a number of different experts and teams.
24 Q. All right. We understand that. With respect to the photographs
25 that you, in fact, did take, there was, with the very naked eye, that is,
1 evidence that a fire had occurred. I believe you testified about this
2 yesterday. And as well as the fact that damage could have occurred from
3 weaponry --
4 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour, may I finish the question?
5 MR. JONES: Which photograph are you talking about?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones. Finish the question, but
7 witness, don't answer it before I tell you so.
8 Yes, Ms. Richardson.
9 MS. RICHARDSON: Just if I could have a moment, Your Honour. I'll
10 just repeat it.
11 Q. With respect to the photographs that you did take, was it clear to
12 you at the time, based on the limited knowledge you have with respect to
13 fires, which I suppose may be more than the average person because you've
14 taken courses and you have some training, were you able to see for
15 yourself that a fire had occurred in some of the photographs that you had
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, do you still have an objection, Mr. Jones?
18 MR. JONES: Yes. I don't see how possibly we can go through this
19 exercise unless we know which photographs. I mean, perhaps the --
20 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour.
21 MR. JONES: -- the witness is simply being asked out of 642
22 photographs, one or two seem to show some evidence that at some stage a
23 fire may have occurred, then I suppose he can answer that. But the
24 exercise seems completely futile if we're not talking about specific
25 houses and specific photographs. How can he comment, Yes, I saw --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: It's really a lot of the testimony of this witness
2 is marginal. I mean, it's --
3 MR. JONES: If my learned friend could refer to a specific
4 photograph, then there's no problem.
5 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't agree with you, Mr. Jones, when you
7 present it this way, because the question is perfectly legitimate insofar
8 as the witness is being asked a very simple question.
9 When you photographed a building, and you tell us that you
10 photographed it because, to you, there was damage, and you told us here
11 that there was signs that a fire -- that there had been a fire inside
12 those particular buildings --
13 MR. JONES: It's certainly very far from the case that this
14 witness has said he only took photographs of buildings which appeared to
15 be damaged by fire.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, he didn't say that. He said that -- but
17 he's being asked about those that he told us showed signs of a fire. And
18 he's being asked now, I mean don't ask me why, but he's being asked now to
19 tell us whether this is just mere speculation or whether it's the fruit of
20 his limited expertise.
21 MR. JONES: In that format, the question is fine.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's perfectly legitimate. And then if we
23 want to go into specifics, we can go into specifics.
24 MR. JONES: Yes, I'm obliged, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honour, if the witness could be permitted to
2 answer the question at this time.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you want me to read it out to you again?
4 Or are you also trained enough to remember the questions that were put to
5 you and answer them five minutes after?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the question only too
7 well, and I've been following your communication with the other parties.
8 I'll tell you as follows:
9 As any other layman, it should be very easy for me to tell if a
10 house burned down or not, or if there was a fire inside the house. How
11 this fire was started, or what caused it, now that's a tough nut to crack.
12 It can be due to negligence, it can be due to weather conditions, or a
13 variety of other factors. Right now we can't answer these questions in
14 relation to many of these buildings, that is for sure. We are no longer
15 in a position to say now what originally caused those fires, that's
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Richardson.
18 MS. RICHARDSON:
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jankovic. And my question with respect to the
20 fires is not what caused the fire but whether, in fact, there was a fire.
21 MS. RICHARDSON: And I will ask the usher's assistance at this
22 time to just place this photograph on the ELMO. And it's ERN 01087846.
23 This was a photograph that was shown yesterday to Mr. Jankovic.
24 Q. Mr. Jankovic, as you're -- as you're looking at that photograph,
25 it was suggested to you that there was reconstruction, and in fact you did
1 testify that there was reconstruction to some of these houses. My
2 question is: As you're looking at that particular photograph, could you
3 tell us if, in addition to the roof that is -- which appears to you at the
4 time and appears in this photograph to be new, could you also tell whether
5 there is -- there was a fire in that building, without going into what
6 could have caused it, because we know that you're not qualified to testify
7 to what the cause was. But could you tell us from that photograph whether
8 you can see evidence of a fire?
9 A. If we look at this photograph, we can say, just by looking at the
10 photograph, that the part of the house around one of the doors and the
11 small window on the left-hand side, we can assume that there is a lavatory
12 behind that toilet, if we look at these things, it should be possible for
13 us to say that yes, indeed, there was a fire inside this house.
14 Q. So despite the fact that there is a new roof on this building, it
15 does indicate that there was a fire. I guess that would be my question
16 and my point.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay, thank you. You testified as well yesterday that there are
19 three types of houses that you photographed where there was damage, and it
20 was suggested to you on cross-examination that some of these houses that
21 you photographed were, in fact, not totally destroyed. My question to you
22 is: You testified that you went into some of the houses. And could you
23 tell us if the houses that you went into were habitable?
24 A. No, the houses that I went into were not habitable. Their
25 interior was virtually destroyed. There was no paint on the walls, and
1 everything that you normally find inside a house was no longer there. So
2 that was the condition of those houses.
3 Q. Now, with respect to the type of material, building material, that
4 is used to construct a house, and, for instance, if it is a brick house
5 and a fire had taken place, based on your experience - and if you don't
6 know the answer, please tell us that you don't know and you're not
7 qualified - but would the entire house burn down or would part of the
8 structure remain?
9 A. If we talk about the type of house that you have just referred to,
10 there would be sections still standing; usually, walls and the central
11 petitions. But the light roof structure, which is made of wooden beams,
12 and other such light wooden structures were gone. As simple as that.
13 That was at least what we observed in the area.
14 Q. And if the house had been made of material other than brick or
15 wood, such as the final group that you testified, made of mud or attached,
16 what evidence would remain if a fire occurred in that house? In other
17 words -- just as an addition, to assist you with answering, would any of
18 the walls or the roof or anything else remain?
19 A. We said yesterday that there were three types of houses: Mud and
20 straw; secondly, those partially built of brick and stone; and thirdly,
21 modern houses built of reinforced concrete. The third type would usually
22 bear visible marks which we then interpret in certain photographs. The
23 old-type houses opposite the modern ones, very old, the modern straw
24 houses would bear no such visible marks because they were, as a rule,
25 completely ruined. Sometimes you had only sections of the wooden beams
1 that remained, whereas some were completely destroyed and were reduced to
2 nothing but rubble overgrown by weeds. Unless someone actually takes you
3 there and tells you that there was a house there, there used to be a
4 house, you wouldn't be likely to realise that yourself, without being
6 Q. Okay?
7 MS. RICHARDSON: At this time I'd like the usher's assistance, if
8 you can just present this to the witness on the ELMO. For the record,
9 it's ERN 01088470.
10 Q. The photograph at the very bottom, Mr. Jankovic, if you could turn
11 your attention to that photograph. Now, based on your memory, is this the
12 type of structure -- construction that you referred to as a straw
13 construction? Or do you recall what type of material this house would
14 have been made of?
15 A. Yes, this is a mud and straw building, but there are sections
16 remaining, what is practically the basement, because it's on a slope, the
17 house is on a slope. And then when a house like this is built, you have
18 stones of irregular shape that are laid down as a foundation. There is a
19 certain number of mud and straw houses - I can't give you the exact number
20 now - that were built on flat ground, and they don't have this base
21 sticking out, which happens to remain here just because the house was
22 built on a slope. This is, indeed, one such case, and I could tell you
23 more about it, but I'm not sure how relevant it is at the time.
24 Q. Okay. So my question is: Had a fire occurred to this particular
25 type of structure, what you see remaining is what would remain. In other
1 words, it wouldn't remain as the type of structure -- the type of walls
2 that would remain in a brick house, but if a fire occurred to a building
3 built of this type of material, this is what would remain, what we're
4 looking at here, 470.
5 A. Yes, this is what would remain. If you tried to dig into this
6 base that you can see in the photograph, you would find bits and pieces
7 that belonged to the house, layers of the original house, in other words.
8 I'm not going into any details now. I'm not sure how useful an exercise
9 it would be.
10 Q. All right, thank you.
11 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm almost finished, Your Honour. Just a few
12 more questions.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
15 Q. Now, with respect to the reconstruction of buildings that you
16 photographed, particularly the school, you were advised that the reason
17 that the school was under reconstruction, were you not, was because there
18 had been damage to the school.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And this is the same information you received with respect to
21 buildings where there was new construction or buildings that were visibly
22 under repair.
23 A. Yes, this is one of the few places where we found a number of
24 people. This is in the centre of the village, and that's why I remember
25 it so well. This is not a random case. There were several people
1 assembled there building things, and that was precisely why I said it.
2 Q. All right. If you could just direct your attention to the
3 monitor, I'd like to show photographs, ERN 01087836 and 01087837.
4 Now, do you recall taking photographs of what's seen before you,
5 these monuments?
6 A. I don't remember the particular moment I photographed these, but
7 yes, I was the one who did.
8 Q. And these monuments -- and you took more than one such photograph;
9 do you recall if that's correct? You took several.
10 A. Yes. I can't remember specifically now. We usually pay attention
11 to detail, and in this particular case it was possible for us to do so.
12 So we must have taken a general-view photograph. I believe I saw one of
13 these in your files. And then we focused on the inscription. And then
14 you have one close-up and then another even closer close-up. And the
15 inscription contains names of people related in some way to this memorial.
16 Q. And I take it that you took this photograph because this memorial
17 had been damaged.
18 A. Yes, that's what we were told. It was damaged, but we were told
19 that someone else had caused the damage. And that was the reason for us
20 taking this photograph.
21 Q. And the photograph before you, does that depict damage caused by a
22 stray bullet or -- if you recall at the time you took the photograph, do
23 you -- do you recall what, perhaps, may have caused damage to this
25 A. If I considered how I could approach this question, then my
1 conclusion would be that it was hit by a missile, like I commented in
2 relation to some other photographs. But there would be some sort of a
3 caption or a comment, probably.
4 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, I have one further question for you. With
5 respect to the verification of the houses, the local person who took you
6 to various houses, did the local person who escorted you attempt to
7 identify houses, or did the person seem certain as to who the owners of
8 the houses were? And I understand that there were various people who
9 escorted you throughout the various villages. Did these local guides, in
10 general, seem uncertain about who the houses -- the owners of the houses
12 A. At this point in time, I can't remember each and every one of the
13 guides. There were cases, however, where the guide was uncertain about
14 who the owner was, and whenever the guide was uncertain, I refused to take
15 any photographs.
16 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Richardson.
19 Judge Brydensholt has not got any questions. Judge Eser, I
20 understand, has a few questions.
21 Judge Eser, thank you.
22 Questioned by the Court:
23 JUDGE ESER: Mr. Jankovic, you made it quite clear to us that you
24 do not consider yourself an expert in explaining the reasons of a fire, or
25 whether there was a fire, or something else. Nevertheless, I took it
1 that, apart from your professionalism as a photographer, that you
2 collected quite a lot of ability, perhaps, to see more when seeing a
3 building which is damaged, that you may be more able to recognise certain
4 things that a normal man on the street would recognise, that you may have
5 become -- got a clearer view to certain things. Am I correct in assuming
7 A. Yes, you are quite correct.
8 JUDGE ESER: Now, to the point that you complained on various
9 occasions that, unfortunately, there was no international cooperation in
10 your project, would you think that your work as a photographer was
11 impaired by this lack of international cooperation? So the authenticity
12 of your taking pictures, was it somehow impaired that there had not been
13 any international people around you?
14 A. As concerns the authenticity of my photographs, the authenticity
15 itself did not require any cooperation from the international
16 organisations. When I referred to international cooperation, I referred
17 to the authenticity of the entire project. That would have been a logical
18 sequence for me which would have shed a great deal of light in the future
19 on everything that occurred in the area, this area, as well as some other
20 areas with which I was involved.
21 JUDGE ESER: Now, with regard to the damages and the situation,
22 the appearance of the houses, you have been asked whether these damages
23 may not have been -- occurred in a certain period of time, or that these
24 houses may have been abandoned a long period of time ago, which would
25 suggest that perhaps the houses had been abandoned, let's say, ten years
1 before that. Now, would you say that, at least to your own experience as
2 a photographer, that even if you cannot say it was in the year 1992, 1993,
3 or 1994, that these damages have at least occurred in this period and not,
4 let's say, ten -- many, 10, 20 years earlier?
5 A. Well, you see, in order to establish something like that, it is
6 not material that you be a photographer. You can base that on a great
7 variety of elements. A great variety of different factors and elements
8 might lead you to conclude whether the house -- whether a house was
9 recently inhabited or had been abandoned long ago.
10 If we speak about houses that don't even have a roof, or houses
11 that appear to have sustained substantial damage, obviously, these cases
12 are more difficult for you to draw conclusions on. It's easier to draw
13 conclusions when you have more solidly built houses of which sections, at
14 least, remained around the house itself, part of the door, windows, or
15 something like that.
16 JUDGE ESER: My question was not completely answered yet. What I
17 wanted to ask you: When it was suggested to you that some of the houses
18 may have been abandoned, and I'm citing you, have been -- not you, I'm
19 citing the Defence, that some of the houses may have been abandoned a long
20 period of time ago, how did you understand this long period of time? Does
21 it mean within the years 1991 and 1994? Or a long period of time, that
22 means even 10, 15 years earlier?
23 A. I said that I understood the question of the Defence well, and I
24 knew why I said that. When you have a local guide who knows the area well
25 -- let me give you an example. There was a lady who was a teacher. I
1 think that was in Jezestica. She knew the local live residents, children
2 who lived in certain houses. So if she told you that somebody lived in a
3 house in 1990 or 1991 or before that, and that had lived there
4 permanently, you can do nothing else but rely on her words. And that's
5 exactly what I did.
6 JUDGE ESER: Thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Judge Eser.
8 Mr. Jankovic, that brings us to an end. You lasted here more than
9 the 15 minutes that I had promised you before the break, but in any case,
10 we are finished.
11 I do thank you for -- not only for having come over to give
12 evidence in this case, but also for the frank and professional manner in
13 which you have approached the subject of your testimony and the way you
14 have answered the questions that were put to you. Your testimony has been
15 extremely helpful to this Tribunal, and I thank you for that. I thank
16 you, of course, on behalf of Judge Brydensholt and Judge Eser, and also on
17 behalf of the Tribunal in general.
18 You will now be escorted out of the courtroom by Madam Usher, and
19 I can assure you that you will receive all of the assistance that you
20 require to facilitate your return back home and to your work as well as
21 soon as possible. Once more, I thank you, and I wish you a safe journey
22 back home.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and everyone else in the
24 courtroom, for a proper attitude. Thank you.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Now, we discussed earlier -- no, no, please.
2 MR. JONES: I thought Your Honour was addressing me.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We discussed earlier on the matter that was raised
4 by Mr. Jones, which was responded to by Ms. Sellers. We did that in
5 private session. It relates to the next witness -- to the next witness.
6 We have discussed the matter in camera during the break, and we are in a
7 position to hand down an oral decision here and now, which is a unanimous
8 decision, by the way. But I think that we ought to do this in private
9 session, because it is a consequence of the discussion that we had before
10 which was in private session, particularly because of what it deals with.
11 So let's go into private session, and the decision will be handed
12 down before the witness is admitted, obviously. And then we'll take it up
13 from there.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 4772-4774 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session now.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Good morning, madam.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Before I proceed any further, I want to make
2 sure that you're receiving interpretation in your own language of what I
3 am saying in English.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I also want to make sure that you are
6 comfortable with that headset, and that the sound level is not too high or
7 too low.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: First of all, I would like to thank you for having
10 come over to this Tribunal to give evidence, which you are going to start
11 giving very shortly.
12 Before you sit down and you start giving -- you start with your
13 testimony, our Rules require that you enter, that you make a solemn
14 declaration equivalent to an oath to the effect that, in the course of
15 your testimony, you will be speaking the truth, the whole truth, and
16 nothing but the truth. The text of this solemn declaration is being
17 handed to you now by Madam Usher. Could I please ask you to read that
18 text aloud, and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: ANDJA RADOVIC
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, madam. You may sit down. Please take
24 a seat.
25 So you have been summoned to give evidence in this case against
1 Naser Oric by the Office of the Prosecutor, but now you are a witness of
2 this Tribunal. And your responsibility is only towards this Tribunal.
3 Your responsibility is to tell us the truth, as you go along in the course
4 of your testimony.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The procedure is as follows: You will first be
7 asked a set of questions by Ms. Sellers, who is one of the Prosecution --
8 members of the Prosecution team in this case, whom you have met already.
9 She will then be followed by Madam Vidovic, who is the lead counsel for
10 Naser Oric in this case.
11 Your responsibility is -- your obligation is to answer all
12 questions as fully and as truthfully as you can, to the best of your
13 ability, and in so doing, you must distinguish between questions coming
14 from the Prosecution and questions coming from the Defence. In other
15 words, you do not have the freedom or the liberty to discriminate between
16 one and the other. They are all doing their duty here, and your
17 responsibility is to answer all questions truthfully, irrespective of who
18 is putting them.
19 If, at any time, you need a break, or if, at any time, there are
20 questions that you would like not to answer, please look at us, the three
21 Judges up here, and we will consider your request. I will tell you who we
23 I am the Presiding Judge. My name is Carmel Agius, and I come
24 from Malta, the island of Malta. To my right is Judge Hans Henrik
25 Brydensholt who comes from Denmark. To my left, I have Judge Albin Eser
1 who comes from Germany. We welcome you here.
2 And I now give the floor to Ms. Sellers, who can start with her
4 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honours. I would have two
5 housekeeping things I'd like to present first. One is, could I ask the
6 usher to please either lower the screen or remove the ELMO. I cannot see
7 the witness' face. And the other is for purposes not of an exhibit that
8 this witness will draw upon, but these are maps that will basically take
9 care of the region which the testimony will concern. I'd like to hand
10 those up.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Sellers.
12 Examined by Ms. Sellers:
13 Q. I guess it's appropriate now to say good afternoon to the witness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: That means I took five minutes or six minutes on my
16 MS. SELLERS: Right.
17 Q. I would please ask the witness to state her full name for the
19 A. Andja Radovic.
20 Q. And could you also state your married name for the record.
21 A. Married last name is Obradovic, maiden name is Radovic.
22 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, I'm going to take the liberty of
23 leading a bit of this evidence.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Sellers, as usual.
25 MS. SELLERS: All right.
1 Q. Ms. Radovic, I'd like to take you to April of 1992. Is it correct
2 that at that time period you were living in Novo Selo, which is in the
3 municipality of Zvornik, in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And at that time period, did you live in a village where there
6 were approximately 12 Muslim houses -- I'm sorry, 12 Bosnian Serb houses
7 and about 150 Muslim houses?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you work at an embroidery company prior to April 1992?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you cease to work at that embroidery company because the
12 passageway was blocked and you were unable to get to work due to mounting
13 military activity near Novo Selo, in Zvornik municipality?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Also, as a result of the budding military activity, did you live
16 with your brother-in-law and your sister-in-law in the lower part of your
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And, for the sake of the Trial Chamber, would you please explain
20 whether you received papers for working conscription from the Republika
21 Srpska in the beginning of April 1992 -- I'm sorry, June 1992.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Would you explain to the Trial Chamber what types of official
24 documents you did receive from the Republika Srpska government.
25 A. Well, I was there for the weekend to help in distributing the
1 food to local residents.
2 Q. When you said "distributing food to local residents," are you
3 talking about residents who were military residents, are you talking about
4 civilian residents, are you talking about refugees?
5 A. Civilians.
6 Q. To your knowledge, were you a part of an army battalion?
7 A. No, I was not, although they mentioned the 2nd Battalion. But I
8 was not in it.
9 Q. Were you wearing a uniform, or did you have a gun issued to you,
10 as you were feeding these members or these civilians?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: That -- one moment, one moment, that may be a little
12 bit --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That may be particularly leading, Ms. Sellers, in
16 that for at least three years I've had an opportunity to follow
17 interpretation as we go along, and it could be wrongly understood by the
18 witness whether she was actually -- while she was feeding these members or
19 these civilians, whether she was made to wear a uniform or whether she was
20 made to carry a gun. I would not relate it to the feeding as such, I
21 would just ask her whether she was issued with a uniform and whether she
22 was issued with a gun and leave it at that, and not specifically relating
23 it to the distribution of food.
24 MS. SELLERS: Certainly, Your Honour. But part of the point is
25 whether her military service, if any, was related or carried out while
1 distributing food.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: But that you can ask then separately.
3 MS. SELLERS: Certainly.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: But --
5 MS. SELLERS: I understand your point.
6 Q. Ms. Radovic, could you please answer the question of whether you
7 were issued a uniform and whether you were issued a military weapon.
8 A. No.
9 Q. And so might I ask that, when you served food to the civilians,
10 that you were neither dressed in a uniform nor were carrying a weapon?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Now, during this time period, was your husband in any armed
14 A. He was mobilised, but he did not have a uniform. He wore civilian
16 Q. And so would it be your testimony that both you and your husband
17 were living as civilians in your brother-in-law and your sister-in-law's
18 house in the summer of 1992?
19 A. Naturally, we were civilians. We did not have uniforms.
20 Q. I'd like to now turn your attention to September 17th of 1992, and
21 would you please explain to the Trial Chamber whether the village of Novo
22 Selo, where you were living, whether it was attacked or not.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did any people come into the house in which you were staying,
25 specifically your brother-in-law's house, on that day when the village was
2 A. Two people came. Their names were Zenge. Zoran and I were there,
3 and they killed my brother-in-law with a rifle barrel. They took me to a
4 crossroads where they hit me under one eye, and my eye was injured. A
5 neighbour of mine, Kadrija, whose last name I don't know, saved me from
6 the knife. Muharem Sinanovic took me to a bar where my wounds were
7 dressed, and then I was taken to the village of Bajrici. They took me to
8 a room there. I was under a great deal of stress. They gave me a pill to
9 calm down. They asked me about weapons and that sort of thing. I said I
10 didn't know. I had come home from work in the evening, and when they
11 arrested me, this man, Kadrija, whose last name I don't know, he said,
12 "It's not her fault, she only came back last night." Whenever I meet
13 Kadrija, I can tell him to his face, I'm not afraid of the truth, I'm not
14 here to lie. I have three children and I do not want to lose my children.
15 Over in Bajrici, there was a lot a lot of mistreatment.
16 Q. Ms. Radovic, I want to take you back to when you said that three
17 people came into your house. First of all, can you explain to the Trial
18 Chamber, who is Zoran?
19 A. The one who was killed, you mean?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. He's the owner of the house. The host. I'm not sure how I should
22 put it.
23 Q. You mentioned that two men came into the room. Could you please
24 describe what they were wearing, if anything.
25 A. Black, black clothes. All of them, they had socks or something
1 over their heads, like a balaclava with an opening for the eyes and the
2 mouth. They had black mittens on their hands. They didn't tell me
3 anything, they just took me away. And then when Muharem Sinanovic took me
4 to Bajrici, they told me that these people were --
5 Q. Ms. Radovic, I'm sorry. I just wanted to go back to the men
6 wearing black. Before you tell us who they were, would you please tell
7 the Trial Chamber whether they carried weapons.
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. And you mentioned that you were struck under the eye. Were you
10 struck under the eye with any article by these people?
11 A. With a fist.
12 Q. As a result of being struck under the eye, have you had any
13 prolonged injuries or wounds?
14 A. Yes, I had a wound immediately, and there is a long-term injury to
15 my eye. I can't see, and the doctor told me it was pointless to even try
16 and treat it.
17 Q. Now, you describe the people as wearing the black clothing. Could
18 you tell me, to your knowledge, did you know whether these people who were
19 armed were Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Serbs or other people?
20 A. No, I can't say anything about that.
21 Q. Did you come to find out who these people were?
22 A. It was only later, when I was in Bajrici, they told me that they
23 were ZNG. But I never asked anything about their ethnicity prior to that.
24 Q. Were there any other people, dressed similarly or dressed
25 differently, who were around your house during the attack that day?
1 A. The other people were wearing camouflage uniforms, and the two who
2 took me away with black uniforms on.
3 Q. Now, do you know whether any of the people wearing camouflage
4 uniforms were Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Muslims or another group?
5 A. If they had been Bosnian Serbs, they wouldn't have fired at us.
6 Q. Then, would it be your testimony that they were not Bosnian Serbs,
7 they might have been Bosnian Muslims?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, you mentioned this person, Kadrija, who was actually very
10 kind to you and saved you; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then you were taken to have your wounds dressed. And did you
13 ever see a person called Muharem Sinanovic?
14 A. Muharem took me there. Then there was a male nurse there called
15 Refik. He is the brother of one of my colleagues who worked with me. He
16 dressed my wounds three times and stopped the bleeding, and then Muharem
17 Sinanovic took me to Bajrici. Along the way, he told me that he would let
18 me go but that he was not allowed to let me go -- that he was prepared to
19 let me go, but that he was not allowed to because otherwise they would
20 kill him.
21 Q. So is it your testimony that Muharem Sinanovic and Refik were very
22 nice to you and treated you with respect?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is it also your testimony that, obviously, they were not able, it
25 wasn't within their own free will, to release you or to let you go?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, when you arrived at the village of Bajrici, could you tell
3 the Trial Chamber what happened to you there?
4 A. There were quite a lot of people there. Some spat at me and told
5 me all sorts of things. Meanwhile, they took me to a room, brought me a
6 tranquiliser of some kind. I was under a lot of stress. And then my
7 first neighbour, Suljo Sulejmanovic - I think that's his last name - from
8 Brdo came, and he asked me whether I knew who had hit me and why. I said
9 it wasn't my fault, and I didn't know. And he said he would like to take
10 me back to the confrontation line and hand me over to our forces. But
11 that came to nothing.
12 Q. Did you have the impression that he was unable to hand you over at
13 the confrontation line because he was under the orders of another person?
14 A. Yes, of course, he was not allowed to do that. If I were in his
15 place, I wouldn't have been allowed either.
16 Q. Now, when you arrived in Bajrici and you saw the other people,
17 those that were cursing and spitting at you, could you tell the Trial
18 Chamber whether they were Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, or another
20 A. Muslims, of course. For as long as I was in their village, it
21 could not have been anyone else.
22 Q. And did you see people dressed in uniforms or otherwise dressed in
23 military apparatus or gear while you were in Bajrici?
24 A. There were quite many of them in uniform. Those that were a bit
25 older were civilians.
1 Q. And once again, just for clarity's sake, were the people in
2 uniform also Bosnian Muslims, or would you characterise them as Bosnian
4 A. Muslims.
5 Q. Now, were you taken to a cellar of a house that day, after you
6 arrived at Bajrici?
7 A. Yes, when they interrogated me.
8 Q. And what type of questions did they ask you when they interrogated
10 A. They asked me whether the food was coming from, who the Chetniks
11 were, where the weapons were coming from, and to confess. I said I didn't
12 know, I only came last night. And during the interrogation, my neighbour,
13 Suljo, came along and said, You can't ask any questions, she only came
14 last night, and she's not to blame.
15 Q. So was Suljo, a former neighbour of yours, another person you met
16 with kindness as you were being held a prisoner?
17 A. Another person, another person came, Mehmed Junuzovic, also from
18 Bajrici. He was from nice, he and his wife Ajka. He brought me milk and
19 sugar, and Ajka brought me pantaloons so that I could get a change of
21 Q. Ms. Radovic, is it true that even though there were people who
22 were insulting you and yelling at you and people that were keeping you
23 prisoner, that some persons, Bosnian Muslims, chose to treat you with
24 kindness and respect under these circumstances?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Were you then taken to a shelter?
2 A. The next morning, I was blindfolded and two people took me to the
3 shelter, or cell, as they called it. They took my blindfold off, got me
4 through a small door. They said that I should remain there, and that's
5 where I stayed.
6 Q. Could you just explain to the Trial Chamber the size or the
7 dimensions of the shelter. How tall was it, how wide was it, how long was
8 it, if you remember?
9 A. 4.50 by 4.50, and 1.50 in height.
10 Q. Now, how many days or weeks did you stay at this shelter?
11 A. I remained at the shelter from the 18th of September, 1992 to the
12 4th of October, 1992.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I just want to make sure that I have -- we got this
14 right. The transcript says "1.50 in height." In other words, in this
15 shelter, could you stand up straight without touching the roof or the
16 ceiling with your head?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So you had to bend down a little bit.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And am I correct in saying that you are
21 1 metre 57 centimetres tall?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
24 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. During the time period that you stayed at the shelter, did you
1 consider yourself to be a prisoner, someone unable to leave the shelter
2 under their free will?
3 A. Yes, a prisoner. I couldn't leave.
4 Q. Now, did there come a time when another person, a man named Nenad
5 Lukic, did he come to the shelter?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Would you please describe to the Trial Chamber the circumstances
8 under which he came, and any conversations that the two of you had when he
10 A. You mean the time he came? The time, if that's what you mean, it
11 was one afternoon; I really can't say because they took my watch away. He
12 was tall, about 180, weighing about 78 or 80 kilos. He was blonde, he had
13 civilian clothes, barefoot. His hands were tied up with a piece of wire
14 in front of him, and he had a blindfold. He stayed there with me. He
15 asked my name, I said Andja, and he said, You needn't be afraid. There is
16 a policeman who has put in a word for you. His name is Omer. He said
17 that he would have me exchanged, because he was able to do so, and that I
18 would survive.
19 Afterwards, he was taken away. I heard a moan somewhere above
20 me. It was 2.00 at night. Sahbaz Muslimanovic had already arrived. He
21 was a janitor. He asked me whether I needed to use the toilet --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
23 A. -- see me. I suppose that was something to look at. And I
24 never heard of him again.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Radovic, could I kindly ask you to slow down,
1 not to speak so fast, in other words, because we have interpreters in the
2 various booths that are translating from your language to English and to
3 French, and they are not catching up with you. Slow down a little bit,
4 please, okay? Thank you.
5 Yes, Ms. Sellers.
6 MS. SELLERS: All right.
7 Q. Ms. Radovic, you stated that this person, Mr. Lukic, said that you
8 would be -- you are protected, you would be exchanged. Did he tell you
9 whether he also was protected and whether he would be exchanged?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Some -- pardon me. Continue, please.
12 A. He only said that they would kill him, that he would not be
13 exchanged. And he said that I needn't be afraid because I would be.
14 Q. Now, how long did he stay in the shelter with you?
15 A. An hour and a half.
16 Q. And how --
17 A. Sixty minutes. Actually, 90. Sixty minutes is one hour.
18 Q. And do you remember how he was taken out of the shelter?
19 A. Two men came, able-bodied men. They took him out and beat him
20 with a rifle butt, just outside the door. But that was all I saw.
21 Q. Now, could you, from inside the shelter, could you look outside
22 the shelter and see what was happening in front?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So how were you able to see that he was beat with a rifle butt?
25 A. Just outside the door, they took him outside, the door was ajar.
1 He had to bend down in order to get out, so that's how I saw.
2 Q. And were you able to clearly hear what you described as moaning
3 from this Mr. Lukic, after he was taken outside?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber how the men who took Mr. Lukic
6 outside were dressed?
7 A. They wore camouflage uniforms.
8 Q. And, for sake of clarity, were they Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian
9 Serbs or another group?
10 A. Muslims, of course.
11 Q. I'd like to ask you, did there come a day when someone named
12 Gumeni and Hosovka come to the shelter?
13 A. The second or third day they came.
14 Q. And what happened, if anything, to you when they came to the
16 A. Well, yes, something happened. They opened the door. Needless to
17 say, Gumeni made threats. He said I should reach out with my hands so he
18 could take my rings off and my jewelry. He hit me with a piece of wood
19 over the head. I had an injury which started bleeding. In the meantime,
20 Hosovka came along and told him to stop beating me because she would be
21 the one to interrogate me.
22 Q. So was Hosovka a woman?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were you able to see how Gumeni and Hosovka were dressed?
25 A. Black uniform.
1 Q. Were these black uniforms similar to the black uniforms that you
2 described that the attackers wore on the 17th of September, as they
3 entered your house?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you suffer physical injury from Gumeni and Hosovka that day?
6 A. Hosovka didn't even touch me, but Gumeni did.
7 Q. Would you tell the Trial Chamber exactly what it is that he did.
8 A. Well, as I said, he hit me on the head with a piece of wood and
9 injured me here on the top of my head. Refik came over the next day and
10 dressed my wounds.
11 Q. So, once again, after an act of violence committed against you as
12 a prisoner, then there was an act of kindness, of someone dressing your
13 wounds the following day; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I would like to take you to another day when you were in the
16 shelter. Did there come a time period where you heard voices or screaming
17 from the outside, saying derogatory or slander against you?
18 A. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. You mean when they came and
19 -- there was an argument that could be heard with the policeman who was
20 protecting me.
21 Q. And on that occasion, did someone threaten to cut your throat or
22 to cut you to pieces?
23 A. Gumeni told me so, but then Mehmed Junuzovic came and the cop, and
24 they said, Enough of this. Dzevad Demirovic.
25 Q. And then did this cop stop people from being able to come into the
1 shelter and cause you physical harm?
2 A. When he came, he chased them away.
3 Q. And when he acted and chased him away, did that mean on that
4 occasion that you were not beaten up or in any way physically harmed or
5 mentally harmed?
6 A. Prior to that, yes. And then when Kojo came, no longer.
7 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, I would like to stop at this time
8 period, because then I'll be moving to another section. I think it would
9 be appropriate to stop at this point.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we'll have a 25-minute break, starting from
11 now. Thank you.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.
15 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Ms. Radovic, I still want to ask you a couple more questions
17 concerning your stay at the shelter.
18 MS. SELLERS: And I would ask at this time if we could go into
19 private session, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Registrar, could we go into private session
21 for a while, please.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 4793-4795 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now, Ms. Sellers.
6 MS. SELLERS:
7 Q. Ms. Radovic, did there come a time that you were taken out of the
8 shelter and transferred to another place?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you have hopes of being exchanged when you left the shelter?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Where did you think that you were going, then, when you left the
14 A. To my death.
15 Q. Now, when you left the shelter, were you accompanied by some of
16 the people that you had met, such as Sadika?
17 A. Her husband was there. I met Vajka too, but I wasn't close with
18 her. She would come to Bajrici with her husband, Mehmed Junuzovic.
19 Q. Now, as you left the shelter, would you tell the Trial Chamber
20 whether you were dressed traditionally, as someone who was a Bosnian
21 Muslim or someone who was a Bosnian Serb?
22 A. As a Bosnian Muslim, in pantaloons. And her name was Fata and not
24 Q. So was that the name that other people then called you, Fata, and
25 not Andja?
1 A. Fata.
2 Q. Now, did you move with many of the Bosnian Muslims who were in the
3 town to Cerska?
4 A. With Sahbaz and another man.
5 Q. And is one of the reasons that you moved with the others is that
6 there was shelling at some point in time of Kula Grad? I'm sorry, not at
7 Kula Grad. The town you were in, from the direction of Kula Grad.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And would that be shelling, from your point of view, by Bosnian
10 Serbs or by Serbs?
11 A. They told me that those were Serbs, yes.
12 Q. And isn't it true that the entire village was evacuated? And only
13 because of that, you were released from the shelter.
14 A. They told me that we all had to move further into some hills, and
15 then we continued on to Cerska.
16 Q. Now, when you arrived at Cerska, were you then taken to another
17 place, a basement, and interrogated?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Would you tell the Trial Chamber what the persons who interrogated
20 you were wearing, if anything.
21 A. Automatic rifles and uniforms.
22 Q. So, did you consider yourself still a prisoner, once you arrived
23 at Cerska, after you had come with the evacuated village?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, the men who interrogated you in Cerska, would you tell the
1 Trial Chamber what type of information they asked for.
2 A. They asked me how I came to be arrested, whether I'd been
3 mobilised, who had brought me in, who interrogated me. Sahbaz brought in
4 the papers, saying they had questioned her about everything.
5 Q. And was it at that point, because Sahbaz brought in the papers,
6 that the interrogation stopped?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So, in that sense, Sahbaz assisted in halting the interrogation;
9 is that true?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, after that time period, were you then taken to another place
12 near Cerska that is referred to as the stable?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How did you come to be at the stable, meaning did you walk, did
15 you ride? How did you get there?
16 A. On foot.
17 Q. Were you accompanied by any other persons?
18 A. Only Sahbaz.
19 Q. And when you arrived at the stable, did you find other people in
20 the stable?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, before I ask you who those persons were, I'd like to ask you,
23 did you still consider yourself then a prisoner, after being taken by
24 Sahbaz to the stable?
25 A. Well, he took me to the stable, so naturally I saw myself as a
1 prisoner. I never believed that I would come out again, resurface.
2 Q. Now, you said that you saw other persons in the stable. Could you
3 please tell the Trial Chamber who these other persons were that you saw
4 when you arrived at the stable.
5 A. Rado Pejic, called Miso, from Gobelje, near Cerska; Branko
6 Sekulic, from a place near Milici, born in 1967; Dragan Ilic, from Kasaba,
7 arrested at Vlasenica bridge, born in 1975; and Jakov Dzokic, who was
8 returning home from his mandatory JNA military service, arrested on the
9 road. These four people were there when I arrived in the stable.
10 Q. Now, had you known any of those persons before?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Would you describe to the Trial Chamber, upon your arrival, what
13 was the physical appearance of Branko Sekulic?
14 A. Branko Sekulic looked normal. He had a wound to his left heel,
15 but he was able to walk. He could see, he could hear. However, after
16 being severely beaten by Alaga, he became deaf.
17 Q. Could you now tell the Trial Chamber, what was the physical
18 appearance of Jakov Dzokic?
19 A. He looked tall, skinny. None of them had bruises when I arrived.
20 Later on, they would be beaten every day. I would be beaten too.
21 Q. And also, with Dragan Ilic, did he also look as you've just
22 described, at that point, not beaten?
23 A. No, not at the point when I arrived.
24 Q. And then lastly, Mr. Rado Pejic, could you please describe what he
25 looked like when you arrived?
1 A. He was shorter than the other three. He was rather pale in his
2 face. He was on the quiet side. He did not have any bruises. None of
3 them had any bruises when I arrived. Later on, we would be beaten
5 Q. Now, you've mentioned the name Alaga. Who was Alaga?
6 A. A Muslim, young man. I don't know his actual name, I just heard
7 him being referred to as Alaga.
8 Q. Now, is he one of the persons, or a person who participated in
9 beating the men who were in the stable?
10 A. He was a school friend of Branko Sekulic, and Branko said,
11 Remember when they gave us bad grades? That's when the beating started.
12 It was quite difficult for me when I saw Branko bleed from his nose and on
13 his face. And then he told me to stand up and stay about 1 metre from the
14 wall. He hit me and I fainted, and when I came to, one of the four of
15 them told me that he kicked me in the chest.
16 Q. For clarity, when you said that he told you to stand up against
17 the wall, are you referring to Alaga or Branko?
18 A. Alaga. Alaga.
19 Q. So were you ever physically mistreated by Alaga?
20 A. He slapped me and beat me.
21 Q. Did there come a time when he beat you to the point of
23 A. I've just told you, he kicked me in the chest and I fainted. When
24 I regained consciousness, I saw that I was wet. They poured water on me.
25 My fellow prisoners told me that he had kicked me in the chest. I don't
1 remember that myself.
2 Q. Now, was Alaga wearing any form of uniform, or was he dressed as a
4 A. He was in uniform.
5 Q. Now, you've testified to the Trial Chamber that the men who were
6 in the stable received various beatings. Could you please tell the Trial
7 Chamber who were the types of persons who administered these beatings to
8 Branko, Jakov, Dragan, and Rado?
9 A. I couldn't give you their names. I don't know their names. I
10 just know that Branko told us that one man's name was Alaga, and that they
11 had been at school together.
12 Q. Now, do you know whether the men who administered the beatings
13 were wearing uniforms or civilian clothes?
14 A. Uniforms.
15 Q. And can we just confirm that the men were Bosnian Muslims, or were
16 they Bosnian Serbs?
17 A. Bosnian Muslims.
18 Q. Now, how long did you and the four men stay at the stable, in
19 terms of days or weeks or months?
20 A. I stayed at the stable from the 5th of October, 1992, until the
21 26th of January, 1993. I don't know when they got there.
22 Q. And during that time period at the stable, were you able to see
23 the physical mistreatment of the four men, and any bruises or wounds that
24 were caused by the beatings or physical mistreatment?
25 A. Yes, I saw a lot of physical mistreatment, beating. I saw that
1 personally at the stable. The men were beaten there. I would get my fair
2 portion as well. They didn't kick me like they kicked the men, but they
3 slapped me on a number of occasions.
4 Q. And because of the beatings that you received and the men
5 received, did that, in some manner, assist the five of you in bonding
7 A. I think it did. While we were there together at the stable, they
8 didn't take us any place else.
9 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you whether there were guards posted near the
10 stable during the time period that you and the four men were present.
11 A. Yes, in front of the stable. They had a little hut made out of
12 wood and covered with tarpaulin. They were armed.
13 Q. How many guards were posted outside of the stable?
14 A. Two. They rotated, worked in shifts.
15 Q. So, would it be your testimony that, at all times, you and the
16 other men were guarded and unable to escape from the stable?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, was one of the people who guarded the stable also the
19 turnkey, the person who had the keys to the stable?
20 A. No. No.
21 Q. Do you know who had the keys to the stable to allow you or the
22 others in or out?
23 A. I was told that Adem Huric had the key. I saw him when they took
24 us out, and I couldn't really tell you now. I don't know who they got the
25 key from.
1 Q. Now, would you just describe for the Trial Chamber the physical
2 layout or dimensions of the stable.
3 A. The stable was 6 metres long, 4 metres wide, 2 metres high. It
4 was made out of concrete blocks. It was covered with roof tiles. The
5 floor was just a plain dirt floor, covered with straw. The door was a
6 wooden door. That's all.
7 Q. And at times, were you and your fellow prisoners taken outside to
8 get a bit of fresh air?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you ever allowed to contact your family while you were at the
12 A. No.
13 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, I would like to go into private
14 session again.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Registrar, could we go to private session,
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 4804-4807 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 MS. SELLERS:
11 Q. Okay. Ms. Radovic, did there come a time period when you and the
12 other four prisoners left the stable in Cerska?
13 A. Yes, on the 26th of January, 1993.
14 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber how you came to leave the
16 A. In the evening, the guards told us that we would be exchanged the
17 following day, that we would go to Srebrenica and be exchanged there. In
18 the morning, they brought us breakfast, beans. Zulfo Tursunovic came, and
19 another person called Nindza. They acted quite decently, I can't say
20 anything else. They didn't even touch us, any of us prisoners.
21 On our way there, we had to descend from the hill, because the
22 stable is at the hill, and then when we reached the bottom, a soldier
23 joined us. He hit Branko once. And we went on foot towards Srebrenica.
24 Branko was wounded and could not continue. He stayed at a stable, and we
25 travelled the whole day, up until 8 in the evening, to get to Srebrenica.
1 We passed through Kravica --
2 Q. Ms. Radovic, I'd ask you again to slow down a little bit, and I
3 want to go back and ask you some questions about the leaving.
4 Okay. You've described, or you've talked about, a man named Zulfo
5 Tursunovic. Could you please describe what he looked like to the Trial
7 A. Zulfo looked like a decent person, quite tall, large, wore a
8 camouflage uniform, had automatic rifle, pistol, and a Motorola.
9 Q. Do you know whether Zulfo was based in Cerska or whether he came
10 from Srebrenica?
11 A. I don't think he was from Cerska, because he never visited us
12 there. He probably got there on somebody else's instructions, to take us
13 to Srebrenica.
14 Q. Now, the other people who were with Zulfo, could you just tell the
15 Trial Chamber what they were wearing?
16 A. Also, in uniforms, I remember that Nindza had blue eyes. They
17 were also armed.
18 Q. Now, did it appear that, among the three of them, Zulfo and the
19 two other people that you've just described to us, did it appear as if
20 Zulfo was a person who had some type of authority or command over the
21 other two?
22 A. Yes, he did, because they asked him for everything, and his words
23 were complied with by the other two.
24 Q. Now, did Zulfo have any form of communication with him, a radio or
25 some method in which he could communicate with others, other than just --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think she has already told us that he was carrying
2 a Motorola.
3 MS. SELLERS: Sorry, you're right.
4 Q. During the time period that you were with Zulfo, did he ever use
5 the Motorola?
6 A. He lagged behind for a while. He walked behind us, most likely
7 because he communicated with someone. But we didn't dare turn back, turn
8 around, to look at that. We continued on to Srebrenica, and we got to a
9 creek and stopped there.
10 Q. Now, on your way to Srebrenica, do you know what towns that you
11 passed through?
12 A. I just know that they told us that we had passed through Kravica.
13 I don't know those places, because I'd never been there before.
14 Q. Now, you mentioned that you and the four men who were in prison
15 with you left the stable together. Did all of you arrive in Srebrenica
17 A. No. Branko was unable; he stayed behind in the stable, or a shed.
18 He arrived on horseback the next morning. But the four of us did go,
19 and we arrived, the three of them and myself.
20 Q. Did one of the armed guards stay behind with Branko?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, you said that you had walked all throughout the day. By the
23 time you arrived in Srebrenica, was it evening, was it nighttime, or was
24 it still late afternoon?
25 A. Nighttime.
1 Q. And when you arrived in Srebrenica, were you asked to give your
2 names to anyone?
3 A. No, they didn't ask our names. They had a list with our names,
4 and that was that.
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, at this time I wanted to show one
6 exhibit. I don't know whether we have enough time, or whether we should
7 continue tomorrow.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We've got two minutes.
9 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I would prefer if we would not use
10 these two minutes with the exhibit, in case the witness would want to take
11 a bit more time.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I would suggest too.
13 So, Madam Radovic, we have to stop here for today, and we will
14 continue tomorrow morning at 9.00, I think, in this same courtroom, if I
15 remember well.
16 I thank you, and see you all tomorrow.
17 Madam, one very important thing is that, between today and
18 tomorrow, please do not communicate with anyone or talk to anyone in
19 connection with the matters that you are testifying upon. That's very
20 important. And don't let anyone, also, contact you or talk to you about
21 these things, okay?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
1 February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.