1 Monday, 23 May 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. There is case number
7 IT-03-68, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen,
11 good morning. I fully understand the proceedings in my own language.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Oric. You may sit down and
13 good morning to you.
14 Appearances for the Prosecution?
15 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,
16 leads counsel for the Prosecution, and also good morning to the Defence.
17 I'm here together with co-counsel Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio and our case
18 manager, Mrs. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And good morning to you and your team.
20 Appearances for Mr. Oric?
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours and my
22 learned friends. My name is Vasvija Vidovic and together with Mr. John
23 Jones I appear for Mr. Naser Oric. With us are our legal assistant,
24 Ms. Adisa Mehic, and our CaseMap manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Good morning to you and your team.
1 Any preliminaries?
2 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Vidovic?
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's bring the witness in, please.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Radojicic.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome to this Tribunal.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: As you may have noticed already what I am saying in
12 English and what others will be saying in English for that matter will be
13 translated to you in our own language by our interpreters. I would like
14 to make it clear to you that interpretation is extremely necessary because
15 we need to follow what you say and you need to follow what we are saying,
16 that if at any time it is faulty or you're not receiving it, please draw
17 our attention to it straight away so that we will address the matter.
18 You are soon going to start giving evidence as a witness for the
19 Prosecution. Our rules require that before you do so, you make a solemn
20 declaration to the effect that in the course of your testimony you will be
21 speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The text
22 is contained in a piece of paper which you are just being handed now.
23 Please read it out loud and that will be your solemn declaration
24 undertaking with us. It is equivalent to an oath.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADOJICIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please do sit down. Let me introduce
5 myself, first of all. I'm the Presiding Judge and my name is Carmel
6 Agius. I come from Malta. To my right I have Judge Hans Hendrik
7 Brydensholt from the Kingdom of Denmark and to my left I have Judge Albin
8 Eser from Germany. Together we are presiding over this case which the
9 Prosecution has instituted against Naser Oric.
10 You will first be asked a series of questions by Mr. Di Fazio whom
11 I'm sure you have already met, and he will then be followed by Mr. Jones
12 who is co-counsel assisting Madam Vidovic in the defence of Mr. Oric.
13 My recommendation to you is that in answering your questions,
14 apart from being truthful in your answer and as precise as possible, I
15 would like you to be as concise as possible as well. So don't try to give
16 us more information than you are being asked for and if a question can be
17 answered by a simple yes or no, then answer it by a simple yes or no. In
18 other words, please try to answer the question, the whole question, and
19 nothing but the question.
20 All right?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, you may begin.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just for the purposes of
24 the Defence I think I'm going to be fairly brief this morning so I'll
25 definitely get a start obviously today but it's possible I could finish
1 before the break. I'll be fast.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You are prepared for that, I suppose,
3 Mr. Jones?
4 MR. JONES: Yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you both.
6 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
7 Q. Mr. Radojicic I just want to run some personal details past you
8 and I want you to tell us if they are correct or not. You were born on
9 the 24th of September 1955, you're of Serb ethnicity, you're married, you
10 have three children, is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. You graduated from the faculty of law in Mostar in 1974, you
13 started your JNA training in December of 1979 and finished it in October
14 1980; is that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. In July of 1982 you started to work in the - I'm not sure of the
17 pronunciation - Nevesinje -- Nevesinje municipality where you were the
18 secretary for economic affairs; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. You did that for four years and then in 1986 you became secretary
21 for the municipal assembly and you held that position for another four
22 years, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. August of 1990 you became the head of the municipal board, a
25 position that you kept for about four months and in January 1991, you
1 became the TO commander for the Nevesinje municipality; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. In March of 1992, you joined the JNA as a captain and thereafter
4 remained in the army, later in its incarnation as the VRS; is that
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. In May of 1992, to August of 1994, you were deputy commander of
8 the 3rd infantry battalion of the VRS?
9 A. The 3rd.
10 Q. Yes. Thank you. From August of 1994 to November of 1995 you
11 became commander of the 3rd Infantry Battalion; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And those two last positions that I just described to you were --
14 were those battalions, the 3rd Infantry Battalion, were they part of the
15 8th Motorised Brigade?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In February of 1995 you were promoted to captain first class and
18 you moved to 708 Brigade headquarters -- and you moved to the 708 Brigade
19 headquarters in November of 1995; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You were a reservist essentially until June of 1996 whereupon you
22 became a professional member of the VRS; is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. You were promoted to major in January of 1995 and you continued to
25 remain at 708 Brigade headquarters until February of 1997, correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. February of 1997 you became deputy commander of personnel in 708
3 Brigade and you remained in that position until March of 2002 and in June
4 of that -- of 2000, you were promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. Are those
5 details correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. I think I have this right. During the period of time that you
8 were deputy commander of personnel at 708 Brigade, you became head of
9 department of operations and education, and also you were appointed deputy
10 commander of 708 Brigade; is that correct?
11 A. This was as of the 1st of March 2002.
12 Q. Thanks. From September 2003 to June of 2004, you were commander
13 of the 708 Brigade; is that right?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And from June of last year, 2004, you have been the head of
16 Department for Civil and Military Cooperation of the 5th Reserve Division
17 of the VRS based at Sokolac; is that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. In late 2004, as a result of a request for assistance from the
20 Office of the Prosecutor, did you receive an order requiring you to
21 examine certain documents and collate information relating to certain
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you subsequently make inquiries of fellow officers, including
25 retired officers, and examine -- let me withdraw that and start the
1 question again.
2 Did you subsequently make inquiries of fellow officers, including
3 retired officers, regarding a collection of documents held by the 5th
4 Reserve Division?
5 A. Yes, especially after I learned I would appear as a witness before
6 the Tribunal in The Hague.
7 Q. And also, as a result of that, did you actually come to examine
8 certain documents?
9 A. I didn't examine the documents because in November 2004 the
10 documents were transferred to the Ministry of Defence in Banja Luka.
11 Q. Yes. But did you see the documents and locate the documents?
12 A. I saw the documents in late November 2004 pursuant to a document
13 issued by the General Staff of the army of Republika Srpska about the
14 sending of a report on these documents.
15 Q. Thank you. And did that -- thank you. Did the order that you've
16 spoken of asking you to look into the background and history of
17 documentation carry with it an annex listing certain specific documents,
18 186 them in all?
19 A. That order contained a list of the documents about which a report
20 was required.
21 Q. Thank you. I'd like you to look at this particular list. It's
22 not in dispute, Mr. Radojicic, that this list that you have had just
23 produced to you was in fact attached to the statement that you gave to the
24 Office of the Prosecutor, is that so?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. All right. And I think your list will show that you signed the
2 back of -- the back of it on the 24th of March 2005; is that right?
3 A. Correct, yes.
4 Q. And if you go to the end of the list, you'll see that it relates
5 to 186 documents; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please I seek to tender that list
9 into evidence.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio. What is the next
11 number, please?
12 THE REGISTRAR: P546.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So this document will become Prosecution Exhibit
14 P546. Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have also prepared or
16 caused to be prepared a further list which is based on this list. It's
17 not a list that this witness has prepared himself but one that's been
18 produced by the Prosecution and it's based entirely on this. It's got 186
19 documents. It's in English. I have added to it a column which contains
20 the corresponding list of Prosecution exhibits. So it's more of a tool, a
21 reference tool, and I'd like to tender that into evidence but I don't know
22 what the attitude of the -- of the Defence is to that and it's so that you
23 can follow the evidence more clearly and will be useful perhaps one day
24 when you want to come to compare the particular documents with the actual
25 exhibits in our case.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.
2 MR. JONES: We have no objection to that.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I would imagine so. It's indeed a very helpful
4 document, this, which I have had the opportunity to see the like of in
5 other cases. So although I would have reserved our position until I heard
6 Mr. Jones, I would have anticipated also what the Defence reaction would
7 be. Yes, this will become P547 and I thank you for it, Mr. Di Fazio,
8 please. Yes, next.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. All right.
10 Q. Now, we will get to the issue of the documents that you actually
11 looked at in late 2004. Let me rephrase that. As a result of receiving
12 the order from the -- your superiors to look into the question of
13 documentation, including these 186 documents, did you speak to your
14 superior, a gentleman named Colonel Nedjo Gavric?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And about when was that? When did you speak with him about
18 A. Just after I received the order from my superior command.
19 Q. And what did Colonel Nedjo Gavric tell you regarding documentation
20 in the possession of the 5th Reserve Division?
21 A. Colonel Gavric told me that in June 2004, he had received these
22 documents from the staff commander and that he had handed them on to the
23 commander of the division.
24 Q. Did he provide you with any information as to the more distant
25 history of the documents -- of this collection of documents, where they
1 were originally found?
2 A. He told me that these documents which had been delivered to him
3 were documents seized during the operation in July 1995 in Srebrenica. He
4 didn't give me any other information.
5 Q. Thank you. Did he tell you where you might locate these
7 A. He told me that the documents were with the deputy division
9 Q. And who was the deputy division commander?
10 A. The deputy division commander was Colonel Ranko Prodanovic.
11 Q. And where -- where were you physically located when -- where is
12 Prodanovic's office actually located, what town, village, where? Where is
14 A. The command of the 5th Division is located in Sokolac. That's
15 where these offices are.
16 Q. And about how far out of Sarajevo is Sokolac?
17 A. Approximately 43 or 44 kilometres.
18 Q. Thank you. At the time you had this conversation with Gavric, did
19 you have that list, Exhibit P546, the -- the -- your list of 186
21 A. At the time of my conversation with Colonel Gavric I didn't have
22 these documents, until we went to the office of the deputy commander of
23 the 5th Division.
24 Q. Sure, but did you actually have the list -- the list of -- setting
25 out the documents that the Office of the Prosecutor was interested in?
1 Did you have that list of documents when you spoke to Gavric?
2 A. Yes. I did have the list, because it had been attached to the
3 order I had received.
4 Q. Thank you. Okay. So you've got the list. You've spoken to
5 Gavric. And you've told us that you went to see Prodanovic in his office.
6 What happened when you went and saw Mr. -- I'm sorry, I've forgotten his
7 rank, Mr. Prodanovic?
8 A. I told Colonel Prodanovic about the document we had received, and
9 he told me that he had these documents in his office in the safe.
10 Q. Did he open the safe and produce anything?
11 A. He opened the safe and took out two folders of documents.
12 Q. Okay. Now, at this point, you had the -- your list and he had
13 these two folders of documents. Did you actually compare the listed 186
14 documents in the -- in the annex that you've already -- that you've told
15 us about that you had in your possession with documents in the two
16 folders? Did you compare all of them, some of them, or none of them?
17 A. I compared about 20 documents, not in sequence. It was in random.
18 Q. And did you conclude that the folders contained -- well, let me
19 rephrase that. Having compared about 20 of the documents with the list of
20 documents in the annex, what did you then do?
21 A. When I compared the 20 documents, I saw that these were originals
22 to be found on the list that was annexed to the order, and I spoke with
23 Colonel Prodanovic so as to see what would be the further procedure
24 concerning the chain of custody of the documentation.
25 Q. And can you tell us or can you not tell us which 20 in particular
1 you compared on the list with the -- with the 20 in the -- in the two
3 A. I couldn't tell you that precisely.
4 Q. Thank you. And can you tell the Trial Chamber if the two folders
5 contained a lot more than 186 -- than the 186 documents?
6 A. There were more documents.
7 Q. All right. Thank you. What did you and Prodanovic decide to do
8 about this -- these two folders of documents and this request for
9 information regarding the 186 documents?
10 A. We discussed it and we concluded that the best solution should be
11 that that documentation be turned over to the security organ and forwarded
12 to the Ministry of Defence in Banja Luka.
13 Q. And how did you physically achieve this? And I'd like you to tell
14 us the names of persons who were involved in the process of transferring
15 the documents out of the safe of Prodanovic to Banja Luka. How did you go
16 about this?
17 A. Colonel Prodanovic invited Lieutenant Colonel Sakota Kosta, who
18 was the head of security in Sokolac, and we showed him the documents. He
19 said that he agrees with our decision to transfer the documentation to
20 Banja Luka so that it would be closer to the government and its department
21 for cooperation with The Hague Tribunal.
22 Q. I may not have asked you this but when you first saw the documents
23 in Prodanovic's office, where were they located? In his desk, in a
24 cupboard? Where precisely?
25 A. I think I replied to that question earlier. They were in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Q. All right. Thanks. All right. So Lieutenant Colonel Kosta
3 Sakota agreed that the documents should be transferred. Did anything
4 happen to the documents at that point?
5 A. Immediately after taking over the documents from the office of the
6 deputy commander, Lieutenant Colonel Sakota left to Banja Luka and handed
7 over the documents.
8 Q. So he took -- he took possession of the two folders of documents
9 and left with them and that was the last you saw of them, I take it?
10 A. No.
11 Q. All right. I'm sorry, you tell us precisely what happened.
12 A. As I said, the documents were transferred to Banja Luka and given
13 to the Ministry of Defence.
14 Q. Yes, that's right. And Kosta Sakota took the documents from you
15 and Prodanovic and took them off to Banja Luka; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And when you say the documents, do you mean the two bundles or
18 folders of documents that Prodanovic had produced from his safe?
19 A. Precisely so.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, that happened, I believe, in late or late
21 November 2004, correct -- is that right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, it's not in dispute that in March of this year
24 you provided a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor. At the time
25 that you provided the statement to the investigator, Mr. Nasir, did he ask
1 you to make further inquiries about the provenance and custody of the
2 documents which had been found in the two folders in Prodanovic's safe?
3 A. Mr. Nasir, after I gave the statement in the office of the Hague
4 Tribunal in Sarajevo, asked me should I appear as a witness in this
5 proceeding before the Tribunal and should I acquire additional information
6 about the chain of custody that I say so.
7 Q. Thank you. And did you in fact make some inquiries?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did you speak to anyone?
10 A. I did, in particular with a retired major of the VRS, Mr. Pejic
12 Q. Thank you. During that meeting with Mr. Pejic, Major Pejic, did
13 you -- did you make notes of your conversation?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what happened during the -- what
16 was said during the conversation, what Pejic told you, without referring
17 to your notes or do you need them to be able to recall what he told you?
18 A. I don't need the notes. I can recall it.
19 Q. Okay. All right. Thanks. Okay, well, can you tell us, please,
20 what Major Pejic told you about the documents? And in particular, can you
21 tell him -- can you tell the Trial Chamber how it was that you and Pejic
22 knew that you were both talk -- that were you both talking about the same
23 set of documents?
24 A. Since I met Mr. Pejic when I came to Sokolac and we became
25 friends, I asked him in relation to the colleagues who worked with me in
1 Sokolac, who suggested to me that I could learn more about the
2 documentation from Mr. Pejic, hence when I explained to him what it was
3 about, he gave me the following information. At the end of 1995,
4 Mr. Pejic was appointed as battalion commander within the Milici Brigade.
5 In the premises of his battalion, there was also the documentation seized
6 in Srebrenica.
7 Q. Can I just ask you to pause there? Do you -- in your conversation
8 with Major Pejic, did he ever tell you where the premises of his battalion
9 was or do you have your own knowledge, or your own independent knowledge,
10 where the premises of his battalion was?
11 A. I don't know that and I didn't insist on learning that piece of
13 Q. Okay. Fine. Please continue with what Major Pejic told you.
14 A. After that, at the beginning of 1996, Major Stanisic and
15 Lieutenant Terzic, who was a security officer, came to see Major Pejic.
16 They separated those documents and transferred it to Sekovici. After the
17 5th Corps was formed on the 31st of January 1997, that documentation was
18 transferred from Sekovici to Sokolac. The person who was tasked with
19 dealing with the documentation was Major Ranko Todorovic who worked on or
20 in intelligence. By the end of 2000, the corps command received an order
21 pertaining to collecting the documentation on the crimes committed over
22 the Serbian people and the order regulated that the documentation be
23 presented to The Hague Tribunal investigators. This was done and around
24 mid-2001. Concerning the annex that is the list of documents that went
25 together with the order from 2004, it is clear that Mr. Todorovic
1 surrendered those documents to the investigators for scanning.
2 After Mr. Todorovic left the 5th Corps command, the person in
3 charge of the documentation was Major Pejic, with whom I spoke earlier.
4 He was tasked with garrison affairs. This was in February 2002.
5 Q. Thanks.
6 A. Around the middle of 2003, the 5th Corps command of the VRS, with
7 a view of the changes that happened then, issued an order setting up the
8 new commission that was tasked with collecting and having custody over the
9 documentation about crimes against the Serbian people, and the person
10 responsible was Colonel Mihajlo Vujovic.
11 Q. Was he also responsible for looking after and keeping in -- the
12 custody of the documents in the two folders that were in Prodanovic's
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And were the other persons you have mentioned also responsible for
16 keeping custody of the two folders of documents in the safe of
17 Mr. Prodanovic?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just give me a moment, because I
20 think I may have finished.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: As much as you like, or as you require,
22 Mr. Di Fazio.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you very much. No further questions.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Di Fazio. Mr. Jones?
25 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour, I can start but since we
1 didn't anticipate starting before the first break even --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If you want a break now, no, it's -- we can
3 accommodate -- I can understand that, having been on that side for the
4 large part of my career.
5 MR. JONES: It's also that we don't actually have physical copies
6 of our exhibits here with us.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have the break now and then we'll resume.
8 I'll -- do you think you will finish today?
9 MR. JONES: Yes, certainly.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have -- we can also have a 30-minute break,
11 all right? Which will give you ample opportunity to organise yourself.
12 MR. JONES: Yes, that's helpful. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 --- Break taken at 9.50 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.29 a.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry for the delay but in the meantime we had a
17 long meeting, the three judges, on matters related to the case and we'll
18 possibly be coming back to you for another meeting in my Chamber in the
19 course of either later on this week or next week to discuss a few matters
20 but everything seems to be going on well from the organisational point of
22 So let's start. Are you -- did you have enough time, Mr. Jones?
23 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So he is in your hands.
25 MR. JONES: I'm obliged, Your Honour.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:
2 Q. Mr. Radojicic, you spent more than ten years in the JNA and then
3 the VRS?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You spent more than ten years in the army, correct, in various
6 positions in the JNA and then subsequently in the VRS?
7 A. Yes. In the JNA I was a reserve officer from March 1992 and I
8 have become a professional soldier with the VRS as of the 1st of July
10 Q. Precisely. So since 1992, so more than ten years, and you've
11 occupied a number of positions of authority, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in that capacity, you've dealt with documents and archives to
14 a great extent, haven't you?
15 A. Partially so. After the war.
16 Q. I'm going to start by outlining for you a system of keeping
17 documents and then ask you some questions about it. Now, in the system,
18 this is a general tell which I'm describing firstly and we'll come to
19 details in a moment, but in the system which I'm going to ask you to
20 imagine, when documents are seized firstly there is a written protocol or
21 minutes to that effect, that then those documents are either numbered
22 sequentially in the way that we see with ERN numbers used at the ICTY,
23 sequence of numbers, or entered in a log and then archived with other
24 documents and only transferred with some written minutes by an archivist.
25 Do you understand the system which I've just described to you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you agree that that's a proper system of archiving documents?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that system is well known in the JNA and in the VRS, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. With the usher's assistance I would like to pass up an exhibit.
7 The ERN number is 01330469. Just while that's being passed up for the
8 record it's a document of the command of the 1st Bratunac Light Infantry
9 Brigade and it's dated 4th of March 1995. I'll ask to you look at this,
10 Mr. Radojicic, and I'm going to draw your attention in particular to
11 paragraphs 1 and 3. This is an order coming from the command of the 1st
12 Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade that first of all archived material for
13 1992 and 1993 should be collected, sorted, and submitted to the office
14 head. In particular I'd like to draw your attention to paragraph 3 which
15 sets out the responsibility -- which sets out what those responsible for
16 documents must do and it states there that the documents are to be
17 arranged chronologically, that those responsible must indicate on each
18 document how long it is to be kept, that the items required for further
19 use in the service shall remain with the user whilst required that those
20 responsible should sign a receipt for these items from the office head.
21 Then it goes on to describe various protocols which have to record various
22 items of documentation.
23 Now, my question is firstly: This is a document of the 1st
24 Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade. Would you agree that they don't have
25 their own unique system of archiving, this is simply good practice as
1 recognised by the JNA and then the VRS?
2 A. That is right.
3 Q. Isn't it right that the history of the documents which we have
4 been discussing this morning and which you've been testifying about, the
5 history of record keeping as regards those documents doesn't come close,
6 don't even remotely resemble such a proper system of document archiving?
7 A. I could partially agree based on the statement and the knowledge I
8 have, that documentation was most of the time with the security organ and
9 they had their own separate system of both keeping and archiving, and I'm
10 not familiar with that.
11 Q. First actually before we go on, can I is ask for an exhibit
12 number, please, for that document?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: This will become Defence Exhibit D--
14 THE REGISTRAR: 286, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: 286, thank you.
16 MR. JONES:
17 Q. Taking this one step at a time with regard to the -- the documents
18 you've testified about, firstly, it's right isn't it that everything
19 you've told us that you've learnt about the history of these documents was
20 told to you orally? There is no written record or protocol which you've
22 A. No.
23 Q. Firstly, there is no written record, is there, of the seizure of
24 these documents allegedly in Srebrenica from July 1995?
25 A. I have no knowledge about that.
1 Q. And then these documents have been passed from person to person.
2 I've counted at least six transactions, and correct me if I'm wrong about
3 this, but from a Mr. Pejic to Mr. Stanisic, and Terzic to Todorovic, copy
4 to the ICTY, back to Pejic, to Mihajlo Vujovic, to Colonel Ranko
5 Prodanovic, at least six transactions and in none of those transactions is
6 there any record of these documents being passed from one person to the
8 A. There is the record pertaining to the handing over of the
9 documents to Colonel Sakota.
10 Q. Yes. That's the very last link in the chain, but for the prior
11 six links, there is no written record whatsoever, is there?
12 A. We didn't receive such information.
13 Q. And the record pertaining to the handing over of the documents to
14 Colonel Sakota, that dates from November 2004, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At no stage were these documents sequentially numbered, were they?
17 By you, by the VRS, or the security organs?
18 A. I'm not familiar with that.
19 Q. Nor are you familiar, are you, with any logbook in which these
20 documents were entered by the VRS or by the security organs?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And isn't it right that as a result of all that, a document could
23 be slipped in among the bundle without being detected? Or a document
24 could be removed from these folders you've described without detection
25 precisely because there is no protocol, there is no logbook, which would
1 show that that had happened?
2 A. There is such a possibility if a system hasn't been set up the way
3 it should have.
4 Q. And in this case, the system hasn't been set up as it should have
5 done with regard to these documents?
6 A. From what we can see, it was that the system was not set up as
8 Q. Now, I don't know if you can help us with this but presumably the
9 VRS has archives of tens of thousands of documents, would you agree?
10 A. There is probably even more, but lately what has been carried out
11 was the resorting and rearranging of the entire archival material of the
13 Q. And those tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, however many
14 documents there are, they are kept in proper archives, aren't they? They
15 are not kept in safes of military officers?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, do you have any idea why these particular documents that
18 you've been testifying about have been singled out for special treatment?
19 In other words, have not been properly archived?
20 A. I'm not aware of that.
21 Q. You don't know why they were -- when you first came across these
22 documents, why they were being kept in the safe of a --
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the question assumes
24 special treatment. It's certainly that the -- the witness has certainly
25 said that there is a system of archiving and that these are -- have not --
1 these documents have obviously been held outside of that system but also
2 assumes that that was done deliberately and it's been the receipt of some
3 special treatment, the documents have been the receipt of some special
4 treatment. If this witness knows that they have been specially taken
5 aside and placed in the safe, then so be it, I've got no objection to the
6 question. The problem is the assumption is already there.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones?
8 MR. JONES: Yes. The question in the end was rephrased to why
9 they weren't properly archived.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
12 MR. JONES: I'm happy to --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I would, exactly. Please proceed along
14 those lines, please. Thank you.
15 MR. JONES:
16 Q. First, in your experience of dealing with documents held by the
17 VRS, have you come across any other documents kept in the safes of
18 officers rather than in the archives proper?
19 A. Well, these documents that were seized in Srebrenica also
20 contained certain documents of interviews with prisoners of Bosniak
21 ethnicity who had perpetrated crimes against Serbs, indictments and
22 evidence against them was there, and this referred to Gorazde.
23 Q. Well, that's not quite the question I was asking. Let me approach
24 it this way. You don't know, do you, why these documents were being kept
25 in the safe of Colonel Prodanovic rather than in the archives, do you?
1 A. You are right. I assume it was for safekeeping.
2 Q. And you don't know either, do you, why there is no written chain
3 of custody record from the seizure of these documents until you saw them,
4 why they appear in no logbook, and why they haven't been given a protocol
6 A. No. I don't know that.
7 Q. I'll make a suggestion as to why none of those things were done
8 which is that these documents are not proper documents at all and that the
9 people, at least some of them who had custody of them, knew that, and
10 that's why they are kept apart because they are thoroughly shady. That's
11 my suggestion and, if you can respond to that, please do.
12 A. I would like to hear a specific question, if there is any specific
13 doubt about the way these particular documents were kept.
14 Q. Okay. We can proceed to a specific example.
15 MR. JONES: If the witness could be shown D155, please? And for
16 the -- for the record, this is in B/C/S but Prosecution did produce an
17 English translation which I believe is P486.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the annotation that I have, filed on 3rd of
19 February of this year.
20 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. If the witness could also be
21 shown P546 which is the chart which we saw from this morning.
22 Q. I'll start -- actually he doesn't have P546 yet, does he?
23 Now, --
24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, may I just briefly
25 interrupt my learned friend? Is D155 -- perhaps Mr. Jones can assist me.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Is D155 -- is that also mirrored in P65 or P68? I wonder if my friend
2 Mr. Jones knows that from the top of his head.
3 MR. JONES: No. What I'd --
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Because if it is, then we are not permitted to
5 refer to them. Or the Prosecution isn't, in any event.
6 MR. JONES: Yes, perhaps we should move into private session.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session. I am not in a
8 position to help you because I don't know myself.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: I think the matter should be checked before we
10 proceed any further.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I agree with you.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 8379-8383 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 MR. JONES: I think it's clear from what you've said already that
9 in terms of the information which you obtained from Mr. Gavric, from Ranko
10 Prodanovic, it was purely oral information, there was no written
11 confirmation of anything they told you?
12 A. Yes. It was only oral.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry, Mr. Jones, but there was some organisational
14 matter that we had to attend to. I take it that you don't -- you're not
15 producing another witness tomorrow, are you?
16 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
18 MR. JONES: I thank you.
19 Q. So it's correct that what you relied on in gathering information
20 about the history of these documents was the most basic form of record
21 keeping, if I can put it that way, information being passed on from person
22 to person by word of mouth?
23 A. That's correct. I had to do it that way because there were no
24 written traces.
25 Q. Now recognition just dealing with the people you spoke to, first
1 dealing with Colonel Ljubomir Vlacic, he didn't know anything about the
2 chain of custody of these documents, did he?
3 A. I didn't ask him, but on receipt of this document, he referred me
4 to Colonel Nedjo Gavric, to see about the documentation with him.
5 Q. All right. Is there -- Nedjo Gavric alive?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know of any reason why he is unable to come here and
8 testify himself?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Who said that he is unable or unwilling? I think
10 you're making an assumption there.
11 MR. JONES: No, I'm simply saying is he unable to come here and
12 testify, as far as the witness knows.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think he should answer for other people. I
14 mean it's -- he should put that question to Mr. Di Fazio or Mr. Wubben and
15 I don't think you will get an answer from them either.
16 MR. JONES:
17 Q. As far as information which you received from Nedjo Gavric is
18 concerned, you weren't able to independently verify information he
19 provided, were you?
20 A. How do you mean, independently verify?
21 Q. Well, I'll take the information step by step. First he said that
22 the documents came from the archives of the VRS 5th Corps. You weren't
23 able to verify that information from any other source, were you?
24 A. No, I wasn't. I relied entirely on what he said.
25 Q. Right. Precisely. Second, he said that the documents were seized
1 during operation Krivaja, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And just for the benefit of all of us, that's the operation to
4 seize the safe area of Srebrenica, correct, in July 1995?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you know if Nedjo Gavric was involved in operation Krivaja?
7 A. I don't know that.
8 Q. And then thirdly, Gavric told you that the documents were kept on
9 the premises of the 5th R Division previously called the 5th Corps of the
10 VRS, and again for that information you rely entirely on what he told you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you at any time ask for some written confirmation or written
13 evidence of what Gavric was telling you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. As far as you know, there were no records, files, log books,
16 nothing which would verify the comments made by Gavric?
17 A. I'm not aware of anything like that. I questioned our archivist
18 and he said he had no information about it.
19 Q. In your experience, there should be a written record, shouldn't
20 there, of documents held by VRS?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic are you going to object to --
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I only would like
23 to have the transcript corrected. The witness said something important.
24 He said he spoke to the archivist and that the archivist told him that
25 they had no documentation about it, whereas here it says that they had no
1 information about it.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I, after giving my statement in the
3 offices of The Hague Tribunal in Sarajevo, I asked about this and they
4 asked whether there were any documents that had passed through the
6 JUDGE AGIUS: But the clarification is so the answer that you were
7 given related to the existence or otherwise of documents, not to the
8 existence or otherwise of any other kind of information. You were told
9 "we have no documents"?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This refers to supporting documents,
11 whether there were any documents. That's what I was referring to.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's clear enough.
13 Yes, let's proceed, Mr. Jones.
14 MR. JONES: Thank you.
15 Q. And just to clarify, there were none, no documents?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the understanding. The question is because
17 previously the transcript used the word information rather than
19 MR. JONES: If that's clear to all of us, thank you.
20 Q. And I think my last question wasn't answered which was, in your
21 experience, there should be a written record, shouldn't there, of
22 documents held by the VRS?
23 A. Certainly there should be, yes.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Gavric only took over the archives on the 1st of June
25 2004; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So he too only first became responsible for these documents 12
3 years or so after they were made, would that be right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So as far as you know, he himself was relying on what other people
6 had told him when he said these documents were seized in Srebrenica?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, wasn't the archivist before Mr. Gavric a Vlado Lucic?
9 A. Colonel Vlado Lucic was chief of the Department for Planning and
10 Training, and the Office of General Affairs was part of his department,
11 and there is an archivist's job provided for within that department.
12 Q. All right. So in other words he was the responsible person before
13 Mr. Gavric?
14 A. That's correct. He was the responsible person. When I learned
15 all this, I couldn't see that Vlado Lucic had any part to play in the
16 safekeeping of these documents from what I learned later about their
18 Q. You never spoke to Vlado Lucic, did you?
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. Now, once you were charged to handle this matter, you spoke to
21 Mr. Prodanovic who had the documents in his safe, correct?
22 A. First I spoke to the commander, Colonel Vlacic, then to Colonel
23 Gavric, and then the deputy commander, Colonel Prodanovic when Colonel
24 Prodanovic told me that the documents were locked in his safe.
25 Q. And Colonel Prodanovic had also inherited the documents from
1 someone else, hadn't he, namely Petar Mladjenovic?
2 A. At the time of the handing over between General Mladjenovic and
3 Colonel Prodanovic, that was early June 2004. I suppose General
4 Mladjenovic also knew of the existence of the documentation since then.
5 Q. And again I won't pursue this point any further after this, but
6 there was no written record of the handover from Mladjenovic to Prodanovic
7 that you saw?
8 A. No. I didn't see that.
9 Q. And you didn't go back and speak to Mladjenovic?
10 A. No. He has been retired since June 2004.
11 MR. JONES: If Your Honours would give me one moment.
12 Q. I'd like to turn now to the meeting which you had with Cedomir
13 Pejic in which you received additional information. Firstly, can you tell
14 us the date of that meeting?
15 A. That was around the 10th of May.
16 Q. 2005?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the information you received from him, if I'm summarising it
19 correctly, is that towards the end of 1995, Pejic was a battalion
20 commander within the military brigade and in the premises of the military
21 brigade or that battalion were some of these documents. Now, firstly --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Sorry, go ahead.
24 A. In the very room where the battalion was set up or the battalion
25 that Major Pejic commanded over.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Right. So we are talk there about the end of 1995. Srebrenica of
2 course fell in July 1995. Is it right then that there was even a gap
3 before Pejic saw the documents, namely between July of 1995 and later in
5 A. I'd like to apologise. That was the end of 1996. I apologise for
6 making a mistake in the earlier answer. I just wanted to make sure that
7 this is the end of 1996.
8 Q. So it's right then, isn't it, that there is a year and a half gap
9 even between the documents allegedly being seized and Mr. Pejic coming on
10 the scene?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then at the beginning -- your testimony was at the beginning
13 of 1996, Mr. Stanisic and Terzic took the documents to Sekovici. Is si
14 that still correct, the beginning of 1996?
15 A. 1997.
16 Q. I'm not sure if it's just me who got the dates wrong or if it's in
17 the transcript. But anyway, I've noted 1996. Anyway.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know.
19 MR. JONES: We have the correction.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's okay now. But I wouldn't know whether
21 you got it wrong or not, Mr. Jones. Anyway, it's clear now.
22 MR. JONES: Yes.
23 Q. Now, did you speak to Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Terzic about the
25 A. No. I did not have the opportunity. Major Stanisic passed away.
1 I don't know the exact date. And as for Lieutenant Terzic, he is still in
2 the active service of the VRS.
3 Q. Then in 1997, we have the documents going to Major Todorovic in
4 the 5th Corps. Again, did you speak to him?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones, one moment.
6 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a correction of the
8 transcript. The witness stated that Mr. Terzic is still active with the
9 Army of Serbia and Montenegro and not the VRS.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you for that correction. It's
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd like to apologise, just a brief
14 remark. When I said that he was a security officer, that was in 1997 when
15 he separated those documents from the rest. That's when he was still with
16 the VRS.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. JONES: Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So your question, I think, do you need to repeat it,
20 Mr. Jones?
21 MR. JONES: Yes.
22 Q. You didn't speak to Major Todorovic about these documents either,
24 A. No. He is also now a member of the Serbia and Montenegro armed
1 Q. You said in your testimony this morning that it's clear, those
2 were your words, that Major Todorovic released the documents to
3 investigators. You didn't speak to him. You don't have a written minute
4 or protocol to that effect, do you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And then it appeared from your testimony that Mr. Pejic again
7 regained custody of these documents. Don't know if you can help us with a
8 date for when that occurred.
9 A. I believe I told you that was the end of February 2002.
10 Q. And then we have in mid-2003 an order being issued for a
11 commission regarding crimes allegedly committed against the Serb people
12 and the person responsible was Mihajlo Vujovic. Did you speak to Mihajlo
13 Vujovic to confirm this story?
14 A. No, I didn't. He is now undergoing some schooling or training.
15 Q. And it was never explained to you, was it, how these documents
16 came to be in the safe of Major Prodanovic rather than in some normal
18 A. He didn't tell me that. I was told that by Colonel Gavric.
19 Q. Is it your testimony that the documents seized in Srebrenica
20 during operation Krivaja remained in the custody of the 5th Corps -- the
21 entire time from their seizure until they were -- copies were delivered to
22 the ICTY?
23 A. No. The 5th Corps of the VRS has been formed on the 21st of
24 January 1997.
25 Q. Let me approach it a different way. It would involve a new
1 exhibit which is -- the ERN number is 00632976 to 00632977. We have
2 copies to hand up and it's a document from a Darko Trifunovic delivering
3 documents to the second Prosecutor of this Tribunal, Louise Arbour.
4 Actually my apologies, we probably don't have this in B/C/S. Let me just
5 check. No, we do indeed.
6 In this letter, the Law Projects Centre in Yugoslavia purports to
7 deliver among other things, if you look at 2 A, quote, "Top secret
8 documentation of Bosnian Muslim army captured after the fall of Srebrenica
9 amounting to, it should probably read, 40.000 pages of written
11 My question is, are you aware that 40.000 pages of written
12 documentation relating to the armed forces in Srebrenica were apparently
13 seized after the fall of Srebrenica and were then in Belgrade, at least at
14 some point?
15 A. I'm not aware of that.
16 Q. Do you find this statement in the letter of Darko Trifunovic to
17 the effect that there are these 40.000 documents which were apparently not
18 seized by the VRS -- well, let me rephrase that. If the documents which
19 found their way eventually into the safe of General Prodanovic - they were
20 seized by the VRS - do you have any explanation as to what these purported
21 40.000 documents refers to?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Do you find this statement to be credible, that there were 40.000
25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I object to that. This --
1 this witness has not offered anything that could provide a basis for his
2 being able to comment on whether 40.000 documents were collected there or
3 not. He's been merely telling us what others have told him and the source
4 of the documents in the safe. He doesn't know if there were 40.000
5 documents collected in the town of Srebrenica or in the whole area of
6 Srebrenica. I don't mind if he's asked that, but ask him directly and
7 provide the basis for it.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You're both assuming, actually, both Mr. Jones, and
9 you, Mr. Di Fazio. I could put the question myself but I would prefer
10 Mr. Jones did that.
11 Just ask him for -- not to speculate, not speculation, but whether
12 he has got any -- anything to say with regard to what is stated here that
13 the top secret documentation captured after the fall amounted to 40.000
14 pages. And let's see whether he knows anything about it, whether he can
15 comment on that, without speculating. I don't want opinions based on
17 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you.
18 Q. Since Your Honour has put the question rather than re-stating it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You put it, please.
20 MR. JONES:
21 Q. May I approach it this way. Did you understand the question as
22 phrased a moment ago by His Honour?
23 A. I did. I have no information about that. You should ask the
24 person who wrote this letter, that Mr. Trifunovic.
25 Q. Thank you. I would simply ask for an exhibit number for this
2 JUDGE AGIUS: And this will be D27 --
3 THE REGISTRAR: 287.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: D287. Thank you. Does it have a date?
5 MR. JONES: I'm afraid it appears to be undated.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Next question.
7 MR. JONES: Yes.
8 Q. I want to come back briefly to this table of 186 documents. If I
9 understand your testimony correctly, you're not able to say that each of
10 these documents were found in Srebrenica, or if you are maintaining that,
11 then please say so.
12 A. If those documents were taken over by The Hague Tribunal, then I
13 would maintain that.
14 Q. Okay. Well, let's look at some of these items then. I'd like to
15 start by looking at P91 and if that could be shown to the witness. And
16 it's number 105 on the spread sheet. Just for reference, this is entitled
17 "Dossier, Serbs in the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani area 1992 to 1993."
18 And the information -- it was obtained by Deyan Mihovles from Les Amis Du
19 Commissariat De Belgrade Pour les Refugies on 22/02/96. The original of
20 this document appears to be in English, for a start, and it -- I would
21 suggest -- is clearly prepared by Serbs from Bratunac because it concerns
22 alleged crimes committed against Serbs and it describes Muslim areas as
23 inaccessible. And that's page 500890933, it's a description of the Muslim
24 areas being inaccessible. I'm sorry, areas that have been conquered by
25 the Muslims have become inaccessible. Now do you seriously maintain that
1 this document was found alongside other documents of the Bosniaks in
2 Srebrenica when the Serbs took the enclave in July 1995?
3 A. I can't say that because I didn't participate in the operation and
4 I didn't participate in the creation of the document, and in the chain of
5 custody until November 2004.
6 Q. So in fact it's right, isn't it, that you cannot say of each of
7 these items that they were seized in Srebrenica in July 1995. It's not
8 information which you possess.
9 A. I have the information based on conversations I had with people
10 who were in charge of the documentation and I know what they told me
11 pertaining to that. Based on those conversations I can claim that this is
12 the documentation.
13 Q. Excuse me --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: There is one thing that needs to be clarified. I
17 don't think it can be clarified by the witness and I don't think it can be
18 clarified by you, Mr. Jones, but it needs to be clarified in order for
19 your question to -- and answer to be put in their proper perspective. If
20 you look at P91, which is the document that the witness has been referred
21 to, which is a dossier entitled "Serbs in the Bratunac/Srebrenica/Skelani
22 area 1992-1993," which is a document in English and which is undated, and
23 which has ERN number 00890928 to 00890935, you see as I said that this is
24 undated. So on the face of it, since it refers to 1992 and 1993, it could
25 or could not be in Srebrenica in 1995 when the town was taken.
1 MR. JONES: Yes, that's of course possible, Your Honour. My point
2 was --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but if you look at the list that were filed --
4 lists that were tendered earlier on this morning, where you have reference
5 to this document being number 105, being number 105, you see that there is
6 there a date, commissariat, le division, 22nd February 1996.
7 MR. JONES: Yes, that's when it was delivered, yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. So this is what we need to have clarified.
9 Where does this date come from? And who delivered it? And to whom?
10 MR. JONES: Yes. And my point obviously is --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And at the end of the day, if that date means that
12 it was compiled, this report or this dossier, in 1996, obviously the
13 conclusion is that it couldn't have been in Srebrenica in 1995.
14 MR. JONES: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: If it's -- just refers to a date when the document
16 was delivered to whoever, we would need to know who this whoever is, who
17 delivered it and, who received it.
18 MR. JONES: Yes, there is that point, Your Honour, and it may be
19 that it's the handover date but our point obviously is that it's a
20 document prepared by the Serb side. It's in English. It was handed over
21 in 1996 or created in 1996 and therefore we are submitting obviously not
22 found in the files.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: That's my point -- yes, Mr. Di Fazio, if you can
24 enlighten us on this.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I can't, not -- not on the factual issue Your
1 Honours just raised. I will have to look at that and look at the ERN and
2 so on.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: If you can.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: But the assumption is also inherent that Mr. Jones
5 is making is that this document was found in Srebrenica written in
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Which is not something which is beyond the possible.
8 I mean --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no it's not it's not beyond the realms of
11 MR. JONES: The original is in English. The B/C/S just for
12 clarification, the B/C/S is a translation, the original is in English.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that. I have no quarrel with that.
14 Mr. Jones is perfectly correct in that. There is no problem about that.
15 Of course, whether the English translation which was handed over by this
16 organisation back in 1996 came from a Serbian document --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: It's the inverse. The original seems to be in
18 English. It's the -- it's the translation that exists is from English
19 into Serb and not the other way around.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, the translation here made in this institution
21 here. Whether the English that was handed over by this fellow Deyan
22 Mihovles in February 1996, he handed over the English, whether that was
23 created from another document or translated, we simply don't know. These
24 are matters for submission.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: There is why I said we need to clarify this.
1 Because as it is, I can take the question and the answer. I can only take
2 them with a pinch of salt.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that. I'm make sure inquiries are put
4 into place and that we try. And if we ascertain any new information
5 regarding this, make sure that the Defence gets it immediately.
6 MR. JONES: Yes, just to be clear, we obviously don't want to make
7 submissions on the documents now but obviously our point goes to the
8 likelihood of a Serb document on this subject being found in English in
9 Srebrenica. Even if it's in B/C/S, the point remains the same, and all we
10 have -- all we have is the English original. We don't have a B/C/S
11 original. But I don't wish to make submissions. I would like to show a
12 couple more examples, though, to the witness to make this point. If the
13 witness could be shown P92, please.
14 Q. This is 106 on the list and it's purportedly a report on
15 destruction of houses and material goods in the Bratunac, Srebrenica,
16 Skelani area from 1992 and 1992, and I'll just read the top it says "the
17 above list as already mentioned is provisional and incomplete. The fact
18 that the perpetrators of these crimes were local Muslim inhabitants
19 renders these tragedies even greater and this is not happening for the
20 first time in history to the Serbs in this region." And then it goes on
21 to recount alleged destruction to Serb houses and goods. My question for
22 you, Mr. Radojicic is: Seeing that, firstly would you agree that this is
23 a document compiled by the Serbs of crimes allegedly committed against
25 A. When I replied to this question, I will remind you that on the
1 list of the documents that we received and that you have before you, the
2 title actually says "documents forwarded by the authorities of Republika
4 Q. I don't believe we do have that on our table. That's very
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No. It's -- the problem is this: That I think what
7 happened is this. If you look at the English version, you will see first
8 line illegible. If you look at the B/C/S version, indeed, you have a
9 first line illegible. However, if you go through the document, itself,
10 I'm talking of P546, if you go through the document, say, for example,
11 when you arrive at ERN number 03652131 it's no longer illegible. There
12 you see that indeed the words [B/C/S spoken] and it's -- definitely there
13 you have at the top of the page of each page in B/C/S a statement,
14 "documents provided by Republika Srpska." It did not show up in all the
15 pages -- in any of the pages of the translation, unfortunately, because it
16 could have shown up, but it does show up then in P547. This is the
18 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Following up from that, that's correct, isn't it, these are
20 documents forwarded, prepared even, by the authorities of Republika Srpska
21 and not documents which were found in Srebrenica in July 1995 at all.
22 Would you agree with that?
23 A. In addition to the documents seized by the VRS in Srebrenica, on
24 the list of the documents and the documents forwarded by the authorities
25 of Republika Srpska, a part of the documents not related to that portion
1 of them can also be found. This report of the commissariat for refugees
2 in Belgrade, delivered to the authorities of Republika Srpska, was then
3 forwarded from Banja Luka to The Hague.
4 Q. Yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: The thing again, I mean, we have -- I mean, I fully
6 understand why Mr. Jones is putting these questions to you, which are very
7 much articulated, because this column here, Witness, this last column
8 here, basically should indicate seizure, seizure details. I can
9 understand a document being seized in Srebrenica in 1995 during or
10 following the takeover, but if it is delivered by Don Perry for Major
11 Ranko Todorovic, for example in document number 60, or Don King from
12 Jovanovic on the Srebrenica -- in the Srebrenica police station, 108, that
13 is understandable. But then when you find in 105 and 106, Deyan Mihovles
14 from Les Amis Du Commissariat De Belgrade Les Refugies in 1996, that
15 requires an explanation. Of course, while the others are indicative of
16 that they were seized in Srebrenica and fell in the hands of one
17 individual, another individual, another individual and somehow they were
18 all subsequently channelled to the authorities of Republika Srpska, there
19 is no indication here that these were seized in Srebrenica. I don't know.
20 So that --
21 MR. JONES: In fact, to make the point finally on this, P293,
22 which is number 104, which Your Honour I believe listed just now, I think
23 that would bear having a look at, so if the witness can be shown P293.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: This is another case which obviously evidently would
25 require some kind of explanation.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. JONES: Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Radojicic, would you agree that we see at the top
3 Romanija-Birac CSB, and then report by Maksim Maksimovic, that's a
4 document created by the Serbs?
5 A. This is certainly a document drawn up by the Serbs, but from the
6 explanation I gave a little while ago, it's clear, and I wish to repeat,
7 that these were documents delivered by the government of Republika Srpska.
8 They could not have been seized in Srebrenica. So apart from the seized
9 documents, there were also some other documents originating from Serb
11 Q. Yes?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: That brings us back to your original question and I
13 think you ought to be satisfied with the answer now, basically the witness
14 is saying that you do not read this document as meaning that each and
15 every document that is listed there was necessarily seized in Srebrenica.
16 MR. JONES: Precisely, yes, Your Honour, we've arrived there.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: At least we have one or two instances which is
18 indicative that they were supplied to Republika Srpska or they were
19 furnished by Republika Srpska to the Tribunal but they need not have been
20 seized from Srebrenica in 1995. They could have originated from some
21 other place.
22 MR. JONES: Yes, and without wanting to extend the exercise, I
23 wouldn't want to say that it's limited to one or two instances because
24 there is also number 133 which is an Official Gazette of the Serb people.
25 There may be other examples in this table. It was really that the witness
1 accept that he is not testifying that every one of the 186 documents were
2 seized in Srebrenica.
3 Q. Do you accept that, Mr. Radojicic?
4 A. Certainly I accept it. When I see how these documents were
6 Q. Yes. Just a few final questions and I trust Your Honours will
7 bear with me as to the subject matter, which I submit is relevant.
8 Following operation Krivaja, it's correct isn't it that the VRS
9 killed thousands of unarmed men in Srebrenica, massacred them in cold
10 blood? You're aware of that?
11 A. I am aware of that, especially after the analysis published by the
12 commission for Srebrenica established by the government of Republika
14 Q. And that's the same operation in which these documents were
15 allegedly seized?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Some of these documents.
17 MR. JONES:
18 Q. In which some of these documents were allegedly seized?
19 A. Can you be more specific in your question, please?
20 Q. Yes. Operation Krijava was the document - Krivaja, my apologies,
21 Krivaja - was the operation during which some of these documents were
22 seized by the VRS?
23 A. Yes. All the document originating from military sources were
24 seized during that operation.
25 Q. All right. My suggestion to you, if you care to comment on it, is
1 that an army which is prepared to commit such terrible massacres wouldn't
2 scruple to commit the much less serious crime of forgery in order to
3 distract attention from those massacres.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer that question, witness, please.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Objection, if Your Honours please.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Next question, Mr. Jones.
7 MR. JONES: Well --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Or else rephrase your question. But not the way you
9 put it, Mr. Jones.
10 MR. JONES: Let me put it this way.
11 Q. These documents you've told us were provided to -- sorry, were
12 collected at one point by Major Ranko Todorovic because they concerned
13 crimes committed against the Serb people. Is that true, firstly?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the evidence has been that
15 the documentation passed through the hands of -- of Todorovic, not that he
16 collected them.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right. As well, incidentally also I
18 refer the parties and the transcript line 15, 16, of page 50 where my
19 interruption, saying don't answer that question, please, Witness, is
20 presented as forming part of the witness's answer.
21 So that needs to be corrected. Apart from that, I think
22 Mr. Di Fazio's objection is a valid one.
23 MR. JONES: Yes, let me put it this way.
24 Q. Many of these documents concern allegations of crimes committed
25 against the Serb people, correct?
1 A. Could you please repeat your question?
2 Q. Many of these documents which you've testified about concern
3 allegations of crimes committed against the Serb people?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Isn't it right that whenever the Serb authorities are taken to
6 task with the massacres in Srebrenica, they reply with allegations of
7 crimes committed against them in the Srebrenica area?
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I object.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, objection sustained. Why are you putting
10 these questions, Mr. Jones?
11 MR. JONES: It's the motive for the forgery.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But --
13 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness hasn't conceded any forgery.
15 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there re-examination, Mr. Di Fazio or
18 MR. DI FAZIO: No.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
20 Mr. Radojicic, that brings your testimony to an end here. On
21 behalf of my two colleagues, Judge Brydensholt, Judge Eser, and also on
22 behalf of myself, forming this Trial Chamber, and on behalf of the
23 Tribunal in general, I would like to thank you for having come over to
24 give testimony, and you will now receive all the assistance you require
25 from our staff to facilitate your return back home at the earliest
1 possible. You finished today in advance so you will probably return home
2 a day in advance which I am sure you will agree to.
3 On behalf of everyone present here, I also wish you a safe journey
4 back home.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me address you on something which necessarily we
8 have to come to sooner or later. You will recall that when we first
9 discussed the Rule 98 bis business here, you remember when I spent about
10 half an hour or three-quarters of an hour, not more, addressing you on how
11 this new system will work, we had agreed initially that there will be more
12 or less one week less on your side to prepare for your intervention, sort
13 of another week, Prosecution side. Then, as you know, we had further
14 business to -- to transact following that, and we were anticipating that
15 our decision would follow more or less in the week following the week
16 starting on the 20th. So -- and the week starting on the 27th, end of the
17 month, anyway, end of the month.
18 Of course, that has all changed now. As I take it, by the 3rd of
19 June, all submissions relating to Rule 98 bis will be over. There will
20 only be further submissions if in our deliberations we feel that we
21 require your help in addressing some further issue, which may or may not
22 occur. But the bottom line is that while we were anticipating previously
23 a month ago that we would hand down the decision at the end of the month,
24 at the end of June, we will now hand the decision, unless we encounter
25 difficulties, more or less as soon as you come over from the special
1 course that you have to attend to. So basically we are talking of the 8th
2 or the 9th but anyway, that week. That week this process of the Rule 98
3 bis motion will be over.
4 Now, we will be the last ones to anticipate what the outcome of
5 the Rule 98 bis exercise is going to be. We don't know, obviously,
6 because we have discussed, we have discussed a lot, but we've still got a
7 lot to discuss and we have not heard your submissions which may change our
8 approach for all that matters, either side.
9 But we have to take both assumptions, and the assumptions are
10 three. We could decide that the case will proceed on all counts. We
11 could decide that the case stops on all counts. And we could decide that
12 the case proceeds on some counts and -- but not on others.
13 Assuming for the time being, just for organisational purposes, and
14 for no other purpose, that we will decide either that the case continues
15 on all counts or that the case continues on some counts and not that we
16 will hand down a decision of acquittal on all. I'm not excluding it but
17 we can't really discuss progress if we take it into consideration. So
18 forget that for the time being and assume that it will be either one or
19 the other. Then we are no longer talking of a period of time of roughly
20 three weeks which would have justified what I had stated earlier on,
21 namely the case for the defence will start after the break, after the
22 recess, because I would have understood you, Madam Vidovic, and you,
23 Mr. Jones, standing up and saying we need more than two weeks, three
24 weeks, in order to be able to start presenting our case.
25 This time, there will be practically, for all intents and
1 purposes, if we hand down the decision on the 9th or on the 10th of June,
2 you have a month and a half. You have a month and a half. During which
3 time, if there is a decision which is partially or totally against you,
4 under the Rule 98 bis regime, we can plan or we will need to plan how the
5 Defence is going to proceed. But my message that I am trying to convey is
6 as follows: That although I cannot say, and neither of us can, what our
7 decision is going to be, we have a responsibility to prepare, well in
8 advance, in case our decision is totally or partially against your client.
9 So be also prepared and start the machine in motion to more or less
10 organise yourself and be able to come back to the Trial Chamber and tell
11 us what your plans are, assuming that you will at least, as far as certain
12 issues or certain areas, that you will cover in defending your client are
13 concerned, which could possibly be dealt with before we go into recess.
14 And then, of course, if the case continues in whole or in part, obviously
15 we will need to deal with the bulk after the recess but be prepared to
16 come back with some practical suggestions as to how to utilise at least
17 part of the period, the month and a half plus, that we will have before
18 the recess begins on the 22nd, 23rd of July.
19 MR. JONES: May I just ask for one clarification in that respect?
20 Your Honour will recall when we discussed this before that we were keen
21 obviously to know whether we needed witnesses here in July, because
22 obviously it takes a huge amount of planning and it does depends on which
23 charges remain. Sorry, can you just give us a moment?
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. JONES: It's precisely for that reason I'm clarifying, as I
1 understand Your Honour it would be a question of us in July coming back
2 with some planning, some planning hearing or something of that nature, a
3 Pre-Defence Conference, but not actually having physically witnesses
5 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, this is not what I mean. I mean exactly the
6 opposite. I mean exactly that you ought to be prepared to bring forward
7 witnesses before the recess. At least you should be able to identify at
8 least some areas, some areas in your defence or line of defence that you
9 will be adopting, and try to address those areas by means of witnesses
10 before we start the recess. In other words, we will need to plan because
11 much depends on what we are going to decide on the -- following the Rule
12 98 bis because as I said we are not in a position, not even -- not to tell
13 you but not to know ourselves what we are going to decide. And obviously
14 if there is a decision to proceed with the case in part, or in whole, I
15 mean then your defence has to be organised accordingly. Certain areas
16 that you may have planned for in the past already for your defence may
17 need not to be addressed if we decide partially to acquit, while they
18 would need to be addressed if we decide to continue with the case in toto.
19 So I think --
20 MR. JONES: It's simply to say that may be problematic for us
21 because so far we haven't been planning for July and there are things
22 happening in June.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: But you need to start planning for July. This is --
24 at least, let's put it like this. I mean, there will be definitely a
25 meeting immediately after the decision, the Rule 98 bis decision, all
1 right? There will definitely be a 65 ter meeting with both of you to
2 organise the rest. That's if there is no decision of acquittal because if
3 there is a decision of acquittal obviously we are not talking of any
4 further meetings.
5 MR. JONES: May I Your Honour just reserve the opportunity to
6 confer with my colleague and then speak to you about our concerns about
7 witnesses in July. And then also, just before I forget, as far as the 98
8 bis schedule is concerned, I did have a brief exchange of words with
9 Mr. Wubben this morning about any possible reply on either party's part
10 and I understand from what Your Honour was saying that possibly the
11 following week there might be a need for clarifications or for --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: May be, I'm not excluding anything, Mr. Jones.
13 MR. JONES: What I want to suggest is simply that on the Friday,
14 if it were a question of a short period of time for Your Honours just to
15 seek clarifications from each side by way of reply, then that would --
16 that would be something which we would be in favour of.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. My intentions definitely and I would imagine I
18 have the agreement of my colleagues there, would be to conclude
19 submissions on that Friday, on the 3rd. Then, of course, we come back to
20 you if -- if, for example, let's say that we get an indication from the
21 Prosecution that according to them, the charge under count 4 and 6 is
22 proven by this or that piece of evidence, for the purpose of Rule 98 bis,
23 and upon verification, we see that this must be a clear mistake, then we
24 might decide to overlook it completely and ignore what is being submitted
25 by the Prosecution. Or come back to you, reconvene sitting, and say,
1 Mr. Di Fazio, Mr. Wubben, where are you seeing it? Because we applied a
2 microscope and couldn't see an iota of what you're suggesting there. So
3 at the end of the day it may happen like that. It may not happen because
4 we don't know as yet, obviously. But the thing is this, that previously
5 it would have made sense to tell you, you don't need to worry about
6 starting your Defence until after the recess because we would have heard
7 basically three weeks and three weeks is too short a time to expect you to
8 prepare. The other thing -- but now it's different. Now you have a good
9 month and a half plus. The other thing that you need to prepare for is
10 that you know more than I do that the Rules provide for the opportunity of
11 your client to make a statement.
12 MR. JONES: We are aware of that Rule.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course I am not going to ask you whether your
14 client has decided to make a statement or not, and what's the decision on
15 whether there have been consultations but I would suggest that you keep
16 this in mind, because if that is going to happen, my preference is to have
17 that statement before you proceed, then, with the rest of the evidence and
18 not leave it to later. I cannot force it on your client, obviously, but I
19 do think I owe it to your client and to you in particular that in my
20 opinion it would carry much more weight if it's given before rather than
22 MR. JONES: Yes. And if I could just reiterate we do have grave
23 problems possibly starting in July. I won't enter into it now. It's
24 really -- it's something that perhaps my colleague would -- would better
25 address you on in terms of the overall planning of our -- of our case but
1 rather than going into that now, if Your Honours would give us the
2 opportunity to consider among ourselves.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. But it was more or less to put you
4 in the picture. Don't put the Trial Chamber in a position where it has to
5 justify the unjustifiable. In other words, carrying over the case for the
6 defence to after the recess because there was a mere three-week space that
7 wouldn't have been questioned by anyone, but carrying the case for the
8 Defence to after the recess when there is more than a month and a half
9 will be questioned by everyone because not even in the big cases did we
10 give a month and a half. All right?
11 So otherwise, if certain -- if you have certain particular
12 problems, we will address them, but be prepared to start the Defence case
13 before the recess.
14 MR. JONES: Yes, we'll discuss it and alert you to particular
16 JUDGE AGIUS: It's nothing to do with you so I'm not inviting you
17 to comment, Mr. Wubben, unless you really want to comment. Thank you.
18 So we stand adjourned till the day after tomorrow.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.07 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of May,
21 2005, at 2.15 p.m.