1 Friday, 25 November 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, good morning to you. Could you
6 call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam.
10 Mr. Oric, good morning to you. Can you follow the proceedings in
11 your own language?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, ladies
13 and gentlemen. I can follow the proceedings in my own language.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You may sit down.
15 Appearances for the Prosecution.
16 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours, and also good morning to
17 my learned friends of the Defence. My name is Jan Wubben, lead counsel
18 for the Prosecution. I am here together with co-counsel, Ms. Patricia
19 Sellers, Ms. Joanne Richardson, and our acting case manager, Ms. Sanja
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good morning to you and
22 your team.
23 Appearances for Naser Oric.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, and good
25 morning to my learned colleagues from the OTP. My name is Vasvija
1 Vidovic, and together with Mr. John Jones I appear for Naser Oric. We
2 have with us our legal assistant, Ms. Adisa Mehic, and our CaseMap
3 manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic, and good morning to you
5 and your team.
6 Any preliminaries? Mr. Wubben.
7 MR. WUBBEN: No. It's just that for the record yesterday we filed
8 a response.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I was going to mention it. Okay. Thank you.
10 Mr. Jones.
11 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, one matter in relation to that. We
12 have received this --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MR. JONES: It's -- in fact, it's a -- first of all, it's an
15 application for leave.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Because it's late.
17 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed. And I would like to make a couple of
18 remarks about this filing. We've only had the opportunity to briefly --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Can I stop you and suggest that you leave everything
20 until Monday or Tuesday when we would have in the meantime received the
21 other response, because we are in the same waters as you are and we have
22 received the motion with no appendix, there's no attachments to it. We
23 are fully aware that it is late.
24 MR. JONES: It's also too long.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, it's 11 pages. I was reading it yesterday
1 evening. I think it's 11 pages --
2 MR. JONES: 15.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: 15, yeah. I was reading yesterday evening between
4 first course and second course. But let's leave it until we have also the
5 other response and then we try and deal with the whole matter together,
6 and our idea is to hand down a decision which will encompass all the
7 different aspects.
8 MR. JONES: Well, that's fine, Your Honour. Let me just say this,
9 though, that firstly we would actually oppose leave being granted for the
10 reason that actually the nature of this filing, it's so provocative,
11 inflammatory, tendentious. It's really -- we say it's "full of sound and
12 fury, signifying nothing," to quote the Bard; you'll have an opportunity
13 to see that. And we say it's so unhelpful and so full of -- full of
14 venom, really, you'll see. And it seems like the writer had an excess of
15 spleen which he wanted to vent in this -- in this pleading. And you'll
16 see that, Your Honours. You'll see it's extremely -- an extremely
17 aggressive filing, and we disagree with practically everything that's in
19 And the problem is, is that this -- if this is accepted, despite
20 the fact that it is of this nature, the Prosecution have the last word on
21 a lot of very contentious subjects which, of course, we disagree with and
22 we need to come back on those matters.
23 In terms of the length of the pleading, I would say if all the
24 spleen were cut out, it probably would be about 10 pages, so you might
25 consider redirecting a proper filing which is -- which doesn't have that,
1 because Your Honour has suggested many times that we work in a spirit of
2 cooperation, and to receive a filing which is -- in which every allegation
3 we've made is absurd or extraordinary and where we're accused even of
4 concealing a matter which we brought to the Prosecution's attention, which
5 we brought to your attention, which we've been discussing for a year -
6 this is the Banja Luka basement - for the Prosecution to point the finger
7 at us and say we're concealing something is so absurd and so provocative
8 that we're extremely unhappy with this filing, and we would either wish to
9 file a rejoinder or what we may submit is that we'll show in the course of
10 time with filings how wrong-headed this filing was.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, what I'm going to do is take up
12 Mr. Jones on what he's just suggested now, ask the Defence to file a
13 rejoinder by Monday -- Monday when your -- end of business on Monday when
14 your further response is due. That response is also going to put us in a
15 better condition to be able to put everything in its perspective.
16 But let me make one thing clear: That there comes a point in any
17 matter similar to this where one cannot go any further and one has to live
18 with the consequences of his or her actions or lack of action. So please
19 do keep this in mind. And the consequences at this late stage of the
20 proceedings may indeed be very serious.
21 So keep what I'm telling you in mind before you make the final
22 submissions on this. And I will adjourn on this matter until Tuesday,
23 when we would have all the filings. Everything of course remains as it is
24 for the time being. Your application for leave remains as an application
25 for leave for the time being. And then we will decide everything after we
1 hear what you have to say on Tuesday, and after us having had the
2 opportunity also to see what your response is with regard to the fresh or
3 the allegation of -- fresh allegation of violation of Rule 68 bis.
4 Any further -- Madam Vidovic, any preliminaries on your part?
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I'm pleased to inform you that I have in
7 turn been informed by the registrar official that I had appointed to pick
8 up the documents from Sarajevo, the documents that were examined by your
9 calligraphic expert. They have been picked up and at least on the face of
10 it, subject to correction, upon a superficial examination by -- of them by
11 the officer herself, they seem to be in good order. So we leave it at
12 that for the time being. Of course the Prosecution will have an
13 opportunity to have a look at them because they are, after all, their
14 documents, their property. And if there are problems, of course you will
15 let us know.
16 Let's bring the witness in, but she has to bring down the
17 curtains. I think she has forgotten. It's a good thing I don't wake up
18 tired in the morning.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you can bring him in. Thank you.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: So good morning to you, sir. Welcome back.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to proceed with your examination and
25 hopefully finish. Please try to be as brief as you can in your replies,
1 in your answers, and to the point.
2 Yes, Ms. Sellers.
3 MS. SELLERS: Good morning, Your Honours.
4 WITNESS: WITNESS D005 [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Cross-examined by Ms. Sellers: [Continued]
7 Q. Good morning, Witness.
8 MS. SELLERS: I will wait until the sound effects are over.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, Ms. Sellers.
10 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.
11 Q. Witness, we were discussing yesterday a little bit of the skills
12 that you had acquired during your JNA service, and I believe that you were
13 informing us that you worked in a service that was based on the border or
14 frontier. Could you just very briefly tell us as a member of the border
15 service, did you learn how border guards should be stationed and how they
16 should maintain that station?
17 A. The border service consists of several groups of soldiers, one of
18 which is always the patrol leader, the border patrol leader. The sections
19 controlled were ranging from four to five kilometres, soldiers always went
20 around at certain distances within -- of each other. And there were, of
21 course, border posts directly on -- within --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were border guards directly on
24 the border posts themselves.
25 MS. SELLERS:
1 Q. Did border guards also learn how to relay messages among
2 themselves since they were posted at such distances?
3 A. Border guards were not supposed to be too far from each other.
4 They always had to be with invisible distance so they could assist one
6 Q. Were there any skills such as use of radios, Motorolas, or other
7 forms of communication that border guards were trained to use?
8 A. Yes, there were such cases. There were sites designated at which
9 group leaders could report in to let the others know their whereabouts.
10 Q. Were border guards also trained in the use of binocular or any
11 type of high-powered instrument to increase visibility?
12 A. Yes. I omitted to say that it was obligatory to have binoculars.
13 Q. And were border guards trained in understanding land formations
14 such as hills or valleys or recognising changes in land formations, if
16 A. One would undergo training before joining the border service. I
17 went -- I underwent training in Skofja Loka and there were other places
18 where one could go for three-month training before moving on to join the
19 border service.
20 Q. Could you just very briefly explain to the Trial Chamber what was
21 the essence of some of the training that you underwent before joining the
22 border service.
23 A. The training was basically focussed on infantry matters and
24 partially on APCs and tanks, which meant that one would undergo training
25 within infantry ranks.
1 MS. SELLERS: Could I just inform the Trial Chamber I realise I
2 left my microphone on when he responded at the last time if there's --
4 Q. Isn't the main function of a border service to make sure that a
5 border is not infiltrated by persons who don't belong inside of a
7 A. The border service -- border service already has its soldiers,
8 whereas the other service, which is also a border service but it's
9 different, is something that focuses on monitoring the border itself.
10 Q. And by monitoring the border we mean deterring and, when
11 necessary, stopping people from infiltrating territory. Is that correct?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose it works the other way around, too, coming
13 in and going out.
14 MS. SELLERS: Escaped inhabitants, yes, could be another function.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is an excellent question.
16 Yes, they do have observation posts.
17 MS. SELLERS:
18 Q. Now, with your familiarity of the skills that you learned in the
19 border service, could you confirm that that assisted you in maintaining
20 the line in the village and the surrounding villages that you came from?
21 A. Yes. We had few rifles, and that was why I informed others that
22 they had to be aware of the fact that strong forces might appear and that
23 they have to focus on observing. If strong groups were to suddenly appear
24 without them -- seeing them in advance, we would definitely be defeated.
25 In my opinion, the person who keeps a good lookout cannot be afraid even
1 if confronted with ten people.
2 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, if we can go into private session
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's go into private session for a short while.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 14036-14051 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We are in open session at least. We had to be
18 in private session because we were mentioning of course or dealing with
19 areas which would have identified the witness.
20 Yes, Ms. Sellers, which document is this?
21 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I believe it's 908.
22 Q. Sir, if I could ask you to once again look at the map, and I don't
23 know whether you could designate in a circular fashion what is the region
24 that you are referring to in your testimony as being Konjevic Polje.
25 A. Do you mean the local commune of Konjevic Polje?
1 Q. Well, thank you, sir. Because that's just where our confusion is.
2 You've explained that there's a local commune, and at the same time we're
3 hearing testimony of the Konjevic Polje region. And we'd like to be able
4 to distinguish between the two, unless they coincide.
5 So right now I'd asked: Could you show us or designate where is
6 the Konjevic Polje region.
7 A. I'll explain to you now the centre of Konjevic Polje and the
8 region of Konjevic Polje with its villages. Konjevic Polje --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, the -- if we could -- the
10 technicians could zoom in that part of the map, please, so that we can
11 follow better. Yes, I think that should be enough. Thank you.
12 So for the time -- for the record, the witness has circled in red
13 the point on the map described as Konjevic Polje. Yes -- to -- at 10.00 ,
14 between 10.00 and 11.00 to the north of Konjevici.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The villages of Konjevic Polje are
16 Konjevici, Hrncici, Urkovici, Sandici, Lolici, Pobudje --
17 MS. SELLERS: Could we ask that the map be moved up just a tiny
18 bit first.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I've drawn the lines
21 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, the witness has underlined in red
22 all the villages he's just mentioned.
23 MS. SELLERS:
24 Q. Thank you very much, sir. And one question --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Judge Eser has a question.
1 JUDGE ESER: I have a little bit of a problem. Now, you
2 underlined Konjevic Polje, which is north of Konjevici. Do you have the
3 map? You underlined Konjevic Polje --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: He circled Konjevic Polje.
5 JUDGE ESER: Circled Konjevic Polje. But Konjevici is south of
6 Konjevic Polje. And when you indicated the region or the area of
7 Konjevic Polje, you did not include Konjevic Polje itself. So is it that
8 I understand that Konjevic Polje was not part of the Konjevic Polje area?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problems around Konjevic Polje
10 have been occurring since 1979. There was an asphalt road leading from
11 Konjevic Polje in the direction of Bratunac. At that time, it was called
12 Konjevic Polje Tekija. That was the centre of Konjevic Polje.
13 Konjevici is on a hill towards Banjevici. And when I see where it
14 says "Konjevic Polje" on the map, I have to circle it because that's what
15 the map says. But I know how far Konjevic Polje stretches. It's up to
16 this junction here, in this area. That's the area really called
17 Konjevic Polje, but it's all a little bit different on this map. If
18 there's a problem, I can explain in detail, describe it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can understand it as it is, especially
20 since the line that you have now drawn beneath or below -- of Konjevici is
21 precisely indicates Tekija, which is the outer limit of Konjevic Polje
22 after 1979, as you mentioned it. Is that correct? Konjevic Polje
23 Tekija? So it extends from --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
1 Does that satisfy you okay, Judge?
2 Ms. Sellers.
3 MS. SELLERS:
4 Q. Now, would you, while we have the map in front of us, indicate
5 where in the region of Konjevic Polje were the different groups
6 maintaining a front line, if at all.
7 A. In Hrncici they held the line in this area, as I've explained it
8 before, this particular line. Urkovici covered this area here.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we stop -- we need to explain this for the
10 record. The -- with regard to the line guarded by Urkovici, the witness
11 indicates an imaginary line between Grabovsko and Sandici to the east of
13 With regard to Hrncici -- the other one was Hrncici, no? Yes,
14 Hrncici, the witness - I can't read it properly - indicates a line from
15 Ranonice in the direction of Panici. In the direction of Panici. Is that
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's called Pavici. It's a part of
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I am being contaminated by Ms. Sellers. I
20 apologise to you.
21 MS. SELLERS: It's quite a fatal disease, heavy tongue, yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead. We have mentioned two lines now. Go
23 ahead, with the others, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pobudje.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's Pobudje.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This unit with the group leader Ramo
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. For the record, the witness indicates a curved
4 line from the direction of -- from Kravica to the direction -- through
5 Kamenica towards Burnice.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm looking at Pahljevici, but I
7 cannot locate them here.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, you have to go further up. If you see
9 Konjevici, go -- move to the east one box and move north a box and a half.
10 And you see it written horizontally along Drinjaca. It's further below
11 Drinjaca. All right.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've found it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So the line was there where you have pointed on the
14 map now?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So for the record, the witness draws a line across
18 MS. SELLERS:
19 Q. Thank you very much. Are there any other front lines that one
20 would consider being within the Konjevic Polje area?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Another question with the map. You see up in the very far
23 left-hand corner there's a town called Kamenica. Can you confirm to me
24 that this Kamenica was not considered part of Konjevic Polje or any of the
25 regions that you've indicated.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, we have to zoom out. Yes, exactly. Zoom
2 out and we're talking of -- until it comes to the map -- yes, all right.
3 If you look at the map top left -- top left second and third
4 square. Right at the top you see Kamenica. It's the second and third
5 square. And on the top of those two squares there is the name "Kamenica."
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And the question is whether -- whether it's correct
8 that Kamenica was never considered to form part of Konjevic Polje or any
9 of the regions that you have indicated.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Kamenica is very far away from
11 Konjevic Polje and never formed part of Konjevic Polje. I believe it's
12 some 10 kilometres away.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Can we zoom back in to the area of
14 Konjevic Polje that we were dealing with before, please. Yes, yes, yes.
15 Now, sir, look at Urkovici -- no, no. Keep it where it was,
16 please -- no, where it was. Further up, further up, further up, yes.
17 Stop, stop.
18 Now, look, you can see Urkovici there. Correct?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You can see Lolici just beneath Urkovici.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And if you go further down in the same box as Lolici
23 you see Kamenice.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: What about that? Is that a different Kamenica,
1 Kameice, or is it Kramenice? Because it could also be Kramenice. What
2 name is that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the village of Pobudje. It
4 is called Kamenice or Kamenica, just as the other one. There is not much
5 of a difference in terms of the name.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure we'll find about a dozen others in other
7 areas as well.
8 So your question now -- there are two Kamenicas, and I would like
9 to know which one you were referring to.
10 MS. SELLERS: Then, Your Honour, I would like to ask the
11 witness -- I was referring, for purposes of the map, to the one up in the
12 far left-hand corner.
13 Q. Now I want to ask the witness: The testimony that you've given
14 over the past couple of days, when you refer to Kamenica, or that's how we
15 saw it appear in our English transcript, which town were you referring to
16 in terms of battles or attacks in Kamenica?
17 A. I was referring to the village of Kamenica, not the town of
18 Kamenica. The town of Kamenica is further away; it's not close at all. I
19 meant Kamenica, the village of Pobudje, that's what I was referring to.
20 Q. Thank you very much. That's quite helpful to us.
21 MS. SELLERS: I believe we can remove the map for the moment.
22 Q. Witness, can you tell us what were your duties within your unit.
23 What function did you perform?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we need to be a little bit more
25 specific here, both as regards time and also the unit that you are
1 referring to.
2 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I was going to avoid the unit --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes -- I suppose I reflect what you had in mind.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I wanted to avoid maybe having the
6 witness speak of the unit, unless that presents no problem.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it presents a problem. I mean, he was
8 not ...
9 MS. SELLERS:
10 Q. Okay. Witness, tell us what was your unit called, formally,
12 A. It was called the group from Urkovici. You asked me about the
13 function that I had. My role was to provide food. I told you that I had
14 to take care of large numbers of refugees from Sandici, and we had to
15 supply them with food. Even the children were involved because very soon
16 we ran out of food. But I have to tell you that I regretted being in that
17 duty because I felt really humbled by the fact that I did not have my
18 rifle any longer, humiliated even, because I was unable to protect my
20 Q. Can you tell me the duties of other people in the Urkovici group
21 other than yourself.
22 A. If you mean armed people, those who were armed of course had to
23 stand guard to forewarn us of any impending attack and to seek assistance
24 in case the attack is a fierce one. That was about it.
25 Q. So those who had to seek assistance, would they travel to the
1 different units in that area to ask for assistance, to bring the message
2 that, We need help?
3 A. In such situations, since the people had to move from one village
4 to another, it would happen that someone would go directly to others and
5 then warn them that they needed to help. If they came across someone,
6 that very often whoever set off in the direction of my village, he would
7 then ask those people to alert others to send in help.
8 Q. Did you have the use of any types of radios or Motorolas or
9 communication equipment?
10 A. Had we had it anywhere, life would be much easier for us, but we
11 did not use them.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. You did not use them or you didn't have
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We neither had them nor used them.
15 MS. SELLERS:
16 Q. Isn't it true that Azem Rizvanovic was, in essence, your
17 communication officer or person?
18 A. No, that's not true. Azem Rizvanovic was a man deeply shaken by
19 the events that he experienced as well as others in Glogova. He came to
20 Urkovici via Popovici, and he was a very distressed man. I had the
21 feeling that he was never really in his right mind.
22 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I'll stop here.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have a 30-minute break starting from now.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.
2 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.
3 Q. Witness, if Azem Rizvanovic did not function as communications
4 person or officer, could you please tell the Trial Chamber then who did.
5 A. I've already told you at the beginning that Azem Rizvanovic came
6 from the direction of Glogova. He was a deeply traumatised man. He
7 looked quite ill. He had a sister in my own village, and he stayed at her
8 place throughout the combat activities in Konjevic Polje.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop. I don't know if it's a matter of
10 interpretation, but if it isn't and this is the style that you are going
11 to adopt, you are going to be here Monday, if not also Tuesday.
12 The question was a very simple one. Ms. Sellers told you: If it
13 wasn't Azem Rizvanovic that functioned as a communications person - and
14 you have already -- you already told her that he didn't do anything of the
15 sort - then who did? This is the question. So if there was someone else
16 who functioned as such in this position, please tell us. If there wasn't
17 anyone, say there was no one. Otherwise, you keep on ...
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as I know,
19 nobody was performing the duty of communications.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I wanted to say,
21 Your Honour. The witness did not accept ...
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. But let him finish before because I
23 couldn't hear what you were saying and the interpreters couldn't hear what
24 you were saying.
25 So the answer is: There was no one, Ms. Sellers.
1 MS. SELLERS:
2 Q. Now, does that mean there was no one doing communications in the
3 Urkovici group, or does that mean that there was no one doing
4 communications with this area that you've described as Konjevic Polje?
5 A. As far as I know, nobody did in Urkovici. And according to my
6 knowledge, nobody did that sort of job in Konjevic Polje either.
7 Q. If no one did that job, are you saying that there might have been
8 communications by Motorola or RUPs but it was not necessarily the function
9 of any one person in that area during the 1992 time period?
10 A. There were no communications with any sort of means.
11 Q. Does that mean that there were no couriers, no people who took
13 A. There were no couriers either.
14 Q. Did you know a person named Velija, and I believe his nickname was
16 A. I know Velija if you are referring to Velija Omerovic.
17 Q. Did he have a nickname of Elektrika?
18 A. He was an electrician. As for his nickname, I don't know.
19 Q. Wasn't he a courier, sir?
20 A. I've already told you that I know nothing of couriers.
21 Q. Does that mean that you don't know whether Esad Selimovic was a
23 A. I don't know the man, believe me, Esad Selimovic.
24 Q. And if you could just -- if I could beg your indulgence, would you
25 tell us whether Sadik, who had a nickname of Vakunja [phoen], whether he
1 was a courier at the time.
2 A. If you mean Sadik Hajdarevic, I know him, but I don't know
3 anything about any couriers or about the nickname.
4 Q. Thank you. So it's your testimony that there was neither radio
5 communication nor courier communication among the different groups in the
6 region that you've described as Konjevic Polje?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Prior to April 1992 when many of the people who we've discussed
9 have become leaders in the region, was there a TO Konjevic Polje?
10 A. No.
11 Q. There was no Territorial Defence organisation or office in that
12 region, sir?
13 A. No, there wasn't.
14 Q. Was one organised as a result of people like Velid Sabic, Vejiz
15 Sabic, Enes Ibrahimovic in that area as of April 1992?
16 A. That's not correct.
17 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, if we could just have the witness have
18 the map again. I believe that would be Defence Exhibit 509.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it 509, Usher?
20 THE REGISTRAR: It's 908.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: 908.
22 MS. SELLERS: Thank you for the correction.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I ask because he was marking on it -- and please do
24 remind me at the end of this witness's testimony to have him sign the map.
25 I haven't asked him to sign because I never know exactly where the camera
1 happens to be focussing, so I will leave it until the very end.
2 MS. SELLERS:
3 Q. Sir, if you would look at the map where we have what appears to be
4 two roads, one coming up from Milici, the other going through the villages
5 we've talked about, including Urkovici, and they meet at a crossroad prior
6 to going up to what you've described as the town of Konjevic Polje. Was
7 there ever a school near those crossroads?
8 A. Could you please repeat your question; I haven't understood it
10 Q. My question was: Was there a school, an elementary school, or a
11 school for learning near those crossroads?
12 A. Yes, in Konjevic Polje there was.
13 Q. Could you indicate for us on the map where that school was, sir.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: So one -- stop, stop. For the record, the witness
15 draws a circle around a spot at 10.00 of Tekija below Konjevici on the
17 MS. SELLERS:
18 Q. Now, sir, you were asked the question I believe on direct
19 examination in relationship to schools at times being used as military
20 installations. Do you remember that, sir?
21 A. That school was not used as a military feature. Children attended
22 school there until the 27th of April.
23 Q. And after the 27th of April, did children attend schools -- school
24 there, where you've indicated, after the 27th of April, 1992?
25 A. All the schools in the area, including the one in Konjevic Polje,
2 Q. Now, was that school building, after it closed, was it ever used
3 during the time period between April 1992 until the fall of Konjevic Polje
4 for other reasons?
5 A. The school was used for displaced persons and refugees until early
6 August when Nurif's fighters arrived from Tuzla.
7 Q. And then what was the school used for after Nurif's fighters
8 arrived from Tuzla?
9 A. Nurif's fighters, when they arrived from Tuzla, were given a part
10 of the school, in my estimation a third to a quarter of the school, and
11 the remainder stayed in tents put up around the school. The people from
12 the area, Konjevic Polje, and there were few of those, they went to their
13 family houses and their families and stayed there.
14 Q. So the fighters stayed in their own homes during this time period,
15 April 1992 until the fall of Konjevic Polje?
16 A. Not from April. You misunderstood me. I'm referring to August
17 when Nurif's fighters arrived from Tuzla. Those of them who originated
18 from Konjevic Polje - and that was a small number of them - they went home
19 to stay with their families.
20 Q. Thank you, sir. So before Nurif's soldiers arrived, was the
21 school used to house any of the fighters that came from other areas of
22 Konjevic Polje?
23 A. No, that's not correct.
24 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, if you would permit me one moment, I
25 just would like to check the transcript.
1 Q. Excuse me, sir, where I'm confused is that you answered me when I
2 asked: "So did the fighters stay in their own homes during this time
4 You said: "Those of them who originated from Konjevic Polje - and
5 that was a small number of them - they went to their home to stay with
6 their families."
7 Are you referring to those men who came with Nurif Rizvanovic who
8 didn't stay in the school but went home to stay with their families?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Thank you. You've testified that there were men from Sandici,
11 fighters from Sandici, who were not in Sandici but who stayed, I believe,
12 in Urkovici or in other towns. Did they stay in any special building,
13 such as a school, or did they stay in people's homes?
14 A. They stayed in other people's homes. Quite a few people from
15 Konjevic Polje had gone abroad and their houses remained empty. They were
16 with their families.
17 Q. So the fighters were lodged in different homes, in residences, in
18 the Konjevic Polje area, if that's what I can understand you to say?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Now, other than when Nurif Rizvanovic's men used the school to
21 billet his soldiers, was the school used for meetings among other fighters
22 or soldiers?
23 A. No, it wasn't.
24 Q. Was the school used for people meeting -- other fighters from the
25 region meeting with Nurif Rizvanovic and his soldiers?
1 A. I don't know that. I don't think so.
2 Q. Thank you. I'd like to take you back now to May 1992. You've
3 testified rather extensively on your direct examination - excuse me, I
4 mean April 1992 - about having to turn over weapons to Serbs. And you
5 referred that this occurred I believe in Sandici. Was that your
6 testimony, sir?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you indicated by your testimony that you were caught there,
9 and then I believe you went back to your home town and then you returned
10 to turn over the weapons. Is that correct?
17 Yes, let's continue, Ms. Sellers. In the meantime, that will be
18 taken care of.
19 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.
20 Q. Sir, do you believe that we can stay in open session while we talk
21 about this and the upcoming attack? I'll ask you because it depends on
22 how you will express yourself for these answers.
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. But you've testified that a person named Munad -- Munib Sanic
25 appeared that time when you were caught and that you were quite relieved
1 to see him. Do you remember that testimony, sir?
2 A. Yes, I remember that testimony because I was left in the village
3 on my own. When I saw that Munib Sabic was there, too, I felt easier
4 because I was no longer alone.
5 Q. Thank you. You've answered my next question, and I just wanted to
6 know if it was Munid Sanic or Munib Sabic, and it's Munib Sabic, if I
7 understand your last answer. You'll have to reply in the microphone, sir.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you tell us whether Munib Sabic is alive today?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know how he met his death, sir?
12 A. I can tell you that I heard that when we arrived in Srebrenica he
13 was killed in fighting around Srebrenica, but I don't know the precise
15 Q. Do you know what kind of job Munib Sabic held, if any?
16 A. In Srebrenica, I don't know.
17 Q. No, I'm sorry. I should have clarified that. I meant before the
18 war or at the time period in April 1992 when you have indicated that you
19 were with him.
20 A. In 1992, in April, he helped me. He had a lot of people from
21 Sandici in Urkovici, and he looked after his people and the women and
22 children, helping them to survive in that period.
23 Q. Now, when you say that he had a lot of people in Sandici, do you
24 mean that he had a group of people, men, women, and children?
25 A. I would say group of civilians, in other words.
1 Q. These were refugees from Sandici who were staying in Urkovici. Is
2 that what I'm to understand?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And was he a type of leader of that group?
5 A. He was not the leader of that group. How can I explain this? He
6 was a man who was looking after them to help them survive.
7 Q. I would ask you to try and be more precise. Looking after them to
8 help them survive, could you tell us what that means. What did he do?
9 A. He collected food for the people from his village of Sandici.
10 Q. Is that among the reasons that you knew him because you both had
11 to collect food to assist others to survive?
12 A. That wasn't the only reason. Munib Sabic and I had gone to school
13 together in Kravica and we knew each other very well.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether Munib Sabic had bought guns on the
15 black-market during this time period or prior to the war?
16 A. As far as I know, never.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Vidovic.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we are in open
1 session, I ask that this part be redacted.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Fair enough. I think we will do that.
3 Yes, yes, I'm trying to see where -- which -- where we redact from. I
4 think we better redact the whole question and answer. Page 42, line 20 --
5 line 20 to line [sic] 43. Yes, yes, yes, page 43, first line. I said
6 line 43, that was a mistake. It's page 43, line 1.
7 In the meantime, we can continue, and that will be taken care of.
8 Microphones are off.
9 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I'm going to be continuing a little bit
10 with this incident, so I would ask again if --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's go into private session for a short
12 while, and then it's easier.
13 MS. SELLERS: Yes.
14 [Private session]
11 Page 14071 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 14072 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 14073 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
5 MS. SELLERS:
6 Q. Witness, you've just described this device of a bottle with a
7 corn-cob that would then become an incendiary device. Was this used
8 because you had so few weapons?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And how long did it take to make the device, the bottle, the corn,
11 and the ingredients?
12 A. About half an hour.
13 Q. How many did you make to use on May 29th, please?
14 A. 20 bottles or so, maybe five or six extra ones. We had a crate
15 full of beer bottles and five or six other bottles that the young men were
16 carrying in their hands.
17 Q. And where did you get the liquid material that you placed in the
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's go into private session for a short
22 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Ms. Sellers, and Witness.
18 MS. SELLERS:
19 Q. Now, you've agreed that using that device of the liquid in the
20 bottles was in substitution for a weapon. Whose idea was it to use that
21 type of device among your group?
22 A. It was my idea. I've already said so, that I can -- I will always
23 regret the fact that I had handed over my rifle and was unable to defend
24 myself and those who were -- my family, as the others could.
25 Q. Did others in your group or other groups who were also unarmed
1 didn't think that was a good device for them to use since they didn't have
3 A. We had -- it was just a split of a second in which we had to
4 decide, to make a decision, and I did.
5 Q. I agree. My question was: Did others in your group also think
6 that was a good idea to have that type of device since they didn't have a
8 A. When this particular fighting was over, they agreed that it was a
9 good choice.
10 Q. And did they ever use that good choice of weapons at other attacks
11 or counter-attacks or incidents?
12 A. No more opportunities arose for us to use them.
13 Q. So that was just a one-time use by your unit, your group, of
14 incendiary devices. That's your testimony, right, sir?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, you've testified of the presence of Mr. Munib
18 MS. SELLERS: So I would now ask that the witness be shown
19 Prosecution Exhibit ERN number 03592985.
20 Your Honours, this is --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: For your direction, Ms. Vidovic, this is the last
22 document on the first list that was submitted by the Defence, all right,
23 which was discussed yesterday -- the day before, sorry.
24 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to say that
25 this is a document, 33-page document. The original is dated on the 9th of
1 December, 1994. It's a list of candidates for receiving different medals
2 and awards. The document has come into the possession of the Office of
3 the Prosecutor. If we would just turn to the first page of the document,
4 it's not that I want to concentrate on this page but I'd like to just give
5 some information so that the witness will understand.
6 Q. Sir, I believe that you have the B/C/S now, and I'll just repeat
7 that this is a document that on its face says it comes from the Army of
8 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8th Srebrenica Operations Group
9 command, dated Srebrenica 9th of December, 1994, entitled "proposal for
10 awarding declarations to the members of the 8th Operational Group," and
11 it's directed to the 2nd Corps command Tuzla, department for morale.
12 And the first line is: "Pursuant to consultation with the
13 assistant commander for morale at the meetings held on November 14th,
14 1994, and November 28th, 1994, as well as based on the units' proposals
15 for awarding incentives," and then it continues in a preliminary manner to
16 describe its purpose. I would just briefly direct your attention to the
17 last page of the document. And one will note in the English version that
18 that would be page 61; in the B/C/S version it's actually the
19 next-to-the-last page. I'm sorry, page 60.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: In English, yeah, exactly, we have 60 pages.
21 MS. SELLERS:
22 Q. And I just draw your attention that it's signed -- it
23 says: "Commander Brigadier Naser Oric." There is a stamp that is affixed
24 to it, along with a signature.
25 Sir, have you been able to follow that?
1 A. Yes, yes. If you're asking me, yes.
2 Q. Thank you. I would now ask you to turn to ERN for the B/C/S
3 version 03593017, and I believe it says page 33, 33 in the upper
4 right-hand corner of the B/C/S version. Within the English version, we're
5 on page 28 of 60. And I would direct your attention where under
6 section A, exemplary service medals, it states the following: "Munib, son
7 of Mujo Sabic, 284th iblbr," and it says "posthumously."
8 Now, sir, you've indicated to us that Mr. Sabic, to your
9 knowledge, is deceased and was deceased prior to 1994. Isn't that
11 A. No. I said that he got killed in 1994 in some fighting around
12 Srebrenica, if you've understood me well.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You forgot your microphone.
14 MS. SELLERS: I apologise, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 MS. SELLERS:
17 Q. Well, sir, thank you for the correction. So if I can just look at
18 the transcript, he's deceased prior to the end of 1994. Is that correct?
19 A. That's not correct.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I honestly can't follow now. Why isn't it
21 correct? When was he killed?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was killed in 1994. I attended
23 his burial. He was a very close friend of mine. I've told you so.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So he was killed before the end of 1994. That was
25 the question. Yes. All right. Okay.
1 So let's proceed. So it must have been a problem of translation I
2 think or something like that.
3 MS. SELLERS: Yes. Thank you.
4 Q. Sir, can you just follow as I'll read where it says: "Mujo, son
5 of" -- pardon me, before we get to that.
6 You've indicated before that you did your JNA service and that
7 you're familiar with military. Based upon your knowledge of the military,
8 are awards, medals, or commendations at times given out to soldiers?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And during wartime, are soldiers often awarded medals or
11 commendations for bravery for their actions in war?
12 A. Yes. That is, indeed, the case, but I don't know which soldiers
13 you're referring to right now.
14 Q. I'm speaking in general, just pulling upon your experience. And
15 then I would ask you that soldiers, in particular during wartime, who
16 might receive medals, is it possible that those medals are awarded to
17 soldiers after they die, after at times they've been killed in battle?
18 A. Yes. I found out about it in 1995, as I went around to Tuzla,
19 that something of the sort had been awarded.
20 Q. So it would be thoroughly misleading for anyone to suggest that --
21 to suggest that a soldier can only receive a medal or a commendation if
22 they are alive. Correct?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. -- Mr. Jones.
24 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, I just find that thoroughly misleading.
25 It is surely inaccurate. I don't see how the witness can comment on
1 whether it's misleading. That implies a whole set of other circumstances.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.
3 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I think the witness as someone who is
4 familiar with military procedures and awards can say whether they would be
5 thoroughly misleading or not. Is that -- let's just say "misleading."
6 JUDGE AGIUS: If the witness has already told you that when he
7 went to Tuzla and came to know that such awards, posthumous awards were
8 being made or granted, he is actually answering your question at the same
10 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I agree. But it has been suggested at
11 times to other questions it's misleading. I want to know from his
12 experience: Wouldn't that be misleading to suggest that --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: He's told you -- even if he didn't know about it
14 before, he came to know about it --
15 MS. SELLERS: Fine, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So --
17 MS. SELLERS: Thank you. Absolutely fine. We'll move on.
18 Q. We'll come to the first line of the material in front of you.
19 "Munib, son of Mujo Sabic, was born in Urkovici, municipality of
20 Bratunac, 1958. He was a driver, married with three children. He joined
21 the RBiH armed forces on the 15th of April, 1992. He joined the
22 114th Konjevic Polje Brigade," and then it goes on to say in describing
24 "He took part of the organisation of the resistance against the
25 enemy in the territory of Konjevic Polje. Local community, chiefly having
1 been engaged in acquiring and purchase of weapons for his village, since
2 he worked as a driver in the Vihor company of Bratunac."
3 It goes on to say: "Until his death, he took part in all the
4 critical and strenuous actions that were performed by his unit. He
5 especially stood out on the 29th of May, 1992, when a tank and infantry
6 attack was launched from the direction of Kravica against the free
7 territory of Konjevic Polje."
8 Now, Witness, in this -- in particular, this last part that I've
9 read that refers to the attack, this confirms to the testimony that you've
10 just given the Trial Chamber. Correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct. I've told you that Munib Sabic did not have
12 any weapons, that he was with me, and it was with those devices that we
13 tried to defend Konjevic Polje or, rather, the area of Lolici.
14 Q. Thank you. It goes on to say: "The free territory of
15 Konjevic Polje in order to relieve a blockade of the road that our forces
16 had blocked for the aggressor two days before. When the situation turned
17 critical, i.e., when our lines on the road between Kravica and
18 Konjevic Polje near Sandici were put at risk of being broken, he left his
19 radio transmitter, took his automatic rifle, and went to the rear of the
20 enemy on his own initiative. In a hard and merciless close encounter with
21 the Vukovar volunteers who had come to the aid of their brothers in
22 Kravica, he managed to kill eight Chetniks."
23 Now, Witness, you've testified about volunteers from Vukovar.
24 Would you agree with what's written here in terms of their presence during
25 that time period and, in particular, during that attack?
1 A. I would agree about this part concerning the -- those from
2 Vukovar. However, I would not agree with the part mentioning the man,
3 Munib, as carrying a rifle and a radio because I know for a fact that he
4 did not have a rifle on him. And this -- I find it really hard to read
6 Q. If you could just bear with us a little bit longer, I would like
7 to continue in reading it. And I appreciate your answer.
8 It says that he: "Managed to kill eight Chetniks from whom he
9 took the weapons and the equipment and brought it all to his fellow
10 combatants, who had until then been fighting bare-handed."
11 Now, do you agree that you and your group were fighting
12 bare-handed, and that's why you, as a matter of fact, made the incendiary
13 devices that one could commonly refer to as Molotov cocktails?
14 A. In my earlier testimony I said that there were about 50 rifles
15 among those who came to assist us, whereas Munib Sabic, I, and several
16 other young lads who were under 18 only had the devices that we ourselves
18 Q. So would you think that in describing someone for the award of a
19 medal, would you agree with me that there's been a little bit of puffery
20 in this description?
21 A. Of course one exaggerates. I don't know who issued these awards,
22 who authored the text. I have no idea really.
23 Q. Would you also agree that the essence of the attack on the 29th of
24 May, 1992, the presence of the Vukovar fighters, the presence of Munib
25 Sabic, and the fact that there was a successful resistance on the part of
1 your group, that that is true, as captured in the text?
2 A. We put up good resistance, that's true; that's why they were
3 unable to go through. We had about 50 armed men, I told you, who were
4 defending the passage.
5 Q. The same text, it then refers to the: "Eight enemy soldiers
6 remain lying dead in our territory as proof of the aggression against
7 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from another state." And adds
8 testimony about "a hero who by his personal act turned the tide of the
9 battle to our favour."
10 Now, you've testified about volunteers coming from outside of
11 Bosnia. Does this reflect a bit of your testimony concerning those
13 A. Yes. Bego Muminovic brought some of the documents which belonged
14 to those who were killed, and one could see that they were from the area
15 around Vukovar.
16 Q. Now, when someone volunteers to go into military service, as the
17 people from Vukovar, are they therefore not considered to be soldiers,
18 just volunteers?
19 A. They are considered to be soldiers and volunteers alike.
20 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that volunteering, in essence, just
21 represents a way that you can become a soldier?
22 A. A soldier appears to be a soldier because he is well-armed and
23 equipped, whereas when you say "a volunteer," it only denotes a person who
24 joined something -- volunteered to become a part of something.
25 Q. The volunteers that came from Croatia with Nurif Rizvanovic, were
1 they soldiers?
2 A. Yes, they were soldiers.
3 Q. And the volunteers from Vukovar were soldiers; right?
4 A. Yes. Soldiers, volunteers.
5 Q. And is it still your testimony that you're completely unaware that
6 Munib Sabic was engaged in acquiring or purchasing weapons in the time
7 period of April 1992 or therearounds?
8 A. I claim that this is definitely not true.
9 Q. I would just like to read down one or two more lines where it
10 says -- as a matter of fact, just the phrase: "Since then Munib was
11 intercepting Chetnik radio communications."
12 Did you know whether Munib Sabic in 1992 intercepted Chetnik radio
14 A. That's not true. We did not have any radio-set in Urkovici.
15 Q. Excuse me if I want to belabour the point a bit. So can I
16 understand you to be saying that there was no ability to intercept Chetnik
17 VRS communications in Urkovici during this time period?
18 A. There was no communication over any communications devices.
19 Q. Did you have transistor radios?
20 A. Yes, we had transistor radios, but we had nothing to power them
22 Q. So lastly, is it also your testimony that in the entire
23 Konjevic Polje area that you've described, there was no intercepting of
24 radio communications from Chetniks or the VRS?
25 A. As far as I know, there was none.
1 Q. Thank you, sir.
2 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, I would ask that this document be
3 given a P number and moved into evidence, please.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly, Ms. Sellers.
5 So this -- let me describe this document first. It consists in
6 the Serbo-Croat version of pages starting from 03592985 up to and
7 inclusive of 03593050, and a corresponding translation thereof into
8 English consisting of 60 typewritten pages. This document is being
9 tendered, received, and marked as Prosecution Exhibit P?
10 THE REGISTRAR: 595, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: P595. Thank you.
12 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Now, Witness, if I can paraphrase a bit. In some of your answers
14 you've indicated that there appears to be a before and an after when Nurif
15 Rizvanovic arrives in the area of Konjevic Polje. My question is then:
16 Did things change militarily upon the arrival of Mr. Rizvanovic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did Mr. Rizvanovic bring not only uniformed, armed men, but hope
19 into the region of Konjevic Polje for Bosnian Muslims?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did he also bring a concrete example that the 2nd Corps in Tuzla
22 wanted to have military contact reinforcements with the Konjevic Polje
23 region, at least?
24 A. At the time I happened to be in Konjevic Polje when Nurif
25 Rizvanovic arrived with his men, with his fighters. I heard him say that
1 he came there with the intention of being commander of the Drina region.
2 Q. Do you know whether he had been sent by the 2nd Corps in Tuzla
3 officially to be in that area?
4 A. Yes, that's exactly what he said.
5 Q. And if you would just confirm for me, he came equipped with arms,
6 with uniforms, and with military apparatus. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Rizvanovic is originally from the Glogova area. Do you
9 know whether he knew Ejub Golic prior to this time, prior to midsummer
11 A. Yes, I heard that they knew each other.
12 Q. So when Mr. Rizvanovic arrives, does he bring with him military
13 apparatus such as Motorolas, communication devices, ham radios, or any
14 other type of device so that he can keep in contact with Tuzla?
15 A. I can tell you that I really didn't see any communications centre
16 or anything like that. But as for rifles and uniforms, I did see those,
18 Q. Let's go back just a little bit before Mr. Rizvanovic comes, and
19 we're in June of 1992. Did the men in your group, let's say in Bego
20 Muminovic's group, or in Velid Sabic's group, Vejiz Sabic's group, Enes
21 Ibrahimovic's group, did they know about fighters or groups in Srebrenica?
22 A. No one knew anything about Srebrenica, to the best of my
23 knowledge, unless they kept it secret. But I didn't know anything.
24 Q. Did anyone in your group know of fighters in Suceska, Zulfo
25 Tursunovic's fighters?
1 A. No. That's very far away. I learned about that when I arrived in
2 Srebrenica. Suceska is far away from even Srebrenica, let alone from
3 where we were.
4 Q. And then lastly, did anyone during that time period, June 1992 and
5 the different groups of fighters in Konjevic Polje, know about Ahmo
6 Tihic's group from Kragljivoda?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you -- pardon me. Do you know someone named Dzemail
9 Becirevic. Djazmel -- I might be mispronouncing that.
10 A. Dzemail Becirevic, that's the correct name, is from Hrncici.
11 Q. Were you familiar with any role he played during this time period
12 in 1992 in the Konjevic Polje area?
13 A. No. The man was completely unarmed. I only saw him in passing
14 from time to time but had no particular contacts with him.
15 Q. So he wasn't one of the fighters, if I understand what you're
16 saying, but he was completely unarmed?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. Although, you do agree that you don't have to have an arm to be
19 considered fighter, because there were fighters who didn't have arms
20 because there weren't enough arms to go around. Correct?
21 A. I don't know if that's how it was. It's possible if someone is
22 killed for somebody else to take their weapon and continue fighting, so
23 that could happen.
24 Q. Sir, let's turn back to -- I appreciate your answer. Let's turn
25 back to Mr. Becirevic. Did he play a political role in Konjevic Polje
1 during this time period, or in the area.
2 A. As far as I know, he didn't.
3 Q. Do you know whether he was a member of the War Presidency in the
4 area of Konjevic Polje or in Bratunac?
5 A. There was no War Presidency, especially not in Bratunac or
6 Konjevic Polje.
7 Q. Do you know whether he played any type of political or military
8 role or as an authority in the area of Konjevic Polje?
9 A. There were no authorities in Konjevic Polje, only groups of men in
10 the villages.
11 Q. Sir, are you aware that Dzemail Becirevic went to Srebrenica in
12 June of 1992?
13 A. I don't know that.
14 Q. Are you aware that Velid Sabic sent couriers to Srebrenica to make
15 contact with Naser Oric in June 1992?
16 A. I know nothing about any couriers, just civilians who may have
17 happened to come looking for food.
18 Q. Do you know whether Naser Oric came to the region of
19 Konjevic Polje in June or early July of 1992 to see Vejiz Sabic or Velid
20 Sabic or Mr. Becirevic?
21 A. I personally know nothing about Naser Oric, except that in 1994
22 when I arrived in Srebrenica I saw that man.
23 Q. So, sir, would your answer be: No, that you didn't know that
24 Naser Oric visited that area in June of 1992?
25 A. I wasn't aware of it.
1 Q. And did you ever see Mr. Becirevic in the area of -- in the area
2 of Konjevic Polje, including all the different towns and hamlets, during
3 that time period, in 1992?
4 A. Yes. Mr. Becirevic had a house in Hrncici uphill and also in
5 Konjevic Polje -- no, not Konjevic Polje --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises.
9 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I think this might be an appropriate
10 time for a break.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: It's definitely more than appropriate. But before
12 we do so let's redact, please, page 62, lines 10 and 11.
13 Ms. Sellers, do I take it that you're not going to finish today?
14 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I believe that that is a correct
15 assumption. But I would like to state that I have cut down, believe it or
16 not, considerably and will be hopefully moving just a bit quicker during
17 this next segment. But I anticipate that I will probably need the first
18 segment of Monday.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Monday.
20 So if that is the case, do you think that you would be able to
21 finish with your witness, say, Monday -- but on Tuesday.
22 MR. JONES: Sorry, do you mean the re-examination of this witness
23 or the next witness?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: No. First re-examination of this witness and then
25 the next witness. Because if you think that you would require the whole
1 of Monday, then we need to review a little bit what we had -- next witness
2 after this one, do you think you would be able to finish him in one day?
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if Ms. Sellers finishes
4 by the first break, as she said, depending on the further course of the
5 cross-examination, based on the questions so far, I will need seven or
6 eight minutes plus, depending on how the situation develops. But I will
7 try to be as brief as possible, and I will attempt to finish with this
8 witness by the end of Tuesday.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The next witness?
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. We envisaged two days for
11 Mr. Mustafic, including the cross-examination. We will try to complete
12 his testimony in chief in about three hours, at the most -- three to four
13 hours, which means that if we have two hours on the first day and two
14 hours on the next ...
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And yes, Mr. Wubben.
16 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
17 but does Defence counsel indeed plan then to finish the following witness
18 by the end of Tuesday? That means that we cannot anticipate for
19 the 30th --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, I told you. We will not be sitting on
21 the 30th.
22 MR. WUBBEN: Okay. That's just for my understanding.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. If you think that you will not be able to
24 finish with the next witness, please tell me so that we will eliminate him
25 and dedicate -- we'll finish with this witness on Monday, and then
1 dedicate the rest of the time to thrash the -- completely, entirely,
2 Rule 68 business on Tuesday.
3 MR. JONES: No, we -- the witness, firstly, I believe might have
4 even arrived last night, and we can certainly finish with him by next
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's make an effort.
7 Let's have a break, 30 minutes.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.
11 I hope you understood, Witness, that unfortunately we did not
12 manage to finish with your testimony today but it should be over on
13 Monday. In the meantime, you'll have an opportunity to enjoy the
14 beautiful weather of The Hague over the weekend.
15 MS. SELLERS:
16 Q. Sir, in your prior testimony on direct examination, you've been
17 able to convey to the Trial Chamber the different locations that were
18 visible from Urkovici. In those locations you included Siljkovici,
19 Kravica. My question to you is whether you could see, either with the
20 naked eye or binoculars, Jezestica.
21 A. I could not see Jezestica.
22 Q. Had you ever been to the village of Jezestica?
23 A. No, I've never been to the village itself.
24 Q. Were you concerned during this time period with any danger that
25 could come from Jezestica?
1 A. I was not that concerned with Jezestica because all the other
2 places that I indicated earlier were the true source of concern for me.
3 Q. In your direct testimony you did testify that you had been told by
4 people trying to reach Konjevic Polje about an army unit in Jezestica.
5 Does that remain correct, sir?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. As the civilians came to Konjevic Polje,
7 probably on their way they passed by Jezestica and noticed this.
8 Q. Are you aware of any battle that occurred in Jezestica in the
9 month of August 1992?
10 A. Yes. I think the battle in Jezestica took place on the 8th of
11 August between Nurif's fighters and Ejub Golic's men from the place of
12 Cizmici, from Glogova.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: It's -- I think this needs some clarification
14 because it seems -- it would mean that two Muslim factions, units, were
15 fighting each other. As -- at least as the --
16 Yes, Ms. Vidovic.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, he didn't say that.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: But therefore we need to have the correct
20 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we should ask him is that the case. Is
21 that I think from --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 Witness -- let him say it, Ms. Vidovic.
24 What did you actually answer to Ms. Sellers' question?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said - and perhaps it was not
1 interpreted correctly - Ejub Golic's group and Nurif Rizvanovic's group
2 were attacking the area of Jezestica.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 MS. SELLERS:
5 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us whether Jezestica is actually a
6 village that has two parts, an upper part and a lower part, of the town?
7 A. Yes. The question that you put to me before concerning Jezestica
8 and whether I knew Jezestica, it had to do with the lower part of it. I
9 went from Konjevic Polje towards Srebrenica, passing through the upper and
10 the lower part of Jezestica.
11 Q. Now, for the attack, were Ejub Golic's men joined, participated,
12 with Nurif Rizvanovic's men, did that attack take place in the upper part
13 or the lower part of Jezestica?
14 A. I couldn't really specify whether it was the upper or the lower
15 part of Jezestica, but as far as I heard some ten Nurif's fighters joined
16 Ejub Golic.
17 Q. And could you just tell us for clarification whether on
18 August 8th, 1992, whether Jezestica was a Bosnian Serb -- primarily a
19 Bosnian Serb hamlet or primarily a Bosnian Muslim hamlet.
20 A. Jezestica was a Serb hamlet.
21 Q. And also, do you know whether the battle or the attack on the 8th
22 of August, whether at that point all Bosnian Serbs who lived in Jezestica
23 left or whether some remained and some fled?
24 A. As far as I know, all the Serb villages around Kravica -- before
25 the month of April 1992, the Serbs had left all those villages.
1 Q. So it's your understanding that there were no Bosnian Serbs in
2 Jezestica on the 8th of August, 1992. Is that what you're saying, sir?
3 A. There were Bosnian Serbs in Jezestica on that date, but there were
4 no civilians. There were only military-aged men.
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I would like to ask the witness now to
6 look at document ERN number 03729742. Your Honour, I would like to state
7 that this is a document received by the Office of the Prosecutor regarding
8 the Muslim attack on 8th August 1992 in the village of Jezestica, and
9 we've gotten the document from a person -- I don't think I need to put the
10 name on the record. I don't know who it is. But certainly the Trial
11 Chamber once -- we can give both the Trial Chamber and the Defence and a
12 copy of the MIF.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Sellers.
14 MS. SELLERS:
15 Q. Sir, I want to draw your attention to a couple of things in this
16 document, and one is that the document appears to be a statement taken
17 by -- or given by a Mr. Rajko Jovanovic. It's signed Bratunac, 16th of
18 August 1992. And it says in the very beginning: "Statement of Jovanovic,
19 Rajko from Jezestica on the attack of the Muslim armed forces to that
20 village on the 8th of August, 1992."
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
22 Yes, Mr. Jones.
23 MR. JONES: Yes, as far as this item is concerned, Your Honour, I
24 think there is a matter that we need to address in the absence of the
25 witness. I apologise, but it's something of serious importance.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: That's in addition to what was submitted by
2 Ms. Vidovic two days ago?
3 MR. JONES: Yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher, we need to draw down the curtains.
5 Sorry about this, Ms. Sellers, but obviously we need to address
6 this matter, whatever it is.
7 Sir, you need to leave the courtroom for a short while while we
8 receive submissions from the Defence on this document. And then after
9 that, you'll come back and we'll continue.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you may proceed straight away,
12 Mr. Jones.
13 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour. There's two matters really in
14 relation to this. The first is that, as Your Honour will recall, on a --
15 on at least one occasion, and I don't have the reference with me but I can
16 find it, my colleague was stopped from putting to a witness what someone
17 else had said, and the ruling was that that's not proper, that one can ask
18 if someone was to say such-and-such, what would your response be. There
19 are good reasons for that rule. That's one aspect.
20 The second aspect is of course if we're talking about statements
21 going into evidence for some purpose other than, for example, prior
22 inconsistent statements, which we discussed the other day, which are being
23 used to impeach the witness, then there are the provisions of Rule 92 bis,
24 et cetera. It's a carefully regulated area because of course if we're not
25 careful, the Prosecution will later seek to rely on this as a statement
1 introduced in evidence, in this case totally bypassing 92 bis and invite
2 Your Honours to treat this as evidence, and before we know it, through the
3 back door and avoiding 92 bis, the Prosecution could introduce a hundred
4 statements of people we haven't cross-examined, who we didn't have any
5 opportunity to object to their statement. And there were statements in
6 evidence which the Prosecution is going to rely on. That has to be wholly
7 wrong. It has to be wrong. And it is Rule 92 bis, as I say, which
8 regulates that.
9 And so I wonder why the Prosecution is seeking to put this
10 statement - alleged statement, I should say - before the witness when
11 Ms. Sellers can quite simply say, If I were to say such-and-such, or do
12 you know so-and-so and simply put the propositions to the witness. But
13 I'm very worried that there's going to be an attempt through the back door
14 to get statements in, and then at the end of the trial Your Honours will
15 be invited to treat this as evidence and we will have been wholly deprived
16 of any opportunity to challenge that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Jones.
18 With regard to this last point, obviously I don't need to repeat
19 what I have already stated on several occasions involving, if not
20 identical, similar issues that this could never, according to procedural
21 law, be considered as evidence, under no circumstances, and please do
22 remember that we are three professional Judges here with a lot of
23 experience behind us.
24 MR. JONES: Yes, that's a helpful indication --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It didn't even cross our minds to consider this if
1 admitted in evidence as evidence of its contents.
2 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It would remain an unsworn statement by someone who
4 has not been made available for cross-examination.
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I please address.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, Rajko Jovanovic was not a witness of
7 the Prosecution, was he?
8 MS. SELLERS: No, Your Honour, he was not.
9 Might I address on the points raised by Mr. Jones.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We have the points. Why do you want to put this
11 document to the witness?
12 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I think Mr. Jones has raised some very
13 interesting points and among which is statements that come from people
14 since the Defence has used, and I go back to D135, a statement -- a prior
15 statement from one of our witnesses and that they have claimed that
16 they've only used this to show prior inconsistencies where I think that we
17 can certainly find on the record that D135 has been used to corroborate
18 evidence of their witnesses.
19 We remember the discussion of Zuti, whether it's blond or not,
20 which was found in a statement of a witness when he gave something of this
21 nature. You can remember that they've used that statement in order to
22 corroborate whether there was a facility in Fakovici that would be
23 triggered and then burned. And now to stand up and say that with a
24 statement that is essentially of the same nature that we should be limited
25 to only prior inconsistent statements, I believe is fundamentally
2 But turning to, I think, more significant arguments. Mr. Jones
3 has already anticipated what the use of this statement is as opposed to
4 maybe considering that there's material in here that appears to support
5 some of the testimony of the witness that they have brought forward, and
6 he can always be asked his opinion in terms of factual knowledge of what
7 appears in the statement.
8 Now, the Defence in their direct examination led evidence as to
9 what was a military presence in Jezestica. We have laid a foundation with
10 that. The witness agrees that there was an attack that day. I think this
11 statement might be corroborative of his testimony at this point, not
12 necessarily inconsistent. And in order to try and pre-empt Your Honours
13 from looking at this piece of evidence in whatever manner you may choose
14 to look at it and choose to weigh it was trying to get assurance that it
15 will not seem to be credible, I think it is in one way counter to any of
16 the introduction of documents or pieces of evidence.
17 Your Honours, I leave this in your hands after you see our use of
18 the statement to decide on whether it should enter into evidence and the
19 proper weight that's attributed to it. And I hope that similar to D135 we
20 will view this in the appropriate manner in which it should be.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Sellers, before I give the floor to
22 Mr. Jones.
23 But do you mean to say that basically you're going to confront the
24 witness with some of the facts that are contained in this statement? And
25 if he answers no, then you are going to juxtapose the contents of or
1 contrast the contents of this statement to his testimony? Because if that
2 is the case, Mr. Jones is 100 per cent correct.
3 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, what I intended to do was to show how
4 parts of this statement are consistent with things that this witness has
5 testified to.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry. Why bring forward a statement by a person
7 who is not being made available for cross-examination? It's having one
8 witness who is testifying under oath here who is making affirmations of
9 this and of that being confronted with a statement of an un -- as far as I
10 am concerned, an unknown person who is not available. I mean, it's --
11 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Put to the questions -- put to the witness the
13 various facts as they result from this document that you wish him to
14 testify upon, see what his answers are, and then ask yourself whether it
15 would be regular procedurally then to present this document in evidence by
16 way of either contradicting what he is saying or confirming what he is
17 saying. By confirming what he is saying, I don't think you need it. And
18 contradicting the witness, you wouldn't -- you wouldn't do it in this
19 way. You would do it in some other way, but not by bringing forward a
20 document which cannot be contested by the other side because the person
21 who allegedly made this statement is not available. I mean, I have never
22 come across a procedural -- a procedure like that.
23 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I think that we have in this trial at
24 times had -- in particular, the Defence put books before witnesses. We
25 are not questioning the authors of the books, bringing the authors of the
1 books in to find out where did passages come from, where did statements
2 come from, but yet we allow a witness's testimony to either be
3 corroborated, contradicted, confirmed, and repeatedly ask them for
4 passages: Is this correct? Does this reflect not?
5 Not to belabour the point, Your Honour, but I wanted to emphasise
6 that this is corroborative and this is not to impeach, and this goes --
7 this evidence goes just a bit further than what he has said on a couple of
8 incidents. I think the real fear of the Defence doesn't lie in the
9 inability to cross-examine this witness but just what this document might
10 plainly say on its face.
11 MR. JONES: Precisely.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Then precisely. You want to admit this document in
13 evidence in substitution of what the --
14 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: -- person, Rajko Jovanovic, could state under oath
16 here if he was made available.
17 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not seek to enter
18 it for that purpose.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
20 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I do feel bound to reply, because
21 Ms. Sellers' answer was disingenuous in the extreme on a number of
23 Firstly, in terms of this prior inconsistent statement, D135, I
24 think it is --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Forget that. We are not discussing that.
1 MR. JONES: I simply wish to make the point that when we mention
2 Zuti and a yellow gun, it's to -- again, it's to impeach the witness
3 because he denied shooting from the gun, and any question we ever
4 designed -- which we asked was designed to show that he had not given
5 truthful testimony here.
6 The problem --
7 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, they used it with their own witness.
8 If we have to make sure that these arguments --
9 MR. JONES: Your Honour, if I may not be interrupted.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish, Ms. Sellers, please.
11 MR. JONES: This is really discourteous.
12 Your Honour, going back to the fundamentals of the procedure
13 adopted here, let's say we had a witness and I say, Well, Dr. Nedret
14 Mujkanovic said such-and-such, what do you say about that? Or Pyers
15 Tucker said such-and-such. Obviously that's -- that's not permissible,
16 otherwise we'll spend the whole trial putting bits of people's testimony
17 to new witnesses.
18 So what firstly I ask is the difference between that and having a
19 document. Let's say we printed off the transcript document, we passed it
20 to them, This is what Dr. Nedret Mujkanovic said, what do you say about
21 that. The principle is the same in each case, that you shouldn't be
22 asking a witness to comment on what someone else has said.
23 It seems to be that the Prosecution thinks because this is a
24 document then that changes everything. In any event, the fundamental
25 point which I -- which I would submit, Your Honours, is the following:
1 That Ms. Sellers is saying that the purpose of introducing this document
2 is not to impeach this witness but to corroborate what he's saying, as if
3 the Prosecution wishes to bolster the credibility of one of our witnesses.
4 That's obviously not what they're saying, and that's obviously why it's
5 disingenuous because in fact what they want to do is have this witness
6 confirm certain parts of this alleged statement, then introduce into
7 evidence and then say, Oh, look, this witness says that they burnt
8 everything down. That helps support our allegations that the Muslims
9 destroyed houses in Jezestica. That's what they're trying to do, and
10 that's completely improper.
11 Let me give an example of what might be a simple situation. Let's
12 say Your Honours reject our 92 bis motion for Donald Paris and another
13 witness comes along and I give Donald Paris's statement and I put it in
14 front of him, and I say, Was there starvation in Srebrenica; yes, there
15 was. Oh, exhibit number, please, and then we've got an exhibit. And then
16 I will rely on Donald Paris's statement as evidence of all the other
17 matters. That indicates how the Prosecution can simply get around calling
18 witnesses by introducing statements in this way.
19 I would say finally, Your Honour, that Your Honours have made it
20 crystal clear to us that you're not going to treat statements such as
21 these, alleged statements, as being evidence of the truth of its contents.
22 Ms. Sellers - and I can find the reference, but I don't want to delay
23 matters - says that we're trying to pre-empt the issue and Your Honours
24 should be able to give whatever weight you like to it. So in fact they're
25 not accepting your ruling on this. They're going to invite you at the end
1 of the trial to take this as evidence of the truth of its contents. It's
2 clear the Prosecution is not excluding that. And that's why I'm so
3 concerned, and that's why of course we needed to mention the issue now.
4 Because we know full well in their post-trial brief the Prosecution are
5 going to say: Here is further evidence of the crimes in the indictment.
6 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I just please reply on one
7 factual misrepresentation by the Defence. Unless it was genuous [sic]
8 misunderstanding, when I'm referring to the use of D135, I'm not referring
9 to their use of it as a statement that contradicted the Prosecution
10 witness. I'm referring to their repeated use of it to corroborate the
11 testimony of Defence witnesses. If I can just clear that point.
12 MR. JONES: It was never used for that purpose.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We are going out for a couple of minutes, and
14 we'll come back with our decision.
15 --- Break taken at 1.30 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, our decision is as follows, Ms. Sellers and
18 Mr. Jones or Madam Vidovic, Mr. Wubben: That of course you can -- you're
19 free to make use of any part of this statement with this witness by
20 putting to him the facts that appear here and asking him -- asking for his
22 However, you are not entitled to put to him the fact that these
23 are stated by anyone in particular, particularly by Rajko Jovanovic. And
24 that being so, we don't see a point in then moving forward to try and
25 contradict any of the statements of the witness by filing this statement
1 as a document, because as it is it can never become evidence or substitute
2 what would be the evidence of Mr. Rajko Jovanovic if he were to be
3 produced here.
4 So that's our position.
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I just have that clarified,
6 meaning that I can use any part of the statement in terms of putting
7 questions forward?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. But you cannot tell him: My name is
9 Rajko Jovanovic, son of Milovan, born -- when I say any part of the
10 statement, any part that can reasonably be made use of in conformity with
11 the ruling that we have just given.
12 MS. SELLERS: Thank you. Well, it seems that -- I cannot see the
13 prior transcript, but I think in describing the document I've already
14 stated it was a statement from Rajko Jovanovic.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. But anyway, I can remedy that because
16 I can tell the witness: Forget what has been stated beforehand. We are
17 moving to something different, and you will be asked questions on
18 something else. Yes, and I don't think we even ought to have this in our
19 possession. The witness had a copy of it already? He saw it already?
20 Yeah, okay. But he didn't have time to read it because he was -- anyway,
21 there is no other remedy that I can think of at the present moment,
22 Mr. Jones and Ms. Sellers. I will just pretend and hopefully I am still
23 good at it.
24 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I stand in your hands. If you would
25 like to ask the witness not to refer to it or look at it, I am perfectly
1 fine with that.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But in the meantime, I will just check what
3 happened before.
4 All right. You had said: "Sir, I want to draw your attention to
5 a couple of things" -- yes, you have already mentioned this.
6 All right. I will see how I can remedy this, and if you don't
7 like what I do, then please stand up and say so. It won't be the first
8 and it won't be the last.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sir, we have discussed what we needed to
11 discuss and we have taken a decision. Fortunately for you, you don't have
12 to bother any further with that document that was given to you before and
13 the gentleman who supposedly made that statement.
14 We will be moving to something else, something different, however
15 which still relates to the attack on Jezestica of the 8th of August. So
16 basically, you will be asked on the same event but not in relation to that
17 piece of paper that you were given before.
18 So, Ms. Sellers, and we only have about five minutes left.
19 MS. SELLERS: I'm quite aware, Your Honour.
20 Q. Sir, you testified earlier that during World War II that there had
21 been crimes committed against Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs who lived
22 or still lived in your region. Do you remember your testimony?
23 A. I remember it well.
24 Q. And would you agree that there might have been some Bosnian Serbs
25 who felt that during that same period crimes had been committed against
2 A. I don't know that.
3 Q. Your prior testimony seemed to have indicated that people who
4 commit crimes, particularly during war, should be tried and punished.
5 Would you agree with me that, if I understand correctly, that's how you
6 would have expressed yourself?
7 A. What war? Could you tell me, please.
8 Q. I'm talking --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
10 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, firstly we have gone back to another war.
11 I don't see the relevance of the Second World War to this trial.
12 Secondly, I think this is the second occasion where Ms. Sellers is
13 seeking from a lay witness his expert opinion as to whether people should
14 be tried for crimes. And, again, I don't think it's something which this
15 Chamber needs a witness to tell them whether or not a crime should be
16 punished. I don't see where Ms. Sellers is going with this line of
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Unfortunately you were not here when this witness
19 started his testimony on Monday or Tuesday --
20 MR. JONES: Yes, I read the transcripts fully.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: And he dealt with the crimes committed during the
22 Second World War, particularly by two persons, Ejub and I forgot --
23 MR. JONES: Yes, who feature in this war. It was directly
24 relevant to people in Kravica in 1992, to their activities, to specific
25 events in Kravica. It wasn't a wide-ranging inquest into who was
1 responsible for crimes in the Second World War.
2 MS. SELLERS: If Your Honours might please, if in my last 30
3 seconds I can state that I'm certainly referring to World War II. I think
4 I've indicated that I'm going back to the same geographical period that
5 sir has indicated when discussing crimes from World War II and, as a
6 matter of fact, discussing those crimes committed against, among, between
7 the same group. I'm certain that that was my 15 seconds, and so I would
8 just say that I believe that I'm well within the scope of
9 cross-examination as to what was led on direct examination.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead, and if you don't think you will
11 finish on this in two minutes or three minutes, then we'll adjourn and
13 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I will not finish on this, and it's
14 unfortunate because I would have liked to.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yeah, but I think -- I'm stopping you here.
16 It's wiser to stop here than to proceed and then have to stop in any case
18 So we will continue on Monday morning at 9.00. I think it's still
19 in this courtroom. Yeah. I think it's Courtroom I.
20 9.00 on Monday, and hopefully we'll finish with you on Monday.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day of
23 November, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.