1 Friday, 3 October 2008
2 [Rule 84 bis Statement by the Accused]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 May we have today's appearances, starting with the Prosecution.
14 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Your Honours. Dan Saxon for the
15 Prosecution, together with my colleagues, Barney Thomas, Ms. April
16 Carter, and our case manager, Carmela Javier.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 For the Defence, Mr. Lukic?
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Novak
20 Lukic and Gregor Guy-Smith for the Defence.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
22 We are at the stage where we'd like to hear the statement by
23 Mr. Perisic.
24 Mr. Perisic, will you please make your statement pursuant to Rule
25 84 bis.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The microphone is not on
4 for the accused.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The microphone may not be on, but the accused
6 should be able to hear without his microphone on. If the interpretation
7 is not getting through, it comes through his ears.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can only hear the voice in
9 English. I'm not receiving interpretation.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Perisic. Just hold on. Let's see
11 what we can do.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now it's fine.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perisic. You may proceed
14 with your statement.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the
16 indictment against me is unique in the history of international law of
18 I'm not receiving any interpretation, anything.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perisic, you are speaking, so you will not
20 receive any interpretation. You will be interpreted to us who do not
21 understand your language. Only when we speak will you receive
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Okay. Fine. Yes, yes,
24 I understand. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me repeat.
2 Your Honours, I believe that the indictment against me is unique
3 in the history of international law of war. Never before have a
4 commander and the Chief Of Staff of General Staff of one army been
5 criminally responsible for the crimes committed by members of the armed
6 forces of another state or entity.
7 I was born in Serbia
8 from Trnovo, that is the municipality of Sarajevo
9 state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I have two sons. One was born in Karlovac
10 which is now in the state of Croatia
11 which is now in the state of Montenegro
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt. Will you please slow down.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please slow down, Mr. Perisic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I will.
16 So, the four of us at the time when we were born, we were born in
17 a single state, yet now we come from four different states.
18 After I graduated from the military academy, I became an officer
19 in a multi-ethnic army and a multi-ethnic state, and they remained thus
20 until the end of my career. I, myself, have contributed to this, and
21 this is something I'm really proud of.
22 In my 32-year-long career, I served 27 years, 80 per cent of that
23 time, in posts in Croatia
24 other words, not in the republic in which I was born.
25 I was appointed the Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav
1 Army at the time when the situation was extremely complex in August 1993.
2 In the neighbouring Croatia
3 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had recently seceded, the war was well
4 on its way to escalation. As for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it
5 was in the throws of an unprecedented isolation, not only financial and
6 material but also moral, legal, and political.
7 At the time, the situation in the Yugoslav Army was even tougher.
8 The existing legislation was completely outdated and there were no new
9 laws in place yet. Families of the JNA personnel who had lived in the
10 republics that had seceded before the war now came to the Federal
11 Republic of Yugoslavia
12 brink of poverty.
13 As the Chief of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, I
14 was fully able to recognise the interests of the citizens and of the
15 state; and I was ready, in order to implement those and protect those
16 interests, to commit all I had, including my life. But I was also able
17 to recognise or see a situation where the regime places its own interests
18 above those of the state. That is why we were able to stop the war from
19 spreading to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We prevented the misuse
20 of the Army of Yugoslavia, made it possible for the democratic forces and
21 processes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to develop, eliminated
22 party politics from the Army of Yugoslavia, and turned it into the most
23 highly respected institution in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
24 By its existence, the level of training and its treatment towards
25 citizens, in particular those who were involved in demonstrations to
1 protect the -- their will expressed at elections, the VJ instilled trust
2 and, in fact, represented the most open and the most democratic
3 institution in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is something
4 that the representatives of students and other protesters' delegations
5 always stressed whenever I received them at that time, and so did many
6 representatives of the international community, including some Western
7 heads of state.
8 When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in the deepest
9 isolation, the Army of Yugoslavia organised two air shows with the
10 participation of the air forces of France, Italy, Austria
12 attended by more than 300.000 citizens. At that time, we mediated in the
13 effort to achieve the release of the hostages from the peace-keeping
14 forces, the international peace-keeping forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
15 of the French pilots captured by the VRS personnel in the course of the
16 NATO air strikes against Republika Srpska.
17 This made it possible to sign the Dayton Agreement in Paris
18 I hope that our French friends, in particular former President Chirac;
19 and my colleague, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the French
20 army, General Gourmelon, have not forgotten this.
21 During this time, there was a very real danger for my removal
22 from office, but I did not fear that. I feared that once I was out of
23 the way, the VJ would be misused and that the war would spread in the
24 territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to be more specific to
25 Kosovo and Metohija. Unfortunately, subsequent events have proven those
1 fears to be founded.
2 I tried to exert some influence on the regime, avoiding a
3 military coup; but when I realised that their decisions inevitably lead
4 us into a conflict with NATO in October 1998, I went public with a
5 warning about what was in store for us if we failed to comply with the
6 provisions in the Resolution 1199 of the UN Security Council. That is
7 why, because of this conduct, at its session held on the 24th of
8 November, 1998, the Supreme Defence Council removed me from my post of
9 the Chief of Staff of the VJ, despite the opposition of the President of
11 was not present at the session.
12 After my removal from office, I addressed the public saying, and
13 I quote:
14 "The current government does not want to have leaders with
15 integrity, people who use their own heads." I was removed from my post
16 of the Chief of the VJ General Staff illegally and without being
17 consulted. I refused to accept the invented post of an advisor to the
18 federal government, and I remained at the disposal of the army, the
19 people, and the state."
20 I never did accept any new post, and the President of the Federal
21 Republic of Yugoslavia
22 March 1991, punished me by --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1999.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- punished me by passing a decree
25 discharging me from the Army of Yugoslavia ten years before the time that
1 was stipulated without benefits I was entitled to.
2 In August 1999, I founded the political party that was called the
3 Movement for a Democratic Serbia
4 forces, we launched a political struggle to achieve -- to fight
5 totalitarianism. That is why proceedings were instituted against me
6 before the military court of honour. Although I was a civilian at the
7 time, I was stripped of my rank.
8 During the events of the 5th October, year 2000, I played a key
9 role in the planning and implementation of the activities designed to
10 give a creative shape to the energy of the millions of protesters to
11 pressure the regime into recognising the will of the people in the
12 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expressed at the elections, and this
13 resulted in a resounding victory of the protesters without any
15 After that I was elected into the Assembly of the Federal
16 Republic of Yugoslavia
17 defence and security in the FRY Assembly and deputy prime minister of
19 cooperation of Serbia
20 The Hague
21 On the 2nd of March, 2005, when the Serb government received the
22 indictment, I made the following public statement. I quote:
23 "I have received the indictment from the Tribunal in The Hague
24 I did what I always do when I find myself at a turning point. Without
25 any outside influence, and acting in accordance with my own conscience, I
1 decided to face the International Tribunal in The Hague. Crimes have no
2 nationality, and that is why I believe that whoever and wherever
3 committed crimes must be punished. That is why it is no dilemma for me.
4 I will face any court, in particular the International Tribunal in The
5 Hague, because it is the only way for me to defend my honour as an
6 officer, the reputation of the army, and the dignity of my people."
7 I came here and I reported to the Detention Unit on the 7th of
8 March, 2005. Before the indictment was made public, I believed then, and
9 I believe now, that you, Your Honours, after a fair, unbiased, and full
10 consideration of the facts, the circumstances, and the reality of what I
11 did and what really happened at the time, will reach a just decision.
12 I regret deeply that there were victims of crimes in the
13 territory of the former Yugoslavia
14 families of the victims. Every life lost in war is an irreplaceable loss
15 for the society, but lives lost to crime are an even greater loss. I
16 believe that all those who committed crimes will face trial and will
17 receive proper punishment, and I hope that war crimes will never happen
19 At my Initial Appearance before this Tribunal, I pleaded not
20 guilty on all counts in the indictment; and now, again, I say to you,
21 Your Honours, I am convinced that you will hear the arguments of both
22 parties, without any prejudice, professionally and carefully, and will
23 deliver a fair and honourable judgement.
24 I hope that I will be allowed to present my case and to exercise
25 all the rights that this Tribunal guarantees to me. Only the totality of
1 evidence will make you able to understand my conduct, my role, my
2 environment, my context. My defence will contribute to the determination
3 of all the relevant facts, to challenge the allegations in the indictment
4 and prove my innocence. After all, it is an obligation I have towards my
5 profession, my family, and my army, my people, and my state.
6 As a professional soldier, I hate war because I am fully aware of
7 the fact that all wars, in particular the war that was waged in the
8 former Yugoslavia
9 war - is the worst thing that can happen in a society. I have felt the
10 horrors of war. I despise it because of the consequences it leaves in
11 its wake, because of the lies it relies on, the hatred that it engenders,
12 because it ushers in dictatorship to topple democracy, and because of the
13 misery it leaves in its wake.
14 Your Honours, thank you very much.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perisic.
16 I guess the parties would like us to discuss some of the issues
17 before we call the first witness for the Prosecution. I've been given a
18 list of topics that the parties would like us to discuss. There may,
19 perhaps, be some items that the Chamber might also want to add.
20 The four points that have been mentioned are, first of all, the
21 guidelines, the proposed guidelines; proofing notes; protected witness
22 issues; pending motions and recently filed motions.
23 Have I got the issues from the parties correct, Mr. Saxon?
24 MR. SAXON: Correct, Your Honour, with the addition that the
25 Prosecution has one very brief additional housekeeping matter to raise.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Would you like to add it now, or will you
2 raise it later?
3 MR. SAXON: With your leave, I can add it now, Your Honour. It's
4 simply to correct the -- some points on the record yesterday from
5 Mr. Harmon's opening statement, where Mr. Harmon realised last evening
6 that he had misspoken. I can explain that now or later, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we just add it as an item and come to it at
8 the relevant time, because I'm not quite sure whether the Defence would
9 like to say something on that issue.
10 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, Your Honour. There would be one additional
12 issue which may well deal specifically with the first witness that the
13 Prosecution intends to call, and I sent an e-mail late last night to all
14 parties. That deals with the enforcement of prior rulings in this case,
15 as they could well affect present testimony, specifically the testimony
16 of the first witness that the Prosecution intends to call; that is,
17 Mr. van Lynden.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
19 I'm going to suggest that we just deal with the items as they
20 follow seriatim.
21 On the proposed guidelines, I believe, in addition to the
22 suggestions that the parties had submitted earlier, there have been new
23 ones coming up yesterday. Now, I haven't even seen those. I don't know
24 whether Judge Picard and Judge David have seen them. Maybe the best way
25 to deal with them is just for the parties to indicate what they are and
1 what are the new things that were added last night.
2 Mr. Saxon.
3 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Your Honours, beginning at paragraph 1, the parties agreed to
5 suggest to add a sentence at the end of paragraph 1, which is the
6 paragraph titled "Order of Calling Witnesses." And the suggested last
7 sentence, Your Honours, would be the following:
8 "In the case of any witness in respect of whom 100 or more
9 documents are intended to be used, the list of such documents is to be
10 provided at least five days before the start of the testimony."
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I ask, yes, Mr. Guy-Smith --
12 MR. SAXON: "Five working days," I should have said.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. "At least five working days before the start
14 of the testimony." That's what it says.
15 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith, is that what you wanted to correct?
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: For my own clarification, now, you're saying 100
18 documents; you're not saying 100 pages. Do I understand that I can give
19 you 100 -- only when I give you 100 documents, irrespective of the number
20 of pages, could each one of them could have 10.000 pages and you would
21 need five working days?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is the agreement that we have made with the
23 Prosecution. We trust that --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was there a meeting of minds on --
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: There actually was a meeting of minds on that
1 issue, and we did take into account the potential dilemma with regard to
2 defining it by number of documents as opposed to number of pages.
3 However, we believe that the body of information that we have been
4 supplied thus far, some of the documents which are hundreds of pages are
5 documents that we will be conversant with by the time those witnesses
6 come to the fore. So the only -- our expectation is that we won't be
7 seeing too many more documents that run into hundreds or thousands - I
8 don't think we'll get to thousands - but hundreds of pages under this
9 particular plan.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I also trust that in the event there is a
12 particularly large document, that the Prosecution, being aware of the
13 difficulties that exist in terms of just getting through it, will give us
14 more than what the minimum time is.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you also will give them minimum time when their
16 time comes.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to be clear that the way that the
19 document was studiously inserted.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely. We understand.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Any other amendments? I guess it will be paragraph 15?
23 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour, if you could turn to 15, please,
24 the paragraph entitled "Length of Examination." After the first
25 sentence, the parties agreed to suggest the following language be added:
1 "Such a system shall record time used: (a) by the Prosecution
2 for its examination-in-chief; (b) by the Defence for cross-examination;
3 (c) by the Prosecution for re-examination; (d) by the Judges for putting
4 questions to the witnesses; and (e) for all other matters, including
5 procedural matters. Regular reports on the use of time shall be compiled
6 by the Registry every two weeks for use by the Trial Chamber and the
7 parties. Significant time spent dealing with objections will not be
8 counted against the party then examining the witness. Where there are
9 time savings (i.e., where direct examination takes less time than
10 estimated) these may be apportioned by the examining party to other
11 witnesses in its case."
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Saxon, you may proceed.
13 MR. SAXON: That would -- that is the suggested change for
14 paragraph 15, Your Honour, that was agreed to by the parties.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And then there's paragraph 19, I guess?
16 MR. SAXON: The parties agreed to suggest in paragraph 19,
17 entitled "92 bis Witnesses Appearing for Cross-Examination" that the
18 first sentence of that paragraph should read:
19 "Where a witness whose previous testimony or statement has been
20 admitted into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis, has been called solely
21 for the purposes of cross-examination, the calling party should not
22 introduce new evidence through examination-in-chief, without leave of the
24 And it's those last five words that the parties have agreed to
25 suggest to the Chamber be added.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask, why must this witness be allowed
2 to introduce new evidence at all?
3 MR. SAXON: Because, Your Honour, since the last time a
4 particular witness had testified before this Tribunal, which may have
5 been a number of years previous to their testimony in this case, it's
6 possible that new evidence may have been obtained for which that witness
7 can speak to that's relevant to this case. That is the reason, Your
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this witness would have given a 92 bis
10 statement as recently as possible before giving the testimony and,
11 therefore, would have updated his memory of events.
12 MR. SAXON: That is correct, Your Honour, but that presumes that
13 at that time, at the time of the certification process, then that witness
14 is being shown and asked to comment on new evidence that is available at
15 that time. And the Prosecution is simply suggesting that that is simply
16 not always possible. That may not happen, for example, until the witness
17 appears for proofing.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I take a slightly -- a slightly nuanced view from
21 that suggested by Mr. Saxon.
22 The reason that the language of "without leave of the Court" has
23 been inserted is because we foresaw, and I mean the Defence - and clearly
24 we have not yet come to a point where our minds are necessarily melding
25 on all issues with regards to how we should view the presentation of
1 evidence and the taking of evidence - but the situation could well occur
2 when an individual, during the certification process, after reading their
3 statement which they are going to be signing for purposes of 92 bis,
4 makes a comment, says, "Listen, there's something in the statement which
5 needs amplification, modification, or correction." In that case, it
6 seems it would be appropriate if such information were to be presented so
7 that the Chamber had an accurate 92 bis statement for that information to
8 be available to the Chamber.
9 Now, that is not necessarily information that would come through
10 the 92 bis process but could be something that occurred thereafter. And
11 in such a situation, where some new information arose, it seemed to be
12 appropriate for the party calling such a witness, calling such evidence,
13 to be in a position to say to the Chamber, "Listen, there's some new
14 information here which directly impacts upon that which is presented in
15 92 bis, and we'd like the opportunity, with the Chamber's permission, to
16 present such information to the Chamber."
17 So it would be, I believe, in a highly circumscribed situation.
18 That was what our thought was at the time -- I'm sorry. That was what
19 the thought was the Defence had.
20 The reason I'm making a slight distinction here is because
21 Mr. Saxon and I have realised that we heard each other day with regard
22 specifically to paragraph 20, and we thought we understood each other,
23 but it's clear now we were speaking somewhat of a different language with
24 regard to the issues contained in the paragraph. So it's for that reason
25 that I'm making that distinction.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.
2 Mr. Saxon, would you like to round up?
3 MR. SAXON: Nothing more to add, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Nothing more to add. Thank you so much.
5 And I notice your next input is at paragraph 20.
6 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour.
7 Before I begin, I should note, as prefaced by my learned friend,
8 the parties have not reached agreement on final suggestions for the final
9 text of paragraph 20. So, with your leave, I would describe the
10 suggestion to be made by the Prosecution at this time, and I know my
11 colleague will have comments to make.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
13 MR. SAXON: Paragraph 20, which is entitled "92 ter Witnesses,"
14 the Prosecution recommends that the first sentence read:
15 "Rather than filing a motion for each witness who a party intends
16 to call pursuant to Rule 92 ter, that party should provide the other with
17 all relevant materials for each witness three weeks in advance of the
18 testimony of the witness."
19 The following sentence or two sentences is, I believe, where the
20 current lack of full agreement lies. The Prosecution would recommend
21 that the following sentences read:
22 "'All relevant materials' in this context means a notice setting
23 out the prior statements of the witness to be relied upon, with specific
24 passages to be relied upon indicated, relevant passages of prior
25 transcripts, and exhibits from those passages identified from prior
1 statements and prior testimony. A list of remaining documents intended
2 to be used with a witness is to be provided in accordance with
3 paragraph 1 of these guidelines."
4 And the last sentence, which I believe there is agreement on,
5 would read:
6 "The other party should raise any objection 12 days prior to the
7 witness being heard or the Rule 92 ter statement being admitted by the
8 Trial Chamber."
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: The thrust of the concern here is how do you
11 define "relevant materials" and how do you define "relevant statement"?
12 Our experience has been, with regard to a 92 ter statement, that
13 we receive a consolidated document that contains all of the information
14 upon which the Prosecution relies for purposes of presenting that
15 particular evidence.
16 The Prosecution, as we understand it, suggests the following: If
17 there are two separate statements and one document containing prior
18 testimony, what the Prosecution will do is identify in statement 1, for
19 all the parties and obviously for the Chamber, paragraphs, let's say,
20 1 through 10, 53, 56, and 92 through 104. In document number 2, the
21 second witness statement, the Prosecution would identify as being part of
22 the 92 ter submission paragraphs 1 through 7, paragraphs - and I'm
23 picking these arbitrarily, obviously - paragraphs 47 through 72 and 95.
24 With regard to the prior testimony of such a witness, the Prosecution
25 would suggest, I assume, that we be looking at page 27946, lines 14
1 through 19, without having that as a consolidated document, so that we'd
2 all be in a position where we would jumping as between all of these
3 documents at the time when we're dealing with the 92 ter issue.
4 The witness would come to the court, as always, and the
5 Prosecution would say, "Have you read witness statement number 1, and is
6 all of the information contained in witness statement number 1 accurate,
7 and would you so testify if you were to testify to those today?" The
8 witness would say "yes"; and then, of course, we'd go to statement 2 and
9 then we would go the testimony.
10 The difficulty, I think, and I envision here, is that it is
11 probably unworkable; and it also puts us in a position where, when we're
12 trying to make a determination from an objective standpoint of what we
13 object to, we're not looking at it in the context of a consolidated
14 statement. You'll notice that the language here is that of notice, not a
15 statement. The distinction between what notice is and what a statement
16 is, quite frankly, the difference between chalk and cheese.
17 In terms of having a statement, you have a clear document of what
18 the witness would testify to. The difficulties with between 92 already
19 are, I think the Court appreciates, are legion. In as much as it safes
20 time, it is an excellent mechanism to take testimony. In as much as
21 we're going to be dealing with disparate documents that create one
22 particular statement itself, we believe it is going to be a problem.
23 Rather than have that problem, why not create one document that
24 we receive three weeks before or that they receive three weeks before.
25 And to the extent there are any arguments to be made about any specific
1 paragraphs within that document, we'll all be able to deal with it in a
2 very clear, concise, and easy fashion. That's really what the discussion
3 is about.
4 The secondary issue which is the issue of how this paragraph 1
5 interplays with paragraph 20, because the time provisions of paragraph 1
6 obviously are five working days before the witness is to testify;
7 whereas, the requirements under paragraph 20 are that any objections to
8 be made with regard to the statement, which of course includes the
9 material upon which the Prosecution or the Defence will rely in
10 presenting a 92 ter statement to the Chamber, requires a three-week
11 period of time. So that there's -- there are two problems with it.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I'm pleased to find --
13 You want to say something?
14 MR. SAXON: Oh, absolutely, Your Honour, with your leave.
15 Your Honour, first of all, I believe my colleague slightly
16 misspoke a moment ago. My learned friend referred to the time frame from
17 paragraph 1 as five working days, when actually, I believe, that
18 paragraph refers to two working days.
19 With respect to the merits of what we're discussing, Your Honour,
20 in the Prosecution's experience, what Mr. Guy-Smith is asking the parties
21 to do will create -- will require a great deal of individual, additional
22 work and will actually cause problems rather than -- rather than
23 clarifying the admission of evidence through Rule 92 ter.
24 The attempts to create a so-called consolidated statement will
25 not reduce confusion, Your Honour; it will, in the Prosecution's
1 experience, create confusion. Your Honours, when -- at least with
2 respect to Prosecution witnesses, when Prosecution witnesses who are
3 going to submit their evidence under Rule 92 ter arrive here for
4 proofing, the relevant portion of their statements or the relevant
5 portions of their prior transcripts will be read to them by an
6 interpreter if they are not available in written form in B/C/S. If they
7 are available in B/C/S, then the witness will have a chance to read them
8 to be able to make sure, to be able to testify, that the relevant
9 passages are true and accurate.
10 Mr. Guy-Smith remarked that the key phrase I believe at one point
11 he said is "statement," but the Prosecution submits that the key phrase
12 in this passage in paragraph 20 is the phrase at the beginning, "all
13 relevant materials." And what's necessary here, Your Honours, is that
14 the party that's tendering the evidence under Rule 92 ter provides the
15 other party with sufficient notice of the relevant material that it will
16 rely upon as relevant evidence for this case so that the other party can
17 prepare to test the evidence as laid out.
18 In the Prosecution's experience, the creation of a consolidated
19 statement often leads to additional confusions because we are then
20 creating simply one more additional statement. It becomes, oftentimes, a
21 very large statement and it often then, after it's completed, raises
22 issues of inconsistencies on its own. In the Prosecution's experience,
23 this is a very -- actually, a difficult system to work with, Your Honour,
24 and we would not recommend the Chamber take it on.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might briefly respond.
1 Having been in two trials, one in which we did not have 92 ter
2 and one in which we did, the last trial, this is a mechanism whereby
3 which we functioned. It seemed to work pretty well, we used it with a
4 fair number of witnesses, and it allowed for a clarity of an
5 understanding of what any 92 ter witness was going to be presenting to
6 the Chamber.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a concern to raise with you gentlemen. I
8 thought that what we are being given here is what the parties have agreed
9 upon and that it's for us to decide whether it's okay, if it is
10 consistent, does it make sense, and then give the guidelines.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: It does look like we have a case within a case
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise. I do apologise.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, that's fine.
16 May I suggest a way forward, because I think time is precious.
17 Can I suggest that you continue talking and get to an agreement, and that
18 when you have agreed, make your recommendations to us and we'll see how
19 we incorporate those and then just give the guidelines, rather than --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- rather than trying to deal with these things
22 and find agreement here in court, instead of trying the case.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: It might have been a good idea to ventilate the
24 issue for a bit of time, but we have been taking time. I do apologise.
25 We'll have further discussion.
1 There have been a couple more agreements which I'll let Mr. Saxon
2 take care of. I should at least flag for the Chamber that with regard to
3 paragraphs 13 and 14, there is no agreement, and the Defence has made
4 some suggestions some time ago with regard to those particular
5 paragraphs, but there has been no agreement. We sent -- we sent tracked
6 changes, as suggested by the senior legal officer, on the 1st of October
7 in that regard.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Where the parties are not agreed and the
9 Chamber might think that the matter is relevant, may the Chamber just
10 include that part --
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, the difficulty is that we have not received
12 a response, so we don't know whether or not we're not agreed at all or
13 whether --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So the actual factual situation is you have
15 not received a response, not that you're failing to agree.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Right.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you find it yourself and then make
18 recommendations to the legal officer and then deal with that issue?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we then move away from the guidelines and hear
21 what the parties have to say on the proofing notes.
22 Who starts, you, Mr. Guy-Smith?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I probably do, because we in the Defence have a
24 constant concern about proofing notes. We've made a suggestion to the
25 Prosecution that they, in some fashion, make verbatim copies of the
1 session in which proofing comes from. We are not asking that those
2 verbatim copies, either through audio or video-recordings, be made
3 available to us in the first instance; but, rather, they be retained so
4 that in the event, unlikely, but in the event that it occurs that a
5 witness, in testifying, when being examined concerning those
6 representations which are made on proofing notes, disagrees with what is
7 contained therein, we have an accurate record of what actually occurred,
8 so that it does not put the Prosecution or, for that matter, the Defence,
9 if such arises, in such a situation where they become either potential
10 witnesses with regard to the credibility, accuracy, or truth of what
11 occurred during the proofing session.
12 It allows all parties, if such occurs, the ability to have the
13 verbatim record of what happened. The Prosecution in that regard has
14 declined this suggestion. It's a suggestion that I made previously in a
15 previous case, and it was declined there also. There were a number of
16 difficulties, which is why we made the suggestion, where witnesses
17 deviated from that which was said in the proofing notes and claimed that
18 that's not what they said. So this seemed to be a mechanism whereby we
19 could address that particular concern.
20 The second issue with regard to proofing notes, and I understand
21 that we've started this case in somewhat of a hurried fashion by virtue
22 of matters that are outside of everybody's control, but the second matter
23 with proofing notes deals with when we get them. Mr. Saxon, with regard
24 to the first witness, has been very kind and has supplied us with three
25 sets of proofing notes; and by three, one was a note where the witness
1 actually changed - and by "change," I don't mean in the negative sense, I
2 mean he read his proofing notes and made corrections - sets of proofing
3 notes. Our concern is we're going to be in a position where at the last
4 minute we're confronted with new evidence that is going to require
5 investigation or the fullness of time for proper preparation.
6 And we understand the difficulties in presenting a case and
7 getting witnesses here and getting witnesses here in a timely fashion
8 such that we can proceed in an orderly way; however, we would like to be
9 able to get those proofing notes sometime other than a day or two right
10 before the witness is to testify.
11 Now, I have no idea what their scheduling system is. I don't
12 know how they do their proofing. Other jurisdictions at this point are
13 disapproving proofing or have certain kinds of disclosure cutoff dates.
14 That's not something that happens here unfortunately, as far as I'm
15 concerned; nonetheless, it's not something that happens here. So we're
16 constantly getting new disclosure as the case develops and, oftentimes,
17 it creates havoc. I'm happy on our side to live with disclosure cutoff
18 dates and delivery dates for the kind of body of information that we are
19 going to be dealing with when a witness testifies.
20 So there are two issues: One is a timing issue and the other is
21 the issue of how to preserve what actually happened during that session.
22 There should be no harm in that whatsoever in terms of the preservation
23 of the proofing session, no harm whatsoever. It's a passive way of
24 obtaining information that would allow all parties, in the event -
25 unlikely, we hope - but in the event that there is a dispute, we have a
1 simply way of resolving it.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Saxon.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, as Judge Bonomy found in the
4 Milutinovic case in December of 2006, witness proofing assists in
5 providing a detailed review of relevant and irrelevant facts in light of
6 the precise charges to be tried and in aiding the process of human
7 recollection and enabling the more accurate, complete, orderly, and
8 efficient presentation of the evidence of witnesses in the trial, and to
9 identify and put the Defence on notice of differences in recollection
10 thereby preventing undue surprise.
11 And as I'm grateful to Mr. Guy-Smith for giving me a compliment
12 at least with respect to my behaviour with the first witness, that is, to
13 date, what we have been trying to do, to provide to the Defence as early
14 as possible any new information, particularly potentially exculpatory
15 information, that arise during a proofing session, and that is what we
16 have done to date.
17 Your Honours, the issue of recording verbatim proofing sessions
18 has been litigated in the Haradinaj case. That Haradinaj Chamber ruled
19 that this was not necessary. It would require the Prosecution to commit
20 additional resources that, quite frankly, it really doesn't have at this
21 point. The Prosecution endeavours and commits itself, both to the
22 Defence and to the Chamber, that our efforts in providing material that
23 arises in proofing will be done to the most accurate degree possible and
24 as expeditiously as possible.
25 Sometimes, we are constrained, for example, by flight times,
1 flight schedules, by abilities to obtain visas by a certain day, which,
2 of course, affects when a witness or witnesses can arrive here and when
3 proofing can begin. But the Prosecution does not see any need at this
4 time for an instruction from the Chamber that proofing sessions be
5 recorded verbatim.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to mention a concern I have. I don't
7 want to discuss this again. I think it is something that I would urge
8 the parties to agree about outside the court, so that you come to court
9 with something you have agreed on. But for my little knowledge, I'd just
10 like to be educated by you gentlemen. This whole idea of proofing notes
11 being given to the other party is rather new and foreign to me, and I
12 know I saw it for the first time in the last case I was sitting in.
13 And seeing the Defence, in fact, demanding these proofing notes,
14 is this the practice within this Tribunal and is it governed by any Rule
15 that we can look at and say that the Rule says you must give proofing
16 notes? Because I would imagine that if the Prosecution has disclosed the
17 statement of the witness to the Defence, the Defence would not anticipate
18 any other story from that witness other than what they have been given.
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, certainly during my ten years here in
20 the Office of the Prosecutor, the provision of proofing notes or, in some
21 cases, supplemental information sheets, has been the standard practice
22 here within this Tribunal. The practice of proofing, to my knowledge, is
23 not regulated anywhere in the Rules. However, we have at least two
24 decisions, two items of jurisprudence - one from the Haradinaj case and
25 one from the Milutinovic case from 12 December 2006 - which describe the
1 reasons for and the appropriateness of this practice. It is, quite
2 frankly, done, proofing notes are provided, again in the interests of
3 being fair to the Defence, so the Defence is not surprised.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Then can I, then, urge the parties to agree
5 on how to deal with the question of proofing. Mr. Guy-Smith would like
6 to have verbatim copies. You say you can only give as close to as
7 correct as possible the copy that you're able to give, and then there's
8 also the question of the timing of that. I would like the parties to try
9 and pursue that and save this Court's time from trying to resolve this
10 and come to an agreement right now, and then word it into the guidelines.
11 To me, it seems to be a guideline kind of issue which requires a
12 gentlemanly agreement between the parties.
13 Mr. Guy-Smith, I'm aware of you standing, yes. What do you want
14 to say?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the issue of timing and based upon
16 what Mr. Saxon has said, I'm sure we can come to an agreement on that.
17 With regard to the issue of resources, I will, once again, make the same
18 offer that I made before, which is I'm more than happy to buy them a
19 recorder - a recorder, a voice recorder - so they have it available. I
20 bought a recorder for the Prosecution the last time which they chose not
21 to use. I'm more than happy to do it again, because they were making a
22 resource claim. So I'm more than happy to buy it for them if they need
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't want to get into that. Can you sort that
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure. I'll be more than happy to.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Can we leave that item on
3 that basis, that you'll continue talking about it, and make a
4 recommendation for purposes of the guidelines.
5 Then the next item was supposed to be protected witness issues.
6 I'm not quite sure who raised it.
7 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Your Honour.
9 In fact, I'm interested in the position of this Trial Chamber, in
10 view of my prior experience before other Trial Chambers regarding
11 protective measures. I would like to say a few words in principle in
12 public session, and then move into private session.
13 Before one of the Trial Chambers where I worked, every time
14 before the entry of the witness who had been granted protective measures
15 previously, the Trial Chamber considered anew whether there were any
16 reasons to apply them again, and the party who had called the witness had
17 to explain to the Trial Chamber whether they still wanted them applied
18 and to explain why. The other party had to present its arguments as
19 well. Before another Trial Chamber, that had not been the case.
20 Now I would like to move into private session to present further
21 arguments that had been in use.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 452-454 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the next matter that's on the
24 list, I think the Chamber will be pleased to note the following, because
25 we can to it quickly: There are a number of exhibits that have yet to be
1 decided that have been the subject of the Prosecution's sixth
2 supplemental motion. Mr. Saxon and I have had a conversation and a
3 number of the exhibits may well come through the next witness, and we
4 have agreed that, with the Court's indulgence, the appropriate way of
5 dealing with those exhibits would have them marked for identification at
6 this time and deal with their admission at a later point in time, because
7 they are still subject to a pending motion that the Defence has not had
8 an opportunity to respond to. That is the beginning and end of that
9 particular matter at this time.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Which brings us to the last issue, which is
12 the --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Corrections to Mr. Harmon's opening statement.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine, yes. I'm sorry. That's right. That's the
15 next in order. I do apologise.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, Mr. Harmon asked me to bring something
17 to the Trial Chamber's attention.
18 Yesterday, during Mr. Harmon's opening statement, at pages 13,
19 29, and 45 of the transcript, Mr. Harmon referred to the "Bosnian Croat
20 army." What Mr. Harmon meant to say and should have said was the "Army
21 of the Serbian Krajina" or "SVK."
22 Thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. I take it that brings us to the last issue
25 that we had suggested, Your Honour, which is that with regard to the
1 issue of, as I characterised it, and perhaps it's a bit bold, enforcement
2 of prior rulings.
3 The issue here is really very simple; and, once again, I
4 understand that because of some of the things that have happened
5 previously, there has been a scramble on the part of the Prosecution to
6 present witnesses.
7 The witness who we anticipate is the first witness for the
8 Prosecution is a gentleman whose name is Mr. van Lynden. As I understand
9 it, Mr. van Lynden's testimony will revolve around what are termed as
10 "unscheduled incidents." Unscheduled incidents are the subject matter of
11 a decision by this Chamber on the 15th of May, 2007, and specifically the
12 holding was as follows - so I'm assuming it's the law of this case - I'm
13 referring now to the order of paragraph 3 of page 9 of the 15 May 2007
15 "The Prosecution shall not present evidence in respect of any
16 unscheduled incidents in relation to the Sarajevo counts unless it is
17 able to demonstrate that evidence of certain identified unscheduled
18 incidents in relation to the Sarajevo
19 important aspect of this case. In such case, the Prosecution may file a
20 motion requesting the leave of the Trial Chamber to lead testimony on
21 unscheduled incidents relating to Sarajevo counts at least four weeks in
22 advance of the scheduled testimony, providing reasons for its request.
23 The Defence shall have an opportunity to respond to such a motion."
24 In the body of the decision, in the rationale, the discussion,
25 this Chamber gave an example on paragraph 17 of where it could lead
1 evidence on an unscheduled incident, and that's at the very end, the last
2 or almost the last -- I think it's the second to last sentence, where the
3 Chamber said, and I quote:
4 "It may, however, lead evidence on unscheduled incidents if it
5 can show that such evidence is essential to prove an important aspect of
6 this case." That's what it says in the order, and then there's an
7 example given. "(For example, if an unscheduled incident is necessary to
8 link the accused to the crimes charged)."
9 Now, I am not sure of what is the purpose of Mr. van Lynden's
10 testimony, since his testimony does revolve around unscheduled incidents,
11 and it is clearly -- the presentation is clearly in violation of this
12 particular order. And, once again, I understand the difficulties that
13 the Prosecution has had, and we have not received in any sense
14 whatsoever, whether it be four weeks before or one day before, the basis
15 upon which they are presenting this testimony which deals with the issue
16 of relevance.
17 I thought it would be appropriate to raise this before he
18 testified than to pop up the minute he got on the stand and say,
19 "Objection, relevance, and this is the reason why we're making this
20 objection at this time." Perhaps the Prosecution has a position that
21 they can take in which they can convince the Chamber of the relevance of
22 his testimony, and the timing issue is a different issue whatsoever. But
23 since the order says it, I'm raising it, I read it, I'm trying to follow
24 the Rules. That's what the Chamber said.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, I understand that a preemptive
1 strike can be a very good means of defence.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I agree with you, but I wasn't meaning it that
3 way. I wasn't trying to -- I was actually trying to deal with it so that
4 I wasn't fiddling with the time being used.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I still say a preemptive strike may be a good
6 means of defence.
7 May I suggest that we raise that defence at the appropriate time.
8 The Chamber doesn't know, unless maybe the other Judges do, which witness
9 is being called.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let alone what testimony he's going to give. So
12 let's raise the objection and raise the decision of 2007 at the
13 appropriate time.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Will do.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Just one little point that I'd like to raise in terms of timing.
17 I know that there are different times of sitting in the different
18 Chambers here, but I was told when I got here, that we sit one hour 15
19 minutes, take a 30-minute break. So we should have broken at a quarter
20 past. We'll break now and we'll come back at a quarter to 11.00, and it
21 will be one hour 15 minutes, and 30-minute breaks all the time.
22 Court adjourned.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, the Prosecution would
2 call Mr. Aernout Baron van Lynden as its first witness.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir.
5 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please take the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: CAREL DIEDERIC AERNOUT VAN LYNDEN
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
11 You may proceed, Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Examination by Mr. Saxon:
14 Q. Sir, is your name Carel Diederic Aernout Baron van Lynden?
15 A. It is.
16 Q. Are you a citizen of the Netherlands
17 A. I am.
18 Q. Did you ever serve in the Dutch Marines?
19 A. I did, from 1976 until 1978.
20 Q. And when you left the Dutch Marines in 1978, what rank did you
21 have at that time?
22 A. Second lieutenant and later promoted to first lieutenant in the
23 reserve. This was part of my national service.
24 Q. Okay. And did you develop a particular -- a particular specialty
25 during your service in the Dutch Marines?
1 A. I was trained as a platoon infantry commander and was trained as
2 a mortary -- mortar platoon commander.
3 Q. Okay. Mr. van Lynden, after you left the marines in 1978, what
4 profession did you follow?
5 A. I became a journalist specialising in war zones.
6 Q. And what conflicts, what wars, did you cover?
7 A. I covered the wars in the Middle East, specifically Lebanon. I
8 lived in Beirut
9 1980 onwards; I covered the fighting in Afghanistan after the Soviet
10 occupation of Afghanistan
11 from 1990 to 1991 from Saudi Arabia from the Allied side; and from 1991
12 onwards I covered the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
13 Q. And during those years as a war correspondent, were you working
14 for newspapers or television or both?
15 A. I began as a newspaper correspondent, initially working for the
16 Haagse Courant, the newspaper of The Hague. Later, I became a contract
17 freelancer working for the Washington Post, BBC Radio, and The Observer
18 newspaper in Britain
19 television, for SkyNews. I worked for them full time, and worked for
20 them until 2001.
21 Q. Mr. van Lynden, before I forget, you and I speak the same
22 language and we need to be sensitive to the interpreters who are working
23 very hard for us in the booths. So can we make a deal that both of us
24 will try to speak slowly and clearly; and, also, if both of us can try to
25 pause briefly between question and answer, so that the interpreters can
1 have a moment to catch up with us.
2 Mr. van Lynden, what kind of channel or network was SkyNews?
3 A. It was a 24-hour news channel broadcast by satellite right across
5 Q. And -- all right. And you mentioned that you, beginning in 1991,
6 you began to cover the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In 1991, what
7 part of the conflict did you cover?
8 A. First, Slovenia
9 a few days' break, I was spent to Belgrade; and I covered the entire
10 conflict between Serbia
11 Q. And during that time, did you actually go physically to parts of
13 A. I did. I went first to Banja and Krajina; later to Eastern and
14 Western Slavonia; and later on, in the autumn, I visited the front, south
15 of Dubrovnik
16 Q. Did you ever visit a town called Vukovar?
17 A. Regularly. It's somewhere relatively close to Belgrade, which
18 was our base; and we went there from -- in September, October, and
19 November 1991.
20 Q. And did you then make news reports for SkyNews about the events
21 that you observed at the time?
22 A. Yes, I did. That was the purpose, why I was there.
23 Q. And can you explain briefly, how were your news reports sent to
24 SkyNews at the time, and then to other networks. How were they
1 A. Television news reports are usually sent by satellite. In 1991,
2 we worked -- we actually had an office in Belgrade Television, and the
3 reports were sent from there by satellite to our headquarters in London
4 What SkyNews in London
5 itself, but there were certainly moments when Sky gave specifically the
6 pictures to American networks or to one of the two television news
7 agencies in the world, Reuters Television or APTN; usually, Reuters
8 rather than APTN. But many of my reports I am aware of were being sent
9 through to the three American networks, ABC, CBS and NBC; not to CNN
10 because that was considered a competitor.
11 Q. Mr. van Lynden, do you know whether people in Belgrade were able
12 to watch SkyNews reports on their televisions?
13 A. They were. Under an agreement signed between SkyNews and
14 Yugoslav Television in 1989, there was an agreement by my office that
15 they could rebroadcast SkyNews. This was specifically an agreement
16 because they set up something called the third channel in Belgrade
17 for, as I remember, 12 hours a day SkyNews was rebroadcast on that
18 channel. Quite apart from that, many Yugoslavs right across Yugoslavia
19 had dishes and could receive SkyNews on those dishes.
20 Q. And just so the record is clear, when you refer to "dishes," what
21 kind of dishes do you mean?
22 A. I mean satellite-receiving dishes.
23 Q. Thank you. Did there come a time when the SkyNews broadcasts on
24 that third channel in Belgrade
25 A. Yes. In 1992, I'm not aware or I do not remember the precise
1 moment; but in 1992, it was taken off the third channel, yes.
2 Q. Do you know why?
3 A. I didn't see the actual document, but --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to object at this time unless the
7 witness is testifying about something of his own personal knowledge.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Saxon.
9 MR. SAXON: Well, perhaps the witness can explain what his
10 knowledge is, Your Honour. He hasn't had a chance to provide his answer.
11 Q. Do you know personally?
12 A. We were told by our sources within the Serb government that there
13 was --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Then I'm going to object on the grounds of -- at
15 this point, on the grounds of hearsay, not because it's mere hearsay, but
16 rather because it's unattributed hearsay. To say "sources from the Serb
17 government" could be any one of a number of different people or
18 individuals or documents. Unattributed hearsay is something that should
19 not be considered by the Chamber, as opposed to, obviously, as we know,
20 hearsay which can be considered. This is a situation in which there is
21 no authorship, there's no way of making a determination of where the
22 information came from, and for that reason I would interpose the
24 MR. SAXON: May I have one more question, Your Honour, to see if
25 the witness can identify the source or sources?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you withdraw the question that is being
2 objected against for the moment?
3 MR. SAXON: I wasn't planning on withdrawing the question, Your
4 Honour. I was simply seeing if the witness could identify the source, so
5 it would not be unattributed hearsay.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber would have to rule on the objection at
7 this time; so if you don't withdrew it, then the Chamber must rule.
8 MR. SAXON: Then I will withdraw that question at this time, Your
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may then ask the
11 question you wanted to ask.
12 MR. SAXON:
13 Q. Are you able to identify your source for this information?
14 A. Not by name.
15 Q. Okay. Mr. van Lynden, at some point, did you begin to report
16 about the events in the city of Sarajevo
17 A. Yes, in May 1992.
18 Q. Can you briefly, for the Chamber, describe the topography of the
19 city of Sarajevo
20 A. Sarajevo
21 Miljacka and runs really from east to west, with hills and mountains
22 overlooking the city to the north and to the south.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. It's a long elongated city running along the riverbed.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, with leave of the
2 Chamber, I would like to show the witness one or two images from the
3 Prosecution's court binder, which I hope that you have. This would be,
4 Your Honours, map number 10 in your court binders. The ERN number
5 is 0424-9162.
6 And, Your Honours, this map -- permission has not been granted to
7 the Prosecution to place this particular image on its Rule 65 -- Rule 65
8 ter exhibit list. This map is part of a pending motion which
9 Mr. Guy-Smith alluded to.
10 So, with your leave, at this time, I will ask the witness some
11 questions about it, I will ask him to mark some landmarks, and then I
12 will seek at this point only to mark for identification the image.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess Mr. Guy-Smith said this morning that that
14 can be done?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. That's the
16 agreement that we worked out, with leave of the Court.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The leave of the Court is
19 You may proceed, Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. We're waiting for the image
21 to come up in e-court.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want the image to come up here.
23 I'm advised that the court officer is having difficulty with this
24 thing. Is it possible to use hard copies until the technician has sorted
25 out the problem?
1 MR. SAXON: Absolutely, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And does the witness have a hard copy before him
3 at this time?
4 MR. SAXON: Not at the moment, but we'll give him one, with the
5 assistance of the usher, right now, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 MR. SAXON: We have extra copies.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do the Defence have a copy?
9 MR. SAXON: Yes.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: We do.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. SAXON:
13 Q. So, Mr. van Lynden, you should have a satellite image of the city
14 of Sarajevo
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Okay. And for the -- for the orientation of the Judges, first of
17 all, we see the city elongated in this valley floor and we see what
18 appears to be a road running through the centre of the city.
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you tell us what that road is, or was?
22 A. The main road through Sarajevo
23 MR. SAXON: I'm wondering, with the usher's assistance, could
24 Mr. van Lynden's map be placed on the ELMO, and then he could view it on
25 the monitor.
1 Q. Do you see this same map now on the screen in front of you,
2 Mr. van Lynden?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Mr. van Lynden, on the monitor to your right, there is a pen
5 attached to it. Maybe with the usher's assistance, there's a marker,
6 could you --
7 MR. SAXON: One moment, please, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have a moment.
9 MR. SAXON: If a pen or a marker could be given to --
10 THE WITNESS: There is a pen here.
11 MR. SAXON: But we may need some better pens.
12 Q. I know this may be uncomfortable, but I'm going to ask you to
13 lean over a little bit towards that ELMO, and perhaps if you could draw a
14 line up that main street.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And if you could stop right there and just place a number 1 by
17 that green line to indicate that street.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. At the other end of the street where you stopped the green
20 line --
21 A. Mm-hm.
22 Q. -- do you recall the name of that part of Sarajevo, Mr. van
24 A. It was called Stari Grad, the old city.
25 Q. Okay. And could you place a 2, then, besides Stari Grad.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is there a way we can make Mr. van Lynden's life a
4 little more comfortable?
5 THE WITNESS: It's okay, Your Honour.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'll give you a chair.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we can give you a second chair.
8 MR. SAXON: Perhaps if the microphone could be pushed a little
9 bit more towards Mr. van Lynden's left.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: You can switch between the chairs. That works
11 for me.
12 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
13 MR. SAXON:
14 Q. Mr. van Lynden, do you see --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Saxon, to interrupt you once again.
16 We are now being advised that we can work from e-court.
17 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honours.
18 THE WITNESS: Shall I switch back?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will come back to e-court, Mr. van Lynden, and
20 you will be more comfortable.
21 THE WITNESS: If you could explain what e-court is.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You'll see it now on the monitor and you can write
23 on the monitor itself.
24 THE WITNESS: On here?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But they will give you a special pen for
2 Does Mr. van Lynden have a pen for the monitor? Excellent.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I'm very grateful to Ms. Taseva and her
4 court usher for their patience as well.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: Yes. All right.
7 Q. If you could draw the number 1 there.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. The 2 is there by Stari Grad. Do you see an airport on this
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Saxon. I don't know whether this
12 is a disputed issue? It is not a disputed issue.
13 MR. SAXON: I don't believe so, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Carry on.
15 MR. SAXON: I don't believe so.
16 Q. Are you able to identify an airport on this image?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 Q. Can you mark the number 3 by the airport?
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Are you able to identify a part of Sarajevo known as Dobrinja?
21 A. I am.
22 Q. Could you circle that and put the number 4 by it.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And to the upper left from Dobrinja, are you able to identify
25 that neighbourhood?
1 A. Yes. This is the neighbourhood of Alipasino Polje.
2 Q. Could you circle that, please, and put the number 5 there.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you very much. I don't know if it's possible or not. Are
5 you able to indicate the general location of the neighbourhood known as
7 A. Only fairly roughly.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. But it would be here.
10 Q. Okay. And, finally --
11 A. Do you want me to put a 6 in that?
12 Q. Yes, please.
13 A. [Marks].
14 Q. Okay. Before we move on, going back to that number 1, that long
15 red line --
16 A. Mm-hm.
17 Q. -- can you briefly tell us again, what does that red line
19 A. That's the main road running west to east, or east to west,
20 whichever you wish to see it, through Sarajevo.
21 Q. Okay. And, Mr. van Lynden, are you familiar with an area known
22 as Zuc?
23 A. Yes. I went there once in December 1992 with the Bosnian army.
24 Q. Are you able to identify that area on this image?
25 A. Again, this would be pretty rough, but ...
1 Q. Okay. And if you could place a 7 there.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. van Lynden, before we leave this image, I'd like
4 to direct your attention to the higher ground in the upper right-hand
5 corner of the image.
6 A. Mm-hm.
7 Q. Does this image depict all of the high ground in that area?
8 A. No, not to my knowledge. The terrain went further up and --
9 sorry. It became mountainous, and what was possible from the southern
10 slopes is that one could look right down into Sarajevo and right down
11 various streets in Sarajevo
12 Q. Okay. In May 1992, which forces held that high ground that you
13 see in the upper right-hand corner of the image?
14 A. The Bosnian Serbs.
15 Q. And, again, in May 1992, can you indicate which forces held the
16 remaining high ground above and around the city of Sarajevo?
17 A. Do you want me to draw a line of the front lines?
18 Q. Only if you feel you're able to do that.
19 A. Your Honours, this is fairly rough because this is a very -- on a
20 very wide scale. The area numbered 6, or the area of Grbavica, was under
21 Serb control. It may have been somewhat larger than this, and their
22 control went wider than that. The precise front lines here I don't know
23 and I didn't know at the time precisely, but it would go here. On this
24 section is the Lukavica barracks, which was held by the Bosnian Serbs
25 throughout the war.
1 Q. Can you draw, please, the number 8 next to that circle.
2 A. Yeah. And part of Dobrinja, which I've marked with the number 4,
3 was also in Serb hands. There was a front line running through there.
4 When I first went to Sarajevo
5 of Sarajevo
6 yet come, as they would later do, to take control of it in July 1992.
7 And an area here, this bit between 4 and 5, or just to the west,
8 was an area called Nedzarici, which was in Serb hands as well. So this
9 was it.
10 Now, here, the precise front lines to -- in the western section
11 at the top right-hand side, I'm not precisely aware of, Mr. Saxon.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Let me see. so this is -- I'm marking the map now as it would
14 have been in -- roughly in May 1992.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is it you're marking there?
17 THE WITNESS: The front line.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that a front line, too?
19 THE WITNESS: Where I am right now. But, as I said, Your
20 Honours, this is very rough.
21 MR. SAXON:
22 Q. Okay. Mr. van Lynden, you drew a line from the circle 6 to
23 circle 4. That indicates whose positions?
24 A. Yeah, that was the Serbs -- the one part within the city of
1 area next to that was Hrasno which, as far as I'm aware, was mostly to
2 the west. The area was called Hrasno and on the other side was
3 Skenderija, and they were in Bosnian hands.
4 Where precisely the front line in the hills was, I can't
5 precisely say.
6 Q. Are you able to identify the area known as Nedzarici?
7 A. Yes. I can mark that with a 9.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, I would ask that this
10 image be marked for identification.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: This image is marked for identification. May it
12 please be given a number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P1, marked for
14 identification, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 MR. SAXON:
17 Q. Mr. van Lynden, when you first arrived in Sarajevo in May 1992,
18 eventually did you set up your reporting or your filming base in a
19 particular spot?
20 A. Yes. We based ourselves on the top floor of the former military
21 hospital in the centre of Sarajevo
22 Q. And as a television journalist, what was interesting to you or
23 what was important to you about this former military hospital? Why did
24 you set up your equipment there?
25 A. It was important to us because it gave us -- it was a high
1 building, 12 or 13 storeys high, and it gave us a view from one balcony
2 of the eastern part of the city and the old city of Sarajevo; on the
3 other balcony, at the other side of the building of the newer, western
4 half of the city; and right in front of us was the Bosnian parliament and
5 the actual front lines between the Bosnians and the Serbs. It made it
6 possible for us to film when there was heavy shelling or fighting in or
7 on to the city.
8 Q. And when you first went to that former military hospital and
9 decided to film from the upper floors, did you observe any Bosnian
10 military positions in or around the hospital, Bosnian Muslim positions,
11 Bosniak positions?
12 A. No, we didn't, and we actually looked quite carefully. The
13 hospital, when we arrived there in May 1992, had already been repeatedly
14 hit and very severely; also not just by machine-gun fire, but also by
15 heavier shell fire. Therefore, we checked very carefully, or as
16 carefully as we could, to see whether it had been used --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: To the extent the witness at this point is
19 speaking in the plural as opposed to the singular, I would object. With
20 regard to his own personal observations, I certainly have no objection.
21 Secondly, to the extent that he is referring to incidents or he's
22 making conclusions with regard to the condition of buildings or
23 conditions of anything else, at this point there's a lack of foundation
24 with regard to his ability to make such observations. It's probably
25 something which is not critical, but I raise it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're
2 saying, Mr. Guy-Smith. Are you saying that the witness is not able to
3 observe with the naked eye the condition of buildings there and tell us
4 how they looked at the time?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm more than -- I'm more than willing to take
6 the position as the Court has suggested, that he can make an observation
7 with the naked eye. To the extent his -- he makes a conclusion as to
8 what he saw, for example, that the buildings were -- had been repeatedly
9 hit, not by machine-gun but also by heavier shell fire, to that extent
10 there is, at this point, no information before this Chamber with regard
11 to his knowledge in that regard.
12 I'm not suggesting he wouldn't be able to say the buildings were
13 destroyed, they were damaged, or something to that extent. But with
14 regard to that particular kind of conclusion, that's where my objection
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your objection is clearer this time.
17 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
18 MR. SAXON:
19 Q. Mr. van Lynden, then, perhaps if I could lay some foundation,
20 what in your background, knowledge, and experience allowed you to draw
21 some inferences from the damage that you saw?
22 A. Well, I'd spent 13 years in war zones. I lived in Beirut
23 know the difference between what a machine-gun, even a heavy machine-gun
24 bullet, can do and what a shell can do to a building. I should point out
25 that the apartment I lived in Beirut
1 our outer wall, which was made of glass, on several occasions. I've seen
2 a lot of buildings hit by various forms of artillery - rocket, mortar,
3 and machine-gun fire. I think I can distinguish between the various
4 sorts, without claiming that I can immediately say what kind of
5 millimetre shell would have been used.
6 Q. All right. And, again, to respond to another objection of my
7 learned friend, when you say that "we" were checking the hospital for
8 indications of Bosnian military positions, who do you mean by "we"?
9 A. Yeah, I should apologise for this use of language, but we were a
10 television crew, three people working together, and, therefore, it's
11 those three people who checked together. Maybe I should have made that
12 clearer in the statement that I made, but I will refer to myself only if
13 the Court prefers that.
14 Q. And did you and your crew see any indications of -- that Bosnian
15 forces had used that hospital as a military position?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you answer, what do you mean by "Bosnian
18 MR. SAXON: I meant the opposing forces to the Bosnian Serb
19 forces, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe if you call them by their name, then you'll
21 be on the wavelength with Mr. van Lynden and with us all.
22 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Did you or your colleagues observe any indication that that
24 hospital had been used as a position by the forces that were at that time
25 in opposition to the Bosnian Serb army?
1 A. No, we didn't. We, even on the first night we were there,
2 checked on the roof itself - again, "we" is the two of us went out there,
3 the cameraman and myself - and we looked for, for instance, spent
4 cartridges or boxes that had contained ammunition. We were wary of
5 placing ourselves in a building that was a military target because it was
6 also used for military purposes. We came to the conclusion that it was
7 not. We asked a lot of people as well in Sarajevo and in the hospital
8 whether it had been used by the Bosnian military, and we were told it
10 And in all the period thereafter that we were based there, and we
11 were based there for months, we never saw this building or its direct
12 vicinity used by military forces of the Bosnian army or those others
13 opposing the Bosnian Serbs.
14 MR. SAXON: If we could please show the witness now on e-court
15 what is 65 ter 9240. It has ERN number --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure whether that image was saved,
17 or did those lines get wiped off?
18 MR. SAXON: It was marked for identification, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So it's saved.
20 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 And, Your Honour, this image is the next map in your court
22 binder. Just turn the page. You'll see it is a very wide panorama.
23 First, with Ms. Taseva's assistance, if we could zoom in towards
24 the left side in particular on this photograph. Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. van Lynden, are you able to see the former military hospital
1 on this image?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you take up that magic pen again, and can you put a circle
4 around that military hospital.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. And the number 1, please.
7 A. [Marks]
8 MR. SAXON: And now if we could pan -- well, I've been told, I've
9 been warned by my case manager that I should not try to move this image.
10 So I won't at this time.
11 Q. Mr. van Lynden, while we have this image here, can you describe
12 what you would be able to see to the right of the military hospital?
13 A. The right of the picture as we see it?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. So, in this direction, it's towards new Sarajevo, towards the
16 airport, the western side of Sarajevo
17 Q. Okay. Could you draw a number 2 by that arrow, please.
18 A. Certainly.
19 Q. And, again, to the right of the -- to the right of the former
20 military hospital, can you describe what your view was?
21 A. Really, the heart of Sarajevo
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if this image --
25 Q. Before we do that, staying with this image for the moment, what
1 could you see, then, in terms of the hills above and around Sarajevo
2 How was your view there?
3 A. From the top floor of the building, when I -- both -- let me just
4 explain. From both 2, the view to the west, and 3, the view to the east,
5 we would be standing on a balcony, a fairly exposed position with some
6 cover, but a fairly exposed position. Right in front, the position
7 looking to the south which was looking over the Bosnian parliament and
8 the front lines, there were no more windows; they'd all been shot out in
9 all the rooms.
10 And, again, this was a very exposed position, only a few hundred
11 metres from the actual front lines. So we had to be very careful going
12 into those rooms. It's not a room that you could just walk into for
13 obvious reasons. But what we could see was the Bosnian parliament, as I
14 said, and then the hills to the south as they rose up, and the district
15 of Grbavica we could see very clearly from there.
16 Q. Just for the record, the arrow pointing to number 3, that is the
17 view you had to the east of that hospital; correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if this image could be marked for
20 identification, please.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The image is admitted into evidence, marked for
22 identification. May it please be given an exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2, marked for
24 identification, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MR. SAXON: And if we could now -- perhaps if we could move away
2 from this image and call up the unmarked version of this 65 ter number,
3 please, 9240. And if we could move toward the right, if we could.
4 Q. Are you -- this, if I understand you, this image now depicts an
5 area to the east of that former military hospital?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are you able to tell us what part of the city we're looking at?
8 A. Stari Grad, the old city.
9 Q. And could you just mark with that pen again the area that you
10 would indicate as Stari Grad.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. SAXON: And if this image could be marked for identification,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The image is marked for identification. May it
16 please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P3, marked for
18 identification, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. SAXON: And, briefly, if the witness could be shown 65 ter
21 number 9241, this is the next image in your binder, Your Honours, image
22 number 12. It's another panoramic photograph. It's ERN number
23 0424-9164. And if we could pan towards the right of this image. Thank
24 you very much.
25 Q. Mr. van Lynden, do you see the former military hospital in this
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you put a circle around it and the number 1, please.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. What does this image depict for us?
6 A. This is a picture taken from the south of, let's say, the
7 business heart of Sarajevo
8 Q. And from that military hospital, the former military hospital
9 marked as number 1, to the left we see two large dark-coloured buildings.
10 Do you know what those buildings were?
11 A. They were called the UNIS towers.
12 Q. Can you place a circle and the number 2 around those buildings,
14 A. They are these two buildings. The other high rise is part of the
15 Bosnian parliament.
16 Q. Can you place a number 3 next to that high rise part of the
17 Bosnian parliament?
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. And so, just to move on, Mr. van Lynden, does this image then
20 show the area more to the west of that former military hospital?
21 A. To the south and to the west, yes.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, if this image could be marked for
24 identification, please.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The image is marked for identification. May it
1 please be given an exhibit number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P4, marked for
3 identification, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 MR. SAXON:
6 Q. Mr. van Lynden, how did you broadcast your reports from Sarajevo
7 at that time, in late May 1992?
8 A. In a complicated manner.
9 Q. And could you try to explain that in summary form.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And simpler terms.
11 THE WITNESS: I will try to keep it simple, Your Honours.
12 At the time, SkyNews had sent its own dish with engineers,
13 satellite dish, into Bosnia
14 which was the headquarters of the Bosnian Serbs, together with the
15 editing equipment and the picture editor of the stories. What was
16 required from us was that on a daily basis my cameraman, George Davies,
17 and myself would have to drive across the front lines of Sarajevo
18 into the area of Ilidza where we would encounter our producer, hand over
19 the tapes. Then he would drive through Ilidza, across Sarajevo airport,
20 past Lukavica, around to Pale.
21 There the story would be edited and then fed by satellite to
23 There is a basic rule for war correspondents: Don't cross lines. In
25 always dangerous.
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. Mr. van Lynden, how about after May, during the summer of 1992,
3 how did you broadcast your reports?
4 A. In May and June, what I've just explained was how we did it. We
5 returned towards the end of June. At this stage, the UN had moved into
6 the airport, and we then brought with us into Sarajevo the satellite dish
7 that I had earlier described as being in Pale, and then we no longer had
8 to cross lines to feed our stories to London, to send our stories to
10 Q. And so, as a reporter, for you and your team, what benefits did
11 this arrangement give you?
12 A. The obvious one of not having to cross lines and be shot at every
13 time we had to get a story out.
14 Q. And apart from that?
15 A. Having your own satellite dish, if you work for television, meant
16 that we could do live reports; that is to say, the correspondent standing
17 in front of the camera answering questions asked in realtime by a
18 presenter in studio. This was something we had not been able to do
19 before and we were then able to do in -- towards the end of June and July
20 and August of 1992.
21 Q. And can you recall where in Sarajevo you positioned that SkyNews
22 satellite dish?
23 A. It didn't actually belong to SkyNews. It was hired, it was
24 rented for a period, and we put it into part of the Kosevo hospital
25 duplex, into a building that still under construction that had not been
1 finished, and where it was relatively safe and protected on three sides
2 by concrete.
3 Q. Just so the record is clear, this is a different hospital from
4 the former military hospital that we've discussed previously?
5 A. Absolutely. The Kosevo hospital is the academic, the teaching
6 hospital of Sarajevo
7 was the military hospital and has since changed its name.
8 Q. And did the SkyNews -- I shouldn't use that term. Did this
9 rented satellite dish remain in the Kosevo hospital throughout 1992?
10 A. No, it did not. It was moved out of Sarajevo when I was not
11 there, either at the end of August or at the beginning of September 1992.
12 Q. And so, after that, by the beginning of September, then, how did
13 you broadcast your reports?
14 A. In September, I worked out of Pale, the Bosnian Serb
15 headquarters, and there we were able to use Serb television facilities to
16 send our stories from Pale to Belgrade Television, and from there they
17 were satellited on to London
18 In October, November, and December, when I was in Sarajevo
19 least at the end of October 1992 until December 1992 I was in Sarajevo
20 and then we sent the stories through the satellite dish brought into
22 Q. Okay. Mr. van Lynden, what was the subject of your very first
23 SkyNews report from Sarajevo
24 A. As I recall, it was a story simply of what it looked like on the
25 streets of Sarajevo
1 they were crossing streets.
2 Q. And why did these people have to run when they were crossing
4 A. Because they were --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think, at this point, we are beginning to
8 approach what I was discussing previously. This question calls for
9 information which is outside of the indictment period and may well run
10 afoul of the Court's decision of 15 May.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, with leave of the Chamber, I can
13 present, describe the relevance of this information to the events of this
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: My concern, Mr. Saxon, is that is this the time to
16 demonstrate the relevance or should it have been demonstrated at the time
17 the motion was made; and if it wasn't, what's the good cause, what's the
18 reason for that?
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the good cause was simply, in the
20 Prosecution's haste to prepare for this witness and get this witness
21 here, the Prosecution omitted attending to such a motion.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any comments?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate the dilemma the Prosecution may have
24 had in terms of getting witnesses here. This was a subject that we dealt
25 with sometime before we began this trial. The Prosecution's choice of
1 witnesses was entirely up to them. I actually even made a suggestion of
2 a witness who they had available that could have taken care of some of
3 their difficulties. That suggestion was rejected for whatever reason.
4 Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that as this
5 particular witness sits here now and the information that the Prosecution
6 is attempting to elicit from him, we have not had an opportunity to
7 respond to any objections we may have to the asserted basis of relevance,
8 which puts us in an uncomfortable position of having to either object to
9 each and every question as they are propounded and answered or puts us in
10 a position of having some submission from the Prosecution with regard to
11 the relevance and allowing us some period of time to consider what their
12 position is and respond in an intelligent fashion so that the Chamber has
13 the benefit of our opinion based upon the preexisting order.
14 Now, I understand that we are clearly not in a four-week
15 situation just because of the manner in which we find ourselves; however,
16 we have no information whatsoever with regard to the issue of relevance.
17 I'd like to have that information so that I could respond. We may take
18 the position that we don't disagree and it is relevant. We may well have
19 objections to certain aspects of it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any objection to Mr. Saxon
21 demonstrating the relevance right now, which is what he's asking for?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I have an objection to him demonstrating the
23 relevance in the presence of the witness. In the absence of the witness,
24 I have no problem to him demonstrating the relevance. How we will
25 respond to that and whether or not we will have the fullness of time to
1 respond to that is another issue. I don't know whether, once he does
2 that, whether or not I will be called upon to immediately respond to the
3 issue of whether or not it's relevant or not. I may request a bit of
5 I understand, once again, that it's at the beginning of the trial
6 and we're kind of pressed because of, as I said earlier, matters that are
7 outside of anybody's control. But the Prosecution chose to call this
8 particular witness at this time, and I think at some level we at least
9 need the ability to respond to it in some intelligent fashion. I'm not
10 asking for a four -- I'm clearly not asking for a four-week period, but I
11 may need some period of time.
12 Then, again, he may convince me. I just don't know. But outside
13 of the presence of the witness, I would prefer because that's what would
14 have normally happened.
15 MR. SAXON: I'm prepared to make that submission, Your Honour,
16 outside the presence of the witness.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
18 Mr. van Lynden, will you please excuse us for some time? We'll
19 call you when it's completed.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Indeed, before Mr. Saxon starts, the reason that
24 I flagged this issue a little bit earlier was an attempt to flag time, so
25 people could at least have some advanced warning of what the issue may
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 Mr. Saxon.
4 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the relevance of this witness' evidence
5 pertaining to the events pre-indictment period in 1992, the first half of
6 1993, exists on several levels.
7 First of all, the accused is charged with criminal responsibility
8 for crimes against humanity that occurred in the city of Sarajevo, and
9 the evidence from 1992 that this witness could provide is relevant to
10 show the widespread and systematic nature of the attacks on civilians and
11 civilian areas in the city of Sarajevo beginning in 1992 and continuing
12 through 1995.
13 Secondly, Your Honour, the relevance of this evidence is more
14 personal, if I can put it that way, directly personal to this accused.
15 This evidence will be relevant to the charges against Mr. Perisic
16 pursuant to Article 7.1 of the Statute, to show that Mr. Perisic was
17 aware of the substantial likelihood that the participation in the
18 provision of weapons, ammunition, and other material to the Army of
19 Republika Srpska would have a substantial contribution to the commission
20 of crimes in Sarajevo, as described in schedule A of the revised second
21 amended indictment. So this evidence from 1992 is relevant to the amount
22 of information and notice that Mr. Perisic received vis-a-vis the mens
23 rea element of aiding and abetting.
24 Thirdly, Your Honour, the evidence from 1992 is relevant to the
25 allegations in the revised second amended indictment that pursuant to
1 Article 7.3 of the Statute, Mr. Perisic bears criminal responsibility for
2 the crimes that occurred in Sarajevo
3 evidence is relevant to demonstrate that, given the information available
4 to Mr. Perisic about the events occurring in Sarajevo, that Mr. Perisic
5 knew or had reason to know that his subordinates in the Army of Republika
6 Srpska were about to commit or had committed these crimes.
7 And this is a matter in dispute, Your Honour. The Defence, in
8 their pre-trial brief, paragraph 135(u), state that the Defence contest
9 the Prosecution assertion that Mr. Perisic was fully informed about the
10 events, alleged, including violations of international law that had
11 occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 Your Honours, I would direct you to jurisprudence from the
13 Boskoski and Tarculovski case, case number IT-04-82-T, oral decision,
14 presiding Judge Parker, on the 2nd of July, 2007, page 2921 of the
15 transcript, where the Trial Chamber held that: "Publication of
16 information about acts committed by the subordinates of a superior
17 accused during the pre-indictment period can give the superior, 1, notice
18 of the possibility and prospect of misconduct by his subordinates, and,
19 2, should subsequent allegations of misconduct occur during the
20 indictment period, give the superior additional reason to act on
21 information about the crimes that occurred."
22 So, on these three different levels, Your Honour - widespread and
23 systematic, mens rea of Article 7.1 responsibility, the mens rea of
24 Article 7.3 responsibility - the evidence of this witness from 1992, in
25 the Prosecution's submission, is highly relevant to these proceedings.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe that the wisdom of the Court's previous
2 ruling becomes self-evident in terms of giving the Defence an opportunity
3 to respond. It would not be responsible at all for me to respond to the
4 arguments just made by Mr. Saxon concerning this very important issue in
5 haste, and I will need some time to respond to those arguments, as they
6 have been set forth. This is not a situation in which I feel comfortable
7 at all rapidly reposting.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The problem, Mr. Guy-Smith, is that this Trial
9 Chamber has to make a ruling on this objection and this witness must
10 carry on with his evidence.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that's the reason why I raised the issue
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: The problem is at this point that there -- from
15 what I understand Mr. Saxon's argument to be, at first blush, it, in
16 fact, requires a re-examination of this Chamber's previous order.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I understand that previous order, it says that
18 the Prosecution or a party is not allowed to cover testimony outside the
19 indictment period unless it can demonstrate the relevance of that
20 testimony to the act and conduct of the accused.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm in total agreement with Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Then it has a secondary part which is, and if
24 such a situation arises where the Prosecution chooses to do so, they have
25 to give advance notice so that the Defence can respond, and that's the
1 problem here. Not that if they make a showing of relevance, that they're
2 entitled, obviously, after the Chamber's determination, to adduce the
3 evidence - I'm in total agreement with that - but, rather, that we need a
4 chance to respond.
5 I've seen what Mr. Saxon has said. Perhaps it was not the best
6 thing to tell him beforehand of what my concern was; but because I was
7 concerned about breaking up the testimony of the witness, I figured it
8 would be better to raise it beforehand, as soon as I realised that we
9 were -- what kind of evidence we were dealing with and that this would be
10 the first witness called, than to raise it at a later point in time.
11 So I find myself -- I find myself in a bit of a dilemma. I
12 understand the Court's concern, I understand what the Court wishes to do,
13 but I don't believe that I would be doing justice to Mr. Perisic at this
14 point if I shot from the hip on this particular issue. What I would ask
15 for, if that is not unreasonable, is I would ask for some very short
16 period of time in order to respond; "short period of time" meaning at
17 least a day, at least a day.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you asking for an adjournment?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I am. I think that's the most probably what I am
20 doing. I think it's the most prudent thing to do and that's what I'm
21 doing, and I do apologise.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see you're still on your feet, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm trying to figure out whether there is an
25 interim solution, which is perhaps to the extent there is other evidence
1 to be led through this witness which does not cause the particular area
2 of concern, we could at least proceed with that evidence so that we could
3 meaningfully use the Court's time. Then we would only have this one
4 discrete area which now has been articulated by the Prosecution. And if
5 the Chamber is so inclined, we could have some time to respond.
6 I'm trying to figure out how to use the time. It may be another
7 way of grabbing some more time. I don't know if that works for Mr. Saxon
8 or not at all.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, in all frankness, the amount of evidence
10 that would not be touched by this issue would really only be a small
11 fraction of the remaining evidence of this witness.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, the view of the Chamber is that
13 this is really a very simple issue. The question of whether or not there
14 was widespread attack on civilian population and whether the accused had
15 notice of it is part and parcel of proving the case, where you've got to
16 prove the element of whether the person had notice or didn't have notice.
17 It is a little difficult for the Trial Chamber to fathom how much of this
18 day you would need to be able to respond to this explanation.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm in the habit of not fighting with the
20 Chamber, and when a Chamber makes the kind of pronouncement that you've
21 just made, I am trying to figure out a way of retreating ever so slightly
22 yet still maintaining the position that I have with concern for my
24 In that regard, what may well be a way of attending to the
25 immediate issue is for me to note the objection on the record, for
1 Mr. Saxon to proceed with his examination with an understanding that that
2 aspect of the evidence, assuming that I have an argument against what he
3 said, once I've had a chance to reflect during the break --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are actually at break time.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- during the break, and then if I have a further
6 objection, I'll note the objection. Then if the Chamber feels it
7 appropriate to strike the testimony at a later point in time, they may;
8 and if you feel it's appropriate to keep the testimony and consider it,
9 you'll give it whatever weight you deem appropriate. I'm trying to come
10 up with a solution.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
12 It is, indeed, the proper time for the break. The Chamber will refrain
13 from making a ruling to allow you to be thinking about the matter during
14 the break, and when we come back at half past 12.00, we will take it from
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Court adjourned. We'll come back at half past
19 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, have you --
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I've had an opportunity to reflect. I have
23 but a few comments and then I'll leave it in your capable hands.
24 Looking at the indictment, specifically paragraph 40, which
25 identifies a period for aiding and abetting between 1993 August and
1 November 1995, specifically with regard to Sarajevo, and addressing
2 paragraph 45 in which the Prosecution has alleged, A, the crimes involved
3 numerous individual criminal acts that were perpetrated over an extended
4 period of time in the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and, B, that crimes
5 received widespread attention from the media, inter-governmental
6 organisations, international negotiators, and non-governmental
7 organisations, many of which base their reports on the first-hand
8 accounts of the crimes, which refers back to the period that I'm
9 referring to, between August of 1993 and November of 1995, and taking
10 into account this Chamber's pronouncement in the decision that I raised
11 before, paragraph 17, the Trial Chamber, and I quote:
12 "However, finds that the scheduled incidents, having regard to
13 all the relevant circumstances, including the crimes charged in the
14 amended indictment, their classification, nature, the places where they
15 are alleged to have been committed, their scale and victims of the crimes
16 are reasonably sufficient -- are reasonably and sufficiently
17 representative of the crimes charged."
18 Then the Chamber goes on into the rationale that I've discussed
20 I don't believe that the Prosecution is contending that between
21 August of 1993 and November of 1995 that there was no media attention in
23 appropriately, to prove notice would not be based. And if notice, which
24 is, as I understood you right before the break, one of your concerns -
25 and I understand why it is and I don't disagree that that is one of the
1 things that they must prove - if notice is to be proved, then it should
2 be proved during the indictment period considering that the Chamber
3 already has dealt with the issues as to their extent and their scale.
4 Apart from that, and I raise it because - I don't know if we'll
5 ever get in the situation again; I hope that we don't - we have been
6 placed in not necessarily an untenable position but certainly an
7 unfortunate one procedurally by virtue of the Prosecution's failure to
8 follow an order, an order which they actually acknowledged in a filing
9 sometime after this Court's decision. That was, I believe, when they
10 filed one of the requests for revised 65 ter list.
11 It is an awkward position to be in for the Defence and it creates
12 a difficulty for us; however, I will leave my remarks at that at this
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 I don't know whether you anything have to say, Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour, not at this time.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right. Let me suggest a way forward here
18 because I think time is of the essence; namely, that we will hear the
19 witness, and if at any other stage the Defence feels that the testimony
20 has to be expunged maybe for further reasons that you may have, then that
21 part of the testimony will be expunged at that time.
22 But I think since the witness is here, let's hear what he's got
23 to say, and get done with it.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you for your consideration.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
1 You may call the witness in.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. van Lynden, let me just apologise on behalf of
4 the Trial Chamber for getting you out of the court while you were
5 testifying. It's one of those procedural things that we try to avoid.
6 Thank you so much.
7 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
8 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Before you left the courtroom, Mr. van Lynden, I believe I asked
10 you, what was the subject of the first SkyNews report that you did in
12 A. Yes. It was about what life on the streets of Sarajevo looked
13 like and it included shots of people running across streets, and they
14 were running across streets because they were afraid that they would be
15 shot at.
16 Q. Okay. And when you refer to "people running across streets," are
17 you referring to soldiers or civilians?
18 A. These were civilians.
19 Q. And when you refer to "people running across streets because they
20 were afraid that they would be shot at," these civilians, if you know,
21 which force or forces were the source of this shooting that induced this
23 A. This was shooting that was coming from the southern hills
24 overlooking Sarajevo
25 Q. And why did you decide to do a report about -- or part of your
1 report about the persons running across the streets?
2 A. Because it was rather different to the way that most of us go
3 about our business as civilians in the cities in which we live. It
4 marked Sarajevo
5 lived in Beirut
6 was called the green line; and while there were areas close to that green
7 line that were dangerous for anyone venturing there, it was not as if
8 people in Beirut
9 rest of the city. They often could.
10 In Sarajevo
11 of the city, because it was this elongated city sitting in the valley
12 bed, and that those who were firing on the city help positions higher and
13 could literally look down the streets of the city.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. van Lynden.
15 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, I'd like to show a
16 portion of video material to Mr. van Lynden. This video material was not
17 shot by Mr. van Lynden or his SkyNews team. It was taken by a resident
18 of Sarajevo
19 1992. But Mr. van Lynden can speak to this video clip so I'd like to
20 show it, and then ask him some questions about it.
21 So we will begin this clip, and then we will -- this is from
22 65 ter number 3062 from 9 minutes to 9 minutes and 20 seconds, and we
23 will begin and then stop at 9 minutes 04.
24 [Videotape played]
25 MR. SAXON: Stop.
1 Q. So, again, just to be clear, when you were present in Sarajevo
2 1992, did you personally observe persons running across intersections,
3 such as the image we have at 9:05.2 on the screen in front of us?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 MR. SAXON: And can we go forward, please.
6 [Videotape played]
7 MR. SAXON: Can we go back, though, to the last scene, please. I
8 didn't want to take that away, the last image that we had at 9:20. Okay.
9 We can stop there.
10 Q. Mr. van Lynden, we see parked across that street a large blue
11 truck. This is at 9:21
12 material inside it. Did you observe such large trucks parked in
13 intersections in 1992 in Sarajevo
14 A. There were trucks there with containers placed at intersections,
15 one on top of the other. There were tarpaulins that were hung down
16 streets. So, yes, the answer is yes, and I imagine this one was -- and
17 it looked like it was filled with earth.
18 Q. And what was the purpose, if you know, of placing these large
19 trucks or containers across streets or intersections?
20 A. To allow the civilians walking on foot, or actually those driving
21 by car, to cross those intersections more safely and to take them away
22 from the sight of those in the hills above the city.
23 Q. How often did you observe such scenes of people running in
25 A. On a daily basis, every single day.
1 Q. And if I can ask, how do these scenes of people running depicted
2 in this video clip compare to the scenes that you reported on in your
3 first report of SkyNews?
4 A. They were fairly similar, the only difference being that in that
5 first report, we also had an elderly man, a stooped elderly figure, as I
6 remember, with a walking stick trying to go as quickly as he could, but
7 he couldn't actually run.
8 Q. Mr. van Lynden, did you ever personally observe civilians who had
9 been struck by gunfire from Bosnian Serb positions?
10 A. Yes. I never actually saw the it, the actual moment of impact
11 that they were hit, but we saw at various times people who had been
12 wounded or killed by such gunfire lying on the streets or lying on the
14 Q. And, again, when you refer to "people," are you referring to
15 civilians or military personnel?
16 A. I'm referring to civilians.
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, I would seek to tender
19 this video clip from 9:00
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. As I understood this, this was not a video
23 clip that was broadcast, but rather was a video clip upon which the
24 witness was indicating that it was representative of some other -- some
25 of the things that he saw. To the extent that it is, one, an unscheduled
1 incident, two, outside of the indictment period, and, three, would not
2 serve the ostensible period of notice, I would object to its admission.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, the point is, regarding notice, the
4 witness testified that he did, he produced a report for SkyNews quite
5 similar to this report, and that is why this video clip is relevant to
6 notice, Your Honour.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, if that be the case, then let's produce
8 that. let's produce that video with regard to the reason in which the
9 Prosecution is seeking to introduce this particular evidence. Now we're
10 one step removed in regard to an unscheduled incident.
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, obviously, the best evidence rule
12 applies in this courtroom and in this Tribunal, and the Prosecution has
13 not been able to locate Mr. van Lynden's first report containing footage
14 similar to the footage you have just seen. In the Prosecution's
15 submission, this, then, is the best evidence that we have available.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I mean, from an evidentiary standpoint,
17 there are two distinct issues here now. This is not the best evidence of
18 a broadcast, which is what we are referring to here. This gentleman has
19 a video clip which was broadcast. This particular video clip, apart from
20 authentic ethnicity issues, and when it was taken which is at this point
21 kind of rough - we have a period of months - and a series of other issues
22 have not been addressed.
23 I, quite frankly, think that Mr. Saxon is using the best evidence
24 rule in kind of a curious way. He is -- actually, what he's doing is
25 he's substituting a kind of evidence for the reality of a situation that
1 he's attempting to portray through this witness which is broadcast
2 information, which is the important point I'm dealing with, broadcast
3 information, not a condition that may have existed at a particular time
4 but rather that that information served as, as he told us in the
5 beginning for purpose of relevance, as a notice, and therein lies the
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. We are with your colleague, Mr. Saxon. The
8 problem is that if this particular video was not broadcast, how does it
9 serve as notice to the accused? Is it possible for you to keep searching
10 for the video that was taken by Mr. van Lynden and tender it at a later
12 MR. SAXON: Certainly, it is possible, Your Honour, and we will
13 endeavour to do that.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you could. For that reason, then, this video
15 will not be admitted.
16 MR. SAXON: All right. Thank you, Your Honours.
17 At this time, I would like to show the witness a series of video
18 footage that were produced by this witness and his crew in Sarajevo
19 broadcast on SkyNews. Just for the record, the series of video clips
20 that you'll see soon, Your Honours, all were previously admitted in the
21 trial of Slobodan Milosevic as part of Exhibit D192 and in the Galic
22 trial as part of Exhibit P/540.5.1.
23 One technical matter, Your Honour, before we show the first clip.
24 The clips have the B/C/S translation -- transcript, I should say, visible
25 underneath the video footage itself so that the accused can follow along
1 what is being said. Everyone else, of course, can listen to the English.
2 The question is whether the Chamber prefers that our colleagues in the
3 B/C/S interpretation booth also read that B/C/S transcript as the video
4 is playing so that will become part of the record of this trial as well.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't take the record in B/C/S, Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: I meant in an audio sense, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: In an audio sense. Well, to the extent possible,
8 I think if the interpreters in the B/C/S can interpret that, I'm not
9 quite sure whether they are not going to be disturbing Mr. Perisic while
10 he's trying to read himself what is on the screen, and then he hears
11 people talking over his head and disturbing him.
12 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour. That's fine.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But whichever way is convenient. I'm not sure
14 whether the Defence has any comment to make on the point.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Perisic will find it
16 easier to follow if he reads the text from the screen; and if there
17 accidentally occurs a discrepancy, that might cause a confusion. So I
18 really don't think the interpreters need to read the subtitles.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Then the B/C/S interpreters don't need to read. Thank you so
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this video clip, a SkyNews broadcast,
23 was filmed on the night of the 4th/5th of June, 1992. This is
24 Prosecution 65 ter number 4347. The entire length of this video footage
25 is 3 minutes, 35 seconds; however, we will only show 1 minute and 53
2 Q. Mr. van Lynden, right at the very beginning of this clip, at
3 00:00:4, can you explain what you see on the screen in front of you?
4 A. Yeah. This -- this would have been put on in London at SkyNews.
5 Every story that is run in a news broadcast has a slug, has a name. The
6 programme is the 2100 programme. This would have been British
7 summertime, the day was a Friday, and then the date that it was
9 Q. So, when you say the date of the broadcast, what, then, should we
10 infer about the day or date when the footage was actually taken?
11 A. Because, as I have explained to the Court, the procedure of
12 getting my footage back to London
13 the footage that you are about to see was filmed the previous day or on
14 the morning of the 5th of June, 1992.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. SAXON: If we can begin this clip, please, and stop at 19
18 [Videotape played]
19 THE REPORTER: "Dusk in Sarajevo, amongst the city's ancient
20 minarets, the rockets fall, heralding another night of heavy shelling."
21 MR. SAXON:
22 Q. Mr. van Lynden, if you can tell us, we see some smaller lights
23 going that are going across the screen here. Are you able to tell us
24 what kind of fire we're seeing?
25 A. What we're seeing here is machine-gun fire, probably of various
1 different calibres, and, quite possibly, including 20 and 30-millimetre
2 anti-aircraft guns.
3 Q. For the record, whose voice do we hear on this clip?
4 A. This is my voice.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we stop there.
6 Q. Where was this fire coming from?
7 A. This fire was coming from, yeah, the Bosnian Serb-held positions
8 south -- on the southern side of Sarajevo
9 Q. On this evening, did you see any outgoing fire from within
11 A. From within Sarajevo
12 as well; and there, there would have been outgoing fire. But I did not
13 see from any position within the city proper any outgoing fire, no.
14 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
15 [Videotape played]
16 MR. SAXON: Let's keep going, please.
17 [Videotape played]
18 THE REPORTER: "For the next six hours, there is no letup.
19 Eerily let up by flares, the city is hit from every side by practically
20 every imaginable projectile. Long lines of heavy machine-gun fire
21 gliding across the roofs, exploding against their targets."
22 MR. SAXON: Stop.
23 Q. Stopping here at 1 minute, 14 seconds, we're seeing this fire
24 coming into the city of Sarajevo
25 your experience and knowledge, machine-gun fire, rocket fire, is it, at
1 night, more accurate during the day, less accurate, or it doesn't make
2 any difference?
3 A. For any observer observing the fire and, therefore, then telling
4 the battery commander, for instance, within an artillery unit, I would
5 say that it is more difficult. My experience tells me it's more
6 difficult, and those who are professionals in that work have told me that
7 it is more difficult to direct that fire accurately at night than it is
8 during the day.
9 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
10 [Videotape played]
11 THE REPORTER: "Heavy shells slamming into buildings, within
12 seconds engulfing them in claims. A mass of crazy sparks lighting the
13 brow of one hill from a quite-fire folly of mortar bombs. This is a
14 scene of wholesale devastation of a city being obliterated while the
15 world watches but does nothing."
16 MR. SAXON: Stop there, please.
17 Q. Was that you we saw on the screen a couple seconds ago at around
19 A. It was, yes.
20 Q. You commented about -- made comments about wholesale devastation
21 and a city being obliterated. Why did you believe that Sarajevo
22 being obliterated?
23 A. What we were witnessing - and this was for hours and this is only
24 a very small part of what was filmed - was a variety of shells, mortar
25 bombs, and, as I've already mentioned, different calibre machine-guns or
1 anti-aircraft fire, hitting the city but hitting it all over the place.
2 It wasn't that it was just one particular spot that was being targeted,
3 but these various projectiles were hitting right across the city. It was
4 of a nature that was very heavy, indeed, and we felt that the whole city
5 was being targeted. That was our impression.
6 Q. On the night this footage was made, did you observe any
7 concentrated fire directed at a single target?
8 A. No, not really. There were those moments, for instance, where
9 what I describe as mortar bombs on the brow of one hill, when a number of
10 projectiles did hit one particular spot, or at least appeared to from the
11 distance we were at and looking and filming it. But most of it was all
12 over the place and it seemed very random.
13 Q. Mr. van Lynden, are you familiar with how professional armies use
15 A. I am, I think. I'm not an artillery -- I was not an artillery
16 officer, but I was trained in the use of mortars; and during the Gulf
17 War, I spent quite a lot of time with both British and American artillery
18 units. It was explained then by the officers commanding those units
19 precisely how such an artillery battery would function and what the
20 purpose of it was.
21 What we witnessed in early June 1992 in Sarajevo was, apart from
22 the bombardment of the Marsal Tito barracks, completely different from
23 what I had been told and what I'd seen earlier, which was that one
24 particular target would be taken and come under sustained fire. There
25 would be one, two, or three rounds fired initially so that an observer
1 could say to the battery commander that the target had been actually hit,
2 and then there would be sustained artillery fire on that target, with
3 usually the purpose of the military being that such an artillery barrage
4 would be followed up by some kind of move by infantry or armoured
5 infantry or tanks into that area.
6 Q. Mr. van Lynden, what effect did this kind of shelling or
7 machine-gun fire have on the inhabitants of Sarajevo? What effect could
8 you observe?
9 A. Fear. People lived as much as they could in the basements of
10 their apartments or in bomb shelters, and people were made fearful
11 because they became aware that wherever they were -- may be living in the
12 city, they could be hit by either an artillery shell or a mortar bomb or
13 heavy machine-gun fire.
14 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time, I would seek to tender
15 into evidence this video footage along with the attached transcripts.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The video footage is admitted into evidence. May
17 it please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P5, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MR. SAXON: If we can leave this video footage for a moment, I
21 would like to show the witness what is Prosecution 65 ter number 4347.01,
22 which was footage shot on the night of the 5th and 6th of June, 1992, and
23 we will stop at 23 seconds.
24 [Videotape played]
25 THE REPORTER: "Just hours after the evacuation of the troops
1 from the Marsal Tito barracks, it becomes the night's prime target. The
2 shells land long."
3 MR. SAXON: We have lost sound. Can we try it again, please?
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE REPORTER: "Just hours after the evacuation of the troops
6 from the Marsal Tito barracks, it becomes the night's prime target. The
7 shells land long."
8 MR. SAXON: Okay. Obviously, we have a technical problem. Let's
9 stop here at 23 seconds, point 4.
10 Q. If you can explain to us, Mr. van Lynden, what were the Marsal
11 Tito barracks in Sarajevo
12 A. The Marsal Tito barracks were the main barracks of the JNA, the
13 Yugoslav Army, inside Sarajevo
14 regime in Yugoslavia
15 hospital, from which this is being filmed. In the current picture, you
16 can see part of the Marsal Tito barracks in the bottom right-hand corner
17 of the screen.
18 Q. And before this evening, the night of the 5th and 6th, who held
19 control over the JNA barracks, before that evening, the Marsal Tito
21 A. It was still in the hands of the JNA until an agreement was
22 reached that day for the evacuation of those troops out of the barracks
23 and out of Sarajevo
24 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
25 Q. And before we do, again, just for the record, whose voice do we
1 hear on this video clip?
2 A. It's mine.
3 MR. SAXON: Can we continue.
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE REPORTER: "Around Sarajevo's railway yard, but inside the
6 vast army complex, those still looking for loot get the message and run.
7 Not long after the gunners in the hills above the Bosnian capital find
8 their range. The barracks explodes in flames. The barracks form the
9 principal target, yet no district escapes. Through the dark, the rockets
10 streak down, for a moment illuminating Sarajevo's ancient centre, before
11 reducing it to further rubble. They come in ones, in twos, in threes,
12 and it sounds as if the city's crying. At 3.00 in the morning, the
13 barracks are again bearing the full weight of attention ..."
14 MR. SAXON: We're stopping now at 1 minute and 27 seconds, and we
15 see here the Marsal Tito barracks on fire.
16 Q. Where was this shelling coming from, whose forces, Mr. van
18 A. The Bosnian Serbs.
19 Q. And was the kind of and the character of the shelling of the
20 Marsal Tito barracks on the night of the 5th to the 6th of June, 1992,
21 consistent with the other shelling of Sarajevo that you had observed by
22 that time, or not?
23 A. No, this was different. This was clearly sustained fire on one
24 target. We were aware that the JNA, in withdrawing from the barracks,
25 had not been able to take all its equipment with them; and this was
1 clearly, in our analysis, an attempt on the part of the Bosnian Serbs to
2 see to it that that equipment did not fall into the hands of their
3 opponents. It was sustained shelling of that target that night and the
4 night that followed.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please, and we'll stop at 1 minute,
6 37 seconds.
7 [Videotape played]
8 THE REPORTER: " ... of this vast but now deserted military
9 complex aflame. With light the people rarely come out to inspect the
10 damage, recover what ..."
11 MR. SAXON:
12 Q. Mr. van Lynden, why did you film this particular scene? This is
13 at 1:37.4. We see people carrying what appears to be a bed out of a
14 store or out of a store area.
15 A. Every day that we were there this in period, the heavy shelling
16 took place in the late afternoon and during the nighttime hours; and
17 during the day, we would drive around town to see how bad the damage was,
18 to try and find out, of course, also casualty figures, not only at the
19 hospital in which we were staying where it was relatively easy to figure
20 out, but also the Kosevo hospital and other hospitals, and to see the
21 damage and to see how people reacted to that.
22 This was a scene we had come across of a store where there had
23 clearly been damaged because of the shelling, and people were taking
24 things out of the store because the store was clearly no longer tenable.
25 MR. SAXON: Can we move forward now to what will be 2 minutes and
1 18 seconds of this video. Start from there, please.
2 [Videotape played]
3 GANIC: "...they're destroying the city and they're buying time
4 by signing the agreements. But we, you know, we did our best, we
5 cooperate with UN, we belong to that family, and we hope the Security
6 Council will act quickly."
7 THE REPORTER: "So does the small UN contingent here ..."
8 MR. SAXON: Can we stop, please.
9 Q. That last scene we saw a gentleman wearing a tie speaking from
10 about 2 minutes, 25 seconds, to 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Who was that
11 man speaking?
12 A. That was Ejub Ganic, the vice-president of Bosnia.
13 Q. And when he referred to "they," they were destroying the city or
14 their buying time, who is the "they" that he was referring to?
15 A. The Bosnian Serbs.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, I would seek to admit
17 this footage into evidence, please.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Just a point of clarification, is it the
20 Prosecution's intent to introduce at this point int time only those
21 portions that were shown to the witness or the entire -- I'm seeing
22 nodding, so --
23 MR. SAXON: Only those portions that were shown to the witness
24 and are now on the record.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. Just so I'm clear about it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, then. The video clip, 65 ter
2 4347.01, is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit
4 [The Trial Chamber and registrar confer].
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Registrar says that from this video clip, two
6 portions were shown and the in-between portion was not shown. Do you
7 want two numbers or one number?
8 MR. SAXON: Two numbers, please, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Two numbers, please.
10 MR. SAXON: And I should also should have said, Your Honour, that
11 these video portions should have -- also be admitted -- well, along with
12 these video portions, the transcripts of this video is 65 ter number
13 4348, in English and B/C/S. If those could be admitted as well, Your
14 Honour, to form part of the record, the transcripts that you saw going
15 across the screen.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I certainly have no objection to that
17 methodology. I rose only for purposes of indicating to the Chamber that
18 rather than standing up with regard to each video clip that we are shown
19 which is of an unscheduled incident, we do have an continuing objection
20 based on the arguments made previously. I just figured I'd do it one
21 time as opposed to jumping up for each video.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well.
23 MR. SAXON: I'm grateful.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then the video clip, together with the transcripts
25 that go with it, will be admitted into evidence. I'm not quite sure, but
1 I guess the video clip with its own transcript will get one exhibit
3 MR. SAXON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the video clips shown will be
5 Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 MR. SAXON:
8 Q. Mr. van Lynden, I'd like to show you now a SkyNews broadcast and
9 the -- you'll see this is 65 ter 4347.02.
10 MR. SAXON: If you go to the beginning, please, and stop there.
11 Q. You'll see it's -- on the SkyNews clock, it says "7 June 1992."
12 So would it be fair to say that the footage was then produced on the
13 6th of June?
14 A. That is my understanding, yes.
15 MR. SAXON: Can we begin, and then we'll stop at 35 seconds.
16 [Videotape played]
17 THE REPORTER: "It was the symbol of modern Sarajevo
18 destruction. Flames tear across the floors and up into the higher
19 storeys, showering debris onto the streets of the heart of the Bosnian
20 captain, the disintegration of one of the city's UNIS towers reflected in
21 the broken windows ..."
22 MR. SAXON:
23 Q. These UNIS towers, you had marked them on a map previously and
24 you refer to them as the symbol of modern Sarajevo. What were they used
25 for at that time?
1 A. They were office buildings.
2 Q. And where was the fire hitting the UNIS tower that was on fire
3 coming from?
4 A. Again, from the Bosnian Serbs, southern part of Sarajevo
5 Q. And was that your voice that we heard?
6 A. It was.
7 Q. Were you able to observe the kind or kinds of munitions that
8 struck the UNIS tower that evening?
9 A. The building was already on fire when we arrived at the former
10 military hospital, and we had been in another part of Sarajevo during the
11 day. As I recall, we came somewhere in the latish afternoon, 4.00 or
12 5.00 in the afternoon, and the building was already on fire. So we did
13 not witness the beginning of the fire in the UNIS towers. What we
14 witnessed and filmed after that was specifically machine-gun fire being
15 directed at the sort of lower part of the building. But as far as I
16 recall, no large shell or any large projectile hit the UNIS towers after
17 we had arrived. It simply burnt.
18 Q. And on that day, the 6th of June, did you see any outgoing fire
19 from the UNIS towers or the area around the towers, fire directed towards
20 the positions held by the Bosnian Serb army?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please, until 55 seconds.
23 [Videotape played]
24 THE REPORTER: "... of its twin. Three-hundred metres on across
25 the road, the parliament of this newly independent state is also struck."
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. Well, we've stopped at 56.1, but at 55 we saw a flash and
3 buildings were illuminated at that time. What were those illuminated
5 A. That was the parliament building in Bosnia.
6 Q. And was the parliament building composed of one building or two?
7 A. Well, there's a lower building and then there's a tower block
8 right next to it, and my understanding is that's all part of the same --
9 that's all part of the parliament.
10 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
11 [Videotape played]
12 Q. That's fine. Now we have a better view. We see -- can you
13 describe what we're seeing here at 1 minute, 2 seconds, Mr. van Lynden?
14 A. Yes. On the right-hand side of the screen is the tall office
15 block of the parliamentary office complex, and then on the lower
16 left-hand side is the lower building that is also part of the parliament.
17 Q. And this bright light was caused by what, if you know?
18 A. Either a shell or a rocket --
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. -- hitting it.
21 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please, and stop at 1 minutes and 17
23 [Videotape played]
24 THE REPORTER: "It doesn't burn, but the nearby Marsal Tito
25 barracks do. Since its evacuation two days early, it's being
1 systematically destroyed."
2 MR. SAXON:
3 Q. We just saw, the last few seconds, we see it now on the screen,
4 it appears to be footage shot in daylight. So can you explain, was the
5 footage of the Marsal Tito barracks taken at the same time as the
6 shelling of the UNIS tower and the parliament?
7 A. I mean we were continuously filming that late afternoon, evening,
8 and night, but I think the sequence of events, as put together by the
9 picture editor, was that he began with the first shots that the
10 cameraman, George Davis, took of the UNIS towers burning; and then he put
11 in two shots of the parliament being hit before moving on to the Marsal
12 Tito barracks. That has to do with the way that I had, of course,
13 scripted the story.
14 It looks from these pictures as if we're slightly going from
15 daytime to nighttime and back to daytime again. That's partly due to my
16 script and it's also partly due to the fact that I did not have direct
17 control over the editing as I was not in the same place as the editor who
18 was at that time in Pale.
19 Q. Very well.
20 MR. SAXON: Can we keep going as well.
21 [Videotape played]
22 THE REPORTER: "Every night in Sarajevo you think it can't get
23 worse, but it does making a mockery of the attempts of mediators to bring
24 peace to this city which is enfolded in war. Less than 24 hours earlier,
25 the Serb commanders had put their signatures on yet another agreement,
1 affirming a truce never adhered to and their readiness to reopen the
2 airport. Now the Serb gunners in the hills show where their true
3 commitment lies. Under a sickle moon, the city rocks to the explosions,
4 lit up by fire and the mass of glowing sparks adrift across its roofs.
5 With daylight we find the intensive care wards of the city central
6 hospitals packed with amputees in pain. Some will live, but the doctors
7 are resigned to this girl's death. Not far from where she lies do others
8 that have gone before; a place of haphazard death, some covered, some
9 not, where maggots crawl the floors. A little house of Bosnian horror.
10 "Aernout van Lynden, SkyNews, Sarajevo."
11 MR. SAXON:
12 Q. Where did you shoo this last footage where we see a number of
13 dead bodies?
14 A. This in the morgue of the Kosevo hospital, the main academic
15 hospital in Sarajevo
16 was also shot at the Kosevo hospital.
17 Q. And in the last seconds of this footage from 2:40 to 2:45
18 a young boy -- we saw someone who appeared to be a boy. Do you know how
19 old this person was, this body?
20 A. I believe he was eight or nine years old.
21 Q. Do you know how he died?
22 A. From shrapnel wounds, we were told.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: He was asked if he knew. He's relying on
25 hearsay. I don't know if it's attributed or unattributed hearsay.
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I may. I was in the morgue, I saw
2 the boy, and I asked the man looking after the morgue how he had died.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine. Does the man have a name? Once again,
4 it's unattributed hearsay. I mean, this is a problem, and I -- I mean,
5 the conclusions made about how he died is distinct from the issue of
6 whether or not he was dead, to which I have no objection.
7 This also calls for -- is a conclusion which is based upon a
8 different form of expertise and certainly not one that this gentleman
9 has; and if he has information which is given to him by somebody who
10 does, then, of course, I take a different position.
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, the witness has testified from whom,
12 without giving a particular name, he received this information about the
13 death of this young man. Yes, that is hearsay. Having said that, Your
14 Honour, hearsay evidence is admitted here in this Tribunal, and the
15 Prosecution's submission is that the real question for the Chamber is not
16 the admissibility of this evidence but how much weight it should be given
17 at the end of this case.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. van Lynden, you say you don't know the name of
19 your source?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't remember the name of the man looking after
21 the morgue at that time at the Kosevo hospital at that time, no, Your
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well. The evidence will be admitted and the
24 weight to be attached to it will be considered at the relevant time.
25 MR. SAXON:
1 Q. Mr. van Lynden, you mentioned that this was the morgue at the
2 Kosevo hospital. Did you ever see injured civilians being brought into
3 the former military hospital from where you filmed the shelling of the
4 city of Sarajevo
5 A. Yes, we did.
6 Q. How often?
7 A. Practically on a daily basis.
8 Q. And what kind of wounds did you observe on these civilians?
9 A. A variety of wounds. We witnessed it, as well, at the casualty
10 department of the Kosevo hospital; shrapnel wounds, bullet wounds. We
11 also saw people coming in who were simply ill. But most of the
12 casualties that came in to the hospital in those late afternoon and
13 evening hours were people who had been wounded.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. SAXON: And if we can just finish, go to the end of this
16 clip, please.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
19 Your Honour, the Prosecution would seek to tender this video
20 material along with the English and B/C/S transcript, which is 65 ter
21 number ...
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 4347.02.
23 MR. SAXON: Yes, that's correct.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That video clip is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P8, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. Mr. van Lynden, at some point, did you attempt to gain access to
5 the area where the Bosnian Serb forces had their positions?
6 A. Yes, we did, both in June 1992 and again in September 1992.
7 Q. And did you eventually get access in September?
8 A. We did.
9 Q. Can you describe how you obtained this access to the Bosnian Serb
11 A. In June 1992, we had had a meeting in Pale, which was the
12 headquarters of the Bosnian Serb political leadership, with Radovan
13 Karadzic --
14 Q. Can I interrupt you. Just for the record, who was Radovan
15 Karadzic? What position did he hold?
16 A. He was the leader of the Bosnian Serbs.
17 Q. When you say "leader," are you referring to political,
18 military --
19 A. The political leader of the Bosnian Serbs.
20 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you. Please continue.
21 A. But at that time, it was not possible to work up any kind of
22 agreement that we could get such agreement. During the August conference
23 of 1992 held in London
24 Then, at the beginning of September, again Mr. Karadzic, in Belgrade
25 he then agreed that if I and a SkyNews were to come to Pale, we would be
1 given access and an escort of two military police officers to various
2 different parts of the front line and also to various figures within the
3 Bosnian Serb leadership.
4 Q. And why did you want to go and view the Bosnian Serb positions?
5 A. Both myself and, let's say, the bosses in London felt that we
6 should absolutely try to cover the war from both sides and allow the
7 Bosnian Serbs to speak for themselves in reports done from the areas of
9 were to be able to film their and interview them.
10 Q. Very well.
11 MR. SAXON: I would like to show the witness what is 65 ter
12 number 4347.06. It is video material from SkyNews from September 1992,
13 and we'll play it up to 48 seconds.
14 [Videotape played]
15 THE REPORTER: "The Serb position is a commanding one. They have
16 the whole of Sarajevo
17 better fields of fire. The slopes are practically insurmountable to
18 direct attacks, and the lines of sturdy ..."
19 MR. SAXON: Can we stop there. Can we go back a few seconds, if
20 that's possible, and start from there.
21 [Videotape played]
22 THE REPORTER: "The slopes are practically insurmountable to
23 direct attacks ..."
24 MR. SAXON: Stop.
25 Q. Can you tell us what we're viewing now, Mr. van Lynden, at 18.6
1 seconds of this video material?
2 A. That's Sarajevo
3 Q. And whose voice do we hear on this video?
4 A. Mine.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
6 [Videotape played]
7 THE REPORTER: "...and the lines of sturdy log cabins, some
8 already being prepared for winter, have an air of permanence. For the
9 moment, the Serb guardians of these hilltop strongholds appear relaxed,
10 yet they're adamant that anything won in battle cannot be surrendered in
12 INTERPRETER: "Giving any territory away would be a great treason
13 against the Serb people and the Serb capitulation."
14 MR. SAXON:
15 Q. Mr. van Lynden, were you able to observe from the Bosnian
16 Serb-held positions above the city of Sarajevo whether Bosnian -- the
17 Bosnian Serb soldiers there were able to personally sight their targets
18 or did they depend on observers?
19 A. I saw it - I think it's a later scene in this report - that they
20 did it themselves, but they undoubtedly also used observers. We visited
21 specialist sniper positions where they had radios and where they said
22 that they were in touch with observers elsewhere who, via the radio,
23 would tell them about the acquisition of targets.
24 Q. You used the term "sniper." Can you describe to the Chamber what
25 do you mean when you refer to "sniper"?
1 A. By the term "sniper," I'm referring to usually a solitary soldier
2 with a specialist rifle which includes a scope.
3 Q. And when you say "a scope," what kind of scope?
4 A. Well, a scope so that they can target more precisely on whoever
5 they're shooting on. It's usually a specialist rifle because it has more
6 distance; for instance, a Kalashnikov will not be very accurate much over
7 50 metres, certainly not over a hundred metres. Specialist rifles can
8 fire far further than that.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time, I would seek to admit
10 this video clip along with its accompanying transcript, which is 04353,
11 65 ter.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: This video clip, 65 ter 4347.06, is admitted into
13 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P9, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON:
18 Q. Mr. van Lynden, during your time touring or visiting the Bosnian
19 Serb positions, did you go to a neighbourhood called Grbavica?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. And can you describe where Grbavica was located?
22 A. Grbavica goes to the river of Miljacka
23 side. It's really at the heart of Sarajevo. It's one of the
24 neighbourhoods at the heart of Sarajevo
25 Q. And what positions, what Bosnian Serb army positions did you
1 observe there?
2 A. We were taken to various front line positions of, as I already
3 explained, sniper positions and of other simply defensive positions,
4 specifically the part of the town called the Jewish cemetery. We were
5 also shown higher up positions on the western side that were the --
6 higher up from the -- by the front line itself, let's say.
7 Q. Can you describe the field of fire or the target area that the
8 Bosnian Serb forces had from their positions in Grbavica?
9 A. Right down below by the River Miljacka, they could simply look
10 across the river, and so very limited scope. At the Jewish cemetery,
11 that was very much also the case. At higher up positions, they could --
12 they were overlooking the town and were able to look right into the heart
13 of Sarajevo
14 Q. Okay. And if you know, how did that affect persons living and
15 working on the other side of the Miljacka River
16 held by Bosnian Serb forces?
17 A. Well, as we already -- as I already described, it meant that
18 people on the other side were open to gunfire at any moment of day or
19 night when they went out onto the streets; and, therefore, it made their
20 lives very dangerous in that they had to run across the streets if those
21 were the streets in the line of fire of their opponents. So they could
22 be targeted.
23 Q. In 1992, Mr. van Lynden, did you ever meet a man named Ratko
25 A. I did.
1 Q. And who was Mr. Mladic?
2 A. Ratko Mladic was the commanding officer of the Bosnian Serb army.
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. SAXON: I'd like to show the witness what is Prosecution 65
5 ter number 4347.07. It was taken in September 1992, and we'll start it
6 and then we'll stop at 1 minute.
7 [Videotape played]
8 THE REPORTER: "He's the scourge of Sarajevo, the chief warrior
9 of the Serbs. He's called Ratko Mladic. Appropriately, "Ratko" means
10 warrior, and this square-jawed Serb general has lived up to the name.
11 The commander's always on the move. A visit to one of the mountain
12 chalets where the Serbs of Bosnia have established their separatist
13 government is but a fleeting one. In a short briefing, the
14 Commander-in-Chief speaks only of attacks on his forces, never of
15 offensives by them.
16 "As if to prove the point, he gives us a rare chance to accompany
17 him to front line artillery positions where the UN observers are
18 conspicuous by their absence. High up on the wind-swept hills, the
19 100-millimetre guns are dug deep into the rocks directly overlooking
21 general's satisfaction. As he says, he holds the city in his palm."
22 MR. SAXON:
23 Q. We're looking down now, in this video shot, at 1 minute, it's
24 very difficult -- what we mainly see is basically a colour white or grey.
25 What are we looking at here?
1 A. It's through a haze, but we're looking at the city of Sarajevo
2 from the mountaintops to the east of the city.
3 Q. And just before we stopped, you said, "as he says," referring to
4 General Mladic, "he holds the city in his palm." Do you recall, how did
5 Mr. Mladic express that to you?
6 A. Yes. We were walking to the position where Mr. Mladic gave the
7 interview; and as we were looking over this position, he turned to me and
8 he literally cupped his hand and pointed like that and said those words
9 in Serbo-Croat, and it was translated to me by my field producer, Zoran
11 Q. Okay. Can we continue, please.
12 [Videotape played]
13 THE REPORTER: "And many of the buildings in the haze below bear
14 testimony to that power. If General Mladic ..."
15 MR. SAXON: Stop.
16 Q. Were you able to look through the haze to the city below?
17 A. Yes, we could. And I should say, Your Honour, if you'd seen the
18 original - I mean, this is something probably because the original
19 footage has been transposed a number of times, and now you don't see it
20 anymore - but in the original pictures you could actually see Sarajevo
21 through the haze.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. SAXON: Can we continue, please.
24 [Videotape played]
25 THE REPORTER: "... Mladic is quite unrepentant. He is a man who
1 has no doubts, only a total assurance that he's right, the world's wrong,
2 and that his people have been slandered.
3 INTERPRETER: "I hope the UN Security Council first takes measure
4 to understand that we Serbs are a reality in this world, not some sort of
5 extra terrestrials, and that we have the right to defend ourselves."
6 MR. SAXON: Can we stop there.
7 Q. Just for the record, who is speaking here?
8 A. This is General Mladic.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. SAXON: Can we continue. That was at 1 minute --
11 [Videotape played]
12 "THE REPORTER: "Nearby, more positions are being dug. In the
13 general's eyes, the world may deny his people their rights, but that's
14 not going to stop him.
15 INTERPRETER: "We have to fight as long as we continue to exist,
16 to defend ourselves. There is no other way, and we are prepared for a
17 long war.
18 REPORTER: "Far away from the battlefield, the UN is preparing a
19 resolution on war crimes. It leaves Ratko Mladic quite unmoved.
20 INTERPRETER: "I'm not bothered at all. I did not take part in
21 any crimes. I have only defended my only.
22 Reporter: "With that ..."
23 MR. SAXON: We've stopped now at 2 hours and -- 2 minutes and
24 6 seconds, point 7.
25 Q. Mr. van Lynden, why did you ask General Mladic about a war crimes
1 tribunal and bring up that subject?
2 A. Because at the time it was being discussed by the UN in New York
3 It was our understanding that this was a debate as to whether the UN were
4 actually going to set up the Tribunal, which they, of course, did and
5 which is why we're all here today.
6 So it was a news-worthy question to ask because it seemed likely
7 to us already that General Mladic, if such a Tribunal was set up, would
8 be indicted by the Tribunal, as he has indeed been.
9 Q. Did General Mladic indicate to you who or whom was in control of
10 the city of Sarajevo
11 A. I'm not sure that I completely understand your question. I mean,
12 he was aware that most of the city was in the hands of his opponents, the
13 Bosnian forces.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. But as he said, he had it in the palm of his hands in terms of
16 the fire-power at his disposal.
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would now seek to tender this video
19 clip, along with its transcripts, which is 65 ter 4354.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The video clip is admitted into evidence. May it
21 please be given an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P10, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, would this be the appropriate time to
25 stop for the day?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just going to ask you the same question,
2 Mr. Saxon. I think it is.
3 That brings us to the end of the session for the day. We'll have
4 to continue on to next week on Monday, at a quarter past 2.00, in
5 Courtroom I, same courtroom. Thank you very much.
6 Court adjourned.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of
9 October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.