1 Friday, 15 September 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar, we are back in Courtroom III,
6 second time today. Could you kindly call this case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Usual advisory, unless I hear from the
10 accused that there are problems, I take it there are none. Defence teams
11 seem to be in full force. Prosecution. It's Mr. McCloskey and Ms. Soljan
12 and the case manager. So I take it from what I have heard that you would
13 like to address the Trial Chamber on the leftovers of yesterday's incident
14 or issue. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go into private session, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Let's go into private session, please.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 1669-1679 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So good morning, Mr. Ruez. I apologise to you on
11 behalf of the Trial Chamber for having kept you waiting for more than one
12 hour. The reasons are two. One is technical because I had a Status
13 Conference earlier on which finished at 9.00 and usually we require about
14 30 minutes before the courtroom is made ready for the next case. And
15 secondly, is the last half an hour or so we dedicated to discussing the
16 issue that was raised yesterday towards the ends of your testimony. We
17 have discussed it, we have debated it, we have not concluded it. And you
18 will today be asked questions which are not however related to the
19 US-government-provided aerial images. Those questions will be put to you
20 at some later date when you will be required to return to The Hague. In
21 the meantime, consultations are taking place between Prosecution and the
22 US government and we'll come to that stage later on. But I just wanted to
23 inform you what the situation is. And be prepared that you will need to
24 come again. I thank you for your understanding, Mr. Ruez.
25 Mr. Ostojic?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President, uses.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ruez?
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. We were speaking yesterday about a couple of topics. I am going
6 to try and narrow some down, but I still have a couple of questions on
7 your process, investigative process with respect to witnesses. I know you
8 shared some of it with us but on a different issue. What was the
9 procedure or guidelines as to when you would tape record a conversation
10 with a witness?
11 A. Tape recording was a procedure used when the witness had a status
12 of a suspect.
13 Q. So is it fair to say that under no circumstances would you tape
14 record unless you advised the witness that he was indeed a suspect?
15 A. Yes. Absolutely.
16 Q. Now, why were not tape recordings used to interview key witnesses,
17 for example?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I think you need to explain who you are
19 referring to in particular, because key witness? Who would decide?
20 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought he covered it yesterday.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: -- is a key witness. We are talking of 1995, 1996.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: That's fine, Your Honour.
23 Q. You mentioned the term I think key witnesses when you were
24 initially commencing your investigation, correct?
25 A. Yes, I did. I was referring to those we name the survivors and I
1 have already explained.
2 Q. And so was I. That's why I referred to them key because I thought
3 you did. Those witnesses in particular, let's -- the victims, did you
4 ever tape record their conversations?
5 A. It is not in the rules and procedures of this Tribunal to record
6 witnesses who are victims. It's a rule that is designed for interviews of
8 Q. What if anything would have prohibited you from tape recording
9 those victim witnesses, if anything?
10 A. For sure, nothing, no.
11 Q. Now, with respect to suspects, is it only Serb suspects that you
12 tape recorded or any suspects regardless of their ethnic background?
13 A. I think the rules of procedures of this Tribunal make no ethnic
14 differences to -- in respect of to who they apply to.
15 Q. Thank you. And I know what those rules are. I'm asking about
16 your personal investigative procedures and guidelines.
17 A. The answer is the same.
18 Q. Continuing on that line with respect to the witnesses, the
19 majority, if not all of them, were non-English speaking, correct?
20 A. I think none of them was.
21 Q. I thought a couple may have but okay that's fare. None of them.
22 With respect to the victims that you interviewed, did they, sir, explain
23 the process a little more so I can get a better understanding. Is it that
24 you would have a discussion with them and that that discussion would be an
25 answer/question session and then you would reduce it in writing or how did
1 the process work? You're smiling. You must know where I'm going again.
2 A. No. I'm not smiling because of that.
3 Q. Okay. I won't ask you, then.
4 A. There is a difference of methodology depending on from what
5 country one comes from. Coming from France, my methodology was to listen
6 to the "stories", in brackets stories, the testimonies, the declarations
7 of the witnesses, and I was typing meanwhile these people were talking.
8 The interference with their speech was basically designed only to keep the
9 chronology of what they were saying, in order to ensure the dates. Once
10 that statement was taken, even if there was another interview or follow-up
11 of interview the next day, I didn't touch the statement any longer, though
12 it was not signed yet by the person. When I observed that the American
13 way of doing it was that investigators were rewriting the statement during
14 the evening, and having it confirmed by the witness the next day. So
15 indeed, in the terms of presentation, they certainly looked better.
16 Q. Which would be more accurate and concise with the testimony or the
17 declaration that witnesses would give you?
18 A. Both are. Both are because the description I make of the method
19 used by my American colleagues doesn't touch the essence of what the
20 witness has said. It just formats it in a better way to make it easier to
21 read for those who will read it later.
22 Q. Now, if I can ask you a couple more questions on that. When would
23 the witness be given that statement in the language in which he or she may
25 A. That was during -- after a read back done by the interpreter at
1 the end of the interview.
2 Q. So they would really be never -- they would never really be given
3 a written statement back in their own language, they would just be given
4 an oral summary or an oral reading of their statement that you or another
5 investigator reduced to writing, correct?
6 A. Yes, that was the rule in place.
7 Q. Why is that?
8 A. Don't ask me. Ask those who wrote these rules.
9 Q. Okay. Well, what rule are you referring to? Is it in the
10 Tribunal Rules or is it in the OTP rules?
11 A. It is the witness acknowledgement that was pre-written on the
12 statements that these witnesses were providing.
13 Q. I see that every statement and there is many of them, but who made
14 that pre-acknowledgement form? Did the Tribunal make it? Did the
15 Prosecutor make it? Did you as the person in charge of the investigation
16 make that?
17 A. No. I'm not the one who wrote this rule. This is a rule of the
18 Tribunal, of the methodology to be used by the investigators and followed
19 by the OTP.
20 Q. Now, you were still employed with the OTP in 2001, obviously,
21 during the Krstic trial, up until towards the end, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, the process I'm interested to know is that when a witness
24 that's been called by the Prosecutor comes into court, are they given then
25 the English version of their statement to review in order to prepare for
1 their testimony, correct?
2 A. Again, don't ask me. This is not a part related to the
3 investigation process. We are now entering the trial phase and I leave
4 the hand to my colleague, the Prosecutor, to answer these questions.
5 Q. Thank you for that. That's clear. But let's turn no another
6 topic if we may. I'd like to focus your attention on the period of July
7 12th through the 18th approximately 1995. Okay?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Now, when you investigated this case, did you confirm or
10 corroborate with witnesses whether there was water, food and medical
11 treatment in Potocari at that time period?
12 A. As far as I know, there was a water tank that we can see on the
13 video that was shown during this testimony. We also know that UNHCR
14 convoy arrived but arrived after all the refugees have left, had left, and
15 aside the distribution of candies and cigarettes to the kids in Potocari,
16 we have no knowledge of whatever assistance provided to the crowd of
18 Q. Well, this UNHCR convoy that came, that came when, do you
20 A. I think it arrived the 13, and nothing was distributed that day.
21 Q. Well, with whom did you discuss that nothing was distributed?
22 A. We had a contact, I don't remember exactly how that was done,
23 precisely, because it's a tiny detail in the investigation, but we had a
24 contact with a name -- a man named Andre who was the leader of that
1 Q. Was this just a water that the UNHCR was bringing in this convoy?
2 A. I don't know what was inside the convoy. No, I would --
3 Q. Did you ever ask Andre?
4 A. I don't know how we got -- honestly, I don't know how we got that
5 information. But we know a witness talked about receiving any thing that
6 came from that UNHCR convoy. The people were exiting the area at that
8 Q. May we, with the Court's permission, look at Exhibit ERN 00940583,
9 with the court officer's permission?
10 THE REGISTRAR: I would need a P or D number.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: 2D0002. Thank you. Sorry.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ruez, do you have it in front of you?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do have it now.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: We don't have ours.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm asking the question because on LiveNote, I have
17 it, but on the main, we still don't have it. I just wanted to make sure
18 that the witness can follow you. I mean, that we can follow you too. And
19 the public. What's wrong?
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's proceed.
22 MR. OSTOJIC:
23 Q. What is this document that we are looking at which has the ERN
24 number just for identification so that -- is there an objection?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because earlier on, your assistant said
1 2D0002. But here I see 2D000010 and then it's the format which is
2 different. So perhaps you can check that.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: We are going to check it but I think we can still
4 proceed if I identify it adequately. I'm giving my learned colleague the
5 ERN number so he can find it. There are two questions on this exhibit.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, we found it in another way.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's proceed.
8 MR. OSTOJIC:
9 Q. Mr. Ruez, you have the document in front of you, correct?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And just so the record is clear, on the top right there is
12 something written that's typed it in that says, just for identification
13 purposes. It's not in exhibit in this case, but the way we received the
14 document it has the letters OTPEX.113/1; correct?
15 A. I don't have it on the screen but you are certainly correct.
16 Q. And right underneath that, because it was probably used as an
17 exhibit in another case, underneath that it has a set of numerical numbers
18 which are 00940583. Do you see that?
19 A. No, I don't but it's surely on the document if you say so.
20 Q. I don't know which exhibit Mr. Ruez is looking at --
21 A. Now I'm getting it.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't know what he's speaking of -- so we are on
23 the same page.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It depends on what he says he has in front of him.
25 And Madam Usher, could you kindly check? It's the same one, yeah. Okay
1 so I'm assured.
2 JUDGE KWON: I wonder if the accused is able to follow as well.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: But they are in English. The document is in English
4 anyway. So I doubt whether there -- is there B/C/S translation of this
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Not that I'm aware of, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Anyway, as we go along, you're going to make
8 specific reference to parts of it, I take it.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: One part.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's restrict it to that. Go ahead.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so that.
12 Q. Mr. Ruez, can you describe to us what that document is?
13 A. You played a good description. It's obviously an AFP press
14 release dated 13 July 1995.
15 Q. At what time?
16 A. At -- where is it? 1926 hours.
17 Q. Okay. Going from the bottom, the fourth paragraph after the --
18 including the copyright material, do you see the paragraph which
19 starts, "At 6.30 p.m., [1630 GMT]"? Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. My focus is on that first sentence there. We can discuss the
22 whole thing and we probably will with other witnesses but we are speaking
23 here about food and water and medical treatment. We will get to that. It
24 says here if I can read it and you agree or disagree "At 6.30 p.m., [1630
25 GMT], a six truck UNHCR convoy arrived at Potocari with water, food and
1 news of the missing men." For my purposes, I'd like to stop here. Do you
2 see that?
3 A. Oh, yes, I do.
4 Q. Okay. Now is this the -- is this the same convoy you were
5 referring to that you had a discussion with this UNHCR member Andre?
6 A. I had no discussion with Andre, but this is exactly indeed the
7 convoy I was referring to who arrived indeed at 6.30, so that's quite late
8 in the afternoon of the 13. And we know from the UN troops in Potocari
9 that by the end of the afternoon, let's say around 18, the entire
10 deportation was over. So that's the reason why nothing of that convoy was
11 delivered to the person it was designed for.
12 Q. Are you familiar, sir, with the fact that the United Nations had
13 called this what you just identified quote "deportation" actually an
14 evacuation? Are you aware of that?
15 A. I am aware of that. I did.
16 Q. Let me --
17 A. I did use also the word evacuation until the trial of General
19 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this: If the UN calls it an
20 evacuation and you call it something else, what's your basis for it?
21 A. The trial of General Krstic.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. The judicial decision that was rendered by the Court, as far as I
25 Q. Now, is there any doubt about the veracity of the statement here
1 that's being reported that a six convoy UNHCR -- six truck convoy came to
2 Potocari with both food and water?
3 A. Again, this has not been part of the investigation. If it is
4 written six, I have to trust the man who wrote it, but I have no idea if
5 it was two or seven.
6 Q. But those are my concerns with your investigation. First it's
7 within the parameter that you set for the investigation, right, from the
8 11th to whatever the end date period was, let's say the 18th for our
9 discussions here. This is the 13th. Wouldn't you as a prudent
10 investigator who wants to give an objective and honest view to the Court,
11 wouldn't you have investigated and verified that there was water, there is
12 evidence of food, and try to find out if there is other instances or
13 examples of food and water and medical treatment? Wouldn't you agree with
14 me on that?
15 A. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way you present the
16 situation. Due to the fact that this aspect was really a very, very tiny
17 aspect in respect of all the other events that unfolded between the 12th
18 and the 18th, as you put the frame, but I agree with you on the fact that
19 everything has to be made in-depth and I forgot to tell you in my previous
20 answer that this aspect was indeed dug into and that we also
21 interviewed -- I interviewed both the mayor of Bratunac and I think the
22 other one was the president of the opstina. Both of them had absolutely
23 nothing to report about any event, bad event, that might have occurred in
24 their town. But sad that they went -- I mean at least one of them, I
25 think the mayor, went to Potocari with water and bread to be distributed
1 to the 25.000 refugees. I mean the few bread he had.
2 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you a little bit about the medical
3 assistance that may have provided. What did your investigation find for
4 the time period that we are discussing obviously, not 92 through 95 but
5 only the time period that you discussed after the fall of the enclave?
6 A. One aspect was more precisely investigated, but I must admit with
7 little results, as far as I remember. It was the fate of the ones we
8 called the sick and wounded. I think there were some 30 wounded who were
9 moving back and forth apparently between Bratunac and Kladanj, and at one
10 point we wanted to make sure of the fate of these people. I must admit
11 that the result of that investigation inside the investigation was not
12 really concluded. I would not be able yet -- and let's say that in the
13 doubt, we have a knowledge that these people should be alive.
14 Q. Okay. It was my fault. I probably asked a poor question. Was
15 medical assistance provided on or about July 13th, 1995, in Potocari?
16 A. We can see on the film, that is the one of Mr. Petrovic, that
17 there is a medical tent in Potocari at a spot we named the blue house.
18 This medical spot was apparently a UN Battalion medical tent.
19 Q. Did your investigation at all find or determine that there was an
20 UNPROFOR medical convoy of five to nine trucks providing transport and
21 assistance to injured people?
22 A. No. This was not something that jumped out of the events we were
24 Q. But that would be significant, wouldn't it, if on July 13th, the
25 day that you say most of the people left, despite that water and food was
1 coming in, do you think that UNPROFOR would have sent five to nine vehicle
2 transport to assist medically with injured people?
3 A. This is very possible, since UNPROFOR did not expect that the Serb
4 forces had prearranged a large number of civilian vehicles to speed up the
5 deportation process.
6 Q. Well, if we can show --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, we will have a break in about four
8 minutes time.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: I think I can get through this document in four
10 minutes, I'm going to try.
11 Q. The next exhibit, which is Exhibit number 2D0001, which is a --
12 [Microphone not activated] -- which is a nine page document. And if we
13 could have the first page of the document on the ELMO -- on the screen, on
14 the e-court screen, then we could just identify it and perhaps we could
15 stop there. Mr. Ruez, if you could be kind enough to let me know when you
16 get that first page and I'll proceed with my questions.
17 A. Yes, I get it.
18 Q. So could you see on the top right-hand corner -- could you tell us
19 what it stays? It seems to be a stamp of some kind, correct?
20 A. Yes, it's a document coming from the UNHQ in Zagreb.
21 Q. Okay. I don't know that it's coming or going from there, but we
22 can just read that stamp. I'll read it and you can tell me if I read it
23 wrong. It says, "UNPROFOR communications" which is typed. There seems to
24 be some handwriting either signature or date or something and underneath
25 it has again typed form, "95 AUG-1 15:58". Could you see that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. What's the top of that say, the caption actually of this document?
3 A. That's a document that was sent by Keith Biazer [phoen] who was
4 the UN head of office in Tuzla, to Peggy Hicks [phoen] which is an
5 assistant of Keith Biazer.
6 Q. Isn't it -- not to interrupt you. Isn't it actually the other way
8 A. Yes, sorry.
9 Q. It was sent to him --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- from his assistant, right?
12 A. Definitely.
13 Q. Now just directing your attention quickly to page 5 of this
14 document, if I may. It's actually page 7 of 9. Under Roman numeral
15 subsection 4. I'm sorry, right above that, paragraph 23, do you see it?
16 A. Which paragraph.
17 Q. Paragraph -- it's numbered 23.
18 A. No. I'm 11 to 15 on this page.
19 Q. Okay. It would be the next page?
20 A. 23, got it.
21 Q. Paragraph 23. Just that first sentence before the break quickly.
22 Just -- I'll read it for you just so we make sure we are on the same
23 page. It says, "An UNPROFOR medical convoy of between five and nine
24 vehicles transporting 65-75 wounded and infirm people left Potocari on
25 Wednesday, July 13, 1995." There is obviously more, but for our purposes
1 I'm going to confine it to this sentence. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes, I do. I'm reading the full paragraph.
3 Q. I will just want to make sure we are on the same page, sorry.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. My question to you, sir, is, what if anything did you do to
7 investigate further any of these medical convoys that UNPROFOR had which
8 were transporting wounded and infirm people?
9 A. It's not any of these convoys. It is that convoy. They were not
10 dozens of convoys driving around in that area at that time. There was
11 one. So indeed this is the information that we had, and that was later
12 investigated specifically by one investigator of the team, but I told you
13 about the results of this and as far as we know, these people are alive.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: It may be a good time now. I do have another hour
15 or so just to let the Court know approximately.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.
17 Thank you.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Mr. Ruez, to continue on this line we are still looking at
23 paragraph 23, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. My question to you, during your thorough investigation, do you
1 know if during the time period that we are discussing, again, just for the
2 record and for your recollection, the 11th through the 18th of July 1995,
3 was there any other medical evacuation of wounded and infirm people in
5 A. Not as I know about.
6 Q. Well, your investigation, did you look into it at all? Did you
7 ask anyone or did you ask UNPROFOR?
8 A. We had the accounts from the sit-reps and documents like the one
9 you are showing. There was no additional investigation about that matter
10 except for the event that is reported on this document.
11 Q. So just so I'm clear that I understand you, as far as you're
12 aware, in your investigation, this was no other evacuation of wounded and
13 infirm, correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Let's look at one page before this document, paragraph 18. Are
16 you with us?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. Now, yes.
20 Q. Okay. Paragraph 18, it's the third line, second sentence. I'll
21 read it if I may. If I may read that sentence -- again, we can go through
22 the entire document, but for our limited purposes, I would just like to
23 ask him this now if I may. On the third line it starts with the
24 sentence, "While ICRC", do you see that?
25 A. Yes,.
1 Q. What is ICRC?
2 A. International Committee of the Red Cross.
3 Q. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. It says, "While
4 ICRC was permitted to evacuate an additional 88 wounded or infirm persons
5 from Bratunac and Potocari". Then it gives a date different from the date
6 we just saw in paragraph 23 which was July 13 1995. What's the date that
7 appears on paragraph 18?
8 A. 17, 18 July.
9 Q. The same document that you said you reviewed and did your thorough
10 investigation, tells us in one paragraph on July 13 there was a medical
11 convoy evacuating people. Then you answer my question, sir, saying my
12 investigation didn't find any. Other people being evacuated. And I'm
13 directing your attention to paragraph 18. Isn't it true, sir, that your
14 investigation, in fact, is not thorough and is not complete?
15 A. I would not say so, for the simple reason that I'm very happy for
16 these 88 persons not to have ended up on the killing fields we know
17 exist --
18 Q. Excuse me. Excuse me. If I may interrupt. I apologise. I
19 usually don't interrupt.
20 I'm not concerned with necessarily, and forgive me for saying
21 this, your emotional state on this. My question is very straightforward.
22 We have a document, the same document in two separate paragraphs. They
23 talk about evacuating wounded and infirm people on two different dates,
25 A. Absolutely correct.
1 Q. I want to move on. What other evidence or what other
2 investigative methods did you use to further examine if there were
3 additional wounded or infirm people evacuated from Potocari in the period
4 that we are discussing?
5 A. Wait a minute. I don't really understand your point because if
6 the document says that people are evacuated, so that means no crime has
7 been committed against them. I'm investigating crimes; I'm not
8 investigating evacuation of wounded from the area.
9 Q. So you did no investigation, correct?
10 A. On this specific aspect, no, since the fate of these persons are
11 written on the document.
12 Q. All I want to know, sir, is if you did an investigation based
13 on --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Let me intervene here.
15 Mr. Ruez, you were tasked by the Office of the Prosecutor to carry
16 out some investigations. Were you tasked to investigate every single
17 alleged or suspected crime that was committed in or around Srebrenica
18 during the relevant period or were you limited as to what you were
19 supposed to investigate?
20 THE WITNESS: The limitation only comes from the existing
21 resources at that time. Had we had like it was the case in Belgium just
22 before this investigation started, 300 police officers working on a rape
23 case of children, we would certainly have investigated every murder, every
24 physical abuse, or whatsoever. The fact is that in the course of this
25 investigation, we had to focus on major crimes, the reason why I said at
1 one point during my direct testimony, that during several years, on
2 account of at least 30 people killed, we would not even move on the ground
3 to check the situation.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Ostojic, you play proceed.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Sir, I want -- thank you. I'm done with this document. I'd like
7 to discuss you had mentioned in your direct examination basically a
8 two-avenue approach for the people in Srebrenica, citizens of Srebrenica.
9 One group, a civilian group, went towards Potocari, correct?
10 A. Yes, correct.
11 Q. And the second group of individuals went in the -- in the military
12 column went in the woods basically, or as you described it, up towards
13 Tuzla, correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. Just so that we understand each other. Now, the people,
16 the civilians in Potocari, do you know how many there were?
17 A. The figure generally reported is around -- in Potocari? 25.000.
18 Q. And who uses this figure and how did you come up with it? Did you
19 investigate to determine what the actual figure is?
20 A. Yes. But you can imagine that these counts are always fuzzy.
21 That count comes from various sources, mainly, I mean UN sources, DutchBat
22 sources and I think there is even a report of that figure on a Bosnian
23 Serb report, but I don't recall precisely that as well.
24 Q. In your investigation, sir, did you do or did you do any work to
25 determine out of that civilian population how many were male?
1 A. It would have been a very interesting thing to do but it was
2 materially impossible.
3 Q. So you did not do it, correct? That's all I want to know.
4 A. Yes, it was done. But aside the faces that we can see on the
5 Zoran Petrovic film, there is no way to have a proper account of how many
6 men stayed in Potocari.
7 Q. Well, other than looking at the Zoran Petrovic film, what did you
8 undertake as the lead investigator to determine what the population,
9 civilian population in Potocari was? What was that male-women-children
11 A. This is -- these were UN sources mainly. Mainly the UNHCR who was
12 providing the assistance in that area. And I know that the concern about
13 this is that there is always a possibility of inflation of numbers in
14 order to inflate humanitarian assistance.
15 Q. Well, didn't your investigation in fact confirm that that number,
16 25.000, approximately, is indeed within a reasonable margin of error
18 A. Yes, by crossing the various sources, I believe the number is
19 approximately accurate.
20 Q. What are the sources that you crossed to determine that it was
22 A. As I told you, UN sources, both HCR and DutchBat, as well as maybe
23 the Prosecution might assist me on this, Bosnian Serb document that
24 mentioned a figure.
25 Q. We are going to get to that document in a second. I'm sure you've
1 seen it, but I'm just asking for your independent recollection now. Sir,
2 out of those number of men in this group of 25.000 civilians, we know that
3 they ended up where?
4 A. In Tuzla area.
5 Q. Okay. Did you, sir, ever calculate to see how many of those
6 25.000 actually made it to the Tuzla area?
7 A. No. That figure of 25.000 is the figure of those who arrived
8 safely in Tuzla. We very well know that men were separated in Potocari so
9 never made it to Tuzla. As well as at the arrival point at Kladanj and
10 those also didn't make it to Tuzla, but again to know how many people
11 are involved in this separation process, is an impossible task.
12 Q. Let me ask you this: Are you familiar that in the Tuzla air base,
13 that on or before July 19, 1995, 6.600 civilians from Potocari arrived?
14 A. Absolutely, yes. I was on this base. This was the first spot
15 where refugees were taken to.
16 Q. Okay. Well these refugees, did you take a count as to what that
17 population was in terms of being male or female?
18 A. I assume UNHCR might have made such a count.
19 Q. So you didn't, right?
20 A. No, because we knew it was mainly women and children.
21 Q. Now, do you know also that in the Tuzla town there were 500 such
22 refugees who made it from Potocari?
23 A. This is only for talking about the town, yes, at the sports centre
24 in Tuzla.
25 Q. And in Banovici, how many were there?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Okay, 3.500, does that refresh your recollection?
3 A. There were several refugee centres around the town.
4 Q. How about in Gracanica?
5 A. I wait for you to tell me.
6 Q. 1510. How about in Srebrenik, do you know how many were there?
7 A. You're going to tell me.
8 Q. 3227. How about in Lukavic or Lukavac, 3617?
9 A. M'hm.
10 Q. Do you remember that?
11 A. Not precisely.
12 Q. Did you go to all these individual villages and towns and places
13 to look to determine how many male or female refugees, as you call them,
14 who left Potocari and came to Tuzla? Did you get a count at all?
15 A. No. I had no means to have any count of these refugees by
16 independent sources.
17 Q. It was a compound question. I apologise. Did you go to any of
18 those towns to investigate any of those individuals?
19 A. No. The witnesses we were interviewing during the summer 1995
20 were interviewed at the police station in Tuzla and they were picked up by
21 a police officer and driven to the location where the interview took
22 place. So we didn't move to these refugee camps. We had no time for
24 Q. Just a couple more towns that I'll mention or villages. As they
25 are called. Zivinice. 3979?
1 A. M'hm.
2 Q. Does that ring a bell?
3 A. No, again I'm waiting for the final count now.
4 Q. We will get to the final count. Kladanj, 500?
5 A. M'hm.
6 Q. And Dubovac, 1.500. Do you remember that at all?
7 A. No, so fine.
8 Q. So my count on this -- and if my arithmetic is correct -- and you
9 may want to trust me on this is 24.933 is what the BiH government
10 calculated based on these nine sites that we discussed or areas, if you
12 A. Yes, so we are not far away from the assessment of 25.000.
13 Q. Agree. When you talk about the inflation of numbers, isn't it
14 true, Mr. Ruez, that really you're talking about the inflation of numbers
15 for the military column and not the civilian refugees, correct?
16 A. No. It is not correct. I was referring to a document that was --
17 I hardly remember. That was mentioning this possibility of inflation of
18 numbers, but here we can see that at least for this one there is no
20 Q. If I may I have the witness be shown [Microphone not activated].
21 If I may, I'd like to have on the e-court and the witness to be
22 shown 65 ter number 2D0003. And while they are getting it --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I notice Mr. Lazarevic behind you. What's
24 the problem, Mr. Lazarevic.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: First of all, we don't receive any LiveNote. This
1 is not the issue.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: It is an issue.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: But on page 35, line 4, when mentioning numbers, my
4 colleague mentioned number 1.500 and here it says 15.500. It makes a
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much for that observation.
7 In the meantime, you're not the only ones who are encountering
8 problems with e-court. We, for example, we have it on LiveNote but we
9 cannot make annotations and it's stuck now. It's stuck as well now so.
10 So we are having problems too. Shall we continue or we can only follow on
11 one screen but then if you have documents being shown at the same time,
12 you can only see one screen at a time.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the court --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: So we won't be able to follow the transcript.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: So the Court and everyone will know, it's just the
16 same numbers basically that we were just discussing. Basically, I'm
18 JUDGE AGIUS: But I --
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so you know.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to see them. The accused need to see them.
21 And if it's a document that needs some annotation on our part,
22 unfortunately we are not in a position to do it. At least today. We can
23 do it from our Chambers later, but we do have problems at the moment,
24 technical problems. So we will only proceed if there is unanimous okay on
25 your part. Prosecution?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: We are fine, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Defence teams, is there any Defence team
3 that would like to stop for the time being until this -- no, all right.
4 So we proceed.
5 MR. OSTOJIC:
6 Q. Mr. Ruez, you have 65 ter number 2D0003 in front of you?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. Just quickly describe for us what it is?
9 A. It's a memo from the United Nations protection force in Zagreb
10 addressed to Kofi Annan at the United Nations headquarters.
11 Q. But it has a time and date stamp on the center, right side of that
12 first page, correct?
13 A. Yes, dated 19 July 1995.
14 Q. And the time being 1417, correct?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. And the subject matter of the memo is "Disposition of Displaced
17 Persons from Srebrenica"; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Just quickly to go through this document. I'm sure you'll have
20 time to look at it again. On paragraph number 2 is -- actually I'm
21 telling you this, you can verify it -- is where I obtained the numbers
22 that we were just discussing and it says here, "The joint crisis action
23 team, JCAT", and then it goes on to say where these people were, 6.600 in
24 Tuzla air base. And then it says, "The BiH local authorities report that
25 18.333 DP", which they reference here, displaced persons, "are
1 accommodated in collection centres with the distribution as follows", then
2 they break them down as I have. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please slow down when he reads.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic. Sorry to butt in, but I have a
6 complaint from the interpreters that you're reading too fast. Probably
7 I'm speaking too fast too. And they need some -- a little bit more
8 cooperation on our part. Thank you.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Just one of the problems, obviously, it's my fault,
10 primarily, but the secondary, I can't follow it on the screen because of
11 the issue with the screen, so I apologise again to them and to the Court.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
13 MR. OSTOJIC:
14 Q. I think I asked the question. Do you understand the question?
15 A. No, sorry. I was elsewhere.
16 Q. I understand you were reading the document which is interesting.
17 The question basically is where would we find the information as to the
18 makeup of this population of 24.933; how many men, how many women, et
19 cetera? You didn't do the investigation. That was clear to me. Who
20 would have that information?
21 A. Bosnian government, I would think.
22 Q. When did you ask them for that information?
23 A. This was not specifically asked.
24 Q. So never, right?
25 A. Never.
1 Q. Okay. That's okay. Why?
2 A. For the reason that the only count that counts for this
3 investigation is a count of people who first went through a detention
4 process so that it doesn't matter any longer if these men were soldiers or
5 civilians, and who later were assassinated. In order to find that number,
6 the only valid process was to identify the location of their burial and go
7 through the entire, and I say, insist on the word entire, exhumation
8 process added to a body count. This is the figure that we were looking
9 for. We were not specifically looking for the figure of men that slipped
10 among the crowd of refugees and arrived safely in the Tuzla area.
11 Q. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Ruez, you don't know about this
12 slipping of this one male civilian into this civilian population, right?
13 You're just kind of speculating about that? You don't know because you've
14 never done an investigation to know if that 24.933 population includes 10
15 per cent or 50 per cent being male, do you?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's a compound and getting argumentative. Very
19 difficult to answer a compound question.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you rephrase your question, Mr. Ostojic, and
21 split it in various parts. One following the other, if necessary.
22 MR. OSTOJIC:
23 Q. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Ruez, you talked about this male
24 slipping in. There is no evidence of that, is there? You're just
25 speculating about that, correct?
1 A. I'm referring specifically to one witness who is not on the list
2 we have because he's not requested to testify for this trial, but slipping
3 through it is an expression that he used. He managed to cross Kladanj
4 because he knew one of the soldiers on the spot.
5 Q. But did you go and investigate to determine how many or what per
6 cent of that 24.933 were male?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you or do you know if the BiH local authorities maintain still
9 these records as to these individuals who left or as they say here
10 evacuated Srebrenica, Potocari and went to Tuzla? Do you know if those
11 records still exist?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Do you think that it's relevant to know what that mix -- make of
14 that population was if the Prosecutor, with whom you worked since 1996, is
15 advocating a position that there was a separation of men and women? Do
16 you think that might be somewhat relevant?
17 A. The knowledge we have about the separation process is coming from
18 people who lived through it, as well as the count of more or less everyone
19 who was evacuated from the area and witnessed this separation process.
20 This includes as well the UN military personnel present in Potocari. So
21 this is something that we know as a fact.
22 Q. I'll have to study that answer but we will get back to it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Your question was equally not that clear, looking at
24 it again, because I thought for a moment he was not answering the
25 question. And I was going to call on him to try and answer the question.
1 But having looked at your question again, it is not a natural sequence to
2 the previous question and it begs --
3 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll rephrase it with the Court's permission.
4 Q. Is it relevant, Mr. Ruez? That's all I want to know.
5 A. I was willing to add indeed the thing, to be 100 per cent honest,
6 yes, it is relevant.
7 Q. And I appreciate that. And it's relevant because if we are going
8 to go to court, we want to give the Court, as we discussed yesterday, a
9 full picture and ultimately a picture of the truth, truly what happened in
10 that situation, correct? That's one of the reasons it's relevant?
11 A. I totally agree with that. I'm among the first ones who would
12 expect more truth to come out of these trials.
13 Q. Okay. Now, let's turn to the military column that was going
14 towards Tuzla, okay?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can we turn to that topic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. So I don't need that exhibit any more. Thank you for the
19 time being, but I will refer to it hopefully later.
20 Now, who gave the estimate as to how many men were in this
21 military convoy from Susnjari going towards Tuzla?
22 A. The description we have of the situation is not a military convoy.
23 It's a column of people who are fleeing the area and who are mixed with
24 indeed armed military personnel. The estimate is the same thing coming
25 from various sources including the witnesses. And I think it is on this
1 aspect, not on the previous one, that we have an estimate of the
2 intelligence of the Drina Corps, that, I think, provides as well this
3 estimate of 15.000 people somewhere in the woods. So it's a bit of a same
4 situation than previously. It's a rough figure coming from various
5 sources but nothing scientific in it indeed.
6 Q. Thank you. And I apologise for saying convoy. I didn't mean to
7 misstate it. Column. I was still on the last questions before, so I
8 sincerely meant to say column and not convoy, not to throw you off. What
9 is the margin of error of this estimate, do you know?
10 A. I would not dare guess.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. Because it would be speculation.
13 Q. Okay. Well, did you go and try to confirm from other sources
14 other than the Drina Corps to determine what the amount of people were in
15 this military column?
16 A. Yes, for sure. Again, as I say, all the witnesses who were part
17 of the column gave an assessment of how large they believed it was. The
18 BiH army also had its own assessment. The representatives of the
19 population had their assessment. I mean, all the figures that were coming
20 up were roughly turning around 15.000 and this is why this is the figure
21 commonly used when talking about the column.
22 Q. During your investigation, did you come across any sentiment or
23 documents which would state something to the following: Due to the
24 imprecise nature of these figures, we recommend that any public statements
25 are limited to the broad reference of several thousand missing. Did you
1 ever come across that?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You as a prudent investigator certainly would have seen that if it
4 exists, correct?
5 A. Certainly not. I don't know about every single document talking
6 about this topic.
7 Q. Okay. Let's flesh out first this military column that we are
8 discussing. Your testimony in other cases, Blagojevic, page 376, line 2,
9 and Blagojevic, page 393, page -- page 393, lines 24 through 27, it's a
10 fact based on your investigation that there were 5.000 armed men in this
11 military column, correct?
12 A. That was also a figure that was, let's say, a basic figure coming
13 from these various sources. I would now change that, since I don't
14 remember when exactly, but the figure coming from 2nd Corps was that 6.000
15 men from the 28th division reached the area of Tuzla. So since these are
16 military, I think the figure of 5.000 should be increased.
17 Q. Did you interview or did you know the composition of this military
18 column what division or brigade or battalion they were from?
19 A. They all were from the 28th division, and as far as we know, the
20 large amount, the biggest amount of forces was at the top, and at the
21 spearhead of the column, a few troops -- troops mixed among the column and
22 very small force at the end of the column to close the march.
23 Q. Who was the commander of the 28th division?
24 A. That's not part of the investigation, as you know, but everyone
25 knows that the commander is Naser Oric.
1 Q. I want to know, and it could be possibly my fault, your
2 investigation was then not limited to a time period, it was limited to
3 investigating crimes purportedly committed by a specific group in the --
4 at that time, correct?
5 A. I already said it several times. The investigation was about the
6 crimes committed by the Bosnian Serb army or others after the fall of the
7 Srebrenica enclave.
8 Q. Thank you for clarifying it. Now, during the route of the
9 military column, if you could help me and show me the route that the
10 military column took to try to reach Nezuk. And I think you could use
11 probably page 1 of your exhibit P02103, if we may, on the ELMO. By all
12 means, Mr. Ruez, if you think there is a more appropriate map, then just
13 share that with us and we'll use that?
14 A. The map you should use is the map of the debriefing of the
15 operation that was conducted by the Drina Corps officers at the Zvornik
16 Brigade, since during the search of the Zvornik Brigade was seized a very
17 large military map on which all elements related to the takeover of the
18 enclave and the fight against the column is on the map. So that would be
19 the most accurate product about this exodus from the enclave, and we had
20 the privilege to have a very detailed expos‚ of that situation by Major
21 Obrenovic during his interview in Banja Luka.
22 Q. Thank you. Let's, though -- and we will get to him in a little
23 bit I hope. Let's just use that first exhibit since you looked at it and
24 it was a detailed rendition of the facts. Show me on the first page what
25 the route was, if the Court permits, with a pen or pencil. And I think if
1 you do it on the plastic cover sheet of this document, we will be able to
2 follow it or perhaps even on the e-court system in front of you.
3 A. M'hm, we'll put it under the ELMO.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: It cannot be done on e-court. That's for sure.
5 Because they are not in e-court as yet. That's what I am told. Is that
6 correct? So how are we seeing them if they are not in e-court? I see.
7 All right. Okay. All right. So best way of doing it -- is there a hard
8 copy of this that we can place on the ELMO and he can put the markings on
9 it? Whether we have a spare copy to give to the witness, which will be
10 marked -- no, we will need to take it after that. If it is marked.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sure Mr. Ruez -- the one Mr. Ruez has is
12 probably a good one to use.
13 THE WITNESS: No, no, no.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel's mike is not on.
15 THE WITNESS: I want to preserve the integrity of my exhibit book.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ruez, Madam Usher, if you could kindly help
17 Mr. Ruez by placing it on the ELMO and we can follow you from there. And,
18 Mr. Ostojic, your microphone is still off. You need to switch it on. And
19 you may proceed.
20 MR. OSTOJIC:
21 Q. The question was pending but I'll repeat it. Sir can you draw on
22 this exhibit, page 1, map, the route of the military column from Susnjari
23 to Tuzla or towards Tuzla as we say?
24 A. Yes, I can do that, but.
25 Q. Please do.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Could we have it -- could we have a better focussing
2 because it's really --
3 THE WITNESS: It would have to start from the south to the
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to move it further up. Okay. All right.
6 THE WITNESS: Before doing it, I would like to insist on
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. What is this?
9 THE WITNESS: I will do it according to the knowledge that I
10 gained from Major Obrenovic during his interview, though his interview was
11 absolutely not on the topic to get a military teaching on what we call the
12 military operation. This military operation was absolutely not under the
13 focus of the investigation. The fate of that column due to the other
14 concerns that we had was totally out of range of the investigation. So we
15 never went into the details of what happened during, I think, the six days
16 during which this column went out of the area. So do you still want me to
17 do the drawing that is on the map at the Zvornik Brigade headquarters?
18 MR. OSTOJIC:
19 Q. Yes, please.
20 A. So this is Susnjari. Then the column exited the mine field that
21 was around the enclave, heading north towards Kravica area, then
22 turning -- those who didn't know the area had a guideline, that is power
23 line that is along the road, but the column was walking behind the hill.
24 They suffered a severe ambush at a place named Kamenica. The 12 in the
25 evening, the spearhead of the column reached the intersection of Konjevic
1 Polje. The area was not sealed by Bosnian Serb forces. They went
2 through. They went along the Cerska valley, turned around Udrc mountain,
3 made at one point a diversion in order to make a fake attack on Zvornik.
4 Meanwhile, the larger group continued north in order to hit the lines at
5 the level of Nezuk.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So if I could ask you to do two things or three
7 things. First of all, if you could -- where you indicated with a circle
8 Kamenica, if you could write it down, and put your initials next to it,
9 please. All right. And where you put an arrow in the direction of
10 Zvornik, if you could indicate diversion? All right. I haven't seen your
11 initials or your signature. And then you are adding a further arrow.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, just to show the area of Nezuk, here.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes. Did you sign the map?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I didn't put the date. What is the
15 date today?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Today is the 15th.
17 THE WITNESS: 15th.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Ostojic?
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Sir, on this map that we are talking about you see the Kamenica --
21 you call it an ambush. There was a battle actually between the military
22 column and the Serb forces at Kamenica, correct?
23 A. The report -- I heard of this event. I would not call it a
24 battle. It was an ambush spot. The result of it, and this is why the
25 investigation had an interest on this situation, is that this is what
1 caused the next morning, among other things, but that was the main reason,
2 massive surrender in this area.
3 Q. Now you talked about Mr. Obrenovic's interview. Which interview
4 was it, do you remember?
5 A. Yes. I don't remember precisely the date. I think it was his
6 second interview.
7 Q. Was it before or after the plea?
8 A. That was in the year 2000, I think.
9 Q. Well, you don't know if it was before or after the plea, correct?
10 A. What plea?
11 Q. The plea agreement?
12 A. With Mr. Obrenovic? No way, no. This was done in 2003, I think.
13 Q. So it was before?
14 A. Oh, yes before, much before.
15 Q. Now point out if you can to the best of your recollection --
16 you're not a military expert, correct?
17 A. No I'm not.
18 Q. I think you mentioned the naming of Mr. Richard Butler who is for
19 the Office of the Prosecutor?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. So that we are clear on that, I'm not asking you militarily, I'm
22 just asking you as an investigator these questions, and I know you're
23 confining your answers to that so I appreciate it. Can you point out to
24 me during this route where there were other battles or ambushes as you
1 A. Only being concerned in fact by the fate of those who were trapped
2 in the area and then surrendered to the Serb forces, the main situation is
3 that after the 28 division spearhead managed to break the area in the
4 level of Konjevic Polje, the entire location was sealed by military forces
5 that could be seen by the people who were trying to overlook the asphalt
6 road and everyone was trapped in the area in between Konjevic Polje and
7 more or less the area of Kamenica.
8 Q. Let me repeat the question. Can you tell us the date of that
9 exchange or battle or ambush?
10 A. The ambush occurred in the late afternoon of July 12. It's in the
11 evening of July 12 that the spearhead of a column went through Konjevic
12 Polje. The next morning, the area was sealed off and that is when the
13 massive surrender process started, 13 in the morning.
14 Q. And where else other than Kamenica do you have information that
15 there was a battle and/or ambush during this route that the military
16 column took from Potocari?
17 A. If we talk about the ordeal of the armed column in between
18 Konjevic Polje and Nezuk, I would not be able to give you any details. We
19 heard them from Mr. Obrenovic, but I don't have precise recollection.
20 There were indeed many engagements ongoing during that escape of the armed
21 part of the column.
22 Q. But in Krstic's trial on page 494 and 495, a couple of years ago
23 you seemed to remember that there were two ambushes and one being exactly
24 on the Udrc mountain, don't you?
25 A. Yes. This is correct. I now remember the statements of those who
1 were at this area, and who indeed said they quickly fled because they were
2 under attack of Serb forces there.
3 Q. And sir, back to Kamenica if we may, did you do any investigation
4 to determine how many people perished in that battle or ambush?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How many?
7 A. I don't have a figure in mind. The best investigation, if we can
8 say so in this area, was done by a team of Norwegian experts, forensic
9 experts, who during the year 1996 were doing a body collection process in
10 the area of that ambush. We requested the report of their findings so we
11 must have this in evidence, and there is a body count of skeletons that
12 were collected by this Finnish team from Finland.
13 Q. Sir, are you aware of the fact that there were four battles during
14 the route of this column going from Potocari to Nezuk?
15 A. You say four. I don't know your source but I accept it as you
17 Q. We will get into that with Mr. Butler.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps for the record we can clarify if we are
19 talking Finland or Norway.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he corrected himself in the second
21 instance. So I take it, it was a Finnish group.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Finnish.
23 Q. During these or any of these ambushes, those that you know - and
24 obviously if you know you can share that - did the column actually punch
25 through the Serb positions?
1 A. No. They didn't have to bother with that. The 12 in the evening
2 there were little Serb forces in the area of Konjevic Polje, as far as we
3 know, and their main engagements came later, as far as I can recall.
4 Q. How about in southwest by Zvornik? Did the column punch through
5 the Serb positions there?
6 A. I don't believe there, since -- but again, this is not something
7 that was the topic of the investigation. Nevertheless, we could find out
8 some aspects. The --
9 Q. -- do you know?
10 A. The lines were open because of a Serb prisoner captured by the 28
11 division and they had access to his Motorola, so to Serb radio channels.
12 And I think they negotiated with Colonel Pandurevic the possibility to go
13 through the lines. I don't remember the precise dates. It might have
14 been the 16th of July.
15 Q. Did in fact this military column manage to capture anti-aircraft
17 A. I know they captured equipment on their way indeed, yes.
18 Q. But you don't know about anti-aircraft guns, correct?
19 A. Since anti-aircraft guns were used on fix position, it is true
20 that people, yes, they might have come across anti-aircraft gun.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: But if you're fleeing why would you carry an
22 anti-aircraft gun with you, Mr. Ostojic?
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I could explain it but right now I think it's better
24 if I could finish with the witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I suggest you do because there are --
1 MR. OSTOJIC: You'll see the point in a minute, I hope.
2 Q. How about mortars, did they capture any mortars, sir, military
3 column from the Serbs?
4 A. They -- I would think they didn't carry them during this 70
5 kilometres of mountain trekking, but, yes, I heard about the fact that in
6 the area of Nezuk, the column did capture Serb equipment and carried --
7 carry it through the lines.
8 Q. Well, thank you. How about did the military column manage to
9 capture Serb prisoners?
10 A. I think they did that in a circumstance where they were police
11 reinforcements called, and these people were put on trenches in the
12 vicinity of Zvornik, and a group of these was captured in the course of
13 the process.
14 Q. Okay. And to what extent did you investigate that?
15 A. It was not under investigation.
16 Q. Now if I can just read from your testimony that you gave on the
17 Krstic trial, and it's hard because there was a question but you had
18 answered at that time a little lengthier than you have. And I appreciate
19 it and I'm sure all of us do. So there was really never a question, you
20 just spoke a little bit and the Honourable Judge Rodrigues interrupted you
21 to slow down, as they have with me, and to go ahead and conclude with your
23 So if I can just direct my learned colleague on page 494, starting
24 on page 15, through page 495 through page 2. And I'll read it to you and
25 then we can maybe discuss it and compare it with what you just told us.
1 It states as follows: "I was saying the map is not very precise here
2 because the arrow goes straight above Udrc mountain, which is not
3 realistic, since it's a quite high mountain, very difficult terrain in
4 reality. The movement was much less precise than that. They were turning
5 around. Once they arrived in the area here, which is the southwest of
6 Zvornik, ambushes were set to block this column but these ambushes were
7 not successful. In fact, the column punched through these Serb positions,
8 managed to capture equipment, anti-aircraft guns, mortars, and even
9 managed to capture Serb prisoners."
10 You remember giving that testimony in the Krstic case?
11 A. I didn't say something very different during this one, I think,
12 except that recollection in 2000 was better than the one of 2006. Yes,
14 Q. And why is that that the recollection is better whether it's
15 closer to the events? Can you explain that to me as an investigator?
16 A. There is no discrepancy between the two things. When I say
17 punching through the lines, you meant in the area of Konjevic Polje. We
18 are now referring to the area of Nezuk. The opening of the lines was not
19 something that lasted more than a few hours, as far as I remember.
20 Q. I don't want to debate it with you. I know we talked about
21 Konjevic Polje and punching through and then we, specifically, I thought
22 went to southwest Zvornik. But that's okay, we will look at the record.
23 The fighting that you described that was going on, you consider it to
24 be "heavy" correct?
25 A. Heaviness of fighting is always something relative.
1 Q. That's correct. And that's why my next question is what did you
2 mean when you said heavy?
3 A. As an example, we know that during this operation, the Zvornik
4 Brigade suffered in one event probably more casualties than during more or
5 less the entire war. That's what we were told. But this will end up
6 coming up with figures and for this I will have to insist on the fact that
7 the final figure of this investigation will be about the people who went
8 through a detention process and this number can be known once the full
9 exhumations will be over. So that number will have to be retrieved from
10 the total number of missing and then you will have the count that you are
11 looking for, those that we can then name killed in action.
12 Q. Now, do you know how many were killed in that action at the battle
13 around or near Udrc mountain?
14 A. Impossible to make the assessment.
15 Q. Well, several years ago I thought you made the assessment on
16 Krstic, page 595. You thought it was 600. Do you remember that?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Okay. Well it's page 595, lines 8 through 17. And at that
19 point --
20 A. Sorry on what specific event.
21 Q. The event that we are discussing, Udrc mountain?
22 A. No. I would think you are referring to the number of bodies at
23 Kamenica that were found by the Finnish team, no? Just to check.
24 Q. Thank you for that, because it was somewhat unclear but I thought
25 I followed it and I thought we had it, but we'll clarify.
1 A. -- at Kamenica to me sounds quite a lot but it's --.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Give us your recollection. Do you think at Kamenica
3 it was 600?
4 A. No, I would not put a figure. I don't remember. But the number
5 600 sounds familiar to me, but I don't remember in what context.
6 Q. Again I apologise?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't want to leave this unclear or hazy, as it
8 has emerged now. So if you have the extract from the testimony in Krstic,
9 unless it is available on e-court I suggest you read it out, Mr. Ostojic,
10 and let the -- give the witness a better opportunity to know what you're
11 stating and what he is supposed to tell us. You definitely -- you're
12 referring to losses on one side. He is referring to losses on another
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't believe so, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see. Anyway it's not clear. And this is why
16 I wanted to have it cleared up.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
18 Q. Now, you heard our President here, and let's clear that up. From
19 your recollection based on your investigation, there were two ambushes or
20 two battles with this military column, correct?
21 A. No. I'm always referring to the ambush of Kamenica because this
22 is the area of concern, because this is the area from where the people
23 surrendered. So became prisoners. What happened in between Konjevic
24 Polje and Nezuk, I would not be able to tell you how many ambushes or
25 battles occurred during this part because this was not specifically under
1 investigation. Though we know that indeed there were some moments of
2 heavy fighting happening during this way out.
3 Q. And then let's --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ostojic, because you seem to have
5 evaded what I tried to ask you to do.
6 Look at page 54, line 7, please. He's answering your question.
7 Your question was that's correct. That's why my next question is what did
8 you mean when you say heavy? And he answered, as an example, we know that
9 during this operation, the Zvornik Brigade suffered in one event, probably
10 more casualties than during more or less the entire war. Then your next
11 question is: Now, do you know how many were killed in that action at the
12 battle around or near Udrc mountain? He says it's impossible to make the
13 assessment. Then you can go to Krstic, you say it's 595, 600. This is
14 why I would like you to read from Krstic, please.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll do that.
16 Q. On page 595 of Krstic, starting with line 8, and again there is
17 more to his answer because at that time he was giving it. So I don't want
18 it to be seen as if I'm only picking portions of it. Just to the record
19 is clear.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But we do agree the Zvornik Brigade he was referring
21 to is the Serb Zvornik Brigade because there was no Muslim Zvornik
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct. But I'll ask this as the Court wants.
24 Q. Page 8, I mean line 8, page 595, "This area has been processed in
25 1996 by a team of experts from Finland who were operating in that area in
1 1996. Totally disconnected from our activities, they were collecting
2 surface remains. But it's important to note that 600 bodies have been
3 collected in that area and these bodies -- these are bodies of victims
4 killed in combat in ambushes, in shelling and possibly also in other
5 circumstances which are impossible to sort out between -- I mean for us at
6 least, between combat and other situations"?
7 A. So very simple situation. I was not talking about a general
8 figure as you were trying to put it, related to the entire combat
9 activity. I was specifically talking about the ambush of Kamenica and
10 this number of 600 is indeed the figure that was collected and that we got
11 from the report drafted by the Finnish experts. So indeed at the ambush
12 of Kamenica, I described for you the context of it and the reason why we
13 had an interest in this, generated 600 casualties. This is just a basic
15 Q. If I could continue to read. You gave a lot of information on
16 that. There was an exchange on the next page between the Honourable Judge
17 Rodrigues and our learned colleague Mr. Harmon from the Office of the
18 Prosecution. A video was played and then you go on to say at page 597
19 line 1, "I guess, in this location, the assessment of victims provided by
20 the witnesses is much more than what has been collected. The numbers
21 usually announced in this area are 1.500 to 2.000 victims but there is a
22 natural inflation of the assessment of numbers in these circumstances."
23 A. Yes, absolutely correct.
24 Q. And this inflation is relating to this 600 bodies, correct?
25 A. The witnesses who experienced that ambush, when they were then
1 running around and jumping above dead bodies made generally an assessment
2 of a thousand to 1.500 victims in that area. But as I said, during that
3 testimony, the natural instinct in such a situation seems to be inflating
4 numbers. This is why the only reliable source for this event is of a
5 figure of the Finnish team that collected surface remains in this area.
6 Q. How about in Udrc mountain? How many perished from either side,
7 if you know, and then break it down for us?
8 A. I will never make a breakdown. The area between Cerska and Nezuk
9 is certainly dotted with surface remains, still nowadays. As far as I
10 know, no one is looking for bodies in this area. I know also about an
11 area with surface remains at Potocari -- at still in the area of the
12 enclave. There are -- there is an unknown number of dead bodies in that
14 Q. Are you familiar with the expression terrain restoration?
15 A. Yes, I am. Yes.
16 Q. What is it?
17 A. It's a word that I would not be able to say in Serbo-Croatian but
18 that means cleaning up the terrain and burying the dead.
19 Q. Who is burying the dead when they do terrain restoration?
20 A. The army does.
21 Q. And are they burying their own dead or are they burying the dead
22 of the combatants?
23 A. They are burying all battle casualties for sanitary reasons.
24 Q. And they bury them how, sir, in graves or in individual plots?
25 A. Generally, they bulldoze them in the ground.
1 Q. I'm sorry?
2 A. They bulldoze them in the ground.
3 Q. Now I want to change and go to another issue if I may quickly. We
4 are discussing ID -- if I can discuss with you IDs, military permits and
5 belongings. And again I'm confining it to the military column leaving
6 Susnjari towards Nezuk, okay?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is it true, sir -- I thought I heard you say the other day when
9 you were watching the video used the Serbian word "licna karta". You know
10 what that means, right?
11 A. Yes, identity card.
12 Q. Identity card. You don't speak Serbian or do you do speak B/C/S,
13 forgive me, B/C/S?
14 A. Aside from saying "Dobar dan", I don't speak much.
15 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to these identification cards, isn't it
16 true that your investigation, or at the least, you, sir, as a team leader
17 have concluded -- let me start the question again. Thank you.
18 Thank you.
19 Sir, with respect to these identification cards, isn't it true
20 that you in your investigation or you as the investigator in charge of
21 this team have concluded "most of the soldiers were getting rid of any
22 element which could identify them as combatants", correct?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. From whom did you learn that information?
25 A. Same situation than in many instances. We discussed its general
1 assessment coming from the interviews conducted with all the people who
2 went through these events.
3 Q. So it's fair to say that these military men or this military
4 column, they were not stripped of their personal identification cards,
5 they in fact are the ones who threw away those belongings in order not to
6 be identified, correct?
7 A. This is a totally correct. This is the reason why we only use
8 figures related to people who went through a detention process, so that it
9 doesn't make any difference between military people or civilians.
10 Q. Thank you. I want to turn to another issue if I may quickly.
11 Trying to wrap up. Thank you, Your Honour. And that is Naser Oric. You
12 mentioned him as being the commander of the 28th division, was it?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Okay. Now, when did you interview him?
15 A. I never interviewed him.
16 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet with him?
17 A. I did meet with him.
18 Q. Did you meet with him in a personal capacity or professional
19 capacity as an investigator for the ICTY Office of the Prosecution?
20 A. It was in a professional capacity of investigator for the ICTY
21 Office of the Prosecution.
22 Q. And when did you meet with him?
23 A. I don't have the precise date in mind. At the best of my
24 recollection, I think it was in 1999.
25 Q. December maybe?
1 A. I don't remember.
2 Q. Sometime in 1999?
3 A. End of 1999, yes, I would think.
4 Q. Based on this routine or process that you shared with us, did you
5 have notes from the meeting you had with Mr. Oric?
6 A. I had notes, yes.
7 Q. Did you ever reduce that to a written statement for Mr. Oric to
9 A. No, it was not to get a statement from him, it was to collect
10 information. And I think the only record I had of it was a memorandum
11 summarising the information collected.
12 Q. And where is that memorandum now?
13 A. Among the internal material that we have in the archives, I would
15 Q. I would think so too. Did you ever discuss with him how the
16 military column, the route that they took, the number of men that they
17 had, the amount of arms that they may have had, and the number of people
18 who may have perished as a result of battles through the route of the
20 A. No, not.
21 Q. Towards Nezuk, sorry.
22 A. The answer is no, not at all.
23 Q. Why not?
24 A. Because, again, the investigation was not on that topic. And the
25 reason I was willing to have a meeting with him was to discuss other
1 matters than these events.
2 Q. Well, what matters would that have been, other than the actual
3 investigation that you're conducting for the period that seems to be
4 relevant from July 12 through the 18th of 1995?
5 A. I don't have in mind -- there were three point, as far as I
6 remember, that I wanted to wash away with him. One being the murder of a
7 man by the name Zikic, a murder that occurred in 1992, and I wanted to
8 clarify a few things with him about this. Another point was in connection
9 with a possibility of identification of a person who was in Potocari
10 during these days, and I wanted to make a check about this one. And the
11 third topic I honestly don't remember at this moment.
12 Q. But why didn't you ask him about the facts that we are discussing
13 here, specifically, the civilians in Potocari and how they were brought or
14 evacuated to Tuzla and the various villages we discussed? Why didn't you
15 ask him about whether that military column that left from Susnjari was
16 actually armed or not armed? Who was the leader of that column? How far
17 or how many ambushes they had? Why didn't you ask him that?
18 A. For several reasons, but the main reason would be that he would
19 certainly not be the good person to provide information on these aspects,
20 since it's a well known fact that he was not in the area at the time of
21 the events. So he would have nothing relevant except hearsay to testify
22 about in that matter.
23 Q. And what, hearsay is not reliable in your opinion? Is that what
24 you think?
25 A. Hearsay needs additional investigation.
1 Q. I agree. Did you investigate with Mr. Oric whether or not any of
2 his relatives were survivors of any of the massacres that we discussed?
3 A. None of the points in connection with this investigation was
4 discussed with Mr. Oric.
5 Q. Being a reasonably prudent investigator, if I had a survivor from
6 Orahovac, for example, and if he had the same last name, wouldn't you at
7 least asked Mr. Naser Oric if it's a relative and then verify the
8 circumstances of what you claim that individual may or may not attest to?
9 A. No. Family links are irrelevant to me. I knew about them.
10 Q. Why are they irrelevant?
11 A. Because had Mevludin been identified as a member of Naser Oric's
12 family, he would never have been in this courtroom to testify about what
13 happened to him. So it's not part of the investigation.
14 Q. Now, with all -- just so we can be cautious. I know you testified
15 live but we kept referring to the cheat sheet and I just want to make sure
16 it's okay to mention him by his first name?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I've been checking precisely that. It's no problem.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. I'm not asking if you asked Mr. Naser Oric if he was related to
21 Mevludin Oric. I'm asking you if you asked him whether or not any of the
22 facts that Mevludin Oric told you on three separate occasions, whether or
23 not that was accurate?
24 A. I don't know what kind of knowledge about the specific situation
25 Mevludin was into would be -- I don't know what would have to be asked to
1 Naser about what happened to his cousin. I mean it's -- doesn't make any
3 Q. Let me ask you this: In 2003, isn't it correct that it was your
4 opinion -- another topic, sorry -- with respect to exhumations, you
5 said "We are now in 2003, eight years after the events. We have located
6 probably 95 per cent of all these graves." Do you remember giving that
7 statement in the Blagojevic case, page 729, line 9 through 12, sorry?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. Okay. Now we are even more removed, three years or more, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What per cent does it increase or decrease that I can use?
12 A. Only one site has been found since year 1993. It is a site
13 located in Potocari that was discovered by the team of Mr. Masovic. This
14 is so maybe we are now at 96 per cent.
15 Q. And that's your estimate, 96 per cent, correct?
16 A. It's impossible to make an estimate since we might never find
17 absolutely all the graves related to this operation, but this is more or
18 less my belief, in terms of global results of this identification process
19 of mass graves.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. Just so it's clear in the record, on page
21 64, line 18, you start your answer by saying only one site has been found
22 since the year 1993, but you really mean since the year 2003 since that's
23 what we were talking about?
24 A. Sorry, not 1993.
25 Q. It's okay. Just for the record. I understood you.
1 A. I often mix the years ninety and 2000.
2 Q. Now, sir did you ever ask Mr. Oric how many of the military -- how
3 many -- in this military convoy, how many military men came to Tuzla
5 A. No, I didn't, because again he was not the, let's call it, the man
6 in charge at that time. I got the figure by 2nd Corps command and I told
7 you that figure was 6.000.
8 Q. Who was that from? Where did you get that information from?
9 A. The first source was AID, and then that was the figure that came
10 up during informal conversations both with Major Tihic who became Colonel
11 Tihic and also the deputy of the 2nd Corps, I don't remember his name. We
12 interviewed him I would think in 1999 and he gave that figure.
13 Q. Now you mentioned earlier that AID is a form of secret service,
15 A. It's the so-called.
16 Q. For who, though?
17 A. For the people in Bosnia, that's how I name this service.
18 Q. The Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Croats or the Bosnian Muslims?
19 A. I would think for everyone.
20 Q. You would think for everyone?
21 A. It's state security, so people call it secret service.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: That's all I have, Your Honour, at this time.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
24 So Mr. Bourgon or Madam Nikolic, I don't know who is going.
25 Break will be in another 15 minutes.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry. If I can interrupt my learned colleague. I
2 did want to ask one last question with the Court's permission. I'm sorry.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Ruez, I noticed a blue pin on your jacket. What is that just
6 out of curiosity?
7 A. That is an insignia of the national order of merit.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I
11 understand that the witness will be answering my questions in English but
12 I will be asking my questions in French.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: He is free to answer you in French if he so chooses.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ruez.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. I only have a few questions to ask. While I thought -- I only
18 have a few questions for you.
19 Yes. We may resume. Good morning, Mr. Ruez. I only have a few
20 questions to ask you this morning, after the questions asked by my
21 colleague. You confirm that you were the chief investigator in this
23 A. Yes. [In English] About the fact that though Mr. Bourgon is a
24 French speaker and so am I, I continue to testify in English because I
25 prefer to be accountable for my own words in the common working language
1 of this Court rather than taking the risk of being cross-examined in a few
2 years with potential translation misunderstandings.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ruez. That may also apply to you,
4 later on. You may be faced with having put one question when you actually
5 meant to put another. But any way, go ahead, Mr. Bourgon.
6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Being
7 French Canadian, I don't think I should ask my questions in English from a
8 French-speaking witness.
9 Q. Mr. Ruez, you are the chief investigator in this -- besides the
10 statement concerning the interceptions which was discussed with my
11 colleague a bit earlier yesterday, you didn't give any statement
12 concerning your work.
13 A. No, I didn't produce any final report for this investigation.
14 Q. The investigator Alistair Graham was an investigator who worked
15 with you, didn't he?
16 A. Yes, he was an investigator in the team. Then he left the team to
17 serve as head of office in Pristina, Kosovo, and when I left the Tribunal,
18 it was of a common agreement with everyone that he would take the lead
19 after me.
20 Q. My question, Mr. Ruez, is rather specific. This gentleman worked
21 with you and I would like to know Mr. Graham will be a witness in this
23 A. I have no idea if Mr. Graham will be a witness in this case.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Why are you asking Mr. Ruez? You ask Mr. McCloskey
25 that question. I mean he's not the one who is going to decide. It's true
1 that he told us -- he made statements to effect that he knew of some
2 persons who were going to be witnesses in this case but --
3 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I'm not trying to establish whether
4 Mr. Graham will in fact testify or not. I know that. I'm simply trying
5 to establish whether the witness knows and then I will ask the witness
6 whether the reason why he never asked his investigator to produce a
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Then put the question to him.
9 MR. BOURGON: This is the purpose of my questioning, Mr.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Therefore, Mr. Ruez, my question is rather
12 simple. I just wish to know whether it is true that you have never asked
13 Mr. Graham to compile a statement as an investigator for this case?
14 A. I'm sorry to say that your question is vague to me because asking
15 him to compile a global report on this investigation, I would never had
16 been able to ask him such a thing because meanwhile I was the team leader.
17 That would have been my responsibility to do so, and in terms of asking
18 him declaration about something else, I would need to know what that would
19 have been about.
20 Q. Thank you. Now you know the difference between an investigation
21 report and the fact of giving a statement which can be given to the
22 Defence for the case you know the difference between the two.
23 A. -- because the system is not in use in France. In France we
24 produce a final investigation report that we address either to the
25 prosecutor or to the investigative judge. We do not prepare -- the entire
1 file is provided to the defence. So I'm not familiar with declaration to
2 be given to the defence or I forgot about it since I've left this place
3 now since a couple of years.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Therefore, I'll go directly. Do you know
5 the investigator, you know he did not make a statement concerning his
7 A. I have met Tomasz before starting to testify in this court. It
8 was the first time I met him. I'm sure he arrived in this place a long
9 time after I had left it, so I have no idea about whatever statement he
10 was supposed to do or not do.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: The transcript, Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Ruez, does not
12 mention the name of this person you are referring to.
13 JUDGE KWON: That will be edited.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm just pointing it out.
15 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President. Mr. President, the name I've
16 mentioned, just to be precise, is Tomasz Blaszczyk, although I don't know
17 exactly how to pronounce this name.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ruez, what about Brett Randall, did he work
19 with you? Do you know whether he has given or no statement concerning his
20 work in this investigation?
21 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Brett Randall, he stayed a
22 very, very short time within the team. And there was designed to join
23 another one fairly quickly.
24 Q. And, Mr. Ruez, what about Eileen Gilleece, also an investigator?
25 Did she also make a statement towards being a witness in this case?
1 A. Could you repeat that name?
2 Q. Yes. Eileen Gilleece.
3 A. I hear about this name for the first time.
4 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Ruez, when the facts which have to do with your
5 testimony in this case have been heard for the first time in the framework
6 of Krstic case, you were at the time the chief investigator. I would like
7 to know why no investigator for this file, for those who were witnesses in
8 that case, you didn't think it was a right thing to give a statement?
9 A. Again, I do not see really the point in respect of this
10 declaration. The useful documents, as far as I know, are either produced
11 by investigators who then become expert witnesses, so that was the case
12 for Dean Manning, as an example. For the rest, due to the adversarial
13 process here, I used to say that the file is in the heads of those who are
14 called to testify, because at no moment was it ever said by the
15 Prosecution here that any type of global report had to be submitted at
16 what point or another before trial. But I say that in France it is indeed
17 the common habit.
18 Q. Thank you for your answer. What I was trying to establish, there
19 has been no statement made because you believed that it wasn't something
20 that was requested from you, or which was necessary for this case. So we
21 agree on this point, don't we, for this trial?
22 A. [Previous translation continues] ... initiative to request such a
23 declaration, nor was I, nor was it requested by the Prosecution, indeed,
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. The few questions I'm asking at this stage
1 are just general questions concerning the methodology used during your --
2 the investigation. If I understood your testimony up to now, you went for
3 the first time on the site of the incidents on the 20th of July 1995?
4 A. [Previous translation continues] ... correct.
5 Q. Therefore, if I put to you that before the 20th of July 1995, you
6 had no knowledge, no personal knowledge, of what could have happened on
7 the ground?
8 A. Absolutely correct.
9 Q. And during your investigation, you did actually lead several
10 interviews with possible witnesses, some of which were survivors?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In certain cases it was established during the answers you gave to
13 the questions of my colleague, you took statements while in other cases
14 you only took notes or sometimes nothing at all. Isn't it the case?
15 A. No. That's not the case. For all the witnesses of these events,
16 I mean let's say the group of victims, in a large sense of that word,
17 statements were systematically taken. Only in a very few instances were
18 contacts made without keeping records of it. Most of the time on a, let's
19 say on a conscious base of doing it so.
20 Q. Now, these interviews, they were also done by investigators
21 working under your orders who themselves had several interviews for which
22 in certain cases we have the statement and in other cases we only have
23 notes. Isn't it so?
24 A. I'm not so sure. I don't have a precise recollection of the
25 investigators of the team who -- no. There are instances indeed. Most of
1 the time, contacts were finalised through interviews. Only in some
2 specific instances no interview was taken and only either notes or written
3 admin reports about the contact, depending on the specificity of the
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps we can clarify this a little bit. Within
6 the Office of the Prosecutor, when you had teams going on site to
7 investigate, did you have a protocol? Did you have a set practice that
8 you needed to follow across the whole Office of the Prosecutor or was each
9 investigator or each team leader free to adopt his or her own system of
10 investigation and method of archiving and reporting?
11 THE WITNESS: As long as the Rules of Evidence and Proceedings
12 were followed, there was no common practice, indeed. Everyone, as far as
13 I know, because I didn't have time to look into the way other
14 investigations were conducted, but in fact, indeed, everyone was doing
15 according to his experience and background. I can say it's so.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have the break now, Mr. Bourgon, or do you
17 wish to proceed for another minute or so?
18 MR. BOURGON: If that's the pleasure of the Court, we can fold
19 right now.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon?
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ruez, we shall continue on the topic we were
1 talking about before the pause, which is to say the preparation of the
2 investigation. Just to give you an indication I've got six topics which I
3 would like to cover in my cross, and I think we will be able to finish
4 before the end of this hearing and, as much as possible, I will ask you,
5 though it won't always be possible, but as much as possible I would like
6 you to try and answer by yes or no whenever possible. Therefore, we were
7 talking before pause that several interviews had taken place, both with
8 you and the investigators placed under your orders. My question is the
9 following: Now that you are giving this testimony, are you in agreement
10 with me that it's not always easy to remember everything which may have
11 been told to you by all these witnesses before answering a question which
12 is being asked from you?
13 A. Yes. I agree.
14 Q. And during your testimony, at our request, or at the request of
15 Defence counsel, you were asked to specify your sources, sources on which
16 your testimony was based. Would you agree with me that the sources you
17 mentioned during your testimony are not necessarily all the sources which
18 may have given you some information concerning the questions which were
19 asked from you?
20 A. Yes. I agree.
21 Q. Among the sources you mentioned answering our questions, some to
22 your knowledge will be witnesses while others will not be witnesses in
23 this trial. Did I understand you correctly?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Now, if I did understand the nature of your testimony to this
1 Chamber since the beginning of the week, I put to you that your goal,
2 obviously if I understood you, was to describe and to give an overview
3 view, a general overview to the Chamber of what the witnesses called by
4 the Prosecution will come and say. Is this true and correct?
5 A. I would say that is correct indeed.
6 Q. Now, during your investigation, you met and you have used the
7 services of several specialists?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. On the other hand, you yourself are neither an anthropologist, nor
10 an archeologist nor a pathologists?
11 A. Absolutely correct.
12 Q. You are neither an expert in ballistics?
13 A. I am not an expert in ballistics.
14 Q. Therefore, when you recorded what was said by these specialists,
15 your goal was to give an overview of what they will come and say to the
17 A. If I mentioned elements they will testify about and develop, yes,
18 indeed, that was the objective.
19 Q. Now, specifically on the question of expertise in ballistics,
20 could you confirm that you have indeed proceeded with expertise with
21 specialists and that your goal was to establish links between primary and
22 secondary graves but the results were not reliable and --
23 A. No this is not the case. Yes, indeed, we proceeded with experts
24 to the analysis of the shell casings collected both on the surface of the
25 execution sites to be compared with those shell casings found inside the
1 primary mass graves and to be later on compared with those found inside
2 the secondary mass graves, and I have to totally disagree with you when
3 you say that the results were not reliable or that this process was of no
4 interest. It's exactly the opposite, in fact.
5 Q. I wouldn't say that the procedure is without interest. My
6 question was much more specific. I put to you that these expertise in
7 ballistics did not enable you to put a link between a primary and
8 secondary mass graves, as you call them?
9 A. This is the point on which I say that you have a totally reversed
10 your statement. These ballistics expertise have produced results and
11 links between the sites, as it was explained in detail by expert Dean
12 Manning, who was an investigator in the team and who will come again for
13 this trial to present the evidence to the Court, as far as I know, or
14 maybe you have the report that he provided for the sake of the Krstic
16 Q. Now, Mr. Ruez, if I put to you, if I mentioned that both in the
17 Blagojevic trial where you were a witness, as well as in the Krstic trial,
18 where you also were a witness - I don't have the precise source now with
19 me but I'll find it - you mention then the fact that the ballistic
20 experts, the fact of having shot several shots with weapons you had, the
21 results were not conclusive. Do you remember having said that during your
22 testimonies, both in the Blagojevic and in the Krstic trial?
23 A. No problem.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes --
25 THE WITNESS: I want to answer that.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's a misstatement and a miss mischaracterisation
3 of those trials but perhaps it can be cleared up by answering.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ruez.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would have been better, Mr. Bourgon, that
6 when you stated this you would have started mentioning that indeed I was
7 referring to a totally different operation than the shell casing
8 comparison from what I said the execution sites. The primary mass graves
9 and the secondary mass graves, that was not what you were talking about.
10 You are talking about a series of searches that we conducted in order to
11 seize and test fire some 3.000 weapons that we believed were at that time
12 in possession of the brigades we suspected of participation in the crimes
13 committed, and though we tried that operation, we also knew that 15.000 of
14 the weapons available in the area had been refurbished and that there had
15 been movements of weapons between the brigades. We still did that
16 operation, and, indeed, the result of this massive effort ended up totally
18 MR. BOURGON:
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez, but this was not the point in my question.
20 I'll come back to it when I've found my sources but I will have later on
21 questions to ask you precisely on this topic of these weapons found in the
22 sector. Now, about your investigation, I have a last question to ask of
23 you. During your testimony you said that when you arrived in Tuzla for
24 the first time, you had spoken to three different sources and you said one
25 of them of these three sources was the AID, or the secret services rather.
1 Personally, I'm surprised to see for what reason you went to this secret
2 services in order to obtain statements? And I put to you that rather it
3 is the secret services, AID, who contacted you and not the reverse. Could
4 you please specify?
5 A. Yes, I can. AID was a contact point for the Office of the
6 Prosecutor, and the contact with AID was organised through a person who is
7 a member of the OTP and who was constantly on the ground in Sarajevo,
8 though at that time there was no Sarajevo office in place. His name is
9 Matthew Hudus [phoen], an American citizen. So it's a bit like the
10 chicken and the egg in that matter. I don't know if indeed we approached
11 them. I know I did. But indeed the contact was pre-established between
12 the Bosniak authorities and the Tribunal, and one of these channel of
13 contacts was AID.
14 Q. Allow me, Mr. Ruez, to specify my question. Why approach the
15 secret services information or intelligence sources to obtain statements
16 from the people who arrived in Tuzla? This is the link I'm trying to
18 A. The reason is simple. We had the knowledge that once the refugees
19 arrived in Tuzla, AID, that is also a part of the police, though the
20 appellation, secret service, started the process of interviewing as much
21 people as possible and they did that, I think, during at least two or
22 three weeks, so they already had what I called a reservoir of available
23 statements, though the statements that were taken by them were very rough
24 statements, half a page, one-page statement per person. But it was a good
25 starting base for us in order to scan potential witnesses.
1 Q. Thank you for your answer. I don't doubt that these statements
2 could be useful for your inquiry, for your investigation, but we can
3 confirm that your investigation allowed to confirm that the refugees as
4 soon as they had arrived in Tuzla got interviewed by secret services of
5 Bosnia. That is indeed the case, isn't it?
6 A. I would have to correct it slightly. We already gave a figure of
7 these refugees, 25.000. So, no, not all the refugees were interviewed by
8 the Tuzla police, though among them AID people, but those who had relevant
9 information or believed having relevant information were invited to give a
10 statement. I have to add that it's not because they were interviewed by
11 AID that we considered them as being either of a high value, either of no
12 value, because being at a first stage interviewed by AID. We made our own
13 assessment of that information after we proceeded to the interview
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. What I would like to avoid is to -- having
16 to interrupt you. The point of my question were the refugees, when they
17 arrived in Tuzla, yes or no, were interviewed by the secret services. At
18 the time you confirmed that it was indeed the case, it's the only point I
19 was getting to with my question. Isn't it the case?
20 A. This is the reason why I wanted to make it more precise. No, the
21 refugees were not interviewed because they were 25.000. A few hundred of
22 them have been indeed interviewed.
23 Q. Thank you. So this is the answer. This is the question I hope
24 you would answer. Now, I go to another topic, the question of the column,
25 the people who, according to your testimony and the answers which you gave
1 to my colleague, would have left through the woods to go to Tuzla.
2 Answering questions of my colleague, you mentioned, and you also said in
3 the Blagojevic trial, there was, according to you, about 15.000 men in
4 this column, indeed?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And in the Blagojevic trial, during your testimony you separated
7 this column in two groups. On the one side the army and the unarmed men
8 on the other side.
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. What I would hike you to confirm is your assumption, you mentioned
11 this during your testimony in the Blagojevic trial, and I am precisely
12 going to use the words you spoke in the Blagojevic, page 393, lines 22 to
13 24. In that trial, you said, and I'm quoting you, "[In English] As I
14 indicated previously, the number of soldiers of the 28th division was
15 determined by the number of weapons available." [Interpretation] Is this
16 indeed the assumption you used during your investigation, which is to say
17 that the number of soldiers which were identified was determined using the
18 number of weapons which were available?
19 A. What I meant with that is that -- and I'm sure the Defence will
20 not contradict me on that point -- the situation within the enclave, in
21 terms of combat force, would not only be the combat force of members who
22 would have military card saying they are members of the 28th division, but
23 the fact that every man of military age, if he had access to a weapon,
24 could be indeed considered as an additional fighting force available.
25 Also, I think we have a document in the records, there was a mobilisation
1 order coming from the local authorities in Srebrenica that came out a few
2 days before the fall of the enclave. So that means again that any man,
3 let's say, wearing either a shirt or a camouflage uniform, could be
4 legitimately considered as a combatant. Nevertheless, I always insist on
5 one thing. This investigation only deals with people who first went
6 through a detention process before being assassinated. This is why there
7 is absolutely no problem for the Prosecution side to characterise every
8 single male of fighting age in the enclave as a potential threat for the
9 Serb [Realtime transcript read in error "reserve"] forces, indeed.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. I wasn't asking for so much but I'm happy
11 with your answer since it corresponds to what you said during your
12 testimony in two previous trials.
13 I shall now shift to another topic, or rather a last question
14 about the beginning of the events, that is to say in the Blagojevic trial,
15 you said that there was a number of unknown men who went to Potocari
16 because they didn't want to abandon their families. Is this a fact which
17 was established during your investigation?
18 A. Yes. Just before answering, I noticed a mistake in the
19 transcript. I didn't say reserve forces but Serb forces, if you pointed
20 it out as well. I don't have the line under the eyes. But to return to
21 your question.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: It's page 80, line 18.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
24 THE WITNESS: To return to your question, yes, indeed, this is
25 what we learned from people that we had interviewed and who went through
1 the Potocari events. There were various reasons given about the
2 motivation --
3 MR. BOURGON:
4 Q. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you, Mr. Ruez. The question was
5 limited to confirming that your investigation has established that there
6 were a number of men who went to Potocari?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You agree. And further to the questions asked by my colleague a
9 bit earlier, you can confirm that you do not know how many these men were,
10 what the number of these men were?
11 A. Indeed.
12 Q. Now, as we have seen in a video, which you showed during your
13 testimony, you can confirm that among these men some were in military age?
14 A. [Microphone not activated].
15 Q. I'll now move no a site called Grbavci. I'd like to confirm that
16 according to your investigation the school of Grbavci was identified as
17 being a detention place?
18 A. Yes, it was.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. One answer is not --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, one answer is not. Yes,
21 exactly. The reason is that we are moving too fast, even though counsel
22 and witness are not speaking the same language. Could I ask you again to
23 repeat your question, please? And then he will -- the question I can read
24 it out myself. We have seen in a video, Mr. Ruez, which you showed during
25 your examination-in-chief, can you confirm that amongst these men, some
1 were in or of military age? And then I heard your answer but it doesn't
2 show up in the transcript. Could you kindly repeat your answer to that
4 THE WITNESS: I said yes. It was confirmed that the Grbavci
5 school was indeed identified as a detention place.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We are on different wave lengths.
7 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, if I can take from here.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes of course by all means. It's the previous
9 question that you don't -- according to the transcript you don't seem to
10 have answered but in actual fact you had answered it and I heard you.
11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Mr. Ruez the question, if you can find the line, your answer
13 should appear at page 82, line 1, where it says that your microphone
14 wasn't switched on. So I'll resume this question. Among the people, the
15 men, who decided to go to Potocari, you may confirm according to the
16 elements you got into your investigations that some of them, there are
17 going to be specific, both had the -- well in military age and were in a
18 state to fight?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let us come back to the Grbavci school. According to your
21 investigation, you can confirm that the sites you have named, LZ 1 and LZ
22 2 would have been primary mass graves?
23 A. Yes. I didn't use the word alleged. I said they were primary
24 mass graves.
25 Q. Thank you for your answer. Alleged comes from my side, but this
1 has not been established. The Tribunal couldn't establish this from their
2 side. Now, according to what one could read in your previous testimony,
3 in the Blagojevic case, the first checks made concerning the size of
4 Grbavci were done in April 1996, that is to say a year after the events of
5 July 1995, correct?
6 A. Precisely nine months after, indeed.
7 Q. And still, according to your testimony in the Blagojevic trial,
8 can you confirm that you went back on site on the ground several times
9 indeed but, more specifically, in 1999 with so-called survivors -- I say
10 so-called; that's the way you called them. So, the goal being to ask them
11 to identify the site of executions which they were not able to do,
13 A. This I will not answer yes or no. I will explain you the process
14 of that. First I returned but for other purposes --
15 Q. Mr. Ruez, just allow me. I just want to spare time. I don't want
16 to interrupt you but I just want to quote what you said in the Blagojevic
17 trial, page 489, line 16 to 21, in order to be able to -- because I see we
18 only have 15 minutes left and I would like to make some head way.
19 Blagojevic trial page 489, line 16 to 21. [In English] "After we went
20 there, we presented first photographs to the victims but in 1999, we
21 brought the victims back to these, to these sites, and indeed they
22 recognised that school as being the one. But we did not enter the school
23 with the victims. The goal was to bring them, to try to have them bring
24 us, in fact, to the execution sites to check if they were able to find it.
25 But they were not." [Interpretation] Is this testimony which you
1 recognise having made in the Blagojevic trial?
2 A. I recognise it but I have to modify it slightly. I said we didn't
3 bring them back inside the school. I was wrong. We did bring them back
4 inside the gym and I remember the fact that they were pointing to us
5 precisely where they were sitting inside the gym and the position in which
6 they were sitting, and I didn't have that in mind when I testified in
8 For the second part of what I said, it is absolutely true that
9 they were unable to find the location, but there is a very easy
10 explanation about it, but I don't know if you want to hear this
11 explanation but there is a very simple --
12 Q. No. No. I will save your explanation. Perhaps a colleague can
13 ask the question during his cross but I just want you to confirm that
14 these witnesses were not able to find or identify the site?
15 A. [Previous translation continues] ... someone will pick up the
16 point later on.
17 Q. Let me move to another question, Mr. Ruez. During the
18 examination-in-chief, you explained that you found near the Grbavci school
19 a pile of waste that you analysed, is that so?
20 A. Yes. The pile of debris in -- next to the playground of the
21 Grbavci school, if it's the one you refer to.
22 Q. Indeed. In this regard, in the Blagojevic case, you stated that
23 that school the Grbavci school, was also used from time to time by the
24 army and that as a result the items found in that heap, especially the
25 shell casings were not necessarily to be linked with the events of July
1 1995. Do you remember testifying in this way in the Blagojevic trial?
2 A. I absolutely do, and I do make this type of comments in the frame
3 of the fact that I am not biased. Therefore, when there is an information
4 that can exclude responsibility or wrong assumptions I point them out and
5 I did it during that case.
6 Q. And it's very much to your credit, Mr. Ruez. Another fact that
7 you mentioned which is from the same category, during your investigation,
8 you stated that none of the prisoners, people allegedly detained in that
9 Grbavci school, said to you that they would have heard bursts of fire
10 coming from location close by the school. Do you remember saying so?
11 A. Absolutely, and we found an answer to that.
12 Q. Maybe. Maybe you did. Maybe you have an explanation. But all
13 that interests me right now is whether or not there were prisoners who
14 would have stated something else during your investigation?
15 A. [Microphone not activated]
16 Q. Thank you. I would like now to deal with a very specific topic
17 regarding LZ 1 and LZ 2. It sort of titillated my curiosity during your
18 testimony. I'm referring to Monday, 11 September, page 14899 of the
19 transcript, line 13 to 15. 1489. Page 85, line 25, your answer was not
20 mentioned in the transcript because your microphone was not activated. So
21 I will an ask you to simply repeat your answer.
22 My question was as follows: During your investigation, when you
23 spoke to people who were detained in the Grbavci school, none of them
24 revealed or said that they had heard bursts of fire close by, is that so?
25 A. Yes, this is correct.
1 Q. Back to my other question which I'd started, so on Monday the 11th
2 of September you explained a location and described it which, on the basis
3 of the information provided by a survivor, as you said, that would have
4 been a resting area for the members of the execution squad. My question
5 is a simple one: Which survivors are we speaking about? If you need to
6 mention a name specifically we can go into private session.
7 A. I raised that point again during this testimony, when I showed the
8 area on the surface of which we found these carton boxes that are used to
9 condition the ammunition rounds. We would have to retake the statements
10 that we have in records for the four survivors in that place. I cannot
11 remember which one of them specifically raised the point about this
12 so-called rest area. I have no recollection.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. As far as I'm concerned, I looked into the
14 entire documents made available to me, what you call survivors whether
15 they are going to be witnesses or not and I did not find a single trace of
16 any allusion being made to the fact that there was a rest area for the
17 so-called members of the execution squad. Could this be that it's just a
18 conclusion you drew upon finding those munition boxes there?
19 A. Honestly, I don't think, but I have to trust you when you say you
20 made the check, so I could not exclude this because indeed the
21 observations made on the ground showed that the area I labelled "rest
22 area" was in no way used to shoot people on that spot, but indeed elements
23 were found showing that this was a location where the soldiers might have
24 used to prepare their business. So I cannot exclude if you say that it
25 might have been a conclusion that I now believe having come from someone.
1 I don't recall.
2 Q. Thank you. One last question regarding the LZ 1 and LZ 2 sites,
3 when you testified in the Blagojevic case, you said, and I'll ask you to
4 confirm this, you said that the total amount of bodies found connected
5 with the Grbavci events, both from primary and secondary sites, would
6 amount to 493 bodies. You said this on page 15499, lines 5 to 7. Can you
7 confirm this?
8 A. Yes. Not only I confirm but I would have to say that this is not
9 a final number because unfortunately the process of the exhumation of the
10 secondary graves on the Hodzici road is not finalised yet so I would
11 assume that once this exhumation process will be over and the connections
12 made, this number will be above 493 bodies coming from these Orahovac
13 execution sites.
14 Q. For the time being, this figure of 493 was established during
15 your investigation and you mentioned it in the Blagojevic trial; isn't
16 that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Let me move to another location, the Hodzevic [phoen]
19 school. You testified about it and I have a very -- very few brief
20 questions. First of all, during your investigation, prior to 1999, you
21 had no indication that people were detained in that school?
22 A. Yes, and I think when I said 1999 it's even -- it's not precise
23 because, in fact, though we assumed it was used, the certainty came after
24 my departure from the Tribunal, following an interview that was conducted
25 with one element of a Bosnian Serb army who was guarding the men detained
1 at that school. So in fact, this was confirmed after 2001 but the
2 pictures that I showed were taken far before that date because we had a
3 very strong feeling that school indeed had been in use.
4 Q. Thank you. One last question on this and try to be brief in your
5 answers because we only have a few minutes left. What are your sources
6 providing you with this information in 2001, as you stated?
7 A. I got the information from someone who is still in connection with
8 the investigation at the ICTY.
9 Q. Could you give us the name of the said individual? Can you
10 confirm whether or not this individual is going to be a witness in our
12 A. This is more a question that you should address to the Prosecutor,
13 because I'm not the master of the schedule of intervention of the
15 Q. Yeah, but you have the names?
16 A. I don't have the name of the person who was present at the Grbavci
17 school, but the Prosecutor has the name of this witness.
18 Q. Thank you. I'll stop there, because I have obtained the element I
19 wanted to ascertain. I'm going to try to finish today so that my
20 colleagues can then start next Monday.
21 One quick question regarding the photographs, the aerial
22 photographs, not to mention the sources thereof just the pictures
23 themselves. In these photographs, you showed that there were buses
24 visible, is that so?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's vague. If there -- there is several
1 photographs, different buses, unless it can be general it might be helpful
2 to have a more specific direction.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed.
4 If you're referring to the Bratunac one, then refer to the
5 Bratunac one but we've seen several photos with what appear to be buses
6 and what he indicated as buses. So -- I don't know what your question is
7 going to be, your next question is going to be so --
8 MR. BOURGON: My question was very general, precisely so as to
9 avoid any confusion.
10 Q. In some of these photographs can we see buses? And the fact that
11 these buses are visible in these photographs, does it make it possible for
12 you to say whether inside the buses there were women and children on their
13 way to Tuzla?
14 A. I could not also give the colour of the eyes of the driver.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think if you have no further questions, let's stop
17 JUDGE KWON: I think the witness answered the first part of the
18 question but it's not reflected in the transcript.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It -- basically, what we should have is in line 17,
20 after the first part of that question, some of these photos, can we see
21 buses, he did answer yes.
22 All right, any further questions, Mr. Bourgon?
23 Thank you, Judge Kwon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Just one last question in conclusion and then the
25 floor can be given to my colleagues at the next time.
1 Q. On the basis of your investigation, Mr. Ruez, according to what
2 you said it was established that General Mladic was seen speaking to
3 detained people in Bratunac, in the Sandici meadow, in Nova Kasaba and in
4 the Grbavci school, is it so?
5 A. Yes, indeed. I testified about that during the public hearing of
6 the end of June, early July 1996, where I pinpointed on a map all the
7 locations where General Mladic was identified and seen by witnesses.
8 Q. I would like to show you a video that was used during your
9 examination-in-chief, it's only three seconds. 65 ter 2047. I will only
10 ask you to identify one individual in the video.
11 [Videotape played]
12 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Please stop.
13 Q. When this video recording was shown, you were asked to identify
14 some individuals. Can you identify the man in black who is kissing
15 General Mladic?
16 A. No. At least not on this specific photograph.
17 Q. We maybe should show it again just these few seconds to see
18 whether you recognise the man who is kissing General Mladic. Maybe seen
19 from another angle, you will be able to recognise him. Is it possible to
20 show it again very rapidly?
21 [Videotape played]
22 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] That was before.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I'm talking about the man in black, who seems to be quite tall, at
1 least two metres high, dark hair, that man, can you identify him?
2 A. I can only see his back and at one point, a short shot of his
3 profile and, no, this face doesn't sound familiar to me and this back
4 doesn't either.
5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruez. One very last question for you.
6 As the chief investigator in this case, did you participate in discussions
7 during which the statement of facts jointly filed by the Prosecution and
8 the counsel of Dragan Obrenovic were drafted?
9 A. [Previous translation continues] ...
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, no further questions.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment I just want to make sure his answer is
12 shown on the transcript. It's not.
13 Could you repeat your answer, please, Mr. Ruez?
14 THE WITNESS: The answer of what, Judge?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: The answer to his question.
16 THE WITNESS: The last one?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: The answer is no, I did not participate in these
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
21 May I ask of the remaining Defence teams how much time you
23 Mr. Lazarevic?
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] A certain part of our
25 cross-examination will not be for Monday but in total maybe one hour.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: One hour.
2 Madam Fauveau?
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Between one hour and one hour and a
4 half, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krgovic? Half an hour?
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, very little. I may not
7 even have any questions for this witness.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes?
9 MR. HAYNES: Same answer.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So you should be able to come on Monday and
11 go back to beautiful Paris. I heard from my daughter that the weather is
12 not good today over there so ...
13 Yes, Mr. Bourgon, my attention is being drawn to the fact that you
14 did not mention the 65 ter number of the video that the witness was
15 shown. That you would like to do so? I should say it in French, you
17 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I did mention the number. I did
18 mention the number, 65 ter 2047.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
20 MR. BOURGON: I did mention the number, Mr. President. I would
21 never forget that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: It didn't go into the transcript. So that's it. A
23 word of thanks to the staff, the interpreters, and the technicians,
24 everyone present, for having stayed with us for a further seven minutes
25 and I wish everyone a happy weekend. To you as well, Mr. Ruez, and thank
1 you for staying with us. Thank you.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
4 September, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.