1 Thursday, 1 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Madam Registrar, could you call the
6 case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All the accused are here. All the
10 Defence teams are here, minus Ms. Condon and Mr. Sarapa. Prosecution is
11 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 Yes, before we ask you for preliminaries, when dealing with
13 Witness 45 yesterday you remember that we gave our decision on the
14 Madam Fauveau request. There is also, with regard to this witness, a
15 request for putting in place the protective measures of image distortion
16 and pseudonym. Are there any objections from any one of you to the
17 granting of these protective measures? I hear none. So we grant these
18 protective measures in respect to Witness number 45.
19 All right. In preliminaries? Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour, Mr. President. We had an issue
21 with a -- a minor issue with the for six months we have been told by the
22 Bench --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Which witness?
24 MR. MEEK: The present witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
1 MR. MEEK: For six months we have been told by the Bench that we
2 should endeavour when at all possible to communicate was Prosecution and
3 the Prosecution should communicate with us in order to work things out.
4 We had a minor, simple issue. We worked that out. We thought we worked
5 that out. We both agreed, not only the Prosecution, but all Defence
6 teams, that we only ask for two minutes to talk to this witness to clarify
7 one issue, not ex parte, but with members of the Defence and members of
8 the Prosecution. That request, that simple request got denied. I don't
9 know if I can ask you questions, but I don't know what rationale. If you
10 want us to work together, we will; if you want us to waste our time, we're
11 not going to do it. And with all due request, that's all I've got to say.
12 You denied our request, a joint request by the Prosecution and the Defence
13 to be able to take a few minutes to alleviate what we believe to be at
14 issue that didn't need to crop up.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I have to stop you because we haven't had any
16 request and we haven't denied anything. What are you talking about?
17 MR. MEEK: I apologise. We asked the court officers to talk to
18 the Judges and maybe ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: There must have been a big failure in communication,
21 Mr. Meek. When we were spoken to there were two things that we made
22 clear. First, that's none of our business, we don't want to get involved.
23 This is not something in which we should be even -- we should be involved
24 in the least. And the second thing is that we thought you had enough time
25 to discuss. If you want more time, we'll give you more time to discuss.
1 But that's about it. I mean, we don't want to get involved in the issue
2 at all and we don't want to hear any submissions on the issue.
3 MR. MEEK: Okay. Then maybe there has been. Let me explain it
4 very briefly. We simply requested, the Prosecution and the Defence, that
5 we have two minutes to speak with the witness now, before she comes in,
6 and it can alleviate up to two hours of cross-examination.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem with two minutes. We were told you
8 needed 10 minutes or so. But if you want two minutes, we'll go out and
9 we'll come back, but otherwise we don't want to hear submissions on what's
10 going on between you.
11 MR. MEEK: I think frankly you could stay here, we could just go
12 out. She's in the waiting-room, correct? Peter? It's up to you,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: No, we go out. I think it's ...
15 --- Break taken at 2.29 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 2.36 p.m.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me, on behalf of the Trial Chamber make
18 something clear. I said earlier on that there must have been some
19 miscommunication. We have had a chance to confirm, the four of us, with
20 the officer, the legal officer also. We had made it clear that we didn't
21 want to hear or be involved in the process that you were discussing
22 amongst you because we were of the opinion that it shouldn't have even
23 been brought to our attention for -- to an extent. But we also made it
24 clear that although we shouldn't be asked for authorisation, we don't want
25 to be involved in that, you will have all the time necessary if you need
1 to discuss amongst yourselves. So this was what went wrong. Yeah, and
2 perhaps we are to blame for that miscommunication.
3 All right. Yes, Mr. Meek.
4 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I would like to thank you
5 for your indulgence and cooperation, and because she had already taken the
6 oath we felt we needed to ask that permission, otherwise we wouldn't have
7 that issue. Thank you for your cooperation.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I can understand that too, because we come from
9 different jurisdictions and sometimes these things happen. And that is
11 So, anything else? Can we bring in Ms. Gilleece.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 WITNESS: EILEEN GILLEECE [Resumed]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Ms. Gilleece. Please make yourself
15 comfortable and let's proceed with your testimony.
16 Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, please. Good afternoon Your Honours,
18 good afternoon, counsel.
19 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
20 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Gilleece. First I thought I should let the
21 Court know that with regard to the provision of the documents that
22 Ms. Gilleece had with her yesterday, they have been copied and provided to
24 Ms. Gilleece, I just want to let you know that has the President
25 indicated we have all at times difficulties with our memories and to the
1 extent that you are not able to recall or remember something, if you need
2 to resort to your notes, you can do that with leave of the Court. You
3 ask, and to the extent it is permitted then you will be allowed to do
4 that. So I just wanted to let you know that, and I guess we can pick up
5 where we left off yesterday.
6 I think I had asked you last whether or not you were able to
7 receive an acknowledgement with the respect to the rights that you had
8 informed Mr. Pandurevic and Mr. Sarapa about in relation to this
9 conversation that occurred on the 2nd of October of 2001?
10 A. Yes, I did receive acknowledgement that both gentlemen understood
11 the rights each time I had given them to them.
12 Q. Following your having given Mr. Pandurevic those rights, did there
13 come a time where he actually provided you with certain information?
14 A. Yes, there did.
15 Q. Okay. And to the best of your recollection, can you tell us what
16 information he provided you with?
17 A. He provided me with information of some of thinks activities
18 during 1995 specifically July of 1995.
19 Q. And can you tell us what he told you?
20 A. He was concerned with a report done by Rick Butler of the MAT
21 [phoen] team that appeared on the internet. His concerns were that Mr.
22 Butler's conclusions were incomplete and he came to the wrong conclusions
23 because he had misinformation. And took things out of context, were
24 Mr. Pandurevic's feelings.
25 Q. And did he direct your attention to particular issues that he
1 found that Mr. Butler had incorrectly concluded upon?
2 A. Yes, there was specifically a handwritten report that Mr. Butler
3 refers to, and it's about the killing of pigs, and Mr. Pandurevic stated
4 that the -- the report actually -- the actual report would -- let me just
5 rephrase this.
6 The report actually referred to the 28th Division of the Muslims
7 killing pigs in the area. Nothing else.
8 Q. And did he refer your attention to a specific term or term of
10 A. Mr. Pandurevic had brought two books with him, pretty thick books.
11 If I could just refer to my notes, I can get the names of the books.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: With the Court's leave, may she refer to her
14 THE WITNESS: The first book was -- pardon my mispronunciation.
15 Vojni Leksikon, copyright 1981, published in Belgrade, Serbia. That was a
16 military lexicon and the other one was military encyclopedia, volume 10,
17 copyright 1975, published in Belgrade, Serbia, by Universal Books. There
18 was a term called -- I'm sure my pronunciation is wrong. A-s-a-n-a-c-n-a
19 [sic]. Mr. Pandurevic advised that the term of cleansing the terrain is
20 "asanacija," and it was defined on page 36 of Vojna Enciklopedija. The
21 term is also handwritten on a document that Rick Butler had referred to in
22 his report.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. Now, the document that you are referring to, was that identified
25 by Mr. Pandurevic as a handwritten report?
1 A. Yes, he said it was a handwritten report and it was dated the 15th
2 of July, 1992, at 200 -- 2 -- 2000 hours.
3 Q. Now, did he say anything more about that term, or is that the
4 extent of the conversation that you had with respect to it?
5 A. During the -- our discussions, I'm not -- I was not familiar then,
6 nor am I now, with the particulars of this case, so Mr. Pandurevic would
7 jump around a bit and I would just take the information and write it
8 down. That's why the investigative note is not in any kind of concise or
9 doesn't really flow. It jumps around a bit. So if I was to look at my
10 notes here, he also spoke about the -- his -- the zone was also one of the
11 terms that he brought up from the book also, that that was also one of the
12 issues of concern that he had.
13 Q. Okay. When you say zone, are you referring to -- well, did he
14 refer you to a particular definition of the term "zone" within the context
15 of his zone of responsibility or something of that nature?
16 A. Yes, he did, if you will just bear with me one second.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: She is checking, Mr. Vanderpuye, reading through the
18 transcript one gets the impression which could be the wrong impression, I
19 don't know. This is why I'm raising this, that these two books that
20 Mr. Pandurevic allegedly brought with him and to which he referred ...
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm ready when you are, sir.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it does become much clearer then when you
23 read again and again what -- okay. I think it's clear enough.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I may have missed the -- the issue. I
25 just wanted it -- is it that it's not clear in the record which ...
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: That was perhaps not 100 clear. But I think more or
3 less it is the distinction between the Butler papers or whatever
4 documents, and the books, there was some confusion in my mind. But I
5 think, having read it again, it can stay as it is.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 THE WITNESS: Mr. Pandurevic explained that on page 716 of Vojni
8 Leksikon, it says that the sone of intelligence has no other zone of
9 attack. Pandurevic had no zone of responsibility, according to the
10 definitions. And the schools where the POWs were accommodated were not
11 under his control. He also then stated that the term "zone" is defined
12 again on page 709 of the same book. He did allow our interpreter to read
13 the book at the table and she confirmed what was on both pages.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. Okay. And she confirmed that had to you?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Now, did Mr. Pandurevic mention anything with respect to his
18 presence or absence from Srebrenica at around the time of its fall?
19 A. He said he was not Srebrenica at the time of the fall, that he
20 actually had a zone of responsibility and he was 40 -- 40 kilometres away,
21 I believe. Let me just check that. His duties specific to Srebrenica
22 were 40 kilometres from his brigade. That's what he said it was, and then
23 later he mentioned a few things that he had been in -- he gave us a few
24 dates and times specific to where he was and what his actions were.
25 Q. And do you recall those dates? And if you need to refresh your
1 recollection, just let us know if that's what you -- you've done or you
2 need to do?
3 A. Yes, I'll just refresh in a moment, here. He was emphatic that on
4 the 14th and 15th of July 1995 he was not present in Srebrenica. He -- on
5 the -- on the 12th of July 1995 the Drina Corps marched towards Zepa. He
6 did say that he attended a meeting on the 11th of July, 1995, in Bratunac
7 with Krstic and Mladic.
8 Q. And did he tell you what the subject matter of that meeting was or
9 among the things that were discussed at that particular meeting?
10 A. Well, at the meeting he said that -- he had spoke to Mladic and he
11 had asked Mladic not to move the units and he suggested that they contact
12 the Muslim 28th Division. But he felt that his proposal was refused as
13 unnecessary -- an unnecessary philosophy and then that was not taken on.
14 They also went over something about concerning the command at that meeting
15 with Krstic and Mladic.
16 Q. Now, did Mr. Pandurevic indicate to you anything with regard to
17 the movements of his units with respect to Zepa in particular?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you -- the witness answers this
19 question. The last part of her previous answer or her last answer, they
20 also went over something about concerning the command at that meeting with
21 Krstic and Mladic. Can you be more specific because this is, I feel, very
23 THE WITNESS: That's all I have in my notes.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE:
25 Q. And is that all you can recall at this time?
1 A. I do know there was a change of command and Zivanovic was no
2 longer in command, Krstic was, is what -- that was the change of command
3 that they were referring to. Krstic took over and Zivanovic was going on
4 a rest.
5 Q. Okay. Now, did -- I think I had asked a question ...
6 A. Concerned with Mr. Pandurevic's movements of his -- his people, he
7 said that his movements were not relevant and they made classical
8 movements toward Zepa.
9 Q. And --
10 A. On the 15th he said that he went to the forward command post at a
11 place called Krevaca [phoen], which I recorded phonetically, and that's
12 where he met Krstic.
13 Q. With respect to these movements towards Zepa, I think you used the
14 term classical movements?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Were you able to ascertain what was meant by that?
17 A. I took it to mean classical military movements.
18 Q. Now, did Mr. Pandurevic indicate when it was, if at all, that he
19 left Zepa?
20 A. He said on the 15th of July he had met with Krstic and he got
21 approval at about 12.00 p.m. to head towards Srebrenica on the 15th.
22 Q. Okay. Now, did he indicate, if anything, had occurred between the
23 time that he left Zepa on his way back -- did you say Srebrenica?
24 A. Yeah, he pulled out from Zepa and he was headed towards
1 Q. Do you know if he had plans to go to Zvornik?
2 A. I would have to refer to my notes here.
3 Q. Okay. If you could refer to your notes. Let me just refer you to
4 page 4. Fourth paragraph down.
5 A. Yes, on -- I physically don't know where he said, but I put on his
6 return from Zepa to Zvornik. Obviously to go to Srebrenica, he went
7 through Zvornik. And both his brigade and battalion were jeopardised and
8 they had to fight with 7.000 armed soldiers. He was in the main conflict
9 and on the morning of the 15th of July received information that the
10 Muslims wanted to negotiate. The contact person was Semso Muminovic.
11 That's also when he said there was a big rumour that Naser Oric was going
12 to be -- come with the 28th Muslim Brigade.
13 Q. All right. So did you have some discussion with Mr. Pandurevic
14 about Naser Oric?
15 A. Yes. We did, because I was pretty familiar with Mr. Oric and his
17 Q. Ask can you till us?
18 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to move away from
19 the microphone for the benefit of the interpreters.
20 THE WITNESS: The witness will kindly comply.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE:
22 Q. Can you tell us in substance what the discussion was with respect
23 to Naser Oric?
24 A. He said Mr. Pandurevic advised that when this rumour came about
25 that Naser was coming towards them. It was very -- it was almost
1 impossible to keep people focused, because there was such legend, lore,
2 and myth surrounding Mr. Oric and has capabilities. It was simply
3 unbelievable, and it was very hard to keep it inside and then focussed on
4 the task at hand of holding the area they were supposed to hold.
5 Q. Now, you had indicated that there was a person that -- that
6 Mr. Pandurevic indicated that he was in contact with, Semso Muminovic?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the conversation concerning
10 A. Pandurevic had said that he had spoken to Mr. Muminovic and that
11 he had let some -- let me just check this. He agreed -- at one point they
12 agreed to allow a status quo situation. That was on the 15th of July,
13 1995. Then in the morning Muminovic called from a loud-speaker and
14 Pandurevic allowed a lot of people to pass on the 16th of July, 1995.
15 Pandurevic submitted a report on the 16th of July stating that he had
16 allowed a column to pass through. On the 17th Pandurevic made contact
17 again with Muminovic of the 28th Muslim Division. Pandurevic allowed
18 another group of Muslims to pass through. This time he said it was a
19 group of Muslim teenagers.
20 Q. Let me ask you to slow down a little bit so that the interpreters
21 can keep up with you, and we can follow what you are saying, if you could.
22 If you could continue, I'm sorry.
23 A. That's okay. He also said that when he spoke -- he spoke about
24 Mr. Muminovic and he had already -- Mr. Muminovic had testified at The
25 Hague trial and would be testifying again at Obrenovic at his upcoming
2 Q. Was that the extent of the conversation you had with
3 Mr. Pandurevic about Mr. Muminovic?
4 A. I believe he spoke to him recently. Let me just -- I mean, recent
5 to the time I was speaking to him, so let me just check that. Oh, he had
6 spoken to him a month prior to our meeting is when he had last spoken to
7 Muminovic via telephone. So he was in contact with Muminovic. That would
8 be in October of 2001. Or the month prior, actually, September.
9 Q. Now, did Mr. Pandurevic indicate to you whether or not he had
10 information about prisoners of war, POWs, in the zone of -- or zone of
11 combat in which he was engaged?
12 A. He mentioned on the 22nd of July that he had 23 soldiers taken
13 prisoner, POWs. He had asked the commission for exchange to assist as
14 soon as possible and he asked for instruction from them. He received
15 nothing in writing, only by phone. Pandurevic was told to send the POWs
16 to Bakovici [phoen] for an exchange. There was no order issued concerning
17 that. And he also did mention that there were plenty of rumours
18 circulating that there were executions going on but at that time he said
19 there were rumours going on about everything, that nothing really could be
20 trusted. There were all kinds of rumours circulating throughout
22 Q. Did he indicate to you whether or not he had received any official
23 reports regarding executions?
24 A. Let me just check a second. The only thing that I can recall that
25 he mentioned was that he had said that some of his units were being linked
1 to Obrenovic's activities and Obrenovic was charged with killing POWs on
2 the 14th and 15th; however, he was not at that time sure if that was true
3 or not. He did not have any knowledge of POWs being killed, other than
4 rumour control.
5 Q. Did he tell you whether or not he had received reports about
6 Muslim prisoners in that area?
7 A. Very similar, the prisoners were being -- he had -- I wouldn't
8 call it a report. He again -- let me just review my notes a second
9 because it does jump around a bit. At one point he mentioned about POWs
10 accommodated at -- at schools. But they were not under his control. He
11 doesn't go any further, he -- he's not as strong as to say there is
12 official reports. He does speak about rumours, that there is rumours that
13 POWs are detained in schools and had been killed. He was just adamant
14 that if, in fact, there were prisoners there, they were not under his
16 Q. Now, did he, in the course of your conversation, refer to a
17 recording that was taken about the 15th of July, 1995? I just want --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And let me just ask, without naming the participants of the
20 conversation, could you tell us what the subject matter of that
21 conversation was?
22 A. He spoke about a recording. He didn't say how he came to know
23 about that. But on the recording they speak about three and a half
24 thousand packages, meaning people. Request for aid to help with the
25 people is made. A call was made to one general but he was not available.
1 He was directed to call another general, but no one had called
2 Mr. Pandurevic, so Pandurevic -- which was adamant that he had no official
3 information concerning those packages or people. He did say you know who
4 would be able to bring three and a half thousand people and accommodate
6 Q. Did he specifically -- well -- define packages as used in that
7 conversation as people?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, does this represent the totality of the conversation
10 that you had with Mr. Pandurevic and Mr. Sarapa and General Zivanovic?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. And were there other things that you spoke about that you
13 did not take note of?
14 A. Yes. Since there was -- the main intent of the meeting with
15 Zivanovic was to -- for team 6 -- not for team 6 but for team 9 to forward
16 what our goal was to get more evidence concerning our case. So we spoke
17 at length, Mr. Pandurevic and I, about the food, things that you did to
18 make a connection so that people will trust you and then hopefully be able
19 to trust you with items that we needed for evidence on our case. So we
20 discussed the food, we discussed, I believe, he had small children. His
21 brother was the person who had driven them to the appointment. We
22 discussed the weather. Many times I was taught the word "polako" which is
23 slow down. Mr. Zivanovic is an avid bee raiser or he has bee huts. We
24 discussed that a lot. There were a lot of things that we discussed, and
25 we did discuss some issues regarding Kamenica.
1 Q. Now, during the time that you had this conversation with Mr.
2 Pandurevic did you -- did you say anything to him or do anything to give
3 him the impression that he would receive some sort of benefit if he spoke
4 to you?
5 A. Yes. The only -- yeah, the benefit I told him is, I would try to
6 record as -- as accurately as possible, and I would pass an accurate
7 message to Mr. McCloskey.
8 Q. Okay. And is that what he requested of you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And aside from that, did you do anything or make any
11 promises to him with respect to the disposition of any matter that might
12 be pending before the Tribunal or that might be brought?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. Did anybody else that you were with take any such action?
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Now, did anybody else besides you ask any clarification-types of
17 questions of Mr. Pandurevic?
18 A. Yes. Mr. Cooper would have, the military analyst that was with
20 Q. Now, aside from clarification types of questions did either you or
21 Mr. Cooper or anybody else ask Mr. Pandurevic questions in order to
22 uncover information that he hadn't otherwise shared with you?
23 Investigatory types of questions.
24 A. No, other than clarification on how to spell something, maybe the
25 interpreter to repeat something and how it was said. Mr. Cooper would ask
1 things to clarify terminology. We did not ask the normal investigatory
2 questions other than clarification of his statements.
3 Q. Now, at the time you spoke to Mr. Pandurevic, were you taking
4 notes contemporaneously?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I think you indicated Mr. Cooper also took notes
8 A. Yes, usually the interpreter myself and whoever is present takes
10 Q. And did these notes work their way into this note that you have
11 referring to, this investigative note?
12 A. Yes, at the end of the meeting I collect all the notes when we get
13 together by ourselves. We go over to make sure nothing has been missed.
14 I then draft a -- a report, or in this case an investigative note, and
15 then it's typed up and the notes are shredded. And the only existence of
16 a note is this investigative, and then the memo that I was told to send to
17 Patrick Lopez-Terres.
18 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the note that you prepared, is it fair
19 to say that it incorporates the substance of the notes that you took
20 contemporaneously or, I should say, that were taken contemporaneously by
21 you and Mr. Cooper?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And can you tell us just that, I guess, the record is more
24 complete when it was about that you prepared this investigative note that
25 you are referring to?
1 A. I would have prepared on the 6th or 7th. The actual body of it, I
2 ran into an issue of -- because -- this was the first time something like
3 this had happened. When I returned I'd obviously spoken to someone who
4 was on a sealed indictment. I found that out on my return. Then there
5 was some discussion as to how it was going to be recorded, the body would
6 be as it stands, but was it going to be a report, investigative note, and
7 it was determined that it would -- a memo, it was determined to be an
8 investigative note.
9 Q. And you believe you prepared that on the 6th or so of October of
11 A. Right.
12 Q. In any event, several days after the actual conversation?
13 A. Oh, definitely.
14 Q. Okay. All right. Just bear with me for one moment, if -- if the
15 Court would just bear with me for a sec.
16 All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Gilleece. I don't have any
17 further questions at this point.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
19 MR. HAYNES: I'm not about to cross-examine. I'm about to inform
20 you of what is likely to be a change in the programme. I was going to
21 cross-examine this witness first, but in the light of the evidence I have
22 heard, I want to talk to my client about the strategy of cross-examination
23 to follow, and Ms. Fauveau has kindly agreed that she will cross-examine
24 this witness first. Depending on how long she is, if it takes us to a
25 break, I want to speak to my client before I proceed.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We will give you all the time you require.
2 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau.
4 Anyone else would be cross-examining this witness?
5 MR. OSTOJIC: We may, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So Madam Fauveau, will you go first?
7 Thank you.
8 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, you worked in the OTP office, your primary
10 duties were to investigate on crimes committed against Serbs; is that
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And as part of your duties you received many documents from the
14 organs of the Republic of Srpska, haven't you?
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. And you also received the journal written by Naser Oric; is that
18 A. [Previous translation continues] ... one that was attributed to
19 him, yes.
20 Q. And that agenda or journal you received it in the month of
21 February, 2002?
22 A. I'm not aware off the top of my head if that's when I received it,
24 Q. Could the witness be shown Exhibit 5D174, please. I am terribly
25 sorry this document is not translated, but I am absolutely certain that we
1 can certainly work from the document in Serbo Croatian. What I am
2 interested in is the date, you can certainly see the date of the 20th of
3 February, 2002, on this document?
4 A. Yes, I can.
5 Q. And you can also see that your name is written at the bottom. It
6 says, "Ms. Gilleece, investigator for the ICTY Banja Luka field office"?
7 A. Actually, my signature appears up in the top right corner, ma'am,
8 dated 20 February 2002. That's definitely me.
9 Q. Could the witness be shown the second page of this document,
11 I am going to read the portion that is after -- that is written
12 after number 1 so that we can translate it or that it can be translated
13 for the benefit of all the parties in this courtroom.
14 Diary of Naser Oric with two photographs.
15 THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: Oric with two pictures.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Madam, do you recognise receiving this journal from Naser Oric
18 that day?
19 A. Just to be clear, I received that from the Republic of Srpska
20 officials. They attribute that had that diary was Mr. Oric's. I did not
21 meet with Mr. Oric to receive that. The Republic of Srpska, their
22 position was that it was his diary. I had not yet authenticated that or
23 determined what exactly was turned over to me.
24 Q. And, in fact, when you came back you put this diary somewhere
25 without analysing it; is that correct?
1 A. No, that would be -- I did not analyse it, but I turned it over to
2 our intelligence analyst, Michael Sporluk, because he could read B/C/S - I
3 could not and do not - and he provided an assessment.
4 Q. Could the witness be shown 5D173, please. And this document also
5 could be shown in English, please. This document is only available in the
6 English version.
7 Witness, I will let you examine this document. Is it correct to
8 say that this document is referring to the diary that Republic of Srpska
9 thought belonged to Naser Oric or was his?
10 A. I think it is the one that I had retrieved, yes.
11 Q. And if we read the last paragraph of this document, which is a
12 document stemming from the OTP, this diary is -- was found in your office
13 on the 8th of July, 2004, or, rather, more than one year after you left
14 the OTP. Is that correct?
15 A. I know I turned that over to Michael Sporluk and Gamini
16 Wijeyesinghe, and I was doing a lot of travelling. I would come back with
17 the packages and I'd turn them over to Gamini and Mr. Sporluk to send for
18 processing and iffing [phoen]. I was not aware that that was left in any
19 cabinet in the team 9 area. I know when that document came in it was read
20 by Michael Sporluk to exhaustion. And that was when I first came back.
21 So I'm quite surprised to -- to see this note.
22 Q. Witness, are you telling us that you did not know that this note
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm going to object to my learned friend's
1 question. I don't think there is a basis for it and I don't see what the
2 particular relevance of the line of questioning is. She hasn't identified
3 a source of the information with which she has confronted the witness, and
4 if -- you can read from the document itself, it contains a relatively
5 accusatory language, but there doesn't seem to be any source to which it's
6 attributable, and the witness has already indicated she is surprised to
7 see it, so I think the question is kind of superfluous in the line of
8 questions. Line of questioning is irrelevant.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Just a moment, I will consult with my colleagues
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. In asking your question initially you
12 mentioned that this diary or you suggested by reference to this document
13 to the witness that it was found in her office on the 8th of July. The
14 document does not say that. The document says that the diary plus, et
15 cetera, were discovered in a cabinet in team 9 area. Was Mr. Sporluk part
16 of team 9?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, as was Mr. -- actually, he was part of the
18 intelligence analyst team, and Mr. Wijeyesinghe was a part of team 9.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. So perhaps now you can put your question
20 again, Ms. Fauveau. Or rephrase your question.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Witness, did you know that there was a problem with this diary?
23 Did somebody contact you from the OTP after you left regarding the diary
24 of Naser Oric?
25 A. Not specifically the diary. They contacted me about materials
1 from the Republic of Srpska which I had turned over to Mr. Wijeyesinghe
2 and I told them I had turned them over to him.
3 Q. Is it true that there were certain documents which had been
4 received from the Republic of Srpska and which had not been properly
5 treated at the Office of the Prosecutor?
6 A. According to this note you put before me, it appears that could be
7 the case, ma'am.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. We had anticipated this
9 question, basically. Go ahead.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would object to the question. I know that it's
11 been answered already. But the line of question with respect to the
12 proper handling of this material, I don't think even a foundation has been
13 laid in order to justify the question. And once again, I don't know what
14 the relevance of that is to the witness's testimony.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So, we have given due consideration to your
17 objection. We do see some relevance to the point raised by the -- or the
18 point that Ms. Fauveau seeks to pursue. So please answer the question. I
19 will repeat the question for her. She answered part.
20 Is it true that there were certain documents which had been
21 received from RS and which had not been properly treated at the Office of
22 the Prosecutor. And your answer started, "According to this note you put
23 before me, it appears that could be the case, ma'am." But did you finish
24 your answer or did you wish to add more to it?
25 THE WITNESS: I do know that when being questioned, Mesi Manas
1 [phoen] on the trial of Naser Oric was asked about some iffing and
2 discovery issuing, and she mentioned my name, that I didn't process
3 documents appropriately. However, on further questions she said that
4 there was an investigation being conducted at the Tribunal and there had
5 been no conclusion to that. I was not contacted other than by Ken Klora
6 [phoen] to ask about documents, and I told them what I had done with them,
7 and that was the end of it as far as I was concerned. And then I was
8 told. I was quite surprised that Resin [phoen] answered that way in front
9 of the Tribunal and that is on record and on the internet and that could
10 be what the good counsel is referring to.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Shall we move to another subject, Ms. Fauveau?
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. As far as I'm
13 concerned I have finished. I have no other question to ask.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Ostojic.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Just a few questions, if I
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
18 Q. Good afternoon. In fact, the name of the investigator or the
19 person that testified in connection with your discovery process concluded
20 that it was negligent what you did; isn't that correct?
21 A. She certainly concluded that, sir, but no one else.
22 Q. No one else that you know of?
23 A. No one else that I am aware of at all.
24 Q. Now let me go back quickly to the October 2nd 2001 meeting with
25 Mr. Pandurevic. You stated that you had read him his rights basically
1 four to six times during the six or eight-hour meeting that you had,
3 A. That would be correct, sir.
4 Q. Why do you that?
5 A. Because he was discussing issues of concern from 1995, and I
6 wanted to make sure he knew that anything he was telling me I would have
7 to repeat here to the Tribunal.
8 Q. Okay. Now, could you have easily, during that eight or so hour
9 meeting with him, called team 6 to inform them you were meeting with
10 Mr. Pandurevic?
11 A. Actually, I couldn't have. I had a mobile phone that did not work
12 in the Republic of Srpska in that area. Because we did consider that. We
13 would not have trusted the phones - I don't even know if there was a
14 phone - in the restaurant. And the radio in the UN vehicle actually
15 didn't work either, sir.
16 Q. Okay. And can you tell me where your notes are from that meeting,
17 your actual notes that you took?
18 A. As I stated earlier, I shredded them.
19 Q. Now, did you also tell us from what I recall that you were
20 unfamiliar with the events of Srebrenica and you were just talking to
21 General Zivanovic about what occurred in 1992 and 1993, the atrocities
22 that may have occurred against Serbs, correct?
23 A. Right. I had a vague idea of had a happened in 1995 just from
24 the -- CNN during 1995.
25 Q. Well, Ms. Gilleece, I disagree with you on that point. You have
1 more than a vague understanding of what happened in Srebrenica, don't
3 A. Today I do, sir.
4 Q. No, ma'am. Actually in October of 2001 you did.
5 A. You have to understand I'm working on Naser Oric. It's --
6 everything's 1992, even in my investigative note, I default to 1992.
7 You're so focussed. It's a country that, you know, the culture, the
8 language, I'm very focussed on the events that I need to do for my case.
9 So it was rather foreign to me, the 1995 issues.
10 Q. Help me understand this: Did you at all testify in the Krstic
12 A. Yes.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Speakers please make pauses.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, in fact I was going to draw your attention. I
15 think you're going too fast and you are not allowing a pause between
16 question and answer.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, I will repeat the question.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, and Ms. Gilleece, please allow a short pause
19 between question and answer so we don't make the interpreters' lives more
20 difficult than it is.
21 MR. OSTOJIC:
22 Q. Did you testify in the General Krstic case in this Tribunal?
23 A. Yes, I did, sir.
24 Q. What was that case about?
25 A. That case was about General Krstic in 1995, his actions.
1 Q. In Srebrenica, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now let me guess, did you he have testify in this case before or
4 after your interview with Mr. Pandurevic in October of 2001?
5 A. Before.
6 Q. So you had some facts or some knowledge or information other than
7 CNN because you had, in fact, testified in the Krstic case four months
8 before you actually met with Mr. Pandurevic, correct?
9 A. Yes, I had some basic facts as I stated, sir.
10 Q. Now, let me ask you this also: Did you ever discuss with
11 General Zivanovic prior to October 2nd, 2001, anything about Srebrenica
12 in 1995?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Okay. Before or after your meeting with Mr. Pandurevic?
15 A. Before.
16 Q. How many times did you meet with General Zivanovic?
17 A. I met him the first time was April the 12th, 2001. I saw him
18 again on April the 23rd. I would have spoken to him on the phone between
19 those two dates at least once. And then I had spoken to him at least once
20 before to arrange the meeting in October. So I would say two to three
21 times on the phone and twice in person, and that would be the third time
22 in October 2001 as best I can recall, sir.
23 Q. Thank you. Other than watching CNN from what you told us and
24 learning something about Srebrenica on CNN, in fact isn't it true that
25 Mr. Zivanovic in those meetings in April of 2001 gave you specific
1 information in connection with Srebrenica in 1995?
2 A. His specific information mainly rallied around the fact that he
3 was not -- he was not involved as a commander.
4 Q. Did he show you any notes?
5 A. He showed me a document that he was relieved of command and Krstic
6 was put into command.
7 Q. Show me the process or tell me about the process in your office
8 when you interview someone who might be considered a suspect?
9 A. You -- when they're considered a suspect you read them your
10 rights, you advise them that they are a suspect.
11 Q. How about retention of documents?
12 A. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, sir.
13 Q. I'll clarify it. Thank you for telling me that. If you interview
14 someone who is a potential suspect, did you keep notes on that, do you
15 tape record the conversation or do you just do it by memory and generally
16 try to recollect?
17 A. Oh, a suspect you have to videotape. There's pretty strict rules
18 governing a suspect.
19 Q. Why is that?
20 A. For their rights and to protect them.
21 Q. And do you think that's only here at the ICTY or worldwide?
22 A. That is at the ICTY.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer the question.
24 Come on, Mr. Ostojic.
25 MR. OSTOJIC:
1 Q. Let me ask you this, Ms. Gilleece, if I may. Do you have your
2 notes from your meetings of April 13th and April 23rd or 25th of 2001 with
3 Mr. Zivanovic or General Zivanovic?
4 A. No, I do not.
5 Q. Do you have your notes, ma'am of the meeting that you had with
6 Mr. Pandurevic, among others, on October 2nd, 2001?
7 A. The note -- the investigative note to file that has been
8 articulated in this case is the note I have, sir.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down.
10 MR. OSTOJIC:
11 Q. I'm asking of your handwritten notes?
12 A. No, as I stated, the process, I shred them as soon as I memoralise
13 them in this report.
14 Q. Looking at that memo, can you tell me what date appears on that
15 memo that you wrote this -- this investigative note to file?
16 A. There is no date that appears which is the day wrote it, sir.
17 Q. Why is there no date on this memo that you wrote?
18 A. I didn't put one.
19 Q. Yeah, but why not?
20 A. It was the first and only investigative note to file I did at
21 Tribunal. There didn't seem to be a format. This is what I submitted to
22 my superiors and they said that that was the format that was acceptable.
23 Q. In fact, isn't it true that on October 31st, 2001 you submitted a
24 different summary of your meeting with Mr. Pandurevic on the 2nd of
25 October 2001?
1 A. It wasn't different, it wasn't illuminated. The one to Patrick
2 Lopez-Terres was an internal memo, and that was just to cover that I'd in
3 fact met with Mr. Pandurevic. There was some consternation because I met
4 with Mr. Pandurevic and the SFOR had been hitting houses in Bosnia at the
5 same time. So it seemed a bit odd that the ICTY was paying for his lunch
6 and then looking for him in Bosnia. So Mr. Lopez-Terres asked for a
7 report and that's what I submitted.
8 Q. Why wouldn't you in this October 31st, 2001 internal memo merely
9 attach your investigative note to file if you had written it prior to the
10 31st of October?
11 A. The purpose of this memo was not to attach the document that was
12 going to be discoverable. This was an internal memo that goes in -- that
13 secretaries file. I would never put evidence -- that's why it speaks of
14 the investigative note so that it can be found, but I wouldn't put it to
15 an internal memo that anybody in the Tribunal may or may not have access
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: That's all I have for this witness at the moment.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Apart from Mr. Haynes, anyone else
20 wishes to cross-examine the witness? If not, I suggest we have the break
21 now rather than in 15 minutes' time. We will give you 25 minutes' break.
22 If you need more, Mr. Haynes, please let us know.
23 MR. HAYNES: I doubt it, but that's very kind.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, you should be provided with all the
25 facility to meet in private with your client. We will continue after the
2 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 3.59 p.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes. Have you had time to consult with
5 your client?
6 MR. HAYNES: Yes, I have a few questions of this witness, but I
7 won't be very long.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Please go ahead.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
10 Q. It is Ms. Gilleece, isn't it?
11 A. Yes, sir, it is.
12 Q. It's always wise to check. We speak the same language, so can you
13 wait for the translation of my questions for other people before you
14 respond to it?
15 A. Yes, certainly, sir.
16 Q. Yesterday we looked at two documents that I hope you still have
17 with you. Do you?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Did you yourself create both of those documents? That's the memo
20 and the note to investigative file?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And by that do you mean you typed them out yourself or you had
23 somebody type them for you and you checked them?
24 A. No, I typed them out myself.
25 Q. And did you check them both for accuracy at the time and again
1 when you prepared for your testimony this week?
2 A. Yes, I did check them for accuracy at the time and then when I
3 prepared for my testimony this week I did.
4 Q. And were you content at the time you created them that they had no
5 errors in them, either in terms of the transcription of your notes or
7 A. At the time I created them I thought they were accurate.
8 Q. And just so that we're clear, are they the -- the only written
9 records surviving about this conversation on the 2nd of October?
10 A. Yes, sir, they are, to my knowledge.
11 Q. Thank you very much. Now I'm not going to be repetitive, but this
12 was an extraordinarily long meeting, wasn't it, with Mr. Pandurevic,
13 Mr. Zivanovic, Mr. Sarapa, and two of your colleagues?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. It probably doesn't matter, but do you recall that, in fact, you
16 left this restaurant at about 10.00 in the evening?
17 A. I knew it was --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: She said it yesterday.
19 MR. HAYNES: Yesterday she said 7.30. I'm putting a different
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think she lasted until about 10.00 or something
22 like that. Anyway, go ahead.
23 MR. HAYNES:
24 Q. Can we clarify, do you recall that you left this restaurant about
25 10.00 in the evening?
1 A. I think yesterday I said about 7.30, but it wouldn't surprise me
2 if it was about 9.00 or 10.00, sir.
3 Q. And you said it was a meeting that encompassed, among other
4 things, a pretty long lunch?
5 A. Yes, there was food and drink all afternoon.
6 Q. And the conversation that you had involved not just
7 Mr. Pandurevic, but contributions from all of you, a number of people?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And substantially all conducted through translators?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Now, the principal purpose of your going to the restaurant in Peti
12 Puk was to discuss with Mr. Pandurevic information he could give you that
13 would help you with your investigation. Is that right?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And he did give you quite a lot of information about the events of
16 1992 and 1993, didn't he?
17 A. He gave us a -- information of people to contact and about the
18 recovery of the bodies in Kamenica in 1993 because he was on site.
19 Q. I mean would you agree that on that, leaving aside Srebrenica of
20 1995, you probably talked for a good two hours?
21 A. Yes, sir. At least that.
22 Q. That's very fair of you. And did you make notes of what he told
23 you about Kamenica in 1992 and 1993?
24 A. Yes. But most of what he had told us we already knew. The new
25 information were names of people to contact to get documents.
1 Q. Were those notes ever typed up?
2 A. No, they were not.
3 Q. Any reason for that?
4 A. He mainly told us what we had seen on the video of the bodies
5 being recovered in Kamenica. And he gave us names of people. Those were
6 recorded and passed on to other members of the team.
7 Q. Now, in terms of the notes you did take, how were they taken?
8 Were they taken in a notebook or on loose sheets of paper?
9 A. A legal pad that's attached at the top and you can flip the
11 Q. And were they rough notes or long, verbatim conversation?
12 A. I usually try to take as much verbatim as I can, sir.
13 Q. Now, when you returned you wrote a memo, didn't you, the shorter
14 document you've referred to yesterday?
15 A. No. I -- the investigative note to file, the body of it was typed
16 shortly after I returned within that week. I wasn't advised to write the
17 memo until a later time.
18 Q. Well, it's your evidence therefore then, is it, that the memo of
19 the 31st of October is the second document in time that you created?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And these two documents are the only document you have ever
23 A. Concerning this incident, yes.
24 Q. The memo, I have been told by the Prosecution, is a confidential
25 document, and I must treat it as such. But I'd like you, please, if you
1 would have a look at it.
2 A. Certainly.
3 Q. In particular I'd like you to look at the very last sentence.
4 A. I thought you might.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in --
6 MR. HAYNES: It's a confidential document. I will read the
7 sentence into the record. It says, "I will forward a detailed
8 investigator's report to team 6 detailing Pandurevic's comments and his
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 MR. HAYNES:
12 Q. Well, doesn't that make it clear that the longer document was
13 created after the 31st of October?
14 A. The body of the longer document was created immediately. The top
15 portion, investigative note to file, wasn't created until after I sent
16 this. You are correct. But I -- the only thing I had to put on was the
17 investigative note to file. As you see on the 31st or as you have read,
18 it's called a -- investigator's report in the memo. After some discussion
19 by my superiors I was told to title it, "Investigative note." I guess I
20 wasn't clear earlier. The body of the longer document was done first.
21 Then I typed the internal memorandum, after some discussion on what -- how
22 to actually call it, it was -- I was told it to make it investigative
23 note, date, event, place, time present. I hope that clarifies it for you,
25 Q. Well, thank you for that explanation. Can we now move across to
1 the investigative note to file.
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. And I want you to look at the very first paragraph of that
4 document, please.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is creating difficulties for the Trial Chamber,
6 because we don't have this document.
7 MR. HAYNES: It is really not necessary for you to. I'm going to
8 ask a very simple question.
9 Q. In the first paragraph the investigative note to file, what date
10 did you say this meeting took place on?
11 A. October 2nd, 2001.
12 Q. No. Third line down.
13 A. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant in the beginning. In the first
14 paragraph I have it as 2002.
15 Q. Well, you told us there were no typos in this. Can you explain
16 why you placed this meeting that you wrote up in October 2001 a year into
17 the future?
18 A. I actually did not testify that there were no typos. There are
19 numerous typos. I said at the time I submitted it, I believed there were
20 no typos, sir. Clearly I made a mistake here as I have on other pages of
21 the document with years. In particular I usually have put down 1992 when
22 I meant 1995. And I would correct those if you would allow me.
23 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move on now because ---
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's the case. I suppose, Mr. Vanderpuye,
25 when you stood up, you wanted to refer to her previous answer which did
1 not acknowledge --
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, that's correct.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
4 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES:
6 Q. Given the circumstances in -- in which this meeting took place,
7 and the way in which the notes were created and the note to file
8 subsequently created, can I ask you this: Do you accept that whilst you
9 have successfully recorded the substance of this conversation, that the
10 detail of what was said may be subject to correction?
11 A. The detail of the dates would be subject to correction, yes.
12 Q. Thank you very much. That's very fair. I'm only going to direct
13 you really to those areas about which you have given evidence today. And
14 the first of those is the reference by Mr. Pandurevic to the two legal
15 text-books that he brought with him. I think you will probably find that
16 that's at page 4 of your notes.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It's right, isn't it, that Mr. Pandurevic's biggest beef, as it
19 were, was with the conclusions of Richard Butler?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And just so that we could place these events in context, this
22 interview took place shortly after the conclusion of the trial of Radoslav
23 Krstic, didn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And in order to illustrate some of his points, he brought military
1 manuals with him?
2 A. That was my understanding.
3 Q. Yeah. And he showed you them?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, what you've told us that he said was that by reference to
6 those manuals the zone of intelligence has no other zone of attack.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I mean, did you comprehend that when he said it in October of
10 A. Just that the intelligence deals with intelligence and not a zone
11 of attack.
12 Q. I mean, does it make any sense to you now?
13 A. Not really. In the sense that no other zone of attack is, like,
14 not a combat, it is not a tangible item. Intelligence is not tangible.
15 Zone of attack would be tangible is how I took it.
16 Q. Thank you. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but wasn't
17 this what was being said, that the responsibility of the intelligence
18 organ of the army could not be limited by a geographically defined area?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Thank you very much. And the next section where he
21 said, "Pandurevic had no zone of responsibility according to the
22 definitions." I want to explore what you considered that to mean. Wasn't
23 he saying there that the rules of the army did not recognise the concept
24 of a zone of responsibility?
25 A. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, sir?
1 Q. Yes. By reference to the military text-books, he was pointing out
2 to you that army rules did not recognise the concept of a zone of
4 A. For intelligence.
5 Q. No, this is the second item you have mentioned --
6 A. Right.
7 Q. -- where it says Pandurevic --
8 A. Him self that he no zone that he was adamant that he had no zone
9 of responsibility according to those definitions that were cited. He was
10 very clear about that.
11 Q. Thank you very much, indeed. And I just have one more thing to
12 ask you about. And that's about the slaughter of pigs and asanacija or
13 cleaning the terrain. Do you recall that -- that part of the
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall now, refreshing your memory from your notes, if you
17 must, that those two ideas were linked in his explanation?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that he gave the example of the slaughter of pigs and the
20 responsibility of the army to clear up rotting carcasses as part of their
21 duty of asanacija?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. That's very, very helpful of you. I have no further questions.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Haynes.
25 I take it there are no further questions, cross-examinations from
1 the Defence.
2 Mr. Vanderpuye, would you like to re-examine the witness?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, thank you, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Gilleece, basically that means that your
5 testimony finishes here. I wish to thank you for having come over to give
6 testimony. And I thank you on behalf of the Tribunal and also on behalf
7 of everyone wish you a safe journey back home.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start with the Prosecution. Are there any
11 documents you would like to tender?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: There are, Mr. President. In particular, we
13 would like to tender what's been marked as P02048.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Is it still per -- according to the list
15 that you have circulated?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Yes, it -- it -- yes, it is. I think it's
17 the first item on the list. Now, we had indicated previously at the
18 beginning of the last session that we had reached an understanding with
19 Defence counsel with respect to certain issues that bear upon the evidence
20 in the case, and we would like to tender that document subject to certain
21 redactions that we feel are appropriate to both the probity and the
22 relevance of the material, with the Court's permission.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So any objections on the part of any of the Defence
24 teams to the admission of P02408?
25 MR. HAYNES: Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the basis of your objection?
2 MR. HAYNES: The basis of the objection is firstly it has not been
3 introduced into evidence. It is simply an aide-memoire. The witness used
4 it to -- to give live evidence. It is her evidence that stands. I quite
5 purposefully pruned my cross-examination to deal only with those matters
6 which she gave in evidence in chief and therefore there is a prejudice by
7 introducing this document now. There are other objections that -- that I
8 will leave others to make, but in my submission, that document has not
9 become admissibility, it hasn't been introduced into evidence, and this is
10 in a way a form of putting in some statement that -- that the witness
11 hasn't come up to proof on.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you like to respond to that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I may. I think that -- I think Mr. Haynes
14 indeed was very careful with respect to his examination of Ms. Gilleece;
15 however, I do feel that he specifically drew her attention to errors that
16 were made in that report as distinguished from errors that were made that
17 were subject of her testimony, which is a separate issue. In particular,
18 he referred her to the first paragraph, I think, of that report in which
19 he indicated that the meeting was scheduled to occur on the 2nd of October
20 of 2002, which was not the subject of her testimony but was in the content
21 of the report itself, and therefore my view of it is that he has now
22 brought into issue the accuracy and reliability of the notes that were
23 taken themselves as distinguished from the testimony that she related.
24 There are two particular grounds, I think, that support it. One
25 was obviously the attention to whether or not there were typographical
1 errors in the report itself and the second related to the subject matter
2 of the information that she took down whether it was shorthand, long hand,
3 abbreviated, and he specifically asked her whether or not it might be
4 subject to correction or something to that effect. And to that extent I
5 think that he has now made the report a relevant issue as distinguished
6 from her testimony about the information that was related to her by the
7 accused, and --
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: And Mr. McCloskey has also pointed out that it
10 would be obviously, I think, useful to the Court in order to put the
11 testimony that was elicited in context, particularly as I recall -- I
12 don't know if there was a specific request by the Court to see the
13 document, but I know that there was some concern that there was testimony
14 proceeding about the document to which the Court didn't have access. I
15 think my learned friend indicated that it wasn't necessary for the Court
16 at that time to see the document, but I rather disagree and I think it
17 would be helpful to put in context subject matter of the testimony.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further objections from any of the other Defence
20 Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I had thought and
22 understood that these types of statements were not going to come in as a
23 general matter with witnesses, and they can testify, although we have
24 agreed on certain redactions in that statement. But if the Prosecutor
25 wanted to lead other evidence, I would suggest that they should have led
1 that evidence and, as opposed to calling a witness, state your name, and
2 converting her into a 92 ter or whatever witness she may be. She was a
3 live witness. They could have covered it verbatim. She was reading it
4 quite candidly throughout yesterday and most of today as she was flipping
5 the pages. So the statement is unnecessary. I think it's duplicative,
6 and I think it will create a practice that with every witness we can come
7 in and say, Oh, yes, why don't we give his testimony in the Krstic case or
8 in other cases or other statements. Then the Court would just have too
9 much information and it is the testimony of the witness before us that the
10 Court will be required to assess her credibility. But we have an
11 agreement. We would object to it generally but if it does go in, we
12 insist that we stand by our agreement that it be given to the Court in its
13 redacted form.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just think an important distinction to draw
15 with respect to Mr. Ostojic's argument is that, you know, there may be
16 some validity to his contentions with respect to a statement that is not
17 the statement of an accused. This is a statement that was made by a
18 person who is charged with the events, the subject matter of the
19 statement. It is in effect an admission. It is ostensibly more reliable
20 for that reason. It would otherwise be clearly admissable certainly
21 against that particular accused. There may be some argument with respect
22 to its applicability to other accused that may be implicated or otherwise,
23 but it is certainly, I don't think, an issue, the admissibility of the
24 statement with regard to the declarant in this case. The statement has
25 been available to the Defence, I think, for quite some time now. It
1 wasn't raised in -- in any particular --
2 MR. HAYNES: I object to that.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, for Mr. Haynes.
4 MR. HAYNES: [Microphone not activated]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to repeat all that.
6 MR. HAYNES: I will deal with it in a minute. I will let
7 Mr. Vanderpuye finish.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, you still have the floor.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe I was saying that it wasn't raised in
10 any particular way by anyone other than the accused in this case, the
11 subject matter of its admissibility in -- in its -- in a written form as
12 opposed to a testimonial form.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We haven't heard anything from you as yet on the
14 submission that was made, namely that throughout the course of your
15 examination-in-chief you never put this document to her witness.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is correct. And the reason why I didn't
17 do that is because what I sought to elicit from the witness was her
18 present recollection of the statement, aside from the physical document
19 itself, and that I would submit was an intentional act that was followed
20 on our part in order to avoid this very issue. I think Mr. Haynes is
21 mistaken when he says that he's pruned his cross-examination to avoid this
22 issue, because I think, actually, it created the issue by specifically
23 bringing the witness's attention to errors that are contained in that
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I didn't make myself clear. The submission
1 was if it was your intention throughout to introduce or tender this
2 document at the end, why didn't you make use of it during your
3 examination-in-chief? Or redirect, yeah.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: First, it wasn't my intention all along to tender
5 the document into evidence, which is what I think I -- I -- I am -- I was
6 trying to say. It wasn't at all my intention to tender the document in
7 evidence. It was my intention to elicit the witness's present
8 recollection of the statement that is contained within the document in
9 order to avoid precisely this issue. I think the issue has been created,
10 rather, on the contrary, because despite our efforts or my effort to avoid
11 the use of the documents, specific questions were elicited on
12 cross-examination, you could say impugning the witness's credibility with
13 respect to the creation of the duty or the contents that are in it.
14 Specifically in interpretation of its accuracy, dates, details, longhand
15 conversion of the transcribed notes, and the basis and the timing that it
16 was -- the time that it was created. All of those things, I think, now
17 put in issue exactly what it is that we hadn't intended to introduce.
18 That's the reason why I think it's relevant and appropriate to tender it
19 at this point.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, do you wish to wind up?
21 MR. HAYNES: Not much. I just wish to point out that on the 4th
22 of September we invited the Prosecution to take a witness statement from
23 this witness; if they had done that they could have treated her as a 92
24 ter witness. This isn't a witness statement, it's a note to file. It
25 could have been used far more extensively to -- to adduce the detail of
1 the conversation. It wasn't. We relied upon that approach, and it simply
2 hasn't gone into evidence and should not now.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were -- you were
6 standing up again.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do apologise, I know you are about to
8 deliberate on the issue, but I think Mr. Haynes is right, this is not a
9 witness statement. I don't know that even 92 ter would be applicable to
10 this statement in particular because we are talking about a statement
11 about another statement, in effect. And in addition, the statement we are
12 talking about happens to be, in our view, an admission. That is, a
13 statement made by an accused in a case about the circumstances and facts
14 at issue in the case. And so I don't even believe that a 92 ter
15 application would have been appropriate in order to elicit the testimony
16 about the statement that was made by the accused in this case.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Our conclusion is as follows: We feel that it will
20 not be appropriate to deny outright the Prosecution request to tender this
21 document. We believe that once it is obvious from the proceedings that
22 she was relying on this document, then at least as far as that goes the
23 document should be before the Trial Chamber as well. However, since there
24 is -- there are some arguments which are valid, intrinsically valid, we
25 are giving you the opportunity to consult together, particularly the
1 Ostojic and the Pandurevic -- sorry, not -- the Beara and the Pandurevic
2 Defence teams to consult with the Prosecution, and if you can come to an
3 agreement to the effect of redacting some parts from the document itself,
4 we will admit it with the redacted -- with the redacted parts. Otherwise,
5 we will admit it and then use our discretion, obviously. We are four
6 professional judges here, and we know that our responsibility mainly is
7 directed towards the viva voce evidence that we have heard. All right.
8 And you will come back to us on this at the earliest. Thank you.
9 I'm sure you will find a way.
10 Now, I see you standing again.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am, unfortunately. There is one other
12 document, and I -- and I would -- I guess I would seek the consent of
13 Defence counsel with respect to this particular one. It is 65 ter 00426.
14 And that is simply the July 15th report -- am I mistaken?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, I think so.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, 00329. That's the July 15th report
17 that was made reference to by the accused in the course of his statements
18 to the witness. We -- we would submit that it will be ...
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One question to you. Is there no other witness that
20 you could introduce this document with?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: There actually is. But we expect that witness to
22 be called quite far in the future. I would ask if you would entertain
23 admitting it subject to connection at this point. Because I think it's
24 relevant to the subject of this testimony, but that's only -- I would only
25 make that --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections on the part of the Defence teams?
2 Mr. Haynes.
3 MR. HAYNES: Being realistic, this document is going to go in at
4 some stage but I don't actually recall this witness dealing with this
5 particular exhibit. And it becomes circular. It makes no sense to you at
6 this stage. You might as well wait for somebody who can explain it to
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Not really the point, but do you wish to respond to
9 that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, sir.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's deliberate on that.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Our decision is that we are not admitting it
14 outright. We will just mark it for identification for the time being.
15 And then we'll decide later, in all probability this will be used with
16 some other witness as you stated in any case. So that could supercede and
17 solve the problem.
18 Are you standing up again, Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Only to respond "no."
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So the Miletic Defence team have got two documents.
21 One is 5D174 and the other one is 5D173. The first one hasn't been
22 translated into English, I take it.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] That's right, Mr. President. We
24 will give to the Chamber the translation as soon as it is ready and for
25 the third document the Prosecutor already raised an objection as to the
1 source of this document, but this document was produced by the OTP and it
2 was found on IDS, the general collection, so this is probably a document
3 stemming from the Office of the Prosecutor.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Which document? Because I only have two here. In
5 the transcript it says the third document.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 5D173.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So it's not the third, it's the second, for the
8 record. Are there any objections from the Prosecution?
9 JUDGE KWON: Before that, can I ask Madam Fauveau about its --
10 their relevance or significance to this case?
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is the way the Prosecutor
12 conducts its -- his investigation and the way they conduct their
13 investigation, have a certain meaning about the way they lead this
14 investigation and we will object to other documents stemming from the OTP.
15 This why we believe this document is relevant.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish -- first of all, are there any
17 objections to the admission of these two documents on the part of the
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, there is an objection as to the second of
20 the two. I think -- which was identified as 5D173. That's identified as
21 the surrogate sheet, a synopsis/description of evidence. The nature of
22 the objection is that we don't feel it is relevant to the testimony of the
23 witness in this particular case and practices of the OTP are not certainly
24 documented in a synopsis of evidence that was prepared by an unnamed
25 person based upon unknown information, the veracity of which has been
1 untested and otherwise unidentified. So I don't think it should be
2 admitted first on the grounds of relevance and second on the grounds of
4 JUDGE KWON: You are not challenging the authenticity, to make
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will take my learned friend's word for it that
7 it was discovered, I think on EDS, she mentioned. And I have no reason to
8 believe it wasn't generated in a -- by our office or maybe the evidence
9 unit, but I don't think it has any relevance or there is any inherent
10 reliability in the information that is relayed into that document because
11 that document is intended to relay that kind of informing. There would be
12 a report or something of that nature would be far more persuasive and more
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
15 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not know if
17 there is a report written on this incident, but we are not -- it is not in
18 our possession. The Prosecutor has it and he has not sent it to us. In
19 fact, this document should have been sent to us, as to -- all the relevant
20 documents through this witness should have been sent to us and any other
21 person or any other document that is relevant. A journal of Naser Oric is
22 definitely important. So the Prosecutor should have communicated to us a
23 full report. He didn't do so, and this is the only document that I found,
24 so I don't see why this document should not be admitted.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
1 JUDGE PROST: Madam Fauveau, can I ask you, are you intending call
2 any other evidence in relation to this document, the author of this
3 document? Any other evidence you intend to call with respect to it?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Not at this point, but it is quite
5 difficult to answer that question at this point, since I just discovered
6 this document two or three days ago and I did not have time to make an
7 investigation as to this incident.
8 JUDGE PROST: And Madam Fauveau, you make the statement that the
9 journal of Naser Oric is definitely important to the case. Earlier you
10 indicated that this evidence was important to demonstrate the approach of
11 the Prosecution office or the failings in the activities of the
12 Prosecutor's office. Can you explain to me your statement that Naser
13 Oric's journal is relevant to the case before us?
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is a question to
15 which I cannot answer. I don't have the diary, I don't know to what
16 period it's referring to. I have no information about that diary. This
17 diary was not sent to us. It was not given to us. I have no information
18 on that diary. However, the fact that this diary exists and that we were
19 not informed of its existence creates a doubt on the documents that the
20 Prosecutor communicated to us up until now.
21 JUDGE PROST: Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Judge Prost, and thank you,
23 Madam Fauveau.
24 Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think that I should say in all fairness that
1 I -- I did disclose to Defence counsel that in substance the allegations
2 that are contained within that document was the subject matter of prior
3 testimony and I think in my proofing note I even provided the transcript
4 page, pages, that refer to the specific incident. And I think Mr. Ostojic
5 cross-examined the witness with respect to that. Our position remains,
6 however, that this particular document has no probity to the extent that
7 it is entirely unclear as to what -- on what basis the document was
8 created, who created it and whether or not it is even reliable. Because
9 it is not clear that that document corresponds to the information that was
10 actually the subject of testimony, and I think that if my learned
11 colleague sought to introduce probative, reliable evidence on the
12 Prosecution's practices on the handling of evidence and more appropriately
13 this witness's practices with respect to the handling of evidence, that
14 that could be done through a far more reliable source, which is the sworn
15 testimony of a witness to whom Defence was alerted, not only that the fact
16 that the witness testified, but the subject matter of the witness's
17 testimony and the page numbers upon which it could be found in the
18 relevant transcript.
19 And so that is the basis -- essentially as the basis of the
20 objection to this particular material.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So our position is the following: We wouldn't like
24 to take more time of the sitting to reach a decision. We are not in a
25 position to conclude our deliberations now, so we will postpone the
1 decision until later and let you know. Yes, on 5D173.
2 As regards 5D174, I hear no objections, so that document is marked
3 for identification pending translation, when it will be upgraded to
5 Now, I -- we were informed earlier on that there has been a
6 change in the schedule, and that the next witness will not be Witness
7 number 45, but Mr. Brunborg. And this, I take it, will only be
9 MR. HAYNES: I'm sorry, I didn't realise we had finished with the
10 exhibits, but following the philosophy of the earlier decision it seems to
11 me in relation to Ms. Gilleece that the internal memorandum should be
12 introduced into evidence.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is no be objection to that. I only ask
15 that it be admitted under seal. It is an internal -- is there an
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there a problem with that, Mr. Haynes?
18 MR. HAYNES: Well, it's been disclosed to everybody, it's been
19 referred to in evidence. If there was any privilege, I would have thought
20 it would have been waived by now.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Why do you require it to be under seal?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, it is an internal memorandum. It actually
23 came into evidence, really, quite by happenstance because the witness had
24 referred to it yesterday. It certainly wasn't intended to be offered or
25 relied upon in any way. And to the extent that it deals or -- we are
1 concerned about two things. One is the precedent of admitting internal
2 memorandum of the Office of the Prosecutor, and the second, of course, is
3 that it contains information, I think, that should remain in the confines
4 of the Court and not privy to others outside these proceedings. So we
5 don't have a problem with it going into evidence at this point, because
6 clearly it was the subject of it since she -- the witness referred to it,
7 but I think to make it otherwise public would be inappropriate,
8 notwithstanding its reference, the references that have been made to it in
9 the record up until now.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, do you wish to respond?
11 MR. HAYNES: Yes, if the Prosecution want to propose some
12 redactions of that document, I'll listen to them. I'm only interested in
13 the date at the top and the last paragraph.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can ...
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we will adopt the same procedure. I don't
17 think it is in the e-court, but I will make sure whether it is in e-court
18 or not. I don't think it is. So what I suggest is that our intention is
19 to admit it as -- however, having heard Mr. Haynes's statement, last
20 statement, I suggest again once more that you meet, decide on or agree on
21 the redactions and then it will be admitted as redacted upon agreement.
22 All right?
23 Thank you, Mr. Haynes, and thank you Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 All right. Is Mr. Brunborg here?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, he is, Mr. President, and you are correct the
1 agreement has been that this would be direct only and I would just -- I
2 would -- tell the Court we are hoping to get him done relatively soon.
3 This is the subject matter of demographics that could be a semester class
4 and I will be taking him through it fairly broadly. And I know I don't
5 need to do this, but I would invite you, of course, to ask any clarifying
6 questions if you have them, and I know you will, but that's -- that's my
7 intention, for direct only, and then he will come back after the Defence
8 has had a -- had a chance to work with their own expert and cross-examine.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I wish to welcome you on behalf of the Tribunal.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you start giving evidence, you need to make a
16 solemn declaration that you will be testifying the truth. The text is
17 right in front of you. If you could kindly read that aloud and that will
18 be your solemn undertaking with us.
19 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please take a seat and make
23 yourself comfortable. For the time being, you are only here for the
24 examination-in-chief, and I therefore leave you in the capable hands of
25 Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
3 Q. And can you tell us your name and title, if any?
4 A. My name is Helge Brunborg. Do you want me to spell it?
5 Q. Sure.
6 A. H-e-l-g-e, last name B-r-u-n-b-o-r-g.
7 Q. And what is your profession?
8 A. I am a researcher in the field of demography.
9 Q. And where do you work?
10 A. I work for Statistics Norway in Oslo.
11 Q. Okay. Now, can you tell us briefly what the field of demography
12 is that you work in?
13 A. It's concerned about the study of population, population
14 development and development -- and population structure including
15 components like births and deaths.
16 Q. I notice that you have got a lot of material in front of you that
17 you have brought in. Were you asked to bring in some of that material by
18 the Office of the Prosecutor?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And we'll go over what that is and just let us know if you
21 need to make any reference to it to help refresh your recollection. In
22 fact, you have been employed by the Office of the Prosecutor as a
23 demographer in the past, haven't you?
24 A. Yes, from mid-1997 until the end of 1998, and as a consultant on a
25 part-time basis for a couple of years after that.
1 Q. Before we get to your work for the Office of the Prosecutor, can
2 you tell us a bit about yourself? What recent projects have you been
3 involved in that may have relevance to what you were doing or similar to
4 what you were doing for the OTP?
5 A. Well, most of my work is in Statistics Norway, and I am
6 responsible for population projections for Norway. I am also a leader of
7 a large project calls generations and gender programme, a large survey,
8 but occasionally I have projects for other institutions and in other
9 countries. Not so long ago, a couple of years ago I had a project in
10 Afghanistan for UNFPA, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities
11 to look at the possibilities of holding a census and the possibility of
12 adding administrative data to that and I have also had worked on projects
13 in countries like Palestine, Mozambique, Bangladesh, and Albania.
14 Q. As briefly as you can, give us the -- the guts of the kind of --
15 what this work involves. From the outside it's a little hard perhaps to
16 understand what it is you are doing.
17 A. Demography it mostly about numbers and collecting numbers. And
18 looking at the quality of numbers is a very important part of demography.
19 It is an empirical science, in a way, but we also look at causal
20 relationships between -- between these numbers. Say what affects births
21 and deaths? What are the factors? Does education have anything to do
22 with the development of births and deaths or other factors.
23 On a recent project I would also like to know -- mention that I
24 am involved in the international cooperation in a new field which we may
25 call the demography of conflicts and violence or demography of armed
2 Q. Okay. This new field, can you just briefly tell us how this new
3 field, what it grew out of?
4 A. Well, it grew out of my work here and together with colleagues
5 initiated in working group of the International Unit for the Scientific
6 Study of Population, we have organised seminars, published journals, and
7 now a book came out last week, in fact, with papers from -- from the
8 seminars. We study the consequences of armed conflict, which are mostly
9 concerned with deaths but also migration and it also addresses the
10 possible demographic causes of conflict which could be age bulges. Say,
11 if there are many unemployed young youths then that could have -- could
12 increase the probability of armed conflicts.
13 Q. And have you testified as an expert at the ICTY before?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you tell us in what cases?
16 A. I testified against Krstic on Srebrenica in the year 2000, against
17 Blagojevic also in Srebrenica in 2003, against Milosevic in 2004 but that
18 was not completed, and against Milutinovic et al in November of 2006 on
20 Q. All right. Have you published anything outside your work for the
21 OTP about Srebrenica?
22 A. Yeah, I've written a couple of papers together with colleagues on
23 Srebrenica called -- an article called, "Accounting for genocide" which
24 has been published in an international journal called the European Journal
25 for Population.
1 Q. Let's get to your work for the -- for the OTP. When did you first
2 come on to work for the OTP and what was your first assignment?
3 A. Well, I started working here in June 1997 because the Office of
4 the Prosecutor found out that they needed somebody who was knowledgeable
5 about numbers, because there were many numbers concerning the -- the
6 events in Yugoslavia, especially how many were killed. And they wanted
7 somebody to look at these numbers and come up with the most reliable data.
8 And my approach from the very beginning was to try to collect lists on --
9 with data on individuals, individual data because it is much harder to
10 rely on the data of individuals, name, date of birth, place of birth, and
11 so on, and what happened, date of death or date of disappearance. Then if
12 you only have numbers in aggregate, say, 24 people were killed in
13 such-and-such a place. That was the approach, to collect list of numbers
14 on events, that is deaths, migrations, and also data on the population
15 before and after the conflict started; before 1992 and after 1995.
16 Q. Okay. At some point during your -- that work for the OTP, were
17 you assigned specifically to assist the Srebrenica case?
18 A. I think it was in the course in 1998 I was asked to compile a list
19 of missing persons related to the events in Srebrenica in July 1995.
20 Q. And when you say missing persons, was that the -- the people that
21 went missing after -- on or -- approximately on or after the fall of
22 Srebrenica, mostly men?
23 A. Yes, exactly.
24 Q. Okay. And were you working with me on that?
25 A. Yes, including the team leader, Jean-Rene Ruez.
1 Q. All right. And can you tell us what you did to go about trying to
2 identify that?
3 A. Well, I was advised that there was a list of -- collected by ICRC,
4 the International Red Cross, of missing persons in all of Yugoslavia or
5 mostly in all of Bosnia and that we should try to extract those missing
6 persons that were related to the fall of Srebrenica.
7 Q. Okay. So can you tell us what you learned about the ICRC list,
8 first of all, and then we'll get into how you extracted potential
9 Srebrenica missing from that overall list.
10 A. Well, first I learned that the ICRC collected data on people who
11 went missing during the conflict. In fact, in -- in most of the former
12 Yugoslavia. First to help people unite with people who were relatives,
13 family who got lost in the conflict, and later to try to identify the fate
14 of those who went missing and did not reappear and who probably were dead.
15 And I learned how they did that by people coming in, family members coming
16 to report the victims; name, date of birth, and when they were last seen
17 or what they think happened, where they were last seen, and other
18 particulars about these persons.
19 Q. You said that mostly family members came in. Was there some kind
20 of quality control or requirement on who could report missing people?
21 A. Yes, in principle was only family members, and more than 95 per
22 cent were reported by family members. There were a few others because in
23 some cases whole families had disappeared so there was no family member to
25 Q. All right. And did you learn what locations the ICRC was able to
1 take such reports of -- from family members or other close people?
2 A. Primarily in Tuzla because that's where most of the displaced
3 persons in Srebrenica ended up, but also in other places all over Bosnia,
4 in Sarajevo and other places.
5 Q. Okay. And in your work and education as a demographer, had you
6 had some familiarity with the work of the ICRC?
7 A. Not with ICRC before, but these kind of records on individuals,
8 with a name, date of birth, and type of event, was very familiar to me.
9 Q. Okay. And we've obviously all heard of the ICRC, and -- but can
10 you tell us what you learned a bit about their reputation, their ability,
11 their mandate and doing this sort of work?
12 A. Well, I knew from before of course that ICRC has a high reputation
13 for being neutral and they really protect the neutrality so that they
14 have access to -- to people on both sides of a conflict, to both parties.
15 They can visit prisoners on the other side of the border, for example.
16 So it is a humanitarian organisation, trying to help people in -- in
18 Q. Now, as I think it is also went known, much of their documentation
19 and their material is private. How -- were you able to have access to the
20 public material?
21 A. Yes, in -- as part of the effort to locate people who have gone
22 missing, they publish books on missing. I have a book here
23 called, "Missing Persons on the Territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina,"
24 published in 1998, which in fact was the basis for our -- our study. And
25 now they published a similar data on the internet.
1 Q. And can you just tell us briefly what kind of information is
2 contained in that book?
3 A. Well, it tells name and sex of disappeared persons, father's name,
4 place of birth, where they lived and where they disappeared. Yeah, and
5 there is also a serial number. Those are the basic data.
6 Q. This is information they're getting from family members or other
7 close relatives?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Okay. We'll get into that, the different volumes and how that
10 affected your work a little later, I think. But can you first tell us,
11 you have stated that the ICRC work that you were first learned about had
12 to do with all of Bosnia. And so your first job was to separate the
13 potential Srebrenica missing folks. How did you do that?
14 A. We were advised that we should only select people for the
15 Srebrenica list, people who were -- whose disappearance was related to the
16 fall of Srebrenica. And the definition was that they should be on 12th of
17 July or later, 1995, or disappearing at places that were close to
19 Q. You are sure it was the 12th of July?
20 A. 11th and -- sorry.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. And there are a few more who are accepted before. If it was
23 before 11th of July, it was obvious that was related to the fall of
24 Srebrenica, so ...
25 Q. And where did you get these instructions from, to sort of --
1 identifying the -- this time-frame?
2 A. From your team, sir.
3 Q. And was there -- aside from the time-frame that we provided you,
4 did we provide you any information about the location of where people went
5 missing from -- to -- that would also limit it to Srebrenica potentially,
7 A. You gave us a list of you could say relevant locations. Sometimes
8 a municipality or an Opstina, sometimes a small place, hamlet, sometimes a
9 place so small it wasn't on a map. So we had to ask -- or on the ICRC
10 list, there were place that were on no maps so we had to ask people who
11 were knowledgeable about the area.
12 Q. All right. And were -- this first ICRC list, was that made
13 available to you in electronic format?
14 A. Yes, exactly.
15 Q. Did that help make your work possible?
16 A. Yes, we could not have worked if it had all been on paper.
17 Q. Were you able it take that criteria that you were given and
18 separate potential missing from Srebrenica on the ICRC list?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Now, can you -- did your work stop there?
21 A. No. Not at all. Because there were several versions of this
22 list, a previous version, verse number three, and we worked with version
23 number four. We combined these two versions. We had to delete those who
24 appeared in both lists of course and we checked for errors and duplicates
25 and came up with list of ICRC Srebrenica-related missing persons. We
1 also -- we learned about another list assembled by something called PHR,
2 Physicians for Human Rights, an American organisation, which were
3 collecting ante-mortem database to help in identifying missing persons.
4 So we merged actually two versions of their lists with the two versions of
5 the ICRC list to come up with one consolidated list.
6 Q. Can you briefly tell us the -- how the -- the purpose of the ICRC
7 list was different from the purpose of the PHR list, if there was a
9 A. Originally I think the ICRC list was assembled to help perhaps
10 locate surviving missing people, mostly, but that may have changed. And
11 the PHR list was called an ante-mortem database and as the name says, they
12 collected data on -- from family members on the victims also on physical
13 characteristics, special clothing, special dental features, and so on, to
14 help in -- when people were exhumed from mass graves because it was then
15 known when they start in 1996 it was all known what happened. ICRC
16 started already in July 1995 and it was really not known the extent and
17 the character of the events in Srebrenica.
18 Q. All right. And I'm going to sort of skip to the end very briefly,
19 and we'll get back, but if we could go to Exhibit P02423. And get that up
20 on the screen, I see you have a hard copy of that in front of you. And is
21 this something that was part of your report? Report, we see it as a
22 source on the bottom of it. Can you just -- we see what it says. Can you
23 first of all explain this number, 7.661?
24 A. This is the total number of missing persons related to the fall of
25 Srebrenica on the combined ICRC and PHR lists. It is slightly higher than
1 the first list we prepared in the year 2000, which included 7.475 persons,
2 I believe. 81, sorry.
3 Q. Let me go there briefly. How many reports have you done in this
4 continuing project for the OTP?
5 A. About six, six or eight or something.
6 Q. And this is a reflection of the most recent one?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So what -- let's go up to the next number, 23 still missing in
9 PHR. What is that?
10 A. That is the number of people that we have learned nothing about.
11 Nothing about their -- whether they survived or are dead. No bodies have
12 been found, there are no strong witness statements saying that they were
14 Q. Okay. Then what closed cases, dead, 2.054, what is that?
15 A. That is the number of cases where the person has been declared
16 dead. There is a death certificate usually issued by a judge. And -- and
17 the body has usually then been delivered, turned over to the relatives.
18 Q. I believe in your -- at Krstic that number was something like 70
19 at the very most, wasn't it? Or lower than that? Perhaps you should tell
20 us what it was?
21 A. It was much lower -- no that number wasn't -- there wasn't such a
22 number because the ICRC had no data on that.
23 Q. Okay. How is it now that that number is -- is 2.000? Can you
24 tell us how that was determined?
25 A. Well, as time has passed there have been lots of exhumations and
1 many bodies have been identified, and that is the major reason. Now it's
2 already more than 10 years since the fall of Srebrenica.
3 Q. Has another organisation come in -- into being that has helped in
4 that process of identifying the dead?
5 A. Excuse me. Yes, in the year 2000 the ICMP, International
6 Commission on Missing Persons, started working in Bosnia. It was
7 established in 1996, and it has a mandate to -- to identify missing
8 persons. And they -- they started working with a -- well, completely new
9 technique. Because it was all based on the analysis, but they start with
10 DNA analysis by first doing DNA extraction of bone samples of skeletons
11 found in mass graves and later comparing those DNA reports with DNA
12 reports of blood samples from relatives of victims. So ICMP with the out
13 and announced and also asked close family members of victims to donate
14 blood, on the average three people. You usually need more than one
15 person, from one person, to be certain about close relations.
16 Q. Okay. We'll get a little more into that and how it affected your
17 work a bit later, but that -- did that assist in closing cases and
18 identifying confirmed dead as far as you know?
19 A. Vastly. In the year 2000, 70 people had been identified. Now
20 more than 2.500.
21 Q. And are you -- does your work continue? Will there be more data
22 from the ICMP?
23 A. Oh, certainly. The work is continuing in Tuzla, and elsewhere,
24 and new data are coming all the time. This report, the new report is
25 based on data as of September 2005. Almost one and a half years ago. We
1 have requested new data not received yet, but we are hoping to get new
2 data soon and updates, make an addendum and update the list. We expect
3 hundreds of new identified missing persons.
4 Q. Okay. Can you -- what's the delay in getting the data? Roughly,
5 if you know.
6 A. I don't know. We have sent a request, and we are hoping to get an
7 answer very soon. We were told we would get it before Christmas, but it
8 has been delayed. It is complicated, these are sensitive issues and the
9 databases are very complicated technically. There are many difficult
10 issues here. Also difficult ethical issues.
11 Q. What are the difficult -- what kind of information is so
12 sensitive? Can you just ...
13 A. Of course. ICMP cannot go out with -- and release information
14 on -- on dead people without having notified the dead people -- or the
15 family members themselves. And it should go also not through -- only
16 through forensic procedures but also through a court system so that a
17 judge will then determine whether the information is sufficient to declare
18 a person as dead.
19 Q. All right. Let's just finish up this -- this exhibit. We've
20 talked about the old -- the closed cases. Then we get to the "still
21 missing" info about dead, 318. What does that mean?
22 A. That means that is ongoing work, and there is probably -- there is
23 probably a dead body but the process has not been completed, the
24 identification process is not -- has not yet ended. Relatives may not
25 have been notified, et cetera.
1 Q. All right. And then we have "still missing," what is that?
2 A. At the top?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Those are the people we don't know anything about, other than they
5 have gone missing, have been reported by relatives and there are no -- we
6 have no information about their -- their survivorship, which has also been
7 checked, by the way.
8 Q. This new information from the ICMP, would you expect that that
9 might eat away at that number a little bit?
10 A. Certainly, yes. We will see later during this testimony that that
11 number has already come down.
12 Q. Okay. And then down at the bottom, "total excluded entries, (all
13 still missing): 12." What's that?
14 A. To make sure there were no survivors among the missing people, we
15 searched electronically in databases of people after the war who were --
16 lived after the war. Mostly voters' lists collected by the OSCE during
17 various elections in Bosnia.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. To see, since a missing person cannot vote, that was the rationale
20 for that.
21 Q. We will get into that in a little more detail. Let me take you
22 back. You've got that ICRC list, you've merged it with this PHR list, and
23 have you done anything -- what is the first thing you do after you've done
24 that to try to work on this data and see if it's any good?
25 A. Well, the first anyone is to check there are any duplicates, to
1 see if the same person was entered wrongly by different people, and so
2 were counted as two or three missing persons instead of just one. So we
3 had to compare then name, date of birth and so on. And this is not so
4 easy because sometimes names are spelled differently, sometimes date of
5 birth is given as slightly different, sometimes the date of birth is not
6 known, the full date of birth is not known by family members, especially
7 in a chaotic situation. Maybe the parents of a son only knew -- well,
8 of course they -- they only remembered perhaps the year of birth. Or
9 maybe it was a grandchild and they only remember the month and year of
11 Q. Okay. Was another problem particular to -- well, the former
12 Yugoslavia and the number of names that were similar?
13 A. Yes. That two people have the same name does not mean that they
14 represent different persons. For example, there are more than 500 women
15 with the name Fatima Hodzic in Bosnia. So we need to know more than just
16 the name.
17 Q. So with -- with these various problems you've outlined in this
18 list, based on family members or grieving family members, were you able to
19 do credible work?
20 A. Yes, because fortunately we -- we are able to get a copy of the
21 1991 census that is on the eve of the conflict there was a census in all
22 of former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia, on the 31st of March, 1991, where
23 everybody who lived in Bosnia was enumerated with data on name, first
24 name, surname, father's name, date of birth, place of residence, marital
25 status, household, et cetera. In addition to data on income and education
1 and ethnicity.
2 Q. What did you learn about the accuracy or the reliability of that
3 particular census? 1991 was a tough -- was a tough year.
4 A. Well, the -- the reliability is quite good. But there is one
5 problem that was presented a challenge for us, and that is that the names
6 were all full of mistakes. Because these forms were scanned, and if the
7 handwriting was not so clear then there were often errors crept into the
8 scanning. And because of the conflict there was no time to do the
10 Now I should add, though, that names are not really important for
11 a statistical exercise like a census. You don't need names to make
12 statistics. But they collected the names to make sure that the
13 enumeration of household and population was complete, because otherwise
14 you do not know. You need names to check the completeness of the
16 Q. In your experience had you dealt with these kind of census data or
17 census data like this before?
18 A. Not -- not with faulty names, no. But with my own country, Norway
19 and in other countries I have dealt with census data, yes.
20 Q. Norway doesn't have faulty names in their census?
21 A. We have personal identification numbers which are unique and of a
22 good quality, high quality, right now.
23 Q. Okay. I was going to say after you and your staff had a chance to
24 look at these, can you tell us what your -- what your view of that census
25 was, but before I get to that, can you tell us what kind of staff you
1 have. Is a question I should have asked earlier.
2 A. Well, first I worked alone for half a year, then I realised that
3 there was a massive amount of work to -- because we could not do it all
4 electronically, we had to do a lot of visual inspection of the data say of
5 matches, if you did not know which Fatima Hodzic we were talking about.
6 We needed to check visually. And if you have thousands or millions of
7 people, then we need assistance. So I had several assistants in a row,
8 mostly Norwegian graduate students that I knew before.
9 Q. And where did you work and where did they work?
10 A. We worked at the Office of the Prosecutor.
11 Q. Okay. So let me get back to my original question --
12 JUDGE KWON: Before going further, Mr. McCloskey, if you could
13 kindly ask the witness to clarify -- to tell me the difference between the
14 first item, "still missing," and the second last item, "still missing,
15 PHR," which was not clear to me.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY:
17 Q. Could you explain that to us?
18 A. I'm sorry for the confusion. All the data on this table comes
19 from the ICRC list except that single line, PHR. PHR had something like
20 between six and 7.000 missing people, but in the most recent ICRC version,
21 almost all of the PHR data are included in ICRC lists. So the 23 missing
22 people are reported to PHR only and not to ICRC.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY:
25 Q. All right. So can you tell us what -- after you had a chance to
1 look at this, this census, what you thought of it for the purposes that
2 you were asked to do?
3 A. Pretty good.
4 Q. And did you get that in electronic format as well?
5 A. Yes, we got it electronic format, 4.3 million records.
6 Q. That's a lot of people in the former Yugoslavia. You were tasked
7 to basically deal with people missing from the Eastern Bosnia area; is
8 that right? Were you able to use this census so you could stay within the
9 Eastern Bosnia zone?
10 A. Yes, we selected six or seven municipalities in Eastern Bosnia.
11 At that time in 1998, 1999, then the computer capacity was a limitation.
12 Today I think we wouldn't have need it. Now we don't need to do analysis
13 just for a part of the population; we can all look at all of Bosnia.
14 Q. Okay. Okay. So we've got this -- this list, the rough list from
15 ICRC and a few from PHR. How does the census information help you in --
16 concerning the validity of the -- the ICRC list?
17 A. We may use as an example perhaps an attempt to find living people
18 among the missing people. And to do that we matched the missing lists
19 with the voters' lists they collected after the war.
20 Q. Okay. Well, you have jumped to voters' lists. Before we get to
21 voters' lists, can you give me a little more direct -- what's the census
22 do to help you? You may have explained it partly before, but you've
23 got -- you've got this list of all these people that live all over
24 Bosnia. How does that help you with this list of missing from family
1 A. Yeah, when we have the census, we know that if all the people on
2 the missing list are in the census, we know that they are not made up or
3 fictitious persons. They were at some time there was a -- at some point
4 in time there were accusations that people reported people as missing to
5 inflate the numbers. Now if you compare we can check then missing people
6 with 1991 census to see if they were enumerated and then if they were
7 there, then we know this existed. We can also get additional information
8 that was not collected by the ICRC, which was collected by the census, in
9 particular ethnicity and religion as reported by the enumerated people.
10 And also the unique number, the so-called maticni broj, the unique
11 identification number was used in the census, but not by ICRC. So we got
12 additional information. Often we had a more complete date of birth than
13 the ICRC collected.
14 Q. Okay. What -- we've all learned how person that the father's name
15 is in the former Yugoslavia. Did the ICRC list try to get the father's
17 A. Yeah, father's name is there in most cases and also in the
19 Q. Okay. Anything else in particular - I know we're jumping through
20 this quickly - that the census helped you do in your analysis, and there
21 may be other things.
22 A. Yeah, as I said, when we have certainly people with the same name
23 and perhaps also the same father's name, the census can help us tell
24 whether some names represent the same person or different persons.
25 Q. Okay. What else, what other databases or tools did you use to
1 help check the validity of the ICRC list that you now have with the help
2 of the census?
3 A. If I -- may I mention the voters' list now?
4 Q. That's where we are.
5 A. And also there was a list collected much later on the displaced
6 persons in Bosnia. But the voters' lists were collected by the OAC
7 people, had to register to vote, and in 1997 and 1998, about 2.3 million
8 people voted -- registered to vote, with name, but not name of father, I
9 think. But the unique identification number in most cases, but not
10 ethnicity. So it was partly overlapping information with the census,
11 partly with the ICRC, but -- but a -- an important drawback of the -- of
12 these voters' lists is that they only covered population over age 18,
13 naturally, who are able to vote, have the right to vote. And also those
14 who want to vote. So there were many not registered to vote because they
15 were not interested or had left the country. There was also actually the
16 campaign to register people who lived in other countries. But there were
17 many people who did not register, but 2.3 million out of -- I don't
18 remember how many. I think 70 per cent on average of the population
19 registered to vote.
20 Q. Okay. And did you look at the names of people registered to vote
21 to see if they were on the missing list? Because people are registering
22 to vote, they -- probably not missing.
23 A. Yes. That was the hypothesis that if there were many -- many
24 survivors who were wrongly reported as missing, then they might register
25 to vote. So we did -- we did comparisons with voters registered.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think it's time for a break and we can get into
2 that voters' registration details.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You are correct. We will have a 25-minute break
4 starting from now.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Mr. Brunborg, and Mr. McCloskey. Go ahead,
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Okay. We left off, you had just begun to talk about the -- a
11 couple of voters' registration lists, and how you wanted to check to see
12 if there were anybody that registered to vote that was on the missing
13 list. But I believe you said that the voters' registration list didn't
14 have fathers' names; is that right?
15 A. Yes, I think that was the case.
16 Q. So what -- how were you able to use a Yugoslav, former Yugoslav
17 document that didn't have fathers' names?
18 A. We did have the date of birth and also the maticni broj, the
19 unique identification number, and municipality of residence, although that
20 changed for many, of course.
21 Q. Okay. So did you find that you were able to make a useful
22 comparison between the voters' list and -- and your developing missing
24 A. Yes, but it was very hard to do the matching because for some
25 people, as was indicated, there was not a whole lot of information. So at
1 the first go at it you could get several thousand matches, but then you
2 were limiting it and then we ended up with a few cases where -- which we
3 scrutinised very closely to see if this was a true match or a false match.
4 And if I may mention an example of our methodology?
5 Q. We do have some exhibits of true matches and false matches. Is
6 that -- a good time to go to that, I think. The Exhibit is 65 ter 572,
7 and it's I believe a document that you have developed in your report, and
8 can you just go down this for us. Based on real data, but modified for
9 protection of identity. Why do you modify it?
10 A. Well, we did not want this to -- the names of -- of these real
11 person to be known. They may want to protect their privacy.
12 Q. Okay. Can you explain this for us?
13 A. Yes. After the electronic matching we found many possible
14 matches, saying that the two records representing the same person. We
15 that that according to the ICRC list there is a person, Mensur Gabelic,
16 father's name Avdo, born in 1970, and in the voters' list, 1997, there is
17 also a Mensur, but spelled not Gabelic, but with a Q instead. That is
18 obviously a misprint, so that was corrected. But need to know about that
19 to correct that electronically. However, without the father's name in the
20 voters' register because it was not entered and the year -- date of birth
21 is slightly different from the year of birth recorded in the ICRC lists.
22 So what he we did, we went to the census and looked for all the Gabelic
23 family, Mensur Gabelic, and you found one, father's name was Avoo with two
24 Os, not "-do". There was nobody else with the names and date of birth
25 similar to that, so we conclude that this is a true match. Those two
1 records above represent the same person, and although there are some
2 differences in the records, minor differences, so would he conclude that
3 this person is a possible or potential survivor although he was registered
4 missing, and he was then deleted from our list of missing persons.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. To be on the safe side. Now, the other thing that could have
7 happened of course was that this person was wrongly registered to vote.
8 Somebody might have known that this person was registered missing, in fact
9 it was public information and misused this person's identity to vote, to
10 get an extra vote, that's possible. But we don't know.
11 Q. But to be on the safe side, you pulled that --
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. -- person. Do you know how many matches you had like that?
14 A. Nine out of seven and a half thousand.
15 Q. Statistically, what does that mean?
16 A. It is of no significance. If there had been hundreds, yes, we
17 would have been concerned. But if you don't do this correctly, you could
18 get several thousand matches.
19 Q. I think the next exhibit is an example of a -- what you have
20 called an example of a false match. That's Exhibit 573, if we could get
21 that one up there. Walk us through this one.
22 A. According to the ICRC, there is an Abdula Delic, his father's name
23 was Husein, born in 1955, and this was then seemingly matched with a
24 voters' register person called Abdula Delic, father's name not listed, as
25 before, year of birth 1955. So this seems to be the same person. But
1 then we checked and we found that there were two persons by that name in
2 the census, one where the father's name was Husein, the other father's
3 name was Kemal, both born in 1955; moreover, the son of Kemal's number is
4 identical to the voters register number. So these represent different
5 records, the son of Husein did not register to vote, he's still missing,
6 and he was not excluded from the list. So this shows how useful it is to
7 have the access to a database with a complete population.
8 Q. All right. Well, having those few examples of your methodology,
9 is there anything else you would like to say about methodology before we
10 talk a bit about the results?
11 A. We can come back to that, I think. You need to do lots of
12 corrections, like correcting names, for example, misspellings in names
13 according to Bosnian naming traditions, and we spent a lot of time on
15 Q. All right. Then let's go to the next exhibit, which is P02424,
16 it's another graph, and I think if -- once that gets up there --
17 apparently it's in colour so it takes a bit longer. But ...
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Since we have a pause, Your Honour, if I could just
19 direct your attention to line 75 -- or page 75, line 21, I thought the
20 witness said, although it wasn't not recorded there, but it may be
21 significant, at least for our questioning, when he said, "It is of no
22 significance. If there were hundreds we would have been concerned," and
23 then I thought after that he said if you do not do the -- if you do not do
24 this correctly you can get several thousand matches. I just want to
25 confirm that that's what he said. I thought he did, I wrote it down, and
1 I looked up, and it wasn't there. It may be significant for us.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Brunborg, you have heard Mr. Ostojic's
3 submission. Do you agree?
4 THE WITNESS: That is correct, but I hope I am not misunderstood,
5 the statement is not misunderstood.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: In what sense?
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Not at all.
8 THE WITNESS: That if it is done correctly, you got nine matches.
9 That is the interpretation.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY:
12 Q. And I think we've given enough examples to show the kind of
13 crunching and numbers and reviewing that you have done in order to do it
15 Is there anything else --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you move ahead. I am not familiar
17 with the set-up, so I wouldn't be able to know, but in Bosnia and Serbia
18 or wherever in the territory of the ex-Yugoslavia, Mr. Brunborg, did they
19 have or do they have an office which is the archive of identity cards?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I'm not familiar with the archive of
21 identity cards.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: An office where all records relating to identity
23 cards are kept, in other words.
24 THE WITNESS: It is possible that the so-called MUP, the Ministry
25 of the Interior, also kept records of identity cards, but I am not
1 familiar. But they -- as I said they introduced the ID number in 1981 and
2 it was used in 1981 census, 1991 census, but not as widely as in the
3 Nordic countries, for example.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: My question is, if one were to go and search for a
5 person under his identity card number would you find any records that
6 would then give you all the details that you would normally have elsewhere
7 in Europe, for example, or not?
8 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. That -- that is a topic
11 that the investigation may be able to help -- help you with.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One further question. By any chance do the ID
13 numbers correspond to the birth certificate records or not?
14 THE WITNESS: The date of birth is part of the ID number, and the
15 place of birth is also part, or the region of birth or the region where
16 the person lived in 1981. And the gender is also part of the number.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY:
19 Q. Just on a related -- related topic that I recalled, were you
20 directed by the -- well, by the -- the investigation initially not to use
21 any missing lists from either of the parties, the Muslims, the Croats or
22 the Serbs?
23 A. Not directly. I did collect some lists of that kind, but they
24 have not -- data from those lists have not been included in our work to --
25 to make sure that there was absolutely no question of the -- about
1 non-neutrality. And, anyway, most of the data are -- those data are
2 included in the ICRC lists anyway. But it could have added if some deaths
3 are missing persons. So -- so which means that the numbers representing
4 here are absolutely minimum numbers. The real numbers are likely to be
5 somewhat higher.
6 Q. Well, you bring that up. Do you have something called a margin of
7 error in this analysis?
8 A. Not really. But we think that it's close to minimum, so the
9 chance that it is lower than this is very small. The chance that it is
10 higher is quite large, that the real number is higher.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. So it is at the end of the tail, you could say.
13 Q. All right. Well, then let's -- the colour shot is up. So this --
14 tell us what this -- what this is.
15 A. This shows us the age distribution of the Srebrenica-related
16 missing and dead persons.
17 Q. Were you asked to do this by the investigation?
18 A. Not originally. This is a sort of a very natural for a
19 demographer to do and you will see that we have done it in five-year age
20 groups, but the OTP did, in fact, ask us to break it down by the age
21 groups given below, children and adults and old people. And we noticed
22 that the majority is in sort of regular adults, you could say, 16 to 60,
23 and -- but also a sizeable number of children and old people, and we also
24 noticed that the number of women is very small; 68 out of 7.661, which is
25 less than one per cent.
1 Q. All right. Let's go to the next -- the next exhibit, which is
2 2426. And before we get there, I believe it incorporates some data from
3 the ICMP information that you had compiled more recently. You have talked
4 about that a bit. But can you -- when this -- when this picture comes up,
5 can you explain what this graph depicts and a little bit more about this
6 ICMP data?
7 A. Well, as I said, ICMP's task is to identify people from mass
8 graves. And this is ongoing work, the first person was identified in
9 2001. As of September 2005, that identified 2.591 people related to the
10 fall of Srebrenica. And it's the age distribution of those that we see in
11 the black bars here. And the red bars represent the age distribution of
12 the ICRC list, which we saw previously, except that here we have a
13 percentage distribution; the previous picture showed absolute numbers. We
14 noticed that the age distributions are very similar. Which indicates that
15 they come from the same population, that the identified people come from
16 the population of missing people who are still in the -- most still in the
18 We also see that the identified are -- proportions are lower for
19 the young people between 15 and 24 and some -- yeah.
20 Q. Just to be clear you are making reference to where there is a lot
21 more red than black from 15 to 19 and 19 to 24?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. What does that mean, you think?
24 A. That means that young people have been less identified to a less
25 extent, so far, than older people. And the -- I think the explanation of
1 that is that young people -- more of the young people went trekking
2 through the woods than the old people, who mostly went to Potocari with
3 their families. They did not trek through the woods because they wanted
4 to be with the families and because they were not in the health condition
5 to do that. So -- so that more of the old people have been exhumed and
6 identified than the young people.
7 Q. All right. Though the exhumation process and the identifying of
8 remains is -- is -- is still going on as we speak, isn't it?
9 A. Yes, as of 11 July last year they had found about 600 more,
10 identified 600 more than the year before. And now we have almost one and
11 a half years after September 2005, so we expect almost 1.000 more
12 identified. So we should then be in the area, region of three and a half
13 thousand persons identified, perhaps.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Brunborg, I think from what you have testified
15 on this chart here, where the red line or column is higher than the black
16 one, is abundantly clear. What perhaps needs some explanation is where
17 the black line shows a higher percentage than the red line. In other
18 words, more -- a higher percentage of exhumed and identified persons than
19 those established in parentheses as missing and dead. If you could
20 explain that.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's exactly because it is so much the
22 percentage exhumed and identified among young people is so much lower that
23 then naturally the percentage identified among older people become higher.
24 You remember that the percentages add up to -- to 100 here. So that is
25 the reason.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not still not understanding correctly. If we
2 take the sector dealing with young people aged between 15 and 19, I agree
3 with you that the chart shows that the number of -- or the percentage of
4 exhumed and identified persons is lower than the percentage of those found
5 missing and dead. But if we go, for example, to the age bracket 55 to 59
6 or to 60 to 64 and 65 to 69, and also the age bracket 45 to 49, and 50 to
7 54, you will see that the percentage of exhumed -- exhumed and identified
8 persons is larger than the percentage of missing and dead. This is what I
9 would like you to explain.
10 THE WITNESS: This is because more of the elderly were presumed --
11 went missing and buried in places where there's been a higher degree of
12 exhumations and also of identification. I think this becomes clear if you
13 look at the next picture, because as I said, many of the -- those who went
14 missing in Potocari were much older than -- than the general population.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: But my question is: According to this chart the red
16 represents missing and dead, according to the ICRC.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's take the bracket 45 to 49.
19 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. There is roughly just over eight per cent of
21 the entire missing population that belonged to this age bracket, 45 to 49.
22 My question is, how come that more bodies than eight per cent were
23 exhumed? Because I would expect that exhumations would always fall at
24 least and reach the maximum as maximum the number of missing and dead ICRC
25 persons in that particular bracket. This is what is intriguing me.
1 THE WITNESS: Now I understand your concern. The sum of the red
2 bars adds up to about 7.600. The sum of the black bars adds up to 2.500,
3 because so far about one third of the missing have been exhumed and
5 JUDGE KWON: That was the very question I was coming to, but do
6 you have the -- have a table comparing the absolute numbers? What's the
7 significance comparing the percentage in one graph, so the confusion may
8 arise from that fact.
9 THE WITNESS: We do not -- it's in the report, in this executive
10 summary and the report, the absolute number is given. If this graph had
11 been made with absolute numbers instead of percentages, all the black bars
12 would have been much lower than the red bars. We did make that, but it
13 looked some kind of strange because it would be, sort of, on the average
14 one third of the red bars. So this was to show the similarity of the age
15 distributions that we used percentage instead.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY:
19 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next -- the next one, which is 2427. Will
20 take a while to come up. And I -- it's entitled, "Proportion of missing
21 men from --
22 THE WITNESS: Sorry, it's showing the correct one now and the
23 title is different.
24 Q. I'm sorry. I jumped ahead of myself. Got the right number, and
25 this one is entitled, "Age distribution of identified persons reported on
1 the 2005 OTP list as missing persons from Potocari." Okay. What is
3 A. In a way this is exactly the same graph as the previous graph
4 except that we have only looked at people who went missing in Potocari.
5 It shows that the distributions are very different because the men who
6 went missing from Potocari are on average much older than the general
7 population. As I said, many of the young men that went trekking through
8 the woods, whereas the older men went with their families and -- or
9 sometimes grandchildren to Potocari. And more of them have been then
10 exhumed and identified. So we have to be careful when drawing conclusions
11 because the age pattern is very different in different locations.
12 Q. Okay. Do you have the number of men missing from Potocari that
13 you used to make this graph?
14 A. If you allow me for a second, it is also given in the report,
15 excuse me. Yeah, on page 22 of the report of 16 November 2005, table 6,
16 from 2070 went missing from Potocari. The second highest place of
17 disappearance is forests, where 1.085 went missing.
18 JUDGE KWON: What was the sum of black columns in absolute
20 THE WITNESS: The sum of the black column, I'm sorry, I don't
21 have -- let me see. Closed cases, it must be approximately 260. No,
22 sorry, approximately 700, because those are the identified.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY:
24 Q. And how did you determine that number? Why do you pick 700 for
25 the black -- the blacks?
1 A. These are the closed cases, ICRC data and not the ICMP data but
2 they are very similar. So I would have to check and look up the ICMP data
3 which I think may be given in the report of 21st November.
4 Q. Okay. All right. Well, I don't think we need to go into that now.
5 The next -- the next graph is number 2425.
6 Okay. Can you tell us what this means?
7 A. Yeah, first I think this is very interesting graph. We have been
8 able to produce it because we were able to link the missing people on the
9 ICRC list with the census. There is one word missing from the title -
10 they were Muslims - should be mentioned, included. This shows the
11 proportion of Muslim men who lived in Srebrenica in 1991 who went missing
12 in 1995. And it is really those who were resident, they are matched on a
13 individual basis, one to one basis. So for each person who were
14 enumerated -- for each Muslim man who were enumerated in Srebrenica in
15 1991, we could see whether that person was reported as missing in 1995.
16 And we see that on average about one third of the Muslim men
17 enumerated in 1991 went missing in 1995. Up to 50 per cent, in fact, for
18 the middle ages, between 49 and 55 went missing. These are really
19 underestimates of the proportions who went missing, because it does not
20 take into account that many Muslim men left Srebrenica before 1995.
21 Either because they went elsewhere, and there are also several people who
22 died from natural and other causes. Same, especially among the elderly,
23 where 10 -- as many died from natural causes who were -- who disappeared
24 in 1995. So the real figures are proportions are probably much higher.
25 But the proportions are staggering, because we see that one third of the
1 Muslim men went missing and are probably dead, and up to 50 per cent.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One question. Apart from the people from
3 Srebrenica, men from Srebrenica that had left Srebrenica prior to or in
4 the early part of the war before -- do you exclude from this list men from
5 Srebrenica who may have died in action between 1992 and 1995?
6 THE WITNESS: Certainly, yeah. They're not there.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And on what basis? This is why I want to have this
9 THE WITNESS: Because the enumerator, if you may, only reported
10 people missing as related to the events around the 11 of July, 1995.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: Moreover, another group is also excluded from this
13 chart, and that is men from other municipalities who were in -- located in
14 Srebrenica in July 1995, say from Bratunac or Zvornik because they are not
15 listed here. They are listed as where they were enumerated in 1991, so we
16 could make similar charts for other areas but the bars would be much
17 lower, of course.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY:
19 Q. Okay. Did your review of this list make an effort to determine if
20 anybody on that ICRC list had actually died before July 11th, 1995?
21 A. Oh, certainly. We compared lists of military deaths, they were
22 also -- there was critique from -- from other sources in Republic of
23 Srpska and in Belgrade that claim that we were including people who had
24 died before 1995 from -- killed in action or in combat or for other
25 causes. And we checked all those and we didn't find any.
1 Q. Okay. And just --
2 A. They were excluded if we ...
3 Q. If I can just briefly help outline some -- something that may make
4 some of this area a little clearer. You wrote your first report for
5 Krstic in February 2000; is that correct?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. And then you wrote the report that I believe we referred to as the
8 rebuttal report in 2004. Is that correct?
9 A. That is correct, yes.
10 Q. And in your -- now we have the latest report is 16 November 2005.
11 Now, can you tell us with -- having in mind that -- is the report, the
12 latest one, 16 November, is that designed to encompass the entire report
13 or is it volume 2?
14 A. No, it's designed to include the entire report. The 2000 report
15 and their findings and data that were collected afterwards. For example,
16 this chart we see here, we did not make in 2000 because we hadn't done
17 the match between the missing and the census population 1991 for all of
18 Bosnia or for all of Srebrenica. We did not have the technology to do
20 Q. But does -- is everything in this 16 November 2005 report included
21 in the February 2000 report?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. No, because we have findings and there are a few issues that
25 were included in the 2000 report that we did not repeat in the 2005
1 report. For example, on -- if I may mention, on page 10, I believe, in
2 the 2000 report we refer to what's -- it's called attempts at undermining
3 the ICRC list of missing persons and we refer to books and articles and
4 reports criticising our findings, or criticising, actually, the ICRC
6 Q. Can you give us just one example of -- of one such criticism that
7 perhaps we haven't talked about?
8 A. Well, it was claimed that there were many people who registered to
9 vote, hundreds of people who registered to vote who were also on the
10 missing lists. According to the 1996 list of voters. But that is no
11 surprise, because the 1996 list of voters was exactly the 1991 census. It
12 was the same. There was no new collection of -- there was no new
13 registration of voters, they just used the 1991 census, so then there is
14 no surprise you find many people on both lists. That's one example. So
15 you have to be knowledgeable about what happened how the registration of
16 voters was done.
17 Q. So just for the Court that for some specific criticisms that came
18 from some organisations, I think, the Belgrade law centre is one
19 organisation, there is a more detailed analysis of those criticisms in the
20 2000 report; in fact, there is none of that is in the more recent report;
21 is that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned the rebuttal 2004 report. Rebuttal of
24 what? What's that about?
25 A. Well, in the Blagojevic trial then the -- the Defence had hired an
1 expert demographer from Belgrade who got access to the data, our list, the
2 ICRC list, and claimed to find several duplicates and other errors also in
3 the ICRC list or OTP list.
4 Q. And that expert was provided access to the same material you had
5 had access to, the census and other things?
6 A. She was given a computer and with access to the census and the OTP
7 list in this very building.
8 Q. And can you tell us, did she make some valid points?
9 A. Her three points were that first that there were many duplicates
10 and she actually -- she claimed there were five certain duplicates and
11 another five likely duplicates in the missing list, meaning that there
12 were some persons who were included twice. Twice. And unfortunately she
13 was right. There were, in fact, some duplicates, we had already found
14 them, we had detected them, we marked them, but through an oversight we
15 forgot to remove them. They were there for organisational reasons and
16 also we had to decide if there are two records and they are almost
17 identical, say the date of birth is slightly different, we had to decide
18 on which record to remove. And that had been forgotten in all of that.
19 Q. Okay. Have those been removed now in your latest data?
20 A. Yes and we did an additional, very thorough analysis of duplicates
21 and it came up with a total of 24. And they were removed.
22 Q. So an additional 24 from the 10 the expert -- other expert had
24 A. Well, only eight of her duplicates were valid, actually.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. Two were false matches.
2 Q. All right. Okay. You have mentioned that she had three points.
3 That being point one. What were the other two points?
4 A. The other two points was that there were fictitious persons in the
5 missing list. She mentioned some names. Name and date of birth. We
6 checked the census and found the particulars of those persons. So they
7 were enumerated in 1991 and it is quite unlikely that they were
8 fictitiously enumerated. So we refuted that claim, I think.
9 The third one that there were survivors and we checked that but we
10 did not find any survivors except for those we had included already, those
11 nine that were possible survivors in the voters' list, 1997/1998. But we
12 have come to believe that it is more likely that they were not survivors,
13 but they were wrongly registered to vote.
14 In fact, later it has been found that two of those nine are --
15 were dead. So somebody had misused their identities or there has been a
16 mix-up, an error.
17 Q. Did you find any -- any significant misuse of -- of these data,
18 people putting fake names into the ICRC list or false names into the
19 voters' lists? I mean you have mentioned there are been a couple of
20 anomalies if you want to call it that, but did you find anything
21 significant that would affect your conclusions?
22 A. On the missing list we haven't found any example of that. On the
23 voters' list, possibly.
24 Q. All right. And it's my understanding that same expert will be --
25 is reviewing your material now, and I'm sure you look forward to seeing
1 her latest critique.
2 A. Very much. This is the kind of quality control that we welcome.
3 Q. All right. Just to give her the credit of her name, do you
4 remember her name?
5 A. Mrs. Radovanovic.
6 Q. Okay. If I could -- to make the record clear, the 12 February
7 2000 report is 65 ter 571. The 25 August 2004 rebuttal report is P02412.
8 The -- there is a November 16th, 2005 updated report which is P02413. And
9 that updated report has an addendum which is dated 21 November 2005, and I
10 believe that addendum is -- is a confidential addendum.
11 Can you tell us just briefly what is the addendum to your latest
12 report and why is it confidential?
13 A. Because it includes data on individuals from ICMP and to protect
14 the privacy on those individuals it's presented under seal.
15 Q. I didn't read that number, which is P02416.
16 Now, this has been a pretty quick lesson or a testimony, I should
17 say, on this topic. Is there anything -- this is your last chance on
18 direct to offer anything in your -- in your process or your -- that you
19 think I -- we've left out. Obviously we've left out a lot, but is there
20 anything you would like to say in conclusion?
21 A. I think we should repeat that this is an ongoing process, that new
22 data are coming all the time, the new exhumations, the identification
23 process is going on. So there is no final number. For posterity it would
24 be nice to be -- very good to have a final number, but it will be quite a
25 while before we get the final numbers. It will slowly increase, sometimes
1 it will drop a little bit when you find a few errors, but then it will
2 increase slowly. And the number of identified persons will increase
3 dramatically, I think.
4 Q. Is that unfortunately linked to the continuing exhumations of the
5 bodies still in the ground?
6 A. Yes. Certainly.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm finished for this evening, Mr. President.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Would it cause your
10 office any problem if you could provide us with a hard copy of the
11 relevant reports? One each, in other words.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Not at all.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: In case of expert report or any documents of
15 extensive volume in the future.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: The actual missing list, we had one for the last
17 trial of the seven -- roughly 7.400 which we have hard copies of with --
18 the 7.600 we don't have the hard copy as yet, but it's electronic, but
19 we -- I've asked to get one of those and we'll provide that as well.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Brunborg.
21 THE WITNESS: Sorry, if I may.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly.
23 THE WITNESS: Sorry. If I may repeat that I would like to make an
24 addendum based on new reports from -- from ICMP and we intend to do that
25 within a month or so.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you so much. On behalf of the
2 Tribunal I should like to thank you for having been kind enough to come
3 and give testimony in this case. And on behalf of everyone, I wish you a
4 safe journey back to Norway. Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, Witness 45.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we have another witness, if you would like
9 another witness. Okay. Mr. Thayer will be up.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Exhibit D73, it seems that the
12 Prosecutor has nothing else, the three pages of the Oric case will be put
13 in the file instead of this exhibit. As far as I'm concerned, if it is
14 acceptable for the Chamber, instead of D73, I prefer the three pages of
15 the Oric case, 3.078 until 3.378 until 3.381 [as interpreted] in the file.
16 If it is acceptable by the members of the Chamber.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose what shows in the transcript as D73 is
18 5D173. That's what you're referring to, aren't you? What are you
19 referring to?
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. 5D173, indeed.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't remember the Oric case by heart, but which
23 three pages of the Oric case are you referring to? Because we didn't hear
24 anything about any -- any transcripts from that case, from that trial.
25 Seems somewhat unclear in my mind, this is why I'm asking.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Pages of the Oric case, the
2 transcript, to which there was a reference made during the objection to
3 the content of these pages, indeed the same as the exhibit I referred to.
4 I found it on IDS, apparently Prosecutor had these three pages of the Oric
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We'll leave that pending until Monday.
7 What are we going to do with the documents? I suppose -- the
8 Brunborg documents.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, the -- the agreement was we would -- he'd
10 come back at -- for cross-examination after their expert has had a chance
11 to review everything. I guess we put them on ice until that time.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I wanted to make that clear because I didn't want to
13 make the impression that we were leaving an unfinished symphony. Next
14 witness is 45?
15 MR. THAYER: That's correct, Mr. President.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Good evening, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: Good evening.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You are just about to
20 start your evidence. Our rules require that before you do so you make a
21 solemn declaration that you will be testifying the truth. Madam Usher is
22 handing you the text of the solemn declaration. Please read it out and
23 that will be your declaration with us.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
25 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-155
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please take a seat and make
4 yourself comfortable. You will only be about 10 to 12 minutes today and
5 then you will return on Monday. I just wanted to put your mind at rest
6 that we have granted you two protective measures that the Prosecution
7 sought for you, namely the use of a pseudonym and also facial distortion.
8 I trust these have been explained to you and that they are to your
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer will go first, and then we will continue
12 on Monday.
13 Mr. Thayer.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
17 Q. Good evening, sir. Madam Usher will be handing you a piece of
18 paper. I will ask you to read it to yourself and confirm that your name
19 is printed next to the number PW-155. For the record, the sheet is
20 P02401. And if could you just confirm orally that your name is there, if
21 it is there, sir.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. President, while the pseudonym sheet is being handed around,
24 if we could move into private session?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Let's move into private session.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 6818-6820 redacted. Private session
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Witness. We have run out of time, so we
18 have to stop here. You will return Monday morning when we will proceed
19 with -- hopefully conclude with your testimony. Thank you. Have a nice
20 evening, everyone.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of
24 February, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.