1 Tuesday, 10 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, everybody. Madam Registrar, could you
6 kindly call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here. From
10 amongst the Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Bourgon and
11 Mr. Ostojic. That's about it. Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and
12 Mr. Thayer.
13 We still need to go through the exhibit tendering process in
14 relation to yesterday's witness. Yes, Mr. Thayer?
15 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Mr. President, good morning, Your
16 Honours. Good morning, everyone. We just have two items to tender from
17 yesterday's testimony. The first is PIC 00137. That is the marked
18 version of map 6 from the map book that the witness marked up yesterday.
19 The second exhibit is PIC 00138. That is an aerial image of the
20 Kravica warehouse, 65 ter P01563 marked by the witness yesterday.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it there are no objections from any of the
22 Defence teams. There shouldn't be. So those two documents are admitted
23 and the exhibit number will be verified, as you put it, Mr. Thayer, and
24 confirmed later.
25 The Defence, Mr. Stojanovic, I understand you have one document to
1 tender; is that correct?
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
3 That's correct. We would like to tender the map that the witness marked
4 yesterday. 4DIC 139 is the number.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objection from the Prosecution?
6 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: From any of the other Defence teams? None. Okay.
8 So that is admitted. Number to be verified and confirmed.
9 I take it there are no other exhibits.
10 So before we bring in the next witness, we had an indication
11 yesterday from Mr. McCloskey that a motion would be filed. At the time we
12 were given the impression that it will deal with two persons but as it is,
13 it only deals with this next witness, Witness 144. The request is that
14 the protective measure he enjoyed in Blagojevic, that being of facial
15 distortion, is made applicable also for the purpose of his evidence and
16 his testimony in this case. Any objection from any of the Defence teams?
18 So motion is granted. And Witness 144 will enjoy the protective
19 measure of face distortion throughout his entire testimony. Yes,
20 Mr. McCloskey?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I was able to speak to the second
22 witness yesterday late afternoon, and he asked the same thing. We didn't
23 have time to get that into a -- the motion but I can file that this
24 morning or we can do it orally, whatever you prefer.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And since I know nothing about this other person,
1 did he testify before?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, he did. It's another excavator operator in
3 the previous case, in the Blagojevic case.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And did he enjoy any protective measures then?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: It was the same as this person. He was -- all he
6 wanted was face distortion.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So we might try to avoid you having to file a
8 written motion. Are you in a position, Defence teams, to agree to
9 protective measures being placed also with regard to the other witness,
10 that being limited to facial distortion?
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So I take it there are no objections
13 from any of the Defence teams. So you don't need to file a motion. We
14 take what you stated as amounting to an oral request, an oral motion,
15 which is also being granted already. So the next witness who would be
16 number 146, will testify with the protective measure of facial distortion
18 Okay. Any other submission before the witness comes in?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, as I mentioned yesterday,
20 Mr. Lazarevic and I had a chance to speak, and we'll be speaking to you
21 briefly on that point. We can do it after these witnesses or before,
22 because it appears that we'll need a decision from you on the issue of
23 playing the tape of Mr. Borovcanin.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let's bring the witness in,
25 please. And we'll try to allow some time.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And this witness needs a caution, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I was going to ask you about that.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: And as a 92 bis with cross-examination witness, he
4 now reverts to a 92 ter witness and I don't plan on asking him any
5 questions and I do not have a summary, though I can give you a brief
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the summary we had imposed as a matter of
8 rule, sort of, so...
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can raise the curtains in the meantime.
12 Good morning to you, sir.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: You are going to start giving evidence very soon,
17 and before you do that, and you're familiar with this procedure because
18 you've testified already, you are required to make a solemn declaration to
19 us that in the course of your testimony you will be speaking the truth.
20 The text is being handed to you now. Please read it out aloud and that
21 will be your solemn undertaking with us.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: CVIJETIN RISTANOVIC
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
2 There are another few things I need to tell you before you start giving
3 evidence. First one relates to a right that every witness that comes to
4 testify before this Tribunal enjoys, in terms of our rules. It's not
5 something that we have invented. It's something that exists in almost all
6 jurisdictions that I am aware of. And it relates to witnesses' right
7 against self-incrimination. Let me explain it to you in lay terms.
8 There may be questions put to you, either from the Prosecution or
9 from the Defence, that, if you would answer truthfully, could expose you
10 to criminal proceedings. In other words, there could be what is sometimes
11 referred to as incriminatory questions. In such a case, and I'm not
12 saying that there will be such questions but there could be, in such a
13 case, you have a right to ask for our protection, and ask us, the Trial
14 Chamber, to exempt you from answering such questions. I say you have a
15 right but it is not an absolute right. And it is not an absolute right
16 because we can take either of two decisions:
17 Either to exempt you from answering such questions, or to compel
18 you to answer such questions notwithstanding your wish, your desire, not
19 to. If we compel you to answer such incriminatory questions, however, you
20 have a further right, and that is that anything you would state in
21 answering such incriminatory questions because we have compelled you to
22 answer those questions, will not be used against you in any subsequent
23 proceedings that could be taken or might be taken against you. Unless, of
24 course, we are talking of proceedings for perjury. In that case, what you
25 would have stated could be used against you.
1 Have I made myself clear enough for you, to you, to understand?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, the next thing, Mr. McCloskey will go first.
4 He has a few, very few, questions for you. He will then be followed by
5 some or more of the Defence teams.
6 Mr. McCloskey, I understand you don't have a summary. I think at
7 the end of the day we could live with that, but there are other
8 requirements under paragraph (A) of Rule 92 ter, which need to --
9 particularly subparagraph (3) which you need to address.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
11 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
12 Q. And Good morning, Mr. Ristanovic. Can you state your name for the
13 record, please?
14 A. Cvijetin Ristanovic.
15 Q. All right. And do you recall testifying here in The Hague in this
16 Tribunal on 1 December 2003 in the Blagojevic/Jokic case?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And yesterday, did you have a chance to listen to your testimony
19 in that case?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And can you attest today that that testimony is accurate?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if you were asked the same questions today, would your answers
24 be the same?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. And as I told you yesterday, your testimony from that
2 trial will be presented to this -- or has been presented to this Court. I
3 won't have any more questions for you. But Defence counsel might.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: And your Honour, just as a brief outline,
5 Mr. Ristanovic was a member of the engineering company of the Zvornik
6 Brigade and was ordered to take part in the excavations near Orahovac and
7 the excavations at Branjevo, and that's the subject matter of his
8 testimony. Thank you, and I don't have anything further.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
10 Now, before I pass you on to the first Defence team for your
11 cross-examination, I also wanted to confirm to you that the Prosecution
12 asked on your behalf for facial distortion as a protective measure to hide
13 your identity to an extent. You enjoyed the same protective measure in
14 Blagojevic. None of the Defence teams objected to that, and so we have
15 granted you facial distortion, and that means that no one would be able to
16 see your face outside the four walls -- actually, there are more, but I
17 would still call them four walls of this courtroom. I hope you have had
18 this explained to you before.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So the Defence team that seems to require
21 most time is the Pandurevic team.
22 MR. HAYNES: Not any more, I don't think.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. You have reduced it from one hour to 15
24 minutes now. Okay. So then I'll go by the roster. Thank you, Mr.
1 Mr. Zivanovic?
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours, we will not
3 cross-examine this witness, thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think he's going to break the record.
5 Mr. Meek?
6 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, we had put down 15 minutes and we may
7 have some questions and we may not.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: But if you have questions, please proceed.
9 MR. MEEK: I have no questions right now.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You're not closing the door completely. It's
11 leaving it a little bit ajar.
12 MR. MEEK: No, I'm not, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Nikolic Defence team? Ms. Nikolic? Go ahead.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
16 Q. Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, Mr. Ristanovic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. I am representing Mr. Drago Nikolic here. I'd like to ask you a
19 few questions that have to do with your testimony before this Court in the
20 Blagojevic case on the 1st of December 2003.
21 If I have understood things correctly, after you received the
22 order to go to Orahovac, you set off together with your colleague and you
23 loaded the machine on the lorry, you arrived in Orahovo about 1300 hours
24 on the 14th of July 1995.
25 A. I don't know whether it was 1300 hours. Perhaps it was in the
1 morning. I didn't say it was at 1300 hours exactly. Perhaps it was noon
2 or in the morning, but around that time.
3 Q. So we could agree that it was around noon?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You briefly stopped in front of the school because of the traffic
6 and you saw some soldiers there, isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There were some members of the police platoon among them; isn't
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: It says the police --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, there is a translation mistake,
15 I thank my colleague. I'll repeat that question.
16 Q. The question was, several was several members of the military
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you didn't see which unit these military policemen belonged
20 to, did you?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. You then continued towards Krizevici, you arrived at the turn off
23 from the main road and saw the water point, is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you stay there for a while? Was there something you were
1 waiting for?
2 A. Yes. We did wait there for a while. We did stay there for a
4 Q. Did you notice troops there on the field?
5 A. We stopped on the road. By the road there were troops, on the
6 field there were troops.
7 Q. And that was the beginning of the afternoon on that day; isn't
8 that correct?
9 A. Well, yes, most likely.
10 Q. You were then ordered, and you received instructions, as far as I
11 have understood from your testimony, you were ordered by Slavko Bogicevic
12 to go under the rails towards the field to go under the flyover and that's
13 where you were to excavate?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you went there and you worked there until about 1600 hours,
16 when another engineer replaced you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When you arrived there, before you even started operating your
19 machine, you noticed some troops up there in the field; isn't that
21 A. You mean on the other side after I had passed by the flyover?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. There were some troops, not many. I didn't count them.
24 Q. But you didn't know which unit they belonged to; isn't that
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. After a while, the first lorries carrying detainees started
3 arriving. When you saw the lorries, did you notice the escorts, namely
4 vehicles carrying soldiers with open doors and troops inside ready to
5 intervene in case of an attempt to escape? Did you see anything like
7 A. Before the lorries arrived, I was told to turn off the engine and
8 to turn my back on the whole scene so I couldn't see any escorts.
9 Q. What about later that day? Did you notice anything?
10 A. No.
11 Q. After 1600 hours, when the other engineer replaced you, what did
12 you do then?
13 A. I don't know if it was 1600 hours. It was the afternoon. That's
14 all I know. I didn't have a watch. Don't try to pin me down on the
15 hour. Whether it was 4.00 p.m. or later or earlier, I don't know. When
16 he came, he took over the machine, continued to work. I went down to the
17 fountain to wash my face, brought him some water.
18 Q. Well, I read this hour, 4.00 p.m., in your statement, and I seem
19 to have heard it from the summary of your testimony. I'm sorry, so you
20 spent that part of the afternoon between the fountain and the location
21 where the other engineer was busy?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In all that time that you spent there, and I understood from your
24 testimony that it was almost dark when you left the execution site, you
25 did not receive any food, and nobody from the barracks brought you any
1 food, refreshment, juice?
2 A. No, they did not.
3 Q. In the course of that day, which I believe was a very hard day for
4 you, I understand from your interview and your testimony that among all
5 those troops you had seen on the execution site, you did not see any
6 members of the military police, did you?
7 A. I did not see any members of the military police there.
8 Q. You mean you saw them only outside the school in Orahovac,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In the course of that day, in your location on that execution
12 site, did you notice that any officers of the Zvornik Brigade came to
14 A. None of the officers from the Zvornik Brigade that I knew.
15 Q. You did not see Drago Nikolic, the Zvornik Brigade's security
16 officer there either?
17 A. Well, I did not know Drago Nikolic before. I had never
18 encountered him. He had never issued me any orders so I didn't know the
19 man. So I can't tell whether he was there or not. I cannot confirm
20 either way, because I didn't know the man at the time and I didn't meet
21 him even later, nor did I get any orders from him.
22 Q. Since you stayed there almost until that night, in one meadow or
23 the other one, did you observe the incident when a child about ten years
24 of age was found, having survived the execution?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you hear anything about that incident?
2 A. Yes, but only a month, maybe a month and a half, later.
3 Q. Do you know, did you hear, about who transported that child later
4 away from there?
5 A. I don't know anything about that.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ristanovic.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
8 further questions.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Merci, Madam Nikolic. Madam Fauveau?
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no questions
11 for this witness.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam. One moment. Is something wrong?
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] My colleague warned me about the
14 transcript, namely about page 13, line 2, the word "Zvornik" is missing,
15 who transported the child from the site to Zvornik later.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you for pointing that out,
17 Ms. Nikolic.
18 Mr. Josse?
19 MR. JOSSE: Nothing, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Haynes?
21 MR. HAYNES: Yes. I wonder before I ask the witness any questions
22 whether the screen could be arranged so that he and I could see one
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I can figure out -- that could be a problem.
25 Is it better?
1 MR. HAYNES: That's fine, thank you very much.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, usher.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ristanovic. I'm going to ask you just a few
5 questions on behalf of Vinko Pandurevic.
6 A. All right.
7 Q. I suppose as an excavator operator, you were able to operate a
8 number of different machines; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And also, you were able to identify, to recognise, different
11 machines that were used in excavations?
12 A. Sir, I don't understand your question. What kind of excavation do
13 you mean?
14 Q. Well, I'll come to the point. When you went to the site at
15 Orahovac, the machine that you operated there was a BGH 700, wasn't it?
16 A. Yes. The excavator G 700.
17 Q. And that was a machine that was owned by the Zvornik road company;
18 that's correct, isn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it's your clear recollection that that was the machine you
21 operated on that day and no other?
22 A. 100 per cent certain, yes.
23 Q. Now, at that site, on the day you were there, there was one other
24 machine, wasn't there?
25 A. I don't know which of the two days I spent in that location you
1 mean, day 1 or day 2.
2 Q. Well, the other machine that you believe to have been there when
3 you were there was a ULT 200, wasn't it?
4 A. That was day 2.
5 Q. Thank you very much. And to your knowledge, the Zvornik Brigade
6 did not own a ULT 200, did it?
7 A. Yes. It didn't have one. Machines were occasionally
8 requisitioned as required.
9 Q. Now, when machines were provided with fuel, records were kept of
10 that, weren't they?
11 A. I don't understand your question. The machines were provided
12 together with fuel.
13 Q. Well, it's probably easier if I just show you some documents.
14 MR. HAYNES: I wonder if we could have put into e-court P300 to
15 start off with, please.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Ristanovic, you can probably just about read on that
17 screen that that is what's known as a vehicle work log. Have you seen a
18 document like that before?
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. And that vehicle -- that vehicle work log relates to a machine
21 called a Rovokopac; that's right, isn't it?
22 A. From what I'm able to see, and the copy is not very good, it does
23 say Rovokopac backhoe excavator. There is an indication of the model and
24 type. I cannot make out all the letters so... I cannot see the make and
25 the type.
1 Q. And that's a machine as well as being a backhoe excavator that ran
2 on wheels rather than on Caterpillar tracks, isn't it?
3 A. Yes. That's a machine on wheels that is self-propelled.
4 Q. Thank you. Unlike the BGH 700 which you've talked about which is
5 a machine that ran on Caterpillar tracks and needed to be transported on a
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, what we see on page 1 of this document, and the document in
9 its original form would have been like a book, wouldn't it, but on page 1,
10 we see records of that machine being fueled?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And we can see here that on the 14th of July, that this machine
13 was apparently given 40 litres of fuel. Do you agree with that?
14 A. I agree about the quantity but I'm not sure about the date. It is
15 July but whether it's really 14 -- yes, now you can see when it's
16 enlarged, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, the signature on that document would be the
18 signature of the person who, as it were, provided the fuel for the
19 vehicle, wouldn't it?
20 A. Most probably, although I don't know whose signature that is.
21 Q. Well, we'll come to that. Can we now go to page 2 of this
22 vehicle? Now, this is where the records of what the vehicle was used for
23 are recorded on the document. Can you see that? And can it be blown up a
24 little bit so that you can see it a bit clearer? And this is a record
25 that the driver would keep. He would write it in the document and he
1 would sign it. Would you agree with that?
2 A. That's the way it should be, according to regulation.
3 Q. Now, can we go all the way to the far right of the document,
4 please? This is a vehicle which is said to have been driven by you. Is
5 that your signature?
6 Thank you.
7 Mr. McCloskey is going to show you the original which would be
8 very, very helpful. Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not my signature.
11 MR. HAYNES:
12 Q. And I wonder if you would go back to the front page, where it
13 shows the provision of fuel, and see if you can compare the two
14 signatures, because they look like they are the same signature. Would you
15 agree with that?
16 A. It looks the same but I cannot be 100 per cent certain.
17 Q. Should they, according to regulations, be signed by the same
18 person, the provision of fuel and the record of the journeys taken?
19 A. In the line where the -- which concerns the provision of fuel, the
20 signature of the operator is in the last column, whereas the user's
21 signature is different.
22 Q. Now, just confirm for us, would you, that the -- that that
23 document shows that this vehicle was supposed to have been at Orahovac on
24 the 14th of July.
25 A. Well, this warrant says it was in Orahovac. It says Orahovac and
2 Q. It also suggests that you were the driver. Were you driving a
3 vehicle like that in Orahovac on the 14th of July 1995?
4 A. No. I have already stated that I was working with the backhoe
5 loader, G 700. I did not work with this backhoe excavator.
6 Q. And was a machine of this description in Orahovac on the 14th of
7 July of 1995?
8 A. On the 14th of July, 1995, I didn't see any machine but the G 700
9 I was working on, I was operating.
10 Q. Thank you. I wonder if we could ask you to just look at another
11 document, please, which is P301. And this document, in e-court, is
12 backwards so we are going to have to look at page 2 first.
13 And if -- if Mr. McCloskey could be so kind as to find the
14 original again?
15 Now, here, can we have again a look at the entry for the 14th of
16 July? Firstly, can you confirm for us that this document relates to a
17 Rovokopac torpedo? And again it's a vehicle of which you are said to be
18 the driver.
19 A. Yes, it's a backhoe excavator, torpedo.
20 Q. And can we have a look at the provision of fuel to this vehicle
21 for the 14th of July, please? Before we move on, this again is a vehicle
22 that runs on wheels rather than on a Caterpillar; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. That too is a backhoe excavator on wheels, which can go only
24 up to a certain distance.
25 Q. Now, again, 14th of July, this vehicle appears to have been
1 provided with 40 litres of fuel.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And again, the signature, same one we saw on the other document,
4 isn't it?
5 A. It's similar. I'm not quite sure it's exactly the same. Yes,
6 there are lots of points of resemblance.
7 Q. Let's go to page 1 of this document, please. Again, it is said
8 that this vehicle was in Orahovac on the 14th of July. Can you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Again, were you driving a wheeled Rovokopac torpedo in Orahovac on
11 the 14th of July of 1995?
12 A. No. I was operating a Caterpillar G 700.
13 Q. And so far as you were aware, was any such vehicle in Orahovac on
14 the 14th of July of 1995?
15 A. I didn't see it that day, not at all.
16 Q. Now, just before we go across to the signatures, looking at that
17 document, it all appears to be in the same handwriting and the same pen,
18 doesn't it?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Does he need to answer that question? He's not a
20 handwriting expert.
21 MR. HAYNES: That's a fair comment, Mr. President, I'll move on.
22 Can we go across to the far right of the document.
23 Q. And there is that signature again, five times. Does it appear to
24 you to be the same signature we've seen on both of those documents and on
25 the other page of this document?
1 A. I cannot say with 100 per cent certainty. It looks the same.
2 Whether it's 100 per cent the same, I don't know.
3 Q. It's not your signature, is it?
4 A. No, it's not.
5 Q. Now, can we now go to P302, please? And this is a vehicle work
6 log that relates to a ULT 220 and we can see at the top of the document
7 that it's a vehicle that belongs to Birac holdings; that's correct, isn't
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And the driver is said to be Veljko Kovacevic?
11 A. Well, whether it's Kovacevic. I can not see the first letter on
12 this copy. It is Veljko. Could be a K. Could be a --
13 Q. And you know, don't you, that Veljko Kovacevic was not a member of
14 the Zvornik Brigade, he was somebody that was employed by the building
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can we just go to page 2 of this document, please? And just go to
18 look at the signatures. Well, again, looks like the same signature we've
19 seen on all these documents, both as driver and fuel provider, doesn't it?
20 A. I've told you once before that I'm not an expert. There is a
21 resemblance, but whether it's the same signature or not, I cannot assert
22 one way or another.
23 Q. Well, it certainly doesn't look like it says "Kovacevic," does it?
24 A. It's an abbreviated signature. I cannot tell whose signature it
1 Q. Have you ever seen the signature of the chief of engineering,
2 Dragan Jevtic?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's -- Dragan Jokic is the chief of
6 MR. HAYNES: I'm not going to even bother answering that.
7 Q. Have you ever seen the signature of Dragan Jevtic?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, the objection stands. It's an
9 important distinction between the commander of the engineering company and
10 the chief of engineering. It's a crucial thing. It's not something to be
11 set aside.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can sort this out without any much ado.
13 Forget the capacity in which this Dragan Jevtic operated, whether he was
14 the chief of this or the chief of that or whether he was the chief of
15 anything, for that matter. Do you know Dragan Jevtic?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you familiar with his signature?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You can move on, Mr. Haynes.
20 MR. HAYNES: I'm going to move on to sit down. Thank you very
21 much, Mr. Ristanovic.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope I haven't stopped you.
23 MR. HAYNES: No, you haven't.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Meek?
25 MR. MEEK: No questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: That basically does the round. What I have -- I
2 haven't asked you, Mr. Lazarevic, or Mr. Stojanovic, because you had
3 indicated no intention to cross-examine this witness. Is that correct?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours. We
5 said we wouldn't be examining the witness.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you so much, Mr. Stojanovic.
7 Is there re-examination, Mr. McCloskey?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
10 Mr. Ristanovic, that means that you are finished with your
11 testimony. You almost broke the record. Less than one hour. You are
12 free to go. Our staff will assist you. On behalf of the Tribunal, I wish
13 to thank you for having come over to give evidence, and also I would like
14 to wish you a safe journey back home.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Exhibits?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Mr. President, we have a list which, as you
20 know, is subject to a 92 bis motion. Some of these exhibits were already
21 accepted into evidence. Just out of an abundance of caution we have
22 listed everything that he referred to in his testimony so you would have
23 it all, with the exception of one document which we didn't use that was
24 also the subject of the 92 bis motion, that mentioned accused Pandurevic,
25 but we didn't use it, and we stand by the Court's decision to redact that
1 portion of his testimony. But we have listed here the -- all the items
2 that were referred to in his testimony in the Blagojevic case.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Can I have a copy of that, please? All
4 right. This has been circulated. You can drop -- you have received a
5 copy of this list, I suppose? Any objections to any of these documents?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? We hear none. So they are so
9 Defence teams? Mr. Haynes, would you like to tender --
10 MR. HAYNES: I think all the documents I used are on the
11 Prosecution list.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Anyone else wishes to tender any documents?
13 None? All right. That closes that chapter.
14 And we can prepare for the next witness. So with this witness
15 also, we are going to put in place the facial distortion.
16 Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President, he would also need a
18 caution, the same situation.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we can leave the curtains down for the
20 time limit until he walks in and finds his place.
21 Is the other witness --
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey, did -- I'm not trying to impute any
24 fault on your part but I'm just inquiring, did you indicate that there was
25 no need to bring this witness before 11.00 this morning? Because
1 apparently that's what the understanding is.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: That is a mistake. I knew that this witness would
3 be very short and we -- Ms. Stewart --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's --
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- transmitted that.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do it. I told you I'm not trying to put any
7 blame on you because this -- there could have been a misunderstanding in
8 the first place. What I suggest we do is -- we can deal with the
9 Borovcanin interview matter now, then have the break after, at 10.30 or
10 something like that. In the meantime the witness would have arrived by
11 the end of the break.
12 Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It's been the intention of
14 the Prosecution to play the audiotape of the Borovcanin interview and it
15 was my understanding from our last brief discussion on that, that was
16 understood and that the Defence would be making various challenges at the
17 time of the playing of it, both perhaps before and after. In my
18 continuing discussions with Mr. Lazarevic, he has clarified for me the
19 position that he is objecting to the playing of the interview at all, and
20 so I would then turn over the floor to Mr. Lazarevic so that we can
21 discuss that issue, to get to the bottom of the issue. Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
23 Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honours, and good morning.
25 Following Trial Chamber's suggestion to discuss this issue between the
1 Prosecution and the Defence, I had a meeting together with my colleagues
2 with Mr. McCloskey yesterday and I believe I clarified our position to
3 Mr. McCloskey and I would like to make some additional arguments before
4 the Trial Chamber.
5 Basically Mr. McCloskey put it the right way. We object to the
6 playing of the tapes for a couple of reasons. During our discussion
7 yesterday, Mr. McCloskey told me that his intention is to play some
8 portions of this tape in court. And first my concern as Defence counsel,
9 was whether this portion would be taken out of context of the interview
10 and so far, Mr. McCloskey has not indicated which portion of the interview
11 he intends to play. I have to say before I receive such information from
12 Mr. McCloskey, I won't be able to say whether my -- our portion remains
13 the same or it changes.
14 On the other hand, during these couple of days, and I must say it
15 takes more than a month since we were working on this, we were able to
16 reach one very, very workable transcript of this interview and although it
17 might not sound, well, logical, but this transcript is far more accurate
18 than the tape itself because it contains 100 per cent of everything that
19 is said, while, when playing the tape some portions are missing, there are
20 some pieces of interview which were not translated, some pieces were
21 changed in translation, so the transcript that we will deal with is far
22 more accurate than the tape itself.
23 My concern in my discussion with Mr. McCloskey yesterday was
24 another, and I told to Mr. McCloskey that my concern is that if we play
25 this tape and we get an interpretation from the interpreters' booth, we
1 will have another version of the transcript but he assured me that instead
2 of this, we will use this transcript that we have.
3 So then my question was what is the use, what would be the
4 practical use of playing the tape when we will just listen to words of Mr.
5 Borovcanin and read the transcript? I don't see the benefit the Trial
6 Chamber might have of listening of Mr. Borovcanin speaking in B/C/S while
7 they have the transcript in front of themselves and read it to it.
8 So it is my suggestion to proceed with transcript and that we use
9 only the transcript in the course of Mr. Alistair Graham in giving
10 evidence here.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey? Is there a particular reason
12 why you wish to run this audiotape, when there seems to be even 100 per
13 cent agreement on the part of the Defence about the preciseness of the
14 transcript? What difference would it make to you if the transcript of the
15 tape is admitted together with the tape, without the need to have parts,
16 portions, of the tape played in the courtroom?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, yes, the Prosecution feels that
18 actually hearing the tape is an important part of understanding and fully
19 appreciating the interview and what is said. There are admissions made,
20 there are other statements made, that I think hearing the tone of voice,
21 hearing the way the interview was carried out, this is the best way to
22 fully, in our view, to fully grasp the import of the interview as opposed
23 to a transcript.
24 Now, this is the historical adversarial Prosecutor in me, I must
25 admit. I'm used to live testimony or actual testimony for the Judges to
1 hear as opposed to a dossier. But especially if there is any kind of a
2 challenge to the voluntariness of the interview or whatever kind of
3 challenge there may be made to the interview, I think it's important to
4 hear the whole thing.
5 The other question arises, if you would --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The whole thing or portions of it? Because it seems
7 from what Mr. Lazarevic said that you -- audio, it's not a video one.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's just audio.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's just audio, yes.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And I take it that it's partly in English when the
12 investigator is putting questions that are then translated to
13 Mr. Borovcanin and he is answering in his own language, I take it.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. And as Mr. Lazarevic said, in any
15 normal situation like this, sometimes the interpreter doesn't get
16 everything. Every once in a while, they miss -- do a misinterpretation,
17 and we've managed to work with him to get those points pointed out so that
18 you see in brackets when something is missed so that you will understand
19 that I may have asked a question to Mr. Borovcanin which might have been
20 slightly different than the question he was answering because of the
21 translation. You'll be able to read that and hear it and understand it at
22 the same time, where things were missed out. It doesn't happen a lot but
23 I think we both sides felt it was significant.
24 And regarding portions of it, my initial thoughts with
25 Mr. Lazarevic was that we would try to reduce the air time of this to what
1 the Prosecution felt was the most important and what the Defence felt was
2 most important so that we might combine a "best of" audiotape and if there
3 was any question from the Defence on -- I would -- about that, we would
4 play the whole thing. So that's --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: How long is the whole tape? The entire tape?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: It was an interview that lasted for three days.
7 Well, there was a one-day interview and then a two-day interview. I'm
8 told 15 hours, though it's hard to get -- actually gauge the actual time.
9 It's a fairly long time. That's why I was seeing if we could reduce that
10 and perhaps delete some of the repetitiveness or the less important
11 material. That, Mr. Lazarevic said that he was of course willing to talk
12 to me about but he would first like to hear your ruling on whether or not
13 you wanted to hear the tape at all.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: How come it wasn't videotaped?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Videotape? Well, that's a good question for the
16 investigator but I was involved in that decision and I can tell you that
17 we -- audiotape was fine according to the rules and videotape is a much
18 more awkward process, and it was just simpler to do an audiotape.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any further remarks from you, Mr. Lazarevic?
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, just very briefly, and I believe that
21 Mr. McCloskey has just elaborated on my concerns. This is what I am
22 worried about, the "best of." The best picture that the Trial Chamber
23 could get on the interview is to get a whole one. By selecting certain
24 portions, it might lead to some, well, misunderstanding of certain part of
25 Mr. Borovcanin's interview, and furthermore, if we are going to play these
1 15 hours and Mr. Borovcanin said, I would really like to raise the issue
2 of procedural economy when we already have a transcript of all this.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, but there is still the point raised
4 by Mr. McCloskey in answering the question that I put to him: Is there a
5 reason why you would not be happy with merely having the agreed-upon
6 transcript tendered into evidence and leaving it at that? And he's given
7 his own reasons. And I suppose you need or you should address those
8 reasons because they are put forward against your submission that having
9 the transcript and the transcript alone should suffice. I think that's
10 the first thing you need.
11 Because there are three options in my mind at the moment. One is
12 not having the audio recording played at all, and admitting instead -- I
13 mean it would be tendered in case we need to listen to it later on, but we
14 would have the transcript in our own language, the language that we
15 understand, and that should suffice for the time being. That's option
16 number 1.
17 Option number 2 is have portions determined, chosen, by
18 Mr. McCloskey, with or without consultation with you, and they will be
19 played here in the courtroom and that would address also the economy of
20 time, plus the more relevant parts, maybe, of this interview.
21 And the third option is to have the entire audio recording played
22 here in this courtroom. Which would include the more and less, and the
23 not important parts all put together. These are the three options that I
25 And I suggest you tell us exactly what your position is.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: By all means, Your Honour. The first solution is
2 our preference, that only transcript are to be used during the evidence of
3 Mr. Alistair Graham. We have no problems with audiotapes being
4 distributed to the Trial Chamber and if Your Honours deem it important,
5 they have the opportunity to listen to it but the transcript should be the
6 document that we will operate during this cross-examination, submission.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You haven't answered the point raised by
8 Mr. McCloskey, namely that there are excerpts in this audio recording
9 which are revealing, according to him, to important issues that he has
10 mentioned anyway, I don't need to repeat them.
11 Admitting the transcript -- if he's got any validity in that
12 statement, admitting the transcript would mean -- would be tantamount to
13 depriving him from bringing forward this element of proof. What do you
14 have to say?
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: No, Your Honours, I'm not suggesting that if once
16 the Trial Chamber decided to admit this into evidence, I'm not saying that
17 the audiotapes should not be also part. I just -- I'm just trying to
18 explain my situation. There is nothing in these tapes that is not already
19 contained in the transcript. If Mr. McCloskey is arguing that there is
20 something in Mr. Borovcanin's voice that might suggest that he was -- or
21 anything like this, I have no problem of the Trial Chamber receiving the
22 tapes. I'm just suggesting that we use just the transcript in order to
23 save time, to be more precise and accurate during the examination of
24 Mr. Alistair Graham.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further final submissions on your part,
1 Mr. McCloskey?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly, listening to the tape, you will, for
3 better or for worse, get to know a bit about the parties, the questions
4 the answers, the personalities, the tone. You'll learn much more about
5 the person and when you're looking at the issue of intent, what is in
6 someone's mind, I think it's very important to get that feeling for the
7 person being interviewed and if the Prosecution is being challenged for
8 various things, the -- where the Prosecution is coming from so...
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One final question to you. Have you
10 already identified these portions that you intend showing?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have not. That was something we were hoping to
12 do with Mr. Lazarevic so that we could try to agree to something.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And how soon can you do that?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think in the next -- well, we are going to have
15 a couple of days, it appears, so we can do that in two days, I believe.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Judge Prost has a question. You will soon
19 find out to whom.
20 JUDGE PROST: Actually, Mr. Meek, you can stand up again because
21 it is a question for you, actually. This is on an entirely separate issue
22 but related to the interview.
23 When this issue was raised initially, unfortunately Mr. Ostojic is
24 not here, but I understood his position to be that it is open to the other
25 accused, other than Mr. Borovcanin, to challenge the admissibility of this
1 statement in terms of matters such as its voluntariness, whether the
2 interview was conducted in accordance with the rules and matters of that
3 nature. Can you clarify if that is your position, that it is open to
4 other accused to challenge the admissibility on that basis as opposed to
5 simply challenging whether or not the statement, once admitted, is
6 admissible with reference to the other accused?
7 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. They may be two separate issues,
8 obviously. The jurisdiction where I practice, when we have an accused --
9 a multi-accused trial like this, Mr. Lazarevic's client has made a
10 statement, the Prosecution wants to bring that statement in, and included
11 in that statement are statements about other co-accused, the statement was
12 given long after the events of the conspiracy or joint criminal enterprise
13 have ended, normally, the accused who wants to suppress that statement
14 would file a motion to suppress the statement and there would be a hearing
15 as to whether or not the statement is even admissible. However, at this
16 point, there has been no written motion filed on behalf of Mr. Borovcanin,
17 although we've understood that there would be a challenge to the
18 admissibility of this statement by the accused who made the statement, his
20 So now we are in a predicament that we believe, and I just found
21 this out yesterday, speaking with my learned colleague, Mr. McCloskey,
22 that in fact, when the investigator, Alistair Graham comes, that they
23 intend to put the interview, the transcript and the tape and play it,
24 okay? This is again, to take the words of Judge Agius, wouldn't this in
25 fact by admitting this transcript, wouldn't it be tantamount to depriving
1 other accused of their basic fundamental right to cross-examine their
3 JUDGE PROST: I understand those arguments and I imagine we are
4 going to hear those arguments ultimately, but my question to you is, is it
5 open to Mr. Beara or to other accused to challenge the admissibility of
6 the statement in terms of matters such as voluntariness and compliance
7 with the rules as opposed to the separate question of whether that
8 statement, if admitted, is then evidence against the other accused. I
9 simply want to know your positions. I don't want to argue the matter
10 today. I simply need that clarified, because it will obviously affect
11 matters in terms of this witness testimony. That's all I'm seeking at
12 this point. Thank you.
13 MR. MEEK: Well, in my opinion, in this Tribunal, the
14 jurisprudence, that we would have the right to do that. However,
15 Mr. McCloskey has already indicated, I believe that last week, that his
16 position is we could have no standing because it's not our client's
18 However, just assume, Judge Prost, that the Bench allowed us to do
19 that. It would be a little difficult since, unless Mr. Borovcanin would
20 allow us extensive interview to explain all the circumstances which we're
21 not necessarily aware of and we are not in a really good position to raise
22 maybe all the issues that his counsel could raise in such a motion, but I
23 believe that we could. Whether we would do with a good job, I don't know.
24 JUDGE PROST: Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. This is an interesting issue, and the -- I'd
2 like to -- I think on the standing issue, I think there are some -- there
3 are some challenges that other counsel in my view do not have standing to
4 challenge and those would be those very particular to Mr. Borovcanin, such
5 as whether he felt threatened or certain aspects of the voluntariness of
6 the confession, for some of the reasons that Mr. Meek pointed out, though
7 I would not close the door on their ability to challenge it in other ways,
8 because we will be offering this statement against all the accused for any
9 purposes that you deem it be necessary, and that is different than the
10 jurisdiction that my learned friend made a reference to, and if that is
11 the case, if that is your decision -- as you know, this is a decision
12 that's being currently dealt with in the other two big cases, whether or
13 not a co-accused's statement can be used against others.
14 If that's the case, then there may be other areas that other
15 Defence counsel do have standing on that are less related to the personal
16 aspect of an interview. Perhaps such as whether it was done according to
17 the rules or not. That sort of thing. And so I wouldn't argue that they
18 don't have standing on all issues. There may be an issue that they do
19 have standing for because this statement could very well be used against
20 them as well. And so I wouldn't argue that in a pure common law sense.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. One last thing before we break.
22 Yesterday, I think you were here, Mr. McCloskey, I referred to the Nikolic
23 motion requesting an order from this Trial Chamber to the Prosecution to
24 urgently disclose all Rule 68 material in relation to Witnesses PW 108 and
25 102. You will recall what I stated yesterday, that we are not here to
1 spend our time reminding you of what the rules say in relation to your
2 respective duties, and we said that this matter can be resolved through a
3 dialogue which we expected you yesterday to have between yourselves and
4 then you come back to us with a final solution. We haven't heard from you
5 or from the Beara or Nikolic teams.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I did have a discussion with
7 Ms. Nikolic and we brought Julian Nichols into that discussion and we did
8 explain what we had done in search of the materials, and we continue to
9 talk with them and are open to any other searches or specific items they
10 are looking for. So we have talked. I'm not sure Ms. Nikolic and
11 Mr. Nicholls came to any agreement but we are open for any further
12 discussions on that, and I don't believe we agreed to disagree on
13 anything. I think we were still discussing it.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. All right. We'll have the break now. Perhaps
15 you can have a final discussions and then come back to us soon after
16 the -- we resume after the break. Mr. Lazarevic?
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, I just wanted to have something
18 for the record. Following Your Honour's ruling we shall file a motion on
19 Thursday and we shall object to Prosecution request to add
20 Mr. Borovcanin's interviews on the rule 65 ter list.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't recall having ever said that we require you
22 to do this, Mr. Lazarevic.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm sorry, it was in response to the Prosecution
24 motion. You ruled on this yesterday. You ordered us to file a response
25 by Thursday.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, that's another matter. All right. Okay, okay,
2 okay, okay. That's another matter. Okay. That's -- I thought you were
3 still referring to -- okay. We weren't on the same frequency. Yes,
4 exactly. We were not on the same frequency.
5 We will have a 25-minute break. But, please, you need -- he's
6 here? All right. So we'll have a 25-minute break. Thank you.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Stanojevic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: On behalf of the Tribunal, I wish -- and my
13 colleagues, I wish to welcome you to this trial.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You're about to start giving evidence very soon.
16 Before you do so, our rules require that you make a solemn declaration,
17 equivalent to an oath, that in the course of your testimony you'll be
18 speaking the truth. Madam Usher is going to hand you the text of the
19 solemn declaration. Please read it out aloud and that's your solemn
20 undertaking with us.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
22 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: OSTOJA STANOJEVIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: There are a few other things I wish to explain to
3 you. Number 1 is that the Prosecution has asked on your behalf to have in
4 place one protective measure, which supposedly you know about already, and
5 that is facial distortion. In other words, we have granted this
6 protective measure which you enjoyed before when you testified here, and
7 that would make it impossible for outsiders, persons outside this
8 courtroom, to be able see your face. What they will see is a combination
9 of different coloured cubes or squares. That's number 1.
10 Number 2 is a matter of great importance, and it relates to one's
11 right against being forced to incriminate himself. What am I referring
12 to? I'm referring to a right that you have as a witness, in case you are
13 asked questions which, if answered truthfully, could tend to incriminate
14 you. Just as it is in many countries, we also have a rule that gives
15 protection, extends protection to this right, and this right being your
16 right, in case such questions are put to you, to ask the Trial Chamber to
17 exempt you from answering such questions on the basis that they are -- the
18 answer to them could expose you to criminal proceedings.
19 As I said, this is a right, but like many other rights, it's not
20 an absolute one. Because whether you actually will answer such questions
21 or not will depend on our decision, and we may grant you exemption, but we
22 may also do exactly the opposite, after hearing your submissions, of
23 course, and those of parties, and compel you to give -- to answer such
24 incriminatory questions. If we do compel you to answer such questions,
25 however, whatever you state in replying to such incriminatory questions
1 cannot be used later on in any proceedings that might be taken against
2 you, unless, of course, these proceedings are on perjury, false testimony,
3 in other words.
4 Did I make my explanation clear enough for you to understand?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Third thing, there will be a few questions
7 from Mr. McCloskey who will then be followed by some of the Defence
8 teams. I think all the Defence teams, for the time being. And after
9 that -- hopefully we'll finish today, after that, you will be free to go.
10 Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stanojevic. Can you first for the record tell
14 us your name?
15 A. My name is Ostoja Stanojevic, born on the 13th of August, 1947.
16 Q. And do you recall testifying here in this Tribunal back on the 4th
17 and 5th of December 2003?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in the last day or so, have you had a chance to listen to your
20 testimony in that trial?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And today, can you attest that that testimony was accurate?
23 A. Yes, I can.
24 Q. And if you were asked the same questions, would your answers be
25 the same?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I won't have any
3 further questions for you. We will stand on your testimony. But others
4 may have questions for you.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Your Honours, Mr. Stanojevic was a truck
6 driver for the Zvornik Brigade engineering company and was assigned to go
7 down and help clean up Srebrenica and was then assigned to clean up bodies
8 at the Kravica warehouse and transport them to the grave at Glogova.
9 That's a very brief synopsis.
10 Thank you, and I have nothing further.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey. I've got all the
12 Defence teams here wishing to cross-examine the witness. I'll start with
13 Mr. Zivanovic.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We will not cross-examine him, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek?
16 MR. MEEK: As with the other witness, Your Honour, I don't believe
17 I have any questions at this time.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
19 Ms. Nikolic?
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The Defence
21 of Mr. Nikolic will not cross-examine.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Nikolic.
23 Mr. Lazarevic or Mr. Stojanovic?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we had announced
25 that we would need 15 minutes for cross-examination. I now believe it
1 will take less than that.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, please.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stanojevic. My name is Miodrag Stojanovic and
5 together my colleagues in the team, we appear for Mr. Ljubomir
7 I would only like to ask you a few questions related to your
8 knowledge and your recollection of what happened in Kravica when you got
9 there. If I'm not mistaken, from reading your statement, in the
10 chronology of events, you were sent on the 14th of July from Zvornik to
11 report to the civilian Defence in the municipality of Zvornik; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Therefrom, together with the people from the civilian defence of
15 Zvornik municipality, you left for Bratunac municipality; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. To the best of your recollection, what time of day was it on the
18 14th of July when you arrived at Bratunac?
19 A. Sometime in the afternoon. I couldn't tell you the exact time.
20 It could have been 3.00 p.m. or 4.00 p.m. I know that I had arrived at
21 the civilian defence of Zvornik at noon, stayed there for about an hour or
22 two, and it was later in the afternoon that we arrived at Bratunac.
23 Q. Would you agree with me that it is possible to reach Bratunac from
24 Zvornik using two routes. One would be via Drinjaca, Konjevic Polje, then
25 to the left via Kravica and Glogova to Bratunac, and the other route would
1 be from Drinjaca along the Drina River to reach Bratunac again, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you remember whether on that day, on the 14th of July in the
4 afternoon, as you just said, you took the route along the Drina River?
5 A. Yes, we did.
6 Q. One section of the road is macadam and you had to go more slowly?
7 A. Yes, it's a macadam road.
8 Q. That afternoon of the 14th, you were not involved in any
9 activities, you didn't have a particular job to do?
10 A. No.
11 Q. On the 15th of July, in the morning, you were again in Bratunac
12 because you had spent that night in Bratunac town itself?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It was only in the afternoon that you were given the assignment to
15 move, together with the people from the civilian defence of Bratunac,
16 towards Kravica, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You have already explained what you did in the afternoon, and you
19 explained who was engaged in that activity. Will you agree with me that
20 on that 15th of July, in the afternoon, outside the warehouse in Kravica,
21 you did not see members of the police, the MUP, anywhere?
22 A. I didn't see any troops or policemen that day while I was there.
23 Q. The job involving the loading of bodies was performed by members
24 of the civilian defence wearing protective coveralls?
25 A. I don't know whether they were from the civilian defence. They
1 had their working outfit consisting of top and bottoms. Whether they were
2 the public utilities service or the civilian defence, I don't know to this
3 day. I've already explained that.
4 Q. Could you tell us again who was the person who gave you your
5 orders what to do?
6 A. I didn't have any orders. There was a man who had come with us,
7 who came to fetch me, and told me I had a job to do in Kravica. I told
8 him I don't know where Kravica is. He said, "I'll come with you." And
9 then he really accompanied me and he did the same job up there with me.
10 Q. If I understood you correctly, you had -- you made two trips to
11 Glogova and to Kravica, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. On the 15th of July, when you were outside the warehouse in
14 Kravica, did you at any point see any killings outside the warehouse?
15 A. No.
16 Q. You said you didn't see any troops or police. Let me put the
17 question more broadly: Did you perhaps see any uniformed persons outside
18 the Kravica warehouse?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. To the best of your recollection, can you tell us now when you
21 took off driving those bodies from the warehouse towards Glogova, can you
22 remember whether you took a right turn or a left turn looking in the
23 direction of Bratunac towards the site where they were buried?
24 A. When I was going down the slope towards Glogova, I took a right
25 turn and there was another 300 metres to the site, so in fact when I took
1 a turn, I went practically backwards for about 100 metres and then there
2 is a house there, before I reached the site.
3 Q. Let me finish with this question: While you were working that
4 day, on the 15th July, in the afternoon, you did not hear or find out at
5 any point that there were some other graves on the left-hand side of the
6 road looking towards Bratunac?
7 A. No, I don't know. I didn't see that.
8 Q. The night of the 15th of July you also spent in Bratunac, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On the 16th of July, in the morning, you went back to Zvornik
11 because you no longer wished or needed to continue to do the job that you
12 were invited for?
13 A. There was nothing for me to do there because on Sunday we were
14 supposed to go to Srebrenica. However, when we found out, when Rajko
15 found out, that the troops from Srebrenica emerged on the confrontation
16 line at Baljkovica and many of them got killed there, then Rajko and I
17 agreed to go home. He had a lot of family on the confrontation line so we
18 decided on Sunday to go back home.
19 Q. Going back, did you again go along the Drina River or did you take
20 the other route via Konjevic Polje and Drinjaca?
21 A. Via Konjevic Polje. I didn't want to take the macadam road again
22 because I was told by people who knew those things that the other road was
24 Q. On that 16th of July, driving on the road from Bratunac towards
25 Konjevic Polje and Drinjaca, did you see any executions along the road,
1 any killings, anything like that?
2 A. No, no.
3 Q. In conclusion, can you tell us when you returned to Zvornik, what
4 time of day it was?
5 A. Perhaps 8.00 or 9.00. I don't know exactly. We took breakfast,
6 Rajko went to the municipality, then the time it took me to go to the
7 truck, then he came back and told me the story. I told him, "Let's you
8 and I agree on something. I wouldn't like to go to Srebrenica. Let's go
9 home instead." He was of the same opinion so we set off. Perhaps 9.00,
10 10.00. I don't know. At any rate, it was in the morning.
11 Q. For the record, both you and I know which Rajko you mean but could
12 you explain it for the record? Who is that person?
13 A. Rajko Djokic, an employee of the civilian defence. He was in
14 civilian clothes. There were three of them on that trip. I already
15 enumerated them. The other two left the same night for Zvornik while
16 Rajko and I stayed the night.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stanojevic.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these were all my
19 questions to this witness.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
21 The Borovcanin team is ready? Miletic?
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No questions for this witness, Your
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Gvero Defence team?
25 MR. JOSSE: Likewise.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Pandurevic Defence team?
2 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Just two questions.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Sarapa:
5 Q. Mr. Stanojevic, my name is Djordje Sarapa, and I appear for --
6 Dragan Jokic told you to go with your truck to the civilian defence; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. After you reported to the civilian defence in Zvornik, all the
10 orders, including where you were to go and what you were to do, were given
11 to you by people from the civilian defence; is that correct?
12 A. Yes. In fact, as soon as I reported to the civilian defence, they
13 had authority over me.
14 Q. So it was exclusively people from the civilian defence who told
15 you where to go and what to do?
16 A. They told us we were going to Bratunac, but I took the shorter
17 route along the Drina. Maybe I'm not understanding the question
18 correctly, but they didn't tell me which route to take. I listened to my
19 colleagues who knew the terrain and told me there was a shorter route
20 towards Bratunac, to save fuel, I took the left side along the river.
21 Q. I didn't mean how you should travel, but they told you your
22 destination, where you should go with your truck. It was the civilians
23 from the civilian defence who told you that?
24 A. Before that, when Major Jokic told me that I was going to
25 Srebrenica for the clearing and that I was to stay for 10 days, he said
1 there was a lot of rubbish and to report to the civilian defence, and when
2 I reported to the civilian defence, I had to take my cue from them.
3 Q. That's what I'm trying to establish. When you reported to the
4 civilian defence in Zvornik, all further orders were given to you by them?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Meek?
9 MR. MEEK: No questions, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there re-examination, Mr. McCloskey?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just very briefly.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
13 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
14 Q. Can you give us the name of the other person from civilian defence
15 that was with you during in this -- these couple of days?
16 A. I don't know. You mean the worker who came to fetch me or you
17 mean Rajko Djokic.
18 Q. You mentioned a person name Dragan Mirkovic?
19 A. Right. Dragan Mirkovic and another Sekonjic [phoen]. Rajko
20 Djokic and Sekonjic [phoen] were with me in the truck, whereas Dragan came
21 in his own truck. They were there in the civilian defence already and
22 when they were going home, they came to accompany me to my truck saying
23 that us -- saying that the two of us, Rajko and I were staying, whereas
24 Arsen and others left to go home the same day.
25 Q. Did Mr. Mirkovic tell you who he was getting his orders from?
1 A. No.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Stojanovic?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid there
5 could be some mistaken identity in what we just heard related to the name
6 of Dragan Mirkovic. (redacted)
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: It sounds as if Mr. Stojanovic is putting on
12 evidence. I can talk with him outside the presence of the witness.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because he asked for private session and
14 we are not yet in private session.
15 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Stanojevic, your testimony has -- ends
2 here, which means you're free to go. Our staff will assist you. On
3 behalf of the Tribunal I wish to thank you for having come over to give
4 testimony, even though it was for such a short time, and on behalf of
5 everyone I wish you a safe journey back home.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
7 like to thank you too and all those present.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's go into private session now.
10 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Just before the break, I asked you, Mr. McCloskey,
15 to have further consultations with the Nikolic and Beara team on the Rule
16 68 material that the Defence teams submit exists and should be disclosed
17 with urgency. Did you have further discussions with them?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I had brief discussions. Mr. Nikolic --
19 Mr. Nicholls and Ms. Nikolic had longer discussions and I heard they were
20 fruitful but Ms. Nikolic would be better able to speak to that.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, Ms. Nikolic?
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Nicholls and I discussed
23 matters during the pause. We are waiting for fresh material that could be
24 provided to the Defence in the course of the day, and I will then inform
25 the Chamber of everything that has happened, and at latest, by tomorrow
1 morning. Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we can adjourn the discussion on this
3 matter to tomorrow morning. Yes, one moment. Shall we go through the
4 tendering -- exhibit-tendering process relating to the last witness now?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, again, from our list, I'm told that
6 the only exhibit that we don't show having been already entered pursuant
7 to 92 bis that was actually mentioned in his Blagojevic testimony is
8 Exhibit 298, a vehicle log.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections on any one of the Defence teams to
10 the admission of these documents, including the last one that has just
11 been mentioned, Exhibit 298? We hear none, so they are so admitted. I
12 don't imagine any of the Defence teams that have cross-examined this
13 witness wish to tender any documents. All right.
14 So the matter ends there.
15 And the position is that you don't have any further witnesses
16 after this one, no?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I saw you on the tip of your toes, thinking
19 whether you should stand up and say something or not, Mr. Lazarevic.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: No. It was -- I have no doubt in my mind, Your
21 Honour, but I was just waiting for Your Honours to finish with the
22 tendering of the evidence.
23 During the break it appears that after discussing this with my
24 client, it appears that there was some misunderstanding, maybe the
25 discussion that I had with Mr. McCloskey before the Trial Chamber was a
1 bit premature, and I would like just for the record to have -- to say that
2 the position of Mr. Borovcanin's Defence remains the same as it was from
3 the very beginning, so we are objecting to the admission of
4 Mr. Borovcanin's interview, just however, I would like to have a clear
5 situation of Mr. Borovcanin's Defence. So far, maybe this discussion took
6 place prematurely because there is still no ruling on Prosecution motion
7 to amend their 65 ter Rule list but this is how it was, and basically our
8 position is the same as it was from the very beginning.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but that's how we understood it all the way,
10 that any discussion that is were ongoing were of course without prejudice
11 to the very first statement that you made in this courtroom, namely that
12 you will be showing cause why this interview is not admissible in the
13 first place. The discussion developed from there because it will be very
14 difficult for any one of us to decide on objections to admissibility
15 before we have actually had the opportunity to go through this interview
16 in the first place.
17 So we'll be coming back to you on this but I didn't want you or
18 your client to get carried away with the idea that we considered your
19 position as a contradictory one or that you had not made up your mind as
20 to what it ultimately will be. I mean, we take it that throughout it has
21 always been you're against having this interview admitted into evidence.
22 All right. Tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning, please do come
23 prepared, as much as you can, to discuss the issue as to whether the
24 Prosecution has a right to interview witnesses that have already been
25 enlisted as Defence witnesses by any of the Defence teams.
1 It's in relation to Popovic but I think -- the custom here has
2 been one Defence team files a motion and then the other Defence teams fall
3 in line with separate motions joining with the previous motion and so on
4 and so forth. So I think if anyone wishes to contribute to the debate
5 tomorrow, we have ample time for that. We have ample time for that.
6 Yes, Mr. Meek, I see you wish to address the Chamber.
7 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Maybe a little
8 guidance. You've just stated that any discussion as to in regards to the
9 admissibility or the objections on the admissibility of this statement
10 would be hard to make without actually reviewing the interview itself in
11 the first place. I respectfully beg to differ.
12 I believe that the threshold showing would be that the statement
13 was given, it wasn't voluntary, it wasn't given knowingly, it wasn't given
14 intelligently or there was some pressure, coercion, whatever it might be.
15 Those issues can be addressed without getting into the substance of the
16 statement itself. However, should Your Honours wish to have the statement
17 in front of you, I will certainly make a motion, maybe it's premature, but
18 anything in that statement that touches upon my client should be redacted
19 and deleted.
20 JUDGE KWON: We haven't decided anything.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We have made it clear that following an issue
22 raised, I don't know whether you were here or not, but the matter was
23 raised by Mr. Josse and the agreement is that those are issues that
24 eventually will have to be debated, whether, in other words, a statement
25 made by one of the co-accused has probative value in relation to other
1 accused, et cetera. Of course, but those have got nothing to do with the
2 admissibility issue as such, at least not for the time being, and we
3 haven't actually agreed to what was submitted by Mr. McCloskey, and I
4 think also agreed to by some of the Defence teams, that the admissibility
5 issues will be addressed after we have had the opportunity to go through.
6 How can you actually decide admissibility issues relating, touching on,
7 for example, voluntariness, coercion, duress, independently of -- but
8 anyway, we haven't decided that as yet and we will come back with our
9 decision later. Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think one of the things Mr. Meek may be touching
11 on, it may just be how you would like us to set up the questioning, but
12 there is a process, I think I remember, whereby we would ask a few
13 questions of Mr. Graham, did you do it according to the rules, did you
14 give him his rights, was there any promises or anything like that, very
15 basic. And then it would stop and then the Defence, and this is -- might
16 be asked or might have cross-examination on those issues without getting
17 into the substance of the statement. Now, I don't know if you would
18 like -- if that's what you had in mind, or that we just went all the way
19 through with it. It can be done a number of ways and that may have been
20 partly what --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We obviously need to discuss this but I did remind
22 you that the onus of proving that the statement is voluntary and that it
23 is been taken in accordance with the law, rests with you, because you are
24 tendering that statement.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek?
2 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. And I don't
3 want to belabour the point but I think maybe I've been misunderstood and
4 I'm sure you're going to correct me if I'm wrong. If there -- during this
5 process, if there is any possibility that the Chamber wants to look at the
6 substance of the statement given, at that point in time, I don't believe
7 it's appropriate for Your Honours to be able to look or hear anything that
8 Mr. Borovcanin may have said about any other co-accused in this case,
9 including my client. And that's where I'm coming from. Understand?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Point taken. We will be considering that. Yes,
12 Mr. Meek -- Mr. McCloskey?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I believe that should have been a matter for
14 the joinder, the original joinder motion as well, many months ago, but I
15 do not object to it being argued at this point.
16 MR. MEEK: Mr. McCloskey says that may have been a matter for the
17 joinder motion many months ago, and likewise, putting these statements and
18 these tapes on the 65 ter list should have been an issue months and years
19 ago also.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to stop it here. We will be meeting
21 to discuss this issue and also prepare for tomorrow's debate. Tomorrow
22 we'll reconvene at 9.00 and we will go on as long as needed within time
23 the time allocated to us.
24 Have a good afternoon.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.42 a.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day of
2 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.