1 Friday, 7 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So thank you, Madam Usher.
6 Good morning to you, Madam Registrar. If you would kindly call
7 the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
10 Popovic et al.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All the accused are here. From amongst the Defence
12 teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Haynes, Mr. Meek, Ms. Condon. I think
13 that's about it. The Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Thayer.
14 I understand there are some preliminaries you wish to raise, both
15 the Prosecution and, I think, one Defence team.
16 Yes. Good morning to you, Mr. Thayer. If you would kindly
18 MR. THAYER: Good morning to you, Mr. President. Good morning,
19 Your Honours. Good morning, everyone.
20 Mr. President, I wanted briefly to bring to the attention of the
21 Trial Chamber a pattern that on this side we see emerging that we find a
22 little troubling with respect to the list of exhibits to be used on
23 cross-examination. This is something that at this point we believe merits
24 bringing to the Court's attention on the record.
25 Yesterday, during the cross-examination, I think, as we could all
1 see, my friend used several what were obvious witness statements that had
2 been furnished to him among a volume of other documents at the Defence's
3 request and in the course of our Rule 68 review process. It was clear
4 that my friend had intended to use those documents, knew exactly what
5 sections he wanted to use. They are all ERN'd. None of them was on the
6 list of exhibits to be used on cross-examination.
7 I did not make an issue of it at the time for two reasons: One, I
8 know my friend was eager to move and move along. I did not want to
9 interrupt it with an argument of this kind at that time. Moreover, given
10 that it was anonymous field recordings of people, some of whom's name I
11 don't know and I still don't know, I thought that it was less of a
12 substantive issue to address at that time.
13 However, we have seen, in the recent past, other examples of teams
14 simply not furnishing us a list of documents to be used on
15 cross-examination; and, in this case, I just find it inexplicable,
16 particularly from a team that such a formalistic approach to following the
17 Rules, that that wasn't done in this case. We were sure that we would get
18 a list of the documents after court. We were sent a copy of our entire
19 disclosure log and a copy of a disclosure letter with no further
20 indication, and it was only after that that we were furnished with a list
21 of the documents which had clearly existed before.
22 Another part of the troubling pattern is an e-mail we received
23 from another team, which shall remain nameless, disclosing its list of
24 exhibits with the following language: "Please be advised that this team
25 may use, during its cross-examination of Witness PW-108, any document
1 uploaded by the Prosecution or any of the Defence teams, as well as any
2 other document that may prove to become relevant in the course of the
3 witness's testimony, including the following," and there is one document
5 I think we all know that on this side we are not absolutists when
6 it comes to the formalisms. We do our best, but we recognise that we have
7 to be flexible. But I think we've reached a point where we really need
8 compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Court's very
9 explicit order in this case, and this is not a mystery to anybody. This
10 has been an issue in the past, and I just want to bring it to the Court's
11 attention at this time.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Thayer.
13 Mr. Bourgon. And after Mr. Bourgon, any other Defence team that
14 may wish to intervene.
15 Yes, Mr. Bourgon. Good morning to you.
16 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. My response will be
17 very short.
18 One, I would have liked my colleague to tell me that he would
19 address the Court this morning as a preliminary matter, which we were not
20 informed of.
21 Secondly, any documents that we used yesterday were documents
22 obtained specifically for this witness, in close coordination with the
23 Prosecution, documents that we had been looking for, that we requested to
24 get, that we gave a list. Unfortunately, my colleague does not have the
25 knowledge of the colleague that we had been dealing with all along, who is
1 not in the courtroom today, and he would know that these documents, there
2 are absolutely no surprise.
3 And what is also very important is that on no less than three
4 specific occasions, I told my colleague, "I will use at length the
5 material you have provided us about 1992." And I told my colleague on at
6 least three occasions, possibly more. Whether he believed me or he put
7 any seriousness to what I informed him of, there has been absolutely --
8 nobody has been taken by surprise here. We've been working for months on
9 this witness, and the Prosecution knows what we were looking at and what
10 they gave us. And we gave them a list of all the documents that we were
11 about to use, but we did not list those witness statements, but we told
12 them that we would use the material they had provided us with in 1992.
13 When it's a witness statement and when it is information, there is
14 absolutely no obligation, we believe, for us to say we're going to use
15 this paragraph of this witness statement because it is going to contradict
16 the witness on a specific issue. These are matters for cross-examination,
17 and I really fail to understand what my colleague is -- what his problems
18 are this morning.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
21 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
22 MR. THAYER: Let me make myself clear, Mr. President.
23 We were given --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understood you - one moment - because what
25 Mr. Bourgon said intrinsically does minimise, actually, the gravity of
1 this particular instance, but it still does not provide an answer to the
2 general complaint that you raised; mainly, that this is not the only case
3 where this has happened, but we have experienced over the past weeks, in
4 particular, almost a constant practice of not providing you with documents
5 that the Defence intended to use. But I think this is what we need to
6 address most.
7 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, if I may.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
9 MR. THAYER: It minimises nothing. We disclosed volumes of
10 material, much of it at the Defences' request. We disclosed the initial
11 batch of what we considered possible Rule 68 material. That was followed
12 up by numerous requests from the Defence, in which they asked for other
13 statements, other material, other tape-recordings, volumes of material.
14 To tell us that we may use any of that material, without
15 specifying even the name of somebody, even the document or the interview,
16 is in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the Court's order.
17 That would be like us saying, "Well, here's our 65 ter list. Go for it."
18 That is not what we have been doing in this case. That is not the order
19 that this Court has imposed on all parties, and that is exactly what
20 happened here. And that is only underscored by my friend sending us our
21 entire disclosure log, as well as a disclosure cover letter, saying,
22 "Here's a CD with all the stuff you requested."
23 If a document or a recording is going to be used, we are supposed
24 to get a list of the documents or the items that our friends intend to use
25 during the course of their cross-examination. We're not asking for line
1 or page cites, but we're asking to be notified what the document is. That
2 was not done, that was not done deliberately in this case.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
4 MR. BOURGON: I will not get into a debate with my friend this
5 morning. I have more important matters to deal with. However, I will
6 provide the Court with what we sent to my friend yesterday, and we sent
7 him a list of material that had been provided to us by the Prosecution,
8 and it was followed by an e-mail saying, "You're not specific enough," and
9 then we sent them the names of the witnesses and the exact statements that
10 we were referring to.
11 However, Mr. President, it is very important to note that there is
12 a significant difference, in our view, between a document we are going to
13 use and information we are going to use to contradict a witness.
14 Information that comes from statements or from material provided by the
15 Prosecution is not the same as a document that we are going to use. And
16 in this case, those witnesses that are there, my friend's colleague will
17 be able to say, when he returns from his trip, that the sources that we
18 have been using are the ones that have been disclosed to us by the
19 Prosecution; and specifically the rest that we were looking for, we found
20 very little in.
21 What we were looking into is mostly the exact witnesses from the
22 other cases that my friend's colleague provided to us, and I don't think
23 there is no violation here, and even though my colleague might say we take
24 a very legalistic approach, that is true. But unlike the Prosecution,
25 which tells us it's on the EDS, millions and millions and millions of
1 pages, and, "You've been disclosed and you've been on notice, and that's
2 good enough for you," we received specific material at our request for a
3 specific witness, and we informed our colleagues that we would be using
4 this material from 1992 for a specific witness.
5 Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
7 [Trial Chamber confers].
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Our position is, first of all, we are sitting
9 pursuant to Rule 15 bis today because Judge Stole is not available.
10 The other thing is we have come to the conclusion to close the
11 discussion on this here at this point and exhort you and invite you to
12 have a meeting amongst yourselves in the same spirit of cooperation that
13 has been shown in the past, and try to iron out any differences that may
14 exist amongst you on this matter, such as the point raised by Mr. Bourgon;
15 for example, can information derived from a source which may be a document
16 be distinguished and separated from the document itself? I think you need
17 to sit down and talk on this, rather than involve us directly at this
18 stage, knowing that you can reach an agreement.
19 Secondly, the other approach that Mr. Thayer objected to, namely,
20 the other e-mail from an unnamed Defence team, whether that should be an
21 acceptable practice or not, I am sure that if you sit down and discuss
22 amongst yourselves, you can come back to us with an acceptable agreement.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, of course, the rule or the
25 guideline that we indicated at the beginning of this trial remains valid,
1 and the principle that derives from it is that not only should there be
2 disclosure, which is based on reciprocity, but the disclosure ought to be
3 as specific as possible. This is something that you need to observe, and
4 it is in this spirit that any further disclosure ought to be.
5 I understand, also, that one of the Defence teams, I don't know
6 exactly which -- yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
8 Your Honours, I'd like again to correct the same error in the
9 transcripts from the September the 3rd. I tried to do that on September
10 the 4th, but it was not done.
11 This is page 668, line 6 --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you mentioned this already.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: It's still not corrected.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: But it was not corrected on September the 4th.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but sometimes it takes some time before we
16 receive notice of the corrected official transcript, if you could call it
17 that. I don't know, but I think the point was taken when you raised it
18 last Monday or Tuesday, I don't know when it was, and I expect the
19 relative correction to be made.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: All right.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: But please draw our attention if it's not made, say,
22 by mid next week. But usually it takes some days before they come back to
23 us with the necessary document.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I'll wait until the end
25 of next week.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, Madam Registrar will pursue it
2 according to what we have said, and thank you for pointing it out to us.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Going back to the previous issue, we told you that
6 the essence of the guideline that we had established in the beginning
7 ought to be followed in any case, and that there should be a specific
8 disclosure of material to be used by the Defence, as specific as possible.
9 We also invited you to meet and iron out any difference or
10 differences in the interpretation of that guideline that may linger even
11 now, more than a year after the beginning of this trial.
12 If you do not come to an agreement, then the understanding is, of
13 course, that we haven't buried it; then you come back to us, explain to us
14 where the disagreement or disagreements lay, and we will then, if
15 necessary, provide you with further guidelines. All right.
16 Now, having said that, is there anything else? Nothing.
17 Madam Usher, if you could kindly bring the witness in.
18 Incidentally, we had promised to come back to you on your
19 requests, joint requests, for some time in October to enable you to
20 regroup and also reorganise your work because of the special difficulties
21 that this case presents. You had asked for the entire week of the 1st to
22 the 5th and the following Monday.
23 We have given that a lot of consideration. We do appreciate that
24 you are doing your best to proceed with the utmost celerity and that,
25 indeed, this case presents difficulties, and we have come to the
1 conclusion to grant you the break that you requested, with the
2 understanding that it will be utilised as indicated by Mr. McCloskey in
3 one of the sittings when this was discussed.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Witness.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome back.
8 Mr. Bourgon will --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon will proceed with his cross-examination.
11 He will then be followed by others.
12 Mr. Bourgon, good morning to you.
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-108 [Resumed]
15 [The witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Witness.
18 A. Good.
19 Q. To begin this morning, I would like to address a few of the things
20 you mentioned yesterday, which I believe require some clarification. I'll
21 begin with you mentioned at page 913, lines 5 to 9. The reference, of
22 course, is for my colleagues so they can follow.
23 Answering a request related to your first alleged visit to Zvornik
24 Brigade Command with your friend, you stated, and I quote: "That was the
25 first time I went to the Command with that friend."
1 My question is the following: Before this alleged visit with your
2 friend, I suggest to you that you did have to go -- or you did have the
3 opportunity to go to the Command alone or with other persons before that.
4 Is that correct?
5 A. I had an opportunity, but I didn't go.
6 Q. So it is your testimony then, sir, that you never went physically
7 to the Zvornik Brigade Command before that first alleged visit with your
8 friend; is that correct?
9 A. I was there when this was still a shoe factory, and maybe
10 informally when the barracks was being opened, but I don't remember.
11 Q. Thank you, sir. The next thing I'd like to clarify is on page
12 915, lines 21 to 23, and that was in relation to questions I put to you
13 concerning Commander Pandurevic. I would just like you to confirm that
14 Commander Pandurevic was not present in the area of Zvornik when the war
15 started; that is, let's say, from April, May and June of 1992. Are you
16 able to confirm this?
17 A. I can't confirm this because I am not aware of any such detail.
18 Q. I will then say: Did you, by any chance, encounter Commander
19 Pandurevic during those months? And I will be specific in terms of April,
20 May and June of 1992.
21 A. I don't remember.
22 Q. Now, you -- again, with respect to Commander Pandurevic, I suggest
23 to you that when he did arrive in the Zvornik area, that was to be in
24 command of a regular unit, and that was, namely, the Zvornik Brigade of
25 the VRS. Are you aware of that?
1 A. I went to see Commander Pandurevic with my friend. That was our
2 intention, but we didn't find him there.
3 Q. Maybe, sir, my question was not clear. I am talking now in 1992,
4 and those are the months of April, May, and June. Did you see or
5 encounter Commander Pandurevic in the area of Zvornik or Mali Zvornik
6 during those three months?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Bourgon.
9 I noticed Mr. Sarapa wishing to say something.
10 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] The question has been translated
11 wrongly into B/C/S. Mr. Bourgon's question was this: "When it comes to
12 Commander Pandurevic, I suggest to you that when he did arrive in the
13 Zvornik area, he came to be in command of a regular unit."
14 And the translation that we heard implied that the witness arrived
15 there, and that is why the witness's answer was somewhat illogical. Could
16 the witness be read the question again, the question that is on line 12,
17 between lines 6 and 9?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon. You've heard what Mr. Sarapa
19 said. If you could attend to that, please.
20 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed, I missed that
21 because I'm looking at the transcript at the same time, and the question
22 that appeared was the one that I posed.
23 Q. Sir, I'd like to ask this question once again, and the question is
24 that: When Mr. Pandurevic arrived in the Zvornik area, I suggest to you
25 that it was to be in command of a regular military unit of the VRS;
1 namely, the Zvornik Brigade. Can you confirm this?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. And, finally, I have a last question with Commander Pandurevic
4 before moving on.
5 I suggested to you yesterday that Commander Pandurevic was pretty
6 well in control of the Zvornik Brigade in 1995, and your response was: "I
7 think so." Now, I refer my colleagues to page 915, lines 21 to 25.
8 I then suggested to you that Commander Pandurevic was exercising
9 effective control over that brigade. Of course, what I meant then, as I
10 explained a few lines later, is that Commander Pandurevic put the military
11 situation in Zvornik in order when he arrived. Would you agree with that?
12 A. I can say that Mr. Pandurevic was respected as an officer in the
13 area of Zvornik. I can say that based on comments by the civilians and
14 the troops.
15 Q. Thank you. I move on to seeking clarification concerning a
16 question about Drago Nikolic. I asked you yesterday whether you could
17 share with us some names of the people from the brigade who had mentioned
18 information to you concerning Drago Nikolic, and your answer was: It was
19 too long ago and you cannot remember.
20 I'd just like to know if you can tell us today some members of the
21 Zvornik Brigade that you remember from the period 1992-1995, other than
22 Commander Pandurevic and Deputy Commander Obrenovic. Any other names that
23 you remember having any dealings with from the Zvornik Brigade Command?
24 A. I can't remember.
25 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, I asked you some questions in relation to
1 your background.
2 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I think we need to go into private
3 session for this question.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please.
5 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Sir, I'd like to confirm something that you discussed with the
16 Prosecution during your examination-in-chief; and, basically, the
17 Prosecution asked you if, by the time of your second trip -- now, remember
18 yesterday that's why I discussed with you the three events, so the second
19 trip is the one that would have allegedly taken place 30 days after the
20 first one.
21 And the question from the Prosecution was: "Had you heard any
22 information concerning the fate of the Muslim men from Srebrenica?"
23 And your answer was the following, and I quote from page 770,
24 lines 22 to 23: "Well, we didn't have any information about what was
25 happening then."
1 Do you stick with this testimony today, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The next question that was asked by my colleague was the
4 following: "Did you ever receive any information that there had been mass
5 executions of men in the Zvornik area?"
6 Your answer, on page 771, lines 1 and 2, was the following: "We
7 learnt of that later on in the ensuing period when the public got to know
8 about it."
9 Do you stick with this testimony today, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You were then asked, in your view, when the public began to learn
12 about these mass executions, and you answered at page 771, line 5: "Well,
13 I can't remember exactly how much time went by."
14 Do you stick with this testimony today, sir?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, on the basis of these three questions that were posed to you
17 by the Prosecution, I'd like to ask you a question of mine, which is the
18 following: Is it your testimony today that when you returned for a second
19 time, allegedly, at the Zvornik Brigade Command with your friend, you did
20 not have information that Muslim men from Srebrenica had been executed in
21 the Zvornik area; is that correct?
22 A. I didn't, no, and I cannot say anything about my friend.
23 Q. Sir, just to try and find out -- to follow up on this answer of
24 yours, I'd like to know if you had any information in July of 1995 that
25 there was a column of men from Srebrenica trying to join Tuzla by the
1 woods and that they posed a threat to Zvornik and the complete Zvornik
2 area. Were you aware of this, sir?
3 A. I heard it on the news, but I didn't know whether Zvornik came
4 under any threat or not.
5 Q. And my last question on this topic is: Was there, to your
6 knowledge or your recollection, any type of security alert in relation to
7 what was going on in the Zvornik area in July of 1995?
8 A. You could tell from the comments that something was happening, but
9 I was not fully aware of the situation. I didn't know exactly what that
10 was all about.
11 Q. Thank you, sir. Let's go back for a few minutes to the situation
12 in 1992.
13 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, if we can move into private session,
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. Bourgon. Let's move into private
16 session, please.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 14974-14979 redacted. Private session
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. Thank you.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Sir, I'd like now to go quickly over the events of your first
12 alleged visit to Zvornik Brigade Command, and first to try and determine
13 how much time this event lasted for. So let's go together over the steps,
15 (redacted) Would that be correct?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer.
17 One moment, sir, before you answer the question.
18 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, we're in open session;, and to be on the
19 safe side we may want to --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes, he's correct. He is correct. I think we
21 need to --
22 MR. BOURGON: I have no difficulty in going in private session.
23 I'm just trying to do my best to do what we can in open session.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's do it this way: Let's redact the
25 second part, second half of line 4 to line 6, before the last sentence.
1 And I suggest that we go, just for this answer, in private session, or we
2 can stay in open session, he can say it, and we'll redact it.
3 MR. BOURGON: I have about four questions that we can go --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: In private session. It's safer to go in private
5 session. Let's go in private session.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 14982-14987 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Can you ask if we can go to 10.45, instead of
20 stopping at 10.30 or 10.40, whenever they tell us? Okay. Thank you.
21 Go ahead, please.
22 We are in open session.
23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Sir, I go back to my question. When you arrive at Zvornik Brigade
25 Command allegedly on that morning with your friend, what's the first thing
1 that you saw when you -- with the car, before entering any building?
2 A. Well, there was a guard shed or lodge at the entrance, where the
3 gate was, and that was a soldier. And my friend got out and said he
4 wanted to see Mr. Pandurevic, and he pointed us in the direction of the
6 Q. So there was a soldier at the gate. Is that the soldier that you
7 referred to earlier in your testimony or a different soldier?
8 A. The other soldier at the entrance to the building.
9 Q. So we're talking about two soldiers: One at the gate and one more
10 in the building. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, I take it that you did not drive -- did the soldier have to
13 open a gate to let you in? Do you recall this?
14 A. I don't remember whether it was open or shut; but when we arrived
15 at the gate, the soldier came up to us, and my friend said that he wanted
16 to go to the commander.
17 Q. And what does -- what did this soldier would have said to you?
18 A. He pointed us in the direction of the building.
19 Q. And you don't recall, I take it, any ramp that you would have to
20 go over to get to that building. Do you recall this?
21 A. Well, I know there was a gate. Now, whether the gate was open or
22 closed, I don't remember.
23 Q. Now, I'd like you to describe the building as you go in, the
24 building itself, the hallway. What do you recall from the hallway of the
25 building when you went in?
1 A. Well, the entrance to the building is from the parking lot. The
2 entrance is in the middle; and when you enter the building, you go up the
3 stairs, from the hallway up the stairs to the first floor, and that's
4 where we came across a soldier who escorted us to Mr. Pandurevic's office.
5 Q. So I take it, sir, that the soldier that you went -- that you met
6 inside, he was on the first floor. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And given the fact that -- so I take it, then, that in the hallway
9 itself, before going up the stairs to the first floor, you did not see
10 anybody there. Is that correct?
11 A. Well, at the top of the staircase on the first floor, we saw a
12 soldier. We headed towards him, we approached him, and we told him where
13 we were going.
14 Q. But my question, sir, is: In the hallway, before going up the
15 stairs, you did not see any soldiers there; is that correct?
16 A. We didn't.
17 Q. And you did not see any reception point there, sir?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And you don't recall being asked to sign any book for visitors,
21 A. No. We were not asked to do that.
22 Q. And I go back. Can you describe the hallway before going up the
23 stairs? What does the hallway look like?
24 A. The entrance door, a wide corridor, and a staircase leading up to
25 the first floor. Maybe ten metres long and five metres wide was that
2 Q. And, sir, given that this was the first time that you physically
3 went to the Zvornik Brigade Command, I suggest to you that there was no
4 way you could know, or why would you go to the first floor?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
6 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I believe that that question contains
7 characterisations which are contrary to the witness's testimony.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
9 MR. BOURGON: Well, if my colleague can refer me to what testimony
10 it is contrary to.
11 MR. THAYER: I'd be glad to do that, Mr. President. I believe --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can rephrase the question and ask the
13 witness, "How did you know where you needed to go?" I think otherwise it
14 becomes a storm in a teacup, unnecessarily.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Sir, no one told you to go up to the first floor; is that correct?
17 A. My friend most probably knew where Mr. Pandurevic's office was.
18 Q. But the guard duty at the gate did not tell you where the
19 commander's office was, he only indicated to you where the Command
20 building was; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And, again, to come back on the hallway, I suggest to you, sir,
23 that, in that hallway, there are offices around and that there were people
24 in those offices. Is that correct, sir?
25 A. It is possible, but we did not see anybody.
1 Q. So it is your testimony today that the entire ground floor was
2 empty, that you basically could walk into the Zvornik Brigade Command
3 without anyone saying anything to you, and then going to the first floor;
4 is that correct?
5 A. There were no soldiers on the ground floor or on the first floor;
6 but at the entrance, there was a soldier who told us where to go.
7 Q. But you testified, sir, that that soldier, you met him on the
8 first floor. Is that correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. So how many soldiers are we talking about? Now, if I look at your
11 testimony, it would now appear that there's one at the gate, one at the
12 entrance, and one on the first floor. Is it one, two, or three soldiers
13 that you met on that day?
14 A. Two soldiers: One at the entrance at the gate, and one on the
15 first floor.
16 Q. So I am correct in saying that, in the entrance to the Command,
17 according to your testimony, that is, the hallway before going up the
18 stairs, there was absolutely nobody there. You could walk into the
19 Zvornik Brigade Command, and go up to the first floor without anyone
20 asking you for any identity card or any other information as to what you
21 were doing there; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Well, sir, I suggest to you that this is not possible, based on
24 the information we have, but that we will present that later in the case.
25 But let's go back to the first floor.
1 You meet this soldier, and you mentioned that he was on duty.
2 What kind of duty soldier was that, sir?
3 A. Well, he was just on duty in that hallway.
4 Q. Please explain what you mean by "duty," and how you can testify
5 that he was on duty. What was he doing that you know he was on duty?
6 A. Well, he was present in the hallway. I don't know what his tasks
8 Q. And describe that soldier for us, sir.
9 A. It was a long time ago, and all the soldiers wore the same
10 uniform. I can't remember. I know that he wore a uniform.
11 Q. Did he have any distinctive sign? Was he tall? Was he short?
12 Was he fat? Was he skinny? Did he have grey hair? Anything you remember
13 for us, sir.
14 A. He was neither tall, nor short, neither fat, nor skinny. He was
15 average, of an average weight, and I really can't remember. It was a long
16 time ago.
17 Q. And he was the only person that you could see on the complete
18 first floor; is that correct, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it is at that moment that Drago Nikolic would have appeared,
21 coming out of an office or just coming back or coming by, as you
22 testified; is that correct, sir?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, was he coming out of an office or did he just pop by?
25 A. I can't tell you exactly whether he was coming out of somewhere or
1 he just came by. In any case, as we were returning from Mr. Pandurevic's
2 office, we saw him at that moment.
3 Q. So you saw him after going to Mr. Pandurevic's office, so then you
4 know where that office is. Where is it?
5 A. Yes. As you go upstairs, you go to the right, and then it is on
6 the left-hand side on the first floor.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: He explained this yesterday.
8 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President, but there will be more
9 questions with respect to the location of the office.
10 Q. Sir, when you went to Mr. Pandurevic's office, is it at the end of
11 the hall or is it just close to the stairway?
12 A. It's a bit further from the staircase, on the left.
13 Q. So it is neither at the end of either side of that hallway; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Well, I can't remember whether it was the last office or one
16 before last. I can't remember exactly at this moment.
17 Q. And where is that soldier at that time? You went straight to the
18 office of Mr. Pandurevic; is that correct?
19 A. We followed the soldier. The soldier opened Mr. Pandurevic's
20 office. He saw that there was nobody in, then he looked to the other
21 side, where Obrenovic was. There was nobody there, either, and then we
22 followed him back. At that moment, Mr. Nikolic either came by or had come
23 out of his office.
24 Q. And, sir, that soldier, he never told you Mr. Pandurevic is not
25 there. He had to look in those two offices to see if he was there; is
1 that correct? That's your testimony?
2 A. Yes. He had to check. He opened the door of the office. He saw
3 that there was nobody there, and he told us that there was nobody there.
4 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I think the time is correct to take a
5 short break, and then we can continue after.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. First of all, I would like to thank the staff
7 for agreeing to go beyond 10.30 until now.
8 There will be a 25-minute break starting from now. Unfortunately,
9 something urgent has cropped up, a personal urgent matter that I have to
10 attend to, so I will have to leave. I don't know if I will make it on
11 time to come back. I don't know. That's the position, but probably not.
12 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
13 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, may we have a time estimate from our
14 friends? We have a witness who is on standby.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: I will take the full next session, an hour and a
18 half, and I'll be done, Mr. President.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You still wish to cross-examine this witness,
21 Mr. Ostojic, given the extensive cross-examination?
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I've shortened it a little bit, Mr. President, but I
23 think we'll be able to finish him today. I'm not going to ask that he
24 come back. I'll try my best to make sure he gets done.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could, the remaining ones, coordinate a
1 little bit with Mr. Bourgon and see if one could shorten a little bit and
2 try and finish with this witness today, please.
3 MR. THAYER: Sir, may we release the pending witness,
4 Mr. President?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, from the looks of it, we don't need him now
6 here, but please keep him here over the weekend.
7 MR. THAYER: Oh, absolutely, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: As was indicated by Judge Agius, we'll be sitting
12 pursuant to 15 bis. I hope the parties have sorted out a way to finish
13 the examination of this witness today.
14 MR. BOURGON: We'll do our best, Mr. President. I'm sure we can
15 succeed in doing so.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 MR. BOURGON:
18 Q. Welcome back, Witness. I have a few more questions with respect
19 to what happened on that first floor, allegedly, as you stated in your
20 testimony. First, I'd like to know how you, yourself, were dressed on
21 that day.
22 MR. BOURGON: And maybe, Mr. President, we ought to go into
23 private session again.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 14997-15009 redacted. Private session
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
8 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Sir, in any event, based on the timings that you shared with us
10 today, I would imagine that your friend leaving immediately after, that
11 means that he left before noon. Is that correct?
12 A. Well, I think it was before noon, but it wasn't in the afternoon,
14 Q. And, sir, your friend did not tell you why he left immediately for
15 Belgrade, did he?
16 A. No, he didn't.
17 Q. And your friend did not inform you whether he had a meeting to
18 attend to or any other urgent obligation in Belgrade, did he?
19 A. He didn't say anything, no.
20 Q. And, sir, during the time that you allegedly were at the Zvornik
21 Brigade Command, your friend did not ask for the location of Commander
22 Pandurevic or Obrenovic; is that correct?
23 A. He didn't. It was just the soldier that said that there was
24 nobody there, and he didn't comment where he was. We didn't get an answer
25 as to where he was.
1 Q. And, sir, I take it that you cannot confirm and you don't know
2 whether your friend asked for a phone number to try and reach the
3 commander by phone.
4 A. No. He didn't ask for the phone number.
5 Q. And, sir, you know that either the commander or the deputy
6 commander of a brigade, based on your background, can always be reached by
7 the duty officer or by his Command, and you know that no steps were taken
8 in this regard; is that correct?
9 A. Well, no, because Mr. Nikolic turned up, and then there was no
10 need to look for Mr. Pandurevic.
11 Q. Now, sir, your friend did not attempt to contact anyone that day
12 in your presence; is that correct?
13 A. He didn't, no.
14 Q. And, sir, your friend did not attempt to contact higher up in the
15 chain of command of the military, for example, the corps, did he?
16 A. No, except for Mr. Nikolic, nobody else.
17 Q. And, sir, your friend did not attempt to find Commander Pandurevic
18 physically while he was with you, did he?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And, sir, we've established that your friend knew Obrenovic very
21 well, in fact, much better than Pandurevic, but you can't help us with
22 whether your friend looked for Obrenovic that day, physically, did he?
23 A. When it was established that Mr. Pandurevic wasn't there, we
24 looked for Obrenovic. And when we found out that Obrenovic wasn't there,
25 then Mr. Nikolic turned up, and that was the contact.
1 Q. Sir, would you agree with me that this is the first time that you
2 mention that you looked for Obrenovic; is that correct?
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Thayer.
4 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, that's just not consistent with the
5 prior testimony of this witness. He's misstating the evidence.
6 JUDGE KWON: We heard what he said. Please move on.
7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Sir, in your presence, no one -- your friend did not ask whether
9 and if it was possible to contact Obrenovic by phone or by radio, did he?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Sir, you -- it is quite obvious that our case today is that there
12 was never any such conversation or visit to the Zvornik Brigade, as you
13 allege there was, but I'll suggest to you why this is so and ask you to
15 First of all, I would suggest to you, sir, that your friend knew
16 both Commander Pandurevic and Mr. Obrenovic, that your presence was not
17 required to meet them on that day. Would you agree with that, sir?
18 A. We did know, but we didn't know whether we were supposed to meet
19 them or not.
20 Q. And, sir, I suggest to you that, for example, if your friend
21 wanted to have, let's say, a witness of some kind, he would have, as a
22 minimum, told you what it is that he believed was happening and that he
23 wanted to prevent, and he did not. Is that correct, sir?
24 A. No, he did not do that.
25 Q. And, sir, if your -- again, if your friend wanted to have some
1 kind of a witness to his visit to try and prevent bad things, I suggest to
2 you, sir, that he would not have met with Drago Nikolic alone while you
3 were waiting outside. Is that correct, sir?
4 A. Well, I don't know what he wanted, but it was a private
5 conversation, going privately, not pursuant to anybody's order. My friend
6 simply wanted to go there and to meet Mr. Pandurevic; and since he wasn't
7 there, he met Mr. Nikolic.
8 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, if your friend needed somebody to accompany
9 him to Zvornik Brigade Command, again, as you say, to try and prevent some
10 bad things, would you agree with me that he would have provided you with
11 the full details of that conversation, so that you could take notes and
12 there could be a record made of the event? Is that correct, sir?
13 A. Well, I think that my friend, even if he wanted to do that --
14 well, whether he informed someone or not, I don't know. But if he felt
15 the need to do so, then he informed his superior officers or somebody
16 else. I don't know whether he wrote about this or whether he, in fact,
17 did inform them. I don't know.
18 Q. And, sir, I suggest to you that if your friend wanted to have
19 somebody or needed somebody to accompany him, he would not have taken
20 someone who had no authority whatsoever to intervene in Zvornik, someone
21 who was forbidden to even cross over to Zvornik, and someone he would have
22 to justify the presence in Zvornik. Would you agree with that, sir?
23 A. Well, I don't know what the intention was. I think my friend
24 wanted to learn what was happening in Zvornik.
25 Q. And, sir, if your friend really wanted to go to the Zvornik
1 Brigade Command to prevent bad things, as you say, I suggest to you that
2 he would not have left immediately for Belgrade the same day, without
3 taking any concrete action. Is that correct?
4 A. Well, I don't know what he intended.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. And I say that if your friend needed somebody to
6 accompany him, and if his intention was to try and prevent any things, as
7 you say, he would have insisted on getting the contact details of either
8 the commander or the deputy commander, whom he knew very well, to try and
9 meet them, which pursuant to your testimony he did not do. Is that
11 A. He didn't try to do that. Well, he did, by his very arrival. But
12 since he didn't find them there, then he didn't do anything to try and
13 find him --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: to try and find them.
15 MR. BOURGON:
16 Q. And, sir, in fact, on the basis of all of the above, I suggest to
17 you that the fact that he did not share the information he wanted to tell
18 Pandurevic before the visit, the fact that he did not share with you any
19 specific information or the details of the meeting he allegedly had with
20 Drago Nikolic after, and for all the details we covered together this
21 morning, it makes it clear that this visit never took place. Is that
22 correct, sir?
23 A. He didn't comment his meeting, but my friend did visit, he did
24 meet with Mr. Nikolic.
25 Q. And, sir, we move on to the alleged second visit to the Zvornik
1 Brigade Command. At what time of the day did this visit take place?
2 A. During the day, but I can't remember whether it was in the morning
3 or in the afternoon.
4 Q. And, sir, who did you meet in the Zvornik Brigade Command that
5 second visit?
6 A. At the entrance, my friend asked for Mr. Pandurevic or Obrenovic.
7 Since neither were there, we turned back.
8 Q. And, sir, what did they tell you about the location of Commander
9 Pandurevic or Deputy Commander Obrenovic?
10 A. They simply told us that they were not there.
11 Q. And, sir, that soldier you spoke on that day, was he on the ground
12 floor or on the first floor, like your first visit?
13 A. At the gate.
14 Q. So you stopped at the gate, and the soldier at the gate knew that
15 both the commander and the deputy commander were not there; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Well, sir, I tell you that this is not possible, but that's not
19 the main question. The main question is: How come the first soldier you
20 met for the first alleged visit did not know that the commander or the
21 deputy commander was not there?
22 A. It is possible that he didn't know, since he never informed us at
23 the gate that the two were not there.
24 Q. So if he did not inform you that they were there, he just let you
25 in? Is that what he did?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Sir, I further suggest to you that on the basis of what you recall
3 from that second visit, it's further evidence that the first alleged visit
4 never took place. Is that correct, sir?
5 A. Not correct.
6 Q. And, once again, you don't know what it is, based on your
7 testimony, that that second visit would have been about, what exactly your
8 friend was looking for; is that correct, sir?
9 A. I don't know, but he always said that since he hailed from the
10 area of Zvornik, that he wanted to be informed about what was going on in
11 his municipality.
12 Q. And by meaning his municipality and what is going on, it has
13 nothing to do with bad things; would that be correct, sir?
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Thayer.
15 MR. THAYER: Again, Mr. President, my friend has referred
16 specifically to this witness's testimony with respect to this topic, and
17 he is misstating what this witness has said previously.
18 JUDGE KWON: If you could rephrase your question, Mr. Bourgon.
19 MR. BOURGON: Will do, Mr. President.
20 Q. Witness, at page 768, lines 14 to 16, the question was: "And was
21 this the only trip you and your friend took to this place?"
22 Answer, lines 15 and 16: "Well, later on we went one more time,
23 looking for Vinko and Obrenovic, but we did not find either of them, so we
25 "Do you recall what the purpose of this second trip was?"
1 "The same purpose, that my friend should gain more information
2 about what was happening in the Zvornik area, but he didn't comment about
4 Is that correct, sir?
5 A. He did not provide any comment as to why he wanted to get in
6 touch, and that was also another private visit and another attempt to try
7 and get together with either Mr. Pandurevic or Mr. Obrenovic.
8 Q. Thank you, sir.
9 And later on lines 12 and 13, you say: "I think he wanted to
10 prevent all the bad things, and he condemned any crime if it occurred."
11 But you don't know whether this statement applies, yes or no, to
12 that second visit, do you?
13 A. There are no comments about the second visit.
14 Q. Sir, I go back to the events of 1992, and, again, I'd like to give
15 you an opportunity to come back and say that you were involved in these
17 And I'll ask you to confirm the information we received from the
19 MR. BOURGON: And I refer my friend to a statement dated the 14th
20 of March, 2001, on page 2, and I take it that this is sufficient for him
21 to know the name of the person I'm talking about, the second one on the
22 list that I provided him with.
23 Q. Sir, this witness said the following: (redacted)
10 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I believe we need to go in private
11 session and redact the last part. I thought we were in private session.
12 I apologise, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE KWON: We'll go into private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 15019-15022 redacted. Private session
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
5 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Sir, I conclude my cross-examination simply by saying that, on the
7 basis of your testimony, I don't doubt that you were in a relationship
8 with your friend, but I put it to you that this alleged visit in 1995, the
9 first alleged visit, never took place and that it is a fabrication to help
10 your friend. Would you agree with that, sir?
11 A. It is true that my friend and I went to see Mr. Nikolic. It is no
12 fabrication at all.
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, sir.
14 Mr. President, I have no further questions for this witness.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
17 Who is next? Mr. Thayer.
18 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, this may go in the category of "no
19 good deed goes unpunished," but I want to make sure of one thing before we
20 move on to the other cross-examinations and my redirect, which will be
22 We have advised my friend, and I don't think it's any secret, that
23 we intend to -- and perhaps the witness should remove his ear phones.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Witness, could you do that, could you take
25 off your headphones, please? He said he did not understand English.
1 MR. THAYER: We have advised our friends that we do intend to
2 offer the prior statement of testimony of the friend, pursuant to 92
3 quater. We've advised my friend of this. We've advised, I think,
4 everyone else of this. I just want to make sure that with that knowledge,
5 my friend has conducted the cross-examination he considers sufficient and
6 appropriate, so that we would not be in the position where we might have
7 to bring this witness back once the motion is filed.
8 I presume that the cross-examination was conducted with that in
9 mind, but I wanted to make sure so that we don't run into this problem.
10 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any say to this, Mr. Bourgon?
11 MR. BOURGON: Yes. I do wish to respond, Mr. President.
12 First of all, my friend did not advise us of his intention to call
13 the testimony of the friend, pursuant to Rule 92 quater. In fact, the
14 Prosecution filed a detailed motion, saying that it had reviewed all the
15 evidence in the case and requested the permission of the Trial Chamber to
16 make a number of changes in its case, including the addition of new
17 witnesses, the withdrawal of a number of witnesses, and the possible
18 request to ask the Trial Chamber for the testimony of three witnesses to
19 be included pursuant to Rule 92 quater.
20 Witness 102, as he is known unofficially, who is the friend, there
21 was never any request put forward by the Prosecution to say that it is
22 testimony that they would request to put it in on the record.
23 Now, we approach the Prosecution, no longer at the end of
24 examination-in-chief of this witness, and say, in the end we have to go
25 and get it because it's not coming towards us, "What is your intention
1 with respect to the person known as 102?" And it is then that we are
2 informed, after the examination-in-chief, that the Prosecution intends to
3 get this testimony in.
4 I believe, and my friends here on this side can confirm, that they
5 have never been aware of this fact, that it is completely new. That being
6 said, Mr. President, when that motion is filed, and if we believe there is
7 a need to recall this witness, then we will for sure ask the Trial Chamber
8 for leave to recall this witness. But we don't think that will be
9 necessary, and we think there will be no basis whatsoever to admit the
10 evidence of Witness 102.
11 Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE KWON: Madame Fauveau.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to
14 confirm what my colleague just said. We were never informed that the
15 testimony of the witness or the statement of the Witness 102, 92 quater,
16 introduced into the file pursuant to Rule 92.
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber wishes to leave the matter as it is now,
20 and we'll deal with it when and if it arises. But if you have any further
21 to say, we'll entertain it.
22 Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: Very briefly, Your Honour, I agree with what my
24 learned friend Ms. Fauveau has just said. But rather more to the point,
25 until such time as, one, the motion is submitted and, two, has been ruled
1 upon, it's not really fair to say that Defence counsel should conduct a
2 cross-examination based on something that hasn't yet happened; and in
3 particular, in particular, in fact, there's been no ruling on the point.
4 It's not so much the fact there may be a motion; it's the ruling that's
5 going to be important, in my submission.
6 JUDGE KWON: Point taken. Let's move on.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, it is your turn now.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: I believe so, Your Honour. With your leave, I'll
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated]. Please move on.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I will.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
16 Q. Mr. Witness, my name is John Ostojic. I represent Ljubisa Beara
17 in these proceedings here. I'm going to ask you a series of questions,
18 sir, this afternoon.
19 First of all, I would like to know, yesterday you discussed with
20 us something you coined as a civic duty; do you remember that?
21 MR. OSTOJIC: And for counsel, it's on page 62, line 19.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. And you correct me if I'm wrong, i think you mentioned that after,
25 when you got this second call to meet with the Prosecutor in 2006, you had
1 no idea why he was calling, what he was calling about. You just felt you
2 needed to go because it was your civic duty; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, I take it, sir, that you had this commitment to civic duty
5 prior to 2006 as well, like in 2002, for example. Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And, sir, explain this to me: If you had this commitment of civic
8 duty, when you talked to the Prosecutor on November 27, 2002, explain to
9 me why you failed to inform them or mention to them about this purported
10 encounter and visit you claim occurred in the Zvornik Brigade Command.
11 A. At the time, the visit did not take place. It was not at that
12 time the visit took place in 1995.
13 Q. Okay. I'll try again, because I think we may have misunderstood
14 each other, sir, just so I can get these parameters set and so that we're
15 on the same page with everyone.
16 Your first visit ever with a Prosecutor of the ICTY was on or
17 about the 27th of November, 2002; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And your second interview, as I think we've established already,
20 was the 21st of July, 2006; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I'm asking you, sir, after 1995, about the time that you had this
23 first meeting with the Prosecutor in 2002, as well as during your meeting
24 with the Prosecutor, as well as the three or so years after that meeting
25 with the Prosecutor, what happened to your commitment to civic duty? Why
1 didn't you inform the Prosecutor about this purported encounter or
2 information that you had regarding this visit at the Zvornik Brigade
4 A. I wasn't asked about that event at the time, and I just did not
5 remember to mention it spontaneously. The second time, when the gentleman
6 from the Office of the Prosecutor reminded me of that event, then I spoke
7 about it.
8 Q. Now, did you know, sir, in the year 2002, whether or not there
9 were any investigations regarding the Srebrenica enclave?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you know, sir, on or about that late 2002, November 27th,
12 approximately, 2002, that there were trials that were undergoing in
13 connection with the Srebrenica enclave?
14 A. Everything I know comes from the media, and I don't -- I can't
15 remember when that was.
16 Q. Okay. And you followed the media rather closely, I take it, is
17 that correct, at that time, 2000, November?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you ever work with a person by the name of Zoran Obrenovic?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know who he is?
22 A. My friend knew him. I believe that Zoran was Dragan's brother.
23 Q. Did you ever meet with Zoran at all?
24 A. No, never.
25 Q. Do you know, sir, if your friend, who you saw from time to time or
1 monthly, do you know if he ever visited with Zoran Obrenovic?
2 A. I don't know whether he visited him, but I know that my friend and
3 Dragan spoke about the latter's brother, and then my friend learned that
4 he, indeed, had a brother affiliated with the MUP.
5 Q. Sir, what role, if any, did you play in Dragan Obrenovic's
7 A. I didn't play any role.
8 Q. How about your friend, did he play any role in Dragan Obrenovic's
10 A. I don't know. He didn't comment about that. If he did go to
11 testify, then possibly he did comment about his friend.
12 Q. Sir, help us with this information: Who is the chief of the
13 Zvornik police in July of 1995?
14 A. Well, I can't remember exactly now who the chief was. They
15 rotated. Several of them changed.
16 Q. Do you remember, sir, who was the commander of the Zvornik police
17 in July of 1995?
18 A. I can't remember. A couple of them changed places, so I don't
19 know who was occupying that post at what time.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: And just for the next question, Mr. President, if I
21 may just go into private session for a couple questions or moments.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Just out of caution. I'm not sure.
24 [Private session]
11 Page 15030 redacted. Private session
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
9 Q. Sir, did they, meaning the Prosecutors, ask you to look in any
10 documents you may have in order to corroborate or verify this claim about
11 this encounter that you had in July of 1995, purportedly?
12 A. No. They didn't ask me for any document, and I didn't have any
13 documents, in fact, and they didn't ask for any, either.
14 Q. Well, in this place where you worked at that time -- and we're
15 trying to be as general as possible so that we can stay in open session
16 and not reveal anything that we're not allowed to. The place where you
17 worked, sir, how many people were there?
18 A. About 15 to 20, at the most.
19 Q. Did you have an assistant?
20 A. Yes, but all of them had retired and --
21 Q. You're not suggesting that the day you went purportedly to Zvornik
22 Brigade Command, everybody retired that day, are you?
23 A. No, I'm not saying that, but at that time I might have been on my
24 own, because before that the commander and deputy and assistant had
25 retired; and of the senior officers, I was left alone.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, sorry to interrupt, but whenever you
2 find it is a convenient time, we would break.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can just have two more minutes or one minute,
4 I'll do that.
5 JUDGE KWON: Please proceed.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
7 Q. Sir, did you have a secretary at that time, July of 1995, or did
8 she also retire?
9 A. Well, no. It's a small office; no secretary at all.
10 Q. Just one other question, sir. In July of 1995, to the best of
11 your recollection, how many people worked in the same offices where you
12 worked? Can you give us a best-case estimate on that?
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Thayer.
14 MR. THAYER: I mean, I think it was asked and answered, "About 15
15 to 20."
16 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought he did, but then he mentioned his
17 assistant, who subsequently seemed to have retired or thereabouts. So it
18 might be repetitive, but I think I needed clarity based on some of the
19 answers that he has offered. So all I am looking for is for him to
20 clarify it, not to have him say --
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, if we can move on. If you could rephrase your
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Sir, Mr. Witness, I'm a little bit confused as to how many people
25 worked in the same office as you did in July of 1995, and I know you told
1 us ten to 15. Do you stand by that testimony, that ten to 15 people
2 worked in your offices in July of 1995, given that seemingly most of them
4 JUDGE KWON: Fifteen to 20.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Fifteen to 20, I misspoke when I heard my learned
7 Q. Fifteen to 20. Thank you.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And can you give us the names of your deputies?
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Or maybe this should be in private session?
11 Why don't we do this? We'll take a break right now, with the
12 Court's permission, and proceed after the break.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Given that it is Friday today and there is a
14 session ahead, so I would suggest to take only a 15-minute break now, with
15 the indulgence of the interpreters and the court reporters. I checked
16 that with the audio/video unit, so we'll break for 15 minutes, and I would
17 very much ask the parties to sort out how they will finish with the
18 examination of this witness during the break.
19 Fifteen minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, please continue.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Sir, I want to go back to a question I asked you regarding the
25 Prosecutor informing you that there was no documentary evidence
1 whatsoever, which recorded any visit you and your friend may have had
2 purportedly in July of 1995, and your answer is on on line 34, it looks
3 like page 75, where you state: "Before this trial, in a previous meeting,
4 they did tell me."
5 And my question, just to follow up on that, sir: Can you share
6 with us who gave you this information and what specifically they told you?
7 A. I can't remember who it was; but when talking to me in my place of
8 residence, they asked me about the event, about when I went to the Command
9 with my friend, and I told them about it. I told what -- them what I
11 Q. Well, I'm more interested, sir, in finding out whether you tried
12 to look for any documentary evidence to help the Prosecutor in proving
13 what I think is an occurrence that did not happen. Did you go back, sir,
14 to your place of employment at any time and search through your documents
15 to see if there's any notation from a secretary, an assistant, a deputy,
16 or any other personnel that would verify where your whereabouts were on
17 any given day in July of 1995?
18 A. I remember very well that I went there with my friend. That's a
19 fact. I have no reason to say anything different, but I didn't keep any
20 records or any notation, nor did I have a secretary for her to make any
22 Q. Well, sir, when you leave your place of employment in 1995, given
23 the title that you had, wouldn't it have been customary for you to advise
24 someone that you were going in a different country, for example, or a
25 different republic?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
4 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I think we're in open session, in
5 which case we would need a redaction.
6 JUDGE KWON: I agree.
7 Shall we continue, Mr. Ostojic?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. I wasn't going to has him the name; I just
9 wanted to know if he told anyone.
10 Q. Sir, do you know if your friend who was purportedly with you in
11 July of 1995, who made this alleged visit to the Zvornik Brigade Command,
12 do you know if he informed any of his superiors as to whether or not he
13 was going to another republic or country?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Well, do you know if the Prosecutor ever shared with you that they
16 obtained his notes, or his diary, or records that he or his brother may
17 have had? Do you know if they obtained that documentation?
18 A. I don't know about that documentation.
19 Q. Explain this to me, sir: Given your experience, and we're talking
20 about your experience and your education that you just shared with us
21 briefly, does it seem somewhat odd to you, if you will, that the place
22 where you claim you went to, there's no evidence whatsoever of you showing
23 up there. And the place where you departed from during your place of
24 employment, there was, likewise, no evidence to suggest that you had a
25 meeting or advised anyone in writing that you were going across a border
1 to another country. And then if you add to that this third person, your
2 friend, that likewise there's no evidence that he informed anyone that he
3 was going to another country to find out if there were bad things going
5 Do you find that, given your history and your experience,
6 particularly odd, sir?
7 A. Had we gone officially to these talks, then there would be a trace
8 and there would be a written note, but it was a private trip, and that was
9 not recorded. As for my friend, I don't know whether he made any notes or
10 not and whether he informed anyone or not.
11 Q. Now, I'm not suggesting that it was a formal trip that you took;
12 but given that it was a private trip, would you have advised anyone
13 privately that you would be going to another country to make this private
14 trip? I mean, sir, you'll agree with me, typically, we would inform our,
15 let's say, spouses, our close family friends, if we're going to another
16 country or even across the border where there happens to be a war and
17 that, "I might be exposed to some danger."
18 And you're telling this Court that you did not inform anyone of
19 that, other than you told your deputy you'll be gone for a little while?
20 Is that what you want us to believe?
21 A. I didn't tell anyone because I thought that I was going privately
22 with my friend, and he worked in MUP. If necessary, he would inform his
23 senior officers thereof.
24 Q. Now, we're going to talk about some of your assumptions in a
25 minute, sir, but let me ask you this: In the area that you and your
1 friend were coming from, was there a war going on right there in July of
3 A. Well, I can't remember just now.
4 Q. And how about in July of 1995, do you remember the place that you
5 and your friend were going to? Do you know if there was a war going on
7 A. Not in the town of Zvornik, no.
8 Q. And, sir, do you know if your friend, who came with you to this
9 purported trip, do you know if he was armed?
10 A. Well, I don't know whether he was armed or not, what he had. He
11 was wearing civilian clothes, and I didn't notice any arms on him.
12 Q. Sir, now I want to go back to this written material that we talked
13 about that doesn't exist from either you, personally, the place of
14 employment where you worked; your friend, personally, his place of
15 employment; and also the place where you purportedly went on this July
17 Am I correct, sir, that you knew there was no written material,
18 because that's was told us the Prosecutor told you; and having known that,
19 you therefore knew that you could say anything because no one could verify
20 what you claim to be the truth; correct?
21 A. The Prosecutor did not tell us whether he did or didn't have a
22 document. He just asked about the event, and I answered him.
23 Q. And I know, with all due respect to you, Mr. Witness - we have
24 your testimony here as well as the tape, and we'll all review it very
25 carefully - we know that from time to time it seems that your testimony
1 differs, with all due respect to you. And it does so because, sir, you
2 believe that no one can verify or that no one can verify what you're
3 saying; correct?
4 A. Well, everything that I said can be verified. I don't think
5 there's a problem with that.
6 Q. Tell me, sir, who should I contact to verify that you were at the
7 Zvornik Brigade Command when you claimed you were in July of 1995?
8 A. Well, if my friend were alive, he would certainly confirm it.
9 Q. And I recognise --
10 A. I don't know who else --
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise.
12 Q. And I recognise that, sir, but you're telling us we can verify it.
13 I'm suggesting to you that we cannot verify it because it didn't happen,
14 and I'm suggesting to you there's no record whatsoever that exists from
15 three various sources, as well as two personal sources, your personal
16 diaries or your friend's personal diaries, to suggest or even infer that
17 you went across the border to the Zvornik Brigade Command at any time in
18 July of 1995. I would be correct, wouldn't I?
19 A. All I know is that I told the truth about that event.
20 Q. When, sir? In 2002, when you had this civic duty, when you met
21 with the Prosecutor? Given your experience and given your education, at
22 that time while there was the Srebrenica trial ongoing and investigations
23 ongoing with Srebrenica, don't you think, sir, that that would have been
24 helpful to the Prosecutor?
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Thayer.
1 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think we've already covered --
2 Mr. President, we've already covered this ground as to what he did and
3 didn't tell the Prosecutors in 2002 about these events.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, I think we covered this. Can we move
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I will, Mr. President, although I respectfully
8 disagree, but I will move on.
11 (redacted) Do you know the date?
12 A. I don't know.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
14 MR. THAYER: Again, Mr. President, we're in open session, and
15 we've just referred to --
16 JUDGE KWON: Abundance of caution, let's redact that.
17 MR. THAYER: Yes, redact that, please.
18 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session or --
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, if the Court will only allow the questions to
20 offered in private session, then yes.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 15040-15044 redacted. Private session
9 [Open session]
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
12 MR. OSTOJIC:
13 Q. Sir, we were talking before we went into private session, with
14 respect to the relationship of two certain organisations, and I want to
15 know if you know the name of Mane Djuric.
16 A. Yes. I'm familiar with the name.
17 Q. And how are you so familiar with this name, sir?
18 A. He was the chief of the Security Centre in Zvornik for a certain
20 Q. For how long, and do you know if he was the chief in 1995?
21 A. I can't remember.
22 Q. Now, sir, if people would come from another republic or even town
23 to visit someone in your town, would you expect them, like this --
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we should probably go into private session
25 for this question, Your Honour, because it might be awkward without
1 telling him exactly the titles of these individuals.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's go into private session, please.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 15047-15050 redacted. Private session
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Sir, when you and your friend purportedly went on this encounter
24 at the Zvornik Brigade Command in July of 1995, you mentioned that he
25 wanted to prevent bad things from happening. Do you remember that?
1 A. He said this, "Something bad is happening. I'll go and see what
2 is going on." On the way back, he said, "I have to do everything in my
3 power to prevent some bad things from happening," and this was the context
4 within which he said it.
5 Q. Sir, is it fair to say that you shared his feelings, that you also
6 wanted bad things not to happen; correct?
7 A. Since I did not have any information as to what was going on, I
8 can only tell you, I can only convey to you what my friend said.
9 Q. Well, your friend, having visited with you subsequent to this
10 encounter at the Zvornik Brigade Command, supposedly, did he ever tell you
11 that he reported it to his superiors, or subordinates, or to anyone?
12 A. He did not say that.
13 Q. Did you, sir, other than when you remembered it 11 and a half
14 years later, did you, from 1995 up until July of 2006, perhaps at some
15 point learn that bad things were happening, did you report it to any
16 superior, subordinate, or any institution whatsoever that which you knew?
17 A. What I learned, in terms of information, I believe that our MUP
18 already knew. That's why there was no need for me to report on those
20 Q. When did you verify that, sir? What year or decade was that?
21 A. That's when I learned this from the media. Everything that was
22 happening in my area of responsibility, I reported on those. If it didn't
23 happen in my area of responsibility, I did not feel a need to report it to
25 Q. And I understand that, sir. But given your proximity to Zvornik
1 and the issues that are involved with Srebrenica in 1995, are you telling
2 this Court that you knew what was happening, but because it wasn't in your
3 area of responsibility, you did nothing, despite the fact that you and
4 your friend both desired bad things not to happen? Is that what you're
5 telling us, that you did absolutely nothing?
6 A. I thought that it would be my friend who conveyed all that
7 information. He was with me, and I did not feel a need to convey any
9 Q. And I understand that, sir, and that's the best answer I can get
10 out of you, I'm sure. But didn't you tell us that you went with your
11 friend several times a couple months later, a year later, years later?
12 Did you ever ask him, "Dear friend, what did you do? Because I
13 remember you had these bad feelings and you were in a bad mood? What did
14 you do to prevent -- to prevent those things that happened?"
15 Did you ever ask him what action he took?
16 A. Since he was a higher-ranking officer in the MUP, I did not feel a
17 need to ask him that. He was at a higher position.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
21 I think it's for you, Mr. Thayer.
22 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Thayer:
24 Q. Sir, in your experience, when somebody is bellowing at you, do you
25 notice that sometimes people don't look at someone who is bellowing at
2 MR. OSTOJIC: I object to that, Your Honour, and the record should
3 be clear that this witness did not look at the Court when they asked him
4 questions, nor any of the Defence counsel.
5 JUDGE KWON: Leave the matter there, then.
6 MR. THAYER: I will, Mr. President. I'll move on.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Nor does the witness look at the Prosecutor for, for
8 that matter, as the video will show.
9 JUDGE KWON: Let's move on.
10 MR. THAYER:
11 Q. Did you ever become aware, sir, of whether or not your friend was
12 murdered within days?
13 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, we'll need to move into private
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 15055 redacted. Private session
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, that concludes your evidence; and on
1 behalf of the Tribunal, we would like to thank you for coming to The Hague
2 to give it. Now you are free to go.
3 During the remaining time of the day, I think we can fairly deal
4 with the exhibits.
5 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President.
6 We have two exhibits. The first is the pseudonym sheet, P02881.
7 The second is a photograph that was not marked. That is P02880. And then
8 there is the photograph that was marked, and that is PIC00145.
9 JUDGE KWON: I take it there will be no opposition from the
11 And I received a list of documents from the Nikolic Defence that
12 they want to tender, and I take it Mr. Thayer also received it.
13 Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President, we've provided this list. We
15 have the -- it starts with 3D197. So number 1 is not something that we
16 are looking to have admitted into evidence. It's only the information
17 report, 3D197; the decision of the District Court in Belgrade, that's the
18 indictment, 3D193; the decision of the interim government, 3D194; the
19 decision of the interim government of Serbian municipality, 3D195; and the
20 other decision, 3D196.
21 With respect to these four documents, we have received them -- the
22 three decisions, sorry, 194, 195 and 196, we have obtained from the Office
23 of Cooperation between Serbia and the Tribunal, and they have to remain
24 confidential and under seal.
25 On the second page, we have number 17, the supplemental
1 information sheet --
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. We received only one page.
3 MR. BOURGON: It should read from 1 to 17, unless you have the
4 latest one. I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'm reading from the one that we
5 didn't change. So it's number 6 and 7 on the list, and that is the
6 supplemental information sheet which bears the number either 2D155 or
7 3D2D155; and the OTP proofing notes, 3D203.
8 We have, for the three articles that were used by my colleague,
9 Mr. Ostojic, and that is 3D205, 3D206, and 3D207.
10 Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: Did you say that you are not minded to tender--
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 JUDGE KWON: Did you say that you are not minded to tender 3D197?
14 MR. BOURGON: No. I am, Mr. President. I just had the wrong
15 list, and there was, and on the initial list, we had the interview. But
16 there's no need to tender the interview of this witness. So it's only
17 those seven documents that appear there, plus those three, the three press
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE KWON: First of all, can I hear from Mr. Thayer?
22 MR. THAYER: No objection, as far as I can make out, the exhibits.
23 We would ask that the info sheet and the proofing notes be placed under
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. So all of them except for the articles. But do
1 you have any objection on those articles, Mr. Ostojic?
2 MR. THAYER: I apologise --
3 JUDGE KWON: I'm asking Mr. Ostojic.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I do not have any objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: Should it be titled as "2D," "3D," or you don't mind?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we can keep it. I don't mind at all.
7 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any further comment, Mr. Thayer?
8 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE KWON: Then it concludes the hearing for the week.
10 We will resume on Monday morning, and I hope everybody has a nice
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day of
14 September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.