Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 25113

 1                           Wednesday, 3 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Miletic absent]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Good afternoon, Madam Registrar.  Could you

 7     call the case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is the case

 9     number IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Let's start from here.  Accused Miletic

11     is absent today.  We have received the waiver signed by him.  Otherwise,

12     all the other accused are present.  Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and

13     Mr. Thayer.  From the Defence teams, I notice the absence of Ms. Nikolic

14     and Mr. Haynes.

15             Right.  Mr. Ostojic, we heard you wished to address the Chamber.

16             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, President.  Good afternoon, Your

17     Honours.  I would just like to inform the Court of the scheduling issues

18     that we are dealing with and to ask for some assistance and guidance from

19     the Court.  I think we've resolved it.  I've spoken to my learned

20     friends.  They're in agreement, but I do need the Court to make sure that

21     you accept it as well.

22             First, if I can address the witness 2DW83, which is a DutchBat

23     person.  His schedule is very complicated in the sense that he is still

24     working, and from our contacts with him he can only meet with me next

25     Thursday or Friday and then possibly testify the following week.  He's in

Page 25114

 1     Germany and is travelling with respect to his schedule.  We were hoping

 2     to bring him in in the last week of our case and hoping to end by the

 3     12th of September, and as I go on I think it will make much clearer sense

 4     to the Court.

 5             Secondly, if I may proceed, it was with respect to witness 2DW41.

 6     Last night -- he's the witness which the Court gave us the right to take

 7     a videolink in Belgrade next week.  We scheduled it.  We thought he was

 8     going to be live.  We had set him for last week and this week.  His

 9     family called our staff and was very concerned that his health is ill.

10     We spoke with our client, and he agreed that our recommendation, that we

11     will withdraw him if the Court permits.  Again, that's why we are raising

12     it with the Court.  We've advised our learned friends of that, as well,

13     and they don't have an objection, I believe, to that, either.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  It was going to be the 9th, correct?

15             MR. OSTOJIC:  That's correct.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah.

17             MR. OSTOJIC:  And then moving along to another perhaps

18     complicated issue is 2DW50.  We've tried, and as you may recall, our lead

19     investigator in Belgrade has suffered a very serious eye disease, and

20     he's getting treatment, and therefore, we withdrew him as well.  But he

21     was also in contact with 2DW50, whom I've met with in the past.  We're

22     not establishing contact with this witness.  We may be asking the Court

23     either to subpoena the witness or to assist us to bring him in or to have

24     his interview with the OTP be presented pursuant to 92 quarter.  We

25     haven't thought it all out, but I'm just advising the Court of that

Page 25115

 1     because he seems to be unavailable to us at least.  I know 92 Court order

 2     addresses deceased, but the rule is general that it states that it is

 3     actually for the unavailability --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Could you please slow down for the

 5     interpretation.  Thank you.

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  And he's the driver, if the Court recalls.  2DW50.

 7     Speaking of 92 quarter, we're going to present -- and I've spoken with

 8     the lawyer of witness 2DW82 who's -- who I've spoken to on two occasions,

 9     and he was a former accused who is serving his sentence.  We prepared an

10     affidavit for him to sign.  He became ill thereafter, and his lawyer says

11     because they do not have a decision on his contempt case that he is not

12     going to testify and they're not recommending that he testify.  I've lost

13     contact with him since he became ill, but I have my notes and the two

14     draft statements that we were going to have him execute for us, which

15     were unexecuted, but he made changes from one to another one, and what

16     we're hoping to present that -- we hope to file that no later than Friday

17     for the Court and also with respect to witness 2DW79 who is the elder --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down for the Interpreters.  Thank

19     you.

20             MR. OSTOJIC:  2DW79 which is the journalist from Arizona in the

21     United States.  I did speak to him a couple of times, and we have his

22     diary as the Court knows.  We're going to be asking, also, that that be

23     admitted pursuant to 92 quater.

24             With respect to the next witness, it's 2DW100, again, a

25     journalist.  He gave a statement to the OTP, which we moved earlier to be

Page 25116

 1     presented pursuant to 92 quarter in some of our filings.  The Prosecution

 2     objected and said they wanted us to obtain a death certificate from him.

 3     We are in the process of procuring that death certificate.  It was

 4     complicated because we did not know where he died and where they would

 5     have filed such a certificate.  Our information from some other people

 6     that were in contact with us is that they should be able to get that

 7     death certificate if necessary within the next two weeks, so I just

 8     wanted to advise the Court on that.

 9             And then with respect to the next witness I would ask that we

10     move into close session, if we may.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  That's... [Microphone not activated]

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 25117

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay we are in open session.

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And I've spoken with my

10     learned friends, and they are in agreement, if the Court approves it, of

11     course, so we would propose for this week that we continue with the

12     witness that's currently on the stand, 2DW5, Mr. Mitrovic.  But we would

13     ask the Court not to proceed with the next witness that we have

14     scheduled, which was 2DW77, and one of the main reasons is because we --

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Wasn't the next witness going to be -- because you

16     keep referring to the next witness, and each time the name of the next

17     witness changes.

18             MR. OSTOJIC:  We -- I don't --

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  And instead of clarifying things, I can assure you

20     that quite exceptionally, I feel rather confused.

21             MR. OSTOJIC:  Well, and I apologise for that.  I'll --

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  --thinking why I'm unable to follow or whether you

23     are confusing the issue.  I don't know.  But in my opinion, the next one

24     was going to be 2DW608.

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  Your Honour, we did speak with the Prosecution in

Page 25118

 1     connection with that, and the problem is that Mr. Srdja Trifkovic can

 2     only testify --

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Not Trifkovic.

 4             MR. OSTOJIC:  Sir, I know that -- I know that.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  No, it's Wagenaar.

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  I know that.  Mr. Srdja Trifkovic can only testify

 7     Thursday and Friday.  We didn't want there to be a three-time

 8     interruption with Professor Wagenaar if he starts today.  Then we would

 9     have to bring him back Friday part-time because that -- based on the

10     estimates Srdja Trifkovic may take a day and a half and then have to

11     bring him back Monday.  I've spoken to him.  He's not staying at a hotel

12     because he lives approximately two hours outside of The Hague and he

13     feels more comfortable sleeping in his own house with his family, so --

14     but he is going to drive.  We're trying to reduce that.  With respect to

15     that, my friends have agreed that we start Mr. Wagenaar on Friday

16     immediately after Mr. Trifkovic and then proceed with him on Monday and

17     as long as it takes, but they do -- they have estimated approximately

18     three hours for him as well.  So we were going to start with Mr.

19     Trifkovic tomorrow and end with him on Friday and then proceed with

20     Professor Wagenaar on Friday afternoon.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  So what are we going to do today apart from Mr.

22     Mitrovic?

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  I would propose that, unfortunately, we leave

24     early, Mr. President, if that's acceptable or possible.  If it's not, as

25     I've told my learned friends, I'm prepared to proceed with Professor

Page 25119

 1     Wagenaar.  He --

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah, but is he here?

 3             MR. OSTOJIC:  He is here, yes.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Oh, he's here.

 5             MR. OSTOJIC:  I met with him this morning.  I just think that it

 6     might be unreasonable to have him come three instead of two days given

 7     his schedule.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are here to work.  I mean --

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  I understand.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  The agreement is that we continue with Mitrovic,

12     and then we start with Professor Wagenaar.

13             MR. OSTOJIC:  That leads us to the next week, Mr. President.  I

14     think then we may have a problem with Tuesday, just so the Court is

15     aware, and that's why I was suggesting if I complete the schedule, it

16     seems to fit so we don't have a gap for next week.  And I'm not sure how

17     long we have left with Mr. Mitrovic, but if we -- and with all due

18     respect, we're prepared to proceed, and I know it's valuable Court time,

19     but the schedule, it occurred because of one person's ill health and a

20     change with respect to the Washington lawyer --

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  That, I understand, Mr. -- however, let's put

22     things -- make things clear.  You have mentioned the possibility or the

23     probability of filings under rule -- under one rule or the other but

24     particularly 92 quarter or -- or 94.  I don't which section you

25     mentioned.  In any case, please, if you have to file, do proceed

Page 25120

 1     straightaway so that we know exactly and you know exactly where everyone

 2     stands because time is of the essence here.  That's number one.

 3             Secondly, as for Tuesday of next week when that witness will not

 4     be testifying anymore by videolink, we have to find a substitution.  Yes.

 5             MR. OSTOJIC:  That's why we had 2DW55, but the Court ordered him

 6     to start on Wednesday and Thursday.  The other witnesses are scheduled to

 7     arrive on Monday, and I don't know exactly the time.  If we can get them

 8     Tuesday, we'll bring them.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  If Professor Wagenaar -- what I remember, you

10     require him for practically one whole day.

11             MR. OSTOJIC:  Mm-hm.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right?  The Prosecution also practically

13     require him for another day, so -- and then the Nikolic team require one

14     hour, for example.  So we are basically talking of two days for sure.

15             MR. OSTOJIC:  I have that set for him.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So he is going to testify starting today.

17     Then tomorrow and Friday, it's going to be Trifkovic or whatever his name

18     is.

19             MR. OSTOJIC:  Correct.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  And then Monday, we continue with the professor,

21     which will bring us into Tuesday because he won't have the full three and

22     a half hours that you have asked for him today.

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  Just so the Court's aware of it, if we come up

24     short next week I just want you to be aware of it.  That's all.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah, but can't you have one of the witnesses that

Page 25121

 1     are arriving on Monday ready to testify on Tuesday?

 2             MR. OSTOJIC:  We'll try our best.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  All right.

 4             MR. OSTOJIC:  Then, Mr. President, the other issue is we are

 5     waiting to receive a diary or an appointment diary of Radovan Karadzic

 6     which was seized during his arrest.  We got an e-mail today that they

 7     were going to produce that for us today.  It may be relevant to Srdja

 8     Trifkovic's testimony tomorrow, so we would hope that we get that so we

 9     would have an opportunity to review it tonight, I guess, or whenever we

10     get it.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  You are not summoning Mr. Karadzic, however?

12             MR. OSTOJIC:  I don't --

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  You don't think so.  All right.  Do you wish to

14     comment, Mr. McCloskey or Mr. Thayer?

15             MR. THAYER:  No, Mr. President.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  We'll proceed and then make

17     adjustments as necessary, as they may become necessary.  Mr. Bourgon.

18             MR. BOURGON:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  Good afternoon,

19     judges and colleagues.  Just to let you know, Mr. President, we did have

20     a meeting with the victims and witness's section yesterday, so as

21     mentioned previously we are ready to go with the case for the Defence of

22     Drago Nikolic.  However, we do need a date before the motion, the -- we

23     can get things in motion to get the first witnesses to arrive to The

24     Hague, so it will be important for us to have a starting date.

25             And I'd also take this opportunity to mention that with regards

Page 25122

 1     to the cross-examination with the Professor Wagenaar, we should be

 2     shorter than the one hour which was put on our estimated time.  Thank

 3     you, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you for that, Mr. Bourgon.  All right.  How

 5     much more time do you require for your cross-examination of Mr. Mitrovic?

 6             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I think I need the second hour of my

 7     two-hour estimate for this witness.  So it would be a full hour, I would

 8     say, at least.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  All right.  No, no, no.  I just wanted to

10     know more or less where we stand.  Anything else?  Madam usher, please.

11                           [The witness entered court]

12                           WITNESS:  MIKAJLO MITROVIC [Resumed]

13                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon to you, Mr. Mitrovic.  Welcome back.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Thank you and good afternoon to

16     you, too, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  You are still testifying under oath as per your

18     solemn declaration yesterday.  Mr. Thayer will proceed with his

19     cross-examination.

20             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Thayer: [Continued]

22        Q.   And good afternoon to you, Colonel.

23        A.   Good afternoon to you, too.

24        Q.   When we broke yesterday we were talking about Colonel Beara's

25     relationships with General Tolimir and General Mladic.  May we have 65

Page 25123

 1     ter 3516 on e-court, please.  I just want to draw your attention to one

 2     paragraph on the seventh page of the B/C/S and the second page of the

 3     English, and I just want to ask you one question about this document.  I

 4     think as I mentioned yesterday, this was seized from the Croatian

 5     Ministry of Defence in 1998.  Do you see the document in front of you,

 6     sir?

 7        A.   I do.

 8        Q.   It says:  "During August 1992, Beara was released from the prison

 9     when General Ratko Mladic and Zdravko Tolimir came personally to pick him

10     up.  Mladic and Zdravko Tolimir graduated together at the war school in

11     Belgrade, and Zdravko Tolimir was deputy chief of the Split

12     counterintelligence group before the war and the chief of the

13     intelligence in the JNA Knin corps."

14             My question to you, sir, is simply with respect to this statement

15     here that Generals Mladic and Tolimir personally picked up Colonel Beara

16     in August of 1992 upon his release from prison.  Do you know anything

17     about that occasion that you can share with the Trial Chamber?

18        A.   Your Honours, I've never heard of this before.  So far I didn't

19     know that General Mladic and General Tolimir personally went to pick up

20     the Colonel from prison -- actually, for Naval Captain Beara.  So far I

21     didn't know that, no.

22        Q.   Okay.  Now, during the war, based on your service in the security

23     and intelligence field, you were able to see that General Tolimir valued

24     Colonel Beara's work, did he not?

25        A.   I can only provide you with my subjective opinion.  I believe

Page 25124

 1     that Tolimir obviously valued Naval Captain Beara's work and that they

 2     held each other in a rather high esteem.  That's what I can say about

 3     that.

 4        Q.   And if we may have 65 ter 3659, please.

 5             MR. THAYER:  And Mr. President, we'll need to go into closed

 6     session for the broadcast of this document and this discussion, please.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Let's do that.  One moment.  Yes, we

 8     are in private session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 25125











11 Page 25425 redacted. Private session.















Page 25126

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

25             MR. THAYER:

Page 25127

 1        Q.   Just a couple more follow-up questions, sir, on this issue of the

 2     conflict.  Now, in addition to this name-calling that we've spoken about,

 3     the conflict also had a dimension, did it not, of one of the

 4     personalities of President Karadzic on the one hand as Supreme Commander

 5     and General Mladic on the other as the commander of the Main Staff of the

 6     Army of Republika Srpska.  Is that fair to say?

 7        A.   In very simplified terms, you may say so because Karadzic was the

 8     leader of the civilian authorities and General Mladic was the leader of

 9     the military -- structure of the military organs.

10        Q.   And it was natural, was it not, then, for those closest to

11     General Mladic also to come in for that type of criticism and abuse from

12     the political leadership that General Mladic was the focus of?

13        A.   Well, you see, when we are talking about people's names, of the

14     people surrounding General Mladic and General Mladic himself, they never

15     spoke openly in the public about these names because that would have been

16     counterproductive, I suppose.  People, after all, supported the army

17     throughout the war, but I suppose that when they mentioned Mladic they

18     implied the entire Main Staff and all of his associates.

19        Q.   Now, from your knowledge, sir, General Mladic also valued Colonel

20     Beara's work and trusted him as well.  Isn't that correct?

21        A.   I would say this is correct, yes.

22        Q.   It almost goes without saying that the commander of the Main

23     Staff must trust his intelligence and security assistant commanders

24     deeply, correct, sir?

25        A.   Your Honours, a true commander who has a good security organ

Page 25128

 1     considers that security organ his right hand, his second in command.

 2     There were obviously different commanders and different security organs,

 3     of course.  In any case, there was a high degree of mutual trust between

 4     the two.  For example, I personally never had any problems in

 5     communicating with my corps commander.  We always understood each other

 6     well, and I always had his support when it came to my duties and my part

 7     of the job.

 8        Q.   And, Colonel, as far as you know, General Mladic never lost that

 9     trust in Colonel Beara during the war, did he?

10        A.   Well, I don't think he lost that trust.  If he had, then I

11     suppose that Naval Captain Beara would have been removed from his

12     position and replaced.

13             And if you will allow me, I would also like to say that I need to

14     apologise to the Trial Chamber, to yourself, and to the Defence.

15     Yesterday I did not say that Naval Captain Beara some two or three years

16     prior to the beginning of the war in Croatia was the chief of the

17     security department in the naval district.  I did not want to omit that

18     deliberately, and I did not want to raise anybody's suspicion that I was

19     covering things up.  This is a generally known fact, that he was

20     appointed chief and that he remained in that position until the beginning

21     of the war and that he remained at that position until the moment he

22     joined the Army of Republika Srpska.

23             I hope you will take this into consideration and that you will

24     accept my apology for not having mentioned that yesterday.

25        Q.   Sir, just speaking for the Prosecution, if that's your greatest

Page 25129

 1     infraction, you're are way ahead of the rest of us.

 2             Now, to your knowledge, sir, did General Mladic ever lose that

 3     trust in Colonel Beara after the war ended?

 4        A.   There was a shake-up after the war.  All the men in the Main

 5     Staff were removed from their position; the General Staff of the Army

 6     Republika Srpska was established; and a new person, General Coric

 7     [phoen], became the chief of the General Staff; then General Savcic

 8     became the chief of the security administration.  In other words, all the

 9     people who were in the leading positions during the war were removed from

10     their positions after the war.  There was a general shake-up in the

11     structure of the command.

12        Q.   Okay.  If we may have 65 ter 3515, please, and we will be looking

13     at pages 3 of both the English and the B/C/S with respect to this

14     document.  If we could just hang on to page 1 - I'm sorry - for just a

15     moment, so we can acquaint the witness with it.

16             Sir, this is a letter from General Manojlo Milovanovic that he

17     wrote on September 29th, 2004, to the government of the Republika Srpska,

18     and it has to do with a number of topics that he was addressing them on,

19     including the whereabouts of the Main Staff archives and some other

20     issues.  What I'd like to do is turn your attention to just one portion

21     of the paragraph on page 3 as I mentioned before, please.

22             Do you see the paragraph that begins:  "At the beginning of 1997,

23     the then-acting president of the republic, Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, made a

24     rash decision..."  Do you see that, sir.

25        A.   Yes, I can see that.

Page 25130

 1        Q.   Okay.  General Milovanovic refers to the decision to relocate the

 2     new General Staff.  I think that's what you were just referring to a

 3     moment ago.  Is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.  At that time, the General Staff was moved

 5     to the Bijeljina and from there it was moved to Banja Luka.

 6        Q.   Then it goes on further:  "...and retire four generals from the

 7     former Main Staff, one of whom was General Djordje Djukic, who died eight

 8     months before his 'retirement' after being maltreated in prison in The

 9     Hague."

10             Do you recall, Colonel, who the other three generals were that

11     were retired?

12        A.   You see, I remember the event like I told you.  The complete war

13     staff was removed from their positions.  President Plavsic set up a

14     completely new leadership.  I don't remember which three generals were

15     pensioned off.  If we are talking about 1997, that was a power struggle

16     and a little puch that Biljana Plavsic staged in order to get rid of

17     Krajisnik and the others.  I must say that when the war began I was

18     major, and when the war ended I was lieutenant-colonel.  After the war, I

19     was a small fry, to put it that way, so I didn't know what was happening

20     in the office of the president or what General Milovanovic wrote in any

21     of his documents.  And as for this document, I never saw it before.

22        Q.   Okay.  If we read on, it says that:  "General Mladic and I put

23     ourselves at the disposal of the VRS for up to six months and for the

24     other six months to the Yugoslav Army."  So that's about a year.  We're

25     talking about here -- at the beginning of 1997, there's a reference, and

Page 25131

 1     then sometime after that we're talking about a year.  My first question

 2     is, you served as assistant Minister of Defence under General Milovanovic

 3     from, I think, 1998 to 2001.  My question is, if we read on it says that:

 4     "General Mladic stayed in Crna Rijeka with his security guards who were

 5     supposed to protect him from being arrested by The Hague Tribunal.

 6     Biljana Plavsic signed a decree about this.  In the beginning the

 7     commander of that powerful security group was Colonel Ljubisa Beara

 8     because Mladic wished it so then it was Colonel and later Dragan Lalovic

 9     also because Mladic wished it so."

10             Do you know anything about this topic, this statement that

11     General Mladic wanted Colonel Beara to be in charge of his personal

12     bodyguard protection team after he was indicted by The Hague?  Do you

13     know anything about that, sir?

14        A.   No.  I know about it in the sense that this Colonel Lalovic was

15     at the then-security of General Mladic, but I didn't know that General

16     Mladic ever asked for Colonel Beara.

17        Q.   So by the time you arrived, is what you're telling the Court that

18     Mr. Lalovic was in charge, as the letter says?

19        A.   No, I didn't -- well, as a matter of fact, I didn't understand

20     what you were asking me.

21        Q.   Okay.  Let me just go back --

22        A.   I didn't understand.  My arrival, Lalovic's arrival, I'm not

23     sure.  I had no money in the game.

24        Q.   Okay.  Your previous answer was:  "I know about it in the sense

25     that this Colonel Lalovic was at the then-security of General Mladic, but

Page 25132

 1     I didn't know that General Mladic ever asked for Colonel Beara."

 2             So my question to you, sir, was, by the time you showed up at the

 3     ministry of Defence in 1998, what you're telling the Trial Chamber is

 4     that at that time it was Colonel Lalovic as far as you knew who was in

 5     charge of the protection detail or group for General Mladic as it says

 6     here in the letter?

 7        A.   Yes, most likely.

 8        Q.   Now, may we have - and I'd like to turn to a different subject

 9     now -  65 ter 3661, please.  While we're waiting for it to come up, I can

10     tell you that it's going to be an order for further operations from the

11     commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps.  You were shown this document during

12     your 2004 interview in Banja Luka.  It's an 8 June 1992 order for further

13     operations.  Do you see the document in front of you, sir?

14        A.   I do, and it was shown to me during the interview in 2004.

15        Q.   Okay.  And if we just quickly go to page 5 of the English and

16     page 4 of the B/C/S, we can see at paragraph 8 where there's the section

17     on intelligence and security measures, it's divided into paragraph A,

18     intelligence measures, and paragraph B, security measures, and the

19     security measures continue onto page 5 of the B/C/S; both are paragraph

20     8.  And then there's another section; if we go to page 7 of the English

21     and page 6 of the B/C/S that discusses rear security, and I'll just give

22     you a moment to look at that section on rear security.

23             Does this help refresh your recollection about being shown this

24     document in Banja Luka, sir?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 25133

 1        Q.   And I'm not going to ask you questions so much about the military

 2     objectives or so forth that are contained in this order.  I'm more

 3     interested in what you told us about the process that was involved.  You

 4     said at pages 55 to 56 of your interview, and I'll just save some time

 5     and read this short passage, I quote:  "The introduction of an order such

 6     as this is probably from a directive or an order by the Main Staff

 7     because it speaks about a wider area and the situation on the territory

 8     outside of the area of responsibility of the corps.  An order like this

 9     would have been approved by the Main Staff before it was actually

10     initiated."

11             After you have a chance to process the translation, sir, do you

12     have anything to add or change to that answer that you gave in 2004, and

13     if not, I'll move on to a related topic.

14        A.   No, nothing to add or take away, for that matter.

15        Q.   Now, if we may have 65 ter 3625, please.

16             You also spoke during your interview about your knowledge of the

17     process by which the Main Staff passed on operational directives, and

18     I'll just wait until we have both the English and the -- okay.  Well --

19     okay.  We have a translation in your own language of this portion that I

20     wish to read to you.  At page 37, y ou were asked the following question:

21    "How does the Main Staff take and transform political strategic objectives

22     into military operational directives to go to the corps?  How does that

23     happen?"

24             Now, your answer was quite detailed, so as I said we have this

25     B/C/S transcript for you of the section of your interview to read along.

Page 25134

 1     You said, and this begins at page 37 of the English, line 31:  "I don't

 2     know these directives, but like any other member of the command I was

 3     informed of their content.  But if you will allow me, I cannot remember

 4     the contents of these directives because it has been 12 years.  The way

 5     to transform the decision of a political leadership into a military

 6     directive is the following.  I'm giving an example..."  And you say:

 7     "For instance, you've mentioned here the establishment of borders on the

 8     rivers Una and Neretva, which basically means that the 1st Krajina Corps

 9     and the 2nd Krajina Corps were issued with tasks or directives to

10     establish a border, or in other words, positions on those two rivers, and

11     if the positions are not already there, then the unit is issued with the

12     task to plan to capture those positions to take those positions.  And

13     it's up to the corps command to device the combat operation in order to

14     fulfill this directive.  And this means that the Herzegovina corps would

15     be issued with the task for the River Neretva and so on.  So for the

16     corridor it would be the east Bosnian and the 1st corps and so on."

17             Now, sir, there you're referring to one of the six strategic

18     objectives issued by the Republika Srpska National Assembly on 12 May

19     1992.  You were shown that during your interview, and that particular

20     strategic objective number 4 called for establishing a border on the Una

21     and Neretva rivers.  Do you remember that, sir?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, just picking up in the English, it's page 38 and line 15,

24     and if you can continue along, you were asked the question:  "If I have

25     it kind of right here, the Main Staff then sets the big picture based on

Page 25135

 1     strategic goals and gives the corps commander certain tasks to carry out

 2     but leaves the corps commander with the authority to get that done in the

 3     best way that he sees fit?"

 4             And your answer was:  "So, yes, you see, the Main Staff was the

 5     strategic command.  And it gives global tasks which are in accordance

 6     with the decisions made by the political representatives with the

 7     policies.  Because the politics governed us, as it did many other armies.

 8     So, it's usually the way that in the introductions to the directive,

 9     you're given an overview or a dissection of the overall combat situation

10     on the territory of the entire VRS.  They probably referred to this

11     decision of the assembly as well.  I don't know whether there were any

12     orders by the Supreme Commander or the Supreme Command in the war, and if

13     there is an order issued by the Supreme Command, then the Main Staff

14     invokes that order.  So basically, what they're doing is they're creating

15     the widest possible foundation or basis.  And as you go further down the

16     levels, the tasks narrow down and they become more and more concrete.

17     Because if they issued the 2nd Krajina Corps with the task to come out on

18     the banks of the Una River, then this must have been, like, one or two

19     sentences at the most.  And now the 2nd Krajina Corps command assesses

20     the task.  They assess their own manpower, forces, and positions, the

21     combat positions that they know where they are and what they are.  They

22     assess the enemy forces, and through that comes into life the

23     decision-making process, and the decision is made on the use of the units

24     in order to fulfill the task that was issued through that directive.  The

25     decision is made and signed by the corps commander because he's the

Page 25136

 1     exclusive one who is in charge of that.  That's what makes him the

 2     commander.  And this decision, this order for the use of the units is

 3     then sent to the lower-ranking units which in our case were the brigades

 4     or regiments because we didn't have any other.  So when a brigade

 5     receives such an order, such a decision, such a task for the carrying out

 6     of combat activities, then they make their own; then they issue their own

 7     order decision -- order or decision because - how should I say this - the

 8     corps order is a bit -- is a bit rough for them."

 9             There's some further discussion, and you are asked the

10     question -- this is at page 39, line 24.  The question posed to you by

11     the investigator was:  "So the task gets more specific as you go down

12     this funnel that you described from global?"

13             And you answer:  "More concrete, yes."

14             You're asked the follow-up question:  "From global directives to

15     operational directives, to brigade-level combat operations orders down to

16     the very platoon that's actually -- take that hill?"

17             And your answer, and I'm just going to read this last portion and

18     then follow up with a question:  "Yes.  Yes, you've got two trenches

19     here, three, and that's what you do, and it all has to be, of course,

20     synchronized because the brigade has to submit its decision to the corps

21     command for inspection, and the commander of the corps has to approve

22     their decision because they have to stand up and fight for their --

23     defend their decision.  And it was the same with the corps command.  They

24     had to send their decision to the Main Staff for approval, so it was like

25     a reverse process."

Page 25137

 1             Now, sir, when you said "reverse process" during your interview,

 2     can you tell the Trial Chamber what you meant by there was a reverse

 3     process?

 4        A.   Your Honours, first and foremost, when I said "reverse process,"

 5     I meant, for example, when a brigade makes its decision on the operation

 6     of its forces, the commander needs to defend that decision before the

 7     corps commander and before the corps command, either the staff or

 8     command.  In any case, the commander has to hear him out and needs to

 9     approve of his decision.

10             Once all brigade decisions have come in, all of the brigade

11     commanders need to come in to defend them, and only after the process the

12     brigade commanders can call up meetings and issue orders to battalion

13     commanders and then further down the chain to companies and so on.

14             The same goes for the corps commander.  Once it has all been

15     dealt with at the brigade levels, the decision made by the corps

16     commander on its operation needs to go to the Main Staff to take

17     personally that decision there and argue in its favour before the Main

18     Staff commander for him to approve it.  That's roughly put.  You've read

19     out quite a lot, but that's the decision-making process, or rather,

20     drafting orders and directives of the Main Staff.

21        Q.   Now, let me just read to you one more portion, a short paragraph

22     on page 40 of the English, and this is also in the B/C/S translation

23     before you.  You said at line 14:  "This whole decision-making process of

24     the lower levels cannot even begin without the Main Staff approving the

25     decision of the corps commander.  Only when the Main Staff approves the

Page 25138

 1     decision of the corps command can they then start formulating the

 2     decisions, the orders to the brigades and the lower commands.  In the

 3     same fashion, the brigade cannot order anything to the battalions without

 4     the corps command having approved it."  That's basically what you just

 5     told us a moment ago, sir.

 6             Now, you continue on:  "What you ask issue is a preparatory

 7     order, which basically means that you withdraw people, you bring people

 8     back from leave, that you increase the supply of ammunition, increase the

 9     supply of food and other combat necessities.  So these are the first

10     indications whereby you know that something important is underway."

11             Is a preparatory order, Colonel, sometimes referred to as a

12     warning order, or are those interchangeable -- or are those different

13     things?

14        A.   You put it correctly.  There were preparatory orders.

15     Occasionally, they were put in writing.  Such a preparatory order can

16     include tasks for units to prepare for the forthcoming tasks.  Such tasks

17     in my understanding are roughly described only in such preparatory

18     orders.  The preparatory orders can encompass a number of measures and

19     activities that a certain unit needs to take in order to raise its

20     combat-readiness to as high a degree as possible in order to be ready to

21     fulfill its ensuing tasks.

22             I don't know whether there's any particular time specified in a

23     preparatory order.  I can't tell you that.  I'm not an expert in that

24     area.  As a matter of fact, I've also mentioned some of the elements of

25     particular interest for security people when they want to see if there

Page 25139

 1     was something going on, if there are any preparations.  All these

 2     elements have to be gone through for a unit to be prepared in the best

 3     possible way for any future tasks.  This includes reconnaissance at all

 4     levels, and there's also something that we call command reconnaissance.

 5        Q.   Okay.  In your experience, sir, do those preparatory orders

 6     require Main Staff approval, or are those orders something that can be

 7     issued by the corps by itself; in other words, if the Main Staff was

 8     happy to leave that in the hands of the corps without having to sign off

 9     on it?

10        A.   It is my opinion that the Main Staff also issued such preparatory

11     orders.  I cannot be 100-percent certain, but I can presume that most

12     likely it was done.  There were preparatory orders issued to the effect

13     that some military operations were to take place.  Staff officers could

14     tell you more about the process of everything you've been asking me.  In

15     any case, I think there were such preparatory orders in place.

16        Q.   And at your level, Colonel, at the corps level, just based on

17     your experience, when the corps issued a preparatory order, was that

18     something that had to be approved by the Main Staff, or did the corps

19     have the authority to begin issuing such preparatory orders by itself?

20        A.   Your Honours, if a corps receives a preparatory order from the

21     Main Staff, then they issue their preparatory order at their level and

22     send it down to the brigades.  I don't think they needed any special

23     approval for that.  A preparatory order in my view includes the corps

24     being familiarized with the task, and then in turn it has to draft a

25     preparatory order at its level for its subordinate units, much as would

Page 25140

 1     be the case with combat orders.  After having received an order from the

 2     Main Staff, they no longer needed any special permission to send to down

 3     the channel -- the chain.

 4        Q.   Now, Colonel, this may seem like an obvious question, but as a

 5     member of the corps command, although you said you can't recite the

 6     number of directives that were passed on to the corps by the Main Staff

 7     or maybe the subject matter of each and every one of those directives, at

 8     the time you would have -- and you were informed of their content; isn't

 9     that correct?

10        A.   In the course of the interview, I said something that I will

11     repeat now.  I wasn't familiar with it, and I don't know what the number

12     of such directives was.  I don't know, but I can presume that not all

13     directives necessarily had to do with the same part of territory.  They

14     may have been wider or narrower in scope, but I don't know that.  What I

15     do know is that those directives that had to do with the area of

16     responsibility of the corps, as a command member I was familiar with

17     their contents and the tasks that the corps units were to implement.

18     This would usually include the whole corps staff and command.  They would

19     meet and the corps commander would read out the directive, familiarizing

20     us with its contents.  Then we would go on to discuss how we could

21     implement that directive the best way possible.

22        Q.   Now, when we speak of a corps-wide operation such as the one we

23     looked at a few moments ago, that order for further operations from June

24     of 1992, prior to such an operation there will be security and

25     intelligence assessments made by the corps command in connection with

Page 25141

 1     that operation.  Is that fair to say?

 2        A.   It is customary in the work of commands that such assessments are

 3     made and security and intelligence support needed to be provided as

 4     separate items in any orders.  The intelligence organ was supposed to

 5     provide any information they had about the enemy and their posts, and

 6     pursuant to that data, decisions were made on how to deploy units, which

 7     axis to engage, which would be the main units to implement the tasks, and

 8     so on and so forth.

 9             The security organs were supposed to provide an overview of the

10     security situation in the corps territory.  As I was saying then,

11     intelligence personnel covered from the point of contact between us and

12     the enemy and then into enemy territory in depth, whereas security or

13     counterintelligence organs focused their activities on the area of the

14     corps itself.  We provided elements that had to do with intelligence,

15     security support by way of an attachment.  It was one of the tasks of the

16     security organ.  We would provide that attachment that was supposed to

17     corroborate the item of any particular order that had to do with

18     intelligence and security.

19        Q.   And this important security and intelligence information, this is

20     both coming up from the subordinate units and taking yourself as a member

21     of the corps command staff.  It's coming up to you, but it's also coming

22     down to you from the Main Staff security administration because it is

23     receiving similar information from other corps which might impact on your

24     corps' activity; is that also correct?

25        A.   You're right.  This is how our information system worked.  The

Page 25142

 1     information was conveyed from the reconnaissance platoons in the brigade,

 2     would be delivered to the corps command, and as for us, we collected

 3     intelligence every day and we would convey this intelligence to the

 4     security and intelligence sector.  And every day in return we would

 5     receive from them information and intelligence that provided us with the

 6     entire picture of the events in the entire territory of Republika Srpska

 7     as well as the information that contained elements relative to the zone

 8     of responsibility of our corps.  If there was such information, then we

 9     would use it to devise our plans of operation.

10             Let me just add to that that the intelligence that we see from

11     the Main Staff was discussed at every corps command meeting.  First, the

12     intelligence would be read out loud and then discussed.  In other words,

13     everybody was made aware of what the intelligence was.

14        Q.   And because of the importance of this information, this is one

15     reason why the corps could not withhold any intelligence or

16     security-related matter from General Tolimir.  Isn't that correct?

17        A.   We couldn't do that, no.

18        Q.   In fact, when you were asked the following question during your

19     interview -- let me just read it to you.  It's from page 95 of the

20     English:  "Is there any reason you can think of where there would be any

21     secrets from General Tolimir, any intelligence or security-related

22     matter?"

23             You answered:  "In my case, there definitely wasn't any.  I can't

24     tell you anything about other organs, but in principle there shouldn't

25     have been any because, also, General Tolimir would have surely found out

Page 25143

 1     if something had been kept a secret.  And in that case, I wouldn't like

 2     to be in the skin of the person who tried to keep secrets from him."

 3             Do you have anything to add or change or subtract, as you said,

 4     from your answer, or do you stand with that today as well?

 5        A.   I would not wish to add or underline anything with regard to the

 6     answer that you have just read out.

 7        Q.   Now, sir, I want to move to a different area.  You referred

 8     yesterday during your testimony - and this is at page 25071 - to an

 9     occasion when your commander told you to prevent units from deserting

10     their positions, and you told the Trial Chamber that that wasn't your

11     responsibility and that was an example that you gave of how things

12     weren't working properly in your field.  You referred to: "The commander

13     would often go and tell me to bring back a unit from its position or try

14     to -- and prevent people running away from their positions or to go and

15     disarm paramilitary units if they turned up."

16             And we'll talk about paramilitary units a little later, but with

17     respect to this issue of soldiers deserting their positions, if it wasn't

18     your responsibility, whose responsibility was it to make sure that

19     soldiers weren't deserting their units and maintain their will to fight?

20        A.   First and foremost, this would be the responsibility of the

21     commanders and commandeers of these units because they were the supreme

22     organs of security in their respective units and in charge of the morale

23     of the -- in those particular units.  Depending on the ability the

24     commander to raise the morale of his people to stay in positions and to

25     fight, depending on their abilities and their personal example, their --

Page 25144

 1     the situations varied.  Some were able to do that, and therefore, there

 2     were units that never abandoned their positions because the system of

 3     command and control was good.  But there were also other cases where the

 4     system of control and command was not so good, and there were frequent

 5     cases of desertion.  I had a situation that a complete brigade abandoned

 6     the positions.  They were resubordinated to us.  I went to their

 7     positions, and I saw that their commander was actually leading them, and

 8     there was nothing I could do.  To cut a long story short, where the

 9     command and control was functioning well and where the commander was in

10     charge and had the authority over his soldiers, there was no wilful

11     abandonment of the frontlines by the troops.  Where the system was

12     impaired, there were obviously very frequent instances of desertion.  It

13     was even a wide-scale phenomenon in some units.

14             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I see we're getting near the break.

15     I'm about to start a substantive area with some documents.  If we can --

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thought you were going to tell us you were about

17     to finish.  You've gone, I think, beyond your two hours that you had

18     asked.

19             MR. THAYER:  I have, Mr. President.  It's --

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  So I would suggest that you try and cut it down and

21     conclude, please.

22             MR. THAYER:  I will do that over the break, Mr. President.  I

23     will need a little bit more time with the Court's permission.  It's

24     moving a little slower than I had estimated through these important

25     areas.

Page 25145

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Well, I will put "important" in inverted commas.

 2     Let's have the break now, 25 minutes, and in the meantime, please, if you

 3     could work out for us the time that Mr. Thayer has been cross-examining

 4     this witness.  Thank you.

 5                           --- Break taken at is 3.40 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Thayer.

 8             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

10             MR. THAYER:

11        Q.   Colonel, I read to you in connection with your testimony about

12     the process of translating the Main Staff, the directives the Main Staff

13     passed on into concrete military action.  I read to you a long portion of

14     your statement that you read along as well.  I just want to first ask

15     you, do you stand by what you said to the investigators in 2004?

16        A.   Yes, I stand by it.

17        Q.   Now, let me move on quickly, my last couple of questions.

18             You said in your OTP interview, also, that the state of combat

19     morale is extremely important within a fighting unit.  Can you describe

20     for the Trial Chamber the importance of cooperation between the morale

21     organs and the security and intelligence organs?

22        A.   Your Honours, I would like to clarify some things.  Actually, I

23     would like to say that both the security organ and the assistant for

24     morale are members of the same team, and obviously, there must be

25     cooperation among the team members.  People obviously have to communicate

Page 25146

 1     and exchange information among themselves.  They are almost duty-bound to

 2     do that within the command.  It is common practice, if that answers your

 3     question, sir.

 4        Q.   And why was it important to have that communication between the

 5     morale organs and the organs for security and intelligence?

 6        A.   In order to understand this question, one has to say that during

 7     the process of assessing the state of morale in a unit, a lot of elements

 8     have to be analysed as having impact on the state of morale.  One of them

 9     is security or the security threats.  One of those is obviously

10     desertions, abandoning positions, throwing up weapons.  All these are

11     forms of behaviour that have a negative impact on the status of morale,

12     which have to be taken into consideration.

13             It is common practice to have meetings of the command where

14     everybody provides information pertinent to their respective sectors and

15     shares problems from their own domain, and this is the first instance at

16     which the information on the problems in the unit are exchanged.  One of

17     those problems has to do with the state of morale in that unit.  I don't

18     know whether I've made myself clear enough.

19        Q.   Is it fair to say, Colonel, that the security situation affects

20     the morale, and the morale situation affects the security situation?

21        A.   Yes.  A correlation of that sort may be taken into account.  In

22     practice, that was the case, and of course, you can also put it that way.

23        Q.   Now, again, just taking you directly to your 2004 interview.  You

24     were asked the following question at page 102:  "We've talked about

25     General Milan Gvero before, chief of morale, religious and legal affairs.

Page 25147

 1     Now, he issued thousands of reports about the current political

 2     situation.  Now, much of what is in your report is also of political

 3     nature, so were there times when you would read General Gvero's reports

 4     and extract part of those that you felt relevant for the intelligence

 5     report?"

 6             And your answer was:  "I don't exclude such a possibility.  It

 7     depended on the character of information we were drafting.  It depended

 8     on its contents and the goal that we had that we wanted to achieve with

 9     that information.  I believe, and I know, that General Gvero and Tolimir

10     cooperated very closely, so I don't exclude the possibility that in his

11     reports Gvero would use Tolimir's information and Tolimir, Gvero's, and

12     they would basically fill in the gaps."

13             Do you stand by that answer that you gave in Banja Luka, sir?

14        A.   Yes, I stand by my answer.

15        Q.   Now, just two quick final questions, sir.  You referred to

16     paramilitaries at one point in one of your answers that --

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, one moment.  Mr. Josse.

18             MR. JOSSE:  Could my learned friend read the next question and

19     answer.  We suggest that that is out of context.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Mr. Thayer, do you have comments to that?  In

21     the meantime, for the record, the Prosecution, I also notice the presence

22     of Mr. Nicholls, and Ms. Nikolic has been present in the meantime.

23             MR. THAYER:  I certainly can, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Then go ahead.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

Page 25148

 1             MR. THAYER:  Question:  "Can I -- can I just ask you what kind --

 2     what kind of officer Gvero was?  Did you know him very well?"

 3             And your answer was:  "I didn't know him very well.  I knew him.

 4     I met him during the war when he used to come to the corps, the corps'

 5     area of responsibility.  I know he is from Mrkonjic Grad, and I know that

 6     before the war he was the spokesperson of the SSNO and that he

 7     practically spent his entire time serving in Belgrade, and when I was

 8     telling you yesterday about my imprisonment he is the person who couldn't

 9     provide my father with an answer of where I was.  He was a very educated

10     officer."

11             MR. JOSSE:  Thank you.

12             MR. THAYER:

13        Q.   Now, sir, you mentioned paramilitaries the other day, and when

14     you were asked about this in Banja Luka, you said, and this is page 126:

15     "So basically, you had to make a compromise.  It's better to keep them

16     under your wing, put them into the army, have them fight for you and keep

17     them under control than to have them as loose cannons."

18             Is it correct, therefore, to say that in some cases the VRS had

19     to forcibly remove paramilitaries but in others they were able to

20     convince the paramilitaries to join you and work towards a common cause?

21        A.   You are right.  During the war, and I'm talking about the zone of

22     responsibility of my corps, at the beginning of the war, actually,

23     different groups arrived allegedly wanting to fight together with the

24     Serbian people, but they had different criminal agenda.  All the groups

25     that would not be placed under the command of the army or in the specific

Page 25149

 1     case of the corps were disarmed and expelled from the zone of

 2     responsibility of my corps.  They arrived in different ways, through

 3     different channels, but all those who would not be placed under our

 4     command had to leave our zone of responsibility.

 5             When you were talking about a compromise, you were talking about

 6     one specific case of a unit from the 1st Krajina Corps, which had started

 7     out by acting as an independent paramilitary unit from Vucak, I believe.

 8     And subsequently, they were incorporated into the army and became a

 9     regular unit of the 1st Krajina Corps, although their commander had been

10     convicted for a crime before the war, and hence my second example of

11     compromises that had to be made during the war to accommodate such

12     groups.

13        Q.   Understood, Colonel.  Last topic, briefly.

14             Going back to the world that existed when you were serving in the

15     JNA, under the rules and under the practice adhered to by the JNA while

16     it still existed, what would happen to a soldier or an officer who openly

17     displayed ethnic hatred or intolerance or hostility towards a co-worker?

18        A.   Talking about the time the JNA existed in the former Yugoslavia,

19     that was considered a crime.  Any such person - be it a soldier or an

20     officer or even a commissioned officer; it really did not make any

21     difference - any such person would be subject to measures prescribed by

22     law.

23        Q.   And what would happen to a soldier or an officer who openly

24     voiced nationalistic sentiments while they were serving in the JNA, sir?

25        A.   Such persons would be subject to measures prescribed by law

Page 25150

 1     because any display of ethnic hatred in the JNA - which was the epitome

 2     of brotherhood and unity at the time - was considered a crime, and that's

 3     why such persons would be prosecuted.

 4        Q.   Punishable by what, sir?  Do you know?

 5        A.   I don't know what you mean, sir.  In any case, depending on the

 6     gravity of the crime that they committed; it depended whether they acted

 7     independently, whether they acted on their own or in concert with

 8     somebody else, whether they were members of an organised illegal group,

 9     whether they inflicted damage upon the image of the JNA.  It all depended

10     on the judiciary, and the judiciary decided the type of punishment.

11             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Colonel.  That concludes my

12     cross-examination.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Re-examination, but before that, I

15     notice Mr. Bourgon standing.  Yes, Mr. Bourgon?

16             MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, I would

17     like to have special permission by the Court to ask one question, one

18     further question in cross-examination, which arises with the questions

19     that have been put by my colleague from the Prosecution to the witness.

20     If the witness can take his earphone, I will gladly share this question

21     with the Court in order to get the proper leave.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  What's your knowledge of English like, Mr.

25     Mitrovic?

Page 25151

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  None whatsoever.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Okay, could you remove your headphones for

 3     awhile, please.

 4             Yes, Mr. Bourgon.  What's the question.

 5             MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  The question reads as

 6     follows, and I will read the exact question in the transcript so I can

 7     get you to consider.

 8             My colleague from the Prosecution asked you many questions

 9     concerning the issuing of orders from the Main Staff to the corps level

10     to the brigades as well as questions relating to what is known in western

11     armies as the back-briefing process when orders are issued.  I have only

12     one question for you in this regard, which goes as follows:  On the basis

13     of your military experience, can you think of any order involving the

14     implementation of activities which require the use of resources which

15     could be issued by a corps to one of the assistant commanders in a

16     brigade without first informing the Brigade commander?

17             That is the question, Mr. President, and this question arises

18     from questions that have been put by my colleague to the witness,

19     questions which -- the aim of which was to obtain evidence favourable to

20     its own case and which were not related to the reason for which this

21     witness is here in the first place.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

23             MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  And is there re-examination,

25     Mr. Nikolic?

Page 25152

 1             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will have brief

 2     re-examination.  A couple of minutes.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Before we decide on Mr. Bourgon's request,

 6     Mr. Thayer, do you wish to comment or not?

 7             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, we have no objection to the question

 8     being asked exceptionally.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So our decision is to allow the question

10     always on the proviso that the witness can answer it because it may well

11     be that he cannot.

12             But Mr. Mitrovic, there is a further question for you from the

13     Defence team of Mr. Nikolic.  See if you can understand it and answer it.

14     If you can't answer it, please let us know.

15             Go ahead, Mr. Bourgon.  Read it out slowly for the interpreters,

16     please.

17             MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:

19        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.

20        A.   Good afternoon to you, too.

21        Q.   My colleague from the Prosecution asked you many questions

22     concerning the issuing of orders from the Main Staff to the corps level

23     to the brigades as well as questions relating to what is known in western

24     armies as "the back-briefing process" when orders are issued.  I only

25     have one question for you in this regard, which goes as follows:  On the

Page 25153

 1     basis of your military experience, can you think of any order involving

 2     activities which require the use of resources which could be issued by a

 3     corps to a brigade, or rather, to one of the assistant commanders of a

 4     brigade without first informing the brigade commander?

 5        A.   Your Honours, if the counsel has in mind the security organ in

 6     particular, then I can tell you that such a thing can only happen in a

 7     situation which would involve counterintelligence tasks and information

 8     which would not ask for his departure from the command location or

 9     leaving the unit.  I don't know whether that was the thing you had in

10     mind.

11        Q.   I thank you very much for this answer.  I don't need any further

12     clarification.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you so much, Mr. Bourgon.  Thank you.

14             Mr. Nikolic.

15             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16                           Re-examination by Mr. Nikolic:

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Mitrovic, I'd like us to clarify some of

18     your answers given yesterday to the Prosecutor when you were questioned

19     about the naval military district.  Then you said that the then-9th

20     corps, or as you called it, the Knin corps was part of the naval military

21     district of Split.  Is that correct?

22        A.   Yes, it was while I was with the naval military district.

23        Q.   Do you know lieutenant-colonel Spiridon Alacov?

24        A.   Yes, I do.  Lieutenant-colonel Alacov was an officer who dealt

25     with personnel issues in -- well, I may be mistaken, but I remember him

Page 25154

 1     being in the security department of the military naval district.

 2        Q.   Mr. Mitrovic, Lieutenant-Colonel Spiridon Alacov testified before

 3     this Tribunal on the 10th of July, 2008.  I will put to you what he said

 4     on that occasion.  So that the rest could follow Mr. Spiridon's

 5     testimony, it can be found at page 23566 from line 2 to line 6.  Mr.

 6     Spiridon then said that once the war began in Croatia, the Knin corps,

 7     i.e., the 9th corps was taken out of the military naval district of Split

 8     and put under direct command of the JNA General Staff.  Do you agree with

 9     that?

10        A.   I was a prisoner at the time, and I was released on the 22nd of

11     November, 1991.  I wasn't able to follow what was going on during that

12     time.  There may have been such a thing, but I cannot confirm that.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Another question.  In answering my questions about

14     your career, if I recall correctly you said that you were a major at the

15     beginning of the war?

16        A.   Correct.

17        Q.   When the war ended, you were lieutenant-colonel?

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   Therefore you were promoted in the meantime?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   When you met Mr. Beara for the first time, what was his rank?

22        A.   That was 1995.  He held the rank of naval captain.  1985, sorry.

23     In any case, he also retired holding the same rank.

24        Q.   Since I'm not a soldier, I'd like to ask you the following:  A

25     naval captain would be equivalent to the rank of colonel of the ground

Page 25155

 1     forces.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   What is your opinion?  Do you have any information on why

 4     Mr. Beara failed to be promoted?

 5        A.   Had there not been for the war -- I may be mistaken, though, but

 6     being the head of a security department required a general; therefore,

 7     had it not been for the war, he probably would have been promoted to

 8     admiral since he was the head of security in the naval military district.

 9     As to why he was not promoted, I can't say.

10        Q.     Do you recall how -- or rather, what was the rank of Mr.

11     Tolimir when the war broke out and at the end of the war?

12        A.   I saw Colonel Tolimir in Knin in 1991 after the exchange there,

13     and at the time he was a colonel.  I think he was a major general or

14     lieutenant-general by the end of the war.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I have only one question left.  When answering some

16     of the Prosecutor's questions, you explained the decision-making process

17     within the Main Staff.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   What you said, was that a textbook example of such a decision

20     being made?

21        A.   I mentioned an example that would be in accordance with the

22     principle as it existed in the army.  However, I did say that I am not an

23     expert in the field, but that was the principle.

24        Q.   Do you have any knowledge whether things were done differently

25     during the war that people deviated from the principle?

Page 25156

 1        A.   A war is quite a specific -- different situation, and decisions

 2     are sometimes made at short notice.  Not everything can be put in writing

 3     in order to adhere to the procedure.  It all depended on the time you

 4     have on your hands and, of course, the situation at the frontlines

 5     because the enemy simply would not allow you to go through the procedure

 6     in its entirety.

 7        Q.   I agree with you in full.  Do you have any knowledge of such

 8     conditions resulting in the decisions being arrived at through an

 9     abbreviated shortened procedure?

10        A.   There were such decisions, yes.

11        Q.   Can you relate that to certain events?

12        A.   Not at this moment.  I cannot recall off the cuff whether such a

13     decision had to be made in that way.  Of course, it all depended on the

14     situation at the frontlines.  For example, when there was a Muslim

15     breakthrough through our lines in the area of Bihac, I believe, in 1994,

16     then there was no time.  We had to use shortcuts and try to re-establish

17     Defence lines, engage units ASAP, and orders were issued verbally.  It

18     was an urgent situation, and we had to eliminate the problem as soon as

19     possible in order to stabilised the frontlines, and then we could follow

20     it up with the rest of the procedure.

21             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mitrovic, I have no

22     further questions, and I believe you have deserved your break.  We've

23     given you quite some rough time.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Thank you as well.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Nikolic.  I got the sensation that

Page 25157

 1     the witness can survive that.

 2             Mr. Mitrovic, unless my colleagues have questions for you, which

 3     doesn't seem to be the case, your testimony has reached its end here.  On

 4     behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish to thank you for having come over and

 5     give evidence, and on behalf of everyone I also wish you a safe journey

 6     back home.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would

 8     like to thank you for the fair treatment, in particular during

 9     cross-examination by both the Prosecution and Defence counsel.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Mitrovic.

11                           [The witness withdrew]

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Nikolic, exhibits?

13             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] None, Your Honours.  We've only

14     been using previously tendered exhibits.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  Ms. Nikolic?

16             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] The same, Your Honour.  All of the

17     documents we used yesterday are already exhibits.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  I take it it's only the Miletic and Gvero Defence

19     teams that wish to tender some documents.  Otherwise, if there's someone

20     else, let us know, please.  Ms. Fauveau, you have four documents,

21     correct?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone, please.

23             MS. FAUVEAU:  [Interpretation] The documents that are on the

24     list, 5D1192, 5D1195, and 5D1197 as well as 5D1196 and 97.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  So I'll repeat.  5D1192, 5D1195, 5D1196 and

Page 25158

 1     5D1197.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objection, Mr. Nikolic?

 3             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we object only to

 4     the document which is 3516 from the 65 ter list.  We have no knowledge of

 5     the origin of the document, and we cannot see which organ issued it or

 6     who signed it.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Which is 3516?  Which one are we talking about?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Prosecution's.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah, but I was referring to Madam Fauveau's

10     documents?  No objection.  No objection to Madam Fauveau's exhibits?  All

11     right.  Thank you.  Mr. Thayer.

12             MR. THAYER:  No objection to the Miletic team exhibits nor to the

13     Gvero team's exhibit.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  So your exhibits are admitted,

15     Ms. Fauveau.

16             Mr. Krgovic, you have only got one document, which has not yet

17     been translated.  At least that's what is stated here.

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's Document 6D --

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  306.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  -- 306.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah.  Any objections, Mr. Nikolic?

22             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No objections.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objection from anyone else?  So this document

24     is also admitted.  Your exhibits, Mr. Thayer?

25             MR. THAYER:  Just three, Mr. President, from our exhibit list:

Page 25159

 1     3625, 3659, and 3661.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Objections?

 3             MR. THAYER:  I would also offer -- typically when I read in

 4     portions of a report or transcript, our practice is not to offer the

 5     actual pages.  Given the length of one of the passages I read, if my

 6     friends or if the Trial Chamber thinks it might be more helpful to have a

 7     hard copy just in case, I'm happy to put that together as an excerpt just

 8     of that one section that was particularly long.  If the parties or the

 9     Court see no need, then obviously we won't do that.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Any objections.  Mr. Josse.

11             MR. JOSSE:  Sorry.  I'm not clear here.  3625 according to the

12     list I've got is the transcript of the witness's interview.  I thought

13     that was what my learned friend was just referring to.

14             MR. THAYER:  I misspoke.  That should have been 3659, 3661.  My

15     friend is entirely correct.  We have no intention of offering the entire

16     interview.  I'm just referring to --

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  So it's not three documents but two?

18             MR. THAYER:  No, it's two documents, Mr. President.  I apologise.

19     I misspoke.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you, Mr. Josse, for your

21     intervention.  Do you wish to comment on the offer?

22             MR. JOSSE:  We have no objection to the offer, in other words,

23     the pages that were read out being specifically admitted, if that's of

24     assistance to the Trial Chamber.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah.  Is there an objection from your part,

Page 25160

 1     Mr. Nikolic, or from any other Defence team, for that matter?  Yes?

 2             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No objections.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  It all depends now on what my

 4     colleagues think.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  The decision is we prefer to have it in the records

 7     just in case it becomes necessary later on to understand better the

 8     relevant part of the witness's testimony, so it's being admitted, too,

 9     only those parts, I mean.  I'm not -- none of us is interested in the

10     rest.

11             As to the others, there being no objection, they are also

12     admitted.  The point raised by you earlier on, I understand now, is moot

13     because 3615 is not being tendered, Mr. Nikolic, correct?

14             MR. NIKOLIC: [In English] Yes.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Please, I just have to check for us if 3659

16     remains under seal or -- yes.  Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.  I

17     saw you standing.

18             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Two things:  One, we

19     would ask just for a 5- to 7-minute break so we could bring in our

20     binders.  There's actually three or so binders that Professor Wagenaar

21     will utilize, and we're changing our staff.  There's another young lady

22     who will be assisting me today, so they can disrobe, and if you don't

23     mind giving me those five minutes to do that.

24             The other thing is, I still would like the Court to -- or my

25     learned friends to give us a little more information as to why the

Page 25161

 1     documents that we're receiving late that bears our clients name on it

 2     were not produced to us other than last week or two weeks ago when they

 3     claim it was on the list of exhibits for Mr. Mandic.  It's of concern to

 4     us.  They've had it for over ten years.  We've been in this case for

 5     quite some time, and I think we've asked them pretty repeatedly to

 6     provide such documents, so I just want to have that on the record if

 7     nothing else.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I think that can be sorted out between

 9     yourselves in these seven minutes that we will grant you.  There will be

10     a short break of seven minutes approximately, and then we start with the

11     testimony of the new witness.

12                           --- Break taken at 4.49 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 5.01 p.m.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Are you ready, Mr. Ostojic?  Shall we call in the

15     witness?

16             MR. OSTOJIC:  We may.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

18             MR. OSTOJIC:  And as we are calling the witness in, if I can

19     just, for Mr. President and Your Honours, introduce my assistant today

20     who will be helping us.  She's an intern from the Netherlands, and her

21     name is Frederike Ambagtsheer.  So I'm just pleased and privileged to

22     have her here with us today.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, and you are most welcome, madam.

24                           [The witness entered court]

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  For your information, the break will be at the same

Page 25162

 1     time as usual, at 5.45.

 2             Good afternoon to you, Professor Wagenaar.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  You are most welcome.  You've been summoned as

 5     witness by the Beara Defence team, but before we proceed with your

 6     testimony, in terms of our rules you need to make a solemn declaration

 7     that in the course of your testimony you will be testifying the truth.

 8     Madam usher is going to hand you the text.  Please read it out, and that

 9     will be your solemn undertaking with us.

10             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

11     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I thank you Professor.  Please make yourself

13     comfortable.

14                           WITNESS:  WILLEM WAGENAAR

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  I need to explain to you a preliminary matter,

16     namely that we decided to start with your evidence today, but I assume

17     you have already been told that we won't finish with you today and we

18     will not continue with your evidence tomorrow because we had on our

19     schedule someone else testifying tomorrow, which we can't move, which

20     ultimately means that you will need to return here next week, Monday, to

21     continue.  If we don't finish on Monday, then it will spill over onto

22     Tuesday.  So that's the position as such.

23             Mr. Ostojic is going to go first.  He will introduce himself, and

24     we'll take it up from there then.  He will be followed eventually by

25     others on cross-examination.

Page 25163

 1             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2                           Examination by Mr. Ostojic:

 3        Q.   Good evening, Professor.  As you know, my name is John Ostojic,

 4     and I'm one of the attorneys who represents Ljubisa Beara.  Sir, before

 5     we begin, I'd just like to thank you for accommodating our schedule.  It

 6     is very much appreciated, and once again, thank you for your

 7     understanding.

 8             Would you please state your name state your full name for the

 9     record.

10        A.   My name is Willem Albert Wagenaar.

11        Q.   Mr. Wagenaar, how would you like me to address you today, as

12     Professor as I have in the past or simply as Mr. Wagenaar?

13        A.   Mr. Wagenaar is all right.

14        Q.   Fair enough.  Sir, can you share with us your date of birth?

15        A.   Yes.  I was born the 30th of June, 1941.

16        Q.   In order to have a better idea of you, can you tell us what's the

17     highest level of education that you've attained?

18        A.   The highest level of education is that I acquired a PhD in

19     psychology at the University of Leiden.

20        Q.   And when did you accomplish the same?

21        A.   That was accomplished in 1972.

22        Q.   And give us a little background of your employment history, and I

23     think you can actually start with what you currently do, and for those of

24     us who are following, I know, Professor, that we have your curriculum

25     vitae marked as 2D560.  And the reason I ask and put that to you because

Page 25164

 1     I noticed on the last page or the second page of your CV, it does note

 2     that it was last updated in May of 2006.

 3        A.   Yes, that's right.  In 2006, I was employed by the university of

 4     Leiden and University of Utrecht both as a professor of experimental

 5     psychology and in Leiden, also as a professor of psychology and law.  I

 6     retired because I reached the age of 65, which is in the Netherlands the

 7     age of forced retirement.  I retired in June 2006.  Since then, I'm

 8     officially a retired professor of psychology.  I still teach at the

 9     University of Utrecht.

10        Q.   Thank you, and congratulations on your retirement.  Share with us

11     some of your -- or highlight for us some of your --

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't quite think that he accepts or relishes

13     those congratulations.  I don't think he is happy with having been

14     forced.  Unfortunately, both the Netherlands and my country have exactly

15     the same situation, which is unfortunate.  Let's hope it will change one

16     day, Professor.

17             MR. OSTOJIC:

18        Q.   Professor, can you share with us some of your administrative and

19     advisory positions?

20        A.   Yes, I've been with my first employer, which is the TNO

21     organisation in the Netherlands, the Organisation For Applied Scientific

22     Research.  I was head of the psychology department in my institute.  From

23     there on, I went to the University of Leiden where I became the how - do

24     you say it - the chair of psychology; and in 1987, I became the dean of

25     social sciences until 1989.

Page 25165

 1        Q.   That's also at Leiden University?

 2        A.   Also at Leiden University, and then in 1979 [sic] I became what

 3     is called a Rector Magnificus.  You might translate it as vice chancellor

 4     of Leiden University, which position I had until 2001, so a period -- two

 5     terms of two years as we do it in Leiden.

 6        Q.   And just give us a quick overview of some of the honours that you

 7     received throughout your career.

 8        A.   Well, I don't know exactly what you consider to be honours.  I

 9     was a Fulbright scholar in the year 1973, '74.  I became an honourary

10     professor in Holland -  you call it university professor; it's really

11     honourary professor - at the University of Utrecht, and I acquired a

12     large number of awards allowing me and my group to do research so awards

13     to which, also, money was connected.  I think that those are the most

14     important things.  I was appointed special professor at the University of

15     Leuven in Belgium, at the University of Cambridge where I was, as you

16     called it -- and am still an overseas fellow of Churchill College in

17     Cambridge.  I am a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in the

18     Netherlands since 1991.

19        Q.   And I see that it's obviously reflected in your CV, which is

20     2D560, under the section "Honours Received," and that's why I asked you.

21     Sir, let me turn to another topic, and that's publications.  Have you

22     written any articles or textbooks?

23        A.   Yes.  I've written many articles and many textbooks on.  Various

24     subjects relevant to the themes that we will be discussing here.  Of

25     course, articles and books both in the area of human memory and in the

Page 25166

 1     area of psychology and law, which partly is, of course, overlapping

 2     because some of my work is on human memory in the context of what happens

 3     in the courtroom.

 4        Q.   Just give us an idea of where your publications can be found and

 5     what sources are they actually published in?

 6        A.   My publications can be found in the normal scientific journals,

 7     as in the leading scientific journals in my field, and in several books

 8     that are simply available on -- in any book shop, can be ordered through

 9     any book shop.  My book on problems, psychological problems in the

10     context of the Dutch law is in its 5th edition right now.

11        Q.   Just give us an idea of how many scientific books you've

12     authored.

13        A.   Yeah, that depends slightly on what you call books, because

14     usually -- see, proceedings and edited books also count as books, but

15     according to some, they don't.  But I think altogether there would be a

16     total of ten books or so.

17        Q.   And how about scientific articles?

18        A.   Scientific articles, I think that approaches a number of 200 or

19     so.

20        Q.   Now, can you share with us, when was the first time that you were

21     contacted by the Beara Defence team in order to provide an analysis and

22     review materials in connection with this case?

23        A.   I think I was contacted around the beginning of this year while I

24     was still working on another case that was presented to this Tribunal.

25        Q.   Well, we want to -- we are going to spend a lot of time or some

Page 25167

 1     significant time talking about memory.  On the first page of your report,

 2     it actually states that you were contacted in May of 2007.  And if you

 3     have the report in front of you, I think the Court would also -- would

 4     not mind if you use it if necessary.

 5        A.   Yeah, it was not my intention to demonstrate the frailty of human

 6     memory, but I cannot also not avoid the fact that human memory is not

 7     perfect.

 8        Q.   We'll get into that, I'm sure.

 9             So sir, let me restate the question.  When was the first time

10     that you were contacted by the Beara Defence team in order to provide

11     your analysis and opinions in connection with this case?

12        A.   According to my notes, and these notes, of course, reflect the

13     notes I made in my own diary, that was in May 2007.

14        Q.   And you met with me and others from my team, correct?

15        A.   Yes, that's correct.

16        Q.   And can you share with us what the task was that was initially

17     asked of you?

18        A.   The task was to -- was actually twofold.  First, my first task

19     was to explain to you and also follow that up with a written outline to

20     what the important issues are in the area of recognition and

21     identification by eyewitnesss.  That was part one.

22             Part two was to read relevant parts of the case file in this

23     specific case and see how this general knowledge about identification and

24     recognition can be applied to problems that emerge in this case, and so I

25     also wrote a section on what the general knowledge within my discipline

Page 25168

 1     means for when it is applied to this specific case.

 2        Q.   Okay, and we'll get into your definition of those two terms in a

 3     moment, but prior to that, have you testified before in a capacity as an

 4     expert witness?

 5        A.   Yes.  My estimate is that I have testified about 1.000 times as

 6     expert witness, among which a number of times to this Tribunal.

 7        Q.   And do you remember how many times you've testified as an expert

 8     witness in this Tribunal?

 9        A.   Yeah, although as you can see from my report, is it a matter of

10     definition.  I worked on four other cases, but I testified on only in

11     three out of these four because in the last case, the case of Haradinaj,

12     actually, no witnesses were called.

13        Q.   With respect to the Tadic case that you list in the report, did

14     you -- were you retained as an expert witness for the Prosecution as well

15     as the Defence?

16        A.   Yes, that's right.  I was approached simultaneously and probably

17     without the two parties being aware of the fact I was approached by both

18     sides to testify, and so I proposed to the Court that I would be try to

19     answer in one report questions from both sides, which, of course,

20     happened to be exactly the same questions, and after some discussion the

21     Court allowed me to do that.

22        Q.   And what year was that, if you can help us put a time frame on

23     it.

24        A.   The case was in 1996.  It was, as far as I am aware, the first

25     case that was handled by this Tribunal.

Page 25169

 1        Q.   Now, you mentioned -- strike that.  Before I get into that, what

 2     types of cases would you offer expert testimony on in court?

 3        A.   Most of the cases in which I'm asked to testify as an expert

 4     concern problems of memory, of human memory, and roughly that can be

 5     divided into two specific areas:  One is of recognition of people by

 6     eyewitnesses, which relies on their visual memory, the remembering faces,

 7     usually, and the other section is other problems of eyewitness testimony

 8     where they remember facts other than just the faces or the outer

 9     appearance of people.  So it's usually on either recognition of

10     eyewitnesss or the reliability of their memories about events that they

11     have experienced.

12        Q.   You mentioned both recognition and identification.  Do you draw a

13     distinction between the two?

14        A.   Yeah.  I think that needs to be explained.  These terms have been

15     introduced with -- there's a very special definition within this

16     Tribunal, and I found it just practical to follow the definitions that

17     have been used by the Tribunal, although I am aware of the fact that

18     within my discipline, the meaning of these words is slightly different,

19     but I don't think it's very useful to confuse the Tribunal by having all

20     sorts of different definitions.

21        Q.   And which word are you referring to, sir, "recognition" or

22     "identification," that the Tribunal has set a specific definition for?

23        A.   Well, both, both have obtained a special definition within this

24     Tribunal, and I think it's -- those definitions can be used very well,

25     are practical, and I will simply follow them.  And according to my

Page 25170

 1     understanding, the definitions used by this Tribunal are as follows:

 2     Recognition is retained for a witness who states that he observed at a

 3     moment in history a person whom he knew well, and the witness states, I

 4     recognise that person because I knew who that was.  The memory task for

 5     such a witness is only to remember that he saw a particular person.  In

 6     fact, the witness only has to remember the name of the person he saw, and

 7     remembering the face is easy because he knew that person well and he

 8     knows the face of that person.  That's recognition.

 9        Q.   And then --

10        A.   Identification, as used by this Tribunal, is the witness says he

11     saw a person at the moment in history who at that time he had never seen

12     before.  So he met -- he saw that person for the first time in his life.

13     Therefore, in most cases he also did not know who that person was.

14     There's no name to remember.  There's only a face or the outer appearance

15     of a person to remember.  Later on during investigations, that witness

16     may be asked to look at photographs or videos or lineups or anything to

17     see whether that person is present in those photographs, videos, lineups,

18     and so on.  And so the identification task is at that later moment during

19     the investigation.  The task for the witness is to remember not a name

20     but to remember the outer appearance of that person, so that requires

21     retaining a visual memory.

22             I myself have always used, as I do in this report, a distinction

23     between familiar people and unfamiliar people.  If at the scene of the

24     crime, to simplify it, you see a person that was already familiar to you,

25     then the Tribunal would say you may have recognised that -- that's

Page 25171

 1     recognition.  If you saw an unfamiliar person, then later on during the

 2     investigation there comes a moment of identification, identifying who

 3     that person was who you seemed to remember.

 4        Q.   A little more with respect to your background at this point.

 5     Have you testified in other Tribunals other than the ICTY?

 6        A.   Yes.  I've testified for the ICTR in Arusha this year.  I have

 7     testified in a special Dutch Tribunal for war criminals at the very early

 8     moment.  I've testified in 1987 in the special Tribunal in Jerusalem set

 9     up for the trial of John Demjanjuk who was accused of being a person -- a

10     character called Ivan the Terrible.

11        Q.   And sir, just a little more with respect to definition.  On the

12     fourth paragraph of your report, which we have, you seem to -- or at

13     least I think you draw a distinction between perception and memory.

14     Since we're just in the beginning part, I'd like to, perhaps, have a

15     better understanding if, first, you do and then, if you don't mind

16     explaining that for us.

17        A.   Yeah.  Well, almost logically, perception precedes memory.  If

18     you are a witness, see, the first requirement is that you perceive

19     things.  You see them or you hear them, and if you didn't see them or

20     didn't hear them, there's no way that the -- that relevant information

21     could have been stored into your memory.  So the first question, always,

22     about a witness is, could the witness see it or could the witness really

23     hear that?  The next question is, not only could he see it, but did he

24     see it?  Did he pay attention to that because, also, attention is a

25     prerequisite for storing information in your memory.  And only if those

Page 25172

 1     two answers are positive - yes, it was perceived; yes, attention was paid

 2     to it - then it's possible that it was stored into this witness' memory.

 3     And from there on, anything that happens is relevant to what the fate of

 4     that memory might have been, whether it was retained in memory, the

 5     information, or disappeared or was confused or changed and so on.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Now, earlier when describing the definition or giving

 7     us the definition of recognition and identification, you mentioned the

 8     two subcategories, as I call them, and forgive me if I'm changing the

 9     proper way of calling it, but of a familiar and unfamiliar person.  Is

10     that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Does that fall into one specific section under recognition or

13     identification, or is that -- really fall within both those sections or

14     definitions?

15        A.   No.  When the person whom you saw, say, at the scene of the

16     crime, when the witness claims, I already knew that person before, then

17     the only relevant -- the most relevant question is, was there a good

18     opportunity to recognise that person at the scene of the crime?  When the

19     witness states, that was the first time I ever met that person, then the

20     most relevant question -- then there are two relevant questions:  Could

21     the witness see this person at the scene of the crime good enough to form

22     a visual image that could be stored into memory; and the next relevant

23     question is, in what way was the witness later on during the

24     investigations asked to identify this person?

25        Q.   Okay.  Now, going back to this specific assignment that you

Page 25173

 1     received, can you share with us what materials were provided to you or

 2     which materials were requested from you to us?

 3        A.   Yeah.  I was provided not with the entire case file because that

 4     was physically impossible, but I was provided with sections including

 5     statements of 12 witnesses, whom I have also listed by number in my

 6     report, sections of the statements that related to either recognition or

 7     identification.  I have no way of checking whether I saw all the relevant

 8     sections that are in the case file because I simply could not study the

 9     whole case file, but from my report it is at least clear which sections I

10     saw of those statements.  Altogether, still, these sections constitute

11     three large binders of information, which I also took to this Court, so

12     it's open to the Court to inspect what actually I saw.

13        Q.   And Mr. Wagenaar, we actually have brought the binders here just

14     so you have them.  If there's a need to refer to them, kindly do so.

15             Just to clarify one issue, when you say "statements," was it

16     actual statements by witnesses that were provided or in-court testimony

17     that was offered during the trial of this case?

18        A.   Yeah.  I think the binders contain two types of information:

19     statements that were taken from them as a preparation of their appearance

20     in Court, but also sections of their actual testimony in court.

21        Q.   Going back to 1996 and the work that you did for the Prosecution

22     in the Tadic case, give us a little feel, if you will, for what type of

23     work you performed for them at that time.  What was the issue at hand?

24        A.   In the Tadic case, there were two types of witnesses:  Witnesses

25     who claimed that he was a familiar person because they came from the same

Page 25174

 1     village and had known him for 10, 20 or even more years; and there were

 2     witnesses who said that the first time they saw, allegedly, Mr. Tadic was

 3     at the scene of the crime where they saw him committing certain crimes.

 4     These witnesses, of course, later were asked to identify the person they

 5     saw by means of a photo line-up, and one of my tasks was, of course, to

 6     comment on the quality of this photo line-up.

 7        Q.   Was it actually -- and I use a different term and maybe -- I

 8     think we are on the same page.  Was it a photo board, or was it actually

 9     a physical line-up where people would walk across a room with a

10     background that would be considered neutral with height indications, or

11     was it a photo board?

12        A.   It was a photo board showing only the faces of people, not their

13     body, so there's nothing you could say about height or build or anything

14     like it.

15        Q.   Now -- so the Prosecution and you together, obviously, with the

16     Defence attorneys were -- what were you, constructing this photo board?

17        A.   No.  The photo board had already been constructed and been

18     applied.  There was no way for me to influence the actual design of that

19     photo board, the composition, but I did some quantitative research on

20     whether that composition was biased or not.

21        Q.   And just so I understand it better, I think I do, but these photo

22     boards consist of essentially 3-and-a-half-by-5 pictures of individuals

23     who may share the same physical attributes or characteristics, if you

24     will, such as hair, shape of face, eyes, et cetera?

25        A.   I'm not quite sure what you are asking.  Are you asking what they

Page 25175

 1     should consist of or what they generally consist of?

 2        Q.   First, what they generally consist of.  What do they generally

 3     consist of?

 4        A.   They generally consist of pictures presenting people roughly in

 5     the same category, like the all white, the all male, or all female.  But

 6     it cannot be generally said that they always conform to, say, the

 7     descriptions that witnesses gave of the person they saw.  Sometimes it's

 8     quite -- some of the people presented are not fitting those descriptions,

 9     which does not make them plausible choice alternatives, and that, then,

10     usually is one of the problems.

11             In the Tadic case, the problem was that all witnesses knew that

12     the accused was -- had a Serbian ethnic background, and the question was,

13     do all the people shown in the line-up, are they also Serbian, or are

14     some of them clearly non-Serbian?  So I cannot say generally they all fit

15     the same description.  That's usually exactly the topic that needs to be

16     studied.

17        Q.   What is a foil?

18        A.   A foil is a person who appears in a photo line-up, in a photo

19     board who fits the same description as the accused but who clearly is

20     innocent and who if identified by the witnesses clearly cannot be

21     suspected of any wrongdoing; and thereby, by that logic, it is shown that

22     the witnesses has not a reliable memory of whom he saw.

23        Q.   And when -- is there a standard when creating these photo boards?

24        A.   Yes.  There are good rules, and many countries have adopted such

25     rules, which roughly agree with one another about how these photo boards

Page 25176

 1     should be composed and what dangers in the construction of photo boards

 2     should be avoided.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And we'll talk about what those rules and standards are.

 4     What is a suggestive photo board?

 5        A.   A suggestive photo board, or we usually call it a biased photo

 6     board, is a photo board where what we call a naive person who has never

 7     met the accused will, with a much larger likelihood than one out of the

 8     number of photos on the board, identify who the accused is.

 9        Q.   Okay.  What would we call that, though, if we just bring a random

10     person in to look at a photo board and give him a short synopsis of who

11     they should identify?  Is there a term of art for that?

12        A.   Yeah.  Sure.  That test, which you usually run before you show

13     any photo board to real witnesses to make sure that naive witnesses

14     cannot do it, that test is called the test of Doob and Kirshembaum.

15        Q.   Now, you were starting to tell us that were standards that are

16     utilized in creating a photo board, and can you share them with us,

17     please.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And I'm obviously asking you for a proper photo board, if you

20     will.

21        A.   Right.  Right.  Yeah, and I will try to do it in a succinct

22     manner because in one of my publications I've listed 50 rules for

23     composing photo boards, and I think that's a -- so I will give you a

24     rough indication.  What you do is the following:  First, you ask the

25     witness to describe the person he saw, and that description defines,

Page 25177

 1     then, how all the people in the photo board should look.  So all the

 2     persons must fit the description given by a specific witness.

 3        Q.   What types of characteristics are normally used?

 4        A.   Usually, the rough categories are male, female, caucasian,

 5     Chinese, Japanese, but it can be far more specific; it can also be the

 6     distinction between, say, Serbian and Croatian; age, usually witnesses

 7     cannot know exactly the age of people, but at least they can mention the

 8     age category, like he was middle-aged, he was 30 years, he was an old

 9     man; and then facial descriptions like hair-do, facial hair like beards

10     and mustaches; things like scars are important.  Those are the most

11     important things.

12             There are also a number of things you should not do.  Preferably,

13     a photo board should not show any clothing, or it should show exactly the

14     same clothes on all people.  It should, for instance, not show -- if you

15     talk about military people, it should not show insignia because if the

16     rank of a person is known and none of the people in the photo board shows

17     the correct insignia, that would be highly suggestive.  They're things

18     like -- we call that clothing bias, and to me that also includes

19     insignia.

20        Q.   You mentioned scars and, obviously, I'm sure tattoos fall in

21     that, if someone would have one on their face.  What about things like

22     glasses or other -- piercings someone may have on their face?

23        A.   Yeah.  I think with respect to glasses you should make a

24     distinction to a person usually wearing glasses or maybe even always

25     wearing glasses and people like me who have reading glass who may wear

Page 25178

 1     them or may not wear them.  But if the witness mentions glasses, then if

 2     the accused never wore glasses, you have a problem, and the question is

 3     whether you should compose a photo board at all.  If you compose a photo

 4     board with the accused wearing no glasses, the problem is that actually

 5     you inform the witness that he was wrong.  He mentioned glasses, but

 6     there are no glasses.  That's not the purpose of a photo board.  The

 7     purpose of a photo board is for the witness to inform the investigators,

 8     not the other way around.  So you have a logical problem there.

 9     Obviously, the only correct way of doing it is showing the accused with

10     glasses, his own glasses, and showing all the foils also with glasses.

11        Q.   And we will get into it later during your testimony.  Were you

12     informed of us as to whether or not Mr. Ljubisa Beara wore glasses or not

13     in 1995?

14        A.   Whether he wore glasses in 1995.  I wasn't informed in 1995.

15        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

16        A.   Yeah, I was thinking.

17        Q.   I didn't know you --

18        A.   Yes.  I saw a number of pictures of Mr. Beara in which he always

19     wear glasses.  I've not seen pictures of him without glasses.  I have no

20     way of knowing whether he always wore glasses.  I can only say that some

21     of the witnesses mentioned glasses, and clearly if there would have been

22     composed any line -ups for those witnesses, but there were not, but if

23     there would have been any form of photo boards, then the accused should

24     have been shown on the photo with his glasses, and all the others should

25     have worn glasses.

Page 25179

 1             I also saw that some witnesses whose statements I studied were

 2     either uncertain about glasses or did not mention glasses and even in a

 3     few cases said, I don't remember glasses or there were no glasses.  For

 4     these witnesses, if you would use a photo board at all, the only possible

 5     way is showing Mr. Beara without glasses, and whether that would be a

 6     useful thing to do or not depends on whether Mr. Beara sometimes walks

 7     around without glasses or not, and I'm not a judge of that.

 8        Q.   Fair enough.  Give us a little more detail on the photographs

 9     that you reviewed in connection with the issue of glasses and Mr. Beara.

10     Did it range for a time period in his life prior to 1995, or really,

11     because some of them are dated, some are not, was it some periods when he

12     was younger and, obviously, some even after 1995?

13        A.   Yeah, I saw a number of photographs.  I don't have them in my --

14     all in my possession, but I'm sure you do, showing him from a relatively

15     young man like -- it makes the impression of 30 or so, until -- right

16     until 1995 and even later, I think.  In all these pictures, I saw

17     glasses.  I have not seen other pictures.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Nicholls.

19             MR. NICHOLLS:  Just a question, Your Honour.  We received for the

20     first time today around 11 o'clock photos of Mr. Beara, and I just want

21     to know if my friend can tell me if what we received today are the same

22     photos which were provided to the witness, if that's what we're talking

23     about, exactly the same photos.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  I'll follow up on that, as well, but first, let me

Page 25180

 1     ask the professor this question.

 2        Q.   When were you shown the pictures of Mr. Beara that you're

 3     discussing here?

 4        A.   Well, I saw a few, maybe two or three pictures last year when I

 5     started on the case.  A larger number of pictures were shown to me, I

 6     think, in the last week when we started to prepare -- when I started to

 7     prepare my testimony.

 8             MR. OSTOJIC:  And those were all -- because there's a

 9     distinction, there were two sets of pictures, one from a video that

10     obviously the Prosecution is shown, witnesses that we gave to Mr.

11     Wagenaar when we gave him the materials, and other pictures that the

12     Prosecution had of Mr. Beara, and then also some family photos that we

13     obtained recently, actually last week, and then shared it with Mr.

14     Wagenaar this week.  But those are the ones that we've shown him that are

15     scanned and provided to the Prosecution.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Are you satisfied with that

17     explanation, Mr. Nicholls?

18             MR. NICHOLLS:  For now, I think so.  If I have any questions,

19     I'll ask my friend after.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Also, for the record, in addition to what

21     previously was stated now, Mr. Elderkin has joined the Prosecution team

22     and is present in the courtroom.  Mr. Ostojic.

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24        Q.   Professor, was there --

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  In any case, it's time for the break.

Page 25181

 1     I don't know if it's convenient for you or whether you wish to proceed

 2     with your next question.

 3             MR. OSTOJIC:  It's convenient.  I mean, it doesn't make a

 4     difference.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  We'll have a 25-minute break.  Thank you.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic.

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   First of all, Mr. Wagenaar and Mr. President, I want to apologise

11     sincerely to you.  I didn't hear when you said you were forced into

12     retirement, and I apologise to you and the Court for that, and I answered

13     it, so thank you for that.

14             Now, if I can go back to my question --

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't think he has really retired.

16             MR. OSTOJIC:

17        Q.   Forcibly retired from wherever you were mentioning in your

18     background.

19             Sir, we were speaking before the break in reference to glasses,

20     and we'll come back to that topic.  Did you notice anything conspicuous

21     about the type of glasses in the photographs that was provided to you

22     initially and then subsequently in connection with either their size,

23     shape, or colour?

24        A.   In the photographs that I saw, there were always rather large

25     pairs of glasses so not the type of reading glasses that I'm wearing that

Page 25182

 1     are really only half-glasses.  They are large -- conspicuously large

 2     glasses, but it was very difficult to see on the photograph what type of

 3     glasses they were.  You could only see that the frame was rather large

 4     and conspicuous, always dark, large, conspicuous frames, not the type of

 5     invisible frames where you see only glasses.  Very clear, dark rims

 6     around the glasses.

 7        Q.   Now, just a couple of other items that I'd like to clear up, and

 8     I did speak with my learned friend during the break that we've had, and

 9     he had a couple of inquiries of me, and I wasn't able to provide the

10     answers.  He wanted to know, because you mentioned the notes that you've

11     taken, do you have and have you maintained notes in connection with that

12     which you've reviewed and analysed with respect to your report and

13     testimony here today?

14        A.   What I did was first review the copies of statements and --

15     statements by the witnesses and their testimony in these binders.  From

16     that, I made together with one of your colleagues a sort of large table

17     with a summary for each witness separately, each of the witness -- where

18     the relevant clauses can be found and what in a very short sentence what

19     they were about.  That's what I used to compose the report that was

20     submitted to you.

21        Q.   And that material, you still have that material with you, those

22     synopsis or the short summary that you took from the statements?

23        A.   I'm not quite sure whether I have them, but I'm sure they can be

24     made available.

25        Q.   If you would be kind enough to make that available to us, and

Page 25183

 1     then we'll share it with the Prosecution so they have it as well.

 2        A.   Sure.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  With respect to -- you mentioned also during the

 4     first 45 minutes of your testimony, when we generally spoke of rules in

 5     connection with both recognition and identification that these were

 6     universally or widely accepted rules, and you said in many countries, and

 7     I failed to follow-up, in which countries are these types of rules that

 8     you're discussing with us, today universally accepted?

 9        A.   I mentioned as examples the United Kingdom where the so-called

10     PACE rules have been adopted as standard; I mentioned the United States

11     where a very clear set of rules that can also be downloaded from the

12     internet is used; and I mentioned my own country, the Netherlands, where

13     a set of rules has been published and adopted in the year 2002 by our

14     Minister of Justice as the standard that must be used by the Office of

15     the public -- Prosecutor.

16        Q.   And why the Office of the Prosecutor, though?  Do you know why

17     are these rules actually those that the Prosecution should abide by?

18        A.   Well, I think that there's a technical reason.  The Minister of

19     Justice has only authority over the Office of the Prosecutor, not over

20     the Defence, and not at all over the Judges, so the Minister of Justice

21     can only prescribe it to the Prosecutor that evidence to be presented in

22     court by the Prosecutor should conform to the standards.

23        Q.   Are these rules universally known to criminal investigators?

24        A.   Yes, I would say so, that any criminal investigator should as a

25     professional know how line -ups are to be organised, and I would be very

Page 25184

 1     surprised if a professional criminal investigator had never used of

 2     those.  On the contrary, as a custom I would say an experienced criminal

 3     investigator has in his or her lifetime used these procedures more than

 4     once.

 5        Q.   Now, you mentioned that the rules can be found on the internet or

 6     the computer.  Are they easily accessible?

 7        A.   They are easily accessible.  You just -- you just -- if you

 8     Google PACE rules or anything like that, "US identification rules," you

 9     just find them.

10        Q.   Do you know from your experience in testifying at this Tribunal

11     and in other cases as well as this one, do you know if these rules that

12     we're going to discuss were known to the ICTY investigators from the

13     Office of the Prosecution?

14        A.   No.  In the context of this specific case, I've received not so

15     much information about the investigators and what they know and neither

16     of identification rules adopted by this Tribunal.  I know from previous

17     cases that there is at least a summary statement of the Tribunal about

18     how identifications are to be done.  These statements are rather short, I

19     would say, and not as extensive as one would want them to be because many

20     aspects that are usually adopted in such rules are missing here, and I've

21     commented on it before.

22             But in principle, I would hope that investigators delegated to

23     ICTY by various member states of the United Nations would be experienced

24     people who are aware of, say, the common practice in the world and could

25     apply them even without very specific directions from ICTY.

Page 25185

 1        Q.   Okay.  How about whether you know whether OTP investigators in

 2     previous cases used this line-up test or, as I call it, photo board.  You

 3     call it a photo line-up.  I am assuming it's interchangeable, but you

 4     correct me if I'm wrong.  Do you know if they've used this in prior

 5     cases?

 6        A.   Yes.  In the cases of Tadic, they were used, as we already

 7     discussed.  In the case in which I testified, the case of Prosecutor

 8     versus Kupreskic, it wasn't relevant because Kupreskic recorded seeing a

 9     person well known to him, his own neighbour.  In the case of Prosecutor

10     versus Limaj were extensive photo boards or photo line -ups used, and in

11     the case of Prosecutor versus Haradinaj in which I finally did not

12     testify because no witnesses were asked to testify at all by the Defence,

13     there were also photo boards.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment before you proceed.  Professor, is there

15     any difference in approach between -- to your knowledge between civil law

16     countries and common-law countries on these standards?

17             THE WITNESS:  No.  The standards are exactly the same because, in

18     principle, the foundation of those standards are within my discipline and

19     not -- actually are not derived from legal principles.  They are derived

20     from the methods for psychological testing, and they are completely

21     independent of, say, the type of law that is used within a particular

22     country.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  And one further question.  Is there any

24     either regional or global association whereby experts like you on this

25     subject meet and discuss regularly and update yourselves?

Page 25186

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, absolutely.  There is, for instance, in Europe

 2     the European Psychology and Law Association.  They had their last

 3     international meeting in -- last summer in Maastricht, and there were

 4     many reports on identification procedures, and I, also, myself reported

 5     on identification there.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  I take it you are a member of that association.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah.  Thank you.

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:

10        Q.   Mr. Wagenaar, with respect to this case, from the materials that

11     you reviewed were you able to determine whether a photo board was done in

12     connection with any of the accused?

13        A.   I'm only aware of a photo board that I've seen that was used in

14     relation to the accused Mr. Popovic, but I did not review extensively the

15     sections of the case file that relate to this particular accused, so I

16     can only report to you that I saw this line-up, but I have further no

17     opinions about the quality or the adequacy of that line-up.

18        Q.   And I'm not going to ask you about that.  But just so that we

19     have it for the record, and I'd like to go into private session.  I told

20     you, Professor, we may do that from time to time in order to protect the

21     identity of some of the individuals who have testified.

22             MR. OSTOJIC:  And with the Court's permission, I'd like to go

23     into private session for just it this one short --

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  By all means.  Let's go into private session

25     now, please.

Page 25187

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 25188

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are in open session, Mr. Ostojic.

10             MR. OSTOJIC:

11        Q.   Now, sir, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the OTP and

12     the Prosecutors there knew how to prepare at least a photo board, whether

13     proper or not, and I'm not asking you to pass -- give us or share with us

14     any opinion in connection with that photo board because you were not

15     retained to do that, but do you know if they -- by looking at some of

16     this and your knowledge in other cases, did they have the knowledge and

17     the know-how to prepare a photo board?

18             MR. ELDERKIN:  I'm going to object to the form of the question.

19     He can't answer what was in the knowledge and know-how.  I think he

20     rephrase that simply and make an analysis.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think, Mr. Ostojic, you can adapt yourself to

22     that.

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  Okay.  I'll do it again.

24        Q.   Mr. Wagenaar, do you know --

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Especially since you yourself told him that he was

Page 25189

 1     not retained to --

 2             MR. OSTOJIC:  Fair enough.

 3        Q.   Do you know, sir, whether or not the Prosecution had the capacity

 4     or the capability to prepare a photo identification board such as the one

 5     that we've seen in closed session, 2D571?

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, because if it exists and we have seen

 7     it, then obviously the Prosecution had the facility...

 8             MR. OSTOJIC:  I agree they did, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Then --

10             MR. OSTOJIC:  And from other cases as well.

11        Q.   Sir, let me ask you this:  Can you tell us, how long does it

12     typically take to create a photo board from initially capturing the

13     description or the characteristics that you shared with us that generally

14     go into such a photo board to ultimately producing a photo board?

15        A.   Well, it depends a little bit about -- see, the description that

16     the witness gave, the more specific the description is, obviously, the

17     more difficult it becomes to find suitable foils because they have to

18     meet, then, more and more of the criteria.  But usually, descriptions are

19     rather general, and then it should not be too difficult to find pictures

20     of people who fit such a general description.

21             For instance, I myself have prepared photo boards simply

22     employing pictures of other people that are obtainable from the public

23     domain, like from the internet, and it usually doesn't take more than a

24     couple of hours to prepare such a photo board.  So -- but it depends on

25     how specific the description it is.  If it's a description that involves,

Page 25190

 1     like, a very specific type of scar, then it may become difficult.  But

 2     generally, I would say that's not too difficult.

 3        Q.   And I'm being told that I didn't have you specify specifically

 4     the materials that you reviewed, and although I believe they are

 5     reflected on page 9 of your report, if you could be kind enough to share

 6     with us or confirm which testimonies you were given and which ones you've

 7     reviewed and are relying upon in your report.  And I caution you as I did

 8     privately, and that's why we updated or -- the report, just to mention

 9     their pseudonym number, and I think if necessary we'll provide everyone

10     with the exact name in closed session, or we'll proceed as the president

11     wishes.  But list out for us, which were the witness statements and/or

12     testimony that you reviewed?

13        A.   On page 9 of my report, there's a list of 12 witnesses whose

14     statements I reviewed.  I think there's no need to mention them all

15     because their names are clearly in the report, and in my version of the

16     report I also have added their -- the numbers on which they are known.

17     Now, you want me to specify for each of them individually?

18        Q.   I don't think so, but it was just a request, and I just wanted to

19     make sure that we can all follow.  Did you obtain any other statements or

20     testimonies from other witnesses other than these 12 that are reflected

21     in part 2, page 9, of your report?

22        A.   Well, apart from what is listed here, and I also have prepared

23     for myself a short summary statement in it here, in my folder for each

24     witness, where the relevant clauses and which page numbers they can be

25     found, just for my own reference, but that illuminates clearly, see,

Page 25191

 1     which pages I actually used from for my testimony.  Apart from that, I've

 2     seen the photo board you just referred to, which is obviously not among

 3     those statements relating to these 12 witnesses.

 4        Q.   Mr. Wagenaar, if I may, I apologise for interrupting.  All I want

 5     to know is, first, if --  and we'll get to the other documents that you

 6     reviewed.  Have you looked at other statements or testimony from

 7     witnesses for purposes of your evaluation, and we'll get into the other

 8     photographs and stipulations, but just with respect to statements and/or

 9     testimony?

10        A.   No, I have not reviewed statements by other witnesses apart from

11     these 12.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that.  What --

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Nicholls.

14             MR. NICHOLLS:  I'm sorry to interrupt.  I spoke with my friend

15     during the break, and he agreed to try to provide me with the notes that

16     Professor Wagenaar has also kindly agreed to make available and also to

17     look at which transcripts were provided and what was provided, but I

18     would also like -- asked to see these summaries because there are not

19     footnotes to specific pages or reference in the report, and that could be

20     helpful.  I'd like all that material that the witness used in the

21     preparation of this report.

22             MR. OSTOJIC:  We don't object at all.  The three binders are

23     here.  I offered to my learned friend that he can have them.  I said

24     later tonight, but tomorrow, I think, would be more than fair.  But if

25     he'd like he can have them tonight and copy them, or we could have it

Page 25192

 1     copied for him, the entire of the three binders, which contain, also,

 2     articles and other things that I don't know that we'll touch on

 3     specifically, but I have no objection to that at all.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is that satisfactory?

 5             MR. NICHOLLS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 7             MR. OSTOJIC:

 8        Q.   And I think we were discussing, Mr. Wagenaar, other documents

 9     that you may have reviewed in connection with your testimony.  Can you

10     just highlight some of those for us, and I know now that we're going to

11     go through your binder during the interim period of your testimony, and

12     we'll return the binders, but just so we have it on the record.  What

13     other types of materials did you review?

14        A.   Apart from these statements, I looked at some visual material.

15     The first one is the photo line-up we've just been discussing.  I've

16     looked at a very short video or maybe a DVD that obviously had also been

17     shown to one of the witnesses listed in my report as number 7 on page 9.

18        Q.   Just so there's no confusion, that's number 7 of your report, but

19     it's number 21 --

20        A.   Yeah.

21        Q.   -- Witness number 21.

22        A.   Right.

23        Q.   Just so that there's --

24        A.   Yeah.

25        Q.   Sorry.

Page 25193

 1             MR. NICHOLLS:  I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to interrupt.  My

 2     understanding is out of these 12, there are only 3 that have PW numbers,

 3     so for clarity and the record and everything, no objection to using

 4     names, or PW numbers might be easier too.  We can find the references in

 5     the transcript that way.

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  In our haste, we just weren't able to confirm as to

 7     whether which ones specifically were, so we decided just to assign their

 8     number, but we can in closed session, if the Court wishes now, just so

 9     that everyone's clear, since we're looking at this table go through each

10     one and identify them by name.  I think it may help the Prosecution.  We

11     don't have a problem with that

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             MR. NICHOLLS:  I'm pretty clear on each number.  I was talking

14     about the clarity on the record so we don't have to match up this witness

15     -- I don't need any help with this.  I've gotten them all written down.

16     I just think for the record it may be easier if we're using names and

17     witness PW numbers rather than witness numbers because then every time

18     it's mentioned somebody's -- we're going to have to go back to a table.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I agree -- we agree with you.  So...

20             MR. OSTOJIC:  Well, we'll clarify that by Monday and have a copy

21     for everyone, and we'll have it specifically tailored that way.

22             THE WITNESS:  May I say something about this, Your Honour?

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  It's Mr. President's Court, so --

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course.

25             THE WITNESS:  I hear there are 3 PW numbers.  I've got only one,

Page 25194

 1     so there is -- I must be informed about other PW numbers.  I only have PW

 2     number for the witness who is listed as number 12 in my table.  I don't

 3     have other PW numbers, so if we -- if you ask me to mention names, there

 4     might -- something might go wrong there.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yea, but that can be sorted out in due course.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, but I think I should warn you.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, yes.  Certainly.  Thank you.  In any case, if

 8     we need to go into private session for that particular moment, we can do

 9     that.

10             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.  If I may proceed.

11        Q.   Mr. Wagenaar, we were just discussing Witness Egbers which is

12     number 7 on your list of witnesses and number 21 as it's identified in

13     the report, you were starting to tell us that you also reviewed a video

14     or DVD or CD as you referenced it.  Can you enlighten us as to what was

15     provided to you in connection with this individual's testimony, if

16     anything?

17        A.   You're relating to the video now?

18        Q.   I am.  I just want to make sure we have it clear.  What type of

19     video were you given?  Do you remember the length of the video?

20        A.   Yeah, it was a very short video.  As I remember, it was less than

21     a minute of some sort of parade or so, and Mr. Egbers was shown this

22     video as to a question of whether he recognised anyone.

23        Q.   Yeah.  And we'll get into the specifics as to the questions and

24     the methodology utilized by the Prosecution in utilizing that video for

25     purposes of identification and recognition.  But for our purposes now,

Page 25195

 1     all I'm asking you is to set forth for us what other materials you

 2     reviewed in connection and in preparation for your testimony.

 3        A.   Yeah.  So I saw this video.  I saw a photograph, which was also

 4     shown to the Witness number 151, and I think that's about it.  I saw no

 5     other material as far as I remember.

 6        Q.   If I can direct your attention to your table number 2, which is

 7     Witness number 122, it shows here, says something about snapshots.  Can

 8     you enlighten us on that?

 9        A.   Yeah.  Yeah.  Yeah, the --

10        Q.   Thank you.  And also, were you shown any pictures at that time of

11     Mr. Beara, and if we can call up, please, 2D572.  And it's also attached

12     to a stipulation, and we don't need to bring up the front page of the

13     stipulation because it may identify the witness.  I can't recall, but

14     only the annex, and I think the professor will be able to assist us, and

15     it has the ERN number 04652890.

16        A.   Yeah.  That's the wrong picture.

17        Q.   When we scanned it, it didn't come out in colour, obviously, but

18     did you see a black-and-white version or a colour copy?

19        A.   I saw a colour copy of this picture.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers kindly observe the pause

21     between questions and answers.

22             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.  I did, and I apologise.

23        Q.   And again, so we're clear, did you review any other materials

24     other than those that you've informed us of and recently the pictures

25     that we provided you that are in e-court?

Page 25196

 1        A.   Yeah.  I think with respect to the Witness number 122, it was

 2     referred that he was shown a multitude of pictures and that the witness

 3     did not recognise the person he saw in these pictures, but...

 4        Q.   Well, we'll get into --

 5        A.   I'm not convinced that I myself saw a multitude of pictures.

 6        Q.   And we'll get into that, and we'll show you 2D597 later today or

 7     possibly next week.  What about the next witness that you see down there,

 8     which is on your category number 8?  We saw -- you mentioned the

 9     videotapes and the photos.  I just want to be clear whether or not with

10     respect to that individual you were shown more than one photo or more --

11     or which type of video was shown to you?

12        A.   Well, I must go back to -- I don't remember seeing any other

13     videos than the very short video that I already mentioned to you.

14        Q.   I'll come back to that when I show it to you.  What about a video

15     that you recently saw with me a day or two ago which I coined the

16     Zivanovic party?  Do you remember that video at all?

17        A.   Yes, I did.  But that was, of course, way after writing my

18     report.

19        Q.   Well, we want to know just what you reviewed even up until this

20     afternoon, and that's why I raise the issue.

21        A.   Yeah.  Okay.  Okay.

22        Q.   And then it goes on --

23             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry, Mr. Ostojic.  I didn't follow your

24     number.  Category number 8?  Where do you find this?

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  It's in his number 8, and it falls under Witness

Page 25197

 1     151.  As you may recall, Your Honourable Judge Kwon, that witness was

 2     shown a video that he thought that he saw on a television broadcast while

 3     he was in detention, and then he contacted the Office of the Prosecution.

 4     They were able to obtain a couple of those videos, and they showed to the

 5     witness.  That's --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  My question is where we can find that Category 8 --

 7     passage referring to Category 8?

 8             MR. OSTOJIC:  I was simply following part 2 of page 9 of the

 9     report, and on the left-hand side column it's -- it's numbered 1 through

10     12, and I start from the left just calling it this Category number 8,

11     which then references the identity of the witness, which is on page 9 of

12     his report.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Mine does not have the number, the recent

14     translation that.

15             MR. OSTOJIC:  And I can see the confusion.  I'm being informed

16     that it's -- should be 2D574, which is the report, and we'll take a look.

17     Perhaps the Court has an older version of the report by Professor

18     Wagenaar, but I think my learned friend has the table.  It's part 2 --

19             JUDGE KWON:  What I have is a revised report filed on 19th of

20     August.  I take it this may be the most recent one?

21             MR. OSTOJIC:  No, no.  Honourable Judge Kwon, the report that we

22     are referencing and that you should have is a report of the 14th of July,

23     2008.

24             My learned friend is saying one colleague has the problem but my

25     other colleague does not.  We'll look into that.

Page 25198

 1             JUDGE KWON:  We received the revised translation.

 2             MR. OSTOJIC:  I apologise for that.  We just assumed you did have

 3     it and --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  And one more minor question:  That Witness 151 is

 5     not a protected one?

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  No, he is a protected witness.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

 8             MR. NICHOLLS:  Two things.  The one I've got, which I understand

 9     was the most recent report has the number 2D42-0333 on the bottom.  Just

10     -- is that the most -- is that the one is that the one we should be

11     working off?  That's what I understood is the most recent version.

12     2D42-0333 is the number on the bottom right, which I'm told is the one in

13     e-court.

14             JUDGE KWON:  We can leave it.  Let's leave it there.

15             MR. NICHOLLS:  And this one has --

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             MR. NICHOLLS:  Your Honour, their number 151 is Erdemovic.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  He is not protected, that was my... and just

19     for the record --

20             MR. OSTOJIC:  I stand corrected, then.

21             JUDGE KWON:  And I found four PW numbers.

22             MR. NICHOLLS:  Your Honours, he was partial -- he had facial

23     distortion but ...

24             MR. OSTOJIC:  Okay.  We will look into the protective measures of

25     each, and we will provide that, and honourable Judge Kwon, I do see now

Page 25199

 1     in that part 2 that there is no column that I've written down identifying

 2     the 12, so therefore, you do not see number 8, and I'm using my draft

 3     with my notes on it, and I apologise to you for being presumptuous that

 4     you also had that number 9.  But I think if we just list them down,

 5     there's 12 of them that are listed, and it should be the 8th one as I

 6     mentioned.

 7             And if I may proceed.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, yes.  Please go ahead.

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:

10        Q.   Thank you.  Sir -- and I apologise that we've created some

11     confusion on our part with the exhibits, and we'll make sure to clarify

12     that so we can have a more smoother discussion next week with you.

13             Just -- we were discussing this number 151, Erdemovic, since we

14     now know he is not a protected witness, and you -- we were talking about

15     some photos, and I think you heard me in answering the Honourable Judge

16     Kwon's question.  Do you remember seeing other videos other than that

17     short snippet and the Zivanovic party which you recently saw?

18        A.   Apart from those two?

19        Q.   Mm-hm.

20        A.   Well, if I did, you must remind me to it.

21        Q.   We'll get to it.

22        A.   Yeah.

23        Q.   Any other materials that you've reviewed in connection with your

24     testimony and opinions that you formulated, if you can help us with that.

25     Have you reviewed anything else up until today?

Page 25200

 1        A.   No.  I think everything I reviewed is in those three binders, and

 2     I already described to you what it is.

 3        Q.   You mentioned generally the rules both with respect to

 4     recognition and identification.  Share with us if you have an opinion as

 5     to whether or not these rules are important, necessary, and relevant.

 6        A.   Yeah.  The rules as I described them are based on psychological

 7     testing methods that are designed to ensure valid outcomes, outcomes that

 8     can be relied upon.  So one argument for using those rules is that

 9     they're based on the logic of psychological testing, and a recognition

10     test is a psychological test.

11             Another area to look at is at evaluation studies, of outcomes of

12     investigations especially in cases where judicial error could be

13     demonstrated because of later DNA analyses, and by now, the literature

14     reviews over 200 of such cases.  And one important publication in that

15     area is by Gross and others in 2003.  It is so important because it has

16     the largest number of cases reviewed at any time, in 2004, I must say.

17     It's called Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003.

18        Q.   I can't help but notice - sorry - that you're referring to your

19     report.  Just -- if you don't mind direct us to where we can find that

20     same page.

21        A.   Yeah.  You can find that on page 8 in my copy of my report.  I

22     hope that the honourable judges have the same page numbering.

23        Q.   Just share with us the footnote, if you would.  That might

24     assist.

25        A.   Yeah.  It's in footnote number 10.  You see a reference to this

Page 25201

 1     particular publication.  Now, the bottom line of that research is that --

 2     and it's not the only publication, but you find it over and over again,

 3     that the majority of -- in the majority of cases, the evidence that first

 4     convinced the Court to convict these persons who were later exonerated,

 5     the evidence that convinced the Court was to a very large extent based on

 6     eyewitness identification, that after all appeared to be mistaken, not so

 7     much because witnesses are very bad identifiers or recognisers but

 8     because the wrong procedures had been used when they were tested.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And I know earlier in your testimony you reference that

10     there were 50 such rules which set forth the standard you've highlighted

11     for us in your Report 10.  Am I correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   I think we've covered one to a certain degree, but we will -- if

14     I can direct your attention to the first section which you talk about

15     identification and recognition, and in the short time that we have, I

16     just wanted to at least complete this one rule.  And in the first full

17     paragraph of that next page, which I have it as page 3, you talk about a

18     suggestive post-event information, with the reception of a suggestive

19     post-event information.  Can you tell me what that is?

20        A.   Post-event information is information the witness receives after

21     witnessing the event on which he will testify so that his memory to that

22     event is not only based on what he actually witnessed but partly also on

23     what other information he obtained later on.  The problem of that is that

24     this is not harmful if the witness can make a clear distinction between

25     what he actually witnessed and what he was informed about later on.  The

Page 25202

 1     problem, though, is that witnesses find that in many cases very difficult

 2     and will report some information they received later as information they

 3     actually witnessed themselves.

 4        Q.   Now, share with us, if you will, how is it or why you decided to

 5     select these ten rules as opposed to going through or highlighting all 50

 6     of them?

 7        A.   Selected these ten because, of course, they are the most

 8     important ones, but they are the most important ones because the other 50

 9     some -- the other 40 sometimes apply only in specific conditions, which

10     are not always present, and maintaining these ten is most important thing

11     to do.  I would say these ten is 95 percent of the job but especially

12     because if you violate one or more of these ten, that in fact should

13     undermine the reliance on such test already to such a degree that you do

14     not need to consider the other 40 ones.

15        Q.   Okay.  And just quickly just before we break, if you don't mind,

16     we in Section 2 -- sorry, on page 3 of your report you start to discuss

17     rules for multipurpose -- multiperson identification tests.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Rules for multiperson identification test, and these are where

20     these ten rules would be applicable to, correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   When you have -- and just explain what a multipurpose

23     identification test is, if you will.

24        A.   A multiperson identification test is what we have referred to as

25     a photo board where the witness actually is asked to look at the number

Page 25203

 1     of people of which one is the accused and the others are innocent foils,

 2     and the witness is asked to tell whether the person he described before

 3     is present in the photo board at all, and if so, to point out which

 4     picture or which person that is where the instruction clearly is there

 5     can either be one of such people or none.  You can point at only one, and

 6     you have to make a selection from the whole photo board.  The rationale

 7     of having a sufficient some of others, of foils there, is that you would

 8     like to reduce the likelihood that just by guessing you happen to point

 9     out the one person who is the accused, so therefore, you need a larger

10     number of foils there, usually we say at least five foils, preferably

11     something like ten foils or something.

12        Q.   And just before the break, do you remember if in the last couple

13     of days I shared with you an information report from the Prosecution

14     which involved the witness by the name of Theo Lutke but referenced one

15     of the witnesses whose testimony you reviewed, and that would be Captain

16     Egbers?

17        A.   Yes, I remember a discussion about this Sergeant Lutke who

18     apparently was associated with Captain Egbers.

19        Q.   And we didn't provide that to you earlier because -- just so you

20     understand.  We were just given that this week, so -- but I did share

21     that with you?  That was one of the materials that you reviewed up until

22     to this day?

23        A.   Yes.  Yes.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  I think that's all the time we have for today.

Page 25204

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.  Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

 2             MR. NICHOLLS:  Can we go into private session for one second?

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Do we need the professor here?

 4             MR. NICHOLLS:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

 6             MR. NICHOLLS:  One second.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session, please.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Professor, we'll leave it at that for today.  We'll

Page 25205

 1     see you again on Monday.  Thank you so much.  Also, thank you for your

 2     cooperation.  Thank you.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of

 5                           September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.