1 Tuesday, 4 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning. Madam Registrar, could you call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am. For the record, all the accused
11 are present. Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. Absent
12 amongst the Defence teams, I notice Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Krgovic,
13 Mr. Lazarevic, and Mr. Haynes.
14 All right. Good morning to you, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. I hope you've had a good rest.
17 Mr. Vanderpuye will finish his cross-examination. Then we will see if
18 there is a re-examination, which I think there will be, and we can call
19 it a day as far as you are concerned.
20 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning to my colleagues.
25 WITNESS: JOVO MARKOVIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpretation]
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
3 Q. And good morning you to, Mr. Markovic. I wanted to pick up a
4 little bit from where we left off on Friday. I had shown you a videotape
5 that had been slowed down, and I understand that that was actually shown
6 to you in a smaller resolution than could have been shown, and so I would
7 like show you it again in order to assist you in identifying the object
8 depicted on the bottom right-hand side of the screen.
9 Again, this is a video clip wherein the action that you see on
10 the tape immediately precedes a conversation wherein Mr. Borovcanin says:
11 "Oficir, or" and there is a response and he directs that person to stop
12 traffic. So I want to focus your attention on that, and if I could play
13 the once again.
14 [Videotape played]
15 MR. VANDERPUYE:
16 Q. If I could just focus you on the right-hand bottom corner of the
17 screen. Are you able to recognise that object as a microphone commonly
18 attached to a mobile radio?
19 [Videotape played]
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. Are you able to make that recognition, sir?
22 A. All I can make out on this video, which has a very bad
23 resolution, I must repeat, is the radio device behind the wind screen of
24 the automobile; and the object in the lower right corner, I really can't
25 recognise because the resolution is very poor. And I really cannot see
1 any difference as compared to last time I saw it.
2 Q. All right. Thank you for that.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I show you 65 ter 3892, please. I'm
4 sorry, do we -- is it not in -- 3892. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.
5 And if we could go to page 2 of this document. All right. If we
6 are able to below up the picture a little bit, that would be helpful.
7 Just for the record, this is a photograph of Mr. Borovcanin taken from an
8 article from Nin magazine, and it's dated 11 April 2002.
9 Q. Now, from this photograph, sir, and if you want we can zoom in a
10 little bit, can you make out what radio that is Mr. Borovcanin is holding
11 in his hand, his right hand?
12 A. The person in the photograph is holding a handheld radio station
13 based on the outlines of the antenna, although this is a black and white
14 photograph with a poor resolution. So based on the outlines of the
15 antenna, I suppose that this is a device operating at a wavelength of 0.7
16 metres, or to put it simply, that operates on the frequency between 460
17 and 500 megahertz. But it could also be a device operating on the
18 wavelength of 2 metres. It is difficult to tell based on the outlines of
19 the antenna.
20 Q. All right. So you're not able to determine based just upon the
21 antenna what device this is, whether it's 0.7 metres or 2 metres device.
22 Is that right?
23 A. I have already said before that based on the outlines of the
24 antenna, I suppose that this is a device operating on the wavelength of
25 0.7 metres.
1 Q. And you've not seen this particular photograph before, have you?
2 A. No, this is the first time I see it.
3 Q. And that same goes for the photographs I showed you on Friday
4 wherein Mr. Borovcanin had two radios on him -- or you were able to
5 determine at least two antennas, those photographs?
6 A. Yes, I have said as much last time.
7 Q. All right.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could show 65 ter 3889, please. Just for
9 the record, on the previous exhibit, that photograph, it is the
10 Prosecution's position it depicts Mr. Borovcanin at Potocari, and if we
11 get it up a little bit just after this, I can show you that it also
12 depicts Vujadin Popovic in the photograph, and I just want to make the
13 record clear with respect to that.
14 Q. Now, this particular device, I hope, is a better photograph of
15 the GM300, which is what I showed you on Friday. Do you recognise it as
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, but we didn't see this, the Popovic on the
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am going to put it back up on the screen. I
21 just want to finish this question, and then I'll put it back up.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. Do you recognise this particular device as the GM300?
25 A. That's not the GP 300. This is the GM300, and this looks like a
1 compact unit, but I must explain that it is composed of two parts. The
2 upper part is the radio device, and the lower part is the speaker, which
3 comes with the radio device. There is a third component, and that is the
4 microphone combination with a spiral cable, which is compatible with the
5 GP 300 and the GM300.
6 Q. And those particular microphones are typically used with these
7 types of devices; is that right?
8 A. Yes, they come with this type of device. This is the basic
9 combination for this device, but this microphone combination is
10 compatible with the GM300 and the GP 300. It can be used with the
11 handheld radio device as well as with this device shown here, which can
12 be mounted into vehicles.
13 Q. All right. Thank you for that.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Now, for my friend, if I could have 3892 back in
15 e-court. If we could just blow that up a little bit, maybe a little bit
16 bigger. If you look just behind Mr. Borovcanin's right hand, slightly to
17 the left, there's a gentleman there you can see with a dark hair and a
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is it identification by the counsel or by the
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, it's simply -- it's simply -- it's simply
24 our position.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a submission you are making.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. And the reason why I want to be
2 clear is so that my colleague has a chance to obviously see it fully. It
3 is not a definitive identification.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course not. Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
5 MR. GOSNELL: Perhaps we can be told what this question has to do
6 with this witness's expertise.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. We still have to hear the question
8 properly, actually.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: The issue was only raised to accommodate my
10 friend. The question was --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- in relation to the radio.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Provided you don't tell the witness who that person
14 according to you is, we can safely proceed with the question.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Let me show you another document, sir. I'd asked you some
17 questions concerning the responsibility of a communications unit to set
18 up communications with respect to combat operations. Let me show you 65
19 ter 3893.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't believe we have a translation in
21 e-court, but I have one that we can put up on the ELMO, which I think
22 will assist the parties. I don't know if we can show the translation on
23 the ELMO. Can we do that? Okay, great. Thank you.
24 Q. As you can see, this is a document that is directed to the
25 command of the special police brigade. It is dated 11 July 1995. And
1 what it purports to do is to provide that command with a copy of a coded
2 map that is entitled "Grmec," a code book which is entitled "Krivaja 95,"
3 and a work plan for Krivaja 95 together with the identification signals,
4 etc., signed by Nedo Jovicic. If you look at the second page of this
5 document, you can see the call signs that are attributed to various
6 units. In addition to that, you can see a call signs attributed to the
7 MUP, together with frequencies, frequency table, and a signals table, you
8 can see at the lower part of the page.
9 Now, you're familiar with these types of documents, are you not?
10 A. I first have to say that the first document I saw - not this one,
11 the previous one - is a handwritten document as far as I know, although
12 at the time I wasn't there. But based on my experience, no officer would
13 have drafted such a document, especially in this type of handwriting. We
14 can see from the heading that it's a Drina Corps, and it's obviously the
15 command of the corps. I don't believe that any officer would agree to
16 send out a document of that type, but it wasn't there at the time. I
17 must repeat, therefore, I don't know what the practice was. And about
18 this document, I must say that this wasn't made by a telecommunications
19 officer if it is such a document as you say it is. I can see call signs
20 here and unclear frequencies.
21 Q. When you say "unclear frequencies," what do you mean by that?
22 A. Well, to be specific, in the fourth column, the first frequency
23 is 250. Is it -- 250 watt, or possibly it's 1250, or possibly this one
24 is the item number. And I would have to know what this 250 refers to,
25 kilohertz or megahertz, and I cannot recognise any device. From the
1 moment I joined the VRS, I haven't met a device operating on this
2 frequency of 250 megahertz. And in the next column, it says 352. This
3 is, again, a frequency and not a channel because the heading reads
4 "frequency," and I don't know that frequency. And then this is followed
5 by a grid of numbers and letters. This is probably for encoding, but
6 this certainly was not made by a telecommunications officer. But I must
7 add that I wasn't present at the time; therefore, I don't know what the
8 practice was then.
9 Q. Well, what about frequency 171? Do you recognise that frequency?
10 Item number 9, where it says MUP, OBLAK, 9.171. Do you recognise that
12 A. I can only say what I see at the moment. I see 9.171. Whether
13 this figure 9 is part of the frequency or the item number, I don't know.
14 And if it's just 171, there is no unit of measure. It could be kilohertz
15 or megahertz. That's an open question. The heading reads only "Freq."
16 And then in this particular field, it has a 9.71, and to the right it's
17 20.403, but this is not a common plan of work of the type I know. This
18 may be an innovation, but I don't know the practice at the time. And
19 again, there is no unit of measure, megahertz or kilohertz.
20 Q. All right. So you don't recognise that 1 through 22 actually
21 constitute the number of frequencies you can see in that plan, right?
22 You don't see that 1 down through 11 is numbered is sequence, and 12 down
23 through 22 is numbered in sequence? You don't recognise that in your
24 experience and expertise as a communications officer?
25 A. I don't want to make conjectures, and this is not a standard kind
1 of work as it was used in the JNA and later in the VRS. But I repeat, I
2 wasn't present at that time, so I don't know what kind of plans of work
3 they used. The standard type is a printed template, which is then filled
4 in, and if you make one by hand, then it will have -- well, it will have
5 to be of the same dimensions and of the same shape. This is not a
6 standard layout. And these are the frequencies. For the frequencies, no
7 unit of measure is given, so I don't want to guess what this is.
8 Q. Thank you for that. For the record, it is the Prosecution's
9 position that the preceding document, which is page 1 of this document,
10 was prepared by Nedo Jovicic who the Prosecution believes was
11 Mr. Borovcanin's driver on the 13th of July, 1995.
12 Just page back --
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: Is the document in your possession an original one
16 or a copy of one?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will determine whether or not we have the
18 original. I believe we do.
19 JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether the stamp, Drina Corps command
20 stamp, which appears on page 2, the -- is stamped on your -- at page 2,
21 not on page 1. And the --
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe it is stamped only on page 2. That's
23 correct. And this was part -- and it's a series -- it's within a range
24 of documents that also bear similar stamps.
25 JUDGE KWON: So if you could check it later on and tell me
1 whether you have an original or not.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I most certainly will, Your Honour. If I could
3 just have a look at page 1, the translation for a moment.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, before you do so. Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am very sorry to
6 interrupt, but I am not quite sure I understood the position of the
7 Prosecution. Is the position of the Prosecution that this document comes
8 from the command of the Drina Corps, has been drafted by a member of the
9 special police?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could just look --
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Is that the position?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could just look at the translation, I'll be
13 happy to answer the question. I don't have a copy in front of me. I do
14 now. I can see that it's received by Nedo Jovicic, and that's our
15 position, is as depicted in the document itself.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is clear that it's been received
17 by that person, what the Prosecutor has just said. He said it was a
18 document prepared by that person, and that's why I was not understanding
19 what he -- was being said --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, if you -- thank you, Madam Fauveau. If you
21 look at page 9, lines 6 and -- 5 to 7, it says precisely what Ms. Fauveau
22 has just stated; namely, that you are put on record as saying that it's
23 your position that the preceding document, which is page 1 of this
24 document, is prepared by Nedo Jovicic who the Prosecution believes was
25 Mr. Borovcanin's driver on the 13th of July, 1995.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. I said that. But I said it
2 looking at an untranslated version of the document. It was a
3 misstatement that I wish to clarify, which is why I asked to see the
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think it's clear enough now, no?
6 Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, my understanding is that the purpose
8 of stating a position is to state it for the witness so the witness can
9 then respond in some intelligible way to a position that relates to the
10 witness's knowledge. That's not what actually's going on now. Now
11 what's going on is a series of submissions about the nature of a
12 document. I would also have many submissions on that, but I don't think
13 it's appropriate to do it, nor do I think it's appropriate for my learned
14 friends to be doing so, either.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You're partly right, but it's also a statement made
16 for your information, as well, so -- because you still have a chance of a
17 redirect. So at that point in time, I don't criticize Mr. -- let's
18 proceed, anyway.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks, Mr. President.
20 Q. With respect to this document that was received by Nedo Jovicic
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: And it is the Prosecution's position that he was
23 Mr. Borovcanin's driver on 13 July, 1995
24 Q. In your experience as a communications officer, it is indeed
25 likely, is it not, that Mr. Borovcanin was provided with precisely the
1 information that's contained in this document?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
3 MR. GOSNELL: I think that crosses the line. I think we're now
4 into speculation and outside of the witness's expertise.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Your comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think this witness is fully familiar with the
7 procedures with respect to relaying a communications plan to a commander
8 in respect of the deployment of a combat operations --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Stop, stop, stop, because it's now that you
10 are overstepping, perhaps.
11 Witness, I will repeat to you the question: "In your experience
12 as a communications officer, isn't it likely, isn't it, that
13 Mr. Borovcanin was provided with precisely the information that's
14 contained in this document?" If based on your experience you are in a
15 position to give an answer and an answer based either on certainty or on
16 a basis of probability, balance of probability, then yes, please go
17 ahead. If it was a question you need to speculate, you don't know, then
18 please don't answer the question at all.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this particular case, may I just
20 see the Serbian version of the document, please, because I'm just looking
21 at the English translation now.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 JUDGE KWON: He's looking at ELMO.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It's okay.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of what I can see, all
1 I can do is comment and say that if this is indeed a document, then there
2 are several things lacking here. First of all, the degree of secrecy and
3 confidently particularly when it comes to documents sent out from the
4 corps, you have state secrets, strictly confidential, confidential, and
5 so on. And that's something that I don't see on this document,
6 especially if it's a document that's strictly confidential.
7 Now, the second point here is this: All it says, from the corps
8 command, but it doesn't say who handed the document over, which, for a
9 strictly confidential document of this kind, is compulsory. Now, whether
10 it could have reached the command or not, I really can't say. However, I
11 would never send the commander a document like this.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to know whether the witness is talking of
13 the first page or of the second page; in other words, what we see on
14 e-court now or whether it's the other document with the stamp, in other
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Did you understand Mr. President's question, sir? If you could
18 answer it.
19 A. This is just a handwritten document. That's the one I'm looking
21 JUDGE AGIUS: And that's the one you are referring to?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and I've already said what I
23 think about it. That is to say, I don't know whether this could have
24 been sent out or not. I can't say with any certainty. So I just
25 repeated what I saw, my visual observations. If this is the document
1 that was indeed sent out, then I told you what the floors were, what was
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Markovic. If I could take
6 you just briefly to a different area. I showed you a photograph on
7 Friday with respect to a vehicle, that it's the Prosecution's position
8 Mr. Borovcanin was riding in on 13 July 1995, up and down the Konjevic
9 Polje-Bratunac road. What I would like to do is follow that up and show
10 you another photograph of the same antenna.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I believe that is 65 ter 3859. If I -- on
12 the left-hand side of the screen, maybe we could make that a little bit
13 bigger. All right.
14 Q. Sir, are you able to identify this type of antenna?
15 A. On the basis of the contours, the outlines, and as I say the
16 resolution is a bad one on this photograph, all I can say is that this is
17 a magnetic antenna which is placed on vehicles; that is to say, one
18 that's used for this type of device, the 0.7- and 2-metre frequency type
19 or wavelength type.
20 Q. That type of antenna isn't normally or -- hooked up to a portable
21 radio device, is it?
22 A. Once again, I can't see it very well, and I can't see the
23 dimensions of the antenna from a 2-dimensional picture, but every
24 frequency range in both wavelengths had different lengths of antenna; and
25 here, you can't see the length of the antenna at all. But this type of
1 antenna can go with a radio device, but usually there are standard ones
2 which are fixed to the vehicle with the frequency range for that
3 particular device.
4 Q. All right. But this particular antenna that you see here is not
5 a type of antenna that's hooked up to a Motorola GP 300 or a Motorola
6 0 -- or OP 030, right? It's hooked up to different type of radio device?
7 A. Yes, that's right. It's not placed on the GP 300 or OP 030. It
8 is hooked up to a radio device which is built into a vehicle or the call
10 Q. All right. Let me show you 65 ter 3891. This is a page from the
11 Motorola GM300 service manual. All right. What I want to show you is --
12 well, as you can see for yourself, it says accessories, and I apologise.
13 I don't have a B/C/S translation of this document. But specifically what
14 I'm referring to are the types of antennas that are listed here for this
15 particular device, and you can see VHF antennas from 146 to 150.8
16 megahertz. It says quarter-wave roof mount, and the same for another
17 antenna from 158 to 162 megahertz, and so on and so forth.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
19 MR. GOSNELL: I'm sorry to interrupt, but this may be helpful.
20 Apparently, the translation to the witness of line 2 of page 15 actually
21 gave GP 300. Of course, that's -- that's not what counsel said.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But we could see the model number on the
23 screen in any case. So --
24 MR. GOSNELL: Well, it's just that it's not on the actual
25 document shown to the witness, so I thought --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. But we're talking of GM300.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you repeat your question, please.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. What this document depicts are the specifications -- well, no,
6 I'm sorry. They depict the accessories for the GM300. That's the mobile
7 radio, and you can see various antennas that can be used with this
8 device. Among them are several roof mount antennas.
9 Now, the photograph a that I just showed you, that would be
10 consistent with a roof mount antenna such as the ones described in this
11 particular document; is that right?
12 A. On the basis of what you've just shown me, the accessories for
13 the GM300, these are models of the various antennae and the type of
14 antennas, depending on the manufacture and the different names given.
15 And on the right we have the technical data, which I am able to comment
17 So the first one here is 146 to 150.8 megahertz, and it's
18 characteristic is 1/4, if that's what it says. I think so. It's the
19 wave roof mount, mounted on the roof. So the 1/4 is a wavelength over 4,
20 and it is the exact wavelength, and the wavelength is calculated on the
21 basis of the frequency spectrum or the operator being posed. In this
22 case, it is 146 to 150.8 megahertz. And so on the basis of that, once
23 you obtain the wavelength/4, you have the length of the antenna for that
25 The first from the -- the fourth from the top, where it says 146
1 to 172 megahertz, for example, you have three decibels, which means that
2 the length -- it's not the length of the antenna that is calculated
3 there. It's just the amplification of the antenna with -- at the
4 receptor --
5 Q. All right. Well, what I want to know is --
6 A. -- or the gain roof mount. So we have different frequency ranges
7 and different possibilities.
8 Q. All right. Well, you can see from this document that there is an
9 antenna roof mount available for every frequency to which the GM300 can
10 transmit and receive. What I want to know from you is, based upon your
11 knowledge and experience with these types of things, in particular with
12 antennas and radio communications type devices, whether or not you have
13 -- you can tell us whether or not these types of antennas are consistent
14 with the appearance -- appearance-wise with the ones that you -- the one
15 you just saw in the photograph?
16 A. What I can tell you in answer to your question is this: First of
17 all, the document that we see here are types of antennas for those
18 particular ranges, and from the technical point of view, I can say that
19 the one I saw, the outlines I saw, I can say it is a magnetic antenna
20 which is mounted on the roof of a vehicle, and I can also tell you that
21 it is used in one of these frequency ranges. On the basis of the
22 2-dimensional picture, we can't see the length of the antenna itself; and
23 therefore, I cannot confirm which frequency range this specific antenna
24 that I saw on the photograph is used for.
25 Q. All right. You know that the GM300 does transmit and receive
1 within the frequency range of 146 to 172 megahertz. We went over that on
2 Friday, and according to this work plan in the document I showed you
3 before that was received by Nedo Jovicic, that the MUP was assigned a
4 frequency of 171. That would fall within that frequency band, wouldn't
6 A. All I can tell you, if it is indeed 171 megahertz as you claim,
7 is that it would come within that frequency band. However, on the basis
8 of the document I was shown, I have to repeat that I cannot recognise
9 this because it's the not the standard type of document that was used.
10 And at the time I wasn't there. I wasn't present, so I don't know what
11 they used. But 171 megahertz does fall within the 2-metres wavelength or
12 146 to 170 megahertz or 174, actually, megahertz.
13 Q. All right. Thank you for that. Now, in your report you made
14 certain assessments as to the quality -- I'm sorry, as to the quality of
15 the communications that could be achieved between the points that you've
16 indicated. And what you described was the quality between Sandici and
17 Kravica warehouse of 5 over 5, or 5 by 5; and then you described the
18 quality of the sound between Sandici and Hrncici as 2/1. Now, with
19 respect to those particular descriptions, those are essentially
20 subjective measures of sound quality, aren't they?
21 A. Well, yes. That is correct. They are subjective measures of
22 sound quality, and they have to be subjective because I used the device
23 on that occasion, so it's what I heard and necessarily subjective. If
24 it's subjective, then it doesn't hold water.
25 Q. There are ways, of course, of measuring the sound quality through
1 instrumentation or objective means, aren't there?
2 A. Of course. Of course, there are. You can measure sound quality
3 through instrumentation and objective means. But on the basis of the
4 procedure we used in the armed forces, it was the subjective type that
5 was used, a subjective assessment, because the operator using the radio
6 device is the person who received and sent out information. So he is the
7 person who assessed the quality of the communication.
8 Q. All right. So with respect to this particular analysis that you
9 did, you didn't use anything like an S metre or a power metre or
10 signalling tester or any of those kinds of technical devices, transmitter
11 testers, et cetera, right?
12 A. That is right. But let me just mention that during the testing I
13 conducted, I had very limited resources and equipment because all these
14 devices that you mentioned would require much more time, far more money,
15 for the purchase of such equipment or for renting it out, and these are
16 resources which I simply did not have.
17 Q. Well, one resource you did have was your partner's field notes,
18 which you indicated on Friday that you hadn't completely reviewed in
19 respect of preparing this report, right?
20 A. Let me repeat what I said --
21 Q. I just want you to answer the question, if I may.
22 A. Well, of course, I've already answered that question. That's why
23 I said I'll repeat it. We compiled the report together, and of course,
24 he used his field notes to compile that report, and that's how the report
25 was written.
1 Q. But you didn't review his field notes, right?
2 A. No, not 100 per cent. Just the portion that was -- that I was
3 interested in, the geographic location where the communication testing
4 was performed.
5 Q. You could have, for example, requested or obtained the
6 specifications of the devices that you tested. You didn't do that, did
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Gosnell.
9 MR. GOSNELL: This exact question was asked on Friday.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you remember yourself asking the question,
11 Mr. Vanderpuye?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't remember exactly asking the question. I
13 do remember that the witness said he hadn't relied on it.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's move.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: But that's a different question of whether or
16 not he tried to obtain it.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's move ahead.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now, with respect to your specific assignment in performing the
20 tests - and correct me if I'm wrong - did you get any specific
21 instructions from the Defence as to which specific locations to test
23 A. Well, based on my conversation with the Defence and the
24 assignment given me - not by them, I mean, but my superiors in the
25 Ministry of the Interior - I was told point 1 and point 2. I knew where
1 that was, but not the exact geographic coordinates; but roughly speaking,
2 I and my colleague in the communications department set these coordinates
3 in that location, Sandici "livida," and the Kravica warehouse in this
4 particular case. And in both those cases, they were along the road
5 several metres away, one way or another, but there are -- with the GPS,
6 we had exact location points.
7 Q. And how did you come to measure your locations at Nova Kasaba, at
8 Konjevic Polje and at Hrncici in particular if you weren't instructed to
9 do that?
10 A. I went along the road, along the communication line from Kravica
11 towards Zvornik, moving towards Zvornik; and then I chose some of those
12 locations randomly and performed the testing.
13 Q. So all of the locations besides Kravica and Sandici, you arrived
14 at in your report for testing purposes completely randomly; is that
16 A. Yes. Hrncici too. We didn't know that location, but with our
17 tests and checking out the radio communication, we were able to establish
18 where the lines had been interrupted, and the others were at random, the
19 other two. We tested radio communication along the road from a vehicle,
20 which was not possible, and then at one point I decided to stop the
21 vehicle and test the communication there outside the vehicle, and it was
22 a main road. So we tested it there outside the vehicle, and
23 communication there was not possible. So those are the GPS points that
24 were taken.
25 Q. Is there any particular reason why you didn't test for any
1 communication possibilities from Kravica in the direction of Bratunac
3 A. No, no particular reason. We just tested that portion.
4 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Markovic.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, for your indulgence.
6 I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Gosnell, redirect
8 if you still wish to have one. Incidentally, today's sitting will be as
9 follows. We'll have a first session until 10.30; then a second session
10 from 11 to 12.30; then we are going to stop until 3.00; and then we start
11 at 3.00 and finish at 4.30.
12 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll do my best to be
13 done by 10.30, but I'm not sure.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I wanted to make sure it wasn't taken as a
15 suggestion to take up until 4.30.
16 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll do my best to avoid
17 that result, certainly.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Gosnell:
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Markovic. You were asked a series of questions
20 about Annex 1 of your report, which is a representation of the terrain
21 between Sandici and Kravica warehouse and beyond. Now, first of all I
22 would like to ask you, does the accuracy or inaccuracy of this graph have
23 any bearing on the field test that you conducted between Kravica
24 warehouse and Sandici meadow?
25 A. Well, it does, yes. The soil profile does correspond, but there
1 was optical visibility. And as you can see on the soil profile in Annex
2 1, that would be it. And, of course, we have here the altitudes, but I'd
3 also like to say that the soil profile was a little longer -- a longer
4 soil profile was taken because the profile allows for a soil profile of
5 over 2 kilometres. And in this case, it is 1.2 kilometres where optical
6 visibility does exist.
7 Q. I understand there may have been a portion of your answer that
8 was not translated, so let me ask the question in a slightly different
9 way. Did you rely on this graph in conducting your field test?
10 A. We worked exclusively with physical testing in the field, from
11 point 1 to point 2.
12 Q. So does that -- does that mean that you're telling us and the
13 Court that you did not rely on this graph in conducting that field test?
14 A. No. We relied directly on the physical testing and radio
15 communication between those two points. This is just to show -- the
16 graph is just to show that there was visibility, optical visibility
17 between the two points.
18 Q. All right. And did that fact, the fact that you were not relying
19 on this graph and that you were conducting a field test, did that have an
20 impact on how much time, money, resources that you spent in preparing
21 this particular annex?
22 A. I have to say that our resources were quite limited. We received
23 no funds for the testing. We relied exclusively on the physical testing
24 of the radio communication.
25 MR. GOSNELL: Can we call up 4D607, please, page 7.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I just wanted to notify the Court
3 and my colleagues that we do have the originals of the document that was
4 received by Nedo Jovicic in Court for inspection if anybody wants to see
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 MR. GOSNELL:
8 Q. Now, sir, you've testified that the horizontal -- in concerning
9 the horizontal axis of this graph, that the left-hand point is Sandici;
10 is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Now, can you just point out or explain for us where Kravica
13 warehouse is on the horizontal axis of this graph?
14 A. I can't be precise, but in the text it says 1.2 kilometres, and I
15 will try to mark that distance on the graph. It would be approximately
16 around here.
17 Q. All right. And does that accurately reflect the altitude of
18 Kravica warehouse?
19 I'm sorry. There's a translation error. I understood that the
20 word "altitude" was translated as "distance," so perhaps I could just
21 repeat the question.
22 Does this line graph accurately indicate the altitude of Kravica
24 A. Based on this, we can see the altitude; however, it is very
25 difficult to measure it based on this. In any case, the altitude would
1 be around here. This was also shown by our GPS measurements. The
2 distance in terms of altitude between Kravica and Sandici existed --
3 THE INTERPRETER: The difference, interpreter's correction.
4 MR. GOSNELL:
5 Q. Thank you. Sir, could you please mark the red dot in the middle
6 of the graph with a 1.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. And sir, you've described that that represents the location in
9 respect of the horizontal graph -- or the horizontal axis, the location
10 of Kravica warehouse; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is 1.2 kilometres. However, as I've said, I cannot be
12 precise using this pen.
13 Q. Would you please sign this document and put today's date.
14 A. [Marks]
15 MR. GOSNELL: And could this be saved, please.
16 All right. We are done with this page. Can we now move to page
17 15 of, again, the same document, 4D607.
18 Q. Now, sir, you've testified that a field test is more accurate
19 than a HerTZ Mapper projection, and you've also testified that you based
20 your results in your report on your field tests and not on the HerTZ
21 Mapper projection. What I'd like you to explain to the Court, if you
22 can, is, in general terms, if a researcher is going to conduct a field
23 test, why would they bother with a HerTZ Mapper projection?
24 A. It is correct we relied exclusively on the physical measurements
25 of communication between the points. As I said, we wanted to put it in
1 graphic terms in order to explain what it looks like in the field. In
2 the crime police administration, in the department I work for, this tool
3 is used so that we would be able to know what there is in the field, more
4 or less.
5 Q. When you say "to know what there is in the field," what do you
6 mean by that in general terms?
7 A. In general terms, we merely look at what we can expect to find in
8 the field. We try to assess where we will have good communication and
9 where the points are where that needs to be checked. However, we can
10 never fully rely on this software to indicate that. We always have to
11 check irrespective of the colour indicated on the mapper.
12 Q. Now, sir, the Prosecutor asked you during his cross-examination
13 why you didn't repeat your field tests on subsequent days. Do you
14 remember those series of questions?
15 A. Yes, I do remember.
16 Q. Now, I just want to ask you a few questions about that. You
17 testified that the conditions on the day of your test were between 8 and
18 9 out of 10 on a scale of ideal atmospheric conditions. Did that play a
19 role in any way in deciding whether or not subsequent tests on subsequent
20 days were necessary in order to validate your results?
21 A. I have to state again that we were limited by the weather
22 conditions. Given the fact that the conditions were between 8 and 9 on
23 that day, it means that the weather conditions could only have been worse
24 than that, making radio communication at that point more difficult. In
25 any case, in order to check that, we have to test in different weather
1 conditions in the field. We were limited in terms of time, and given
2 that we were working under good conditions, although they were not ideal,
3 we did not find it necessary to double-check that the next day. And I
4 also have to say that the weather conditions did not change the
5 subsequent -- the next day, so nothing would have changed due do that.
6 Q. All right.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Can we zoom in on the document that's on the screen
8 right now a little bit. All right. That's great. Thank you.
9 Q. Now, you describe during your testimony that you established
10 contact with your test partner at Sandici meadow as you drove towards
11 Konjevic Polje every 20 or 30 seconds. Do you remember saying that?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Now, based on your best recollection, how many times would you
14 say that you established contact with your partner as you drove towards
15 Hrncici when you lost contact?
16 A. I can't say precisely. I think between 10 and 15 times,
17 approximately every 20 to 30 seconds. Those were the intervals at which
18 we checked radio communication. All I can say that we check
19 communication frequently before arriving at the point in Hrncici.
20 Q. And was there any pattern that you were observing as you were
21 checking these 10 to 15 times? Was there an observable pattern in terms
22 of the quality of your contact with your test partner?
23 A. No, there was no pattern. It was not a linear pattern.
24 Q. Well, let me put it a different way. Were you finding that you
25 were gradually losing --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye. One moment.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's a leading question, Mr. President.
3 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, I was planning on putting it in a
4 non-leading fashion.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear it in its entirety, and then we decide.
6 MR. GOSNELL:
7 Q. Did you find, if the course of these 10 to 15 occasions, that you
8 were gradually -- that the quality was gradually decreasing, or rather,
9 did you find that when you reached Hrncici there was a sudden drop-off
10 from full quality contact to no contact?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's still leading. If my colleague wants to
13 know, he can simply ask the witness what he observed.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so. I mean, you did add something to it,
15 but it -- you only made it worse, I think. So you could ask him what he
16 found, I mean, but I know it will not get you anywhere.
17 MR. GOSNELL: Well, perhaps I can put it this way.
18 Q. When you did lose contact at Hrncici, was it a surprise to you
19 based upon your previous 10 to 15 contacts with your colleague?
20 A. Yes. Communication ceased all of a sudden at a certain point in
21 the course of those 20- to 30-second intervals. All of a sudden, there
22 was simply no communication.
23 Q. Well, did you observe any degradation between the first point of
24 contact, the first time that you contacted your colleague, and let's say
25 the penultimate time that you contacted your colleague before Hrncici?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's the same objection. It is still leading.
3 My colleague can simply ask the witness what he observed in relation to
4 his testing between those two points. I don't know why he won't do that.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Gosnell?
7 MR. GOSNELL: Well, I think any degradation is wide open. The
8 witness can answer any way that he wants. It doesn't lead him to an
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. We are not
11 underestimating your objection, but we think it's on the margin here. So
12 please proceed with your answer.
13 MR. GOSNELL:
14 Q. Do you understand the question?
15 A. Yes, I understand it fully. All I can say is that there were
16 changes; but as I said, there was no linear or clear pattern because of
17 the lie of land. At a certain point when we were checking communication,
18 we arrived at the conclusion that at that point there was no
19 communication. It was interrupted at a certain point. Then we turned
20 back, and we used shorter intervals to check radio communication, and at
21 a certain point we managed to re-establish communication again. Then we
22 turned the vehicle again and lost communication again. We stopped at
23 that point, and then I tried to establish communication outside of the
24 vehicle on the other side of the road, and this is where I established
25 that the radio communication was 2/1.
1 Q. So do I understand from what you're saying that you turned around
2 in order to try to test or make contact with your colleague again in
3 order to specifically and precisely determine the exact spot where you
4 would lose contact with him?
5 A. Yes. We did that twice in order to pinpoint the location at
6 which there is no radio communication.
7 Q. All right. And once you stepped out of the vehicle, as you've
8 testified, in order to test in the open air whether you could contact
9 your colleague, how long would you say you stood outside of the car
10 trying to make that contact?
11 A. I can tell you that I spent up to five minutes outside of the
12 vehicle, maybe a few more minutes than that because I was also taking GPS
13 coordinates and noting them down. In the course of that period, we tried
14 to check radio communication on several occasions in order to establish
15 what the audibility was. Moving up and down, I covered the distance of
16 between 5 and 10 metres to all sides.
17 Q. So are you saying you moved around in order to see whether that
18 would change your ability to speak with your colleague at Sandici meadow?
19 A. Yes, it is standard procedure. We change our position in all
20 directions trying to establish the best possible communication.
21 Q. All right. Thank you for that answer. The Prosecutor asked you
22 a number of questions about your alleged failure to give a detailed
23 description of -- well, the moving about that you've just described in
24 order to try to establish contact with your colleague. And during your
25 testimony in response to one of your -- one of my learned friend's
1 questions, you gave the following answer. You said: "And in the end,
2 when operating at such distances, and when using such radio devices, the
3 Motorola GP300 or some other kind of device, well, the results would not
4 have been significantly different."
5 Can you please explain to the Court why you said that?
6 A. I said that because irrespective of the type of radio device you
7 use that works based on the similar characteristics, would not have
8 resulted in any significant changes in terms of radio communication
9 because the characteristics are the same or similar. The only possible
10 difference could be if strong-output power devices were used. However,
11 all handheld devices, depending on the make, have their maximum output of
12 up to 5 watts, or better yet, around 5 watts. Some makes may have the
13 power of 4 or 6, but that doesn't change anything.
14 During tactical movements out in the field, what is
15 characteristic for such devices is the maximum range of 2 to 5 kilometres
16 depending on the terrain, or rather, the altitude to be more precise.
17 Q. I'd like to come back --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. GOSNELL:
20 Q. Now, I'd like to come back to the process of driving towards
21 Konjevic Polje from Sandici --
22 MR. GOSNELL: And just for my learned friend, this is relevant to
23 something that was asked on cross-examination, but I'm going to reveal
24 that at the end of a series of questions.
25 Q. As you -- after you immediately left Sandici meadow, do you
1 remember what the quality was of your contact with your colleague on the
2 very first test? The very first time that you tried to establish contact
3 with him, how good was the quality?
4 A. I have to tell you that communication is first established at
5 close range in order to test the devices. But if we are talking about
6 the first occasion on which communication was established from the
7 vehicle driving towards Sandici, that was at 5.5.
8 Q. All right. And in general terms, there is no need to be
9 absolutely precise, but in general terms can you estimate for us how far
10 in metres you were from Sandici meadow when you made that first contact
11 and reached a result of 5/5?
12 A. I cannot be precise because it is downhill from Sandici, and I
13 think it's between 150 and 200 metres that the distance is over there.
14 In any case, I think it was around 100 metres.
15 Q. All right. Well, let me then just cut to the chase for what I
16 really want to get to. If you can recall and to the best of your
17 recollection, when you were 400 metres from Sandici meadow, what was the
18 quality of your contact with your colleague?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to the question for two reasons, Your
21 Honour. If my colleague is eliciting this witness's recollection of
22 precisely what he did as concerns these tests, it is clear in the record
23 that this witness took notes with which we were not been provided, not
24 had the opportunity to look at those notes to verify whether or not his
25 recollection now that he's testifying here is accurate. We've had no
1 ability to challenge that. And so to the extent that we haven't been
2 provided with that information, I would argue that it's improper for my
3 colleague to elicit that information because those notes exist.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Your comment, Mr. Gosnell.
5 MR. GOSNELL: Well, actually, to be quite honest with the Court,
6 I don't know if there's any note that concerns the subject matter of my
7 question, and I don't believe that that's been established yet. So the
8 notion that there may be a note that hasn't been handed over, I don't
9 think that's been established. I can't tell you positively that no such
10 note exists, to be quite frank with the Court.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, what I'm referring to is this
12 witness's testimony with respect to his taking of field notes with --
13 concerning his -- concerning the tests that he conducted. And he's
14 indicated that he did in fact take notes both on cross-examination and
15 now also on redirect examination, and I think to the extent that those
16 notes exist as he's testified to and that we've never been provided with
17 a copy of those notes or had an opportunity to review them that it places
18 at an unfair disadvantage with respect to his now-present recollections
19 about what he did.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
21 Witness, if you were to answer the question put to you by
22 Mr. Gosnell, on what would you base it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would base my response on my own
24 observations. I cannot recall what the precise distance was in terms of
25 metres. All I can recall is that after the Sandici meadow, immediately
1 close by, there is a bend in the road. There were changes in terms of
2 radio communication there.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think we can safely proceed from
4 here. Thank you.
5 MR. GOSNELL:
6 Q. Well, let me just ask you this question. You were shown a
7 videotape by the Prosecutor, on which there was audio, and you were asked
8 to comment on the quality of that audio, to give a rating of what was
9 presented to you as a transmission through a radio. Do you remember
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Now, the question I am -- wish to put to you is, was the sound
13 that you heard on that audio consistent with what you would have observed
14 at a position 400 metres from Sandici meadow when contacting your
15 colleague? Are the two -- would the two types of quality be consistent
16 in your mind?
17 A. Not completely. At close range from Sandici, I had 100 per cent
18 audibility. What I could hear on the recording is what I received
19 through the amplification in my headset, and that is what I could
20 subjectively hear at that point.
21 Q. So you're saying you're not sure whether that would or would not
22 be consistent with the transmission from Sandici?
23 A. I am not certain. I cannot say that with any degree of
24 certainty. It was subjective, what I could hear in my headset.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have the break now, resuming at 11.00. Thank
2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I notice that the witness is not present and
5 Mr. Josse standing. Is there a problem, Mr. Josse?
6 MR. JOSSE: Yes, a double apology. The first apology is for
7 interrupting the re-examination. Secondly, frankly, I should have
8 realised that the issue I am about to raise might be an issue because we
9 did have advanced notice of it. But I am aware now that there is a
10 two-and-a-half-hour break today, and I have some concerns for my client
11 where he's going to spend that two and a half hours. I wrote about an
12 hour or so ago to the court officer expressing my concerns. Bearing in
13 mind that that break is in just over an hour's time, I felt this was my
14 opportunity and only opportunity to raise it with the Trial Chamber, but
15 it's simply not acceptable in my submission for him to the spend the two
16 and a half hours in an extremely small holding room immediately behind
17 where I sit.
18 He, in fact, has proposed what I will call a sort of compromise,
19 which is that some doors be left open and a guard stationed more or less
20 where I am at the moment so that he could at least walk around the
21 corridor behind where I am at the moment. But whether that's acceptable,
22 of course, is not a matter, I understand, for the Trial Chamber nor
23 indeed for the person of the guards who are presently in Court at the
24 moment. But, Your Honour, two and a half hours in that room with the
25 door shut with no air at all is simply not acceptable, I submit.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, and I would understand that your
2 colleagues would associate themselves with this. Yes, let's do it this
3 way, and it needs to be resolved very quickly. If a modus vivendi is
4 found which is acceptable to the accused, then we'll do that. If not,
5 the accused are to be transported at the end of the sitting to the
6 detention unit and returned as soon as practicable before we start the --
7 re-start the sitting at 3.00. If it's not possible to bring them back
8 before 3.00, we'll even start later. But the important thing is that
9 they are not allowed to stay in these small cells that we have here for
10 two and a half hours.
11 So, Madam Registrar, you are to communicate our instructions to
12 the Registrar forthwith, and if Mr. Josse's suggestion is acceptable to
13 the Registrar in security --
14 MR. JOSSE: I can see some dissension from some of the defendants
15 in this case.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I wasn't looking at Mr. Borovcanin. Yes,
17 Mr. Borovcanin.
18 THE ACCUSED BOROVCANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would
19 sooner stop breathing for an hour and a half than being brought back to
20 the detention unit.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, Mr. Borovcanin seems to prefer to
22 stay here. Yes --
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think he prefers to stay here.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 MR. JOSSE: I think some of the rooms on the other side may a be
1 a little bit bigger.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Josse is perfectly right. I
3 just want to correct the transcript. I was talking about Mr. Miletic, my
4 own client, because the transcript is not very clear on this point.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I took you to be doing precisely that. Yes,
6 Mr. Gvero.
7 THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Please accept my apologies,
8 but I must say that the rooms where Mr. Borovcanin and Mr. Miletic are
9 dwelling are different. They have a toilet and water and a hallway, but
10 my room is extremely small. Thank you for attention.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: If I may ask, are there more rooms like the one in
13 which Miletic and Borovcanin are that -- in which Gvero could be
14 accommodated? No. How many rooms? Just seven here, or what?
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but this courtroom was, I think, even planned
17 to take 8.
18 MR. JOSSE: It's the small rooms immediately behind where I am
19 sitting. The two accused who are detained there, my client and General
20 Pandurevic, and the rooms there are small. There are some other rooms
21 amongst that suite of rooms if I can grandly call it that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Perhaps one could inquire if
23 Mr. Borovcanin is prepared to swap with Mr. Gvero.
24 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, precisely so. That's why I'm on my
25 feet. I am informed that my client does -- is willing to swap with
1 Mr. Gvero.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And I see Mr. Borovcanin nodding, so that
3 could provide a solution, if that is acceptable, of course, with the
4 security people. The problem is that after 12.30 we will not be
5 available to -- we are unapproachable because we have a plenary
6 immediately after, so a solution has to be found now.
7 MR. JOSSE: I repeat my apology. I am sure it can be found. I
8 also invite the supervisor of these guards to consider the compromise
9 that I suggested to them earlier and to the Trial Chamber; namely, that a
10 couple of doors be kept open with proper and adequate supervision.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But obviously, they have to refer to their
12 superiors. I mean, they can't --
13 MR. JOSSE: I really do understand that.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. We are proceeding with our
16 investigations on this and will come back to you. In any case, you are
17 also to communicate that Mr. Borovcanin is prepared to swap rooms with
18 Mr. Gvero, if that is okay with the security people, of course. Thank
20 For the record, Mr. Mitchell for the Prosecution is also present
21 today, now. He wasn't before.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 MR. GOSNELL:
24 Q. Hello, Mr. Markovic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Just one last question on what I was asking you about just before
2 the break, namely, the audio that you heard that was played to you. Just
3 to be clear with you, the Prosecution position in this case is that that
4 audio that you heard was at a point 400 metres from Sandici meadow along
5 the road. Now, my question for you is, can you exclude the possibility,
6 based your observations, that that transmission was from Sandici meadow?
7 A. Based on the recording, I cannot say where the vehicle was at
8 that moment, but I can say that it must have been very close, that there
9 must have been optical visibility given the good quality of the
10 communication. But I cannot draw any other conclusion from the video
11 recording. I can make the subjective conclusion based on what I heard in
12 my headset that the quality of communication between the two radio
13 devices was very good.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure where
16 my colleague got the impression that it was the Prosecution's position
17 that that particular audio was 400 metres from Sandici. I don't think
18 that's in the record, and I don't think that I stated that.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
20 MR. GOSNELL: That is based on our consultation of the road book
21 and what appears to be a relevant still from the piece of video that was
22 shown which corresponds to the still that is in the road book, which
23 indicates it is 400 metres from Sandici meadow.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll look into that because I think I'm looking
1 at the still now, and the caption is that it's --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. If we need to --
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- over a thousand metres from Sandici
4 meadow but --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If we need to return to this, we will.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- we'll look at that another time. Thank you,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Gosnell.
9 MR. GOSNELL: Well, perhaps I can just resolve this ambiguity
10 right now with another question.
11 Q. Would you make the same -- would you give the same answer if I
12 were to tell you that rather than 400 metres from Sandici meadow, you
13 were 12 -- the audiotape was 1.200 metres from Sandici meadow? Could you
14 exclude the possibility that that transmission was from Sandici meadow?
15 A. To establish that precisely, you would have to conduct
16 measurements in the field; that is clear. But based on everything I have
17 said so far, the quality of communication that I heard from the audio
18 recording must have -- would indicate toward a short distance. And if I
19 understood you well, the 1.200 metres from Sandici toward Konjevic Polje
20 would not -- would not affect the communication significantly. The
21 communication would still be understandable.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. Markovic, you were asked a number of
23 questions based on the video still of the corner of an object. You were
24 shown that video still on Friday and again today in a larger format. And
25 the Prosecution suggested to you that this was a handheld microphone that
1 was attached to a car-mounted radio.
2 Now, sir, to your knowledge, can handheld microphones be attached
3 to handheld portable radio devices?
4 A. Yes, of course. The microphone combination is compatible with
5 most devices manufactured by Motorola, so they can be attached to both
6 handheld radio devices as well as car-mounted radios.
7 Q. I'd now like to play a short video clip and see whether you can
8 recognise anything on this video clip; or rather, I will then direct your
9 attention to specific items and see if you can recognise them.
10 [Videotape played]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you require sound or not?
12 MR. GOSNELL: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
14 Perhaps we could play this two more times, and then freeze it at
15 the end of the excerpt.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. GOSNELL:
18 Q. Now, sir, first of all I'd like to direct your attention to the
19 left of centre of the screen at the bottom. Is there anything that you
20 can recognise there?
21 A. Based on this video still that I have on the screen in front of
22 me, I can recognise the outlines of an antenna, probably for a wavelength
23 of 2 metres. The image is somewhat blurred, but I can recognise the
24 outlines of an antenna.
25 Q. All right. And just to the right of the centre of the screen, do
1 you recognise an oval-shaped dark object, and can you offer an opinion as
2 to what that might be?
3 A. On the right-hand side, I repeat the image is a little blurred,
4 but I can make out the outlines of a microphone that can be used -- or
5 rather, connected to a handheld radio device. I can only make out the
6 outlines. I cannot see the details because the image is blurred.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Can we see the video played one more time, please.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. GOSNELL:
10 Q. Sir, do you see any car-mounted radios in this video such as a
11 GM300 or an FT2400 Yaesu?
12 A. No. I can only see the outlines of a handheld radio device, and
13 I can draw the conclusions that it operates on the wavelength of 2
15 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, sir, you remember you were shown a video
16 clip surrounding --
17 MR. GOSNELL: We can now take down the video clip on the screen.
18 Q. You were shown by the Prosecutor a video clip surrounding the
19 video clip that you saw earlier today, and do you remember that you saw
20 an object on the dashboard?
21 A. Yes. I saw a handheld radio device on the dashboard.
22 Q. Now, how many did you see?
23 A. Only one.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Markovic. Now, I want to ask you some questions
25 about car-mounted radios that were discussed at length during your
1 cross-examination. Now, did you test the GM300 or the FT2400 Yaesu
2 car-mounted radio as part of your field testing?
3 A. No, we didn't test those devices.
4 Q. Were you ever asked by the Defence to test those devices?
5 A. No, we never received such requests.
6 Q. All right. In the absence of such tests, can you state with any
7 specificity the precise spot where communication would be lost as between
8 a car-mounted radio and a handheld radio as you move from Sandici towards
9 Konjevic Polje?
10 A. If there were ongoing communication, let's say that a handheld
11 radio is emitting on a certain frequency, and a car-mounted radio with a
12 roof-mounted antenna because otherwise it can't operate. It could
13 operate within the car, but that is not practical. In such a case,
14 communication would not differ significantly from the point of view of
15 reception. If the --
16 Q. Sir, perhaps I could just pinpoint my question because maybe it
17 was very poorly phrased. My question was, if you had the transmitting
18 device - being the handheld radio - at Sandici and the receiving device
19 is a car-mounted radio, and then -- now, here is my question: Can you
20 state with any specificity at what point reception would be lost as you
21 moved up the road towards Konjevic Polje?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, the question calls for
24 speculation as concerns the reception of a radio signal. This witness
25 has testified that its dependent upon the sensitivity of the receiving
1 device; and so this calls for speculation to the extent that the witness
2 hasn't tested the device.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Gosnell?
4 MR. GOSNELL: I am precisely attempting to determine the line
5 between what he can comment upon and what would be speculation. That's
6 precisely what I am attempting to do with my question.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't consider it calling for speculation.
9 Actually, it's calling for a professional opinion. So go ahead and
10 answer the question, please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, the results wouldn't
12 change greatly, the results that we obtained in the field, because it
13 depends on the strength of the transmitter, the handheld radio; whereas
14 reception depends on the sensitivity of the antenna. But due to the
15 configuration of the land, there wouldn't be any significant changes in
16 the field. Of course, in order to bear that out you would have to
17 conduct physical testing of that premise.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I raise the objection again. My
20 colleague here hasn't put to the witness what specific radio he's talking
21 about; and to the extent that they differ, depending on their
22 characteristics, depending on their specifications, the answer is not
23 responsive, and it is -- it is fundamentally speculative.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Gosnell.
25 MR. GOSNELL: Well, I strongly disagree. The parameters of these
1 radios are generally similar. The witness said that he didn't field test
2 it. That wasn't basis for my question, so I think his opinion is
3 perfectly legitimate.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you offer your own comments on what you've just
5 heard? Would it make a difference to you if you are specifically
6 referred to a particular radio rather than another?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say that the transmitting
8 radio devices and those mounted in vehicles are completely compatible
9 with respect to frequency depending on the type and manufacturer. They
10 can be compatible; and what I said, my assertions require field testing,
11 as well, but what I think on the basis of my experience is that if we use
12 a radio -- a handheld radio device and a radio device in a car, mounted
13 in a car, this would not change the results significantly, the results
14 that we arrived at by testing. But what I want to say is that on the
15 basis of my experience, the results would probably be truthful ones, but
16 they would have to be tested by other measurements.
17 MR. GOSNELL:
18 Q. Incidentally, sir, in your experience have you ever seen cars
19 driving around or vehicles of any type with antennae on the roof without
20 a working car-mounted radio?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: If my colleague wants to put that to the
23 witness, I would ask for him to state whether or not that is the position
24 of the Defence in this case; otherwise, I don't think it has any
1 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, we don't have to take a position in
2 this case because we're the Defence. It's up to the Prosecution to state
3 its position. We don't need to take any position whatsoever. So it's
4 perfectly fair to me to explore alternatives.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, let's proceed. Let's proceed with the --
6 with your answer, witness, please.
7 MR. GOSNELL: I understand that the question may not have been
8 properly translated to the witness.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's try and get this over and done with, please.
10 What hasn't been properly translated, Mr. Gosnell?
11 MR. GOSNELL: The word "working" apparently was not translated to
12 the witness.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I will repeat the question. "In your
14 experience have you ever seen cars driving around or vehicles of any type
15 with antennae on the roof without a working car-mounted radio?"
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, based on my experience I have
17 not seen anything like that happening, nor is there any reason for
18 anything like that to happen. Let me just make it clearer: The
19 connectors that are mounted to the antennas of handheld radio devices are
20 different to the car ones. So the antennas on the roof are used for
21 vehicles and radios in vehicles, and if there's no radio device, I don't
22 see why there should be an antenna on the roof just as an obstacle.
23 MR. GOSNELL:
24 Q. Well, sir, again, perhaps the question wasn't -- at least a
25 portion of the question wasn't translated to you, and it may be rather
1 obvious, but I'll pose the question anyway. Does the presence of a
2 rooftop antenna necessarily mean that there is a working car-mounted
3 radio inside?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, it's been asked and answered; and
6 moreover, this is practically a rhetorical question.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think even everyone can give a proper answer to
8 that, so let's move.
9 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Markovic, I have just one last area to ask you about. On the
11 very first occasion that you were contacted about preparing this report,
12 who were you contacted by, specifically? Was it the Defence, or was it
13 somebody else?
14 A. It wasn't the Defence. I was contacted by my superior in the
15 Ministry of the Interior.
16 Q. To your knowledge, were you specifically designated or requested
17 by the Defence to prepare this report?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, if he was contacted by somebody
20 other than the Defence, then it's without -- he wouldn't know whether or
21 not he was specifically requested to do this work unless he was requested
22 by the person that was contacted.
23 MR. GOSNELL: I can rephrase, Mr. President.
24 Q. Do you know whether the Defence asked specifically for you as
25 opposed to anybody else to conduct this report?
1 A. No. The Defence contacted the Ministry of the Interior, and my
2 superior officer in the ministry chose me to carry out the assignment
3 with the specifications given.
4 Q. And prior to preparing this report, had you ever worked or had
5 any contact with anyone on the Defence team?
6 A. No, I didn't know anybody from the Defence team before that.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Markovic.
8 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Gosnell.
11 So, Mr. Markovic, we're finished with your testimony. It took
12 longer than we expected, but it's all for a good cause. Before you leave
13 this courtroom, I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues for having
14 come over to the give testimony in this case, and we also wish you a safe
15 journey back home.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Gosnell, documents or exhibits?
19 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, we have four documents. 4D607, 617,
20 618, and 635.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections, Mr. Vanderpuye?
22 MR. GOSNELL: I'm sorry, Mr. President. Just one addition to
23 that. There is also the marked version of Annex A, which apparently
24 has -- Annex 1, which apparently has been assigned a number by the
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
2 MR. GOSNELL: 4DIC00234.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any objections?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is no objection, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it there are no objections from any of the
6 other Defence teams, so these documents are admitted. Anybody else
7 wishes to tender documents? Ms. Nikolic?
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I've
9 distributed the list. We have three documents, 3D513, 3DIC 233, and 3DIC
10 232. They were documents which the witness was shown in the courtroom.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Nikolic. Any objections,
12 Mr. Vanderpuye?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President. There is no objection.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: No objections from the Borovcanin team or anyone
16 MR. GOSNELL: No objections, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. So these three documents are so
18 admitted. Then we come to the Prosecution.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we've sent
20 around a list of the documents to tender. There are several of them.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Any objections, Mr. Gosnell? You are in
22 possession of the list, I suppose. It's a 2-page list. Yes,
23 Mr. Zivanovic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you. I have objections as regard the
25 document 3893.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me find it.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Precisely, I have --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The last one, yes.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Precisely, my objection is related just to
5 the second page of this document; namely, neither document from the
6 second page is denoted on the first page of the document. So I don't
7 believe that the second page of this document is the -- really the
8 document -- it is really entire document. But the second page is just
9 added to the first page of the document. I would -- I could explain it,
10 Your Honours.
11 Namely, there is working plan, for example; and it is on the
12 second page. But on the first page, it was denoted that there is a
13 copy -- a number 15, and on the second page there is copy number 1, and
14 the second document was not denoted on the first page at all. It is a
15 table of identifications or something else.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: But rather than a question of admissibility, isn't
17 that a submission?
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE KWON: If I can see the original of 3893.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Judge Kwon. I can hand that up to the
21 Court. All right, Your Honours. I'm sorry. I just want to -- I just
22 want to tell you what I've given you, if I may.
23 What I've given you is the copy of the first page, which is the
24 letter from the -- to the command of the special police brigade that is
25 signed for as received by Nedo Jovicic. You have the original of that.
1 As well, you have a copy of the work plan Krivaja 95. You have a
2 document that is indicated copy number 1, and you have also two copies of
3 a document indicated copy number 1, and then you have another copy,
4 number 12. My friend's objection is that the letter doesn't indicate
5 that it's copy number 1 or 12. It indicates it's copy number 15.
6 I'll address further matters as soon as you've had an opportunity
7 to look at it.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: Do you have several copies of copy number 1?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Judge Kwon?
11 JUDGE KWON: I see --
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have two.
13 JUDGE KWON: -- two originals of copy 1.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Actually, three originals. One is copy
15 number 1, the second copy number 1, and a third copy number 12. That's
16 correct. And they are all identical documents designated as the work
17 plan related to Krivaja 95 as is indicated in the receipt signed by Nedo
18 Jovicic. They are derived from the Drina Corps collection.
19 JUDGE PROST: And do you have any comments, Mr. Vanderpuye, on
20 the issue of the reference to number 15?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do. I just wanted to give you an opportunity
22 to look at the document.
23 JUDGE PROST: I would benefit from your comments at this stage.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic. But let's --
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's let Mr. Zivanovic finish what he has to say.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would just like to add that all these documents
3 are from Drina Corps collection from the EDS, and they are confiscated
4 when Drina Corps archive. But what is my point, I do not believe that
5 these three specific pages are attached -- generally --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no --
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- attached to the first page.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't need to repeat the point because we got
9 it when you first said it. I will soon give you the floor, Mr. Gosnell,
10 but in the meantime let's hear what Mr. Vanderpuye has to say.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Possibly, you could also address the aspect of
13 whether these were recovered together, attached as one document or
14 whether they have been made up to exist together.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: With respect to the latter point first, I can't
16 tell you specifically in what order they were actually seised. That, I
17 don't know, and I can find that out for you at this moment. But they are
18 designated and they are numbered in sequence as they are stamped, as they
19 are date-stamped, the ERN numbers. I will also point out that there are
20 two aspects that I think merit attention. Once is that the letter --
21 sorry, the receipt that is signed for by Nedo Jovicic designates the
22 copies that he received of the relevant plans; that is, throughout the
23 code book, the work plan, identification signals, and so on.
24 What I want to bring to the Court's attention is that that
25 document is a receipt, which necessarily implies that the document that
1 is described in it went with the receiver, and that's the reason why it
2 is not located in the Drina Corps collection. I would also point out
3 that the receipt itself designates the work plan by name, Krivaja 95, and
4 in that Drina Corps collection you find a work plan, Krivaja 95, and you
5 can see multiple copies of it. We certainly suggest that there multiple
6 copies, one of which went to the recipient that signed for it in the
8 The other basis of admissibility with respect to this document,
9 even separately, independently from the receipt, is that it is a document
10 that sets forth a plan of communication that is directly relevant to the
11 events that occurred in this case, directly relevant to the Defence in
12 this case as concerns Mr. Borovcanin's ability to communicate with his
13 subordinate units and other units in the area, and is directly relevant
14 to this witness's testimony as a communications officer who is certainly
15 capable of recognizing, deciphering, and interpreting this document as a
16 separate issue. So for all of these bases, we would submit that it is
17 admissible, and I think it is sufficiently identified in the record,
18 also, to establish its -- its relevance.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: You should also bear in mind that Mr. Borovcanin
21 has stated that, in fact, he reported to the Drina Corps on 11 July, and
22 that's at the forward command post in Pribicevac. He also has stated
23 that he went there to receive orders. This is dated the same day, and it
24 is from the same corps command.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I could see while you were addressing the
1 Chamber that Mr. McCloskey wished to tell you something.
2 [Prosecution Counsel Confer]
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have been informed that I heard him, so I
4 think we've covered everything. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Gosnell.
6 MR. GOSNELL: My friend made a lot of remarks that I obviously
7 strongly disagree with, characterizations. I won't take an issue with
8 them now. In fact, I'm happy to tell you that we have no objection to
9 P3893 coming into evidence. I would, however, like to reserve my
10 position in respect of the other documents so I can have a chance to
11 review them and ensure whether they're -- that they're admissible.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We are pretty much fine-tuned here. It
14 was really whether they are admitted as one document or whether they are
15 admitted separately as two documents, is beside the point. To us, what
16 is important is that we have heard the submission because ultimately it's
17 a question of weight that we would attach to the witness's testimony, the
18 Prosecution's position, and the documents that we have seen, and also the
19 submission made by Mr. Zivanovic. So we'll weigh everything at the end
20 of the day. So they will be admitted separately at this point in time to
21 make things easier.
22 The rest we will hear from you when, Mr. Gosnell?
23 MR. GOSNELL: If I could have the Chamber's indulgence until
24 tomorrow morning, I would be very grateful.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: You are going to have a long break, as well,
1 between now and this afternoon.
2 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. President;
3 and in light of that, yes, I'll get back to you at the beginning of the
5 JUDGE AGIUS: You can use one of these small rooms at the back of
6 Mr. Josse.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Where you will have fresh air and all the rest.
9 This goes back to the Prosecution. Thank you.
10 Perhaps any one of the Defence teams wishes to have a look at
11 these three documents or not? Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, no.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. One moment, I know what you are saying, but
15 my colleagues are not receiving interpretation.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Let's try once again. I just
17 wanted to know whether we can continue now. I have a -- I have
18 procedural material at hand. Last Friday, we received some documents
19 containing intercepts. I'm not asking for the hearing to be interrupted;
20 rather, I wanted to say something different. This concerns intercepts
21 from 1992 and up to 1994. Those intercepts were in the possession of the
22 Prosecutor's Office since 2003. What I am worried about is the
23 following: Why are we only receiving those documents now this late in
24 the proceedings? They do not relate directly to the period of the
25 indictment. These documents have been in the possession of the
1 Prosecution for six years or so. I did see some of those documents when
2 we had witnesses discussing them, and it was rather difficult to locate
3 them in the EDS
4 much time analysing those thousands upon thousands of pages. I don't
5 know what the aim of the Prosecution is concerning those intercepts.
6 That's why I would like to ask the Chamber to issue an order to the
7 Prosecution to see whether this has anything to do with rule 68 or
8 whether this can be dealt with during cross-examination. Perhaps these
9 documents will be used by the Prosecution after the Defence has replied.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I don't know what documents you are
11 referring to. Mr. McCloskey perhaps can enlighten us on this and also
12 explain your position trying to answer Ms. Fauveau's query.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. These are documents from periods not
14 directly related to indictment that she said, 92 through 94. We just
15 identified them in a -- and they were given to us in a hard copy format,
16 and they were not filed in the intercept section. So we stumbled across
17 them within the last week or two and decided to put them on the EDS so
18 they could be looked at for whatever value they might have by anyone if
19 any, given the time-frame that they're from, and I would think counsel
20 would want us to alert them to potentially relevant documents. I don't
21 see anything overtly incriminating or exculpatory about that time-period,
22 but there was one interesting intercept we had seen, and we alerted the
23 counsel -- one counsel to that, and if we find any more, we will alert
24 them to them. And we have hard copies available in some 12 binders if
25 they want to come look at them, if they want to do a little historical
1 research into those years. But I think it's a storm in a teacup. It's
2 unfortunate that we find material like this late, but it happens, and
3 it's not in 1995. So I don't really see that it's a major issue. If we
4 find something, we'll let people know about it, but I think it's
5 important they have it to look themselves.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't want to
8 create a problem concerning these intercepts. In ten days, I have to
9 begin with my case. I have now received over 11.000 pages. When one is
10 faced with such a disclosure, you can guess that there are relevant
11 materials among those. Of course, I believe the Prosecutor does not
12 disclose all of the material they have; otherwise, it would be impossible
13 to go through. I just want to know whether there is any material from
14 the collection that they intend to use and with what aim, and perhaps
15 they can indicate what the year is or the collection is. They should
16 find a way to indicate to us what they are going to look into since we
17 cannot study 11.000 pages. I agree with my learned friend that these
18 documents are -- do not relate to the period of the indictment.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We fully understand, of course, the problem
22 raised by Madam Fauveau as well as the explanation given by Mr. McCloskey
23 for the Prosecution. At the moment, I think there is very little, if
24 anything at all, that we can do. I suppose we will intervene if asked at
25 a later stage. If, indeed, this becomes a problem to you, Madam Fauveau,
1 if you realise that you need to add witnesses, whatever. I mean, we have
2 been very receptive in the past on similar issues, and we won't change
3 when it comes to your case.
4 So let's leave it for the time being. In the meantime, if there
5 is someone from the Prosecution that has got a bird's eye view of the
6 contents of these documents and can at least give an indication of what
7 they are about, that, of course, would help. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Just -- they are much like
9 the 95 documents. They cover a huge range of materials, most of which
10 don't have any relevancy. Like even the '95 documents don't really have
11 much -- most of them don't have much relevancy to these events. So
12 that's the same true of '92, '93, and '94. We are going through a
13 process of indexing them, so we will get a better picture of who's
14 speaking to who and who's mentioned. And as we get that material, as we
15 always do, we get it over to the Defence so they can help make some sense
16 out of it.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's fair enough, and we'll come to it
18 later on if it's the case.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
22 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, now I'm in the possession of the
23 original version of P3893. We still have no objection to it being
24 admitted, but there are some strange physical characteristics of this
25 document, such as there seem to be two different pages that have been cut
1 from another document and then taped; and then subsequent to that, there
2 was photocopying. Now, I know nothing about how any of this happened. I
3 merely want to make sure that anything that is admitted, that somehow
4 there is a record of what the physical condition of this apparent
5 original is, unless there's some explanation from the Prosecution.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Having heard you say that, perhaps it
7 will be better if the Prosecution in tendering this document, apart from
8 the two pages that we saw before, will have the full -- the entire four
9 pages, that is, the handwritten page plus the two versions number 1 and
10 number 12, have them photocopied and -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We will do that. We're
12 always open to go down to the vault and pick out the original materials
13 as they were collected and stamped if any of these little mysteries can
14 be resolved, though I think someone does have Milenko Jevdjevic, the
15 Drina Corps comms person, on their witness list who was at Pribicevac at
16 the time, so perhaps some of the mysteries will be resolved.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So you'll come back to us on the
18 rest in the afternoon? Good. Any other objections from any of the other
19 Defence teams? None. So that chapter is closed.
20 We were reminded a minute ago that there is still an outstanding
21 list that the Borovcanin Defence team intends to tender in relation to
22 the previous witness 4DPW
23 who the guy is.
24 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, we have distributed a tender list.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MR. GOSNELL: I'm not sure that I need to say more.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objections, Mr. Vanderpuye? If you also
3 want to take your time and respond in the afternoon session when we
4 start, that's okay with us.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's a good idea. Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes. We have a communication from the
9 chief of security in relation to what you raised earlier on. The idea of
10 having doors left open and free circulation possible is not acceptable;
11 and as I was telling Judge Prost, having thought in my career not to
12 argue with the Defence because they may have reasons of their own -- with
13 security because they have their own reasons, so I am not prepared -- my
14 colleagues are not prepared to argue with them.
15 The other one is there is a slight mistake here. It seems to me
16 that they do agree for Mr. Borovcanin to swap cell with Mr. Gvero. Here
17 it's written the other way around, Mr. Gvero to go in the smaller cell
18 and Mr. Borovcanin to go to the larger cell. But of course, it's a
19 misunderstanding, and so that's how it will be. There will be the
20 arrangements later on. I am sure the security officers who will be on
21 duty with the accused at the time when we go to the break will have
23 MR. JOSSE: Thank you for that, although why in principle
24 Mr. Borovcanin should have to spend his time in that room rather than my
25 client, I don't know, but I don't represent him; and he's very kindly
1 made that offer.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All right. Next witness.
3 MR. GOSNELL: Our next witness is Professor Dunjic.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I know.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Professor Dunjic. Welcome
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You know the procedure, so let's proceed with the
10 solemn declaration. Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
12 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC
14 [Witness answered through interpretation]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Professor. Please take your seat.
16 Mr. Gosnell.
17 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Examination by Mr. Gosnell:
19 Q. Welcome back, Professor Dunjic. Now, sir, you've previously
20 testified before this Chamber, so I'd like to start by simply asking you
21 to give a bird's eye view or an overview of the subject matter of the
22 report that you have now prepared and given to the Court.
23 A. Thank you. The subject matter of the research for which I am
24 present here was to analyse the locations in Potocari; to also analyse
25 the autopsy reports of the exhumations, including the Sandici location.
1 Q. All right. Just so that we understand what it is precisely that
2 you reviewed --
3 MR. GOSNELL: -- can we please look at -- can we please have
4 4D540 on the screen, please. It's 4D540, and if we could have page 57 of
5 the English and page 31 in e-court of the B/C/S.
6 Q. Now, sir, making reference to this part of your report, can you
7 explain to the Chamber the autopsy and exhumation records that you
8 reviewed in respect of Potocari?
9 A. Yes. I reviewed the material that has to do with the Potocari
10 location. I found out that the exhumations were done in 2006 when most
11 of the bodies were exhumed as well as in 2005 when three corpses were
12 exhumed and assigned their respective numbers and in 2004 when one person
13 was exhumed with its own identification number. One concludes from that
14 that at the location there were several, and we can see here that there
15 were three, exhumations. I had occasion to review the autopsy reports,
16 which have to do with the location at which bodies were exhumed in 2006
17 when seven bodies were extracted as well as additional bones. I will
18 explain that in detail later.
19 I also studied the autopsy reports pertaining to the location
20 from 2004, and that includes that single case I mentioned; and I
21 subsequently received the autopsy report, which I reviewed. That is as
22 far as the number of cases goes that I could locate in the reports as
23 well as the number of exhumations.
24 Q. So it in grand total --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. GOSNELL:
2 Q. So in grand total, how many cases did you review in respect of
4 A. There was a total of 11 cases across the three locations, 7 cases
5 from 2006, 3 from 2005, and 1 from 2004.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, I want to ask you about two specific
7 categories of findings that were contained in the autopsy reports that
8 you reviewed - and we'll get into this in more detail - but at first, I
9 would like you to just focus on these two specific sets of findings. In
10 respect of the cause of death and the evidence of injury, can you tell
11 the Court what the findings were in those autopsy reports of bodies
12 exhumed from these graves at Potocari?
13 A. The autopsies and exhumations concerning Potocari dating from
14 2006 concerning these cases have one basic characteristic, and that is
15 the cause of death that is missing with all of the cases. As for any
16 evidence of injury, as stated in the autopsy reports, it is insufficient.
17 There is no proof that can be viewed as relevant in order to establish
18 the type of injury. That is the basic characteristic of these exhumed
19 cases from Potocari.
20 Q. All right, sir. Before we continue, let me just return to your
21 first answer about the number of bodies at Potocari because when I look
22 at your report, I notice that there is a series of numbers there that
23 appear to refer to cases, and it says "POT 01 SRE 001 to POT
24 So were there ten cases, or were there seven cases, or could you
25 perhaps clarify my confusion?
1 A. Yes. The numbers you see concern all of the bones and bodies
2 found at the location ranging from 1 to 10; however, these were not ten
3 individuals. As a matter of fact, there were six males that can be
4 identified through the use of autopsy reports, and there is an additional
5 skull that belonged to a female. There were seven persons in total at
6 that location. The designation Potocari 7 and 8, those two numbers were
7 actually used for two sets of bones, which were later matched to form a
8 single person through various means of identification. That is why we
9 are talking about seven bodies. Number 9 and number 10 are parts of
10 bones of an arm. In one case, these are bones from two arms; and in the
11 other case, we have bones of a single arm.
12 There is no DNA
13 we don't know whether these bones, marked with 9 and 10, belong to any of
14 the persons previously marked with the numbers 1 through to 9 or these
15 were completely separate bones of different people. In any case, we have
16 six male and one female corpse.
17 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now, the translation that I
18 received of your answer when I asked you about the findings in respect of
19 these two categories, cause of death and evidence of injury, it came
20 through to me that you said that it was not present.
21 Now, were findings actually reached in these reports which
22 indicated something about these two categories, or were they just left
24 A. If I understand you correctly, evidence of injury -- well, there
25 is a chapter in the autopsy report template. When one looks at it, you
1 realise that there is a form with its individual chapters. There is a
2 chapter reading proof of injury or evidence of injury. In that chapter,
3 there should be findings. As regards the Srebrenica cases, there is only
4 one case under number 7, which mentions any evidence of injury. In all
5 the other six cases, it is stated that there is no evidence of injury.
6 This was written that there is no evidence under that chapter, evidence
7 of injury. It says "none" or "not established." It is for that reason
8 that I said that as regards the cause of death, for that particular case
9 it is correctly stated that there was no cause of death, or rather, to
10 put it in other words, that the cause of death could not be ascertained.
11 Perhaps I can translate into your legal language. The finding as
12 stated in the autopsy report corresponds to -- corresponds with the
13 conclusion arrived at. There is a consistency between the conclusion
14 stating that the cause of death was not ascertained because, in the
15 report, no injuries are entered. This corresponds between the two
16 documents, and that is something that is characteristic for the Potocari
18 Q. Was cause of death ascertained in any of the ten autopsy reports
19 that you reviewed in respect of Potocari?
20 A. No. It was not ascertained.
21 Q. All right. Let's go directly now to the cases that you reviewed
22 at Sandici meadow.
23 MR. GOSNELL: If we could scroll to page 62 in e-court in the
24 B/C/S version and page 116 in the English vision, and I hope that's
25 correct, but there is a real problem with the pagination of the English
2 Q. Now, sir, can you tell us how many cases you reviewed of grave
3 sites at Sandici? I'm sorry. Perhaps I can assist you. It will be page
4 61 in your -- in the copy of your report.
5 A. I have to admit that the Sandici location posed some problems in
6 that I had reports and various documents that I referred to. These
7 stated that there were exhumations in the area of Sandici in 2000, 2001,
8 2002, 2005, and 2004. In 2004, at the location there were 17 bodies that
9 were exhumed; in 2000, there were three; in 2001, there was one case; in
10 2002, there was one case; and in 2005, another single case, a total of
11 23. These were basically five different locations, and I had the autopsy
12 reports pertaining to the location concerning 2004 mentioning 17 cases.
13 I did note my remarks concerning the marking of bodies, which can
14 cause a lot of confusion subsequently in the process of identification
15 and comparing the findings, since these cases were simply marked in
16 different ways.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We have to stop here.
18 Professor Dunjic, we will continue at 3.00 or thereabouts in the
19 afternoon. Thank you.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 3.04 p.m.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon. For the record, now the
23 Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell; and in addition to the
24 absentees from the Defence teams, there is now Mr. Bourgon absent too.
25 Yes. Let's continue.
1 Mr. Gosnell -- sorry, Mr. McCloskey. I didn't see you.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President. So we don't forget, we
3 don't have any -- any objections to the exhibits of Stojcinovic Defence
4 witness. We've had a chance to look at those now.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
6 MR. GOSNELL: Just a footnote to that, there are two exhibits on
7 the tender list that apparently have already been admitted. Those are
8 4D253 and 4D260.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: 4D --
10 MR. GOSNELL: -- 253 and 4D260.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. And I need to -- Madam
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objections from anyone in relation
15 to this list? None. So all these documents are admitted, and 260 and
16 253 are not to be included in the list because they have already been
17 admitted. And you also had to give us feedback, Mr. Gosnell, on the
18 Prosecution's list of exhibits in relation to your previous witness.
19 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, we will be objecting to four of the
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But let's proceed with the witness
23 MR. GOSNELL: All right.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And then we will take that up later.
25 MR. GOSNELL:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic. Now, we left off -- just
2 before we left off, you indicated that you had reviewed autopsy reports
3 related to Sandici in respect of 17 sets of remains; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. And that's what is described at page 61 -- or summarised, I
6 should say, at page 61 in the B/C/S version of your report and on page 50
7 of the English version of your report?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Now, I would like to ask you the same question about
10 these 17 autopsy reports that I asked you in relation to the ten autopsy
11 reports that you reviewed in respect of Potocari. In particular, can you
12 please describe for us the findings that were reached in respect of cause
13 of death and in respect of evidence of injury?
14 A. Very well. As opposed to the Potocari location, the one at
15 Sandici concerning the 17 cases that I analysed is characteristic of the
16 fact that in all those 17 cases there was a conclusion on the cause of
17 death, and that in all of the 17 cases, there was evidence of injury.
18 However, I should add the following: The conclusion about the cause of
19 death at the Sandici location is inconsistent with the finding from the
20 autopsy reports because we have injuries described there on the bones,
21 which are inconsistent with gunshot wounds, and the conclusion is
22 formulated for all the 17 cases stating that with a certain degree of
23 probability these people were injured by firearms, hence the
25 As for evidence of injury, in that particular chapter of the
1 autopsy report - and I will remind you again that the form used was
2 identical to the one in Potocari - in any case, in that chapter, evidence
3 of injury, the injuries were described in the same identical fashion as
4 they were in the Potocari case, but now it is put in a separate chapter
5 as "proof of injury," in quotation marks. Concerning these -- this
6 "proof of injury," out of all the cases, there are only three with
7 registered changes to the bones, which indicate that there had been
8 gunshot injuries. For example, there are five or six injuries described
9 in five or six different parts of bodies in the 17 cases. There are only
10 three bones out of the total number -- there are only three cases of
11 three bones exhibiting evidence that can be related to gunshot injuries.
12 That amounts to the inconsistency between the finding and the conclusion
13 on the cause of death. That would be put in the briefest possible terms
14 concerning Sandici.
15 Q. So I understand you to be saying, then, that with the exception
16 of those three cases at Sandici that you just mentioned, the remaining 14
17 cases, in terms of the nature of the descriptions in the autopsy reports,
18 is the nature of those descriptions different or the same or similar to
19 what you observed when you read the autopsy reports from Potocari?
20 A. I must say that the description of injuries at Sandici, since the
21 same team worked on both Potocari and Sandici, their description of
22 injuries at Sandici, they say that this is proof of injury or evidence of
23 injury; and they used the identical terms they did with certain findings
24 from Potocari. However, as for the Potocari cases, there were no
25 conclusions on the cause of death because it was unascertainable as
1 stated by the expert. However, in the Sandici cases they decidedly
2 stated that there were gunshot wounds amounting to the cause of death.
3 These were two different things that we need to establish, the manner of
4 injuries and the cause of death; and I believe that in the state the
5 bones were, it was impossible to ascertain, even in the three cases where
6 there were changes to the bones allegedly caused by gunshot injuries.
7 The degree of damage to the bones is of such a high level that in my view
8 it is not possible to prove that these resulted from gunshot injuries.
9 Q. You say in your report that the inability to find cause of death
10 or the indication that cause of death was indetermined -- or
11 indeterminate at Potocari, you say in your report that such a formulate
12 cause of death is acceptable. Would you say that the formulate cause of
13 death indicated in the Sandici autopsy reports was acceptable?
14 A. No, absolutely not. From the forensic point of view, the
15 professional point of view, the doctrine point of view of forensic
16 pathology, the conclusions, as they are with the Sandici location, for
17 all the 17 cases are not acceptable. I can go into detail about how they
18 were formulated later. This was a categorical statement saying that,
19 yes, this was the cause of death, ranging from that down to a very low
21 Q. Professor, can you enlighten the Chamber or all of us as to why
22 it is that the Potocari autopsy reports are more cautious or reluctant or
23 skeptical in reaching or indicating a cause of death versus the Sandici
24 autopsy reports which do, based on the same descriptions that are in the
25 autopsy reports, they do reach a cause of death, and they do reach a
1 cause of injury. Can you explain why there is this apparent divergence
2 in approach?
3 A. Your Honours, I had occasion to analyse the two locations in
4 parallel. The summary of my conclusions would be this: Potocari, the
5 location of Potocari, was treated in 2006, meaning the seven bodies, six
6 males and one female. The Sandici location was examined in 2004. I was
7 trying to come to a certain conclusion as to why the conclusions from
8 2004 were written the same identical way they were for Potocari, whereas
9 in one case we have cause of death and the other case we don't. It is my
10 presumption, and I believe it to be realistic, that the same autopsy team
11 in 2004 working at Sandici was under a degree of influence of people from
12 international organisations who were of the opinion that the cause of
13 death could be ascertained, as can be seen from my previous finding for
14 the other -- for certain other locations.
15 In the meantime, there was criticism by the professionals in the
16 field, and I testified in the meantime; and that is why I presume that --
17 why the same autopsy experts were more cautious in the case of Potocari
18 when drawing conclusions on the cause of death. The professional public
19 that was closely following the research and the testimonies here had a
20 degree of influence; and they, hence, became more cautious in Potocari in
21 the chapter concerning cause of death.
22 Q. You used an expression -- well, at least in the translation it
23 came across as "the professional public." What are you referring to when
24 you refer to the professional public, if that expression makes any sense
25 to you?
1 A. When I use that term, I mean colleagues, forensic pathologists
2 working nowadays in the area of the former Yugoslavia. I was the last
3 secretary of the Forensic Pathologist Association of Yugoslavia, which
4 fell apart when this country did. We all know each other. There are
5 many new colleagues, whereas some senior ones retired. However, we all
6 come from the same educational background. When I say "professional
7 public," I don't mean only the professionals from Yugoslavia but also
8 from other domains. I receive information from my colleagues working in
9 the United Kingdom, in the US, in Canada
10 ourselves, and people talk about that. They were wondering how can the
11 cause of death of a fully skeletonized body be ascertained, claiming that
12 the cause of death was a gunshot injury, precisely described in the
14 Why am I saying this? I can repeat what I said last time: The
15 cause of death has to do exclusively with the pathological changes or
16 traumas ante-mortem. Once the vital functions cease, that means that the
17 cause of death was the event which caused the functions to cease. John
19 that term. If that is missing, if there is no soft tissue but only
20 bones, then there is only a possibility or a probability that the gunshot
21 injury, which is very well described, then with a certain lower degree of
22 probability can be associated with the cause of death. That's it.
23 Nothing more.
24 Q. Aside from your own, I believe you said that you testified
25 sometime in the interval between 2004 and 2006. Did I understand that
2 A. I don't understand. Testified where?
3 Q. I'm sorry. I thought I understood you to say that you had
4 testified here between 2004 and --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- and 2006.
7 A. Yes. I testified in this same case previously, explaining the
8 notion of cause of death. However, it had to do with different
10 Q. No, I understand that. But you've described to the Chamber that
11 there was a shift - and if I can use the expression - in the climate of
12 professional opinion, as you've described it, that there was criticism;
13 and I'm just wondering if you can provide some further specificity as to
14 where that criticism came from. Or was it just criticism between or
15 amongst -- in discussions between colleagues? I am just asking for more
16 specificity as to what you're referring to.
17 A. What I said was that there was discussion among us forensic
18 experts. We discussed those things at our meetings, not questioning the
19 people working on those cases. People were merely talking about things
20 not being done fully professional or not according to the rules of the
21 profession. Such were conversations between the people in that field. I
22 know colleagues in Zagreb
23 When we see each other privately, we also discuss our work, our
24 profession and its components.
25 It is, therefore, my presumption that it was for that reason that
1 in 2006 the same people who worked on both locations were more cautious
2 when drafting their conclusions. This is, however, only my presumption.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor.
4 MR. GOSNELL: I'd now like to look at a different finding in your
5 report, and this is at page 132 in e-court in the English and page 69 of
6 the B/C/S version, which I believe is page 70 in e-court.
7 Q. Now, here at the bottom of the page, you state: "It is impossible
8 to establish the exact cause of death... to establish the time of
9 death... the time of burial... or the injury mechanism."
10 Now, I'd like to focus your attention on the second and third of
11 those conclusions, the time of death and time of burial. Can you please
12 describe what forensic observations positively indicated to you from
13 these autopsy reports that these remains, that these sets of remains were
14 not all buried at the same time or that they were not all deceased at the
15 same time?
16 A. The only thing I was able to notice and to assess forensically
17 were the three cases from Potocari and two cases from Sandici. The three
18 from Potocari in the description of the remains found -- state that these
19 were mummified. As for the two Sandici cases, it is stated that they
20 were saponified. That is what I had in mind in brief. Mummification and
21 saponification are putrefaction changes which occur on skeletal remains
22 or parts of the soft tissue post-mortem. Mummification is such a process
23 in which the tissue becomes dry as in a mummy, hence the word. As for
24 saponification as a process in which the soft tissue reminds of soap;
25 that is the degree of putrefaction. It is soapy in terms of consistency.
1 For a layperson, it means nothing; for us, it means the following: If a
2 body is in a saponified state or if there is traces of saponification, it
3 means that that body spent a certain period of time in a humid
4 environment. If there is mummification, that proves that the body was
5 supposed to warm and dry air. What does it have to do with this? Well,
6 I've been saying that all along, that is that the time death and the time
7 of burial cannot be ascertained precisely because in terms of doctrine,
8 those changes were not described properly.
9 For example, in Potocari there are seven bodies, and according to
10 the reports there were three of those that were mummified. And in
11 Sandici, out of the 17 there were two bodies that were saponified. That
12 is evidence. And all the other bodies were skeletonized without any soft
13 tissue whatsoever. This means that the two bodies that were saponified
14 and the three in Potocari that were mummified were subsequently brought
15 to those locations. They were probably exposed to humid or dry air and
16 then subsequently buried. The other bodies simply became skeletonized
17 after burying, whereas these cases exhibited different characteristics.
18 The degree of putrefaction in terms of saponification and mummification
19 as opposed to the other cases shows that the time of burial or death was
20 different. However, that cannot be ascertained at this point.
21 Q. Did you notice any other observations in the autopsy reports that
22 would support the suggestion that not all -- the bodies were not all
23 buried at the same time?
24 A. In addition to the fact that in the same locality, in Potocari
25 and in Sandici, that exhumations took place at different time intervals,
1 and that after certain identification procedures were put in place, we
2 saw that some bodies were buried in the broader area -- or rather, they
3 were listed as missing at different time-periods, either in 1995 or other
4 years. And I found some cases dating back to 1993, that they were killed
5 then and found later and exhumed later. That means that the very fact
6 that there is a different degree of putrefaction and different times of
7 exhumation go to show that the way in which they were buried was
8 different. There were different times and so on.
9 Q. Professor, I was thinking of positive indications in the autopsy
10 reports other than what you've mentioned about the saponification and the
11 mummification of certain of the remains, and I'm thinking perhaps whether
12 there were any observations under the category of clothing that might be
13 relevant here.
14 A. One of the elements which can support this claim about the
15 different time interval of when the bodies were found, for example, is
16 that both in Potocari and Sandici, on the bodily remains, on the skeletal
17 remains, in actual fact, we also found winter clothing, which -- the
18 clothing found was winter clothing. So if the event occurred in July,
19 the event we're discussing, then we can raise the question of why the
20 clothing would have been the type of clothing worn in winter. I just
21 made the observation.
22 Now, the second point that I'd like to make in respect of
23 clothing, well, the clothing was just enumerated; a list of what was
24 found was compiled, and there were no descriptions as to any defects on
25 the clothing, for example, which would be consistent with, for example,
1 damage done when a gunshot wound is administered. So no descriptions of
2 the clothing were made, damages to the clothing caused by projectiles, by
3 gunshot wounds; whereas in Sandici, the conclusion was that everybody was
4 killed as a result of gunshot wounds, whereas we see no evidence of that
5 on the clothing. I don't see it in the autopsies, either, except in the
6 three cases of those three bones that I mentioned earlier on.
7 But as an -- as indirect evidence, with respect to the time of
8 death and time of burial, we can explain that in one way or another, for
9 example, if you find winter clothing in summer time.
10 Q. In respect of the Sandici autopsy reports, and we recall that in
11 many of those cases gunshot wounds are considered -- or listed as the
12 cause of death, is there something that you would have expected to find
13 in those autopsy reports that you didn't find that would have supported
14 that cause of death? And perhaps I should direct you to the section
15 "Traces" in the autopsy reports.
16 A. In all these autopsy reports from Sandici, for example, in the
17 set forms for the autopsy reports, it says the following: Under chapter
18 F, for example, samples -- accepted samples, and then it says
19 "projectiles" and then colon, dash. So I don't understand this, and I
20 wrote that. Does that mean that these were projectiles which were found
21 and taken as samples, or should it have described where they were taken
22 from and described? On the one hand, we have clothing which doesn't have
23 any damages from projectiles; on the other hand, the autopsy findings on
24 the bones, they are just three bones in actual fact - I would like to
25 underline that - just three bones, for which we can state that they have
1 injuries which could correspond to projectiles fired from firearms.
2 And now the question arises as to what we mean by "projectiles,"
3 and projectiles is in the plural, which means more than one. Were they
4 taken as samples or where they -- should they have been described,
5 descriptions of them given, or is this just a form -- an observation?
6 Does it mean -- does the dash mean that there were no projectiles, or
7 does it mean that a description should follow; whereas, there are no
8 description this these reports. And moreover, in Sandici, for example,
9 during the process of exhumation, that is to say, when the exhumation is
10 conducted -- just let me take a moment to find this, please. What was
11 found was one casing, one bullet casing, and that was the sole evidence
12 in that -- in one case, I think it was, that the cartridge of a
13 projectile was found. That is to say that that is the casing -- was the
14 casing of a bullet fired from a firearm. That would be my answer.
15 So those traces, the traces which should go to prove or at least
16 be described there in that part, were not. They were not described in
17 the autopsy report. No descriptions exist.
18 Q. Perhaps you can tell us what kind of a description you would have
19 expected to find in light of the cause of death under the category of
21 A. Well, where it is claimed that the cause of death was a gunshot
22 wound, which is something that it says for all the cases in Sandici, you
23 would have to have the following: A precise description on the bones
24 showing that it was a gunshot wound, damages to the clothing -- on the
25 remains of the clothing, and that in the body and in the bones or next to
1 the body in the ground, a projectile might have been found. Whereas
2 there is none of that, and yet it is claimed that the cause of death was
3 a gunshot wound. We have injuries to the bones that are described - in
4 Sandici, that is - but those descriptions do not correspond to gunshot
5 injuries, gunshot wounds.
6 Q. Thank you, Professor.
7 Now, I'd like to move from material that is strictly forensic and
8 ask you some questions about what you might, and I believe you do, refer
9 to in your report as external information. And at pages 76 to 77 of the
10 English version of your report and page 74 of the B/C/S version - we
11 don't need to bring it up on e-court - you refer to certain individuals
12 who are listed as having disappeared at dates that are incompatible with
13 having been killed as victims in Srebrenica.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mitchell.
15 MR. MITCHELL: I apologise for interrupting, Your Honour. Can we
16 just double check those English pages, please?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Gosnell. You said 76 to 77.
18 MR. GOSNELL: The difficulty is that there are two sets of
19 pagination in the English version. I am going to quickly try to find it.
20 Thank you. If I could just have a moment.
21 MR. MITCHELL: I think it's page 142, 143.
22 MR. GOSNELL: That's what I have listed as well.
23 Unfortunately -- well, maybe we can just bring that up on e-court, then.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. It would be easier.
25 MR. GOSNELL:
1 Q. Professor, this should be at page 74 of your version of the
3 A. I think it's on the following page, 75 of my text.
4 MR. GOSNELL: Do we have the page coming up in e-court? Perhaps
5 I can just proceed with the question, Mr. President, and then the section
6 will come up. It's more the principle that I'm aiming at here.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Gosnell.
8 MR. GOSNELL:
9 Q. If you were to find --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it okay with you, Mr. Mitchell?
11 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I just wanted to make sure.
13 MR. GOSNELL: I thank my colleague.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
15 MR. GOSNELL:
16 Q. Professor, do I understand or -- you were suggesting that if you
17 were to find such individuals who are listed as having disappeared widely
18 or at time-periods that are not inconsistent with having been killed or
19 buried at the same time, that that would support the forensic indicators
20 that you've just been discussing?
21 A. Yes. That is precisely the reason for which I've been insisting
22 on the proper type of forensic findings and descriptions and the proper
23 identification, and that is precisely the reason I did that, because
24 looking at this list of missing persons it would follow that the persons
25 went missing at different time-periods in the course of 1995 and some
1 even in 1993. They were killed in 1993 and then put on the list of
2 missing persons linked to the Srebrenica case, and from that, we have a
3 great probability of manipulation with a number of persons. Now, for me
4 as a forensic expert to be absolutely certain or at least to be able to
5 say this person died earlier on, this person died later on, I would need
6 the forensic findings, the autopsy findings with all the relevant data in
7 them, which would indicate that being the case, and that is why we always
8 insist upon the fact that for Potocari and Sandici, we don't have enough
9 elements to be able to establish the time of death precisely enough.
10 So what the descriptions that should be found in the autopsy
11 findings were not done in the best forensic manner, which makes it
12 impossible to have a precise forensic identification of the individuals,
13 or rather, when the individual was killed, when they were buried, and
14 when they were found. This -- all these factors must correspond to the
15 autopsy findings.
16 Now, what I said for Potocari and Sandici, that we had three
17 cases of mummification, and in Sandici I believe two cases of
18 saponification, goes to confirm the different time intervals at which the
19 bodies were buried and found in that particular area.
20 MR. GOSNELL: Can I ask for page 67 of 4D540 to be put up on the
21 left-hand side of the screen in English, and I do believe that it is page
22 67 in e-court. This is the Professor's report in English.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
24 MR. MITCHELL: I don't think this page should be broadcast, Your
25 Honour. Is that correct?
1 MR. GOSNELL: That's quite correct. Thank you for the reminder.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
3 MR. GOSNELL: And on the right-hand side of the page, could we
4 have P3159A [Realtime transcript read in error, "P3195A"], which also
5 should not be broadcast, page 80.
6 THE REGISTRAR: This document doesn't seem to operate in e-court.
7 I don't know if counsel has a hard copy, maybe?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Are we sure of the number, of the reference number?
9 Because that should be the case --
10 MR. GOSNELL: It's showing up incorrectly on the transcript. It
11 should be 3159A, and we're looking for page 80. Could we briefly go into
12 private session.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for a short while,
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 27824-27829 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 MR. GOSNELL:
9 Q. Professor Dunjic, there is also external evidence, again,
10 non-forensic evidence in this case that a certain number of individuals,
11 perhaps as many as six, may have died or been killed while inside the
12 DutchBat compound whose remains are unaccounted for. Now, is there
13 anything in the forensic materials that you have reviewed in relation to
14 the Potocari site that would exclude the possibility that these six are
15 among the dead who are buried there?
16 A. If I understand you well, six persons died on the premises of the
17 base at Potocari in different ways.
18 Q. That's correct.
19 A. In the autopsy reports, there are no elements based on which I
20 can either confirm or deny that based on the description of the corpses I
21 see here.
22 Q. Thank you, Professor. Sir, are there any other items or
23 anomalies that you observed in the reports that you reviewed that you
24 would like to tell the Chamber about?
25 A. Generally speaking, for both sites, Sandici and Potocari, a
1 general conclusion drawn from these autopsy reports that were presented
2 and that I analysed would be that there is a total lack of transparency
3 and an impossibility of verifying the data. In the anthropological part,
4 they state that the individual is male, the estimated age is stated, and
5 the estimated height, to mention but these examples. But there is not a
6 single numerical parameter that would enable me to check that, whether
7 that was really a man aged 60, 1 metre 70 tall, and whether it was a man
8 at all. That's what I call intransparency. Only ready-made conclusions
9 were presented, conclusions that are stated in this report. So it's for
10 you to believe or disbelieve. I as an expert do not believe until I can
11 verify whether it's really true, and this applies to all of it. And it's
12 not only about lack of transparency; it also applies to injuries,
13 especially to injuries. In one case, an injury is described as a
14 fracture, as a defect, as a general "concept," in inverted commas, of
15 something that was seen. But in Potocari, the cause of death cannot be
16 established. At Sandici, for the same finding the conclusion is gunshot
17 as cause of death, which is nonsense. That's inconsistency between what
18 was found and the conclusion drown from it.
19 Q. Thank you very much, Professor.
20 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Zivanovic.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No questions for the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nikolic. Mr. Nikolic?
24 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Ms. Nikolic.
1 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
2 Thank you.
3 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
4 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. I would like to follow-up on my colleague, Mr. Gosnell, about
7 your report 4D540 and the early report 1D1070 about one of the tasks you
8 had when drafting your forensic finding. One of your tasks was to check
9 the methodology of the identification of the remains in accordance with
10 accepted -- generally accepted forensical practice and anthropological
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could all other microphones be put out, please.
13 There is too much background noise.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. And you based both of your reports on that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. During the proofing for your testimony, did you get a document
18 which is nearly disclosed and the Prosecution disclosed the material to
19 the Defence in accordance with Rule 68 concerning the exhumations done on
20 October 21st this year, that is, about ten days ago?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please adjust her microphone and
22 speak into the microphone. Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Dunjic, did you review that material?
1 A. Yes.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since this is the
3 statement of a witness, I suggest that we move into closed session for
4 the witness to be able to comment this evidence, and I would ask for
5 Exhibit 3D516 to be put on e-court, please.
6 Q. Before the document is displayed --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to do that. Yes.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 27834-27838 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We are therefore concluding the sitting now. We'll
21 resume tomorrow at 9.00. Thank you.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.34 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of
24 November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.