1 Friday, 1 May 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning,
8 Your Honours. Good morning to everyone in and around.
9 This is case IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et
10 al. Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
12 All the accused are here. Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey,
13 Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan. Defence teams, I think everyone is present
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We expectedly found ourselves having to sit
17 pursuant to Rule 15 bis this morning, I'm just putting it on record
18 before we start.
19 It is my pleasure today to announce that we have received news
20 that Defence counsel Stephane Bourgon has been awarded by the Quebecois
21 Bar Association one of the highest distinctions possible, namely that of
22 advocatus emeritus. It is a piece of news that is sweet music to the
23 Trial Chamber's ears. Our congratulations to you, Mr. Bourgon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, any preliminaries? Do you have any
1 distinction in the States, Mr. Ostojic, any awards?
2 MR. OSTOJIC: No, we do not, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You are all ordinary.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Basically. Thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but that was by someone else. Yes.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning to
7 all. I know there was a matter of tendering --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Your mic, I don't think your microphone is on. It
9 is on now.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: There was the matter of tendering exhibits with
11 respect to Dr. Parsons, and I don't know whether or not the Popovic team
12 is prepared to proceed this morning. I am prepared to.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I was coming first precisely to that. But apart
14 from that are there any preliminaries? No. All right, Ms. Tapuskovic.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
16 Good morning to everyone in the courtroom. Due to technical reasons we
17 were unable to distribute the list. It is ready and we intend to
18 distribute it during this session, and my apologies to my learned friends
19 to the OTP for this inconvenience, but we shall be able to clarify this
20 immediately at the beginning of the next session. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: If we have a next session. Thank you. Anything
22 else? All right. The witness is here. Good morning, to you, Mr. Janc.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. I hope we will finish with your
25 testimony as soon as possible, or the least time possible. Where were
1 we? We still have to start with any cross-examination, but you haven't
2 finished either. So let's continue with Ms. Soljan first.
3 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Soljan, my apology, but I don't think I did
4 follow in full when you covered the -- some part of illogical connection.
5 Could you cover that part again?
6 MS. SOLJAN: I'd be happy to, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, please.
8 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC [Resumed]
9 Examination by Ms. Soljan: [Continued]
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Janc.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. Now, you testified a few days ago that you recently reviewed a
13 report concerning a person's tooth found at the Kravica warehouse.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in it you also stated that that same person's body parts have
16 now been found or identified in the secondary mass grave of Zeleni Jadar,
17 meaning that a DNA
18 A. Yes, indeed.
19 Q. -- between Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar?
20 A. Yes:
21 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have Exhibit 4525.
22 Q. Do you recognise this exhibit Mr. Janc?
23 A. Yes, this is the report I was reviewing, report by Michael
25 MS. SOLJAN: Could we go to page 10 of this report, please.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, could you please read out the portion of the text in
2 this page which refers to the finding of the tooth.
3 A. Yes, it is the second paragraph which starts "a fifth" -- which
4 starts with:
5 "A fifth visit was made to the warehouse on the 13th of October,
6 2000, and a detailed examination was made of the base of the entrance
7 doorway to the right of the warehouse. Upon removal of the accumulated
8 earth and debris, at this point a broken human tooth was found." And
9 then we have this code next to it, KA01/110BP. And then:
10 "In addition pathologist Dr. John Clark later confirmed its human
12 Q. Now, Mr. Janc, the number referred to, KA01/110BP, what is this
14 A. This is a number which was assigned at the -- for this particular
15 tooth which was found at the spot. So number represent the particular --
16 particular body part found in this place.
17 Q. And who assigns this kind of a number to your understanding?
18 A. These numbers are assigned always by the crime of scene officer.
19 So who is conducting the crime scene investigation, this person is always
20 assigning these numbers.
21 Q. Okay. And how do you know this information?
22 A. I know this information from the exhumation reports which I was
23 reviewing because the methodology and the procedure is always the same,
24 and also I'm familiar with these procedures, because it's a common
25 procedure during the crime scene investigation that you are giving the
1 sequent numbers for the certain evidence you find during the
3 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have confidential Annex D? This is
4 4491. Not to be broadcast, please. And page 251. So this would be
5 RO657797, or page 251 in e-court, please.
6 Q. And Mr. Janc, could you locate -- could you tell us what this
7 spreadsheet represents, please?
8 A. This spreadsheet represents not counted cases regarding the DNA
9 connections. So -- and here we have a list with the names included.
10 Q. And can you remind us why these cases were not counted by you?
11 A. As I explained, there were several reasons for that. One was
12 being because there were connections between primary graves, Ravnice 1
13 and Ravnice 2. The second reason was being because they were related to
14 the same group of graves within Glogova 2, so because we have several
15 sub-graves in Glogova 2 and then we have connections between, for
16 example, Glogova 2 and 8. And the third reason was because they were
17 illogical in terms of how those connections would be found or connected
18 between each other because, for example, we have primary grave which is
19 not as disturbed, and then we have connection between the individual
20 inside this grave and the individual which was found in totally different
21 location or grave or secondary grave.
22 Q. Okay. And you had indicated on record when you last testified
23 that the connection between the Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar also
24 appeared illogical to you in the beginning; is that right?
25 A. Not that illogical. The problem with this particular case was
1 that I did not have enough -- enough information about what this KA01
2 represent. That was the problem with this particular case. So that's
3 why I did not include this one in the connection chart because I did not
4 know where exactly to put it. So but I did count this case separately.
5 Q. Okay. And if you look at this particular page on the
6 spreadsheet, can you locate that number, KA01/110BP we just discussed?
7 A. Yes, I can locate it.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. You can see it in the column case ID, which is the fourth column.
10 So somewhere in the middle you will see this KA01/110BP.
11 MS. SOLJAN: Could we perhaps zoom in a little bit so we can see
12 the first five columns more clearly, and in particular the middle
14 A. Yes, you can see this number now on the right-hand side which is
15 attached to the individuals, IS.
16 Q. And Mr. Janc, just to the right of this column, the case ID
17 column, is -- we see a protocol number, and that's 10417/07, and the same
18 protocol number is repeated two times below it. What does this
19 repetition mean?
20 A. This repetition mean that there is a re-association so -- to the
21 main case. In this case, main case was assigned to the tooth which was
22 found at Kravica warehouse, and then later on, other pieces of the same
23 individuals have been found in Zeleni Jadar grave.
24 Q. Okay. And in particular which Zeleni Jadar grave were they found
1 A. It says -- just let my consult my report. It is in Zeleni Jadar
2 number 2.
3 Q. Okay. And yet, Mr. Janc, the case ID for the same individual
4 with the same protocol number indicates ZJA04. Can you explain what that
5 means, if you know?
6 A. Yes. This is site code which was assigned to this particular
7 grave by the officer who was conducting the exhumation at the beginning
8 of the exhumation. So this particular grave-site has a code ZJA04 SRE.
9 So this is the code for the entire case, for the entire grave.
10 Then you have numbers attached to this particular code, and this
11 number means the particular -- this is a sequence number of the -- all
12 the body parts or artifacts or whatever is found in the grave, so for
13 example, you have number 2 here, and it means that this body parts were
14 found as part of the evidence marked as number 2 in this particular
16 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Soljan, where do we find that ZJA04?
17 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, it would be in column 4, directly
18 underneath KA01-110BP. If you see there --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yeah.
20 MS. SOLJAN: -- are three same protocol numbers --
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 MS SOLJAN: -- and the two protocol numbers -- or, rather, the
23 two case IDs below KA01/110BP begin with ZJA04.
24 Q. Mr. Janc, you called this Zeleni Jadar 2, yet the number is
25 ZJA04. Can you explain whether that's a discrepancy or not?
1 A. No, that's not a discrepancy. This number which you can see on
2 the screen was assigned by the BiH authorities, and it is different than
3 our numbers we were using before, so that's why -- and you can find the
4 both numbers in my report, so in the table which I prepared, so you can
5 find both numbers, so -- and you will find which particular grave is this
6 referred to.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you.
8 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please Exhibit 4990 [sic] at page 63,
9 please. That would be X0194213. It can be broadcast. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KWON: 4490?
11 MS. SOLJAN: Precisely.
12 Q. Mr. Janc, we had mentioned earlier, some illogical connections.
13 Could you please point out on this spreadsheet one or more such
14 connections that appeared illogical to you, and just explain briefly why,
15 what made them appear illogical to you.
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. SOLJAN: And if we could perhaps zoom in again so that we can
18 see at least the first four rows more clearly. Including the top, the
19 very top, please. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. We can see the first line, the individual
21 with protocol ID 8019/06. Here we have DNA connection between Cerska
22 primary grave and Hodzici 2, that's the illogical connection to me which
23 was explained already before.
24 MS. SOLJAN:
25 Q. Could you explain it one more time, though?
1 A. Yes. It is connection between undisturbed primary grave and
2 secondary grave Hodzici Road. So one individual was found in two
3 locations, in these two locations. So that's what seems to be according
4 to the information which I got from the ICMP update.
5 Q. Could you go on to the next --
6 A. The next one would be --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Janc. While this connection
8 should be logical, then how can one body part be found at -- in another
9 site at all.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I can explain a little bit more
11 about it. That was when I was preparing and reviewing this stuff, these
12 were connections which were, I would say, logical for me and for each --
13 and it is not possible that one individual is find in -- okay, it's
14 possible but it is illogical. Let me explain.
15 I was checking, for example, the autopsy reports for each and
16 seeing every single body parts which is mentioned here. For example,
17 Cerska, Hodzici Road 2 and Hodzici Road 3. And I found out, of course,
18 because Cerska is primary undisturbed grave, that we have the entire body
19 found in Cerska. And then in addition to that, we have also Hodzici Road
20 and Hodzici Road 2 and 3, additional body parts found which wasn't
21 illogical. And for this particular case, my assumption was when I was
22 reviewing who are these individuals, that there were twins, and my
23 conclusion was that probably there is a mistake. One of the brothers was
24 found in Cerska, the other in Hodzici Road.
25 And I was doing the same thing, meaning checking the autopsy
1 reports for the all illogical connections which you can see here. And
2 the same conclusions were found. So that body part of -- or same body
3 parts of the individuals of the one individual were found, for example,
4 in two different graves. So for example, you have two lower legs in both
5 cases, so that was then also illogical.
6 And because of that we have sent the question to the ICMP
7 directly because they are the source of this problem, actually, to
8 clarify these things. And they have just recently responded to us and
9 with the response they basically agreed that there is most be probably
10 mistake and they have explained why this mistake could have happened.
11 JUDGE KWON: Let's go back to the one referred to in the first
12 line. Do you know what it was that was found in Hodzici Road 2 and
13 Hodzici Road
14 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know from the top of my head exactly
15 what was found there, but -- no, I would have to consult my -- the
16 autopsy reports.
17 JUDGE KWON: You said you assumed that those may be twins.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 JUDGE KWON: What is your basis of that assumption on your part?
20 THE WITNESS: My basis was that I have checked the ICRC missing
21 list where I have found these two individuals, brothers found on that
22 list, they were born on the same date. And I think that I've checked
23 also -- for all of the cases I have checked the autopsy reports. But I
24 cannot tell you exactly which body parts were found where now. I would
25 have to consult the autopsy report again.
1 JUDGE KWON: In any event, your assumption started -- was based
2 on your knowledge that the Cerska is the one that has been never been
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that was the basis for all of these cases
5 which were illogical to me, but I did not exclude the possibility totally
6 that this couldn't happen. That's why we consulted -- that's why I have
7 checked the autopsy reports first and then also we were trying to get the
8 clarification from the ICMP.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I can actually take him back to that
11 very same page that we were looking at before at Annex D, it may also
12 help clarify a little bit.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MS. SOLJAN: So this would be page 251, and not broadcast,
15 please, of 4491.
16 Q. Mr. Janc, can you see on this spreadsheet the case that you were
17 just discussing or, rather, the connection that you were just discussing?
18 A. Yeah, this is the first four entries you can see on the screen.
19 Q. And what was the basis of your assumption that it was brothers,
20 that it could have been twins that had been identified?
21 A. Yes, now you can see on the screen that they are referring to two
22 names in here, so either of them was found in these two graves, so and
23 they have assigned one protocol ID to both, so when I've checked those
24 two names on ICRC missing list, so I found out that they are twins.
25 JUDGE KWON: You said one protocol ID?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, one protocol ID.
2 JUDGE KWON: But one with Rs.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can explain it. The most important is first
4 part of the protocol ID which says 1 -- 8019, and then also slash 06.
5 Without R, these are the main cases; with R, it means usually
6 re-association to the main case, so it is actually reference to the same
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, proceed, Ms. Soljan.
9 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. And, Mr. Janc, going back to the case that we had just discussed,
11 the connection, the body that was found both at the Kravica -- part of
12 the body that was found at Kravica warehouse as well as Zeleni Jadar
13 secondary grave, can we locate this connection in your chart at the end
14 of Annex C?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And why is that?
17 A. Because at that time I was not aware of this connection, what
18 this KA means.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit P4490, page 65 of it, please.
21 Perhaps we can just close in on the left portion of it. Thank you.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Janc, you had mentioned earlier that one case represents
23 one connection?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In the case of the Kravica warehouse to Zeleni Jadar or, rather,
1 to two body parts in Zeleni Jadar, how many connections would that
2 represent between the primary location and the secondary grave?
3 A. One connection.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. One case.
6 Q. Okay. And let's, for example, focus on this chart. It shows
7 there -- first of all, there are two lines that connect the primary grave
8 of Branjevo farm in Pilica, a blue line with writing that says, "Soil,
9 pollen samples, blindfolds, and ligatures." And then a red line that
10 says, "20 cases." Can you just briefly explain what that means, what the
11 difference between the two lines is?
12 A. Yes, the blue line represent the forensic evidence connections
13 between those two sites. The red lines means the DNA connections.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you.
15 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 2996, please.
16 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this exhibit?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 MS. SOLJAN: And perhaps we could zoom out.
19 Q. Do you know what this exhibit is?
20 A. Yeah. This is the map regarding Srebrenica mass graves showing
21 the distribution of bodies between primary and secondary graves which was
22 used by Dean Manning, and prepared by him.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Could we have Exhibit 4524, please. And,
25 Your Honours, we had distributed courtesy copies of this upcoming exhibit
1 for easier viewing. Please let me know if you need another copy.
2 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this document?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
5 A. This is the map I prepared for this testimony, so it is the
6 updated version of previous map.
7 Q. And how is it different from the previous map?
8 A. Yeah. Now, this one is related to DNA and forensic evidence
9 connections. Previous one was just evidence -- forensic evidence
10 connections map, so this one is related to both DNA and forensic evidence
11 connections, and what is difference between this one and previous one,
12 it's -- there are some new graves which were discovered lately or -- yes,
13 lately, which you can find these graves on this map which are part of my
14 report. And also you can see different lines, green lines which I can
15 explain in detail.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please close in on the upper part -- upper
17 half of this map, please. Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Janc, can you explain what this upper half represents?
19 A. Yes. This upper half represent -- you have these red arrows
20 which means the same as before, these are related to transportation of
21 bodies from primary to secondary graves. So and now, then you have green
22 dots which represent secondary mass graves. These red dots represent
23 primary mass graves, and then have clusters around these green dots, so
24 each cluster represents these areas of graves, for example, from
25 Hodzici Road
1 Q. Can you explain specifically how the -- for example, how one set
2 of secondary graves relates to a set of primary graves, or rather, what
3 the map shows?
4 A. Yes, the map shows what kind of evidence or connections we have
5 now that we can link these primary graves with secondary graves. So, for
6 example, if you look into Orahovac 1 and 2, forensic evidence and DNA
7 connections both link all the Hodzici Road graves with the -- this
8 particular primary grave. And this is the same for all the others.
9 Q. With respect to, for example, the Orahovac or Lazete to Hodzici
10 secondary graves, is there a direct DNA
11 and all the Hodzici Road secondary graves?
12 A. Yes. We have a directly link DNA link between Orahovac to all
13 the Hodzici Road graves. But, for example, I think I will consult just
14 briefly my report, because one number -- Orahovac number 1 ...
15 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, Ms. Soljan, do you have copies
16 available now?
17 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE KWON: No, we haven't received them.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have found it. So we have DNA connection
20 between Orahovac 1 and Hodzici Road 5, actually we have seven DNA
21 connections. Then we have DNA
22 the other graves on Hodzici Road.
23 MS. SOLJAN:
24 Q. And what does that mean?
25 A. It means that body parts of the same individual have been found
1 in both locations, so in primary grave and also in secondary grave.
2 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us what the situation is with
3 respect to the secondary grave connection to the Petkovci dam?
4 A. It is the same situation here. We have DNA connections between
5 Petkovci dam and - I will consult my report again - I think all of them.
6 Yes, we have DNA
7 graves in Liplje.
8 Q. How about the Kozluk primary grave?
9 A. It is the same. Although we don't have direct connections with
10 all of the Kozluk graves -- with all of the secondary graves because
11 number 4 and 6 were just recently exhumed, so we don't have any
12 connections yet, but in respect to the others, you can find it in my
13 report to which particular graves we have DNA connection established.
14 Q. And Mr. Janc, you also have green arrows between one cluster of
15 Cancari Road graves, Cancari Road graves 8 through 12, and the other
16 cluster of Cancari Road graves 2 through 7, can you explain what that
17 little green arrows mean?
18 A. This green arrow -- or all of them, all of those green arrows in
19 this chart represent the DNA
20 found also two DNA
21 between different clusters of Cancari Road graves. So in ICMP March
22 update you can find two connections between these two secondary graves.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: What would it mean, Mr. Janc?
25 THE WITNESS: In case they are correct, and I will explain why
1 I'm talking about that. We have two connections between these two
2 secondary graves, and one of those was also on the list which was at that
3 time illogical to me. So and that connection between Hodzici Road 5 and
4 Liplje 2 was on the list which we have sent to the ICMP for
5 clarification. So pending their response, we received the updated
6 version of the -- updated version in March, and there was additional
7 connection between Hodzici Road 2, 7 and Liplje 2 again. That's why I
8 have included these connections into my chart. So we have received the
9 response from the ICMP now saying that the first connection between
10 Hodzici Road 5 and Liplje 2 is, I think, mistake.
11 So when you have connections, I would say, between -- when you
12 have just few connections between two sites, you have to be very careful
13 about it to make any conclusion. When you have several connections, you
14 can say that you have strong connections between two sites and you can
15 conclude that these two sites are connected.
16 Nevertheless, just let me finish this, if connection exist
17 between Hodzici Road and Liplje, it shows again that most probably, or,
18 you know, this is my conclusion, same transport means have been used
19 when -- during the reburial, for example. So -- and that one site was
20 contaminated. So body part, for example, stayed on the truck and then it
21 was -- it was disposed into a grave on the other location.
22 So it's not that illogical because we know that reburials in this
23 area have followed each other, and it's possible that the connection
24 between two sites can be established or found.
25 MS. SOLJAN:
1 Q. And, Mr. Janc, with respect to the Cancari -- connections between
2 the Cancari grave secondary grave connections, you mentioned that when
3 you have several connections you have a strong connection between two
4 sites. Do you recall how many connections you found between the Cancari
5 secondary graves, approximately or?
6 A. You mean between these two clusters of graves?
7 Q. Precisely.
8 A. There are two connections.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you.
10 Now, Mr. Janc, in your report --
11 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go back to the lower half of this exhibit,
13 Q. Mr. Janc, can you explain what we see there?
14 A. Yes. First of all, you can see a lot of red dots around
15 Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba so these are all new graves. And what is
16 new in this chart you can see in small letters. So what is in capital
17 letters, so that was already there before.
18 Q. And where did you find out information about these new graves or
19 newly added graves?
20 A. I found this information on the exhumation reports which were
21 provided to us by the BiH authorities.
22 MS. SOLJAN: And Your Honours, for the record, the various
23 exhumation reports provide by the BiH authorities, those are Exhibits
24 4502 to 4523, and because of the massive amount of material I don't
25 intend to go through all of those, but those are referred to in his
2 Q. So, Mr. Janc, can you then explain what we see in this lower part
3 of the map?
4 A. Yeah, it's very similar then in the upper part of it. So you can
5 see the red arrows showing the transportation of bodies.
6 Q. Mm-hmm.
7 A. And now you can see we have some new arrows from -- going from
8 Glogova to Bljeceva 1 and 2, 3, and Budak 1 and 2 which were not on
9 previous map. And we know that these five locations are related to
10 Glogova or actually to, yeah, they are secondary graves to Glogova
11 primary graves, so.
12 Then you have green arrows which represent -- which represent the
14 connections between, for example, Bljeceva and Zeleni Jadar graves, also
15 between Budak 1 and 2 to Zeleni Jadar. So one individual was found, for
16 example, in these two graves, or even three.
17 And the last arrow, you can see it's a grey one, so that's the
19 few minutes ago, so DNA
20 warehouse and Zeleni Jadar grave.
21 Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, in your report you also describe a
22 connection between a primary grave and a newly exhumed secondary grave,
23 and the connection is found based on a combination of ICMP data as well
24 as exhumation report. Can you tell us a little more about that?
25 MS. SOLJAN: And can we go to page 17 of Exhibit 4490, please.
1 That would be page 25 in the B/C/S.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed I found this connection. And this is
3 connection between Cancari Road 8 and primary grave Branjevo.
4 MS. SOLJAN: And can we please not broadcast. I don't remember
5 if I said that already or not.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: Cancari 8 -- Cancari Road 8 secondary mass grave
8 was exhumed at the end of last year by BiH authorities. And when
9 reviewing the exhumation report from these exhumation, I found the
10 information within that there were identification documents found in that
11 grave attached to the body which was marked as 065T. And you can see it,
12 the description of this particular issue in Cancari Road 8 section of my
14 So this particular individual or body parts of this particular
15 individual have been found previously already in Branjevo farm. So the
16 conclusion here would be that these particular individual have been found
17 in two different locations, although we don't have the actual DNA report
18 about it yet.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please have Exhibit 4504.
20 Q. Can you tell us what this document is, Mr. Janc?
21 A. Yes. This is exhumation report.
22 Q. And --
23 A. For --
24 MS. SOLJAN: Can we zoom out, please.
25 THE WITNESS: For Cancari Road 8.
1 MS. SOLJAN:
2 Q. Where can you find this information?
3 A. You can see in the middle of the -- of that page in bolded text,
4 site code assigned to this particular site was KAM 08 ZVO. And this
5 particular site was related to Cancari Road 8.
6 MS. SOLJAN: And can we go to page 7 of this report. Not to
7 broadcast, please.
8 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what you see on this page of the
10 A. Yes, this is what I was talking about before. So you can see on
11 the particular body which is marked with 065 T, and then you have
12 description what was found, so the body without certain parts of it,
13 together with the driving licence and identification document on this
15 JUDGE KWON: Do you know what that is? An identification
17 THE WITNESS: It's identification -- it's identification ID,
18 usual ID for the person, "Licna karta."
19 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, he can also read out the portion that
20 relates to the ID, and we can do this in private session so that the name
21 can be said out loud.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. You can read it without the name.
23 MS. SOLJAN: There is that option as well.
24 Q. Could you read it without the name as well as without the
25 particular address information if such exists?
1 A. So that I read out?
2 Q. Just the relevant portion which identifies this individual.
3 A. Okay.
4 JUDGE KWON: Just -- we go into private session.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's go into private session, please.
6 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 MS. SOLJAN:
3 Q. And Mr. Janc, when we were just looking at this connection
4 between Cancari 8, Kamenica 8 and Branjevo farm execution site, there was
5 a lot of red text in that portion of your report. What does the red text
7 A. Yes, the red text is what is added in regard to Dean Manning's
8 report. So this -- what you can see in this report in red text, that's
9 what I have added in regards to the Dean Manning's report. All the rest
10 what is in black text is part of Dean Manning's report.
11 Q. And there are various ERNs that are referred to in that red text,
12 what do they tend to refer to? ERN ranges?
13 A. These ERN ranges which are at the end of each text refers to the
14 documents or the communication we have received from BiH authorities and
15 are related to these particular grave-site so that you can find more
16 information in this material.
17 Q. And do you refer to these BiH documents throughout the report --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- in the same manner? So one final question on the connections
20 issue, Mr. Janc. Do the numbers of DNA connections that you come up in
21 Annex C in your report, do they effect the actual current overall number
22 of Srebrenica victims?
23 A. No. This is separate analysis done just to show how many
24 connections we have, so it has nothing to do with the actual
25 identification of the individuals.
1 Q. Okay. And based on your analysis of the March 2009 ICMP update,
2 what is the current number of Srebrenica victims identified via DNA
3 analysis in graves?
4 A. It is 5.358. You can see it from the first page or actually
5 second page of my report, and it is also repeated on the fifth page of my
6 report. So you can find --
7 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 4490, page 2, please.
8 Q. And what kinds of graves included in this count of 5.358
9 Srebrenica victims?
10 A. These are all the graves we have any information on that these
11 individual have been found in these graves. So this total calculation or
12 number is related to all the mass primary and secondary graves, then
13 those smaller graves which contains up to 10 individuals, and also
14 individual graves.
15 Q. Okay. And Mr. Janc, you state in the report that the current
16 number of the Srebrenica victims also includes 294 unique
17 Srebrenica-related DNA
18 missing person. Can you explain what these unique profiles are?
19 A. The unique profiles are the individuals for which the DNA profile
20 has been established already, but there were -- there was no DNA match
21 established yet because the ICMP does not have a donor for this
22 particular individual, so it means basically that we have confirmation
23 that one additional individual has been found in particular grave but we
24 just don't know his name.
25 Q. And were these unique profiles a part of the March ICMP update?
1 A. Yes, they were.
2 MS. SOLJAN: Can we just briefly go to Exhibit 4494A, second
3 page. Second page, please.
5 A. This is sample page again of the Excel spreadsheet which was
6 provided to us by the ICMP and it relates to the unique DNA profiles.
7 Q. And do you know what the source case number and the target case
8 number mean?
9 A. Yes. If we can simplify that that you can understand this, on
10 the left-hand side you have source case number which basically means main
11 case, and on the right-hand side you have target case number which would
12 be re-association to this main case.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you stated that your count of the 5.358
14 identified Srebrenica victims includes 294 unique DNA profiles, but at
15 page 5 of your report, you note that the most recent ICMP update
16 contained 304 unique profiles. Can you explain?
17 A. Yes. When we have this on the screen, yes, there were 304 unique
18 profiles provided to us, so you will find on the left-hand side, which is
19 source case number, on that spreadsheet you will find 304 such cases. So
20 I have calculated or included only 294 of those cases and I will explain
21 it why. Because nine of those cases were found in Bljeceva 1 and they
22 did not have any connection -- the connection between -- the connection
23 with the other mass grave or secondary grave was not established. So in
24 case -- in those nine cases where you have only Bljeceva 1, I did not
25 include those because Bljeceva 1 is mixed grave.
1 So and until we don't get a name of the individual, we don't know
2 actually if it is a Srebrenica victim or the victim of any other incident
3 for which we know is part of Bljeceva 1 grave. So there have been a lot
4 of individuals found in this grave which are related to the incident in
5 1992. So that's why I excluded or not counted those cases because you
6 can't be sure about it, that they are Srebrenica-related victims.
7 And there is one more individual which was found, or -- in
8 Liplje 8, you will find it on this spreadsheet, the individual found in
9 Liplje 8, and it's the only individual which was found there. And there
10 I have the same problem because it's not coming out from the mass grave.
11 We don't have any identifications already from this particular site
12 that -- and the victims from this grave are Srebrenica-related victims,
13 so I was not able to include this individual in total counting, so I
14 exclude that one also.
15 Q. Okay. Mr. Janc, how many graves were exhumed in 2008?
16 A. So I know that there were five exhumations of secondary mass
17 graves conducted in 2008.
18 Q. And which graves are these?
19 A. These are Zeleni Jadar 1A, Zeleni Jadar 1B, Cancari Road 4, 6,
20 and 8.
21 Q. And where in your report could we find this information?
22 A. You can find the actual date of the exhumation in the table which
23 is part of the first four pages of my report. So there you have
24 exhumation date for each particular grave-site, and you can find this
25 information there.
1 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to page 2 of Exhibit 4490, please.
2 Q. Mr. Janc, so can you just explain, then, what this table
4 A. Yeah, you can see first column it is mass grave, then you have
5 site code which was attached to this particular site, this particular
6 mass grave, when this grave was exhumed. And the last two columns
7 relates to the number of individuals so far identified from this grave.
8 So first part of the column are the numbers which were used by
9 Dean Manning, or are contained in his report. So and then you have the
10 actual numbers next to it so that you can compare the increment.
11 Q. Okay. So, for example, if we look at your table at page 4, and
12 we were looking at the results so far of identifications based on the
13 exhumation of Zeleni Jadar 1B, what would we see?
14 A. For example, for Zeleni Jadar 1B, you can see that this site,
15 this grave-site was exhumed between 7 and 18 of July, 2008, so in
16 Dean Manning's report you have no individuals identified because at that
17 time this particular site was not exhumed yet. Now we have already
18 21 individuals which are identified in this particular grave.
19 Q. And if we wanted to see the list of these individuals, where in
20 your report would we go for this?
21 A. You have to consult the confidential Annex D where you will find
22 all the individuals which are part of this grave-site, or any of these
24 MS. SOLJAN: And if we just briefly go to Exhibit 4491, page 150.
25 Not broadcast, please. And the next page, please.
1 Q. Can you just explain to us what this is?
2 A. Yes. This is what I was talking about. So these are the
3 individuals, 21 individuals which were found or identified from the
4 Zeleni Jadar 1B grave. And you can see by the end last two entries, we
5 don't have a name for these two individuals, so that means that these are
6 unique DNA
7 kind of entry, that means that these are related to the unique DNA
8 profiles, so and you will always find them at the end of each
9 spreadsheet, like here.
10 Q. Thank you. And going back to your report at page 5, page 6 of
11 the B/C/S, right up before the totals you include a category called
12 "Others and Serbia
13 MS. SOLJAN: And this is again Exhibit 4490, page 5, or 6, B/C/S.
14 Q. What does this "Others and Serbia related" category mean, please?
15 A. Yes, others are the graves or surface remains, individuals from
16 which sites were also found in the ICMP 2009 update. And I was not able
17 to make any conclusions so if these are the individuals found in the
18 grave or surface remains, because we did not have sufficient or any
19 information on these cases. So I have put it -- these 45 individuals in
20 total in the table which is towards the end, to the end of Annex A.
21 And then we have also 18 individuals which are related to Serbia
22 So when we consulted ICMP regarding these Serbia cases, what do they
23 mean, they explained it to us that these are individuals which were found
24 along the Drina
25 so they were recovered in Serbia
1 So both numbers, 45, those others and Serbia related, so together
2 is 63 individuals so far identified.
3 Q. Mr. Janc, in the totals column for the data obtained by
4 Dean Manning you have 4.238. Where did you obtain this number?
5 A. This number is coming out from his report.
6 Q. Okay. And specifically?
7 A. Specifically last part of his report where he is presenting the
8 numbers in the tables also as I'm doing here. So -- but he was in total
9 calculation in his report, the beginning of his report is lower than you
10 can see here for, I think, around 200 cases, but that's because
11 Dean Manning was not confident enough to include Bljeceva-related and
12 Budak-related cases into the total calculation, and also I think it's
13 Sandici was also the problem for him because he was not confident that
14 these are Srebrenica-related cases.
15 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, Ms. Soljan, if I may go back to the
16 number 63 that related to others and Serbia related, I wonder if those
17 were -- Mr. Janc also has found some kind of connection, DNA connection
18 with that?
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, no. They all appear -- these cases
20 appear on the ICMP -- ICMP update, so -- and what appears on this list
21 are Srebrenica-related victims. So because we have the names of these
22 victims, they are on ICRC missing list and we can say they are
23 Srebrenica-related victims. That's why we have included those names in
24 total calculation. But no connections we have because these are all, I
25 would say, primary graves or surface remains which we don't have any
1 connections between each other established.
2 JUDGE KWON: The only reason they are included in this number is
3 that they are included in the missing list?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. And they also appears in the ICMP
5 list which is related to Srebrenica cases.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 MS. SOLJAN:
8 Q. Mr. Janc, why did you and your analysis of the ICMP data include
9 grave sites such as Bljeceva 1 to 3, Budak 1 and 2, Sandici and others?
10 A. Because now we have enough and sufficient information that these
11 graves are indeed Srebrenica-related cases or graves, so individuals
12 coming out from these graves have been identified and can be found on
13 ICRC missing list. As well, we have much more documents and
14 documentation related to these graves.
15 Q. And what is the documentation related to these graves that you
16 are referring to?
17 A. I'm referring to the documentation which we received from the BH
18 authorities regarding the exhumations of these graves.
19 Q. Okay. Very briefly, Mr. Janc, could you summarise the
20 conclusions of your report regarding the total numbers of Srebrenica
21 victims identified via DNA
22 A. Yes. The findings regarding surface remains shows that in total
23 we have now 648 individuals identified whose remains were found on the
24 ground or on the surface. So it is part of Annex B of my report where
25 you can find the description how did I find these numbers and what are
1 the conclusions, so ...
2 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Can we have Exhibit 3609, please. And
3 page 2, please.
4 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this document?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you tell us what it is, please?
7 A. This is information which was sent to us by the BiH Commission on
8 Missing Persons in the beginning of 2008 and includes the total number of
9 the individuals collected on the ground, on the surface. So it is the
10 information related to the surface remains collected between 1996 and
12 MS. SOLJAN: If can we go to the next page, please. And if we
13 can just zoom in on that.
14 Q. Mr. Janc, did you use this type of information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How?
17 A. I have been using this spreadsheet or these spreadsheets which
18 were attached to the report which were -- or to the information which we
19 have just seen before. I've used it -- I've been using this a lot. So
20 because what you have on these spreadsheets are the locations and site
21 codes which were assigned to the surface remains during the collection.
22 So, for example, you have second column in this spreadsheet where it says
23 when the exhumation was conducted. Then you have the location where it
24 was conducted. The municipality is the fourth row, and then you have the
25 site code. And these codes are very important because you can find in
1 the ICMP list these codes when they are referring to particular
2 individual which was identified.
3 So when I was making analysis regarding the surface remains, I
4 was using this spreadsheet as a basis for my conclusions that particular
5 individuals were found on the ground.
6 MS. SOLJAN: Can we have Exhibit 4501, please.
7 Q. What is this document, Mr. Janc?
8 A. This document is similar than the one we have seen before, but
9 this is related to the exhumations conducted in 2008. So because at the
10 beginning of 2008 we did not receive the data for the current year
11 because the exhumations were going on, so we did receive this piece of
12 information at the beginning of this year, so it relates to the
13 exhumations conducted regarding the Srebrenica events in 2008. And you
14 don't see just surface remains related exhumations. You can also find
15 the mass graves exhumations which you can see from the column where it
16 says the type of the grave, which says "vrsta grobnice." So when it says
17 "povrsinski," it means surface, and then you have down there "sekundarna"
18 MG [indiscernible], that means secondary mass grave.
19 Q. And Mr. Janc, beyond analysing the ICMP data for the numbers of
20 surface remains, were you able to draw any other conclusions concerning
21 surface remains in your report?
22 A. I don't understand your question.
23 Q. Beyond the numbers, do you draw any other conclusions at Annex B
24 of your report?
25 MS. SOLJAN: Perhaps I'll simplify it. If we can have
1 Exhibit 3901. Last page of this exhibit, please.
2 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Janc?
3 A. Yes. This is the map which was prepared by the BiH commission on
4 missing person, and represent the distribution of the surface remains
5 found between 1996 and 1998 in the area stretching south from the
6 Potocari up to the north, so where the column was passing in 1995.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. So and I have used or reviewing -- I was reviewing this map and
9 also prepared the similar -- the similar conclusions regarding these
10 three wider areas, so you can find in my report how many individuals have
11 been found in different areas, so -- and I named them. You can see here
12 on the south, this Pobuda area, where the most of them have been found.
13 Then you have south-west of Zvornik, you have Snagovo area. And then you
14 have north-west of Zvornik, Baljkovica area. So these are three main
15 areas which are presented in my report where the surface remains have
16 been found.
17 Beside that you have also other areas because you can see on this
18 map towards -- to the left where Vlasenica is, you also see some dots, so
19 these are also surface remains and victims related to Srebrenica which
20 were found in the other areas which are outside these three main areas.
21 And I also included those from these places under the section "Other
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, are you aware of any errors or typos in
24 Annex B of your report?
25 MS. SOLJAN: And this is 4490, page 44, English. Page 63, B/C/S.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. You have in second paragraph, second
2 line, the number 952. The correct number should be 957, as it is down in
3 footnote number 2 where you have -- where you can see number 957. So
4 this is total number of the surface remains cases collected on the ground
5 so far.
6 And also there is a mistake in the fourth line of the same
7 paragraph where it says "See Annexure B." It should be, See confidential
8 Annex D.
9 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: It's time for the break. How much more do you
11 have, Ms. Soljan?
12 MS. SOLJAN: About five more questions.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Five more questions. We'll have the break now.
14 We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank you.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's continue, Ms. Soljan. Thank you.
18 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Janc, at page 5 of your report, footnote 5, you note that the
20 number of individuals identified as surface remains represents only
21 profiles matched to missing persons. Now, why for surface remains did
22 you count only the named profiles and not the unnamed profiles?
23 A. Yes, I did not include the unnamed individuals which were found
24 on the surface because of the reason I already explained before, so I was
25 not that confident to include them or to consider them as
1 Srebrenica-related victims. Because when these remains were collected on
2 the ground, within these areas we have also victims from the other
3 periods, not only 1995 or Srebrenica-related victims. So within these
4 areas, the surface remains of the other individuals which are not related
5 to Srebrenica events have also been collected.
6 So until we have the name of the person which was found on the
7 ground and we see that it is -- he is on the ICRC missing list, until
8 that time we cannot include this particular person on to the total
9 counting, so that's why I did not include those. And also at the time
10 when I was preparing this report, I was not in possession of those unique
11 profiles for the surface remains. So in the meantime, we received from
12 the ICMP unique profiles at least for the surface remains, and I can say
13 there is 25 individuals on those -- on their list which are related to
14 the surface remains.
15 Q. But would you be able to say whether they are Srebrenica related
16 or not? Would you add them to your count of 648?
17 A. No. That's what exactly what I was just explaining, and why not.
18 So we have those 25 individuals which we cannot say that they are
19 Srebrenica related.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 4490, page 41 English, page 60
22 B/C/S, please. The ERN is X0194271 in the English version.
23 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what this table represents?
24 A. This table represents the calculation of total numbers of the
25 individuals so far identified from different mass graves and secondary --
1 primary and secondary mass graves which are related to particular
2 execution point.
3 Q. Okay. And the Defence counsel has been kind enough to point out
4 an error in the spreadsheet. Could you tell us what that error is,
6 A. Yes, indeed. It is error regarding Kravica execution point. The
7 total number is 1.319. And we can say that this total number cannot be
8 attributed -- all of them cannot be attributed to Kravica killing.
9 Q. Can you describe in a little more detail what you mean by that?
10 A. Yes. I have prepared a corrigendum to this mistake and I have
11 explained it there.
12 MS. SOLJAN: Okay. Can we go to Exhibit 4492, please.
13 Q. Sir, can you briefly summarise --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- the contents of your corrigendum?
16 A. In this corrigendum, you can see the clarifications I have made
17 regarding particularly to Kravica execution site that not all of the
18 individuals can be attributed to this execution point for various
19 reasons. Because we have evidence now or information regarding the grave
20 L, which is part of the Glogova 1 grave where 12 individuals have been
21 identified. We know their names, and for ten of them we know where they
22 are coming from. So they were returned back from Serbia on 20, 24 and
23 26 of July in 1995. And then obviously somebody executed at this point
24 in Glogova. So in this grave you have these 12 individuals. For two of
25 them, I was not able to establish where those two individuals are coming
2 So then beside that we have evidence and information that in
3 Glogova graves are also the individuals which are collected from inside
4 and around Bratunac school. Some individuals from Potocari. Some of
5 them from Konjevic Polje and some of them from the Konjevic
6 Polje-Bratunac road. So the total number is not correct. They are all
7 not coming from Kravica execution point.
8 Q. Did you need to clarify anything else regarding the final table
9 of your Annex A?
10 A. Yes, you can see, for example, for Branjevo I have clarified this
11 is minor clarification. Branjevo execution point should be written as
12 Branjevo/Pilica, because we know at Branjevo and related secondary graves
13 there are victims which were killed in these two execution sites.
14 Q. Based on your analysis of DNA identifications found in the
15 March 2009 ICMP update, what is the current total number of Srebrenica
16 victims in both graves and surface remains?
17 A. It is 6.006 individuals.
18 Q. Do you know whether any new exhumations are expected to take
19 place in the coming times?
20 A. Yes, indeed. I was just recently in contact with the BiH
21 authorities. Actually, with the members of the Commission for Missing
22 Persons, and they have informed me that they are planning exhumation in
23 Mrsici village, which is close to Vlasenica, so where they have
24 indications that some 15 to 20 bodies are buried. According to them,
25 those are Srebrenica victims but we'll know for the fact when those
1 individuals are exhumed.
2 Then the other exhumation which is planned by them is going on
3 in -- close to Bisina, actually it is in Bisina area, there is a cave
4 inside which many of the individuals might be. So they have already went
5 into -- they have already gone into this cave. Inside they have found
6 some pieces of bones. They have taken them out, but because of the
7 unexploded devices inside, they are not able to proceed at this moment.
8 They are waiting for the experts to come to clean this area first and
9 then they will proceed with the exhumation.
10 Q. Are you aware of any other exhumations?
11 A. No, those are three mains, although we have pointed out to them
12 one additional possible place in Bisina where the grave might be. So
13 they are in process to testing this area, but I have no information
14 regarding that.
15 Q. And at this time have all the known secondary graves been
16 exhumed, secondary mass graves?
17 A. No, not yet. There is Cancari Road 1 which is still unexhumed.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc.
19 MS. SOLJAN: I have no more questions, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: If I go back to that Glogova site. Mr. Janc said
22 that he knows that individuals from Bratunac or Konjevic Polje,
23 et cetera, were gathered and moved to Glogova. How do you know that?
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, these are conclusions based on the
25 testimonies and statements given by the people who were involved in these
1 proceedings, and they were also testifying here. And I have listed these
2 names and their protected numbers regarding these events, what they were
3 testifying about.
4 JUDGE KWON: So your conclusion is that although they are not --
5 they should not be included in Kravica killing but they should be
6 included in Srebrenica killing overall?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. That's the conclusion.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Judge Kwon, and I thank you,
10 Ms. Soljan.
11 Ms. Tapuskovic.
12 Let me first try and see what to expect. How long do you think
13 you will need for your cross-examination, Ms. Tapuskovic?
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think I
15 will finish today.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. Okay. Thank you.
17 And Mr. Ostojic.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: One hour, Mr. President, approximately.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And Ms. Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon.
20 MR. BOURGON: 15 minutes, if any, Mr. President, on Monday.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: As things stand now, it's, like, one hour and a
24 half, maybe a bit more.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
1 Madam Fauveau.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Very probably nothing. Maybe five
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 Mr. Josse?
6 MR. JOSSE: Needless to say, nothing.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes?
8 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to reserve a small portion of time on
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So there is a possibility we finish on
11 Monday. There is a small possibility that we will finish on Monday. In
12 any case you are always available, Mr. Janc, aren't you?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 Ms. Tapuskovic, go ahead.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Janc, we have already met. It was on
19 16 April this year.
20 A. Yes, indeed.
21 Q. On that occasion we discussed some issues contained in your
22 report and you provided me with explanations?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Those clarifications were recorded in an informative report that
25 the Prosecution made available to the Defence teams; correct?
1 A. Yes, correct.
2 Q. Thank you. I would like to make just one correction, perhaps.
3 On the first day of your direct examination, it's on transcript 33381 in
4 line 30, you said that Annex C is not confidential, in fact you said
5 Annex D was not confidential, and Annex C was confidential. Can I just
6 correct this to say that only Annex D of your report is confidential?
7 A. Yes, correct. Only the Annex D is confidential.
8 Q. Thank you. You said that one of your main sources for your
9 summary was the ICMP list from March this year. On that list, as far as
10 the Defence is able to see, there are 10.626 entries, some of them main
11 cases, some of them re-associations; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Thank you. On page 2 of your summary when you were explaining
14 the number of identified persons through DNA analysis, you said we had at
15 least 5.358 identified persons. Tell me, what does this mean "at least"?
16 A. Yeah, what is meant is that there are still exhumations going on
17 and identifications going on so -- but what do we have in the ICMP update
18 which was provided to us is 5.358. This is the correct number and the
19 exact number, so what I meant with "at least" is probably, you know, I
20 have had in mind that there would be additional exhumations and that --
21 additional identifications, and that's what is -- what was meant by that.
22 Q. Thank you. We will now move on to the unique DNA profiles, that
23 is, your statement that you have established the existence of 304 unique
25 294 DNA
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You also said that nine of the differences appear in ten
3 profiles, you said that nine appear in the grave --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the grave. The
5 first grave.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Tapuskovic, the interpreters didn't catch the
7 name of the first grave. In any case, we don't have anything in the
8 transcript, so you need to repeat them all if you said more than one, you
9 mentioned more than one. What we have is: "You also said that nine of
10 the difference," and there is a mistake here or something missing,
11 "appear in 10 profiles, you said that nine appear in the grave," you need
12 to correct that by repeating the name or names that you mentioned,
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'll repeat
15 the whole question.
16 Q. Mr. Janc, you said that out of those ten cases looks like the
17 difference of between 304 DNA
18 profiles, nine cases referred to the grave Bljeceva 1, and one to the
19 grave Liplje 8?
20 A. Yes, correct.
21 Q. You told us today that for Bljeceva as a grave, you have no
22 information that it is related to any other grave. However, in it were
23 also bodies from 1992?
24 A. No, I was telling that for Bljeceva grave you have information
25 that it is a mixed grave. That inside this grave there are also
1 individuals from the other incidents from 1992.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, tell me, how many such persons are buried in
3 that grave, do you know the number? Or is it these nine, namely, the
4 difference between the unique DNA
5 in that grave who died earlier?
6 A. According to my information, it is - I will give you a rough
7 estimate - around 50 of those individuals found in this grave which are
8 not -- which are related to the 1992 incident.
9 Q. Thank you. In your summary, but also in the Manning summary,
10 Liplje 8 grave appears. The Manning summary is marked P2993, and it is
11 mentioned that also one body was found. However, for that body you had
12 no information about DNA
13 8 again referred to in your report when it concerns only one body and
14 there is no DNA
15 missing persons?
16 A. That's because it's simply I did not want to change the
17 Dean Manning's report in any sense, and this Liplje grave 8 is considered
18 to be a grave with one individual inside, but we don't have sufficient
19 information about him. So if this is the individual which is on this
20 unique DNA
21 connect this individual with this particular grave.
22 Q. So you cannot say about that person that it is Srebrenica
24 A. Which person do you mean?
25 Q. The one in the Liplje 8 grave.
1 A. Yes, you are right.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, Mr. Janc, on several occasions
3 during your direct examination you used that term, Srebrenica related.
4 Can you tell us what do you understand that term, Srebrenica related, to
6 A. It means the individuals, the victims which were killed or which
7 have died after the events of Srebrenica in 1995, so after they took over
8 the Srebrenica enclave.
9 Q. Thank you. In response to a question by my learned friend you
10 gave us an explanation regarding the status of the number of victims
11 related to Kravica, and you said you modified it in your corrigendum
12 Exhibit 4492.
13 Can we agree that when we read this corrigendum of yours, we find
14 that the total number is over 100 persons, persons who are included in
15 your count of 1.319 persons who met their death at Kravica and who,
16 according to your corrigendum, cannot be associated with the incident in
17 Kravica in July 1995?
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I now call up in e-court
21 Q. Mr. Janc, here we have a report that the Defence received on the
22 27th of April this year from the OTP.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in a little so that
24 the witness can see better.
25 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this report?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move on to page 2,
4 item 4, that is bullet 4. And zoom in a little.
5 Q. I will read out to you part of this point which reads:
6 "[In English] Mr. Janc noted that a number of witness statements
7 he has reviewed showed that at least ten individuals identified via DNA
8 analysis from the Cerska mass grave may have been captured after 13 July
9 1995, in some cases as late as 17 of July. These men have case IDs:
10 [Interpretation] Cerska 20, Cerska 30, Cerska 32, Cerska 36, Cerska 51,
11 Cerska 65, Cerska 66, Cerska 83, Cerska 101, and Cerska 116."
12 Mr. Janc, you reviewed the report --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I just want to make clear on the
15 record I did not lead evidence regarding this particular issue because we
16 were given the understanding that various Defence counsel were going to
17 be objecting to it being led. So just to make clear for the record.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
19 MS. SOLJAN: But we have no objection to it coming in, obviously.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, I mean, especially if you knew beforehand
21 that this is something that they were going to deal with, and it is
22 important so there's no question about it.
23 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, please go ahead.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 Your Honours, let me just check if all the numbers have been recorded in
1 the transcript. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Janc, I presume that you have read Mr. Haglund's report from
3 my learned friends, that's Exhibit P611, which refers to the Cerska
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. On page of this exhibit, which we are not going to call up, that
7 ends with the digit 3698, he mentioned two more persons, that is,
8 Cerska 12 and Cerska 82 who had been seen on the 16th and 17th of July
9 alive. Are you aware of this piece of information?
10 A. Not from the top of my head, but I think I do remember reading
11 this, yes.
12 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Haglund also stated that all the
13 individuals found in the Cerska grave had been executed above or next to
14 the very grave and that they had all been buried on the same day?
15 A. Yes, I do remember that.
16 Q. Can you then tell me how do you explain the difference that 10,
17 and the Defence claims 12, persons in the Cerska grave were most probably
18 killed much later than the 13th of July, 1995, when, according to the OTP
19 and the indictment, approximately 150 people were killed in the afternoon
20 of that day?
21 A. That means that these individuals were killed later, not on 13,
22 or that the Cerska killing or execution took place later.
23 Q. Thank you. But let me just remind you, on page 33392, during
24 your examination-in-chief, you stated that Cerska was the primary
25 undisturbed grave; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. You also mentioned today when you spoke about Kravica that
3 there's a number that cannot be included into the number of 1.319 people.
4 However, you confirm now that a certain number of individuals cannot be
5 included in the number relating to Bljeceva as well. And then again, you
6 just now confirmed that a certain number of individuals cannot be counted
7 as being executed as described in the indictment and that actually they
8 were killed probably after the 13th, and were buried in a primary
9 undisturbed grave.
10 How can you then reconcile your statement that the number of
11 identified persons contained in the ICMP updated list represents a true
12 reflection of the events that took place on the ground, and the
13 executions that took place within the intervals as described in Manning's
14 and your summary?
15 A. I think I have never said something like that, that ICMP updated
16 list represent a true reflection of the events that took place on the
17 ground. So what is in my report and what I'm calculating are the numbers
18 of individuals which are on that list, and I'm putting these numbers into
19 my report. So ICMP update doesn't represent anything like that. It is
20 just the list with the identifications. And to make sense of it, you
21 have to make an analysis, and to put together the numbers.
22 You have mentioned, for example, Bljeceva grave. What I'm
23 calculating in my total number regarding Bljeceva 1, which is mixed
24 grave, are only individuals which are Srebrenica-related individuals.
25 I'm not counting the others, which are coming from the other incident.
1 What I'm counting for Cerska are the individuals which were
2 identified from this grave. It has nothing to do with the actual date of
4 Q. Tell me, Mr. Parsons [as interpreted], do you have any indication
5 that with regard to some other graves that you have investigated -- I'm
6 sorry, Mr. Janc, the graves that you have investigated, especially those
7 that -- this is this new map, Exhibit P4224 [as interpreted], that you
8 marked them as new graves. Do you have any indication that there were
9 other such graves that opens up a possibility for the secondary graves to
10 be treated in a different way, i.e., that they are perhaps primary graves
11 for certain individuals who are buried there?
12 A. No, I have no such information.
13 Q. Thank you. Let us now move to a different topic.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think there is a
15 mistake in the exhibit number recorded on page 47, line 6. It should be
16 Exhibit 4524. Thank you.
17 Q. During your examination-in-chief on 33378 page, lines 13 to 16,
18 you said that the third goal of your summary was to establish DNA
19 connections. In his summary, P22 -- 2993, Manning didn't speak at all
20 about DNA
21 A. Would you like me to comment on that?
22 Q. Yes, please.
23 A. Yes, he was aware of these connections because I was talking to
24 him also, and he did want to include those connections into his report,
25 but due to lack of time, because in order to do that you need a lot of
1 time. It's not a work for one day or a week. It's more the work for a
2 month. So I think that was the reason -- the main reason why he did not
3 include this type of information into his report.
4 Q. Thank you. On page 5 of your summary, when you explained Annex A
5 you mentioned the existence of DNA
6 primary -- primary and secondary, and secondary and secondary; is that
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Janc, where did you make reference of the
10 connection between a primary and a primary grave?
11 A. Yes, I can, and perhaps we can get a chart on the screen and I
12 can show you. It would be easier. DNA connection chart, if possible.
13 JUDGE KWON: Annex C?
14 THE WITNESS: Annex C, yes.
15 MS. SOLJAN: This is page 65 of 4490.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm grateful to my learned
18 Q. Tell us now, Mr. Janc.
19 A. Yes. You can see the connection between Glogova 1 and Glogova 2
20 primary graves, so that's what I meant. Not one connection, but six
21 connections, six cases between these two primary disturbed graves. And
22 beside that, okay, but this is not included in my chart, no, beside it we
23 have Ravnice 1 and Ravnice 2 example, but this is not disturbed grave so
24 that's I not include it into the chart. So this is the case -- there are
25 the cases I was talking about, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, we have heard here from the forensic expert Jose
2 Baraybar who in his report, P560, he described Glogova jedina [as
3 interpreted] and Glogova 2. Yesterday you told us that you had visited
4 the area in October 2007, and I suppose that you visited that grave as
5 well; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct, yes.
7 Q. According to the description from Baraybar's report, it is
8 obvious that Glogova 1 is to the south and Glogova 2 is to the north; is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes, there is a road in between those two; so one is on the
11 left-hand side, the other one opposite. Which is south, which is north,
12 I don't know.
13 Q. And do you know which of the two graves was first examined?
14 A. I would say number 2, Glogova 2, but not in its entirety.
15 Glogova 2, we have had several exhumations before in 1990s, and then I
16 think in 2000 also, and then it was Glogova 1 exhumed later on. But I
17 can consult my report, so it's written here. Glogova 1 in 2000 and
18 Glogova 2 in 1999, so that's what I was telling you. So Glogova 1 was
19 before Glogova 2. Actually, opposite.
20 Q. These -- both graves are considered as primary disturbed graves;
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes, in general because, for example, in Glogova 1 and also in
23 Glogova 2 we have several sub-graves, but for Glogova 1 you have at least
24 two, I'm sure about two sub-graves which are marked as L and E, which are
25 not disturbed, which are intact, so not everything was disturbed.
1 Q. On page 6 of your report, of your summary, there is mention of
2 Glogova mass graves and it says that Glogova 1 and Glogova 2 were primary
3 disturbed mass graves. If you said that these two graves are divided
4 only by a narrow road, how is it possible -- or separated by a narrow
5 road, how is it possible for these graves to be treated in these six
6 cases where, according to you, there exists DNA connection? And how is
7 it possible that they were treated as primary graves? One grave for one
8 part of the body can only be a primary and for another part of the body
9 can only be a secondary grave.
10 A. Not necessarily. Primary grave means that the bodies have been
11 initially buried at that location, which doesn't mean that the entire
12 bodies were buried at one location.
13 For example, part of the body might be destroyed in a way during
14 the burial process, and part of the body will be then buried in one
15 place, the other part will be in the other. And that's explanation. So
16 it is possible that you have a part of the body in two different primary
17 graves. Primary just mean that the bodies were initially buried there.
18 So but in what shape, that's different story then.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have Exhibit P4490,
20 that is your summary, Mr. Janc. And can we move to the table that begins
21 on page 36, and it ends with ERN number 4271.
22 Q. As we can see everything here is marked in colour red, which is
23 something new, as opposed to what Mr. Manning did in his summary; is that
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. In column 1 you have identified five massive -- mass graves,
2 Kravica, Orahovac, Petkovci, Kozluk, and Branjevo, which also include the
3 executions carried out in Pilica; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, these are execution sites.
5 Q. In the second column, you show the locations of primary burials
6 and secondary burials of the victims, and some entries appear in
7 boldface, and some are in normal font.
8 If we look at the example of Kravica, for instance, why is
9 Ravnice 1 in boldface and Ravnice 2 isn't?
10 A. Yes, what you can see in bold text, these are exhumations
11 conducted by the ICTY. What is not, these were exhumations conducted by
12 the BiH authorities, and Ravnice 2 is one of such examples.
13 Q. Very well. But you did not show in the table, the possible DNA
14 connections between these graves?
15 A. No, not in this spreadsheet or this table, no.
16 Q. Right. Of these graves that we have just looked at, if we begin
17 with Kravica, which of those are primary graves and which are secondary
19 A. Primary graves are Glogova 1, Glogova 2, Ravnice 1, and
20 Ravnice 2. The others are secondary graves.
21 Q. What about Orahovac?
22 A. Orahovac 1 and Orahovac 2 are primary graves. The others are
23 secondary to it.
24 Q. And Petkovci?
25 A. It's just down near Petkovci, it's primary. The others are
1 secondary to it.
2 Q. What about Kozluk?
3 A. Kozluk, it's primary. The others are -- Cancari Roads are
4 secondary to it.
5 Q. And Branjevo, I suppose only the Pilica farm is primary, all the
6 rest are secondary; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, and Branjevo Military Farm is primary grave, the others are
9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Since we still have your summary on the screen, can we now move
11 to page 6 of the Annex A. It end with the ERN number 4241.
12 Q. Mr. Janc, you can see here towards the bottom of the page that
13 Glogova 2 grave is mentioned, and if we move to the next page, which is
14 ERN 4242, we can see a table that refers to Glogova 2, and beneath the
15 table in red face we can see the analysis of the DNA connections
16 referring to Glogova 2; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. In the penultimate line of that red passage, it says that between
19 Bljeceva 2 and of course between Glogova 2 there exists 24 DNA
20 connections. Can you see that?
21 A. Yes, I can see that. Yeah, I can see that, that Bljeceva dva or
22 second -- Bljeceva 2, we have 24 cases or connections between Glogova 2
23 and Bljeceva 2, yes.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we move to page 27 now of
25 your summary, which ends with ERN number 4262.
1 Q. At the very top do you see, Mr. Janc, the table relating to
2 Bljeceva 2 and the number of persons identified which says 80?
3 A. Yes, I see that.
4 Q. In this red passage, the note written in red, you can see that
5 there is a DNA
6 is that correct?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at another
9 similar example, and for that purpose let us move to page 18 of your
10 summary. Actually, page 18 of Annex 2 to your summary. ERN number 4253.
11 Q. We are talking about Hodzici 7 grave which has been renamed
12 Snagovo 2; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. The renaming of the grave has been done by the local BiH
15 authorities; is that right?
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. Thank you. If we look at the table for Hodzici 7 as a secondary
18 mass grave, we can see that there are DNA connections established in
19 19 cases between Orahovac 2 -- or, rather, Lazete 2 graves. This is also
20 mentioned in the red passage underneath the table that depicts Hodzici 7?
21 A. Yes, correct.
22 Q. Thank you. If we then look on page 3 of Annex A of your summary,
23 that's 4238 of your summary, and then we move on to the next page 4239,
24 we'll see that in the addition in red type, DNA connection is mentioned
25 with Hodzici Road 7 in 19 cases?
1 A. Yes, correct.
2 Q. Thank you. I have given you these two examples of DNA
3 connections that the Defence chose in preparation for this
4 cross-examination. If we go back to grave Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2, we
5 will see how many DNA
6 If you say in your summary that in Bljeceva 80 bodies were
7 identified from the secondary grave Bljeceva 2, how can you then conclude
8 that all of these 80 bodies identified in Bljeceva 2 are related to
9 Glogova 2? I repeat, you have only 24 DNA connections.
10 A. All these 80 bodies are not related to Glogova 2. That's not
11 what I'm saying.
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show again on the screen
13 page 4262. That's the ERN number of the page in Annex A of your summary
14 speaking of Bljeceva 2.
15 Q. Do you see the table, Mr. Janc? In red type we see the number of
16 80 individuals, and if we interpret your summary correctly, this is the
17 updated number of identified persons in that grave?
18 A. Yes. Yes, 80 of them have been identified so far.
19 Q. Yes. Right. When I examined you on the table on pages 36 and 37
20 of your summary, you told me which were the primary and which were the
21 secondary graves. It is clear from that table that Bljeceva is a
22 secondary grave, compared to Glogova 2 which is a primary grave.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 36
24 and 37 of the summary. And we can look at the table dealing with the
25 victims from Kravica.
1 Q. As you can see in that table it says that Glogova 1 and Glogova 2
2 are the primary graves for Kravica, whereas Bljeceva 1, 2, and 3 are
3 secondary graves. I'm now asking you, in fact I'm telling you, the
4 Defence accepts that in these 24 cases where you found DNA connections
5 between Bljeceva 1 and Glogova 2, the bodies were most probably brought
6 from Glogova, but how do you say for the remaining bodies, up to 80, that
7 they also originate from Glogova 2 if you have found no connection? In
8 fact, you are saying that they come from Kravica?
9 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated] If somebody could turn off
10 their microphone.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see --
12 JUDGE KWON: Is that your case -- is it your case that if a body
13 is moved from one side to another side, that the remains of that body
14 should be found in both places? Is it your case?
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that depends on
16 whether the whole body was transferred or not. It is our Defence case
17 that we can treat Bljeceva 2 as a secondary grave only as far as those
18 24 DNA
19 connection with Glogova 2. Concerning other individuals in Bljeceva 2,
20 we have 80 of them identified, the Defence claims that Bljeceva dva is
21 the primary grave for these bodies and most probably they met their death
22 in some other way, to be established how later, and they were buried in
23 that grave. But we have no connection between these bodies and any other
25 JUDGE KWON: I will leave it to the witness to deal with it. Or
1 Ms. Soljan, do you have something to say?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I had noticed Ms. Soljan standing before you
3 spoke. Yes.
4 MS. SOLJAN: I was just going to make a comment at the time that
5 the question was being asked, that this was misstating the evidence that
6 Mr. Janc has so far provided. That's where I'll stand for now.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, Ms. Tapuskovic, please.
8 JUDGE KWON: Or let the witness answer the question.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Janc, you've heard the exchange, particularly
10 the exchange between Judge Kwon and Ms. Tapuskovic, do you have a
11 contribution to make?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go ahead, please.
14 THE WITNESS: First of all, we have to distinguish between number
15 of individuals which are identified and included in my report, which is
16 for this particular grave 80 individuals, and between the section when
17 I'm talking about the DNA
18 example, as you have mentioned, between Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2 we have
19 24 cases, but this doesn't mean that these 24 cases are part of the
20 80 individuals which you can see here. Why? Because what I was counting
21 were main cases, main cases. So it is possible that those main cases for
22 24 connections are in Glogova grave. Re-associations to these main
23 cases, which you have 24 of them, are in Bljeceva 2.
24 So you have connection between these graves. But if you have
25 only re-association case in Bljeceva 2, this individual is not counted in
1 the total number of the individuals found in this grave. That's what I
2 have explained, that I was counting all only main cases in order to avoid
3 duplication. But it was different with DNA connections. Number of
4 individuals identified in certain location has nothing to do with DNA
5 connections, so you can't put both together. You have to ask question
6 regarding DNA
7 number of the individuals which are counted in my report.
8 JUDGE KWON: And the DNA
9 the connections between the grave-site, not the individuals?
10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm talk about the connection between
11 the individuals. So this, what means, it is that we have 24 cases, for
12 example, between Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2 where we have connection
13 between the individual, so body parts of one individual have been found
14 on both places. So that's ...
15 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Let's move on.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Regardless of this explanation you've just given me and the Trial
18 Chamber, I, Mr. Janc, have before me only your report, and I have to
19 interpret it somehow. In this case, I have 24 connections between
20 Bljeceva and Glogova, and that means that according to your table on
21 pages 36 and 37, these persons originate from Kravica; and in the second
22 case I have 19 connections between Lazete, that is, victims from
23 Orahovac, and Hodzici Road 7.
24 I'm asking you now this: We have 80 persons identified here and
25 24 connections. For Lazete and Hodzici Road 7 we have 111 identified
1 individuals, but 19 connections. In which way do the remaining persons,
2 that is, from 24 to 80 and from 19 to 111, how do you connect them to
3 Kravica and Orahovac respectively if you do not have a DNA connection?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
5 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I just want to object to at least the
6 portion regarding Bljeceva and Glogova. This part has already been asked
7 and answered. There's also a misstatement regarding the Kravica, the
8 fact that the table represents that all these persons originate from
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Tapuskovic, what is your comment to that?
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at the table
12 which is still on the screen, we will see that it says 80 bodies were
13 identified in Bljeceva 2, and they were included in the total of 1.319
14 persons from Kravica.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Fair enough. Let Mr. Janc try to
16 answer that question.
17 Do you wish to have the question repeated, Mr. Janc, or are you
18 still familiar with it?
19 THE WITNESS: No, I'm still familiar with it. I can answer it,
20 Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, then please proceed. Thank you.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. The Defence has dealt in depth with the DNA connections and we
24 did some addition -- sorry, did I interrupt you in answering?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course you did, but I think Mr. Janc now can
1 proceed with his answer. Go ahead, please.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. Yes, I can explain to you. No, we
3 don't have all -- we don't have the connections for all the individuals
4 which were found in these particular mass graves established, so you will
5 never find in all such cases that between -- that for each and every
6 single -- every single individual you will get the DNA connection between
7 the primary and secondary grave but for how many we have, so we can
8 conclude based on that that these are secondary graves to Glogova primary
9 graves. And for Glogova primary graves we have connections to Kravica
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you know, Mr. Janc, how many DNA connections did you make in
13 total in your whole summary?
14 A. I don't know for the exact number, but I think it is around
15 530 cases. Something like that.
16 Q. The Defence has made its own calculation and since on this table
17 on pages 36 and 37 there is a total number of identified persons in the
18 five largest sites of mass execution, and that is 4.931 individuals, the
19 Defence claimed that 4.400 -- sorry, 4.049 persons belong to identified
20 individuals and there are only 300 or so connections.
21 Can you stand behind the conclusion that for all these
22 identifications, grave by grave, as you listed them, in all cases where
23 there are secondary graves, these are indeed secondary graves, or in
24 certain cases some secondary graves are in fact primary graves for people
25 for whom we have no DNA
1 A. No.
2 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to a different topic. I'll ask
3 just one more --
4 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask you a basis in answering no to that
5 question. So you exclude the possibility in those secondary graves
6 there's no possibility for new bodies coming in, being mingled with the
7 bodies that were moved from the primary graves?
8 THE WITNESS: No, perhaps I did not understand this question
9 quite well.
10 JUDGE KWON: If I read Madam Tapuskovic --
11 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... it was quite a long
12 and --
13 JUDGE KWON: In certain cases some secondary graves are in fact
14 primary graves for people for whom we have no DNA connection. So if you
15 can answer that question again.
16 THE WITNESS: No, we don't have any indications that these are
17 primary graves. These are all secondary graves. So this is coming out
18 of the also exhumation reports I was reviewing where they making
19 conclusions that these are secondary graves. And also I just confirmed
20 then by -- in several cases by DNA
21 JUDGE KWON: So to conclude that your basis of knowledge is that
22 knowledge is based upon the result of various exhumation reports.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Exhumation reports, also photographs, autopsy
24 reports, everything. And you can see from these reports that you have
25 part of the bodies in these graves and they are considered as secondary
1 graves based on how the body parts are found, in what shape and
2 everything, so this is also concluded in these exhumation reports.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just to play devil's advocate, in the worst case we
4 can imagine, somebody might have brought some other corpses to that
5 secondary grave, do you exclude that possibility?
6 THE WITNESS: No, that possibility can't [Realtime transcript
7 read in error "can"] be excluded for sure. You have to -- in that case
8 you have to look into case-by-case sample to find out, but in general
9 that is probably not the case, but you cannot exclude this possibility,
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please proceed, Madam Tapuskovic.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
13 MS. SOLJAN: I apologise. I just want to point out that at line
14 25, 59, it should be "cannot be excluded," not "can be excluded." It was
15 a typo.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you for that. Transcript will be
17 corrected accordingly.
18 Ms. Tapuskovic, please proceed.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. I have just one more question on the subject of DNA connections.
21 Did you establish, Mr. Janc, how many connections there are between
22 Glogova and Kravica?
23 A. Between Glogova and Kravica we have no DNA connections.
24 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to a different topic that has been
25 dealt with by Ms. Soljan at length in direct examination, namely, Annex C
1 of your summary where you mention those so-called not counted connections
2 because you told us that Annex C relates only to DNA connections; right?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. Those not counted DNA
5 total; do you agree?
6 A. Yes, I can agree with you, if you counted them. I don't know the
7 exact number but I can agree with you.
8 Q. On transcript page 33391 and 33392, you gave us the two main
9 reasons why you did not include them in your table, and one of them was
10 that these connections were illogical. I'd like to know, Mr. Janc, these
11 connections that were not counted, were they displayed in Annex A in the
12 tables you attached for every individual grave?
13 A. No, they are not displayed there. They are not listed there nor
14 you can find them in the DNA
15 excluded from any calculation. They were just added here that you have a
16 clear picture of what can be found on the ICMP update.
17 Q. Let me go back to one of those cases that you mentioned. Of
18 course we won't mention the name, it's protocol ID 10417/07. It's the
19 question of that tooth found outside the hangar in Kravica.
20 As you said, this tooth was given the status of main case; right?
21 A. Yes, you can see that from the ICMP update that this -- to this
22 case it was assigned main case, yes. It's a main case.
23 Q. Thank you. And ICMP linked this main case, this tooth, with two
24 re-association from Zeleni Jadar?
25 A. Yes, indeed. There is a match between this tooth and the body
1 parts which were found in Zeleni Jadar.
2 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell me according to the protocol ID and the
3 case ID which shows also which body part it is, can you tell us which
4 body part of the person whose tooth was found outside the hangar in
5 Kravica was found in Zeleni Jadar?
6 A. No, you cannot say that based just on the site code.
7 Q. Would I be right in saying that the finding of that tooth outside
8 the warehouse in Kravica, which is treated as a main case, and the
9 finding of two body parts in Zeleni Jadar, and we don't know what those
10 body parts are, it could be fingers or toes, all we can conclude is that
11 the person under that protocol ID was injured, we cannot say that person
12 is deceased?
13 A. No, I don't agree with you. And I will explain that.
14 Q. Please do.
15 A. Based on the site code which you can see in the ICMP list, you
16 can't say which body part was found and how, or how -- how many pieces of
17 these body parts were found in the grave. In order to find out that you
18 have to consult the autopsy reports and photographs from the crime scene,
19 and also from the autopsy. So when you have all these together, then you
20 can see which body part was found and which was then tested.
21 For this particular case, I know that these were body parts found
22 in Zeleni Jadar were part of general bag [Realtime transcript read in
23 error "back"] which is marked usually at the beginning of exhumation and
24 where they put all the bones which are found in the grave and they don't
25 know, for example, where to place them. And usually they are putting
1 these bones in general bag, as they call it. And when these body parts
2 were then later exhumed by the pathologist, so the DNA sample was taken
3 from these particular bones, so and DNA
4 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours shall where it says general back, it
5 should be bag, b-a-g.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think that's what we have in the
7 transcript if I'm looking at the correct part, line 20 on page 63.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Line 17.
9 JUDGE KWON: They abbreviate it as general bone, g-e-n b-o-n?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you can find some sometimes in
11 the ICMP spreadsheet also as general bone and this is indication that
12 that was probably the case what was going on. That this is part of the
13 general bag which was marked as accordingly during the exhumation. And
14 usually it is, you know, the number which starts at the beginning,
15 usually, because when they start the exhumation, you know, first of all,
16 they mark the bag, and then it's usually because in this particular case
17 we have Zeleni Jadar and you will see it's general bone and number 2, so
18 that was the marking for the bag, number 2. And from this bag these body
19 parts were found.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's time for the break, Ms. Tapuskovic.
21 25 minutes. Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, please.
25 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, we shall move now to another topic which also has been
2 analysed by my colleagues, and we are going to talk about surface
3 remains. During examination-in-chief, on page 33378, you said that was
4 the second goal for which you have prepared your summary; is that right?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. And in Annex B, which is an integral part of your summary, you
7 stated that of the 957 individuals collected from the surface, 648 have
8 been identified?
9 A. Not exactly like that. 957 cases have been collected which
10 doesn't necessarily mean the same number of individuals. And from those
11 957 cases, 648 individuals have been identified so far.
12 Q. Thank you. You are right, I misspoke when I said individuals.
13 Just like Mr. Manning, you mentioned in your summary surface
14 remains found in Kozluk, and you make a distinction between Kozluk 1 and
15 Kozluk 2 and Kozluk 3 graves which are marked KK1, KK2, and KK3
16 respectively, and the surface remains found in Kozluk are designated with
17 abbreviation KOZ; is that correct.
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. The number of identified individuals found on the surface did not
20 change in the intervening period between the Manning report and your
21 report and it remained 14. That is in your summary, P449 [as
22 interpreted], page 5?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Thank you. Since the purpose of your giving evidence here is to
25 update the data relating to exhumations and identification compared to
1 Manning's report, that is, since November 2007 when we received the data
2 about he -- which he testified, your task was to update this data but,
3 however, there have been no changes related to this particular grave, the
4 number 14 remains the same?
5 A. Yes, number 14 is -- remained the same, yes. 14 individuals so
6 far identified from this particular site.
7 Q. Both you and Mr. Manning treated the surface remains in your
8 respective annexes to your summaries, and in both cases those were
9 Annex B?
10 A. Yes, indeed.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see
13 document 4490. That's Mr. Janc's summary, Annex B. And can we look at
14 page that ends in ERN number 4275.
15 Q. If we look at this table where you speak about surface remains,
16 we see that the surface remains found in Kozluk you haven't displayed
17 here, and that the number of individuals identified in Kozluk, those 14,
18 indeed are not included in the total number of surface remain
19 identifications; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. I assume that you are quite familiar with Mr. Manning's summary
22 and that you will remember that he had taken into account the surface
23 remains from Kozluk in the total number of surface remains identified at
24 the time?
25 A. Yes, indeed.
1 Q. Does that mean that from this number, 648 identified surface
2 remains from your summary, actually that this number should be increased
3 by 14 relating to the individuals found at Kozluk location, marked KOZ,
4 which will give us a total of 662 surface remains?
5 A. Yes, perhaps you may do that, but -- and you will get the number
6 which will increase -- increase for 14 individuals. So I was in dilemma
7 when I was preparing surface remains section to include those individuals
8 or not because of the two reasons. They were outside of the area where
9 the column was passing. They were found very close to the execution
10 site. When I was reviewing the exhumation reports, they are found on the
11 embankment of Drina
12 but perhaps when they were -- these individuals, when they were killed or
13 when they -- yeah, when they were killed, they were perhaps covered with
14 the soil.
15 So I was in dilemma because of those two things, to include those
16 14 individuals in total counting or not, that's why they do not appear in
17 my table.
18 And also when you say Dean Manning included these as surface
19 remains, I -- remark, you know, he was not that much aware -- he did not
20 possess a lot of information as we have it now regarding the surface
21 remains. You will find in his report, for example, also I think
22 Jelova -- Vlasenicka Jelovacka Cesma as surface remains, but it is not.
23 It is included now in my report as a grave. So that's the difference.
24 Because he did not have enough information, probably he included those
25 surface remains individuals as he did it.
1 Q. During our previous session when I asked you about the reasons
2 for your including Liplje 8 grave into your summary given that you didn't
3 have any DNA
4 grave, you replied by saying that you didn't do that because you didn't
5 want to change Manning's report because that same grave appears there.
6 Do you remember telling me this?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But can you now confirm that you in a certain way have changed
9 Mr. Manning's position with regard to the total number of identified
10 persons from surface remains?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
12 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honours. This misstates the
14 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
15 MS. SOLJAN: In fact, Mr. Janc has not made a representation
16 regarding change of a total number of Mr. Manning's total regarding
17 surface remains. He hasn't said anything regarding a total number of
18 surface remains.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a proposition that is being made to the
21 witness and I think he can answer it.
22 So, Mr. Janc, if you can answer the question. It's being
23 suggested to you that in a way you have shifted from your previous
24 position and changed Mr. Manning's position with regard to the total
25 number of identified persons from surface remains.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I can answer this question this
2 way, the entire surface remains section, which you can find it in
3 Dean Manning's report, was changed and replaced with my new section.
4 This part was changed, yes.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Since your task was to update Mr. Manning's information, that led
7 you to conclusion for your need to change some information. However, you
8 didn't offer any rationale for that in your summary. As far as I can
9 see, you did not explain how you took different approach to certain
10 information; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, you perhaps don't have the explanation, but if you are
12 interested in it, I can give you the explanation now.
13 Q. I believe that you have given us enough explanation, Mr. Janc, so
14 let us proceed.
15 According to your Annex B to your summary, you have divided the
16 surface remains into four groups; those collected in the area of Pobudje,
17 Baljkovica, Snagovo, and other sites.
18 A. Yes, indeed.
19 Q. Why then didn't you include the surface remains from Kozluk among
20 these other sites?
21 A. I think I've answered these questions already why not.
22 Q. If I understood you correctly, that was -- the reason for that
23 was because now you have completely different information compared to
24 that that Mr. Manning had at the time when he was drafting his summary?
25 A. Yes. That was one of the reasons, yes. But I was also in
1 dilemma, like I explained you, to include those or not, so. But the main
2 reason was also that they are out of this route where the column was
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see, please,
5 document 2993, page 24. That's Mr. Manning's summary from November 2007.
6 This page ends with ERN number 8680.
7 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this table?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. I'm going to point out to you certain locations in this table,
10 primarily Brezljak, Jasikovci, Kozluk, and that refers to the surface
11 remains from Kozluk, Vlasenica, Krusev Do which is mentioned twice in
12 this table by Dean Manning. Prohici, Sjedoci and Liplje. Would you
13 agree, Mr. Janc, that these sites are not listed in your Annex B as the
14 sites where surface remains were collected?
15 A. Yes, I do agree.
16 Q. Then you will also agree with me that the number of individuals
17 identified from these sites and these surface remains was not included in
18 the total number of 648 [Realtime transcript read in error "248"]
19 identified individuals mentioned in your Annex B?
20 A. No, I do not agree.
21 Q. Please explain.
22 A. Yes, for example --
23 Q. Excuse me, we have to make a correction in the transcript.
24 Page 70, line 10, instead of 248, it should read 648. I apologise for
25 interrupting you, sir. Please go on.
1 A. As I explained, we have much more information regarding these
2 particular sites which are in this table than it was available to
3 Dean Manning. And for example, you have listed some names or some
4 locations, started with Brezljak. So Dean Manning placed this name here
5 or this site as a surface remains, but we found out from the exhumation
6 reports and documents we have received that this is actual grave, and
7 this particular grave is now reflected in my Annex A where you have how
8 many individuals have been identified.
9 The same goes for some other cases, I would say Vlasenica here,
10 this is now Vlasenicka Jelovacka Cesma. Also for Krusev Do-Vukojin
11 number 1. I think also for Prohici, et cetera. So Dean Manning was not
12 putting any numbers or -- any numbers here, so because he was not aware
13 if there are individuals already identified from these locations. So not
14 all of these locations are related to surface remains. Some of them are
15 graves, so he was not right when -- for some of the locations.
16 Then you have some locations which do not appear on my surface
17 remains list, but you can see it here. For example, Krusev Do-Vukojin
18 number 2, and I think for some others you will also find it, so that
19 means that no individuals have been identified yet from these locations,
20 so I did not count them.
21 So what you can see here from Dean Manning's table, it's just the
22 locations where they have collected according to the BiH authorities
23 surface remains, but it turns out not to be -- to be the right
24 information for all of these sites.
25 But I have -- I think I have included most of them in my surface
1 remains section. You will find these cases included in my report.
2 Q. I agree with you that Mr. Manning, in his summary, did not show
3 how many individuals were identified at each location as you did in your
4 summary. However, can you tell me, were you the one who decided the
5 status of a grave to which Manning assigned the status of surface grave
6 to be changed into regular grave?
7 A. Yes, that was me.
8 Q. Thank you. Can you confirm that each time you have made the
9 decision to change the status from the surface grave to the so-called
10 regular grave, it coincided with the statement by the competent
11 authorities of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the records on
12 exhumation where certain graves were attributed certain statuses, whether
13 it were regular or surface graves?
14 A. Yes. In order to find out that I was consulting and reviewing
15 the documents which were provided to us upon my request for these
16 particular sites. When we received exhumation records, photographs,
17 autopsy records, everything, then you review this material and then you
18 see that it's not the surface remains but it's a grave.
19 Q. Thank you. That means, then, that all these decisions made by
20 the authorities, and that is to say, the rulings of the Tuzla cantonal
21 court who in most cases was the one to conduct exhumations were not
22 accessible to Mr. Manning, or were not at his disposal?
23 A. I don't think so that it was not accessible to Dean Manning. But
24 why he did not consulted them in this way, I don't know.
25 Q. Thank you. As you told us, Mr. Janc, you have been working with
1 the OTP since summer 2002 as an investigator --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 2006.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. As an investigator. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, from 1st of June, 2006.
6 Q. Thank you. I suppose that during this time you had an
7 opportunity to familiarise yourself with all the correspondence that the
8 OTP exchanged with the organs of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Federation. I
9 am, in particular, interested in the correspondence between the OTP and
10 the Defence Ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you familiar with that?
11 A. Yes, I think I'm familiar with that, yes.
12 Q. You also know that a large number of members of BH Army were
13 killed during the events in Srebrenica in 1995?
14 A. Yes.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see
16 document 3D457. Can we please enlarge this so that the witness can see
17 this letter better.
18 Q. Mr. Janc, can you see this letter?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you tell me, are you familiar or have you seen this letter
22 A. No, this exact letter I've never seen before.
23 Q. This is a long letter and I'm not going to read it to you in its
24 entirety because it will take a lot of time.
25 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we just now move to page 2
1 and I'm going to read only one sentence from it.
2 Q. This was written by Ms. Ewa Tabeau from the demographic unit of
3 the Tribunal:
4 "[Previous translation continues] [In English] ... of matches of
5 ABiH records with the OTP list become 5.371. This comprises about 70 per
6 cent of the OTP list."
7 [Interpretation] Mr. Janc, if you are not personally familiar
8 with this letter, do you know from your contacts with the demographic
9 unit that there are some overlappings between the number of persons on
10 the missing list and the number of individuals listed as killed in the
11 BH Army lists?
12 A. Yes, I have heard about this.
13 Q. Do you by any chance know that Mr. Vujadin Popovic's Defence team
14 has sought additional explanation regarding this letter sent to the OTP
15 by Mrs. Ewa Tabeau?
16 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see document
20 Q. Mr. Janc, this is a rather long e-mail of three pages in which
21 the lead counsel of Mr. Popovic sought explanation.
22 If you say that you are generally not familiar with the content
23 of this letter or of this e-mail, for that matter, I suppose that you
24 also don't know that the Defence team has never received any answer to
25 this e-mail from the OTP.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
2 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is actually a misstatement of
3 facts. A response was sent to the Defence regarding this e-mail.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Soljan.
5 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I personally know
7 of no answer to this letter. At any rate, in re-examination the
8 Prosecution can clarify this issue that we opened in cross.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Re-examination has got nothing to do with that. If
10 a reply was sent to that letter, you are a member of the Defence team and
11 you should be aware of it. So we need to establish that first.
12 Mr. Zivanovic, are you also not aware of a reply having been
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I must check it, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then I suggest you move to your next
16 question, Ms. Tapuskovic, until this is checked.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry if I created a
18 confusion. We will run some checks. I'm move to another question.
19 Can we call up 1D1368, without being broadcast. Can we place on
20 the screen at the same time the original document made in B/C/S. This is
21 a Defence translation and we translated only part of the table to make
22 more visible the rubrics and their names, but we did not include names
23 because in and of themselves the names are not relevant.
24 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this list?
25 A. No, I'm not.
1 Q. On this list, I'm going to clarify, on this list we have
2 137 names of persons that the BH Army believes to have met their death
3 before July 1995 and the events in Srebrenica. As you can see, in the
4 outside right column you see ICMP, July 2008, and for all these persons
5 we have a protocol ID and the name of the grave-site. Do you agree?
6 A. Yes, I see these grave-sites, yes.
7 Q. Can you now look at the column on the left-hand side of the
8 screen where it says "Prosecution list" and in one of the sub-columns you
9 will see date of death Brumborg.
10 A. On this same list or table?
11 Q. Yes. On the same list. In the first horizontal line of boxes
12 under the general heading "Prosecution list," the first box underneath is
13 surname, followed by name, followed by name of father, followed by date
14 of birth, and then comes the date of death Brumborg?
15 A. Yes, I see that now.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court
17 1D1375, but only the letter can be broadcast. The rest of the document
18 including the list of names should not be broadcast.
19 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this letter that Geoffrey Nice,
20 principal trial attorney, addressed to the Defence Ministry of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 29th of June, 2004, asking for clarification of
22 the status of 142 members of the BH Army?
23 A. No, I'm not aware of that letter.
24 Q. You have told us, Mr. Janc, on several occasions about each
25 individual case, especially the cases that were not included in DNA
1 connections mentioned in your Annex C. And the Defence concludes
2 therefrom that at any rate you made sure to establish regarding every
3 individual victim whether it should be included in the list or not, and
4 whether it can be treated at Srebrenica related or not. Am I right in
5 concluding that you were careful to do that in each individual case?
6 A. No, I was not checking every and each particular individual in
7 the ICRC or in the missing list, so what I was including was -- were the
8 individuals which appeared on the ICMP list.
9 Q. But did you ask from the demographic unit information relating to
10 members of the BH Army so that you can check whether their inclusion in
11 the list of those identified or those missing is in keeping with the
12 Prosecution case about who can be considered as Srebrenica-related
14 A. No, I did not ask for such list.
15 Q. Thank you. On this document you see that the Prosecution asked
16 this information from the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina on
17 the 29th of June, 2004; correct?
18 A. Yes, I see that, yes. Correct.
19 Q. In paragraph 4 from the bottom you can see that the Prosecution
20 gave the Defence Ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina 30 days to provide
21 information in response to this query?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D1362, and it
25 should not be broadcast.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, while we discuss this document, please do not mention
2 the name. The other information is sufficient.
3 Can you tell me when was this certificate issued?
4 A. It's 28 of July, 2004.
5 Q. And we saw a moment ago that the request of the Prosecution was
6 dated 29 June 2004; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This certificate says that the person named went missing on the
9 18th of August, 1994. Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. By checking all the lists of missing persons, the Defence
12 established that the said person under the same protocol ID, which is
13 5080/04, and we have him on the list of missing persons, document P2414,
14 and we found his name on the list admitted as P3006.
15 Can you tell us how is it possible that a person who has a
16 certificate in their name saying that they died in 1994, how can such a
17 person be found on the list of Srebrenica-related victims made in
18 2009 -- 4?
19 A. I'm afraid I'm not the right person to be asked this question,
20 how is that possible. It can be -- you know, there can be various
21 reasons for that. I don't know. First of all, we would have to check
22 these certificates and various other things, so I don't have the answer
23 for this question, how is it possible.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D1363. Also not
25 to be broadcast.
1 Q. Can you see this certificate, Mr. Janc?
2 A. Yes, I can see it.
3 Q. This certificate was issued on the same date as the previous one,
4 the 28th of July, 2004, that is, within the time allowed by the
5 Prosecution for the information to be provided. And this person is on
6 the list attached to the letter that Mr. Geoffrey Nice made available to
7 the ministry on the 29th of June, 2004.
8 Can we see that this person was killed on the 12th of August,
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. I suppose that you will also tell me that you are not aware of
12 this case as you were not aware of the previous case?
13 A. You are right. I'm not aware of this case.
14 Q. Will you tell me, Mr. Janc, are you now, after receiving this
15 information contained in these two certificates, are you now going to
16 take some steps such as sending a letter to the ICMP to inform them, as
17 you have done in the several cases concerning illogical DNA connections,
18 and ask for a clarification from ICMP how these persons were included on
19 the list of those identified, whereas we have a certificate from the
20 Ministry of Defence that they had died much, much earlier, before the
21 events in Srebrenica?
22 A. First of all, I would probably contact our demographics unit
23 because this certificates, I think, are only one source of information
24 when the person might died. So I know that they are -- when checking
25 particular person, they are checking within different sources,
1 statistical sources from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's not only one
2 source. And you can -- very often you can find different dates where the
3 person has died.
4 So I think this is only one source, and more sources should be
5 checked. And when we find this information, if there is a real doubt
6 about it, then we would inform ICMP about it, yes.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
8 JUDGE KWON: You have a question -- oh, it's time. Before that,
9 Madam Tapuskovic, does it mean that this person is appearing in
10 Mr. Janc's report in confidential Annex D? Has it been established? Or
11 Ms. Soljan, do you agree?
12 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE KWON: In what grave?
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
15 MS. SOLJAN: I will have to double-check that.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: You will double-check that in the meantime and we
17 will reconvene on Monday in the morning at 9.00. Thank you.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like -- I
19 would have just one more brief question, sorry for interrupting you. You
20 gave us a dead-line for submitting 92 bis statements for our experts that
21 were seven days, we had to do it within seven days. Since we still have
22 mentions of DNA
23 dead-line for expert statements to start running from the end of the
24 testimony of Mr. Janc so that our experts can give their opinion on that.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Permission granted.
1 Yes, Ms. Soljan?
2 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, just one more thing for the record,
3 with respect to that Exhibit 1D1361 which contained correspondence dated
4 31 July 2008
5 there had been correspondence and a full response by the Prosecution both
6 on 1st of August and then later also on the 15th of September, 2008.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Of which year?
8 MS. SOLJAN: 2008, both of those.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: 2008, okay. Thank you. Have a nice weekend.
10 We'll meet again on Monday morning at 9.00.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of May,
13 2009, at 9.00 a.m.