1 Monday, 3 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: As the court will see, Judge Robinson is not here. He
6 is unwell, as indeed he was last week, but he has not recovered.
7 Therefore, he will not be sitting either today or tomorrow, and the
8 Chamber, exercising its powers under Rule 15 bis, will sit as the two
9 remaining Judges, being satisfied that it is in the interests of justice
10 to continue with this case as expeditiously as possible, unless there are
11 any objections. Very well.
12 Mr. Nice, it does, of course, mean - and I should make it plain to
13 all - that the Chamber can make no decisions, of course, only being two,
14 no decisions except those which are absolutely necessary for the
15 continuation of the case during the day. In particular, we won't be able
16 to make any decisions on the submissions we're going to hear about
17 Torkildsen and any other matters concerning the conduct of the case.
18 Judge Robinson will have the opportunity, when he returns, to read
19 the submissions, and the Trial Chamber will then make its decisions.
20 MR. NICE: Your Honour, no doubt if Judge Robinson has any issues
21 he wants addressed by any parties, he will always be in a position to do
22 that on our return.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he can.
24 MR. NICE: I say that not just because the record is -- reflects
25 the learned Judge's interest in asking me questions from time to time but
1 in order that the accused may know that those interactions are available
2 at that time.
3 Your Honour, we were dealing -- would it be convenient if we deal
4 with the closing -- the remaining submissions about the financial report
5 and then separately, perhaps after the amici and the accused have said
6 what they want to say about that, then turn to other procedural issues?
7 JUDGE MAY: I referred to it discourteously. I meant the
8 financial evidence as "Torkildsen," Mr. Torkildsen.
9 MR. NICE: Mr. Torkildsen, who is actually sitting next door to me
10 today, as you may have guessed.
11 I know that when we closed last week on this topic, the accused
12 said he had one sentence more that he wanted to say, but unless I'm
13 dissuaded, I'll just carry on and conclude what I say and we can perhaps
14 return to that sentence and anything he wants to say later.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I recollect, we were hearing your
16 submissions, and had heard part of them, and you had produced a chart for
18 MR. NICE: Yes. It's the chart that's referred to in paragraph 54
19 of the first report, which is the report that covers Kosovo but also part
20 of the earlier period, and it had been amended to incorporate, in small
21 boxes with round corners, the sources relied upon by Mr. Torkildsen for
22 the various propositions that this chart reveals.
23 I've taken you through the chart in short order but sufficiently
24 for these purposes because the chart reveals a control of the movement of
25 money by the accused. It reveals a control of the way the money was then
1 used to finance the operations which include operations at the heart of
2 these allegations.
3 Your Honour, I don't need to say any more about it than that
4 because I know that the Chamber will have considered and will be in a
5 position further to consider the detail of the report if and when it needs
6 to do so.
7 I had a piece of paper that I've now succeeded already in losing.
8 Just give me a moment to find it.
9 That first report, of course, covers Kosovo but also has a
10 slightly broader reach because it sets out the historical position, and
11 overall, it reveals that the accused, even when president of Serbia and
12 not president of the republic, had control of a republic body, the customs
13 administration, which was used for the provision of money for these
14 purposes, and that's an extremely important piece of evidence.
15 Now, we may have had sentences of evidence to the like effect from
16 live witnesses, but the way the matter is charted here in confirmation of
17 that is of great value. It shows that the accused in his control of the
18 movement and use of money was in a position to and did disregard the laws
19 that applied to federal income and the way it should be dealt with. And
20 of course it shows that those funds were channeled outside normal channels
21 to the Serbian MUP at the accused's order in a way that simply matches
22 completely with the Prosecution account that he was directly in charge of
23 those forces, exercising control over them in a way that would not be
24 regarded as typical of a person in his two positions, either president of
25 Serbia or, later, of the republic.
1 And it's interesting to note, as we can find in the summary of
2 conclusions, I think, of this first report, that in the domestic cases
3 against -- paragraph 13 -- that in the domestic cases certainly involving
4 this accused and others, the accused finds himself linked to people like
5 Sainovic, Milutinovic, Stanisic and Markovic, all names with whom he is
6 linked in relation to the alleged crimes in this court.
7 Now, Your Honours, the report is very detailed. It comes in its
8 two parts, and I don't desire at the moment to go into any detail for it
9 would take too much time, but if the Court has any concerns about matters
10 of detail, I can deal with them, the Court being aware that there was, by
11 the amici, a detailed schedule of issues raised which have been responded
12 to in our response of the 16th of June in great detail, item by item.
13 There's going to be little purpose served and a great deal of time
14 consumed in my running over those in detail.
15 The hearsay point that the amici rely on is a point that can
16 always be relied on in any expert report, and we make the point that
17 expert reports have already been adduced, which rely on the admission of
18 out of court observations and statements by one or other kind of
19 individual. It's no different from that. And indeed, the amici's
20 position that everything has to be given live would simply make of any
21 expert topic an uncontrollably large amount of material that would have to
22 be handled.
23 As I said last week, I rather hope that the issue as to whether
24 Mr. Torkildsen is or is not an expert may now be behind us, but of course
25 what experts do, and what all the experts we've seen so far have done, is
1 to take a very large amount of material to which they apply the expertise
2 that they bring, which includes the expertise of analysis, in order to
3 render it valuable to the Court in a manageable way.
4 If we turn to the second report, and I can deal with that shortly.
5 The second report, which deals with -- specifically with the earlier
6 period, it shows, at a time when the accused was the president of Serbia,
7 the establishment of an economic federation, effectively, involving the
8 republic, the RS, and the RSK, all funded by Serbia under the control of
9 the accused. He was the decision-maker in providing the finance and
10 providing all that came with the finance to those Serb bodies outside
11 Serbia, and of course he made admissions which we rely on and which are
12 produced within the report to that effect. And in our respectful
13 submission, the very nature of the allegations made against the accused in
14 relation to his controlling influence on events in both the RSK and the RS
15 and in the territories of which they were organs makes it inevitable that
16 this evidence must be admissible and must be extremely valuable to the
17 Court. But the way the evidence is presented comes in an ideal form for
18 those conducting inquiries - in part, notwithstanding the adversarial
19 process, this Court is conducting an inquiry in its search for the truth -
20 it provides for an ideal - how did I express it? - an ideal form because
21 at all stages the Court can require of the accused to know what is
22 challenged and why and can, as it may or not judge appropriate, further
23 underlying material to be laid before it. Where matters are not, in
24 truth, in issue but are simply fleshed out by this expert from
25 consideration of an enormous amount of material -- not an enormous but a
1 very large amount of material -- fleshed out over the skeleton that at
2 most will be provided by live witnesses saying, "Yes, I was asked to carry
3 sacks of money here and there," then the Court's in a position to do so,
4 and to ensure that it has the correct evidence it would need.
5 So, Your Honour, can I leave those observations there and return
6 to them when my learned friend the amici may have said what they've said
7 and when the accused has contributed what he may want to say.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, the Prosecution have set up the basis of
10 their allegation on these financial matters. They have set out the
11 evidence upon which they rely. But issue before the Court today is the
12 admissibility of that evidence supported through Mr. Torkildsen, whether
13 the materials that he produces are indeed admissable in the form that the
14 Prosecution seek to present them.
15 If I can go firstly to the issue of expertise. With the original
16 report, a very brief outline of the expertise of Mr. Torkildsen was filed
17 and we sought clarification as to his expertise because that was an
18 objection reasonably open to the accused as to his status. Since that
19 filing, a far more detailed background of his expertise has been put
20 before the Court. It could well be the case that the Court accepts that
21 expertise, but of interest within the argument on this matter is the fact
22 that it is primarily and principally a background of investigation. And I
23 point that out because that is relevant to the submissions that flow.
24 The Court has to be satisfied that this evidence is evidence upon
25 which it requires an expert witness, that the materials sought to be
1 produced before it fall in within that category of evidence upon which the
2 Court, as the principal finders of fact, requires expertise. The trial
3 process doesn't require expert witnesses to come before it to present
4 their conclusions on a wide variety of matters that are in fact the domain
5 of the Judges, and we have raised the issue as to whether this is a
6 subject that truly requires expert evidence to present findings from that
7 expert witness to the Court. It may well be detailed and complex in the
8 sense that there is a lot of it, but being able to judge and see what
9 there is is something that we submit this Trial Chamber is perfectly
10 capable of doing if the evidence is presented before it.
11 Let's now look, then, at the material itself to see what is sought
12 to be brought before the Court through Mr. Torkildsen.
13 The Prosecution have already referred to the schedule filed by the
14 amici on the 16th of December, 2002, and it is that document which I'm
15 going to be using because it makes a number of points that can be made
16 briefly and succinctly.
17 JUDGE MAY: Is this the first or the second report?
18 MR. KAY: That's the second.
19 The schedule does identify what I will call a number of minor
20 matters that are contained within the report which we make observations
21 about, such as the first one at page 5, at paragraph 9. The real
22 context --
23 JUDGE MAY: That is matter of weight, isn't it?
24 MR. KAY: Yes.
25 JUDGE MAY: About inadequate references. The next one is about a
2 MR. KAY: Yes. If we go to page 5, paragraph 11, attachment
3 number R1, and I'm at part A of the schedule of objections, we have here
4 interview notes of someone who himself is potentially a witness. Since
5 making this filing, the Prosecution have produced further evidence in
6 which Professor Ognjenovic confirms his interview. Those details were
7 sadly lacking on the first filing. But what is sought to be produced is
8 an interview by Mr. Torkildsen of Professor Ognjenovic. So it's not
9 evidence that the expert has observed from the materials, documents,
10 evidence, but in fact an interview conducted by him in which he then
11 produces the statements made by that potential witness.
12 If it is sought to rely upon this evidence, then it would be far
13 more preferable and in the interests of justice that that professor could
14 be called so that the accused could question him as to his point of view
15 and allegation. And using Mr. Torkildsen in between the two, we in effect
16 have a blocking mechanism.
17 Let's move now to the next point within the schedule part A, pages
18 6 to 15, paragraphs 12 to 26, of the Kosovo report. This is an excerpt of
19 transcript recordings of interview with Kertes and statements made by
20 Kertes which is produced by Mr. Torkildsen as Exhibit R2. In fact, there
21 are only excerpts of the transcript of interview taken by the OTP.
22 Mr. Torkildsen reviews and extracts and summarises what Mr. Kertes, a
23 potential accused himself - or an accused - has said, and then produces it
24 through his report. Annexed to that as R2B, C, D and E, are four witness
25 statements taken in the domestic - and by that I mean national - criminal
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 proceedings which were brought against Mr. Kertes. These are a different
2 category of document from the previous ones. They're not OTP documents or
3 OTP investigative material. Again, what Mr. Kertes said about the matter,
4 if produced solely through Torkildsen, prevents the accused from
5 questioning the maker of the statements upon which Mr. Torkildsen relies
6 and is a blocking mechanism.
7 If we go to the next matter, that is what I would call - page 16,
8 paragraph 27 - the travel records of Mr. Kertes, in the context of this
9 argument one of the minor matters, and the Court can deal with that
10 without extensive oral argument. I'm going to deal with the principal
11 matters on this submission because that is probably where the heart of
12 this debate lies.
13 At pages 17 to 19, domestic criminal charges against Mr. Milosevic
14 and a statement made by him in domestic criminal proceedings on the 1st of
15 April 2001, and a statement taken on the 2nd of April. Statements taken
16 by people other than Torkildsen - Mr. Torkildsen, I'm very sorry - at this
17 time and statements concerning domestic proceedings against the accused
18 are matters upon which this case is not, in fact, based. Mr. Torkildsen
19 reviews and summarises that, and we question what is the purpose of a
20 financial investigator in giving a review and summary of that statement.
21 Is that --
22 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but the statements themselves,
23 you say, may be admissible as official court documents; is that right?
24 MR. KAY: They may be, yes. From that perspective, we haven't
25 particularly looked at this matter. We're looking at Mr. Torkildsen's
1 role within it, and we'd query what is the purpose of using an expert in
2 that form merely to review and summarise the contents of what was said.
3 We go to page 20, paragraph 34, the next attachment, R5, the
4 excerpt of the statement of Mr. Zebic, former Deputy Prime Minister of the
5 FRY and Federal Minister of Finance. This was a statement that we noticed
6 was unsigned. Whether the entire statement has been produced is unclear.
7 The language of the statement, any translation of the statement that there
8 may have been. No evidence of confirmation, in fact, by Mr. Zebic of what
9 he had said. And again Mr. Torkildsen performs this role, which is
10 central within this theme of our submissions to the Court, of reviewing,
11 extracting portions, putting it in his report, and effectively that blocks
12 the accused from dealing with any issues with the maker of the statement.
13 And in our submission, this is not a true function of an expert witness.
14 We are back into that area we were in in the Kosovo trial where there were
15 summaries of witness statements. And so many witnesses have passed now
16 and I've forgotten the name of the summarising officer, but we clearly
17 dealt with that issue within that form. I think it was Mr. Curtis.
18 JUDGE MAY: Barney Kelly.
19 MR. KAY: Barney Kelly. Mr. Curtis as well. And that is, in
20 effect, what is happening here through Mr. Torkildsen, this time not
21 dressed as an investigator but dressed as an expert. I'm not making here
22 any particular point as to whether an investigator cannot be an expert,
23 but I point out to the Court that that is in essence what is happening
24 with this material.
25 If we move on to the next attachment, R6, page 20, paragraph 35.
1 This is Mr. Sainovic's interview, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the
2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And this is material that arose from his
3 own national criminal proceedings and a statement made by him within that
4 context. This isn't a statement taken by Mr. Torkildsen and the OTP, as
5 has been the case in some of the previous attachments, but this is
6 Mr. Sainovic's statement in his national investigation.
7 Again, that evidence of what Mr. Sainovic has said in clearly a
8 position where he would be serving his own self-interest and maybe only
9 too happy to make statements that are untrue about someone else, and I
10 don't know whether that's so or not, but that's the point I make. It's
11 often preferable, if you are going to rely on statements of the
12 co-accused, then you have the other co-accused present to say whether they
13 take issue with that declaration or statement at the time. It makes
15 Here, if this statement was produced through Mr. Torkildsen, again
16 Mr. Torkildsen would only be able to say, quite truthfully, to
17 Mr. Milosevic, "Well, that's what Mr. Sainovic said," and in effect, that
18 would block Mr. Milosevic from ever dealing with Mr. Sainovic and his
19 point of view, and that's why we say that this evidence is not truly the
20 subject of expert evidence. It is really the very usual stuff and essence
21 of trial evidence that the Judges themselves should be able to deal with
22 in observing the questioning of witnesses.
23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, given the constraints of time, this is a
24 point which you make -- or these points you make, as I understand it, in
25 relation to a number of other witnesses or witness statements or
1 interviews, over that page and over the next page, that here is
2 effectively evidence being put in in a hearsay form, statements and the
3 like --
4 MR. KAY: Yes.
5 JUDGE MAY: -- and the right way to do it is, if they want to call
6 the witnesses, Prosecution can do so so that they can be cross-examined.
7 MR. KAY: The roll call goes on: Stanisic, Markovic, Borka Vukic;
8 notes of interview with senior officials from the MUP, Dusan Lalic, Mladen
9 Zinkic [phoen], these are the respective governors or managers of the bank
10 of Yugoslavia; and Mr. Slobodan Raj. And I think the Court has, from our
11 schedule, the specific observations in relation to each of them.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. And they follow the arguments which you have
13 already put to us.
14 MR. KAY: Yes.
15 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could come to B, part B. What do you say
16 about that? We have your argument, of course, but --
17 MR. KAY: Yes. Part B, these are the technical side of the
18 presentation largely, where footnotes, references are missing, which in a
19 proper expert's report, the Court, the accused, any expert that the
20 accused may feel inclined to instruct, would be able to check sources.
21 And we've detailed quite a bit of those matters.
22 I don't really want to go into those individually as that will
23 take up too much time, and we've made the points within the schedule.
24 Again, we have again the reports of Radmila Butisin [phoen], Ms.
25 Ljiljana Radenkovic, further examples of statements taken from people
1 within the context of court proceedings where in effect the expert is
2 acting as investigator, summarising evidence.
3 We have made a number of points which are clearly identified. And
4 by example, if I just show that at page 38, paragraph 68, where the expert
5 strays into the role of providing conclusions that are within the remit of
6 the Trial Chamber. That seems to happen quite a lot within these expert
7 reports that we have been asked to deal with in the course of this trial,
8 and we have identified further examples of that.
9 And so what we've done here in part B is provide again specific
10 points where we say, "Well, if this material is to go in before the Trial
11 Chamber, it certainly has to be in a proper form and cleaned up." And I
12 don't mean that disrespectfully, I just mean that it should be more of an
13 entire and full document so that those who want to take issue with it are
14 able to more specifically identify where the sources of Mr. Torkildsen's
15 opinion report are derived from.
16 Again, those are very clear as we've set them out within the
18 If we look at page 33, paragraph 60, if I take again, as an
19 example of references and footnoting, Mr. Torkildsen didn't provide
20 references or footnotes to support various statements made by him upon
21 which he was providing what was sought to be relied upon as expert
22 guidance to the Court. And this phrase, "An examination of the banking
23 records reveals that many of the transactions conducted by these eight
24 companies were performed following instructions of Ms. Borka Vukic."
25 Again, if that is something that is to be put forward through the report,
1 those who have to challenge and contest it should be able to see from
2 whence it came to see if in fact the Court, if this evidence does come in,
3 is in fact being given a truly accurate picture.
4 That recurs throughout. I think it would be tedious for me to go
5 through every single one in part B, because I think the points are well
6 made within our document.
7 Does that assist the Trial Chamber?
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Do you want to say anything about the other
10 MR. KAY: Again, it comes down to this point of the investigator
11 summarising evidence. It comes down to the same issue and whether this
12 material is genuinely that which should be the subject of an expert giving
13 it before the Court in this form. It's a matter for the Prosecution
14 whether they want to treat this as a part of the evidence against the
15 accused. If they choose to do so and go down that route into what is a
16 very distinct area, then they must bear the consequences in relation to
17 the time and the means by which this should be done.
18 It seemed to the amici that the plea from the Prosecutor was, "We
19 take the view this is essential evidence. We have a conclusion that we
20 would seek the Trial Chamber to draw from it. There is quite a bit of
21 material, dare I say vast amount of material in this context that would
22 have to come within the trial process, and we're seeking this means to
23 achieve that end." The unfairness to the accused is that it may well be
24 that there are constraints of time, and this particular issue which is so
25 important to them, and if it's so important to them is necessarily
1 important to the accused, that he should have the right to challenge, if
2 he chooses to do so, and put his point of view and his case so that the
3 Trial Chamber gets a full picture on the matter. But to use this kind of
4 evidence in this way effectively breaks off and prevents the accused from
5 being able to deal with it specifically, because the investigator, expert,
6 is always able to say, "Well, that's what Mr. Sainovic said. That's what
7 Ms. Vukic says." And when one multiplies that through these extensive
8 reports - we have eight, ten files of it - it becomes a part of the trial
9 that we submit is wholly unsatisfactory, and no one looking back at it
10 would be able to say, "Well, that aspect of the trial was able to be
11 properly dealt with."
12 It's matter for the Prosecution whether they want to rely on it,
13 but in the same way that they stress the importance to them, the
14 importance to the accused has its own reverse indicator. It flows from
15 that in the opposite direction towards him.
16 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that here, just like in many
18 other matters, the opposite side has put things topsy-turvy. We're not
19 dealing here with placing any kind of financial documentation in the
20 function of proving some alleged crime and accountability which does not
21 exist but an intentional attempt to make a confusion between what is
22 called economic policy, the economic policy of a particular country, and
23 in this case a country that functioned within the conditions of
24 international sanctions imposed upon it, and the measures for implementing
25 that policy performed by the individual state organs. And I'm going to
1 quote Mr. Nice here. Last time, I think he said the following --
2 actually, he endeavoured to sidestep the problem of sanctions which were
3 introduced against Yugoslavia. So what?
4 Of course under conditions of sanctions when sanctions have been
5 imposed which were in fact a form of a silent genocide vis-a-vis the 11
6 million inhabitants of Yugoslavia, another 1.2 million inhabitants in
7 Republika Srpska, and another 300.000 of the inhabitants of Srpska
8 Krajina, this was silent genocide. So under conditions of that kind you
9 could proclaim, for example, that any import or expert was in fact
10 clandestine and a case of smuggling. So what? Isn't it the role of the
11 state organs faced with sanctions to endeavour to do what they can? In
12 order to satisfy Mr. Nice, should they have -- or that other person
13 guiding him -- should we have left our people to die of hunger, to die
14 through lack of medicines, through lack of fuel or anything of that kind?
15 Therefore, there's a confusion here between what is called and
16 what quite obviously Mr. Nice does not know, or perhaps Mr. Torkildsen
17 might be the only person who understands this here because he's the only
18 qualified person in the room, what an economic policy in fact means, the
19 economic of a policy of a country faced with economic sanctions and what
20 mechanisms are through which the state organs implement that particular
22 So that is the difference that cannot be seen here, or rather,
23 intentionally a confusion has been made partially through intent and
24 partially through an absolute lack of knowledge on the part of the matter
25 in question by the opposing side.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Therefore, whether the leadership of a country is striving to
2 solve certain economic problems that it has been faced with, that is one
3 matter and one question, and whether those questions objectively and
4 concretely are solved by the state organs is another question. A moment
5 ago, Mr. Nice mentioned here -- he said or, rather, he enumerated and I
6 made a note of several individuals that he mentioned, one was the vice --
7 the vice-president for the economy, the Minister of Finance, the Prime
8 Minister of the Republic of Serbia, another minister, the fifth was the
9 director of the customs administration. So these were all top
10 functionaries doing their duties and doing their work when Yugoslavia was
11 faced with sanctions. And look at what he says here: 100 million dinars
12 were given to pay soldier reservists in Kosovo and Metohija. So what?
13 Because otherwise, everything relates to 1994 onwards. Those are the
15 And then he goes on to say the following: A large amount of
16 medicines were supplied. Several hundred ambulances and tons of
17 medicines, sanitary material, first aid material and food. They even
18 delve into things like that, he says. Goods were exchanged for other
19 goods. Barter was carried out. And then he says, for example - and this
20 is on page 837 - for instance, he says, for example, on the 30th of April,
21 1983, Federal Customs Administration drew up an agreement for a
22 compensation with the producers of fuel for the army of Yugoslavia and
23 medicines and food which was sent out to the army of Yugoslavia.
24 So what? Do you think that the leadership of a country, within
25 the frameworks of its economic policy and the Federal Customs
1 Administration, together with the Finance Minister of the federal
2 government, is seeking ways and means to assist the army of its own
3 country? And the fact that we're helping our own army, the army of our
4 own country in this particular way is something that was not done as it
5 should have been, as -- according to the regulations when you're faced
6 with sanctions. And that is something that is -- you are amassing as an
7 important document here.
8 Mr. Kay, a moment ago, said that there was a vast quantity of
9 material and documents, and in that vast quantity of documents and papers,
10 I'd like Mr. Torkildsen, among those thousands of pages, to extract a
11 single one which would indicate my management of any resources, whichever
12 sources they are, to whoever they belong, the economy, the state,
13 whatever. I'd like him to show me one single piece of paper. So economic
14 policy is one thing and it is the competent organs of the state that
15 manage them. Whether it was in keeping with the law and regulations, no,
16 because we were faced with sanctions, so of course not. But
17 Mr. Torkildsen will explain this best to you: In banking transactions,
18 financial transactions, there are always records. There is never any
19 money for which records cannot be found, and there is nobody who deals
20 with money and issues money without receiving a chit, a receipt in return,
21 some written evidence showing what was going on.
22 So I say so what? So what if we helped the army of Yugoslavia?
23 So what if we helped the Republika Srpska or Republika Srpska Krajina?
24 Did the Vatican -- didn't the Vatican assist Croatia, Turkey, Saudi
25 Arabia, goodness knows how many countries? Didn't they help the Muslims
1 in Bosnia-Herzegovina? And so on and so forth. The Germans helped the
2 Croats, the Americans even. And so on and so on. So what if the Serbs
3 assisted the Serbs? Where is there any logic in -- if we did not do so,
4 we would be bastards if we did not help those people during the sanctions,
5 while we were under sanctions.
6 But as it is not my intention to waste my own time or anybody
7 else's time, even the public's time, those who are attending all this, I
8 know that you will deliberate about all these matters exclusively from a
9 formal and legal aspect. I think that the material is quite unsuitable,
10 but, please, just like Mr. Kay emphasised - and I completely agree with
11 him in what he was saying - we have the statement of a -- other persons, I
12 don't want to repeat his enumeration of them, but we have statements of
13 persons to which this evidence relies. And I find it completely
14 unacceptable. They cannot be adopted and accepted and admitted until all
15 those individuals are subjected to cross-examination. Because we don't
16 know how the statements were taken, we don't know whether they were taken
17 in their entirety, and quite obviously, we do know that they were not
18 taken in keeping with the rules and regulations for giving statements,
19 under what circumstances and all the rest of it. And if somebody relies
20 on somebody else's statements, then the person giving the statement must
21 be brought here and subjected to cross-examination and not to take
22 anybody's story for granted, although in addition to all the efforts I
23 have made, I have not been able to find in any of these papers anything
24 that would hold me accountable except that I waged economic policy in the
25 best way I knew how. And might I say that I knew how to do this much
1 better than anybody else, because quite obviously we managed to survive,
2 faced with the sanctions. And how we managed our economy under conditions
3 of sanction will, at a later date in history, be studied as successful
4 defence again the genocidal intents implemented against our nations, and
5 you will be able to see, through the material, that the greatest portion
6 of the resources went to support the economic branches that were having a
7 difficult time, such as the metal industry, the textile industry, and of
8 course, the army and the police and the security of the country, and of
9 course assistance to the Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina,
10 but once again I say so what? This is our own affair. How we're going to
11 spend our own money is up to us.
12 Is there a single document here that has been shown here and that
13 indicates that even one cent was placed in the function of perpetrating a
14 crime of any kind, unless you consider that care and attention to the
15 material position of one's own army or one's own metal industry or one's
16 own textile industry can be considered a crime. Because we found a total
17 collapse of the country under conditions of sanction. So in resisting
18 these measures and resisting sanctions, these are the things we did to
20 So these are all things that have to be cleared up, and none of
21 these statements, not by a single person, can be admitted until that
22 person is brought here for cross-examination. And of course once we
23 receive the final report of Mr. Torkildsen, then Mr. Torkildsen himself
24 will have to take the chair, the witness chair, and be subjected to
1 So that is, in the briefest possible terms, what I have to say
2 about this massive material which I think Mr. Nice has used from his total
3 lack of knowledge. Because had he known anything about all this, he
4 wouldn't have served up this kind of material.
5 JUDGE MAY: When were the sanctions imposed, Mr. Milosevic? Can
6 you remember that?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The sanctions were imposed in 1992.
8 However, those murderous ones and the total blockade, which means when the
9 borders were hermetically closed, that was in 1993, after the Vance-Owen
10 Plan was rejected, even though Yugoslavia wholeheartedly sought to have
11 that plan adopted. Sanctions were imposed upon it because the Assembly of
12 Republika Srpska rejected the Vance-Owen Plan in 1993.
13 And that same year, 1993, Mr. May, as you're asking me, we had
14 soaring inflation because of these horrific sanctions, and the inflation
15 was hundreds of millions of per cent. And then through a very elegant
16 and simple reform, we stopped the inflation in 1994, reduced it to zero
17 and maintained the stability of the dinar, with some minor fluctuations,
18 up to the year 2000. And that will enter into the history of economic
19 policy and economic science as to how we managed to achieve that under
20 those conditions. But that is a separate issue. I am just answering your
21 question, though it is not my duty to answer questions until I take the
22 witness box. But so that you should know, that these sanctions were
23 introduced -- criminal sanctions were introduced in 1993.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I said at the very outset, you are not
25 obliged to answer any questions, as you point out, but it's sometimes
1 helpful to have matters clarified as we go along, and if you can do so, so
2 much the better.
3 Yes, Mr. Nice.
4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position of this expert is no
5 different from many other experts dealing with similar lines of work.
6 Forensic accounting experts in commercial or even criminal cases have to
7 review, with their expertise, a range of materials that may be
8 superficially familiar in part, bank accounts and so on, but simply aren't
9 fully understood by the layman and are understood for the purpose of
10 tracing money by the expert. He's undoubtedly an expert and he brings
11 those skills to this exercise. But in any event, as we've explained in
12 our filings in this and I think in other topics, the range of expertise
13 that can assist the Court is broad these days, from the entirely
14 intellectual expert who speaks in entirely intellectual, academic terms,
15 to the practical expert; and inevitably experts will find themselves, in
16 giving evidence, doing a number of things, including exercising their
17 skills in the analysis of documents. That's exactly what this witness has
19 A few matters of detail: The Ognjenovic interview was by an
20 investigator called Tore Soldal and also another financial investigator
21 called Rand Sharpe [phoen]. It's no different in form from any other of
22 the many forms of out-of-Court statements that have been admitted in this
24 Can we have a very short closed session, please, because I want to
25 deal with propositions in chronological order.
1 [Private session]
13 Page 17224 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 MR. NICE: The -- sorry.
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.
4 MR. NICE: The accused's out-of-court statements were a source,
5 provided a framework or part of a framework that the expert was then able
6 to consider by reference to the documents to see if they fit and support,
7 to see if they go together. They do. That's why each is valuable, the
8 one confirming the other. Zebic's statement has been signed. We've dealt
9 with that. And there's no question of this being a summarising witness.
10 We made it clear that all the documents are available in full when
11 required, so it's not question of summarising their effect. It's looking
12 at out-of-court statements and looking at what documents reveal and seeing
13 the degree to which they match, and they do match.
14 And the Chamber will have seen in relation to a couple of the
15 witnesses that my learned friend Mr. Kay said were inadmissible
16 out-of-court statements, that they don't actually feature in the little
17 square boxes that I've had put on this chart as going to show particular
18 sources of information. Not because they aren't valuable but because
19 they're not critical to particular limbs of the process. So you won't
20 find Sainovic there, and you won't find Zebic there. They provide further
21 supportive material but they're not actually critical to any of those
22 particular lines that we would wish to establish.
23 And of course these are for the most part - because they're made
24 in other jurisdictions - they are declarations against interest, therefore
25 having about them an indicia or indicator of reliability the Chamber can
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 So far as Slobodan Raj is concerned, his statement you'll find is
3 referred to, and he can be found -- you see where I point. It's towards
4 the bottom left of the statement, there.
5 Now, in one sense his statement is an ICTY statement, I think one
6 of only two ICTY statements referred to in this report, the other one
7 being Ljiljana Radenkovic. His statement, though, is barely an ICTY
8 statement, because he was interviewed and then came back with his own
9 handwritten document which he wished to be annexed to the formal witness
10 statement then taken from him. So it's absolutely his own statement and
11 cannot be subject to any of the particular exclusionary jurisprudence.
12 It's a statement that falls fairly and squarely within Rule 89 and is, in
13 our respectful submission, absolutely appropriate for reference by this
15 My learned friend Mr. Kay's references to footnotes have been
16 dealt with in the Prosecution's document of the 16th of January of this
17 year, and of course there are some ten files of material to which
18 reference can be made and any footnote that may yet be outstanding can
19 always be the subject of an informal request to us and will be dealt with.
20 The suggestion by my learned friend that the accused should have
21 the right to challenge and put his case; precisely so. In having the
22 material assessed in this way, collectively, it is all the easier for him
23 to put his case, or as it would appear, to acknowledge the accuracy of the
24 case presented against him - that seems to be substantially what he was
25 saying - and to reduce to a minimum the amount of further or any live
1 evidence that would have to be called to present this complete picture.
2 Mr. Kay said no one looking back would say that this was properly
3 done. Of course he recognises that to call all the evidence live would be
4 an unacceptable task probably for any Court and wouldn't be undertaken by
5 any Court because it wouldn't be necessary. Without this evidence,
6 looking back simply at the odd word of evidence or the odd line of
7 evidence here or there without an attempt, indeed without the proper
8 execution of the process of analysing the material, would look a
9 dereliction of our duty and, in our respectful submission, would show as a
10 gap on the face of this record.
11 So far as the accused's observations are concerned, his last
12 observation about economic miracle of reform is one that, although there
13 might be indeed a record of some economic turnaround, it's not one that
14 would necessarily be accepted as being to the credit of the accused, and
15 indeed there may yet be evidence to satisfy the Chamber that the accused
16 was concerned -- not just willing but concerned to see the economy in
17 distress because it lent to the power he was able to exercise. And that
18 again shows the need to have economic analysis and expert analysis of what
19 was going on of which this would prove a substantial part.
20 The accused says no document goes to show his control of the
21 money. Maybe no document, but the live evidence matches entirely with the
22 expert analysis and goes to show that what the live evidence says in short
23 form is consistent with what is found. The expert evidence goes to show
24 as well, of course, that there is nobody else revealed on the documents as
25 exercising the power to move this money in illicit ways as was plainly
2 Your Honour, the rest of the arguments are, I think,
3 satisfactorily set out in our written pleadings. I'll see if Mr.
4 Torkildsen thinks I've missed anything. But before I ask him that, in our
5 latest filing to which I'm going to turn in just a minute, on witnesses,
6 by error this witness has been recorded as one about whom we make our
7 decision as to whether we regard him as a priority witness later. We do
8 regard him as a priority witness. In our submission, it would be a
9 dereliction of our duties not no to lay before you a full account, as we
10 can present through an expert, of the financial position of this accused
11 and of the organs with which he was associated and which he was in control
12 at the relevant times.
13 Very well. Raj's -- I'm very grateful. The annexed statement of
14 Raj was not handwritten, it was typed by him.
15 JUDGE MAY: Very well. The Court will consider these arguments
16 and give our ruling in due course.
17 MR. NICE: Can I turn, then, to general procedural problems, a
18 topic to which I've been anxious to get since I think before Christmas but
19 for various reasons it hasn't been possible to do so. And if I can make
20 some general observations first, I'll then explain the position through
21 some charts that I've had prepared.
22 Your Honours, it is essential that we bring the Chamber up-to-date
23 with where we are. I see the charts are being distributed. They're going
24 to be I think rather more interesting than I am for the time being but if
25 I could detain you before we turn to them with some observations which I
1 hope will set the position clearly.
2 In conducting this Prosecution, we the Prosecutor have two
3 principles that guide us: First, we must prove the indictments preferred
4 against this accused. Second, we must do everything we can to comply
5 fully with Court orders. It is simply inappropriate for us, or would be
6 inappropriate for us to allow time to run out and then to say, "Well, now
7 we need more time to do our job." That is an inappropriate way for any
8 prosecutor to carry on.
9 And so in a setting where it's been apparent from the beginning
10 that the time limits imposed were - which we of course appealed but
11 unsuccessfully - were bound to be difficult, I have regularly brought the
12 Trial Chamber up-to-date, most recently with confidential filings the
13 essence of which I may touch upon in public now today. We have regularly
14 proposed procedural reforms, and we have, we hope, alerted the Chamber to
15 the difficulties that we collectively face, for, in our respectful
16 submission, disposal of this trial properly is a collective
17 responsibility, we to present our cases and of course for the Trial
18 Chamber to manage the time that is available to this as to other cases.
19 Now, the reality, I think, is that we will in due course have to
20 ask for some additional time. I'm not going to make the application now
21 for this reason: It remains my duty to fit as much evidence as possible
22 within the available time. There remains the possibility of further
23 reduction in our estimates. There remain the possibilities of further
24 important witnesses becoming available whose evidence will be of a density
25 that will mean time may be saved in respect of other witnesses. But
1 inevitably, it will appear, I will be applying for more time, and my
2 expectation is that I will make that application in perhaps a month or
3 so's time when we know where we are.
4 JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt you on one point. We said that you
5 would have time to cover that which has been lost due to the accused's ill
6 health and rest days. If it's of assistance to you, our calculation at
7 the moment is that about 30 days are outstanding to you as a result of
8 that. We haven't made a precise calculation but it's of that order.
9 MR. NICE: Your Honour, we may have calculated it in a different
10 way but my feeling is that that's about the same calculation that we've
11 made. When I say we're going to need more time, it's more time beyond
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.
14 MR. NICE: Your Honours, may I say this as well: We have been
15 concerned at all times about the difference between proving a legally
16 sufficient case and proving a complete case, that is, a case where all the
17 most helpful evidence is before you, evidence that we would expect an
18 arbiter of these facts to want to hear from, even if it is not absolutely
19 essential for the legally sufficient or the bare minimum case.
20 I'm going to return to that distinction a little later when we
21 look at the charts.
22 Because of our approach - and I can say this, I suppose, by way of
23 one sentence of indulgence - I suppose I am probably the only person yet
24 charged with the duty of prosecuting an individual who happens to be
25 former head of state in respect of three wars, and you would expect me to
1 find this, and as indeed I do, a challenging and interesting task. In
2 fact, the majority of my time or a great deal of my time is spent in the
3 business of trying to fit - to convert an English phrase to its metric
4 equivalent - a litre into a half-litre jug. The procedure has become, and
5 the timetabling problems have become preoccupying for us. And as a result
6 of that, of course, I have proposed to the Chamber a range of methods by
7 which time could be saved, and it seems to us that none of them has yet
8 found favour, although it has to be said that all of them really amount to
9 concessions by the Prosecution from what would normally be to their
10 advantage, because essentially we have argued in other settings, but I can
11 mention them publicly now, that the appropriate way for getting the
12 maximum amount of evidence into the limited amount of time that is
13 available is by taking evidence in chief in written form in a way that of
14 course is done now by many sophisticated jurisdictions when dealing with
15 judge alone trials of complex civil litigation to which in many ways this
16 litigation is most similar.
17 We have, in making these proposals time and again, we think,
18 reflected, Your Honour -- His Honour Judge May's words about their being
19 something outmoded in the practice of having examination-in-chief orally.
20 Your Honours, can I digress for a second and invite comparison
21 between the speed at which full examination-in-chief and full
22 cross-examination proceeds contrasted with -- and it's not a trial, but
23 something like television programmes that the Court may have seen in the
24 past concerning Yugoslavia, where the proponent of one position speaks his
25 words briefly and the opposite side or another view is given shortly
1 after. Now, we cannot in trials achieve that density of information
2 presentation, and of course although the viewer of a television programme
3 will think at the end of it -- may only last four hours, Death of
4 Yugoslavia only a few hours more. Although at the end of it he may think
5 he has a balanced view, of course there are arguments that he doesn't.
6 But it's our respectful submission to this Chamber that there must be
7 better way of using our time than simply being able to get through
8 witnesses at about the rate, at best, of one a day. And in our
9 submission, the use of more written evidence for evidence in chief and
10 focusing the accused more on what is strictly relevant in
11 cross-examination would enable the Chamber to have more evidence in the
12 limited time available with pointed and relevant cross-examination than is
13 coming our way at the moment.
14 And so although I'm probably wearisome in the number of proposals
15 I've made for attempting to have evidence reduced, wearisome to the
16 Chamber because it imposes on you an obligation to think about it,
17 wearisome to my colleagues who would all prefer, I dare say, the
18 old-fashioned traditional ordinary criminal trial of the United States or
19 England with the opportunities that they give public display of the
20 dramatic and emotional sides of this evidence, despite being wearisome in
21 those ways, what I'm pressing on the Chamber is the absolute need in a
22 case of this kind to maximise the amount of evidence that it can consume.
23 And those of us who, of course, have operated in an environment where
24 evidence goes in in-chief in writing and where cross-examination follows
25 after a limited number of words from the witness, know that the Court's
1 minds are kept working at an optimum and maximum speed for the digestion
2 of the material coming their way and that it is an extremely efficient way
3 of presenting material.
4 My Lord -- Your Honours, we would respectfully make an obvious
5 point about the accused, and that is that he is clearly capable of
6 cross-examining for as long as any witness gives evidence in chief. It is
7 obvious to all that by his doing that he ultimately reduces the amount of
8 time available for other witnesses.
9 The amici generally propose no methods for getting more evidence
10 before the Chamber in the allotted time and seem only to favour the
11 examination rights in the form of cross-examination that reflect, in our
12 submission, a different type of trial from that to which this can most
13 easily be likened.
14 Your Honours, can we just look before the break - because I can
15 explain them at least briefly, at these charts - and can one go on the
16 overhead projector.
17 JUDGE MAY: Why does it need to go on the overhead projector?
18 MR. NICE: Because people are viewing it so it can then be seen --
19 JUDGE MAY: This is matter for us.
20 MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. NICE: If we look at -- the best one to look at first is
23 probably the bottom right-hand chart, because it concerns what's
24 outstanding for Bosnia, and Bosnia hasn't really started very much.
25 On the right is our calculation of the time remaining for Bosnia.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Now, as Your Honour will know from the lists that we provided on Friday,
2 we have divided up witnesses at this stage, and of course provisionally,
3 into two categories. The first category that we regard as essential,
4 priority I witnesses, and the second category, that category of witnesses
5 that I said we judge would make for a complete case. I can give some
6 examples: International negotiators with the accused who, if they were in
7 a position to give evidence publicly would be witnesses we would very much
8 like the Court to hear from; the very senior international military
9 figures, likewise, who could help you. But they are just some of those
10 priority II witnesses.
11 So on the right-hand side, time remaining under our calculation.
12 On the left, in blue, the priority witnesses for Bosnia.
13 If you then go to the top of the blue column, here we we've added
14 in those witnesses whose crime-base evidence is necessary under 92 bis (B)
15 or (D) and on the basis that they have an hour's cross-examination each.
16 Now, before I come to the other two elements in that column, a
17 word about where I've got so far. We have to prove crimes. We can't
18 prove this case simply by linkage. The Bosnia case started out with a
19 very large number of municipalities, and within the bottom part, the
20 79-odd days has included live evidence for three municipalities for it is
21 down to three municipalities that Bosnia has been reduced.
22 The remaining municipalities that it is --
23 JUDGE MAY: Just pausing one moment. I think we must adjourn.
24 MR. NICE: Certainly, yes.
25 JUDGE MAY: But let me try and understand the Bosnia position.
1 You're saying that's three municipalities but 79 days of evidence?
2 MR. NICE: Yes. The rest is linkage evidence. So that -- so that
3 contains live evidence for just three municipalities, and then all the
4 other municipalities which we would seek to lay before you are under 92
5 bis (B) or (D) and would occupy, even on the basis of only one hour
6 examination or in reality cross-examination per witness, a total of 31-odd
7 days, 32-odd days.
8 And before I move on, and perhaps I will move on after the break,
9 you can take any examples of these blocks and measure them against the red
10 block and see the consequences for us of the time limit we face. But
11 before -- in case Chamber takes the document away and reviews it
12 generally, the second from left block, priority II for Bosnia, is that
13 category of witness which we think and have always argued would be very
14 valuable for the complete picture. The middle -- the last block, priority
15 V is dealt with in our witness list and is those witnesses whom the
16 Chamber itself indicates it wants to hear from. A very small amount, I
17 think none in respect to Bosnia at the moment, but you'll see in the other
18 chart something for the others.
19 JUDGE MAY: You can help us perhaps after the adjournment with
20 Sarajevo and Srebrenica, what you propose to do about those particular
22 MR. NICE: I will indeed.
23 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
2 MR. NICE: Your Honour, staying with the Bosnian chart and before
3 I turn to Srebrenica and Sarajevo, the Chamber will recall that originally
4 charged against this accused were allegations in respect of some 47
5 municipalities. Because of the limitations of time, the reduction has
6 been to three to be proved live, but again on a very reduced number of
7 witnesses, each taking about, I think, a week each or something to that --
8 a five-day week each. That's Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Bratunac. And in
9 order to provide within the limited time available some appropriate
10 geographical spread, there's only six other municipalities that we seek to
11 prove under the provisions of 92 bis, and that's Visegrad, Foca, Brcko,
12 Bosanski Samac, Prijedor, and Sanski Most, which, therefore, covers the
13 territory to an extent. But this represents an enormous reduction in the
14 case as originally formulated. And so I turn again to the charts.
15 I know, Your Honour, that the Court was concerned that the charts
16 shouldn't be viewed publicly. The Prosecution performance of its duties
17 to the Chamber and to the wider community are a matter of concern and our
18 ability to meet the constraints, our performance in meeting the
19 constraints so far is a matter that, in our respectful submission, could
20 be properly a matter for public consideration and I'd ask that the
21 charts --
22 JUDGE MAY: No. This is a matter for us. It's matter for the
23 Trial Chamber that has to manage this case. It's not a public relations
25 MR. NICE: It's not intended to be a public relations exercise
1 either, Your Honour. I have throughout, and as the Court knows, been very
2 concerned to help the Court confidentially about our problems, and I'm
3 going to continue in that determination, but the Prosecutor and the
4 Prosecution has not a public relations interest, it has a proper interest
5 in being seen to have done its job properly.
6 Now, Srebrenica and Sarajevo present particular problems. They've
7 each, of course, been the subject of indictments here in respect of other
8 accused, one tried, one awaiting trial completion of a trial. Each of
9 those trials has lasted a very substantial period of time, a year or more.
10 And obviously that type of trial is clearly not possible in the setting of
11 a case like this.
12 They may also be parts of the indictment against the accused that
13 require rather more rather than less evidence, and they have to be seen
14 separately, because, as is revealed in the chart before you, we have
15 prepared a very reduced case that we believe to be legally sufficient
16 against this accused in respect of each of those locations. But even on
17 that extremely reduced basis, Sarajevo we forecast would occupy 20 days,
18 and Srebrenica 21 days. And given that there are only, in our
19 calculation, 70 days remaining from the overall time limit for Bosnia, and
20 given that the priority witnesses for the balance of the Bosnia case,
21 excluding 92 bis, would occupy 79 or 80 days, it's clear that we simply
22 cannot fit all these items into that time. And of course, as I've already
23 explained, if 92 bis is not dealt with in full 92 bis fashion, without
24 cross-examination, there's another 30 days required there.
25 So the Bosnia position before Your Honours is a stark one. It's
1 not entirely surprising, for it is a very large case, arguably the largest
2 of the three. It remains the position that I am doing everything I can -
3 and I'll come back to this in a minute or so - to reduce further that core
4 of 79, 80 days. And it may reduce. Witnesses may not be available.
5 Witnesses may provide more than it was expected, freeing us of the need to
6 call others. But the problem is there.
7 Can I now look back at how we've done? And the Court will
8 recognise to some -- we're obviously doing -- we're calculating on the --
9 we've centred the calculations in confidential documents that reflect the
10 Court's orders both as to time and as to number of witnesses in order to
11 assess how much time the Court was allowing us for each segment of the
12 trial. And in Kosovo, when the Kosovo section ended on time, it was
13 recognised that there was some outstanding material, and the Chamber was
14 happy with that. And the way we've analysed it, there are a further 11
15 days required for really category I or priority I witnesses, a couple of
16 days for witnesses that the Chamber wanted us to call, and some seven days
17 or thereabouts in respect of witnesses who, in a perfect world, we
18 forecast the Chamber might want us to call.
19 But let it be noted - I've made this point before and I must make
20 it again - the entire Prosecution evidence in Kosovo in chief occupied
21 about the equivalent of five weeks of an ordinary domestic court's time,
22 and we would urge the Chamber to accept not only the good faith efforts of
23 this Prosecution but that the delivery, the performance to put in a case
24 in chief under conventional, essentially common law procedures in five
25 weeks in chief, in five weeks of court time, is extremely swift. Your
1 Honour will know domestic frauds or customs cases involving one defendant
2 or a couple, in the United Kingdom and in other countries that use broadly
3 this system, can last months. So just 11 more days of priority I
4 witnesses for Kosovo.
5 Croatia, our calculation is that there are about ten more days
6 remaining for Croatia.
7 JUDGE MAY: Just help us with the calculation of days. That is
8 the original time limit plus what you estimate you're entitled to because
9 of the time lost through illness.
10 MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour. If Your Honour looks at the
11 confidential filings, what we did, in order to understand the Court's
12 rulings and to implement them, was to take the total amount of time that
13 had been allowed as we calculated it and on the basis that when time
14 limits were imposed the accused's medical condition wasn't fully
15 appreciated. We've then taken the number of witnesses the Chamber allowed
16 for each segment of the trial in order to identify the portion or
17 proportion of that overall period of time that the Chamber would have
18 judged appropriate to each segment of the trial, and we have then
19 allocated evidence called as between Kosovo, Croatia, and to the extent
20 Bosnia, and made the appropriate deductions in order to leave us with the
21 conclusion that there is no time left for Kosovo, of course, there are ten
22 days left from this morning for Croatia, and that there are 70 days left
23 remaining for Bosnia.
24 Again, if I may respectfully urge the Chamber to accept this, the
25 Prosecution has, it may be thought, done very well for a conflict as large
1 and detailed as Croatia. There are, in our calculation, 22-odd days of
2 priority witnesses left. So that's ten more days than the time available.
3 But there would be a requirement for 16 days if 92 bis witnesses are to be
4 cross-examined for an hour in the way the Chamber has been minded to do
5 generally, but we respectfully remind the Chamber that in its dealings
6 with Kosovo, it made clear that different considerations could arise as to
7 cross-examination of crime-base witnesses in Croatia and Bosnia from the
8 considerations that affected Kosovo where the accused was raising a
9 particular defence associated with NATO bombing, a defence that of course
10 has no part to play here. And there were several occasions when the Court
11 was quite explicit about reserving its position on whether 92 bis should
12 be full or subject to cross-examination.
13 Now, what we've then done, obviously, is prepared a total picture
14 on our best calculations to date that reflect 80 or 81 days outstanding
15 with -- for all parts of the case. In our judgement, 113 days of priority
16 I witnesses. The same additional 41-odd days for Srebrenica and Sarajevo,
17 with a further addition of 49-odd days for 92 bis witnesses if they are to
18 be the subject of cross-examination.
19 In addition to that, there are four days of evidence, our category
20 V, total priority V witnesses whom the Chamber wishes us to call, and then
21 we've already identified another 33 days of evidence that falls into our
22 priority II witnesses who would make the case complete.
23 Now, Your Honour, this is obviously a very troubling position in
24 which we find ourselves. I repeat, I think, for the third time: Further
25 reductions are being pursued, and further reductions may occur.
1 For example, I can tell Your Honour that you will be receiving
2 today - I hope today - two applications, one public and one not public, to
3 call witnesses who will give central evidence, different in character are
4 the witnesses, absolutely central evidence which should save time. Each
5 of them not being available until now to be added to the list.
6 I can tell you I will have to deal with one of them, I'll deal
7 with one of them at the end publicly because it will help the accused for
8 me to do so. But those endeavours continue. The Chamber will, I'm sure,
9 recognise that one of the consequences of a public trial, as this has
10 been, consequences of many people finding the courage to give evidence
11 publicly has been that more witnesses do make themselves available to us.
12 Frequently valuable witnesses who we can assess as bringing benefit to the
13 potential quality of the judgement and to the saving of time. And we've
14 had a number of witnesses walking in, offering to see us as a result of
15 evidence over the last few weeks, some of them potentially extremely
16 important. And so that in part again explains why I'm not going to make
17 an application for time now, I'm going to see how we go.
18 But, Your Honour, can I press the Chamber to consider the
19 following: The Chamber will remember as well, incidentally, that I have
20 provided you with documents, we called it a fill-box document, it may be a
21 document you'll want to see again, maybe not, but that assesses, as it
22 were, how evidence to date may have met the task imposed on us of proving
23 these counts.
24 JUDGE MAY: We wouldn't discourage you in producing that sort of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. NICE: The Chamber will recognise how I have willingly offered
2 my decision-making, in part, to the Chamber if the Chamber ever wanted to
3 involve itself in the decision as to which witnesses it wished to hear
4 from. I recognise the problems with that, but nevertheless, with the case
5 we have to deal with, it's something we'd invite the Chamber to consider
6 perhaps doing at some stage.
7 As things are, the list we've prepared -- and I hope the Chamber
8 had an opportunity to look at the list that was prepared last week, and
9 I'll say a word about that in just a second. As it is, that list has been
10 prepared on the basis of evidence being given in the conventional way
11 because there's no alternative for us at the moment but to assume that
12 that's the basis upon which we're going to proceed and thus, all the time
13 estimates are on that conventional basis, each witness having a summary of
14 the evidence he can give so that the Court an, if it wants to, assess for
15 itself whether these are witnesses who really are witnesses --
16 JUDGE MAY: So we can follow the application, if 92 bis is to
17 continue to play its part, effectively you would be asking us to apply
18 that rule to all the witnesses.
19 MR. NICE: Yes. Save in absolutely exceptional circumstances.
20 JUDGE MAY: Save where it doesn't apply, acts and conduct of the
22 MR. NICE: Yes. Because its consequences for the case as a whole
23 on the time limits allowed are so substantial and because 92 bis was
24 introduced as a rule to enable such evidence to be given in this way. We
25 look -- sorry.
1 JUDGE MAY: But we would be treating them as we did the two
2 Dubrovnik witnesses last week. When that effectively happened, they were
3 then cross-examined. General Mangan and Mr. Davies.
4 MR. NICE: We're obviously at cross-purposes. We're asking that
5 crime-base evidence should be given fully 92 bis.
6 JUDGE MAY: I follow that.
7 MR. NICE: Sorry.
8 JUDGE MAY: I follow that, of course, but for the remainder of the
10 MR. NICE: Full 92 bis. Your Honour has only to look at the
11 overall witness testimony chart to see that 92 bis for the limited number
12 of municipalities, six, that are not to be proved live, the three, and for
13 other 92 bis evidence for Croatia of a crime-base nature, 49 of the
14 remaining 81 days would be consumed.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I interrupted you.
16 MR. NICE: No, not at all. And, Your Honour -- so I was -- I was
17 reminding you of the degree to which I've been prepared to surrender my
18 discretion to the broader discretion of the Court in identifying the
19 evidence that's helpful, because I actually -- because it can be urged
20 that that is an appropriate course to take in inquiries of this kind.
21 Because although they're trials, they're also inquiries.
22 But second, or finally, can I propose this: Has the time come for
23 the Chamber now not to be thinking so much in terms of a time bar but to
24 be thinking more in terms of which witnesses it is really essential for
25 the Chamber to hear?
1 When the Chamber made its rulings, time and number of witnesses,
2 it hadn't seen, and I don't think was in a position to forecast, the
3 degree to which this accused would maximise his use of time in
4 cross-examination. The Chamber did in any event not identify fully its
5 reasoning process that led to either the time or the witness numbers. No
6 complaint about that; we've simply done our best to work within those
7 constraints. But it now is impossible.
8 Because our priority -- not our priority. Because principle
9 number one is that we must prove these indictments in the same way as
10 principle number two is that we must do our best to obey all court
12 JUDGE MAY: One course we've suggested is reduction in the scale
13 and size of the indictments.
14 MR. NICE: Yes.
15 JUDGE MAY: Now, I don't know to what extent you followed that.
16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, we have. From 47 municipalities down to 3
17 live and six 92 bis to cover, in a representative way, the whole territory
18 of Bosnia, is an enormous reduction.
19 JUDGE MAY: Will that be reflected in an amendment to the
20 indictment so that we can follow it?
21 MR. NICE: There won't be counts that won't be covered but there
22 will be detail within the counts that won't be proved.
23 JUDGE MAY: And it would be helpful for us to have that in written
24 form at some stage.
25 MR. NICE: We can deal with that.
1 JUDGE MAY: So we know where we are exactly.
2 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there hasn't been -- there has been a
3 reduction, as you'll remember, I think, in respect of sexual assaults in
4 Croatia. Several counts have been dropped in respect to that. But in any
5 event, as you'll see - and assuming our calculations are broadly accurate,
6 because we've done our best on the material available to calculate what
7 the Chamber meant by so many days and so much time - we're not actually
8 far short on Croatia in the same way as we weren't far short of delivering
9 in Kosovo. So it could be said, and I wouldn't counter this, that the
10 imposition of time limits served a very useful purpose in making sure that
11 we did get our material in in time. But for this last segment, the
12 problem is it looks too big to solve just by efforts on our part, and
13 particularly given the significant amounts of time that Sarajevo and
14 Srebrenica must take, they being allegations really of a kind that simply
15 cannot be eliminated in any way other than by proper trial and disposal.
16 And so I wonder if the time hasn't come, and I say again I'm happy
17 to keep -- keep battling on to reduce the time, and I'll do that. Has the
18 time come, though, to look at the remaining part of the case in terms of
19 the witnesses to be called rather than just the time bar? And it's for
20 that reason, incidentally, that I've provided you with this list.
21 I said I would say one other thing about this list: Of course
22 the list is provisional and I'm extremely grateful to all these working on
23 this case who put their heads together to prepare it, but it's a jolly
24 useful document for us all to have because we can see where we're going.
25 It will change; names will be deleted and added and the list can be
1 brought up-to-date, but it is essentially a final working document,
2 showing where we're going. It's a document that enables the Court to look
3 ahead and to see which witnesses are coming and to say, "Well, is that
4 witness really going to add to material? Let's see what you've already
5 proved in your fill-box documents. Isn't this duplicative?" And
6 sometimes a hint being -- or a wink being as good as a nod - I never know
7 which one it is - we can take a hint and drop a witness and move on.
8 So because the last thing in the world we want is to find
9 ourselves in any position of irreconcilable disagreement with the Trial
10 Chamber as to the final management of this part of the case, we hope that
11 the tools we've provided you will enable us to plan sensibly for the
12 conclusion of the case, to prove all the counts in an economic way without
13 prejudicing the accused but without prejudicing the Prosecution either.
14 JUDGE MAY: Thank you Mr. Nice. We will consider the position in
15 the light of this document. There can be no doubt that time limits will
16 remain, but we will consider the difficulties which the Prosecution
17 outline. We will consider whether any amendment to our procedures should
18 be considered, should be unnecessary. And of course, as I said earlier,
19 it's not a matter that we can deal with, in any event, in the absence of
20 Judge Robinson, but he will have the opportunity of reading what you've
22 MR. NICE: Your Honour, then before I sit down and invite
23 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff to take the next witness, I said I'd mention one
24 witness in particular. There's a witness we would like to call as early
25 as next Tuesday because of problems with his timetable. We haven't been
1 able to make the application until today -- he's not on the list. We
2 haven't been able to make the application today because he hasn't been
3 freed by the authorities that bind him to give evidence until now. It's a
4 former Ambassador to Croatia called Peter Galbraith. You've heard him
5 mentioned. His name's within the transcript. He can provide very
6 valuable evidence. We should be in a position to serve a summary today,
7 and I hope to be able to comply with all our other disclosure duties today
8 or tomorrow.
9 I'm not asking for you to make a decision about that because, of
10 course, you can't in the absence of Judge Robinson, and you can't without
11 having, I think, a paper document before you to deal with, but I've given
12 the earliest possible notice I can to the accused. I forecast a written
13 application that will come I hope today, and we will be inviting a
14 foreshortening of all the time limits to enable him to be called on next
15 Tuesday. That application will come together with another application
16 which I think will bear a pseudonym of an extremely important witness
17 whose evidence will add materially to the evidence before the Chamber and
18 also save time.
19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's not for you to
20 comment on the conduct of the Prosecution case insofar as it's been
21 related today. It's a problem for them. We are not going to deal with
22 any application in relation to the witnesses. We will get it in writing,
23 and we will hear from you in due course on it.
24 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
25 No, Mr. Milosevic. There's nothing relevant for you to say.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have something relevant to say.
2 It's not a question of the technique of the presentation of so-called
3 evidence but certain principled positions and absurd allegations that we
4 have heard here, and I assume I'm entitled to respond to them.
5 JUDGE MAY: No. It's a matter for the Prosecution. It's between
6 the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber as to how they manage their case.
7 If there is a change in our procedures, which is proposed, such as having
8 all the witnesses give evidence in the form of statements, before we take
9 such a course, you will have the opportunity to address us upon it. But
10 at the moment, we're not in a position to make such a decision and we
11 haven't done so, so there is no application at this stage which is before
12 the Court on which we need you to address us.
13 But as I say, should the time come when we intend to take up any
14 of the suggestions or we want to consider any of the suggestions made by
15 the Prosecution which affect the giving of evidence, we will allow you to
16 call -- to address us on it, of course.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. But would you
18 be kind enough to give me an explanation then, please.
19 JUDGE MAY: Depends what it's about.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We heard Mr. Nice saying that the
21 collective task here is to prove the allegations in the indictment. I had
22 believed that the task of any legal court in the world is to prove the
23 truth. And even in view of the position held by the so-called
24 Prosecution, they should be obliged to try and establish the truth rather
25 than to prove the allegations in the indictment. Because we heard a
1 number of absurdities. A moment ago Mr. Nice even said that the sanctions
2 of the international community suited us. That can only be compared with
3 the -- another absurd statement --
4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, time is short. If there was a general
5 point -- if there was a general point, something we were going to consider
6 which would affect your position, we would give you the opportunity to
7 address us, but right now we're going to go on with the evidence. Time is
8 short, and we will hear evidence and begin with Mr. Grujic, is it?
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
10 JUDGE MAY: Is he here?
11 No, Mr. Milosevic. You are attempting to make a speech.
12 Yes. Let's go on with Mr. Grujic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is not a speech. I am
14 referring to what we heard with respect to this rather extensive
15 submission of the opposing side regarding their proposal for formal
16 acknowledgement of adjudicated facts.
17 JUDGE MAY: We're not going to decide on that today or indeed at
18 any time without argument. Before we admit any evidence like that, you'll
19 have the opportunity to address us. And I can tell you that for the
20 moment, we're going to go on dealing with the Croatian evidence, and we've
21 got all the 92 bis witnesses to consider first before we go on to deal
22 with adjudicated facts.
23 JUDGE MAY: Senior Legal Officer.
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll have the witness.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE MAY: If the witness would take the declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE MAY: If you would like to sit down.
6 WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
9 Q. Please -- Mr. Grujic, please state your name for the record, your
10 name and profession.
11 Can you hear me now?
12 A. Yes, I can.
13 Q. Please state your name and profession for the record.
14 A. [In English] Translator no.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's try again. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, will you
16 start again.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
18 Q. Can you hear me now? Can you hear translation?
19 A. [Interpretation] Not loud enough. I can hardly hear.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
22 Q. Can you hear me now, Mr. Grujic?
23 A. Yes. It's okay now.
24 Q. Please tell us your name and your profession.
25 A. My name is Ivan Grujic. I'm currently working as the head of the
1 department of the government of the Republic of Croatia for Detainees and
2 Missing Persons.
3 Q. In your capacity as the head of this office, did you prepare an
4 expert report on the missing people, displaced people, and killed people
5 in the Republic of Croatia during the war years 1990, 1992?
6 A. I did.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to
8 tender this expert report and its attachments as exhibits. And it's --
9 actually, the expert report was filed on the 5th of February, 2003 and had
10 a few attachments related to the work of the office. But in addition to
11 that, the witness has prepared charts related to all the issues that arose
12 in the report. That is the figures given in the report in numbers he has
13 also prepared in charts, and we have put the charts in a binder.
14 JUDGE MAY: That's a binder which we've just got, is it?
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Binder 1. Binder 1 has these charts that the
16 witness and his office prepared. Binder 1 has also the annex to the
17 Croatian indictment, that is the killed people per crime-base and the
18 findings of Mr. Grujic in relation to this particular schedule. That is,
19 he has marked the schedules with particular annotations. And in addition
20 to that, we have also prepared the underlying materials, that is missing
21 questionnaires and exhumation reports. This is all included in the
22 binders 2 to 10 with separate sections for each crime base.
23 JUDGE MAY: Would it be convenient to deal with the matter in this
24 way: The expert report will be given one exhibit number, together with
25 its attachments; the first binder will be a separate exhibit; and then the
1 remaining binders it may be convenient to deal with in the same way that
2 we dealt with the village binders in the Kosovo part of the case, so that
3 would be given a separate number together, 2 to 10, and be referred to as,
4 for instance, the Grujic binder. Would that be convenient?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MAY: You have the remaining binders here, do you, 2 to 10?
7 The registrar points out that she doesn't have them. We'll give them
8 numbers now.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the expert report with the
11 attachment will be Prosecutor's Exhibit --
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Don't interrupt, please,
14 Mr. Tapuskovic. We'll deal with what you've got to say in a moment but
15 let the registrar finish what she's saying.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours expert report with attachment will be
17 Prosecutor's Exhibit 401. The first binder will be Prosecutor's Exhibit
18 402, and the remaining separate binders beginning with 2 and ending with
19 binder number 10 will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 403.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have much
22 to say except the fact that these ten binders were served on us today, the
23 amicus, and as far as I understand it, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic received
24 them only today. So up to the present we were unable to analyse these
25 documents in any way. So I just wanted to inform Your Honours about that.
1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, just to remark to this,
3 everything was actually disclosed earlier on in the disclosure of the
4 exhibits list and the attached exhibits. What you have gotten today is
5 actually only a redisclosure of the materials, and it's now organised
6 according to crime base, while in the exhibits list it was just put on
7 there in a -- not in that organised fashion.
8 The only thing that -- things that are actually new are the charts
9 that the witness had prepared, the charts -- and the charts are actually
10 just reflecting what is given in his sectioned results, results in the
11 expert reports, just reflecting that numbers in -- in just -- in chart
12 form. So that's actually also nothing really new.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what is it?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 JUDGE MAY: Microphone. We can't hear you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to correct
17 Mr. Tapuskovic, at least as far as I am concerned. These ten binders that
18 I have received, these ten large binders, I received them when I entered
19 here after the break. So I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain how
20 you can imagine that I can look through all these papers and what all this
21 is about.
22 JUDGE MAY: The material is already referred to, as I understand
23 it, in the expert's report, which you've had for some time.
24 Is that right, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MAY: And this is also material which has already been
2 disclosed some time ago.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Most of the material -- actually, eight
4 of the binders are individual records for the victims of the crime bases,
5 and they were disclosed earlier on, that is in -- on May 31st, 2002. And
6 what you have here today is just an organised format just to -- so it's
7 easier to find individual victims' records if at all necessary. The
8 expert will deal with the matters in a more general way. His results are
9 reflecting the entire results per crime base, but in case someone would
10 like to check the records of an individual victim, then it is easy to find
11 in the binders submitted. If that is at all necessary, that may -- it's
12 left to the parties.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes. Let's hear the evidence.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to make an
15 explanation to Your Honours for you to know. Possibly this was disclosed
16 earlier on, as the Prosecutor tells us, but this is the first time that it
17 has been disclosed in this chronological manner so that only now is it
18 possible to compare these facts with the general conclusions provided by
19 the expert in his report. So earlier on it was not possible to compare
20 these documents with what the witness will be testifying about.
21 I did come across such documents earlier on, but it was not
22 possible to compare them with what is contained in the report of the
23 witness you have before you.
24 JUDGE MAY: Is there any dispute in this case that these people
25 are either missing or detained? Is that a subject of dispute,
1 Mr. Tapuskovic?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That cannot be in dispute,
3 absolutely not. But in order to make an assessment of the analysis
4 provided by the expert, it should have been put in some chronological
5 order for conclusions to be made. Otherwise, Your Honour, certainly there
6 can be no dispute about it.
7 JUDGE MAY: No. We need to hear the witness's evidence. We'll
8 hear the evidence, and then if there are any objections -- and if they're
9 simply as to form, there is no point in them. Now, if they're of
10 substance, if there is a real dispute about what this witness is going to
11 say, then of course we'll consider it. But it seems to me, and of course
12 I speak for myself, that at the moment these are not matters which are
13 really in dispute. But let us hear the witness's evidence. Then we'll
14 consider cross-examination and the like.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I just wish to say that as
16 far as I am concerned it is in dispute, because one cannot accept a priori
17 that what is contained here, that all of it has been checked and verified.
18 It is in dispute indeed.
19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well. Let us go on.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
21 Q. Witness, Mr. Grujic, as you have provided the written report, I
22 will only address a few additional questions in relation to various
23 chapters, and in relation to your professional work, you have been a
24 police officer since 1992, and was the focus of your work throughout your
25 career the gathering, analysing, and processing of information in
1 particular in the last ten years?
2 A. I have been a policeman since 1972, holding various positions, but
3 over the last ten years I have dealt with these issues of analysis and
4 collection of information.
5 Q. Does your office, both the commission and later the government
6 office, did your office deal with detainees and missing people from all
7 sides, that is, Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and other ethnic groups?
8 A. Yes. The office, according to the functions it has, collects and
9 processes information about missing persons, detained persons, exhumed
10 persons, as well as the locations of mass graves, and all the data and
11 activities of the office develop regardless of ethnic, religious, or other
12 affiliation of the persons or victims that the office is dealing with.
13 Q. Did the commission also deal with exchanges?
14 A. Yes. It was also one of the main duties of the commission, and as
15 such it was established by the government of the Republic of Croatia. So
16 one of its activities is the exchange of prisoners of war.
17 Q. You have described how the office was established and the changes
18 in your report. Can you give us an idea of how -- of the size of your
19 office? Can you tell us about the structure?
20 A. The office itself is directly responsible to the government of the
21 Republic of Croatia, and as its permanent staff, it has four full-time
22 personnel. We have a computer engineer, two persons with secondary
23 education engaging in analysis and keeping of records, we have also
24 part-time associates, an operative for the field, associate in the office
25 for the Vukovar office. So this office coordinates with other
1 organisational units, addressing the same issues within other ministries.
2 Q. You have actually listed in paragraph 5 of your report expert and
3 advisory bodies you work with. My question is: What about cooperation
4 with the ICRC? Does that take place as well?
5 A. While the commission existed and later on the office, one of the
6 stipulations in the decree on the office is cooperation with international
7 organisations, and that also includes a cooperation with the International
8 Committee of the Red Cross.
9 Q. In which way do you cooperate with them?
10 A. We have a direct exchange of data linked to missing persons and an
11 indirect exchange of data through the national tracing service of the
12 Croatian Red Cross. And also, we also obtained data from the
13 International Red Cross through the mediation of family members, so that
14 this cooperation is highly developed.
15 Q. In paragraph 4 of your report you have listed the scope of the
16 work, and I do not want to go into details except for one. You list here
17 in the tasks, "Organising and holding talks on detainees and missing
18 persons with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's on page 2.
21 Q. And I would like to know, did you also have talks with authorities
22 of the RSK?
23 A. Yes. The Republic of Serbian Krajina also had a similar
24 commission for the exchange of detainees and prisoners, and we also talked
25 to them to achieve the release of those prisoners.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Your counterparts on the side of the FRY, Bosnia, and RSK, does
2 that mean there were similar organised commissions like yours?
3 A. Yes. Those commissions were organisationally very similar to the
4 commission we had in Croatia.
5 Q. Did the Republika Srpska have a special commission or did you meet
6 them only in the composition of the Bosnia and Herzegovina commission?
7 A. They had a central commission which was composed of two parts, a
8 part -- two military parts, the 1st Corps and the 2nd Krajina Corps, which
9 covered different parts of the territory so that we had discussions with
10 the central commission which was -- had competencies over these two
11 subcommissions. Perhaps it should be noted that very frequently the
12 commission of Republika Srpska acted together with other Serbian
14 Q. What does that mean? What does that refer to?
15 A. This means that they spoke together and acted together during
16 negotiations on the exchange of prisoners, and this was also due to the
17 transfer of prisoners or placing prisoners on a list for release either
18 from Yugoslavia or Republika Srpska or the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
19 Q. And when you say "they," to whom do you mean? To which
20 commissions do you refer?
21 A. I'm referring to commissions in the Federal Republic of
22 Yugoslavia, from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and from Republika
24 Q. When you had this -- since when did you have these joint
25 commission meetings with these three bodies?
1 A. These were mostly bilateral meetings, and they started in 1991,
2 and they're virtually ongoing to this day.
3 Q. When you had these joint commission meetings with all three, did
4 any commission have the lead?
5 A. Well, you see it was clear that the dominant commission was the
6 one from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
7 Q. How did that show? Can you explain that?
8 A. The commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would invite
9 people to those meetings, and its delegation would include members of
10 other delegations, specifically in the -- within the delegation of the
11 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there was a representative from the
12 Republic of Serbian Krajina.
13 Q. To solve individual cases of detainees detained in Republika
14 Srpska or Republika Srpska Krajina, could you solve matters for these
15 people through the FRY?
16 A. In some cases, yes.
17 Q. Would detainees get transferred from facilities of the RSK to RS
18 or to FRY?
19 A. We had a number of such examples that detainees were transferred
20 from one territory to another, from the region of Yugoslavia to the
21 territory of Bosnia and vice versa and also from occupied territories in
22 the Republic of Croatia to Bosnia and vice versa.
23 Q. Do you have a list of these people that were transferred? Did you
24 actually follow those moves?
25 A. In all cases where this was possible this was recorded, and I
1 believe that our records were confirmed by the International Committee of
2 the Red Cross so that individual detainees can be followed moving through
3 several states. And for a number of cases, we have the first and last
4 names of such persons.
5 Q. Do you know about the case of a priest, Josip Bogovic, and how he
6 was transferred through camps? Just as one example.
7 A. I do know of the case of Mr. Bogovic, who was transferred from one
8 camp to another, but I can't tell you exactly at this point in time which
9 camps they were. I would need to look into my records to be able to tell
11 Q. Do you have your records with you in relation to this person or
12 does that mean you would need to check in your office?
13 A. I would have to check in my office. But perhaps there are some
14 other persons.
15 Q. Just so that we have an example of your findings in relation to
16 such a transfer --
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the witness has actually
18 brought documentation from his office, and the question is is he allowed
19 to just look into his documents?
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, if it's his documentation, his official
21 documentation, he can.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
23 Q. Can you give us one example or two examples of such transfers?
24 A. I don't have to look in my documents. I know about Vanin Zlatko.
25 That was one particular case in point. He was in Yugoslavia and then
1 afterwards was transferred. He was in the military investigating prison
2 in Belgrade and then was later transferred to the Knin area. And he was
3 liberated on the basis of an exchange process there.
4 Q. And which -- in which year did this happen? What time frame does
5 relate to this person?
6 A. As to Mr. Vanin, he was captured sometime in 1993, and he was set
7 free in mid-1994, I believe.
8 Q. Can you give us one more example?
9 A. I'll try. I'll do my best. To be specific, I've found a case,
10 Predrag Vukusic, who was captured on the 2nd of July, 1992. He was in the
11 Korenica camp, then in Zeljava, and afterwards in Knin. So this is the
12 area of Croatia, and then Bosnia, and once again Croatia.
13 We have another example, that of Mr. Slavko Rajic, who was in the
14 Morin camp in Montenegro. Later on, he was transferred to Bosnia, to
15 Bileca, from whence he was liberated. And also we have Tihomir Dujnovic,
16 who on the 7th, or rather, the 12th of December 1991 was captured in Ston,
17 Croatia. He was taken to Montenegro, to the Morin camp, and transferred
18 to a camp in Bosnia, Bileca, where on the 2nd of July, he was exchanged in
19 Cavtat. The year was 1992.
20 Q. That should be enough as examples. I would like now to move on to
21 the missing persons, and you have described in paragraph 6 and 7 your
22 methodology on the missing persons and the missing person questionnaires,
23 and I do not need to go into the details. Just one question: Why was it
24 necessary to have the -- this campaign of the renewal of requests for --
25 for missing persons? Why was it necessary to do that in 1993, 1994?
1 A. As I have already stated, in 1993 a commission was set up, a joint
2 commission, government commission, which confronted the fact that there
3 were numerous missing persons. And as the individual data about the
4 missing persons was poorly filled out, it was quite clear that there were
5 also a large number of dead that were listed as missing persons. So we
6 had to collect the antemortem data for their subsequent identification,
7 and that is why we repeated our request for the missing persons search.
8 We presented this to the media, we appealed to all the citizens of Croatia
9 to come and report any missing persons who were family members or people
10 they knew.
11 Q. We wouldn't need to go into the details of your methodology, but
12 you, according to your findings, in 1994 you came up with 3.052 missing
13 people, and it's your figure given in paragraph 7. That's for 1994.
14 And in paragraph 34(f), you give another figure that is the
15 missing persons are here given with 1.348, and that is the situation when
16 you filed the report; is that correct?
17 A. Precisely. So when -- that is to say the initial state of affairs
18 in 1994 were 3.052 people. And on the day I submitted my report, the
19 figure was the one you quoted and to be found in the report, which means
20 in the period in between, we found, located certain persons.
21 Q. And what is the figure today? Is it again reduced?
22 A. Yes. Today the figure is smaller. And as of today, we still have
23 1.283 missing persons listed. That is the figure for today.
24 Q. And does that mean you update your files on a regular basis?
25 A. We update them on a daily basis in our office, and each and every
1 change is recorded at once and put into our files and records.
2 Q. Did you make checks with other reports, such as the ICRC, in
3 relation to these people?
4 A. One of the ways in which we cooperate with the ICRC is precisely
5 control of the missing persons lists and our missing persons list. And if
6 we find any persons on a daily basis, we send out our reports to the ICRC.
7 So this is one of the mechanisms of controlling our own records and
8 aligning them.
9 Q. These figures, do they include missing persons from families
10 residing in the FRY or the RS, that is related to Operations Flash and
11 Storm, or is that separate?
12 A. They are separate data. All those who came in with requests,
13 searching for missing persons and came to our office, a small number
14 connected to that period is on that list, the 1.300 list. But for the
15 most part, these lists are separate.
16 Q. If the -- if it would be necessary, if the other parties here or
17 the Judges have questions, could you also give additional information, if
18 so required, in relation to Operation Storm and Flash and results?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I do not do that because it
21 would be outside of the Prosecution case.
22 Q. You have described, in paragraph 12, your analysis of the
23 collected data, and I would like to know -- you've given here in
24 particular -- you start out with a reference that you first check whether
25 the disappearance was connected to the armed conflict or not, and I would
1 like to know how would you make this distinction, on what basis?
2 A. Our questionnaires, the ones that were filled in, we clearly ask
3 the question of place, the place in which the person disappeared. So if
4 it was outside any armed conflict, then it wasn't recorded as persons
5 missing connected to armed conflicts. Also, the time of disappearance
6 clearly indicates whether this could be linked to any armed conflict or
7 not. And also there are additional questions as to the circumstances of
8 the person's disappearance, the way each individual person disappeared.
9 So these are three basic elements indicating whether a person had gone
10 missing linked to an armed conflict or not.
11 Q. While you processed the data, would you -- did you check for
12 duplicates? And if so, in which way did you do that?
13 A. After the data gathering process was completed, all of them were
14 subjected to infomatic data processing, and all those double ones were
15 rejected, any double-takes were rejected because certain members -- this
16 had arisen because certain family members had dispersed over a large
17 territory and then they sent in their requests for one and the same
19 And then subsequently there was another check that was conducted,
20 and that was a check through purely individual checks that the employees
21 of the office undertook themselves so as to avoid any double-takes.
22 Q. And the files related to each person, where are they stored and do
23 they include just the questionnaire or other materials as well?
24 A. For each person, a questionnaire or, rather, a file or dossier was
25 furnished which included all evidence as to that person's disappearance,
1 all the material that had been collected. Sometimes they were video --
2 there was video footage or documents or articles that had appeared in the
3 mass media, and also medical documents which were attached along with
4 subsequent possible identification material. And all these dossiers are
5 stored in the office for missing persons and there are records and files.
6 Q. From page 6 onwards in your report, you explain your methodology
7 in relation to exhumations, and you also attached an organigramme in
8 relation to all the experts that were involved in the exhumation. My
9 question to you is: What is the role of your office in the process and
10 your -- your own role?
11 A. In one of the paragraphs or, rather, the articles upon which the
12 office was established is that the office should be in charge of all
13 exhumations carried out in Croatia. So one of the functions of the office
14 is to organise the implementation of all exhumations, which means that all
15 the information coming in as to possible locations of mass murders, it is
16 on the basis of those -- that information that the office informs all
17 competent subjects, all the subjects taking part in the exhumation process
18 and procedure, they inform them about the intention to carry out an
19 exhumation, and then on the basis of an order by the investigating judge,
20 the whole procedure is put into practice and the exhumation itself takes
22 As head of the office, I take direct part in each and every
23 exhumation. I am present there, and I attend all the exhumations,
24 practically all of them, in the field, and I help coordinate with all the
25 other subjects taking part in the exhumation procedure. So it is an
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 inter-institutional team, which means that several ministries take part in
2 this process and we have to coordinate the work of all these ministries.
3 Q. And the documentation for the exhumation and identification, are
4 they -- is it actually kept in your office?
5 A. Documentation about all exhumation carried out under the office's
6 organisations, that is the records made and minutes of the investigating
7 judge, all the video footage, et cetera, is stored in the office for
8 missing persons.
9 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I think that's a convenient time
10 to adjourn.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Grujic, I'm sorry, I should have said don't speak
13 to anybody, please, about your evidence until it's over. Could you be
14 back in twenty minutes.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
18 Q. Mr. Grujic, in relation to the exhumations, you have referred in
19 paragraph 14 of your report, last paragraph, to the organisations -- in
20 paragraph 14 of your report, in the last paragraph you have referred to
21 the international organisations you cooperated with, and you also make a
22 reference saying more recently you also worked together with the FRY and
23 Republika Srpska commissions. What does it mean "more recently"? Since
24 when do you cooperate in this field with those two entities?
25 A. Well, in the process of exhumation, an agreement was reached on
1 mutual monitoring, which means that if the exhumations are carried out for
2 which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is interested in, or
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and being implemented on the Republic of Croatia, that
4 monitoring should be enabled so that their experts can attend the
5 exhumations. And practice has shown in the past year that monitoring is
6 allowed in the process of identification, and that has been implemented
7 over the past year.
8 Q. And did you also take part or monitor exhumations and
9 identifications that took place in Republika Srpska and the FRY in that
10 last year?
11 A. Yes. In the last year, I did attend as the representative of the
12 Republic of Croatia, together with our forensic experts. I attended the
13 exhumations conducted in Novi Sad, Sabac, Sremska Mitrovica, and also in
15 Q. And these commissions from Croatia, Republika Srpska, and the FRY,
16 do they actually apply a similar or even the same methodology when it
17 comes to exhumations and identification?
18 A. The methodology is very similar as to the process of exhumation
19 and identification. Part of the identification which relates to DNA
20 analysis is conducted exclusively in our laboratories in Croatia, and they
21 use international laboratories as well.
22 Q. And you have also explained in your report your cooperation with
23 the ICTY, and is your procedure of exhumation and identification similar
24 or different from the -- those applied by the ICTY?
25 A. Procedure for exhumation is very similar except in some small
1 details where there are differences, and they relate to the procedure of
2 transporting the bodily remains from the actual site of the exhumation to
3 the site where the process of identification takes place.
4 Q. What is the difference?
5 A. The difference is that when exhumations are done by the
6 international court, there are -- the vehicles are physically accompanied,
7 the vehicles transporting the bodily remains are physically escorted,
8 whereas it's not -- that is not the case in our country, but we inform the
9 police department that such a vehicle is passing through its territory,
10 and of course there's an escort in the vehicle itself.
11 Q. Now turning to the results of your research and first the
12 information on persons exhumed. That's paragraph 31 in your report. And
13 you have actually prepared charts related to these figures given there.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And it's tab 4, Your Honour, in the binder.
15 Can the chart be given to the witness. I don't think we need to put it on
16 the ELMO. The charts actually speak for themselves, and we would not --
17 it would take too much time to put it all on the ELMO.
18 Q. Your office -- did -- did your office prepare these charts related
19 to the number of exhumed persons, their sex, their age?
20 A. Yes. That was prepared in the office for missing persons and
22 Q. And in relation to the status of exhumed and identified persons,
23 maybe we could put that one, status, on the ELMO. That's the page Status.
24 I have actually a few questions. In relation to the status of the exhumed
25 and identified persons, you list here 1.640 civilians, 898 defenders, and
1 I would like to know on which basis did you make this distinction.
2 A. When we ascertain the identity of the victim, checks are made as
3 to that person's status. In the Republic of Croatia, there is a ministry
4 of Croatian defenders which has records and files of all members of the
5 armed conflict, members of the Republic of Croatia. So if any one of them
6 is on that list, is on the list of that particular ministry, that means
7 that they receive certain remuneration and enjoy the status of a Croatian
8 defender, then that kind of victim is recorded as a victim having the
9 status of defender.
10 Q. And defenders, does that include military and police or is it only
11 one of them?
12 A. That is the official title for this section of the population, and
13 it is applied and incorporates all members of the armed forces of the
14 Republic of Croatia, both the police and the army.
15 Q. And civilian protection, you list here 199 persons, victims or
16 exhumed as civilian protection. What does that include?
17 A. That is a separate category of persons. That is to say at the
18 point of an armed conflict, they were engaged in certain activities of
19 civil -- civilian protection. That is to say the fire brigade,
20 electricians, and so on. So they manned the branches and services that
21 had to function during that time, during an armed conflict where the
22 conflict took place.
23 Q. In relation to the chart dealing with the ethnic composition, my
24 question only is in relation to the Serbs listed on -- in this chart, does
25 that refer to the Operations Storm and Flash or to what time period does
1 that refer?
2 A. That refers to -- that is to say, all these victims were victims
3 from 1991 up until 1994, that period. From 1991 to 1994, so not the
4 Operations Flash and Storm.
5 Q. We can turn next to the -- the next breakdown, and it's actually
6 the displaced persons, and that's tab 1 in relation to the charts.
7 You have listed in your report a figure of - in paragraph 34(a),
8 Your Honour - you have listed the figure of 220.338 displaced persons.
9 Which time period does that cover?
10 A. That covers 1991 and 1992 up until 1994. But the largest number
11 of displaced persons, up until 1991, was up until mid-1991. I beg your
12 pardon. Up until 1992.
13 Q. You have actually produced this chart in relation to the displaced
14 persons, and it gives actually a figure of 168.903 as the peak for 1992.
15 Do you have it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you have also listed the displaced persons according to
19 A. Well, this shows the period and the counties from which the
20 persons were displaced.
21 Q. I think these charts also speak for themselves, so we do not need
22 to go into the details.
23 The next -- the next group would be paragraph 34(b) in your
24 report, and it refers to 11.834 killed people, and it's tab 2 of your
25 charts. And you have again provided details in relation to whether they
1 were defenders or civilians or whether they were -- their age, the
2 counties of where the killing occurred, and the ethnic breakdown.
3 In your written report, you make a reference to records of
4 competent bodies on which you have actually based your results. Can you
5 say who that -- what that means, what is behind "records of competent
7 A. Well, the problems concerning the persons killed was dealt with by
8 a number of bodies in Croatia, the Health Ministry, its information
9 department would receive information from the field and kept records of
10 that kind. Apart from that, for members of the armed forces, similar
11 records used to be kept by the Ministry of Defence and those records and
12 files were taken over by the Ministry of Croatian Defenders at present.
13 So those two records overlap in certain aspects. Then there are records
14 from exhumed persons from mass graves, and they too enter the category of
15 persons killed, and this information is stored in the Commission for
16 Detainees and Missing Persons. So there were double -- a duplication of
17 names, but the number was 11.834 persons, a minimum of that number, and
18 there is the name and surname and individual facts about the person
20 Q. As you received records from different offices, did you filter out
21 duplicates while you registered all this data?
22 A. Yes. All the data was checked several times, both infomatically
23 and individually, by hand, so that there was no duplication.
24 Q. And you have a relatively high number listed in the ethnic
25 breakdown, a relatively high number of 4.173 where you say unknown, ethnic
1 affiliation unknown. Can you explain that?
2 A. We don't have the information about ethnicity, and wherever we
3 didn't have that information that is reliable, such a person would be
4 categorised as "unknown." Also, some members of their families did not
5 state their ethnicity so we do not have that particular information in
6 official documents.
7 Q. And in your charts in relation to the status of the killed
8 persons, you have first this chart related to the general breakdown, and
9 you have also a chart related to medical personnel, journalists, foreign
10 citizens, and religious personnel. On which basis did you get this
12 A. There is a separate column in the questionnaire, in the document
13 of each individual killed person where this is indicated, that is, persons
14 that enjoy special protection under Geneva Conventions, such as medical
15 personnel, religious officers. These are persons that are separately
16 listed and recorded as such. Of course, in cases where this could be
17 documented, where this was known.
18 Q. In -- now we turn to the -- paragraph 34(c), where you list
19 3.000 -- in your report you list 3.052 missing and forcibly abducted
20 persons. Why do you make this distinction? What is the distinction
21 between the two?
22 A. A missing person is a person about whom there's no information,
23 whereas forcibly abducted persons, for them we have information that they
24 were forcibly abducted from their homes. There were witnesses, and this
25 was recorded in the questionnaires that we compiled for renewing tracing
1 requests. And for each of those categories, the person responsible for
2 witnesses of forcibly abducted persons, all these things are to be found
3 in the questionnaires that have been attached.
4 Q. And these three -- this figure of 3.052 missing and -- missing and
5 forcibly abducted, does this include the territory of Croatia and Bosnia
6 in relation to citizens from Croatia?
7 A. That's right. When the listing was renewed, all missing persons
8 were recorded. Some of those people disappeared in the territory of
9 Bosnia. At that time, 137 persons, which means that 2.915 had gone
10 missing within the territory of the Republic of Croatia. And at present,
11 the figure of people who went missing in the territory of Bosnia amounts
12 to 72.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's -- can the witness be shown
14 the chart tab 3. That actually deals with the figures that are a little
15 bit lower than the figure given in the report.
16 Q. Does this chart reflect the status and the analysis in relation to
17 Croatian territory only?
18 A. Yes. This is the number of missing persons in the territory of
19 the Republic of Croatia in the period from 2002 -- that is, from 1994, to
20 2002. So we can make a comparison for these two different time periods.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you. The charts speak for themselves.
22 Now I would like to turn to paragraph 34(d) and (e) and actually
23 view them together. And you have here 2.746 people exhumed and identified
24 in relation -- and 3.356 exhumed altogether, including the unidentified.
25 This figure of 2.746 identified bodies, does this relate to the exhumation
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 work that was conducted in your office or does it include those done in
2 the previous commissions, in 1991 and 1992?
3 A. No. This figure refers to exhumations carried out by my office,
4 and the process started in 1995. And all those exhumations were carried
5 out in areas that had previously been occupied.
6 Q. Does it also include the figures of those found in graves in Novi
7 Sad or in the other places that you mentioned in the FRY?
8 A. No. This relates exclusively to the victims that we found in 135
9 mass graves and 1.200 and something individual graves.
10 Q. Before we go to actually the last chapter, that is the detention
11 facilities, I would like to discuss with you specific crime scenes and the
12 results of your offers in relation to these specific crime scenes.
13 In preparation of your report, were you actually asked to examine
14 your work results in relation to the persons listed in the schedules of
15 the Croatia indictment?
16 A. Yes, I did review them.
17 Q. And when you came to The Hague to testify, did you and one of your
18 staff members actually check the schedules of the indictment and indicate
19 in handwriting your results on the schedules?
20 A. Yes. Each of those lists was checked, and the results were
21 entered by hand on each of those lists.
22 Q. And did you also review documentation related to the crime scenes,
23 in particular your missing person questionnaires and exhumation reports?
24 A. Yes. Yes.
25 Q. Was the documentation shown to you authentic? Was it actually
1 from your office?
2 A. Absolutely so.
3 Q. I would now like to go through the -- your findings and just refer
4 to corrections that the witness actually made. First of all, we have not
5 included Vocin in this -- this review. Can you explain why?
6 A. In Vocin itself, exhumation was not carried out, and the victims
7 found in Vocin, they were found immediately in 1991, and they were
8 identified on the spot, and their names are in the list of people killed,
9 that is the list containing 11.000 something names. And that is why those
10 names are not registered in our office under the heading of "Exhumed
12 Q. Now I would like to turn to Bacin. That is Annex I, paragraph 40.
13 You have identified -- you have written next to the names an "ID." What
14 does that mean? Does that mean exhumed and identified?
15 A. "ID" means identified.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's tab 6. It's tab 6.
17 Q. You have actually corrected one name here or, rather -- yes, one
18 name and the date of birth of Vera Jukic.
19 A. That's right. In the Prosecution's list, the name was Veronika,
20 and the real name is Vera Jukic, and she was born in 1920 and not in 1919.
21 Q. And you have also made a correction in relation to Ana Blinja
22 where you found that the date of the birth was incorrect?
23 A. That's right. Ana Blinja, who was exhumed and identified, was
24 born in 1923.
25 Q. And you have made two further corrections in relation to Mato
1 Barunovic and Loncar Stefan, where you also detected a mistake in the
3 A. That's right. It's not Mato but Matija Barunovic, and it's not
4 Stefan Loncar but Stjepan Loncar.
5 Q. Next to some of the names you made an "M". What does that
6 indicate; that this person is still missing, according to your files?
7 A. Yes. It is to indicate that the person is missing.
8 Q. And in relation to some of the names, you have added an "ND."
9 Does that mean -- what does that mean?
10 A. That means that the office doesn't have any information about that
12 Q. And in relation to this Bacin list, does that include also victims
13 from Dubica and Cerovljani?
14 A. It's a list that includes victims from Cerovljani and Dubica.
15 Q. In how many mass graves did you find these bodies?
16 A. We found one mass grave here, with 56 victims, in Bacin itself.
17 Additionally, several different victims were found who were not in the
18 mass grave. A total of 59 persons were exhumed in Bacin, out of which 56
19 were in the mass grave. So there were three individual cases as well.
20 In Cerovljani, three individual cases were found.
21 Q. And Dubica?
22 A. And in Dubica itself, six individual cases.
23 Q. And in relation, we now go to the next table in relation to the
24 victims from Lipovanic, paragraph 42, it's tab 11. And you have here
25 actually also corrected one name which was misspelled, and you have
1 actually identified seven bodies; is that correct?
2 A. Quite so. Seven persons in Lipovanic were identified and that was
3 the number of persons that were reported there too. On the list here,
4 there's the name Sindric, and it's not Sindric but Cindric, the first
5 letter being a "C." It's probably a typing error.
6 Q. In relation to Marija Cindric, you --
7 A. So the second name is Cindric, Katja.
8 Q. Did you have any findings on Marija Cindric? Do you know whether
9 this person was killed?
10 A. No. We don't know anything about her, and I think that this was
11 an error, that two persons with the same surname were listed, in view of
12 the fact that we do have information that seven persons were found and
13 identified in the mass grave. This would coincide with the -- this list
14 without Marija Cindric.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, this person has to be struck
16 from the list. It's a mistake, obviously.
17 Q. We now turn to Vukovici, and it's tab 13, and you have here
18 corrected -- or, rather, you have added here a date of birth or, rather, a
19 year of birth. What can you tell us about this?
20 A. On the list we have nine persons, out of which two have been
21 identified. One of the identified persons, Vukovic Nikola, we have added
22 his date of birth, which is 1938.
23 Q. In relation to these you did not identify, are they on the list of
24 the 11.800 dead or -- registered as dead or can't you say anything to them
25 -- about them?
1 A. Nothing can be said about them, therefore they are not on that
2 list of 11.000, nor are they on the list of identified persons.
3 Q. I would now like to continue and go to the victims of Saborsko,
4 paragraph 44 in the indictment. And you have here annex -- tab 15, and
5 also I would like to just refer to tab 16.
6 You have listed here the -- all of these listed in the paragraphs
7 44 were identified, but you found additional bodies in that same mass
8 grave; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct. Here on the list we have 18 identified persons,
10 but we have to say that 30 persons were exhumed in Saborsko, out of which
11 27 were identified. They were found in two mass graves and in ten
12 individual graves or cases.
13 Q. And you have actually given a list of the additional names, and
14 that's -- would be tab 16; is that correct?
15 A. Yes. It's an additional list attached to the annex and covers all
16 identified victims.
17 Q. In relation to Skabrnja, we have actually two different lists, and
18 the list for the victims of Nadin. It's actually named here in the -- in
19 the index to the documentation, tab 19, and Skabrnja case 2 is mentioned
21 In relation to the first list, the victims from the 18th and 19th
22 November, 1991, did you make any findings in relation to this first group
23 of Skabrnja victims, and if not so, why not?
24 A. The first group, that is case 1 Skabrnja, is a case in which the
25 remains immediately after the event, that is several days after the event,
1 were delivered through the local authorities to the family members, and
2 they were processed and all were identified, and they are on the list of
3 persons killed, that is, the list of 11.000 names. And the office did not
4 take part in that.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this refers to paragraph 45 of
6 the indictment, and we have not included it here in this package because
7 the witness couldn't -- except for what he just said, he couldn't add more
8 to this.
9 Q. In relation to Nadin, you also did not have any additional
10 information; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And now in relation to Skabrnja case 2, paragraph 47 of the
13 indictment, you have actually identified all of the people listed. In how
14 many graves were they, and did you find additional bodies?
15 A. All these persons on the list were found in a mass grave in
16 Skabrnja, and there were 27 bodies. The exhumation took place on the 6th
17 of June, 1996, so that all the persons who are on this list for Skabrnja
18 were identified.
19 Q. Now turning to Bruska. Bruska is also not in -- not in the
20 binders, Your Honours.
21 Can you explain? Is that similar to your previous explanations,
22 that you didn't deal with them?
23 A. Yes. Yes. We didn't deal with the question of Bruska.
24 Q. Are you aware of whether those listed under Bruska were actually
25 dead? Are they in the list of 11.800 victims or don't you know that?
1 A. I could not say at this point in time.
2 Q. Now we turn to Ovcara farm. You have now, in addition to your
3 usual markings "ID" "M" and "ND", you have now made references to "ID"
4 with a little star next to this "ID". What does that mean when you look
5 at this schedule?
6 A. That means that that person is on the list of persons that have
7 been identified but that it was not found in the Ovcara mass grave but in
8 some other location.
9 Q. Yes.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I'm now speaking about tab 22
11 and tab 23.
12 Q. Have you -- when you went through the list, did you actually find
13 a person who is alive, and did you point that out to the Prosecutor?
14 A. Yes. Reviewing this list, we found a person called Vilenica
15 Zarko. This person is alive. On the list, it happened to be also in the
16 office documents as a missing person, it being said he was seen for the
17 last time at the Vukovar Hospital. The questionnaire was filled in by the
18 mother of the mentioned person, and tracing procedures were started, upon
19 which we discovered that the person was alive.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this person Zarko Vilenica
21 has --
22 JUDGE MAY: In due course, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be right, in
23 light of this evidence and any other that there may be which would require
24 amendment, formally for you to serve a document amending the indictment to
25 delete these names.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, but I suggest we do it by
2 rather the end of the case. Then we have all the details clear.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. But keep it in mind, if you would.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we'll do that.
5 Q. In relation to Vukovar, can you say in how many graves you found
6 the victims that you identified, and what about unidentified bodies this
7 these gave graves?
8 A. In the area of Vukovar, that is the town of Vukovar itself, four
9 mass graves were found, in which 1.319 persons were exhumed in total, out
10 of which 1.094 persons were identified, whereas the remaining number are
11 in the process of identification, and they are being stored in specially
12 built graves for that purpose which are in Zagreb and in Osijek.
13 Q. And you have also made a few corrections in the list of names
14 beside this one person who is alive. You have corrected a few names and
15 birth dates, and I think we do not need to repeat that here.
16 I have one question: You have listed as identified a female
17 person, Janja Pothorski. In the mass graves with the victims from the
18 hospital Vukovar did you find another female victim?
19 A. Pothorski.
20 Q. Yes. That is one female person listed here. Did you also find
21 another female person in the grave?
22 A. In the mass grave at Ovcara, among the victims identified so far
23 we have found another female, Mrs. Ruzica Markobasic, who was not
24 registered as a wounded person or a patient but who had probably sought
25 shelter in the hospital at that time. I have to mention that she was in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 advanced stage of pregnancy.
2 Q. And let's now turn to Dalj, paragraph 50. In which mass grave
3 were these bodies found?
4 A. These bodies were found in the mass grave at a place called
5 Celija, and the grave was exhumed on the 23rd of February, 1998. We found
7 bodily remains in the grave.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's now -- we are now moving
9 on to tab 25.
10 Q. And you have also made a note here that one of the persons on the
11 schedule was actually found in a different place, that is Daljski Atar.
12 What kind of a grave was there? Was that a single grave?
13 A. In Daljski Atar, what we found was a mass grave. It was a well,
14 in fact, and over 20 remains were found.
15 Q. And did you indicate in the subsequent list related to other crime
16 bases also that same well as a place where you found the bodies?
17 A. Yes. The bodily remains that are listed in cases 2 and 3 were
18 found in the mass grave in Dalj and Celija.
19 Q. Yes. In relation to actually victims -- cases 2 and 3, paragraph
20 51, and that means tab 29 and the following two, we have here the person
21 Vinko Oroz and Marinko Somodjvorac. Do you know where they were found?
22 A. Marinko Somodjvorac and Vinko Oroz were found on the territory of
23 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in Novi Sad, actually. And through
24 bilateral talks, those bodily remains were given to us along with all the
25 documentation, the post-mortem findings, et cetera.
1 Q. Did the documentation that you received indicate how they -- how
2 these bodies got to Novi Sad?
3 A. According to the documentation that we received, you can see that
4 the bodily remains were taken out of the Danube River. That's where they
5 were found, across from the town of Ilok, in that region.
6 Q. Are you aware whether other bodies also were dumped -- other
7 bodies from this incident here also dumped in the Danube River?
8 A. Yes. The other bodies were also thrown into the Danube, but we
9 didn't find them in the mass grave at Ilok in September 1999. But we
10 undertook the procedure of identification later on.
11 And let me also say that according to certain witness statements
12 and what we learnt, these bodily remains were taken out of the river, out
13 of the Danube, and that's when they were placed in the mass grave.
14 Q. And you refer to a mass grave in Ilok; right?
15 A. Yes, and that's the one I'm talking about.
16 Q. Now we move on to the victims Lovas minefield, paragraph 52, and
17 it's tab 33 and the following table.
18 Where were the bodies of these people found?
19 A. The bodies of these people, their remains, of those persons on the
20 list were located in the mass grave at a place called Lovas, and there
21 were 68 persons in that mass grave, and the grave was exhumed in June
23 Q. Moving on now to Erdut, case 1, paragraph 53, what can you tell us
24 about the ethnicity of these victims?
25 A. Well, it's quite obvious that these persons were members of the
1 Hungarian ethnic minority. We have 12 persons on the list, ten of which
2 were identified, and the bodily remains were found in the mass grave in
3 Celija, and there were 16 victims in it.
4 Q. And the case 2, paragraph 53, we have listed here three more
5 persons. Are they also Hungarians? And I'm referring now to tab 40.
6 A. Yes, that's right. They were three individuals found in the mass
7 grave, in the well in Borovo Selo near Dalj. The grave was exhumed in
8 September 2000, and all three individuals were identified. They were all
9 members of the Hungarian ethnic minority, and they were related to one of
10 the others found in the other mass grave.
11 Q. And we have actually in the previous -- in the previous schedule,
12 we have a Franjo Pap born '34, and now we have a Franjo Pap born '60. Are
13 these father and son?
14 A. Yes, that's right, they were father and son. And the wife, too.
15 She was born in 1930, I believe.
16 Q. And now we move on to the next schedule, Erdut, case 7, paragraph
17 53. Tab 44, Your Honours.
18 We have here just one person. Is that another relative of the
19 previously mentioned Hungarian victims?
20 A. Yes, that's right. This person was also an ethnic Hungarian from
21 Erdut. She was found in the well in Dalj Mountain, not far from Erdut.
22 Q. And now moving on to the next schedule, Klisa, paragraph 54,
23 that's tab 48 and 49.
24 You have identified all these victims listed here. Where were
25 they found?
1 A. All five of them were identified and found in the mass grave at
2 the place called Celija. So they were in the same mass grave as the
3 people in paragraph 53.
4 Q. Now we move on to victims Vukovar, paragraph 55. You have
5 identified all of these victims, and can you tell us where they were
7 A. On the list, we have 11 persons. All 11 were identified. The
8 first four individuals were found in the mass grave at the Lovas farm near
9 Dalj in a grave in which otherwise there were 24 victims. The rest were
10 found in the mass grave at the Catholic cemetery in Dalj itself, and 11
11 victims were uncovered in the grave.
12 Q. Yes. Now we move on to the Erdut cases. First the case 4.
13 That's tab 55 and -- 54 and 55. Where were these bodies found?
14 A. These bodies were found in the mass grave that was called Daljski
15 Atar, in the well where 23 victims in total were found, and they were
16 exhumed in October 1998.
17 Q. And when you -- in this -- in these schedules that you mentioned,
18 when you have "M", listed the "M", that person is in your missing persons
19 list. And "ND", this person and all the others we mentioned before, would
20 they be in the list of 11.800 and odd killed, or wouldn't you know
21 anything about them?
22 A. The persons listed with an "M" are persons who went missing and
23 who are on the list of missing persons, those with the lists compiled in
24 -- of the 1.883 persons. And the "ND" denotes persons we have no
25 knowledge about, which means that none of their family members put in a
1 request to search for them, but on the other hand, they haven't been
2 listed as dead either.
3 Q. Yes. And the last schedule related to Erdut, paragraph 57, you
4 have again identified all except for one person. And were they also found
5 in the well that you mentioned?
6 A. Yes, that's right. These persons too were found in that same well
7 in the Daljski Atar.
8 Q. And the way how they were actually situated in the well, did that
9 indicate to you anything in relation to when they got -- when they were
10 put in the well? Could you find -- could you make any findings in the way
11 how they were actually in there?
12 A. In view of the fact that data exists as to the time of these
13 persons' disappearance, or most of their disappearances, and the way in
14 which we found them, that is to say those who had disappeared earlier on
15 were found on the bottom level of the well, whereas the ones who
16 disappeared soonest were at the top. So we can make a reconstruction of
17 the time on the basis of the time of disappearance, how the victims were
18 placed in the well. Those who went missing first were at the bottom of
19 the well, those who went missing last were at the top of the well. And
20 it's a very small space, so the strata were not mixed, they were layer
21 upon layer.
22 Q. And now going -- coming to the last grave you dealt with, the
23 victims Grabovac, paragraph 59 of the indictment, and the tab 30 -- 63 and
24 64, where were they found, these bodies?
25 A. All five victims from the list have been identified. They were
1 found in the mass grave at Beli Manastir. But according to the
2 information we have at our disposal, and we were able to prove this later
3 on, those victims were first of all buried in a place called Tikves. It
4 was a hunting ground. And between 1993 and 1994, they were transferred to
5 the mass grave in Beli Manastir, which was within the Catholic cemetery
7 Q. And did you find in that primary grave at the hunting ground, did
8 you find parts of the remains of these people or how could you prove that
9 they had been removed to a secondary grave?
10 A. According to a witness, a man who conducted the transfer of bodies
11 showed us the place, and then we undertook analyses. We dug up the spot,
12 and we found minute remains of human bones and also certain parts of their
13 clothing were found and indicated that the same clothing parts were found
14 on the exhumed remains.
15 Q. And this primary grave in Tikves, is that close to Grabovac or how
16 does this grave relate to the victims?
17 A. The place called Grabovac is about ten -- about ten kilometres
18 away from that particular spot where they were discovered. I said that it
19 was a hunting ground where the paramilitaries had been stationed while
20 this area was under occupation.
21 Q. Which paramilitary do you refer to?
22 A. According to a statement by one of the witnesses describing the
23 transference of the bodies, they were members of the Red Berets. That's
24 what they were called. Probably members of Arkan's units and Captain
25 Dragan's unit too.
1 Q. That's what this person told you who directed you to the grave?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. And we actually had a schedule in relation to victims in
4 Dubrovnik. Do you -- did you have any dealings with the victims from
5 Dubrovnik? Could you say anything to them?
6 A. No, I can't say anything about that except that they are on the
7 list of persons killed of the 11.000, the list of the 11.000 that we
9 Q. Yes. We will now turn to the detention facilities. And you have
10 already mentioned that you also dealt with detention facilities and
11 exchanges, and you did actually describe your methodology in the report,
12 and I do not need to repeat that with you.
13 When was the last person actually exchanged? If you'd just tell
14 us that.
15 A. The last person to be exchanged was in 1996.
16 Q. From where? Exchanged from where?
17 A. That person was, according to their own testimony, detained in
18 Erdut, and the person was exchanged along the separation line of the
19 then-occupied area next to Lipovac.
20 Q. You have also prepared charts in relation to the detention, and
21 it's tab 5.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, the witness has informed us
23 that the first -- the first page this subject -- this first page is
24 outdated and you should remove it, it's no more correct. This first page
25 giving the 7.666 and mentions captured, missing, killed, that's outdated
1 and it wouldn't be correct and would you please remove this.
2 Q. In relation to the sex and status of the prisoners, is that --
3 what is the source for the distinction between soldiers and civilians? Is
4 that the same as you have described before?
5 A. Yes, it's the same. Official records.
6 Q. Yes. And I'm just -- I would like to know, you have a relatively
7 high number of "unclear" status people here, with 3.614. Can you explain
8 why this number is so high?
9 A. The number is so high because we don't have any official data.
10 But it is clear that they are not members of the armed forces, they don't
11 belong to that category. If they were, they would have been recorded and
12 listed as such and then have enjoyed certain rights that that status gives
13 them, and they would all be interested in receiving that. So we have to
14 add them on to the civilian category.
15 Q. And in relation to the other charts there, actually, you have also
16 listed again certain privilege group, like injured, medical staff,
17 religious staff, and journalists, and I have only one more question in
18 relation to the duration of the imprisonment that you also give in the
19 chart, and there is also a relatively high number where you give the
20 duration of imprisonment as unknown. How is that -- can you explain that?
21 A. Because the data were filled in badly. This is what it was about:
22 A certain number of detainees who were listed as such were exchanged
23 before the commission had been set up on local levels, that is to say, and
24 so only very scant data and information was recorded, and it wasn't always
25 the right kind.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Yes.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like to discuss with the
3 witnesses certain locations that are listed as detention facilities in the
4 indictment, but this would take another perhaps 15 minutes, so I think it
5 would be a good time to stop here.
6 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Tomorrow morning,
8 Would you be back then, please, Mr. Grujic, 9.00 tomorrow
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I have one more point in
11 relation to the witness. As he is an expert witness, the Prosecution has
12 the duty to bring him here and take him back to the hotel. Are we allowed
13 to do that?
14 JUDGE MAY: Provided you don't talk about the case or the
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Yes.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of March,
19 2003, at 9.00 a.m.