1 Monday, 2 September 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.37 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Very good morning to

6 everybody. May we hear the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances, please.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian with

11 Ruth Karper for the Office of the Prosecutor.

12 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and

13 John Ostojic for the Defence.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, and thank you.

15 Before we start, first, my apologies that we start belated.

16 Something was to be discussed before we were able to start today's

17 hearing. Let me turn to some specific issues that were found out during

18 the weekend. First, we have this large document on the authorship of

19 decisions, orders, conclusions, and other document. And I congratulate

20 for the inventive and innovative OTP. I have never seen until now the

21 word "gazetted" and so on, but probably it may be a new word. I haven't

22 heard this word before. It is interesting to see.

23 But we have a real problem with this analysis because there are

24 numerous documents mentioned that have not yet been tendered, or some of

25 them have even not yet a 65 ter number. I think we can't work on this

1 basis before the documents are tendered by the OTP, and we would kindly

2 request the OTP to present for this purpose a List 7 of documents. You

3 can find it immediately on the first column of your overview.

4 Then it was - and I don't think whether the parties have the same

5 impression - a little bit difficult to work with and even to read the

6 handwriting expertise because reference it made to ERN numbers and not to

7 the documents, not to the exhibit numbers. It would be helpful if this

8 could be added, or even better, a compilation of the documents mentioned

9 in this expertise could be added separately for a better understanding of

10 the expertise as such, and for an easier discussion of the documents when

11 we have the expert before us.

12 Let's come one step further to witnesses. We discussed the

13 envisaged schedule of the OTP during the 65 ter conference last Thursday.

14 It remained open until now whether or not to call ex officio the bishop of

15 Banja Luka. The Defence has asked for the possibility to discuss this

16 issue with Dr. Stakic. And it remains the question whether or not the

17 Defence is contesting the content of this. If so, it would be necessary

18 to call the bishop. May we hear some explanations by the Defence as

19 regards this issue.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honour. The Defence, and we

21 would like to thank the Court for granting us addition time in order to

22 review and make an analysis with our client in connection with the

23 bishop's letter dated August 11th of 1992. Our position is as follows:

24 Without waiving our right to remain silent, the Defence in a continuing

25 effort to cooperate with the Court and the Tribunal do not contest the

1 contents of the letter from the bishop with the exception of the fact that

2 the OTP may, and the Court may, respectfully, make an inference with

3 respect to whether or not Dr. Stakic received the letter dated August

4 11th, 1992. The Defence's position specifically in regard to this issue

5 is that we deny that the letter was received by Dr. Stakic; and further

6 deny that the contents described by the honourable bishop following the

7 August 4th, 1992 meeting were known by Dr. Stakic.

8 Namely, if the Court remembers, and I can appreciate the Court's

9 preliminary comments singularly referencing content, but there are three

10 specific dates in the letter and conversations with other individuals.

11 It's our position, quite frankly, that the first portion of that letter we

12 do not contest, and we believe it was the Court's request on that portion

13 of the letter that we will not contest. However, with respect to the

14 discussions subsequent to August 11th or information that the bishop may

15 have learned after the August 4th, 1992, meeting, as well as receipt of

16 the documents, we do expressly deny and would object to, Your Honour.

17 Thank you.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May we hear some observations as

19 regards this by the Office of the Prosecutor.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I would just point out that in many

21 jurisdictions, there's a presumption. It's just based upon reasonableness

22 that a letter sent was received. I don't expect that the sender would

23 necessarily be able to testify whether or not a letter was received,

24 simply that it was sent. Other than that, I have no further comments.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, also under the headline "witnesses" and --

1 sorry. Also under the headline "witnesses and right to be heard," I have

2 to address the following issue: During the Prosecutor's case, the

3 authenticity of minutes taken is in nearly all of the cases contested by

4 the Defence. Sometimes we find attached a name of a rapporteur or a

5 person having drafted or at least then later signed these minutes not

6 signed by Dr. Stakic.

7 As long as the authenticity is contested, we are afraid it is

8 necessary to exhaust all possible means, and this would mean to hear the

9 person or the persons mentioned at the end of those minutes. Therefore,

10 my question goes to, first, the OTP: Is it the intention to call this

11 rapporteur or rapporteurs?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it the intention of the Defence to present

14 these rapporteurs during the Defences case? We don't want to destroy the

15 Defence case.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence, Your Honour, is still contemplating

17 whether we will call such witnesses in our case, in our response, or

18 Defence case. We will have to evaluate that after the 98 bis motions and

19 after the conclusion of the case in chief by the OTP.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, we have to deliberate on this, and we

21 have to decide on this. But the parties should not be surprised if they

22 find a document calling this rapporteur or the rapporteurs during the

23 Prosecutor's case. I think the attempt is mandatory.

24 Let me finally go to the schedule: We anticipated that Monday 23

25 and Wednesday 25 should be reserved for deliberations. And as we

1 discussed it, the Monday should be reserved for deliberations on facts;

2 Wednesday for deliberations on legal aspects. In anticipation of these

3 deliberations, it would be helpful if we could receive, if possible, in

4 writing those parts of the indictment where it is the intention of the

5 Office of the Prosecutor to drop certain factual allegations, say, just to

6 quote out of the blue, that the OTP is no longer of the opinion that for

7 what reasons ever, for example, that the witness wasn't able to come, they

8 themselves believe that there's no evidence, for example, that one mosque

9 was destroyed. This would facilitate, and this is the purpose of this

10 entire exercise, facilitate and abbreviate the notions and the scope of

11 what has to be discussed during the -- for the purpose of the 98 bis

12 motion.

13 As then regards the deliberations on the legal aspects, no doubt

14 that we then at the end of the Prosecutor's case expect a clarification

15 what has to be the Defence case. We'll say that we will no longer accept

16 that we have parallelly allegations that Dr. Stakic ordered, incited,

17 committed, aided and abetted an offence. It should be and it has to be

18 for the purpose of a fair trial clear, at least at that point in time,

19 what are the remaining charges after the OTP has had the opportunity to

20 present all the evidence available.

21 Finally, and you never should lose the hope, one aspect of these

22 deliberations could be, of course, that we could come - and once again,

23 try to come to an agreement between the parties. I think under the

24 impression of that what we have heard since April 16, it shouldn't be too

25 difficult to come to such an agreement. I know there's a gap between the

1 expectations of the parties, but I don't believe that this is a gap that

2 couldn't be bridged. And it's necessary that if possible this gap has to

3 be bridged because also in this case, but this is not the first and not

4 the most important reason, coefficiency aspects have to play a role.

5 Furthermore, it is of incredible value that we would have the chance to

6 come to a decision based on agreement because opposed to ordinary courts,

7 we have the additional mandate to maintain peace and to bring people

8 living in the area of Former Yugoslavia together again. And therefore, an

9 agreement as such has an incredible value, and no doubt that this would

10 have to be taken into account in a possible outcome of this case.

11 If it would be possible that Dr. Stakic himself would feel able to

12 give us an insight on his own state of mind, his own intentions, his own

13 way to that what he exercised in the many-fold capacities we learned

14 during the time since April 16, it would be helpful. No doubt it is

15 correct what one of Defence counsel said during the 65 ter meeting:

16 "Sometimes it is indeed not in favour of the client to give the

17 recommendation to address the Court." But on the other hand, it should be

18 considered, and after all that what I have heard and seen here in the

19 courtroom as regards the activities of Dr. Stakic and his being impressed

20 by that what he heard from witnesses, I think it would be appropriate, and

21 it could be indeed helpful, if we could hear how it came to this

22 development from a physician going into politics and then being faced, to

23 put it very neutral, with results of politics dominant at that time in the

24 area, politics from -- emanating from at least two different sides. We

25 all know that we can't apply the tu quoque principle here. And we have to

1 under the question before us whether or not there's an individual

2 responsibility of Dr. Stakic.

3 But for this purpose, and also for the purpose to learn more of

4 his personal development about the use, about the background of his

5 growing up, about his political development, how the entire story ended.

6 Why, for example, then later on he left Prijedor. All this would be of

7 extreme importance for this Tribunal. So therefore, these words cannot

8 have more than an appellate function.

9 But we should take into account that it would be extremely high

10 value that we hear from an accused that he no longer maintains a possible

11 formal role and that let's for a moment leave aside the question of

12 responsibility, regrets, what was the outcome of the politics at that time

13 in the area of Former Yugoslavia. This, no doubt, could bring us closer

14 to the expectations of the Defence as regards the outcome of the case.

15 And no doubt, also the Office of the Prosecutor, to a certain extent, has

16 to come down to earth as regards the possible outcome of the case. We

17 have -- the Bench has several times discussed the case as it stands now.

18 And we can anticipate what will be the development during the next four

19 weeks.

20 Based on this, and knowing about the gap to be bridged, I think it

21 can and it must be possible to limit this case to what it is on the mere -

22 and this is important enough - responsibility of Dr. Stakic. I know,

23 having been a Prosecutor myself for more than ten years how difficult it

24 is when you have once started a case against three persons, and now one

25 person is remaining, that you can't possibly not find out the persons who

1 were really responsible on the level of Prijedor, I must emphasise, for

2 that what happened deplorably at that time. It can't be true that in the

3 beginning, there were three accused, and now one has to pay for the three

4 of them.

5 So therefore, for the last time, once again, being aware that this

6 has only an appellate function, I would ask the parties to try to come

7 together and to envisage that we try on the basis of the deliberations of

8 23 and 25 September once again - and I really believe this is the last

9 occasion then - to come to an agreement as foreseen in our rules on

10 procedure and evidence. I really believe it's necessary because I

11 personally see a good chance to come to such an agreement.

12 I don't expect any comments on this right now. Please, bear it in

13 mind. And let us now turn, once again, down to earth to a more

14 administrative matters. Is there anything to add to that what we

15 discussed during the 65 ter meeting or anything -- any changes in the

16 schedule of the OTP for the next four weeks already foreseeable now?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From the Defence, any problems with lists

19 expected from -- to be prepared by Mr. Inayat or other issues?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Your Honour, quite frankly, I do have a

21 comment on it, and I was hoping to clarify the issue with Mr. Inayat this

22 morning. I do believe that there are -- is a list that still is missing

23 in connection with the documents that are in the possession of the OTP.

24 However, when reviewing over this weekend the actual direct and

25 cross-examination, it may be that our questions at that time were overly

1 broad and not specific enough, and therefore there might be a discrepancy

2 as to which lists we find necessary and relevant for purposes of

3 authenticating certain documents as well as determining whether or not

4 certain documents are relevant, much less credible. I can share with the

5 Court what it is specifically that I'm inquiring about. We raised it in

6 the 65 ter conference, and that would be an index of the list of

7 documents, if I may, that were prepared and submitted to the OTP by the

8 agency called the agency for identification and documentation, namely with

9 the acronym AID which was part and parcel a unit from the federal

10 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina previously identified as being their, I

11 think, secret service centre. It's those documents, Your Honour, we

12 specifically would contest are relevant since many of the documents that

13 the OTP has submitted and expect the Court to make analysis from and rely

14 upon, I think the sourcing are critically relevant and valuable. And we

15 have a position in connection with those sources that we think can

16 enlighten the Court and at least give it some guidance respectfully in

17 connection with the weight that those documents may be given.

18 Again, I accept the Court has accepted and admitted those

19 documents. But when we address the weight, we feel that depending on who

20 the source is and how that may have reached the hands of the OTP, the

21 timing, et cetera, it may be of some interest. So we don't have that list

22 in particular. But the other ones we have, and unfortunately I read

23 through most of those 2.000 pages of indexes.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the remaining issue can be discussed in

25 the presence and of course with Witness Inayat immediately. Are there

1 other remaining issues to be prepared possibly with the assistance of the

2 Bench not related to Mr. Inayat?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: I mentioned to my learned friend just a couple of

4 things that are outstanding, although it's not a complaint just a matter

5 of follow-up. Perhaps we should list it on the record just to be

6 efficient. We have not yet received the CV or a curriculum vitae of a

7 couple of their proposed witnesses, namely the military expert as well as

8 the linguistics individual who is testifying.

9 In addition, we have not yet received the report, the military

10 analytical report in the language in which the accused can understand and

11 assist in preparation of his Defence. We have to date not received the

12 updated or supplemental report from Dr. Eva Tabeau. With the exception of

13 those three items, the CV, the reports in the language in which the

14 accused can understand, the military report, the supplemental report from

15 the demographer, I don't think we have any other comments.

16 In addition to that, the report from the linguistics analyst in

17 either English or in B/C/S has not been tendered to date. And we know

18 it's in draft, and the linguist was out of town last week, I believe. So

19 we hope to get that at least several days before that person would be

20 called to testify.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this. Observations by the OTP?

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to go through the outstanding matters to be

23 provided to the Defence, the translation of the military report is

24 finished and will be provided at the break. It was finished over the

25 weekend.

1 The CVs -- both of those individuals were out of town last week,

2 and I've asked them both to provide the CVs. I may have to get together

3 with counsel and maybe the Court on one of them. There may be an issue we

4 have to raise in private session.

5 In regards to the report of the linguist or document analyst I

6 would call him, again, he's out -- he was out of town last week. I'm not

7 sure if he's back. I do have some questions I wanted to go over with him

8 before we submitted his draft or before it's finalised and he may have

9 made some changes in the meantime. If he's not back today, then I'll

10 simply provide the draft, even though it will be changed, to the Defence

11 so they can start reading it.

12 As for Ms. Tabeau's report on Prijedor, that will be provided

13 on -- she said that would be finished by next Monday. I will also inform

14 the Court and counsel something I found out late Friday. There's a good

15 chance that we will get today an updated version, an electronic version,

16 of the Prijedor book of missing persons that apparently all the data has

17 been inputted and we are trying to arrange to be shipped here as soon as

18 possible.

19 I do have one other question regarding the Court's earlier

20 remarks, and a clarification that I would request. When the Court talks

21 about deliberations, are those arguments? I'm not quite sure. Are we

22 going to all be sitting in Court discussing this, or is there

23 deliberations by the Bench without the parties amongst yourselves? I'm

24 confused about that.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's the attempt to come in public session to

1 some kind of agreement between the parties in the presence of the Court

2 with some hopefully assistance of the Court. The Bench will make up -- we

3 will make up our minds until then, and probably we can give some guidance

4 and indicate where we see problems and where we don't see problems.

5 May I ask, does the Office of the Prosecutor share our view that

6 those documents mentioned here in this huge document should be tendered

7 and will be tendered?

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't think it would terribly hurt other than we

9 would have a lot more documents. Let me explain, some of those have been

10 admitted, but when this prepared apparently the preparer did not have the

11 S numbers. Particularly those would be 65 ter numbers 43, which is 192;

12 45 as 193; 48 as 194; and 49 as 195.

13 Many of the others are duplicates or are orders on matters that we

14 didn't find particularly probative such as establishing branch offices in

15 Ljubija and other places. But perhaps for the clarity of both this

16 report -- we could either take it off this report, but perhaps for the

17 clarity of having all the documents with the signature or the name of

18 Dr. Stakic, and also to probably -- some of these may be referred to in

19 Mr. Corin, the linguist's report, it would be better to add to this

20 another list.

21 In regards to list 7, in other words the documents not on the

22 first six lists, we have a working list. Of course that will not be

23 complete probably until the trial -- or at least there -- all the

24 documents may not be in until September the 18th or whenever we finish.

25 Mr. Inayat, I will ask him about that today, but he will be providing the

1 sourcing of all those documents which he already has that information. It

2 simply will be inputted by Ms. Karper into the report based on

3 Mr. Inayat's contributions.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt that some of the documents mentioned as

5 such based on their content have no --

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Some were duplicates.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- are not that important probative value. But

8 I think such an expertise cannot be based on documents not yet tendered

9 or, as I mentioned, please find it on page 5, even not yet being in the

10 possession of the Bench because not having a 65 ter number.

11 So I think it's really necessary even taking into account the

12 interest of the first, that we have to have all these documents available

13 for a better discussion and understanding of this entire document.

14 Therefore, we would be grateful if you could provide us with such

15 additional documents.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think that actually is the item -- the item Your

17 Honour referred to number -- I believe that item that had no 65 ter number

18 in the chart should have the 65 ter number 99. I believe it's part of

19 gazette number 2. But we'll complete the chart and make sure that any

20 exhibit, as Your Honour requested, that is not yet in evidence is added to

21 list 7 or 8, wherever we are at.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

23 I think it's now enough with initial remarks. I can't see any

24 obstacles for starting now with Witness Inayat. It's the second testimony

25 of Mr. Inayat. And may the usher please bring in Witness Inayat.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, Mr. Inayat. As to the fact that

3 this is a new testimony, and your second testimony in the same case, I

4 would ask you once again to give us the solemn declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Please, be seated. And may the

8 examination-in-chief start.

9 WITNESS: MAZHAR INAYAT [Resumed].

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Before I begin, I'd like to distribute lists 4, 5,

11 and 6, and have one copy be given to the witness. I would also ask that

12 they be given exhibit numbers.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next one will be S?

14 THE REGISTRAR: S278, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S278, yes.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe the Defence already has the lists.

17 Okay. Thank you.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections?

19 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S278.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: So will that be all three lists, Your Honour, are

22 278?

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So for the record, we have now been presented.

24 List 4 will be S -- the new list 4 will be S278. List 5, 279. List 6,

25 280.

1 Examined by Mr. Koumjian: [Continued]

2 Q. Mr. Inayat, you have in front of you S278, 279, and 280, lists 4,

3 5, and 6 respectively. These indicate documents listed by the 65 ter

4 number, and where they have it by an S number, the documents described and

5 the ERN numbers in both English and B/C/S provided and the last column

6 indicates sources. Did you contribute to the preparation of these

7 documents?

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. Specifically, did you provide the information that is in the far

10 right column, "sources"?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. Did you do this in the same manner that you did for lists 1, 2,

13 and 3 that you testified about previously?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Mr. Inayat, the Court has noticed instances where the OTP has

16 presented multiple copies of documents. Can you tell us first of all how

17 did you handle the situation regarding your sourcing when documents were

18 found in more than one location?

19 A. While I was trying to find the sources for these documents, it so

20 happened that I came across copies which had come to us from duplicate

21 sources or sometimes even three or four sources. One of the primary

22 source of these documents was the seizure that took place in Prijedor or

23 also in Banja Luka, but in later years, we were also given or provided

24 with similar copies from the local authorities.

25 Q. Let me stop there. In that situation where you received the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 documents from different sources, would the document, each copy, have a

2 separate ERN number?

3 A. That is correct, yes.

4 Q. In the charts for lists 4, 5, and 6 where we have an ERN number

5 and then the source, does that source indicate for each ERN number, in

6 other words, where it came from? Does that column sourcing indicate for

7 each ERN number where we obtained -- the OTP obtained the document with

8 that specific ERN number?

9 A. There are several instances -- I don't know if there's a

10 particular instance in these three documents, but there are several

11 instances when I was doing the sourcing that I did mention that in the

12 source column.

13 Q. For example, let's look at list 5, 65 ter number 43, the third one

14 on the list.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. This indicates -- and we have two different -- in the sourcing

17 column, we have different ERN numbers. Is that correct?

18 A. What this particular example means is that in fact it's the same

19 document from the Prijedor seizure, but 00633787 means that before it was

20 sent for stamping to the evidence unit --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down. Please repeat.

22 A. Example 43, 65 ter number 43, there are two ERN numbers mentioned

23 in the B/C/S ERN. In fact, it's the same document. What happened was

24 that before the collection was handed over to the evidence unit, when they

25 stamped P007162, before this, the team had reviewed this particular

1 document for the Kovacevic trial. And they had taken this document out

2 and given it to the evidence unit which at that time in early 1998 gave

3 the number 00633787. So this is not the example. It's not the right

4 example here.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN:

6 Q. Does it indicate that the first one, the ERN numbering 3787 was

7 seized from the police station, and the second one, 7162, was seized from

8 the Municipal Assembly building?

9 A. I apologise. I apologise.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President and witness, please, could you

11 slow down and repeat all these numbers. Thank you.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: If we could just pause between the question and

13 answer.

14 THE WITNESS: I think I would like to apologise. You're right.

15 00633787 was seized from the police station, and this similar document was

16 also seized from the Municipal Assembly building. I'm sorry, that is

17 true.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN:

19 Q. Mr. Inayat, were there instances when you went into a file in one

20 location where the same document appeared more than once in that location

21 or in a particular file?

22 A. This is true. As I was explaining this a little earlier that one

23 particular document may have come from different sources, and I have

24 confirmed this several times.

25 Q. And, for example, were there occasions when you went to the

1 Municipal Assembly building and in one folder the same document appeared,

2 in other words, the document and copies of the same document appeared in

3 the same folder?

4 A. I wouldn't like to make a comment without having reviewed a

5 particular example. But it is possible, as I said, that the same document

6 may have come from the same location a number of times.

7 Q. If you found that the same document, let's say a two-page

8 document, appeared with the ERN numbers in sequence, in other words,

9 ending 1, 2, 3, 4, would that indicate to you that the two documents, the

10 two copies of the two-page document were found together in one location?

11 A. Definitely.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just ask --

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Excuse me, if I can just...

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm trying to shorten things a bit.

17 Q. Mr. Inayat, have you actually done the sourcing for the entire 65

18 ter list?

19 A. I did this several months ago.

20 Q. Would it be correct if in the future in this case we present

21 lists, further lists, lists 7 or 8 with a sourcing column, would you be

22 the person that provides the information for that sourcing?

23 A. I will.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My first question to the OTP is: Shouldn't the

1 question about the further development of those documents seized during

2 the arrest of Dr. Stakic should also form part of the

3 examination-in-chief?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to clarify, the documents that Your Honour is

5 speaking of are not the items in evidence. They are the documents that

6 are actually seized and were returned to the Detention Unit. I don't want

7 to speak in front of the witness in too much detail. What we have in

8 evidence right now are the copies. But to make the picture complete,

9 could we have S235. S235, do we have a copy?

10 Q. Mr. Inayat, as the team leader for Team 1, were you the team

11 leader at the time that Mr. Stakic was arrested?

12 A. I was.

13 Q. And after Mr. Stakic was arrested, did you speak to a

14 Mr. O'Donnell?

15 A. Yes. Mr. O'Donnell I believe a couple of days after the arrest

16 came to my office and I spoke to him about the arrest.

17 Q. Now, Mr. Inayat, have you seen a note by Mr. O'Donnell regarding

18 what he did with certain documents that he obtained during -- when he

19 arrested Mr. Stakic or took custody of him and brought him to The Hague?

20 A. Yes, I've seen that document.

21 Q. And do you have a recollection at all of receiving the documents

22 from Mr. O'Donnell after Mr. Inayat -- excuse me, Dr. Stakic was arrested?

23 A. Yes. My recollection is that Mr. O'Donnell came to my office and

24 showed me certain -- a certain material that appeared to me to be

25 something of --

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could I look at the items first.

2 A. The material that Mr. O'Donnell showed me, it appeared to be

3 something like a private documentation, and I believe there were some

4 keys. So I remember having seen those.

5 Q. First of all, what would your procedure be when you receive

6 documents such as that were seized during the arrest of an individual?

7 A. In a couple of previous examples when --

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Let me interrupt if I may, Your Honour, with all due

9 respect to the witness. I'd like to object to the question. I think it's

10 improper. Counsel was trying to impute to this witness and to this Court

11 that someone who gave them documents, and we are taking a completely

12 different position on that. It wasn't documents received. We say that

13 they were - as our briefs have indicated - documents that were improperly

14 and illegally confiscated from the accused.

15 So it's not a question of receiving, and I don't know if it may

16 make a difference to a criminal investigator. I would hope that it does,

17 but to that extent I object to the form of the question.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dismissed because the question was clearly

19 related to the handing over from Mr. O'Donnell to Mr. Inayat. And

20 therefore, the word "receive" is more than appropriate.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN:

22 Q. In any event, let me re-ask the question.

23 Mr. Inayat, do you know or have you done any investigation to

24 determine or to refresh your recollection what you did with the items you

25 received from Mr. O'Donnell that were taken during the arrest and transfer

1 of Dr. Stakic?

2 A. Like I was saying, in a couple of previous cases when people were

3 brought here, I went through the personal items that were on these

4 persons. And I had those returned, if they weren't relevant to the

5 investigation. In the case of Mr. Stakic when Mr. O'Donnell brought me

6 those documents or some other items, going through them, they didn't

7 appear to be relevant at all to the indictment or to the indictment time

8 frame. So I had them returned to the Detention Unit.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have no further questions.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. First, only one question,

11 Mr. Inayat: Could you please explain what is -- is there any special

12 meaning when your ERN number starts with a P or with an L?

13 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, whenever an ERN number starts with a

14 P, it would always mean that the material has been seized from Prijedor.

15 So the first Prijedor and the second Prijedor collections that were seized

16 in 1997 and in October 2000, the evidence submitted to the evidence unit

17 was stamped with the alphabet starting with P. And L, Your Honours,

18 starts for I believe translations, I think -- I'm not sure. If you give

19 me a specific example of an ERN starting with an L --

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For example, list 4, 65 ter number 444, we have

21 the English version starting sometimes with L and sometimes without L.

22 THE WITNESS: Well, this particular example you're giving would

23 definitely mean this is a translation because the original document B/C/S

24 is starting with a P.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, but opposed to this, 65 ter document 281,

1 there's a translation, starts without an L.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any specific reasons for this?

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I can find that out for you, but I'm

5 afraid I can't comment on this. I don't know the reasons.

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: May I ask a leading question to see if --

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN:

9 Q. Do you know if the L stands for "draft translation"?

10 A. I believe so.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. But now the

12 floor is for the Defence, please.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Inayat. If I can direct your attention to list

16 number 1, which is S53, I just have a couple follow-up questions on the

17 Court's question and on the OTP's question. And -- do you have that in

18 front of you?

19 A. I'm afraid I don't have list number 1.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Would the Court permit Madam Registrar to tender

21 S53, which is list number 1, to the witness, please.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

24 Q. You have that in front of you, sir?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, what I like, sir, with respect to testimony and issues that

2 are before any Court, it is if you didn't understand my question, I would

3 appreciate if you tell me. I'll try to rephrase it. To the extent that

4 you don't know the answer, sir, I'd like you to be honest and candid with

5 us and not speculate. Do not guess. Do not give us answers that you are

6 unsure of. Is that fair?

7 A. I'll do my best.

8 Q. Fair enough. Look, sir, at 65 ter -- we'll look at exhibit that

9 is marked on list number 1 as SK41A and B. You just told this Court after

10 being questioned by the OTP that the L may stand for either translation or

11 draft translation or a variety of those explanations. Do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. On that specific exhibit, the B/C/S ERN number specifically has in

14 the first letter the letter L, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Are you telling us that if I were to make an analysis that this is

17 a draft translation of a B/C/S document?

18 A. This is clearly a mistake. The document that is in the English

19 ERN 00403880, in fact, that is the B/C/S document. And this is clearly a

20 mistake. And I can see another one which is entry number 2, SK18A. The

21 English ERN is SA011169, I think again, this looks like a typo, an error.

22 Q. Well, I went through it. And with all due respect, sir, I found

23 more than just those two examples, but we will be happy to go through them

24 in detail with you here today. But let me ask you this, just so I'm

25 clear: Does the L before a number mean that it's a draft of a

1 translation, that it's a final translation, or you just don't know? And

2 if you would like some time to examine that issue and then get back to us

3 on that point.

4 A. I can come back to you on that point, but it does appear that L --

5 any ERN starting with an L is a draft translation.

6 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Inayat, do you know -- or let me

7 strike that. Let me ask this question this way: Do you know how to read

8 and write the Serbo-Croatian language, B/C/S as it's commonly referred to

9 here?

10 A. No, I don't.

11 Q. Well, help me with this: In your answer on page 17 of today's

12 transcript, specifically line 4 I think it was, counsel asked you when you

13 had duplicative documents, documents that seemed to be the same, you would

14 make a determination and you would look at them and then you would say,

15 yes, we found a documents in Prijedor Police Station and possibly a

16 document in the Municipal Assembly.

17 When would you actually come up with this analysis that those

18 documents were the same? You didn't do it at the site, correct, during

19 the search and seizure of December 1997?

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection, that slightly misstates things, because

21 he indicated they would have separate ERN numbers. Counsel is just asking

22 them why they were grouped together on the sourcing.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: If we look at the example that Mr. Inayat was

24 somewhat unclear on where counsel pointed out I believe on list 4 --

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it was list 5, 65 ter 43.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: That's correct. Thank you, Your Honour. 65 ter

2 number 43, which is a third line item, let's talk about this for a second.

3 Q. When was the analysis done, sir, to show and determine that these

4 documents actually are the same or similar?

5 A. First of all, I don't understand -- I can't read the B/C/S

6 language. But for me, sometimes if I see the document which has a

7 duplicate copy, looking at the document number and the date, it makes it

8 obvious, if they are the same, that they are a similar copy. But in any

9 case, the analysis would have been done when the documents are logged. So

10 going through the log sheets, it's easy to capture such details.

11 Q. Let me understand this a little further: Is it then logical to

12 conclude that where documents do not have two ERN numbers and wherein you

13 provide the sourcing information, you do not list two specific sources, we

14 can conclude reasonably that in fact that document only appeared in one

15 place at one time. Correct?

16 A. I'm sorry, can you just repeat this once again.

17 Q. Sure. Can we conclude from your testimony here specifically as

18 you've explained 65 ter number 43 the converse, namely that where the

19 sources are indicated from a document singularly, meaning one source, can

20 we conclude that all those documents were never found in any other place?

21 A. No, I'm afraid that cannot be concluded. I may have found two

22 sources for one document, but that still would not mean that the same

23 document may not have come from the third source. We may have a copy of

24 the same document coming from the third source, but I in my searches may

25 not have captured that particular aspect.

1 Q. All right. Let's go back to list number 1, if I may. First, some

2 preliminary questions if you don't mind. With respect to providing us the

3 sourcing information, it's done in order to establish for us reliability,

4 integrity, and credibility of the source from which we, meaning all of us,

5 have obtained those documents. Would you agree with me on that?

6 A. Let me give my personal opinion on this. When I do the sourcing,

7 my emphasis is on: When was the document received, the location from

8 where it was received or seized, the person who gave it to us, and the

9 person who received it. So that is what my primary concern is when I'm

10 doing the sourcing.

11 Q. Would you agree with me that it's important for you to list at the

12 very least all those three things, namely, the specific location, the

13 person from whom you received it, and I think you said the date. Correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. Why?

16 A. Why what?

17 Q. Why is it important?

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. Relevance, argumentative.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

20 MR. OSTOJIC:

21 Q. Mr. Inayat, look at list number 1, the very first document that

22 you have there, and let's see if you what you state as a reasonable basis

23 for providing sources to determine if documents are reliable, credible, or

24 have any integrity -- I'm not done; just waiting for the translators to

25 catch up. Thank you, sir. Sorry about that.

1 If you look at that first item on list number 1, in that very

2 first item you don't list where the document came from. You give us this

3 generality saying it's from Prijedor somewhere. You don't tell us from

4 whom the document was obtained from. Do you see that?

5 A. No.

6 Q. You don't see that?

7 A. I see that. You are right.

8 Q. Thank you. Can you explain to me, sir, since it may be something

9 that you consider in providing sourcing information to this Court and to

10 us, why do you omit that information?

11 A. Interestingly, you have picked up an example which is on the first

12 page and it's the first entry. The book of minutes of the Prijedor SDS

13 municipal board was a document consisting of many, many pages. I think we

14 can even count them, maybe a hundred-plus pages. When I was doing my

15 sourcing, I have spoken to several colleagues. They and I am definite

16 that this particular document was seized by my colleague Eric Hanson from

17 the SDS offices. Eric Hanson is not with the Tribunal any more. But

18 since I couldn't find anything in black and white which would have given

19 me the guarantee that I can write that particular source, I didn't do it.

20 This particular book, there are several other pages from this book

21 which have been used in Court. They may also come up in the sourcings

22 where I have only used the word "OTP staff member seized it in Prijedor

23 during search and seizure mission conducted on 12/12/97." But I assure

24 you that there won't be too many examples like this. So on the one hand,

25 I can guarantee this to the Court, that this is a document that was seized

1 from Prijedor during the search and seizure in 1997. Personally,

2 Your Honours, I am also certain this document, the book of minutes, came

3 from the SDS building. But since I have not looked at any evidence which

4 is in black and white saying that, I have refrained from mentioning the

5 location.

6 Q. Just to clarify, I think, if I may, Mr. Inayat, you're really

7 saying that this was seized during the December 12th, 1997, one-day

8 seizure while you went to those four locations in Prijedor. Correct?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. That was during the time in which you, sir, were actually not part

11 of the team that was seizing documents from the SDS building but were

12 actually in the Municipal Assembly building seizing documents. Correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. So without Mr. Eric Hanson or without this IIF form that you have,

15 we cannot be reasonably certain with respect to this first exhibit on list

16 number 1 that indeed it was seized from the SDS building pursuant to a

17 legal and authorised search and seizure of December 12th, 1997. Correct?

18 A. What I can guarantee is that this has come from the December 1997

19 seizure. And as I was informing the Court, that I am also certain it has

20 come from the SDS building. But you're right. As far as this book of

21 minutes is concerned, perhaps it may be a question to be put to Mr. Eric

22 Hanson.

23 Q. Let me just cover a couple issues before we take the prescheduled

24 break generally speaking, if I may. You shared with us briefly that the

25 letter P is placed before the B/C/S numbers indicating that documents were

1 seized from Prijedor pursuant to the December 12th, 1997, search.

2 Correct?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. Thank you. If you just keep looking on list number 1, and go to

5 the second page of list number 1, and I'd like to analyse 65 ter number

6 142, 65 ter number 96, and 65 ter number 89, if I may. Those three, so

7 it's the first, second, and fourth items that appear on page 2 of list

8 Number 1 on Exhibit S53.

9 A. I see those.

10 Q. I'm just trying to understand the methodology which you and your

11 department used, sir. If you note on some, namely, the first two,

12 documents seized from the SDS offices and those documents seized from the

13 Municipal Assembly on December 12th, 1997, do not have the letter P in

14 front of their B/C/S ERN number. But under the fourth category, documents

15 seized from the SDS purportedly on December 12th, 1997, do have the letter

16 P in front of the B/C/S ERN number.

17 Can you explain to me when you used this letter P and when you

18 don't, or is this another typo?

19 A. The Prijedor collection from December 1997, the logging of this

20 particular collection started some time in June of 1999. And after the

21 logging was completed in about six, seven months' time, the material was

22 handed and stamped with a letter starting with P. However, after we

23 brought the collection to The Hague after the December 1997 seizure, we

24 were -- or my team was getting ready for the trial of

25 Dr. Milan Kovacevic. So what we did starting in early 1998 was we started

1 reviewing the material that was seized from Prijedor, from the four

2 locations. And during the review, we identified approximately several

3 hundred documents that we believed were required for the Prosecution's

4 case against Milan Kovacevic.

5 After the material was identified, these several hundred pages

6 that I've just spoken of, these were handed over to the evidence unit as

7 part of evidence. And at that point, all documents that were given to the

8 evidence unit, they were stamped with the digits 0063 starting in the

9 beginning. So I believe that's the difference. So whenever you have

10 documents being presented here in the Stakic case starting with the 0063,

11 I can safely say that these are documents coming from a collection that

12 was used for the Kovacevic prosecution.

13 Q. Thank you. Just a couple more question generally on this. You

14 told on May 24th of this year when you initially testified in this case

15 that there were two seizures that were made in Prijedor, and that you

16 essentially seized what you deemed to be relevant documents, one on

17 December 12th, 1997, and the other in October 2000. Correct?

18 A. Yes, I did say that.

19 Q. And we discussed I think three months ago the 1997 one was

20 pursuant to a court-authorised legal and proper subpoena, and the one in

21 October of 2000 was actually from Rule 38, the Prosecutor's directive I

22 think as you called it. Correct?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. Now, today you mentioned Banja Luka a little bit, and the

25 reference to Banja Luka is really that in 1998, there was yet another

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 legal and proper search and seizure subpoena and warrant authorised by the

2 Court of this Tribunal which permitted you and your investigators to seize

3 documents from Banja Luka. Correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. You didn't mention in May of 2002 when you testified, specifically

6 May 24th, 2002. You mentioned it today. Do you know how many documents

7 from the Banja Luka search and seizure actually appear on lists 1 through

8 6 that you've prepared in connection with the case against Dr. Stakic?

9 A. I'm certain there are quite a few documents that have come from

10 the Banja Luka collection. And if you're asking me for the exact number,

11 then I believe I just have to run through these six exhibit lists.

12 Q. I'm not asking you for an exact number because I think -- although

13 I have the exact number. Would you believe me, sir, if I told you that

14 looking at exhibits 1 through 6 that there's one document that you source

15 that came from the search and seizure in 1998 from Banja Luka? Would you

16 find that incredible to believe?

17 A. You're saying that in all the documents that I have sourced,

18 there's only one document that has come from Banja Luka search and

19 seizure.

20 Q. According to what you list as the source, sir.

21 A. I may have to go back and review the sourcing document.

22 Q. Let me just point it out to you before we break here. If you look

23 on the very last page of list number 6, it's the second to the last entry

24 which is I think 65 ter number 436, provisionally given I think S228, that

25 document, the one I'm referencing. That's the one I found. Maybe I

1 didn't do as thoroughly as you would, sir.

2 But can you tell me or if you come back -- can you tell me this:

3 Do you think that the documents in Banja Luka since you amended the fourth

4 amended complaint against Dr. Stakic and you are familiar with the three

5 searches and seizures that were done in 1997, 1998, and 2000, do you think

6 based upon your review of the fourth amended indictment and your

7 understanding with discussions with the OTP in connection with issues

8 relating to joint criminal enterprise or common plan, do you think, sir,

9 that the documents from Banja Luka are relevant to this case?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

12 MR. OSTOJIC:

13 Q. You provided us, sir, with a list, and I appreciate that very

14 much, last Friday of the complete set of documents that are in your

15 possession from the search and seizure conducted in 1997 in the Prijedor

16 Police Station, Municipal Assembly, SDS building, and Kozarski Vjesnik.

17 That actually, from my review, was approximately 2.000 pages. That was

18 the index. Correct?

19 A. I think that's close to the figure I had in mind.

20 Q. Now, from my brief review of those documents, it seemed that a lot

21 of the documents were from the years subsequent to 1992, namely, 1995,

22 1997, et cetera. Why did you seize those documents, sir, if your mandate

23 and your thought process was to obtain and seize only "relevant

24 documents"?

25 A. Our intention was certainly that we will only seize material that

1 is relevant to the ICTY's mandate, which is 1991 until 1995. And I think

2 I did explain this last time, that we had limited time at the locations

3 with limited staff. It wasn't possible to sift through the material and

4 to make a selection on site. So it is possible that material that was

5 outside the ICTY's time frame may have come, as it proved later, that it

6 did come.

7 Q. In addition to those three sources we talked about where documents

8 came from the OTP in connection with criminal proceedings before the

9 Tribunal, specifically what I'm referencing is the 1997 search and

10 seizure, the 1998 search and seizure, February of 1998, and the October

11 2000, 38 directive as you've called it from the OTP. Did the OTP, sir,

12 also obtain documents from other sources?

13 A. Yes, we did.

14 Q. From your list, we can glean some -- with some certainty documents

15 were provided to actually the trial lawyers in this case from witnesses

16 when they arrived during their testimony. Correct?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Documents, sir, were also obtained from the OTP and your

19 department or unit from a third source, namely called AID. Correct?

20 A. We did receive documents from the local authorities; that is

21 correct.

22 Q. Would you agree with me that those documents from what you call

23 the local authorities came specifically from the division known as AID,

24 the agency for identification and documentation?

25 A. Most documents, yes, did come from AID.

1 Q. Is it fair to say if I use the term that the documents you

2 received from AID in 1995, 1996, and whatever period of time it was prior

3 to your search and seizures, that those documents were numerous?

4 A. We received a large collection of documents from Bihac in 1996

5 that is correct.

6 Q. What does that mean? Can you quantify it for me?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: I object. Unless we're dealing with items that are

8 in evidence in this case, it is going into the investigation possibly of

9 other cases and it's just not relevant to the matter of Dr. Stakic how

10 many documents that we're not using in this case we might have received.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Before the Court rules, I'd like to reply if I may.

12 I think it's relevant, Your Honour, for two reasons. The Defence is

13 contesting that the documents obviously with AID, we'll hopefully hear

14 from the witness, are of questionable source, but the matter becomes

15 whether or not a decision was made by the investigative team leader not to

16 produce certain documents because he also believed that they may be

17 unreliable. We don't know that until we lay the proper foundational

18 question which I did; namely, the extent of the documents that were

19 received and why if documents were received from AID as we see from each

20 of the lists 1 through 6 that are provided, and we're going to go through

21 those documents hopefully after the break, why other documents were not

22 admitted.

23 If Mr. Inayat clearly says that he made an opinion after indexing

24 those documents that they are not relevant, we'll move forward. If he

25 made a different conclusion in connection with those documents, I believe

1 it's relevant and we have a right to inquire.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, Mr. Inayat has testified that in

3 preparing these lists, he was given the exhibit numbers that were used in

4 Court. He has never testified that it's his job, his responsibility, or

5 that he selected documents for use in Court. Obviously, that's a matter

6 for the trial lawyers. And even my opinion of the reliability of the

7 documents is not what's at issue; it's the Court's opinion. So it doesn't

8 make sense to ask Mr. Inayat why documents were not used or what his

9 opinion is about documents not used in evidence.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection is sustained. And especially the

11 point where we departed was the question: "Can you quantify it for me"?

12 We should discuss with the relevant and responsible persons the question

13 of the quality and not the question of the quantity of document received

14 from Bihac over all. But let's have a break now until 11.30.

15 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.

16 --- On resuming at 11.33 a.m.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. And please continue

18 immediately.

19 MR. OSTOJIC:

20 Q. Mr. Inayat, just to take up again the area that we were discussing

21 prior to the brief break that we had. In connection with this AID agency,

22 is it fair to say that there were two types of documents that were in

23 essence received from them? And let me explain what I mean by

24 "types." One, there were documents that the people who worked with AID

25 gave to the OTP on their own initiative. And the second group of

1 documents, if I could categorise them, are documents that the OTP in 1995

2 and 1996 would have requested from the AID individuals. Correct?

3 A. The documents that were given to us in 1995, 1996, they were first

4 reviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor, and a selection was

5 made of what is required. And whatever was selected, then copies of those

6 documents were given to us.

7 As to your other question, the second type, occasionally we have

8 written to the local authorities asking for specific documents. And once

9 they have been put together by the authorities there, they either send it

10 to us by -- through the liaison officer, who is currently in The Hague, or

11 when our investigators visit the field, and if that material is ready for

12 collection, it's given at that point.

13 Q. In the information that you provide to us on lists 1 through 6

14 respectfully, do you indicate whether the documents specifically from the

15 AID agency, whether those were documents that were given to the OTP on the

16 initiative of the AID agency, or were they documents which were procured

17 by the OTP after a specific request to AID for those documents?

18 A. To answer this question, I would really have to look at all the

19 requests that have been made over the years to find out what particular

20 material has come to us after a specific request was put in.

21 Q. All right. And I appreciate that. And I don't want to quarrel

22 with that point. But my question was more limited than that.

23 In fact, within the lists 1 through 6, when we deal with the

24 documents specifically from the AID agency, we don't know by looking at

25 the sourcing information that you provided us on those lists whether it

1 came from either the initiative on its own from AID or from directives

2 from the OTP to AID. Correct?

3 A. That is correct. In the source column, I have not indicated that

4 information.

5 Q. Let's look on list 1 just as an example so I can fully understand

6 your lists and your testimony here today. On the first page of list

7 number 1, the fifth item which is I think 65 ter number 39, are you with

8 me?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That's an item that appears on the sourcing information as

11 something received from an OTP staff member, Kate Pearce. Correct?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Can you tell me, sir, whether or not Kate Pearce is a member of

14 your criminal investigations team or unit as you've identified it here

15 today?

16 A. Ms. Kate Pierce used to work in Team 1. She left this

17 organisation a couple of years ago, and she was our criminal analyst.

18 Q. With respect to that document since we know the search and

19 seizures were conducted in 1997 in Prijedor, and specifically in February

20 1998 in Banja Luka, and then again in October of 2000 in Prijedor, can you

21 tell us the document -- because it has a date of May 22nd, 1996, is it

22 reasonable for me to assume that that was a document that was obtained

23 from the AID agency?

24 A. This particular document was brought to the Tribunal. Nobody

25 received it in the field. This was brought to the Tribunal by the liaison

1 officer, and Kate Pearce received it on behalf of Team 1.

2 Q. Point out to me, sir, if you would, where does it say that the

3 liaison officer was the one who gave that to Kate Pearce as opposed to one

4 of the individuals who worked for and were specifically employed by the

5 AID agency at that time?

6 A. Normally the liaison officer, when he or she comes to the

7 Tribunal, there is a person in the office of the Prosecutor who liaises

8 with that person, receives all documentary material that has been

9 requested. And the contact person or the liaison officer of the OTP then

10 distributes the documents to the teams as per relevance.

11 Q. I appreciate that. Just so I can understand, then, forgive me if

12 I'm not catching this quick enough, my question to you, sir, is with

13 respect to this document that we're discussing now, which is 65 ter number

14 39, SK39A and B. With that document, when you go back and do the

15 sourcing, can you find out first whether it's possible or probable to

16 determine exactly when Kate Pearce received the document and specifically

17 from whom?

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Can I just ask the question be clarified. I think

19 what counsel is asking about is that copy of the document. Because if I

20 am not incorrect, there are multiple, I think five or seven, copies of

21 that document that have been received by the OTP.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may interject, Your Honour, I never object to a

23 proposed objection from an adversary if there's a reasonable basis.

24 However, I do take strong exception to the OTP telling us that there were

25 many sources from the document. This witness has already testified that

1 if there were multiple sources of a document, he would list to the best of

2 his knowledge and belief where those documents came from and the sources

3 of those documents. I don't mind the objection; I do mind that the OTP is

4 testifying that there's more than one source for the document.

5 This, as the Court knows, has been a document that the Defence has

6 from the outset aggressively debated, objected to, and now it's an

7 opportunity that this criminal investigator, Mr. Inayat, will share with

8 us what the source of that information was, and in my opinion to determine

9 whether there's any reliability to these types of documents so that the

10 Court when making their deliberations on these exhibits ultimately will be

11 able to fairly and accurately weigh those specific documents.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: May I?

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think it's important to be precise, as I -- as

15 Mr. Inayat has testified regarding multiple sourcing, when we have on this

16 list, the lists 1 through 6, separate ERN numbers, where separate copies

17 of the same document are in evidence in this case, he has provided the

18 sources.

19 On this particular document, all I ask is that it be clear that we

20 are talking about this copy. If I recall, I could be incorrect because my

21 memory now is going back to I think Mr. Donia, the first witness. At that

22 time I think the Defence did raise the issue that they were going to

23 object to this document. And I believe the Court indicated at that time

24 that given there was a ruling pending on I believe the Bosanski Samac

25 case, the Court asked that we wait for that ruling before litigating

1 regarding this. There has been extensive testimony in that case regarding

2 the various copies of this document that were received.

3 But it's not correct to indicate that every -- that Mr. Inayat has

4 indicated on these charts. He hasn't testified. He has indicated every

5 copy of the document that's in the possession of the OTP -- just the ERN

6 numbers, the particular copy that's in evidence in this case, he has

7 indicated for each copy of those ERN numbers the source.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, don't let us complicate the issue too

9 much. I don't believe that your question, Mr. Ostojic, was really helpful

10 because you asked to determine exactly when Ms. Pearce received the

11 document. This is already answered on the document. It was the 22nd of

12 May, 1996. I understand that your additional question is by whom she

13 received this document, and if possible, who gave this document to the

14 liaison officer. And I think it's a fair question, and it should be

15 answered by the witness.

16 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, this document was received by

17 Kate Pearce, as I've said in my source, on 22nd of May, 1996. However, if

18 I go back to the IIF on the information index form, it should also give

19 the information who gave it to her.

20 Normally with these kind of documents, which are received in the

21 Tribunal, I was talking of a procedure that the liaison officer who

22 attends the Tribunal once a week or sometimes once in a fortnight brings

23 with him a collection of documents that have been requested by the

24 investigating teams. The OTP staff member who liaises with the liaison

25 officer then receives the material and forwards that to the relevant

1 teams. And I believe that with this particular document also, Kate Pearce

2 received it from whoever was the OTP liaison officer with the Bosnian

3 authorities. But I can do further searches if Your Honour instructs.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's proceed with the cross-examination.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. Let me just stay with this document, if I may, 65 ter number 39.

7 If a document like this, sir, is produced prior to the search and seizure

8 and there's no reference number on the source that it ever was obtained

9 from either the legal and proper search and seizure that was issued, the

10 warrant issued on December 12th, 1997, can we infer from that, sir, that

11 no such document was found in the Prijedor four locations?

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this question can't be answered because

13 the Defence counsel himself assisted us in telling that the search and

14 seizures were conducted 1997 onwards. So no doubt, it can't be part of

15 this Prijedor search. So indeed, let's really be concrete.

16 The relevant information, if necessary, would be to know who gave

17 it to the liaison officer, the name of the liaison officer for the

18 purposes of this case is irrelevant, I believe. It's only the question:

19 Where does this document stem from? And I think for limited purposes, and

20 for limited crucial documents, it can be necessary that we indeed ask for

21 this special IIF form.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, if I may proceed.

23 Q. On in IIF form, I-F-F form, can you tell me whether or not not

24 only do you identify the source who provided the documents to you, such as

25 65 ter number 39, but do you also state in that IIF form where that

1 individual who is bringing the documents to the OTP, where he or she may

2 have obtained such a document?

3 A. If the IIF form is with respect to seized material, then you will

4 find that information there. But if it is material that is being given to

5 us by witnesses or by liaison officers from the RS or from Croatia or

6 Bosnia, then the IIF information will only say or give the information

7 that on such and such date the liaison officer or a witness submitted this

8 document without going into further details as to how they received it.

9 Q. And at any time, sir, does anyone from your unit, Team Number 1

10 investigations, do you ever determine what the chain of custody of that

11 document was that you received from the individual such as Exhibit 65 ter

12 number 39?

13 A. This 39 document, please correct me if I am wrong, I think this is

14 a document which discusses the variant A and B. Is that correct?

15 Q. The document does reference variant A and B, sir. It does.

16 A. I can assure you that this particular document, although we

17 received it on 25th of May or 22nd of May, 1996, but this particular

18 document has been verified by an OTP investigator by going into the field,

19 and he has submitted a certified copy also.

20 But to your question in general, a lot of documents that have come

21 to us from the local authorities, and if they have been identified as

22 critical, the OTP has gone back, the OTP has taken statements from local

23 authorities or from their staff who had seized the material. The OTP has

24 visited those locations from where the material was seized. So I believe

25 sufficient inquiry was conducted into how the local authorities received

1 this material.

2 Q. And you, sir, as the leader of Team Number 1 would be the best

3 individual to provide us with the information in connection with those

4 documents that we may question, correct, such as this Exhibit 65 ter

5 number 39?

6 A. I've already told you that there's an investigator who has

7 conducted detailed investigation into the source of this document, and he

8 has a certified copy which is in the system.

9 Q. Let me, just so I'm clear, on Exhibit 65 ter number 39, is there

10 or is there not this information index form, which you identify as being

11 an IIF, related to this document?

12 A. There is.

13 Q. And there would be, and within that document, you would list who

14 the individual is who provided the document to the OTP, but you would not

15 necessarily identify how that individual procured that document. Correct?

16 A. I believe that is the correct situation.

17 Q. Within the IIF form -- let me ask you this, really for my own

18 edification. The IIF has an acronym, I thought you said, of IIF, correct,

19 or is it IIF because it stands for information index form. But the

20 transcript from some time seems to be a little inconsistent, if I may say

21 so, respectfully. So which is it: IIF or IFF?

22 A. It should always be IIF, information index form.

23 Q. With respect to this document 65 ter number 39, sir, do you know

24 whether the purported certified copy that's in existence, where that

25 document was found? Do you know if it was found in Prijedor in another

1 municipality, and where specifically within the municipality, if you can

2 identify for me whether it was the Municipal Assembly building, the SDS

3 offices, the Prijedor Police Station, or Kozarski Vjesnik?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I object on the basis that if the

5 Court wants this information obviously the best source of this would be

6 the investigator who conducted the examination. I think actually there

7 was extensive testimony as I mentioned in the Samac case, and we could

8 provide the transcript of that testimony to the Court regarding the

9 various sources of the variant A and B document that have been received by

10 the OTP. That would seem to make more sense than having Mr. Inayat

11 testify about what someone told him.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: We will accept any assistance --

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We agree and ask Mr. Inayat to provide us with

14 the IIF on this document in addition.

15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I think this form IIF is an internal

16 OTP document. And I'm not sure if that can be provided for the Defence.

17 I really don't know.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for the record, if I may Your Honour, if we

19 just examine Exhibit S232, which is exactly a copy of that type of form

20 which was introduced by agreement of the parties in this case.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we agree that we discuss this issue after

22 the break if you regard it as possible, please provide us with this IIF in

23 relation to this special document. And if not, in any event, tell us the

24 content of this document. I think we can then proceed, leaving this

25 special document.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Generally speaking, Mr. Inayat, if you have a document that is

3 unsigned, undated, would you think that it has more or less credibility or

4 reliability?

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This question has to be answered by the Bench.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I agree, Your Honour. But I think, as a criminal

7 investigator, that I'm seeking merely Mr. Inayat's opinion in connection

8 with those documents, and I'm not imputing what his testimony is; although

9 I wouldn't like to speculate what his thoughts are as to the reliability

10 of documents that are unsigned or undated. But with all due respect, I

11 think it goes to the credibility of the witness depending on how the

12 answers may or may not be forwarded.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question is not admitted.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

15 Q. Mr. Inayat, we discussed earlier today the reliability,

16 credibility, and integrity of certain documents. And we know also from

17 your testimony on May 24th, 2002, as well as your testimony here today

18 that the first search and seizure that was done for Prijedor documents

19 were, in fact, on December 12th, 1997. With that backdrop, sir, would it

20 be fair to state that the indictments that were rendered and provided

21 against the accused, namely, Dr. Milomir Stakic, Simo Drljaca, and

22 Dr. Milan Kovacevic, the basis for these documents were exclusively the

23 documents that were provided to and given to the OTP by the AID agency?

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. Relevance.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. Specifically Mr. Inayat, you referenced that you reviewed the

3 indictment in connection with Dr. Stakic. On paragraph number 5 of that

4 indictment is references specifically 65 ter number 39. Is it fair to

5 state, sir, that the reference to that document is specifically and

6 exclusively the items that were produced to the OTP by the AID agency

7 employees?

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness can't be held responsible for the

9 indictment.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Shall I move on, Your Honour? Thank you.

11 Q. Sir, if I'm going to assess a document, help me with this: Do you

12 think that it's reasonable and important for me to know the individual who

13 may be giving me that document as to the type of person he is, whether he

14 has a criminal record, and whether or not he has been charged with fraud,

15 specifically fraud perpetrated on changing and misrepresenting official

16 documents? Do you think that might be something that would interest me?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry, Your Honour, I didn't hear it.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Rhetorical question.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. Let me try it this way.

21 Q. Mr. Inayat, you're familiar with the individuals at AID who

22 actually have now recently in the year 2000 been charged with, among other

23 things, criminal activity including terrorist acts as well as fraud in

24 preparation of official and formal documents on behalf of their

25 government, are you not?

1 A. I've heard about it.

2 Q. Well, sir, did you ever go back to say: "Are those the same

3 individuals who provided me documentation as a member of the OTP in

4 connection with any indictments that I may have participated in or any

5 search and seizures that I may have participated in to determine whether

6 or not those documents are actually credible, reliable, and would have any

7 integrity to withstand a court of law?"

8 A. As far as search and seizures are concerned, the OTP was not

9 assisted in any way by the agency that you're referring as AID. As for

10 the other documents that were given to us in 1995, 1996, and in the

11 following years, my personal opinion is that none of the persons were

12 involved or have been charged with the crimes that you are alleging. So I

13 don't have any reason to go back and verify the credibility of those

14 documents.

15 Q. Forgive me, sir. I'm not alleging anything against these

16 individuals. Quite frankly, is it fair to state that there were five

17 specific individuals who were charged by their very own government who

18 were at one time employed by the AID agency which was providing documents

19 to you, that they are the ones, that government -- against those five

20 individuals who provided the OTP documents, they are the ones making the

21 allegations of fraud among other illegal criminal conduct against these

22 individuals?

23 Did you ever go back, sir, to determine whether or not any of

24 those five individuals were part or within a group of individuals that

25 were supplying to the OTP documentation which was, in my opinion,

1 unsigned, undated, unverified in 1995 and 1996 which was actually the

2 basis of the indictments against, among others, Dr. Milomir Stakic?

3 A. Like I said this earlier this morning, that in 1995, 1996, members

4 of the Office of the Prosecutor went and made a selection from amongst of

5 hundreds of thousands of pages that were made available to us for

6 inquiry. And after making a selection, a couple of years later,

7 investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor in 1999, in the year 1999,

8 they went back and made certified copies. And I don't believe even today

9 that any of those documents were forged. No information has come to us

10 specifically in the team area that these documents could have been forged.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I don't believe the witness answered

12 the question. I think he had answered it previously, but the question

13 again was whether the five -- counsel says five individuals who were

14 charged with some crimes, fraud, provided documents that were used in this

15 case, to Mr. Inayat's knowledge.

16 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid it's not in my knowledge that any of

17 these five persons had provided any documents to Team 1 directly.

18 MR. OSTOJIC:

19 Q. The trial counsel for the OTP earlier mentioned to the court in

20 your presence, sir, the issues that may have arisen in connection with the

21 AID documents Sanski Most. Is your team at all responsible for that

22 municipality?

23 A. My team and there are a couple of other teams that were

24 responsible.

25 Q. Being the leader of your unit 1 or Team 1, the criminal

1 investigator, did you know that in Sanski Most, there was an agreement,

2 and again I'm saying this parenthetically if I may, and a stipulation if

3 you will that in fact the documents provided in Sanski Most from the AID

4 people were, in fact, fraudulent?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Counsel is testifying. How can he ask him if he

6 knows something that's not established in this case. He can ask him if he

7 believes that to be true. I frankly don't know what counsel is referring

8 to, and I suspect it's taken out of context from the Brdjanin/Talic case,

9 but I don't know.

10 MR. OSTOJIC:

11 Q. Are you familiar with that at all, sir?

12 A. No, I'm not.

13 Q. Are you familiar, sir, that in the Omarska trial that was

14 conducted several months ago that a witness who testified in connection

15 with signatures that were provided in either documents or witness

16 statements with the assistance purportedly of AID employees were actually

17 falsified, that the signatures of the witnesses from whom the AID are

18 procuring information to be used at an international criminal Tribunal

19 were falsified? Are you aware of that?

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. Your Honour, we can litigate the issue

21 of what went on in another case here and go into great detail. But we're

22 talking apparently about a witness who did not testify in this case. I

23 think it's -- the probative value is outweighed by the amount of time it

24 will take to litigate a very peripheral issue.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think as a starting point, a possible starting

1 point, the witness may answer the question whether or not he's aware of

2 that what was enclosed in the question we just heard from the OTP.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I've heard about this particular

4 incident in the Omarska trial when this thing came up.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down a little bit

7 for the benefit of the interpreters, please.

8 MR. OSTOJIC:

9 Q. With respect to the documents that are provided on your lists 1

10 through 6 respectfully, there's approximately in my count 15 documents

11 that were submitted by the AID agency. Correct? You don't have to count

12 them. Just generally do you have an idea how many there were?

13 A. There are quite a few.

14 Q. Let me show you if I may --

15 MR. OSTOJIC: May I ask the Court to mark as an exhibit an article

16 that appeared in Slobodna Bosna on June 6th, 2000. I apologise for not

17 having adequate copies, but I'm convinced for a number of reasons that the

18 OTP has the article because it seems to have been previously used and

19 identified in another matter. If we could have that marked, I would ask

20 the witness about this article.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we have the next D number, please.

22 THE REGISTRAR: It would be D24, Your Honour.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, could I see the article before it is...

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, of course. You have to be heard.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Apparently it's not translated.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Are you kind enough also to provide the Bench

2 with a copy?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: I would be kind enough to do so, Your Honour. I

4 will do that at the first opportunity at the break. If I can just ask him

5 general questions in connection with that. I didn't anticipate it would

6 be necessary at this time, but since we're on the issue I think we should

7 exhaust this issue. If the Court would like, I could come back to the

8 matter after our lunch break --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I'm not prepared to discuss an issue when

10 we don't have the document before us.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour. Would the usher be kind

12 enough to remove the Slobodna Bosna article dated the 6th of June, 2002,

13 from the witness at this time.

14 Q. Sir, with respect to these IIF form, I-I-F form, that you had,

15 we've heard from other witnesses respectfully and also from you that

16 documents that were seized specifically pursuant to a legal and authorised

17 search and seizure warrant such as those seized on December 12th, 1997,

18 that you would "immediately" fill out the IIF form. Correct?

19 A. You mean at the time of the seizure?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. No, we wouldn't do that. This procedure has been followed once

22 the material was brought to the Tribunal, and evidence which was

23 considered relevant to the case, that was IIFed.

24 Q. And all other evidence that you deem not relevant was not IIFed.

25 Correct?

1 A. All material that was seized from Prijedor, I can say, wasn't

2 IIFed. It was stamped and put into the evidence unit after it was given

3 its unique ERN range. But evidence that was selected for the Court or the

4 evidence that was to be turned into exhibits, once that was identified, it

5 was IIFed.

6 Q. Let me just understand you if I may. Within the IIF form itself,

7 it has a line that asked for a chain of custody? Whether or not it was

8 properly followed. Correct?

9 A. There was a chain of custody field in the IIF form.

10 Q. As a criminal investigator, sir, what does that mean to you "chain

11 of custody"?

12 A. It's a mechanism of recording evidence that is turned into court

13 and to also show who has handled it from the time it was seized until the

14 time it comes to the Court.

15 Q. It's a mechanism, sir, exactly on those three areas that we

16 discussed this morning to ensure that documents that are being used in a

17 criminal proceeding are reliable, are credible, and can be seen with at

18 least having some integrity. Isn't that true?

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

21 MR. OSTOJIC:

22 Q. With respect to the Prijedor documents, I'm confused as to your

23 testimony. Is it that none of the documents seized from Prijedor on

24 December 12th, 1997, were initially IIFed, I-I-F?

25 A. The whole Prijedor collection has not been IIFed, only material

1 that has been identified as evidence to be used in court has been IIFed.

2 Q. So when that documentation was made to use evidence or documents

3 in court for the trial of Dr. Milomir Stakic, who went back to determine

4 whether or not there was a proper chain of custody that was followed?

5 A. In the case of the Prijedor search and seizure, I think I did

6 point this out in my testimony which only was given in May, that it was a

7 very large collection seized by the OTP for the first time. And once the

8 material was brought back to the Tribunal, there was some discussion about

9 processing it and the procedures to be used. I remember there was also

10 some discussion that we should also make copies and provide those to the

11 authorities in Prijedor.

12 So the collection stayed in my office, which was shared by another

13 trial attorney, for a considerable time, and the logging started in June

14 1999. The person in charge of the evidence unit then decided that this

15 material will not be considered as chain of custody because it has been

16 not given to the evidence unit immediately and because it was with the

17 investigation team. So the chain of custody -- this material was not to

18 be considered as chain of custody. So it was lifted.

19 Q. Please forgive me, I don't understand what it means, so it was

20 lifted. Really what you're saying is that the issue with respect to chain

21 of custody in connection with the documents that were seized in Prijedor

22 in December of 1997 were completely ignored. Correct?

23 A. What I'm saying is that the Prijedor collection within the OTP is

24 not considered as chain of custody material any more. It is being

25 considered a collection like any other documentary material.

1 Q. Help me understand this, sir: If you have a proper and legal

2 search and seizure warrant and you go to the place exactly in which the

3 warrant permits you to go, and hypothetically let's say it's the Municipal

4 Assembly building in Prijedor, and you go there on December 12th of 1997,

5 don't you think that, at least from your perspective as a criminal

6 investigator, finding that document there would give you a little more

7 weight in terms of its reliability, credibility, and integrity than a

8 document that a stranger or a third party who happens to have been

9 indicted, charged with fraud, among other criminal acts, that it would

10 have more weight?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

13 MR. OSTOJIC:

14 Q. Mr. Inayat, explain to me then when, in your opinion, as a

15 criminal investigator chain of custody is relevant or important?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, may I just for my edification have a

19 basis for the objection, if I may, because objections in general are

20 generally speaking, at least for me, deemed to be foundational

21 objections. I don't necessarily believe that the objection was

22 foundational because the question clearly asked for his specific

23 experience as a criminal investigator. So if I may just be assisted on

24 that point.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me make it quite clear, if you include in

1 one question five different issues, and then ask more or less hypothetical

2 questions, there is no need to give any additional reason for this

3 objection. And therefore, this objection was sustained.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Mr. Inayat, can you tell me what the procedure is in your unit as

6 to when documents be considered to fall within the category of chain of

7 custody? When do you make that decision?

8 A. If the source of the document is giving me an original document,

9 not a photocopy, but an original document, I would definitely want it to

10 be chain of custody. If I go on a search and seizure mission where most

11 of the time you tend to collect original documents, I would prefer to do a

12 chain of custody on that material. If I'm given an artifact like, say, a

13 revolver or any firearm which I have collected -- if I have collected it

14 from the crime scene or if somebody has given it to me, I would want that

15 to be chain of custody.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope I don't interrupt the line of questions

17 by the Defence, but Mr. Inayat, don't you regard it as necessary when on

18 the basis of such a search and seizure order you seize documents, that you

19 have an inventory, a list of documents, where a document has been found,

20 in which room a document has been found? And can't we trace based on

21 these documents where the documents in fact has been?

22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, when we do a search and seizure, the

23 investigators have with them a form called the evidence register form.

24 The investigator is supposed to inventorise on that evidence register form

25 everything that he has seized. However, in the case of Prijedor, Your

1 Honours, we did fill out evidence register forms. But because of the

2 limited number of time that we had, it was not possible to go through each

3 and every page of what was being seized and to record particulars or you

4 know the details.

5 So for example, if I went into the Municipal Assembly building in

6 December 1997 and I went to, say, room number 28, because I remember that

7 from that particular room I did seize considerable documentation, I

8 probably seized 38 folders, huge folders, with multiple copies in each

9 folder. So the procedure that I adopted was by filling out the evidence

10 register form, when I picked up one folder, say, which had a green hard

11 copy, I would enter into the evidence register form that seized from this

12 location a folder which has a green hard copy. And similarly, going to

13 the second folder trying to explain if it has a plastic folder, and also

14 in most cases what I did was I also gave the information from the first

15 page, what was the title, the folder. It could have been mail, internal

16 correspondence, it could have been any number of things. So that was the

17 only thing possible in that limited time to do.

18 So we have the evidence register forms where such information has

19 been put in.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I understand correctly that even though you

21 had only limited time, it would be possible, for example, on the basis of

22 this additional document to find out whether or not a document was found

23 in a room that was allegedly for a certain period of time Dr. Stakic's

24 office.

25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if we are talking of the municipal

1 building only, just to give an example, we went to three different

2 locations room 28, room 38, and the archive section. My ERF form,

3 evidence register form, gives me information about those folders. What I

4 need to do is after I have been given information of an ERN range which

5 comes from the Prijedor collection, I have to go back to my evidence

6 register form and the logs, and by using those two documents, I should be

7 able to identify a particular document that you are interested in and to

8 be able to say to this Court what room it has come from. I may even be

9 able to tell you what folder it has come from.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. The Defence

11 may proceed.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Inayat, I just want to understand. On May 24th, 2002, you

14 stated on page 3.514, on line 7, this is during your questioning by

15 Mr. Koumjian for the OTP, you go on to say among other things: "If the

16 evidence has been seized, then it has to be treated differently. For

17 example, if I am on a search and seizure mission, and I have seized

18 materials under a search warrant issued by this Chamber or by the

19 Tribunal, then I have to complete a chain of custody form immediately. I

20 have to write down the exact details of immediately when that happens.

21 And then the chain of custody form, basically then, is brought back it the

22 evidence..." And for the record, there's other things that you mention in

23 this answer.

24 Just so that I understand in plain English, did you fill out the

25 chain of custody form for the Prijedor documents as you told us in May of

1 2002, or did you not fill out the chain of custody form for the Prijedor

2 documents as what I believe you told us just recently?

3 A. The evidence register form which is the chain of custody form was

4 filled out immediately on the day of the seizure, and I stand behind

5 that. But like I said, and I was trying to explain this to the Court,

6 because of the limited period of time we did not have the opportunity to

7 give the kind of description which would have been preferable.

8 Q. Thank you. So for each document that has been used at the trial,

9 there has an IIF form, and for each document that was used in the trial,

10 it would be easy for us to assume that within the IIF form, chain of

11 custody question mark undoubtedly would be marked yes because for all of

12 the Prijedor documents you filled out this register form as you've

13 identified it. Correct?

14 A. Evidence register form.

15 Q. Evidence registry form. Of the 40.000 documents, in excess of 100

16 pages of material that were seized from December 12th, 1997, did you sir

17 at any time determine how many of those documents were used or identified

18 on your list 1 through 6?

19 A. The first thing I would like to do is I would like to correct

20 myself because from the 24th May testimony, I had said 40.000 documents.

21 And I believe that the understanding between you and me was that you won't

22 hold me to it.

23 Q. I won't.

24 A. And I think it's possibly preferable if I just give you the

25 figures. The total number of pages seized from the Prijedor collection in

1 December 1997 was approximately 53.000, and not more than a hundred

2 thousand, and certainly not 40.000 documents.

3 If you don't mind, I'd just like to read your question once again.

4 Yes. The complete source list that I have created which probably

5 has been submitted in court, I can go through that and give you the exact

6 number of documents from the Prijedor collection that has been identified

7 and used. I'm sorry, if that was your question.

8 Q. Yes, it was, and you answered it, thank you.

9 With respect to those 53.000 pages of document that were seized on

10 December 12th, 1997, do you, sir, know how many different documents there

11 were? I appreciate you telling us that the page number was overstated, if

12 I will, to use a neutral term from 100.000 to 53.000. But you also shared

13 with us last time on May 24th, 2002, that 40.000 documents were seized.

14 Did you go back to determine how many documents were seized?

15 A. 40.000 documents or pages which were over a hundred thousand I've

16 already said was wrong; it was 53.000 pages. What I have done in the

17 interim is that I've tried to count the pages which have come from

18 different locations, for example, December 1997 search and seizure, police

19 station, there were 31.000 pages approximately. Municipal Assembly

20 building, 16.972 pages. The SDS offices, 4.504 pages approximately. From

21 the radio station, there were nine tapes, audiotapes. And from the

22 Kozarski Vjesnik, there were 164 papers.

23 What I can tell you right now is that I believe something like

24 14.000 to 15.000 documents were seized, which probably were about 53.000

25 pages.

1 Q. Of those 14 to 15.000 documents that were seized, would it

2 surprise you, sir, that within your list 1 through 6 respectfully, only

3 100, exactly 100 documents, were used in this trial against Dr. Stakic?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see any relevance.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I will move on if I may, Your Honour.

7 Q. Would it surprise you, sir, that within the documents in your list

8 1 through 6 that from the SDS building where the search and seizure was

9 conducted on December of 1997, only 16 documents were used - do you know

10 that - out of the 4.504 that you claim were seized from that institution?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, these are simply arguments that

12 counsel can make to the Court at the appropriate time.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: If I just be heard, Your Honour, we need to get the

15 evidence, I believe, respectfully in before we can make an argument

16 about. So if I may just be given a little latitude to ask the question in

17 connection with the three other locations. And if counsel continues to

18 object, I would stipulate that he has a standing objection and we would

19 respect whatever ruling the Court makes in connection with that.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, but please tell me: What can be the

21 relevance whether or not a witness is apprised of a number of documents

22 used in court all of this number of documents? It doesn't help at all.

23 MR. OSTOJIC:

24 Q. Mr. Inayat --

25 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

2 MR. OSTOJIC:

3 Q. Mr. Inayat, do you know that in fact out of the 4.504 documents

4 that were seized from SDS on December 12th, 1997, only 16 of those

5 documents were used in the trial against Dr. Stakic?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: In fact, Your Honour, Mr. Inayat wouldn't know it;

7 he would only know what's on the list. And secondly, the lists speak for

8 themselves and the documents in court. If counsel represents that he has

9 counted them, I'll accept that representation. We can stipulate to it.

10 But it's already in evidence, the lists are there with the sources.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Agreed.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

14 MR. OSTOJIC:

15 Q. Mr. Inayat, if you look -- and we'll go through the documents

16 hopefully in short order.

17 Did you at any time, sir, find out or learn that of approximately

18 6 out of the 14 documents that purports to have the signature of Dr.

19 Milomir Stakic were found to be by a forensic expert offered by the OTP

20 were not necessarily found to be reliable and he could not conclude with

21 reliability that that was the signature of Dr. Stakic. And further, if

22 you make the analysis, sir, those documents that were submitted by the OTP

23 which purport to bear the signature of Dr. Milomir Stakic were documents

24 that were given to the OTP by the AID agency employees?

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection, Your Honour. If we want to argue the

1 reliability of documents, I'm prepared to do that now. But counsel is

2 simply using the examination to make his arguments.

3 First of all, the handwriting report does not in any way indicate

4 that the documents are not reliable; that's a misstatement of the report.

5 But this witness has not to my knowledge even had the report. And his

6 reading of the report is not what's important. Your Honours are the ones

7 who will decide based upon reading the report and hearing from the witness

8 what reliability to give to it.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

10 MR. OSTOJIC:

11 Q. Earlier, on May 24th, 2002, sir, you testified in essence that

12 questionnaires within your unit are not utilised for interviewing

13 witnesses or respectfully victims for the issues related to a particular

14 trial. But you do note, sir, that interviews and interview forms, namely,

15 questionnaires, are utilised for interviewing accused. Correct?

16 A. I think what I said in my last testimony was that I do not use

17 questionnaires for interviewing witnesses. And I'm not sure if my

18 investigators working in my team have ever told me that they use

19 questionnaires. And finally what I said was that I would use

20 questionnaires when interviewing an accused, and I have used a

21 questionnaire when interviewing one accused.

22 Q. Let me ask you this: Did you make any attempts to interview

23 Dr. Milomir Stakic?

24 A. I believe it was a day or two later of Mr. Stakic's arrest and

25 transfer to the Detention Unit that I went to see him. And I did ask him

1 if he was prepared to be interviewed. And Dr. Stakic stated that he would

2 have to discuss this first with his lawyer who had still not been

3 assigned. And finally, I requested him that if you do make a decision,

4 after discussing this with your lawyer, to be interviewed by the OTP,

5 please communicate that information to us.

6 Q. Did you at that time, sir, when you had a conversation with

7 Dr. Stakic, did you have the interview questionnaire for accused that may

8 be utilised in your possession?

9 A. The purpose of that initial contact was to find out whether

10 Mr. Stakic would be interested in being interviewed. And had he said yes,

11 then we would have discussed the dates for the interview at which point I

12 would have prepared a questionnaire.

13 Q. Did you at that interview with Dr. Stakic advise him of his right

14 to remain silent and that he has a right to retain counsel?

15 A. Mr. Stakic was advised of the rights, and I did read him those

16 rights.

17 Q. With respect and in connection with this issue of witnesses, on

18 May 24th, 2002, on page 3562 specifically, you state that you were

19 personally not aware of having interviewed any witnesses specifically for

20 Dr. Stakic's case. True or false?

21 A. I may have -- or should I say I definitely have interviewed a

22 couple of witnesses who may have testified in the Stakic trial. But I

23 think in my earlier testimony, what I probably wanted to say was that I

24 have not sought out witnesses to interview them specifically on

25 Dr. Stakic.

1 Q. That's what I thought. That's why I'm asking you that. Because I

2 went back and did a little search and found that there were actually no

3 less than ten witnesses that you were involved with in taking statements

4 from which were either identified under 65 ter numbers or actually

5 witnesses who were called to testify viva voce in front of the Tribunal or

6 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.

7 Did you go back, sir, to determine how many witnesses you actually

8 were involved with and interviewed that were utilised in this case?

9 A. I haven't particularly tried to verify this information. But I

10 remember that during the preparation for the trial of Dr. Milan Kovacevic,

11 I was interviewing witnesses who may have been identified subsequently to

12 come and testify for Dr. Stakic.

13 Q. Would you ever, sir, during the time that you were interviewing

14 witnesses, whether it was for the case against the late Dr. Milan

15 Kovacevic or for Dr. Milomir Stakic here, did you ever, sir, instruct and

16 direct a potential witness to go in the field and to have a discussion

17 with an accused?

18 A. I'm sorry, can you please repeat this question again.

19 Q. During the time period that you were obtaining information in

20 connection with pending or secret indictments, as well as during the time

21 period that you were preparing for the trial of the late Dr. Milan

22 Kovacevic, did you direct any witnesses or instruct them to go to the

23 accused in order to obtain additional information?

24 A. I honestly don't recall ever having requested a witness that I

25 interviewed to go and speak to Dr. Stakic. But if you have a specific

1 example that you're aware of, if you tell me, I'll be very honest about

2 it. But I have no recollection of doing such a thing.

3 Q. I'm not accusing you of doing it, sir; I'm just curious to know if

4 you would ever do something like that.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: That theoretical question, I think, isn't relevant

6 to the case.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Let me go back. Let me back up, Your Honour, if I

8 may be permitted.

9 Q. Sir, specifically in connection with a witness identified before

10 this Tribunal as Mr. Edward Sebastian Vulliamy, a witness that claims to

11 be a fact witness, did you or anyone on your criminal investigation Team

12 Number 1, including all the criminal investigators, including the

13 attorneys who comprised part of that Unit Number 1, including all the

14 interpreters that are within that group, all those seven to ten

15 individuals that you've identified, did any of you tell Mr. Vulliamy to go

16 back to Prijedor, interview these people, and find out what it is they can

17 say because potentially we'll use it in an indictment that is now secret

18 but hopefully will soon to become public?

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you please restate the name. We didn't --

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Edward Sebastian Vulliamy.

21 Is that the name?

22 Q. He's a witness. Right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You're aware of him. Right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Did you know or have any information with respect to Mr. Vulliamy

2 whether anyone from your team would ever do something like that?

3 A. I met Mr. Vulliamy several months ago, and I can state this on

4 authority, and I don't think Mr. Vulliamy would ever rebut this. I never

5 suggested to him that he should go and talk to Mr. Stakic in Prijedor

6 because I knew that Mr. Stakic is not living in Prijedor any more. He's

7 somewhere in Belgrade.

8 Mr. Vulliamy, when he came to testify in the Tadic trial way back

9 in 1996, 1997, I wasn't with the Team 1 at that time. I was part of

10 another investigation team. So if something has happened during that

11 period, I'm afraid I would not be able to make any comments because I'm

12 not aware of it.

13 Q. Of course, and that's fair, Mr. Inayat.

14 Really, I'm not asking about the Tadic trial. I'm asking about a

15 trial that you've already shared with us you were involved in; namely, the

16 late Dr. Milan Kovacevic. You were involved in that trial. Mr. Vulliamy

17 testified in that case. What about that, sir?

18 Specifically not you, if you asked Vulliamy, but did anyone from

19 your team tell a witness like Mr. Vulliamy: "Go out there, demand that

20 you be seen with this witnesses, obtain information from them so that we

21 can utilise it in what is soon to become a public indictment but at that

22 time was a sealed indictment"?

23 A. Such a request to Mr. Vulliamy by anybody during the Kovacevic

24 trial was not made in my presence. However, if you have the information

25 of the person who made such a request, I think it would be best to put

1 this question to that person because it wasn't made in my presence, and

2 I'm not aware of any such thing.

3 Q. You're aware of the testimony that Mr. Vulliamy gave in the

4 Kovacevic case, are you not?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. Whether he's aware of it or not, it

6 will speak for itself. And Mr. Vulliamy will also be here to speak for

7 himself.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

9 MR. OSTOJIC:

10 Q. Sir, at any time as a criminal investigator having graduated from

11 Islamabad in Pakistan and Exeter and obtaining a degree in international

12 investigations did you ever, sir, as a criminal investigator ask a witness

13 to interview a potentially accused individual on behalf of your offices?

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question is not relevant for our case. And,

15 in addition, the witness may not testify on issues related to former cases

16 relevant on his domestic national level.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for the record, I was merely utilising his

18 background and extensive experience that the witness does have in

19 connection with criminal investigations. And I would just would like to

20 have been able to make a comparative analysis that in no country at no

21 place in the world would a criminal investigator be permitted to utilise a

22 witness, a fact witness and ultimately a witness that would be used in a

23 trial against an accused, to interview him without the right to his

24 counsel or to inform him properly of what his rights may be.

25 And I'm just curious to know from Mr. Inayat if that exists

1 anywhere to his knowledge with his extensive experience in the world.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. I could state my grounds, but I don't

3 think it's necessary.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The grounds are self-evident, and the Defence

5 counsel shouldn't be too optimistic on this issue, on the outcome of such

6 research.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

8 Q. With respect to interviews taken perhaps of the accused in this

9 case, I know you identified at least one that you have taken, the Court

10 from time to time has suggested that both parties may consider calling, if

11 I can say it respectfully, individuals that are accused. Do you know who

12 the individual is who would have the interview questionnaire and the

13 answers provided of the accused Sefer Halilovic?

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, if counsel wishes to obtain

15 information from the OTP, I and the other trial attorneys can speak on

16 behalf of the OTP. We are not going to discuss in open Court

17 investigations that may have been ongoing or information obtained, but we

18 can deal with this through the counsel and the Court. But it's not proper

19 to be asking a witness about other investigations, and to be honest, he is

20 asking about an investigation I don't know anything about at the moment

21 but I could find out. But whatever it is, it should not be discussed in

22 open court.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this approach is not only fair, but it's

24 the approach you would find in most jurisdictions.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

2 MR. OSTOJIC:

3 Q. Similarly Mr. Inayat, who would be the individual I would seek to

4 obtain information in connection with the interview questionnaire and

5 answers provided by one an accused by the name of Dr. Biljana Plavsic?

6 Based upon information and belief, she has offered some testimony. Who

7 would that individual be?

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, counsel has asked the exact same

9 question substituting a different name. I don't know what the purpose of

10 it is, but I find it actually completely improper to do that knowing the

11 Court has just ruled it's an improper question.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, we would need some explanation on this.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: I can share it with the Court if you would like

14 now. Or at any time the Court is prepared or willing.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think in the moment, it's not relevant as a

16 question to the witness before us.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. On May 24th, 2002, sir, I asked you whether or not you as a team

19 leader of Team 1 for the Stakic trial, whether or not you did the

20 verification of certain documents that were submitted pursuant to Rule --

21 I'm just waiting for the... Rule 68.

22 Your response in essence, sir, on page 3569 was that another

23 individual whose name you identified Ms. Suellen Taylor was an individual

24 you would have to check for and verify whether or not the documents

25 provided for the Defence and Dr. Stakic pursuant to that rule were

1 complete, exhaustive, and accurate. Based on that, have you since the

2 three months of your prior testimony made any such inquiries?

3 A. In May 2002, when I had said before this Court that personally I

4 had not been involved in the Rule 68 searches, I was correct. However,

5 since then, I think within a couple of weeks after that, we initiated

6 another very big Rule 68 search. We identified 1.600 names of witnesses

7 from Prijedor. The list was then distributed amongst many investigators

8 and analysts within the team. And to share the workload, I personally

9 also did a search on I believe about 80 witnesses.

10 So far, we have concluded searches regarding 1.100 witnesses. I

11 believe that in the next five to six weeks, we will have completed the

12 Rule 68 searches on these 1.600 witnesses. And personally what I have

13 done, I did identify a few documents which I considered to be Rule 68

14 which I then forwarded to the trial attorneys, the legal officers within

15 the team. And that is exactly what other investigators are also doing.

16 So it is expected that the search results will be forwarded to this Court

17 and to the Defence.

18 Q. I appreciate it, Mr. Inayat. Just so I can be clear on it, when

19 you say you produced it to the trial attorneys, it's not an issue that you

20 would produce it to the Defence attorneys. You would give it obviously to

21 the OTP trial attorneys, and they would do what is required of them in

22 terms of tendering the documents to the Defence, among others. Correct?

23 Or did you submit something to us that we don't know about?

24 A. Let me correct myself. During this search which has been

25 conducted by investigators and analysts, if we come up or identify

1 documents that we consider are Rule 68, the investigators forward these to

2 the legal officers -- I'm sorry when I said trial attorneys on the team.

3 The legal officers within Team 1. Those legal officers then review the

4 material to confirm that this is Rule 68. And that particular exercise,

5 as I said, should be completed in five to six weeks' time.

6 Q. Thank you. Just a couple quick questions if I may in connection

7 with matters that we can hopefully clean up before the break. If you turn

8 to page 2 of your list number 1, that should be before you, which is

9 exhibit, for the record, S53. I haven't asked the question yet, sir, so

10 I'm not sure you're looking in the right spot. I just want you to have

11 the list before you.

12 It's my understanding that when an exhibit or a document is

13 created or used by an expert, say a demographer hypothetically, that she

14 would rely on certain information because it's, as we said earlier,

15 credible, reliable, there's integrity, correct? Yes?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. On page 2 of this list number 1, you yourself have created certain

18 documents that were utilised by an OTP demographer, namely 65 ter number

19 857, which is Exhibit Number S1, I believe. Correct? Which is the

20 Prijedor ethnic composition map.

21 A. Right.

22 Q. Now, if I, a Defence attorney such as myself --

23 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure if there's an objection or not. I'm

24 sorry.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, I don't think this witness can talk about

1 what was utilised by the demographer. He's talking about the

2 demographer's actual conclusions. I think the demographer testified on

3 her own what her sources were, and actually I don't recall her ever saying

4 that she relied upon anything produced by Mr. Inayat other than perhaps

5 dsy an illustration of her testimony.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: If we can just have the witness perhaps clarify.

7 That might be the case.

8 Q. Mr. Inayat, I apologise.

9 With respect to this document, S1, it states the source, created

10 by OTP staff member, Mr. Inayat, yourself, on 22/3/02. Correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is that something that, sir, you prepared after reading or

13 understanding the conclusions based or made by Madam Eva Tabeau? Or is

14 that something that you did before she was even asked to prepare her

15 report in this case?

16 A. This map was prepared much earlier than when she came and

17 testified, much earlier. After preparing it, I may have IIFed it on 22nd

18 of March, 2002, but I remember this particular map was also used in the

19 pretrial brief of Mr. Brdjanin and General Talic. So this was prepared a

20 long time ago.

21 Q. Not so long, only March 22nd. Right?

22 A. What I mean is that this particular date is when I probably IIFed

23 it and put it in evidence. The actual map was created maybe a year ago.

24 Q. And sir, where would you get information which would assist you in

25 creating what has become evidence in a case utilised by other witnesses

1 such as a demographer, among others, where would you obtain information in

2 order to be able to create an ethnic composition map? I mean, did you

3 interview people? Did you look at the census as Dr. Tabeau did? Did you

4 look at the voter registration forms to create what you state is an ethnic

5 composition map? Did you do any of that?

6 A. The thing is that UNPROFOR gave us these maps in 1996, later also

7 in 1997, 1998, for each of the municipalities which has the ethnic

8 composition. But when I was preparing these maps, I looked at the ones

9 that were given to us by UNPROFOR, and also by the census -- the 1991

10 census. So I used information from those two sources to prepare my maps.

11 Q. Just help me with this, before the break, so you're relying on

12 information that was provided to you from 1996. Correct? Is that what

13 your testimony is?

14 A. From 1996 onwards, over the years, UNPROFOR, United Nations

15 protection force in Bosnia, they had provided us copies of ethnic

16 composition of all Bosnian municipalities. That was one source. And

17 secondly, the 1991 census report. I used these two sources to prepare my

18 maps.

19 Q. Were you able within those maps that you received in 1996 onward

20 to determine what the ethnic population movement was in the Prijedor

21 Municipality in 1992?

22 A. As far as the movement of ethnic groups is concerned from 1992, I

23 used a document that we seized from the CSB building in Banja Luka in

24 February of 1998 which clearly indicated the population of a particular

25 municipality before 1992 and after the war.

1 Q. Do you know if that document that you seized from the Banja Luka

2 seizure in February 1998 whether -- I couldn't find it on your lists 1

3 through 6. Do you know where it appears?

4 A. It has been definitely disclosed in several cases, but I'm not

5 sure if it has been disclosed in the Stakic case.

6 Q. I only find one document from that 1998, but I just have a couple

7 more questions and we'll get to it real quick.

8 With respect to the document that you have relating to ethnic

9 groups and movement, my question was specific: Did you obtain any

10 information to determine what the movement of population was in the

11 Prijedor Municipality for 1992? Not before 1992 and after 1992, because

12 it just gives us too wide of a range and I can't certainly handle that

13 amount of information.

14 But do you know what the information was for the population of

15 Prijedor in, let's say, January of 1992 and what it was after there was an

16 influx of Serb refugees from Croatia? And then, comparatively speaking,

17 do you know what the population and movement of ethnic groups were, let's

18 pick the end of September 1992, since that's the time frame chosen for the

19 indictment against Dr. Milomir Stakic? Have you ever done that analysis?

20 A. The ethnic composition map that I have prepared, I have used

21 information from the 1991 census to show the population at the beginning

22 of 1992. And I have used the CSB document which we seized in February

23 1998 to show what the population was in Prijedor in 1995. Personally, I

24 have not reviewed any material to show the movement of population in 1992,

25 but I believe that the demographers did that.

1 Q. They might still be doing it, but I don't want to quarrel with you

2 on that, sir.

3 With respect to the movement of population and specifically the

4 count against Dr. Milomir Stakic relating to deportation, do you know if

5 the 1991 census that you relied upon to determine the number of people by

6 their ethnic composition in the Prijedor Municipality in 1991 did not

7 include the number of refugees that were coming from Croatia within that

8 census?

9 A. I don't recall having gone into that much detail when looking at

10 the 1991 census. All I remember is, and as you can also see from my

11 ethnic composition maps for all the municipalities that I did, that I was

12 looking at the three main groups, the population of the Serbs, the

13 population of the Croats, and the population of the Muslims. And I was

14 not looking at figures for Yugoslavs or those who call themselves others

15 and refugees. So I was only interested in these three main groups.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I'm not sure if it's an appropriate

17 time but...

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stays adjourned until 2.30.

19 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.58 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 2.35 p.m.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. And continue.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours, Mr. Inayat.

23 Q. In connection with with your testimony here today, we were able -

24 and we appreciate the Court giving us time - to provide you with a copy of

25 an exhibit, or if the usher would be kind enough to present that to you,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 of Slobodna Bosna dated in June of 2002. We have copies for the Court and

2 the OTP as well, Your Honour.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Can I just inquire, is that translated or is the

4 witness going to be shown an article in a language he does not

5 understand?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: For the purposes of my cross-examination I would

7 like initially to ask the witness whether he has seen the article as it

8 appeared in the B/C/S language, and the article itself, as I think the OTP

9 knows, has been translated and we are also providing the translated

10 version of the article as well.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This seems to be a very tricky exercise we

12 haven't had yet until now. Why is this necessary, I as a witness

13 personally would object immediately if I ever saw a document in a language

14 you don't understand. But apparently we have now an English translation,

15 but this seems to be a Supreme Court --

16 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may clarify without testifying, just for

17 purposes of clarification, there are actually three documents that the

18 Court should receive as well as the witness, one being the B/C/S version

19 of the article as it appeared in Slobodna Bosna in June of 2002. Then

20 also the translation or translated versions of both the article that

21 appears within that B/C/S document as well as the text which is reprinted

22 in the article which relates to the decision of the Supreme Court that the

23 Court mentioned. So you should have all three, two English translations,

24 and one in B/C/S, I believe.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not yet.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't have --

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Forthcoming. Forthcoming.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Okay.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this article on Nato Opotakora [phoen], this

5 would be D24?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: That's what the Court mentioned I think earlier --

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May it please be confirmed by the registry,

8 D24A and B.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. I don't see any relevance of this document to

12 the proceedings in this case. As I see it, these are -- to be honest, I

13 haven't had a chance to read it in full, but just from what I've glanced

14 in the few seconds I've had the document, the article appears to be

15 talking about a letter regarding a 1996 IFOR operations and the

16 possibility that there was terrorists in Bosnia, that that was directed

17 against.

18 There are some names here, none of the names as far as I know are

19 connected in any way, as far as I know, to the Stakic case or to the

20 exhibits that are the subject of apparently the cross-examination. We

21 could have the indictment against Osama Bin Laden in the Court, but I

22 don't think that's relevant either to the charges.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think both parties today should try not to

24 overstate. I understood from the line of questions that the question on

25 the IDP, the reliability of IDP, and the work of IDP. Correct? Is this

1 in the line of question?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, the -- maybe I'm lost -- I'm at a loss

3 at the moment, but I'm unfamiliar at the moment with the actual acronym.

4 Is the AID organisation?

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: AID, I'm sorry.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I had it incorrect in the translation. Thank you.

7 I can state the argument reasonably briefly, if I may.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Unfortunately we don't have at the moment from

10 Mr. Inayat the actual source from which the documents have been presented

11 to the OTP. Based upon information and belief, we believe that the

12 individuals who actually were in charge and specifically produced those

13 documents to the OTP relating to Dr. Stakic's case were the individuals

14 that are identified on the exhibits that we've tendered to the Court.

15 Specifically we're not interested in the allegations with respect to

16 terrorist activities that these persons may have been charged with.

17 We are specifically interested in the forgery, forgery of both

18 documentation and forgery of foreign passports and travel Visas from this

19 group of individuals. Although I appreciate my learned friend's comments

20 that these individuals are not connected with this case, I think it's a

21 leap of faith to say that because Mr. Inayat also has not provided us with

22 that source to make that reasonable conclusion. They were and are

23 employed, as reflected in that document, in senior and leading positions

24 within AID, were responsible at the time reference, namely 1995 and 1996,

25 to procure, obtain, and to gather data on behalf of and for the OTP.

1 We believe that the information will be that these five

2 individuals from time to time were involved directly or indirectly with

3 the documents that are at issue. Specifically, we're concerned with this

4 document that we discussed this morning, but also in particular six

5 documents that were allegedly signed by Dr. Stakic.

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, if counsel could tell us what the

7 basis is for his belief that these individuals were involved in the

8 documents at issue, I could see -- we would be coming much closer to

9 relevance. I'm not aware of it, but perhaps counsel has some information

10 I'm not aware of, that these individuals are involved with the documents

11 that are at issue in this case.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, quite frankly said, it would be --

13 should be from the point of view of the Defence more than only wishful

14 thinking.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I wish it was only wishful thinking, quite frankly.

16 But if we look at how the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina through their

17 indictment and criticism of these five individuals identified them in the

18 capacity in which they were employed with AID, I think it's not only a

19 reasonable assumption, but I think it's rather logical that these

20 individuals were in some way connected with the documents both in Bihac

21 and Sanski Most, in Kljuc, and in other municipalities from which

22 Mr. Inayat has received documents or people from his staff.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's the question of the OTP is only

24 fair, to ask whether you have any kind of link between these names and the

25 documents in our case, or if it's only the idea that this could be.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: It's more than speculation, Your Honour, but the

2 onus I think should be on Mr. Inayat to give us the source specifically so

3 that we can be clear as to whether or not any of these individuals

4 actually participated in any fashion in producing these documents. If he

5 comes back in his analysis and tells us that these individuals have never

6 met any members of our staff Team 1, have not produced any of the

7 documentation which we're referencing in our lists 1 through 6 and that

8 we, meaning the OTP at this time, did not as previously testified by

9 Mr. Inayat, did not request from these five heads of the AID division any

10 information.

11 If the Court would recall, information and documents were received

12 from AID in two forms, one voluntarily submitted by them to the OTP and

13 then subsequently at the specific written request by the OTP. To whom

14 would the OTP write other than to heads of these various units and

15 departments whose names we believe are revealed in those letters and

16 correspondence which we don't have as well as those that are indicated in

17 this newspaper article and indictment.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The article stems from the 6th of June, 2002.

19 Do you have any idea whether or not these persons worked with the idea

20 already at that time when representatives of the OTP received documents

21 from AID?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Based upon information and belief, Your Honour, the

23 first sentence on the second page of the exhibit that's translated clearly

24 revealed that the period in question where there's issue relating to

25 illegal criminal activity including forgery occurred during 1995 up to

1 February 15th, 1996.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Until now, we have followed as regards the

3 tendered OTP documents very liberal policy, and the same has to be true

4 when it comes to documents tendered by the Defence. Therefore, always

5 recalling that the admission into evidence does not yet mean that the

6 Bench comes to the conclusion that there is any or to what extent there is

7 probative value, these documents are admitted into evidence as D24A and B.

8 And I have no doubt that the Defence will immediately afterwards ask the

9 witness, and there comes then the relevance of these documents, whether or

10 not -- or the representatives of the OTP, especially the witness before

11 us, ever had contact with concrete persons in the ADP [sic], especially

12 those mentioned here, or only with the organisation as such. Thank you.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. May I proceed.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just for the record, I'm confused about which

15 exhibits have which numbers because what I have is two English documents,

16 a translation of the article which also we have in B/C/S, and then I have

17 a criminal complaint which I don't have in B/C/S. Should we give separate

18 numbers to the complaint and the article?

19 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

20 THE REGISTRAR: So the decision from the Federal Supreme Court

21 will be Number D25B.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no. Sorry. Let's start in the order of

23 appearance. The document from Slobodna Bosna, 6th June of 2002 --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone Your Honour, please.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- In B/C/S would be D24B. And as we don't have

1 any other material, only the translation of this document, or this -- yes,

2 this clip of the paper, only this part of the English translation is

3 admitted into evidence as D24A. I can't see where there is a basis for

4 the admission into evidence of English translations when we don't have the

5 underlying B/C/S text.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: May we proceed, Your Honour?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, just for clarification, no decision is made

8 on the decision to conduct an investigation by the Supreme Court of BiH.

9 MR. OSTOJIC:

10 Q. Mr. Inayat, did you at any time since June 6th, 2002, come to

11 learn information dealing with employees of AID as those mentioned on

12 Exhibits D24A and B?

13 A. I haven't read anything in writing. I heard this in passing.

14 Q. As the team leader of Team 1 involving the Stakic trial

15 respectfully, did you do any investigation to determine whether or not the

16 individuals who were identified as possibly having committed fraud,

17 forgery, among other illegal criminal activities, in 1995 and 1996 were in

18 any way related to the source from which you obtained documents as

19 identified in lists 1 through 6?

20 A. Of these five names that are mentioned here, I've heard about this

21 person Bakir Alispahic. I haven't heard of the other four. And let me

22 inform this Court that Team 1 has dealt with certain persons from the AID

23 in Bihac, Sanski Most, and also sometimes in Sarajevo, who are different

24 persons. They are certainly not these persons here.

25 Q. Sorry, Mr. Inayat. I didn't catch the name of the individual that

1 you're familiar with. It didn't come out on the transcript.

2 A. Mr. Bakir Alispahic. I heard this name, and I believe he had an

3 important position in the government. But the other four, I have not

4 heard these names before.

5 Q. Did you, sir, since time that you heard of this controversy if you

6 will with respect to individuals at AID, did you go back and run a search

7 on the letters that were written by the OTP to the AID agency to determine

8 whether or not there was any correspondence between these five individuals

9 listed and those that may appear on the OTP letters? Did you do that?

10 A. First of all, I'm not aware if the OTP has been writing directly

11 to the AID officials. I know that we forward our requests to the BiH

12 liaison officer who attends the OTP once in a while. And through him, I

13 believe, the requests are then forwarded in the field to the AID

14 officials. So we don't directly deal with individuals working in the AID.

15 Q. In the category of documents that you obtained from various

16 sources -- I'm sorry. I'll come back to this question. What do you mean

17 when you say "AID officials?" What does that mean?

18 A. Persons working for the agency for investigation and

19 documentation.

20 Q. And do you know, sir, what that entity was prior to 1996? What

21 was it called?

22 A. It was the State Security Services.

23 Q. State Security Services. Right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Now, would an official in your definition of an AID official,

1 would it be someone who worked in the capacity of the minister of internal

2 affairs?

3 A. I think the agency for investigation and documentation is probably

4 a different setup, it doesn't -- probably comes under the minister of

5 interior.

6 Q. Would your definition of an AID official be someone who worked in

7 the capacity as assistant director of AID?

8 A. That is possible, I think.

9 Q. Would your definition of an AID official also be someone who works

10 in the capacity of chief of AID in Sarajevo?

11 A. I think that again is true.

12 Q. How about one as identified here possibly the same as the other

13 capacity, as assistant director of AID? Would that also fall under your

14 definition of AID officials?

15 A. Yes, anybody who is working in the agency for investigation and

16 documentation can be referred to as an official working in that agency.

17 Q. Help me with this, if you don't mind: What -- in a statement that

18 you provided under 65 ter number 69, I think it is, on paragraph 13, you

19 state as follows: "Evidence submitted by the federation's AID agency (on

20 their own initiative) and documents submitted by the federation's AID

21 agency (on requests from the Office of the Prosecutor:"

22 And then you proceed to state as follows: "Over the years, Team 1

23 has received numerous documents from the AID agency which was relevant to

24 our ongoing cases. All documents received from the AID have been

25 submitted for evidence with the evidence unit. The documents were

1 subsequently stamped with ERN numbers."

2 That's paragraph 1 on page 4 of the statement -- an affidavit I

3 guess you could call it, that you prepared. Do you remember that

4 statement?

5 A. I do.

6 Q. In that statement, I don't seem to recall, having just read it,

7 that you state that you on directive to the AID agency, that you utilised

8 a liaison of some sort. Did the OTP, sir, at any time directly obtain

9 from AID representatives documents utilised in the Stakic case? Again,

10 I'm limiting it only to the 15 that you've identified on lists 1 through 6

11 at this time.

12 A. I think I did explain this earlier in the morning, that sometimes

13 when investigators are visiting the field on missions, and the AID

14 officials in the field have gathered material pursuant to a request they

15 may have received or they have received from the liaison officer, they

16 then sometimes request the investigator going back to The Hague to carry

17 the documentation with them. So it is possible that the AID officials

18 directly have submitted documents, material, to the investigators in the

19 field.

20 Q. Can you tell us, sir, with all these tables and the recent table

21 we talked about briefly this morning, did you ever do an analysis to see

22 how many documents you received from AID are in any way connected with the

23 individuals that appear in the article in Exhibit D24A and B?

24 A. As I told you earlier that I had heard about this particular

25 incident in passing, and I'm looking at the names now. But I would also

1 like to add that my team has not directly acted or interacted with these

2 persons. There are certain persons in the AID who are deployed in Bihac

3 or in Sanski Most. I know one in Sarajevo also, that we have had dealings

4 with.

5 So if you want, I can do an exercise to find out if any of the

6 documents submitted in the Stakic case have come from these persons. But

7 I am pretty certain that there wouldn't be any documents given to us by

8 the individuals named in this particular document that you've given to me.

9 Q. If you don't mind, I'd like you to go through that exercise, with

10 all due respect to the OTP and the Court, if you don't mind helping me

11 with that. Let's look at list number 1 and go back to 65 der number 39,

12 as you sit here now, sir -- that's that variant A and B document.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. As you sit here now, as the Court properly pointed out, we know

15 when and the date that it was received on May 22nd, 1996, but we don't

16 know from whom. Correct?

17 A. In the case of that particular document that you're referring to,

18 39.

19 Q. Let's look at another AID document, and see if you can help us

20 from whom at the AID that document might have been received. Why don't

21 you turn to page 3 --

22 A. Excuse me. Can you please repeat that again.

23 Q. I will. Sorry. On list number 1, page 3, the last entry on that

24 page, reference 65 ter number 90, and it has an Exhibit Number I believe

25 S21.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you tell me by looking at this document the source, who

3 provided this document to the OTP staff member Patrick Treanor?

4 A. Okay. Sometime in November 1995, my colleague Patrick Treanor

5 along with other OTP staff members went to Bihac where they were shown a

6 very, very large collection of documents that had been seized by the

7 federation forces. And Mr. Patrick Treanor and staff with him, they

8 identified certain material that was believed to be relevant to this -- to

9 the investigations being conducted here.

10 Now, in these exhibits, whether it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, whenever I

11 have stated that OTP staff member Patrick Treanor received it from AID

12 Bihac on 22/4/1996, I can tell you that an AID official working in

13 Bihac -- I really don't know if I should be mentioning his name or not.

14 But I have the name of the AID official who conducted the mission from

15 April 1996 and also from November 1995, who assisted the OTP in

16 identifying and then making copies of the material that was seized in

17 Bihac.

18 So I have the name, and if Your Honours would like, I can maybe

19 pass it through the Prosecution lawyers. But I don't think I'm at liberty

20 to mention his name here. But I have the name.

21 Q. What about the other areas, other than Bihac? Do you have that,

22 like Sanski Most, which appears on page 1 of list number 2, 65 ter number

23 99? And it's Exhibit S59A and B respectfully. This was done about six

24 months after the Bihac meeting or...

25 A. Yes. I have -- Your Honours, I have on purpose not mentioned the

1 names of AID officials. So whenever I say in my exhibit lists that OTP

2 staff member so and so received it from the local AID office in Bihac or

3 when I say in Sanski Most, in our records, we have the name of the person

4 who assisted the OTP staff during the particular mission and gave the

5 documents.

6 Q. Well, help me with this, so I understand these dates a little

7 better: How many times did they go in there, to the best of your

8 recollection, to the various offices to obtain information prior to the

9 indictment becoming public and prior to the December 12th, 1997, lawful

10 search and seizure warrant that was issued?

11 A. You mean how many field missions were conducted to meet with AID

12 officials?

13 Q. In connection with the Prijedor Municipality, correct.

14 A. I would be only guessing. I think several times.

15 Q. And did either Patrick Treanor or other individuals involved in

16 this mission, did they keep an inventory of all the documents that were

17 procured relating, again, to the Prijedor Municipality?

18 A. Most definitely, and I've seen it.

19 Q. Did they keep an inventory specifically of the documents in

20 catalogue, those documents that were obtained?

21 A. Sorry, I didn't understand the question.

22 Q. Did they catalogue it, make a specific inventory, indices that you

23 provided us with Friday?

24 A. I've seen the inventories. I'm not sure it's as detailed as maybe

25 the one that I prepared because I was given a specific task which I was

1 given to perform. When the OTP staff went, they thought of a procedure

2 that they wanted to adopt. But the information contained within those

3 inventories are sufficient. I mean, they have created complete

4 information.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can the Court cut a long story short. May we

6 ask the witness, please, to have a look into the source of these 15 or 16

7 documents apparently from this list emanating from this AID, and to tell

8 us through a representative of the OTP whether or not one of the names

9 mentined in this article appear in these 15 or 16 documents on these lists

10 1 to 16, only yes or no. I don't see any relevance to fish for the names

11 of other persons working on this issue within the AID. Is it agreeable

12 for the Defence to proceed this way?

13 MR. OSTOJIC: It would be if I can only respectfully ask the Court

14 if they can include a search of the names of the correspondence that may

15 have been written to the AID offices, so not just the individual who may

16 have tendered the document to the OTP under the one scenario that

17 Mr. Inayat has explained, but also if the OTP has written to any of these

18 individuals from whom then possibly a directive would have been given to

19 supply certain information.

20 So their names may appear I believe on correspondence from the OTP

21 to that agency. I think that would fulfill, from an investigator's

22 standpoint, the proper chain of command [sic] of documents, how it was

23 transferred ultimately here, if at all.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Inayat, has it sometimes been this way, that

25 there was a formal request for certain documents, or was it more or less

1 the other way around, that by chance or on a given occasion, documents

2 especially those which are relevant for our case were given to a

3 representative of the ICTY, without direct request for a concrete

4 document?

5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this is, first of all, our written

6 requests, requests for information, request for assistance, it is always

7 addressed to the liaison officer, the liaison officer of the BiH

8 government. We do not write directly to AID officials in the field.

9 There have been, I believe, two liaison officers for the BiH government

10 over the years, and we have written to them directly. However, it is

11 possible that sometimes the information sought is general in nature. We

12 may not have asked specifically for a document, but may have asked for

13 information covering a certain aspect of our investigation. And in

14 response to that, they may have taken the initiative and submitted

15 documents to their liaison officer.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore, from this it seems to be quite

17 clear that there can be no relevance at all for outgoing letters from the

18 Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. Relevance might be - I

19 emphasise might be - if any document has been given to the OTP by one of

20 the persons mentioned in this article. And I would kindly ask you just to

21 facilitate and to settle this dispute, to find out whether or not you find

22 one of these five names in relation to the 15 or 16 documents mentioned in

23 lists 1 through 6 where the source is mentioned, the AID.

24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I would like to restrict my response to

25 Team 1 only. I cannot say that other teams have not written directly to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 these persons. As far as the procedures within Team 1 are concerned, we

2 do not write directly, and we have not written directly asking for

3 information from these five persons. We have always given our requests in

4 writing, sometimes verbally also, to the liaison officer.

5 However, just to make things clear and so that there is no

6 confusion left, if I am given the 16 documents, if I am -- if somebody can

7 point out, although I can read through the list and I can find those out

8 myself, I can go back and do a search on these 16 documents given to us by

9 the AID officials and to come back to the Court through the Prosecution to

10 inform whether any of those 16 documents came to us through these five

11 persons mentioned in the document.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this exhausts the request of the

13 Defence.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. I just want to point -- if I may, follow-up

15 with one question on that.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we conclude this issue, that we request the

17 witness to proceed this way?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Only I think I have a slightly -- if I can say

19 modestly slightly different method that I would suggest that Mr. Inayat

20 does it. I would suggest to him in a question that he should utilise his

21 search databases, namely, Zybind, Keyfile and the IIF search base that he

22 has, input the five names, and actually see on how many different

23 occasions those names would come up with documents related. But I'll take

24 it in any way. So we are --

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Actually, I think we shouldn't go into a fishing

1 expedition. We should refrain from going into other cases. We have six

2 lists before us. It's clearly stated where as a source AID is mentioned.

3 And therefore, the working method should no doubt be left to the witness.

4 Thank you. Please conclude this point.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. May I proceed?

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, on another point.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Of course.

8 Q. Sir, with respect to the documents that were seized on December

9 1997 and October of 2000, at any time did the OTP seek to obtain documents

10 out of those two searches from any military quarters or military

11 barracks? Because you list the four locations that you seized document

12 from in 1997, and there's no military barracks or military documents from

13 that search and seizure. Then the same in October of 2000, you list six

14 locations, similar to those four but I think you add the Omarska

15 administrative building, and I think you call it the Ljubija iron mine

16 headquarters. Did you at any time search any military office's

17 headquarters?

18 A. In Prijedor, we did not.

19 Q. And sir, having reviewed the indictment, namely, the fourth

20 amended indictment, in order to determine what documents would be

21 relevant, did you find it irrelevant the allegations in the fourth amended

22 indictment which seemed to connect under issues of both encouragement,

23 aiding and abetting, some sort of plan between the political bodies at

24 that time, namely, Dr. Stakic, and the military personnel, and that's why

25 you didn't search the military quarters?

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not for the witness to answer such a

2 question.

3 MR. OSTOJIC:

4 Q. Sir, in February of 1998, actually, during your Banja Luka search

5 and seizure, you, in fact, did search a military headquarters. Correct?

6 A. We searched the 1st Krajina Corps headquarters.

7 Q. Any other military headquarters other than the 1st Krajina Corps

8 headquarters in Banja Luka?

9 A. That was the one searched by our team.

10 Q. So no others. Correct?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Can you tell me by taking a brief look at your list 1 through 6

13 that you should have before you how many documents from your search of

14 1998 of the military headquarters in Banja Luka do you identify any

15 documents relating to Dr. Stakic?

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down to the

17 benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: [Previous translation continues]... We can all

19 identify on the lists how many documents came from that seizure.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

21 If Defence counsel can point out a special document, please do so.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: If you look at exhibit --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, we did hear the comment by the interpreters.

25 We apologise.

1 Q. Mr. Inayat, I find on list number 6 a document that we previously

2 discussed. From the search and seizure of 1998, it's on the last page,

3 second to the last entry on list number 6, identified as 65 ter number

4 436, with a provisional number of S228 being given. My question to you,

5 sir, is as follows: The source of that document in 1998 is not, am I

6 correct in interpreting it, is not from the 1st Krajina military

7 headquarters? Correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. As a criminal investigator, can I infer, sir, that documents from

10 the 1st Krajina military corps, since they are not included in your list 1

11 through 6 at this time, are not relevant against Dr. Stakic?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

14 MR. OSTOJIC:

15 Q. Can you tell me, sir, as a criminal investigator and as the

16 individual who conducted part of the search and seizure in 1997 how many

17 military headquarters or offices exist in Prijedor in 1997?

18 A. There was definitely the 43rd -- Prijedor 43rd Motorised Brigade,

19 and also the 5th Kozara Brigade, headquarters in Prijedor.

20 Q. Did you at any time, sir, receive from any other sources that you

21 over the years have worked with, including the missions that were

22 conducted in Bihac or Sanski Most, receive any such military documentation

23 from either of these two military institutions, if I can call them that,

24 namely, the 43rd Motorised Brigade and also the 5th Kozara Brigade?

25 A. Yes. We have received documents.

1 Q. Can you tell me from what source?

2 A. These mainly came from two sources. I can get you the facts as to

3 how many documents were given and by whom. But I believe that the

4 searches that were undertaken by the OTP in Bihac, some material came from

5 that particular collection. And later on, when OTP staff members visited

6 Sanski Most, I think in 1997 -- 1996 and 1997, Ms. Jutta Paczulla, I

7 believe her searches also resulted in receiving documents regarding the

8 military headquarters that I just mentioned.

9 Q. Again, just that so I'm clear and I know we passed this point,

10 those are documents in Bihac and Sanski Most that were obtained during a

11 mission involving AID. Correct?

12 A. Yes. These are documents which in 1995 it was the State Security

13 Service, but later in 1996 it became the AID. So they assisted us.

14 Q. With the Court's permission, if the usher can show Mr. Inayat

15 Exhibit S68 and S69. You tell me, sir, when you've had a chance to look

16 at that document, and then I'll proceed.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: And if I can just for the Court, for the record,

18 just clarify that those documents appear on list number 2 of Mr. Inayat's

19 report, specifically page 2, and they are the second and third entry on

20 page 2 of list 2.

21 Q. Have you had a chance to review those documents, sir?

22 A. I've looked at these two.

23 Q. Looking at page 2, list 2, and looking at the source of the

24 information that you identify these documents with, these are documents

25 which purport to have the signature of Dr. Milomir Stakic. These

1 documents were subject to some forensic analysis, if you will, and I

2 understand from our earlier discussions today, you're unaware of that.

3 But just so the record is clear, these are some of those documents we

4 referenced earlier.

5 Can you tell me, sir, from who the individual is that gave the OTP

6 staff member Pat Treanor these documents?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we have settled this.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: You're right, Your Honour. I can ask another

9 question to follow this up, if I may. Thank you for reminding me.

10 Q. Can we tell, Mr. Inayat, from those two documents or do you know

11 when dealing with issues of chain of custody and inventorying certain

12 documents, do you know how is it that another municipality such as Bihac

13 or Sanski Most, how is it and why is it would they be in possession of

14 documents from a municipality such as Prijedor?

15 A. Starting from September going on until October of 1995, when the

16 federation forces reoccupied or captured Bihac, Klupa, and Sanski Most,

17 Kljuc, according to the information given to us by the local authorities

18 is that all documents that had been left there in the military

19 headquarters of these municipalities or the police headquarters or the

20 courts or the Municipal Assembly building or the police station, they were

21 collected from those locations in those municipalities, and they were

22 brought and centralised in Bihac. That is when most of the documents even

23 belonging to Prijedor were recovered from these municipalities and put in

24 Bihac.

25 That is where in November 1995 the OTP staff when they learned of

1 this large collection, they went and they viewed the material. So it was

2 in Bihac that the whole collection had been assembled for us to review

3 it. Because in those initial days as some of us may recall, it wasn't

4 very easy travelling to the region. So Bihac was a central point, and

5 that's where most of the documents were kept for our review.

6 Q. I'm just trying to understand, and help me with this: If we're

7 talking about Prijedor, and I understand documents may be related to the

8 municipalities of Sanski Most, Kljuc, Krupa, and Petrovac. But tell me:

9 Why would documents from the Prijedor Municipality that had not been taken

10 over by as you call them the federation forces, how is it that those

11 documents from Prijedor would find their way in any of these other

12 municipalities and ultimately in Bihac? By simply looking at those two

13 documents, wouldn't you agree with me that they are not addressed to any

14 entity within those municipalities that we mention?

15 A. I agree with you that these two documents have been created in

16 Prijedor by the local authorities there. But as to the question how they

17 made their way to Bihac, I'm afraid I can't answer that.

18 Q. I don't want to split hairs here, I'm not making any assessment as

19 to where the documents were created, sir, with all due respect. My

20 question to you is: When you're determining issues of chain of custody

21 and when you are creating this IIF form and trying to determine how to

22 inventory documents such -- and believe me this is a sample of the

23 documents that you present to us, sir -- how did those documents, did you

24 ever ask the individuals in Bihac or Sanski Most or any representative

25 from AID how is it that they have documents relating to a completely

1 different municipality, namely, Prijedor, since on the face of those

2 documents certainly one can see it was not directed to anyone in any of

3 those municipalities, and it certainly was not carbon copied to any of

4 those such individuals?

5 A. The one thing that investigators should have taken into account,

6 which I can see from these two documents that they have, that they have --

7 before receiving these copies, photocopies, they have certified that they

8 have compared it with the original. So they have seen the original there.

9 Now, as to your question whether the investigators at that point

10 asked the local authorities as to how they got the document, we have

11 statements given by the local authorities. I know of one particular

12 statement. I believe the answer to your question probably could be in

13 that statement.

14 Q. Although I'd like to ask you for that, maybe I should direct it to

15 the Court. If you would be kind enough to prepare it, and we'll ask the

16 Court if we can have that statement. And then at the Court's direction or

17 the OTP's trial counsel's direction, we may or may not receive it.

18 Let me ask you this: Those two documents seem to indicate to you

19 that originals are in existence. So if it's an original signature that

20 appears that purports to have Dr. Milomir Stakic's name on it, it would be

21 likely that a forensic expert - which hopefully we're going to hear from -

22 would find that signature to be greater than probable to match that of

23 Dr. Milomir Stakic. True or false?

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not relevant for this witness.

25 MR. OSTOJIC:

1 Q. Did you, sir, in your -- both your initial attempt to try to

2 determine whether Rule 68 was complied with and verified that the

3 documents -- that the Defence was receiving pursuant to that rule, is it

4 your practice to limit that review and overview to the documents that were

5 lawfully seized, namely, that from December 12th, 1997, or did you also,

6 sir, include, pursuant to Rule 68, all the documents including those from

7 Banja Luka and those in your possession from the AID agencies?

8 A. The Rule 68 searches are -- have been or are being done for all

9 documentation, whether these are witness statements, whether these are

10 seized documents, whether they are documents given to us by the AID

11 officials. So it's across the board.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: If the usher would be kind enough to show Mr. Inayat

14 Exhibit S75, which appears on page 3 of list number 2, the first entry.

15 And perhaps while the usher is standing there, he may remove the other

16 documents before the witness to reduce any confusion that might occur.

17 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that document, sir?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now with respect to this S75, do you know if an original exists in

20 Bihac or in any other place?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, could I ask that the word "original"

22 be further clarified. I understand, I think, what counsel means by

23 original, but I think the witness is using -- I want to be clear whether

24 we're talking about an original in the sense that the OTP took a copy of

25 whatever was in Bihac, and that itself may or may not have been an

1 original, would have been a copy, as opposed to an original with the

2 original signature because these are two different uses of the word.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm using the common definition of the word

4 "original." If I misunderstood Mr. Inayat in that there may be two

5 originals or two different definitions of the word "original," perhaps he

6 can explain it to me. But quite frankly, my request was based on - and my

7 questioning Mr. Inayat was based on your follow-up answer identifying

8 documents in the possession of various entities in Bihac or wherever, that

9 they were deemed to be originals.

10 Q. Maybe I should have asked you to define it, so I apologise to

11 you. But what do you mean when you say "original"?

12 A. I would tend to think that what was with the Bihac office were

13 originals. The reason -- what I'm basing this on is that if you --

14 Q. Under which definition, though?

15 A. I'll come to that. Because if you read the comments by

16 Mr. Treanor on the certified copy, he very clearly says that I, Patrick J.

17 Treanor confirm that I have compared this copy with the original and

18 hereby certify that this copy is a true and accurate reproduction of the

19 original.

20 If Mr. Treanor was merely photocopying a photocopy, then probably

21 that, too, would have been mentioned. However, I also take Mr. Koumjian's

22 point, and I can go back to Mr. Treanor and then confirm this with him,

23 that when he says original here, does he mean the actual original or that

24 some originals can also have many copies. Could it be a copy of an

25 original? So that is something I can check with Mr. Treanor.

1 Q. But what you just read about Mr. Treanor is not something he

2 actually wrote. It's a stamp used by the OTP and merely placed on the

3 document. Correct?

4 A. He wouldn't do such a thing without knowing what he's doing.

5 Q. I'm not debating that. What you read that you claim Mr. Treanor

6 wrote down is actually just a stamp used by the OTP. He didn't write that

7 in his own words, did he?

8 A. No, he did not.

9 Q. It's a stamp. All he did was sign it and probably date it.

10 Correct?

11 A. He signed it and dated, it yes.

12 Q. I think I understand what an original copy or copy of an original

13 is, but bear with me on this definition because I may not get it right.

14 If someone makes a copy of an original, of an original document, let's say

15 my notes here, if you copy that, what is it? An original or a copy?

16 A. It would become a photocopy.

17 Q. If a third person copies the copy, would it be a copy of a copy or

18 would it be an original, or a copy of an original?

19 A. If a third person was to photocopy, it would become a photocopy of

20 a photocopy of the original.

21 Q. All the documents that the OTP has presented which bear the

22 signature of Dr. Milomir Stakic, specifically those identified in list

23 numbers 1 through 6 that you have before you, are you telling us, sir,

24 since the stamp that appears on that document by Mr. Patrick Treanor

25 clearly is that someone has possession of the original documents bearing

1 Dr. Stakic's signature? Is that what you believe?

2 A. The original has to be somewhere.

3 Q. And sir, you believe that the original is still in the possession

4 of persons in Bihac. Correct?

5 A. I'm not saying that. I need to check that.

6 Q. Let me show you a document that, I think, you received from the

7 AID offices, and that would be Exhibit S88A and B. 65 ter number 305.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: If the Court would allow the usher to present that

9 to the witness.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so. List number?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Again -- thank you, Your Honour. It's on list

12 number 2, page 4, I believe. Yes, we're dealing with that document, list

13 number 2, page 4.

14 If I may, Your Honour.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down.

16 Q. Mr. Inayat, just let me know when you've had a chance to look at

17 the document. I'd like to ask you if that stamp that you referred to in

18 the prior two documents bearing Dr. Stakic's name from materials that were

19 received from the AID in Bihac, whether this exhibit, 88, which according

20 to your list 2 sourcing information was received from the AID office in

21 Sanski Most on November 9th, 2001, by yourself. Does that indicate, sir,

22 whether you received an original or a copy or any form of definition of

23 original or copy that you'd like to use?

24 A. Most probably I received --

25 Q. Sir, what does it -- I apologise for interrupting. What does it

1 say on the document, original or copy?

2 A. You mean on the source?

3 Q. No, on the document itself. Exhibit 88. Is there a stamp on it

4 at all?

5 A. I don't see anything here.

6 Q. So when you went back to do this source to fill out that document,

7 how did you learn that it was a document that you actually received on

8 November 9th, 2001, from the offices of AID in Sanski Most? How do you

9 know that? It's not on the document, is it?

10 A. By looking at the ERN number and then doing a search on the ERN

11 number.

12 Q. And then from there you would look at the registration index, and

13 then find the IIF. Correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. But from this document, we are unable to determine whether or not

16 you obtained the original or a copy. Correct?

17 A. From this document? Yes, it's not possible.

18 Q. And just so I know the protocol and procedure that your team may

19 have used, from other documents which may bear the signature of

20 Dr. Milomir Stakic which do not have the stamp as the stamp revealed that

21 you testified in connection with Mr. Patrick Treanor, should we assume

22 that an original exists, that it was a copy of a copy, or should we make

23 no assumptions at all in connection with the authenticity and reliability

24 of those documents?

25 A. If the document has been provided by a witness or the local

1 authorities and it's an original, that would be mentioned in the IIF

2 form. And wherever it's possible for an investigator to look at the

3 original which cannot be given to us by the source, but we are allowed to

4 keep a copy, we can certify that. That after having compared this copy

5 with the original, we are taking into evidence.

6 Q. Does Team 1 also keep track of a diary or inventory of the times

7 that you would make contact with the witnesses that would be called before

8 the Tribunal?

9 A. Yes, we would do that.

10 Q. For example, if we go back to the individual we mentioned earlier

11 this morning, Mr. Edward Sebastian Vulliamy, there would be some way

12 through these search bases Zybind and Keyfind that we can determine, A,

13 how many people made contact with Mr. Vulliamy; B, how and where they made

14 contact with Mr. Vulliamy; and C, whether or not there was any

15 correspondence between the OTP and that particular witness. Correct?

16 A. If it's a question of correspondence, then it can be found from

17 the very early years also. But as far as making entries of telephone

18 contacts are concerned, we only started doing this I think sometime in

19 1999.

20 Q. How about with respect to meetings that members of the trial team

21 or the team comprised of Team Number 1, would there be any inventory to

22 tell us where and with whom individuals of Team Number 1 meet with this

23 witness Vulliamy?

24 A. If the meetings with Mr. Vulliamy or any other witness for that

25 matter had taken place after 1999, the person from the Office of the

1 Prosecutor is supposed to record that information in a particular database

2 that we have.

3 Q. But before 1999, there would be no such documentation. Correct?

4 A. Individuals, investigators and lawyers may have kept those

5 records.

6 Q. And do you know in connection with witness Vulliamy whether or not

7 any such records exist with respect to the meetings he may have had with

8 the OTP prior to the indictment becoming public and before his, what I

9 coin neutrally, illegal interview with accused?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, first, the characterisation of an

11 interview as illegal is something for the Court to make and not for

12 counsel. We don't believe any illegal interview took place. All this

13 regarding Mr. Vulliamy I believe was covered by Mr. Ostojic in his

14 cross-examination of Mr. Vulliamy in the Kovacevic case. There's no

15 dispute that Mr. Vulliamy met with members of the Office of the

16 Prosecutor.

17 Apparently, there's some issue, and I don't claim to be completely

18 aware of all that was said because I haven't finished reading all that

19 transcript. I think it's a thousand pages long. There's apparently some

20 dispute about what or at least counsel has some allegations regarding what

21 may have been told to Mr. Vulliamy before he spoke to the accused in, I

22 believe, 1996. But I don't see that these questions about how records are

23 kept of interviews with a witness would be helpful in that since all

24 parties agree that there was a meeting between Mr. Vulliamy and members of

25 the Office of the Prosecutor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we are all eager to know this from

2 Mr. Vulliamy in person.

3 Please proceed.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sure we will. But I think that we have an

5 opportunity with the criminal investigator here who can tell us at least

6 what the policy may have been in connection with meeting with witnesses

7 prior to extracting information from them. And I think Mr. Inayat has

8 answered that in part, and I'm just trying to determine whether or not any

9 of those records exist so that we can be thorough when we do question

10 him. But I didn't limit my questioning of Mr. Inayat specifically to

11 Mr. Vulliamy.

12 As a practical matter, and I was hoping as a courtesy to

13 Mr. Inayat, I was trying to just reference a witness by way of example.

14 There were other witnesses that we contend, Your Honour, have been

15 interviewed prior to the interviews that were conducted by the OTP which

16 were, again, based upon information and belief, a burden which we gladly

17 accept we will meet interviewed by representatives of AID and then

18 ultimately have been converted into OTP witnesses for whatever reason. So

19 our questioning, with all due respect, is a little broader than just

20 Mr. Vulliamy.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The rejected question was limited to

22 Mr. Vulliamy only.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honour.

24 Q. Generally speaking, Mr. Inayat, the witnesses that meet with the

25 OTP after 1999, it's my understanding that those meetings and interviews

1 are specifically identified, logged, diaried, and inventoried, or any such

2 word. Correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Prior to 1999, any such interviews conducted with witnesses by

5 either Team Number 1, the trial team included, of course, under that

6 category, records may exist of contact between Team Number 1 and

7 witnesses; you just don't know. And it was basically not a policy but it

8 was done on an individual level, correct, or practice?

9 A. Before 1999, as I said, we didn't have the database which we are

10 using now to indicate each and every contact that we make with witnesses.

11 Prior to that, persons within the team, if they were making any contacts,

12 they may have kept their personal records indicating what the contact was

13 about, the date when the contact was made, and the substance of the

14 conversation.

15 Q. Just a couple more questions, if I may, sir. Was there ever a

16 request made to the Tribunal to search and seize documents pursuant to a

17 lawful warrant from the location involving the military headquarters the

18 5th Kozara Brigade and the 43 Motorised Brigade that you identified

19 earlier? Has any such request been made, to the best of your knowledge?

20 A. At the time of --

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: I object. The relevance of whether a request was

22 made.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the Defence could explain.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: The fourth amended indictment clearly makes

25 allegations between a political figure and political figures relating to

1 the military. I think it's relevant not only to determine whether or not

2 a Rule 38 directive was issued by the Prosecutor herself to seize those

3 documents, or whether or not at any time the OTP thought that it would be

4 relevant since it's highlighted in numerous paragraphs in their

5 indictment, whether they would ask leave for a proper warrant to search

6 and seize documents within an entity that they tried to make a nexus with

7 our client, the accused Dr. Stakic. Did they make even an effort is

8 really what we're trying to determine.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness may answer the question.

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as far as searches of the military

11 installations in Prijedor is concerned, they weren't considered in

12 December 1997. But I know that in later years, I've also been involved in

13 some discussions that we ought to have done that. But I believe, because

14 I wasn't on the team at the time, there were limited resources, and

15 probably going to a couple of additional locations could have caused

16 logistical problems. So that could have been the reason for not having

17 searched those premises. But your question, we haven't made any written

18 efforts so far. But I know that we had wanted to search those locations.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: May the usher show the witness S232, please, Your

20 Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, if you can give us the list.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: It doesn't appear actually on the list 1 through 6.

23 It's a separate exhibit that was identified and admitted into evidence by

24 another witness. I believe it's relevant to Mr. Inayat's testimony,

25 specifically because it references the information index form that we

1 talked about briefly.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I please first have a look on this document

3 so that I know what it's all about.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, it's a confidential exhibit.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. Sorry. Okay. I didn't note that, Your

7 Honour. So I apologise if we've identified it. So we would ask the Court

8 to redact the portions wherein I identified the document by its heading.

9 Because it's confidential, I guess I wasn't supposed to.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't think you mentioned anything about the

11 contents of this document --

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't think anything has to be redacted. Thank

13 you.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I feel better already.

16 May I proceed, Your Honour?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Except perhaps the entire cross-examination.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If it's the last thing for today, you may

19 proceed.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. With respect to this Exhibit S232, sir, can you tell us -- do you

22 know, sir, under the category that's identified on the left centre of that

23 page with the question mark and the answer "no" -- do you see that? It's

24 the second line in the centre of that document.

25 A. Yes, I see that.

1 Q. Can you tell me what that means?

2 A. Just to be sure, are you talking of chain of custody?

3 Q. I am.

4 A. Because it says "no" several times.

5 Q. That's a document you're familiar with, right, as the team leader

6 of Team 1? Correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It's preprinted, the information that they are seeking to obtain

9 from people who obtain documents, does it not?

10 A. In my opinion, it should have been yes.

11 Q. Why is that?

12 A. These are documents seized by the investigator which were in the

13 possession of a person. Then for purposes of, you know, chain of custody,

14 it should be, yes.

15 Q. And what about the next section of that same line? If you keep

16 going to the right, and that section after the area we're just discussing,

17 it also has another "no" after the question. And I hesitate to identify

18 it because it's somewhat confidential. But in any event, it asks whether

19 or not something has been signed. Correct?

20 A. If the document that was received by the investigator, if it was

21 signed, then it should have said yes.

22 Q. It's your document. I just want to understand it, because I have

23 trouble understanding some of these documents from time to time. Does

24 that document that you utilise on a regular basis on Team Number 1 for

25 this trial relating to Stakic, is that a similiar-type document that you

1 use for all the documents from whether it's AID or whether it's from

2 documents seized in Prijedor, Banja Luka, or from any other entity? This

3 is the type of form you're utilising. Correct?

4 A. This is the information index form that we use whenever we receive

5 material from witnesses or from any other sources.

6 Q. So the question on that centre paragraph when it says "signed,"

7 it's asking the question of the person who obtained the documents, whether

8 or not the documents that were seized, regardless of whether or not it was

9 a proper seizure or confiscation of document, it's simply inquiring - and

10 you correct me if I am wrong - are the documents, sir, that you obtained

11 from the accused in this particular case, were they signed by the accused

12 or were they blank? Correct?

13 A. I believe I've already answered that. If the documents that were

14 seized by the investigator, if they had been signed, if those were signed

15 documents, this particular field should have been said "yes."

16 Q. And from this, if you as the team leader had reviewed the IIF

17 forms which we're asking you to do, by the way, for other documents, if

18 you were to review this IIF form, and if I asked you, sir, with respect to

19 the documents identified on Exhibit 232, were those documents signed by

20 Dr. Milomir Stakic or were they unsigned? Based upon that exhibit and the

21 information that you have, what would your opinion be?

22 A. If I look at this IIF form, it says no. And if I look at the

23 original document and it's signed, I know there's something wrong.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, that's all we have, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I recall that the parties wanted to discuss

1 the admission of Document S160 in the presence of Mr. Inayat?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can just have a

3 moment.

4 Thank you, Your Honour. Does the witness have the exhibit?

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't think so. You have it just in your

6 hands.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. May the usher then be kind enough to

8 give the exhibit to the witness. And if I can have a moment to just ask

9 him a couple questions on this.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, for my own and all our recollection have

11 a look on this document.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We interrupt the proceedings for some minutes,

14 if I understand?

15 THE WITNESS: I think I'll wait.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we please hear once again the objections by

17 the Defence to this document tendered by the OTP.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: In addition to the objections that we outlined to

19 the Court initially when the OTP tried to produce this document, we find

20 at least from our cursory review of list numbers 1 through 6 that the

21 document does not appear to have any items necessary or factors to be

22 considered for purposes of authenticity. I don't believe the document

23 appears, and I'm just saying it somewhat cautiously based upon a cursory

24 review, within the documents listed by Mr. Inayat on lists 1 through 6.

25 And quite frankly, Your Honour, because I don't have the specific

1 document in front of me, and my apologies to the Court and the witness for

2 that, I would like, if necessary, to add specifically some other

3 objections that we've consistently maintained with respect to these

4 documents. In light of the time, perhaps if the OTP is going to have

5 further questions and possibly the Court, if it would be prudent and

6 efficient to proceed with this particular document and further our

7 response or bases of our objection for tomorrow morning.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I would appreciate if you could finalise the

9 testimony of Mr. Inayat today. Are there a number of additional questions

10 by the OTP?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have some.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Limited to how many minutes?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think ten minutes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then let's do this today. But let's -- I

15 think there was a request for an interruption of about five minutes.

16 Let's do so.

17 If the Defence could be so kind and collect the arguments opposed

18 to this Document 160 so we can decide on the admission apparently in the

19 absence of Witness Inayat because this document is not reflected in lists

20 1 to 6.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: If we can -- the usher is not here, Your Honour, so

22 with your permission --

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's no problem. The Court becomes more and

24 more normal, from my point of view. Sorry.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Are we permitted to examine the document? Thank

1 you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we in the meantime hear from the OTP,

3 please, what is envisaged for tomorrow?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Tomorrow Mr. Sebire, the person who has compiled

5 the exhumation evidence, is prepared to testify.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you want us to read this some hundred pages

7 until tomorrow?

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's actually I believe 52 or 54 pages of text, and

9 the rest is an annex.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All participants are in possession of these

11 documents?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: They had the document on Friday, and the

13 translation today.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: We have, Your Honour. We received it last week.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. We can proceed this way.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: The handwriting report is being translated and is

17 not yet -- it has not yet been done. Also, Your Honour asked for

18 several -- for some kind of help in interpreting, which I understand, that

19 report because of the numbers used, or ERN numbers.

20 The witness is available on Wednesday, but it's going to be rather

21 difficult to have that done by then. I have to meet with that witness, I

22 hope, sometime -- I'll be calling Mr. Sebire tomorrow, so it's going to be

23 difficult. We could try to call him on Wednesday. I would ask that we at

24 least start a little bit later on Wednesday so I can meet with him before

25 we start. I can try, but I can't promise to get something more helpful to

1 the Court regarding the numbers that the report uses. I've asked -- I

2 don't know if we have an answer yet, whether we could get an electronic

3 copy of that report so we could put in the numbers, but I have not yet

4 received an answer.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be excellent, but no doubt priority

6 has the availability of this expert already on Monday -- sorry, on

7 Wednesday.

8 So let's come to the famous document S160.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: As the document depicts on its face, it's from the

10 SDS municipal board. We believe that it does not meet the necessary

11 guidelines and procedures permitted for documents that are not

12 authenticated; namely, the signature, the dating, to whom it may have been

13 addressed to. However, that document, as far as the Defence is concerned,

14 may be subsequently used by either experts or other individuals who may be

15 analysing the materials relating to Prijedor Municipality because there

16 might be within this document some so-called exculpatory materials.

17 So we would like before we can specifically outline whether

18 there's any probative value to this document, that we would need to find

19 the sourcing information of the document, in particular. And then we

20 independent, as we have with most other documents, will attempt to do to

21 do some verification with respect to it.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So following the -- this was mentioned already

23 once today I recall, the liberal policy on the admission of evidence, this

24 document is admitted into evidence as S160A and B correspondingly. Thank

25 you.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just tender the document back to the usher,

2 I think it's the --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would the usher please take the document and

4 hand it over to the registry once again.

5 And please, then, in a very concentrated way because we are

6 already out of time, the remaining questions by the OTP. Thank you.

7 Re-examined by Mr. Koumjian:

8 Q. Very quickly, Mr. Inayat, you were asked regarding documents that

9 the OTP received from Bihac. Is it correct that Bihac was simply the

10 location point where these documents were brought by AID and stored, not

11 necessarily the location where they were seized? Is that correct?

12 A. In their offices, there was a place where they gathered all the

13 material.

14 Q. In fact, Bihac itself never fell to the VRS or Serbian forces

15 during the war, unlike places like Sanski Most and Kljuc, which are

16 adjoining municipalities to Prijedor. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, Mr. Inayat, I'm going to ask you a question regarding

19 military matters. And if you are not familiar please do not -- if you

20 don't know the answer, please indicate and do not guess.

21 Do you know if in the municipalities of Sanski Most or Kljuc or

22 other areas that fell in 1995 to the opposing forces, those forces

23 opposing the SDS or Serbian forces, whether or not the military units from

24 Prijedor, such as the 43 Motorised Brigade and the Kozara Light Brigade,

25 were in those municipalities that fell to federation forces in 1995?

1 MR. OSTOJIC: We would object, Your Honour, to relevance. We

2 think that it is relevant that the criminal investigators did not obtain a

3 warrant or, pursuant to Rule 38, Prosecutor's directive, to seize

4 documents relating to the Prijedor Municipality. Relating to

5 municipalities such as Sanski Most, Kljuc, Krupa, and Petrovac, it's

6 totally relevant to our case, as the Court has previously ruled when the

7 OTP tried to obtain information from the Sanski Most municipality

8 specifically.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the question was put in a very careful

10 way. And only if you really can give a responsible answer, please do so.

11 If not, refrain.

12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm -- I would rather refrain from

13 answering this question.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN:

15 Q. Because you're not certain?

16 A. Because I'm not certain.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 Mr. Inayat, regarding the events of 1995, are you familiar with

19 the fact that, in fact, Sanski Most and Kljuc, for example, did fall to

20 federation forces that year?

21 A. In September and October of 1995, these two municipalities fell,

22 yes.

23 Q. Are you familiar, from speaking to witnesses and persons from the

24 area, that the retreat of Serbian forces at that time was a very -- it was

25 a sudden fall? It was a chaotic retreat of Serbian forces, that they went

1 back to Prijedor, and in fact Arkan in Prijedor punished some of the

2 forces from Sanski Most and had them shave their heads for cowardice?

3 A. I'm not certain about the Arkan incident, but I know from the

4 witnesses that I've spoken to and statements that I've taken and other

5 documentary evidence that I've seen, that the retreat from Sanski Most,

6 Kljuc, and other municipalities that fell was a hasty one and a chaotic

7 one.

8 Q. Did you find in your searches of various locations in Prijedor and

9 in Banja Luka and other locations that the same document could appear in

10 multiple locations, and that each location had a copy of the document?

11 A. That has happened, yes. And I can confirm this.

12 Q. Going quickly to the IIF form that you were shown, was that form

13 created by Mr. O'Donnell?

14 A. It appears that it was prepared by him.

15 Q. Is it your understanding, is it correct, that the items in the IIF

16 form are not originals, that they were photocopies of the items that were

17 taken from Mr. Stakic, that those were the items placed into evidence, not

18 the originals?

19 And when I use the word "original" now, I'm sorry, because I asked

20 for a definition before, I do not mean these are necessarily the first

21 time a document was produced. It could be a photocopy. But the items, by

22 "original," I mean the items in the possession of Dr. Stakic.

23 A. My understanding is that - and I could be wrong; I would have to

24 go back to verify this - that whatever Mr. Stakic had on his person,

25 Mr. O'Donnell took it and IIFed it. But I could be wrong.

1 Q. In fact, Mr. Inayat, didn't you just testify this morning you

2 returned those items, the originals - again, I'm using the word in the

3 sense of what was taken from Mr. Stakic - to the Detention Unit, and they

4 are not in evidence?

5 A. Yes. The things that were returned, they were never IIFed. For

6 example, personal things like license, driver's license, I believe, or

7 other car documents, they were never seized or IIFed. Those were

8 returned.

9 Q. Would it be corrected that the person who would know exactly what

10 was IIFed and ERNed would be Mr. O'Donnell?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you. No further questions.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see any further questions. The trial

14 stays adjourned until tomorrow morning, 9.30.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

17 at 4.14 p.m., to be reconvened on

18 Tuesday, the 3rd day of September, 2002,

19 at 9.30 a.m.

20

21

22

23

24

25