1 Thursday, 26 September 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. Please be seated.
7 Before we start, a very short scheduling order. The Chamber has
8 made the following decision: Trial Chamber II of the International
9 Tribunal, noting the temporary unavailability of Judge Fassi Fihri on the
10 morning of Friday, the 27th September, 2002, due to an urgent pressing
11 matter noting that under Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and
12 Evidence, the remaining Judges of the Chamber may order that the hearing
13 of the case continue for a period of not more than three days if
14 satisfied, that it's in the interests of justice to do so, noting the
15 consent of the parties to proceed under Rule 15 bis expressed orally in
16 Court on Wednesday, 25 September, 2002, Livenote page 107, lines 2 to 13,
17 hereby decides to proceed in the absence of Judge Fassi Fihri under Rule
18 15 bis on Friday 27 September from 9.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. in Courtroom II.
19 Followed by the signature of the Judge.
20 Then I learned that there is an interest of the parties to have
21 the 65 ter (i) meeting tomorrow. This will be held immediately after the
22 end of the Prosecutor's case. We'll say the meeting will take place
23 15 minutes later or immediately after the Prosecutor's case in Room M149.
24 In addition, I heard that it's envisaged to try to finalise
25 tomorrow already at 1.00. This would mean that it would facilitate the
1 planning of tomorrow's day, especially for Judge Fassi Fihri, so let us
2 know immediately when you have more concrete information on this.
3 Other urgent matters? No. Then, please, proceed with the
4 cross-examination. Before doing so, after these preliminary remarks, we
5 have to hear the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances, please.
9 MR. CAYLEY: May it please Your Honours, my name is
10 Andrew Cayley. I appear on behalf of the Prosecutor together with case
11 manager Ruth Karper. Thank you.
12 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and
13 John Ostojic for the Defence.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Please.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, good morning.
16 WITNESS: EWAN BROWN [Resumed]
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.
19 A. Good morning, Mr. Ostojic.
20 Q. Before I return to the attack by this Muslim group on the town of
21 Prijedor where Major Karlica was killed on May 30th, 1992, I would like to
22 clarify one point from your testimony these last two days, if I may.
23 Sir, I realise from your testimony that you confined yourself to
24 the documents only that you selected and then in part identified for us.
25 However, in order to give us an objective analysis, did you review and
1 analyse the materials that were considered by the OTP, namely, the trial
2 attorneys in this case against Dr. Stakic, under Rule 68 known otherwise
3 as exculpatory documentation? Do you understand my question, sir?
4 A. Yes, I do, Mr. Ostojic, yes. I believe I did review material that
5 may have been exculpatory.
6 Q. Let me, if I may, show you a letter that was given to us September
7 24th, immediately before the commencement of your testimony, although it's
8 dated the night before. And it lists 97 specific items that the OTP
9 considers to be under Rule 68 exculpatory. However, before I do, I'd like
10 to know whether you yourself, as you indicated to us yesterday and the day
11 before, did you go out and find this material, or was there actually
12 instances wherein the OTP gave you material to review in connection with
13 the military report that you provided us?
14 A. Almost all the material that I used for the report was a result
15 of my own searches, either on the OTP databases or materials that I was
16 informed about by investigative team. There were some materials in
17 relation to the non-Serb resistance that I wasn't made aware of until
18 the -- a draft of the report had been completed or drafted. Those were,
19 in particular, the Ramic book or diary which I hadn't been aware of. And
20 having been made aware of that, I duly looked at it and read it and, in
21 fact, incorporated some extracts into the report.
22 Q. With the Court's permission, would the usher be kind enough to
23 show the witness the letter dated September 23rd, 2002, by Ms. Joanna
24 Korner to Mr. Branko Lukic in connection specifically with this topic of
25 Rule 68 exculpatory documentation?
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would the Defence counsel be kind enough to
2 provide the Judges with another copy.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: We will be able to, yes, Your Honour. However, in
4 our attempt to get here in a timely manner, I left it in the Defence
5 counsel room in all seriousness. And I think if the witness would be kind
6 enough just to put it on the ELMO, then we could look at it and I will
7 provide a copy because I'd like also to identify and hopefully get it
8 admitted in as an exhibit. Thank you.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Previously I forgot to mention that the
10 scheduling order I read out bears the Exhibit Number J18. It should be
11 distributed now, if possible. Thank you.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, madam usher.
13 Q. And Mr. Brown, do you see the letter that I'm referencing
14 regarding Rule 68 dated September 23rd, 2002?
15 A. Your Honours, yes I do.
16 Q. Within that document, there lists approximately 97 items
17 referencing specifically the 1st Krajina Corps, the 43rd Motorised
18 Brigade, the 343rd Motorised Brigade that the OTP trial attorneys suggest
19 fall within Rule 68. Looking through that, and if you don't mind just
20 briefly going through each page just so that the Court and all of us can
21 see it, since I did not provide a complete copy for anyone, and if the
22 technicians can scan away so we can get the complete page on the screen,
23 this, sir, is actually the second page. It starts on the first page below
24 the actual correspondence to Mr. Lukic.
25 Within this document and these 97 items listed by the OTP, can you
1 tell us, sir, how many of those documents you included in your objective
2 report regarding the Prijedor Municipality?
3 A. It's the first time I've seen this reference and this letter. And
4 without going through each ERN number and each document individually, I
5 would be unable to do that at this moment. I'm trying to see if any of
6 the documents I recognise just simply by the title, and some I do. But I
7 think in order for me to fully answer your question, I would have to go
8 through each individual document.
9 For example, I notice one there relating to 1st Krajina Corps
10 command authorisation letter, number 741, to engage prisoners of war in
11 the felling of trees. Now again, I would have to be a bit cautious here
12 because I would have to go back to the original document, but I believe
13 that document relates to Manjaca prison camp in Banja Luka Municipality.
14 Q. Sir, what I'm suggesting to you, if I may, since I had a little
15 extra time these last few days, that none of the documents that are
16 presented on this Rule 68 appear in your report. Would that surprise you?
17 A. I can only answer that if I went through each individual document
18 and saw the content. As I say, I recognise one or two that I know have no
19 real bearing on Prijedor.
20 Q. I also notice, sir, that within the documentation provided by the
21 OTP under Rule 68 the report that you say was exhaustive by Jusuf Rahmic
22 is not included in is there, is it?
23 A. In?
24 Q. The Rule 68 correspondence and documentation.
25 A. I would have to go through each page. I'd have to take your word
1 that it's not on there.
2 MR. CAYLEY: For the purposes of -- excuse me, Mr. Ostojic.
3 Mr. President, just so the record is clear, that document has already been
4 disclosed to the Defence. So whether it's on this list or not is
5 immaterial. The Defence had that document, the Jusuf Rahmic document to
6 be clear.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't know whether the parties can agree on
8 this procedure. I think it's, for the witness, unfair attempt to put him
9 in a kind of guessing game. This document evidently, as he has said, he
10 has never seen before. So it would be for the Prosecutor to give an
11 explanation why this document, why so late, and what is the basis for
13 MR. OSTOJIC: We always will accept the Court's instruction on
14 this. But I think I could answer the questions, and I think that I have a
15 fair inclination as to the basis for it. But if the Court wishes, we'll
16 accept that instruction.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: First, we should go to the primary source, and
18 then let's talk about hearsay. Please.
19 MR. CAYLEY: My understanding, Mr. President, looking at this
20 particular letter, and let's be clear at the start in respect of the
21 Rule 68 obligation. The Court knows it is an extremely wide obligation
22 that the Prosecutor has, and to quote the rule directly, we are obliged to
23 disclose any material which is known to us which in any way tends to
24 suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect
25 the credibility of Prosecution evidence.
1 In exercising that duty, we interpret that rule very widely. And
2 this material is material that was regarded as Rule 68 in the
3 Brdjanin/Talic case. And we felt that if it was disclosed in that case as
4 potentially Rule 68, we had an obligation to do the same in this case. It
5 doesn't necessarily mean to say in any way that it's relevant to the
6 report of Mr. Brown.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Thank you for this explanation. Anything
8 to add from your side?
9 MR. OSTOJIC: No, if I may proceed, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
11 MR. OSTOJIC:
12 Q. Mr. Brown, you are also preparing a report for the Brdjanin/Talic
13 case as you have heard from Mr. Cayley as well as a report in the case of
14 Plavsic and Krajisnik. In connection with that, and when you look at all
15 the parametres suggested by Mr. Cayley that the evidence may be relevant
16 and may point to the innocence of the accused, Dr. Stakic, don't you
17 think, Mr. Brown, that you should have received that letter, should have
18 been notified of that letter, should have been given those documents so
19 that your "objective" report can truly be presented in the fashion that
20 you suggest that it is? Do you understand the question, Mr. Brown?
21 A. I'm not sure I can fully answer the question to be truthful. All
22 I can say is that I wasn't given this letter on the day of -- the day
23 before my testimony. All I can say is from a brief observation of the
24 content of the letter, that I recognise some of the documentation
25 contained within it. I would argue from the documentation I do see here,
1 that it is not directly relevant to operations in Prijedor by the Bosnian
2 Serb army. I qualify that by saying that I would have to look at every
3 individual document, and this is the first time I've seen it.
4 I can't comment on why, you know, the document was not passed to
5 me. My report also was written in June and published, I believe, on the
6 18th of July. But I don't think I'm in a position really to give you more
7 of an answer.
8 Q. Thank you. I mean, it seems fair. If I can now turn to the May
9 30th, 1992, attack on the town of Prijedor that we concluded yesterday. I
10 have a couple more questions on this.
11 On page 27, sir, of your report, again, although my pages are not
12 numbered, I numbered them myself starting with page 1 being the cover
13 sheet, where you identify the document as being "military developments,
14 Prijedor Municipality, from 1991 to 1992." On page 27, as I suggest --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- discusses an armed group of non-Serbs carried out an abortive
17 attack in the town of Prijedor. Did you, sir, as a military analyst
18 determine (a) the number or how big this armed group was?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And you determined on your own that it was how big?
21 A. The military reports at the time indicate that it was about 80
23 Q. Let me ask you this: Earlier you said that some of the
24 documentation with respect to integrity that Mr. Cayley discussed with
25 you, the documents that you reviewed, some were given to you -- or to the
1 OTP I should say, excuse me, by the Bosnian federation.
2 Did you at any time ask the OTP or the trial attorneys from the
3 OTP - it's a little confusing because you work there, too - did you ever
4 ask them to say, Let's request from the Bosnian federation documents to
5 determine who these individuals were who committed this armed attack on
6 the town of Prijedor on May 30th, 1992?
7 A. No, I didn't. The report wasn't about indicating which
8 individuals in particular had attacked Prijedor. I take it for granted
9 the attack happened. I take it for granted from the documentation that it
10 occurred on the dates that the Serb documents indicate. And I would
11 assume that the references that they have contained within those documents
12 to be accurate. And what I wanted to do in relation to that was flag up
13 that an attack had happened, that it was about 80 Muslims had attacked the
14 town, that they had killed sentries on the bridge, and attempted to attack
15 personnel in the hotel in Prijedor --
16 Q. Excuse me, sir, that personnel --
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, wait until the translation is ready.
18 THE WITNESS: And so, that was what was put in the report.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. Did you as a military analyst, sir, determine how many snipers the
21 Muslim or the non-Serb, as you call them, armed group had at the town of
22 Prijedor while these 80 men were coming to attack the town?
23 A. The reports from the Serb documentation said there was an attack
24 of about 80 men and that there was a secondary attack of about 8 men from
25 the area of Donja Puharska. I took those figures at face value and the
1 reported events contained within the military reports at face value, too.
2 Q. Well, militarily speaking, when the report suggests that there was
3 an armed group, can you tell me what that would mean? Armed in what
4 capacity? And I would like you to keep that in conjunction with the very
5 next paragraph that says there was "heavy fighting." If you put those two
6 together, sir, militarily speaking, what does that signify to you?
7 A. That there was a serious conflict at that period as a result of
8 this attack on Prijedor.
9 Q. Did you, sir, as a military analyst, determine whether this group
10 who attacked the town of Prijedor on May 30th, 1992, consisted of Green
11 Berets, the Patriotic League, and/or other Muslim-based paramilitary
13 A. No, I didn't, not in that detail. Going by the reports, the
14 reports themselves, call them Green Berets. I don't believe the word or
15 the phrase "Patriotic League" is used. Muslim extremists are used. And
16 clearly, this was an armed group of non-Serbs who attacked the town.
17 Q. Did you determine whether this group, sir, by any of the reports
18 including Mr. Jusuf Rahmic's report, whether or not this group of armed
19 non-Serbs consisted of one or more than one ethnic group?
20 A. I would have to go over the Rahmic book again. It's not the
21 easiest piece of work to read, and he does make some references to it.
22 I'd have to review that to give you an answer.
23 Q. Was there any indication from the documentation that you reviewed,
24 sir, that the group that attacked the town of Prijedor on May 30th, 1992,
25 was something other than a Muslim ethnically-based group considered here
1 to be a paramilitary formation, part of the Patriotic League, or part of
2 the Green Berets?
3 A. The Serb documentation, as I've said, indicates that it was an
4 armed group of Muslim ethnicity. I haven't seen any reference to the
5 Patriotic League. And there are general references throughout the Serb
6 documentation when they refer to "armed groups" as "Green Berets."
7 Q. Thank you. Help me with this, Mr. Brown: When a town is attacked
8 by an outside force, armed group, as you've identified, regardless of
9 whether it's 80 or approximately 80 men, which includes heavy fighting
10 where they neutralise the actual bridge over the Sana, and they have
11 sniper capacity, have killed a major such as Major Karlica, tell me what
12 the military response, sir, should be by the nonattackers?
13 A. I can't say what the response should be as a generality. What I
14 can say is what the response was. The response was to, in essence,
15 counterattack and very quickly take control of the town.
16 Q. Militarily speaking, sir, isn't it a fact that when a military
17 group such as the Republika Srpska or as you call it the VRS, if they get
18 attacked, they are required to do what? Return hostile fire, drop their
19 arms, or are they, sir, required to actually required to return hostile
20 fire, secure the area, proceed to capture the perpetrators of the attack?
21 Which, if any?
22 A. Clearly, if a military is attacked, they would have under their
23 rules of engagement the right to defend themselves and potentially carry
24 out these acts that you've mentioned.
25 Q. I'm a little hesitant --
1 A. And in fact, that's what happened.
2 Q. I'm a little hesitant to talk about rules of engagement today.
3 But let's turn to the attack on Kozarac on May 24th, 1992. Are you
4 familiar, sir, with any evidence that the OTP presented and that was
5 produced for this Trial Chamber that when a military convoy proceeded from
6 the Banja Luka/Prijedor Road going west towards Prijedor, that it was
7 attacked by a Muslim barricade and/or checkpoint?
8 A. I think I've highlighted that in the report, that there was an
9 incident in Kozarac, I believe, on the 24th.
10 Q. Right.
11 A. At which fire was opened from a barricade.
12 Q. Again, if I'm not mistaken, help me with this: Did the Serb
13 military attack the barricade or did the people who were at this
14 barricade, at this checkpoint, open fire initially on the Serb convoy that
15 was passing through? What's your objective analysis of those -- that
17 A. Following on from the attack on Hambarine, there was an incident
18 at the barricade in Kozarac at which fire was opened by those manning the
19 barricades. The result was a large-scale attack on the wider area of
20 Kozarac. That was a sequence of events that I saw from the documentation.
21 Q. Take it one step at a time. The convoy, sir, that passed through
22 the Banja Luka/Prijedor Road was nowhere near the village of Hambarine,
23 was it?
24 A. No.
25 Q. It was sent from where, sir?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. I believe Prijedor.
2 Q. It was sent from Prijedor, and they were going to Prijedor?
3 A. Sorry, it was from Banja Luka.
4 Q. And Banja Luka is to the east of Prijedor. Right?
5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 Q. And they would take the road called Banja Luka/Prijedor Road.
8 A. I would assume so, yes.
9 Q. And in fact, sir, did you see any evidence in your objective
10 analysis to determine whether or not the military made a proclamation or
11 an announcement which requested that the Muslim checkpoints on the road of
12 Banja Luka/Prijedor, that they moved back 100 metres so that the convoy
13 can pass without any hinderance and without any potential confrontation.
14 Did you hear or review any of those witness statements or documentation?
15 A. I've seen not from the documentation that detail that you've just
17 Q. From who? Because I thought your report was based solely on the
18 documentation in this case and solely on, ultimately, the 150 documents
19 that you utilised to come up with this objective report.
20 A. From the documentation I have not seen that announcement to move
21 100 metres so that the convoy could pass without any hinderance and
22 without any potential confrontation.
23 Q. Help me with this, sir: Point to me where in your objective
24 report --
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Pardon me, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, slow down, and don't overlap. It
2 takes time, especially with the French translation, as we all know, and
3 make sure that it's --
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure, if I may, Your Honour, if the mic...
5 Here it is.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's good now with the French booth.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Brown, as I was starting to say, point to me where in your
9 objective report it indicates that you even considered the fact that this
10 military convoy going from Banja Luka to Prijedor sought or wanted to have
11 clear access and requested that the Muslims who manned -- armed and manned
12 the checkpoint on the road at Jakupovici to move back 100 metres?
13 MR. CAYLEY: Asked and answered twice, Your Honour, by the
14 witness. He stated he hasn't seen any documentation in his review that
15 indicates this fact that Mr. Ostojic is alluding to.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may be heard. I don't want to in any way try
17 to interpret Mr. Brown's testimony at this time. However, it seemed to me
18 that first he said he had heard it, and then when I asked him from whom,
19 he said it was in the documentation. And then I'm following up and saying
20 just point to the report where it is that you consider it. Those are the
21 three elements.
22 MR. CAYLEY: Categorically, he did not say that he had seen any
23 such matter in the documents, and I think Your Honours, he has been asked
24 this question twice. He has answered it twice. If you wish he can be
25 asked it a third time and I presume the answer will be exactly the same.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Mr. Brown, do you think that that's a significant fact, if true,
5 that there was an announcement by the military that the Muslims who were
6 armed and manning the checkpoint move back 100 metres in your
7 considerations for your report?
8 A. All I can say is to repeat what I've already said: I have not
9 seen in the documentation that I have reviewed either in the daily combat
10 reports or other material that the Muslims were ordered back 100 metres --
11 Q. I think I said requested, but whatever.
12 A. Requested. And all I can say is from the chronology of events
13 that occurred what the documents tell us. But as I said, I have not seen
14 a reference in relation to that --
15 Q. You mentioned --
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just for the record, the OTP is from now on
17 represented also by Mr. Koumjian. Good morning.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. Koumjian.
19 Q. Mr. Brown, again you mentioned during our discussions with respect
20 to the attack on the town of Prijedor and the significance of what the
21 military response should be, you used the word that militarily has some
22 significance, namely, "rules of engagement."
23 With respect to the attack on Kozarac, sir, when a military convoy
24 is attacked and when clearly it has been established that in the first
25 vehicle, one of the military personnel were shot and killed by the armed
1 men at the barricade, what is the response of the military supposed to be?
2 A. Are you asking me as a professional soldier and what I think from
3 that respect or from what the documents tell me?
4 Q. Let me try it this way. Your analysis in your report is based
5 upon your education, your experience, as well as your review and
6 digestion, if you will, of the material before you. Based on those three
7 factors, sir, I don't see how -- although you may be able to separate it,
8 tell me whether or not the military was justified in returning fire,
9 whether they were justified in securing the area, whether they were
10 justified, sir, in capturing the men who perpetrated the attack who killed
11 the initial military personnel in the convoy, and whether they were
12 justified, sir, in responding to this hostile fire?
13 If you can distinguish from whether that answer would differ from
14 your education, from your experience, and/or from the documentation,
15 please share that with us.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These were ten questions in one. And I think it
17 would also facilitate your work, Mr. Ostojic, if you could once again go
18 step by step.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: It's --
20 MR. CAYLEY: Sorry, excuse me, Mr. Ostojic. I think it's also
21 fair to point out, I mean Mr. Ostojic has given his interpretation of the
22 evidence in this case. And my understanding is that we haven't heard
23 evidence from anybody that was at that checkpoint. And the evidence that
24 has been heard, and that's a matter for you to judge whether it's
25 reliable, indicates that in fact it was the Serbs who attacked the
1 checkpoint. So I think in prefacing the question to the witness,
2 Mr. Ostojic should actually represent the evidence that has been heard in
3 this trial and not his interpretation of it.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't want to get into a debate about that, but
5 there was specifically one witness who said he raised two guns and wanted
6 to have an indication that there was more rapid fire and more men there.
7 But that's not the point. If I'm wrong on it, then on redirect Mr. Cayley
8 can give a hypothetical question and he can give his facts based on the
9 OTP's interpretation of what occurred. Ultimately, the Court will be the
10 trier of those facts.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is a concrete point. It's for us
12 to evaluate at the end of the day all testimony. And please understand
13 that I will never indicate what we now see as the result of the evidence
14 provided for us. But please continue with small, interpretable, and
15 understandable questions and facilitate the work of our witness. Thank
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Brown, when a military convoy is attacked by hostile, armed
19 men on a convoy, are they justified, sir, to return fire?
20 A. Yes, they most likely are.
21 Q. Are they justified, sir, to capture the perpetrators of the
23 A. Yes, I believe they would be.
24 Q. Are they justified, sir, in securing the area for purposes of
25 safety for themselves?
1 A. Are you talking about the immediacy of the site they were shot
2 from or are you talking a wider area? Can you be a bit more specific
4 Q. To break it down, first the immediacy, and then the wider area.
5 A. I can't really comment I suppose on the wider area, and that would
6 depend on the individual case you were discussing. But it would seem
7 likely that the military would want to secure the immediacy of the site.
8 Q. It's not just likely, Mr. Brown, it's a protocol that's required
9 and it's a protocol that every military personnel in every country when
10 under hostile attack actually follows. Isn't that true?
11 A. Yes, it probably is true.
12 Q. Is it also justified, sir, for the military to secure the area for
13 the safety of the population at large, since there was a hostile attack,
14 for the civilians?
15 A. I'm not really sure I can comment on that, to be honest.
16 Q. Is it justified, sir, for the military to secure not only the area
17 where the hostile activities occurred, but also for the protection and the
18 safety of the civilians to go into this wider area and to secure it, to
19 protect the civilians, to move them out of the area?
20 A. I don't think I can comment on this hypothetical because each case
21 would have to be, you know, looked on its own merits. And when you are
22 moving into issues of moving out populations for the protection of
23 civilians, I think you've gone way beyond this particular incident of fire
24 being opened from a checkpoint on a convoy.
25 Q. Did you, sir, obtain any information from the sources that you
1 identified who were - I forget the term you used - legitimate. Did you
2 ask the OTP trial attorneys to obtain from the Bosnian federation any
3 decrees or any documentation which would indicate to you why the convoy
4 was attacked by the Muslim checkpoint?
5 A. No, I didn't. However, I would like to indicate that in some of
6 the material, the handwritten notes, and the Rahmic diary or work, that
7 there are references to individual acts of provocation which people are
8 concerned with for the reasons that this would escalate, escalate issues
9 in Prijedor.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. From those -- from those references, I did not get the impression
12 that a number of people were happy about, i.e., non-Serbs were happy about
13 potential acts of provocation.
14 Q. A couple more issues on this point and I would like to move on in
15 light of the time constraints. Do you consider the attack on the convoy
16 as a "provocation"?
17 A. From the perspective of the Serbs, it might well have been viewed
18 as an act of provocation, yes.
19 Q. Let's take the perspective of the Brits, sir, how would you view
20 it as an objective military analyst when a military convoy is attacked by
21 armed Muslims at a checkpoint. Would you consider that to be a
22 provocation or not?
23 A. Potentially, yes.
24 Q. Sir, let me ask you this: In reviewing the documentation at large
25 that you did, including the Dr. Stakic case as well as the two other
1 matters that we mentioned, Brdjanin/Talic, Plavsic and Krajisnik, did you
2 ever, sir, in your attempt to create this objective report come up with
3 any documentation which would suggest that there was some order or decree
4 from the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo which instructed certain Muslim
5 insurgent groups to attack military convoys? Have you ever come around or
6 seen that type of information?
7 A. No, I haven't.
8 Q. Let me turn, if I may, to the Hambarine attack which happened May
9 22nd, 1992. Correct?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. Did you, sir, in that report make a conclusion as to whether or
12 not the attack and the killing of the two VRS soldiers, as you've
13 identified them, and the wounding of the remaining four, did you consider
14 that to be a "provocation"?
15 A. I didn't make any particular judgement on that. The attack took
16 place on the 22nd. The documentation that I reviewed did not go into
17 every single issue and did not give the full details of the events
18 surrounding that individual event.
19 Q. This was also at a checkpoint, correct, at Hambarine?
20 A. Yes, it is reported as being at a checkpoint.
21 Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that it was a checkpoint?
22 A. I don't think so, no. From the documentation, it makes it evident
23 there was a checkpoint there.
24 Q. Is there any doubt, sir, from the documentation that you reviewed
25 that, in fact, the hostilities were initiated by the armed Muslims who
1 were at the checkpoint against the soldiers who were trying to pass
3 A. I'm not sure what the soldier was doing at the checkpoint. The
4 documents don't give any indication of what they were there to do, whether
5 they were there as part of the potential disarmament operation that had
6 been apparently planned for that day. But it's clear that the soldiers
7 were shot, a number killed, and a number wounded, and fire was opened from
8 the area of the checkpoint.
9 Q. Did you, based upon your education, experience, and analysis of
10 the documents reach a conclusion as to whether this was a provocation by
11 the Muslims at the checkpoint against the Serbs?
12 Sorry. I'm apologising to the interpreters, Mr. Brown.
13 A. The documents don't in themselves indicate, as I said, the exact
14 sequence of events and what happened there. So I can't explain from the
15 documentation the sequence of events. To give a judgement on whether it
16 was a deliberate act of provocation or whether some incident had happened
17 that the Muslims at the checkpoint may have felt threatened, I can't -- I
18 can't give you an explanation from that -- from that -- from the
20 Q. If it's not a provocation, what would you consider it, militarily
21 speaking, sir? Just a simple confrontation?
22 A. I can only reiterate, I can't -- it could well have been a
23 confrontation. It could well have been an incident that was initiated on
24 one or either side. It could well have been an act of provocation by the
25 residents of Hambarine. However, from the documentation, I can't make a
1 judgement on that. All I know from the documentation is that the incident
2 occurred, that a number of Serb soldiers were killed, and a number were
4 Q. Would it be presumptuous on my part, since you don't have the
5 information which would necessarily lead you to conclude whether it was a
6 provocation or a confrontation or just an incident, you cannot determine,
7 militarily speaking, whether or not there was justification for a response
8 to that hostile attack, and similarly you wouldn't be able to -- I'll stop
9 there. Again, a long question.
11 A. I don't believe I can make a judgement on whether -- or the type
12 of response that should have resulted from that. My report simply
13 indicates a sequence of events that occurred in Hambarine, as I've
14 indicated. The attack was significant after the incident. And within a
15 day, they were reporting -- the corps were reporting that the area was
16 under the control of the military --
17 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. Please proceed.
18 A. No, that's what the documents tell us.
19 Q. Can you please turn to your Power Point presentation with the
20 caption "Military Preparations Relating to Prijedor." And we're moving on
21 to another topic, I think.
22 A. Would you like me to put it on the ELMO, or can I read it from the
23 hard copy?
24 Q. I would be grateful if you could put it on the ELMO for our dear
1 Mr. Brown, may we proceed.
2 A. Yes, please.
3 Q. Those are the five items that you list as being a summary within
4 your report which indicate that the military was making preparations in
5 relation to Prijedor, in essence, constituting a war. Correct?
6 A. I said they were mobilising for war, I believed.
7 Q. Mobilising for war. But those are the five items in summary.
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Now, in looking at this as an objective military analyst, as you
11 are, sir, let's take the fourth item which is the enhanced state of
12 readiness. Okay? With respect to that item, sir, in order to be
13 objective, shouldn't the Court know that on April 4th, 1992, the
14 presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina took over
15 the authority from the presidency -- people's assembly and proclaimed
16 "state of imminent threat of war" which was, sir, in essence, 10 to
17 12 days prior to when the Serb Republic, as you claim, made preparations
18 for this, as you identify, "enhanced state of readiness".
19 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I didn't want to interrupt until I was
20 sure, but this isn't a question. It's a statement of fact. Where's the
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll stipulate that it's a statement of fact. But
23 let me then restate the question, if I may, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so. Short question.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Short. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Brown, did you consider for purposes of your objective
2 analysis as to why the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina declared, as
3 you claim, on April 12th this "enhanced state of readiness"?
4 I think the 16th of April. Thank you.
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you consider, sir, the fact that on April 4th, 1992, the
7 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, having taken over the
8 authority of the people's assembly in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed
9 8 to 12 days earlier a "state of imminent threat of war"?
10 A. Yes, I did consider it.
11 Q. Where in your report does it say, sir, that the Serbs - as you
12 identify them throughout your report, the Bosnian Serbs - where does the
13 government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- where does it
14 suggest that that government -- in response to this "state of immediate
15 threat of war" issued by Alija Izetbegovic, where does it put it in
16 perspective? An objective analyst like you would have shared that
17 information. Wouldn't you agree?
18 A. As I said at the beginning, this was not an exhaustive report on
19 every issue relating to 1992 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. During my analysis, I
20 looked at the sequence of events in relation to the Bosnian Serb military;
21 and in particular, in relation to Prijedor. When I looked at some of the
22 documents in relation to weapon deadlines, the 16th of April decision on
23 the mobilisation of the Serb TO seemed to be a start point in relation to
24 the sequence of events that ended up occurring in Prijedor Municipality.
25 I also looked at trying to understand why that date was important.
1 And you're right that in a number of days prior to that decision, that the
2 Bosnian government did issue that decree and, I believe, some days later
3 actually issued a mobilisation instruction. I looked at those documents
4 and assessed that the decisions taken by the Bosnian government were in
5 response to activities in Bijeljina and other areas in Bosnia, not
7 Secondarily, when I looked at the documents, the handwritten
8 notes, the Rahmic diary, the Serb documents themselves, it struck me that
9 the non-Serbs' mobilisation or preparations were not as developed. And I
10 believe I covered that in the report in relation to Prijedor Municipality.
11 Those are the reasons that I didn't include the Bosnian government's
12 decisions. But the main one being, as I've highlighted on a number of
13 occasions, this report and the tasking I was given was in relation to the
14 Bosnian Serb military in Prijedor.
15 Q. All right. So if I were to suggest to you, sir, that your report
16 is not objective because it did not include the fact that 12 days earlier,
17 there was an order stating that there was a state of immediate threat of
18 war and that that certainly impacted or was somehow relevant or as you
19 claim linked to items that were happening throughout that region works I
20 be wrong?
21 MR. CAYLEY: Asked and answered.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Asked and answered, and rhetorical question. And
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Mr. Brown, in your response, you wanted to move away from the
1 issue of enhanced state of readiness. In your report, however, you list
2 that as a separate item from mobilisation. I recognise that on April 6th,
3 as do you, sir, that there was by the Bosnian Muslim government a
4 declaration that they were no longer part of the Former Yugoslavia and
5 actually seceded. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, I believe that is correct.
7 Q. As an objective military analyst, is that significant when placing
8 things in proper context as to what the Serb Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina was doing? To at least identify that date as a
11 A. I can only return to the remit that I was giving in the report and
12 the limitations of it. It relates to Prijedor Municipality. It's not a
13 report charting the political developments of -- all aspects of political
14 developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The reason that I placed the 16th of
15 April documents in there was because I believed it had an impact on events
16 in Prijedor that could be charted through other documentation. I have not
17 included lots of other documentation that may have had an impact in terms
18 of Serb material from 1991 or 1990. So...
19 Q. I want to stick to the 1992 period at the very least in the
20 limited time. And you're right, we should move away from the politics
21 because your remit was not to look at the political situation but only the
22 military. Speaking of military issues, though, are you familiar, sir,
23 that on April 8th, 1992, before any of the items that you list under the
24 caption military preparations relating to Prijedor that, in fact, the
25 presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina enacted a decree
1 abolishing the republican Territorial Defence staff that existed and
2 issued an order to create a new Territorial Defence staff of the Republic
3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina by order and decree, since I think you already know
4 this, 01-011-302/92?
5 A. I am aware of that decree, yes.
6 Q. Are you also, sir -- and it's not in your report. Right?
7 A. It's not in the report, no.
8 Q. It happened before any of the five items that you list on this
9 Power Point presentation in the caption "military preparations relating to
10 Prijedor." Correct?
11 A. It happened prior to the 16th of April, mobilisation of the Serb
12 TO, certainly, yes.
13 Q. And sir, also, are you familiar with the decree with the number
14 01-011-306/92 when there was a decree from the presidency of the Republic
15 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, which unified all armed forces
16 in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, April 9th, 1992?
17 A. I would have to look at that document again. I cannot remember
18 the content of the document and the various reference numbers. But --
19 Q. Generally speaking you recall such a thing. Correct?
20 A. I believe so, yes.
21 Q. Did it happen generally speaking if you can remember before or
22 after the five items that you put on your Power Point presentation
23 "military preparations relating to Prijedor"?
24 A. It happened to be prior to the 15th -- or 15th and 16th of April.
25 Q. Help me with this so I can understand: In keeping it in proper
1 perspective or in proper context, wouldn't that be at the very least
2 relevant in your report? To say that instead of suggesting that the Serbs
3 were creating these movement of units, that the Serbs were creating this
4 mobilisation, that they were enhancing the state of readiness, wouldn't it
5 have been an objective and fair way to state that it was a response to
6 something that was happening within the republic, within the region, less
7 than ten days prior to their pronouncements and decisions?
8 A. I can only return to the answer given you in the past. This was a
9 report relating to the Bosnian Serb military activity in Prijedor
10 Municipality. It may well have been that the 15th of April and 16th of
11 April decisions were done in response to the Bosnian government. But you
12 could go back to why did the Bosnian government feel that it had a need to
13 mobilise? And one of the justifications that they were giving at the time
14 was because of the actions that occurred in Bijeljina.
15 Do you then take what had happened in Bijeljina and go back prior
16 to late March 1992 to another start point? All I can say is that this
17 report was about Bosnian Serb military actions in Prijedor. And in
18 relation to the mobilisation of the non-Serbs, from the documents that I
19 have seen, I do not see a large-scale mobilisation. I see the
20 mobilisation list which appears to have been from May 1992, early May
21 1992, which is a list of names and signatures with a small number of
22 weapons, in comparison to the total numbers on the list.
23 Q. Right. So a reasonable person who wants to give this Chamber an
24 objective military analytical report would have at the very least,
25 wouldn't you agree, Mr. Brown, contact through the Office of the
1 Prosecutor the Bosnian federation individuals and ask them: "Give us the
2 complete list of all the Territorial Defence units that you had in
3 existence in the territory on or around the Prijedor Municipality in
4 1992." Wouldn't you think so?
5 A. If you have those lists, Mr. Ostojic, I'd be happy to make
6 comments on them. I have not seen lists of that sort of material, apart
7 from the ones that I've referenced in my report. I have looked on the
8 databases for them and I have not seen them. If you have that sort of
9 material that you believe might change my assessment or influence it, then
10 I'd be happy to look at it.
11 Q. Thank you. I appreciate that. But I'm asking you whether or not
12 you contacted the Bosnian federation authorities and requested that of
13 them, to give you a complete breakdown of what the Territorial Defence
14 membership was in the Prijedor area in 1992?
15 A. I did not contact the Bosnian federation authorities, and I worked
16 off the material that I obtained during my searching.
17 Q. Let me ask you this: If, as a person who is asked to give a
18 report, and if something is missing, do you follow up? Do you make any
19 inquiries in order to get a complete picture and a proper perspective? Do
20 you ask anyone to fill any gaps with respect to the objectivity of your
21 report or analysis? Or do you simply proceed with weaving the documents
22 that are given to you and coming up with a report such as you did?
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the witness gave us four or five times
24 the basis for his report, and thereby the question is answered.
25 MR. OSTOJIC:
1 Q. With respect to the first item on this Power Point presentation
2 "Weapons Deadlines" sir, do you see it?
3 A. Yes, I do see it.
4 Q. From your analysis, sir, did you determine whether the request to
5 turn in weapons was made exclusively and solely to the Muslim population
6 in the Prijedor area?
7 A. The requests, Your Honours, talk of illegally-held weapons and
8 disarming paramilitary groups. They do not on their own indicate which
9 ethnic group was to be disarmed. But I see no documentary evidence of any
10 Serb or any operation to disarm weapons that may have been held by Serbs.
11 And the operations that took place against predominantly non-Serbs
12 villages in Prijedor were often couched in the phrase "operations to
13 disarm paramilitary groups or seize illegally held weapons." I have seen
14 no documentary evidence that I've looked at that those types of operations
15 were conducted on Serb villages.
16 Q. We'll get to operations, if we can, in a few minutes. My question
17 I thought was precise; probably not, though. Let me try to articulate it
18 in a better fashion so that you and I can both understand it, Mr. Brown.
19 The documentation relating specifically to the first point in your
20 Power Point presentation on the military preparations relating to Prijedor
21 the supporting material for that, sir, does not indicate that the
22 authorities requesting that there be a turn over of weapons, illegal or
23 not, by any specific ethnic group; in fact, it was a general request made
24 by the authorities. Am I correct?
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question was concrete. The answer was
1 concrete. It may not satisfy the Defence, but answered.
2 MR. OSTOJIC:
3 Q. May we turn, sir, to Document Number S342.
4 A. I wonder if you could give me either the footnote reference or the
5 ERN number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Footnote 49.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. Are you with me, Mr. Brown?
9 A. Yes, I am.
10 Q. With respect to this document, sir, you reviewed it, analysed, but
11 for foundational purposes if I may ask you who prepared the document and
12 to whom was it sent?
13 A. The document was a Prijedor SJB report sent to the Banja Luka
14 security services.
15 Q. In that report, sir, it identifies that certain conclusions were
16 made regarding the municipality control. Correct?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. Tell this Court, sir, in your opinion whether or not Dr. Milomir
19 Stakic sat on the Executive Board of the Municipality of Prijedor on or
20 about 1992 at any time.
21 A. I'm unaware whether Dr. Stakic sat on the Executive Board.
22 Q. Do you know, sir, what Dr. Stakic's position was in 1991 or 1992
23 in the Prijedor Municipality?
24 A. Dr. Stakic was head of the Crisis Staff in Prijedor later, in May
25 1992. If you can hold on a second whilst I consult my report.
1 Dr. Stakic was also head of the National Defence Council in
2 Prijedor Municipality. I believe he was head of the municipality, but not
3 the Executive Board.
4 Q. Sir, so that we can be precise, as your report is, in my opinion,
5 can you tell me when you say "head," sir, wasn't there a specific function
6 and title for Dr. Stakic during all those times and in fact, sir, he was
7 never a member of the Executive Board of the Serbian Assembly of
8 Prijedor? Isn't that accurate?
9 A. I believe that was to be the case.
10 Q. And in fact, the government of the Prijedor Municipality was run
11 by, controlled by and from the Executive Board, and not the general
12 opstina skupstine as we have identified it here from time to time.
14 A. I'm unaware of the workings of various levels of government in
15 that respect.
16 Q. And that's because your remit was not to go into that political
17 structure. Correct?
18 A. That's correct, yes.
19 Q. Let me ask you this: Since your report seems to span from 1991 to
20 1992, you're familiar with the late Mr. Cehajic, are you not? As to who
21 he was and what function he played in the Prijedor Municipality?
22 A. I'm not aware of the details. My report spans 1991 only because
23 certain units in Prijedor were in Croatia, and --
24 Q. Very well.
25 A. -- that had an impact in relation to their deployment, their
1 combat readiness, and their exposure. Mr. Cehajic, I know, was a
2 political figure in Prijedor Municipality, and it was not within the remit
3 of my report to conduct any analysis in that respect.
4 Q. Help me with this, though, because you use the word influence, and
5 I apologise if I'm speaking fast in connection with some of the civilian
6 authorities. In April, specifically the dates we were talking about,
7 April 4th, when this decree from Alija Izetbegovic regarding the immediate
8 threat of war; April 6th, when there was the secession from the Bosnian
9 federation, and maybe I should write this down; April 8th, the decree we
10 read in connection with the Territorial Defence; April 9th, the
11 unification of the army forces.
12 Tell me, sir, if you can, and I accept the fact that the late
13 Mr. Cehajic was a political figure in the municipality of Prijedor in
14 April of 1992. Tell me in your opinion as an analyst what influence, if
15 any, he would have relating to any one of those decrees, declarations, and
16 orders issued by the federal or republic governments?
17 A. I can only answer what I've asked -- answered already. It was not
18 within the remit of my report to look at the political structures and
19 their functioning within Prijedor Municipality. The references that I
20 have used relate to military actions or military issues. So that's all I
21 can say.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I think that's all we have, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
25 Are there any questions longer than five minutes?
1 MR. CAYLEY: I have about 15 minutes, Your Honour, of questions to
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we should have the break now. But before
4 going into the break, please recall that already yesterday and today, and
5 before, I asked for some supporting material on the VP number 8316. This
6 should be ready after the break.
7 MR. CAYLEY: With your permission, Your Honour, what I intended to
8 do was to do the re-examination and then I have the package of material
9 that you asked for which I was going to put in at the end.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The trial stands adjourned until
12 --- Recess taken at 10.55 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may interrupt.
17 MR. CAYLEY: I'm sorry, Mr. Ostojic, we did agree.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's good to know for the Judges that the
19 parties agree, so please start.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd like to get my version of the -- Your Honour,
21 earlier when we were cross-examining Mr. Brown, we identified a document
22 that we did not have sufficient copies for the Court. With your
23 permission, if the usher would be kind enough to tender it to the Court
24 and the parties, and we would move that this document be admitted into
25 evidence under the next D number, which I think is D29 if I'm not
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're extremely correct. D29. Objections?
3 MR. CAYLEY: No objections, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, D29. And at the same
5 time, I have to correct myself on today's transcript as it reads related
6 to our scheduling order, J18. Correct would be J17. Sorry for this.
7 Re-examination by Mr. Cayley:
8 MR. CAYLEY: May I proceed, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Brown, I don't have many questions for you. You were asked
10 earlier today about military activity in the villages of Hambarine and
11 Kozarac in May of 1992. Do you recall that series of questions?
12 A. Yes, Your Honour, I do.
13 Q. Am I right in saying that that, those matters, the attack on
14 Hambarine and Kozarac, were addressed in your report from pages 22 to 27?
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. Now, you have already made it very clear both on
17 examination-in-chief and cross-examination that this report is exclusively
18 documentary based. And the question I have for you is in respect of your
19 analysis of events in Hambarine and Kozarac. What is the source for all
20 of those documents that you relied upon for the attack in Hambarine and
21 Kozarac, in the majority?
22 A. Significant number of military documents, Your Honour, and a
23 number of police-related documents as well. But Serb police and military
25 Q. Would it be correct to say that they are all Serb police and
1 military material? Is there any other material that you used in making
2 your report on these -- on military activities in these two villages?
3 A. I believe in relation to the section you've quoted, I think there
4 are all police and military documents. There are a number of open-source
5 documents I believe that may reflect some activity of the units in those
6 areas. But I believe within the section that you've quoted, I think they
7 are all police and military documents.
8 Q. Serb police and military documents?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. We can move on. Yesterday, you were asked a series of questions
11 relating to the authority of local political figures over the police and
12 the military. Do you recall that series of questioning?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And just for the purposes of the record and to assist Mr. Ostojic,
15 these matters are referred to on page 87, 88, 90, 91. And in particular,
16 I think you'll recall it was put to you that there was absolutely no
17 command responsibility as it relates to Dr. Stakic in either the military
18 and/or the police right. Do you recall that question?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. I want to show you a series of documents which are exhibits in
21 this case very briefly.
22 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's
23 Exhibit 71, please.
24 Madam Registrar, if we could have ready 72 and 114, and then we
25 could move quite quickly.
1 Q. It's a brief document, Mr. Brown. I've tried to select documents
2 for your examination that are brief. Can you read that document through.
3 A. Would you like me to put it on the ELMO?
4 Q. Yes, could you put it on the ELMO. I don't think there's any
5 particular need to read it through. I would imagine that these documents
6 are already --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: They have been read out.
8 MR. CAYLEY:
9 Q. So there's no necessity. Looking at that document, in your
10 opinion, what does it appear to be?
11 A. It appears to be a document that references the work of the Crisis
12 Staff, and in particular Article 7, and in relation to that article, it
13 instructs the chief of police and Slobodan Kuruzovic to coordinate
14 security at Prijedor hospital and to report on that if the -- the
15 following morning, or sorry, the following meeting.
16 Q. And paragraph 2 refers to that instruction as an order, doesn't
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Q. And who apparently is this document signed by?
20 A. Dr. Stakic, president of the Crisis Staff.
21 Q. If we could now please look at Prosecutor's Exhibit 72, if you can
22 read it through and let me know when you've read it through. You don't
23 need to read it out loud.
24 A. I've read it.
25 Q. Can you give your opinion as an analyst on what this document
1 purports to be.
2 A. It also quotes the organisation and work of the Prijedor
3 Municipality Crisis Staff order which we've discussed over the last few
4 days. And it's an order to the police to check a particular neighbourhood
5 in order to prevent people moving in without authorisation.
6 Q. Who is it apparently signed by?
7 A. Again, it's president of the Crisis Staff, Dr. Stakic.
8 Q. Can we now, please, look at Prosecutor's Exhibit 114. Again, sir,
9 if you could just quickly read this document through - again, don't read
10 it out loud - and then let me know when you've read it.
11 A. With a brief overview, it appears to be a document from the
12 Prijedor police to the Crisis Staff informing the Crisis Staff that
13 various conclusions are being implemented or observed.
14 Q. Conclusions from whom?
15 A. From the Crisis Staff.
16 Q. Taking those three documents together that we've just looked at,
17 the two orders, this document referencing that conclusions are being
18 observed by the police, what is your opinion on the command relationship
19 between the police and the Crisis Staff in Prijedor based on these three
21 A. That the Crisis Staff were issuing instructions and orders to the
22 police and that Prijedor police were implementing these instructions and
23 referring back to those two instruction that they had observed.
24 Q. When you say "observed," that they had received from the Crisis
25 Staff in Prijedor. Correct?
1 A. Yes, it would appear so from these documents.
2 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's
3 Exhibit 79, please.
4 THE REGISTRAR: If I could remind the speakers to pause between
5 questions and answer.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Brown, can you read this document through, and again tell me
8 when you've read it.
9 A. Yes, I've read it.
10 Q. Can you tell us briefly what this document purports to be.
11 A. This is a Crisis Staff document, again, referring to articles on
12 the decision and organisation on the work of the Crisis Staff in
13 Prijedor. And it's an order to the Prijedor police and Prijedor regional
14 command ordering them to form a joint intervention platoon and other
15 instructions relating to that, and that they were to report on the
16 activities of this intervention platoon.
17 Q. Do you have your slide show on, or is it switched off?
18 A. I switched it off and deleted it from the computer unfortunately.
19 Q. You've caught me out there, Mr. Brown. Can you put page 4 of the
20 hard copy.
21 A. This is the slide on the SDS takeover?
22 Q. No, sorry. It's the one just before that, on the VRS command
24 Now, the document that you have just been referring to, 79, refers
25 to Prijedor regional command. Can you point out Prijedor regional command
1 for us.
2 A. It's indicated here.
3 Q. So the intermediate command between the 1st Krajina Corps and 43rd
4 Motorised Brigade, 5th Kozara Brigade, and the TO units later, the light
5 infantry brigades within Prijedor. Correct?
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. Let's go back to the document momentarily. Now, this document
8 states "order." Correct?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 Q. Who is it signed by apparently?
11 A. President of the Crisis Staff, Dr. Milomir Stakic.
12 Q. If the witness could now be shown, please, Prosecutor's
13 Exhibit 111.
14 Now, Mr. Brown, this is a document that you had previously
15 referred to, but I just want to show it to you to have you look at it and
16 explain. Again, what does this appear to be?
17 A. This is a reference in the Official Gazette of a decision of the
18 29th of May, Prijedor Municipal Crisis Staff stating that Slobodan
19 Kuruzovic, commander of the Territorial Defence, was relieved of his
20 duties and placed under the command of the region. And that it was to be
21 implemented forthwith.
22 Q. And if you look on the original, though, it's not actually signed,
23 the signature block is that of whom?
24 A. Dr. Milomir Stakic, president, Crisis Staff.
25 Q. And then, sir, the last document that I'd like you to look at,
1 which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 116, again, this is a lengthy document.
2 It's the only one unfortunately that was quite lengthy. But if you could
3 just look it over, and it's actually the titles that interest me in
4 particular, a summary of conclusions, orders, and decisions adopted.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: I object to the form of the question. I think the
6 document doesn't have quite as Mr. Cayley suggests, although I'm sure it
7 was an inadvertent mistake on his part to include the word a summary of
8 conclusions and orders.
9 MR. CAYLEY: My apologies. Mr. Ostojic is quite right. Actually,
10 it does say that further down. If you go to the next -- the bottom of the
11 first page, it says a summary of conclusions, orders, and decisions.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the witness is waiting for your
14 MR. CAYLEY:
15 Q. Sorry. Did you have an opportunity to look at the document,
16 Mr. Brown?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. Can you very briefly in your normal, objective, conservative
19 style, briefly explain what this document is?
20 A. It would appear to be what it says on face value, which is a
21 summary of decisions relating to police and military issues adopted by the
22 executive committee; and at the bottom, conclusions, orders, and decisions
23 adopted by the Crisis Staff in relation to the SJB and regional command
24 between the periods annotated.
25 Q. In summary, reviewing this document and the last two documents
1 that I've referred to, the Kuruzovic document, and the Formation of the
2 Intervention Platoon document, what conclusions can you draw from those
3 three documents?
4 A. That the Prijedor command was in a position to be able to issue
5 orders, decisions, and conclusions that affected the work of the regional
6 command and the police.
7 Q. You just said that the Prijedor command was in a position to --
8 A. I'm sorry. The Prijedor Crisis Staff. And from this particular
9 document, the Prijedor municipal executive committee.
10 Q. Were in a position to do what? I'm sorry, just for the purposes
11 of the record to get this straight.
12 A. Were able to or in a position to issue conclusions, orders, and
13 decisions in relation to the regional command and the SJB.
14 Q. What about the Territorial Defence?
15 A. There are references, the document you've just shown us in
16 relation to Kuruzovic, that they could do that with the Territorial
17 Defence as well.
18 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I have got no further questions for
19 the witness. But I know there are a series of documents that you wish to
20 be put into the dossier. I would actually ask, if I may, and if there are
21 no objections from the Defence to put a hard copy of the slide show into
22 evidence, unless that has been done already.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the slide show forms part of the report,
24 doesn't it?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: It does not, Your Honour. But we have no objection
1 to the Power Point presentation being admitted into evidence. However, if
2 I may, with the Court's permission, if I can just ask a couple questions
3 of the witness based upon the redirect examination.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe you can wait until you have also, if any,
5 Judges' questions included.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Of course.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the hard copies of this slide show should
8 follow the report as such, adding just -1. That would be?
9 THE REGISTRAR: S340-1.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Admitted into evidence.
11 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, the point Mr. Ostojic has just raised,
12 recross-examination is something which in principle I object to.
13 Re-examination is a process which basically is a product of the questions
14 that Mr. Ostojic has asked. And in my respectful submission to the Court,
15 that is the end of it, apart from Judges' questions. Mr. Ostojic cannot
16 now go back and start pecking away at matters that I have put to the
18 Mr. Ostojic knew very well that the documents I put to the witness
19 were in the dossier. He could have put as a foundation for his questions
20 to the witness those documents which were in his possession which actually
21 demonstrate completely opposite of what he was putting to the witness.
22 And I don't think it's right that he should be able to ask further
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Would the Court like to hear our argument on what
25 Mr. Cayley --
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no, no. Step by step. I'm still waiting
2 for some documents, especially the one related to this number 8316, I
3 believe it was.
4 MR. CAYLEY: I have those, Your Honour. The first -- now, again,
5 I have the shorter list which includes that. The first document was a
6 document that you referred to. It was the daily notes of the operative
7 officer within the 5th JNA corps to which the witness made reference
8 regarding a note of the takeover of Prijedor Municipality on the 30th of
9 April of 1992. That was a document that you said that you would wish to
10 refer to. So if I can offer that document into evidence.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That is 1036.033, right?
12 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?
14 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S362.
16 MR. CAYLEY: The next matter, Your Honour, is that you had asked
17 me in respect of Exhibit S141, which are the minutes of the 16th assembly
18 meeting. You had stated that that document was only partially admitted
19 into evidence, and you had asked me to identify the pages to which the
20 witness had referred to. And I can do that. They are pages 13, 14, and
21 15, and 59 and 60 of the English translation.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: First question. Objections? This is from the
23 Official Gazette.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: If I understand Mr. Cayley correct, Your Honour, is
25 he just introducing those certain portions for a second time, because I
1 think the practice, if I may, was to have a completeness so that the
2 entirety of it. But for highlighting purposes in his report, I have no
3 objection to those documents being marked and included within Mr. Brown's
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When we can read the valued report of the
6 registry, then you could find that under S141 we had only four portions
7 until now. So this would be a third portion of S141, 3A and B
8 respectively. Do we agree on this?
9 Once again, I learned that I was already one number ahead. The
10 last document, indeed, this volume was 361, not S362. Once again, sorry.
11 MR. CAYLEY: The next matter, Your Honour, is that you had
12 requested to see the original and inspect S84, which I have here. I don't
13 know whether you wish to do that now or...
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the usher could be so kind and present it
15 first to the Defence and then to the Judges.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask, we are discussing both sides of these
18 documents? Apparently, there are two documents on two sides of the same.
19 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Yes, Your Honour, that is the original of that
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So for clarification, admitted into evidence,
22 both sides of the same document. Are there any comments on these special
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: I have two comments. On both occasions, Mr. Cayley
2 mischaracterised it as being the original. For purposes of clarity in our
3 record, these are not originals. I know we have struggled from time to
4 time to identify documents that are considered either copies or originals
5 from copies. I just object to that characterisation because I think in
6 the signature block on one side, the signature is absolutely not there.
7 And the signature on the other side, it seems to be a copy of the original
8 print, although I'm not a forensic handwriting comparative analysis
9 expert. I think that may have been discussed by Mr. ten Camp in his
10 previous testimony. I object to the mischaracterisation by Mr. Cayley in
11 connection with these documents.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we agree that we have a document before us
13 where we can read -- where we can see on both sides a blue stamp, and that
14 we can read on this being a copy, we saw it the best possible original,
15 even if it may be a copy only, and that on the top of the page, we can
16 read written by ink some notes on this document.
17 Can we agree on this basis?
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Although our comments since the Court invited us
21 with respect to limited -- with respect to this document is that we would
22 like to find the sourcing of it, number one, which I think we've already
23 established; but number two, some information as to how is it possible
24 that there would be a copied signature followed by an original stamp. And
25 I'm only stating that for the record so that it's clear when we are
1 discussing this S84 that it's clear on this document, at the very least
2 from my observation, there's a copy, a signature that seems to be copied
3 but yet with an original stamp.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Point also on documents issued by this Tribunal,
5 copy but then added with an original stamp. I think there's nothing
6 special with this. But for the list of exhibits, it should be included
7 that both sides of this are admitted. And I'm afraid, we have only one
8 side copied until now. And I would appreciate if we could get, once
9 again, colour copies from both sides of this document.
10 From both sides? It's already from... Yes, I can see it from
11 here. Okay. Thank you. Just for this clarification.
12 MR. CAYLEY: The next matter, Mr. President, is the document that
13 you requested, which is the 8316 Prijedor Territorial Defence document.
14 And if I can offer that. Do you wish me to put this in front of the
15 witness just to confirm this is the document?
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.
17 MR. CAYLEY: I would just add, Mr. President, at the moment that
18 is a draft translation, and we are seeking an authorised translation. But
19 for the immediate benefit of the Court, we had that done. But we are
20 getting an official translation.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May it be presented to the Defence, and then to
22 the Judges as well.
23 S361. Correct?
24 THE REGISTRAR: S362, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 362. Thank you.
1 MR. CAYLEY: And then next, Your Honour, you wished to see, and
2 I'll be careful about using this word original, the order of the 6th
3 Krajina Brigade is a photographic copy. It is the best original that we
4 have. As I think I explained yesterday, this is a document that was
5 photocopied, and the original returned to the Bosnian government. So if I
6 can show that to the Defence and Your Honours.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd like to address the Court, if I may, on this
8 document, although I'm not sure whether the Court would rather that you
9 have the document before you before I make my --
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be excellent if we would know what it's
12 Please, Mr. Ostojic.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Mr. Cayley indicates in his remarks in connection with this
15 document that the original was purportedly returned to the Bosnian
16 government. As the Court can plainly see on the first page of the
17 document where it discusses the 6th Partizan Brigade, if I recall
18 correctly, the number 6 is handwritten in there, and my question is
19 whether or not the original document had the 6 on it handwritten in there
20 or if in the interim a handwritten number 6 was placed on it. And I think
21 for purposes of the record, when Mr. Cayley identifies a document that he
22 simply doesn't identify the document in the manner that would suggest it's
23 all typewritten script. These documents from the Defence's perspective
24 are being called into question because of the additional handwriting
25 materials provided on the document. And we also have, we think, on the
1 second page issues with respect to the authenticity of the signature as
2 well as the stamp, if I recall correctly, appearing on the page. So those
3 would be our objections, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The document was already admitted into
5 evidence. We appreciate your comments and take it into account.
6 MR. CAYLEY: And then lastly, Your Honour, you will recall that
7 the witness -- I think you asked the witness a number of questions about
8 this document because there were concerns about its authenticity. And he
9 stated to you that he had corroborated it through other original sources,
10 and he referred to a footnote in that respect. And I haven't got both of
11 them; I have just simply got one of them which he used to corroborate that
12 document. And if I could show that to the witness.
13 Q. Just simply, Mr. Brown, is that one of the documents that you were
14 referring to that you had used to corroborate the 6th Partizan Brigade
15 document in your report?
16 A. Yes, it is, Your Honours. It's one of the documents that
17 indicates operations in the Carakovo and other areas. And it's from the
18 1st Krajina Corps collection.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it the intention to tender this as it appears
20 only now as Footnote 142.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'd like to tender it as an exhibit,
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?
24 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Madam Registrar, please correct me, would it be
1 S362? S363, admitted into evidence.
2 MR. CAYLEY: I think that concludes the administrative matters,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe I have overlooked something. I'm still
5 fighting with a deluge of documents provided because we are grateful to
6 have the basis for your expertise. But I recall that there was a document
7 presented yesterday on these VP numbers where in handwriting it was added
8 this 8316.
9 MR. CAYLEY: That is the document, Your Honour, that I just
10 presented to you a moment ago which actually has the handwritten TO 8316.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. But please recall that there were some
13 doubts and, to the best of the my recollection, the witness said "I
14 believe this is it" or whatever he said. And we needed some clarification
15 on this. And may I ask Mr. Brown directly, could you come closer to that
16 what brought you to the conclusion that there is this link between 8316
17 and Prijedor?
18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the document which has just been
19 tendered in relation to the equipment supply indicates that one TAM truck
20 with -- was to be provided to TO 8316 Prijedor. And I believe 8316
21 Prijedor is indicated on the distribution list of that document. I think
22 that's the document dated some time in February 1992.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The document S362, there it reads in paragraph 3
24 under 2: "Prijedor TO, 8316 will take over the mobile workshop fixed on a
25 track..." and so on. And this is the basis for your conclusion, that 8316
1 is the Prijedor TO.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
4 May I ask, Judge Fassi Fihri, do you have any additional
6 Judge Vassylenko.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Mr. Brown, I would like you to help us to
9 properly understand the development and the outcome of engagement in the
10 area of Kozarac village between 25th and 27th of May, 1992.
11 According to the report of the 1st Krajina Corps command of May
12 27th, 1992, the participants of this -- it's in Exhibit Number S350, ERN
13 number 00938549. According to this report, the participants of this
14 engagement were, on the one hand, the 343 Motorised Brigade, an enlarged
15 motorised battalion supported by two Horitzer batteries and one tank
16 squadron. On the other hand, the Green Beret, numbering 15 to 20.000 men
17 without heavy weapons. What was numerical strength of the Serb forces?
18 Can you tell us, approximately.
19 A. Your Honour, I can't specifically state what the exact numeric
20 strength of either a reinforced motorised battalion from the brigade was.
21 The 343rd Motorised Brigade by late May consisted, I believe, of nearly
22 5.000 men, and that comes from figures in military documentation of the
23 Corps. A motorized battalion can vary, and I wouldn't want to quote
24 figures from the battalion where the documentations don't make it clear.
25 There were a number of battalions within the brigade, so it's a
1 subordination of the brigade. The two 105-millimetre howitzer batteries I
2 would assess consisted of around 12 individual 105 millimetre howitzer
3 guns. It was in the JNA that there were about six individual guns within
4 a battery. I can't tell you the number of personnel that would be manning
5 those two batteries.
6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Approximately.
7 A. I'm unable I think to give you specific numbers. I would imagine
8 that the motorised battalion would run into hundreds of soldiers. It could
9 be anything up to a thousand soldiers, a battalion. The 5th Brigade --
10 sorry the 343rd Brigade was a very large brigade indeed, in comparison to
11 many other brigades of the core. The M-84 tank platoon normally consists
12 of about four tanks, four individual tanks, and with their composite crews
13 of about four or five.
14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And then which participating side was
15 attacking, and which one was in the defence?
16 A. The 343rd Brigade was attacking the area.
17 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Now, according to the military theory and
18 practice of armed conflicts, what is normal average, approximate ratio, of
19 casualties in land warfare engagements when one adversary is attacking
20 another who is in defensive position?
21 A. This is a very difficult question for me to answer with a lot of
22 specificity. However, attacking in a semi-urban area often is not the
23 preferred terrain for a military to attack because the advantage is
24 normally with the defender. Semi-urban or urban areas can very easily be
25 defended by military units. It can be very time consuming to clear
1 semi-urban or urban environments. And from my own experience in the
2 military, it is one of the most time consuming, demanding, logistically
3 draining operations the military can involve itself in. The advantage is
4 always with the defender, and from my own training, the attacker normally
5 suffers significant casualties.
6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And why in this -- the report states that --
7 the document, the Exhibit Number S350, that Serbian casualties were five
8 killed and 20 wounded, and the Green Beret casualties were 100 - 200
9 persons, 80 - 100 Green Berets were killed. How to explain it? So army
10 of Republika Srpska invented new radical methods of warfare or used?
11 A. Your Honour, I don't believe for that type of terrain that the
12 casualty figures for the Serb military were particularly high. I can only
13 assess that the defence was not particularly robust or effective, and that
14 an area which is semi-urbanised was -- the control of that area was taken
15 over very quickly, adding to my assessment that the defence was very weak.
16 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: I have no more questions.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following on the customs in this courtroom, we
18 just before conferred. It's now for the defence to discuss, or to put
19 additional questions emanating from the Judges' questions, but also from
20 those put forward by the OTP. And no doubt, if necessary, it's then for
21 the OTP. I think in this environment, and especially with our mandate to
22 come as close as possible to the truth, we should discuss the issues until
23 both parties are satisfied.
24 Please, Mr. Ostojic.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Further cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:
2 Q. Mr. Brown, help me with this: From a military standpoint when you
3 state on page 51, lines 18 through 19, when the Honourable Court asked you
4 the question, you answered in part that it would be "very time consuming
5 to clear semi-urban and urban environment." When you say "clear," sir,
6 doesn't that mean militarily speaking, and only militarily speaking,
7 mopping up?
8 A. When I used the word "clear," I mean from my own perspective when
9 I was serving in the military, would be to take control of the territory
10 and kill or destroy the enemy that were defending it.
11 Q. If I can direct your attention, with the assistance of the usher,
12 to Exhibit 71 which we talked about.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour, while madam usher is
14 presenting that exhibit just so I get my question and Mr. Brown can digest
16 Q. Sir, tell me if you know, if a hospital in a municipality, where
17 there are injured, wounded citizens from the municipality, and if someone
18 were to call to have security placed in that hospital so that those that
19 are being treated for their wounds can be adequately provided the
20 security, is that a link under your definition for responsibility? And as
21 you see specifically Exhibit S71 discusses providing security for a
22 hospital, does it not?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Is there anything wrong with individuals, including political
25 individuals, calling the police and asking them to provide security to a
1 public institution?
2 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I object to this line of questioning.
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Is that bad?
5 MR. CAYLEY: The witness is not here to say whether or not an
6 order is good or bad. We are looking at this in respect of whether or not
7 it's an order, whether this has a directive instruction within it. It has
8 nothing to do with the goodness or badness of what is being requested.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.
10 MR. OSTOJIC:
11 Q. Let me turn your attention to Exhibit S72. And because -- let me
12 make sure I have this right, because I would hate to misquote things
13 here. You being a "normal, objective, conservative person," can you read
14 S72 and as you say in your response to that question of your style,
15 Mr. Brown, that from the face of it you can make an assessment.
16 From the face of S72, in your normal, objective, and conservative
17 style, can you tell me whether or not that is with regard to the search of
18 Muslim citizens, Serb citizens, Croat citizens, or other citizens within
19 the Prijedor Municipality, or does it, based upon a normal, objective
20 conservative style, on its face, it really discusses all the citizens of
21 Prijedor Municipality?
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness has answered this question already
23 several times.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Let me direct your attention to S79, if I may. As a provision
1 while the madam usher is providing you a copy of that. I'm sure you can
2 recall the document. You rely on it. You have just reviewed it when
3 Mr. Cayley was asking you questions. It's one of basic tasks, I think,
4 one of the words that's presented in that document. Correct?
5 A. Yes. The phrase "basic task" is contained within this document.
6 Q. Anywhere within that document when it was ordered to take care of
7 a basic task which is specifically set forth there such as preventing
8 looting or other criminal activities, does it suggest anywhere within that
9 document, sir, that that is a request to prevent Muslims from looting or
10 Muslims from performing criminal activities, or does it, sir, actually
11 reflect that the civil authorities wanted to preserve some order of a
12 semblance of peace, an order that there should be a prevention of looting
13 and other criminal activities as it relates to all the citizens of
14 Prijedor? And tell me if you can, keeping it in your normal, objective,
15 conservative style.
16 A. The order at face value, as it's written, makes no distinction but
17 is an order to the police and to the regional command to form a joint
18 intervention platoon with the basic task of preventing looting and other
19 criminal activities in the municipality.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can see no further questions. This concludes
22 your testimony. Thank you for -- I have to thank you for preparing the
23 report and patiently answering all the questions from both sides. Thank
24 you very much.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're excused. And may I ask madam usher to
2 escort the witness out of the courtroom.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me take the opportunity as regards the
5 remaining one and a half day scheduling. There are two options: Either
6 we do the necessary technical work, that is, first of all, admission into
7 evidence of some additional documents and all the remaining points on the
8 agenda today in the presence of the three Judges, save the parties would
9 agree that this can be done tomorrow in the presence of two Judges only
10 and, furthermore, if necessary, even tomorrow in the afternoon if it
11 should be necessary to extend the hearing until afternoon, which I don't
12 hope it will be necessary.
13 So would you, (a), consent to do this in the presence of two
14 Judges; and (b), if necessary, to extend the 15 bis rule on tomorrow
15 afternoon as well?
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: We will consent. We have no objection to that
18 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence consents to the manner of proceeding as
19 the Court suggests.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this. Then we can proceed with
21 the next witness. And this will be?
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Mr. Corin.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No protective --
24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Dr. Corin.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No protective measures?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: No.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, you'll excuse me now from the Court.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, while the witness is coming in, we
5 distributed today a spreadsheet -- it's our intention. It actually is an
6 updated and corrected version of a document we distributed earlier which I
7 indicate I had some reservations about. It has since been rechecked and a
8 few corrections made and put into an order, I think, which is much more
9 user friendly in that all the documents are ordered by the S number. I
10 believe that was S291. Is that right?
11 296. May this spreadsheet be substituted for S296, the previous
12 version? This is the more accurate and updated version.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think, for clarity, it is better to have it as
14 S296-1, what we are discussing. Thank you.
15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just for the record, we do not vouch for the
16 accuracy of the earlier version, and I think I indicated at the time that
17 I had some reservations.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. Only that we know what we are
19 discussing, the former or the latter.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Dr. Corin.
22 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before starting, may we please hear your solemn
24 declaration. Would you please stand up.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Please be seated.
3 And Mr. Koumjian, the floor is yours.
4 WITNESS: ANDREW CORIN
5 Examined by Mr. Koumjian:
6 Q. Channel 4 is English, Doctor.
7 Dr. Corin, would you please tell the Court what is your current
9 A. I am currently employed by the Office of the Prosecutor of the
10 ICTY as a research officer.
11 Q. How long have you worked for the Office of the Prosecutor?
12 A. I have worked for the Office of the Prosecutor continuously since
13 February of the year 2001. Prior to that time, I worked on a temporary
14 basis between June of 1999 and December of the same year, and again
15 between June of the year 2000 and February of the year 2001. At that
16 earlier period, I was employed here temporarily as I was on leave from my
17 position at the University of California at Los Angeles.
18 Q. Doctor, I'd like to briefly go through your educational
19 background. Can you tell us if you have an undergraduate degree and from
20 where you obtained that.
21 A. I have the diploma, which is approximately equivalent to a
22 bachelor's degree, from the faculty of philology at the University of
24 Q. In addition to this degree, did you do any graduate studies? And
25 if so, tell us where and when you obtained a diploma.
1 A. I pursued graduate study at the University of California, Los
2 Angeles in the department of Slavic languages and literatures. I received
3 the degree of master of arts in the year 1979. I continued on and
4 received the degree of doctor of philosophy in the year 1986 in the same
6 Q. What languages do you speak?
7 A. My native language is English. I regularly speak in my home life
8 in what we used to call Serbo-Croatian and what we in this institution
9 refer to Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. I speak Russian. And with
10 ever-decreasing fluency can occasionally make myself understood in a
11 number of other languages including French, German, a variety of Slavic
13 Q. Since you mentioned your home life, can you tell us where your
14 spouse is from.
15 A. My spouse is from the Former Yugoslavia, precisely from the
16 Vojvodina region.
17 Q. Dr. Corin, were you given a request to prepare a report for this
18 Court in answer from a request from the Bench from the Judges?
19 A. Yes, I did receive such a request.
20 Q. And did you prepare that report originally dated the 5th of
21 September, 2002, "Characteristics of a Corpus of Documents Associated with
22 the Name of Milomir Stakic", and have you recently submitted an updated
23 version correcting a few minor errors.
24 A. I did produce the report dated 5th of September, and I did
25 recently submit the slightly updated version.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, may the report be admitted into
2 evidence, given an exhibit number.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, please correct me, S364.
5 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
7 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe, to put the correct date on the record,
8 it's dated the 25th of September, 2002.
9 And I'm sorry, Your Honour, apparently it already has an exhibit
10 number, Ms. Karper tells me, of S295. But that apparently was the earlier
11 version, so perhaps we should keep this number for the 25th of September
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That we have a kind of system, I think the
14 updated version should go as S259-1. What about the CV? Separately?
15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sure. May that be marked. We have copies. I
16 believe the Court already has it.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the CV would be S364, but we have exhausted
18 this number. Okay.
19 MR. KOUMJIAN:
20 Q. Dr. Corin, in addition to preparing --
21 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry to interrupt. But S295-1 was already
22 attributed to an attachment to the report previously submitted. So
23 therefore the report dated 25 September should be S295-3? 2.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [No microphone]
25 MR. KOUMJIAN:
1 Q. Dr. Corin, in addition to preparing the report, did you assist in
2 the preparation of a document that has now been given the exhibit number
3 S296-1 that I'm holding in my hands, Milomir Stakic, authorship of
4 decisions, orders, and conclusions and other documents?
5 A. I did assist in the preparation of such a document.
6 Q. And in fact, was it -- did you prepare the column "original
7 document" based upon reviewing the copies of the documents in evidence?
8 A. I did --
9 Q. Let me clarify when I say "in evidence," the best copy that's
10 available to the OTP, that which the evidence unit had?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you also supervise some other individuals on the team who
13 were preparing or checking on this document?
14 A. I did. On an occasional basis, but yes.
15 Q. Doctor, I do not want to go through all of the details of your
16 report, but just highlight several of the major conclusions. In order to
17 understand your task, did you actually review a transcript of His Honour
18 Judge Schomburg's request regarding an analysis of the documents?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Following the review of that transcript, did you formulate the
21 request into five separate -- I believe it's five separate questions?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. Going to the first question indicated in your report, did you
24 attempt to study the documents in order to determine whether they could be
25 linked through any type of referencing within a document or to other
1 documents in this group that you examined?
2 A. I did. My result, briefly, would be that in many instances, yes,
3 this is possible.
4 Q. And how were documents linked by -- between each other? In what
5 manner did you observe links?
6 A. In many of these documents, we find reference numbers which
7 presumably identify this document as opposed to all other documents.
8 Where a document has a reference number, usually this reference number is
9 similar to the reference numbers found in some other documents. When this
10 is the case, the groups of documents which have similar reference numbers
11 have these reference numbers form a sequence, usually with gaps but
12 nevertheless what seemed to be parts of a recognisable sequence.
13 Beyond this linking through the sequences of reference numbers,
14 there were some instances in which we find one document of this corpus of
15 documents that I was examining which contains references to other
16 documents within this same corpus of documents. This is especially and
17 primarily the case in regard to the document which, if I recall correctly,
18 bears the 65 ter number 297.
19 Q. Okay. And just for the record, that is S250.
20 Is that the document that you refer to in your -- did you give it
21 a name in your report, that particular document?
22 A. In my report, I refer to this document as the "confirmation
23 document." Now, perhaps I should point out at this moment, I realise that
24 in the accompanying annex, I see that it is referred to as a confirming
25 rather than confirmation document. The reference is to the same item.
1 Q. You mentioned the sequence of numbers. Was there anything in the
2 documents that you examined that could lead you to conclude that there
3 perhaps were orders or conclusions that you did not or that the OTP did
4 not have?
5 A. Yes. There were considerable gaps in the sequences of reference
6 numbers on the documents in the corpus that I was analysing. It quickly
7 became clear to me that many documents, or perhaps many acts, bearing
8 intervening reference numbers could be seen -- could be found published in
9 the Official Gazette of the Prijedor Municipality. It also became clear
10 that some acts which appear to be identical or very, very similar to those
11 represented in the corpus are also published in the Official Gazette, with
12 usually the same reference number.
13 Q. Is it correct that even in the Official Gazette, there appears to
14 be some gaps in the numbering indicating that, for whatever reason, some
15 documents were not published?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. You mentioned the confirmation document. Can you just give a very
18 quick description of that document.
19 A. This is a document of, as I recall, I believe 14 pages, 13 or 14
20 pages. It consists of I would say three major parts. The first is an
21 introduction stating that this, what will follow, is a list of acts of the
22 Crisis Staff and war presidency of the municipality of Prijedor which are
23 being or which will be submitted for confirmation or verification to the
24 Municipal Assembly of the Prijedor Municipality. This is followed by the
25 list in question. And at the end of this document, we find what appears
1 to be a proposed Municipal Assembly decision confirming or verifying the
2 acts on the list.
3 Q. In addition to the documents being linked to each other by
4 reference numbers or to the confirmation document, did you see other
5 indications that documents that, for example, appeared to be signed, that
6 there was other evidence that these, in fact, were documents that had been
7 officially adopted?
8 A. There were, if I recall correctly, two at least documents of the
9 Crisis Staff to which reference is made in the newspaper Kozarski
10 Vjesnik. Furthermore, a number of Municipal Assembly acts, which appear
11 to be present in our corpus of documents in draft form, are referred to in
12 the newspaper Kozarski Vjesnik in reference to a Municipal Assembly
13 session which, as I recall, took place on 27 August, 1992.
14 Q. You mentioned documents that appear to you to be in draft form.
15 Is that because some of them did not have a complete number or signature
16 or stamp?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On any of these documents, did you observe any evidence from your
19 review of the Official Gazette that these decisions had been adopted
21 A. I did, indeed. I've provided in the report a list of those draft
22 documents which appear later to have been adopted by the Prijedor
23 Municipal Assembly. In some cases, they appear to have been adopted in
24 exactly the form in which we find them in our draft documents; in some
25 instances, they appear to have been amended between the time that the
1 drafts were prepared and the time when the act in question was finally
3 Q. I want to move on to the second question addressed in your
4 report. Did you form an opinion as to whether there was a consistency or
5 identity of language and terminology used in the versions of the documents
6 that were -- that you read?
7 A. I did reach such a conclusion. The language in all of these
8 documents is what I can refer to as standard western Serbian, bearing in
9 mind that terminology referring to this language or languages has itself
10 been in a state of flux over the last, especially the last two decades.
11 But I think I will be well understood if I refer to standard western
12 Serbian as what we find in these documents with occasional intrusion into
13 these documents of features which would be considered substandard,
14 occasional errors which seem to reflect more the either haste or
15 incomplete editing rather than actual linguistic characteristics of the
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I have about a half hour of questions
18 for the doctor. Do you want to take the break now?
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stays adjourn until half past 2.00.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.03 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
23 MR. KOUMJIAN:
24 Q. Dr. Corin, you just explained your analysis of the language used
25 in these documents. You provided us with your education. Can you also
1 tell us since receiving your Ph.D., where have you been employed prior to
2 coming to work for the Tribunal, for the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. Prior to joining the Office of the Prosecutor, I was employed for
4 a number of years at the University of California at Los Angeles in the
5 department of Slavic languages and literatures. Prior to that, I was
6 employed in the department of modern languages at Pomona College.
7 Q. And when you say you were employed at those universities, or the
8 university UCLA and Pomona College, what did you do? In what capacity?
9 A. At the University of California at Los Angeles, I was an adjunct
10 associate professor of Slavic languages and literatures. My teaching
11 responsibilities included the language or languages which we now call
12 Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian here at the Tribunal. I also taught courses in
13 Slavic linguistics, especially south Slavic linguistics, and in Slavic,
14 and especially south Slavic cultural history.
15 Q. The third question addressed in your report is whether there are
16 features common to some or all of the documents. Can you summarise your
17 findings after reviewing the documents?
18 A. I've already referred to the similarity in language which is found
19 in these documents, similarities also occurred with occasional variation
20 in the terminology used, but overall terminology was consistent. Various
21 documents within this corpus have similarities in regard to the signatures
22 which occur in them, the -- many are associated with, for instance, the
23 form of signature in Latinic script that may be read S. Milomir.
24 There are a smaller number of documents with a signature in the
25 Cyrillic script which may be read simply "Stakic." And I should note, on
1 the basis of my subsequent examination of the original documents, that one
2 document has the Cyrillic signature which is clearly "M. Stakic." It has
3 an M. before the Stakic.
4 I believe that this is the document bearing the -- again, I tend
5 to recall the 65 ter numbers best. I believe it's number 69. Other than
6 forms of signature, many of the documents share a similar form of stamp.
7 The stamp which is primarily repeated is a stamp of the Prijedor Municipal
8 Assembly which we find on a number of documents issued by the Crisis Staff
9 as well as one document of the Municipal Assembly.
10 Now, also what I have been able to ascertain beyond what is noted
11 in the report is that these signatures wherever they are sufficiently
12 legible contain a number. This number is found near the centre, close to
13 the logo in the centre of the stamp. Where it is legible, this number is
14 either a number 4, or it is a number 8, though I would add the further
15 qualification that in some instances, the left portion of what appears to
16 be the number 8 has not left a sufficient impression so that it can't be
17 entirely clear that it is an 8 and not a 3. But I believe that this is in
18 every case an 8.
19 Q. Let me stop you for a moment. Reading your answer on the screen,
20 you indicated that what is noted in the report is that these signatures,
21 wherever they are sufficiently legible, contain a number. Did you mean
23 A. I meant stamp, or stamps.
24 Q. Thank you. And when you speak about things you noted subsequently
25 or beyond the report, are you referring to after completing and submitting
1 the report to the Court?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And after that time, did you get an opportunity to actually view
4 the originals of the documents?
5 A. I did.
6 Q. Sorry. And again, defining originals, the copy that is with the
7 evidence unit. Is that correct?
8 A. I believe that this is correct. In each case, these were copies
9 that bore coloured ERN stamps on them indicating that they were, I
10 believe, to be the original copies that we had received into evidence, or
11 received at ICTY with, I believe, one exception.
12 Q. Did you notice any similarities in the paper that was used?
13 A. Yes. There are a number of different types of paper that we can
14 find in these documents. They differ in weight. They differ in quality.
15 I don't feel qualified to reach conclusions on the specific number of
16 paper types. However, I did notice that several of the documents in this
17 corpus of documents contain a watermark. For those who don't understand
18 what a watermark is, this is a pattern impressed into paper at the time of
19 its production. Usually you have to hold the paper up to a light source
20 in order to read the watermark.
21 The watermark that I found on, I believe, three documents of this
22 corpus of documents is similar to one that I have previously in my
23 experience as a research officer seen on, I believe, at least two other
24 documents from the Prijedor Municipality that are not associated with this
1 Q. You talked about the script of the signatures, being some Latin
2 and some Cyrillic. Are you familiar with Cyrillic handwriting, and can
3 you tell the Court, what is your familiarity with handwriting in Cyrillic?
4 A. I am familiar with Cyrillic handwriting, having lived in the
5 Former Yugoslavia from early 1971 until late 1976 in an area in which
6 Cyrillic was widely used. I encountered Cyrillic on a regular basis, I
7 can safely say a daily basis. And it's probably safe to say that I
8 encountered Cyrillic handwritten script almost that often.
9 I have some professional experience dealing with Cyrillic script,
10 much of this experience deals with the medieval period, and is part of my
11 training and research in the field of medieval text analysis of Cyrillic
12 documents. But occasionally, I have had to read Cyrillic handwriting in
13 the course of my professional life as well.
14 Q. In your report you also discuss some of the typefaces used in the
15 documents, and some being in Cyrillic. Did you have any practical
16 experience with typefaces from your student days in Belgrade?
17 A. From my student days -- well, my greatest experience with
18 typefaces actually came from a period of my graduate student training when
19 for a period of I believe it was two years I was a typesetter for a
20 professional journal. Previously, in the Former Yugoslavia, I
21 occasionally would use a typewriter. I did not own a typewriter, but had
22 occasion to use one.
23 Q. In the documents, did you note any notations regarding
24 distribution, and was there any similarities among the documents in that
1 A. Yes. Documents of the Crisis Staff often contain both handwritten
2 and typed annotations in regard to distribution. The typed I should
3 rather say instructions -- I think it's not correct to refer to them as
4 annotations -- are usually found in the lower left-hand corner of
5 documents and indicate to whom the document in question should be -- who
6 should receive copies of the document in question. In handwriting, at the
7 upper right-hand corner of a number of these documents, we can see a
8 handwritten annotations with a word which appears to be Raspis.
9 Q. Can you spell, that please.
10 A. Sorry, yes. The word is spelled R-a-s-p-i-s. It often looks as
11 though it were spelled R-o-s-p-i-s, but I'm aware of no such word. The
12 word spelled R-a-s-p-i-s is a bureaucratic term which is used to indicate
13 reproduction of multiple copies of an official document for distribution.
14 In these documents where we see this annotation, this is followed by in
15 most cases numbers 1, or 1 and 2, or 1 and 2 and 3 and names, which I take
16 to be names of people who are intended to receive copies of these
17 documents. I think in one or two at least of these documents, we have
18 also a number, for instance, a number in one document a number 13 followed
19 by an X, and surrounded by a circle which I infer to mean 13 times or 13
21 Also, some of these documents will, near the handwritten
22 annotation to which I've just referred, will contain checkmarks. At the
23 bottom of several documents, we see a handwritten word which I'll
24 pronounce the B/C/S, and then I will spell it for you. The word Uruceno,
25 and the spelling is U-r-u-c-e-n-o, followed by what appears to be a date.
1 I believe the date in some or all of these documents is 9 June, 1992.
2 Q. And can you explain, did that have any significance to you?
3 A. This indicates to me that in all likelihood, these were copies
4 intended to be retained by the Crisis Staff, either for their archives or
5 for some purpose known best to them.
6 Q. And I gather from your answer that the word Uruceno means archive?
7 A. I'm sorry. I should have explained this. The word Uruceno, the
8 word U-r-u-c-e-n-o, means delivered personally. It literally means
9 handed, handed over.
10 Q. Moving on to the fourth issue addressed in your report, you
11 address the issue of whether during the period from the 30th of April
12 through the 30th of September, there was a practice among members of
13 Crisis Staffs to sign official documents with a first or given name or
14 with some abbreviation of the family name followed by the first or given
16 Have you seen that outside of the S. Milomir signature?
17 A. I can state with confidence that I have never before or since seen
18 a signature which recognisably consisted of the initial letter of the last
19 name followed by the first name, certainly written together.
20 Q. In that, you also indicated that some signatures, Stakic in
21 Cyrillic, and you also indicated M. Stakic. Is that correct?
22 A. One document has M. Stakic, the others appear to have Stakic.
23 Q. Was there anything noticeable about these Cyrillic script used?
24 Was it normal Cyrillic script or did it have any remarkable
1 A. Remarkable might be overstating the matter slightly. However, the
2 letter K or K is formed in the manner typical of Latin script. I do not
3 believe that this is the only time I have ever seen this occur, but
4 nevertheless, this is the Latin form of the letter K. I believe on one
5 occasion, the letter T or T is misformed.
6 Q. In your experience, in that area of Bosnia, if you know, would it
7 be common for someone to be accustomed to writing their name in either
8 Latin or Cyrillic?
9 A. In my experience - now, my experience in Western Bosnia is perhaps
10 more limited than my experience certainly in Bosnia as a whole in reading
11 handwritten documents and handwritten signatures, and less than my
12 experience in reading similar documents from other areas of the country,
13 or the Former Yugoslavia, where Cyrillic was used. But -- I'm sorry, now
14 I've lost the train of your question.
15 Q. Would you believe that a person would get into a habit of writing
16 their name in either Latin or Cyrillic?
17 A. In my experience, many people are able to use one script or the
18 other, but usually have one preferred script and usually, unless they have
19 some reason to switch, will stick to that script.
20 Q. Do you know if following the formation of the Serbian Republic of
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Republika Srpska, there was a movement to
22 use Cyrillic instead of Latin?
23 A. I'm aware that there were a number of attempts to, as it was
24 usually put, maintain the Cyrillic script which I take to be a -- to mean
25 that there was an, in general, a tendency to favour the use of Cyrillic
2 Q. Moving on to the last question, did you form any opinions or
3 conclusions regarding the issue of whether during the period from the 30th
4 of April through the 30th of September, 1992, there was a consistent
5 pattern of conduct or a particular methodology in the way documents of the
6 Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff were drafted, authorised, or signed?
7 A. Since I was not present in Prijedor at this time and was not able
8 to follow the process of document preparation, my conclusions must be
9 based on the documents themselves; they must be inferences based on what I
10 find within this corpus of documents. I can state that beyond those
11 aspects of preparation which are manifest from the format of the documents
12 themselves, there were some instances in which it appears that -- one
13 conclusion that I made -- now, this is a conclusion based on my
14 observations actually following a completion of this report when I've had
15 an opportunity to look at other related documents -- I've noted that we
16 have in our collection a number of distinct copies of documents which
17 are -- documents of this corpus, these distinct copies are identical to
18 the copies in the corpus other than in the fact that both have an original
19 stamp in purple ink.
20 Both documents will be reproductions. Both will have the original
21 signature reproduced together with the document, but they will have a
22 purple stamp, which would appear to be an indication that it was a common
23 practice or at least it was a practice to produce multiple copies of
24 documents together with a signature, and then merely apply a new stamp to
25 each, this for purposes of distributing presumably to a fairly broad
1 number of recipients.
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, I have no further questions.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May I ask the defence. You're
4 prepared for cross?
5 MR. LUKIC: We are ready, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 A. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
10 Q. Together with Mr. Ostojic, we will continue the cross-examination
11 in front of this Trial Chamber. My examination will be very short, and we
12 hope to have another witness today. Can we start?
13 A. [In English] Yes.
14 Q. Under Item 2 of your task, you were talking about the identity of
15 a language and of the terminology used in the original version of all the
16 documents. When you explained the language which was used in the
17 documents that you studied, you concluded that the language used was the
18 Serbian language mostly used in Western Bosnia. Is that correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Can we then say that it is actually the Serbo-Croatian or the
21 Croato-Serbian that was used in Western Bosnia?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can we then also conclude that the documents which were drafted
24 could have been drafted by either a Serb or a Croat or a Muslim, i.e.,
25 that you cannot determine the ethnic background of the person who
1 composed, who drafted, the documents?
2 A. That is largely correct. There are some features which might
3 occur in a document which would tend to suggest that the person was of one
4 or another ethnicity, but nevertheless, I concur.
5 Q. Thank you. To provide us with a more general picture, when
6 describing the documents of the war presidency in your general
7 conclusions, you stated that, and I quote: "In all the documents, it is
8 the western variant of the Serbian language typical of the documents which
9 were drafted in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the year 1992."
10 Can we then conclude that the language in question, or its
11 dialect, is the dialect that is used in the entire territory of Bosnia and
13 A. We are dealing in the year 1992 with the period in which there was
14 a tendency for members of differing ethnic or national groups to begin to
15 differentiate their linguistic usage. That being said, it would be
16 characteristic of the period up until this time for documents written in
17 standard Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian to be produced in a language such
18 that you really could not distinguish the ethnicity of the author.
19 Q. Were you able to establish who exactly was it who drafted the
20 documents that you have studied, i.e., were you able to establish who was
21 the author of these documents; and secondly, which organ was in charge of
22 drafting these documents?
23 A. This answer would vary, depending on the group of documents with
24 which we are dealing. In the case of the draft documents of the Prijedor
25 Municipal Assembly, it was my conclusion that in a majority of instances,
1 these documents, or perhaps in some cases, an earlier version of them not
2 available to me, was drafted by one of the municipal administrative organs
3 of the Prijedor municipality. In these cases, of course, I could not
4 determine the particular individual or the exact number of individuals
5 involved in the drafting of these documents.
6 In general, it is a conclusion over the body of documents in this
7 corpus that they indicated drafting for each group of documents by more
8 than one individual, for eventual signing by the individual whose name was
9 typed at the bottom of the document when this was the case.
10 Q. With regard to this, I would like to ask you the following: Did
11 you have an opportunity to read the finding authored by Mr. ten Camp who
12 was the expert witness on the handwritten documents in this case?
13 A. I am aware of the report and of the testimony. I have not read
14 the report.
15 Q. Did you hear that during Mr. Camp's testimony, an issue was raised
16 as to the credibility of the six documents obtained from the agency for
17 information and documentation of the government of the Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina also known as AID?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Were you able to establish where the documents were printed? When
21 I say that, I mean the Official Gazettes of the Prijedor Municipality.
22 A. To be clear, then, let me repeat: When you're referring to
23 documents being printed, you're referring to their publication in the
24 Official Gazette?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. In those cases where I found in the Official Gazette an act --
2 publication of an act identical or almost identical in title and content
3 with one of the documents of our corpus of documents, then I conclude
4 that, yes, that document or that -- the act represented by that document
5 had been published.
6 Q. But you cannot tell us for a fact where they were published?
7 A. By -- in this case, by referring to where they were published, are
8 we referring to the location where the Official Gazette was actually
9 compiled, or where it was actually printed? Perhaps if you could be more
10 precise in that regard.
11 Q. Can you please reply to both of these questions.
12 A. In regard to the location where the Official Gazette was printed
13 and where it was compiled, I recall seeing publication information
14 indicated, either at the beginning or -- I don't recall, at the end of
15 individual issues of the Official Gazette, which I take to be indicative
16 of the location of printing.
17 As for compilation, I could only speculate.
18 Q. Thank you. I would like to ask you something with regard to
19 letter K. Are you aware of the fact that in entire Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, regardless of the script, whether it is Cyrillic or Latinic,
21 K is used in its Latinic version, unlike in Serbia when Cyrillic is used
22 there, then the Cyrillic version of a letter K, a short K, is used?
23 A. As I said before, I've less experience in the Cyrillic
24 handwritings of Bosnia than in Serbia, and I believe that the extended K
25 that I have seen, or K, that I have seen in these documents is -- main not
1 be anything more than a personal idiosyncracy. In terms of can I
2 generalise between the difference of Cyrillic used in Serbia and that used
3 in Bosnia, I could not.
4 Q. That is exactly what I am emphasising. This is not a personal
5 idiosyncracy; it is a general feature present all over Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. So you are not familiar with the fact that this is a general
7 thing, a general feature all over Bosnia and Herzegovina?
8 A. I'm not familiar with such a fact.
9 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the photocopied signatures
10 before the war and after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina must not be
11 authenticised by a stamp. The only thing that is allowed is on the
12 opposite side, to use a special stamp by which it is certified that the
13 signature on the front page is original.
14 A. I am, first of all, not an attorney. Second of all, I cannot
15 claim to have full knowledge of the laws and regulations which governed
16 the preparation of documents in the Former Yugoslavia and its republics.
17 I have some familiarity with some such regulations which I have gained
18 through my employment and research here. But I cannot claim expertise in
19 this area.
20 Q. Having lived in Serbia for five years, were you ever in a position
21 to receive a document with a photocopied signature authenticised by the
22 original stamp? That document may have been either for your personal use
23 or for your official use. Has it ever happened?
24 A. I do not recall. It may or may not have. But I do not recall
25 whether it has.
1 Q. Would you agree with me if I put it to you that this should not
2 have taken place?
3 A. I cannot answer to you whether it should or should not have taken
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Talking about stamps and seals, having looked at the documents
7 that you studied for your report, have you ever noticed an irregular use
8 of a stamp or seal?
9 A. Sir, I don't understand what you mean by an "irregular use" of a
10 stamp or a seal.
11 Q. Did it ever happen that you came across a situation in which a
12 stamp belonging to one body or organ was used to certify or authenticise a
13 document produced by another body or organ?
14 A. I'm afraid I can't give you as precise an answer as you might
15 desire and should receive. It's not a question that I have thought out.
16 I have at various times in my work seen documents that were produced, or
17 at least purportedly produced, by some body at the beginning of its
18 existence, or near to the beginning of its existence, and which may have
19 had a stamp that you would not have expected it to have. But I'm sorry, I
20 cannot give you a more precise answer than that.
21 Q. I'll try to remind you about documents produced by the Serbian
22 Democratic Party, documents marked by the letter A, so the first group of
23 documents. When you are talking about the seal, you said that two seals
24 or stamps were used. The first one was the stamp of the BH SDS of the
25 municipal board of Prijedor; and the second stamp was the stamp of the
1 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serbian Assembly of the
2 Prijedor Municipality.
3 Did it ever happen to you that the documents produced by one body
4 were certified by different seals or stamps?
5 A. This is in my recollection the only time that I have encountered a
6 document with two distinct stamps on it. Again, it may well be the case
7 that I'm forgetting some previous example, but I recall none.
8 Q. You also mention in your report the seals with a number 4 and a
9 number 8, and perhaps with number 3. Can you, please, explain the nature
10 of these seals.
11 A. These are stamps, and I will distinguish between a stamp and a
12 seal. What we -- to what we find on our documents, I refer to this as a
13 stamp. These are documents -- I'm sorry. These are stamps which read
14 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prijedor Municipality,
15 Municipal Assembly Prijedor, if I remember correctly. But approximately
17 Q. Did you find them on the documents produced by the Municipal
18 Assembly of Prijedor or also on the documents produced by some other
19 bodies? Can you remember?
20 A. I found these stamps primarily on documents of the Crisis Staff,
21 and in one instance, on a document of the Municipal Assembly. I'm sorry,
22 perhaps I can also note that we have very few documents of the Municipal
23 Assembly in this corpus that are not drafts in any case. There are very
24 few stamps at all.
25 Q. Are you familiar with the meaning of these numbers?
1 A. I am only familiar with having seen them and having had the
2 opportunity to attempt to infer their meaning. But other than that, no.
3 Q. As we have touched upon the documents produced by the Municipal
4 Assembly of Prijedor, you stated that you analysed 28 documents all
5 together. Having looked at your report, I found that you had established
6 that none of these documents had been signed. Do you remember, is that
8 A. I recall that one bears a stamp, but I would have to refer to my
9 notes to recall whether I state that actually none is signed. I don't
10 recall that.
11 Q. However, you say in your report that you came across one with a
12 signature. Can we then conclude - and this can be seen in your report -
13 that the rest of them, that is, the remaining 27, do not have a signature?
14 A. That would be the natural inference. But again, I would want to
15 simply refer back to the report itself to see what I have said there.
16 Otherwise, what I have said there stands.
17 Q. If this is what your report says, will you then adhere to what is
18 written in it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Also, the majority of these documents do not bear a file number.
21 This is what is says in your report, the only exception being the first
22 document, 172. For all the others, you say that they do not bear a date.
23 They -- but they do bear some sort of a number in the form of a number,
24 but no number is complete.
25 A. It is my recollection that certainly the large majority of these
1 documents are not signed. They have either no reference number or they
2 have what appears to be a partial reference number or perhaps better
3 referred to as the form for a reference number to be filled in at a later
5 Q. So we may conclude that these documents are draft documents, not
6 final documents?
7 A. That was my conclusion, certainly in the majority of these
9 Q. In this group of documents, when providing your comments on the
10 Document Number S110, this is a decision by the Municipal Assembly of
11 Prijedor published in the Official Gazette unsigned without a seal, typed,
12 as signed by Dr. Milorad Stakic [as interpreted] himself. And there are a
13 number of such documents, similar documents in a sequence. In brakets you
14 conclude the following: This shows that he himself personally signed this
15 document, or that maybe somebody else provided a place or envisaged that
16 he would be the one who would eventually sign this document.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Stop for a moment because the transcript if
18 frozen. I think it will happen as it was yesterday that it will reappear
19 within a few minutes as such. So if the parties want, we can proceed. If
20 one or the other regards this as an obstacle, we should stop because I
21 think new text will get lost.
22 Let me take the opportunity, it is correct what we can read on the
23 transcript, Dr. Milorad Stakic himself?
24 MR. LUKIC: [In English] I think that I said Milomir Stakic.
25 But -- or maybe I made a mistake. I try to [inaudible] somebody else.
1 But I'll restate my questions. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].
4 Q. I will repeat my question, sir. Does this demonstrate that
5 Dr. Milomir Stakic had already signed this document, or that somebody a
6 third person had decided that eventually he would sign the document which
7 was at that time just a draft?
8 A. May I ask for a clarification. Is this question in regard to the
9 published form of the acts that we see in the Official Gazette with the SR
10 next to it, and are you asking for my interpretation of the meaning of
11 that SR?
12 Q. I'm talking about documents which were published in the Official
13 Gazette, and since there are obviously no signatures in the Official
14 Gazette. And we could see that the signature of Dr. Milomir Stakic
15 appeared in several versions, and this is one of the problems in this
17 My question to you is as follows: Can you claim with certainty if
18 one reads this SR in the Official Gazette, then can one be sure that
19 Dr. Milomir Stakic indeed signed this document?
20 A. I should perhaps best answer this question with an "on the one
21 hand" and "the other hand." On the one hand, I cannot state with
22 certainty that such documents were indeed signed by Dr. Milomir Stakic, as
23 I do not see the signature. On the other hand, I, as a reader, seeing
24 this SR interpret it as an assertion that the document from which the
25 Official Gazette was compiled contained a signature of Dr. Milomir
1 Stakic. And I would also note in this regard that I have seen in the
2 Official Gazette one or more acts of the Crisis Staff below which appears
3 not Dr. Milomir Stakic by his own hand or personally, but rather, if I
4 recall directly, Dr. Milan Kovacevic presiding over the Crisis Staff by
5 his own hand rather than Dr. Milomir Stakic president of the Crisis Staff
6 by his own hand.
7 This, I take to be an indication that when the document from which
8 the Official Gazette was compiled did not contain a signature of or
9 perhaps even for Dr. Milomir Stakic, but bearing the name of some other
10 individual, then that could be reflected in the wording of the Official
12 Q. Can you confirm that this was reflected in the Official Gazette at
13 all times?
14 A. Such certainty I cannot provide, no.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 In your report, sir, you state that the documents which were
17 already divided into categories, that is to say, the document emanating
18 from the municipal assembly, the document from the Crisis Staff, war
19 presidency, and national defence documents, that such documents are
20 written on different typewriters. Is that correct?
21 A. Perhaps I should make one clarification in the course of answering
22 the question. Your question asks whether these documents which were
23 already divided into categories, and then the question continues. The
24 division into categories was done by myself initially as a tool simply to
25 make my task a little bit easier in the expectation that this might turn
1 out to be a significant categorisation.
2 Now, as for the question itself, again, two parts. First of all,
3 I am not an expert on the identification or distinction between
4 typewriters. That being said, certain gross characteristics occasionally
5 allow one to state clearly that two documents were not printed on the same
6 typewriter. And yes, various typewriters were used in the production of
7 these documents.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 While you were drafting your report, you were also able to
10 recognise or realise that there was some discrepancies in determining the
11 numbering of the documents. Is that correct?
12 A. I believe that your question refers to the reference numbers, the
13 01- et cetera or 023 or similar?
14 Q. That's correct.
15 A. I did note some other discrepancies or one might better say
16 anomalies, unexpected facts.
17 Q. Thank you. Sir, you've also talked about the water stamp on the
18 paper itself. You've also stated that a few documents had a very similar
19 water stamp. But you've also said that a -- various numbers of papers
20 were used. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Does that refer to each category? In other words, when we talk
23 about the documents, for instance, of the Municipal Assembly, were they
24 using various types of paper?
25 A. I should perhaps refer to my notes before answering the question.
1 However, I'm quite certain the answer would be yes.
2 Q. In a general way, could we say that for all the other categories
3 of documents, the same situation prevails? If I helped you, would you be
4 able to point out to me the various qualities of papers in different
6 A. I believe that the same conclusion will hold for the various
7 categories. In some cases, the difference in paper type is manifest. In
8 some cases, differences may be due to aging of the paper and I would not
9 be qualified necessarily to distinguish between the paper types. But I
10 think that what you're stating is probably correct. I would -- I think it
11 is probably correct, yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Doctor. No
13 further questions. Thank you.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Only one additional question emanating from this
17 huge table, and please extend also to your staff members our gratitude for
18 preparing this document. It facilitates and it brings some order.
19 One question: When you made the categorisation, did you ever find
20 a reason why some documents were signed by the last name or others with
21 this S. Milomir, emphasising this -- the first name or the given name?
22 A. I can attempt to infer and answer from the documents themselves.
23 I would note first that the form of the signature is correlated with the
24 script. The S. Milomir signature is the Latin, in the Latin script. The
25 Stakic or M. Stakic signature is in the Cyrillic script.
1 I further infer that, and under the assumption, under the
2 assumption that these signatures are authentic, I realise I am not
3 competent to make that determination. But if we assume this, then I can
4 state that the predominant signature is the one in Latin script of
5 S. Milomir. We see this script in the very earliest document, I believe,
6 of the corpus from I believe it is November of 1991. We see it in a
7 variety of documents from 1992. And we see it again in a document from
9 The Cyrillic signature is certainly used less. It may be
10 overgeneralising from the -- it is overgeneralising perhaps from the
11 amount of evidence available to me bestowed that the Cyrillic signature
12 was used for perhaps only a short period of time, but this is the
13 inference that I would be tempted to reach.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From your experience working with other
15 material, can you state whether or not there was a certain period of time
16 it became, let's say, it became modern or to use preferably to just sign
17 with the given name instead of the entire name, as we know it? For
18 example, from earlier periods in time in communist systems that it was the
19 habit to use, first of all, the first name?
20 A. I cannot answer your question affirmatively. I'm aware of no such
21 popularity of the use of first names in signing documents. At the same
22 time, I would, not from my experience in dealing with documents from
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but -- or from the former Yugoslavia, but simply from
24 more general experience suggest that perhaps people will sign their names
25 in a less formal manner, sometimes in a more formal manner at different
1 times. But that's the extent of the answer that I can provide for you.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
3 Any further questions? Judge Fassi Fihri? No.
4 Judge Vassylenko? I can see no further questions.
5 Thank you very much for your efforts. You're excused.
6 And may madam usher please escort the witness out of the
7 courtroom. Thank you.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have to announce that it will not be possible
10 to proceed with another witness due to the fact that we would need a
11 change in the booth because we have different languages. In this case, as
12 you know, Mr. Sebire will prepare in French. And therefore, the video,
13 would this be ready and which period of time would it take?
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: The video is available, and I think it's about 10
15 or 15 minutes long. I don't think any longer than that. However,
16 Mr. Sebire, although not entirely pleased, would be able and willing to
17 listen to the question in French and testify in English.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think, to be more accurate, it's better to
19 proceed with the video. And we have at least two issues we have to
20 discuss in the presence of three Judges.
21 There is the Prosecutor's seventh notice for admission of
22 transcript pursuant to Rule 92 bis, and the Prosecutor's eighth notice.
23 We discussed the seventh in brief in a Status Conference, but no doubt it
24 has to be repeated in open court. At that time, in the Status Conference,
25 parties were asked to come to an agreement on the admission of this
1 transcript. Did you succeed?
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't recall discussing it. But if I could
3 briefly summarise, I think there was some confusion, at least on my part,
4 originally about this witness. This was a witness who testified on
5 Keraterm, and the witness does describe several things but the most
6 important is hearsay regarding he met a man in the woods who was a
7 survivor of the massacre - he reported - the massacre of people taken from
8 Keraterm on the 5th of August, the day the camp closed. These were the
9 people, testimony has come out at this trial, about a a hundred or so
10 names, 120 names or so were called out. They were loaded on to two buses.
11 There was testimony from Witness B that the intervention squad was there,
12 and Darko Mrdja was there. That those buses - there was other evidence
13 from Witness A and others - that those busses arrived at Omarska camp and
14 a few additional prisoners were placed on the buses. Some of those
15 individuals have been exhumed and identified from Hrastova Glavica
16 exhumation site that Mr. Sebire talked about.
17 This witness speaks about the man in the woods telling about him
18 that massacre and, in fact, describing how people were lined up at the pit
19 at Hrastova Glavica, though he did use another word for that site which he
20 uses in his testimony, which is Lusci Palanka. So we think it's important
21 evidence. He also describes an attack upon his village, which I don't
22 recall the name of right now, beginning with a Z, that we didn't have
23 evidence of, his first-hand experience on that attack.
24 And just to further inform the Court, the individual who reported
25 this to the witness in the woods subsequently disappeared. So he cannot
1 testify. Presumed dead.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear observations by the Defence.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. I think at this late stage that
4 it would be highly prejudicial to allow any more evidence or testimony in
5 connection with any of the factors since we have one remaining very
6 limited witness who has already been cross-examined.
7 Our second objection to this is that it would deprive Dr. Stakic
8 his fundamental right to cross-examine a witness on critical issues, both
9 as to the date and time. Third, if I understood -- of death and the
10 crimes that are underlying this particular indictment.
11 Third, if I understand Mr. Koumjian, this might be actually
12 considered also cumulative evidence which would be prohibited so far as he
13 has brought and led evidence which has established in part, although now I
14 understand that they are trying to clarify that issue. But nonetheless,
15 the evidence is in. They are about to close their case. For those three
16 reasons, we would ask the Court reject their motion.
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: If I could just clarify, this witness, I think we
18 applied for this witness quite some time ago but were waiting the lifting
19 of protective measures which just arrived in the -- a few days before we
20 filed the motion, the President lifted the protective measures. The
21 witness does not speak about Dr. Stakic. It is all crime-based. It is
22 not cumulative, in my view, because it is unique evidence regarding what
23 happened to those buses and also what happened in his village which there
24 is no other evidence regarding.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And I understand that the original witness is,
1 yes, to put it this way, not available for cross-examination?
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: The witness who testified in the Keraterm case
3 reported the man in the woods telling him about this, and that person is
4 missing and presumed dead.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, before deciding on this issue, let's turn
6 to the eighth Prosecution notice.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: If my memory serves me correctly in connection --
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. O'Donnell's testimony.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. We do object to that.
11 Specifically, we object to it because we did not have an opportunity to
12 cross-examine Bernard O'Donnell in connection with the testimony that he
13 offered in another case regarding -- specifically, the facts underlying
14 the issues in which he testified in this case are far different from those
15 that he has offered in the other case. We believe that we should not
16 respectfully try a case in a vacuum and bring in testimony of individuals,
17 such as Mr. O'Donnell, in other cases, and then having given the Defence
18 an opportunity to cross-examine him on a limited basis, namely, the arrest
19 of Dr. Stakic last year and the issues relating to the chain of custody of
20 documents that were seized. The Prosecution should have at that time,
21 knowing that he had some critical testimony in connection with the Variant
22 A and B documents, should have offered that. Instead, they chose to offer
23 a witness, Mr. Inayat, to testify in connection with the sourcing of that
24 documentation. We strongly that we have been denied our right to
25 cross-examine Mr. O'Donnell on that issue, and we would ask that that
1 testimony be rejected.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, this is a completely different subject
4 matter than what Mr. O'Donnell testified to previously. The Defence,
5 during its examination of Mr. Inayat, raised issues about the Variant A
6 and B document and their objection to it. And I think we indicated at the
7 time that there was extensive evidence presented in the Bosanski Samac
8 case regarding various copies of that document in the possession of the
9 OTP. That is the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell.
10 Frankly, we do not have any objection to the Defence
11 cross-examining Mr. O'Donnell. We presented his testimony because we
12 think it's relevant, no need to repeat what's -- he has already stated on
13 direct and at least two cross-examinations in that case, extensive
14 testimony in that case regarding the various sources of the Variant A and
15 B document.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. O'Donnell would be available tomorrow?
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would have to check. We can quickly check on
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can do it whilst we are having a look on the
21 One final question in the direction of the Defence: Today you
22 provided, I think it was J17, the Prosecutor's letter presenting a huge
23 number of documents under Rule 68. Is there --
24 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, D29 for the record.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. Yes, indeed. It's late not only in the
1 day, but also in the case.
2 You know the letter from the Prosecution presenting these
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have the concrete question: Do you think, and
6 if yes, why, that you are limited in the exercise of your rights in the
7 framework of a fair trial by this late presentation of these documents?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
9 I do have extensive comments that I was going to share with the
10 Court in our Status Conference in connection with what I believe are the
11 violation of both the spirit and letter of Rule 68. In connection with
12 the witness that was before us these last couple days, Mr. Brown, I do not
13 believe that the documents given to us at this late stage, namely, the day
14 of his initial direct testimony, prejudices the Defence so long as not
15 only the letter offered by the OTP in connection with these 97 items that
16 are listed under Rule 68 is admitted into evidence, but we would also move
17 that in their entirety, those 97 documents be admitted so that the Defence
18 can in an attempt to provide the Court an objective argument in connection
19 with the documents from either the police or the MUP, SUP, and the
20 political civilian authorities.
21 I would like to have the opportunity reserve my remarks in detail
22 in connection with what I believe was a, and indeed continues to be, a
23 violation of Rule 68. But specifically in connection with this letter and
24 the Exhibit D29, the Defence believes that so long as the documents are
25 introduced and admitted into evidence as offered by the Prosecution to us,
1 we would not be claiming that we were prejudiced vis-a-vis the witness
2 that testified relating to these issues.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So if I understand you correctly, if provided
4 with these documents and they are admitted into evidence, then you would
5 not request a continuation of the Prosecutor's case and not a continuation
6 or reopening of the cross-examination of Mr. Brown?
7 MR. OSTOJIC: To be perfectly frank, Your Honour, we believe that
8 the Defence witnesses, should we come to the Defence case, will integrate
9 these documents as well, although we would prefer, since the documents
10 have been presented and produced, that they merely be admitted. And we
11 would not be seeking for an extension of the Prosecutor's case, nor would
12 we be seeking leave of Court to perform additional cross-examination on
13 the witness Mr. Brown.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I understand it that you waive your right to
15 request to proceed with the Prosecutor's case on Monday. This would be
16 the alternative.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I'm not understanding the Court. I believe
18 that the Prosecutor's case --
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's very simple, a clear yes or no question.
20 There is a possibility, if you believe there is an infringement of your
21 rights, and you should first read and review these documents, and if based
22 on this, have some additional questions to Witness Brown, then it would
23 be, from our point of view, mandatory to proceed with the Prosecutor's
24 case on Monday.
25 So the alternative would be you are satisfied with the admission
1 into evidence of these documents, and then come back to these documents
2 later and leave it to you to give your submissions on the basis of these
3 documents, and then for the Judges to evaluate this, but not necessarily
4 discussing these documents once again with Mr. Brown.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, we would take that latter option.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification.
7 Then I believe the time is ripe for starting the video.
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have the transcript to distribute. The booths
9 already have copies.
10 [Videotape played]
11 "J: I've just one question: We are here very shortly after the
12 parliament in Pale has discussed the Geneva plan. How do you feel
13 personally about this Geneva plan?
14 "MS: That it was accepted? To start from the other end,
15 I think that at this moment, the Serbian assembly, in fact, the members of
16 the Republika Srpska People's Assembly, that they have now realised the
17 whole weight of the pressure and threats concerning a possible air
18 intervention. And with some corrections that were originally offered,
19 that plan, in fact, the solution, a constitutional solution for a future
20 system of new Bosnia and Herzegovina, that they after all, to my opinion,
21 did a good thing by accepting this plan. In this way, they showed that
22 they are in favour of a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina, that they are against the war, regardless of the shortcomings
24 of this constitutional solution, which is to the disadvantage of the
25 Serbian people.
1 "And for the very Geneva solution, if we have the constitutional
2 solution in mind, provinces are possible here; however, it should be
3 allowed to have provinces of the three constitutional peoples, that
4 Serbian provinces may be allowed to join and live and exist as a
5 distinctive institution in the future Bosnia and Herzegovina. Secondly,
6 that the constitution is adopted by a consensus and also changed by those
7 means and not to have a unitary Muslim state.
8 "As far as the maps are concerned, I think that they've been
9 created based on the propaganda by Alija Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudjman,
10 and the Vatican and Tehran, and they are not [as interpreted] a result of
11 the real, factual state of affairs on the territory of the former Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina. So that the territory of Kozara and Grmac was never
13 Turkish; and according to the plan offered in Geneva, it has now been
14 given to some kind of Cazin region, which is almost completely Serbian,
15 over 70 per cent Serbian.
16 "J: Over 110 Muslim towns crossed over to the Croat side... Do
17 you think that there is a possibility of direct negotiations with the
18 Muslim side regarding that?
19 "MS: First of all, it is essential that this should be agreed in
20 Geneva. It's a big step forward that they came to holding bilateral
21 talks, talks between the warring sides. Secondly, to end the war. And
22 thirdly, that the European monitors should come to the field to determine
23 the factual state of affairs so that they don't make maps, projections,
24 and constitutions based on the propaganda from Vatican and Tehran. One
25 has to come to Prijedor to see who lives here, who works, what they work,
1 what they activities are going on there. Go to Krupa or to Novi, to
2 Sanski Most - I'm talking about cities that are of interest here - to
3 determine, to see for themselves what the situation really is, who lives
4 there and what they are doing. Then they should go away, take a week and
5 or so, and draw new maps.
6 "J: ...To build the city again, though there are plans...
7 "MS: Before that, I would go back to the previous question about
8 what happened to the Muslim population of Kozarac and Prijedor. In
9 February and March of last year, that is, 1992, an organised exodus of
10 Muslim women and children had began from the territory of the Prijedor
11 municipality, which is one of the proofs that they were preparing for a
12 war, apart from other proofs such as arming themselves, stock-piling food
13 in dugouts, and so on.
14 "Secondly, we have information that over 50 buses were organised
15 and left via Zagreb and Ljubljana towards Europe. Also, hundreds and
16 hundreds of people left by their own arrangement. During the war, many
17 have fled over Kozara, running away from the collection centres. These
18 were not concentration camps. There were no fortifications, no barbed
19 wire, electricity, nor mine fields, and they were guarded by twentish
20 guards. And in the true sense of the word, we do not have information on
21 the number of killed and missing. However, the number of 5.000, that --
22 when one hears it, one should get hold of one's chair. That number is not
23 even one tenth of what you've presented.
24 "As far as Kozarac now is concerned, the sawmill was opened and
25 started working again. It would work to a fuller capacity, but it does
1 not due to the lack of electricity. A few shops and cafes have been
2 opened. The health-centre is open. And of course, they have as much
3 electricity as any other citizen of the Prijedor municipality. This has
4 already been installed: Electricity, water, supply and sewage system. A
5 plan has been drawn up to repair houses that are completely damaged and
6 not inhabitable, and the other ones that have been marked, the ones that
7 are inhabited, they are generally being inhabited. And the other ones
8 that are for repair are to be repaired.
9 "The people who live there are Serbs who had already lived there;
10 Ukrainians, Croats, Serb refugees from Central Bosnia, i.e., from the
11 parts of Bosnia where power is held by Croats and Muslims. From the time
12 being in Kozarac, Muslims are in the smallest number because they either
13 do not wish to come back or are afraid, or they are waiting for the
14 outcome of this war. So maybe even those who did not stain their hands
15 with Serbian blood will possibly come back."
16 "J: A woman told us that she fled from Kladusa and that what she
17 wants now is to go back to her house and she doesn't want to live in a
18 Muslim house. Is it realistic to expect after all these conflicts that
19 the refugees who fled their homes will return, all of them, including the
21 "MS: It depends on the future organisation on Bosnia-Herzegovina,
22 on how the state will be arranged. There, what is being considered is a
23 form of a confederation, or three separate states. If it is arranged so
24 that each constitutive nation, within its unit - Republika Srpska or
25 Herzeg-Bosnia or Central Bosnia, which would be Muslim - has the right to
1 draft its own constitution, to create its own system, to have its own
2 police and so on and so forth, and it should guarantee, like Republika
3 Srpska and its constitution guarantee, full democracy and the rights to
4 other peoples and ethnicities which live on its territory. That's
5 Article 10 of the Constitution. Then one should expect from the Croat
6 side as well to guarantee to the Serb minority the right to live normally
7 on its territory, to live equally, and at the same level of human dignity.
8 Also, the Muslim side.
9 "If things are organised in such a way, then one can expect that
10 some of these families will return to their homes. I don't have any
11 reason to doubt your statement; I was told the same. However, I must
12 admit that these cases are few and far between. You should ask those from
13 Bugojno, Livno, Zenica, from other municipalities controlled by Croats and
14 Muslims, whether they want to return at all. Those who have fled with
15 just a bundle. These people were lucky, the ones that are close to Glina
16 municipality which belongs to the Republika Srpska Krajina. They are in
17 the vicinity of UNPROFOR, so they got out on that side, and then via Dvor
18 and Novi came here.
19 "J: So these people, the Muslims who are now refugees, and they
20 live in refugee camps in Germany. If they so wanted, will they be allowed
21 to return?
22 "MS: This is what I was just about to add. In all of this, in
23 this war, regardless of the fact that it's not yet finished and one
24 doesn't know when it will finish, jihad gained the most. Because the aim
25 of forming a Muslim state in Europe -- and the Balkans, whether Europe
1 wants to admit it or not, is a part of Europe geographically. Jihad has
2 won because a great number of Muslims from this region have emigrated and
3 have gone to Germany, i.e., across Europe.
4 "Why am I mentioning this? Because all of these Muslims from this
5 region had a choice, whether to go to Zenica, Sarajevo, Travnik or Western
6 Europe. They have chosen Western Europe. They wouldn't even hear of
7 Zenica. They didn't even want to go to Croatia. They know that they are
8 not welcome there. They go to Europe for economic reasons, and the
9 reasons preached to them by jihad.
10 "But let's go back to your question. Regardless of the final
11 outcome of all of this, here in Prijedor, as the chief of SUP told you,
12 things have been processed so neatly that some countries would be envious,
13 even in peacetime. Such a great number of people have been processed.
14 Some fifty experts, crime inspectors, have worked here to determine what
15 the state of affairs is. They have worked around the clock. We have so
16 much material that those who have stained their hands with blood will not
17 be able to return. The others, if they want, they will be able to return.
18 "MK: A large percentage of Muslims have not been expelled from
19 here. Those who have not bloodied their hands, who haven't sinned. There
20 is a rule that dictates migrations of population in the world. This is
21 probably something primordial in humans who move wherever the situation is
22 better. Western Europe had a filter through which it let in those it
24 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Indiscernible]
25 " MK: Many, and not only Muslims, but also Croats and Serbs, have
1 used the opportunity and have gone to seek a better life, and they have
2 gone to Western Europe. Europe has mostly accepted Muslims, but there are
3 also Serbs and Croats who have used the circumstances and gone there.
4 They work there for two or three or more thousands of German marks, and I
5 work here for 70, 80 marks. I would gladly go back to Europe and work for
6 12.000 marks, like I did ten years ago, rather than work here for
7 70 marks. I mean, this is not only how Europe, Alija, and Tudjman
8 interpret it, after all Mico, too, that these are only war activities and
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just -- I believe that the heading of the draft
12 translation may be misleading regarding the date of the interview. The
13 date of the interview was apparently the 22nd of January, 1993. It may
14 have been broadcast in 1994, but it was 1993.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Any mandatory contributions?
16 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure if they are mandatory, but I just have
17 two quick observations in connection with the video that we just saw. One
18 particularly, Your Honour, on page 98 of the transcript in between lines 8
19 and 9, there was another speaker that was identified. The transcript
20 seems to not differentiate from one speaker and another.
21 Also, within that approximately whatever the page before that,
22 there was clearly a different person speaking, and there was also a
23 colloquy between, at least what I have heard, the reporter and seemingly
24 the interpreter that was not translated. I'm not sure if it is
25 significant, but at the very least we believe that it is significant that
1 the speakers be identified and not both be identified as "The Speaker."
2 There may be some confusion on that at a later occasion.
3 Also, we believe -- although Dr. Corin was here, and he would have
4 been of great assistance to us in terms of understanding some of the
5 words, there is in particular what we believe an inaccuracy, with due
6 respect to the translators, specifically on line 20 of the transcript,
7 first page, line 20. Thank you. The word he used is interpreted as
8 "distinctive" as opposed to "unified". We would welcome the OTP to
9 verify that and are not looking for a stipulation at this time, but are,
10 as Dr. Corin is confident that once they check, they will probably be able
11 to stipulate with us on that interpretation.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for these comments. I think we can
13 identify at least by the initials MS and MK that -- of the transcript that
14 there were two different persons well known to all of us.
15 What about the admission into evidence? Was it already admitted,
16 may I ask? May I then have, please, the next available number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: It's 365.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I see no objections --
19 MR. OSTOJIC: We would just like to share with the Court that
20 there are Kozarski Vjesnik articles which deal with specifically this time
21 period. We don't have an objection to the video being introduced, but we
22 would like the opportunity to share with the Court when the time is ripe
23 the articles that appear contemporaneously with this article that have
24 just been provided to us - and we are grateful for it - by the OTP.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then unfortunately, the transcript remains
1 silent. What was the number once more, please?
2 THE REGISTRAR: S365 for the video, and S365-1 for the transcript.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
4 And that we don't miss anything, it's the last day to the
5 Prosecutor's case tomorrow, please recall it was on the last agenda that
6 the Status Conference, all these documents, if possible should be
7 available tomorrow, that we can discuss, admit or not admit them. And
8 finally, the major issue no doubt is that it would be necessary to have
9 available the documents included in the letter mentioned by the Defence
10 also tomorrow, that we can go through this procedure by tomorrow.
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I do have to announce that Mr. O'Donnell is not
12 available tomorrow.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have to take this into account. But even if
14 it's a long technical exercise, these 97 documents should be here tomorrow
15 that we can follow the plan as envisaged and agreed with by the Defence in
16 order that we really can conclude the Prosecutor's case tomorrow.
17 Any other remarks?
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This not being the case, this concludes today's
20 hearing, and thank you. And apologies once again to all participants for
21 the overtime, but when we can reach the gold, finalise the Prosecutor's
22 case tomorrow, it will be of assistance to all of us.
23 Trial stands adjourned until tomorrow, 9.30.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
25 at 4.22 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
1 the 27th day of September, 2002,
2 at 9.30 a.m.