Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1676

 1                           Thursday, 13 May 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning to everybody.

 6             Today, I would like to ask for appearances, because if I'm not

 7     mistaken, we have the first time you as the representative of the

 8     Prosecution.

 9             MR. ELDERKIN:  Good morning, Your Honours, and everybody.

10             My name is Rupert Elderkin, and I'm appearing this morning with

11     Mr. McCloskey and Ms. Stewart on behalf of the Prosecution.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

13             And the Defence is the same as always.

14             Before we start with the witness, at the outset of our hearing of

15     today, the Chamber would like to deal with four procedural matters.  The

16     first one is the following:

17             During the examination of Witness Ruez last week, the parties

18     were using material provided by a state pursuant to Rule 70 of our Rules.

19     The Chamber noticed that the Prosecution was referring to specific

20     conditions of the provider under which the Prosecution may present this

21     material.  The Prosecutor explicitly stated that the Defence had been

22     provided with letters of agreement about this material.  However, the

23     Chamber was not notified of such letters.  Thus, the Chamber is not in a

24     position to decide if a specific question by either party goes beyond the

25     scope of Rule 70.  The Chamber, therefore, requests the Prosecution,

Page 1677

 1     firstly, to indicate to the Trial Chamber which material currently the

 2     Rule 65 ter exhibit list was provided to them pursuant to Rule 70; and,

 3     secondly, to provide the Chamber with a statement of conditions under

 4     which the Prosecution may present this material.  This could avoid some

 5     conflicts and discussions during the evidence of the witness.

 6             The second point.  The Chamber noticed that the exhibited

 7     transcripts of prior testimonies are not yet replaced by corrected and

 8     official transcripts, as requested by the Chamber.  We would like to

 9     remind the Prosecution to do that as soon as possible and to bear that

10     obligation in mind in relation to future 92 ter witnesses.

11             The third point is the following:  Yesterday, the Chamber

12     received two urgent Prosecution motions.  The first one is the urgent

13     Prosecution motion for leave to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list, to

14     add documents relating to Dusan Janc's updated report filed yesterday.

15     In this motion, the Prosecution urgently requests to add material to its

16     65 ter exhibit list.  Now the Chamber invites the Defence to make oral

17     submissions in relation to this motion.

18             Mr. Tolimir, do you want to address the Chamber on this topic?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Praise the Lord to everyone, and I

20     would like to have this trial completed according to God's will.

21             I have received some notification from the Prosecution in

22     English, but it hasn't been translated, that to me, that they wish to

23     admit some documents.  If the Trial Chamber has seen the majority of the

24     documents, and the Defence hasn't seen them, I believe that the Defence

25     has full trust in the view of the Chamber regarding those documents, so

Page 1678

 1     that can also then apply to the position of the Defence.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, Mr. Tolimir.

 3             Does the Prosecution want to respond to that?  Mr. McCloskey.

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Good morning, Mr. President.

 5             No, we've been in discussions with Mr. Gajic about this and have

 6     been trying to get this -- get any materials that need be translated and

 7     worked out with them so this witness can be put on and the material used.

 8     And, of course, we remain flexible on this if there are any serious

 9     issues, but we're all -- both planning on dealing with Mr. Janc.  And if

10     there are any serious issues, we'll remain flexible on that, of course.

11     But given the small amount and the fact that most -- the vast majority of

12     Mr. Janc's report is the old report, we didn't think there is a problem,

13     and we hope there isn't.  But, as I said, we, of course, remain flexible

14     if there's any serious issue the Defence had.  We haven't heard it thus

15     far, but we are in discussions, of course.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for that.

17             The Chamber is inclined to grant leave to add these documents to

18     the 65 ter list.  However, if you want to use these documents during

19     examination-in-chief of the witness Dusan Janc, in that case perhaps we

20     have to postpone the finalisation of the examination-in-chief to give the

21     Defence the opportunity to review these documents and to prepare the

22     cross-examination.  I don't know what you have in mind about the use of

23     these documents.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, I believe we -- well, we wanted to use them,

25     we wanted the Court to be able to see them, and we're open to any

Page 1679

 1     flexible resolution like that.  It is fine with us, and we can discuss

 2     any particular documents with the Defence and see if there's anything we

 3     can do to get around the problem.  Mr. Thayer has been talking mostly

 4     with Mr. Gajic, and as far as I know they are moving forward, but

 5     discussions continue as we speak.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I think both parties should discuss

 7     this problem during the next break and during the hearing of today to

 8     find a way to deal with this problem.  Therefore, at the moment there is

 9     no decision needed.

10             My fourth point is the second motion, the urgent Prosecution

11     motion for leave to supplement its Rule 92 ter materials for the witness

12     scheduled for today, also filed confidentially yesterday.  The

13     Prosecution's intention appears to be that these exhibits should be

14     marked for identification now so that they can be admitted with another

15     witness later.  It would only be at that point that strictly the 92 ter

16     statements of the witness would be fully comprehensible.  It would be not

17     satisfactory that a 92 ter statement should not be fully comprehensible

18     when the witness concerned is called to testify.

19             The Chamber would like to ask the Prosecution how, if the

20     exhibits are not admitted, they can assist the Trial Chamber to see the

21     two documents in order to make sense of the transcript.  We presume that

22     the Prosecution has not sought the admission of the exhibits because it

23     realises that it would be seeking this at an unacceptably late stage.  It

24     appears that it did not seek the admission of the exhibits in the first

25     92 ter motion of the 18th of March, 2009.

Page 1680

 1             The Chamber invites the Defence again to make oral submissions in

 2     relation to this motion.  Mr. Tolimir, do you want to address the

 3     Chamber?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             My legal advisor has advised me that he is acquainted with the

 6     matter, up to a point.  And if the Prosecution does not intend to tender

 7     those documents into evidence, then we can accept that.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you want to respond?

 9             Please, Mr. Elderkin.

10             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honour, yes, if I may.

11             The motion was filed at a very late stage simply based on our

12     re-review of the proposed 92 ter statement and also, as Your Honours will

13     see in the motion, based on our understanding of the requirements of the

14     March 30th decision.  To cut it short, the two documents in question are

15     the standard-format vehicle logs, the same as a third document which is

16     on the witness's list of exhibits for today, for which we would seek

17     admission, and the discussion of the two other documents simply explains

18     the format of the standard form.  And because one document rather than

19     the other was used for that explanation, we wanted to make sure that it

20     would assist Your Honours, that it be available to be seen.  We don't

21     consider substantively that its content is necessary to explain the

22     witness's evidence, other than for that reason.  And, therefore, based on

23     the disposition of the 30th of March decision, we understood that we

24     should be identifying those, but we don't seek their admission either now

25     or at a later stage.

Page 1681

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  As you will be aware, this is the concern of the

 2     Chamber.  If you wanted to have it with the transcript of the witness's

 3     evidence, to have a full picture of his evidence, I think in that case

 4     you should tender these documents.

 5             Because of the importance of the exhibits for an understanding of

 6     the testimony of the witness, the Prosecution will be allowed to make use

 7     of them, as requested in the motion.  However, the Prosecution should

 8     consider to tender these documents as exhibits with this witness and

 9     should have brought them to the attention of the Chamber much earlier.

10             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

12             Now the Registrar would like to read something for the

13     transcript.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15             Considering that on Wednesday, 12th of May, 2010, the Prosecution

16     provided the Registry with the 65 ter numbers for the testimony and

17     exhibits related to Witness PW-068, as ordered by the Trial Chamber in

18     its 30th March, 2010, decision on Prosecution's motion regarding

19     Rule 65 ter witness and exhibit lists, Rule 92 ter, and protective

20     measures.  And pursuant to such decision, the Registry has marked for

21     identification such documents as follows:  65 ter 06239, the OTP

22     interview statement of Witness PW-068, is now P155, marked for

23     identification and under seal.  65 ter 06240, the sketch made during the

24     interview, is now Exhibit P156, marked for identification and under seal.

25     65 ter 05752 is now P157, marked for identification and under seal.

Page 1682

 1     Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 3             Now the witness should be brought in, but first we should close

 4     the windows to enable the witness to come in, in a protected way.

 5             Mr. Elderkin.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I don't know if the request has been

 7     passed up, but in the previous trial this witness appeared, he was given

 8     a caution concerning conditions of Rule 90(E), and I would request that

 9     Your Honours give the same caution in this case, please.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is our understanding, that face and voice

11     distortion will be provided to the witness, and addressed only by

12     pseudonym.

13             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, in addition to the protective

14     measures, the witness, given his -- given his position, the nature of his

15     evidence, is a person who may be in a position where he may have to

16     answer questions that might tend to incriminate him, and for that reason,

17     certainly, we've seen practice in the past, which may be reflected by

18     Your Honours, that a witness is warned of this provision and equally

19     warned and cautioned that if compelled to answer those questions, the

20     answers may not be used against him.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

22             Could the witness be brought in, please.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon, sir.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

Page 1683

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please read allowed the affirmation to

 2     tell the truth, which is shown on the card to you now.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters cannot hear the witness.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please repeat that.  The interpreters

 5     didn't hear you.  It was too silent or the microphone is not on.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The microphone is far away, but I

 7     solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and

 8     nothing but the truth.

 9                           WITNESS:  PW-068

10                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Please sit down.

12             Sir, before the Prosecutor starts with his questioning, I would

13     like to tell you two things.

14             The first is we are aware of the fact that you are perhaps not

15     very well and you need a break.  If that is the case, please indicate

16     immediately so that we can have a break then and you can recover.

17             The second point is I would like to read out one Rule of our

18     Rules of Procedure and Evidence - this is Rule 90(E) - so that you will

19     be aware of your rights.  It states:

20             "A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to

21     incriminate the witness.  The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to

22     answer the question.  Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used

23     as evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any

24     offence other than false testimony."

25             I hope you will be aware of this legal situation.

Page 1684

 1             Now Mr. Elderkin has some questions for you.

 2             Mr. Elderkin.

 3             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4                           Examination by Mr. Elderkin:

 5        Q.   Good morning, Witness.  As you know, my name is Rupert Elderkin,

 6     and before we get started I just want to remind you to try to keep your

 7     voice up and to speak a little slowly so that the interpreters will be

 8     able to translate what we are saying.  And if there's anything that I ask

 9     of you that's unclear, please let me know, and I'll do my best to

10     rephrase the question.

11             Can I ask that the witness please be shown the pseudonym sheet,

12     which is 65 ter 6238.

13             Sir, please, could you look at the screen in front of you.  And

14     without saying aloud what is written there, can you confirm if that is

15     your name on the screen?

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This will not be broadcast.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you tender that?

20             MR. ELDERKIN:  I would ask to tender that under seal,

21     Your Honours.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received under seal.

23             MR. ELDERKIN:

24        Q.   Sir, do you recall --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just wait a moment.

Page 1685

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P158, under seal,

 2     Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             Mr. Elderkin.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:

 6        Q.   Sir, do you recall making a statement to the Prosecution on the

 7     15th of March, 2008?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Did you have a chance to read that statement yesterday?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And are there two small corrections which should be made to that

12     statement?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. ELDERKIN:  Please, could we see the statement, which is

15     65 ter 6239, and also should not be broadcast.  And if we could go to

16     page 38 in the B/C/S, and page 37 is the corresponding page in the

17     English.  And in the B/C/S, if we could zoom in, as best as possible, to

18     see around line 12, and the English at around line 7, please.

19        Q.   Sir, should the word "kamionu" in B/C/S at line 12 instead read

20     "minibus"?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. ELDERKIN:  Can we please now could go to page 40 in the

23     B/C/S, right at the bottom of that page, and English at page 39, around

24     line 28, please.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin, I'm not sure if we had the right

Page 1686

 1     page on the screen before us.

 2             MR. ELDERKIN:  Excuse me, Your Honours.  I'm sorry.  Is

 3     Your Honour referring to my reference to "kamionu," that page, or the one

 4     we've moved to now?

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Again, we don't have it on the screen.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  I'm not sure what is showing up on everyone else's

 7     screens, but we seem to have got a lopped page on both sides, so I can't

 8     see the relevant page numbering at the moment.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps repeat the reference.

10             MR. ELDERKIN:  Of course, Your Honour.  I'll go back to the first

11     one, just to make sure everyone is clear.  So it was at B/C/S page 38 and

12     English page 37.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which line?

14             MR. ELDERKIN:  Well, the B/C/S line would be line 12, and the

15     English line 7.  However, I'm not seeing the corresponding text on the

16     screen here.

17             That's correct now.  The B/C/S is correct.  The English still

18     needs to be taken, please, to page 37.  And the English would be at

19     line 7.

20        Q.   Sir, if I may ask again, should the word "kamionu" at line 12 in

21     the B/C/S instead say "minibus"?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And now to the second correction, which is page 40 in

24     the B/C/S, so two pages further on, and at page 39 in the English, also

25     two pages further on, please.  And it will be towards bottom of both

Page 1687

 1     pages, so lines 31 to 33 in the B/C/S, and line 28 in the English.

 2             Sir, at lines 32 to 33, should the reference to "Daco or Dule" be

 3     corrected to "Dule or Dusan"?

 4        A.   They called him Dule.  I don't know if his name is Dusan or not,

 5     but they called him Dule.

 6        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Noting these --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin, just a moment.

 8             Mr. Tolimir.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in the transcript

10     that I see on the screen, it says his nickname is Dugme, not Dule.  Thank

11     you.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

13             Carry on, please.

14             MR. ELDERKIN:

15        Q.   Sir, noting the two corrections that you have made, does this

16     statement fairly and accurately reflect what you would say were you to be

17     examined here today and if you were asked the same questions?

18        A.   Could you please repeat your question?

19        Q.   Yes, of course.

20             Sir, considering the two corrections that you've just indicated,

21     apart from these, does your statement fairly and accurately reflect your

22     answers if you were asked the same questions today?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I'd ask now to have the statement

25     admitted under seal, along with the attached sketch which is currently

Page 1688

 1     listed as 65 ter 6240.  And we just got the numbers for those, which are

 2     P155 for the statement and P156 for the sketch.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you --

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin, could you please indicate what is

 6     the content of this sketch so that we have an idea of what we receive?

 7             MR. ELDERKIN:  If we could call up, please, 65 ter 6240, and it

 8     perhaps best not be broadcast.

 9        Q.   Sir, do you recognise the drawing in front of you?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we could please scroll down to see the

12     bottom of the page.

13        Q.   Sir, is this your signature?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you very much.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  The transcript will be an exhibit

17     under seal --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- and the sketch, which is already marked for

20     identification, as I was told, will be an exhibit.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  With Your Honour's permission, I'd like to read

22     now a very short summary of --

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  One moment, please.  We need the number first.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  The statement is now Exhibit P155.  The sketch

25     will be Exhibit P156.

Page 1689

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And both under seal, as I understand.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             Mr. Elderkin, please carry on.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:  And with permission, I would like to read a very

 6     short summary of the witness's evidence, and this can be in open session.

 7             The witness was a driver for the VRS.  On the 23rd of July of

 8     1995, he was ordered to drive a minibus.  He collected a group of

 9     soldiers from their base in Dragasevac and drove them to Bisina.  At

10     Bisina, the soldiers left the minibus, and returned some hours later.

11     The witness then drove them back to Dragasevac.  The witness recorded in

12     the vehicle log that the trip was authorised by Drina Corps security

13     officer Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.

14             That's my statement -- that's my summary, rather, Your Honours.

15     I would ask if I may have permission to put some questions to the

16     witness.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

18             MR. ELDERKIN:  Could we please have 65 ter 5752, which should not

19     be broadcast.  And is it possible to scroll over to the right-hand side

20     of the B/C/S?  Thank you.  And perhaps the same in the English, if we

21     could zoom in on the right-hand side.

22        Q.   Sir, do you recognise this document?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Can you please tell us what kind of document this is?

25        A.   This is a travel order or vehicle work log.

Page 1690

 1        Q.   For what kind of vehicle?

 2        A.   For a minibus.

 3        Q.   Does your name appear anywhere on this page?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:  And, please, could we see the second page both in

 6     the English and the B/C/S.  And this time if we could scroll, please, to

 7     the left-hand side of those pages.

 8        Q.   Sir, can you see your handwriting anywhere on this page?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Can you say which entries are your handwriting, please.

11        A.   Could we zoom in a little?  From the 19th until the 23rd.

12        Q.   Is your journey to Bisina on the 23rd of July recorded here?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you.

15             And I would ask now for the log to be admitted, also under seal.

16     And we were already given the MFI number for that as P157.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That will be received as an exhibit, under seal.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  That's P157, under seal, Your Honour.

19             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, if I understand correctly, I may go

20     ahead and use the two documents discussed in the decision earlier.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Go ahead.

22             MR. ELDERKIN:  If we could see, please, 65 ter 6275, please.

23     Your Honour, I'm not sure if this is available in English.  And, again,

24     if we could please zoom in on the right-hand side of the page.

25        Q.   Sir, what is this document?

Page 1691

 1        A.   Vehicle work log.

 2        Q.   Do you see your name anywhere on this page?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And what vehicle is this log for, please?

 5        A.   Minibus.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I'd ask that this be admitted, also

 7     under seal.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received under seal.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P159, under seal,

10     Your Honour.

11             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you.

12             And if we may now see, please, 65 ter 6276.  Also, it should not

13     be broadcast, please.  And if we could see the right-hand half of the

14     page again.

15        Q.   Sir, what is this document, please?

16        A.   Also a vehicle work log.

17        Q.   And for what vehicle?

18        A.   A minibus.

19        Q.   And does your name appear on this page, sir?

20        A.   Yes, number 2.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  I would ask for the admission also of this log,

22     again under seal, please.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be marked for identification, pending

24     translation into English.  And the same will be done with the previous

25     document, only marked for identification, pending translation.

Page 1692

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be P160, marked for identification,

 2     under seal.  And the same goes for P159, marked for identification.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             Please carry on, Mr. Elderkin.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, thank you very much.

 6             And thank you, Witness.  I have no further questions at this

 7     time.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, Mr. Elderkin.

10             Sir, you know now Mr. Tolimir has the right to put questions to

11     you.

12             Mr. Tolimir, do you have cross-examination?

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Good day, Witness.  I want to tell the witness I'm not going to

17     say anything that would identify him.  I know he's a protected witness.

18     And if I ask something that could identify him, then he should not answer

19     such questions, because he knows best how to protect himself, which is

20     obvious from the statement he gave to the Prosecution.

21             Witness, I don't have many questions for you, but I do want to

22     ask you something about that interview you have given and the questions

23     asked of you at the time by the people who were interviewing you.

24             Do you know where the football stadium is in Konjevic Polje?

25        A.   No.

Page 1693

 1        Q.   Thank you.  In the month of July, did you have occasion to go to

 2     Konjevic Polje, and did you drive Muslims there?  I mean Muslim

 3     prisoners.

 4        A.   I did have occasion to go there, but not to drive Muslim

 5     prisoners.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see 65 ter 06239, which was

 7     on the screen a moment ago.  That's the interview of this witness,

 8     page 31 and 33.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  For the record, that is P155, Your Honour.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I still cannot see the

11     Serbian on the screen, but it's coming up.

12             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   We are looking at page 33 in the Serbian language, and in English

14     it's also 33.  In English, it's lines 1 through 5, and in Serbian, it

15     starts at line 33 and then continues on page 34.

16             Do you see this in front of you?  I will read it out to you if

17     you can't see well enough to read.  It says -- the Prosecution says, at

18     line 33:

19             "We interviewed many people, including about Bisina.  We have

20     intercepts of conversations in the Drina Corps concerning Bisina.  We

21     know about the mass grave.  We have been there.  We know who dug out

22     those graves, and we know that some of those people were alive before

23     23rd July.  We know that they were taken there, that they were Muslim

24     prisoners who were killed there on that day, and we know that the trucks

25     of the Drina Corps went there to drive prisoners.  And we know you went

Page 1694

 1     there with a minibus at the same time, on the same day.  We know who the

 2     other people there were.  That means you were sent to the Drina Corps

 3     like a punishment.  We know you didn't want to be involved in this war.

 4     You only wanted to put bread on the table for your family.  You told us

 5     you did not have weapons, you were not armed, and I believe from this

 6     conversation so far, from this interview, that you were not involved.  We

 7     know you did not shoot at Bisina, but we know you drove people there and

 8     that you know what happened there, so we want you to tell us, in your own

 9     words, where you went, what you saw, what you heard, and what you

10     remember."

11             Were you able, Witness, to follow what I was reading aloud or to

12     follow on the screen?

13        A.   I did not make a statement as it is written here.  I did drive

14     people there, but I did not drive Muslim prisoners, nor did I see any

15     trucks, nor did I see anything during those days, because I was in the

16     rear, dealing with other problems such as supplies.

17             On one of those days, on the 23rd, I was on a field mission, and

18     when I returned, I got orders from my superior that our defence line was

19     broken somewhere at Bisina and that I should drive a group of people who

20     were waiting for me on the road near Vlasenica in a place called

21     Dragasevac.  My commander told me, Get out there and do it.  I turned

22     around and I went on the road to Sekovici.  Indeed, there were some

23     people standing next to some burned-down houses.  They got onto the

24     vehicle and they told me to change direction and not go to the command

25     but towards Bisina.

Page 1695

 1             When we got there, to a point where the road was no longer good

 2     and I couldn't go on, they got out, and I stood there for about

 3     15 minutes.  An older man in an ordinary soldier's uniform came up to me

 4     and took me back -- perhaps a kilometre back; I can't be precise.  There

 5     was the body of water there, something.  I washed my face.  People were

 6     building something there, perhaps barracks.  Anyway, I had a drink of

 7     water.  A man who was minding his cattle there came up to me, and I asked

 8     him, What's going on, grandfather?  He said, Muslim forces are attacking

 9     every day.  Our defence lines are broken.  Don't ask.

10             I was there for a couple of hours, all in all.  It's all written

11     in the vehicle work log.  And suddenly they came.  They were a bit dirty,

12     tired.  They got onto the vehicle, and I took them back to the same place

13     on the road where I picked them up.  That's what they wanted me to do,

14     and that's what I did, and returned to the command.

15        Q.   What I just read out is certainly not your words.  Those were the

16     words of the representative of the Office of the Prosecutor who

17     interviewed you on the 15th of March, 2008, and he provided you with some

18     broader information about these events.  I only read it out to show how

19     this interview was conducted.

20             You just told us how you drove people there, and was this older

21     man you mentioned a guard or something?

22        A.   I did not manage to ask much within the five or ten minutes I was

23     standing there.  I couldn't turn around my minibus there.  I had to go

24     lower down towards a farm, and that's where I made a U-turn.

25        Q.   Tell me, based on the conversation you had with that older man

Page 1696

 1     who was a guard, who took you a kilometre and a half back, did you

 2     understand from him that the defence lines were broken?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Did you think that the people you took there were taken there in

 5     some connection with the fact that the lines were broken?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please display page 33 of

 8     this same document.  Sorry, page 35, line 33 -- page 34 in Serbian, lines

 9     25 and 26.  In English, it is page 33, lines 24 to 27.

10             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   And you can see here lines 25 to 27, and I can see it.  I'm going

12     to read to you what it says.  I'm quoting what you said:

13             "I didn't see anything.  I didn't see them doing anything that

14     they were not supposed to."

15             Thank you, I have finished my quote.

16             Does this refer to the people that you drove?  Thank you.

17        A.   Yes.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we now --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 64 now,

21     lines 10 to 11.  It's the same document.

22             We are still seeing page 34 on the screen.  Can we please look at

23     page 64 in the Serbian version, lines 10 and 11.

24             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   The Prosecutor said to you:

Page 1697

 1             "We didn't say that you knew what your task would be."

 2             And then it says you say:

 3             "I couldn't say."

 4             There's a correction, actually, now, but in your original

 5     statement it said:

 6             "I couldn't say anything, yes or no.  Had I seen anything, I

 7     would have said so, but I didn't see anything."

 8             This is what you say in lines 10-11 in the original transcript.

 9     And this is actually lines 26 and 27 in the Serbian.  And in English,

10     it's page 62, I'm being told by my legal advisor, lines 25 and 26.

11        A.   Could you please put your question to me again.

12        Q.   I'm now reading lines 16 and 17.  You can follow that on the

13     screen:

14             "I don't know, I didn't see it.  I really couldn't say whether

15     that did or didn't happen when I didn't.  I wasn't there.  Had I seen

16     something, I would have said so.  Had I seen it, I would have told about

17     it, but I didn't."

18             Are these your words?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And those who were putting the questions to you, did they believe

21     you when you said that or not?

22        A.   Well, you can ask them.

23        Q.   I'm asking you.  Did you have the impression at the time that

24     they believed what you were saying or not?  Thank you.

25        A.   Well, I guess they did believe it if they put the question to me.

Page 1698

 1        Q.   Did they try to put the same question to you several times?

 2     Thank you.

 3        A.   I don't remember.  Perhaps a couple of times.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you must slow down a little bit and

 6     not overlap.  It's very difficult for the interpreters.  And then if you

 7     continue, please switch on your microphone.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Witness, sir, I am going to show to you your statement 20 pages

11     before what we have just read, and they're trying to convince you that

12     you said something that you're saying you didn't.

13             Now, we can look at page 43 of this interview.  Let's go back

14     from page 64 to page 43, lines 10, 11, and 12 in the Serbian version.

15             Are you able to read lines 10, 11, 12 to yourself, please.

16        A.   Could you please zoom in on the text so it can be a little bit

17     bigger.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, another advice.  When the witness is

19     answering your questions, please switch off your microphone so that his

20     voice can't be heard outside this courtroom.  Thank you.

21             Carry on, please.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for Mr. Tolimir.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And now switch on the mike.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's switched on.

25             This is page 41 in English, lines 41 [as interpreted] to 35.

Page 1699

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Well, you can see what is being said 20 pages before this

 3     page 64, on page 43, lines 10 and 11:

 4             "No, no.  Well, I have to be a little bit nervous, because you're

 5     wanting me to say something that I didn't see.  I cannot say that.  I

 6     could mention my brother, but I didn't see anything.  I have children.  I

 7     cannot.  I am --"

 8             Witness, sir, will you please tell me whether this text that I

 9     read out, whether those are your words in your interview to the

10     Prosecution on the 15th of March, 2008?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And is it evident that for a whole 20 pages, they're asking you

13     to say something or talk about something that you didn't see?  Thank you.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And can you answer now whether that is some sort of pressure on

16     you to say something that you didn't see?

17        A.   I don't know if it is any kind of pressure.  I'm not really well

18     versed in such things in order to be able to explain something like that.

19        Q.   Now we're going to look at page 49.

20             Can we please look at page 49 in the Serbian version, lines 31

21     and 32.  My legal advisor is going to see what page that is in the

22     English version.  In the Serbian, it is page 49, lines 31 and 32.

23             The last sentence of that line, you are quoted as saying:

24             "And please don't have me say something that I didn't see.  I

25     don't think that is fair."

Page 1700

 1             Thank you.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Witness, we have now seen, in these 20 pages, that the same

 4     matter is discussed.  The Prosecution would like you to confirm the text

 5     that I read earlier, where you said you didn't see it, and now they want

 6     you to say what they want you to say, and you keep saying what I quoted

 7     you back as saying on these three pages.  So my question is:  Did you

 8     drive Muslim prisoners from Vlasenica to Bisina?  Thank you.

 9        A.   No, never.

10        Q.   My next question is:  Did you know where those people were going

11     that you were driving from Vlasenica to Bisina, from their command at

12     Dragasevac?

13        A.   I don't know if their command is there, but I got an order from

14     my chief to drive them up to the battalion command.  The line was

15     breached.  And that was the whole quotation that I got from my boss.

16     This is what I was told.

17        Q.   All right, thank you.  So you were driving in the hope that they

18     would go and carry out a defence assignment in restoring breached lines;

19     is that true?

20        A.   Absolutely, this is what I was ordered.  I don't know what they

21     did, whether they went or not.  This is not something that I was really

22     was able to find out.

23        Q.   All right, thank you.  Did you have the sense, when you were

24     giving this interview in Belgrade on the 15th of March, 2008, which was

25     attended by three or four people, that they would like you to produce a

Page 1701

 1     certain kind of statement, that they thought that you knew something that

 2     you actually don't know?  Thank you.

 3        A.   Well, I don't want to interfere in their work.  What I knew, I

 4     told.  As for everything else, I really couldn't say anything that I

 5     hadn't seen, so I couldn't give a statement like that, and I didn't.  So

 6     that's that.  I was just listening to the orders of my superior.  Had I

 7     driven them, I would have said that, but as I didn't, I really couldn't

 8     say.  I mean, I couldn't say that I did drive them if I didn't.

 9        Q.   All right, thank you.  Well, just tell me, did they ask you

10     whether you heard any firing from the location where you were?  Thank

11     you.

12        A.   They asked me, and there was shooting in the direction of the

13     line, shooting, shelling, and so on.  That is what you could hear even

14     farther away, not only up to where I was.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.  I have no further

16     questions for you.  You have replied to my answers in accordance with the

17     way you provided your statement.  Thank you very much.  May God bless

18     you, and may you return home safely.

19             Mr. President, I don't have any more questions for this witness.

20     Thank you.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.

22             Mr. Elderkin, do you have re-examination?

23             MR. ELDERKIN:  Just very briefly, Your Honours, if I may.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

25                           Re-examination by Mr. Elderkin:

Page 1702

 1        Q.   Witness, do you know the name of the village outside Vlasenica

 2     where the 10th Sabotage Detachment was based?

 3        A.   I don't know.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             Can I note now that this was not the topic of the

 7     cross-examination and was not something that the witness mentioned in his

 8     statement.  This goes outside of those two things.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin, you heard the objection by

10     Mr. Tolimir.  You should bear in mind you should only deal with topics

11     raised during cross-examination.

12             Carry on, please.

13             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, that question was related to

14     Mr. Tolimir's reference to the command and the command where he picked

15     people up from.  So I don't have any further questions, based on that.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Mindua has a question for you.

17                           Questioned by the Court:

18             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I have a short question to put to

19     you, but perhaps we should move to closed session.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Closed session, private.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 1703

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in public session, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, you will be pleased to know that this

19     concludes the questioning for you.  You may now return to your normal

20     activities.

21             The Chamber would like to thank you for your attendance here and

22     the assistance you could give us.  Thank you very much again, and now you

23     are free to leave the courtroom.  But first the blinds will be brought

24     down so that you will not be recognised out of the courtroom.  Thank you

25     very much again.  The Court Officer will help you out.

Page 1704

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2                           [The witness withdrew]

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can the blinds be brought up again, please.

 4             Good morning, Mr. Vanderpuye.  I wonder if it would be a

 5     convenient time to have the break now so that everything can be prepared

 6     for the next witness, who has no protective measures, if I'm not

 7     mistaken.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to

 9     you, Your Honours.

10             That sounds like a good idea.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then we will have our first break now, and we

12     will resume at quarter to 11.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could the next witness be brought in, please.

16                           [The witness entered court]

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning, sir.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Welcome to the Tribunal.

20             Could you please read aloud the affirmation shown to you now.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

22     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

23                           WITNESS:  NIKODIN JOVICIC

24                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, and please sit down.

Page 1705

 1             Mr. Vanderpuye has some questions for you.

 2             Mr. Vanderpuye.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning

 4     again.  Good morning, Your Honours, and good morning to you, Mr. Jovicic.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 6                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

 7        Q.   As you know, my name is Kweku Vanderpuye.  We met yesterday, and

 8     I'm just going to put some questions to you regarding your evidence

 9     today.

10             First, could you please state your name for the record.

11        A.   Nikodin Jovicic.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Jovicic.  Mr. Jovicic, do you recall having given

13     a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor's investigators on 17 March

14     2008?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And at the time you gave your statement, was it truthful?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And have you had an opportunity, prior to testifying here today,

19     to review that statement?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And in reviewing the statement, did you read it yourself, or did

22     you have it read back to you?

23        A.   I read it back myself, yes.

24        Q.   Now, did you discuss that statement with me yesterday?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1706

 1        Q.   And other than the fact that you no longer work for the

 2     Han Pijesak police and that you do not personally know the circumstances

 3     surrounding the death of a person named Himzo Mujic's brother in 1992,

 4     does your statement fairly and accurately reflect what you would say were

 5     you to be examined here today and if you were asked the same questions?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  At this time, Your Honour, I would tender

 8     the witness's previous statement.  It's 65 ter 6237.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be Exhibit P161, Your Honour.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Your Honour, I have a very brief summary of the

12     witness's statement.  It shouldn't take more than a minute or so.

13             In July 1995, the witness was the deputy commander of the

14     uniformed police in the Han Pijesak Police Station.  The commander of the

15     uniformed police at that time was Milan Perovic and Goran Kanostrevac,

16     nicknamed Kane, served as chief of the police station.

17             Prior to the war, Himzo Mujic, whom the witness described as a

18     labourer from the Muslim village of Rijeka, worked for the witness as an

19     operational contact.  Mujic provided the witness with information

20     concerning events in the Han Pijesak area.  In mid-1992, the witness lost

21     contact with Mujic.

22              The witness read a 24 July 1995 intercept bearing the ERN

23     number 0080-1169 through 0080-1174.  In it, a Himzo Mujic is mentioned as

24     seeking to talk to one Jovicic, as he used to work for him.  The witness

25     believes that the intercept refers to Mujic's attempt to reach the

Page 1707

 1     witness, in view of their pre-war working relationship.  The witness did

 2     not have any information about Mujic's whereabouts or whether he tried to

 3     help Mujic in July 1995.  However, he does not exclude that he may have

 4     done so.

 5             The witness also noticed the name Neso Rubez in the intercept.

 6     The witness new Nenad Rubez from elementary school in Han Pijesak and

 7     that in 1995 he was in the army doing office work.  The witness, however,

 8     does not recall any conversation with Rubez or with Chief

 9     Goran Kanostrevac regarding Himzo Mujic.

10             That concludes my summary of his statement, and I have just one

11     or two questions for the witness.

12             Witness, I'd like to show you very briefly the intercept that's

13     referred to in your statement.  That's 65 ter 3142A and 3142D.  A is the

14     English -- is the B/C/S; D is the English, please.  Okay, thank you.

15        Q.   Are you able to read the handwritten intercept on the left side

16     of your screen?

17        A.   Yes.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you continue, Mr. Tolimir.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

20             I have an objection.  The statement does not refer to this

21     transcript anywhere.  The witness is just asked whether he knew these two

22     people.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             I take it Mr. Tolimir is referring to the statement.  In the

Page 1708

 1     statement, this specific intercept is referred to.  It's on paragraph 10.

 2     That's page 3 of the English statement, and I can locate it in the B/C/S

 3     so that it's clearer for Mr. Tolimir.  But it's referred to specifically

 4     by ERN, as I read it into the record in the summary.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, it's on page 3 in the B/C/S, and --

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only the document is referred to,

 8     but there's nothing about the document in the statement, and there is

 9     nothing that is contained in the document that is quoted in the

10     statement.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that.

13     I can read the exact paragraph into the record, but I think it's really

14     quite plain in the text of itself -- of the document itself.  It reads as

15     follows:

16             "The investigator, Blaszczyk, showed me the document

17     ERN 0080-1169 through 0080-1174, which I had an opportunity to read

18     carefully.  I was told that this transcript of an intercept from July

19     1995.  In this document, the name Himzo Mujic is mentioned in the context

20     that, 'He would like to talk to Jovicic because he used to work for him.'

21     I believe that in this paragraph, Himzo Mujic is referring to me, having

22     in mind that he cooperated with me before the war."

23             Which is almost verbatim what my summary says, so I don't know

24     exactly what Mr. Tolimir's objection is.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 1709

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2        Q.   With respect to this document, Mr. Jovicic, what I wanted to show

 3     you -- well, if we could just go through it a little bit.

 4             Right at the very beginning, you can see that this is a

 5     communication between Kane, X, and Y, extension 342, that's written at

 6     the very top of the intercept.  And then you can see it starts off with X

 7     saying:

 8             "He was here at our place, I don't know if he still is,

 9     Himzo Mujic."

10             That's on the first line.

11             And Y responds:

12             "That's what I'm calling you for, man."

13             A few lines down, you can see the name Neso Rubez, as you've

14     indicated in your statement, and then you can see that X says:

15             "And, ah, he told him later on, over there, he said, 'I'd like to

16     talk to Jovicic because I used to work for him.'"

17             As we've just seen in his statement:

18             "He worked for him and then the war started," was the response.

19             And if we could go a little bit further down --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, just for the record, I think you

21     quoted correctly the B/C/S version.  There is mention of Jovicic, and the

22     English translation is only "Jovic" and not "Jovicic."  That might be a

23     translation mistake.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Oh, how do you like that.  You're right.  I seem

25     to have -- I do have a different document in front of me.  All right.

Page 1710

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Carry on, please.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             Actually, you know, the translation in front of you now indicates

 4     a time of 1135 hours, and it should indicate the time of 1132 hours, as

 5     you can see on the intercept on your left.  And I think the translation

 6     that I have in front of me, which is 0091-2478 through 2479 is a

 7     translation of the handwritten intercept in front of you now, and what's

 8     on the screen is a translation of a print-out that was sent based on this

 9     intercept.

10             In any event, I intend to offer all of this into evidence, so we

11     can sort it out.  Okay.  Otherwise, I think substantively the

12     intercept -- the translation is virtually identical.

13        Q.   If we look further down the page, we can see here where X says:

14             "I could try to call the warden, you know."

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's in English and it's in the middle -- and

16     it's in the middle of the page in the English translation.  And I

17     understand it's on page 2 of B/C/S, so if we could go to the next page in

18     the B/C/S so the witness can follow.  That's it there.  It's the third --

19     basically, the third paragraph from the bottom.

20        Q.   Do you see that, Witness, where it says:

21             "I could try to call the warden ..."

22             And then it follows with:

23             "Who is the warden?"

24             And it says:

25             "A guy named -- a guy called Dragic."

Page 1711

 1             That's at the bottom of the page in front of --

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   And then in page 2 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S, you

 4     can see a reference to Himzo Mujic having been wounded in the leg.  It

 5     says:

 6             "He's wounded.  He said he needs a little treatment.  He's

 7     wounded in the leg."

 8             And X responds:  "No problem."

 9             Let me read the translation that you have in e-court so we're

10     talking about the same thing.

11             In e-court, it reads:

12             "He's wounded.  He said he needs a little treatment.  He's

13     wounded in the leg."

14             And then it reads:  "(Passage missing)" in parentheticals.

15             But do you see that reference to Mr. Mujic being wounded in the

16     leg in the B/C/S before you, the handwritten text?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And in respect of Mr. Mujic being wounded in the leg, do you have

19     any recollection of having discussed that with anyone at that time?

20        A.   No.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay, all right.  That's all I have for you.

22             I would like to tender this document into evidence; actually, all

23     versions of it.  Those consists of 3142, A through F; and 3143, A through

24     D.  Is that right?  Just 3142 A through F, I'm sorry.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, to have it clear on the record,

Page 1712

 1     it would be helpful if you could number the -- give the numbers of the

 2     documents again, but separately, and indicate if it's B/C/S and which one

 3     is the English translation.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President, thank you.

 5             Okay.  3142A is B/C/S handwritten text.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That will be received.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P162, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness had no

10     knowledge about this document before he was interviewed by the

11     Prosecution in 2008.  It's only then that the Prosecutor read this out to

12     him.  At the time of the events, he had no knowledge about this document.

13     I don't know how this can be admissible in this case, and the question is

14     how this is being tendered, on what basis.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, this is now an exhibit.  The Chamber

16     ruled on that.  And the witness was asked about the content of it, and

17     his name was mentioned in it.  And, therefore, the English translation

18     will also be received, but please, Mr. Vanderpuye -- and, of course, you

19     are in the position to ask questions during your cross-examination.

20             Please, the number of the English translation.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.

22             The number of the English translation is 3142B, as in "Boy."

23     It's ERN 0091-2478 through 2479.  That's the one I was reading from.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This translation will be attached to the previous

Page 1713

 1     B/C/S exhibit.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Will you tender another English translation?

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             The other English translation is 3142D, as in "David," and that

 6     is 0091-2476 through 2477, the ERN number.  I believe that's the one that

 7     was displayed on e-court.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  This one will be attached

 9     to the exhibit as well.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And then there's another -- and then there's a

11     print-out which attends to that translation, and that print-out is

12     0072-7930 through 0072-7931.  The 65 ter number, I'm sorry, is 3142C.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  That will be a part of that

14     exhibit as well, attached to that, so that we have a full picture of all

15     versions of this intercept.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And then there's another print-out of the same

17     intercept.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To enable everybody to identify the documents

20     properly, the last one you tendered will be a separate exhibit and will

21     be received.  This is 3142C.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right, Mr. President.

23             I understand that we have some difficulty in terms of how to

24     either keep these documents together or keep them apart, and the reason

25     is that there are, in fact, a number of translations, a number of

Page 1714

 1     versions of these intercepts, which will become clearer to the Court once

 2     the interceptor operators actually arrive and start testifying about the

 3     process of taking these intercepts, which went from handwritten

 4     note-books, then were typed, transcribed, and then sent.  So there are a

 5     number of versions of them.  And, of course, I leave it to the Court's

 6     discretion as to how to organise them, but there are quite a number of

 7     them.  I think there may be about 300 of them or so that we intend to

 8     tender into evidence, and with the attached translations, et cetera, it

 9     will be, I think, more than a thousand documents, or somewhere

10     thereabouts.  So I just want to let you know that it's going to get a lot

11     worse.

12             But for these purposes, there is one other print-out that I would

13     like to tender as well, and the reason is there is a good version of the

14     print-out, which is the 0320 series of documents, which I will explain if

15     you'd like, and then there are the not-so-good print-outs, which are the

16     0072 versions of these documents, one of which I've already tendered at

17     3142C.  So the one that I'd like to tender as well is 3142F, as in

18     "Frank," and that is ERN 0320-5746 through 5747.  That's a B/C/S

19     print-out as well.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  This is the first time we are dealing with

21     this problem of the best way.  And later on, to be able to identify the

22     specific document and translation, I think it will be received as an

23     exhibit, but we will decide later and have to confer with the Registry

24     which is the best way to have the numbering for later identification of

25     all documents.  But it will be received.

Page 1715

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President, and that's --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Carry on, please.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's all I have to tender in respect of this

 4     witness, and that completes my direct examination.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 6             Mr. Jovicic, you know now Mr. Tolimir has some questions for you.

 7             Mr. Tolimir.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             I would just like to ask, all these documents that were referred

10     to, because I couldn't follow and I was not able to see in different

11     languages, in handwriting and typed up, are they all on this list of

12     documents, the original list, or are they some other documents?  Are they

13     related to this witness?  Can they be admitted through this witness?

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             Yes, they are all related to this witness.  They all speak --

17     they all have the same content and the same text.  They're simply

18     different versions of this based on the handwritten document which was

19     shown to the witness at 0080-1169 through 1174 that I referred to in the

20     summary and in the statement itself.  So they all have the same content,

21     they all mentioned the same people, same circumstances.  Everything is

22     virtually identical between them.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If I'm not mistaken, these are all part of the

24     Prosecution exhibit list for this witness.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.

Page 1716

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, before we carry on, I think it

 3     could be helpful for everybody if you explain how it comes that there are

 4     different translations.  What was the procedure which leads to this

 5     situation to have so many different documents?  For the record and for a

 6     better understanding also in future cases.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll do my best.

 8             It's a relatively long process in respect of the development of

 9     translations related to intercepts.  The intercepts, and you'll see this

10     in some of the 92 bis applications and other evidence from live witnesses

11     as well, were generally recorded in the context of the ABiH 2nd Corps

12     intercepts.  They were generally recorded, written down on note-books.

13     So the handwritten document that you've seen in e-court is from a

14     note-book that the intercept operator actually wrote down the

15     conversation that he listened to.  The process, as you'll come to know,

16     involves -- once the operator has written that down, that handwritten

17     note-book gets sent over to another individual, who then types down what

18     is written in the handwritten document and generates a printed version of

19     this intercept.  That printed version that gets transmitted from the

20     location where the intercepts are actually first taken down to another

21     office where they are analysed.  In some instances, the received printed

22     intercept is then analysed and put together with other intercepts, which

23     generates yet another version of a typewritten print-out.

24             All of those documents are then -- are also, I should say,

25     encoded in computer.  They are written on a, for example, a

Page 1717

 1     word-processing document and stored electronically.  Those stored

 2     electronic versions were also received by the Prosecution.  And in some

 3     instances, because they were electronic, they could be printed directly,

 4     and so they weren't photocopied.

 5             So when I say we had not so good printed version of the

 6     intercept, those refer to those photocopied versions that came from

 7     another office outside of where the original intercepts were transcribed

 8     and typed.

 9             Then we also received the electronic versions of those

10     intercepts, the ones that were actually encoded, written into a

11     word-processing document, which we could print out.  Those documents are

12     much clearer, obviously, because they are first-generation print.

13     They're not photocopied or anything.  So that accounts for the different

14     versions of the B/C/S intercepts.

15             And then we have situations where the photocopied version, versus

16     the -- photocopied typewritten versions, versus the first-generation

17     printed version from the electronic format, have been transcribed -- have

18     been interpreted, sometimes differently, because they're done at

19     different times by different people, and sometimes differently because

20     there are defects, shall we say, on the photocopied version; a word isn't

21     clear because the photocopy didn't come out properly.

22             So, for example, in the intercept that we just saw on the screen,

23     where you see the slash lines with "passage missing," you may see that in

24     respect of the poorly photocopied versions, because the photocopy didn't

25     come out properly and the text is literally not -- can't be seen on that

Page 1718

 1     bad photocopy.  On the first-generation printed electronic version, the

 2     text is clearly there because it's not photocopied.  It's essentially a

 3     very clear image.  And that accounts for some of the differences in the

 4     translation of those texts.

 5             So that's the reason why we have, I think in a nutshell, a number

 6     of different versions of them, and occasionally we'll see slight

 7     differences -- you will see slight differences between what's in the

 8     handwritten text and what's in the typewritten text on relatively minor

 9     issues, such as the time.  As I indicated in the one we just saw, the

10     handwritten version reads "at 1132," the typewritten -- well, in this

11     case the translation that you could see indicated "1135."  That's based

12     on the typewritten version of this very same intercept.  Textually, they

13     are indistinguishable substantively.

14             That's all I can tell you for the moment.  You'll hear more from

15     the operators when they get here.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just another to that from Judge Nyambe.

17             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you very much for the explanation.  Does

18     that also account for what you referred to in line 17, page 37, regarding

19     the language -- English language?  You said that -- where are we?  You

20     seem to imply -- yes.  I just need to understand whether the process you

21     have explained, which I understand, also relates to the language of

22     translation.  You say in line 17, The number of the English translation

23     is so-and-so, the other English translation - this is line 25 - is 3142D.

24     Are you referring to one document?

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  When I say the other English translation, I'm

Page 1719

 1     saying the other English translation of the same B/C/S document.

 2             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And so they are two different versions of that

 4     B/C/S document, two different translations of that B/C/S document.

 5             JUDGE NYAMBE:  So, in other words, the same document has been

 6     translated twice, and you would have two different versions of one

 7     document?

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I see your question.  Well, no.  Sometimes that

 9     happens, I have to be honest, but in this particular instance I'm talking

10     about two different translations of two different documents.  One is a

11     translation of the handwritten document, and the other is a translation

12     of the typewritten document.  And what you saw on the screen was a

13     translation of the typewritten document while we were looking at the

14     handwritten document.  And so when I was questioning the witness, I was

15     reading from a translation of the handwritten document and mistakenly a

16     translation of the typewritten document was before the Court in e-court.

17             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  So I'm tendering all of them, so that we can

19     clear on what is what.

20             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you very much.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Judge.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can I take it the typewritten document was taken

23     from the tape?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The typewritten document -- the handwritten

25     document is what the intercept writer -- intercept operator transcribes

Page 1720

 1     when he listens to the conversation.  And then that handwritten document

 2     is given over to a typist, who types the document and sends it for

 3     further consideration to other organs.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  He types it from the handwritten?

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  A handwritten note-book?

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And not from the tape?

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Not from the tape.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  So he's listening again to the conversation?

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's right.

12             On occasion, and you'll hear more from the intercept operators,

13     but on occasion they do collaborate, they sit together, they listen to

14     the tapes, in order to resolve certain ambiguities or difficult passages

15     to hear.  But then it goes to the typist, or encryption person, who then

16     types down what's written and sends that.  So there's a typed version of

17     the handwritten document which, I would say, 90 per cent of the time,

18     99 per cent of the time, corresponds identically to the handwritten

19     version, but occasionally you see discrepancies, as you see in this case,

20     "1132" on the handwritten, "1135" on the translation on the translation

21     of the typewritten document.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Vanderpuye.  I think

23     that helps also for future instances.  Thank you very much again.

24             And I take it you've finished your examination-in-chief.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have.

Page 1721

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you have now the --

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since Mr. Vanderpuye

 3     announced that they have around 300 transcripts to offer in this case,

 4     and we heard what he said:

 5             "Some were interpreted in a different way, some documents like

 6     this original ..." et cetera.

 7             Some are typed, some are print-outs.  I kindly ask you that all

 8     transcripts they want to tender in this case be subjected to expertise

 9     before the testimony of operators, and not admit transcripts then.

10     Because Mr. Vanderpuye just said that 90 per cent of the transcripts are

11     accurate and 10 are not.  One of you Judges also noticed the same thing.

12     Please decide who will review these transcripts by the Defence and by the

13     Prosecution, and submit them to an expert, only those that will be

14     admitted in this case, because I read in earlier cases, such as Popovic

15     et al -- I saw that they are differently interpreted, these transcripts,

16     these intercepts, in different translations.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I think the Chamber has to consider

18     your application.  We will come back to that later.  And now I think it's

19     time for continuing the examination of this witness.

20             But I think you are on your feet, Mr. Vanderpuye.  You want to

21     raise something.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I only wanted to point out that - and I'm sure

23     Mr. Tolimir is aware, as Mr. Gajic is - these intercepts, the ones that

24     we are tendering or intend to tender in this case, have been admitted and

25     vetted in a number of trials.  And I'm sure Mr. Tolimir is aware, as he

Page 1722

 1     says, that there are differences in some of these translations, and

 2     that's simply a human factor.  Different people translate things

 3     differently, even though they are equally qualified to do so.  And,

 4     clearly, if he has an issue with respect to any given translation,

 5     there's nothing that prevents him from challenging it or having it

 6     translated for his own purposes, provided he has the resources to do so.

 7     And I think that's about all I wanted to say.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  As I indicated already, Mr. Tolimir, we will take

10     into consideration your concern, and now we should continue with the

11     examination of the witness.  You have your cross-examination.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

13             I'm going to continue.  I would just like to say one simple

14     sentence.

15             I'm not asking for a verification of the translations.  I just

16     would like to see the original in the note-book, where the intercept is

17     written in the original handwriting.  I'm not going to pursue this.  I

18     would just like to be able to see that before using the translation that

19     is being used today.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we had the original note-book on the

21     screen before us.  Please carry on.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23             I apologise for sometimes being very persistent, but I did

24     participate in the verification of documents.  We didn't have the entire

25     note-book.  We only looked at one page, and it could have been created

Page 1723

 1     the day before.

 2             So, anyway, I would like to say hello to the witness, that I hope

 3     that the proceedings will not be completed according to my will, but

 4     according to the will of the Lord.

 5             So I would like to refer him now to his statement, on page 4,

 6     lines 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the Serbian language.  It's the last page in the

 7     Serbian, and it's the last page of the document in the English.  These

 8     are the last lines, last eight lines.  Thank you.

 9             I apologise.  My legal advisor is telling me that it's page 3 in

10     the English translation.  Thank you.

11             We can see page 1 on the screen in the Serbian.  Can we look at

12     page 4 in the Serbian, please, lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  All right,

13     it's marked.  Can you please zoom in.  Thank you.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Witness, can you please look at this second sentence at the

17     beginning of this page.  I'm going to quote what you said, and then I

18     will put a question to you:

19             "I do not recall any conversation with Rubez regarding

20     Himzo Mujic.  I also don't remember any conversation regarding

21     Himzo Mujic conducted with my former chief, Goran Kanostrevac.

22             "I heard that there was a military prison in Vlasenica known as

23     Susica, but I do not recall the time-period.  I have never been there,

24     and I had no contacts with the prison wardens."

25             And we're going to wait for the interpreters to interpret this,

Page 1724

 1     and then my question will be -- thank you.

 2             Witness, sir, are these your words that I have just read from

 3     your statement that you provided on the 17th of March, 2008, which is a

 4     Prosecution document P161?  Thank you?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   All right.  Since you don't recall anything that refers to this

 7     conversation from this transcript, that you said anything like this any

 8     time, I'm going to ask you this:  The contents of this transcript, is

 9     that something that you found out only when you spoke with them on the

10     17th of March, 2011 -- 2008?

11        A.   Yes.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no questions for this

13     witness.  I would like to thank you, and I would like to wish the witness

14     a safe journey home, and I am thanking him for coming to this Tribunal to

15     testify and for having confirmed his prior statement and his prior

16     testimony.  Thank you very much.  Safe trip, Witness.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Jovicic, you will be pleased to hear that

18     this concludes your examination.  Thank you very much for your attendance

19     here in The Hague again, and you are free now to return to your normal

20     activities.  Thank you very much, and the Court Officer will show you

21     out.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23                           [The witness withdrew]

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, I suppose we have another witness

25     now.

Page 1725

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I'm sorry, I forgot to

 2     update you.

 3             I've spoken with my colleague, and we have essentially agreed

 4     that Mr. Janc should testify now.  And I believe they will attempt to

 5     begin their cross-examination sometime tomorrow and, if unable to

 6     complete it, complete it sometime after the testimony of the following

 7     witness.  And if that's all right with the Court, I think we are prepared

 8     to go forward.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In that case, the witness should be brought in.

10                           [The witness entered court]

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please sit down.

12             Welcome back to the Tribunal, this trial, Mr. Janc.  May I remind

13     you that the affirmation that you made to tell the truth still applies.

14             THE WITNESS:  I understand.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And the Prosecution has some more questions for

16     you.

17                           WITNESS:  DUSAN JANC [Resumed]

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

21        Q.   Good morning to you, Mr. Janc.

22        A.   Good morning.

23        Q.   I know that you've already testified to some extent already in

24     this case, so I won't go into your background.  But in the context of

25     your function as an OTP investigator, have you had any involvement in

Page 1726

 1     reviewing the evidence that is related to the number of victims

 2     concerning Srebrenica and Zepa events?

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 4        Q.   And when did your involvement in this area of the investigation

 5     begin?

 6        A.   I would say towards the end of 2007, when Dean Manning was here

 7     preparing for his testimony in Popovic and -- in the Popovic case.  And

 8     then particularly for his purposes, I went on a mission to visit all the

 9     sites -- the exhumation sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina related to

10     Srebrenica events, and so that was in October 2007.  And from then on, I

11     was constantly involved in the exhumations of the Srebrenica victims.

12        Q.   And can you tell us, in general terms, what your responsibilities

13     were or what the nature of your involvement was and is with respect to

14     that project?

15        A.   Yes.  My -- the purpose of this -- or my involvement was in

16     respect to the updates on the -- on the current number of the identified

17     individuals regarding the Srebrenica-related events, as well as to the

18     exhumations which were conducted between -- in these periods, because the

19     exhumations regarding Srebrenica events are ongoing process in Bosnia,

20     and every year they exhumed additional graves and found victims from

21     Srebrenica events.  So in -- I was involved in gathering information on

22     these exhumations.  I was involved in -- in having contacts with BH

23     authorities, ICMP, and with the people on the ground in Bosnia, so in

24     order to get as many information and new evidence on these graves which

25     were exhumed after 2001, when the ICTY completed their exhumations.

Page 1727

 1        Q.   All right.  Just a moment ago, you mentioned a Dean Manning.  Can

 2     you just tell us who that is in relation to what you're doing now

 3     concerning this investigation?

 4        A.   Yes.  Dean Manning was investigator for the OTP.  I think he left

 5     the Tribunal around 2003, and he was dealing with the same issue before.

 6     And he prepared several reports in respect to the exhumations, which were

 7     done by the ICTY and later on by the BiH authorities.  And he also

 8     testified in several cases.  And my report is just updating his previous

 9     reports.

10        Q.   Now, you mentioned that one of your functions was the gathering

11     of information.  Could you just tell us, as briefly as possible, what

12     kinds of information or materials, generally, were you involved in

13     gathering or reviewing?

14        A.   I think I briefly already mentioned that we were -- I was

15     gathering the information on the specific grave-sites which were exhumed

16     by the BiH and are related to Srebrenica events.  So those would be

17     exhumation records, exhumation -- yeah, exhumation records, where you can

18     get information on, for example, when a certain exhumation site was

19     exhumed, how many bodies were found in it, and what kind of evidence were

20     found during the exhumation.  So, yeah, these were basic things which --

21     in respect to -- to get information on these graves.  Also, not only on

22     the graves; as we will speak later on, I was also involved in getting

23     information on the surface remains which were found in the area.

24        Q.   And how would you describe the nature of the investigation and

25     your involvement in reviewing or determining the number of Srebrenica and

Page 1728

 1     Zepa-related victims?  Is that a straightforward thing, is it a

 2     short-term thing, or --

 3        A.   No, it's a long-term process, because these exhumations started

 4     in 1996 and are still ongoing.  It's an ongoing process.  Every day,

 5     there are new identifications of the victims which were already exhumed

 6     from these graves by the ICMP, and also there are -- there are ongoing

 7     exhumations on a daily basis.  So, yeah, it's a long-term process, so

 8     that's why we have to be in contact with the BiH authorities every day to

 9     see what is going on on the ground.

10        Q.   All right.  Now, you mentioned a report updating -- you mentioned

11     a report updating some of Dean Manning's work.  Have you prepared -- how

12     many reports have you prepared in connection with this responsibility?

13        A.   In connection to this responsibility, I prepared three reports.

14     This is my third report.  Actually, the first report was prepared in

15     March 2009, and then in April 2009 I prepared a corrigendum to that

16     report.  In August 2009, I prepared an additional report which was called

17     "Addendum," actually for Perisic team.  And this is my latest report from

18     April 2010 which I prepared for this trial.

19        Q.   And with respect to your preparation of these reports, did you

20     receive any assistance in putting them together?

21        A.   As regard to assistance, yes.  I received the assistance from

22     the -- from our analyst, Panayota Vassou, who was dealing mainly with DNA

23     connections, in co-operation with me.  But the rest is more or less --

24     yeah, it's my report.

25        Q.   And was your report prepared independently?

Page 1729

 1        A.   Yes, completely.

 2        Q.   I'd just like to ask you, if we could -- I'd just like to focus

 3     you on your newest report.  You indicated that that was a 21 April 2010

 4     report; is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And what was the purpose and objective of that report?

 7        A.   The purpose and objectives of these -- of this report were to

 8     basically present to the Trial Chamber the current number of the

 9     identified individuals from the -- related to the Srebrenica event.

10     Also, the purpose was to highlight how many -- how many graves have been

11     exhumed so far, when they were exhumed.  Then there is a section of

12     surface remains, so to present to the Trial Chamber how many of them have

13     been so far identified and found on the ground.  And, of course, to

14     present the new forensic evidence which emerged recently.  So I'm

15     referring here specifically to DNA connections between the graves, which

16     shows which points, actually -- which primary graves and secondary graves

17     are related to each other.

18             Also, in relation to my report, there were instances where we can

19     now link, for example, the evidence which were already obtained during

20     the site visits or crime scene investigations back in 1996.  I am

21     specifically referring here to Kravica warehouse and Pilica, where

22     certain identification documents were found at these places.  And now

23     when we have -- when the individuals from the graves were found, we can

24     see that there is a link between these primary graves to certain

25     secondary graves.

Page 1730

 1             So these are the main purposes of this update.

 2        Q.   Does your report follow on, and that is this particular report,

 3     does it follow on in terms of updating Mr. Manning's report?

 4        A.   Yes, it is a follow-up of Dean Manning's report and also of my

 5     previous report from 2009.

 6        Q.   And you've indicated that it relates to the events -- Srebrenica

 7     events.  Does it account for anything related to the events in Zepa?

 8        A.   Yes, indeed.  This is new in this report, the chapter about Zepa.

 9     Actually, I am referring this new report also to the victims of

10     Zepa-related events, so there we have one grave and several surface

11     remains in relation to these events.

12        Q.   Does your report account for any new mass graves or other graves

13     that are related to either Srebrenica or Zepa?  Since your last report,

14     I'm sorry.

15        A.   Yes, correct, there are certain graves which were not part of my

16     previous report, and that's simply because they were exhumed recently,

17     last year.  And we have already identifications -- positive

18     identifications from these graves.

19        Q.   And does your new report in any way relate to evidence that were

20     obtained during crime scene investigations of various grave-sites and so

21     on related to Srebrenica or Zepa?

22        A.   Yes, I think that I already mentioned that, that there are

23     evidence which were found during the crime scene investigations, in

24     particular these IDs, and then we can link them to particular -- to

25     certain secondary graves or primary graves.

Page 1731

 1        Q.   Okay.  Now, you indicated that you relied on a number of sources

 2     in preparing your report.  Could you tell us what the main sources were

 3     for preparing your report?

 4        A.   Yes, I can.  The main source was the ICMP -- what the ICMP match

 5     reports which were sent in February 2010.

 6        Q.   If I could just ask you to clarify so that we're all clear.  What

 7     is the ICMP?

 8        A.   Yes.  The ICMP stands for the International Commission on Missing

 9     Persons, which is stationed or based in Sarajevo, and they are dealing

10     with the missing persons and identifications of the victims from

11     Bosnia -- missing persons from Bosnia.  And the main source was the

12     update, because every few months we are getting the updates from their

13     side on the identifications of the victims from Srebrenica.  So the

14     latest one was from February, and this was the main source which I used

15     in my report to present the numbers.

16        Q.   And what kind of identifications are you referring to, in

17     particular?

18        A.   I'm referring to the identifications of the victims which were --

19     which were killed or murdered or -- after the -- or during the -- during

20     the take-over or after the take-over of Srebrenica.

21        Q.   Yeah.  In particular, I'm referring to your reference to a match

22     report.  What are we talking about when you say "match report"?

23        A.   Yeah.  I used, in my report, the identification, although the

24     correct -- the correct phrase would be "DNA matching report," as it is

25     used by the ICMP.  It means that the DNA sample which was taken from the

Page 1732

 1     human remains found in the graves have been matched to the blood donors,

 2     which were given to the ICMP by the relatives -- from the relatives of

 3     these victims.  So it means that a particular individual, a DNA sample

 4     was matched to that donor.  So it means it is an identification.

 5        Q.   So we're talking about DNA identification.

 6        A.   Yes, indeed, we are all the time talking about the DNA

 7     identification.

 8        Q.   Did you refer to any other ICMP reports, such as summary reports,

 9     or field notes, or things of that nature?

10        A.   Yes, indeed.  I also referred to the ICMP summary reports for --

11     I can tell you that ICMP participated in these exhumations, especially of

12     the largest secondary and -- secondary graves, and they participated with

13     their experts, archaeologists.  And after the completion of the

14     exhumations, they have -- they have generated the reports about these

15     particular sites.  And, yes, these reports -- I reviewed these reports,

16     and I also noted them in my -- in my report.

17        Q.   These reports -- just so we're clear on the record, when you say

18     "these reports," are you referring to summary reports, or are you

19     referring to field notes?

20        A.   Actually, I'm referring to both.  We received for certain sites,

21     I think for four of the secondary graves, only field notes from their

22     site because they have not generated any other report.  So -- but these

23     field notes are in handwritten version, so what I have been particularly

24     referring to are the ICMP summary reports which are written and generated

25     by them.

Page 1733

 1        Q.   And the summary reports and field notes, are those notes or

 2     reports related to DNA identifications, or are they related to other

 3     types of forensic analysis?

 4        A.   No, those reports are not related to DNA identifications, but

 5     they are related to the actual exhumations, itself, how they were

 6     conducted, what kind of evidence were found there inside these graves,

 7     and what are their conclusions, especially from the archaeological point

 8     of view.  They're saying or writing down their findings and conclusions

 9     about if it is a secondary grave; for example, we have one mixed grave

10     and we have one robbed grave.  And all those facts are noted during the

11     exhumations and are part of their reports.

12        Q.   Did you consider sources of information, besides the ICMP, in

13     preparing your report?

14        A.   Yes, I did.  Beside the ICMP records, I also considered other

15     sources.  Mainly, these were documents received by the Tuzla and Sarajevo

16     Cantonal Prosecutor's Office, and those were received upon our request

17     for assistance from the BiH authorities.  Apart from that, some documents

18     on these exhumations were also provided to us by the BiH State

19     Prosecutor's Office, and also we have been -- I have been in contact with

20     the BiH Federal Commission on Missing Persons, which has now remained

21     into the BiH Institute on Missing Persons.  So these are the main other

22     sources I have also used in order to compile my report.

23        Q.   Did you review or consider any other DNA records relative to the

24     number of individuals associated with the events in Srebrenica and Zepa

25     to account for that number?  From any source other than ICMP, I should

Page 1734

 1     add.

 2        A.   Yes, I did.  There were several individuals which were identified

 3     already before ICMP commenced its work in 2001.  In November in 2001,

 4     they have started with DNA identifications.  Before that, there were

 5     several individuals already identified, and those individuals are part of

 6     Dean Manning's report.  And for my report, I also included those

 7     individuals in total numbers.  And these individuals who were identified

 8     by the PHR, which means Physicians for Human Rights, and ICRC, which

 9     stands for International Commission on the Red Cross.

10        Q.   Are you familiar with the process by which the ICMP carries out

11     DNA identifications, in general terms?

12        A.   Yes, in general terms, I am familiar, yes.

13        Q.   Could you just describe that a little bit for the Trial Chamber.

14        A.   Yes, I can.  I'm familiar how -- how -- what is the process in

15     order to get the DNA sample from them after the autopsy have been

16     conducted, so -- and then basically this DNA sample is tested by them.

17     And if it is matched to the blood donors, then it is -- their report

18     about this DNA positive match is generated.  And this positive

19     identification is then entered into their -- into their database, and a

20     list of which is sent regularly to us.

21        Q.   Okay.  And we'll talk a little bit about this later, but what

22     kinds of samples, if you know, are tested and matched against blood donor

23     samples, if you know?

24        A.   These are the samples which are taken during the autopsy from the

25     human remains of the bodies found within the grave, and these samples are

Page 1735

 1     usually the samples where the possibility of the -- positive DNA

 2     identification is very high.  So I would say they are taking usually the

 3     teeth, and then the long bones, like it is femur and other bones, and

 4     these are basically the samples which are taken during the autopsy.  And

 5     then these samples are sent to the ICMP.

 6        Q.   Now, with respect to the preparation of your report, are these

 7     the types of documents that you used in order to prepare it?

 8        A.   Yes, indeed, these are the types of report.

 9        Q.   And are the sources for most of the information that you

10     considered in preparing your report identified or referenced in the

11     report, itself?

12        A.   Yes, correct, they are all -- they are all referenced in my

13     report.  So every single conclusion I made, it is based on certain

14     reports.

15        Q.   And how are they indicated?  Are they indicated by title, author?

16        A.   Usually, I refer them as a report, and then beside that I put

17     down the ERN number of the actual report.

18        Q.   And the material that you've referenced in your report, did you

19     review all that material?

20        A.   Yes, indeed, I reviewed this material, yes.

21        Q.   Now, did you make any attempt or effort to try and verify the

22     accuracy of the information of the reports on which you relied in

23     preparing your own report?

24        A.   Yes.  That's a constant duty, and I am doing -- doing that.  And

25     I can say that, indeed, I have been checking the reliability of those

Page 1736

 1     reports.  Especially, I can say for certain individuals, during the

 2     analysis of this ICMP data, there were some typo -- for example, typo

 3     mistakes found in this data.  So according to our findings, we assume

 4     they are typos, and then we informed the ICMP in order to point it out.

 5     So then it's up to them to accept this as being typos or not.  So, yeah,

 6     there are contacts in order -- with the ICMP is if we have any kind of

 7     questions or doubts regarding this ICMP data, so we are asking them for

 8     clarifications to be made.

 9        Q.   And did you have any contacts -- I'm sorry.  You actually

10     indicated that you had some contacts with the Bosnian authorities with

11     respect to exhumation data.  And was that -- is that a continuous thing,

12     or is that something that has happened only occasionally?  If you could

13     just describe that for us.

14        A.   Yes.  These are regular contacts with them, so through the

15     requests of -- for the assistant -- assistance, we are sending this

16     request to them in order to get documents.  Then apart from that, we

17     have -- I mean, personally I have regular telephone contacts, especially

18     with the BiH Institute on Missing Persons.  And we have also contacts

19     with the ICMP through e-mails, so sometimes we exchange some e-mails in

20     order to get information or clarifications from them.  So in order to be

21     updated, I am having regular contacts with BiH authorities, yes.

22        Q.   Did you rely on any expert reports in preparing your updated

23     report in April 2010?

24        A.   No, I did not, because those were mostly -- mostly summarised by

25     Dean Manning in his report, and my report, itself, should be read in

Page 1737

 1     conjunction with his previous reports, where he's referring to these

 2     expert reports.  But in order to make certain conclusions about the

 3     connections between these sites, I reviewed those reports, and I am

 4     considering them as relevant.

 5        Q.   With respect to these reports that you did consider, aside from

 6     the expert reports that were evaluated by Dean Manning, can you tell us,

 7     generally, how you received the materials that you reviewed and that

 8     you've referenced in your report?  Did you receive them directly or

 9     indirectly?  Are they from the source or from a secondary source?  If you

10     could just explain that to the Trial Chamber, I think that would be

11     helpful.

12        A.   If there is a -- the RFA, request for assistance, sent to the

13     authorities, then the documentation and everything what was requested is

14     sent back to us in a normal -- normal way, diplomatic mail.  And apart

15     from that, I already mentioned that we exchanged some e-mails with the

16     authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina and also the ICMP, and this -- these

17     are the ways how we are obtaining the documentation.

18        Q.   With respect to the documentation that you received, do you have

19     any concerns or questions about its authenticity as derived from the

20     sources from whom you requested it?

21        A.   No.  For these documents, no, because they are provided to us by

22     the -- by the authorities of the BiH, and I don't think there is any

23     question of their authenticity.

24        Q.   And in terms of the extent of your reliance on the information

25     that we've spoken about concerning your report, could you tell us, for

Page 1738

 1     different parts of your report, for example, in terms of the DNA

 2     connections, what documents you predominantly relied upon?  Is that the

 3     ICMP data that you referred to before?

 4        A.   Yes, indeed, this is predominantly is the ICMP data, what I

 5     relied upon.

 6        Q.   And in terms of your analysis of the grave-sites, themselves, and

 7     the exhumation data, which documents did you predominantly rely upon in

 8     generating your report?

 9        A.   In order to get information on the actual exhumation site, when

10     it was exhumed, by whom was it exhumed, what site code was designated to

11     a particular grave, these kind of information I'm getting from the

12     exhumation records which are generated by the authorities -- BiH

13     authorities during the exhumation or immediately after it, and also,

14     along with the exhumation records, the autopsy reports on every single

15     individual which is found in these graves were provided to us, and these

16     were also taken into consideration.  Apart from that, there are also

17     exhumation photographs, autopsy photographs, sketches.  So all these

18     documents are important -- were important for me.

19        Q.   Now, you mentioned that you were made aware of certain new graves

20     that you've included in the preparation of your report.  Could you tell

21     us what those were.

22        A.   Yeah, there were certain graves which were exhumed after I

23     generated my previous report in 2009, so the -- in July 1992 -- 2009,

24     sorry, there was exhumation conducted of the Cancari Road 1 grave.  So

25     and this is the last -- the last grave which was known to the ICTY before

Page 1739

 1     which was exhumed.  So all the graves which were known to the ICTY are

 2     now exhumed, but not all of the bodies which were exhumed from these

 3     graves are processed already.  So it means we'll have, for Cancari 1, and

 4     I know for Cancari 8, we have no identifications yet from these

 5     exhumations.

 6             So apart from that, there were several additional exhumations

 7     conducted in 2009.  One of those is in Mehurici village, which is close

 8     to Vlasenica.  That one was done in May 2001.  And because we have

 9     already positive identifications of the victims -- of the Srebrenica

10     victims in these graves, this site is part of my report.

11             In addition, there were also exhumations -- another one in Bisina

12     area.  That was Bisina Kev [phoen] exhumation, and an additional

13     exhumation in -- I think the place is called Zaledje, which is near

14     Srebrenica.  According to the BiH, there might be the victims from

15     Srebrenica.  But since we don't have any confirmation yet on the actual

16     identifications, none -- no people from these graves were already

17     identified, so we cannot conclude if they are indeed Srebrenica related.

18     And when we get this information, I will include this -- if they are

19     Srebrenica-related victims into my new update.

20        Q.   I'd like to show you, if I could in e-court, 65 ter 5754A.

21             All right, Mr. Janc.  Do you recognise what's in front of you in

22     e-court?

23        A.   Yeah, this is my report.

24        Q.   All right.  And what I'd like to do is to just go over,

25     generally, the organisation of your report.  If you could explain for the

Page 1740

 1     Trial Chamber, just in general terms, how it's -- how it's organised.

 2             And if we could go to the second page, I think, in both

 3     documents, that might be helpful.

 4        A.   Yes, I can explain.

 5             As you can see, this is the first page of my report, which is

 6     actually six pages' long.  And then I have four annexes to this report in

 7     order to support my findings there, so annex A, annex B, annex C, and

 8     confidential annex D.

 9        Q.   Okay.  If you could just start with annex A and tell us,

10     generally, what that's about.

11        A.   Yes.  Annex A refers to the actual exhumations of the graves,

12     when they were conducted, by whom, and it points out also to the

13     individuals which were exhumed -- how much individuals have been

14     identified, not exhumed, identified so far per individual, per certain

15     grave.  So annex A refers to graves exhumed in relation to Srebrenica

16     victims.

17        Q.   And with respect to annex B, if you could tell us briefly what

18     that concerns.

19        A.   Annex B relates to surface remains, so it is my summary of the

20     surface remains analysis.

21        Q.   And, well, we'll get into a little more detail with that.  But

22     can you just tell us, generally, when you say "surface remains," what do

23     you mean by that?

24        A.   Yes.  These are the -- I'm referring -- when I say "surface

25     remains," certain individuals were killed during the combat or also --

Page 1741

 1     also during -- after the fall of Srebrenica, the column -- the column

 2     passed through Konjevic Polje towards -- to the north to Zvornik, and

 3     certain individuals were killed there, so -- and they were never buried,

 4     and, as such, were found -- their remains were found during those years

 5     from 1995 up to now.  There are still exhumations of these people -- of

 6     these individuals.  They were never buried, and they were just left on

 7     the ground.  And these are the individuals which I referred as surface

 8     remains, and bodies of which -- remains of which just left -- left on the

 9     ground.

10        Q.   And with respect to annex C, can you tell us what that concerns.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, is it possible to have the first

12     page of the annex on the screen so that we have --

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I'm actually going to go

14     through each one of them individually, if that's all right with the

15     Trial Chamber.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's fine.  That we can do after the second

17     break.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You were going to put the last question to the

20     witness.  Please carry on.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I'm sorry.

22        Q.   Okay.  If you could just tell us briefly, what does annex C

23     concern?

24        A.   Annex C concerns to the DNA connections, to the analysis of the

25     DNA connections which were established regarding the ICMP data.  So it

Page 1742

 1     relates to the connections between the graves, itself.  And when we'll go

 2     into that section, we'll -- I'll explain a little bit more what that --

 3     what it consists of and how we made certain conclusions.

 4        Q.   And concerning annex -- confidential annex D, can you tell us

 5     what that's about.

 6        A.   Yes.  Confidential annex D consists of the individuals.  It is

 7     actually the list of the individuals which support the numbers which we

 8     will see on the second page of my report.  There are only numbers

 9     summarised in my report, how many -- how many individuals were found in

10     certain graves or in certain locations.  And in annex D, you will find

11     the actual names of these individuals.  So they are the lists of the

12     individuals which I'm referring in my reports just as the numbers.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you for that.

14             Mr. President, I'm not -- I wasn't sure if you were suggesting

15     that it was the break time.  Is that -- is that right?  I'm sorry, I --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, I think it is a convenient time for everybody

17     now.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay, that's perfect.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  A half hour.  We will have our second break now,

20     for technical reasons, and we resume at 10 minutes before 1.00.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22                           --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 1743

 1             Do we still have 5754A in e-court?  We don't.

 2             If we could please go to page 2 in both documents.  All right,

 3     thank you.  Thank you for that.

 4        Q.   Mr. Janc, you can see there, in your report, that's written in

 5     bold:

 6             "Srebrenica and Zepa victims identified via DNA and other

 7     analysis in graves."  And you've indicated a figure of 5.777.

 8             If we could go to the next page, please, in the English, I

 9     believe, in the B/C/S as well.

10             Now, with respect to the figure, 5.777, could you tell us, first,

11     what that represents?  And then we'll take a look at this chart and you

12     can explain a little bit about that.  What does the figure 5.777

13     represent?

14        A.   This figure represents the current number of the identified

15     individuals which were found in the graves and are related to -- and are

16     Srebrenica victims.  So the total number now is 5.777 victims.

17        Q.   All right.  If we could now take a look at the chart that you

18     have in front of you.

19             I think we may have to go to the next page, page 4, for the

20     B/C/S.

21             Okay.  Actually, I think the heading -- the headings that I want

22     to review with you are on the previous page in the B/C/S, so if we could

23     go back to page 3 just so that we see the headings, I think, yeah, and

24     then we can go over those in the English.

25             On the left-most column in the English, you can see "Mass grave."

Page 1744

 1     Can you tell us what these headings are.  If you could explain that to

 2     the Trial Chamber.  When you say "mass grave," what do you mean by that,

 3     first?

 4        A.   Yeah, this is the first column, and it should be -- it should be

 5     written "Graves," not "Mass Graves."  So here is a mistake, because what

 6     is presented here in this table, and we'll see it on the following page,

 7     these are all the graves.  And why I'm saying not only mass graves,

 8     because also the individual graves are included in this counting.  So the

 9     last 11 entries, not on this page but on the page following this, will be

10     the individuals -- individual graves.  So -- and the other graves are the

11     graves where more than one individuals were found.  That's why it should

12     be written "Graves."  And these are the names of the sites where these

13     exhumations took place, so -- and the sites as -- yeah, as were

14     designated during the exhumations.

15        Q.   When you say "these are the names of the sites," to what are you

16     referring to?  You're referring to the names under "Mass Graves," or the

17     designations under "Site Code"?

18        A.   No, we are still at the first column.  So I'm referring to

19     these -- let's start with Cerska.  And you can see some of them are

20     bolded ones, so those bolded ones were exhumed by the ICTY.  Wherever you

21     see the bolded grave-site, those were exhumed by the ICTY.  The others

22     which were not bolded were exhumed by the BiH.

23        Q.   Okay.  To be --

24        A.   And just one small correction, because in total number of 5.777

25     are included also the individuals which are related to Zepa events, so

Page 1745

 1     those 80 individuals which are -- which were found exhumed from

 2     Glogova [phoen] grave.  So only one grave you can see inside this table

 3     in front of us is related to Zepa.  The others are related to Srebrenica.

 4        Q.   All right.  And if we could go to the next column, and tell us

 5     what is indicated there under "Site Code."  And let's stick with Cerska,

 6     because on the B/C/S version that's all that's indicated on the page

 7     under the headings.

 8        A.   Yes.  During the exhumation -- or before the exhumation, each

 9     site is assigned with a particular site code just in order to easily --

10     this site is easily referred in the future, so -- and it usually consists

11     of the letters and the numbers.  As you can see for Cerska site, the

12     designated site code was "CSK" by the ICTY.  And then if you go down, for

13     example, we have here "Cincari Road 6," I will take the example for 6,

14     and then we have in brackets "Kamenica 6."

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Just a moment.  I think we have to change the

16     page in the B/C/S, and that will be page 4.  Just so that the --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I interrupt shortly to make something clear.

18             In the transcript, page 69, line 19 to 23, you were referring to

19     a number of 80 individuals related to Zepa.  Could you please indicate in

20     which column and in which line we will find it in this table.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, no problem.  It is most probably

22     a mistake, because it's not 80, but eight individuals.  So -- and it is

23     for Vragolovi grave.  If you go to another page, one page after this one,

24     we'll find the Vragolovi grave after the first column -- under the first

25     column.

Page 1746

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's on the second-to-last page on the English,

 2     and that's, I think, page 5 in the English -- 5 in the B/C/S.  In the

 3     English, I believe it's page 5 as well.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I can't see it on the English version.  Okay,

 5     here it is, yes.

 6             Now, you can see Vragolovi site.  It's --

 7        Q.   It's about seven --

 8        A.   Eight from the top.  So Vragolovi.  "VRG" is the site code and

 9     when it was exhumed, and then the last column, it says how many

10     individuals have been identified so far from this site.  So it's eight.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Only these eight that have a relation to Zepa or

12     others to Srebrenica.  Did I understand you correctly?

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I just wanted to clarify because of

15     the figure.

16             Please carry on.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18        Q.   We were talking about the site codes --

19        A.   Yes, and I wanted to explain the thing with -- if you can go back

20     to page number 3, I think.

21        Q.   Yes.  It's page 3 in the English, and we'll stay with page 4 in

22     the B/C/S.  Okay.

23        A.   Okay.  I took an example of Cancari road number 6, for example,

24     and you can see for many other sites, and I explain why there is

25     something in brackets which is some written differently than from the

Page 1747

 1     other part of it.

 2             Cancari Road 6 was initially -- initially found as a secondary

 3     grave by the ICTY, and it was not exhumed by the ICTY, but it was handed

 4     over to the BiH authorities.  When they have done this exhumation in

 5     2008, and this is the information you can get in the third column, when

 6     the actual exhumation took place, they designated this site with a

 7     different code and also with a different name.  So they renamed the

 8     actual site.  And in order to stay consistent with our -- with our

 9     designations, because we are always referring to the same numbers and to

10     the same site codes, I am putting this site in brackets.  In brackets, it

11     means what was designated by the BiH site, and we will find, in all the

12     exhumation records and all the -- in this ICMP data, we'll find this site

13     code as a reference to this particular site.  So if it says "KAM06ZVO,"

14     it will be referring to Cancari 6.

15        Q.   All right.  If you could just explain for us, for example, these

16     site codes, in some instances you'll see that the designation, for

17     example, "PLC," and that's -- we're about five down from the top of this

18     document, following "Orahovac."  You can see the designation "PLC" for

19     the site code, but the grave is indicated as "Branjevo Military Farm."

20     Can you explain why that designation is a bit different from the name?

21        A.   It is up to the exhumation team, who decide what kind of site

22     code will be designated to particular exhumation site.  So I'm not sure

23     why they have decided at that time that for this site designation or site

24     code would be "PLC" instead of something else, but they have just decided

25     that, and that's how it is today.  And whenever we see this site code, we

Page 1748

 1     know that this is related to Branjevo Military Farm.

 2        Q.   And is Branjevo Military Farm associated with Pilica?

 3        A.   Yes, indeed.  We have confirmation that bodies from Pilica

 4     Cultural Dom which were killed there during the execution were buried

 5     initially at the Branjevo Military Farm burial site.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And the next column indicates the exhumation date.  And

 7     from what information is that derived?

 8        A.   Yeah, this is exhumation data for the ICTY exhumed graves.  We

 9     know when they were exhumed because we exhumed them.  And for the

10     BiH-exhumed graves, these information are derived from the exhumation

11     records, as well as the site codes and the site name, and all this

12     information are derived from there.  I'm getting the information from

13     this documentation.

14        Q.   And on the far right, you have a column indicated "Identified

15     Individuals, March 2009 - February 2010."  Just tell us generally what

16     that means, and then I'll put a couple of questions to you in respect to

17     it.

18        A.   Yeah, the first column under "Identified Individuals," which has

19     "March 2010 --" "2009," sorry, it comes out of my previous report from

20     March 2009.  So these were the numbers of the identified individuals at

21     that time.  So the last column, which says "February 2010," there are the

22     numbers of the individuals identified so far.  So I wanted to present the

23     increment in the numbers, that you can see how these numbers are growing,

24     and the process is still ongoing.  And we'll see for some sites -- for

25     example, we can see here for Cancari Road 6, if you take this example, no

Page 1749

 1     individuals were identified at that time.  I add because, as you can see,

 2     they are exhumed between October and December in 2008.  And when I

 3     generated my report in March 2009, there were no individuals identified

 4     at that time yet.  But now, one year after that, we have 158 individuals

 5     already identified from that site.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  If we can just page down, I think, in the

 7     B/C/S.  No, we'll have to go to the next page in the B/C/S and also the

 8     next page in the English, please.

 9        Q.   And what I would like to do is to focus you or direct you to the

10     grave-site Liplje 2.  That's a bolded designation, and I think it's

11     about -- well, about a third of the way down from the top.

12             Now, in that case you can see the numbers for 2009 are indicated

13     174, and then in 2010, the numbers indicate 173, meaning one less

14     individual associated or recovered from that grave.  Can you explain why

15     or how that would be the case?

16        A.   Yes, I can.  This is the site designated as LP02, exhumed by the

17     ICTY.  When I have been checking on this issue, I came to the conclusion

18     that the ICMP in the meantime re-labelled one of the individuals which

19     was before -- allegedly found in Liplje 2 to Lazete 2, so he was

20     re-labelled.  According to them, it must be mistake before -- in

21     labelling.  So they re-labelled that individual into the Lazete 2 site,

22     so that same individual will now appear there, is counted there.

23        Q.   All right.  If we can go to the next page, please, in the English

24     and the B/C/S.  Okay.

25             And what I want to do is I want to talk about these numbers that

Page 1750

 1     you have indicated at the bottom.  All right.  And we have Srebrenica and

 2     Zepa graves total, for 2009, 5.275, and for 2010, 5.777.  Okay.

 3             And with respect to the following row, can you tell us,

 4     Srebrenica and Zepa surface remains, 648 in 2009 and 703 in 2010, can you

 5     tell us a little bit about that.  First tell us what you mean when you

 6     say "surface remains."

 7        A.   I think I already explained before what I meant with "surface

 8     remains," and I have to a little bit clarify.  I meant -- I testified

 9     before that these are only the victims -- the combat victims, which is

10     not totally true, because we know there were also others which committed

11     suicides, which were killed when crossing the minefields, or some of them

12     were even killed.  We know of them for one particular site, that they

13     were killed not in combat.  And these are the ones which were actually

14     found on the surface, and the number -- the total number of those

15     identified individuals in 2009 was 648 -- 48, yes.  And now it's 703.

16     And for the graves above that, we have -- you also can you also can see

17     the increment.  So 5.777 is the total number of all the graves you can

18     see in this table above that number.  So it's a total -- it's a total

19     number, yes.

20        Q.   Now, that total number of 703, does that account for all of

21     the -- all of the, shall we say, victims that were recovered from the

22     surface or identified from the surface?

23        A.   No, not all of them, because many of the surface remains have

24     still not been identified or will never be identified because they were

25     at such state of -- at such state, after so many years being exposed to

Page 1751

 1     weather conditions, that according to the ICMP, it will never be possible

 2     to identify all of them.  So these are just the individuals which have

 3     been identified from these surface remains.  But in total, there have

 4     been, you know -- because usually they are counting cases, how many cases

 5     have been collected from the surface, and I think it's roughly around 950

 6     cases in total so far collected from the surface.  So -- but we cannot

 7     make any conclusion how many of them have been identified or not.

 8        Q.   All right.  Now, when you say that you have 950, approximately,

 9     surface remains, and all of those, only 703 are identified, how is it

10     that you're able to determine that there are 950?  Is that through DNA

11     analysis, or anthropological analysis, or some other means of counting

12     those individuals?

13        A.   No, this is everything -- not all of them, but most of them,

14     because we have 35 individuals identified before the ICMP in 2000 -- in

15     2001, but most of them you can find on the ICMP data, based on their,

16     again, site codes, and everything we received from the BiH Commission on

17     Missing Persons.  So not all of them have been identified so far,

18     950 cases.  But one case, it doesn't mean one person.  One case is

19     such -- it can be many individuals or several cases can be only one

20     individual, so it is just -- it's difficult to assess how many of them

21     have been identified.  But I have -- I have made a rough statistical

22     examination of this issue, and I came to the conclusion that 1.1 case,

23     roughly, is needed for one individual to be identified.

24        Q.   All right.  When you say "a case," as distinguished from an

25     individual, could you just explain how you come to that?  How would you

Page 1752

 1     define a case in that circumstance?

 2        A.   You know, for example, you have that many -- it would be better

 3     if you go into surface remains section, that I can discuss, or we can

 4     discuss it later, because it will be easier to explain what the case

 5     means and how did I come to that conclusion.  That I can show you on

 6     examples, for example.

 7        Q.   Okay.  We can get into that a little bit later.

 8             Let's go to the next row, which concerns others Serbia-related,

 9     Kozluk surface, Godinjske Bare, and uncategorised.  If you could explain

10     to the Trial Chamber what that refers to.

11        A.   Yes.  These four categories of identified individuals, I made it

12     separately somehow because of the certain -- of certain facts.  For

13     example, we have Serbia-related victims.  Those, I think 18 of them,

14     individuals have been found along the Drina in Sava River on Serbian side

15     in 1995.  So they were taken out from the river and later on buried

16     somewhere in Serbia, and re-exhumed in the beginning of 2000 -- 2001,

17     something like that, by the Serbian side, and then samples taken from

18     these individuals and tested in Bosnia and being identified as

19     Srebrenica-related victims.

20             So then we have another part is Kozluk surface, so those are

21     individuals which are found very close to the Kozluk execution site, on

22     the Drina River bank.  And I -- based on how they were found, you cannot

23     conclude -- and based on the documentation we have received on this

24     exhumation site, I was not able to conclude that these are, indeed,

25     surface remains, because I would -- my assumption would be -- and

Page 1753

 1     conclusion, that they were buried initially, but because of the -- of the

 2     Drina River and because they were exposed to the -- they were very close

 3     buried to Drina River, and I think they were just -- they just came on a

 4     surface because of the natural cause.  So that's why I place them there.

 5             And there we have Godinjske Bare.  Godinjske Bare are the

 6     individuals which were killed, and we have a video on these killings and

 7     are referred in the indictment as the -- sorry, I forgot it.  It's no

 8     killing -- these are the individuals which are killed there.  Although

 9     found on our surface, we know that they were killed.  And then we have

10     the last section there, uncategorised sites.

11             So we have requested the documentation from the BiH authorities

12     for all the site codes, all the sites which they exhumed.  And based on

13     the documentation we received, I am unable -- or I cannot say if the

14     individuals found in these graves or in these sites, within these sites,

15     are the actual graves or surface remains, so I cannot categorise them.

16     So I think it is -- there is 39 of such individuals which are Srebrenica

17     victims, but we can just not say if they were found on the surface or

18     they were in graves.

19        Q.   All right.  Now, we'll get into those a little bit -- just a

20     little bit in more detail when we get to the section concerning surface

21     remains, but what I'd like to focus you on now is a little bit about your

22     methodology in reaching the numbers that we've just gone over.

23             I'd like to put before you 65 ter 6268, please.  And I think we

24     should not broadcast this.

25        A.   Yes, indeed.  I think we should have into -- into closed session.

Page 1754

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm told that this number can't be correct.  We

 2     don't have it.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We're checking now, but I think Ms. Stewart's

 4     indicated that she's able to get it.  So let me just double-check the

 5     number.  I apologise.

 6             I understand the number is right.  Maybe we can try again and see

 7     if it will come up.  No.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is this perhaps document --

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's there, I think.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yeah, that would be useful to rotate it.  Thank

12     you.

13        Q.   All right, Mr. Janc.  Are you -- well, it's a bit small now, but

14     are you able to see the document in front of you?

15        A.   No, it's still too small.  But I know what is where, so I can --

16     I can comment on it.  But I think it's better that we make it a little

17     bit bigger.  We'll start from the left-hand side first, and then we'll

18     go -- we'll move towards the right-hand side.

19        Q.   All right.  Are you able to see that now a little bit more

20     clearly, or would you like it blown up more?

21        A.   No, no, it's fine, it's fine with me.  Thanks.

22        Q.   All right.  Could you first explain or tell us what this is.  And

23     then explain how it relates to the methodology that you employed in

24     developing your report.

25        A.   Yes, this is actual -- these are actual data which I was

Page 1755

 1     referring as ICMP data.  So the actual spreadsheet which is obtained

 2     by -- obtained from the ICMP, which is provided by them to the ICTY.  So

 3     when you open -- this is the first page.  I have made an example.  When

 4     you open that Excel spread sheet, you know, these are the first

 5     30 entries you can see on their spreadsheet.  So -- and they are -- this

 6     spreadsheet is in alphabetical order by the first column, where it says

 7     "MP," and it means "Missing Person."  So you can see the name of the

 8     individuals which were matched to the -- to the donors.  And you would

 9     see the last name of the individual.  Then in the brackets there is a

10     father name of the individual, and there is a first name at the end.  The

11     second column relates to the data of birth of that individual.  Then we

12     have a protocol ID, which refers to DNA -- a DNA sample.  So protocol --

13     one protocol ID would always refer to one DNA sample and, consequently,

14     to one individual.  So -- and this protocol ID was very important when we

15     have been analysing the DNA connections, and we'll come to that later and

16     I will explain why are these so important.

17        Q.   Let me just interrupt you for a second.  When you say that one

18     protocol ID relates to one DNA sample, are you talking about the sample

19     of DNA from the missing persons or the sample of DNA obtained from the

20     donor?

21        A.   No, it relates to a DNA sample of the missing -- of a missing

22     person.  But I don't -- I don't mean to -- only one sample, but the same

23     sample of -- it can be several samples.  We'll see it later, that we

24     have, for example, for one individual several samples have been tested

25     and matched to one individual.  So all these several multiple samples

Page 1756

 1     will get the unique protocol ID number which will always refer to one

 2     DNA.  It means to one person.

 3        Q.   All right.  We can go to the next column.

 4        A.   Yeah.  The next column is "Case ID," and here we can find -- or

 5     we can see where the individual was found.  So this "Case ID" consists of

 6     several letters and numbers, and the first part of the entry refers to a

 7     site, to a particular exhumation site, and here you can find the actual

 8     site codes, what we have been discussing before.

 9             So, for example, if you go to the first entry, I think it is --

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could blow that up, I think it would be

11     better for everybody to see.  Maybe even a little bit bigger.  That would

12     be helpful.  Okay.

13             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.  If you go to the first entry, we can see

14     that it says "KAM10ZVO."  So this is a reference to a particular

15     exhumation site.  So in this case, it is Cancari 10.  So when I see this

16     designation, I immediately know that this particular body or body parts

17     were found in this Cancari 10 grave.  So -- and this important in order

18     to establish which -- which of these cases were found where, and this was

19     important for my analysis to conclude -- to put the certain individuals

20     from this -- from this data into certain -- into particular grave-sites.

21     So -- and then in addition, we have numbers.  After "ZVO," we see it is

22     1, 3, and something else.  It's 1330, I think.

23        Q.   1380.

24        A.   1380T.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 1757

 1        A.   This number refers to a body or body part which was designated to

 2     this particular body during the exhumation.  So it means this refers to a

 3     body part number 1339 during the exhumation.  But in this case, where we

 4     see "T" at the end, it also means something.  "T" would stand for

 5     "Tijelo" in B/C/S, which means a body, so it means a body was found and

 6     designated as such.

 7             And then we have the last part of this entry, which says "LF,"

 8     and I have to explain a little bit more.  Now, I have been referring that

 9     this is a body found there.  But what we see here under the "Case ID" is

10     actually the label which was sent together with the DNA sample from the

11     pathologist to the ICMP.  So -- but this pathologist have taken the

12     sample from the body, 1338, and sent this sample to the ICMP.  And also

13     what it is at the end, "LF," it means that this sample was taken,

14     I think, from left femur of this particular body.

15        Q.   Okay.  If we could go to the next column, we see "ID ICMP."  And

16     tell us what that means.

17        A.   Yes.  This is the identification number of the individuals which

18     are on the missing person and identified -- which are on the ICMP missing

19     list, on the list they created themselves, and they assigned a particular

20     number for every single individual.  So this is actually the number for

21     every particular individual has its own identification number.  So these

22     are the numbers.

23        Q.   Is it ever the case that more than one ID ICMP corresponds to a

24     protocol ID or a single protocol ID?

25        A.   Yes, we have such cases, and we'll see such cases during my

Page 1758

 1     testimony.  There, we will have situations, cases, where we will have

 2     several ID numbers listed here under one protocol ID; two or even more.

 3     So this is the case when the ICMP was unable to match the particular

 4     individual to DNA donors.  Actually, when we are -- when they have --

 5     when there are sibling cases, for example, when there are two brothers,

 6     it is sometimes difficult to then distinguish which of two brothers was

 7     identified.  They know that this particular individual is son of someone

 8     who is a donor, but they don't know who of those two brothers, which are

 9     both missing, is who.  So they can find for both brothers, and they will

10     find for both brothers the unique DNA profile, but they will not be able

11     to say who is who of those two brothers.  They would both have -- for

12     example, the protocol ID for both brothers will be different, but they

13     will not be able to connect this brother to a particular site.

14        Q.   And do you know why that is the case or how it could be that if

15     each person has a unique DNA profile, you might have a situation where

16     you can't distinguish between brothers as they relate to a single DNA

17     profile?

18        A.   There are situations, and I think it's more a scientific

19     question.  But I know that sometimes they don't have enough donors in

20     order to conclude who of two brothers or of three brothers was found

21     where.  They will find three different DNA samples, for each and every

22     single one, but they will not be able to link them -- they will not be

23     able to distinguish between them, so they will not be able to say which

24     of those three brothers was found where.  They will just know that all

25     three have been identified.  But who of them was identified in which

Page 1759

 1     site, they will not be able to say.  And in this case, we'll see, under

 2     "ID ICMP," two or three numbers.

 3        Q.   All right.  If we could go over to the -- well, the next column,

 4     we can see that's the site name, which is indicated.  I don't think we

 5     need to go over that.  We have the site coordinates.

 6        A.   Yes, site name and site coordinates relates to the exhumation

 7     site, so how is it called, the exhumation site, itself, and where it is

 8     located in the area.  So these are GPS coordinates of the site

 9     coordinates, yes.

10        Q.   Then we have "Jurisdiction."

11        A.   Yeah, this is jurisdiction which they put, for example -- for

12     most of the cases, we'll have "BiH Federation Commission," under which

13     jurisdiction these individuals are -- these missing persons have been

14     exhumed.  And, for example, for Serbia-related, we'll see a different

15     jurisdiction.  It is "Serbia" listed as jurisdiction, as jurisdiction,

16     yes.

17        Q.   And then we have "Date of Submission."

18        A.   Yes.  "Date of Submission," for this one I'm not sure if it is

19     date of the submission of the DNA sample to the ICMP, or it is date of

20     submission of the actual -- of the actual report which was generated by

21     the ICMP already, based on the positive identification.  So either of

22     those two, this is the case for this.

23        Q.   Does that impact the way in which you determined the

24     identified -- the number of identified Srebrenica and Zepa-related

25     victims?

Page 1760

 1        A.   No, no.  In no way.  These columns, the first, I mean, I think

 2     five columns were the most important in order to determine which victims

 3     were found where and in order to determine the DNA connections between

 4     these victims.

 5        Q.   All right.  If we go over to the right a little bit more, and we

 6     see "Date of Disappearance," "Place of Disappearance," and then the type

 7     of report.

 8        A.   Yes.  For most of the cases, most of the entries, date of

 9     disappearance in this ICMP data will be 11 of July, because the purpose

10     for their database was not to find out when and where exactly those

11     individuals went missing, but the most important for them was to

12     establish that they are somehow Srebrenica related, and then they

13     designated 11 July for most of them.  And also for the place of

14     disappearance, it is the same issue.  In order to get information on

15     actual date of disappearance and place of disappearance, we have to look

16     into a different source, which is ICRC missing list of these victims and

17     also the OTP -- the OTP list of missing persons.

18        Q.   Okay.

19        A.   So usually I'm not referring to these two columns when I'm

20     looking to -- looking for information regarding when a certain individual

21     went missing.  I'm looking to different sources.

22             And the last column, we see "Type of Report," which is also a

23     very important column, because we can see two different entries.  One is

24     "Main Case," the other one is "Re-association."

25        Q.   Okay.  And if you could briefly tell us what the difference

Page 1761

 1     between those two designations are.

 2        A.   Yes.  "Main Case" can be -- and it is assigned to one individual

 3     only.  So every individual which is identified gets only one main case.

 4     So -- and this same individual can get one or more re-associations.  It

 5     means -- I'll explain.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7        A.   It means several -- because we have a lot of these secondary

 8     graves, and we know that these bodies, when they were reburied from

 9     primary graves, were disarticulated, and a lot of body parts have been

10     found in these secondary graves.  And most of those body parts have been

11     tested and DNA samples have been found.  And when several body parts were

12     found for the same individual, so in order to exclude the possibility

13     that we are counting one individual twice, they have assigned one main

14     case for one individual.  For the other body parts which were also found

15     and assigned to that individual, re-association cases have been assigned.

16     So it means type of -- if there is re-association, it means there must be

17     at least one main case somewhere, and only one for one individual.  And

18     this is very important.  When I was putting together the total numbers,

19     the total number of the identified individuals from the Srebrenica and

20     the Zepa, I counted only main cases, so in order to exclude the

21     possibility that I would count one individual twice.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  If we could just go to the next page.

23     Make it a little bit smaller.

24             Okay.  If we could just blow this up a little bit on the left

25     side.

Page 1762

 1        Q.   And then you can tell us what this page represents, in terms of

 2     your analysis.

 3        A.   Yes, this is second page I prepared as a sample page in order to

 4     show my methodology, how I came up with the total numbers.

 5             So now, first, what I have made, I have sorted the actual

 6     spreadsheet by case ID.  This is the fourth column.  And now you can see

 7     the fourth column, "Case ID," is in alphabetical order.  So -- and this

 8     is sample taken from somewhere at the beginning in order for you to see

 9     how it looks when you order it by case ID.  And then when I ordered it

10     like that, I have taken every single individual from this -- from this

11     spreadsheet and placed it in a separate spreadsheet which were then

12     related to a particular grave-site.

13             For example, if you start with the first several entries, we see

14     the case ID "BIS01SEK."  This particular grave-site site code is related

15     to the Bisina grave-site.  So I've taken out of this spreadsheet every

16     single individual which appears with this site code, and I placed all

17     these individuals into a separate spreadsheet in order to get a

18     separate -- a separate mass-graves-related spreadsheets.  So -- and I

19     have done the same exercise for all of the sites, so you can see

20     different site codes down there, so towards the end of this spreadsheet

21     are the ones related to Bljeceva.  So I have done the same for every

22     single entry there.

23        Q.   And with respect to this particular page, I just wanted to direct

24     you to a couple of things.  First, we see an ID ICMP, or multiple ID

25     ICMPs, I should say, for a couple of individuals here.  If you look

Page 1763

 1     somewhere just below the middle of the page, you can see that.  One is

 2     referenced as "5336" or "3387."  And then below that, you can see another

 3     one which is referred to as "3106" or "3105."  Do you see that in the

 4     middle of the page?

 5             Maybe we could blow it up a bit under the column --

 6        A.   That's okay, I can see that.  And this is what I have been

 7     talking about before.  So here we have the sibling case where two

 8     brothers are possibly -- are most probably missing, and they cannot

 9     link -- they cannot say which of those two brothers was found in this

10     particular place.  So we can see then two ICMP IDs, and also under the

11     first column you will see two names for both of two -- of these two

12     brothers.  And as I emphasised before, there is only one protocol ID.

13        Q.   And what does that mean?  Does that mean that only one DNA

14     profile was found?

15        A.   It can be the case that both -- both those brothers have been

16     found, but the problem here we have, that in order to find that out, we

17     would have to sort it by other way, and it means by the ICMP ID, and to

18     see if both brothers -- if both brothers were found, there would be

19     another case where we'll have the entry for both brothers, but the case

20     ID -- not the case ID, but the protocol ID will be different.  So if the

21     protocol ID is different, then it means both brothers were identified.

22        Q.   Okay.

23        A.   So I would --

24        Q.   When you say "identified," you mean that their profiles were

25     recovered, or do you mean that they were actually identified by name?

Page 1764

 1        A.   No.  When I referred as identified, it means -- based on these

 2     ICMP data, it means that they were matched to a donor -- donors' - yeah -

 3     samples.  So it means -- it doesn't mean the actual final identification

 4     yet, because those information are then sent back to the pathologist,

 5     who, based on the anthropological examination of the body, decide --

 6     decides if the body's complete and that it can be returned back to -- to

 7     the relatives, to the families.

 8        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to refer, if we could, a little bit -- if we

 9     could go a page up in this document and a little bit to the left.  Yeah,

10     that's pretty good.  If we could go to the left a little bit more, that

11     would be -- that's right.

12             Now, with respect to the case ID, I can see two individuals here

13     who appear to have similar, if not the same, case IDs, but they're

14     different people, and I'm going to refer -- are we in closed session or

15     private?

16             Could we go into private session for a moment, Mr. President?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Private?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 1765











11  Page 1765 redacted. Private session.















Page 1766

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm not sure if it's --

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in -- we are in private session,

25     Your Honour.

Page 1767

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Open session.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honour.  Sorry.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             We are really running out of time.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  And should we stop now?

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We should, because another trial will use this

 7     courtroom.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Yeah, this is a perfect place to

 9     stop, then.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

13             We have to adjourn now and to resume tomorrow morning in the same

14     courtroom at 9.00.

15             May I remind you, no contact to the parties about the content of

16     your testimony.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President --

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I understand.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I just wanted to add, for tomorrow, my

20     understanding is that we'll continue with Mr. Janc until he concludes his

21     direct testimony, which will be followed by Mr. Blaszczyk.  And my

22     understanding is that if Mr. Blaszczyk does not fill up the time for

23     tomorrow, that Mr. Tolimir is prepared to proceed with the -- at least

24     begin the cross-examination of Mr. Janc.  Otherwise, he's prepared to

25     proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Janc after Mr. Erdemovic's

Page 1768

 1     appearance, if that's all right with the Court.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If the parties are agreed on that, that would be

 3     very helpful.  We can manage in that way so that you have enough time to

 4     prepare for your cross-examination.

 5             Thank you very much.  We have to adjourn now and resume tomorrow

 6     at 9.00.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 14th day of May,

10                           2010, at 9.00 a.m.