100513ED

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 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 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 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?