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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
1 Now Mr. Elderkin has some questions for you.
2 Mr. Elderkin.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Examination by Mr. Elderkin:
5 Q. Good morning, Witness. As you know, my name is Rupert Elderkin,
6 and before we get started I just want to remind you to try to keep your
7 voice up and to speak a little slowly so that the interpreters will be
8 able to translate what we are saying. And if there's anything that I ask
9 of you that's unclear, please let me know, and I'll do my best to
10 rephrase the question.
11 Can I ask that the witness please be shown the pseudonym sheet,
12 which is 65 ter 6238.
13 Sir, please, could you look at the screen in front of you. And
14 without saying aloud what is written there, can you confirm if that is
15 your name on the screen?
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will not be broadcast.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you tender that?
20 MR. ELDERKIN: I would ask to tender that under seal,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received under seal.
23 MR. ELDERKIN:
24 Q. Sir, do you recall --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just wait a moment.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P158, under seal,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 Mr. Elderkin.
5 MR. ELDERKIN:
6 Q. Sir, do you recall making a statement to the Prosecution on the
7 15th of March, 2008?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you have a chance to read that statement yesterday?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And are there two small corrections which should be made to that
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. ELDERKIN: Please, could we see the statement, which is
15 65 ter 6239, and also should not be broadcast. And if we could go to
16 page 38 in the B/C/S, and page 37 is the corresponding page in the
17 English. And in the B/C/S, if we could zoom in, as best as possible, to
18 see around line 12, and the English at around line 7, please.
19 Q. Sir, should the word "kamionu" in B/C/S at line 12 instead read
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: Can we please now could go to page 40 in the
23 B/C/S, right at the bottom of that page, and English at page 39, around
24 line 28, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, I'm not sure if we had the right
1 page on the screen before us.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: Excuse me, Your Honours. I'm sorry. Is
3 Your Honour referring to my reference to "kamionu," that page, or the one
4 we've moved to now?
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, we don't have it on the screen.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: I'm not sure what is showing up on everyone else's
7 screens, but we seem to have got a lopped page on both sides, so I can't
8 see the relevant page numbering at the moment.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps repeat the reference.
10 MR. ELDERKIN: Of course, Your Honour. I'll go back to the first
11 one, just to make sure everyone is clear. So it was at B/C/S page 38 and
12 English page 37.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which line?
14 MR. ELDERKIN: Well, the B/C/S line would be line 12, and the
15 English line 7. However, I'm not seeing the corresponding text on the
16 screen here.
17 That's correct now. The B/C/S is correct. The English still
18 needs to be taken, please, to page 37. And the English would be at
19 line 7.
20 Q. Sir, if I may ask again, should the word "kamionu" at line 12 in
21 the B/C/S instead say "minibus"?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. And now to the second correction, which is page 40 in
24 the B/C/S, so two pages further on, and at page 39 in the English, also
25 two pages further on, please. And it will be towards bottom of both
1 pages, so lines 31 to 33 in the B/C/S, and line 28 in the English.
2 Sir, at lines 32 to 33, should the reference to "Daco or Dule" be
3 corrected to "Dule or Dusan"?
4 A. They called him Dule. I don't know if his name is Dusan or not,
5 but they called him Dule.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. Noting these --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, just a moment.
8 Mr. Tolimir.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in the transcript
10 that I see on the screen, it says his nickname is Dugme, not Dule. Thank
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 Carry on, please.
14 MR. ELDERKIN:
15 Q. Sir, noting the two corrections that you have made, does this
16 statement fairly and accurately reflect what you would say were you to be
17 examined here today and if you were asked the same questions?
18 A. Could you please repeat your question?
19 Q. Yes, of course.
20 Sir, considering the two corrections that you've just indicated,
21 apart from these, does your statement fairly and accurately reflect your
22 answers if you were asked the same questions today?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I'd ask now to have the statement
25 admitted under seal, along with the attached sketch which is currently
1 listed as 65 ter 6240. And we just got the numbers for those, which are
2 P155 for the statement and P156 for the sketch.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you --
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, could you please indicate what is
6 the content of this sketch so that we have an idea of what we receive?
7 MR. ELDERKIN: If we could call up, please, 65 ter 6240, and it
8 perhaps best not be broadcast.
9 Q. Sir, do you recognise the drawing in front of you?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we could please scroll down to see the
12 bottom of the page.
13 Q. Sir, is this your signature?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The transcript will be an exhibit
17 under seal --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and the sketch, which is already marked for
20 identification, as I was told, will be an exhibit.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: With Your Honour's permission, I'd like to read
22 now a very short summary of --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please. We need the number first.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The statement is now Exhibit P155. The sketch
25 will be Exhibit P156.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And both under seal, as I understand.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 Mr. Elderkin, please carry on.
5 MR. ELDERKIN: And with permission, I would like to read a very
6 short summary of the witness's evidence, and this can be in open session.
7 The witness was a driver for the VRS. On the 23rd of July of
8 1995, he was ordered to drive a minibus. He collected a group of
9 soldiers from their base in Dragasevac and drove them to Bisina. At
10 Bisina, the soldiers left the minibus, and returned some hours later.
11 The witness then drove them back to Dragasevac. The witness recorded in
12 the vehicle log that the trip was authorised by Drina Corps security
13 officer Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.
14 That's my statement -- that's my summary, rather, Your Honours.
15 I would ask if I may have permission to put some questions to the
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we please have 65 ter 5752, which should not
19 be broadcast. And is it possible to scroll over to the right-hand side
20 of the B/C/S? Thank you. And perhaps the same in the English, if we
21 could zoom in on the right-hand side.
22 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you please tell us what kind of document this is?
25 A. This is a travel order or vehicle work log.
1 Q. For what kind of vehicle?
2 A. For a minibus.
3 Q. Does your name appear anywhere on this page?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. ELDERKIN: And, please, could we see the second page both in
6 the English and the B/C/S. And this time if we could scroll, please, to
7 the left-hand side of those pages.
8 Q. Sir, can you see your handwriting anywhere on this page?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you say which entries are your handwriting, please.
11 A. Could we zoom in a little? From the 19th until the 23rd.
12 Q. Is your journey to Bisina on the 23rd of July recorded here?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you.
15 And I would ask now for the log to be admitted, also under seal.
16 And we were already given the MFI
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be received as an exhibit, under seal.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That's P157, under seal, Your Honour.
19 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, if I understand correctly, I may go
20 ahead and use the two documents discussed in the decision earlier.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: If we could see, please, 65 ter 6275, please.
23 Your Honour, I'm not sure if this is available in English. And, again,
24 if we could please zoom in on the right-hand side of the page.
25 Q. Sir, what is this document?
1 A. Vehicle work log.
2 Q. Do you see your name anywhere on this page?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what vehicle is this log for, please?
5 A. Minibus.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I'd ask that this be admitted, also
7 under seal.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received under seal.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P159, under seal,
10 Your Honour.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you.
12 And if we may now see, please, 65 ter 6276. Also, it should not
13 be broadcast, please. And if we could see the right-hand half of the
14 page again.
15 Q. Sir, what is this document, please?
16 A. Also a vehicle work log.
17 Q. And for what vehicle?
18 A. A minibus.
19 Q. And does your name appear on this page, sir?
20 A. Yes, number 2.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: I would ask for the admission also of this log,
22 again under seal, please.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be marked for identification, pending
24 translation into English. And the same will be done with the previous
25 document, only marked for identification, pending translation.
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
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
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.
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
4 A. I did have occasion to go there, but not to drive Muslim
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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
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
25 attended by three or four people, that they would like you to produce a
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
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:
1 Q. Witness, do you know the name of the village outside Vlasenica
2 where the 10th Sabotage Detachment was based?
3 A. I don't know.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Can I note now that this was not the topic of the
7 cross-examination and was not something that the witness mentioned in his
8 statement. This goes outside of those two things.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, you heard the objection by
10 Mr. Tolimir. You should bear in mind you should only deal with topics
11 raised during cross-examination.
12 Carry on, please.
13 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, that question was related to
14 Mr. Tolimir's reference to the command and the command where he picked
15 people up from. So I don't have any further questions, based on that.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question for you.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I have a short question to put to
19 you, but perhaps we should move to closed session.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Closed session, private.
21 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in public session, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, you will be pleased to know that this
19 concludes the questioning for you. You may now return to your normal
21 The Chamber would like to thank you for your attendance here and
22 the assistance you could give us. Thank you very much again, and now you
23 are free to leave the courtroom. But first the blinds will be brought
24 down so that you will not be recognised out of the courtroom. Thank you
25 very much again. The Court Officer will help you out.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can the blinds be brought up again, please.
4 Good morning, Mr. Vanderpuye. I wonder if it would be a
5 convenient time to have the break now so that everything can be prepared
6 for the next witness, who has no protective measures, if I'm not
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to
9 you, Your Honours.
10 That sounds like a good idea.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then we will have our first break now, and we
12 will resume at quarter to 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could the next witness be brought in, please.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome to the Tribunal.
20 Could you please read aloud the affirmation shown to you now.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: NIKODIN JOVICIC
24 [The witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, and please sit down.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 the day before.
2 So, anyway, I would like to say hello to the witness, that I hope
3 that the proceedings will not be completed according to my will, but
4 according to the will of the Lord.
5 So I would like to refer him now to his statement, on page 4,
6 lines 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the Serbian language. It's the last page in the
7 Serbian, and it's the last page of the document in the English. These
8 are the last lines, last eight lines. Thank you.
9 I apologise. My legal advisor is telling me that it's page 3 in
10 the English translation. Thank you.
11 We can see page 1 on the screen in the Serbian. Can we look at
12 page 4 in the Serbian, please, lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. All right,
13 it's marked. Can you please zoom in. Thank you.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Witness, can you please look at this second sentence at the
17 beginning of this page. I'm going to quote what you said, and then I
18 will put a question to you:
19 "I do not recall any conversation with Rubez regarding
20 Himzo Mujic. I also don't remember any conversation regarding
21 Himzo Mujic conducted with my former chief, Goran Kanostrevac.
22 "I heard that there was a military prison in Vlasenica known as
23 Susica, but I do not recall the time-period. I have never been there,
24 and I had no contacts with the prison wardens."
25 And we're going to wait for the interpreters to interpret this,
1 and then my question will be -- thank you.
2 Witness, sir, are these your words that I have just read from
3 your statement that you provided on the 17th of March, 2008, which is a
4 Prosecution document P161? Thank you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Since you don't recall anything that refers to this
7 conversation from this transcript, that you said anything like this any
8 time, I'm going to ask you this: The contents of this transcript, is
9 that something that you found out only when you spoke with them on the
10 17th of March, 2011 -- 2008?
11 A. Yes.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no questions for this
13 witness. I would like to thank you, and I would like to wish the witness
14 a safe journey home, and I am thanking him for coming to this Tribunal to
15 testify and for having confirmed his prior statement and his prior
16 testimony. Thank you very much. Safe trip, Witness.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Jovicic, you will be pleased to hear that
18 this concludes your examination. Thank you very much for your attendance
19 here in The Hague
20 activities. Thank you very much, and the Court Officer will show you
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I suppose we have another witness
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry, I forgot to
2 update you.
3 I've spoken with my colleague, and we have essentially agreed
4 that Mr. Janc should testify now. And I believe they will attempt to
5 begin their cross-examination sometime tomorrow and, if unable to
6 complete it, complete it sometime after the testimony of the following
7 witness. And if that's all right with the Court, I think we are prepared
8 to go forward.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, the witness should be brought in.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please sit down.
12 Welcome back to the Tribunal, this trial, Mr. Janc. May I remind
13 you that the affirmation that you made to tell the truth still applies.
14 THE WITNESS: I understand.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the Prosecution has some more questions for
17 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC [Resumed]
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning to you, Mr. Janc.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. I know that you've already testified to some extent already in
24 this case, so I won't go into your background. But in the context of
25 your function as an OTP investigator, have you had any involvement in
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
6 A. Yes, indeed, we are all the time talking about the DNA
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.
1 Q. And the summary reports and field notes, are those notes or
2 reports related to DNA
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
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
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
9 stands for International Commission on the Red Cross.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the process by which the ICMP carries out
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
24 A. Annex C concerns to the DNA
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
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.
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
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
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
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."
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,
4 A. Yeah, this is the first column, and it should be -- it should be
5 written "Graves
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
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
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
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
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
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
18 document, following "Orahovac." You can see the designation "PLC
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
25 that, and that's how it is today. And whenever we see this site code, we
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
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
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
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
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
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
15 in 1995. So they were taken out from the river and later on buried
16 somewhere in Serbia
17 something like that, by the Serbian side, and then samples taken from
18 these individuals and tested in Bosnia
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
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
1 conclusion, that they were buried initially, but because of the -- of the
2 Drina River
3 buried to Drina River
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.
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
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
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
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
19 of DNA
21 A. No, it relates to a DNA
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
1 will get the unique protocol ID number which will always refer to one
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.
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
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
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
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
16 you can't distinguish between brothers as they relate to a single DNA
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 "BIS
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
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?
1 A. No. When I referred as identified, it means -- based on these
2 ICMP data, it means that they were matched to a donor -- donors' - yeah -
3 samples. So it means -- it doesn't mean the actual final identification
4 yet, because those information are then sent back to the pathologist,
5 who, based on the anthropological examination of the body, decide --
6 decides if the body's complete and that it can be returned back to -- to
7 the relatives, to the families.
8 Q. Okay. I'd like to refer, if we could, a little bit -- if we
9 could go a page up in this document and a little bit to the left. Yeah,
10 that's pretty good. If we could go to the left a little bit more, that
11 would be -- that's right.
12 Now, with respect to the case ID, I can see two individuals here
13 who appear to have similar, if not the same, case IDs, but they're
14 different people, and I'm going to refer -- are we in closed session or
16 Could we go into private session for a moment, Mr. President?
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
19 [Private session]
11 Page 1765 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm not sure if it's --
24 THE REGISTRAR: We are in -- we are in private session,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Open session.
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour. Sorry.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 We are really running out of time.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. And should we stop now?
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should, because another trial will use this
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Yeah, this is a perfect place to
9 stop, then.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
13 We have to adjourn now and to resume tomorrow morning in the same
14 courtroom at 9.00.
15 May I remind you, no contact to the parties about the content of
16 your testimony.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President --
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just wanted to add, for tomorrow, my
20 understanding is that we'll continue with Mr. Janc until he concludes his
21 direct testimony, which will be followed by Mr. Blaszczyk. And my
22 understanding is that if Mr. Blaszczyk does not fill up the time for
23 tomorrow, that Mr. Tolimir is prepared to proceed with the -- at least
24 begin the cross-examination of Mr. Janc. Otherwise, he's prepared to
25 proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Janc after Mr. Erdemovic's
1 appearance, if that's all right with the Court.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If the parties are agreed on that, that would be
3 very helpful. We can manage in that way so that you have enough time to
4 prepare for your cross-examination.
5 Thank you very much. We have to adjourn now and resume tomorrow
6 at 9.00.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 14th day of May,
10 2010, at 9.00 a.m.