Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1944

 1                           Tuesday, 18 May 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon to everybody.

 6             I think we are continuing with the witness Janc, with the

 7     cross-examination, and therefore the -- would you like to raise

 8     something?

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.

10             The witness can come in.  I just wanted to raise something, just

11     to bring it to your attention.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Good afternoon to you and to Your Honours.

14             Mr. President, we've had an opportunity to review the audiotape

15     of Mr. Erdemovic's testimony in the Popovic case, and it appears that

16     there was a mistranslation of a term that he used.  The used the term

17     "vodnik" to describe his position in the 10th Sabotage Unit, which was

18     translated erroneously "corporal."  It should have been "sergeant," that

19     would have been the more appropriate translation.  So I wanted to alert

20     you to the fact that we would be making the application to correct that

21     in that transcript, and I believe since it was read in in this case, we

22     would have to move also to have it corrected in this case as well.  But

23     that's all I wanted to let you know.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 1945

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Janc.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Welcome back to this courtroom.

 4             I would like to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth

 5     still applies.

 6                           WITNESS:  DUSAN JANC [Resumed]

 7             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And Mr. Tolimir has some questions for you.

 9             Mr. Tolimir.

10             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we are not receiving the English

12     translation.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Can you hear the English now?  Can you hear the

14     English?

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

16             Please, Mr. Tolimir, repeat what you were going to say.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May there be peace in this house

18     for all those present, and may God's will be done in these proceedings,

19     and may the outcome be as God wishes and not as I wish.

20              I'd like to say good afternoon to Mr. Janc and thank him for

21     coming in again.  I have a few questions to ask Mr. Janc.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Janc, you spoke about a list compiled by the

24     International Commission on Missing Persons, the ICMP.  My first question

25     is:  Can you tell us a little more about the list was compiled or,

Page 1946

 1     rather, the methodology in compiling the list?  Thank you.

 2        A.   Yes, I will try to do so, although I think that would be the

 3     question for the ICMP itself.  But I think that we have gone over this --

 4     over this -- their methodology during my previous testimonies.

 5             So, basically, what they are doing is they are getting the DNA

 6     samples, which are taken out of the bodies or body remains during the

 7     autopsies, and these samples are then sent to their office in Sarajevo.

 8     After that, these samples are tested and a DNA profile is established and

 9     then matched to a donor.  It means that the person is identified, I mean,

10     the person which is on the missing list.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  You also spoke about a list compiled by the

12     International Commission.  Well, I'm going to ask you the same question,

13     because I can't ask the representatives of the International Commission

14     how they compiled the list, so I'm asking you, because you used their

15     list as a basis for some of your conclusions and some of the things you

16     presented here.  So let me repeat.

17             There is a list compiled by the International Commission on

18     Missing Persons, and there's also a list of missing persons compiled by

19     the International Red Cross Committee.  Can you tell us, first of all,

20     what the methodology was used for the missing persons list of the ICRC,

21     led by the ICRC, the International Red Cross?  And then we'll come to the

22     next question.  Thank you.

23        A.   Yes.  Regarding the ICRC, my response would be the same, so that

24     the representatives from those institutions would be the best people to

25     respond.  But, in any case, I know that the relatives reported the --

Page 1947

 1     their loved ones which went missing after the fall of Srebrenica, and

 2     that this process was ongoing process in Bosnia up until the -- recently,

 3     I think, that we don't have the ICRC office anymore in Sarajevo, if I'm

 4     not mistaken.  So this list was compiled first after the fall of

 5     Srebrenica, and it was updated on a regular basis.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, can you tell me this:  What is the

 7     relationship between the two lists, or, rather, are there any differences

 8     with respect to the number of missing persons, the errors in names, the

 9     dates of birth, or any other facts like that?  Thank you.

10        A.   Yes, those two lists are different.  For example, on the ICRC

11     list, you will find much more exact information regarding when and where

12     the individual went missing; whereas on the ICMP list, this information

13     for most of the individuals would be 11 of July.  And I think these are

14     two unrelated lists, actually, because ICMP has their own database on the

15     donors, of the relatives which individuals went missing after the fall of

16     Srebrenica, so they have compiled their own database based on the donors

17     for these relatives.  So these are two different lists, and what I have

18     been mostly relying into my report for calculating the total numbers was

19     the ICMP list.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You need the microphone, Mr. Tolimir.

22             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  You said a moment ago that that list was

24     about individuals that disappeared on the 11th of July.  Now, can it then

25     be valid in the analyses that we are considering here in court?  Thank

Page 1948

 1     you.

 2        A.   What I meant by "11 of July" is that you can find on the ICMP

 3     list, as a date of disappearance, 11 of July, but that was just their

 4     decision to put it like that, that they went missing on 11 of July,

 5     basically, because for their purposes that would mean that this is

 6     Srebrenica-related missing person.  They did not go into details, when

 7     and where exactly such particular individual went missing.  So in order

 8     to find this information, we are -- we are consulting the ICRC missing

 9     list, yes.

10        Q.   Does that mean that in this list, you can have somebody who

11     disappeared in 1992, or 1993, or 1994, or 1995, and that they are, in

12     fact, being listed as having gone missing in Srebrenica?

13        A.   No, no, I didn't mean that.  You don't have such individuals on

14     that list.

15        Q.   Thank you.  But you said a moment ago, in your previous answer,

16     that they list everybody as having disappeared on the 11th of July, 1995;

17     is that correct or have I misunderstood?  Thank you.

18        A.   Not everybody, but for most of the people -- for most of them,

19     will you find the entry as went missing on 11 of July.  But what I mean

20     for most of them, I mean on the ICMP list which is related only to

21     Srebrenica event.  So not everybody for which they have information that

22     everybody disappeared in Bosnia would be missing from 11 of July.  For

23     example, if the person went missing before from some other incident,

24     those individuals would not be included into the list which I used for my

25     report, so those would be part of the other ICMP lists.

Page 1949

 1        Q.   Now, if somebody from Srebrenica disappeared in 1992 or 1993, and

 2     if there are facts about that, and witnesses, and knowledge, and

 3     documents to bear that out, and that person is on that missing persons

 4     list, then would the ICRC have that person's name on its list as a

 5     missing person?  Thank you.

 6        A.   I would say the correct answer would be, no, those people should

 7     not be on such list as being related to Srebrenica events.  So if there

 8     is information on those individual, that they went missing from -- at

 9     some other point in time, not related to Srebrenica, most probably those

10     information would reflect that on both lists.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And when you come by information of that kind, and

12     you've just told us that those lists list the persons missing as of the

13     11th of July, what do you do to actually establish when the people went

14     missing and how, or do you just ascribe it all to missing in Srebrenica

15     in 1995?  Thank you.

16        A.   No, we don't do it like that.  All the people which are on the

17     Srebrenica missing list -- ICRC Srebrenica missing list have been checked

18     methodological by our Demographic Unit, so the Demographic Unit checked

19     the names on those lists against the available sources, like as it is

20     voters lists and then census list, and in order to identify that -- in

21     order to establish that these persons, indeed, lived at that time in

22     Bosnia.  So it is a process which have been done by the OTP, mostly by

23     the Demographic Unit, in order to confirm that, indeed, all the

24     individual which are on those lists are related to Srebrenica events.

25     And if at any time there was any doubt about it, so we have double-check

Page 1950

 1     it, and there were several requests for assistance sent to Bosnia.  We

 2     have been interviewing the individuals from certain institutions.  And

 3     also if there were individuals, and I can tell you there were only -- not

 4     many of them found on those lists which, indeed, have not been related to

 5     Srebrenica, they were then excluded from these lists.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  I'd now like to remind you of something you

 7     said on the 13th of May, 2010, in this same trial, when you were here

 8     first.  You say, on 1760 of the transcript, lines 14 to 17, the

 9     following, and I quote:

10             "In the aim of collecting information about the dates of -- the

11     dates when persons disappeared, we have to look at various sources, such

12     as the ICRC missing persons list and the missing persons list of the

13     Prosecutor's Office."

14             Did I understand you correctly?  Is that what you said?

15        A.   Yes, indeed, that's exactly what I said, yes.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now, since you said that, can you tell us anything

17     about the Prosecutor's list of missing persons, the OTP's list, because

18     we have investigators here, so can you tell us whether that list, the

19     OTP's list, has been disclosed, perhaps under another title, or heading,

20     or name, or whatever?  I don't know how it is listed and stored in the

21     Prosecutor's Office.  But could you tell us something about that?  Thank

22     you.

23        A.   Yes, I can.  And this list will be actually presented by the

24     upcoming witness, demographic expert, Helge Brunborg, who compiled that

25     OTP list, and I think he will be the best person to explain how, exactly,

Page 1951

 1     it was compiled, for what purposes.  And I think this list -- this list

 2     has been disclosed to you, for sure, together with his document.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  I just wanted to remind you of that, and of something

 4     you said further on, as well, when you referred to the International

 5     Commission's missing persons list.  You said, and I quote:

 6             "In most cases, most of the entries and dates for the missing

 7     persons is the 11th of July, because the purpose of their database was

 8     not to establish when and where those individuals disappeared, but what

 9     was most important for them was to establish that they were linked to

10     Srebrenica in one way or another.  So that for most of them, they put the

11     date being the 11th of July."

12             Did I quote you correctly, and can you remember having said that?

13     Thank you.

14        A.   Yes, I do remember having said that, and you quoted me correctly.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Then can I ask you this, and I'd like to hear your

16     answer:  How does the International Commission for Missing Persons -- how

17     is it able to establish whether somebody who disappeared was linked to

18     Srebrenica if they don't have the information about when they

19     disappeared, whether they were members of the army, and similar facts?

20     Thank you -- and where they disappeared, in actual fact.  Thank you.

21        A.   Yes, I already testified that the exact methodology how they have

22     done this process, I'm not aware of, but I'm not saying that they did not

23     have in their possession any other lists in order to prove certain facts.

24     So how was that done exactly, I don't know, by their side, but I think

25     that they have had in their possession the actual ICRC list in order to

Page 1952

 1     find the donors for the missing individuals.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, am I right in saying, on the basis of

 3     what you've just told us -- or, rather, let me ask you this:  How does

 4     the International Commission establish that somebody was linked to the

 5     events in Srebrenica?  Did you investigate that, since you used their

 6     lists, and particularly in view of the fact that they stipulated the

 7     date, which was the 11th of July, and some people might have gone missing

 8     before that date in Srebrenica, for instance?

 9        A.   I would say they basically referred to the ICRC missing list, but

10     we haven't investigated -- me, in particular, I haven't investigated this

11     issue in big depth because I know it was investigated by the

12     Demographic Unit, itself, and they will know all these answers in --

13     during their testimony.  So I just know some general -- general

14     information on this issue.

15        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Since you said that they had a choice, the

16     ICRC list, now why did they omit from that source data about the day,

17     place, and manner in which the person went missing, and why they put a

18     sweeping date of the 11th of July?  Thank you.

19        A.   I don't think the answer on this question.  I apologise.

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, before you we heard testimony from

21     Mr. Ruez, an OTP investigator, and he said that he considers all those

22     who were buried were the victims of execution.  Can I hear your stand on

23     that?  Do you consider that all the people buried -- the bodies buried in

24     mass graves were, in fact, victims deprived of their life against the

25     law?  Thank you.

Page 1953

 1        A.   Yes, my position on this topic is the same.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Could you repeat it for us, please, for the

 3     transcript?  Repeat your position, please.  Thank you.

 4        A.   My position would be the same as Mr. Ruez's, that the people

 5     buried at primary and secondary mass -- inside these mass graves are,

 6     indeed, the victims of a crime.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now, when you were here last time and testified, you

 8     said that in Bratunac, the grave in Bratunac, there were those who had

 9     been buried in 1992 and in 1995 as well.  Does that mean that you

10     consider them to be the victims of the conflict of 1995, and that you

11     listed them as such?

12        A.   No, that was discussion also during my testimony here the other

13     day, that there is a mixed grave in Bljeceva, which is very close to

14     Bratunac.  There's the secondary grave Bljeceva 1, and we know that most

15     of the bodies there are from some other incidents from 1992, and a

16     minority of them is from the killings -- or from the killings, yeah,

17     which are relate to do Kravica, so they were reburied from Glogova

18     primary grave to this site.  So that's -- that's what I testified about,

19     yes.

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  I took the example from your testimony, and

21     by doing so I wanted to indicate that you cannot consider all these

22     people in the graves to be victims of the events that we are discussing

23     here and for which I am being tried.  Am I right or not?  Please state

24     your views.  Thank you.

25        A.   I think you should be more precise.  I cannot consider all these

Page 1954

 1     people in the graves to be victims of the events -- can you explain a

 2     little bit more, in detail, what did you mean by that?

 3        Q.   Yes, thank you.  I asked for your position earlier on, and I'll

 4     tell you what I think.  Did you, as an investigator, take up a position

 5     of any kind on the basis of your opinions, or did you do that on the

 6     basis of documents, did you base your opinions on the basis of documents?

 7     Thank you.

 8        A.   Yes, I took up my position based on many, many things, many

 9     sources.  These are documents, victim statements, then forensic evidence

10     and such sources.  So, yes, based on these sources, we have made these

11     conclusions.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, can you tell me whether you studied

13     the lists from those aspects, the lists of the Army of Republika Srpska

14     and the BH Army relating to the victims in armed combat, and in fighting,

15     and in the incidents that took place in Srebrenica?  Thank you.

16        A.   I'm aware of those lists and I have been looking at those lists.

17     But already the Demographic Unit concluded that these lists are not that

18     reliable, so I did not put that much weight on them.

19        Q.   [No interpretation]

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, I realise that.  There is no English

21     interpretation at the moment.  Is there now interpretation?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Do you hear the English now?

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now we hear it again.  Thank you.

24             Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir, and repeat the last portion of

25     your -- just carry on with your questioning.

Page 1955

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

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Janc, we heard your answer a moment ago, and it's been

 4     recorded in the transcript.  My question is this:  Did you consider the

 5     document of -- a BH army document or a VRS document irrelevant that spoke

 6     of some deaths before or after the Srebrenica events that are at issue

 7     before this Tribunal?

 8        A.   No, of course not.  These documents are relevant.  What I've been

 9     talking about what I did not consider as relevant lists are -- I know

10     that we received recently the list of ABiH soldiers which went missing

11     somewhere in 1992/1993.  That's what I was referring to.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  We will show here specifically such

13     documents and the way that you have classified them.  But before we move

14     to that topic, I would like to ask you to tell us a few words about this

15     International Commission.  You said that its headquarters are in

16     Sarajevo, and we heard from the OTP here that this is a non-government

17     organisation, so could you please tell us something about this commission

18     and how it was established?  The International Commission of Missing

19     Persons, that's what I'm referring to.

20        A.   Yes.  Just in general, I know that it was established somewhere

21     in 2001.  I think it was financed by the United States government, if I'm

22     not wrong, but I cannot be sure about that.  And, yeah, their main

23     purpose was to identify missing -- all the missing people from the

24     conflicts which occurred in Bosnia during the war, and those

25     identifications would be made based on the DNA analysis.  So their main

Page 1956

 1     purpose is to identify missing persons within victims of the war.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Am I wrong in saying that this commission

 3     may have been established in 1996, at the initiative of the president of

 4     the United States, Bill Clinton, at the G-7 meeting in Lyon in France?

 5     Yes or no.

 6        A.   I cannot say anything, because actually I don't know.  But I know

 7     that they have started DNA identification in November 2001.  But all this

 8     data about the establishment and everything is available on web site.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us here, before this Trial Chamber, who

10     directs the work of the International Commission on Missing Persons and

11     who supervises their work?  Thank you.

12        A.   I'm afraid I cannot answer this question.  I know that the person

13     who testifies here representing the ICMP is Dr. Thomas Parson.  So for

14     the rest of your question, I think I'm unable to provide you with an

15     answer right now.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Do you know, by any chance, who were the

17     chair people of this board of the International Commission on Missing

18     Persons?  Thank you.

19        A.   No, I don't know that.  I don't have this information.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Since you exchanged communications with them and --

21     did you ever exchange information or did you just use their lists?

22        A.   If you mean me, personally, I haven't exchanged any information

23     with them.  And as you can see from the documents which are part of my

24     report, so I am referring here to the ICMP responses, you will see that I

25     was not involved personally in the e-mail communication with them.  But I

Page 1957

 1     have used their lists, of course, for the purposes of my -- of my report,

 2     yes.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Tell us, please, did your predecessor from whom you

 4     actually got these reports, and I mean Mr. Manning, did you get the list

 5     from him?

 6        A.   What kind of list do you mean?

 7        Q.   I mean the list of missing persons and victims that you presented

 8     here by grave-site and by dates when they went missing, and established,

 9     based on DNA analysis, and based on which you also actually matched the

10     information to the victim.

11        A.   Yes, many of those information were part of his previous reports,

12     so I have simply found this information inside his reports.  And what I

13     have been using mainly for the purposes of my report, the recent one, was

14     the most recent information/data from the ICMP.  And, yeah, so I haven't

15     got any special data from Dean Manning, because when I joined the

16     Tribunal he hasn't been here for many years already.  So we just met,

17     I think, two times now in life, and that's all, so I haven't got anything

18     in particular from him.

19        Q.   Thank you.  And how long have you been in this position, from

20     what year, could you tell us for the transcript?  Thank you.

21        A.   Yes, from the 1st of June, 2006.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us, then, whether you know that as of

23     1996, for instance, the chairman of the board of the International

24     Commission on Missing Persons was Cyrus Vance, and as of 1997, up until

25     2001, when you took over from Manning, that it was the American senator,

Page 1958

 1     Bob Dole, who was then succeeded by the current chairman, David Kinsey,

 2     who is now the current chairman of this commission?  Am I correct in

 3     saying this?  Do you have any information on that?

 4        A.   No, I don't have any information on any of those names, so I

 5     cannot help you with that.  So those names are not familiar to me.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you were stating in your question

 7     that Mr. Janc took over his duty from Mr. Manning in 2001.  But as you

 8     realise the last answer of this witness, he told you that he started his

 9     work on the 1st of June, 2006.  You should realise such kind of

10     information if you put the next question to the witness.

11             Please carry on.

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

13             I just asked this because the witness said that he used their

14     list as the underlying -- as the source for his analysis that he

15     presented here.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, this response was not appropriate.

17     You said, and this is at page 14, line 24 and 25:

18             "... up until 2001, when you took over from Manning."

19             You can see that on this transcript.  And you just before got the

20     answer:  "Yes, from the 1st of June, 2006."  There's a gap of five years.

21     This was the problem.

22             Please carry on, and don't dispute this.

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

24             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   I would like now the witness to answer my question.  Who was the

Page 1959

 1     chairman at the time when Mr. Manning left the post that you are now

 2     occupying, and who it was in the meantime when you got appointed to your

 3     position?  Thank you.

 4        A.   Yeah, I mean -- I guess you mean the chairman of the ICMP, and I

 5     already testified that I don't have information on that.  So I don't

 6     have -- I don't know, actually.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Perhaps we misunderstood each other.  My question

 8     was:  Who was in this post between your appointment and Manning's -- when

 9     Manning left?  Who was it at that post within the OTP in the meantime?

10     Thank you.

11        A.   Yes, there were many investigators who have been involved

12     investigating Srebrenica events, but in between I don't think anyone in

13     particular was involved with the exhumations.  So I think there is a gap

14     when he left and when I took over these responsibilities, and that's why,

15     when Dean Manning was here in order to prepare himself for Popovic

16     testimony, there were some information missing from the field, and that's

17     why I went on a mission to get the information he needed for his

18     testimony.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  I will not dwell on this any further, but

20     let me ask you this:  Can you tell us what the difference is between the

21     International Commission on Missing Persons and the Institute for Missing

22     Persons?  And tell us the difference between the acronyms of these two

23     institutions, because you use them in your report.  Thank you.

24        A.   Yes.  As you -- as you can see from the name of the ICMP,

25     International Commission for Missing Persons, that is the commission

Page 1960

 1     established by the international community and also founded by the

 2     international community.  And within Bosnia, there is also the

 3     Institution on Missing Persons which has been established by the BiH

 4     authorities.  There were mainly -- before that, there were two

 5     commissions from the federation and RS side, and I think now they merged

 6     into the institute, and their involvement basically is to identify -- to

 7     find and to exhume all the additional graves which are found in the area

 8     of the Bosnia-Herzegovina, those related to Srebrenica and also those

 9     related to other incidents.  And the basic distinction between those two

10     is that one is the government organisation institution and the other one

11     is international institution which one day will disappear from Bosnia,

12     but the government institute will remain there and it will continue with

13     its work.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  You are talking here about a government

15     institution.  But in order to be absolutely certain, because we use these

16     documents in preparation for our Defence and the Court, can you please

17     tell us who established that commission or that institute, the federal

18     commission or institute, and which government is its founder?  Is it the

19     Bosnian government or the federal government, because you also mentioned

20     Republika Srpska now, so -- and it's all confusing, so could you please

21     tell us who is the source for these documents and whom can we ask for

22     documents from?

23        A.   Yes.  Up until, I think, 2008, there were two commissions inside

24     Bosnia, the Federal Commission on Missing Persons and the RS Commission

25     on Missing Persons, and those were established by federal authorities

Page 1961

 1     and, on the other side, by the RS authorities.  And now there is an

 2     institute from 2008 onwards which I think merged both commissions into

 3     one institute, and this was established by the BiH authorities.  But,

 4     again, I would need to get more precise documents on that in order to

 5     answer your question.  So that's my understanding of it.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did you receive any documents from this institute?

 7     Thank you.

 8        A.   Yes, indeed, from the commission before and also from the

 9     institute, I received some documents, yes.  And I also used some

10     documents for my report, especially related to the surface remains.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know that Republika Srpska and the federation

12     differ on their views about this institute, and that they are currently

13     discussing this issue, these two governments within the republic and the

14     federation?

15        A.   So, yes, it's possible, but I don't have this information.  I'm

16     not aware of this information, but it's quite possible as a normal thing

17     in Bosnia, yes.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Since you have no information on it, do you have any

19     information about whether the OTP received any information or data from

20     the International Commission for the entire territory of Bosnia, and then

21     classifies that information within the OTP, or do you just receive

22     information that have to do with Srebrenica in July of 1995, in view of

23     the fact that that is the focus of the OTP's work?  Thank you.

24        A.   The OTP is getting, on a regular basis, both lists from the ICMP.

25     When I mean "both lists," I mean, you know, the one which is related to

Page 1962

 1     Srebrenica only and the one which is related to all the other events.

 2     They have separated, within the institute, those two lists.  And, yes, we

 3     are receiving all the data on a regular basis, every few months, from the

 4     ICMP.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Janc.

 6             Could we now please show 1D125, and I would like to ask the

 7     witness some questions related to this document.  Thank you.

 8             Thank you.  We can see the preliminary list of victims of

 9     genocide in Srebrenica, 1995.  That is what is stated here, and this has

10     already been described as such before this Tribunal actually brought any

11     of its decisions on it.

12             Do you know whether this list was based on the basis of the ICMP

13     and the government -- the federal government commission, and that it was

14     published in 2005?  Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I assume there is no English

16     translation yet.  On your Defence list of potential exhibits, you

17     indicated that the translation is still pending.  Therefore, it could be

18     necessary to read out what you are putting to the witness.

19             Mr. Vanderpuye.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm sorry for the

21     delay.

22             This document doesn't have any ERN number, and I wonder if

23     Mr. Tolimir would be kind enough to identify the source of the

24     information so that we can put this in context in terms of putting the

25     questions to the witness.  It's unclear what the source of it is, and I

Page 1963

 1     don't believe that there's a date that is actually indicated on it other

 2     than the reference to the events concerning Srebrenica.  So if he could

 3     do that, I think that would be rather helpful.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 5             Mr. Tolimir.

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

 7             I will ask the witness, first of all, whether he is familiar with

 8     this list and this title and whether he has this document as one of the

 9     documents in his possession.  Thank you.

10             THE WITNESS:  No, I'm not familiar with this document.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, could you deal with the comment of

12     Mr. Vanderpuye.  He asked for the ERN number and certain reference and

13     the date of this document.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said that this was 1D125, and it

15     was marked.  It is a Defence document, and it can be found on the

16     internet.  It's an open-source document, and this federal commission is

17     offering this document to all those who work with it.  And this witness

18     said that he is working with that commission, which is why I showed this

19     document to him and asked him whether he has it in his possession.  Thank

20     you.

21             And, Mr. Vanderpuye, I hope what I've said is sufficient for your

22     purposes.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you were referring to a 65 ter

24     number.  This is, indeed, on your list, but there is no ERN number yet.

25             Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 1964

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

 2             Yes, there is no ERN.  That's a correct observation.

 3             The other issue is Mr. Tolimir hasn't indicated when this

 4     document was generated.  It may be available, it may be an open-source

 5     document.  It's unclear when it was actually generated for the first

 6     time.  It's unclear under what circumstances it was generated.  So the

 7     provenance of the document, I think, hasn't been established sufficiently

 8     to put questions to the witness concerning what it is, whether he has it,

 9     because there's not enough here to identify the document, to begin with.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, if you are referring to the

11     internet, you should indicate which web site you did take it from.

12             Please carry on.

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

14             This document was published in 2005 by the Federal Commission on

15     Missing Persons, and we've also mentioned this document in our motion to

16     this Trial Chamber.  However, I can provide some additional information,

17     or perhaps we can leave this document for some later time when we have

18     its translation.

19             But I can't really even follow the transcript because it's not

20     being translated into B/C/S, and I cannot speak English and I don't have

21     an interpreter of my own.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is the reason why everything is interpreted

23     to you in B/C/S, what is said in the courtroom.

24             Please carry on.

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

Page 1965

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   My first question is this:  This list, unlike the International

 3     Commission on Missing Persons, is a public document and available to

 4     anyone who wants it, and it lists information such as the first and last

 5     names, date and place of birth, compiled by the Federal Commission on

 6     Missing Persons.  And on the lists are those persons who are considered

 7     by this commission as victims of genocides.  And, additionally, it says,

 8     and that's on page 1, the preliminary list of the victims of genocide in

 9     Srebrenica contain information on 8.106 victims from whom it was

10     established from independent sources that they went missing or were

11     killed in and around Srebrenica in the summer of 1995.

12             And my question for you, based on what I've just read out, is

13     this:  Can you explain to us why the list of the International Commission

14     on Missing Persons, unlike this list of the Federal Commission, is not

15     public?  Thank you.

16        A.   The list of the ICMP -- the ICMP list is not public because of

17     very obvious reasons, because there are the names of the identified

18     individuals, all their personal details, and what is the most important

19     why it is not public is because some of the relatives of those already

20     identified by the ICMP have not been notified yet about their -- about

21     their fate.  So that's the main reason why, according to my knowledge,

22     this list is not public.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Since that list is not

24     public, could we move into private session so that we can actually

25     compare these two lists.  Thank you.

Page 1966

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, we have only one document in B/C/S

 2     on the screen.  There's no list yet.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             May we go into private session, because the witness just said

 5     that that information and those facts are not accessible and they have

 6     confidential?  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Private.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 1967

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honour.

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

16             Now, the person whose documents we have shown - I'm not going to

17     mention the name - that person was interviewed by the OTP in 2002.  I'm

18     not going to say by whom.  I don't want to mention names.

19             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] But I would like to ask the witness

20     the following:

21        Q.   Can you explain to us how this comes about, how things like this

22     can happen, and that somebody who has nothing to do with Srebrenica, but

23     somebody who is from Zepa, crosses over to Serbia, and then from Serbia

24     goes to the United States, that that person should be on a list compiled

25     by the Federal Commission for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina, with

Page 1968

 1     which you are in contact, as we understand it from your testimony here,

 2     and it's also a witness of the institution that you are testifying for as

 3     an investigator?  Thank you.  So how come he's on that list?

 4        A.   Yes.  First, I would like to say that I don't know, actually,

 5     what this list on the left-hand side represents, so I assume this is a

 6     kind of list from somewhere because I am -- I'm sure this is not the ICMP

 7     list, because it doesn't look like that.  And if -- the only possible

 8     source which I see reliable would be the ICRC list, but even in that case

 9     I don't think this is taken out from the ICRC list.  And, yes, as I

10     explained before, the ICRC lists were updated regularly, and in case the

11     individuals were found later to be still alive, they were taken off the

12     list.  And I'm not sure if this particular individual is still on the

13     list.  We would have to take a look into the recent ICRC list.  And what

14     I can assure, this person is not on the ICMP list as the one being found

15     in the grave and the one which would represent one individual of my

16     report.

17        Q.   When I displayed this list, I said it was from the

18     Federal (redacted)

19     (redacted)  Now, later on I showed you his provisional travel documents,

20     and I said that that was compiled by the Tribunal and that he is listed

21     as a missing person.  How is that possible?

22        A.   I would say we did not refer -- I haven't completed my report

23     based on the -- on this list, and it is quite possible that this

24     individual, it is on the list of the Federal Commission on Missing

25     Person, which for our purposes is not the reliable one.  So the most

Page 1969

 1     reliable one would be the ICRC list, and I would like to check the ICRC

 2     list, the latest updated version of it, where this individual will most

 3     probably not be there anymore.  So that's why we cannot -- I cannot

 4     comment on this list, because that's the list I have never referred to in

 5     my report.  So what is relevant for my report is that this individual is

 6     not identified, and, on the other hand, we can see he's still alive.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I wanted to object to the

 9     question, and the reason for that is that, as we can see from the

10     beginning of this -- at the beginning of this document, it's referred to

11     as a preliminary list.  And Mr. Tolimir was kind enough to read the first

12     paragraph of the list, but didn't read the following paragraphs of the

13     list.  I can't read them because they are not in a language that I can

14     read, but I think it would be helpful and appropriate to read in the rest

15     of the preliminary page, the first page of this document, so that the

16     Trial Chamber can understand the context under which this list was

17     developed, specifically because Mr. Tolimir is now asking why a certain

18     anomaly -- or how a certain anomaly on the list can be explained, and

19     I think that can be explained by reference to the first page.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

21             Mr. Tolimir, could you help Mr. Vanderpuye and the Chamber with

22     the information requested?

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Counsel, please, microphone.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.

25             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, for

Page 1970

 1     getting up, but I'd just like to say that I noticed, on line -- on

 2     page 25, line 15, since a number was mentioned from this list, to avoid

 3     having the person identified, I'd like that line redacted.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this advice, but still we are in a

 5     very strange position.  You indicated that you got this list from the

 6     internet.  If that is true, then there is no reason for any redaction.

 7             Mr. Janc, the witness, told us why he didn't publish -- or why

 8     the ICMP didn't publish their lists yet, but there might be a difference.

 9     If that information is available on the internet, if that is true, then

10     there's no reason for a redaction.

11             Mr. Gajic.

12             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I didn't say "because

13     of this fact in the list."  The list is accessible to everybody.  But in

14     the context of the discussions we had, an individual was mentioned who's

15     a protected witness, I believe, at this Tribunal, so that's the reason

16     why I insisted -- well, I didn't insist, but I thought that it was a good

17     idea to redact that line 15 on page 25.  That was the only reason.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for that.  It will be done.

19             Mr. Tolimir, could you help Mr. Vanderpuye and the Chamber with

20     this request?

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

22             Yes, I can, and I'll read out the whole of the first page, which

23     is what Mr. Vanderpuye asked me to do.  This is what it says:

24             "Preliminary list of victims --"

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps not the whole page, but the portion

Page 1971

 1     Mr. Vanderpuye wanted to hear.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A preliminary list, it's not a

 3     final list, and will only be used as a starting basis for compiling a

 4     final list of the victims of genocide in Srebrenica.  And, furthermore,

 5     it says who compiled the list, and what telephones can be contacted --

 6     what the telephone numbers are of the commission, and they provide their

 7     address, their internet address, at the end of the page.  And we can see

 8     that it's accessible to everyone.  And as it was a list that was public

 9     published, I assume that they provided it to this Tribunal, because this

10     Tribunal is bandying about a figure of 8.000-odd victims, so I would like

11     to say that a number of people on those -- on that list are living

12     persons, people who are still alive of those 8.106 on the list.

13             Now, if I can explain further, I'd be happy to do so.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please indicate where the internet

15     address is?  I don't see any.  There are two e-mail addresses, but not

16     the web site address.  Could you indicate that?

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

18             It says information can be given orally or in writing and sent to

19     the Federal Commission for Missing Persons in Sarajevo, Musala Street

20     number 9, by telephone, by telefax, by e-mail, with the e-mail address,

21     or the association of the movement of the mothers of the enclaves of

22     Srebrenica and Zepa can be contacted.  And the address there is Trsnica

23     Entar [phoen], Antuna Hangija [phoen] number 1, and an e-mail address for

24     the association, which is "srebrenicazena@," et cetera, dot com,

25     ""

Page 1972

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir, but that means

 2     nothing.  You said it is available on the internet.  These are normal

 3     post addresses and e-mail addresses.  Somebody can get in contact with

 4     them and ask for that list, if I understand correctly, but there is no

 5     web site.  So it is not, from the first view, available on the web site.

 6     Could you give such a reference?  If there is nothing, if you don't have

 7     it, then tell us.  And please say when this list was published.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This list was published in 2005,

 9     and we wrote about it in our brief.  We indicated those illogical

10     situations.  And my question to this witness is the following:  Did he

11     ever check out the list provided by the Commission for Missing Persons of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and did he compare it to other lists of missing

13     persons or persons killed?  Thank you.  Could he answer that question,

14     please, if he can?

15             THE WITNESS:  No, I did not, personally.  And if this was done,

16     that was done by the Demographic Unit.  But as I have already explained,

17     this is additional source of information on the missing person -- persons

18     from Srebrenica, and what was the most reliable source, I will explain

19     once more, was the ICRC list and, for my report, the ICMP list.  So we

20     haven't used this list as being one source for my report, especially

21     because this is, I would say, outdated.  It is created in 2005, so -- and

22     I'm quite sure that a lot of updates have occurred during these years,

23     and the information which are available now would be, for sure, much

24     different.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc.

Page 1973

 1        Q.   I asked you this:  Did you ever check out the Federal

 2     Commission's lists?  And they provided their address and everything.  Did

 3     you compare them and check them with the International Commission's list

 4     of missing persons, and do you know anything about their lists at all?

 5     Do you use their lists in your work as a database of any kind?  Thank

 6     you.

 7        A.   Again, I personally haven't checked these lists, but it's

 8     possible they were checked by the Demographic Unit.  So in order to get

 9     into the reliability and validity of data, you need much more information

10     on the methodology and everything, how that second list was compiled,

11     so -- and that -- that's what has been the ongoing process of the OTP

12     Demographic Unit, and they will present their report on the actual number

13     on missing persons in relation to Srebrenica.  And I think they will also

14     be able to respond on this question, if they have compared this list

15     against any other -- any other lists.  But for my report, no, I haven't

16     used this list as a source.  The main source was the ICMP list of the

17     identified individuals.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  So am I right in saying that most probably,

19     according to what you've just said, the Demographic Department of the OTP

20     used it for their purposes; yes or no?  Is that right?  Did the

21     Demographic Unit check out the list provided by the federation or not?

22        A.   Yes, it's possible they did.  I don't know for the fact, because

23     they have checked many of those lists, and I think they can respond to

24     this question more accurately than I can do.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Well, in that case, I'd like to tender

Page 1974

 1     page 1 and -- 119 of 1D125, as well as document 1D126, where we can see

 2     that that particular person is alive, whereas he's listed as missing.

 3     Thank you.  I'd like to tender that into evidence.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That will be marked for identification on two

 5     reasons.  Firstly, there is no English translation available yet.  The

 6     second reason is that this witness was not able to answer the question

 7     about the authenticity and the content of this list.

 8             Please carry on.

 9             Just a moment.  The number.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 1D125 will be D43, marked for

12     identification, while 65 ter 1D126 will be Exhibit D44, under seal.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Nyambe has a question for you.

14             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

15             On page 30, line 12 to 13, of your evidence just now, you have

16     stated that:

17             "The main source for my report was the ICMP list."

18             Correct?

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, correct.

20             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  Are you able to say whether, from the

21     latest report of the ICMP list, you could identify this person who has

22     been discussed?

23             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I have to check the -- this

24     information electronically.  It's possible to check it very quickly.  But

25     I'm quite sure this person would not be on that list.  But from the top

Page 1975

 1     of my head, I cannot say, because it needs to be done in an electronic

 2     way.

 3             JUDGE NYAMBE:  How long would that take?

 4             THE WITNESS:  I can do it during the break, if you allow me.

 5             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  Just before I let you go:  When was -- the

 6     last updated ICMP and ICRC report that you used, when were those lists

 7     established?

 8             THE WITNESS:  We received the latest ICMP list in February, but

 9     includes all the identifications which were made up to the end of

10     November 2009.  And the latest ICRC list, I think it is also around

11     February this year, but this information I will also need to check.  But

12     they are around the same time.

13             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   I'd like to ask the witness this, so that we can round off this

17     set of questions:  Under whose supervision did the Federal Commission for

18     Missing Persons for Bosnia-Herzegovina, under whose supervision it is?

19     Who controls its work?  That is a question I asked earlier on, but I

20     would like to have the answer recorded in the transcript because it

21     wasn't previously.  So who supervises the work of the commission?

22        A.   Yes, this commission does not exist anymore, so now it's an

23     institute.  But before that, it was part of the BiH federal government,

24     so -- and if you want the name of the individual who was the head of that

25     commission, I can provide you with that also, yes.

Page 1976

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me why the name of that person exists,

 2     whereas the name of the commission doesn't -- as the commission doesn't

 3     exist?

 4        A.   I don't understand.  What do you mean, that the name of that

 5     commission exists?  Where does it exist?  What are you referring to?

 6        Q.   Well, you said that the commission no longer exists, so can you

 7     tell me the name of the person who headed the organisation that

 8     controlled this?  How can it control something that doesn't exist?  Thank

 9     you.

10        A.   No, the head of this commission, a commission which does not

11     exist anymore from 2008, was Mr. Amor Masovic, and I think he's still the

12     head of the now institute or the head -- I might be wrong with that,

13     because it might be that there is a bench of the people who is heading

14     the institute now, but he's one of them, for sure, there still.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Just tell me whether he was the president of this

16     Federal Commission previously or not.

17        A.   Yes, he was.

18        Q.   So they are the same people; it's just the names that have been

19     changed.  Am I right in saying that?

20        A.   Yes, not only the name, but, indeed, there are still the same

21     people, and I already testified that they merged with the RS commission

22     together into one institute, and most probably the same people work for

23     this institute now, or at least some of those people are still there.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could you now show us a document -- or, rather, I'd

25     like to call up P2508, page 15.  Thank you.

Page 1977

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could you repeat the number, please?

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please repeat the number.  It can't be the right

 3     one.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up on e-court

 5     P208, page 15.  P208.  Thank you.

 6             Thank you.  Yes, we have it up on our screens now.

 7             Now, there are 16 maps -- thank you.

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Janc, there are 16 maps that you showed us when you were here

10     last, and on every one it says "surface graves, victims of 1995."  I

11     assume that you received that from the institute in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12     Now, what organisation compiled these maps?  That's my question to you.

13     Thank you.

14        A.   That institute you just referred to, that was the Institute on

15     Missing Persons, the BiH Institute on Missing Persons, and we asked

16     Mr. Masovic for this map to be compiled and provided to us, based on the

17     information and data they have already provided already before in

18     relation to surface remains collected in this area between 1996 and 2008.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in that organisation, the one that compiled

20     this, does it have data on the movement of the columns, the way in which

21     the column was broken through, the victims that were found, the combat --

22     those who were killed in action, and so on?  Thank you.

23        A.   I don't think I understand the question, but I will explain a

24     little bit.

25             So I don't -- I don't know if they have this information on this

Page 1978

 1     data there, but what these represent here, what we have in front of us,

 2     is -- are just -- are the surface remains which were collected in 1996,

 3     and the dots are -- the dots are showing the exact location where those

 4     located -- were collected from the ground.  That is the purpose for this

 5     map.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Do they already speak of this in the title,

 7     itself, where they say how these data are to be interpreted?  They say,

 8     in their title, as I read out earlier, "Genocide victims of 1995,"

 9     whereas we see that these were combat victims who were left on the

10     surface along the access of movement of this column; the bodies were

11     found in the woods and other areas, et cetera.  And you, yourself, said

12     these were surface remains found on surface sites, that these were

13     remains of people who were killed in action.  Thank you.

14        A.   Yes.  We -- we asked them to compile such a list -- such -- this

15     map for us, and the purpose of this was just to find out where the

16     certain locations are.  We did not interrupt with how they have made

17     these maps.  We just wanted to get the exact locations of these places.

18     So how they have created them and what they have put on the document, it

19     was irrelevant to us, I mean, in relation what is written there.  So how

20     do they title this document, it's up to them.  But for our purposes, the

21     main purpose was to find the location -- locations where those remains

22     were collected.  And I testified about what -- about what is our view --

23     my view on these surface remains.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Can you tell us, please, why -- when you

25     present these maps, why you didn't translate what is stated on them into

Page 1979

 1     English, and the way that you would mark these maps, why is it necessary

 2     to get the maps but also the comments and attitudes taken by this

 3     commission on these documents that you are now presenting to this

 4     Trial Chamber?  Can this be viewed as a sort of provocation or is this

 5     the regular procedure and how it should be done?

 6        A.   No, it's not a -- it's not any provocation, but, you know, it's a

 7     document we received from them, and we just disclose it to you in its

 8     entirety, as it was received.  So for the purposes of my testimony, of my

 9     report, only these dots we can see here are important, and, of course,

10     also the information -- for example, on this page, we can see that, for

11     example, a yellow dot, it means that it is 1996 related.  So what is

12     important for me were just these dots where these surface remains were

13     found, and that was -- that's it.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We are already over time.  I think we need a

16     break.  Would you agree with that, that this is a convenient time?

17             Then we must have our first break now, and we adjourn and resume

18     20 minutes past 4.00.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry to interrupt you.

22             Mr. Janc was asked a question by Judge Nyambe with respect to

23     determining whether or not this individual is on the ICMP list, and I

24     wondered if it would be all right to provide him with a copy of the list

25     and the ICRC list for him to verify and determine that information for

Page 1980

 1     the Court.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for that proposal.  With the leave of

 3     the Chamber, that should be done.

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

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 6             We resume 20 minutes past 4.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Janc, has Mr. Vanderpuye provided you with a

10     document?  If that is the case, you could now perhaps answer the question

11     of Judge Nyambe.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, actually, I have made it, myself, in my

13     office, and I've checked the ICMP list.  This individual is not on that

14     list.  And I have also checked the OTP list from 2008, and he is not

15     listed there.  So it means that OTP does not count this individual as a

16     Srebrenica victim, so he was excluded from the list.  If he had appeared

17     on any of those ICRC lists and any of those lists, he was excluded from

18     those lists.

19             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you may carry on.

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

22             The Defence has this ICMP list.  However, it is in a format that

23     does not allow us to search through it.  We also have the list of the

24     ICRC, which makes it possible for us to search it through that database,

25     but the question is this:

Page 1981

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Is this ICMP list in a format that is not searchable?  Is it

 3     possible to obtain it?  Can I get it in a format that will allow us to

 4     search through it?  Thank you.

 5        A.   Yes, I don't see any problem.  I think that the actual CD with

 6     all the data in electronic format has been disclosed to you.  It's

 7     actually D0003272 and D0003294.  You will find all information on those

 8     two CDs.  I think they were disclosed in electronic format, and these are

 9     the ICMP lists.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Janc, is it correct that -- no, it was just

11     corrected on the transcript.  Thank you.

12             Mr. Tolimir, carry on.

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

14             In view of what the witness has just said, we will submit a

15     motion for obtaining this document in searchable format.

16             Could we now see 65 ter 2184, please, page 2, in e-court.  This

17     is the Dean Manning report from 2007 entitled "Forensic Evidence Resume

18     on the Exhumation of Mass Graves in 2007."  Thank you.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  "Summary of Forensic

20     Evidence on the Exhumation of Mass Graves in 2007."

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see page 2 of this report,

22     please, after we've seen page 1.  Thank you.

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   You've said that your report relies on Dean Manning's report, am

25     I correct, that it uses it as the underlying report?

Page 1982

 1        A.   Yes, that it should be read in conjunction with his previous

 2     reports.  It's not only one report, but several of them.  One of those

 3     is -- as being this one.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Then may I read out -- quote the second paragraph in

 5     B/C/S that we see here, and it reads as follows, I quote:

 6             "Responsibility for the exhumation of the known

 7     Srebrenica-related mass graves sites was transferred from the ICTY to the

 8     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2001.  Agreement was reached with

 9     the government for an ICTY team to monitor the exhumation of some of

10     these graves.  Thereafter, Srebrenica-related exhumations have been

11     undertaken by the BH government in co-operation with international

12     non-government organisation, International Commission on Missing Persons

13     (ICMP)."

14             Could we now please see, again, OTP 65 ter -- I apologise.  Could

15     we see -- while we are waiting for that document, let me just ask you

16     something about what I've just read out.

17             Why does this document envisage supervision of the work

18     undertaken by the BH government?  Thank you.

19        A.   I'm not sure I understand what you would like to ask me.  Why

20     this document -- can you rephrase the question?  I will try to -- try to

21     respond.

22        Q.   Well, I will quote.  It says here that:

23             "Agreement was reached with the government for an ICTY team to

24     monitor the exhumation of some of these graves."

25             Why was there an agreement reached to monitor the exhumation of

Page 1983

 1     some of these graves?  Why was there a need for such an agreement?  Thank

 2     you.

 3        A.   I will try to explain what I know about it, because in 2001 the

 4     situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not as today, and the ICTY was, up to

 5     that time, in charge -- in total charge of the exhumation of the graves

 6     in relation to the Srebrenica events.  And in order to hand over all

 7     these ongoing activities, because we know that most of the secondary

 8     graves have been exhumed later on by the BiH authorities, and in order to

 9     hand over all these important duties to the BiH authorities, I think it

10     was correct to make an agreement on the -- on the actual hand-over and

11     also to make a kind of -- to make -- to put it down in writing that ICTY

12     team can monitor these exhumations if in future would be needed.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  The last portion of the quoted section

14     reads:

15             "Thereafter, Srebrenica-related exhumations have been undertaken

16     by the BH government in co-operation with the international

17     non-governmental organisation, International Commission on Missing

18     Persons."

19             My question is this:  Does this mean that the ICTY no longer

20     monitors the exhumation and that the monitoring is only undertaken by the

21     government commission and the non-governmental organisation of the ICMP?

22        A.   No, not really.  You will see in -- you can find inside this

23     report, and also in my update, which of the secondary graves which were

24     exhumed by the BiH authorities after 2001 have been monitored

25     periodically or in its entirety by the members of the ICTY.  For most of

Page 1984

 1     them, I would say up to 2005, they were periodically -- at least

 2     periodically visited by the ICTY.  After that period, I think that we

 3     have not participated in these exhumations anymore.  Those visits were,

 4     indeed, rarely.  I have personally visited only one of such exhumation

 5     and only for two days, and that was Cancari Road 1.  But for most of them

 6     which were exhumed between 2006 and 2009, ICTY did not monitor these

 7     exhumations.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Could you tell us, seeing that you went

 9     there yourself, what did the supervision or the monitoring by the ICTY

10     consist of?  Thank you.

11        A.   The purpose of my visit was not that much, I would say, in

12     accordance to this agreement anymore, because I just explained that from

13     2005 or 2006 onwards, we have not been visiting these exhumations

14     anymore.  The purpose of my visit was a different one, not to be a

15     superior to someone there or to monitor their work, but more to

16     familiarise myself with the exhumation, itself, how it is going, and, of

17     course, to see the actual secondary grave, what kind of evidence can be

18     found in these graves, and to get an actual perspective of the

19     grave-site, itself.  So my mission there was not meant to be a monitoring

20     mission.

21        Q.   Thank you.  As you said just now, that as of 2005 the ICTY no

22     longer monitors the work of the BH government commission or the ICMP, how

23     reliable, then, is the data that you use here in this courtroom?  Thank

24     you.

25        A.   They are reliable because these exhumations were conducted by the

Page 1985

 1     BiH authorities in accordance to their criminal procedure codes, so each

 2     exhumation was attended by the investigative judge at the beginning, and

 3     then when they have changed the law, by the prosecutor.  So the

 4     investigation -- the exhumation, itself, have been conducted by the

 5     prosecutor or investigative judge, and the exhumation report have been

 6     drafted by the official authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Apart

 7     from that, also the forensic experts have participated during these

 8     exhumations, and they have been collecting and obtaining and securing the

 9     evidence found inside the graves.  Also, the ICMP have been presented --

10     have been present during the -- these exhumations with their

11     archaeologists and also their other experts, and they have compiled the

12     reports for each and every single exhumation.  So my assessment is that

13     information which are contained inside the reports which have been

14     compiled after the exhumations by the official authorities of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ICMP are very reliable in order to use them

16     for my report.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  We saw a few moments ago that the map with

18     the surface graves, in other words, the surface remains, not graves but

19     surface remains, were forwarded to you with the title "Victims of

20     Genocide," although they, too, knew that these deaths occurred during the

21     breakthrough.  And here the OTP said, in the Pandurevic trial, that there

22     were more losses during the breakthrough than in the entire Srebrenica

23     event.  Now, are we going to report this as victims of genocide or combat

24     victims?  What is your view on that, because you, too, classified them

25     under the mass graves of victims of genocide in Srebrenica, and yet they

Page 1986

 1     were actually combat victims, victims of -- of those people who were

 2     killed in action?  Thank you.

 3        A.   It's a kind of combined question, but I will try to respond.

 4             When we are referring to surface remains, I think that I have

 5     made clear during my testimony that, indeed, what consists -- who are

 6     those individuals which were found on the surface are, indeed, the

 7     individuals which are -- which were killed in combat, and, besides that,

 8     also died during -- based on the -- because of the other reasons, not

 9     only the combat.  But when I say combat casualties, and I testified that

10     most of them is combat casualties, I still have a doubt that they are,

11     indeed -- that most of them are combat casualties.  Why?  Because if you

12     can see the area, the area where we have the concentration with the most

13     of them identified so far in Pobudje area, we have almost 560 people so

14     far identified and found there, so it means that many individuals have

15     been killed somehow.  On the other side, we don't have -- we don't have

16     that many -- that many casualties on the VRS side during this period of

17     time.  So we know for some incidents where some of the members of the VRS

18     and RS police have been killed in that area, but we don't have, actually,

19     a lot of casualties on the VRS side.  So the question for me here is, you

20     know:  Was it a real combat, when you have that many victims only on one

21     side and on the other side you don't have -- you don't have much of them?

22     On the other hand, when we see, on the Popovic segment of the trial video

23     from the road, shooting from the armoured vehicles up to the hills, we

24     can conclude that there was -- there was intention to kill everybody

25     which is in that area, regardless of the fact if they were combat --

Page 1987

 1     combatants or civilians.  We know that part of this column were military

 2     personnel and also the civilians.  And at that time when we see this

 3     shooting from the road up there to the hills, the VRS was at that time

 4     already aware by fact that part of this column are also the civilians,

 5     and we can see that information all from the same video, where you can

 6     see what is coming out of the woods.  So there are old people, there are

 7     military-aged men, and, of course, there are -- there is one woman, and

 8     also we can see at least one kid.  So when they have been shooting all

 9     over the places up to the hills, my impression is that their intention

10     was -- the intention of VRS, to kill everybody who is there.  So we have

11     no real combat in that area.  Different with Baljkovica area, where there

12     we have a combat and we have statements of that, but when I am talking

13     about the Pobudje area, where we have the most of the surface remains, I

14     doubt that there was a real combat.  So that's my view on it, but I will

15     leave it to the Trial Chamber to decide on this issue.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  In the penultimate sentence, you said "my

17     impression was."  Are you testifying here based on your impressions or

18     based on forensic evidence, whether these people were killed as a result

19     of hand-grenade blasts or shell fragments, and yet here you say that you

20     are testifying on the basis of your impressions, but in the report you

21     describe how a wound was incurred and you describe whether it was a

22     gun-shot wound or something else?  Thank you.

23        A.   Yes, you are right, my expression was not the best one.  Better

24     would be that this is my conclusion, based on the facts that I have just

25     been describing, based on the facts what is going on, what we do know

Page 1988

 1     from the documents we have, from the videos, from the statements, and

 2     other facts, so that is everything based on the facts.  And my conclusion

 3     is what I have just described.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  When asked by Mr. Mindua why you counted the surface

 5     remains as combat casualties or casualties as prisoners of war, you said

 6     that this was based on a witness statement.  Now, is one witness

 7     statement enough to count the 187 surface remains as prisoners of war who

 8     had been shot after they had been captured, and yet they hadn't even been

 9     captured?  Thank you.

10        A.   No.  One witness statement is, for sure, not enough, and I'm sure

11     we have more than just one statement on this.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  But you were supposed to mention those

13     statements and offer it here as evidence so that the Trial Chamber can

14     judge on the basis of evidence, and yet we have not been disclosed any

15     such statements -- witness statements by the Prosecution?  Thank you.

16        A.   I think we can provide those to you.  For sure, we can find them,

17     and we can provide them to you if they were not disclosed yet.  But I'm

18     sure that many of them have been disclosed already.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  We'll come back to that question later on.

20             Now, may we have displayed 65 ter 2184, page 3, please.  May we

21     have that called up on e-court.  And for your information, it is

22     Dean Manning's 2007 report.

23             Here we have it, in English as well.  You can look at both

24     versions, and I'm going to quote.  It says:

25             "Previously, the ICTY relied on an anthropological assessment of

Page 1989

 1     the remains, known as MNI or Minimal Number of Individuals.  The MNI was

 2     calculated on an anthropological examination of specific bones and was

 3     used, as many of the bodies have been fragmented during execution,

 4     initial burial and later reburial.  The ICMP's DNA analysis of the human

 5     remains provides a much more accurate indication of the number of

 6     individuals located within the graves.  The result of this DNA analysis

 7     are, therefore, used in preference to the previously-used anthropological

 8     MNI."

 9             That's the abbreviation, the minimal number of individuals.

10             Now, my question to you is this:  Can you explain to us in what

11     way the MNI was previously determined, the remains of which are to be

12     found in the mass graves, and to explain to us simply and briefly the

13     methodology of establishing this minimum number of individuals?  Thank

14     you.

15        A.   Yes, I will try to do it, although I think the anthropologist

16     would do it better than me.  But I know because before it was impossible

17     to -- based on the conditions of the body remains found within the

18     graves, especially secondary graves, it was impossible -- or it was very

19     hard to determine how many individuals is inside this grave, and then a

20     certain methodology was established, anthropologically speaking, to

21     define how many individuals might be -- might be found in a particular

22     secondary or primary grave.  So -- and in order not to exaggerate the

23     number, the minimal number of individuals have been -- have been counted

24     for or have been estimated to be -- I mean to say have been estimated for

25     each grave.  So that was done based on a certain methodology which we can

Page 1990

 1     all find in the anthropological reports from these grave-sites, and there

 2     is explanation of -- on the methodology, how they have come to a

 3     conclusion that a certain number of individual is buried at certain -- at

 4     certain grave-site.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber now -- I

 6     just read this out previously.  It was determined according to the MNI,

 7     and now it's determined according to missing persons on the list of the

 8     International Commission.  Now, what is more exact, and should this Court

 9     make its judgement on the basis of a free assessment of the members of

10     the commission, which are a non-governmental organisation, or should it

11     base its judgement on the basis of the findings in the graves?  How will

12     the Trial Chamber be able to know the exact number?  Thank you.

13        A.   A more exact and the most exact number so far is the DNA

14     identification, for sure, because it's not easy to assemble together the

15     individuals which are found in two or three different graves.  And

16     anthropologically speaking, it's much easier when you have -- when you

17     have primary undisturbed grave to say -- to say and to conclude how many

18     individuals is found in a certain grave.  For example, in Cerska grave,

19     and especially in Bisina grave, where there are primary graves, there

20     are, anthropologically speaking, the exact number given of how many

21     bodies is found inside these grave, but when you have secondary graves,

22     and that primary graves were disturbed with heavy machine and then bodies

23     taken to another location, you will have a lot of body parts, and it's

24     impossible -- not impossible, but it's very hard to estimate how many

25     individuals is found in each grave.  So my conclusion would be and my

Page 1991

 1     answer to you, that the DNA identifications are the most -- the better --

 2     the best source in order to come to conclusion how many individuals have

 3     been found in certain graves.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, can you explain to us, when it comes

 5     to this DNA establishing of facts and the minimum number, the MNI, and

 6     the anthropological examinations that you mentioned earlier on, what the

 7     difference is, and could you explain the samples, and the differences,

 8     and why it was decided that a non-governmental organisation should

 9     determine this rather than experts?  Thank you.

10        A.   The DNA identification, as it was proved over the last several

11     years, is the best source of identification.  So when someone is

12     identified in this -- through DNA in Bosnia, in relation to these graves,

13     that identification is not completed yet, so also in that case the

14     conclusions and DNA reports about identifications are sent by the ICMP to

15     the -- back to the pathologist who is in charge to assemble the body

16     parts of one individual together and to assess if this body is now

17     complete, and then that this body can be returned back to the relatives.

18             As far for the minimum number of individuals, there is a certain

19     method, how to count particular individuals, so perhaps you select one

20     bone which, for example, I think that they have taken a femur or

21     something like that, and based on how many of these bones have been found

22     in any of these graves, they have estimated how many individuals might be

23     found there.  So you have to just make a certain criteria upon which you

24     will be -- make a conclusion how many individuals is found in a certain

25     grave.

Page 1992

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Just explain to us, please, those experts,

 2     the ones who are in the field, on the ground, and do they have the DNA,

 3     and if they are 10 people, can they just look for one person with the

 4     DNA?

 5        A.   I don't think I understand what you are asking me.  If you can

 6     rephrase the question.  Ten people -- no, can you rephrase a little bit?

 7        Q.   Yes, I'll do that.  If I'm a missing person, and they have DNA

 8     information, the commission working on the ground, and establishes --

 9     looks for -- finds the bones and compares the DNA, and there's nobody

10     else with the same DNA except for me, and then they find people in 10

11     graves, can they say that 10 people are missing or just me, looking for

12     the same people with the same DNA?

13        A.   Each of us -- each of us has its own DNA, I think, except for the

14     twins, and even in that case I think they have slight differences, but --

15     so if they are looking for one particular individual, they will find that

16     one.  And if inside the same grave there is 10 individuals found, those

17     10 individuals will have different DNA profiles established later on.  So

18     it will be the same.  Anthropologically speaking, there will be the 10

19     bodies.  The reports will say 10 bodies, for example, found in this

20     primary undisturbed grave, and later on there will be a confirmation

21     through DNA that, indeed, 10 bodies is found there, and not only that,

22     those 10 bodies will have their names -- will get their names.  So that's

23     the purpose of DNA, to find out, even if you know, exactly, that -- which

24     five individuals or which ten individuals is inside one particular grave,

25     you will always, through DNA analysis, then be able to identify each of

Page 1993

 1     them, so who is who.  So that's the purpose of DNA.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, for me to understand, and for the

 3     Trial Chamber, tell me this:  So DNA from my hand or leg or one bone or

 4     another one, is the DNA different depending on where you take it from,

 5     the DNA samples?  Are they different on each bone?  Is the DNA on each

 6     bone different?  Have I understood that correctly or not?

 7        A.   DNA profile, which will be -- which will be established later on

 8     based on the analysis of all these body parts of the same -- of one

 9     individual will be the same from any part of your body.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now, is it simpler, then, for the person working to

11     decide -- and digging up the bodies to decide who has the DNA or for the

12     non-governmental organisation to decide, that is thousands of kilometres

13     away from the site, itself?  Which would be better?  Thank you.

14        A.   The ICMP is, I think, 100 kilometres away from this primary and

15     secondary graves.  It's in Sarajevo.  And depends on how you start and --

16     and the process, what kind of process you have set up.  In this case,

17     there is an international commission for missing person who is doing this

18     DNA analysis.  As we all know, this analysis are quite expensive, and the

19     ICMP is funded by different governments in order to get the fundings --

20     financial means in order to make this analysis, so that's a thing which

21     I think will be very hardly done by the BiH authorities, itself, when I

22     talk to them.  So they are afraid, when the ICMP will conclude its work,

23     that the identification process through DNA will be much slower than it

24     is now.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, can you explain to me and the

Page 1994

 1     Trial Chamber whether, then, of the number of people who are shown will

 2     depend the money that the International Commission allots to the Federal

 3     Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Does it depend on the number of

 4     people, the amount of money?

 5        A.   I'm afraid I would not know the answer on this question.

 6     Actually, I don't know if it depends -- I don't know.  You know, it's the

 7     question for the ICMP, itself.  So -- but it's a lot of -- a lot of

 8     things are related to money nowadays, yes.

 9        Q.   We've just seen the biases of the Bosnian commission that shows

10     all the victims as victims of a crime, without seeing whether they were

11     killed in action or not, so could a member of the Trial Chamber be led

12     astray that way too?

13        A.   No, I don't -- I don't understand what you mean by that we have

14     seen.  By what we have seen these conclusions?

15        Q.   Well, a moment ago I showed a map provided to you by the

16     commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the title was "Victims of

17     Genocide."  They didn't say "Victims Killed in Action."  And you

18     explained to the Trial Chamber that they were victims of genocide, and

19     you did this on the basis of one piece of evidence and one testimony.

20     You had said last time 87 surface victims, you placed them all in one

21     grave with their remains, regardless of whether they were killed in

22     action or not.  So can a non-governmental organisation decide about

23     something like that through a political decision, take a political

24     decision in the matter?

25        A.   No --

Page 1995

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'd like to hear the answer.  Then

 2     Mr. Vanderpuye --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Let me explain.

 4             I'm not putting everything in one box.  As you can see from my

 5     report, first it is annex A of the victims which were found in grave --

 6     in graves, mass graves, secondary graves, and other graves, so -- and

 7     those we count as the victims of crime.  Then you have a section under

 8     annex B where you have surface remains section, and I have explained for

 9     many times for this -- for my testimony what I meant, what this number --

10     total number of 703 individuals found on the surface represent.  So these

11     are different type of the victims, but they are, indeed, all the victims

12     of Srebrenica events.  So they all left Srebrenica, all those people,

13     after the fall of it in July 1995, and they were killed later on or died

14     of different causes and reasons, so -- and that would be my answer.  And

15     so then it's -- the purpose of my report was to distinguish these two

16     categories.  And based on the facts I am presenting during my testimony

17     and everything else, I'm leaving up to the Trial Chamber to decide are

18     these victims which are found on the surface also victims of a genocide

19     or not.  But I explained my view, my conclusion on it, and I think

20     it's -- that was the purpose of my report.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

23             I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'll be brief.

24             I wanted to object to the question, because, first of all,

25     I think the idea of putting a question to this witness about what is

Page 1996

 1     appropriate or inappropriate for a non-governmental organisation to base

 2     a decision on, whether it's political or otherwise, is completely beyond

 3     his competence and outside the scope of his direct examination.

 4             The second thing is that Mr. Tolimir has mis-characterised the

 5     record with respect to Mr. Janc's previous testimony as concerns

 6     individuals that he classified as victims of the crimes involving

 7     Srebrenica and Zepa, in terms of surface remains, and he gave a specific

 8     example of a number of individuals that were executed near Nezuk that's

 9     contained in the witness statement that I alerted the Trial Chamber to,

10     that is the subject of a pending 92 bis motion application.  That was --

11     I think it was PW-009.  And that was the content in which that evidence

12     came in, so I think it is inappropriate for Mr. Tolimir to characterise

13     Mr. Janc's assessment or determination as to whether or not these murder

14     victims are somehow a part of combat-related offences or combat-related

15     killings, where there is clear evidence that indicates that they are

16     murder victims and they are counted as such despite the fact that they're

17     surface remains.  And I think that Mr. Tolimir has mis-characterised that

18     on a number of occasion, and that's why I wanted to bring it to attention

19     of the Court.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, isn't it the case that these

21     kinds of problems should be raised during re-examination?  I mentioned

22     that several times already.  I think this witness is in a position to

23     answer properly from his experience, his observations, and his knowledge,

24     and it is quite clear to everybody that the questions Mr. Tolimir has put

25     to the witness were formulated from a specific point of view of this

Page 1997

 1     accused.  I think you should let the -- leave these questions for your

 2     re-examination at the end of the evidence of this witness.

 3             On the other hand, Mr. Tolimir, you should be careful the way you

 4     phrase your questions.  Please carry on.

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

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   I'd like to ask the witness to answer the following question:

 9     Whether the number of people who were later determined on the basis of

10     DNA, when the establishment process was changed, was different from the

11     number that was established through anthropological analysis, and if

12     there is a difference, could he explain the cause of those differences?

13     Thank you.  The reason for those differences.

14        A.   Yes.  For the individuals for the graves -- for the primary

15     graves, undisturbed ones, I think that the estimate was quite exact and

16     is still the same when we have the DNA identification -- identifications

17     now.  And for the secondary and primary disturbed graves, there is a

18     difference in some -- in some sites.  I don't know -- I cannot remember

19     from the top of my head for which sites.  We would have to look into

20     the -- into the anthropological reports, but there is a difference, yes.

21     There were, for example, much more -- not much more, but more or less

22     individuals identified through the MNI process than we have them now

23     identified through the DNA.

24             So one of the reasons I have been talking about this already

25     before, because we have the problem that one body -- body of one

Page 1998

 1     individual is in so many pieces that it is impossible sometimes to get

 2     the good estimate of how many bodies is inside a particular grave.  And

 3     now when we have the DNA connections and -- DNA identifications, and

 4     based on the connections between the sites, we can see that that was,

 5     indeed, the case that so many body parts were found in two different

 6     graves of one individual.  And one of the reasons why we have more or

 7     less individuals found or identified through DNA, then it is presented as

 8     an MNI number, is because simply that was a minimum number of individuals

 9     which can be found -- which was found in that grave or which is estimated

10     for this particular grave.  And now when we have DNA identification, of

11     course, the exact number is coming out.  And when we have the problem of

12     half body being on one side and the other part inside the other grave,

13     that's the problem then, because when the MNI have been counted, it's

14     possible that this body or body parts, especially if you have the

15     majority of the body in both graves, that this body was perhaps counted

16     twice as an M -- as a minimum number of individuals.  So that's my

17     understanding of it, and that's why I say that was -- minimum number of

18     individuals was an estimate which was sufficient enough at that time.

19     But now when we have DNA identification, I would rely only -- mostly on

20     DNA identifications because they are more precise.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Could you tell me now and the Trial Chamber

22     whether that means that a larger number of persons is shown than the real

23     number, when that minimal number was used, and now when DNA is being

24     used, that possibility has been excluded, and how could the Trial Chamber

25     know what is correct and what is not?  That's my first question.  Thank

Page 1999

 1     you.

 2        A.   As for the minimal number of individuals, it is always an

 3     assessment of how many individuals is inside there, and I don't think

 4     that the numbers are that higher or different.  We would need to take

 5     into a particular grave-site to see a difference, how many of them have

 6     been identified before and through DNA analysis now.  So I don't see any

 7     big differences in these two, especially because, as I already explained

 8     several times, the DNA identification is more accurate.  And even if we

 9     have slight differences between now and before, I would say for the

10     Trial Chamber that a more correct number is, for sure, the DNA

11     identification number.

12        Q.   Tell me, please, Mr. Janc, this:  Is there the possibility now to

13     determine the number of individuals on the basis of an assessment, as you

14     said earlier on, or is it established on the basis of evidence and proof,

15     because you said 10 persons?  Why would you look for me in 10 different

16     locations if you're just looking for me?  So it's not 10 people, it's 10

17     parts, so why did you resort to that free assessment method when

18     establishing the number of individuals?  Thank you.

19        A.   I'll try to answer it, although it's, again, not that clear a

20     question.  But in total, there is a certain number of individuals which

21     are on the missing list, and during the process -- the identification

22     process, there is intention to identify these individuals, regardless of

23     the fact if a certain individual is found in 10 or 20 -- even 20

24     different pieces.  So it will always come back to one individual.  Even

25     if the individual was found in that many pieces, DNA samples will show

Page 2000

 1     which of those pieces are part of one individual, and they will be

 2     assembled together.  And the ICMP will match this DNA to the donors and

 3     then will have the actual identification made of -- on one body or on

 4     several body parts.  So that's the process how it goes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  I do understand the method, but tell me, why was it

 6     necessary to change the methodology from the MNI to the DNA methodology?

 7     Did that actually bring, as a result, a change in the number of victims?

 8        A.   No, it was not done in order to change these numbers, but it was

 9     done simply for the reason that we'll get the -- that we'll identify as

10     many if not all of them, all the victims, which are on the missing list.

11     So the best possible way to identify certain individuals is through DNA

12     identification.  And after so many years when those body parts and bodies

13     have been buried in the area, because we know recently that -- some of

14     them have been exhumed just recently and some of them will be exhumed in

15     the future, the only possible way, after so many years, is to identify

16     those individuals through DNA identifications.  So I think that the other

17     methods would be much less successful, and that's why they have changed

18     in 2001 to start -- to a new methodology, so to DNA identification

19     process.  So -- and we can see how many have been achieved so far, so we

20     see how many of them have been identified so far, and I think we are

21     getting quite good results on it.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Could you tell the Trial Chamber, please, whether, in

23     the course of the sanitary -- sanitation of the battle-field, and related

24     to the surface remains, whether there were any bodies that had actually

25     been buried there before the events of July 1995?

Page 2001

 1        A.   Based on the -- based on the information we have, and I'm

 2     referring specifically to the statements of those involved, victims,

 3     then -- yes, involved from both sides, and especially based on the aerial

 4     images, when we can see exactly when those -- or roughly when those

 5     places -- locations have been disturbed, and when we have -- we don't

 6     have any documents or not sufficient documents or statements showing that

 7     these surface remains were, indeed, collected from the ground and buried

 8     in any other locations - I'm excepting here under Kravica and, actually,

 9     the Glogova, where we know that some other bodies have been collected

10     along the road, which were on the surface and were buried there -  based

11     on all these facts I would exclude this possibility, yes.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Tell us, then, how did it come about, and

13     you told us last time, that near Potocari a grave was found, a mixed

14     grave where there were victims of 1992 and bodies of people killed in

15     1995, how was that possible unless there was a burial together of these

16     surface remains and the victims or bodies of victims who had been killed

17     earlier?

18        A.   Yes, you are referring to Bljeceva 1 grave-site, which I

19     testified about that this is, indeed, a mixed grave consisting of the

20     bodies and body parts related to different events, and this is the

21     only -- the only grave or grave-site which is a mixed grave.  So how it

22     is possible that they contain those bodies from two different events, I

23     don't know, actually, because -- but it is not that unlogical [sic],

24     because most probably the victims from the 1992 events which are also

25     inside this grave needed to be hidden somewhere, and because this

Page 2002

 1     grave-site, Bljeceva 1, is actually not that far away from Bratunac, they

 2     have most probably made a decision at that time that bodies will be

 3     disposed into a same secondary grave as victims from Glogova, from

 4     Srebrenica-related events.  And, yes, they are actually not -- even if it

 5     is a mixed grave, you can conclude from the summary -- ICMP summary

 6     report that they were disposed inside separately, and first two deposits

 7     which are found out of seven inside this grave are related to Srebrenica,

 8     the other five deposits there are related to 1992 events.  So that's my

 9     view on this.

10        Q.   Thank you.  That is your view.

11             Now, we had a witness here yesterday who, in 1992, was a member

12     of the JNA in Vukovar, and he was tried before this Tribunal for

13     Srebrenica victims.  Now, could he be found responsible for the victims

14     of 1992, although he hadn't even participated during -- in that combat,

15     and also for the victims of 1995?  Thank you.

16        A.   If he did not participate in such events, I don't see any reason

17     why he would be responsible for it.

18        Q.   But how will you make a distinction whether I, for instance, am

19     responsible for one set of victims or another set of victims?  I am being

20     tried here, and their bodies parts are in the same grave and they are

21     shown here on the table as victims of those events, how will there be a

22     distinction between whether these victims were those of 1992 or those of

23     1995?  And the second part of my question is:  Did you actually interview

24     the people --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the accused please repeat the last

Page 2003

 1     portion of his question.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, did you receive the request of the

 3     interpreters?  You should repeat the last portion of your question.  The

 4     record stopped with the words "did you actually interview the people,"

 5     and then there's no record anymore.  Please repeat from there.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Did you interview the OTP witnesses who came here to this

 9     Trial Chamber -- to this Court, and who conducted the sanitisation of the

10     battle-field, and who collected the body parts of those individuals who

11     were killed in 1995 and who are buried in the same mass grave where the

12     1992 victims were?  And you said this was Bljeceva 1, and I'm saying that

13     this is near Bratunac, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, because they

14     will recall what you said earlier about this.

15        A.   Yes, okay, let me go first to your first part of the question,

16     when you are asking me how is it possible that all the victims -- how to

17     distinguish between 1992 and 1995.

18             For the purposes -- for the purposes of my report, the victims

19     from 1995 which are in Bljeceva 1 grave, the mixed secondary grave, are

20     not included in my report, not counted as the victims from Srebrenica,

21     and are excluded from my report.  So in total, I think 49 people -- I'm

22     counting 49 people have been identified from Bljeceva 1.  Yes, 49 from

23     Bljeceva 9 [sic] grave which are related to Srebrenica event -- events.

24     And in addition, there is 91 individuals which are related to 1992

25     events, which are -- and those are not part of my report.  So those are

Page 2004

 1     excluded, although we have information on who these people are and what

 2     incidents they were victims of.

 3             For the second one, yes, we did interview -- we did interview

 4     some sanitation personnel who was in charge to clean up -- to clean up

 5     the area, but they have been cleaning around Kravica warehouse, where the

 6     mass execution took place, then in Bratunac, Bratunac Vuk Karadzic

 7     school, around it, and in Bratunac, I think, Stadium, and then along the

 8     Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road, and those individuals were identified and

 9     were interviewed, and also some of them testified here at this Tribunal.

10     I cannot remember from the top of my head if those were the same people

11     who removed the bodies from somewhere in Bratunac to Bljeceva 1, and I'm

12     now referring to these 92 related victims.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

15             I just wanted to point out that we have an error, I think, in the

16     transcript at page 60, line 14.  There's a reference to Bljeceva 9,

17     I think, and I think the witness might have intended something else.

18     Perhaps that can be clarified.

19             The other thing is that one of the statements that the witness

20     was referring to, just for the Court's information, is PW-064,

21     Witness 177, and I believe -- yes, I believe he's the subject of the

22     92 bis application, just so that you're aware of it.

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

24             Regarding the witnesses that Mr. Vanderpuye just mentioned, and

25     we will discuss those witnesses on another occasion, but I would just

Page 2005

 1     like to say that we've heard Witness PW-009, who testified about the

 2     events near Nezuk, on the basis of which you estimated that all those

 3     people were victims of the Srebrenica events, and you did not make the

 4     surface remains distinction there.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Now, tell us, how many individuals are related to Srebrenica?

 7     Thank you.

 8        A.   If you are referring to those identified ones, the total number

 9     of Srebrenica-related individuals is 6556 minus 15 of those found on the

10     surface in relation to Zepa and 8 of those found in Vragolovi grave,

11     which is also related to Zepa.  So, yeah, this is the total number of the

12     victims.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now, a moment ago, when you saw that map, you said

14     that you excluded all those victims but that you put them or relate them

15     to those mass graves because of that witness's statement, and now you're

16     telling us that you actually excluded or challenged 15 individuals out of

17     this entire list of 6.556 individuals.

18             And my question is:  Is this realistic and is this something that

19     you can determine realistically as an investigator, and whether this is

20     something that the Trial Chamber should have in mind?

21        A.   I think these are the facts, that that many individuals have been

22     found and identified so far, and they are all the victims.  And I have

23     already made a distinction between those found in graves and those found

24     on surface, so -- but when I say the "victims," they could be the victims

25     of a murder, victims of a combat, victims of a suicide, so those are the

Page 2006

 1     victims of Srebrenica.  So those 15 which are related to Zepa events are,

 2     you know, just found on the surface around Zepa, and that's -- yes,

 3     that's -- that's a realistic number, because it is based on the facts.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Were you interested in finding out when these victims

 5     were killed, whether this was during the events at issue here related to

 6     the July 1995 events or people who were victims later on, and why was

 7     your conclusion as it was?  Thank you.

 8        A.   So for majority of them, we know when they were killed, because

 9     based on where they were found, they were found in mass graves, being

10     primary or secondary graves, and it's, in total, 5.390 of them.  Those --

11     for all of those, we for sure know when they were killed, because we know

12     when those executions took place, based on many evidence, many documents,

13     and everything else.  And for the rest, it's also -- we cannot say for

14     every each -- every each and single individual, when it was killed and

15     when it died, but what we can say is when it was reported missing, so --

16     and as reported missing after the fall of Srebrenica and now found on a

17     grave -- in a grave or on a surface together with other Srebrenica

18     victims.  We can reasonably conclude that these are Srebrenica-related

19     victims.  So -- but when exactly each and every individual is killed,

20     I think it will not -- it will never be possible to confirm.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I think it's a convenient time for

22     the second break now.  We have to adjourn and resume at 6.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, continue.  But first Judge Nyambe would like

Page 2007

 1     to ask some questions.

 2             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you very much.

 3             I thought I would just take an advantage of this pause to ask

 4     some questions without interrupting anyone's line of thought.

 5             The first question I have is:  Is it your evidence that there are

 6     two methods of identifying victims, MNI and DNA?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Actually, Your Honour, there were two methods in

 8     order to identify the individuals.  So before the DNA identification,

 9     there was MNI identification method, and now we are relying only on DNA

10     method.  So what is included in my report is based on the DNA method.

11             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Why was the change from MNI to DNA?

12             THE WITNESS:  Simply because the DNA method is more accurate.

13             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  Then what has happened to the

14     identifications that were done before you switched to DNA, where you used

15     only MNI?

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, but we have to -- I have to clarify one thing,

17     Your Honour.

18             MNI method of identification, it's not identification where we

19     will get the actual name of the individual, but this method relates to

20     assess how many individuals -- unique individuals have been found in a

21     particular grave.  That is the difference between this method and the DNA

22     method.  With DNA, we get the actual identification of the particular

23     individual with the name, so we have who was found there.  With MNI

24     method, we just get an estimate of how many individuals is in particular

25     grave.  So that for the purposes before the DNA identification, we have

Page 2008

 1     used this method in order to present what is the minimal number of

 2     individuals found in these graves, so not to present who -- what are the

 3     names of these individuals.  So but with DNA methods, we get the actual

 4     names of the individuals.

 5             JUDGE NYAMBE:  So if I understand you correctly, your final list

 6     of identification is based on only DNA and not MNI?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, correct, only on the DNA connections.  Apart

 8     from that, we have -- let me check how many, but we have -- we have 36

 9     individuals which are also part of my report which were identified before

10     through also -- by the ICMP and the ICRC, through also DNA -- through the

11     anthropological means, including the DNA which was done at that time

12     through ICRC and PHR.  So I included those 36 individuals into my report,

13     and those are individuals which are all part of the Dean Manning's

14     previous reports, simply because they will be never re-identified through

15     DNA by the ICMP because, in the meantime, their bodies have been already

16     returned back to the relatives and buried.  So -- but this is not -- this

17     identification -- these 36 individuals does not relate to -- has

18     nothing -- they have nothing to do with the MNI identification process.

19     MNI is just to get the actual number of individuals inside the grave.  If

20     we are trying to make a full identification in order to get the name of

21     the individual, we'll need DNA identification.

22             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  Just one last one.

23             What has happened, effectively, to the primary -- just a moment.

24     What has happened, basically, to the exhumed graves?  Have they been

25     preserved or just exhumed and walk away?

Page 2009

 1             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, do you mean they are exhumed -- for

 2     what period of time are you referring to, when we exhumed, when the ICTY

 3     exhumed them, or when they were re-exhumed by the BVRS [phoen] and the

 4     bodies were reburied?  What is your question referring to?

 5             JUDGE NYAMBE:  I'm referring to when you exhume for evidential

 6     purposes, have these graves been preserved, or grave-sites?

 7             THE WITNESS:  When those graves were exhumed and the bodies --

 8     and the bodies found in them and all the evidence properly noted down and

 9     secured, the bodies were taken to the mortuary and also the evidence

10     collected from these sites were secured.  And after that, the actual

11     graves were just back-filled with the soil, and nowadays on these

12     places -- on some of them are, you know, the settlements, and these are

13     normal places in this -- today.

14             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay.  One last one.

15             How do you distinguish -- and I'm specifically referring to

16     surface remains.  How do you distinguish from the surface remains which

17     death occurred from combat or from execution?

18             THE WITNESS:  That's -- Your Honour, that's one thing which is

19     not easy to distinguish, if not impossible at all, because in order to

20     distinguish between those two, you would need much more information on

21     each and every particular body collected from the ground.  And I'm

22     referring here -- I'm having in mind as these are autopsy records.  As

23     well as because when they are found after so many years, those surface

24     remains have been exposed to the weather conditions and they are in bad

25     preservation conditions.  And in order to distinguish between those two,

Page 2010

 1     you would need more information, and the best possible way is to get --

 2     to get the statements of the victim survivors and, of course, if you

 3     would have the possibility to look into every single autopsy record.  We

 4     maybe have -- we may be able to say how many of them were actually killed

 5     in combat, but I'm afraid that this would take us -- this would -- took

 6     us a lot of time, and I'm afraid that it would not be possible, at the

 7     end, to say how many of them have been, indeed, killed in combat and how

 8     many of them have been executed.  So it would be -- it would be very

 9     hard -- a very hard decision to take, so it's not easy.

10             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, please continue your questioning.

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

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Janc, you told us a little earlier what was possible and was

15     not possible in answer to Judge Nyambe's questions.  Now, can you tell

16     us -- or, rather, can you answer this question, whether -- the estimate

17     of the number of people killed in action, is this something that you come

18     at based on your free assessment or based on some legitimate grounds

19     which point to there having been some combat operations there?

20        A.   I concluded that on certain facts which I explained, I think,

21     several times during my testimony already.  We know -- we are all aware

22     that there was combat -- there were combat activities and a fierce fight

23     at Baljkovica region, and based on that, one can conclude that the bodies

24     on the surface found in that area might be, indeed, related to combat

25     activities.  As for the other areas which are also part of my report,

Page 2011

 1     especially the Pobudje area, with the largest number of the individuals

 2     found there, I already made my conclusion before that it's -- we are

 3     considering them as combat casualties because that was the column which

 4     was passing, although I have explained my view on it and my conclusion

 5     based on the facts that although in combat, there are significant

 6     activities from the VRS which points at -- points at the conclusion that

 7     this was not a real combat, but just one-sided combat against the mass

 8     population, being the military or civilians ones.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Just answer briefly, please.  Were these individuals,

10     before they were killed, taken prisoner or were they actually combat

11     casualties?  Thank you.  Please be brief in your answers, because we

12     actually spend more time in your answers than on my questions.

13        A.   I'm sure for most of them, they were not taken prisoners before

14     they were killed, they were not taken prisoners.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now go over the questions that I will have for

16     you, and let's be brief.  And for those questions where I seek no

17     explanation, please give us as brief as possible an answer.  Thank you.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please see

20     Exhibit P167.  This is a document from the International Commission on

21     Missing Persons, transcript page 1777, lines 14 through 18.

22             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Vanderpuye provided the following information, which I'm sure

24     you're aware of.  It hasn't come up on our screens yet.  Mr. Vanderpuye

25     said that this document should not be broadcast because it contains the

Page 2012

 1     names of persons whose family members do not know about their situation,

 2     or words to that effect.

 3             Now, my question is this:  On this document, can you see the date

 4     when the DNA identification was conducted?  And if so, could you show us

 5     the column where this DNA analysis is shown?

 6             We only see page 1 here.  I'd like us to have a look at page 2

 7     and 3.  Pages 2 and 3, please, on Sanction.  May I have the next page,

 8     please.  Yes, here we have it.  We can see it, but this should not be

 9     broadcast.  Could we zoom in for the witness's benefit?  He'll recognise

10     it, because it's something that he presented.

11             Can we see the date when the DNA analysis was conducted on this

12     chart; yes or no?

13        A.   Yes, I think so.  The last column is the one you are referring

14     to.  This is the date, and I testified about it before that I'm not sure,

15     but what I think is the date when the DNA report was generated.

16        Q.   Thank you, yes.  Now, if we look at the person under number 1 on

17     this page, we see that the ID was conducted in 2002, and now it's 2010.

18     Now, why has the family not been informed about the identification

19     conducted?  That's my question, and a brief answer from you, please.

20        A.   And the brief answer is we don't see, from this information, if

21     this particular individual -- if the family members were already informed

22     or not.  But I'm sure that not all of the individuals which we can see on

23     this page, or on the following pages showing the same thing, that all of

24     the individuals -- so we'll have only some of them which the family

25     members were not informed yet.  For most of them, the family members were

Page 2013

 1     informed already, yes.

 2        Q.   We see here that all the individuals have been identified from

 3     2002 to 2004, looking at the dates there.  That means more than six years

 4     have gone by since the time of identification.  So why, then, are these

 5     persons listed on a confidential list still?  Do you know that or not?

 6        A.   That is based on the provider, so that was a condition of the

 7     ICMP, unfortunately, so -- and that's why we have to keep it

 8     confidential.  It's not up to me.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  So the International Commission decides when you are

10     going to inform that somebody has been identified or not; right?

11        A.   No, actually, I don't know what is the process regarding the

12     information of the families, but they are informing the pathologists, and

13     the problem is that we have these secondary graves where a body part is

14     in such a condition that it can be found in three different mass graves,

15     and in order to put -- to assemble one individual together, you would

16     need a lot of time, a lot of years, that it can be returned back to the

17     family.

18        Q.   Thank you, yes, I understand.  Can you tell me whether the family

19     should give their permission for identification in order to establish the

20     identity beyond any doubt?  Thank you.

21        A.   I know that the relatives are informed about the identification,

22     and they sign a kind of -- a statement.  But regarding the exact process,

23     I'm not aware of.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Are there cases where the family did not accept

25     identification on the basis of DNA?  And if so, how many such cases were

Page 2014

 1     there?

 2        A.   Yes, I have heard about this situation, that the family members

 3     did not accept individuals as being their loved ones, but that is -- I

 4     don't know for how many of -- for how many such cases have been there.

 5     But I think there is a basic reason; because they don't want to face a

 6     reality that their loved ones are dead.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move on to another set of questions now, and

 8     for that may we have D20 displayed, please.  It is a report based on

 9     debriefing about Srebrenica, published in Assen in 1995 by the Dutch

10     government.

11             May we have page 38 pulled up on e-court, paragraph 348, and I'm

12     going to quote from that paragraph.  Thank you.

13             Thank you.  3.58 is the last paragraph, 3.58, and I'm going to

14     quote:

15             "On Monday, the 10th of July, the commander of OP-M received

16     orders from the C-Company commander to co-ordinate with the BH Army.

17     That evening, fighting broke out among the BiH soldiers, resulting in

18     dead and wounded.  At around noon on Tuesday, the 11th of July, a number

19     of shells struck the area near the armoured vehicle.  The abandoned OP

20     was also shelled.  Chaos prevailed among the BH forces.  Internal

21     fighting broke out once again.  That evening, the OP crew were permitted

22     to leave because they were willing to take the wife and children of a

23     local BiH leader with them.  When the two BH soldiers with the anti-tank

24     weapons attempted to prevent their departure, they were shot in the head

25     by the BiH leader.  This led once again to fighting between the BH

Page 2015

 1     soldiers."

 2             My question is this:  First an explanation.  Since you deal with

 3     the linking up of a mass grave with the locality where the person was

 4     killed, can you tell us whether you, or perhaps previously someone from

 5     the OTP, tried to establish what happened to the bodies of the Muslims

 6     who were killed in this specific mutual clash that took place in July?

 7        A.   We know that some of them were found on the surface, but for

 8     these particular ones, no, I have no idea what have happened to them,

 9     because we don't have any names and I'm not aware of any investigation

10     being conducted in order to clarify this issue.

11        Q.   You don't know their names.  Is it possible that they are in one

12     of the graves and that you might have portrayed them as being victims

13     killed by the Serb Army?  Thank you.  Is that possible?

14        A.   Yes, everything is possible, and those would be the victims which

15     were the victims of Srebrenica also, because we have -- if they are only

16     surface remains, we have cases where there are suicides committed and

17     also that there are -- that they were killed by themselves.  We have such

18     cases, and they were found on the surface, and they are part of my report

19     as victims of Srebrenica, yes.

20        Q.   Are they counted among the total number of people for whom

21     persons at this Tribunal are being held accountable and tried?

22        A.   For these particular individuals, I don't know, because we don't

23     know their names.  But for the others where we have such a situation and

24     we have their names, yes, they are included in total number.  But not for

25     the ones found in the graves.

Page 2016

 1        Q.   Thank you.  So in this case, you don't have the names, and you

 2     count them among the victims killed after having been captured and found

 3     in these graves; am I right?

 4        A.   No.  No, you're not right.  So I cannot say that we counted them.

 5     So there is a possibility that they are found somewhere on the surface or

 6     somewhere and that they are counted there, but we don't know.  From this

 7     information, we don't know.

 8        Q.   Well, can the Trial Chamber rule and judge only on the basis of

 9     cases that have been proved or on the basis of your report, which is a

10     summary, for all victims, regardless of how they happened to become

11     victims?  So Srebrenica and Trnovo, that's 500 kilometres away from

12     Srebrenica and closer to the safe area around Sarajevo.

13        A.   Sir, I think we have explanation for most of them in my report,

14     how they have been -- how they have died.  Most of them were murdered, we

15     know for sure.  But for some of them, we'll never know.  So there might

16     be some individual cases, like we see it here, which will always be in

17     doubt, but for most of them in my report, we can conclude that they were

18     killed or executed.  There is no doubt about it.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Now, the international

20     forces here claim that a member of the BH Army killed two other BH Army

21     members.  I can't dwell on that any longer, but I'd like to show P170,

22     attachment B to the forensic material compiled by this witness in

23     April 2010.  So annex B, please, or supplement B.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, microphone.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we have page 60 of the Serbian

Page 2017

 1     and page 43 of the English called up on e-court, please.  Thank you.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please switch on your microphone.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  May we have page 43.  Yes,

 5     it's coming up, says my adviser.

 6             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Now, you refer to the DNA identification of surface remains, and

 8     now I'd like to read from the beginning:

 9             "In early 2008, the OTP received updated surface remains data

10     from the BH Commission for Missing Persons pertaining to surface remains

11     collected between 1996 and 2007, which are related to the events

12     following the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in July of 1995."

13             And in footnote 1, it says as follows:  If you take a look at

14     footnote 1, this is what it says:

15             "This surface remains data is an update of the initial data.  The

16     only difference is the addition of 52 cases collected from the surface by

17     the Finnish team in 1996, out of which 20 individuals had been identified

18     as of the 28th of December, 2007."

19             My question:  In your report, does it say there - and just a

20     brief answer - whether the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons

21     conducted translation from -- does this apply to the Federal Commission

22     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, whose list we had on our screens earlier on?

23        A.   Yes, indeed, it is a Federal Commission missing persons.

24        Q.   Thank you.  These remains, do they relate to the Bare area, where

25     the Finnish team of pathologists was working?  Thank you.

Page 2018

 1        A.   If you are asking me for the Finnish part of it, the Finnish team

 2     collected those bodies in Kamenica area, which is the area behind the

 3     Kravica warehouse:

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  May we have displayed

 5     1D100 next, please.  It is the transcript from the Jean-Rene Ruez

 6     testimony in the Krstic trial.  Ruez, as a witness, confirmed in his

 7     statement and during his testimony here well, said the following, and I'm

 8     going to read out the relevant portion on page 7 of the Serbian and

 9     English.

10             So may we have page 7 in both language versions displayed,

11     please, and I'm going to read an excerpt from that page.  Thank you.

12             And I quote what Mr. Ruez says:

13             "This area has been processed in 1996 by a team of experts from

14     Finland who were operating in that area in 1996, totally disconnected

15     from our activities.  They were collecting surface remains.  But it's

16     important to note that 600 bodies," and I emphasise 600 bodies, "have

17     been collected in that area.  These are bodies of victims killed in

18     combat, in ambushes, in shelling, and possibly also in other

19     circumstances which are impossible to sort out ..."

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   My question:  Mr. Janc, in your report you mention just 52 cases

22     which the Finnish team collected from the surface remains in 1966

23     [as interpreted], and the main OTP investigator, Mr. Ruez, when he

24     testified in the Krstic trial, says that the Finnish team collected 600

25     bodies.  How do you explain that difference?  Thank you.

Page 2019

 1        A.   Yes, I was aware of this fact about Mr. Ruez's testimony, and I

 2     was trying to find information which was based for his statement, but I

 3     was not able to find it.  And when we request the BH authorities, and I

 4     mean specifically the Federal Commission for Missing Persons, to provide

 5     us with a list of all the surface remains collected, they had provided us

 6     with a list of all the bodies collected by their side first.  And as we

 7     can see -- as we have seen just before, that later they provided

 8     additional list because we requested, Please provide us also with a list

 9     of the individuals which were collected by the Finnish team, so -- and we

10     can see from the list that they provided to us that 56 cases have been

11     collected by Finnish team.

12             In 1996, there were also other -- other bodies collected by the

13     BiH authorities, and that might be the problem, because at that time, you

14     know, that many bodies have been collected, but not all of them by

15     Finnish team.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I emphasised that this was from the Krstic trial, and

17     Mr. Ruez, as the main investigator at that time, showed a film, but I

18     can't dwell on that now.  You say one thing, he said something else.

19             Now, I want to ask you this:  In footnote number 1 of annex B of

20     your own report, you refer to the report which has an ERN number.  It's a

21     65 ter OTP 120 -- so 2198, please, 65 ter 2198, page 1, to be displayed,

22     please.

23        A.   Yes, I see, yes.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 2020

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  This is a set of tables with the surface

 2     remains, and the total number in which you include the number uncovered

 3     by the Finnish team, and the total number is 877.  Now, if we add to that

 4     the number that Ruez testifies about, 16, and the number of people whose

 5     body remains were collected from Bare, then the total number would be

 6     1.477, am I right, if you add the two, put the two together?

 7        A.   Yes, if you put the two together, you are right.  But I'm afraid

 8     you cannot do that, you cannot put the two together.  So -- and I think

 9     this is the real number, and I can explain, because of the identification

10     we have so far -- based on the number of identifications we have from

11     this area, how many bodies have been collected within these sites, so

12     which might be a totally different number from number of cases which have

13     been collected.  So in total, 558 individuals have been identified from

14     this site.

15        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now look at the first column, 1996.  That's

16     what we're talking about now.  The number of bodies uncovered is 213, of

17     which 163 were from surface remains recovery.  That is a large number,

18     and larger than 52.  You don't mention the figure of 52 here at all,

19     which you do mention in footnote number 1 from the Finnish team report.

20             Now, when we have this figure of 52, how did the Finnish team

21     collect 52 cases in 1996, whereas in your report you don't refer to those

22     cases at all and you don't state this as a source of information that you

23     used for compiling these tables?  Can you now tell us what source you

24     used -- what documents you used to compile these tables, because this

25     number of 52 is not mentioned anywhere?  Thank you.

Page 2021

 1        A.   Yes.  Can we scroll up at the top of this document?

 2             As you can see here, the ERN number of this document is X0189549,

 3     and this is mentioned in footnote number 1 of my report as being the

 4     table which we initially received.  After that, we requested the BiH

 5     authorities that also the bodies which were collected by Finnish team

 6     should be included into this counting, and they have provided us with

 7     additional table, which is also part of my report, and I can give you the

 8     ERN.  The ERN is X0189696.  And if we open that table, we will find this

 9     Finnish -- this body -- body remains on that table.  So I included

10     everything and I considered every information I received from BiH

11     authorities for my conclusions.  So this is just the wrong -- the wrong

12     table, because it's not here because they haven't provided us initially,

13     but later on they provided it.  And if you look into that other table,

14     we'll find this 52 cases.

15        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Now, tell me, did you ask the Finnish

16     experts to provide you with the documents and the footage -- or, rather,

17     since there is footage, did you ask them to provide you with the

18     documents they used?

19        A.   No, I haven't asked them, and I don't have information on them,

20     for the purposes of my report, in order to find out how many individuals

21     have been found -- okay, or not.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know where the body remains uncovered by the

23     Finnish team in 1996 are buried?  Thank you.

24        A.   No, I am -- I'm still convinced that they are -- that they are

25     part of the surface remains, they are considered as being collected from

Page 2022

 1     the surface.  And if they were identified during the identification

 2     process, and most of them have been identified, they were returned back

 3     to the families and buried I don't know where; most probably, most of

 4     them in Potocari Memorial Centre.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  So your answer is that you don't know.  Now,

 6     Mr. Janc, I have another set of questions I'd like you to answer.

 7             May we have Exhibit 170 displayed, please.  Thank you.

 8             This exhibit was admitted as part of your report.  It is not a

 9     summary of expert findings.  Am I right in saying that?

10        A.   Which exhibit; my report?  I see my report on the screen.

11        Q.   I'm referring to Exhibit 170.  Yes, that's the first page of it,

12     that's right.

13        A.   Yes, this is my report, yes.

14        Q.   Now, in that report, can you identify the portions, which are

15     P170, which you personally arrived at and are not the summary -- a

16     summary of the findings made by experts?

17        A.   I'm afraid I don't understand the question.  But the report,

18     itself, is in evidence, I think, and this is the summary of the reports,

19     yes, made by the experts.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can you indicate on this exhibit, P170, the report

21     that you arrived at yourself, that you drafted yourself, and which do not

22     actually constitute expert findings?  Can you indicate those parts of the

23     report that fall under that category?

24        A.   There are -- there are several parts of it in this report where

25     I -- where I am referring to expert findings, to their reports.  We can

Page 2023

 1     see it's actually part of the annex A.  If you open the first page -- or

 2     the second page of annex A, you can see I'm referring to Dr. Haglund's

 3     report for Cerska site.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  My question was this:  Are there portions

 5     of this report that are yours alone, and also what are the portions of

 6     the reports that are findings of, let's say, the ICMP, or pathologists'

 7     reports, or other experts who prepared these reports?

 8        A.   This -- my report is combination of everything.  There are

 9     conclusions, summaries, and also the findings based on the ICMP data.

10     There is several information.  The report, itself, it's not divided per

11     section you are asking me now, but it's a kind of comprehensive report

12     where you can see different parts of different sources inside the report.

13     For example, for Cerska, you can see I'm referring to a specific expert's

14     report where you can find more information on this particular site, and

15     then below you have a table which is taken out of the ICMP data.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  Tell us, please, did you use the raw data,

17     the experts' raw data, for your reports when you summed them up in table

18     form, or did you, yourself, make that kind of decision?

19        A.   What kind of decision you mean?

20        Q.   Well, I mean this:  Did you, from those other institutions that

21     you just mentioned, receive data and then -- for instance, from the ICMP,

22     did you then check whether that data is correct, or appropriate, or did

23     you just take them at face value and insert them in your report without

24     any checks, specifically in this particular case?

25        A.   Yes, if you're referring to the ICMP data, we received this

Page 2024

 1     data -- this raw data, as you are calling them, from the ICMP, and then I

 2     analysed them.  And I have used them in order to present them inside my

 3     report.  And also during the analysing of these data, I have been

 4     evaluating these data.  And as I have testified already before, in order

 5     to clarify any ambiguities inside the report, we have asked several times

 6     the ICMP for the clarifications.  So we have been -- I have been

 7     evaluating the data, itself.  I have just not used them and present here

 8     as -- as data, as such.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  When you say "I" or "we," please tell me, do you mean

10     just you, personally, or do you also refer to some other OTP staff?

11     Thank you.

12        A.   In order to compile my report, I have been conducting analysis

13     and I have been receiving support -- help from my analyst, Yota Vassou.

14     And also in order to check this data with other sources, I mean ICRC and

15     other sources, I have been in contact with the Demographic Unit.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Can I just sum up what you've just said?  So you

17     checked that information together with your analyst, Vassou, with an

18     individual from the ICRC and with individuals from your

19     Demographics Unit?  Am I correct?  Have I understood your answer

20     correctly or not?

21        A.   Yes, with our analyst, we have made several different parts of

22     it.  I have put together the numbers of the identified individuals, but

23     she was mostly deployed with the DNA connections in that section.  And

24     also we have been -- all the data which are provided to the OTP are

25     received by our Demographic Unit, so the Demographic Unit is the actual

Page 2025

 1     first -- first unit which received these data from the ICMP, and, yes,

 2     they are evaluating this information.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Please answer my next question.  Did you review the autopsy

 6     reports together with a pathologist?  Did you engage a pathologist on

 7     that work?  Because you just said that you only reviewed them together

 8     with your analyst, Mr. Vassou, and ICRC representatives, who would be the

 9     most responsible institutions for cases like these for missing persons?

10        A.   No, the answer is no, because the actual ICMP data, they have

11     nothing to do with the autopsy records.  Autopsy records are something

12     different which are important in order to establish different facts, and

13     I'm reviewing these autopsy reports on my own, without any pathologist

14     present.

15        Q.   Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear from you.  So you and

16     Mr. Vassou, you assess these reports based on what you knew on your

17     knowledge and your information?  Thank you.

18        A.   Yes, indeed, if there is information we need to clarify, then I

19     prepare an RFA to BH authorities in order to clarify a certain issue, or

20     we send an e-mail to or consult the ICMP to clarify certain issues.

21        Q.   Thank you.  I have the answer I was expecting.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D79, page 3 of

23     e-court?  Thank you.  We don't have it on our screens yet.  Thank you.

24             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   While we wait for it to come up on our screens:  We see here the

Page 2026

 1     objectives of exhumations -- in paragraph 9 in Dean Manning's statement,

 2     it is stated as follows, and I quote -- can you see paragraph 9 before

 3     you?

 4             "Some of the basic objectives of this project of exhumations in

 5     Srebrenica were the following: to confirm the stories of the victims and

 6     witnesses of massacres; to establish the exact number of victims; to

 7     establish the cause and time of death; to establish the identity of the

 8     victims and any relation with the missing persons from Srebrenica; to

 9     establish the gender of the victims; to establish any kind of relation or

10     link between the primary and secondary mass graves; and to establish the

11     connection with perpetrators."

12             Now, my question would be the following --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the accused please repeat his question.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, could you please repeat the

15     question.  The interpreters didn't get it.

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

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   I was asking the witness to tell us whether these were also the

19     objectives of exhumations and DNA analyses that are still conducted

20     today.  Thank you.

21        A.   Yes, I would say so, yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Please answer the following question.  Do you

23     consider that destruction of evidence, items found in graves, would

24     actually prevent a super analysis or super expert report that would -- in

25     order to check the findings of OTP experts?

Page 2027

 1        A.   Not necessarily, because if they are well preserved, and most of

 2     them are well preserved - we have photographs on them and we have

 3     descriptions, reports on them - then I don't think that would be

 4     necessarily the case.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Investigator Dean Manning mentioned, as one of the

 6     objectives of exhumations, as being that to establish the exact number of

 7     victims, and you say the same in the report that you presented here.  You

 8     mention in several places the term "victims."  Please tell us, was this a

 9     term you used mechanically for any individual whose remains were found in

10     a mass grave, or did you have a specific definition for the term -- the

11     exact number of victims?

12        A.   I don't think there is any specific definition for the term.

13     "The victims" are, I think, the most common used in our reports.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Any individual who loses his or her life in times of

15     war is a victim.  However, in view of the fact that 7.000 victims are

16     mentioned in the indictment against me, could you tell me, please, as an

17     investigator, what is the number of those -- of that 7.000 victims, what

18     is the number of those who had lost their life in combat and what is the

19     number of those who had lost their life by an unlawful manner, in an

20     unlawful manner?

21        A.   I would say that most of them have lost their lives in an

22     unlawful manner.  They were being executed, and I can say those found in

23     the graves are within that category.  And the ones who are found on a

24     surface will be -- will -- for most of them, we'll not be able to

25     determine what, indeed, happened to them, and we'll be considering them

Page 2028

 1     as combat witnesses -- combat victims.  So -- but for most of them are

 2     executed.

 3        Q.   Is that the reason why the number of victims in Bare was actually

 4     brought down from 600 to 52?

 5        A.   No, this has nothing to do with it.  And the number was not --

 6     was not taken down.  It is just the matter of explanation, I would say,

 7     how it is possible.  But as we have now the identifications, DNA

 8     identifications, we have been able to say how many of them have been

 9     identified and found on the surface.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Janc.  On page 1743 of the transcript, when the

11     Prosecutor showed you a portion of your report and quoted it, and said

12     the victims of Srebrenica and Zepa identified by DNA and other analysis,

13     and he mentioned that you pointed out the number of 577, in your reply on

14     page 1743, lines 14 through 16, you said, and I will quote your words:

15             "This figure is the figure of identified victims found in mass

16     graves relating to Srebrenica victims as well, and this was an initial

17     figure.  The figure now, the total number is 577 victims."

18             Since you are an OTP member and also a victim [as interpreted] in

19     the proceedings against me, can you please tell us what is this figure

20     mentioned as 7.000 victims mentioned in indictment in which I was

21     charged, and what is the figure which is actually defined as identified

22     victims?  Could you please tell us what the difference is?  You as a

23     witness in this proceeding.

24        A.   The number which is on the transcript is wrong.  It should be

25     5777.  This refers to the victims which were found in graves.  And the

Page 2029

 1     number 7.000 is the total -- would be the total number, I think, for the

 2     missing persons from Srebrenica.  So in order to conclude the job to find

 3     the others which are still missing, there would be still some time

 4     needed, and I think, based on current calculations, there is around 1300

 5     individuals which are still on missing list and are related to Srebrenica

 6     events.  Others were already identified.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, we are really running out of time.

 8     You have indicated that you would need six hours for your

 9     cross-examination.  I think today we had around four and a half or five

10     hours of cross-examination.  We have to continue that at a later stage,

11     and then, of course, the Prosecution must have the opportunity for

12     re-examination.

13             Could you perhaps indicate how long the remainder of your

14     cross-examination will be?  Microphone, please.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have over 50 questions.  I will

16     need at least three hours, if you allow.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is really much more than the double amount

18     of time you indicated earlier.

19             In any case, we have to adjourn now, and I propose that the

20     parties should liaise on the question when this witness, which is really

21     a witness and not a victim, as we saw it on the transcript earlier - I

22     hope you don't feel like a victim of these proceedings, Mr. Janc - you

23     should liaise about the question which will be the appropriate time to

24     call this witness again.  Thank you.

25             We have to adjourn, and we resume on the 27th of May.

Page 2030

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 27th day of May,

 4                           2010, at 9.00 a.m.