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
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]
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
13 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English now? Can you hear the
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,
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 --
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
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
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.
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
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
1 it, and there were several requests for assistance sent to Bosnia
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
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,
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
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
25 identifications would be made based on the DNA analysis. So their main
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
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
1 have used their lists, of course, for the purposes of my -- of my report,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
25 on Missing Persons, and those were established by federal authorities
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc.
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
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
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."
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
1 of my head, I cannot say, because it needs to be done in an electronic
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
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.
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
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
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.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the number, please?
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please repeat the number. It can't be the right
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
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
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
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
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:
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
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: "Summary of Forensic
20 Evidence on the Exhumation of Mass Graves
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?
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
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
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
1 some of these graves? Why was there a need for such an agreement? Thank
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 A. They are reliable because these exhumations were conducted by the
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
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
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 --
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
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
1 the remains, known as MNI
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
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
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
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
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
1 answer to you, that the DNA
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
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
11 years, is the best source of identification. So when someone is
12 identified in this -- through DNA
13 that identification is not completed yet, so also in that case the
14 conclusions and DNA
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
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
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
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
22 those 10 bodies will have their names -- will get their names. So that's
23 the purpose of DNA
24 five individuals or which ten individuals is inside one particular grave,
25 you will always, through DNA
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
5 the DNA
6 bone different? Have I understood that correctly or not?
7 A. DNA
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
7 big differences in these two, especially because, as I already explained
8 several times, the DNA
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
20 we are trying to make a full identification in order to get the name of
21 the individual, we'll need DNA
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?
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,
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,
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
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
5 the column where this DNA
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
23 A. Yes, I see, yes.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
1 as combat witnesses -- combat victims. So -- but for most of them are
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
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
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.
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.