1 Monday, 7 March 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom. As
6 you can see, only two Judges are present today. Judge Mindua has another
7 obligation and is not able to attend our hearings this week, so that we
8 are sitting only with two Judges pursuant to Rule 15 bis of our Rules of
9 Procedure and Evidence.
10 Last Thursday I asked the Prosecution to provide us with an
11 update about witnesses, about the length of the Prosecution case.
12 Are you in a position to give us this update, Mr. McCloskey?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. President,
14 Your Honours. I hope to give you some -- some information, and I would
15 ask, as I think we had sent an e-mail around, that orally to allow us to
16 withdraw three witnesses and those are our numbers, number 42, number 95,
17 and number -- excuse me, I'm looking at the wrong sheet. Those are
18 numbers 59, numbers 153, and numbers 195. And number 196 never quite
19 made it onto our list, but just so everyone knows, we don't have any
20 intention with continuing with 196. The other three that I just
21 mentioned, 42, 95, and 39, we are considering drafting 92 quater because
22 in our contact with them they're very emotionally -- have significant
23 medical issues in our -- as far as we can see at this point, and we are
24 in the process of seeing if we can get doctors' reports or notes or
25 material for that, for a 92 quater motion for them.
1 There are also a few witnesses who we are trying to bring on as
2 best we can. People are not quite as willing as they used to be in the
3 past to come, and so it's taking a bit more of an effort. And Mr. Thayer
4 will be providing, in the next day or two, an updated list of witnesses
5 as he spread them out for the months up to the summer break. It should
6 be similar to what you received before but should have some of the latest
7 information on it. So we -- and I've been speaking to Mr. Gajic, trying
8 to get an idea of how much the Defence may take for witnesses like
9 Rick Butler, General Milovanovic, General Obradovic, these senior
10 colleagues of General Tolimir, and while, of course, it's not absolutely
11 clear, it's my understanding that the General will naturally want to have
12 many days with each of those witnesses, and the exact number of days
13 will -- is not clear yet. And I'll be looking at our estimates for days
14 on them as well. It shouldn't be -- shouldn't have to change too much.
15 But aside from those three or four rather significant witnesses,
16 we are, you know, going along at a pretty good pace and expect to keep
17 that pace and hopefully we won't have any gaps. And if we're lucky,
18 we'll finish the Prosecution's case before the summer break if --
19 hopefully well before. But as I say, if I said anything firm on that,
20 I'm sure I wouldn't be telling the -- you know, it wouldn't be giving you
21 much guidance because it's still a little tricky trying to find out how
22 long all those two or three important witnesses will take. But
23 Mr. Thayer's working on that updated sheet with all the witnesses grouped
24 by week. And I just got a message from one witness we are planning on
25 calling in two weeks, said, no, they can't absolutely be here, not until
1 April, and so that kind of thing is constant. But it's all manageable.
2 So I can give you those firm three are not there. There's three
3 more that it looks like it's -- I can't bring them here just because they
4 can't come here mentally, so we hope to have a 92 quater going. And
5 we're working on the rest. Most -- the majority, of which are willing,
6 will be here, but that's fundamentally the background that I hope gives
7 you some guidance. And you'll get more guidance when you see the updated
8 sheet from Mr. Thayer.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey, for this
10 update. It's very helpful. However, I have a question. You mentioned
11 three witnesses the Prosecution is withdrawing. Witness 59, 153, and
12 Witness 195. If I'm not mistaken, the last one, Witness 195 is not yet
13 on the 65 ter witness list. That should be clarified, like it is this
14 case with the Witness 196 you mentioned earlier, that he didn't make it
15 on the list at all.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that was one of those situations. I have a
17 PW number for 195 of 077, but -- oh, yes. There's -- there was a motion
18 to add 15 December, and I'm reminded that there has not yet been a
19 decision on that, so I can't drop that one formally because he's not
20 formally on. So we can say that we don't need a decision on that
21 particular witness, but that one will not be -- will not be an issue.
22 Thank you for that clarification.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I recall correctly, that was one witness the
24 Chamber decided that the application to add him to the 65 ter witness
25 list would be premature because of a lack of clearance, Rule 70
1 clearance, if I'm not mistaken. So that he is not on the list and
2 there's no room for withdrawal. But on the other hand, we take note of
3 your intention not to call him and the other witness, 196.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Oh, and I also see at the bottom of my note
5 the name Ewa Tabeau who you'll recall has been on our witness list sort
6 of in conjunction with Helge Brunborg; they authored that report
7 together. And as you will recall, General Tolimir in the cross of
8 Dr. Brunborg brought up a book with a list of some names on it that were
9 allegedly on our missing list. And so we have asked Ms. Tabeau to take a
10 look at those names and to do a brief report on it. So it would be our
11 intention, and I've spoken briefly to Mr. Gajic about that, to -- to call
12 her to give the results of that simple review of names. I hope its
13 simple. And that, of course, would open up her to cross-examination on
14 that work and anything else. And I know -- I don't think I was here, but
15 I know from the record that Mr. -- General Tolimir wanted a chance to
16 cross-examine her. So that remains the same. She will be here for
17 cross-examination on her report for both the small issue and the big
19 So I'm not sure where we have -- we haven't managed to put her in
20 yet because her report isn't done, and we, of course, want to get that
21 translated and to the Defence, but it should be very small. It's just a
22 matter of what she finds about these names.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much indeed. That was an open
24 question. Any other matters to raise?
25 If not, we should call the witness into the courtroom and
1 continue the cross-examination. The witness should be brought in,
2 please. To enable the witness to enter the courtroom, we turn into
3 closed session.
4 [Closed session]
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Welcome back to the
12 courtroom. The blinds should be brought up. Please sit down. Please
13 sit down.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, welcome back to the courtroom. I have to
16 remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth still applies. And the
17 protective measures are still in place for you.
18 Mr. Tolimir is continuing his cross-examination.
19 Mr. Tolimir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Peace
21 unto this house. I wish everyone a pleasant day. And may God's will be
22 done in these proceedings. I wish the witness a pleasant stay amongst
24 WITNESS: PW-018 [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
2 Q. [Interpretation] Before we start, I would like to remind you of
3 some of the statements you made in the summary provided to us by the
4 Prosecution. For instance, at page 10793, in answer to a Prosecutor's
5 question as to what your interpretation of the word "breakthrough" was,
6 you said that breakthrough was something that you used more in the sense
7 of you traversing a certain area rather than engaging in a military
8 operation. Is my understanding correct?
9 A. Yes, that's right. That's how I look at the matter.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to remind both speakers to pause
11 between question and answer. Wait a moment with your answer because the
12 interpreters need some time to interpret everything you are saying. That
13 would be very helpful for all of us.
14 Mr. Tolimir.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for your
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you tell us, in your place of residence, was the
19 28th Division lined up for the purposes of the breakthrough you referred
20 to? Thank you.
21 A. Well, a lineup in the sense you mention it, in the military
22 sense, was not there, not to speak of. It was a gathering of individuals
23 who were forming a single-file line. We didn't know if the area to be
24 traversed was going to be mined or not. Besides, the trail was not wide
25 enough to allow for a wider column to pass through.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us who was it who formed a column in
2 single file or two abreast?
3 A. I don't know. I really wouldn't be able to tell you that. It
4 was night-time. I could see people setting out from a large meadow.
5 There was no forming of an orderly line in that sense. People simply
6 went on their way. That's how I saw it.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, did all the able-bodied men from
8 Srebrenica set out from your village in the direction of Nezuk on the
9 so-called breakthrough? Thank you.
10 A. Well, for the most part. Some of them, of course, headed toward
11 Potocari, namely women and children. There were also able-bodied men
12 among them. It was down to one's choosing. Of course, in addition to
13 what were mostly women, there were men as well.
14 Q. Was the column setting out from your village in the direction of
15 Nezuk mostly formed of men from Srebrenica ... mostly formed of soldiers
16 from Srebrenica?
17 A. Well, I don't know that they were soldiers. I know that some of
18 them wore a military uniform. But if they all departed or not, I can't
19 really tell you. There were 15.000 people in all. It was very difficult
20 to make out what was going on.
21 Q. Thank you. Please tell us, the Chief of Staff of the
22 Srebrenica Brigade, did he ask that the brigade be lined up and formed a
23 column that was supposed to break through the VRS lines departing from
24 your village in the direction of Nezuk?
25 A. I've already answered the question. I didn't see anyone
1 specifically lining up individuals. They naturally formed a column, but
2 I didn't see any military units being lined up or anyone who would seem
3 to have taken up the task of leading the column.
4 Q. Thank you. That evening when the column set out toward Nezuk,
5 were there representatives of the civilian authorities of Srebrenica in
6 your village and did they join the column? Thank you.
7 A. Believe me when I tell you that I wasn't aware of any civilian
8 authority in existence at the time. And even if there had been, I don't
9 think it would have been likely for me to be able to see it.
10 Q. Thank you. At page 10798, in answer to the Prosecutor's question
11 about the existence of the 28th Division and your related statements from
12 Krstic, you said that after the signing of the agreement on
13 demilitarisation there was no military unit. So I'm asking you now: On
14 the 9th and 10th and 11th of August, 1995, did there exist a
15 28th Division in that area?
16 A. Well, to my knowledge, no.
17 Q. Can you tell us, did Srebrenica have any sort of army in July of
18 1995 or not?
19 A. Well, it is possible that there were people engaged in the
20 defence exercise. That's quite possible. But there was no army to speak
21 of. There was no commander. And I don't think that there was any
22 general defence effort. I do believe that individual villages that came
23 under attack were defended though. On the other side, where I was --
24 where I resided at the time was quite on the other side, so I can't
25 really testify to that.
1 Q. Thank you. When you say that there was no commander, do you have
2 anyone specific in mind or did you mean the role itself?
3 A. No, I meant Naser Oric, him in person.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you know if Naser Oric had a deputy and, if so,
5 what his name was?
6 A. I do believe that he had one, but I don't know his name. I
7 wasn't interested in that. I was out of the system. I was disconnected
8 from it all. We didn't have any means of communicating.
9 Q. Thank you. You started explaining about the couriers who came in
10 and passed on the message. Well, should they not have been sent by some
11 sort of an authority, if not by the commander himself then in his absence
12 by his deputy who should be in command of the army?
13 A. Well, I truly don't know whether they were sent by anyone. I
14 don't know anything about it.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show in e-court D001,
17 page 4. Thank you. We'll be looking at lines 1 through 7 on page 4 in
18 paragraph 5.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Let's look at the last paragraph. You have it on your screen.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, may I interrupt you for a moment. I
22 think it would be helpful for the witness but also for the Chamber first
23 to see the first page of this document so that we all know what is it
24 about. And then you may move to the relevant pages you want to use with
25 the witness. First the first page in English and B/C/S of this document.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Can we
2 have page 1 of D001 both in BH and English. Let me tell you that this is
3 a statement by Mr. Ramiz Becirovic given to the 2nd Corps of the Army of
4 the Bosnia-Herzegovina in Tuzla on the 11th of August, 1995. You can see
5 that it states there, "I, Ramiz Becirovic," et cetera.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Does this refresh your memory in any way? Was this Becirovic
8 Naser Oric's deputy?
9 A. It is possible. He probably was if he gave this statement. I
10 don't know. But I cannot give you my comments on something I'm not sure
12 Q. Very well. He will be speaking to the same events you were
13 speaking to.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 4, paragraph 5,
15 which is the last paragraph on that page. It's page 5 in e-court. Thank
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. We see the last paragraph. I'll be reading it out.
19 "Once we surrendered our weapons to UNPROFOR, in 1994 and 1995 we
20 received a certain quantity of materiel and technical equipment which was
21 smuggled through the defence lines and the area of responsibility of the
22 2nd Corps. I was told by Kasim Suljic, who is currently serving in the
23 division command in Tuzla, that the transfer of materiel and technical
24 equipment had been carried out in co-operation with the then-commander of
25 the operational group Hasan Muratovic."
1 This is my question: Did you hear anything about the arming of
2 the Muslims in 1994 and 1995, and did you hear anything about the arrival
3 of weapons in Srebrenica?
4 A. I didn't hear anything about this. I am not familiar with this.
5 Had weapons been coming our way, it would certainly have been useful, but
6 I don't believe that was the case. I don't see in what way they would be
7 arming themselves. Where would the weapons be coming from? But I can't
8 tell you anything. I don't have information about it.
9 Q. We see that the deputy commander, Becirovic, said that it arrived
10 by land from the area of responsibility of the 2nd Corps.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have D67 shown. 1D67.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. While we are waiting for it to appear, let me tell you that it's
14 a report submitted to Alija Izetbegovic by Rasim Delic. This is
15 something you'll see on the last page where he signed it. He sent it on
16 the 13th of July, 1995, following the fall of Srebrenica. It was sent
17 through the command of the 1st Corps to the president of the Presidency
18 of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and he details in it what the efforts
19 were that he undertook to arm Srebrenica.
20 Let me quote from beneath the first paragraph. The second line
22 "The General Staff of the army took a number of military actions
23 in order to organise the army members in the enclave and prepare them for
24 possible action."
25 And then in the first bullet point he says:
1 "Specifically the following has been done for Srebrenica and
2 Zepa: Bullet point 1, to start with, lethal assets and materiel and
3 technical equipment were brought in on foot in fairly small quantities."
4 So he confirms what Becirovic said. Second bullet point:
5 "Seventeen helicopter flights were carried out in each of which a
6 helicopter was hit."
7 And in reference to these helicopter flights, he goes on to
8 detail what it was that was brought to Srebrenica and from Srebrenica to
9 Zepa. So now we'll look at specifically these items.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So can we have page 22 shown in
11 e-court. My apologies, it's page 2. My mistake, I said 22. I apologise
12 to the staff.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And for the record, this is D67 and not 1D67 as
14 indicated earlier.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You see a table. On the right-hand side we see it in English.
18 It's in somewhat larger print but you can read the figures. You see that
19 it says 7.62 millimetre rounds, 173.000 were brought into Zepa, 354.000
20 to Srebrenica. And then, under 2, 7.62 bullets, 4.360 to Zepa and 20.324
21 for Srebrenica. Next, 7.62 bullets, 54 millimetres. We see that the
22 first column relates to Zepa, the second to Srebrenica, et cetera. Next
23 follow other assets that were sent such as rifle launch grenades,
24 launchers for RPG, et cetera, rockets, et cetera.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 3 shown in
1 e-court, please. Thank you. On page 3 we see that among the supplies
2 reaching the areas were uniforms and other equipment including
3 anti-aircraft ammunition, under 55, hand-held launchers, snipers,
4 rockets, et cetera.
5 Can we have page 3 shown, to see the signature. That's page 4 in
6 Serbian. Thank you.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. There we see the signature, commander army General Delic.
9 Rasim Delic. Please, did you have any sort of information to the effect
10 that weapons were being sent across Zepa to Srebrenica and that Zepa and
11 Srebrenica were one entity under one military organisation? Thank you.
12 A. I can see it well. Had this reached us, indeed, it would have
13 been very good. I think Srebrenica as a location with the population
14 there was forgotten by all, starting with the army commander, forgotten
15 by the UN and Yasushi Akashi. I think we were left to our own devices,
16 and we all know what followed. It's nice what it says on the paper about
17 these things being sent, but I didn't feel any of it coming in.
18 Q. Thank you. Is there a possibility that Becirovic, who was the
19 Chief of Staff, and the army commander Rasim Delic falsely reported this
20 data to their president, Mr. Izetbegovic, without having actually
21 delivered the assets?
22 A. I really can't answer that. I'm just a regular person who had no
23 insight into what is mentioned therein. I see this for the first time.
24 I really can't comment.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have D126. Thank
1 you. Thank you. We are going to see it shortly.
2 We can see Naser Oric's photograph. And this article is
3 entitled, "Weapons that were handed over were out of order." It was a
4 public article in a newspaper. Since it is not legible, could we please
5 zoom in. Thank you. He says -- and we are looking at the fourth line.
6 Could we please move the text to the left-hand side so that we
7 could see the last column. We still can't see that. It says 3.350
8 troops. The fourth, the fifth line. Sorry, not the line, the column.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please move the original article to the left so
10 that we can see the -- further. Please further. Please move it to the
11 left so that we can see the last column on the right. Thank you.
12 Mr. Tolimir, now it seems to be on the screen, but what are you
13 asking for?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. The
15 fifth line underneath the heading or the subheading "Guards Along the
16 Lines," which is page 3 in the English.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. "We had some 2.000 barrels, I knew that for sure. And I did not
19 know everything. Weapons were being hidden. We kept some 20 cannons,
20 for sure, with four barrels. We made single-barrel cannons out of them,
21 so in the end they were a kind of anti-aircraft cannons. Let me explain.
22 We hid every single piece that we managed to capture from the Chetniks.
23 When we went into action, we would take them with us. Everybody hid
24 weapons from everyone else. Only the real soldiers, the bold ones,
25 reported their weapons. The other ones were hiding them until needed.
1 It is all understandable. We probably had around 4.000 barrels. And it
2 became obvious that it was so during the break-through to Tuzla, leaving
3 aside the brigade in Zepa."
4 Is it Naser Oric speaking about the way weapons were concealed by
5 weapons -- by soldiers so as not to be handed over to UNPROFOR and the
6 rest and that in the end they may have had as many as 4.000 pieces?
7 A. I can't comment on this. It is his statement. I really don't
8 know. I wasn't informed of this. I was at the front lines, then I went
9 to the hospital. And the weapons that there were, were few, and I see
10 some tall figures here. If we had had that, we would not have needed
11 UNPROFOR. We could have defended ourselves. I don't know who wrote
12 this, and I really can't comment on it. I'm not privy to it.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have D001 again,
15 which is Ramiz Becirovic's statement. Let us again go to page 4 where he
16 says the same thing Oric did, in the sense that people hid weapons in
17 their houses. We have it. Is it page 4? The fourth paragraph on that
18 page. It is page 5 in e-court. The fifth line of the fourth paragraph.
19 It begins with the words "It is customary ..."
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. "It was customary that soldiers held onto their weapons, and only
22 exceptionally they would hand them over to other soldiers at the front
23 line. It was never allowed that all weapons be grouped in a single
24 location. Heavy weapons had been turned over to UNPROFOR. And as far as
25 I recall, this was handed over: Two tanks, Howitzers, a cannon,
1 et cetera."
2 My question is this: As a soldier, did you know at all that
3 soldiers had their weapons at home; they did not hand them over or take
4 them to the barracks or to any other assembly points?
5 A. I used to be in the TO before 1993. Following that, I wasn't
6 informed of it. As for that number of weapons and that people had those
7 in their homes, I don't think it's correct. What weapons there were
8 prior to 1993 was very little. I don't know about these two tanks. I
9 didn't see them, although they may well have been there. As for the
10 rest, whether people had anything in their homes, that is something I
11 can't say, although I don't think it was likely. There simply weren't so
12 many weapons around for people to keep them at home. And whatever there
13 was, was handed over to UNPROFOR.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Chamber whether there is a
15 possibility that the Chief of Staff and deputy commander of the
16 Srebrenica division lied to the 2nd Corps of the Army of B&H? Was he
17 telling lies when providing this statement?
18 A. I cannot comment on anyone else's position. I'd be speculating.
19 Whoever said to someone else, that's not for me to comment on.
20 Q. I'm not asking you to comment. I'm asking you to tell us what
21 you know, given that the commander said one thing, the Chief of Staff
22 said another thing, and you say a third thing. So different people are
23 telling different things.
24 A. Well, I'm only telling you what I know.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you asked for a comment, not for his
1 knowledge. You asked whether there is a possibility that the Chief of
2 Staff and deputy commander, and so on and so on, lied to the chief of the
3 2nd Corps. This is asking for a comment and not of his knowledge. You
4 should indeed focus on the knowledge and the facts the witness can
5 testify about. Please carry on.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Witness, were you a member of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
9 Srebrenica, and did you have your own weapon at home?
10 A. I was a member of the TO until March or April 1993. I did not
11 have weapons at home. When I went to the front lines, there were some
12 weapons there. I didn't have any at home. We had some weapons provided
13 to us but not many. There were some rifles and the likes.
14 Q. I asked you a moment ago whether in the column you saw some
15 soldiers with weapons. Do you want me to repeat the question?
16 A. If you have in mind the entire column, I think there were people
17 with weapons. As for whether they were soldiers or not, I can't say.
18 They could have been. In any case, there were some light weapons. Those
19 who were in the front may have had some. As for the others who remained
20 behind, they were without weapons and they were killed.
21 Q. Thank you. When you say those who managed to get through at the
22 front, how many were there? Because the Chamber needs to have a figure.
23 Do you know how many people there were with how many pieces of weapons
24 and how many remained in Srebrenica?
25 A. I really don't know how many managed to pull through. You
1 probably know as well as I do. I arrived on the 10th day, and they had
2 gone through on the 5th or the 6th. I know some managed to get through.
3 I don't know how many weapons. I can't say. Had I seen them, I probably
4 would have been one of them.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at page 12 of the
7 document. In the English it is page 14, line 13.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Here we see that it is stated as follows:
10 "On the 11th of February, 1995, at the other end of the line, I
11 had the Chief of Staff in the corps. I informed him of the situation in
12 Srebrenica and that it had basically fallen. I also advised him of our
13 intention to go towards Tuzla. He cautioned me about the risks we were
14 taking upon ourselves. My answer to him was that we had no other choice.
15 He wanted me to tell him the general direction which we were to take."
16 It is Ramiz Becirovic's statement. On this page he says he
17 acquainted the Chief of Staff of the corps that they were about to set
18 out from Srebrenica.
19 We'll skip a number of pages and go to line 9, where he says, I
20 quote, line 9 of this statement, just below the passage I've read out:
21 "In the column there were between 10- and 15.000 people. In my
22 estimate there were between 10- and 15.000 people in the column. I had
23 around 6.000 troops, discounting those from Zepa. There weren't many
24 women in the column and I didn't see many children either. Maybe there
25 were about a dozen women."
1 My question for you is this: Were there indeed 6.000 fighters in
2 that column, as the Chief of Staff says?
3 A. I didn't see that many fighters. I didn't see as many. That is
4 certain. You could ask him about that. He mentions the 11th and the
5 12th of July, 1995. He can say what he wishes, and there's nothing I can
6 comment about. I didn't see as many. Had there been so many, perhaps
7 not so many would have been killed and more would have gotten through.
8 Q. Was the column divided into fighting units comprising those 6.000
9 soldiers, or did the soldiers merge with the civilians?
10 A. Well, people moved on their own. I didn't see anyone in command,
11 someone who would be in charge of the column. I didn't see people asking
12 what to do. They just went along. That was it. As for the fighters, it
13 is possible that there were some people in uniform. But as for proper
14 units with equipment and weapons with people heading the column, that
15 didn't exist. I wish it did.
16 Q. Let's look at line 17 to 21. I quote Mr. Ramiz Becirovic, the
17 Chief of Staff:
18 "As a wounded person, I managed to secure a horse for myself, and
19 I moved as part of the 280th Brigade, which was the second brigade in the
20 column. At the helm was the 274th Brigade -- 284th Brigade because they
21 were familiar with the area and they acted as our reconnaissance. It was
22 a very long column."
23 My question is this: Were you in the first part of the column
24 where the 280th and the 284th Brigade were?
25 A. I don't know whether it was so. I think I was around the middle
1 of the column. Whether the column was divided by brigades, I don't know.
2 It is true that people from Kamenica and Zvornik were at the front, those
3 who lived closer to Tuzla, because they were more familiar with the
4 terrain, and I heard some people say so. Whether the column was divided
5 in brigades, that's something I don't know. Perhaps he had more
6 information and perhaps that's the way he understood it to be.
7 Q. Were there any wounded individuals in your part of the column?
8 A. As we set out in the morning, some of the individuals had to be
9 carried to our first stop, which was the village of Kamenica. When on
10 the 12th the darkness fell at perhaps 8.00 or 9.00 p.m., suddenly we were
11 being shelled. We were being shelled from artillery pieces and came
12 under machine-gun fire. So this was the evening attack in Kamenica which
13 made it impossible to carry the wounded onwards anymore. There were too
14 many of them. I even personally tried to help some of them, but it was
15 impossible to help anyone. There was heavy fire and it was difficult to
16 save your own skin, let alone that of others.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you tell Their Honours how many there were,
18 roughly, of the wounded?
19 A. It's very difficult to say. It was night-time. We were in a
20 forested area. I came upon the area where most of these people were
21 located. I was looking for my brother and father. There were really
22 many of them, both those who were wounded and those who were killed. I
23 tried to help two or three of them when all of a sudden artillery fire
24 was opened again, or actually, all sorts of weapons engaged. When I came
25 to the identification centre in Tuzla at a later date, I realised that my
1 brother's remains were recovered in that specific area, so he must have
2 been killed there. But it's difficult to tell how many people there
3 were. It was dark. And it wasn't a small number of people that you
4 could easily count. There were many who were killed and wounded.
5 Q. Thank you. Let's look at line 12 on this page in Serbian. I'm
6 sorry, page 12, line 31, in Serbian. And in English it's line 6 from the
7 bottom where you see 282 somewhere in the line.
8 This is what the commander says:
9 "I placed the wounded right behind the 284th Brigade, while the
10 mountain battalion was supposed to be attached to the rear. That was
11 where the commander of the 282nd Brigade approached me, Ibro Dudic, who
12 had called over the commander of the 281st Brigade, Zulfo Tursunovic, and
13 told he me that I was preparing his murder. I saw that he was fearful.
14 He asked that, from among the elements of the 284th Brigade, his men, the
15 scouts, come back to him who had been reconnoitering the area. I did not
16 permit this. He told me that he had designated around ten young men of
17 whom it was certain that some would cross over to the free territory. He
18 had given them the task of killing me if ever I crossed over."
19 This is my question: Were there any conflicts and confrontations
20 among the commanders and specific units that you were aware of?
21 A. No. It's the first time I see this statement and hear this
22 information. I really know nothing about this.
23 Q. Thank you. But did you yourself hear of any internal
24 confrontation and killing?
25 A. No. I do know that there were people who went crazy. Was it
1 caused by poison or simply was it shell shock? I knew about that. But I
2 didn't hear and wasn't able to see anyone kill someone else.
3 Q. Can you tell Their Honours what happened to those men who went
4 crazy all of a sudden?
5 A. Well, it's difficult to describe what it was that that they were
6 doing. You never spent more than a second in any given spot or else you
7 would have been killed by the fire. You would see a person and then you
8 would never see him again. We didn't have an area where we would meet
9 and be able to discuss what we would be doing next. I suppose such
10 individuals wandered around until they came across VRS soldiers who
11 killed them, and that's probably how most of them met their end.
12 Q. Let's look at line 9 from the bottom of the page. In English
13 it's the next page. We have the next page now, and let me quote line 56:
14 "I stopped the column from moving with a Motorola."
15 That's what Mr. Becirovic says. Did you feel that there were
16 commanders of the BH Army relaying orders given to them over a Motorola?
17 A. I don't know that there were, but it would have been good had
18 there been some. I think I saw only one individual carrying a Motorola,
19 and that was from far off. It happened above Kamenica on a hill that I
20 just referred to a moment ago. He was not able to contact anyone because
21 what we kept hearing was the Serbian side saying that it would be good if
22 we surrendered as such and such a time on the following day. Who it was
23 who had this Motorola, I don't know.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 57 in Serbian.
1 That's line 7 from the top or, rather, line 9 from the top. Page 12,
2 line 56. I apologise. It's the 8th or 9th line from the bottom. In
3 English, it's the page we have on our screens, i.e., page 15.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. This is my question: This situation referred to by Becirovic, is
6 it consistent with what you've just described? And I'll quote this:
7 "I tried to get in touch with the commander of the 282nd Brigade
8 and 283rd Brigade as well as with the battalion, but I wasn't able to get
9 hold of anyone, and the Chetniks jammed our communication. Some ten
10 minutes later, I managed to get hold of a battalion commander who told me
11 that he was on the move heading toward our objective. Since I knew that
12 he was at the rear, I thought that the column had been re-established. I
13 received a request from the commander of the 284th Brigade to go to the
14 head of the column."
15 So I repeat my question: This sort of situation with people
16 being able to establish communication within the column, is that
17 consistent with your memory of these events?
18 A. I told you everything I know. I can't tell you if he really did
19 what he's describing here as having done. I can only talk about my
20 personal experience.
21 Q. Thank you. Let's read from page 13 of this statement in Serbian,
22 which will most likely be page 15 in English. It's the page we have in
23 English, and it's at the very bottom of the page.
24 This is what Mr. Becirovic had to say in line 27:
25 "There upon, I changed my mind and I placed the mountain
1 battalion and the sabotage company on the elevation with 20 men from the
2 284th Brigade who were familiar with the area. They were tasked with
3 collecting men in the area of Draca and they were to return on that
4 evening and try to pull out the rest of the column. We headed from Drc
5 in the Losa [phoen] village" --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear at what time.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Were you in this section of the column, and do you recognise any
9 of what is being described here as having happened there?
10 A. I really cannot comment on this individual's statement. I don't
11 think things happened this way. I don't think this has been
12 realistically described. People were being caught and killed as animals
13 on the way. Had things proceeded this way, then everything would have
14 been fine. I don't know what his intention is in making these comments.
15 I know that there was no army out in the field that was able to protect
16 individuals. Individuals were being taken prisoner in large numbers,
17 1.000, 2.000, and they were taken away and shot until one by one all of
18 them were exterminated.
19 Q. You say now they were killed; you didn't say that at the time.
20 At any rate, let me show you something else.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at page 13 of this
22 statement, will which will be line 10 from the bottom. That's line 54
23 from the top. In English that's page 16, line 26.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Where, in line 53, Mr. Becirovic says:
1 "Sometime at 1200 hours on the 15th of July, 1995." It's in the
2 middle of the page in English, you can see it. Do you see the bit where
3 it says "15 July"?
4 A. Yes, yes, I can see that.
5 Q. "I received information that the commander of the 284th Brigade
6 and battalion commander Ejub Golic had been wounded, and I was told that
7 they doubted that Golic would survive. We made a line opposite
8 Baljkovica, and the main body of our section of the column also set off
9 later on. That evening we started fighting in order to break through
10 toward the free territory. In the fighting, we destroyed three
11 self-propelled guns. We captured three tanks. We destroyed a tank in
12 the morning as it was moving toward Baljkovica. We destroyed two trucks
13 and a Praga, capturing one. After night fall, we stopped fighting in
14 order to resume in the morning. Since we could only engage one tank in
15 the fighting, as we were moving along, we set fire to the fuel tanks
16 because there was no other way for us to destroy them. Simultaneously
17 with our attack, an attack was launched from the direction of free
18 territory, which was" - and here we have to turn to the next page - "led
19 by commander Naser Oric. But they were unable to break through the
20 Chetnik defence line on that day. That morning, they launched yet
21 another attack from the direction of Nezuk and acting in co-ordination
22 with our forces succeeded in linking up at around 1200 hours when I met
23 Naser. Our forces were crossing over that line, pulling out over a
24 period of several days in small groups," et cetera, end of quote.
25 As you got out to Nezuk, did you hear anything of the
1 breakthrough at Baljkovica where you were captured?
2 A. Well, you seem to be insisting on questions I cannot help you
3 with at all. I can tell Their Honours what it was that I personally
4 experienced. This isn't something I can comment on. You are probably
5 better placed to comment on it than I am. I don't think it useful for me
6 to tell you what it was that I heard from others. It's not pertinent to
7 my answer. I can't give you an answer. I really don't know if things
8 happened this way or not.
9 Q. Can you tell us, was this something that could be described as a
10 passage or as a breakthrough?
11 A. I'm no expert on this score. I'm just an ordinary individual. I
12 can call it passage or breakthrough, regardless. It's up to you to use
13 the term you deem useful. I know that people passed through that area.
14 We all do. Now, if they crossed the territory in the way described here
15 or not, I don't know. I spent every minute of my life there trying to
16 stay alive.
17 Q. Thank you. We'll be now watching a video of this passage, as you
18 call it. Since you weren't there, let's look at this together. That's
19 why I asked you if you had heard anything about it from anyone. This is
20 D15. The column coming out of the VRS-controlled territory into Nezuk.
21 This is the part of the story just referred to by Mr. Becirovic, where he
22 and Mr. Oric fought their way across the VRS defence lines.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. We were able to see this part of the footage featuring men coming
2 out toward Nezuk. Can you tell if these individuals are wearing uniforms
3 and weapons?
4 A. Are you referring to this footage here? Well, yes, I can see it
5 full well. I can see that they do have uniforms, weapons, everything.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps you can see it for a few
7 more seconds.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please have
12 D176 next.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. While we are waiting for it, I can tell you that it's an ABiH
15 document. It's 2nd Corps of the 27th of July, 1995. The title is
16 "Chronology of Events Surrounding the Breakthrough by the 28th Division."
17 Personally to commander Rasim Delic. We have a full chronology of the
18 events in question.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 3, please.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The seventh and eighth bullet point, I quote:
22 "From the 21st and the 25th Division of the land forces, one
23 company from each was sent to Srebrenica to be engaged in fighting there.
24 Following the orders of the 2nd Corps," the number of which we can see
25 here, "of the 9th of July, 1995."
1 The next bullet point:
2 "Order by the 25th division of the land army for all units to be
3 ready to be engaged in the breakthrough towards Srebrenica."
4 These are all orders issued on the 9th. And then we see those of
5 the 10th of July, 1995, since this is a chronological sequence.
6 My question is this: Did you have any knowledge of three land
7 army divisions of the 2nd Corps taking part in the breakthrough in order
8 to establish a corridor at Baljkovica?
9 A. I don't think they were there. And I'm quite upset for them not
10 being there. They should have helped the people. You indicated here
11 that some people did manage to pull through and you probably think that
12 they too should have been killed. Had things been done properly, they
13 should have provided people to assist those coming out. And I'm quite
14 upset with the whole situation. I believe the people in question were
15 betrayed by all.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we go to page 5 of the
18 document. Paragraph 11. Actually, bullet point 11, which is the third
19 from the bottom. You can see it. The second from the bottom.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. It reads:
22 "At 4.30 on the 16th of July, offensive operations of joint units
23 of the 24th Division and the aforementioned units of the 2nd Corps began
24 in the wider area of Baljkovica. During the afternoon, the aggressor
25 lines were broken through along a perimeter of 2 kilometres. In the
1 general area of Baljkovica, a corridor was set up."
2 And they provide the exact location of the corridor in the
4 My question for you is this: Was there indeed a breakthrough or
5 a passage of military conscripts from Nezuk across RS territory?
6 A. I don't know. I see this for the first time, and I'm really not
7 familiar with it.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we go to page 6 of the
9 document next. The first paragraph on that page. We can see it now. We
10 will find it in the English, I believe, as well. The next page in the
11 English, please. I apologise. It seems we have to go a page back
12 because what I'm look for is at the bottom of the previous page in the
13 English. This is it.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. It says here:
16 "During combat operations, units of the 28th Division and the
17 24th Division of the land forces, the aggressor suffered significant
18 losses. Twenty bodies of enemy soldiers remained behind in our
19 territory. And according to enemy reports intercepted by the PEB, they
20 took 30 bodies back to the hospital in Zvornik. Six enemy soldiers were
21 captured and a self-propelled gun as well as a tank, which were
22 immediately introduced in combat against the aggressor. Another
23 self-propelled gun and an ammunition depot were set on fire in the
24 village of Baljkovici."
25 During the passage or the breakthrough, should one expect that
1 there are going to be victims exceeding by far the number specified by
2 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. It is not up to me to comment. But since you insist, I'll tell
4 you this: If you walk down the street and come under an attack, are you
5 supposed to not to defend yourself or, if you do, are you automatically
6 to blame for anything? If you are alive walking down the street, it's
7 normal that you will react. At least you would run. If these people
8 were attacked, of course they had to defend themselves. And in the
9 course of doing so, there may have been some casualties, some victims. I
10 don't know the rest.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we are listening very carefully and
12 we have to note that you are reading long passages of several documents.
13 Most of the answers of the witness were "I don't know," "I have no
14 knowledge about that," "I can't testify about this," "I see this for the
15 first time." The way you are conducting your cross-examination is
16 extremely time consuming and I form the impression that you can't get a
17 statement from the witness in relation to the contents of such a
18 document. He made it clear that he is not the right person to do that.
19 Again you should please consider if this is in your case a good conduct
20 of your cross-examination. It's very time consuming.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for this
22 caution. Could we please have 1D609. Thank you. Thank you. This is a
23 manual on the Laws of War for the armed forces. Could we please go to
24 page 3. Thank you.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. We see paragraph 56, where it says:
2 "Civilians within a military target. Geneva Convention which
3 states: A military target remains a military target even when civilians
4 are found within its confines. Civilians within such a target or in its
5 immediate environment are exposed to the same danger that the target is
6 threatened with."
7 If some civilians were part of -- if some soldiers were part of
8 the column, did they expose the civilians within the column to the same
9 danger the soldiers were in?
10 A. Well, do you believe that those people who went to Potocari and
11 surrendered stayed alive? Do you have any information about that?
12 Q. Well, I can't answer your questions. I'm asking you to answer
13 mine. If there are civilians inside a military column, are they also
14 considered a military target exposed to the same kind of danger?
15 A. I don't know. I can't comment. I really don't know what you
16 mean when you say a military target. We're talking about people who are
17 trying to save their lives, to stay alive.
18 Q. Since you were at the starting point from which the column set
19 off, can you tell us whether on the 11th in the evening there were people
20 gathering in the place where you lived, people from surrounding villages?
21 A. Yes, it is correct.
22 Q. Did you spend the night there?
23 A. Most of the night.
24 Q. The UNPROFOR unit which you mentioned that had been there the
25 previous day, some 3- or 500 metres away, did they remain there as well?
1 A. No, I think they left that evening. They went back to the
2 UNPROFOR base in Potocari.
3 Q. Can you tell us whether anyone from UNPROFOR arrived in your
4 village during the night between the 10th and the 11th, and did you have
5 any contact with the representatives of either the army or civilian
7 A. I didn't see any.
8 Q. Did you know that General Mladic offered a cease-fire which was
9 to last until 9.00 a.m. the next day and that he told those
10 representatives negotiating with him to inform the armed forces to lay
11 down their weapons? Was this conveyed to you?
12 A. I didn't hear any such thing and I didn't feel that there was any
13 cease-fire. There was firing going on non-stop as well as shelling.
14 Q. I wanted to show you a footage indicating that, but my Legal
15 Assistant is telling me that it is actually time for a break.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is indeed the case. Just for the record,
17 the last document we have on the screen, it's now D180 MFI pending
18 translation. It's the same at 1D609.
19 We must have our first break now and resume quarter past 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please carry on your
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.
1 MS. HASAN: Just one matter very briefly. The last document that
2 was displayed on the screen, D00180, that's the exhibit number. And that
3 exhibit was MFI'd through Edward Joseph. And there -- the page that was
4 displayed to this witness had some handwritten markings on it, and for
5 the record it may be useful to know who made those hand markings on the
6 document and in what context they were made.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
8 Mr. Gajic.
9 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon to everyone.
10 Mr. President, the markings do not represent anything
11 significant. We weren't the ones to have made them. It's the ICRC that
12 authored the document, and evidently it was the previous holder of the
13 document who underlined certain points and only wrote "that" in English.
14 And this isn't something that could serve as any additional information
15 to anyone including the witness. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get
16 hold of a clean copy of the book that would have been in immaculate
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I saw in the transcript and I heard
19 that this person "only wrote 'that' in English," but I don't think that
20 this is English what we are looking at on the screen.
21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think I
22 mentioned the English language anywhere. What is written next to the
23 three paragraph reads "Ovo" in B/C/S, or, translated into English,
25 THE INTERPRETER: Or "this."
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That clarifies the
2 situation. It was a translation issue.
3 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. My last question for the witness was whether anyone came in the
7 evening to tell them what sort of message Mladic wanted to convey, and
8 the answer to the -- that the witness gave was in the negative. We have
9 our footage now from 1:40 to 1:48:50 which will show that he did ask that
10 such a message be passed on at every single meeting. Thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is the number of the document?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the video. It's 1:47:50 to
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The video should have a P or D number as well.
15 Mr. Gajic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's P1008. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's P991. I was
19 wrong about the number. Thank you.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. This is my question: Was this message by General Mladic given to
24 the army or to you, that once weapons are surrendered, everyone can go to
25 the place of their choosing?
1 A. I was watching this footage, but I don't know about what you're
2 saying. Was this really something that he said. It would have been good
3 had he honoured what was said. I did see those women and children at
5 Q. Can we see all those present at this meeting? These were
6 negotiations between General Mladic and Colonel Karremans and
7 representatives of the Muslim authority, Nesib Mandzic. You'll have a
8 look and see if you can recognise them.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
11 You were able to see these individuals representing the civilians
12 introduce themselves at this meeting with General Mladic. You can see
13 Colonel Karremans there marked by the cursor opposite Mr. Mladic. Thank
15 I'd like to move on to document P1174. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were showing a part of the video
17 and -- but you didn't put any question in relation to that video to the
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I asked
20 the witness before looking at the footage whether soldiers were conveyed
21 General Mladic's request that the message be conveyed to everyone that
22 they can all go to the place of their choosing. I can repeat the
23 question and the witness can answer.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: My question is: What was the purpose of showing
25 this video if you'll not put a question to that?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President, I first
2 put the question and then I showed the relevant footage to the witness
3 to -- in order for him to see that General Mladic did raise this issue.
4 If you so wish, we can go through the process again.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I don't wish anything. I just wanted to help
6 you. If you put this video to the witness, it must have a purpose. Now
7 he has seen it, and what for? What was it for? First you put a
8 question, you received an answer, and then you put the video to him.
9 It's not necessary to continue on that. I just wanted to help you to
10 conduct your cross-examination in a proper way. Go ahead, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I can
12 put the question to the witness again. Evidently it wasn't entered in
13 the transcript.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Did any of the members of the leadership tell you that those who
16 surrender weapons can go wherever they want to, that this was the
17 position expressed by General Mladic at the meeting with the Muslim
18 delegation led by Nesib Mandzic? Thank you.
19 A. I hadn't heard of anything of the sort. I hadn't heard of any of
20 these individuals before. I may have seen the man somewhere before, but
21 I don't know the lady. I don't know what to tell you.
22 Q. Thank you for your answer. We have your statement before us. A
23 moment ago you said that we should discuss losses. Let's go through your
24 statement briefly in the little time we have left. Let's look at --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Let's look at line 18 of the second paragraph. We have the
4 relevant page on our screens in both languages, and I'll be quoting your
5 words. Let's start from line 18:
6 "At a time when we were forming a column as we were preparing to
7 leave in the evening at around 2100 hours, a heavy fire was opened from
8 Sandici targeting the gathered civilians. From the Praga's,
9 three-barrelled cannons, anti-aircraft machine-guns, and anti-aircraft
10 cannons and Bofors; while from the opposite direction, that is, the areas
11 of Kravica and Rogac, we were targeted by a tank. The attack lasted a
12 full 30 minutes. As I was lying in the ferns, I heard helpless cries and
13 screams of people who were calling for help amid general panic. As I got
14 up, I saw around me hundreds of dead mutilated bodies as well as
15 individuals who were seriously or slightly wounded."
16 Can you tell us how many people were killed in this location, how
17 many were wounded, et cetera? You can say whatever you wish to say. You
18 wanted to speak about the losses.
19 A. That's right. A moment ago it was this very incident that I was
20 referring to. It says here we were lining up. Well, it doesn't really
21 matter if we were lining up or if we were resting. At any rate, there
22 was a large gathering of people there and there ensued an attack. It
23 happened just the way it was described here. It lasted 30 minutes, but
24 it was a very fierce attack which continued, though admittedly not as
25 heavy as it was before.
1 Q. Can you tell us how many people were affected by this? What were
2 the losses, if you can tell us?
3 A. There were many casualties. But since it was night-time and in a
4 forested area, it was difficult to tell. At any rate, the number of
5 those wounded and killed was high.
6 Q. Can you tell us if the fire had been opened from an area close by
7 or from further off? What was the distance?
8 A. Well, the shells continued to land and tanks continued firing.
9 The locations involved were the ones that I mentioned. There was also
10 small-arms fire which was probably from closer range. But I don't know
11 what else to tell you about it.
12 Q. Thank you. Since you've just described this for us, can you tell
13 us if this same event was described by another witness, and I'll read to
14 you what he had to say and you'll tell us what the exact location and
15 other parameters were. The witness says:
16 "We went toward Bobojanske [phoen] Stijene where we linked up
17 with elements of the first group. However, we were surrounded by the
18 Chetniks who opened fire on us. As a result there were over 300 killed
19 and many wounded. We were in complete disarray because both soldiers and
20 civilians fled for their lives. I, together with a group of some ten
21 others," and he is referring to names which I won't mention, "went on my
23 So can you tell us, is this the same location that you were
24 referring to?
25 A. Well, to comment on other people's --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Stop. Please wait a moment with your answer.
2 First no overlap, please.
3 And secondly, I would like to know what is your reference for
4 this quotation. I would like to know from what document you were
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I was reading from a
7 statement of a protected witness. That was the reason why I didn't want
8 to mention his particulars. It's D151, page 2, paragraph 3. So can we
9 please not broadcast page 1 in order to conceal the identity of the
10 witness. We can only -- we can turn to page 2 and paragraph 3 right
11 away, and you'll see that it was from line 4 through to the end of the
12 paragraph that I quoted from.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 And now, if you recall the question, sir, please answer the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not certain whether I can
17 comment on somebody else's statement. I don't know whether he saw
18 300 people or not. I saw a lot of people. I believe there must have
19 been firing and that they are surrounded. There was shooting all over
20 the place but that's all I know. As for whether he continued with other
21 ten people, that is something I don't know. It's somebody else's
22 statement. I already told you what I know, and this is what I stand by.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, I asked you for an approximate number, and you didn't.
25 That is why I offered the statement of another person who also mentions a
1 figure. On page 2 you say that you returned to the spot.
2 Let's look at the second page, paragraph 1, line 5. This is your
3 statement. Let's look at other page. It is P1774.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, P1174.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: P1174.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. It is the statement we
7 have on the screen. Could we have the next page, please.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I need a clarification. Is it P1174?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, P1174. The second page, if
10 possible. Thank you.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. We see it here, the fifth line on that page. You say the
14 "Passing along that axis, again I saw many massacred bodies. I
15 couldn't recognise them. I also heard cries of many wounded people
16 asking for help."
17 That is why I asked you that, since you seemed to have visited
18 the location twice. A moment ago you said that you were looking for
19 someone. Since you were doing that, could you guess at the number of
20 those killed?
21 A. I couldn't see. It was a large number of people and it was dark.
22 I can only presume but I don't think it constitutes evidence. As for the
23 part you are referring to, it wasn't at 9.00, because in your first
24 question you asked me about 9.00, but this was probably at around 12.00
25 or 2.00 or 3.00. It is correct that I left the location and then went
1 back. Throughout that time, there was a lot of firing and people kept
2 dying and trying to move along. You just couldn't stay in a single place
3 otherwise you would get killed. So you could go forward some 500 metres
4 and go back. And in that stretch you could see how many there were who
5 were killed. And I could see what was going on around me. But as for
6 the entire area, it was impossible to see it all. The whole thing went
7 on the whole night. The next day I saw from a nearby hill that around
8 1.000 people were taken away from that place to Kravica, to the warehouse
9 where they were killed, including my father.
10 Q. From the location where you were, could you see the warehouse in
12 A. Yes, I could see it.
13 Q. Did you see the column heading that way?
14 A. It wasn't there. I didn't see it. I saw the column leaving the
15 location in the direction of Kravica which was the next day on the
16 13th around 9.00 or 10.00 a.m.
17 Q. Did you discuss that in your statement?
18 A. I don't know. Perhaps only very briefly. I don't remember the
19 investigators insisting on it because I wasn't personally involved and
20 they weren't too interested in knowing about that.
21 Q. On the first page you said hundreds of those who were killed.
22 That's why I quoted another witness who mentioned 300. When you say
23 "hundreds of those killed," do you mean more than 200? Because the
24 Chamber needs facts.
25 A. I think several hundred.
1 Q. But can you tell us 2-, 3-, 400?
2 A. Well, anything I say might be incorrect.
3 Q. Thank you. That is why I put the other witness's statement to
4 you, trying to get at some facts. Let us go back to your statement at
5 this page. Let's look at line 12. There you say:
6 "Going down towards the village of Kamenica at a pass we
7 encountered a Chetnik ambush. Some 20 to 30 men were killed on that
9 That is what you say in line 14. Now, you also say that you
10 didn't know them. Tell us this, please: Were those men killed as you
11 came along or had they been killed prior to you arriving there?
12 A. They were killed at the moment I approached the area. We carried
13 a wounded person, my brother-in-law and I, and fire was opened some
14 20 metres ahead of us. I think it was from a machine-gun. All those who
15 were there ahead of us were killed basically and I think at least 20 of
17 Q. Was it close to a graveyard or a cemetery in Kamenica? Because
18 some other witnesses describe similar events.
19 A. It wasn't too far from the graveyard but not at the graveyard
20 itself. Say, some 200 metres away.
21 Q. Thank you. Let's go to line 22. There you say:
22 "Late in the evening on the 12th of July, 1995, passing by the
23 local cemetery in Kamenica, we saw about 20 [as interpreted] dead men who
24 had probably been killed because they came upon a mine in a minefield.
25 En route from Kamenica to Konjevic Polje, we came upon many killed and
1 wounded people, but we were unable to assist them in any way. I believe
2 that along that stretch of the route there were around
3 250 [as interpreted] civilians who were killed or wounded, and I don't
4 know what their names were."
5 The first group of 20 to 30 men at Kamenica, can you tell us
6 whether they were killed in a different location to the other group?
7 A. I think I described that correctly. After the group of 20 was
8 killed, I went to the left some 100 metres. I tried to bypass that area
9 because I concluded there must have been an ambush. I arrived at the
10 graveyard you mentioned. As for the mines, I mentioned that because in
11 front of us, some 20, 30, or 50 metres ahead, I saw two or three or
12 several people who were moving ahead of us. It was dark, and I saw that
13 mines detonated in different locations in three or four places, which was
14 an indication to me that these must have been mines connected with each
15 other. That is why I mentioned land-mines. Continuing some 2 or
16 3 kilometres further, I saw the people I described. You could simply
17 come upon people who were killed or wounded. The whole route was shelled
18 and fired at.
19 Q. Thank you. Let's look at lines 33 to 36.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.
21 MS. HASAN: Just so that the record accurately reflects what's in
22 the statement, the statement provides that "there were close to 150 dead
23 and seriously wounded civilians." Where I think the transcript says 250.
24 Well, in the question that General Tolimir put to the witness, I believe
25 he put to the witness that there were 250.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is page 42, line 9. There's a number "around
2 250 civilians were killed" mentioned. Thank you.
3 Would you agree with that, Mr. Tolimir?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I think I said 150. I
5 don't know how it was interpreted. I was reading the statement of the
6 witness. I probably didn't say 250 if it says 150.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have it clear on the record. Please
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Let's go to line 37 where you say the following:
12 "As we were resting in the woods nearby" -- sorry, line 34. My
14 "While we rested waiting for nightfall, I watched one of the
15 wounded whom I didn't know activate a hand-grenade called 'kasikara' and
16 press it to his chest. He died instantly."
17 Does this tell us anything about the people who committed suicide
18 because they were under the influence of something? And I believe you
19 also said that some of them withdrew chaotically.
20 A. That is correct. I could see that. It was on the 13th in the
21 morning. It was en route between Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba. It
22 wasn't exactly on the road itself but a bit further away. I don't think
23 there was anything wrong with him mentally, but he realised that he was
24 seriously wounded and that there was no one who could help him. There
25 was no one there to bandage him or carry him. That's why he chose to
1 kill himself. I mentioned only one such case. I didn't say that all of
2 them killed themselves, but it sounds logical to me that if that person
3 was wounded and couldn't move on, he chose to kill himself. Here I
4 simply referred to the one person I saw do that.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we next have page 3. Page 3,
7 please, the first paragraph, line 11.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. There you seem to already have reached the region of Baljkovica.
10 You say:
11 "We reached Baljkovica on the 18th of July, 1995, in the morning.
12 We remained there throughout the day."
13 My question is this: In Baljkovica, did you enter any area of
14 defence of a particular VRS unit or were you in an area which was not
15 defended by any unit of the VRS?
16 A. I think we were in the large area which the VRS could not or was
17 not able to cover. I simply didn't see them. Had I seen them, it
18 probably would have been the end for me. I don't know exactly because
19 I'm not familiar with the terrain there. I simply put this in the
20 context of a general area surrounding Baljkovica, but I don't know how
21 large that chunk is exactly.
22 Q. Thank you. If this was outside the combat area, how were you
23 captured then?
24 A. We weren't captured on the 18th. We were captured on the 19th.
25 Q. Thank you. Was it also in the area of Baljkovica?
1 A. I think so. But I believe we have come too close to the
2 separation line. I think it was closer at that point.
3 Q. Does it tell you then that it was close to the front lines of
4 both sides?
5 A. Well, one can't say that you were closer to the front lines of
6 both sides if we were coming from one side, so probably not.
7 Q. I'm thinking about your location. If you were close to the
8 separation line, it must mean that you were close to the lines manned by
9 the VRS.
10 A. I don't think they were close. One could see it from a hill, but
11 it wasn't close.
12 Q. Thank you. Later you say that having survived the execution,
13 which is on page 5, that at around 300 hours on the 20th of July, 1995,
14 you crossed over to the free territory. This is found in lines 6 and 7
15 of your statement on the last, fifth page. Do you recall that?
16 A. I don't think it was 3.00. It must have been 6.00 or 7.00 in the
17 morning. That is when I reached the free territory. If you mean that at
18 3.00 I had crossed the Serb lines, then that is possible.
19 Q. Well, you say so. You say that you got through the lines around
20 3.00. Do you see your statement? It says here:
21 "After a short rest, I managed to get through the Chetnik defence
22 line. And around 300 hours on the 20th of July, 1995, I crossed to the
23 free territory in the area of Nezuk."
24 Is this your statement?
25 A. The statement certainly is mine. Yes, around 3.00. But between
1 the lines there was still an area which had to be crossed. That is why I
2 say that I arrived in Nezuk at around 6.00 or 7.00 in the morning. This
3 tallies. At 3.00 in the morning I crossed the Serb defence line.
4 Q. Thank you. In your statement provided to the Prosecution, which
5 is 1D674, on the last page you said that you arrived at around 6.00 or
6 7.00. You arrived in the free territory, not in Nezuk. That was on
7 July 20 at around 6.00 or 7.00. Is this the difference you're
8 mentioning, and is this the reason why there is that difference between
9 the statements?
10 A. No, it tallies completely. As far as I know, Nezuk was by --
11 some 500 metres from the separation line at the most. When I crossed
12 into the free territory, Nezuk was there, so I don't think it took me any
13 longer to reach Nezuk eventually. The rest is completely all right.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for coming here and
16 testifying. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Defence, and I wish
17 you a safe journey back. May God bless you.
18 Mr. President, Defence has no further questions of this witness.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Nevertheless, I would like
20 to clarify the number of the last document you have mentioned in page 46,
21 line 10. You said 1D674, the statement to the OTP of this witness. The
22 statement was P1174. Or are you referring to another document? I would
23 like to clarify that for the record.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Precisely. First I referred to P1174 while putting questions to the
1 witness, then I moved on to the other statement he gave to OTP
2 investigators. The first statement was provided to the authorities of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The second one is 1D674, the statement given to the
4 OTP. I would like to ask that both be tendered into evidence if
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The first one is already an exhibit, and the
7 second one I don't find in the list of documents to be used with this
9 Mr. Gajic.
10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the statement is 1D614
11 instead of 674. May this be corrected, please.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.
13 MS. HASAN: In relation to that document which General Tolimir
14 referred to, he made a reference to the last page. And I don't quite see
15 the statement that he referred to. If he can just give us a little bit
16 more direction as to where that is, that would be helpful.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We haven't had it on the screen at all.
18 MS. HASAN: That's correct. I'm just ensuring that what was
19 referenced from the witness's statement was in fact derived from it.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful. Although you completed your
21 cross-examination, we should have it on the screen and to familiarise
22 ourselves with this document.
23 MS. HASAN: And if it may not be broadcast, as it identifies the
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. It will not be broadcast. We should
1 have 1D614 on the screen. That is coming.
2 Sir, do you recall having seen this and signed this document?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did see it, and I did sign it.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we go to the last page. I think the
5 previous page.
6 Mr. Tolimir, which paragraph was the relevant paragraph you were
7 referring to?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. The
9 relevant portion was paragraph 3, the last three lines:
10 "This happened on Baljkovica mount overlooking Nezuk. I managed
11 to get on my feet, and I arrived the next day on 20 July between 6.00 and
12 7.00 in the morning on the free territory."
13 Let me highlight for the record that this statement was referred
14 to yesterday when we spoke about those two soldiers who arrived to pass
15 information to the civilian population in the presence of the witness.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, do you want to comment on that again, this
17 part of your statement to the OTP?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I did say that things
19 happened the way they are described herein, that it was between 6.00 and
20 7.00 in the morning that I arrived onto free territory. I crossed the
21 Republika Srpska defence line sometime around 3.00 in the morning.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
23 This document 1D614 will be received as an exhibit.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D181 under seal, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 Ms. Hasan, do you have re-examination?
2 MS. HASAN: I have no questions on re-examination, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
4 Sir, you will be pleased to hear that this concludes your
5 testimony here in this trial. Thank you very much that you were able to
6 come to The Hague and to testify here and to help us to consider the
7 facts and find out the truth. Thank you very much again, and now you are
8 free to return to your normal activities. And the Court Usher will
9 assist you. Thank you again.
10 We turn for a short moment into closed session.
11 [Closed session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could the usher please open the screens.
24 Good afternoon, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon to you, Mr. President. Good
1 afternoon to you, Your Honour Judge Nyambe. Good afternoon, everyone.
2 There is a matter that we need to dispose of before the -- well,
3 before the next witness is brought in, and that refers to her report from
4 January 2010. This was the subject of a 94 bis application of the
5 Prosecution some time ago. And I raised this matter with Mr. Gajic a few
6 weeks ago in anticipation of her evidence. And I also was in contact
7 with the Chambers with respect to the disposition of this issue and was
8 instructed that an oral application to add the application would be
10 With that in mind, Mr. President, I do move to add Dr. Barr's, I
11 believe it's 8 January 2010 report. And let me see if I have a number to
12 identify it for you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is 65 ter 7212.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. Thank you very much,
15 Mr. President. It is 8 January 2010.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But that not the only document you have listed
17 which are not yet on the 65 ter exhibit list.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is correct. There are the photographs that
19 actually are part of that report, part of the analysis that was
20 conducted, that came to my attention when I spoke to Dr. Barr, I think it
21 was on the 1st of March, and she provided those photographs to us. I
22 disclosed them, obviously, to Mr. Gajic in anticipation of the report.
23 So it's part of it because they are specifically referenced as part of
24 the microscopic examination of the document she considered, but they
25 weren't appended to the report so to speak. So I would also offer that
1 in, together with the report. It's 7212A 65 ter.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And what about the three other reports,
3 65 ter 2858, 2859, and 2860?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. I believe that those
5 reports were a part of the application that we made in November 2009
6 which was decided by the Trial Chamber and the decision which covered
7 92 bis and 94 bis applications, because Dr. Barr was one of the witnesses
8 that the Prosecution proposed on both the basis of 92 bis and also
9 tendered 94 bis reports for her. And I believe that decision actually
10 disposed of all of the applications with respect to experts that also
11 fell under 92 -- fell under 92 bis as well as 94 bis. And the resolution
12 of it, I believe, was to admit them but to have the expert appear for
13 cross-examination. That's my best recollection of it. And I believe
14 that Dr. Barr was specifically referenced in that as witness number 9, as
15 opposed to Dr. Brunborg who was also the subject of that same issue, who
16 was witness number 15.
17 So I think that they are provisionally admitted. If I'm
18 mistaken, then I would obviously make that motion. But I believe that's
19 the case.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't think that this is the case otherwise you
21 would have used the P numbers. But on the other hand, these three are,
22 in my understanding, not yet on the 65 ter be exhibit list.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I understand that they actually
24 are on the 65 ter exhibit list. I suppose, rather than belabour the
25 issue, I can probably sort this out at some point during the break. I do
1 intend to use them though, I have to say, with Dr. Barr, but I would
2 propose perhaps using them in a somewhat limited way until we resolve the
3 issue definitively so that we can perhaps proceed with her testimony.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
5 What is the position of the Defence?
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just as Mr. Vanderpuye
7 said, we were in contact with the OTP and with Court Officers in relation
8 to the report by Dr. Barr. If I remember correctly, they were the
9 subject of two 94 bis filings which are still outstanding. The documents
10 were disclosed in a timely fashion in the period indicated by the
11 Prosecution, and the Defence also filed its response under 94 bis. In
12 that response, the Defence expressed its wish to cross-examine the
13 witness on the contents of these reports.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is the reason why the witness is here. And
15 the Defence has, of course, the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
16 I don't see an objection to add these documents to the 65 ter exhibit
17 list. That seems to be the case.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Leave to add these documents to the 65 ter
20 exhibit list is granted.
21 If there are no other matters to discuss before the witness
22 enters the courtroom, then the witness should be brought in, please.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Ms. Barr. Welcome to the
1 courtroom. Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card which
2 is shown to you now.
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye has some questions for you during his
8 Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you again, Mr. President, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: KATHRYN BARR
11 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
12 Q. And good afternoon to you, Dr. Barr. Because you and I speak the
13 same language, I'm going to ask you to try to speak a little more slowly
14 than you would otherwise to give the interpreters an opportunity to catch
15 up with us and translate accurately what we say.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in particular, please pause between question
17 and answer.
18 THE WITNESS: I'll try.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. Dr. Barr, do you recall having testified in the case of
21 Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic on the 25th and 26th of June, 2007?
22 A. I do, yes.
23 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the entirety of that
24 testimony before coming to court today?
25 A. I have, yes.
1 Q. And having reviewed your testimony, does it fairly and accurately
2 reflect what you would say were you to be examined here today and asked
3 the same questions?
4 A. Yes, it does.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would move to admit Dr. Barr's
6 prior testimony, which is P1182, which is the under seal version, and
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both the documents will be received as exhibits
9 with these numbers, the first one under seal.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: In addition, Mr. President, I would move to
11 admit the associated exhibits that were admitted through Dr. Barr in her
12 prior testimony and that would be all of the exhibits listed under the
13 second category with the exception of P1124.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I saw you on your feet.
15 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] It's all right. I saw something that
16 I misunderstood. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The documents P1184 through P1192 with the
18 exception of P1124 will be received as exhibits. I think P1124 is
19 already an exhibit. Please go ahead.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a brief
21 summary of Dr. Barr's prior testimony which I'd like to read into the
22 record. And then I have a number of questions for her.
23 Dr. Barr is a professional forensic document examiner. She holds
24 a Ph.D. in plant pathology which she obtained in 1992 and is --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down while reading, thank you.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: And is a member of the council for the
2 registration of forensic practitioners, an accredited agency. She has
3 since worked in forensic document analysis, carrying out handwriting
4 signature comparisons as well as other analyses. First for the
5 Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, where she remained until
6 1999. And thereafter for a private firm, Forensic Document
7 Analysis Limited.
8 Throughout her career, Dr. Barr has performed many thousands of
9 handwriting comparisons related to various issues, including confessions,
10 mortgages, wills, and other legal documents, as well as fraud-related
11 matters. She analyses signatures as a means of identification, as well
12 as groups of documents (so as to identify documents produced by one
13 person). Forensic examiners also typically conduct examinations relating
14 to typewriters, printers, counterfeit documents, indented impressions,
15 alterations, and obliterations. Dr. Barr has given evidence in court
16 concerning her work on approximately 50 occasions as well as before this
18 During her testimony, Dr. Barr explained the process of
19 handwriting analysis and the role of a forensic handwriting expert in
20 determining the extent and the manner in which similarities or
21 differences presented in discrete writings can be of significance. She
22 explained the conclusions reached with respect to these analyses are
23 expressed in terms of a range of opinion from conclusive evidence either
24 showing identity or excluding identity, with inconclusive evidence
25 representing the middle point in the continuum. Per the practice of
1 Dr. Barr's firm, all conclusions are subject to a peer review process.
2 Dr. Barr testified about five reports she produced at the request
3 of the Office of the Prosecutor. These concern certain entries made in
4 the Zvornik Brigade duty operation's officer log-book and the brigade's
5 forward command post or IKM log-book. Dr. Barr was able to find strong
6 evidence of identity for entries made by several members of the
7 Zvornik Brigade. In particular, Dr. Barr concluded, inter alia, that
8 there was strong evidence that Zvornik Brigade chief of engineering,
9 Major Dragan Jokic, made several entries in the duty officer's log-book.
10 She elaborated upon this analysis in a subsequent report. Dr. Barr
11 further found that Zvornik Brigade chief of security, Drago Nikolic,
12 produced entries in the Zvornik Brigade IKM log-book as well as in the
13 duty officer log-book for 15 July 1995.
14 Dr. Barr noted that while she does not understand B/C/S, such an
15 understanding is not necessary to undertaking a handwriting comparison
16 involving the language, as the important analytical element is the manner
17 in which characters are constructed. As such, she has been able,
18 successfully, to analyse handwriting in B/C/S, as well as in other
19 languages using Roman language characters.
20 Mr. President, that concludes my brief summary. And I do have a
21 number of questions I'd like to put to the witness.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please carry on.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. Dr. Barr, are you still employed with Document Evidence Limited?
25 A. No. We sold the company to another forensic company in 2008.
1 Q. Are you currently engaged in the same kind of work --
2 A. I am, yes.
3 Q. -- that you were doing there.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And to date, how long have you been engaged in forensic document
7 A. Since 1992.
8 Q. Okay. Just about 19 years?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And in the context of your current work, does your firm employ
11 any new methodologies or protocols that is different now than it was at
12 the time that you last testified?
13 A. No. We do exactly the same, use exactly the same procedures.
14 Q. Does your firm now use equipment or instrumentation that is
15 different than it was when you last testified in 2007, and does that --
16 if so, does that affect any of the prior conclusions that you've reached?
17 A. No. We have exactly the same equipment that we had prior to
18 2007, and it wouldn't affect any of the opinions that I reached in those
19 earlier reports.
20 Q. Has there been any change in the way that the peer review process
21 or the review process in general takes place now than it did back then?
22 A. No, there hasn't been any changes.
23 Q. Now, I know that you've produced a number of reports since you
24 last testified, which I'd like to get into in some detail a little bit
25 further on, but I'd just like you to familiarise the Trial Chamber, if
1 you could, just with the fundamentals of forensic document analysis as
2 regards handwriting in particular.
3 A. In order to compare handwriting, the most important fact is the
4 word that it's a comparison. So what we would normally do is we have
5 writing that's in dispute or questioned and we have specimen writing that
6 we want compared with the questioned writing. In order to undertake that
7 comparison, we take a systematic process of going through all the letters
8 of the alphabet, A through to Z, and all the numbers, and determining how
9 the pen has moved across the paper to form the construction of those
10 characters, and also to work out the range of variation, because
11 obviously human beings aren't robots; they don't reproduce things in
12 exactly the same way every single time, but they conform to a range. So
13 we assess the range. And we also look at other factors of the
14 handwriting, for example, the quality, how fluently it's been written,
15 how characters are joined to other characters, the slant, the size, the
16 overall proportions, how high things ascend or descend below lines, to
17 get an overall feel for each letter. We do that for the specimen
18 writing, we do exactly the same thing for the questioned writing, and we
19 then compare the two to determine how those ranges overlap, if they do,
20 and the significance of any similarities or differences that we might
22 So, for example, a simple letter I is normally written just as a
23 vertical line, possibly with a dot above it. You would expect to find
24 similarities in two people's writings. It wouldn't necessarily be
25 significant because it's a very simple construction, so you have to be
1 able to assess the significance of any similarities or differences. For
2 example, some people might use different constructions depending where in
3 a word a letter was. So, again, you might see differences that wouldn't
4 necessarily be indicative of different writers.
5 Q. Let me ask, in terms of -- you used a number of terms which I'd
6 like for you to explain. But in terms of making these comparisons, is
7 there an objective means by which that is done? In other words, is that
8 independent of your experience or your judgement, or is that something
9 that's related necessarily to that?
10 A. The -- producing the descriptions, the constructions, to a
11 certain extent that is an objective process. The determining the
12 significance of the features is a subjective process depending on the
13 experience, because you need to be able to know how common or uncommon
14 something is to know whether its significant, a difference or a
15 similarity is significant.
16 Q. Now, you've mentioned, for example, the notion of a range, or
17 range of variation or variability, I guess, in an individual's writing.
18 How do you go about assessing that, for example? Is that something
19 that's derived from the specimen or is that something derived from the
20 actual sample that you're -- that you're looking at?
21 A. It's done from both. So you have to look at the range of
22 variation within specimen writing and the range of variation within the
23 questioned writing.
24 Q. Is there a certain norm within which one form of a writing, for
25 example, is acceptable as falling within a range or outside of a range?
1 Is there a certain number of characters, for example, that you look for
2 that have similarities or differences in order to make that
4 A. You're looking at what -- you're comparing what you've got. So
5 we don't have a set number of characters to look at. So we would look --
6 if we had sufficient writing, we would look at all the characters there,
7 determine the range for those characters, and then compare the characters
8 from one set of writing into the other to determine the similarities and
9 the differences.
10 Q. You also mention something called the "slant." And I'm quite a
11 layperson but does that relate to the angle, so to speak, that the
12 writing is taking place in?
13 A. It does. Some people have a very upright writing, some people
14 slant forwards, some people slant backwards, some people are more
15 variable. It's just one other aspect of a writing that we take into
16 account when we are doing our comparisons.
17 Q. And how are you able to distinguish the slant of a writing, for
18 example, from say, the angle of the paper that the person was writing on?
19 A. Because there'd still be a base-line that you would be comparing
20 the angle against.
21 Q. Okay. You mentioned the height of the writing, or I guess the
22 ascension, you said, and the amount or the distance that it travels
23 beneath a line, for example, of writing. And is that something that's --
24 well, that's something that you analyse clearly, but is that something
25 that's quantifiable? Is that something that you measure in making a
1 determination on the question of identity?
2 A. No, it's not a direct measure. It's just, again, another aspect
3 of somebody's writing that you're looking at. Some people might do very
4 large writing, some people do very small writing. Again, that's
5 something you're looking at because you would like, with sufficient
6 questioned specimen writing, to be able to match the two in their
7 totality, so you would need to assess all the features to be able to
8 determine that.
9 Q. You also mentioned a concept -- or the concept of fluency or
10 fluidity. Can you tell us what that means?
11 A. Fluency is related to the speed with which somebody can write.
12 And it's how you get smooth curves, variation in pen pressure, the way
13 the pen moves across the paper. Some people tend to be more skilled and
14 will write much more fluently. Then people who are less used to writing
15 tend to write more slowly.
16 Q. Now, the type of work that you've done, aside from the work that
17 you've done for the Office of the Prosecutor, does it involve or has it
18 involved, I should say, for example, forgery or issues concerning forged
19 documents, particularly signatures?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And are there particular features of signatures that can tell you
22 whether or not something is forged or attempted to have been forged or
24 A. Generally, when somebody has to forge a signature, they have to
25 make it look like the genuine signature because normally there is a
1 genuine signature available for comparison. And so there are two aspects
2 of the signature that have to match. The forger has to be able to get
3 the pictorial appearance right because that's what people are expecting
4 to see from that signature, but they also have to be able to get the
5 fluency with which the person writes the signature correct. And
6 generally we find that forgers can do one and not the other. So in an
7 attempt to make something match pictorially, to look the same, obviously
8 it's not their signature, they have to concentrate on the writing, that
9 act of concentrating on the writing will slow it to down, so the fluency
10 won't be as good.
11 By contrast, to go back, that tends to be what people would do in
12 forgeries. Most forgeries we see look like that. The other way is some
13 people will decide it's a very fluent signature, possibly without a great
14 deal of construction within it, and so they will attempt to produce
15 something that looks fluent and be less worried that the actual way the
16 pen has moved across the paper is the same between the two signatures.
17 Q. In reference to one of your reports, you refer to the notion of
18 pictorial similarity in evaluating signature and which you've just talked
19 about. You also mention something called pen lifts or unexpected pen
20 lifts. Can you tell us what that means or what that involves?
21 A. Again it goes back to the concept of having to reproduce somebody
22 else's signature. You have to really concentrate on it and often you
23 have to stop and think half way through the signature where you're going
24 to go to next to make it look similarly. So what we're talking about,
25 pen lifts, is where somebody lifts the pen at a different point to where
1 the genuine signature would -- signatory would lift their pen.
2 Q. You also made reference to guide-lines with respect to signature
3 analysis. Can you tell us what that means?
4 A. Again, depending on the circumstances in which the forgery is
5 going to occur, if people -- if it's not going to be done in front of
6 somebody, then there's an opportunity, possibly, to produce a guide-line
7 so you could try and trace or in some other way produce a guide that you
8 will then ink in, so you would be looking for guide-lines that somebody
9 had gone over in producing a forged signature.
10 Q. Is that something you can tell simply by examining the document
11 where the signature is in terms of maybe the pressure with which its
12 written or in terms of the consistency of the ink?
13 A. You would be looking for possibly pencil lines or indentations
14 associated with the signature.
15 Q. Now, in one of your reports you also refer to the term
16 asynchronous writing or synchronous writing. Can you tell us what that
17 means just conceptually?
18 A. I think that -- it isn't -- they're not terms that I would use.
19 I think I used them in reply to another expert's report. And I think the
20 concept in which he was using them is that synchronous writing is one
21 produced at one time, and asynchronous writing would be, for example,
22 entries on a sheet of paper -- a number of entries on a sheet of paper
23 that were produced at different times.
24 Q. And in your experience is it possible to determine the interval
25 of time between a writing that was made and then another writing that --
1 or asynchronous writing that follows it?
2 A. Not generally, no.
3 Q. Is there a difference between the idea of synchronous or
4 asynchronous writing and contemporaneity in writing that you can examine?
5 In other words, can you see the difference between writing that has been
6 deposited on a piece of paper a significant period of time after the
7 writing that you're examining? Or can you not tell the difference
8 between the two in terms of the time-frame?
9 A. I think it would depend. You would be looking at various
10 factors, for example, the use of different inks that could indicate
11 things were -- may indicate that things were entered at a different time,
12 not necessarily. You would also, I think, from the reading that I've
13 done and the research that has been done on being able to identify this,
14 I think what it boils down to is that you get much more consistency if
15 you write one block of, say, one A4 sheet all in one go. It will
16 visually have a much more consistent appearance than if you produce lots
17 of separate entries on that sheet of paper on different -- at different
19 The caveat with that would be is you would have to be able to
20 know how consistent that writer was anyway, so you would need to be
21 really certain that it -- of the difference between the two. You would
22 need to know how they would habitually write. So you would need to have
23 known samples of asynchronous writing and known samples of synchronous
24 writing to be able to see how they actually make a difference within it.
25 Q. To put it another way, is it possible to determine, based upon a
1 change, for example, within the range of variability of handwriting on a
2 page from one section of an entry to another, is it possible to
3 extrapolate from that how far apart these entries might have been made?
4 A. No, I don't think so. It could be that you wrote a bit and
5 somebody interrupted you, you took a phone call, you got up and
6 stretched, sat back down again, and then continued it. That gap could be
7 any length of time, and I don't think it would be possible to determine
8 how big a gap, whether that was minutes or hours or days.
9 Q. Would it be possible to make a determination as to when entries
10 are made on a given piece of paper by analysing the age of the ink, the
11 age of the ink relative to each writing?
12 A. It is possible if you have the same ink and the same piece of
13 paper stored under the same conditions. There are -- it's not something
14 that we would do. There are document examiners that do it to date but
15 under very defined conditions because generally inks are dated by how
16 they've dried, how the different components have changed over time. And
17 that, there's a great deal of variability on that depending on how a
18 document's been stored. Because obviously a document stored in sealed
19 conditions versus one that's stored in direct sunlight, they will age
21 Q. It is possible to make a determination as to the age of a given
22 writing within a certain range? For example, you could tell -- can you
23 tell the difference between writing that was made yesterday versus
24 writing that was made 15 years ago versus writing that was made 150 years
1 A. It is probably possible, depending on the inks that were used and
2 the variation, that you could do that.
3 Q. Would it be possible to make an analysis or determination as to
4 when or how old the ink is relative to a deposit of ink or different
5 deposits of ink that were within the same year, say 15 years ago or
6 20 years ago?
7 A. Within the same year, I doubt it, no.
8 Q. Just one moment.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I see that we've got two minutes
10 before the break or so. I think I'm going to go to a different area, so
11 I think now might be a good time to take it.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And before we break, I have to confess, you have
13 been right with the 65 ter exhibit list. The three reports, the
14 handwriting reports, 65 ter 2858, -59, and, -60 have already been on the
15 65 ter be exhibit list. I was told in the meantime. Please don't put
16 these reports twice, this list now.
17 We should have the next break now. And we will resume in half an
18 hour, a quarter past 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Dr. Barr, just before I call up the next exhibit, I wanted to ask
24 you: In terms of expressing the results that you've reached in your
25 reports, you used this scale, I think it's a 7-point scale, I wonder if
1 you could just explain that to the Trial Chamber, how these gradations
2 are made?
3 A. How they're made or what they mean?
4 Q. Both.
5 A. Both. Unfortunately, unlike certain areas of forensic science
6 where there is a good body of statistics to be able to express
7 statistically the strength of evidence, in handwriting there isn't,
8 mainly because of the difficulties in isolating characters often and the
9 interconnectivity of handwriting. So it isn't possible to come up with
10 numbers to be able to assign to our strength of opinion. So, in common
11 with all document examiners, we use a verbal scale. I think as you said
12 before, at the top of the scale we would say conclusive evidence, either
13 for or against, either the same person wrote it. Or conclusive evidence
14 that the two pieces of writing were written by different people. And we
15 would say that meant we could exclude the possibility of another person
16 being responsible.
17 Also in the middle, we have inconclusive, by which we can't tell
18 one way or the other who's produced the writing. Between those two, we
19 have two other points: Limited evidence; generally this means in fact
20 there are similarities such that the person could have produced that
21 writing, they are within pool of people that could have produced that
22 writing, but for whatever reason you couldn't be more certain. It could
23 be it was a very simple writing style with few distinctive features. It
24 could be that the questioned writing was quite small in amount so you
25 couldn't see all the characters. So while there were similarities, you
1 wouldn't be able to be any stronger.
2 And then between limited and conclusive we would have a scale of
3 strong evidence in which case in one way there were similarities, there
4 would be a lot of similarities, but it would just fall short of
5 certainty. And so we would say there was strong evidence that the person
6 had -- same people -- that person had written it and unlikely to be
7 anybody else. But, again, for whatever reason, it could be you didn't
8 have all the characters or there was a difference that you couldn't
9 explain, you couldn't -- it would fall short of certainty.
10 Q. Thank you very much for that explanation. And what I'd like to
11 show you is your report from 16 July 2003. And this relates to an
12 analysis you did concerning Dragan Jokic. Do you have a copy of that in
13 front of you?
14 A. I do, yes.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could have that in e-court, please. It's
17 Q. All right. Do you recognise it up here on this screen in front
18 of you?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Okay. What I'd like to do is to go to paragraph 5.3. That will
21 be on page -- it should be page 4 in the English in e-court. Great. I
22 think we have it also on the B/C/S. And in particular what I wanted to
23 do was to just refer you to this paragraph and go over some of the
24 findings that you've made.
25 In this analysis, you concluded that certain entries in the duty
1 officer's log-book appear to be those made by Dragan Jokic; is that
3 A. That's correct, yes.
4 Q. And you found in particular that it was strong evidence that the
5 entries had been made by him; is that right?
6 A. That's correct, yes.
7 Q. You also found that there was not conclusive evidence; is that
9 A. That's right, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And that is in relation to the findings expressed in 5.3
11 which concern, on page 0293-5744, the last six lines of that page?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What I wanted to do is just to show you a couple of pages from
14 the notebook itself. So you can keep that there in front of you.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: And what I'd like to do is to bring up P1459,
17 Just so that the Court is aware, Mr. President, this is the --
18 what we call the teacher's edition or teacher's version of P14 which is
19 the duty officer's notebook, and they're both in evidence.
20 All right. I think we'll have to go to page 40 in the English.
21 And if -- 40 in the B/C/S. If we could, because this has both the
22 English and the B/C/S, if we could display side by side pages 40 and 41,
23 that would be helpful.
24 Q. All right. I think we've got it now on the screen. And per your
25 findings in paragraph 5.3 of your report, that's P1187, the
1 July 16th, 2003 report, you indicated that the last six lines from
2 Muso Mani [phoen], excludeing the pencilled date and the name, bear
3 strong evidence of having been written by Dragan Jokic; is that right?
4 A. It is, yes.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think that on the right-hand side of the screen
7 we can't see all entries. Yes, that's better. Thank you.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. And can you recall from the -- can you recall what specifically
10 you were able to identify that showed that there was a confluence as it
11 were, an overlap, between the entries from Muso Mani on the last six
12 lines down through the bottom of the page in B/C/S?
13 A. Um --
14 Q. There appears to be a difference in the ink that's used, or a
15 difference in the colour of the ink. Can you see that one your --
16 A. No.
17 Q. You might not be able to see it, actually, on that screen.
18 A. No.
19 Q. It might help if you could stand a little bit just to look down
20 on it, because I think the angle of the screen is a bit odd.
21 A. They look different. They have a visual difference. And I think
22 the bottom three lines are written -- are larger than the three above.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I think what I've said, actually, is that I've actually grouped
25 the writings together, so it's taking the totality of what I've said with
1 those questioned entries. So, for example, the A in both is constructed
2 in the same way and is a much more unusual construction than you would
3 get -- that you see in other writers in these books, for instance. But
4 it's looking at the writing in its totality. It's the construction of
5 all the characters that you can match.
6 Q. Okay. So these two entries that we can see, that are basically
7 split by the date in this page, as it is translated, "crush Muslims at
8 Velja Glava and move towards Drina." And it says, "Mladenovac and
9 Zljebac." And then you see the date 14/07. And then it says,
10 "Colonel Salapura called Drago and Beara are to report to Golic."
11 Per your conclusion, is this written by Dragan Jokic?
12 A. Strong evidence that it was written by him.
13 Q. Strong evidence.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. I'd like to go to another entry. And this we'll find at
16 pages 44 and 45.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could display them also side by side.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a question at this point in time just
19 in relation to this document on the screen. You say there's strong
20 evidence that it was written Dragan Jokic. Which other material was
21 available for you in comparing this handwritten --
22 Please let us go back to the previous page. I was putting a
23 question to the previous pages.
24 What other written material by Mr. Jokic was available for you?
25 THE WITNESS: Looking at my report, I was given a personal
1 information form and I was told that there were certain entries in the
2 operational diary that were written by Mr. Jokic.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What kind of personal information form are you
4 referring to?
5 THE WITNESS: I've got the number. I can check in my file what
6 it was. But I've got the ERN number. Would that help?
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just in principle I would like to know which kind
8 of material did you have at hand to compare with the entry in this
9 notebook? Take your time.
10 THE WITNESS: The form that I've called the personal information
11 form was one that looks to be a document from the Tribunal that had got
12 Mr. Jokic's name, father's name, mother's name, date of birth, place of
13 birth, his address, and his occupation. So I used that. And that was
14 completed in 2001. And I was also told that there were certain entries
15 that were his writing from the operational diary, so ...
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To explain the operational diary bit further?
17 Mr. Vanderpuye can't help you at the moment.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He can't help you. He is not testifying; you are
20 testifying. And I would like to get your knowledge.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I can tell you that all of the
22 references that she used are documented in the reports, and there are
23 three of them.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm convinced that this is the case, and
25 hopefully we'll find all of that in the report.
1 But I just put the question to the witness: Which kind of
2 information and who provided you with this different handwriting
3 documents? Are they from personal files of these people from the
4 Republika Srpska or from Bosnia-Herzegovina or Republic of Serbia? Where
5 did you get it from?
6 THE WITNESS: I was given it by the Office of the Prosecutor.
7 I've called it "operational diary." It's got a 0076 number, which might
8 be the IKM one. So I was given a personal information form that had
9 obviously been completed from the Tribunal and I was told that there were
10 certain entries from what I've described, I was obviously told at the
11 time, was an operational diary that the Office of the Prosecutor were
12 told were produced by Mr. Jokic.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
14 Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we were
16 looking at the next entry, which was page 44 and 45.
17 Q. Now, with respect to this entry, this is ERN 0293-5746, you'll
18 see that also in paragraph 5.3 of your report, you've indicated that all
19 of the writing here, that there's strong evidence that this was made by
20 Dragan Jokic as well?
21 A. I have, yes.
22 Q. Okay. And that's in comparing it to the preceding page that
23 we've looked at and other material?
24 A. That's comparing all the questioned writing together, to group it
25 all together, and then comparing that grouped questioned writing with the
1 specimen writing of Mr. Jokic.
2 Q. All right. And in this page we see here, particularly at 1500,
3 and entrance that "Colonel Beara is coming in order to Orovoc, Petkovci,
4 Rocevici, and Pilica," among other things, and you've discerned no
5 significant difference between the entries that are indicated on this
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. If we could go to the next entry which we'll find at
9 pages 44 and 55 -- 54 and 55. And this is ERN 0293-5751. Also you see
10 that referenced in your report. And you've indicated that all of the
11 writing on this page as well is -- there's strong evidence that it is of
12 Dragan Jokic; is that right?
13 A. That's right, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And in the middle of the page we see here an entry saying,
15 "Beara to call 155." You see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in terms of both the letters and the numbers, you've found
18 those to be consistent with Dragan Jokic's writing; is that fair to say?
19 A. It is, yes.
20 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you the last one, which is at 56 and 57.
21 And this corresponds to the next entry in paragraph 5.3 of your report.
22 And here you also found that all of the writing was of Dragan Jokic. In
23 particular, here you can see an entry at the top of the page, just above
24 the number, the ERN number in the B/C/S version, you'll see it says,
25 "od Beare."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. The translation of that is, "from Beara," "Drago to
3 report." And then it says, "Mane Djukic." And then it reads, "0900
4 Beara is coming." You see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And both the numbers and the letters in this page you said are
7 consistent with -- or rather I should say there's strong evidence that
8 it's written by Dragan Jokic?
9 A. Yes. It's part of the group of questioned writing that I've said
10 there's strong evidence was written by him.
11 Q. And is there anything in particular concerning -- and I'm just
12 saying this as a layperson, but I see slanted writing in the middle of
13 the page there; can you see that?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. And then I can also see capital letters and small-case letters.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And can you tell us how you arrived at the conclusion that this
18 was within, say, the normal range of variation for a single writer, in
19 particular Dragan Jokic?
20 A. Because we're looking at not just -- those are some features of
21 the slant, but primarily we're actually looking at some -- the
22 construction of the characters, how the pen's moved across the paper to
23 create those individual characters. And so in these cases all those
24 entries bear the same construction of the characters.
25 Q. All right. Thank you for that. I want to take you to a
1 different area, if I could. I'd like to show you your report. Just bear
2 with me one moment. I just want to go over your new reports with you.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to have in e-court, please, 65 ter
4 2860. That's a 16 August 2007 report.
5 Q. You may have it on the screen in front of you. Do you recognise
6 the report first?
7 A. I do, yes.
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can just go on to the first page or so. I
10 think we'll have to go to the following page. There we have it.
11 Q. Do you see the "purpose of the examination"?
12 A. I do, yes.
13 Q. Do you recall being -- do you recall this report in particular?
14 A. It's not one of the ones that I've actually got the case file
16 Q. All right.
17 A. It's my mistake.
18 Q. Well, if I could just take you to paragraph -- first let me just
19 read into the record what we have here. The purpose of the examination,
20 you've indicated here, was to determine whether or not there is any
21 evidence that Dragan Jokic wrote any of the entries for 18 July in the
22 duty officer notebook.
23 And you concluded here that there were -- there is conclusive
24 evidence - and that's at paragraph 5.4, page 5 in English - that
25 Dragan Jokic produced the writings for the entries listed in paragraph 3
1 which correspond to pages 0293-5777 and 5778 in the duty officer's
2 log-book. Now, at the time that you produced the report - I can see that
3 you've signed it - would you say that you still subscribe to the findings
4 that you've made?
5 A. I do, yes.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would offer this report into
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you please give me the number again, the 65
10 ter number?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's 2860, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1967, Your Honours.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show you, also, 65 ter 2858, which
15 is a 1st August, 2008, report. And if we go to paragraph number 3, I
16 think it's page 3 in the English.
17 Q. You see here also the purpose that the documents were provided
18 and then, of course, the purpose of the examination, which in this case
19 was whether or not there's any evidence that any of the user's signatures
20 or the officer's signatures on the vehicle logs were produced by
21 Drago Nikolic. Do you recall this report?
22 A. I do, yes.
23 Q. And if we go to page 5 of this report, we can see your
24 conclusions. It's under item 6.6 and 6.7. And under item 6.6, you say:
25 "In my opinion, there's conclusive evidence that Drago Nikolic
1 produced the specified signatures on the vehicle log ERN 0069-4704."
2 Do you see that?
3 A. I do, yes.
4 Q. And further, in paragraph 6.7, you indicate that in your opinion
5 there are certain similarities in the documents in the entries listed
6 above, those relating to 14th of July, 1995, 16th of July, 1995, and so
7 on, which provide limited evidence that Drago Nikolic produced the
8 specified signatures in vehicle log 0069-4702. You see that?
9 A. I do, yes.
10 Q. Do you subscribe -- continue to subscribe to the findings you
11 made in this report?
12 A. I do, yes.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would move this report into
14 evidence as well. Its 65 ter 2858.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be received too.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1968, Your Honours.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE:
18 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 2859, please. All right. I think
19 we've got it up on the screen now. And if I could, I'd like to take you
20 to page number 3 of this document, item number 3 and 4. It will be -- it
21 will go over also into the next page in the B/C/S. But the items here
22 that you've provided were a vehicle log -- two vehicle logs and some
23 other documents that are listed in number 3, and the purpose of this
24 examination was to determine if there was any evidence that the user's
25 signatures or the entries dated 19 July and 23 July on vehicle log
1 ERN 44 -- 0447-0889 through 0890 were produced by Vujadin Popovic?
2 A. That's correct, yes.
3 Q. I'd like to take you to your conclusions here in paragraph 6.5 on
4 page 5 in the English. I think we have it in the B/C/S also. And what
5 you wrote here was that "the questioned signatures are fluently written
6 and do not show any of the features commonly associated with simulated
7 signatures such as guide-lines or unexpected pen lifts." And you go on
8 to conclude that in your opinion, "the similarities provide strong
9 evidence that Vujadin Popovic produced the signatures for the entries
10 dated 19 and 23 July."
11 Do you stand by those findings?
12 A. I do, yes.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would move 65 ter 2859 into
15 evidence as well.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be received as well.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1969, Your Honours.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE:
19 Q. What I'd like to show you now, just bear with me for one moment,
20 is P157. This is the vehicle log that is referred to in your report.
21 And if we go to the next page in the B/C/S and the English, I guess,
22 we'll find the entries for the 19th and 23rd of July. You can see that
23 the first two entries on the left are for the 19th of July. And if we
24 scroll over to the right, we can see the signatures that we're talking
25 about. Okay.
1 Now, just based on this, what you have in front of you -- are you
2 able to see that, first of all, on the screen in front of you?
3 A. Yes, I can.
4 Q. Okay. And can you recognise the signatures that you identified
5 as being consistent with Vujadin Popovic?
6 A. Yes, I can. It's the first two that are in blue, the lighter
7 blue. And then the next -- then there's two that weren't. And the next
8 set of three.
9 Q. All right. And if we go back over to the left-hand side, we can
10 see the corresponding dates of entry. And here we see the first two are
11 for 19 July, the next two are for the 20th and 21st of July, and then the
12 following three are for the 23rd of July as you identified in your
13 report. Is that fair?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. I'd like to show you some of the reference signatures
16 that you used for comparison. If I could show you first 65 ter 189.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just for the record, this is a Drina Corps
18 security department document dated 15 April 1995 concerning the arrest
19 and detention of POWs and reporting a telegram from the security
20 administration of the VRS.
21 And if we go to the next page -- I'm sorry, to the third page in
22 the B/C/S, we'll find our signature.
23 Q. Do you recall this as being one of the documents you used as a
24 reference sample concerning the identification that you made of Popovic's
25 signature in the vehicle log?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know if it's possible, but maybe we can
3 display side by side the reference page which is ERN 0447-0890, and
4 that's in P157. It should be page number 2. I'm reminded, we also -- we
5 don't need the English up on the screen. We can do without it.
6 Q. All right. Now, are you able to describe some of the
7 similarities that you relied on in order to make the identification in
8 terms of the height or the slant or the fluidity of the signature, if
9 you're able?
10 A. It's more -- I think -- I've tried to explain. It's not just a
11 one-against-one comparison. So obviously I had more than one specimen
12 signature to take into account here. So it's not just -- I'm not going
13 to able to match everything in this one specimen. Also, judging from the
14 copies I've got, it's not come out particularly clearly. The stamp's
15 obscured quite a lot of the detail on this one, so what we've been
16 looking for is that actually the pen path is -- its quite complicated. I
17 think, especially without looking at it with a microscope and taking a
18 bit of time to work out exactly how the signature is being constructed,
19 it would be very difficult for somebody to just come along and reproduce
20 the same pen path, which is what the case is here. So the way the pen
21 has moved across the paper to form the signatures is the same in both.
22 We're also looking at the flourish that you get across it, again,
23 which is similar in the two of them. That would probably the main things
24 in these. These are particularly difficult to be able to illustrate it.
25 A, because the specimen signature is quite dark you can't see much of the
1 detail, especially of the first part. And because of the size of the
2 boxes for the questioned ones, there's a lot of overlapping going on.
3 But from my examination, the pen path is the same in both. And the
4 fluidity, the fluency is the same. You can see from the questioned
5 signatures, I think even from the image on the screen, that there's a
6 variation in pen pressure. The blue changes colour which is an
7 indication of fluency. Because if you're trying to copy that, you would
8 have to write much more slowly to ensure that you've got a good match, in
9 which case the pen tends to leave an even track. Whereas when you're
10 writing your own signature, you know when you're suddenly going to --
11 when you're going to take the pen off, so in effect you're starting to
12 move the pen off as it's coming up to a break or a change of direction so
13 that you get that variation pressure which you can see on there. So,
14 again, they're very fluently written, and it's a very complex signature
15 to be able to reproduce.
16 Q. Is this one of the documents that you relied on, though, in
17 making your analysis?
18 A. It's one of them, yes.
19 Q. All right.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document on the left side of the screen?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: 65 ter number 00189.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1970, Your Honours.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show you one more document in
2 respect of this particular report, and that's 65 ter 2205.
3 Q. This is a document that's also from the Drina Corps. It's
4 indicating from the intelligence and security department dated
5 18 July 1995. And this one deals with or concerns dealing with reporter
6 crews. If we go to -- we have it all right down there -- all right.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we can display this side by side
8 against the document we had previously up there at P157, page 2.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that you only need the B/C/S?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Only the B/C/S. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. While that's coming up, can you identify this as a document that
12 you relied on in respect of your report as well?
13 A. It was one of the specimen signatures that I was provided with,
15 Q. All right.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The left one, please, enlarged on the signature
17 block. Thank you.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE:
19 Q. And were you -- first of all, did you examine the originals of
20 these documents that I'm showing you?
21 A. I did, yes.
22 Q. And that relates to the documents I showed you previously
23 concerning having -- bearing Colonel Popovic's signature?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. And with respect to this document, did you make the
1 same kind of assessment as you've previously described in comparing it to
2 this vehicle log, that is, a microscopic analysis of it or an analysis of
3 it in a way that you were able to -- were you able to see, for example,
4 beyond the stamp of it and that kind of thing?
5 A. Yes. Again, the original, it's easier to see where it is over
6 the stamp, but, again, it's not just this one signature. You're looking
7 at all the specimen signatures to determine the range of variation, that
8 they are all fit together as specimens. So what you're looking for is
9 how he reproduces his signature on different occasions, so hence the
10 reason this one is slightly different to the previous one we saw. But
11 again it just expands that range of variation that you're seeing, that
12 you would wish the questioned signatures to fit into.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, with that I would also tender
14 this document into evidence.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be admitted into evidence.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have one more report to go through. I see
17 that we are at the end of our time.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 2205 will become
20 Exhibit P1971.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We must come to an end, but you should try to
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have about 15 or 20 minutes more.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is very unsatisfactory. Your indication was
25 one hour with this witness, and you used more than one hour up to now.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry, Mr. President, I thought my estimate had
2 been an hour and a half. Maybe I'm mistaken. But in any event, you're
3 right; I would have exceeded my time certainly if I continue into
4 tomorrow, which I would like to do, to address this last issue, but I
5 think I've used up just about an hour and a half. An hour and 15
6 minutes, I'm told.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your estimation was one hour.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I apologise, it should have been an hour and a
9 half, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can't continue now. You should continue your
11 examination-in-chief and consider during the break how to shorten the
12 examination-in-chief as much as possible.
13 We have to adjourn for the day. We resume tomorrow morning at
14 9.00 in this courtroom.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day
18 of March, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.