1 Tuesday, 8 March 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody in the courtroom and
6 outside listening and watching our procedure.
7 I see you on your feet, Mr. Gajic. You have the floor.
8 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I'd like
9 to greet everyone. And today I'd especially like to greet Judge Nyambe
10 and the representatives of the Registrar to congratulate them on
11 Women's Day.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They are all in the majority in this courtroom.
13 MR. GAJIC: We are aware about that.
14 [Interpretation] Defence would like to respond to a part of the
15 Prosecution's request submitted on the 22nd of February, 2010, which has
16 to do with Witness 187. He was foreseen to testify towards the end of
17 the month. By your leave, we'd like to put forth our arguments
18 concerning this Prosecution's motion. Namely, first I need to stress
19 that it is a rather unusual request, in particular if we have in mind the
20 procedural history of Prosecution motions and Chamber decisions regarding
21 Witness 187. Namely, Prosecution as early as the 18th of March, 2009,
22 submitted their request to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter, which
23 inter alia included their request for Witness 187 to testify in
24 accordance with the Rule 92 ter.
25 The Defence on the 24th of July, 2009, submitted its response to
1 the 92 ter request by the OTP in which we objected their request
2 concerning Witness 187, pointing out, among other things, the nature of
3 General Obradovic's testimony, that is, the testimony of Witness 187. We
4 also stated that Witness 187 in the Popovic case testified as a Defence
5 witness. Also, General Obradovic witnessed and was supposed to testify
6 the acts and conduct of General Tolimir which may serve as a basis to put
7 forth his evidence based on Rule 92 ter. We also touched upon the
8 cross-examination of the OTP briefly as conducted by Mr. McCloskey in the
9 Popovic case.
10 Next, on the 30th of July, 2009, the Prosecution submitted a
11 motion to reply to our response pursuant to their 92 ter request. In
12 paragraph 2 of the reply, the Prosecution states that following their
13 analysis of our response, they withdrew their request concerning
14 Witness 187, and they expressed their wish to hear the witness viva voce
15 and in totality.
16 By virtue of the Chamber's decision of the 3rd of November, 2009,
17 the request of the OTP was approved to withdraw their 92 ter request
18 concerning Witness 187. To put it simply, we are now in a situation in
19 which in the latest Prosecution motion we have their request following
20 the granting of their wish to withdraw Witness 187 initially, as granted
21 by the Chamber.
22 In addition to these arguments, I'd also like to state that
23 according to the schedule disclosed by the Prosecution this witness was
24 supposed to testify in the last week of the month of March 2011. This
25 witness in the Popovic case testified for three days. And without
1 related documentary evidence, his transcript amounted to -- his testimony
2 amounted to 287 pages of the transcript. As we all know, preparing for
3 such a witness is very demanding and preparing for a 92 ter witness puts
4 a much greater burden and effort than when we hear a witness viva voce.
5 I also wanted to say that in their request of the
6 28th of November, 2008, the OTP requested that this witness be put on
7 their list of witnesses, assessing that his direct examination would last
8 for three hours. In our view, this is reasonable given the numerous
9 topics this witness is supposed to address. The Prosecution announced
10 that the witness was supposed to testify inter alia about the
11 organisational structure of the Main Staff of the VRS, the position of
12 General Tolimir and his role in Srebrenica and Zepa, next on the issue of
13 humanitarian convoys, and some others which I won't go into at this
14 moment. It is for all these reasons that the Defence object the request
15 put forth by the Prosecution concerning Witness 187. We propose to the
16 Chamber that the request of the 28th of February, 2010, concerning this
17 witness be denied.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Gajic.
19 Does the Prosecution want to respond to this submission?
20 Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, good morning, Your Honour, Mr. President,
22 Your Honours. No, I think that enough has been said. We're ready to go
23 with however the Court wishes on this point. Thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber will take into consideration the
25 arguments of both parties, and we'll render a decision as soon as
1 possible. Thank you very much.
2 Before the witness is being brought in, I have to express my
3 apologies to Mr. Vanderpuye. You were right with your time estimation
4 for the current witness of one hour and 30 minutes. It was a
5 communication problem in the Chamber. And, of course, you may use your
6 time you have indicated earlier.
7 The witness should be brought in, please.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning --
10 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- Dr. Barr. Welcome back to the courtroom. I
12 have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the
13 beginning of your testimony yesterday still applies.
14 WITNESS: KATHRYN BARR [Resumed]
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Mr. Vanderpuye is continuing his
17 Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,
19 Your Honours. Good morning, everyone.
20 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
21 Q. And good morning to you, Dr. Barr.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have, please, 65 ter 7212 in e-court,
24 Q. While that's loading, let me just tell you that -- well, I think
25 it's here already. This is your 8th January, 2010, report concerning
1 typewritten documents, and I wondered if you could just briefly outline
2 the difference, if there is any, between analysing a typewritten document
3 and analysing a handwritten document.
4 A. The same basic principle would apply in that, again, it's a
5 like-for-like comparison, so the process in effect would start the same.
6 You would literally go through the typewritten document, examining each
7 character to determine how it's been constructed. The difference is you
8 would be looking -- obviously on a typewritten document you won't get the
9 range of variation because typescript's fixed, but what you would be
10 doing is looking for how it's been produced and whether there are any
11 defects that would enable you to identify that specific machine as
12 opposed to any other machine.
13 Q. Did you use any specific or special devices in order to conduct
14 the examination in this case?
15 A. In this case, it's really a case of using a microscope so that
16 you can see the detail of the typescript more closely than you could just
17 looking at it.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to page number 3, and it should be
19 item number 3.
20 Q. Here we have the instructions that you received, if you're able
21 to see that on the screen, maybe not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. In any event, you do have the report in front of you.
24 A. I have the -- yes.
25 Q. Okay. Here you've indicated that you received a certain number
1 of -- a certain number of documents. It appears to be four documents.
2 One is a typewritten document dated 13th of July, 1995.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And for the record that's P125. I do have the
4 original here if the Court would like to inspect it or see it.
5 Q. And then you received three other documents. And with respect to
6 any of these documents, were you provided any other -- any additional
7 information concerning the machine that produced it or anything of that
8 nature that might identify -- might identify the typewriting?
9 A. No. I was just provided with those four documents and asked if
10 they'd all been produced on the same machine.
11 Q. And having examined these documents can you tell us what kind of
12 machine it was produced by or these documents were produced by?
13 A. The appearance of the typescript is such that they appear to have
14 been produced by an old-fashioned manual typewriter rather than a more
15 modern word process document.
16 Q. And can you tell us briefly how you can tell the difference
17 between, for example, a modern printer or relatively modern printer that
18 uses the same kind of casing that you see on a typewriter and a
19 typewriter itself?
20 A. It's a case of looking at -- these have all been produced with a
21 fabric ribbon, which, again, you tend -- you only see on the older
22 document -- older type of typewriters rather than a word process
23 document. And the appearance of the typescript is an old-fashioned style
24 of font.
25 Q. With respect to -- just so that we're clear, which of these four
1 documents was the questioned document as it were, and which ones were the
2 ones that were used for comparison purposes if -- or were they all
3 simply -- were you asked to compare all four of them?
4 A. Yeah, my instructions were to say had they all been produced on
5 one machine. So it wasn't a case of taking -- saying, these are
6 specimens, have -- has this been produced on the same machine that
7 produces these other documents; it was literally, have all these four
8 been produced on one machine.
9 Q. If we go to the next page, and that will be item number -- oops,
10 I'm sorry, I should have gone to item number 6. Yeah, we have it.
11 In making these comparisons, you concluded in summary form that
12 there was a conclusive evidence that document 0425-8580, which is P125,
13 and document 0441-0981, that there was conclusive evidence that they were
14 produced by the same machine. And can you tell us how you arrived at
15 that conclusion?
16 A. Yes. These two documents were produced -- the typestyle of the
17 printing was the same. And the spacing of the document, the number of
18 characters you get in a specific length, was the same. So that indicated
19 they were both produced on the same type of machine. And then to be able
20 to say that it's conclusively that one machine, what you're doing is
21 looking for defects that will uniquely identify one machine as opposed to
22 other machines produced in the same fashion.
23 With these two, what I found was that there was damage to the
24 lower-case P. The lower-case V tended to print more darkly on these
25 characters. And also there was a red colour associated with the bottom
1 part of the characters. I think old-style machines quite often had two
2 colour ribbons; you'd got black at one -- at the top, red at the bottom.
3 So it looked as though that was slightly out of alignment so that the
4 characters were typing across the boundary between the grey and the
5 black -- the grey and the red, sorry.
6 So the combination of those three factors were, in my opinion,
7 enough to say that this was -- they were produced on this one specific
8 machine rather than two different machines.
9 Q. Let me ask you a couple of things. First, were you provided with
10 originals of these documents?
11 A. I was, yes.
12 Q. And the second question is: The observations that you've made
13 particularly concerning the ribbon or the colouration associated with the
14 characters that are printed on the page, are you able to make those
15 observations, you know, with the naked eye, as opposed to using a
17 A. It's more obvious with a microscope. They were printing very
18 palely so you might have got an indication, but it's more obvious with a
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: First I'd like to show the Trial Chamber,
21 really, P125. If we could have that in e-court for a moment.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a question to the witness in the
23 meantime. On page 7, line 23 and 24, you first said, "the characters
24 were typing across the boundary between the grey and the black," and then
25 you corrected yourself, "the grey and ... red, sorry." Are you really
1 referring to grey and red?
2 THE WITNESS: In this case, grey simply because I think it was an
3 old ribbon so it was actually typing more grey than black.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Only, and only, the B/C/S because I'd like to
6 place side by side with this document P517. Mr. President, I should let
7 you know I also have the originals of this documents if it would assist
8 the Court, and I can provide them to you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At the moment there's no need for that.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just for the record, on the right of this -- of
11 the screen in e-court now we have a document that's indicating that it's
12 from the IKM of the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment. It indicates
13 Borike at 1400 hours. And this is a document that is sent to the
14 commander of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska and concerns, among other
15 things, 1.000 members of the 28th Division of the BiH Army captured in
16 the area of Dushanovo Kasaba.
17 This document, according to your report, was produced by the same
18 printer as the document on the left. Is that fair?
19 A. The same typewriter, yes.
20 Q. The same typewriter. And you did that based upon a comparison of
21 the characters. Was there any character in particular that you
22 identified as conclusive?
23 A. It's taking it as its totality, but as I said, in this case there
24 is damage to the lower-case P, the same damage in the lower-case P to
25 both of them. Again, the V tends to print more darkly. These were
1 printing quite pale at the bottom, but the V was quite dark at the bottom
2 and also got the same mix of colours, grey and red, in the same position.
3 Q. All right. I want to show -- well let me just ask you this. In
4 your conclusion, and I won't put that up just now, but in the conclusion
5 of your report, you say that in your opinion that there's certain
6 similarities also that there's strong evidence between a document
7 0441-0992, that it was produced by the same machine as the machine that
8 produced these two documents on the screen. What I'd like to do is to
9 ask you about that one, and I'll put it up in just a minute. But do you
10 recall what the basis of that conclusion was?
11 A. Yes, I do. Again, the same basic style and spacing was the same
12 on this third document. It also had the same damage to the P. The
13 difference was, in this time, the red colouration was coming out at the
14 top of the characters rather on the bottom of the characters.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could just replace P517 with P518 in
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Vanderpuye kindly speak into the
18 microphone or turn on the other microphone as well. Thank you.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. Here we have the document 0441-0992 that's referred to in your
21 report at paragraph 6.2 which, in your opinion, shows strong evidence of
22 being produced by the same typewriter as the document on the right, which
23 is P125. Now, was there anything other than what you've indicated
24 previously that ties these two documents together?
25 A. Apart from the damage features to the P and V, no. You've still
1 got the same difference in that they were printing in two colours. It
2 was just that it was -- the orientation was different.
3 Q. And would that suggest that it was just printed with a different
4 ribbon or that it was printed with a different machine?
5 A. Printed with a different ribbon or that the position of the
6 ribbon had been moved between the printing of the previous documents and
7 this one.
8 Q. Okay.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I want to show you the last document, which is
10 0441-0972. Let me get you the P numbers. P520.
11 Q. In your report at paragraph 6.3, you opine that the document --
12 that that particular document, that there's conclusive evidence that it
13 was typed on a different machine compared to the other three documents.
14 A. Not the one that's on the screen.
15 Q. It should be coming up in a minute.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's on the screen or we have a problem
17 with a number again.
18 THE WITNESS: This is -- this one's marked --
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: It should be --
20 THE WITNESS: -- 971. The one I was referring to was 972.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. We don't have it? Okay. I
22 think we have the original though. If we could perhaps show this to the
23 witness or have that placed on the ELMO, that might be helpful.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No problem with that, but I wonder if there is a
25 possibility to call up P972.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I'm told it's on page 2. There's
2 the magic. Okay. We have it.
3 Q. This is the document that you excluded as being produced by the
4 same machine as -- well, the document on the right has now disappeared.
5 Produced on the same machine as P125, which was --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which is again on the screen on the right side.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: In a blink of an eye.
8 Q. You've excluded these two from being a match so to speak?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And on what basis did you reach that conclusion?
11 A. The capital M on the document 972, the middle of the document is
12 higher in this typescript than it is in the others, so it's a different M
13 that's on the machine. On top of which, this machine, a number of the
14 characters are filled in which is often an indication of dirt on the
15 type-slug, so you've got dirt and you've also got a different character
16 on there which would indicate that it was a different machine, because on
17 the old-style machines, the character is fixed.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good
20 morning to everyone. May there be peace in this house and may God's will
21 be done in these proceedings and not mine. And may all the present
22 ladies have a nice Women's Day, including the witness.
23 Can Mr. Vanderpuye clarify the following: The two documents that
24 we see on our screens, were they produced on the same typewriter? It was
25 rather confusing to me. I didn't ultimately understand whether they do
1 originate from the same typewriter. I mean D72 and 58 -- or, rather, I'm
2 referring to the last three digits of the ERN numbers, 972 and 580, do
3 they come from the same machine? Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the witness
6 has answered that, but I'm sure she'd be happy to answer it again.
7 THE WITNESS: They come from different machines.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show the witness now 65 ter 7212A.
9 Q. First, Dr. Barr, do you recognise what this is?
10 A. It was images that I produced as part of my examination.
11 Q. And specifically, the references that you made to the damage to
12 the P, can you see that?
13 A. Just about, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Can you tell us where it is, just so that we have an idea.
15 A. If you can see the P in the upper left-hand box, there is
16 actually a yellow arrow, it doesn't come out very well, indicating that
17 the serif on the bottom left-hand side, there, is damaged, it's not
19 Q. All right. And if we can take a look at the O now. Is this the
20 reference that you made to the red printing - it doesn't appear so red on
21 the screen - but is this --
22 A. It is, yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I have the originals of those which would show it more clearly if
1 Q. All right.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's take a look at the next page, please.
3 Just for the record, this refers to -- this frame of photos refers to
4 document 0425-8580, which is P125. The next is 0441-0972, which was
5 P520, which we just saw.
6 Q. And can you tell us what we have here?
7 A. Again, it's an illustration. The lower frame shows that the P is
8 undamaged, which again goes to my opinion that it was a different
9 machine. It also shows what we've called in-fill on the A, the normal
10 course of that is when you get dirt on the typewriter, the characters.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the next page, please. Here we
13 have document 044981, which was P517.
14 Q. And can you tell us -- this was a document that you opined had
15 strong evidence that was produced by the same machine as produced P125,
16 and can you tell us about what we have here?
17 A. I say it was conclusive evidence.
18 Q. Conclusive evidence. That's right. My mistake.
19 A. Again you can see that the damage to the P in the upper left
20 frame, the red colouration at the bottom of the O, and the fact that the
21 V prints more darkly than the other characters.
22 Q. All right. Now I'd like to show you the last one, which refers
23 to document number 0441-0992, and that's P518. And tell us about this
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: We need to go to the next page in e-court,
2 Q. This was the document for which you found there was strong
3 evidence that it was printed by the same typewriter as P125?
4 A. Yes. Again, the P on the upper left, you can see there is damage
5 to the serif. It looks slightly different in this one simply because
6 you're getting the paler red at the top. The dark is printing, so you
7 can actually see the damage more clearly. And it does contrast quite
8 strongly with the document that I excluded, where the serif was
9 horizontal. You've got the red colouration at the top of the characters,
10 but again you've got a dark-printing V.
11 Q. And I just wanted to show you, last, the page which contains the
12 letter M that you compared across all the documents, and that's -- should
13 be two pages up, ERN ending 363. Okay.
14 And here we can see the document that you excluded as -- in the
15 top left corner.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And can you tell us what the difference is between this
18 document -- that M in the top left corner and the others?
19 A. I think you can see quite clearly on there that the middle of the
20 M comes down -- is higher in that one document compared to the other
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender 7212 and
24 7212A, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you tendering these two documents as one
1 exhibit or as two different, two separate, exhibits?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: They should be one exhibit, Mr. President,
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They will be received with one P number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1972, Your Honours.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. Now, Dr. Barr, you were asked to just -- I just want to clarify
8 something with you on the record. When you receive -- in the process of
9 receiving specimens in order to compare it to a questioned document, do
10 you on occasion receive those documents, that is, the specimens, with
11 information about them, such as known samples of handwriting or other
13 A. Yes. We're told -- since handwriting is a comparative process,
14 in order to say that a specific person has produced the writing that's in
15 dispute, then we need known samples from the person that is suspected of
16 producing them.
17 Q. All right. But you don't have any, for example, conclusive
18 information that the person -- that a person whose specimens you're
19 provided with actually produced the specimens in question?
20 A. Not necessarily, no.
21 Q. Okay. And you rely on the person or the people who give you that
22 specimen for that representation?
23 A. We do. We always say that, when we give advice, that if people
24 provide us with specimens, then they have to be provable as specimens,
25 otherwise we're comparing different things.
1 Q. So when you make a finding in terms of comparing the specimen to
2 the questioned document, your finding is really an expression between --
3 of the relationship between whoever produced the specimen and whoever
4 produced the questioned document; is that fair to say?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And that, again, is entirely dependent upon the
7 information that you're provided with concerning the specimen?
8 A. Yes, it is. If we were just provided with two documents and
9 weren't told that one was specimen, then we could just say they were or
10 weren't produce by the same person.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Dr. Barr. I don't have any
13 further questions.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 Now, a question by Judge Nyambe.
16 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. I just wonder if you could clarify for
17 me, Dr. Barr, at page 16, lines 8 to 9, you are recorded as having said,
18 "they have to be provable as specimens, otherwise we're confirming [sic]
19 different things." I wonder if you could clarify for me exactly what you
20 mean "provable as specimens." Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: As I said, if -- handwriting is a comparative
22 process, so we could just compare two documents and say they're by the
23 same person. Generally, if we're working for the Prosecution, they want
24 to know are they produced by the suspect or a specific person, so in
25 those cases, they provide us with specimen writing of that suspect and
1 say, Compare that with the questioned writing to say whether, for
2 example, the suspect produced it. But obviously the only way that we
3 could ever -- we say it's the suspect, but we are relying on the
4 Prosecution producing specimens that are provable as having been written
5 by the suspect. If at some later date for whatever reason the
6 authenticity of those documents as having been written by the suspect is
7 proved not to be true, then our opinion still holds as regards the
8 conclusion. They just can't be linked back, then, to the suspect.
9 So they would still be linked. Say, for example, we'd said, as
10 an example, there was conclusive evidence that the suspect had written
11 them, but then the writing we used as specimen wasn't attributable to the
12 suspect, then the writing would still be conclusive evidence that it was
13 still by the same person, it just wouldn't be by the suspect if his
14 writing was no longer provable as having been produced by him.
15 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, now it's your turn to commence your
17 cross-examination. You have the floor.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good
19 morning to everyone again. And may God's will be done in your testimony
20 today, madam.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Let's stick with P1972. I think that's the last
23 document that was admitted. Where we were comparing two documents with
24 the last three digits of the ERN being 972 and 580, thank you. Thank
1 So the ERNs are 0425850 and 0441-0097.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure about the numbers.
3 Mr. Tolimir wasn't clear.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I think General Tolimir is
6 referring to P125 and P520 respectively.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can see one of them on the
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you see both on the screen.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes, we have both of
12 them on the screen now.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You said that you received a request from Ms. Gallagher
15 electronically to forensically examine these two documents and produce
16 your findings. This is my question: Were you able to receive originals
17 of these documents if the request was sent to you electronically? Thank
19 A. Yes, I received the originals of the documents.
20 Q. Thank you. Why, then, in the report under item 3 that we were
21 looking at here, on page 6 in line 1, you said that you received
22 Erin Gallagher's request in her e-mail dated the 30th November, 2009. So
23 could you have -- and is it possible at all to receive originals of
24 documents by e-mail? Thank you.
25 A. No, it's not. But I received the request electronically; she
1 asked if we could do it. The documents were sent by courier separately
2 to the request.
3 Q. Thank you. Is there any reference that you could give us, either
4 in your report or otherwise, of your receipt of these documents by a
5 courier? Thank you.
6 A. Yes. I've got a copy of the TNT label that we received in my
7 case file.
8 Q. Thank you. Can we see from the TNT label that you received the
9 originals of these documents and not just copies? Thank you.
10 A. No. From the courier details it won't tell you that I received
11 the originals.
12 Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, is it at all possible to examine
13 documents received by e-mail in order to ascertain all the various
14 particulars such as you've just described for us in relation to the
15 various characters, et cetera?
16 A. In general, if they had been well scanned and there were obvious
17 differences in the typescript, the typescript that had been used, then,
18 yes, it would be possible. The details that require microscopic
19 examination, it probably wouldn't be possible to do from copies.
20 Q. Thank you. We see here the two documents for which you concluded
21 that they did not originate from the same machine; is that right?
22 A. That's correct, yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move the document to the
25 right slightly so that we can see the date on the left-hand side. Thank
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. As you can see, the document was produced on the
4 13th of July, 1995, as written by hand. At least that's what the date
5 purports to be, because we don't have it typewritten. And you see that
6 the other document was produced on the 5th of July. And you claim that
7 the typewriter wasn't the same in these two instances, and I may agree
8 with you on that. If you bear in mind the fact that the author of the
9 document on the left-hand side did not have his own typewriter but used
10 the machine on which the other one was produced, you claim that they do
11 not come from the same typewriter; the Prosecution knows that the witness
12 did not have a typewriter of his own, that he would use the one on which
13 the document on the right-hand side was typed up on the 5th of July;
14 based on what can we parties to this proceeding know that the document
15 wasn't -- that a document that was sent to you had not actually been
16 typed up on a different typewriter and then sent for you to examine it --
17 to you to examine it? Thank you.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact this is a very complicated question. I
19 didn't understand the essence of it.
20 But, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I would ask -- well,
22 the first issue is whether or not it properly characterises the testimony
23 to which it refers, and I do not believe that that is the case. If
24 General Tolimir's contention is that the witness stated that he produced
25 a document on the right of the screen using a single typewriter or that
1 there was only one typewriter, I'd like him to provide a reference in the
2 transcript so that at least that's clear for the witness. Other than
3 that, you're right; I think the question is rather inartfully phrased,
4 and I would ask him to phrase it in a manner that's at least
5 understandable to the witness.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please rephrase your question in order
7 to enable the witness to provide you with a clear answer.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll rephrase the
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Ms. Barr, the writer of this text, signed as Milorad -- Colonel
12 Milorad Sacic, he used the typewriter in the headquarters of the brigade
13 which is listed on the right-hand side document, and this in -- and this
14 was only several days apart between the two documents and he didn't have
15 his own typewriter, so is it possible that one of the two documents was
16 typed up on a completely different machine? Thank you.
17 A. I think I've said that they were typed on different machines.
18 Q. Thank you. This is my second question: Why do you compare the
19 text which has very few characters or words in common with the other
20 text? Why didn't you ask for identical texts to be sent to you,
21 identical in substance, but produced on different typewriters in order to
22 facilitate your examination? Thank you.
23 A. Umm, since I've -- since these are typewriters that have fixed,
24 fixed characters, that their -- normally the metal, what we'd call slugs,
25 what the characters actually produced, then I've compared each character
1 in turn between the two documents, so there may not be the words the same
2 but there are the same letters of the alphabet and I've compared each
3 letter that is in common between the two to come to my conclusions. Does
4 that answer the question?
5 Q. Thank you. Can you please answer this question: Would it have
6 been easier for you to examine the features of these characters had you
7 had two identical samples? For instance, if the two texts on the screen
8 were identical. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. Would it have
9 suited you better if you had the same sample text as that of the
10 questioned text? Would that have made your analysis easier? Thank you.
11 A. No. Provided -- and I think in, if I check my notes, that I had
12 nearly all the letters of the alphabet on both, it wouldn't have made any
13 difference, specifically because I was asked if these two documents were
14 produced on the same machine, so I'm comparing the documents as opposed
15 to comparing them to a machine, I'm just comparing the documents
16 together. If I'd been asked, This is the machine, does this document
17 come from it? Then, yes, having the same typescript would have helped.
18 But in this particular case, I'm asked to compare these two documents.
19 They have nearly all the characters in common between them, so they were
20 more than suitable for comparison purposes.
21 Q. Thank you. Do all the characters of the alphabet feature on the
22 text that we see on the right-hand side on our screens?
23 A. Just about, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Was your examination about these two documents not
25 having been typed up on the same typewriter? Was that what you were
1 examining? Thank you.
2 A. I was given the four documents and asked, Were they produced on
3 the same machine?
4 Q. Thank you. Please look at the documents on the screen. These
5 two documents, were they typed on the same typewriter?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you. Did the Prosecution tell you that the signatory --
8 that the signatories of both these documents typed documents in the same
9 headquarters on the same typewriter? Thank you.
10 A. I don't think I was given any information about the production of
11 the documents.
12 Q. Can you tell us, did you ask for all the documents available that
13 were typed up on that location, on that particular location, at that
14 particular time to be delivered to you? Thank you.
15 A. No. I was simply asked about these four documents.
16 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you bearing in mind the question put to
17 you by Her Honour Judge Nyambe when you said that you needed to have a
18 sufficient number of authentic documents in order to infallibly ascertain
19 which of them are genuine and which are not. In other words, did you ask
20 for specimens to be sent to you or did you analyse the specimens that the
21 Prosecution sent you? Thank you.
22 A. I thought that Judge Nyambe was asking about specimen handwriting
23 as opposed to typescript, and so that referred to handwriting, needing
24 specimens. For typescript, as I said, if we had been provided -- asked
25 if they were produced on a specific machine, then we would have needed
1 samples from that machine. In this case, I was asked if these four
2 documents were all produced on one machine, and so my comparison can only
3 take place with those four documents, to say whether or not they were
4 produced on the same machine.
5 Q. Thank you. You conducted your expertise based on the items you
6 received. That's sufficient for us at the moment, and we will be looking
7 into this fact whether these persons produced the documents on these
9 I do apologise for the tenor of my questions, but the Defence is
10 really interested in finding out how these documents came into being.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 7212 shown,
12 please. This is your report dated the 8th of January, 2010. And can we
13 show page 3 where it is stated that you received the said documents on
14 the 30th of November, 2009.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P1972.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We can see it now.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In paragraph 3 on the right-hand side, which is what I understand
19 because it's in the Serbian language, or for you it is on the left-hand
20 side, it's stated here that:
21 "I have examined the items listed below at the instruction of
22 Erin Gallagher of the UN ICTY as detailed in her e-mail dated the 30th of
23 November, 2009."
24 It has to do with the same documents we have just discussed.
25 My question is this: The documents you examined, did you receive
1 them by electronic mail and did you carry out your expertise based on
2 copies of these documents?
3 A. No. I received the original documents by courier. And I
4 actually received them on the 10th of December, 2009.
5 Q. However, you say here that you received an e-mail from
6 Ms. Gallagher. If you cannot produce those documents now before the
7 Court, perhaps you could at least tell us what I'm asking.
8 A. I received the instructions from Ms. Gallagher by e-mail. I
9 received the documents by courier.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness told that already earlier during your
11 examination, Mr. Tolimir.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. And
13 thank you, Ms. Barr.
14 Could we next have 65 ter document 7212A.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. This document was disclosed to us recently. In the list of
17 documents, it is stated that the photographs found in that document are
18 linked to the 8th of January, 2010, report. As we can see, the date on
19 this document is the 15th of March, 2007. My question is this: The
20 document we have on the screen, did it have something to do with the
21 expertise you carried out between the 30th of November, 2009, and the
22 8th of January, 2010?
23 A. The date of the 15th of March is the date of issue of this
24 document. It's -- part of the quality control system for the company is
25 that this is a digital image examination form, so that date is related to
1 the date of issue of the form rather than the production of the
2 photographs. So the photographs were produced when I had the original
3 documents as part of my examination.
4 Q. Thank you. My question is this: Did you carry out your
5 expertise only based on these images that we find in the document, or did
6 you also rely on other material?
7 A. My examination was based on the original documents and the
8 comparison and examination of the original typed documents. These images
9 were produced as part of my examination as a way of illustrating the
10 differences that I found.
11 Q. Thank you. Ms. Barr, can you tell me this: Did you state in
12 your report that these documents were produced on the same typewriter?
13 A. The images on the screen are all from one document.
14 Q. Thank you. Why did you not state in your report what the
15 typewriter in question is, such as make and model?
16 A. Because I was asked if they were produced on one machine, not
17 what make and model of machine it was.
18 Q. Thank you. Is there a possibility that these three documents for
19 which you state were produced on the same typewriter were actually
20 produced on different typewriters of the same make or model, that is to
21 say that the same company manufactured those typewriters and that they
22 were of the same model?
23 A. If there had been no damage features and they were simply -- they
24 were all typing perfectly as they were manufactured, then there would be
25 no way of telling. But in this case, we've got features such as the
1 damage to the P which, in my opinion, would not have occurred in exactly
2 the same way on two different machines, which allows me to distinguish
3 between different makes and models of the same machine.
4 Q. Thank you. Did the Prosecutor let you know the year of
5 production, the type of the machine, and other elements that would be
6 interesting for you to know so that you could make that conclusion?
7 A. No, I received no such information from the Prosecutor.
8 Q. Thank you. If two documents are produced on two different
9 typewriters of the same model, is it possible to examine and ascertain on
10 which of the machines the original document that you are examining was
12 A. It would depend on the features of the typewriting that those
13 machines were producing. If, for example, they were two new machines
14 that came straight out of the company boxes and had no unique features,
15 then, no. But once you start using them and they get damaged and they
16 get their own unique identifying characteristics, then, yes, it is
17 possible to determine which machines produced them.
18 Q. Thank you. If the typewriters are from the same batch, is there
19 a possibility they will produce the same prints of the letters, given
20 that they were actually produced serially and they were not unique?
21 A. I think the type of damage features here are such that they're
22 not the type that I would expect to see as a manufacturing defect.
23 You've got the -- and also you've got the combination of the damage to
24 the P, the position of the ribbon when the documents are being typed, and
25 the fact that the V is printing; you've got more than one distinguishing
1 feature for these machines.
2 Q. Thank you, Ms. Barr. Please tell us this: Can you ascertain the
3 type of the typewriter through your examination since we have a number of
4 witnesses whom we can ask what kind of typewriters they used in order to
5 arrive at a final conclusion as to which typewriter they actually used?
6 A. Had I been asked to do that, it may have been possible. It's not
7 something that we do very often now and it would depend on how up-to-date
8 the records of these types of machines were. Theoretically it's possible
9 to identify makes of machine from their typescript within certain caveats
10 in that companies are taken over and therefore more than one company can
11 produce the same type of typescript, and so you need to have very good
12 records or you may not be able to identify it down to one particular make
13 and model.
14 Q. Thank you. A moment ago we saw two documents for which you
15 ascertained they were not typed on the same typewriter. Is there a
16 possibly that both documents were typed up on an Olympia typewriter?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 7212.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P1972.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, could we have P1972, page 2.
22 It is the report of the 8th of January, 2010.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. In item 2, you clearly state, and I quote:
25 "I clearly stated which facts and issues in this examination fall
1 within the scope of my expertise and which do not."
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have paragraph 2.1
3 of this document and I will quote from it.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Here you say that:
6 "Specialists in questioned documents all have an understanding of
7 issues relating to handwriting and signatures and other aspects of
8 document examination that routinely arise in their field. These include
9 methods of examining documents to show their authenticity or to determine
10 alterations on them -- to them; the examination and comparison of
11 handwritings and signatures and general examinations such as for indented
12 impressions. Beyond this knowledge, practitioners must be aware of their
13 own limitations and have an awareness of the more specialised examination
14 methods other practitioners may be able to offer."
15 My question is this: Do you primarily analyse handwritings or
16 impressions produced by typewriters?
17 A. The majority of our work is -- does involve handwriting
19 Q. Thank you, Ms. Barr. Can you tell me why in your report in part,
20 titled "Scope of Expertise," you formulated this paragraph so as to
21 conclude that you analysed signatures rather than analysing whether
22 different documents were produced on the same typewriter?
23 A. I think this whole part 2 was devised to show that there are some
24 people who look at handwriting signatures, other people who look at the
25 non-handwriting parts of them, and that actually varies across Europe.
1 In England, document examiners look at all aspects of document
2 examination, so that covers both handwriting signatures and the
3 non-handwriting part, such as typewriter examinations, printers, inks,
4 counterfeit documents, et cetera.
5 Q. Thank you, Ms. Barr. In order to establish whether documents
6 were produced on the same typewriter, which is something that this Court
7 needs to know, does one need to have further information on the year,
8 model, and make of the typewriter in order to make the job easier for
9 those who are eventually supposed to draw conclusions?
10 A. No. Since I was simply asked, Were they produced on the same
11 machine, when that machine was produced doesn't matter.
12 Q. Thank you. I understand your answer, however, for the needs of
13 these proceedings, it would probably be necessary for us to have the
14 machine itself. Or, if not that, to at least have some more details
15 about the model of the typewriter so that the Court could arrive at
16 relevant conclusions.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is your question, Mr. Tolimir?
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. My question was actually: Is it necessary when examining
20 documents produced on a typewriter to also have information about the
21 model of the typewriter used in the course of production? Especially it
22 is a matter that needs to be litigated.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have received an answer to that earlier.
24 Please move on.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I still haven't
1 received any answer. I may have overlooked it. In any case, I'll move
2 on, as long as you heard the answer.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the witness indicated several times that
4 it was not necessary to know about the model and the machine itself.
5 Only by comparison of the documents she could indicate and distinguish if
6 it was written on the same machine or not. That was the answer we heard
7 several times.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the witness is confirming that. Please move
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In that case, I'd like to ask the witness the following: Can you
14 guarantee that the person forwarding the documents for your examination
15 to you actually forwarded the very documents produced on the particular
16 typewriter? Are you to be held accountable for the veracity of that fact
17 or the person who actually sent you the documents in question?
18 A. I can only compare what I received from the Prosecution. I have
19 no knowledge of where those documents came from.
20 Q. Thank you, Ms. Barr. This suffices. My next question is this:
21 On page 3, in paragraph 2.4, I believe we'll see it on the screen
22 shortly, you state:
23 "Some related aspects require expertise in highly specialised
24 fields such as security printing or the detailed analysis of specialised
25 inks or papers. Experts in such areas may not necessarily have a
1 detailed knowledge of the other aspects of questioned documents but will
2 often work in partnership with other document examiners to ensure that
3 all aspects of the task are correctly addressed."
4 My question is this. In your report you state your opinion about
5 the degree of certainty that the two documents in question, which is
6 0425850 and 044100972 [as interpreted], were produced on the same
7 typewriter. In relation to that, I'd like to ask you this: Is it
8 necessary to have all the elements you refer to in paragraph 2.4 in order
9 to draw such conclusions?
10 A. Paragraph 2.4 refers to the fact that there are experts that work
11 with banks, for example, who only have knowledge of printing of bank
12 notes, so they are an expert in that area not in any other area, and so
13 for cases involving bank notes they should work in conjunction with other
14 document examiners to ensure that what has been asked, whatever that
15 might be, is answered. So it doesn't really refer to my comparison of
16 the typewritten documents.
17 Q. Thank you, Ms. Barr. In your report in paragraph 5.3, which we
18 are about to see, you state that the lower-case letter P on these
19 documents has a slight damage to the left-hand side of the bottom
20 horizontal line. My question is this: Since you used the term slight
21 damage or partial damage to the bottom line, are you trying to point out
22 that there was a particular feature on the slug for the production of the
23 letter P, or are you actually referring to something else? Was there a
25 A. I'm referring to a defect.
1 Q. Thank you. What may have been the reason for that defect to
2 occur, the mere use of the machine or any particular mechanical feature
3 of the typewriter? Was it due to wear and tear or something else? Can
4 you tell us what the basic cause may have been?
5 A. For this particular machine, I don't -- wouldn't know the cause,
6 but generally the defects I've encountered in these types of typewriters
7 is normally caused by wear and tear.
8 Q. Thank you. Such defects, can they also occur during production
9 itself? And is it possible that all typewriters of the same batch have
10 the same defect? Is there such a possibility?
11 A. It is a possibility.
12 Q. Thank you. Do all typewriters have -- make different prints
13 irrespective of the model match as would be the case with finger-prints?
14 A. Typewriters have a fixed each -- they have a fixed typestyle
15 that's produced by the manufacturer and how the slugs have been produced.
16 Q. Thank you. If possible, please answer this, since we are not
17 experts in this field, can you explain it in lay terms: Is there a
18 possibility that all typewriters of the same model have different prints
19 or produce different prints which occur between the time of production
20 and the end of their life much as would be the case with regular
21 finger-prints and dermal ridges?
22 A. Typewriters, when they're produced, of the same model would
23 produce the same print. But as they wear over time, then they can
24 develop their own unique features.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think it's time for our first
1 break. You may continue after the break. We must have our first break
2 now, and we will resume at 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Let's take it up from where we left off. You say that the
9 machines wear over time and they develop peculiar features. My question
10 is this: Does the position of the machine at the time it is being used
11 have any bearing on the eventual peculiar features it may develop in the
12 prints? Thank you.
13 A. It may do if it was exposed to more things that are likely to
14 damage it.
15 Q. Thank you. May an inadequate bearing, or underneath a
16 typewriter, for instance, if it's placed on an inadequate surface, have
17 any impact on the possible defects that may develop in the prints? Thank
19 A. I don't know. It may do.
20 Q. In the specimens you examined, in addition to the damage to the
21 Ps and Vs, you also observed a difference in colouration. My question is
22 this: Can the use of different ribbons on the same typewriter produce
23 different prints, although the text was produced on the same machine?
24 Because normally where you have different ribbons, this would have an
25 impact on the text printed. Thank you.
1 A. It wouldn't affect the style of the text, though it may affect
2 the colour of it.
3 Q. Thank you. Can it affect the degree to which the characters are
4 filled in, for instance, in the case of the letters V and P? Thank you.
5 A. By filled in, I was referring to dirt on the actual -- the
6 characters. That was meaning that it was -- more was being transferred
7 onto the paper. So to that extent, no, the ribbon wouldn't affect that.
8 It would affect the amount that you could see. Again, if you had a newer
9 ribbon with more ink in it, then the print would be darker and you would
10 see darker filling in.
11 Q. Thank you. I ask this because in the texts you use as
12 referential originals we were able to see different impressions of
13 characters which seemed quite faded. You are a forensic document
14 examiner. This is my question: Were you asked to determine the degree
15 of certainty that the documents you examined were produced at a time at
16 which they were purported to have been produced? Thank you.
17 A. No, I wasn't.
18 Q. Thank you. And were you able to establish the time when a
19 document came into being based on the typewritten impressions you were
20 given for forensic examination? Thank you.
21 A. No. I was simply asked to compare the documents.
22 Q. Thank you. I understand your position. Can experts establish
23 the time when a document was produced and which was typed up on a
24 specific typewriter? Thank you.
25 A. As regards the time when a document was produced, no. Whether it
1 was typed on a specific typewriter, yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Is it possible for any expert to determine the time
3 when a document was produced? Thank you.
4 A. It depends on what document. Dating documents is a very
5 specialised and difficult field. As regards typewriting, I don't think
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what sort of forensic
8 examination is required in order to establish the time when a typewritten
9 document was produced? Thank you.
10 A. I can't think of any means of determining when a typewritten
11 document was produced.
12 Q. Thank you. Can the chemical substance of the impressions, that's
13 to say of the text itself, contribute to this process? Do they affect
14 the process in any way? Thank you.
15 A. They may do. As I say, to the best of my knowledge, for
16 typescript, I don't think it's possible. For example, there are still
17 old-fashioned typewriters and ribbons dating back many years that people
18 still have, so it would still be possible to produce something today that
19 was produced on an old-style typewriter.
20 Q. Thank you. Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. Let me give
21 you an illustration. The Prosecution here challenged the time when
22 certain entries were made, altered, or erased. We as the Defence also
23 challenge the origin of certain documents, whether they are of pre-war or
24 post-war origin. Can you tell us, what are the features that can
25 determine the time of origin of a document? Thank you.
1 A. It would depend on the specific document that you were talking
2 about. So, for example, if you were talking pre-Second World War, you
3 wouldn't expect to see ball-point pen on it, so that's one way of dating
4 documents. As regards, as I say, typescript, I'm not aware of any means
5 of determining when it was produced. There are some -- in the UK it's
6 not something that is done routinely. Dating of documents, there is a
7 lot of research being done in America on dating handwritten documents by
8 dating the alterations in inks, but it's not very reliable at the moment.
9 And as I say, for typewritten documents I don't think it's possible, or
10 I'm not aware of any means of doing it.
11 Q. Thank you. Since you forensically examined handwritten texts for
12 the purposes of this trial, this is my question: Based on the
13 examination of the date when a paper was manufactured or on the pen
14 impressions, is it possible to establish -- or to date the documents that
15 were the subject of your forensic examination? Thank you.
16 A. Again, it would depend on a lot of other factors. For example,
17 you would have to know when the paper was manufactured, and in effect all
18 that could tell you was, if you knew that precisely, that the document
19 couldn't have been produced prior to that date, but it couldn't tell you
20 after that date when it had been produced.
21 Q. Thank you. Can the chemical substance of the ink or any other
22 matter used to produce the impression point to the date when the document
23 was produced?
24 A. As I said, I think there is some research that says that you can
25 date documents by how the ink has changed over time. As far as I am
1 aware, I don't know the time, how closely you could differentiate, I
2 suspect in terms of years it may be possible, providing you're looking at
3 the same ink on the same piece of paper.
4 Q. Thank you. Tell us, on page 6 of today's transcript, in line 6,
5 you spoke of -- or actually, it's paragraph 6 of your report, I'm sorry.
6 You say that there are some features in the questioned text which are not
7 consistent with the signature specimen. And at page 78 of the
8 transcript, that's the extent of what you said in answer to the
9 Prosecutor's questions. Do you remember that?
10 A. No, I'm not entirely sure to what you're referring.
11 Q. Thank you. On page 75 you spoke about the contents of the
12 document written by Dragan Jokic. You went on to speak about your
13 findings --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch what Mr. Tolimir
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And then I asked you on page 78 -- or, rather, the Prosecutor
18 asked you about Vujadin Popovic's signature, and then at paragraph 6.5
19 you speak of the questioned signature, and then at item 6.6 of your
20 report you say that some of the features in the questioned text are not
21 consistent with the signature specimen.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the relevant portion
23 shown on the screen in order for you to see the point I'm referring to.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it will come up very soon. You were
25 referring to the transcript -- just to clarify, you were referring to the
1 transcript of yesterday during the cross-examination of Mr. --
2 examination-in-chief of Mr. Vanderpuye; is that correct?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I was referring to the
4 examination of today. I was referring to pages 77 and 78. I'm not sure
5 where exactly the reference can be found. Yesterday, I believe that was
6 the case, yes.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. Yesterday, not today. We don't have --
8 reached the page 78 today.
9 We need paragraph 6.6 on the screen of this document.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think I'm referring to P1969, but
11 I'm not sure that my notes are correct.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now I'm confused. We had the document P1972 on
13 the screen. You -- and I don't know which document you want to have on
14 the screen.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have now P1969 on the screen I was told.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at item 6.6 if we have
18 it. If we don't, can we then look at P1969. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is on the screen. Paragraph 6.6 can't be
20 found in this document. You should check it again.
21 Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks, Mr. President. I think the reference
23 that General Tolimir is talking about, referring to paragraph 6.6, is
24 from a different document which is P1967, but that document refers to
25 Drago Nikolic and not Vujadin Popovic, so it's unclear whether
1 General Tolimir is referring to Drago Nikolic or Vujadin Popovic for the
2 purposes of the question he wishes to put.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I meant Drago Nikolic,
4 since that's what the expert referred to. Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 Can we have P1967. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now tell us, please, the page number and/or the
7 paragraph number.
8 Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: On my feet again, and I apologise.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 5. Thank you.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: 1968, not 1967. I'm mistaken.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Then move to another document.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I apologise.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have the paragraph 6.6 on the screen.
15 Please continue, Mr. Tolimir.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let me just read it
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. What I was looking for cannot be found under 6.6. But under 6.7,
20 in line 4, it reads:
21 "However, there are some features of the construction and
22 proportions of these questioned signatures that are less well matched.
23 While these differences may be due to the small size of the signature
24 boxes, they have prevented me from expressing any strong opinion.
25 Nevertheless, the similarities do, in my opinion, provide some limited
1 evidence that Drago Nikolic produced the specified signatures on the
2 vehicle log" of such and such a number. "However, the possibility of
3 simulation cannot be ruled out."
4 Thank you. That's the relevant part I was looking for, which was
5 in paragraph 6.7 rather than 6.6 so I apologise to everyone.
6 Can this provide conclusive evidence that Drago Nikolic made the
7 entry himself or that somebody made the entry in his stead? Thank you.
8 A. No. It provides limited evidence that Drago Nikolic produced the
9 signatures, but I can't exclude the fact that somebody else did.
10 Q. Thank you. You are a doctor of sciences and you received your
11 doctorate in plant pathology. Can you tell us briefly what sort of
12 scientific field this is and in what way it is related to your forensic
13 expertise? Thank you.
14 A. It was to do with a virus relating to sugar beet, so it has
15 absolutely no relevance to my expertise in forensic science, other than
16 it being a scientific degree.
17 Q. Thank you. Since you've just told us that you received your
18 doctorate in this field, is it possible to decry traces invisible to the
19 naked eye by dowsing the paper with a certain substance which would
20 enable us to see if the entry made on that piece of paper is identical to
21 the rest of the text contained on that sheet of paper? Thank you.
22 A. I don't really understand the question. Do you mean identical to
23 the ink or identical to the writing?
24 Q. Thank you. I'll repeat my question. If we have a set of writing
25 where an alteration was made of several words or a single word, is it
1 possible by analysing invisible features of the chemical impression of
2 the various characters and the rest of the text to ascertain that there
3 are differences between the different sets of writings on the piece of
4 paper if -- and that by adding some substance to it, such as smearing it
5 with a citric acid or something of the sort? Thank you.
6 A. I don't know about the -- adding some substance. It would be
7 possible to analyse the inks to determine if they were different, which
8 may indicate that a different pen had been used, which, depending on the
9 circumstances, may indicate an alteration.
10 Q. Thank you for your answer. In addition to the forensic
11 examination of documents and in particular handwriting, do you also work
12 in the other scientific field within which you received your doctorate?
13 Thank you.
14 A. No. I've been a forensic document examiner since 1992.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you understand the Serbian language used in the
16 documents you examined for the purposes of this Tribunal and testimony?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. In order to analyse a handwriting, is it necessary to
19 be acquainted with the elements of the language and script used in the
21 A. Not necessarily, no, provided that you can identify the
22 individual characters to make sure that you're comparing like with like.
23 Q. Thank you. Is this in keeping with certain general guide-lines
24 that graphologists have to abide by when analysing documents and
1 A. Yes, I think it is. Yes.
2 Q. Therefore, I can conclude that such an examination meets the
3 standard threshold required of any graphologist when carrying out an
4 analysis of a particular handwriting?
5 A. The examination that I carried out here, yes, meets the standard
6 that we would do for all our examinations.
7 Q. Thank you. Given that it does meet the standard, my question is
8 this: Does it make it more difficult for the forensic examiner in
9 question to examine a certain document without being familiar with the
10 language and script used in the document that is being examined?
11 A. It takes more preparation to be certain that you're comparing
12 like with like. Once that process has been taken into account, then we
13 would use the same principles that we used -- or I would use in comparing
14 writing in English.
15 Q. Thank you. Given that, for the purposes of your examination as
16 you were tasked by the OTP, you analysed a large number of documents that
17 were created either on typewriters or by writing, did you use the
18 assistance of anyone familiar with the Serbian language and script during
19 your examination?
20 A. No. Other than I had -- I was provided with transliterations of
21 certain parts of the writing to enable me to identify the characters.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us who carried out these
24 A. No.
25 Q. Does it mean that you don't know, or ...
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you answer this question? You were asked:
2 "Can you tell us who carried out these transliterations?" And you said,
3 "No." Does it mean you don't know or are there other reasons why you
4 can't tell?
5 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I only got up to the "or." I don't know.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
7 Mr. Tolimir.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 I'd like to thank the witness as well, our expert witness,
10 Ms. Kathryn Barr, for her assistance and clarifications that serve our
11 needs. Thank you for being here, and thank you for this opportunity to
12 put questions to you since we are unfamiliar with the topic as
13 laypersons. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Defence. I wish you
14 a safe journey back home. And may God bless you in your further
15 activities. Thank you yet again.
16 Thank you, Mr. President. This concludes the Defence
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.
19 Mr. Vanderpuye, do you have re-examination?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Dr. Barr, you will be pleased to hear that this
22 concludes your examination, your testimony here in this trial. The
23 Chamber would like to thank you that you were able to come to The Hague
24 and to provide us with your expertise. Now you are free to return to
25 your normal activities. Thank you very much again.
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, well, just two things. One is I
5 thought it would be helpful to point out to the Court that the subject
6 matter of Dr. Barr's 8th January, 2010, report concerning the documents
7 is also referred to specifically in the testimony of Danko Gojkovic.
8 It's at pages 2888 of the transcript and 2881 of the transcript, and I
9 think that would be helpful to the Trial Chamber.
10 The second issue is, since I've concluded the examination of my
11 witness, may I be excused?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, you are. Enjoy your -- the remainder of
13 your working day.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I suppose Mr. Thayer is taking the next witness.
16 Good afternoon, Mr. Thayer. I always address you as Mr. Thayer
17 because I -- at the beginning the trial one day I asked you how to
18 pronounce your name correctly. Others say sometimes Mr. Tayer. What is
19 correct? Finally after one year I would like to know that.
20 MR. THAYER: Good afternoon, Mr. President. The correct
21 pronunciation is Thayer, but --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
23 MR. THAYER: -- but I answer to numerous monickers and --
24 depending on what they are.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, welcome to the Tribunal. Would you
3 please read aloud the affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
4 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated] I solemnly declare that I
5 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: EMMA SAYER
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down and make
8 yourself comfortable.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's microphones be turned on,
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The microphones should be switched on for the
13 Mr. Thayer for the Prosecution will conduct his
15 Mr. Thayer.
16 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon to you
17 again. Good afternoon to Honourable Judge Nyambe. Good afternoon to the
18 Defence and everyone in the courtroom.
19 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
20 Q. Good afternoon, ma'am.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, if I could go into private session
23 for one brief moment, please.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We turn into private session.
25 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 MR. THAYER:
19 Q. Ma'am, would you please just state your name for the record.
20 A. My name is Emma Lucinda Sayer.
21 Q. Do you recall testifying in this courtroom in February of 2008?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. And, ma'am, did you recently have an opportunity to read a
24 transcript of your prior testimony?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. And were there two corrections to that prior testimony that we
2 discussed when we met on Tuesday -- I beg your pardon, on Sunday of this
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. Okay. The first correction, I believe, has to do with a
6 particular word that you noticed had been mistranscribed and do you
7 recall off the top of your head what that word was?
8 A. Yes. The word was "scything," the use of a scythe. And it was
9 mistranscribed as "sizing."
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. THAYER: And for the record, that's at transcript page 21136
12 of the prior transcript, line 22, where we see the word size, s-i-z-e.
13 Q. Now, there was another correction that you wished to make and
14 that was with respect to your recollection of General Tolimir's presence
15 at one meeting versus another. Can you briefly tell the Trial Chamber
16 what that correction is which you wish to make.
17 A. Yes. There were two meetings that I was present at in the same
18 restaurant in the region of Han Kram, and I mistook the meeting in my
19 original testimony in 2008, so the regard to -- with regard to which of
20 the assistant commanders was accompanying General Mladic. So I believe
21 that the two meetings were on the 19th of July and the 25th of July. And
22 they relate to General Gvero being at the meeting, the later meeting on
23 the 25th of July. And it was General Tolimir and Colonel Indjic who were
24 at the meeting, the first meeting, on the 19th.
25 Q. Okay. And just for the record, you were asked, beginning at
1 page 21116 of the prior transcript, about the meeting on the
2 25th of July, and then on the next page, on 21117, you were asked at
3 line 11:
4 "Who, if anyone, from the VRS was there to greet you when you
5 arrived at the restaurant?"
6 And your answer to this question was:
7 "My recollection is that General Tolimir was at the restaurant."
8 And, again, this is referring to the 25th. So is that the
9 specific portion which you wish to correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Okay. And we'll go into a few questions about that meeting on
12 the 19th of July. We didn't go into that in the last trial but we will
13 in this trial, so hopefully that will be made a little bit clearer.
14 Now, bearing those two corrections in mind, can you attest that
15 the transcript that you read otherwise accurately reflects what you said
16 in the last trial, ma'am?
17 A. Yes, absolutely.
18 Q. And, again, bearing those two corrections which you just told us
19 about in mind, can you attest that were you asked the same questions
20 today which you were asked back in February 2008 that your answers would
21 be the same?
22 A. Yes, bearing in mind the two corrections I've just made, yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
25 65 ter 7214 and 7215 respectively, please. The under seal and public
1 versions of the transcript.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They both will be received. The first one under
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the under seal version will be
5 Exhibit P1973 and the public version Exhibit P1974.
6 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, we do have one associated exhibit to
7 tender and that is 65 ter 02434, a list of proposed questions which the
8 MOD require that we submit ahead of the witness's interview back in 2008.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be received too.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1975.
11 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I do have a 92 ter summary to read
12 for the witness, if I may proceed.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
14 MR. THAYER: Thank you.
15 Beginning in June 1995, the witness served as a liaison officer
16 and interpreter working for General Rupert Smith at UNPROFOR BH command
17 in Sarajevo. She primarily dealt with the ABiH and Bosnian politicians,
18 whereas Captain Tom Dibb primarily dealt with the VRS and Serb civilian
19 leadership in a similar role. When Captain Dibb was unavailable, the
20 witness would occasionally attend meetings with the Serb side. In 1995,
21 the witness's surname was Bliss.
22 The witness accompanied General Smith to Zepa on 25, 26, and
23 27 July 1995. She received this assignment only because Dibb was in Zepa
24 working with Colonel Coiffet. C-o-i-f-f-e-t for the record. On 25 July,
25 she was present with Smith at a meeting with Generals Mladic and Gvero at
1 the Jela restaurant in Han Kram after which she drove with Smith to Zepa
2 later that day. In Zepa, she particularly recalled the look of shock or
3 disbelieve on Mr. Torlak's face when Smith asked him whether there was
4 anybody who wished to remain in the enclave. Torlak replied that nobody
5 wanted to stay because they were afraid. The witness authored the
6 majority of a report, 65 ter 6072, that memorialises Smith's meetings in
7 Han Kram, Zepa, and Sarajevo on 25 July.
8 The witness was also present when Smith met with three members of
9 the Zepa War Presidency on 27 July and specifically recalls Mladic using
10 the word "liquidate" when discussing what would happen to the men
11 remaining in Zepa who refused to surrender their weapons.
12 The witness also testified about an encounter Smith had with
13 Gvero at a check-point as they left Zepa on 27 July. During a brief
14 conversation between the two generals at the check-point, the witness
15 formed the impression that Gvero was headed into the enclave to ascertain
16 the situation on the ground and that he would meet Dibb and Coiffet
18 Q. Now, ma'am, I have a few additional questions for you and a
19 couple of reports to show you that we didn't look at last time you were
20 here. My first question is: Who preceded you in your position as
21 interpreter and liaison officer on General Smith's staff?
22 A. There was a female captain called Penny Ferguson who preceded me
23 in the role of liaison with the Bosnian and federation side.
24 Q. Okay. Let's go right to some of these documents.
25 MR. THAYER: If we could have 65 ter 2137 on e-court, please.
1 Q. Do you see a document on your screen in front of you, ma'am?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Okay. We can see it's dated the 13th of July, and we can see
4 it's from Captain E.L. Bliss. Just for the record, who's that?
5 A. That was me.
6 Q. Okay. And we see that the heading is:
7 "Meeting General Smith/Prime Minister Silajdzic 13 July 1995."
8 And it goes on to summarise then lay out what the main issues
10 MR. THAYER: If we could just briefly go to the next page in both
11 versions, please. And then one more page in the B/C/S to the last page
12 in B/C/S.
13 Q. And we see a signature over your name. Do you recognise that
15 A. Yes, I do. That was my signature.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. THAYER: Now, if we could just briefly go back to the first
18 page of the document, please.
19 Q. We'll see that this was a meeting at approximately 1420 hours on
20 the 13th of July at the Presidency. Were you present for this whole
21 meeting, ma'am?
22 A. Yes, I was.
23 Q. And can you tell the Trial Chamber whether there was anything in
24 particular that stood out in your mind about this meeting? If there is
25 nothing after however many years it's been, almost 16 years, that's okay,
1 but if there's anything that stands out in your memory, please share that
2 with the Trial Chamber.
3 A. I particularly recall the conversation about the capacity for
4 refugees at Tuzla airport.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And this sticks in my mind because actually Tom Dibb was sent
7 with the deputy Chief of Staff of headquarters UNPROFOR, Colonel Coiffet,
8 to assist in this.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Since the witness is
11 referring to paragraphs 4 and 5, could we also have them displayed on the
12 monitors in the Serbian since now I can only see paragraph 3 which has
13 been discussed.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, of course. Now we have also paragraphs 4
15 and 5 in B/C/S on the screen.
16 Mr. Thayer.
17 MR. THAYER:
18 Q. You referred to Captain Dibb. Do you recall whether you were
19 receiving communications from him during this period of time about what
20 was happening in Tuzla?
21 A. Yes, they had a means of communicating directly with the
22 headquarters during their deployment.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. THAYER: We're done with this document. Mr. President, the
25 Prosecution would tender 65 ter 2137.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received as an exhibit.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1976, Your Honours.
3 MR. THAYER: Now let's have a look, please, at 65 ter 2139 in
5 Q. We can see that this at the top indicates that it's coming from
6 UNPROFOR Sarajevo headquarters office of General Smith. The date and
7 time, if I'm reading it correctly, is the 19th of July at 2300 hours
8 Bravo time zone 1995. Do I have that correct if we look at the DTG entry
9 in the upper left-hand corner, ma'am?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Okay. The drafter is Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, and the message
12 on this cover sheet is that there is a report attached on the meeting
13 today between General Smith and Mladic with a copy of an agreement which
14 they concluded at the meeting.
15 MR. THAYER: Now, if we could go to the next page, please.
16 Q. We can see, again at the upper left-hand side corner, it's from
17 Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, MA, military assistant to the commander, dated
18 19 July 1995. If we look at the summary, it refers to a meeting between
19 General Smith and Mladic at the Jela restaurant at 1200 hours in Han Kram
20 on the 19th of July and further indicates that General Mladic was
21 accompanied by General Tolimir and Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic.
22 Now, I don't think we're going to see your name or signature on
23 this report, ma'am, but can you tell the Trial Chamber whether you were
24 present for this meeting?
25 A. I was present for this meeting, yes.
1 Q. And, again, is there anything that stands out in your mind about
2 this meeting?
3 A. May I see the next page of the document, please?
4 Q. Certainly.
5 MR. THAYER: This would also be the same next page in B/C/S,
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Yes, I particularly recall, after the
8 very detailed discussion on each paragraph of the agreement, the
9 conversation moved to Srebrenica. And I particularly recall the
10 translation of General Mladic's point that Srebrenica was finished in the
11 correct way and also when he further explained that he had personally
12 engaged himself in making sure that the refugees had as much water and
13 food as possible.
14 MR. THAYER: Now, why don't we go two more pages in the English
15 and two more pages in the B/C/S.
16 Q. I don't want to take you through the actual text of the
17 agreement. I think we'll have other witnesses here, General Smith, for
18 example, who can testify about it in more detail. My one question for
19 you is: As we can see here, there's an agreement, and if we go to the
20 next page, we'll see that it was in fact signed by both General Smith and
21 General Mladic and dated the 19th of July. Did you have any knowledge at
22 the time as to where or when this agreement which was signed on the 19th
23 was actually drafted or first discussed?
24 A. I was aware that there had been conversations in Belgrade, at the
25 Belgrade meetings, relating to this agreement.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
3 65 ter 2139.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1977, Your Honours.
6 MR. THAYER:
7 Q. And just a general question with respect to the report we just
8 saw: It doesn't bear your name, but can you give the Trial Chamber an
9 idea of what role you recall playing in the drafting of that report?
10 A. Yes. It was our practice in the outer office where
11 Colonel Baxter and the liaison officers sat that whichever of the liaison
12 officers had attended the meetings would do the first sort of draft of
13 the meeting notes, and then they would be passed either to Colonel Baxter
14 or to General Smith for refinement or any amendment.
15 Q. Okay. What I'd like to do next is --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask in addition, who was drafting this
17 specific agreement?
18 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that the specific points in the
19 agreement were already -- had already been discussed before we actually
20 went to this meeting, and I wasn't present at the Belgrade meetings.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I take it that this draft was created before
22 you went with General Smith to this meeting?
23 THE WITNESS: The actual draft of the agreement, sir, yes.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Thayer.
1 MR. THAYER: Okay. Let's look at some video very briefly, if we
2 could. This is P740. Just going to look at a couple of minutes and
3 there should be some video showing up on your screen in just a moment.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. THAYER: Sorry, we're just going to start again so I can put
7 the time code on the record, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, indeed. And you have indicated in your list
9 of documents that this is marked for identification. Do you recall the
10 reason why it was marked, perhaps about the subtitles or?
11 MR. THAYER: In this case, Mr. President, this is a -- what we
12 have referred to as a compilation video regarding the events in Zepa. It
13 comprises different video footage from different days during this period
14 of time. And our plan has been that we authenticate the various pieces
15 of footage throughout the trial and once everything has been shown to the
16 Court and authenticated, then we would offer the compilation video as an
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this update. I forgot.
19 MR. THAYER: So we are looking at 18.4 seconds of the video. And
20 if we can role the video, please.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. THAYER:
23 Q. We've paused it at 28.5 seconds. First of all, can you tell us
24 where this is and what the date is?
25 A. I believe this to be the 19th of July at the restaurant at
1 Han Kram.
2 Q. And there is a man with his profile to the camera in an
3 olive-drab T-shirt and appears to have a pistol holster on his right hip.
4 Can you tell the Trial Chamber who that is, please?
5 A. Yes, that's Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic.
6 MR. THAYER: Okay. Let's keep playing the tape, please.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. And we've stopped at 1 minute 15.3 seconds. We've seen a man in
10 this footage in addition to the officer you've identified as
11 Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic. There's another man who's been standing at
12 the printer in a long-sleeve camouflage uniform and his face is currently
13 in profile to the screen. Can you tell the Trial Chamber who that person
14 is, please?
15 A. Yes, that's David Wood. He was a member of the headquarters
16 UNPROFOR party.
17 MR. THAYER: Thank you. Let's keep playing the tape.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 MR. THAYER:
20 Q. Okay. We've paused at 2 minutes 18.1 seconds. Can you tell the
21 Trial Chamber, moving from left to right, who is in this image?
22 A. Moving from left to right is General Mladic with
23 General Rupert Smith in the middle and Colonel James Baxter on the
24 right-hand side of the image.
25 Q. And in this footage we've been seeing, what's being signed?
1 A. That's the agreement that we have been looking at in e-court.
2 Q. Okay. And do you recall where you were while this agreement was
3 being signed?
4 A. I believe I was sort of out of shot on the right-hand side of the
6 MR. THAYER: Okay. Thank you. We're done with the video.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 MR. THAYER: I'd like to move on to some subsequent meetings. If
9 we may have 65 ter 1984 on e-court, please.
10 Q. Okay. We have a report from Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter and it's
11 dated the 26th of July, referring to the meeting between General Smith
12 and Mladic on the 25th of July. We can see that he starts out in the
13 report referring to a meeting again at the Jela restaurant at 1230 hours
14 on the 25th of July, and it notes that the meeting was to follow up on
15 aspects of the agreement signed on the 19th and that General Mladic was
16 accompanied by General Gvero.
17 My first question is: Were you present for this meeting at the
18 Jela restaurant on the 25th of July?
19 A. Yes, I was present at this meeting on the 25th.
20 Q. Okay. And just to tie this back to what you told us at the very
21 beginning of your testimony, with respect to the correction you made in
22 your Popovic testimony, is this the meeting that you mistakenly testified
23 last time that you thought General Tolimir had attended and greeted you
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. Okay. I won't go into the details of the report. We can see
2 though at paragraph 3 there's a reference to Zepa and that this is the
3 subject of a separate note, and we'll take a look at that in a moment.
4 We can see here the topics that were discussed --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should move to the next page in B/C/S.
6 MR. THAYER: And in English as well, please. Thanks.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Paragraph 3 was on the previous page in English.
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. We can see that it's been signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter.
10 The meeting at the Jela restaurant that day, ma'am, do you recall
11 anything in particular about it? Does anything stand out in your mind
12 about that meeting, whatever it might be?
13 A. Yes. I particularly recall the conversation about Bihac. And
14 General Smith actually raised the situation in Bihac with General Mladic.
15 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
16 65 ter 1984.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received as an exhibit.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1978, Your Honours.
19 MR. THAYER: Okay. Let's go to the next document which is
20 65 ter 6072, please.
21 Q. Okay. We have another report from Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, and
22 it's dated the 26th of July. And it indicates at paragraph 1 that this
23 note will summarise today's events in Zepa. My first question is: We
24 saw a reference in the previous document at paragraph 3 that there would
25 be a separate note on Zepa; can you tell the Trial Chamber whether this
1 is the separate note or is there another note that the previous report
2 was referring to?
3 A. Yes, this is the note that was referred to in that earlier
4 report. And when it talks about today's events in Zepa, it is actually
5 referring to the events of the 25th of July.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be said clearly for the
8 transcript whether this is a special reference to a note made in relation
9 to Zepa or something else. Can this be clearly distinguished by the
10 Prosecutor or the witness. Thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
12 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, we can say it again. I think that's
13 what was contained in the last question.
14 Q. But, ma'am, you are familiar with this report. I think, based on
15 your prior testimony, we know that. Can you tell the Trial Chamber to
16 which area and, generally speaking, to which events this note refers.
17 A. Yes. This note refers to the situation in Zepa on the 25th and
18 is drawn from what the headquarters UNPROFOR team saw on the ground on
19 the 25th of July. And it also, I believe, refers in the second or third
20 pages to the meeting we had at the Presidency, the Bosnian Presidency,
21 with President Izetbegovic just before midnight on the 25th of July.
22 Q. Okay. Before we go into some particular portions of this report,
23 can you give the Trial Chamber just a little idea of what the
24 circumstances were of this particular report's drafting in terms of time
25 and place, hour of the day, that this was being drafted?
1 A. Yes. We had gone to Zepa after the meeting at Han Kram and were
2 there sort of late afternoon. And we stayed in Zepa for a number of
3 hours. We then made the journey back to Sarajevo by road and went
4 straight to the Presidency, the Bosnian Presidency, to meet with
5 President Izetbegovic. And I was the primary author of this document.
6 Q. So approximately what time of the day and what date was it
7 actually that this report was completed, to the best of your
9 A. It was -- it was started in the early hours of the 26th of July
10 at around 1.00 in the morning, and it was then finished off after it had
11 gone to Colonel Baxter in the morning around sort of 9.00 -- 9.00, 8.00,
12 9.00 in the morning. And for that reason, it has the date of the
13 26th of July at the top.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. THAYER: Now, if we could go to the next page in both
16 versions, please.
17 Q. We can see that paragraphs 4 and 5, and if we go to the next page
18 in B/C/S, and paragraph 6 all pertain to the meeting at the
19 Jela restaurant; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. THAYER: My apologies for leading a little bit; I just want
23 to move along slightly here.
24 Q. If we look at paragraph 7, it refers to a reconvened meeting in
25 Zepa. And what was that about? What does that refer to? Let me just
1 ask a proper question. What does that refer to?
2 A. Okay. It refers to General Smith and General Mladic meeting
3 again at CP2 and also General Smith had the opportunity to meet with his
4 other headquarters UNPROFOR staff who had been in Zepa pocket, in
5 Zepa town, throughout the day.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. THAYER: And if we go to the next page in both the original
8 and B/C/S.
9 Q. We see another paragraph 7, and I think we can appreciate it was
10 early in the morning when this was drafted.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. But we see another paragraph 7 and a reference to meeting between
13 General Smith and then Mladic and Torlak. And, again, just briefly
14 because you did touch on this in your prior testimony, to what does --
15 events does this paragraph and the following paragraphs refer?
16 A. We met with Mr. Torlak and -- because he had been the sort of
17 main representative, or he was presented to us as the main
18 representative, of the population in the pocket of Zepa, the
19 Bosnian Muslim population. And General Smith was very keen to meet and
20 be able to talk to him and relay to him the fact that we would go from
21 Zepa back to the Bosnian Presidency and meet with Minister Muratovic and
22 the president and be able to relay the concerns of Mr. Torlak directly to
23 them. And most of the conversation related to the POW exchange.
24 Q. And just one last question before the break. I think we're
25 coming up on the break. Does anything in particular stand out in your
1 mind about the meeting or the various meetings that General Smith had
2 during this period of time with General Mladic and Mr. Torlak?
3 A. General Smith was trying to get a sense of the atmosphere within
4 Zepa, the Zepa population, and it was at this stage that he asked
5 Mr. Torlak whether anybody wished to stay in the pocket. And my earlier
6 testimony relates my clear memory of the sort of shock and disbelief on
7 Mr. Torlak's face when he asked the question. And it's around
8 paragraph 10 that that refers to.
9 Q. And did Mr. Torlak communicate to General Smith what his belief
10 was would happen to anyone who was left behind, any Muslim that was left
12 A. Yes. He, you know, was -- it was clear that any man of fighting
13 age was at risk, at risk of death, were they to remain in the pocket.
14 Which was why they were so keen on helicopters, that's where, you know,
15 he was desperate for helicopters to be used rather than road transport.
16 MR. THAYER: Okay. And we'll pick up with this document after
17 the break.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We must have our second
19 break now, and we will resume at 1.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer, please continue your examination.
23 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Good afternoon again to you, ma'am.
25 MR. THAYER: Okay. We've been looking at 65 ter 6072, for the
1 record. If we scroll down in both versions, and we'll have to go -- we
2 can see that the B/C/S continues through paragraph 10. If we can go to
3 the next page in B/C/S, please.
4 Q. At paragraph 13 there's a reference to a meeting between
5 General Smith and President Izetbegovic. We can see the time here at
6 2340 hours. General Smith met Izetbegovic with Muratovic and Masovic
7 attending as well. Is this the meeting to which you referred earlier in
8 your testimony at the end of the night on the 25th?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 MR. THAYER: And if we could just go to the end of the document,
11 the next page in both versions, please.
12 Q. And, again, do you recognise the signature at the bottom of this
13 page, ma'am?
14 A. Yes, I do. It's my signature.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
17 65 ter 6072.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received as an exhibit.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1979, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have page 13 but not in its
22 entirety, and we don't have paragraph 14 at all. Does it exist in the
23 document or not?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can go back to the previous page with the
25 paragraphs 13 and 14. We had that on the screen already. Now you can
1 see it. We can go to the next page so that we can see there's paragraph
2 15 and 16.
3 Okay. Mr. Thayer, please continue.
4 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Now, staying on the 25th of July, ma'am, you've already told the
6 Trial Chamber that Tom Dibb was on the ground separately from your group
7 that day. Can you just generally describe the type of contacts which you
8 had with Captain Dibb that first day?
9 A. Yes. By the time we arrived at check-point 2 in the late
10 afternoon, around 4.30, Captain Dibb and the French colonel were -- did
11 actually arrive at check-point 2 as well. So there were verbal
12 communications. And I hadn't seen Tom for -- or since he'd been
13 deployed, so we took the opportunity to catch up and talk about what had
14 been going on, as our various deployments had been different.
15 Q. And when you refer to your deployments, are you referring to the
16 events in Zepa or are you referring to a larger deployment of some kind?
17 A. No, specifically Tom's deployment to the pocket of Zepa and my
18 deployment to the meetings with the Bosnian Serbs that he would normally
19 have attended. And then our drive from the restaurant at Han Kram into
20 the Zepa enclave, to OPT -- OP2.
21 Q. Okay. And you testified in the last trial that you recalled
22 travelling to Zepa on the 25th, 26th, and 27th of July with
23 General Smith. On those three days, did you ever go down from OP2 into
24 the town of Zepa, or did you remain at OP2 or some other location during
25 those three days?
1 A. No. On each of the three occasions, I remained at the OP2
2 location. I did not go into Zepa town.
3 Q. And how about Captain Dibb, did he go down into the town?
4 A. Absolutely, yes. That had been his -- the nature of his
5 deployment was to spend the bulk of that time actually in Zepa town
6 monitoring and observing what was happening.
7 Q. And do you recall at some point on the 25th having a conversation
8 with Captain Dibb about his interactions with the ICRC?
9 A. Yes, I do. There, it was a difficult time, obviously, and Tom
10 had been actually down in Zepa town and with the civil affairs people as
11 well, and there had been a dispute, a disagreement, between the
12 internationals down in Zepa town at that time about what was appropriate
13 action to be undertaking. And Tom felt very strongly that ICRC should
14 have been taking a much more proactive role. And that had caused some
16 Q. And what did Captain Dibb tell you he wanted the ICRC to do more
18 A. He wanted them to take a much more proactive role about taking
19 proper names and information from the people, from the wounded, and also
20 the refugees, and he felt that that was not happening.
21 Q. And did he tell you why ICRC wasn't being proactive enough in his
22 view? Did they give him any explanation?
23 A. Yes. The ICRC explanation was that from their perspective for
24 them to be actively involved in that sort of activity would make them
25 party to ethnic cleansing.
1 Q. So to your knowledge what did ICRC actually end up involving
2 itself with in terms of its activities in Zepa?
3 A. Mainly there was observation, I believe. And I believe at some
4 stage towards the end of that three days there was some registering of
5 wounded. An assessment of the wounded, yeah.
6 Q. Okay. Now, were -- was this particular conversation with
7 Captain Dibb in person or through some communications means?
8 A. No, it was face to face.
9 Q. And do you recall whether Captain Dibb maintained some form of
10 communication with the rest of the UNPROFOR contingent from Sarajevo who
11 were at OP2 while he was down in Zepa town?
12 A. Yes, absolutely. They had satellite communication, so they were
13 able to stay in comms with General Smith's party at all times.
14 Q. Do you recall ever seeing the accused on the 25th of July,
15 General Tolimir?
16 A. Yes. And also Tom had told me when we met at check-point 2 that
17 Tolimir had been -- General Tolimir had been in Zepa town during that day
18 on the 25th.
19 Q. And where did you see General Tolimir that day, if you recall?
20 A. At check P -- at check-point 2 where there was a tent set up.
21 And he was with General Mladic.
22 Q. Okay. Just a couple more documents to go through with you,
24 MR. THAYER: And, Mr. President, I note that I'm -- I think I'm
25 coming up on my estimated hour, and I think I might need 5 to 10 minutes
1 beyond that, if I may, to go through the next couple of documents.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Fine. Yes.
3 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 May we see 65 ter 2142 on e-court, please.
5 Q. And we can see this document is headed, "The Situation in Zepa
6 Summary as at 0800 hours 28 July 1995."
7 MR. THAYER: If we could just briefly go to the next page in both
8 versions, please. That will be the last page in B/C/S. The third page
9 in B/C/S, please. We can see that it's signed by
10 Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter. If we could go back to the first page,
12 Q. Just take a moment to re-familiarise yourself with the subject
13 matter of this report. And we can see it refers to the departure of the
14 civilian population, paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 there's a reference to the
15 events, the meetings, at the Sarajevo airport. Paragraph 3 refers to a
16 meeting at 4.30 that afternoon with three members of the
17 Zepa War Presidency and then an agreement. And we'll have to go to the
18 next page in B/C/S - thank you very much - to capture paragraph 5 where
19 General Smith's conversation with those three members of the
20 War Presidency is memorialised.
21 My first question, ma'am, is were you present for the events in
22 paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5?
23 A. Yes, I was present.
24 Q. And I take it you didn't pop back up to Sarajevo to be part of
25 the airport negotiations in paragraph 2; is that fair to say?
1 A. Yes, that's correct. Although, we were in communication with the
2 people who were at the POW exchange commission meeting.
3 Q. Okay. So in paragraph 2, do you recall who received this
4 information, and were you present when it was received?
5 A. The communications officers received the information. And I
6 wasn't present when it was received, but I was there when the information
7 was relayed to General Smith.
8 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say at the time this document was created
9 you were aware of the information in paragraph 2, just to lead you a
10 little bit on that, but ...
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. And I should perhaps clarify that although the summary is dated
14 as at 0800 on the 28th of July, it does concern information from
15 everything that happened on the 27th of July, just in case that isn't
17 Q. And based on your recollection of these events, is there anything
18 that stands out in particular in your mind about what happened that day
19 in Zepa, the 27th of July?
20 A. Yes. In particular I recall the meeting with the War Presidency
21 members. And you may recognise that I actually have changed the name of
22 Mr. Torlak. When I first met him, I misheard his name as Hakija, and
23 that's what it says in the earlier report that we've seen today. And so
24 now in paragraph 3 I've got his correct name.
25 Q. Okay. And in your prior testimony you indicated that you had a
1 specific recollection of General Mladic's use of the term "liquidate"
2 when he was referring to the men in Zepa who refused to surrender their
3 weapons by 1800 hours that day. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber
4 anything about General Mladic's demeanour when he made this statement and
5 whether you drew any conclusions based on his demeanour and how he was
6 communicating this statement?
7 A. Yes. I specifically recall that when General Smith was talking
8 to General Mladic about the fact that the Bosnian government were
9 unlikely to accept the agreement that had been signed by the three
10 members of the Zepa War Presidency, Mladic became very dismissive,
11 very -- and I have said scornfully. He -- he -- his demeanour seemed to
12 have hardened. And there had been an offer of a meeting with
13 Mr. Muratovic, but Mladic refused to go to the airport and Muratovic
14 refused to come to Zepa to OP2, to check-point 2. So there was -- he was
15 very dismissive of the Bosnian Muslim politicians at this particular time
16 of meeting. And then when we talked about General Smith relaying the
17 information to the Bosnian government that the agreement had been signed
18 by the War Presidency, he was very specific in the word he used. They
19 would be liquidated by the dead-line of 1800 hours. And he specifically
20 asked General Smith to take that message back with some force to
21 President Izetbegovic.
22 Q. And based on the -- his tone, as you said, and his demeanour and
23 the force, as you just said, what was your conclusion based on how he --
24 how General Mladic delivered this message about what "liquidated" meant
25 and to whom he was referring, who would be liquidated?
1 A. I had the strong impression that he was talking about the men,
2 the Bosnian Muslim men, left within the Zepa enclave who had refused to
3 surrender. And my -- the impression that I formed was very strongly that
4 once the dead-line of 1800 had passed, Mladic would not show them any
5 form of mercy and that they would be killed.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Mr. Thayer is asking for the witness's opinion and she was supposed to
9 testify about events. He wants to know the witness's opinion of what
10 General Mladic had in mind, also leading the witness in that. Perhaps
11 questions should be put specifically and limited to the words of those
12 participating in those events.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't think so, Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Thayer was
14 asking about the conclusion of the witness how General Mladic delivered
15 this message about what "liquidated" meant and to whom he was referring.
16 This witness was present at the time and I think it is absolutely correct
17 to ask for the way this witness understood the words of another person
18 present at this meeting.
19 Mr. Thayer, please continue.
20 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
21 65 ter 2142.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1980, Your Honours.
24 MR. THAYER:
25 Q. Just one question about your observations in this case of the
1 Ukrainian contingent that was up at OP2. Based on your observations of
2 their conduct, their behaviour, their -- whatever equipment they had with
3 them, were you able to get a sense of what military capabilities they had
4 up there at OP2? And referring, again, specifically to the Ukrainians.
5 A. Yes. I'm afraid that my view of the Ukrainians that I met at OP2
6 is not good. They were, in military terms, shambolic. Their weapons
7 were filthy. And I at no stage saw any attempt by any of them to clean
8 obviously dirty weapons. And I did not form a very high opinion of their
9 military capability.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer, some minutes ago you indicated you
11 need 5 to 10 minutes. You should try to come to an end.
12 MR. THAYER: I'm down to my last question actually,
13 Mr. President. Sorry, actually one question and one document and then
14 I'm done. And I can -- well, I'll finish, I hope, in five minutes, if I
15 could have five more minutes.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Try to do it in three minutes.
17 MR. THAYER: All right.
18 Q. Did you personally, observe, ma'am, any of the Muslim population
19 being taken out of the enclave?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber about what you saw.
22 A. Yes. On the final day that we were at OP2, so 27th, there was a
23 truck that was to one side of the check-point, and it was carrying sort
24 of 12 to 15 Bosnian Muslim people. And they were a mix of a couple of
25 younger boys, a couple of older women, and a number of wounded, maybe
1 three or four of them were wounded. And I particularly recall a man of
2 fighting age with a very obvious wound to his leg that had begun to smell
3 from the infection that had set in, and they were -- they were terrified.
4 Q. And did you do anything with respect to these people that you saw
5 in the truck?
6 A. I actually did get into the back of the truck at the request of
7 one of the women, and she explained that they were terrified that they
8 would be taken off the truck. And they asked me to take their names,
9 both first names and surnames, of everybody that was in the truck and
10 pass them to the UNHCR when I got back to Sarajevo. So I did do that and
11 I did pass the information back to our civil affairs people when I got
12 back to headquarters UNPROFOR in Sarajevo that evening.
13 Q. And among these wounded whom you saw in the back of this truck,
14 were all of the wounded military aged or able-bodied men?
15 A. Yes. They weren't -- not all of the 14 people in the back of the
16 truck were wounded, but the men of fighting age all had wounds. So one
17 had an arm in the sling, there was a man with the leg injury, and a
18 couple of other sort of walking wounded.
19 Q. And were any of the wounded in the truck other than a military
20 aged man?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Let me just ask you, see if I can jog your recollection,
23 do you remember telling me the other day about a wounded elderly woman
24 who was in the back of the truck, or did I mishear what you may have told
1 A. There was an elderly woman who was not well, but my distinction
2 is that I don't believe she had been wounded by a military action. She
3 was suffering from heat exhaustion and very, very dehydrated. So I did
4 give her some water.
5 Q. Okay. That was my mistake then. Thank you for clarifying that.
6 I just want to show you, very quickly, one last document.
7 MR. THAYER: 65 ter 2143.
8 THE WITNESS: Here we are.
9 MR. THAYER:
10 Q. While the B/C/S is coming up, it's a report from
11 Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, it's dated the 31st of July, and it
12 memorialises a meeting between General Smith and General Mladic and
13 General Gvero at the Balkana motel near Mrkonjic Grad at 1200 hours on
14 the 31st of July.
15 Now, you testified a little bit about this meeting and identified
16 yourself in some video in the last trial, so we won't go through that. I
17 just want to ask you very quickly whether you've seen this report before?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. Were you present for the meeting that's described in this report?
20 A. Yes, I was present for the whole of the meeting.
21 Q. Okay. And does the report accurately reflect what occurred in
22 the meeting?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender
1 65 ter 2143.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1981, Your Honours.
4 MR. THAYER: And Mr. President, that concludes my
5 examination-in-chief. I appreciate the extra time.
6 And I thank you, ma'am.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Tolimir -- Judge Nyambe has a question first, and then the
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. At page 67 of today's transcript, you
11 have stated that "the ICRC explanation was that from their perspective
12 for them to actively be involved in that sort of activity would make them
13 party to ethnic cleansing."
14 What particular activity is this?
15 THE WITNESS: The specific activity I was referring to is the
16 ICRC registering the full names and details of all the refugees within
17 the pocket.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. And what is your own opinion of this
19 refusal by the ICRC to register the refugees? As I understand generally,
20 this is the role of the ICRC in conflict zones. So what impression did
21 you form of their refusal to register refugees in these circumstances?
22 THE WITNESS: The impression that I formed is that the ICRC were
23 understandably nervous that the refugees did not wish voluntarily, for
24 any other reason than fear, to leave their homes. And therefore it was a
25 form of ethnic cleansing to actually -- the intent was to move the
1 Bosnian Muslim population in its entirety from the Zepa enclave to
2 Bosnian Muslim territory.
3 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination, please.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you. I wish you a happy
8 Women's Day. And may your testimony here end as God wishes and not I.
9 Let me start from the question put to you by Judge Nyambe. Is
10 that which is the subject of an agreement between the parties relevant
11 for the parties, or is the opinion of other representatives present more
12 important? Thank you.
13 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you
14 clarify who you mean when you're talking about the agreement between the
16 Q. I mean the UNHCR. Is their -- is more relevant the opinion held
17 by you or the UNHCR or the opinion of the parties that were signatory to
18 the agreement on the evacuation? I'm sorry, I'm referring to the ICRC,
19 rather than the UNHCR.
20 A. Okay. My belief is that the ICRC are experts in this field and
21 they have very clear understandings of what constitutes ethnic cleansing
22 and genocide.
23 Q. Thank you. I understand what you're saying. But tell me this,
24 if you were in Zepa and saw that the parties agreed on the population
25 moving out and evacuating, would you insist on having the population stay
1 there and possibly get killed only because you held an opinion that this
2 amounted to ethnic cleansing? Thank you.
3 A. I'm not sure I completely understand the question. I was at
4 check-point 2 in Zepa and the members of the population whom I met did
5 not convince me that they were leaving voluntarily because they wished to
6 move and live in Tuzla. They -- the impression that I formed and what
7 they told me was that they did not feel safe and they feared aggression
8 and perhaps death from the Bosnian side -- Serb side, and therefore they
9 were being forced to leave their homes.
10 Q. Thank you. Did you have occasion to review the items of the
11 agreement reached on the 24th, the agreement to which you testified here?
12 And specifically it's item 7.
13 A. Do you mean the agreement signed by the members of the
14 Zepa War Presidency or some other agreement? Because we have also
15 discussed an agreement signed between General Mladic and General Smith.
16 I would be grateful for clarification.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I would be grateful to receive the document
18 number so that it could be displayed on the screen.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. For everyone's
20 reference, can we show D51 in e-court.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. And I kindly ask you to read item 7 of the document. Thank you.
23 Thank you. We have item 7 in e-court. And to save time, I'll
24 read it out:
25 "In accordance with the Geneva Conventions of the
1 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 1977," it says
2 1577; it should read 1977, "the civilian population of Zepa shall be
3 given the freedom to choose their place of residence while hostilities
5 Can you keep these words in mind: "While hostilities continue."
6 This is my question: Is it not better to get the civilian population out
7 of harm's way while hostilities continue, or is it better to allow them
8 to stay in an area where fighting is going on? Thank you.
9 A. In my opinion, it would have been better if the civilian
10 population of Zepa could have stayed in their homes without fear for
11 their lives.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, at the moment we have this
13 document on the screen signed by members of the War Presidency of Zepa
14 and General Mladic.
15 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell Their Honours, are the
19 Geneva Conventions invoked here by the signatories to the agreement
20 invalid and should they not be applied if the agreement is not proper
21 according to the opinion of the ICRC and yourself? Thank you.
22 A. I think the question at issue is whether the civilian population
23 of Zepa were freely choosing their place of residence with regard to
24 Article 7 of the agreement or whether they were doing it out of fear.
25 For me, that is the distinction, but I'm not an ICRC expert on these
2 Q. Thank you. Though you answered a question which you seem to have
3 put to yourself, my question was should we not have acted in accordance
4 with the Geneva Conventions and the provisions of this agreement, which,
5 as Mr. President's indicated, was signed by the warring parties on the
6 24th in Zepa?
7 This is my next question: Did you know that the Muslim
8 delegation had asked that the entire Muslim population in Zepa be allowed
9 to leave? Thank you.
10 A. May I clarify. Do you mean the Muslim delegation, the three
11 members of the War Presidency, or the Bosnian government in Sarajevo?
12 Q. Thank you. I mean the individuals who negotiated and reached the
13 agreement that was signed in Zepa who were resident in Zepa and not in
14 Sarajevo. Thank you.
15 A. Thank you for the clarification. You may recall we have just
16 seen a document where General Smith talked to the three members of the
17 Zepa War Presidency and he did convey to them that he felt it was
18 unlikely that the Bosnian government in Sarajevo would accept the
19 agreement that had been signed and -- as they would feel that it would be
20 under duress for the three members of the Zepa War Presidency to sign
21 such an agreement with the Bosnian Serb forces.
22 Q. Thank you. Was the status of the enclave given to the Muslims in
23 Zepa or to the Muslims in Sarajevo? And I mean the authorities there.
24 A. My understanding of the political situation at the time is that
25 President Izetbegovic remained president of the enclaves even though he
1 resided in Sarajevo.
2 Q. Thank you. Does it follow then that all those who were in Zepa
3 had to get killed for the sake of Sarajevo or should they not have made
4 decisions which were in their own interest? Thank you.
5 A. I'm sorry, that's an astonishing question.
6 Q. Thank you. Since you find the question astonishing, are you here
7 to present your own views, the views of the Muslims in Zepa, or the views
8 of UNPROFOR? Thank you.
9 A. I've been asked here to give testimony on what I witnessed during
10 my service for UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995/1996.
11 If I may answer your question, when we met with President
12 Izetbegovic and Ministers Muratovic and Masovic on the first evening, the
13 evening of our first day in Zepa, they were -- the Bosnian government was
14 completely open to an all-for-all prisoner exchange in order to
15 safe-guard the population of Zepa. And not solely the military, the
16 Armija forces in Zepa, but the civilian population.
17 So I do not -- I did not conclude that the Bosnian Presidency was
18 intending to sacrifice the civilian population of Zepa for the sake of
19 Sarajevo, which I refer to your earlier question.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, that should be the last question for
22 today because we are running out of time.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you know that the population of Zepa had asked that all those
25 held in prisons be exchanged for the inhabitants of Zepa and not for all
1 those detained across Bosnia? Were you aware of this? Thank you.
2 A. I was aware of the -- the questions regarding the prisoner
3 exchange as they've been reported in these reports.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we have to adjourn for the day.
5 Sorry for that. We resume tomorrow morning in this courtroom at 9.00.
6 And you should be reminded not to have contact to either party
7 about the content of your testimony.
8 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We adjourn.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
13 March, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.