1 Wednesday, 19 September 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-32-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Mitar Vasiljevic.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer I understand there is some technical

10 problem which is thankfully limited to your case manager's machine. If

11 the fellow wants to come in to fix it while we're in progress, he can do

12 that, but I think we should get on with the case. You proceed.

13 WITNESS: WITNESS VG80 [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Examined by Ms. Bauer: [Continued]

16 Q. Witness 80, good morning. Yesterday we stopped when you were

17 describing how you got to know Mitar Vasiljevic before the war. When was

18 the next time you saw Mitar Vasiljevic during the war, was that before or

19 after the Uzice Corps left Visegrad?

20 A. I saw Mitar Vasiljevic when the Uzice Corps had left Visegrad.

21 Q. Could you please describe to the Court the circumstances under

22 which you saw Mitar Vasiljevic?

23 A. I saw Mitar Vasiljevic around the building and in the building in

24 which I lived.

25 Q. What was he doing when you first saw him around?

1 A. When I saw him for the first time in front of the building where

2 the garages were, and there were a couple of men with him, two or three, I

3 don't know how many. Whether he was looking for people or wanted to break

4 into the garages, I don't know. But anyway, I saw him near the garages

5 the first time.

6 Q. Could you please describe on what floor your apartment is?

7 A. My apartment is on the ground-floor level. It's really the first

8 floor in the building. A higher ground-floor level.

9 Q. And the windows are facing which side?

10 A. The windows are facing the side where the garages were, and there

11 was also another entrance to the building on that side. There were two

12 entrances. One was from the street side and the other one was from the

13 garage side of the building.

14 Q. How far would you estimate are the garages away from your

15 windows?

16 A. The garages are roughly ten metres away. Well, sufficient

17 distance for cars to be able to enter. About ten metres. I don't know

18 for sure, but something like that.

19 Q. Would you be able to recognise anybody that came in to the

20 garages?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The incident when you saw Mitar Vasiljevic, what was he wearing

23 that day?

24 A. That day; he was wearing some kind of black suit with a vest. He

25 had a hat on his head. He looked like a cowboy, actually, in cowboy

1 clothes. That's the impression that I had.

2 Q. Do you recall what colour the hat was?

3 A. Light -- light brown.

4 Q. Was Mitar Vasiljevic armed?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What kind of arm did he have?

7 A. He had a rifle. I don't know much about guns, but I saw the

8 rifle.

9 Q. Incidentally, was it daytime or night-time you saw Mitar

10 Vasiljevic that first time?

11 A. It was daytime.

12 Q. Did he have a ribbon?

13 A. He did have a ribbon, a red coloured ribbon attached.

14 Q. How long would you estimate did you look at this group of men?

15 A. Briefly. Briefly. He spent very little time there.

16 Q. Would you say -- was it ten seconds, one minute, five minutes?

17 A. I didn't dare look for long, but I could watch for five or ten

18 minutes while he was around.

19 Q. Did you actually see him breaking into anything in one of the

20 garages or did you just see him in front of the garages?

21 A. At the time, I just saw him in front of the garages.

22 Q. From which side would you say you saw Mitar Vasiljevic, from the

23 front, the side, the back?

24 A. I saw him from the side, as my windows are facing the way the

25 other entrance is facing. So I saw him from the side.

1 Q. Was there any doubt in your mind that it was Mitar Vasiljevic whom

2 you saw?

3 A. I didn't have any doubt, because I recognised him. So I never

4 doubted for a moment that it was him.

5 Q. The second time you saw Mitar Vasiljevic, was this shortly before

6 you left town to Babin Potok?

7 A. Yes. Yes.

8 Q. How did Mitar Vasiljevic look like that day?

9 A. Again, he had this hat on. He was dressed in the same way, the

10 same way.

11 Q. What did Mitar Vasiljevic do that day or what did you observe him

12 doing?

13 A. That day, I saw him coming out of the entrance of the building I

14 was in. He was leaving the building.

15 Q. How far away was he approximately from your window when you saw

16 him?

17 A. The entrance is about five or six metres from my windows. It's

18 just the distance that is equal to the length of the corridor that leads

19 to the entrance.

20 Q. If you look around in the courtroom, could you give us an

21 approximate picture? Is it from where you sit up to the Judges' Bench

22 approximately or further away?

23 A. A little further away perhaps. A metre or two further away.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Now, at the time the witness was saying that, she was

25 looking at the far wall. I'm wondering if she means a metre or two

1 further than the far wall or from behind -- from the wall behind us.

2 MS. BAUER: Yes.

3 Q. Could you please clarify that for the Court?

4 A. Does this apply to me? Are you asking me?

5 Q. Yes. The question was: The entrance from your window, was it

6 about the distance from your seat where you're now seating to the Judges'

7 bench or further away. You looked in another direction, actually?

8 A. Yes. I am looking in the direction where he is now, but to answer

9 your question, a little further than the Judges are.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer, my ability to estimate distances is

11 befouled by a confusion between Imperial and metric to start with, but if

12 somebody perhaps could later on measure the distance so that we have got

13 at least some record or idea of the distance that the witness is referring

14 to. And when she says to the Judges, I think she means to us rather than

15 the bench or the wall. So it's where we're sitting. If somebody later

16 on, if they could just measure the distance, we've got an idea then.

17 MS. BAUER: We will do so. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Was there any particular thing about Mitar Vasiljevic you realised

19 that day? About his way of walking?

20 A. The second time I saw him, he walked in a different way. One leg

21 was being dragged. I couldn't look for long, but somehow he didn't seem

22 to walk normally. It was one leg. I can't remember which one.

23 Q. Did you see any cast on his leg?

24 A. I couldn't see whether there was a cast or something else. I just

25 noticed that one leg was sort of being dragged, that his steps were not

1 normal, if I can put it that way.

2 Q. VG80, did there come a time when an OTP investigator showed you an

3 array of pictures?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you recognise the accused in one of those pictures?

6 A. Yes.

7 MS. BAUER: Could the usher please --

8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number?

9 MS. BAUER: Sorry. It is premarked Exhibit 20.VG80. Please don't

10 put it on the ELMO, just to the witness.

11 Q. Is this the photo array you were shown?

12 A. It is.

13 Q. Did you sign with your name and date it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And which number --

16 JUDGE HUNT: There's only one signature on the document, but I

17 would be interested to know whether she saw it originally in colour or in

18 black and white.

19 MS. BAUER:

20 Q. Did you see it in a colour copy?

21 A. I first saw a black and white copy.

22 JUDGE HUNT: And was the one that she signed a black and white

23 copy?

24 MS. BAUER:

25 Q. Could you answer His Honour's question, please? Was this the

1 copy you signed or did you sign a black and white copy?

2 A. I don't know whether it was a black and white or a colour copy,

3 but I signed it.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got the original, Ms. Bauer?

5 MS. BAUER: Yes, Your Honour. I think the confusion started --

6 the original was actually the colour copy. You have the colour copies in

7 your binders, as does the Defence. Since we didn't have enough

8 colour copies, we tendered the original colour copy as a piece of evidence

9 and just gave for Your Honours for reference black and white copies.

10 JUDGE HUNT: We're grateful for that, but I think we should have

11 it clear each time this arises. That is very real difference between a

12 photo identification from colour photographs and from black and white.

13 Indeed in some cases I've been involved in, that was absolutely vital.

14 I'm not suggesting it was in this case, but it is important to keep them

15 separate.

16 So the document which the witness has, has she got the one that

17 she actually signed?

18 MS. BAUER: Yes. She has the one that she originally sign.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, if you just tell us we're being given black and

20 white copies, it will save us having to ask this every time.

21 MS. BAUER: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE HUNT: That's all right. Is there any objection to the

23 tender of that document into evidence, Mr. Domazet?

24 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry. I've lost the number on the screen now.

1 What was it, 80? 8-0, was it?

2 MS. BAUER: It was Exhibit 20.VG80.

3 JUDGE HUNT: That will be Exhibit P20.VG80, and it

4 will be under seal.

5 MS. BAUER:

6 Q. VG80, would you be able to recognise the accused today?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you see him in court today?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Could you please describe where he is sitting and what he's

11 wearing?

12 A. He's sitting to my left. He has a brown jacket, a white shirt.

13 Q. If you say to the left, do you mean the first row to the left, the

14 second row to the left?

15 JUDGE HUNT: There's only one person with a brown coat. I think

16 we're safe. She is pointing to the accused.

17 MS. BAUER: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours. No further

18 questions.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.

20 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, do you remember sometime in 1994 having

22 given a statement to the centre of the security services of the MUP in

23 Sarajevo?

24 A. In 1993 I gave the statement to the Security Services Centre in

25 Sarajevo.

1 Q. That may be the one. Did you make that statement once?

2 A. In Sarajevo, yes, once.

3 Q. Do you remember that statement and what you said at the time?

4 A. I do remember, and I will always remember what happened.

5 Q. In that statement, madam, which is quite a lengthy one, consisting

6 of some 17 pages, you described many events and many persons that you saw

7 at the time, both Serbs and Muslims; isn't that so?

8 A. Serbs, yes, but I could only rarely see Muslims.

9 Q. What I meant was that you mentioned them as victims.

10 A. Yes, the Muslims as victims.

11 Q. In that statement, you mentioned quite a number of Serbs who,

12 according to you, were involved in various incidents and were members of

13 paramilitary units in the area of Visegrad; isn't that right?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. In that statement, you mentioned many names, and for some very

16 specific particulars.

17 A. Yes. I gave the particulars for all those that got hold of me and

18 who personally mistreated me, and I gave the particulars regarding what I

19 personally experienced.

20 Q. Quite so. You mentioned a large number of names of Serbs who

21 participated in various paramilitary formations; isn't that so?

22 A. Yes, that is so.

23 Q. Do you remember and is it true to say that in that statement that

24 you gave to the MUP, not once did you mention Mitar Vasiljevic, the person

25 who is in court here today?

1 A. I did not mention Mitar Vasiljevic because at the time, I was

2 under the effect of the other things. I was sick, and after everything

3 I'd gone through, I had to say everything. Just then, I was not capable

4 of listing them all.

5 Q. I'm not blaming you for that. I would just like us to establish,

6 since in that report you mentioned more than 20 persons of Serb ethnicity,

7 accusing them of very grave crimes, and it is quite possible that this

8 sighting that you testified about today was not so important for you, for

9 you to mention it. But you would agree with me that at the time, you did

10 not mention Mitar Vasiljevic in any way whatsoever?

11 A. In my first statement, I didn't mention Mitar Vasiljevic, and I am

12 repeating, because I was in a very bad state after everything. The fact

13 that I saw him, he didn't personally do anything to me so that at first I

14 didn't mention it, but I did later see him and I claim that I did see him.

15 Q. Well, that's fine. My question was only limited to this

16 particular point.

17 You mentioned him in the statement you gave to the investigator

18 roughly in the same way that you told us today; isn't that so?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You made that statement a few months ago, that is, in the course

21 of this year?

22 A. Yes, this year.

23 Q. Do you remember or could you explain to me how it came about for

24 you to testify about this or, rather, for you to be called to testify?

25 A. Because I recognised him on the photograph because I saw him in

1 Visegrad, and I wanted to say this.

2 Q. Excuse me. What photograph did you recognise him on?

3 A. The photograph that I was shown a moment ago when I was looking

4 for the Lukics.

5 Q. If I understood you correctly, this photo array on which you

6 recognised Mitar Vasiljevic was shown to you when you were being

7 interviewed by the investigator; is that right?

8 A. Yes. And I will continue to look for all those who did what they

9 did, on photographs.

10 Q. Yes, but that was when you were making your statement to the

11 investigators. So my question was: How did it come about for you to

12 report as a witness to the Prosecution?

13 A. How it came about for me to report?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. I want to say, and I personally will always demand to say. I

16 don't know whether that's enough. Have I understood you properly?

17 Q. My question is whether someone asked you to testify or did you

18 yourself apply?

19 A. I applied myself, and I will always apply. Nobody needs to ask me

20 to testify. I personally will always volunteer to testify.

21 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that you were looking at those

22 photographs when you were identifying Lukic, I think you've said.

23 A. Yes. And that is when I recognised Vasiljevic, and I asked him --

24 I asked that he, too, as an accomplice of all the evils.

25 Q. And you told the investigator what you told us today?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you recognise Lukic as well and make a statement about him

3 too?

4 A. I recognised Sredoje Lukic, and I always will recognise him, but

5 Milan Lukic I saw in Visegrad for the first time, but I'm not sure I will

6 recognise him, but I will do my best to recognise him.

7 Q. Regarding the time, as far as I could understand, you said you

8 could not remember the date when these events occurred, is that right, but

9 they were after the Uzice Corps left?

10 A. Yes, after the Uzice Corps left. I can't remember the date

11 because I was --

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your

14 Honour.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer.

16 MS. BAUER: Your Honour, just one question.

17 Re-examined by Ms. Bauer:

18 Q. VG80, at the time you gave your first statement to the MUP, were

19 you specifically asked about Mitar Vasiljevic?

20 A. Specifically, no.

21 Q. Were you asked about anybody else specifically?

22 A. The first statement was simply because I wanted to recount

23 everything that happened to me. So they didn't insist on anyone. It was

24 me who said.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer, it may be only curiosity, but I would like

1 to know which one on this that that is Exhibit 20.VG80 that she identified

2 as Sredoje Lukic.

3 MS. BAUER:

4 Q. VG80, when you were shown the photo spread you just were shown a

5 minute ago, did you at that time identify Sredoje Lukic on that photo

6 spread?

7 A. Sredoje Lukic, yes.

8 MS. BAUER: Could, please, the exhibit be given to her again. She

9 can have my copy.

10 Q. Could you tell us which number Sredoje Lukic is? Do you see him

11 anywhere on this photo spread, VG80?

12 JUDGE HUNT: I don't know how many photo spreads she saw --

13 MS. BAUER: She probably saw another one as well.

14 JUDGE HUNT: To me, and I hope that Mr. Domazet will understand

15 that it's only a matter of first impression, but the clearest indication

16 that this evidence has given to me was that she was being asked to make a

17 statement or assist in relation to one of the Lukics, that she probably

18 had put on a statement with MUP, and it was in the course of being shown

19 photo spreads that she identified the accused here. It perhaps does not

20 matter very much, but it seems to me a first step towards confirming that

21 if we know whether he, Sredoje Lukic, is on this particular photo spread.

22 MS. BAUER: Your Honour, I haven't seen Sredoje Lukic yet, but

23 basically I don't think he is on that photo spread.

24 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, Perhaps it's an unfair question.

25 The other matter that I wanted to raise, it doesn't strictly arise

1 out of cross-examination, but I do not think we have any evidence in the

2 case as to the significance, if any, of the red ribbon to which reference

3 has been made.

4 MS. BAUER: It is I mean, it is …the accused refers to a red

5 ribbon. He explains it, I think, in a different form than the witnesses.

6 So she ...

7 JUDGE HUNT: I see.

8 MS. BAUER: I think he explains it having another purpose.

9 JUDGE HUNT: I'm afraid we weren't ….

10 MS. BAUER: But I think it was in the statement of the accused.

11 JUDGE HUNT: We weren't taken right through the statement, and I

12 frankly, read only where we were taken, with a few pages perhaps on each

13 end. So we'll find that in the statement, will we?

14 MS. BAUER: Yes.

15 JUDGE HUNT: All right. That makes sense.

16 MS. BAUER: Would it assist if we point you --

17 JUDGE HUNT: No, no. I thought that if it was something of other

18 significance this witness may be able to help, that's all.

19 Now, is that all you wanted to ask her?

20 MS. BAUER: Yes.

21 Q. Thank you VG80.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, madam, for coming here to give evidence.

23 We're very grateful to you for the evidence you gave and you are now free to

24 leave.

25 [The witness withdrew]

1 JUDGE HUNT: The next witness is Ms. Tabeau or VG61?

2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the after yesterday's session,

3 Mr. Domazet informed me that he would be ready to resume the

4 cross-examination of VG77. That witness is inside the waiting room, if

5 you care to do that now.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. We'll go back to VG77.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 WITNESS: WITNESS VG77 [Resumed]

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, madam.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Do you understand that you are still bound by the

13 solemn declaration that you made yesterday?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet.

16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Domazet:

17 Q. Madam, yesterday you said and told us for the first time that you

18 had seen Mitar Vasiljevic immediately prior to your departure from

19 Visegrad on June 17th or 18th, 1992; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You said that he mistreated you and tried to take you to the

22 police station.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you remember what he was wearing on that occasion?

25 A. Yes, I remember. He was wearing military clothes. It was

1 actually a masked -- camouflage uniform, and that is -- when I saw him,

2 well, I just lost control of myself. I no longer paid attention to him.

3 I looked at him only because he was threatening with a bomb, and he was

4 waving his hand with it, and he was telling us to sit down, to get up, to

5 sit down. We were all lost, because at that moment, we all expected to be

6 dead.

7 I didn't pay attention to anyone then because I simply did not

8 know what was happening.

9 Then he made us go to the SUP, to the police. I don't know who

10 the person was. When we got to the police station, I wasn't aware of

11 who he was. And then when someone said, "Mitar, where are you taking

12 these people?" He said, "Kill them all. Kill them and nothing less"

13 "Let them go," said something, "They have a convoy at 8.00 to go further

14 on to Olovo." He said, "Kill them," and nothing else.

15 I wasn't aware of who he was even then. I said that in this

16 statement, but I was never aware of the fact that this was Mitar. It was

17 only later when I gave thought to the matter following my statement. Then

18 I recalled that the three persons when, they went down the stairs, when

19 they said, "Mitar, let them go to their convoy."

20 Q. If I understood you well, on the basis of the fact that someone

21 called the person Mitar in front of the police station, you thought that

22 the person was, in fact, Mitar; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Until then, you hadn't understood that it was him or recognised

25 him. You recognised him on the basis of the fact that a policeman said,

1 "Don't, Mitar"?

2 A. Yes, because a woman told me, whose husband was in Glavica, to the

3 left of Pionirska Street, he --

4 Q. Please answer our questions, please.

5 A. Could you repeat?

6 Q. Well, I asked you whether on the basis of a policeman saying,

7 "Mitar, don't do this," that you understood that it was Mitar Vasiljevic

8 in question?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you know or hear that there was a person who had been -- who

11 was a member of a paramilitary formation and his name was Mitar Knezevic

12 and his nickname was Mitar Chetnik?

13 A. No. All the experience I've had and the experience with my group,

14 all of them have said, and they might come and confirm this, that the

15 person in question was Mitar Vasiljevic.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment, Mr. Domazet. May I remind both of

17 you, please pause. Mr. Domazet, please pause before asking the question.

18 And madam, would you please pause before answering the question to enable

19 the interpreters to catch up. You are almost speaking on top of each

20 other and it is very difficult for them. So just that pause. Not very

21 long, but just enough. Say, count to five or six. That should be

22 sufficient.

23 Yes, Mr. Domazet.

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Madam, can you remember or identify any person who was present

1 from the police when that person that they referred to as Mitar came in

2 front of the police station?

3 A. No, I can't remember.

4 Q. But you know that they were policemen?

5 A. Yes, I know they were policemen.

6 Q. Madam, do you know any other Mitar? Did you know any other Mitar

7 in Visegrad or in the surrounding area?

8 A. No, because they talked about Mitar Vasiljevic only.

9 Q. Well, I would like to ask you, have you heard about any other

10 Mitar, Mitar Chetnik, Mitar Knezevic as a member of one of the

11 paramilitary formations? Have you heard of that name?

12 A. No.

13 Q. From your answer today, you will correct me if I'm wrong,

14 that in an earlier statement to the investigator, this incident, although

15 you consider it to be very serious indeed, you failed to mention because

16 at the time you were not sure whether it was this Mitar in question, but

17 it was only subsequently, when you remembered that the policeman referred

18 to him as Mitar, you realised that it might have been Mitar Vasiljevic?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No further questions.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Groome.

22 Re-examined by Mr. Groome:

23 Q. Witness 77, I want to ask you a couple of questions regarding this

24 incident on the day you left Visegrad as well. The question I want to ask

25 you is: The person you saw and described to this Court as being Mitar

1 Vasiljevic that day, were you able to see this person's face?

2 A. At that particular moment, I saw absolutely nothing. I was lost.

3 Not only me, but whole group felt lost, because at that moment, I was

4 really shaken, and I felt as if I were flying, that I had wings, that I

5 didn't have arms or legs. You didn't think about anything. You expected

6 at any moment to be hit by something. Every second you expected that to

7 happen.

8 Q. Let me ask you the question in another way. Mr. Domazet asked you

9 whether you recognised or whether this person could have been a person by

10 the name of Mitar Knezevic. Mr. Knezevic is missing one eye. Would you

11 have been able to see whether the person you've described as Mitar

12 Vasiljevic was missing an eye on that day?

13 A. No. No, I can't remember. No.

14 JUDGE HUNT: I was going to ask you, Mr. Groome, there is going to

15 be some evidence about that, is there? Because Mr. Knezevic is mentioned

16 elsewhere. But there is some evidence going to be given that he has only

17 one eye?

18 MR. GROOME: The Defence has stated that they will present that

19 evidence on their case, that that is the nature of the Defence.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, all right. I'm sorry you have not finished.

21 MR. GROOME: A couple of questions, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE HUNT: There is a matter arising from two answers that she

23 gave in cross-examination that I will draw to your attention in a few

24 moments.

25 MR. GROOME: Perhaps if you draw it to my attention now, Your

1 Honour, I'm moving to a different area.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Well, when the witness was first recounting how she

3 remembered or came to the conclusion it was the accused who was involved

4 in this particular incident, at page 16, she said, according to the

5 transcript: "I said that in this statement, that I was never aware of the

6 fact that this was Mitar. It was only later when I gave thought to the

7 matter following my statement. Then I recalled that the three persons,

8 when they went down the stairs, they said, 'Mitar, let them go to their

9 convoy.'"

10 Now, that's the statement she said of her own volition, but then

11 in the course of the cross-examination, at the very end of it, it's

12 rendered a little ambiguous. I'm referring now to page 18: "From what

13 you answered today, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that in an earlier

14 statement to the investigator this incident, although you consider it to

15 be very serious indeed, you failed to mention because at the time you were

16 not sure whether it was this Mitar in question. It was only subsequently,

17 when you remember the policeman referred to him as Mitar, that you

18 realised that it might have been Mitar Vasiljevic."

19 Now, you see the difference there? In one place she's saying she

20 put it in the statement, in another one she's saying she did not. That

21 should be easily cleared up I would have thought.

22 MR. GROOME: I'll do that. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Witness 77, you've had an opportunity to look at your statement

24 that was taken earlier this year, in January; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. In that statement, for whatever reason, you did not mention Mitar

2 Vasiljevic -- as having seen Mitar Vasiljevic on the day you left

3 Visegrad; is that correct?

4 A. No. It came to my mind later on, when I had thought about it.

5 When I gave the matter further thought, when I was thinking about who it

6 was and how the events evolved, and that moment I remembered when I heard

7 someone say, "Mitar, let the people go," and then I realised that it was

8 Mitar.

9 Q. And the first time an investigator from the Office of the

10 Prosecutor sat down and asked you these specific questions was

11 approximately eight and one-half years after the events; is that correct?

12 A. Yes, it was.

13 JUDGE HUNT: Is that all you're going to ask?

14 MR. GROOME: Yes.

15 JUDGE HUNT: It's still anything but clear to me as to whether the

16 incident was referred to in the statement. It's simply that she didn't

17 name Mr. Vasiljevic. That's the whole point of this. Because it's one

18 thing if she put the incident in and didn't identify the accused as being

19 responsible, and it's quite a different one if she didn't even put the

20 incident in.

21 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry.

22 Q. Witness 77, at the time you gave your statement in January of this

23 year, did you describe the incident which you've described in court that

24 occurred on the day you left Visegrad?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I want to now take you back to the portion of your

2 cross-examination where Mr. Domazet was asking you about the home of a

3 witness, 115, 115, and you were shown a piece of paper to tell you that

4 name. Do you recall your testimony regarding this matter?

5 A. Hundred and fifteen. Well, I cannot remember at this moment.

6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that --

7 A. Hundred and fifteen. A woman. A female person.

8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that the witness be shown that

9 piece of paper that she was shown yesterday that indicated who number 115

10 was.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Actually, it was my copy of the list. I'll

12 just see if I can find it now.

13 MR. GROOME:

14 Q. Do you know who we are talking about now?

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 A. I went to that house. I was there on a number of occasions

17 [redacted], but I never looked through the

18 window to see whether the house could be seen, but I presume it could not

19 have been seen.

20 Q. I want to now take you to the time in your testimony when

21 Mr. Domazet was asking you about whether you saw the accused Mitar

22 Vasiljevic on the television, and I want to ask you the following

23 question: At the time that you saw the person you've identified as Mitar

24 Vasiljevic on the television, did you immediately recognise him as Mitar

25 Vasiljevic?

1 A. Well, I saw him briefly. I accidentally tuned in. I saw him very

2 briefly, and I recognised him.

3 Q. Did you recognise him before a narrator or some other information

4 from the television identified him as being Mitar Vasiljevic?

5 A. Could you repeat the question?

6 Q. Did you recognise the person on the television as Mitar Vasiljevic

7 before you heard any narrator or any newscaster identify this person as

8 Mitar Vasiljevic?

9 A. At the moment I switched on the TV, it showed the courtroom. It

10 may have been on television before, but I hadn't switched on the

11 television before I saw all of this, and all of a sudden, I saw him, and

12 then I said, "Ah, there is Mitar Vasiljevic under arrest."

13 Q. Let me ask the question another way. Did you recognise him as

14 Mitar Vasiljevic because of your own memory or because of something that

15 was said on the television?

16 A. I recognised him, and at that moment, when I saw him when it was

17 shown on television, I recognised him to be Mitar Vasiljevic, who was

18 under arrest.

19 Q. Thank you?

20 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much for coming here to give evidence,

22 madam, and for the evidence you gave.

23 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

24 JUDGE HUNT: You are now free to leave.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet.

3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I? After this

4 latest answer by the witness who claims that in her statement to the

5 investigator she did speak about this incident that occurred just before

6 she left Visegrad, may I ask for the Prosecutor's consent or, rather,

7 admission that she made no mention at all of that incident in that

8 statement, to avoid tendering that statement.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Groome.

10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I could just have a second to refresh

11 my memory on the last paragraph. She refers to some incident that clearly

12 doesn't mention the accused --

13 JUDGE HUNT: That's not the point, as I keep trying to make. Did

14 she refer to the incident she described?

15 MR. GROOME: That's why I'm trying to just look at this last and

16 see ... Yes, Your Honour. I will agree that although she does mention

17 being in the square at the time and place she's testified here, she does

18 not mention being brought to the police station or being harassed in the

19 way that she described here in the court.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the question you asked her in re-examination

21 was this: "At the time you gave your statement in January of this year,

22 did you describe the incident which you've described in court that

23 occurred on the day you left Visegrad?"

24 Now, your reference to the incident at the police station is

25 sufficient to cover the whole of that, is it?

1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then. That will be noted that she did not

3 in fact refer to this incident in her statement January of this year.

4 All right. Now, who are we going to take next?

5 MR. GROOME: Ms. Bauer is going to bring on Ms. Tabeau.

6 JUDGE HUNT: I hope that her evidence will be brief and that the

7 statement that she has prepared, or report, will go into evidence.

8 MS. BAUER: Your Honour, yes, that was the plan.

9 JUDGE HUNT: That's good.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE HUNT: Will you please make the solemn declaration on the

12 document which the court usher is showing you.

13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, madam.

16 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU

17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Ms. Bauer.

18 Examined by Ms. Bauer:

19 Q. Ms. Tabeau, just to establish your professional background --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 MS. BAUER: Sorry.

22 Q. Just to establish your professional background, have you been a

23 graduate in economics and statistics and have a Ph.D. in mathematical

24 demography from the University of Warsaw?

25 A. Yes, I am.

1 JUDGE HUNT: All of this is set out in the document.

2 MS. BAUER: It is all set out in the document.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Just ask her to confirm whether the statement Summary

5 of Professional Qualifications on page -- the first page, which isn't

6 numbered, are correct.

7 MS. BAUER:

8 Q. The summary of your professional qualifications that you set out

9 in your report, are they correct?

10 A. Yes, this is all correct.

11 Q. Then let me ask you; the task you were asked to undertake is to

12 make a demographic study about the changes in the ethnic composition in

13 the municipality of Visegrad between 1991 and 1997?

14 A. Yes, this is exactly what we were asked for.

15 MS. BAUER: Do we -- could I ask that the report at this time is

16 already tendered into evidence? It is premarked P41.1.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?

18 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Wait a minute. The document that I'm being handed is

20 not the document we're talking of. What you are tendering is the 17th of

21 August, 2001. Is that the document?

22 MS. BAUER: It is. It is the research report prepared for the

23 case against Milan Lukic et al., and it is numbered P41.1.

24 JUDGE HUNT: The document which was filed was not marked that and

25 I want the document which was filed. That will be Exhibit P41.1. Yes.

1 Yes.

2 MS. BAUER:

3 Q. Could you please briefly describe the methods you used in order to

4 conduct your assessment.

5 A. This report takes the macro perspective, which means the

6 perspective of the whole population who lived in the area of the Visegrad

7 municipality in the period that we are interested in. The period that we

8 were interested in was, of course, first of all, the year 1992, but

9 because the necessary information, statistical information for this period

10 is unavailable to us, we had to use other information, sources, and coming

11 from other periods which, however, are highly relevant to the studying the

12 changes in the ethnic composition in the Visegrad municipality.

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. We studied the ethnic composition in 1991, which is the latest

15 year before the period of interest, 1992, and compared the ethnic

16 composition in the Visegrad municipality in 1997, which was the year

17 for -- the first year after the war ended for which we had some

18 statistical, good statistical information.

19 We --

20 Q. Could I interrupt you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The 1991, could you just briefly explain which source that was you

23 based your assessment on, and the same for 1992 -- for 1997.

24 A. For 1991 we used the population census which was conducted in

25 Bosnia and Herzegovina and other republics of the former Yugoslavia. It

1 was the last census and -- well, information -- last available information

2 source that could be used in this report.

3 For 1997, we unfortunately didn't have sources like that census,

4 like the population census. Instead, we used the voters' register from

5 the municipal elections in this year. The also elections took place in

6 all the countries, Visegrad was just one of the municipalities for which

7 we have information about the voters.

8 So these were the two sources that we used.

9 Q. And the --

10 JUDGE HUNT: The reference to using the voters' register in the

11 municipality this year, I'm not sure whether that means 2001 or 1997.

12 A. 1997, of course.

13 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

14 A. 1997, yes.

15 MS. BAUER:

16 Q. And who assembled this voters' register?

17 A. The voters' register was established by the OSCE, Organisation for

18 Security and Cooperation in Europe, who actually was responsible or whose

19 mandate included securing that the elections, post-war elections in Bosnia

20 and Herzegovina were conducted in the proper way and optimal way.

21 So they established the voters' register actually. First time not

22 in 1997, but already in 1996. And in 1997, these voters that we used was

23 actually an improved version of the register that was made first time for

24 the 1996 elections.

25 Shall I continue with the method?

1 Q. Could you please --

2 JUDGE HUNT: Bearing in mind that we've got it all in writing, all

3 we want is a very brief summary --

4 MS. BAUER: Of the major findings. Exactly.

5 JUDGE HUNT: I think if you'd go to the findings. And if there is

6 any questions about the methodology, no doubt, counsel if they want to

7 know about them will ask you, but we've got a very, very detailed report.

8 Thank you.

9 MS. BAUER:

10 Q. So could we please move to the major findings. What was -- there

11 was one other source I was missing that you mentioned. Could you please

12 shortly say the third source you were using before we come to the major

13 findings?

14 A. We also used the list of missing persons that was completed by

15 ICRC. The list that we used for the analysis in this report was the 4th

16 edition, which means an updated version of the list that actually started

17 to be completed directly after the war or in some cases even during the

18 war.

19 Q. And is it correct that by linking the information between the 1997

20 voters' register and the 1991 census, you could confirm that about 82.5

21 per cent of the some 620 individuals missing, you could confirm the

22 identity of these people?

23 A. Yes, this is correct. By comparing the persons, all actual

24 details such as, for instance, names, date of birth, place of birth on the

25 two lists, ICRC missing list on one hand and the population census on the

1 other hand, we could make sure that the persons on the list of missing

2 persons are real individuals who lived in 1991 and were enumerated, that

3 means included in the population census.

4 Actually, if I may add one thing. The individual linking approach

5 was not only used in the analysis of the ICRC list of missing persons but

6 all other analyses presented in this report.

7 Q. Thank you. Let's go to the major findings. What did you -- what

8 was the conclusion about the changes in the ethnic composition pre-war and

9 post-war in the municipality of Visegrad?

10 A. If I may refer to figure 1A.

11 MS. BAUER: Could we for this purpose please distribute to the

12 Judges another document which would be pre-numbered Exhibit 41.2. And

13 maybe for the public, could one copy or so be put on the ELMO, please.

14 A. So next page, please. I am referring to figure 1A, which is on

15 page 2, next to front page, to the front page, and table 3A of this

16 presentation is part of our report, and in our report, I included it under

17 the same numbers.

18 Figure 1A is a bar chart which shows four groups of bars. Each

19 group is made for one ethnic group. The first two bars, which I call

20 group 1 are shown for Serbs, the next one for Muslims, the next one for

21 Croats, and the last one for others.

22 In this figure, we compare the ethnic composition based on the

23 information obtained from the 1991 population census, with the ethnic

24 composition based on the information coming from the 1997 voters'

25 register.

1 In figure 1A, percentages are shown in table 3A, both things,

2 absolute numbers, which means size, absolute size of each ethnic group in

3 each of these years and also percentages.

4 MS. BAUER:

5 Q. And was the conclusion --

6 A. Let me summarise the picture in figure 1A. In 1991, the light

7 coloured bars is the year 1991, actually, the majority group are Muslims,

8 if you see it, from the table you can read that the Muslims constituted

9 62.5 per cent of the Visegrad population in 1991. Serbs 32.5 per cent.

10 So these Serbs were the second largest group in the municipality of

11 Visegrad in 1997. The picture is completely different. We observed that

12 Muslims are not the majority group any more. Actually, there are no

13 Muslims at all shown for 1997. Serbs, on the other hand, are almost the

14 only group shown here in this figure. It is 95.9 per cent of the

15 population of the Visegrad municipality who are Serb.

16 So the conclusion is that the ethnic composition changed

17 dramatically from 1991 to 1997, and apparently, in 1997, the municipality

18 which used to be Muslim became actually Serb.

19 This is the conclusion.

20 Q. Thank you. The next -- the next --

21 A. Next page, please.

22 Q. -- page. You were examining the internally displaced population

23 from Visegrad.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And could you please describe your conclusions based on those two

1 tables?

2 A. Now to illustrate our second conclusion, please look at figure 1B

3 and table 3B. This is next page in the distributed materials.

4 Again, both presentations are included in our report. This

5 analysis, actually, it is slightly differently designed, constructed

6 compared with the previous one. In this analysis, we took the perspective

7 of all those who originally lived in the municipality of Visegrad in 1991,

8 and we were able to find them in our information source, voters' register,

9 1997 voters' register.

10 So it is the perspective, as we call it, of the municipality of

11 origin, and we are trying in this analysis to show what is the -- what was

12 the actual place of residence. We can call it this way, of those who were

13 originally in the Visegrad municipality but in the year 1997. And we look

14 not only at the internally displaced persons but also at the persons who

15 migrated, which means left the country and moved to other countries.

16 There is this big difference between those two terms, displaced person and

17 a person who migrated, a migrant. These displaced persons are almost

18 always internally moved to other places.

19 If you please look at the table, you see that we show that

20 voters -- 1997 voters, by ethnicity of course, using three categories.

21 One category is, this municipality means the Visegrad municipality. Here

22 in this column, those voters are shown who didn't move elsewhere but

23 stayed in the Visegrad municipality in 1997, of course.

24 JUDGE HUNT: What is not quite clear to me, when you look at the

25 absolute numbers, this deals only with 4.535 Muslims?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Where there 11.238 in the earlier map?

3 A. Yes, previous presentation. Yes.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now does this mean that it's only -- that you

5 could find the whereabouts of 4.535 Muslims or is that -- even when you

6 add the 2.000 -- I'm sorry, the total is 6.602. What has happened to the

7 5.000-odd that were living within the Visegrad municipality in 1991?

8 A. Well, this is, first of all, the year 1997. So as you very

9 correctly remarked, the number of Muslims in the Visegrad municipality was

10 much higher in 1991 as presented in the table 3A. It is correct that we

11 were unable to identify all Muslims that were included, listed in the

12 population census in the voters' register for 1997. We were unable to

13 find them.

14 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not criticising you, madam, I just wanted to

15 know?

16 A. No, no, no.

17 JUDGE HUNT: They could be dead or they could simply be missing or

18 they are living somewhere you can't trace them?

19 A. Yes. Well, not only that. The elections are voluntary. Some

20 people didn't register to vote. We only have information about those who

21 registered to vote. So that is still this little group, little group. We

22 think this group is little because ICRC expresses the view that the

23 participation in the elections, municipal elections 1997, was rather

24 high. They say 75 per cent. In some reports they even mention up to 88

25 per cent of the eligible voters registered to vote. So our sample is

1 large but doesn't include everyone who survived these difficult years of

2 the war and we don't have -- we don't included all of them.

3 JUDGE HUNT: The difference, I think is about 4.600, but we can't

4 place any significance on that figure. It's simply you cannot trace them

5 for one reason or another.

6 A. Yes, yes, yes.

7 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you?

8 A. This is some sort of a minimum number. You can see it this way.

9 MS. BAUER:

10 Q. Also, I think children are not included?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Because they're only registered to vote as of 18. So everybody

13 between 0 and 17 wouldn't be reflected in those numbers?

14 A. But if I may add, the population shown in table 3B is the same

15 age. So we control for age. We were here. We formed the same control of

16 those who were eligible to vote in 1997 elections.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Not so much eligible but who registered to vote.

18 A. Excuse me?

19 JUDGE HUNT: Not so much eligible to vote but who registered to

20 vote.

21 A. Who registered to vote.

22 JUDGE HUNT: And both of these tables, figure 3A and figure 3B,

23 each of them are based upon that one controlled figure, those who are

24 registered to vote?

25 A. Correct.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

2 A. Yes.

3 MS. BAUER:

4 Q. Ms. Tabeau, to summarise, does it mean it is actually a

5 conservative approach you adopted because you only had a sample number and

6 not the absolute numbers of survivors?

7 A. I would put it this way: The sample we show here is a big-sized

8 sample and must be seen as reliable. So the conclusions that we draw on

9 the basis of this sample, in terms of relative measures like percentages,

10 are reliable, in my view. But if we are interested in showing absolute

11 size of certain groups in the population, how large was the size of Muslim

12 population in 1997, or Serb or any other ethnic population, then I must

13 say our numbers are minimum numbers.

14 So these are the numbers that we are hundred per cent sure these

15 people were alive in 1997 and registered to vote. But -- and this I can

16 agree that this means our approach is conservative. We don't show more

17 than we absolutely hundred per cent are sure were alive in this period.

18 Q. Could we please go to the next map of the Muslim displacement.

19 A. Perhaps may I conclude on this presentation? Because actually, so

20 far I haven't been able to say what is the main conclusion shown in figure

21 1B and table 3B.

22 In table 3B, in the first column, those who were identified for

23 1997 in this municipality means in the Visegrad municipality, are, as you

24 see, Serbs. Serbs. This is quite a large group that stayed in this

25 municipality and didn't move to other municipalities. In relative terms,

1 96 -- almost 97 per cent of Serbs who used to live in Visegrad in 1991,

2 stayed, still lived in this municipality in 1997.

3 If you then compare the first column, this first municipality with

4 the next one, other municipality, then you see the number of people who

5 moved from Visegrad to other municipalities within Bosnia and Herzegovina,

6 these other displaced persons, and in this column, the largest group are

7 Muslims. Other groups are minor among those displaced persons. And the

8 next column shows those who left the country and moved from Visegrad just

9 abroad. And again the same situation. The largest group among those who

10 migrated are the Muslims.

11 So what I'm trying to say is that it is rather obvious that

12 Muslims are the group who actually was not found in figure 1 and table

13 1 -- 3A in this municipality in 1997, because, as we see, they just left

14 the municipality and moved elsewhere, either to other municipalities or to

15 other countries.

16 This is the conclusion shown here.

17 Q. And does the map 1C that you prepared outline where the Muslims

18 left to predominantly?

19 A. Yes. This is next page.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got a different version, Ms. Bauer? My

21 doesn't have 1C on it.

22 A. Yes, this is correct. This is my probably --

23 JUDGE HUNT: I've got the document.

24 A. -- mistake.

25 MS. BAUER: It is in the report referred to as 1C.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, thank you very much.

2 A. This map illustrates the displacements of the Muslims from the

3 Visegrad municipality, and what is also marked on the map with red colour

4 is the Dayton line, which shows the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina

5 into the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.

6 Visegrad, of course, is located in Republika Srpska.

7 The municipalities which are marked on the map with green colour,

8 starting from light green up to dark, very dark green, are all

9 municipalities where the Muslims went to. The darker the colour, the

10 larger the group of Muslims moved into a particular municipality.

11 It is clear that large groups of Muslims moved to Gorazde, then to

12 several municipalities located in Sarajevo. It is -- Novi Grad, Novo

13 Sarajevo. It is Hadzici, Vogosca, Ilijas, Ilidza, and not marked on the

14 map, but because of the very small size of these municipalities, which is

15 a very difficult problem just to mark them, but in the report Centar,

16 Stari Grad and Novo Sarajevo are mentioned as well. Also three

17 municipalities in the surroundings of Sarajevo: Zenica, Kakanj, and

18 Visoko, were the municipalities where the Muslim population moved to from

19 the Visegrad.

20 MS. BAUER:

21 Q. So one can conclude that in 1997, all internally displaced Muslims

22 lived in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

23 A. Yes, that is correct. All these municipalities are located in the

24 Federation.

25 MS. BAUER: Should we go on to the next subject or rather go there

1 after the break?

2 JUDGE HUNT: Let's use up the three minutes. These adjournments

3 get longer and longer if you start chipping them away.

4 MS. BAUER:

5 Q. The next table, table number 6. Did you establish a rank of

6 selected municipalities in the Visegrad -- selected municipalities and

7 compared the ethnic composition in Visegrad compared to the other

8 municipalities?

9 A. Yes. This is what is this table about. It was actually very

10 challenging to us to understand the scale of the change in the ethnic

11 composition in Visegrad, and the only way to conclude, to assess the scale

12 of changes was to compare Visegrad with other municipalities. This is why

13 we selected, in addition to Visegrad, some more municipalities. All the

14 municipalities selected are located in the close neighbourhood of

15 Visegrad.

16 In the report, we included just in the beginning a reference map

17 of this region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is very clear from this map

18 that the municipalities on our list are in the direct neighbourhood of

19 Visegrad.

20 Q. Does this table show in conclusion that the most dramatic changes

21 in the ethnic composition occurred in Visegrad after the municipality of

22 Srebrenica?

23 A. Yes. This is the conclusion. If you look at the last column in

24 this table, which is called chi-squared statistic. It is just the name of

25 this statistic that was used as a tool, statistical tool to establish the

1 ranking, the highest value of this statistic is shown for Srebrenica.

2 Visegrad is the second place. Generally the higher the value of this

3 statistic, the larger the change, the larger the disagreement of the two

4 distributions, 1991 and 1997 distribution, ethnic distribution.

5 Q. And does this table also show that there was a pattern in the

6 region, a region which then entirely became Serb after the war?

7 A. Yes. It is very clear if in addition to the statistic, you take a

8 look at the columns, just ethnic composition shown for Serbs and Muslims.

9 If you study carefully these figures, it is clear that the Muslims

10 actually disappeared almost completely from all these municipalities in

11 1997 and the opposite is shown for Serbs. This is -- this can be called a

12 pattern. This is what is the underlying reason for the value -- high

13 values of the chi-squared statistic.

14 JUDGE HUNT: But each of those municipalities is now in Republika

15 Srpska. I think that was the purpose of the question?

16 A. Yes. I think the municipalities, all of them, are in Republika

17 Srpska. So this is an analysis which shows the pattern that is identified

18 for the Serb part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a small area of course.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Well, I think we'll take the adjournment

20 now. We'll resume at 11.30.

21 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer.

24 MS. BAUER:

25 Q. Ms. Tabeau, the last examination you did was the demographic

1 distribution of missing persons, based on the ICRC missing persons list.

2 Could we go, please, to figure 2. Could you explain, please, what the --

3 JUDGE HUNT: It needs a slight addition to it, which you can take

4 from the report itself. Those on the left are males and those on the

5 right are females.

6 A. I'm not sure that I understood what you said. It is related to

7 the figure number 2?

8 MS. BAUER:

9 Q. Figure number 2.

10 A. Yes, it is a presentation which shows men to the left and women to

11 the right, and in this figure, age groups are shown starting from 0 to 14

12 years, next one is 15 to 29, next one is 30, 44 years, and so on up to --

13 the last one is 75 plus, all ages above 75 years. And the scale here is

14 just percentages, are percentages. If I'm correct.

15 No, I'm sorry. These are just numbers. These are just numbers.

16 I'm sorry. These are absolute numbers. So the size of each group, age

17 group, which was listed in the ICRC list of missing persons separately

18 here on the left for men and for women to the right.

19 The conclusion related to the analysis shown in figure 2 is that

20 those who were missing most frequently were men at younger, military age,

21 from, say, 15 to 44 years. In total, as it was mentioned before, we have

22 analysed 570 [sic] missing persons. These are those whose names have been

23 verified by linking with the census information. Out of these 517, 499

24 were Muslims, and 18 persons were of other ethnicity. I should perhaps

25 mention here that in the context of ethnicity, of the analysis made by

1 ethnicity, that ICRC list of missing persons doesn't include information

2 about ethnicity, but because we linked those records from the ICRC missing

3 persons list with the census, we obtained the information about ethnicity

4 from that census files. This is actually very important that the same

5 definition of ethnicity is used in these type of comparisons, because

6 people tend to change their own views about whether they are Muslims or

7 Croats or any other group. It is guaranteed in our report that all

8 information about ethnicity is consistent, because the same definition as

9 reported in that census was used.

10 Q. Just to clarify the record, you once said 570 and then 517, but it

11 was 17?

12 A. Seventeen, 17, yes.

13 Q. Just to clarify the record, because it said 70 at one point. Did

14 you also look into what time period most disappearances occurred in the

15 Visegrad municipality?

16 A. Yes. It was possible, because information about the date of

17 disappearance is included in the ICRC information -- list. It is the date

18 the person was last seen. It is very specific information, which includes

19 almost always day and month. It is not necessarily the date of death,

20 although generally it is assumed that the persons listed as missing are

21 dead.

22 In the figure number 4 below, we show the period from 1st of April

23 until end of June, 30th of June, and for each day in this period, we show

24 the number of persons who went missing on a particular day.

25 It is clear -- well, I should have started from a general

1 conclusion that actually these two months, April and June, are the months

2 where most people disappeared, and --

3 Q. I think you mean May and June.

4 A. Yes, of course, May and June, yes. These are three months. I'm

5 sorry. I'm thinking about perhaps too many details right now.

6 May and June are the two months where most people indeed

7 disappeared. And in this period, May and June, three days with the

8 highest number of people who went missing on these days are in June. It

9 is 14th of June and 20th of June; and in May, it is the 25th of May.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 A. It is also remarkable, all these bars also show, by using

12 different colours, the ethnic composition of those who went missing. The

13 green colour is consequently used for the Muslims. So it is clear that

14 also in the analysis of timing, the conclusion of Muslims most frequently

15 going missing is confirmed.

16 In the final analysis -- this is next page, please, table 11 --

17 was made in order to compare the situation in Visegrad, Visegrad

18 municipality, with a number of selected municipalities. The list of

19 selected is exactly the same as the list used in the ranking of

20 municipalities due to the scale of changes in ethnic composition.

21 The period is since -- from April 1992 until December 1992, and it

22 is again confirmed here that May and June 1992 were the two months with

23 most disappearances. And Visegrad is actually the municipality which

24 observed the largest, the highest numbers of persons who went missing in

25 this period. It is altogether in May and June 1992 that, in total, 62 per

1 cent, approximately 62 per cent of persons in this area went missing.

2 So it is typical what we have found for Visegrad, for the whole

3 area that has been analysed in our study.

4 Q. And this table, to conclude, does it also refer that during that

5 time period, a larger scale process of disappearing people was taking

6 place in the whole area?

7 A. I definitely agree that this can be seen as a large-scale process

8 in this period.

9 Q. In the area?

10 A. In the area, yes.

11 Q. Which is now the area of Republika Srpska.

12 A. Yes, which is now an area in Republika Srpska.

13 MS. BAUER: Thank you, Your Honour. No further questions.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.

15 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, I'm interested in this list of missing

17 persons, and you explained that the dates on the list and the locations

18 indicate the last date or place where that person was seen; is that right?

19 A. Excuse me. I -- could the interpreter repeat the question,

20 please? I didn't have my headphones on.

21 Q. Regarding the list of missing persons, you explained, madam, that

22 the dates on the list and the places indicated are the last date and place

23 that person was seen; is that right?

24 A. Yes, that is correct. This is the date that the persons who were

25 reported missing were last seen.

1 Q. Could you explain to me what it means when on the date next to the

2 month there are two zeros. Does that mean that the exact date is not

3 known or does it mean the beginning or the end of the month when that

4 person went missing?

5 A. The two zeros are always used when the day or month is unknown.

6 So it is not the beginning or the end, it is an unknown date or month of

7 disappearance.

8 Q. Though it is stated in your report that this is a list of missing

9 persons, I am referring to point 2.3 on page 6, that this is primarily a

10 list of missing persons and not of persons deceased, though it is assumed

11 that most of them, if not all of them, are no longer alive.

12 A. The list of missing persons, this is correct, but ICRC themselves

13 expressed the opinion that the persons are most likely dead.

14 Q. As far as you know, to what extent is this list accurate? Is

15 there a possibility for there to be fewer or larger numbers of people

16 missing that do not appear on this list?

17 A. It is indeed a list that cannot be seen as complete, but -- well,

18 first of all, it is the most complete source of information about missing

19 persons that exists. There is no other more complete source different

20 than ICRC list of missing persons. In order to assess to what extent it

21 is complete as such, we would need some information about the actual

22 number of missing persons that is unknown.

23 I believe strongly that this is a relatively complete source, but

24 I am unable to say what is the coverage of the source, for the percentage

25 terms, quantitatively. I'm unable to assess this.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, there is a witness being called who I

2 think will probably be able to give you more explanation about the ICRC

3 list. I've forgotten his name, but he's the head of the missing persons

4 organisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

5 MS. BAUER: Mr. Masovic.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Masovic, yes. He gave evidence in the Krnojelac

7 case, and I assure you he can go on for hours about it.

8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will not

9 dwell on this list any further as I have received sufficient information

10 from the answers?

11 A. If I may add one thing. I think that the list should be as a

12 reliable source of information in comparative studies of the type as we

13 presented for Visegrad and surrounding municipalities. There is no reason

14 to believe that for some areas the list was more complete than for other

15 areas. The approach ICRC used when collecting this information was

16 exactly the same in all municipalities.

17 So the pattern seen in comparisons of different municipalities I

18 would think is reliable.

19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Thank you. As far as I understood, in this particular case, you

21 gave us the situation in Visegrad, but you also took into account certain

22 other municipalities in the surroundings. Did you cover other

23 municipalities in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina? In other

24 words, could you tell me whether you had data for municipalities which

25 after Dayton became part of the Federation and in which the Serb

1 population had been in the majority and no longer is, that is, no longer

2 in 1997? Did you investigate those cases, perhaps in other cases in this

3 Tribunal?

4 A. Well, not in this report, but we do process information about

5 other municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, information

6 about ethnic composition and changes in the ethnic composition, and

7 indeed, there were municipalities in the Federation where the opposite

8 type of population changes was seen. This is what I can say, but I am

9 unable to present these results right now because these are results which

10 are not part of this particular report.

11 Q. When you were examining the percentage share of the Serb

12 population in Visegrad in 1997, did this apply to the same population that

13 was there in 1991 or did it include the Serbs who lived in Visegrad

14 municipality in 1997 but had not lived there in 1991?

15 A. We actually presented two different types of analyses. The first

16 analysis I discussed today based on figure 1A and table 3A was made by --

17 in terms of de facto population. This means two populations in 1991,

18 1997, two de facto populations were compared in this analysis. This would

19 mean that also for 1997, also Serbs, newcomers in Visegrad were included,

20 because de facto means we took information about those who de facto were

21 there, lived there in these two periods, in these two analysed periods.

22 But in the next analysis that is shown in our report in figure 1B

23 and table 3B, we took a different perspective. We only analysed those who

24 originally lived in 1991, and we concentrated on showing their location in

25 1997. So this means the original Serb population, the original Muslim

1 population, Croat, and others population.

2 So we actually did both.

3 Q. I asked you this, among other things, because you explained that

4 for the year 1997, as one of the main sources, you used the voters'

5 registry.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. However, in Visegrad, at this point in time, there are more

8 inhabitants than there used to be before the war because several thousand

9 people came as refugees from Herzegovina, mostly from Konjic, but as far

10 as I know, they are still registered in voters' registers as voters in

11 Herzegovina or Konjic. So were these persons also as inhabitants of

12 Visegrad or because they are voters' registers outside Visegrad they were

13 not included?

14 A. The information that we used to define the place of residence in

15 1997 is the municipality of registration. Municipality of registration is

16 one of the items included in the voters' register that inform about the

17 residence of the voters in 1997.

18 Next to this item we could have used, for instance, the

19 self-reported municipality of residence in 1997, but we believe that the

20 self-reported information is less reliable than the information which is

21 just actual registration. We believe that the voters registered to vote,

22 where they actually lived or stayed at the moment of registration.

23 So I don't think that the voters from other municipalities in

24 Bosnia who actually stayed in the municipality of Visegrad were registered

25 in the old municipalities. There was no need to do so. Even if someone

1 wanted to vote for the municipality where the person lived in 1991, it was

2 possible to do in the municipality where the person registered to vote,

3 where the person actually stayed in 1997.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Is the result of that answer this: That there may

5 have been other people of Serb ethnicity living in the Visegrad

6 municipality in 1997 who were still registered in some municipalities of

7 the Federation but who had come to Visegrad as refugees without

8 registering there? That, as I understood it, was the purpose of the

9 question.

10 A. Well, -- well, as far as I understand it, the municipality of

11 registration is the best --

12 JUDGE HUNT: No, no, please.

13 A. Could you repeat the question, please? Yes.

14 JUDGE HUNT: We understand why you have selected it.

15 A. Yes, uh-huh.

16 JUDGE HUNT: But what I understood Mr. Domazet to be suggesting is

17 that there could be other people of Serb ethnicity who were still

18 registered somewhere in the Federation but who had come to the Visegrad

19 municipality as refugees and they would not be included in your figures.

20 It seems to follow to me the answer to that is that is correct, but that

21 was the purpose of the question.

22 A. Yeah. Yeah. Perhaps. This is my answer, yes.

23 JUDGE HUNT: That's what you were after, wasn't it, Mr. Domazet?

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that is it.

25 Q. If I understood your answers correctly, the actual voters'

1 register is not the most reliable source, as it is possible for someone

2 not to have registered. But my question is: Did you check whether there

3 may be people on the voters' register who may also be on the missing

4 persons list and in that way to verify the accuracy of this list? That

5 is, do you know whether perhaps the International Red Cross did that, if

6 that was not part of your analysis?

7 A. It is always part of our analysis to compare the different lists

8 and to exclude cases that are obviously contradictory, and this is what we

9 have done in this case. Perhaps there were a few cases, like two or

10 something like that, but this wasn't an issue at all in this particular

11 case.

12 So what we present are lists that are, first of all, gleaned from

13 duplicates. This is one thing. Every list, ICRC, voters, there

14 are no duplicates. We have means to check for duplicates. This is one

15 thing. And secondly, we can cross-compare the list, cross-examine the

16 lists in order not to show that someone reported as missing as a voter, a

17 registered voter. And all the lists are verified by linking with the

18 population census 1991.

19 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you, please, to look at figure 4, the

20 number of persons missing in Visegrad in the period April/June 1992.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You said a moment ago that according to this figure, on the 14 the

23 of June, most persons went missing, according to this figure. Is that

24 right?

25 A. Yes, 14th of June was one of the three days I mentioned.

1 Q. Correct. How many persons would it be, judging by this diagram?

2 I would say it would be 26, but could you confirm that, please?

3 A. It is approximately 26. If you need specific number, I would have

4 to check whether it was 26 or 27, but in my view, it is 26 too. I don't

5 have the figures that were used for this diagram right now in front of

6 me.

7 Q. In any event, the line marked 25 stands for the number of missing

8 persons, that is, these numbers indicated on the left, 5, 10, 15, 20, and

9 25. Am I right?

10 A. Excuse me, once again, please, if you may.

11 Q. On the left-hand side of the diagram, figure number 4, the numbers

12 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25, to my understanding, stand for the number of

13 missing persons so that on the 14th of June, about 26 went missing. It

14 may be plus, minus one, but roughly that figure; is that right?

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Re-examination.

19 MS. BAUER: Just one question.

20 Re-examined by Ms. Bauer:

21 Q. Ms. Tabeau, the 26 people that went missing that day are 26 people

22 that were reported in the ICRC list as missing. It don't necessarily mean

23 that only 26 people went missing that day; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, that is correct. And moreover, these are people whose

25 identity is verified. No. Excuse me. The ethnicity is included. So

1 this is the number listed in the ICRC list of missing persons.

2 JUDGE HUNT: And perhaps more specifically, it was 26 people who

3 were reported to the ICRC as having last been seen on the 26th of June?

4 A. Yes.

5 MS. BAUER: Thank you.

6 A. Yes. There have been -- there might have been more than that.

7 MS. BAUER:

8 Q. Do you know where the reports were coming from from the ICRC? Who

9 would usually report those?

10 A. Usually these were family members, close relatives. In some

11 exceptional cases neighbours who were eyewitnesses. ICRC didn't accept

12 reports from people whose relation to the missing person was unclear,

13 unknown, not well defined.

14 Q. I'll just correct the record. We are talking about the 14th of

15 June, not the 26th of June. Thank you. No further questions.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Both dates have the same figure.

17 MS. BAUER: Yes.

18 Questioned by the Court:

19 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Tabeau, may I just ask you a couple of questions

20 about page 1 of your report. I'm curious to know what you identify as

21 Yugoslav ethnicity in the first of your major findings. Is that people

22 from the former Yugoslavia or from Serbia and Montenegro or what?

23 A. These Yugoslavs is just how people reported themselves in that

24 census. It was an open-ended question, and everybody was free to decide,

25 to say, to mention what ethnicity he or she was.

1 JUDGE HUNT: So they could be Serbs or Croats?

2 A. Yes.

3 JUDGE HUNT: We just don't know.

4 A. But this is how they identified themselves, not as Serbs, or

5 Croats, or Muslims, Yugoslavs,.

6 JUDGE HUNT: I understand. Now, in your third finding, you

7 referred just to Visegrad. Should we assume that is a reference to the

8 municipality and not the town?

9 A. Yes, of course. This is Visegrad municipality.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

11 Well, thank you very much for coming along to give evidence, and

12 we thank you for your evidence, and you are free to leave.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

14 [The witness withdrew]

15 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer, do you want to tender that document which

16 is marked 41.2? It's not yet in evidence.

17 MS. BAUER: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection to that, Mr. Domazet?

19 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour. No objection.

20 JUDGE HUNT: It is extracts from the other report

21 MS. BAUER: Exactly. I think it is more detailed in one case and

22 in another case a little bit more simplified in the other.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that will be Exhibit P41.2.

24 Yes, Mr. Groome.

25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls its next witness,

1 VG61.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Is there a pseudonym document?

3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE HUNT: That will be Exhibit P79, and it will be under seal.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE HUNT: Sir, would you please make the solemn declaration in

7 the document which is being shown to you by the court usher.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10 WITNESS: WITNESS VG61

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, sir.

13 Mr. Groome.

14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that the witness be shown

15 Exhibit P79

16 Examined by Mr. Groome:

17 Q. Witness 61, I'd ask you to look at the name, the date of birth,

18 and the address at the top of that document. Do you recognise that

19 information as that to be of yourself?

20 A. Yes, do I.

21 Q. And I would just remind you, in the course of your testimony, if

22 you need to refer to some other witnesses, we have assigned some of the

23 witnesses numbers and they are also indicated on that document P79.

24 Witness 61, I would ask you to briefly describe your background

25 for the Chamber. I'm most concerned with your professional background.

1 A. Well, I am a former policeman by profession. I am retired. I

2 have ended my years of service. I have lived in the town of Visegrad,

3 Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am the father of two children. I was married.

4 My wife died. I'm a widower, and now I live in the area of Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina, and more specifically in Sarajevo.

6 Q. And where were you a police officer?

7 A. Well, I was a policeman in Visegrad until the aggression of 1992.

8 I lived in Visegrad until May 31, 1993, until our territory succumbed, the

9 territory in Visegrad, and then I moved to Gorazde.

10 Q. Just so the record is clear, when did you leave Visegrad?

11 A. Well, I left Visegrad -- I'm not quite sure. I don't know whether

12 it was April 5th or 6th. That was the last time I was in my house in

13 Visegrad.

14 Q. And that was April 5th or 6th of 1992?

15 A. 1992.

16 Q. Now, how many years were you a police officer in Visegrad?

17 A. In Visegrad, I worked as a police officer [redacted]

18 [redacted].

19 Q. And during the course of your employment at the Visegrad police

20 station, did you have occasion to investigate crimes and interview

21 witnesses of crimes or victims of crimes?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to the day that you left

24 Visegrad. Can you tell us why you left Visegrad on that day?

25 A. I left Visegrad that day because the police station that existed

1 in Medjedja, I was the commander of the station and I was on duty there,

2 and that's why I left the city. I was not safe because I was threatened

3 by telephone and so on.

4 Q. And can you be specific about what types of threats you received?

5 A. On two occasions by telephone, they told me if I continued to do

6 my business there, I would be liquidated, me and my family and everyone.

7 But I didn't leave the place because I was scared. I did it because of my

8 duties.

9 Q. And when you said -- when this person threatened you and said

10 "continue your business," did you understand that to mean your

11 responsibilities as a police officer?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And did you leave Visegrad alone or did you take your entire

14 family?

15 A. I left alone.

16 Q. Now, after you left Visegrad, was it possible for you to

17 communicate with people in Visegrad by way of the telephone?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And can you give us an idea about how many times per week would

20 you speak with friends or family from Visegrad?

21 A. Well, perhaps in a few days -- well, once a week or a few times a

22 week or not at all, because the connections were bad.

23 Q. Of the members of your family that remained behind in Visegrad,

24 was your father one of them?

25 A. No. He was in the village where I was born, six kilometres from

1 Visegrad.

2 Q. And did he remain in that village at the time that you had left

3 Visegrad?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did there come a time when you learnt about a fire that took place

6 in the area of Pionirska Street? And I would just remind you in your

7 answer, if you need to refer to a witness, please look at the sheet P79

8 before you. Did you ever learn of a fire in Visegrad on Pionirska Street?

9 A. Yes. I was informed about the fire in Pionirska Street in

10 Visegrad by Witness 13.

11 Q. And where were you when Witness 13 informed you about the fire in

12 Visegrad?

13 A. Well, at the time, I was at my workplace when Witness 13 came. He

14 was wounded on his right arm, and the witness told me how the whole event

15 took place. The people, the residents that had been expelled from the

16 village where they were living, and they were taken by foot to the town.

17 Well, I cannot quote exact figures. There were about between 50 and 60

18 persons, elderly people, sick people, children, and other citizens joined

19 them along the way. Not really joined them but were forced to join them,

20 people who were at the time in Sase. They had to join these people, and

21 they were taken to Visegrad, to the Red Cross there.

22 Q. Witness 61, you said you were at your workplace when Witness VG13

23 spoke to you about this. Was your workplace a police station in?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did Witness VG13 inform you that your father was among one of

1 the people -- one of the victims of that fire?

2 A. Witness 13 told me about the whole event, and in the meantime, he

3 told me that this had happened to my -- to my family but that they had

4 left to the place called Olovo, near Kladanj. And two or three days

5 later, Witness 13 told me that my father had been there, my mother, two

6 sisters, and a boy of 12 years old. He was the son of one of my sisters.

7 Q. Did there come a time when you spoke to your father regarding what

8 happened that night in Visegrad?

9 A. No. My first meeting with my father, my first contact, took place

10 February 24, 1993, in a place called Donja Zimca, municipality of Visoko,

11 where my father was placed in a collective centre in an elementary school,

12 but I don't know the name of that school.

13 Q. Subsequent to February 24th of 1993, did you have several

14 conversations with your father regarding what happened on the night of the

15 fire in Visegrad on Pionirska Street?

16 A. Well, at least five or six times I talked to my father during his

17 lifetime. He died in 1996. I can tell you the exact date when he died.

18 Q. Would you please do that.

19 A. My father died September 10th, 1996, in Sarajevo. He was buried

20 in Sarajevo, at the municipal cemetery, and it is called Alfakovac.

21 Q. I want you to describe for the Chamber as best you're able to

22 recount your father's description of what happened on -- during the fire

23 on Pionirska Street. And let us begin by did he tell you the date on

24 which this fire took place?

25 A. Yes. It happened exactly between June 13 and 14. Well, to be

1 accurate, between 2330 and 2400 hours. People were taken from one house

2 in Pionirska where they had been until then on that critical day, when

3 they were returned from the hotel, and they were told that they would

4 travel only the next day to Olovo because there were no buses available.

5 So on that critical night, the time I mentioned, 2330 hours and

6 2400 hours, from the house in Pionirska Street, where people had been

7 expelled from that house to another house which is near a creek which is

8 about 70 to 80 metres from the house where they had previously been.

9 Q. Did your father -- excuse me. When you spoke with your father

10 regarding this incident, would it be fair to say that you not only spoke

11 to him as his son but also as a police officer investigating a crime?

12 A. Yes. I was interested in every detail specifically. I was

13 interested in how the whole thing evolved.

14 Q. Did you ask your father who the people were who were involved in

15 this fire, the perpetrators?

16 A. Well, on that critical day, specifically at the time when at about

17 2.00 p.m. people were brought to that house, Milan Lukic was there,

18 Sredoje Lukic, Mitar Vasiljevic, and in the immediate vicinity of that

19 house, there was Bosko Djuric, Zoran Joksimovic, Susnjar is another

20 person. That's his surname. His nickname is Lalco. I don't know his

21 exact name. And at that critical point in time, there was also Ilic. His

22 nickname was Mikan. I know him by the nickname of Mikan. He was a

23 teacher at the elementary school in Prelovo, 12 kilometres away from

24 Visegrad, north in the direction of the municipality of Rogatica.

25 About 2.00, 2.00 p.m., they were in the immediate vicinity when

1 Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic, Mitar Vasiljevic entered the house, issued an

2 order that no one could move from the house. They said that anyone who

3 had any money, foreign currency, jewellery, that they should put it on a

4 table, in a bag which was on that table. If they didn't do so, they would

5 be searched. And if they found anything on anyone of the objects

6 mentioned, the person would be liquidated.

7 After the money and jewellery had been collected, they took out a

8 woman. Well, I would just like to look at the name. It is the wife of

9 Dzevad Kurspahic. She is a nice looking young woman and another woman

10 whom I did not know. I think her name was Jasmina but I don't know where

11 she was from.

12 She joined us on the way. She joined the column that was actually

13 herded in the place of Sase.

14 After that, the other people that I mentioned that were around the

15 house, Milan Lukic informed us that no one could move out of the house

16 until he returned.

17 After that, all three of them moved away. My father had said that

18 they went to a place called Bikavac, a motel in Visegrad, and about -- I

19 don't know exactly the time. I think it was around 10.00 p.m., between

20 10.00 and 11.00, they reappeared at that house where they continued to

21 harass us, to search, to see if any objects had been missed.

22 Q. Witness, you said that "they returned to the house." Did your

23 father identify any of the men or the people who returned to the house

24 later in the day?

25 A. Yes. Mitar Vasiljevic, Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic, and another

1 man who was mentioned. I subsequently learned that this person was from

2 Ilijas, from the municipality of Ilijas, who is now living in Visegrad.

3 He was the first associate of Milan Lukic. He is blonde, exceptionally

4 blonde, with long blonde hair, and Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic wore a large hat

5 on that critical day. Whether it was white or yellow, something like

6 that. I don't believe my father could distinguish between colours very

7 well to be very accurate.

8 The four of them entered that house between 10.00 p.m. and 11.00

9 p.m. on that critical night.

10 Q. Did your father describe the shape of the hat that Mitar

11 Vasiljevic was wearing?

12 A. He said it was a big round hat. His impression was that it was a

13 big hat and that it was very peculiar.

14 Q. Did your father indicate where he knew this person he's

15 identifying as Mitar Vasiljevic from?

16 A. Well, I can say that Mitar Vasiljevic, for about 20 years, perhaps

17 less or more, had been a waiter in Visegrad, and he worked in many

18 restaurants of Panos. At least about 50 times at least he served these

19 people in motels and hotels, and they knew him personally. And amongst

20 them, he knew my father personally.

21 Q. Now, I'd ask you to describe in great specificity what exactly

22 your father told you Mitar Vasiljevic did at this time between 10.00 and

23 11.00 at night.

24 A. Well, I cannot really say. I know that some of them had said that

25 they would be moved to another house because they had been attacking the

1 Green Berets, because shots were heard at that critical point near the

2 house where they were. And then there was -- people were evacuated from

3 that house to another house where they were -- which was burnt down, and

4 in front of that house, when they were going out and when they were

5 escorted to another house, they were in a row and on one side, there was

6 Mitar Vasiljevic and the blonde chap whose name I didn't know. There was

7 Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic, and Zoran Joksimovic.

8 Q. Did your father describe for you how he escaped from the fire that

9 night?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you please tell us what he told you regarding his escape

12 from the fire?

13 A. So as they were entering the second house which was burnt later,

14 my father, who was not in good health, was the last to enter, and this man

15 Susnjar, nicknamed Lalco, led in by hand through the door, and the room

16 was so full that he remained right next to the door. He was more or less

17 pushed inside. And then this door of this room was closed by Susnjar so

18 that the door pushed him inside.

19 When the door was locked, a powerful explosion was heard, because

20 on this building there were two windows, and one of those windows was

21 protected with metal wiring which was tied because there was no -- there

22 were no windowpanes on this building as it hadn't yet been moved into.

23 And the other window was also protected so that there was no way of

24 getting out.

25 In the immediate vicinity of this one window, one of my sisters

1 was standing, and the father suggested that she jump out to save herself

2 and her child.

3 After this powerful explosion occurred, my father was wounded in

4 the forehead, his right lower arm and upper arm. And after this

5 explosion, there was a terrible scream and panic. And from the explosion,

6 the door that -- the door was opened, blown open, so he was thrown outside

7 on his back. Seeing that he hadn't been wounded in his legs and that he

8 could get up, he rolled down a slope which is about 10 or 12 metres high,

9 and below that there's a swamp, a creek that the sewage flows through

10 which hasn't been repaired. And after that, ten minutes or so later, he

11 moved to a bush of dry maize stems that had been in the form of a mound

12 and hid there. And screams and cries could be heard from the house.

13 He told me that this baby had a real baby's voice that you could

14 hear was dying off slowly.

15 And he stayed there in this mound all day while these guy were is

16 waiting outside, and whoever jumped out of the building, they opened fire

17 on them and killed them.

18 At the end of that day, he left this place and went to a nearby

19 locality on the outskirts of town towards Titovo Uzice. He was wearing

20 woollen socks and no shoes, and he was wounded and bloody. After that he,

21 stayed there two or three days, and after that, they came looking for

22 him. They had probably heard that he had survived. I don't know.

23 Among other things, he went by convoy from Visegrad, five or six

24 days later. He had to put on women's clothing. He got onto a truck

25 together with other locals from Visegrad, and they were transported to

1 Olovo.

2 Q. You said that your father was led by the hand or by the arm into

3 the building that was eventually set on fire. Was that because your

4 father has trouble walking?

5 A. Most probably that was the reason, or it was so full that he had

6 to be pushed inside, shoved inside.

7 Q. You testified that your father described some of the things that

8 he saw as he was hiding in this mound down by the creek. Did he Describe

9 for you who the people were that were firing at the victims as they tried

10 to escape? Did he identify those people to you?

11 A. In view of the fact that it was night-time and they couldn't see,

12 the people mentioned was Mitar, this fair-haired one whose name I don't

13 know and nor does my father, the two Lukics, Milan and Sredoje, and this

14 young man Zoran Joksimovic. At the critical time, they were the ones that

15 escorted them there, put them in the building and they were probably the

16 people who were around the building, but he couldn't see them because it

17 was night-time.

18 Q. Now, you've mentioned a number of people as being involved as

19 perpetrators in this act and you've described one as a blonde person whom

20 you do not know. My question to you is: These other names that you have

21 mentioned, are these all people that you know from your time living and

22 working in Visegrad?

23 A. Yes. I know all these men personally, with the exception of this

24 blonde man whom I have never seen.

25 Q. And are you certain that your father told you that Mitar

1 Vasiljevic was present at the night when the house was actually set on

2 fire?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this point I'd like to show a brief

5 portion of a video, about 10 seconds, just to identify it, but it does

6 include a depiction of this witness's father, so I'd ask that we go into

7 private session for just a minute or two.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. We'll go into private session.

9 [Private session]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [Open session]

24 JUDGE HUNT: We're now in public session.

25 MR. GROOME:

1 Q. Witness 66, did there come a time when your father gave a

2 videotaped account of what happened to him that night?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do you know when approximately he gave that account?

5 A. I know approximately. I don't know the exact date, but what could

6 it have been? He stayed in Visegrad five or six days after the event,

7 then three days in Olovo, from Olovo to Visoko it probably took him one

8 day. So whether it was immediately after he arrived at Visoko or the next

9 day, but in any event, it was probably the first day. So maybe ten days

10 after the event.

11 Q. So approximately ten days after the event, your father gave a

12 videotaped account of what occurred?

13 A. Ten to 12 days. It couldn't have been -- it shouldn't have been

14 longer. Between 10 and 12 days, approximately.

15 Q. Have you seen this video?

16 A. I saw this first recording in 1995, I think it was.

17 Q. And the short portion that we played here in court in private

18 session, is that a portion of the video that you're now describing?

19 A. Yes. I saw it for the first time in 1995.

20 Q. And does the video that you -- the entire -- have you observed or

21 looked at this entire video from start to finish?

22 A. Yes. Whatever he said, the statement he made for television, I

23 saw it in its entirety.

24 Q. And does it fairly and accurately depict your father describing

25 what happened on the 14th -- 13th or 14th of June?

1 JUDGE HUNT: The formula you use I frankly do not understand, and

2 I do not understand how this witness could accede to that. Was he there

3 when it was videoed?

4 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then how can he say something fairly and

6 accurately represents something?

7 MR. GROOME: Well, I'm basing that on he knows his father's

8 voice, he knows his father's appearance --

9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then he could be asked whether that's his

10 father's voice. It could be mutilated by cutting out words out here,

11 there, and everywhere.

12 It's obviously some constitutional case in the United States that

13 says it has to fairly and accurately represent something, but it doesn't

14 really mean anything, with all due respect, in this situation. If this

15 video gets into evidence, it will be subject to any question about could

16 it have been interfered with.

17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

18 Q. Witness of 66, during the entire course of the video that you have

19 watched, is it your father who is on that video?

20 A. Yeah.

21 Q. And the voice that purports to be your father's voice, do you

22 recognise it as your father's voice?

23 A. Yes, accurately. I have this recording in my own possession. If

24 necessary, I can show it and I can produce it. I think it is identical,

25 absolutely 1 million per cent.

1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time, I would tender Prosecution

2 video number 145 into evidence under seal.

3 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet?

4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour, but I would

5 like this exhibit to be tendered after the examination of the witness, the

6 completion of the witness's examination.

7 JUDGE HUNT: That seems to be fair enough. If there's going to be

8 a challenge to it, you'll have will the opportunity to re-examine,

9 Mr. Groome, so I think we better reserve that for the moment.

10 MR. GROOME: And I'll reserve my tendering of the transcripts of

11 that until that time as well, Your Honour.

12 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to look at Prosecution document number

13 147. Looking at document Prosecution number 147, is this a list of names

14 that I asked you to review earlier this morning?

15 A. Yes, it is the same list.

16 Q. And would it be fair to say that you are related in some manner to

17 each of the people listed on this list?

18 A. Yes. All these surnames are relatives of mine, people with the

19 same surname.

20 Q. And would it be fair to say that since 1992, the time of this

21 fire, you have not seen or heard from any of the people listed on this

22 list?

23 A. I have not seen any of them.

24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender into

25 evidence Prosecution number 147.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Wouldn't you have to show that they were alive at

2 least on the day of the fire?

3 MR. GROOME: I can do that with another witness, Your Honour. I'm

4 just introducing it at this stage to indicate that this witness has not

5 seen these people since the day of the fire.

6 JUDGE HUNT: It's the heading which concerns me, you see.

7 MR. GROOME: I would agree to strike that if the Court so wishes.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. Any objection, Mr. Domazet?

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree, Your Honour,

10 if this could be of assistance for one of the witnesses to testify about

11 these people.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, does that mean that you don't object to

13 it?

14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what it means, Your

15 Honour.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.

17 Now, Mr. Groome, there are some very minor differences. For

18 example, number 19 does not have an "S" as a fourth letter like most of

19 the others. I don't know whether that's deliberate. But what I'm more

20 concerned about was the generality of the question and answer. The

21 witness had earlier said all those with the same surname were relatives of

22 his. There is one, number 36, who is described as a relative, even though

23 she does not have the same surname, but then you

24 have 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 which do not appear, on the face

25 of them, to have the same surname, nor do they appear to have any

1 relationship to him. Now, it was a very general question you asked and is

2 the very general answer intended to refer to those?

3 MR. GROOME: I'll clear that up for the Court.

4 JUDGE HUNT: I think you should.

5 MR. GROOME:

6 Q. Witness 61, as the Court has just indicated, you have identified

7 the commonness of your surname with many of the people on this list. The

8 other people who have different surnames, have you had an opportunity to

9 review those names as well? And my first question will be: Are they

10 people that you are either related to or that know personally?

11 A. Your Honours, I have stated that the persons with the surname

12 [redacted] are my relatives. I think I made myself clear. Those with the

13 surname [redacted] are my relatives. As for [redacted] --

14 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment. Please don't use the names. We are

15 going to have to take those out of the transcript because they will

16 identify you. Just refer to any in the list by the number beside them so

17 that we don't broadcast your name to everybody.

18 A. Thank you. So I was saying up to 43, they were all closely

19 related, friends, neighbours, because I lived in this village.

20 Number 44 is my sister. Number 45 is my sister's son. Number 46

21 and 47 are friends, that is, the in-laws of my nephew. The other numbers

22 are all my acquaintances whom I would see frequently and have contact

23 with.

24 Q. And have you had contact with any of the people on this list since

25 1992?

1 A. No.

2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would just amend my tendering of this

3 exhibit to tender it under seal given the --

4 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, yes, most certainly, but at this stage the

5 heading on it is not part of exhibit.

6 MR. GROOME: I will replace it after lunch, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE HUNT: No, we'll just put a line through it. That will be

8 Exhibit P147 and it is under seal.

9 MR. GROOME:

10 Q. You arrived in Holland to testify here today last night; is that

11 correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you brought with you numerous photographs of the people on

14 this list; is that correct?

15 A. Not a large number, but I have photographs of all members of my

16 immediate family.

17 Q. And you are willing to make them available to the Tribunal in

18 this -- in the trial of this case?

19 A. Only if they could be photocopied in your presence. I would like

20 to have the originals back.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no further questions of this

23 witness.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.

25 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you said at the beginning, in answering

2 questions from Mr. Groome, that you learnt about the fire in Pionirska

3 Street from Witness VG13; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could you tell me when that was and in what way did she tell you

6 about it?

7 A. I can. I can't remember the exact date. It was roughly about ten

8 days after the event in Medjedja near Visegrad. My contact occurred with

9 this witness occurred then, and she described to me the actual event, but

10 he said that my family were not among them, that they had left for Olovo.

11 And then two days later, probably to spare my feelings, he told me what

12 had happened.

13 Q. So this witness came to you in Medjedja about ten days after the

14 event and told you the story without telling you immediately that your

15 close family members had died, nor did he mention that they were in that

16 house?

17 A. This witness told me that my family had gone to Olovo. Then two

18 days later, he told me the whole story again.

19 Q. So after this witness had told you the way it happened, a couple

20 of days later, what did he say?

21 A. Not after several days but after two days exactly. He told me

22 that the whole village, all men, women, and children, all the villagers of

23 the village had been brought to Visegrad and that they were taken to

24 Pionirska Street to Memic Jusuf's house, from where, at the critical

25 moment that I mentioned when it was, were transferred to a house which is

1 70 or 80 metres away, owned by Adem Omeragic, and that on the critical

2 night, they were all se on fire in that house. And that she jumped out on

3 the lower end through a window with her son, who is a survivor. They are

4 alive. This son is alive, and they escaped through the creek towards a

5 locality called Glavica.

6 Q. When you were telling us about the event a moment ago, especially

7 about the perpetrators, the Serbs, you were recounting the story on the

8 basis of what your father told you; is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did this witness who spoke to you tell you anything about it or

11 not?

12 A. Yes. The witness told me exactly the same story as my father.

13 Q. So when you say it was the identical story, does that mean to say

14 that this witness mentioned these same persons that you listed a moment

15 ago? So let me repeat. Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic, Mitar Vasiljevic,

16 Susnjar Lalco, this fair man from Ilijas, Joksimovic, that they were the

17 participants who participated in one way or another in this event?

18 A. Witness number 13 only failed to mention Zoran Joksimovic at the

19 critical moment that day. Maybe he forgot it or failed to notice, I

20 don't know. And Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic and this blonde man whose name

21 I don't know and she doesn't know it either, and Mitar Vasiljevic were

22 there and took away the bag with the money from the house.

23 Q. So if I understand you correctly, this witness spoke to you first,

24 and she was the first to mention these names.

25 A. Yes. I didn't quite understand. Could you repeat that?

1 Q. So the names that you have mentioned, with the possible exception

2 of Zoran Joksimovic, you heard for the first time from Witness VG13?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you claim that those same names were mentioned by your father

5 when you saw him for the first time in 1993.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Am I right in assuming that your father lived in the village of

8 Koritnik?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What was his occupation?

11 A. He was a farmer.

12 Q. At the time and before that time?

13 A. Yes. He was a man in his 70s.

14 Q. Did he know or could he have known all these persons that you

15 mentioned today? Could he have known them personally?

16 A. Yes, with the exception of this blonde one, because he knows

17 personally Sredoje Lukic, who had lunch in my father's house with me a

18 hundred times. Mitar Vasiljevic must have served him at least 50 times,

19 at least, in Panos Hotel and other restaurants in Visegrad town.

20 Q. Excuse me. Did your father go to Visegrad so often and go to

21 restaurants and coffee shops when Mr. Vasiljevic was on duty?

22 A. Mr. Defence counsel, my father lived in the area of Visegrad for

23 70 years, and he went to that town at least 500 times. And Mr. Vasiljevic

24 worked in Panos a long time, where people stayed and went to have lunch,

25 because that was the kind of restaurant it was.

1 Q. And you know that your father went to that restaurant to have

2 lunch?

3 A. Yes, often with me, in my company.

4 Q. And how did he know Milan Lukic?

5 A. He personally doesn't know Milan Lukic, but by the way, his

6 associates called him -- Mitar and Sredoje, when they spoke to him, they

7 used the word "Milan."

8 Q. So did he tell you that there was a person that was addressed as

9 Milan or did he say that it was Milan Lukic?

10 A. He told me that they called him Milan Lukic, that he didn't know

11 him personally, but as for all the others, from the other citizens and

12 witnesses, let me be specific -- just a moment, please. Just a moment,

13 please. From a person who is not on the list here or, rather, the

14 person -- just a moment, please. Let me check. Let me think.

15 The person under number 23 new him personally, because they went

16 to school together. And she said that it was Milan Lukic, because they

17 were in school together, in primary school for four years, in a place

18 called Prelovo, close to Visegrad.

19 Q. Who did this person, number 23, say this?

20 A. To all those who were present. She said that when they were

21 brought to this building, that it was Milan Lukic.

22 Q. Did your father tell you that or Witness VG13?

23 A. Yes, my father.

24 Q. Is that correct, what you said a moment ago, that they called him

25 by his name and surname, that is, Milan Lukic?

1 A. They called him by his name, Milan.

2 Q. A moment ago, you said by the name Milan Lukic, and that has

3 entered in the record.

4 A. That may and mistake. Please correct that if that is what it

5 says. The word used is "Milan."

6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour

7 JUDGE HUNT: It's 1.00. We'll resume again at 2.30.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.00 p.m.

9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20^th day of

10 September 2001 at 9.30 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25