1 Monday, 17 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 Good morning, everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic
8 and Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have the appearances, please.
12 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, Belinda Pidwell,
13 Joanna Korner, and
14 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
17 We have quite an international Defence team today for
18 Mr. Slobodan [as interpreted] Stanisic. Attorney-at-law,
19 Slobodan Zecevic, Republika Srpska; Deirdre Montgomery, Ireland
20 the first time Ivana Batista from the Netherlands; and of course Mr.
21 Eugene O'Sullivan of the U.S.
22 MR. PANTELIC: For Zupljanin Defence this morning, Igor Pantelic,
23 Dragan Krgovic, and our learned friend, solicitor from London, originally
24 from Denmark
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
1 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: Sorry. For the record, Slobodan Cvijetic,
3 Republika Srpska; Eugene O'Sullivan, Canada; Ms. Deirdre Montgomery,
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. The transcript would -- records
6 Ms. Montgomery as being from "Island
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, "Ireland," that's what I
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, there's a preliminary matter we'd
11 like to raise before the witness is brought in, and it refers -- relates
12 to the 92 ter package that the Prosecution is offering with the next
13 witness. And it's our submission we should deal with this outside the
14 presence of the witness, as we anticipate that he'll comply with the
15 92 ter formalities, and it's on the admission of the supporting materials
16 to the package and certain aspects of his statement that we take
17 objection to. The 92 ter package includes 15 newspaper articles that
18 were written by the witness.
19 Let me begin by saying that we take -- we have a standing
20 objection to the admissibility of newspaper articles, which I would
21 reiterate here. These articles, as Your Honours may have seen, contain a
22 large amount of unverified and, in fact, unverifiable information from
23 local radios, Radio Sarajevo
24 accounts that the witness claims he heard on those news sources. He
25 attributes words to persons who are often named or at times unnamed. It
1 contains accounts of information from unnamed foreign officials, Western
2 observers, and local politicians. And in particular in relation to one
3 article, which is at tab 7, 65 ter 3377, we say the article is wholly
4 irrelevant. It relates to the Sarajevo
5 July. It has nothing to do with our indictment. That's the first
6 general objection.
7 The second objection has to do with interviews that were
8 conducted by Mr. Traynor, and I refer you to tab 2, 65 ter 10358.02.
9 That's Mr. Traynor's OTP interview. And at page 7, he says:
10 "During this time, I also carried out interviews of survivors of
11 the three main detention facilities which existed in the Prijedor area.
12 My investigations are outlined in articles that I wrote on the subject."
13 And we find, similarly, at tab 14, 65 ter 3373, his article on
14 the 6th of October, 1992, on page 1, where he states that:
15 "Since last week, 'The Guardian' has conducted lengthy detailed
16 and separate interviews with many of the former inmates and their
18 Now, the articles I'm referring to are contained at tabs 12
19 through 17 inclusive. They're the articles that date from the 2nd of
20 October and later.
21 Your Honour, we say, as a matter of law, this information is not
22 admissible through Traynor, and we refer you to the jurisprudence of the
23 Tribunal in the Milutinovic case, IT-05-87-T, a decision of the 1st of
24 September, 2006. It's a decision on the evidence tendered through Sandra
25 Mitchell and Frederick Abrams. And, similarly, on the 8th of September,
1 2006, a decision on evidence tendered through Fuad Haxhibeqiri. We say
2 that this jurisprudence applies to this context of what is being offered
3 through Mr. Traynor, and I'll explain why.
4 The facts of the case of the decisions in Milutinovic were the
5 following: International organisations had prepared reports, and these
6 reports were not prepared for the purpose of litigation. We say the same
7 applies to the articles written by Mr. Traynor. They were not prepared
8 for the purposes of litigation. The reports in Milutinovic that were
9 prepared by the NGOs contained excerpts of statements of alleged criminal
10 conduct that were made by persons who claimed to be the victims of or
11 witnesses to crimes. The statements were taken by people from the NGOs
12 who did not participate in the events and did not see or experience the
13 events or the accounts that were described by the declarants. They were
14 NGO people who met with people who claimed to be victims. And the same
15 is true here. Mr. Traynor, in October, claims to have interviewed people
16 who were in these facilities.
17 The Milutinovic Trial Chamber, in the two decisions I've cited,
18 found that these accounts were inadmissible hearsay, and the reasoning of
19 the Milutinovic Chamber followed the Appeals Chamber decision in
20 Aleksovski. That's case IT-95-14/1-AR73, 16 February 1999. It's the
21 decision on the Prosecutor's appeal on admissibility of evidence. And at
22 paragraph 44 of that decision, the Appeals Chamber discusses the issue of
23 the indicia of reliability and the admission of summary hearsay evidence.
24 And two points flow from that Appeals Chamber decision which were
25 followed in Milutinovic.
1 The first matter is this: A Chamber must consider whether the
2 summary is first-hand hearsay, and by that the Appeals Chamber said the
3 issue is whether the person who made the summary personally saw or heard
4 the events recorded in the statement.
5 The second point is that -- is whether the absence of opportunity
6 to cross-examine those persons, the declarant, affects the statement.
7 And the third point made by the Appeals Chamber is that the
8 opportunity to simply be able to cross-examine the person who summarised
9 the statement, the person who recorded what was told, does not overcome
10 the absence of opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
11 The situation with Mr. Traynor is identical to the situation in
12 Milutinovic. Mr. Traynor wrote things he was told by others and
13 published them in the newspaper. Mr. Traynor neither saw nor heard the
14 events that were recorded, and we have no opportunity to cross-examine
15 the declarants. You, as the Trial Chamber, do not have sufficient
16 indicia or material to be satisfied that the information contained in
17 Mr. Traynor's articles is reliable. There is an avenue for the
18 Prosecution to have the statements of declarants heard by you, and that
19 is by calling the witness viva voce or by using 92 ter or 92 bis. They
20 are inadmissible through the 92 ter package and the newspaper articles
21 tendered -- attempted to be tendered through Mr. Traynor.
22 We say the same is true for certain aspects of Mr. Traynor's OTP
23 interview, which is 65 ter 10358.2. There, at page 8, he has an
24 interview with a man named Krzic, on page 8 with a man named Sadic, from
25 pages 13 to 16 he has discussions or conversations -- general
1 conversations with Mr. Karadzic, Koljevic, Veljko Ostojic, Ratko Mladic,
2 Mr. Milanovic, and a Colonel Milutinovic, some of which are outside the
3 scope of the indictment. Again, Mr. Traynor neither saw or heard the
4 events that these people are discussing, and we have no opportunity to
5 cross-examine the declarant.
6 The last objection we have relates to what we anticipate
7 Mr. Traynor giving an account -- a hearsay account of what was told to
8 him by ICRC employees. Again, I refer you to tab 2 of 65 ter 10358.2,
9 which is Mr. Traynor's OTP interview. At page 2, he says:
10 "Another person I interviewed who gave a good background to
11 account of what happened in Banja Luka was an international humanitarian
12 official who was the only international person in Banja Luka and Northern
14 He explains in the proofing note of 7 April that it is an ICRC
15 employee. Four of his newspaper articles make reference to accounts
16 given by an ICRC employee. That's tab 9, 65 ter 3376 at page 2; tab 10,
17 65 ter 3375 at page 2; tab 13, 65 ter 10358 .07 at pages 1 and 2; and,
18 finally, at tab 16, 65 ter 10058.08 at page 2.
19 Now, why do we say that the statements or information provided by
20 an ICRC employee are inadmissible? I direct Your Honours to the decision
21 in the Prosecutor versus Simic, IT-95-9-PT, a decision dated 27 July
22 1999. It's a decision on the Prosecution motion under Rule 73 for a
23 ruling concerning the testimony of a witness. The witness in question
24 was a former ICRC employee.
25 The Chamber found that an employee or former employee of the ICRC
1 cannot testify before the ICTY. The Chamber found that there is a rule
2 of customary international law which bars the admission of evidence given
3 by an ICRC employee. The Chamber held that the ratification of the
4 Geneva Conventions by 188 states can be considered as reflecting the
5 opinio juris of these states, which, in addition to the general practice
6 of states in relation to the ICRC, leaves the Chamber to conclude that
7 the ICRC has a right, under customary international law, to
8 non-disclosure of information obtained by its employees during service.
9 It is a privilege that is held by the organisation -- the international
10 organisation, the ICRC. And, therefore, there being an absolute bar
11 under customary law, the evidence of an ICRC employee is not admissible.
12 Well, by parity of reasoning, we say that information given to
13 Mr. Traynor by an ICRC employee, that Mr. Traynor is proffering as given
14 to him in a discussion by the ICRC employee, is also barred. You can't
15 go through the back door, through a hearsay means, to admit evidence that
16 would be inadmissible directly from an ICRC employee.
17 And on that basis, Your Honour, those are my submissions and my
18 objections to the 92 ter package.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Also, I have a few submissions on the same topic
20 so that you have the complete picture.
21 The position of -- first of all, the position of the Zupljanin
22 Defence is that we fully adopt the Stanisic Defence submission on that
24 I would like to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber that
25 yesterday evening, Sunday, which is supposed to be -- which is supposed
1 to be a day off for most of the people, not for the Defence, we collected
2 in our locker extracts -- handwritten extracts from the note-book of
3 Mr. Traynor.
4 First of all, knowing that Mr. Traynor gave a statement -- an
5 interview to the Prosecution 11 years ago, the question is why now we
6 have these materials. As usual, this is a lack of diligence on the
7 Prosecution side. It's a part of their game that they are playing all
8 the time with us, and we have a problem here because these notes are:
9 Number 1, just extracts; number 2, they are completely illegible.
10 Mr. Traynor is writing even worse than I, so it's absolutely impossible
11 to find what is going on. What I can see at the first glance is:
12 "Stojan Zupljanin be Luka" something "chief." The date is 26th of
13 September, 1992.
14 With the disclosure of these materials, whether the Prosecution
15 will rely or not, we are entering into the area where we are entitled to
16 know what is in his note-book related to the period covered by the
17 indictment, because we are not satisfied to see only parts of his notes.
18 We want to have everything which is in his notes, and we want to
19 inspect the original note-book of Mr. Traynor. That's point number 1.
20 And later on, if certain --
21 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, if I may interrupt, Mr. Pantelic. The way
22 you express that, that would be over-broad, wouldn't it, when you say
23 that you would wish to have access to the entirety of his note-book?
24 That's how it case across. You didn't mean to state it that broadly, did
1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, we would like -- we have, in
2 accordance with the Rules, a right to inspect every tangible object in
3 possession of the Prosecution, and if we think that certain parts are
4 fabricated, we are entitled to give this material to forensic expert
5 to -- handwritten expert to confirm or to deny our allegations. That's
6 our right. This is our right, and we are going to exercise this right.
7 And another point which I would like to make on that issue is
8 that in 92 ter package, Prosecution included several articles of
9 Mr. Traynor. Namely, these are in 92 ter packages under number 3, 6, 8,
10 12, 13, and 16. These articles are not on the original 65 ter list, so
11 we object to that, and we think that these articles are inadmissible, in
12 addition to what my learned friend Mr. O'Sullivan friend. The reference
13 of these documents are 10358.03 and then 04, 05, 06, 07, and 08.
14 With regard to these notes of Mr. Traynor related to our client
15 because they're illegible, I have a suggestion, a technical suggestion,
16 that Mr. Traynor, with the assistance of the Prosecution, read out these
17 several pages of his note-book, and then this statement will be recorded,
18 because I suppose that he is able to read his own handwriting, and then
19 this particular statement with regard to the contents of his notes will
20 be transferred to the transcript so that we exactly know what is here.
21 Maybe -- it's a speculation. Maybe Mr. Traynor says that -- said that my
22 client is a bad guy, but maybe he said that he is a good guy. We don't
23 know. We only know that he put something with regard to our client in
24 his note-book, but we don't have any possibility to check what is this,
25 after 11 years of his first contact with the Prosecution. And oddly
1 enough, my understanding is that he is now based in Brussels, one hour
2 with the fast train, and I really don't know why we got all these
3 documents only on the eve of his testimony.
4 Thank you.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I start by deploring the fact that
6 the first notification that was given to us of this submission that was
7 going to be made by both parties was by e-mail last night at 8.15 to Mr.
8 Hani Solana, no one else in the team, and without referring to any
9 authorities on which Mr. O'Sullivan was going to rely, and the reality is
10 we were unaware of the submissions he was going to make, and we haven't
11 had a chance to research the law, all of this in a situation where the
12 Defence knew of the difficulties that we've had in obtaining the
13 attendance of Mr. Traynor, who is the European editor of "The Guardian,"
14 and who has limited time, and they have known because I said on no less
15 than two occasions last week that we had to get him through on Monday and
16 Tuesday because of the videolink. So that's the first thing.
17 The second thing is this: The Defence have had the 92 ter
18 package since July of last year. We can't at the moment find the
19 Zupljanin response, and there's no reference in your judgement to it, and
20 it may well be that they never responded at all. The Stanisic team made
21 a response on the 31st of August, out of time, and, indeed, Your Honours,
22 disregarded it, and no mention was made that there was going to be an
23 objection taken on the grounds outlined today before Your Honours.
24 Your Honours, it may be the first matter you want to consider is
25 whether, given all of that, they're entitled to raise these various
1 objections. But if they are, then, Your Honours, the only thing that we
2 can do is ask Your Honours to adjourn so that we can actually have an
3 opportunity to look at the law and to deal with the matter properly,
4 because it's obviously a matter of importance.
5 Your Honours, that's really -- before I go on, I can deal, off
6 the top of my head, if I can put it that way, with the various objections
7 that are raised, but if Your Honours are going to take this submission,
8 as it were, into account, well, then I'm afraid we have no option - it's
9 most regrettable - but to ask Your Honours at least to adjourn until
10 11.00 so we can look at the articles. But we say it's deplorable, and we
11 could have used Friday of last week, the extra hour that this has taken
12 at the last moment.
13 In respect, I can deal very quickly with the 65 ter aspect, which
14 was explained to Mr. O'Sullivan, who was going to raise it. He's
15 accepted it. Apparently, Mr. Pantelic doesn't. We filed the package
16 with those newspaper articles in it, saying that we were going to be
17 advising you of the 65 ter numbers, because it was filed before the
18 65 ter list -- sorry, after the 65 ter list, and we were going to reply.
19 And then you granted leave to add them to our 65 ter list, so they are on
20 our 65 ter list. We've been through this one before. They just haven't
21 been allocated the numbers properly. So that's a very simple one, but
22 the rest is rather more complicated.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Mr. O'Sullivan.
25 What may be a small point, Ms. Korner, by way of clarification:
1 The notes which Mr. Pantelic says that -- the manuscript notes which
2 Mr. Pantelic says he just had sight of overnight on the weekend, could
3 you enlighten us as to what that's about? Thank you.
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. The notes -- Mr. Pantelic is correct in saying
5 that the investigator who took the statement many years ago didn't ask
6 for copies of the notes. He was -- Mr. Traynor was seen about shortly
7 after Easter in Brussels
8 unfortunately he didn't have the notes with him. He then said that he
9 would bring the notes with him when he came, and photocopies thereof. We
10 informed the Defence of this some time ago, and they only got here
11 yesterday. The notes were actually e-mailed to the Defence at around
12 5.00, both sets of Defence -- or, rather -- yes, both sets of Defence
13 about 5.00 yesterday. I agree with Mr. Pantelic, they are largely
14 illegible, because they are his own notes, and, of course, he can, if
15 required, read out the passage that Mr. Pantelic is concerned about in
16 respect of the mention of Zupljanin. That's the reason why.
17 But at no stage, may I say, have we been ever asked -- they've
18 known, the Defence have known that this was going to happen, that he was
19 arriving on Sunday with those notes.
20 As regards the request to examine the whole of his note-book,
21 I think there would be an objection to that from Mr. Traynor.
22 Journalists have certain protective -- protection, and, indeed, the case
23 of Randall gives them a certain amount of protection. But that's the
24 situation as regards to his notes.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
1 Mr. O'Sullivan, you wanted to add something?
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: If it could be of assistance to the Chamber in
3 terms of timing, the Stanisic Defence has indicated three hours for
4 cross-examination. I don't believe we'll be anywhere near using that
5 amount of time, so it would be much, much, much shorter, abbreviated.
6 As far as the timing of our submission, Your Honour, the final
7 package was received on Friday, and you can see that by the 10.000-range
8 numbers used to identify certain newspaper articles.
9 JUDGE HALL: Well, I don't know that we need to hear you on that,
10 Mr. O'Sullivan.
11 Well, we have noted the submissions of Mr. O'Sullivan, which have
12 been echoed by Mr. Pantelic, and it appears to us that there are four
13 issues which have been raised. The two legs on which Mr. O'Sullivan's
14 basic objections stand, as we understand it, are: One, the -- you may be
15 seated, Ms. Korner -- are, one, the question of relevance, and, two,
16 relevance of parts of the items which comprise the 92 package of the
17 witness who is about to be called; and, secondly, the number of these
18 items which may fall on the ground of being inadmissible hearsay. And I
19 use the words "inadmissible hearsay" deliberately, because the Tribunal
20 of the -- the jurisprudence of the Tribunal draws that distinction
21 between admissible and inadmissible hearsay.
22 As regards the question of relevance, it appears to us that the
23 nature of a 92 ter package is that whenever it is sought to be relied on
24 in a new trial, there would necessarily be portions of that package,
25 relating to earlier trials, which are not relevant to the present
1 exercise. And whether the Defence takes the objection immediately upon
2 being notified or at a very late stage, as occurred in this case, doesn't
3 remove or alleviate the burden which the Trial Chamber has to only rely
4 on such evidence as is relevant.
5 As regards the matter of inadmissible hearsay, again, whether the
6 objection is taken at the 11th hour or as soon as the Defence is notified
7 that the Prosecution is relying on these matters, the Chamber, at the end
8 of the day, bearing in mind such objections as would be taken with any
9 witness, whether a viva voce witness or a witness called under the
10 provisions of 92 ter, would always have to determine the admissibility of
11 such evidence and, when admissible, how much weight should be attached to
12 it when assessing the body of evidence as a whole.
13 And in terms of those two legs, which we understand to be
14 fundamental to Mr. O'Sullivan's objections, we see no reason to delay the
15 calling of the present witness, because as I would have said, those
16 objections remain live at all times in the course of a trial.
17 As regards the -- what I would describe as the supplementary or
18 ancillary objection of Mr. O'Sullivan about the derivative evidence of
19 the witness who is about to be called, Mr. Traynor, from what would have
20 been reported to him by an ICRC employee, of course, inasmuch as the
21 privilege is that of the ICRC, it would, it appears to us, depend in the
22 particular case on what the -- on what privilege is claimed, and it is
23 something which, having regard to principles of customary law to which
24 Mr. O'Sullivan has helpfully -- of which Mr. O'Sullivan has helpfully
25 reminded us, be a matter to be determined in each individual case, based
1 on the particular application.
2 Finally, in terms of the notes to which Mr. Pantelic referred, in
3 answer to an intervention by myself as to how broad his application was,
4 and Mr. Pantelic did confirm that he thought he should have access to all
5 of the notes, of course, it appears that such an over-broad application
6 necessarily falls, and the notes which, according to Ms. Korner, she has
7 made available, having recently come into possession of them and passed
8 on to the Defence, the practical way of dealing with it, I would have
9 thought, would be to -- when the witness is on the stand, to -- if, as --
10 I can't remember now who would have said it, the witness, himself, could
11 be referred to the notes and could read his own handwriting, unless he's
12 like me and can't even read his own handwriting, but that's an aside.
13 Finally, the Chamber is not unaware of the fact that this witness
14 is a journalist, and it means that qualitatively his evidence is a
15 combination -- being a combination of his own observations and material
16 gleaned from a variety of sources, because, of course, the rules about
17 what facts are obtained and received which apply in a courtroom does not
18 apply to the art of journalism, it means that the Chamber will at no
19 stage lose sight of that fact. And when all is said and done, it remains
20 a question of what weight is to be given to such of Mr. Traynor's
21 evidence is admissible.
22 And for those reasons, we take note of the objections raised by
23 the Defence, but we see no reason to delay the calling of the witness.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just mention one more thing which
25 has come out of this morning's activities, as it were.
1 Could it be made clear that if counsel for the Defence are
2 proposing to raise legal arguments and rely on authorities, that they
3 must be obliged to give the Prosecution notice of the gist of those
4 arguments. No notice was given of that. And, secondly, give the names
5 and dates of the cases on which they rely. It didn't occur to me. I had
6 to tell counsel from Canada
7 JUDGE HALL: I was just going to ask, do we need to say that? I
8 would have thought the practice of the Tribunal is such that that is, as
9 a matter of both courtesy and efficiency, something that should be done.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, in terms of your decision regarding
11 the parts of the note-book of Mr. Traynor, how -- what is your view?
12 Mr. Traynor will read out in the court all these pages of his note-book
13 or he will dictate these notes to someone and then we shall have the
14 transcript of what is exactly here? I mean, I'm perfectly fine with both
15 options, but I would like to know, if he's going to read his note-books
16 for the record here, that it should be at the very beginning of his
17 testimony, because we have to know what is inside. We have to check
18 stuff during this morning.
19 JUDGE HALL: I don't know that I have a view, Mr. Pantelic. But
20 off the top of my head, it seems to me that inasmuch as he's the
21 Prosecution's witness, that it may be of assistance if counsel leading
22 him were to draw his particular attention to the relevant pages so that
23 you would then flag those pages to assist your cross-examination. That's
24 just a thought that occurs to me.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, but my point is the following:
1 We need all and every word of his note-book which was disclosed to us. I
2 don't want to rely on the choice of the Prosecution which part of this
3 note-book we'll be examining. I'm interested in the whole part, and I
4 cannot read his handwriting. That's the point, Your Honour. I don't
5 want to -- and I have a right to explore everything which was disclosed
6 to us.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, it seems to me that the most simple
9 way of going about this is for you to ask the witness what these notes
10 are, because none of us know. I haven't even seen the notes yet. So the
11 first thing we would wish to know, if we are going to go any further into
12 this, which I don't think we need, but if you insist, then it would be
13 for you to ask him what the notes are.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour --
15 MS. KORNER: Sorry. They are disclosure, which is why Your
16 Honours haven't got a copy of them. They aren't loaded into e-court,
17 because we rely on the statement. And we were asked to provide his notes
18 of disclosure, but if Your Honours want to see the notes -- obviously, we
19 say that asking him to read out every word is not a useful way. If there
20 are certain passages that Mr. Pantelic wants to know about, of course,
21 the witness can read them out. They're not, in fact, that bad. It
22 takes -- it's slow, but you can actually read it. But do Your Honours
23 want to have copies, because we can arrange that?
24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, thank you.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, please, may I respond?
2 In these notes, we don't know what is inside. I don't want to
3 speculate. Again, I'm saying that. I just want, from the author of
4 these notes, to read every particular word, because this is my role, as a
5 Defence counsel, to explore everything which was disclosed to us. That's
6 our role. We cannot proceed in the other way to saying, Well, Witness,
7 what is in this part, or, What is in that part? This is a document, this
8 is an official document. We have to know what is inside. And I propose
9 that maybe Mr. Traynor will read out, in the Office of the Prosecution,
10 this couple of pages, and then we should get a proper not statement but
11 proper transcript of the contents of these notes, because once the
12 material is disclosed, then it's over. We are entitled to know what's
13 inside, so we don't want to have any restriction with that regard,
14 Your Honour. How, technically, during the break or even later on, I
15 don't know.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, the Court is not minded to ask
17 Mr. Traynor to read out his entire note-book in a court session. I mean,
18 this would take hours, and this is not a reasonable way of spending court
19 time. My suggestion is that we can ask him what it is, and if that gives
20 you grounds for wanting to explore further the contents of the notes,
21 then I suggest that the witness is being asked to read out on a tape this
22 afternoon the contents of his note-book, and then a copy of the tape can
23 be given to you, or something of that kind. But for the moment, I think
24 that the discussions about these things should be brought to an end and
25 that we should bring in the witness.
1 MR. PANTELIC: I agree to Your Honour's -- that was exactly my
2 proposition, technically.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, how many pages are we talking
5 MR. PANTELIC: Roughly, regarding -- the other pages are related
6 to Visegrad and Zvornik, which are not municipalities related to my
7 client. But as far as I see here, Banja Luka and Kotor Varos, it's
8 around 16 pages, but not of A4 format. It's a smaller, like Hemingway's
9 style note-book which Mr. Traynor used.
10 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, perhaps I can assist with this
11 practical issue.
12 There are, in fact, about 10 separate note-books, small
13 note-books, of which Mr. Traynor used during the course of 1992. He has
14 approximately 10 of them, which he brought with him last night. When he
15 was originally seen just after Easter, he had one note-book with him, the
16 one which contains the Zupljanin reference, and he was asked to go back
17 and review his other note-books, which he had in his home, to see if
18 there were any relevant parts which were -- well, any parts which were
19 relevant to the issues in this case. So when he arrived yesterday, he
20 had gone through his note-books and reviewed them in their entirety, and
21 had selected the three portions which relate to Zvornik, Visegrad, and
22 his interview with Mr. Zupljanin, and made copies of those, and those
23 were disclosed.
24 If Mr. Pantelic wishes to see the note-books in their entirety,
25 my suggestion is he sits down -- he had the opportunity to do that with
1 Mr. Traynor in the last six weeks. He could have asked to do that
2 previously, and there's been no request to do that. But the witness will
3 give evidence that he has selected these portions once he was told which
4 areas our indictment covered, and this is his selection, the portions
5 that relate to Mr. Zupljanin, the -- yeah, the notes he made of the
6 interview at the time, and he can be asked about those.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
9 Could we have the witness in, please.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE HALL: Would you kindly make the solemn declaration, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: IAN TRAYNOR
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You may be seated.
16 Could you begin by telling us your name, your profession, and
17 your date of birth, please.
18 THE WITNESS: Ian Traynor. Date of birth, 11/11/55. A
19 journalist for the newspaper "The Guardian."
20 JUDGE HALL: And you have been employed or occupied as such since
22 THE WITNESS: For "The Guardian" since, let me think, 1987. And
23 prior to that, the BBC.
24 JUDGE HALL: Have you testified previously before this Tribunal
25 or before any regional tribunal dealing with the issues --
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 JUDGE HALL: You have been called as a witness by the
3 Prosecution. And as you would be aware, these are adversarial
4 proceedings, in the sense that one side calls you. The other side has an
5 opportunity to cross-examine you. The Bench may ask questions after any
6 redirect that the side calling you has.
7 The time allotted, it is expected that you will be giving
8 evidence over two days, today and tomorrow. And the procedure of this
9 Tribunal allows a certain expedited process, in the sense that a portion
10 of the testimony on which the side calling you, in this case the
11 Prosecution, is relying comprises documents which they would seek to have
12 admitted. The time which they have been given is two hours for your
13 examination-in-chief. And the counsel for each of the two accused have
14 indicated that their cross-examination would not exceed three hours.
15 Indeed, we have been alerted this morning that counsel for the first
16 accused, Mr. Stanisic, are not likely to be anywhere near that time.
17 For certain technical reasons dealing with the tapes and things
18 of that nature, and also allowing time for the interpreters, is that the
19 Tribunal -- is that each session is for not more than 90 minutes, after
20 which there's a 20-minute break and we resume. And because the three
21 courtrooms which the Tribunal has have to be shared among the several
22 trials that are going on, the day's sitting is either from 9.00 in the
23 morning to 1.45 in the afternoon or from 2.15 until 7.00 in the evening.
24 We are scheduled to sit this morning and tomorrow morning.
25 And before I invite counsel for the Prosecution to begin, I would
1 alert you that although you have only been ushered into the courtroom,
2 the Chamber took the bench at the usual time at 9.00. So it is 10.06
3 now, and the first break that we would take would be at 10.25. And
4 before I invite Ms. Pidwell to begin, if, notwithstanding those usual
5 times I've indicated, of course, if there is any point at which you need
6 a break, if you indicate it to us, then we would, of course, accommodate
8 Yes, Ms. Pidwell.
9 Examination by Ms. Pidwell:
10 Q. Mr. Traynor, you've made two statements to the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, one on the 26th of March, 1999, and a second on the 9th of
12 March in the year 2000. Have you had the opportunity to review those
13 statements recently?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you require any changes to your 92 ter statements?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you confirm that the statements are true and correct, to the
18 best of your knowledge and belief?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. And if you were asked similar questions today, would your answers
21 be those contained in these statements?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. PIDWELL: Now, there are 15 newspaper articles which were
24 written by the witness, which form part of his 92 ter package. Your
25 Honours' ruling of the 2nd of October excluded the list of his entire
1 articles from his period of time in the Balkans but included these 15
2 articles. And at this juncture, I'd like to tender his 92 ter package.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I just want to put on the record
4 that if the part of 92 ter package is the articles that I just this
5 morning mentioned under 10358.3 and until 08, I am objecting to these
6 particular articles to be a part of 92 package. Thank you.
7 MS. PIDWELL: I had thought we had addressed this issue. I'm
8 happy to address Your Honours again on it, if required.
9 JUDGE HALL: Well, we propose to conditionally admit the package,
10 and make a determination on final admission when the witness's testimony
11 is completed.
12 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE HALL: So it will be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Therefore, Your Honours, Exhibit numbers will be
16 P1356.1 through P1356.17, marked for identification.
17 MS. PIDWELL:
18 Q. Mr. Traynor, you've brought some note-books into court with you.
19 Perhaps as a preliminary step, could you please describe the note-books
20 that you have?
21 A. These are my note-books from 1992, when I was working in the
22 former Yugoslavia
23 the period September/October 1992. And it's almost 20 years ago, and I
24 need to feel a bit more secure, occasionally refreshing my memory, making
25 reference to them, because it's difficult to remember the details.
1 Q. Are these notes that you made contemporaneously with the events
2 that occurred in 1992?
3 A. Yes, these are -- these are the note-books taken -- taken at the
5 Q. And have you had the opportunity to review them over the past few
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And when you came to The Hague yesterday, did you hand over
9 portions of the note-books that you considered were relevant to the
10 aspects in the case before the Tribunal?
11 A. Yes. I handed over photocopies, yes.
12 Q. And, in particular, you had selected your notes from April 1992,
13 when you visited Visegrad; is that correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And also your notes from September 1992, when you conducted an
16 interview with the accused Mr. Zupljanin?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And then during your proofing session, we reviewed your notes
19 from your time in Zvornik?
20 A. Not directly in Zvornik; in Mali Zvornik, on the other side, on
21 the Serbian side, yes, mmm-hmm.
22 Q. And those were also photocopied last night?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Sir, I just want to ask you some general questions about your
25 background first.
1 You told His Honour that you had been a correspondent with the
2 BBC before you were employed by "The Guardian." What did you do before
4 A. Before I worked with the BBC, I worked as a translator and
5 interpreter, and then I worked as a monitor, also at the BBC, as a
6 Russian graduate. And I worked as a Russian monitor with the BBC,
7 monitoring the Soviet media at the time.
8 Q. And what languages do you speak?
9 A. Russian, German, reasonable French, and Croatian Serbian to a
10 degree. I understand it, at least, yes.
11 Q. What was your level of understanding of B/C/S in 1992?
12 A. A lot less than it is now. One would work with translators as a
13 rule, but I would say that my knowledge was sufficient to know when I was
14 getting an accurate translation or not. I would often have to ask for
15 corrections or elucidations of the versions I was being given because I
16 could tell I wasn't given a full and accurate translation.
17 Q. And at the time you gave your second interview to the Office of
18 the Prosecutor in 2000, you were based in Moscow. Did you go straight
19 from Moscow
20 A. No. I was based in Vienna
21 during which period I covered the Yugoslav wars. I first went to
23 Conference. After that, I moved to Germany, first to Bohn and then to
25 [Realtime transcript read in error "1989"], where I was there for three
1 years. And I'm now based in Brussels
2 Q. And what is your role in Brussels
3 A. I'm the newspaper's Europe
4 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. I think this is page 25, line 15.
5 I think witness said "1999," not "1989."
6 THE WITNESS: I don't quite understand. I said 1999, I moved to
8 and the Balkans in 1989 at the beginning, January 1989.
9 MR. PANTELIC: But you can see on the transcript, Mr. Traynor,
10 that it's a typo, Your Honour. It's Moscow in 1989, and I heard that you
11 said "1999," so that was the correction.
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Because we have to keep the transcript clear, you
15 MS. PIDWELL:
16 Q. Just to clarify, from 1989 to 1995, you were based in Vienna
17 covering the Balkan region?
18 A. Mmm-hmm.
19 Q. Could you explain, briefly, your modes of research and sources
20 for the articles that you wrote over that period?
21 A. My source of research, basically, as a reporter you're on the
22 ground, you're travelling around different parts of the country talking
23 to lots of people, and that's a fundamental repertorial instrument.
24 You're reading -- listening to the local media, getting transcripts,
25 getting translations, looking at the local newspapers, talking to
1 officials, and talking to diplomats, talking to international people
2 stationed in the region, and using your eyes and ears, and watching and
3 seeing what you're seeing. That's your fundamental, as a reporter in a
4 very kind of fast-moving, dynamic situation -- that's your basic -- your
5 basic methodology --
6 Q. And were you given any specific instruction on what aspects of
7 the conflict or incidents to cover in the region at the time by your
8 editor or publisher?
9 A. Not really. I mean, editors leave it up to the correspondents on
10 the ground. They're supposed to know best what's going on, and people in
12 that point of view, depending on what's happening elsewhere, and they
13 would ask you to follow things up. But, by and large, you're left to
14 your own devices.
15 Q. Were you the sole correspondent for "The Guardian" at that time,
16 or did you have others working with you?
17 A. Well, there was several of us. I was the main anchor
18 correspondent since it was my beat, so to speak. However, the story was
19 so huge at the time that, of course, we needed various people. We had
20 someone in -- someone based in Belgrade
21 four people making periodic trips from London.
22 Q. And did you sometimes team up with other journalists from other
23 newspapers to do research or interviews?
24 A. More often than not, and certainly in former Yugoslavia, first in
25 Croatian and then in Bosnia
1 One felt there would be safety in numbers, and, you would, you know --
2 basically the country -- you were travelling in a war zone, constantly
3 encountering check-points and being stopped. So, you know, you would
4 tend to travel in convoy if you were travelling, and then you would also
5 work with colleagues. You would develop relationships with other
6 journalists, and you would tend to work in twos or threes.
7 Q. And you say that you followed the local news at the time. Can
8 you comment on what kind of news was coming out generally in the
9 beginning of 1992 in Bosnia
10 A. Well, I mean, the local media was -- was a key factor in the
11 political development, not only in Bosnia
12 a whole. If you're following the politics of the region and you had to
13 try and understand what was happening, it was very important, in
14 particular, to follow the Belgrade
15 the state -- the public television and the main newspapers, such as
16 "Politika" or "Borba" were incredibly important to get an idea of what
17 was going on. They tended to still operate in the old kind of
18 Communist -- using the old Communist media control methods, so they're
19 sending signals, you're getting information, you're getting lots of
20 propaganda. Similarly, in Zagreb
21 newspapers, such as "Vjesnik," which was the main Communist Party organ
22 before -- before the war, when the Communist administration still
23 existed. The media were -- the local media were terribly important, also
24 to -- to stoking trouble, causing friction, causing tension, making
25 allegations, and basically engendering the public mood and preparing it
1 for war.
2 Q. Sorry. Just to explain, I'm going to pause in between my
3 question and answer to allow the people who are recording this in various
4 languages and on the monitor to catch up.
5 Can you give us an example of the local media, as you've just
6 referred to it, making allegations and engendering the public mood?
7 A. Well, regularly -- I mean, the staple diet in Belgrade television
8 at the time under Mr. Mitrovic and Milosevic was to preach lessons
9 about -- once the war started about Muslim fundamentalism, about
10 Jihadism, about the green transversal, for example, which was supposed to
11 be the kind of Islamic state that was going to be taking control all the
12 way from Tehran
13 the Balkans into Albania
14 that you would hear the whole time, prior to which you did have the kind
15 of forthright allegations when Germany
16 the diplomacy surrounding the Balkan conflict. There was a lot of
17 propaganda coming out of Belgrade
18 German-controlled Europe, the 4th Reich, the Ustasha, the fascist, the
21 Q. Now, I want to ask you now about some of your articles that you
22 wrote during the course of 1992.
23 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, I'm not sure if you want me to assist
24 you in this regard, but you may see that in the witness's second
25 statement there is a list of the 170 articles that he wrote in 1992.
1 Now, as I was reviewing them, I couldn't see any logical pattern to their
2 order, and we have re-listed them in chronological order. I have that in
3 hard copy, if Your Honours would like that as assistance and a guide
4 while reviewing these. Otherwise, well, I'm in your hands.
5 JUDGE HALL: Well, we are three minutes short of the break, so if
6 that -- if you could take advantage of that to make it available to us,
7 that would be of assistance, Ms. Pidwell.
8 MS. PIDWELL: Certainly, Your Honour.
9 Q. In your statement, you talk about going into Visegrad, in that
10 area, from Belgrade
11 written on consecutive days in April. Did you actually go into Visegrad,
13 A. We went to the -- within the town boundaries, yes. We didn't go
14 into the center of the town. We went -- we were with the Serbian
15 forces -- the JNA forces at the time, and we went as far as we could in
16 safety, but it was quite a dangerous situation. We couldn't go any
18 Q. And what had brought you there to that region?
19 A. Well, it was a very hard period -- early months, April, May,
20 June, July, it was a very hot period in the war. We were in Belgrade
21 the time. We were picking up lots of reports and rumours about bad
22 things happening in Eastern Bosnia and around Zvornik and Bijeljina,
23 places like that. We went to the border, to Mali Zvornik, on the other
24 side of the river, where refugees were coming across, and you could speak
25 to people and you could visit camps and hospitals and places like that.
1 We couldn't, however, get across to the other side, so we basically
2 headed south, still on the Serbian side of the border, and drove across
3 into South-Eastern Bosnia, and basically by chance -- I mean, there was
4 no particular design to this, you're just basically on a fishing
5 expedition, in fact, to see what you would get, and we basically ran into
6 the front-line ahead of the JNA forces that were based in that part of
8 Q. So what did you see on the Serbian side?
9 A. On the Serbian side, we saw a massive military build-up. It was
10 the Uzice Corps of the JNA, and, you know, artillery pieces, tanks,
11 trains, trucks. There was a huge mobilisation going on being transported
12 into that part of Bosnia
13 that, and basically our first encounter -- it was a very kind of strange
14 situation, a very eerie situation. Everything was deserted. The roads
15 were empty, nothing was moving. And in these situations, it can be quite
16 dangerous to carry on driving because you don't know where you're
17 heading. We drove through a tunnel which had been kind of semi-blown up
18 and then cleared to be made passable, and we stopped at a kind of
19 roadside cafe where we encountered a guy who described himself as the
20 commander, and he was from Belgrade
22 fighter, kind of guerrilla fighter who is going out in the hills at night
23 with his colleagues ahead of the main invasion force that was coming
24 across the border. And we spent a couple of days with him ahead of
25 the -- before the officers from the JNA kind of caught up, at which point
1 they ordered us back.
2 MS. PIDWELL: Is that a convenient time?
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So we would resume in 20 minutes.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Pidwell, please continue.
8 MS. PIDWELL:
9 Q. Mr. Traynor, we were talking about your articles and your
10 experience in relation to Visegrad before the break.
11 And I'm wondering if I can have 65 ter 10358.03 up on the screen,
13 Sir, this is one of the -- this is the first article you wrote in
14 a series of three during your time in Visegrad, and my question is: You
15 refer to -- you use the term "Serbian irregulars" throughout. You can
16 see it at the beginning and also throughout the text, you use that term.
17 And I'm asking if you could explain what you mean by that.
18 A. Well, these were non-JNA/Yugoslav Army fighters that were already
19 in the region with the army forces still coming across the border. They
20 were not -- they were uniformed. They were kind of -- they were not
21 regular army, army folks. It was what would be described as special
22 forces, or how they would describe themselves as special forces. The man
23 who referred to himself as the commander, for example, told a story about
24 having served in the French Foreign Legion in various parts of the world
25 and had come back to fight for Serbia
1 had come down here to represent the kind of vanguard before the kind of
2 uniformed forces from Serbia
3 MS. PIDWELL: If we would go to the next page, please.
4 Q. You say, later on in your article, and it's at the top of page 2
5 of the English -- I think it might be the bottom of the previous page,
6 I'm sorry, in the B/C/S, you say that:
7 "There is little doubt that they and the Serbian irregulars are
8 moving in for the kill," "they" meaning the army of the JNA.
9 So you obviously formed the view in this article, and in your
10 subsequent ones, that they were co-operating together. On what basis did
11 you form that view?
12 A. I was with them. As they moved towards Visegrad, they were
13 together. I was standing beside them as they were firing rockets into
14 Visegrad, both from artillery pieces -- both Montenegrin irregulars, I
15 would call them. There was one chap in particular who had fought in
17 fighting at Cavtat in Southern Croatia and in the siege of Dubrovnik, and
18 had come there with his colleagues to -- he was not in the Yugoslav Army,
19 but the two -- the two different elements were side by side, and I was
20 with them.
21 Q. During this time, did you see any regular police presence?
22 A. I don't recall specifically.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Pidwell, or directly to you, Mr. Traynor, the
24 fact that you were with these special forces, and the fact that you saw
25 them fire artillery towards the areas that you describe, doesn't
1 necessarily imply that there was co-operation. So could you dwell a
2 little further on your understanding of what the co-operation was? How
3 was it evidenced, other than the fact that they were shooting at the same
4 target as the JNA?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, they were using the same equipment. They
6 were, you know, advancing along the road in formation together. They
7 were talking to each other. They were attacking what they regard as a
8 common enemy. There was nothing, to my eyes that I could see that
9 suggested that they were -- they were not collaborating.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did you evidence any co-ordination meetings with
11 the JNA and these special forces?
12 THE WITNESS: Conversations -- they were speaking to each other
13 the whole time, and setting up equipment on the roadside, setting up
14 artillery pieces, mortars. We got caught in a fire-fight. This kind of
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Can I have 65 ter 3379, please, on the screen.
18 This is an article dated the following day, the 15th of April, 1992
19 Sorry, can I have the second page of this article in the English.
20 Q. And in this article, you say:
21 "As the combined forces closed on the town, supported by heavy
22 cannon fire, there was little sound or sign of resistance, save for the
23 odd burst of sniper fire."
24 Were you actually there when these combined forces closed in on
25 the town?
1 A. Yes, yeah.
2 Q. And when you say there was little sign of resistance, could you
3 expand on that, please?
4 A. Well, we couldn't -- I mean, we were witnessing a kind of
5 deafening, you know, artillery assault on the town. Apart from the odd
6 burst of sniper fire -- as I wrote here, we got caught in a fire-fight.
7 It's kind of heavily wooded territory on either side of the road, and
8 there were people shooting out of the forest. Apart from that, there was
9 no return of fire from the cannon fire, the mortars, the 120-millimetre
10 pieces that were firing into Visegrad. We couldn't determine any return
11 of fire whatsoever, apart from the odd burst of machine-gun fire.
12 MS. PIDWELL: And if I could have the next article, please. It's
13 65 ter 3378.
14 Q. This is the article you wrote on your last day in Visegrad on the
15 16th of April, where you talk about the attack having happened on the
16 Tuesday evening. This is a Thursday. And you use the term -- perhaps I
17 should wait for the article to come up.
18 It's in the second paragraph in the English, you use the term
19 "mopping-up of the last pockets of Muslim resistance." Can you please
20 explain to the Trial Chamber what you mean by that turn of phrase?
21 A. Well, that's what the so-called irregulars would describe they
22 were doing. I mean, the place was empty, it was deserted. People had
23 fled. They'd fled very quickly. They'd left everything -- you know, you
24 could -- if you'd been around the former Yugoslavia for a long time,
25 you'd seen this thing so many times before, and villages had just been
1 very quickly abandoned, with the washing still on the line, animals
2 running, you know, wandering around, et cetera, and no people, but the
3 irregulars would -- would set off to -- what they would describe as to
4 clear out the last remaining locals, Muslims in this case, and there was
5 clearly still small-scale attacks and fire going on that you could hear
6 and see. But apart from that, the place had basically been abandoned
7 very quickly.
8 Q. And later on in that article, you talk about witnessing an
9 interview with this Colonel Jankovic -- Jovanovic, and you witness him
10 being interviewed by a journalist from the Belgrade newspaper "Politika,"
11 and you call it a mouthpiece for Slobodan Milosevic. How did you form
12 that opinion? Why did you make that comment?
13 A. Well, "Politika," had long -- you know, since long before in the
14 late 1980s Milosevic took over the Serbia media, installed his own
15 editors and staff at the newspaper, the most important newspaper in
17 from Belgrade
18 what we call spin-doctoring, briefing the general in what he should be
19 saying to international journalists, which indicated to me the kind of --
20 the influence that the main regime newspapers and broadcasters in
22 clearly felt himself in a position to instruct a federal army officer on
23 what was the best thing to say to people like me.
24 Q. Your statement lists the 170 articles that you wrote in 1992.
25 MS. PIDWELL: And I think Your Honours have received the
1 chronological order of that.
2 Q. And we can see from that that you didn't write any articles from
3 the 31st of July, 1992, until the 22nd of August, 1992. Does that sound
5 A. The first day, it was the 31st of July? Yeah, I went on holiday,
7 Q. And before you went on holiday, where were you -- do you recall
8 where you were based or what you were reporting about?
9 A. I would need to consult the articles, but, I mean, fundamentally
10 somewhere in the former Yugoslavia
11 Q. Do you recall when you first heard about the existence of any
12 detention camps in Northern Bosnia?
13 A. Basically, the story of the camps, for the international
14 reportings, the stories and the rumours and speculations started
15 emerging, I'd say, roughly in the second half of July, around this period
16 that you're referring to. It was secondary, it was uncorroborated.
17 There were no -- there was no real international presence in North-West
19 coming out. But as a basis for, you know, writing a proper hard
20 newspaper article, to my mind, it was insufficient, and I also would like
21 to think it wouldn't have got past the editors in London, it just
22 wouldn't have cut the mustard. There were, however, other newspapers
23 that were beginning to write about this kind of thing. Notably I recall
24 I think Gutman, from "Newsday," the American journalist, was already
25 writing stories about reports, rumours, et cetera. So there was -- you
1 know, there was a lot of interest, and it's a fairly competitive
2 business, so there were people trying to get into the region.
3 What happened, I went on holiday. I think there was a London
4 conference in early August where Radovan Karadzic and various Yugoslav
5 political leaders attended the London Conference under John Major. I
6 attended that also and then took some time off, a couple of weeks. All
7 these stories were beginning to surface, and Karadzic was challenged in
9 these so-called concentration camps. And, of course, he was denying
10 categorically that any such thing existed, at which point he was
11 challenged by a colleague of mine from "The Guardian" and ITN British
12 Television News, to be taken there to inspect, and that's basically what
13 happened. Karadzic -- they flew to Belgrade
14 Banja Luka and Prijedor, and they went to some of these camps. And, of
15 course, it was fairly dramatic, particularly, television footage that
16 went around the world and caused an international, you know -- bit of a
17 crisis, really, yeah.
18 MS. PIDWELL: Can we have 65 ter 2329. This is a video of the
19 ITN footage from this time.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, can we ask what the nexus is
21 between this video and the witness?
22 MS. PIDWELL: Well, Your Honours, he's just testified about his
23 knowledge of what was happening within the media towards the end of July
24 and August. It's fully accepted this is not his product, but this is the
25 footage that was aired and was based on the information that was reported
1 at the time by these reporters.
2 Now, we have -- this is ITN footage. We have two ITN footage.
3 We have one ABC "Night-line" video and another ITN documentary, which
4 we're going to ask this witness as the only journalist that you're going
5 to hear from to comment on and tender these items through. In a perfect
6 world, we would have called every single journalist or cameraman who did
7 this footage, but we don't have that privilege in this trial. So we are
8 asking that we can tender the media footage that we have through the only
9 witness who is a member of the media at the time.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Precisely the point, Your Honour. There's
11 absolutely no connection between this witness and other media footage.
12 It was open to the Prosecution to call the people who produced it, who
13 were there. There's absolutely -- to ask him to comment on something
14 that anyone can watch has absolutely no probative value.
15 JUDGE HALL: Unless, Mr. O'Sullivan, of course, the -- a
16 precisely-phrased question is whether what we could all observe, in which
17 we include the witness, is something that he can independently -- or
18 correspondingly, for want of a better word, testify to. Do you follow
19 what I'm saying?
20 And in terms of the nexus, as I understand his testimony, he made
21 certain observations as part of his work as a journalist. Other
22 journalists, other persons in that craft, are following up on that,
23 including the agencies with which he's not connected, admittedly, who
24 would have shot this video footage, and it remains to be seen whether, in
25 addition to the Chamber and the parties seeing the footage, whether there
1 is any admissible question which the witness can be asked based on his
2 own observations.
3 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
5 I would kindly ask Ms. Pidwell just to give us the reference of
6 the author of this -- actually, the name of the journalist, if it's
7 available, of this video footage, and precisely the date when it was
8 made, yeah, for the record just.
9 MS. PIDWELL: The authors, and they'll introduce themselves, are
10 Penny Marshal and Ian Williams. The date is August, and we can pull up
11 the exact date in a moment.
12 I'm told we need to go to Sanction to actually play the video.
13 The date is either the 5th or 6th of August, but we'll just confirm that.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 "The Bosnian Serbs don't call Omarska a concentration camp. Come
16 in, they challenged ITN, and see it for yourselves. Under Serbian armed
17 guard for our own protection, a three-day journey ended here at the gates
18 of a disused mine in Northern Bosnia. Here we were shown only several
19 hundred of the two and a half thousand prisoners, all Muslim men at
20 Omarska, we were told, to be interrogated. Those found guilty of
21 fighting Serbs were then sent to prisoner of war camps, the innocent to
22 refugee camps. This is all we saw of the prisoners and of Omarska
23 itself. They never spoke. The only voices, those of the guards ordering
24 them to eat faster and leave. How are you treated, what are the
25 conditions, I asked.
1 "I don't want to tell lies. I can't speak the truth. Thank you
2 for coming.
3 "We were told that the army does not control Omarska, that these
4 prisoners are the responsibility of the civil authorities and local
5 militia. We sought an explanation from the camp commandant. "Would you
6 describe this as a prison camp, a transit camp, or a refugee camp?
7 "No, this is not a camp. This is a centre, a transit centre.
8 Omarska and Trnopolje both, they're centres, not camps.
9 "And then the men left back to wherever they'd come from away
10 from our cameras and questions, hidden from the United Nations and the
11 Red Cross who've been denied access to Omarska, hidden until now from the
12 world. We were not allowed to follow them to their living accommodation,
13 in what appeared to be the larger of the two buildings, to see the other
14 2.000 detainees and how they live. What's your reason?
15 "Just to try to, to do my best here.
16 "What's your reason to -- not to show us where they live?
17 "When Dr. Karadzic --
18 "Oh, well.
19 "Why are you not fulfilling Dr. Karadzic's promise to us?
20 "He promised us something else and said you can do this and this
21 and that and not that.
22 "We seen nothing, we seen one dining hall and 80 prisoners. And
23 so we left, our host fulfilling their promise to show us the second camp,
24 Trnopolje where 2.000 refugees are living. We were not prepared for what
25 we saw and heard there. How long has he been here? Several hundreds
1 said that they'd arrived from Omarska that morning or from another
2 detention camp, released to this refugee centre after days, sometimes
3 months of interrogation. We asked if the allegations of beating in the
4 detention centres were true.
5 "I can say much about that. Some people [indiscernible].
6 "I'm not sure that I'm allowed about that, you know. I -- can
7 you understand me?
8 "Tell us the truth.
9 "[B/C/S spoken].
10 "Killed? What happened? In this vicious civil war, where
11 atrocities against Serbs as well as Muslims occur daily, finding the
12 truth isn't easy. We ourselves saw no evidence of beatings on any
13 refugee here, and we only heard the allegations, allegations even the
14 camp doctor seemed unable to substantiate in front of our Serb hosts.
15 Does he get any cases here of people who've been beaten from the other
20 " Would you be happier speaking another language?
21 "I was able, however, to smuggle out a role of film, and a man
22 who took these pictures and gave it to me said he would be killed if
23 caught. He begged me to check that in three days he was still alive.
24 And amongst all this horror, some small touches of humanity.
25 "This is my friend.
1 "Like 19-year-old Igor, a Serb, who now stands guard over the
2 fence he grew up with. Muslims from the village they once shared as
3 children, now homeless, persecuted, and behind wire. Igor took us to
4 another side of Trnopolje, where we met some who'd come here by choice,
5 those who'd run for their lives to this pitiable camp. Amongst them,
6 13-year-old Sana
7 Muslims on his own side. The Serbs had taken his mother. Are you
8 frightened now?
9 "Yes, a little.
10 "Where do you want to be? If you could shut your eyes and be
11 anywhere, where would you like to be?
12 "To follow my mother, to find my mother. Where is she?
13 "No one we spoke to knew why they'd been brought here, whether
14 they were prisoners, refugees, or what lay in store for them. In this
15 civil war, there is no sense and a great deal of horrifying cruelty.
16 "Penny Marshal, News at 10, Northern Bosnia."
17 MS. PIDWELL:
18 Q. Mr. Traynor, did you ever visit Omarska?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you visit Trnopolje?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When was that?
23 A. Also September -- I think twice in September and October 1992.
24 Q. And the footage that you saw in that report of Trnopolje, is that
25 an accurate account of what you also personally saw?
1 A. Well, it was different. It was changing rapidly in those days.
2 By the time I was there -- what you see here is mostly young males. By
3 the time I was there, they had all been shipped out, mostly, either to
4 the south or to the north, but there was still, you know, a couple
5 thousand people there when I was there.
6 Q. And the setup of the camp there, had it -- was it the same when
7 you saw it or had it changed in some way?
8 A. There wasn't the same wire in -- you know, confined --
9 confinement behind wire.
10 Q. And the people who were guarding the facility at the time that
11 you went in September, who were they, to your knowledge?
12 A. Well, they were -- they were local either military or police
13 forces, and also the Serbian Red Cross.
14 Q. And did you at some stage interview people who had been -- who
15 said that they had been detained in Trnopolje?
16 A. Oh, yes, indeed, yeah. I mean, a lot of these people were
17 evacuated in convoys in October 1992. I spoke to dozens of people who
18 were in Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje.
19 Q. Where did you conduct those interviews?
20 A. In Karlovac, in Croatia
21 former army barracks in Croatia
22 before being scattered across Europe
23 Q. And what were the circumstances of the interviews? Did you --
24 can you describe how they came about and the procedure that you underwent
25 when interviewing these people?
1 A. It was -- basically, in Croatia
2 scandal of the camps had been unearthed by this kind of television
3 coverage had brought a lot of international pressure for the camps to be
4 closed down. They were closed down rather quickly. There had been
5 endless convoys through that summer of people from that region being
6 shipped down south into Travnik on the other side of the front-line.
7 Thousands of people had gone in that direction. And then the Croats were
8 claiming it was a bit of an emergency, and they closed the border to the
9 north. So it was kind of a pressure-cooker effect. There was nowhere to
10 go. But then there were these convoys, busloads of these people taken to
11 Karlovac, purely on the condition that they would be kept there until
12 other European or other -- they could go elsewhere in Europe. They
13 wouldn't be allowed to stay in Croatia
14 So they were there for weeks, and I spent a long time, probably
15 up to a fortnight, every day just going back and forth there and
16 conducting, you know, very lengthy interviews with many of them and just
17 getting their stories.
18 Q. And was there anyone -- any person in the footage that you just
19 saw that you have subsequently met and interviewed?
20 A. Not directly, that I recall.
21 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, I would seek to tender that as an
22 exhibit at this junction.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I object, Your Honour.
24 This witness had never been to Omarska. He said he visited
25 Trnopolje in October 1992. This footage is from, apparently, August
1 1992. He gave his evidence about Trnopolje in October. He gave his
2 evidence about Karlovac in Croatia
3 there's no nexus between this video-clip and this witness, and,
4 therefore, it's not admissible through him.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: The video may be admitted and marked as an exhibit.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1357, Your Honours.
8 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 If we can have the next video, please, which is 65 ter 2817.
10 This is the second report from ITN, Penny Marshal.
11 JUDGE HALL: Before we proceed, having regard to the objection
12 which was raised to the admission of the last exhibit, the reasons for
13 its admissibility, in the Chamber's view, is that although, as
14 Mr. O'Sullivan has correctly said, it is not the work product of the
15 witness on the stand, and it deals with -- although there is an overlap
16 in terms of the camp that he did visit, that was later than the period
17 shown in the video, we consider it admissible on its own on the basis
18 that having regard to the sequence of events to which the witness has
19 testified, this video had been made as a part of the process of
20 journalists visiting the camps in question, and, to that extent, is of
21 assistance to the Tribunal in its final determination.
22 MS. PIDWELL: I apologise. I just read out the wrong 65 ter
24 If we could have 65 ter 1571, which is the follow-up ITN report
25 and has the same reporters in it. It's in Sanction, and I'm afraid we
1 don't have a transcript of the entire portion that will be played.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 "Reporter: Inside the camp hospital, the doctor who last week
4 stood petrified was now welcoming, the relief obvious. He now knows
5 there's international concern for him and people like him. He says much
6 more needs to be done, but the conditions have improved.
7 "The families, they can come now and visit them. It's much, much
9 "And the men responsible for running this camp and the others
10 admit mistakes were made.
11 "[B/C/S spoken].
12 "Some people, they lose control, and then they -- they beat
13 people at young people and --
14 "But our Serbian hosts, who still control the limited access we
15 have to the camps, were anxious to stress that equivalent atrocities have
16 been inflicted on their own side. This video, they said, showed some of
17 the 6.000 Serb civilians killed by Muslims, and they deny they're using
18 terror to force Muslims from their villages, but there is evidence that
19 they are. Kozarac, for example, was once a village of 26.000. Now
20 there's no one left.
21 "Many are in these camps, men like 26-year-old Senad Hukanovic,
22 held up by his brother. He was a television repairman before the Serbs
23 took him.
24 "No, no fighting.
25 " You've been in prison in Omarska for [indiscernible]?
1 "[B/S/C spoken].
2 "Did you think you were going to die when you're inside?
3 "[B/C/S spoken].
4 "The International Red Cross yesterday gave out registration
5 forms to the 2.000 now in Trnopolje, a small start in one camp. There
6 are hundreds of others they need to reach. Poor civilians on all sides
7 because of their ethnic backgrounds have been killed in this war. These
8 camps are only for some of the survivors.
9 "Penny Marshal, ITN, in Northern Bosnia."
10 MS. PIDWELL:
11 Q. Mr. Traynor, that footage was taken, I think we heard the
12 reporter say, a week later of Trnopolje. What you saw there, was that
13 closer to what you saw at the time you visited?
14 A. Yes, yes. You could see the place had been changed, that they'd
15 taken down the wiring and things like that.
16 Q. And there was some footage there of the journalist inside a room
17 watching a television programme. Can you comment on that?
18 A. I'm not sure exactly where it was, but it does recall an office
19 in Banja Luka, where they would -- where the security chief -- the police
20 chief and his aides would show similar videos of alleged atrocities
21 against Serbs.
22 Q. And the footage that you saw, which said it was on the road to
23 Kozarac, are you able to comment on that?
24 A. I saw similar -- I drove that road and I saw similar -- very
25 similar scenes. And Kozarac lies on the road between Banja Luka and
1 Prijedor, and it had been, you know, comprehensively pretty much, you
2 know, blown up.
3 MS. PIDWELL: I'd seek to tender that video at this stage, Your
5 JUDGE HALL: I assume, Mr. O'Sullivan, that there is the same
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, there is at least comment about his
8 experience of having seen Kozarac.
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1358, Your Honours.
11 MS. PIDWELL:
12 Q. Later, in September 1992, you went to Banja Luka, when
13 Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen came to visit and there was a meeting with
14 Radovan Karadzic. Had you been to Banja Luka before that time?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And do you recall from which direction you came from and how you
17 came to Banja Luka at that time?
18 A. Well, we either came from Belgrade
19 northern corridor or we came drove from Zagreb and drove down the highway
20 and turned right, a place called Okucani and drove across the Bosnian
21 border towards Banja Luka. I think it was from Zagreb that I came on
22 that occasion.
23 Q. And how long did you stay in Banja Luka?
24 A. Three or four days.
25 Q. Did you have to go through any check-points on your travels?
1 A. Everywhere you went in Bosnia
2 check-points, I mean, everywhere.
3 THE INTERPRETER: For the benefit of the interpreters, could the
4 speakers please pause between questions and answers. Thank you.
5 MS. PIDWELL:
6 Q. [Previous translation continues]... and if so, do you recall who
7 they were manned by?
8 JUDGE HALL: I take it that the -- Ms. Pidwell and Mr. Traynor
9 heard what the interpreter has just said. They're asking that you pause
10 between the question and the answer.
11 MS. PIDWELL: Yes. I do apologise to Your Honours and the
13 Q. I just ask, again for the record, Mr. Traynor, do you recall
14 going through any check-points on this visit to Banja Luka? And if so,
15 who manned those check-points?
16 A. Yes, there were check-points on the way into Banja Luka and also
17 coming into that part of Bosnia
18 what looked like police forces.
19 MS. PIDWELL: If I could have 65 ter 3375, please.
20 Q. This is an article that you wrote. It's dated the 29th of
21 September. Sorry, the 29th of September. And in the second paragraph of
22 the English, in the second -- the last line of that second paragraph, and
23 I think it's the same in the B/C/S, you use the term "ubiquitous police."
24 Can you please expand on that?
25 A. It's fairly self-explanatory, I would think. I mean, everywhere
1 you went in Banja Luka, there were police on the streets.
2 Q. And what was their purpose? What were they doing?
3 A. Just, I mean, not doing very much, just being there. But, you
4 know, it was a very strong, visible police presence. They didn't have
5 very much to do. I mean, there wasn't -- Banja Luka, the city itself,
6 quite a big town, and during the day, you know, it had an appearance of
7 nothing much happening. I mean, it wasn't as if there were events going
8 on at the time for the police to be there on the street. They were just
10 Q. And later in that article, in paragraph 4, you use the term "a
11 demented, crazed, and brutalised town." Can you expand on that, please,
12 and explain why you use those adjectives?
13 A. Well, it was an extremely sinister place, really. It was quite
14 shocking. I mean, everybody you -- it had a very strange atmosphere.
15 You would speak -- you would try to get your information. You would be
16 talking to diplomats, and in Banja Luka, itself, you would be picking up
17 information on what was going on in the broader region from aid workers,
18 and Red Cross officials, and United Nations personnel, et cetera. They
19 were all at their wit's end, frankly. They couldn't keep up with the
20 pace of events, with the desperation, the amount of transports, convoys,
21 applications, people trying to leave, people afraid to leave their homes,
22 people having no homes to go to, and so on. I mean, it was just an
23 extraordinarily sinister and very unpleasant atmosphere.
24 Q. And in that article, you also, same paragraph, quote -- or
25 paraphrase from Radoslav Brdjanin, the head of the regional war
1 committee, as you describe it, announcing that Banja Luka has only room
2 for 1.000 Muslims. Did you hear him say that, or where did you get that
3 information from?
4 A. No, I didn't -- sorry. I didn't hear him say that, directly.
5 Everyone was talking about it. He'd been on television and had made a
6 statement saying that Banja Luka only had room for a thousand Muslims and
7 the rest would need to go. There had also been remarks on the television
8 from another local politician. I think his name was Vukic, who was an
9 obstetrician, had made a public statement about the fact that non-Serbian
10 women would not be allowed to give birth in the Banja Luka hospitals.
11 So, you know, everyone was taking about these kind of remarks. They were
12 part of the atmosphere, part of the kind of very kind of tense mood in
13 the place.
14 Q. It's this article that you refer to your interview with
15 Stojan Zupljanin. Can you, firstly, tell us briefly how it came about
16 that you interviewed him on this occasion?
17 A. Well, I and a colleague, we were in Banja Luka. There was a lot
18 of interest outside of -- you know, in the offices and wherever, you
19 know, in Europe
20 acquired this degree of notoriety because of the camps and so on and so
21 forth. The fact that Vance and Owen were then having to go to Banja
22 Luka, itself, because they had to be seen to be doing something about the
23 situation, that provided an opportunity for the international media to go
24 there as well, and as a result of which, once you're there, you're
25 operating locally and you're asking for interviews with any officials
1 that you can find. So you ask for an interview with the mayor, the local
2 political party leaders. For example, I mean, I went to see the other --
3 the Muslim political party leader, for example, and you ask around. And
4 we were offered an interview with the police chief, so, of course, we
5 took that opportunity.
6 Q. And can you describe the format of the interview?
7 A. As I recall it, the interview took place -- it lasted for about
8 two hours, which is relatively long in my line of business. Usually, you
9 don't get that amount of time. Mr. Zupljanin had obviously plenty of
10 time. And it featured, as I was saying -- as I noted earlier, kind of a
11 re-play of videos of alleged Muslim atrocities against Serbs that we had
12 to kind of sit and watch before being allowed to ask any questions. And
13 then we had a broad-ranging interview about the security situation in the
14 region and what was going on.
15 Q. Who was there with you?
16 A. A fellow reporter, an American, Mary Batia ti [phoen] from "The
18 Q. And was it your view that Mr. Zupljanin was willing to talk to
20 A. Oh, yes, yes, no, he was very -- seemed quite eager. I mean, he
21 was very keen to present his kind of credentials as a source of
22 competence and authority in a rather large area of Bosnia, not just Banja
23 Luka itself. But he impressed on us his qualifications for the job, his
24 18 years in the Bosnian police, his law degree from Sarajevo University
25 the fact that his -- his remit extended to -- you know, across a large
1 tract of Bosnia
3 got was he was trying to impress on us the extent of his authority,
4 power, confidence, for dealing with the situation, mmm-hmm.
5 Q. Besides this article that we have up dated the 29th of September,
6 which refers to this interview, did you write up the balance of your
7 notes of the interview with Zupljanin?
8 A. I don't recall that I did, no. I mean, it's a very -- it's very
9 interesting for people like me, who are trying to understand what's going
10 on. It's of limited value to editors in London when -- you know, a local
11 police chief, per se, does not make a newspaper article, does inform the
12 reporter, you know, in all sorts of different ways, in tangential ways,
13 as to what, you know, what's going on, and provides the leads for other
14 stories to follow up, other issues to pursue. But, you know, I mean,
15 that's routine, that's normal in my line of business. I mean, most of
16 the people you interview, before it gets published, it's a tiny fraction
17 of actually the work that you conduct.
18 Q. And did you form -- was it your view at the end of the interview
19 that you had had a free and frank discussion with him?
20 A. Well, from -- a free and frank discussion? You had the strong
21 impression that you were asking questions about certain things that you
22 knew or suspected or had been told had been going on in the region, and
23 you were getting, you know, political answers from a local -- somebody
24 who was very powerful locally. Whether that counts as free and frank,
25 I'm not sure, but certainly we had plenty of time, and there was nothing
1 that we couldn't ask, for example.
2 Q. During that interview, you referred to a document, the Celinac
3 document which we have as an exhibit in this case, P459.08. I don't
4 think we need to bring it up. But why did you consider it appropriate to
5 talk to him about this document?
6 A. Because he was the police power in the region, and this was a
7 rather notorious document that everyone was talking about in the human
8 rights circles, and then aide workers and a colleague of mine in Belgrade
9 had gotten a hold of this document sometime before, and it had been
10 published in the paper and it created -- and, you know, basically, it was
11 a document that recalled kind of 3rd Reich practices. It was absolutely
12 abhorrent. It confined local Muslims and dictated what they should be
13 doing, what they couldn't do, curfews, where they were allowed to go,
14 where they weren't allowed to go, et cetera, and a lot of people were
15 comparing it to the kind of edicts against the Jews in Nazi Germany, so
16 naturally we wanted to hear about this. And my recollection is that
17 while Mr. Zupljanin said it was no longer in force, he was effectively
18 confirming its existence. He wasn't denying it.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have from the Prosecution, please,
20 information where these documents -- alleged documents appear in the
21 interview? What is the part?
22 MS. PIDWELL: It's referred to in his statement. Page 11 of the
23 English in his statement. It's the ERN 0093-3544 is the page reference
24 where he talks about the Celinac document.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Pidwell, could you repeat the exhibit number,
1 please, because in the record it's "45908." That's probably not the
2 right one.
3 MS. PIDWELL: That's -- it's 65 ter 1669, and I understand it's
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 MR. PANTELIC: And could you be so kind to explain the relevance
7 of this alleged document related to the municipality of Celinac
8 Celinac is not a part of the indictment.
9 MS. PIDWELL: Well, it was referred to in his statement. It's
10 part of the ARK. It was just a comment -- the witness was given an
11 opportunity to comment on Mr. Zupljanin's reaction to that document at
12 the time. Perhaps at this juncture it would satisfy Mr. Pantelic if we
13 undertook his exercise of reading the notes from the note-book at the
15 Q. So, sir, there was a discussion previously, before you came into
16 court, about your note-books, and I wonder if you could be so good as to
17 select the note-book from your interview with Zupljanin in September
18 1992. And we've been asked if you could read out from the note-book
19 entry, so that we could read it into the record, the notes that you made
20 at the time.
21 A. The entire transcript?
22 Q. From the heading where it says "Stojan Zupljanin, Banja Luka
23 police chief, 26 September 1992," to the conclusion of the interview.
24 A. Okay:
25 "Stojan Zupljanin, Banja Luka police chief, 26 September 1992
1 THE INTERPRETER: Would you slow down, please.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Read slower. Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: "Chief of police of the region. More than 20
4 towns, 41, 18 years here in the police after graduating from Sarajevo
6 "I'm chief of one unit in the Serbian -- in the Serbian Republic
7 Interior Ministry covering 26 townships, 16.500 square kilometres, a
8 population of 1 million of all three nationalities; Prijedor, Gradiska,
9 Jajce --"
10 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me. What is the name between Gradiska and
12 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm trying to work out.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Is it maybe "Drvar?"
16 THE WITNESS: No, no, Drvar is in Croatia, I think, isn't it?
17 MS. PIDWELL:
18 Q. Please continue, Mr. Traynor.
19 A. "I told them, with full responsibility -- I told them, with full
20 responsibility, in Banja Luka it's still -- the situation in Banja Luka
21 is still very good. I think we still have full control in our hands and
22 following all processes."
23 MR. PANTELIC: And I do apologise to Mr. Traynor. Could you read
24 the left side of your note-books?
25 THE WITNESS: The left side?
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, because we have -- in our copies, we have
2 three lines of notes. I don't know from where it comes.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, from previous reporting. It's nothing to do
4 with the interview.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, yeah.
6 THE WITNESS: "1991 census: 54 per cent Serb, 15 per cent
7 Muslim, 14 per cent Croat.
8 "The situation is a little bit changed during the war. There are
9 no exact facts now, but we know that now here there are 17.500 Serb
10 refugees from West Slavonia and a couple of thousand of Muslim refugees
11 from elsewhere here. Many displaced by war, many moved to Croatia
12 to Central Bosnia, or Alija Izetbegovic's Bosnia, but the majority of
13 them are in Serbia
14 "There are a few times more refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina and
16 here are automatically separated from families and put in front-line of
17 Croatian Army.
18 "I told Vance yesterday that's how I explained the migration of
19 people, sometimes called ethnic cleansing.
21 for jobs for them and gives them 400 to 800 Deutchemarks. That is an
22 incent for them to leave the war areas.
23 "I do not accept the term 'ethnic cleansing.' I'd rather
24 understand it as war and economic emigration. The representatives of the
25 Serbian Republic
1 mixed with family relations that even in the case of some extremists
2 trying to clean any of the three people in this area, they naturally
3 cannot do it. My family contains gypsies, Albanians, Muslims,
4 Montenegrins, et cetera.
5 "Vance and Owen probably have their information from different
7 "Celinac. There's 7 per cent of Muslims there. We had some
8 problems there. It all started when, on Vlasic Mountain
9 from Celinac were killed, mostly young boys. Ustasha forces didn't allow
10 us to recover the corpses, and members of their families were very angry
11 and attacked a few Muslim houses. We arrested them. The Celinac
12 document is not available and is practically out of use.
13 "No one here wanted this dreadful war, but there are some
14 excesses by individuals out of control. Not only Muslim houses are
15 burning in the region, but also Serb and Croat.
16 "Kotor Varos. In [indiscernible] village, a few days ago,
17 attacked by Muslim extremists. They killed 16 old people and young
18 children, burned the houses, and then celebrated. They came to their
19 base singing. Can we expect Serb people in this region? No one can
20 guarantee that, in return, Serbs won't retaliate. I'm seriously afraid
21 tomorrow a Muslim village will burn. The only question is: When will it
23 "Last winter" -- I've written "minus 3," but I don't quite
24 understand it. "Last winter, tractors of people transported to Banja
25 Luka, women delivering babies. Many died on that road."
1 I would assume that that "minus 3" makes some reference to the
2 temperature, they were travelling in the winter cold:
3 "Here the situation, in my opinion, is a little different, how to
4 help these people. The main help is to stop the war, but in the
5 meantime, what to do? Citizens are endangered and need safe-guarding.
6 We tried to find" -- one word I can't decipher -- "we tried to find for
7 people from war and individual care" -- no, sorry. I'll say that again:
8 "We tried to find space for people from war and individuals have
9 said we're making concentration camps. It is true some went and some
10 were brought there. We have exact documentation they actively
11 participated in the war. There's no war without two sides.
12 Alija Izetbegovic declared war on the people of this area.
13 "The Prijedor SDA chief organised armed bands. We met in
14 Prijedor. There's a look of hatred in his eyes, and I knew the war would
15 come. Some of them think they could build a German [indiscernible] here.
16 Now we are all losers.
17 "Aware that people want to escape from this region not only
18 because of the terror that is connected with the Serbs but also because
19 of the terror of some individuals and groups of them -- and groups of
20 their own people. That's why some Muslims from some regions are asking
21 the official government to help them leave for Croatia or Serbia
22 ask for that with certain documents. They ask official permission to
23 exchange where they live. Some want to swap property, but they know some
24 day they'll come back.
25 "Tudjman forced our people from Slavonia by force, and we make
1 available to the Croats and Muslims who want to leave transportation with
3 Question: "Is it happening today?"
4 Answer: "I have no such information. I know the ICRC has plans
5 to evacuate Trnopolje, and it will be in these days. Trnopolje, they are
6 not detainees. They come there by their own will and leave whenever they
7 want. Let Serbian girls leave the whore houses in Zenica, Bugojno,
9 "One day at the Trnopolje shelter costs 7 million dinars, but we
10 feed kids, women and the old, even when our soldiers get only two meals a
11 day. We give fuel for the transports when there's very little available.
12 No one can attack the convoy when the police are with the convoy.
13 "Massacre. A certain number who left Trnopolje in the direction
14 of Vlasic lost their lives in the region where the war is on. An
15 investigation is on by the Justice Department. We will find those
16 guilty. We will bring them before court. If we find evidence they
17 killed innocent people, they will be responsible for the crime. It is
18 not the number you mentioned. Our information is about 50 or more, but
19 in this region the war is still on.
20 "An investigation team there was attacked by cannon. There are
21 stories they were killed by police escorting them, also stories they were
22 shot by the HVO or Green Berets. Two buses separated. Some claim they
23 were separated to safe-guard -- to safe-guard the convoy because they
24 were fighting-aged males."
25 MS. PIDWELL: Sir, I wonder if I could stop you there. I think
1 it's time for the break at this stage.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so we would resume in 20 minutes.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MS. PIDWELL:
8 Q. Mr. Traynor, could you continue the task of reading your notes
9 into the record, please. If I can remind you, the last -- the last
10 sentence you read was:
11 "Some claim they were separated to safe-guard the convoy because
12 they were fighting-aged males ."
13 So from there.
14 A. "I have information there were some corpses in the area. I'm a
15 man who swears to protect the constitution and the law. I will do my
16 utmost to solve this case.
17 "The territory is right on the front-line. Large cannon have
18 40-kilometre range. I'd prefer if you have contact with the Ustasha
19 authorities in Travnik, that they send us information even if we are at
21 "The costs borne by the convoys are paid by the city from where
22 the convoy starts. There are certain costs for the agency that mediates
23 an exchange of property. It's possible they pay for the fuel. I don't
24 believe the intensity of these convoys is so high. Earlier, it was more
25 frequent; now, it is not frequent. It almost doesn't exist. If there
1 was anything in these days, it was the last convoy from this area.
2 "We've made some attempt to bring order to the city, and they
3 don't carry guns outside barracks, but since the HVO killed eight
4 soldiers in Jajce, we don't obey that order.
5 "Head of Public and National Security Unit. If the war comes to
6 Banja Luka, it will be because of the Muslim extremists. We know their
7 organisation, training camps, arms, et cetera. Several thousand. This
8 problem will have to be solved. War is possible. It depends on the
9 behaviour of the other side. We've arrested 17 members and forces. They
10 were preparing war here. The SDA is the organiser, and the charity,
11 Merhamet, which is gathering people and weapons."
12 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Then we have a part with "ICRC
14 Banja Luka," which might be of interest for this case, because on the
15 other page we have "ICRC chief, Banja Luka, 26 September of 1992." He is
16 mentioning in his statement these contacts. Maybe it's relevant for our
18 MS. PIDWELL: I'm in Your Honours' hands. The witness has read
19 into the record the notes he made of the interview he conducted with the
20 accused Mr. Zupljanin. This portion that my learned friend is referring
21 to is a separate entry and is just the first part of an entry which
22 obviously continues on throughout the note-book, which hasn't been
23 identified by the witness as being relevant to the issues before this
25 MR. PANTELIC: But it is not for the witness to assess whether
1 something is relevant or not. It's relevant for the Defence, because
2 this is a period which is within the time-frame of the indictment and the
3 events in Banja Luka.
4 JUDGE HALL: I confess that from the time this matter was first
5 raised this morning, no practical solution has occurred to me. And the
6 obvious route of the witness reading into the record substantial portions
7 of his note-book, which apart from being time-consuming, would fly in the
8 face of the ordinary principle that a refreshing-memory document doesn't
9 become evidence, I'm still not sure how we should deal with
10 Mr. Pantelic's concern, which I appreciate to be a live concern. And if,
11 Ms. Pidwell, according to where you are now with the witness, you think
12 that that is as far as you need go, perhaps Mr. Pantelic should bide his
13 time until it comes to cross-examination.
14 MR. PANTELIC: And if possible, maybe the witness can record, I
15 mean, during his further reading of these notes, and then later today or
16 in the evening, if Prosecution can give us the CD with the
17 audio-recording, as Judge Harhoff suggested. That would be also
18 acceptable for the Defence, I mean, the other relevant part related to
19 Banja Luka events.
20 JUDGE HALL: If that's practicable, yes.
21 MS. PIDWELL: Well, if that's a requirement or a direction from
22 the Trial Chamber, obviously we'd adhere to it. However, it's the
23 Prosecution's position that the relevant portions have been read into the
24 transcript, and it's unnecessary for this witness to go through his whole
25 note-book and read it in order for the Defence to review it. They can
1 certainly ask him questions in cross-examination and pursue it that way.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Well, let's ask witness how many pages of these
3 notes related to ICRC Banja Luka is, in fact. Then we could decide. Of
4 course, I don't want to explore all his note-books within these 18 years
5 of -- I mean, these five years of his work in the field. But obviously
6 these notes related to Banja Luka, September 1992, might be of interest
7 for the Defence, so I'm limiting my request. I'm not asking for approach
8 in broader form.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: If I may repeat what Mr. Pantelic had said, in terms
11 of the -- that it is not a matter for a witness to determine what is
12 relevant, but, of course, for the Chamber, with the assistance of
13 counsel, that notwithstanding that principle, the practical difficulties
14 with which we are faced, and Mr. Pantelic having taken on board
15 Judge Harhoff's suggestion about the witness doing an audio-recording to
16 which they could have access, that seems to be -- seems to us to be
17 sufficient, but it is not something on which we intend to rule. We
18 prefer to leave it at the stage of the Prosecution, whose witness this
19 is, seeking to arrive at a workable means of meeting the reasonable
20 requests of the Defence.
21 MS. PIDWELL: I appreciate that, Your Honours. There may be a
22 practical difficulty, in the sense that this witness is now sworn in. We
23 will conclude the Prosecution evidence before we rise today and,
24 accordingly, we'll be unable to speak with him.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well --
1 MR. PANTELIC: I don't see -- sorry, Your Honour. I don't see
2 any particular problem. Maybe a witness unit can approach the witness
3 and then record these particular parts. I mean --
4 JUDGE HALL: Which is precisely what I was about to suggest.
5 MS. PIDWELL:
6 Q. Sir, back to some questions directed to you.
7 THE WITNESS: Could I say something?
8 MS. PIDWELL:
9 Q. In response to your note-books?
10 A. Yes. I don't have -- I mean, for what it's worth, I don't have
11 any problems making recordings, or whatever. There are some sources in
12 the note-book who did at the time request anonymity and didn't want to be
13 identified, and, you know, that would be -- you know, I would be in an
14 extremely difficult position revealing the identify of some of the people
15 who are speaking. But I can say what they say, but not all of who they
17 JUDGE HALL: Well, to the extent that the intervention of the
18 Chamber is necessary in this regard, we would -- we would say that you
19 would not be required to reveal your sources in that regard.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 MS. PIDWELL:
22 Q. Sir, it's obvious from the notes you've just read out that there
23 was some discussion about the alleged massacre at Vlasic Mountain
24 Zupljanin at this time. Did you write that story up into an article?
25 A. No, I didn't, no, basically because the story, the way it was in
1 the media, I mean, other people had already published stories about the
2 Vlasic Mountain
3 disturbing incident, its -- its media value for me was diminished by the
4 fact that, you know, it had already been reported. My colleague,
5 however, who was conducting the interview with me, was working on a
6 detailed story about that incident and, therefore, was asking a lot of
7 questions about it.
8 MS. PIDWELL: I'd like now to have -- to play another video.
9 This time it's 65 ter 2817. This is an ABC "Night-Line" report.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 "... were organised to take them to Muslim-held territory. The
12 convoys out of Trnopolje were meant to leave here with mostly women and
13 children, but on at least one occasion a couple of hundred men were
14 allowed to squeeze on board the buses. The guards didn't seem to mind.
15 These were just fresh passengers to rob; money, watches, jewelry,
16 whatever they had.
17 "Each bus had two men as escorts, and one of them took a PVC bag
18 to collect all our, money, gold, and watches. One said, 'if we can find
19 any valuables left, we'll cut your heads off.'
20 "The convoy proceeded without incident until it pulled off the
21 road on Vlasic Mountain
22 Travnik. Bakrija [phoen] is one of half a dozen survivors Night-Line has
23 located who confirm what happened next.
24 "The man who was in charge of our bus gets in and he says, I'll
25 call out names, and those people have to leave the bus.
1 "So William was on a second bus stopped by the road.
2 "'A soldier came and told us that women, children, old men, and
3 the sick should get on the truck. The young men had to stay where they
4 were. In front of me there was a woman with two children. I decided to
5 go in ahead of them. I had a bad feeling about what was happening. I
6 passed three soldiers, but no one stopped me. I jumped onto a truck,
7 snuck by the others, and hid in the back of the truck.'
8 "That instinct saved his life. He and the truckload of women and
9 children went on to safety. About 150 men were left behind.
10 "They told us to cross the road and to stop at the edge of a
12 "With Bakrija was a second witness who wouldn't speak directly to
13 camera, but who did detail his experience for me and artist Rajan
14 Petrovic. His story perfectly matches Bakrija's and the others.
15 "'We were told to kneel and to keep our heads down. I heard one
16 guy say, 'Now you're going to stay here for a while,' and I thought they
17 were going to negotiate our release. When I heard the shots, I pushed
18 the man in front of me and jumped over the cliff.
19 "The two men tumbled and slipped down the gorge slowing
20 themselves by grabbing at bushes until they reached the bottom.
21 "I saw them dropping hand grenades and shooting down the hill at
22 the dead bodies. Then I looked up and saw the people from the bus ahead
23 of ours. They were being killed, three by three. It was like a haystack
24 of bodies, and I also noticed some black corpses that were obviously
25 there from before.
1 "The two men eventually were captured and questioned by
2 investigators from the Bosnian Serbian Army, regional commander
3 Momir Talic.
4 "Our investigation showed that no soldiers participated.
5 "Having cleared themselves, General Talic's men turned over both
6 survivors to the police in Banja Luka, but police chief Stojan Zupljanin
7 told me ...
8 "We have no living witnesses who can confirm or deny the
10 "At least Zupljanin admits the incident occurred. He says it's
11 under investigation, and he showed us files of evidence, even let us
12 watch his ballistics expert examine bullets that were found at the scene.
13 He promises ...
14 "The Serbian people will see to it that all the guilty parties
15 are tried in a court of law.
16 "Small consolation for the relatives of the victims."
17 MS. PIDWELL:
18 Q. Did you interview any of the survivors from -- who -- from the
19 Vlasic Mountain
20 A. We were told stories about a teenage boy, who was a survivor,
21 when we were interviewing the people in Karlovac in some detail about a
22 teenage boy who had survived the massacre and then had been returned to
23 the Serbian side of the lines and taken by the Serbian police and then
24 had joined one of the convoys out and then was living in Duisburg
1 where he was. And I think my colleague, in fact, who was working on a
2 story about this, eventually contacted the -- the family in Germany and
3 confirmed it.
4 Q. And you heard in that report Stojan Zupljanin saying that there
5 was an investigation into the massacre at the time. Was that consistent
6 with what you heard him say during your interview with him?
7 A. That's exactly what he was telling us, that he would be
8 investigating it thoroughly. We had -- you know, we'd heard all the
9 stories, and we were trying to establish the facts. He contested the
10 figures. The established figure was, you know, almost 200 people. He
11 said it was -- he said that our figures were wrong and that the figure
12 was somewhere in the region of more than 50.
13 Q. And did you follow the investigation, as a line of inquiry, after
14 your interview with him?
15 A. I personally didn't. As I say, my American colleague did.
16 MS. PIDWELL: I'd like to tender that interview at this stage.
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1359, Your Honours.
19 MS. PIDWELL:
20 Q. And just, finally, there's one last video that I would like to
21 play. It's 65 ter 2321. This -- you did a series of articles or reports
22 on a town called Kozarac at the end of 1992. Can you just briefly
23 explain the research that you did for those series of articles at that
25 A. Well, we could see that Kozarac had been basically emptied. It
1 was quite a large community on that road between Banja Luka and Prijedor,
2 an almost entirely Muslim community, and it had been torched, and you
3 could see that when you were driving along there. So one hadn't --
4 didn't know anything about this, what had happened, and when it had
5 happened, why it had happened, et cetera, so one got very curious as to
6 try and establish what happened there.
7 As a result of spending quite a long time interviewing these
8 people in Karlovac, the fundamental story here seemed to be basically
9 about the origins of the camp, itself, in the Prijedor area, and was
10 largely a result of the emptying of Kozarac at the end of May 1992. It
11 was an awful lot of people. The international aid workers, anybody with
12 any knowledge of it, could tell you what had happened there or what they
13 believed had happened there, and so basically we decided to try and
14 recreate -- re-establish the story of what had happened there in May
15 1992. So we did intensive interviewing with lots and lots of people who
16 lived there, the whole kind of lead-up to the kind of -- the attack on
17 Kozarac, itself, what happened to all the people. The place was emptied,
18 all the houses were torched. And then we went to Kozarac as well to try
19 and just have a look at the place and see who was living there and so on
20 and so forth, and what we found was a completely empty-shell town.
21 We were taken immediately to the Serbian police station. We were
22 semi-arrested, we were detained. Our bags were searched, our car was
23 searched, our passports were taken away, and at which point -- this is a
24 rent-a-car. We had driven from Zagreb
25 had taken the number plates off the car because they were indicated --
1 you know, Zagreb
2 plates around there. Of course, when they searched the car, they found
3 the Zagreb
4 people we had been dealing with had been drinking, they were armed, and
5 it was an unpleasant situation. So, basically, we, as diplomatically as
6 possible, tried to recover our passports. And when we did recover the
7 passports, we basically left.
8 Q. Do you recall which month it was that you visited Kozarac?
9 A. That would be October 1992.
10 MS. PIDWELL: If we could now play the video.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 "On 'Dispatches' tonight, the true horror of ethnic cleansing
13 revealed through the people of one small valley in Bosnia. 'Dispatches'
14 returns to that valley and travels across Europe to track down the
15 survivors. For the first time it can piece together the full detail of
16 what happened and name those responsible. As the Geneva peace talks
17 falter and the world remains unwilling to act, who will remember a town
18 called Kozarac?"
19 MS. PIDWELL: We have abbreviated the portrayal.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 "Along the main road, these are burnt-out Muslim homes. The
22 cross and the circle is the Serbs way of marking the map for special
23 attention. This is ethnic cleansing with a vengeance, and it was
24 thorough. The Serbs had tried to make sure of that.
25 "This is the main street of Kozarac today. The refugees haven't
1 seen what has happened to their town. As far as we know, we are the only
2 television crew to get in there to film. These houses and shops were not
3 destroyed during the shelling. The Serbs systematically razed them
4 later. Jasmin's family asked to see what we found."
5 MS. PIDWELL:
6 Q. Sir, that's an ITN "Dispatches" report or programme called "A
7 Town Called Kozarac." It shows footage, and my question to you is: Is
8 that similar to what you saw when you visited Kozarac?
9 A. Oh, yeah, absolutely, very similar. I don't recall exactly when
10 this documentary was made, but I published a large article on Kozarac in
11 October, I mean, maybe 3.000 words or so, which by standards is quite a
12 long piece. And as I recall, that inspired the TV people in London
13 Channel 4, and they got in touch and they were asking some of the kind of
14 detailed information and data on the place and then went there and made
15 their TV programme.
16 MS. PIDWELL: And just for the record, 65 ter 3354, which is part
17 of the package, is the witness's article in October on Kozarac town.
18 I'd ask that that video be admitted and marked.
19 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1360, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Traynor, do you recall how much time elapsed
22 between your visit and your article and then the subsequent television
23 footage of Kozarac?
24 THE WITNESS: No, not exactly, but it should be easy to establish
25 from the television programme, when it was -- when it was broadcast. But
1 it was sometime later, it wasn't immediate, because, I mean, that kind of
2 TV programme would take quite a while to produce.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you give us a rough estimation? I mean, what
4 are we talking about, months, or six months, or a year, or how much?
5 THE WITNESS: Not a year, no. Maximum, six months.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I wonder if it could be clarified, when the
7 footage was made and when Mr. Traynor's article was published.
8 MS. PIDWELL: Sir, the article is dated 17 October 1992. There's
9 a question between when it's made and when it's aired, and that's what we
10 will need to establish, the difference between those two.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. It would be by the time it was made,
12 because that's the important thing in this piece of evidence.
13 MS. PIDWELL: We're just checking now, Your Honour, but I don't
14 think we have any information on the time it was made. It would have
15 come into our possession after it was aired, which the witness said was
16 about six months after his --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: And do you have an indication of the time when it
18 was shown in public?
19 MS. PIDWELL: No, we don't, sir. It came into the possession of
20 the Prosecutor another way, and we don't have any information on when it
21 was first aired to the public. We can check those -- check our records
22 again, and if there's any further information on that, we can provide
23 that to you.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please, if you could.
25 MS. PIDWELL: I have no further questions for this witness, and
1 I'd seek at this juncture to tender his 92 ter package together with the
2 articles which are contained therein.
3 JUDGE HALL: Well, we have your application, I believe, already
4 before us, but we will determine the final fate of that package after
5 cross-examination and re-examination.
6 Yes, cross-examination by whichever side is --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HALL: As between the respective Defence teams, I don't
9 know which side has decided to go -- to begin their cross-examination
10 first .
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I have no questions, Your Honour.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, if you allow me, I must confer with
13 my client with regard to the -- actually, these notes which was read into
14 the courtroom. I'm waiting for the transcript. I have to get further
15 instructions from my client, so I would suggest that I can confer with
16 him -- that we can adjourn now, and then I can confer with him for the
17 next half an hour to go through these details, because obviously it's new
18 material for us. And then I hope tomorrow, depending on the work on the
19 other part of the notes, we could have -- I don't need more than half an
20 hour or 45 minutes, depending on the materials that will be recorded
21 later to confirm tomorrow morning with my client, when he comes here at
22 9.00, so that we could later on start with -- if it's appropriate. I
23 don't know.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I do have a couple of short
25 matters to raise, which I was going to ask, which relate to witnesses
1 that are coming in the future and also the witness that's due to start on
2 Wednesday. And Mr. Krgovic is here, so -- well, I suppose he can't --
3 can I say there's no difference between the notes and what was in the
4 article, but --
5 JUDGE HALL: But Mr. Pantelic wishes to satisfy himself that that
6 is --
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. One thing at a time, Ms. Korner. Before we
9 come to the matters that you wish to raise, I would deal with
10 Mr. Pantelic's application to take the -- to stand the witness down at
11 this point.
12 And I would say, Mr. Traynor, the Chamber is not rising at this
13 point - there are certain housekeeping matters with which we wish to
14 deal - but you would have heard Mr. Pantelic seek to be given the
15 opportunity to put himself in the position to cross-examine you more
16 effectively, in the interest of his client, tomorrow. So we would excuse
17 you at this stage.
18 The usher would escort you from the courtroom, and --
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Traynor, having been sworn as a witness, you
21 cannot speak with counsel from either side. And subject to what I'm
22 about to say, in any communication that you have with anyone outside of
23 the courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony.
24 Now, notwithstanding what I have just said, you would recall that
25 the counsel for Mr. Zupljanin has raised this issue of being in a
1 position to understand the notes which he has been -- which have been
2 copied to him by the Office of the Prosecution, and you may recall that
3 in the course of what would have passed between the Bench and counsel
4 today, it was suggested that subject to what you, yourself, had raised
5 about not having to reveal your sources, that an audio copy be made of
6 these notes to pass to the -- to be made available to counsel,
7 particularly counsel for the Defence of Mr. Zupljanin.
8 The process of -- excuse me.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE HALL: The process of -- the practical process of putting
11 that into effect has been put in train, but has not yet been resolved. I
13 to the limited resources, that the Victim and Witnesses Section has to
14 accommodate this request on such short notice, that the Office of the
15 Prosecution may be called upon to assist VWS in this regard. So,
16 Mr. Traynor, in the course of today you would be contacted by VWS as to
17 how this is going to be effected.
18 And unless you have any questions on this or any other matter, we
19 would excuse you until tomorrow morning.
20 THE WITNESS: If I'm not permitted to speak to either counsel,
21 how and who decides what are the relevant bits in my note-books that are
22 relevant to the case? I mean, who decides that?
23 JUDGE HALL: Well, although the matter of relevance, as I would
24 have indicated in your presence earlier, is not for you, as a witness,
25 but for the Chamber, for purely practical purposes we would only be
1 concerned with such of your notes as you previously made available to the
2 Prosecution, having regard to the wealth of notes that you probably have
3 available to you, and we would begin with your assessment of what is of
4 assistance to the Chamber in this case. If there's a problem, we will
5 deal with that when we get to it, but at this point we will have to be
6 content with your assessment of what is of assistance.
7 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honour, if I may.
8 The three sections that he previously chose as being relevant to
9 this case, one was Visegrad, one was Zvornik, which I understand there's
10 no issue with and they're not requiring those portions to be read into
11 the record. It's simply the notes in relation to Zupljanin. But
12 Mr. Pantelic requires -- on my understanding, the notes of his time is
13 four days in Banja Luka, which may be either side of what he has already
14 read into the -- read into the record. So if my understanding is
15 correct, we would ask to have VWS arrange for the witness to read the
16 portion of his 1992 note-book for the four days that he was in Banja
18 MR. PANTELIC: That's exactly my request, yes.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So now VWS knows what was required.
20 Thank you very much.
21 THE WITNESS: Can I just ask about timings and things, just
22 logistics? I don't know if I'm raising it in the right place, but
23 basically I'm scheduled to be concluding here, I think, tomorrow. Is
24 that likely to remain the case?
25 JUDGE HALL: As things now stand, it appears that it is most
1 unlikely that you would not be -- that your testimony would not have
2 concluded tomorrow. And I use the double negative deliberately, because,
3 of course, there are always unforeseen eventualities.
4 THE WITNESS: I just need to say that I have a very important
5 appointment on Wednesday morning in Berlin with the German chancellor,
6 and I'm worried about missing it.
7 JUDGE HALL: We understand. Indeed, the Chamber's own schedule
8 means that we would not be able to accommodate you on Wednesday.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE HALL: Before we hear from Ms. Korner, could we -- if we
11 could go into private session.
12 MR. PANTELIC: And, Your Honours, I don't know if it's
13 practicable, but if I can go with my client to confirm for next 20
14 minutes, because obviously my colleague will be here if some --
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, you're free to --
16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
17 [Private session]
11 Page 10384 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
25 I'm so sorry. Can I ask can we go into private session?
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
2 MS. KORNER: And can I ask for a redaction?
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
4 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
17 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
18 Your Honours, when we applied for the extra time for the 92 ter
19 witness who's testifying on Wednesday, at that stage we weren't aware
20 that it was going to be videolink. In addition to that, as I said to
21 Your Honours briefly on Friday, there's been somewhat of a wholesale
22 challenge to the adjudicated facts for Teslic and other matters. The
23 extra time was asked for on the basis of the court logs, but now it's
24 absolutely clear that we'll have to, firstly, ask him some more general
25 matters about Teslic. And, secondly, because of the videolink problems,
1 it will take longer.
2 So can I ask that the time for him be extended, please, to -- I
3 hope it won't be -- I think Your Honours gave me an hour forty, but could
4 I ask that be extended to two and a half? Hopefully, it will come in
5 less, but the problem with videolink, as you know, is the -- is, A, the
6 slowness and, B, the ability to deal with documents. I suppose I'm
7 borrowing from the bank that I saved with the witness last week, which,
8 as Your Honours will recall, was originally three hours, and I think I
9 took just under an hour.
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is satisfied with the cogency of the
12 reasons advanced by the OTP and would accede to the request for the
13 further time, but wishes to emphasise now that the guillotine will fall
14 at two hours and thirty minutes.
15 Is there another matter?
16 MS. KORNER: No, I don't think so, Your Honour, unless Your
17 Honours want to deal with adjudicated facts. We've got 15 minutes left.
18 What Your Honours wanted to raise last week, but we never got 'round to.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes. The three days that have intervened -- three
20 or four days since we alerted the parties to our concerns, it would be
21 useful to hear your further thoughts. And I remind you that we are not
22 re-arguing the -- we are not inviting you to re-argue the application on
23 which the Chamber has made a decision. What we seek your assistance on
24 is the practical means of dealing with matters where there is a dispute,
25 because as Ms. Korner correctly said, I think, on Thursday or Friday, how
1 it has worked out so far is not very suitable.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think I made the point way back --
3 at the beginning of last week that we say it's simply not good enough to
4 discover from the Defence, at the time the witness is called, that a set
5 of adjudicated facts are challenged, either in whole or in part, and that
6 we should be notified -- and we say we should be notified within a short
7 period of time as to which of the adjudicated facts are, in fact, in
8 fact, the subject of dispute. That's the first matter.
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Mr. Pantelic would reply that he has alerted
10 you. He says all of them were in dispute.
11 MS. KORNER: Yeah. Well, as I said to Your Honours, that's
12 clearly not right, because he got up and said -- I think it was
13 Mr. Zecevic, that it wasn't in dispute, that the -- that the ethnic
14 composition, for example, of municipalities. And I pointed out that
15 clearly not in dispute were the fact that the variant A and B
16 instructions were issued, because nobody's being cross-examined about
17 that at all. And we discovered, through Mr. Krgovic last week, that the
18 Teslic matters are all disputed for the first time, and I think it's
19 incumbent upon the Defence and on Your Honours to order the Defence to
20 let us know in advance, because it means we have to call witnesses. We
21 can't wait, much as we'd like to, until rebuttal case, because the Lukic
22 case is against us on this, and we're being put on notice bit by bit of
23 what is really in dispute. And Your Honours need to know as well. It's
24 not just us. It's everybody who needs to know that there's a real,
25 genuine dispute.
1 So those are our submissions on the point.
2 And, Your Honours, if every -- if every adjudicated fact was in
3 dispute, then we could forget the adjudicated facts entirely, and we
4 would now be -- and we will be, as I said already, next week be putting
5 in a motion to deal with those that we've lost. But then this case will
6 be increased by at least three months, if not longer, because we're going
7 to have to call evidence on each of these facts, which, as I say, for
8 example, in Prijedor, we've been through seven trials on some of them,
9 and we shouldn't be arguing any longer that Omarska was a detention camp,
10 or, indeed, that Manjaca was a detention camp, or any of these camps.
11 Who it was run by except -- may be the subject of argument, but the basic
12 facts should not be.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, do you have any concrete proposal as
14 to how this situation should be resolved?
15 MS. KORNER: I do, Your Honours. I say that the Defence owe a
16 duty to the Court not to waste time or to be unhelpful, should indicate
17 now to us the facts -- the adjudicated facts which are genuinely a
18 subject of dispute, and not just everything is. We're back to the old
19 situation the Prosecution is put to proof on every single aspect of the
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, as I understand the problem, there
22 are two aspects of it. One aspect is the obligation on the Defence to
23 identify, in advance, the adjudicated facts to which they have objections
24 and to which they wish to introduce counter-evidence, and then they must
25 identify the nature of that counter-evidence. That's one aspect. The
1 other aspect is the aspect where, in the process of a witness's
2 testimony, suddenly evidence is brought up by the witness that suggests a
3 challenge to one or more adjudicated facts. And, of course, this is a
4 situation which even the Defence could not have anticipated, but,
5 nevertheless, their ability to then challenge that adjudicated fact, in
6 light of the oral evidence just given by the witness, remains open.
7 So how do you suggest these two situations be resolved?
8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, one -- the second --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we hear the Defence.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes.
11 The second situation, where a witness brings up, himself, whether
12 in chief or in cross-examination, an aspect that contradicts an
13 adjudicated fact which, up until now, has not been something that the
14 Defence have known about or have particularly taken an interest in, is
15 something we really can't cater for and we just have to look at that as
16 the situations arise. But where the Defence have specific instructions
17 from their clients, or from their own knowledge of other evidence that
18 they intend to call, that they are going to challenge those adjudicated
19 facts, then we submit there's an obligation on them to tell us now. So
20 there's two separate situations.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I agree, the situations are different.
22 Let's hear from the Defence.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 The first thing I'd like to do is clarify what our position is
25 legally. And that was explained by Mr. Zecevic last week, and he
1 referred to three pieces of jurisprudence; first, the decision -- the
2 pre-trial decision in this Chamber, which is in line with all the
3 jurisprudence on adjudicated facts, is that the Defence may challenge
4 adjudicated facts with credible evidence, confirmed by the Kamenera
5 [phoen] Appeals Chamber decision, and also completely consistent with the
6 Lukic and Lukic decision.
7 Now, challenging adjudicated facts with credible evidence can
8 take place in at least two ways: first, through the cross-examination of
9 Prosecution witnesses, as we saw Mr. Krgovic cross-examine on the
10 statistics in Teslic; and, second, credible evidence led through the
11 Defence case. Those are the two mechanisms open to us, and the timing of
12 our attempts at challenging facts can take place, therefore, throughout
13 the whole trial.
14 What is our position? We have made our position clear in our
15 pre-trial brief -- the supplemental pre-trial brief, which the
16 Trial Chamber ruled to be adequate, in which case we listed the facts
17 which we had agreement on and we hold the Prosecution to prove strict
18 proof of the rest of its case. And as you've seen, already we've been
19 challenging the Prosecution's theory through cross-examination, and we
20 will also lead evidence to challenge the rest of it during our Defence
21 case, and that's precisely what the jurisprudence, confirmed by the
22 Appeals Chamber, is on adjudicated facts. So it's not a time-wasting
23 exercise at all.
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see one logistical
1 difficulty faced by the Defence, related to adjudicated facts. Most of
2 these adjudicated facts were adjudicated in matches -- in cases that did
3 not deal with the role of the police in various events, and the position
4 of the accused in those cases was that when it was between the army and
5 the police, they tried to lay the blame mostly on the police, and they
6 did not examine Defence witnesses from that aspect. And our problem with
7 adjudicated facts is, first of all, to identify the evidence underlying
8 the adjudicated fact. And when we made an analysis, we determined that
9 not a single adjudicated fact regarding the role of the police meets that
10 standard, and that's why Mr. Pantelic said we would be challenging all
11 those facts.
12 For instance, recently, when preparing for the testimony of a
13 witness from Teslic, we established that most of the adjudicated facts
14 were grounded in the evidence of a mentally-disturbed person, and that's
15 why I said we would be challenging all those facts. And there are more
16 examples which imply the representation of the role of the police in a
17 different way, where we have to do the analytical work, itself. We have
18 to re-examine it and find out how, exactly, on what basis the adjudicated
19 facts were determined. This is very serious work, and a serious amount
20 of work. And as soon as we get to a certain result, we will, of course,
21 share it with the Prosecution as we get there.
22 There are many matters in which, of course, there is nothing to
23 challenge, and that's the problem that we really have. We have to review
24 all the facts adjudicated in a certain case by a certain Chamber. We
25 have to identify the underlying evidence, because the adjudicated facts
1 are taken over from one case into another.
2 JUDGE HALL: Well, we thank counsel for their further assistance
3 in this matter, and that brings us to the time for adjournment for the
5 We will reconvene tomorrow morning in Courtroom I at 9.00. Thank
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of May,
9 2010, at 9.00 a.m.