1 Wednesday, 2 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
6 IT-08-91-T. The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
8 everyone. Before the witness is escorted back to the stand, there is a
9 ruling that we have to deliver. May I have the appearances, please.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
11 Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan for Stanisic Defence.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
15 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
17 On the 18th of May, the Trial Chamber admitted into evidence
18 pursuant to Rule 92 ter, two witness statements of Ian Traynor, but
19 denied admission of 15 articles that formed part of his Rule 92 ter
21 On the 21st of May, the Prosecutor requested the Trial Chamber to
22 reconsider the admission into evidence of "at least the specific articles
23 that Ms. Pidwell asked Mr. Traynor about," during his testimony on the
24 17th and 18th of May.
25 It is recalled that the Trial Chamber has discretionary power to
1 reconsider a previous decision if a clear error of reasoning has been
2 demonstrated or if it's necessary to do so to prevent injustice.
3 On the 2nd of October, 2009, the Trial Chamber issued a decision
4 pursuant to Rule 92 ter which concerned several witnesses including
5 Traynor. In that decision, after reviewing the documents accompanying
6 the witness's prior evidence, the Trial Chamber had held that in keeping
7 with the jurisprudence -- "in keeping with the jurisprudence of the
8 Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will, when admitting into evidence the prior
9 transcript and written statements of the witness pursuant to Article 92
10 ter also admit all the accompanying documents save those identified for
11 the reasons that it views this evidence as an integral whole."
12 While ruling orally on the 18th May, the Trial Chamber did not
13 take into consideration this prior ruling and had no intention to modify
14 or overrule the prior decision that it erroneously [indiscernible]. This
15 amounts to a clear error of reasoning since it affects the parties'
16 legitimate expectations with regard to the consequences of the prior
18 Having considered the oral submissions on this matter of the
19 Prosecution and the Defence, the Trial Chamber by majority with Judge
20 Harhoff dissenting decides, therefore, to reconsider its oral decision
21 dated 18 May 2010
22 of October decision and for the reason stated therein, consequence upon
23 the admission into evidence of the written statement of Ian Traynor
24 pursuant to Article 92 ter, the 15 accompanying articles included in the
25 92 ter package are also admissible. The Trial Chamber, thus, admits the
1 15 articles as 92 ter evidence.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you Judge Delvoie. Judge Harhoff.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: I respectfully disagree with the Trial Chamber's
4 decision to admit into evidence all of the 15 articles originally
5 identified by the Prosecution as being "indispensable and inextricable."
6 Documents accompanying the statements of witness Ian Traynor. The Trial
7 Chamber did, indeed, admit these articles into evidence in its decision
8 of 2nd October, 2009 in which it accepted the Prosecution's 92 ter
9 package of this witness.
10 In my view, however, evidentiary admission at such an early stage
11 seven months prior to the witness's testimony in court must be read with
12 a natural reservation that accompanying documents should ultimately not
13 be admitted into evidence if the information that they contain has been
14 provided meanwhile to the Trial Chamber, either by the witness's oral
15 testimony or through other evidence.
16 The Trial Chamber's admission into evidence of the 15 articles
17 back in October 2009, thus, was only and could only have been of a
18 provisional nature. It goes for all earlier statements and testimonies
19 of witnesses who are called under Rule 92 ter of the rules that these
20 statements or testimonies are only admitted into evidence by the end of
21 the witness's testimony, and it would indeed seem peculiar if the
22 accompanying documents were to be admitted separately from and prior to
23 the previous statements and testimonies.
24 An accompanying document should only be admitted into evidence
25 along with the witness's earlier statement or testimony to the extent in
1 which they are still considered to form an indispensable and inextricable
2 part of the statement or the early testimony by the end of the witness's
3 testimony in the present case.
4 If, in contrast, evidence has been offered which enables the
5 Trial Chamber to fully appreciate the contents of the witness's written
6 statement or earlier testimony, then there is no longer any need for
7 admitting the accompanying documents into evidence for the reason that
8 they form an indispensable and inextricable part of the statement or the
10 This view also finds support in the Tribunal's judicial practice,
11 and I refer to the decision of 3rd November, 2009, in Tolimir, and it was
12 at paragraph 7 of that decision.
13 In the present instance, I am of the view that all of the
14 relevant parts of the information contained in the 15 articles in
15 relation to the two statements had been elicited directly from the
16 witness during his testimony and through the videos that were shown to
17 him. None of the 15 articles appear to me to include information without
18 which the witness's statements cannot be fully understood, and the
19 Prosecution does not, therefore, suffer any prejudice from being
20 prevented from entering these 15 articles into evidence through this
22 I am, accordingly, of the view that the Trial Chamber's ruling on
23 18th May, 2010, was correct and should stand. Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Judge. There's one other matter before
25 the witness comes in. The -- we are in receipt of a motion for --
1 further motion for protective measures in respect of, as I recall, three
2 witnesses, two of whom are scheduled to appear within the next fortnight
3 or so and because of the nearness of the schedule date of testimony of
4 those witnesses, we will respectfully invite expedited responses from the
5 Defence in respect of that application. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, can we do it on Monday?
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I was going to say by the end of the week
8 forgetting that Friday is a non-sitting day, but Monday would be fine.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. I appreciate that.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, could the witness be escorted back to the
12 stand, please.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Radulovic, good morning to you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE HALL: For what I trust will be the last time in this
17 appearance of yours before the Tribunal, I remind you you are still on
18 your oath. Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 WITNESS: PREDRAG RADULOVIC (Resumed)
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radulovic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. At the end of the session yesterday, you were testifying about
1 the reaction of the SDB leadership at the RS MUP level to the information
2 contained in your intelligence reports. I need to clarify a couple of
3 things for the record. First, you testified that the information in your
4 reports about crimes against a non-Serb population did not earn the
5 interest of the Republika Srpska leadership. Are you referring to the RS
6 leadership in general or the SDB leadership?
7 A. I was referring exclusively to the leadership of the state
8 security service or National Security Service. I have later seen that
9 many of my reports never reached the political leadership, not even the
10 leadership at the level of the Security Services Centre or MUP of
11 Republika Srpska, which goes to show that most of the reports remain in
12 the desks of my immediate superior and his immediate superior.
13 Q. Second clarification, can you give us some examples of the crimes
14 against non-Serb population that the SDB leadership at the RS MUP level
15 attempted to minimise in 1992?
16 A. Well, everything that took place in the municipality of Prijedor
17 I will not now enumerate all the different location, although I can, then
18 again there were attempts to minimise what was going on in the area of
19 Banja Luka. Some prominent figures from Banja Luka were killed, some
20 people were taken away and were never found. Again not even their
21 remains have been found up until today. Please don't misunderstand me,
22 such cases happened in almost all municipalities, Kotor Varos, Doboj, all
23 the other municipalities we reported about. But we also wrote about
24 crimes that Bosniaks and Croats committed against Serbian population. I
25 have seen none of such reports of that kind here in your documents, but a
1 similar situation existed in Zenica and other areas we reported about.
2 Q. You testified in relation to the killings at Koricanske Stene
3 that you provided the minister of interior information about the events
4 surrounding these killings through Zivko Bojic. Do you recall whether
5 there are other instances you provided Mr. Bojic with information about
6 crimes against non-Serbs to relay it up to the minister?
7 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I told you already that I tried to provide as
8 much information about crimes committed in the area of Republika Srpska
9 to Mr. Zivko Bojic. Mr. Bojic and Mr. Branko Ratic, both of them, and I
10 believe that the second gentleman, with thanks to his friendship with the
11 minister of the interior, namely they went to high school together or
12 were rather the same age and, therefore, I believe that some or most of
13 the information would be forwarded in the form I gave to him. What of
14 this he managed to forward, that, I don't know. But what I do know is
15 that in relation to the Koricanske Stene incident, there was a response
16 by the minister of the interior. I've seen a circular dispatch that was
17 sent asking to take all the necessary measures to clarify this incident,
18 to bring in the persons who committed this crime, interviewing them and
19 furthering on the process.
20 That's not the only topic I discussed with Mr. Zivko Bojic. I
21 discussed some other cases with him and with Branko Ratic. Some of these
22 cases I still remember, and some I may have forgotten.
23 Q. What about the camps, the detention facilities and camps in
24 Prijedor, is that a topic that you discussed with Mr. Bojic to relay up
25 to the ministry?
1 A. Sir, I know that I had conversations with Zivko Bojic about that,
2 and I must add also with Branko Ratic. Now, what form and to what extent
3 I may have talked about it, I cannot remember at the moment, but it
4 couldn't have been less than what was contained in written reports to my
6 Sir, let me be even more specific. I also discussed with
7 Mr. Zivko Bojic some members of the special detachment of whom we have
8 heard and had information about that they were committing crimes. Again
9 I do not know how much of that Zivko Bojic may have used in his further
10 work or in transferring the information forwarding them to others. I had
11 and still have unlimited trust and confidence in expertise and honesty of
12 Mr. Zivko Bojic. That's all I can say about this topic.
13 Q. And what about Vladimir Tutus, was he also, to your knowledge,
14 relaying information about crimes against non-Serbs up to the minister?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, object. I don't think that Vladimir
16 Tutus was ever mentioned during the cross-examination, Your Honours.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, that doesn't matter. This is going to
19 information getting up to the RS MUP level, which was thoroughly
20 addressed during cross-examination. And this is just one other avenue.
21 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, there was no -- there was no evidence
23 on direct about Vladimir Tutus at all. So if Mr. Olmsted is saying that
24 this was another avenue, he should have explored that during the direct.
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic has put in another way the question I
1 was about to ask, Mr. Olmsted. What is the -- you are in re-examination
2 now, I remind you. What is the -- why the specifics about this
3 particular individual, which as Mr. Zecevic has said, wasn't raised in
5 MR. OLMSTED: This wasn't raised in examination-in-chief because
6 the issue of information not making its way up the chain of command was
7 not an issue during examination. It became an issue during
8 cross-examination. And so the Prosecution is exploring ways in which
9 information, even alternative ways, that information made it up to the RS
10 MUP level, and this is just one other example.
11 JUDGE HALL: Well, perhaps you may achieve your end by rephrasing
12 the question.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Very well.
14 Q. You mentioned Zivko Bojic and also Mr. I believe it's Ratic, who
15 was providing information up to the minister. Was there anyone else in
16 the public security service who was also providing information regarding
17 crimes against non-Serbs up the chain of command?
18 A. Sir, I never stated that Ratic forwarded information to the
19 minister of the interior. Mr. Ratic was directly linked up with the
20 organs of the military security and Radovan Karadzic and, therefore, I
21 know for a fact that he was not a very good friend of the Ministry of the
22 Interior and the minister himself. The Ministry of the Interior had had
23 some complaints concerning his work and he, in turn, avoided contacts
24 with the public security service, precisely because of the fact that he
25 knew that the ministry wanted to put under its control some of his
2 Q. That's fine, Mr. Radulovic. Let's get to my question, though,
3 which is, if it's not Mr. Ratic, that's fine. Other than Zivko Bojic was
4 there anyone else in the public security sector who was relaying
5 information up the chain of command regarding crimes against non-Serbs?
6 A. Well, let me be specific. I know that most often I talked about
7 crimes against non-Serbs with Zivko Bojic from public security, sometimes
8 with Mr. Vladimir Tutus, and this is where my knowledge about that ends,
9 knowledge about whether they did or -- as for that knowledge, I don't
10 know whether they passed that on or not. I really cannot say. All I can
11 say is that in terms of certain events, I saw that the MUP was reacting.
12 I don't know if this is because Zivko Bojic or Vladimir Tutus or Slobodan
13 [as interpreted] Zupljanin informed about that to the ministry. This is
14 something I really cannot say anything about.
15 Q. But they came to you, is it correct, they came to you to gather
16 information to relay up there, whether they did or not, that is a
17 different matter?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry. Can we have the reference for
20 MR. OLMSTED: This is again going to communication.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, Your Honours, but this is
22 misinterpretation of the whole testimony of the witness. I never heard
23 the witness saying this at all.
24 JUDGE HALL: In any event, Mr. Olmsted, I think you've made your
25 point. Let's go. Because the witness has explained that he received
1 this information, he is aware that there were certain actions on the part
2 of the MUP, but he doesn't really know what happened afterwards. Let's
3 move on. I should say, he is not in a position to testify affirmatively
4 as to what happened.
5 MR. OLMSTED: But my question, of course, is not geared to
6 whether it actually got there but the purpose of them coming to him for
7 information was to relay it up. Whether they did, in fact, is a
8 different matter. I'll move on.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
10 MR. OLMSTED: I'll move on. I want to briefly clarify --
11 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, sorry, just one qualification for the
12 transcript, because on page 10, line 6, it was recorded Slobodan
13 Zupljanin, witness said Stojan Zupljanin.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may, Mr. Prosecutor. The
16 contacts between me and Zivko Bojic were direct contacts, and we didn't
17 have any obligation towards each other to go to each other. We met
18 practically every day in the building. He worked on the fourth floor --
19 on the second floor, and I worked on the fourth floor and because we were
20 friends and colleagues, and I had a lot of respect for him. Because of
21 that in our communication, I would share what I saw, noticed, heard. I
22 never provided him with any kind of written trail, and he didn't provide
23 me with that either. I would like to be very precise.
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. That's fine. We are going to move on to another topic. I want
1 to briefly clarify a few matters concerning your 1999 encounter with Mico
2 Stanisic at the intercontinental hotel. This is at page 11016 of the
3 transcript. Did Mr. Stanisic claim that he had not seen any of your
4 intelligence teams report or just not all of them?
5 A. First let me correct myself. Later when I thought back about
6 that, it was after the death or the killing of Zeljko Raznjatovic, and
7 this was in 2000, not in 1999, and I remember well that it was a cold
8 winter period. I don't need to speak about all the particulars that I
9 remember, they are not that important, but what is important is that this
10 was my first direct contact, meeting with Mr. Mico Stanisic who is here
11 in this courtroom and --
12 Q. Let me interrupt you there --
13 A. Let me just, let me just -- all right, okay.
14 Q. I want to wrap this up as quickly as possible. Again, did
15 Mr. Stanisic during this conversation claim he had not seen any of your
16 reports or just that he had not seen all of them, that is my question?
17 A. Well, I'm going to be very brief then. He said that most of the
18 things that we talked about he had not been informed about. As for what
19 that most means, that's something that he knows, but I do know that he
20 said that he did [as interpreted] know about the majority or most of the
21 things that we talked about. He didn't learn about them, wasn't informed
22 about them, and that for most of those things, about most of those things
23 he learned from me.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, page 12, line 13, I
25 believe the witness said that he did not know about the majority.
1 MR. OLMSTED:
2 Q. Is that right, Mr. Radulovic, he said he did not know about the
3 majority of things? Just yes or no.
4 A. Yes. Yes. It's like you said.
5 Q. Okay. Now, do you recall based on your conversation with
6 Mr. Stanisic what crimes against non-Serb population he had received
7 information through intelligence channels?
8 A. Mr. Prosecutor, sir, this happened 11 years ago. It was a long
9 conversation. I cannot remember all the details and the cases that we
10 discussed, but I do remember that we touched upon almost all the cases
11 that had been mentioned in my testimony here before this Tribunal. Of
12 course, not in as much detail, but my impression is, my impression is
13 that he was really insufficiently informed, to say the least.
14 Q. Let's look at -- to refresh your recollection, why don't we look
15 at paragraph 28 of your written statement.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, Your Honours. We went through
17 this situation with the written statement -- during the cross, this
18 particular subject was not open. Now Mr. Olmsted wants to refresh the
19 memory of the witness, and he didn't -- he failed to ask him this on the
20 direct. I honestly think that this is putting the Defence in a position
21 which is, in my opinion, unfair. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HALL: Except, Mr. Zecevic, I would have thought that this
23 flows directly out of the -- what was dealt with in cross-examination
24 about this meeting that the witness would have had with the accused
25 Stanisic. It's -- and this matter of the witness even at the instance of
1 the -- of counsel looking at his statement and then asked to -- the
2 question again we've dealt with before.
3 Yes, Mr. Olmsted, please proceed.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Radulovic, if you can please read paragraph 28 to yourself
6 and once you have, I'll ask you a question again.
7 A. I've read it. I've read it.
8 Q. I want to focus on this conversation with Mr. Stanisic and from
9 that conversation what you could tell that he did know, that he did learn
10 from your intelligence information about crimes against non-Serbs. Can
11 you tell us what you could tell that he did know, what crimes he did know
13 A. Sir, I have just read this carefully, and I see that I have
14 absolutely repeated back now to you what I said then. I don't know how
15 you understand it, but the statement reflects what I said in essence that
16 I found out from the conversation with him that he knew about the events
17 in Prijedor and Teslic and Doboj because these were well known cases and
18 events which anyone who lived in Republika Srpska could have known about,
19 so for me as an operative, I would have been very disappointed had Mico
20 Stanisic not heard about these cases.
21 We did speak about the cases in Prijedor, in Teslic, in Doboj,
22 and in other places in that conversation in 2000. And we talked about
23 those cases as occurrences without any particular analysis, how they came
24 about, who participated, and about the consequences of these events. It
25 was his general understanding and mine that he was not informed in a
1 timely manner about those events, and this is what I would like to stress
2 because I saw that the person didn't know that we had written an
3 information about this report two days before, about the event in Brod,
4 that he didn't know until the commission went out or later that there had
5 been crimes in Keraterm, in Omarska, Brisevo, I don't have to list all
6 the names.
7 I didn't say that he did not have information that that had
8 happened, but what I understood was that he did not have timely and
9 complete information, and this is what I told you before, what I'm
10 telling you now, and what in a certain way was a kind of objection to the
11 statement because it does not reflect everything that we talked about,
12 about certain events, Mr. Prosecutor, with you and with others, because I
13 never actually talk about consequences without mentioning the effects [as
14 interpreted]. I don't abbreviate anything. These are very sensitive
15 matters about which I always try to provide my complete opinion.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Just one clarification in the transcript. Page 15,
17 line 7, I believe the witness said, I never actually talk about the
18 consequences without mentioning the causes.
19 MR. OLMSTED: I think that's what I heard as well, but just.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Recorded the effects, that's why I went up.
21 MR. OLMSTED:
22 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Radulovic, just yes or no?
23 A. Yes, yes, as Mr. Zecevic corrected.
24 Q. Thank you. Well, could you tell, and again looking at this
25 paragraph in your statement, could you tell that some of the information
1 he had --
2 JUDGE HALL: Olmsted, haven't you gone as far as you could go
3 with this with this witness. Let's move on. You've asked a question,
4 you've gotten an answer. Your interpretation of the document in respect
5 of -- on which the witness's refreshed his memory is at the end of the
6 day neither here nor there. The witness has looked at it and he has
7 answered your question. Let's move on.
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. Are you aware how frequently Mico Stanisic travelled to Belgrade
10 in 1992? And if you are not, just say you don't know.
11 A. I will tell you. I don't know how many times I went to Belgrade
12 never mind how many times the minister of Internal Affairs went there,
13 and for what reasons. Really, you overestimate me. I'm just a person
14 who had a relatively small number of operatives, and I think --
15 Q. That's fine.
16 A. -- with this we are really perhaps asking too much of me.
17 Q. That's fine, and if you don't know please just say so and we'll
18 move on.
19 The Defence also asked you a number of questions regarding
20 whether your reports made it to Mr. Zupljanin. On your first day of
21 testimony, you were asked how Mr. Zupljanin received information
22 contained in your intelligence reports, to which you responded on page
23 10731 "Stojan Zupljanin, the chief, received our reports and information
24 through Vojin Bera and Nedeljko Kesic. As far as I know this was done at
25 their expert staff meetings, but I'm not sure whether all pieces of
1 information or the extent of the information that reached
2 Stojan Zupljanin. I know that concerning certain events, I directly got
3 in touch with Zupljanin." You then testified at page 10731, "all
4 instances in which there were certain abuse of other structures, organs
5 of the police and army, or crimes committed by these structures in
6 addition to a written report, I always made an effort to inform
7 Mr. Stojan Zupljanin orally as well." Which is consistent with your
8 prior interviews. Do you stand by those answers?
9 A. Yes. And, please, I would like it to be very clear, I mentioned
10 six or seven cases that I recall talking about with Stojan Zupljanin
11 whereby I want to say that I can mention those six or seven cases again,
12 but that doesn't mean that I talked about all the cases, all the events
13 with Stojan Zupljanin at the critical time when some events happened, I
14 know that Stojan Zupljanin even wasn't in Banja Luka, he was busy at the
15 front near Orasje. So I would like you to understand that my
16 communication with Stojan Zupljanin wasn't as frequent as you think.
17 Q. Were you aware whether officials from the Serbia state security
18 contacted Mr. Zupljanin on occasion about information contained in your
20 A. Mr. Marko Lazovic told me that he did talk with Stojan Zupljanin
21 about some information that we had. Marko Lazovic is from the state
22 security service in Serbia
23 Q. You testified at several points during cross-examination that you
24 believed that Vojin Bera was not forwarding all your information to his
25 superiors. First, can you explain why you never raised this matter
1 during any of your interviews with the Office of the Prosecution?
2 A. Well, you never asked me, and to tell you the truth, I didn't
3 really feel the need to impose. Sir, if I'm publicly testifying here
4 about that, wouldn't it have been better for me to tell you something
5 like that in a hotel room rather than here like this in public before the
6 whole world, if I may put it that way? I told you, and you can find that
7 in the transcript, that we avoided conflict with Vojin Bera. I don't
8 know if this is enough because I had also indicated some other things in
9 reference to Vojin Bera.
10 Q. If I understand your testimony, you did not discover this problem
11 with Bera not communicating information to his superiors until either
12 late or after the armed conflict; is that right?
13 A. Which armed conflict do you mean? Sir, your question is not
14 clear to me. I told you that -- may I answer specifically. It's a
15 matter of truth, and I must answer. Mr. Prosecutor, sir, we -- you --
16 before we began our operative work as the Milos group, who behaved in
17 what way, we knew that the number one man in the state security service
18 at the time in Banja Luka who signed his membership to the SDS was Ivan
19 Figurek and we knew that Vojin Bera was close to those ideas. We knew
20 that he was egocentric, that he was a man without moral and other --
21 Q. Mr. Radulovic.
22 A. Please, please. And I told you that at the beginning, and this
23 is why we avoided him.
24 Q. Because I have limited time I really just want to focus on the
25 question. We understand that Mr. Bera was a member of the SDS party.
1 But I want to get the time-frame when you learned that Mr. Bera was not
2 providing all your information up the chain of command. Was this
3 contemporaneous with your reports, or did you learn this closer to 1995,
4 1996, that time-frame?
5 A. Later. Later. After the events we found out that they were not
6 sending them. If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry, sir. We found out that
7 Vojin Bera was not sending timely and complete reports of ours, and he
8 did that only once -- or we only found out about that once the war was
9 over, and I understood that actually from conversations I had later with
10 Mr. Stojan Zupljanin and Mr. Mico Stanisic and why wouldn't I also say
11 with also Jovica Stanisic after he was released the first time and came
12 back to Belgrade
13 the three of them were not receiving complete information and they were
14 not receiving them in a timely manner. The reports that were being sent
15 by the Milos
16 Q. So this issue of Bera not communicating information never came up
17 during a meeting with Mr. Kesic or Mr. Zupljanin, for instance, when you
18 asked them whether they received one of your reports, and they responded,
19 no, we actually never saw your report, this issue didn't come up?
20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, sir. It didn't even occur to me to think that
21 somebody was holding back information and was not sending them in a
22 regular way, the way they were written by the Milos group.
23 Q. Umm --
24 A. And another thing, I never, I nor any of the other Milos group
25 members ever attended a single meeting of the professional collegium at
1 the National Security Service and the Security Services Centre, and we
2 were never in Pale in the National Security Service or at the Pale
3 Ministry of Internal Affairs when this problem would be discussed with
5 Q. Mr. Radulovic, is it the case, isn't it, that in 1992 you were
6 reporting directly to Mr. Kesic and not through Mr. Bera?
7 A. Correct. About certain events.
8 Q. Now, you've had an opportunity to review, as you put it, over
9 1.000 pages of your reports from 1992. Did any of those reports appear
10 to have been doctored by someone?
11 A. I really couldn't say anything about that. I can say that I
12 looked through as many pages as you gave me from 1992. I think there
13 were some 1.200 pages.
14 Q. And although, as you've testified, some of those reports were
15 missing, would you agree that a significant number of them were kept at
16 the CSB even until after the conflict when the Office of the Prosecution,
17 this Tribunal, seised them, including a number of the reports that we've
18 asked questions about during this trial?
19 A. I can agree with this assertion of yours.
20 Q. I want to move on to a different topic now. I want to ask some
21 questions about the scenario you testified about on cross-examination by
22 which non-Serb civilians moved out of towns with mixed ethnicities
23 immediately prior to the shelling of those towns by non-Serb armed
25 First, just to clarify, I apologise if I've misunderstood your
1 testimony, but is it your position that non-Serbs left the mixed towns
2 under Bosnian Serb control solely in order to permit non-Serb forces to
3 shell those towns?
4 A. No, it's the other way around. You've stated it the other way
5 around. The Muslims and the Croats had moved so that those areas could
6 be shelled from Bosanski Brod, Teslic, I mentioned some places, I could
7 refer to some other places as well. What I'm saying is that the Croats
8 were going to places where they lived together with the Serbs and after
9 that there would be shelling either from Croatia or from parts under the
10 control of the Croats. The same thing would happen when we are talking
11 about Bosniaks. There were also some Serbs who had been detained because
12 it was assumed that they were guiding directly the shells of the Croat
13 armed forces and those of the Bosniak side who had arrived before that as
14 refugees to the side that was under the control of the Serbs.
15 Q. Yes, maybe you misunderstood my question. I understand the
16 scenario you have given us, but my question is with regard to motive.
17 Were non-Serbs leaving these municipalities solely to allow non-Serb
18 forces to shell those mixed towns, or did they have other reasons to
19 leave those mixed towns?
20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, if you move members of your ethnic group out of
21 an area, then you can fire without discrimination. You can fire wherever
22 you want, wherever it lands, the shell, you've achieved something, you've
23 destroyed something that belongs to the enemy side.
24 Q. I think you are still misunderstanding my question. Perhaps I
25 could show you a document.
1 MR. OLMSTED: If we could see P1399 on the screen.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please repeat the number.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, it's P1399.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you give us a tab number, Mr. Olmsted?
5 MR. OLMSTED: I think it's -- I have to look back at my old
6 notes. I think it's tab 33. So it's 65 ter 2837. I believe this was
7 on -- it's been admitted previously. I'm sorry, it's P1345. That's my
9 Q. This is a report -- Milos
10 discusses two currents in SDS in the Doboj region as well as in certain
11 municipalities in the Bosanska Krajina. One is more moderate while the
12 other is -- while the other "was developing the idea of ethnically
13 cleansed environments and did not hesitate to resort to whatever means
14 necessary to attain this goal."
15 Can you tell us in which municipalities in Northern Bosnia and
16 Bosanska Krajina the second current of the SDS was manifesting itself?
17 A. I can list you the municipalities where this was a prominent case
18 instead of telling you that -- basing this on geographical locations.
19 Prijedor, Doboj, Teslic, Kljuc, Sanski Most. Do you need any other?
20 Q. What about Prijedor? Yes, you mentioned Prijedor, I'm sorry.
21 I've been distracted.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Now I'm told that it's P1388. I think we have the
23 right B/C/S version up here, but the English version is incorrect for
24 some reason.
25 Q. Mr. Radulovic, you use the term "ethnic cleansing." What do you
1 mean by that?
2 A. Listen, I know how one should define that from the theory point
3 of view, but I will tell you how I understand it. Members of one people
4 or one religious or ethnic group is being driven from one territory to
5 another territory exclusively because they belong to a certain religious
6 or ethnic group.
7 Q. Now, with regard to Teslic, you mentioned during your testimony
8 that, on examination, that there were no major armed conflicts in this
9 municipality before the Mice group arrived in the municipality. So can
10 you tell us when in 1992 did the non-Serb forces shell Teslic town?
11 A. Throughout 1992 from two different locations. One location was
12 from the area of Tesanj because the border-line dividing Teslic and
13 Tesanj is rather long. And the other location was the area of Slatine
14 and Komusina. There was daily shelling from there. The only population
15 there was a group of about 10.000 Croats who were linked up with Zepca.
16 They were getting their logistics from Zepce and they shelled Banja
17 Vrucica and the town of Teslic
18 Q. May I focus my question. You mentioned that this occurred in
19 1992, this shelling of Teslic town. I just want to focus on the mixed
20 town of Teslic. Can you give us a month in 1992 where you say this
21 shelling occurred, just so we have a time-frame, or at least a series of
23 A. So June, July for sure. And as for other times of shelling, I
24 cannot comment that because I was not present in the area of Teslic at
25 the time. Now, in relation to the shelling that took place in June and
1 July, one can find records of on-site investigations because in some of
2 the shellings there were casualties, people got killed.
3 Q. Is it possible that non-Serbs were leaving Teslic town because of
4 the Mice group's activities in that town?
5 A. Of course.
6 Q. With regard to Doboj town, we are just focusing on the town, not
7 the municipality, did the shelling of that town by non-Serb forces occur
8 before or after the Serb take-over of that town?
9 A. After the take-over, not before the take-over. Once the Serbs
10 took over the power in town, I can put this differently, but I think this
11 is clear enough, there was frequent shelling from the area under the
12 control of the Bosniak army not far away from the town itself. The
13 centre of the Doboj town was about 2 and a half kilometres away from the
14 front line.
15 Q. And that's fine, I'm not asking for details about the actual
16 shelling, I'm just asking some general questions about it. Is it
17 possible, Mr. Radulovic, that the arrival of the Red Berets and the Banja
18 Luka Special Police detachment was what motivated non-Serbs?
19 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, aren't you asking the witness for a
20 conclusion? At the end of the day you can put this in your final
21 submission and it is would be for the Chamber, but -- and while I've
22 interrupted you, we require you to wrap up your cross-examination [sic]
23 by 10.25.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Very well, I'm going to move on.
25 Q. Banja Luka town, was that shelled by non-Serb forces in 1992?
1 A. No, I don't have information about that.
2 Q. In 1992 did non-Serb forces shell Sanski Most town?
3 A. I'm not informed about that, but I do think they may have.
4 Q. In 1992, did non-Serb forces shell Kotor Varos town, not the
5 municipality -- elsewhere in the municipality, just the town?
6 A. There were exchanges of artillery fire from Vecici, from Vecici
7 against the town.
8 Q. Was the primary reason that the non-Serb population left Kotor
9 Varos town was to permit -- was this to permit this shelling, or were
10 they leaving for other reasons based on your intelligence?
11 JUDGE HALL: That's a conclusion, isn't it, again?
12 MR. OLMSTED: Well, this is all with regard to this issue of
13 whether --
14 MR. KRGOVIC: It's not cross-examination.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Well, it's re-examination, and this issue came up
16 during cross-examination. Your Honours asked some questions about it,
17 and we are seeking to clarify where this scenario occurred of non-Serbs
18 leaving the municipality immediately prior to non-Serb shelling in order
19 to permit the destruction of the town with only Serbs in it, and we have
20 to get this parameter down.
21 JUDGE HALL: This "in order to permit" is where it seems to be
22 the problem lies in your question.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Very well, I'm going to move on.
24 Q. I want to talk just briefly about the town commands. In the
25 municipalities that had these town commands, were the SJB chiefs members
1 of those commands?
2 A. If you are talking about town commands, each and every chief of
3 SJB was part of the town command but it was under the town command. The
4 chief of the police station had to report to the town command and was
5 resubordinated, that's the proper term, to the town command.
6 Q. Well, in these municipalities, the town commander or a
7 representative from the town command was on the Crisis Staff, isn't that
8 the case?
9 A. Of course.
10 Q. And wasn't the purpose of these town commands to co-ordinate the
11 activities of Serb armed forces in municipalities where there was a
12 garrison and, therefore, a number of overlapping armed forces --
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 MR. OLMSTED: [Overlapping speakers] ... isn't that the purpose?
15 We're presenting our case, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE HALL: It sounds as if you are giving evidence,
17 Mr. Olmsted. Ask the question again. Please rephrase the question.
18 MR. OLMSTED: I'll as the question again.
19 Q. Wasn't the role of these town commands a co-ordinating function?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: It is the same, ask him directly, what was the
21 purpose of the town command. Of course, if he knows.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. What was their purpose then?
24 A. I must say that I feel more and more that I'm becoming an expert
25 of a sort, but because I happen to know this, I can give you an answer.
1 I have a lot of respect for you and the Trial Chamber. The town commands
2 was in charge of establishing local armed formations for the defence of
3 the territory that belonged to the town. In other words, they were using
4 both members of the army as well as the members of the active and reserve
5 staff of the police to form these units. The town commander was entitled
6 to use and mobilise reserve and active elements of the police and send
7 them to perform activities and tasks without asking either the ministry
8 or the CSB without, in other words, having even to ask either the chief
9 of the CSB or the minister of interior to get a permission to do so.
10 Q. So are you saying, as we need to clarify this for ourselves, are
11 you saying that the SJBs were no longer reporting at all whatsoever to
12 the CSB because of these town commands? Is that what you are asserting
13 for us?
14 A. I'm not saying that. That's your conclusion, and it's a wrong
15 conclusion. I'm presenting you facts, and I never said that the
16 employees of the public security service did not report. What I said was
17 that the town commanders did not have to ask for an approval in relation
18 to involvement of police forces in the territory. The town commander
19 could have simply said, all of you authorised officials as well as
20 reserve police members are going to the front line in Jajce, without
21 having to justify this to anyone except to the Crisis Staff, and the
22 Crisis Staff, when you think about how these were organised, they would
23 then explain the situation to the military commands, political organs,
24 and so forth.
25 Q. Can you tell us within the Bosanska Krajina which municipalities
1 had these town commands? Just list them for us.
2 A. I wouldn't say many, but I can tell you about one, and that's
3 Kljuc. Now, if you are asking me whether there was one in Prijedor, I
4 don't recall at the moment.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I think it was misinterpreted, 27/15. I
6 believe the witness said.
7 MR. OLMSTED: No, no.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Something different.
9 MR. OLMSTED:
10 Q. We have recorded here that you said you wouldn't say many of the
11 municipalities had town commands and then you recall one which is Kljuc,
12 is that a correct description of your testimony?
13 A. It is correct, but I must add that we did not deal with town
14 commands or we didn't monitor them, so I'm saying there is a possibility
15 that town commands existed in some other municipalities.
16 Q. I have four minutes so I want to show you one more document.
17 MR. OLMSTED: It's P703.
18 Q. Now, on Monday you testified about your efforts to arrange for
19 exhumations of the victims of the Mice group. First of all, in the upper
20 right-hand corner it says "Zupljanin - opinion," can you tell us whose
21 handwriting that is?
22 A. I can only assume. I do believe I'm right there. This is the
23 handwriting of Nedeljko Kesic.
24 Q. You write in this letter: "In the interest of a proper
25 investigation and presentation of the truth, it is essential you form a
1 forensic team consisting, if possible, of military medical examiners from
3 asking Mr. Zupljanin to actually form this forensic team? Is that what
4 you are asking?
5 A. This should be understood as a request for assistance since I
6 am -- I was a lawyer, I knew who was in charge of establishing such teams
7 and who is authorised to do so. So this is exclusively under the
8 jurisdiction of the prosecutor.
9 Q. Well, if you look up a little -- up in the letter, you said there
10 was an agreement between representatives of the army, the president, and
11 lower court, president of the lower court and the public prosecutor, and
12 based on that agreement, it was decided that exhumation should be
13 conducted; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, yes, it is, but let me repeat this. I asked rather than
15 requested assistance because I knew that in the area of Teslic or Doboj
16 there aren't available experts, mobile teams, that could conduct
17 exhumation of two, according to the information we had, rather big mass
18 graves. And that's the reason why we are urging Belgrade to provide us
19 some assistance because we knew that there is a person with great
20 authority, Professor Dr. Zoran Stankovic. I think his name is Stankovic.
21 He later became a general, he was a military medicine forensic expert and
22 head of the hospital, military academy hospital in Belgrade, and we
23 believed that if we could involve him, we would make sure that the job is
24 done quickly and well.
25 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could we after the break clarify the confusion
2 about the P number of OTP's document under tab number 33, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your permission
4 since I'm under oath, I would like to complete yesterday's answer of
5 mine -- actually both the question and the answer were not complete and
6 it concerns a question put to me by Mr. Krgovic. He asked me whether it
7 was possible for someone to provide the Milos group with false
8 information without their knowledge, and I did not want to expand on this
9 answer, but I would like to add one sentence.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Radulovic, just give me a moment, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: This seems like evidence, and, of course this is at
12 the close of evidence. Unless there is a question, I'm not sure he
13 should comment on answers he gave to Mr. Krgovic or anything else.
14 JUDGE HALL: I didn't understand him to be commenting on it, he
15 asked to be able to complete his answer, and having heard him, if it's a
16 matter in which Mr. Krgovic, first of all, has a follow-up question, he
17 will be permitted to do so, then, of course, you will be permitted to ask
18 any consequencial question in re-examination.
19 Yes, Mr. Radulovic, please summarise what you are starting to
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, Your Honours, I want
22 to thank you for permitting me to complete my answer. So after the
23 operation in Teslic, a whole avalanche of accusations came in relation to
24 myself, Mr. Zupljanin, and all of those who were involved in arresting
25 Mices. This could be seen in the media at meetings of political
1 leadership, and the claim was that Stojan Zupljanin was trying to get
2 more authority by getting control over certain police stations and
3 municipal centres. They used all sorts of misinformation involving some
4 private issues, issues that did not involve only myself but also my
5 family. The same applied to Stojan and other people who participated in
6 the operation.
7 Attempts were made to present in the media the death of Stefan
8 Markovic and Colonel Stevilovic, who was not an accident, and many other
9 things were being mentioned which were silly. Among other things, they
10 claimed I was born in 1943, that I was a war orphan, that I was born in
11 Konjevic Polje, that I come from an undefined family, and that my -- and
12 I was assigned with a task of killing Serbs. To show you that this is
13 not something innocuous, I want to say that Dzevad Galijasevic provided
14 the very same information in a book he published. This book is testimony
15 to the fact that I have not tried to cover up anything here in my
16 testimony before this court.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. We will take the break now and during
18 the break, Mr. Krgovic would decide whether he needs to ask a question
19 arising out of that.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: No, Your Honour, I can tell you now, I don't have
21 further questions.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And, Mr. Olmsted, as I said, if you
23 could decide during the break whether it is necessary for you to ask a
24 question arising out of what the witness has just volunteered.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Just so that if he is done he is done.
1 JUDGE HALL: The Bench has --
2 MR. OLMSTED: Okay, I'll wait.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with your kind permission and our
6 apology and excuse, Mr. Krgovic and I we have a plane to catch, we are
7 going on a mission this afternoon, so we will be -- we are required to
8 leave at 11.30 so I just wanted to inform the Trial Chamber that we will
9 rise at 11.30 and leave. I'm really sorry for this, but we anticipated
10 that this would be over by now. Thank you.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours, I don't have a plane to catch
13 but I know that Mr. Hannis wants to occupy my seat, so I will leave after
14 this witness is completed as well, if that's all right. And to Judge
15 Delvoie's question, tab 33 is 65 ter 2837 which was admitted as P1388.
16 And the Prosecution has no further questions for this witness.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Radulovic, the Trial Chamber has a few questions
19 of you before your testimony is finally brought to an end. Judge
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Radulovic, we have information that the
23 resubordination of police forces only applied for front-line assignments.
24 You said something similar in your testimony this morning as an example
25 of what the town command could do -- you said, just one moment, the town
1 command could have simply said, all of you authorised officials as well
2 as reserve police members are going to the front-line. My question is,
3 do you confirm or do you deny that this authority over the police force
4 by the town command was only for front-line assignments, or could they,
5 for instance, give orders in regard to traffic regulation or crime
7 A. Everything that had to do with the municipal territory in which
8 the town command was operational, it could deploy everybody in the zone
9 that was under the command of the town. All the activities it dealt
10 with, you understood that correctly. This included the front lines to
11 protect that part of the territory, they could be sent out for other
12 activities. The chief of the police station, as he was referred to then,
13 was subordinated to the commander of the town defence.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And there where the town command
15 existed, was that -- was that a part of the Crisis Staff, was it a
16 subgroup, so to speak, of a few persons of the Crisis Staff, or was it
17 something out of and independent of the Crisis Staff?
18 A. It wasn't independent of the Crisis Staff. It was under the
19 control of the Crisis Staff. It was a separate group of people, separate
20 by their professional and other skills, who were doing tasks that had to
21 do with the armed resistance, the defence. It was a legal organ
22 established as such and every municipality had the option of having a
23 town command as well as a Crisis Staff, if they wished.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And then at a certain moment in time,
25 Crisis Staffs were replaced by War Staffs or war commissions or whatever
1 their name was. My question is, there were at that moment were town
2 commands, what was the fate of those town commands then? What happened
3 to the town commands when Crisis Staffs were replaced by War Staffs?
4 A. I can say only what I know, I know that for a relatively brief
5 period of time, these town commands existed, relatively briefly, and then
6 what happened was that the army or rather, the 1st Krajina Corps
7 subordinated all the armed formations under its control except for
8 formations that were linked to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: And then a last question. You said that the town
10 command had authority on all armed forces on the territory, police
11 forces, army forces. Does that include para-military forces as well?
12 A. Your Honour, this is a logical question, but the term
13 para-military formation itself means that they were not under anybody's
14 control. These were renegade units or groups that were not controlled by
15 the army or by the police. Unfortunately in some areas they were quite
16 strong and organised, and they committed atrocious crimes. When I say
17 atrocious, I'm thinking of war crimes.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Radulovic, just to follow up on one of your
20 answers to Judge Delvoie. You told Judge Delvoie that the town commands
21 only existed relatively briefly, and I was curious to know if you were
22 able to give a rough indication of the time-period in which the town
23 commands were effective in the municipalities where they were, in fact,
25 A. I would like to give you an answer, but I'm not able to be
1 specific. I told you, I told the Trial Chamber that I had nothing to do
2 with the town command. This was not my group's area of interest, the
4 at the same time in all the areas of the municipality. As the complexity
5 of the war situation evolved, the town commands would be set up in
6 certain places and abolished. This is a feature of the period of May and
7 June 1992.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. Then I had a question for you in
9 relation to something which you told us Friday last when you were
10 cross-examined by Mr. Krgovic, because you told us on Friday that the
11 Special Police detachment in Banja Luka was, at a certain point in time,
12 under the control of the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina,
13 and that it was the Assembly who decided to dispatch the Special Police
14 force from Banja Luka to Doboj. Do you recall you giving testimony to
15 this? Before you answer, my question is, if this is correct, whether the
16 autonomous -- whether the Assembly of the ARK could dispose over the
17 Special Police detachment without at least consulting with
18 Stojan Zupljanin. Do you know anything about this?
19 A. Your Honour, I was shown that document for the first time here in
20 the courtroom. This is not a document of the Milos group. And the
21 document was shown to me by the Defence counsel asking me if this fact
22 was known to me, just as you have asked me now. And I said that I'm
23 seeing the document for the first time but I believe that it is authentic
24 and I believe that the information that I got via the monitor about which
25 my opinion was asked by the Defence counsel is accurate, so this is not
1 information that is mine regarding the special detachment, the autonomous
2 region, and the organisation and the decisions that were adopted by that
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: So if I understand you correctly, your answer is
5 that you really don't know if the Assembly of the ARK was able to exert
6 any control over the Special Police detachment; is that correctly
8 A. Yes, yes, you understood me correctly.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir, I have no more questions for you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
12 have your permission to ask two questions relating to questions put by
13 His Honour Judge Delvoie about the defence of the town and also to show a
14 document very briefly that has to do with that.
15 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
16 Q. Comrade Radulovic, when you were answering these questions about
17 the functioning of the town command you gave your answers on the basis of
18 what you know, about what happened in the municipality of Kljuc
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And then you talked about them existing in other places but in a
22 form more variant that you really couldn't speak about specifically; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness Exhibit 65
1 ter 10368. Your Honours, this is something that we received yesterday
2 from the Prosecutor. It was disclosed e-mailed to us. They planned to
3 use it in the redirect, but I'm now going to use that document myself.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would object to this. We did
5 disclose the document yesterday evening. We were researching the concept
6 of town command. This doesn't arise out of Your Honour's questions and
7 it's regarding a municipality that the witness has already said he didn't
8 know anything about. I believe it's Donji Vakuf, and we don't even have
9 an English translation in front of us, so I don't think this is an
10 appropriate issue to cover at this stage in this witness's testimony.
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, practically speaking, can we really go
12 any farther with this?
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just in response to
14 my question in the cross-examination, he did refer to Donji Vakuf as one
15 of the municipality, so this is one with the war command, the town
16 command, so I wanted to put a question about that to the witness, but if
17 the Trial Chamber believes that it is not necessary, then I will not go
18 ahead and do that.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's not appropriate.
20 JUDGE HALL: In as much as the witness is here, I could see why
21 you wish to do it, but in practical terms, as I said, can we make any
22 headway with this?
23 Mr. Radulovic, we thank you for your testimony before the
24 Tribunal and you would be relieved to hear me say that you are now
25 released as a witness, and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.
1 Thank you, sir.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE HALL: And while the next witness is on his way in, counsel
5 may withdraw as they indicated.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, sorry, there are some preliminary
8 matters which perhaps we should deal with before the witness enters.
9 JUDGE HALL: Very well, Mr. O'Sullivan. Could the usher hold the
10 witness for the time being.
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I believe there's some matters that we need to
12 deal with in terms of the scope of the expert report and the scope of
13 testimony, and I discussed this briefly with Mr. Hannis, and I don't know
14 what his position is on -- precisely what his position is going to be on
15 these matters. Does Mr. Hannis -- Your Honour, would Mr. Hannis want me
16 to go first, or does he want to? Yes, all right.
17 First in relation to the report on the 14th of August last year,
18 the Prosecution filed its supplemental motion pursuant to Rule 94 bis
19 which included the testimony of Riedlmayer. And I'm referring to -- in
20 that submission I'm referring to the page stamped 3.205, and there the
21 Prosecution indicates that the relevant paragraphs and counts of the
22 indictment are count 1 and paragraph 26(i) in relation to Mr. Stanisic.
23 That's 13 municipalities. And paragraph 27(i) in relation to
24 Mr. Zupljanin, and that's six municipalities. In paragraph 26 and 27 of
25 the indictment, we are referred to schedule E of the indictment which
1 sets out the cultural property, and that's why I say there are 13
2 municipalities charged against Mr. Stanisic and six against
3 Mr. Zupljanin. And the allegation is that the destruction occurred
4 during 1992.
5 The expert report of this witness is 65 ter 10367.02, and this --
6 a draft of that report was given to us on the 14th of August, 2009
7 that draft report and the final report we've just received with the 65
8 ter number I've just given you, states that at paragraph 13 of the report
9 Mr. Riedlmayer was asked to prepare a report covering the 13
10 municipalities in schedule E and one additional municipality, that being
11 Belica, from schedule F. So our position is that the Prosecution may
12 only rely on the expert report in relation to these 14 municipalities.
13 We've received notice that the charges relate to the 14 municipalities I
14 just brought your attention to and that you can only make findings in
15 relation to those 14 municipalities.
16 I raise this as a preliminary matter because you've seen from
17 Mr. Riedlmayer's report that he has incorporated his work from previous
18 trials and previous reports he has prepared, and the material is much
19 more expansive. The material in the attachments to the annexes goes well
20 beyond these 14 municipalities, and our position is, that the Prosecution
21 should only be able to lead evidence in relation to those 14
22 municipalities and not the rest, and the Chamber cannot take any notice
23 or make any findings in relation to any other municipality except those
25 That's the first matter I wish to raise. You are quite capable
1 of separating the wheat from the chaff, I have no doubt about that, I'm
2 just saying that if Mr. Riedlmayer has incorporated other research into
3 his report, that's fine, but we are limited in this trial to schedule E
4 and one municipality from schedule F. That's my first point.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. O'Sullivan, did you want to make your second,
7 you said you had -- that was your first point. Did you want to address
8 all of your concerns and have Mr. Hannis then respond or deal with them
9 one at a time?
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. Those are my submissions in relation
11 to the scope of his report. My second submission has to do with the
12 scope of his expertise. We say that this witness can't provide opinion
13 evidence in relation to the sites charged in the indictment, which I've
14 just set out for you. He can say whether there is cultural property
15 located at those sites, that's the first area that he can testify to, and
16 he can say whether and to what extent there has been damage to those
17 sites, we say that's his scope of his ability to give opinion evidence.
18 He is a historian, a librarian, a bibliographer with knowledge concerning
19 cultural property. We say he cannot give evidence regarding alleged
20 perpetrators, and we say he cannot give evidence of whether and when any
21 of the alleged damage occurred. We say those are matters that are not
22 within his expertise.
23 In addition -- under Rule 89(C) in addition to the fact that it's
24 beyond his expertise, he cannot talk about perpetrators or when
25 [indiscernible] occurred because we say he has no personal knowledge of
1 those events, he only visited Bosnia
2 makes reference to hearsay accounts or hearsay documents, we have no
3 opportunity to cross-examine, of course, the makers of those hearsay
4 accounts, and we refer you, once again, to the Appeals Chamber,
5 jurisprudence in Alexovski [phoen], which we say gives guidance to a
6 Trial Chamber on the admissibility of hearsay, and I refer you to
7 paragraph 44 of Alexovski Appeals Chamber decision. That is
8 IT-1995-14/1, AR 73, 16 February 1999
9 indicated that for a Trial Chamber to decide on Rule 89(C) you must
10 consider the fact that the person who recorded the interviews, that's
11 Mr. Riedlmayer himself, has no shared experience with the people who may
12 or the documents which may have provided information to him. We cannot
13 cross-examine on that material that he recorded, and the ability to
14 cross-examine Mr. Riedlmayer on it, of course, does not assist the
15 accused in the ability to confront the truth and accuracy of any of that
17 You will recall that we've also brought to your attention the
18 Milutinovic jurisprudence, that's IT-05-87T, two decisions one from the
19 1st of September, 2006 and one from the 8th of September, 2006, and the
20 last jurisprudence, which we think might be the most on point by analogy
21 at least, is the Appeals Chamber decision in Milosevic, IT-02-54, AR
22 73.2, the decision of the 30th of September, 2002, in relation to the
23 admissibility of the evidence of an OTP investigator. Now, the facts in
24 that case, the investigator had read witness statements. An investigator
25 was proposed as a witness, the summarising witness, as they were referred
1 to in those days, who was going to express his conclusions based on
2 statements he had read by other people. Now, the primary statements were
3 not admitted, and the maker of the primary statements were not called.
4 The Trial Chamber upheld an appeal by the Appeals Chamber ruled
5 that there was a sufficient indicia of reliability to those statements
6 based on the application of the Alexovski Appeals Chamber jurisprudence.
7 So, Your Honour, we say that the threshold question of
8 admissibility has not been met. There's no indicia of reliability for
9 you to allow Mr. Riedlmayer to testify in relation to alleged
10 perpetrators or to the alleged dates of 1992.
11 I might add that in all three of the decisions I mentioned,
12 Milutinovic and Milosevic, the hearsay evidence was ruled inadmissible
13 under 89(C).
14 So to summarise, we say, as a matter of law and of common sense,
15 that it's beyond the scope of this witness to speak about alleged
16 perpetrators and whether or not the damage occurred in 1992, both in
17 relation to his expertise and under Rule 89(C). Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, in addition to what my learned friend
20 Mr. O'Sullivan just said, we absolutely adopt the position of Zupljanin
21 Defence. First of all, Your Honours, with regard to the position -- we
22 adopt position of Stanisic Defence. With regard to position of Zupljanin
23 Defence, frankly, we don't see any reason to see and to hear this
24 particular witness, Mr. Riedlmayer. In fact, he submitted photos of
25 certain sites. He is speaking about the -- to some extent some
1 background issues. Absolutely, of course, this is a theory of
2 Prosecution case and they are absolutely free to lead their evidence and
3 to create and tailor their part of the case, but our position is that
4 this particular witness is absolutely -- he is not fitting in the
5 judicial economy principles in the trial because his work is absolutely
6 of no use for the experience fact-finders like you are.
7 With that regard, I would like to make reference to the decision
8 of Trial Chamber III in -- which was rendered of 14th of April this year.
9 This is a case Prosecutor versus Seselj, case number IT-03-67T, and this
10 decision is related to the admission of evidence presented during the
11 testimony of Andras Riedlmayer.
12 Inter alia, Trial Chamber in Seselj case found, and I'm quoting
13 apart from paragraph 15 of the decision:
14 "Nevertheless, the Chamber notes that on several occasions the
15 expert went beyond his specific area of competence to comment on issues
16 of admissibility attributing the destruction of monuments even the deaths
17 of known Serbian civilians, to Serbian nationalist or even to Serb
19 The Chamber insists on the fact that an expert may not comment on
20 issue of -- issues of responsibility. Consequently, the Chamber will not
21 take into consideration the parts of the report which go beyond the
22 expert's specific area of competence. Notably, those parts where he
23 expresses his opinion on the responsibility of the perpetrators of the
24 destruction of cultural and religious property with which he became
25 familiar while compiling his report."
1 So, Your Honours --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, isn't this just a repetition of
3 what Mr. O'Sullivan has just raised, namely, that of course --
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... this is -- I'd just
5 like to point out --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers] ... on matters beyond his
7 expertise --
8 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... so in future, please, I
9 mean, we will assess the evidence. Please disregard any part of
10 Riedlmayer's report or any testimony with that regard. If you disregard
11 these points, you will have nothing of his report, and this is useless to
12 spend precious time here. That's my point. But let's see what our
13 friends will say from Prosecution.
14 MR. HANNIS: Well, I'll begin with Mr. Pantelic. If I understand
15 what he's saying he is saying that this witness has no relevant evidence.
16 If that's the case, then under Rule 94 bis regarding expert witnesses,
17 paragraph B3 says a party is supposed to within 30 days of disclosure of
18 the statement notify whether or not it challenges the qualifications of
19 the witness as an expert or the relevance of all or parts of the
20 statement and if so, which parts. He didn't do that until this very
21 moment. And that's a general point I would make regarding
22 Mr. O'Sullivan's bringing this up today before the witness comes on.
23 It just works as a better matter for all of us, I think, if these
24 things are raised in writing sufficiently in advance so that the parties
25 can make intelligent submissions citing relevant authority and giving you
1 sufficient time to consider that information and reach and informed
2 decision with adequate time, rather than having to do it at the last
3 minute. The same goes for the Prosecution, and I bear that in mind, we
4 need to do that as well.
5 Now, regarding Mr. O'Sullivan's submissions, I should say, I can
6 save time for you. The Prosecution is not asking you to rely on what
7 Mr. Riedlmayer has put in his database regarding observations about
8 perpetrators. He does report hearsay statements from the Imam, from a
9 local person he interviewed, from newspaper accounts where it may have
10 been reported that this mosque was destroyed by Serb extremists or Serb
11 forces or Serb soldiers, Serb police, we are not asking you to rely on
12 that. We are going to have to prove that through other evidence. But --
13 and I think that makes sense given the nature of what has been destroyed
14 and who the source of authority is, you might have some concerns about
15 the motivation of that person regarding their account of who destroyed
17 But we take a different position regarding when the destruction
18 occurred, and I would ask Your Honours to consider that evidence. I
19 don't think it should be inadmissible per se. Hearsay is admissible in
20 this Tribunal, and we think that you might rely on that evidence, maybe
21 not find it sufficient standing by itself, but of some evidence you can
22 consider as to when the destruction occurred. Summer 1992, June 1992,
23 whatever. And we would ask you to decide against Mr. O'Sullivan in terms
24 of whether or not you can consider his report and the database entries
25 regarding dates. Again, look at the source. Is it an unnamed
1 individual, is it the local Imam, is it more than one source? Does it
2 come from a Serb, a Muslim? Is it in a media account that was
3 contemporaneous with the events? Those are factors we say you should
4 consider in deciding whether or not to admit that evidence regarding the
5 dates of the damage.
6 And the first point that Mr. O'Sullivan raised was the scope of
7 the report and going beyond the 14 municipalities, I think in schedule E
8 the total number of sites we have listed is something in the
9 neighbourhood of 112. And with the exception of one site listed in the
10 indictment, Mr. Riedlmayer has photographs or entries in the database
11 concerning all of those. The only one for which there is no photograph
12 or report is regarding Vlasenica and the Drum mosque. We have no photo
13 or information about that and the Prosecution will be withdrawing that
15 But we say you should be able to consider the total database
16 because in the indictment, part of the allegation against these accuseds,
17 paragraph 40, it talks about the restrictive and discriminatory measures
18 on the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat population and then alleges that
19 the Bosnian Serb forces and their leadership engaged in a campaign of
20 terror designed to drive them out of the country. We say this, what we
21 see as widespread and systematic destruction of the religious and
22 cultural sites, was part of that campaign of terror designed to make life
23 unbearable and force people, non-Serb people to leave.
24 Paragraph 42 of the indictment is a general allegation that says,
25 all acts and omissions charged as crimes against humanity were part of a
1 widespread or systematic attack directed against the Bosnian Muslim and
2 Bosnian Croat civil population of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We say that
3 additional evidence beyond the 14 municipalities, beyond the 112 named
4 sites in the schedule E of the indictment is evidence that you can
5 consider for that limited purpose but whether or not there was indeed a
6 wide-spread or systematic attack and whether or not there was a campaign
7 of terror directed against that population. I think I've covered all the
8 points I wanted to make, thank you.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan, can I just ask a question which
10 may be redundant, but I am not sure I fully understood the math in your
11 intervention. You speak about the 14 municipalities yet schedule E of
12 the indictment covers 17 municipalities. How did you reach the number of
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: You'll notice that the schedule E, the last
15 municipality has number 17 by it, but there are not 17 entries there.
16 There are 13 entries. If you count the number of municipalities, there
17 are 13. Despite the fact, the last one has number 17 beside it. That's
18 the math, Your Honour.
19 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour. The municipalities had
20 numbers assigned to them in other schedules, and so there is no
21 allegation concerning, for example, Ilijas which is municipality number
22 12 in schedule F.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry for not picking up on this.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: If I may respond very succinctly and briefly.
25 The point about the scope of the report goes to the issue of notice which
1 we received, and we received notice on several occasions previously,
2 namely, the indictment paragraph 26 and 27 limit the scope of the charges
3 to schedule E. On the 14th of August, the notice we received in relation
4 to Riedlmayer specifically, I'm looking at it, refers to paragraph 26 and
5 27 of the indictment. The draft report we received on that same day,
6 Riedlmayer says in his report at paragraph 13, I'm only considering
7 schedule E and one municipality from F to make 14. So that's the notice
8 we have. That's the position the Prosecution took, and that's why we are
9 saying you should be limited in what you accept within the scope of that
11 And the last thing, if it's correct that the evidence that
12 Mr. Riedlmayer gives in relation to perpetrators is unreliable, then by
13 parity of reasoning, secondary sources which can't be relied on for
14 perpetrators should not be relied on for the dates during 1992. Thank
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure I fully follow the logic of your
17 last comment, Mr. O'Sullivan. Suppose a witness to whom Mr. Riedlmayer
18 has spoken about who and when destroyed a particular mosque. If that
19 witness would say, well, I have no idea who did it and then he may add, I
20 think it was this or that armed group, but I'm sure that it happened on
21 the 14th of August, for instance, wouldn't that be reliable evidence?
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: The only person who could answer that question
23 is the maker of the statement, not Mr. Riedlmayer. If you look at his
24 report it doesn't go into any detail at all about that. And the
25 Prosecution has conceded that they are not relying on his report about
1 perpetrators. And we say well that's by the same reasoning because it's
2 hearsay and unverifiable through confrontation by the accused, you should
3 not be taking it on board in relation to whether or not it happened in
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, of course the information that we would get
6 from a witness in the example that I mentioned would, of course, be
7 hearsay evidence. But my point was that hearsay evidence may be
8 admissible and may be given some weight. Right. I think that matter is
9 covered. Thanks.
10 MR. HANNIS: I just wanted to follow up on that saying, this
11 hearsay evidence about when a mosque was destroyed, for example, if the
12 source of the information is a named individual, the individual happens
13 to be the Imam, you may consider that fact as something going to his bias
14 or motive for making a statement about when it occurred, but it certainly
15 seems like he's a person placed in a position to know when it occurred,
16 if that's his mosque, that's when he went every day to say prayers and do
17 his business as an Imam, it's likely that he knows about that. And his
18 motivation to lie about the date occurred seems to be something less
19 suspect than perhaps his motivation to talk about who the perpetrators
21 JUDGE HALL: As I understand, there's several matters raised by
22 Mr. O'Sullivan and echoed by Mr. Pantelic. The -- well, as would have
23 occurred in the course of what has passed between the bench and counsel,
24 some of these matters such as the specific points of hearsay are going to
25 have to be dealt with on an individual -- on a -- as they arise, but the
1 broad objection which Mr. O'Sullivan first made to evidence of
2 destruction outside of the municipalities named in the indictment, I
3 think, is covered by the rule that we know as similar fact evidence and
4 it is not excluded by the fact that it is not directly related to the
5 municipalities named, but as Mr. Hannis has, in our view, correctly
6 stated, are matters which the Trial Chamber is entitled to consider. And
7 as I said, I think that's the only ruling we need to make at this stage.
8 The other issues identified by counsel we will deal with as they arise.
9 So if there's no further reason to delay the calling of the
10 witness, would the usher please escort him to the stand.
11 MR. HANNIS: Our next witness is Andras Riedlmayer.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good afternoon to you, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: And welcome to the Tribunal. May I begin by
16 asking you to read the solemn declaration.
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. You may sit down.
20 And may I begin by asking you to state your name and your date of
22 THE WITNESS: My name is Andras Janos Riedlmayer.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: And your date of birth.
24 THE WITNESS: My date of birth is November 28, 1947.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
1 Mr. Riedlmayer, you have been called today to testify in the
2 trial against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin, and you have been
3 called as an expert witness by the Prosecution in this trial. The
4 Chamber has accepted your status as an expert and has also admitted or
5 accepted your four reports as expert reports. Whether or not they will
6 be admitted is a question that we will decide by the end of your
7 testimony, but for the moment, you are called as an expert and will
8 testify as an expert.
9 This will imply that you will be able to provide your expert
10 opinion on certain matters, but you are not obviously allowed to give
11 evidence beyond your expertise, and in your case, your expertise, as the
12 Chamber sees it, is limited to your observation of the destruction of
13 mosques and other religious properties in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 The Defence teams in this trial have challenged your quality as
15 an expert and have also challenged the solidness of your reports which is
16 the reason why you have been called to testify. The Prosecution will be
17 taking you through your reports in the span of two hours, after which the
18 Defence for Mr. Stanisic will also have two hours for cross-examination
19 and, finally, the Defence for Mr. Zupljanin will have three hours. So
20 that makes altogether seven hours of testimony in this case.
21 I know that you have testified before so you are well familiar
22 with the proceedings. First it's the Prosecution for
23 examination-in-chief and then it's the cross-examination by the Defence
24 teams, and ultimately there may be questions from the Judges as well. I
25 know that you are also familiar with the proceedings in the sense that we
1 have to have a break every 90 minutes in order to change the tapes. Our
2 next break will be in 20 minutes, and we expect that we will be able to
3 finish your testimony by tomorrow then so that you can travel back to
4 your home country.
5 That's all I have to say except that I should add for reasons of
6 principle that you know that there is -- you are supposed to tell the
7 truth and that there is a severe penalty for providing false or
8 incomplete information to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER
11 Examination by Mr. Hannis:
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Riedlmayer.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. I would like to begin by showing you Exhibit 65 ter 10367.01.
15 This is your curriculum vitae. Can you confirm for us that that is
16 indeed your CV and that it's up to date?
17 A. It is indeed my CV. And I believe it's a recent version, yes.
18 Well, no, actually, it's an older version because the latest item
19 mentioned is 2001.
20 Q. Okay. Can you tell us any significant changes since this one was
22 A. Quite a bit actually. I believe I submitted a copy of my CV for
23 the Karadzic case, which I don't think this one is, but briefly put, I
24 have continued to serve in a professional capacity at Harvard as an art
25 documentation specialist and as director of the documentation centre for
1 Islamic art and architecture. And also since 2001, as is laid out in my
2 report, I have testified in a number of cases before this Tribunal that
3 involved expertise in this matter both on destruction of cultural
4 heritage in various municipalities in Bosnia
5 Kosovo. And I've had a number of publications also since 2001.
6 Q. Right. Thank you. And we'll see if we can locate that more
7 up-to-date one.
8 You indicated in your report that you have previously testified
9 in this Tribunal as an expert, and how many cases total before today, if
10 you recall?
11 A. Well, if you count the Kosovo testimony and the Bosnia testimony
12 separately, it's twice in the Milosevic case, once in the Krajisnik case,
13 once in the so-called Kosovo six case, Milutinovic et al., once in the
14 Prosecutor versus Seselj, and once in the Djordjevic case, that was last
16 Q. Thank you. Next I'd like to show you 65 ter 10367.02. This is a
17 report entitled "Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina"
18 and do you recognise that as a report you prepared specifically at the
19 OTP's request for this case against Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. And did you bring a hard copy of that with you?
22 A. I brought one, and I will ask the Court's permission to refer to
23 it if I need to.
24 Q. Thank you. Just a few things I wanted to ask you about in your
25 report before I go to some of the specific site findings in your
1 database. On page 7 of the English it's paragraph 14 regarding "survey
2 goals and methodology." You do mention other reports that you prepared
3 and which you wish to incorporate by reference because they cover many of
4 the same municipalities that are a subject of this case?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And one of the -- some of the new sites that you visited
7 specifically for this case were in the municipalities of Bileca, Gacko,
8 Teslic, and Vlasenica?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. On the next page, paragraph 15, at the very end, you are talking
11 about where you got information and photographs to put into your report.
12 You mention some of those were from local religious communities and "from
13 other sources considered to be reliable." Could you tell the Judges what
14 those other sources you considered to be reliable were?
15 A. Well, these are actually laid out in a section of my report, but
16 just to sum up, the other sources I considered to be reliable included
17 the institutes for the protection of monuments, surveys carried out by a
18 council of Europe
19 photographs obtained from Tribunal investigators who took them on various
20 missions to some of the municipalities. Wherever possible I sought to
21 get multiple independent documentation for a given site in order to
22 confirm my findings. Also I found that in cases where I visited a site
23 and it was a sufficient time after the war that the site might have
24 changed, it helped to obtain photographs taken at an earlier date after
25 the war.
1 Q. Next I have a question for you concerning paragraph 42, which
2 begins on page 17 and actually on page 18. You mentioned some of the
3 sites you went to where you discovered the mosque that had previously
4 been there had been destroyed and in some cases levelled to the ground
5 with the rubble removed. You mentioned that sometimes you were able to
6 locate the former site in part because of an old lime tree, which is
7 something traditionally planted next to a certain mosque. I had a
8 question for you, first of all, about lime tree. Where I come from in
9 Phoenix, Arizona
10 fruit, but I think you explained to me, you mean something different
12 A. Yes. Lime tree is English is another name for Linden. In B/C/S
13 it's Lipa, and it was traditionally even in pre-Christian times a sacred
14 tree among the Slavs, and the custom involved in Bosnia of planting a
16 poems and folk songs as [B/C/S spoken] Linden tree next to the mosque,
17 and often when the mosque was gone, the ways one could trace that it had
18 once stood there would be, first of all, to look for foundations or
19 traces of rubble, but usually the tree would be there, and very often
20 there would be remains of gravestones and sometimes also deposits of
21 rubbish on the site, but thereafter its destruction.
22 Q. A few questions to follow up on that. By tradition or custom,
23 was such a tree planted in a particular position vis-a-vis the mosque?
24 A. It was usually to the right of the entrance.
25 Q. And you used the word Lipa. Is that the Bosnian?
1 A. That's the Bosnian term.
2 Q. How do you spell that?
3 A. L-i-p-a.
4 Q. Thank you. Next is a typographical error I think you pointed out
5 to me at the bottom of page 21? In the English, we have paragraph 56; at
6 the top of the next page 22, we have paragraph 62. Could you explain
7 that for us?
8 A. There is no missing text. I was editing material, this is the
9 technical section of the report on the use of the database, and I took
10 out some text that was no longer relevant and forgot to readjust the
11 numbering, but there is no material substance missing.
12 Q. So there are no paragraphs 57 to 61, that's just a numbering --
13 A. It's a numbering error.
14 Q. Thank you. Okay. In your report you make a reference to at page
15 23 appendix 1, a description and assessment of documentation sources.
16 You list a number of sources of material that you referred to to prepare
17 your report in conjunction with your field survey information. I want to
18 look at one of those separately now, which is 65 ter number 10367.07.
19 This is a map that is referred to in your report at paragraph 89, which
20 you indicate had been marked by Mr. Bekir Besic. Can you tell the Judges
21 about what this map is?
22 A. It's a large-scale map of Bosnia-Herzegovina on to, which
23 Mr. Bekir Besic was a member of the council of the Islamic community of
24 Banja Luka during the war and is now a refugee, marked the locations of
25 destroyed mosques mainly based on the published documentation of the
1 Islamic community of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which I discuss.
2 MR. HANNIS: Can we zoom in one more level, please.
3 Q. Can you explain to us what the markings are, first of all. What
4 are the green circles, if you know, and then what are the little red
6 A. The green circles indicate major towns such as Travnik, Zenica,
7 Banja Luka, Bihac. Each of the small red circles indicates a mosque that
8 was damaged or destroyed, and if you look very carefully right of centre,
9 there are some light green squares, those are mosques that have survived
10 intact. That is halfway between the twin green circles of Travnik and
11 Zenica and the Bosnian border in the north, you can see some light green
12 markings. Those are mosques that survived intact.
13 Q. Okay. Did you personally do any investigating or checking of
14 this document to see if the sites indicated as destroyed matched up with
15 what knew from your own work?
16 A. In my various surveys for the Tribunal, I have covered
17 approximately the -- all or part of 35 municipalities of Bosnia and so I
18 checked it against the sites that I had actually visited and found none
19 there that were wrongly indicated. In addition, I had access to
20 Mr. Omerdic's [phoen] book published by the Islamic community of Bosnia
21 which served as the base for this map, and again checked and it appears
22 to be correct in all its references.
23 I thought it was a useful graphic representation of the extent of
24 damage and to the extent that it coincided with parts of Bosnia
25 had documented, it appears to be fully reliable.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I propose to move to tender all the
3 documents, I want to tender at the end of his examination and I'll wait
4 to do that then.
5 Q. Let me ask you about one more before I think we reach time for a
6 break. In paragraph 86 there's a reference to a supplementary survey
7 database. Can you tell us what that was?
8 A. When I was asked to prepare this report, I found that there were
9 four municipalities that were to be included for which I had not
10 previously prepared site reports, and so I was given a set of
11 specifications by the OTP, and I prepared the report last summer. The
12 database is based exactly on the same methodology and format as my
13 previous reports for the Tribunal, but they cover these four additional
14 municipalities. Some of them I had done field surveys in either formally
15 or informally, and some of them I was able to acquire additional
16 documentation from sources I judged to be reliable.
17 Q. Thank you. We'll take a look at some of those when we return.
18 MR. HANNIS: I have one more I can ask him about before the
19 break, Your Honours, if that's all right. This is 65 ter 10367.06.
20 Q. I'll tell you, Mr. Riedlmayer, this is a document called
21 "Statistical Addendum: Sacral Sites of the Non-Serb Communities in the
22 Surveyed Municipalities Damaged or Destroyed in 1992."
23 A. Yes, I have it here. This is a statistical analysis that I
24 performed for the purposes of the Krajisnik case, and I was asked to go
25 through my database and simply separate out sites as to the date of
1 destruction, and within that it speaks for itself. Now, the overlap of
2 municipalities covered is not exactly the same as the one for this case,
3 but substantially so.
4 Q. Thank you. I see that there are some municipalities listed here
5 that are not in our indictment, but we can do the map separately.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, this would be a convenient time for me
7 to break, if that's convenient with you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So we would return in 20 minutes.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, just to advise you, what I intend to
12 do is show the witness a series of some of the photographs from his
13 database pertaining to some of the sites listed in the schedule, but I
14 don't intend to show him pictures for all 112. I hope to show a
15 representative sample and then we'll tender the databases pertaining to
16 all those sites at the end unless there is an an objection or you prefer
17 me to handle it in a different way.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. Welcome back, Mr. Riedlmayer. Before I resume by showing you
21 some photographs from your database, I did want to quickly go back to
22 your CV. I understand -- I see Mr. Pantelic on his feet.
23 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my friend. Okay. Now, it's
24 okay. For the moment I was unable to make a connection with the
25 LiveNote. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. I understand we have the updated version of your CV. I'd just
3 like to have you take a look at 10367.01 and see if indeed now I have the
4 correct one in e-court.
5 A. Yes, that seems correct.
6 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Now I would like to turn to Exhibit 65
7 ter 10367.10, and go to page 37, please.
8 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, can you explain for us what this is? I know in
9 your report you describe now these pages are put together, but now we
10 have one in front of us. Could you walk us through it, please.
11 A. Yes. This is an entry from my survey database. The top rubric
12 consists of the name of the building, in this case it's very easy because
13 it doesn't have very many names. Some buildings are known by multiple
14 names. So I have it in English and in B/C/S. I have the district, which
15 is the municipality in Bosnia
16 you can locate it, the date of construction, the historical period, and
17 various categories of what kind of building it is. Then there's the
18 section on building condition. In this case, if you look at the
19 photographs before and after, you can see that the building, in fact, was
20 completely destroyed. The site was empty in the photograph taken at the
21 end of the war.
22 Q. Right now we are seeing a pre-war photograph on the screen?
23 A. What we are seeing on the screen is a photograph taken in 1985
24 and published in 2004 in a book published by the archdiocese of Sarajevo
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the next page, please.
2 Q. In the photo on the left.
3 A. And what you see on the left is the site of the destroyed church.
4 Again it was published by the Roman Catholic archdiocese. The photograph
5 was taken after the end of the war.
6 MR. HANNIS: And if we could scroll down.
7 Q. There's some informant information.
8 A. This gives a date of destruction and the fact alleged that a
9 church suffered damage and then subsequently the ruins were removed.
10 MR. HANNIS: If we could go I think to the bottom of the page or
11 the next page.
12 Q. The source of your information this this particular case?
13 A. Is the book edited by father Franjo Maric. It's celebrates 300
14 the anniversary of the archbishop.
15 Q. Can we go to page 31 of this document. This is another site in
16 the Teslic municipality.
17 A. Okay. This is in the village of Donji Ruzevic. It's a modern
18 mosque. It was rebuilt from the ground up after an earthquake in 1987
19 and the picture of the mosque, which is the -- shows the mosque after the
20 war in its destroyed state shows the stump of the mosque -- minaret where
21 you can see that it basically is cut off at the base, and you can see
22 hanging bits. This is very typical of minarets that have had some sort
23 of internal blast. Modern minarets are held up with reinforced concrete,
24 and the rebar, the iron bars that vertically hold up the structure gets
25 forced apart from the explosion and typically dangles out in a rosette,
1 and you can see bits of that on top.
2 In front is the -- what remains of the foundations. In the rear
3 is the Imam's house, which had been rebuilt after the war. In this case,
4 the photograph comes from the journal of -- published by the Islamic
5 community. If you scroll down you will see the source cited. The reason
6 I had to resort to this photo is because the mosque since then has been
7 rebuilt, and this was the one I found that showed clear evidence of --
8 that it had been destroyed.
9 Q. When you went to locations where the mosque had been totally
10 destroyed, how were you able to determine that you were at the right
11 spot? There's no building there anymore. Can you tell the Judges what
12 you did in that situation.
13 A. All right. Well, in the best of cases, I had, first of all,
14 pre-war photographs. Pre-war photographs are useful because they show
15 features in the background, either natural features or other buildings,
16 some of which may have survived after the war, and there are many
17 examples in my survey where you can see that.
18 Secondly, in most cases on my survey, I was guided to these spots
19 by people who knew these locations. I usually engaged a clergyman who
20 had in the pre-war period been familiar with the place, and the clergyman
21 would accompany me for several hours or sometimes the whole day going
22 from site to site, and so I placed some reliance on that.
23 Also when you get to a site, unless the foundations have been dug
24 up, and even that leaves a trace in the form of a depression, you can
25 often tell differences in growth of vegetation. Even grass doesn't grow
1 well on building rubble. It's very spotty, and in some cases you can
2 actually see the complete outline of a foundation. Very often when
3 buildings are destroyed and even the rubble removed, there will be
4 fragments that remain at or close to the site, so there are all these
5 various ways in which you can conclude that a building has been there
6 even if it's not there anymore. And then, of course, there are things
7 that I've already mentioned such as the Linden tree in the case of a
8 mosque and very often the acts of desecration like big piles of smelly
9 garbage placed on the site or graffiti written around it. So these are
10 the various ways in which one can do that. But I would also say that in
11 only some of the cases were the ruins completely removed. In most cases,
12 as it this one, you can see elements of the mosque still remaining on
14 Q. Thank you. Next I would like to show some photos from another
15 one of the databases. This is Exhibit 10367.12. If we could start out
16 by looking at page number 538. Just a minute, we are getting to the
17 page. There we go.
18 A. Okay. This is a mosque in Kljuc municipality. It is one of
19 those that goes by multiple names. Pudin Han-Velegici is the village it
20 is in. It's complicated by the fact that Velegici, like many Bosnian
21 villages has an uphill and a downhill part. This particular part of the
22 village is next to the main highway between Kljuc and Sanski Most. It's
23 also known at the mosque of Hadzici, Hadzici being the name of the
24 immediate neighbourhood. It was a modern mosque built just a few years
25 before the war, and it indeed was completely destroyed.
1 At the time I visited the site, the mosque had just been rebuilt.
2 The opening dedication had been held the previous day, but I could, first
3 of all, tell that the mosque had been there because a small element of
4 the old mosque had been left as a memorial next to the new mosque. One
5 could also tell from the surrounding area, and I was fortunate enough in
6 this case to have a number of photographs taken at various dates both
7 during and after the war showing the destruction.
8 So what you see here on the left is a photograph published by the
9 British photojournalist Paul Harris, who was there in at the very
10 beginning of 1993. You can see that the minaret in the back has been
11 truncated, and the mosque itself has collapsed. What you see resting
12 partially on the ground is the concrete slab of the roof. It originally
13 had one large dome and then three small domes over the entrance. And
14 there had been some sort of blast which blew out the walls and the roof
15 just pancaked down on the ground.
16 Then if you go down you can see two further photographs showing
17 that, in fact, by the end of the war there had been additional
18 destruction, and at the very end only one of the little domes over the
19 entrance was the only element of the mosque that still existed. The rest
20 was all the rubble. Can you page down one more, please.
21 Q. If we go one more page to page 540.
22 A. Can you scroll up. If you go back one more. Yes, here you go.
23 So here you see the benefit of multiple sources. This was a photograph
24 taken in 1997 by the council of Europe
25 the sole remaining element. The photo on the right was the one I took,
1 and the rebuilt Imam's house is in the back and the little dome is, can't
2 see it well on this photo, but it's to the right of the rebuilt mosque.
3 Q. Before we leave this, I would indicate, Your Honours, in the
4 indictment schedule E we have reference to Pudin Han mosque and then a
5 semicolon Velegici mosque.
6 Mr. Riedlmayer, are there two mosques in that area?
7 A. No, there is only one. I believe that's an error in the
9 Q. And so the name is Pudin Han-Velegici mosque, meaning one
11 A. One building, yes.
12 Q. Thank you. If we could go next to page 583 in this exhibit in
13 e-court. Now we are going to Kotor Varos. If we could scroll down.
14 This is a Catholic church?
15 A. This is the Catholic church in the town of Kotor Varos, and I
16 visited this site in July of 2002. This is an interior view looking
17 towards the alter. You can see the roof is missing, and there are signs
18 of fire, which I noted, and if you scroll down slightly, you can see the
19 same space although looking in the other direction towards where the
20 other photograph is, so one is looking away from the alter at the bottom
21 and the one on top is towards the alter. So you can see how badly
22 destroyed the interior is.
23 The exterior of the church was also damaged. It had two
24 modernistic steeples which were collapsed. One of them collapsed on to
25 the adjacent parsonage.
1 Q. Thank you. If we could go now to page 739. Again we are going
2 to another municipality now. We'll have a look at Prijedor.
3 A. This is the exterior view. Okay. This is the Roman Catholic
4 church in the town of Prijedor
5 time, of course, the church was no longer standing. I obtained photos of
6 the destruction, some taken during the war and then some pre-war ones as
7 well as my post war photo. The building that was still standing at the
8 time of my visit is the one you see on the left of that photo, which is
9 is the modern parish centre built next to it.
10 Q. If we could go to the next page in e-court. On the right, that's
11 a pre-war photo?
12 A. On the right is the pre-war photo. The region had a bad
13 earthquake in the 1960s, and the old steeple collapsed and they built a
14 modern steeple next to it. The photo on the left is a photo taken during
15 the war which shows the remains of the knave of the church as of late
16 1992. I believe the photo was taken by a German photojournalist and it
17 was published in the book by Roy Gutman.
18 Q. Thank you. If we could look at page 745, another site in
20 A. This is the mosque in the old town of Prijedor, Stari Grad. And
21 this is an example of what I was talking about where you can see the
22 foundations simply by the growth of vegetation. That is a corner of the
23 building. The mosque itself was where that mobile home there is, and you
24 can see a tall Muslim gravestone off to the left. If you look at pre-war
25 photos, you can see a number of those lined up in front of the mosque,
1 but basically the mosque is completely gone.
2 MR. HANNIS: Next page, please.
3 Q. Is that what you were talking about, the pre-war photo?
4 A. This is it. And if you look near the corner of the building at
5 right, you can see a very tall tombstone, which I believe may be the same
6 as in the photo that I took in 2002.
7 Q. All right. Thank you.
8 MR. HANNIS: Let me show you next one from the Zvornik. This is
9 at page 1132. 1132. Sorry, maybe I misnumbered. I need ERN 0557-5022,
10 so it's a hundred pages farther on judging by the ERN. That's it. Thank
12 Q. The Riejka mosque in Zvornik?
13 A. The Riejka mosque in Zvornik was the main mosque in the centre of
14 Zvornik. And what you see on top is a photograph I took in July of 1992.
15 Here you see an example of the old Linden
16 trash container at the base of it, and I also have some pre-war photos in
17 which you can see the same tree. The site for a number of years after
18 the war had been turned into a parking-lot, but by the time I got there
19 in 2002, court cases had been brought and at least they had to fence it
20 in, but they still hadn't rebuilt it at that point.
21 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the very next page.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Dr. Riedlmayer, just to be sure that there's a
23 correct replication of what you said, you said the photograph was taken
24 in July of 1992 yet the photo that we just saw appeared to be from July
1 THE WITNESS: No, I meant 2002. If I said 1992, I misspoke.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good. Thank you very much.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Judge.
4 Q. The very next page.
5 A. These are two pre-war photos taken just before the outbreak of
6 the war. You can see the tree and the mosque to the right of it, and
7 this is a slightly different view taken from uphill, but you can see the
8 mosque in the right centre.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. And if you look closely at the tree, you can see some match. The
11 surviving tree still has a gap in it, the same as this one.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HANNIS: Let me go now to Brcko. It's page 292 of this
15 THE WITNESS: This is the Sava
16 mosque in Brcko. It's again in the centre of town. This street you see
17 immediately to the right is the main street at Brcko market, and this top
18 picture is the site as it appeared in the summer of 2002 when I was
19 there. If you take a careful look at it, you can see that part of the
20 site is depressed. I was told by the chief Imam of Brcko that not only
21 was the rubble removed, but even the foundations had been excavated.
22 If you look at the iron bridge at the right, you will see that in
23 the pre-war photo as well, which is right below.
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes, if we can go to the next page in e-court.
25 THE WITNESS: You can see the iron bridge and the light poles.
1 I'm not sure the light poles are the identical ones, but I believe they
2 are at the same spots, and this is the mosque as it was before it was
3 blown up.
4 MR. HANNIS:
5 Q. Okay. And from other information you received, were you able to
6 determine where some of the rubble from this particular mosque ended up?
7 A. Yes, I found references by two forensic archaeologists who worked
8 on a Tribunal sponsored exhumation at a mass grave-site on the outskirts
9 of Brcko. One of them is Dr. Richard Wright whose testimony I cite, and
10 the other one was Dr. Rebecca, I forget her last name, Simmons, Summers
11 or something like that.
12 Q. I see Saunders in the --
13 A. Saunders, yes. Rebecca Saunders, who is a forensic archaeologist
14 from the US
15 mentioned the mosque rubble in an interview she came and gave right after
16 she came back from the exhumation, and she confirmed to me that yes
17 indeed they had seen it. This is also what the local Islamic community
18 had told me about. I did not go to the site, and I did not personally
19 see any of this.
20 Q. I believe you indicated that you referred to Dr. Richard Wright's
21 testimony in the Ilicic [phoen] case?
22 A. Yes, I believe, it's in a footnote to my report.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. HANNIS: Now, I'd like to go to another exhibit. I have four
25 more sites and two more exhibits, Your Honours, then I think I will be
1 nearly finished. This is Exhibit 10367.08. And I'm not sure about the
2 page numbering in e-court. 1029.
3 Q. Yes, that's it.
4 A. This is the older of the two mosques in the town of Visegrad, and
5 it's variously known as the town mosque, the Gazafer [indiscernible]
6 mosque or the market mosque. And its site right now is an empty
7 triangular square with a couple of concrete park benches in the middle.
8 If you take a very careful look at the post war photo I took and note
9 particularly the building on the right and the lower building immediately
10 to the left of that, you may be able to also see that in the pre-war
11 photo that I have of the same site. You can see a taller building and
12 then a lower garage-like building to the left of it behind the entrance
13 columns of the mosque.
14 MR. HANNIS: And next page, please.
15 Q. I think it's another pre-war photo of the same mosque.
16 A. This is a photo taken in the other direction. The previous one
17 was to the left as oriented from the post war photo. This was straight
18 on in the same direction.
19 MR. HANNIS: Next if we could go to page 1035. I think five
20 pages on from here.
21 THE WITNESS: This is the Sarajevo
22 It's the other mosque in Visegrad, it's at the opposite end of the main
23 street, the Glavna Ulica in Visegrad. At the time I visited there what
24 you see on top is all you could see. Again if you look very carefully,
25 you can see traces of the outlines of the foundation. There's a corner
1 right above the right-hand bottom corner of the picture, you can see the
2 corner of the foundation. If you take a careful look at the buildings in
3 the background, the apartment buildings, I believe they can also be
4 spotted on the pre-war photo, similar pattern of windows. The entrance
5 of the mosque faced the street, and these buildings were immediately to
6 the right of it as you looked at the entrance, and it's yet another one
7 of those cases where it was completely destroyed.
8 Q. Thank you. This was also called Bikavac?
9 A. It was also called the Bikavac mosque because it was next to the
10 Bikavac neighbourhood in Visegrad.
11 Q. Thank you. And lastly to one more exhibit, 10367.11. If we
12 could go, first of all, to page 1 of that one.
13 A. This is the Roman Catholic church in the town of Bosanski Samac.
14 The top picture was taken by an ICTY investigator right at the end of the
15 war. What you see in the foreground behind the iron fence is the empty
16 site where the Catholic church used to be. What you see in the right
17 rear is the Serbian Orthodox church across the street which remained
19 Next picture shows the iron fence with the new church rising
20 behind it.
21 Q. And if we could go to the next page.
22 A. And this was the local parish priest who was there supervising
23 the reconstruction of the church, and he had both a pre-war photo and a
24 model of the church that he showed for me.
25 Q. Thank you. If we could go now two pages on. Also in Bosanski
1 Samac another site.
2 A. This is the town mosque variously called as Azizia [phoen] mosque
3 or mosque of Mir Ahmed it's in the very centre of Bosanski Samac. It's
4 in a small park surrounded by the buildings of the town centre, and at
5 the time I was there there was just the empty lot, the rubbish bin, and
6 the tree. And if you scroll down you can see the mosque in the centre of
7 the surrounding buildings. And if you go down one more page you can see
9 Q. Next page, please.
10 A. Here you see two pre-war views of the mosque again with the tree
11 next to it, next to the right side of the entrance.
12 Q. I see in your database entry this is referred to as the mosque of
13 Mir Ahmed or the Azizia mosque?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Is it also known as the town mosque?
16 A. Yes, every mosque has a mosque near the centre of town and it's
17 variously known as the town mosque, [indiscernible] or the market mosque,
18 the [indiscernible] but many mosques such as this one also bear the names
19 of the donor who originally found it or repaired the mosque.
20 Q. Was there any other mosque in Bosanski Samac?
21 A. No, there was only one mosque and one Catholic church.
22 Q. Thank you. There is a few things I want to touch-up with you in
23 terms of names and spellings. In our indictment schedule E for Donji
24 Vakuf there's a reference to Pusak's three mosque. We have Prusak
25 spelled P-r-u-s-a-k?
1 A. It should be spelled with a C at the end. It's Prusac.
2 Q. And you did find three mosques in --
3 A. I visited Prusac myself, and there were, indeed, three mosques
4 there, and they are in the database submitted.
5 Q. As far as you know, no town or village in Donji Vakuf spelled
7 A. No.
8 Q. Thank you. Similarly regarding Sanski Most, we have in our
9 indictment a reference to the Restovo Karanovici [phoen] mosque, and I
10 think you indicated to me that Karanovici should be Karani [phoen]?
11 A. Karani. That's really a variant name. The Ovici just indicates
12 that this is a settlement of the sons of, so it's just different ways of
13 saying almost the same thing.
14 Q. Two more, if I may. Doboj there's a preference to [Microphone
15 not activated] and I think you indicated that should be P-r-i?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And lastly in Visegrad, reference to Drinska mosque with an A?
18 A. The village is called Drinsko, and it's actually a very strange
19 name for the village because it's not on the river, but it's spelled with
20 an O.
21 Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. I have no further
22 questions for you at this time. Thank you.
23 MR. HANNIS: I would like to tender his CV, his report, and the
24 associated documents that we've talked about.
25 JUDGE HALL: Cross-examination.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, only the ones you covered today in
2 the direct examination, the ones we talked about, you said?
3 MR. HANNIS: Sorry, Your Honour, I think I've talked about
4 everything on the list at least briefly in terms of the exhibits from
5 10367.01 through .12.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: So all the documents on the list?
7 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Can we wait until the end of cross-examination
9 to make final submissions on that. Thank you.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. O'Sullivan:
11 Q. Good afternoon.
12 A. Good afternoon, sir.
13 Q. The report that you prepared for this case incorporates, among
14 others, the report you prepared for the Milosevic case; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the Milosevic case report was prepared in 2002?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the title of that report is, I'll just read it to you,
19 "Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina
20 1996, Post War Survey of Selected Municipalities." Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And when you prepared that report for Milosevic, you were
23 interested in covering the period from 1992 until the end of 1995 until
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. If I've understood what you said correctly, you -- your first
2 step was to seek information to establish the state of a site pre-war?
3 A. That actually happened at various stages in the process. Before
4 I set out to Bosnia
5 available. That, as you might guess, would produce variable results.
6 Famous sites the ones that are mentioned in the art books and the tourist
7 books would have lots of photos, little village mosques or churches would
8 not. Then throughout the time I was doing my field-work in Bosnia
9 tried insofar as possible to collect photos from the local communities if
10 they had any and in some cases they would show me photos and I would take
11 photos of the photos. In some cases they would hand me little
12 fundraising brochures that had pictures of the pre-war building. So this
13 was a process that continued throughout.
14 Q. So the upshot is you agree, you were trying to establish the
15 state of the site pre-war?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then when you went into the field in 2002, you would establish
18 the state of the site as it existed after the war?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So your focus was that period from 1992 to 1995?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The -- you looked at -- my friend the Prosecutor showed you the
23 statistical addendum that you prepared for Krajisnik. That's 65 ter
24 10367.06. Is it your position that the information contained in this
25 addendum, which indicates which sites were damaged or destroyed in 1992,
1 is correct? Is that your position?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Would you concede if there were examples in your supporting
4 materials that, in fact, you record 1993 as the date of damage or
5 destruction, if that were the case, would you accept that the information
6 in this addendum is wrong?
7 A. Anything is possible. We are talking about close to 400 sites.
8 I put this together during proofing at the last-minute request of the
9 Prosecutor, just manually going through my survey. On the other hand, I
10 would not suspect that there would be much variation.
11 Q. But you will accept if there are references to 1993, which you
12 recorded, you would accept that and also accept that there may be
13 mistakes in this document?
14 A. It is possible that it could be off by a very small percentage.
15 Q. Right. For the record, we would refer in future reference to the
16 Catholic church in Kljuc, Catholic church in Samac, the Gornja Kamenica
17 mosque in Zvornik, the Karanovici mosque in Zvornik and [indiscernible]
18 mosque in Zvornik.
19 Now, with information that you recorded in your database
20 concerning the alleged date of destruction, you never independently went
21 out and investigated to see whether that information was accurate, did
23 A. That was not something -- first of all, I was not there during
24 the war so I was not there to witness any of it. Insofar as possible, if
25 there was information available from third sources such as, for example,
1 a report by a journalist who passed by the site during the war and noted
2 that the mosque was destroyed or was still standing, I would include that
3 as corroboration, but I wasn't out there, you know, conducting a criminal
4 investigation. I was there to take pictures of buildings.
5 Q. Okay. And you were not a military researcher, are you?
6 A. I'm not a military specialist, no.
7 Q. And you do not know when or whether there was any military action
8 in any of the Stanisic/Zupljanin municipalities in 1992, do you?
9 A. No, I don't. However, I would say that I was able to make
10 observations both of the buildings as they stood when I visited them,
11 most in 2002, some at other dates, and looking at pictures of the
12 buildings taken often during or immediately after the war, and so it was
13 possible to see certain things. First of all, the context, were
14 buildings around the mosque or church damaged; and secondly, the nature
15 of the destruction itself. One would expect that a building that had
16 been in a middle of at battle zone would have lots of bullet-holes, would
17 have impact holes. It's -- although I'm not a military expert, as a
18 result of these field investigations, I've conducted both in Bosnia
19 in Kosovo, I've seen hundreds of buildings that have suffered damage and
20 have developed some expertise in judging how they were destroyed. But
21 you are right, I wasn't there when they were destroyed.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I have no further questions.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Riedlmayer.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. I know that you are born on 28th of November?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It seems that all good people are born on that. I'm also born on
4 the 28th of November, almost ten years after you, but we are human
5 building, Mr. Riedlmayer, we all made sometimes mistake, and you can say
6 agree with me that even in this kind of work certain mistakes or errors
7 could occur. Is that correct?
8 A. [B/C/S spoken].
9 Q. I would like to bring to your attention the titles of your
10 previous reports. For example, my learned friend Mr. O'Sullivan
11 mentioned a report that you made -- that you prepared for Milosevic case
12 in 2002, and the title is is "Destruction of Cultural Heritage in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992, 1996, a Post War Survey of Selected
14 Municipalities," excerpt by you. That's the correct title?
15 A. That's the title it bears.
16 Q. And then in 2003 you filed a report for Krajisnik case; is that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then in 2009 you filed actually, if I'm not wrong, two
20 reports, one for Karadzic case, the other for this particular case,
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. I believe that the proper title should be -- I mean, in Milosevic
24 case actually my opinion is that you actually use a more precise title.
25 With regard to --
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, could we have a question rather than
2 lawyer's opinion. Thank you.
3 MR. PANTELIC:
4 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Riedlmayer, that actually a word of
5 a known Serb cultural heritage is not appropriate word, that maybe just
6 word Bosnian cultural heritage would be more appropriate? I mean, this
7 prefix of non-Serb might give us certain confusion?
8 A. Okay. Well --
9 Q. What was the reason --
10 A. The reason it reflects the terms of reference for the mission.
11 As I state in the reports, once you get beyond the title, the mission I
12 was given, the terms of reference was to look at cultural heritage of the
13 non-Serb communities, which, in effect, means the Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian
14 Croat communities in the affected municipalities. I agree that if I were
15 doing this for any other purpose, it is an awkward way to put it. But it
16 simply reflects the way in which the mission was framed.
17 Q. But you would agree with me, would you not, Mr. Riedlmayer, that
18 no matter of ethnicity or ethnic background, all Bosnian heritage belongs
19 to all three constitute nations in Bosnia; am I correct?
20 A. If you look at any of my articles and writings I argue that
21 position consistently.
22 Q. Yes, so you also allow the possibility that certain members of
23 Serb community actually followed or practice Muslim or Catholic religion;
24 am I correct ?
25 A. That gets into matters of self-definition.
1 Q. No, no, my --
2 A. I'm saying depends on when you are talking, to whom you are
3 talking, these are not absolute terms.
4 Q. No, no, no. Mr. Riedlmayer, hold on, please. You allow the
5 possibility that a number of citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina who are
6 Serbian nationality and Serbian ethnic background might be a member of
7 Muslim religion community or Catholic community, they are practicing. Do
8 you allow that possibility, simply yes or no?
9 A. It is a possibility, of course.
10 Q. So even for that particular number of Serbian citizens might be a
11 very strange to have this kind of title if tomorrow someone will read it,
12 would you agree with me? This particular specific non-Serb, that's my
13 point. Would you agree with me to maybe amend your title in near future
14 or --
15 A. As I --
16 MR. HANNIS: I object to the relevance of this question.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I'll move on.
18 Q. Another matter, Mr. Riedlmayer, I was reading your publications
19 that you actually attached, a list of publication that you attached to, I
20 believe it's, yeah, it's a part of your CV. And I don't see a
21 particular -- particular publication which you published in 1993 under
22 the title of a brief history of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was a part of
23 Bosnian manuscript in gathering project. Could you explain us why you
24 didn't put this particular --
25 A. Yes, I know what you are referring to. It was a website, and it
1 was not a formal publication in the sense that it didn't go through a
2 publishing house or an editor. It was done for an occasion. It has no
3 footnotes. It is not a scholarly publication. It is similar in nature
4 to a letter one might write to a newspaper or a pamphlet. My
5 publications, such as they are, are for the most part things written for
6 formal journals, books. They are different in nature.
7 Q. But you stand behind this particular publication that I
9 A. What do you mean stand behind? I did publish it.
10 Q. You are the author, you accept all that you wrote actually?
11 A. I wrote that in 1993 on the basis of the information I knew in
12 1993 or thought I knew. If I were to write the same thing again, I
13 probably wouldn't. You know, all of us learn something over the course
14 of nearly two decades. I would point out that a similar historical
15 survey of the history of Bosnia-Herzegovina following roughly the same
16 outline but in a formal fashion properly sourced and so forth, appeared
17 in my publication "From The Ashes" which is also cited in my
18 bibliography, and I would stand behind that one, but --
19 Q. Okay, Mr. Riedlmayer, just one question, please. Actually, what
20 exactly would you change -- but before that, please tell me, my
21 understanding is that you were a sort of, I would say, misinformed or to
22 some extent, poisoned by newspaper articles and at that time in 1993 and
23 that because of lack of proper information, you actually wrote this
24 paper, yes?
25 A. Well, first of all, the title was a brief history of Bosnia
2 that, I think all but the last two pages dealt with remote history. The
3 part that dealt with the war, dealt only with the first year of the
4 war --
5 Q. Let me ask you this --
6 A. And so I would say when I wrote this in 1993, the information
7 available was what was available via the media.
8 Q. And the media -- the media -- the media overexaggerated --
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, as I understand the witness's
10 testimony, he has explained, bearing in mind that he is a scholar, he has
11 explained that the 1993 article, which he accepted in terms of the
12 question initially put, is no longer part of his list of publications,
13 has been overtaken by further research and whatnot and the relevant parts
14 are in the more recent work "From The Ashes," I think is the name of it.
15 So I am not sure what is the point of exploring the quality of this work
16 which he has, for all practical purposes, perhaps abandoned is too strong
17 a word but from the witness's own testimony has been overtaken by further
18 research and further knowledge bearing in mind, as I said, that he is a
19 scholar. So where are we going?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Actually, Your Honour, I was checking certain
21 transcripts from a case in Seselj. It's page 7454, where, in fact, Judge
22 Antonetti asked Mr. Riedlmayer about his position with regard to his
23 previous work, and all this line was related to his credibility.
24 Mr. Riedlmayer now gave us a very detailed and precise answer with that
25 regard, and what I'm just want to ask him is whether he actually stays
1 now with certain words in his work or not. And I will make -- I will
2 make the quotation of that. Simply as that. It goes to the --
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, well, move directly to the particular quotation
4 from the earlier work that you seek to challenge him on.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Mr. Riedlmayer, are you staying today with your -- with
7 the part of your work that I just mentioned, and I will quote:
8 "The nationalists have also enacted" meaning Serb nationalists,
9 "the nationalists have also enacted anti-masogenation statutes that make
10 it a crime for a non-Serb to marry or engage in sexual relations with a
12 Are you staying with this position today?
13 A. No, I believe that was mistaken.
14 Q. Okay. And then are you staying with the other portion of your
15 work that in the zones under Serb control actually the non-Serbs were
16 required to display white flags on their places of residence, do you stay
17 by that?
18 A. In part. In the fact that I believe there has been testimony
19 before this Tribunal that in certain locations people did have to display
20 white flags.
21 Q. When we are here at the same topic, where actually -- which cases
22 you are following here within the Tribunal? Did you follow this
23 particular case?
24 A. Not as much as some of the preceding ones, but feel free to
25 remind me.
1 Q. More or less, you are following the cases?
2 A. Well, insofar as they are covered from the outside. I don't sit
3 in or read the transcripts.
4 Q. And tell me, you were -- you were called as an expert witness
5 before the ICJ and you were expert on behalf of government of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina; am I correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And actually, you were hired, sort of say, by whom? By
9 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or particular counsel to whom you were
10 in preparation of that case?
11 A. By the deputy agent for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Van Den Biesen.
12 He engaged me.
13 Q. And he paid you actually.
14 A. Yes, I got an honourarium.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Pantelic be so kind to speak into the
16 microphone. Thank you.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, you are asked to speak into the
18 microphone, please.
19 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour.
20 Q. And while reviewing this particular transcript, our learned
21 friend Ms. Joanna Korner was examining you at that point, yes?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And tell me in preparation of that testimony, did you speak with
24 her and discuss cases before the Tribunal which --
25 A. No. At that time she wasn't working for the Tribunal. It was
1 actually the first time I met her. And my only discussion with her prior
2 to my testimony I had a prepared text, and we indicated the points where
3 she would ask the questions.
4 Q. And, Mr. Riedlmayer, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that
5 the part of your testimony before the ICJ actually was related to the
6 sort of historical practice that Muslim mosques were built on the, let's
7 say, historical foundations of Serbian Orthodox church; am I correct?
8 A. That wouldn't be how I would put it. Could you rephrase it.
9 Q. Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but the part of your testimony
10 was -- is realisation that in history the Muslim religious buildings such
11 as mosques were built on the foundation of a former Orthodox church which
12 was destroyed during the history?
13 A. I don't recall that being part of my testimony, but you could
14 refresh my memory. As a matter of fact, as came out in
15 cross-examination, for example, in the Seselj case, my position is that
16 this was extremely uncommon. In a few cases in Kosovo, not Bosnia
17 were churches that were converted into mosque or mosques built on the
18 ruins of a church. In Bosnia
19 only in a few places, one famous one is in Jacija where a Catholic church
20 was turned into a mosque and then in the subsequent centuries it got
21 ruined in an earthquake and it's still there as a ruin.
22 Q. What about Bijeljina case?
23 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I didn't see on the list of exhibits that
24 Mr. Pantelic was going to use with this witness any ICJ transcript. So
25 if he is going to confront him with what he said in the ICJ transcript we
1 should have a page reference.
2 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, no, we are just --
3 MR. HANNIS: Yes, yes, yes, Your Honour.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... foundation was with
5 regard to the practice in history, so tell me --
6 MR. HANNIS: The question was confronting him with something he
7 allegedly said in his ICJ testimony, and your rules of procedure require
8 a counsel doing that to make a specific page reference.
9 MR. PANTELIC: I'll move on.
10 Q. Tell me, Mr. Riedlmayer, are you aware of such practice in
11 Bijeljina in particular?
12 A. I am aware.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's not moving on. That's continuing. That's
14 not moving on.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Judge Delvoie has not switched on his
16 microphone on.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Moving on, as I understand it, is go to another
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, no problem.
20 Q. Tell me, Mr. Riedlmayer, actually, you in your CV mentioned that
21 that you were between 1969 when you graduated and until 1972 you were a
22 freelance interpreter; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You were basically travelling around Middle East Turkey, that
1 A. Okay, the freelance interpreter is a different category.
2 Basically what I did is in graduate school after I finished my masters
3 degree, I got a fulbright fellowship, and I went to Turkey to do research
4 in archives and manuscript libraries, and while I was there I was making
5 money in order to pay groceries by translating.
6 Q. And tell me, later on you went to Iran to have certain
7 additional, I think, education, language education, historical education?
8 A. Yes, I took a summer course in Persian at the university of
10 Q. Tell me, during your career, I'm also speaking about the Bosnia
11 your work within Bosnia
12 foreign intelligence services like AID in Bosnia or Iranian intelligence
13 services or Turkish during your work? Do you have any context like that?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And you consider yourself as a non-biased and objective expert in
16 the field of heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you in your work did not check in collection of materials,
19 you did not check any particular additional document within the archive
20 of Republika Srpska, so your work was only focused on the archive of
21 so-called Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; am I right?
22 A. I did not do archival research, I did field research. Insofar as
23 I relied on local sources, it was for photographs.
24 Q. You did not contact any of government officials of Republika
25 Srpska like ministry of interior or Ministry of Justice or anything like
1 that? You don't have any particular contact with these officials, yes or
3 A. No.
4 Q. So you actually made your report only on the basis of sources
5 from Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Muslim Croat; am I correct?
6 A. Well, no, if you look at the municipalities, most of my
7 field-work actually happened in Republika Srpska.
8 Q. But sorry --
9 A. And most of the information I got was not from government
10 authorities but from the local religious communities who were the owners
11 of these buildings and had documentation concerning. I will take --
12 Q. But --
13 A. -- one thing back about that. I did obtain from Republika Srpska
14 municipal archives, cadastral records for many of the mosques and
15 churches that were destroyed.
16 Q. But, Mr. Riedlmayer, you didn't interview any, let's say,
17 potential informant of Serb nationality; am I correct?
18 A. You mean within the Republika Srpska government?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. And as you said, you are not military expert, you are not sort of
22 art expert, you are librarian and bibliographer; am I correct?
23 A. I am an art documentation specialist. That's what I've done for
24 the last 25 years.
25 Q. Yes, but you are not an --
1 A. Not an archaeologist.
2 Q. In narrow sense an art expert like someone who can evaluate the
3 art as itself or make some records, you are bibliographer and librarian
5 A. Well, if you are asking can I, you know, date a Rembrandt or
6 something like that, no, that is not my specialty. However, I, as far as
7 documenting buildings, most of what one does in that case is, in fact,
8 relying on the work of scholars who have done that. Yes, I know how to
10 Q. Yes, thank you. Tell me, in fact, you do not exactly how and
11 when certain mosques and Catholic churches were destroyed within
12 Republika Srpska; am I correct?
13 A. What is the question again?
14 Q. The question is, do you have personal knowledge of how and when
15 number of religious objects, buildings that you cited were destroyed
17 A. I have no firsthand knowledge, no. I have seen documentation of
18 various sorts but I have no firsthand knowledge, no.
19 Q. So you actually know only, sort of say, of you have knowledge of
20 consequences, but you don't know the way -- when, how, by whom it was
21 done, you don't know that?
22 A. Well, I have collected things like television video footage taken
23 of mosques being destroyed as in Banja Luka, Bijeljina. I have collected
24 photographs, dated photographs that show a building immediately during
25 the process of destruction so in that sense I have documentation, but no,
1 I was not present when these things happened.
2 Q. And speaking of Banja Luka, actually I don't see any particular
3 religious object that you mentioned because all it was done beyond the
4 time-frame of this indictment because this indictment is only related to
5 the end of 31st December of 1992? Actually in Banja Luka if something
6 was done it was after December of 1992; am I correct?
7 A. Well, if you look at the title of my report, Banja Luka is not
8 among the municipalities that I was asked to cover for this particular
10 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer, I don't have any
11 further questions for you.
12 MR. HANNIS: No questions.
13 JUDGE HALL: The live application to admit the documents that
14 have been tendered is now granted, and the documents are admitted and
15 assigned an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit P1395 through P1406, Your
18 JUDGE HALL: And, Mr. Riedlmayer, we thank you for your
19 assistance to the Tribunal, and you are now released as a witness, and we
20 wish you a safe journey to home.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE HALL: So it's that time when we take the adjournment for
25 the day; do I gather?
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: Do I gather --
3 MR. HANNIS: Correct, Your Honour. We have no other witnesses
4 available for this week.
5 JUDGE HALL: Is there any other matter that we need deal with --
6 that we need assemble tomorrow with which to deal? So we take the
7 adjournment to Monday morning at 9.00 in this courtroom. I wish
8 everybody a safe weekend. Thank you.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th of June, 2010,
11 at 9.00 a.m.