1 Wednesday, 8 December 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good afternoon to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. On behalf of the
12 Prosecution, I'm Tom Hannis, along with Belinda Pidwell, Selma Sakic, and
13 our Case Manager, Crispian Smith.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, Ms. Tatjana Savic, and
16 Ms. Claire Plumb appearing for Stanisic Defence this afternoon. Thank
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
19 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I requested to raise a couple of
23 procedural matters before we brought the witness in.
24 First of all, Ms. Pidwell has a couple of matters to address
25 concerning scheduling and witnesses, and then I wanted to raise something
1 concerning the exhibits we've been talking about with the witness that is
2 returning this afternoon.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Pidwell.
4 MS. PIDWELL: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
5 There are three matters I wish to address you on just at this
6 stage, housekeeping matters.
7 Firstly, your ruling last night in relation to ST-181 confused me
8 slightly because I had already made the arrangements for that witness to
9 come and testify and be re-called in that first week of January. And
10 when we went back and checked the transcript, it appears that you had
11 already directed us to do that on the 27th of November. So we had taken
12 that as your ruling that we were directed to re-call that witness,
13 ST-181, and have him called in January together with the one witness that
14 we are coordinating with another team on, and our expert, Mr. Brown.
15 I'm thinking, Your Honours, that maybe the confusion stems from
16 the fact there is another motion by the Defence to re-call another
17 witness, ST-191. And that still requires a ruling. You may recall
18 Ms. Korner addressed you orally on that last week on the
19 30th of November, and we're waiting on a ruling on that witness, ST-191,
20 to -- to know whether we need to bring him in addition to those three
21 witnesses that we're required to bring in January.
22 JUDGE HALL: The -- I am aware that we have the ruling on 191
23 outstanding. But to the extent that we may have spoken inconsistently,
24 Ms. Pidwell, I thank you for drawing it to our attention, and we will
25 clarify what our position is with respect to the time when 181 should be
1 re-called. Thank you.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Pidwell, one question now.
3 You say that you looked in the transcript of the
4 27th of November, and I don't seem to have a transcript on the
5 27th of November. Is that right, 27th?
6 MS. PIDWELL: It's the 26th, Your Honour, I apologise.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
8 MS. PIDWELL: I have it here in front of me. It's when
9 Your Honours were directing us in relation to whether we could defer one
10 adjudicated fact witness to January. And your ruling in respect of that
11 witness also included on order -- what we understood to be an order in
12 respect of ST-181. It's 17 -- T17910 on the 26th of November.
13 And Your Honours concluded: We leave it to the Prosecution to
14 determine in which order to call these witnesses, but the decision of the
15 Chamber is that they -- these three must be completed by the week
16 ending 17th -- or commencing 17th of January, 2011.
17 JUDGE HALL: You had two other matters.
18 MS. PIDWELL: I do, Your Honour.
19 The next is in relation to the witness who will follow the
20 witness who is currently testifying; ST-065. He has protective measures
21 of a pseudonym, and we have now become aware that his previous protective
22 measures granted in the previous case were augmented on appeal and he, in
23 fact, had -- was granted face distortion as well, after the -- after his
24 testimony, so his testimony was revised. We sent a copy of that decision
25 to the Trial Chamber last -- Legal Officers last night, and we're simply
1 asking for confirmation that his previous protective measures will be
2 confirmed by this Trial Chamber as well. As is he testifying next, he
3 has some concerns, and we would like to be in a position to advise him as
4 soon as possible.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we will deal with that in the course of today.
6 Your third matter.
7 MS. PIDWELL: My third matter, Your Honour, is in respect of
8 ST-008. He is the witness who was due to testify last week but has been
9 ill. We have -- the latest update from the hospital and through VWS is
10 that he will be in a position to testify next week. So we are just
11 giving an early indication that we will -- we are hoping to bring him on
12 Monday if the witnesses for this week finish as scheduled, and that may
13 mean that the Status Conference which the Registry are arranging may have
14 to take place on Tuesday instead.
15 JUDGE HALL: Well, it would -- the alternative was Wednesday,
16 because I have a commitment on Tuesday.
17 The -- today is Wednesday, so we would see your proposal in your
18 usual Thursday list tomorrow afternoon.
19 MS. PIDWELL: As Your Honour pleases.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. And if I may take a little
22 bit of your time before the witness comes in to speak to the issue of the
23 colour scans versus the black and white scans of the Mladic notebooks
24 that have been MFI'd so far. And I direct your attention to page 18272,
25 line 21, where Judge Delvoie asked a question of Mr. O'Sullivan whether
1 his objection was that "the scans of all these different notebooks, there
2 is a discrepancy in all the scan -- in the scans of ... these notebooks;
4 And Mr. O'Sullivan said: "Yes."
5 Judge Delvoie inquired: "Can you give us an idea about what the
6 nature is of the discrepancy?"
7 And Mr. O'Sullivan said: "That might be best left for me to
8 explore with the witness."
9 In light of that, Your Honour - and I'm not attempting to
10 testify, I'm just indicating something that I think you can see for
11 yourself if you do a comparison - I took a look at tab 4, which has now
12 been marked as Exhibit P1753 and P1754 for -- marked for identification,
13 to compare the colour scan versus the black and white scan. It appears
14 that there is no substantial difference in terms of the issue of
15 authenticity with regard to the handwriting in those two scans. It
16 appears the differences are other than the fact that one is in colour and
17 one is black and white, and they have different ERNs in different places
18 on the pages, obviously. The cover page was not scanned in the black and
19 white scan. But the cover page is in the colour scan.
20 The black and white scans were done in landscape format, so there
21 are two diary pages per document. The colour scans are in portrait
22 format, so there's one page of diary per one page of document.
23 There, also, at the page following printed page number 400 in the
24 notebook in the black and white scan there is a blank page. In the
25 colour, that page was not scanned.
1 I see no other differences in the two, and in the Prosecution's
2 view, that is not a reason to not admit the colour scans at this point.
3 I've seen --
4 JUDGE HALL: May I -- if I see where you're going, Mr. Hannis,
5 our reasoning was - and to the extent that we may not have said it when
6 we gave our ruling yesterday, I would indicate it now - that the exercise
7 that you have just indicated you have performed in terms of that one
8 exhibit would be done by you in respect of -- of all of the relevant
9 exhibits. And that an oral application would be made when you would
10 have -- when you would have completed this exercise.
11 So the example that you have just given is the -- the result of
12 that analysis and what I anticipate your application is going to be in
13 respect of that exhibit is what we expect that we will hear when you
14 would have -- when I "you," I mean the Office of the Prosecution, would
15 have completed the exercise in respect of all of these parallel exhibits.
16 And it's something that can be disposed of barring any startling
17 discrepancies disposed of orally quite quickly.
18 MR. HANNIS: All right, Your Honour.
19 I guess it's my natural Prosecutor's anxiety being the one who
20 bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and wanting to be
21 sure that these, in the Prosecution's view, very important documents are
22 going to be received in evidence. And I don't particularly care whether
23 it's black and white or colour; we just thought the colour was more near
24 to the original.
25 Now, from what I hear you're saying and from Judge Harhoff said
1 yesterday when he suggested that maybe the easy way around this was for
2 me just to tender the black and white, and I thought about that last
3 night and I thought, Well, yes, in a way this is what we do sometimes
4 with documents where we may have a map or a photograph or a regular
5 type-written document that the one we have in e-court is of pour quality
6 for some reason - there wasn't enough toner in the printing machine when
7 it was copied or it's hard to read or sometimes because there's a
8 translation question - we then seek, later, to replace that one with a
9 better quality document, a better copy of the photograph or an improved
11 So in effect, I guess I could ask that you admit the black and
12 white versions now and then later on submit the colour versions once
13 we've done that. Then I would have the comfort of knowing that when I'm
14 done with this witness, those documents are in and I don't worry about
15 having to try to apply to you to bring him back and get him in to tidy up
16 something that he could tidy up while we still have the time before the
17 21st of January.
18 MR. HALL: Mr. Hannis, I would remind you - and this is something
19 I do recall saying yesterday - that in essence there is no question about
20 the admissibility of -- of the -- of the documents. So your apprehension
21 about the possibility of having to recall the witness does not arise.
22 The nature -- even if the objection of the Defence was to the
23 admissibility of the content of the documents, which I didn't understand
24 it to be, the Chamber -- the view of the Chamber was that the -- what the
25 documents were about, the essence of the documents, was admissible; and
1 they were given the parallel exhibit numbers because of this apparent -
2 and I underline apparent - discrepancy between the two scanned versions.
3 So the -- your invitation to us now to enter -- to -- to lift
4 the -- the MFI clarification in respect of, say, the black and white
5 versions with a view to the possibility of the -- their being substituted
6 to the colour versions is, I would suggest, an unnecessary exercise,
7 because, as I explained earlier, we expect that when you would have
8 performed the examination, as is necessary, you would come back and tell
9 us that we have done this and there's no discrepancy and the colour one
10 should go in, or -- or, on the other hand, the black and white one should
11 go in.
12 So I don't know that we need take this any further at this point.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you for that, Your Honour. You've put my mind
14 more at ease, and I'm ready to call the witness in now.
15 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way in, Mr. Hannis, I
16 would remind you that the three hours that you have been given in terms
17 of your examination-in-chief with this witness, that what this witness
18 has been called to testify to is the authenticity of the entries in the
19 diary and therefore it isn't necessary for you to explore the incidents
20 in question.
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, and I'm not trying to do that at
22 any length. Sometimes only to the extent that I think it does go to the
23 basis of his opinion about why these particular documents are
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 WITNESS: MANOJLO MILOVANOVIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE HALL: General Milovanovic, good afternoon to you. Before
4 Mr. Hannis resumes his examination-in-chief, I would remind you you're
5 still on your oath.
6 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
9 Q. Welcome back, General. I just wanted to follow up a couple
10 things regarding your knowledge about General Mladic's handwriting.
11 You told us yesterday about the position you held and how you
12 worked with him, and you had indicated that every day when you were in a
13 meeting together with him you saw him writing in his work book, and you
14 mentioned that whenever you were with him during any of the 1687 days
15 that the Main Staff existed he was writing something. But I guess it's
16 not clear from that, how often were you in meetings with him during those
17 1687 days? Approximately.
18 A. When he was at the Main Staff, we had regular meetings, staff
19 meetings, every morning and every evening. In the morning, we would set
20 the task for the army during the day, and in the evening we would
21 summarize and set tasks for the following day. Whenever we were
22 together, Mladic made notes in his notebooks. Of course, I didn't stand
23 behind him to watch what he was writing, but I did look upon from the
24 side, because we usually sat next to each other.
25 Q. And how often did you have those meetings during the years you
1 worked for him? Are we talking about a dozen times? Or hundreds of
2 times? A thousand times?
3 A. Over a thousand times.
4 Q. Thank you. And in addition to seeing him writing in his
5 work book, did you see other examples of his handwriting? For example,
6 did he give you notes asking for information, or assigning tasks, things
7 like that?
8 A. Well, sometimes when we were together at a meeting, he would pass
9 slips to me when he wanted an explanation or wanted my opinion. And in
10 order not to interrupt the others, he would pass me a slip of paper and I
11 would answer him on that slip if I couldn't answer verbally. Most time
12 you couldn't. And I said yesterday that we shared an office to save
13 space; that was one reason. And the other was that Mladic was usually
14 absent when I was there and the other way around. One of us was usually
15 on the front line.
16 Q. And with regard to the writing in the notebooks, did you
17 occasions when other persons may have written in General Mladic's
18 notebook? And, if so, can you explain how that happened.
19 A. I never saw that. But reviewing the notebooks these last few
20 days, I saw that there were such instances.
21 Q. Did he ever show you what he was writing in the notebook during a
23 A. No.
24 Q. I want to show you something because of what you said yesterday.
25 In looking at the first notebook with an entry from the
1 31st of December, 1991, you commented about General Mladic's particular
2 style. This is at page 18249.
3 Is that another means by which you have come to conclude that the
4 writings in these notebooks are from General Mladic? Not just the
5 handwriting but also the manner of expression.
6 A. During the proofing, I said to you, and I repeated it yesterday,
7 that after 14 years I recognised Mladic's handwriting based on the fact
8 that he noted down what I was saying, but the other participants too, but
9 primarily -- or on the basis of what I said. This is how I was able to
10 recognise Mladic's handwriting. That's the most important reason, not
11 because after 14 years I could recognise somebody's hand.
12 MR. HANNIS: If we could have on the screen the colour scan of
13 tab 4. I think it's been marked as Exhibit 1753, MFI. And I'd like to
14 start by showing the General the B/C/S page that is ERN J000-2807.
15 Q. And, General, near the middle of the page there is a box of text,
16 and I want to ask you about the words written immediately above the box
17 when you have it on your screen.
18 Can you read us those two words?
19 A. You mean this "my proposal," or which other two words could you
21 There is something in a box, but above that there are two words:
22 "my suggestion" or "my proposal."
23 Q. And is there anything unusual about that to your mind, the way
24 it's written?
25 A. Yes. It is unusual how he phrased it. Yesterday in the text, we
1 also saw two words, "nastup [phoen] moj," whereas grammatically -- it
2 would be grammatically correct to have the inversion, "moj nastup" or
3 "moj predlog," and not "predlog moj" as it says here. That's how he --
4 how he phrased it.
5 Q. Have you ever known anyone else to write it that way, with the
6 word "moj" coming second in a phrase like that?
7 A. No, I haven't. But I didn't have the opportunity to read other
8 people's handwriting either. The logic could be the following: The
9 proposal should have been made by the Chief of Staff or some of his
10 collaborators, but since that -- since there was no such proposal then
11 after the word "predlog," proposal, he put "moj" to indicate that it was
12 his rather than somebody else's.
13 Q. One more.
14 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to page -- and the last four digits
15 in the B/C/S ERN are 2878.
16 Q. Thank you, General. And if you could look at this one. The last
17 sentence in the first paragraph. Do you see the last three words there?
18 And can you tell us what they say in B/C/S and if there's anything
19 unusual about the word order of that phrase?
20 A. I'm not sure which one you mean. You mean the first paragraph;
21 right? There is a lieutenant-colonel contributing there, named Tosic.
22 "I came back for the combat mission. I have two years before
23 retirement. I am here in the capacity of Captain 1st Class. Once this
24 is over, I want it to be clear where I came from. Response of mine."
25 Again the inversion. Response of mine, we'll see about that.
1 That's Mladic telling him we'll see about that. But instead of saying
2 "my response" or "my reply," he phrases it in the following way:
3 "Response of mine," or "reply of mine."
4 Q. Thank you. That all I wanted to show you on that.
5 MR. HANNIS: Next, I would like to go to 65 ter number 3582 --
6 I'm sorry, 3585.2. This is tab 17.
7 Q. General, this is a -- this is a notebook that has entries for the
8 period from 30 September until 4 October 1992. And I would like to begin
9 by showing you an entry on page 12 of the English. It's page 22 of the
11 This appears to be regarding a meeting on the 3rd of October of
12 the corps of the General Staff of the VRS. Your name is among those
14 Do you recognise the handwriting on this page?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Whose is it?
17 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.
18 Q. I'm sorry, if you answered whose writing it was, it wasn't
19 recorded. Could you tell us whose writing you recognise it as?
20 A. General Mladic's.
21 Q. Thank you. And do you recall attending such a meeting?
22 A. I was probably there, since he recorded my name as being there.
23 Mladic; Milovanovic; Gvero; Djukic [as interpreted]; Tolimir; and Colonel
24 Ilic, my deputy. This is a meeting of the inner circle of the Staff.
25 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the following page in B/C/S
1 and keep the same page of the English up.
2 Q. General, I want to show you the next page in this notebook, and
3 you'll see your name listed. Could you have a quick read of that and see
4 if that helps you recall what this particular meeting was about. And
5 tell us if you recall being there and speaking at this meeting.
6 A. Should I read it out loud or just to myself?
7 Q. You can just read it to yourself.
8 A. Yes, these are my words.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm sorry, I would like to tender
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We object, Your Honour. The witness has looked
13 at these two pages but there's no evidence that he's looked at this
14 notebook before.
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, again, this is one of the five that
16 this witness saw in Banja Luka in July 2009.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, there's no evidence from this
18 witness that he did that.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it is in the witness statement of this
20 witness that was provided to the Defence.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, General, have you seen this notebook
22 before? Have you had the chance to go through it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer whether I've ever
24 seen this text. I did look at some of my texts and based on that I
25 concluded that the handwriting was General Mladic's. I see no reason to
1 not identify this as one of those texts that I recognised or identified.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I appreciate that, General. But the point that
3 is raised by the Defence is that your testimony to the authenticity may
4 go only to the pages that you have looked at, and, hence, the question is
5 whether, at some earlier point, you actually did have the chance to flip
6 through this particular notebook and ascertain that all the pages in it
7 were of the same handwriting. And that's fair enough. If do you not
8 recall that you've seen it, then say so. But if you do recall -- or if
9 you have been through them all, actually, then we would like to hear your
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said yesterday, I've looked at
12 a total of 23 notebook: five back in Banja Luka and 18 here. I have not
13 read through each of them. That would have required far more time. But
14 I did go through some notes that concerned me personally. I have read at
15 least one from each of the notebooks. That led me to a conclusion that
16 the notebooks were complete in as far as they were Mladic's handwriting.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, General.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we've now heard twice now, I think,
19 that there was a meeting with the General and investigators from the OTP
20 in July 2009 at Banja Luka. I wonder if we could be provided with a
21 statement that may have been taken by the Prosecutor when apparently five
22 books were shown to the General. We've received no such statement
23 from -- by way of disclosure.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it's my understanding that that was an
25 audiotaped interview, and the audiotape has been disclosed to the
1 Defence. The witness statement that reflects that the General reviewed
2 23 notebooks in total, including five in Banja Luka in the summer -- in
3 July 2009, is a 65 ter document number 9141, and that also has been
4 disclosed to the Defence.
5 Now, we have proposed this witness as a 92 ter, or a 92 bis. All
6 these documents could have been submitted. But now he's here. I have
7 limited time to try to go through this with him. If it's really
8 necessary, we can do that. I would propose to add 9141 -- well, I would
9 propose now to be allowed to introduce 9141 and submit it into evidence
10 concerning the five ERN ranges that were looked at the by the General in
11 July 2009.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: In the view of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution
14 has sufficiently established the admissibility of this document. It may
15 be admitted and marked as an exhibit.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1762, Your Honours.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 I would now like to move to 65 ter 3586. This is a notebook
19 covering the period from 5 October 1992 to 27 December --
20 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment before we go on. Is this -- do we
21 have a black and colour problem here again?
22 MR. HANNIS: No. This one is just black and white.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
24 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Thanks.
25 MR. HANNIS: And by "this one," I mean the one that we were just
1 looked at that has been given the number P1762. But the one coming is
2 one that has both colour and black and white, that's 3586, 65 ter number.
3 Q. General I would like to start off by showing you page number 111
4 in e-court in the B/C/S. And that's page 95 in the English.
5 Do you recognise the handwriting on that page?
6 A. Yes. General Mladic's handwriting.
7 Q. Okay. And this appears to be a recording of events on the
8 31st of October at a meeting of the 21st Session of the
9 Republika Srpska Assembly.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would note that Exhibit P179.15 in
11 evidence are the minutes of that session.
12 Q. Do you know that General Mladic regularly attended Assembly
13 sessions in 1992?
14 A. Yes, for the most part he would be there. Gvero would be there.
15 And normally Colonel Tolimir as well.
16 Q. Would you learn from him about what transpired at those Assembly
17 sessions he attended in any meeting of your Main Staff or General Staff
18 after such sessions?
19 A. No, not from him. If there was any information to be conveyed to
20 the Main Staff, that was normally done by General Gvero, his assistant
21 for morale, religious, and legal issues. I see here that the agenda
22 contains a total of 81 items. I don't think anyone would have been able
23 to reproduce each and every one of those.
24 Q. Yes, I understand that. Do you recall General Gvero advising the
25 Staff of the results or summarizing what took place at Assembly sessions
1 attended by General Gvero?
2 A. I don't recall that. I told you what the general principle was.
3 Gvero would convey any information to the Main Staff and subordinate
4 units. Anything that concerned any major issues that were discussed at
5 these meetings.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. HANNIS: And could we go to page 297 of the B/C/S and page
8 320 of the English.
9 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting on this page?
10 A. Yes. It is General Mladic's handwriting. Combined in red and in
11 black pen.
12 Q. Okay. And we see a reference to the 23rd Session of the
13 National Assembly.
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate that 65 ter 1749 is a
15 transcript of the 23rd Assembly Session on the 17th of December, 1992.
16 That is currently on the list of our bar table motion as one of the
17 documents we'd like to tender. I propose to tender at this time, but if
18 you prefer to deal with it as part of the bar table motion, that's fine
19 with me as well.
20 JUDGE HALL: I'm not sure it's a question of our preference,
21 Mr. Hannis. We have a motion, we have a live motion in terms of the bar
22 table -- the contents of the bar table motion and we have your
23 application now. Is it your application that this be admitted?
24 MR. HANNIS: It is, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HALL: And you say this is, again, a colour, black and
1 white --
2 MR. HANNIS: Yes. But I was also moving to tender the
3 65 ter number of the Assembly session at the moment. That's what's the
4 subject of the bar table motion.
5 JUDGE HALL: I see. Which is a companion document to this?
6 MR. HANNIS: Yes, yes. I'm trying to introduce that document to
7 corroborate what's in the diary, and I'm trying to introduce the diary to
8 corroborate the 65 ter document, that is, the minutes of the Assembly
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, we -- your use of the word
12 "corroboration" in our view adds an unnecessary complication insofar as
13 whereas that may be an argument that the Prosecution may wish to advance
14 when all of the evidence is in, confining ourselves to what this
15 witness's testimony is about, that is, the authenticity of the notebooks
16 we would prefer not to consider the companion documents as a part of
18 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... all right --
19 JUDGE HALL: And therefore the order is limited to this document
20 which is admitted and marked. And as I said, these would be parallel
21 exhibits as we would have been following from yesterday.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, therefore, the colour document will
25 become Exhibit P1763; and the black and white version will become P1764,
1 both marked for identification. Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Next I'd like to go to tab 22.
3 Q. General, this is a handwritten work book covering -- actually,
4 it's an excerpt from a handwritten notebook covering the period between
5 29 January 1993 and 31 March 1993.
6 MR. HANNIS: Can I have page 1 of both the English and the B/C/S.
7 Your Honours may recall that we've sought to admit the entire
8 notebooks for 1992. For 1993 we ask permission to admit only certain
9 excerpts. So from these notebooks I'm only showing excerpts. And this
10 first one -- yes, the 65 ter number is 3587.1. It's tab 22 on my list.
11 Q. And, General, in a minute I hope to you show you an excerpt from
12 that notebook from a meeting on the 6th of February, 1993.
13 Do you see that, General? It's Saturday, 6 February, 1993, in
14 Doboj, a meeting with political structures. Do you recognise the
15 handwriting on that page?
16 A. First of all, I need to draw your attention that the sound I'm
17 receiving is not particularly clear in my headset.
18 Secondly, this is General Mladic 's handwriting.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. HANNIS: We'll have somebody take a look at your headset.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear him well, but not the
22 interpreters. All right. I can hear them now.
23 MR. HANNIS:
24 Q. Thank you for letting us know, and please do advise if the
25 problem re-occurs.
1 A. This is probably something to do with my profession, because I
2 used to drive a tank back in the army.
3 Q. Some similarities, I suppose. General, do you know anything
4 about this meeting in Doboj?
5 A. No. I've never seen this before.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. This is a political meeting, and I didn't do politics during the
8 war. Not because I refused to but because it wasn't in my job
9 description. My job description was about waging war, not politics.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'd like to tender this excerpt. It is
12 from the notebook whose range you see on my list of documents to use with
13 this defendant [sic] and that is item number 3 among the five exhibits
14 looked at in July of 2009 in 65 ter 9141.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't recall the witness confirming that he
18 recognised the handwriting. Oh, sorry. Sorry.
19 MR. HANNIS: He did say that at the same time he was advising us
20 about the problem with the headphones. And in light of that, I would ask
21 to tender this excerpt.
22 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, could you remind me, Mr. Hannis, as to the
23 evidential purpose of tendering this entry from 1993?
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, this reference makes -- this entry
25 makes reference to permission from Stanisic to form the Red Berets in
1 Ozren and goes on to say that Mico wrote an order for Bozovic to form a
2 special unit at the CSB in Doboj. We've heard other evidence in this
3 case about Red Berets operating in the area of Doboj, we have evidence in
4 this case that Mico Stanisic was no longer the minister in February of
5 1993, but we say this goes to the issue of knowledge, of failure to
6 punish, et cetera.
7 JUDGE HALL: And, again, is this -- are there two versions of
8 this or just the black and -- monochromatic version?
9 MR. HANNIS: This is one -- this is one of the monochromes,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1765, Your Honours.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. May I have just a moment.
14 Thank you. Next, I'd like to turn to tab 24, which is
15 65 ter number 3588. And this is another notebook from 1993 covering the
16 period from 2 April to 24 October, and we have a few excerpts from this.
17 I'd like to start first by showing the witness page 4 of English and
18 page -- well, I'm sorry, we have renumbered it in light of the excerpts.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. HANNIS: Sorry, if we could have page 20 of the English, and
21 I think it's 24 of the -- and 20 of the B/C/S.
22 Q. General, this is about the meeting of the 26th Session of the
23 Assembly on the 2nd/3rd of April in Bileca.
24 Do you recognise the handwriting on this page?
25 A. Yes. It's General Mladic's handwriting.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: And I think I would like to do all the excerpts from
3 this particular book at one time and then move them in as one.
4 Page 1 of the English and the B/C/S.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we object. This is
6 1993, minutes of an Assembly meeting. What relevance does that have in
7 relation to the period covered by the indictment, which is 1992?
8 JUDGE HALL: Well, that was the question I had asked in respect
9 of the last item which was admitted. And -- well, I'm not going to put
10 words in Mr. Hannis's mouth, but what is your reply, Mr. Hannis?
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm sorry, let me find the reference.
12 Are we talking about the one that's on the screen now, or the previous
14 JUDGE HALL: No, the one that's on the screen now. And you
15 indicated that there are a number -- I don't know how many more of these
16 there are. You indicated that you would seek to admit them as a bundle.
17 Perhaps not as a bundle but together, I think, was what you had said.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
19 This is a -- this particular excerpt involves a meeting with
20 Red Cross representatives. There's a discussion of camps and prisoners
21 of war. There's a reference to the number of prisoners released from
22 Manjaca and Trnopolje numbering more than five thousand. There's some
23 prisoners of war still being visited. And they talk about persons still
24 being detained in Batkovic, et cetera. So we think it's relevant to the
25 issue of the detentions, the claims that all camps had been closed and
1 all civilians released. So it goes to knowledge and the acts of cruel
2 treatment that are alleged in the indictment.
3 And it was admitted by -- we were allowed to add it to our
4 65 ter list when we -- when we made the submission to -- to Your Honours.
5 It's by an order dated 17th of September, 2010.
6 JUDGE HALL: Of course, that's step one. The addition to the
7 65 ter list.
8 MR. HANNIS: Yes. But I trust, Your Honours, the reason you
9 allowed us to add it to the list was because we initially persuaded you
10 that it was relevant and probative, even though it was outside the
12 JUDGE HALL: Although Mr. Krgovic didn't expand his objection the
13 way I'm going to pose this question to you now, the admissibility of
14 documents outside of the period covered by the indictment is -- it's well
15 settled that it is permissible for certain purposes, but mustn't there
16 come a point, Mr. Hannis, when we are being invited to admit documents
17 which because they fall outside the relevant period of the indictment
18 ought not to be admitted? The arguments of continuity and system and
19 consistency apart, and against that background - as I said, I don't know
20 how many of these documents you have; you indicated you have a number -
21 mustn't each of them be considered separately for admission?
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, yes, Your Honour, that's how I would treat it.
23 Each one should stand or fall on its own merits. But we do believe that
24 it is relevant even though it's after the time-period. We have persuaded
25 you in the past to admit some documents outside the time-period, for
1 example, some Assembly sessions where there were discussions about what
2 had been done during the time-period, how they did it, who they worked
3 with, et cetera. And, as I said, this goes to an issue that's been
4 contested in this case about the number of people that were at those
5 camps and whether they were camps, et cetera.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: So this one may be admitted and marked.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1766, Your Honours.
10 MR. HANNIS: And the next one I have is for the
11 27th of May, 1993. And page number -- page number 8 in both the English
12 and the B/C/S.
13 Q. General, this is a -- about a meeting in Banja Luka on the
14 27th of May, 1993. Do you recognise the handwriting on this page? If
15 so, who is it?
16 A. I do. It's the handwriting of General Mladic. He held a meeting
17 with officers from the 1st Krajina Corps and the air force and
18 anti-aircraft defence in Banja Luka.
19 Q. Okay. And this is a little longer excerpt. In fairness, I think
20 we need to go forward three pages in both the English and B/C/S to show
21 you the part that we suggest is most probative, even though it's outside
22 the time-period.
23 General, you recognise the handwriting on this page as well?
24 A. I do. It's the same handwriting. It's General Mladic's.
25 Q. The name at the bottom that's underlined above item number 1,
1 Colonel Bogojevic. Do you know who he was?
2 A. I do. He was the chief of the intelligence service in the
3 1st Krajina Corps command. He was an intelligence man in the corps.
4 Q. Okay. And my English translation says that he's reporting that
5 Simo Drljaca has arrived. He was sent by the minister of the RS, and he
6 came about the Tomasica mine.
7 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the next page in both English and
9 Q. Again, same handwriting?
10 A. Yes, the same handwriting.
11 Q. And it carries on: near Prijedor where earlier they buried around
12 5.000 Muslims, Drljaca came to leave this with us, et cetera.
13 MR. HANNIS: Again, Your Honours, you will see what this relates
14 to from 1992, and we think it's highly relevant and probative, and I
15 would tender this excerpt.
16 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As P1767, Your Honours.
18 MR. HANNIS: One more from this diary. And it's page 15 of both
19 the English and the B/C/S. It's an excerpt from the 29th of September.
20 Q. General, you recognise the handwriting on this page?
21 A. I do. It's the handwriting of General Mladic.
22 Q. Thank you. This is about the 34th Session of the Assembly in
23 Banja Luka on the 29th of September, 1993.
24 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the next page. I'm sorry, could
25 we go two pages in both English and B/C/S.
1 Q. Again, in General Mladic's handwriting?
2 A. Yes. It's General Mladic's handwriting.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, among other items on this page is a
4 discussion by Tomo Kovac about tension between the army and the police
5 about -- about golfs coming out of the TAS factory in June of 1992.
6 Mico Stanisic is noted as speaking about the golfs. And we would move to
7 tender this one as well.
8 JUDGE HALL: Of course, here we're well into 1993, into
9 September. What --
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it's -- we think it goes, again, to
11 knowledge and failure to punish. We think -- and there has been evidence
12 in this case about police being involved in the theft of those golfs.
13 Evidence about those golfs being taken to Serbia and sold in order to buy
14 equipment for the police. And therefore this continuing discussion about
15 it and Mr. Stanisic's involvement in it we think make it relevant.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, I think, I believe, the simply question is
17 where in the indictment are we talking about Golf cars?
18 MR. HANNIS: We're talking about the failure to punish policemen.
19 We're talking about a joint criminal enterprise. We're talking about the
20 means to furnish and equip and supply those who committed the crimes.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, as Their Honours pointed out, we're in
22 September 1993. Mr. Stanisic is not the minister. Whether or not this
23 accurately reflects what was said is also not established. We're outside
24 the time-frame of the indictment. Mr. Stanisic is not the minister of
25 the interior at this point. And the matters on the surface don't appear
1 to relate to the indictment.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber does not accept that this item should be
4 admitted as an exhibit.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours --
6 JUDGE HALL: As it is clearly outside of the period covered by
7 the indictment and there is no obvious connection between the contents
8 and the -- what it concerns and the matters charged in the indictment.
9 MR. HANNIS: Very well, Your Honour. Let me ... let me consult
10 for a moment.
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. I'd like text to turn to tab 28. This
13 is 65 ter number 3592.1.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just a technicality. This last excerpt came from
17 which notebook? Notebook under tab number ... which tab number?
18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, all those excerpts -- all those
19 excerpts from 1993 between April 2nd and September 29th, or whatever that
20 last one we looked at, were from tab 24.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted as 1766; right? 1766.
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I had proposed to have multiple
23 excerpts admitted as one, but then I think we started marking them --
24 considering them individually. So I think we need to give them separate
25 65 ters and -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, because this way we only have one --
2 Madam Registrar, we only have one number, haven't we? Yes. So
3 we can't distinguish them.
4 MR. HANNIS: Yeah. So that's my request, that we can mark the
5 excerpts as 3588.1, 2, 3, and 4, and --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And 4 being not admitted?
7 MR. HANNIS: And 4 being not admitted.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's the solution. Thank you.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Now, this last one if we could go to --
10 well, first of all, if we could look at the cover page in B/C/S.
11 Q. [Microphone not activated] General, you mentioned that --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Mike.
13 MR. HANNIS:
14 Q. You mentioned that later on in the war when you ran out of JNA
15 work books that General Mladic, and I guess the rest of you, started
16 using other kinds of notebooks that you could find from -- from any
17 source to write in your daily entries about your work; is that right?
18 A. Yes. Mladic received a large quantity of notebooks such as this
19 one from Sogovic [phoen], the director of the petroleum industry of
20 Serbia, such as this one, and I received some from the print shop in
21 Drvar. Everybody tried to find what they can. We didn't have the
22 standard JNA notebooks any longer, so we made our entries in other
24 Q. Thank you. And if we could go to page -- I'm sorry.
25 MR. HANNIS: In B/C/S, I need the ERN 0649-0552. And in English
1 it's page number -- page 224 in English and 227 in B/C/S.
2 Q. General, do you recognise the handwriting on that page?
3 A. It's General Mladic's handwriting.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS: If we could continue to the next page as well.
6 Q. Again, same question: Whose handwriting?
7 A. Again, it's the handwriting of General Mladic, except he switched
8 pens towards the end of the page.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go back one page in both the B/C/S
11 and the English, we'll see that this is an about a meeting that occurred
12 on the 11th of July, 1995.
13 Q. General, did you know about this meeting?
14 A. I didn't. At that time I was defending us from Operation Storm
15 in the general area of Drvar.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. I'm referring to the military Operation Storm. I'm not referring
18 to a storm as in relating to the weather.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... thank you. I'd like to show
20 you a video, briefly, that is of this 11 July 1995 meeting.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, on the face of it, how is a meeting in
22 July of 1995 relevant?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not trying to admit this entry for
24 its content. This is only on the issue of the authenticity of the
25 notebooks. This is similar to the video I showed of the Assembly session
1 in Banja Luka in May 1992. I think I have a better connection of tying
2 the notebook in the video to the notebook from which the General has just
3 identified the handwriting.
4 JUDGE HALL: But the testimony of this witness has been led to
5 establish the authenticity of those entries in the notebook on which you
6 are seeking to rely. And we have painstakingly, from yesterday, gone
7 through a series of entries. So, in other words, each of the entries on
8 which you are relying you led evidence to establish the -- its
9 authenticity. If by the time we get to 1995 you can't be relying on what
10 it's about, what is the purpose of going through the exercise and
11 establishing the authenticity?
12 MR. HANNIS: Well, again, Your Honour, it goes back to my, I
13 guess, initial anxiety and feeling like I needed to provide you belt and
14 suspenders. But if what I'm hearing you say is that I don't need to do
15 this, then I won't. I would make a statement, as proffered evidence:
16 What I propose to show was, you've seen this notebook, you've seen an
17 entry for a meeting on the 11th of July, the witness has identified the
18 handwriting of being of General Mladic, the video shows General Mladic at
19 that meeting with those persons named, and you can see on the video an
20 open notebook which appears to have the same kind of watermarks on it,
21 et cetera. And I'm trying to make that link. I think you're telling me
22 I don't need to do that. And if that's the case, it's almost time for
23 the break and -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's -- it's not for the
25 Bench to tell you how to run your case, Mr. Hannis. The only question I
1 have is in terms of the rules of relevance, which is fundamental to every
2 trial, and in a criminal matter relevance being formed by the indictment,
3 or being based on the indictment, how is this, on the face of it, at all
5 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, in light of the Defence's
6 continuing challenge to the authenticity of these notebooks, our position
7 is that part of the evidence that establishes the authenticity of the
8 notebooks include things you haven't heard yet but which you would hear
9 from Investigator Tomasz Blaszczyk and/or Investigator Ellen Gallagher
10 about the circumstances in which these were found in a group together
11 behind a closed wall in the house of the General's wife. All those kind
12 of things suggest that all of these were made by one person and that
13 person was Ratko Mladic; and, therefore, if I can show conclusively that
14 the 1995 notebook is from Ratko Mladic, then I bolster my argument that
15 say that all the rest are.
16 That's the purpose of why I'm trying to do it.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, we take your point that it's time for
19 the break. We will rule on this when we return.
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
24 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way in, we have
25 considered the application to admit the last document that the
1 Prosecution had on the screen. In our view that it is -- that it ought
2 not to be admitted because it doesn't -- it is irrelevant as not
3 advancing the issues in respect of which this witness was called. Thank
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 I make one further application to you. What I had proposed to
7 show was the video in which at a certain point you can hear some of the
8 people in the video speaking. You can see briefly General Mladic writing
9 in a notebook that he has in front of him. It's the Prosecution's
10 position that if you look at the original notebook can you see that there
11 this is an entry about the very subject that was spoken about by the
12 person in the video and that the pages appear to have the same kind of
13 design or water mark, if you will, on the top of the pages that are in
14 the notebook.
15 And in connection with that, Your Honour, I have handed, during
16 the break, to the Registry Officer the original notebook that is
17 reflecting that meeting in July of 1995, and I have proposed to just hand
18 it up as a demonstrative exhibit for Your Honours to see the size and
19 texture, et cetera, of the notebook and also perhaps to show it to the
20 witness to see if he can confirm if indeed that original has the
21 General's handwriting. But I don't want to offer that book into evidence
22 because it needs to go back to the evidence unit to -- we're trying to
23 retain strict control of all those originals.
24 Also, I need to point out it is not the same you heard -- this is
25 from a private supplier; this is not the JNA notebooks that were used
1 earlier in the war, because they ran out of those. We have some of those
2 in the evidence unit as well, but those are being preserved for the
3 moment for the possibility of forensic testing for DNA in the event that
4 the person whose DNA might be on it shows up sometime in the near future.
5 And I'm not permitted at the moment to bring that in and show you.
6 But, by your leave, if you -- your ruling is that you don't want
7 to see the video, then I would simply ask if we can hand that notebook to
8 the witness and ask him if he recognises it and if he recognises the
9 handwriting at the tabbed entry on 11 July and then I'll stop.
10 JUDGE HALL: For the reasons that we indicated earlier,
11 Mr. Hannis, the -- there's no point in showing the video. In terms of
12 what you propose to do in terms of this notebook, the -- you could ask
13 your question and we see where it goes.
14 I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the problem
15 in terms of this item is that it is affected by the same vice as the
16 excerpt and the video. But proceed and we'll see where you go.
17 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour, I -- I see that you've seen it, and
18 that kind of satisfies the demonstrative purpose for which I wanted to
19 produce it, so I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you -- thank you, Mr. -- if I seem tentative
21 it is because I am not sure what we have seen. It seems to be unusual
22 for an item to be laid over to the Bench without it being properly
23 exhibited. But it has happened, and I don't know -- we'll see,
24 Mr. Hannis.
25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I have one prior experience in this
1 Tribunal; that in the Milutinovic case we had a train log from the train
2 station, we had the original, we had a man who helped keep it who came in
3 and talked about it but requested that he be allowed to return the
4 original to his place of employment because it was necessary. And with
5 the agreement of all concerned, we allowed the original to be taken away
6 because we had a copy and it was on the record of what we had done. And
7 we were allowed to substitute.
8 JUDGE HALL: I'm familiar with that practice. For instance, in
9 my own experience elsewhere it would arise in the case of land documents,
10 for instance, conveyances and that sort of thing, where the witness is
11 allowed to take the original back and you treat the photocopy, or
12 whatever have you, as the working exhibit.
13 My query in this case is that - and I chose not to examine it
14 myself - that the impression I had is that this wasn't the -- in any
15 sense the original of what had been exhibited. It was the original of
16 what had not been exhibited. That was the only query I had.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we had shown him on the screen the
18 entry for July 11th, which is tabbed in this book, and he did identify
19 that handwriting as the handwriting of General Mladic. But I had -- when
20 we had a discussion about -- I said I was not trying to offer that entry
21 for the -- for the content of the July 11th but trying to connect it with
22 the video which showed the General actually writing in a book and then
23 trying to establish a link between what's shown in the video and this
24 exact book. But it --
25 JUDGE HALL: But you -- you say you're through with your
2 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... in light of your rulings,
3 I am. Thank you.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
5 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. O'Sullivan:
8 Q. Good afternoon, General.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, with your leave, I would like to
11 present a hard copy of P1750 to the General. It's the --
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: -- chart that he filled out. It would be easier
14 for him to follow in hard copy, I believe.
15 Q. General, you're looking at a copy of Exhibit P1750, which is the
16 form you completed on the 22nd of April, 2010. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And on that day, you were at the office -- within the Office of
19 the Prosecutor here in The Hague; is that right?
20 A. Yes. I testified in the latter half of April.
21 Q. No, but during this meeting on the 22nd of April, the meeting you
22 had with the Prosecutor took place here in The Hague in the Prosecutor's
23 offices; is that right?
24 A. Yes, it was the so-called proofing.
25 Q. Yes. And at the time, you were told by the Prosecutor that the
1 documents you looked at were obtained from the Government of the Republic
2 of Serbia; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But you were not told where the Government of Serbia had obtained
5 those documents; am I correct in that?
6 A. I wasn't told, nor did I inquire.
7 Q. And this document indicates that you looked at 18 documents;
9 A. I repeat again: I reviewed five in Banja Luka and 18 here.
10 Q. All right. And the 18 that you looked at here, that all took
11 place on the 22nd of April during that day; is that right?
12 A. No. Not only on the 22nd. I signed this on the 22nd. The
13 proofing with the OTP took two days. So I reviewed these in two days and
14 only signed this paper on the 22nd.
15 Q. Okay. If you look at instruction number 1, you see you were
16 asked to confirm whether the page range in column 2 is correct or not.
17 You see that?
18 A. Yes, I see that. I was requested to write or -- the correct
19 number where the numbers did not match, and that is what I did on several
21 Q. And I see that you did not answer column 6, and you explained
22 that you didn't do that because you did not have enough time to study the
23 documents; correct?
24 A. You will have to assist me. Column 6 has a heading: "Personally
25 acquainted with the event."
1 It was unclear to me which event was -- is meant here. The
2 seizure of the work books, the handling of the work books, or the events
3 described in the work books.
4 Q. I was simply referring to the handwritten note you made at the
5 bottom of page 2 where you just said, I did not have time to study each
6 document. Is that -- you wrote that at the time?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Now, if we look at -- on the second page -- well, yes, on the
9 second page, you noted a discrepancy in the second column with the page
10 range; correct?
11 A. Yes, the page numbers. I was requested to correct that by hand.
12 Q. And I see that you made the correction. You -- you wrote in that
13 the last page was 3270.
14 A. I cannot see that. Which page number?
15 Q. It will be the second page for you. You see document number 6?
16 It's the first entry on the second page, number 6. And column number 2,
17 you wrote: "3270. You wrote the 270, you --
18 A. Zero, yes.
19 Q. Now, if do you the mathematics, that document that you looked at
20 appeared to have 73 pages. The information we have from the Prosecutor
21 is that document should have 397 pages, based on the ERN.
22 So on that day you looked at a document -- based on this form,
23 you looked at a document that was 73 pages, not 397 pages. Does that
24 seem right?
25 A. I have no reason to confirm or deny. I did what I was requested
1 to do, but I did not count the pages.
2 Q. And if the page difference is between 397 and 73, I suppose it's
3 fair to say that the document indicated on the list is different than the
4 one you looked at. Would you agree with that?
5 A. Possible. If that was a standard JNA work book, then it had
6 400 pages. A few pages at the beginning are deducted where there's a
7 calendar, internal notes, phone numbers, and so on; whereas, the blank
8 pages start with page 13 and the last page that can be used is 399.
9 Whereas, page 400 is reserved for certifying the work book.
10 Q. Well, we've seen your annotation. Entry number 8, you mark it --
11 there's a discrepancy there, apparently. You put the number 1 -- 2081.
12 The "1" you included. You see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Entry number 9, there appears to be a discrepancy as well. You
15 pencilled in "93." So it's 4493 instead of 4478. Do you see that?
16 A. I do. But, sir, I now remember what this is about.
17 I got this sheet which is a list of documents or work books. It
18 was my task to compare the numbers stated here in this list with the
19 numbers on the documents themselves. And if the numbers didn't match,
20 and it was mostly the last digits that didn't, my task was to enter the
21 correct number as indicated on the document. I don't understand that as
22 counting pages. I understood that to mean that wherever the number on
23 the -- in the work book doesn't match the number mentioned in the
24 document, I was supposed to correct the numbers, and I did so on this
25 sheet of paper.
1 Q. Very well. I just want to confirm that I've understood your
2 entries. But we'll continue.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. O'Sullivan, you didn't ask to have this
4 document on the screen, did you?
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, it was P1750. I'm sorry. I assumed
6 that -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... yeah, but it's because
8 I don't -- I can't follow. So that's why I ask.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I'm very sorry. I was focussed on the hard
10 copy, and I didn't request it. I'm very sorry. P1750.
11 We're on the second page.
12 Q. Thank you, General. I think it's -- your explanations are quite
13 clear. We understood that you were asked to put the actual pages or the
14 numbers that you saw, and you did that. I just want to go through this
15 document to confirm what you did.
16 We just looked at document number 9.
17 Document number 10, again, you noted a discrepancy. 1282, you
18 corrected; you added "282." Do you see that?
19 A. Which item number is that?
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... number 10.
21 A. Yes, I see it. 282.
22 Q. Again, a discrepancy in document number 11. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I can see that. I wrote a number 1 instead of whatever
24 there was originally.
25 Q. Document number 12, again.
1 A. Yes. I wrote "3985," whereas, originally it read "4069."
2 Q. There what purports to a 156-page document only has 72 pages. So
3 it seems like a very different document that you looked at there, at
4 number 12.
5 A. That's for the Prosecution to know. I don't know that. I didn't
6 count the pages because that wasn't my task.
7 Q. Okay. Document 15, you note a discrepancy. Instead of 77, it's
8 56. You pencilled in "56"?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So that would be, instead of a 95-page document, a 74-page
12 17, again, you pencilled in "10." Do you --
13 A. Yes. But I don't know what there was originally, because I used
14 a black pen and now the original numbers can no longer be made out.
15 Q. All right. And we can only base it on what the Prosecution has
16 used in this trial, and they say it's 2003, but we'll see.
17 And document 18, you have changed -- you have added a "1,"
18 "0931." And "111," becomes "1153."
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So, in fact, this document appears to have more pages than what
21 was indicated on the sheet.
22 I believe it's correct that in the days following the
23 22nd of April, the Prosecutor came back to you to correct only one
24 discrepancy in document number 3. They've showed you one more page and
25 you confirmed that that page was missing. Do you recall that happening?
1 A. I don't know which document you mean.
2 Q. Do you recall the Prosecution coming to you in the days following
3 with one -- one page to say this -- this page should have been included
4 in the documents they supplied you with? Do you recall that happening?
5 A. Before or after my testimony?
6 Q. I would think prior to your testimony but after filling out the
7 form in front of you. If you don't recall, that's fine.
8 A. I don't recall, but it's possible. It certainly can't have been
9 after the testimony because I know that we bid each other farewell then
10 and went our own separate ways.
11 Q. All right. So you don't recall the Prosecution reacting to the
12 changes you made to this form?
13 A. Sir, I think I spent two or three days with the Prosecution
14 before the testimony, and I really don't know when I did what. I cannot
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that's fine, sir. If you
17 don't recall, that's perfectly all right.
18 In July 2009, apparently you were asked to look at five
19 documents. You've talked about that. The five documents in July 2009 in
20 Banja Luka. Do you recall saying that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you did not fill out any similar form in 2009 at that time.
23 Am I correct in thinking that?
24 A. I did not.
25 Q. And in April 2010 - I'm talking about the second meeting - you
1 were not shown those five documents again, were you?
2 A. I wasn't. I don't think so. I reviewed 18 documents, as is
3 stated here.
4 Q. As you sit here today, you would have no idea what the page range
5 of those five documents that you saw in Banja Luka is, do you?
6 A. I don't know. But we discussed those work books even in
7 August 2009, which is the following month.
8 Q. And I heard you say yesterday - I just want to confirm this and
9 perhaps refresh your memory - at page 18338, regarding the five books in
10 Banja Luka, you said: "I didn't read through them all, but I asked for
11 permission to read those sections of the notebooks that referred to me."
12 That's the way it was in Banja Luka, was it?
13 A. Yes. That's the way it was in Banja Luka, and the purpose of
14 that was to jog my memory also with regard to Mladic's handwriting.
15 Q. I'd like to change topics just for a moment.
16 You explained to us yesterday that because of your -- or through
17 your years in the JNA and the VRS as an officer, keeping a notebook was
18 something that senior officers did. And is it correct that there was a
19 certain protocol that was followed, in that the officer would insert his
20 name and first name and rank or registry at the beginning of the
22 A. Yes. In the JNA, when you were issued the notebook which was
23 done in an office, the one who received the notebook had to sign the
24 log-book of issued notebooks. I saw one of Mladic's notebooks, I
25 believe, from 1990 or 1991, which was entered. Once it was full, it had
1 to be returned. Usually lower-ranking officers would return them. You
2 said high-ranking officers, but all officers had work books, from squad
3 commanders to army -- the army commander. But higher ranking officers
4 wouldn't really return work books often because the NCO in charge of
5 these matters wouldn't dare oppose them. So that the work books, the
6 used work books, would mostly left with the higher-ranking officers.
7 Q. Do you know whether General Mladic, based on your experience with
8 him in 1992 to 1995, during that period, did he enter his name and -- and
9 first name and other information in his notebooks? Do you recall seeing
11 A. No. None of us wrote down our names for practical reasons. In
12 case any of us were captured, the notebook too would be seized. The
13 enemy's investigator or interrogator in that case would have had no
14 trouble at all ascertaining the person's identity.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General.
18 A. For the second time in this courtroom, good afternoon,
19 Mr. Krgovic.
20 Q. We know each other. We had an opportunity to meet in the Popovic
21 case and other times too. The last time around I took my time with you,
22 quite some time. I will try to keep this brief for a change. I don't
23 have so many questions for you, sir.
24 General, sir, do you remember yesterday when you talked about the
25 tactical groups and my learned friend Mr. Hannis asked you about the TG 3
1 commander and the TG 9 commander, Colonel Lisica - we're talking about
2 Colonel Slavko Lisica; right?
3 A. Yes, that's right. But I wasn't talking about TG 9; I was
4 talking about TG 3 and Operations Group 9, OG 9.
5 Q. So we're talking about the TG 3, and Colonel Lisica was first the
6 commander of that group and then later he became the commander of OG 9;
8 A. Yes, that's right. A tactical group is a provisional unit which
9 is formed to carry out specific tasks over a specific period of time. In
10 this case, the objective was to take Bosanski Brod. Once that was done,
11 the group disbanded and Lisica was transferred to OG 9. Nevertheless,
12 this OG as well is a temporary unit, but this one stayed the way it was
13 throughout the war. It had the level, roughly speaking, of an infantry
15 Q. Who preceded Colonel Lisica as head of the OG? It was
16 Milivoj Simic, if I'm not mistake. Do you know about that, sir?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. Well, what I'm trying to ask you is this: You said yesterday
19 that Brod was liberated on the 7th of October, 1992. Is that right, sir?
20 A. Yes. Although I didn't use such terms as "liberated" or
21 "occupied" during the actual war. The terms I used were such terms as
22 "taken." It was, after all, a single state. It is impossible to
23 liberate a town that is in one and the same state.
24 Q. What I want to know is this: Do you know that Colonel Lisica
25 became commander of OG 9 sometime in November 1992? Meaning sometime
1 before the 15th of November.
2 A. After Brod was taken and TG 3 was disbanded, Lisica took over as
3 commander of OG 9. Or OG Doboj, as we called it.
4 Q. But you wouldn't happen to know the date or the month, would you,
6 A. The first half of November. I can't give you the exact date.
7 Q. I checked this information, too, and that's why I'm asking. So
8 it was the first half the of November; right?
9 A. Yes. What I remember is this: The now-General Lisica, at the
10 time Colonel Lisica, and General Mladic in addition to have this
11 relationship of subordination, one being superior to the other, were also
12 friends on personal terms. When Mladic was about to appoint him
13 commander of OG 9, Mladic called me, he phoned me, and ordered me to draw
14 up an order or instructions to set up the 3rd Krajina Corps, to draw up a
15 decree to set up the 3rd Krajina Corps. I asked him about the specific
16 area of responsibility for that corps, and he said between Ucine region
17 and Bosnia. Which led me to conclude that neither he nor Lisica knew
18 much about geography, because the Bosnian region is next to Ucine and
19 this was Central Bosnia.
20 You couldn't possibly have a 3rd Krajina Corps in that area. If
21 he wanted to promote Lisica to the rank of general, he should have
22 ordered a restructuring effort for the whole of the VRS so that
23 this officer could now become an alternative general-major. And that's
24 how the whole thing ground to a halt. It was sometime in mid-November.
25 I did not produce that decree. Three days later, Mladic tried to push me
1 to work faster upon which I had to explain that this was impossible. We
2 would have had more corps around than brigades had that become the case.
3 Q. Mr. Milovanovic, thank you for this explanation.
4 Just to go back to the log-books that your evidence focussed on.
5 If I understand your evidence correctly, when you received the log-books
6 with the purpose of checking whether the handwriting was Mladic's, at
7 first sight could you not identify Mladic's handwriting. You had to look
8 for entries in which your name was mentioned so that jogged your memory
9 about the substance being discussed in the log-books.
10 Wasn't that the case, sir?
11 A. No, that was not the case. I identified Mladic's handwriting.
12 Nevertheless, as I said yesterday and today a short while ago, the last
13 time I actually saw Mladic while we were both working in the army, it was
14 14 years ago, 1996. I simply wanted to see for myself that this was,
15 indeed, Mladic's handwriting, how -- by reading certain portions of those
16 notebooks that were in relation to me. Which would have jogged my memory
17 as to whether I actually said those words or not that I was recorded as
19 The first section or excerpt from these notebooks that I read was
20 about the Main Staff meeting at Oskarin [phoen] on the
21 4th of August, 1995. That was still vivid in my memory. Why? Because I
22 attended that meeting, and at that meeting I - meaning not Mladic or the
23 General Staff - refused to carry out an order by the Supreme Command.
24 Mladic asked me whether I was fully aware of my actions, and I said, yes,
25 that indeed I was fully aware that I was potentially facing arrest or
1 being court marshalled. I wasn't in favour of General Mladic being
2 removed from his post at the war's end. Simply because there were no
3 reasons for that. The reasons were of a purely political nature.
4 I read every single word of my contribution at the meeting as it
5 was recorded, and everything was consistent. Leading me to conclude that
6 that was indeed Mladic's notebook. I do have to tell the Trial Chamber
7 something else now that you started me talking about this, if I may put
8 it that way. What I read at the time in Banja Luka seven days later
9 appeared in "Slobodna Bosna" magazine. Nevertheless, it didn't say
10 Milovanovic there, so the journalist had to explain who said what at the
11 meeting. But I didn't check that at the time. And then it keeps saying
12 a person named "N Sh." He didn't know who the person was. He thought
13 those were initials for someone's name. And the next time Mr. Nicholls
14 came, I showed him the article from "Slobodna Bosna" magazine and I
15 wanted an explanation. The only person knowing about what I said at the
16 time was me and an investigator whose name I can't remember and the
17 interpreter who was there. Nevertheless, it's a fact that there were
18 other things that occurred on that date that the papers got hold of,
19 things that the interpreter didn't know of, things that I had never read
20 myself. I never received a satisfactory explanation as to how this
21 information cropped up in the newspapers.
22 Q. If I understand your explanation, sir, in order to be
23 100 per cent certain that this was Mladic's handwriting and Mladic's
24 diaries, you went through some of the substance. But did you not
25 cross-reference that to perhaps another sample of Mladic's handwriting or
1 a handwriting in your possession?
2 A. No. I did not have any documents in my possession. None that I
3 failed to hand over. I never had anything like that in my possession.
4 Mladic never produced combat documents in handwriting. He would write
5 something down in hand that would be sent through a teleprinter, typed
6 up, and sent in that format to any of his subordinate units or whoever
7 the document was addressed to. During my time working with him, I never
8 saw a document that he wrote in hand. As soon as he wrote something
9 down, he would immediately forward it to the person in charge of the
11 Q. What this means is the OTP never asked you to compare this diary
12 to something that was in indisputably Mladic's handwriting; they just
13 wanted you to quickly check it for authenticity; right?
14 MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... Objection. It
15 calls for speculation on his part to say what the OTP was thinking.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Well, this that's precisely what I was asking. What was the task
18 given to you by the OTP? To --
19 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, could I have a ruling
20 on my objection? It calls for speculation for this witness to say what
21 the OTP was thinking.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: Maybe it's a problem with translation. I never
23 said about what -- I asked what Prosecution did. Ask, not think.
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, the -- I see nothing with -- objection
25 about your question in substance, but perhaps it could be rephrased. You
1 can ask a direct question; you're cross-examining.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Milovanovic, what did the OTP want you to do specifically
4 when they gave you these diaries to look at?
5 A. I will keep it short and clear.
6 They wanted me to identify the handwriting to say whether it was
7 Mladic's or whose handwriting it was. Nevertheless, I came across
8 Mladic's handwriting while meeting another OTP team a year or two earlier
9 on headed by Mr. Mark Harmon. And this, too, occurred in Banja Luka.
10 They gave me documents to look at that were signed by General Mladic.
11 All sorts of different orders and what have you. We had some trouble --
12 or, rather, I had some trouble recognizing Mladic's initial, RM, standing
13 for Ratko Mladic, simply because General Tolimir's initialling were quite
14 alike, ZT, Zdravko Tolimir. Nevertheless, I did come across Mladic's
15 initials whenever he signed combat orders which he had to sign by using
16 his full name, Ratko Mladic.
17 When the notebooks arrived, I was already getting into my stride,
18 as it were, with Mladic's handwriting through the documents that I had
19 looked at and through his signatures that I had seen. Or else he
20 received a document from someone, the Supreme Command or perhaps one of
21 the subordinate units. And then if you look at the heading of the
22 documents, he would normally write there, "forward to the Chief of
23 Staff." Or else he would write, "Chief of Staff, your opinion, your
24 proposal, deal with this," or something to that effect. Therefore, there
25 was a bit more text in these sentences that he wrote explaining the
1 nature of the document.
2 He would write that sort of thing down so the courier knew who he
3 would bring the document to, to deal with it. Or else these were
4 suggestions being made to his subordinate officers as to what exactly to
5 do with those documents. It was a bit more text there than just initials
6 or the signature. So I familiarised myself with Mladic's signatures as
7 early as the 2nd of July, 2007, or thereabouts, which followed my
8 appearance here. Because the first time I talked to Mark Harmon was
9 here, after my evidence.
10 Q. Could you please slow down, sir. The interpreters are asking you
11 to slow down because you're speaking too fast.
12 A. Because Mr. Mark Harmon asked to speak to me right after I
13 appeared in court here.
14 Nevertheless, I was physically unable to make that appointment.
15 I wasn't able to put up with it physically. I was ill at the time. And
16 we can spoke here for two hours. We agreed for him to go to Banja Luka.
17 We did joke about that, too. He's two years younger than me. It was
18 easier for him to take that flight and get here than it would have been
19 for me. He eventually arrived on 2nd of July, 2007.
20 Q. General, for the purpose of the present trial, you looked through
21 diaries. The OTP did not ask you to compare that to Mladic's other
22 signatures, for example his signature on his ID or the -- the files used
23 by the police to produce someone's ID or any other certified document,
24 official document. You weren't asked to compare his signature to any of
25 his other signatures and documents such as those, were you?
1 A. The OTP had no need to do that. They simply asked me to identify
2 the handwriting. For my part, I made a suggestion to the OTP. I said we
3 should use Mladic's signatures in combat documents available to the
4 Tribunal and to use those to have them analysed by handwriting experts
5 who would then confirm whether the handwriting in the notebooks was
6 consistent with the handwriting seen in Mladic's official signatures, as
7 it were.
8 It wasn't that I was trying to be cautious for my own sake. I
9 simply wanted to let the OTP know that Mladic's signature was more
10 readily identifiable to me by the substance of the document itself as
11 opposed to my memory of Mladic's handwriting dating back 14 years ago.
12 Q. That is because, needless to say, you're no handwriting expert
13 yourself. I won't call you a layman, but you're only talking based on
14 your own experience and knowledge of that, aren't you?
15 A. Throughout the war I used the Latin script to sign my own combat
16 document. After the war, I used the Cyrillic to sign documents. If
17 someone forced me to sign a document in the Latin script, I don't think
18 I'd be able to anymore, let's alone attempt to make a faithful copy of
19 Mladic's handwriting from 14 years ago. That's why I advised the OTP to
20 enlist the assistance of a handwriting expert to confirm the consistency
21 between the handwriting in the diaries and the handwriting found in
22 combat documents.
23 Q. Thank you, General. That's all I had to ask.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HALL: Re-examination?
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:
3 Q. Let me follow up with that last question. In spite of the fact
4 that you, sir, are not a handwriting expert, given your long acquaintance
5 with General Mladic, the thousand times you were in meetings seeing him
6 writing, your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the entries that
7 you've told us about in these notebooks, and having re-acquainted
8 yourself with the events from that many years ago, are you or do you have
9 any doubt that these notebooks that you've identified as containing the
10 writing of General Mladic are, indeed, authentic?
11 A. Sir, I told you during proofing that you can't measure anything
12 by a thousand per cent. But I'm 1000 per cent certain this is Mladic's
13 handwriting. What I said regarding the graphologist, the handwriting
14 expert, I'm repeating now merely because I suspect that modern technology
15 can do everything. You can falsify travel documents, you can falsify any
16 document. However, since there's a vast amount of this material and it
17 was made in a short period of time, I believe that during the 14 years
18 since our ways with General Mladic officially parted is little time -- is
19 not enough time to reproduce all these pages.
20 You can take this any way you want. If the Court will accept, I
21 can guarantee that this is Mladic's handwriting.
22 Q. Thank you, General.
23 MR. HANNIS: I don't have any more questions, Your Honour.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: General, in the process of writing these
1 notebooks, General Mladic or yourself or any -- any of your colleagues,
2 does it happen that you write in two different books about entries --
3 about the same period? So that, for instance, you would have a notebook
4 from January 1995 to September 1995 and another one from July 1995 to
5 September 1995?
6 A. Your Honour, I'm afraid I didn't understand you. You're asking
7 me whether it's possible that one notebook is from and until, and the
8 other one, again, is from and until. If that's what you're asking me --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... and, in part,
10 overlapping. The beginning and the end of one notebook is within the
11 range of dates from the other, which would suggest that you take notes
12 simultaneously in two books during the same period.
13 A. That's what I used to do. And looking at Mladic's diaries, I
14 could tell that that's what he was doing as well. He even allowed
15 somebody else to write entries in his notebook. All of us officers in
16 the Staff, for example, I had a large notebook where I kept the log of
17 the Staff, however, when I went to the front I couldn't carry that
18 notebook with me so then I would carry a smaller one on me if I needed to
19 writing is down. I would write things down while I stayed in the
20 subordinated units. In the evening or when I returned, I would copy
21 these entries in my regular notebook. So you would find the small
22 notebook and the large notebook. On occasion, I might have forgotten to
23 copy the entry. And if I didn't copy it, then it would stay in the small
24 notebook and there would be a gap in the large notebook. I had a
25 separate notebook that I kept and carried with me. It was a nicer one
1 and I kept it in my better uniform. When I went to a meeting with the
2 generals of the opposite side or with UNPROFOR, I carried this notebook
3 with me and I made entries about these meetings. Sometimes I carried it
4 to the meetings of the Supreme Command. Since I noticed that I didn't
5 copy things regularly to the main notebook, I kept that notebook as well,
6 and luckily I still have it.
7 So it's possible that there would be overlaps in two notebooks of
8 the same entries.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Indeed, General, you told us in the beginning of
10 your statement, I remember now, about the small and the large notebooks.
11 So that clarifies the doubt I had about how this went about.
12 Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, General Milovanovic, for your testimony
14 before the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness, and we wish you
15 a safe journey back to your home.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE HALL: We have a brief oral ruling to deliver.
19 The Chamber recalls that the Appeals Chamber, when seized of the
20 Stakic case on the 19th of January, 2007, augmented the protective
21 measures previously granted to ST-065 which was a pseudonym. The
22 Prosecution in that case had requested face distortion for the witness's
23 prior testimony before the Trial Chamber or, in the alternative, that the
24 trial testimony be placed under seal.
25 The Appeals Chamber found that the Prosecution had established a
1 rare likelihood of danger or risk to the witness's security which
2 necessitated augmentation of the protective measures. For practical
3 reasons, since the request related to video recordings of prior
4 testimony, the Appeals Chamber granted the Prosecution's alternative
5 request and placed the prior testimony under seal. The witness has
6 renewed his request for face distortion.
7 The Chamber grants this application, and, in doing so, takes note
8 of the Appeals Chamber finding regarding the security situation of the
10 Yes, Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: I'd rather like to tell the witness before he comes
12 into court, so I'd ask Your Honours to take the adjournment now, if you
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, yesterday Judge Delvoie asked me if
16 I would have any submissions to make following the testimony of this
17 witness. I'm prepared to make those submissions. When it pleases you.
18 Either now or after the break.
19 JUDGE HALL: Well, now, if you would, Mr. O'Sullivan.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. Your Honour, our position is the
21 following: We say that on the basis of Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure
22 and Evidence these documents should be excluded from evidence. Rule 95
23 states that no evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which
24 cast doubt, cast substantial doubts on its reliability or its admission
25 as antithetical to or would seriously damage the integrity of the
2 What do we know about these documents? First we have a set of
3 colour-scanned documents beginning the ERN range J000. Those are in the
4 B/C/S language or perhaps in this case the Serbian language, handwritten
5 Cyrillic. We have a set of black and white-scanned documents, ERN range
6 0668 and 0649, again in the Serbian language, handwritten Cyrillic. Most
7 importantly and crucially, we have a transcription into Latin script.
8 And what has been transcribed from the Cyrillic to the Latin are the
9 so-called black and white scans. There's no evidence that there was any
10 quality control, any proper review or safe-guards put in place when
11 someone typed the Cyrillic into Latin script. This Latin script was then
12 translated into English and becomes the working document for this
13 Trial Chamber. That's why the English ERN range is still the same as the
14 black and white scan, the 0668, 0649.
15 We say that in these circumstances it would be antithetical to
16 and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings to admit or
17 to not exclude an English translation of a document that's gone through
18 one version of transcription. It's like the old children's game of
19 whispering in the ear of your neighbour and having your neighbour pass
20 the message on. Who knows, and God only knows, what human error or other
21 errors may have occurred in the transcription of the Cyrillic into Latin
22 and then from the Latin -- B/C/S into English.
23 But there's more, we say. You've heard that --
24 JUDGE HALL: If I may interrupt you to fully under this point, if
25 would you assist me by developing, Mr. O'Sullivan, the nature of the
1 proceedings before this Tribunal relating as they do to events that would
2 have occurred in a place where English is not the native language would
3 have produced a whole host of documents which had to be translated --
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: -- and transcribed.
5 JUDGE HALL: -- and transcribed, and there is a well-established
6 procedure in the structure of the Tribunal's work for the translation of
7 documents and for where there are disputes as to the accuracy of the
8 translation - and I underline translation - for verification.
9 Do I understand you to be saying that these exhibits or these
10 intended exhibits fall outside of that -- that established procedure?
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, the protocol that's followed here of
12 transcription before translation, I'm not sure how widespread that is.
13 But we also have two scanned versions which purport to be the same
14 document. Or two scanning procedures of the same documents. And we say
15 that's problematic because you will not know - and I want to go further
16 with this - based on the evidence you've heard, you should have concern.
17 And it's this --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan, I'm sorry to interrupt you again,
19 but wouldn't the simplest way of dealing with your point be to check the
20 translation, the English version we have in the Latin script, with the
21 scanned version, or indeed with the original, of the notebooks at any
22 point where there seems to be a difference in the meaning? In other
23 words, if what is in the original corresponds -- in the original language
24 in the B/C/S corresponds to the English version or vice versa, then there
25 is really no problem.
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: You're referring to the Cyrillic text?
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: The original Cyrillic ends up in a Latin English
3 translation. And these are the two extremes which we need to compare and
4 hold together.
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, precisely.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. So you're raising, also, the problematic
7 issue of the intermediate transcription from B/C/S Cyrillic into B/C/S
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: But that part I think you could skip. In the
11 end, it's the original Cyrillic and the final English translation in the
12 Latin script that we need to compare.
13 And are you able, here, to point out any major differences?
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I cannot because I cannot read the Cyrillic.
15 But the point is that the translation isn't based on the Cyrillic; the
16 translation is based on someone having typed the Cyrillic into Latin.
17 And that is a problem, because if you're being asked to rely on the
18 truthfulness of the contents, you can't, and you shouldn't. That's the
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: But how is that different from any other similar
21 procedure that has been applied to a number of documents before this
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Because the original is translated.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Not always.
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, if I were in the court, I would object
1 strongly to it. Precisely. Why multiply the problems with human error?
2 That's precisely the point. If that's the procedure followed, I would --
3 well, I'm making my submission that that ought not to be the way to
5 And I would add that based on the testimony of this witness we
6 see that he's found discrepancies in nine of the 18 documents he looked
7 at. What he was purportedly shown by the Prosecution - I'm referring to
8 P1750 - this chart, in one instance - that's document 6 on P1750 - the
9 document he's shown is 324 pages less than what the Prosecution purported
10 it to be. Document 9 had three more pages. Document 12 had 84 fewer
11 pages. Document 15 had 11 fewer. Document 17 had seven more.
12 Document 18 had 42 more. And when he comes into the court, he's not
13 shown these documents; he's shown the colour scan. So he comes to the
14 Tribunal in April, is asked to review 18 documents; comes in the court,
15 he's not shown those ones; and these documents show that he looked at,
16 apparently, in many instances, different documents.
17 So I'm coupling this together as a situation which we say is very
18 problematic. And where did the documents come from? Well, according to
19 Mr. Hannis they come from Mrs. Mladic. We have no evidence surrounding
20 the search and seizure. We have no explanation why there's been two
21 scanned sets of documents. We have no evidence regarding the chain of
22 custody. There's no proof, in fact, that these are the contemporaneous
23 documents. Are these the contemporaneous documents? We saw yesterday
24 that in reference to an entry regarding Mr. -- or person named Pecanac at
25 page 18272, General Milovanovic says, and I quote:
1 "It seems to me as though he," meaning Mladic, "had a premonition
2 that those notes would eventually end up here, so he wanted to
3 disassociate himself in advance."
4 Well, that notebook, that notebook is from July 1992.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: Please continue.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, that notebook is from July 1992. And I
8 would submit that I don't think General Mladic had a premonition of the
9 ICTY months before it even was created.
10 And the fact that we have entries that refer to public events or
11 events that have -- have minutes attached to them like assemblies or
12 president meetings advances nothing. If these are not the
13 contemporaneous notes, they could be created after by the person -- by a
14 person who is aware of these minutes. If they're sitting in a room on
15 video, perhaps the easiest thing to do is to repeat what's said during
16 that meeting or what's in the transcript of that meeting.
17 So, again, we say that under Rule 95 this evidence should be
18 excluded because the methods of and way in which it was obtained casts
19 down on its reliability and its admission would be antithetical to a fair
21 Those are my submissions.
22 JUDGE HALL: Does the Prosecution wish to -- it's time for the
23 break now, but does -- if the Prosecution wishes to reply to these
24 submissions, I suppose we would hear them as soon as the --
25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I certainly disagree that there's
1 anything about how this evidence was obtained or presented to you that
2 rises to the level of being something that should be excluded under
3 Rule 95. That rule talks about things where evidence is -- is recovered
4 by torturing someone and getting a confession --
5 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... that is what I thought as
6 well, but Mr. O'Sullivan may be correct. I --
7 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... I can address the other
8 arguments if you need me, but I don't think he's made a sufficient
9 showing. And he has known about this situation with the Latin
10 transcription and the English translation from that from the Cyrillic
11 original. I would suggest, if he wanted to challenge that he should have
12 filed a motion in writing before we got here and we could have addressed
13 it with the General.
14 But he also had the opportunity to ask him questions about if
15 there were any portions where he believed that there was some discrepancy
16 between English translation and what was in the Cyrillic original; he
17 didn't do that. And he hasn't shown you -- he hasn't pointed to you one
18 instance where there's a problem with the translation. I think you're
19 allowed to presume some regularity here and that you should forthwith
20 deny his request.
21 JUDGE HALL: I was going to ask Mr. O'Sullivan whether the --
22 [Overlapping speakers] ...
23 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... and - I'm sorry - if you
24 do have a concern about chain of custody, we have proffered a witness or
25 two for that, if need be. And if you're going to keep out the evidence
1 because of a lack of that evidence, we would insist that you give us the
2 opportunity to present those witnesses.
3 JUDGE HALL: Although we're past time for the break, the last
4 point that Mr. -- last-but-one point that Mr. Hannis made, I was going to
5 ask Mr. O'Sullivan whether the -- there is a rule of evidence with which
6 we would -- you and I would be familiar from our respective jurisdictions
7 which goes under the Latin tag, omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta esse,
8 and I'm sure it applies in some form or other in all legal systems. But
9 I've known that rule to apply, obviously, in terms of official acts, but
10 I would have thought that my analogy applies to something like the
11 protocols for translation in an institution such as this. But think
12 about it, and we'll -- we'll hear you when we come back.
13 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 5.49 p.m.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I followed your direction over the
16 break and thought about your suggestion on the protocol of CLSS. I
17 realized it's the protocol. I would submit that it's an unwise protocol.
18 And I leave it at that.
19 And the -- I think it's been clear throughout, during our
20 position on these documents, but just to be absolutely clear: We do
21 object to them, and we object and oppose them being admitted for the
22 truth of their contents.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
25 Yes, is the witness available?
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, is there any ruling at this point, or
2 are you -- with regard to the colour and black and white, are you waiting
3 for some kind of report back from ...
4 JUDGE HALL: I think we have to wait for -- the -- the -- if I
5 can go back to where -- to your -- what you had indicated when we started
6 today - and please correct me if I misunderstood anything you said - that
7 you had performed the type of examination we in mind in respect of one
8 item, which was at that point, as I understood it, only a specimen, but
9 you would have -- you would have to complete the like exercise in respect
10 of all of the items which have been given parallel numbers and then you
11 would make the -- as a said, an oral submission would suffice and that
12 would be it.
13 But I don't -- I think it would be premature for us to go further
14 until you would have reported or submitted - choose your word - that
15 the -- the comparison having been done, in -- in your Chambers that
16 the -- that the -- as to what should be admitted -- what should be
17 marked, which version should be marked.
18 MR. HANNIS: All right. Your Honour, then I guess you're content
19 to let me do that and, in essence, report to you as an officer of the
20 court, not has a witness, regarding that comparison?
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Because the -- the -- although the -- we are
22 not unmindful of the basal objection to the Defence as to the
23 admissibility of this material - and I come back to using the word that I
24 chose earlier - in essence, we are satisfied that it may be admitted on
25 the basis of the testimony of the witness who has been called who is able
1 to identify the handwriting of -- of General Mladic.
2 The question, the only live question that remains, is the
3 accuracy of the two versions which for technical reasons or
4 administrative reasons happen to be -- have been placed before the Court.
5 And once the -- the -- and, therefore, we require you as the moving party
6 to satisfy us as to which of these - you have a blue version, you have a
7 black version - which of these versions you rely, because it may very
8 well be that when you perform your examination you may find in some
9 instances you prefer the colour version and in others the monochromatic
10 version, but that remains to be seen. But you would recall that each of
11 the items has been given a separate number and that allows you to make
12 different representations in respect of each of the exhibit.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. And from that can I take it
14 that with regard to the submission about these documents not being
15 admissible because of Rule 95 that you're denying that request?
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Well, the --
18 MR. HANNIS: Concerning translations.
19 JUDGE HALL: May I have a moment, please.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, I personally would like to hear an
23 explanation, if there is any, about the discrepancy in the page numbers.
24 Not now, but ...
25 MR. HANNIS: I think I know the answer to some of them right off
1 the top of my head. The others, I will have to do a little more
2 research. But thank you for directing my attention.
3 Because still, I don't know what your ruling is about the
4 submission that because there's a Latin transcription of a Cyrillic
5 original that's translated in English then the evidence is not reliable
6 and should not be admitted. I -- I hope you are taking the position that
7 that is denied.
8 JUDGE HALL: We will formally speak to that before we rise for
9 the day, Mr. Hannis. But as far as you are concerned, we would only
10 expect you to perform the exercise that I would have given details of,
11 incorporating, of course, Judge Delvoie's question, and come back to us.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon to you, sir. Could you kindly make
14 the solemn declaration on the card that the usher has handed to you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: ST-065
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You may be seated.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think we need to go into private
21 session for the first questions Your Honours intend to ask.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you. So we move into private session.
23 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HALL: The -- I take it that you're hearing me in a
1 language you understand because of your responses so far. Would you
2 confirm that, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear you very well.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Well, I would, first of all, point out
5 is that the solemn declaration that you have made imposes upon you an
6 obligation to give truthful testimony, and the penalty for failure to do
7 so is that the Tribunal has the power to impose penalties for perjury
8 under the Statutes that constitutes it.
9 The -- you have been called by the Prosecution under an expedited
10 procedure and -- but before I go into the time that we expect that you
11 would be with us, I would confirm that there are certain protective
12 measures which have been afforded to you; namely, that the ... in
13 addition to the -- you're testifying under a pseudonym, there is also a
14 technical procedure employed so that your face is concealed. Therefore,
15 that -- whereas your testimony is public in the sense that persons can
16 hear what you are saying, save for when we are in private session as we
17 are now, they will not be able to identify you.
18 The -- we are in the last hour of today's sitting, and we will
19 resume at 2.15 tomorrow afternoon in this courtroom. The Court rises at
20 7.00 and sits for a portion of a day because the limited courtroom
21 facilities have to be made available for other trials. So when we rise
22 at 7.00 this evening, your testimony will continue when we reconvene at
23 2.15 tomorrow afternoon.
24 The -- you having testified previously would be familiar with the
25 procedures of the Tribunal; therefore, I need only remind you that the
1 side calling you, in this case the Prosecution, begins. And they have
2 indicated that their examination of you should last for two and a half
3 hours. The Prosecution -- sorry, the Defence of the first accused,
4 Stanisic, has indicated two hours. And the Defence of the second
5 accused, Zupljanin, has indicated an hour and a half.
6 So that would take us into tomorrow, and the -- I would invite
7 the -- while we remain in private session, I would invite Ms. Korner to
9 The only thing I would add is that the -- there are breaks in the
10 sittings of the day, every 90 minutes, to allow for the tapes to be
11 changed. And that facilitates the convenience of yourself and -- and
12 everybody in and about the courtroom. And those breaks are of 20
13 minutes' duration. But if at any time you need to take a break, we
14 would, of course, accommodate you.
15 The -- before I invite Ms. Korner to begin, I would ask the usher
16 to hand to you the pseudonym sheet which the Prosecution has. And if
17 you're satisfied that it accurately states your name and date of birth, I
18 would ask you to sign it and hand it back to her.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may use the
20 opportunity, while the witness is signing that document, I will not take
21 two hours. It's because of time planning and because of the OTP.
22 Perhaps about 30 minutes only for the subjects cropped up during this
23 examination, but I wasn't planning on asking this witness any questions
24 after the Zupljanin Defence finishes with this witness. Just to err on
25 the side of caution, I would like to announce 30 minutes for myself.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.
3 That -- the pseudonym sheet is admitted under seal and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1768, under seal, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, first of all, can I deal with the
7 timing. I think Your Honours were going back to what I originally asked
8 for when the witness was going to be viva voce. In fact, I hope to be
9 able to conclude my examination-in-chief within this session. And I
10 don't believe that Mr. Krgovic is going to be anything like as long as he
11 originally estimated.
12 Your Honours, what I propose to do now, if we can remain in
13 private session a little bit, is to deal with his background, then
14 summarize the evidence he gave beforehand, which we can then go back into
15 open session for, and then ask a few follow-up questions.
16 Examination by Ms. Korner:
17 Q. Sir, I think it's right - and we're still in private session -
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. The evidence that you gave was in the case of -- against
24 Milomir Stakic; is that correct?
25 A. Correct.
19 Q. All right. And I think it's also right, as you told the Court in
20 Stakic, that you were not, at any stage, a member of the Bosniak party,
21 the SDA.
22 A. That's right.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we can now go into open session while
24 I just summarize the rest of the evidence he gave, because that should
25 not reveal his identity.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Sir, I'm just going to summarize for the Court the evidence that
6 you gave in the Stakic case, but the Court does in fact have the full
8 I think it's also right you were given the opportunity yesterday
9 to re-listen to that evidence; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. And appreciating that there's some years gone by, but if you were
12 asked those questions again as you were asked in the Stakic case, would
13 your answers be the same, essentially?
14 A. I think they would come down to the same thing.
15 Q. Appreciating there's an even bigger gap of time.
16 Now let me just, as I say, summarize that evidence.
17 You described the attack that took place in the Brdo region on
18 20th of July, 1992, which included the village of Biscani. The men who
19 carried out the attack wore various uniforms, including police uniforms.
20 You and your father were ordered to a collection point by a cafe in the
21 village, whilst you were there, you gave evidence that you saw armed men
22 order two people to take away a dead body, and then those men who were
23 ordered to take away the body were shot, and you knew all three of the
25 Again, other people that you knew were beaten by the armed men.
1 Whilst you were waiting there, a man arrived in a police car, and
2 you recognised him and identified him as a man called Dragan Knezovic,
3 who's now on trial at Sarajevo, and this Knezovic had a conversation with
4 you and told you that he would return, and, as he put it, save you.
5 Your Honours, that's at the transcript page 6865.
6 You were taken with others, including your father, to Trnopolje
7 in a bus which came from Autotransport Prijedor. A second bus arrived at
8 Trnopolje after yours. Some 12 people were ordered to remain on the bus
9 and then taken away, and you later heard that they had been killed.
10 You remained at Trnopolje until the 21st of August. You
11 described the layout of the camp and the conditions at the camp,
12 including an incident where someone was cold-bloodedly killed.
13 You told the Court in Stakic that eventually all the women and
14 children were transported from Trnopolje to Travnik so that by the
15 21st of August only men were left at the camp.
16 You said that each time a convoy came to Trnopolje it was
17 accompanied by members of the intervention platoon from Prijedor.
18 You described the events in detail of the 21st of August, the
19 arrival of the buses, the intervention platoon, and one of the men who
20 was at Trnopolje before the buses left was Dragan Knezovic. Kuruzovic,
21 the camp commander whom you knew, was present when the buses were loaded,
22 and your father was with you.
23 After being joined by the other buses at the Kozarac cross-roads,
24 you described the trip to Vlasic and how those on the buses were robbed
25 by members of the intervention platoon during the journey.
1 You described in detail the execution scene and the police who
2 carried out the executions, some of whom you knew personally.
3 One of the police involved in the killings said just before the
4 shooting began, Here we exchange the dead for the dead and the living for
5 the living. And you believed that that was a man called Mrdja.
6 As you were lined up on the cliff edge, kneeling, the shooting
7 started, and your father then pushed you over the edge. You fell, and in
8 falling your ankle was severely broken.
9 You crawled - and you described in detail that - on all fours for
10 some distance over the next 24 hours until you crossed the river and you
11 found an abandoned mill. There you were discovered by some members of
12 the army who, in fact, as you told the Court, assisted you by bringing
13 you a horse and taking you to a village.
14 From there you were taken to Skender Vakuf and then to Banja Luka
15 hospital. When your wound was finally looked at, at the hospital, it had
16 become worm-infested. You were anaesthetised, and when you recovered
17 consciousness, your whole leg been encased in plaster. Whilst you and
18 other men of non-Serb extraction - nationality, I should say - were at
19 the hospital, you were beaten. Your wound was never properly treated.
20 It festered. And eventually, when you were moved to another hospital in
21 Paprikovac, where you remained until October, it was discovered that
22 there was no further treatment that was possible, and your foot and part
23 of your leg were amputated.
24 And during the course of this time, you were interviewed on a
25 number of occasions, first in an ambulance on the way to Skender Vakuf,
1 and also in Banja Luka.
2 I appreciate, sir, that's a very shortened summary of the
3 evidence you give. But, as I say, the Trial Chamber have your -- the
5 Sir, I want to ask you a few follow-up questions to what you said
6 in the Stakic case.
7 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, I should add, the witness is
8 dealing with Adjudicated Facts 223, 906, 1030, 1031, 1099, 445, 915, and
9 916, although they're back to front, that's the chronological order in
10 which they are dealt with.
11 Q. And I suppose one last question: Did you ever see your father
13 A. I never saw him again from the moment when he pushed me in -- in
14 the abyss, and I never learned what happened to him. I haven't seen him
15 dead or alive. Even today, I don't know where his bones lie.
16 Q. Yes. All right. Now, you told the Court in the Stakic case -
17 I'll just find the page - about the uniforms that were worn by the men
18 who attacked your village. And you said they were a mixture - let me
19 just find the place again.
20 A. There was a mixture of uniforms. There were regular, olive-drab
21 uniforms; there were camouflage military uniforms; and the police
22 camouflage uniforms too.
23 Q. I want to ask you to -- first of all, can you describe, before I
24 show you something, the police camouflage uniforms? The colours.
25 A. They were blue and grey camouflage uniforms.
1 Q. All right.
2 MS. KORNER: I've just lost my note for a moment. As usual.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. Could we have a look at the video clip. This
5 is what always happens. I have it and then I lose it.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, this is Exhibit 1393. And I just want
8 to ask the witness to have a look at one quick section of it.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm so sorry. When we showed it to
12 the witness, we -- I think the timing on the two machines was different.
13 I'm just going to ask him to fast-forward, because I don't want the
14 marching band. I want the police.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MS. KORNER: Could we pause there.
18 Q. Sir, are those the uniforms that you saw that day on the
19 20th of July? The type of uniforms.
20 A. Yes. These were the very uniforms that I called blue and grey
21 camouflage. I don't know what their real name is, but I can see they
22 there are blue and grey, and this is how I remember them.
23 Q. All right. Yes, thank you.
24 Next --
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, can we have a tab number for this
2 MS. KORNER: Yes. It is tab ... yeah, it was last night in the
3 e-mail, and it's ... oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't -- yes, sorry, we gave
4 notice, Your Honours, because it came after we'd sent the original
5 notice. So it hasn't got a tab number.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay? And it's supposed to be on the -- on the
7 list of documents, not on the 92 ter package?
8 MS. KORNER: It's not -- exactly. It's not in the 92 ter
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: Exactly. Sorry, Your Honours. Yes. It's an extra,
12 added bonus, to put it that way.
13 Q. Yes, next I'd like you to look, please, at part of a video that
14 is ...
15 MS. KORNER: P1359, please.
16 Q. Now --
17 [Video-clip played]
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 "... wouldn't speak directly to camera, but who did detail his
20 experience for me and artist Drazan Petrovic. His story perfectly
21 matches Paprija's [phoen] and the others.
22 "We were told to kneel and to keep our heads down. I heard one
23 guy say, Now, you're going to stay here for a while" --
24 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can we pause there for a moment.
25 Q. Did you know the person who was talking there?
1 A. I met him while I was detained at the Paprikovac hospital in
2 Banja Luka. I didn't know him before the war, but I met him during my
3 stay. That person also survived the firing that I survived. Only by
4 chance did he not suffer any injuries.
5 Q. All right. Now, the sketch plan that you can see on the screen
6 which was drawn by an artist from the television programme based on the
7 description, does that represent, however, the scene as you remember it
8 when you were forced to kneel down at the side of the cliff?
9 A. Yes, it was something like this.
10 However, what I remember seeing at that moment was also rocks
11 behind the backs of the people shooting the prisoners. And there, at the
12 edge of the abyss, there were also concrete blocks.
13 Q. Right. I think --
14 A. If I were to describe what I saw to somebody to draw it, I would
15 describe vertical cliffs and concrete blocks that were like curb stones
16 on the edge of the cliff.
17 Q. All right. I think that the Trial Chamber has seen photographs
18 and seen the scene itself, so we get the general idea.
19 All right. Thank you. That's all I want to ask you about that.
20 And, finally, on videos, could you have a look, please, at part of the
21 film that was filmed at Omarska, which is P1358.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 "These are the Muslim prisoners of Omarska. In small groups,
24 under heavy Serbian guard, they are ushered into the canteen for their
25 single meal of the day."
1 MS. KORNER: Sir, just -- can we pause a moment.
2 Q. When you recognise somebody, could you tell us -- just to stay --
3 just say "stop," and then we'll stop the video.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 "Most have been here for two months. They say they don't know
6 why but they were rounded up" --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I recognise ... I haven't seen
8 this video before. I recognise a person from my village; only, I would
9 need some time to remember his name. Maybe in the -- given that, it may
10 not be as important. Because just saying that I know him may not be
11 enough. But I would some time to remember his exact name. So maybe we
12 should continue watching the video-clip, because this isn't so important
14 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ...
15 [Video-clip played]
16 "They were too frightened to talk about the way they have been
17 treated and the conditions in which they have been kept, conditions which
18 have been hidden from the world, as the Serbs have denied access here to
19 the United Nations and to the International Red Cross."
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can stop here. This young man
21 here with the beard, I didn't know him directly, but I met him at
22 Trnopolje camp. He was at the firing site. I saw him on the bus and at
23 the execution site on the 21st of August, 1992.
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. Do you know whether or not he survived?
1 A. I suppose he did not.
2 Q. All right. Yes. Thank you. I think that's -- well, we'll play
3 on just in case you recognise anybody else, but I think that was it.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 "Their prison is an old mining complex outside Banja Luka in
6 Northern Bosnia. In an office" --
7 MS. KORNER: All right. Thank you.
8 Q. And, finally, can I ask you to have a look, please, at -- well,
9 perhaps I should just ask you this: Do you remember the visit by the
10 film crew from England?
11 A. I don't.
12 Q. All right. Can I ask you then, please, to just briefly have a
13 look at document which is the tab 7, which is a Defence document,
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, we're in open session. I
20 wonder if that last part could just be redacted.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
22 MS. KORNER: Lines -- sorry. It's page 75, lines 13 through
23 to 16.
24 Q. Anyone else?
25 A. I can't be sure.
1 Q. All right. Don't worry about that. And, actually, we may as
2 well just look at one more document, as you did mention that -- the
3 cliffs and the concrete.
4 Can you look, please --
5 MS. KORNER: Can we have up on the screen the photograph which is
6 0 -- 65 ter 2264, tab 8.
7 Q. Is that the -- the part of the road you were describing where you
8 were made to be -- kneel down?
9 A. I suppose so.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. However, even after all these years, I haven't summoned enough
12 courage to go there. I really don't remember well where -- what the
13 place really looks like.
14 Q. Don't worry. I don't think I need trouble you.
15 Sir, thank you very much. That's all I'm going to ask you.
16 A. Thank you, too.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just before Mr. Krgovic begins, did I
18 understand Your Honours to say that you were going to rule about the
19 previous application that Mr. Hannis made at the end of today?
20 JUDGE HALL: The -- on -- not so much Mr. Hannis's application
21 as Mr. --
22 MS. KORNER: Yes.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. -- yes.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes, sorry.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We expect to, yes.
1 MS. KORNER: All right. Well then I'll just -- so that --
2 probably we need a few minutes at the end. That was all --
3 JUDGE HALL: Five minutes would suffice. Thank you.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic. I represent Stojan Zupljanin's
8 Defence, and I'm going to ask you a few questions about what you said to
9 Ms. Korner today. We are in agreement with the Prosecution not to ask
10 you questions about what you went through.
11 I'll just ask you some questions to clarify, because you are the
12 only person who survived these things. But I will go -- I will focus on
13 the wider context.
14 The Prosecutor showed you the uniforms which you identified.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I should correct: He's not the only
16 survivor. There are others.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The only survivor to testify. That
18 was not recorded.
19 Q. The Prosecutor showed you a video-clip with uniforms. You will
20 agree with me when I say that it's actually a wartime police uniform;
22 A. No, not in that sense.
23 Q. When you gave evidence in the Stakic trial and for my learned
24 friend - the reference is page 6884 - you described this uniform:
25 [In English] "This uniform was a camouflage uniform that was worn
1 by the police. It was a police war uniform?"
2 [Interpretation] You said that when you were describing the
3 members of the intervention platoon who came to Trnopolje; correct?
4 A. Yes, I did describe them. Whether I said blue and yellow or blue
5 and grey --
6 Q. But basically that's the uniform?
7 A. Yes, basically it is. I can confirm that it was the uniform that
8 I saw in this picture shown to me.
9 Q. When you were in that creek, before you found shelter, all these
10 bodies around you of people who were shot together with you, they were
11 all men; right?
12 A. Yes, they were all men.
13 Q. And among the bodies of those killed that you saw, there were no
14 women or children, at least in the area where you were?
15 A. No. All the bodies were male bodies.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. This is all I wanted to ask you.
17 A. Thank you, too.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I ask one question only.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I believe that by way of an introduction
21 Ms. Korner said that you recognised some persons because you had known
22 them before. Is Mr. Mrdja one of these?
23 A. I didn't know Mrdja directly. Not the same way I knew the
24 executioners who I saw at the execution site and recognised them. Only
25 subsequently, as I told my uncle when I was released. He knew some
1 people in and around Prijedor - police officers and high-ranking
2 officials. And when I told him my story, he said that it could be Mrdja,
3 and that's how it was published, that he must have been the person who
4 played the most important role and under whose command the entire
5 ceremony unfolded.
6 Q. I thought that you knew him personally. But, if you even know
7 indirectly, what did he do before the war?
8 A. I don't know.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have no more question,
10 Your Honours.
11 MS. KORNER: Well, I have no re-examination either, Your Honours.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: Sir, we thank you for your testimony before the
14 Tribunal. And we are especially grateful to you that having, almost
15 20 years ago, lived through this horrific experience, that -- your
16 willingness to come back and further assist us. To the extent that we
17 who were not involved in it and did not personally suffer the physical
18 harm that you did and the emotional harm, including the loss of your
19 father, to the extent that -- it's with those limitations we extend our
20 sympathy to you, and we thank you and wish you a safe journey back to
21 your home and that you continue to rebuild your life.
22 Thank you, sir.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 MR. KRGOVIC: There is some error in the transcript. Because
2 page 77, line 23 and 24, there is two sentence. First sentence was my
3 question, the second sentence was the answer, so ... has to be corrected.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, while we've got a little time, I know
5 Your Honour is going to rule as well, but can I raise tomorrow's witness.
6 Your Honours may have seen -- we've just sent round the list of
7 documents, and Your Honours will see there are a large number which are
8 not on our 65 ter list which are -- were produced by him during the
9 course of his earlier testimonies and are a series of photographs and
10 plans of Trnopolje. Of course, at the time we did the 65 ter list, he
11 wasn't a witness, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we didn't apply
12 once we knew we were going to be calling him viva voce, which was what we
13 always intended. However, he is going to give -- we're calling him
14 viva voce. He's going to give the most detailed account of the camp, the
15 layout, which is all part of the adjudicated facts relating to Trnopolje
16 which he's dealing with, and I think it will be easier if he can use
17 the -- certainly the plans, and the photographs may be relevant.
18 So, Your Honours, I'm put it this way: My application, which is
19 an oral application, is that, if necessary - and I'm not saying we have
20 to use all of them - they can be added to the 65 ter list and made
21 exhibits if it becomes relevant, which I feel it will, and it may be --
22 indeed, be more relevant because of Defence cross-examination on that
24 But Your Honours will see they're all marked with the usual
25 10.000 series.
1 JUDGE HALL: Have they been disclosed to the Defence?
2 MS. KORNER: They've been disclosed. The statement - because,
3 originally, he was on the witness list - and all the documents that were
4 part of the testimony were disclosed. But I'm pretty certain years ago
5 on this one.
6 JUDGE HALL: So are you now making the application to add them --
7 [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... no, I'm --
9 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... or are you alerting us
10 that you may be -- thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... I'm alerting Your Honours
12 to what is likely to be my application tomorrow.
13 And the second application I have is this: Your Honours, I
14 regret, I simply haven't had time today to put out a proofing note, which
15 I'm going to do now. I asked for two hours for this witness. It -- it
16 may be that I'll need a little longer. This witness has now been so
17 short, so unexpectedly short, that I hope that Your Honours may grand me
18 a little leniency. I will try to bring it in within the two hours. But
19 he is viva, and he's going to deal with a large number of matters. So
20 that's -- if I can just alert Your Honour to that.
21 And, finally, Your Honours, can I tender the 92 ter package of
22 the last witness, please.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1769.1 through P1769.28,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL: Before we rise, I would return to the application
2 which -- to the objection which was raised by Mr. O'Sullivan for the
3 admission into evidence of several documents which had been identified by
4 the Witness ST-260 and which had been marked for identification.
5 As I understand the objections articulated by Mr. O'Sullivan, his
6 first objection was that there had not been sufficient evidence led as to
7 the chain of custody of the diaries on which the Prosecution -- which the
8 Prosecution were seeking to tender. But I would remind counsel that
9 the -- in the course of the Prosecution's case it had sought to add to
10 its witness list an investigator who would have assisted in establishing
11 the chain of custody of these documents, and the Chamber would have ruled
12 that what was in issue was the authenticity of the documents and the --
13 inasmuch as the Witness 260 was to be called, it was wholly unnecessary
14 to lead a witness to establish the chain of custody because how the
15 documents came into the possession of the Prosecution was irrelevant.
16 What was of importance was whether there were documents which the witness
17 whom the Prosecution intended to call could speak to and could assist the
19 So, therefore, that aspect of Mr. O'Sullivan's objection to the
20 admission of the documents has been -- is overruled as being encompassed
21 within the earlier ruling of the Chamber.
22 As to what I understand to be the summary of the second part of
23 his objection - and I am aware that he would have laid down several
24 planks to this, but I think that I do him no disservice when I say they
25 could all be embraced under one head - and that is this matter of the
1 Cyrillic original, the -- the various scanned images of the Cyrillic
2 original, the translation of the -- sorry, the rendering of the Cyrillic
3 original in Latin and then the transcript -- the translation of the Latin
4 into an English version.
5 As we would have indicated to counsel for the Prosecution,
6 Mr. Hannis, the question of the accuracy of the scans is in the Chamber's
7 view a purely technical matter. And having regard to the explanation
8 that he began to give in terms of one that he was able to deal with
9 between last evening and today, it is something which the Chamber would
10 be content with having a report from the Prosecution as to which of the
11 two versions -- on which they -- which they seek to put into evidence
12 would be brought in. This is not a novel. And, indeed, it has happened
13 on several other occasion where a document sought to be tendered there
14 have been two versions and upon a checking it has been found that there
15 is an more accurate version that's available, and that's all we're
16 inviting the Prosecution to do here.
17 As regards the other part of Mr. O'Sullivan's objection, that is,
18 the -- what could have happened between the move from the original
19 Cyrillic script through the Latin rendering of that to the English
20 translation, we are of the view that the protocols which are in place in
21 the Tribunal and which have been applied across the board to all other
22 exhibits apply in this case, and it is -- we operate from the presumption
23 that the translation process has been correctly and faithfully done.
24 But, of course, that rule is a rebuttal one. And if there is a challenge
25 to the accuracy of the translations, then the procedures are, again, well
1 in place for that to be dealt with.
2 We note, in passing, that the Defence did not challenge, when the
3 witness was on the stand, the foundation of his evidence, namely, that he
4 was able to recognise the handwriting of General Mladic from the scanned
5 copies of the Cyrillic version that he had before him. The -- and that,
6 of course, is qualified by the -- what I have alluded to earlier as to
7 the versions that were in colour and the versions that were in black
9 So against that background, the submissions of the Defence for
10 the Accused Stanisic in this regard are overruled, and we return to
11 the -- we affirm the application originally made by Mr. Hannis that
12 subject to what I would have indicated before, that the documents, once
13 the -- once it has been -- the Chamber is satisfied as to which is the
14 accurate versions are admissible.
15 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honours. And there's one matter
16 that perhaps I should deal with, and that's Judge Delvoie's question of
17 an explanation for the differences.
18 Would Your Honours prefer -- Mr. Hannis can give the explanation,
19 but it will be counsel, effectively, giving evidence, to a certain
20 extent. Would Your Honours prefer to hear it from a witness, or are you
21 content for Mr. Hannis to give the explanation?
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't think we need a witness, Ms. Korner.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, thank you very much. That's very
1 And, finally, Your Honours, do I understand this, that the
2 witness who's being called tomorrow may, I suppose, just trickle into
3 Friday morning. The witness who went to hospital, as Your Honours may
4 have been told, will be available for Monday. I think Ms. Pidwell told
5 you that.
6 Do we understand, therefore, that the Status Conference will then
7 be on the Wednesday? Or would it follow -- if the witness is short,
8 which I anticipate he is, the Monday witness, would Your Honours follow
9 straight on with the Status Conference?
10 JUDGE HALL: We could try it that way, Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: Well, I mean, I -- it just -- it's just a question.
12 I don't think -- I mean, it's not a question of timing anymore, but I
13 heard Your Honours say that Tuesday was not possible because
14 Your Honours --
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I -- I have -- I'm involved in another trial on
16 Tuesday, so that's why the alternatives that were offered were Monday or
18 MS. KORNER: Yes.
19 JUDGE HALL: But if the -- if the continued witness, if he is
20 continued from tomorrow, takes up a very small portion of Monday, it
21 seems to me that we could -- we'll have to see when we get there.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, I mean, Your Honours, it's because there
23 are certain matters that -- that -- obviously, we'll send a list in
24 advance that we'd be asking Your Honours to consider in the
25 Status Conference, which is really timings, what is going to happen after
1 January the 17th, but a couple of others.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, after consideration, I think the
4 Trial Chamber is of the view that it would be better to do that on
5 Wednesday, the Status Conference, so we all have time to prepare a little
7 MS. KORNER: Certainly, Your Honours. It did occur to me that
8 that might be the solution that Your Honours went to -- went for.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's one more thing, Ms. Korner. Ms. Pidwell
10 isn't here anymore? No, she isn't.
11 About Witness 181. At the beginning of this hearing, Ms. Pidwell
12 said that she was a little bit confused about what she thought to be two
13 rulings and the difference between the two. First of all, on
14 27th November we didn't rule. We said that we were minded to accept the
15 re-call, but we didn't say we did. So that we did yesterday.
16 Yesterday was the ruling. On the 27th of November we just said
17 that we would eventually allow it. But then what confuses me is
18 Ms. Pidwell's confusion. Because on both occasions we said that the
19 witness would come in January.
20 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what's the problem then?
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think that -- that the confusion
23 arose because we understood that we already had a ruling and, indeed, I
24 think -- from Judge Harhoff -- I think it was the 26th, wasn't it? rather
25 than the 27th -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... 26th, yes. I have it
3 MS. KORNER: 26th of November. When Judge Harhoff said that we
4 had to call the -- all three witnesses, that is to say, Ewan Brown,
5 and -- [Indiscernible] ST -- that's right. ST-228, Ewan Brown, and 181;
6 we had to call them -- it was our determination which order but we had to
7 call them. We took that as a ruling. And indeed we came back later and
8 said - because we -- at one stage we suggested that we might have to get
9 a witness summons for 181 - that we didn't have to get a witness summons
10 and he would be coming on the 10th of January. So -- which is why we got
11 confused yesterday when Your Honours gave us a ruling on the basis that
12 it was -- that there'd been an objection by us that it was a bit late
13 on -- but the objection that the Defence's application was a bit late.
14 But the objection we raised about that - which wasn't really an
15 objection, because I was dealing with it orally - was in relation to 191.
16 So that's why we got truly confused as to whether you were now ruling
17 about 191 but had said 181 by mistake.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: No, no. It was 181.
19 MS. KORNER: Because, I mean, in fact, if what Judge Harhoff said
20 wasn't a ruling, then the rest -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... .
22 MS. KORNER: And I think -- can I say, this was -- all counsel
23 understood that you'd made a ruling --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay. Well, I have the
25 transcript here in front of me and it says: "Finally, the Chamber is
1 minded also to allow the re-call -- to re-call ST-181." So that, in our
2 view --
3 MS. KORNER: Yes.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- was not a ruling, but we already anticipated on
5 the planning for him.
6 MS. KORNER: Right. I think, perhaps -- and can I put it this
7 way, as politely that -- if it had been said, if we rule that you have to
8 call him, you will have to call him in January.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. That's the gist of it.
10 MS. KORNER: So I think that's where the confusion arose.
11 But, of course, Your Honours, we do -- if that's possible, we do
12 need to know about 191 - it's most unfortunate they have the same --
13 similar numbers - before the recess so we can get -- [Overlapping
14 speakers] ...
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... we will -- you will
16 soon --
17 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... we'll rule on that
18 tomorrow, by tomorrow.
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 JUDGE HALL: We are reminded that it would be useful - and that's
21 a deliberate understatement - if the parties could e-mail any issues
22 which should be dealt with in the Status Conference by tomorrow -- oh,
23 sorry, by Friday.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we take the adjournment to 2.15
1 tomorrow afternoon.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day
4 of December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.