1 Thursday, 7 July 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and
9 gentlemen. Before having the witness, I believe Mr. Morrissey has
10 something to say.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: I have, Your Honour. Your Honours I've just got
12 a concern to raise about the way this cross-examination is proposed to
13 proceed and I want to protest against an attempt that is made to use the
14 statement of a person who was not a witness, was not on their witness
15 list even before the withdrawing of many witnesses, and that it should be
16 done in the way that it's proposed.
17 Now, there are three reasons why we say that it's improper to use
18 this and shouldn't be permitted to use this statement in the way that the
19 Prosecutor wants to. The first one is that that statement itself is very
20 unreliable. We have spoken to that individual person, and I'm in a
21 position to call evidence about what she called us and the investigator
22 Medina Delalic is in court and I can call letter now if needs be to prove
23 what it is that that particular person, Ms. Dzogic said to the Defence.
24 But in brief, what occurred was that she was visited by us, by the
25 Defence team, in Zenica in June of this year and she offered, among other
1 things to help us to finds the telephone number of the current witness.
2 In the end it was somebody else who provided it but she made that offer.
3 In the end we contacted the current witness. Your Honour, perhaps we
4 should move into the private session for the purposes of this part.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will go to private session, please.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 3-10 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, if there is any legitimate forensic
17 purpose for showing this witness that crime-scene video, I'm not going to
18 object to it. But it appears to me there can be none because he didn't
19 see it and didn't go to the village. So it seems to me that it's more by
20 way of making a statement to the Court rather than helping the witness in
21 any way. But if there be any other -- and it's also important to realise
22 that we are not calling this witness to prove anything about the crime
23 scene but just to prove what he knew at the time. So that's why we would
24 object to that being done unless there be shown some clear reason why it
25 should be.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Re? Do you have any reply?
2 MR. RE: Well, I'm in the middle of my cross-examination. This
3 is --
4 JUDGE LIU: On the second part.
5 MR. RE: In our submission, that's ambush. That's trying to
6 prevent the Prosecution putting its case, if it needs to. If I wish to
7 show the video to -- or a portion of the video to the witness, if it
8 becomes necessary, based upon the conclusions he has drawn from his
9 interviews or statements with all the people, and the conclusions he has
10 given before the Court as to what he thinks happened in Uzdol, I'm
11 entitled to confront the witness with contrary evidence if it comes to
12 that. Now it's not for my learned friend at this point and it was to
13 point out to the Court what I should or shouldn't be doing in
14 cross-examination. We never once did that with them and we wouldn't
15 presuppose to do so.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that Mr. Morrissey just reminded us
17 about the documents you are going to use, which should be relevant to
18 this case. I understand that there is a dispute between the parties how
19 those civilians got killed on that day. The Defence case is that
20 according to this witness, there is some so-called friendly gunfires
21 which killed their own civilians and soldiers. But the Prosecution's
22 case is that they were murdered deliberately by some people.
23 Well, of course, there is a dispute between the parties. The
24 question is we'll see whether this witness is the right person to comment
25 on that videotape. However, we'll see how it goes, and we will make a
1 ruling when the time comes on that last issue.
2 So could we have the witness, please.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 WITNESS: WITNESS J [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re, please continue with your
8 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Re [Continued]:
10 Q. Good morning, Witness J.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. I just want to go back to yesterday afternoon when I was asking
13 you about where you were on the 14th of September. Now, you gave some
14 evidence you were there in the afternoon when soldiers returned from
15 Uzdol. Did you remain in the communication centre throughout the day,
16 that is from the time the soldiers left for battle and the time they
17 returned? When I say communication centre, I mean the hut.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you remember Mr. Halilovic visiting the hut on that morning at
20 maybe 9.30 or 10 in the morning?
21 A. No. At least I didn't see him.
22 Q. Mr. Halilovic in an interview he made with the Prosecution in
23 2001 has said that he visited the communication centre of the Prozor
24 Independent Battalion --
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, sorry I'll just stop there. I
1 object to this being put. There is a number of reasons why. One of them
2 is that it's a confidential document.
3 MR. RE: We could move into private session? Is that the
4 objection that it's confidential.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: That's the first one, yes.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So shall we go into the private session if you
7 want to put on more reasons on that? Yes. Let's go into the private
9 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 MR. RE: We are in open session?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
14 MR. RE:
2 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in the open session.
18 MR. RE: Thank you.
19 Q. A moment ago -- just sorry, give me one moment. A moment ago,
20 you said that the communication centre is a separate building. Do you
21 mean a separate building to the hut that you spoke about yesterday?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Because yesterday at page 71 to 72, I asked you:
24 "Q. Were you in the communication centre while the attack was
25 taking place on the 14th of September?"
1 And your answer was:
2 "A. I'm not sure where you get this at all, that I was at the
3 communications centre. It's a small hut, the command. Everything was
4 there, virtually everything. So being there, you're in all of these
5 places at the same time, in a manner of speaking."
6 It appears to me there is a contradiction between what you said
7 yesterday and what you're saying today. Were there in fact two separate
8 places, a communication centre and a command centre?
9 A. Yes. They were some several metres apart.
10 Q. Are you saying they were separate buildings? Or were they
11 located within the same hut? Communications and command.
12 A. It was one building that we called the command, which was in
13 actual fact a hut consisting of several rooms for the forestry workers
14 who were there. The communications centre was an auxiliary building, an
15 outbuilding, perhaps used as a barn or something of the sort that was
16 situated several metres away from the hut.
17 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P331.
18 Q. On the screen to your left, you'll be shown a photograph in the
19 moment, Witness J.
20 A. Yes. I can see it.
21 Q. Do you recognise the command centre of the Prozor Independent
22 Battalion in that photograph?
23 A. Yes. I believe it's the one on the left-hand side. Although
24 from this particular angle, it does not really resemble that building
25 that much.
1 Q. Can you see the communication centre you just described to us as
2 perhaps a barn or something of the sort that was situated several metres
3 away from the hut? Can you see that in the photograph?
4 A. I believe that it is at the other end of this building, this dark
5 roof that can be seen there. From -- looking from this angle it seems
6 like one building but actually, these are two separate facilities.
7 Q. Just so the record is clear, would you be able to mark on that,
8 just put a large arrow pointing down to the point where you say the
9 communications centre is.
10 A. [Witness marks]
11 Q. Just for the -- just so it's very clear afterwards when you
12 finished your evidence could you please put the arrow from the top --
13 from where the trees are going down. Do you see what I mean, going like
14 that? So that we can see exactly where you mean. We have to look at the
15 photograph later, you see.
16 A. [Witness marks]
17 Q. Can you put a line down, please, in the middle, like an arrow,
18 pointing down.
19 A. I believe I have drawn an arrow but there you go. Is this fine
21 Q. That's good, thanks.
22 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence, please.
23 JUDGE LIU: It's admitted into evidence.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P450.
25 MR. RE: Thank you. I've finished with that.
1 Q. Did you have any training or were you given any training in
2 investigation before the 14th of September 1993?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you know whether Erzimana Dzogic was trained in investigation
5 or investigative techniques before the 14th of September 1993?
6 A. I don't know about that. I arrived a year later, so I do not
7 know what was going on earlier on.
8 Q. You mean a year after she was there, is that what you're saying?
9 A. Yes, roughly speaking. Perhaps a bit less than a year. I'm not
11 Q. Was any assistance sought from the civilian police to talk to the
12 soldiers after the 14th of September 1993?
13 A. I myself did not. Perhaps somebody else did.
14 Q. Well, were you aware of anyone seeking assistance from the
15 civilian police?
16 A. No. I don't know.
17 Q. What about the military police? Were you aware of anyone seeking
18 assistance of the military police?
19 A. I don't know anything about that either.
20 Q. The military police didn't participate in any of the
21 statement-taking, did they?
22 A. The statements were for the most part taken by the assistant
23 commander for security. Therefore it was the military police who was
24 involved, the assistants for intelligence and I myself. However, I did
25 not perceive my task as that of an investigator who was supposed to
1 detect who the culprits were but rather to find out what had happened and
2 to produce a report to that effect. The subsequent steps to be taken
3 were within the competence of the security organ or the command.
4 Q. Well, my question was, the military police weren't -- didn't
5 participate in the statement-taking. That's correct, they didn't
6 participate, did they?
7 A. I can't claim either way. It is possible that the assistant
8 commander for security had tasked the police officers who were under his
9 command to obtain certain materials for him. I had no way of knowing
11 Q. That's because no one from the military police approached you and
12 asked you about your statements, did they?
13 A. I did not have any specific role within the battalion in order
14 for anyone to approach me officially.
15 Q. You didn't receive any forensic assistance from either the
16 military police or the civilian police, did you?
17 A. In what sense do you mean?
18 Q. The normal business of forensic investigation following an
19 alleged crime.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I object to that. There is no normal
21 business of forensic investigation following an alleged crime. If my
22 friend has got specific things that he wants to put to the witness, he
23 should put them.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. What's your understanding of the forensic process involved after
2 an alleged crime such as a murder has been committed? What are the steps
3 that should be taken?
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, that question should be
5 clarified. Is the question what is his understanding today or is the
6 question what was his understanding in 1993?
7 JUDGE LIU: And it's a very difficult question for a layman in
8 this field. I believe the witness already testified that he has no
9 training before he joined the army. But, however, you could try.
10 MR. RE:
11 Q. To make it more specific to meet my learned colleague's
12 suggestion, in 1993, September 1993, what was your understanding, when
13 you were taking the statements from these potential suspected murderers,
14 of what steps should be taken, what steps should be taken in conducting
15 such an investigation?
16 A. I had no instructions to that effect. I was simply told to find
17 out everything about what had happened and to produce a report. The term
18 that you were using just now is new to me. It is probably a very
19 technical term, and I don't know anything about it.
20 Q. Just so we both understand what we are saying, I'm talking about
21 the steps that you understood should be taken in an investigation into a
22 suspected murder in August -- sorry, September 1993.
23 A. I was, and I remain a true amateur in these things. I was left
24 to my own devices to try and find out what had happened from individual
25 persons. I did not have any methods recommended to me or anyone's
1 assistance in conducting an investigation. I did not really reflect that
2 much as to what it is that I should be doing.
3 Q. Are you saying that you didn't really consider yourself to be
4 participating in an investigation into suspected murder of civilians in
6 A. That's not what I said. I participated in the process of
7 establishing the truth about what had happened. Whatever I could
8 contribute with my knowledge, through conversations with people, I tried
9 to contribute. Now, as for the rest, as for the general process, I don't
10 know anything about that.
11 Q. Was anyone overseeing the work you were doing?
12 A. There was nothing to be overseen there. I was simply talking to
13 people, noting down my observations, and when I thought that I had
14 gathered enough information, I produced a report.
15 Q. Between the 14th of September, that's the day of the attack, and
16 the 20th of September, 1993, did you seek advice or assistance from any
17 person as to what you were doing?
18 A. There was no need for that because the assistants for security
19 and intelligence were the ones tasked with that. I did what I thought
20 was relevant.
21 Q. So there was no oversight and you sought no assistance from
22 anyone. Did anyone give you guidance as to how you should go about your
23 task or were you just asked to go around and talk to people?
24 A. It's not that there were no guidelines because I did talk to the
25 two assistants and consulted them on some matters, and a conclusion was
1 drawn as to what had to be done, the tasks were distributed, assigned,
2 and I took charge of my tasks. But there was no need for any additional
4 As to whether there was any control, I don't know. Perhaps what
5 I was doing was being controlled by someone after all.
6 Q. You said a moment ago that you were "simply talking to people,
7 noting down my observations, and when I thought that I had gathered
8 enough information, I produced a report." Where did you note down your
10 A. I had a notebook that I used. It was a rather a notepad that I
11 carried with me.
12 Q. What did you write in it?
13 A. Just brief comments after talking to soldiers and listening to
14 what they had to say. I would simply jot down whatever I thought was
15 important and decided to leave my further conversations with these
16 interlocutors that I thought were important for later.
17 Q. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by
18 "leave further conversations with these interlocutors that I thought were
19 important for later." Can you please clarify what you mean by that.
20 A. The soldiers were recounting what they had experienced. Some of
21 them exaggerated the events in order to emphasise their role in them, and
22 I was not interested in listening to such accounts. I wanted to come
23 down to the main points, to listen to those who were there, who had
24 firsthand experience about these events. And I decided not to continue
25 my conversation with these people who had firsthand knowledge of the
1 events in front of everybody else but rather decided to talk to them
2 later, on their own.
3 Q. Let's go to the process. When you were talking to people, were
4 you talking to them in groups, these groups of soldiers who had been in
5 Uzdol on the 14th of September?
6 A. Sometimes I did not even take part in the conversation. I simply
7 listened to what they were saying. Sometimes I broached some topics in
8 order to lead them to the areas that I was interested in. But I did not
9 have any methods that I used consistently.
10 Q. What I'm after -- what I'm asking you about is the process of
11 speaking to people. When you were talking to the soldiers, were you
12 having conversations or listening to them amongst groups of soldiers?
13 Were groups of soldiers talking to you at the same time?
14 A. These were spontaneous conversations. They were not prepared
15 beforehand. I took part in conversations even concerning football. But
16 whenever the action at Uzdol came up, I took a more active part in the
17 conversation and tried to lead the soldiers to talk about some areas I
18 thought were very important.
19 Q. But when you were doing this, was -- you're saying it was in a
20 group, amongst a group of soldiers talking about general things and then
21 Uzdol would come up and you would ask them a few questions about it. Is
22 that what you're saying?
23 A. I was not the one putting the questions, because in that case,
24 nobody would talk to me, in fact. I merely listened to what they had to
25 say and tried to appear to be asking additional questions out of
1 curiosity, rather than appear to be directly interested in what they had
2 to say.
3 Q. So you wouldn't have had your notebook with you when you were
4 talking to groups of soldiers about general conversations in which Uzdol
5 came up? When I say you wouldn't have had your notebook out, in front of
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. You made these notes later, did you?
9 A. Yes. Straight after.
10 Q. You weren't instructed -- you weren't given a list of people to
11 speak to about their possible participation in the murder of civilians in
12 Uzdol? Is that what you're saying?
13 A. First of all, it was us who had to establish the people to be
14 interviewed, in the same way that I've just described for you. I was
15 actually the one who was in charge of that.
16 Q. Where were you having these general conversations with the
17 soldiers? In what locations?
18 A. For the most part, at Dobro Polje, and there was another village
19 three or four kilometres to the south of Dobro Polje. The name of the
20 village is Scipe.
21 Q. And where in the village were you having the conversations? Was
22 it in the open, in a building? Where?
23 A. There was no specific location. I knew a great many people in
24 that village. I would sometimes go there to have coffee with someone, to
25 have a chat, just like that, nothing special, really. Any place would
1 have been good enough. The local playground, someone's house, the front
2 yard, that sort of thing.
3 Q. And how many soldiers were in these groups that you were talking
4 to or listening to when they were having general conversation in which
5 Uzdol sometimes popped up?
6 A. It could have been two, three or ten, depending on the
7 circumstances, on the situation.
8 Q. And were people talking about two, three, four, up to ten people
9 talking about Uzdol in the same conversation, and their experience of it?
10 A. Uzdol was not the only thing that was brought up in these
11 conversations. In their spare time, people would pick mushrooms, grill
12 mushrooms. They would just sit down, have a smoke, talk to each other.
13 That sort of thing. So it was not very clear-cut situation where
14 something specific was being discussed.
15 Q. When the topic of Uzdol came up, I'm just talking in general
16 terms, was it something that the soldiers generally would start talking
17 about and telling you of their experiences of being in Uzdol on the 14th
18 of September?
19 A. Well, there were different groups, and whenever someone started
20 talking about that, it would usually be like that: Where were you on
21 that day, what happened, do you remember this or that? And then there
22 would be these conversations between two, three, four or more people. I
23 would just listen in and try to conclude who was where and who did what,
24 based on their recollection. There certainly was information that I was
25 able to glean from such conversations. Important information, I believe.
1 Q. And was it from these conversations that you made your
2 conclusions about what had happened in Uzdol on the 14th of September
4 A. Mostly from these conversations.
5 Q. I just want to -- I'm just waiting for something on the
6 transcript to come up. If you would just bear with me for one moment.
7 A few moments ago you said when talking to these people some of
8 them would exaggerate their role in what happened in Uzdol. What sort of
9 things were they telling you which you thought were exaggerations?
10 A. Well, for the most part, everyone -- well actually not everyone
11 but those who tended to exaggerate would boast, trying to emphasise their
12 own bravery, saying that they were fearless in given situations, stuff
13 along these lines.
14 Q. Did anyone boast about how many civilians they had killed on the
16 A. No. This wasn't something that I ever heard.
17 Q. You didn't hear about them killing children? None of them
18 mentioned that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. In these conversations, did any of these soldiers mention at all
21 killing civilians?
22 A. No. No civilians, no soldiers. No one was really prone to tell
23 stories about how they themselves had killed anyone.
24 Q. Or did they mention that anyone else had killed anyone?
25 A. They would leave it vague for the most part, no names were named
1 but people were saying that all sorts of things had happened and that the
2 situation was difficult.
3 Q. Well, what do you mean by the situation was difficult? What did
4 they say?
5 A. They were running across the village, they feared for their
6 lives, they no longer knew what to do. There was a lot of random
7 shooting. They were shooting around and they were being shot at. They
8 were throwing hand grenades. When I spoke about exaggeration, well, this
9 is an example. Someone might have been exaggerating, talking about their
10 own acts of bravery in what they did.
11 Q. Witness J, you had no way of assessing whether they were
12 exaggerating, because you weren't there; that's correct, isn't it?
13 A. Not specifically, but I have quite some experience distinguishing
14 truth from lies. That plus my intuition helped me to draw certain
16 Q. But your intuition didn't tell you that some 29 civilians had
17 been murdered in the village on that day, in all your conversations with
18 all these up to 100 soldiers after the 14th of September 1993?
19 A. I did know that civilians had been killed, although no one told
20 me straight out.
21 Q. You knew civilians had been killed because it had been on the
22 radio, didn't you?
23 A. I don't remember whether I heard this on the radio or perhaps it
24 was our commander who told us. Probably something was said on the radio
1 Q. You think it was your commander, you mean Enver Buza?
2 A. Yes. But I'm saying I can't remember specifically whether he
3 told me.
4 Q. You were aware from the first day that civilians had been killed
5 in that village, weren't you? That's the 14th of September.
6 A. As I said earlier, the first time I met someone who was involved
7 in Uzdol was at Dobro Polje, the morning of the 14th. He was very
8 crestfallen. Being as downcast as he was, he told me that all sorts of
9 things had been going on. So he couldn't tell me what precisely but I
10 sensed he had a need to share this with someone. So my conclusion was
11 there must have been civilians at stake too and that many people had been
12 killed on both sides.
13 Q. Well, what led you to believe that? Was it your intuition again?
14 A. It was based on his reaction that I concluded there must have
15 been civilians involved. I looked at him and I could tell that he was
16 going through a bad phase. He may have done something like that himself,
17 although he never told me.
18 Q. He may have done something like what? Killed civilians?
19 A. He wasn't specific. That was a conclusion I drew based on how he
20 told me. I pushed him to say what exactly had happened, who got killed
21 and how, and then he would just reply, well, I can't talk about that.
22 Q. You said yesterday that this was being discussed over Bosnia.
23 You said that it was -- and it was on the radio. The allegation at the
24 time was that there had been a massacre in that village, wasn't it?
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Hang on. Is it being put to the witness that he
1 said there was an allegation of a massacre or is it being put that it was
2 on the radio? There is three different propositions there and the
3 witness has got to be able to be clear which ones he's being asked to
4 comment on.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, be specific.
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. The allegation, when these soldiers returned on the 14th of
8 September, was that there had been a massacre in the village. That was
9 what was being said, wasn't it?
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, the question has got to be specific.
11 JUDGE LIU: I know. I know. Who said that? From the radio,
12 from the soldiers? From his commander?
13 MR. RE: All right. I withdraw it.
14 Q. You heard allegations from around the 14th of September that
15 there had been a massacre in that village, didn't you?
16 A. I'm not certain when I heard this referred to as a massacre.
17 Q. But it was before the report of the 20th of September, wasn't it?
18 That's the report that Buza signed.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Hang on a minute, hang on a minute, just stop.
20 That -- Your Honours, the report that my learned friend is referring to,
21 if it's the exhibit, it's got a date of the 20th of September on it but
22 there is no evidence that it was a report of the 20th of September. It's
23 just got a stamp saying it was received at that particular time. So my
24 learned friend has to make sure that he's identifying the document
25 properly and accurately before he puts it to the witness.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, so long as the witness understands what kind of
2 report the Prosecution referred to, I think there is no problem. Mr. Re,
3 you may try to put your question more specifically to this witness.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. My suggestion to you is that you had heard or you knew of the
6 allegations that there had been a massacre in Uzdol before this report,
7 which has the date of the 20th of September on it, and Buza's name, was
8 sent somewhere. I'm saying you knew that before this report was
9 compiled. Didn't you?
10 A. It's possible, but I can't commit myself. I can't specifically
11 recall the day I first heard this described as a massacre.
12 Q. What about a mass killing of civilians?
13 A. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
14 Q. What about the -- the killing of a number of civilians during a
15 battle? You were aware of that allegation before that report was
16 compiled, weren't you? Whether it's called a massacre, a mass killing or
17 a killing. You were aware before that report was compiled that it was
18 alleged that a number of civilians had been killed, weren't you?
19 A. I think so.
20 Q. The footage of the aftermath of the ABiH attack on that village
21 showing bodies of civilians was shown on Croatian TV, wasn't it?
22 A. I heard about that. Didn't see it myself, though.
23 Q. Of course, no one asked, as far as you're aware, the Croats to
24 provide you with a video of Uzdol in the aftermath of the ABiH attack,
25 did they?
1 A. There was no communication at that level, at the battalion level,
2 or with the HVO. There may have been communication going on between the
3 top-most levels of command.
4 Q. Certainly no one in your command, in the Prozor Independent
5 Battalion, as far as you're aware, was provided with a copy of the
6 footage from Croat TV, were they?
7 A. Not that I know.
8 Q. You're also aware that BBC journalists or international
9 journalists had visited Uzdol immediately or the day after the attack,
10 weren't you?
11 A. I heard about this from some people who could actually see it
12 happen from the elevation, with Uzdol in view. They said that some --
13 the vehicles belonging to an international organisation rather tried to
14 drive into Uzdol but what people said at the time is that these vehicles
15 were prevented from entering the village by HVO soldiers. But this is
16 something that other people told me and not something I saw for myself.
17 Q. The intelligence you had at the time was that an international
18 camera crew had been into Uzdol, wasn't it?
19 A. Information I had was that there had been an attempt by a team to
20 take footage in Uzdol, but they were stopped from doing that by HVO
21 soldiers, and it wasn't until sometime later, I don't know exactly when,
22 that they were allowed access. That was what I heard. There was no way
23 I could check this myself.
24 Q. And your information was also that this footage had been
25 broadcast by the international media, wasn't it?
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours he's just denied the proposition on
2 which that's founded.
3 MR. RE: He just said they were allowed access.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe the previous question is about HVO's
5 TV footage and here it's about the broadcast by international media.
6 Maybe that's a different angle.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, it could be so, Your Honour and if it's
8 clarified I don't object to the question about it, of course.
9 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
10 MR. RE:
11 Q. You said your information was then that they were allowed access.
12 As a result of their being allowed access, you were aware, people in your
13 command were aware that footage of Uzdol had been broadcast in the
14 international media; correct?
15 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, Your Honours, again this is one of
16 those questions that's double-loaded. The question should be either he
17 was aware or people in the command was aware. So that had better be
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. That's a reasonable objection. Mr. Re, let's
20 go straight -- let's go step by step.
21 MR. RE: I certainly will.
22 Q. People in your command were aware that as a result of the
23 international media being allowed access to Uzdol, footage of Uzdol had
24 been broadcast in the international media; correct?
25 A. I knew nothing at the time. We had no access to any of the
1 media, not even the radio. There weren't enough batteries to go around.
2 Q. Was any attempt made to your knowledge by anyone in your command
3 to attempt to get copies of any footage this international camera crew
4 may have made in Uzdol when they were allowed access in?
5 A. I'm not familiar with any such thing.
6 Q. Were you aware of any attempt being made by anyone on the ABiH
7 side to obtain the assistance of the authorities in Herceg-Bosna or the
8 HVO to conduct an investigation into what had happened?
9 A. This wasn't possible at the battalion level. As for higher
10 levels, I don't know.
11 MR. RE: Is it an appropriate time? We started at ten.
12 JUDGE LIU: I'm in your hands. If you believe you are changing
13 subjects, we could have a break. I think we'll resume at 5 to 12. It's
14 a strange time. Yes.
15 --- Recess taken at 11.25 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.57 a.m.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re. Please continue.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Yesterday, your evidence was that on the 14th of September 1993,
20 you first came to speak to Osman Hero, that's at page 27 of the
21 transcript, and he had a need to tell you about what will happened and
22 after about an hour or so you entered the office where Erzimana typically
23 worked and you found "her there taking statements from Hero and another
24 man whose name I can't remember. I think it was Jusuf." And you asked
25 her what was going on. "And she said well, we have to take statements.
1 We have been asked to draft a report. And then she said, now that you're
2 here, let's do it together. Therefore, I stayed there, taking the
4 Now, that was what you said to the Court yesterday afternoon.
5 A. Yes. As far as I can remember.
6 Q. My question is about the report. Was it a combat report that she
7 was drafting?
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Just a moment. Your Honours, it isn't said that
9 she was drafting a report at that time at all. It said that she was
10 taking statements.
11 MR. RE: I object to this. I just read back the witness's
12 evidence to him, "We had been asked to draft a report". My question is
13 was she drafting a combat report. How can this possibly be objected to?
14 MR. MORRISSEY: It can be objected to. I'll explain it, Your
15 Honour. The question confuses two things: What Erzimana Dzogic says
16 she's been tasked to do, which was to draft a report, and what she was
17 doing at the time when she -- when he went into that office. So if the
18 question is related to when the witness went into that office, then in my
19 submission, it's quite clear that she wasn't at that moment drafting a
20 report at all but was taking statements.
21 MR. RE: I object. He can stop this now. He can stop putting
22 words into the witness's mouth. This is most improper.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, let's see how the witness could answer this
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. My question, Witness J, is whether it was a combat report that
2 she had been asked to draft.
3 A. No. No combat report of any sort. And I don't really understand
4 what combat report means.
5 Q. Your evidence yesterday was, "We had been asked to draft a
6 report. And then she said now that you're here, let's do this together."
7 You mean by that, let's do the report together, don't you?
8 A. This is what I said. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I entered
9 the room where Erzimana was talking to that soldier. I was listening for
10 a while, and then she addressed me and said, well, good of you to come
11 because we have to draft a report. I did not even ask her to clarify
12 what sort of a report she had in mind. I merely stayed on listening to
13 what she was doing.
14 Q. Did you ever find out what sort of a report she was in the
15 process of compiling?
16 A. Probably just as I did, she wanted to find out what had been
17 going on down at Uzdol.
18 Q. You're saying probably. Are you telling the Trial Chamber you
19 never asked her what sort of report she was asking you to assist her with
20 when she said now that you're here, let's do this together?
21 A. We didn't discuss the report at the time at all. We were
22 listening to what the men had to say about what had happened and we each
23 took down notes. She did as she saw fit and I did as I saw fit.
24 Q. Was there any coordination between the two of you as to which
25 task each of you were doing?
1 A. Sometimes we would consult each other and exchange information,
2 in order to let the other one know how far we had gone ahead with the
3 information we had gathered. But it was on an informal basis where we
4 would come across each other and simply ask whether the other had any new
6 Q. Are you telling the Trial Chamber that you never found out what
7 sort of report it was that she was asked to draft or was drafting or you
8 were assisting her with drafting?
9 A. I believe that we compiled a single report based on what we had
10 found out. So it's not that I don't know what the report was about. The
11 report was about the events at Uzdol on that specific day, taken as a
13 Q. Who drafted the report? Who wrote it?
14 A. I remember that I was writing one and I do remember that there
15 were several.
16 Q. The report that she was asked to draft, who wrote that?
17 A. I believe she did. Who else could have done it?
18 Q. Well, a moment ago you said that now that you're here, let's do
19 it together. When I say a moment ago, your evidence yesterday was "we
20 had been asked to draft a report and then she said now that you're here,
21 let's do it together." So I think you answered it yesterday when you
22 said who else could have done it?
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, it's not appropriate to put
24 arguments. My friend can put a question but not simply put two
25 statements as he has there.
1 JUDGE LIU: I think that's just what Mr. Re did. He put the
2 statement to this witness and asked the witness to give some
3 clarification or explanation.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, if that's what the question is, then I've
5 got no objection. It appeared to me that it was propositions but if I'm
6 wrong, I'm wrong, and I don't object to any questions, of course.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. RE:
9 Q. Just so it's completely clear what I'm asking you, a moment ago I
10 asked you who wrote the report. You said, "I believe she did. Who else
11 could have done it?" And yesterday you said, "We have been asked to
12 draft a report, and then she said now that you're here, let's do it
13 together." I'm asking to you comment on what you said yesterday; that
14 is, that she suggested the two of you do it together.
15 A. The report that was supposed to be made could not be drafted on
16 the basis of conversation with a single soldier so the moment I entered
17 the room, she was not drafting the report but was, rather, doing all the
18 preparatory work for the report and she said okay we will do the report
19 together, meaning that in one of the following days we were supposed to
20 compile together all the different pieces of information we had gathered.
21 So on that specific day she wasn't drafting the report. She was merely
22 doing the preparatory work for it.
23 Q. How did she write it? What did she use to write the report?
24 A. I believe she used a pencil. That was the usual practice. We
25 didn't have any other facilities.
1 Q. The report she produced was a handwritten one; is that what
2 you're saying?
3 A. The first version, yes, definitely. Whether somebody else typed
4 it out at a later stage, I don't know. I know how I wrote the report,
5 and I did it by hand. Then I went to the communication centre. I
6 dictated it out to the person who typed it out, and then sent it on to
7 whoever he thought had to be -- had to receive the report.
8 Q. So can we be clear here? How many reports --
9 A. The 6th Corps [interpreter's mistake].
10 Q. How many reports were there? Did you and Ms. Dzogic do separate
12 A. I believe we did, yes. But I never saw the final version of her
13 report. I may have seen it, but I don't remember. I believe there were
14 at least four or five reports to the best of my recollection.
15 Q. Produced by whom?
16 A. I know that Buza wrote one report because I assisted him by
17 providing some information I had gathered. I know that I myself produced
18 one, Erzimana did and I suppose that Mustafa Bektas also did. He was the
19 official assistant to the security commander. That's why I inferred that
20 there had to be at least four.
21 Q. And the report that Buza produced, are you saying it was based
22 upon information you provided him as to what happened in Uzdol? Based
23 upon your speaking to up to a hundred soldiers who were there on the day?
24 A. No. He had his sources of knowledge, of information. He
25 consulted me and made some corrections to his report, if any.
1 Q. So you dictated the report, it was typed up, and sent off to the
2 6th Corps.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How did Buza get a copy of it?
5 MR. MORRISSEY: This witness hasn't said that Buza did get a copy
6 of it. So that question is not legitimate yet. There has to be a step
7 taken first.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
9 MR. RE:
10 Q. You said a moment ago that you assisted Buza, who wrote a report,
11 by providing him with some information you had gathered. Did you assist
12 him by providing him with a copy of your report?
13 A. No. I didn't. We only spoke about it.
14 Q. Did you tell Buza that your information was that no civilians had
15 been killed in Uzdol?
16 A. No, I didn't.
17 Q. What did you tell Buza?
18 A. I can't remember.
19 Q. Did Buza obtain a copy of your report?
20 A. I don't think so. He could have obtained a copy, had he wanted
21 to, but I don't think so.
22 Q. The Defence counsel have provided us with a statement of your
23 proposed evidence last week and this is what Defence counsel have told us
24 that you told them last week. "Subsequently he," that's you, "wrote a
25 report which Buza saw and which was sent to the 6th Corps in the normal
1 way." That's what you told Defence counsel, isn't it? That you wrote a
2 report and Buza saw it.
3 A. It is possible that he did see it but I do not remember the
4 details. I did not give him the report or insist that he read it. I
5 don't remember the details. Therefore, I can only suppose.
6 Q. Well, what Defence counsel have provided us with does not say
7 subsequently you wrote a report and possibly Buza saw it. But it says,
8 "Subsequently he," that's you, "wrote a report which Buza saw." You
9 appreciate there is a difference, don't you?
10 A. I can see the difference, yes. But ten years later it is not
11 possible to remember all the details. Not ten years but 12, 13 years.
12 Q. What was your information about the number of Croatian soldiers
13 and civilians that were killed in Uzdol during the attack on the 14th of
14 September 1993?
15 A. I don't remember ever hearing a specific number of the soldiers
16 and civilians killed.
17 Q. All right. Without being specific, what's your -- what was your
18 information about -- generally, about the numbers of civilians and
19 soldiers killed on the Croat side?
20 A. The first thing I heard was on the Croatian media, who had
21 reported that there had been over 100 civilians killed. Later on, the
22 numbers varied. I heard some figures from Buza at the command. I don't
23 know where he got the information from. But I never heard the same
24 figure twice. To this day I do not know what the actual number was.
25 Q. What was your conclusion, after speaking to the soldiers, with
1 the hundred or so you spoke to or up to a hundred or so you spoke to,
2 about how these civilians died?
3 A. Nobody saw a soldier or a civilian killed, except in one
4 particular instance where the driver was captured by the soldiers and
5 they took him to his command, forcing him to invite the others to
6 surrender. Therefore, I never heard from -- anyone say that they had
7 seen a person killed in order to be able to recount this. They all said
8 that they were running across the village, seeking shelter from the
9 shooting, there was shelling there as well. There was general confusion.
10 Everybody was concerned with for saving their own skin. They were not
11 able to observe clearly what was going on. They were simply trying to
12 save their lives.
13 Q. And was that the information you put in your written report?
14 A. Roughly, yes. Yesterday I read a report and I said that it
15 largely corresponded to the impressions that I gained of the events.
16 Q. That was the report of Mr. Jasarevic, the chief of military
17 security, which I think you said was based, you think, upon Mr. Buza's
18 report; is that right?
19 MR. MORRISSEY: That's too compound, Your Honour.
20 MR. RE: What, for the average lawyer?
21 MR. MORRISSEY: I object. And it's too compound.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's go step by step.
23 MR. RE: When the witness was shown Mr. Jasarevic's report
24 yesterday, he said he thought it was based on Mr. Buza's report. I'm
25 merely putting to the witness what -- the evidence yesterday. It was
1 Exhibit 229? 232.
2 Q. In any event, Mr. Witness J, yesterday you were shown the report
3 of Mr. Buza. Now, are you saying that that largely corresponds with the
4 impressions you gained of the events?
5 A. I wasn't referring to that report or to Mr. Jasarevic's report.
6 I believe there was a third report that I was looking at. I can't
7 remember whose it was. And it was that report that I meant when I said
8 that it largely corresponded to my report. I did not agree with some of
9 the details, where the report stated that women were used as human
10 shields, and I disagree with that. Therefore, I was referring to a third
11 report that was shown to me.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, could I just indicate that if the
13 witness is to be questioned about these documents, it's just a matter of
14 fairness, he should have the specific document put on the screen in front
15 of him so that he can recall. We all know the numbers and we call them
16 by shorthand but if the witness is to be confronted, he has to be
17 confronted properly.
18 JUDGE LIU: I believe Mr. Re put a proposition first and depends
19 on the witness's answer.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, I agree and it wasn't an
21 objection so much as a future comment.
22 JUDGE LIU: Later on, I believe that if the Prosecution believe
23 there is a need, he will put that report, if it's available, to this
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Exhibit D236 is probably the third one, Your
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your help.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Witness J, the report you're referring to --
5 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone.
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. The details -- okay. You said it largely corresponded to your
8 report but you specifically disagree with the women being used as human
9 shields. That was the point of your disagreement with that report. I'm
10 about to show it to you.
11 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit D232?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should that report already be on
13 the screen in front of me?
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. I hope so. Could you just, please, go to page number 2, which is
16 the body of the report. This is the report of Mr. Jasarevic. Is that
17 the one you're referring to when you said that you agreed with the
18 contents except the bit about the use of women as human shields?
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the learned Prosecutor knows which
20 one he was referring to because it's in the transcript from yesterday and
21 the document was shown to him and he made comments about it.
22 Now, I've got no objection to the transcript from yesterday being
23 read back. It's very difficult for the witness to say what was said
24 yesterday in connection with a particular report unless the transcript is
25 put -- in fact it's pointed out to me here that on -- in any event, Your
1 Honours, the witness can answer the questions. I'm sorry, just let him
3 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I am putting the witness -- putting to the
4 witness the report he discussed yesterday at page 55 to 56. That's 232.
5 In case there is in dispute.
6 Q. Just to clarify it, Witness J, is that the one you're referring
7 to when you say you agreed with the contents in general, or generally
8 agreed with it, but you disagree with the bit about the use of women as
9 human shields?
10 A. I believe that I stated that I had not seen this report and that
11 I presumed that it had been drafted on the basis of Buza's report, but I
12 was not referring to this report. I was shown three reports.
13 Q. Well, yesterday, when questioned about this you said, page 56:
14 "A. I see this report was based on Buza's report. After Buza's
15 report was compiled, I helped based on such information as I had. But I
16 don't remember some of these things being part of my original
17 investigation or findings, such as the number of casualties or the
18 emphasis that is placed on women with weapons. I don't remember having
19 come across these things myself during my investigation. However, as to
20 the fact that everyone was armed and the fact that their artillery had
21 caused the best part of the devastation, that certainly holds true."
22 Now, that's what you said yesterday in response to Mr. Morrissey
23 when he asked you whether what is in this report was consistent or
24 inconsistent with the results of your "investigation".
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Firstly, no question has been asked. Secondly --
1 MR. RE: I was waiting for the translation. That's what you do
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Secondly, there is no words quote unquote around
4 the word investigation there. That's a quote from the Prosecutor. And
5 if he's going to read transcript we can do without his additions, Your
6 Honours. It's just, in my submission, not helpful -- any way that's the
7 protest I make about the current question.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that Mr. Re, you have to make sure
9 that this is a document the witness referred to yesterday on the screen.
10 MR. RE: There is no dispute about that. It's page 56. Mr.
11 Morrissey was examining him on it.
12 JUDGE LIU: I know. I know. It seems to me there is some
14 MR. RE: Not in my mind.
15 JUDGE LIU: No, no. In my mind.
16 MR. RE: Sorry.
17 JUDGE LIU: The point is to make me clear. It's not about you.
18 So I hope you could ask a question about the document on the
19 screen, whether there is the document the witness referred to yesterday,
20 and later on, continue your question.
21 MR. RE:
22 Q. The question and answer I just read to you, do you remember
23 giving that answer in response to Mr. Morrissey asking you about the
24 document on your screen now?
25 A. Your questions are so general and so complex that it's very
1 difficult for me to keep my focus up. Please try to be more specific and
2 to the point about your questions.
3 Q. Look, I'm not trying -- please, I'm not trying to confuse you in
4 any way. I'm just trying to work out what your response is to this
5 document. Yesterday -- are you saying now that you're not sure whether
6 the answer I read to you yesterday was in response to this report?
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, Your Honours, look --
8 MR. RE: Can I --
9 MR. MORRISSEY: No. Your Honours, that question is confusing and
10 meaningless and I submit that it's not permissible.
11 JUDGE LIU: Let's go step by step. You have to have a good
12 basis, then build the building on it.
13 MR. RE: Well, Your Honour, I don't know where to go. My learned
14 friend keeps objecting. He has accused me of using the wrong document.
15 I've put the right document to the witness. I've read back to him his
16 answer from yesterday. I'm asking him whether he remembers the answer,
17 the witness says it's confusing.
18 Now, he's already given the answer that it was consistent. As a
19 part of it I want to ask him about and about Buza's report. I keep
20 getting objections every time I put a passage from yesterday to the
21 witness. The last objection I don't understand. The witness said he was
22 confused so I'm saying are you able unable to remember whether you were
23 referring to that document? I mean, what do I do? Do I take him back
24 and take him through everything that Mr. Morrissey asked him yesterday?
25 JUDGE LIU: You may ask him a very simple question: Is there the
1 document you referred to yesterday?
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Do you remember seeing this document yesterday? Do you remember
4 Mr. Morrissey showing you this document yesterday and asking to you
5 comment on it?
6 A. I must say you're being imprecise there again. I saw three
7 documents yesterday. What you're asking me about, what I can see on the
8 screen, is not the document that I referred to when I said it was
9 consistent with my impressions. I did speak about a number of details
10 that I disagreed with. There is another document that I saw yesterday,
11 I'm not sure about the number, and that was the one I refer to when I
12 said that.
13 Q. All I'm asking you is do you remember seeing that document
14 yesterday. Do you remember Mr. Morrissey showing you that particular
15 document which is on the screen now yesterday.
16 A. Yes. I remember this document, and I said I'd never seen it
17 before. But I assume that it was compiled based on Buza's report.
18 That's all I can tell you about this document.
19 Q. Is the information there consistent or inconsistent with what you
20 learned from your speaking to up to a hundred or so soldiers in the days
21 or weeks after the attack on Uzdol?
22 A. There is one thing I must say. Was it you who changed the
23 document on the screen now or -- because this might lead to further
24 confusion, in case you decide to ask me about what I can see in front of
1 Q. I don't want to confuse you. I'll give you a paper copy which
2 make it easier for you to read.
3 A. My question was who changed the document on the screen.
4 Q. I'm not guilty. You'll have to -- it's not me. I have no
5 control over that.
6 A. Please go ahead.
7 Q. Is that -- is the information in that document, which is Mr.
8 Jasarevic's special report dated the 20th September 1993 consistent or
9 inconsistent with the information you gained from talking to up to a
10 hundred soldiers in the days or weeks after the attack on Uzdol?
11 A. It's consistent for the best part. Not entirely, though.
12 Q. I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber which parts are
13 inconsistent. Is it the bit about sending the -- using the women as
14 human shields, which is in the second paragraph?
15 A. Yes. That's it. I never heard anything about that, women being
16 used as a human shield, carrying weapons.
17 Q. But otherwise, the information is consistent with what you were
19 A. I said for the best part. I'm not sure if you want specific
21 Q. I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber which parts of that are
22 not consistent with what you were told by the soldiers you spoke to in
23 the days and weeks after the Uzdol attack.
24 A. What I've just said. I took this to mean that the HVO brought
25 some women along to be used as a human shield and that the women were
1 given weapons to carry. I never heard anything like that from any of the
2 soldiers and that's why I said I couldn't agree with this. It's not
3 consistent with the information that I had. Aside from which -- I'm also
4 not familiar with this information here that seven wounded soldiers were
5 evacuated and when one of those killed was being evacuated, four more
6 were killed. I'm not familiar with how many fighters and civilians were
7 liquidated. These were numbers that I could not ascertain myself.
8 Q. All right. But it's the numbers, not the fact of the
9 liquidation, that you're -- that you were unaware of?
10 A. I have no idea how people -- where people got this number from.
11 The only possible source that occurs to me right now is the Croatian
13 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit D149.
14 Q. It will come up on the screen as well. That's the report of Mr.
15 Buza with the date of the 20th of September 1993 on it.
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to my friend adding that
17 detail about the date being on it in that way. True, it is that it has
18 in the top left, the handwritten date. But as to the sending of this
19 document, it's just -- I'll withdraw the objection just now and I'll see
20 what happens. But I just want it to be pointed out that there has been
21 some questions about that with other witnesses, too.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think this point is in the record already.
23 But anyway, this document bears the date, so there is no problem for the
24 Prosecution to refer this document as the document itself. You may
25 proceed, Mr. Re.
1 MR. RE: It's also only for the purposes of the record, so that
2 when you read it later you know exactly which document we're referring
4 Q. Now, Mr. Morrissey showed you this document yesterday. Do you
5 remember that, Witness J?
6 A. Not in detail, but I must have seen this one somewhere. I'm
7 familiar with what it appears to be stating.
8 Q. Now, what role did you have in the drafting of this report?
9 A. I assume Buza might have consulted my opinion on this, asked me
10 whether I had anything to add. I can't remember the specific
11 conversation that we had but that's what I assume might have happened.
12 Q. You think that Buza may have used information you gave him to
13 compile this report?
14 A. I think he may. We talked on a daily basis. Of course he would
15 have been in a position to use my information. I never tried to conceal
16 anything I knew from him.
17 Q. Which information in this report do you think you gave him?
18 A. It's difficult to specify. It was the overall picture that was
19 created in a discussion that everyone was involved in. It's difficult to
20 specify my part and his part. It's difficult to distinguish. We
21 exchanged information. We listened to each other. Therefore it's very
22 difficult for me to specify now which part is mine and which was based on
23 someone else's information.
24 Q. Were Ms. Dzogic's conclusions about what happened in Uzdol
25 similar to your own?
1 A. I think so. Not that I can necessarily remember what her
2 impressions were. I don't think her general conclusions were any
3 different from anybody else's.
4 Q. As far as you know, none of the soldiers she spoke to provided
5 information to her about the killing of Croat civilians or soldiers; is
6 that correct?
7 A. I think some did, but I have no accurate information to show
8 this. As far as I can remember, this person called Hero, whom I found in
9 her office, was saying something along these lines but I can't remember
10 the details.
11 Q. You're saying, aren't you, that out of the up to 100 people you
12 spoke to, not one gave you any information from which it could have been
13 concluded, "About 65 Croatian soldiers and about 30 civilians, mostly
14 armed, were liquidated during the operation"?
15 A. You keep referring to the specific figure. The 100 people that I
16 allegedly interviewed. It might be a figure of speech. I might as well
17 be saying I spoke to 200 or 300 people, as many as that, because I did
18 talk to a great number of people. Officially and unofficially. I was
19 there when consultations were conducted, and people were interviewed.
20 Therefore you shouldn't take this figure of 100 persons as something that
21 is necessarily set in stone.
22 The impression I gleaned based on my interviews is reflected in
23 my report. What I said is that one of these reports was roughly speaking
24 consistent with the impression that I gleaned from my own interviews.
25 Q. Well, is it this one?
1 A. You mean Buza's report?
2 Q. Yeah, the one in front of you. Is that the one which is roughly
3 consistent --
4 A. No, no. This report contains a lot of details that are familiar
5 and that I arrived at myself, but there was a third report, another one,
6 that I looked at. Can't remember which one it was.
7 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown Exhibit 227.
8 Q. Is that on the screen?
9 A. No. This is no report at all.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. These are tasks.
12 Q. Well, I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe those were
13 the three reports that were shown to you yesterday.
14 MR. MORRISSEY: D236 is the other one, Your Honour.
15 MR. RE: I apologise. And could the witness please be shown 236.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 MR. RE:
18 Q. That's the report dated the 31st of October 1993, signed by
19 Nermin Eminovic. Would it help if you gave you a paper copy?
20 A. I think that's the one, the one that I read yesterday.
21 Q. Yesterday, you said that "What I felt and found at the time was
22 quite similar. This is perhaps slightly more detailed." Are you saying
23 that report contains more detail than you were able to gather in speaking
24 to up to a hundred people after the 14th of September?
25 A. No. What I'm saying is my general impression is for the best
1 part consistent with what this report appears to state. As for the level
2 of consistency concerning specific details, well, I think I did say about
3 this detail where there is reference to the bus driver, Slavko Mendes.
4 Q. When you said yesterday, page 56, "However, as to the fact that
5 everyone was armed and the fact that the military -- that their artillery
6 had caused the best part of the devastation," that certainly holds true.
7 What was the devastation you were referring to?
8 A. There was no way I could have established that, that the best
9 part had been caused by artillery. I said provoked not caused but this
10 wasn't something that I could arrive at. This was, Your Honour, the real
11 devastation that occurs when a shell falls on an inhabited settlement or
12 near a house.
13 Q. Well, if there was no way of you establishing that the best part
14 of devastation had been caused by the artillery, why did you say to the
15 Trial Chamber yesterday, "However, as to the fact that everyone was armed
16 and the fact that their artillery had caused the best part of the
17 devastation, that certainly holds true"?
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours before that's proceeded with I just
19 ask the Tribunal to notice that that question that's being put to the
20 witness related to a different document to this one and you'll see on
21 that page that the question that my learned friend is now putting to him
22 concerning devastation does not relate to document D236 at all and in
23 fact, the document D236 comes the next line afterwards. We will find you
24 the reference, Your Honour.
25 MR. RE: My answer is, and so what? I'm not talking about this
1 question. There is no question I'm talking about that document. I've
2 finished with that document. I've moved on. Why is there an objection
3 in the middle of my question?
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Because it didn't appear that my learned friend
5 had moved on. He left the witness with the impression that we were still
6 on that one. I'm sure he didn't do it deliberately, but perhaps it had
7 better be made clear that he's moved. Then I won't object.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe the situation is clear.
9 MR. RE:
10 Q. Now, after -- I'll have to take you back to the question I asked
11 you. And I asked you if there was no way of establishing the best part
12 of devastation had been caused by the artillery, why did you say to the
13 Trial Chamber yesterday, "However, as to the fact that everyone was armed
14 and the fact that their artillery had caused the best part of the
15 devastation, that certainly holds true"? The question is why did you say
16 that if you had no way of establishing it.
17 A. We were able to glean a lot based on the testimonies of soldiers
18 who witnessed the destruction. Furthermore, we could watch this from a
19 hilltop near Uzdol. That was BH army controlled. It was easy to see
20 what sort of devastation occurred. Not in great detail but you were able
21 to get a general picture. Besides, I don't remember I spoke about the
22 best part specifically. That would have been a very random choice of
23 phrasing. This would have been something to be established in a
24 thoroughgoing investigation. If I used the phrase, it was by accident.
25 Q. So are you now withdrawing what you said yesterday, that you
1 could no longer tell the Trial Chamber that, "The fact that their
2 artillery had caused the best part of the devastation, that holds true"?
3 Are you now withdrawing your evidence to the Trial Chamber yesterday?
4 A. No. I'm not withdrawing my evidence. I'm simply saying that
5 this particular word or, rather, expression, "for the best part" does not
6 hold. What I wish to state is that I believe that most of the
7 destruction was caused by artillery. Now, to what extent, I cannot talk
8 about the nuances. I was merely talking in logical terms, that it must
9 have been artillery that caused the best part of the devastation. It
10 could not have been caused by infantry weapons.
11 Q. What are you referring to, devastation? Do you mean the deaths
12 of civilians and soldiers, or what?
13 A. When there is shelling, the artillery is used to target homes,
14 facilities, and not persons. The HVO artillery was falling throughout
15 the village. Now, what they were targeting is something that I cannot
16 claim with any certainty. One can only speculate.
17 Q. You're sighing as far as you're concerned, HVO shelling caused
18 the deaths of 29 civilians in Uzdol on the 14th of September 1993.
19 That's the devastation you're referring to?
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, that's a highly improper question.
21 He can ask whether that's what the witness is saying.
22 MR. RE: I just did.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: He can ask the witness to clarify. He cannot
24 tell him what he said. And my submission, given the answer it's
25 repetitive on other answers. But in any event, I won't object to it if
1 it's phrased as a question.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re. Maybe you could rephrase your question.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Are you saying that your conclusion was that HVO shelling caused
5 the deaths of the civilians who died in Uzdol on the 14th of September
7 A. In part, of course, yes. It was caused by shelling. But nowhere
8 did I claim that only shelling was the cause of death of civilians. They
9 perished because they were in the midst of a conflict between the HVO and
10 the BH army.
11 Q. So some were shot in the crossfire and some were killed by
12 shelling; is that your evidence?
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to that. It's irrelevant
14 for this witness to now say what happened. What is relevant.
15 MR. RE: Why did you lead the evidence yesterday?
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, I see no problem with this
18 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court pleases.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. So is your evidence that some were shot in the crossfire and some
21 were killed by shelling?
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honours, could I just renew that?
23 Your Honours, the issue is -- it's not an objection to the form
24 of the question. It's just this: That this witness is not a crime-scene
25 person and the Defence is not calling him as a crime-scene person. We
1 are calling him concerning list own knowledge at the time and why he did
2 what he did and so on. I don't object to my learned friend asking was
3 that his belief then. The objection is to ask now in a general way what
4 -- as to this -- for this witness to ask -- to answer what happened. So
5 I won't object to it if it's put to the time when it actually occurred.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the precondition for this question is
7 that based on his interview, his talk, with the soldiers.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
9 MR. RE:
10 Q. Witness J, some were caught in the crossfire and some were
12 A. I believe so, yes.
13 Q. Your evidence over the last two days has been that not one of the
14 up to 100 people you spoke to told you about any deaths of civilians. On
15 what basis could you possibly draw a conclusion as to how any of them
16 died or the fact that any of them died?
17 A. I never claimed to have established how many were killed, but the
18 conclusion could easily be drawn from the different accounts I heard. I
19 could infer what had happened from what I heard in these stories. I did
20 not hear anyone say that they themselves participated in the killing of
21 any civilians, but when taking all the stories together, one could draw
23 Q. If people have not told you about civilian deaths or that any
24 civilians died, how could you possibly draw an inference that they had
25 died and how they had died?
1 A. Based on what the soldiers who took part in the action said, and
2 based on the picture that I formed. They were saying that they were
3 running across the village, there were hand grenades that they were
4 throwing, they were being shot at. In addition to that, one could hear
5 on the media how many civilians and soldiers were killed. I cannot tell
6 you with precision when it was that I created this clear picture of the
7 events, but whoever was talking about these events described them as
8 having been terrible. And I heard many different stories only as a
9 passive listener and by actively talking to these people.
10 Q. But you've told us in not one of those tellings of different
11 stories were the deaths of civilians mentioned.
12 A. Of course, because nobody wanted to say out in open that they
13 were the ones who had killed any civilians. I heard stories from others.
14 One of the first persons I talked to about it left me with an impression
15 that he had done something that was against his moral beliefs and my
16 conclusion was that probably he was shooting at a house or throwing a
17 hand grenade at a house where there were civilians, not only soldiers.
18 He himself felt the urge to talk to me about it. I could see that he was
19 having a hard time. And my impression was that the reason behind it must
20 have been the fact that one of the civilians got killed. He probably
21 would not have had such a hard time had a soldier been killed, because
22 there was a war on after all. That's why I concluded that it must have
23 been a civilian.
24 Q. But because he didn't tell you, it was mere speculation on your
25 part, wasn't it?
1 A. I don't think anyone would admit at the time to having killed a
3 Q. You said that you heard stories from others. Who were the others
4 you heard the stories from and what were these stories?
5 A. Roughly the ones that I mentioned already. They were telling me
6 in which direction they were running, whether they were throwing hand
7 grenades at houses or whether they were seeking shelter or being exposed
8 to fire. And I would in passing also ask them about the killings, and
9 everybody's reply was that they had not themselves participated in the
10 killing, but I did infer that there were killings involved. However,
11 nobody would name any names. Perhaps it was difficult to even know who
12 the person shooting at civilians was or perhaps they knew but simply
13 would not talk about it.
14 Q. Everyone's reply was that they had not themselves participated in
15 the killings, but you did infer there were killings involved. Yet you
16 just told us that a large part of the devastation was caused by HVO
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, can I say I want to object to this.
19 I submit that this is now becoming argumentative and repetitive. My
20 friend can ask questions about any specific he wants but we've now
21 reached a point where in my submission this is --
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We have spent a lot of time on those questions.
23 I believe that the point is very clear. I don't think it's necessary to
24 continue on this subject, Mr. Re.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. And is it the case that no one, of all the people you spoke to,
2 told you that any civilian deaths were caused by HVO shellings?
3 A. It was difficult for anyone to claim anything to that effect.
4 How could one know whether a person perished due to shelling, hand
5 grenade or gunfire? I don't believe it likely that the persons could
6 have perished from gunfire, given the intense shelling that was going on
7 at the time.
8 Q. You said you could see the shelling from the hill overlooking
9 Uzdol. You weren't up there, were you?
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, he didn't say you could see the
11 shelling. He said you could see the devastation. In my submission,
12 that's a distinct difference in time.
13 MR. RE: Let me check the transcript. My recollection is
14 different. I'll just check it.
15 The witness referred to devastation caused by the artillery,
16 that's at page 54, and then said we were able to -- "Furthermore, we
17 could watch this from a hilltop near Uzdol. That was BH army controlled.
18 It was easy to see what sort of devastation occurred." So I pressed the
20 MR. MORRISSEY: I don't mind it being pressed. I just want the
21 right -- the evidence to be put back accurately to the witness before it
23 MR. RE: If there any difference between artillery and shelling,
24 I don't know what it is.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, there might be some difference between
1 devastation and shelling.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. You just spoke about intense shelling. Was that the sort of
4 thing you say you might have been able to see if you had been on the
5 hilltop overlooking Uzdol?
6 A. Let me first explain this bit where you talk about us being able
7 to follow what was going on. There must have been an error in
8 interpretation. There is a difference between when you say that you can
9 see something and you can follow something because it -- what I meant to
10 say was that if we wanted to, we could see the devastation from the
11 hilltop, and of course whoever was on the hilltop at the time could also
12 observe shelling.
13 Q. The question is just you weren't up there, were you?
14 A. No, I wasn't, not at the time of the fighting.
15 Q. You didn't see any of this devastation with your own eyes, did
17 A. The time when the devastation was inflicted, no, but I could see
18 the consequences of shelling from the hilltop.
19 Q. Was a statement taken from --
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, could I just intervene one moment, Your
21 Honours. We just detected something might have been missing with the
22 interpretation. Mr. Cengic tells me that the witness mentioned the word
23 binoculars which wasn't translated. Could it just be clarified with the
24 interpreters whether that's the fact or not?
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the witness use
2 that term.
3 JUDGE LIU: Maybe, Mr. Re, you could ask the an a question on
5 MR. RE:
6 Q. When you said you could see the consequences of shelling from the
7 hilltop, did you just say a moment ago that you could do that with
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you take a statement from (redacted)?
11 A. I didn't, but I was present there when he was talking about his
13 Q. When was that? And where was that?
14 A. I believe it was at Dobro Polje, several days later. I can't
15 remember exactly. He was a member of the command and I saw him on a
16 daily basis.
17 Q. What did he tell you about his experience about what had
19 A. Nothing special. The only thing that remained in my memory was
20 that he had set out with only one round of ammunition, and I memorised
21 this bit because I found it ridiculous that somebody would just go out
22 into a battle with a pistol.
23 Q. Did Erzimana Dzogic take a statement from him?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Did you see the statement she took?
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Just a second. How can my learned friend --
2 well, I won't make a speech. I object to that. He says he doesn't know.
3 The next question --
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes, I quite understand. It's not logical to
5 ask a second question. If he knows --
6 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I said statements. I wasn't referring to
7 that witness.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well --
9 MR. RE: I'm not talking about that witness. He said no. I've
10 moved on. I said did you see the statements she took. I'm talking about
11 other people. But to make it clear --
12 JUDGE LIU: Maybe you have to specify your question.
13 MR. RE: I will.
14 Q. Did you see the statements - that's with an S on the end - any
15 statements that Ms. Erzimana Dzogic took from anyone?
16 A. It wasn't customary for me to take her statements and vice versa.
17 We could have exchanged information on some matters but I do not recall
18 the two of us actually exchanging anything of the sort.
19 Q. How did you take your statements? What did you physically do?
20 A. Do you mean the method of work or the premises where it was
21 taking place?
22 Q. Both. Just tell me what you did.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to this.
24 MR. RE: Not again!
25 MR. MORRISSEY: This is repetitive and Your Honours, in my
1 submission, we went over this, the method in which these statements were
2 taken before. If there is something specific I don't object to it, but
3 the general questions once again are repetitive and it becomes
4 oppressive, in my submission.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe so. The witness has already answered
6 that question.
7 MR. RE: I haven't asked him anything about taking statements.
8 At all.
9 JUDGE LIU: The witness testified before that he has a notebook
10 and he took the statements -- on that notebook.
11 MR. RE: No, Your Honour. With respect, that's not correct.
12 That was when he was talking to soldiers in groups. I haven't asked him
13 anything at all about his taking of statements. That was when he took
14 notes when he spoke to groups of soldiers and he did that afterwards. I
15 haven't touched upon the statement-taking process.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, if there is a difference between notes and
17 statements, you may continue with your question.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. You understand what I'm talking about? I'm talking about your
20 statements, not the general notes you took when you spoke to groups of
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. How did you take the statements from the soldiers?
24 What was the process you employed?
25 A. I've already stated that I would jot down a few lines and the
1 names of the persons who I found interesting, and then I would tell them
2 to drop by whenever they could, to have a chat. We would go to the
3 office that we used as the premises for security and intelligence-related
4 activities, and then I tried to find out more about some of the pieces of
5 information provided by the person or the names and so on, to form a
6 clear picture.
7 Q. And did you put this same -- this information in the same
8 notebook that you were using to make your notes of the conversations?
9 A. No. I had a different notebook that I used for writing down the
10 statements in their proper form, with the date, the name of the person
11 taking the statement, that is mine, and the name of the person giving the
13 Q. Were you using -- I think you said pencil before. Were you
14 handwriting these? I'm sorry, of course you were.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were these ever dictated and typed up?
17 A. No.
18 Q. How many of them were there?
19 A. I can't remember, but quite a few.
20 Q. Can you give an approximate number? More than ten, less than
21 ten? Less than five? More than 20? Less than 20? Whatever.
22 A. I had other statements in the same notebook that had to do with
23 other issues related to the battalion. There were 50 or 60 sheets in all
24 that had been used up. And of these, some 20 pages could have been used
25 up in relation to Uzdol but I'm talking in rough terms.
1 Q. What did you do with the statements when you finished taking them
2 in this book?
3 A. I used a metal filing cabinet that we had in the corridor where
4 we kept all the documents related to our activities, and I kept it, the
5 notebook, there.
6 Q. Did the people you took the statements from sign these
7 statements? Did you ask them to sign them?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When you were taking the statements, you weren't investigating
10 allegations of murder in Uzdol, were you?
11 A. What I understood was that my role was to investigate as
12 thoroughly as possible what had been going on at Uzdol and who had been
13 involved, and then, based on that, to draw up a report.
14 Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you whether you were
15 investigating murder in Uzdol, and you weren't asked to investigate
16 possible murders in Uzdol, were you?
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, I just -- it has to be clear
18 what the proposition is that he's being asked to comment upon. The
19 question was asked and answered. If my friend has a different question
20 to ask, it should be detached from the previous one. It may be there is
21 a different question being asked but it has to be clear what it is and in
22 my submission at the moment it's not.
23 JUDGE LIU: Maybe the possible what had been going on at Uzdol,
24 including murder.
25 MR. RE: My question, and this is deliberate. Every time I get
1 somewhere, I get these objections. My question is deliberate. It's as
2 to what he was specifically investigating, whether he was investigating
3 an allegation of murder. It wasn't answered. Now, that objection was
4 completely unfounded.
5 JUDGE LIU: In my view, the witness answered partly of your
6 question but the problem is that you have to make some specification or
7 clarification on the answer given by this witness.
8 MR. RE:
9 Q. Witness J, you were not investigating allegations of murder in
10 Uzdol on the 14th of September 1993 when you were speaking to the
11 soldiers, were you?
12 A. I didn't understand my role to be that of a murder investigator.
13 This would have been impossible to do with Uzdol. Had I been meant to
14 conduct an investigation like that, I would have needed to know precisely
15 who the victims had been or who the perpetrators had been. However, this
16 was not what I did.
17 Q. And it wasn't what Erzimana Dzogic was doing either, was it?
18 A. I don't believe she could possibly have had more information than
19 I had. We didn't know who specifically had been murdered, nor how many,
20 nor where exactly it happened, nor who the perpetrators had been.
21 Q. As far as you know, there was no investigation going on at the
22 time into an allegation of murder of civilians in Uzdol on the 14th of
23 September 1993, was there?
24 A. No. I didn't say that.
25 Q. No, but I'm suggesting to you, as far as you know, there was no
1 murder investigation or no investigation into murders in Uzdol going on
2 at the time, was there?
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to this. The witness has
4 made quite clear what he understood his own terms of reference to be and
5 what his own job was as he understood it to be. It's not for him to
6 characterise this investigation one way or other. That is the job for
7 you, the Tribunal, to do at the end of the case.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, I allow Mr. Re to continue with his question
9 because the answer given by this witness is not clear. He answered no, I
10 didn't say that. What does it mean?
11 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court pleases.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, so Mr. Re, has a follow-up question.
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. What I'm suggesting to you is that as far as you knew, there was
15 no investigation into murders in Uzdol on the 14th of September 1993,
16 going on when you were talking to the soldiers.
17 A. I'm not sure what I was doing at the time then. I was
18 investigating the truth because that was part of my investigation.
19 Q. Not what you were doing, but what others were doing. As far as
20 you were aware, no other people were investigating murder in Uzdol on
21 that day, were they?
22 A. As far as I know, both Erzimana and Mustafa Bektas were carrying
23 out investigation. Officially they were assistant commanders. I don't
24 know who else should have been involved at the battalion level.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Re, at this point, could I ask you how long
1 do you still need to finish your cross-examination?
2 MR. RE: Not too long. Probably about half an hour, I think.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, in this case, I believe that I made a mistake
4 for us to start an hour later this morning.
5 Well, I think the tapes are running out because we have been
6 sitting here over 90 minutes already, so we have to stop now, and we will
7 resume at 3.00.
8 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.37 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 3.01 p.m.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before
11 we start, Mr. Morrissey, you have something to read?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to do it and
13 I'm sorry to revisit old ground, but at the time -- this morning we
14 raised an issue with you about a statement or part of a statement of a
15 particular person. I think we should go into the private session for me
16 to raise this matter now, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 71-76 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE LIU: And it is our intention to finish the testimony of
7 this witness in one sitting. And tomorrow, we would like to have another
8 witness. We'll start from 9.00 until we finish the testimony of that
9 witness, because we will be very reluctant to have this witness to spend
10 the weekend in The Hague.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. It appears to me that that
12 witness will finish quite quickly so there is every likelihood we will
13 finish him in the morning session.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re. You may proceed.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. Before the break, I was asking you, Witness J, about (redacted).
18 You said he was on the command and you were in daily contact with him.
19 I'm just saying that to refresh your memory about what you said.
20 A. May I say something before I start answering questions?
21 Q. Is it connected with the question I'm asking you or is it
22 connected to something else?
23 A. Something else.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Witness.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the Trial Chamber is
1 aware of the fact that I have certain health issues, despite of which I
2 still decided to come here. Therefore, I would kindly ask you to keep
3 your questions very brief because it is difficult for me to maintain
4 concentration necessary to answer long questions. Especially since I'm
5 expecting results of my medical tests, which are due tomorrow, and this
6 is something looming on my mind.
7 Additionally, I have another cause for concern which is related
8 to something that the Prosecutor asked me yesterday, namely he asked me
9 whether I was charged by the HVO for rebellion. I said yes, that was
10 right, there was an indictment of the then-illegal HVO concerning some
11 alleged rebellion. However, that was not so important for me because
12 none of those charges were substantiated. They had no witnesses, no
13 evidence, despite the fact that they tried hard to find them. So this
14 kangaroo court, if I can call it that, was -- its proceedings were
15 annulled and the matter was never mentioned after 1992.
16 What does concern me, however, is that this information, obtained
17 by the Prosecutor, regardless of how discreet they were when looking for
18 this information is something that jeopardised my security, because I
19 believe that since the matter is not recorded in any documents, this
20 information could only have been provided to the Prosecutor by the former
21 archives of the security services of the then HVO. Therefore, I
22 reiterate: Regardless of how discreet they were when seeking this
23 information concerning me, this has certainly put the spotlight on me and
24 thus jeopardised my security, because those who provided this information
25 about me can certainly understand that I'm being discussed as a potential
1 indictee or something else.
2 I wanted to inform the Trial Chamber about this because I did not
3 expect this type of outcome in the course of my testimony. I believed
4 that the protective measures granted to me ought to have protected me
5 against this. That's all I had to say.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much for your statement. On the
7 part of this Bench, I can guarantee you that we will do everything to
8 protect your security. As for the procedure on the part of the
9 Prosecution, I believe they have kind of set procedure taking full
10 consideration of the security of the person they are looking for. So I
11 don't think at this stage there is any problems on that. If you found
12 something which is -- might affect your security, you may inform the
13 Tribunal or inform the party calling you to be a witness.
14 As for the first point, I would like to say that I've already got
15 the confirmation from the parties that we will try to let you go as early
16 as possible, taking into consideration of your health conditions. I
17 believe that we will finish your testimony before 4.30. Yes, Mr. Weiner?
18 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour, just to clarify and to let the
19 witness feel assured, when we go after and seize archives or obtain
20 archives, we seize them or obtain them in very large numbers with regard
21 to documents in the thousands if not tens of thousands and we've had in
22 the hundreds of thousands at a time. We are not going to the security
23 and saying, here is a name, give us that information. This is part of a
24 seizure which was -- where documents were taken in large numbers.
25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
1 Well, Witness, are you ready to continue?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, with the proviso that I
3 have to contradict what we just heard. This document could not be
4 located in any archives. Therefore, it could not have been seized
5 together with a large number of other documents. However, I believe that
6 I said sufficiently.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much. If you are not at ease, I
8 may ask the Prosecution to talk to you on this very subject after you
9 finished your testimony.
10 Yes, Mr. Re, you may proceed.
11 MR. RE: I won't be long. I'm almost there, Witness J, and I'll
12 try and keep my questions very, very short for you.
13 Q. I was asking you about (redacted). Now, (redacted), as a part of
14 the command of the Prozor Independent Battalion, was in a position to
15 know whether an investigation into the events in Uzdol was being
16 conducted, wasn't he?
17 A. I think that's right, since he was assistant commander for, I
18 believe, morale or something along those lines. I'm not sure what it was
20 Q. Now, in -- he gave evidence here and on the 7th of April, at page
21 70 of the transcript, he was asked:
22 "A. Now, Witness, do you know whether any investigations were
23 conducted into the civilian deaths in Uzdol?"
24 To which he answered:
25 "A. I'm not aware of any investigations and I don't think I ever
1 said anything about any investigations. This is not something that I am
2 familiar with."
3 Now, all I'm going to say to you is, you don't have any reason to
4 disagree with what he said, do you?
5 A. No. I have no reasons, although I am surprised.
6 Q. But you would accept that he is in a -- he was in a better
7 position than you to know whether investigations were being carried out
8 because of his position on the command -- as assistant commander for
9 religion and morale, et cetera?
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, look, I object to that. It's just
11 -- this witness has given evidence about what he did and this question is
12 frankly I put this proposition: That is an absurd question to put. It's
13 not acceptable to put that question here when this witness has given
14 evidence and been cross-examined on the basis of the inquiries that he
15 himself made.
16 I remind the Chamber, my learned friend in putting that
17 proposition there, I remind the Chamber of what it was that (redacted)
18 said that that he was doing in those days. I don't have the transcript
19 at fingertips but I can well remember what it was in general terms.
20 MR. RE: I really object to my learned friend, in front of the
21 witness, saying that. The witness has given his evidence about his daily
22 contact with (redacted). So if he wants to make the objection, it should
23 be taken in the absence of the witness.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that the Prosecution asked a very
25 tricky question. But, however, we'll hear what the witness is going to
1 tell us.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court please.
3 MR. RE:
7 A. I don't think that he was in a better position because I myself
8 was constantly present at the command headquarters. I was in contact
9 with Mustafa and Erzimana, whereas he was mostly out in field.
10 In addition to that, he originates from a village from that area.
11 This is where he was from. So he frequently went home, whereas I
12 remained at the headquarters and could hear everything that was going on.
13 I was better informed.
14 Q. Yesterday you spoke about -- you told the Trial Chamber -- could
15 we just move into private session for one moment?
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will go to the private session, please.
17 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Witness J, I just want to ask you about something that you spoke
4 about yesterday. Mr. Morrissey asked you about your information about
5 Uzdol, and you told the Trial Chamber that -- about your information,
6 about who was living there, and you said "We also knew that each house
7 had at least one barrel," that is one weapon, "sometimes more. What we
8 were positive about is that each house in the village was armed."
9 Now, that -- I'm just putting -- I'm just reminding you of what
10 you said yesterday. I'm going to ask you a question.
11 That is, you agree, fairly specific information you say you had
12 about the contents of every house, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And are you confident of that information that there was a long
15 barreled weapon in every house?
16 A. I'm almost certain because the army and the HVO were a single
17 formation from the beginning of the war, that is April 1992, until
18 October 1992, in Prozor, and even longer in some other areas. We had
19 contact and we knew what they had and they knew what we had, and also,
20 the purchase of weapons was no secret. Weapons were being sold in the
21 streets. We knew who was buying weapons, who was distributing weapons,
22 and where. So even little children had all this information.
23 Q. Is what you're saying that you knew specifically that there was a
24 weapon in every house in Uzdol, or is that a guess based on the fact the
25 HVO had been there?
1 A. I know on the basis of some facts. There was a joint action by
2 the army and the HVO against facilities of the former JNA, where a large
3 amount of weapons were seized and then these weapons were distributed in
4 proportion to the number of inhabitants between the Bosniaks and the
6 Apart from this, the Croats had an organised service to collect
7 funds for the purchase of weapons and all those who were working abroad
8 were obliged to send money to that fund, and we knew approximately how
9 many weapons were purchased, when, and where they went. That was no
11 Q. What I'm getting to, though, is the fact that they were in every
12 house as opposed to the village. Did you have specific information that
13 there was a weapon in every house?
14 A. I'm almost certain. Of course I wasn't able to check this but I
15 was convinced that every house had weapons. That's what people said.
16 Not just one weapon but more than one. People even boasted about the
17 number of weapons they had.
18 Q. And of course, knowing that there were weapons in every house you
19 would have known who or exactly who was living in each house in Uzdol, in
20 September 1993, wouldn't you?
21 A. I don't see what that has to do with it.
22 Q. Well, you just told us you had precise information that there
23 were weapons in every single house. I'm suggesting if your information
24 is that precise, you would also have known the identity of all the people
25 living in Uzdol in September 1993.
1 A. I didn't have to know that. I saw my neighbours and among them
2 were some from Uzdol, who carried weapons openly. Nobody concealed their
3 weapons from anyone. Maybe I was speaking figuratively when I said every
4 house, although I'm convinced that it was actually every house, but
5 nobody collected information about who was living in what house.
6 Q. And because nobody collected that information, as of 14th of
7 September 1993, you wouldn't have known how many civilians were still in
8 the village, would you?
9 A. I don't see any connection between those two things. We couldn't
10 even know who was a civilian and who was not. I'm referring only to men,
11 of course. Of course, children were civilians.
12 Q. Are you telling the Trial Chamber that as of the day of the
13 attack, you, from your position on the Prozor Independent Battalion, did
14 not know the identity of the women, children and civilians living in
15 Uzdol, and where they lived?
16 A. I knew some of those people from an earlier period, but people
17 from neighbouring villages knew each other individually. I was just a
18 foreigner in those parts, so to speak.
19 Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you about whether
20 from your position on the Prozor Independent Battalion you knew the
21 identity and where people lived in Uzdol, civilians specifically.
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, in fact the question was originally, women,
23 children and civilians, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. Witness J?
2 A. Would you please repeat your question in precise terms and
4 Q. What I'm asking you is: Did you know, on the 14th of September
5 1993, the identity of women, children, civilians and where they were
6 living in Uzdol?
7 A. You mean all the inhabitants of the village?
8 Q. Women, children and civilians, yes.
9 A. That's a ridiculous question.
10 Q. Well, you told the Trial Chamber yesterday and today you believed
11 every house had a weapon in it. I'm asking you -- I withdraw that.
12 That's a very precise piece of information you've given the Trial
13 Chamber. I'm asking you -- you're saying the precision of your
14 information didn't extend to the identity of the people living in those
15 houses where those weapons were kept?
16 A. You're asking me something I don't understand. Are you asking me
17 whether we had a list of people living in each individual house and what
18 weapons they had, details of that sort? I don't know what you're asking
19 me about.
20 Q. That's a start. Did you?
21 A. Is there a list? Is that what you mean? We were not a
22 Registrar's office, nor was it possible for me to draw up such a list.
23 We had general information about who was in the village, where they were,
24 and what artillery they had, what weapons, infantry weapons and so on,
25 and approximately how many women and children were there. But only
2 Q. Did you have information on where the women and children were
3 living? Which houses they were living in? What parts of the village?
4 A. According to our information, women and children were mostly in
5 Prozor, some ten kilometres away from Uzdol. But some of them would go
6 there when they thought it was safe because they had land there and they
7 probably went to harvest and so on, work on their land. But no women or
8 children lived there on a permanent basis, either in our villages or
9 their villages in this area.
10 Q. Did you have information on the location, that is where these
11 weapons, long-barrelled weapons, were stored, in each of the houses in
13 A. Stored in houses? Is that what you mean?
14 Q. Well, yes. You've told us that every house had a weapon. Did
15 you have any information as to where these weapons were stored in each of
16 these every houses that had these weapons?
17 A. Every one who came home carried a weapon and they would put their
18 rifle down next to the door when they came in. That's what happened
19 there. There weren't any warehouses as such.
20 Q. And before the soldiers went into battle in Uzdol on the early --
21 in the early hours of the morning of the 14th of September, were they
22 instructed to go looking for these weapons in these houses in Uzdol?
23 A. I wasn't present when they were given their last instructions,
24 but I know that they did have some kind of talks. I don't know what
25 their instructions were but I don't believe it was to look for weapons.
1 In such a situation, they wouldn't even have time to get to the houses.
2 As far as I was able to understand, they simply ran through the village.
3 They didn't even have time to look around.
4 Q. (redacted) I'll ask you about Erzimana
5 Dzogic. From her position in the command of the Prozor Independent
6 Battalion, she was in a better position than you to know whether or not
7 an investigation was being conducted into the events in Uzdol, wasn't
9 A. I believe she knew more than I did.
10 Q. She gave a statement to the Prosecutor on the 20th of May 2001,
11 and in that statement, in the very last paragraph, she said, "I do not
12 know anything about any offensive operation conducted by our battalion in
13 the village -- Croatian village of Uzdol." Now, that's very different to
14 what you've told the Trial Chamber yesterday and today, isn't it?
15 A. Had I known what it would have cost me, I would probably also
16 have said that I knew nothing. She probably knew enough to say that she
17 didn't know anything.
18 Q. She was then interviewed again on the 22nd of May 2003, and gave
19 a signed statement to the Prosecution, and at paragraph 22 of the
20 statement, she said, "From a civilian, I heard Rama Radio broadcast about
21 the killing of some Croats that had happened in Uzdol. I received the
22 information with disbelief because Rama Radio had broadcast information
23 before which proved to be wrong. I thought of it more as propaganda.
24 What I heard at the time from the conversation between a civilian from
25 some other village and the villages of Scipe was that some people from
1 Uzdol got killed. I did not take it seriously because Rama Radio was
2 propagating and was under the control of HVO, such as some people were
3 announced to be dead and I would later see them in the street while I was
4 still in Prozor. I do not know those who they are any more."
5 Now, listen to this line, which finishes it:
6 "As much as I remember, there was no comment made by soldiers
7 about that event to me."
8 Okay? You've heard what she said to the Prosecutor.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: I object to that, Your Honours, "you've heard
10 what she said to the Prosecutor." My learned friend is not entitled to
11 put that she said that to the Prosecutor. He's entitled to put that he's
12 got a signed statement in his hand which says that. He can't put that
13 she said that at all. He can put what the statement says, not what she
15 JUDGE LIU: I see there is no great difference between the two
17 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court pleases.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Having heard the quote I just read to you, what she -- the
20 statement -- what she said in the statement she signed is very different
21 to the evidence you've given about what she was doing, isn't it?
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I object to that comment. Your Honours,
23 that last sentence which my learned friend focuses on says, "As much as I
24 remember there was no comment made by soldiers about that event to me."
25 And when you look at what was talked about in the lines before, there is
1 discussion of "Rama Radio propagating and being under the control of the
2 HVO such as some people were announced to be dead and I would later see
3 them in the street while I was still in Prozor." Now, my submission,
4 it's not open to my friend to say that that line there is very different
5 because it's simply a matter of interpretation what that line is
6 referring to. He can ask the witness -- since Your Honours have allowed
7 that to be put, he can ask the witness for his response but he can't --
8 Mr. Re can't put his own interpretation or gloss on that line, if my
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe there is some reason in the
12 MR. RE: In my submission, it's own capable of two possible
13 interpretations. One is that Mr. Dzogic is referring to what was
14 broadcast over Radio Rama, which is that there was a killing of
15 civilians, and the other one is that they had actually done it. So it
16 leads to the same point. The evidence of the witness is that she was
17 taking statements from witnesses as to what happened. Now, the statement
18 can be read in two ways, but it comes to exactly the same point. It's
19 that no soldier made any comments to her about what was broadcast on
20 Radio Rama, what which is about the killing of civilians.
21 JUDGE LIU: In this paragraph, we did not see anything about
22 taking statements from the soldiers.
23 MR. RE: No, but Witness J has said she was speaking to them.
24 JUDGE LIU: I know that. So I don't know what's the point there.
25 MR. RE: I'll approach it another way.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Soldiers who were giving statements to -- I withdraw that. You
4 said you saw Ms. Dzogic taking a statement from Hero and another man
5 whose name you can't remember but you think it was Jusuf. That's on page
6 27. And you said you stayed there taking statements. Now, these
7 statements were about what happened in Uzdol, weren't they?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in these people, that's Jusuf and Hero, giving information to
10 Ms. Dzogic, they were making a comment about what had happened in Uzdol,
11 weren't they?
12 A. Who made a comment?
13 Q. The soldiers she was talking to when taking statements, they were
14 making comment to her about what had happened in Uzdol, weren't they?
15 Because that's why she was asking them questions.
16 A. This refers to one man, Hero. His first name is Jusuf. I saw
17 him with Erzimana and she was talking to him and I stayed to listen.
18 Q. Was she talking to him about Uzdol?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And was he making comment to her about what had happened in
22 A. He was telling her what he had decided to say.
23 Q. So if she said in a statement that, "As much as I remember there
24 was no comment made by soldiers about that event to me," that's different
25 to what you're telling the Trial Chamber, isn't it?
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, I object to that again. Your
2 Honours, this witness is not making any comment about Erzimana Dzogic's
3 memory at all. Now, what you have in your hand here or what's been put
4 is that when this witness, assuming that she said this, said "As much as
5 I remember there was no comment made by the soldiers about that event to
6 me," it's not appropriate to ask -- to put to this witness that that's
7 inconsistent with what he says. All Ms. Dzogic says, if that's her
8 talking, is as much as she remembers. You can't ask this witness to
9 comment on her memory and I now renew the objections.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I agree with the Defence counsel on the
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. You said to -- earlier today I asked you about Croatian
14 television and a broadcast of the footage from Uzdol. And -- this is at
15 page 31 of today. I asked you about the -- about that and you said, "I
16 heard about that but I didn't see it myself, though." Now, did Enver
17 Buza talk to you about the broadcast on Croatian TV of bodies in Uzdol?
18 A. I don't remember having talked with anyone about that broadcast.
19 I just heard that there had been a broadcast. I didn't see it and I
20 didn't feel the need to discuss it with anyone especially.
21 Q. Did anyone say to you that the footage broadcast on Croatian
22 television was a clumsy editing job?
23 A. I did hear that there had been some details there that did not
24 fit in, that weren't really -- didn't fit in with what had been shown.
25 Q. Do you remember who you heard that from?
1 A. I really can't remember that. It sticks in my memory that
2 someone said that some things there had been set up.
3 Q. Mr. Halilovic, when he gave an interview to the Prosecution, this
4 is at page 19 of tape 24, 1, said -- there is no names mentioned in this.
5 JUDGE LIU: You can try.
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. He said, "I saw even on Croatian television of Herceg Bosna some
8 footage of what had happened in Uzdol. At my next meeting with Enver
9 Buza I asked him if he had seen the footage because I insisted with Enver
10 Buza, commander of the 6th Corps, to verify" -- sorry -- "and the
11 commander of the 6th Corps to verify whether there were any activities
12 that are not permitted and should they return in that there should be
13 such activity that legal actions should be taken. Enver Buza repeated
14 that no activities that are not permitted had taken place, that this
15 happened at all, and he also said that the footage that was broadcast on
16 Croatian television was actually a clumsy editing job that was done by
17 Smjrko Sgold [phoen] because in the background one could see on the
18 footage planes, flatlands, and the area in question is flatlands."
19 Sorry: "Is not in the flatlands, is in the hilly regions and one
20 can also see in the footage traces of snow and at that time there was no
21 snow there."
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, it's not open to just read
23 out slabs of an interview. If there is a question arising out of it the
24 question should be asked. I object to any more of this, frankly. I
25 won't object to this question if there is a question that comes after it.
1 Looking at that there, there could be no -- I won't make a
2 speech. I object at this stage.
3 MR. RE: I haven't asked the question yet.
4 JUDGE LIU: I believe Mr. Re is setting up the background. The
5 question will be followed very soon.
6 MR. RE: For my friend's benefit, I do actually pause to allow
7 the interpreters to finish.
8 Q. Now, Witness J, having heard what I just read to you, does that
9 refresh your recollection as to whether or not Mr. Buza was the person
10 who told you or mentioned that there was a -- that there was something
11 wrong with the footage on Croatian TV?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to that. How can it
13 refresh his memory to read out somebody else's record of interview? You
14 can refresh his memory from something he said or a statement he made in
15 the past. So I object to that, Your Honour.
16 MR. RE: That doesn't accord with the jurisprudence of the
17 Tribunal and I specifically refer Your Honours to the Hadzihasanovic
18 case. You can refresh recollection from --
19 JUDGE LIU: Different cases are different situations. I believe
20 that you tried it again, then you put something to refresh the memory of
21 this witness. But how could this witness's memory be refreshed by the
22 conversation with others?
23 MR. RE: The Hadzihasanovic decision is an appeal decision which
24 says that recollection isn't -- refreshing isn't confined to a witness's
25 own past statement. It could be from anything relevant. I'm putting to
1 the witness something that has been said by -- to relevant period
2 contemporaneously. He said he heard something similar. He didn't
3 remember whether it was from Buza so I'm asking having heard that does
4 this refresh his memory as to whether it was Buza who said that. He can
5 say yes, no, or it doesn't assist.
6 JUDGE LIU: I think different cases have different situations. I
7 believe that you have already asked this question to this witness.
8 MR. RE:
9 Q. What I want to suggest to you, Witness J, is that what was
10 actually happening in the Prozor Independent Battalion from the time the
11 soldiers arrived back on the 14th, was that a cover-up was going on as to
12 what actually happened in Uzdol that day.
13 A. That's not how I saw it.
14 Q. Mr. Halilovic, when he was interviewed by the Prosecution on the
15 -- in 2001, at page 17 of tape 11 part 2, was asked:
16 "Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Enver Buza knew that
17 something had happened?"
18 He responded, "A. I think he did.
19 "Q. And Suljevic?
20 "A. I'm not certain about that. As for Buza, as far as Buza is
21 concerned, I'm 100 per cent sure that he knew because Buza had in his
22 unit security officer, a security officer who of course has his
23 associates amongst the troops and although he may not have found out
24 about it on that very day but very soon after that he would have known.
25 He then again had a platoon of military police. So as far as he is
1 concerned, I'm absolutely certain that he knew about it, that he covered,
2 tried to cover up the crime. I'm also certain about the chain of command
3 from that battalion towards the 6th Corps. I'm completely certain that
4 the commander and the security corps of the officer of the 6th Corps knew
5 and of course Jasarevic was also informed about that."
6 Now, what Mr. Halilovic said to the Prosecutor there is entirely
7 correct about the cover-up, isn't it? Because that's exactly what was
8 going on. Buza knew and was attempting to cover up the crime.
9 A. I don't understand why this is being claimed, because I don't
10 agree with this. I don't agree that this was considered a crime and that
11 it was covered up. I adhere by that today as well. I don't see it as a
12 crime. I don't agree with how it was portrayed in the media and now in
13 this indictment. In my mind, this has always been a military action in
14 which unfortunately the civilians were caught in crossfire while the
15 soldiers were trying to extricate themselves and flee from the village.
16 I don't see how somebody has the right to qualify this as a crime. I'm
17 making a comment about the statement.
18 MR. RE: I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Any redirect?
20 MR. MORRISSEY: I have no questions, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 [Trial chamber confers]
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Judge El Mahdi, please.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Witness, I wish to thank you for coming to this Tribunal. I have two
2 clarifications which I would like to ask from you. The first has to do
3 with what you said concerning the orders received by your battalion. You
4 said you didn't remember the orders, the other orders, except those which
5 came from the 6th Corps.
6 Do you remember having received other orders concerning
7 investigations on the events of Uzdol -- in Uzdol?
8 A. I don't remember receiving a written order to conduct
9 investigations. Rather, I was told this orally. Perhaps the commander
10 had a written order but I don't remember seeing it.
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But were you told whose
12 order it was?
13 A. I suppose that the order came from the 6th Corps, because that
14 was the typical procedure. They would forward all orders to the
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you very much.
17 My second question would be a clarification about what you said
18 concerning the relations between Mr. Halilovic and Mr. Buza, Enver Buza.
19 You said that their relationships were tense between those two, and you
20 also said that the battalion was not well organised, was disorganised,
21 and you added that Mr. Halilovic didn't enjoy much appreciation among the
22 officers. Could you tell us a little more on this score, please?
23 A. I did not know Mr. Halilovic. I only saw him on television. I
24 also didn't have much information about Enver Buza. I only met him upon
25 arriving at Dobro Polje. However in their mutual contact between Mr.
1 Halilovic and Mr. Buza, I was able to see that they had known each other
2 from before and that there was a certain animosity between them. What
3 surprised me was that the commander of the battalion, which was a small
4 formation, was able to talk to the commander in such a manner. At the
5 time I believed Sefer Halilovic to be the commander of the army.
6 Therefore, it surprised me that a commander of a battalion would
7 dare to have that attitude towards his commander.
8 In addition to that, I was able to observe certain officers who
9 displayed quite a similar attitude. There was an officer called
10 Mujizenovic [phoen], I don't know exactly what his position was but it
11 was definitely well below the position of Mr. Halilovic, and judging by
12 his attitude, I was able to see that he did not have anywhere near
13 sufficient amount of respect that one would expect of an officer towards
14 his commander.
15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Therefore, you conclude that Mr.
16 Halilovic didn't have the clout necessary for this battalion? Or
18 A. My impression was that he had no practical power at all. At one
19 point in time, I saw that a part of the brigade came to Dobro Polje and
20 then decided to go back on their own without checking with anybody. That
21 disappointed me quite a great deal. I realised that this was not a
22 proper army, that there was no order there or subordination. I'm not
23 sure whether this is the correct military term.
24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] A last point on which I would
25 like to have clarification is about the person you met and who seemed
1 troubled by the events, and you said this person needed to communicate
2 this information to someone. Do you remember by what he had been
3 troubled, disturbed?
4 A. That was immediately after the Uzdol operation. It could have
5 been nine or ten in the morning. I can't remember now when this person
6 came. He was pale, tired, looked badly. I asked him what had happened
7 and he just waved with his hand and said, "Don't ask me. All kinds of
8 things happened." I tried to get the details and he spoke to me in
9 general terms. He said, "A lot of us got killed. We were really beaten.
10 But we also did some things that I can't really tell you about." That
11 was the gist of what he said. He was quite distressed at the time so his
12 words were not coherent and focused. He was probably troubled by the
13 memories about what had happened. My impression was that he was going to
14 faint. That's how bad he looked. Perhaps this was all caused by fatigue
15 and fear. I don't know.
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. And what I'm interested by
17 is what they have committed or he has himself committed. Did you get the
18 impression that either he or some members of his unit had committed some
19 actions which disturbed him, shocked him?
20 A. I think that he was in that condition because he himself had shot
21 or had thrown a grenade. I remember some bits that he said. He said,
22 "We launched grenades, fled, jumped over fences," and so on. Based on
23 that, I concluded that he either fired in an area where he knew there
24 were civilians or he threw a grenade there, or did something else that he
25 wasn't supposed to do. He didn't tell me that in those exact words but
1 that was my conclusion. I could see that he could not forgive himself
2 for what had happened. That means that something was troubling him
4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge El Mahdi. Any questions out of
6 Judge El Mahdi's question?
7 MR. RE: Thank you, there is one matter from the last question.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
9 Further cross-examination by Mr. Re:
10 MR. RE: That relates to that incident.
17 A. I don't think I said that he had told me about throwing a grenade
18 on a house. What he said to me was in general terms. He said that there
19 was firing, that grenades were being launched, that he did that too.
20 Now, as to the effect that produced, I don't know. I don't remember any
21 further details. I don't remember him saying, "I threw a grenade on to
22 that house and that there was somebody in that house." It would be
23 ludicrous to expect me to remember such details after 12 years.
24 MR. RE: I don't think I can clarify the two parts of the
25 transcript. They speak for themselves, in my submission.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course. Mr. Morrissey?
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Nothing, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
4 MR. WEINER: Just for clarification for the witness, those
5 documents were obtained from the HVO archives which are part of the state
6 archives of Croatia. They were obtained the 27th of April 2004 which is
7 approximately 14 months before this person ever became a witness. So for
8 the record, these were obtained over 14 months ago. Thank you.
9 JUDGE LIU: I think I instruct you to talk this to the witness
10 after our sitting.
11 Yes, Mr. Morrissey?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, that matter that was raised earlier
13 on, was actually raised in private session yesterday. It started off not
14 in private session but then I asked for it to go in private session. So
15 I ask that it be appropriately redacted.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll check with the previous transcript to see
17 whether we should have it redacted or not. Thank you for telling us
18 about that.
19 At this stage, are there any documents to tender on the part of
20 the Defence? No? And on the part of the Prosecution?
21 MR. RE: No, Your Honour, unless you want those two statements
22 marked for identification. I can certainly have them provided to the
23 Registry later. I'm in your hands. I don't plan to tender them but --
24 JUDGE LIU: If you don't want to have them tendered, so there is
25 no need for us to give a number to it. Unless in the future you are
1 going to use it again. I'm not sure.
2 Well, Witness, thank you very much indeed for coming to The Hague
3 to give your evidence. I understand that you are in poor health
4 condition and I'm very sorry for your testimony, which took so long.
5 But, however, after we adjourn, Madam Usher will show you out of this
6 room and we wish you a good health as well as a very pleasant journey
7 back home.
8 Thank you very much, Witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, the hearing for today is adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.22 p.m.,
12 to be resumed on Friday, 8 July, 2005, at
13 9.00 a.m.