Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 27207

 1                           Tuesday, 10 April 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  Before we begin today,

 7     there are a couple the matters the Chamber would like to deal with.

 8     First the Chamber will issue an oral ruling on the "Prosecution

 9     application regarding the report on use of time in the trial" filed on

10     4th of April, 2012.

11             In the application -- very familiar sound.

12             In the application, the Prosecution requests the Trial Chamber to

13     direct the Registry to provide a breakdown of the time calculations for

14     each witness who testified during -- between the 1st and the

15     29th of March, 2012, and requests to be allowed to file an application

16     challenging the time used by it within seven days from the receipt of the

17     breakdown of the time calculations.  The Chamber hereby grants both

18     requests and orders the Registry to provide the time statistics for March

19     to the Prosecution as soon as practicable and orders the Prosecution to

20     file its challenge within seven days of the receipt of these time

21     statistics.

22             Next, on the 23rd of March, 2012, the accused filed the "Motion

23     to modify protective measures:  Witness KDZ071," requesting the

24     rescission of the protective measures granted to Witness KDZ071 in the

25     Krstic case.

Page 27208

 1             On the 28th of March, 2012, the Prosecution filed its response

 2     opposing the motion and referring to the witness's conversation of

 3     27th of March, 2012, with the Prosecution's investigator during the

 4     course of which he stated that he needed his protective measures to be

 5     continued as he has returned to the Srebrenica area and feels unsafe.

 6             The Chamber first notes that there is no Chamber currently seized

 7     of the Krstic case within the meaning of Rule 75(G) and that none of the

 8     Judges who granted the original protective measures to the witness in the

 9     Krstic case remain at the Tribunal.  On the 5th of April, 2012, the

10     Chamber was informed by the VWS pursuant to Rule 75(J) that the witness

11     does not consent to the rescission of his protective measures.

12             The Chamber also recalls that under Rule 75(J) of the Rules, it

13     may order the rescission of protective measures absent the consent of the

14     witness in exceptional circumstances and "on the basis of a compelling

15     showing of the exigent circumstances or where a miscarriage of justice

16     would otherwise result."

17             The Chamber has carefully examined the motion and its annex

18     therein and considers that exceptional circumstances that would warrant

19     the rescission of the protective measures absent the consent of the

20     witness have not been shown.  The Chamber therefore dismisses the

21     accused's motion, and accordingly, Witness KDZ071 shall testify with the

22     protective measures of pseudonym and image distortion.

23             The Chamber has noted the witness's statement that he has not

24     made any public declaration since returning to the Srebrenica area.

25     However, the Chamber would like to remind the witness that any public

Page 27209

 1     statement he makes will render his protective measures ineffective and

 2     therefore warns him against doing so.

 3             That said, we'll -- back to normal proceedings.  If the witness

 4     take the solemn declaration, please.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 6     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, sir.  I apologise for your inconvenience,

 8     and please make yourself comfortable.

 9                           WITNESS:  AMOR MASOVIC

10                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

12                           Examination by Ms. Sutherland:

13        Q.   Please state your full name for the record.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Your microphone, please.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:

16        Q.   Mr. Masovic, please state your name for the record.

17        A.   Amor Masovic.

18        Q.   You've testified before the Tribunal in four cases and you have

19     provided statements to representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor;

20     is that correct?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   Recently a statement was taken from you which amalgamated

23     evidence from your previous testimonies and statements, and you also

24     provided clarifications and some additional comments in relation to a

25     number of documents; is that right?

Page 27210

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have 65 ter number 90326 on the screen,

 3     please.

 4        Q.   Mr. Masovic, you see a statement in front of you.  Is that your

 5     signature at the bottom?

 6        A.   Yes, that is my signature at the bottom.

 7        Q.   And this is the statement that you -- the amalgamated statement

 8     that was recently taken from you?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Prior to signing this statement you reviewed it with the

11     assistance of the interpreters.  Do you confirm that it is accurate to

12     the best of your knowledge and belief?

13        A.   Yes, I confirm that it is my statement and that it is accurate.

14        Q.   If you were asked today about the same matters contained in the

15     statement, would you give substantially the same information to the

16     Trial Chamber?

17        A.   Yes, I would.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I seek to tender the amalgamated

19     statement under seal and a public version will be available without

20     Annex B.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Any objection, Mr. Robinson?

22             MR. ROBINSON:  No, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit both versions.  Shall we give the

24     numbers.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the public version will become

Page 27211

 1     Exhibit P4850, and the confidential P4851, under seal.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  With Your Honours' leave, I will now read a

 3     brief summary of the witness's evidence.

 4             The witness is a member of the board of directors of the

 5     Missing Persons Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina commonly known as the

 6     MPI.  The MPI's responsibilities include maintaining lists of missing

 7     persons and persons who have been found through the process of exhumation

 8     and identification.  The MPI, which began functioning in January 2008,

 9     assumed the responsibilities of the commissions for missing persons that

10     had been in existence in Bosnia-Herzegovina prior to that time.

11             During 1992 to 1995, the witness was a member, acting head and

12     deputy head of the BiH State Commission for Exchange of Prisoners of War

13     Captured Persons and Bodies of People Killed and Record of People Killed,

14     Injured and Missing on the Territory of the Republic of BiH, known as the

15     State Commission.

16             In 1996, the State Commission became the State Commission for

17     Tracing Missing Persons.  The witness was appointed president of this

18     commission.  As of July 1997, the witness was also appointed as chairman

19     and co-chairman of the Federal Commission for Tracing Missing Persons

20     that encompassed the State Commission and a commission established by the

21     Bosnian Croat authorities.

22             The witness's evidence relates to the work of these institutions,

23     their mandate, their methodology, and their findings.  The witness gives

24     details of his duties and responsibilities in these institutions

25     including his participation in the process of exhumations, autopsies and

Page 27212

 1     identification of victims exhumed from mass graves, common graves, and

 2     individual graves throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 3             The witness reviewed and commented upon several documents

 4     relating to exchanges during the war and a number of documents relating

 5     to exhumations, autopsies and identifications conducted in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 7             The witness has prepared a report on exhumed and identified

 8     persons relating to the incidents listed in Schedules A and B to the

 9     indictment in this case from the MPI records.

10             That completes the summary.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I have a small number of questions for you.  In your

14     amalgamated statement, you discuss the process of exhumation, autopsies,

15     and identification of victims, and you say that the institute maintains

16     lists of exhumed and identified victims as well as missing persons.

17             In October 2009, did you provide a report to the OTP on exhumed

18     and identified persons based on these MPI records in relation to persons

19     listed in Schedules A and B to the indictment?

20        A.   Yes, that is correct.

21        Q.   And does that report contain two tables, the first table

22     containing numerical data on the number of persons exhumed and identified

23     or missing from several municipalities, and the second table contains

24     data about individual victims that have been exhumed and identified?

25        A.   Yes, that is correct.

Page 27213

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have 65 ter number 23691 on the screen,

 2     please.

 3        Q.   Is this your report that you provided in October 2009?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And attached to that report were the two tables, Table 1 and

 6     Table 2 that we've just discussed?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   And this report sets out the methodology and quotes a number of

 9     figures that were -- that were correct as at the time of writing the

10     report?

11        A.   Yes, correct.

12        Q.   And did the OTP then recently ask you to update the information

13     contained in the two tables?

14        A.   Correct.  I was asked to update the information from 2009.

15        Q.   I first want to deal with the second table.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could have 65 ter number 23691B on the

17     screen, please.

18        Q.   Now, we see on the left-hand side the -- is that the report, the

19     updated report that -- if we could just scroll over a little bit so we

20     can see the date in the heading of the document.

21        A.   Yes, that is the updated list as of the 5th of April, 2012.

22        Q.   And on the right-hand side of the screen we can see an English

23     translation of the heading row, the title of the document, the heading

24     row and also the legend which we will now go to, because I want you to

25     explain the colours that we can see in the document.

Page 27214

 1             If we could go to the last page of the document, please.

 2        A.   In essence, the legend refers to two types of exhumed persons and

 3     identified.  The first group are persons whose names were provided to me

 4     by the OTP.  These are persons who are marked in red and blue text in the

 5     table.  The difference between those marked in red and in blue is in the

 6     updating.  Persons marked in red are persons who were identified at the

 7     time of the drafting of the first report in 2009, and persons whose names

 8     are written in blue are persons who were subsequently identified in the

 9     period since 2009 until the drafting of the new report in April 2012.

10             The second part of the legend or the text that is written in

11     black refers to persons who were exhumed and identified and are not found

12     on the lists of victims that were provided to me by the OTP.  However,

13     these are persons who were found in the same mass graves in which the

14     persons whose names were provided to me by the OTP were found, whose

15     names are in red and blue ink.  They were included in the list based on

16     the fact that they were found, exhumed, and identified in the same mass

17     graves as those persons whose names were provided to me by the OTP.  The

18     difference between the persons in black and those in black with a blue

19     star is in the updating.  Again, the lists were updated.  Those whose

20     names are written only in black were identified at the time the first

21     report was drafted in 2009, and those whose names are written in black

22     with a blue star next to their names are persons who were identified in

23     the period since 2009 until April 2012.

24        Q.   And just looking at this last page of the document, we can see

25     five victims in relation to Foca, and if we could just zoom out so that

Page 27215

 1     we can see all of the page.  We can see four names in red provided by the

 2     OTP and then one name in black coming --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we collapse the English translation for

 4     the moment, yes, and zoom in in B/C/S.  Yes.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Mr. Masovic, we can see the six [sic] names in red and the one

 7     name in black, all being exhumed from the same mass grave.

 8        A.   Yes, correct.  All five persons were exhumed on the

 9     17th of December, 2008, in Usce Cehotina, that location which is a mass

10     grave in the Foca municipality area, and the name of four of the

11     identified persons are on the OTP victim's list that was provided to me,

12     whereas the fifth person, Kemal Isanovic, marked in black, is not on the

13     OTP victim list.  He was included in this list on the basis of criteria I

14     referred to before and that is the fact that he was found in the same

15     mass grave.

16        Q.   Now, just looking there we can see a column "Date of

17     disappearance" and where the person was last seen; is that right?  Can

18     you just explain to the Trial Chamber how the date and place missing

19     columns were determined.

20        A.   The sources that were used by the entity commissions and, before

21     them, by the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War and

22     the State Commission for Missing Persons are different information.  The

23     most frequent sources of information about the missing persons, the date

24     they went missing, the place of missing and the circumstances were the

25     actual families of those persons, but not necessarily so.  In situations

Page 27216

 1     of missing members of armies or missing members from the police force and

 2     so on and so forth, in that case information about the missing persons

 3     were provided by their commands, authorised services, their superiors,

 4     and even their co-fighters who were witnesses when they went missing.

 5             If you look at the dates reported as the dates the person went

 6     missing, very often it can be the case that this is not the actual date

 7     of death of a missing person.  It's simply a date that one of our sources

 8     of information acquired.  For example, in certain cases a member of the

 9     family who survived the war was a witness when his close relative was

10     taken away from his apartment, from their house, from their property or

11     simply from the street, and that was the last day that that person saw

12     their relative alive, and he would report that day as the day the person

13     went missing.  However, in many cases, such missing persons, after being

14     taken away from their homes, were taken to camps, prisons, and in such

15     cases some other prisoners or detainees would see that person even months

16     after the person was taken away from their apartment or their house, and

17     then they would testify to a different date and a different place of --

18     the person went missing and different circumstances.

19             My conclusion, therefore, is that the date and the place the

20     person went missing does not have to indicate the actual date that a

21     person went missing.  It's more of a perceived date by a member of the

22     family, and even different members of the same family could provide

23     different information about the date a person went missing depending on

24     when each of them learned that their relative had gone missing.

25        Q.   Mr. Masovic --

Page 27217

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Sutherland, you referred to the column "Date of

 2     disappearance" and the column where the person was last seen, but I can't

 3     find those two columns in the English translation.  Where do we have it?

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, it's -- if we can ...

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Let us collapse the B/C/S version.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  It's the sixth and seventh column, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  And can we see the B/C/S now.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 9        Q.   So, Mr. Masovic, can you --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Now I can find them.  Thank you,

11     Ms. Sutherland.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   So, Mr. Masovic, if I understand you well, when you had different

14     dates from the family and then a subsequent date of the person being seen

15     at another location, you made the assessment to put the later date as the

16     date of disappearance; is that right?

17        A.   Not necessarily.  We try to check the veracity of the date -- or,

18     rather, the credibility of the resource that provided it.  So based on

19     how credible the source is, we would enter such data.

20             I have to underline that for our institution, both the former

21     district commission and the institute of today, all the circumstances and

22     information surrounding the disappearance are not significant data.  Our

23     task was not to find out how the people went missing and who was

24     responsible.  Our major task was to try and locate the missing person,

25     and unfortunately most of them were found to be dead after the war.

Page 27218

 1     Another task of ours was to identify those persons and to hand over their

 2     remains to their families.  That was our main concern.

 3             As for the dates and manner of disappearance are something that

 4     the Bosnian prosecutor offices and regular courts are dealing with.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could just go to page 11 of the document

 6     in e-court.

 7        Q.   Mr. Masovic, you can see in front of you this page relates to the

 8     mass grave at Laniste 1 dealing with victims from Biljani.  Very briefly,

 9     the same principle as you've just discussed applies in relation to the

10     red and the black names; is that right?

11        A.   Before I answer, there is a mistake in the English version, but

12     now it's been corrected.

13             Yes.  The red names indicate the victims that are on the OTP

14     list.  The black names are not on the OTP list.  However, they were found

15     in the same mass grave which was in the area of Laniste, near Kljuc, and

16     which was 20 metres deep.  So the remains of all these victims were found

17     in this one and the same grave, and its official name was Laniste 1.

18        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I want to ask you about the entries that you have

19     for Bijeljina.

20             If we could go to page 1 of the document.

21             Can you explain to the Court why Bijeljina appears to be

22     different from the rest of the table?  We see here that there's

23     four names in red exhumed from individual graves at one location and a

24     number of other persons whose names appear in black text again exhumed

25     from individual graves but from another location.  Why did you list these

Page 27219

 1     names in black?

 2        A.   The names of these individuals are written in black because their

 3     names are not on the OTP list that was made available to me which

 4     contains 48 names of the victims.  Of the 48, only first four individuals

 5     that we see in this table marked in red are in the OTP list, whereas the

 6     rest are not.  They were put on the Bijeljina list because this involves

 7     the persons that for many years had been considered as missing, and they

 8     went missing in the area of Bijeljina.  Some of them disappeared until

 9     the first half of April 1992, and some of them went missing towards the

10     end of 1992, with the exception of the Kisic family, six-member family --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, Isic.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- which is the family that

13     disappeared in Bijeljina in 1993.  Therefore, all of them, with exception

14     of one person that was found in the same grave as the first four victims,

15     the Komsic family, were found in Serbia.  Komsic family was found in a

16     cemetery in Bijeljina, whereas the others were found in Serbia.

17             I suppose that these people had been first killed, then their

18     bodies were dumped into the Drina River, and from then on their bodies

19     were taken down the Sava River to Serbia where the local authorities took

20     these bodies out and buried them in Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and

21     Belgrade, and they were buried as unidentified persons until the date

22     when their identity was established through DNA examination.

23             The 12 people whose names are marked in black were reported as

24     missing either in the beginning or by mid-April 1992.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I tender that -- I seek to tender

Page 27220

 1     the report, which was 65 ter number 23690, and the updated table, this

 2     updated Table 2 which is 23691B.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  The original report, the number of original report

 4     should be 23691.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry.  Yes, Your Honour.  I'm sorry.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We don't have any objection

 8     to 23691B, but we do object to 23690, since this is not an expert

 9     witness.  Any information in his report should have actually been

10     included and probably is included to some degree in the amalgamated

11     statement pursuant to the Chamber's practice.

12             Secondly, I note that the Prosecution has provided us by e-mail

13     with an updated list of the other table that was contained in the report

14     and I think that that should be admitted but not the narrative of the

15     report.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Could you expand on the reasons why the previous

17     report, part of which is already incorporated into his update, should be

18     excluded.

19             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We believe that the tables

20     only should be admitted, so that for 619B only the table that we've been

21     discussion should be admitted, and we also request that the other table

22     be admitted which is an update to the other table that was contained in

23     23691.  However, the narrative itself we don't believe should be admitted

24     because this witness is not an expert for whose report has been noticed

25     and that's normally admitted as an expert report.  He's a fact witness,

Page 27221

 1     and you've indicated that for fact witnesses their information should be

 2     amalgamated into a single statement and that that single statement should

 3     be admitted, which you've already admitted his statement.  So we don't

 4     believe that the narrative of the report should be admitted into

 5     evidence.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  So it is your submission that the narrative part of

 7     this report, i.e., 23691, amounts to an expert report.

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, I'm saying that it has no business being

 9     admitted because it's not an expert witness.  So even if it's not an

10     expert report, whatever information that the Prosecution wanted to tender

11     outside of the oral testimony should have been included in the

12     amalgamated statement.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Can I hear from you, Ms. Sutherland.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, as you know, this is a fact witness

15     with expertise.  He may not be an expert witness, but he is a fact

16     witness who has expertise.

17             The narrative to the report simply sets out the criteria he used

18     in putting data in Table 1 and Table 2 and his methodology for doing

19     that.  He does elucidate on that in paragraphs in his amalgamated

20     statement, but it's our submission that this overview would help even

21     though the figures that are contained in -- in the report may not be

22     current at the moment in the narrative.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE KWON:  Both will be admitted given that Defence has no

25     objection to the admission of the table and that the witness -- witness's

Page 27222

 1     narrative helps the Chamber understand the methodology in preparing for

 2     those tables.  The objection is overruled, and we admit them.  We'll give

 3     the numbers to both versions.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P4852 and

 5     P4853.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  There's no problem in admitting publicly.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Table 2, no, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Both.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And the report, no.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:

12        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I want to turn now to the other table in the report,

13     Table 1.  You were also asked to update that table, were you not?

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could 65 ter number 23691A on the screen,

15     please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.  This is

17     Table 1 that also contains updated information about the missing persons

18     that had been located and identified in a number of municipalities in

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:

21        Q.   And briefly what is the difference between this updated table and

22     the original table in 2009?

23        A.   The principal difference is in that in the updated 2012 table,

24     two municipalities, i.e., Visegrad and Kotor Varos, were left out.  I

25     suppose that they have also been left out from the indictment.

Page 27223

 1             As for the other municipalities, the data have been altered in

 2     term of establishing new numbers of the missing persons and identified

 3     persons.  Some persons were found in the period between 2009 and 2012.

 4     Some of them found in that period were identified, including some that

 5     were found prior to 2009 but were only identified later.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if we could go to the second page.  And the

 7     last -- and then the last page.

 8             I tender that updated Table 1, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Mr. Robinson, separate from the issues that

10     you raised, I forgot to ask you whether you were happy with the extent or

11     degree of English translation of those document.

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, it's okay, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We'll give the number for this table.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P4854, Your Honours.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:

16        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I wish to now turn to the victim list.  Were you

17     recently requested by the Office of the Prosecutor to review its

18     corrected victim list?

19        A.   Do we need to have it on our screens first?

20        Q.   Well, my question was simply were you asked to review a corrected

21     version of the witness list that was provided by the -- victim list which

22     was provided by the Office of the Prosecutor.

23        A.   Yes.  Yes, I was.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could have 65 ter number 23690A on the

25     screen, please.

Page 27224

 1        Q.   And just before we deal with that, in relation to the updated

 2     Table 1, that was information -- data available as of the 5th of April,

 3     2012; is that correct?

 4        A.   I didn't understand you.

 5        Q.   The Table 1 that we just dealt with, the numerical data, that was

 6     as of 5th of April, 2012, the data.  Is that right?

 7        A.   Yes.  That's the date on which the list was updated.

 8        Q.   Now, is this the updated victim list that you provided to the

 9     OTP?

10        A.   Yes, that is correct.  It is an updated list of victims as

11     indicated in the title of the document.

12        Q.   And that is as of also the 5th of April, 2012.  So -- is that

13     right?

14        A.   Yes, that's right.

15        Q.   So on the left-hand side of the screen with the heading in blue

16     highlight, can you briefly describe what that side of the document

17     relates to.

18        A.   Here --

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry, if this could not be broadcast.

20     Your Honour, it was fine for what was broadcast, there's not an issue in

21     relation to that, but ...

22             JUDGE KWON:  Fine.  Let us proceed.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes.  But if we -- if it remains not broadcast

24     from this point.

25        Q.   Mr. Masovic, can you explain?

Page 27225

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Could the Chamber move into private

 2     session briefly.

 3                           [Private session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:

22        Q.   So very, very quickly, Mr. Masovic, can you just explain what's

23     on the right-hand -- left-hand side of the screen.

24        A.   I only have one list on my screen, which is the list provided to

25     me by the OTP.  So on the left-hand side is the list of the alleged

Page 27226

 1     victims provided by the OTP for the purpose of me reviewing the list and

 2     giving my comment.

 3             On the right-hand side of the screen you can see which comment I

 4     made with respect to each of the victims on the left-hand side or on the

 5     so-called OTP victims list.

 6        Q.   And the -- the columns that you added are shaded in grey in the

 7     heading column.

 8             Now, can you just briefly explain for the Trial Chamber the

 9     different categories that are represented there.  If we could go to the

10     last page, we see a legend, but I would like you to very briefly explain

11     to the Chamber the different colours.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can go to the last page, please.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, this involves the

14     persons that were on the OTP victims list.  When I made my comments, I

15     used light yellow to mark all those victims who were identified to date.

16     Light green indicates the names of the victims that have not yet been

17     found, or if they have been found, they haven't been identified yet,

18     which their status remains as still missing.  Colour brown indicates the

19     victims from the OTP list which still have formally the status of missing

20     persons, but we do have some kind of preliminary identity for these

21     persons established on the basis of DNA identification.  So it is highly

22     likely, and let me say that I estimate it to be 95 [as interpreted]

23     per cent possibility that in the course of further identification that is

24     going to be carried out with the assistance of their families, these

25     victims will be transferred to the category marked in light yellow, which

Page 27227

 1     means those who have been definitely identified.

 2             And finally, we have the category that is not coloured by any

 3     colour, which is white, and that refers to the alleged victims from the

 4     OTP list that had not been reported at all as missing to the institute of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina or in which cases the information we received was

 6     inaccurate or insufficient and therefore unable to assist me in

 7     establishing their identity.  For example, if only you have the last name

 8     of the victim without his or her first name or his or her father's name,

 9     this is not enough, because it is well known that dozens or hundreds of

10     families or members of one and the same family were killed.  But if I

11     only have the last name of the family without any other details, I really

12     find it difficult to determine which particular member of that family was

13     involved.  For that reason, we left this category blank pending the final

14     determination of the status of these persons.

15        Q.   Mr. Masovic, the transcript reads that you said that you

16     estimated it to be 95 per cent possibility that the preliminary

17     identifications --

18        A.   No.  I said 99.5 [as interpreted] per cent.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I tender the --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  It's wrong again.

22     99.95.  Now it's correct.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I tender the marked up victim list.

24             JUDGE KWON:  And you will tender a redacted version.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.  Yes.  So this version will be

Page 27228

 1     under seal and there will be a public redacted version.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  So we shall admit both the versions.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 23690A shall be given

 4     Exhibit P4855, under seal, and the public redacted version will be P4856.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 7        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I wish to turn briefly to another topic.  In your

 8     work in the institute, have you ever come across situations of persons

 9     falsely claiming military benefits and for what reason?

10        A.   It is difficult to answer this question.  We in the institute are

11     actually not involved in keeping these kinds of records.

12             In my report, I did mention some attempts, but it didn't have to

13     do with any particular military records, but nevertheless I said that

14     there were attempts by some members of the families to obtain some

15     benefits.

16             Over the 20 years that I have been working with missing persons,

17     in only three instances we realised that families tried to report their

18     family members missing in order to obtain some kind of remuneration.  So

19     from the date when I started working until today, there were only three

20     such attempt -- attempts.

21             As far as your question is concerned, I can say that I am aware

22     of such instances but not within the scope of work that I am involved in.

23     According to the electronic and other media, apparently there were quite

24     a few cases in which certain individuals succeeded in acquiring certain

25     statuses in spite of the fact that they were not eligible for that.  For

Page 27229

 1     example, they reported some of their family members as being killed and

 2     claimed them to have been members of the military, which in fact is

 3     something that they were not entitled to, and I think that this is

 4     prevailing in both entities.  And I think that in the Federation of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina there are efforts which have been lasting for quite

 6     some time to establish precisely who was the member of the military or

 7     other formations, because as you know, Bosnia is facing an economic

 8     crisis just like the rest of the world, and I think that these economic

 9     difficulties have accelerated the process of reviewing the requests for

10     these remunerations.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I just make one intervention in

12     the transcript, because I don't think I'll be able to do that during

13     cross-examination.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Very well, yes.  But please wait, because you

15     overlapped, but, yes, Mr. Karadzic.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think at page 22, 11, 12, and 13,

17     the witness said not a small number of such cases, but here it says quite

18     a few cases.  So lines 11, 12, and 13 on page 22.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  That will -- that's noted.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:

21        Q.   Mr. Masovic, is that correct?

22        A.   I can't find that in the transcript.  If you could go back a bit.

23     I don't know what it relates to.  I said two things.  I said there was

24     one situation which only three attempts were recorded, three attempts to

25     report that someone had allegedly gone missing, but there was no one who

Page 27230

 1     had gone missing.  And then I mentioned something that wasn't part of the

 2     responsibilities of the Institute for Missing Persons, something I was

 3     aware of given what I had read in the press or through the electronic

 4     media.  I heard that there was a review underway and that it appeared

 5     that there were -- there wasn't a small number of cases in which certain

 6     individuals obtained financial compensation or certain benefits although

 7     they were not entitled to such benefits.  To be more precise, some

 8     individuals were granted the status of members of the military, of the

 9     police force, whereas in fact those individuals were never members of the

10     military or of the police force.  Or some individuals were granted were

11     granted a certain status as disabled individuals and as a result they had

12     financial compensation, but these people in fact weren't disabled or they

13     didn't have disability of such a percentage that would have resulted in

14     that individual obtaining financial compensation.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Mr. Masovic.  I have no further

16     questions.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Yes, Ms. Sutherland.  Shall we deal

18     with the associated exhibits.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Associated exhibits.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Any objections, Mr. Robinson?

21             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We have objections to several

22     of the associated exhibits which contain the reports of autopsies, and

23     our objection is that to admit those through this witness would --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Could you let us know the number of the exhibit.

25             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

Page 27231

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, number first.

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  13081, 12602 [Realtime transcript read in error

 3     "12601"], 13106.  12918, we actually object to that document as not

 4     forming an indispensable part of the statement.  Then --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  12601.  Is it included in the

 6     associated exhibits?

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  I think I said 12062.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  12062.  And the last one is 12 ...

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  And then also 13064, 13024, 13061, 13093, and

10     04786.  And there were also a number of documents which didn't have

11     English translations, so we weren't able to be sure whether they included

12     autopsy reports or were simply --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  I will come back to the documents where

14     English translations are missing, but -- so please proceed with your

15     first issue.

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Well, with respect to this issue, I think

17     that we've already encountered this when we dealt with the testimony of

18     Dean Manning, when the Prosecution sought to incorporate into its

19     exhibits the reports of -- or findings of other experts who were not

20     testifying or no notice of their expert reports were submitted to us

21     under 94 bis and you ruled that those would not be admitted, and we think

22     that this presents the same issue and ought to end in the same result,

23     which is that those exhibits dealing with expert autopsy reports ought

24     not to be admitted.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Because I didn't have time to go through each and

Page 27232

 1     every document, I note that, for example, 4786, the last item you

 2     referred to, has an English translation.  So by way of an example, could

 3     you give us an example why certain parts should not be admitted.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Could we upload that document.

 6             MR. ROBINSON:  If we look starting at page 5 --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Microphone, please.

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  If we could just look starting at page 5,

10     which is -- we are objecting in this document to pages 5 through 21.

11             JUDGE KWON:  So forensic medical examination and postmortem

12     examination of the bodies.

13             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct.  And for each of the bodies the

14     expert gives his opinion as to the cause of death, and so we think that

15     that ought to be something that should have been the subject of expert

16     testimony and shouldn't be admitted through this witness.  He himself on

17     occasion has been present.  He has observed some bodies and remains and

18     has given his opinion of what he found in the comments section to the

19     annex, but with respect to actual autopsy reports and results, we don't

20     believe that they should be admitted.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Ms. Sutherland.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  [Microphone not activated] Your Honour,

23     Mr. Tieger --

24             JUDGE KWON:  I'd like to hear one at a time.  Microphone, please.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Mr. Tieger is going to deal with this issue.

Page 27233

 1     Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             This is a misleading and false analogy both in terms of the

 6     jurisprudence cited during the course of the argument with regard to the

 7     Manning materials and with regard to those materials themselves extending

 8     to this issue.  Let me explain as briefly as I can.

 9             First of all, during the course of the argument on the Manning

10     materials, Mr. Robinson relied on two things, the decision regarding

11     investigator Barney Kelly's summaries in the Milosevic case in May of

12     2002, which was finally decided by the Appeals Chamber in September of

13     2002, and he relied on 94 bis as lex specialis.

14             With respect to the Kelly decision, that decision turned on the

15     fact that the summaries were done by an OTP employee.  That is not the

16     case here.  In fact, contrary to Mr. Robinson's assertion, the -- both

17     the Trial Chamber in Milosevic and the Appeals Chamber in rendering its

18     decision specifically and explicitly approved of summaries and the

19     submission of such materials through other witnesses when they weren't

20     done by OTP employees, and they cited specifically the human rights --

21     the testimony of Fred Abrahams who incorporated previous statements and

22     an OSCE report and other documents by extension.  By analogy, that would

23     mean that in this particular case these reports would come in.

24             Finally, the decision in the Milosevic case was grounded upon the

25     finding by the Trial Chamber that there was little or no probative value

Page 27234

 1     in the tendered materials.  That is precisely the opposite of the

 2     situation here.  Here the Trial Chamber, this Trial Chamber, in its

 3     decision of February 21st, 2012, explicitly found that these materials

 4     have probative value and are relevant but simply asked that they be

 5     tendered through a witness.

 6             Secondly with respect to 94 bis, Mr. Robinson attempts to make --

 7     extend it beyond the practice of this jurisprudence and indeed beyond the

 8     explicit provisions of 94 bis which is not a provision which embraces

 9     every single document which has any specialised or expertise component,

10     it addresses specifically the testimony of expert witness, that's the

11     title of 94 bis, and it refers to the statements or reports of an expert

12     witness to be called by a party.

13             It was never intended to embrace every single document that might

14     have been produced at any time during the course of the conflict or

15     thereafter with respect to relevant issues.  It was related specifically

16     to this.  That is -- it has never been the practice in this institution

17     to make outside autopsy reports or exhumation reports the subject of

18     94 bis, and I've canvassed the case in other cases.  That hasn't been the

19     case.  Exhumation reports and autopsies have been submitted in various

20     ways but not under 94 bis.  It's not the practice in this case where we

21     have seen autopsy reports and exhumations submitted through witnesses who

22     did not conduct them and not under 94 bis.

23             The Defence knows that because they tendered two autopsy reports

24     through different witnesses themselves not under 94 bis already in this

25     case.  And we know it's not the case because this Trial Chamber itself

Page 27235

 1     made a decision on February 21st, 2012, when it reviewed the tendering of

 2     exhumation reports through bar table and -- and determined that, again as

 3     I mentioned, that they were probative and relevant but should be tendered

 4     through a witness but again made no mention whatsoever of 94 bis,

 5     confirming the practice in this institution and in this particular case

 6     that these are not -- reports such as these do not fall under 94 bis.

 7             And finally with respect directly to the Manning analogy, that

 8     decision by the Trial Chamber here involved reports that the OTP had

 9     asked certain experts to produce.  That's completely different from the

10     situation we have here where these were reports that were not

11     commissioned by the OTP but that were produced in the course of business

12     by outside agencies.

13             So the bottom line, Mr. President, is this:  The OTP has done

14     precisely what the Trial Chamber asked it to do on February 21st, and

15     that was to tender these documents through a witness.  That's not only

16     completely consistent with the jurisprudence of this institution but

17     actually goes an extra mile by the Trial Chamber in doing so.  And I

18     would say this witness who oversaw much of this process and indeed in a

19     very hands-on way is the perfect witness through whom to do so.  Even if

20     he wasn't the perfect witness, that would only go to weight not to

21     admissibility.

22             I could also speak for quite a long time about the policies and

23     practices underpinning the general nature of admissibility in this

24     institution, but given the specific backdrop of this issue, I don't think

25     that's necessary unless the Trial Chamber does.  These documents should

Page 27236

 1     be admitted as they have been tendered.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  If you could kindly remind us what the -- our

 3     decision of 21st of February involved.  Was it not related to exhumation

 4     report, not including the forensic postmortem examination that would

 5     touch upon the cause of death?

 6             MR. TIEGER:  No, that is true, Mr. President, but I cited it for

 7     the broad principle that such matters do not involve 94 bis.  I think it

 8     clearly stands for that proposition.  I cited it also for the proposition

 9     that the trial -- that the Prosecution has acted as directed to by the --

10     by the Chamber, and I continue to note that autopsy reports have been

11     admitted in this case through witness -- through means other than 94 bis,

12     through witnesses who did not conduct the autopsies, and that that is a

13     practice that is not only followed in this Trial Chamber but based on my

14     canvassing of all the available information has been the consistent

15     practice in this institution throughout for the reasons I described.

16             JUDGE KWON:  And one further reason for the Chamber to have

17     denied that -- denied to admit those exhumation report through bar table

18     motion was to give the accused an opportunity to cross-examine as to its

19     content.  So how can we compromise with that ruling in this case,

20     Mr. Tieger?

21             MR. TIEGER:  It is not a compromise on that ruling,

22     Mr. President, I would submit.  First of all, the decision said it should

23     be tendered through a witness who can comment on the -- I should find the

24     exact language but who can speak to them and answer questions in relation

25     thereto.  This witness is clearly in a position to do that.

Page 27237

 1             JUDGE KWON:  The next sentence.  This would also give the accused

 2     the opportunity to cross-examine such a witness and test his or her

 3     evidence.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Yes.  This witness can talk about the circumstances

 5     that gave rise to these examinations, the nature of the process that was

 6     pursued, its consistency with all the other information that was

 7     available, the persons who were tasked to conduct these -- these matters.

 8             The fact of the matter is that that -- it's not -- and I'm going

 9     to say it again, we have admitted autopsy reports before in a matter

10     that's completely consistent with the most stringent adversarial system

11     jurisdictions.  That is, where people have come in and said yes, that was

12     done, this is not an autopsy report done by some third grader, this is a

13     matter done in the normal course of business as one would expect.  That's

14     part of what this witness can testify to and he can testify to much more

15     giving the Court a contextualised understanding of how these things

16     arose, the fact that they were conducted by professionals for a

17     particular reason in -- in the course of an effort that was independent

18     of an OTP commissioning akin to the Manning reports or to the Kelly

19     reports.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was waiting for the completion of French

21     translation.

22             Mr. Masovic, the Chamber does not usually hear from the witness

23     during the course of debate, so if you could wait for the moment.

24             Yes, Mr. Robinson.  Would you like to say anything further?

25             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President, just briefly in reply.  I

Page 27238

 1     think the Chamber has hit the nail on the head which is who is

 2     Dr. Karadzic going to cross-examine about the cause of death if these

 3     reports are admitted through this witness, and that was the basis for

 4     your ruling with respect to the Dean Manning issue for which the

 5     Prosecution didn't seek reconsideration, and I think that should be the

 6     basis for your ruling here.

 7             The last time I heard Mr. Tieger relying on the practice of this

 8     institution was when he tried to justify not disclosing Rule 68 material

 9     before the beginning of the trial, and you've ruled that that practice

10     was wrong, and it would be wrong to also allow the Prosecution to have

11     the benefit of expert evidence without following the procedure under

12     Rule 94 bis which provides for notice in advance of the trial, provides

13     for the opportunity for the accused to either agree or dispute the expert

14     evidence, and then where it's disputed, it gives the accused the

15     opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses.  And so we believe that

16     that practice should require that if the Prosecution wants to rely on

17     expert evidence outside of court, it should have followed that procedure

18     and given the Defence the opportunity to challenge it.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Just could confirm that -- that the part the Defence

20     is concerned about is the part related to the cause of death.

21             MR. ROBINSON:  Exactly.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:  I can't sit while Mr. Robinson asserts that I am

24     trying to disregard the rules of the institution.  94 bis does not

25     provide for and is not intended to encompass the documents that he is

Page 27239

 1     seeking to bar from admission, and it doesn't -- it doesn't embrace those

 2     documents on its face, it hasn't embraced those documents in the course

 3     of the practice of this institution, and it hasn't embraced those

 4     documents in the course of the practice in this case as reflected by the

 5     fact that the Defence itself tendered such documents, and those were, for

 6     example, D48 and D2043 through two separate witnesses.

 7             And I mentioned the other aspects of the adversarial system

 8     because it would be anomalous to the point of being bizarre if this

 9     institution, which has adopted an expansive admissibility policy in light

10     of the scale of the events and the scope of evidence that is admitted

11     which can be tested one against the other, to have a practice that is

12     more constrictive and restrictive than adversarial systems which would

13     allow such documents to be admitted when they are produced in -- in the

14     customary course of business of those institutions.

15             So for many reasons this is not a matter of the OTP trying to

16     circumvent the rules of the institution.  This is instead a reflection of

17     Mr. Robinson's attempt to expand a rule beyond the scope of what it is

18     intended for and what it has been applied to.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  The Chamber will rise for its

20     deliberation.  So we'll probably resume at 11.00, but Mr. Tieger,

21     Mr. Robinson, Mr. Karadzic, due to my personal urgent matters, I will be

22     absent from the remainder of this week, and the Chamber will sit pursuant

23     to Rule 15 bis.

24                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

Page 27240

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  The Chamber has considered the arguments put

 2     forth by the parties in relation to the admission of the autopsy reports.

 3     The Chamber recalls that the rationale behind its decision of the

 4     21st of February, 2012, was to provide the accused with an opportunity to

 5     cross-examine a witness who can answer questions as to the parts of the

 6     exhumation reports that he challenges.  The accused indicated today that

 7     he challenged the causes of death in these reports.  The Chamber

 8     therefore considers that it is not appropriate to admit these parts of

 9     the autopsy reports dealing with the causes of death but sees no reason

10     not to admit the rest of these documents.  The Chamber therefore orders

11     that the Prosecution provide redacted versions of 65 ter 4786, 12602,

12     12918, 13024, 13061, 13064, 13081, 13093, and 13106, and will admit these

13     redacted versions into evidence.

14             The Chamber has also noted that a number of English translations

15     are missing.  For those documents for which no English translations have

16     been provided, the Chamber will MFI the documents pending reception of

17     the English translation.  The Chamber will admit the remainder of the

18     associated exhibits into evidence and ask the Registry to attribute the

19     appropriate exhibit number in due course.

20             Thank you.

21             Now, are there any more matters to be dealt with by the

22     Prosecution in relation to this witness?

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  So be it.

25             Mr. Witness, the accused now has the opportunity to cross-examine

Page 27241

 1     as to those matters that he wishes to do so.

 2             Dr. Karadzic.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.  Good

 4     day to everyone, and I wish everyone a Happy Easter.

 5                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Masovic.

 7        A.   Good day.

 8        Q.   First of all, there's something I would like to clarify for

 9     myself.  I'd like to clarify something that concerns your attitude

10     towards the Serbs and towards me personally so that I can view your

11     testimony in that light.

12             Do you agree that the Serbian side in Bosnia-Herzegovina was very

13     unhappy with your attitude towards the Serbian victims?

14        A.   Well, my answer to your question depends on what you mean when

15     you say "the Serbian side."  In the institute in which I work, there's

16     something that could be called the Serbian side according to your logic,

17     and all I can say is that I'm on excellent terms with my Serbian

18     colleagues in the Institute for Missing Persons.  I have in mind the

19     board of the institute, the Serbian members, the directors' collegium,

20     the supervisory board, and the advisory board.

21             It is true that some members of certain non-governmental

22     organisations for a certain period of time, for a lengthy period of time,

23     perhaps, have been putting into dispute not only my legitimacy but also

24     the legitimacy of Serbian members of the Institute for Missing Persons.

25     They would point out that they are not happy with the number of

Page 27242

 1     individuals of Serbian nationality who have been found or identified.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that as far as the Serbian side is

 3     concerned, it is the families of those who were killed or went missing

 4     that are most interested in the results of the work of your institute and

 5     in your own work?

 6        A.   Well, there are two different associations composed of Serbian

 7     family members of those who were killed.  One of them has an HQ in

 8     Banja Luka and one of them falls in the category that you mentioned.  And

 9     the second association that also assembles Serbian families who have

10     missing family members, well, it has its HQ in Sarajevo and they fully

11     support the work of the Institute for Missing Persons.

12        Q.   Thank you.  As for the association with its HQ in Eastern

13     Sarajevo, do they support your work and your attitude towards the Serbian

14     victims in Sarajevo?

15        A.   Well, I couldn't [Realtime transcript read in error "Kosevo

16     Hospital"] come to the conclusion that the members of that association

17     didn't support the work of the Institute for Missing Persons or my work.

18     Sometimes there was some dissatisfaction that would be expressed on the

19     whole through the media, but on the whole that association that is led by

20     Mr. Milan Mandic supports the institute's work and the work of us who are

21     on the board or in charge of that institute.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we see 1D5515 in

23     the e-court system, please.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Are you familiar with this criminal report submitted against you

Page 27243

 1     by the president of the organisation of families of the captured

 2     combatants and missing civilians?  Have you ever seen this criminal

 3     report before?

 4        A.   No, I haven't ever.

 5        Q.   Can you please look towards the bottom of the page on what

 6     grounds this criminal report was filed, because it says here that you had

 7     hidden ten bodies of Serb soldiers, and you covered up the whole affair

 8     as a result of which they cannot be traced.  It speaks about a meeting in

 9     Doboj which was held on the 26th of May, 1997.  There is mention of

10     Sheila Barry [phoen] as an OHCR representative of Banja Luka and some

11     other names of the people who took part in that meeting.  And then in the

12     next paragraph it is said that you had found 38 bodies and another 15

13     were missing, and then you managed to find them later on, but the ten

14     bodies of the Serb soldiers had never been mentioned again nor has any

15     information required been provided.

16             Is this correct?  Did you attend this meeting?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the parties for not

18     having time to translate this, but I'm sure that the witness can cope

19     excellently with the Cyrillic script.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I see in the

21     transcript that in line 26 it says "Kosevo Hospital."  I don't think that

22     you mentioned that at all.  Although I see it in the transcript.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Which page?

25        A.   21.

Page 27244

 1        Q.   Line 21.

 2        A.   Well, I don't know, this left column, what it signifies, whether

 3     it's the page number or what.  So if you would go back a bit, this is

 4     completely out of the context as far as I can see.

 5        Q.   No, no.  Not Kosevo Hospital, but it says families of those who

 6     are captured or missing or killed combatants and missing civilians.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, just one moment, please.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I think it's just a correction that

 9     will be done to the final transcript.  The word "Kosevo Hospital" should

10     read "couldn't."

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I believe that this was

13     mentioned in the witness's answer not in my question.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   So did this meeting take place on the 26th of May, 1997, in

16     Doboj?

17        A.   I cannot confirm the date precisely, but I do remember meeting in

18     Doboj and I remember what was being discussed on that occasion in Doboj,

19     and the allegations in this criminal report are absolutely baseless for a

20     simple reason which is my colleagues from the then office for tracing

21     missing persons unfortunately until the Institute for Missing Persons was

22     established in 2002 had applied, I would say, a kind of inappropriate

23     logic in that the bodies of the people who disappeared in the war should

24     be subject of exchange.  In other words, they were obliged to provide a

25     certain number of bodies to another entity and to receive a number of

Page 27245

 1     bodies from that entity in return.

 2             In the then State Commission for Tracing Missing Persons we never

 3     accepted that logic.  We believed that the bodies of all those who were

 4     found and had been considered missing, regardless of their status,

 5     whether they be soldiers or civilians, should be handed over to their

 6     families.  This is the practice that we pursued in 1996 and that is how

 7     we do it nowadays at the Institute for Missing Persons.

 8             So if we are talking about this particular association, it is

 9     possible that this criminal report relates, although I said I'm not

10     familiar with it, relates to a situation in which a while ago, I don't

11     know exactly when, I gave a statement to the state agency for

12     investigations and protection, and I suppose this is what this is all

13     about.  Although, as I said, I've never seen this document before and I

14     clearly said what is said here, that is to say that bodies of the people

15     who were killed cannot be subject of any calculations or arrangements.

16        Q.   But, Mr. Masovic, this criminal report does not refer to

17     exchanges of bodies but, rather, to the cover-up of the bodies of

18     ten Serb soldiers who were allegedly hidden.  This is what you were

19     accused of, that is to say that you sabotaged the efforts of the Serbian

20     side to locate their missing people.

21             If we look at the bottom of the page and the next page, can you

22     see where it says ten Serb soldiers, where it says the -- although the

23     other side asked them -- him to do that on many occasions and the last

24     time it was done in Banja Luka on the 18th of February in the Assembly

25     building, and on this occasion he said, "Sue me."  Did you say that?  Did

Page 27246

 1     you say, "Sue me"?

 2        A.   If we go back to the beginning of this criminal report, you will

 3     see that I was right, because it says here that there was an alleged plan

 4     to have Bosniak bodies exchanged for the alleged bodies -- ten bodies of

 5     Serb soldiers for whom the State Commission purportedly had information

 6     about their whereabouts or where they had been buried.  So I ascertained

 7     that this is an attempt to carry out an exchange of dead bodies.

 8             As I said, during the war we had no other option but to act in

 9     this way, that is to say that we had to exchange bodies of both soldiers

10     and civilians.  However, after the Dayton Accords, this practice was

11     completely discontinued on our side, and the international instruments

12     and Dayton Accords make it incumbent on all the parties to assist the

13     former opponent in obtaining their respective remains of soldiers and

14     civilians.

15             We on the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina had this attitude

16     towards that people in 1996, and we maintain the same attitude nowadays.

17        Q.   When you said the State Commission that purportedly had

18     information, did you refer to the commission that you were the head of?

19     You're not referring to the Central Commission of Republika Srpska but

20     the State Commission of which you were the head and this commission had

21     information about these ten people.

22        A.   No.  Quite the contrary.  The -- had the State Commission had any

23     information, they would have been made available just like we did before

24     for the colleagues from our -- from our counterparts from the office for

25     tracing the missing persons in Banja Luka.

Page 27247

 1        Q.   But this criminal report does not speak about the exchange of

 2     38 bodies for ten bodies but, rather, to make you afford the equal

 3     treatment for the Serb dead and that you provide them with the bodies of

 4     the ten Serb soldiers who had gone missing on the Muslim side.  So this

 5     is not about the exchange but, rather, about your attitude towards the

 6     Serbs and the Serbian victims, which was extremely biased and

 7     prejudicial, and according to the allegations made by these organisations

 8     was aimed at proving that the Serbs didn't suffer as much as the other

 9     sides.

10             What do you have to say to this?

11        A.   Now, if we actually had this attitude, you would be right.  It

12     would be harmful.  But I reiterate here that we never entertained this

13     kind of attitude especially after the signing the Dayton Accords, and I

14     agree with you that this kind of attitude would be damaging, that it

15     would be something that would constitute discrimination against the

16     victims and would be contrary to our laws and the international treaties

17     signed between the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and International

18     Commission for Missing Persons.  So this attitude was not entertained by

19     either myself and by any of the commission ending with the federal

20     commission and, finally, I did not do this as a member of the managing

21     board.  It was quite the contrary.

22             Let me just give you an example that happened a couple of years

23     ago.  After the exhumation of Serbian victims in the eastern part of

24     Herzegovina that were exhumed from a natural crevasse which was about

25     100 metres deep, we knew that four members of the Serbian family Vukovic

Page 27248

 1     were there.  Members of the Special Police, they are Alpine Task Force,

 2     went down into the pit.  They found the skeletal remains on a plateau

 3     down there, but then I went down into the pit and I noticed that this

 4     plateau is not actually the very bottom of the pit but that it goes even

 5     further because it was obvious that water found its way further in depth.

 6     I personally asked this Alpine group to go further down, and I also

 7     accompanied them there.  We reached the depth of 100 metres, which we --

 8     which is the place where we found the majority of bones of the Vukovic

 9     family.  And I am talking about this publicly for the first time.

10             If you read the newspapers in Bosnia-Herzegovina or if you follow

11     electronic broadcasts, this is something that I had never said before,

12     but I felt the need to say this today in this courtroom in order to shame

13     the people who authored this criminal report, because contrary to their

14     allegations, I am a person who is doing his best to participate in

15     tracing all missing persons regardless of their ethnicity or any other

16     affiliation.

17             JUDGE BAIRD:  Mr. Masovic, a question was asked by Dr. Karadzic

18     earlier on, and it could be that you missed it.  Can we hear you on this:

19     Did you, on the 18th of February, in the Assembly building, say, "Sue

20     me"?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my statement that I gave to the

22     state agency for investigations and protection, I suppose with regard to

23     this criminal report, I said that I did not remember that event, and I

24     honestly cannot confirm today whether at one point in time due to the

25     repetitive allegations that were levelled against me by the people who

Page 27249

 1     were politicised, if I at one point did say, "Sue me."  I allow for a

 2     possibility that at one point during a meeting in Banja Luka I may have

 3     been irritated and annoyed and uttered those words, but I honestly don't

 4     remember, because this is not my nature and not the way I behave.  But I

 5     allow for the possibility that those people who have written this

 6     document are telling the truth.

 7             JUDGE BAIRD:  Dr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency, for

 9     this clarification.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Let me ask you this, Mr. Masovic:  Do we have the statement of

12     yours given to the state agency SIP or whoever it is that you gave it to?

13     Do we have this statement that you mentioned a minute ago?

14        A.   I don't have it, and I've never received a copy of it.

15        Q.   Thank you.  We are going to ask the OTP or the agency to provide

16     it.  Thank you.

17             Is it true, Mr. Masovic, that in your testimonies and comments

18     and documents you used to call the Serbian side rebels?

19        A.   I don't think that I used that term during the war, and in line

20     with the Geneva Conventions and since my government believed that the

21     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the subject of an aggression by the

22     Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro, so in line with the

23     Geneva Conventions, the enemy side was called renegade or outlaw forces,

24     and this is the term that I used throughout the war.  I didn't use the

25     term "rebels."

Page 27250

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Is there a difference, legally speaking, between the

 2     warring parties and the forces that you call renegade forces?  You are a

 3     trained lawyer, aren't you?

 4        A.   Yes, you're correct, I am a lawyer, an attorney by profession,

 5     but I'm not sure that I understood.  If you think about -- if you're

 6     talking about members in this wartime period of renegade or outlaw forces

 7     as I referred to them, are you thinking of them?  Of course there is a

 8     difference in legal status in any event, but equally as they are

 9     protected by the Geneva forces, the regular forces of the government that

10     is in conflict, the members of the renegade or outlaw forces are

11     protected in the same way under the Geneva Conventions.  I think that's

12     how it is if that's what you meant.

13        Q.   All right.  But you were aware that if -- if it was the renegade

14     forces, they are being viewed as citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina as

15     you put it, and the very participation in combat is considered a crime

16     and could be processed; is that correct?

17        A.   I'm not sure that I understand the question.  People, regardless

18     of their ethnicity, who are citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, who committed

19     certain crimes such as illegal possession of weapons, refusal to be

20     mobilised, assisting the enemy, killing prisoners of war, committing war

21     crimes towards the injured, the sick, crimes to go -- towards

22     negotiators, parliamentarians who go to negotiations was something that

23     was prosecuted by the authorised legal institutions of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the government in Sarajevo did not distinguish

25     here among persons of Serbian, Bosniak, or Croatian ethnicity or any

Page 27251

 1     other ethnicity.  They were all the subject of prosecution by the

 2     authorised judicial institutions.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  My question refers to members of the Serbian armed

 4     forces, the Army of Republika Srpska.  If they were captured, were they

 5     treated as prisoners of war or as criminals who would be prosecuted only

 6     because they belonged to the Army of Republika Srpska?

 7        A.   Well, the answer to that question is beyond the mandate of my

 8     expertise and my testimony.  This is a question for the judicial

 9     institutions, for those who arrested, indicted, and sentenced such

10     persons.  As to the grounds of why they were arrested, prosecuted, or

11     charged, I really don't know what the status of these persons was.

12        Q.   Thank you.  However, in your statement of the 30th of May, 2003,

13     and the 2nd of June, 2003, in paragraph 22 you said that the members of

14     the armed forces -- of enemy armed forces who were held in B and H

15     prisons were citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, and pursuant to

16     international law, they were not treated as prisoners of war, and

17     criminal proceedings could be initiated against them in accordance with

18     the local laws.

19             Is this one of the consequences of this labelling of the Serbian

20     side as a renegade, outlaw side?

21        A.   There were two groups of people that were in prison.  One group

22     was under the category of prisoners of war.  These were people who were

23     captured in fighting, in combat, as members of the army, as member of the

24     enemy army.

25             As far as I know, a number of them was accused under Article 119,

Page 27252

 1     paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina as members of

 2     the enemy army.  I don't know if any of them were sentenced, but I know

 3     from some documents that I had the opportunity to see during the wartime

 4     period that some of them were charged under that article.

 5             The second group of people that was in prison consisted of

 6     persons de facto who were not captured during fighting but were charged

 7     with certain criminal acts that had to do with the war.  These were

 8     people that I mentioned earlier.  They were charged for aiding the enemy,

 9     for illegal possession of weapons and explosive devices, for espionage,

10     not responding to mobilisation.  So I'm talking about these two

11     categories of people in the broadest possible sense.  Prisoners of war or

12     fighters who were captured at the fronts and noncombatant prisoners,

13     people who were not in uniform, who were not captured in the front but

14     were arrested in different places, and their arrest did have something to

15     do with the conflict.

16        Q.   Thank you.  All right.  So this position of yours from your

17     statement of 2003 is something that should be changed.  It should be

18     corrected.  So it is not correct that members of the enemy armed forces

19     were in prison, that they did not have the status of prisoners of war.

20     You said that they did not have this status and that they could be tried

21     under the local laws.

22        A.   Again, I'm saying it's my opinion, and at that moment I was not a

23     member of the military prosecutor's office or the Military Court, and I

24     really cannot tell you what their position was in these proceedings.  But

25     on the basis documents that I had access to, I say that some of them were

Page 27253

 1     charged under Article 119, which states -- or refers to participation in

 2     the enemy army.  I don't know whether that means that they do have the

 3     right to the status of prisoners of war, for example, as a members of the

 4     Serbian army who happened to be in territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina

 5     would have who would undoubtedly be a prisoner of war according to

 6     Bosnian law and the Geneva Conventions or does not have the right to such

 7     a status because a person is a citizen of the Republic of Bosnia and

 8     Herzegovina.  This is something that I really don't know.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  And as a lawyer, did you establish if the

10     Geneva Conventions also applied to internal conflict?

11        A.   Yes.  In the sense of conduct towards members of enemy

12     formations, for members who are not foreign citizens.  They enjoy equal

13     protection that members of enemy and aggressor armies that come from a

14     different state enjoy as well.  I think that Geneva Additional Protocols

15     grant equal or almost equal status to members of armies that take part in

16     internal conflicts that do not spread beyond the territory of a certain

17     state.

18        Q.   Thank you.  You probably did hear about the first trial at this

19     Tribunal, the case against Tadic.  Did you notice that it was established

20     then that the conflict does have an international character and that the

21     Geneva Conventions Article 4 must be applied of the Geneva Conventions --

22     of the 3rd Geneva Conventions.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I see that Madam Sutherland is

24     on her feet.

25             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

Page 27254

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I object to these questions in

 2     relation to this witness.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Dr. Karadzic, this is a matter of customary

 4     international law of which the Tribunal and the Judges will take notice.

 5     The question of whether or not this particular witness did or did not

 6     understand - and it appears that he did understand - the ramifications of

 7     the law is really, certainly in my view, wasting your limited time and

 8     doesn't really assist the Tribunal.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.  I

10     think that it will become evident that this is relevant, that the

11     attitude of this side towards the Serb side was different and that the

12     Serb side was not happy with that.  I don't know whether that position is

13     the result of personal animosity or the position that Serbian members of

14     the army are beyond the law is something that would need to be examined,

15     but I will move to a different topic.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Masovic, the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they obliged

18     to join the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

19        A.   I don't know how I could answer this question.  I was not a

20     member of the Ministry of Defence whose duty it was to carry out the

21     mobilisation in wartime.

22             So I believe that in the situation where an attack of another

23     army of another state took place against a sovereign state, in principle

24     then all those obliged under the law to be summoned to serve in the

25     military should respond to that summons.  I'm not speaking about

Page 27255

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina now but I'm speaking generally.  If one's state is

 2     attacked, all of those subject to military service duty should be

 3     summoned and they should respond to this summons because according to

 4     local laws, if they don't do that, they would be committing a crime of

 5     not responding to the call-up.  This is a valid law in the former

 6     Yugoslavia, and at the moment when the war started in Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina, this was also a valid law in the Republic of Bosnia and

 8     Herzegovina, which already had its own criminal penal code and also did

 9     adapt -- adopt some provisions of the criminal law of the former

10     Yugoslavia.

11        Q.   In your statement of 2003, in paragraph 22, you also said that

12     people were arrested because, among other things, possession of weapons

13     not -- joining the enemy army, for armed rebellion, or refusing the call

14     for mobilisation.

15             Did the Muslims in Republika Srpska also have to respond to the

16     mobilisation then?  I mean, do you agree that they did not have to do

17     this and that this was something that could be done on a purely voluntary

18     basis?

19        A.   I don't know how to answer this question.  I spent the whole war

20     in Sarajevo, and what happened outside of the territory that was under

21     the control of the government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

22     is something that I know about only to the extent that it applied to my

23     activities during the war.  And my activities during the war involved my

24     duties as a member and vice-president of the State Commission for the

25     Exchange of Captured Persons, Prisoners of War.  That was my area of

Page 27256

 1     duty, work of that State Commission.  That was the mandate of that

 2     State Commission that I belonged to during the wartime period.  Whether

 3     somebody was mobilised in Republika Srpska or Srpska Republika as it was

 4     called in the early stage of the war or not, whether they were obliged to

 5     respond or not is something that I really don't know anything about.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  However, would you agree?  Did you notice that the

 7     United Nations treated us as an equal party in negotiations before the

 8     war broke out and after the war broke out as an equal party to the

 9     conflict?  Did the status of the Serbian side in Bosnia and Herzegovina

10     change as far as the United Nations was concerned in the same way that it

11     changed as far as your side was concerned?

12        A.   Well, I never took part in these negotiations with members of the

13     United Nations, and until the 21st of August, 1992, moreover, I was

14     carrying on with my law practice and probably that is the period that you

15     mean when you refer to the period before the war.  As for the time during

16     the war, I'm really not aware of how the United Nations treated, as you

17     refer to them, the parties in the conflict.

18        Q.   All right.  This will be the last question on this topic.  Did

19     the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or you personally decide to refer to

20     Serbs as renegades?  Was this an official thing?  Were you instructed by

21     the government to call or to refer to the Serbs and to treat them as

22     renegades or outlaws, or was this a matter of your own personal choice?

23        A.   I really don't know what the government position was on the

24     matter of how they would refer to the enemy side, but departing from the

25     Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva

Page 27257

 1     Conventions, I believe that since this was not an external enemy but an

 2     enemy from Bosnia and Herzegovina that had entered into a conflict with

 3     their own government, and that was the factual state at the time when I

 4     came to the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War, that

 5     is how I did refer to members of the enemy as renegade or outlaw forces.

 6     That was my commission in the State Commission for the Exchange of

 7     Prisoners of War.  Probably other members of the government or the

 8     government itself referred to members of the enemy formations

 9     differently.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now I would like to look at your amalgamated

11     statement, so I would like you to take a copy of the statement.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the Prosecution could

13     provide a copy for Mr. Masovic, because now I'm going to be going through

14     some of the paragraphs.  Perhaps we can also provide the witness with a

15     copy.  We have it in Serbian.

16             Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Have a look at paragraph 7, please, where reference is made to

19     the responsibility of the State Commission and three subcommissions.  Did

20     the Serbian side have anything similar?

21        A.   Well, yes.  I could say that they had something similar.  The

22     Serbian commission was called the Central Commission for the Exchange of

23     Prisoners of War and I'm not sure that they had exactly the same

24     structure.  I don't know whether they had these three subcommissions, one

25     for exchanges, for records on the killed and wounded, and then a

Page 27258

 1     subcommission to keep records on missing persons.  So I don't know

 2     whether they had exactly the same structure, but in principle, I do know

 3     for sure that that commission did have the responsibility for getting

 4     involved in the exchange of POWs, of those who had been arrested, and of

 5     those who had been killed.

 6             As to whether they also had a mandate to make -- to keep records

 7     of those who had been killed, who had gone missing, who had been wounded,

 8     I don't know.  That wasn't the subject of our discussions, the

 9     discussions that we had together in the course of the war.

10        Q.   Thank you.  In subparagraph 8 you said that the Presidency

11     amnestied -- granted an amnesty for certain prisoners.  Do you agree that

12     on the Serbian side there was also this attitude according to which the

13     Presidency should grant an amnesty prior to exchange?  They should grant

14     an amnesty to those who were being prosecuted.  Have you seen any

15     documents drafted by myself that says that individuals were exchanged

16     because I put an end to their prosecution?

17        A.   Well, first of all, it would be correct to interpret paragraph 8

18     in the following way:  I said for each individual case, not for each

19     case.  It's an important difference.  For each individual case, if it

20     concerned individuals who were prosecuted, who had been accused or

21     perhaps even sentenced for certain crimes, well, in such cases it was

22     essential to receive something from the head of state in

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the Presidency.  It was necessary to receive a

24     document stating that prosecutions would be halted -- or, rather, that

25     amnesty would be granted to those who had been sentenced.  And the

Page 27259

 1     Presidency did that in order to carry out exchanges of prisoners.

 2             In none of the documents that I received from my Presidency --

 3     well, I didn't show any of these documents from the Presidency to my

 4     colleague, Dragan Bulajic, and I co-operated with him during the wartime

 5     period the most.  And I also never had the occasion of seeing any of the

 6     documents that you yourself signed, not only a document on granting

 7     amnesties but any other kind of document because this quite simply wasn't

 8     an area that we were interested or involved in.  For us it was important

 9     to secure certain conditions so that a given individual could be released

10     from prison and handed over to the enemy side.

11        Q.   Thank you.  But you nevertheless said somewhere - I can find

12     that - that in your opinion Karadzic sometimes took decisions.  Are you

13     aware of any decision of mine that didn't concern the granting of an

14     amnesty in accordance with the law?

15        A.   I really can't remember.  In my statement I mentioned the name of

16     someone who referred to you, who used your name and said that you were on

17     good terms with each other.  That person wasn't officially involved in

18     the Serbian Central Commission for Exchanges, but sometimes that person

19     did attend negotiations that were conducted in a neutral area, that were

20     conducted at the Sarajevo airport during the war.  The name of the person

21     is Stjepan Lazarevic, and he very often said that you were on good terms,

22     and on the basis of some Bosniaks who were released, and that was thanks

23     to him, I gained the impression that he in fact did have a certain amount

24     of influence within that body.  And in some cases, my colleague Bulajic

25     from the Central Commission wasn't capable of doing certain things and

Page 27260

 1     Mr. Lazarevic managed to do these things.  How, I really don't know.  But

 2     yet again let me repeat what I have said:  He said that he was on good

 3     terms with you.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  When he mentioned being on good terms with me, did

 5     that help him to be accepted as a partner?  Was that in any way

 6     advantageous to him?  Did it in some way demonstrate that he was

 7     reliable?

 8        A.   Well, he wasn't part of the structure of the commission for

 9     exchanges, but nevertheless, he would appear together with members of the

10     commission for exchanges and as someone from the other side involved in

11     negotiations I took that into account.  I took the fact that he was part

12     of the team for negotiations into account because I could see that

13     colleagues who were officially members of the Serbian Central Commission

14     for Exchanges respected him and accepted him.  There were other

15     individuals who also attended negotiations not as frequently as

16     Mr. Lazarevic.  Sometimes they were people who were interested in their

17     personal problems or, rather, they wanted to have personal contact with

18     me or other members of the commission to deal with their personal

19     problems, to establish contact with family members, or perhaps they

20     contacted us because their family members were in prison for certain

21     crimes, perhaps, and they were attempting to obtain their release from

22     prison.

23        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 8, you say that you were present in the

24     Presidency when exchanges all for all were discussed, and you said that

25     one session there was a discussion about Serb detainees in Tarcin.  Does

Page 27261

 1     that concern the silo in Tarcin?

 2        A.   Yes, that is correct.  One of the items of the agenda at the

 3     meeting I was present at concerned yet again an amnesty for the purpose

 4     of an exchange.  It concerned an amnesty for certain individuals in

 5     prison and there was also a discussion about the status of Serbs in the

 6     prison that was popularly called the silo and this prison was located in

 7     Tarcin.  So this was discussed.  The status of those prisoners or

 8     captives was a matter that was discussed.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember that at that session of the

10     Presidency, President Izetbegovic said that it seemed that civilians were

11     being kept there and that they weren't responsible for anything, they

12     hadn't done anything?  Do you remember any conclusions about that matter?

13        A.   I think I'd have to have a look at the transcript at sessions of

14     the Presidency.  I was present only when there were items of the agenda

15     that I reported on.  For example, if the Presidency had ten items on

16     their agenda and if there was an item that concerned granting amnesty and

17     it was item 7, well, then I wasn't present when the other items were

18     discussed.  I would only arrive for the seventh item on the agenda.  For

19     example, I can't now remember which item was in fact concerned, but when

20     my item was called out I would enter the Presidency, attend the session,

21     and as soon as the item had been dealt with, I would leave the

22     Presidency.

23             So without actually seeing the transcript I can't remember

24     whether I was present when the conclusion was adopted in relation to that

25     item.  So I can't remember what else was discussed, but I do remember

Page 27262

 1     that at the Presidency there was a discussion about the status of

 2     Serbians who were being kept in detention in the silo in Tarcin.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D5509.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you remember when the Serbs who were being held in the silo in

 6     Tarcin were in fact released?  Do you remember?

 7        A.   They were gradually released from the prison in Tarcin, in

 8     succession, in fact.  That started in 1992 and continued right up until

 9     the post-Dayton period, so to speak.  In the Dayton agreement, part of

10     the item that concerns the release of POWs and that concerns missing

11     individuals, in that item it ordered all the sides to act within 90 days

12     from the time of signing the agreement and by that time all POWs had to

13     be released.  If I remember this correctly, and I think I do, the last

14     group of prisoners to be released from the prison in Tarcin was released

15     on the 26th or 27th of January, or perhaps it was even on both those

16     days, on the 26th and the 27th of January, 1996.  So that was before this

17     90-day dead-line expired.  And this is what had been agreed by those who

18     had signed the Dayton peace agreement.

19        Q.   Very well.  And do you know that the vast majority of prisoners

20     in the silo spent the entire wartime period in captivity in the silo?

21               This isn't the relevant document.  This document relates to

22     Gorazde.

23             Are you aware of the fact that they were kept in detention in the

24     silo throughout the war?  The majority of the prisoners were kept in

25     detention there.

Page 27263

 1        A.   I don't know what you mean when you say "throughout the wartime

 2     period."  I said that from 1992 onwards, the prisoners being held in the

 3     silo were exchanged.  This was done partly through exchanges organised by

 4     the local authorities, and it was done in part through exchanges

 5     organised by the State Commission for the Exchange of POWs, but I believe

 6     that after the Dayton agreement about 100 of them were released.  And if

 7     I'm not mistaken, the maximum number of detainees in the silo was over

 8     300.

 9             So as for your question that concerns whether the majority of the

10     prisoners were kept in the silo throughout the wartime period, well, my

11     answer to that question would be no, if we bear these figures in mind.

12     But, yes, some prisoners, about a hundred, I think, were still in that

13     prison at the end of the war, rather, when the Dayton agreement was

14     signed.  Some of them remained in detention in the silo throughout that

15     period of time.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could this criminal

17     report please be marked for identification?  1D5515 is the number.

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  I don't see any difficulty with that,

19     Dr. Karadzic.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will be Exhibit D226 [sic].

21     Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies.

23     Could we now see 1D5506.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   I'd like to show two documents to you that show how the Serbian

Page 27264

 1     side dealt with issues of exchange -- or, rather, with granting amnesty.

 2             Do you agree that this is a decision on pardoning individuals who

 3     were sentenced?  This says they're being released from the need to serve

 4     their sentence, and furthermore, it says that]they will no longer be

 5     prosecuted.  It says these individuals who are of Croatian nationality

 6     will no longer be prosecuted.  It says that they are being pardoned so

 7     that they can be exchanged with prisoners from the Army of

 8     Republika Srpska.

 9             So is the procedure here the same sort of procedure that the

10     Presidency in Bosnia-Herzegovina followed?

11        A.   It's really difficult for me to draw any conclusions on the basis

12     of this document.  The only conclusion I can draw is that all the

13     individuals who are being released here are of the same nationality.  The

14     individuals here are of Croatian nationality, and that concerns the

15     individuals who are being released on one side and the individuals on the

16     other side.

17        Q.   No.  They're all from the same side, but in the case of some, one

18     group of individuals don't -- they won't have to serve their sentence,

19     and in the case of another group of individuals, they won't be prosecuted

20     anymore.  The first two were, in fact, sentenced.  Isn't that correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's what this document states.  The individuals concerned

22     were sentenced.  They are of Croatian nationality, and it appears that

23     they are also individuals who are being prosecuted but who have not yet

24     been sentenced and they are individuals who are also of Croatian

25     nationality.

Page 27265

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Could you have been aware of these Croats who were to

 2     be exchanged, and did you know about them?  Because in May 1995, you and

 3     the HVO were not enemies.  You had an established federation.  Should you

 4     have been aware of this?

 5        A.   Up until the time when the conflict broke out between the ABiH

 6     and the HVO in October 1992, and the situation escalated in 1993, up

 7     until that time in the State Commission as a rule we were aware of these

 8     exchanges, and even if the HVO organised the exchanges, we would be aware

 9     of them.  After the conflict broke out between the ABiH and the HVO, the

10     HVO became the enemy side.  And we were then no longer aware of exchanges

11     between the HVO and the Serbian side.  They would deal with those issues

12     bilaterally, and we would be unaware of these exchanges.

13             But as to whether I should have been familiar with -- as to

14     whether I should have been familiar with such documents, I've already

15     answered that.  When my colleagues came to negotiate on behalf of other

16     enemy sides, it wasn't necessary for me to provide them with documents on

17     being granted amnesties, on being released from prison.  What was

18     important for them was that the prisoners would appear at the site of

19     exchange and that they'd be handed over to them.  They weren't interested

20     in technical issues.  They weren't interested in whether they had

21     officially been granted amnesty or whether they had officially been

22     pardoned, and so on and so forth.  And similarly, on the other side, I

23     wasn't interested in whether detainees who were going to be released by

24     the enemy had been granted amnesty by the enemy.  I wasn't interested in

25     whether they had been prosecuted.  This wasn't a matter of interest for

Page 27266

 1     us.

 2             Our task in the State Commission after we had taken charge of

 3     former prisoners or detainees at a confrontation line or in some neutral

 4     area, we wanted to have a brief statement from them about the conditions

 5     in the prison that they had been held in.  We were interested in

 6     obtaining certain details from them that concerned the number of

 7     detainees remaining in the prison or the camp.  We wanted to know whether

 8     these prisoners or detainees were being maltreated.  We wanted to know

 9     what they thought about their status.  We wanted to know who they thought

10     should be exchanged immediately when another exchange was organised.

11     They would then go to the police force and provide detailed statements

12     about everything that they were familiar with in the territory that they

13     had come from, in areas that they inhabited, about the conditions in

14     prison or camp.  They would provide information on whether they had

15     witnessed cases of violations of international law.

16        Q.   We have to be a little more expeditious.  I didn't ask you

17     whether you were familiar with the document but whether you were familiar

18     with the fact that these people had been exchanged.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D5507 and then I

20     will tender both of these documents.  1D5507.  And I believe that the

21     next document will -- we'll see is one that you are probably familiar

22     with.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I'm not asking you about the document.  I'm asking

25     you if you knew that they were exchanged.  Can we agree that we have

Page 27267

 1     people here who were serving a sentence but for the purpose of exchange

 2     were subject to amnesty, and all of these Muslims, as you probably have

 3     noticed, were exchanged; is that correct.

 4        A.   Unfortunately, I recognise their names, and I know that this is a

 5     group of civilians from Banja Luka who worked for a Muslim humanitarian

 6     organisation and who had been providing food and other necessities for

 7     Bosniaks in Banja Luka, and that was the reason why they were arrested.

 8     I'm talking about this on the basis of the direct knowledge, because I

 9     talked to some of them.  For example, I talked to Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel.

10     That's the last name on the list.  And she confirmed all I'm telling you

11     now.

12             Although I see this document for the first time, I can say that

13     it shows that they had been convicted and sentenced.  And it is said in

14     this document signed by you that they would be exchanged for combatants

15     of the Army of Republika Srpska, but, as I said, this is a group of

16     civilians working for a humanitarian organisation in Banja Luka.

17        Q.   And do you know what this humanitarian organisation was actually

18     doing, and do you know that a court passed a judgement about that?

19        A.   I told you what I heard from Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel.  Mr. Gojacic.

20     I think I also talked to Mr. Smail.  I recognise another name, that of

21     Zijahudin Smajlovic.  I think he's the man who managed to receive

22     compensation for the entire period that he spent in your prison, and this

23     compensation was awarded to him through a court judgement.  I don't think

24     that I talked to him, but I think that Zijahudin Smajlovic was someone

25     who managed to get damages due to wrongful arrest, because after the war,

Page 27268

 1     he filed a suit for pecuniary and other damages on the basis of wrongful

 2     detention.

 3             I have some reservations about this, because this is what I

 4     learned from the media, and I didn't talk to him personally, but this

 5     name rings a bell and I think that I read about this suit in the papers.

 6     I said that I spoke with Mr. Gojacic, number 4 on the list, and

 7     Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel, number 6, also Smail Djuzel, and I think that

 8     Suhreta and Smail are actually spouses.  And I talked to them after their

 9     release.  And of course, I talked to them on several occasions after the

10     end of the war.  Mr. Gojacic was for a period of time the leader of the

11     association of detention prisoners.

12        Q.   After the break we are going to show you documents relating to

13     the aforementioned humanitarian organisation.

14             Now, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 10 and let

15     me ask you this:  Were there those so-called private exchanges that were

16     conducted below the radar that you didn't know anything about?  And I

17     kindly ask you to give me as brief an answer as possible, because I am

18     pressed for time.

19        A.   Well, you can see that as far as the situations that were within

20     my scope of responsibility, I know a lot.  However, private exchanging

21     were beyond the scope of my responsibility.  I have to say that

22     occasionally I received information that some individuals organised

23     exchanges, this sort of private exchanges either for money or for other

24     gain.  However, they did not involve large numbers of people.  It was

25     never ten people who were exchanged but, rather, two or three relatives

Page 27269

 1     of somebody who managed through private channels to establish contact

 2     with the other side or one-for-one exchanges, et cetera.  And I dare say

 3     that this number is insignificant in comparison to a total number of

 4     those exchanged during the war.  Therefore, I cannot give you a precise

 5     answer because sometimes these private exchanges did not involve

 6     prisoners at all, because private individuals did not have access to

 7     detainees in prisons.  This would usually involve people who were

 8     actually not arrested.

 9        Q.   Now, if we look at paragraph 11, I wonder if everything that you

10     are telling me --

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But before that, I'm sorry, Your

12     Excellency, could these two documents be admitted into evidence, the ones

13     that speak about the amnesty?

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, the problem arises again of

15     untranslated documents.  Time and time again you've been warned that

16     there will come a stage when untranslated documents are simply not going

17     to be acceptable, and for the moment these will be admitted subject to

18     anything the Prosecution has to say.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, in relation to the first document,

20     the witness -- the only thing the witness said was he could only draw a

21     conclusion that they were all of the same nationality from just reading

22     the names on the document and the fact that they were released, and that

23     was also just reading what was contained on the document.  He didn't

24     actually speak to anything other than that.  And the Prosecution would

25     like to know the provenance of these two documents, please.

Page 27270

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Well, Dr. Karadzic, you must provide

 2     suitable provenance.  Very limited basis upon which they can be admitted

 3     as Ms. Sutherland points out.  On the first document it's -- it's purely

 4     to the answer that the witness gave for no other purpose.  Indeed, with

 5     an untranslated document it's only the answers to specific questions that

 6     are going to be taken into account by the Tribunal even when the document

 7     is translated.  The whole of the document isn't going to fall into

 8     evidence.  But for the present these documents can be marked for

 9     identification.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter number 1D5506 is

11     Exhibit D2227, marked for identification; and 65 ter number 1D5507 is

12     Exhibit P -- sorry, D2228, marked for identification.  And just to

13     correct the transcript, page 56, line 1, should read D2226.  Thank you.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Excellencies.

15     These are authentic documents that I signed.  They have a register number

16     and the seal of the president, and my friends who managed to get hold of

17     the copies of these documents are currently correcting [as interpreted]

18     them because the original archive has gone missing.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Masovic:  When you say the Serbs

21     often killed captured military prisoners --

22             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, one moment.  Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Mr. Karadzic mentioned a moment ago that he has

24     friends who managed to get hold of the copies of these documents and

25     they're currently correcting them because the original archive has gone

Page 27271

 1     missing.  We have some problems with that.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The interpreters said

 3     "collecting them."

 4             THE ACCUSED:  Collected.  I suppose -- it was collected, not

 5     corrected.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And the second point is:  Mr. Karadzic, would he

 7     like to share with the Court who his friends are who managed to get hold

 8     of the copies of these documents.

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, that's going to be all part of the

10     provenance that's going to be required in exactly the same way that the

11     Prosecution would be required to show a source.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Masovic, I would like to know how did you arrive at the

15     conclusion that Serbs often killed captured military prisoners?  And I'm

16     quoting from paragraph 11.  And that concerns me a little.  You told us a

17     minute ago that you can testify about certain things, but it seems that

18     you're capable of testifying about other things as well.  This is a very

19     broad statement and the Defence is challenging it.  Can you tell me how

20     did you establish this?

21        A.   This paragraph speaks about the reasons why the Army of Bosnia

22     and Herzegovina or Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to set up special

23     departments for prisoners of war.  They did this because they were

24     satisfied with the fact that the vast majority of exchanged Bosniaks and

25     earlier Croats were not members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina but

Page 27272

 1     civilians.  The BH Army thought that members of the military should be

 2     involved in exchanges in as large numbers as possible, and for that

 3     purpose each corps of the BH Army established their own departments for

 4     that, and you can see here that on several occasions, especially in the

 5     earlier stages, they organised exchanges without the participation of the

 6     commission that I was a member of.

 7             Now, how I arrived at the conclusion that there were only a few

 8     members of the military, the reason is very simple.  For example, a

 9     number of members of the BH Army spoke about how their fellow combatants

10     were captured in combat at Treskavica and other places, and later on we

11     received their dead bodies in exchange.  We didn't get them alive.  And

12     there are other similar people -- examples, but I cannot remember right

13     now.  However, it will be easy to find specific examples which testify

14     that members of the BH Army were very seldom subject of exchange of

15     living persons but very often the exchange of dead bodies.

16        Q.   Does your amalgamated statement deal with this or did you just

17     insert this statement offhand?

18        A.   I gave you an answer to that.  I just answered your question.  On

19     the basis of the fact that the majority of bodies exchanged during the

20     war were actually members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the

21     number of living exchange -- exchange of living members of BH Army is

22     insignificant as compared to that of dead bodies led me to conclude that

23     the majority of members of the BH Army did not live to see the end of the

24     war.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell the Chamber now according to what you

Page 27273

 1     know, how many members of the BH Army did the Serbs hold in 1992?  Just

 2     recall the prisons of Manjaca, Batkovici, and tell me how many combatants

 3     were captured by the Serbian Army, combatants from the BH Army.

 4        A.   According to what was testified by exchanged detainees, it turns

 5     out the majority of the captives were civilians, that only a very, very

 6     limited number of members of the BH Army or TO were among them.  And they

 7     were captured during combat operation.  The vast majority in the camps

 8     and prisons, particularly in 1992, were Bosniak and Croat and Roma

 9     civilians and civilians from other ethnic communities, including the

10     Serbs who did not display loyalty towards the Serbian Army.

11        Q.   But how do you know that, Mr. Masovic?  Based only on what you

12     heard from other people?

13        A.   Based on what was reported by members of their families when they

14     reported missing persons, and based on what those who survived told us

15     after they had left camps and prisons.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Can we agree --

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, we'll take a break there and

18     resume again at 1.30.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, if I may say, this

20     witness is much too important, and I have given -- I've been given a

21     little time.  I'm hopeful that I'm going to get at least one more session

22     tomorrow after the videolink.

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, we'll consider that proposition depending

24     on how concise and relevant the cross-examination is from now on.

25             1.30.

Page 27274

 1                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 1.32 p.m.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, reviewing the witness schedule for

 4     this week, it's going to actually be extremely difficult to extend this

 5     witness's evidence beyond today except for a very small amount of time

 6     which we will try and add to today's hearing if -- with the indulgence of

 7     all the staff.  So I would really endorse you to be as concise as you can

 8     be.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, may we go briefly into private

10     session.

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Certainly.

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27275











11  Page 27275 redacted.  Private session.















Page 27276

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12        Q.   I'm going to do my best to such my questions in such a way that

13     you are able to answer with a yes or a no, and of course you are free to

14     add whatever you feel is necessary.

15             Do you agree that Mr. Izetbegovic was undoubtedly the leader of

16     the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to say the least?

17        A.   Mr. Izetbegovic was the member of the Presidency of the Republic

18     of Bosnia and Herzegovina and later the -- a member of the Presidency of

19     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

20        Q.   My question, let me be open, was more directed in the sense of

21     this:  Do you believe that in a -- that the military conscripts did not

22     respond to several call-ups?

23        A.   I don't know the answer to your question.  And I repeat, up until

24     the 21st of August, 1992, I was still working in my legal practice.  I

25     don't know anything about what was going on with the government when the

Page 27277

 1     call-ups were issued or how many people responded to them.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know that at least in the first year as

 3     many as 85 per cent of Muslim fighters were participating in the war in

 4     civilian clothing and that this is information that was issued by the

 5     command of that army?

 6        A.   Well, no, I really don't know anything about that.  That was not

 7     something that I was interested in.  It was not a subject that I was

 8     following.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Is it correct that the HVO let you know that all

10     able-bodied Muslims in -- it considered all able-bodied Muslims as

11     military conscripts during times of mobilisation, and that is how the

12     Croatian Army or the HVO behaved during that time?

13        A.   I didn't have any contacts with the HVO, and if I did, they were

14     very, very brief.  In contacts with the service for exchange of the HVO

15     which I was in contact with during the wartime period, I do not recall

16     anybody telling me that in any way.  It is true, though, that Mr. Pusic,

17     who is here, Berislav Pusic, once or twice told me verbally that he

18     personally considered all Bosniaks, or as he put it, all Muslims of the

19     age of 16 up until the age of 70 as soldiers of the enemy army.

20        Q.   Thank you.  And he personally had that position as the president

21     of the HVO exchange commission; is that correct?

22        A.   I don't know if he said that in that capacity or whether that is

23     his own personal position.  It's something that I -- I don't know, but he

24     probably wanted in that way to justify the fact that HVO camps had a

25     large number of civilians who had nothing to do with combat.  I assume

Page 27278

 1     that in that way he wished to justify the fact that civilian persons were

 2     being held in captivity, civilians who did not participate in combat

 3     actions.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And you testified about this in the Prlic et al.

 5     case, and you confirmed it also in your statement of 2004, saying that

 6     the HVO, the HVO commission, stated its terms for one-on-one exchange,

 7     and for the government in Sarajevo this was always a problem, because the

 8     Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats in the -- in their camps had civilians.

 9             How many Muslims lived in Kljuc, for example, according to your

10     information?  Or let me help you so that we can have yes or no answers.

11     Do you agree that there were a bit more than 18.000 Muslims living in the

12     Kljuc municipality?

13        A.   I really don't know how many Bosniaks were there, or, as you call

14     them, Muslims there.

15        Q.   And do you agree that about 1.000 Muslims from Kljuc were

16     captured and taken to Manjaca?

17        A.   I don't have that information.  I really don't know.

18        Q.   And if in your statements you say that Serbs were holding Muslims

19     captive, did you work out why it wasn't the entire 18.000 of them?  Why

20     was it only a thousand?  If civilians were being held in captivity, why

21     was it only 1.000 civilians and not all of them?  What was the reason why

22     such and such a number out of a total number of Muslims in Kljuc were

23     captured?

24        A.   Well, this is something that you said.  I didn't confirm what you

25     say, so I cannot really comment on your questions.  You said that

Page 27279

 1     18.000 Muslim lived in Kljuc and that 1.000 of them were taken to

 2     Manjaca.  This is something that I really don't know and I don't dare

 3     comment on something that I don't know.

 4        Q.   As of August on, were you dealing with the number of captured,

 5     detained Muslims?

 6        A.   I was working with the first and last names of the people who

 7     were in enemy camps and prisons.  My goal was to release as many people

 8     as possible from those prisons and camps.  It didn't matter whether they

 9     were soldiers, civilians, a man, a woman, a child.  The fact is that most

10     of them were Bosniaks in the Serbian camps and that is why the Bosniaks

11     were the most numerous subjects of exchange.  But it's also a fact that I

12     was also dealing with Mr. Vladimir Srebrov during the war who is not a

13     Bosniak, who is a Serb or a Montenegrin.  I'm not sure how he declared

14     himself.  He was in the Kula prison and who was also a topic of my

15     interest in the process of exchange, and finally we did manage to

16     exchange him after a long, long period of captivity, it's true, that he

17     spent in the Kula prison.

18        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned that in your statement, and you said

19     that he was arrested because he was asking for me to be able to negotiate

20     on a cease-fire.  If I were to tell you that he was arrested because he

21     had come to the front line to persuade the Serbs at the front line in

22     Ilidza to leave before they were attacked, is that something different

23     from the information that you are aware of?

24        A.   Mr. Srebrov was my neighbour in Sarajevo.  I did mention that in

25     my statement, and what I was saying about him going to talk to you is

Page 27280

 1     information that dates from that time from what he stated to the media.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know that Mr. Srebrov was the only member

 3     of the SDS that we ejected?  We threw him out, and we did that because he

 4     was threatening that the Mlada Bosna which he was leading would become

 5     the iron fist?  And then he stayed to live with you and then he began to

 6     serve in the cause?

 7        A.   I really don't know any of that information.  I don't even know

 8     that he was a member of the SDS as you say.  I don't know any of the

 9     other things you mentioned either.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And you are talking quite generally about how the

11     Serbs were killing prisoners of war -- or, rather, prisoners in prisons

12     and among other places you mention Manjaca.  According to what you know,

13     how many prisoners were killed in Manjaca?

14        A.   I don't have the exact information.  Prisoners in Manjaca were

15     killed.  A number of them were killed in the camp.  This is testimony of

16     those who managed to leave the camp.  A number of them were taken out of

17     the camp and at different locations at various distances from Manjaca

18     they were killed.  There are testimonies about this, and this was also

19     established in some trials also, but I am unable to give you the precise

20     numbers of people who were killed in the camp or outside of the camp or

21     on their way to the camp or on their way out of the Manjaca camp to other

22     destinations.  I don't have that information.

23             A significant number of them, I cannot give you a precise number,

24     I'm not prepared for that, but a large number of them are still

25     considered to be missing, people who according to the statements of their

Page 27281

 1     families or other inmates were last seen in the Manjaca camp and 20 years

 2     today after they were in the camps their fate is still not known.

 3     They're probably dead, because if they were alive, they would have

 4     returned to their families.  They're probably dead, but their remains

 5     have still not been found.

 6        Q.   Mr. Masovic, are you aware of the fact that throughout that

 7     period of time Manjaca was under the control of the International

 8     Red Cross?  They would visit the camp at least once a week and sometimes

 9     twice, and they were all released and allowed to go to foreign countries

10     on the 8th of December, 1992.  Were you aware of that?  And this is the

11     reason for which you do not have the bodies of any of these people.

12        A.   I'm afraid that your statement doesn't correspond to the facts.

13     I know for a fact that according to information provided by the ICRC,

14     information that you are referring to, about 500 camp inmates were

15     transferred to the Batkovici camp when Manjaca was closed down or

16     allegedly closed down.  I personally participated in negotiations that

17     concerned the release -- or, rather, liberation of those 500 prisoners.

18     They were mainly Bosniaks, Croats, and there was a smaller number of

19     members of the Roma community, and they were between 18 and 65 years of

20     age.  Among them there was also a group of about 100 inmates from a place

21     called Grapska in the vicinity of Doboj, and they passed through the

22     Doboj prison and then they went to Manjaca, then Batkovic, Kula,

23     Sarajevo, the Rudo prison, and they were in the Kula in Sarajevo again,

24     and finally they were exchanged, if I'm not mistaken, in 1994.  And I

25     know that at least 11 of them were killed during their detention in Kula.

Page 27282

 1        Q.   Could you provide the Chamber or the Prosecution, if you're not

 2     willing to do so for the Defence, could you provide them with a list of

 3     the individuals you are searching for, a list of the individuals who were

 4     in Manjaca and whom you are searching for.

 5        A.   Well, that's quite possible, but there is one restriction I

 6     mentioned at the beginning of my testimony when answering a question put

 7     to me by the Prosecution.  This information as to where and when someone

 8     was present is usually information that is obtained from their family

 9     members.  So if that information -- if such data is reliable, well, you

10     can have such information.  In the majority of cases it is the families

11     that determine the date on which someone went missing, whether that date

12     is correct or not.  But in the records that we keep, the place where

13     someone went missing or the place where someone used to be present is

14     referred to as the Manjaca camp.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I'll now present you with my claim.  First of all,

16     there were 4.004 prisoners in Manjaca, five -- there were five who died,

17     three of natural causes and two were killed as a result of being beaten

18     up.  We don't know whether this was a real intention, but people were

19     sentenced.  So there were two deaths, two individuals who were killed.

20     Manjaca was under the constant supervision of the ICRC, as well as

21     Batkovici.  Those who had to be prosecuted were taken to Manjaca.

22     Everyone else was taken to other countries.

23             Do you have such information, and do you know who the individuals

24     who went to other countries are, in fact?

25             For the benefit of the other participants, KDZ163 is the number

Page 27283

 1     of a witness who testified here about the five deaths that occurred

 2     there, and this Prosecution witness was in a position to have such

 3     information.

 4        A.   During the war, the State Commission for Exchanges was interested

 5     in those who were in Manjaca, not those who were released and went to

 6     other countries.  No records were kept for these individuals because they

 7     weren't involved in exchanges through the State Commission.

 8             In the post-war period, we investigated cases of individuals from

 9     Manjaca who didn't survive the war or their detention in the camp, who

10     are still listed as missing.

11        Q.   Are you bringing into question my claim, my claim that I

12     unilaterally released about 4.000 individuals from Manjaca so that they

13     could be taken to other countries?

14        A.   I don't know what the answer to your question would be in a

15     certain sense.  I'm surprised by a certain fact which I wasn't aware of

16     during the war.  I'm surprised by the fact that there were as many as

17     4.000 people in the camp of Manjaca at one point in time.  I never had

18     such information according to which there were even 4.000 inmates in the

19     Manjaca camp at one point in time, and that is what you are claiming.  So

20     I know nothing about your allegations according to which these people

21     were released.

22        Q.   Mr. Masovic, perhaps I wasn't precise.  It wasn't at one point in

23     time but during a four-month period 4.000 individuals passed through the

24     camp.  Five individuals died, three of natural causes and two died as a

25     result of beatings.  We don't know whether this was intentional or not.

Page 27284

 1     But you know -- or you do know that I released everyone in Manjaca at the

 2     beginning of December and the Red Cross took them to other countries.

 3     Were you aware of that?

 4        A.   Well, at that time, I was concerned with those who had not left

 5     Manjaca.  The State Commission was interested in prisoners, not in those

 6     who were released.  I was interested in the fate of the 500 people from

 7     Manjaca.  The International Committee of the Red Cross told us that these

 8     people had not been released but that they had been transferred to the

 9     Batkovic camp.  And I believe that the International Committee of the

10     Red Cross even lodged a protest with the Serbian authorities.  If I can

11     remember this correctly, this was a long time ago, they lodged some kind

12     of protest because of the fact that these 500 inmates had been

13     transferred from one camp to another camp, to the camp in Batkovici.

14             I'm not denying this fact.  I'm really not aware of whether you

15     took such a decision or not of whether these people were released or not.

16     There's nothing I can comment on that.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, it's not 500 but significantly less, and the

18     lists of individuals were handed over to the Red Cross, and they were

19     registered.  They arrived in Batkovici.  Are you aware of the fact that

20     they were permanently referred to on the Red Cross list or included in

21     the Red Cross's list?

22        A.   Let me repeat what I have said.  I knew that they were

23     transferred to Manjaca for the simple reason that I subsequently

24     personally participated in the negotiations that were conducted with the

25     Serbian commission, negotiations that concerned the release of those

Page 27285

 1     500 people.  The largest group was from Doboj, if I remember this

 2     correctly.  There were about a hundred of them.  There were also people

 3     from Jajce and from some other towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I

 4     personally participated in the negotiations.  I participated in the

 5     procedure for their release.  Some of them were released in Sarajevo,

 6     because in the end, after Batkovici, they ended up in prison in the

 7     correctional facility Kula.  I cannot really say whether they were

 8     included on the list, whether records were kept about them or on the

 9     Red Cross's lists because this is confidential information and the ICRC

10     doesn't share such information with third parties.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Since you were involved in investigations into the

12     missing after the war, do you know anything about who is in -- is now

13     present in third countries?  I'm referring to citizens from Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina, or at least to the Muslims?  Did you in fact find out that

15     some of those who were on your list were, in fact, now living in third

16     countries?

17        A.   No.  I don't know who is now living abroad, which citizens of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina regardless of the nationality are now living abroad,

19     but we do have contact with the families of those who have gone missing.

20     We have contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross.  We

21     also have contact with the International Commission for Missing Persons,

22     and we have contact with the local branch of the Red Cross in Bosnia and

23     Herzegovina.  They have their own records on those who have gone missing.

24     We've included these lists in our commission, and on that basis - and you

25     can see that in my report - we compiled a single database on those who

Page 27286

 1     who are missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             What I could additionally say in response to your question is

 3     this:  Since you say that there are people who are still alive and who

 4     are on the lists, yes, I can confirm those allegations.  To date about

 5     236 such individuals of all nationalities have been found, and at one

 6     point in time, usually in the early summer or autumn of 1992, their

 7     families reported them as missing and although they returned to their

 8     families or moved out of the country, this was never reported.  So they

 9     were still included on the list of those missing because their families

10     didn't report the fact that they weren't, in fact, missing anymore.

11        Q.   Did you draw the conclusion that there were no more survivors but

12     that they were on your list?

13        A.   I can't say that we might have certain people recorded as missing

14     on our list, but they are in fact living somewhere else in the world.

15     Recently we discovered that there was a girl, a young girl who had been

16     transferred from the northern part of Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia.  She

17     was two years old at the time and she was adopted by a family there.

18     That child wasn't aware of its origins, of who its parents were.  It

19     recently came of age, and it -- the child has discovered its identity and

20     about two years ago she returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina having

21     discovered what her real identity was.  Her name is Senada Becirevic.  In

22     Serbia her name was Mila Becirevic.  That was in fact the surname of the

23     parents who adopted her.

24             So I can't say that tomorrow or in one year's time there won't be

25     a similar case.  I can't claim that someone might be found who is, in

Page 27287

 1     fact, alive but is nevertheless still included on the list of those who

 2     are missing.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know that there were all these adults who

 4     lived in Novi Sad throughout the war and then they returned, and when

 5     they returned, they found that their names were inscribed on tombstones?

 6     Or there was the third son of a man from Bratunac, and according to the

 7     records, this son was missing, but he had in fact returned.  Were you

 8     aware of these cases?  There are at least two such cases that concern

 9     adults.  They were both in Serbia.  They lived their lives there, got

10     married, and so on and so forth.

11        A.   If you go back to my statement, I said that I was aware of three

12     attempts to falsely report certain individuals as missing.  One of the

13     cases is in fact the case that you are mentioning.  It concerns a man who

14     spent the war in Novi Sad or in the vicinity of Novi Sad.  He was married

15     to a Serbian woman, and his father reported him as missing as well as two

16     other sons who really went missing, but this individual was never

17     missing, and we believe that his father was also aware of his fate, that

18     is to say, he was aware of the fact that he was alive and living in

19     Serbia or, rather, in Vojvodina, but probably for certain pragmatic

20     reasons of his own he also reported that as son as missing.  So that is

21     one of the three attempts to make a false report about someone who went

22     missing.

23        Q.   Thank you.  In what way could he have benefitted from that?

24        A.   Well, prior to 2004, he couldn't have gained any advantage from

25     the fact, because in 2004, a Law on Missing Persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Page 27288

 1     was adopted, a law which granted the families of such missing people

 2     certain rights.  For example, free education for their children, free

 3     social security, the right to learn about the fate of their family

 4     members who went missing.  And Bosnia-Herzegovina established, in fact, a

 5     commission for missing persons.  According to the law, there's also some

 6     sort of remuneration for the families of those who were missing, and the

 7     fund for missing persons is supposed to pay such benefits.

 8             Unfortunately, my state has been criticised for many years now,

 9     by the United Nations and other groups, because that law on financial

10     compensation for families of missing persons was never implemented.  None

11     of the families of those missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, regardless of

12     their nationality, managed to receive a single euro from the state of

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina, although according to the Law on Missing Persons,

14     the families of missing persons do have such a right.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Does Bosnia and Herzegovina have any lists on people

16     who are refugees in other countries, and have you compared these lists to

17     see whether these individuals are, in fact, alive?

18        A.   I don't know whether the state has any such lists.  I don't

19     believe that's the case.  The Institute for Missing Persons, in any

20     event, doesn't have such lists.  They are of no importance for us,

21     because the contact we have is contact with family members who are

22     searching for other missing family members.  So above all, we have

23     contact with such people and there are over 9.000 such people in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They provided a drop of blood so that a DNA analysis

25     could be used to see whether any of the victims in mass graves, in

Page 27289

 1     individual graves, are in fact family members of theirs.  We have

 2     information from the ICRC on over 22.000 citizens from Bosnia-Herzegovina

 3     whose families are in Bosnia-Herzegovina and throughout the world.

 4     Wherever the ICRC is present, and the ICRC is mostly present in all the

 5     countries throughout the world through local Red Cross branches, we in

 6     fact submitted requests to these ICRC branches to locate these

 7     individuals.  We are also in direct contact with families who are looking

 8     for their relatives who have gone missing.

 9        Q.   It seems that I am putting rather extensive questions to you.

10     Now I'm going to try and put short questions to you and elicit a yes or

11     no answer from you if possible.

12             So you confirmed that a large number of people changed the status

13     of their family members in their various statements, sometimes claiming

14     that they were dead and sometimes claiming the contrary, but it seems

15     that according to what you think about this matter, the number of the

16     civilians who got killed is exaggerated.  Is that correct?

17        A.   Actually, the people who reported people missing didn't change

18     their statement.  When they originally filed reports about missing

19     persons, they defined them as either being a soldier or a civilian.  We

20     as an institution consider this to be completely irrelevant.  We don't

21     care whether those people were civilians or soldiers.  That was

22     absolutely beyond the scope of our interest.  We see them solely as

23     missing persons, as missing citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and our

24     mandate is to identify them and to hand over them to their families.

25             Now, whether some of the families, but I don't know how many of

Page 27290

 1     them because we don't have a database specifying who was a soldier and

 2     who wasn't, and I said that was totally irrelevant, that was not our

 3     remit, we didn't care whether anyone went missing during combat

 4     operations or as a civilian.  Our objective was to locate those persons

 5     and hand them over to their families.  And, yes, you are right when you

 6     say that there are such reports that you have mentioned, but I cannot

 7     tell you at the moment how many of those people changed the status of the

 8     missing persons.

 9             I know that when I communicated with people during the war, I

10     know that people reported their missing soldiers specifically to the ICRC

11     as civilians, because they believed that would be an easier way to

12     release them from captivity, but I'm sure that many more people actually

13     reported their family members as soldiers but that they were actually

14     civilians, but I cannot give you any figure, whether there were hundreds

15     of them or many more than that, because that was not the subject of our

16     interest.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Well, that would help me to abandon finally this line

18     of questioning, because there's a lot being said in your statements about

19     civilians.  So can I then conclude that your statements did not focus on

20     the fact whether someone was a civilian or a soldier, and can we then, in

21     view of that, move to the number of those who were exhumed.

22        A.   All I can do is to repeat what I said.  We who are tracing and

23     trying to track what happened with someone is completely irrelevant

24     whether that person was a soldier or a civilian.

25        Q.   Now, tell me this:  The authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Page 27291

 1     including the State Commission, when did they receive initial accurate

 2     information about the people who perished in Srebrenica in July 1995?

 3        A.   I think that about two weeks after July 1995 -- actually, that

 4     was the time when women and children left Srebrenica and arrived in

 5     Tuzla, and that is the time when they started reporting male members of

 6     their family who remained in Srebrenica.  Therefore, the number of the

 7     people who went missing in July 1995 coincide actually with the arrival

 8     dates of the people who were expelled from Srebrenica.  They were the

 9     first ones who provided information about their fathers, their brothers,

10     and other male members of their families failed to cross over to the free

11     territory, and that initiated an investigation about their fate.

12        Q.   Can you tell us very briefly:  In your opinion, how many people

13     died in Srebrenica?

14        A.   I will give you a few pieces of information.  On the memorial

15     plaque in Potocari, there are 8.372 names of the people whose death is

16     connected with the events in Srebrenica and later with the events in

17     Zepa.  Of course, those who perished in Zepa is significantly lower.  So

18     the total number is 8.372.  In the Institute for Missing Persons, we have

19     information about 8.262 individuals whose fate and whose death is

20     connected with Srebrenica in 1995.  The International Commission for

21     Missing Persons who is in charge pursuant to an international agreement

22     that it signed with the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina of identifying

23     all the exhumed victims, their estimate is that the number of the missing

24     or those killed was 1 -- 8.100, and they reached this figure on the basis

25     of blood samples that they had received from families.  I don't know if

Page 27292

 1     anyone produced this figure before.  I did because I'm aware of that

 2     information, being a member of the managing board.  The ICRC collected

 3     mother than 22.000 blood samples from family members of the people from

 4     Srebrenica.  These 22.000 blood samples relate to a total of 7.800 people

 5     who went missing in Srebrenica, and I think that the exact number is

 6     7.787.

 7             However, nowadays in the ICP, there's more than 160 DNA reports

 8     that do not match with a single blood sample out of the 22.000.  What

 9     does that mean?  That means that there are families in Srebrenica who

10     either didn't provide blood samples, or that there is not a single

11     survivor from this family who could provide a blood sample, which means

12     that either all of them were killed during the events in Srebrenica or

13     that quite simply this family has no survivors left.

14             If you take the figure of 7.787 and if you add, I think, 166 of

15     those who were exhumed from mass graves where the Srebrenica victims were

16     found but for whom no matches were found, a total number is about 8.000.

17     And as I said, the estimate of ICP is that 8.100 people disappeared

18     during the events in Srebrenica in 1995.  And in my view, I think that

19     this estimate is the closest to figure of 8.262 which is the number that

20     our institute operates with.

21        Q.   According to what you know, how many inhabitants were there in

22     Srebrenica in July 1995 before these events took place?

23        A.   [No interpretation]

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

25     repeat the answer.  The mike didn't switch on.

Page 27293

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Can you repeat that, please.  There's no

 2     interpretation because the microphone was not on.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know, and I don't think if

 4     it is appropriate for me to speak about this as a witness, but I know

 5     that there were figures mentioned in the media of 30.000 to 40.000 people

 6     living in Srebrenica.  Whether they were the natives of Srebrenica,

 7     whether they were the people who in 1992 came to Srebrenica from other

 8     municipalities such as Bratunac, Zvornik, Rogatica, Vlasenica, and other

 9     municipalities, that in 1992 the Bosniaks were either persecuted or

10     killed or et cetera.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Thank you.  Please let's stick to the briefest possible answers.

13     Shall I infer from your previous answer that the ICRC has matches for

14     7.800 people according to the samples?

15        A.   No.  The ICMP has somewhat more than 6.600 matches, plus the 166

16     in which they obtained DNA profiles but did not find any matches.  So we

17     can say that these 166 individuals have no names because their unique DNA

18     profiles are different from everybody else.  And I said that on the basis

19     of the blood sample provided by the family.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you very much.  This is interesting but we

21     don't have time for that.  Is it correct that you established that at

22     least 500 people were buried in Potocari and that they are unrelated to

23     the events in Srebrenica in 1995?  I said 500, yes?  500, that's right.

24        A.   No, that is not correct, and nobody credible or relevant stated

25     that 500 people were buried in Potocari and that they had nothing to do

Page 27294

 1     with what happened in Srebrenica in 1995.

 2        Q.   Is it correct that either you or someone from your profession

 3     stated that there were several hundred people who were alive but that

 4     their severed limbs were identified based on the DNA?  This is something

 5     that somebody said about a month ago?

 6        A.   That's what I said, but it doesn't relate to Srebrenica.  It

 7     pertains to a cemetery in Sarajevo.  My colleagues from the Banja Luka

 8     office wanted an examination of severed limbs and stillborn babies to be

 9     conducted that were buried there.  I'm sure that they exhumed severed

10     parts of the bodies and stillborn people by mistake, not intentionally.

11     Those were the amputated limbs and stillborn children had been brought

12     from a hospital, and unfortunately they have been kept in a morgue in

13     Sarajevo for years.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you.  Please give me short answer.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I have now 1D5516, and we don't

16     have much time.  I apologise.  It hasn't been translated because I didn't

17     expect this witness to confirm this.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can you please look these red boxes.  It says:

20             "Amor Masovic, the director of the Institute for Missing Persons,

21     also confirmed that at the memorial centre there are victims who are next

22     of kin of those already buried and identified as the victims of the

23     Srebrenica crime.  We fulfil the requests of the families and the mothers

24     who for sentimental and emotional reasons asked for permission to have

25     their sons who was killed in 1993 be buried next to the son who was

Page 27295

 1     killed in the genocide in Srebrenica.  He said that because of that

 2     practice, they soon faced the possibility that there wouldn't be enough

 3     space for the burials of the Srebrenica victims."

 4             Did you state this?

 5        A.   Yes, it is true that in the memorial complex in Potocari, in

 6     addition to the victims from Srebrenica July 1995, a number of their next

 7     of kin such as brothers and fathers are also buried there, and they were

 8     buried there on the basis of being related to the victims of Srebrenica,

 9     and thanks to the efforts of the foundation and the Council of Ministers

10     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, permission was granted for two brothers, one of

11     whom died in 1992, the other one who died in 1995, that they both could

12     be buried in the same memorial complex.

13             What is important is to say that those killed in 1992 are not

14     reckoned as the victims who died in 1995.  They don't belong to the same

15     group.  When I mentioned the figures 8.362 and 8.372, I was speaking only

16     about those who were victims from July 1995.  I'm not talking about these

17     people who died in 1992 or 1993.

18             Now, the foundation of the memorial complex is facing a

19     possibility that based on the kinship, hundreds of thousands of those who

20     were killed in 1995 cannot be buried there any longer because there is

21     not enough space for that.  And they said that those 70 that had been

22     buried here will remain there, but in future no such burials will be

23     allowed irrespective of the fact that are brothers and sons, grandfathers

24     and fathers, et cetera.  So what I said here is completely accurate.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 27296

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D5024, please.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   While we're waiting, Mr. Masovic, do you know how many people

 4     were killed in that area from 1992 until 1995?

 5        A.   People who were killed in that area, I assume you mean

 6     Srebrenica, the Srebrenica enclave, were most probably buried by their

 7     families, and they were never the topic of interest of the previous

 8     State Commission, nor are they now subject of interest of the institute,

 9     because they do not have the status of a missing person.  So I don't know

10     how many people were killed in and around Srebrenica or in any other

11     municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That is not part of our mandate.

12     These are not missing persons so that I would be interested in finding

13     out their fate or their number.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And are you saying that when a Serb is killed in

15     Muslim territory or a Muslim in Serb territory that they would be handed

16     over to their family for burial, or would they be buried by the opposing

17     side while they would be recorded in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18     records or in the records of the Army of Republika Srpska even though

19     they were buried by someone else, by the other side?

20        A.   I don't know how you mean buried by the other side.  If they were

21     killed, conditionally speaking, in their own territory, then they would

22     be buried by their family, and they would not be reported as a missing

23     person.  If they were killed in enemy, conditionally speaking, territory,

24     then the family would report that person as a missing person, because

25     they don't know what their fate was.  They don't know if he's dead,

Page 27297

 1     alive, in captivity.  Then they would report that person as a missing

 2     person.  That's the principle.

 3             Perhaps some families found out about the fact of death occurring

 4     in enemy territory so they did not report the person as missing, because

 5     through certain contacts with people from the other side they learned

 6     that their relative, family member was killed, died, is buried in such

 7     and such a place, and therefore there was no need for them to report that

 8     person as a missing person.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know that after the liberation or the capture,

10     however you want to put it, of Podrinje, they found in 1993 about 50 mass

11     graves numbering from 50 -- from 5 to 50 bodies.  This was found by the

12     Serbs, which was actually in the territory which was controlled by the

13     Muslims before?  Do you know or do you not know?

14        A.   Well, I'm just waiting for the transcript.  Actually, I don't

15     know.  This is the first time that I'm hearing about this, from you.

16     Thank you.

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Sutherland.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I'm sorry for interrupting but there's a

21     document on the screen and I don't know if it's 1D5024, but if it is, it

22     wasn't on the list of documents for cross-examination and I don't know

23     whether there's a translation that's available.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  Can you assist, Dr. Karadzic?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was expect Mr. Masovic to confirm

Page 27298

 1     the numbers, so I was not planning to tender it, but now I am forced to

 2     show it.  Can we look at page 6, please, in that case, and I kindly ask

 3     for the understanding of the other side in the same way that I show

 4     understanding.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, it doesn't actually answer

 6     Ms. Sutherland's query.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wasn't intending to put it

 8     on the list, Your Excellency, because I believed that the witness would

 9     confirm the numbers.  That's why I did not announce this document.  So I

10     wasn't planning to show the list if the witness confirmed the numbers.

11             I would now kindly like to ask the witness if -- can we scroll up

12     a little bit please.  Whether it's correct that President Izetbegovic was

13     confirming that there were 4.500 people there, soldiers there without the

14     Zepa Brigade.  There was a review of the 28th Division, and 3.500 people

15     gathered in Tuzla.  However, a little bit lower down, Silajdzic says,

16     well, here this is what it's about.  First in Srebrenica they were giving

17     another number for UNPROFOR and we knew a different one, and the

18     president says 42.000 for UNPROFOR and 35.000 realistically.  So there

19     were 35.000 people in Srebrenica realistically speaking.

20             Can we look at the next page.  This is on the 11th of August, a

21     month after the fall of Srebrenica.

22             And can you look to see how many people went to Tuzla?

23     Thirty-one thousand, 31.000, while 1.000 -- it says 600 to 650, well, we

24     know that 1.000 went to Serbia via Zepa, meaning that 32.000 people are

25     in question, and 3 to 4 people are missing.  And look at what the

Page 27299

 1     president says at the bottom:  The figure of those killed is probably

 2     around 3.000 people.  This is the number that has been referred to from

 3     the very first days there, namely, we intercepted a very clear Chetnik

 4     telephone conversation where you can see that it's authentic, and it

 5     says:  There was a massacre here yesterday.  It was a real

 6     slaughterhouse.  Hey, how many, 300?  No.  Add one more 0, and so on and

 7     so forth.

 8             And can we look at the next page -- I'm sorry.  Pardon me.  Just

 9     a moment.  I'm talking about the total number.  Silajdzic says, I'm

10     talking about total number.  I'm afraid that this number of 5.000, the

11     fact is that when we were in Kalesija I heard that there was a massacre.

12     There's no doubt about that.  You probably know that mass graves can be

13     discovered by satellite and so on and so forth.

14             And then he says something about Karadzic, and he says, If we

15     quarrel with them, we will have no chance, so we're playing a little game

16     here.  So according to these estimates, it would be 5.000 whose fate is

17     uncertain, out of them 2.000 casualties.  For 3.000 there's still

18     probably some hope that some of them are in camps, that some are still

19     trying to break through.  Some of them went towards Zepa.  Probably the

20     number of casualties is around 3.000, and this is according to a Chetnik

21     report which in this case could be the most authoritative one.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Therefore, Mr. Masovic, the country's Presidency one month after

24     the fall of Srebrenica knows that 3 -- 31.000 people reached Tuzla, that

25     670 went via Zepa, and that 2.000 more were still wandering around in the

Page 27300

 1     woods, and we do have evidence about that, that groups remained there for

 2     a long time.  How can you then talk about 7- to 8.000 casualties in July?

 3        A.   What you are saying that the Presidency knows is something that I

 4     don't know.  I know something else.  So far in more than 450 locations

 5     connected to July 1995, at least 6.800 complete or incomplete skeletal

 6     remains of victims of Srebrenica were found.  These were people reported

 7     as missing by their families.  So far 8.262 people were reported missing

 8     by their families.  These are Srebrenica victims.  I know this today,

 9     15 or 16 years after July 1995, because this is exact data and it's

10     derived directly from mass graves.  Unfortunately, at least a half of

11     those graves are secondary graves.

12             And I have to say an astonishing fact as well, a man from

13     Srebrenica or remains of him were found in four different mass graves.

14     His head and his arms were found in the Zeleni Jadar 4 grave.  His right

15     leg or thigh were found in Glogova 01 grave, the right tibia belonging to

16     this man was found in the Bljeceva 03 grave, and his left complete leg,

17     the femur, the tibia and the fibula were found in Budak 02 grave.  These

18     four graves are in the territory of two different municipalities, in the

19     Srebrenica municipality, and the Bratunac municipality area, and what is

20     the worst, the body of that victim is still not complete.

21        Q.   Thank you.  All right.  Can you please answer with a yes or no.

22     Now, do you know that before July 1995 the 28th Division had more than

23     2.000 casualties, dead, about 2.000 dead?  Yes or no?

24        A.   No.  That is not the subject of my interest.  It wasn't something

25     that I was looking at then or something that I'm looking at now.

Page 27301

 1        Q.   Thank you.  If I were to tell you that the vast majority, up to

 2     90 per cent, of Muslims were fighters, were killed in Serbian territory

 3     and buried in Serbian territory, would this be something that would be

 4     understandable in your opinion?

 5        A.   I don't know what you consider Serbian territory.

 6        Q.   Under Serbian control.

 7        A.   All right.  Well, that's a little different.  So they were killed

 8     in the towns and villages where they lived, I assume.  Unfortunately,

 9     they were buried in places other than their places of residency in

10     primary graves, then they were relocated to secondary and tertiary

11     graves.

12        Q.   Sir, I'm talking about the 28th Division which was going out to

13     Serbian areas, out of the protected area, out of the safe area, and it

14     lost over 2.000 people.  None of those people was killed in the territory

15     under the control of the Muslims but in territory under the control of

16     the Serbs.  Do you know where these soldiers, these people, were buried?

17        A.   Which time period are you thinking of in your question throughout

18     the whole war?

19        Q.   Yes, throughout the whole war, especially from 1993 when the safe

20     area was declared.  These people were killed outside of the enclave, not

21     within the enclave.  Where were they buried?

22        A.   But this simply cannot be true.  This means that their families

23     did not want to report that they were missing to the then

24     State Commission.  None of those 2.000 -- well, I'm not going to say

25     none, but you're talking about a thousand -- thousands of people.  I'm

Page 27302

 1     saying that people who were either civilians or soldiers who were killed

 2     in the territory under the control of the Serbs were not reported as

 3     missing, and that's not plausible.  If they were killed in areas under

 4     the control of the Serbian people, it would be logical for their command

 5     if not their families to report them as missing to the command in

 6     Sarajevo.  So what you're saying, in my opinion, cannot be true because

 7     that would mean that the families did not wish to report the

 8     disappearance of their husbands, brothers, sons, fathers.  This is

 9     impossible.  This is something that did not occur in Bosnia-Herzegovina

10     to any great degree.

11        Q.   If the army recorded its daily losses and they know then that a

12     certain person was killed, why would that person then be reported as

13     missing?  Why would you be looking for him if it is known where the

14     person was?  They were in action and they were killed, would that be

15     reported in such a case?

16        A.   Well, of course it would be reported.  The State Commission for

17     the Exchange of Prisoners of War, Captured Persons, and Bodies of People

18     Killed and Record of People Killed, Injured, and Missing.  That is the

19     name of the commission, and the commission's task was to take bodily

20     remains from the enemy of all members of the army, of all civilians, and

21     so on and so forth.  So the fact that possibly the military knew about

22     somebody's death would not prevent the commission from seeking the

23     remains of that person to be handed over.  So I'm saying that this, what

24     you're saying, cannot be true because that would mean that the persons

25     were not interested in the fate of their loved ones, which is impossible.

Page 27303

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I would like to

 3     tender these three pages of the minutes of the B and H Presidency meeting

 4     for identification until we get a translation of those pages.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Sutherland.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, the witness said that he wasn't

 7     aware of what was going on in the Presidency, and what -- Mr. Karadzic

 8     has read into the record the relevant portions of it.

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, that was my view, Dr. Karadzic.  The

10     relevant parts of the documents, which are the only parts that we would

11     take notice of and want to ask questions about, are actually in the

12     transcript and are identifiable from the questions and answers.  So I

13     don't think you need to have this exhibited.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have 1D5518 now,

15     please.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And were you at the meeting -- earlier you said that you did not

18     attend the meeting at which it was determined that civilians were

19     detained in Tarcin, who should not have been there.  In the minutes it

20     states that you were present at this meeting.

21        A.   I was at the meeting of the Presidency that dealt with a certain

22     item on the agenda.  I didn't attend the entire meeting.  The meeting

23     would cover a number of items.  I would be present only for one

24     particular item of the agenda as a kind of rapporteur.  So I do confirm

25     that I did attend the Presidency session when the status of detainees in

Page 27304

 1     the Silos prison in Tarcin was discussed.

 2        Q.   Well, would you agree that this is a table representing

 3     exhumations for the Srebrenica regions, ten municipalities where

 4     exhumations were carried out from 1995 to 1996.

 5             Can we look at the last page now, please, and can you look at

 6     this mass grave, common grave, and individual grave.  Mass, common, and

 7     individual.  Are you -- are you familiar with this table?

 8             Throughout the war, Mr. Masovic, a total of 8.831 bodies were

 9     exhumed, and you can look at the dates, the time when they were killed

10     covering an area of ten municipalities, the entire region of Podrinje

11     throughout the three and a half years of the war, 43 or 44 months long,

12     meant that 1.313 bodies were exhumed from individual graves and

13     7.503 bodies from exhumed from mass graves.

14             What do you say now?

15        A.   This document refers - if the title is correct - to the period

16     from 1995 to 2006.  There is no information for the last six or seven

17     years.  I don't know where this information comes from.  Perhaps it comes

18     from us at the institute since it's 2006.  Most probably then this was

19     the Federal Commission for Missing Persons, but I cannot decide --

20     conclude what this is about based only on the heading.  Is it a list of

21     graves?  Is it a number of victims?  What is this table showing?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up so that we can see

23     the bottom of the page, please.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see the bottom of the page,

25     and you can see that this is data from the Federal Commission for Missing

Page 27305

 1     Persons from May 2007.  I assume that it was from the federal commission.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Thank you.  So at that time it was claimed that in Srebrenica

 4     alone, in July 1995, 8.000 Muslims were killed, and you can see that it

 5     was known that in the entire region and throughout the wartime period --

 6     can we scroll down a bit to have a look at the dates of death.  Could we

 7     scroll down.  No, we don't have the dates of death here, but we will show

 8     you a different document that refers to those dates.

 9             So does this concern ten municipalities and regions?  We can have

10     a look at them.  Zvornik, Vlasenica, Bratunac, Srebrenica.  I don't know

11     whether you included Milici or treated Milici as a separate municipality.

12     So there are ten municipalities.

13        A.   If it's not a problem, could you go back to the first page so

14     that we can see what this list represents?  Does it only concern the

15     victims in Srebrenica in July 1995, or does it relate to something else?

16        Q.   It concerns the victims throughout the wartime period.  We'll

17     show you another document about that, but this concerns exhumations that

18     were conducted at the time.

19             When was there that funeral in Tombak Mahali?  From Bijeljina.

20     It was towards the end of March, the 31st of March, 1992, and it was on

21     the 1st of April, isn't that correct?

22        A.   I don't know when that funeral took place but the disappearances

23     in Bijeljina started around the 1st of April, 1992.  And I assume, though

24     this can't be seen in the table, I assume that the victims who were

25     exhumed in Tombak Mahala were buried in 1992 or 1993.

Page 27306

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could this document be

 2     admitted and then I'll move on to another one.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Sutherland.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I'm not sure what the witness has

 5     actually said about the document.

 6             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, the -- there's some reference to it, and

 7     it would assist, actually, the Chamber to have it to put the transcript

 8     into context, so we'll admit it for that purpose.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D2229, Your Honours.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Is it your position -- or in fact with regard to all the

13     exhumations and mass graves, how would you say that these people died?

14     I'm talking about mass graves in particular but also about individual

15     graves.

16        A.   I wasn't an eyewitness, but on the basis of the fact that the

17     majority were buried in mass graves, and also given that the vast

18     majority or the majority from those mass graves were transferred to

19     secondary and tertiary graves, on that basis I believe that there are

20     grounds that could lead to the conclusion that they were killed.  Why

21     would someone bury victims in mass graves?  Why would bulldozers then

22     tamper with those graves and break the bodies up, and why would these

23     remains then be transported to other locations and buried there?  Why

24     would all this be done if these victims were not illegally killed?  Why

25     would this have been done if these things hadn't been illegal?

Page 27307

 1        Q.   So that is the basis on which you made that claim.  Isn't that

 2     correct?

 3        A.   Well, as you know, there are eyewitnesses who survived the

 4     executions so that they witnessed, they were often present when certain

 5     victims were buried, and this is something that you know from other trial

 6     cases.  There were insiders who referred to executions of tens, hundreds,

 7     or thousands of people in Kravica, Branjevo, Pilica, et cetera, and there

 8     are also satellite images that are available.  So this is just some of

 9     the evidence I am aware of, and this is evidence that indicates that

10     people -- or, rather, the remains of the people found in mass graves are

11     the remains of people who were illegally killed.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please see 1D5517.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Have a look at it.  These are cases in which the dates of death

16     from the Prosecution in 2005 don't correspond to the time or date of

17     death in lists provided by the ABiH.  Are you aware of the fact that

18     these discrepancies exist?  For example, in the ABiH lists the date of

19     death is the 10th of January, 1994, and then, for example, it was

20     changed.  Have a look at number 5, for example.

21             This doesn't need to be broadcast.  It's not necessary.

22             So it was disputed, or, rather, a correction was made and the

23     date mentioned was the 12th of July, 1995.  The place of death was said

24     to be Buljim, and these remains were found in Glogova 2.  And then we

25     have the first two, four, five cases that aren't disputed.  He was killed

Page 27308

 1     on the 26th of April, 1992.  And then we have another one on the

 2     26th of April, and then a third one on the 10th of January, 1994, found

 3     in Kozluk, and we go on.  The six one is disputed and there was a

 4     correction made and then we have the other names.

 5             Have a look at all of this.  I'll read this out.  Well, no, I

 6     won't read it out.

 7             I don't know if these names should be confidential.  It shouldn't

 8     be broadcast perhaps.

 9             Have a look at this.  Every fifth name has been corrected.

10     Towards the bottom there are more corrections, somewhat more corrections

11     but the Armija has information according to which on the 15th of May,

12     it's in the middle of the document, on the 15th of May, 1992, there was

13     someone killed who was buried in Cancari.  It was on the 17th of July,

14     1992, in fact, and this person was found in Cancari.  And now the army

15     has information that someone was killed on the 22nd of April, 1994, and

16     someone made a correction and said it was on the 12th of July, 1995.

17             How could the army expect someone who died in 1994 to be killed

18     in 1995?  And they were all found in mass graves, aren't they -- weren't

19     they?

20        A.   This is the first time I've seen the document, and I really can't

21     comment on it.  I didn't create the document.  I've never seen it before.

22             But I'll tell you something else, in Srebrenica there are eight

23     individuals who have the same name and surname, and they all went

24     missing.  There are two such cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  You have

25     eight individuals with the same first and last name.  All eight of them

Page 27309

 1     went missing.  There are four individuals -- or, rather, four cases of

 2     people who have the same name.  That concerns seven individuals.  There

 3     are 16 cases of people who have the same first and last name, and that

 4     concerns a group of five.  179 cases of two individuals with the same

 5     first and last name and they all disappeared.  So if you want to make any

 6     comparisons - this is what I'm trying to tell you - you have to have

 7     complete information about all victims to see whether you are dealing

 8     with two different individuals or whether the person concerned is just

 9     one person.

10        Q.   And information such as the name of the father and date of birth,

11     does such information assist one?  You have the date of birth according

12     to Armija and the date of birth according to the OTP list.

13             Can we see the following page.

14             Can you see these cases where corrections were not made and we

15     also ask on what basis were corrections made when they were made.  Have a

16     look at this.  You see the name, the name of the father, the date of

17     birth, and, well, these four items can't be identical for more than two

18     individuals.  Isn't that correct?  These are all grave sites found by the

19     ICMP.  Do you doubt or do you accept that they found people in those mass

20     graves who were killed at an earlier date?  And this is something that is

21     not disputed.  Liplje, Bljeceva, Cancari 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Vlasenica,

22     Zeleni Jadar 5.  In all these graves people who had been killed earlier

23     were found.  In your opinion, was this possible?  According to the

24     information you have, in fact.  Let's leave opinions aside.  Opinions are

25     problematic.

Page 27310

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  Sorry, Dr. Karadzic, there are at least

 2     six questions embedded in what was, in fact, mostly a statement and you

 3     have but 15 minutes left, so what is the essence of the information that

 4     you really want from this witness?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, what I want to

 6     find out is whether it is possible that these 260-odd, and there were

 7     those many cases in which information didn't tally, is it possible that

 8     with regard to those people that they were buried in mass graves but, in

 9     fact, it can be seen that they were killed earlier and then corrections

10     were subsequently made, although the Armija had information on the fact

11     that they were previously killed?  So were these graves filled in with

12     the remains of individuals who were killed at some prior time, and this

13     is clearly illustrated by this list.  The witness was a participant in a

14     group that was involved in performing exhumations.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me repeat this.  I can't

16     comment on a document that I have never seen before, a document that I

17     did not produce myself.  This document doesn't contain sufficient

18     information to draw conclusions of any case, and this is because of what

19     I've already said.  For example, in the case of eight individuals, these

20     individuals have fathers whose name is the same.  I can provide you with

21     this information which I have in the hotel.  Their father's name is

22     actually identical.  Some of them were even born in the same year.  They

23     don't share the same dates of birth, but in certain cases you have two

24     individuals for whom four important criteria are identical.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 27311

 1        Q.   Let's have a look at -- let's have a look at Omerovic, Tahir, son

 2     of Zahir.  Where is he recorded?  Where was this person killed and in

 3     what manner?  Found in Hodzici Road 5.  Where was he killed?  How was he

 4     killed?

 5        A.   The Hodzici 5 grave was one that The Hague Tribunal exhumed.  It

 6     wasn't the State Commission or the institute.  Investigators from

 7     The Hague Tribunal were involved in the exhumation.  All the victims in

 8     Hodzici 5 grave were victims.  They went missing in Srebrenica in

 9     July 1995.  In the very same grave victims from 1992 and 1995 were found,

10     and you can find that in my table, table number 2 that has been

11     adopted -- that has been admitted here by the Chamber, and you can see

12     that in the grave dug in 1992 it contains the bodies of Bosniaks.  You

13     can see that in that very same grave bodies of victims from 1995 were

14     buried.  But you will see in Table 2 that we made a clear distinction

15     between those who were victims in 1992 and those who were victims in

16     1995.  So the victims from 1992 from Bljecevo weren't represented as

17     victims from the year 1995.  This distinction was clearly made.  There

18     were 30 remains from the Bljecevo grave, whereas there were 120 from

19     Srebrenica in 1995.  So there were 30 victims from 1992, and there were

20     120 victims from 1995, and that is clearly indicated.

21        Q.   Thank you.  What sort of information do you have about clearing

22     the battle-field?  When this is done, are remains buried individually or

23     in mass graves?  Are the bodies buried in individual graves or mass

24     graves?

25        A.   I personally have no experience with clearing the terrain.  In

Page 27312

 1     the course of the war it was impossible to go over to the enemy side.  In

 2     the post-war period it was possible to do that, but this probably depends

 3     on a lot of circumstances, the time, the terrain, the identity of the

 4     victims.  The manner in which taking sanitation and hygiene measures on

 5     the battle-field depends on many things.  Does it concern victims of a

 6     war, of natural catastrophes, and so on and so forth?  I have no

 7     information about that matter though.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this list please be admitted

 9     into evidence, Your Excellencies.

10             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Sutherland.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, at the moment I can't see a reason

12     to oppose its admission.  I mean, the witness has said that the -- I

13     mean, he's talked about the document because Mr. Karadzic has taken him

14     to certain entries, but he's said that he didn't produce it.  He really

15     can't talk to the document, but it was --

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  That was my view.  It seems to be another case

17     where because of the very limited amount of information that the witness

18     could give they -- that's contained within the transcript in any event.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  That was my initial reaction, Your Honour, as I

20     said to the last document.

21             JUDGE MORRISON:  I think that is correct.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And I agree.

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  And I should have asked you before,

24     Ms. Sutherland, do you have any re-examination in respect of this --

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour, very briefly.

Page 27313

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  A minute or two?

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, not very long.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  So be it.  Thank you.

 4             Dr. Karadzic, again, the essential information is contained

 5     within the transcript, so there's no need to readmit it.  And while I

 6     think about it, the last document that we admitted, which was given the

 7     reference ID of 5518 should have been marked for identification because

 8     it wasn't translated.  Thank you.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Excellencies, in this

10     statement I have 118 paragraphs whereby the witness kindly said that some

11     statements were not the topic of his interest and perhaps that will make

12     things easier, however, I have more questions.  Is Mr. Masovic able to

13     stay for one more session tomorrow, because we will finish 084 early most

14     probably.  Well, really, it's vast material.

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, I understand from the witness's earlier

16     observations that he has to be on a -- be leaving The Hague at 9.00, so

17     the chances of finishing the other witness before then and having any

18     meaningful time seems to me to be nil.

19             Dr. Karadzic, the Court has done its best to accommodate you in

20     light of the circumstances.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we look at 1D5520,

22     then, please.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Masovic, how many Serbs disappeared in Sarajevo?  You

25     confirmed, isn't that right, that Serbs did not report their missing dear

Page 27314

 1     ones to you until after the war, and after the war it was only a number

 2     of cases; is that correct?

 3        A.   I did not confirm that.  Some Serbian families did report their

 4     missing relatives to the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners

 5     of War, later the War Commission, but I agree with you that the majority

 6     of Serbs would report their missing ones during the war to colleagues in

 7     the Central Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War and

 8     Prisoners.  According to information that I have through my work in

 9     earlier commissions and today in my work in the Institute for Missing

10     Persons, this number, and I'm going to be precise, the precise number of

11     missing persons of Serb ethnicity in the area of ten municipalities

12     including --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the

14     municipalities.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that number is between 350 and

16     380.  This is not the total number of victims of Serb ethnicity in

17     Sarajevo.  This number is significantly greater.  For the most part,

18     shelling is responsible and sniper fire of the town of Sarajevo for their

19     deaths, but there were cases when Serbs were killed in the city of

20     Sarajevo and they were not the victims of shelling or sniper fire.

21             A known case of that is the Ristovic family.  Six members of that

22     family were killed in Sarajevo.  Their names are not on the list of the

23     missing, because their bodies were handed over to their family and buried

24     in the Lav cemetery.  But we can say that the number of killed Serbs in

25     Sarajevo is larger than 350 to 380, which is the figure of those reported

Page 27315

 1     as missing.  The number perhaps according to some NGO estimates can be

 2     450 of those who were killed and for whose death are responsible people

 3     who lived in Sarajevo, including members of some military formations.

 4     You know that there were trials organised to some of them who were

 5     accessible and who were responsible for the death of the family Ristovic.

 6        Q.   Thank you very much.  If we had time it would have been very good

 7     for us to hear what you have to say, but can we look at the next page,

 8     please.  What I am showing to you, Mr. Masovic, is an outdated list of

 9     Serb persons who went missing or were killed only in the part of Sarajevo

10     that was under the control of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Army -- or,

11     rather, the Muslims, and that list states that there were over 3.200 of

12     such persons.  The latest lists with the first and last name, the place,

13     and the most precise data amount to 5.500 Serbs killed in Sarajevo under

14     Muslim control.  Do you have these people on your lists that we see here?

15             We have 180 pages like this one.  And you can ask for them to

16     scroll through these pages for you.

17             Number 2, taken to the restaurant Amerikanac in July 1992 where

18     the command of some paramilitary formation was located.  Third, missing

19     in Sarajevo on the 1st of July 1992.  Fourth, taken from her apartment at

20     Civljane.  First and last name, name of father, date of birth, year of

21     birth.  There was an old lady who was born in 1905 who was taken from her

22     apartment.  She's on this list.

23             What would you say, Mr. Masovic, when we prove here that more

24     than 5.500 Serbs were killed in that small part of the town which was

25     under Muslim control?

Page 27316

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the second page, the

 2     third page, so that the witness can look at that.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, Dr. Karadzic, allow the witness to respond

 4     before moving on to anything else.

 5             First of all, Mr. Masovic, have you ever seen this document or

 6     have any knowledge of the contents of this document?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am seeing this document today for

 8     the first time.  I have no knowledge of the document.  I cannot see who

 9     drafted it.  If I were to embark on any kind of analysis, I do know a lot

10     of things, we could go through the entire document, and I could give my

11     comments possibly, but I don't really see any need for that because I am

12     seeing it for the first time.  The names that I'm reading, that we're

13     scrolling through right now, do not mean anything to me.

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, Dr. Karadzic, there you have it.  There's

15     no point in going through this document with this witness, certainly not

16     to this juncture.  It would be better if you brought it into effect

17     through a bar table motion in due course.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Masovic, you talked about the exchange of civilians and that

21     only later you agreed to civilian exchanges.  So you are saying that the

22     Serbs were offering you Muslim civilians in exchange for Serb civilians;

23     is that correct?

24        A.   Well, we must differentiate between two groups of civilians,

25     civilians who were not in prisons and civilians who were in prisons.

Page 27317

 1     When we're speaking generally about civilians, there are two such groups.

 2     One group is of those who are in prison and the others who are not.  My

 3     report dealt with both of these groups, and there was an attempt for

 4     people who were not in prisons to be included in the process of

 5     population exchange or, to put it more correctly, the ethnic cleansing of

 6     territories.

 7        Q.   All right.  Let's narrow it down a little bit.  Is it true that

 8     on the Bratstvo i Jedinstvo bridge there were exchanges not only of

 9     prisoners of war but also exchanges of people who were on the lists

10     drafted by their relatives on the other side, that they would cross the

11     line of separation for this exchange in Sarajevo, for example.

12        A.   Well, if this did take place, this was outside of the mandate of

13     the State Commission and it did not participate in that, if these things

14     did happen.

15        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, this is absolutely your last

17     question, because regardless of anything else, we would have to rise for

18     staff purposes.  So last question to allow for some two minutes of

19     re-examination.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I would really --

21     perhaps we're going to have to recall this witness.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   But let me ask you this:  Would the Serbs have been angry had you

24     released 3.000 Serbs from Sarajevo, which is what Bulajic requested,

25     without them in turn releasing Muslims?  Would you have agreed to a

Page 27318

 1     release of the Serbs without them in turn releasing Muslims?

 2        A.   You saw from my report that I absolutely refused even any thought

 3     of discussing ethnic cleansing with Mr. Bulajic.

 4        Q.   Well, you're talking about exchanges.  I'm talking about the

 5     request to release people.  Bulajic gave you a request -- a list of

 6     3.000 people that he wanted released from Sarajevo.  Would you have let

 7     these people go without that being part of an exchange?

 8        A.   Well, this is a very hypothetical question.  How could I know who

 9     would think what?  I did not want to take part in such dishonourable

10     actions.  I did not wish to participate in any action taking people from

11     their houses and apartments for the purposes of relocation regardless of

12     whether they wanted that or not.  I really don't know what those people

13     thought.  I recognise one first and last name on that list of names of

14     3.000.  Actually it wasn't me.  It was my colleague Slavko Asceric,

15     lawyer, who was at the time the head of the exchange commission and

16     deputy police minister of Republika Srpska.  When he saw his name and the

17     name of his wife as persons who were being sought by the other side, by

18     Serbs who were asking for him to be allowed to leave Sarajevo, he

19     laughed.  He pointed out his name and the name of his wife, and then

20     after that I gave the list to Mr. Bulajic and I spoke those words:

21     Colleague Bulajic, I do not need a telephone directory of the Serbs in

22     Sarajevo.

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, I'm afraid we have run out --

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he didn't answer my question.

25             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, I think he did in his own way and we must

Page 27319

 1     leave it at that.

 2             Ms. Sutherland.

 3                           Re-examination by Ms. Sutherland:

 4        Q.   Mr. Masovic, just in the last couple of answers that you gave to

 5     Mr. Karadzic and you talked about, you know, this was referred to "in my

 6     report" about the exchanging of civilians and the reference to -- that

 7     you made about ethnic cleansing, you were in fact referring to your

 8     amalgamated witness statement, were you not?  When you were talking about

 9     in your report, you actually meant your amalgamated witness statement

10     where you discuss in some detail about the exchanging and the pressure

11     you were put under by the Bosnian Serbs to exchange civilians; is that

12     right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Earlier on today Mr. Karadzic, this is at page 75 --

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  We have maximum of two minutes before the tape

16     runs out.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

18        Q.   He said that he unilaterally released about 4.000 individuals

19     from Manjaca so that they could be taken to other countries and then you

20     said that you were surprised by that because you -- you know that a

21     number went to Manjaca, and that then, in fact, on page 76 he said

22     that -- you said that you thought that the ICRC even launched a protest

23     with the Serbian authorities if you remember correctly.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have 65 ter number 13031 on the screen,

25     please.

Page 27320

 1        Q.   Mr. Masovic, this is 11031.  I don't think it's the correct

 2     document and I'm sorry if I misspoke.  It's a communication to the press

 3     number 92 of 36, dated the 16th of December, 1992, from ICRC, and you see

 4     in the second paragraph it there says it's been suggested -- talking

 5     about the release of the prisoners from Manjaca and then the ICRC has

 6     actually requested information about 529 detainees transferred from

 7     Manjaca camp without its delegates' knowledge and whose whereabouts

 8     remain unknown.  Is that what you were referring to in your answer?

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  The witness is nodding, for the transcript.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes.  That is the public ICRC

11     protest, because of the concealment of 529 -- I did say 500 detainees.

12     It's not a protest, it's a request.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour, and if I can just refer

14     Your Honours, as I don't have time to take the witness to the document,

15     to Exhibit P03727 which is an official note filed at the Batkovic camp

16     receiving 532 prisoners from Manjaca camp on the --

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, the witness couldn't speak to that

18     document anyway --

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  -- 13th of December.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  -- unless he was aware of it.

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE MORRISON:  We have now really run --

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No further questions.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  -- completely out of time.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And I tender that document I just showed the

Page 27321

 1     witness.

 2             JUDGE MORRISON:  So be it.

 3             Mr. Masovic, thank you very much for attending the Tribunal.

 4     Your evidence is now concluded.  Have a safe journey back home.

 5             We will all rise together, and we'll meet again tomorrow morning

 6     at 8.00.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honour.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.28 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day

10                           of April, 2012, at 8.00 a.m.