1 Tuesday, 10 July 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 1.04 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we continue with the examination of the witness,
12 Mr. Lukic, when I -- apparently there may be a problem with the audio for
13 Mr. Mladic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot hear it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is it okay now, Mr. Mladic?
16 It's okay now? Thank you, Mr. Mladic.
17 Mr. Lukic, yesterday when I said that it was not always clear to
18 the Chamber what was in dispute and what the line of the
19 cross-examination was, you more or less offered to briefly explain when I
20 said that it should not be done in the presence of the witness. If you
21 think it would assist the Chamber to briefly explain, I'm thinking in
22 terms of not more than one, two, or two and a half minutes, then I
23 certainly would give you an opportunity to do so. So I leave it to you.
24 If you think it would help, please proceed; if not, we'll ask the witness
25 to be escorted into the courtroom.
1 MR. LUKIC: What our goal through this cross-examination is, is
2 actually that we try to show that since there are -- is no bodies, there
3 is no evidence, that these murders didn't happen, that this witness
4 wasn't at the spot at the time, and that if anything happened could only
5 happen by locals, civilians, and so on. That's the line of --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: -- questions we are heading to.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so there's a -- the position of the Defence is
9 that the number of people as found in the annex to the indictment were
10 not killed there?
11 MR. LUKIC: Since we got this list yesterday --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. LUKIC: -- we'll have to elaborate a bit on it because we --
14 as much as we were able to investigate since yesterday, I will show him
15 three death certificates from the list, actually from the people he
16 listed yesterday --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
18 MR. LUKIC: -- in the statement.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear now what the line of the Defence is in
20 this respect and this might better enable the Chamber to understand your
21 line of cross-examination.
22 MR. LUKIC: One more thing --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: -- if I may. Regarding the time --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I just wanted to address that, as a matter of
2 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: What I want to address is the following: The
4 Prosecution asked for two hours; they used effectively two hours and
5 14 minutes. You indicated in the beginning that you'd like to use
6 60 per cent, which would be 80 minutes. You used a little bit over
7 40 minutes to that. But until now - but that might change today - the
8 Chamber, in view of the questions you've put to the witness, we've
9 thought that 80 minutes would be a reasonable time. If you, however,
10 have done additional research for those persons which I then may take it
11 were not mentioned in any earlier statements? Does this come as a new
12 element? The Chamber of course doesn't read all statements if it's -- if
13 the witness is presented viva voce. But if the names of victims are
14 entirely new, then of course that may change the situation.
15 Ms. Bibles.
16 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, some of the names may have been new. I
17 believe there are a couple of them and I'd have to go back and
18 double-check --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
20 MS. BIBLES: -- that were mentioned in previous testimony and
22 JUDGE ORIE: Some of them appeared in earlier statements. That's
23 what you say, Mr. Lukic. You would agree with that, that some do and
24 some do not appear in previous statements?
25 MR. LUKIC: What I can recall right now is that he did mention
1 those names but as persons who left Vecici but not as killed persons.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the question yesterday whether it was
3 in the tunnel or after the tunnel that he had seen them last, that was
4 what the question was about. Thank you for your explanation.
5 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, the Chamber has considered whether we
8 would hear your response to the four urgent motions immediately at the
9 start of today's hearing or after we will have heard the evidence of
10 Mr. Pasic. The Chamber preferred to see whether we could first conclude
11 the testimony of Mr. Pasic and then hear your submissions.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.
15 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you're still bound
17 by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your
18 testimony, that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
19 but the truth.
20 WITNESS: ELVEDIN PASIC [Resumed]
21 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Lukic will now continue his
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
2 Q. [Interpretation] Once again, good day, Mr. Pasic.
3 A. [Interpretation] Good day. [In English] Good day.
4 Q. Now you were leaving Garici and going to Bilice. Your brother is
5 already in Bilice; is that right?
6 A. I'm sorry, I can't hear in my --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes. Channel 4. English or would you like to
8 hear the questions in B/C/S?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then channel 6.
11 MR. LUKIC: No, no, he'll follow in English, it's easier.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you put your next question --
14 MR. LUKIC: Sure.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- then we'll see whether the witness is at ease
16 with what he hears.
17 MR. LUKIC:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Pasic, now you were leaving Garici and going
19 to Bilice. Your brother at that moment when you arrive in Bilice is
20 already there; right?
21 A. That is correct, sir.
22 Q. And he said that Bilice would not hold out for long. How many
23 people took part in the fighting in Bilice? I don't know what the right
24 pronunciation is, Bilica or Bilice?
25 A. I have no idea how many soldiers were there.
1 Q. All right. Do you know how many wounded or dead there were in
2 the fighting?
3 A. No.
4 Q. All right. You've been telling us about all this time I went
5 from this place to that place, so you were moving about freely, weren't
7 A. You can say yes, but we were actually travelling most of the time
8 and most of our travel we would go at night to avoid any -- to avoid any
9 contact with the Serbs or ...
10 Q. Did you cross any lines of fire? You say that you went to
11 Bilice, that you went to Vecici. How did you manage to do that if there
12 is fighting underway?
13 A. When we went from Garici to Vecici, that was arranged by the
14 truce signed five days between people from Vecici and the Serbs. So we
15 were allowed to walk with no ...
16 Q. All right. Do you know about these people in Vecici, who they
17 belonged to from a military point of view?
18 A. The people in Vecici, I would assume they were local ones trying
19 to defend themselves from the Serbs.
20 Q. Do you know that they belonged to the Territorial Defence of
21 Kotor Varos --
22 A. I don't remember if they -- if there was an army or any --
24 Q. You don't remember. All right.
25 After this you went to Garici yet again. You say that some
1 people stayed in Bilice. These people in Bilice, they surrendered to the
2 Serb forces and they safely went to Travnik; is that right?
3 A. That is correct. After my brother informed us that he learned
4 that they're going to surrender, my mom was afraid that they heard from
5 previous convoys and people leaving Kotor Varos that they were taking
6 kids and the males away from the mother. And that's when he offered us
7 to go back to Garici. But we would find out later that most of them who
8 were at Bilice and surrendered did indeed survive. A lot of males were
9 actually stripped-down at Brdo Vlasici and they were beaten, but most of
10 them -- I think everyone did survive.
11 Q. Thank you. You were asked about whether you knew about the
12 ultimatum, or rather, whether an ultimatum had ever been issued. Do you
13 know that the Red Cross, the International Red Cross, also came to Vecici
14 during the cease-fire? Were you there? Did you see these people from
15 the Red Cross? Did you see them coming there?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. You didn't see them?
18 A. No, I didn't see anybody from Red Cross during my time in Vecici.
19 Q. You did not attend meetings of military leaders from Vecici with
20 the people who came to negotiate; right?
21 A. Absolutely not. I was just with my father. I missed him so much
22 for the time that we got separated, so no.
23 Q. So we may conclude that even if there had been some negotiations
24 or preconditions or ultimatums, you wouldn't have known about any of
1 A. As I mentioned before, I know the one that we were -- when we
2 were in the Garici, according to my cousin Akif Pasic, when he told us
3 that they did indeed sign the truce with the Serbs, that's the one that I
4 know because we were sitting in the same room. As far as the other ones
5 during my time in Vecici, I have no idea.
6 Q. Would you agree with me that in Vecici there were about 1.000
7 armed men?
8 A. I don't know. I have no idea.
9 Q. People who left Vecici with you were armed; right? They did not
10 leave their weapons behind in Vecici, they did not set out unarmed?
11 A. When we left Vecici, I would say that their -- the long group
12 that I joined also had a lot of people that were just walking, male.
13 I've seen some weapons, yes, but not all the group had weapons.
14 Q. Do you know that the fighting in Vecici and around Vecici took
15 place from May until November 1992?
16 A. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I experienced most of them by
17 going from place to place, and especially when we were in Cirkino Brdo I
18 was a witness of air-strikes at Vecici; I've seen that. When we were in
19 Garici, we've seen a fight between Vecici and the Serb forces, yes. And
20 during my time in Bilice, that part of Bilice was also -- had a fight
21 with the Serbs on the Kotor Varos line. Yes, I'm aware of that.
22 Q. Thank you. Do you know who supplied weapons and uniforms to the
23 people in Vecici? You say that your brother worked on supplies?
24 A. I did not say that my brother was -- I said that my brother's
25 job, task, was to take the food and the water to the line, front line.
1 As far as who supplied, as we all know, Vecici and Kotor Varos was
2 surrounded by Serbs, so I don't think we -- I don't know, as a matter of
3 fact, that they had any weapons or supplies going in and out of Vecici.
4 I just know that my brother, his task, he was young and he was just
5 supplying that and people in the front line with the water and the food.
6 Q. All right. Thank you. Did you hear about the number of
7 casualties there, how many people were killed or injured by the shelling?
8 You spent two days in Vecici before you left; right?
9 A. That is correct, sir. I know I learned from the people when I
10 was in school Grabovica that -- when one of the guards asked us that they
11 found out that air-strikes was on Vecici, how many people -- they wanted
12 to know how many people died from air-strikes and the people who lived at
13 that time in Vecici says that approximately hundred people died. I don't
14 have -- during my time in Vecici, I know that there was a truce and
15 except that second night the shelling started, I don't know how many
16 people indeed died. But as far as the total from the time, I have no
18 Q. Can we conclude that people from Vecici decided not to surrender
19 to the Serb forces; rather, to fight their way out of the encirclement;
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could we split up composite questions.
22 Not to surrender is one and to fight is another. Could you please split
24 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.
25 Q. [Interpretation] As His Honour, Judge Orie, said, I am going to
1 put two questions to you now. Were the people in Vecici surrounded by
2 the Serb forces?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did they decide to fight their way out of this encirclement
5 instead of surrender?
6 A. The civilians decided to surrender. Males, including a lot -- I
7 would say 500 to 700, approximately, the line decided to go to the safe
8 passage, to Travnik, because we were afraid that they were -- be detained
9 and taken in Banja Luka and Skender Vakuf, yes.
10 Q. Very well. Thank you. So the people who were not civilians and
11 you four boys were with them and three women, the remaining 500 to 700
12 persons started their breakthrough?
13 A. I said ten women, five to six boys, yes, and all -- most of the
14 men did indeed -- we started walking towards the safe passage, yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm sorry, can we change it to
17 English, please. I'm getting --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
19 Mr. Lukic, meanwhile I observed that through the back door you
20 did the same, that is to combine -- you put formally two questions but
21 the second question was exactly the same composite question as the first
22 one. That is, you give the witness: Either surrender or fight your way
23 out. There are other options like trying to escape unseen. I mean,
24 could you please refrain from this kind of implicit suggestions which may
25 not be noticed by the witness. And could you also consider that if I
1 make such comment, that not through the back door you do exactly the same
2 as I invited you not to do.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. When you told us about your journey, you were ambushed. You had
7 two casualties. Then you split up. Then you met up with this other
8 group. Yet then again you're surrounded. How many people were killed
9 then when you were surrounded the second time?
10 A. I am so sorry, sir, can you repeat the question. I'm getting ...
11 I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, please.
12 Q. [In English] Sure. [Interpretation] How many people lost their
13 lives -- actually, first you were ambushed. Then you said that two
14 persons lost their lives then. Then you split up. Then you met up with
15 this other group, as you had reunited; you get some rest. Yet again, you
16 are surrounded and then you are in cross-fire. You told us of how the
17 bullets reminded you of insects. Do you know how many people lost their
18 lives then?
19 A. As I mentioned on the first ambush, Zec and his two sons, so
20 three; and then on the second ambush, I witnessed Besim, his legs blown
21 away on the mines. Approximately ten people in that -- when we got to
22 that level area on that -- on the hill, there were people down there,
23 approximately ten were injured -- and I don't know, I think we learned
24 later that Besim indeed killed himself because he was asking somebody to
25 finish him. And I don't know, but a total of ten people were in that
1 river from the mines. I don't know what happened on the other side and
2 how many casualties were on the other side.
3 Q. Very well. Thank you. Then ten people came across land-mines
4 and got killed, and you say that out of this group of yours about 200
5 people crossed the river and joined up with you. And then you prayed
6 with the imam on the other side of the river. Where are the others out
7 of the 700? We heard about 25 casualties or so, the ones that you
9 A. I know on side in the tunnel we counted 200, approximately 200,
10 anywhere from 150 to 200. I don't know what happened except when we were
11 praying I remember the other side that people -- I assume they were the
12 people who stood up to Serbs and decided to fight. At one point they
13 were waving at us. I assumed they belonged to the long group. I don't
14 know how many people were there or anything, but I know they were waving
15 at us and I wish that we went that way instead of going to the tunnel and
16 surrendering. Maybe we had a chance to survive then.
17 Q. Thank you. Then you spoke about this group that took you from
18 the tunnel towards Grabovica, and you also talk about a woman soldier.
19 The woman was in uniform; right?
20 A. Yes, that was a Serb, camouflage uniform, a woman. She had a
21 weapon, yes, not with -- in our group. I didn't -- nobody as far as the
22 women had any weapon, but it was on the Serb side when we got out, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. That group that took you to Grabovica, to the school,
24 what did they look like? Did they have different uniforms or the same
25 uniforms? Were they armed, some of them or all of them? What did they
1 wear on their heads? Can you tell us a bit more about that?
2 A. Sure. When we got to the courtyard of -- because when we were
3 walking down we were instructed not to look around or anything, but I
4 remember when we were in the courtyard and we were looking at the soldier
5 across, they were lined up, I noticed they were all in camouflage uniform
6 and I noticed that some of them they had -- the flag on the left -- left
7 arm. I noticed the soldiers had the flag with the stripes. They were
8 all in camouflage uniform. I didn't see the hats except the generals I'm
9 notice -- the general, he had some pins on his shoulder. They were not
10 masked whatsoever. They didn't have anything over their head. They were
11 just -- seemed like more organised army.
12 Q. All right. And then you were addressed by the man who was
13 wearing a hat, the kind of hat miners wear, with a lamp on it. He told
14 you that your men would pay. For what were the men supposed to pay? Did
15 he elaborate?
16 A. All I remember is just he told us that we are going to spend the
17 night in the school, and the next morning we are going to go for Travnik
18 and nothing's going to happen to us but your men will pay for this. I
19 don't know what that means.
20 Q. I'd like to know when you were at the school. Reading various
21 statements, I did not quite understand this. Did your mother go upstairs
22 to see your father?
23 A. My mom was not with me. I don't know where this came from. My
24 mom was left in Vecici and they were all civilians. We joined them when
25 we came with the buses. She was not with me in the school, in the
1 classroom --
2 Q. That's enough. Thank you.
3 But you said in your statement this man told you that the
4 fighters would pay. You didn't say "men" but "fighters." But never
5 mind, we'll move on.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, whenever you refer to a statement, the
7 Chamber would like to know what statement you're referring to, because as
8 I said before this is a viva voce witness.
9 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, Your Honour, I think that we clarified that
10 there were fighters, so we don't have to --
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, but if you refer to a statement we'd like to
12 know what you're referring to. That's the only thing I'm bringing to
13 your attention.
14 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.
17 Q. [Interpretation] The next morning in Grabovica you were at the
18 school. You leave the school and there were civilians waiting there,
19 mainly women and children; correct?
20 A. And some elderly people, that's correct.
21 Q. Women, children, and the elderly. They attack you; right? That
22 is the gauntlet you have to go through, right, the gauntlet of elderly
23 men, women and children?
24 A. That is correct, from the school to the bus, yes, the horrible
25 thing. Physically we were beaten.
1 Q. And a woman wearing black grabbed you and tried to kill you with
2 her knife; right? At that moment you were saved by a soldier who grabbed
3 you away from that woman and threw you onto the bus. Did you say this
4 soldier saved your life?
5 A. Yes, I would say that he saved my life by throwing me in the bus,
6 yes. I don't know if I would live, I have no idea, but he indeed grabbed
7 me and threw me in the bus.
8 Q. Thank you. After that, you don't know what happened later in
9 Grabovica. After you left, after you spent those 15 minutes on the bus
10 you left and you don't know what happened afterwards in Grabovica?
11 A. I don't know what happened, but there's no doubt in my mind - and
12 after I learned that they found the remainings of my uncle - they were
13 all killed, my dad and everyone.
14 Q. All right. I'm just asking. You don't know, you don't have
15 first-hand knowledge what happened there? Speaking of that, yesterday
16 you mentioned Nedzad Menzil.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I call up in e-court
18 65 ter 6661.
19 Q. You have the document in English in front of you; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. LUKIC: We don't need Serbian version since this gentleman is
22 reading English, so if you can only put the English version, yes.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Here, I'll tell you which line -- fifth line
24 from the top below the subheading "statement of reasons." Fifth line
1 [In English] "The applicant -- the applicant, Muharem Menzil
2 submitted an application to this court seeking to establish the death of
3 his son, Nedzad Menzil."
4 And then it says:
5 "'My son was killed by Serbian Chetnik extremists in a place
6 called Duboko, in the municipality of Kotor Varos on 3 November 1992.'"
7 [Interpretation] Do you know that Nedzad Menzil in fact lost his
8 life in a place called Duboko, not in Grabovica?
9 A. I have no idea. I know his father was there and this Nedzad was
10 my age. I don't know if we are talking about the same, but he was shot
11 in the stomach and -- yeah, I don't know anything about this.
12 Q. All right. The next document I'd like to call up --
13 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may, I would like to tender this
14 into evidence.
15 MS. BIBLES: No objection, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6661 will become Exhibit D1,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D1 is admitted into evidence.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 [Interpretation] The next document is 6665, 65 ter.
23 Q. Here Munira Opakic from Hrvacani seeks that her son, Sevad Opakic
24 be declared dead, and in line 3 she says:
25 [In English] "Her son was a member of TO Kotor Varos and that he
1 disappeared on 3 November 1992, together with a large group of
2 people ..."
3 This "people" is a wrong translation since in the original
4 document it says "combatants." So I would like to have this document
5 corrected in this way. People in the booths can check Serbian version if
6 they want and see that it says "saboraca," [Interpretation]
7 "co-fighters," [In English] not people.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- in the next break could specifically
9 this word be verified - apart from that of course a correction of an
10 official translation should be done by CLSS - but to see whether the
11 parties could already agree on whether there may be a mistake in
13 Another option would be to invite the witness to read the
14 relevant portion in B/C/S, Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, can you still read B/C/S? If we were to put the B/C/S
17 version on the screen.
18 A. Yes. Yes, sir.
19 MR. LUKIC: Can we have B/C/S version on the e-court. Yeah.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Now, in the middle we see "obrazlozenje,"
21 statement of reasons. Start with line 3, "in her application ..." and
22 read that sentence up to the words "without a trace ..."
23 A. Do you want me to read this or --
24 Q. [In English] Yes, please. From the third line starting with "u
25 svom prijedlogu ...," [Interpretation] "in her application."
1 A. [Interpretation] "In her application, the applicant states that
2 her son was a member of the TO Kotor Varos and that during an attempted
3 breakthrough on the 3rd of November, 1992, in the area of Grabovica
4 together with a large group of co-fighters he was ambushed by the
5 Chetniks and has not been seen since."
6 Q. Thank you. So you say: I saw ten people get killed in the
7 ambush. You didn't see what happened on the other side. Do you allow
8 for the possibility that this man got killed during the ambush, that he
9 found himself in together with his co-fighters?
10 A. [In English] Absolutely not because right before we got to the
11 tunnel he was in the same group because I can hear him, he was right next
12 to me because of his injuries being in Vecici from the shell because he
13 was making a weird noise. And he was there in the tunnel and we all went
14 down to Grabovica. He was there with me. I can see him.
15 Q. You think that Munira Opakic, his mother, gave wrong information
16 to the municipal court in Sanski Most?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you please clarify this matter in
18 an appropriate way. The mother apparently was not present, was she, so
19 the first question - and that is of course true for this document and for
20 the other document as well - is what the source of knowledge is. And
21 then to ask whether someone is not telling the truth would require at
22 least to pay attention to whether that person had received information
23 from others or whether she personally observed what had happened, because
24 telling the truth depends on what your knowledge is when you give a
25 statement. Would you please clarify all that instead of implicit
1 suggesting that this person would have personally observed what happened
2 and by giving this statement was telling the truth what she observed.
3 MR. LUKIC: I didn't say, Your Honour, that she didn't tell the
4 truth, but she gave the wrong information to the court.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but there's a suggestion in it, isn't it?
6 What's the wrong information; what's the right information? The
7 information she gave is the information she may have had from whatever
8 source. And then to ask this witness -- that doesn't make sense, does
10 MR. LUKIC: For me it does.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed --
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- and keep in mind my observations.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. All right. I'll finish with the looting at Vlasic. You say at a
16 distance of 15 metres there were four groups of those men who were
17 jumping out and coming in. Did you get off the bus or did the men at
18 Vlasic get on to the bus, the men who robbed you; can you remember?
19 A. I remember clearly. When we were parked, all the buses were
20 parked and they were letting a few buses at a time, the civilians, to go
21 to this path and I can see clearly. They wouldn't let us at the same
22 time. They would let two or three buses and then they would stop. We
23 would go -- we were at the last bus that joined the group, so we never
24 came back to the bus again. We were just told to go, walk slowly, and as
25 we were walking, these people -- the soldiers were jumping and they had
1 their faces covered and they were asking for gold, money, every so many
2 metres down I think three or four times we were -- different groups
3 would -- until we finally reached the Bosnian side we were jumped by
4 these people and asked for the money and the valuables.
5 Q. How far was one group of them from another? What distance did
6 you go from one group of them to the other?
7 A. I don't remember approximately, but I know I just -- as soon as
8 I -- we got stripped down, I was running trying to catch my mom because
9 she was in front of me. I was passing people that actually were released
10 before me so I was just trying to get to my mom. I don't know the
11 distance I have --
12 Q. I'll put it differently. Could one group see the other? Were
13 they close together?
14 A. Yes. We were able to catch up to the other group to -- some
15 people were not able to walk, the civilians. I don't know as far as the
16 soldiers, I don't know how far they were apart.
17 Q. [In English] Sorry. [Interpretation] Those who were robbing you,
18 were they able to see one another? Was one group of them able to see the
19 other group?
20 A. I don't know. I was so scared. I have no idea if they were able
21 to see each other. I don't know. My goal was to find my mom. That's
22 what I was ...
23 Q. You say the first time everything was taken from you, not a
24 needle was left on you, and that happened by the tunnel. Then the first
25 group takes everything. Then you go on. Then you are robbed again by
1 the next group at Vlasic, although you had been robbed twice already.
2 That's what I can't understand. What was the fourth group in a row at
3 Vlasic able to steal from you? Were you able to hide something the
4 first, second, and third time from those people who were robbing you?
5 A. We need to state here that we joined the buses, the civilians,
6 from Vecici. Our bus, we didn't have anything. We were stripped down in
7 Grabovica. So I know these people jumped in front of us. They were
8 constantly asking for money. And as a matter of fact, I remember one had
9 a knife and asked me, Do you have money? And I said, No, I don't have
10 anything. I remember that soldier. And every group who stopped the
11 people and they were separating people and going through their
12 belongings. That's why I say there was a period when I was literally
13 walking on top of the clothes and these belongings because they were
14 opening everything and looking for the money and belongings. And every
15 group was doing the same thing. We -- I didn't have anything and I don't
16 know if the people -- the rest of the buses had something that they were
17 interested in, but obviously the purpose was trying to get as much as
18 they were able to get. I didn't have anything. I was not able to give
19 anything anyway.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I would just like to tender -- to
22 tender this 665 -- 6665 into evidence. I'm a bit late.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, no problem.
24 Ms. Bibles.
25 MS. BIBLES: No objection, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Madam Registrar, the document would
2 be ...?
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6665 would become Exhibit D2,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D2 is admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Pasic, thank you for answering my questions. That's all I
9 had for you today.
10 A. Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bibles, any need to re-examine the witness?
13 MS. BIBLES: Just a few questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Re-examination by Ms. Bibles:
17 Q. First, Mr. Pasic, I would like to ask just a couple of follow-up
18 questions that arose with respect to questions that arose on
19 cross-examination yesterday.
20 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, this was at page 605, lines roughly 4
21 through 8.
22 Q. You were asked about the difference in the status of villages
23 that -- of people from Muslim villages based upon whether the village was
24 resisting or fighting versus those who were not. Do you recall those
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know whether the village of Dabovci signed a loyalty oath?
3 A. Absolutely, because I'll tell you -- because I had to -- at one
4 point when we were in Garici, I decided to go with my mom because we knew
5 about our sister. We went to -- and see her. We travelled from Garici
6 to Dabovci to see her. And at that moment they were -- we were glad to
7 see her because we were worrying about each other. And they had
8 signed -- indeed they signed the loyalty to the Serbs, that Dabovci did,
9 as well as Cirkino Brdo, Hanifici, Garici, Vakufci.
10 Q. And with respect to the people from Dabovci, do you know whether
11 they were safe and lived throughout the war?
12 A. Absolutely not. They were -- after they signed the truce or the
13 loyalty to the Serbs, we learned horrible thing happened. My sister, her
14 husband, a lot of men from Dabovci, all the men --
15 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, Your Honour, but I have to object at this
16 point. This is something that goes beyond the direct examination. It
17 doesn't come from my cross.
18 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bibles.
20 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, yesterday - and I believe at the
21 lines -- page and lines that I referred to - the witness was asked with
22 respect to whether his village was treated differently because they did
23 not sign a loyalty oath and there were questions about the safety of
24 various villages that did sign a loyalty oath. I believe this is
25 appropriate cross-examination -- or, excuse me, re-direct from the
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
4 Please proceed.
5 THE WITNESS: We've -- when we were in Garici, we've noticed that
6 Dabovci, the houses were on fire and then people were taken from Dabovci,
7 some to Vrbanjci and well-known place Kozara. And when we got to Vecici,
8 also we learned from talking to Lihovic Elvir who is the only one who
9 survived, and we heard the stories but we wanted to hear -- and I was in
10 the room with my mom when she asked him, How did he survive? What
11 happened there? And he says that the soldiers when they came in, in the
12 village, they were mad and ordered all the men to get out and grouped
13 them all together and put them in a barn, including his cousin, a close
14 friend across. They were all put in this barn and the Serb soldiers
15 fired the weapons and his friend grabbed them, went over hand and after
16 they were down, the bullets didn't go through him. They burned, they
17 threw some hand-grenades in there. He broke through the window and
18 escaped across to the river. And rest of the civilians were taken,
19 including my sister. He says that if it wasn't up to his friend that --
20 he is the only one who survived from there, because he saved them, he
21 held them close and the bullets didn't go through him and the
22 hand-grenade and the fire. He managed to break the window and crawl out
23 this barn and cross the river, and he's the only one who survived and
24 then he ended up with us at Grabovica.
25 MS. BIBLES:
1 Q. When is the last time that you saw him?
2 A. I saw him in the tunnel and going down this field, he was close
3 to us because we tried to stay together. He was down there with us.
4 Q. Finally, when you were in the classroom at the school in
5 Grabovica, you saw the military trucks and the men and the lights, were
6 any of those men fighting or resisting?
7 A. Absolutely not. Their hands were tied behind their back. I
8 remember clearly seeing that night. It was raining hard. Their hands
9 were tied behind their back and they were brought on the second floor.
10 They did not fight. They were tied, their hands were tied. They didn't
11 have no weapons, nothing. They were just walking with their heads down.
12 Q. And have you or, to the best of your knowledge, anyone else found
13 your father's remains?
14 A. If I may, Your Honour, since I'm re-living and going back to
15 this, I had a dream about my dad last night. For the first time I was
16 able to see his face. I'm glad because most of the dreams, nightmares
17 that I have from personal experience, I was always trying to reach him.
18 I saw his face last night. I find out, I don't remember, I think it was
19 in 2007 I don't -- I'm not sure that the remaining of my uncle they found
20 part of his finger in Plitska. I miss my dad even more so now with being
21 a father and having my own kids. Everything I do with them brings the
22 memories back. And I urge people that listen to this and watch this, if
23 they have any information please come forward and let us find -- let me
24 find my dad, please. I'd like to find my dad and my cousins. Come
25 forward, please. I miss my dad.
1 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, the Prosecution has no further
3 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions from the Prosecution.
4 Mr. Lukic, has the re-examination of the witness triggered any
5 questions in rejoinder?
6 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Pasic --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, Judge Moloto will have a question for
12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one question, Mr. Pasic. Have you since been
15 able to re-unite with your mom?
16 A. Yes, Your Honour. When we got to Travnik we were reunited, and
17 she's in the States with me. She lives with my sister now and my
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
20 A. You're welcome.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, since there are no further questions from
23 the Bench and from the parties, if you would please stay with me for one
25 Mr. Lukic, when the witness was not present you announced that
1 you would produce three death certificates. Now, apart from whether the
2 documents you presented are death certificates or should be named in a
3 different way, but did we miss a third one or ...?
4 MR. LUKIC: I saw that my time was running out so I -- the third
5 one is the same as the other ones.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's the same, it's also reporting someone.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any problem in having that in evidence because --
11 MS. BIBLES: No, Your Honour. I believe that 65 ter 6664 --
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to -- Mr. Lukic, if you wish to tender
13 that from the bar table, the Chamber would not oppose that.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, if you don't mind, it's 6664 --
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you give the number then ...
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And it's a similar document, you say?
18 MR. LUKIC: Just the different name.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
20 Madam Registrar, you have the 65 ter number or the doc ID.
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 6664 becomes Exhibit D3, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D3 is admitted into evidence.
23 Mr. Pasic, since there are no further questions for you, I would
24 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague a long way and for
25 having answered questions to some extent about moments in a period in
1 your life which may have been difficult for you. We appreciate that you
2 came and we wish you a safe return home.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we give the Prosecution an opportunity to
7 call its next witness, I would like to deal with a few procedural
8 matters, the first one being that the Chamber would like to give an oral
9 decision. It is a decision on the Prosecution's submission on amendment
10 to its witness list in light of the Trial Chamber's decision on
11 adjudicated facts.
12 On the 2nd of May, 2012, the Chamber issued its fourth decision
13 on adjudicated facts concerning the rebuttal evidence procedure. In that
14 decision, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to file a notification
15 within one week, indicating the number of hours which will not be used
16 and the number and identities of witnesses who will not be called in
17 light of the Chamber's decision on adjudicated facts.
18 The Chamber purposefully chose a one-week dead-line in light of
19 the fact that the instruction at issue had originally been issued in the
20 Chamber's first decision on adjudicated facts, which was filed on the
21 28th of February of this year. On the 13th of March, 2012, the
22 Prosecution had requested that the original dead-line for this
23 notification be postponed until after the Chamber's fourth decision was
24 issued. On the 29th of March of this same year at a Status Conference,
25 the Chamber granted the Prosecution request. However, the Chamber also
1 made clear that the dead-line would be no more than one week from the
2 filing of the fourth decision and further stressed, and I quote, "that
3 the Prosecution should already be preparing now instead of beginning to
4 work on this after the filing of the decision." I refer the parties in
5 this respect to transcript page 268.
6 As previously stated, the fourth decision was filed on the
7 2nd of May, 2012. On the 9th of May, the Prosecution filed its
8 submission in which it argues that it would be premature for it to make
9 any decisions on withdrawal of witnesses until the Defence requests for
10 certification to appeal the Chamber's first, second, and third decisions
11 on adjudicated facts is either denied or the relevant appellate
12 proceedings concluded. Once either of these occurs and the matter of the
13 Chamber's judicial notice of adjudicated facts is finalised, the
14 Prosecution submits that it will need another seven weeks to conduct a
15 review before making amendments to its Rule 65 ter witness list.
16 On the 27th of June, 2012, the Chamber granted certification to
17 appeal its first, second, and third decisions on adjudicated facts. In
18 relation to the Prosecution s submission, the Chamber first clarifies
19 that it did not instruct the Prosecution to amend its Rule 65 ter witness
20 list. The Chamber does not expect witnesses to be removed from the
21 witness list or placed on a "reserve witness list," as proposed by the
22 Prosecution in its submission. For clarity, the Chamber's instruction is
23 for the Prosecution, and I quote, "to file a notification indicating the
24 number of hours which will not be used, and the number and identity of
25 witnesses who will not be called in light of the Chamber taking judicial
1 notice of the proposed facts listed in the first, second, and third
3 The Chamber also takes this opportunity to explain the rationale
4 for this instruction. The purpose was to ensure that the Prosecution, as
5 the party who requested that adjudicated facts be judicially noticed by
6 this Chamber, was actively reviewing and reducing - when
7 appropriate - the evidence it plans to adduce in this case in light of
8 judicial notice having been taken of facts upon which the Prosecution
9 would otherwise have presented evidence.
10 One of the primary rationales of Rule 94 of the Rules is judicial
11 economy, and one of the legal effects of a Chamber judicially noticing
12 facts adjudicated by another Trial Chamber is that it relieves the
13 proposing party of its initial burden of production on those facts. In
14 sum, taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts avoids the duplicative
15 presentation of evidence in relation to those same facts, unless they are
16 put back into question by the other party through the introduction of
17 contradictory evidence.
18 In relation to the fact that the Chamber has granted
19 certification to appeal its decisions on adjudicated facts, the Chamber
20 stresses that it fully expects the Prosecution to not present evidence
21 that overlaps with judicially noticed adjudicated facts during the period
22 before an Appeals Chamber decision is issued. This should be clear from
23 the instruction which I read out yesterday in the amendment and
24 clarification of the guidance on the presentation and tendering of
25 evidence, and I will repeat part of it now. I quote:
1 "For each viva voce witness and for each Rule 92 bis, ter,
2 quater, and Rule 94 bis motion, the Chamber expects the parties to
3 carefully review which portions of the anticipated evidence relate to
4 adjudicated facts and which may, therefore, no longer be necessary and to
5 reduce its evidence accordingly."
6 This is the end of this quote.
7 The Chamber therefore decides that for all witnesses who appear
8 during the interim period before any Appeals Chamber decision is issued,
9 the Prosecution should review on a witness-by-witness basis the evidence
10 it intends to adduce in accordance with the instruction contained in the
11 guidance just mentioned.
12 Once an Appeals Chamber decision is issued, the Prosecution is
13 instructed to file a notification within seven weeks of the decision,
14 indicating for all remaining witnesses listed on its witness list the
15 number of hours which will not be used and the number and identities of
16 witnesses who will not be called in light of the Chamber's decisions on
17 adjudicated facts.
18 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
19 Mr. Groome, the Chamber would like to hear the response by the
20 Prosecution on the four Defence motions which were filed yesterday; that
21 is, request for adjournment, request to postpone the cross-examination of
22 the evidence of Mr. Dannatt, barring one Harland document, and barring 26
23 other Harland documents. These are summarised, the four requests that
24 were made in motions yesterday. You have an opportunity to orally
1 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. Does the Chamber have any
2 preference for the order in which I take each of these motions?
3 JUDGE ORIE: As long as it is clear to us, but perhaps postponing
4 the Dannatt cross to be first, adjournment motion second, barring one
5 document mentioned by Harland third, and barring 26 documents mentioned
6 by Harland fourth would have our preference. But as long as it's clear
7 to us what you are dealing with, we have no problems.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. So I'll deal with the application
9 to adjourn the cross-examination of General Dannatt first. Is that
10 the -- I'm sorry, Your Honour, let me just check the record. Yes, that's
11 the first one you asked me to deal with.
12 He is the Prosecution military expert who is scheduled to testify
13 this week. The Prosecution reiterates that it will not oppose a
14 reasonable Defence request to re-call General Dannatt for further
15 cross-examination, a possibility the Chamber also recognised in
16 paragraph 18 of its 5th of July decision on the presentation of the first
17 segment of the Prosecution case. In this respect we believe the Defence
18 is in error in paragraph 13 of its motion insofar as it suggests that the
19 Chamber has precluded it from re-calling General Dannatt for
20 cross-examination. The Chamber's decision regarding General Dannatt does
21 not address the possibility of re-calling the witness -- I'm sorry, does
22 not address the possibility of re-calling the witness, which the Defence
23 should seek upon identifying sufficient cause -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
24 The Chamber has opened this possibility for the Defence. In our view --
25 our view is that the possibility of re-calling General Dannatt for
1 additional cross-examination, if justified, is sufficient to protect the
2 accused's rights. However, regarding the Defence's ability to prepare to
3 cross-examine General Dannatt at this time, I will respond to the three
4 claims made in this motion as well as in the Defence motion regarding
5 General Dannatt filed on the 2nd of July.
6 The Defence asserts that it has had insufficient time to prepare
7 to cross-examine General Dannatt because, one, it received
8 General Dannatt's curriculum vitae recently, particularly in the Serbian
9 language; two, General Dannatt is now the third witness in the
10 Prosecution case, while he was initially scheduled as the 23rd witness to
11 testify; and three, the Defence received certain materials regarding
12 General Dannatt this past week. These arguments are misleading. First,
13 General Dannatt's curriculum vitae is set out at some length in his
14 current report as well as in his previous report drafted for the Krstic
15 case, to which the Defence has had access since November 2011 in both the
16 original English and the B/C/S translation. The Defence has had more
17 than sufficient opportunity to review his professional background and one
18 member of the current Mladic Defence is the very counsel that
19 cross-examined General Dannatt in the Krstic case, and, as I understand
20 it, will be cross-examining him in this case. Second, as the
21 Trial Chamber noted in its 5th of July decision regarding the scheduling
22 of the first segment, the projected date for General Dannatt's testimony
23 has not changed since the 13th of April. Defence has had clear and
24 consistent notice as to when General Dannatt would be testifying. The
25 only difference is that fewer other witnesses are testifying before he
1 takes the stand.
2 Finally, the Defence did receive certain materials this past
3 week. General Dannatt's report refers to critical materials in the body
4 of the report by their ERN's and/or their 65 ter numbers. It also notes
5 in paragraph 4 that General Dannatt reviewed other materials in the
6 course of preparing his report, materials he did not cite for conclusions
7 drawn in the report.
8 I would note for Your Honours in this regard the decision in the
9 Stanisic and Simatovic case of the 11th of March, 2011, holding that
10 Chambers evaluate the disclosure of materials related to an expert's
11 report on a case-by-case basis and the decision in the Gotovina et al.
12 case of 27 August 2009, holding that there is no obligation for the
13 Defence to disclose to the Prosecution materials and communications
14 pertaining to the preparation or production of an expert report or the
15 expert's testimony.
16 The Defence did not request any of the materials now at issue
17 until approximately two weeks ago, at which time we agreed with the
18 Defence that we would provide them with a copy of the Prosecution binder
19 that we had prepared for our team, which included all of the exhibits
20 cited in his report. Those materials had been disclosed to the Defence
21 in the context of the overall disclosure in this case. We also agreed to
22 provide an index of materials that were provided generally to
23 General Dannatt but which he did not rely upon in his report. The
24 Defence agreed to that proposal and we provided the binder and the index
25 shortly after. The Defence now complains that the index includes
1 non-ERN'd material. That material consists in its entirety of a previous
2 version of the indictment in this trial and three lists of personalities
3 in the VRS. This information is all publicly available and is not at
4 issue in the case.
5 Your Honours, the Prosecution provided materials related to the
6 production of General Dannatt's report to the Defence upon and shortly
7 following the Defence request to facilitate Defence preparations in
8 accord with our own obligation to ensure fairness of the proceedings. We
9 will maintain our commitment not to oppose reasonable requests to re-call
10 General Dannatt for further cross-examination, but in our view is that
11 the Defence has had sufficient time to prepare to begin its
12 cross-examination at the conclusion of General Dannatt's testimony in
13 chief, and it should be called upon to do that at that time.
14 Your Honour, my response to the request for an adjournment based
15 on a change in the guide-lines. The Defence yesterday filed a motion
16 seeking a six-month continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the
17 Trial Chamber's decision, modifying its guidance regarding Rule 92 bis,
18 Rule 92 ter, and Rule 92 quater. In that respect -- I'm sorry,
19 Your Honour. This motion was filed at the 11th hour of trial
20 preparations. It asserts the recent modification in the Chamber's
21 guidance creates significant impediments in Defence preparations and
22 violates the accused's fair trial rights. The Defence has not previously
23 made this argument, even though the Chamber's guide-lines have been under
24 reconsideration for several months since most recently the Prosecution's
25 oral submissions on the 3rd of May, 2012. The Defence has never asserted
1 that the guide-lines impacted their fair trial rights and should be
2 estopped from making such a pretextual argument at this juncture.
3 Moreover, previous Defence filings regarding the guide-lines have
4 not characterised them as absolute rules upon which the Defence was
5 relying in its preparations for trial, as this motion does. Paragraph 4
6 of the Defence 16th of April, 2012, filing regarding the guide-line says,
8 "They are exactly as they are termed, guide-lines."
9 The Chamber has repeated stated that variation is allowed in
10 exceptional circumstances with proper reasoning for such deviation. The
11 Defence cannot now say a simple decision reconsidering the
12 Trial Chamber's strong preferences and not absolute rules violates their
13 rights and justifies such a significant adjournment of these proceedings.
14 Moreover, the Defence does not show a significant impact on its
15 preparations in the motion. Even if the Chamber does not deem this
16 argument waived, the Chamber -- Defence attempts to explain why its
17 preparations have been impeded by the decision in paragraph 9 of the
18 motion, where it raises five arguments.
19 First, the Defence complains that the decision permits the
20 Prosecution to tender multiple witness statements if the second statement
21 is supplementary or on a distinct subject. Second, the Defence
22 criticises the Chamber's decision to adopt a flexible approach to the
23 presentation of exhibits through 92 bis and 92 ter witnesses. Third, the
24 Prosecution's time-limits for Rule 92 ter witnesses have been increased
25 according to the Defence, while the Defence has not been given additional
1 time for cross-examination. Fourth, the Defence challenges the Chamber's
2 decision to permit the use of transcript evidence in certain instances.
3 Finally, the Defence complains that under the decision the
4 Prosecution has the option of introducing documents in re-direct
5 examination. These arguments mis-characterise the Chamber's decision,
6 the guide-lines, and the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The decision is
7 fully consistent with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal.
8 Regarding the Defence's ability to prepare in general, and
9 particularly relevant to the first two Defence assertions, the
10 Prosecution has not altered its Rule 92 ter package for any witness on
11 the basis of this decision. The Defence has known what the Prosecution
12 would seek to tender for each of the witnesses who will testify in the
13 next two witnesses, and in most cases for a month or more. This afforded
14 the Defence ample time to prepare.
15 The Defence also mis-characterises the decisions -- discussion of
16 time for examination of witnesses. The Chamber had already accepted the
17 Prosecution's estimated examination lengths on the 24th of April, 2012,
18 at page 314 of the transcript. While cross-examination time was not
19 clearly at issue in the decision, the Chamber has been clear in, for
20 instance, paragraph 11 of its decision regarding Witness Harland and
21 paragraph 13 regarding Witnesses Kingori, Koster, and Schmitz that time
22 for cross-examination will be evaluated after a witness has given
23 evidence in chief on the basis of that evidence.
24 The Defence argument regarding transcript evidence is also
25 misleading. The decision explains certain circumstances under which
1 transcript evidence may be admissible. As the Defence recognised in its
2 16th of April filing, the guide-lines always permitted deviation such as
3 the admission of transcript evidence.
4 Finally, the Defence asserts that the decision changes the
5 guide-lines by permitting the Prosecution to introduce exhibits during
6 re-examination. This is incorrect. The decision simply recognises that
7 parties may admit exhibits during cross-examination; and if the
8 cross-examining party opens the door to discussion of an exhibit, the
9 party calling the witness may also introduce exhibits during
10 re-examination. The guide-lines had not -- have not spoken to this issue
11 which is basic to an adversarial examination.
12 Your Honour, that completes the Prosecution's response to this
13 motion. Your Honour, I see the time is two minutes before the break.
14 Although my submissions on the other motions are much briefer, I will be
15 led by the Court whether it wishes me to do that before or after the
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do you think that you could conclude it well, let's
19 say, not more than seven to eight minutes?
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the third motion that the Defence filed
23 yesterday was with respect or was seeking the relief of barring the use
24 of 65 ter 04472, a report on Srebrenica authored by the next witness,
25 Mr. Harland.
1 As I indicated yesterday to Mr. Lukic and the Court, it is not my
2 intention to use or tender the exhibit even though Mr. Harland is the
3 author of that report. I also said to Mr. Lukic that I had difficulty
4 imagining a set of circumstances that would necessitate my tendering the
5 document during a re-examination of Mr. Harland. Mr. Lukic informed the
6 Chamber and the Prosecution this morning that he seeks more than that.
7 He seeks either a commitment that it will -- that the Prosecution will
8 never tender the report no matter what happens during this trial; and
9 that if I do not or I am unable to give such an undertaking that the
10 Chamber issue a decision deciding such. Your Honours, this is an
11 application in the abstract. The proper time to bring such a motion is
12 at the time, should it ever come, that the Prosecution seeks the
13 admission of that report. To ask the Prosecution to respond in the
14 abstract or to decide such an issue in the abstract is unnecessary and it
15 is not explicitly authorised by any Rule in the Rules of Procedure and
16 Evidence. I do undertake that should the time ever come that the
17 Prosecution believes this report should be admitted, that the Prosecution
18 will notify the Defence as soon as practicable after that decision is
19 taken so that they may fully and fairly seek appropriate relief from the
20 Chamber at that time and in the context under which the report is
22 And finally, Your Honours, with respect to the motion in limine
23 to bar the use of exhibits with Mr. Harland that are not on the exhibit
24 list. In accordance with the Trial Chamber's instructions, on the
25 6th of July, 2012, the Prosecution filed a corrigendum to its
1 92 ter motion for Mr. Harland. Attached to that was a redacted witness
2 statement as well as a revised set of associated exhibits. The Defence
3 has been on notice that the Prosecution intended to tender the April 2009
4 statement of Mr. Harland, since the original 92 ter motion was filed on
5 the 2nd of April, 2012. In the corrigendum the Prosecution further
6 condensed the number of exhibits that it would seek to tender as
7 associated exhibits, again in keeping both with the Chamber's explicit
8 instruction with respect to this witness and in observation of the
9 Chamber's guide-lines.
10 The Prosecution notes that none of the 26 documents listed in
11 paragraph 5 of the Defence motion form part of the exhibit list that the
12 Prosecution provided to the Defence. Two of the documents are the
13 redacted witness statement and a corrigendum correcting minor
14 typographical errors. Both of those have been in the possession of the
15 Defence since the 11th of November, 2011.
16 I also point out to the Chamber or remind the Chamber that they
17 are not on the exhibit list because of an explicit instruction by the
18 Chamber that was given on the 19th of January, 2012, at transcript
19 page T156.
20 "The Chamber accepts the Prosecution's proposal to not include
21 those former statements it does not intend to tender at trial to its
22 10th of February Rule 65 ter filing. Those future statements formatted
23 in compliance with the guidance which it does intend to tender should be
24 given to the Defence as soon as they are completed."
25 The Prosecution is in full compliance with that guidance. The
1 other two documents, Your Honour, are a map book or what we refer to as a
2 map book with some useful maps and photographs of the Sarajevo area and
3 the second document is simply a photograph, a satellite photograph, of
4 the Greater Sarajevo area with neighbourhoods marked and the
5 confrontation lines marked. If it facilitates matters today, the
6 Prosecution is willing to simply ask foundational questions from
7 Mr. Harland about his examination of those documents, but not seek to
8 tender them today but simply leave them marked as 65 ter numbers until
9 such time as the matter can be fully explored or fully discussed.
10 Those are my submissions, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. The Chamber will consider
12 during the next break how to proceed in relation to these four motions,
13 whether the parties will be given another opportunity to make submissions
14 or whether the Chamber will already decide on the basis of the motion and
15 the response. We'll consider that during the break and then we'll inform
16 you about that.
17 There is one other matter which I'd like to deal with briefly
18 before we have a break, which is a scheduling issue. There has been a
19 slight change in the position of the OTP as far as this Friday's hearing
20 is concerned. Yesterday I think there were no objections against a start
21 at 9.00 in the morning, but meanwhile it seems that for compelling
22 reasons the Prosecution is asking to start on Friday at 11.00 in the
23 morning. Before the Chamber decides on the matter, is -- would this
24 cause any problems to the Defence?
25 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, it wouldn't.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then let me just consult my colleagues.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The hearing on Friday this week will start at 11.00.
4 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you are on your feet.
7 MR. LUKIC: Just 15 seconds.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: I just want to brief you on Mr. Dannatt's motion we
10 filed. We have to update our filing telling you that we are missing
11 still four documents at this moment.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Have you informed the Prosecution --
13 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Have you informed the Prosecution --
15 MR. LUKIC: Have we informed?
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- about which are the missing documents and have
17 you asked them to be provided without delay?
18 MR. LUKIC: It's already delayed so -- - but we have --
19 JUDGE ORIE: That was not my question, Mr. Lukic. Whether you
20 asked, although --
21 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- delayed whether now to provide them without any
23 further delay.
24 MR. LUKIC: We just checked it. Our intern was working in the
25 back and she checked that we are missing four documents.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you thought -- Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I will remain here during the break
3 with Ms. Stewart and we will resolve to assist Mr. Lukic.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see whether once you have given the doc IDs to
5 Mr. Groome whether the matter will be resolved during the break. If not,
6 of course, the Chamber will pay further attention to it after the break.
7 We will have a break and we will resume at five minutes past
9 --- Recess taken at 2.37 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 3.07 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'll first will inform the parties how we will
12 proceed in respect of the four motions which were filed yesterday. I
13 first deal with the Defence motion seeking to adjourn the
14 cross-examination of Richard Dannatt. The Chamber will decide on that
15 motion once the examination-in-chief of Richard Dannatt has been
16 concluded, and the Chamber also then will decide whether it will give an
17 opportunity for the parties for brief oral submissions on that matter.
18 The second one is the Defence motion to adjourn the trial or, in
19 the alternative, to reconsider the amended guidance on the tendering and
20 presentation of evidence. The Chamber will give both parties in a minute
21 from now an opportunity to make further, further oral submissions if they
22 wish to do so on this matter. The Chamber intends to deliver a decision
23 then on the motion either later this week or early next week. The
24 Chamber sees at this moment no reason to suspend the proceedings until
25 that decision has been delivered.
1 Then the third one, the urgent order to bar the Prosecution from
2 using or tendering documents 65 ter 4472. The Chamber has decided that
3 this motion is submitted prematurely and therefore denies, for that
4 reason, this motion without prejudice.
5 The fourth one, the urgent request for the Defence seeking an
6 order barring the Prosecution from using or tendering, if I could call
7 them, unlisted exhibits with Witness Harland. That motion is also
8 considered to be premature, and for that reason the Chamber denies it
9 without prejudice. And if there's any objection against the tendering of
10 any of these documents we'll hear those objections when it comes to that.
11 Which means that, Mr. Lukic, you have an opportunity to briefly respond
12 orally -- to reply orally to the submissions made by the Prosecution
13 before the break in relation to your Defence -- your motion to adjourn
14 the trial. If you would prefer to say, Well, could we do that later this
15 afternoon, then I would give you an opportunity to do it later this
16 afternoon, for example, after the next break if that is what you would
18 MR. LUKIC: I can finish it briefly now, Your Honour, as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you. If you say you can do it now,
20 then please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: This motion actually, if I understood correctly, is
22 basically written because of the possible introduction of new documents
23 in re-direct. No? Is that the motion?
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, there were four motions filed on Monday: To
25 adjourn cross-examination of Richard Dannatt; two, in relation to
1 Witness Harland, the one document where you informed the Chamber this
2 morning that you would not withdraw it despite the fact that the
3 Prosecution said it would not tender it; and the other one about I think
4 it were 26 documents. But I'm now inviting you to make submissions on
5 the one then remaining motion, which is an adjournment of trial.
6 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, since there is confusion on our side,
7 then I will use your offer to do it after the next break.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear from you --
9 MR. LUKIC: Thanks a lot.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- after the break.
11 Then if the Prosecution is ready to call its next witness,
12 Mr. Groome, are you?
13 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution calls
14 Mr. David Harland.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But before we'll then ask the usher to escort the
16 witness into the courtroom, I would like to remind the Prosecution of the
17 test which was set out for associated documents in the guidance; that is,
18 clarity of presentation of evidence, clarity not disturbed, for example,
19 for shorter documents clearly referred to and explained in the statement.
20 Now, I think, if I have followed the various informal
21 submissions, that we have now 15 documents associated remaining to be
22 introduced through this witness?
23 MR. GROOME: Fourteen, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Fourteen. Then at least one of them, that is,
25 10015, that's UN political assessment of the -- of 1994, I think we dealt
1 with that in our guidance and we asked ourselves - the Chamber - loudly
2 asked itself whether there was really a need to introduce that one. If I
3 look at the list - and when I say "I," I mean if the Chamber looked at
4 the list and that's what we did - it looks as if, for example, 10030, an
5 UNPROFOR cable 15th of August, 1994, we fully understand why you would
6 tender that document. Similarly, 28049, Mladic meeting
7 29th of September, 1993; similarly 28058, Harland letter to Akashi of the
8 19th of October, 1994; or 28051, Mladic meeting 12th of January, 1995,
9 for those documents still on the list we understand that under the
10 guidance that you would still seek to tender them. But for many of the
11 others where portions are reproduced in the statement of the witness or
12 even cited, we really asked ourselves whether they would be needed
13 despite the fact that the witness deals with them, parts of them
14 reproduced and cited. So would you please keep that carefully in your
15 mind when examining the witness and when tendering any of those
16 associated documents.
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And if I could suggest this as a
18 way to proceed, that I was going to defer the tendering of the associated
19 exhibits to the very end of my examination. Nine of the exhibits I will
20 be asking a few focused questions about those nine exhibits with the
21 witness, and I am prepared to address the Chamber with respect to the
22 guidance and the particular reasons why the Prosecution would want to
23 tender those 14 exhibits. So I'm prepared to do that. I think it may
24 make more sense to the Chamber if it has the benefit of what Mr. Harland
25 will say about nine of them, but of course I'm prepared to do that at any
1 time that's convenient for the Chamber.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not object in any way to the
4 suggested way of proceeding.
5 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. GROOME: -- while the witness is being escorted, in your
9 3rd of July, 2012, decision, in paragraph 6, you asked for an update with
10 respect to the associated exhibit which we just discussed now and also an
11 update with respect to the adjudicated facts. I am prepared to report on
12 the other one, adjudicated facts, now and propose or advise the Chamber
13 of the way I propose to proceed and see if that's acceptable to the
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you could do it before the witness --
16 MR. GROOME: I think so, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- enters the courtroom, please proceed.
18 MR. GROOME: So the Prosecution has reviewed the Chamber's
19 decisions regarding adjudicated facts and has identified those facts
20 which either overlap with the evidence of Mr. Harland or are closely
21 related to it. In cases in which a fact overlaps with the evidence
22 Mr. Harland can provide, I will not adduce that evidence in reliance on
23 the adjudicated fact and I will indicate that for the Chamber by
24 identifying the particular fact upon which I rely. There are some cases
25 which although a fact does not overlap, it is closely related and it may
1 assist the Chamber for the Prosecution to indicate which fact we believe
2 is closely related to the body of evidence that the witness is
3 discussing. And hopefully that is in accord with the Chamber's
4 expectation of our use of the adjudicated facts.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We heard your explanation. I do not see that
6 Mr. Lukic wants to in any way make any further observations on that, so
7 we leave it at that and we'll find out how you proceed.
8 MR. GROOME: Finally, Your Honour, the Prosecution has for -- has
9 for the Sarajevo component of the case, and will for other components of
10 the case, prepare a book of maps and photographs of locations. Hopefully
11 it will assist the Chamber. I have brought copies for the Court. We
12 have provided them to the Mladic Defence yesterday. Before I ask that
13 they be handed up to the Chamber, it might be appropriate for Mr. Lukic
14 to express whether he has an objection to the Chamber receiving them.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any objection against the Chamber
16 receiving --
17 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- the book of maps?
19 MR. LUKIC: -- of course not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Not. Then ...
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, to use a classical text,
23 Mr. Harland, I presume?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harland, before you give evidence in this
1 courtroom, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a
2 solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you by the issue, and
3 I would like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
4 THE WITNESS: Sure.
5 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
6 and nothing but the truth.
7 WITNESS: DAVID HARLAND
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Harland. Please be seated.
9 Mr. Harland, you'll first be examined by Mr. Groome --
10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution.
12 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Examination by Mr. Groome:
15 Q. Sir, can I ask you to please state your full name for the record?
16 A. David John Harland.
17 Q. And, Mr. Harland, were you ever an employee of the United Nations
18 stationed in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. During what period?
21 A. From the spring of 1993 through to 1999.
22 Q. And was there a particular place in Bosnia that you were based
24 A. The overwhelming bulk of the time was spent in Sarajevo.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Harland, is it true that you have provided evidence to
1 the Office of the Prosecutor and have testified before this Tribunal in
2 other trials, evidence related to your work in Bosnia?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. Have you provided such evidence in part in the form of a written
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 MR. GROOME: Could I ask the court officer to please display
8 65 ter 28315 on our screens. It is a statement of Mr. Harland given on
9 several occasions or several dates and signed on the 4th of - I'm
10 sorry - I think it's the 4th of September, 2009, but I just want to check
11 that. Yes, Your Honour, 4th of September, 2009.
12 Q. Mr. Harland, once the document is on the screen before you, can I
13 ask you to view the first page, in particular the signature at the bottom
14 of the page, and indicate whether you recognise that signature.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, there seems to be a technical problem to
17 get the document on the screen, so if you would have a little bit of
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, while we're working on that technical
20 problem I have brought in an unmarked copy of the exhibit if that would
21 assist us.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. -- let's first try to find out how much time
23 it will take to resolve the problem.
24 MR. GROOME: I do note that we are able to call the document up.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are -- we have it on the screen already.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. So, Mr. Harland, again could you take a look at that first page,
4 and particularly the signature at the bottom of the page.
5 A. No, not on my screen yet.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. No, I mean to get -- the
7 witness doesn't have it on his screen which there may be various
8 explanations for that.
9 Mr. Lukic, any problem if meanwhile a hard copy would be given to
10 the witness?
11 MR. LUKIC: Of course not, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we could try to have it on the screen for the
13 witness but meanwhile a hard copy to be provided.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The technical problems seems not to have really
16 overcome yet, but we can proceed on the basis of a hard copy for the
17 witness and we have it at least on our screen at this moment.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. Mr. Harland, you now have 65 ter 28315 before you. Can I ask you
20 to look at the first page and, again, particularly the signature at the
21 bottom of the page.
22 A. Yeah, that is my signature.
23 Q. Can I ask you to look at the last page where the document is
24 signed, and again can I ask you whether that is your signature.
25 A. Yes, that is my signature.
1 Q. Okay. Now, could I ask that you put that aside.
2 MR. GROOME: I will now ask that the witness view 65 ter 28318, a
3 document signed by Mr. Harland on the 4th of May, 2010, and entitled:
4 "Clarifications and corrections to statement." And, again, the usher has
5 a hard copy of that, if I could ask that that be provided to Mr. Harland.
6 Q. Mr. Harland, on the 4th of May, 2010, did you sign the document
7 that you now hold in your hand?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. And does this make some minor corrections to your statement,
10 which is 28315?
11 A. Yes, it does.
12 Q. If the Chamber were to consider your statement in conjunction
13 with the clarifications and corrections to this statement now before you,
14 will they have an accurate record of your evidence?
15 A. Yes, they will.
16 Q. If I were today to ask you questions similar to those you were
17 asked in the taking of the statement, would you give the same answers in
19 A. Yes, I would.
20 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the
21 truthfulness and accuracy of your statement?
22 A. I do.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'll defer the tendering of it until we
24 resolve the technical problem so that everyone is able to see it, unless
25 it has been resolved now. I see the technician in the courtroom, so
1 apparently not. So...
2 Your Honours, it is the practice of some Trial Chambers for a
3 summary of the witness's written evidence to be read into the record once
4 the foundational requirements of 92 ter have been established. I have
5 prepared such a summary and am prepared to read it now if so directed by
6 the Chamber.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please read it now, Mr. Groome.
9 MR. GROOME: David Harland served as a civil affairs officer and
10 political advisor to the commander of the United Nations
11 Protection Force, or UNPROFOR, in Bosnia and Herzegovina from June 1993
12 until the end of the conflict. He remained in Sarajevo working for the
13 United Nations until 1999. Mr. Harland arrived in Sarajevo approximately
14 one year after the outbreak of hostilities and frequently attended
15 meetings with leaders from all sides of the conflict, including both
16 Karadzic and Mladic. He participated in negotiations concerning, among
17 other things, freedom of movement for civilians and UNPROFOR and
18 restoration of essential services to Sarajevo. He was the principal
19 drafter of political reports and authored many weekly and special
20 reports. The UN Secretary-General also tasked him with writing a report
21 regarding events in Srebrenica during the summer of 1995, a report he
22 filed in 1997.
23 Mr. Harland's evidence in substantial part concerns events in
24 Sarajevo. He provides evidence that a large number of shells were fired
25 into Sarajevo most days, with significant lulls during the 1994
1 cease-fire. Such shelling was dispersed randomly across the densely
2 populated city and had no discernible military purpose. The flow of food
3 and utilities, including water, electricity, and gas, was largely
4 controlled by the Bosnian Serb side and was wholly inadequate and
5 sometimes interrupted by intentional actions of one or both sides.
6 Mr. Harland met Mr. Mladic approximately 20 times between 1993 and 1995.
7 Mr. Harland describes his observations of Mr. Mladic and the observations
8 he made which led him to see Mladic as a commander with complete command
9 and control over his military subordinates.
10 Your Honour, that is the end of the summary. And I do see that
11 the technical problem, I believe, has been overcome and Mr. Harland seems
12 to be indicating that he can see it now before him.
13 Q. So can I just ask, Mr. Harland, at this stage the document that
14 you now see on your screen is the statement that you just looked at in
15 hard copy?
16 A. It is.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this stage I would now tender
18 Mr. Harland's statement as well as his corrections to it. They are
19 65 ter numbers 28315 and 28318.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Groome has tendered the statement of
21 Mr. Harland and a --
22 MR. LUKIC: We don't have any objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- corrigendum to that.
24 Then, Madam Registrar, could you please assign numbers.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28315 will become Exhibit P1,
1 Your Honours, and document 28318 will become Exhibit P2, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P1 and P2 are admitted into evidence.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Mr. Harland, paragraphs 3 to 6 of your statement summarise your
6 professional biography. Given that this information has changed since
7 you signed your statement, can I ask you to summarise briefly for the
8 Chamber your professional activities since that time.
9 A. I am currently the director of a Swiss foundation that promotes
10 mediation and dialogue in the context of armed conflict.
11 Q. And after signing your statement, but before assuming that
12 position, can you describe what positions you had or where you were
14 A. I -- after my -- or, at the time I came here for the Karadzic
15 trial in 2010, I was serving as the acting deputy head of the
16 United Nations mission in Haiti, and prior to that I was director of the
17 Europe and Latin America division of the UN Department of Peacekeeping
18 Operations and then I believe the rest is captured in the document.
19 Q. Mr. Harland, in paragraph 30 of your statement you describe your
20 familiarity with the confrontation line around Sarajevo. Having lived
21 and worked in Sarajevo as long as you did, were you generally familiar
22 with Sarajevo, its neighbourhoods, and its greater environs?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, can I please ask the court officer to
25 bring 65 ter 28319 to our screens. It is a map which is a composite of a
1 satellite image of the Sarajevo area with certain marking overlaying it.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm informed because of the
4 high-resolution of the map, it may take a minute or two, but I do have
5 some submissions that I do want to make regarding it. A version of this
6 map is contained in the map book at page 2. Before I ask the witness any
7 questions about the exhibit, I would note that the Trial Chamber has
8 taken extensive judicial notice of previously adjudicated facts regarding
9 the confrontation lines around Sarajevo. These are facts 1919 to 1922,
10 1948 to 49, 1954 to 59, 1961 to 64, 1966 to 67, 1975, 1986, and 2020 to
11 2021. The Prosecution will not adduce evidence from Mr. Harland about
12 specifics of his knowledge about the confrontation line and relies on
13 this map simply to give the Chamber an overall graphic representation and
14 approximation of those lines.
15 Q. Mr. Harland, in preparation for your testimony here today, did I
16 ask you to review several maps?
17 A. Yes, you did.
18 Q. Is the map that we now see on the screen before us, 28319, one of
19 the maps you were asked to review?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 Q. What is depicted in the map?
22 A. The urban area of Sarajevo and its environs.
23 Q. And according to your knowledge and your work in Sarajevo, what
24 does the red lines represent?
25 A. The red lines represent the forward position of Serb forces at a
1 particular time.
2 Q. And the blue lines?
3 A. Represent the forward positions of the Bosnian army at that time.
4 Q. Now, paragraph 30 of your statement sets out your basis for
5 familiarity. At this scale these lines can only be an approximation. In
6 your view are they an accurate approximation of the confrontation lines
7 around Sarajevo?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The map has the name of a number of locations set out in yellow.
10 My question to you is whether these place names fairly represent the
11 approximate location of these places?
12 A. They do.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, talking about the red and the blue
15 lines, could you please re-read the answers and look at the map again and
16 then consider whether there's any risk of confusion. I see around the
17 urban area first red lines. We haven't heard evidence on that yet, but I
18 do understand from the indictment that it's the Prosecution's case that
19 the Serbs were around Sarajevo and that the Presidency troops were inside
20 Sarajevo. I see first the red lines.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps I haven't been clear --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I'm looking at ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: On the screen there is a map which looks very much
25 like number 2 on the -- page 2 on our binder but apparently is not -- no,
1 the colours are just the opposite from what we find on page 2, isn't it,
2 apart from all the names added to the map.
3 MR. GROOME: That is correct, Your Honour. I do recognise that
4 that could be a source of confusion, and I think probably it's not wise
5 to have the two versions of the map in use. If --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And especially not if you have changed blue by red
7 and red by blue.
8 MR. GROOME: Particularly confusing, Your Honour. The
9 Prosecution will be relying on the map that's on the screen in e-court
10 and I will have the map in the map book corrected and a replacement made
11 as soon as I am able.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- we'll then wait for the final map
13 because the one on the screen is not -- but we'll manage. Please
15 MR. GROOME: I believe I had tendered this exhibit. I don't know
16 if Mr. Lukic -- it seems to be somewhat related to his motion of
17 yesterday. I'm not sure whether he still opposes the map, now having
18 seen it and heard the evidence that I'm leading about it.
19 MR. LUKIC: Can we answer this question after this gentleman
20 finishes his examination because for now we don't know what's -- what is
21 on the map.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
23 MR. GROOME: I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- I can imagine that -- I don't know whether you
25 have a hard copy of it or not. And I do understand that it depicts 1995
1 confrontation lines, suggesting that they were during the whole of that
2 year the same. Mr. Groome, is that how I have to understand? Or perhaps
3 the witness could --
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Mr. Harland, could I ask you to briefly discuss the confrontation
6 lines and how much did they vary over the course of your time in
8 A. They varied rather little over the period that I was there from
9 the spring of 1993 until the end of the war at the of 1995.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
12 THE WITNESS: This was the general shape of them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but for 1995 there were slight differences over
14 the period of time?
15 THE WITNESS: There would be small --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 THE WITNESS: Small differences were made when an offensive by
18 the Bosnian army might take a small amount of territory, but
19 insignificant at this scale.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would also note that in paragraph 30
23 of the statement Mr. Harland refers to another confrontation line map.
24 This is a map created by the Army of the Republika Srpska and is
25 identified as ERN 05059848 in the statement. I note for the Chamber that
1 this is in page 56 and 57 of the map book before you.
2 Your Honours, could I ask that 65 ter 28316 be brought to the
3 screen. This is electronic version of the map book before you. The
4 particular -- and I ask that we go to e-court page 65. This particular
5 page, Your Honours, is a more detailed map of the confrontation lines
6 which will assist the Chamber as we adduce evidence related to Sarajevo.
7 The initial overview map is followed by a series of maps which are in
8 large versions of the first map divided into 16 equally sized sections.
9 They are available in e-court as pages 65 to 81 and are in the map book
10 at pages 58 to 74 -- yes, 58 to 74.
11 Q. Mr. Harland, in preparation for your testimony, did I ask you to
12 look at this series of maps consisting of an overview map and a series of
13 16 enlargements of that map?
14 A. You did.
15 Q. Prior to coming to court, did I show you this series of maps on
16 the e-court system?
17 A. You did.
18 Q. And did you, in fact, review these maps?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Did I ask you to pay particular attention to the lines drawn on
21 the map and ask that if you were able to verify that these accurately
22 represented the confrontation lines around Sarajevo?
23 A. You did.
24 Q. Did you study these lines; and if so, do they, in your view,
25 accurately represent the confrontation lines?
1 A. I did and they do.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time I would ask that
3 65 ter 28316, the Sarajevo map book, be marked for identification. The
4 book will be used for a number of witnesses over the course of the
5 Prosecution case and the foundation for its contents will be established
6 with a number of witnesses. The Prosecution will tender the exhibit once
7 the foundation for all of its contents have been established or upon the
8 Defence indicating it does not oppose its admission.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Groome, when you were talking about the map
10 book, would that be what you provided to us?
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] --
13 MR. GROOME: [Overlapping speakers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- would be the map and the photograph book.
15 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, in electronic form.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then it's clear. And I take it once you intend
17 to replace page 2 by a map with better colours that you'll address the
18 Chamber so that we could give permission to Madam Registrar to change
19 that one page of the book.
20 Madam Registrar, the number for this book to be marked for
21 identification would be ...?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28316 becomes Exhibit P3, marked for
23 identification, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 You may proceed, Mr. Groome.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Mr. Harland, in your view, did the topography of Sarajevo have an
3 impact on what happened there between 1992 and 1995?
4 A. Yes, very much.
5 Q. Can you please explain.
6 A. The urban area of Sarajevo lies in a long, steep valley, as is
7 evident on the maps. And in general the civilian population of this city
8 and the Bosnian army defenders of the city were in the densely packed
9 floor of the valley. And, in general, the besieging Serb forces
10 controlled the surrounding high ground.
11 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we please go to paragraph 276 of
12 P1, Mr. Harland's statement. It can be found on page 83 of the original
13 English and page 59 of the B/C/S translation.
14 Q. Mr. Harland, the first two sentences of paragraph 276 of your
15 statement read:
16 "The Serbs frequently made the assertion that before the war
17 broke out 65 per cent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
18 owned by the Bosnian Serbs according to, for example, title deeds. My
19 own office did some research on the matter and we disagreed with that
21 Can I ask you to elaborate on the research that your office did
22 into this claim and any of your office's findings that you can recall.
23 A. Yes. Well, we had access to some of the land records in
24 Sarajevo. We also hired in our office a professional statistician in
25 order to deal with the claims that were made of fact by one side or the
1 other, which were often at variance with the truth. And in particular,
2 on this issue Professor Koljevic, one of the vice-presidents of
3 Republika Srpska, was fond of asserting that 65 per cent of the land of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina was Serb and that this was the amount of territory
5 that the Serbs should be given. And when we looked into it, it appeared
6 that large amounts of state-owned land, including largely uninhabited
7 territories, were attributed to the Serbs in the maps and the documents
8 and the statements from the Pale authorities.
9 Q. And did you attempt to verify these claims?
10 A. Yes, we did. The land records did not confirm that the Serbs
11 control or owned 65 per cent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 On the contrary, large amounts of the territory was state-owned territory
13 and sparsely or uninhabited.
14 Q. Could I --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I ask one clarifying question.
16 You started by saying that you had access to some of the land
17 records. Later you referred to the land records. Were you referring to
18 the "some" you had had access to?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And could you further explain what those "some"
21 were, apparently not covering all of the land records.
22 THE WITNESS: That's right. The full original cadastral records
23 were not available to my office. Some of the original records were
24 available, and for the rest of the territory we had secondary data, such
25 as the 1990 census results. But we did not have the full records.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Do the census results indicate any ownership of
2 land, apart from who was populating it? Does it refer to ownership?
3 THE WITNESS: No. It refers to your place of residence and
4 your -- the ethnicity that you had identified for yourself, and it was a
5 choice of several ethnicities you could choose, Muslim, Serb, Croat,
6 Yugoslav, and other.
7 JUDGE ORIE: How could they then assist you in defining who owned
8 what property?
9 THE WITNESS: The assertion made by Professor Koljevic and the
10 Serb authorities was really by way of saying 65 per cent of Bosnia is
11 ours. Either we own it or we live on it or it's historically ours. And
12 when we looked into those aspects of it that we could look into, it was
13 not confirmed by the records that came to us.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harland, you are rather criticising the method
15 used by Mr. Koljevic than that you answered my question, isn't it? My
16 question was: How could they, being the census results, then assist you
17 into finding who owned what property?
18 THE WITNESS: No, no, they did not establish ownership at all.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then my question remains: How could they then
20 assist you in assessing who owned what property?
21 THE WITNESS: Not at all, except that they show who lives where.
22 The actual legal status of the piece of land you are on, whether it's
23 private property or social property or state property, which I think are
24 the three legal categories that they had in their pre-war system, were
25 not indicated in the 1991 census. You are correct.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So the census results would not in any way assist
2 you in defining who is the owner of what percentage of the land?
3 THE WITNESS: Correct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you said you had secondary data such as
5 the 1990 census results, which would fill in the gap which was there
6 because you did not have all of the cadastral records, but they therefore
7 could not fill in?
8 THE WITNESS: When, for example, there is large uninhabited
9 territories which on the maps we were given in Pale were indicated as
10 Serb and which were known to be not shown by the census data not to be
11 inhabited, then we assumed that it was not correct to ascribe them to one
12 community or another.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You now in your answer use for the first time the
14 word "we assumed." Would you agree with me that part of your
15 verification was based on assumptions rather than on facts?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we please go to paragraph 260 of
19 Mr. Harland's statement. It can be found on page 79 of the original and
20 56 of the B/C/S translation in e-court.
21 Q. Mr. Harland, in this paragraph you refer to an opportunity you
22 had to view different documents the Prosecution believed were written by
23 Mr. Mladic, and you concluded that they appeared to you to be written by
24 the same person. I want to make clear that this opinion that you
25 expressed is not based on any particularised expertise that you
1 possessed, but is simply an observation that any lay person could make;
2 is that correct?
3 A. Absolutely. I just compared the text I had been given with what
4 I knew to be a genuine sample -- actually, some writing that
5 General Mladic had made on a back of a photograph which I saw him write
6 so I knew to be his handwriting. I have no particular handwriting
8 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we please go to paragraphs 32 and
9 33 of Mr. Harland's statement. These paragraphs can be found in e-court
10 page 9 in the original and 7 in the translation.
11 Q. Mr. Harland, paragraphs 32 and 33 set out three categories of
12 shelling that the people of Sarajevo were subjected to. The three
13 categories are: Tactical shelling in response to military operations;
14 what you describe as tit-for-tat shelling, that is exchanges of shell
15 fire between ABiH positions and Bosnian Serb positions; and, finally,
16 what you describe as background terror shelling, the purpose of which you
17 describe as "to keep the civilian population of Sarajevo locked down,
18 vulnerable, fearful, isolated." My question to you is whether you are
19 able to estimate the proportion of the overall shelling that would fall
20 within the category of background terror shelling?
21 A. On average we counted about a thousand heavy weapons impacts in
22 the government-controlled part of Sarajevo each day throughout the
23 duration of the war that I was there, which was most of the war. On a
24 normal day, most of the shelling, over half, would be this background
25 shelling just designed to terrorise the population and with no particular
1 distribution according to military targets. We would look at the maps
2 produced by the UNMOs, the military observers, each night, and we would
3 note the fairly random distribution of the shells across the civilian
4 areas. Now, when there was a tactical operation going on, when the
5 Bosnian army was trying to break out of the confrontation line in one
6 particular place, then there would be a great concentration of a large
7 number of shells on that area. And so in those periods, which were
8 much -- which were only occasional, they -- the overwhelming bulk of the
9 shells would be in the category of tactical engagement.
10 Q. Later in your statement at paragraph 38, which can be found on
11 page 10 of the original and 8 of the translation, you describe eight
12 basic levers that Karadzic used to increase pressure on the Bosnian
13 government. Seven of the eight levers you describe such as shelling and
14 sniping civilians, restricting the essentials of life, were directed at
15 the civilian population. In paragraph 39 you state that they were used
16 in concert. You conclude from the use of these levers in unison that
17 there was a degree of central control. Was there anything other than the
18 application of these levers of pressure at the same time that indicated
19 to you that they were centrally controlled?
20 A. Yes. From time to time the Serb leadership would say very
21 directly that they were going to close off Sarajevo or they were going to
22 put pressure, as they called it, on Sarajevo in order to induce, try to
23 induce, the government to negotiate a peace settlement along the lines
24 they were then pursuing. For example, in early 1995 they were very
25 explicit with us about why the airport was being closed, why the water
1 was being cut off, why the food supplies were being blocked, why the
2 shelling was increasing.
3 Q. You go on to describe the use of these eight levers as a "spigot
4 of terror." Are you able to tell us how long it would take to, as it
5 were, turn the spigot off to relieve pressure on the civilian population
6 once Bosnian Serb leaders had undertaken to do so?
7 A. Well, the same day, normally. So the normal pattern was that the
8 Serbs would be restricting water and gas and electricity, and snipers and
9 artillery would be in action, but then, from time to time, they would
10 become anxious that NATO might be about to intervene militarily and they
11 didn't hide it. So, for example, in August of 1993 over the so-called
12 Igman crisis, they were very alarmed that NATO was about to intervene.
13 The same in February of 1994, after the Markale I attack and the same in
14 at least one later incident at the very end of the war. And there -- in
15 February 1994, for example, when they did agree that they would ease the
16 situation around Sarajevo, then there would be a sudden, same day,
17 drop-off on the sniping and the shelling and the water would come back on
18 and the gas valves would be opened.
19 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 10630 be brought to our
20 screens and that we allow Mr. Harland to see the entire first page to
21 orient himself, and then focus on paragraph 3 of which I will ask some
22 specific questions. Your Honour, the Prosecution will be seeking to
23 tender this as an associated exhibit.
24 Q. Mr. Harland, can you please indicate when you have had an
25 opportunity to orient yourself to this document. It is dated the
1 15th of October, 1993, purports to be authored by you and is entitled:
2 "Meeting with Karadzic Krajisnik."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can I now ask you to focus on paragraph number 3 and read it to
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. My first question to you is: Were you physically present during
8 this meeting?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. This paragraph summarises a conversation between
11 General Briquemont and Karadzic. I would like to ask you to elaborate on
12 the second sentence of this paragraph that begins with "he," and I
13 believe the word "he" refers to General Briquemont. It says:
14 "He insisted that this has no military value and causes political
15 damage to the Serbs."
16 Are you able to elaborate on that statement in greater precision?
17 A. Yes. General Briquemont and UNPROFOR commanders who followed him
18 frequently pointed out to the Pale leadership that the shelling of the
19 city, the pattern of shelling of the city, served only to terrorise the
20 population and to cause civilian casualties; but it did not materially
21 improve the Serb military position, in their view, as military officers.
22 And the resulting civilian -- unnecessary civilian casualties were
23 harmful to the perception of the Serbs. It was an argument often made.
24 I think the fact that it appears in this document does not indicate that
25 it was an exceptional statement. It was -- it was a point that was
1 frequently made.
2 Q. Was General Mladic present during some of the occasions in which
3 such statements were made?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The third sentence of the paragraph states:
6 "Dr. Karadzic stated that he had given orders for shelling and
7 sniping to stop."
8 Do you recall if he qualified this statement in any way? In
9 other words, did he express any reservation about his ability to order
10 the shelling and sniping to stop?
11 A. I cannot tell you with a hundred per cent certainty whether it
12 was this meeting or another meeting, but what I can say is that
13 General -- that Dr. Karadzic would often say, Yes, I had agreed to do X
14 but there were some rogue individuals who might have continued firing.
15 And when UNPROFOR would bring evidence to say that shooting had continued
16 or there were other violations, he would again ascribe it to rogue
17 individuals. But our view is it was probably not true.
18 Q. The final sentence in this paragraph records Karadzic's
19 additional comment:
20 "He said Muslim shelling and sniping was a major problem that he
21 might 'be forced to take the Muslim part of Sarajevo if the sniping does
22 not stop.'"
23 Now, firstly in your report, you placed -- I'm sorry. That's
24 unquote of the internal quote. Now, firstly in your report, you placed
25 "be forced to take the Muslim part of Sarajevo if the sniping does not
1 stop" in quotation marks. Does this indicate a verbatim quote of
3 A. Yes, it does.
4 Q. Do you recall if he was speaking English or his native tongue?
5 A. He was speaking English at this point.
6 Q. Can you place this statement in the context of your interaction
7 with Dr. Karadzic?
8 A. Well, Dr. Karadzic, when he was confronted with a protest about,
9 for example, killing of civilians by snipers or shell fire would
10 generally seek to go on the offensive, to say something is happening to
11 the Serb population around the city and seek to move the discussion away
12 from the original purpose of the protest. And whenever presented with
13 any facts would generally say that these were individuals over whom he
14 didn't have particular control.
15 Q. Were you able to verify the information such as this provided by
16 Dr. Karadzic?
17 A. Yes. The peculiarity of my position and I guess the reason I am
18 here is I was both the notetaker in these meetings and I lived in the
19 city of Sarajevo. So I would -- these meetings would take place in Pale
20 and then I would go back to my residence in Sarajevo and I could, A, see
21 by myself whether the sniping, shelling, and water -- whether the attacks
22 were continuing; and we had a daily debriefing of all the military
23 officers, the battalion officers, and the military observers as to the
24 level of military activity and on these other levers of control the Serbs
25 had. So yes, I was able to verify it quite closely.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, adjudicated facts 1731 to 1737 set out
2 the factual findings of other Chambers regarding UN military observers;
3 therefore, the Prosecution will limit the evidence it seeks to elicit
4 from Mr. Harland in this regard.
5 Q. In addition to -- apart from UN military observers, did your
6 office receive information about military activities in the Sarajevo area
7 from any other source.
8 A. Yes. In fact, the UNMOs, the United Nations Military Observers,
9 were only one part of the observation apparatus. In fact, the larger
10 part of the observation apparatus was the formed battalions, which in
11 Sarajevo were mainly French, which had front line observation positions.
12 So in general all the precise information on the military situation came
13 in duplicate. It came from the multi-national unarmed UNMOs,
14 United Nations Military Observers, and it came through the national
15 formed battalions. There were, in fact, also - when it became
16 important - other sources that we could check to try and confirm whether
17 a particular incident or a particular allegation was true.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Harland, your statement and some of the contemporaneous
19 reports you authored recount the number of explicit or implicit threats
20 made by General Mladic. Before I draw your attention to some of these
21 specific documents and ask you specific questions, can I ask you to
22 describe for the Trial Chamber in general terms General Mladic's use of
23 threats in the course of negotiations.
24 A. Yes. In fact, the meetings with General Mladic had a
25 characteristic pattern, which is that he would invite the visitor which
1 was usually my boss, the UNPROFOR commander, or the SRSG, to make a
2 presentation. And they would present a protest or propose a forward
3 course of action, and General Mladic would sit quietly for a relatively
4 extended period of time and take notes in a journal. And then would
5 often let him -- his interlocutor speak for quite a long time, 10, 15,
6 20 minutes. And then he would take the floor and would very aggressively
7 make a series of often logically not well-connected points with a mixture
8 of threats and history and commentary on the current situation. In fact,
9 the documents being summarises don't capture most of the threats that
10 General Mladic made. At most of these meetings there would have been in
11 his discourse some threat made either against the Bosnian population or
12 against the United Nations or against others.
13 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we now have 65 ter 10007 on the
14 screens before us. It is a document dated 9 February 1994 authored by
15 Mr. Harland and entitled: "Weekly BH Political Assessment." I would ask
16 that we give the witness an opportunity to orient himself by viewing the
17 first page.
18 Q. Once you have had a chance to look at the first page, can I ask
19 you to tell me whether you recognise this document.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The document is several pages long. Have you had an opportunity
22 to review it in full before coming to court today?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is this document one of the weekly assessments you drafted to
25 inform your superiors in the UN about the week's events in Bosnia?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Before I ask you about the threat you report in this document,
3 can I ask that we deal with another matter first. Can we please go to
4 the bottom of page 4 in the original document --
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Can we go to the bottom of page 4 in the original
8 document, the translation of which can be found on the bottom half of
9 page 6 in e-court.
10 Q. Can I please draw your attention to the paragraph that begins:
11 "The Bosnian Serbs agreed today to a cease-fire with the BH
12 government (9 /2 /94)."
13 Do you recall this particular cease-fire?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was it implemented as indicated it would be in this document on
16 the 10th of February, 1994?
17 A. Yes, very well implemented.
18 Q. The report continues and in reference to the first shelling of
19 Markale market-place on the 5th of February, 1994, states:
20 "The Bosnian Serbs have handled the market-place massacre rather
22 "The first reaction of the Serb army headquarters was to threaten
23 to cut off all aid to BH if the Serbs were not exonerated by an
24 international inquiry.
25 "The next day, stung by international reaction, the Serbs
2 My question regarding this paragraph is: Do you recall how this
3 initial threat to cut off aid was communicated?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you recall how you knew it came from Bosnian army
7 A. Serb army --
8 Q. I'm sorry, Bosnian Serb army headquarters.
9 A. If it was from Serb army headquarters, it meant normally that it
10 was verbally presented by the Chief of Staff of the Serb army,
11 General Milovanovic, to the UNMO liaison officers who were stationed at
12 his headquarters. And messages that came from Serb army headquarters
13 normally came that way. Sometimes, however, they would come directly.
14 So they would telephone, sometimes even General Mladic himself would call
15 BH command. And I have to admit, in this case I can't remember how it
17 Q. If I can now draw your attention to the full -- first full
18 paragraph on page 5. The translation can be found at the top of e-court
19 page 7. The first sentence of that paragraph reads:
20 "On 7.2.94 Karadzic made a thinly-veiled threat to attack
21 UNPROFOR personnel if NATO used air power to break the siege of
23 Can I ask you to tell us in greater specificity about this
25 A. Again, I cannot recall how this specific threat was made. Often
1 I was in the room when Dr. Karadzic would make threats like this, though
2 I have a feeling that in this case it was a public statement that he made
3 possibly after a meeting that we had with him when the media would be
4 waiting. I seem to recall this was a public threat, but I can't remember
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
7 65 ter 10007.
8 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar,
9 the number would be ...?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10007 becomes Exhibit P4, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P4 is admitted into evidence.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could I ask that we now display on the
14 screens before us 65 ter 28049. It is a document authored by Mr. Harland
15 dated 29 September 1993 and entitled: "Meeting with Bosnian Serb
16 Leaders." It is a contemporaneous note of a meeting described by
17 Mr. Harland in his statement at paragraphs 57 to 59 and the Prosecution
18 will be seeking to tender this as an associated exhibit.
19 Q. Mr. Harland, once again I ask you to look at the first page of
20 the document and then ask whether you recall drafting it?
21 A. Yes, this specific one I remember actually better than the
22 previous ones.
23 Q. The first paragraph of the document identifies General Briquemont
24 and others who represented the UN at the meeting and then states that the
25 Bosnian Serbs were represented by Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. In
1 paragraph 59 of your statement you identify Mladic as being the main
2 interlocutor during this meeting. Can I ask you to describe his
3 demeanour and the general tone of the meeting.
4 A. He was confident, belligerent, in -- actually, the reason I
5 remember this one is because in the middle of the meeting a young man
6 came in, a young Serb military officer came in, with the news from
7 Sarajevo where the Bosnians were voting on the
8 Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan. And General Mladic asked the young man, Did
9 they accept the peace plan? And he said, the young man said, No, they
10 did not. Alija - as they called President Izetbegovic -- Alija wanted
11 more land. And General Mladic laughed and replied, And I would like to
12 be young and handsome but it's not going to happen.
13 So the tone of the meeting was him confident but unhappy that the
14 Bosnian government had rejected the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan and he
15 laid out a series of strong measures that he intended to take to increase
16 the pressure on the Bosnian government.
17 Q. If I can draw your attention to paragraph 3, you record him
19 "He was even reluctant to make arrangements for the rapid
20 evacuation of wounded UN soldiers."
21 Are you able to recall the context behind this statement?
22 A. The context was that when soldiers were wounded or even when they
23 were sick, they would need guarantees from the sides that they could move
24 safely in ambulances across the confrontation line to be evacuated
25 usually from Sarajevo airport. But exactly which soldiers were injured
1 at this time, I don't recall.
2 Q. Did he express to you the justification of tying the evacuation
3 of wounded UN soldiers to the Bosnian government signing or not signing a
4 particular peace agreement?
5 A. No, but it was relatively standard behaviour that the Bosnian
6 government would do something they didn't like and the leadership in Pale
7 would make threats of retaliation, either against the Bosnian population
8 or the Bosnian leadership or against the United Nations.
9 MR. GROOME: Can we please advance to page 2 of the document.
10 The translation of this portion can also be found on e-court page 2.
11 Q. The first line of paragraph 6 is illegible, but we can read the
12 remainder. And starting from the second sentence, we read:
13 "General Mladic made a number of (thinly) veiled threats against
14 UNPROFOR. Eg 'if the fuel embargo is not lifted, I will have to hijack
15 fuel wherever I can find it.' He said that he is 'entertaining the idea'
16 of establishing a new policy under which 'what the Serbs don't get,
17 nobody gets.'"
18 My first question is whether the portions of this paragraph that
19 are contained in quotation marks, are they verbatim quotes of
20 General Mladic as they were translated to you at the time of this
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. My next question is: What did you mean by "thinly veiled
25 A. Normally General Mladic, but not General Mladic alone, would make
1 connections. If such and such happens, if the Serbs don't get fuel, then
2 no fuel will get to UNPROFOR or to UNHCR, so they would make what was
3 only just disguised threats to block or intercept or attack the
5 Q. And what impact, if any, was there in the case UNPROFOR was not
6 able to receive fuel?
7 A. Well, if UNPROFOR was not able to receive fuel it couldn't
8 observe what was going on on the front lines, which I think may have been
9 what they wanted; it also wouldn't have been possible for them to escort
10 convoys of food on which the civilian population in the Bosnian
11 government-controlled areas relied.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could I now ask that 65 ter 09986 be
13 brought to our screens. It is a document authored by Mr. Harland dated
14 the 3rd of November, 1993, and entitled: "Weekly BH Political
15 Assessment." This particular report is referred to in Mr. Harland's
16 statement at paragraphs 66 to 71. This is another associated exhibit the
17 Prosecution will tender.
18 Q. Mr. Harland, once the document appears on the screen before you,
19 can I ask you whether you recognise it and whether you had an opportunity
20 to review it before testifying today?
21 A. Yes, and I did.
22 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we go to the bottom of page 5 in the
23 original and the bottom of e-court page 6 in the translation.
24 Q. That paragraph begins:
25 "The Serbs have also begun squeezing Gorazde against which Serb
1 army commander Mladic has been making strong threats."
2 Can you please describe in greater detail, if you are able, what
3 you mean by this sentence, in particular the type and timing of the
4 threats you attribute to Mr. Mladic.
5 A. Um, which paragraph are we looking at?
6 Q. That's at the bottom of page 5 and the paragraph that begins with
7 the quote:
8 "The Serbs have also begun squeezing Gorazde ..."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you see that?
11 A. Yes. Yeah. Well, this was the period in which the Serbs became
12 more focused on Gorazde and began limiting access to it as a prelude to
13 an attack which actually took place the following spring, I believe.
14 MR. GROOME: I ask that we now turn to the bottom half of page 6
15 in the original and the bottom of e-court page 7 for the translation.
16 Q. It is the Prosecution's position that these particular paragraphs
17 are especially relevant in this trial, and I will read them and then ask
18 you several additional questions:
19 "Mladic is more dangerous. He is frustrated both as a military
20 commander and as an individual. As a military commander he
21 feels - correctly - that he has been very effective, but that his
22 battle-field effectiveness has not been confirmed by a political
23 settlement. For this he appears to blame the Serb political leadership.
24 As an individual, Mladic feels marginalised. When the war was at its
25 height, he was at centre stage. Now he is on the fringes - he complains
1 loudly that Generals Cot and Briquemont are ignoring him.
2 "Perhaps in an effort to regain centre stage, Mladic has been
3 very vocal recently. One issue which he is following, and on which he is
4 striking a strong posture, is that of the 22 Serb POWs being held in the
5 Gorazde pocket" --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome --
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I notice that your speed of speech may cause the
9 translators some problems. So would you --
10 MR. GROOME: I'll pause there and adjust my speed. Thank you.
12 "In a meeting with the UNPROFOR Chief of Staff recently he
13 threatened, among other things, to kill everyone in the eastern enclaves
14 (except for the children) unless the POWs were not returned by
15 10 November."
16 Q. What did you mean by Mladic is more dangerous?
17 A. Well, he was making more bellicose threats than normal.
18 Q. And what was this assessment or what was your assessment that
19 he's more dangerous based upon, anything in addition to these threats
20 that you're describing now?
21 A. We would be at meetings with him in which he would say and those
22 around him, his military colleagues, would be quite clear that they felt
23 that the political civilian leadership had not performed well and that
24 they might have to undertake further military actions. At one of these
25 meetings he said, We may have to take two more towns and we won't give
1 them back this time.
2 Q. Now, with respect to the threat to kill civilians in the eastern
3 enclaves, were you physically present when he made this threat?
4 A. Yes. He actually made the threat several times and including to
5 others, but I tended to write down the ones that happened at meetings I
6 was at. But this was not the only time he made this threat.
7 Q. Now, taken at face value, this statement appears to be one that
8 would cause concern. Were you or other UN officials concerned by this
9 statement of Mr. Mladic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was it perceived as an idle threat or something indicative of
12 something more?
13 A. A discussion with General Mladic was not really, you know, a
14 rational discourse and it wasn't like a conversation such as we are
15 having. It was an introduction or a protest by us and then a verbal
16 attack of some sort. I think our view on the threats were he was like a
17 bully. If the opportunity arose to carry out these threats, probably he
18 would do it; but they weren't really statements of plans.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry, Your Honour, is now a
21 convenient time for the break?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you read my mind, Mr. Groome.
23 We will take a break. We'll resume then at ten minutes to 6.00
24 or eight minutes to 6.00 -- more generously by my colleagues. Five
25 minutes to 6.00, we'll resume -- to 5.00, yes. I'm moving too quickly in
1 time. We'll resume at five minutes to 5.00. And, Mr. Groome, could you
2 take care that we have two times five minutes left at the end of today's
3 session so that the submissions by the parties can be received by the
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break.
7 --- Recess taken at 4.33 p.m.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- On resuming at 5.04 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
11 Meanwhile, I apologise for the late start. Meanwhile, I could
12 use the time to put a few matters on the record. First, on the
13 9th of May, 2012, the Prosecution filed an urgent motion requesting an
14 extension until the 30th of June, 2012, of the dead-line for the finding
15 of its revised Rule 65 ter list. Also on the 9th of May, as the
16 dead-line at that time was the next day, the 10th of May, 2012, the
17 Chamber through an inform communication granted the temporary extension
18 until a final decision on the motion was issued, and that decision is
19 hereby placed on the record.
20 On the 14th of May, 2012, the Defence responded not opposing the
21 request. On the 7th of June, 2012, through an informal communication the
22 Chamber granted the requested extension of the filing of the Rule 65 ter
23 witness list dead-line to the 30th of June, 2012, and that decision is
24 also hereby placed on the record.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harland, if you would allow me one more second.
2 As the 30th of June, 2012, was a Saturday, the Prosecution filed
3 its revised Rule 65 ter witness list on the 2nd of July. On the 4th of
4 July, 2012, the Chamber requested through an informal communication that
5 the Prosecution file an addendum to its revised witness list so as to
6 include certain missing Rule 65 ter witness summaries. And that request
7 is also hereby placed on the record.
8 My apologies, Mr. Harland, for letting you wait.
9 Mr. Groome, are you ready to resume?
10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. Mr. Harland, I'd like to now draw your attention to
14 February 1994. On the 5th day of that month Markale market was shelled
15 for the first time resulting in a significant loss of life. In the days
16 and weeks after that event was there a noticeable change in the amount of
17 shelling and sniping activity directed against Sarajevo?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you explain in summary form what led to the reduction of
20 shelling and sniping and what it was attributed to.
21 A. The NATO made a number of threats to engage militarily,
22 particularly possible air-strikes. I think the Serb leadership
23 considered those threats credible, and therefore the Serbs were
24 relatively co-operative, including with the creation of - I forget what
25 it was called - a heavy weapons exclusion zone or something like that,
1 which they agreed to evacuate of weapons or to put them in cantonment
2 areas. And they implemented the agreement in the short term rather
3 fully, until I think they assessed that the threat had passed.
4 Q. Mr. Harland, did there come a time during negotiations with
5 respect to setting up blinds in areas where civilians had been targeted
6 for sniping, did there come a time during negotiations that you found
7 those negotiations were informative about the role and purpose of
9 A. Yes. There were long negotiations mainly in 1994 --
10 Q. Mr. Harland, before you continue. Can I ask you to explain what
11 a sniping blind was for those who might not be familiar?
12 A. Sure. So snipers operate on both sides of the confrontation line
13 and they sought to kill targets obviously that they could identify. And
14 so one of the techniques for limiting sniper casualties was to put
15 line-of-sight barriers between the two sides. And one way of doing this
16 was suspending wires and then putting opaque plastic sheeting over the
17 wires, so they were like curtains so the snipers couldn't see the
18 civilians or other targets on the other side of the line. One of the
19 other techniques we used was moving with a forklift sea containers and
20 putting them in piles two or three high so that the snipers again didn't
21 have a clear view of the targets. So there were during 1994 extensive
22 negotiations with both sides about measures that could be taken to
23 curtail sniping activity. The Serb position through most of the
24 negotiations were that they did not want line-of-sight barriers to be
25 erected and they did not want to authorise UNPROFOR to pursue snipers,
1 sniping teams, when they were positively identified.
2 Q. And did this or did the tenure of the negotiations indicate to
3 you what the purpose of -- behind sniping was?
4 A. Yes. They were, in fact, not even really hiding it, that
5 sniping, picking off civilians in down-town Sarajevo, was one of the
6 means by which they sought to terrorise the city and to put pressure on
7 the Bosnian government to settle the conflict on terms favourable to
9 Q. Now, Mr. Harland, I would like to focus your attention on the
10 period of time, the fall of 1994. You deal with this period in
11 paragraphs 134 to 178 of your statement. I'd like to ask you some
12 specific questions about a document you describe in this section of your
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could the Prosecution now please have
15 65 ter 03485 displayed on our monitors. Once again, this is a report
16 drafted by Mr. Harland dated the 10th of October, 1994, and entitled:
17 "Meeting with General Mladic in Jahorina." And the Prosecution will
18 tender this associated exhibit.
19 Q. Once again, Mr. Harland, can I ask you to take a look at the
20 document and advise us -- or, if you are able to tell us whether you
21 recognise it and whether you had an opportunity to review it prior to
22 your evidence today?
23 A. Yes, and I did review it.
24 Q. Now, this meeting concerns -- this report concerns a meeting
25 between Generals Rose and Mladic. The portion of the document I want to
1 ask you a specific question about is found on page 2 of the original and
2 e-court page 3 of the translation. Can I ask that you focus on
3 paragraph 8 and the portion of the paragraph I would like to question you
4 about begins with:
5 "It is clear that General Mladic has no clear vision of how to
6 end the war, but that the Contact Group plan is totally unacceptable to
8 Can I ask you first to in a few sentences summarise what the
9 Contact Group plan refers to.
10 A. Okay. The Contact Group is the US, the UK, France, Germany, and
11 Russia. It was an effort to make it more likely for the parties to agree
12 to a peace settlement because all their external friends would have a
13 common position. So rather than with the Vance-Owen Plan or the
14 Owen-Stoltenberg earlier plans which were supported by one international
15 country or power, but not by another, there would be a single plan that
16 would represent all of the friends of the three major powers -- major
17 warring factions. Now, the Contact Group plan was a plan developed in
18 1994 and its principal characteristic was it was the first plan which
19 proposes a division of Bosnia into a Republika Srpska and a Federation,
20 and it is the first plan which starts from the assumption that the
21 Federation will be allocated 51 per cent of the territory of the country
22 and the Republika Srpska will be allocated 49 per cent.
23 Q. Now, what did you mean when you say that Mladic had no clear
24 vision of how to end the war?
25 A. Our view from our discussions with General Mladic was that they
1 really had no strategy at all other than terrorising the civilian
2 population. They would take land, take cities, kill or deport the
3 population, move them into smaller and smaller areas, and then they would
4 cut off the water and the gas and the electricity and they would shoot at
5 them and they would shell them, and then they would wait for the
6 government to take a position that they hoped would be more in line with
7 their own war aims. And it was a great frustration to them that the
8 Bosnian government somehow refused to play the game. And at least in our
9 observations, they never really came with an alternative plan for winning
10 the war, despite their enormous advantage in military equipment.
11 Q. Now, I'd like to turn your attention to the UN safe areas in the
12 eastern enclaves, those being Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Before you do so, Mr. Groome, could I ask one
14 question seeking clarification of perhaps both your question and the
15 answer. When you said that -- and wrote that it is clear that
16 General Mladic has no clear vision of how to end the war. In view of
17 your answer, were you specifically focusing on what happened in Sarajevo
18 at that time or were you talking about the war in other areas of Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina as well?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. This was referring to the war
21 in -- throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you said they would take land, take
23 cities, kill or deport population, move them into smaller and smaller
24 areas, and then they would cut off the water and the gas and the
25 electricity. Could you give us examples of cutting off the water,
1 electricity, and gas in other areas than in Sarajevo.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, in the Bihac pocket -- gas really only went
3 to Sarajevo. The main gas pipeline comes Russia, Hungary, Serbia, and
4 then crosses, I think, at Zvornik, and then it covers -- just cuts into
5 Bosnian-government-controlled territory, I think at maybe Kladanj and
6 Olovo, but two small cities, but basically gas is a phenomenon of
7 Sarajevo's story. But other areas where they were able to limit the
8 supply of electricity or water by being close to the confrontation line,
9 they would do that anywhere.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us three examples of water-supplies
11 being interrupted?
12 THE WITNESS: Well, the easiest is the -- the easiest is the
13 eastern enclaves. In the eastern enclaves electricity was always
14 controlled by the -- overwhelmingly controlled by the Serbs. Whether
15 they had -- they may have had control over parts of the water-supply
16 later. Yes, I wouldn't want to be more specific on water. The easiest
17 is food and electricity.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say water-supplies it may have been --
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- because it's a rather firm statement you gave
21 that this is what they would always do.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: When you said water, I asked you for three examples,
24 you come up with possibly --
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- an area where you are now not even sure. Is that
2 correctly understood?
3 THE WITNESS: That's correct. I would not confirm that they had
4 control over the water-supply anywhere in the way they did in Sarajevo.
5 Sarajevo was very specific because most of the water was pumped from one
6 particular place called Bacevo just on their side of the confrontation
7 line. Where there was an opportunity, they sought to do it elsewhere.
8 But whether they had as good an opportunity in other places, I don't
9 know. I was based almost entirely in Sarajevo.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was asking you this because now for
11 electricity, water, and gas, for water and gas we are back to Sarajevo --
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- without any other examples. So if that is what
14 they always did is at least a rather broad statement on for at least two
15 out of three categories where you have no knowledge outside of Sarajevo.
16 THE WITNESS: No. Gas is only a limited supply -- there's only
17 one pipeline of gas so where they could cut it off they did.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: So at Kladanj and Olovo, for example, they would
20 often close the valve at I think it was Mali Zvornik which is the last
21 town where there was a valve. So when they had the opportunity, they
22 would do it, Your Honour. But exactly where they had the opportunity for
23 water, which was a much more dispersed system, of course, I wouldn't
25 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Groome.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Mr. Harland, did this strategy that you describe have any impact
3 on UNPROFOR's ability to distribute humanitarian aid?
4 A. Yes. There was a very deliberate policy to make it more
5 difficult to distribute humanitarian aid. Convoys were blocked. Very
6 onerous restrictions of movement were imposed. For example, one I
7 remember is no convoys can move on Fridays at one point. Only certain
8 convoys with certain commodities under certain search regimes would be
9 allowed. Distribution of food aid would only be allowed via points in
10 Republika Srpska, and so on. So yes, there was a very deliberate and
11 openly acknowledged policy by the Serb leadership and by others on the
12 Serb side of greatly trying to constrict the capacity of the
13 United Nations to meet the humanitarian needs of the population.
14 Q. I'd like to now turn your attention to the UN safe areas, in
15 particular Srebrenica. And I would like to focus on the geographic area
16 which was understood to be part of the safe area of Srebrenica.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could I ask that we now call to the
18 screens 65 ter 05726. It is a report authored by
19 Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter dated the 7th of March, 1995. It's entitled:
20 "Meeting General Smith and General Mladic 7 March 1995."
21 Q. Mr. Harland, my first question to you is, when you can see it,
22 whether you recognise the document?
23 A. Yes. It's not mine but I recognise it.
24 Q. Did you know Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter during your time in
1 A. Yes, very well.
2 Q. I would like to focus my questions to you on paragraph 5 of this
3 report, which can be found on page 2 of the original and the translation.
4 This paragraph has a title: "Military issues and demilitarisation of the
5 enclaves." And recounts a discussion between Mladic and Smith regarding
6 Srebrenica. As part of that discussion, Mladic asserts his understanding
7 of the geographic size of the three safe areas in Eastern Bosnia, and
8 with respect to Srebrenica he says that it is 4.5 kilometres by
9 1 kilometre. My question to you is what was the UN's understanding of
10 the approximate boundaries of the Srebrenica safe area during time or the
11 period this meeting took place, March of 1995?
12 A. The UN understanding of the extent of the safe area of -- all the
13 safe areas was the area inside the confrontation lines at the moment they
14 were declared safe areas by the -- by the Security Council.
15 Q. And what was the approximate dimensions or size of that area, if
16 you're able?
17 A. From memory roughly 10 by 10, 10 kilometres by 10 kilometres, for
18 Srebrenica, maybe a little less. So roughly a hundred square kilometres.
19 And the -- General Mladic was saying that he intended to reduce it to
20 4 or 5 square kilometres, so he was going to take 90-something per cent
21 of it.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, I note previously adjudicated facts
23 1272 and 1280 which relate to this issue, and I will rely on those facts
24 rather than elicit additional evidence from Mr. Harland.
25 Q. Mr. Harland, at the end of paragraph 5, we see the word "comment"
1 in bold.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. This passage can be found on top half of e-court page 3 for the
4 translation. The word "comment" is followed by:
5 "One interpretation of this interchange is that Mladic may well
6 have betrayed an important military concern and that he might not have
7 the capacity to fight on more than two fronts and that in the event of
8 attacks against Krajina Serbs and by the BiH in Central Bosnia, he may
9 seek to secure his rear areas - the enclaves - at an early stage."
10 Are you able to help us understand what is meant by that comment?
11 A. Yes. It was the UNPROFOR assessment that the Serbs, although
12 very well armed, suffered from a shortage of manpower. During 1995 they
13 became much more concerned that the Bosnian army was growing larger and
14 stronger and that the Army of the Republic of Croatia was growing larger
15 and stronger, and they clearly feared a military counter-offensive, both
16 by the Bosnians from the middle of Bosnia and by Croatia from over the
17 border in the Republic of Croatia, and that is in fact what happened.
18 And Baxter felt that Mladic was indicating that in order to prepare for
19 this, the Serbs would have to eliminate or greatly reduce the
20 Bosnian-held enclaves in the east, so as to free up troops for possible
21 coming offensives on other fronts. I mean, I see this was written in
22 March and so it turns out to be correct speculation.
23 Q. Mr. Harland --
24 A. I was not at this meeting.
25 Q. Thank you. Mr. Harland, in paragraph 210 of your statement you
1 address the resumption of heavy shelling in Sarajevo, and you say:
2 "Also on 30th of June, 1995, Colonel Meille wrote to
3 General Milosevic complaining of attacks on civilian targets in the city
4 of Sarajevo using very powerful bombs."
5 I want to ask you a question about a report you drafted around
6 this time-period.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could I ask that 65 ter 15749 be
8 placed on the screens before us. It is a report written by Mr. Harland
9 entitled: "Sector Sarajevo Weekly Situation Report." It is dated
10 2 July 1995. And the Prosecution will be tendering this associated
12 Q. Mr. Harland, once you can see it on the screen before you, can
13 you tell us whether you recognise it as a document that you wrote.
14 A. Yes, it's a document I wrote.
15 Q. Can I ask that we go to page 2 of the document just above the
16 middle of the page, and this can be found in the same location as the
17 translation. There we read:
18 "They seem reasonably confident that they will contain the
19 Bosnian offensive and have even said that they will launch punitive
20 counter-attacks against the urban area."
21 Can I ask you to elaborate on this sentence in your report.
22 A. Yes. Well, in this period, the spring of 1995, the Bosnian army
23 made one of its periodic attempts to break the Siege of Sarajevo, to
24 break out of Sarajevo; but as usual, they failed. And the Serb military
25 interlocutors that we spoke to indicated that they were going to increase
1 their shelling and sniping and their military action along the
2 confrontation line as a punishment for that.
3 MR. GROOME: If we can now move to the top of page 3 in the
4 original and the bottom of e-court page 2 in the translation, we see a
5 description of how sniping activity increased in the old town or in the
6 centre of town.
7 Q. Were you personally in the vicinity of the centre of Sarajevo
8 during this time?
9 A. Yes. I mean, it was not a unique event, of course. I just
10 happened to put this particular episode into the report only because I
11 preferred to report things I was personally aware of. And actually, a
12 teenager was killed on one of the major transversal streets of Sarajevo
13 near the Ali Pasina mosque. As I was walking down the -- one of the
14 streets, Djure Djakovica it was then called, perpendicular to it, and I
15 was on my way to visit a friend who lived on I think it was called
16 Vrazova Street and I heard a cry and then a commotion. And as I -- and I
17 turned the corner, there was a bicycle and the wounded, actually, it
18 turned out, dead teenager and there was a crowd which had -- which was
19 attempting to get close to help him or to pull him away. But there were
20 continued shots so they weren't able to do so. But I can't claim that
21 this incident was an isolated incident. It was reported because I
22 happened to know about it in some detail.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, if we would need another ten minutes,
24 then you have two more minutes to go at this moment.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have one more question about this
1 document and then I'm finished for the day.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. In the first paragraph on page 3 in the original and first
5 paragraph on page 3 in the translation, you describe three shells hitting
6 the building where UNPROFOR headquarters were on the 29th of June, 1995.
7 You recount the assessment at the time was that it was the result of
8 deliberate targeting of UNPROFOR headquarters. Can you tell us what this
9 assessment was based upon?
10 A. My office, as the head of civil affairs for Sector Sarajevo, was
11 based in the same building as the French military headquarters. My
12 office next-door neighbour was Colonel Meille, the acting commander of
13 the sector. And when I needed an assessment of a military event I simply
14 asked Colonel Meille, who brought me the intelligence and the observer
15 people and they characterised the nature of the event. And in this case,
16 as was a regular occurrence, the Serbs were targeting UNPROFOR's capacity
17 to monitor what was going on, which they regularly did, including by
18 shelling, mortar detecter radars and by bombarding observation posts and
19 in this case the observation headquarters.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it pleases the Court, I will finish
22 there for the day.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 We need another ten minutes, Mr. Harland, but you're already free
25 to go, but not until after I've instructed you that you should not speak
1 or communicate in any other way with whomever about your testimony,
2 whether that's testimony already given today or still to be given
3 tomorrow. We'd like to see you back at 9.00 in the morning tomorrow, on
4 the 11th of July. You may follow the usher.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, five minutes for you.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Your Honours, I thank you for the opportunity to further address
10 you on our motion filed seeking adjournment of the trial as a result of
11 the recent change in the guide-lines issued by the Chamber for evidence
12 under Rule 92 ter and Rule 92 bis. I wish to first stress that all of
13 our motions have to be viewed with the whole set of circumstances in
14 mind. The backdrop of which is that we have been subjected to very
15 serious lapses in compliance with disclosure obligations, meaning that we
16 have proceeded to trial before many of the normal pre-trial proceedings
17 are complete. We are still working on recovering from these obstacles
18 and your amendment of the guide-lines creates an additional hardship
19 because our Defence preparations were undertaken based on the
20 understanding that Your Honours had on several occasions expressed that
21 the guide-lines would not change and that only at the last minute the
22 guide-lines were changed just before witness appeared. This is simply
23 too much for the Defence to bear.
24 Now addressing specific items raised by Mr. Groome. At page 35
25 of today's transcript he claimed the Defence should be stopped from
1 objecting to changes in the guide-lines because it was -- has never
2 raised concerns of fairness if the guide-lines were changed in prior
3 filings. With all due respect, no fewer than 19 times and 19 separate
4 filings were made by the Defence as response to Prosecution 92 ter
5 motions. Almost all of them addressed as a first argument the objections
6 to the Prosecution's desire to deviate from the guide-lines, and they
7 further argue that such deviations from the guide-lines would harm the
8 Defence unless it received additional cross-examination time, in some
9 cases several hours more. Now the Chamber has given the Prosecution the
10 ability to proceed just as they have asked.
11 Also, on April 16th, 2012, we filed a filing responding to the
12 Prosecution's request to re-visit the guide-lines, where, again, we
13 pointed to specific problems with the Prosecution position and again
14 demonstrated that without the guide-lines the production of evidence
15 would have to look very much different unless streamlined. The Chamber
16 has long been aware of our position and it is incorrect to state that the
17 Defence did not raise this matter. We have been consistent and are
18 entitled to relief from the Chamber as sought by the motion.
19 Next, I want to also address what Mr. Groome said at page 36 and
20 37, that for these witnesses the Defence has had notice of what the
21 Prosecution intended to lead through these witnesses for almost a month
22 and that is ample time. I must stress in other cases, like another case
23 of a similar indictment, Karadzic, has ruled that 90 days is sufficient
24 time for the Defence to prepare for a witness once getting all the
25 materials. So I do not see any basis for Mr. Groome's assertion that
1 30 days is sufficient. We only wanted to be treated fairly like other
2 cases before us. We want the Chamber to uphold our client's right to
3 fair trial.
4 Respectfully, but by telling us for eight months that the rules
5 at trial would be one way and then surprising us a week before the
6 evidence phase that the rules will not be that way but will be a
7 different way is a drastic and unfair change.
8 Lastly, I have to address the use of documents in re-direct.
9 This item needs to be viewed in conjunction with the decision on
10 Rule 92 ter motions that have been made thus far. All decisions differ,
11 a decision on objection to parts of the statement until the witness is
12 questioned on this. Nothing has been decided and we are still hanging in
13 the lurch, waiting to know what evidence will come in for each witness
14 and whether it will be a little or a lot. In that way, we have an
15 additional number of documents for Harland that the Prosecution has
16 reserved the right to introduce in re-direct. It is impossible for the
17 Defence to know the totality of the evidence it will have to challenge if
18 the Prosecution has the ability to hold on to part of its case and
19 present it in re-direct examination. It should be noted that Mr. Groome
20 claims the issue of using new exhibits in re-direct is not related to the
21 guide-lines, but I must stress that on 2 July 2012 we received an e-mail
22 from the Prosecution apparently signed by Mr. Dermot Groome, and
23 identifying for about 15 documents that the Prosecution will not tender
24 these documents in reliance on the Chamber's guide-lines regarding the
25 use of associated exhibits. The Prosecution reserves its right to tender
1 these documents in the event the witness's evidence on this point is
2 challenged. Of course that we are going to challenge. What else?
3 Whatever the Defence claims, they have to expect the Defence will
4 challenge, otherwise why would we be sitting here?
5 So it is clear that the Prosecution is using the guide-lines to
6 strategically withhold exhibits and present them in re-direct to prevent
7 Defence from addressing them in cross. Your Honours, for everything
8 else, we stand by what we have said in our motion. We appeal to you to
9 realise that with all the other issues we have had to deal with, in
10 particular the very massive amount of late disclosures from the
11 Prosecution, more of it less than 60 days before trial, now with the
12 change in the guide-lines, this leads to a situation that once again we
13 have to go through more statements of witnesses who gave in each case and
14 more exhibits. We have to address more evidence in the same amount of
15 time. This is a tremendous job on the Defence. So we need more time to
16 prepare and more time for cross-examination if there is more documents
17 introduced through witnesses. Also, we have to introduce more evidence
18 to rebut the Prosecution evidence.
19 That's basically the addition we have as clarification for our
20 motion. Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
22 Mr. Groome, if I say another five minutes then I would like you
23 very much to strictly limit yourself to four or five minutes because
24 we're already close to quarter to 6.00.
25 MR. GROOME: I think I'll be less than that, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: Just the points I would make in re buttal is Mr. --
3 I think Mr. Lukic unfairly characterises the guide-lines when he refers
4 to them as rules of evidence. I mean, to hear what Mr. Lukic is saying,
5 an uninformed observer might conclude that the Chamber has replaced the
6 Rules of Procedure and Evidence with its own and it's not the case. The
7 Chamber has expressed its strong preference for how certain rules should
8 be implemented.
9 Your Honour, I think the Prosecution has already demonstrated in
10 the early days of this case that it does not oppose reasonable
11 adjournments where such are necessary to ensure fairness. In this
12 particular case, however, Your Honour, the Prosecution does not see
13 anything in the Defence motion where it demonstrates actual prejudice.
14 The Prosecution can see nothing in the motion which justifies such a
15 lengthy adjournment as one of six months.
16 And finally, Your Honour, just to state the Prosecution's
17 understanding of the use of documents in re-direct and how the
18 Prosecution has interpreted the Chamber's guidance, it seems that it's
19 very different than Mr. Lukic has interpreted it. Mr. Lukic interprets
20 the guidance with respect to re-direct as it affording the Prosecution
21 the opportunity to withhold exhibits for tactical or strategic reasons
22 only to introduce them in its re-examination. That is not how the
23 Prosecution understands it. The Prosecution understands our ability to
24 introduce a document which we have withheld or not tendered in reliance
25 on the guidance under the following circumstances: In the case of
1 Mr. Harland, Mr. Lukic challenges something in Mr. Harland's statement;
2 for example, that Mr. Harland says that he met with Mr. Mladic on a
3 certain day. That he's -- Mr. Lukic challenges his recollection on that
4 point, the Prosecution may seek to introduce the contemporaneous note
5 where that was recorded. If Mr. Lukic challenges Mr. Harland's
6 interpretation of that meeting, the Prosecution does not consider that it
7 has the right then to simply bolster his interpretation by tendering that
8 document. So I think there's a difference of opinion or difference of
9 interpretation with the guidance.
10 Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
12 We'll adjourn in a minute. I'd like to make two observations.
13 The first one is that the way in which you dealt with the associated
14 exhibits, Mr. Groome, in which you announced you would tender at the end
15 has not removed the concerns expressed by the Chamber earlier. We often
16 found that a small portion of an associated exhibit was read, often
17 literally a whole paragraph was read, and then the witness was questioned
18 about that paragraph, sometimes authored by himself; the date of the
19 document is clear; what it presents is clear, so therefore the Chamber
20 really wonders in relation to some of them what the tendering of this
21 exhibit would add to what is already in evidence. Therefore, I would
22 like to invite you to think that over and consider what is really needed
23 tomorrow to be tendered --
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to let you know, I have prepared
25 submissions on all the documents that I will tender and will be prepared
1 to address the Chamber on each one of them.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I just wanted to let you know that the Chamber
3 has not -- that not all the concerns -- that still some concerns remain.
4 Apart from that, I -- as far as timing is concerned, I think the
5 Prosecution used up to now close to one hour and a half, and therefore I
6 expect you, since you asked for two hours examination-in-chief, for you
7 to finish in approximately half an hour tomorrow.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, having relied on the adjudicated facts,
9 I think I will be able to finish my examination in ten minutes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will adjourn for the day and we'll resume
11 tomorrow, Wednesday, the 11th of July, 2012, in this same courtroom, I,
12 9.00 in the morning.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.48 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day of
15 July, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.