Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 42553

 1                           Monday, 14 December 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Although my court agenda and procedural issues have been grown

12     over the weekend considerably, I'll limit myself to only one of them and

13     that is to put on the record the communication with the parties about the

14     funding matter, funding for assistance of an expert.

15             It's of such importance that it's -- was sent on the 11th of

16     December by e-mail to the parties and reads as follows:

17             "Dear parties,

18             "On 7th December 2015, in its tenth report on Tomasica experts,

19     the Defence requested that the Chamber direct the Registry to provide

20     funding for the travel, accommodation, and work of two of witness

21     Radovanovic's assistants in relation to a scheduled trip to The Hague in

22     late December 2015.  The Chamber understands that the Defence is seeking

23     judicial review of the Registrar's decision to deny the request for these

24     funds.

25             "On 10th of December, the Registry opposed the Defence's 7th of

Page 42554

 1     December request, arguing that the Chamber is not competent to decide the

 2     matter and that the usual practice is to use the lump sum for these

 3     expenses.

 4             "Article 31 of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel

 5     deals with the settlement of disputes over payment.  Generally, if the

 6     applicable provisions do not provide a basis for judicial review of an

 7     administrative decision, the statutory obligations of a Chamber to ensure

 8     a fair trial provides such a basis.  Article 31(C) provides for review by

 9     the President for disputes involving a sum greater than €4,999.  The

10     Defence has not specified the amount at issue, and therefore the Chamber

11     cannot determine whether the correct forum for judicial review is the

12     President or itself.  However, even if the Chamber was the correct forum,

13     the Defence has not submitted the relevant Registry decision to be

14     reviewed, nor has it presented any arguments towards fulfilling its onus

15     of persuasion in this regard.

16             "Accordingly, the Chamber denies the Defence's request.

17             "Lastly the Chamber notes that the Registry's decision denying

18     the funds at issue was seemingly issued in July 2015.  The issue was also

19     raised in court in August 2015, but the Defence never requested the

20     Chamber's intervention until the 7th of December.  The Chamber strongly

21     urges the Defence to avoid any further delays in this matter.  If the

22     travel of the two assistants is indispensable for the Defence case, the

23     Defence should seriously consider arranging this travel as scheduled and

24     pay for the expense from its lump sum for now.  Any reimbursement can

25     then still be sought without further delaying the drafting of witness

Page 42555

 1     Radovanovic's report.

 2             "This decision will be placed on the record in due course."

 3             Well, this last line now is hereby fulfilled.

 4             Before we ask the witness to be escorted into the courtroom,

 5     Mr. Lukic, we received notice that you said I think that you'd need at

 6     least four and a half hours in light of the Chamber's guidance.  This

 7     surprises us, to some extent, because the main issue of the guidance was

 8     that much of what is found in the report is beyond the scope of the

 9     expertise of the witness.  So we would can be rather expect a reduction

10     in time of dealing with the witness.  Because spending more time on

11     issues which still are not within the scope of the expertise is not what

12     the Chamber expects you to do.

13             I leave it to that.  We'll see how you develop, but please keep

14     in mind that that was the main issue in our guidance, and the sources

15     matter was in addition to that but not replacing our concerns about the

16     witness telling all kind of things which are really not within his

17     expertise.

18             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20                           [The witness entered court]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Pavlovic, I presume.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

24     make a solemn declaration, of which the text is now handed out to you.

25     May I invite to make that solemn declaration.

Page 42556

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

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

 3                           WITNESS:  DUSAN PAVLOVIC

 4                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Pavlovic.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Pavlovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Lukic.

 8     You'll find Mr. Lukic to your left.  Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

 9             Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11                           Examination by Mr. Lukic:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Pavlovic.

13        A.   Good morning, gentlemen.  I would like to greet all present in

14     the courtroom.

15        Q.   For the record, could you slowly state your name and surname.

16        A.   My name is Dusan Pavlovic.

17        Q.   Did you write a report entitled:  "Analysis of Losses of the

18     28th Division of the BH Army During Breakthrough from Encirclement"?  Did

19     you write this report for the Defence of General Mladic?

20        A.   Yes.  And, if I may, could I put a short question?

21        Q.   You're not supposed to put questions here.

22        A.   Well, if possible --

23        Q.   Well, tell us.

24        A.   I don't know if it is allowed for me to get my analysis, a copy

25     of my analysis, and a few sheets of paper simply so that I could have

Page 42557

 1     some paper to use while testifying.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You are anticipating what I expected Mr. Lukic to do

 3     anyhow.  It's routine for us.  So if you'd first wait, it would have come

 4     to you anyhow.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  You are right, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Can usher kindly provide the witness with his

 8     analysis and some empty papers.  It was checked by the OTP.  It's clean.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   We found some differences between the B/C/S and English versions.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So I would kindly ask for 1D06200.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, there is some -- there is an issue

15     about -- two versions are uploaded.  One is a public redacted version.

16     Does that mean that the other one is not public?

17             MR. LUKIC:  The other one was placed under seal since there were

18     two names mentioned and that were --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  And has --

20             MR. LUKIC:  -- protected witnesses in our case.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And the public redacted version, is that already

22     including the corrections because we saw that there was a proofing note

23     where a few paragraphs were slightly amended?

24             MR. LUKIC:  It is redacted already.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The new version already includes the changes -- the

Page 42558

 1     corrections made as we found them in your information report - it's not a

 2     proofing note but an information report?

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Give me one second, Your Honour.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, it is corrected now.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  It's corrected already.  So that we don't have to go

 7     through the --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- through the information report any further.  This

10     is a public version with the information report amendments included.

11             Please proceed.  We are looking at that document, I then take it.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             MR. LUKIC:  So with -- yeah.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We could check it on the basis of the first one, the

15     first change is about footnote 64D.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Where reference to page 3 should thereby instead

18     of -- yes, Mr. MacDonald.

19             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honours, and good morning.

20     And, Your Honours, just in case this is not the redacted report, I think

21     footnote 64D is on page 46, but there is a name of one of the witnesses

22     who was redacted.  So if we are to go to that page, perhaps we could not

23     broadcast it just in case it's not the redacted version.  Thank you, Your

24     Honours.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have -- then redacted version on our screens,

Page 42559

 1     it's 1D06200A.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll look at that one.  Yes.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] You told us, Mr. Pavlovic, that you wrote a

 5     report.  What we have before you is the corrected version.  To the best

 6     of your knowledge, what is contained in this report, is it correct and

 7     truthful?

 8        A.   Yes.  To the best of my knowledge what is contained in the

 9     analysis should correspond to facts that are accurate.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Is -- let me just check.  One of the things that

11     should be changed is in that same footnote on page 46, Witness D, so not

12     DZ diacritic, but D as well.  And now I see that the reference should be

13     to -- should be to page 3 and this is still the old version because the

14     reference here in -- for that witness is, again, still page 2.  So it's

15     not including the information report, Mr. Lukic.  And if I find out in

16     five seconds, you should know, it's your witness.

17             MR. LUKIC:  We couldn't check -- I couldn't check this morning,

18     Your Honour, because you know we had that virus and it's hard for us to

19     access anything in [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You know what you've uploaded, under what number, so

21     you should know what is there.  Let's not spend more time on that.

22             Please proceed.  So we have the redacted version, to which now

23     still the -- the amendments in accordance with the -- with the

24     information report should be made.  But I would not mind at a later stage

25     you do that in a more efficient way to go through it now in detail, if

Page 42560

 1     you'd just make a short note or ...

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. MacDonald.

 4             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honours --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

 6             MR. MacDONALD:  I understand there were two proofing notes and I

 7     believe that the corrected version contains the amendments from the first

 8     one, that is, for example, the numbers which were corrected but does not

 9     contain the amendments of the second one --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic is invited to reorganise what seems to be

11     a bit chaotic at this moment, unless there's something of real substance

12     which would affect your cross-examination.  Is there any matter which

13     would substantially affect your cross-examination?

14             MR. MacDONALD:  No, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, Mr. Lukic, find an efficient way of

16     resolving the matter, not at this moment to dwell for a long time on the

17     matter in court.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Pavlovic, would you write today what you had

20     written earlier in your report?

21        A.   In principle, yes.

22             MR. LUKIC:  We just offer this document to be MFI'd so we will be

23     able to decide at the end.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, there are a few more questions, I think.

25             When you wrote this report, did you do that in -- was it truthful

Page 42561

 1     what you wrote?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  I asked that.  I think I asked that.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  He asked it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh.  Then you asked that.  I have not given notice

 5     to it.  Then we leave it to that.  I follow the advice of my colleague.

 6             Mr. Registrar, the number for this report, this document, to be

 7     MFI'd would be?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, 65 ter 1D06200A will be

 9     MFI D1373.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and keeps that status for the time being.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could the number be repeated for the record.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  MFI D1373.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, I'm going to ask you something about the Institute

18     For Missing Persons first.  Why was it established and what is its

19     purpose?

20        A.   The Institute for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

21     established by Bosnia-Herzegovina, actually due to the obligation that

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina took upon itself within the General Framework

23     Agreement signed in Dayton.  And it says, inter alia, that it will ensure

24     the right of the families of missing persons to find out what the fate of

25     their family members was.  This is an international agreement that was

Page 42562

 1     signed about the founders, the role of founders, of the Institute for

 2     Missing Persons.  This was signed by the International Commission for

 3     missing persons, ICMP, and the Council of Ministers of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Did you work in the Institute for Missing Persons?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   From when until when?

 8        A.   I worked there from the beginning of April 2009 until sometime in

 9     the month of October 2014.

10        Q.   All right.  What are the basic legal frameworks within which the

11     institute functions?

12        A.   Actually, this is the Law on Missing Persons of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the agreement that I've already referred to.

14        Q.   What is defined in the agreement?  What are the powers of the

15     institute?

16        A.   Well, Article 4 of the mentioned agreement, inter alia, states

17     that the responsibilities of the Institute are the collection and

18     processing of information, all information about missing persons,

19     locations of individual and mass graves, the establishment of central

20     records of missing persons.  Then, further on, finding, verifying and

21     marking locations of individual and mass graves, participation in

22     exhumations, participation in sanitisation, in autopsies, anthropological

23     examinations of mortal remains, on-site investigations, the establishment

24     of co-operation with judiciary institutions, and all other local and

25     international institutions and organisations that are relevant to the

Page 42563

 1     quest for missing persons, including the institution that we are in

 2     today.  These are some of the responsibilities of the institute defined

 3     in this international agreement.

 4        Q.   We haven't had this in the system so I cannot show it to you, but

 5     I will show you now 1D05450.  We'll take a look at the law.  So what we

 6     have before us is the Law on Missing Persons.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2 in both version, B/C/S

 8     and English, first Article 3.

 9        Q.   So please tell us what it says.  Could you clarify this for us?

10     We see what is written here.

11        A.   Well, this article speaks of the responsibility of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina - the obligation of Bosnia-Herzegovina - and that is

13     defined in this law.  That is the right of missing persons' family

14     members to learn the fate of their missing family members and relatives;

15     and if it is established that such a person is still living, then we are

16     supposed to provide the family members with information concerning the

17     residence of the said person.  However, if it established that the person

18     is no longer alive, then the families should be provided relevant

19     information about the cause of death, the place of burial of their family

20     member, and of course to have the mortal remains of that family member

21     returned to them if they were identified in the first place.  So that is

22     the basic task of the Institute for Missing Persons.

23             Now, if you wish, I can give you a comment --

24        Q.   Just a moment, please.

25        A.   All right.

Page 42564

 1        Q.   Then we see Article 4.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   The obligation to secure information.

 4        A.   Yes, I can elaborate.

 5        Q.   We see what is written here, but what is the gist of this?

 6        A.   This article of the Law on Missing Persons is important because

 7     it provides a legal basis for our work, wherein all institutions and

 8     organs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including defence legislation, internal

 9     affairs and all the others are under obligation --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald, is there any dispute about that's a

11     proper legal basis for the institute to work, to do its job?

12             MR. MacDONALD:  No, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

14             MR. LUKIC:  It's crucial for us to show what this gentleman's

15     work was, work in which field --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  What you are showing at this moment is what the law

17     says --

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  -- what we'd be very much interested in what the

20     witness did, but there's no dispute about that the work, the institute he

21     worked for, had a proper legal basis.  So would you please focus on what

22     is the issue rather than to establish the underlying legislation which is

23     not in dispute.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] We have before us Article 5.

Page 42565

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   It says:

 3             "The competent authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina are duty-bound,

 4     based on earlier and recent applications for available information, to

 5     trace and verify all the available information, citing all the sources

 6     that have been checked in identifying such information in relation to the

 7     disappearance of the subject of the search," et cetera.

 8             What does it look like on the ground?  What was your job at the

 9     Institute for tracing missing persons?

10        A.   The first 14 months I worked as a senior assistant in the

11     commission for verification of information about missing persons; and

12     then four months [as interpreted] as head of sector for searching for

13     missing persons and identifying missing persons.

14        Q.   We have on record that you were head of sector for four months.

15        A.   No, it was close to four and a half years.

16        Q.   We see a reference here to new information from the ground.

17     Where are you looking for new information?

18        A.   Well, in keeping with the articles of the law we've just seen,

19     all institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina are under obligation to provide,

20     at our request, all the relevant information to the Institute for Missing

21     Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina because the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina

22     transferred the responsibility for the whole process of tracing missing

23     persons on to us, as stipulated in Article 30 of this law, which states

24     that the Law on Missing Persons has priority over all the other laws in

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina where missing persons are concerned, that is, a

Page 42566

 1     framework.  Now when we're talking about the sector for tracing

 2     exhumations and identifications that I headed, I can also explain about

 3     that.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, do allow me to put a question to the

 5     witness for clarification.

 6             You said you were head of sector for searching for missing

 7     persons and identifying missing persons.  How many people worked in this

 8     sector?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I work the in the sector.  I

10     headed the sector for tracing, exhumations and identifications.  That

11     sector employed --

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  [Previous translation continues] ...

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in that sector, I had five

14     district and regional offices and a total of 30 employees out of a total

15     of 52 total employed in the Institute for Missing Persons.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for that.  And how did your daily work

17     look like?  What did you do?

18             And I think the usher should assist the witness in adjusting

19     the -- his chair.  That's something wrong with the back side.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I would be grateful if you

21     could do something about this.

22             Normally this should be fine but not here.  Could you do

23     something about the --

24             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ...

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... the back

Page 42567

 1     should be adjusted.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Can I have it this way.  Normally it's this way.

 3     Thank you.  Thank you, sir.  Very well.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I hope it's better now.

 5             And back to my question:  What was your daily work?  What did you

 6     do?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since I was the head of the sector

 8     that had a mandate and competences defined by all the elements that I

 9     listed in Article 4 of the international agreement --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What was your daily work?  Can you just describe

11     what you did during day-time when you were in the office.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am about to answer.

13             All that I've said before were the responsibilities of my sector.

14     Apart from establishing central records, my job was to lead the sector,

15     to manage it, to organise its work, to organise the work of my offices,

16     operative employees, and all the information operative, intelligence from

17     military, civilian, prosecutorial sources that came either through my

18     operative employees of the sector or from the outside, from other

19     institutions.  All this information came to my desk and I processed it,

20     analysed it, sorted it across lower levels in my sector, moving it to

21     their desks, following up on their work, managing their work, and also,

22     because we investigated every case individually, I established

23     co-operation with all the relevant institutions, domestic and

24     international, judicial, prosecutorial, intelligence, police, military,

25     international organisations such as the ICMP, the ICRC, et cetera.

Page 42568

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you

 2     very much.  You have answered the question sufficiently.  Thank you.

 3             Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We would offer this document

 5     into evidence, the Law on Missing Persons.  It hasn't been admitted yet,

 6     I think.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  Do we need the whole of the law, as

 8     we looked at Article 3, 4, and 30, I think?

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe to have -- 6 also could assist, 7, 6, 7, and

10     30.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You've identified the articles which we

12     should look at.

13             Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 1D5450 will be D1374, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  However, Mr. Lukic,

16     you're invited to upload a shorter version dealing with the relevant

17     portions only.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  The cover page would be included.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, if you upload it, we'll see what the

20     relevant pages are.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D06333 on our screens.  Judge Fluegge

22     anticipated my next line of questions, but at least I will have to ask

23     only half.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That helps to shorten your time.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

Page 42569

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] So which document prescribed the tasks and the

 2     mission of your sector?

 3        A.   That's the rule-book, an internal document, about internal

 4     organisation and systemisation, the staffing system of the institute and

 5     my sector.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No English translation yet, Mr. --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  No English translation yet, Your Honour.  But

 8     we'll ... we need page 3 in B/C/S.  Only to read the title, it says --

 9     okay.  We'll come back to that.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] It says here, under number 1:

11             "Sector for tracing, exhumations and identifications.

12             "Carries out technical and other work related to the tracing,

13     collection, and processing of applications, statements, and information

14     on missing persons, on individual and mass graves."

15             Here I would like to dwell more on the processing of

16     applications.  It says that this is one of your tasks.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.  It

18     says:  [Interpretation] Statements, processing of statements.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] What type of statements did you deal with in

20     your work?

21        A.   Generally speaking, we always tried through our operative work,

22     both on the ground and through the institutional approach specified by

23     the law, we tried to procure information from institutions that we

24     considered relevant because the missing persons we were looking for went

25     missing in the war, so the most important documents for us are military

Page 42570

 1     documents, statements from security organs, military and public security.

 2     We're talking about people who testified about events.  We're talking

 3     about security analyses that in -- security organs supplied to higher

 4     levels.  Those were primary documents.  But when we are talking about the

 5     work of operative officers in our sector, they also took statements from

 6     certain witnesses or from the families, depending on what information was

 7     available to whom, or through their network of sources on the ground they

 8     received information because we are under obligation to keep the

 9     confidentiality of sources they provided this information to me, they

10     submitted it to me.  That is the framework and range of documents that we

11     dealt with.

12        Q.   Since there is no translation, I will just say for the record, it

13     says:

14             "Carries out investigations and other work related to missing

15     persons."

16        A.   Certainly.

17        Q.   Judge Fluegge also asked you what does that mean?  How do you do

18     that research and investigation?

19        A.   As I've said, my position as head of sector is the position

20     actually of the first operative officer in Bosnia-Herzegovina as far as

21     missing persons are concerned.  My people in that sector, after receiving

22     information from the family that a family member is missing, our employee

23     first checks through our records whether that person is alive.  When it's

24     established whether the person is alive or not, as I've said before, if

25     the person is alive, we look for information about their whereabouts.  If

Page 42571

 1     not, we proceed with a classical investigation.  We gather all the

 2     available documentation in order to put together a mosaic about the

 3     circumstances in which the person went missing, to reconstruct the event

 4     from a security/intelligence point of view, to try to trace the person

 5     and see where it ended up.  The input information is what the family

 6     reported, such as the place where the person went missing.  This is the

 7     first input that is, for the most part, not correct because the question

 8     asked of the families is:  Where did you see the family member alive for

 9     the last time?  Answer -- the answer may not be correct because the

10     person could have gone missing hundreds of kilometres away from where

11     they were last seen, as we had one case where in Rijeka 1999 was the

12     place where the person was last seen and we exhumed that person in

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2012 or 2013, a long way away from where they were

14     last seen.  That is our last part of the job --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, may I ask you a question.

16             If you ask someone:  Where was he last seen?  And he says it was

17     at home or in my village and he's exhumed 200 kilometres further away,

18     what is not correct in that answer?  That answer is fully correct, it

19     seems.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer is correct.  However,

21     the information provided is not, that the person lost his or her life

22     there and then.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... but if that is

24     not asked, then of course you couldn't expect the answer to say something

25     which is not asked.  So the answer, I now do understand, is correct and

Page 42572

 1     you made a mistake when you say when you ask where he was seen last, they

 2     say at home, that that is not correct.  That is -- that is in itself not

 3     correct, although it gives us any clues as to where that person died and

 4     it doesn't give any clue as to where that person was buried.

 5             Would you agree with that?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in principle, it's not that

 7     simple because certain families in some cases have more information and

 8     others have less.  That is important for our operative work.  We

 9     double-check the information that the family provided so that we can

10     trace the person if the assumption is that the person is deceased.  So

11     I'm talking about operative work.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  You're moving away from my question.  That the

13     operative work includes more is perfectly clear.

14             Mr. Lukic, the inaccuracy of the information often given by

15     families has been dealt with in quite some detail over the last two years

16     and that's clear.  Often family members do not know where their loved one

17     died or were exhumed, and that seems not to be in dispute -- at least I

18     never heard of any dispute about that --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, it was an answer to your question.  I

20     didn't try to clarify that at all.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please continue.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Tell us now, in practice you asked the

24     prosecutor's office for information, you asked the court for information,

25     the military intelligence organisation or state security.  Can they

Page 42573

 1     refuse to provide information to you?

 2        A.   According to the Law on Missing Persons, in Article 30 of that

 3     law everybody is duty-bound, including the institutions that you

 4     mentioned, to provide the information that we need for our work.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We would offer 1D06333 into evidence and we will

 6     probably make very short selection.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And I take it that you want it to be MFI'd for

 8     the time being.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  MFI, yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be MFI D1375, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

13             Witness, when you were asked whether courts -- the court should

14     give information, which court did you understand to be covered by this

15     question?  Would that include the ICTY, for example?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it pertains to

17     institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We can look at the relevant

18     provisions of the law in greater detail.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We don't to do that but that was "the court," where

20     there are many courts in this world.

21             Please proceed.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now I have a follow-up question.  Sorry for that.

23             With respect to the question person last seen somewhere by whom,

24     when, do you see any differences in the way to proceed between your work

25     and the work of the ICMP?

Page 42574

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The International Commission, ICMP?

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The International Committee for Missing Persons.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I explained the mandate of

 4     the institute as briefly as possible but --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... that is not

 6     my question.  Please focus on my question.  Do you see any difference in

 7     the way to proceed to establish place and date of death in the work of

 8     the ICMP and your institution?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.  I wished to

10     give you an answer, but I will try to do it now.  There is a fundamental

11     difference and if you wish I can expand on that.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If this would not disturb your line of

13     questioning, Mr. Lukic, please do so.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The mandate and responsibilities of

15     the ICMP involve collecting blood samples and bone samples from

16     post-mortems and exhumations in order to carry out DNA analysis assisting

17     in sanitisation, speaking of skeletal remains, because they have

18     anthropologists too.  They do not have the responsibility or mechanisms

19     to carry out the investigations that we carry out.  There can be no

20     comparison in that sense.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But what is the difference?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They cannot establish the

23     circumstances of death.  They cannot provide response to families.  They

24     don't have the mechanism to do that; and according to law, that is what

25     we do.  They take blood samples, they take bone samples, and then when

Page 42575

 1     taking blood samples from family members, then they get information on

 2     when the said persons were last seen and then they provide technical

 3     assistance to us, and that's it.  The main body of our work is collecting

 4     information and intelligence and documentation in order to put together

 5     this mosaic and to see where the person was, where the person died,

 6     whether the person was thrown into a pit, a river, whatever.  So

 7     basically this comes as the very end of our huge efforts to put together

 8     this picture, how persons went missing.

 9             As I've already told you, many imprisoned persons were hidden and

10     then killed.  Many persons were relocated.  And it is an enormous problem

11     for us to create this reconstruction, to create this mosaic, if you will,

12     in terms of how these persons went missing.  Exhumation and

13     identification are the easiest part of the job.  It's not important.  I

14     mean, I'm not saying it's not important, but I'm saying that it's a lot

15     less than this other part of our work that I told you about.

16             I hope that this will do.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that clarification.

18             I think it's time for a break.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for a break.  We'll take a break.

20             We'd like to see you back in 20 minute, Mr. Pavlovic.  You may

21     follow the usher.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

Page 42576

 1                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, it was announced that you would have a

 3     matter to raise.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President, thank you.  And good morning,

 5     Your Honours and everyone in the courtroom.

 6             I wanted to return to a brief discussion we had last -- at the

 7     end of last week concerning the words limits for the final trial briefs,

 8     and this may be a useful point, it may be a pedantic point, but I thought

 9     it best to raise it so that we're indeed all on the same page, as it

10     were.

11             When I mentioned the number of words in the final brief that had

12     been -- on which we had a consensus view between the parties, the Chamber

13     asked whether in terms of the number of pages, 300.000 words you know

14     were -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I can tell you, I meanwhile verified that the

16     standard page is 300 words.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Right.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If that's what you --

19             MR. TIEGER:  That's it, exactly.  Thank you, Mr. President --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. TIEGER:  And I'm sorry to come about it less directly and you

22     were obviously on top of it, so ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we considered that, because I think I gave an

24     estimate which was rather based on 400 words a page.  But our standard

25     page, especially with the space between the lines, et cetera, comes down

Page 42577

 1     to 300 pages, but -- well, you may have noticed that we -- 300 words a

 2     page, and we have -- we are considering it on that basis at that moment.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could the witness be escorted into the

 5     courtroom.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] We talked about methodology and now I'd like to

10     show you document 1D06201; that's your CV.

11             MR. LUKIC:  We need page 3 in B/C/S -- sorry, page 4 in B/C/S,

12     page 3 in English.  We have to go one page back in English.  Yeah, second

13     page.  Our system was shortly not working again, so we were not able to

14     check correct page.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] The last reference here is that from

16     October 2009 -- from April 2009 until October 2014, you were working at

17     the BiH Missing Persons Institute as head of the tracing, exhumation, and

18     identification sector of the central records of missing persons, so

19     that's about four years.  Is that your last job, the one that you revved

20     to here, until 2014, October?

21        A.   No.  From October 2014, I became employed at the Republican

22     Centre for War Crimes and for Seeking Missing Persons.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... into evidence,

25     Your Honour.

Page 42578

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we deal with that, is --

 2             Do you have any military experience?  Did you serve in the army?

 3     Did you get any military training?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I first note that there is a

 5     mistranslation --

 6             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you

 7     have developed a habit of first making all kind of observations.  We'd

 8     very much like you, first of all, to answer the question.  And then if

 9     there's any mistake to be corrected, then you have an opportunity to do

10     so.  But could you first answer my question.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hmm.  Thank you for this

12     explanation.

13             As for military experience, I did my regular military service in

14     the JNA --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- for a short while.  And

17     afterwards, it was established that, due to certain problems -

18     claustrophobia, so on and so forth, I was returned because the assessment

19     was that a couple of years later I could be checked again so that it

20     would be established whether I could continue my military service.

21             I'm sorry, what was the other question you had for me?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether you had any military training.  But could

23     you first now tell us then how long you had been in the army.  You said

24     it was a short period of time.  For how long were you in the army?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was the regular military

Page 42579

 1     service, and I was there, say, for about 40 days or 45 days.  I was in

 2     the quartermaster's corps, and I had standard military training of a

 3     general nature.  I cannot define it now exactly, how different it was in

 4     relation to the other branches and services.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you had no other military training than

 6     what you obtained in those 40 days?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing.  I mean, nothing formal or

 8     of that nature.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             You tendered the document.

11             The CV of the witness, Mr. Registrar would receive number ...

12             THE REGISTRAR:  1D06201 will be Exhibit D1376, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

14             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  Can we see on our screens the next

15     document, it's 1D06202.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do we still not have an English translation of

17     this?

18             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry, it's 1D06332.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] We addressed the Republican Institute for

20     Investigating War Crimes and Finding Missing Persons so we could get an

21     explanation of the work that you carry out today.  There is a document

22     here.  In the last paragraph on this page in both versions, it says that

23     you take part in collecting statements, other documents and data relevant

24     for the department; you review and analyse documents relevant for the

25     department; take part in pre-visits to sites.  It also says, up here,

Page 42580

 1     that you are senior associate for exhumation, forensic processing,

 2     identification, records, and field-work in the processing of searching

 3     for missing persons.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We now need the next page in both

 5     versions.  The second paragraph in the English version, and in B/C/S it

 6     says:

 7             "Besides these duties and according to his previous experience as

 8     the head of the Department for Search, Exhumation and Identification in

 9     the Institute of Missing Persons of the BiH, operational position

10     number 1 in BH related to missing persons, Mr. Pavlovic, since

11     October 2014, had been responsible for the analysis of the events in and

12     around Srebrenica in July 1995."

13             Further down, it says:

14             "The tasks of Mr. Pavlovic are the following:  Documenting and

15     analysing the fate of the bodies of persons who lost their lives in the

16     breakthrough towards the territory controlled by BiH army, documenting

17     and analysing their identities, and analysing lists of persons recorded

18     as missing related to the events in Srebrenica in July 1995."

19             Could you please tell us now, in practice, what is your work look

20     like?  What do you do.

21        A.   Well, to a large part, methodologically it does not differ from

22     my previous work in the Institute for Missing Persons, but now I am

23     involved in the work that you mentioned and, in fact, I deal with a

24     narrow particular event.  The methodology of work does not basically

25     change.  All possible documentation from that period is collected:

Page 42581

 1     Military, intelligence, police, witness statements.  This is dealt with

 2     analytically, it is sorted out, certain conclusions are reached, and then

 3     they are verified on the ground.  So that would be it in principle.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may ask a question for clarification.

 5             Sir, are you able to show us in your report where you analyse the

 6     identities of the people that you wrote about in your report?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the analysis that I submitted

 8     here, there are such passages -- I would have to go through the analysis

 9     now to find them, but they are definitely there, because I followed the

10     path of the column to understand what happened during that breakthrough,

11     the persons who lost their lives during the breakthrough, where they were

12     killed, where they were later found, their identifies.  Not in a large

13     measure, only within the limits of the task I was given, when charged

14     with drafting this analysis.  But if I had been asked to, I could have

15     provided a list of the people who were killed during the breakthrough.

16     But I already opened up a tool that enables very quickly to list a

17     certain number of persons, and I have an attachment to this analysis

18     listing 600 or more identities of such persons.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... I probably may

20     have received an incomplete report.  I just want you to point us in your

21     report to where you analyse the identities, and you can tell us this --

22     these remains belong to X because of this kind of identification process

23     that I have gone through.  It may very well be that my report -- the one

24     I got, is incomplete.  I'm just asking you to point us to that portion in

25     your report.

Page 42582

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this analysis also has more

 2     than 100 attachments, including excerpts from books and documents, and my

 3     contribution is a list with those identities.  Now I don't know how to

 4     provide it to you, but it's part of the report.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I can give the 65 ter number, Your Honour, if you

 6     want so we can see it on our screens.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, please.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  If we can have on our screens 1D06331, please.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, I take it this was contained in the

10     latest list of documents to be used with this witness not in the first

11     one --

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Not in the first one --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Not the first one --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- when you.

16             MR. LUKIC:  -- you are right --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- not at that time when you provided us with the

18     report itself?

19             MR. LUKIC:  We didn't have it, so we couldn't upload it.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's been my problem when I prepared for this

21     witness because I just didn't have this document.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Not sure, Your Honour.  We didn't have this document

23     with us, it's overview, and we anticipated that it -- that kind of

24     questions could arise and Mr. Pavlovic kindly provided this list.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I guess it would have been helpful if we had been

Page 42583

 1     pre-warned that there's still part that's going to come, because we've

 2     been looking for this kinds of information and I couldn't find it

 3     anywhere.  Thank you so much.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  You're welcome.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  You may proceed.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  One second, I check where we

 7     were before this.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before you do so, Mr. Lukic, is there any

 9     explanation why -- as to why the last employment of the witness doesn't

10     appear on his CV?  I mean, you asked us to -- to decide on expertise,

11     et cetera, and then what now turns out perhaps to be a relevant part - I

12     don't know yet - is missing.

13             MR. LUKIC:  This document was that was actually provided by

14     republican Ministry of Justice was attached with the response to the

15     Prosecution -- to Prosecution's filing on this qualification of this

16     witness so it was available --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but if the witness works there for a year now,

18     wouldn't it be your duty to add to the CV relevant information about his

19     present employment, rather than to wait for -- I mean, I would have

20     expected that so that we have a better basis it decide.

21             MR. LUKIC:  That's an omission on our side, Your Honour,

22     definitely.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whether it would cure the flaws described is a

24     different matter, but at least we would like to have had complete

25     information.

Page 42584

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We would offer this,

 3     1D06332, into evidence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see what it is.  Yes.  I now see that that's

 5     overview of known individuals who died --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I thought the previous document.  I will be dealing

 7     with this document later.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then the previous document.

 9             No objections?

10             MR. MacDONALD:  Not to the CV, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald, I know that not everyone in Scotland

12     is called MacGregor, that's -- I apologise for that.

13             Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1377, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.  I think I earlier did not

16     call your name exactly, that's -- apologies for that.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   Let's cast our minds back to the institute for tracing missing

20     persons.  Who works for you as the head of sector in that institute,

21     which profile of people on the ground?

22        A.   I didn't quite hear the question.

23             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... question.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Who works for you at the institute for tracing

25     missing persons, which profile of employee works for you as the head of

Page 42585

 1     sector?

 2        A.   My work colleagues from the sector with whom I had the honour of

 3     working come from all ethnic communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They are

 4     former members of the state security, military security, public security,

 5     who worked as inspectors for general crime, violent crimes, war crimes,

 6     colleagues who have worked as scene-of-crime officers who are able to do

 7     the foot work.

 8        Q.   Are there some who were involved in exchanges during the war?

 9        A.   Yes, there are some who worked in the army and dealt with

10     exchanges of both living persons and bodies.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like to turn to your report.  We are not

12     going to deal with the first 20 pages.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In English, that is to say, the first

14     18.  In B/C/S, in keeping with the instructions of the Court, we are not

15     going to rely on that section.

16        Q.   So would you please turn to page 19.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And on the screen, we would need

18     1D06200.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which is D1373, MFI.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] When this column was moving, what are the main

22     locations where losses were incurred?

23        A.   In the first part of the movement of the column, I mean until the

24     crossing of the road from Konjevic Polje to Nova Kasaba, there are three

25     main locations of conflict and death, that is to say, losses of the

Page 42586

 1     28th Division.  Then during the crossing of the road.  And then, in the

 2     second part of the breakthrough, there are perhaps three other main

 3     locations, but throughout the breakthrough the 28th Division was under

 4     artillery fire and infantry fire, and one can say that losses were

 5     sustained in the whole length of the breakthrough, according to

 6     statements and testimonies of eye-witnesses.  The column was under fire.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us exactly which witnesses and what

 8     statements?  Do we have these statements?  Do we not have them?

 9             Could you give us the details of what your conclusions are based

10     upon, irrespective of whether it's for you to make such conclusions, but

11     at least that we know what it is that you considered when telling us

12     this.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  I was replying to the

14     specific question put to me, but this analysis cites witness statements

15     with details about what I've just said.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  All the material you relied upon, is that found in

17     the footnotes?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And some parts of that

19     material are quoted in the body of the analysis.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know - or does Mr. Lukic know - whether some

21     of these statements, for example, whether they are in evidence before us?

22             MR. LUKIC:  I know that we do have some already in evidence.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Some.  But has it systematically been analysed?

24     What is before us?  Because if this witness draws conclusions on the

25     basis of statements which are not known to us, we cannot verify whether

Page 42587

 1     we would draw similar conclusions because it is finally for the Chamber

 2     to decide what happened not --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We will offer those statements into evidence.  It

 4     will be in our evidence after -- or during the testimony of this witness.

 5     That was our intention exactly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And then leave the conclusions to us rather than to

 7     the witness?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Of course, you will be the final judge.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             Another question is:  Did you consult any material apart from

11     what you footnoted, statements which are not footnoted, for example, or

12     documents which are not footnoted?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  There were other

14     documents that I reviewed that, for many reasons, I did not cite in the

15     analysis itself either because I tried to keep this paper to a certain

16     length or because I found some documents later.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Could we now start from 12 July 1995.  Do you

20     know where Buljim is?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Could you describe briefly.

23        A.   Well, briefly, it's on the road from which the 28th Division set

24     out to try to break out of the encirclement from Susnjari and Jaglici.

25     That is essentially where the lines held by both armies were located and

Page 42588

 1     there at Buljim, Ravni Buljim, members of the 28th Division entered the

 2     territory controlled by the VRS.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Can we see 1D06235 on our screens, please.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] We'll soon see before us the statement of

 5     Nedzad Ademovic given to the State Security Service in Tuzla on

 6     7th August, 1995.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I don't think we have a translation yet.  That is the

 8     statement we need, page 2, please, paragraphs 4 and 5.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What's the name of this witness again, Mr. Lukic?

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, his name is - one second, I moved to another

11     page - is Nedzad Ademovic.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that footnote -- let's have a look?

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It's footnote 51A.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   In the middle of the screen, it says:

18             "The 284th Brigade set out immediately."

19             And in the next paragraph, it says:

20             "The Chetniks opened fire on us from artillery and infantry

21     weapons.  I passed through the first ambush and did not notice how many

22     fighters got killed or wounded.  The attack lasted for about 20 minutes

23     but since there were so many of us, almost every bullet fired would kill

24     one fighter of ours."

25             In this part of this statement, we do not see how many persons

Page 42589

 1     were killed.  Why is this statement important to you?

 2        A.   It's important to our work so that we are able to establish in

 3     which area these losses were sustained and - in the context of the

 4     statement - to see how many people were killed.  We see in the first

 5     sentence that they started from Jaglic, and after four hours of movement

 6     they ran into the first ambush at Ravni Buljim.  And the statement refers

 7     to a large number of people killed because -- I'm sorry, I clicked

 8     something.  Fire was opened from all weapons, and as the witness says,

 9     every bullet would find a target, which means that in that area, we

10     should look for the missing persons who were killed in that area.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I see that on page 25 of the report,

12     there is a -- apparently a literal quote of this witness, because I see

13     that in footnote 51 it refers to Nedzad Ademovic.  Could you tell us

14     exactly where we find this literal quote which starts with B and then

15     quotation marks "the rest of the column," where do we find that exactly?

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And may I add to clarify, footnote 51A is missing

17     in the report, what we received.  We have only footnote 51 and 52, both

18     referring to Nedzad Ademovic.

19             MR. LUKIC:  I didn't hear and it's not in the transcript,

20     referring to, Your Honour?

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps have you another version of the report.

22             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, I was looking at the transcript,

23     Nedzad Ademovic.  No?

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said footnote 51A --

25             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

Page 42590

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- that is to be found on page 36, line 17.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  And there is B as well.  Let me see ...

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Not in our report.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And which language are we talking about?  Because my

 5     footnote 51 appears on e-court page 25.  I'm looking at e-court pages.

 6     There we find a literal quote, at least that's how it is presented:  "The

 7     rest of the column."

 8             Could you please tell us, Mr. Lukic, where do we find that

 9     exactly in the statement?

10             Or perhaps the witness could help us.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Speaking about the document, the

12     statement as a document.  Do I understand you correctly?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Where do we find your quote in the document for

14     which we have no translation?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As is stated in the footnote, it is

16     page 2.  It is page 2.  So I can --

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... give us the

18     lines exactly where this literal quote is to be found on page 2, say a

19     little bit further up, a little bit further down.  Where is it?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately it is the first,

21     second, third, fourth, fifth paragraph, half of it, page 2.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 2.  But I'm focussing on the quote that starts

23     with:

24             "The rest of the column which was in the Potocari sector below

25     Buljim and further towards Siljkovici," and then the next ten lines.

Page 42591

 1             Where do we find those?

 2             Mr. MacDonald, you're on your feet.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're talking about another

 4     document.  This is already another document.  You see that it is under B,

 5     so that is footnote 51B.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  B is on the next page in English version.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we first go to the beginning of this document

 8     to see whether this is a statement to the Tuzla SDB of the 7th of August,

 9     1995.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We see a date.  There is a date, the 7th of August,

12     1995.  It says CSB Tuzla, sector SDB.  And therefore -- and I see on the

13     first line under number 15, I see Ademovic, Nedzada, which makes me

14     believe that this may be the document the footnote refers to.  And what

15     I'd like to know is:  Where do we find - and apparently page 2, could we

16     move to page 2 --

17             MR. LUKIC:  The next quotation, Your Honour, if I can make out we

18     can find in 1D06255.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm talking about this quotation.  This

20     quotation to be found on the third line of e-court page 25 in the English

21     version, starting with "the rest of the column which was," where is that?

22             Witness, could you -- you said -- you mentioned a lot of

23     paragraphs, but could you perhaps start counting from the top.  Where do

24     we find this literal quote?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, what you read out

Page 42592

 1     now, the remainder of the column in Potocari, this is a different

 2     document and it pertains to footnote 51B so it's not the same document.

 3     We looked at footnote 51A, Nedzad Ademovic, and that is footnote 51A,

 4     whereas 51B is a different document, it's another document, if I

 5     understand things correctly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine that there is another document, it's

 7     taken from another document.  But in the footnote it refers to a

 8     statement given by Nedzad Ademovic, same date, same authority,

 9     apparently.

10             We'll now have a look at B.  We -- I have --

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't have these footnotes.

12             MR. LUKIC:  It's on the next page, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, on the next page I see B:  Federal Ministry of

14     Defence --

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- security and intelligence sector, that's B in

17     footnote 51.  Military sector, strictly confidential number so and so,

18     pages 14 and 15.  If it's a quote from there, then the footnote is wrong

19     because the footnote refers to a document which we have on our screen --

20             MR. LUKIC:  No --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No?

22             MR. LUKIC:  -- it's 51B.  The document 51A you will find A, B --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, but 51 --

24             MR. LUKIC:  C, D, E, F --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see then.  Could we then have the relevant --

Page 42593

 1     could we then have -- Mr. Lukic, you know then what B stands for.  Could

 2     we have that on our screen.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, it's -- I told you already.  It's

 4     1D06255.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a look at it.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But I have to confirm, Mr. Lukic, there is A and

 7     B, but it's very strangely --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Under another page --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, it's not the question of the page, but

10     footnote 51, and then there is a letter A which is not footnote 51A, but

11     this is part of the footnote 51.  This is so different and, therefore,

12     it -- you couldn't make it out.  It's part of -- A and B are both parts

13     of footnote 51.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  51.

15             MR. LUKIC:  51, yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That was the misunderstanding.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

18             MR. LUKIC:  That's how gentleman marked his footnotes, so we

19     didn't want to intervene.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we now have a look now at -- I think it was

21     page 14 or 15 of this document.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, in English version it's page 2, middle of the

23     page.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's then see where we found the literal quote here

25     as given on page -- where do we find in this document the quote you gave

Page 42594

 1     at page 25 of your report?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  It's line 14 in B/C/S, and I'll find in English.

 3     Just one minute.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             Let me see where it is.  I see there a line which starts,

 6     approximately in similar wording although not exactly.  Let's see:

 7             "The rest of the column is ..."

 8             Where is that to be found, Mr. Lukic?

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I can see that in B/C/S quotation is exactly the

10     same.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's have a look at the English.  Where is

12     it?  I see three references on this page to 12th of July, but neither of

13     three seems to me - but I would have to verify it - to be literally the

14     same as the quote on page 25 of the report.

15             MR. LUKIC:  It's -- yeah, it's translation.  It's line 15 "in the

16     early morning hours" --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  15, could you -- I there read:

18             "In the early morning hours of the 12th of July, the Chetniks

19     spotted the rest of the column in the sector of Potocari below Buljim and

20     back towards ... and opened artillery fire ... according to witness

21     statements," let's have a look.

22             Let me see.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's a quote.  It's confusing because it's

25     unclear from the footnote whether this is a quote from a report or a

Page 42595

 1     quote from a witness statement.  That makes it very confusing, but I

 2     think we have sorted that out now, that it's almost a quote from a

 3     report.

 4             This report, Witness, who drew these conclusions?  Who analysed

 5     the witness statements which are referred to?  Because the events are

 6     described on the basis of witness statements.  Which witnesses were those

 7     which we found here now in this report?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the way it is.  This

 9     document was compiled by the sector of security and intelligence of the

10     federal Ministry of --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters did not hear what.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- on the basis of the statements

13     made by the surviving members of the 28th Division that survived the

14     breakthrough, and most of them made statements to the security organs,

15     either military security or state security.  And on that basis, this

16     analysis was compiled and this report.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And who they are, we do not know?  Or do you

18     know?  Could you tell us exactly which ones here --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.  I do beg your

20     pardon.  Who do you mean exactly when you say "who are they"?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, in the report reference is made to witness

22     statements.  Was that Mr. A, B, C or Madam X, Y, Z?  Who are they?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in this concrete document,

24     this is information collected from several statements where they reached

25     certainly analytical conclusions.  Somewhere they do mention names of

Page 42596

 1     witness, whereas in other places they just present what their information

 2     is.  This is an official document of the military security organ of the

 3     federal Ministry of Defence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So the simple answer is you couldn't give us those

 5     names?

 6             MR. LUKIC:  You can find names in the document.  You can see it

 7     on your screen.  According to testimony of Behadija Krdzic, for example,

 8     two lines from the bottom of this page.  So as the witness said,

 9     sometimes they quoted the witness names, sometimes they didn't, but

10     that's the document of Muslim side, their military service, produced by

11     them.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Here and there we see names and sources, yes.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, here and there we can see the names, but --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- yes, but whether these are all the names --

15             MR. LUKIC:  -- the whole document is not here and then.  The

16     whole document is product of federal Ministry of Defence --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. LUKIC:  -- so must it be signed --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  They have drawn their conclusions on the basis of

20     what witnesses told them, some of whom we do know because they're

21     mentioned by name although we don't have their statements, and some of

22     them are unknown to us.

23             Is that where we are?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are quite known to the author

25     of this report, of this analysis.  It's an official document.

Page 42597

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that there is a way of

 3     getting the actual names.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  It seems to escape your mind that this Chamber will

 5     have to analyse the statements and the document -- the evidence itself,

 6     and we cannot say someone has looked at statements and came to this

 7     conclusion; therefore, we adopt that conclusion.  That is where we stand.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour. --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to state for the record, Mr. Lukic,

11     sorry for that, footnote 51A refers to the statement of Nedzad Ademovic

12     to the Tuzla SDB, which is -- the footnote 51 is at the end of the quote

13     which is incorrect, because that is not a quote from the -- from the

14     witness statement.  It's a quote from -- from the Ministry of Defence

15     report.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Why is there a reference to Ademovic statement

18     which is not quoted here?

19             MR. LUKIC:  It is quoted under A.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where can we find the quotation?  In the footnote

21     it says 51A.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what is in the text itself, in the body of

24     the report?

25             MR. LUKIC:  Page 24A.

Page 42598

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  24A?  What do you mean by that?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Page 24 under A, the quotation from the witness

 3     statement of Ademovic, Nedzad.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  We just established that it's not from that

 5     report, because that was the first one on our screen and then you said,

 6     no, it's not --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  It's not from that report, exactly.  It's a separate

 8     thing --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now it's from somewhere else.

10             MR. LUKIC:  One document is -- it's very easy to understand.  A

11     is one document, B is different document.  Since it's addressing the same

12     event, it's under 51.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me then --

14             MR. LUKIC:  -- two documents --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently the problem is the following.  You give a

16     footnote to a literal quote, whereas one of the sources footnoted does

17     not give such a literal statement.  Another source that is to be found in

18     footnote 51B, however, gives more or less the same language - to that

19     extent it could be more or less a quote although it doesn't link it

20     exactly to that witness.  That's where we stand, as far as I can see --

21     [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Well, I understand -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             MR. LUKIC:  -- who said that it's linked to that witness?

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I understand --

25             MR. LUKIC:  Nobody said that it's linked to that witness.

Page 42599

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not find it in the report where it says --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, I think Mr. Lukic means something else.  If

 3     we look at the bold part under A beginning on page 24 to 26 -- to 25.  Is

 4     that taken from the not translated statement of witness Ademovic?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then we should have it on the screen again and to

 7     find out where this quotation can be found in the non-translated document

 8     of the witness statement.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what I asked for ten minutes ago.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But the problem -- yes, we can ask for that

11     again.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Sure, of course.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The problem is we have one footnote after two

14     quotations, and it's very difficult to find out which is which.  Although

15     there is an A and B, but this is not clear from the -- from the report

16     itself.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And if I may compound your problems, Mr. Lukic, if

18     I understood Mr. Pavlovic correctly, he said the document we have on the

19     screen is not the witness's statement but it's an official document.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Under B.  Under A is -- was statement of the witness.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And that is which number?  Can you --

22             MR. LUKIC:  Give me a second.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- call it up again.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, it's 1D06235.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's have a look.

Page 42600

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could we have that on our screen again.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  And only for the record the quotes in B/C/S is the

 3     same in both documents.  There is always, of course, something lost in

 4     the translation.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I then asked and you said it was on page 2.

 7     Could you then point me to where this literal quote --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's paragraph 4 and 5.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  4 and 5, page 2, please.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And it should start with.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, [B/C/S spoken] on the top of this -- [B/C/S

12     spoken].

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 284th Brigade set out straight away.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and do we find that as a quote in the report?

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, it's under A.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now I see what it is, yes.  Okay.

19             And the witnesses referred to by -- in the statement given by --

20     let me just check --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we go to the top of the page again.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe the first page if you want to see the source.

23     Please go to the first page.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now I think we slowly get to it, which is

25     good, by the way, because ...

Page 42601

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.  Let me just read it again.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Do you want me to read some part, Your Honour?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I think I'll be able to.

 5             Yes, please proceed.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before you do, can I just get an understanding.

 7     Do I understand that 51A comes from Nedzad's statement?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  51B comes from the report of the ministry --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Exactly.  That's right.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  And it's break time.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It's break time.  I think matters become clearer,

14     which is good.

15             We'll take a break and we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes,

16     that is quarter past 12.00.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  While we do that, Mr. Lukic, then you realise that

19     51B footnote refers to Nedzad not to the report.  The --

20             MR. LUKIC:  It refers to the report -- actually it's underneath,

21     but in the text it's after B.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             MR. LUKIC:  Since 51 contains both A and B.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is quite an unusual way of putting documents

25     together.

Page 42602

 1             MR. LUKIC:  It is --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is -- creates the confusion --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  It is, but that's the whole report like this and I

 4     had to deal with it as well.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And if you'd be able to explain it to us quicker.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, at least --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I was trying --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- well, you were trying to do your utmost best,

10     Mr. Lukic; I see that.  And I'm -- at least I'm happy that the confusion

11     has been resolved, irrespective of what other problems there may be.  But

12     this one seems at least to have been clarified.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and we'll resume at quarter past

15     12.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 11.55 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait for the witness to be escorted in the

19     courtroom.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would just offer these two

23     documents into evidence, 1D06235 first.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald.

25             MR. LUKIC:  That's the statement.

Page 42603

 1             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             With regard to the second document, the federal Ministry of

 3     Defence document, the Prosecution would not object given that

 4     Your Honours have gone into it in such detail and it's being used to find

 5     the place of where people went missing.

 6             With regard to the statements, Your Honour, the Prosecution would

 7     intend to object if the Defence intend to introduce wholesale the

 8     55 approximate statements that the witness cites.  We've had a quick

 9     check, Your Honours, and we've found I believe 11 of those witnesses have

10     testified but the rest have not.  If the Defence intends to submit all

11     the other ones, we would be objecting.  If it's one or two as examples to

12     show how the -- how Mr. Pavlovic used them to show where witnesses went

13     missing, were to look for those witnesses, and so on, the Prosecution

14     would have no objection to that.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- so, at this moment for this one,

16     apart from lacking translation, yes.

17             Then, first, the statement dated the 7th of August, 1995 -- I

18     don't know whether that's the right order, but we have one statement and

19     one report both in footnote 51.

20             Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  1D06235 will be MFI D1378.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the statement.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  That's the statement, correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the statement, that's marked for

25     identification.

Page 42604

 1             And then the report which appears in footnote 51B, under B.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be 1D06255, that will be D1379.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 4             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Next I would like to see on our screens 1D06259, please.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] This is a document from the State Security

 8     Service, the SDB, sector Tuzla, of 27 October 1995.  It is an

 9     Official Note on an interview conducted with Enver Avdic.  He is in

10     footnote 55.

11             In his statement, in the last paragraph in B/C/S, and we must

12     turn the page in English, he says that when the 285th and 282nd Brigade,

13     were getting out, a Chetnik paramilitary unit opened strong artillery

14     fire on the remaining brigades and the civilian population who found

15     themselves in Buljim.  And in his estimate, about 1.000 soldiers and

16     civilians were killed at that time.  So we are talking about Buljim.

17             Which part of the movement of the column is it, the initial,

18     middle, the final?

19        A.   It's the beginning.  It's the ground where they entered the

20     territory of the VRS, and this statement is completely consistent with

21     the previous information, with the difference that this source also

22     provides an estimate, speaking perhaps about the last part of the column

23     because, as I said, the column was 10 kilometres long, and his estimate

24     is about a thousand soldiers and civilians.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps I missed something, but -- no, I found

Page 42605

 1     it.  Thank you.

 2             Please continue.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  We would offer this document into

 4     evidence, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

 6             Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D1380, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Pavlovic, I would like us to turn to the night of the

11     12th July 1995 and the 13th, the morning of the 13th.  Where is the

12     column at that time, at least its largest part?

13        A.   The bulk of the column is already in the area of Kamenica,

14     already in the morning of the 12th, and the tail of the column arrives

15     around noon - those who survived.  A certain number of the wounded are

16     also brought, and somewhere during the evening that day there is an

17     attempt to re-form the column and the next day cross over the road

18     Konjevic Polje-Nova Kasaba.  That's based on all the documents that I

19     reviewed.

20        Q.   We'll go into the details of your analysis later.  Did this

21     column suffer any losses in Kamenica?

22        A.   Yes.  In many statements and documents, there are references to

23     the fighting that occurred there on the night of the 12th and lasting

24     until the 13th and major losses which would later turn out to be the

25     greatest losses during the whole breakthrough.

Page 42606

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to call up 1D06235.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  D1378, MFI.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Already?  Yeah.  I'm sorry, I'm not tracking it

 4     correctly.  Thank you.

 5             We need ... we need page 2 in B/C/S.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you assist us where we are in the

 7     expert report at this moment.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's footnote 52.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  52.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Ademovic, Nedzad.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yeah.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Nedzad Ademovic.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] In the middle of the fifth paragraph on this

14     page - page 2 in B/C/S - he says, I'll read it briefly:

15             "At 2100 hours, the 284th Brigade set out and we were immediately

16     attacked with artillery weapons" -- "we were attacked with infantry

17     weapons.  They fired at us from the sector of Kravica village, the trig

18     point, the Rogac feature, Konjevic Polje village and all the other

19     features.  We suffered massive losses and had many wounded, panic spread

20     among our people, and they started killing one another.  Grenades were

21     thrown.  This lasted until dawn, and there was shooting throughout the

22     night."

23             Now we need to move to the next page in B/C/S.  It says,

24     paragraph 2:

25             "Going back to Srebrenica," so they are going back to Srebrenica

Page 42607

 1     now, "we went part of the road that we had taken earlier in the other

 2     direction, and we saw a large number of bodies of fighters from the

 3     column who had been killed."

 4             Later on he says:

 5             "In total of all of the bodies I saw that day" --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What you are reading now, is that the same quote

 7     as number 52?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, it's already in the text.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  My problem is that what I heard was going

10     back to Srebrenica.

11             MR. LUKIC:  That -- that's was my remark.  It's not in the text.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, no, but the translation I got was going back

13     to Srebrenica, the quotation --

14             MR. LUKIC:  You have it in the second paragraph of this

15     footnote --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I finish my point and then can you correct me.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Sure, yes.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What I see in the quote says "going back from

19     Srebrenica," not "to Srebrenica."  So I just want to know are we talking

20     about the same quotation or --

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's wrong translation.  It says:

22     [Interpretation] "Returning to Srebrenica," it says.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, but this one says going back from Srebrenica.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, yeah --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What was it?

Page 42608

 1             MR. LUKIC:  -- in the original text of the document and in the

 2     B/C/S version of the report it says, I will read and quote:

 3             [Interpretation] "Going back towards Srebrenica."

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Previous translation continues] ... so must put

 5     to.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  So translation should be corrected then.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I apologise --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you should take care that there will be a

10     correct translation.

11             And, Mr. Lukic, always, if you say translation is wrong, it's

12     always that you think that the translation is wrong, which will always be

13     verified by CLSS --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I insist --

16             MR. LUKIC:  Only this time I was able to check in the document.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and you read it and then it turned out that you

18     were right, which is okay, but finally it is CLSS --

19             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- which deals with it.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   [Interpretation] The last sentence in your quotation as well:

24             "All together, I saw about a thousand bodies that day."

25             Is this a different location from Buljim?

Page 42609

 1        A.   Yes.  And if I can only --

 2        Q.   Just wait a minute.  You said "yes."  Why do you believe that

 3     this part of the statement is important and why the whole statement is

 4     important?

 5        A.   Precisely because it deals with the area of Kamenica which we

 6     discussed before and the line up on the night of the 12th and the plan to

 7     move towards the road Konjevic Polje-Nova Kasaba, to try to break out.

 8     It describes what happened when the attack started, complete chaos, and

 9     that the fighting lasted all night.  And for the first time, we see

10     information about internal conflict among them and that corroborates some

11     other statements by witnesses that I've seen, and I think Mr. Slobodan

12     Petrovic, who is a member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, also gave

13     a statement where he said that from the area of the road he heard

14     throughout the night the sounds of fighting, shooting, shouting.  And we

15     see in this statement that there was internal fighting between them and

16     it gives an estimate.

17             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... admitted into

18     evidence, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

20             MR. MacDONALD: [Overlapping speakers] ...

21             MR. LUKIC:  I was warned by Judge Moloto already once.  Thank

22     you.  Sorry.  I'll move on.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But before -- since we're dealing anyhow with

24     other matters, the report which we looked at earlier which is, I think,

25     D1379.  Mr. Lukic, could you pay attention to it that the original is 25

Page 42610

 1     pages in B/C/S and that the English translation is only three pages.

 2     Either reduce it or talk about -- with Mr. MacDonald about it, whether

 3     for contextualisation you would need more than the three pages you used.

 4             Meanwhile, please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Now we need 1D05883, please.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Beforehand we had a statement from 1995 and now

 8     we will see the statement from 2002.  In footnote 55C, with a diacritic,

 9     Muratovic, Kadrija.  He gave a statement and answered questions that are

10     obviously based on a questionnaire.  For that, we will need page 3 in

11     B/C/S and page 2 in the English version.  We are interested in answer

12     number 9, the last four lines in B/C/S.

13             What is written here is --

14             MR. LUKIC:  I cannot really read this handwriting.  I will read

15     from the B/C/S -- from the English version, in the second part of this

16     answer under number 9.

17             "In the woods, I saw mutilated bodies of Bosniaks, but I do not

18     know their names.  I would like to point out that in Kamenica village,

19     Serbian soldiers set up an ambush and killed thousands of Bosniaks, and

20     the same time they also used poison gas."

21        Q.   [Interpretation] What is the importance of this statement given

22     seven years after the previous one?

23        A.   I didn't hear your entire question.  I do apologise.

24        Q.   Why is this statement important?  It was given seven years later.

25     The previous up with was given in 1995 and this one in 2002.

Page 42611

 1        A.   Yes, well, it matters because it basically confirms other

 2     statements and documents concerning what happened in that area, in the

 3     area of Kamenica.  Also, it is important for us because it is necessary

 4     to assess the relevance of the statement.  We see that it was given many

 5     years after the event itself, so it can be viewed from that vantage

 6     point, its importance, that is.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... preferred not to

 8     read all of them.  We will ask for this statement to be admitted into

 9     evidence first.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  1D5883 will be Exhibit D1381, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             1D05876, we do not want to be opened.  We don't need it.  Just

15     for the record that that's the statement of Alic, Hasan, given to the

16     state security in Tuzla on 9th of October, 1995, also talks about this

17     location and killed 1.000 soldiers and civilians.

18             And also 1D06258, is statement of Ramic, Sado, given to the AID

19     Tuzla on the 12th of February, 1996, also estimates that 1.000 men were

20     killed that location.

21             Now, so if it's necessary, we can, but we would tender these

22     documents.

23             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would object to the

24     tendering of these documents.  We appreciate that my friend is trying to

25     use them for corroboration purposes but, in essence, I believe what my

Page 42612

 1     friend has done is simply give the gist of the next two quotations from

 2     the report.  There is certainly the two names that appear in the next --

 3     within the footnote, as it were.  And as the Prosecution previously said,

 4     our position is that it's not appropriate for an expert witness to be

 5     used to introduce wholesale a large number of witness statements.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Sometimes, Mr. MacDonald, this Chamber has allowed

 7     the tendering of documents which deal with the same subject matter,

 8     although the witness itself would not be in a position to comment on

 9     that.

10             In the context of that case law, would your -- do you have any

11     reason why we should not then do it here in a similar way as sometimes it

12     was done by the Prosecution as well?

13             MR. MacDONALD:  I do not, Your Honour.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, could you assign numbers because the

16     Chamber decided that it will admit these statements.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  1D05876 will be D1382.

18             And 1D06258 will be Exhibit D1383.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and do we have translations for them,

20     Mr. Lukic?

21             Mr. Registrar, perhaps in e-court you could check whether any

22     translations are available.

23             MR. LUKIC:  For 6258 we do -- both have translation, Your Honour.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  That's confirmed, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, D1382 and D1383 are admitted into evidence.

Page 42613

 1             Please proceed.

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honour, I think we should go into private

 6     session for a moment.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I apologise.  I didn't mark it in my questions, it's

10     protected --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Open session]

Page 42614

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  In the document 1D06260, we can open it, but the

 4     witness in this statement - it's footnote 55E - gave different estimate

 5     bit lower than previously given, and that estimate is 700.  It's on

 6     page 2.  We don't have translation yet.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You'd like to have it marked for identification?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That's MFI D1384, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification, pending

12     translation.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was there a need to have it under seal?

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour, you are right.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification, under seal.

16             MR. LUKIC:  On the same line - we already have evidence in this

17     case under P number, it's P01547 - it's footnote 55G.  And I will now ask

18     to have on our screens 1D06255, please.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's D1379.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  You are right, Your Honour.

21             Can we have D1379 on our screens.  We do.

22             [Interpretation] We need the second part of the same document.

23        Q.   Since the document is longer in B/C/S, we need page 15 in B/C/S,

24     paragraph 2; and, in English, page 2, paragraph 3?

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you said it's footnote 55G; correct?

Page 42615

 1             MR. LUKIC:  J.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, 55J.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   In this report, did you find the part that is based on Krdzic,

 5     Behadija's statement?

 6        A.   Could be please repeat that question?  I've been following

 7     but ...

 8        Q.   Sometimes I hurry a bit.  On the screen, please look at your

 9     screen.  So top of the page, according to Behadija Krdzic's statement.

10        A.   All right.

11        Q.   And it says further on:

12             "The Chetniks in the sector of the north of Kamenica village, the

13     Chetniks surrounded a group of fighters and civilians and opened fire on

14     them with every sort of fire-arm."

15             And further down a few lines --

16             MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues]... version or maybe

17     into the next page.  Yeah, we have to go to the next page, top of the

18     page.

19        Q.   [Interpretation] It says:

20             "According to his estimate, a total of about 2.000 Bosniaks were

21     killed in this massacre."

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it 2.000 or 200?

23             MR. LUKIC:  2.000.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  The report says "200."

25             MR. LUKIC:  Oh.  But the next sentence in the quotation, it says

Page 42616

 1     "2.000."  Yeah.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, yeah.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Everything that it says here about Kamenica, did

 5     you manage to locate that?  Are all the witnesses speaking about one

 6     spot?  Several spots?

 7        A.   In principle, in these statements that are mentioned here, and

 8     the ones that we had the opportunity to see earlier on, there's a

 9     reference to the evening of the 12th and the location of Kamenica which

10     is an elevated area, a wide area.  We see that a witness here refers to

11     an estimate of about 2.000.  And then, as the text continue, we see that

12     there is another source and again 2.000 in the area of Kamenica, the same

13     area.  A few lines further down, there is a reference to Dzugum, a

14     location that is by the road between Nova Kasaba and Konjevic Polje.  It

15     is close to Nova Kasaba; that is to say, before one gets to the road from

16     the location of Kamenica that we've been speaking about.

17             If you allow me --

18        Q.   Go ahead.

19        A.   Another thing that is important for our work is that the column

20     was broken up and that people dispersed, fleeing in different directions.

21     So for our work it is important -- the area has to be searched, so it's

22     not only the road along which the column moved but it -- goes beyond

23     that, hundreds of metres and then even kilometres.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D06264.

Page 42617

 1        Q.   So thank you and let us have a look at this document now.  That

 2     is footnote 55K.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I see that we don't have a

 4     translation.  This is a record.  The 24th of September, 1995, is the

 5     date.  We need page 2, line 15 from the bottom.

 6        Q.   It says:

 7             "While I was passing through," can you see this?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   "As I was passing through the territory where there was ambush in

10     several valleys or, rather, where the Chetniks opened fire at the column,

11     I saw over 2.000 corpses - to the best of my estimate - that no one even

12     tried to locate in a single place let alone bury."

13        A.   Again, we're talking about the time between the 12th and the

14     13th, from Kamenica towards the road Konjevic Polje-Nova Kasaba.  We have

15     to be aware - I think that it is important to say this - that the column

16     was over 10 kilometres long, or about 10 kilometres long.  Let me be more

17     precise, if I can put that way.  And, of course, not everybody could see

18     the same thing.  This witness here says what he saw.  It is possible that

19     certain statements coincide, as some do.  But it is important to create

20     this reconstruction, this mosaic, to see what happened, where and when.

21             MR. LUKIC:  We would ask for this document to be MFI'd.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One second.  Perhaps -- you said 24th of

23     September, 1995.  Where do I find that exactly?

24             MR. LUKIC:  We have the document.  Give me one second.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We have the document on our screen, haven't we?

Page 42618

 1             MR. LUKIC:  It's in my questions.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's in your question --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- then I take it it must have a basis in the

 5     document itself as well.

 6             Mr. MacDonald.

 7             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             We note that this document appears to be unsigned.  We don't have

 9     the translation obviously, but I understand from my colleague Ms. Stewart

10     that's what those words mean.  On that basis, if we could ask for it to

11     be MFI'd for now so we can check the problem.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's already to be MFI'd anyhow because there's

13     no translation.

14             Mr. Lukic, would you please take care of both the signature,

15     translation, and the origin of this document.

16             MR. LUKIC:  We found it, it has ERN number.  We found it -- we

17     got it from the Prosecution.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. MacDONALD:  We'll check, Your Honour.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I think -- did we assign a number already?  We

23     did not.

24             Mr. Registrar, the number under which it will be MFI'd is ...

25             THE REGISTRAR:  1D06264 will be MFI D1385.

Page 42619

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification and keeps that status for

 2     the time being.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have 1D05882, please.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] We have this document in English only.

 6     Fortunately you read English and you speak English.  We see here that

 7     this is a statement that was taken by on Jean-Rene Ruez on behalf of the

 8     Tribunal, and it's the 19th of January, 1996.  That's when the interview

 9     took place.

10             In this document we will need page 4.

11             MR. LUKIC:  I was just informed that the date for the previous

12     document I got from the e-court, 24th of September.  I found it in the

13     e-court.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but one could put whatever they want in the

15     e-court in the description of the document.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, I was trying to find it in the document

18     itself, any confirmation of what you presented as the date.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             [Interpretation] We need the sixth line from the bottom of this

21     page.  This is what it says.  Now I will be reading this out.  I quote:

22             "[In English] Coming down the Buljim mountain we found a lot of

23     skeletons and parts of bodies of those who were killed on the way.  Close

24     from the spot of the first ambush, we found three survivors who had

25     stayed there, hidden for about 40 days.  They refused to join us.

Page 42620

 1             "We then arrived in the forest where the second ambush occurred

 2     in order to try to identify some bodies.  Bodies were still all around.

 3     I recognised the bodies of two men who were with me at the beginning at

 4     their clothes and their bags.  I searched for my brothers but did not

 5     find any of them.

 6             "We did not count the bodies we saw but I would estimate that

 7     there were about 2 or [sic] 3.000 bodies.

 8             "We arrived in Burnice and downhill, I saw the same bodies that I

 9     had seen the first time.  Nobody had moved them.

10             "Hamdija sent three men to the creek to check if bodies were

11     still there.  They said at their return that there were even more bodies

12     in the creek than along the road."

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Did you establish which area this referred to

14     and what this statement covers?

15        A.   Yes.  Well, the gentleman who gave the statement -- actually, in

16     the previous parts of the statement, he mentioned that he was moving

17     along with the column of the 28th Division and that somewhere -- I think

18     it's Udrc in Crni Vrh, that is the municipality of Zvornik.  He got back

19     with a great because his assessment was that they could not break through

20     towards the lines of the 2nd Corps of the BH army towards Baljkovica.

21     And he returned with a group, taking the same route several days after

22     the breakthrough had started.  Then he went to Zepa.  He was there until

23     the fall of Zepa, and then he came back to the area of Srebrenica where

24     he spent several days with this group.  And then, in fact, he came to the

25     area from which the 28th Division started the breakthrough from the

Page 42621

 1     evening of the 11th, towards the 12th, and he sees that he saw many

 2     bodies or skeletons near Buljim.  I cannot remember exactly.  It's in one

 3     of the previous parts.  I cannot see it now on the screen.  They came

 4     across some people who were hiding in that area, and then they reached

 5     the area of Kamenica where there was another ambush.  And then they

 6     provide this estimate.  At Kamenica, they saw about 2- to 3.000 bodies.

 7             There are also other statements that basically correspond to

 8     this, and then they moved towards Burnice or, rather, the road between

 9     Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba.  It is somewhere around halfway,

10     approximately, from Kamenica towards the road.  And there it says that

11     again they saw even more bodies than what they had seen between the 12th

12     and the 13th, when the fighting was actually taking place.

13             That would be it, approximately.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you the following.

15             Do you also -- have you also seen statements with lower numbers?

16     I mean, here it's 2- to 3.000.  Have you seen statements giving

17     considerably different numbers, higher, lower, whatever?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  There are statements with

19     varying numbers that pertain to different points in time and different

20     locations.  This is not during fighting.  So they had the opportunity to

21     take a careful look, and that's why I think this statement is different

22     and its important.  There are different statements and I said the column

23     was quite long.  It was 10 kilometres.  Not all people saw the same

24     thing.  Some people saw perhaps two dead persons.  They fled from there;

25     they never returned to that place.  Of course, we need to see something

Page 42622

 1     that realistically reflects the situation on the ground.  And that is why

 2     this statement is important because it is a reference to several persons

 3     who were there.  He says that there was a group there, it wasn't just one

 4     person, and this is month or even more than a month after the events

 5     concerned.  And then they could see properly what it was that was

 6     happening there.

 7             I beg your pardon, may I just say one more thing.  In the

 8     analysis I prepared, there are many statements, and there are also some

 9     statements with estimates that are far lower with regard to that

10     particular place.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you referred to those as well so that we can

12     compare them and see which ones to believe?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course you will see -- I did not

14     refer to exactly all statements.  I tried to refer to what is relevant

15     for what we do on the ground anyway.  I think that there are some

16     additional statements that I found later on, and again one can take a

17     look at that and then really create a picture as to what it was that was

18     actually taking place there.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You've referred to statements you learned about

20     later on.  When and under what circumstances did you learn about these

21     other or new statements?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, through our work.

23     When I say "later," I mean the period when I wrote this.  And then

24     through my work at the republic centre, I got some other statements - and

25     I think that they are relevant with regard to this matter - in order to

Page 42623

 1     help, which was my objective.  I mean, that was my task, to establish the

 2     actual state of affairs with regard to this particular event.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's not yet included in your report or

 4     is it?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some of these statements are not in

 6     the footnotes.  I provided the Defence with these statements.  Now I'm

 7     not familiar with the procedure, how you can obtain them.  I assume that

 8     it is possible.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I -- may I ask you the following question,

10     which perhaps goes to the core of what you're telling us.

11             I think what you're mainly telling us is how many people in your

12     estimate and your conclusions based on material you have studied and

13     including statements, how many approximately were killed being part of

14     the column through -- you give a few reasons:  Suicide, combat,

15     et cetera.  You've not mentioned anywhere that they may have been killed

16     as a potential explanation by crime.  Have you excluded that or ...

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My task was - the one that I was

18     given - to deal with losses during the breakthrough of the 28th Division,

19     during the breakthrough from the encirclement.  I'm speaking of military

20     operations, and I mentioned that in the introduction to my paper, that I

21     did not deal with the fate of prisoners of war.  Because this was the

22     task that was given to me.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, you are stating in your report that

24     what is ascribed to crime is exaggerated and is not in accordance with

25     the truth and is even, for political reasons, put at a certain point in

Page 42624

 1     time before the public, et cetera.

 2             I have the following question for you.  If you say -- and I'm

 3     just -- this is a hypothesis just.  Let's just assume that it's reported

 4     that 10.000 people are missing.  If you, for example, would say, Well, in

 5     the column 8.000 must have died - I'm not saying that you are telling us

 6     this - and if we have other evidence which says, for example, 5.000

 7     people were killed.  Then I have 13.000 people which are dead, whereas

 8     10.000 are reported to be missing.  How, in your view, could we establish

 9     whether either the 5.000 killed by crime is too large, or whether the

10     assessment of 8.000 being killed in the column is too big?  Because the

11     two together give us more dead people than are reported missing.

12             Do you have any -- I mean, you focussed very much on the one.

13     You didn't deal with the prisoners of war.  Others have done so.  And if

14     those two collide, what's -- what should -- what should we do?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I quite understand the point of

16     your question, and that's a very good question.

17             My job was to take into account all the documents, statements,

18     and analyses available to me, and based on that - as an expert and a man

19     with experience in that job - estimate what could be realistic numbers

20     and losses.  I believe my documents are similar or the same as those used

21     by the Defence so far.  I cannot estimate whether a person gave a

22     security organ correct information.  It's the courts, the judicial and

23     investigative authorities, whose responsibility it is to take statements

24     and to establish which people got killed during the breakthrough and

25     which were killed in different ways name by name.  I am presenting my

Page 42625

 1     conclusions as an expert and it is up to you, of course, the Court, to

 2     judge what is what.  That is my humble opinion, and I hope I have been of

 3     assistance.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   This statement that you have commented upon so far that we've

10     reviewed, did they refer to executions or to losses sustained during the

11     movement of the column?

12        A.   I cannot give you a 100 per cent exact answer, but I know that

13     there are statements among these that refer to different ways of death,

14     and you can probably find it in the statements attached to the report and

15     footnoted.  But in view of my particular task, I dealt with one part

16     only.

17        Q.   The numbers we've cited here, does it only include what the

18     witnesses referred to as losses sustained during the movement of the

19     column, or that number given, for instance, by the last witness, an OTP

20     investigator?  Would it include people who were executed?

21        A.   I can say that from the knowledge we gained from the documents

22     and statements as to what happened in that area in that specific place,

23     my supposition and my conclusion is that the greatest majority of persons

24     whose bodies were found there got killed in the fighting between the two

25     sides, in internal fighting, suicides, et cetera, because panic reigned

Page 42626

 1     in that column and, unfortunately, they also shot at one another.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald.

 3             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             Just for clarity, the Prosecution position is certainly there

 5     were a large number of people who were prisoners of war and executed, but

 6     also that some -- some people in the column surrendered and were executed

 7     on the spot.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. MacDONALD:  And I wonder if my friend could just distinguish

10     between them when he asks his questions.

11             Thank you, Your Honour.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Well, I think it's self-explanatory from the

13     statements about which victims these witnesses are testifying.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Lot of survivors couldn't have been victims of

15     murders.  That's for sure.  We only have a few, I think, witnesses who

16     have stated that they survived mass executions, but I think that those

17     who gave statements to the -- Tuzla they -- I think what we've seen until

18     now are mainly stating about what happened in the column, irrespective of

19     whether it's always accurate or reliable, credible - that's still to be

20     tested - but that seems to be what Mr. Lukic is presenting and you have

21     any doubt as to whether there's any confusion in this respect.

22             MR. MacDONALD:  It was just, Your Honour, with regard to

23     Your Honour's question about what Mr. Pavlovic's role was, what his task

24     was, and he said he was excluding the number of people who had been

25     executed.

Page 42627

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. MacDONALD:  The Prosecution position is that some people who

 3     were in the column were also executed.  They're not in the mass graves

 4     necessarily but that's --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, you mean there were executions in the column as

 6     well.

 7             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you keep that in the back of your mind, so as

 9     to clearly distinguish --

10             Meanwhile, I think we should first take a break, Mr. Lukic.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break and we'll -- you may follow the

13     usher.  We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, and we resume at 20

14     minutes to 2.00.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 1.45 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted

19     into the courtroom, I think after the present witness we have one more

20     witness to go.  There is no way this week that we could have extended

21     sessions for practical reasons.  It's -- therefore, the parties are urged

22     to conclude the evidence of those two witnesses, because the next

23     witness, I think, is scheduled for two hours in-chief, two hours cross.

24     And with this witness, I think we should be able to conclude in such a

25     time that there will be sufficient time left for the next witness.

Page 42628

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I just wanted to put this on the record

 3     that we are not left with half an hour or one or two hours which would

 4     then have to be postponed until early February and then travelling twice,

 5     et cetera.  We should try to complete our programme this week.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I want to finish this witness as well, Your Honour.

 7     Although I clarified with Mr. Pavlovic he told me that, if necessary, he

 8     would come back.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  What did you say?  You will not finish?

10             MR. LUKIC:  I will do my best to finish this witness and I do

11     want to finish --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. LUKIC:  -- his examination this week, but I said that I

14     clarified with Mr. Pavlovic - and he's listening now - that's he's

15     willing even to come back if necessary.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but we will try to avoid that in any case --

17             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, absolutely.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And I think we have, apart from this now short

19     session, we have three days left, for which -- we would have two days for

20     this witness.

21             And I'm also looking at you, Mr. MacDonald.  Your time for cross

22     was scheduled at?

23             MR. MacDONALD:  Our current estimate is two hours, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. MacDONALD:  If I can, sorry, just add quickly.  Given that we

Page 42629

 1     weren't sure what my friend was going to go out in-chief, we may ask for

 2     some leeway but right now we don't see it going --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Mr. Lukic -- one second.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we'll start with the next witness anyway

 7     tomorrow morning --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but then we would continue on Wednesday.  And

10     there's no way that we could not conclude the evidence of two witness

11     this week.  It's just --

12             MR. LUKIC:  I'm pretty confident that we will.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's good, Mr. Lukic.  That's very good that

14     you are confident.

15             MR. LUKIC:  I hope that the Prosecution would hurry up.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand you, which is not the same as I

17     agree with you.  But please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

19             Can we have 1D06265, please.  It's 55L -- J footnote.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] We'll see soon a statement dated 14

21     September 1995.

22             [In English] Again, yeah on this one it is visible it is composed

23     on this day on the first line.  First line of the text there is a date.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it ...

25             MR. LUKIC:  14th of September, 1995.

Page 42630

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But is it the same witness --

 2             MR. LUKIC:  No --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- as the witness on the footnote?  Is this

 4     Alija Sinanovic?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  It's -- that top part is probably from the previous

 6     statement.  That's the format where you have something from previous

 7     statements, but the record is that you have the second paragraph where

 8     you have the name of this witness, Mujanovic, Isad.  It says [B/C/S

 9     spoken] Mujanovic, Isad.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.  We need page 2 and we'll look at the line

13     3 from the top of the document.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] It says -- because we have no translation I'll

15     read this short passage that we need:

16             "The column in which I ran into the first ambush got to Kamenica

17     where fire was opened upon us from all possible artillery and other

18     weapons, and there, in my estimate, from what I saw, around 1.000 persons

19     were killed.  At that time, we picked up and carried the wounded, and

20     then when we ran into new ambushes, we dropped them because everyone ran

21     for their lives."

22             Mr. Pavlovic, in other statements as well, did you come across

23     information that the wounded were left behind, that the unwounded members

24     did not go on carrying them -- excuse me, just a moment my colleague has

25     an objection.

Page 42631

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think he was waiting for you to finish the

 2     question.

 3             MR. MacDONALD:  Just to say that we do object, Your Honour.  It's

 4     a very leading question.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It certainly is, Mr. Lukic.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Quite apart from now leading evidence that is not

 7     here.  You were to ask about this one, not in other statements.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you, please, rephrase your question or put

 9     another question.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Then I'll ask the witness,

11     the following:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Were you able to determine reading this

13     statement the place where this happened?  Which situation is this person

14     describing?

15        A.   This witness also describes the events at Kamenica near Bratunac,

16     just under Sandici and Kravica.  But he says that in his part of the

17     column, he ran into the first ambush at Kamenica, where around 1.000

18     persons were killed that he saw.  And he later says that he cannot put a

19     number on all the dead bodies and the wounded people he saw at that time.

20             Speaking about the number of the wounded in such situations where

21     the 28th Division was fighting against the other side, it frequently

22     happened that the wounded were left behind by their fellow fighters who

23     were longer able to carry them.  In some other statement, I was able to

24     see the people who saw certain fellow fighters wounded, when they

25     returned to the same place, they saw that the wounded had succumbed to

Page 42632

 1     their wounds.  So regrettably a certain number of the wounded could not

 2     be saved.  They died.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  We tender this document.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I understand this

 6     statement is also unsigned, so we wonder if it could be MFI'd until we

 7     check the provenance.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Oh yes, thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The statement is unsigned and without translation.

10             Mr. Registrar, the --

11             THE REGISTRAR:  1D06265 will be MFI D1386, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And is marked for identification.

13             I'm wondering, Mr. Lukic, is there no way to -- I mean, the

14     Prosecution has presented its evidence.  You want to present statements

15     saying that the numbers of those who were killed in the column might be

16     large or at least that the statements give their number there, mainly

17     assessments, rather rough assessments.  But why not find a way to have

18     that in evidence?  These, of course, are statements of witnesses who did

19     not appear.  At the same time, the statements were not taken for Tribunal

20     purposes and in that respect are not covered by Rule 92 bis.  Why not --

21     because what happens now is that the witness draws all kinds of

22     conclusions on the basis of this limited materials which, of course,

23     doesn't assist us greatly because that's -- these materials -- whereas

24     this Chamber has to look at all the materials before it, and that could

25     include these ones.  But is there not another way to say, Well, that's

Page 42633

 1     what the witness stated in Tuzla in 1995 and then we'll have to -- I

 2     mean, this witness can't help us very much in weighing that evidence.

 3     He -- I don't know, it seems that he was not present when these

 4     statements were taken, but he draws conclusions on the basis of it,

 5     whereas -- well, I've said already before, it doesn't help in that

 6     respect that he may emphasise more these than others which he may not

 7     even be aware of.

 8             Is there not a practical way of dealing with this matter without

 9     spending hours and hours in court to --

10             MR. LUKIC:  We have 20 more minutes and maybe after the court

11     sitting I can meet with the Prosecution, and if they have any proposition

12     we are open to discuss it with him.  But, as I told you before, in this

13     regard the burden of proof was switched to the Defence because the

14     Prosecution never investigated -- never investigated this, although their

15     investigators were aware.  We read Mr. Ruez's statement to him today --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's --

17             MR. LUKIC:  So we think --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- stay away from whether the Prosecution -- I'm at

19     this moment pointing at the matter which, whether or not it was

20     investigated or not by them is not something -- you now put your evidence

21     before us and --

22             MR. LUKIC:  At least we do not have any evidence on that,

23     because our materials do not show --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's --

25             MR. LUKIC:  -- that it's investigated --

Page 42634

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, you are already starting with the

 2     evaluation of the evidence which is before us and that's for the Chamber

 3     to do at later stage.  I'm trying at this moment to see whether there are

 4     more practical ways of having these statements in.  And then, of course,

 5     to be given its weight in the totality of the evidence with all the

 6     limitations that we haven't heard those witnesses.

 7             Mr. MacDonald, I saw Mr. McCloskey's body language seemed to be

 8     very much opposing any such solution.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  Given that this is a

10     rather important policy decision, we, of course, will try to reach some

11     agreement with Mr. Lukic.  However, as you can see, we haven't been

12     really objecting to these materials coming in, and -- but we do, as you

13     might imagine, greatly contest the accuracy.  As you yourself have

14     pointed out, there's high numbers and low numbers this is really -- that

15     particular issue is not going to be open for discussion, but letting the

16     material in we've been open to so that the Court can give it whatever

17     weight it deems necessary.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Could the parties please discuss this

19     after -- because if we proceed in this slow pace, at the end it may be

20     that all it -- all these materials are in evidence anyhow, and then, of

21     course, it's for us what to do with them, that is, to make them part of

22     our evaluation.  And if that can be done in a more -- in a quicker way --

23     and, of course, without this witness drawing conclusions on the basis of

24     mainly these materials.  And that's, of course, what is trigging me to

25     make such an observation.

Page 42635

 1             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Some 55 witnesses that went

 2     through the woods that suffered what they sufficient and all the

 3     statements related to that, I'm not -- I don't -- it's the Prosecution

 4     position this is not going to be overly probative for you.  You have seen

 5     witnesses that have testified that went through this, that were open for

 6     cross-examination.  But 55 statements like this you can see from the

 7     witness's testimony, this -- this is taking us pretty far afield.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  A selection perhaps or an agreement between the

 9     parties that there are another 40 with numbers going from -- on the same

10     event from 200 to 500 or 300, so --

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  That's in his report.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The problem, of course, is conclusions to be

13     drawn from that --

14             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but if you could be clear on what you do or do

16     not contest as far as existence of statements, that might help already

17     because then the Chamber is aware that the parties do not disagree on the

18     existence of statements with these numbers in this context, apart from

19     what conclusions are to be drawn from that.

20             The parties are invited to see whether they can speed up matters

21     and reach a result which is similar to the slow pace in which we're doing

22     it now.

23             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

24             MR. LUKIC:  I'll move on to one document I cannot introduce in

25     evidence but I would like to see it on the screen.  It's 1D00990.  It's

Page 42636

 1     the testimony of Gavric, Mico.  55M.  We need e-court page 52, please.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] You have used this transcript and you have

 3     reviewed it also for our case.  From line 7 down, the witness says --

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Lukic, I think first you should introduce

 5     this document.  We see it's a transcript from this Tribunal.  We have no

 6     idea from which case, when that interview -- when this testimony was

 7     given.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  This testimony is from Blagojevic case.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The 3rd of May, 2004, perhaps?

10             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:

13        Q.   And I quote:

14             "At the same time I backtracked and remembered what had happened

15     some 20 years previously when I, going from the village of Kamenica down

16     to Konjevic Polje, that I could have passed that route without stepping

17     on the ground.  I stepped on one body after another.  So anybody who had

18     been there would know just how many corpses there were."

19             [Interpretation] I'm afraid of formulating my question in the

20     wrong way.  Do you know who Mico Gavric is?

21        A.   Yes, I've had the opportunity to meet that gentleman and talk to

22     him as part of the work I'm doing now on this subject because I have seen

23     this transcript and I asked him what it was about, and he explained to me

24     that as a young soldier he had occasion to talk to a well-known general,

25     Petar Gracanin, about the battle of the Sutjeska, the scene where one

Page 42637

 1     could not put one's foot on the ground there were so many dead and

 2     wounded.  And he compared it to this situation on the 17th of July when

 3     they were clearing the terrain going towards Kravica.  And the road from

 4     Konjevic Polje to Nova Kasaba, he said it was 6 to 10 kilometres that

 5     they cleared, and he had seen a horrible scene, unimaginable to a normal

 6     person.  There were so many bodies strewn on the ground where the

 7     28th Division's column was passing.

 8             For the type of work that I am doing, it is very significant.

 9     And in view of the experience we've had, it's important to me to be able

10     to assess the importance and the truthfulness of the statements I'm

11     dealing with.

12        Q.   I'd like to show you a document now that is not a statement.

13     It's 1D06269.  It's the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 2nd Corps

14     Command, security section.  The date is 23rd August 1995.

15             Second paragraph on this first page, it says:

16             "It is necessary to take a detailed statement for the record from

17     Kemal Mujic and two of his fellow fighters concerning their stay in

18     Srebrenica in the perpetration of a war crime against the Bosniak

19     population (the figure of 2.000 to 3.000 bodies from Buljim to Konjevic

20     Polje is referred to) by the aggressor, and forward these in two copies

21     as soon as possible to the OSVB of the 2nd Corps."

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Or "GSVP."  It's not clear.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I couldn't see.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] On this stretch from Buljim to Konjevic Polje,

25     from what you were able to study during your work, were there any mass

Page 42638

 1     executions?

 2        A.   I cannot make any assertions concerning that.  I did not find a

 3     reference in any document to any executions from Buljim to Konjevic

 4     Polje; the line of the breakout of the 28th Division.  I do not know that

 5     there were any mass executions, but I cannot rule it out.  I simply did

 6     not find such information.

 7        Q.   In your view, does this document reflect a wish to investigate a

 8     war crime or the incident of killing people in a column?

 9        A.   Well, we see this reference to 2.000 to 3.000 bodies --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

11             Mr. MacDonald.

12             MR. MacDONALD:  Maybe a bit late, Your Honour, but that was

13     another leading question, in the view of the Prosecution, so we object

14     here.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's even worse, Mr. Lukic.  You first put a

16     document to the witness and then you ask him about what's described in

17     the document, but also for the content.  And then, of course, by putting

18     the document to the witness, that's already very leading.  What you

19     should do is first start asking the questions, and then if there's any

20     question which is either supported or contradicted by the document, then

21     you take that second step.  But, I mean, that harm is done already.

22             MR. LUKIC:  But, Your Honour, in this document it says "war

23     crime" so it is exactly --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

25             MR. LUKIC:  -- what they were asking the witness in this

Page 42639

 1     document, so I'm not --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  By just showing it to him is --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  misleading him.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You could have asked the witness, without showing

 5     the document, the first questions that you put to him; whether he ever

 6     came across any document which refers to war crimes, and perhaps in this

 7     context, perhaps place, fine.  Did you ever see anything that a war crime

 8     was committed in or this area, or do you know whether war crimes were

 9     committed and does that material tell you in what area that happened?

10     That's the way you ask these kind of questions, in a non-leading way.

11             But let's move on.  The harm has been done.  Let's get back to

12     the question.

13             The question was whether in your view this document reflected a

14     wish to investigate a war crime or the incident of killing people in a

15     column.  Yes, but the question was put.

16             Witness, could you tell us anything about your interpretation of

17     this document?  That's a more neutral way of putting it.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evident from this that the

19     people killed and the corpses on the stretch from Buljim to Konjevic

20     Polje, the line of breakout of the 28th Division.  Why Mr. Mehmed Zrilic,

21     colonel of security, calls it a war crime is a subject for debate.  But

22     this is not the only case where military authorities qualify this as a

23     war crime.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's not open for debate what he said

25     because that's written in his letter.  Open for debate perhaps is whether

Page 42640

 1     that's an accurate description, yes or no.  You shouldn't mix up the two.

 2             Then you have not answered the question yet, I think.  If you

 3     want an answer, please, Mr. Lukic, put this or a similar question to the

 4     witness.  Otherwise, proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  I will withdraw the question.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  We're close to the moment where we have

 7     to adjourn.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently you would prefer to continue tomorrow,

10     and perhaps after the parties have an opportunity to discuss --

11             MR. LUKIC:  Day after tomorrow, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Day after tomorrow.  Yes, you are right.

13             Witness, we'll adjourn for the day.  I instruct you that you

14     should not speak or communicate in whatever way with whomever about your

15     testimony, whether it's testimony given today or testimony still to be

16     given in the coming days.  We'd like to see you back, I think, in view of

17     the schedule - two hours in chief, two hours in cross - that we could ask

18     the witness to remain available Wednesday morning.  So you don't have to

19     be available tomorrow, but we'd like to see you back on Wednesday

20     morning.  I can't promise you that we'll start right away at 9.30 to hear

21     further evidence from you, but you're requested to remain on standby from

22     that moment in this court-house.

23             I've given you the instruction.  Therefore, we'd like to see you

24     back Wednesday.  You may follow the usher.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 42641

 1             [In English] Shall I leave it here?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's okay that the witness keep it but you

 3     should not speak with anyone about it.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Understood.  Thank you.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow

 7     morning, Tuesday, the 15th of December, 9.30 in the morning, in this same

 8     courtroom, I.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of

11                           December, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.