1 Tuesday, 1 March 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in around this courtroom.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Although I have a list of some close to 20 items for a court
11 agenda, I limit myself to only one at this very moment.
12 On the 19th of February, the Defence informed the Chamber and the
13 Prosecution, by e-mail, that it would not be able to schedule the
14 testimony of a witness before today's date, the 1st of March. For that
15 reason, the Chamber decided to cancel the hearing of Monday, the 29th of
17 Is the Defence ready to call its next witness?
18 MR. IVETIC: We are, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Oien, if that's the way I have to
22 pronounce your name.
23 THE WITNESS: Oien, yes, that's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Oien, before you give evidence in this court
25 yes, apparently I -- do you receive interpretation in the English
1 language at a volume audible for you?
2 THE WITNESS: Please say again, sir.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do you receive interpretation in the English
4 language and -- yes, and at such a volume that you can hear me.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the rules require that you
7 make a solemn declaration, the texts of which is now handed out to you.
8 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: PER OIVIND OIEN
12 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Oien. Please be seated.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Oien, you'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic.
16 You'll find Mr. Ivetic to your left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the
17 Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
18 Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready, please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Good morning, sir.
21 A. Morning.
22 Q. I would first ask that you state your full name for purposes of
23 the record.
24 A. My full name is Per Oivind Oien.
25 Q. And have you ever testified before the Tribunal or any other
2 A. No.
3 Q. And, sir, what is your current occupation?
4 A. I am a retired officer of the Norwegian Army.
5 Q. Okay. And when did you retire from the Norwegian Army?
6 A. In 2002, June 2002.
7 Q. At the time that you retired, what rank did you have in the
8 Norwegian Army?
9 A. Lieutenant-colonel.
10 Q. With a was your last assigned post within the Norwegian Army
11 prior to retirement?
12 A. I was a chief of plans in the regional command in Trondelag.
13 That's the Regional Command Trondelag, also named in Norwegian DKT,
14 District Command Trondelag.
15 Q. And were you ever deployed to the former Yugoslavia in any
17 A. I was deployed to the former Yugoslavia from October 1994 until
18 October 1995.
19 Q. What organisation were you deployed as a member of?
20 A. I was a United Nations Military Observer.
21 Q. What had been your posting within the Norwegian armed forces
22 prior to being sent to the former Yugoslavia as part of the UNMO?
23 A. Prior to my last posting was since 1987, I was a chief of staff
24 at my home regiment in north Trondelag.
25 Q. And what was your rank at the time that you were deployed to the
1 former Yugoslavia?
2 A. Lieutenant-colonel.
3 Q. And where in the former Yugoslavia were you deployed and located
4 while a member of the UN Military Observers?
5 A. After arriving in Zagreb in October 1994, and a week's
6 introduction course, I was deployed to the Sector North which was in the
7 Slunj-Topusko area first as a team leader and then as a liaison officer
8 in the Topusko.
9 Q. And did you eventually get deployed to any other areas in the
10 former Yugoslavia as part of UNMO mission?
11 A. In March, early March I believe it was in 1995, I was deployed to
12 Sarajevo as the SMO, Senior Military Observer, in Sector Sarajevo.
13 Q. And, sir, as the SMO, Senior Military Observer, in Sector
14 Sarajevo, what were your formal duties and responsibilities?
15 A. I was responsible for leading the team of UNMOs in Sarajevo
16 consisting of approximately 100 officers from 16, 17 different nations
17 and to make sure that the UNMOs could do their job properly, that -- to
18 facilitate their work, to make sure that they followed the rules that was
19 decided, gave them support in the team, support both morally and, of
20 course, logistically. I also had -- my task was to be liaising with
21 especially the chief of police inside Sarajevo and -- the liaison officer
22 on the BSA side in Lukavica, yes, that means that liaising on that level.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just have clarified. Where you said that
24 one of your taskings was to sure that the UNMOs could do their job
25 properly, I take it, you intended to say.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, that's correct. I'm sorry.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. And, sir, who were your immediate superiors within the UNMO
6 structure at the time?
7 A. My immediate superior at the time was a Pak -- a colonel from
8 Pakistan and name I have forgotten who was attached to the UNMOs. He was
9 in the BiH command in Sarajevo.
10 Q. And was there any other superior within the UNMO structure higher
11 than yourself?
12 A. And then, of course, there was the CMO, a Brazilian general in
14 Q. And, sir, on occasions where there was to be an UNMO
15 investigation in Sarajevo in relation to a shelling incident who,
16 according to the ordinary course and practice of the UNMOs, would be in
17 charge of that investigation?
18 A. In charge of the investigation would be the team leader of the
19 teams assigned to the task. If there was shelling in the AOR, they were
20 asked to do the investigation.
21 Q. And now when I ask you about something we have in evidence from a
22 witness, Colonel Richard Mole and that's from transcript 4322 of this
23 trial, he talked about a position that he called the chief operations
24 officer for all UNMO groups that would analyse data sent in by the UNMO
25 groups. Is that a position that you are familiar with?
1 A. No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you repeat the number so that
3 we ...
4 MR. IVETIC: Transcript page 4322.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
7 Q. And you mentioned the Pakistani colonel whose name you had
8 forgotten in the BiH command. What was his role?
9 A. I -- well, he was my superior and he was the superior of all the
10 UNMOs in BiH area, yes.
11 Q. And would the person you identified as a Pakistani colonel in BiH
12 command, would he in that position, ever take commend over investigations
13 of shelling incidents in Sarajevo?
14 A. No, not in my opinion. I don't remember any -- anything about
16 Q. And now, if we can focus on the post in UN headquarters in
17 Zagreb, which you saw at the time was a general from Brazil, what would
18 the role of that officer be as to investigations being undertaken by UNMO
19 in Sector Sarajevo of shelling incidents?
20 A. None.
21 Q. Now, I want to focus with you on a particular investigation and
22 if we could take a look together at P797 and I do have a hard copy to
23 make it easier for you, which if I could have the usher's assistance to,
24 first, show the same to opposing counsel and then to provide the witness.
25 And then in e-court -- well, I'll wait.
1 And we have, of course, the first page of a coded cable from
2 Lieutenant-Colonel JRJ Baxter to UN PF Zagreb and several other acronyms
3 and it talks about a mortar incident of 28 August 1995 and if we turn to
4 page 2 in both versions, we could see a little better which incident is
5 at issue. On page 2, we see that we are talking about a mortar attack on
6 the Markale market in Sarajevo on 28th August 1995.
7 First of all, sir, are you familiar with this incident referred
8 to in this document known as the Markale market shelling that occurred in
9 August 1995 in Sarajevo?
10 A. Yes, I remember that.
11 Q. Were any of your subordinate UNMOs from Sector Sarajevo involved
12 in that investigation of that incident?
13 A. Yes, they were. There was a team from -- that was responsible in
14 that area led by Dutch Lieutenant-Colonel Konings, or something, I think
15 his name was. And they conducted an investigation of that shelling.
16 Q. And to whom did the UNMOs in Sarajevo doing the investigation of
17 that shelling, to whom did they send their reporting of the investigation
18 of that shelling?
19 A. To the UNMO headquarters. That's my headquarters, yes.
20 Q. And were you, sir, personally involved in any aspect of the
21 investigation following the Markale market shelling in August of 1995?
22 A. Not involved in the investigation. I visited the scene, let's
23 say, 20 minutes after the incident, just to make sure that my men on the
24 ground had good working conditions, and that's all.
25 Q. Now, we have looked at the first two pages of this document and
1 you have a hard copy in front of you so you may do so again, if you wish
2 to look at the first page. Do you believe that you had occasion to see
3 this particular document, the first two pages of which are the
4 transmission sheets, did you see this document any time in 1995?
5 A. I don't remember, but I'm quite sure I didn't see this document.
6 The first time I saw when was you sent it to me in September last year.
7 Q. And now if we can look here on page 2 of the document, dated 8th
8 September, 1995, again, with the heading Lieutenant-Colonel JRJ Baxter,
9 MA to Commander HQ, UNPROFOR, we see here, at item b, he says that: "We
10 have the investigation by UNMO patrol from Sector Sarajevo. The full
11 UNMO report is at Annex B."
12 And so I'd like to turn with you to page 9 in both languages of
13 this document which should be Annex B that he refers to and I think we
14 have it on the screen and hopefully ... you have it in front of you in
15 hard copy.
16 And the first question I'd like that ask you is does this that we
17 have on our screens now --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, can you indicate where we find the
19 indication Annex B. In the -- in the B/C/S, it looks like it. Dodatak
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I know. The -- even in the -- in the English
22 original, we have what looks like A scratched off and then we have annex
23 and looks like a B that's cut off at the far right above the number 5 so
24 that's the ... that's the -- on the English original.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: On the previous page, we did see Annex B. The way
1 it's following, it's Annex B, the words you quoted.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On page 2 of the document.
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes, yes, yes.
4 Q. And, sir, first, the question I have for you is this document
5 that we have before us, does it resemble a standard UNMO daily situation
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. And we see here at the top approximately one-fourth down, we see
9 two names and we see first that this was prepared by a Major Mizan, DO.
10 Who was this individual?
11 A. Major Mizan was the duty officer on duty at that time in my
12 operation room in the headquarter.
13 Q. Okay. And is that what the designation DO stands for?
14 A. DO is the duty officer, yes.
15 Q. Okay. And then we have released by and then your name followed
16 by the initials SMO. What precisely was your role in drafting and
17 issuing this report?
18 A. Normally, the report was issued by the -- my operation officer,
19 but I was present in the headquarter at that time, so I approved the
20 report and that's why my name is there.
21 Q. Okay. And what precisely would have been the role of
22 Major Mizan, the duty officer?
23 A. Major Mizan the duty officer here, he got all the informations on
24 the observations from the teams, and he then made this report as we can
25 see it here. Yeah.
1 Q. And have you had a chance to look at this entire report to
2 prepare for today?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And ... you've mentioned the -- lieutenant-colonel from --
5 team leader -- I think it was Colonel Konings you said. Was there anyone
6 else within the UNMO Sarajevo structure that was involved in the
7 investigation of the Markale market shelling in August of 1995?
8 A. As far as I remember, there were two of his team members
10 Q. To your knowledge, did either of your superiors, that is to say,
11 the Brazilian general who was the chief UNMO in Zagreb or the Pakistani
12 colonel who was the officer in Sarajevo -- at the BiH command did -- did
13 they have any role in the investigation and reporting as to the
14 August 1995 Markale market shelling?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Now, if we could turn to page 13 in the English and page 14 in
17 the Serbian and we see at the bottom --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Just for clarity, we are -- and rightly so,
19 Mr. Ivetic, we're referring to e-court pages because the page 13 in
20 e-court is -- finds a page 5 typewritten page number and a 9 in a circle
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
24 Q. And... okay. That's at the top, yeah.
25 And looking at the bottom half of the document, we see here it
1 says: "The following" ... "The following is a repeat and update of the
2 interim daily sitrep passed on to selected addresses at 28, 1415 B
3 August concerning a significant firing incident which occurred earlier
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Mr. Ivetic. Could you please slow
7 down and first I take that you wanted to say selected not addresses but
9 MR. IVETIC: You are correct. You are correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. Having looked at the report, do you know which significant firing
13 is at issue?
14 A. Sorry.
15 Q. Do you know which significant fire incident is at issue here?
16 A. Yes, yes, yes. Of course.
17 Q. Could you tell us?
18 A. This is the shelling at the marketplace, yes.
19 Q. And having looked at the following pages through page 14 and what
20 is written here, does it comport with your recollection as to what the
21 UNMO report that you released as to the Markale market shelling of
22 August 1995 says?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And now if we can turn to page 14 in English in e-court and page
25 15 in Serbian in e-court, and if we could focus on the middle of the
1 page, we see the notation here in parentheses: "(Full incident report
2 will follow this DSR when team has reported has concluded investigation
3 and reported to this HQ)."
4 And, first of all, sir, could you tell us what the acronym DSR
5 refers to?
6 A. Daily situation report.
7 Q. And it says here: "When the team has reported has concluded
8 investigation and reported to the [sic] HQ."
9 Which HQ is this referring?
10 A. "This HQ" is the UNMO HQ, my HQ.
11 Q. And now if we turn to the next page in both languages, we appear
12 to have a second document, again starting at the top at page 1. And this
13 appears to be in a similar format of an UNMO daily sitrep, and it says:
14 "UNMO Sector HQ daily sitrep update 28 August 1995, 1720 to 2359 hours
15 and appears to be dated 29th August 1995.
16 First of all, sir, what was the custom and practice as to when
17 sitreps would be sent on a daily basis?
18 A. I don't remember exactly if we sent one or two sitreps every day.
19 Definitely we were to send one sitrep at the end of the day. And, as I
20 remember, when a special incident happened, we should send one during or
21 as fast as we could during the day. Maybe - I'm not sure - we sent two
22 sitreps, but definitely one, yes.
23 Q. And this one that we have in front of us prepared by Captain Ihab
24 DO, which we now know is duty officer. And it says, released by captain
25 Ford OPSO. Who were both of these persons in relation to the UNMO
1 organisation in Sarajevo?
2 A. Captain Ihab was the duty officer working in my OPS.
3 Captain Ford was my operation officer at that time, yes.
4 Q. And do you recall if you would have seen this particular report
5 in 1995 at some point in time?
6 A. I saw it in 1995, yes.
7 Q. And now if we could turn to page 17 in English in e-court and
8 page 19 in the Serbian in e-court. And we see here, under B, that UNMO
9 team Sedrenik was tasked to investigate the impacts in the general area
10 of the marketplace and then we have several points that are in relation
11 to that. I would like to focus on the second bullet point which says:
12 "One projectile was fired from 170 Mag DEG, killed 33 people (UNMO
13 confirmed 31 killed) and wounded 79 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: Sorry. "(64 names provided by min of health) in a
16 busy shopping marketplace and the following one that says: "The bearing
17 in combination with estimated angle of impact could not provide exact MOR
18 position or an accurate origin of fire since it was not known with which
19 charge the MOR projectiles were fired. Therefore range of firing
20 position along bearing line could not be determined."
21 Could you tell us, sir, if this text is consist with your
22 recollection of the results of the UNMO investigation that was completed
23 of the Markale marketplace shelling in 1995.
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. And if we could turn to the next page in the English and stay on
1 the same page in the B/C/S, at the bottom of the B/C/S and at the top
2 third of the English version, we see the comment: "UNMOs are unable to
3 confirm which WF fired the rounds."
4 First of all, sir, do you have a recollection as to what WF is
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you tell us?
8 A. Yes, it's the warring factions.
9 Q. And is this comment also consist with your recollection of the
10 UNMO investigations of the Markale marketplace shelling in August 1995?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if we turn to page 20 in e-court in the English and page 22
13 in e-court in the Serbo-Croat, we come to a page that says "end of sitrep
14 update," did you have a chance to look at the entirety of this report
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. Just for clarity, I
18 believe Mr. Ivetic is referring to the sitrep report which is contained
19 within a greater report. So we have clarity on the record.
20 MR. IVETIC: Let me rephrase the question.
21 Q. Sir, do have you occasion to review the entire UNMO daily sitrep
22 released by Captain Ford --
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And do you believe that the UNMO sitrep released by Captain Ford
25 and the report that you released on the same day, which we looked at
1 earlier, taken together are the full UNMO report as Colonel Baxter
2 indicated on the second page of this batch of documents we have in front
3 of us.
4 A. Probably it is, yes. But to be clear, at the time the first
5 report went out, the investigation and the details about that was not
7 Q. Of course. And now after the daily situation report by
8 Captain Ford was sent at midnight on 28 August 1995 were you or UNMO
9 Sector Sarajevo HQ asked to undertake anything in relation to
10 investigating the Markale marketplace shelling?
11 A. Not that I remember.
12 Q. Do you recall your UNMO Sarajevo HQ ever changing or departing
13 from the findings or conclusions voiced in this report released by
14 Captain Ford?
15 A. Not that I remember.
16 Q. I would now like to take look at a document with you. A moment.
17 MR. IVETIC: If we could have Exhibit P00012 in e-court. And I
18 also have a hard copy for the witness that, with the assistance of the
19 usher, I'd like to show first to opposing counsel and then to the
21 The one I'm getting is different than the one that I have in hard
22 copy. Is this also 65 ter number 10240?
23 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to the second page of the same. Now,
25 this is a different document than I was looking for. Let's call up
1 65 ter number 11190, which should also be, I think, Exhibit P2608. Okay.
2 This is more what I was looking for.
3 Q. Sir, we have a document before us. Do you think you need a hard
4 copy of this or ...
5 A. Probably not. It's on the screen. Thank you.
6 Q. Okay. Then, looking at this, across the top it says UNMO HQ
7 daily sitrep and in the date it looks like this is dated 30th of August,
9 First of all, sir, which UNMO HQ is issuing this daily sitrep?
10 A. This is the UNMO HQ in Zagreb.
11 Q. Okay. And had there been any changes in the conclusions reached
12 by UNMO Sarajevo as to the Markale market investigation, would you expect
13 to find a record of any changes in the sitreps issued by the UNMO HQ in
15 A. Well, I have to -- you have to proceed so I can look at what they
16 say about Sector Sarajevo. You have to go on in pages.
17 Q. Yeah. Let's me ask a different question. Did you have occasion
18 to review the ... the UNMO HQ Zagreb sitreps for the 29th of
19 August through the 2nd of September, 1995 yesterday?
20 A. No. I don't think so, no.
21 Q. Oh, okay.
22 A. Yeah.
23 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to ... I'll move on now. I'll get
24 back to this after I find the page number of that particular one so as to
25 save time.
1 Q. I'd like to now ask you: Had there been any change in the
2 findings and conclusions of the UNMO investigation as to the Markale
3 marketplace shelling of August 1995, what would have been the standard
4 operating procedure for the same? Would -- according to the UNMO
5 procedure. Would a written record be made or not?
6 A. I'm not quite sure if I understand your question. Could you
7 please try to --
8 Q. Yes. Had there been any change in the conclusions reached by the
9 UNMO investigation, would there be a written record of the same?
10 A. No, I don't think so.
11 Q. Okay. And why is that?
12 A. Well -- I mean, the facts were on the ground and we reported what
13 we saw and that was the facts and no one can change that.
14 Q. Thank you. And now did any UNMO units, outside of your own
15 Sector Sarajevo, undertake any investigations in addition to those
16 conducted by your UNMOs as to the Markale marketplace shelling of
17 August 1995?
18 A. Not that I know of.
19 Q. Okay. And now if we could turn back to Exhibit P797, which I
20 think you still have the hard copy of. That's the Baxter packet which
21 also contains the two UNMO sitreps.
22 And if we could look at page 6 in e-court in English and it's
23 also page 6 in e-court in the Serbo-Croatian. And we have before us a
24 document dated 6th of September, 1995, signed by a
25 Lieutenant-Colonel Mougey SOO.
1 First of all, sir, can you identify for us what organisational
2 part of the United Nations forces was the engineer cell that appears to
3 be the source of this document? Was it a part of UNMO?
4 A. No, it was not. It was a part of the French forces in Sector
6 Q. And looking at this document, prior to your preparations for this
7 trial, do you recall if you'd ever seen this document in 1995?
8 A. I don't recall having seen this document before.
9 Q. Okay. And now the author of this document says here, in relation
10 to the tail fin, he says: "After the discovery and examination of the
11 tail-fin it appeared that it was a 120-millimetre mortar that had been
12 fired ... 2850 (the angle from the point of impact towards the firing
14 "This munition is of Serb manufacture, being unmarked and
15 unpainted with a brushed steel finish, which matches current Bosno-Serb
16 war design."
17 And now earlier we had looked at the UNMO daily situation
18 reports, and if we could turn to page 14 of this same document in both
19 languages --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, when you read you left out one word.
21 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When you referred to 2850 mils, the word before
23 that, was "from." I think this is important.
24 MR. IVETIC: It is. Every word is important. And if we could
25 turn to page 14 now.
1 Q. And up at the top of the English, the third bullet point from the
2 top, and in the B/C/S it will be the third bullet point -- second bullet
3 point from the bottom and it says here: "One mortar tail was recovered
4 with batch marking No MK/M74/KB93070."
5 Were you aware of any differences in the description of the
6 tail-fin as stated by -- between these two different accounts, one the
7 Lieutenant-Colonel Mougey document and the UNMO sitrep report we're
8 looking at now, were you aware of any difference in the description off
9 the tail-fin in 1995?
10 A. No. As I said earlier I don't recall seeing the document issued
11 by the French engineers.
12 Q. And what was the basis of the information in the UNMO daily
13 situation report that the tail-fin was marked with batch markings?
14 A. If I understand you correctly, the basis was, of course, that
15 they found the tail-fin and it was marked.
16 Q. Now, I want to ask you if you remember any oral briefings or
17 meetings that you would have personally participated in where the topic
18 of the Markale shelling from August 1995 was discussed in the BH command
19 prior to the commencement of NATO air-strikes against the Serbs?
20 A. As far as I remember, and I'm quite sure of this, that I never
21 took part in any discussions --
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Sorry to interrupt there are multiple components in
25 that question, if we could break it up a little bit, maybe just so we
1 have a little bit clearer record. Meetings about Markale shelling with
2 whom, when.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you please take it step by step.
4 MR. IVETIC: Sure.
5 Q. Colonel, let's start at the most basic level. Do you remember
6 any oral briefings or meetings that you personally participated in where
7 the results of the Markale market investigation by the UNMOs was the
9 A. No, I don't remember. And as I said, I'm quite sure I did not
10 take part in any discussion, meeting, or conference about this.
11 Q. Okay. And are you familiar with a General Cornelis Nicolai from
12 The Netherlands who was a part of the BH command, specifically the Chief
13 of Staff?
14 A. I read these documents, yesterday, yes.
15 Q. And at our trial at transcript page 10655 --
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, before he is actually allowed to
17 testify about this, it's a little unclear on the record what documents he
18 is -- what his basis of knowledge is that he is about to go into. He is
19 referring to some documents being shown to him.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, to the extent it would cause any
21 concerns, would you lay a foundation for any information you elicit from
22 this witness.
23 MR. IVETIC: That's what I was about to do. But, first, before I
24 do that, I will address the other question of Mr. Weber --
25 Q. Sir, you indicated that you had looked at some documents I
1 believe yesterday. What documents are you referring to?
2 A. I looked at the documents you gave me about different aspects
3 around this.
4 Q. Okay. And what type of document was that? Who was it from?
5 A. I don't recall who it was from, but I believe that was the
6 document -- the last document you're referring to is a statement by this
7 Dutch general who I believe was the Chief of Staff in the BH command.
8 Q. Okay.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just get clarification.
10 Yes, indeed, you were asked whether you were familiar with this
11 Dutch commander, you said you read these documents yesterday. Could you
12 answer the question that was put to you? Prior to reading the documents
13 yesterday, were you familiar with this man?
14 THE WITNESS: No, I never met the men, I never knew about him,
15 and I was not familiar with this man until yesterday.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you are not familiar with this man, you are
17 only familiar with the documents you read yesterday.
18 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. And at our trial, General Nicolai testified at transcript page
22 10665 to 10666 as follows:
23 "Q. General, I'd like to clear up the issue of what actually you
24 reviewed, what reports you reviewed since we have been using general
25 terms and I think that the Chamber might be under the misapprehension
1 that you actually reviewed the written reports for Markale. I think the
2 easiest way to do this is to look at your 2006 statement, which is 65 ter
3 1D00917, and it's page 5 of the same in English, page 9 in the B/C/S, and
4 it's paragraph 3 I'd like to go over with you. And if you can follow
5 along with me, sir, I'll read into the record the following portion."
6 And then we read from the statement.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It reads relevant portion, isn't it.
8 MR. IVETIC: Pardon me, relevant portion.
9 "I have read documents numbered R001-5992 to R001-6013, which
10 pertain to the shelling of Markale market on 28 August 1995. I had not
11 read all those reports before, and I based my opinion stated in
12 paragraph 14 of my statement on my recollection of a verbal briefing by
13 the chief UNMO in Sarajevo. I seem to recall that briefing was addressed
14 to our small circle of senior staff that included General Smith, myself,
15 the heads of G3 and G2 and the respective military assistants. G2 was
16 the head of the intelligence branch, and the G3 was head of the
17 operations branch. I think we discussed the preliminary results of the
18 investigation, and I further believe that the direction of fire was
19 discussed because not only the distance matters. I have checked my notes
20 of that day, and I have recorded that I was briefed that the shell came
21 from the south, south-west. I also have recorded that one of the shells
22 hit a roof. In any event, I have no reason to doubt anything in the
23 reports that I've just read. I'm providing a photocopy of the relevant
24 pages of my notes to accompany my statement."
25 And then I asked General Nicolai: "Now, sir, I hope I have been
1 accurate and complete in reading the entirety of this so we can have
2 agreement. Would you stand by this paragraph of your 2006 written
3 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor as being truthful and accurate
4 and would you so testify today, subject to the solemn declaration that
5 you have taken?"
6 And his answer was: "Yes, I still do."
7 Q. Sir, does this briefing that he is talking about sound familiar
8 to you? Are you aware of anything like that?
9 That's a question for you, Colonel.
10 A. I never seen or heard anything about this before.
11 Q. And if we can call up in e-court 1D917. And I do have a hard
12 copy, with the assistance of the usher, to provide to yourself.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the full number of the 65 ter number?
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes it is. 1D00917.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: 00.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. And the first question I have for you, sir, is: Now looking at
18 this document that you have in front of you, is this one of the documents
19 that I gave you yesterday that you referenced earlier today?
20 A. I believe so, yes.
21 Q. And if we could turn to page 5 in the English in e-court and page
22 10 in the Serbian in e-court, and if we look at paragraph 23. Actually,
23 it's the prior page in B/C/S; I apologise. And paragraph 23 we'll see is
24 the one that I just read out from the transcript that we discussed with
25 Colonel Nicolai. I'd like to look at the next paragraph with you and
1 that's paragraph 24, and we'll need to go to the next page in the B/C/S
2 to see that. And I will read the whole thing, which says: "I recall
3 that it was very important that the source of fire be determined, because
4 we did not rule out any possibility, including the possibility that the
5 Bosniaks had shelled their own people. I have never seen or have any
6 evidence that the Bosniaks shelled their own people, although I heard
7 from my predecessor, General Van Baal, that it might have happened during
8 his time. Elements to consider were that if there was no sound to be
9 heard, the shell must have been fired from far away. And the fact
10 that" --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you're on your feet but I have heard
12 nothing anything else but --
13 MR. WEBER: [Microphone not activated]
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's a bit confusing for me if you're standing. I
15 take it that you want to intervene in one way or another. If you just
16 take a position on your seat [Overlapping speakers] ... if the time is
17 there. At this moment, you said you would intervene later. What
18 Mr. Ivetic is doing now is reading this portion of the statement to this
20 MR. WEBER: Yes --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that ...
22 MR. WEBER: I guess I could intervene right now. I think we've
23 now gone a lot further and broached into an area where this has actually
24 become a rather leading exercise and the fact of presenting information
25 from another witness that the witness is not familiar about, hasn't seen
1 before. There's no reason if counsel wants to cover topics or things
2 like that, counsel can just ask him about it. This is a viva voce
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We do not know what the question is so,
5 therefore, whether it will be leading or not is still unknown. But, the
6 caveat is there, Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Weber will jump up if you attach any
7 leading question in relation to --
8 MR. IVETIC: I understand that, Your Honours, and when I asked
9 general questions, I get the objection from Mr. Weber that I should ask
10 what documents and what the witness has before him so that's what I'm
11 trying to do.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: So I guarantee you there will not be a leading
14 question at the end of this. I'm just trying to provide the full context
15 to the witness and then ask a non-leading question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed. Mr. Weber will be happy that you
17 give him guarantees.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we could scroll to the top of the
20 English, I will, we should have the tail-end of this. I think we've
21 missed a page. We should go back one page. We skipped two pages instead
22 of one, it looks like.
23 Q. Now, at the top we have the last part of the paragraph which I
24 was just reading. Which says: "Cymbeline did not pick up anyone, meant
25 that the trajectory was very low. I remember that the investigation
1 brought us to the conclusion that it was the Serb forces who did the
2 shelling. I don't remember the names of all the investigators, but I do
3 remember that the chief UNMO was part of the team."
4 Do you care to comment on this assertion of General Nicolai that
5 the chief UNMO was part of the investigative team that concluded that the
6 Serb forces did the shelling.
7 A. Well, sir, in my head, the chief, only chief UNMO was the
8 Brazilian general in Zagreb. Whether the Pakistani colonel in Sarajevo
9 BiH command called himself chief UNMO, I don't recall, but that may have
10 been the case.
11 Q. And, again, do you recall if either the Brazilian general in
12 Zagreb or the Pakistani colonel in Sarajevo participated in the
13 investigation by your UNMOs of the Markale market shelling?
14 A. Not at all.
15 Q. Okay. And --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you clarify your last answer. "Not at all,"
17 does that refer to your recollection or do you exclude the possibility
18 that they --
19 THE WITNESS: I'm positive that they never took part in any
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: The time I was in Sarajevo.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I see we're right at the time for the
25 first break. I speak fast but not enough to use the half a minute.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
3 You may now follow the usher.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. Just to finish up on the topic that we
14 had been discussing prior to the break --
15 Q. At transcript page 10701 of our transcript, General Nicolai
16 testified as follows in relation to P797, which is, again, the Baxter
17 report which I don't know if you still have a hard copy of, but you don't
18 need it for purposes of this question. But that's what he was asked
19 about. And I will read for you the questions and the answers --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do it slowly.
21 MR. IVETIC: I will.
22 "Mr. Ivetic: Thank you. If we can turn P797, which is the --
23 listed as the report, do you see on the first page this appears to be the
24 final and comprehensive report of the Sarajevo mortar incident of 28
25 August 1995, I would like to turn to Annex B of this document, which is
1 at page 9 of 21 in the English and page 9 of 24 in the B/C/S.
2 "Q. And at the top we see that this is an UNMO daily sitrep, and
3 it says released by Lieutenant-Colonel Oien, the SMO, does that refresh
4 your recollection that this is the chief UNMO officer that verbally
5 briefed you and other members of the BiH command as to the results of the
6 preliminary results of the investigation that they performed?
7 "A. The name doesn't really ring a bell or spur my recollection,
8 but SMO stands for Senior Military Observer, as far as I know, so that
9 must have been the rank or position. The name is not familiar to me."
10 Q. And now I want to ask you, Colonel, is there any possibility that
11 you would have met with or briefed General Nicolai of a result that is
12 different than is written in the daily sitrep report that we looked at
13 for the Markale shelling in August of 1995?
14 A. No, I -- I don't recall any kind of meeting with General Nicolai.
15 And I -- no, I don't.
16 Q. Could I --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could I kindly ask the usher to assist the
18 witness in fixing the chair. Because the back of the chair is a little
19 bit too flexible.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
21 MR. IVETIC: We also have some chairs here. I don't know if it
22 might be any better but it might be quicker.
23 THE WITNESS: It's all right. Thank you.
24 MR. IVETIC: They sometimes don't co-operate when you manipulate
25 the controls, so ...
1 Q. And in relation to either the Pakistani colonel who was in
2 Sarajevo within the UNMO structure or the Brazilian general who was the
3 chief UNMO in Zagreb, could either of them issue orders to your Sarajevo
4 UNMOs to undertake investigations without going through you or without
5 you knowing about it?
6 A. No. They had to go through our headquarter, yes.
7 Q. And now, to return to the sitreps, if we could have in e-court 65
8 ter number 14296, and that is the hard copy that I had offered earlier,
9 which now I have the correct number for it. So, with the assistance of
10 the usher, it could first be shown again to opposing counsel and then to
11 the witness.
12 And now that we have both languages on the screen, sir, again I
13 will ask you which UNMO HQ is the source of this sitrep?
14 A. UNMO HQ Zagreb.
15 Q. Okay. And do you know how these reports issued by the UNMO HQ
16 Zagreb, how they compared with the reports that, for instance, your
17 headquarter would issue?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- could Mr. Mladic speak at an inaudible
19 volume. Mr. --
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. I apologise, Colonel, let me restart again. Do you know how
24 these reports that would be issued by the UNMO HQ in Zagreb would compare
25 with the reports that, for instance, your headquarters would issue?
1 A. Normally they should be compared, yes, and not letter by letter
2 but it -- the results would compare, yes.
3 Q. And this one is dated 29 August 1995. I would ask that we turn
4 to page 21 in e-court and I think that's the page that I have marked for
5 you with a Post-It note to make it easier since it is a lengthy document.
6 And here we see, for instance, at the top: "One mortar tail-fin was
7 recovered with batch markings [sic]," and several other bullet points
8 that I think we all agree are pretty much the same as we saw in the -- in
9 the sitreps --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, you said "markings," plural. I only
11 see "marking."
12 MR. IVETIC: I apologise again. My eyes are not co-operating
13 with me today when it comes to reading off the monitor.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said a tail-fin and there's no fin in that
16 MR. IVETIC: So ... I should probably quit while I'm ahead.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Give it another try.
18 MR. IVETIC: We see here: "One more tail was recovered with
19 batch marking number MK/M74/KB93070." And we can read all together the
20 remainder of the text here.
21 Q. Sir, how does this text compare to what your headquarters
22 reported in relation to the Markale shelling incident on 28 August 1995?
23 A. This seems to be exactly the same, yes.
24 Q. Okay. And if we can now look at P2608 again, and I again have a
25 hard copy for you. And this is the one we already saw before the break
1 so I won't ask you which headquarters would have issued it. But I will
2 ask you this: The UNMO HQ Zagreb, just so that we're entirely clear, who
3 was in charge of that HQ?
4 A. In charge of that HQ, it was the Brazilian CMO.
5 Q. Okay. And this daily sitrep is dated 30 August 1995. And if we
6 turn to page 20 in e-court in English and page 36 and 37 in B/C/S, and,
7 again, I have tabbed it with a Post-It note in the hard copy. I think we
8 come to the part dealing with Sarajevo. And we see here under item
9 number 2, Federation side, UNMO team Sedrenik was tasked to investigate
10 the impacts in the general area of the marketplace (central city
11 Sarajevo)," et cetera et cetera, and if we look at the very bottom of the
12 page, we see the last bullet point that says, and it will be the next
13 page in B/C/S. It says: "The bearing in combination with estimated
14 angle of impact could not provide exact MOR position or an" - and if we
15 go to the next page - "accurate origin of fire since it was not known
16 with which charge the MOR projectiles were fired. Therefore range of
17 firing position along bearing line could not be determined."
18 And can you read the rest. But how does this compare to the UNMO
19 sitrep that we looked at earlier released by Captain Ford at midnight on
20 the 28th?
21 A. It's the same, yes.
22 Q. Okay. And I think we're completed with that topic. Then I won't
23 ask to go through any other ones with you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: That I believe 65 ter 14296 has not been offered into
1 evidence yet.
2 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, it has not.
3 MR. WEBER: Could we then have it admitted at this time. It's
4 been shown to the witness. He authenticated it.
5 MR. IVETIC: It's up to Your Honours. I read the part that we
6 were looking at. I don't know if we need the whole -- it's a 27-page
7 document according to my notes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: We tender it. I mean, we've accepted the sitrep off
10 similar length from the next day, P2608, the question that is arising, I
11 believe, and I don't want to say too much in front of the witness, is
12 what information was conveyed necessarily through to the UN HQ in Zagreb,
13 and the Chamber should have a proper record of it.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, irrespective of whether the appropriate
16 moment would have been cross-examination, if Mr. Weber is seeking to
17 tender it where the Defence does not, does the Defence object?
18 MR. IVETIC: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then under those circumstances, perhaps a little bit
20 earlier, but, Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7808, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P7808 is admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Sir, during your time-period as the SMO in the UNMO HQ in
1 Sarajevo, was there ever any occasion where there was information
2 available to the UNMO Sarajevo HQ seeming to indicate that the Bosnian
3 Muslim government forces were shooting their own people in Sarajevo?
4 A. As far as I remember, I'm -- we suspected there was BiH firing
5 into Sarajevo. We reported everything we saw. To -- to be -- to confirm
6 that I have to read all my sitreps, of course, 20 years ago.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you report anything you suspected?
8 THE WITNESS: We reported facts. Only facts.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: So --
10 THE WITNESS: And there was -- sorry?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So this suspicion you didn't report.
12 THE WITNESS: No. But I remember on one occasion than must have
13 been in June or July, I was on leave, came back from a leave, and my OPS
14 officer at the time, a Danish captain, he was gone when I was -- when I
15 returned. And the case was this, that during my period of leave, I don't
16 know what happened, he went down to the BiH liaison officers in sector --
17 in Sarajevo, and told them to stop firing at their own people. Which, of
18 course, was a silly thing to do. And he was immediately declared persona
19 non grata and sent home. If something happened, I could not -- I don't
20 remember was confirmed, but I remember this thing, and that reminded me
21 of that we -- we sometimes suspected, and, as I said earlier, I had to
22 read my reports to confirm that we reported this as a fact, but then
23 again we reported the facts, not what we suspected.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said which was a
25 silly thing to do. Did you mean to say that it was silly to tell them or
1 silly to shell your own people.
2 THE WITNESS: Of course, it was silly thing to go to confrontate
3 this liaison officer. Because what we normally do, we objected by the
4 normal channels or whatever.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not know whether you can answer my next
6 question which would be whether the declaration of persona non grata,
7 whether such would have been reported as a fact although it happened in
8 your absence.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, I used the phrase persona non grata. He was
10 not wanted there anymore and had to leave immediately. Because if he
11 didn't leave, they would stop the co-operation with us and we didn't want
12 that. So that was the case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it that that must have been
14 reported [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... so, yes, that was
16 reported. Of course.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it that the underlying facts may be
18 traceable for the parties in this case.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. I forget, sir, if I asked you, do you remember the name of the
21 Danish officer or his rank?
22 A. It was captain, was it Hansen? Hansen? It's a common Danish
23 name so I believe it was Hansen.
24 Q. Thank you, Colonel. On behalf of my client and the Defence team.
25 I thank you for answering our questions. Those are all the questions
1 that I have for you at this moment.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Oien, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Weber.
3 You find Mr. Weber to your right.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.
6 Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: And Your Honours, just so you are aware, I will
8 probably be significantly shorter than my original estimate.
9 JUDGE ORIE: All parties are surprising the Chamber by being
10 considerably shorter than they announced.
11 Please proceed.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
13 Q. Good morning, Colonel Oien. Oien?
14 A. Oien.
15 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Sir, today, I just have some very
16 straightforward questions for you. If you could please listen to my
17 questions and I'll try to move along rather efficiently. Could you tell
18 us the exact date that you arrived in Sarajevo?
19 A. I don't remember. It was before Easter that year. It must have
20 been in the beginning of March. I don't -- I don't remember -- I'm
21 sorry, I don't remember.
22 Q. Okay. It was around March 1995?
23 A. Yes, in the beginning of March 1995.
24 Q. You just mentioned that you referred to a Danish UNMO, a captain,
25 Captain Hansen. This was Captain Thomas Hansen. Is that correct?
1 A. That may be correct, yes. I'm not good at names but Thomas
2 Hansen rings a bell for me, yes.
3 Q. Okay, and this incident that he was referring about was the
4 shelling of the RTV building in Sarajevo on 28th June 1995; correct?
5 A. I couldn't say yes because I don't remember the actual incidents.
6 Q. I'm going to show you something quickly to see if it refreshes
7 your recollection. Could the Prosecution please have 1D00796.
8 Sir, this is a statement that was provided by Captain Hansen to
9 the investigators of the OTP. I take it you've never seen this statement
11 A. No.
12 Q. Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the statement.
13 Sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the middle of the
14 page. This is where Captain Hansen states that he investigated the
15 shelling of the TV building on 28 June 1995 that caused approximately 30
16 civilian casualties.
17 In the third paragraph from the bottom, he states: "I was
18 informed by an UNMO who had seen the shelling on the TV building that
19 this particular bomb that impacted in the TV building was fired from the
20 BiH side. Another UNMO who heard the bomb told me that the bomb only
21 flew for a short period, so that the [sic] fitted with the findings of
22 the first UNMO that the bomb was fired from BiH ... territory."
23 Does this refresh your recollection and sound like the event that
24 related to Captain Hansen?
25 A. Yes, this was in June, as I said. I believe this episode
1 happened in June, but personally I was not there. And if this was the
2 facts, of course, you can find it in the report from the 28th of June.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have D147.
4 Q. Sir, this Trial Chamber has actually received a good deal of
5 evidence related to the shelling of the TV building on 28th of June.
6 This is one document that's in evidence that's related to it. It is a
7 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps report dated 30 June 1995 from Commander Dragomir
8 Milosevic. In the bottom half of the page before you, General Milosevic
9 states: "Our artillery forces are responding with precision to the
10 Muslim artillery attacks. In one such response on 28 June, they hit the
11 BH RTC, radio and television centre, the centre of media lies against the
12 just struggle of the Serbian people."
13 The fact is UNMO Hansen's belief was wrong and, in fact, it's the
14 Serbs who, as seen in their own document, that shelled the TV building on
15 28 June; correct?
16 A. You ask me? I can't tell you. I don't remember. I was not
17 there and I can't confirm anything of this.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand the question, Mr. Weber. You
19 say, and that's how it is recorded: "The fact is UNMO Hansen's belief
20 was wrong and, in fact, it was the Serbs who had seen their own document
21 that shelled the TV building."
22 MR. WEBER: If I phrased it wrong.
23 Q. Two things --
24 MR. WEBER: And thank you, Your Honour, for clarifying.
25 Q. Since, since you've commented on what you believe you've heard
1 from Captain Hansen what I'm putting to you is that what Captain Hansen
2 believed to have heard was wrong, that it was incorrect information, and
3 as we see here in a document from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, it was the
4 Serb artillery who, in fact, shelled the TV building.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think the witness has
6 already --
7 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the question and the
9 phrasing of the question, unless you misunderstood the question but I
10 take it from the answer you did not but at least it's now, I think it's
11 clarified that what Mr. Weber --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: It did, except Mr. Weber that when reading --
13 look, this document on the screen, I'm not sure who the "they" refer to.
14 "In one such response on the 28th June, they hit ..."
15 Who are the "they"? The "they," SRK forces or the "they,"
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, that's why I read the immediately
18 preceding sentence to that because I think that makes it clear. Dragomir
19 Milosevic states: "Our artillery forces are responding with precision to
20 the Muslim artillery attacks. In such a -- in one such response, on 28
21 June, they hit the BH RTC building."
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am with you now.
23 MR. IVETIC: And, only for the record, I think that the
24 description of what's in Mr. Hansen's statement in relation to this
25 document is not entirely accurate since it was the UNMO observer who saw
1 the bomb launched, not Mr. Hansen who said that it came from the BiH
2 side. And Mr. Weber has left out that in that time period there were a
3 lot of homemade air bombs that landed in that area, which is the next
4 part of Mr. Hansen's statement so we don't know exactly -- you know,
5 which -- we -- we don't know -- it's -- to say that the truth is when
6 there's a multiple projectiles in an area without having presented -- you
7 know, it's --
8 JUDGE ORIE: There are -- if there's any evidence about other
9 impacts on the RTV building then, of course, the Chamber would like to
10 have a closer look at that.
11 MR. IVETIC: The statement we just looked at says at that time --
12 pardon me. "In that period there were a lot of homemade airline bombs
13 that landed in that area."
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it's about hitting the RTV. Landing in
15 the area is not the same as hitting the RTV building. So, therefore, if
16 there's any evidence which would multiply the hits on the RTV building,
17 of course, the Chamber would be interested to -- unless it is there
18 already, but you'll forgive me for, and you'll forgive the Chamber for
19 not knowing all the details that we have to look at it. But if there's
20 any reason to accept that on 28 June several -- several projectiles hit
21 the RTV building then, of course, we'd like to -- we'd like if you would
22 draw our attention to that evidence or present such evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Let's turn to the Markale shelling on 28th of August.
1 Do you recall where you were at on the morning of 28 August 1995?
2 A. I often used that road. As a rule I didn't stay much in my
3 headquarter. I was out visiting my teams to get a better idea of the
4 situation, and I often used that road and I think I passed the Markale
5 area about 20 minutes before the shelling and went to my headquarter.
6 Then in my headquarter, we got this phone call reporting the shelling and
7 after the team was tasked and started their investigation I went back to
8 the area, just as I said earlier, to ensure that they had good working
9 conditions and if they needed any kind of support from the HQ. Then I
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Oien, you were asked --
12 JUDGE ORIE: One second. This document is provisionally under
13 seal, Mr. Weber. Is that ...
14 MR. WEBER: The SRK report?
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's what Mr. Registrar tells me, yes.
16 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, I did not appreciate that.
17 I don't believe it's not necessarily due to the document itself
18 but due to maybe the -- the -- the individual who it came through. I
19 actually don't --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the document is under seal or not --
21 MR. WEBER: Yes -- N -- for the reasons is another matter --
23 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, it should not be broadcasted and I do
24 understand that there's no major concern about it having been
25 broadcasted --
1 MR. WEBER: Yes --
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- until now. That being clarified, I think it
3 was -- yes, I -- I intervened because protective measures.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Moloto would have one or more questions for
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Oien, in response to a question where were you
8 on the morning of the 28th July 1995, you answered I used that road.
9 Now, just for the record, which road was this that you used?
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it was a street in Sarajevo where the Markale
11 incident happened. I used that street when driving to my teams and
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to answer the question that was put
14 to you? Where were you on the morning of the 28th?
15 THE WITNESS: The morning I started in the headquarter and then I
16 went out, passed that area, came back to the headquarter and later on at
17 about 11:00 or something, we got the task to investigate this incident.
18 And, as I said, after about 20 minutes or so when my team was at the
19 spot, I went back, just to ensure that they had good working conditions
20 and if they needed any support from the HQ. And then I went back to the
21 headquarter which was in the PTT building.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P797 and if
25 we could please go straight away to page 9 of both versions.
1 Q. Sir, we see that this is the sitrep that you released on the 28th
2 of August. You've looked at this already today. I just want to draw
3 your attention to the fact that there's a -- underneath your name a to
4 line and then a list of a number of UN HQs, two of them, and then an info
5 and a list of another -- some more UNMO HQs. Is it correct that the
6 information contained in the sitreps would be regularly reported upwards
7 to the UNMO HQ in Zagreb?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And this sitrep covers just until 1800 hours in the day; is that
11 A. That's correct, yes.
12 Q. If we could please go to page 13 of both versions, and if we
13 could please go one more page forward actually in page -- in the B/C/S.
14 Sir, on this page of the sitrep you released, subsection looks like d.
15 1(C) states: "UNMO investigation so far has determined:"
16 And then if we could have the next page in the English, and then
17 I direct your attention also back down to the fact that the -- that says
18 in the parentheses, "The full incident report will follow this daily
19 sitrep when team has reported -- has concluded investigation and reported
20 to this HQ."
21 Sir, at the time of this sitrep the investigation was still
22 ongoing; correct?
23 A. Yes, I believe, so. That's correct.
24 Q. Could the Prosecution please have page 15 of the original
25 document and page 16 of the B/C/S translation.
1 Now, this is the update that was commented upon by you earlier
2 today. We see that it was prepared by Captain Ihab and released by
3 Captain Ford, as you've already stated. Was this done because you were
4 no longer present at the UNMO HQ, that is, released by Captain Ford?
5 A. As I remember the normal procedure it was that the OPS officer
6 related the daily sitrep and he was always there at the end of the day.
7 So that was the normal procedure, yes.
8 Q. Do you recall when it was that the first time that you saw this
9 update in the fall of 1995?
10 A. I don't remember when -- if I was in the HQ when this report
11 was -- was done, so I don't remember if it was the same night or the
12 following day.
13 Q. Could the Prosecution now go to Exhibit P2608. This was the UNMO
14 HQ Zagreb daily sitrep, and we see that there's a line that is just above
15 the top -- the -- the middle of the page that says "info by CAPSAT," and
16 one of the UNMO HQs that are listed is Sector Sarajevo. I think you've
17 basically indicated this so far, but this was a part of the UNMO HQ in
18 Sarajevo reporting information to the HQ in Zagreb; correct?
19 A. Yes, the information we -- we reported was then in the HQ Zagreb
20 sitrep and what was packed, as you can see as one of the addresses on
21 this one. So we had the HQ Zagreb sitrep every day so we could follow
22 what was happening what was in all areas.
23 Q. And we see that this daily sitrep covers the period immediately
24 following the update that we just looked at. It indicates 29 Aug 1995,
25 0001 hours, to 2359 hours; correct?
1 A. Yes, that seems to be correct, yes.
2 Q. Could we please have page 24 of the original and page 41 of the
3 B/C/S. On this page, we see a summary of meetings. The information
4 includes about -- at approximately 1100 hours on 29th, team leader
5 Sedrenik participated in the second meeting of the special joint
6 investigation team.
7 Team leader -- team leader of team Sedrenik that would have been
8 Lieutenant-Colonel Konings; correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And Colonel Konings was involved in meetings and providing
11 information to people concerning the course of his investigation;
13 A. Say again, please.
14 Q. During the course of Colonel Konings's investigation into the
15 shelling of the 28th of August, he was involved in meetings that would
16 provide information about the course of his investigation?
17 A. Yes, there was -- it was a joint investigation team with the
18 Bosnian police and I believe, I'm not sure, but then also the French
19 engineers but they co-operated, yes.
20 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the first bullet point that
21 immediately follows the sentence: "The following details should be added
22 to the report of this incident forwarded with the daily sitrep and sitrep
23 update for 28 August and the interim daily sitrep for 29 August."
24 That bullet point states:
25 "During the time-frame of the five impacts, team Sedrenik members
1 operating from OP-1 neither saw nor heard any outgoing mortar rounds from
2 either the BiH army territory or from BSA army territory."
3 This was information that was added after the sitrep and sitrep
4 update; correct?
5 A. Yes. That seems correct, yes.
6 Q. And this was known by 29 August 1995; correct?
7 A. That may be correct, yes.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MR. WEBER: If we could just go to a few other documents.
10 Q. Now, UNMOs -- I'm going to change topics. I'm going to ask you
11 something general here. UNMOs provided reports on the investigations
12 that they carried out during the course of their patrols; correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28529. This is an UNMO
15 HQ Sarajevo patrol report from 15 March 1995 related to a report of a
16 killed BSA soldier.
17 You received patrol reports like this one; correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the English version
20 and page 3 of the B/C/S, and directing your attention towards the bottom
21 half of the page.
22 On this page, we see that the UNMOs met with Captain Mile, the
23 commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Romanija Brigade, we see that
24 Captain Mile expressed his anger about BiH activity and the Egyptian
25 Battalion. At point d, the report indicates Captain Mile was overheard
1 telling his commander to go back to his position and inform his troops to
2 fire on anything that moved. Soldiers, civilians, et cetera.
3 On the same point, if we could also look at another document and
4 if the Prosecution could have 65 ter 15120, this is a patrol report from
5 the same UNMOs the next day, the 16th of March, 1995, under point 7, the
6 report relates information obtained from soldiers on the confrontation
7 line where the fatality occurred. Among other things they claimed that
8 before they would only shoot at armed soldiers but now this has changed
9 and they will open fire on anyone, on anybody who moves, including women
10 and children. Later on, it indicates that these threats echo very much
11 the statements made the day before by the battalion commander.
12 Were you aware that members of the BSA felt it was acceptable to
13 retaliate against civilians in Sarajevo for deaths of their own soldiers?
14 Are these the types of reports you received?
15 MR. IVETIC: Object to the mischaracterisation of Sarajevo. This
16 is in relation to the CFL, which I believe is the confrontation line,
17 which is a limited area of Sarajevo, not Sarajevo as a whole, as
18 Mr. Weber has presented. All this has been in relation to the
19 confrontation line.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I believe I put my question fairly.
21 It's an investigation in relation to a shooting that occurred along the
22 confrontation line. I believe the witness is capable of answering the
24 JUDGE ORIE: The witness should be very well aware, because
25 that's a concern of Mr. Ivetic, that what triggered this event was an
1 event which happened close to the confrontation line, if I understand
3 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours. The document is talking about
4 what said what would happen at the CFL, at the confrontation line, that
5 they had only been shooting at soldiers but after this incident they
6 would shoot at anything that moved in the confrontation line. That's the
7 plain language he did not mention to this witness [Overlapping
8 speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... let's go through it in
10 detail. Let's go back to the previous document, what the sentence that
11 was overheard to start with, because that's the factual starting point
12 for it. Let's go back to that.
13 And, witness, may I specifically ask your attention for the
14 details of the language which was read to you as to what was overheard
15 and what was later reported.
16 Could we go back to --
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it was 65 ter 28529, page 2 of the
18 English and page 3 of the B/C/S.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And would you slowly read what exactly was
21 MR. WEBER: I'll read point d verbatim. Under point 2, it
22 states: "He told his commander of that area to go back to his position
23 and inform his troops to fire on anything that moved soldiers, civilians,
24 et cetera (this last point was not told to SE 12, just overheard as we
25 were leaving his location)..."
1 JUDGE ORIE: That was then the language which was overheard. And
2 now we move to the next document.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution go back to then 65 ter 15120.
4 And, Your Honours, I'll read the entirety of item 7.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. WEBER: Under patrol commander's comments, it states:
7 "Soldiers on the confrontation line," denoted as CFL, "at location of
8 fatality said that the cease-fire agreement no longer existed in their
9 AOR. Before they would only shoot at armed soldiers but now this has
10 changed and they will open fire on any body who moves including women and
11 children. Also said was that they know" - in the text it appears as the
12 word "were" - "the UNPROFOR OP is, in that area, and that they would fire
13 at this if this is what it takes to stop [sic] sniping activity in this
14 area. These threats echo very much the statements made yesterday by BN
15 commander and were reported to SX/R1. Tension continues to rise in this
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, put your question to the witness, please.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Just for clarity BN refers to battalion commander; correct?
20 A. BN, that would be the battalion commander, yes.
21 Q. And this was information that was reported up to you, information
22 like this; correct?
23 A. Yes, that must be correct. If it is from my UNMOs, it is
25 Q. You were aware that BSA soldiers were willing to not only shoot
1 at soldiers but also at women and children; correct?
2 MR. IVETIC: Object to the question, it misstates the document
3 again. The document has been talking about in the area, in the
4 confrontation line. That missing from the question [Overlapping
5 speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Ivetic, as far as
7 shooting at civilians it's not limited. The position of those shooting
8 may be those one close to the confrontation line, but as far as the
9 targeting of civilians, it would be anyone, irrespective of their
10 distance. At least the document doesn't give any information about
11 the --
12 MR. IVETIC: The prior one does. The prior document does, it
13 says in that same area. That's why I'm objecting.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In that same area but it doesn't say where the
15 civilians to be targeted are found. Of course, you can't shoot to an
16 area in which you are not. But it's -- it happened at the confrontation
17 line. That's at least what the document says. Let's leave --
18 Mr. Weber, you could also from refrain from rephrasing it. You
19 could say that this overheard passage of shooting at civilians, and the
20 comments given later, I take it that you have a question about whether
21 that was common or appropriate or whatever your question is -- will be,
22 but let's not rephrase. The witness has read the relevant portions. It
23 was read to him, as a matter of fact, could you please phrase your
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm going to re-ask my last question
1 which I think was okay.
2 Q. You were aware that BSA soldiers were willing to not only shoot
3 at soldiers but also at women and children; correct?
4 A. I was not aware of that at that moment, no.
5 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders the document two documents
6 into evidence, 65 ter 15120 and 65 ter 28529.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: I would object if the Prosecution is reopening their
9 case to present evidence that this witness did not testify about in
10 direct and did not have the any additional facts to talk about, I'd like
11 to hear the arguments for why Prosecution is reopening their case. But I
12 believe their case should be closed and so they can't lead additional
13 evidence that they did not lead during their case. The 65 ter number of
14 this document shows it was their possession throughout this case and so
15 their choice to now try to lead positive evidence without seeking
16 rebuttal or reopening, I believe is improper.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, this is fair. The witness has been
19 called to testify about his time in Sarajevo. The counsel broadened that
20 examination beyond to what even we thought would be noticed, with mainly
21 dealt with the Markale incident to discuss the potential of who was
22 motivated to fire at whom in Sarajevo, intonating that there was a
23 potential firing incident involving Captain Hansen targeting -- that he
24 had information the ABiH targeting themselves. I think it's fair game at
25 that point to confront the witness and find out actually what he knew or
1 aware of based on documents that would have been available to him at the
2 time --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
4 MR. WEBER: -- which is why it's being put to the witness,
5 because he was in a position where patrol reports, as he has already
6 indicated, like this would have come to him about these investigations,
7 so I believe he is the proper witness to confront with this information
8 based on the testimony he has provided to the Chamber.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now one second, please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber postpones its decision on the admission
12 and, Mr. Registrar, the number under which it will be marked for
13 identification would be.
14 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 28529 will be MFI P7809.
15 And 65 ter 15120 will be marked for identification P7810.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the postponement deals with both documents.
17 MR. WEBER: No further questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They are marked for identification, I think I
19 said already that number should be assigned for that purpose and they
20 hereby are marked for identification.
21 MR. IVETIC: You did say that, that's --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now one item which it was about D147 which was
23 provisionally under seal, Mr. Ivetic, could I just ask you, invite you,
24 to read paragraph -- transcript page 7808, where, in relation to, among
25 others, this document, I asked; have you carefully considered whether
1 some of them have to be under seal?"
2 Mr. Lukic, you then answered, "I haven't. I haven't checked. We
3 have to check which ones should be admitted under seal." And that's what
4 triggered it to be provisionally under seal.
5 Now, this happened a little bit over three years ago. Mr. Lukic,
6 I think we've given you a fair period of time to consider whether D147
7 should be under seal, yes or no. We'd like to receive a response within
8 the next week.
9 Any questions in re-examination?
10 MR. IVETIC: Yes, just briefly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
12 MR. IVETIC: If we can have D00139. And hopefully I've got the
13 number right this time. And if I do, I have a hard copy for the witness,
14 which might be easier. If we can have the English on one of the sides of
15 the screen.
16 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
17 Q. While we wait for that, sir, you have been asked about UNMO
18 patrol reports. Are you familiar with the format of this document that
19 is before you on the screen and that you have a hard copy of? Is this an
20 official format of an UNMO patrol report?
21 A. Yes, I believe it is. Yes.
22 Q. And for this one, in particular, we see the date -- am I reading
23 the date correctly as being 29 August 1995? Is that the correct --
24 A. That seems correct to me, yes.
25 Q. And we see here it says PTL leader LTC Konings. Do you believe
1 that to be the same person you mentioned earlier?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: PTL members.
3 MR. IVETIC: No, but the first one says, "PTL leader" and then
4 "member." We're both correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you're both correct, let's move on.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. And here I direct everyone's attention to the handwritten part
8 and the second paragraph of the handwritten part, which I will try to
9 read slowly: "This report is related to the UNMO packet report" --
10 JUDGE ORIE: What about patrol report.
11 MR. IVETIC: It could be patrol, too.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I just give a suggestion.
13 MR. IVETIC: I agree. "... issued on the 28th of August, 1995,
14 copy of this report has been made available for the investigation team."
15 And then if we go to the next page of the document, here we have
16 the notes of meetings with various pens from the joint investigative
17 team. And if we look at the PTL/LDR's remarks, first of all, PTL/LDR's
18 remarks, whose remarks would those be? It's above the item number 1 at
19 the bottom. It looks like a 5 heading number 5, and it says, PTL/LDR's
20 remarks. Who is that referring to?
21 A. To me it looks like the team leader, the platoon leader, yes.
22 Q. And --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Just in order to avoid whatever misunderstanding, in
24 the B/C/S translation, it's about a patrol rather than a platoon.
25 THE WITNESS: It's a patrol, yes, sir.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So patrol leader's remarks. That's how you
2 understand it.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. And if we see there that there's 1, 2 and 3. It talks about some
6 facts are slightly different from the lists that UNMO received as to
7 casualties, et cetera, and then item number 3 appears to say: "All the
8 facts inserted in the first report remain unchanged and valid."
9 And then there's a signature, again it looks like LTC Konings.
10 Does this comport with your recollection of the results after the patrol
11 had their meetings with the BiH joint investigative team as to the
12 Markale shelling in August of 1995?
13 A. I don't recall having seen this report before, but the conclusion
14 is that it's correct. The facts remain unchanged.
15 Q. Okay. Colonel, again, I thank you for answering all of our
16 questions and that completes our examination. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, any further questions for the witness?
18 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Oien, this concludes your testimony. I'd
20 like to thank you very much for coming the long way to The Hague and for
21 having answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties and
22 by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: There are no more witnesses to -- at this moment.
3 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, as I threatened already in the
5 begin of today's session, we had close to 20 procedural items, and the
6 Chamber suggests that we spend the remainder of the day to deal with
7 those. We all know it is not the most exciting and the most challenging
8 part to hear about new translations, et cetera, so, therefore, the
9 Chamber fully understands that if Mr. Mladic would rather do other things
10 than to follow these administrative proceedings, but at the same time, of
11 course, it's part of the case and he is fully entitled to be present. I
12 leave it in his hands.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: And, of course, we would take a break first anyhow,
16 but ...
17 MR. IVETIC: I think it is probably agreeable to take the break
18 and we'll determine during the break what [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. Then perhaps also during the break, we
20 might consider whether there are a few more questions about matters about
21 scheduling, especially, so not administrative matters. And if Mr. Mladic
22 would wish to leave after we've dealt with scheduling issues and be
23 relieved from the administrative matters, that, of course, is entirely in
24 his own hands. We would just like to be informed.
25 We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
2 [The accused not present]
3 --- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was informed that Mr. Mladic
6 had decided that he did not wish to further be present and that he even
7 would prefer not to come to court to tell this but that he would convey
8 this message through you. Is that accurate?
9 MR. LUKIC: It's absolutely accurate, Your Honour, everything.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber establishes that Mr. Mladic
11 waives his right to be present during the remainder of today's hearing.
12 And I'd now like to -- if you just allow me to check one thing
13 very quickly. Yes. I'd like -- I would first like to start with issues
14 related to scheduling.
15 We first move into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 43216 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
7 As the Defence has confirmed that it has dropped Witness GRM-274,
8 the Chamber refrains from making any follow-up decisions in relation to
9 this witness. The Chamber also declares the motion for protective
10 measures for this witness moot.
11 Then -- one second, please.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The next item starts on the 15th of December, 2015,
14 when the witness statement of Jasmin Odobasic was conditionally admitted
15 into evidence, pending the filing of an attestation and declaration in
16 compliance with Rule 92 bis.
17 On the 16th of February of this year, the Defence informed the
18 Chamber via e-mail that the witness had refused to sign his statement.
19 The Defence also requested the Chamber's guidance on issuing a subpoena
20 to compel him to sign the attestation. The Chamber responded on the 25th
21 of February, via e-mail, that such a subpoena would defeat its purpose
22 but that the Defence can file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena to
23 compel the witness to testify and to consider the potential for his
24 testimony to be heard through videolink. And that's all hereby put on
25 the record.
1 Next item deals with a Defence request for leave to reply.
2 On the 23rd of February of this year, the Defence requested leave
3 to reply in relation to its third bar table motion and also requested a
4 seven-day extension to file its reply.
5 On the 26th of February, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and
6 the Defence via e-mail that it does not oppose the extension.
7 And on the 29th of February, the Chamber granted both requests,
8 and that decision is hereby placed on the record.
9 I now would like to go briefly through the outstanding issues, as
10 far as witnesses are concerned, and I would like to state as a starting
11 point the e-mail which was sent by Mr. Ivetic on the 19th of February.
12 The first item was about the witness whose testimony we have
13 heard today and, therefore, doesn't need our further attention. Although
14 it talks about two Norwegian witnesses but that's dealt with as well.
15 And that's what the Defence -- what Mr. Ivetic explains in further detail
16 in the second -- in the following paragraph in his e-mail.
17 I now move to a witness, Mr. ... one second.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: The next witness is, if I can call him the Belgian
20 witness, Mr. Ivetic, then I think we all understand who I am referring
21 to, there seem to be no further objections for him to testify and we
22 especially are envisaging the -- to receive the testimony under
23 Rule 92 ter on the basis of a statement already taken.
24 On the 19th of February, you indicated that the 92 ter motion was
25 filed for the same on that day.
1 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. It was either that day or the next
2 day but it is filed as we sit here today. We are still awaiting for the
3 one approval from the other entity though.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that. Do we have any idea, and perhaps I
5 put this in kind of a general question, when the Defence intends to call
6 these witnesses because it may not be very efficient to have half a day
7 here, another half a day there, and to see whether we can concentrate it
8 on a certain period of time.
9 That's -- I now move to the next one, which is a witness who has
10 contacted the Defence on the 16th of February, as we read in your e-mail,
11 a witness who has received documents and questions but we see that there
12 are also administrative matters which cause some problems.
13 Now, the Chamber very much appreciates if it is informed about
14 problems, but the Chamber would be -- at least as much interested in
15 receiving information about how to resolve them. I have referred to this
16 witness as one of the pending items for scheduling and that it is
17 unlikely that he would appear in the first two weeks of March seems to be
18 obvious as well.
19 I then move to the next one in which the Defence informs the
20 Chamber that Rule 70 approval is still not obtained. And then the
21 Defence informs the Chamber that they will file a 92 ter motion for him
22 on that same day or the following Monday.
23 MR. IVETIC: And I believe that was filed on the following
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll not further elaborate on that at this
1 very moment.
2 Then, the next witness mentioned in your e-mail, Mr. Ivetic, is a
3 witness you had not been able to get contact with, and you tried to
4 contact him through e-mail, and you were unsuccessful. Any follow-up on
5 that witness at this moment.
6 MR. IVETIC: We still have not been able to effectuate or locate
7 a good mailing address for him in the country where he is said to be
8 situated, based upon the Rule 70 provider which told us that he emigrated
9 from their country to this country so we have nothing in a positive
10 report about him.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have further steps been initiated, apart from
12 trying to find an e-mail address through official authorities or ...
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes, we have and the official authorities in the
14 country where he is said to be located have declined to assist us.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And you have accepted that or are you seeking the
16 assistance of the Chamber? And when was it that they declined?
17 MR. IVETIC: The last communication I had with them, I think was
18 perhaps a month, month and a half ago. And that's when I started
19 pursuing other means such as private services for locating
20 people [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... sometimes the Chamber can
22 assist in -- and since six weeks passed since your unsuccessful efforts,
23 there's not one road that leads to Rome sometimes there are more roads
24 that lead -- well, physical persons can not travel on more roads but
25 legal procedures can.
1 MR. IVETIC: I understand. And we'll take your suggestion under
2 advisement and we'll act accordingly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not a suggestion. I regret that I have
4 to establish that at least, that option has not been further explored for
5 the last six weeks.
6 Then, I move on to the next, which is the two expert witnesses.
7 The witnesses Stankovic and Radovanovic and we have received the report,
8 the 21st report, and it is stated that they are not available now.
9 Again, and that's the overall question, at the end of going through your
10 e-mail is what does the -- I don't know if I have to address you,
11 Mr. Ivetic, or lead counsel, Mr. Lukic, what are the plans of the
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we have filed one 94 bis for
14 Dr. Stankovic. We have just gotten the report translated and are
15 preparing to file what would be a supplemental 94 bis for the additional
16 material that goes beyond the Dunjic report. Under my understanding then
17 of the guidance that Your Honours gave at the beginning of the case, the
18 expert witnesses can't be scheduled until the Rule 94 bis process has
19 been completed which would be at least a month for that. The last
20 translation that was outstanding from CLSS as to Professor Radovanovic
21 has been received and now has been sent to her and we're hoping to hear
22 from her in the next day or so, as to when she can expect to complete her
23 report as to Tomasica. In which case, the 94 bis will be prepared as
24 soon as the translation is available and again, therefore, they would not
25 be available to testify until at least, I would imagine, probably month
1 and a half. I don't know -- I don't know at this stage how large the
2 report is since it's not completed, but I don't anticipate it being too
3 lengthy so as to take too long to translate.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said, and I was a bit confused
5 about -- you have received the translation? Outstanding translation, but
6 there are other translations still to be [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 MR. IVETIC: We've received both of the ones mentioned in the
8 report. One was just received, I think, Friday, if I remember it
9 correctly, and the other one was received earlier than that. And so now
10 we have both of those that were mentioned as outstanding with relation to
11 Professor Radovanovic sent to her.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but is there any need for further translations.
13 You said "complete the report," what is there to be still completed?
14 MR. IVETIC: The report has to be drafted and is drafted in
15 B/C/S, and therefore, needs to be translated into English, so that we can
16 use it in these proceedings. That's how all the prior expert reports of
17 Ms. Radovanovic were done, in B/C/S, and therefore there's a translation
18 from B/C/S to English, the official language of the Tribunal,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And when did you expect that you could present such
21 a report to CLSS?
22 MR. IVETIC: As I indicated, considering that the translation of
23 the last document was sent just yesterday, I hoped to talk with Professor
24 Radovanovic either today or tomorrow to ascertain how much additional
25 time is needed for her to complete her report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's just to include now the latest two
2 documents. Were they lengthy ones or were they ...
3 MR. IVETIC: The one was a lengthy one. It was a 100 UN pages
4 for translation, which is why the translation service needed more time to
5 do the same.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the other one was?
7 MR. IVETIC: I would hazard 20 pages. I don't know the exact
8 number, but I think 20 pages is probably at the maximum, at the higher
9 end of the approximation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, in itself, the length of a document does
11 not necessarily tell us a lot about the impact on the final drafting. I
12 mean, a lengthy document could be just one footnote. Therefore, we're
13 wondering when we'll hear from you that the reports are finalized.
14 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, we have been reporting every
15 week, by the end of the week. And so, by the end of this week, you will
16 definitely know the latest information I have. And if I have a date
17 certain, you'll have a date certain. I basically report what I hear back
18 from the field, from the legal assistant who is meeting directly with the
19 experts and then I also have direct communications with the experts
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber would appreciate if, in the
23 next report, you would tell us more about these two documents that were
24 delivered only recently by CLSS so that we can take that into account
25 when considering how much extra time should perhaps be granted or where
1 we would push you even further to present the reports.
2 MR. IVETIC: I can do that right now, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. IVETIC: They're both articles by Ewa Tabeau that were not
5 disclosed to us by the Prosecution.
6 JUDGE ORIE: An article of Ewa Tabeau of 100 pages.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, 100 UN pages.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know that UN pages are not the same as pages
9 for normal people. Both were -- okay. And do you, by any way, have the
10 titles of these? Are these focussing specifically on this case or are
11 they general?
12 MR. IVETIC: Focussing on sources used and focussing on the --
13 Bosnia but not dealing with this case or the testimony that was in this
14 case. But dealing with methodology, demographic sources, procedures,
15 et cetera.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you say they were not disclosed. I take
17 that it that this information is accurate?
18 MR. IVETIC: I don't know if they knew about them. They're not
19 dealing with the Tribunal. They're published in outside journals that we
20 uncovered and that therefore we had to have translations. Usually, if
21 the Prosecution discloses it, we would have translations into B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that point. So there was no claim that
23 there was a duty to disclose.
24 MR. IVETIC: No, no.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is there any reason now why it is only now that
1 these -- I mean, I take it that these articles were not published last
3 MR. IVETIC: They weren't published last month, but they were not
4 discovered -- I don't remember if they were published after the witness
5 testified. I don't have that recall.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to know from when these
7 articles -- when these articles were published in order to establish to
8 what extent it is reasonable to ask additional time for them to be
9 translated and to be made part of the report.
10 That's about the last two, Mr. Ivetic, and, as I said before, I
11 don't know whether to address you. Perhaps I should do in relation to
12 the experts, but all the other witnesses, what are the plans in relation
13 to them? Do you want to have a concentrated week, or two weeks where you
14 want to present them? Well, let's say in six weeks from now, eight weeks
15 from now, or four weeks from now? What are the plans?
16 MR. IVETIC: The plans would be to have them concentrated in one
17 sitting or session, whatever that would be and the determining factor, I
18 think is probably centred around the experts since their times are fixed.
19 I suspect, since the other entity that I've been working with has been
20 always rather quick in getting back to me and promised they would have
21 indicated any problems, that I should shortly be getting approval for the
22 Belgian. So then it would just be a matter of picking a date that works
23 for him which shouldn't be an issue, since the proximity.
24 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, we have some witnesses, for
25 example, I expressed my regrets that six weeks had passed without seeking
1 the assistance of the Chamber, that means that there is still quite a lot
2 of uncertainty.
3 MR. IVETIC: With respect to that one, that's correct. With
4 respect to the other one that is below the Belgian, I'm about 90 per cent
5 certain that we'll not be calling that witness. You'd not asked for us
6 to comment, but I do want to make sure that you know about that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, it's entirely up to you to give up
8 certain efforts to try and get those witnesses in The Hague, yes or no.
9 The Chamber just waits and offers as always its assistance, if needed.
10 Then let me just check.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, of course, it would be nice if everyone
13 would be in one or two weeks together, but the Chamber does certainly not
14 insist if that would delay the overall hearing of that evidence to keep
15 the expert witnesses together with the other witnesses we're still
16 waiting for. Whatever is done is done. And also because what we now
17 hear that the reason for the delay in the work of the experts is the
18 access to articles which may be - the Chamber doesn't know yet - may have
19 been published long ago, therefore the Chamber will have to assess also
20 to what extent that justifies further delays.
21 Therefore, we'd like to hear from you a clear plan. That week,
22 week 20, week 18, week 16, that's when we plan to hear this evidence.
23 The Chamber is relying on you to organise it properly and would like to
24 receive your plans, well, let's say, within a week from now, that we have
25 then -- we know more about the experts. You may have made progress in
1 your contact with the other witnesses, or at least one of them, and with
2 one of the authorities which has to give the green light, so the Chamber
3 would like to get that information -- well, it's not a strict deadline.
4 I mean, a week -- well, let's say not later than next week, Wednesday
5 [Realtime transcript read in error "witness"].
6 MR. IVETIC: Understood.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I add to this that the time which is elapsing
8 now, the Chamber considers this time as time already available for
9 preparing for the next stages of the proceedings even if there's one or
10 two articles still to be -- to be adopted in an expert report, that
11 should not refrain -- that shouldn't keep the Defence off from preparing
12 the next stages of the witnesses. So that is -- I think we expressed
13 that before, that is emphasised again, that waiting for this evidence to
14 be received does not relieve you from your duty to already prepare for
15 the next stages.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To avoid any misunderstanding for the record,
17 page 64, last word in line 25 it should read Wednesday, not witness.
18 That means -- let's say not later than next week, Wednesday, as the
19 Presiding Judge said.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can imagine that having heard the
21 witnesses -- the word witness so many times that this is what happens.
22 Mr. Ivetic.
23 MR. IVETIC: If I ask for clarification. You are recorded as
24 saying at line 6 of page 65, "that shouldn't keep the Defence off from
25 preparing the next stage of the witnesses." Does that refer to the
1 rebuttal case of the Prosecution? Because we have not had any filings
3 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever follows. We are at a stage where you could
4 already work, for example, on final briefs even if you have not the full
5 100 per cent of evidence available. Perhaps not knowing what rebuttal
6 evidence will still be heard. But you're supposed to start with
7 preparing the next stages and then, of course, if there is any rebuttal
8 evidence then it may well be that you have to change or to adapt to that
9 new situation. But we would not like to hear in a couple of months from
10 now, it's only know that we could start preparing final briefs, final
11 argument, et cetera, even if you cannot complete that for the full 100
12 per cent, there's quite some substance that can be dealt with already in
13 those early stages and the mere fact that there are still three, four,
14 five witnesses from which we would receive evidence, doesn't mean that
15 you could not yet work on those stages.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: So in the places of witnesses [Microphone not
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. So in the place of witnesses in that
20 sentence you can read case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Any questions or observations in relation to the
22 scheduling issues we dealt with? If not, then we'll now deal with the
23 exciting administrative matters, as you are used to hear from us.
24 I start with the remaining issues from the testimony of
25 Dusan Pavlovic.
1 During the testimony of Dusan Pavlovic, a number of exhibits were
2 marked for identification pending English translations. The Defence has
3 since informed the Prosecution and the Chamber, via e-mail, that the
4 relevant translations have been uploaded into e-court. The Prosecution
5 does not object to the translations. The Chamber hereby instructs the
6 Registry to attach the following: Doc ID 1D28-1967 to D1375; doc ID
7 1D28-1939 to D1378; doc ID 1D28-1796 to D1384, and to avoid any doubt,
8 D1384 shall remain under seal; doc ID 1D28-1799 to D1385; doc ID
9 1D28-1802 to D1386; doc ID 1D28-1951 to D1395; and doc ID 1D28-1828 to
11 All of the exhibits I just mentioned are admitted into evidence.
12 And, as I said, D1384, still under seal.
13 We stay with Mr. Dusan Pavlovic for the following. On the 2nd of
14 February of this year, P7792 and D1401 were marked for identification
15 pending the provision of English translations.
16 On the 9th of February, the Prosecution informed the Defence and
17 the Chamber, via an e-mail, that the English translations had been
18 uploaded into e-court, and the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to
19 attach doc ID Y039-9334-ET to P7792; and replace the place holder
20 currently attached to D1401 with doc ID X019-9209-1.
21 P7792 and D1401 are hereby admitted into evidence. P7792 shall
22 remain under seal, and the Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if
24 On the -- the next item deals with P7638.
25 On the 3rd of February of this year, the Chamber instructed the
1 rear to assign exhibit number P7638 to document bearing Rule 65 ter
2 number 06754a.
3 P7638 is hereby admitted into evidence, and the Defence has one
4 week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
5 I now deal with some miscellaneous exhibits admitted into
6 evidence and placed provisionally under seal.
7 On the 3rd of February of this year, the Chamber, first that put
8 on the record that it will invite the parties to communicate with the
9 Republic of Serbia to see whether it intends to file a Rule 54 bis motion
10 in relation to exhibits P7651, P7652, P7751, P7786, P7724, P7462, P5090,
11 and D1288, all admitted under seal; and, second, instructed the Registry
12 to lift the confidentiality of these exhibits within six weeks, unless
13 the Republic of Serbia files a motion to keep them confidential by that
15 On the 4th of February, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and
16 the Defence advising that protective measures are not required for six of
17 the eight exhibits, being: P7651, P7652, P7724, P7462, P5090, and D1288.
18 The Chamber therefore instructs the Registry to lift the confidentiality
19 of those six exhibits. In order to avoid any doubt, the Chamber
20 reiterates its instruction to the Registry to lift the confidentiality of
21 the remaining two exhibits, P7751 and P7786, if the Republic of Serbia
22 does not file a Rule 54 bis motion in relation to these documents by
23 March 16, 2016.
24 I move onto my next item, issues relating to the testimony of
25 Mitar Kovac.
1 On 19th of November of last year, P7674 was marked for
2 identification pending the provision of English translation.
3 On 8th of February of this year, the Prosecution informed the
4 Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that the translation had been uploaded
5 into e-court under doc ID 0562-0067-ET.
6 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the
7 translation to P7674 and admits it into evidence. The Defence has one
8 week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
9 Also on the 19th of February of last year, P7675 was reserved for
10 an excerpt of the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 05580.
11 On the 8th of February of this year, the Prosecution informed the
12 Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that the proposed excerpt had been
13 uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number 05580a.
14 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign P7675 to this
15 excerpt and admits into evidence, and the Defence has one week to revisit
16 the matter, if necessary.
17 I now to move to issues relating to the testimony of GRM-116.
18 On 16th of December, 2015, P7783, P7784, and P7785 were marked
19 for identification pending the provision of B/C/S translations.
20 On the 4th of February of this year, the Prosecution advised the
21 Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that the translations had been
22 uploaded into e-court under doc IDs 0687-0338-BCSDT, 0687-0341-BCSDT, and
23 0687-0409-BCSDT respectively.
24 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the
25 translations to P7783, P7784, and P7785 respectively and admits them into
1 evidence, under seal, and the Defence has one week to revisit the matter,
2 if necessary.
3 Also on the 16th of December of last year, P7788 was marked for
4 identification, pending agreement between the parties as to which
5 sections of the document should be tendered.
6 On the 4th of February, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and
7 the Defence via an e-mail that it tenders the document as currently
8 uploaded in e-court. The Chamber hereby admits P7788 into evidence under
9 seal, and the Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
10 I now to move to some remaining issues from the testimony of
11 Zorica Subotic, and I start with P7574, which is a VRS Main Staff letter
12 which was admitted into evidence on the 8th of October 2015.
13 On the 23rd of December, the Chamber invited the Prosecution via
14 e-mail to upload an English translation into e-court. The Prosecution
15 e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on the 11th of January of this year,
16 advising that an English translation had been uploaded into e-court under
17 doc ID 0627-7518-ET.
18 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the English
19 translation to Exhibit P7574 and gives the Defence one week to revisit
20 the matter, if necessary.
21 I move to P7566 in relation to which there may be some confusion
22 as whether this exhibit, a video, was admitted into evidence, as the
23 words "admitted into evidence" do not appear in the transcript, and I
24 refer you to page 39847.
25 The Chamber hereby puts it on the record that Exhibit P7566 was
1 admitted into evidence on the 7th of October, 2015.
2 I move to D1270.
3 On the 30th of September, 2015, Rule 65 ter number 33106, a MUP
4 report, was marked for identification as D1270 pending a response from
5 the Defence.
6 On the 7th of October, the Prosecution tendered D1270.
7 On the 8th of December, the Defence informed the Chamber via an
8 e-mail that it intended to tender Rule 65 ter 1D05545 rather than
9 65 ter 33106.
10 On the 9th of December, the Chamber e-mailed the parties
11 instructing the Defence to put its position in relation to Rule 65 ter
12 number 33106 on the record. That same day, the Defence objected to the
13 admission of the document. Accordingly, the Chamber instructs the
14 Registry to ensure that Rule 65 ter number 1D05545 is assigned to D1270.
15 The question I raise is whether there are any objections against
16 admission by the Prosecution?
17 D1270, in the absence of any response to my last question,
18 remains MFI'd until an English translation has been provided.
19 Further, does the Prosecution still want to tender Rule 65 ter
20 number 33106?
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MR. TRALDI: We'll have to get back to you on it, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can do so within a week and since there may
24 be no hearings, you can do that in the informal way as often practiced.
25 I move to.
1 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, if I may be of assistance.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: I note that we informed the Chamber that we discussed
4 on these documents for a long time, and I know that now, under number 35
5 in our new chart, joint submission by the Prosecution and the Defence,
6 you can find 33106a, which would be a new document.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: The --
9 MR. LUKIC: And it's actually B and H MUP reports relating to a
10 shelling of Safeta Zajke street, number 43, on 24th of May 1995.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
12 MR. LUKIC: But it wasn't uploaded and I know that we agreed that
13 the Prosecution has to upload that document. And I don't know if that
14 has been done yet.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it, Mr. Traldi, that you would express
16 your appreciation for the assistance given to you by Mr. Lukic and you
17 will include this information in your brief report which the Chamber
18 expects to receive within one week.
19 MR. TRALDI: We will. And it is in e-court now. The document
20 that Mr. Lukic referred to, 65 ter 33106a.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question was whether you wanted
22 to tender that. I take it that if you uploaded it and you discussed it
23 with Mr. Lukic, you --
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it's part of our joint submission that we want
25 to tender it, both parties.
1 JUDGE ORIE: A very practical question now for me is whether we
2 will deal with it separately now at this moment or as part of the joint
4 MR. LUKIC: I would rather deal with it as part of joint
5 submission, not now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll keep that until we deal with the
7 submission as a whole. Thank you for your clarification.
8 I now move to the next item on my agenda, is the remaining issue
9 from the testimony of Mile Poparic and it's about D1340 for which on 5th
10 of November, 2015, a number was reserved. It's a video on shelling and
11 sniping incidents.
12 On 9 November, the Chamber received an e-mail from the Defence
13 advising that the surrogate sheet for the video was uploaded into e-court
14 under document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05911A.
15 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign D1340 to the
16 surrogate sheet and admits D1340 into evidence, and the Prosecution has
17 one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
18 And I take it that the video was handed over in hard copy on the
19 CD. I hear no cries, so, therefore, I take it that the assumption is
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that in the absence of Mr. Mladic, we'll
23 not stop now after one hour but that we'll continue, and then most
24 likely, if we deal with it within the next half an hour to adjourn for
25 the day.
1 The next item are remaining issues relating to the testimony of
2 Dragan Kijac.
3 During the testimony of Dragan Kijac on 11 and 12 November 2015,
4 P7653 and P7662 were marked for identification pending the provision of
6 On the 16th and the 26th of November, the Prosecution informed
7 the Chamber and the Prosecution by e-mail that ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- must be the Defence. So I therefore
10 correct myself. The Prosecution informed the Chamber and the Defence by
11 e-mail that the relevant translations had been uploaded into e-court
12 under doc Ids R012-5770-2-BCST and B012-6299-ET respectively and admits
13 them into evidence, and the Defence has one week to revisit the matter,
14 if necessary.
15 I move to P7655, which was admitted into evidence also on the
16 12th of November, although there was a discussion in court about whether
17 the document had been translated correctly. The document was admitted
18 into evidence that same day, provided that the parties were asked to
19 verify whether a revised English translation of the document was
21 On the 20th of November, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and
22 the Defence by e-mail that CLSS had verified the English translation and
23 confirmed that it was correct. That information is hereby placed on the
25 P7581 was admitted into evidence on the 19th of October.
1 On the 12th of November, the Chamber commented that there was a
2 discrepancy between the B/C/S original and the English translation. On
3 12th of February, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and the Defence
4 that the revised English translation had been uploaded into e-court under
5 doc ID V000-1274-B-ENG.
6 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the current
7 English translation of P7581 with the new one. The Defence has one week
8 to revisit the matter, if necessary.
9 I now move to two issues relating to the testimony of Yasushi
10 Akashi. P7694 was admitted into evidence without a B/C/S translation on
11 the 23rd of November, 2015.
12 On the 17th of December, the Chamber instructed the Registry to
13 attach the B/C/S translation uploaded into e-court as doc ID
14 R001-5622-BCST to Exhibit P7694. However, on the 18th of December, the
15 Chamber informed the parties via e-mail that this was, in fact, incorrect
16 and that, instead, doc ID R001-3953-BCST should be attached to the
17 exhibit, and this change is now reflected in e-court.
18 I'll now deal with P2508.
19 On the 5th of February of this year, following the testimonies of
20 witnesses Yasushi Akashi, Milos Kovic, and Milorad Dodik, the Prosecution
21 informed the Chamber that it had added additional pages used in relation
22 to the three aforementioned witnesses to Exhibit P2508, creating a
23 document bearing Rule 65 ter number 02383e.
24 The Prosecution requests that this document be assigned to
25 Exhibit P2508 and admitted. The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to
1 replace document bearing Rule 65 ter number 02383c, which is currently
2 assigned to P2508, with document bearing Rule 65 ter number 02383e and
3 admitted it into evidence, and the Defence has one week to revisit the
4 matter, if necessary.
5 Replacements of English translations are now following. On the
6 14th of November, 2013, the Chamber admitted Exhibits P2819 and P2830
7 into evidence. The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence on
8 the 23rd of February of this year advising that the revised English
9 translations of these exhibits had been uploaded into e-court under doc
10 IDs 0410-5762-ET and 0410-5761-ET respectively.
11 The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the existing
12 English translations of P2819 and P2830 with the revised versions. The
13 Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
14 Mr. Traldi.
15 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, just to go back to Exhibit P2508
16 briefly. On the record the Chamber had referred to 65 ter 02383e, and
17 our records indicate that the proposed document was 65 ter 02382e, and we
18 just ask that that be checked.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, usually if new portions are added to
20 existing exhibits, what I see is that we earlier had 2383c so one would
21 expect as in sequence to also have then 02383e.
22 MR. TRALDI: And my understanding is that one may also be a
23 typographical error. If I type 02382c in to e-court, I get P2508.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll -- I'm a bit hesitant to correct it at
25 this moment, not having been in a position to verify it, but P2508 if the
1 parties could check, and if Mr. Registrar could also keep an eye on it,
2 but it might be that what is to be replaced, if that's a wrong number as
3 well, so I'd like to have it all verified and perhaps take an opportunity
4 soon to advise the parties.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar has verified it. And I now instruct
9 the Registrar to replace document bearing Rule 65 ter number 02382c,
10 which is currently assigned to P2508, with the document bearing Rule 65
11 ter number 02382e, and admits it into evidence. And the Defence has an
12 opportunity to revisit the matter within one week. And I noticed that
13 Ms. Stewart, when I put that on the record, nodded in the affirmative
14 that I had now correctly read the numbers.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would like to read an oral decision, a
17 decision on the admission of Milos Kovic's expert reports.
18 On 30th of March 2015, the Defence filed a notice of disclosure
19 of Milos Kovic's expert reports and curriculum vitae pursuant to
20 Rule 94 bis(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, requesting their
21 admission into evidence.
22 On the 24th of April, 2015, the Prosecution responded to the
23 motion not challenging the expertise of Kovic or the relevance of the
24 reports but seeking to cross-examine the witness as it did not accept the
25 conclusions of the reports.
1 On the 22nd of May of last year, the Chamber delivered its oral
2 decision confirming the expertise of Kovic and deferring its decision on
3 the admission of the two reports until the witness testified.
4 Kovic testified on the 30th of November and the 1st of December,
5 2015, during which his curriculum vitae was admitted into evidence, and
6 his expert reports were marked for identification as D1368 and D1369.
7 On the 14th of January 2016 the Prosecution informed Defence and
8 chamber, via e-mail, that it did not object to the admission of the
9 reports with respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
10 the Chamber recalls and refers to its decision of the 19th of October,
11 2012 concerning expert witness Richard Butler. The Chamber notes that
12 Kovic's expert reports analysed the conclusions of Prosecution experts
13 Patrick Treanor and Robert Donia in relation to their respective reports
14 on the Bosnian Serb leadership and historical events in Bosnia and
16 Kovic's reports relate to the charges set out in the indictment
17 and are within the scope of his expertise and specialised knowledge in
18 the area of political history.
19 The Chamber finds, therefore, that the reports are relevant and
20 of probative value for the purpose of their admission and, pursuant to
21 Rule 89(C) admits D1368 and D1369 into evidence.
22 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
23 I move on to D649, which, on the 19th of September 2014 was
24 marked for identification pending a discussion between the parties about
25 a possible objection by the Prosecution.
1 The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber on the 11th of February of
2 this year, stating that it did not object to its admission.
3 The Chamber therefore admitted Exhibit D649 into evidence under
5 I now move to the remaining issues from the testimony of
6 Mile Dosenovic, and I start with P7503 and P7500.
7 On the 17th of August, 2015, P7503 was marked for identification
8 pending the provision of an English translation.
9 On the 8th of February, 2016, the Prosecution e-mailed the
10 Chamber and the Defence advising that the revised English translation had
11 been uploaded into e-court under doc ID 0425-4146-ET-3.
12 It further noted, in relation to the translation of
13 Exhibit P7500 - a document which contains text from document P753 - that
14 the same revisions had been made and uploaded under doc ID
15 0320-8846-ET-1. On the same day, the Defence confirmed that it did not
16 object to the revised translation, and the Chamber hereby instructs the
17 Registry to replace the translations of P7503 and P7500 with the revised
18 versions and admits P7503 into evidence.
19 I move to D1196, which on 13th of August, 2015 was marked for
20 identification and placed under seal.
21 On the 17th of December, it was marked not admitted on the basis
22 that the document was already in evidence as part of Exhibit D1200. On
23 the same day, however, the Chamber noted that it would review its
24 decision on non-admission.
25 In the light of differences between the two documents, the
1 Chamber hereby admitted D1196 into evidence, under seal.
2 I now move to remaining issues from the testimony of
3 Jose Cutileiro and Milorad Dodik, and I start with P3076.
4 On the 8th of December, 2015, the Prosecution used excerpts of
5 the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 2388 with witness Milorad Dodik.
6 One excerpt from that document was already in evidence as Exhibit P3076.
7 The Chamber allowed the Prosecution to add the additional excerpts used
8 with the witness Dodik to the exhibit.
9 The Prosecution uploaded a new version of the document which
10 included these excerpts under Rule 65 ter number 2388b.
11 On the 9th of December, the Chamber allowed additional excerpts,
12 used with witness Cutileiro, to also be added to the exhibit. These
13 excerpts were uploaded under Rule 65 ter number 2388c.
14 The Chamber notes that pages 107 to 109 and 111 to 113, tendered
15 through Milorad Dodik, have not been uploaded. The Chamber hereby
16 instructs the Prosecution to upload a new version of the document which
17 includes the excerpts tendered through both Dodik and Cutileiro. Once
18 these pages are included, the Chamber will instruct the Registry to
19 replace P3076 with that new version.
20 I move to P7770. This exhibit was admitted into evidence on the
21 9th of December, 2015.
22 On 4th of January, 2016, the Chamber e-mailed the Prosecution
23 regarding the length of the document.
24 On the 20th of January, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and
25 the Defence via an e-mail that an excerpt of the document had been
1 uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number 7958a. And the Chamber
2 hereby instructs the Registry to replace Exhibit P7770 with the proposed
3 excerpt. The Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
4 Last item, P4582.
5 On the 9th of December, 2015, The Prosecution noted various
6 concerns regarding the accuracy of the English translation of Exhibit
8 On the 27th of January, 2016, the Prosecution informed the
9 Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that a revised translation had been
10 uploaded into e-court under doc ID 0215-2880-ET2.
11 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the existing
12 translation of P4582 with the revised one. The Defence has one week to
13 revisit the matter, if necessary.
14 These were all the items I had on my agenda. Is there anything
15 that the parties would like to raise?
16 Nothing. Well, we'll adjourn sine die because we don't know when
17 the Defence will be able to present further evidence. We'll hear from
18 them not any later than by next week, Wednesday.
19 We adjourn sine die.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,
21 sine die.