1 Thursday, 28 April 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. And good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Today we'll first start with the examination of the next Defence
12 witness, and Ms. Radovanovic will join us later today.
13 Is the Defence ready to call its next witness, which I understand
14 is Mr. Segers?
15 MR. IVETIC: We are, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And then I also understand that there's translation
17 in the Dutch language. I might not need that much of it, but,
18 nevertheless, welcome.
19 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
20 And we find ... I see we're on channel 7 for Dutch.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Segers.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
25 make a solemn declaration, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
1 and nothing but the truth.
2 Do you understand -- do you receive translation in your own
4 THE WITNESS: I will do it in English.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but my question was whether you received
6 translation into your own language.
7 THE WITNESS: I do hear you weak. Not loud enough.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In what language do you hear me?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, okay. That's clear.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. And, Mr. Usher -- and in what
11 language do you hear me or do you receive interpretation?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear the interpretation, but I
13 also hear the Judge.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that in your earphones, you receive
15 interpretation, whereas directly you can hear me although in the English
17 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
19 make a solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you.
20 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
22 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: JAN SEGERS
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Segers.
1 Mr. Segers, I'm speaking English to you because English and
2 French are the official languages of this Tribunal, although I will
3 follow your testimony in the language you speak yourself.
4 Mr. Segers, you'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic. You find
5 Mr. Ivetic to your left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence for
6 Mr. Mladic.
7 Mr. Ivetic.
8 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
9 Q. Good day, sir.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Can I ask you to please state your full name for the record.
12 A. My name is Jan Segers.
13 MR. IVETIC: If we can please have a look at 1D05961 in e-court,
14 and I have a hard copy for the witness in his language.
15 Q. Shortly, sir, you will see on the screen and receive a document.
16 A. [In English] Thank you.
17 Q. I would ask that you look at the original language version, and
18 my question would be: Do you remember giving this statement to the
19 Belgian authorities on the date that is indicated?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. If we can turn to the last page of the document in both
22 languages, and there's a signature on this last page. Whose signature is
23 on the statement?
24 A. [Interpretation] That's my signature.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we now have Dutch on the left part of
1 our screens. I looked into e-court. I see two versions. Is it true
2 that we only have the Dutch and the English version and that there's no
3 B/C/S version?
4 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours. CLSS does not
5 translate things into B/C/S for the Defence until after they are used in
6 court as exhibits.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, if Mr. Mladic has any problems
8 with specific portions, then of course he should be assisted in
9 understanding and to be able to fully follow the examination.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. Sir, did you voluntarily give this statement to the Belgian
13 authorities on the date indicated?
14 A. Yes, I can confirm that I voluntarily made that statement.
15 Q. And do you stand by everything in the statement as correctly
16 written or do you wish to correct anything?
17 A. No, I stand by my statement.
18 Q. If asked today the same questions as in the statement, would your
19 answers today in court be, in essence, the same as in the statement?
20 A. The questions would be the same -- excuse me, the statement would
21 be the same.
22 Q. Having taken the solemn declaration to tell the truth today --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just check. I heard you say [Dutch spoken],
24 but I take it that you wanted to refer to the answers.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answers would be the same.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. And, sir, having taken the solemn declaration to tell the truth
5 today, does that mean that we can consider your answers in the written
6 statement to be truthful in nature?
7 A. I can only confirm that.
8 MR. IVETIC: And if we could take a look at 1D05960, of which I
9 also have an original in a language that the witness also understands.
10 Q. Shortly, sir, another document will appear on your screen and
11 will be available to you in hard copy and then I'll have some questions.
12 On the left of the screen we have a French article which you now
13 also have in hard copy entitled "Le Grand Bluff." Sir, is this the
14 article that is the subject of the written statement we just looked at
15 that you gave to the Belgian authorities?
16 A. Yes, I suspect so.
17 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, we would tender the statement of
18 the witness, 1D5961, I presume MFI to get the B/C/S translation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D1465, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification pending translation. And
22 I take it the article as well.
23 MR. IVETIC: We would also tender the article. At this point, we
24 have, I believe, the article in all three languages. We would tender it
25 to replace D360, marked not admitted, which was a prior version of the
1 same article before we received the original French. It was an English
2 version that came from the disclosures of the Office of the Prosecutor.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D360. The status will just
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I have a short summary to
8 read of the statement, the purpose of which has been explained to the
9 witness yesterday when I met with him.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Witness Jan Segers is a Belgian national who served
12 29 years as a serviceman who has held the rank of lieutenant to
13 commandant. He served for a number of years in a number of military
14 staffs, more specifically in various NATO military headquarters.
15 He was deployed to the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995,
16 firstly as an UNPROFOR officer, and, second, as an UNMO observer. In
17 total, he thinks he spent two and a half years in the former Yugoslavia.
18 He served in Sarajevo, Kiseljak, Bihac, Daruvar, Zagreb, and Kosovo.
19 Mr. Segers recalls an investigation he conducted when two UNMOs
20 were caught and confessed to smuggling money and other things into Bihac
21 out of sympathy for one of the warring factions. They were caught with
22 50.000 German marks and two mobile phones. Such activity took place
23 sporadically throughout the sector, and the response against it by the UN
24 was very strict.
25 Mr. Segers had information that approximately 10 million German
1 marks were flown in by helicopter into Bihac weekly by the 5th Corps. It
2 went into the hands of Bosnian Muslims in Bihac for weapons and
3 ammunition. One helicopter crashed, and the UNMOs had evidence it was,
4 indeed, a money transport.
5 The witness personally saw a helicopter in Bihac unloading
6 ammunition boxes under the supervision of General Dudakovic. The witness
7 was shot at and arrested by the BiH side for witnessing this. He
8 reported this activity of the ABiH bringing ammunition in helicopters to
9 his UN superiors. He does not know if this was when Bihac was a safe
10 area. Such flights, he agreed, would violate the safe areas agreement.
11 In relation to an interview quoting him as saying:
12 "Without knowing, or without wanting to know, the UN was a source
13 for information for the Croats. This was unacceptable. I know the
14 Americans were supplying them with information, but I think the UN made
15 an unforgivable mistake."
16 Mr. Segers said the term "Americans" was used in a general sense,
17 and he never told the journalist it was about American servicemen;
18 rather, there were consultants hired by various parties. The consulting
19 firm was run by American generals who supported the Croatian army and was
20 staffed with retired American and German officers. Those higher up in
21 the UN hierarchy were advised of this.
22 As to the first Markale market shelling in February 1994,
23 Mr. Segers says that the UN always said it did not know who was
24 responsible but it was almost certain that it was not the Serbs. There
25 were rumours that it was caused by explosives planted under a table,
1 according to what was learned from the report of Military Observers who
2 had visited the market-place after the incident to investigate.
3 He recalled witnessing mortars being fired from Kosevo Hospital,
4 and then the Serbs returned fire, hitting the hospital pavilion complex.
5 When he returned to headquarters, it was said Serbs fired on the
7 He also said Belgian UNMOs established the 5th Corps of the
8 Bosnian army was regularly shelling a small Bosnian Muslim village simply
9 to get the Americans to carry out bombings. When this was reported, a
10 Pakistani colonel in the UN took the side of the Croats and made threats
11 against the Belgians. Mr. Segers found it outrageous that UN officers
12 took it upon themselves to act as spokesmen for one of the warring
13 factions and to threaten UNMOs who were reporting truthfully.
14 And that is the conclusion of the summary.
15 Q. Mr. Segers, I have no further questions for you. Thank you very
16 much for answering my questions this morning.
17 A. [In English] Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
19 Is the Prosecution ready to cross-examine the witness.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Segers, you'll now be cross-examined by
22 Ms. Edgerton. Ms. Edgerton - you find her to your right - is counsel for
23 the Prosecution.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
1 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton:
2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Segers.
3 A. [In English] Good morning.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Segers, if I understood your written evidence correctly,
5 you have been retired from the military for about 15 years now; right?
6 A. [Interpretation] That's correct.
7 Q. Now, can you confirm for us, because it's not entirely clear from
8 your written evidence, that you arrived in Sarajevo in October 1992?
9 A. That's also correct.
10 Q. And you -- am I correct in my understanding that you left Bosnia
11 in March of 1993 for a period of time?
12 A. I suspect that that's correct, but I'm not 100 per cent certain.
13 Q. All right. And at what point after you arrived in Sarajevo were
14 you posted to Kiseljak?
15 A. Upon arriving in Bosnia, I was sent to Belgrade for 14 days at
16 first because the UNPROFOR headquarters were still in Belgrade, and then
17 we went from Belgrade to Sarajevo -- excuse me, that's incorrect. We
18 went to Kiseljak, I believe, and then I was posted in the Sarajevo Sector
19 as the liaison officer between the UNPROFOR headquarters in the Sarajevo
20 Sector and the warring factions.
21 Q. And just to map out your time in Bosnia. After you left Sarajevo
22 around March 1993, as you said, you actually never returned to serve in
23 Sarajevo after that; right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. So you weren't in Sarajevo in February 1994 or any other time in
1 1994; right?
2 A. I suspect that that's correct. I don't have 100 per cent clear
3 view of the exact dates I was present there, but I suspect that that is
5 Q. And you weren't in Sarajevo on the 28th of June or the 28th of
6 August, 1995; right?
7 A. In 1995, I was not in Sarajevo, no.
8 Q. And you've never met General Mladic; right?
9 A. I suspect that I met General Mladic once, in Lukavica, during
10 meetings I was conducted at the time with the Serb liaison officer.
11 Q. So sometime between October 1992 and March 1993, you had a
12 meeting with General Mladic.
13 A. The meeting is an overstatement. I met him. I never actually
14 had a meeting with him at that time.
15 Q. Now, as a liaison officer, your job is to bring the greatest
16 concerns of UNPROFOR to the attention of the warring factions; right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. So, just speaking about the Bosnian Serb forces, it would have
19 been your job to take concerns to them that related to shelling of
20 civilians in Bosnian-held Sarajevo; right?
21 A. That's correct. We repeatedly requested cease-fires --
22 THE INTERPRETER: And could the witness please repeat the last
23 word of his sentence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to repeat the last word of your
25 answers. You said you repeatedly requested cease-fires and?
1 THE WITNESS: We requested cease-fires on a regular basis.
2 Cease-fires between -- after -- when bombardments were ongoing.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be that you have used the word
4 "genegotieerd"? That's what I think I heard you say.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Negotiating" is not entirely the
6 correct word.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, did you use that word?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's possible.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You're telling us that it's not the right
10 expression, and from my understanding of the Dutch, or the Flemish
11 language, "negotiëren" is a Dutch version of "negotiate," "négocier" in
12 French. Is that well understood?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was negotiating.
14 Effectively we were the requesting party, so we tried to obtain a
15 decision that was constructive to the request of the UN at that time. So
16 it was a type of negotiating, that's correct.
17 MS. EDGERTON:
18 Q. And, in addition, you would have -- in fact, you would make
19 requests and you would bring complaints about just about anything to the
20 Serb side; right? So in addition to shelling, you would bring complaints
21 about the targeting of civilians by sniping. Right?
22 A. That's correct, yes, that's correct.
23 Q. You would bring complaints about restrictions on UNPROFOR's --
24 [French on English Channel]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think there is something wrong with the
1 microphones. Perhaps you repeat your question.
2 MS. EDGERTON:
3 Q. So it was also your job to bring restrictions -- pardon me, to
4 bring complaints about Bosnian Serb army restrictions on UNPROFOR's
5 ability to carry out their humanitarian mission; right?
6 A. Perhaps I didn't understand the question properly, I think. If
7 you're asking questions about the restrictions of UNPROFOR, would that --
8 something that we needed to make clear at the time as well, then I can
9 answer that negatively. It wasn't my job, responsibility, at that time
10 to call attention to deficiencies by the UN. It was my job on behalf of
11 the UN [Realtime transcript read in error "UB"] in the Sector Sarajevo
12 and the headquarters of the general at that time for the instructions
13 they gave me which coincided with shooting incidents, shooting between
14 snipers and so on. With the -- to negotiate with the liaison officer
15 from the other side to bring those to an end. And that happened both
16 ways, both towards the Bosnians and toward the Bosnian Muslims in
18 Q. I wanted to focus on your interactions with the Bosnian Serb army
19 and those meetings. Now, you mentioned shooting between snipers. My
20 initial question to you about sniping wasn't about shooting between
21 snipers. My question was about the Bosnian Serb army's targeting of
23 You would -- can you confirm that you would bring complaints
24 about their targeting of civilians by shelling and sniping to the Bosnian
25 Serb army?
1 A. Affirmative.
2 Q. And who was your liaison interlocutor on the Bosnian Serb army
4 A. The problem is that after 20 years, I don't remember the names of
5 the individuals. But there were two Bosnian Serb officers present in the
6 PTT building and I was in contact with them and negotiated with them
7 multiple times a day, and I was sporadically in touch with their head in
8 Lukavica. And, if I'm not mistaken, Lukavica was the headquarters of the
9 Bosnian Serb army.
10 But as for the names of the individuals, unfortunately, I have
11 forgotten those.
12 Q. How often would you bring complaints to your interlocutor at
14 And if I can just tell you why I'm asking you this. It's my
15 understanding that the office, the liaison office at the PTT, closed down
16 very early after you arrived in Sarajevo. So I want to know how often
17 after that you went to Lukavica?
18 A. No, it's not correct. The liaison officer of the Bosnian Serb
19 army in the PTT building was present when I was there, and I consistently
20 negotiated with those people. There were two, at a certain point there
21 were three of them, and then they went back to two. When I mention
22 Lukavica, that was only very sporadically during very serious incidents
23 that I went all the way to Lukavica. But at that point, I had to cross
24 the front line, and sometimes that wasn't possible. So I had to go from
25 the one side to the other side, but there was very intense firing at
1 Sarajevo, and we were -- then we were ineffective. When we were
2 ineffective with the Bosnian Serb liaison officer, then I would try to
3 get to Lukavica, but that was very sporadically. And in my seven months
4 in Sarajevo, the entire period, I went there five or six times.
5 Q. Can I take from that that when you were at Lukavica and saw
6 General Mladic, it was a very serious shooting incident that prompted
7 your visit?
8 A. My contact with General Mladic was sporadic and very
9 coincidental. It was not in the context of negotiating to achieve a
10 cease-fire or stopping the firing. That was done with the liaison
11 officer, especially with the head liaison officer. Unfortunately, I
12 can't remember the man's name, but it was one of the staff officers of
13 General Mladic. I never personally negotiated with General Mladic about
14 cease-fires at my level.
15 Q. But --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarifying question --
17 MS. EDGERTON: Of course.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You used the word "sporadic." Sporadic means - at
19 least in my understanding - at rare occasions but still more than once.
20 Did you see him, because I do understand you did not meet him, did you
21 see him once or more than once, although only a very few times? If you
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, I met
24 General Mladic a few times, but I never conducted negotiations with him
25 at that point. I can confirm that in writing.
1 MS. EDGERTON:
2 Q. Those few times where you met General Mladic between October 1992
3 and March 1993, was it always at Lukavica?
4 A. Affirmative.
5 Q. Have you ever met General Galic?
6 A. That does not ring a bell.
7 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody who represented themselves to be
8 the commander of the Bosnian Serb forces around Sarajevo subordinate to
9 General Mladic?
10 A. That's perfectly possible, but my memories at this time are not
11 clear enough about that.
12 Q. Who typically accompanied General Mladic those times when you met
14 A. Madam, I'm sorry, but I have to say I don't remember that
15 anymore. I don't have any idea. It's vague. I'm not going to make any
16 statements about that because I would be saying something that I cannot
17 confirm with any certainty.
18 Q. Can you confirm whether or not during those encounters with
19 General Mladic you mentioned that civilians in Sarajevo were being shot
20 and shelled?
21 A. All I can do is return to the fact that I did not conduct any
22 negotiations with General Mladic. I just happened to meet him in the
23 corridor, so there was no real conversation between me and him.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I still seek clarification there.
25 You say it wasn't a -- no real conversation. What did you say,
1 Hello, Mr. Mladic, or I'm Mr. Segers. What -- was there any
2 communication at all, or was it just seeing someone in passing?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was escorted by the head liaison
4 officer of the Serb army at the time. I don't remember the man's name
5 anymore. And in the corridor, General Mladic was passing. We passed
6 General Mladic and were introduced to each other but that was it. There
7 was no follow-up. It was just a courtesy introduction of both
9 JUDGE ORIE: How were you introduced to each other? Is this
10 Mr. Segers, liaison for UNPROFOR, or just a name? What happened exactly,
11 if you remember?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, it was: This
13 is Mr. Segers, he is one of the liaison officers from the UNPROFOR
14 headquarters. And I was told, This is General Mladic, may I introduce
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how was General Mladic introduced to you?
17 Did they say what his position was?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, they told me,
19 This is the commander. And when they said "the commander," I knew that
20 was General Mladic. I don't actually remember the name Mladic being
21 stated. I remember being told he was the commander.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And you knew his face?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, affirmative.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And you did not know the face of General Galic?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. General Galic does not ring
1 any bells automatically, so I can't really connect that with anything.
2 JUDGE ORIE: As a liaison officer, the name of General Galic
3 didn't mean anything to you?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this time, that's correct, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, your prior question didn't make it into
7 the transcript because the translation was continuing, so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I should have been -- let me see.
9 I think I said: As a liaison officer, the name of General Galic
10 didn't mean anything to you. If that's the question which you had on
11 your mind.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me look at the other one.
14 I think what is missing ... I have asked, and I don't know
15 whether that's what is missing, whether the witness knew the face of
16 General Mladic and I asked similar question, whether he was aware of what
17 General Galic looked like. I think that may be what is missing. And I
18 think the witness told us that he knew the face of General Mladic and he,
19 as far as matters stand now, that he does not -- that he did not know or
20 at least doesn't remember, at this moment, whether he knew the face of
21 General Galic at the time.
22 And I'm sorry for complicating matters by direct listening. I'm
23 now better aware of what problems you may face now and then.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. So I might come back to this, but for the moment I want to move
2 forward, so because of -- it seems to me, because of your job and because
3 you were based in Bosnian-held Sarajevo, you should have been able to see
4 something about the situation for civilians there. So I want to ask you
5 about that.
6 Now, in the published interview from November 1995 in
7 Télé Moustique you said when you arrived in Sarajevo, you found women and
8 children had become the targets of an army, the Bosnian Serb army.
9 So am I right in understanding that refers to what you saw;
10 right? You saw obvious civilians being shot by the Bosnian Serb army?
11 A. Affirmative.
12 Q. And you saw these people also being shot while they were doing
13 civilian things, just their normal everyday business; is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. And just putting ourselves in October 1992 for a moment, when you
16 arrived in Sarajevo, you would have recalled that most of the
17 Bosnian-held city had no water and no electricity; right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. So part of the everyday business for civilians at that time
20 because of these privations would mean they would have to go outside and
21 find water and food; right?
22 A. That is absolutely correct.
23 Q. And when they were going out trying to find water and food,
24 sometimes that could take hours because it was so restricted; right?
25 A. That is very, very much correct, ma'am.
1 Q. And -- and when they were trying to find water and food, people
2 would get killed and wounded by Bosnian Serb sniping or shelling; right?
3 A. That is correct, to the extent that, of course, where you're
4 referring to the shooting at the point where the water was by the
5 Serbians, well, that is different version through the Military Observers
6 that were doing the crater analysis there on site where -- whereas, you
7 know, for the other facts I'll confirm it, but not for that.
8 Q. I have actually no idea what specific water line incident you're
9 talking about. I'm just asking you more general questions about the
10 situation for civilians in Sarajevo.
11 What -- so what you saw was people being driven outdoors by
12 privations, and while they were outside of their homes, they were
13 targeted by shelling and sniping; right?
14 A. That is absolutely correct, ma'am.
15 Q. And while they were outside -- and because -- because people were
16 shot and shelled while they were outside, and because you were in the
17 city to see this, you must have seen that everybody had this kind of
18 obsessive fear that they might be the next casualty of the shelling and
20 MR. IVETIC: I'll object at this point as it asked the witness to
21 make speculation as to what was in other people's minds.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, another matter is it's a rather
23 composite question. You introduce a few things, so would you please
24 split it up and refrain where possible from what the witness couldn't
25 know by himself.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Sure.
2 Q. Mr. Segers, based in the city as you were, did you have an
3 opportunity to talk with the civilian residents of the area?
4 A. Affirmative.
5 Q. And do you recall them sharing some of their experiences with you
6 about their daily life?
7 A. That is correct. And this was the case with all inhabitants of
8 Sarajevo, the various ethnic groups, because I spoke both to Serb and
9 Bosnian and Croatian civilians in Sarajevo, and their fate or their
10 destiny at the time seemed to be the same for all of them. It was
11 unpleasant, it was dangerous. That's true.
12 Q. And as a result of -- or during the course of those
13 conversations, do you recall the city's civilian residents speaking about
14 their state of mind?
15 A. Yeah, affirmative. And the people were living under this
16 panicked fear continually and it was -- well, let's say that that was
17 sort of more or less what people told me, We can be shot at at any minute
18 now. We don't feel safe. The danger is coming from the sky or the
19 buildings just opposite us. So, yes, affirmative.
20 Q. Now, because of your job, you would also have been aware of the
21 shelling pattern or practices of the Bosnian Serb army, in terms of their
22 mortars and artillery; right? You would have seen it.
23 A. I saw the shootings of Sarajevo several times, and I know very
24 well what mortar fire is because several years I commanded a mortar unit,
25 and so, yes, I have expertise in that regard.
1 Q. So you would have seen that shells were fired in a way that was
2 widely dispersed across the populated areas of the entire city, wouldn't
4 A. Effectively, yes, I had that same impression. Yes, that's clear.
5 Q. And you would have seen also that that shelling was -- that
6 widely dispersed shelling wasn't typically related to an obvious military
7 target or front-line military activity; right?
8 A. Well, I'll give you a two-fold answer.
9 In that regard usually you would be right. Effectively, it is a
10 sort of wild firing. However, I also saw outcoming fire from the centre
11 of Sarajevo to the Kosevo Hospital, for example, where afterwards
12 naturally the Serbians had a targeted counter-attack. So it wasn't just
13 always widely disseminated fire, but, yes, generally.
14 Q. All right. Let's talk for a minute about the Kosevo Hospital
15 incident that you discussed in your written evidence. So, first of all,
16 the hospital is actually, as you remember, a really large compound in the
17 north-east part of the city, right, with many different clinics or
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And when you said you heard two explosions and you looked out of
21 a window and saw two mortars had been fired, you were -- that means you
22 were inside one of the buildings of the compound when you saw that;
24 A. That is correct. I made my observation from the building. There
25 were various pavilions and between the pavilions there were two mortars
1 set up. And I didn't just think they fired, I saw them effectively fire.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to sit back
3 from the microphone.
4 MS. EDGERTON:
5 Q. Mr. Segers, a couple of my colleagues, the interpreters, have
6 asked if you could just sit back from the microphone a little bit, maybe
7 right where you are now, so that they could hear you clearly.
8 So just talking about these mortars. You've said the Serbs
9 retaliated. Now, they retaliated sometime after you saw that fire;
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. And as I understand your written evidence, they didn't hit the
13 mortars. They hit one of the buildings of the hospital; right?
14 A. I know that they retaliated, fired on the building, but the story
15 is a bit longer. It's not I fire, I fire back. It was outgoing fire
16 from Bosnian -- well, the Muslim army first, from Sarajevo to the Serb
17 positions, and then the Serbian or liaison officer brought complaints to
18 us, but I wasn't there, my colleague counted them, and said, That would
19 have to stop or we will defend ourselves, we are entitled to that. We'll
20 fire back. And then effectively, after a while and at -- at that time
21 the mortars of the Bosnian Muslim army had already departed or had been
22 taken away, I should say, there was a shooting, a short shelling of the
23 hospital really without there being any material substantive damage.
24 Q. So it wasn't just five minutes as you -- as was printed in the
25 Télé Moustique article. There was kind of a greater expanse of time that
1 allowed for this communication with the Serbian LO; right?
2 A. Affirmative.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But how long was this interval?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can recall, the
5 question had been clearly asked for another five minutes. We'll give you
6 another five minutes and then we'll fire back. And this was the time
7 they spoke to my colleague liaison officer, a Norwegian fellow, who was
8 present at the PTT building, where I was at the Kosevo Hospital.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And did I understand you correctly that at the
10 time when this retaliatory firing took place, the mortar that had been at
11 the Kosevo Hospital had already moved away?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never spoke of casualties. What
13 happened is that the mortars, so the weapons that had been used by the
14 Bosnian Muslim army, that they had already been removed from that
15 location. I didn't speak of casualties or victims.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I didn't ask about
17 casualties either.
18 Thank you, Madam Edgerton.
19 You have answered my question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, I'm looking at the clock as well.
21 At this point in time, Mr. Segers, we'll take a break of
22 20 minutes. You may follow the usher. We'd like to see you back soon.
23 I have one technical matter, that is, the French version of the
24 article. The --
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: To attach it to D360 might not be fully accurate
2 because D360 is the English version of the article but not as a
3 translation of the article, but it's an UNPROFOR document which states
4 where it was published, et cetera.
5 Now it may be very practical to nevertheless attach it to it, not
6 being exclusively a translation where the English has two or three lines
7 more, but it seems very practical to do that. At the same time, the
8 translation in the UNPROFOR document, is that a verified one?
9 MR. IVETIC: It is not, Your Honours. But we do have a CLSS
10 translation of the French article. I intended to tender the French
11 article, the CLSS translation into both B/C/S and English, in lieu of the
12 current D360 MNA which was not admitted precisely because of the flaws in
13 the language that Your Honour noted when we only had that document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, what we now have, that is, the
15 UNPROFOR document with a translation which contains most of the text of
16 the article, should then be replaced by new versions.
17 Now, the B/C/S translation, is that done on the basis of the
18 UNPROFOR English or is it done on the basis of the English translation of
19 the French original? Because there's another source of potential errors.
20 MR. IVETIC: I suspect --
21 JUDGE ORIE: So I would suggest to the parties the following,
22 that for the time being, that we replace D360, the UNPROFOR original,
23 English version, that we replace that by 1D05960, I think it is, and that
24 then the B/C/S translation will be verified on the basis of the -- of the
25 French original. So that we have the French original and we have then
1 two translations, one directly taken from the French into English and not
2 the UNPROFOR one which is not verified, and then a B/C/S translation
3 being verified on the basis of the French original and not being a
4 translation of the English UNPROFOR version.
5 MS. EDGERTON: If I may, Your Honour, there's just another little
6 twist to that, and I apologise. But D360 was actually shown to Witness
7 Butler and he testified on the basis of that document. So I would
8 suggest leaving D360 intact, but assigning 1D05960, which is what
9 Your Honours have been discussing, a new D number and then taking those
10 steps that Your Honour has suggested.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that would avoid further complications because
12 we wouldn't know what Mr. Butler testified about.
13 MR. IVETIC: But we wouldn't because it's MNA, it's marked not
14 admitted, so we would not have a record of what Mr. Butler was shown.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if is marked for identification, at least we
16 would know what was shown to him. We should then change the status in
17 marked for identification, but I think that's status a document cannot
18 bear forever.
19 I think -- I invite the parties to resolve the matter together
20 with the Registrar and that we ensure that at least what was shown to
21 Mr. Butler is still known to those who are studying the record, that
22 finally that we also have the original -- the -- the English version
23 therefore should -- should remain somewhere, then the French version and
24 the new English translation of that one and the B/C/S translation of that
25 one should be available as well. I don't think that we get major
1 problems with it in the future, but if you would please discuss that with
2 Mr. Registrar, what's the best way to have a complete record on this
4 We'll take a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, while we wait for the witness, I can
8 present what we believe is the course of action for the documents we
9 discussed before the break.
10 We have confirmed that D360 MNA, the original bad English, I'll
11 call it, copy from UNPROFOR, was shown to several witnesses in addition
12 to Mr. Butler. Therefore it should probably retain a separate status and
13 separate position in e-court.
14 We have thus agreed to then have 1D05960 be marked for
15 identification as a separate D number given that we have also confirmed
16 the B/C/S was a translation of the bad English D360 MNA rather than the
17 original French or the English translation of the original French.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore it should be marked for identification as
19 well so -- and then we should wait until we have verified English and
20 B/C/S translations for the two -- for -- for the French original. Yes.
21 And that should be under a new number then, although I --
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: That number, Mr. Registrar ...
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 1D5960 will be MFI D1466.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, D1466 with a huge exclamation mark reference
1 should be -- a link should be made to the -- to D360.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar, could you tell us whether the
4 status of MNA could be changed in marked for identification and again ...
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be done as well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Segers, we'll continue.
8 Ms. Edgerton, please.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Segers, just staying with the subject of the Kosevo Hospital
11 that we left off with, I'd like to ask you this. Because of your job,
12 the position you were in, and the fact that you were stationed in the
13 city, you can confirm that during your tour, in fact, the Kosevo Hospital
14 was repeatedly heavily shelled by Bosnian Serb mortars and artillery;
16 A. That's correct, yes.
17 Q. And -- and what you were telling us was about the one time you
18 were there on the spot when something like that happened.
19 A. That's correct. I referred to that because I was effectively
20 present there and did not hear it based on rumours or hearsay. I
21 experienced that. What I repeatedly encountered during my period in
22 Sarajevo was that certain points such as UN buildings were used to
23 position artillery or mortar and to fire from there. The same happened
24 at the PTT building, for example. And, of course, the Serb adversaries
25 retaliated. And I'm talking about the Kosevo because I effectively saw
1 it, I was present there, I am not basing this on rumours.
2 Q. Now, you mentioned just before we broke that you had commanded a
3 mortar --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, if you wouldn't mind.
5 MS. EDGERTON: Of course.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You referred to firing from UN positions. As a
7 liaison officer, did you in any way deal with that? Did you complain
8 with the Bosnian -- Bosnian army or -- what was your role? And do you
9 remember how it was reported, what was reported? Because we have some
10 evidence about these kind of incidents, and I just want to find out
11 whether that's about the same or whether this adds to what we have
12 received already.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The shelling that took place from
14 firing outgoing from Sarajevo and was sometime in the immediate
15 surroundings of the building, not from the actual UN building but from
16 the surroundings, there was regular firing, and then the Serb side would
17 react to us as liaison officers. And we would report that and talk to
18 the Muslim liaison officers and we would make clear that the situation
19 could not continue. Generally, we would receive a positive response, and
20 they would cease firing.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you two questions. First of all, how
22 often, as far as you remember, did this happen?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a difficult question. I
24 remember vaguely multiple incidents. I was there for seven months, as I
25 said. In memory, I recall four or five cases that I saw myself.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then we have received evidence about firing in
2 the -- near to the UN positions. Do I understand you well that what you
3 initially said is that it was from the UN positions, that that's not
4 correct but that was close by UN positions that fire --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. It was from nearby
6 the positions. I remember that they had to remain at least 200 metres
7 away from the UN positions and that didn't happen.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and what was the closest and what -- if you
9 remember? I mean, 180 metres is also within 200 metres but not the same
10 as 50 metres.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It didn't matter. It was even
12 against the building that they would position a tank to fire. So I can't
13 quantify it in metres but it was -- without any debate it was within the
14 200-metre zone.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just also ask a question.
17 Sir, you confirmed to Madam Edgerton a few minutes ago that the
18 Kosevo Hospital was repeatedly heavily shelled by Bosnian Serb mortars
19 and artillery. You remember that? That was at page 26, line 22 to 24.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Affirmative. I -- I remember that
21 I said that. Now I'm getting back to what I just said. Like most of us,
22 I was regularly notified about shelling of the hospital. I saw shelling
23 of the hospital, and once I saw outgoing fire when I was present. That's
24 what I wanted to mention in that interview.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you've told us that. I just want to ask you
1 about the several times that the Kosevo Hospital was heavily shelled. In
2 those instances apart from the one that you witnessed when you were at
3 the hospital yourself, had there been a provocative shooting from the
4 hospital or was it just shelling of the hospital without any provocation?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to answer that. I
6 suspect that there was. The evidence that there was provocation --
7 provocative shooting from the hospital is what I'd mentioned, but I can't
8 confirm every single incident that that is said to have happened.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. You confirmed that there was provocative
10 shooting on the one occasion when you were at the hospital yourself. I'm
11 asking you about other instances when the shelling took place. Now you
12 say you suspect. You haven't got any information that, in fact, that was
13 so. It's just your suspicion.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right. I can't confirm that
15 it was provocative in the other cases. I can't confirm that. What I can
16 say, as I just illustrated with another example about the surroundings of
17 the PTT building where they positioned a tank and the Serb retaliatory
18 firing, you always have the same scenario: We'll give you five minutes
19 to stop, and if not, we'll fire back again.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. Let's not confuse the PTT with
21 the Kosevo. I'm specifically talking about the Kosevo Hospital. So that
22 you don't have any information that the ABiH had fired before the other
23 shelling took place by the Serb side except for the one occasion.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Segers, before we broke, you mentioned that you had
6 commanded a mortar unit in the past. So I'd like to ask you this:
7 Having been a commander, you would know about the potential for different
8 settings to be used on the projectile, super-quick, quick, and delay,
9 wouldn't you?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. And super-quick detonates immediately on impact; right?
12 A. That's correct. Super-quick is an explosion that happens
13 immediately upon impact on the ground.
14 Q. And you can use a quick or delay setting on the projectile so
15 that it has the potential to penetrate a building before it explodes;
17 A. There are three possible explosions: An air explosion which can
18 take place in the air before it impacts the ground, there is an immediate
19 impact explosion on the ground, and there's the delayed explosion. In
20 these cases, the most serious damage would be caused by the first two
21 options, so the air explosion and the immediate impact on ground one.
22 Q. So my question is actually specific to the settings on the
23 projectile, and it was whether you can use a quick or a delay setting --
24 or let me rephrase.
25 Asking you to confirm that a quick or delay setting on the
1 projectile is something you can use so that the projectile penetrates the
2 building before it explodes. Is that right?
3 A. That's correct, madam.
4 Q. So now I'd like to show you a document, and it's from the time of
5 your tour, 65 ter number 15760. And it's going to show up on the screen
6 in front of you.
7 MS. EDGERTON: And I think there might not be a B/C/S
8 translation, so I'll read slowly what I need -- oh, there is. Wonderful.
9 Q. So this is UNMO Carl Harding's report to the Senior Military
10 Observer for Sarajevo, dated January 2nd, 1993, on battle damage to
11 Kosevo Hospital and the effects of that damage on the hospital's
12 operation. And that's what the squadron leader says in the first
14 And paragraph 2 talks about the casualty reception building and
15 its structure and its layout.
16 And then, with your leave, we can turn the page, if you've had
17 enough of a look at this, and I want to direct you to a part that I want
18 to ask you a question about. Is it -- all right.
19 Now, I want us to go down and look at paragraph 4, and it says
20 there that: The third (top) floor of the casualty reception building has
21 had several direct hits by 122-millimetre artillery and 40-millimetre
22 anti-aircraft gun. A partly detonated artillery round was observed which
23 was reported to have impacted on 20 December 1992. The fuse setting was
24 on Q, which is quick, with the other settings of SQ, super-quick, and
25 delay clearly being seen. Other impacts at this level may well be from
1 tank fire due to size and penetration.
2 So, first of all, you know that a tank is -- a tank projectile is
3 a direct-fire weapon; right?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. So what -- now back to the document. What Squadron Leader
6 Harding is reporting is a mortar projectile that's set to penetrate a
7 building; right?
8 A. What I can infer from this is that when it is set at quick, we'll
9 get a normal explosion. Meaning when it impacts the objective, it takes
10 about 1 or 1 and a half seconds to explode. But that's not actual
11 penetration through the building and then exploding with a delay system.
12 And this refers to quick and super-quick. Those are two systems that are
13 not set to the delay system with a penetration purpose. Because the
14 delay won't cause the explosion until it's penetrated -- the -- the wall.
15 Here we have the quick or super-quick, so I'm not sure whether they had
16 the option of using the delay setting.
17 MS. EDGERTON: I'm going to ask that this be admitted as a
18 Prosecution Exhibit, please, Your Honours.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object since the -- there has
20 been no foundation laid for any knowledge of the witness as to the
21 specific events that are recalled in this document. The Prosecution has
22 had ample time to present their case and has had ample time to present
23 bar table documents. They have chosen not to submit this earlier. They
24 therefore cannot now at this point in time submit it when it's not
25 related to the testimony of the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
2 MS. EDGERTON: How is it -- I'm not sure how it's unrelated to
3 the testimony of the witness, Your Honour. The witness has said he can
4 commanded a mortar unit, so he has some knowledge about mortars. The
5 witness has confirmed that the Kosevo Hospital was repeatedly shelled
6 during his tour. And I'm asking him about a specific example of that.
7 And perhaps I've moved to tender the document a little too early,
8 Your Honours, but --
9 JUDGE ORIE: But did he say he was a commander of a mortar unit
10 in examination-in-chief or cross-examination?
11 MS. EDGERTON: In cross-examination, Your Honours. In responding
12 to this, I asked him questions about this document, and this was new
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the objection is denied.
16 In the evidence of the witness, there is an issue of responding
17 to provocative fire from the Kosevo Hospital. Now, the type of fire at
18 the Kosevo Hospital may be relevant to understand whether this was in
19 response to provocation or not, and to that extent, it deals with matters
20 which were raised in examination-in-chief. The objection therefore is
22 Please proceed.
23 Yes, I mean, please proceed, answer the question. That's ...
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you tendered the document, I'm -- I apologise.
1 Mr. Registrar, the number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 15760 will be Exhibit P7823, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. EDGERTON:
6 Q. Now, you mentioned that you were -- you were repeatedly notified
7 of the shelling, the heavy shelling, of Kosevo Hospital. In fact, the
8 shelling of the hospital was a matter of such concern that the commander
9 raised it with the Bosnian Serb leadership. Isn't that the case?
10 A. As far as I understand, yes. But if you say the commanders, it
11 could be General Morillon at the UNPROFOR level. It could also be
12 Colonel Valentin, who, at the time, was the commander of the Sarajevo
13 Sector. And I think in this case, it would have been the commander of
14 the Sarajevo Sector who would be conversing with the main authorities
15 from the Serbs just as they did with the Muslims.
16 Q. In fact -- and we can have a look at another document, 65 ter
17 number 33763.
18 This is an UNPROFOR report to SMO, Senior Military Observer,
19 Sector Sarajevo, about the shelling of the Kosevo Hospital on 29, 30, and
20 31 January 1993.
21 MS. EDGERTON: And if we could go over to English and B/C/S
22 page 2.
23 Q. You see there a report from Major Vesselov to the Senior Military
24 Observer just one month after the document we just looked at that says
25 that Kosevo Hospital's premises received 11 mortar impacts within the
1 space of about two hours, causing damage to the cardiology clinic and the
2 orthopaedic surgery. The most probable area of fire being south of Donji
3 Mrkovici. That's the last line of this report.
4 And if you go over to English and B/C/S page 3, you see the next
5 UNMO's report referring to the shelling of the 29th of January, saying at
6 paragraph 2 that the greatest damage of the shelling on that day was done
7 by a 155-millimetre shell, which, in summary, entered a room, continued
8 along the floor, and then ricochetted into another room.
9 So these are the severe incidents that you were informed of in
10 the ordinary course of your business; right?
11 A. That's correct. Now, I do need to call your attention to the
12 fact that I was not a Military Observer at this point. I was liaison
13 officer between the warring factions. So from the Military Observers via
14 the Sector Sarajevo or the UNPROFOR headquarters, I had to be tasked to
15 negotiate a cease-fire.
16 What you're referring to, there's a clear difference between
17 155-millimetres, then we talk about artillery fire. When we talk about
18 122-millimetre fire, which you showed in the previous document, that's
19 mortar fire. Artillery has a fire higher effective firing capacity, and
20 it's far more punctual than mortar fire. The purpose of an artillery
21 shelling -- the target is far -- it is usually far more accurate than
22 mortar firing.
23 Q. Now, I asked you about whether -- or you mentioned that these
24 issues would be raised either by General Morillon or General Valentin
25 with the Bosnian Serb leadership. So could we -- before --
1 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have a look at 65 ter number 33796.
2 Q. This is a letter of protest by General Morillon to Dr. Karadzic
3 dated - and there's no B/C/S translation, I think - dated
4 31 January 1993, saying: To my distress, I've just been informed that
5 Kosevo Hospital has today been the target of some shelling by Serb
6 artillery or mortars. Noting that at 3.00 p.m. a shell hit a part of the
7 hospital and injured two patients, two staff, a journalist, and a doctor,
8 and lodging a strong protest, in fact, protest, in his words, in the
9 strongest terms for this irresponsible attack and says that there can be
10 no excuse for shelling a hospital.
11 So, Mr. Segers, General Morillon's referring to the attack that
12 we just talked about in this document, the document we just looked at,
13 the UNMO report, and the -- which included artillery fire on the
15 So what General Morillon is protesting is the direct targeting of
16 the hospital building, right, or a building in the hospital, right?
17 I see you nodding but you'll have to say something eventually so
18 it can be recorded.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, to your knowledge, even after this time-period,
21 the hospital continued to be targeted by Bosnian Serb mortars and
22 artillery, didn't it?
23 A. There was certainly another shelling after 31 January 1993.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, could I have these two documents,
1 65 ter 33763 and 33796, as Prosecution exhibits, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33763 will Exhibit P7824.
4 And 65 ter 33796 will be Exhibit P7825.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And translation of the last one, Ms. Edgerton?
6 MS. EDGERTON: They should be --
7 JUDGE ORIE: First one is I think you said there was a
9 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, but the second one not. So the second one
10 should be marked for identification, of course, pending translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P7824 is admitted into evidence.
12 P7825 is marked for identification, pending translation.
13 MS. EDGERTON:
14 Q. Now, I want to move and talk about a couple of things that you
15 referred to in the published interview that appeared in Télé Moustique,
16 and that's, first of all, with respect to the first market-place
18 And I just want to say, since we noticed that the interview was
19 published in November 1995 -- or I just want to ask, since we noticed
20 that the interview was published in November 1995, that only, I take it,
21 reflects some information you had or information you had as of that time.
22 It's not necessarily a complete picture of anything, and I'm talking
23 particularly about these events in Sarajevo after March 1993. Is that
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Okay. So with respect to the first market-place shelling, you
2 said in the published interview, and I'll read it exactly, that: The UN
3 still maintains that it was -- that it's not known who was responsible,
4 however, we are almost certain that it was not the Serbs. And then you
5 said: There are certain rumours that an explosive device had been placed
6 under a table.
7 And then you said in the procès-verbal of your interview in
8 Belgium that that statement I've just quoted was based on a report of
9 Military Observers who'd visited the market-place immediately thereafter.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, you said on "a report." I think what
11 the witness said in his statement was on "the report" of the
12 Military Observers, which is not the same.
13 MS. EDGERTON: I stand corrected.
14 Q. Now, we've heard a great deal of evidence in this trial from --
15 and other trials at this organisation from serving and former UN
16 officials, including former UNMOs, who were involved in the investigation
17 about what caused this blast, and we've not seen any UNMO --
18 MS. EDGERTON: My friend is on his feet, so perhaps I better
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I was waiting until he would start objecting,
21 but that he was about to do such a thing was clear to me.
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the only part that I have a problem
24 with is making reference to evidence from other trials. I don't think
25 that's appropriate to be referencing evidence from other trials that may
1 not be in evidence in this case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps, Ms. Edgerton, it would have been
3 appropriate to say that there are also adjudicated facts, which, of
4 course, come from other trials, but this Chamber received information
5 that's from this and from other trials.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
7 Q. Now, we've not seen any UNMO or other UN report that refers to
8 that blast being caused by a static explosion. So my question for you
9 is: You don't have a copy of any report or the report that you say you
10 based this statement on, do you?
11 A. No. I don't have a copy, no.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Are you done with that or ... I see that you're
13 turning the page.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Probably, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Probably. Then --
16 MS. EDGERTON: Please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You say it was the report of the Military Observers
18 from which you got this information. When did you see that report?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I mention a report, to the
20 extent that I can remember it because a lot of years have passed, we were
21 notified about the shelling incident, not shelling, the explosion on the
22 market-place and possible shelling via CNN. We had -- we were watching
23 CNN --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. Apparently you're now
25 talking about other sources of knowledge. Does that mean that you don't
1 have a clear recollection of a, or the, report of Military Observers
2 describing that who -- who most likely fired that shell?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The report was merely an oral
4 report I received from MOs returning from inspection and crater analysis.
5 There was never any written report.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether there never were any, you haven't seen
7 one, I take it? That's what --
8 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, could you tell us where were you when
10 this was reported to you orally?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in my office with my
12 colleague, and we immediately followed up on the incident and contacted
13 the Military Observers to ask them what they knew about it. And that's
14 how we received additional information and started to question whether it
15 was a shelling after having heard what was on CNN.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking already some questions which were not
17 yet put to you.
18 You were, you said, in your office. Where was that office at
19 that time?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the PTT building.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And that was for Markale I?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that. The name
23 Markale I doesn't ring a bell. Markale I is shellings.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are talking here ... let me just check.
25 I think you were asked about a shelling of a market where ...
1 rumours would have it that a static explosive was put under one of the
2 stalls. Is that the Markale market where 60 people died that you were
3 talking about?
4 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now you said you received --
6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we didn't get the translation of his
7 answer and therefore it's not in the transcript.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, my apologies. Could you repeat your answer.
9 THE WITNESS: I repeat my answer was yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You said I think "affirmative."
11 THE WITNESS: Affirmative.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That is what we -- and I'm looking at the parties,
13 what we usually refer to as Markale I, unless there's any
15 MR. IVETIC: We do, but obviously to someone in the field it may
16 not have been Markale I.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Now, do you remember -- you said you were in the office at the
19 PTT building. Do you remember when this incident took place?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do remember that, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And when did you leave Sarajevo?
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Seven months after I arrived. So
24 let me think back because it's been so long ago. So it's difficult for
25 me to answer that.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. I now move to a different
3 channel in order to avoid that I speak and put my next question before
4 the ...
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before you have answered the question.
7 Now, you said that you were informed about the shelling, and you
8 heard that when you were in the PTT building in your office.
9 And I think you also told us that you left Sarajevo in -- well,
10 first half of 1993; is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the first half of 1993, I
12 suspect so. I don't have a clear impression of that, but it corresponds
13 with my total presence being seven months in Sarajevo.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Were you in Sarajevo in 1994?
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: I now move to the English channel in order to avoid
18 that I'm missing that some translation, whether it's Dutch or English or
19 French, has not yet been completed.
20 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, now it's your question that
21 wasn't caught so ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question was: Were you in Sarajevo in
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, no, as far as I can
25 think, no. No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Are you aware that this Chamber received a lot of
2 evidence which always situates this incident in 1994?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly. I can't confirm that.
4 You have that evidence. I can only say that I have vague suspicions or
5 we may be talking about two different things. However, the entire matter
6 of the shelling there, that caused a number of casualties is -- or what I
7 thought were -- were 60 casualties that in the market-place shelling,
8 that that's how I recall it and that the story that I gave you about this
9 was at the -- it was at the time when I was in my position in -- in the
10 position of liaison officer at the PTT building.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then this oral report you received, as you've said,
12 have you ever seen any written report about the incident you are
13 describing which caused 60 casualties?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not see a written report.
15 What did happen is that on my later assignments when I was in Zagreb
16 working as an MIO, so Military Information Officer, of the
17 Military Observers, I had a colleague who was an English SAS officer, and
18 he -- and I saw this at one time as well, a copy of a code cable that had
19 been sent to New York and in which that story was related, that this was
20 not a shelling, but in all likelihood, indeed, it had concerned an
21 explosive device that had been placed below a table and I read as much.
22 And we -- and that was confirmed to me and we discussed it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you're still talking about a cable that dealt
24 with an incident where some 60 people had died where the explosive device
25 may have been placed below a table. Is that correctly understood?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you speak of cable, we here
2 mean code cable and that is a coded message between -- right, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But that coded cable dealt with the incident you
4 referred to in your interview, talking about the -- the incident where
5 60 people had died and where it was said that it may have been an
6 explosive device, a static explosive device, under a table. Is that
7 correctly understood?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you've understood it
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm seeking the assistance of the parties, of a
11 market-place incident, shelling, with 60 dead people, because it sounds
12 to some extent as Markale I. At the same time, I'm getting confused.
13 MR. IVETIC: Without being accused of trying to offer any
14 information to the witness --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We are at a time anyhow --
16 MR. IVETIC: For a break, yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- where we would take a break anyhow and perhaps we
18 take that break very soon and then I will receive further information
19 from you.
20 A few follow-up questions. The information you said you received
21 orally, you received it from whom or from what team or group of people?
22 Could you be precise.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that information which I
24 received at the time came from the Military Observers, Sector Sarajevo,
25 so the Military Observers in that a sector with whom I had immediate
1 direct radio contact.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You received it by radio?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Affirmative.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember the name of a person who gave you
5 that you oral report?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, to my great regret, I do not.
7 It's too long ago. I don't have the name.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did they say that almost for certain the shell
9 had been fired by the Muslims rather than by the Serbs?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They said that there could not be a
11 thorough crater analysis because, according to them, no artillery had
12 been fired. And so they spoke -- they said the conclusion of their
13 research was that it was an explosive device, but that was their initial
14 conclusion at the time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Did you hear of any follow-up conclusions in the
16 days following?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. What I heard further
18 was that effectively the Serbs had shot the market-place, but this was
19 counter to what that initial observation had been by the
20 Military Observers.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And where is that presented in your interview,
22 that after the initial report that it would not have been the Serbs, that
23 later on you were informed that it was shelling by the Serbs? Have you
24 mentioned that in your interview?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did indeed say this to the man
1 who took my interview; and, of course, he didn't include this integrally,
2 fully in his text. But, yes, I did say that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I think at the end of the interview you were
4 asked whether you had read it, and then the next question was whether you
5 wished to add or improve anything, and that's what we find in the
6 semi-last page of the interview. Let me see.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours --
8 JUDGE ORIE: "I do not wish to add or improve anything."
9 MR. IVETIC: -- if I may make a suggestion, you've been using the
10 term "interview," whereas we have two interviews --
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, I meant, of course, your statement you gave in
12 Belgium, not to a newspaper, but in the presence of an examining
14 There you said that had you read it and that there was nothing
15 you would like to add.
16 Do you consider it relevant for this Court to know that your
17 initial report, oral report, that it were mostly not likely the Serbs,
18 would you consider it relevant for us to know that reports later on gave
19 a pretty different opinion?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, that would be
21 relevant for the Court to know. All I can do is -- is, you know, get
22 back to what I was told and what I remembered and what I even today
23 consider to have been an objective report immediately by the people that
24 I had faith in, the Military Observers who were permanently on the
25 terrain and who were first on the site.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And what they told you after further investigations,
2 after one, two, or three days, you considered that not to be reliable any
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Hard to say. I always ask myself
5 is this simply something that they wanted to -- to disguise, you know, be
6 very secret about, about this operation. But that is such a personal
7 interpretation that I would have to sort of push that away from me. I
8 had such faith, however, in these people that I thought that what they
9 were saying was indeed correct. However, you know, perhaps at the time
10 this was not something that was popular to be heard.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But they said two things, if we understand you well.
12 One day, they say A; a few days later, they say B. And was it that you
13 made up for yourself what to believe and then introduce that in your --
14 giving your statement in Belgium?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Affirmative, yeah. I --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then my question is: Is that the whole truth, or is
17 it the part of the truth which you considered to be most reliable?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For me, it is the whole truth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So the fact that two, three days later, they came
20 with a different view, you do not consider that to be part of the truth
21 which you should tell this Court, because whether they were right or
22 wrong, that's what they told you two or three days later, isn't it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to that. Yes, Judge Fluegge has one or
25 more questions for you.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I want to take you back to your statement on
2 page 9. Today you said the report was an oral report by these
3 Military Observers and that there was no written report that day;
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Insofar as I can recall, that is
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the middle of that page in your statement, I
8 find a sentence and I would like to ask you to explain it:
9 "I wish to remark that the French text says that we were 'almost
10 certain' that it was not the Serbs."
11 This is the sentence I find in your statement. French text? How
12 do I understand have to understand that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is just orally quoting what
14 the Military Observers had told me at the time.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it a text, the oral report, is it a text?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. It was an oral report.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then it's at least not entirely precise to say it
18 was the French text. There was no text.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps I misunderstood you.
20 Where I spoke of French text, then are you quoting the interview? I was
21 not given a text by the Military Observers. We had a talk, as I said,
22 and so, effectively, almost certain is a correct interpretation of that
23 oral report given me by the Military Observers.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we please have D1465 on the screen, page 9.
25 MR. IVETIC: It's page 8 in the Dutch, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 MS. EDGERTON: And, Your Honours, the gentleman doesn't actually
3 have the hard copies of these two documents in front of him. Just a
4 suggestion to try and be helpful, maybe if my friend could give him the
5 hard copies that were prepared of his interview in Belgium and the
6 published interview from 1995, that might help him clarify some of your
8 MR. IVETIC: And I believe the hard copies are still with the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could they be provided to the witness.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 9 in the English and page 8, as Mr. Ivetic
14 told us, in Dutch.
15 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it's the bottom of the page in Dutch beginning
16 with the number 20. That's the question, I believe, that Your Honours is
17 focusing on.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's a bit confusing, but I would like to clarify
20 In -- under number 20, we have your answer:
21 "The information presented there was based on what I had learned
22 from a report of the Military Observers who had visited the market-place
23 immediately after the incident with the intention of finding out who had
24 caused the explosion."
25 That was your answer.
1 And then the next sentence which follows reads, I quote:
2 "I wish to remark that the French text says that we were 'almost
3 certain' that it was not the Serbs."
4 What do you mean by "French text"? That is all I want to know.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The French text, well, as far as I
6 can interpret from what I have before me here, is simply the interview
7 that was done with me by the journalist of that magazine. And so I
8 believe, as far as I know, the textual quote is what I gave him and what
9 the military -- and that what was the Military Observers had said to me,
10 and the report was not in French. It was, in fact, in English, but I
11 simply repeated to the journalist the words that I had heard from the
12 observers and they had said "almost certainly."
13 And as you're quoting it here "grande certitude," nearly certain.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That clarifies the matter. When you
15 say now said it was not in French, it was, in fact, in English, then you
16 are referring to the oral report of the Military Observers you received?
18 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would still have, before we take the break, a
21 short follow-up question, unless there's something that needs
22 clarification, Mr. Ivetic?
23 MR. IVETIC: Just to alleviate any confusion to those who are not
24 fluent in the language, the Dutch statement also has French text that is
25 not translated in the English version that follows the Dutch. That was
1 the procedure that we had in place and that French text is the original
2 French from the article, the interview with Télé Moustique.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then you were also asked about the rumours about
6 explosive under a table. First of all, did those who reported to you
7 officially - so not rumours, but those who came or reported to you
8 perhaps even by radio - did they state that there would have been a
9 static explosive under a table?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Affirmative. And that was the
11 first report that I got from them and also the one that remained in my
12 mind, that oral report.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, this Chamber has received some evidence about
14 crater analysis of what was found on that market. Were you aware of
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think they must have based
17 themselves on something, I suppose, in the end to come to that statement
18 that the Serbs had shot. And I stick to my position that that was the
19 first information that I got from the Military Observers, very briefly,
20 after the facts that that was correct -- well, you know the story that I
21 just told you. And they said at the time that there could not be a clear
22 crater analysis. They didn't say that they wouldn't do a crater
23 analysis. They didn't say -- they said they couldn't do a crater
24 analysis that would clearly show that the Serbs had shot. So -- but they
25 weren't -- they didn't negate this.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in one of your earlier answers today I think
2 you said they were not talking about a crater analysis because there was
3 no impact on the ground or at least something of the kind, if it was a
4 static explosive, there was no way to even do a crater analysis.
5 Do I now understand that they hinted at least at a possible --
6 possibility of, perfect or imperfect, crater analysis?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Military Observers in an area just
8 after a shelling or shooting would always initially do a crater analysis.
9 So, in principle, that would be one of their immediate duties. And they
10 reported to me that at the time crater analysis was a problem and that
11 they could not do a clear crater analysis, which is not to say that there
12 weren't, you know, any -- any shards -- or no, not shards but traces of
13 an explosive on the ground. But that's not really a true crater
15 And I don't know what your Court has in terms of evidence but I
16 never saw it. I can only come back what I said all along, that
17 immediately after the fact they reported to me that a crater analysis
18 would be a problem and so they could not conclude that the Serbs had, in
19 fact, fired, and it was more likely to them that there had been a static
20 explosive device below a table.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you're using the expression "more likely,"
22 and not "almost certain." Any explanation for that difference in
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't really see any difference.
25 For me, more likely, well, almost certain is stronger, but what I
1 remember initially that almost certainly it was that at the time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did they tell you at that time on what basis they
3 thought it might have been a static explosive?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Did you form an opinion about what would have been
6 the basis for such an opinion, that it may have been a static explosive?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, I formed an opinion
8 about that. What struck me at that point was that when the first rumours
9 started arriving about the explosion, we sent the first specialists to
10 the site to know exactly what had happened. And at that point already,
11 as I said before, CNN was saying worldwide that the Serbs had shot at the
12 market, had shelled the market. What surprised me at the time, because
13 no investigation had been conducted yet --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you're answering a question which I did not
15 put to you.
16 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't asking about the background of what CNN
18 reported. I was asking you about what the basis was for an opinion, or
19 the opinion, that it may have been a static device that exploded. On
20 what basis was that expressed?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was informed of that by the
22 Military Observers who, at the time, were convinced that that was a
23 possible answer, and they were continuing on that basis, based on the
24 traces on the ground from the explosion. Not much else was said about
25 that at the time. It was all very brief and happened in very rapid
2 JUDGE ORIE: So the basis for the opinion which was reported to
3 you, that it may have been a static explosive, was what they found on the
4 spot, as far as traces are concerned. Is that well understood?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correctly put.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I refer to your statement given in Belgium in
7 the presence of the Defence, where you were asked:
8 "Who was, according to the rumours, responsible for putting an
9 explosive under a table?"
10 And you answered that you would not answer that question.
11 Here it is rumours which is at the basis of the opinion that it
12 may have been a static explosive, not what was reported as the result of
13 the initial investigation.
14 Could you explain why, when you were asked about who, according
15 to the rumours, was responsible, and when you were asked what the source
16 of those rumours were, that you didn't wish to answer those questions?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had and I still have partial
18 immunity from the UN and that was the context in which I did not want to
19 answer the questions because I knew the polemic that would ensue, and I
20 was trying to avoid a polemic. Especially because this concerned, as far
21 as I was told and I was also convinced of this, and this somewhere
22 conflicted with the official statements by the UN. That's the reason
23 that I didn't want to answer at the time.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you didn't say, I don't want to answer
25 questions. You left the impression that it was rumours. And now you
1 could have clarified that by giving clear answers; that is, it was on the
2 basis of the initial investigation that they came to this opinion. But
3 you preferred to avoid any revealing of contradictions and official
4 statements, and you made your own choices in what you considered relevant
5 to tell us and what you considered not relevant to tell us, even when it
6 was only a part of the truth.
7 That's where we are, aren't we?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. All I can do is confirm what
9 I keep saying and that will stand to the facts or rumours. There was an
10 official communication. To what extent is that a rumour, is it being
11 refuted by other facts, all I can say, okay, that happened too, that
12 happened in addition, but it doesn't refute the first facts. And the
13 first facts most certainly were communicated by institution observing on
14 site directly to the liaison officer who communicates that as the liaison
15 and who, of course, has to be aware to have the shelling stop in time to
16 start negotiations at the instruction of a higher authority at the point.
17 So what bothers me is that people are saying, Are you basing this on
18 rumours. In retrospect, perhaps they were rumours, but I don't assume
19 that. To me, it was an objective account of the facts by the
20 professional team onsite.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, contradicted three days later by that same
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of that, but that's
25 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to that for the time being.
1 But, once again, you were not in Sarajevo in 1994?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have my diary with me, and
3 I would have to check my diary. No, but I don't think so. That
4 seems ... I performed various assignments in the Balkans, at least seven
5 different assignments, and as far as I can remember, I was not in
6 Sarajevo at the time, that's correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break. You may follow the usher and
8 then ...
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps my recollection doesn't serve me
11 sufficiently, but if any of the parties could point at where there's
12 anything in evidence other than what we are familiar with as Markale I
13 dealing with 60 casualties and an insinuation of a static explosive under
14 a table and immediately an UNMO report on the matter, then this Chamber
15 would like to know so that we are better able to evaluate the evidence of
16 this witness and perhaps finds a link to an event which may have escaped
17 my mind at this very moment.
18 There was another matter, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. The matter I did not want to
20 raise in front of the witness was precisely this. Paragraph 20 gives a
21 date for the incident that he is talking about, and one could show that
22 to him and see if that refreshes his recollection. This paragraph 20
23 indicates that the incident he is talking about is in February 1994,
24 which would make it the Markale that we have been -- that we talk about
25 as Markale I.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- I more or less acted on the basis of the
2 description of the event, but there's no -- perhaps Ms. Edgerton could
3 ask the witness because it's a matter which may be more for
4 cross-examination than ...
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The paragraph says 70 people were killed, not 60.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes, I think 60 has been mentioned as well
7 and -- or over 60. I think that's a detail -- we are talking about far
8 beyond 50. Whether that's 60 or 70.
9 We take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.14 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, since another witness is still
13 waiting, could you give us an impression on how much time you would still
15 MS. EDGERTON: I have two areas left to cover. I figure at the
16 speed we're going, it would take 20 minutes at best.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And then, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: Right now, I think 15, 20 minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So that's close to one session. Perhaps we could
20 make this session slightly shorter and then have the witness who was
21 interrupted to be here for the last session.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Judge Fluegge, has another
25 question for you Mr. Segers.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just to fully understand your previous answers
2 before the break, on page 52, lines 10 to 12, you said, I quote:
3 "And they reported to me that at the time crater analysis was a
4 problem and that they could not do a clear crater analysis ..."
5 And then one page later, page 53, lines 10 and 11, you said:
6 "... we sent the first specialists to the site to know exactly
7 what had happened."
8 Is my understanding correct that you first received this oral
9 report, it was too dangerous to carry out a specific and proper crater
10 analysis, and because of that you sent later the first specialists to the
11 site to make that analysis?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, that last part is not
13 correct, since, you know, we did not send the Military Observers. They
14 went on their own initiative to locations, but there was a permanent
15 standing order that they would go to the terrain immediately and then do
16 a crater analysis to ascertain who had done the shooting. They were the
17 specialists, in that entirety of people present from the UN, they were
18 specialists in crater analysis and therefore were a point of reference
19 for us. And I got in touch with them as soon as I received the
20 information over the news, and they then told me they were on site but
21 could not come to an objective decision that there had been a Serbian
22 shooting. But as I say, this was tied to the information that I was
23 given orally at the time, that I was getting in at the time.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's still unclear, in my view.
25 You said, page 53:
1 "Yes, of course, I formed an opinion about that. What struck me
2 at that point was that when the first rumours started arriving about the
3 explosion, we sent the first specialists to the site to know exactly what
4 had happened."
5 I don't know what you mean by "we sent." Did you send specialist
6 or -- you and your colleagues or the UN or whoever?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are the UN in this case, so the
8 specialists of the UN who go on location as the first, and they were
9 specialists, not one, it was an entire team, and that team went to the
10 site, this team of Military Observers.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And did you receive a report from them?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I recall is that that was the
13 oral report of which I speak. I do not recall that there was a written
14 report which did not necessarily have to go through me, in fact.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. No further questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
18 Q. I want to go onto something that you discussed in the published
19 interview, and in the original it's at page 4 on the top right-hand side
20 and you mentioned in your procès-verbal. It's the market attack that, as
21 you said, preceded the massive NATO raids against the Serbs.
22 Now --
23 MR. IVETIC: I'm sorry, if we're going to refer to the
24 procès-verbal, I think it's fair to give the position in the
25 procès-verbal so that the witness and everyone can find it.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Sure. English and Flemish page 10.
2 Q. And in respect of that shelling, you said:
3 "The UNMO who investigated immediately after the catastrophe as
4 well as several UNMO officers stated that it was likely the shell had
5 been fired by the Muslims."
6 And in question 21b of your procès-verbal, you were asked:
7 "What's your knowledge based on?"
8 And you said:
9 "On the report of the Military Observers."
10 One of those specialists you were just talking about.
11 MS. EDGERTON: My friend is standing up again.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes, the question to the witness at line number 16
14 of the prior page talks about it's the market attack, and in the text of
15 the official English translation of the article, it says "as for the last
16 market attack," I think there's a difference.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we have --
18 MR. IVETIC: It's page 6 of the article in English and I can --
19 well, I can read it. It says -- before that it says:
20 "Where approximately 70 people were killed the UN still maintains
21 that it is not known who was responsible. However, we are almost certain
22 that it was not the Serbs. There are certain rumours that an explosive
23 device had been placed under a table ... as for the last market attack,
24 the one that preceded the massive NATO raids against the Serbs," and then
25 it goes on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's not exactly the same.
2 MS. EDGERTON: It's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: The last -- the last is the last --
4 MS. EDGERTON: I stand corrected again.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.
6 MS. EDGERTON:
7 Q. Sticking with this last market-place attack and your evidence
8 that your statements were based on the reports of Military Observers, I
9 want to show you 65 ter number 27315.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And could we perhaps first ask when and under what
11 circumstances he received the information which is at the basis of his --
12 unless that would disturb your line of questioning. If it does, then
13 I'll withdraw but --
14 MS. EDGERTON: I can always --
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's just a suggestion.
16 MS. EDGERTON: Always happy to take on board suggestions,
17 Your Honour, so perhaps we could do that.
18 Q. Mr. Segers, talking about this last market-place shelling, what
19 form was the report that you received from the Military Observers? Was
20 it written or was it oral?
21 A. Oral.
22 Q. Have you ever seen any written report from the UNMO
23 Military Observers in respect of that shelling?
24 A. No, ma'am.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And could I then, under those circumstances, again
1 ask you: Where were you when you received that oral report about what
2 you called the last shelling?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm speaking of the last
4 shelling, but, you know, for me there is only the one market-place
5 shelling that I recall. There were several but this was the one I was
6 involved in, and at that time I was in the PTT building where I had my
7 office on the first floor.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we are talking exclusively about one
9 shelling and not one and then the last one, but it's all the same you're
10 talking about?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For me, there is only one shelling
12 that I speak of.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you are talking about the PTT building in
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Affirmative.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have your indulgence for just a couple of
18 moments, Your Honour.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. Have you got a copy, Mr. Segers, of the French-language interview
22 that was published in Télé Moustique with you?
23 MS. EDGERTON: If not, I'd ask my friend to provide him with a
25 MR. IVETIC: Again, that should be with the ushers.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we know what the solution would be,
2 but where do we -- I think it's -- we have it still as a 65 ter number,
3 the French version, in ...
4 MS. EDGERTON: Is it D1466 MFI?
5 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yep, thank you.
7 MS. EDGERTON: And could we call that up on the screen, please.
8 Q. Now, can you go over to page 4 on the left-hand side. So
9 that's -- go and look at the last page, Mr. Segers, of the one you have
10 in front of you, the very last page, page 4, top right.
11 MS. EDGERTON: So in the original version, it's page 4, top
12 right. And in the English version, this is on page 6. And maybe for
13 Mr. Segers, if he wants to look at the screen, he could have a -- you
14 could enlarge the far left-hand column in the original version.
15 Q. Mr. Segers, here, in 1995, you're recorded as saying about
16 halfway through the paragraph, and I'll say it in French so you could
17 find your way. The sentence begins with [French spoken][No
19 And then it continues.
20 MR. IVETIC: We're not getting translation of the French,
21 Your Honours.
22 MS. EDGERTON:
23 Q. Have you found the spot I'm referring to, Mr. Segers?
24 A. [In English] Yes, affirmative.
25 Q. All right.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the English it's the fourth line from the top.
2 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, indeed.
3 Q. So, Mr. Segers, when you talked about this situation and alleged
4 that the UNMOs who investigated immediately after the catastrophe said
5 that it was probable that it was launched -- that the shell in this case
6 was launched by Muslims, what were you talking about?
7 A. [Interpretation] The formulation fired or detonated is not
8 correct. It's about -- and I keep recurring to this, it is an explosive
9 device alleged placed under one of the tables.
10 Q. So I'd like to leave you for a couple of seconds to have a look
11 at this paragraph because the way I understand your evidence is that this
12 paragraph relates to just one shelling. So have a look at the
13 paragraph in the published interview for a second because I'd like to
14 know if my understanding of your evidence is accurate.
15 A. I confirm that it is about a single shelling, that is correct.
16 Q. And that single shelling that you're referring to in this
17 paragraph, which you said in this paragraph happened in February 1994 and
18 was the last -- it was the shelling that preceded the NATO raids against
19 the Serbs. So two different things you said about it. So this single
20 shelling, in your evidence, happened while you were stationed at the PTT
21 building in that seven-month period between October 1992 and 1993; is
22 that right?
23 A. The interview was done 20 years ago, and I can't really correctly
24 even represent when I was in Sarajevo. What I do want to say is that,
25 indeed, there was -- this concerns a shelling which was held as a
1 following action and NATO intervened. For me, it concerns a -- a one-off
2 shelling of the market -- of a market-place -- well, a shooting or an
3 explosive device, let's be undecided about that. But I have a problem
4 with dates, the dates, that's a problem, and I can't really recall. It's
5 so long ago and to remember it then so exactly, I have a problem with
7 Q. I think in the interests of time, I'm going to move on --
8 MS. EDGERTON: Unless Your Honours have anything else before I
9 leave this area.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We have not.
11 MS. EDGERTON:
12 Q. I just want to turn now to a final area. And since you've got
13 your interview in front of you, just keep it open and go down to the
14 bottom left-hand side where you mention that one of your colleagues --
15 it's about halfway down that paragraph. You mention an anecdote, and you
16 say it was in May -- it -- last May where one of your colleagues saw
17 Muslims firing a rocket against their television station. And that's at
18 English page 6.
19 Now I want to ask you about a question about that. So all you're
20 doing here is reporting what your colleague in Zagreb told you about what
21 had happened the year before; right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. So you're not only -- so you're completely unaware that this
24 Chamber has heard evidence from another UNMO colleague, who is
25 Mr. Brennskag, by the way, who actually -- who was on duty in his OP and
1 actually saw the bomb - and it was a bomb, not a rocket - he saw the bomb
2 being launched from VRS-held territory in Ilidza area and he followed it
3 through the air until it hit the TV building. You don't know anything
4 about that; right?
5 A. When you ask me do I know anything about it because I was a
6 witness to that, if that is your question, did I witness it, I will tell
7 you no. But I saw numerous shootings and I didn't focus on this. I
8 effectively gave you the story of what I heard from reliable sources at
9 the time. However, you know probably as well as I do how much was going
10 on in Sarajevo in that period. We wouldn't analyse every shot all the
11 way in the air, which even just to do is very difficult, you know, try to
12 follow with your eyes a projectile going through the air. It is not very
13 obvious. So I have my doubt about whether this would be a very correct
15 Q. So you have your doubt as to whether what your colleague told you
16 is a correct representation? Or what I've just told you?
17 A. I had complete faith in what my colleague told me or else I
18 wouldn't have repeated it in the interview. What you're telling me now
19 is something that I would doubt, and I would never, you know, negate what
20 that person in question said. However, to follow a missile or a rocket
21 or anything of artillery projectiles in the air is extremely difficult.
22 But, you know, if he says that he did it, then it -- you know, that's
23 what he says.
24 However, I would stick by what I put on paper.
25 Q. When you talk about a reliable source, do you think that the
1 Bosnian Serb army's own documents might be a reliable source of
2 information about what they did?
3 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud.
4 Please answer the question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just lost the thread. I just
6 lost your question a bit.
7 MS. EDGERTON:
8 Q. Sure. When you talk about reliable sources, as you have been
9 doing, do you think that the Bosnian Serb army's own documents might be a
10 reliable source of information as to what they did?
11 A. Well, yes, I would assume so. And I would assume that in the
12 Bosnian Serb army, reports on what they did, the people, that that was
13 correct. But what you mean, I think, is the reports of the Bosnian Serb
14 army, rather than those of the observers on the side of the Bosnian Serb
15 army. Because we had Military Observers on either side.
16 Q. So did you know that on 30 June 1995, the commander of the
17 Bosnian Serb army corps that surrounded Sarajevo confirmed that they
18 fired on the TV building in retaliation for a military attack, and he was
19 talking about exactly this case you mentioned? Did you know that?
20 A. I -- I don't recall that today. I have no memory of that. I'm
21 not going to say you -- no or yes, I don't recall.
22 MS. EDGERTON: Let's just quickly pull up D147, please, and then
23 we'll finish.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again the --
25 MR. IVETIC: I think there's a problem with the English.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Something with -- in the English with the
2 microphone, something's wrong.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. EDGERTON: D147.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that English words spoken are not received
6 on channel 4.
7 I do receive some -- I think now it has been fixed because I
8 received the Dutch translation on channel 4. But now I think we have the
9 English again, so could you please repeat what you'd like to -- I think
10 you wanted D147?
11 MS. EDGERTON: That's correct. D147, please.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar draws my attention to the fact
14 that it's not a public document. Therefore, not to be shown.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Oh. Surprising. But can we go into private
16 session to show it? Is it under seal?
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think -- you can -- it should not be shown to
18 the public, which doesn't mean that no questions can be asked about it,
19 but the document itself is protected. I don't remember for what reasons
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MS. EDGERTON: All right. So the document is on the screen but
23 it's not being broadcast.
24 Q. So, Mr. Segers, I'd like you just to go down to the bottom part
25 of the third paragraph in English where it says -- where the
1 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps commander says:
2 "Our artillery forces are responding with precision -- are
3 responding with precision to the Muslim artillery attacks. In one such
4 response on 28 June, they hit the Bosnian radio and television centre,
5 the centre of media lies against the just struggle of the Serbian
7 So here's the corps commander confirming not only that they fired
8 on the TV building where there was a civilian killed and 33 injured, they
9 fired on it in retaliation for a military attack.
10 Now, you said the different scenarios -- responding to the
11 different scenarios I'd put to you, that you wouldn't negate what this
12 person in question, your colleague in Zagreb, said. I want to know now,
13 seeing this contemporaneous document, if you accept that the Bosnian Serb
14 army launched a bomb at the TV building?
15 MR. IVETIC: I'll object to the way that the question is phrased
16 which implies that has been demonstrated that we're talking about the
17 same incidents or if it was another bomb that was launched. The witness,
18 as far as I know, has not identified a date. It is Ms. Edgerton that has
19 introduced this particular date.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then the parties are invited to present
21 whatever evidence there is about an attack on the BH TV building. I
22 mean, Ms. Edgerton, more or less you are asking this witness whether he
23 would change his mind.
24 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The witness is here to tell us what he knows and it
1 is for up -- whether or not we consider that reliable and credible what
2 he tells us depends on the total evaluation of the evidence, and you are
3 more or less inviting the witness now to do the same on portions you have
4 selected. I think the Chamber will, in the end, will be able to see
5 whether the witness was talking about the same, whether there's any doubt
6 about that, and what that would mean for the evaluation of the evidence,
7 including the testimony of this witness and the interpretation of the
8 document which is in evidence.
9 MS. EDGERTON: That's fine.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MS. EDGERTON: And your indulgence for a moment.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then I use the time to tell that you D147, after
13 some e-mail exchanges, is not any further a confidential exhibit and,
14 therefore, could have been shown, but I wasn't aware of it at the time,
15 and the formal status was still non-public, where it is now public.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MS. EDGERTON: That concludes everything I have, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Edgerton.
20 Mr. Ivetic, any further questions in re-examination?
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I do, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
24 Q. Mr. Segers, I will try to move as efficiently as possible. I
25 apologise for you being here longer than anticipated.
1 I would like to take up with the matter that was just raised by
2 Ms. Edgerton as to the firing of a rocket or bomb at the TV building.
3 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like to first call up 1D00796 on the screen.
4 Q. I apologise, as I did not foresee this and don't have a hard
5 copy, but hopefully I will move slowly enough that we can follow the
7 This is a witness statement given to the Office of the Prosecutor
8 by the individual whose name we see at the top.
9 Sir, the first question I have for you is --
10 MS. EDGERTON: Well --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Why -- when -- when does this become leading?
13 What's my friend doing?
14 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know what the question will be. So to
15 what extent it will be leading or not depends on what question. Perhaps
16 Mr. Ivetic will ask whether the witness agrees that it's a white piece of
17 paper. I don't know what his question will be. But certainly,
18 Mr. Ivetic, you're alert now on any leading.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. Do you know the individual whose name appears at the top of this
23 A. Well, I have vague recollection of a man called Hansen but
24 whether this is this person, Thomas Hansen, remains really vague.
25 Q. Okay. That's fair.
1 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to page 3 of the statement in -- I
2 think it's both languages. We have only the English on the screen, but
3 in e-court there is a B/C/S version as well.
4 Q. And if we look at the fifth paragraph from the top, which I will
5 read to you, and then I will have some questions about what is reflected
6 here. And it starts:
7 "I investigated" --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
9 MS. EDGERTON: This is leading, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What is leading?
11 MS. EDGERTON: He's going to read him the statement of this
12 witness --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we do not know what --
14 MS. EDGERTON: -- sorry, this man who is not a witness in these
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But we do not know yet what the question will
17 be. I mean, you were very upset about just the name, but the question
18 just was: Do you know that name? Of course, Mr. Ivetic could have asked
19 that also without that document could -- are you familiar with the name
20 of Thomas Hansen.
21 But, Mr. Ivetic, please be aware that, of course, reading more
22 may engage a risk of being leading, and therefore sometimes it is better
23 to ask a question first and only then refer to what may be in the
24 document that avoids often a risk of being leading. I leave it to you at
25 this moment. We have not heard your question yet.
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I think I'm following the
2 procedure we've being using in this case since day one, so I'm a little
3 confused by the objection.
4 Q. But, in any event, I would like to read a portion of this
5 statement to see if it refreshes your recollection of the particular
6 incident that you are talking about in your statement when a colleague
7 was declared persona non grata. If it does not, then I won't have any
8 questions. But if it does, I will have follow-up questions.
9 So it reads as follows:
10 "I investigated among all the other shellings also an impact on
11 the TV building on the 28 June 1995 that caused approximately 30 civilian
12 casualties. I went first to the scene together with an UNMO. I was on
13 the scene 20 minutes after the impact together with an UNMO. We had to
14 wait approximately two hours for the arrival of the special investigation
15 unit of the Bosnian police.
16 "At that time we could not find any fragments or parts of the
17 projectile that had hit the building. Normally we always get after an
18 investigation the results of the Bosnian special unit. In this
19 particular case, we never got any result.
20 "In that period, there were a lot of homemade aeroplane bombs
21 that landed in that area. It has to be about ten in the two weeks before
22 the hit on the TV building.
23 "On [sic] observation post could see that some of the [sic] bombs
24 were fired from Ilidza on the BSA side.
25 "I was informed by an UNMO who had seen the shelling on the TV
1 building that this particular bomb that had [sic] impacted on the TV
2 building was fired from the BiH side. Another UNMO who heard the bomb
3 told me that the bomb only flew for a short period, so that fitted with
4 the findings of the first UNMO that the bomb was fired from BiH-hold
5 territory. I sent my report about this event to my superiors by secure
7 Sir, does this incident sound like the one that you're talking
8 about or is it another incident?
9 A. This concerns another incident. I am not aware of an incident
10 with so many casualties. In the period that I was in Sarajevo, there was
11 a single shelling on the PTT building, direct to that building,
12 effectively by a tank, and there was a single casualty. But otherwise,
13 you know, this story seems not familiar to me. I mean, those facts are
14 not familiar to me.
15 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. Now I'd like to try to clarify
16 some other matters from your cross-examination.
17 At temporary transcript page 12, lines 3 to 9 of the English
18 transcript, you are recorded as saying as follows:
19 "It was my job on behalf of the UB and in the Sector Sarajevo and
20 the headquarters of the general at that time for the instructions they
21 gave me which coincided with shooting incidents. Shooting between
22 snipers and so on. With the -- to negotiate with the liaison officer
23 from the other side to bring those to an end. And that happened both
24 ways, both towards the Bosnians and toward the Bosnian Muslims in
1 And the question I have for you, sir, you are recorded as saying
2 both towards the Bosnians and the Bosnian Muslims. Is that in fact what
3 you meant to say or is there a word missing perhaps after Bosnians in the
4 first instance?
5 A. My assignment was indeed for every incident by whatever party
6 which would result in casualties, people hit, injured, or dead, that as
7 soon as possible, we would liaise with the party in question to find a
8 solution, a local cease-fire to begin with. And in individual cases of
9 sniper fire, I do recall from the Serb side and I know there was
10 anti-sniper fire also on the Bosnian side, but I don't recall, but this
11 is after 20 years, that I had to intervene for shootings by snipers of
12 the Bosnian -- Bosnian side. Bosnian Serb side.
13 Q. Thank you, sir.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, your quotation from the transcript --
15 MR. IVETIC: Sorry, Your Honour, I didn't catch the first part.
16 The English feed wasn't coming through.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your quotation from the transcript was correct
18 when you said "UB," that was -- I noticed that as well, but the witness
19 said "UN." But I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
20 MR. IVETIC: Yes, that was the next part I was going ask, but
21 thank you.
22 Q. Then moving on, at transcript page 20, lines 23 through 24 in the
23 English language, you are recorded as saying that you saw outcoming fire
24 from the centre of Sarajevo to the Kosevo Hospital. Is that, in fact,
25 what you meant to say or is there a correction needed in the transcript?
1 A. Might you repeat exactly where that is in the text again?
2 Q. It's not in the text, sir. It's in the transcript of today's
4 A. [In English] Sorry.
5 Q. And in the transcript of today's hearing you are recorded as
6 saying that you saw fire from the centre of Sarajevo to Kosevo Hospital
7 and then the Serbs responded. And my question is in relation to that
8 part that says that the fire came to Kosevo Hospital from the centre of
9 Sarajevo. I'm not sure that's what you said, and I therefore give you
10 the chance to correct that.
11 A. [Interpretation] No, no. First, there was outgoing fire from one
12 of the pavilions surrounding the Kosevo Hospital and to that there was a
13 response by Serb artillery. And this was not in the city. It was in the
14 outer perimeter of the city from where there was firing. And we can't
15 specifically say exactly it was this piece of artillery that fired. We
16 can't say or prove that. We don't know that.
17 Q. Thank you. I think that adequately corrects that part of the
19 Now, in relation to that incident at Kosevo Hospital, you
20 indicated that the Serb liaison officer had called to complain and say,
21 After five more minutes we will respond. Did the BiH side continue
22 firing after that complaint was received, if you remember?
23 A. I ... I cannot recall with certainty that there were further
24 shootings. I know that the liaison officer at the time consented to a
25 cease-fire, but it may have taken a while for that to filter through to
1 the top, you know, through the Serb channels to go to the artillery
2 shooters. There was a very short response from the Serb side. That I do
4 Q. And you have, I think, explained to us today that you only know
5 about this particular incident. Did you ever hear about other incidents
6 where the BiH side placed weapons systems within the compound of
7 Kosevo Hospital, perhaps from colleagues or from other sources?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand your question. You have just
9 told the witness that he has explained that this is the only incident
10 that he knows about. Now you want to know whether he knows there are
11 other incidents.
12 MR. IVETIC: He testified this is the only incident he had
13 first-hand knowledge of.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's not what you said.
15 "And you have, I think, explained to us today that you only know
16 about this" -- there's no word "first-hand."
17 MR. IVETIC: I agree, Your Honour, and I stand corrected. So let
18 me --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. So the question is -- you -- the
20 question that you put, the answer thereto is the first sentence. He only
21 knew about this one. Now you're forcing him to remember something else
22 which he has told you he knows about one thing only.
23 MR. IVETIC: No, I don't believe I'm forcing the witness to do
24 anything --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No -- "you have explained to us today that you
1 only know about this particular incident. Did you ever hear about other
2 incidents ..."
3 Obviously if you heard about it, you know about it.
4 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, we have already confirmed that I
5 misspoke and I meant to say: You know only about this incident first
6 hand, which of course makes the question different, and I don't believe
7 that I'm forcing --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't say you misspoke. You just said: Yes,
9 I accept that I didn't say so. You didn't say you misspoke. Again,
10 you're coming up with something new.
11 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, Your Honour, but I'm not forcing the
12 witness to say anything. I'm seeking to get an answer to a question if I
13 may pose it to the witness.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've made my point. Go ahead.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. Sir, you told you have only first-hand knowledge of one incidence
17 where there was outgoing fire from Kosevo Hospital and then an incoming
18 response from the Serb side.
19 My question is: Did you ever hear of other occasions where the
20 Bosnian Muslim side placed weapons systems within the Kosevo Hospital
21 compound irrespective of whether they fired them or not?
22 A. I can't answer that correctly because I don't recall. What I do
23 know is about the case that I told you about that I was factually there,
24 and of any other matters I cannot answer.
25 Q. That's fair, sir. That's fine. And you were asked by
1 Ms. Edgerton about your arrival in Sarajevo and what was written in the
2 Télé Moustique article as to the answer to the first question posed by
3 the journalist. And this will be on page one of the French in the second
4 and third column above your photo, and it is the middle of page 1 in the
5 English, and we are talking about D1466 MFI.
6 And Ms. Edgerton read the first part of that answer relating to
7 women and children who became targets of an army, the Bosnian Serb army,
8 and I would like to ask you about the last part of that answer, where you
10 "I told myself at the time the weapons embargo on the Bosniaks
11 needs to be lifted. Since then, after being on the ground in Bihac and
12 in Croatia, I have changed my opinion."
13 Could you explain for us how your opinion changed?
14 A. When I came to Bosnia, I was confronted with so much misery.
15 There were these heavy shootings, and as Madam Prosecutor said, this was
16 the period in which there was no electricity, no heating, and then
17 naturally at the time are you emotionally taken along with all that you
18 see and especially what I saw on the Bosnian Muslim side. And at that
19 moment it was my firm conviction that there wasn't a level playing field.
20 It was unfair to take civilians as a victim over and against a military
22 And in the period that I was there, in the course of that period
23 I repeatedly saw that none of the parties were complying with the rules,
24 the rules, quote/unquote, in as far as there were any in a conflict like
25 that. And I had to conclude that, really, as they often say, that there
1 is nobody innocent in a conflict. Everybody is more or less guilty, and
2 this was definitely true. And even after negotiations of them --
3 liaisons on Muslim side, you know, much was promised and little was done,
4 and you were given this story, if I can use that word, I thought there
5 were three bad parties instead of just one, in my view, at the time,
6 which doesn't mean that I didn't have great sympathy for the civilians.
7 Q. Thank you, sir. And I believe my final question. You were asked
8 about tank fire being a direct fire weapon. Can a tank also be used in
9 indirect fire mode?
10 A. Affirmative. A tank is not necessarily -- do you know, really,
11 it is not meant for indirect fire but it can be indirect fire.
12 Q. That's exactly my understanding as well.
13 Sir, I thank you for being with us today and coming to testify.
14 I have no further questions for you. And, again, I thank you heartily
15 for your answers to my questions today.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
17 I would have -- not many but at least one question.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE ORIE: Reference was made to the published interview in
20 which are you talking about the anecdote, the anecdote of something that
21 happened in last May. Do you remember that? Or should we have it on our
22 screen first?
23 A. That might be best.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then could we have the interview -- yes. And
25 that's -- oh, it's there already. It's the fourth page. Page 4, lower
1 part. Page 4 in the original, I meant, but ... page 4 in the French.
2 And I don't know what page that would be in English. I think --
3 MS. EDGERTON: 6, I think.
4 JUDGE ORIE: 6 in English, yes. Yes.
5 I take you there:
6 "Another anecdote, last May or in" -- have you found it? Perhaps
7 in French? [French spoken] [No interpretation].
8 That's ... left column as it appears now. No, it's further down.
9 Further down. Further down. Yes, now the left column, "autre anecdote,"
10 do you see that?
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now another document was put to you in which a
13 witness described an incident, and then Mr. Ivetic asked you whether that
14 was the same incident as what you were referring to here in the interview
15 by way of anecdote. You remember that?
16 And then --
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You were then asked whether it's -- whether that
19 sounds like the one you're talking to in the interview. And I'll slowly
20 read the answer:
21 "This concerns another incident. I am not aware of an incident
22 with so many casualties. In the period that I was in Sarajevo, there was
23 a single shelling on the PTT building, direct to that, effectively by a
24 tank, and there was a single casualty. But otherwise, you know, the
25 story seems not familiar to me."
1 Now when you were talking about the anecdote in the interview
2 which was published, were you referring to that one incident, one single
3 shelling of the PTT building? Is that how I have to understand it?
4 A. Affirmative. I only ever knew of one incident.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, at the same time, you are giving this
6 interview, 13 November 1995. "Last May" then would have been May 1995,
7 would you agree with that?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if I understand your testimony well, you were
10 not in Sarajevo at all at that time. So when you say, I was referring to
11 one incident, the one that happened when I was in Sarajevo, in the
12 interview, you strongly suggest that what you are talking about was
13 happening at a time you were not in Sarajevo.
14 So I'm a bit confused, and if you could assist me in better
15 understanding how the anecdote you're talking about happened when you
16 were in Sarajevo and, at the same time, it happened in May 1995, then
17 that would be appreciated.
18 A. I have to tell you honestly, I have returned so long ago, but
19 what I want to say just very clearly is that in 1995, I was Military
20 Observer at headquarters in Zagreb, and a number of facts that happened
21 at the time in Sarajevo were followed by me by -- you know, from close-up
22 because I was in the direct line of command and I would read all these
23 reports, so I was even closer than actually being there. And now it has
24 become very difficult, and it's not just the time, but in the meantime I
25 have been victim of cancer and my memories have sort of partly left me,
1 unfortunately. Was it a period in which I was actually there in Sarajevo
2 in the PTT building, or was this in a period in which I was in Zagreb
3 afterwards and was closely following matters. These are two things that
4 are very difficult to distinguish after such a lapse of time. And so if
5 I can simply explain how -- that also on my part there is a lack of
6 clarity about what took place where, you know, I think this is -- this is
7 the response I would give you, the explanation I would give you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, in -- and, first of all, I'm sorry
9 to hear that you suffered from cancer, but could you tell us how that
10 affected your memory? What type of cancer was it? And if you'd rather
11 speak about it in closed session, then we would move into private or
12 closed session so that it -- your information remains within this
14 A. No, no, I am one of the rare people who had breast cancer for men
15 and so I had very heavy chemotherapy, and the oncologist simply confirmed
16 to me that effectively this would affect one's memory temporarily, they
18 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say "temporarily," when were you treated?
19 A. Two years ago.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And would "temporary" mean only during the treatment
21 or would it have an effect also after your treatment was concluded?
22 A. I have five years of aftercare. The memory trouble is a trouble
23 that would realise, well, temporarily, as the oncologists say, and it is
24 passing, and I do see my memory improving. Because in the beginning,
25 immediately after chemotherapy, and this took all of a year, there were
1 serious lapses and blackouts.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that additional information.
3 Any further questions, Ms. Edgerton? No further questions.
4 Have the questions by the Bench triggered any need for further
5 questions, Mr. Ivetic?
6 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Segers, this concludes your testimony in
8 this court. I'd like to thank you very much for having answered all the
9 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I
10 wish you a safe return home again.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- the Chamber feels sorry for
15 Ms. Radovanovic, but we are facing the following problem. First of all,
16 we need another break, which would leave us only 15 minutes, and then
17 there are a few decisions which really have to be read out now and we
18 couldn't wait for another weekend, et cetera. We always kept the
19 non-urgent matters away if witnesses were waiting, but here, I'm afraid,
20 that we have to proceed in reading those decisions.
21 Now we have two possibilities, either -- first of all,
22 Mrs. Radovanovic should be informed that the Chamber regrets highly that
23 we are unable to continue to hear her evidence today and that we'd like
24 to see her back on Monday morning.
25 Second is what are we going to do now? We can take a break of
1 20 minutes and then read for 15 minutes decisions. We also could read
2 them now and then adjourn a bit earlier. And to the extent Mr. Mladic
3 would even consider whether to wait and hear all these decisions to be
4 read, they are about the admission of associated exhibits tendered
5 through Witness Akashi. There is one oral decision on the -- let me see
6 whether there's any one in open -- there's one decision on admission of
7 an expert report of Dusan Pavlovic. There is a decision on -- into
8 evidence -- admission into evidence of P7809 and 7810, and there is a
9 last decision which is about the admission of the expert report of
10 Witness Dragic Gojkovic and four documents annexed.
11 We leave it to Mr. Mladic either whether we read them now or
12 after a break; and, second, whether he wants to be present when they're
13 all read.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm being told that we would prefer to
15 have a break and then Mr. Mladic will remain after the break to listen to
16 the decisions to be read.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll take a break and we'll resume at
19 --- Recess taken at 1.42 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 2.00 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: As announced, I'll deliver a few decisions. The
22 first is the decision on the admission of associated exhibits tendered
23 through Witness Yasushi Akashi.
24 During the testimony of Witness Akashi, on the 23rd and 24th of
25 November last year, the witness's Rule 92 ter statement comprising
1 excerpts of his prior testimony in the Karadzic case was admitted as
3 Of the 37 associated exhibits tendered with the statement, three
4 had been admitted into evidence through other witnesses, and eight were
5 then admitted into evidence during Akashi's testimony. In light of the
6 Chamber's guidance to reduce the number of associated exhibits tendered,
7 and given that there was insufficient time to address the remaining
8 associated exhibits in court at the conclusion of Akashi's testimony on
9 17 December 2015, the Chamber gave the Defence one week to make
10 submissions regarding the remaining 26 associated exhibits.
11 On 24 December then, the Defence filed a motion to admit a
12 reduced number of associated exhibits related to Akashi, pursuant to
13 Rule 92 ter. The Defence submits that these 13 documents are an
14 essential and integral part of the witness's statement, without which the
15 meaning of the statement would be incomplete or lost altogether, and
16 therefore satisfy the test for admission of associated exhibits. The
17 Prosecution has not objected to the Defence's motion.
18 The Chamber will now decide on the admission of these
19 13 associated exhibits.
20 The Chamber has reviewed the associated exhibits pursuant to
21 Rule 89(C) and notes that they relate to the situation in Sarajevo and
22 Srebrenica during 1994 and 1995. Twelve of the documents have a stamp, a
23 signature or both, and thus bear sufficient indicia of reliability and
24 authenticity. The remaining document is an expert of an official
25 parliamentary report on Srebrenica produced by the French National
1 Assembly in 2001 and includes an interview with the witness. The Chamber
2 is therefore satisfied that the documents tendered are relevant and have
3 probative value.
4 The Chambers recalls that documents can be admitted as associated
5 exhibits if they are form an inseparable and indispensable of the
6 witness's testimony. In order to satisfy this test, the tendering party
7 must demonstrate that the witness's evidence would be incomprehensible or
8 of a lesser probative value without the admission into evidence of the
9 relevant associated exhibits.
10 The Chamber has reviewed the associated exhibits in light of
11 Akashi's statement. The witness was questioned about or otherwise
12 discussed each of the associated exhibits in his statement to the extent
13 that the Chamber finds that his statement would be incomprehensible, or
14 of a lesser probative value, without the tendered documents. These
15 documents therefore form an inseparable and indispensable part of
16 Akashi's testimony.
17 The Chamber hereby admits the following documents into evidence:
18 Rule 65 ter numbers 1D02960, 1D04653, 1D04656, 1D04658, 1D04660, 1D04662,
19 03442, 03443, 03453, 03462, 08164, 10044, and 15738.
20 The Chamber requests the Registry to assign exhibit numbers to
21 these documents and to inform the parties and the Chamber of the numbers
22 so assigned.
23 As a final matter, the Chamber notes that e-court pages 3 and 4
24 of document bearing Rule 65 ter number 03443 are of a particularly poor
25 quality. The Chamber would appreciate it if the parties could upload a
1 more legible version of this document, if possible, and revert to the
2 Chamber with regard to the same.
3 And this concludes of Chamber's decision.
4 I now move on to the Chamber's decision on the admission of
5 Dragic Gojkovic's expert report and four documents annexed to that
7 On 11 August 2015, Exhibit Number D1183 was reserved for
8 Gojkovic's expert report pending an agreement between the parties on
9 which excerpts of the report were to be tendered.
10 On the 3rd of March of this year, the Defence notified the
11 Chamber, by e-mail, that it had reached agreement with the Prosecution as
12 to which excerpts of the report and which documents annexed to the report
13 were to be tendered. The reduced version of Gojkovic's report was
14 uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number 1D05892b, and the four
15 documents annexed to the report were uploaded under Rule 65 ter numbers
16 1D05772, 1D05773, 1D06182, and 1D06183.
17 On the 9th and the 14th of March, the Prosecution e-mailed the
18 Chamber and the Defence, stating that it did not object to the admission
19 into evidence of the report and the four annexed documents.
20 The Chamber recalls the applicable law on the admission of expert
21 evidence as set out in its decision of the 19th of October, 2012,
22 concerning expert witness Richard Butler.
23 The Chamber also recalls its oral decision of the 13th of May,
24 2015, granting Gojkovic the status of an expert on the destruction of
25 religious buildings in Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. The
1 Chamber considers that the content of the expert report, which focuses,
2 inter alia, on the destruction of religious sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 between 1992 and 1995 and reviews the conclusions of Prosecution expert
4 Andras Riedlmayer, falls within the scope of Gojkovic's expertise.
5 Furthermore, the report relates to the charges set out in the
6 municipalities component of the indictment and is therefore relevant to
7 the case. Given the expertise of its author, the Chamber also considers
8 the report to be probative for the purpose of its admission into
9 evidence. The Chamber therefore finds that the requirements for
10 admission into evidence have been met.
11 The document bearing Rule 65 ter 1D06183 relates to the
12 destruction of religious buildings in the municipalities included in the
14 Concerning documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1D05772 and
15 1D05773, certified photocopies of the complete lists of military
16 personnel from the 1st Engineer Regiment and the 1st Pontoon Battalion of
17 the 1st Krajina Corps, the Chamber notes that the related English
18 translations have not been uploaded into e-court. However, the Chamber
19 recalls that English translations of the relevant parts of these lists,
20 namely, data concerning the Muslim and Croatian members of these units
21 discussed by the witness in court on the 10th of August, are already
22 admitted into evidence as Exhibit Numbers D1173, D1174, D1175, and D1176.
23 With regard to document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D06182, the
24 Chamber considers the document to be relevant for establishing the chain
25 of custody of the two tendered military lists.
1 The four documents bear indicia of authenticity such as stamps,
2 signatures or information on the recipients and authors of the documents.
3 The Chamber further finds that these documents are both relevant to the
4 case and of probative value for the purpose of their admission into
6 Therefore, the Chamber finds that the requirements for admission
7 have been met. Accordingly, the Chamber instructs the Registry to
8 reassign Exhibit Number D1183 to document bearing Rule 65 ter number
9 1D05892b and admits into -- admits it into evidence.
10 Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Trial Chamber admits into evidence
11 documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1D05772, 1D05773, 1D06182, and
12 1D06183, and instructs the Registry to assign exhibit numbers to these
13 documents and notify the Chamber and parties when it has done so.
14 This concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.
15 Next decision to be delivered is a decision on the admission of
16 Dusan Pavlovic's expert report and a related document.
17 On the 14th of December, 2015, during Pavlovic's testimony, his
18 expert report was marked for identification as D1373, pending the
19 Chamber's consideration of the Prosecution's objections as set out in its
20 notice dated 2nd of November, 2015.
21 In that notice, the Prosecution challenged the expertise of the
22 witness as well as the report's methodology and conclusions.
23 In its 13th of November response to the Prosecution's notice, the
24 Defence submitted that the report is reliable, methodologically sound,
25 and admissible. Furthermore, on the 19th of April of this year, the
1 Defence informed the Chamber and the Prosecution, by e-mail, that a
2 corrected English translation of the report had been uploaded into
3 e-court under doc ID 1D33-0263. On the 25th of April, the Prosecution
4 informed the Chamber and the Defence, by e-mail, that it does not object
5 to the new translation.
6 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old
7 translation of the report with the corrected one.
8 On the 17th of December, 2015, the Defence tendered an additional
9 document through Pavlovic which was marked for identification as D1399
10 and placed under seal. The Prosecution objected to its admission on the
11 basis that the document had not been disclosed in a timely manner, lacked
12 supporting materials, and should have formed part of the expert report.
13 On the 1st of February of this year, the witness provided the
14 parties with a more recent version of the document.
15 On the 1st of March, this more recent version was admitted into
16 evidence as Exhibit P7792 and placed under seal.
17 The Chamber recalls the applicable law on the admission of expert
18 evidence as set out in its decision on the 19th of October, 2012,
19 concerning expert witness Richard Butler.
20 With regard to the admissibility of the report, the Chamber
21 recalls its oral decision of the 9th of December, 2015, granting
22 Pavlovic's status as an expert in the tracing, exhumation, and
23 identification of victims of war. Moreover, the Chamber considers that
24 the content of the report which focuses on the losses incurred by the
25 28th Division of the ABiH during breakthrough out of Srebrenica in
1 July 1995, as well as the fate of their remains, falls within the scope
2 of Pavlovic's recognised expertise. Furthermore, as the report relates
3 to the charges set out in the Srebrenica component of the indictment, the
4 Chamber finds that it is relevant for the purposes of its admission into
6 Lastly, as the report was authored by a recognised expert who
7 testified about its methodology and conclusions and its sources are cited
8 throughout, the Chamber finds the report to have probative value for the
9 purposes of admission.
10 For these reasons, the Chamber finds the report to be admissible
11 and rejects the Prosecution's challenges concerning its methodology and
13 Turning to the admission of D1399, the Chamber notes that the
14 document contains an overview of individuals who died during the ABiH
15 breakthrough as discussed in the expert report and that the witness
16 testified about the provenance of its content. The Chamber therefore
17 finds D1399 to be relevant and of probative value for the purposes of
19 The Chamber considers the Prosecution's objection in relation to
20 D1399 to be moot as the later version of this document was admitted as a
21 Prosecution exhibit. Furthermore, the Chamber finds that although the
22 admission of D1399 is to some extent superceded by the later version
23 admitted as P7792, most of the witness's testimony related to the earlier
25 Therefore, in the interests of a complete and clear record, the
1 Chamber will exceptionally also admit D1399.
2 Accordingly, the Chamber admits D1373 and D1399 into evidence,
3 the latter being under seal.
4 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
5 Last decision to be read is a decision on the admission of P7809
6 and P7810, two UNMO Sarajevo patrol reports dated the 16th of March,
7 1995, which were marked for identification on the 1st of March, 2016,
8 during the testimony of Per Oivind Oien.
9 The Defence objected to the admission on the basis that their
10 tendering was akin to the Prosecution reopening its case in-chief, as it
11 was presenting evidence on a matter about which the witness did not
12 testify during the Defence's examination-in-chief and "did not have
13 additional facts to talk about."
14 The Prosecution argued in response that the documents were
15 admissible because: First, the Defence had broadened the scope of its
16 examination-in-chief by discussing who was potentially motivated to fire
17 at whom in Sarajevo; second, the witness had been called to testify about
18 his time in Sarajevo; and, third, in light of the witness's testimony and
19 former position, it was proper to confront him with information contained
20 in certain documents that would have been available to him at the
21 relevant time.
22 The Chamber recalls the applicable law for admission of evidence
23 contained in Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence which
24 allows a Chamber to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have
25 probative value. The Chamber further recalls its guidance of the 29th of
1 October, 2012, in which it clarified that while it prefers that the
2 witness through whom a document is tendered has personal knowledge about
3 the document, probative value may also be established by the witness
4 testifying about events described in the document. The guidance further
5 stipulates that if the content of the document used during a witness's
6 testimony is sufficiently linked to the content of that witness's
7 testimony, the document may be appropriately tendered and admitted
8 through that witness, whether or not the witness is familiar with the
9 specific document.
10 With regard to relevance, the Chamber finds that the documents
11 are related, inter alia, to the alleged charges in the Sarajevo component
12 of the indictment.
13 With regard to the Defence's objections, the Chamber finds that
14 the two UNMO Sarajevo patrol reports are within the scope of the
15 witness's testimony since he was an UNMO deployed in Sarajevo as a Senior
16 Military Observer from March until October 1995 and he received UNMO
17 Sarajevo patrol reports during the period when he was deployed there.
18 Therefore, the Chamber finds that the two documents have probative value
19 for the purposes of their admission into evidence, are sufficiently
20 linked to the content of the witness's testimony in accordance with the
21 Chamber's 29th of October, 2012, guidance, and dismisses the Defence
23 The Chamber therefore finds that the requirements for admission
24 pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules have been met.
25 Pursuant to this same Rule, the Chamber admits P7809 and P7810
1 into evidence.
2 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.
3 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, 2nd of May, 9.30
4 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.24 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of May,
7 2016, at 9.30 a.m.