Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 44235

 1                           Tuesday, 16 August 2016

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand via videolink]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.

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

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

10     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12             Before we continue, I'd first like to establish whether the

13     videolink is functioning well.  Could the representative of the Registry

14     at the other side, the Moscow side, of the videolink confirm that he can

15     hear us and that he can see us.

16             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that the representative is speaking, but I

18     don't hear him.  We can see you but we can't hear you.  Is the microphone

19     switched on at the other side?

20             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, good morning, Your Honours.

21     I hope you can hear and see us clearly.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we now not only can see you, but we also can

23     hear you.

24             Before we continue the cross-examination of the witness, I'd like

25     to move into private session for a short while.


Page 44236

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 44237











11 Page 44237 redacted. Private session.















Page 44238

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             We'll take a break of five minutes to try to resolve a certain

10     matter.

11                            --- Break taken at 9.40 a.m.

12                            --- On resuming at 9.46 a.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We have resolved the technical problem, but we still

14     have to go into private session for most likely only a few minutes again.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 44239

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What about my comments to the

23     memorandum?

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.


Page 44240

 1             If any questions will be put to you about the memorandum, then

 2     you may answer them.  At this moment, the Chamber was focusing on whether

 3     it could be made public and nothing else for the time being.

 4             Before we continue to hear your testimony, I'd like to briefly

 5     deal with a remaining issue.

 6             On the 15th of June of this year, P7840 was marked for

 7     identification pending agreement between the parties as to what portion

 8     of the document was to be tendered.

 9             On the 9th of August, the Prosecution advised that it had reached

10     an agreement with the Defence to tender the document as currently

11     uploaded in e-court under Rule 65 ter number 33827.  That same day, the

12     Defence advised that it does not oppose the document's admission into

13     evidence.  And the Chamber instructs the Registry to assign Exhibit

14     Number P7840 to the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 33827 and admits

15     it into evidence.

16             Mr. Demurenko, in a few seconds, I'll invite the Prosecution to

17     continue its cross-examination.  But before I do so, I'd like to remind

18     you that you're still bound by your solemn declaration you gave at the

19     beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,

20     and nothing but the truth.

21             Finally, may I remind the parties that the parties are invited to

22     seek agreement on the distance between the point of impact and the --

23     where the suggested line of firing would cross the Pale-Lukavica road.  I

24     think we have not heard about that.

25             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct, Your Honour, you have not.  The last

Page 44241

 1     time the witness was here, I checked with certain staff members on our

 2     team that have better knowledge of the scenario and there are apparently

 3     two roads at issue, one being further along and one being closer.  And so

 4     we were not able to reach -- I did talk with one of the members of the

 5     Prosecution as to that issue after having that discussion.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if there are two roads but you could agree on

 7     the one and the other as far as distances are concerned, and then the

 8     Chamber will further consider how to understand the testimony considering

 9     the distance you agreed upon for both of the roads.  Although it's my

10     recollection that the Pale-Lukavica road was a road very, very often

11     mentioned and I think always referring to one, that is, the shortest

12     road, but perhaps we could even ask the witness further about it.

13             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah, I'm sorry we didn't make progress on that.  A

14     variety of circumstances may explain it, but I'm happy to meet with

15     Mr. Ivetic at the first break.  We have a couple of documents that we

16     consider makes the issue easier to resolve and we'll see if that assists.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There was -- by the way, there was another

18     matter, Mr. Ivetic.  I think you announced there would be a preliminary

19     matter to be raised and I think our information is that it could be done

20     in the presence of the witness.  If it has to be done now, you have an

21     opportunity to do so.  If you can do it later, then, of course, we would

22     not bother the witness with it in terms of time.

23             MR. IVETIC:  I think it does need to be done now so that if the

24     issue does arise during the cross-examination, Your Honours already have

25     the information and have had time to think about it.  It relates to a --

Page 44242

 1     there's a microphone open on the other side.

 2             The issue relates to four new documents that late yesterday, just

 3     before 4 p.m., the Prosecution gave notice of these four new documents

 4     for use in cross.  They are 65 ter numbers 33830, 33831, 33832, and

 5     33833.  And at that time they were not released and available to the

 6     Defence in e-court until sometime after 4 p.m.

 7             Given that the cross of this witness started two months ago, in

 8     June, cross documents were to be given to the Defence at that time in

 9     June.  These four were not among those notified to the Defence at that

10     time.  The Defence were further advised that all documents to be used

11     with the witness for today's videolink had to be ready and given to the

12     Registry last week, I believe by Thursday.  Thus, we were quite

13     surprised, under these circumstances, to only receive new documents late

14     yesterday instead of at any of the prior occasions when such documents

15     were due to be given.  We would thus ask for a ruling from this Chamber

16     in relation to this untimely disclosure if the Prosecution actually does

17     seek to use any of the documents that they have given notice of

18     potentially using with the witness.

19             And that would be the submission of the Defence.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

21             Mr. Tieger, I leave it in your hands whether you want to respond

22     now or whether you want to wait how cross-examination develops.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Probably better to respond now, although part of my

24     response implicates some -- at least one issue that I wouldn't want to

25     share with the witness at this point, so if there is any way of doing

Page 44243

 1     that technically I would prefer to do so.  Otherwise I'll try to speak

 2     more elliptically, whatever the Court chooses.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that the technicians can mute the

 5     videolink which means that Mr. Demurenko will not hear anything.  At the

 6     same time, the representative of the Registry will not hear anything

 7     perhaps either, but that's perhaps acceptable as long as we're not

 8     hearing the evidence of the witness.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Tieger.

11             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             In essence, this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot for several

13     reasons.  First of all, of the exhibits that were mentioned, those four

14     exhibits, two of them contain information that the Defence has long had.

15     One is stills of the video of Mr. Demurenko on the 2nd of

16     September that's already in evidence and that was displayed in several

17     cases before.  The second one is an exhibit list from the Karadzic case,

18     the case from which the amalgamated statement tendered by the Defence was

19     produced, and the -- of course, the transcripts of those proceedings and

20     the amalgamated statement that all the information contained in there,

21     including the actual live action tendering of the exhibits was -- was

22     available too.

23             The other two items are, in fact, two photographic depictions

24     that I intended to use to discuss with Mr. Ivetic in connection with the

25     Court's inquiry about the distance of the Pale-Lukavica road from the

Page 44244

 1     point of impact.  I didn't -- I don't at this time have any intention to

 2     use them in the examination, so perhaps that puts the entire issue to

 3     rest.

 4             Beyond that, this is -- the assertion that this is untimely is

 5     the invocation of a rule that doesn't really exist.  We provided these

 6     documents --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you read screen.  There was some observation

 8     by the interpreters, I think, about speaking into the microphone or

 9     speed.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, happy to do that.

11             The documents have been provided before the time they are being

12     used.  I can't recall a single time in my time in the Tribunal when

13     there's been any attempt by an opposing party to block the admission of a

14     document proposed to be used in cross-examination because of its

15     so-called untimely submission.  Indeed, I've never heard of it even when

16     the documents were not on the list.  In fact, what would typically happen

17     is that people would note that they weren't on the list, ask for more

18     understanding from the other side because it made following the

19     examination much easier and the parties moved on.

20             So I would say there's no -- and that certainly has to be the

21     case when we're talking about two documents that simply contain a

22     permutation of information already available to the other side.

23             So there's no basis for an assertion that these documents should

24     not be used by the Prosecution.  That would be true of the two

25     photographs at 33832 and 338333 if we propose to use them, but it's

Page 44245

 1     certainly true of documents which are only another form of the

 2     information which the Defence has long had.

 3             Mr. Ivetic.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I still have not heard from Mr. Tieger any

 5     explanation for why these documents were disclosed to us two months after

 6     all the other cross documents for this witness.  That's first.

 7             And second -- I'm still talking.

 8             As second, to say the Defence has these documents, we have

 9     hundreds of thousands of other documents, the guidance of the Chamber and

10     the procedure in this Chamber for notification of documents for cross, as

11     Your Honours have multiple times referenced, is to give notice to the

12     other side of particularly the set of documents that are going to be used

13     with a witness.  That is the purpose of it.  To say that, yes, in one of

14     four expert reports, each of which is over a hundred pages long, none of

15     which were prepared by this witness or identified this witness, that a

16     single page from that multiple hundred-page report might be used with the

17     witness is surely something that the Prosecution knew about earlier and

18     had an obligation to advise the Defence of so that we could just prepare

19     for any additional efforts that we have to undertake to try to prepare

20     for redirect examination.

21             And to say that the Defence has something, yes, but they

22     disclosed millions of documents to us, but I dare say -- and if that --

23     if their position is that that is in compliance with their understanding

24     of this Court's ruling as to cross document lists and when they should be

25     provided and what should be on them, then I would ask for Your Honours to

Page 44246

 1     rule on that, if that is the Prosecution's submission, because I think it

 2     is wholly at odds with the way that we have conducted this trial for the

 3     past several years.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, one question, are you suggesting that a

 5     still from a video which is already in evidence, if I understand

 6     Mr. Tieger well, that we should look then at the video, stop it at the

 7     relevant portion, rather than to use the still already prepared for

 8     practical purposes, I take it.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, my position is that the still

10     obviously was known to the Prosecution earlier and should have been

11     disclosed earlier.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But that's not my question.  My question is whether

13     you suggest that this Chamber should rule that the still cannot be used

14     but that, of course, what is in evidence can be shown to the witness and

15     can be -- and that we then look at the video, stop at the time slot where

16     the still is, and you would oppose for practical purposes to use the

17     still rather than to -- and that you would not have any objection against

18     playing the video, stopping it at a certain point in time, and then look

19     at exactly the same what is shown in the still?

20             MR. IVETIC:  I don't have objection as to stills being used in

21     lieu of video.  The problem is with stills, when the Defence has wanted

22     to use stills, we've had to disclose them to the Prosecution at an

23     earlier time period so everyone knows.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  If the video --

25             MR. IVETIC:  And the other two documents are the ones that I'm --

Page 44247

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, one second.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If the video is still in evidence, then every single

 4     split-second of that video is evidence --

 5             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- whether you play the video and stop it, or

 7     whether you have extracted the still from the video.  Would you suggest

 8     that that's the appropriate way of dealing with the matter; that is, to

 9     just play the video and say, Stop at 43 seconds point 8?

10             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I believe we're arguing over

11     semantics.  Either is, I think, an acceptable method, either to play the

12     video and stop it or to use a still.  The issue is the timing of

13     disclosure and it's more in relation to the other two documents that are

14     not video stills.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The other two documents, I do understand,

16     Mr. Tieger announced that he does not necessarily need to use them to the

17     witness -- with the witness.

18             What we'll do is we'll wait until any of these documents comes up

19     and then decide on that particular moment whether or not Mr. Tieger is

20     using the documents rightly or that the late notification is opposing the

21     use of the document.

22             Therefore, could I invite the Registry, the representative of the

23     Registry in Moscow, and Mr. Demurenko to put on their earphones again.

24             Then, Mr. Tieger, if you are ready to continue --

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]


Page 44248

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

 2             Mr. Tieger, if you are ready to continue your cross-examination

 3     you're invited to do so.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5                           WITNESS:  ANDREY DEMURENKO [Resumed]

 6                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 7                           [Witness testified via videolink]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]

 9        Q.   Colonel, when we concluded at the end of the day on the 15th of

10     June, I had been about to present a number of photographs that were

11     taken, but rather than simply doing that now, I think it's -- it will be

12     more fair if I recap slightly where we were at the time so that you can

13     understand the nature of those photographs, if you don't recall what had

14     transpired at the end of the last session in court.

15             We had been discussing, in part, paragraph 123 of your statement

16     in which you refer to the terrain east of the direction of your

17     investigation and noted at the end of that paragraph that that terrain

18     was rocky and full of slopes, therefore not suitable for the mortars and

19     said this would apply to bearings less than 170 degrees.  So we had

20     discussed that.

21             And then I showed you a satellite photo of the Trebevic area

22     which you had already seen previously in the Milosevic case.  That's

23     P2380.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Perhaps it's good to show it to the witness once

25     again.  And display it to the Court as well, please.  That's in tab 10 of

Page 44249

 1     the Registry's binder, but I think Mr. Doraiswamy is able to identify

 2     those items by the chronology of the P numbers or 65 ter numbers.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't have it on my screen --

 4             MR. TIEGER:  I don't either.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- yet.  Although I see that others in this

 6     courtroom have.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  There seems to be a little technical problem for us.

 9             The document is available in Moscow?

10             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, it is, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. TIEGER:

13        Q.   P2380 now appears to be available to everyone in the courtroom

14     and to you as well, Colonel.  As you can see, and as I mentioned on the

15     15th of June, it depicts three areas, three way points, to the east of

16     the 170 degree line, that's way point 5, 10, and 6.  And I -- those way

17     points are represented, in part, by photographs that were taken earlier

18     and that are reflected in part in the ERN chronology in P2382 indicating

19     the ERN ranges of the photographs that were taken for the various way

20     points.

21             And now I'd like to call up P19792 to look at some of the

22     photographs of the area -- did I say P?  65 ter 19792.  So that we can

23     look at the photographs of portions of the areas east of 170 degrees.

24     And if we could look first at page 38 of 19792, that depicts a portion of

25     the terrain at way point 5.

Page 44250

 1             Next, page 39, e-court page 39, which is ERN 06197174.

 2             And next, page 40, the very next page, also depicting a portion

 3     of the area in -- at way point 5.

 4             Next looking at way point 6, if we could turn to page 47 in the

 5     e-court, and page 50.

 6             And finally turning to way point 10, if we could look at page 90

 7     of 65 ter 19792.

 8             Page 92, please, and page 93.

 9             Having now had a chance to see some of the area, some of the

10     terrain east of 170, Colonel, it is incorrect to say that the area east

11     of 170 is "rocky and full of slopes and therefore not suitable for

12     mortars."  Isn't that right?

13        A.   Absolutely not.  First of all, I never claimed that this

14     territory is 100 per cent unsuitable for setting up a mortar.  You will

15     not find that in my evidence.  I said that many spots are of that kind.

16             Second, these photographs have nothing to do with the

17     investigation because as you see, this film was made 12 years -

18     12 years - after the event.  During that time, new roads could have been

19     built, all roads could have been destroyed.  Lots could have changed.

20     These photographs have nothing to do, no relation to my investigation

21     whatsoever.

22        Q.   Do you have your statement in front of you, Colonel?

23             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Mr. Tieger, we have two pages of

24     the statement, pages 13 and 14, that's been provided --

25             MR. TIEGER:

Page 44251

 1        Q.   Well, Colonel, I will read to you the pertinent portion of

 2     paragraph 123 of your statement:

 3             "I would also like to emphasise that the terrain east of the

 4     direction of my investigation, east of 170 plus or minus 5 degrees, was

 5     rocky and full of slopes, therefore not suitable for the mortars.  This

 6     would apply to bearings less than 170 degrees."

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For the record, Mr. Tieger, your quotation

 8     started at:  "I would also like to emphasise ..."

 9    MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's correct, and it ends with "less than 170 degrees."

10        Q.   And on 15th of June, 2016, you confirmed to the Court that you

11     did not test the area that -- that particular area east of 170 as you did

12     the parts that you considered to be part of the investigation.  And

13     that's found at T 44193.

14             So, Colonel, the fact is you did not assert that the area east of

15     170 had been -- contained many areas or a number of areas suitable for

16     the placement of mortars but that you had somehow examined and excluded

17     them.  You claimed categorically that that area was rocky and full of

18     slopes and unsuitable for mortars and you'd hadn't investigated it.

19     That's the truth of the matter, isn't it?

20       A.  No, that's not right.  I want to say, once again, that the sequence

21     of the investigation was as follows.  We took the bearing from the

22     possible point of impact and following the line presented by the French

23     or English experts – I don't know who was there – drawn on the sketch,

24    we checked, going over these points with our own feet, with still cameras.

25     That's what it was about: that we established that the BE /unclear

Page 44252

 1    acronym/ was not true.  Now, as to what was true - that's something that

 2    other people were supposed to investigate, instead of making a statement

 3    2 hours after the explosion.  We were doing our investigation several

 4    hours after the explosion. Now, 12 years after the event, these

 5    photographs have absolutely no relation to our investigation.

 6             MR. TIEGER:  I tender P19792, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's not a P number, it's a 65 ter number.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry, 65 ter 19792.  Getting ahead of myself.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I note that the document in e-court

10     appears to be 104 pages of which we've seen --

11             MR. TIEGER:  Those -- I misspoke.  Of course, those pages of

12     P19792 that were shown to the witness.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You'll upload that extract.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, we will.

15             MR. IVETIC:  That resolves my issue.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then 65 ter 19792, although I take it to be uploaded

17     with a small a attached to it, will receive, Madam Registrar, what

18     exhibit number?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  P7843, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE: P7843 and -- once uploaded is admitted into evidence.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. TIEGER:

23        Q.   Colonel, you sought authorisation or permission from the VRS to

24     go to the areas that you looked at in -- on the -- during your

25     investigation; correct?

Page 44253

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could call up, please, 65 ter 1D03888.

 3     That's at tab 13 of the Registrar's binder.

 4        Q.   Colonel, this is a document you've seen before during the course

 5     of the Karadzic case --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is there an English translation available?

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, there is.  It was a recently --

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we see that side by side.

 9             MR. TIEGER:

10        Q.   Colonel, this is a document dated 29th of August, 1995.  It's

11     from the security and intelligence department of the Sarajevo-Romanija

12     Corps to the Main Staff of the VRS.  And it reflects the receipt of

13     information that you disagreed with the assessment of UNPROFOR, requested

14     information from the VRS to personally visit the location which UNPROFOR

15     assessed as the point from which the shell was fired, the proposal by the

16     signator of the document, Marko Lugonja, that you be given permission to

17     visit the location after you marked the place where you will visit.  And

18     then it continues:

19             "He also requested to visit hospitals where those who were

20     wounded in the shelling in Blazuj on 28 August are being treated."

21             That reference, Colonel, to the shelling in Blazuj is a reference

22     to the shelling of a Serb area on the outskirts of Ilidza; correct?

23             Colonel, do you recall your request to visit hospitals where

24     those who were wounded in the shelling in Blazuj on the 28th of August?

25        A.   I don't remember, but it's possible.

Page 44254

 1        Q.   And are --

 2        A.   I visited many places where people were wounded or killed.

 3        Q.   Just to clarify the contents of this document, are you aware that

 4     Blazuj was a Serb-held area and the victims of that shelling would have

 5     been Serb?

 6             I saw a gesture.  I don't know if there was an audible response,

 7     but I didn't hear one.

 8        A.   I don't understand.  What is the question?  Is the question

 9     whether I visited hospitals where wounded people were lying?  Yes, I did.

10     If you want to ask something else, please do.

11        Q.   It should be clear that wasn't the question.  The document refers

12     to your request to visit hospitals where those who were wounded in the

13     shelling in Blazuj on the 28th of August were being treated.  So I asked

14     for clarification purposes with reference to this document whether you

15     could confirm that Blazuj was a Serb area and victims of a shelling in

16     Blazuj would be a reference to Serb victims?

17        A.   As for that case specifically that you're asking me about, I

18     don't remember.  But I know for a fact that I visited all the places

19     where shelling had taken place, including hospitals.  That was one of my

20     duties.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Tieger, I don't quite understand the sentence

23     to necessarily mean that the people who were injured in Blazuj.  They're

24     hospitalised in Blazuj.  They were injured in an incident of shelling of

25     the 28th of August.  Do I understand you to suggest that the injuries --

Page 44255

 1     that the shelling was on Blazuj?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  I agree there's a potential ambiguity there, but,

 3     yes, I understood that to be based both on the syntax of the sentence and

 4     some independent review that it refers to the shelling rather than the

 5     location of the hospitalisation.  That's how I understood it.  But that's

 6     why -- in part why I was seeking confirmation from this witness of his

 7     understanding before moving on to the rest of the document.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you so much.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And could we then perhaps take it step by step.

10             Mr. Demurenko, was Blazuj a Serb -- was that in Serb-held

11     territory?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember now, but I'm

13     prepared to trust the document that's before me.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it was a question by Mr. Tieger, not --

15             MR. TIEGER:  Well, we're getting a little short of time so I'll

16     move on to the next page before we --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but perhaps we -- can you do that in a couple

18     of minutes, otherwise --

19             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, I believe --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- we would have to take the break.

21             MR. TIEGER:  I believe so.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then please proceed and we'll take the break

23     then.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.  If we could turn the page in English, please.

25             I would note that we had submitted a revised translation from

Page 44256

 1     CLSS to the Defence.  They agreed to upload it.  It apparently has not

 2     been uploaded.  I will read instead the English translation from the

 3     revised document that both parties agree should have been uploaded.

 4        Q.   The document by Colonel Lugonja continues, Colonel, saying:

 5             "I propose granting him permission for this too.  Demurenko wants

 6     in this manner to dissuade the UNPROFOR command that" --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Persuade.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  I'm reading from the revised document, Your Honour.

 9     That's -- and the reason for the revision is that it contains a double

10     negative that makes it hard to understand and I think CLSS tried to

11     untangle that a bit.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you start reading that again.

13             MR. TIEGER:  Yes.  Again, starting the last -- the second page of

14     the document in English in the last sentence of the document:

15             "I propose granting him permission" -- last two sentences, excuse

16     me.

17             "I propose granting him permission for this too.  Demurenko wants

18     in this manner to dissuade the UNPROFOR command that the Serbs fired the

19     shell and that they were not targeted."

20        Q.   So Colonel, what Colonel Lugonja is referring to here are the two

21     portions of the request by you that he noted early; that is, the request

22     to visit the location where it was assessed that the shell was fired,

23     and, two, to visit victims of the shelling on the 28th, the Serb victims

24     of shelling on the 28th.  And so he says that he -- he alludes to that by

25     saying:  Demurenko wants to dissuade UNPROFOR that the Serbs fired the

Page 44257

 1     shell on Markale, and, two, wants to dissuade UNPROFOR from the position

 2     that the Serbs too were not targeted during that period of time.  Is that

 3     correct?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I will object to the question if he is

 5     asking Colonel Demurenko what Colonel Lugonja was trying to do without

 6     establishing foundation for how Colonel Demurenko would know what

 7     Colonel Lugonja had on his mind when drafting this document.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me re-read it.

 9             Well, it's what the text alludes to, alludes to as what

10     Mr. Demurenko would have said and that's a proper question to put to the

11     witness.

12             Perhaps you repeat the question, Mr. Tieger.

13             MR. TIEGER:

14        Q.   Colonel, do you understand this as -- these last two sentences as

15     referring to your two-fold request:  One, to visit the location where --

16     from which you assessed the Markale II shell had been fired; and, two, to

17     visit the victims, the Serb victims of the shelling in Blazuj?  That's

18     the first question.  Is that how you understand that?

19        A.   I understand it in the following way.

20             First of all, your sentence said that I asked for a permission.

21     That's not true.  I could not ask for permission, neither from the Serb

22     nor the other side.

23        Q.   Well, can I stop --

24        A.   As for the -- as for the sequence of --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Somebody keeps typing

Page 44258

 1     while the witness is speaking and audibility is zero.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know who the -- well, I see one face

 3     expressing some feeling of guilt and the typing stopped, which is highly

 4     appreciated.

 5             Could you continue your answer, Mr. Demurenko.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, the word "permission"

 7     is out of place completely.  I could not ask for permission in view of my

 8     duties, neither from the Serb side nor the Bosnian side.  They were not

 9     my bosses.  They were not my superiors.

10             If we are speaking about establishing contact with them to get

11     them not to shoot at my personnel, then, in that case, yes, I did write

12     various communications to them but they are not called "permissions."

13     Without their permission, I was available to visit whatever I wanted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you the following question.  You now

15     explained what you brought to their attention, that you would rather not

16     be shot at.

17             Let's take it step by step.  Did you ask this in relation to

18     visiting a potential firing position?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- every time.  Communications were

22     made in writing and sometimes phone calls were made.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm focusing exclusively on the document which

24     is before us.  Did you at that point in time make any submission that you

25     wanted to visit a potential position of firing?

Page 44259

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  As part of the investigation,

 2     I needed to visit both sides of the front line with my assistants, both

 3     the Bosniaks and the Serbs.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did you raise the matter of visiting the

 5     hospital in Blazuj?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said I can't remember.  I

 7     don't think I had been there.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no record, no evidence of

10     my visiting that hospital, although I visited many of them.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question is:  Whether the reasons reported for

12     your requests, whether you remember that you gave those reasons in your

13     communication?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think that is correct.

15     Because to the question "why do you need this" asked by the Serbs about

16     my visiting the Serb side, I could have answered: in order

17     to either confirm or to refute the statement that was made

18     2 hours after the explosion.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Less than two hours after the

21     explosion.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The reasons you are now giving are not exactly the

23     same as we find in the report.  Could you explain whether what the report

24     says is right or whether we have to rely on what you tell us now?

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 44260

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, can we have clarification as to what

 2     report you're referencing?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I meant the letter where I said the report.

 4     But it has been reported that this was the reason given by Mr. Demurenko

 5     for his requests.  In that sense it is a report as well.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot answer for opinions or

 7     interpretations of some colonels on the Serb side.  They could have

 8     written whatever they pleased.

 9             I explained to you why I wanted to visit the Serbian territory.

10     How they interpreted it and what they put in their document, I can't

11     know.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you read it now.  Are you telling us that

13     it is not accurate what is in this letter?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, this letter is not in

15     Russian.  It's possible for me to miss important details.  And, second, I

16     don't want to be answerable for somebody else's letters.  I answer only

17     for myself.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the text has been read to you and translated to

19     you in Russian, but I leave it to that.

20             We'll take a break first.  We'd like to see you back in

21     20 minutes; 5 minutes past 11.00, local time in The Hague.

22                           --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the videolink still functioning properly, sound

25     and what you see?

Page 44261

 1             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the representative of the Registry confirm

 3     that the videolink is --

 4             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, we can --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It is?

 6             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, we can see and hear you

 7     clearly.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then, Mr. Tieger, please proceed.  But before

 9     you do so, I take it that you read from a corrected translation which is

10     apparently not in e-court yet and we have to --

11             MR. TIEGER:  Correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- give permission to replace the translation by the

13     newly uploaded one and then to give the Defence an opportunity to comment

14     on it.

15             MR. TIEGER:  That has been done and there was an understanding

16     between the parties that the new version would be uploaded.  It's simply

17     that that logistical aspect just wasn't completed.  But the discussions

18     took place --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's under a -- yes, then the Registrar

20     is hereby instructed to replace the existing translation of -- could you

21     remind me of the number, Mr. Tieger?

22             MR. TIEGER:  1D3888.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That the newly uploaded version replaces the old

24     one.

25             Please proceed.

Page 44262

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2        Q.   Colonel, before we leave this document, two hopefully quick

 3     matters.  If we -- I just want to confirm that you were shown this

 4     document in the Karadzic case.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could turn to 65 ter 33681, e-court

 6     page 25, which is transcript page 28965; it's in tab 17 of the

 7     Registrar's binder.

 8             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Can you repeat the transcript page

 9     number, Mr. Tieger?

10             MR. TIEGER:  28965.

11             THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Thank you.

12             MR. TIEGER:  That's the correct page on our screen.

13        Q.   Here in the middle of the page, Colonel, we see the discussion

14     about the document being presented for your perusal, indicating this is a

15     document issued by chief Colonel Marko Lugonja, et cetera.  First, the

16     discussion about information that you had disagreed with the assessment

17     of UNPROFOR, proposed being given permission to visit the location which

18     UNPROFOR assessed as the point from which the shell had been fired, also

19     indicates that had you requested to visit hospitals in Blazuj --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we have that document enlarged, please, and

21     it's not necessary to have it twice.  Thank you.

22             MR. TIEGER:

23        Q.   And then it continues:

24             "I propose" -- with Colonel Lugonja continuing:

25             "I propose to grant him permission for this too," et cetera.

Page 44263

 1             Turning the page in English now.

 2             And then, Colonel, if which look at -- toward the bottom of the

 3     next page 28966, e-court page 26 --

 4             MR. TIEGER:  I know there are technical problems.  I just want to

 5     confirm that the -- okay, thanks.

 6        Q.   You were asked:

 7             "Q.  Okay.  So this document is then accurate in its confirmation

 8     that you sought and received permission to go to particular areas?

 9             "A.  Yes, yes."

10             And, Colonel, you can confirm that that was your testimony in the

11     Karadzic case; correct?

12        A.   No, I can't because the text in front of me is not in Russian.

13        Q.   Based on --

14        A.   And my experience from previous sessions is that my words were

15     often replaced by different words -- by different words, so I can't

16     confirm.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Then I tender these two pages.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.  Still to be uploaded in its

19     extracted version, Mr. Tieger.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives Exhibit Number P7844, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence, at least in the new version,

22     only two pages.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. TIEGER:

25        Q.   Colonel, in addition, the request was made, the reply was

Page 44264

 1     received to that request, it was determined when it would be implemented,

 2     with whom, and a military guide was made available to assist you and your

 3     team in going to the location; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  They always had to second a representative of one or the

 5     other side to accompany us into, for instance, a minefield or help us not

 6     get shelled or something.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And in this instance, of course, the representative was

 8     from the VRS; right?

 9        A.   If we are talking about that side of the front line, then yes.

10        Q.   Colonel, I'd like to turn next to another portion of your

11     statement.  This located at paragraph 38 of your statement, which is, for

12     the benefit of the parties, D02120.

13             Paragraph 38 of your statement, Colonel, states the following:

14             "The only incident between the Serb forces and the UNPROFOR in

15     Sarajevo after the NATO bombing of the Serb positions that I remember was

16     the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity Bridge in Sarajevo.  There were

17     two check-points from both (Serb and Muslims) sides of the bridge and the

18     Serbs and Muslims were shooting against each other.  The Serb soldiers

19     then went on an offensive and captured the Bosnian Muslim trenches.  The

20     Bosnian Muslims informed the French UNPROFOR about this and the French

21     command ordered its French troops to attack the Serb units at the

22     occupied check-point.  The French soldiers attacked the Serbs and both

23     French and Serb soldiers got killed in this attack.  If I remember

24     correctly, some seven French and ten Serb soldiers got killed in this

25     fighting.  It was a big scandal within the UN because the UN forces

Page 44265

 1     directly attacked one of the warring sides."

 2             Now, Colonel, during your testimony in the Karadzic case, I

 3     presented you with a code cable from General Janvier to Kofi Annan dated

 4     the 27th of May, 1995, which is P2559 in this case.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could call up P2559, please.  It's tab 12

 6     of the Registry's binder.

 7        Q.   And if we look toward the bottom of the page under the item

 8     marked 4, we see the following report from Janvier --

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we have it in English, please.

10             MR. TIEGER:

11        Q.   Starting at the second sentence of item 4:

12             "At about 0430 hours this morning a group of BSA, Bosnian Serb

13     army (assessed to be special forces), dressed in French UN uniforms and

14     equipment, took over the FreBat 4 OP at Vrbanja bridge in Sarajevo and

15     removed ten French soldiers.  During the course of this action one French

16     officer escaped.  At 0800 hours FreBat 4 mounted a successful operation

17     to regain control of the OP.  As a result of this operation, one Bosnian

18     Serb army soldier was killed and three are held by FreBat 4.  Two French

19     soldiers were killed (one not related to the operation to recover the OP)

20     and two wounded (one seriously)."

21             After I presented you with that document, Colonel, I asked you at

22     page 28974 of the Karadzic transcript:

23             "So, in fact, Colonel, it was not the case that the Muslims ran

24     to UNPROFOR after their position was captured and then UNPROFOR went on

25     the attack on their behalf.  It was the case that the Bosnian Serbs

Page 44266

 1     attacked the French observation post wearing French uniforms and then the

 2     French Battalion retook the position.  Isn't that correct? "

 3             And you answered:

 4             "No, no, that's not right.  You took as evidence a report from

 5     the Superior Command, as I understand, a report by General Janvier to the

 6     UN."

 7             Now the next -- this continues on page 28975 of 65 ter 33681:

 8             "Why don't you take a sitrep that speaks to the same incident in

 9     Sector Sarajevo where it happened and compare the information in one

10     report and the other.  As you understand, on the ground things are much

11     clearer than up at the top and then you would see what actually

12     happened."

13             Now, Colonel, can I take it that you agree that what I just read

14     accurately reflects what was asked and what you answered on the 17th of

15     October, 2012, during your testimony in the Karadzic case?

16        A.   I agree with the position --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness be asked to speak into the

18     microphone, please, and all other microphones should be switched off.

19     The witness has to start over.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

21             Witness, could you, first of all, speak into the microphone and

22     could you again start your answer, or coming closer to where the

23     microphone is located, and could you repeat what you said and finish your

24     answer.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you hear me now?

Page 44267

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  It's good.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, what you said is

 3     absolutely correct concerning the fact that there were perfectly correct

 4     descriptions below compared to the top.  In one place there was a correct

 5     report on the victims and in other places something completely different.

 6     To be quite honest, I don't remember exactly what the report of

 7     General Janvier said about the -- the dressing in French uniforms --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but it happened frequently.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, one second.  The only question Mr. Tieger

11     asked you at this moment is whether what he read to you, whether that

12     reflects what you testified in the Karadzic case.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not taking back a single word

14     I said in previous trials.  I talk about things that I remember.

15     Whatever I remember, I'm prepared to say.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And what was read to you, you recognised that as the

17     answers you gave in the Karadzic case.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A lot has been read back to me.

19     Janvier's report, the sitreps, et cetera.  Many of these things are

20     mutually contradictory.  Now I am hard put to say that to a comma and to

21     a full stop everything is correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What was read to you by Mr. Tieger a second ago, the

23     gist of that reflects what you remember to have testified in the Karadzic

24     case.  Is that correctly understood?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I trust the materials of the Court.

Page 44268

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  I should -- in that case should probably tender the

 3     materials of the Court.  That was page 28974 and 28975 of the Karadzic

 4     case which is 65 ter 33681, pages 34 through 35.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But 33681 has already been admitted, Mr. Tieger,

 6     as P7844.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Another portion.  Would it not be good that finally

 8     that you would upload all those pages you used from the Karadzic

 9     transcript and that we gather them together under that one number.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, absolutely.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I see Mr. Ivetic --

12             MR. IVETIC:  That's what I was going to suggest, Your Honours,

13     since I believe that -- I believe counsel is going to add one more page

14     at least with the following questions.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could be.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

18        Q.   All right.  Well, Colonel, let's follow up then on that response

19     and your suggestion to look at a local sitrep, a sitrep from

20     Sector Sarajevo and see what it says about the incident.

21             MR. TIEGER:  And in that respect, can we call up 65 ter number

22     33674.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, as can you see, Colonel, this is a sitrep of the same

24     date, the 27th of May, 1995, referring on its very first page to the

25     confrontation between the Bosnian Serb army and UNPROFOR with reconquest

Page 44269

 1     at the Vrbanja OP East, and that's in the fourth item down under "general

 2     assessments" on the first page.

 3             And as we see in the middle of the page, Colonel, the releasing

 4     officer on this sitrep from Sector Sarajevo is Colonel Demurenko, is you.

 5             Now, if we turn to page 4, please, we'll see further discussion

 6     of the event.  On the second small paragraph under "assessment of impact,

 7     the hottest point was the reconquest of FreBat 4 of the Vrbanja bridge

 8     OP seized by trickery during the last night by Bosnian Serb army, dressed

 9     like UNPROFOR personnel with dead, wounded and captured personnel OP of

10     both sides (two times dead and one time -- or 11 time injured French

11     soldiers)."

12             There's a further reference down there to orient you to the time,

13     to the Bosnian Serb army keeping personnel like hostages especially the

14     Ukrainian WCP in Ilidza.

15             If we turn then to page 7, further discussion of this incident in

16     the local sitrep which you suggested we look at.  Here in the second

17     listed item:

18             "FreBat 4 at 27," meaning 27 May, "0400, Bosnian Serb soldiers

19     invade the Vrbanja bridge OP dressed with UN equipment.  Between 0800 and

20     0900, a platoon of FreBat 4 reconquered the OP accepted the OP western of

21     the position (inside, there are eight Bosnian Serb army soldiers and one

22     UNPROFOR soldier, French).  One UNPROFOR soldier was killed and UNPROFOR

23     soldiers were wounded.  The FreBat 4 have four BSA prisoners."

24             And finally turning to a couple of more pages, first page 10 and

25     11, where we can see the chronology of events from the 26th to the 27th,

Page 44270

 1     looking at the second item from the bottom:

 2             "Reports that today about 0430 Bosnian Serb army soldiers who

 3     were wearing in the UN French clothes (uniform, helmet, flakjacket)

 4     seized Vrbanja bridge and blocked 12 French UN soldiers in the OP."

 5             And if we turn to the next page looking at the fourth item down:

 6             "Vrbanja bridge OP East is reoccupied by French soldiers.  One

 7     Bosnian Serb army soldier is killed and three injured.  Three another

 8     Bosnian Serb army soldiers are seized as prisoners of FreBat 4.

 9             "One FreBat 4 soldier is killed and two soldiers injured."

10             So, Colonel, contrary to your suggestion that if we looked at a

11     local sitrep from Sector Sarajevo addressing this incident we would find

12     that Janvier was wrong and the characterisation of events in your

13     statement was correct, the truth is that the sitrep, the local sitrep,

14     which was released by you on the date of the incident, confirms that the

15     Bosnian Serbs using trickery attacked and took the French position and

16     then the French retook the position a few hours later, not that the UN

17     attacked after the Bosnian Muslims had been routed.  That's the truth of

18     the matter, isn't it, sir?

19        A.   No, that's not right.  Why do you always take examples about

20     Bosnian Serbs and you don't take examples of Bosniaks who used this

21     trickery of changing into different clothes?  That's one.

22             Second, I am the author of the sitrep and I sign it, whereas the

23     information is provided by other people and it's often wrong.  The

24     intelligence was, for instance, mainly US, and the information they

25     provided was frequently not objective.  And you keep citing examples of

Page 44271

 1     Bosnian Serbs and their trickery, whereas you can find equal examples of

 2     Bosniaks using the same trickery.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, I tender 33674, please.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 33674 receives Exhibit P7845,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. TIEGER:

 9        Q.   And let's turn next to 65 ter 33714, a document I know you're

10     familiar with, Colonel.

11        A.   I can't see it yet.

12        Q.   It's in tab 21 of the Registrar's binder.  It's a publication of

13     Komsomolskaya Pravda entitled:  The Bosnian confession of

14     Colonel Demurenko.  If you look at the very -- sorry, do you have it

15     available now, Colonel?  I see you do.

16             Look at the top of the article, next to the picture at the top,

17     it's the introduction to the remainder of that publication.  It refers

18     first to you, noting that there was one person who dared to doubt and

19     that was peacekeeper Demurenko, that you conducted your own

20     investigation.

21             Next paragraph, it indicates your name again.  Demurenko was

22     declared a national hero by the Serbs, and then in the final sentence of

23     that paragraph, it indicates this is very complicated when more and more

24     trenches are needed by some and this is what Andrey Demurenko writes

25     about his diaries, and then it contains various excerpts which I think

Page 44272

 1     you'll recall we discussed in the Karadzic -- some of which we discussed

 2     in the Karadzic case; right?

 3        A.   Yes, I understand that --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  We would be very grateful if counsel could turn

 5     off his microphone while the witness is speaking.

 6             MR. TIEGER:

 7        Q.   I'm not sure we got your full answer, Colonel.  I think you said:

 8     "Yes, I understand that."  But if you said more, it might have been cut

 9     off when the interpreter was admonishing me to turn off my microphone.

10        A.   I'm saying that articles about the former Yugoslav war were many.

11     I remember that this correspondent took an interview with me, and I

12     remember that an article was written.  Yes, I remember it.

13        Q.   All right.  And in particular, Colonel, if we turn to page 3 of

14     the article in English, and for you, that would be found in the second

15     column in approximately the middle of the page next to that insert to the

16     right, you talked about the fact that it would be difficult to find a

17     better commander than General Mladic.  He is extremely talented,

18     exceptionally literate, tough commander.  You talked about the closeness

19     between Russians and Serbs saying, "yes, these are people whom we

20     consider very dear, we were brought together by history and there is no

21     point in breaking these ties."  You talked about General Mladic saying to

22     your face that Russia had betrayed the Serbs, accusing Russia of

23     betrayal, and explaining that "we would be happy to help our neighbours

24     but that we were having trouble with our own ailments" and you were very

25     embarrassed.

Page 44273

 1             And if we turn the page in English, we see a more casual

 2     reference to General Gobilliard's three-mile morning run along

 3     Sniper Alley.

 4             And during the course of your testimony in the Karadzic case, you

 5     confirmed the accuracy of the article's representations about your

 6     position.  Correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   All right.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I tender 65 ter 33714, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  It receives Exhibit Number P7846, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

13             Mr. Tieger, where are we in terms of time?

14             MR. TIEGER:  I have -- well, we're close.  I mean, I'm in my

15     last -- now my last section which deals with one -- with one discrete

16     issue which deals with two issues, but I would say I would be optimistic

17     of completing that within ten minutes or so, ten to 15 minutes and no

18     more.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that we take the break first because

20     it would be another extended session and that you have 15 more minutes

21     after the break.

22             We take a break.  Mr. Demurenko, we'd like to see you back at

23     five minutes past 12.00.

24             Before we, however, leave the courtroom, Mr. Ivetic, could you

25     give us an estimate of the time you would need.

Page 44274

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Probably not more than 30 minutes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, that's clear.

 3             We will resume at five minutes past 12.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 11.42 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 12.05 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Expecting that Moscow can see and hear us, you're

 7     invited, Mr. Tieger, to proceed.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Can I take up three

 9     housekeeping matters first.

10             Number one, the excerpted photos from 65 ter 19792 have now been

11     uploaded under 65 ter 1972b -- 19792b, and we would therefore ask that it

12     be assigned P07843.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you check the number again, please.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Of the P number, Your Honour, or the 65 ter number?

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The 65 ter number.

16             MR. TIEGER:  I'll recite it again as it's written, 19792b.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me just check.  Yes, it already has the

19     number.  It's now -- you have uploaded the selection of photographs which

20     was admitted under this condition.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Right.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, the condition is now fulfilled.

23             Yes, next one.

24             MR. TIEGER:  And next is -- I realised I didn't tender 65 ter

25     1D03888.

Page 44275

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Which was?  Which was, Mr. Tieger?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  The Lugonja report or ...

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yeah.  Madam Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 1D03888 receives Exhibit Number

 5     P7847, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] And the last one?

 9             MR. TIEGER:  That's still an ongoing matter.  There may be more,

10     so I'll refrain from tendering that at this point.

11        Q.   Okay.  Witness, earlier, that is, in June, you were asked at

12     transcript page 44175 by His Honour Judge Moloto the following:

13             "I have another question too.  You've talked about taking

14     photographs as you were walking along that distance.  Do you have those

15     photographs?"

16             And you answered:

17             "I handed them over at the last trial I attended.  Of course, we

18     made a huge number of photos, hundreds, but I supplied the most important

19     ones, I think 10 or 20.  I had brought them with me to prove my point."

20             And then at the next page, at 44176 of the transcript of the

21     15th of June, you added:

22             "I remember the Court," referring to the Karadzic Chamber, "had

23     no doubts about the veracity of my testimony because the Court accepted

24     the photographs."

25             Then added you didn't know which party had tendered the

Page 44276

 1     photographs into evidence.

 2             I'd like to look, then, at a list of the exhibits that were

 3     tendered through you in the Karadzic case.  That's 65 ter 33830.

 4             Now, there were approximately a total of -- we looked at -- last

 5     page -- 67 exhibits tendered during the course of your Karadzic testimony

 6     by the Defence or Prosecution, but the photographs are reflected on the

 7     first page of this exhibit.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  So if we go back to the first page.

 9        Q.   In items 4, 8, 9, and 10.  And, unsurprisingly, those are the

10     same photographs that were admitted in this case of you.  So D2273 in

11     Karadzic is D2140 here in this case admitted; 2277 is D2145; D2278 in

12     Karadzic is D2144 here; and D2279 in Karadzic is D2146.  And those four

13     photographs which have now been tendered in the last two cases in which

14     you testified depicting locations which you visited are the exact same

15     number as the specific locations you identified in your press conference

16     video, D2122, that you said you visited, pointing to -- with your pen to

17     four separate locations on the Bosnian Serb side of the confrontation

18     line.

19             That's the truth, isn't it, Colonel, that there are four

20     photographs that were introduced by you in both cases, not ten or 20 or

21     any other number?

22             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I'll object as it misstates the

23     evidence.  The portion of the transcript read by Mr. Tieger indicates

24     that the witness gave 20 photographs to -- I believe he may have

25     identified Marko from the Karadzic Defence.  It does not specify the

Page 44277

 1     number that were admitted.  He just says the Trial Chamber admitted --

 2             MR. TIEGER:  You know -- I have to interrupt.  That's a speaking

 3     objection which is trying -- which has the purposeful or unintended

 4     effect of signalling items to the witness.  We can take some time to

 5     discuss it but as I referenced --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, am I allowed to make my objection on

 7     the record.  The section that --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  -- he read from the transcript --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger was responding.  You shouldn't interrupt

13     him at that moment.

14             MR. IVETIC:  He cannot respond until I'm done giving the

15     objection.  I was still speaking, Your Honours.  He interrupted me.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If that's the case, then I may have missed that.

17     Your objection should be limited to not -- should be limited in the sense

18     that it doesn't guide the witness.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And if need be, you can make objections while the

21     witness takes his earphones off.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Well, if we can go back to the section of the

23     transcript -- if I go back to -- I'll just read Mr. Tieger's question,

24     let's put it that way.

25             At temporary transcript page 39, line 9, Mr. Tieger starts by

Page 44278

 1     saying:

 2             "Okay.  Witness, earlier, that is, in June, you were asked at

 3     transcript page 44175 by His Honour Judge Moloto the following:

 4             "'I have another question too.  You've talked about taking

 5     photographs as you were walking along the distance.  Do you have those

 6     photographs?'

 7             "And you answered:

 8             "'I handed them over at the last trial I attended.  Of course, we

 9     made a huge number of photos, hundreds, but I supplied the most important

10     ones, I think 10 or'" -- it says 120, but I think it was 20 in the

11     Karadzic transcript -- pardon me, in our transcript from June 15th.  "'I

12     had brought them with me to prove my point.'"

13             Then Mr. Tieger goes on to the next page of the transcript of the

14     15th of June:

15             "... you added:

16             "'I remember the Court,' referring to the Karadzic Chamber, 'had

17     no doubts about the veracity of my testimony because the Court accepted

18     the photographs.'"

19             He is not talking about all of the photographs he took.  It's not

20     identifying what number were accepted.  So to say that this document now

21     shows a different image than what the witness testified about is

22     misstating the testimony.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's try to cut matters short.  If the same

24     number of photographs were tendered and admitted in Karadzic, and I take

25     it that that's your position, just four, and if the same are admitted

Page 44279

 1     here, then the Chamber will be able to assess the probative value of the

 2     testimony of the witness that accepting such photographs means what the

 3     witness -- the meaning the witness attaches to that, because the

 4     situation then in Karadzic and the situation in this Chamber is exactly

 5     the same.

 6             Let's leave it to that.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  And, again, the photographs are tendered because

 8     they were associated to the statement which is the Karadzic statement.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing I say is if the witness gives a

10     specific meaning of the Chamber accepting the photographs, which I do

11     understand also on the basis of your submission, that is tendered and

12     admitted, then we are exactly here in the same situation, and this

13     Chamber is fully able to make up for itself on what it means that those

14     four photographs are admitted into evidence as they were in the Karadzic

15     case.  I think it's -- there's not much more to be said about it.

16             I don't know whether you insist on further asking questions about

17     this to the witness, Mr. Tieger, because then [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             MR. TIEGER:  No, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we leave it to that.  The question is put,

20     objected to, and Mr. Tieger does not insist on an answer to his question.

21             Please proceed.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             MR. TIEGER:

24        Q.   And, finally, Colonel, in respect of your testimony to this Court

25     that the Karadzic Chamber had no doubts about the veracity of your

Page 44280

 1     testimony, I'd like to look at, in fact, what the Trial Chamber

 2     considered about your testimony.

 3             MR. TIEGER:  And in that respect, I'd like 65 ter 33829, found at

 4     tab 22 of the Registrar's binder.  This is paragraph 4342 of the Karadzic

 5     Judgement.

 6        Q.   Turning to the fourth sentence of that paragraph:

 7             "Thus, the Chamber did not find Demurenko credible when he

 8     testified that no suitable positions existed on the SRK side of the

 9     confrontation line nor did it believe him when he testified that he in

10     fact examined an area much larger than the one he discussed in his

11     interview of 2 September 1995 and in his evidence in the Dragomir

12     Milosevic case.  The Chamber considers that examining an area covering

13     all of the directions of fire established at the time, together with the

14     margin of error, would have been impossible in the limited amount of time

15     Demurenko had.  In addition, the Chamber finds it telling that he only

16     mentioned this broader investigation [sic] after the Trial Chamber in the

17     Dragomir Milosevic case" --

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It says "inspection" instead of "investigation,"

19     "this broader inspection after the Trial Chamber ..."

20             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   I'll repeat the sentence.

22             "In addition, the Chamber finds it telling that he only mentioned

23     this broader inspection after the Trial Chamber in the Dragomir Milosevic

24     case had dismissed his investigation as having been too narrow.  The

25     Chamber is, therefore, convinced that Demurenko simply changed his

Page 44281

 1     testimony in order to counteract the findings of that Trial Chamber."

 2             The fact is, Colonel, that contrary to your claim to this Court

 3     that the Karadzic Trial Chamber found -- had no -- "had no doubts about

 4     the veracity" of your testimony, they considered that you were not

 5     credible; right?

 6        A.   I don't understand.  Is that a question to me?

 7        Q.   Yes, it is.

 8        A.   If I'm to take you at your word in your last sentence, namely,

 9     that the Court does not trust Witness Demurenko, then all my activity in

10     my coming to this court to give evidence over the past few years is

11     pointless.  What was the point of listening to my arguments instead of

12     just saying, No, you are wrong.  This just shows your bias and lack of

13     neutrality.  You are biased and it was clear already at the last session

14     when during the second day, the President of the Court repeated the

15     questions of the Defence counsel three times and repeated your questions

16     13 times.  That was clear pressure on the witness.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you are supposed not to comment on the

18     behaviour of the parties or of this Chamber.  You are here, again, not to

19     hear your -- that we can hear your argument.  We are here to listen to

20     your testimony as a witness of fact.

21             Would you please be so kind to answer the question.  The question

22     was about where you claimed that the other Trial Chamber by accepting

23     your photographs thought that you gave reliable evidence, that this

24     portion of the Judgement suggests or states that they were not convinced

25     by the reliability of your evidence in this specific respect.

Page 44282

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, I'm answering the way I

 2     see it.  I provided these photographs because they were needed at the

 3     moment.  If the Chamber had asked me for more photographs, I have dozens,

 4     if not hundreds.  Some of them I still keep.  I would have provided the

 5     rest but they were not needed so they remained in my private archive.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's not exactly an answer to Mr. Tieger's

 7     question as I repeated it.

 8             But, Mr. Tieger, please proceed.  But I'm looking at the clock.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I'm mindful of the time, Mr. President, and I think

10     at this point I would only tender the remaining portions of 65 ter 33681

11     that now is the -- the excerpt is from the Karadzic transcript.  They've

12     now been uploaded into e-court under 33681a and we'd ask that they be

13     assigned P7844.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, we note that transcript page 28964 of

15     the Karadzic transcript dealing with the Lugonja document which has now

16     been admitted into court is not included in the section that Mr. Tieger

17     discussed the witness with [sic].  We would ask that that be included as

18     well for context since that's where the questioning starts about that

19     issue.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you verify that, Mr. Tieger, apart from that

21     it is mainly an administrative matter, to have uploaded the portions also

22     Mr. Ivetic referred to.  Take your time to verify.  I mean, it's not an

23     urgent matter.  It's not -- no decision on admissibility in itself has to

24     be taken.  It is just an administrative follow-up.

25             MR. TIEGER:  Fine.  Thank you, Mr. President.


Page 44283

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then this concludes your cross-examination?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  It does.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Demurenko, Mr. Ivetic will now re-examine you

 4     once he has installed the furniture.

 5             Mr. Ivetic, if you are ready, please proceed.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 7                           Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

 8        Q.   Colonel, first of all, allow me to greet and welcome you back,

 9     since it has been such a long time.  I, therefore, wish you a good day.

10             The first questions that I want to ask you about is in relation

11     to the multiple times in the transcript of the cross-examination when you

12     were asked about your prior answers in the Dragomir Milosevic trial.

13             Do you recall if, during the Dragomir Milosevic trial, your

14     testimony was completely done with Russian translation or were there

15     times when it was also conducted in English?

16        A.   Just as here today, standard procedure.

17        Q.   Okay.  And now I want to move to focus on the investigation of

18     the Markale market incident.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Ivetic, do you allow me to put one

20     question --

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- with respect to interpretation.

23             Mr. Demurenko, do you remember if in the Karadzic case you

24     testified also with interpretation or in the English language?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, 99 per cent of the time I speak

Page 44284

 1     Russian.  Although there were a couple of sentences I said in English in

 2     those trials, but that was a mistake.  I testified in Russian.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 4             Mr. Ivetic.

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   Now I'd like to focus on the investigation that your team

 7     undertook as to the Markale market incident.  You were asked several

 8     times about the video of your press conference that you gave in 1995,

 9     which has been admitted as, I believe, D2122 in those proceedings, and

10     you were asked several times by the Prosecution and Trial Chamber as to

11     the angle of descent and the issue of a line being drawn on a map.  And

12     we see this primarily from the transcript of the 15 June 2016 court date

13     at transcript pages 44115 to 44116.  And you repeatedly told both the

14     Prosecution and the Trial Chamber the same thing; namely that you relied

15     on the results of the prior investigations for both the line on the map

16     and the angle of descent.  And we'll get to that, but I'd first like to

17     ask you:  After getting information from the prior investigations, what

18     steps did your team take to determine what path you had to travel on the

19     actual territory to conduct your investigation?

20        A.   Well, it was quite simple.  We had a map and it was visible on

21     the map.  We only had to agree with the warring parties about the

22     possibility for the group to travel that route, and we headed out with

23     cameras and with the required good will to investigate properly.

24        Q.   And, sir, you indicated you had the map.  How did you use the map

25     to identify the path that you had to travel through?  Were there any

Page 44285

 1     steps taken before setting out?

 2        A.   For a military man, a professional, nothing much is needed.  As I

 3     explained in the previous session, not even a GPS is needed.  We can see

 4     on the spot the lie of the land.  We mark landmarks and we follow the

 5     route uphill from one way point to another way point, following the route

 6     as indicated on the map, as charted.

 7        Q.   And, Colonel, you say that you marked landmarks and you follow a

 8     route via way points.  What devices or procedures are undertaken to

 9     identify landmarks and way points?

10        A.   As I said, we had no GPS.  We used the artillery compass and

11     basic equipment, and that was enough to make a plan and chart a route.

12        Q.   And now to focus on the interview, that is to say, the press

13     conference that you gave in 1995, you were asked about -- by the Judge

14     about why you did things the way you did in that press conference.  And

15     at transcript 44126, you said you were not a PR specialist and had no

16     preparation for talking to the media.

17             And I want to ask you:  How much time did you have to prepare

18     before giving that press conference?

19        A.   I cannot tell you exactly to an hour but I had not more than one

20     or two days to prepare.  I had my bullet points and the photographs that

21     I showed.

22        Q.   And now, several times during the cross-examination back in June,

23     Mr. Tieger focused on the documents that you held in your hand during

24     that interview, during that press conference.  And he showed you 65 ter

25     number 14297a and that is now in evidence as P7841 --

Page 44286

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please repeat the 65 ter number.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  14297a.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  That's correct.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   And then in the cross-examination, Mr. Tieger further showed you

 6     another document which he said showed that the UN investigation got

 7     160 degrees and the other document that he showed you was P797, page 7,

 8     but he did not go through some other parts of that document or other

 9     documents with you.

10             Now, at the transcript at page 44082, that's the part of the

11     video of the press conference, when talking about the French report you

12     say as follows:

13             "No, the main serious facts for us is following.  This is a

14     material, maybe one portion of the whole material of UN specialist about

15     the shelling.  This is a short report with, is centred on French language

16     but with strange conclusion."

17             And then the press conference goes on.

18             Now, based on what you recall, beyond this French report did you

19     have access to other material from UN specialists in relation to Markale?

20        A.   In theory, I could have perhaps asked for other documents, but it

21     was simply not necessary.  All the UN experts were part of the contingent

22     that was subordinate to me.  It was enough for me to listen to the press

23     conference that was falsely given by one representative, then to look at

24     the drawings and sketches and maps showing trajectories and alternative

25     trajectories, and then what remained was to assemble a group, get

Page 44287

 1     agreements from the two sides, and proceed with the investigation.  It

 2     was rather a simple matter for a professional military man.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And during your press conference you referred to a photo,

 4     and it is 65 ter number 33705 on the Prosecution's list, which you should

 5     have there, so if you would like to take a look at it, but it's a photo

 6     you showed.  And at transcript page 44083, lines 2 through 6, again, this

 7     is transcript from your press conference, you say as follows:

 8             "This is a picture about, it's very interesting, this material of

 9     Bosnian police, I mean, I mean, government Bosnian police, is about angle

10     between ground and shell.  As you can see degrees, and the last paper is

11     really" --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I see on the transcript 70 degrees, as

13     you can see 70 degrees and I missed that in your reading, the number.

14             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise, I must have ... yeah, that's correct.

15     You are correct, Your Honours, I must have skipped over that in my

16     reading.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you re-start then.  It's about angle and

18     then --

19             MR. IVETIC:  "... is about, about angle between ground and shell.

20     As can you see 70 degrees, and the last paper is really, this is a small

21     slice of copy from map, and this is my idea which I can explain on this

22     paper."

23        Q.   And then at this point of the press conference you started to

24     draw with a free hand on paper to illustrate your investigation.

25             And I want to ask you:  Apart from this photo that you had in

Page 44288

 1     your hand from the Bosnian police, did you or members of your team

 2     perhaps consult other parts of the report of the Bosnian police as to the

 3     Markale incident?

 4        A.   As I said before, we had two pieces of paper in our hands.  One

 5     was an excerpt from the map indicating possible trajectories; and the

 6     second was a drawing indicating the shell as it was landing at a certain

 7     angle --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Extra microphones must be

 9     turned off.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I'm repeating.  I had two pieces

11     of paper in my hand.  One of them was a diagram showing the shell and the

12     angle of impact and also some numbers; and the second was an excerpt of

13     the map showing two possible directions of descent.  That was enough for

14     any professional to search for possible positions where it was fired

15     from, which we proceeded to do.

16             MR. IVETIC:

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. IVETIC:  And just for the record, Your Honours --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I didn't mind what the witness said in

20     answer to your question.  I leave it to that, but apparently you're

21     satisfied with it.

22             Yes, please proceed.  For the record ...

23             MR. IVETIC:  For the record, P797, which Mr. Tieger used in

24     cross-examination, at page 3 identifies 170 degrees as being found by the

25     UNMO team.  P2608, page 36 in Serbian and page 20 in the English

Page 44289

 1     similarly identifies 170 degrees, not the 160 Mr. Tieger was making

 2     reference to.  And P496, page 2 in English and page 3 in the B/C/S, is

 3     the report of the official Bosnian police which says 170 degrees plus or

 4     minus 5 degrees, which again is not the 160 that Mr. Tieger was

 5     referencing during his cross-examination.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, apparently this seems to be the

 7     beginning of argument, but could you please briefly respond on a

 8     factual -- 160 degrees --

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I was just rising to make the same point.  This is

10     not appropriate for cross-examination.  This the commencement of argument

11     which will eventually take place but is not about the cross-examination I

12     conducted or the steps taken by this particular witness.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honour, when I made that same objection

14     to the Prosecution doing this very same thing, I was struck down.  So --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We're not going to further argue.  You are referring

16     to the 160 Mr. Tieger used.  If you could, not necessarily now

17     immediately, give us the exact transcript page where we find that.  And

18     again you can continue now to start with, but ...

19             MR. IVETIC:  Okay, I can continue and I'll get back to that.  I

20     think -- actually I can tell you right away.  It was transcript page

21     44190 of the Mladic -- 44190.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, anything to add at this moment?

23             MR. TIEGER:  I didn't think such clarification was necessary but

24     maybe it was.  My point was -- arose out of the documents that we can see

25     visible in the video, on the documents the witness indicated he had, and

Page 44290

 1     trying to decipher what was written on those documents and that was it.

 2     It is not a further argument about what happened in relation to the

 3     investigation more generally that didn't have to do with this witness.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Now it's clear what Mr. Ivetic was referring to.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 7        Q.   Colonel, I would now like to return to the map that you held in

 8     your hand with a line drawn on it.  It's visible at 4 minutes and

 9     14 seconds of the press conference video.  Who drew the line on that map,

10     was it your team or someone else?

11    A. Certainly not. That was precisely why it was valuable to get a document

12    from an interested party, such as the map and the trajectory of the shell,

13     specifically so that later on, they could not say that the Russians or

14     the Serbs or the UN or whoever deliberately made a sketch and conducted

15    an investigation for themselves.  We took as a basis a document made by

16    the other side, started investigating and showed: you are cheating.

17        Q.   And if we could focus on that bearing line that you went into the

18     field to review based upon the map, you repeatedly told the Prosecution

19     in cross-examination that you went along the whole line and not just

20     points of the line.  And so I want to ask you a question.  If a

21     120-millimetre mortar had been fired by anyone along or near to that

22     bearing line that you followed, what type of traces would you have

23     expected to see evidencing such a mortar as being fired?

24        A.   I already answered that question before but I will answer it

25     again with pleasure.

Page 44291

 1             A mortar cannot be suspended in air.  It has to rely on something

 2     and has to leave traces.  There always - and I repeat always - remain

 3     traces of the use of land to place a mortar and to fire it, and there

 4     remain boxes lying around and cases of ammunition, et cetera.  Nobody

 5     cleans up a place after using a mortar.  It's not a public park.

 6             Either it was true and it had to be accepted that the Serbs were

 7     the aggressors or one had to inspect the possible places of firing and to

 8     prove otherwise, and then it was up to the UN to investigate further who

 9     actually fired the shell.

10        Q.   And now during cross-examination, the Prosecution kept asking you

11     about different types of 120-millimetre mortars and different types of

12     120-millimetre mortar shells.  Do -- strike that.

13             Are there any differences in the traces that you would expect to

14     be found depending on the type of shell that was fired from a

15     120-millimetre mortar?

16        A.   I'll answer that.  The consultants that advised Mr. Tieger did a

17     very bad job.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you -- would you --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, there were

20     120-millimetre mortars and shells of the same calibre provided by the

21     Yugoslav army, but that is completely irrelevant.  In any case, traces

22     remain.  They cannot evaporate, vanish into thin air.  Some kind of trace

23     always remain.  They told us to look for 120-millimetre mortar shells or

24     traces of a 120-millimetre mortar.  We didn't find any, which means that

25     there was nothing.

Page 44292

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, again no answer to the question, but if

 4     you are satisfied, please go on.  The question was whether the different

 5     types of 120-millimetre mortar shells leave different traces, yes or no.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  And the answer then at line 11:

 7             "In any case, traces remain."

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Oh, if that's an -- if you consider that to be

 9     an answer, then please proceed.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Let me then ask a follow-up question to address

11     Your Honours' concerns.

12        Q.   Does the existence of a trace on the ground from a fired mortar

13     matter -- pardon me.  Does the type of round used in a mortar matter in

14     relation to the existence of a trace on the ground from the firing of

15     that mortar?

16        A.   Well, in order to understand whether something was fired or not,

17     it doesn't make any difference.  But if you put the question differently.

18     We know that something was fired.  You, the investigators, find out which

19     type of mortar and which type of ammunition was used.  Then we would use

20     different equipment to find out what kind of cases are left, to establish

21     diameters of traces, et cetera.  We would do it differently.  But that

22     question was not put.  The question was whether a mortar was fired from

23     there.

24        Q.   And in relation to that question of whether a mortar was fired

25     from there, does the type of shell used make any difference as to the

Page 44293

 1     existence of traces on the ground from that firing?

 2        A.   Absolutely none.  Any mortar shell, modified or old

 3     120 millimetre or other, leaves the same kind of traces.  And the same

 4     shrapnel and the same crater.

 5        Q.   Now I'd like to turn to the questions posed to you today as to

 6     paragraph 38 of your 92 ter statement, D2120, and it will be on page 13

 7     of the document.  I will read it to you since I thought I heard that

 8     the -- that that page was missing from the materials that were sent

 9     there.  And this is -- this the statement talking about the incident

10     between the French UNPROFOR and the Serbs, and it says:

11             "The only incident between the Serb forces and the UNPROFOR in

12     Sarajevo after the NATO bombing of the Serb positions that I remember was

13     the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge in Sarajevo.  There were

14     two check-points from both (Serb and Muslims) sides of the bridge and the

15     Serbs and Muslims were shooting against each other.  The Serb soldiers

16     then went on an offensive and captured the Bosnian Muslim trenches.  The

17     Bosnian Muslims informed the French UNPROFOR about this and the French

18     command ordered its French troops to attack the Serb units at the

19     occupied check-point.  The French soldiers attacked the Serbs and both

20     French and Serb soldiers got killed in this attack.  If I remember

21     correctly, some seven French and ten Serb soldiers got killed in this

22     fighting.  It was a big scandal within the UN because the UN forces

23     directly attacked one of the warring sides."

24             And the first question I have for you is:  What is the basis or

25     source for the information that you have relayed in this paragraph of

Page 44294

 1     your statement?

 2        A.   It was all in the reports, all types of reports, because they

 3     were made not only by intelligence units but also all the contingents of

 4     the UN, all the check-points, all the military observers, et cetera.

 5             So several times a day, we received reports on the situation in

 6     the sector, and as soon as that happened at the Brotherhood and Unity

 7     bridge, I found out about it and I headed out to see with my own eyes

 8     what had happened.

 9        Q.   And you indicated you wanted to see with your own eyes what had

10     happened.  Were you able to, in fact, see with your own eyes any part of

11     these activities that are relayed in paragraph 38?

12        A.   What I did see was the place, the results of the tragedy that had

13     taken place, the blood on the tarmac.  The wounded and the killed had

14     been taken away by that time, but they were already in hospitals, and I

15     regularly visited hospitals for moral support.

16             I had been at that bridge many times, and after the incident, I

17     simply went out on purpose to see the aftermath of the incident.

18        Q.   Thank you, Colonel.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, for the --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one --

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- additional question in this respect.

23             When you went to that place, did you see an observation post

24     which, I think it was number 4, FreBat number 4, there?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I saw the observation point on

Page 44295

 1     both sides.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I was asking for specifically this observation point

 3     from FreBat 4 which appears in the report you signed.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw the observation point of the

 5     French Battalion.  Now, the name of the battalion and the number of the

 6     observation post I can't tell you now because I had seen thousands.  It

 7     was not my purpose at that time to establish this type of detail.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that where you saw the blood?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  The blood-stains were around

10     the Bosnian check-point and the Serbian check-point, where the fighting

11     had taken place using automatic weapons, where the killed and the wounded

12     had spilt their blood on the tarmac.  That has nothing to do with the

13     observation point.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So what you describe in paragraph 38, then, of your

15     statement is not the same event as was in the reports we have looked at

16     about FreBat 4?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a question.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  Several times

20     Mr. Tieger referred to some problems in Blazuj, in some other locations

21     in Sarajevo.  It all got blended together and confused.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, my question is not blending anything together.

23     What I was asking you is that the re-taking of a certain position by the

24     French UNPROFOR, whether they re-took both their own observation post and

25     a check-point or whether it's all one event.

Page 44296

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember well, the Serbian

 2     troops did not take any observation points.  That was a war between two

 3     parties, the Bosniaks and the Serbs.  The Serbs did not set themselves

 4     the task of capturing an observation post.  The Bosnians attacked, and

 5     the French tried to repel the attack.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Again, not an answer to my question.  But,

 7     Mr. Ivetic, if you wish to proceed, please do so.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I'm trying to figure out how to proceed,

 9     Your Honour, but Your Honour has asked two questions that I don't see

10     being the same questions.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, there's no need to comment on my

12     questions.  If you have any questions to be put to the witness, you may

13     put them to the witness, and the thinking is not necessarily done aloud.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   If we can take a look at what was 65 ter number 33674 used with

16     you today and therefore it should be there in the packet that the

17     Prosecution provided.  It has now been admitted into evidence as P7845 or

18     95, I can't read my own handwriting, but this was the -- there it is on

19     the screen right now.

20             I believe this is what --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's -45.

22             MR. IVETIC:  -45, thank you.

23        Q.   I believe this is the report that Judge Orie was asking about as

24     to FreBat 4.  And the question that I would ask in follow up is:  Do you

25     know if this incident which is said to take place at the Vrbanja bridge

Page 44297

 1     is the same incident that you describe in paragraph 38 of your statement

 2     as being at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge.  Do you know if they're one

 3     and the same or what can you tell us about that?

 4        A.   Why are you starting from that?  First of all, we can look at the

 5     times.  27 May was the date of the incident in Vrbanja, and at the

 6     Brotherhood and Unity bridge the incident was in September, and these are

 7     two different places rather far, one from another.

 8        Q.   Thank, you, sir.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Now for my last several questions, I actually need

10     the guidance of Your Honours.  At the beginning of today the witness

11     waived confidentiality for a certain document, from the memorandum, and I

12     have some questions to pose as to that memorandum.  The Defence position

13     always has been that the memorandum with the names of the VWS personnel

14     redacted should be public, I think we've made that clear in our various

15     filings, and therefore we believe the questions posed about that

16     memorandum, excerpting the names the VWS personnel, should be made in

17     public.  But Your Honours gave a date of 22nd August for both parties to

18     provide any objections to any parts of that being made public, and so I

19     don't know whether I should proceed now in open session or otherwise, and

20     I ask Your Honours' instruction.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, of course, the time is not there yet

22     when you're supposed to make submissions.  Reference to the memorandum,

23     certainly without giving names of VWS officials, would that be opposed by

24     the Prosecution to do that in open session?

25             MR. TIEGER:  No.

Page 44298

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have to consult with my colleagues.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If you cautiously use that memorandum, then there is

 4     no problem.  But before you would do so, I have one question to the

 5     witness.

 6             Witness, you have read the memorandum shown to you earlier where

 7     you waived your right to confidentiality of your document.  Yes, you are

 8     showing it to us.  You also wrote us a letter.  Now, do we have to

 9     primarily rely on the letter or do we have to primarily rely on the

10     content of the memorandum in which VWS refers to communications with you?

11             Which of the two gives the reasons?  Because they're not the

12     same, as you may have noticed.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Naturally, please rely

14     on my letter because the memorandum does not reflect the whole truth.  I

15     can comment further if you give me the possibility.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say the memorandum does not give the whole

17     truth, do I have to understand that at least what is said in the

18     memorandum, that is, you being unhappy and perhaps even slightly

19     irritated or strongly irritated by what happened to you on the 15th of

20     June and perhaps the preceding day or days, that that still stands

21     although is not the whole of the story.  Is that how we have to

22     understand it?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to stress that the emphasis

24     in the memorandum is on my emotional outbursts and dissatisfaction.  You

25     can ignore that.  You can set that aside.  That's not important.  What is

Page 44299

 1     important is literally the last sentence, when you told me that it was

 2     necessary to continue the session the next day, and I told you that I had

 3     no time.  And if you remember, the initial letter was I was able to

 4     attend from the 10th and the 16th -- until the 16th.  To which you

 5     answered:  It's your problem.

 6             You did not want to listen to me and you ignored my problem.

 7     That was the point, and I described all that in the letter.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now one final question.  You say your emotional

 9     response is not relevant.  We can ignore that.  But I would like to know

10     is what is described there, whether that is what you communicated with

11     VWS, the Victims and Witness Section, irrespective of how relevant that

12     is?  Does it reflect the content of your communication with the Victims

13     and Witness Section?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It reflects it truthfully.

15     However, the secondary points were made in front of the most important

16     ones.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, fine.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said, most importantly, that I

19     could not stay the night because the next day I had to be at work.  They

20     did not, in other words, include in the memorandum what I said first.

21     They included instead things that I had to say of the second order, to

22     put it that way.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And on the 15th of -- you did not tell us, the

24     Chamber, when we adjourned for the day and told you that we'd like to see

25     you back the next morning on the 16th, you didn't tell us at that point

Page 44300

 1     in time that you couldn't come because you had to return to work.  Is

 2     that your recollection as well?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember only that you did not

 4     let me say it.  I was raising my hand, wanted to ask three questions.  I

 5     could ask two and I couldn't ask the third.  You didn't let me express my

 6     point of view.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Proceed --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said immediately when they

 9     addressed me that I am going to leave.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You've answered my question.

11             Mr. Ivetic, please proceed, I'm also looking at the clock.  How

12     much time you think you would need?

13             MR. IVETIC:  I can't do it in two minutes, so why don't we take

14     the break and we'll just have a short last session.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have a few other matters to deal with as

16     well --

17             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- so if we could -- if there's any chance that we

19     could continue until 2.30, then that might be -- if you are short, and,

20     Mr. Tieger, how much time would you need in --

21             MR. TIEGER:  Very short.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Very short.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Five minutes at most, I think.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

25             MR. IVETIC:  I think we're good with that.

Page 44301

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes?  Yes, but you don't know what we have on our

 2     agenda until 2.00.

 3             Madam Registrar, could you try to find out whether we could have

 4     a little bit of an extended session, and, Mr. Ivetic, could you discuss

 5     with your client whether we have to come back tomorrow or whether we

 6     could finalise it even if we go a little bit over the usual time.

 7             Then we'll take the break first, and how many more minutes you

 8     said you would need?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I would anticipate five to seven.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take the break first.  We'll take the break

11     and we'll resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 1.11 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Expecting that the videolink is functioning well,

15     Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

17        Q.   I'd like to highlight various portions of this memorandum and I

18     hope you have it in front of you in the Russian language.  Unfortunately,

19     I only have the English and therefore will have to read the English

20     version.  And again, we should not mention any of the names of the people

21     that are identified in the memorandum.

22             But I'd like to look at the third paragraph of this memorandum,

23     which I will read in full and then ask some questions about, and it says:

24             "Shortly thereafter," and then a name which we will not repeat,

25     "visited the witness at the hotel and informed him that his testimony was

Page 44302

 1     not finished and that he had been orally instructed by the Trial Chamber

 2     to appear the next day at 9.30.  She also advised him that the

 3     Trial Chamber could possibly hold him in contempt or at least subpoena

 4     him to complete his evidence.  Upon her return to the office," again we

 5     won't mention the person's name, "informed VWS that the witness expressed

 6     the words to this effect that he felt under pressure and treated in an

 7     aggressive and unreasonable way, that he was insulted that he was not

 8     allowed to shake hands with General Mladic, and that he was not going to

 9     continue his testimony, that he had to return for his work and that he

10     planned to make his own way to the airport and depart Holland, if

11     necessary."

12             And I think you've already answered to Judge Orie that everything

13     here is true, just that the order is not accurate.  Is everything here

14     complete in terms of the information that you gave to the VRS -- to the

15     VWS personnel on the 15th of June, 2016, or is something missing?

16        A.   That's the truth.  It's only that the stresses are wrong, in the

17     wrong places.  In the first place was my need to return within the

18     time-frame indicated in the letter that had been sent earlier from

19     Moscow.

20        Q.   And in relation to that letter, was that a letter sent by your

21     employer or by yourself; and to whom?

22        A.   I myself.

23        Q.   And was that with VWS or somebody else?

24        A.   You mean did someone else help me write the letter?  No.  I wrote

25     it myself from Moscow.

Page 44303

 1        Q.   No, no, I'm saying that was the letter to VWS that you're talking

 2     about.  Is that the letter we're talking about?

 3        A.   If I remember well, it was addressed to (redacted) - the woman

 4     who --

 5        Q.   We shouldn't --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- had been in touch with me

 8     before.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We have to be very careful here, Witness.  Is

10     that -- the letter that you're referring to, is that the letter sent to

11     the Victims and Witness Section and, as the Chamber understood, as letter

12     of the same content to the Defence?  That is the letter you're referring

13     to?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like us to talk about one

15     and the same letter.  I don't know her official position or title, but

16     it's the woman who had been keeping in touch with me before I arrived.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Okay.  And now in this paragraph, it is indicated here that you

19     "felt under pressure and treated in an aggressive and unreasonable way."

20             By whom did you feel pressured and treated aggressively and in an

21     unreasonable way?

22        A.   May I refrain from answering that question?  I would not like to

23     create any more discomfort for the esteemed personnel of this Tribunal.

24        Q.   Okay.  Then I'll ask you, earlier you indicated you had -- you

25     wanted to make some comments or commentary as to this memorandum, and I'd


Page 44304

 1     like to give you the opportunity now to identify any other comments that

 2     you have about the content of this memorandum, but cautioning that you

 3     should not identify the names of any of the individuals that are

 4     mentioned in it from the VS service.

 5        A.   I did express my position in bits and pieces already.  Going up

 6     to the first paragraph, the questions and answers in the first session.

 7     Then referring to the confidential part.  There's the issue of my

 8     employer and his requirements.  The fact that the session was first

 9     scheduled for the 13th, then was delayed until the 14th, then was

10     postponed until the 15th.  And eventually my employer decided to

11     accommodate only me personally and gave me permission to stay away until

12     the 16th.  I have nothing to add, really.

13        Q.   Okay, Colonel.  Then, in that case, I only would thank you again

14     on behalf of myself personally and my client and the rest of the team for

15     all of your testimony and for agreeing to come back via videolink to

16     complete it.  We thank you and appreciate it and apologise for any

17     inconvenience that you may have felt from the Defence side, if there was

18     any.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, any further questions for the witness?

20             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

21                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:

22        Q.   Colonel, my only remaining question concerns page 38 of your

23     statement, that portion of the statement that deals with the incident on

24     the bridge.  Earlier today you'll recall that in connection with that, I

25     pointed out your testimony in the Karadzic case during which the Janvier

Page 44305

 1     report was shown to you - that report is 2559 in this case - and read out

 2     to you what you said at the time in response to being shown that document

 3     and what you said to this -- and it's now in evidence -- that transcript

 4     is going to be in evidence.  You pointed out that -- or why -- you asked:

 5             "Why don't you take a sitrep that speaks to the same incident in

 6     Sector Sarajevo where it happened and compare the information in one

 7     report and the other.  As you understand, on the ground things are much

 8     clearer than up at the top and then you would see what exactly happened?"

 9             And then we continued during the course of your examination today

10     to call up your sitrep or the sitrep you released from the 27th of

11     May and discussed that, but what we didn't do -- I would now like to turn

12     to what you said in the Karadzic case when you were confronted with the

13     same document.

14             And that's found at transcript page 28975 of the Karadzic

15     testimony, which is 65 ter 33681 at page 35.  That should be one of the

16     pages -- the last page uploaded under -- or one of the pages uploaded

17     under 33681a already.

18             And so after your invitation to take a sitrep that speaks to the

19     same incident in Sector Sarajevo, we called this document up in the

20     Karadzic case.  We looked at it here today.  Here's what you said in --

21     so you were asked about that, and as we can see from this portion of the

22     transcript and the question, you had a chance to see the same references

23     in that document that you saw here today:  The reference on the first

24     page; the references on page 4 about the hottest point was the reconquest

25     by FreBat 4 of the Vrbanja bridge; the reference on page 7, Bosnian Serb

Page 44306

 1     army soldiers invade the Vrbanja bridge dressed in UN equipment.  And

 2     then the references in the chronology on pages 10 and 11 of the document

 3     reflecting that at 0430 Bosnian Serb army soldiers who were wearing the

 4     UN French clothes, et cetera, seized the bridge, blocked the soldiers,

 5     and then the reference on the next page to the retaking of that.

 6             And when presented with that document in the Karadzic case, you

 7     said the following, Colonel, and that's found on the next page, 28976:

 8             "It would be advantageous for me to use your methods when you

 9     compared the figures, the figures that I mentioned and the figures that

10     you had had in your hands.  If we were to have a bit more time, which we

11     don't have, and if we were to look at the first report where it said 4.30

12     in the morning, nine soldiers, ten soldiers, and then they mention the

13     uniform of the special forces of the French army, whereas in this

14     document they mention the UN uniforms, not the French uniforms.  So

15     there's a lot of contradiction in these three reports.  This is just

16     another indication of the manipulation that took place.  Depending on who

17     signed the report, they twisted the truth, they twisted the reality, put

18     their spin on it.  So in all these three documents that you showed, the

19     time, the participants, the uniforms, all of that is described

20     differently.  That means that one could play it any way one wanted,

21     relying on each of these reports individually."

22             So when presented with your sitrep in the -- from 27th of May,

23     when presented with that document in the Karadzic case, you did not

24     assert that this represented a different incident than the one referred

25     to in paragraph 38 of your report.  You said, just as you had said about

Page 44307

 1     the Janvier report, that it can't be trusted because of the alleged

 2     contradictions, about the uniform and the number of persons killed and so

 3     on, between your sitrep and the Janvier report.  Correct?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I will object because the section that

 5     has been quoted also says at line 5:  "If we were to have a bit more

 6     time, which we don't have," and then talks about what they could find

 7     looking through the documents.  So I don't believe that it's fair to say

 8     that this is a complete analysis or rendition of the various documents

 9     that were shown to him.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't hear Mr. Tieger presenting it as a complete

11     analysis.  He just put, I think, to the witness what he found in the

12     testimony, and indeed the words you apparently considered to be of

13     importance have now been added.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. TIEGER:

16        Q.   That's essentially correct, isn't it, Colonel, that what you said

17     was that the alleged discrepancies between the description of the event

18     in your sitrep and the Janvier report indicated that it couldn't be

19     trusted, but you never suggested that, in fact, the Janvier report and

20     your 27 May sitrep were referring to different events than the one

21     described in your statement in paragraph 38?

22        A.   Is that a question?

23        Q.   Yes, it is.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  There is too much background noise.  The

25     interpreter can't hear anything.

Page 44308

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is the question?

 2             MR. TIEGER:

 3        Q.   When you testified in the Karadzic case and were shown the same

 4     documents you saw here today, you said that the Janvier report and your

 5     own sitrep, the sitrep you released yourself on the 27th of May, simply

 6     couldn't be trusted about what happened on that date because of the

 7     alleged discrepancies that you referred to, but you didn't suggest, much

 8     less -- you didn't say, much less suggest, that these -- that the Janvier

 9     report and the 27 May sitrep referred to a different event than the one

10     described in paragraph 38 of your statement.

11        A.   I drew your attention to the fact that these were two different

12     sitreps and two different locations.  Vrbanja and the bridge -- and the

13     other bridge are two different places.

14        Q.   You also --

15        A.   There is never a 100 per cent coincidence.

16        Q.   All right.

17             MR. TIEGER:  I'll just add, if I may, add that to the Karadzic

18     excerpts and leave it at that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one question.  How far away are the

20     two bridges from another?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Several kilometres.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  One other question.  You said you went

23     to the place of the incident.  That's where you saw the FreBat 4

24     observation post.  Where was that bridge located?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Brotherhood and Unity bridge

Page 44309

 1     used to be at least across the Miljacka river in the centre of the city,

 2     approximately, near the memorial plaque saying that it was a site where

 3     Gavrilo Princip had killed Crown Prince Ferdinand.  And I just walked

 4     across that bridge.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, when you visited the site of the incident?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, within two hours of the

 7     incident.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So the incident took place two hours away from the

 9     centre of Sarajevo?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I said two hours within --

11     within two hours from the incident and the -- the bridge is in the centre

12     of Sarajevo.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for those answers.

14             MR. TIEGER:  I think for the sake of completeness, if I may have

15     just one more reference to refer to.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do it --

17             MR. TIEGER:  Quickly.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- quickly.

19             MR. TIEGER:  I will try to.

20             If we could turn to page 32 of 33681, and we -- this will

21     complete the entire colloquy during that time.

22        Q.   Colonel, in the Karadzic case you were asked the following,

23     starting at the bottom, actually, of page 28972, that's page 32, as

24     follows:

25             "Colonel, you discussed an incident that you asserted took place

Page 44310

 1     at -- you discussed was what you called the only incident between Serb

 2     forces and UNPROFOR after the NATO bombing, and that was what you said to

 3     be the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge.  That's at your

 4     amalgamated witness statement at paragraph 38.  Would it refresh your

 5     recollection about where that incident took place if I told you that the

 6     only incident that took place between Serb forces and UNPROFOR after the

 7     NATO bombing was -- took place at the Vrbanja bridge.  Is that the -- was

 8     that the incident you were discussing?

 9             "A.  To be quite honest, I don't remember if the Brotherhood

10     Unity bridge is the same as Vrbanja bridge or it's a different bridge.  I

11     simply don't remember.  But I remember that on the Brotherhood and Unity

12     bridge there was a lot of bloodshed in a mutual attack when many UNPROFOR

13     soldiers, French soldiers, were killed, and there must have been other

14     cases.  I do remember.  They did happen."

15             And then we went on to discuss the documents we referred to

16     earlier.  Is that an accurate reflection of what you said in the Karadzic

17     case as far as you recall, Colonel?

18        A.   This only goes to show that I'm not an automaton.  I may have

19     said that the Brotherhood and Unity bridge in my mind is not the same as

20     Vrbanja, but it was in any case at totally different times.  One was in

21     May and another was in September.

22        Q.   Then, with that, I thank you for the time.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, I would add those pages to 7844 and

24     tender it.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  They will be included in the still-to-be-uploaded

Page 44311

 1     portions of the testimony.

 2             Mr. Demurenko, we are at the conclusion of hearing your evidence.

 3     I would like to express that we were glad that you could conclude your

 4     testimony, and I wish you a safe return home, even if it's not as far as

 5     it was before.

 6             Thank you very much.  We can conclude the videolink.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  Would you

 8     allow me to add something?  To thank everyone.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's appreciated.  Thank you.  We'll now conclude

10     the videolink.

11                           [The witness withdrew via videolink]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'd move on with a few procedural items I

13     still have on my agenda.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd first like to deliver the Chamber's decision on

16     the Defence supplemental submission to admit the evidence of

17     Jasmin Odobasic dated the 1st of August, 2016.

18             On the 17th of June, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion

19     pursuant to Rule 92 quater of the Rules tendering the written statement

20     of Odobasic and related documents.  The parties indicated that they would

21     make a supplemental submission tendering excerpts of a book authored by

22     the witness.

23             On the 28 of July, the Chamber deferred its decision on the

24     tendering of these excerpts as the parties had not yet agreed on which

25     excerpts were to be tendered.


Page 44312

 1             On the 1st of August, the Defence filed a supplemental submission

 2     tendering into evidence the excerpts agreed between the parties which

 3     were uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number 1D05976.

 4             The Chamber recalls the applicable law for the admission of

 5     evidence is as set out in Rule 89(C) of the Rules, which allows a Chamber

 6     to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.

 7             The Chamber has reviewed the proposed exhibit in light of

 8     Odobasic's statement and, although the witness did not specifically refer

 9     to the book in his statement, the Chamber considers it appropriate to

10     have the proposed exhibit tendered through him as the subject matter of

11     the book is sufficiently related to the witness's statement.

12             With regard to relevance and probative value, the Chamber finds

13     that the proposed exhibit contains information about exhumations

14     throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and is therefore relevant to crimes charged

15     in the indictment.  The Chamber observes that the proposed exhibit

16     contains information regarding its author and its publication and

17     therefore considers that it bears sufficient indicia of reliability and

18     authenticity for the purpose of admission into evidence.

19             In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the

20     Rules, the Chamber grants the motion and admits the document bearing

21     Rule 65 ter number 1D05976 into evidence.

22             Madam Registrar, could you assign an exhibit number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  The exhibit number is D2180, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D2180 is admitted into evidence, and this concludes

25     the Chamber's decision.

Page 44313

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I move to item in relation to Exhibit D2035

 3     which was on the 8th of June, 2016, admitted by the Chamber and the

 4     Chamber instructed the Defence to upload into e-court an English

 5     translation that corresponds to its B/C/S original.

 6             On the 4th of August, the Defence informed the Chamber and the

 7     Prosecution, via an e-mail, that the revised translation had been

 8     uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1538.  The Chamber hereby instructs the

 9     Registry to replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2035 with the

10     revised one.

11             The Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

12             Next item deals with Exhibit D2132.

13             On the 26th of July, the Chamber admitted Exhibit D2132 into

14     evidence.  On the 3rd of August, the Defence e-mailed the Registry, the

15     Chamber, and the Prosecution advising that the revised English

16     translation of the exhibit had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID

17     1D31-1588.

18             The Chamber instructs the Registry the replace the current

19     English translation of the exhibit with the revised one.

20             The Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.

21             I now come to my final issue.  The Chamber recalls that

22     Mr. Demurenko was the last witness to testify during the Defence case.

23     Furthermore, during the last Status Conference on the 8th of July of this

24     year, the Defence listed outstanding evidentiary motions, all of which

25     would be filed within two weeks.  The Chamber understands from all of

Page 44314

 1     this that the Defence has rested its case.

 2             And, Mr. Lukic, can you confirm this?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, we --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I invited Mr. Lukic to --

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Oh --

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, Your Honour, if you allow Mr. Ivetic to

 7     respond.  He is more privy with these details.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  We have a confidential decision that Your Honours

10     issued yesterday in relation to two individuals which we will be filing a

11     motion seeks certification to appeal.  And we have filed a public motion

12     on the 8th of August in relation to documents that were excerpted from

13     the witness statement of Amor Masovic and admitted by this Chamber upon

14     application by the Prosecution as bar table documents which we believe to

15     be improper under the recently recited criteria that the Chamber has used

16     to deny the Defence the ability to do likewise with documents that are

17     not from witness statements, and therefore, in that motion we have sought

18     for those documents to be stricken or, in the alternative, for the

19     individual in question, Amor Masovic, to be called as a witness.  And so

20     subject to those three witnesses, Your Honours, the Defence does not

21     rest.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did you say "does not rest," Mr. Ivetic?

23             MR. IVETIC:  Does not rest.  We don't consider those matters to

24     be closed yet.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Do they have any suspensive effect on the

Page 44315

 1     presentation of evidence?

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Three witnesses which we believe still should be

 3     heard, yes, Your Honours.  Therefore we cannot rest until those matters

 4     are fully litigated.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And if the Chamber would - I'm not saying it will -

 6     but if the Chamber would deny that, then there's nothing remaining, isn't

 7     it.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  That is correct.  And at that time then we would be

 9     able to reconsider this issue.  But as I stand here now, I cannot rest

10     because there are matters still pending.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Ivetic, a motion for certification is the

12     next step -- and the decision about certification to appeal is a step to

13     be taken after the decision by the Chamber is filed.  Therefore, it's

14     not -- no longer part of the Defence case.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, again, I repeat:  On August 8th, 2016,

16     we filed a motion for which this Chamber has not issued a decision, so,

17     therefore, I do believe it is part of the Defence case.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the motion dealing with systematic bias, is

19     that the one?

20             MR. IVETIC:  No, no.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No?

22             MR. IVETIC:  Dealing with Amor Masovic.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, Masovic.  The Defence in the Masovic filing

24     seeks reconsideration of a decision admitting charts into evidence during

25     the Prosecution's case, and in the alternative, Masovic's testimony is

Page 44316

 1     sought, but it is not sought as part of the Defence case.  It's not

 2     presentation of evidence by the Defence, and, therefore, in view of that,

 3     it has no impact on closing.  As a matter of fact, you're suggesting what

 4     we are supposed to do or what the Prosecution should do, but it's not

 5     announcing what the Defence wishes to present as evidence.  That's as far

 6     as Masovic is concerned.

 7             The others you're referring to ...

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Was the confidential decision yesterday as to two

 9     individuals.  That's -- it's the -- Your Honours had -- had denied a

10     motion that had been filed upon the suggestion of the Honourable

11     Judge Moloto at the Status Conference that we had in relation to two

12     witnesses that we wanted to still call that were on our witness list, and

13     that decision said that although they had not been removed from the

14     witness list, the Defence could not call them.  And that's the decision

15     that we will be doing a certification to appeal.  Those two witnesses are

16     foreseen as being part of the Defence case, were indeed on our list, and

17     as I understand it, we have not exhausted the time granted by Chamber for

18     presentation of our Defence case.  And, therefore, we believe that those

19     two witnesses are definitely within the bounds of our Defence case.  And

20     again, it was a confidential decision, otherwise I would gladly tell you

21     their names.  If needed, we can go into private session.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  At this moment we only have a request for issuing a

23     certification to appeal, isn't it?  Or not?  Or not yet.  You intend to

24     do that.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Not yet.  Your Honours filed the decision -- late

Page 44317

 1     yesterday we received it, so I don't know when it was drafted, but we got

 2     it late yesterday.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But it was decided upon yesterday and that means

 4     at the moment that your motion found a final decision, and if you now ask

 5     for certification to appeal, that is the next step beyond the resting of

 6     the Defence case.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  But, Your Honours, we also asked for reconsideration

 8     which would be within the bounds of this Chamber, not to the Appellate

 9     Chamber.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             MR. IVETIC:  For those two, it was not decided.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So we have filed the decision yesterday and we now

14     hear what plans the Defence still has.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it may join some of the other certification

17     motions which are still pending and which have no suspensive effect, if

18     it will be filed.  All those certification motions, including one which

19     may come but we're not aware of yet, are evidentiary.  Certification or

20     reconsideration motions do not have a suspensive effect and therefore do

21     not impact on any closure of the case.

22             One second, please.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there is one other matter which is D2177.  The

25     Prosecution, I think, responded that it would oppose reconsideration or a

Page 44318

 1     certificate to appeal but would not oppose tendering the whole of the

 2     document where the Chamber admitted only four pages until now, that it

 3     was about the positions taken by Russia and the witness testifying on

 4     whether he agreed with those positions, yes or no.  I also do understand

 5     that the Defence in its motion gave as a final alternative to have the

 6     whole of D2177 to be admitted into evidence.  The Chamber is inclined to

 7     follow the suggestion by the parties; that is, that D2177 will be

 8     admitted from the bar table and -- in its entirety.

 9             Any comment on what the Chamber ...

10             MR. IVETIC:  You have correctly stated the positions.  I have

11     just one procedural question.  Since you had already instructed us to

12     upload a redacted version which -- pardon me, a reduced version, can we

13     upload the full version in the same 65 ter number or do we need to do

14     anything different?  That's the question I had.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it was marked for identification as D2177.

16     If you would upload the complete version of that document, then the

17     Registry is hereby instructed to replace the present version of D2177 by

18     the complete version of the same document.

19             Mr. Tieger, you are looking as if something bothers you.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Just logistical, we thought that the entirety

21     already existed under -- uploaded under a number, but one way or another

22     that can be resolved.

23             MR. IVETIC:  It does, it does.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So the entire document is already uploaded --

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.  The original document was the entire -- you

Page 44319

 1     had asked for a reduced portion which had been uploaded and I don't --

 2     I'm not sure if it had been replaced yet or not.  That's why I wanted to

 3     make sure we didn't leave it hanging.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you're right, there is nothing to be replaced.

 5     I withdraw now the instruction to upload a four-page extract of that

 6     document.

 7             And D2177, as it is uploaded now into e-court, is admitted into

 8     evidence.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Under these circumstances, no evidentiary issues

11     remaining, the Chamber establishes that the Defence rests its case and

12     that the Defence case is closed, with the caveat of the -- no, I think I

13     leave it to that.

14             One second, please.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'll move on.  The Chamber further considers

17     that it is in the interests of an expeditious completion of the

18     evidentiary stage of this case to already receive any submissions

19     pursuant to Rule 85 (A)(vi) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and

20     Evidence tendering into evidence information relevant to determining an

21     appropriate sentence if the accused is found guilty and orders the

22     parties to make any submissions by the 25th of August, 2016.

23             Lastly, I address the Prosecution.  The Prosecution filed its

24     rebuttal motion on the 21st of June, 2016.  Not much Defence evidence has

25     been admitted since, but I wanted to verify that there's no need for the

Page 44320

 1     Prosecution to supplement its rebuttal filing or is there?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  That's absolutely correct, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That's then hereby verified.

 4             I have no further items on my agenda.  Any matter to be raised?

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Well, first of all, a strict housekeeping matter

 6     that Ms. Stewart advises me of.  We didn't complete the tendering of

 7     P7844.  All of the excerpts are now uploaded and those are T 28964

 8     through 66 and T 28972 through 76 of the Karadzic transcript.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Uploaded under what number?

10             MR. TIEGER:  33681a.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, all the -- only the pages dealt with with the

12     witness.

13             MR. IVETIC:  And the one that I added that was -- yeah, that's

14     fine.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Is included as well.

16             Madam Registrar, could you please assign a number to 65 ter --

17             MR. TIEGER:  I think number -- it's P7844.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, the number is -- yes, the number was already

19     reserved.  P7844, which now covers the document uploaded under number

20     33681a, is admitted into evidence.

21             Any other matter, Mr. Tieger?

22             MR. TIEGER:  Only to mention that Prosecution also has an

23     interest, as I think everyone in the courtroom does, in the most

24     efficient and expeditious resolution of the case.  We will continue to

25     consider any steps including meeting with the Defence that may facilitate

Page 44321

 1     that, and in that connection would be prepared, I think, to seek from the

 2     Court periodic Status Conferences, even of relatively short duration, in

 3     the interests of moving matters forward and keeping the parties abreast

 4     of the status and any additional steps that could usefully be undertaken.

 5     So I'm not suggesting a specific date at the moment, but I think that

 6     foreshadowing that possibility even on a semi-regular basis is -- could

 7     be a useful method to move us forward.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber appreciates you -- your position.

 9             Mr. Ivetic.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, we have one issue we would like to

11     stress to the Chamber.  We have a motion seeking additional time for the

12     final brief deadline which Your Honours had deferred ruling upon, and so

13     maybe it's something you already had in mind, but I just want to make

14     sure that that was still out there and that we do need a decision on

15     that, to make sure that that wasn't left lost in the clutter.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It is not lost, but we did not want to anticipate

17     too much on what still could happen and now are in a better decision to

18     decide on that motion, and we'll do that within due course.

19             Any other matter to be raised?  Then I didn't hear anything yet

20     about roads and distances.  I looked at it again, and I saw that one of

21     the issues might be whether there's any macadam roads within 6 kilometres

22     or there are no macadam roads within 6 kilometres from the point of

23     impact.  That perhaps gives a bit of more precise description of

24     apparently what the Chamber encourages the parties to agree upon.

25             If there is nothing left, most likely we will not see each other

Page 44322

 1     very soon again, we adjourn sine die.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.26 p.m.,

 3                           sine die.