1 Monday, 10 January 2005

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Registrar, could you call the case, please.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

7 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Registrar.

9 Mr. Oric, good morning to you. Can you follow the proceedings in

10 a language you can understand?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, ladies

12 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings fully.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You may sit down.

14 Appearances for the Prosecution.

15 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,

16 lead counsel for the Prosecution, together with co-counsel Patricia

17 Sellers and Gramsci Di Fazio and our case manager, Ms. Donnica

18 Henry-Frijlink.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good morning to

20 you.

21 Appearances for the Defence.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. My name

23 is Vasvija Vidovic. Together with Mr. John Jones, I represent Mr. Naser

24 Oric before this Tribunal. Joining us are our legal assistants, Ms.

25 Jasmina Cosic and our case manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Madam Vidovic, and good morning

2 to you and your team.

3 I hope you all had a restful and relaxed break, which I expect

4 should have energised you all and I expect you to be all ready, like we

5 are, to work, work, work, and get this case going a little bit faster.

6 We have been doing some work over the holidays, as you know, and

7 in particular myself also with other cases. It's never a dull moment

8 here.

9 I take it that today we will have Ms. Manas again in the courtroom

10 to testify on some documents. Tomorrow we will start with the testimony

11 of the witness we had here before we went on recess, and unfortunately, he

12 was here, had to go, and now he's back. So remind me tomorrow to explain

13 to him.

14 The day after tomorrow, we will not be sitting, as you know.

15 Wednesday we will not be sitting because the whole Bench, permanent and

16 ad litem Judges, together with the other main principal officers of the

17 Tribunal - that is, the Registrar and Madam Prosecutor - will be going to

18 the palace in Amsterdam to exchange greetings with Her Majesty the Queen

19 of the Netherlands, together with the corps diplomatic, so there's no way

20 we can sit, and our sitting was scheduled for the morning, which clashes

21 with this important engagement and commitment that we have. And then we

22 will continue.

23 I also want to put you aware that on the 21st of this month is the

24 Eid Al-Adha, which is also a UN holiday, so on that day, which I think is

25 a Friday, if I remember well, we will not be sitting. But I just wanted

1 to remind you of this in case you had forgotten.

2 I also wanted to remind you of something that we had discussed

3 earlier on, that there will be no court on Friday, the 28th, Friday,

4 the 28th. But I had hinted at the time when we discussed this before the

5 break that there might be the possibility of not sitting or of

6 transferring the sitting from afternoon to the morning of the 27th. It's

7 not the case. We will be sitting on the 27th, as scheduled. So it's only

8 the 28th that we will not be sitting.

9 Before we proceed and before I ask you whether you have any

10 preliminaries, I also, since I will need to discuss this with my staff and

11 with my two colleagues, whether the list of witness sequencing that you

12 filed on the 7th of January, whether it stands or whether there are any

13 amendments to it. Mr. Wubben.

14 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: It stands like this. Okay.

16 At this point in time, there are many other things pending, of

17 course, but most of them need not to be discussed here. We will need to

18 discuss later on, as we go along towards the end of this month, the --

19 again, we will review a little bit the timing of the case, see that we

20 have every interest to make sure that it is not prolonged unduly, and on

21 our part we are taking the necessary steps to make sure that it finishes

22 more or less according to schedule, give and take the usual contingencies,

23 time for contingencies, and then there will be other matters we will

24 discuss as we go along.

25 Before we proceed any further, before we bring in Ms. Manas, are

1 there any preliminaries that you would like to raise? I will start with

2 the Prosecution, Mr. Wubben.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Sellers will raise an issue.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben.

5 MS. SELLERS: Good morning and happy new year.

6 Your Honour, there's just one preliminary matter. We'd like to

7 inform Defence counsel as well as the Bench is that today we will file a

8 94 bis motion for Dr. Stankovic. We would certainly be willing to provide

9 a courtesy copy simultaneous to our handing it over to the registrar. And

10 it's because of the filing of the 94 bis, because Dr. Stankovic will have

11 a slightly mixed status - at least that is what we are asking for - that

12 is an expert and as a fact witness that we've decided to make this a

13 formal procedure on behalf of his expert expert expertise or testimony but

14 we still reserve the right to call him regardless because he does have

15 some factual basis.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

17 Madam Vidovic, any preliminaries on your part?

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: So I will wait for your motion and then we will see

20 what the response of the Defence is and we will decide it accordingly.

21 Madam Usher, could you bring in Ms. Manas, please.

22 [The witness entered court]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Ms. Manas, and welcome back.

24 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: You know what the procedure is. Please take the

1 text of the solemn declaration in your hands and you know how to proceed.

2 WITNESS: RACINE MANAS [Recalled]

3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You may sit down. I take it that you

6 have been summoned again by the Prosecution to proceed with your testimony

7 regarding additional documents or exhibits intended to be tendered by the

8 Prosecution. Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

10 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]

11 Q. Ms. Manas, you recall your evidence on the last occasion that you

12 were here when you provided the Trial Chamber with your declaration and

13 annexure? You remember that evidence?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Since that occasion have you produced another declaration and

16 another annexure relating to new documents?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Looking at the documents that I produced to you, is this the

19 annexure and declaration that you have just spoken of, the new one? I've

20 got copies here for the Trial Chamber.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, do I take it that this also includes

22 what we had before?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: No. These are new documents.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: These are all new documents.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE AGIUS: So in other words --

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Essentially completing what happened on the last

3 occasion.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I just wanted to make sure that it is

5 annex 2, in fact, yes. But it is not inclusive of annex 1, in other

6 words.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no. It shouldn't be.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no. I just want to make sure. It shouldn't

9 be if it's annex 2, it shouldn't be inclusive of annex 1.

10 MR. DI FAZIO:

11 Q. Now, you'll recall on the last occasion you were here you provided

12 testimony to the Trial Chamber relating to the methods of acquisition of

13 documentation, the procedure at the point of seizure of documentation and

14 other evidence, real evidence, apart from documents; the procedure that is

15 adopted in the case of large seizures; transportation of documentation

16 back to The Hague; the procedure that takes place once documentation is

17 returned to The Hague, and I refer to the IIFING and MIIFing of documents

18 and items of evidence; and the procedures that are adopted by the Evidence

19 Unit of the OTP. Do you recall that evidence?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. Do you adopt that evidence and apply it to the documentation that

22 is referred to in annexure 2?

23 A. It's the same procedure and methods that were employed.

24 Q. I will ask you, in particular, about items 421 and 422 on the --

25 your annexure. Those are items seized by one Eileen Gilleece, but as far

1 as the remainder of the items on the annexure are concerned, all of the

2 evidence that you provided applies equally to these?

3 A. That's affirmative.

4 Q. Good. In that case, I will now take you through certain

5 individual items.

6 Just before we proceed, if Your Honours please, I'm going to use

7 the -- as a guide to direct you to various portions of the document the

8 number on the extreme left-hand side of the document. Do you see that?

9 It says "pre-trial exhibit number." In fact, in fact, it doesn't go up

10 sequentially because it jumps from -- for example, on page 2 it jumps from

11 14 to 40. However, it's always going up and I can also use the page

12 numbers to direct your attention to the items.

13 You heard what I just said, Ms. Manas, so always look to the

14 left-hand column to see what I'm talking about. Go to items 1 and 2,

15 page 1. You see in the seizure details column that those two items refer

16 to seizures from a certain person from an organisation called -- with the

17 acronym COE. What does "COE" refer to?

18 A. I would say it refers to commissioner of oaths. I mean, sorry,

19 commission of experts.

20 Q. Experts. Thank you. Turn over to page 2. Items 12, 13, and 14

21 on that particular page, when in fact I just asked you to comment on items

22 13 and 14. In the seizure details, you say that there is no information

23 as to who seized these particular documents, where, or when they were

24 seized. Do you know how it is or why it is that that information is

25 lacking from the MIIF form in those particular cases, those two documents?

1 A. I do not know why. As I did assist him search and I couldn't find

2 anything on those documents, I cannot answer why there was nothing created

3 for that.

4 Q. Fine. Thank you.

5 Turn to page 3, please. Page 3, item 118 at the top of your

6 spreadsheet. It says seizure details, K. Humphrey on 7th of March, 2003.

7 There is no -- sorry. Let me rephrase that. Does that information

8 actually indicate that K. Humphrey, whoever that was, MIIFed or IIFed the

9 item on the 7th of March, 2003?

10 A. No. K. Humphrey is the person who works in the Evidence Unit. He

11 just created the MIIF on that date, 7th of July, 2003, and of course

12 there's no details from who, when it came from.

13 Q. I see. Thank you. Right. So again, the MIIF form provides no

14 information that you can relate to this Trial Chamber regarding where,

15 when, or from whom the document was seized?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. Go to item -- page 4 of the spreadsheet, please, items

18 141 and 142. We have, I think, a similar problem. On this occasion, it

19 would seem from the seizure details that Dan Perry took the document, but

20 no indication from whom or where he obtained the document. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you proceed any further, and we are wasting

24 time. Regarding 118, Mr. K. Humphrey, and regarding 141 and 142, Mr. Dan

25 Perry, are these two persons still in the employ of the Tribunal or not?

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Dan Perry is not, to my --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I mean, I'm asking you.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I would be the last person to know.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me.

6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, Dan Perry is an ex-ICTY employee, and

7 Kevin Humphrey works presently in the Evidence Unit.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: And so has Mr. Humphrey been consulted to try and

9 give an explanation why --

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: You did. And you got nowhere?

12 THE WITNESS: No.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: And did you try to contact Mr. Perry too?

14 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

17 Q. Page 7 of the annexure, please, item 168, the seizure details,

18 well, they speak for themselves. It says there's no available information

19 about the seizure details. Do you know how that situation could arise?

20 A. I really don't know. I mean, I really searched thoroughly in the

21 system and also sought the assistance of the Evidence Unit, and they

22 couldn't provide any information. I think it came the early stages when

23 the Tribunal was set up, so there was probably a little -- nobody took any

24 consideration of entering it, saying where it came from and from where,

25 et cetera.

1 Q. So does that mean there's no MIIF or IIF form in existence?

2 A. No.

3 Q. There is no such form. Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: One question. When was the IIF and MIIF form

5 introduced?

6 THE WITNESS: The MIIF, Your Honours, I think it was introduced

7 last year. The IIF, the early stages of the Tribunal was set up, when the

8 investigation started.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: So basically, one would have expected at least the

10 IIFING of this document.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ESER: Ms. Manas, even if you do not know the original

13 source or the author of the document, how did you or your authority get

14 hold of these documents? Which way?

15 THE WITNESS: With contacts with other persons. I think initially

16 when the Tribunal came into existence, investigators and lawyers were in

17 contact with outside organisations who provided documents, and I don't

18 think there was investigators at that time in the Tribunal.

19 JUDGE ESER: Does this mean that the documents were taken and no

20 notice was made on the way or by whom it was given over to the

21 investigators?

22 THE WITNESS: That's what appears, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ESER: Thank you.

24 MR. DI FAZIO:

25 Q. Just following on from His Honour's question, it's of course

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 possible, isn't it, that a record, some record, somewhere, somehow, was

2 made at the time, but what you're missing is the IIF or the MIIF record?

3 A. That's exactly, Your Honours.

4 Q. Sorry. I don't want to cut you off.

5 A. There's probably a record, but not in the IIF, when it originally

6 started.

7 Q. And your searches have been unable to locate any other record that

8 might lend -- provide some information as to the provenance of the

9 document?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. All right. Thanks. All right. Now, I want you to look at items

12 171, 172, and 173 of those -- on the same page, page 7. Now, item 171

13 speaks for itself. That document was seized apparently by Nicole Blanch

14 from the Ministry of Defence on that date, in November of 2000. Do you

15 see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The following two items, however, don't have any information, that

18 is, items 172 and 173, regarding who seized the documents, where or when;

19 is it correct?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. Does item 171 provide you with any ability to suggest any

22 solutions to the missing information for 172 and 173?

23 A. As for 171, Nicole Blanch was a criminal analyst on my team. She

24 obtained this document from a larger collection, well, through our

25 searches. I would say it's the same thing with 172 and 173. It's

1 probably from a larger collection. But I can't tell you who obtained it.

2 Q. Would Your Honours just bear with me for one moment, please.

3 Okay. Thank you very much.

4 Would you now turn, please, to page 10 of the annexure, and look

5 at items 361 and 362. And 363, please. So 361, 362, 363. 361 and 362

6 contain information about the seizure Bridin O'Rourke seized them from

7 certain persons. However, 363 does not contain any such information.

8 Looking at 361 and 362, can it assist you to suggest any further

9 information about 363?

10 A. I can only assume that it came from this collection which was

11 submitted by Bridin O'Rourke, but for some reason, the details on 363 was

12 not completed on the MIIF.

13 Q. Why do you make that assumption? What's the reason? What's your

14 reasoning?

15 A. Well, the description of documents was from the Ministry of

16 Interior and also from the documents are received from Ibrahim Djikic in

17 more or less the same period.

18 Q. Other than that, you have no hard, concrete --

19 A. No.

20 Q. -- evidence as to the details of 363?

21 A. Exactly.

22 Q. Thank you. Who was Eileen Gilleece?

23 A. Eileen Gilleece was a former investigator of team 9.

24 Q. Has she left the employ of the OTP?

25 A. Yes, since May 2003.

1 Q. Look at items 422 and 423, please, on page -- at the bottom of

2 page 17 of your annexure. Firstly, where was Eileen Gilleece's office

3 located?

4 A. It was on the fifth floor, room 5 -- I think it was room 584.

5 Q. Not far from where your current office is?

6 A. It's one of our current offices. Team 9 had two offices. We were

7 divided according to our investigative projects.

8 Q. Now, in July of last year, were various documents found in that

9 office, the office that Eileen Gilleece used to occupy, along with other

10 investigators? Is that yes or no?

11 A. That's true.

12 Q. And was that material looked at and analysed by investigators of

13 the Office of the Prosecutor?

14 A. Yes. Once it was recovered and the documents were searched

15 through and analysed with language assistants and processed.

16 Q. Was that material located during the course of a, in essence, a

17 clean-up operation of the office?

18 A. Yes. Several investigators left and we were reorganising the

19 office and that's when we discovered this material.

20 Q. Should this material should have been IIFed and MIIFed and dealt

21 with under the usual Rules of Procedure that you've described to this

22 Trial Chamber?

23 A. Yes, definitely. It should have been.

24 Q. Was it apparent that it had not been dealt with in that fashion?

25 A. In this case, it was a negligent -- the investigator -- this is

1 not the usual practice, but this was the case in this instance.

2 Q. However, in your annexure, you have inserted seizure details. You

3 see that the assertion there is that Eileen Gilleece seize the document

4 from the Republika Srpska bureau for cooperation on the 18th February

5 2002. First of all, how is it that that information is on the IIF form,

6 and secondly, why is that assertion made in the IIF form?

7 A. Well, in the seized documents that are found, which came from the

8 RS bureau of cooperation, we found notes written by Eileen Gilleece on the

9 cover indicating the date it came from, which was 18th of February, 2002,

10 and we know for a fact that Ms. Gilleece was on mission in Banja Luka for

11 a lengthy period during this time, and it's the only conclusion we come

12 from that the documents were obtained during this mission.

13 Q. Right. So it's -- the conclusions in the seizure details columns

14 are based on what we know, actually know of her movements, where she was

15 at the time, together with notes that were found with the documents?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That's two pieces of information?

18 A. Yes. And was confirmed by the investigator herself.

19 Q. I see. And tell the Trial Chamber how that came about?

20 A. When these documents were found, the investigator who found them

21 did the necessary investigation and he contacted Mrs. Gilleece and she

22 confirmed that these documents came from the RS bureau of cooperation, and

23 it was obtained during this mission in February 2002.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: And who gave you this information, the other

25 investigator, in other words, what's his name or her name?

1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Ken Corlett, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And is he available still?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: In case we need or the Defence -- okay. I don't

5 need him, but I don't know if anyone else would need him. So I'm just

6 making sure that -- of his availability or otherwise.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If the issue develops from here, then the

8 Prosecution will consider its position and decide whether to call --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And are we aware of the whereabouts of

10 Mrs. Gilleece?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

13 MR. DI FAZIO:

14 Q. Was any explanation ever given to you as to not what happened or

15 why, why these documents weren't dealt with or processed in the way that

16 they should have been?

17 A. Mr. Ken Corlett conducted the investigation and he made this known

18 to our management, and it's an internal investigation, so I cannot go into

19 details.

20 Q. Thank you. Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I now seek to tender into

22 evidence all of the documentation referred to in the annexure, with these

23 exceptions, and I'll read them out into the text, if I may, so that for

24 various reasons, unfortunately some items were left in the annexure that

25 weren't strictly required to be there. So I'll now read out the items

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 that should not be produced.

2 On page 1, item 7, the trial number is P276; item 8 --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, it's not being tendered?

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Not being tendered. Because there's only a few of

5 them, I'll go through those, rather than the other way around. So as I

6 said, item 7 on page 1, item 8 on page 1, item 9 on page 1. Turning to

7 page 2 --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I think this may be creating a

9 problem to the registrar. Is everything okay with you?

10 MR. JONES: One question, Your Honour. Some of these exhibits

11 have been admitted already with Dr. Gow, it appears.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. That's right.

13 MR. JONES: So are they being withdrawn?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: No. So they're not being tendered a second time.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. Then we need to explain, because it does

16 make a difference obviously. Thank you, Mr. Jones, first of all, for

17 provoking.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry. Perhaps I should have explained.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. As I took it at least was that they are put on

20 the list, shown on the list here, but they not being tendered.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. That's because they --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So what should have been stated is they are not

23 being re-tendered because they have been tendered already.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I'm sorry. I should have made that -- been

25 more explicit. I apologise, if Your Honours please. So in fact you can

1 see on the extreme right-hand side for some of them there's an item

2 that --

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. So what I would at this point, since what is

5 happening is drawing my attention to something very important. I think we

6 should go through this list very slowly, Mr. Di Fazio.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So that our registrar will check with you as we go

9 along one document at a time. For example, although there seems to be an

10 agreement that P277 and P278 have already been tendered, there is no such

11 confirmation as regards P276. Correct?

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't know anything -- we don't have any

14 information with regard to P276 or at least an explanation by Mr. Di Fazio

15 why it's not being tendered. In other words, are you renouncing to this

16 document?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that item 7 on the annexure, P276, is

18 already in evidence as Exhibit P276.1.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we have 276, Mr. Siller?

20 THE REGISTRAR: No.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: So if we don't have 276, we can't have 276.1, that's

22 for sure.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for one

24 moment, please.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. In the meantime, can I ask the Defence

1 bench to check on this. I mean --

2 MR. JONES: Yes. We'll do that.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Whether you have any 276 or 276.1 in your records,

4 in other words.

5 MR. JONES: We have no record of 276.1. We only have a record of

6 276, but as something that is going to be tendered today. So back to

7 square one.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I've just been informed by my case manager that

9 that is in fact correct. That's a mistake on our part. However, with

10 respect to the remainder of the documents, it's pretty clear that many of

11 them have already been admitted.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: But let's take them one by one, Mr. Di Fazio,

13 because I want to make sure that we don't make mistakes. 276 in other

14 words you are tendering today.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: So what you said earlier does not hold good any

17 more.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Not with respect to the first item.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And I would also ask you to correct your records if

20 they state that this was tendered already and marked as P276.1, because we

21 do not have any such record ourselves. All right?

22 So let's proceed. 277 and 278 are not being re-tendered because

23 they were tendered and admitted on the 22nd of November of the previous

24 year.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Through Mr. Gow.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. Let's move.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: The same applies to the next one on page 2,

3 item 10, or P279, and item 12 also on that page, or P281.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Then -- I hope I'm not going too fast. Please slow

6 me down if I am. On page 3, we have item 122, or P288. Again, admitted

7 through Mr. Gow. So I won't be seeking to tender that one.

8 I now turn to item 136 on page 3. Now, as far as that -- I'm

9 sorry.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sorry, Mr. Di Fazio.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Page 3, item 136, the Prosecution's understanding is that it is

14 already in evidence as Exhibit P162.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we check on this, Mr. Siller, please.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: 162. It should already be in existence as P162.

17 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit P162, according to the registry's

18 list, has Rule 65 ter number 238 and not 136, but it might be the same

19 document. I don't know. I didn't see the document.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm assured it's the same document.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you have the assistance of the usher. Do you

22 have the documents here? Usher, could you please help Mr. Siller and find

23 the document. 162. 01840617 is the first page. And 01840624 is the last

24 page.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: That corresponds with the numbers here.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes, yes. The date of the document is

2 25th of May, 1993. That's correct as well. And the English version is

3 03443. Yeah. It is the same.

4 Now, so that is confirmed. Now, Mr. Siller, it's up to you to

5 tell me whether this disrupts your system or not. The fact that you have

6 a -- in the document or exhibit sequence a number missing, in other words,

7 that there will not be any P295, does it create any problems? Or would

8 you prefer to have 295 with a note that it is also exhibited as P162?

9 What do you prefer?

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But it doesn't create any problems? All

12 right. So I take it 295 is not being tendered, already tendered --

13 MR. DI FAZIO: As P162.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, P162. All right. Thank you. Let's move.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If we move right along to page 11.

16 These -- item 367, or trial number P419, is -- has already been tendered

17 as Exhibit P419. It's in evidence already, I believe. A number of

18 photographs.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Can we check this, Mr. Siller, please.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, can I just say that the same comment applies

21 to the next two. So 367, 368, 369. They're in existence already as P419,

22 P366, and P367.

23 THE REGISTRAR: P419 is the set of number 8 photographs.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: P419 is a set of 18, not 8.

25 THE REGISTRAR: 18.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE AGIUS: 18, yeah. 7694. I'm going to say the ERN number.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, if you see the sequence as indicated

4 in this document, in annex 2, it starts with 03617694 and then ends with

5 03617729. But if you add the last two digits, 29 plus 794 to 100, to 700.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: It gives you 29 plus 736. And here we have 18.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: So how are we going to know whether these are the

10 same 18 that we're talking about?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if I made myself clear.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: No. You have made yourself perfectly clear.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I seem to recall when I was

16 handling -- my case manager is just reminding me, and I'm grateful to her,

17 you'll recall the way this bundle of documents was set up. On one page

18 there was a photo with an ERN number, and then there was a second page

19 that also had an ERN number that didn't -- I think that was a description

20 of what was in the photo and didn't have a photograph. So there's more

21 ERN numbers than they are photographs.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Could we -- I'm not saying -- okay. I think that in

23 itself may provide an explanation. I will -- are you happy with it,

24 Mr. Jones, or not?

25 MR. JONES: Well, we were just checking to see which witness dealt

1 with that exhibit. I think it's Ratko Nikolic. If it's been admitted,

2 then that may be the end of it. Perhaps as a practical suggestion, when

3 the photographers testify, it would obviously be very useful to review

4 these photographs again and establish exactly what their status is.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: But the explanation that Mr. Di Fazio gave may be

6 the right one, because basically you have alternate numbers here. So it's

7 94, 96, 98, 700, 02, 04, and so on and so forth. So each time we skip

8 the --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I think that's --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: The odd --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: I think that's the reason.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. So you're not tendering P419

13 again because already admitted --

14 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Already. These were submitted, admitted, on the 6th

16 of December. If you want to make a note for yourselves.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: And then the other two --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Siller. Thanks.

19 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: And then the other two, 366 and 367, came in

21 through Mr. Gow.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: The other two are 368 and 369, not 366 and 367.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 367 --

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 JUDGE AGIUS: P419 was 367.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, yes. Yes, it was.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right? Now, the next two are 368 and 369, which

3 is P366 and P367.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour is correct. I was wrong. I was

5 looking at the wrong column.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: No. It's not a problem. I just want to make sure

7 that for the record we are clear. These have already been admitted on the

8 22nd of November during the testimony of Mr. Gow.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Next.

13 THE REGISTRAR: One second, please.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the description of P366 is map of

16 initial attacks in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's map A from the Gow statement,

17 and the description of the second document would be map of Bosnia showing

18 overall control of the territory by different armed forces.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Map E from Gow statement.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's okay. Let's move.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If you go to page 13, please, item 378.

23 That's a map showing Jezestica, but it was admitted on the -- sorry.

24 Would Your Honours just bear with me for one moment.

25 I don't want to tender item 378 on page 13, also given the exhibit

1 number P377, which is the map showing Jezestica, because --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, you're renouncing.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: But we also have on this statement, on this annex,

5 in the last column, admitted on the 22nd of October, 2004.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Apparently that's already in evidence. I

7 don't want to resubmit another item. That's already in evidence and

8 apparently it has an attack date written onto the map and there was an

9 objection to it, and that particular item needs to be removed from

10 evidence. And I understand that the Prosecution is going to provide a

11 clean copy of the map without the attack date on it.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Registrar.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I can confirm on the 22nd of October

14 the Prosecutor submitted a map which was given exhibit number P377. Then

15 Your Honours realised that there was a marking on it and the Defence made

16 an objection regarding this marking. And then Your Honours instructed the

17 Prosecutor to --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Substitute.

19 THE REGISTRAR: -- to substitute it with a new copy, but this new

20 copy was never provided. So at the moment, we have no admitted exhibit

21 P377.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: So it's a vacant slot, so to speak, and we can

23 provide the Chamber and the Defence with a clean Jezestica copy without an

24 attack date written onto the map. But unfortunately, I don't have it here

25 with me. So I'm in Your Honours hands. Do you want to keep that slot

1 clear?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We'll keep that slot for P377, which is long

3 overdue.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. It is. And I'm sorry. I apologise.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: These things happen. I mean, it's --

6 MR. DI FAZIO: We'll get the clean map in and we can deal with

7 that in the next few days and we'll tender it at an opportune moment.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So my note - and I'm just suggesting this also to be

9 the note of others - is that it's not being tendered today but will be

10 tendered later on.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes. That is correct. The clean copy

12 showing no attack date.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Then if we go to page 16, item 408, or trial number

15 P446 on page 16. I'm told that that has in fact already been admitted as

16 Exhibit P446. You'll recall that's the videotape that shows the two --

17 what the Prosecution says are the two prison detention areas.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have full confirmation of this, Mr. Siller,

19 and in that case, when was it admitted, the date, please?

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, on the 7th of December, Exhibit P446

21 was admitted. The description of this exhibit is video showing detention

22 centres in Srebrenica.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Does that tally with the information

24 that you have, Ms. Vidovic or Mr. Jones?

25 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: So therefore there's no need to --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, of course.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: And lastly, if Your Honours please, the very last

5 item on page 18, pre-trial exhibit 450, also known as trial number P448, I

6 understand - this is the well-known attack on Kravica video - that was

7 admitted, I am told, as P448. So there's no need to re-tender that.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, Mr. Siller, could you confirm that, and also

9 the date of admittance of this exhibit, of this video.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, in fact I have Exhibit P448. It was

11 admitted on the 14th of December, 2004. And it is -- there's a

12 description, Serb TV video for review of the Muslim attack on Kravica on

13 the 7th of January, 1993.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Does the ERN number tally with the one

15 you have?

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. So this is not being tendered or

18 re-tendered. Yes.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: So that, with the exception of those items that

20 we've now been through, and with the exception of 377, the map on

21 Jezestica, which I'll later tender, I seek to tender the items on this

22 annexure.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: -- into evidence.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Defence.

1 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour. Following the procedure which we

2 adopted on the last occasion, I imagine that what would be appropriate

3 would be for me to cross-examine Ms. Manas and then to let you know which

4 documents we object to. I'll reserve that until the end.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Siller.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you locate them, please. If you notice here

8 they have a declaration in the sense that under B/C/S ERN photos used out

9 of the range and then you have a list. Let me count them. We need to

10 clarify this, Mr. Di Fazio. Here, let's count. You have -- the range --

11 we are talking of pre-trial exhibit number 366, submitted for admittance

12 today according to this annex as P365, photos, and the original ERN starts

13 with 01087832 and finishes or ends with 01088509, which gives you a range

14 of a few hundreds of photos. The description is various photos, and then

15 under B/C/S ERN there is a declaration in schedule -- in annex 2 saying

16 photos used out, I suppose, not our, out of the range. And then you have

17 a list of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. I have 24. I may have --

19 The thing is this: My attention is being drawn by the registrar

20 that from this range of photos, of documents that you seek to tender, in

21 other words, you seek to tender -- if you subtract, please, someone, 509

22 minus -- 8509 minus 7832 and then add one, all right? I don't know how

23 many that would --

24 MR. JONES: I have 678. I don't know if that's right.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: 600 -- yeah. 678. My attention is being drawn that

1 out of these 678 photos that you seek to tender today as a bundle, several

2 have been tendered already and marked as P365. I think we ought to be

3 practical, because otherwise it can become very confusing. You tender the

4 entire bundle as P365.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: That's clearly the easiest thing to do, clearly.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, we will make a statement here that

7 some of these photos have already been tendered and already marked

8 as P365.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: In the bundle that you are submitting, you will not

11 need to hand also, to submit also duplicates of what has already been

12 submitted, because otherwise we will have a big confusion because these

13 have already got an exhibit number.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: So I'm going to state one by one the various ERN

16 numbers which should tally with the list that I read out from this

17 document, from annex 2, so that you can check later on and make sure that

18 we don't have duplicates of them.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful to Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: So the first one is not actually a photo at all, but

21 it is a map which indicates the location of some of the various photos

22 that were taken and numbered. This is marked as ERN 01087833. It's

23 followed by photos 01087834, 01087835, 01087836, 01087837, 01087838,

24 01087839. And then 01087840, 01087841. And then 01087842, 01087843. And

25 then 01087845. Registrar, please make sure that the transcript is

1 correct, it reflects the exact numbers that I am reading. Your

2 microphone, please.

3 THE REGISTRAR: It's indicated in the transcript 01087038, and I

4 guess it should read 01087838.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's correct. And that's in line -- it's

6 page 28, line 9, line 9.

7 Yes. This is all followed by 01087846 and 01087847, and then

8 01087848, 01087849, and 01087850 and 01087851. Then we have repeated the

9 last one of these photos, and it is 01087851. The first of these two

10 identical photos is on the same page as 01087850. The last, or the

11 latter, is on its own.

12 Then we have 01087853. Then we have 01087854, and following,

13 01087855. Then we have 01087856, followed by 01087857. Then we have

14 01087858, followed by 01087859. And then 01087860, followed by 01087861.

15 Then 01087862, followed by 01087864. 0107864 [sic] is also shown on the

16 next page, together with 01087865. So for all intents and purposes, the

17 existing P365 shows 01087864 twice. Then we have 01087866 and 01087868,

18 and 01087870, and 01087874 and 01087875, 01087876, 01087877, and then

19 01087878 and 01087879. And that's the complete list photos that have

20 already been exhibited under P365. Out of the pack or the bundle that you

21 meant to produce today, take away, if you have them already in duplicates,

22 please remove from the bundle the numbers that I have dictated.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right? That's it.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, number 7, which is according to you

2 P276, which we agreed that you had the wrong information at the beginning.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, this you intend to tender. Are you

5 tendering it today or are you tendering it with 377 at a later stage? Do

6 you have it available today or not?

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think so. Could Your Honours just bear

8 with me.

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]

10 MR. DI FAZIO: We can produce it at the same time as the map.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So to be tendered later. So this is not

12 tendered today and it will be tendered later.

13 Do you, Mr. Jones, do you have a clear picture what is being

14 tendered today and what's not?

15 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. If you want any clarifications, just let me

17 know before you proceed with your cross.

18 MR. JONES: I'm obliged.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right? Do you want to start with your cross now

20 or should we take the break now?

21 MR. DI FAZIO:

22 MR. JONES: We could take the break now. That would be easiest.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it a long cross-examination that we are expecting

24 from you?

25 MR. JONES: An hour and a half to two hours. I have quite a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 number

2 of exhibits.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we can have a 25-minute -- we can

4 have a full 25-minute break. Thank you.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there's just one tiny

8 matter.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Let the accused sit down and put his

10 earphones on, please, before you proceed.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Just the annexure and the actual declaration, the

12 second annexure and the second declaration. I omitted to tender that into

13 evidence, as I did with the first one. So I now seek leave to tender

14 Ms. Manas's declaration and annex. Other than that --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection on your part? No objection. The

16 exhibit number, please.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the exhibit number will be P466.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: So it will be P466, P466. Yes.

19 Yes, Mr. Wubben.

20 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. Another issue is that I'm fully

21 aware of your question this morning to me if the witness list, the amended

22 witness list, is still stands. That was 9.00. Three-quarters later, some

23 new unforeseen information reached me, and I invited -- that's for -- for

24 that reason, Ms. Patricia Sellers to clarify that further to you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Sellers.

1 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, we were informed by Victim Witness

2 Unit after the first session of court began today that Mr. Nedjeljko Radic

3 did not arrive in The Hague last night. There was a cancellation of his

4 flight when he was transferring to Vienna, and therefore he spent the

5 night in Vienna, will be picking up the normal connection between Vienna

6 and Amsterdam today and will only arrive this evening around 8.00.

7 Because of that, that means I'm unable to have prepared him for his

8 testimony tomorrow. I would therefore like to offer this information to

9 Defence counsel as well as to the Trial Chamber and ask that his testimony

10 now be scheduled for Thursday, as opposed to beginning his testimony

11 tomorrow.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones.

13 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honour, with respect, the proofing of a

14 Prosecution witness, while it may be something which obviously the

15 Prosecution wish to do is a matter of their own practice. Obviously we

16 can't concede that we should lose a whole court day in order to enable

17 them to be able to do that. If he arrives at 8.00 in the evening, that

18 still leaves some time for proofing him in the evening and perhaps in the

19 early morning. But we would object to losing that court day simply

20 because the Prosecution haven't proofed him. I don't know if he was

21 proofed on the last occasion, but in any event, that's our position.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Was he proofed?

23 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honours. Please let me remind you that he

24 was in The Hague before, he was proofed, and usually we have a two-day

25 period in which to proof. Given that there was a two-day period we

1 usually schedule a certain amount of the proofing on one day and then on

2 the second day. If you recall, on the second day, Mr. Radic fell ill. He

3 came in that morning, and after an hour it was quite apparent that it was

4 better if he were to return to the hotel and then he went to a physician,

5 a doctor. So he certainly had two days set aside for proofing, but we

6 were only able to complete half of the proofing. And that's what we had

7 hoped to complete today.

8 I think as another matter of information, it's an unforeseeable

9 incident that an airline would be cancelled and therefore he couldn't make

10 his connection. While I take the Defence's point that they believe

11 proofing might be something that advantageous to the Prosecutor, I believe

12 it is part of the practice or has been a recent decision in the Limaj case

13 that certainly allows it. And the Prosecution feels that Mr. Radic, as

14 acknowledged by the court before, is an important witness, and we would

15 feel hampered going forward without adequate preparation.

16 As to the suggestion of proofing him to want, I believe the Victim

17 Witness Unit has rather strict guidelines. We are not allowed to proof a

18 witness on the day they arrive. They were supposed to go to the hotel and

19 relax and it is only that following day that we have access to them. So

20 that's a bit of an administrative constraint that we find ourselves with.

21 Your Honours, I also could suggest that we begin his

22 cross-examination, I continue proofing him after he -- and begin his

23 examination-in-chief and then proof him on parts that we haven't discussed

24 as at that point in time. I certainly don't suggest that that would

25 necessarily be an adequate response once a witness is under oath that is

1 normally, except in certain circumstances, such as when we found ourselves

2 with Mr. Eric, one usually does not go back and discuss the ongoing

3 testimony of that witness, even if it were in new areas. For those

4 reasons, I ask the Trial Chamber's indulgence and we would have to move

5 Mr. Radic to Thursday.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: You had planned to examine Mr. Radic during the

7 entire day of tomorrow?

8 MS. SELLERS: As a matter of fact, I think that would have gone

9 through the entire day and possibly into part of the following day, which

10 would have been Thursday.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: And then your case? What were you anticipating?

12 This is an important witness.

13 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed. Something in the region of --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: So as with the other, in inverted commas, important

15 witnesses, it's not or intention to curtail.

16 MR. JONES: Something in the region of three hours. I should

17 say --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: We need an abundant two days plus maybe.

19 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. I would say that we wouldn't

20 be happy with the witness being proofed after he had taken the solemn

21 declaration.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course not. It's out of the question. I mean,

23 definitely. Definitely.

24 Yes, Mr. Siller.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: One good solution. It's being --

2 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, excuse me, might I just add one other

3 thing to it. In view of this unforeseen change of circumstances, it would

4 affect another witness, and that would be Vojka Milavanovic, who is

5 scheduled to testify on Friday. Although that testimony is anticipated of

6 being much shorter, probably conducted within a two-hour period, I can't

7 speak for the Defence, but I imagine possibly their cross-examination

8 would also be rather short compared to other witnesses. The rescheduling

9 of Mr. Radic of course would affect the coming of that witness and the

10 giving of testimony.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: As it is, let's make this clear. I mean, there are

12 two things that could be done. One thing that could be done is to ask the

13 Hadzihasanovic Trial Chamber to switch with us tomorrow, swap. They will

14 sit in the morning instead of us and we will sit in the afternoon instead

15 of them. That's one option. The advantage of this, it would give you the

16 opportunity to brief Mr. Radic in the morning and then bring him over to

17 testify in the afternoon. I don't know, because I don't know what the

18 state of health of this gentleman is. I don't know whether having him

19 mentally occupied for so many long hours - in other words, the entire

20 morning with you, and then the entire afternoon with us - could be

21 counter-productive or not, but this is something that you are, and

22 possibly the Victims and Witnesses Unit, better placed, better positioned

23 than we are, because we don't know the gentleman. We don't -- I'm saying

24 this because you're telling me that last time he was not feeling well and

25 had to return. So I don't want to do anything or choose anything that at

1 the end of the day in the bottom line would be counter-productive. That's

2 number one.

3 You should be in a better position. Secondly, I'm not quite sure

4 a hundred per cent whether for the Hadzihasanovic Trial Chamber this would

5 be possible, because the Chamber usually does not decide without

6 consulting the parties. And although the Prosecution most of the time for

7 the Prosecution it is possible, for the Defence it may not always be

8 possible and we may find a problem there.

9 So let's start from for the time being leave it there and explore

10 these two possibilities. And you will then tell me at the next break or

11 after the next break the position of the Trial Chamber, I suppose, we will

12 need to reserve. But I mean it's no use trying to draw blood. If

13 necessary, we'll have to adjourn this witness to Thursday. Certainly what

14 is out of the question is that you start the examination of the witness

15 tomorrow and then you continue the briefing after. I mean, that's out of

16 the question. We will not tolerate it for sure. But we will -- if needs

17 be, have to adjourn until Thursday. It's not going to be -- I mean, there

18 are motions in this trial that we have received and that we will need to

19 read, one of which is very lengthy. So it's not going to be a major

20 setback if we have to adjourn by one day. All right?

21 MS. SELLERS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: And we'll deal with that after the next break. In

23 the meantime, I also -- because one of the reasons I mentioned this this

24 morning --

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a further problem. One of us has got

2 problems with tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow afternoon. So there's no point

3 in pursuing that matter any further with the Hadzihasanovic Trial Chamber,

4 Mr. Siller. All right? So it's a question of whether -- the only thing

5 that could happen is if the victims and units give their consent that you

6 brief this man, this person -- I don't know, What time is he arriving?

7 MS. SELLERS:, Your Honour, the plane will arrive at 7.45 this

8 evening.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Forget it. Forget it. Anyway, we'll have a

10 confirmation of everything and then we'll decide after the next break.

11 All right. Thank you.

12 And the other thing I wanted to mention is when I asked you,

13 Mr. Wubben, whether you wanted to change anything from this list, this

14 list was compiled before I asked my legal officer to inform you that there

15 will not be a sitting on Wednesday because of the visit to the Queen, and

16 here you have Wednesday set down as a sitting during which Mr. Radic would

17 be testifying, and the witness number 23, with witness number 24

18 testifying on Friday. As it is, it can't remain like that, and if

19 necessary, please make sure that one of these witnesses, 23 or 24, stays

20 wherever he is coming from and not be brought over unnecessarily and have

21 to spend here an entire week in The Hague. All right?

22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. To be clear to you, this is --

23 this schedule, this new schedule, is drafted after the information that

24 Wednesday will not be a sitting day. That's why the 12th of January --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: As I see it, if you want a suggestion on the part of

1 the Bench, but it's just a suggestion, we're not interfering at all or

2 pretending to interfere with the order of witnesses as you envisage it.

3 Witness number 23 you had anticipated would testify over two days, while

4 witness 24 would testify only in one day.

5 MR. WUBBEN: 23, Your Honour. 23 one day and 24 two days.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: You have changed them already. Okay. Okay. Okay.

7 That's what I was going to change. Yeah. That's what I was going to

8 change. Okay. So that's not a problem.

9 So let's proceed with the cross-examination now, or start with the

10 cross-examination, Mr. Jones. You know what the procedure is, Ms. Manas.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

12 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. And just by way of

13 explanation, two points. Firstly, that we haven't actually received the

14 physical exhibits from P271 onwards at this point, and so we reserve our

15 position once we've received the physical exhibits and reviewed them to

16 raise any points arising from reviewing those documents. That's the first

17 point.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fair enough.

19 MR. JONES: And secondly, just to explain that when Ms. Manas last

20 testified, she was the first witness, and I think we were all taken

21 somewhat by surprise by her replacing Dr. Gow, and since then obviously

22 there are matters which we've investigated and so I'm going to be

23 reviewing matters raised or exhibits which were tendered on that occasion

24 as well. I'm going to revisit certain items particularly because that

25 also throws light on our objections to items in annex 2.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't suppose there is any objection from the

2 Prosecution on that. The only problem that could arise is if Ms. Manas is

3 prepared or not to answer these -- at least prepared -- it's not a

4 question of whether she is willing. Whether she is prepared or not.

5 Because you may be taking her by surprise on this. So the position is

6 that if at any time you need to consult again those documents or your

7 testimony, et cetera, or require time to verify, check things, just ask us

8 and we will make sure that you will be given the -- all the opportunity.

9 I mean, she is available at any time.

10 MR. JONES: Yes. We did provide the Prosecution when Ms. Manas

11 was last listed to be a witness with a list of exhibits which we intended

12 to use and that provided an opportunity --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: What I meant to say is that she may be caught

14 unaware today, and if that is the case then obviously you are perfectly

15 entitled to put the question and if she is not in a position to answer,

16 then we will postpone that matter until later.

17 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:

19 Q. Ms. Manas, first of all, just to be clear about your position in

20 the Office of the Prosecutor, can you confirm that you're acting team

21 leader of team 9 which is the Muslim leadership team?

22 A. That's true.

23 Q. So the Naser Oric investigation has been and is being conducted by

24 the Muslim leadership team?

25 A. That's true.

1 Q. And you've been assigned to that team since 1996; is that right?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. Team leader as of August last year?

4 A. That's right.

5 Q. Now, first just some general questions about the systems used by

6 the OTP. Firstly about ERNs. Now, ERNs are eight-digit numbers, and they

7 appear to be broken into two groups of four quite often, if not all the

8 time. My question is: Do the first four digits denote that the document

9 was seized from a particular collection? And to give an example, 0207,

10 the 0207 prefix, that's the Sokolac collection; would that be right?

11 A. Yeah. If it came in during the same period it will naturally have

12 the sequential date stamp numbers for that period.

13 MR. JONES: I'll go slowly for interpretation.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think that answers the question. What I

15 mean to say is this: That for you, as a member of the Office of the

16 Prosecution in charge of a team of investigators, if I tell you,

17 Ms. Manas, I would like to refer you to document with B/C/S ERN number

18 00305702, that 0030, does it automatically bring to your mind a source of

19 information?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: It does.

22 THE WITNESS: It does.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: So when I say 0030, you know exactly what I'm

24 talking about, which collection.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That answers your question.

2 MR. JONES: Yes.

3 Q. And is a record kept of which prefixes correspond to which

4 collection?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: And since we are at this, I mean it's just out of

7 curiosity more than anything else, and that's also because I'm trying to

8 be logical. Can you explain to me why the first four digits of the ERN

9 number changes from B/C/S to English, it doesn't remain the same? In

10 other words, why is it that, for example, with regard -- let's take P274.

11 This comes from the collection 0030, and in the B/C/S it is 0030. In

12 English, it is also 0030, as it should be. But then if you look at P273,

13 the first four digits in the B/C/S ERN is 0027, but in English it is 0040.

14 Why does it change?

15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it changes -- well, original number was

16 given to it and when it's translated, another set of numbers is given to

17 it. And in this case it retains the same number, I can't answer that, but

18 I see it's got ET, means English translation, so no new number was given

19 to it. They retain the same ERN number.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but my question is: Why isn't the first four

21 digits which denote or point at the source of information remain the same,

22 are not retained also in the English language? Because logically, that's

23 how I would expect it to be. I mean, I wouldn't expect the last four

24 digits to be the same as well, because obviously the length would -- of

25 the translation or -- would vary from the original. As far as the source

1 of information, why does it change? Because doesn't it create more

2 confusion?

3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I can't answer that

4 question.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Okay. But the fact is that it

6 seems that sometimes it changes, sometimes it is retained.

7 MR. JONES: Yes. It seems there are those two situations.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

9 MR. JONES:

10 Q. A question or two on IIFing and MIIFing. You told us last time

11 you testified about IIF and MIIF forms, and you told us that when and MIIF

12 form or an IIF form is compiled it's done electronically; that's right?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. So I take it, then, that they're searchable electronically as

15 well?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So you can put in name of a person and find all the MIIFs or IIFs

18 referring to that person?

19 A. Yes, you can.

20 Q. And that's something you would routinely do to find prior

21 statements by witnesses?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Or you can enter a word like "Kravica" and you'll see all the IIFs

24 which have the word in that description?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. One preliminary question: We saw this morning that P295 in your

2 annex 2 corresponds to P162 in your annex 1. I don't know if you have

3 annex 1 with you, your previous -- annex to your previous declaration.

4 A. No, I don't.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to make it available to the witness.

6 Registrar, please. And we don't have it either.

7 MR. JONES: P261.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but we don't have it available because we were

9 not aware that you were going to that question.

10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. I don't know if this will show in P261, but you'll no doubt have

13 this information. Isn't it right that the seizure details are different

14 in fact for P162 and P295 and that P162 was seized by Mr. Tedder, 295 by

15 Ms. Gilleece, if I'm pronouncing the name correctly?

16 A. Could you refer to the pre-trial number please.

17 Q. One moment. 238. Yes, 238 is P162.

18 A. Are we doing annex 1 or 2?

19 Q. Annex 1.

20 A. The pre-trial number, sorry, again?

21 Q. 238.

22 A. 238. I'm sorry. I've got something which doesn't -- it's not

23 complete, so...

24 Q. It's not terribly important point. Perhaps it's something you can

25 check. Perhaps it's something which needn't detain us now, but our

1 information is that the seizure details are actually different for those

2 exhibits.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a problem.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Confidentiality, is it?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. It's under seal. 262 is under seal.

6 [Microphone not activated] I apologise. I apologise. What's being called

7 in question is the source.

8 MR. JONES: Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Not the details. So we don't need to put it on the

10 ELMO. The thing is this: In order for us to be able to follow properly,

11 since we don't have the previous annex available as yet, we are still

12 waiting for it, perhaps you can give the details as to the source as it

13 appears from the previous annex and as it appears ...

14 MR. JONES: Yes. It's number 238 on the pre-trial exhibit number,

15 P162, and the information is that Steve Tedder seized that conduct from

16 Colonel Rajko Sarenac.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Are we talking of 162 or 262?

18 MR. JONES: 162.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Previously when it was -- when Ms. Manas was -- or

20 Mr. Di Fazio was dealing with this, we're talking of pre-trial exhibit

21 number 136, which was supposed, according to annex 2, to become Exhibit

22 number P295. It's not being tendered today because we were told that it

23 has already been tendered as P162. Now, that is the position.

24 Now you mention P262.

25 MR. JONES: No, I didn't mention.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Not you. Mr. Siller did. So that we need to

2 clarify first, whether we're talking of 162 or 262. Because if the

3 document which is covered by confidentiality is 262 and not 162, we don't

4 have that problem.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but not too

7 many. Not too many. It's like dogs. Every dog is allowed one bite.

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE AGIUS: 162. All right. Now, you need to explain to us

10 according to annex 1 or the previous annex what was the declared source of

11 information.

12 MR. JONES: Yes. It's annex 1, pre-trial number 238, P162 --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Why is it 238?

14 MR. JONES: That's the pre-trial exhibit number.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: But then it's not the same one, because the

16 pre-trial exhibit number doesn't change; no?

17 MR. JONES: Your Honours, 238 is P162 and the information is that

18 Steve Tedder seized the document from Colonel Rajko Sarenac. P295, annex

19 2 says that the document was seized by Eileen Gilleece.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: What is the ERN number, please?

21 MR. JONES: 01840617 to 01840624.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: That tallies with this. But according to pre-trial

23 exhibit -- sorry, according to annex 2, the pre-trial exhibit number of

24 that document is 136 and not 238.

25 MR. JONES: There seem to be two pre-trial exhibit numbers as

1 well.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Could well be that one was tendered by Mr. Tedder

3 and one was tendered Eileen --

4 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I won't pursue that. I'd be grateful if

5 Ms. Manas could check because we are concerned if seizure details are

6 incorrect.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you get the point?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps you can check and if there is any

10 substantial important information that you could give us, you will give it

11 to us, otherwise forget it.

12 MR. JONES:

13 Q. To return to annex 1, P261?

14 A. I don't have it in front of me.

15 Q. P261 is what was referred to as Sanja's list. I'm going to need

16 to ask Ms. Manas about items on that spreadsheet, so ...

17 I want to ask you about number 32, which is P17. The description

18 is report of Ilija Ivanovic being brought into the military police station

19 dated 16 January 1992.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. We have copies of that document. It's a Prosecution exhibit, so I

22 won't distribute that at the moment. Yes, in fact, I will.

23 MR. JONES: Just for the record, the ERN is 01239558 to 01239559.

24 The seizure details that we have is that that was received from Jovcic

25 Trivun liaison officer of Republika Srpska. That was the information

1 provided in a previous spreadsheet. I think it doesn't appear on this.

2 A. Yes.

3 MR. JONES:

4 Q. Now, as you agreed last time, Mr. Trivun is just a liaison officer

5 for the RS, so he's just a postman, in essence; he's not the source?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Have you been able to establish who in fact provided that document

8 or are you able to establish?

9 A. No.

10 Q. I have an exhibit. With the usher's assistance. It's a statement

11 of Dzenan Dzenanovic taken by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 13th of

12 November, 2003. The ERN is 03465771. I'll direct your attention to

13 paragraphs 15 and 16. You'll see there Mr. Dzenanovic was shown that

14 document. And he says, paragraph 15: "I see my name also in the document

15 number 01239558 in the first entry dated 16/01/93." And that's a document

16 we just saw now, P17. And he goes on to say in paragraph 16: "I cannot

17 identify or authenticate any of the signatures in these documents and also

18 the contents. Even the signature below my name in document number

19 01239558 also, I'm not sure whether the signature is that of mine. The

20 writing in the signature is different. I cannot identify the other

21 signatures either. I've placed my signature on the reverse of all the

22 documents which the numbers are entered above."

23 Now, my question is: Are you aware that Dzenan Dzenanovic was

24 shown this document and stated that one of the signatures was not his?

25 A. Now I'm aware, after reading this paragraph here.

1 Q. Are you aware that the Office of the Prosecutor sent that

2 document, P17, to the forensic document examiner, Dr. Fagel of the

3 Netherlands Forensic Institute who testified here before us and that he

4 examined the document and the signature against authentic specimen

5 signatures provided by Dzenanovic and found that the signatures were

6 probably not written by Mr. Dzenanovic, in other words, that they were

7 forged or fake?

8 A. I'm aware that the witness testified to that effect.

9 Q. Are you aware that the signatures were examined by an expert?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that he found that the signature was probably not that of

12 Mr. Dzenanovic?

13 MR. JONES: We have that report as an exhibit, with the usher's

14 assistance. Actually, at this stage if I could ask that Mr. Dzenanovic's

15 statement be given a number. The relevant sections, in any event. It's

16 paragraphs 15 and 16.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: We only have the English version. I suppose that's

18 the one you're interested in because the other one wouldn't carry his

19 signature in any case. So this document which starts with ERN number

20 03465769 and runs through and includes 03465774 is being tendered by the

21 Defence and admitted as -- marked as Defence Exhibit D --

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, D139.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: 139. All right.

24 MR. JONES:

25 Q. Do you now have in front of you the report of Dr. Fagel March

1 2004? The ERN is 03594904. And I'll direct your attention to page 2 of 7

2 of that report, first of all, which is 03594905. And we see there that

3 the ERN document with the ERN 01239558 was Q1, questioned signature, five

4 from the bottom. And we will see that signature in appendix 2, which is

5 ERN 0359416. And the conclusions on page 5 of 7, ERN is 03594908: "In

6 view of the results of the examination, I conclude that the questioned

7 signatures Q1," that's the one we've looked at, "Q2 and Q7 were probably

8 not written by D. Dzenanovic."

9 So you have a record of those matters?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That document, P17, despite being found probably to be a forgery,

12 in any event, probably not to have been signed by the purported signatory,

13 is still put being forward as a Prosecution exhibit, isn't it, P17? I'm

14 not sure if the transcript has got your answer. Yes, P17 is still a

15 Prosecution in this case. Correct?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think she should be the one to answer that.

17 If it's in the record, it's in the record, and if it's not in the record,

18 or if the Prosecution have withdrawn it or wants to withdraw it, that's

19 another matter, but it's not the witness who will answer that.

20 MR. JONES:

21 Q. I would ask you this: Is it Prosecution's policy to continue to

22 use documents as exhibits when the author says the signature has been

23 forged and that's confirmed by expert evidence?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you in a position to answer that question? Do

25 you answer for the Prosecutor or not? Do you establish --

1 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position to answer that question, Your

2 Honour.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: And furthermore, we haven't heard anything from

4 Dzenan Dzenanovic who got his statement.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. In fact, I wanted to correct something that

6 the witness said because she said he hasn't testified. He's made a

7 statement but...

8 MR. JONES:

9 Q. But you're at investigator in the Office of the Prosecutor.

10 Generally you wouldn't want to prosecute someone on the basis of forged

11 documents, would you?

12 A. No, of course not.

13 Q. So the sort of information that signatures might have been forged

14 is in fact troubling to the Prosecution and is something that you would

15 want to investigate?

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there's no -- unless the

17 statement says it's not his signature at the bottom. You have no evidence

18 as to how whoever appended that signature at the bottom of the document

19 came to do so. That's as far as the statement will take you, unless I'm

20 wrong. He says it's not my signature at the bottom of the document.

21 MR. JONES: This is not his signature and the document has

22 actually been confirmed by a forensic document examiner.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: The Forensic examiner says it's probably not his.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, most of this is argumentation. I mean, it's

25 submissions basically, and I don't think it's -- you can expect the

1 investigators are investigators. They do not establish the policy of the

2 Prosecutor.

3 MR. JONES: Your Honour, the point is this: The following

4 question which I was going to put to Ms. Manas is whether there's been an

5 investigation into this matter and the purpose of putting these questions

6 is to establish for Your Honours why we have such grave reservations about

7 documents and it's not simply a question of looking at it document by

8 document but the prosecutorial policy --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not in question, Mr. Jones, that has never been

10 in question and you are perfectly entitled to put these questions that you

11 have just referred to to the witness but then you can only expect the

12 witness to tell so much from that witness, from this witness, I mean. Not

13 beyond that.

14 MR. JONES:

15 Q. Ms. Manas, has there been an investigation into who provided, who

16 the sources of this document, given that, as you said, Jovcic Trivun is

17 just a postman and not the source?

18 A. I'd like to state to the court that I didn't investigate this

19 case. I only came on board as I said in my first testimony from the 1st

20 of September and what transpired during the Oric investigation is that

21 what I can tell you about. So I don't know the full nature, whether the

22 signature forgery has been investigated, but I do know that reports have

23 been submitted to the forensic expert for further investigations and

24 investigators obtained statements, et cetera.

25 MR. JONES: I would ask that Dr. Fagel's report be given a Defence

1 exhibit number.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Hasn't this already been given a number? No. So

3 this document, which starts with ERN number 03594904 and finishes with

4 03594922 is being tendered and admitted -- tendered by the Defence and

5 admitted and marked as Defence Exhibit D140. All right.

6 MR. JONES:

7 Q. Just one further matter on Mr. Dzenanovic's statement. We saw in

8 the last sentence at paragraph 16, you don't need to refer to it, but that

9 he signed the reverse of all the documents that he was shown. Isn't it

10 right that it's OTP practice that when an investigator or lawyer shows a

11 document to a witness and the witness comments on it, that then the

12 witness is asked to sign the document for purposes of identification?

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope so.

15 MR. JONES:

16 Q. Now, moving to another subject. That document, P17, was supplied

17 by the Republika Srpska bureau for cooperation with the ICTY, at least as

18 the intermediary. And it's right, isn't it, that that bureau supplied a

19 quantity of documents in this case?

20 A. Yes, it did.

21 Q. Now, you told us last time you testified that the OTP keeps track

22 of sources of documents that are impeached in some way, and I'll read back

23 what I asked you and what you said. I asked: "Do you also keep track of

24 sources which have been impeached, let's say someone, a person who has

25 provided documents and found to be untrustworthy, is he then blacklisted

1 or somehow you keep track of the fact that the person has provided false

2 or dubious documents?" I said: "Is that something that you do?" And you

3 said: "Yes, we do."

4 My question is: Has the RS bureau for cooperation with the ICTY

5 been noted as an untrustworthy source?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Are you aware that in 2002, the Republika Srpska government or

8 department prepared a report into the Serb massacres of Bosnian Muslims in

9 Srebrenica in July 1995? Are you aware of that?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. That report also covers events in the enclave in 1992, 1993,

12 including events which are the subject of this indictment, by way of

13 background to the report. Are you aware that that report scandalised the

14 international community by its distortion of the truth?

15 A. I don't have the report in front of me and I can't confirm that.

16 Q. Are you aware that it was considered scandalous in its

17 representation of events in the enclave?

18 A. I don't know. I can't answer that question. I'm sorry.

19 MR. JONES: Could I have the usher's assistance. There's an

20 exhibit which we'd like to pass up, and it's a six-page office of the High

21 Representative, OHR BiH media roundup, setting out all the reactions to

22 the RS report, as well as a page from Voice of America reporting the OHR's

23 reaction.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that has also, to be fair, been superseded

25 by subsequent declarations; no?

1 MR. JONES: Yes, it has. But I want to focus, first of all, on --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: You are perfectly entitled to do so.

3 MR. JONES: Your Honours can read through the reactions in your

4 own time.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you tendering this document?

6 MR. JONES: Yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be marked as Exhibit -- Defence

8 Exhibit D141. And that's -- yes.

9 MR. JONES: Your Honours can read the document in your own time.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I have read it before.

11 MR. JONES: Right. Okay.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I have come across this already.

13 MR. JONES:

14 Q. I'll just draw your attention, Ms. Manas, to some sections of this

15 media roundup.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, would you please make pauses between

17 questions and answers and read slowly when you read.

18 MR. JONES: I'm going too fast. In fact, I'm going to put the

19 channel on B/C/S so that I can check it. All right.

20 Q. First page, second paragraph, we see that Miletic of the RS bureau

21 for cooperation with the ICTY said: "The main purpose of the statement is

22 to reveal the whole truth about the crimes in the Srebrenica area." And

23 then if we see further down first page, fourth paragraph, Paddy Ashdown,

24 the High Representative, his reaction condemning the report,

25 said: "Srebrenica was not the only massacre in Bosnia and Herzegovina

1 between 1992 and 1995. It was Europe's worst massacre since the Second

2 World War. Pretending it didn't happen is an insult to people of all

3 ethnic groups in BiH. If the accounts given in the media are correct, the

4 report published today is so far from the truth as to almost not be worth

5 dignifying a response. It is tendentious, preposterous, and

6 inflammatory."

7 And then finally, I would refer you to page 4, second paragraph.

8 The comments of Graham Blewitt, formally the deputy Prosecutor of this

9 Tribunal. And he says: "The Hague Tribunal Prosecution office, as well

10 as the international community, has been embittered by that scandalous and

11 shameful report in which the reliable and comprehensive evidence presented

12 before the Tribunal have been totally ignored."

13 Obviously, you worked under Graham Blewitt, as the former deputy

14 Prosecutor, as your boss. Are you aware that he made those comments about

15 the report or comments like them?

16 A. Now I'm aware of it.

17 Q. That didn't lead you or others to note the RS bureau was a

18 questionable source, as an unreliable source of material, the fact that

19 the report was condemned in those terms?

20 A. I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr. Jones.

21 Q. I'll rephrase it. The fact that the RS government produced a

22 report on Srebrenica which was described as scandalous and shameful,

23 preposterous and inflammatory, isn't that something which would or did

24 lead the OTP to note the RS bureau as an unreliable, as an untrustworthy

25 source?

1 A. I can't answer that. I'm not in a position to answer that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do it differently.

3 How autonomous are you in your investigations? Do you take

4 instructions? Do you receive instructions?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, we do, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: You do. Did you ever receive instructions not to

7 rely any further on the Republika Srpska as a reliable source of

8 information?

9 THE WITNESS: Never. Never.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That answers your question.

11 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Isn't it the fact that the Office of the Prosecutor has gone

13 further and taken the position in pleadings before this Tribunal that the

14 report is so scandalous that the government of Republika Srpska can no

15 longer be considered a serious source for any purposes? Are you aware of

16 that position having been taken?

17 A. No.

18 MR. JONES: We have a new exhibit. It's a filing by the

19 Prosecution in Blagojevic, dated 12 November 2002. Essentially, the

20 Prosecution response to Mr. Blagojevic's application for provisional

21 release. Page 2 is missing. It just came out that way.

22 Q. I'd refer you, Ms. Manas, to paragraphs 13 to 16 of that response,

23 which concern the September 2002 report. It starts by referring to

24 paragraph 14, starting with the words "the government of the

25 Republika Srpska is obviously neither willing nor able to learn; rather,

1 it sets out to perpetuate myths and lies, in sharp contrast with the very

2 reason why this Tribunal was established. It is remarkable and

3 unfortunate that this report carries the name of the very office that is

4 supposed to facilitate the work of the ICTY."

5 Then at paragraph 16: "The fact that the RS is still capable of

6 publishing such gross propaganda seven years after the end of the war in

7 Bosnia lends further support to the Prosecution's contention that the

8 government of the RS is not serious in joining the international

9 community." Sorry. I'll slow down for translation. I'm not sure if they

10 caught the rest of that.

11 I'll read it again: "The fact that the RS is still capable of

12 publishing such gross propaganda seven years after the end of the war in

13 Bosnia lends further support to the Prosecution's contention that the

14 government of the RS is not serious in joining the international community

15 and cannot be relied upon in any serious matter."

16 I'll just firstly just that this document be given a Defence

17 exhibit number.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be Defence Exhibit marked D142.

19 MR. JONES:

20 Q. Ms. Manas, my question is: Isn't it apparent from that that the

21 position of the OTP at least has been that the RS government cannot be

22 relied upon in any serious matter?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I object to that question because that's not

24 what the documentation says. It's not what the submission says, first of

25 all. If you read it, it says, paragraph 16: "The Prosecution's

1 contention that the government of the RS is not serious in joining the

2 international community and cannot be relied upon in any serious matter in

3 this case guarantees related to the Srebrenica accused." Furthermore, the

4 other commentary from the OHR relating to -- or that commentary relates to

5 the report about the events in Srebrenica in 1995.

6 MR. JONES: I've already addressed the 1995 issue. And Ms. Manas

7 agreed that --

8 MR. DI FAZIO: How does it relate back to the principle, I assume

9 the principle object of Mr. Jones and the Defence, namely, to throw doubt

10 on the authenticity of document.

11 MR. JONES: Your Honour, Ms. Manas has already agreed that the

12 report goes back to 1992, 1993, so I don't know if Mr. Di Fazio wasn't

13 listening, but that's what she said.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you think you're going to get from

15 Ms. Manas? I mean --

16 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I appreciate the point Your Honour is

17 making. The fact is there are grave concerns we have about documents and

18 sources.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: That's perfectly understandable.

20 MR. JONES: There are various ways in which we can make those

21 known to Your Honours. One is by filing motions, as we've done. The

22 other is through the testimony of Ms. Manas, who is tendering a large

23 number of exhibits and in certain matters perhaps she can assist, in other

24 matters perhaps not. For our part we consider this is appropriate use of

25 Ms. Manas to ask her about the OTP's policy and practice with respect to

1 questionable sources.

2 In answer to the other submission made by Mr. Di Fazio, the

3 Prosecution's contention clearly stated in paragraph 16 is that the

4 government of the RS cannot be relied upon in any serious matter. That's

5 precisely what is stated. Then the Prosecution goes on to say

6 specifically in this case they can't be trusted in relation to guarantees.

7 But the main contention of the Prosecution is that the government of the

8 RS cannot be relied upon in any serious matter. My point is this trial is

9 a serious matter. How can the RS government be relied upon.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. But the whole thing boils down to one basic

11 issue, or not one; more than one, but there are two or three basic issues.

12 Number one is this: That Ms. Manas is not the right person to answer that

13 question. Ms. Manas will do as she is told. She will investigate and

14 basically her duty is to collect all the intelligence, all the information

15 that she can obtain. Then there will be others who will evaluate that

16 information and decide whether to give any weight to those pieces, bits of

17 information, and present them as evidence. And also the last but

18 certainly not least consideration is, irrespective of what is written in

19 this Prosecution consolidated response, the Blagojevic trial, at the end

20 of the day, what is important is whether the Prosecution still continues

21 to receive and accept information from Republika Srpska, whether it

22 continues to attach importance or weight to the information from

23 Republika Srpska and whether it continues to make use of that information

24 in trials. Because saying this in this response is one thing, and

25 operating then and translating your beliefs into practice is another. I

1 mean -- and I don't think you can get the information or the right answer

2 from Ms. Manas. I mean, you probably can get it from Mr. Wubben or

3 Mr. Di Fazio or Ms. Sellers or from Ms. Del Ponte herself, not from

4 Ms. Manas. I think Ms. Manas would end into serious trouble if she comes

5 across pieces of information that are supplied from Republika Srpska and

6 decides on her own steam that she will not even accept those and she will

7 not even introduce them into the dossier that then others have to evaluate

8 for the purpose of investigations and prosecution.

9 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: She will have to do as she is told.

11 MR. JONES: Yes. Ms. Manas testified on the last occasion that

12 the OTP keeps track of questionable sources, so my questions were designed

13 to establish whether, in light of these events, the OTP had ever noted the

14 RS government or bureau as a questionable source. And it's where will to

15 make sure to Your Honours why we approach documents with such caution

16 because if the Prosecution says in one case the RS bureau cannot be relied

17 upon in any serious matter and in this trial, a serious matter, they are

18 being relied upon in a very big way for documentary evidence, that will

19 explain in part to Your Honours our reservations. So on this subject, in

20 any event, I can move to the next exhibit.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: At the end of the day, it's not the Prosecution who

22 is going to decide whether they carry any weight or not. It's we that

23 will need to decide, putting everything in the basket, which will not be a

24 simple exercise or an easy exercise at all. I mean, I can assure you. I

25 mean, all the indications are there that we are going to have a difficult

1 exercise at the end of the day.

2 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed, Your Honour. And the question of sources

3 is obviously a matter of weight to be attached.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Everything that carries weight will be considered.

5 MR. JONES:

6 Q. Ms. Manas, we've seen Dejan Miletic in your annex, item 116, in

7 fact, of your annex 1, P262. And Dejan Miletic provided the whole rules

8 of the road case against Naser Oric to the OTP, didn't he? Are you aware

9 of that?

10 A. No. I'm not aware of that.

11 MR. JONES: I'll pass up the next exhibit. We have a memorandum

12 dated 4th of March, 2004 from ICTY investigator to the ICTY rules of the

13 road unit. The ERN is RR321797. Closing the rules of the road case

14 against Naser Oric. Paragraph 1 there. And then on the next page, we see

15 the cover letter signed by Dejan Miletic. RR321795.

16 Q. So looking at that, Ms. Manas, can you confirm that Mr. Miletic

17 sent "statements of witnesses, records, and other documents" as evidence

18 against Naser Oric to the OTP?

19 A. From this document, I can say yes.

20 MR. JONES: I'll ask if this document can be given an exhibit

21 number.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be D143.

23 MR. JONES:

24 Q. In that regard, I'd also like to show you another exhibit, which

25 is the transcript of an interview with Dejan Miletic on the 10th of March,

1 2004, on the Deutsche Welle Bosnian programme. In Bosnian and in English,

2 which follows the B/C/S. And I'll just draw your attention to the first

3 page of that interview. The journalist Sabrina Hodzic [phoen]

4 says: "What happened with the materials that the RS secretariat for

5 dialogue with the Tribunal sent to The Hague so far?" Miletic

6 replied: "Well, The Hague Tribunal at that time there was still the

7 bureau for cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, addressed the government

8 of Republika Srpska and requested their assistance in conducting

9 investigation against Naser Oric. We provided them certain assistance

10 there. We submitted certain documents and then The Hague Tribunal brought

11 the indictment."

12 I'll stop there. So it's right, isn't it, that many of the

13 documents used in this case against Naser Oric were provided by Dejan

14 Miletic and the RS bureau for cooperation?

15 A. I can't really answer that. I'm not sure if most of the documents

16 that are used in this trial proceedings are from him.

17 Q. Are you aware that Dejan Miletic was removed from his position as

18 head of the RS secretariat for relations with the ICTY by the High

19 Representative, Paddy Ashdown, among other things, for document

20 concealment? Are you aware of that?

21 A. No.

22 MR. JONES: ... Exhibit which is the decision removing Dejan

23 Miletic.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: This will be, first of all, D144, this interview

25 with Dejan Miletic.

1 MR. JONES:

2 Q. Now for the decision which you should have in front of you, would

3 you please look at that document, and in particular to the actual decision

4 to remove Dejan Miletic, role in obstructing the investigations into

5 events in Srebrenica. And it's the last two pages. On the third page,

6 the bottom, the bottom paragraph: "The report," and that's of the

7 commission for investigation of events in and around Srebrenica, "makes

8 abundantly clear that Mr. Miletic failed in his duties, indeed it may be

9 concluded from the report that the secretariat over which he presided

10 staged on obfuscation and obstruction which hindered the commission's

11 ability to discharge its mandate effectively."

12 And further down: "The report concludes that the secretariat,"

13 that's the secretariat over which Mr. Miletic presided, "actively engaged

14 in document concealment."

15 Now, if that information came to the attention of the Office of

16 the Prosecutor, you would consider it pretty serious, wouldn't you?

17 Active engagement and concealment would be a cause for concern?

18 A. I would say so.

19 Q. But it's right that Mr. Miletic is not kept on any blacklist by

20 the OTP as a questionable source for documents, in light of his removal?

21 A. I'm not aware of. There might be, but I'm not aware of.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So this document will be D145.

23 MR. JONES:

24 Q. Moving to another area. If you look at your annex 1, pre-trial

25 exhibit number 80, which is P65, perhaps the record of an on-site

1 investigation of the death of Jakob Djokic dated 9 March 1993. Do you see

2 that? Now, we're going to distribute copies of that document. The ERN is

3 02075762. That document, first, the ERN 02075762, I think you agreed with

4 me earlier that 0207 is the Sokolac collection.

5 A. I don't know the numbers offhand. If you say, I would take it as

6 so.

7 Q. We have --

8 MR. JONES: I'd like to pass up actually another exhibit, while

9 we're with this one, which is the index to the Sokolac collection CD.

10 Q. I don't know if you've seen similar indexes like these to the CDs

11 of collections, in this case, the Sokolac collection, this document,

12 Ms. Manas. In this index, if you look three lines down, number 3,

13 document number 3, you have 02075760 to 02075762. Now, that's one

14 document, is it not? And this document which we have as P65 is the last

15 page of that document.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. We're going to refer to this index for a bit longer, so I'd ask

18 that to be given an exhibit number, first of all.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: So we start with the two pages, one in B/C/S,

20 bearing ERN number 0 --

21 MR. JONES: That's already P65.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: That's already P -- and that's -- bearing ERN number

23 02075762. And the English version having number 03038194. These have

24 already been tendered and admitted in evidence and marked as Prosecution

25 Exhibits P65. So then the chart or the index that consists of three pages

1 and which deals in total with 104 items of documentation and to which

2 reference has been made by Mr. Jones in his last question to Ms. Manas, is

3 being tendered and admitted in evidence as Defence Exhibit D146. Is it

4 good? Okay?

5 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. And we'd in fact like to pass

6 up copies of the full document, 02075760 to 02075762 just to see it in its

7 complete form.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Entirety, yeah.

9 MR. JONES:

10 Q. If you look on the last page of the document you've just been

11 handed, Ms. Manas, P65, it's the last page, appears to be signed by

12 Dr. Avdo Hasanovic. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, are you aware that Dr. Hasanovic was shown this document and

15 that he stated that the signature was not his, on P65? Are you aware of

16 that?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. JONES: I'd like to pass up the statement by Dr. Hasanovic, in

19 which he deals with ... Paragraph 67 of the statement given in March 2004.

20 He says there: "I've been shown an original document bearing ERN 02075762

21 by investigator Nasir. The signature on the document --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Which page, please.

23 MR. JONES: Paragraph 67, which is on page 10.

24 "The signature on the document is not mine. I do not remember

25 examining this patient myself. He might have been examined by my

1 colleagues. I want to mention here that the seal on this document might

2 have fallen to the Serbs at the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. There is

3 a possibility that the Serbs prepared this document."

4 Q. Now, do your records show or are you aware of whether this

5 possibility was investigated, that the Serbs had seized official stamps

6 upon the fall of Srebrenica and prepared documents?

7 A. No, I'm not aware.

8 Q. Isn't that an allegation which should have been taken seriously

9 and investigated?

10 A. Yes, it's a serious allegation.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: The thing is this: When did you read this statement

12 by Avdo Hasanovic? When did you come across it the first time?

13 THE WITNESS: After the investigator came back from the field.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: And wouldn't it have fallen under the competence

15 of -- competence, jurisdiction, of your team to investigate such a matter,

16 in other words, whether the Serbs had obtained, come into possession of

17 stamps which they then used for the forging, falsification of documents?

18 Wouldn't it have fallen under your competence or would you have referred

19 it to your superiors for further instructions?

20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that should have been done, but

21 unfortunately I wasn't the acting team leader then and it didn't form part

22 of this investigation then. So I can't answer that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: But was your team entrusted only with investigating

24 the Muslim leadership or also other matters?

25 THE WITNESS: Muslim leadership. But we had three other

1 investigations which we were working on and I didn't work on this.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes. One moment now, Mr. Jones, in

3 order not to confuse matters. You have what was previously, we said, P65,

4 which transpires to be only part of these three pages. Do you want to

5 tender these three pages starting from 02075760?

6 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, that would be helpful.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will become Defence Exhibit D147. And then

8 the statement by Avdo Hasanovic, you also want to tender, I suppose.

9 MR. JONES: Yes. In any event, the relevant paragraphs which were

10 referred to, not necessarily the whole statement.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: When you tender, we are not going to look at the

12 other matters, substitution of testimony for sure, definitely not. D147.

13 This will be D147. This is why I keep repeating every now and then that

14 we are professional Judges and you don't need to worry about -- did I make

15 a mistake, Mr. Siller? Should it have been another number?

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This will be 148, sorry. This statement by

18 Avdo Hasanovic will be 148. Okay. Sorry about that.

19 MR. JONES:

20 Q. Dr. Hasanovic isn't going to be called as a witness in this case.

21 Was he dropped as a witness after that statement from him was obtained, as

22 a result of his stating that the signature on the document was not his?

23 A. I do not know.

24 Q. And this remains P65, Prosecution Exhibit P65, despite the fact

25 Dr. Hasanovic has said that he thinks that his signature has been faked.

1 You don't have to answer that. It's the same point as before.

2 Now, that document was received, was it not, by Dan Perry from

3 Major Ranko Todorovic, in the 5th Corps headquarters Sokolac; in other

4 words, it's part of the Sokolac collection?

5 A. Is that what it says in my spreadsheet?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. I would say that's correct, yeah.

8 Q. I'd like to refer you to item 83 in your annex. It's P68. It's

9 the record of on-site investigation of death of Dragan Ilic, dated

10 10 March 1993. Firstly, I'd like you to refer back to D146, the index to

11 the Sokolac CD. Looking at the second document there, 02075763 to

12 02075765, again, P68 is part of that document, of that three-page

13 document?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. It's the last page of that three-page document.

16 MR. JONES: And again we have as an exhibit the full three-page

17 document, which we'd ask to be given a Defence exhibit number.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Registrar, could you check with the technicians and

19 translators whether -- because we started at 10 to 11.00; no? 10 to

20 11.00. Whether they prefer -- we could go on to 12.30, as scheduled, or

21 strictly speaking, we could also stop at 12.20, which would be the 1 hour

22 and 30 minutes that we are allocated. But see what they prefer. Yeah, go

23 ahead.

24 MR. JONES: We're just passing up, I think, copies of that

25 three-page document and asking for an exhibit number. It should be D149.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't have copies of it.

2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then we go until 12.30.

4 MR. JONES:

5 Q. That document, P68, also appears to be signed by Dr. Avdo

6 Hasanovic.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Is it P68 or P60 -- because what I have

8 now is -- can you put it on the ELMO for a moment so that we check,

9 please. Because what I have -- can you give us the ERN number, because I

10 think we are --

11 MR. JONES: In fact, what might assist, Your Honour, is there are

12 two Prosecution exhibits in this three-page document.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: This is 565.

14 MR. JONES: So first page is 02075763.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. 565; no? 765.

16 MR. JONES: 5765 is P68. In fact, the prior page is P67.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly, yeah.

18 MR. JONES:

19 Q. I don't know if you have Dr. Hasanovic's statements with you. If

20 not, it doesn't matter. I'll read it to you.

21 A. No.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, it can't be 67. Let's -- this document

23 consists of three pages, like the previous one, which was then marked as

24 P147. The first of these three pages is 02075763.

25 MR. JONES: Yes.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: The next one is 02075764, and shows also that -- or

2 denotes that it has become Prosecution Exhibit P67. And then we have a

3 final page with the ERN number 02075765, which you are telling me is

4 Prosecution Exhibit P68.

5 MR. JONES: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: What about the first one? Does it form part of

7 any -- of these two documents or is it an additional one?

8 MR. JONES: It's not a Prosecution exhibit. The three pages

9 constitute one document in the Sokolac collection.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This is why I'm asking you. You are going to

11 tender this as an exhibit.

12 MR. JONES: Yes.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: But what I want to make sure for the record, because

14 I know the answer already, but for the record, I want it from you that the

15 first page of these three pages does not form part of either P67 or P68.

16 MR. JONES: Yes, I can confirm that, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. And this document in its entirety

18 now comprising, in other words, what is already P67 and P68, will become

19 Defence Exhibit D149. Okay.

20 MR. JONES:

21 Q. I'll just refer back to Dr. Hasanovic's statement. As I say, you

22 don't need to refer to it. I'll just simply read the relevant paragraph.

23 Paragraph 68: "I've been shown an original document bearing ERN 02075765

24 by investigator Nasir. The signature on the document is not mine. I do

25 not remember examining this patient myself."

1 And at paragraph 65, Dr. Hasanovic also expressed doubts about

2 02075764. Again, my question, and I think you've answered it in relation

3 to the other exhibit, this isn't something which was investigated, whether

4 these documents were forged?

5 A. No.

6 Q. I'm going to move on to some new items on your annex. We can

7 dispense with that for the time being. I'd like to direct your attention

8 to numbers 56 and 57 on your annex 1.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: The previous one. And is this all mine or ...

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. And it's a question, really, about ERNs in that -- between those

13 two exhibits, P41 and P42. You see the ERNs there, 01839701, is P41, and

14 then 01840629 to 01840630 is P42. And both of those documents were taken

15 by Steve Tedder from Colonel Saranac in Banja Luka on at the same place,

16 same day?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. My question is: A document with an ERN falling between those two

19 ERN numbers would be from the same source, wouldn't it, from Colonel

20 Sarenac on the same day?

21 A. Same day. But when brought into the Evidence Unit it might not be

22 the same time, so maybe that's why the numbers are so different.

23 Q. Because I want to ask about document with ERN 01840522 and it's

24 not a Prosecution exhibit, but my suggestion to you is that that would

25 therefore be also from the Banja Luka collection and Colonel Sarenac

1 because the ERN falls between P41 and P42, which are from that source, if

2 you follow?

3 A. Yeah, if you say so.

4 MR. JONES: Copies of that document, 01840552.

5 Q. Now, are you aware that this document was shown to Kasim Suljic,

6 who is mentioned in that document, and that he cast doubt on the

7 document's authenticity? We can probably now pass up a statement by Kasim

8 Suljic, which I have copies for everyone. And it's paragraph 110 of that

9 statement which is being passed around. Page 9, paragraph 110: "I have

10 been presented with document ERN 01840522 to 10840522 [sic] I've never

11 seen this document before now. If this is real, I should have been given

12 a copy. I was never given this authorisation and I never carried out this

13 action. I did not go to the supreme command in Sarajevo."

14 So isn't it right Mr. Suljic gave a statement to the Prosecution

15 saying in essence that that document was suspect.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, he's not, if Your Honours please. He

17 says he's never seen the document. He says if it was real he should have

18 been given a copy. He says it was never given this authorisation. And he

19 says he didn't go to the supreme command. Maybe Mr. Oric signed the

20 document, didn't do anything with it. The conclusion that's being jumped

21 to is too far, too big a stretch.

22 MR. JONES: "If this is real, I should have been given a copy."

23 He wasn't given a copy, therefore, it's not real.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: It says what it says.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry.

2 MR. JONES:

3 Q. Was that investigated, the possibility that this document was not

4 authentic?

5 A. No.

6 Q. I'd also draw your attention to paragraph 109 of the same

7 statement. "I've been presented with document ERN 0211073, information in

8 the letter depicts the situation but I do not recall the letter and I

9 certainly did not write it." Isn't is it right from the ERN numbering of

10 that document that it would fall between P82 and P83 in your annex? I

11 don't know if you can see that. It's items 96 and 97. P82 is 02110276,

12 P83, 02113315. So would it be right that that document falls between P82

13 and P83?

14 A. Which paragraph on the statement again, please?

15 Q. Paragraph 109. 02113073.

16 A. Yes. It refers to that.

17 Q. Do you have a record of the source of that document, 02113073? Or

18 if you don't have it, perhaps --

19 A. No, I don't have it front of me.

20 Q. Perhaps you can find it for us on some other occasion. I would

21 ask that this part anyway of Mr. Suljic's statement be given an exhibit

22 number.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: The previous document --

25 MR. JONES: I'm not asking for that to be exhibited. It was

1 purely as a visual aid.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So this is not exhibited.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry. Just so that I can follow this. I'm sorry,

4 Your Honours, to interject. What's not being tendered? Is that 01840522?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. That's what I understood.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: May I ask why that's not being tendered? It was

7 cross-examined -- there was evidence led about the document, and the

8 statement of Mr. Suljic will make really little sense unless we see the

9 document. Surely it should be given an exhibit number. I'd press for its

10 admission into evidence.

11 MR. JONES: It's simply that our case is that this document is

12 completely false.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I understand.

14 MR. JONES: And provided that's clear, it can be exhibited.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand the purpose of -- and I quibble with

16 that, but it's been touched upon, and I think for the sake of

17 completeness --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But you understand I cannot force the Defence

19 to tender a document into exhibit.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: If they don't want to tender it.

22 MR. JONES: The point is taken because indeed it's true of some of

23 the other documents which have been exhibited, provided it's obviously

24 clear to everyone that we don't accept the authenticity.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it makes a lot of sense.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: That's perfectly understood.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be D150 and the statement by Kasim

3 Suljic will be D151, and the understanding is we'll only make use of the

4 two paragraphs referred to, that is, paragraphs 109 and 110.

5 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We will need to stop at about one or two minutes.

7 MR. JONES: Yes. I'm about to move to a new area, so we should

8 really break now.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll stop here. We'll have a 25-minute break.

10 Thank you.

11 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's proceed, Mr. Jones.

14 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try to conclude within

15 30 minutes, if possible, if we make progress.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's better for everyone.

17 MR. WUBBEN: And Your Honour, if I may --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Tomorrow we will not be sitting, Mr. Wubben.

19 MR. WUBBEN: It is indeed about the announcement your Court made

20 regarding the witness, and it's of importance for us to reschedule and

21 take measures. That's why I --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We will definitely. I mean, it doesn't make

23 sense.

24 Yes, Mr. Jones.

25 MR. JONES:

1 Q. Ms. Manas, I'm now going to ask you some questions which relate to

2 documents purportedly signed by Dr. Pilav. You may know that he was

3 listed as a witness a one point but he is no longer listed as a

4 Prosecution witness. I want to start by directing your attention to item

5 number 61, which is P46, in your annex 1. And the ERN is 02075703. The

6 description is "notes from interrogation of prisoner Kostadin Popovic,

7 dated 30 January 1993." And it was seized by Dan Perry from Major

8 Todorovic.

9 Now, looking again at this CD index to the Sokolac collection,

10 document 22 is the full four-page document, isn't it, in which that page

11 is found, 02075703 to 02075706?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. JONES: And again, just so everyone can follow, we're going to

14 pass up the four-page document as an exhibit.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

16 MR. JONES:

17 Q. Now, 02075703 is the first page. That's P46. I'm going to ask

18 you about the last page, 02075706. That appears to be signed by

19 Dr. Pilav. Now, are you aware that Dr. Pilav was shown that document at

20 page and he cast doubt on the authenticity of it?

21 A. Yes. I read the documents that you gave the Prosecution that you

22 were going to use against me, so I read his statement last night.

23 MR. JONES: I'd like to pass up copies of Dr. Pilav's statement.

24 It's at paragraph 56 of that statement.

25 Q. You see Dr. Pilav there stated: "I do not recall" --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Paragraph 56.

2 MR. JONES:

3 Q. "I do not recall typing this report regarding Kostadin Popovic."

4 ERN 02075706. "I find the report to have many illogical issues." And

5 then he goes on to explain in that paragraph and in paragraphs 58 and 59

6 all of the anomalies of the document.

7 Now, that document is from the Sokolac collection, isn't it,

8 Ms. Manas?

9 A. Well, if it's in my seizure details as such, then I take it is

10 that because I don't have the complaint to confirm that.

11 Q. Look at this complete document. It's four pages. The first page

12 is P46, the next two pages don't appear to be exhibited, and certainly the

13 last page is not an exhibit, is it, 02075706? You can take that from me

14 if you don't have a record of that. That's not an exhibit.

15 A. I don't.

16 Q. Isn't it right that in fact what's happened is Dr. Pilav has been

17 dropped as a witness, and one of these pages is being exhibited as a

18 Prosecution exhibit and the suspect pages are just being ignored?

19 A. I don't know the reason for that. I'm sorry.

20 Q. Well, if you have a four-page document as a matter of practice in

21 the OTP, and one page of that appears doubtful for some reason or other,

22 is it normal practice then to just use another page as a perfectly

23 reliable Prosecution exhibit?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Why are you expecting her to answer that question?

25 MR. JONES: I'm asking about OTP practice.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but she is an investigator. She is not a

2 Prosecutor. Later on when it's ripe, just throw it into Mr. Di Fazio's

3 lap or Mr. Wubben's lap. I mean, it's ...

4 MR. JONES:

5 Q. Perhaps, Ms. Manas, you can answer this: On the CD of the Sokolac

6 collection we see these four pages as one document. Who is it who decides

7 what constitutes an exhibit? Is it you or is it lawyers from the OTP who

8 decide?

9 A. Of course the investigator, he or she will check what's relevant

10 and produce it to the Prosecutor, and from there the Prosecution decides.

11 Q. Has there, if you know, been any serious investigation by the OTP

12 into this particular anomaly, in other words, going back, for example, to

13 Major Todorovic and saying: What's going on with these documents? Are

14 they genuine? Why does the author say that he didn't sign it? Has there

15 been anything of that nature been done?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to item 76, which is P61 on your

18 annex.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you tendering this?

20 MR. JONES: Yes. I believe it had been tendered.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: The four pages starting with ERN 02075703 until --

23 and ending with 02075706 are being tendered by the Defence and admitted

24 and marked as Defence Exhibits D152.

25 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. I will also be asking for

1 Dr. Pilav's statement to be exhibited, the relevant parts.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: And Dr. Pilav's statement, which starts with ERN

3 number 01171402 and consists of -- and ends with ERN number 01171416 is

4 being also tendered by the Defence as an exhibit of theirs, and it's being

5 admitted and marked as Defence Exhibit D153.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one -- it's a very minor matter, but just so

9 that we're all on the same wavelength, so to speak. Mr. Jones mentions as

10 he's tendering these documents in relation to the statement, I tender the

11 statement, for example, of Dr. Pilav, the relevant portions. The

12 Prosecution has no objection to his using the statement, but it would seek

13 that all of the statement be tendered into evidence. I know what you've

14 said regarding the content of the statement, but it may be that the date

15 the statement was taken may become relevant and if we don't have the date

16 at the front of the statement, it could cause difficulties later on. So

17 just so that everyone is clear, the Prosecution has no objection so long

18 as the entire statement is put into evidence. I'm well aware of all the

19 other evidentiary issues relating to the other content of the statement.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

21 MR. JONES: I think there's no problem with the whole statement,

22 all of these statements, being physically put in together and of course we

23 all understand that it's only a portion that's referring to the documents

24 they've been shown which are being put into evidence.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's perfect. I took it to be like that

1 in the first place in any case. But that's why I agree we are on the same

2 wavelength. I mean, it's no problem.

3 MR. JONES:

4 Q. So we're looking at item number 76 in your annex 1, which is P61.

5 And the ERN is 02075736. And the description is "handwritten notes from

6 interrogation of prisoner Bogdan Zivanovic, dated 21 January 1993."

7 It's right, isn't it, that that was also seized as part of the

8 Sokolac collection?

9 A. If you say so.

10 Q. If I could refer you again to the index of the CD. At line 12,

11 document 12, we have 02075735 to 02075737. And that's a document relating

12 to Bogdan Zivanovic. So isn't it right again that this is, this P61, is

13 again only one page of a larger document, a three-page document?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And we'll pass up copies of that document.

16 Now, the first page of that, 02075735 is P60. 5736 is P61. And

17 then we're looking at the last page, 02075737. Now, if I refer you again

18 to this statement by Dr. Pilav, he was shown, was he not, this page,

19 02075737, and he discussed it, and at paragraph 64: "I can tell you with

20 certainty that I did not examine any dead bodies in 1992, 1993. I did not

21 write these reports." And he's referred to a document referring to Bogdan

22 Zivanovic.

23 Now, again it's the same point, and perhaps you can't help us with

24 it, but isn't what's happened is you have a three-page document. The

25 first page, P61, the second, P61; the third page is the author who has

1 cast doubt on the authenticity, and that's simply been pulled and

2 discarded and the other two are being relied on as perfectly reliable

3 documentary exhibits? That's right, isn't it?

4 A. If you say so. I mean, I can't answer in more detail than that

5 why, why it wasn't.

6 Q. That's fine.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Forgive my ignorance if what I'm saying

8 is due to it, but you mentioned paragraph 64; correct?

9 MR. JONES: Yes. And then if you go back to paragraphs 61 and 62,

10 it's referring to the report on Bogdan Zivanovic.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but there's no reference to the specific

12 document; no?

13 MR. JONES: Unfortunately, no, but it's clearly that document. In

14 fact, it may even be annexed.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Because we don't even have a translation of this

16 document, this last ...

17 MR. JONES: In our submission, this is the document. Perhaps

18 there's -- the way of establishing it is looking at paragraph 60, where

19 you see the ERN 02075737. Sorry, in fact, that's it. That is the ERN,

20 paragraph 60. Yeah. Paragraph 60, one sees that that is the document

21 that he's been shown.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, Judge Eser.

23 JUDGE ESER: 737, I can see the name of Pilav, but on the other

24 two pages, 35 and 36, what does it have to do with Pilav?

25 MR. JONES: Yes. 02075737, as you see, is signed by Pilav. This

1 is a three-page document, as we see from the index to the Sokolac

2 collection, and it consists of these three pages, 5735, 5736, 5737. And

3 the point I was putting to Ms. Manas is that the last page has simply been

4 torn off and discarded while relying on the other two pages as reliable

5 documentary evidence.

6 JUDGE ESER: But just to make sure. The statement of Dr. Pilav in

7 P -- in D153 does not refer to P60, P61; is that correct?

8 MR. JONES: No, it doesn't refer to P61. His signature isn't

9 purportedly on the document.

10 JUDGE ESER: So your position is if you turn in document 737, you

11 should also turn in 735 and 736, even if there is no internal connection

12 between these pages?

13 MR. JONES: Yes. That's our submission, that that's how the

14 Prosecution should proceed. We've passed up the exhibit which is all

15 three pages together.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Do you want to tender this document?

17 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: So this three-page document starting with ERN

19 02075735 and ending with ERN 02075737, the first two pages of which are

20 already exhibits, Prosecution exhibits P60 and 61, is being tendered by

21 the Defence as its own exhibit and is being received and marked as Defence

22 Exhibit D154.

23 MR. JONES: And finally, there's one more document that I'd ask

24 you to look at, Ms. Manas, in this series, starting with the index to the

25 Sokolac collection. It's at line 10 and it's the document 02075742 to

1 02075745. I'm going to refer to the person by the pseudonym. It's a

2 protected witness.

3 Q. Isn't it right in this case too we have a four-page document,

4 02075743 is P62, and the other pages which refer to the death of the

5 person, who is in fact alive, were not being tendered as Prosecution

6 exhibits? Are you aware of that? First page, 02075742, the annotation at

7 the bottom "buried in cemetery." The last page, report that someone has

8 died. And in fact, this person is alive, died in prison. Because in

9 fact, this person is alive and will be a witness in this case.

10 A. I don't know. It's in B/C/S, so I can't tell.

11 MR. JONES: This is, in fact, the subject -- partly the subject of

12 a motion, Your Honour, so in fact I won't dwell. I just wanted to get

13 that document in its entirety in as a Defence exhibit.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's better. The way you've been dealing

15 with this I think is perfect. So this will be D155. Correct me if I'm

16 wrong, Mr. Registrar. Thank you.

17 MR. JONES: Moving to a different area, I want to ask you a

18 question about a document which appeared item 103 of your first annex.

19 And it's the ERN 02621257 to 02621260. And it's the description of attack

20 on Rupovo Brdo, Vlasenica.

21 Q. Now, that is no longer a Prosecution exhibit. It was P86, but

22 it's been withdrawn. I'd like to pass up copies of that document in order

23 to ask you a question about it. This is in B/C/S. I'll ask you to look

24 at the last page, where there are some signatures. And it's right, isn't

25 it, that it appears to be signed by, among other people, by someone called

1 Ramo Hodzic, and that's the second of three signatures at the bottom? Do

2 you see that, Ramo Hodzic?

3 A. I see a name, Ramo Hodzic.

4 MR. JONES: I'll pass up the statement of Mr. Hodzic.

5 Q. I'll ask you to look at paragraph 18 of that statement. He says

6 there: "I've been shown an original document bearing ERN 02621257 to

7 02621260 by investigator Nasir. I've never seen this document previously.

8 I was never involved in the preparation of this document. I was never

9 involved in the preparation of any other documents like this one. In

10 fact, I've never been part of the 28th Division."

11 My question is: That document is no longer a Prosecution exhibit,

12 but isn't it right that it's in the same format as documents which are

13 still being put forward as Prosecution exhibits? And I'm referring to

14 P87. If you look on 104 on your list. P88 and P89.

15 MR. JONES: I've got copies of those.

16 Q. I'll ask you, Ms. Manas: Looking at the document which we just

17 looked at with Mr. Hodzic's statement, and these three documents, they're

18 all in the same form, aren't they; they're the same basic format? The

19 headings are the same and we have signatures on the last page.

20 A. It appears to be.

21 Q. I'll ask you: Has there been any investigation in that respect

22 into whether given that Mr. Hodzic says that the Rupovo Brdo document was

23 false, maybe these other documents are false as well? Checked with the

24 purported signatories in each case?

25 A. I don't know. Sorry. I don't know the answer to that.

1 Q. Just a final couple of questions. Firstly, have you been able to

2 determine since the last occasion when you testified what government

3 department is in Sokolac or what agency is in Sokolac, the source of the

4 Sokolac collection? I think you said it was the 5th Corps HQ, but do you

5 have any further information about what agency is based there?

6 A. No, I didn't go further into looking at that. I didn't know I was

7 supposed to. That was covered during the first testimony, so ...

8 MR. JONES: I'm waiting for the interpretation.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Proceed.

10 MR. JONES: Yes. We have some exhibits.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Start with the one which originally seems to have

12 had the -- first of all, consists of four pages and originally had the

13 sequential ERN number from 026 to 1257 to 02621260, but which also --

14 MR. JONES: I think it was given a new ERN probably when the

15 witness signed it and was shown it.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Which also has another reference number, which

17 is constant throughout the four pages, and that is 03574584 but which has

18 an additional letter starting with "A" on the first page, continuing

19 with "B" on the second, "C" on the third, and "D" on the fourth. This is

20 being tendered by the Defence and marked as Defence Exhibit D156.

21 Then there is the statement by Ramo Hodzic. Date of the interview

22 3/6/2004, bearing ERN numbers 03574, 579 to and inclusive of 03574584.

23 This is being tendered and marked as Defence Exhibit D157.

24 The other one, I don't think ones that have already been tendered

25 and marked as P87, I don't think you need to tender it again.

1 MR. JONES: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: So you can leave it here.

3 MR. JONES: In fact, that concludes my cross-examination. There

4 are two things essentially I'd like to do. One is to state which of the

5 new documents we object to for the record. But also to make this exercise

6 useful to also explain our objections to the first batch of documents by

7 reference to the evidence which has been given this morning. So I can do

8 that very shortly, but it may be that I should do that after

9 re-examination. I'm in Your Honour's hands.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there re-examination in the first place.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: There will be, and there's an associated issue with

12 that, and that is this: It's got about ten minutes to go. I'd like to

13 finish my -- if you indulge me, I'd like to finish my re-examination later

14 in the week and assuming there's no problem for the witness. The reason I

15 ask that is that there's a number of complicated documents that have come

16 in today that I want to look at far more carefully, and if it's to be

17 useful at all. I have a basic idea of what I need to do.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: We can sit tomorrow. Tomorrow we are not sitting.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Yes. Yes, we could finish it off tomorrow.

20 I'm sorry. I hadn't thought of that.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: We can do it tomorrow.

24 MR. JONES: Yes. That's fine with us.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. Thank you.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll -- I see Mr. Wubben, does it create any

2 problems with you? But I think you can --

3 MR. WUBBEN: No, that's fine.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: We can make use tomorrow. We were going to dedicate

5 ourselves to the various motions that have come up, plus obviously I have

6 other things from other cases as well.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: I just need a bit of time to gather my thoughts and

8 look at the documents.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll start at 9.00, like usual, and the earlier we

10 finish, the better it is, so that we can then attend to the other matters

11 that we have.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll be about ten minutes, I think.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah. Take your time. I mean, these

14 documents are important.

15 MR. JONES: Then I'll put the objections afterwards.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, of course.

17 MR. JONES: I'm obliged, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Also, I take it you haven't seen practically any of

19 the documents that are being tendered today.

20 MR. JONES: There is that issue too, and that will be -- by us

21 this evening.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry. Just one other matter. D155 contains

23 information which, if looked at in the context of the oral evidence of

24 this witness, will confirm who one of our protected witnesses is, so I'd

25 ask that D155 be kept under seal or protective measures to conceal who it

1 was that the witness was talking about. Mr. Jones quite properly --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: So be it. That will go under seal, Mr. Siller. Does

3 it create any problems for you? I don't think so.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So there is no problem. You said 155; no?

6 So I think we can adjourn for the day, and tomorrow we will

7 reconvene, so I take back what I said earlier, that there will not be a

8 sitting tomorrow. There will be a sitting tomorrow, for as long as it

9 lasts, and as necessary, during which we will conclude with Ms. Manas and

10 you will also deal with the rest of the admissibility matters.

11 MR. JONES: Yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- arising out of the documents that are being

13 tendered today.

14 MR. JONES: Yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Which we haven't seen either, I mean, so --

16 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. So we'll reconvene tomorrow. I

18 can't tell you which hall. Today we were supposed to meet in Courtroom I,

19 but because of technical reasons we couldn't. I don't know whether the

20 technical reasons have been solved or not. So you will be advised or

21 please check in the morning to see which courtroom we are sitting in.

22 Thank you.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.35 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of

25 January, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.