1 Wednesday, 27 August 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So good morning, everybody. Thank you. All the
10 accused are here. Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 Defence, I notice the absence of Ms. Tapuskovic, Mr. Bourgon, and
12 Mr. Haynes.
13 Dobar dan gospodine, Professor.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Hopefully we will finish with your testimony very
16 soon, and --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hope so too.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. You've been extremely helpful and very
19 cooperative. I didn't expect your testimony to last this long, so I'm
20 sorry if it did. But it means that the parties have attached, obviously,
21 a lot of importance to it.
22 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to you
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- Your Honours. Good morning to my learned
3 WITNESS: SLOBODAN REMETIC [Resumed]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
5 Q. And good morning to you Mr. Remetic. I going to try and -- well,
6 I will comply with the Trial Chamber's direction, but I'm going to try
7 myself to move this along.
8 Now, yesterday, you talked about certain words that were
9 particular to the Dalmatian coast. One of the words was the word "sjor;"
10 is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the word "sjor" is derivative or related to the word
13 "Signor," right?
14 A. Yes, Signor. A Romanesque term.
15 Q. And in the context of your observation of Mr. Beara, his speech
16 in April of this year, the use of that term corresponds with the dialect
17 that you heard him use when you interviewed him?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in fact, that dialect incorporates other Romanisms as well?
20 A. I don't know what specific words you are referring to. Surely
21 not only in the Cakavian but in all other coastal regions, even deep into
22 the territory of Montenegro
23 Durmitor, the area from which Vuk Karadzic originated, is full of
24 Romanisms. Even the name Durmitor is derived from Latin.
25 Q. I'm only referring to the dialect that you observed Mr. Beara
1 use. That's all. Does that incorporate other Romanisms other than the
2 word "sjor"?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Are you familiar with the term "skape"?
5 A. I'm familiar with the term "skape." You can find them on Mount
6 Durmitor as well. These are openings in rocks, pits, holes.
7 Q. Is the use of that term consistent with the dialect that you
8 heard Mr. Beara use in April of this year?
9 A. No, I don't know. I don't know about this detail, but I do not
10 rule out the possibility, just as it is probable to hear the word "skape"
11 even out side the Cakavian-speaking regions. You can also here them in
12 the Stokavian-speaking regions. It is not marked. It is a wide-spread
13 word equal to the use of the word "burazer."
14 Q. Okay. So there's nothing linguistically distinctive about the
15 use of that word in your opinion; is that right? You can answer yes or
16 no so we can move this along.
17 A. No, because half of the words have been borrowed from other
18 languages. The word "soba" comes from the word Hungarian. "Carapa"
19 comes from Turkish. Half of the garments that I have on me do not have
20 Slavic origins in their names. And let me remind you of something if you
21 allow me, and it is my duty to do so, and I beg for your patience. Since
22 we are insistent on individual cases, this whole region experienced
23 turbulent history. Various civilisations and administrations existed
24 there and left their traces behind. The region where Beara and I spent
25 our youth, that is Bosnia and Herzegovina, had been part of
1 Austria-Hungaria for 40 years. People joined the army under the German
2 command, and I can ascertain -- and I'm speaking from my experience that
3 illiteral people were eager and are still eager to use in Bosnia various
4 words that they learned from the commands.
5 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. My question is really quite limited and
6 specific, and that is whether or not the word "skape" carries linguistic
7 significance in your opinion, and you can tell me yes or no.
8 A. It has a linguistic significance. It is a Romanism in our
9 dialect. It is not marked either territorially or dialectically. It is
11 Q. Now, yesterday we talked a little bit - or maybe a lot, actually
12 - about language or dialect as an identifiable feature that is mutable.
13 We talked about the concept of code-shifting, which is changing dialects,
14 and we also talked about changing dialects in the context of somebody
15 that is bidialectal, that they can speak two different dialects or
16 understand two different dialects.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You observed in your report, if you recall, on page 14 that
19 Mr. Beara was without fault when translating all detailed differences and
20 constructions from the texts attributed to him into his linguistic model.
21 That's in your report at page 14, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, are you aware of any studies that relate to the effects of
24 switching dialects, that is on the listener?
25 A. Well, it's common knowledge. These issues have been the subject
1 of numerous dialectological studies. I did not especially address this
2 issue. My area of study was the influence of other dialects on their
3 neighbouring dialects, for which purpose Bosnia is a particularly good
4 ground since it has three religions, and religious affiliation as a rule
5 is reflected in the differences in dialects.
6 On the 3rd of March of this year, I held an academic speech on
7 the subject of the Serbian dialects of Bosnia in the light of dialectical
8 interference and its linguistic and social linguistic aspect. I viewed
9 this topic in a broader framework in order to find out to what extent the
10 Bosniaks and the Croats have influence with their dialect, that of the
12 Q. All right. What I wanted to know specifically was whether you
13 were acquainted with a study that was conducted in Sweden. In
14 particular, it derives from a article that is entitled "Switch Of Dialect
15 As Disguise," and it is written by Sjostrom, Eriksson, Zetterholm,
16 Sullivan, and published in 2006, part of the centre of languages and
17 literature department in university there. And in particular what they
18 caution is that because a dialect can be switched or imitated, that
19 "forensic practitioners who currently use dialect as a primary feature
20 during analysis need to reduce their reliance on this feature and be
21 aware that they can be easily misled."
22 Are you familiar with such a concept, and is that something that
23 you took into consideration when you interviewed Mr. Beara in April of
24 this year?
25 A. If I'm not wrong, that implies that someone is willingly changing
1 his dialect. Are you referring to that, that someone is willingly and
2 knowingly switching to another dialect in order to conceal his identity?
3 If this is what you mean, well, these problems are beyond my scope of
4 expertise, and I don't see any reason for this being done. I'm not an
5 expert in these kind of issues. You can call it a disguise, and when you
6 say "disguise," it, I assume, implies a willing act or a knowing act, and
7 I didn't see any purpose for that, for that kind of behaviour on the part
8 of Mr. Beara.
9 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you about the circumstances under which
10 you examined him, then. When you went to go visit Mr. Beara at the
11 detention unit - I think you testified to - first, that was an
12 appointment; he was expecting you. Isn't that true?
13 A. Yes, a meeting had been convened.
14 Q. He knew that you were coming there for the specific purpose of
15 evaluating his speech, right?
16 A. I said that I wished to meet him to have a talk with him and to
17 see and hear in what way he is talking now. It goes without saying that
18 if he is going to be visited by a linguist, then, sir --
19 Q. It is correct that he knew you were coming there for the specific
20 purpose of evaluating his speech? That's correct, right?
21 A. I suppose so.
22 Q. It is also correct that he knew that you were there for the
23 specific purpose of evaluating his speech in the context of these
24 specific intercepts. That's true too, right?
25 A. I don't know about that. All I know is that I saw and heard that
1 he definitely still speaks in the way that he spoke at the beginning of
2 the war and as he was identified by his fellow combatants from the Army
3 of Republika Srpska when they thought that he was a Croat. I said on
4 several occasions the Beara of pre-war period speaks Cakavian, Ikavian,
5 and Croatian, and he still speaks that. There is something else,
6 however, in the transcripts, and this is the problem that I faced, sir.
7 Q. All right. Having conducted that interview, did you determine
8 whether or not Mr. Beara had access to the intercepts against which you
9 were going to compare his dialect? You can answer that yes or no.
10 A. I don't know. No, no, I don't know.
11 Q. Did you inquire as to whether or not he had access to the
12 information against which you were going to compare your observations?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So you never asked him whether or not he'd seen the intercepts
15 that you were there to compare his speech against?
16 A. No.
17 Q. All right. You never asked his attorney. Whether his attorney
18 provided him with those intercepts that you were going to compare your
19 observations against?
20 A. I don't remember asking him that.
21 Q. Today, as you testify in court, you have absolutely no ability to
22 say whether or not Mr. Beara was familiar with the intercepts that you
23 were comparing his voice against and is the subjects of your analysis?
24 A. You are asking me if I knew whether he knew. I don't know. I
25 don't know if he knew.
1 Q. Well, Mr. Remetic, isn't a relevant consideration to know whether
2 or not Mr. Beara has knowledge of the intercepts in question since you
3 are comparing what he is telling you against what you're observing in
4 those documents? Isn't that an important thing to know?
5 A. Sir, in my view, the important thing was first to sit on the side
6 and listen to him talking to other persons, then to talk to him on
7 specific topics, and then I was assured that I could use this procedure
8 on the basis on a number of examples that I had on paper from the
9 transcript. And I asked him a question to which he replied to me, this
10 is the way the Serbian people speak, this is the way the Montenegrins
11 speak; and this is as a linguist is the path that I took, and I wouldn't
12 have done it any differently if I had to do it today.
13 Q. When you interviewed Mr. Beara, you observed his speech in the
14 context of his discussions with his lawyers, right? Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. You observed that speech on the 7th of April in the
17 context of his discussions with Mr. Ostojic and Mr. Meek in the presence
18 of Ms. Dzambazovic, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And you observed that speech also in the context of his
21 discussions with Mr. Ostojic and the presence of Ms. Dzambazovic on the
22 following day, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You directly posed questions to Mr. Beara in order to determine
25 distinctions that he can make relevant to the purpose of your examination
1 of these intercepts, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in the context of what information he gave you, you compared
4 these intercepts against the way he presented himself over that 7- or
5 8-hour period of observation, right? You can answer that just yes or --
6 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
7 Q. You testified previously that putting direct questions to the
8 subject of an analysis during a linguistic examination of that person is
9 something that is not in accordance with the canons of your profession?
10 A. Yes, but when you examine an illiterate person who speaks in a
11 certain dialect is quite a different thing. I made a clear distinction
12 that in this particular case I was able to do that because I was dealing
13 with a very intelligent and cooperative collocutor, and let me tell, you
14 there were not too many questions of that kind because what I heard on
15 the first day was enough for me to create a clear picture of the way that
16 Beara speaks nowadays. As for my conclusions on the transcripts I
17 reached them within the context not only of his present dialect because
18 as I said so many times before, not to discard that altogether in
19 advance, but I, rather, looked at the standard Croatian language that he
20 uses outside the dialect itself.
21 Q. The reason why a linguist doesn't put direct questions on dialect
22 to the subject of his examination is because he can influence the
23 results. Isn't that true?
24 A. You are absolutely right.
25 Q. That has nothing to do with the literacy, Mr. Remetic. It has
1 nothing to do with literacy; that's true, right?
2 A. Please, until April this year I researched the dialect only
3 through conversations with authentic speakers who were born in the
4 certain region and very poorly literate or totally illiterate. This
5 method by posing questions I applied only after I had a clear picture of
6 the present linguistic model employed by Mr. Beara.
7 Q. All right. And in determining that linguistic model by
8 Mr. Beara, you didn't consider his possible motivation to be less than
9 candid with you about the way he speaks?
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, I apologise for interrupting, and I
11 do have to object. I think we've heard enough of this. If the
12 Prosecution has evidence that Mr. Beara changed or altered his dialect,
13 they should bring it forth. This is purely speculation. It's something
14 that I know they utilize in their cross, but there's no evidence that he
15 changed or altered his speech at any time. But they should have concrete
16 evidence and put it to the witness, or perhaps they should bring their
17 linguist, which they don't have, to share with us these concepts that my
18 learned friend is learning from the literature or reading from the
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you have misread Mr. Vanderpuye's question.
21 It's a very simple question, and it's a straightforward one, whether in
22 his assessment the gentleman, professor, considered or not the possible
23 motivation on the part of accused Beara to mislead the professor in the
24 course of his work.
25 So please answer the question.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no reason to suspect because
2 I realized and I was almost shocked and surprised to such an extent that
3 he still speaks in the same manner that he spoke before the war, that he
4 is using the Split-based Cakavian dialect as I had been told. I was
5 surprised. Anyway, gentlemen, Mr. Beara is here, and any other approach
6 in this analysis is possible. We have the subject, the speaker, and my
7 findings can be cross-checked, and it can be verified whether he is still
8 speaking the same way as he did before as I stated, and I think this
9 should be much easier for you to do that then for myself.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. Mr. Remetic, the logic in which you assessed --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- subsumes that you've made the determination already,
14 preconceived determination of how Mr. Beara spoke before you spoke to
15 him, because what you've said is you had a linguistic model about how he
16 spoke before the war in order to analyse how he spoke during the war by
17 comparing it against what you observed after the war. That's the whole
18 purpose of your determination is to figure out how he spoke during the
19 war. That's the subject of the intercept, isn't it, Mr. Remetic?
20 A. Sir, I had three assignments or three things to do. I'm begging
21 your pardon sir, please. Actually, I had three things. I had
22 transcripts, I had an insight into how Beara speaks today, and I had
23 information that early he spoke as a Croat would do. He was in service
24 in Split
25 and never expected that I would encounter this speech model as I did in
1 the detention unit. I was surprised. I was astonished, sir, and I said
2 yesterday that if I had been 30 years younger or if I were 30 years
3 younger now, if I were just starting my career, I would analyse his
4 speech pattern very seriously. I did not come to confirm anything. I
5 just wanted to see how his -- or hear, rather, how he speaks today.
6 That's all.
7 Q. When you met with Mr. Beara -- or rather, let me withdraw that
8 and rephrase it. Your comparison is based only on examination of what he
9 -- your examination of the intercepts is based only upon a comparison
10 against what he sounded like in 2008 when you met him, right?
11 A. Yes, yes. I did most of the work before meeting with Beara. So
12 I returned home on the 9th, and already on the 18th I dispatched my final
13 report. I had been working on it for months. It's logical, it can be
14 verified, and this is something that goes without saying, of course.
15 Q. Okay. So you didn't consider any other speech, a known speech
16 attributable to Mr. Beara at any time before 2008?
17 A. I believe that I've already said that on several occasions. I
18 expected to find traces of his childhood, but I didn't find anything,
19 nothing that would be differential, nothing that would be marked. And
20 let me repeat once again; later on, I practically excluded the speeches
21 of northwestern Serbia
22 just like my host he is who said to me yesterday, let's go "lijevo,"
23 left, just like Beara said when he addressed the lady and told her why
24 are you so pale, "blijeda." I understand that fully. This is Croatian.
25 Q. I understand that. My question is whether -- a very simple
1 question, and I understand that your answer is in fact you did not
2 consider any other speech known to be attributed to Mr. Beara before
3 2008. Yes, that's correct?
4 A. Who is it who attributes speech to him, and what speech is
5 attributed to him? Nobody attributes anything to him. I was just told
6 that he spoke Croatian, that he spoke Croatian as any Croatian would do,
7 so I just assumed that he would be using the Split variant of the
8 Cakavian dialect. What speech are you talking about?
9 Q. Let me give you an example. Were you made aware of an article
10 that was published in Svedok, 29 October 2002? Were you made aware of an
11 article attributing certain statements to Mr. Beara by his attorneys, by
12 Mr. Beara, or by anyone else?
13 A. No. No, no. No, no.
14 Q. Any information concerning a statement or some exemplar of
15 Mr. Beara's speech from Mr. Beara, his attorneys, his wife, or any other
17 A. I didn't. The only thing I requested were audiotapes of the
18 intercepts, and attorneys told me that they did not have any because the
19 only thing I was asked to do was to analyse that material.
20 Q. All right. Mr. Ostojic went over a number of intercepts that you
21 reviewed. I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of them, if I may.
22 What I'd like to draw your attention to is 65 ter 3627. If I could have
23 that on the -- in e-court, please. If I could, please, may we go to the
24 page with the ERN number ending 153, 7153. All right. Okay. If we
25 could just go to the -- if you could just look at the fourth line from
1 the bottom of that page. All right. It would be the top line now on the
2 page. That's attributable to Mr. Beara. Do you see that?
3 A. Where? What text? There are several sentences here containing
4 the word "Beara."
5 Q. Well, I'm talking about the --
6 A. Which text? Which sentence? Give me the beginning of the
7 sentence. There's several of them here.
8 Q. Go up two lines. That may help you. Okay. The first one starts
9 with -- looks like "Znas sta." Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in particular, I'm referring to the part where it says
12 "etencina bre."
13 A. Yes, well -- yes.
14 Q. Okay. Now, what type of language is that? What type of dialect
15 is that?
16 A. This form may originate in two ways. It could to be Ikavian, and
17 in the Croatian variant "prijek" could be "prek" [phoen] because R is
18 dropped out after J like "brijeg" and plural is "bregovi," as in
19 "lijevobi" [phoen] becomes "ljevo" or -- and this "prek" can be the
20 original Ikavian or it could be a derivative of the Croatian "prijek."
21 This form is not a reliable identifier. It is not well marked for
23 Q. Is it consistent with the dialect that you observed Mr. Beara --
24 that Mr. Beara spoke to you with in April of this year?
25 A. Not Ikavian but it could be the Croatian variants of the former
1 common language or what is currently known as the Croatian language. In
2 the Croatian the form is "prijek" and the derivative is "prek." This is
3 not part of the dialect that he uses, but it could be part of the
4 standard language that he uses.
5 Q. Okay. What about two lines down, you see a word attributed to
6 Mr. Beara?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which on the tape appears to be "kretencina bre." Now, is that
9 something --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- that is consistent in the dialect of Mr. Beara?
12 A. This "bre," I don't think so. "Bre" is something that is a
13 filler word, primarily in Serbia
14 have creeped into the language of the officers because the officers of
15 the army hale from all over the place. This is not imminent to the
16 coastal Cakavian linguistic area. It is more commonly heard in the
17 eastern parts.
18 Q. All right. And he hales from there but spent a substantial
19 amount of time in the western part, which he demonstrated to you when you
20 interviewed him, right?
21 A. Well, yes.
22 Q. Okay. If we could go to Intercept 3607. Before we do, by the
23 way, on 3627, the one that's on the screen, you did reach the
24 determination that is Mr. Beara on the tape, didn't you?
25 A. I think that it is Beara.
1 Q. Let's go to 3607, please. All right. If we could we could go to
2 page with ERN ending 7108. All right. I think it's all right if Mr.
3 Remetic can see that. At the bottom of the page?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You see the term "Gdje," G-d-j-e with a question mark attributed
6 to Mr. Beara. Do you see that, Mr. Remetic?
7 A. Yes. I'm not sure that I heard him say "gdje." I'm not sure
8 that I heard him that way. The recording was not that clear to me. I
9 know that this is part of the standard norm, however, in practice; and
10 this is something that I stated in my statement in free-flow
11 communication. The way people speak in Bosnia is different. They will
12 say "Je."
13 That's in Bosnian. That's also how I would speak in
14 communication with my relatives and colleagues who are Bosniaks and Croats
15 and who are also linguists from Sarajevo
16 communication when I talk to them on the phone. I would never use it in a
17 paper, or I would never use it speaking from a rostrum.
18 Q. All right. In your report on page 16, you say that Mr. Beara
19 today says "gdi", g-d-i, right?
20 A. Yes. "Gdi" is what he says most of the time. However, if he
21 uses the standard form, then it can be "di" or "gdi". I've told you that
22 there's no single village, either Cakavian or Stokavian, that would be
23 purely linguistically defined, and this, of course, applies even more to
24 any educated man who is well versed in speaking a standard norm.
25 Q. Mr. Remetic, if it's not linguistically defined, then it has no
1 linguistic significance in terms of making identification, right,
2 particular in individual identification?
3 A. Well, you know -- what do you mean? Are you referring just to
4 this form, or are you referring to the whole body of the analysed text?
5 Q. What I'm referring to is sub (a) in section 11 of your report
6 where you specifically point out that Mr. Beara's "current manner of
7 speech is in sharp contrast to these facts," referring to the term "gde,"
8 g-d-e, and you say that Mr. Beara today says "gde" as a significant
9 linguistic distinction, which you are now apparently contradicting.
10 That's what I'm referring to.
11 A. I'm not contradicting anything. I adhered to what I said about
12 Beara's speech, and I based that on the eight hours of my experience.
13 Q. Okay. With respect to this intercept, 3607, you had an
14 opportunity to hear that. Is that Mr. Beara's voice on this intercept?
15 A. My impression is that it is.
16 Q. Let me refer you, then, to intercept 3626. If we could have that
17 in e-court, please. Okay. All right, in this intercept, if you go,
18 well, first of all to the third line from the bottom or the fourth line
19 from the bottom, you see the term "los muchachos," right, that I'd
20 referred to yesterday. Do you see that, Mr. Remetic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. Now, if we could go down a little bit on this page.
23 All right. The second to last line on the page in front of you now, you
24 see the word "gde," g-d-e, right?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. It's not -- okay. If you go -- now, are we on the next page on
2 this? If we could go down a little bit or to the next page if there's
3 nothing. You see the line that begins "kako nisi." You see that? It's
4 the third line down on this page.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In this you see, again, the term g-d-e," gde," right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. You heard this tape, as well, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And this was a tape also of Mr. Beara, wasn't it?
11 A. I think so, yes.
12 Q. Let me take you to Intercept 65 -- well it's intercept, 13 July
13 1995, at 1009, and that is 65 ter 1130. I don't think I need it in
14 e-court, but let me ask you first. This is an intercept that contains
15 language to the effect of Sjor Lucic, which is attributed to Mr. Beara.
16 Do you remember this intercept, or shall I put it on the screen for you?
17 A. This is the first intercept, sir, with Sjor Lucic, yes.
18 Q. That's correct. And "sjor" you've indicated is a typically
19 Dalmatian term?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Yet in your report you conclude that the dialect does not reveal
22 the speaker's origin, and you reason in your report that that's because
23 it doesn't appear in the other intercept that you evaluated.
24 A. Yes, that's the swallow, remember. That one swallow was what
25 initiated the search for a flock, and there was no flock.
1 Q. Okay. You also point out in that intercept -- in your analysis
2 of that intercept is the use of the term "gde." That's on page 16 of
3 your report.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That was the basis for excluding Mr. Beara as a potential
6 participant in this conversation in your analysis?
7 A. Sir, this was not the basis. If you have looked at my report
8 very carefully, you will remember that I say in it that the language is
9 not marked for variances, that in every text there are elements of both
10 the western and eastern variants of the common language and that the
11 western variant prevails. Please, I'm reminding you that this is what I
12 say in my report, and I have also stated in my report that there are more
13 Ijekavian forms and only one "gde." "Sjor" was something that would be
14 marked, but there was just one confirmation that never repeated again.
15 In everyday language, this word shares the status of "burazer," and there
16 are quite a few of the word "burazer" in there. I drew my conclusions
17 based on the relationship between the western and eastern variant
18 characteristics. The intercept that contains "los muchachos" and
19 "dogadja" is the intercept that I would attribute to Beara's name, not
20 because of the "los muchachos" as much as for "dogadja," but then when
21 you have both "los muchachos" and "dogadja," you draw conclusions based
22 on that. Not a single transcript is very well marked for variants.
23 Wherever there is text, there are both groups of forms, so there's no
24 single transcript that can be attributed exclusively to either the
25 western or the eastern model, and there is practically no Cakavian
1 dialect in any of them except for this word "sjor" in one of them.
2 Q. All right. But you do have this word "sjor" in one of them, and
3 despite that word "sjor" being in one of them, you conclude that you
4 don't have enough information to attribute this intercept to Mr. Beara,
5 which conversely means you don't have enough information to exclude
6 Mr. Beara doesn't it, Mr. Remetic?
7 A. Yes, yes. I didn't have them then, and I don't have them now,
9 Q. All right. If we could, we can go to intercept 15 July. Let's
10 start with 15 July, 094 hours, 65 ter 1178. All right. This is an
11 intercept that you mentioned in your report as I have it on page 18.
12 Now, in this report you conclude that it's not possible to accept without
13 reservation the view that this relates to Mr. Beara who did not
14 explicitly identify himself as such, even the - I can't even say this
15 word - hypochoristic Ljubo does not appear; and in any case, it could
16 refer to the bearers [Realtime transcript read in error, "Bearas"] of
17 some 30 names, right?
18 You then say, hereto appears the noun "burazer," which
19 accompanies the majority of the text initially connected with Ljubisa
20 Beara. Okay. Now, you've already said that "burazer" has no linguistic
21 significance because it's used everywhere.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, Mr. President, my learned friend. On
24 page 19, line 21, I think that report actually uses the word "bearer"
25 with a small B and not the name "Beara" as I think they typed, just so
1 the record's is clear on that, and I think --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think you are correct.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry. I'm not sure what he is referring to.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Pardon?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry. I just -- the error.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: On the report -- you simply -- on the report, you
7 read it I think correctly, but I think it was just transcribed --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a question of transcript.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, all right. I'm sorry. I missed it. Okay.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Vanderpuye kindly be asked to speak
11 up or closer to his microphone, please, for the interpreters.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll do that, thank you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. Now, when you say that it's not possible to accept without
16 reservation the view that this relates to Mr. Beara, it means you can't
17 exclude him based on what you've seen in this intercept, doesn't it?
18 A. Yes, I have no basis for establishing a link to Beara either in
19 linguistic terms, and there's also one illogical aspect which is probably
20 beyond the borders of linguistics, but it falls into the remain of some
21 basic logics. And that is that a staff officer does not know where the
22 385 switchboard is. Further on, look at this: This transcript begins
23 with 0954 and the next one, allegedly a minute later, and a test
24 demonstrated that this alleged conversation lasted for 2 and a half
1 And another thing: When you said that the word "burazer" was not
2 a linguistic fact, I would say that everything is a linguistic fact.
3 Even if I say "a" or "a," these are linguistic facts. However, there is
4 a hierarchy of them.
5 Q. That's what I mean when I say "significant," but let me ask you
6 this: Were you ever provided with any information that a participant in
7 this conversation made a statement admitting his participation in this
8 conversation with Mr. Beara? Were you ever made aware of that fact?
9 A. No, no.
10 Q. You weren't made aware of the fact that General Zivanovic, the
11 Zivanovic mentioned in this intercept, made a statement on 2nd July,
12 2001, in an interview specifically saying that he recalled this
13 conversation or that he made a statement in October of 2001 in which he
14 says that he didn't want to get in trouble on the basis of one nebulous
15 conversation between he and Beara, referring to this intercept?
16 A. No. I find Zivanovic interesting because the operator said that
17 he remembered him as a person who is dropping his vocals, his vowels, and
18 that means that his dialect is different, and that is the feature that he
19 remembered Zivanovic by.
20 Q. I ask because you attach a factual significance to this intercept
21 in evaluating it rather than a linguistic one as concerns the reference
22 to the extension 385. Do you know what the extension 385 corresponded to
23 at that time?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you know why it is that Mr. Beara is asking for the
1 switchboard? Which switchboard?
2 A. Sir, I served in the army from 1971 to 1972, and that is all of
3 the experience that I have. I have no other knowledge, and I'm
4 completely uninformed when it comes to the issues of that nature. And I
5 can ascertain that I don't know anything about that, and I'm telling the
6 truth and only the truth.
7 Q. And you see in the intercept that General Zivanovic is
8 essentially deferring this matter, indicating that he is not in a
9 position to accommodate Mr. Beara. He says, I can't do that anymore, and
10 then he says Zlatar and 385, call there. You recognise that in the
11 intercept, right?
12 A. Sir, we are going beyond the area of linguistics. I can only do
13 some guesswork about this. Please, I am to -- nearing the end of my
14 scientific career. The whereabouts of Zlatar and Badem, what is
15 important to me was that Badem was adjusted. For me, it is important
16 that the transcript and manuscript collate and the current speech used by
17 Mr. Beara. However, these are the questions that I am not competent to
18 give you answers to.
19 Q. I'm asking you this because you have a number of other factual
20 observations that you make that appear to be well beyond the scope of
21 linguistics in your report, so let me refer you to the next one, and
22 forgive me if I go a little bit out of order, but with respect to the
23 intercept on 14 July 1995
24 intercept. On page 18 of your report, you say here the operator has
25 unquestionably mixed up the speakers, and you base this on the fact that
1 there are a number of -- it was a one-sided conversation that precedes
2 the intercept. If I could put this up in e-court so everybody could see
3 that. That's 1164. A is the English, and B is the -- should be E.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Mr. Vanderpuye is still a
5 bit far from the microphone.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I hope that's bit better.
7 Q. What I'm referring to is right at the beginning. You see the
8 letter "J," and it says hello. All right? You see this is "ko je
9 major." You see that?
10 A. Are you referring to this one: "Hello, Badem, put Beara on," and
11 then, "who wants to speak to him"? Is that what you are referring to?
12 "Hello. Who is the major? I'm the duty officer at Palma
13 urgently." Is that what you're referring to?
14 Q. That's what I'm referring to. Tell us what it is in this
15 intercept that shows that the operator's apparently mixed up, and that's
16 included in your report. What did you observe?
17 A. Further down you see B saying, "wait a little, old man."
18 Q. Do you recognise in this report what it is you identify as the
19 operator being mixed up? That's all my question is, and if you could
20 point that out to us, that would be appreciated.
21 A. Yes, it says, "Wait a moment. Just a moment, old man..." and
22 this is uttered by someone called B, somewhere in the middle of the page.
23 But at the very end they say that they intercepted the conversation by a
24 mistake. They admitted a mistake in the procedure, but the words
25 attributed to Mr. Beara in this text, because you can see that he was
1 inaudible, this is so very little to go on. Why 155, where is that, and
2 then again I'm asking myself a question, how is it possible that he
3 doesn't know that location if he is the participant of some ...
4 Q. Okay. You evaluated that in your linguistic capacity. Is that
5 your testimony, Mr. Remetic?
6 A. Well, yes, this was just done en passant because the part --
7 there's no part of the text that can be attributed to Beara. It doesn't
8 offer any data for an analysis.
9 Q. Thank you very much.
10 A. Because allegedly it was impossible to hear him as we can see
11 from these dots in the text.
12 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Remetic. If I could refer
13 you to 65 ter 1179. This is the intercept of 15 July 1995 at 957. Do
14 you recall this intercept, sir, or do you want me to put it on the screen
15 for you?
16 A. Sir, I do not need the screen. It's the issue of whether it was
17 one or three conversations. After a lengthy and thorough analysis, I
18 concluded that there was one conversation that was subsequently adjusted
19 and harmonised, and I explained that in great detail, the discrepancies,
20 the chronology of the beginning, 55, 57, 1000.
21 Q. Sir, you are unaware, then, that these intercepts - that is, 955,
22 957 and 1000 - were captured by three different interceptors? You are
23 either aware or you're not; can you tell us which?
24 A. It might be that there were three persons, and I elaborated on
25 this issue accurately, and I tried to find justification for
1 chronological discrepancies, whether their watches were not working
2 properly and were not set to match each other. They probably did not
3 establish connections at the same time. According to their statements,
4 they were working under difficult conditions; and thirdly, it is possible
5 that you cannot hear the person all the time so that you have blank
6 spaces. I allow for all these possibilities, sir, and it makes sense.
7 However, where they match, one can see evident differences. The
8 beginning is different. The identification of the speakers is
9 substantially different.
10 Let me remind you, in the first version at 0955, Mr. Beara
11 explicitly introduced himself with his full name by saying Ljubo Beara.
12 The next version say that is he introduced himself allegedly as Colonel
13 Beara, whereas in the third version there is no introduction by name.
14 Please. And then the very linguistic content and the variance, you had
15 an opportunity to see the table differs. If you hear the same thing from
16 three sources, how come that you make different notes? These are very
17 serious discrepancies, and they are of fundamental importance for this
18 assignment. The very few facts that we had at our disposal made our task
19 very difficult and complex.
20 Q. Mr. Remetic, what you're talking about right now are factual
21 questions as distinct from the linguistic analysis that you were retained
22 to conduct, right?
23 A. As I see it, the crucial thing is whether a person introduces
24 himself or not. This is what I wrote in the preamble of my report. I
25 took that into consideration, sir. The analysis was carried out. You
1 have it in front of you. You have the tables and comparisons.
2 Q. Well, did you take into consideration this, that the fact is that
3 Mr. Beara on a tape that you heard actually did introduce himself loud
4 and clear in a way that you could identify his voice independently of his
5 name and the fact that he did use his name, and that is in 3603? It's a
6 tape that you heard and talked about in your direct examination by
7 Mr. Ostojic. It is -- did you take that into consideration?
8 A. I don't understand your question. I do apologise. Can you
9 please repeat it.
10 Q. In the intercept at 0955 hours, 65 ter 1179, there's an
11 attribution to Mr. Beara apparently saying "Ljubo Beara." In the
12 intercept at 3603, there's an attribution to Mr. Beara in which he says
13 "Ljubo Beara." In other words, he introduced himself on that intercept
14 as well.
15 A. Sir, I'm talking about what is written in the transcripts.
16 Q. As am I. And I am asking --
17 A. I did not hear -- this is what is written in the transcripts.
18 Q. I'm asking whether as a linguist in trying to determine whether
19 or not it is possible that the intercept involves Mr. Beara you
20 considered such facts as that he introduced himself on another intercept
21 using both his first and last name as it appears in an intercept which
22 you didn't have a tape for that you examined. Did you consider that?
23 A. Yes, but how can you have three different forms in the same
24 conversation? That's the problem. He may say, this is Beara, this is
25 Ljubo, this is Colonel Beara. It's all possible, but we have here one
1 conversation recorded by three operators, and each of them did that or
2 conveyed that differently. From a linguistic point of view, I find that
3 to be strange. If we have a single conversation, then either they put
4 dots where there are blank spaces, probably they didn't here, but if they
5 heard the conversation, how is it possible that they heard different
6 things? If you can provide an explanation to me for that, I would be
8 Q. I'm glad that you asked the question, and what I'd like to know
9 is whether or not you asked to see the testimony of these particular
10 individuals before you wrote your report or at any time after to search
11 for that answer. Did you ask Mr. Ostojic for the testimony of these
12 particular operators?
13 A. I didn't ask for their testimonies. I don't even know whether
14 that was necessary or permissible.
15 Q. You're saying you want to know why it is the case, and you're
16 telling us that you never asked why? You never asked for their testimony
17 - is that fair to say - to review their explanation of how that's the
19 A. Please, are we talking about the statements or testimonies given
20 by the operators? You corrected me yesterday. I did read the statements
21 (redacted). Please, the statements.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go into private session for a
23 moment, please.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session please.
25 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. When you evaluated these particular intercepts - that is, 955,
12 957 and 10 o'clock
13 certain information in those intercepts, isn't there? That is, one
14 intercept you see a reference to a person by the name of Furtula; in
15 another intercept, you see the reference to the name of Burtula; and yet
16 in another, you see a reference to the name of Furtula, right? You see
17 the reference to the name of Nasic in one and Nastic in another?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So there's a certain -- okay. And there's a certain degree of
20 confluence in the information that's contained in those intercepts. Even
21 as a layperson, you can see that?
22 A. Yes. Two persons hear things differently.
23 Q. And if I could just refer you to the August 1st, 2245 intercept,
24 and you've put that together, also, with the August 1st, 2308 intercept.
25 Those are 65 ter 1380 and 1381 respectively. With respect to those
1 intercepts, according to your chart Mr. Beara is not revealed, the
2 language does not -- the dialect, rather, doesn't reflect his -- the
3 speaker's origin, et cetera. You have negatives for all fields. Bear
4 with me for one moment. On the August 1st intercept, 2245, that is the
5 intercept in which the term "skape" is used or "skape" is used. That's
6 correct, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. According to you, that has no linguistic significance, right?
9 A. Sir, I don't know if we do not understand each other. Every fact
10 has a certain linguistic significance. In my hotel room, I have a
11 monography on the subject of onomastics of Piva, the River Piva, where
12 skape is mentioned on several occasions. I told you that the toponym
13 term "skape" says that, for instance, there are dozens of skape in the
14 area of Durmitor. Therefore, it is not marked; it is not limited; it is
15 widespread and "skape" appears in many Ekavian forms. This here is a
16 medley, and I marked the 1st of August as a mixture of various hardly
17 compatible types of dialects and standard forms of the language.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. And unfortunately, we do not have the manuscript.
20 Q. Okay. That intercept talks about prisoners captured in Serbia
21 that is the intercept at 65 ter 1380, 2245 - as does the intercept at 65
22 ter 1381 discuss similar issues. Were you made aware that an intercept
23 dated 2nd August at 1300 hours was captured on tape and played in this
25 A. I learned about that, I guess, over the weekend.
1 Q. Are you aware -- sorry, are you aware that that particular
2 intercept refers to Mr. Beara as having called a person identified as
3 Popovic on the tape?
4 A. I apologise. Which intercept on the tape? I apologise. Are you
5 talking about the first August intercept? I apologise.
6 Q. The 2nd August, 1300 hours, was captured on tape and played in
7 this proceeding. That intercept --
8 A. I did not hear that, no. Please, no, no.
9 Q. That particular intercept --
10 A. Sorry, this conversation has nothing whatsoever to do from my
11 point of view with Mr. Beara. 2nd of August at 1300 hours is absolutely
12 irrelevant for me. Beara is mentioned in it, but I did not -- I don't
13 see his words. The words that he himself uttered, sir, are not at 1300
14 hours, no.
15 Q. All right. What I'm talking about in terms of relevance --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I think I can finish in 5 minutes or 10
17 minutes with the Court's permission. I know that I'm over my allotted
18 time as well.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That's okay. We did give an allowance to
20 Mr. Ostojic, and we can't not give some extra time to you.
21 However, it's break time, and I think we could have the break
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We could have the break now. In any case, there's
25 going to be a re-examination, so I think we better give the witness a
1 little bit of respite now. 25 minutes.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 -- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
4 -- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Remetic, I have only a couple of questions for you, and then
8 I think we're done.
9 Now, with respect to what I was just referring to at 65 ter 1395,
10 2nd August, 1300
11 position that this intercept is related to the previous two intercepts on
12 the preceding day in that it involves Mr. Beara on its face and relates
13 to issues involving prisoners in Serbia.
14 Is it your position that this conversation on August 2nd at 1300
15 is not of any relevance to you given the fact that it's on tape and
16 refers to Mr. Beara and his involvement with these individuals in Serbia
17 in terms of identifying Mr. Beara as a potential participant in the prior
18 two conversations?
19 A. From the point of view of a linguist and from the point of view
20 of the assignment given to me as a linguist, this conversation is
21 absolutely irrelevant. In this alleged intercept, there are no words
22 uttered by Mr. Beara. My assignment was to state whether based on the
23 language in the 18 intercept, these intercepts may be attributed to
24 Mr. Beara. In this particular intercept, Mr. Beara is speaking. He is
25 not there, and as far as your perspective is concerned, things may be
1 viewed differently, but that's beyond the scope of my task, beyond the
2 scope of my interest. I don't even remember what the OTP says. I only
3 say those intercepts where it is stated this is Ljubo, the other Ljubo,
4 or we are not sure which Ljubo is concerned here. That's how I
5 understood my task.
6 Q. All right. And with respect to your analysis of the intercepts
7 that are attributed by the Prosecution to Mr. Beara, it is true as you
8 stated in your report that the absence of tape recordings of these
9 conversations makes it practically -- well, practically prevents you or
10 any other expert in your place from rising above pure hypothesis. That's
11 on page 16 of your report. That's true, isn't it?
12 A. There are cases, of course, where there is not enough elements to
13 arrive at any firm conclusions. The absence of any recordings is a
14 handicap of sorts; for example, looking at the 2nd August intercept that
15 I also heard on an audiotape, and not even the OTP was certain who the
16 tape could be attributed to, I can say that it may be attributed to
17 Mr. Beara. And I repeat, the absence of the audiotapes is a huge
18 handicap in this case.
19 Q. Well, Mr. Remetic, if you bear with me and I'll just locate this
20 in the text. On page 16 of your report you say, I'll just quote it:
21 "The likelihood that an analysed text may be attributed to Mr. Ljubisa
22 Beara will depend on the type of responses to the above questions. In
23 all this, one must bear in mind the fact that this expert witness was not
24 provided with audio recordings of the alleged conversations that are part
25 of my analysis" -- "part of this analysis" - I'm sorry - "which
1 practically prevents him and any other expert in his place from rising
2 above pure hypothesis and positively identifying Ljubisa Beara as a
3 participant in the conversations attributed to him."
4 That's what is in your report, and that is true, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Remetic. I have no further questions
7 for you.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye, and thank you, Witness.
10 Mr. Ostojic. You have re-examination, I suppose.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, Mr. President. Thank you.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
13 Q. Mr. Remetic, if I can just start, perhaps, where my learned
14 friend left off. How did you think -- or did you find in analysing the
15 documents that the Prosecution provided for us, do you have any idea how
16 they came up with their criteria for determining which Ljubo is -- should
17 be attributed to which person? Did they ever give us that information,
18 do you know?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it calls for speculation. It's
21 completely inappropriately put to this witness as to what the Prosecution
22 -- how the Prosecution came up with its interpretation of the intercepts.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I think my learned friend misunderstood my
24 question. I'm not asking him to speculate. I'm asking, did they provide
25 us any analysis or any information as to how they came up with their
1 purported analysis, speculative or not.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: If that's the case, then it's a question of
3 relevance, as well, and it's objectionable because it's completely
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Oh, I totally disagree. I think it is relevant
6 since they carry the burden of proof.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We consider it a valid question. However, you just
9 please restrict yourself in answering the question to whether you know or
10 not, okay? That's how I understood the question, and that's how it can
11 be put and answered.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing that comes to mind
13 is that the OTP started from the operators' allegations. In some of the
14 transcripts, the operators identify the participants by giving their
15 names. In some other transcripts, on the other hand, the participants
16 identify either themselves personally or each other. Where no such
17 procedure exists, I as a layperson in military terms would not be able to
18 tell you how the intercepts and the participants in the conversations
19 were identified or how the participants in certain conversations were
20 linked with certain events.
21 MR. OSTOJIC:
22 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Remetic. But really, I'm asking you with
23 respect to where there was not a compromise of an identity by either the
24 speaker -- either one of the speakers, when there's the name just
25 "Ljubo," did you review any documents or anything that would show how the
1 Prosecution came up with their analysis as to who that "Ljubo" should be
2 -- or that conversation should be attributed to? Did you have any of
3 that information? From, let's say, their linguist.
4 A. Well, I'm not sure. I don't know.
5 Q. Let me go on to this issue: How many intercepts of the 18 did
6 you review that had multiple purported conversations that were captured
7 by different operators except for those that we've seen on the 15th of
8 July at 955, 957 and 1000? So if we exclude those three purported
9 conversations or one conversation captured by three individuals, were
10 there any other intercept conversations that you have seen or reviewed
11 that were captured by more than one intercept operator?
12 A. The conversation that took place on the 15th was transcribed by
13 three different persons, and that's the only explanation I can provide.
14 There are some other cases where there are two different versions, the
15 first one usually crossed out and the second one valid, and then the last
16 -- or the valid one was usually typed up on a typewriter. If my memory
17 serves me well, and it does, the first intercept also has two versions,
18 two different beginnings.
19 Q. Just so the record is clear, Professor, so we're talking about
20 the intercept -- or you're talking about the intercept on the 13th of
21 July 1995 at 1009, which is 65 ter 1130, which had in the beginning
22 portion the --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- manuscript and then rewritten after that. Are any others --
25 are there any other manuscripts, not the typed version. We know the
1 process that some were typed, some were not, some had the manuscript,
2 some didn't, and you've told us about that, and thank you very much for
3 that. But I'm asking you of the 18 -- or of any of the intercepts that
4 you reviewed, were there more than one intercept operator who captured a
5 conversation except for that one on the 15th of July at the time that we
6 said, 955, 957 and 1000?
7 A. I can't give you just a yes or no answer. However, in the
8 notebook that I'm holding in my hand, there are several instances of one
9 version being crossed out and the other typed up. I always analysed the
10 typed-up version as well as the manuscript, which served as the template
11 for the typed-up version. I did not pay much attention to the ones that
12 were rejected in the process. Obviously, on the 15th of July was
13 something that raised a big dilemma as to whether this was just one
14 conversation or three different conversations or just one typed by three
15 different persons.
16 Q. Thank you, Professor. Let me just move away and focus on whether
17 or not you were fair and objective when you looked at these intercepts,
18 and if we could have 2D551, please, and what we need -- that's his
19 report, and what we need is appendix 1 just on the screen, if possible.
20 Now, Mr. Remetic, I think the Court would permit you to look at
21 your only table if you have it in front of you. It might be easier for
22 you, so if you don't mind, if you could grab appendix 1, which is the
23 overview of the results of the linguistic analysis that you provided.
24 Take a look at it here.
25 A. I have that.
1 Q. Okay. We have now both of them there. I want to walk you
2 through a couple of them just to see. When you give the designation
3 zero, you're telling us in essence that, you know, you're not certain or
4 it's insufficient information, correct?
5 A. There's no solid basis for any serious analysis or for any valid
6 conclusions that would arise from that.
7 Q. Now, I want to look at the one at the 23rd of July at 8 -- 0805
8 hours. I know you're called here as a witness in order to give us your
9 objective opinion, but the Prosecution in that intercept themselves
10 concede that it's not Mr. Beara, and they're saying it's some other
11 Ljubo, actually Ljubo Bojanovic. How come you don't put a negative sign
12 there, sir? Why did you keep it as insufficient? Did you just look at
13 the corpus of the linguistic text that you had, and you didn't adopt what
14 the Prosecution said or any attorneys, but you did it independent of what
15 they thought and you left it as a zero, did you not?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's obviously a leading question, Your Honour.
18 I'd ask my friend to rephrase it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: No, wait, wait, wait, Professor, because it's --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Ostojic.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait, Professor. Wait.
22 You either rephrase your question, or you move to another
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll rephrase it.
25 Q. When we look at the 23rd of July, 1995, intercept, you know that
1 -- what the Prosecution's position is in connection with that intercept,
2 that the Ljubo mentioned in that intercept is a Ljubo Bojanovic. At
3 0805, having known that, can you just tell us why you placed a zero under
4 the four categories in your table on appendix 1, please?
5 A. Mr. Ostojic, this table, if I remember it well, was completed, or
6 rather, the job was completed before I came aware of the OTP analysis.
7 I've already said it here, that I completed most of the work before I
8 ever met with Mr. Beara and spoke to him. Maybe. I believe that this is
9 good, that this is better. If I met with Beara earlier, maybe November,
10 I suppose -- or I believe that the report would be shorter because I
11 would be less tempted to find different starting points from which I
12 could attribute particular conversations to Beara. My analysis testifies
13 to this effect because my conclusions are often phrased to the effect
14 that there is nothing to link Mr. Beara to a particular transcript. In
15 other words, it is obvious that I became privy to the OTP opinion much
17 Q. Good, thank you. Sir, yesterday my learned colleague was asking
18 you about the word "burazer" and "buraz" on page 40, line 20, of
19 yesterday's transcript, and he read part of your report on page 17, and I
20 objected, and it was, you know, overruled. But let me turn to page 17 of
21 your report, and help me on that category. It's actually under the first
22 intercept if you are following along, which is section -- it says 11 as
23 printed. That might be a typographical error, but it is during the text
24 of your discussion of the first intercept, 13th July, 1995, at 1009
1 Now, when you discussed "sjor" and "gospon" and "burazer" in that
2 paragraph, I thought - and I want to keep it in context - if you could
3 focus for us and have it -- and read for us the paragraph before that
4 where you discuss the very word that my learned friend was trying to
5 challenge you on as to whether or not it's a western or eastern or
6 Dalmatian or predominantly Croatian or Cakavian word. You give us that
7 immediately prior to that, do you not, sir? Do you see that in your
8 report? Where you discuss the word "burazer."
9 A. "Sjor" is a dialect-marked word. It is a feature of coastal
10 regions. "Burazer," however, covers a broad area, and we hear this every
11 day on TV, in various shows. I can hear it in my conversations with my
12 own brother. Two days ago he called me and addressed me by calling me
13 "burazer." I told you yesterday that my head of the Academy of Sciences
14 and Arts called me "burazer" hundreds of times. "Burazer" is a common
15 word. There's also a truncated form, "buraz." Both are of Turkish
16 origin. "Buraz" is somewhat more often used in Bosnia than in Serbia,
17 but this word is not a cornerstone around which any house can be built.
18 This is just a lexical feature.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, Professor, help me with this. Can you share
20 with us the difference between a variant and a dialect?
21 A. This concerns the Serbo-Croatian standard language, which used to
22 have two variants from the very beginning, the eastern and the western or
23 the Belgrade and the Zagreb variants respectively, the Ekavian or the
24 Ijekavian variants. However, in practice in real conversations, the
25 latter is Ijekavian, and everybody including my kind hostesses here in
1 the Tribunal, when they point me to the "lijevo," I immediately know
2 where they come from, where they went to school, and where their
3 education in Serbo-Croatian comes from. The variants differ the most in
4 terminology, in the lexic or the words. The Croats as a rule translated
5 foreign words that infiltrated; the Serbs did not, however. In Serbia,
6 we have schnitzels, and in Zagreb they have steaks. In Serbia, we play
7 football, and in Zagreb they play the same game but under a Croatian
8 name. These are variants at the level of the standard language, whereas
9 dialects are a different thing. We have three dialects, and within these
10 dialects that are subdivisions into various speeches, colloquialisms, and
11 so on and so forth.
12 Q. When you say "knjizevni," is that not scholarly and one is, like,
13 a common discussion because my learned friend from the OTP yesterday even
14 told you at page 41 at lines 10 through 14 when he was describing his
15 pattern of speech, he says: "I'm an English-speaking person, and I use
16 the word 'man' quite frequently in my speech." Although we haven't heard
17 it in his questions today, I think when we scholarly -- or yesterday,
18 when we scholarly speak or as you say, "knjizevni," we may have a
19 different variant from when we speak in our normal conversational pattern
20 of speech. Would that be accurate?
21 A. Well, the linguistic norm or the standard language is a necessity
22 in anyone's society. For a community to function to pass and implement
23 important decisions, such a community must have a linguistic norm or a
24 code which is known as the standard language. A linguistic norm in my
25 terminology, which I often convey to my students during my lectures, is a
1 functional violation of a language. A language has to have a norm that
2 is used in official documents. For example, judgements have to be passed
3 in a standard language which is received pronunciation in any state.
4 There's also another thing, which is colloquial language, the language of
5 everyday conversations in everyday life, and this is the so-called
6 substandard speech. The standard form of a language is coloured or
7 peppered with the elements of local dialects. A judgement in Belgrade
8 for example, in Novi Sad
9 same standard language, and the judges who serve in these three cities
10 will use their substandard language, the languages of their own region
11 when they speak. The basis of those substandard languages is the
12 standard language, but it is coloured by some dialectal influences, and
13 that's how things are all over the world.
14 Q. Thank you, Professor. Just looking at this table here, we see
15 that you analysed four intercepts on -- well, relating to the 13th of
16 July, and we talked about the one at 1009 hours where it purports to be
17 that the person said "Beara speaking," and we saw the B/C/S version where
18 the word speaking or "govorim" doesn't appear. But with respect to these
19 four on the 13th, and let me just try to capture this for you, we know
20 the very next intercept - and I think the Prosecution takes the similar
21 position - they're not even claiming it's Mr. Beara. It's another fact
22 that they are, for whatever reason unimportant to you, trying to tie in
23 with our case, so we know that one is insignificant, at least for your
24 expertise and purposes.
25 The next one at 1945 on the 13th of July, the Prosecution has
1 taken a position that it is not Ljubisa Beara, so that's not related to
2 Mr. Beara, although the name "Ljubisa" appears on it as we've identified
3 three times.
4 The very next one, the Prosecution -- although I thought I had it
5 correct, the Prosecution now is taking the position that it is uncertain
6 who the Ljubisa is, so they can't even tell us whether it's Ljubisa
7 Beara. So out of the four on the 13th, only one is that the Prosecution
8 is alleging is against Mr. Beara, and we discussed that.
9 My question goes to the very next intercept, however, the 14th of
10 July, which is one intercept at 2102 hours. Now, I wants to show you
11 something that I didn't have a copy of, and that's the actual intercept
12 when the intercept operator was here who captured that conversation, and
13 he helped us out by identifying various marks or changes that he made in
14 his handwritten notes or manuscript, as you call it, of this purported
15 conversation. Now, if we could please have for you, Mr. Remetic, PIC 40
16 and also PIC 41, and it's split up into two pages, so forgive me for
17 that, but I think the main one we'll look at is PIC 41, but let's look at
18 both in -- for purposes of completeness because the Prosecution didn't
19 show you that, but they had a couple of questions on this intercept.
20 But let's see -- because you didn't read it -- their testimony, I
21 want you to see what he circled in terms of changes or alterations that
22 he may have made.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to this line of inquiry. It is true
25 that I did cross-examine the witness with respect to this particular
1 intercept, but the question that was put to him was to identify the error
2 that he indicated in his report and nothing beyond that. So I think this
3 is well beyond the scope of cross-examination as concerns this particular
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Does the witness understand English? I would
6 imagine he does.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: A little bit I think, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. I would imagine I would prefer to discuss
9 this in his absence. Let me consult with my colleagues anyway.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: It's true that possibly does fall within the
12 parameters of a redirect, but on the other hand we believe that this
13 witness is not in a position to add anything to what we've heard already,
14 so we suggest you move to your next question.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Mr. President.
16 Q. Sir, after now looking at this 14th and the one intercepted on
17 the 14th, and we will go back to your table, if possible - I know we just
18 switched from it - which is appendix 1. I know you have several of the
19 markings with respect to the three intercepts for the 15th and then one
20 other one.
21 Now, you fairly and objectively place on the two intercepts the
22 15th of July, 955 and 957. You put a positive sign for "participant
23 revealed himself or was revealed as Beara," correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. According to the operator, two of them actually said that he
2 introduced himself.
3 Q. And you're not taking any -- or you are not suggesting or trying
4 to determine whether the operators were truthful or honest or mistaken.
5 You just simply said the -- and you took their word for it, correct, and
6 therefore you put a positive sign with respect to those two at 955 and
7 957? Wait, wait.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to the question. It is leading, and I
9 would ask my colleague to rephrase it.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment because we were doing something else at
11 the time.
12 Yes, it is leading. Definitely, Mr. Ostojic.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Fair enough.
14 Q. Sir, can you just tell us how you came up with the conclusion
15 which rendered the opinion that you place a positive sign on this first
16 category for the intercepts at 955 and 957 of the 15th of July, 1995
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's hear what Mr. Vanderpuye has to say.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, this was asked and answered
19 already on direct, and I don't think it's appropriate at this stage in
20 redirect examination.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's come to an end, please, Mr. Ostojic. Let's
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Is he allowed to answer the question?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, of course. No, no, of course. You
25 proceed with your next question. It has been suggested by Mr. Vanderpuye
1 this question has already been answered.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: You know, if he can cite the page because the Court
3 -- in my attempt to try to get through this yesterday, we didn't cover
4 the 15th, with all due respect to my colleague, but I would be happy if
5 he could cite for me the page where he claims I covered this part. He
6 covered it in his cross-examination. I think I have a right on redirect,
7 but I'll be patient with the Court, obviously, since you've been more
8 than patient with me. If the Court wants me to move to another date or
9 intercept, I'll kindly do so. I just want to know that if they are going
10 to tell me that I cited it yesterday or the day before, that they should
11 at least provide me with that page, which I can assure them I did not.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you provide Mr. Ostojic with the reference;
17 and you, Mr. Ostojic, is this question meant to open the way for further
18 question on the same issue or not?
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I believe not, Your Honour. But I'll move on to
20 the 16th. They can read it, and if he can come back to me on that, I
21 would highly appreciate it.
22 Q. Looking at the 16th of July, sir, and I'm sorry we're jumping
23 around, but the 16th of July at 1111 hours. And my learned friend can
24 interrupt me at any time if he finds it in the last two days. At 1111
25 hours, we talk about this involved the word "triage" and your definition
1 and obviously the intercept that follows several hours later with this
2 female called Jelena and this other Djurdjic. But this one at 1111
3 hours, you also put a positive sign there.
4 My question to you with respect to this intercept, the only
5 identity that you found in connection with this is that, one, the
6 operator suggests that it's Ljubo Beara at the top, a person is asking
7 for Beara, and then someone answers with a C designation "Ljubo." Is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Did the Prosecution since they carry the burden of proof
11 and want you to look at statements, did they give you the testimony of
12 the other participants of this conversation such as this gentleman
13 Cerovic or Turkula? Did they provide that to you to see who actually was
14 involved in this?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I can't see any conceivable basis
17 for a question like this. Its legality is, I think my colleague well
18 knows, is completely -- it is a completely inappropriate question; and,
19 as my colleague well knows -- as my colleague well knows, we provided him
20 with information directly related to this intercept. And I can go into
21 private session if need be in order to explain it further.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I -- we don't need to do that. The
23 question can be divided into different parts, and certainly the first
24 part is not tenable. It is not acceptable. I mean, but the second part
25 of the question could stand, and you could rephrase it by asking the
1 witness what he was provided by the Prosecution, and leave it at that,
2 Mr. Ostojic.
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Mr. Remetic, did you hear the honourable President just now? Can
5 you just tell us what you were provided with in connection with this
6 conversation, whether you were provided any statements or testimony with
7 the other participants?
8 A. I did not receive any material whatsoever on this issue, no
9 statements. I think that today I have been asked that question, and I'm
10 already tired after three days.
11 Q. I appreciate that, sir.
12 A. And I was asked whether this was a conversation with Cerovic.
13 Supposedly Colonel Cerovic in this purported conversation was the one who
14 identified Mr. Beara at 1111, and based on that, I put the plus mark.
15 As for the 15th of July, I put the signs based on the data
16 provided by the operators. Whether they were right or not, it wasn't up
17 to me to say. I also completely questioned the credibility and veracity
18 of these three conversations that were put together afterwards. It is
19 written there, the name Beara, and that is why I put the positive mark.
20 Q. Thank you, and I apologise. I know it's taking a little longer,
21 Mr. Remetic. I just have a couple of more questions. I want to go back
22 to my learned friend yesterday -- or today was talking about a section in
23 your report on page 14 where you state "infallible command." And I think
24 I understand what they're trying to suggest, but let me go and look at
25 that section, which is in the middle of the paragraph. And again, I
1 think I objected, and I wanted to put it in a little better context. If
2 we could look at the sentence before that because that's what I think is
3 relevant to keep it in context. You state as follows, and it's on page
4 14, and you state by saying this: "The situation today shows that
5 Mr. Beara has definitely not forgotten the Cakavian dialect spoken in
6 Split, and he is furthermore aware of the distinctive (distinguishing)
7 relations between Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian, Bosnian, Montenegrin,
8 Serbian dialects and pronunciations..." Then you go on to say that in
9 your opinion he has an infallible command of those three.
10 You're telling us -- tell us what you mean by that. Are you
11 saying that he was able to switch and he either knew he was being
12 listened to over these telephone conversations that they purport or
13 allege against Mr. Beara? What do you mean by that, that he is aware and
14 has these distinctive and distinguishing relations between the three
16 A. Here are two questions, basically. First, let us clarify what
17 the command of distinctions mean. If you have a person who speaks five
18 languages but uses only one but he does know how to say the same phrase
19 in other languages, he is using this colloquial Split dialect, although
20 he's aware how these words would be pronounced in his native Sarajevo.
21 He must know that. He would know how to -- these words would be
22 pronounced in Serbia because that is where his family lives and where he
23 spent some time. He had some fellow officers and colleagues from that
24 region. That means that he has the command of distinctions. I didn't
25 hear him speak fluently Ijekavian or Ekavian, but he is aware of the
2 The second part of your question is whether he did that
3 deliberately or whether he knew that he was being listened in. Well, I
4 think that if he knew that he was being listened in, he wouldn't be
5 involved in any conversations, I suppose. This is a linguistic analysis.
6 If someone is aware that they are being taped, they will probably try to
7 avoid any conversation.
8 However, in these intercepts, I did take into consideration one
9 more thing. The manner of speech of the collocutor, could it be that he
10 adapted his speech to the person's dialect at the other end of the line?
11 I even found things like -- and I think it was on the 1st of August where
12 in the purported speech by Beara, the predominant dialect is Ekavian, and
13 his collocutor speaks with some Ijekavian dialect.
14 And also, something that could be of importance. You asked me
15 why I did not cite the opinion of the OTP. In my working version here,
16 you can see that I added in pencil, The OTP thinks that this is the Major
17 Ljubo Bojanovic, the duty officer of the brigade. Obviously, I received
18 this piece of information after I finished my job. The OTP wasn't clear
19 on who this person was, and this is what I added afterwards and after I
20 submitted the text on the 18th of April.
21 Q. I just have a couple of more, I think maybe even one question.
22 In trying to determine whether the dialect -- or the conversations that
23 were captured purportedly relating to Mr. Beara and seeing whether we can
24 attribute that to Mr. Beara, we looked at the intercepts themselves. We
25 showed you, I think, although disclosed last month, the conversation that
1 the Prosecution had with Mr. Beara in October of 2004, so approximately
2 four years ago. You interviewed him, so we looked at his dialect after
3 the events. But we also showed you the audio and the transcripts of the
4 conversation that Mr. Beara had immediately prior to July 1995 and
5 immediately after August of 1995. Did you see any attempts by Mr. Beara
6 to either mask or to try to cover or hide his speech pattern or dialect?
7 A. No, I didn't notice any such thing.
8 Q. Okay. You told us in the beginning of your session on Monday
9 that there are basically three things that a person cannot hide, and that
10 is I think cough, love, and your dialect?
11 A. Yes, and the dialect.
12 Q. I remembered it. I remembered it. Now, did you find any
13 evidence at all in any of these conversations that you reviewed? Did you
14 find any evidence of anyone trying to hide or mask their dialect? I
15 won't ask you about the other two.
16 A. Can you please repeat the question. I'm already tired.
17 Q. It's the last question, and I truly -- we all appreciate it.
18 With respect -- did you find any evidence having looked at all the -- or
19 the documents that you reviewed, did you find any evidence of Mr. Beara
20 trying to hide or cover up his dialect?
21 A. Are you referring to the 18 transcripts or what I listened over
22 the weekend or all of that together?
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
24 A. I could never trace any intentional attempt on his part to hide.
25 In the transcript that I heard, one of those here, for example, two
1 forms, like "sta se dogadja," were sufficient for me to link them to
2 Beara as I did with the one dated the 1st of August. And if you allow me
3 to say something at the end with relation to individual cases and words
4 that we spent most of the time on, practice and my personal experience
5 shows, both the one in my family and in my work, that people who are not
6 very literate and, also, people who are highly educated intellectuals,
7 after they have completed their military service they retain certain
8 forms and terms and words that they continue using throughout their
9 lives, even dating back to the era of Austria-Hungaria when they served
10 in the Austria-Hungarian army in the German language, they retained the
11 words such as "zuruck." Even from illiterate people, they would instead
12 of get up, say "steh auf," which is a German form, and this is what was
13 picked up during their military service.
14 I know of a case of the man when the US was providing aid to
15 Europe after the Second World War, and they sent aid per capita, and many
16 children were born in that period. And one man was giving the name of
17 his children, and when he came to the last or the tenth child he said
18 "fertig," which in German means "that's finished." Later on he was asked
19 when is Fertig starting school because he thought that "fertig" was the
21 My father would always say turn to the left, which is something
22 remnant from his army days. So these details that come from the military
23 experience stay there forever, and I think that we wasted a lot of time
24 on them quite unnecessarily.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so too. Is that the end of your redirect?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much.
3 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I know you are about to discharge
5 the witness, but there is an issue related to his testimony that I would
6 like to bring to the attention of the Court, but I need to do it outside
7 his presence as it relates to -- possibly related to the subject of
8 further examination.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Professor, Professor, we've come hopefully
10 to the end of your testimony. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I'm very
11 grateful to you for having been very patient with the two lawyers in
12 particular and for having accepted to come over and give testimony in
13 this case. On behalf of everyone here present I also wish you a safe
14 journey back home. Now, madam usher will accompany you outside the
15 courtroom, but please stay here for the next 15 minutes or so because we
16 might need to recall you if necessary.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for your
18 attention over the past three days.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
23 During the course of the redirect examination, the witness stated
24 at page 48 - I think it's -- looks like it's line 6 through line 10 - in
25 any event, he stated in reference to Mr. Ostojic's question, "the second
1 part of your question is whether he did that deliberately or think that
2 if he knew" -- I'm sorry -- "I think that if he knew he were -- was being
3 listened in, he wouldn't be involved in any conversation, I suppose.
4 This is a linguistic analysis. If someone is aware that they are being
5 taped, they probably try to avoid any conversation."
6 And what I provided Mr. Ostojic with yesterday was a document
7 that we received yesterday. It is 3628 on my exhibit list, which I
8 avoided using with this witness, but it is a document authored by
9 Mr. Beara that relates to the capacity of the -- I've given you the wrong
10 65 ter inadvertently, but it's dated 1st September, 1995. It's a
11 document that is authored by Mr. Beara, and it relates to the capacity of
12 the opposing forces to intercept their VRS communications. In addition
13 to that, it references an intercept as an example of people speaking
14 openly on the lines in the face of that knowledge. It is a document that
15 is likely to come in through -- at some point against Mr. Beara, but in
16 light of what the witness has said about Mr. Beara's knowledge concerning
17 being listened in on, I thought it would be appropriate to put it to this
18 witness as to whether or not this effects his testimony or his
19 conclusions as concerns his review of those intercepts. Clearly, it's a
20 discretionary issue for you since he has effectively concluded his
21 testimony, but I thought it would be appropriate and fair to put it to
22 him at this time.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I never received a document dated the 1st of
25 September, 1995. Yesterday I was given a document from the 13th of
1 August, 1995
2 document that he provided to me yesterday. I certainly would like to
3 know where they receive the information and a little more background, and
4 then I can possibly formulate a position in connection with that.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 JUDGE AGIUS: First of all, there is disagreement, obviously, on
8 whether this document has been provided to Mr. Ostojic or not.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Then I'm also told, and I don't -- this is -- I'm
10 told this, that where Mr. Vanderpuye points to the transcript that the
11 witness said this is linguistic analysis, I'm being told that he actually
12 said the opposite. We can check that. I don't remember it personally,
13 but it that he said the opposite, that it is not linguistic analysis, but
14 I didn't catch that at the time.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I remember, that he said -- that's what
16 I remember, that he said it isn't a linguistic analysis. In effect --
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will withdraw it. There's some issues with
18 respect to -- there are some issues with respect to the disclosure of the
19 document to Mr. Ostojic in all fairness to him, and so I would propose we
20 deal with it another time.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. In the meantime, then we can discharge the
22 witness for good.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Documents, exhibits?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, I believe that we have tendered our
1 list to the Court, and there's nothing to add other than what's reflected
2 on that list.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, any objections? There are three
4 four, five, nine documents that are being tendered as exhibits.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: There are no objections to my colleague's
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objections from the other Defence
8 teams? I wouldn't imagine so. There being no objections, these
9 documents are being admitted. You also have some documents you wish to
10 tender, Mr. Vanderpuye?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And I see a list of three, six, eight, nine
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: 65 ter 3603, 3603 A --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, you don't need to go through them.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I believe that you have it already, then.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it has been circulated.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic in particular, do you have any
21 MR. OSTOJIC: We do not, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. So also, these nine
23 documents are being admitted, and we can now call, at last, the next
24 witness Mrs. Svetlana Gavrilovic.
25 For the record, I notice that in the meantime during this
1 session, Mr. Mitchell has joined the Prosecution team in the courtroom.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It's just past noon, madam, so it's good afternoon,
4 and you are very much welcome to this Tribunal. Mr. Ostojic, who is lead
5 counsel defending Mr. Beara, has summoned you as a witness in Defence.
6 Before you start giving your testimony, you are requested under
7 our rules to make a solemn declaration that you will be testifying the
8 truth. Madam usher has just given you the text. Please read it out
9 aloud, and that will be your solemn declaration with us.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, madam. Please make yourself
13 comfortable. I think everyone will be making an effort to finish -- go
14 through your testimony today so that you don't have to stay here any
15 longer. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, although it wasn't our fault, I
16 do apologise to you for having kept you waiting yesterday, but the
17 testimony of the previous witness went beyond what was expected. I hope
18 you understand and you will bear with us.
19 Mr. Ostojic will go first with some questions. I think he will
20 then be followed by one or more other lawyers, particularly from the
21 Prosecution side, if at all, and then you can go home.
22 Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, Mr. Nikolic will lead this witness
24 with your permission.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't know that. Thank you, Mr. Ostojic. Mr.
1 Nikolic, please introduce yourself in case you haven't met the witness
3 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
4 WITNESS: SVETLANA GAVRILOVIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Mr. Nikolic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mrs. Gavrilovic.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. We have already met, but this is the official part of your
10 testimony. I'm going to introduce myself and give you some guidelines
11 for today.
12 I'm Predrag Nikolic. I represent Mr. Ljubisa Beara, and I will
13 examine today on behalf of the Defence team. Before I ask you to
14 introduce yourself, I would like to tell you that we are both being
15 interpreted, and we would like to give the interpreters time to interpret
16 us correctly, which means that you should wait before providing your
17 answer to allow the interpreters to do their job properly. Could you
18 please introduce yourself for the record.
19 A. My name is Svetlana Gavrilovic. I was born in Belgrade, and I
20 reside in Belgrade
21 Q. Let's take it slowly. It is customary for every witness to tell
22 us about their educational background.
23 A. I completed primary school, grammar school, and then I completed
24 my university education at the department of defectology,
25 oligophrenological department for mentally handicapped children, and
1 later it just so happened that I directed my profession towards beauty
2 treatments, cosmetics.
3 Q. Thank you. In the course of your profession, did you ever engage
4 in your profession at all?
5 A. Yes, for a year, and after that one year my husband signed a
6 contract with a Yugoslav company that had operations in Baghdad in Iraq
7 He went there, and since it was difficult for me to engage my profession
8 proper because I did not speak the language, I decided to take up another
9 profession that would be marketable anywhere in the world. That's how I
10 became a beautician, and I continued doing that if even if -- after I
11 returned from Iraq
12 Q. Mrs. Gavrilovic, when were you in Iraq?
13 A. We were in Iraq
14 Q. Upon your return from Iraq
15 A. We resided in Belgrade
16 because I liked the job and I didn't want to change it.
17 Q. You know Ljubisa Beara and his family?
18 A. Yes, I know them. I've known them since 1992.
19 Q. Under what circumstances and how did you meet them?
20 A. My girlfriend from Belgrade
21 since their younger son had problems with adolescent complexion she
22 called me one day and asked me if I could treat the son of her friends,
23 and that's how I first met the younger son who came to see me for his
24 problems, and then I met his father, mother, ie., Mr. Beara and his wife
1 Q. How often did you visit each other, or rather, a chance
2 encounter, did it later on grow into a friendship?
3 A. Yes. It became a true friendship because my husband had a lot in
4 common with Mr. Beara. My husband was a keen model maker, and Mr.
5 Ljubisa Beara is also a model maker. He -- Mr. Beara made models of sail
6 ships, and they had a lot in common and they had a lot to talk about.
7 Both Mr. Beara and his wife are well educated people, and sometimes when
8 we would visit them and especially the first time we visited them, I saw
9 a library full of books. And since I am a keen reader, I asked them if I
10 could borrow one of their books to read and he said, yes, of course. I
11 chose a few books that I was interested in, and then he took a book from
12 a shelf with little cards, and then he said, okay, I have a list of all
13 of my books, I will make a note of your name and date so that you know
14 that you will return the books. I found this very surprising, but he
15 explained that he always does that with anybody who borrows his books.
16 In other words, we always had lot to talk about.
17 Q. So he was a good person for socialising. Can you tell me where
18 Mr. Ljubisa Beara's family reside?
19 A. They reside in Kosovska Street in Belgrade
20 Q. You also mentioned their younger son?
21 A. Yes. His name is Branco, who was my client.
22 Q. And what was Mrs. Beara's name?
23 A. Nada.
24 Q. In addition to the issues that you had in common and topics that
25 you had in common, did you have any others that brought you closer
2 A. Well, the children were very interesting children. The older
3 son, who is a teacher of English, and his wife, who is teacher of Serbian
4 in grammar school, we always joked around; our conversations were always
5 pleasant, and Nada is a good cook, and she always served good food, and
6 so on and so forth.
7 Q. You said just a moment ago that you met them towards the end of
9 A. Yes, thereabouts. The end of 1992 or the beginning of 1992. I
10 wouldn't be able to tell you correctly, but thereabouts.
11 Q. So if I'm not mistaken, this is when you started socialising?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You know that at that time the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was
14 already on?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. I think leading. On this topic, I
17 think, and these date issues, any sort of leading questions about dates
18 and times and places is absolutely off limits.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That is understandable because at the end of the
20 day the bottom line in relation to the witness, the testimony of this
21 witness is what happened on a particular day. So no direct questions,
22 please. No leading questions.
23 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
24 thought that it was a generally -- or notorious fact what happened in
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object to these kind of things. What is and
2 what is not, this is -- I don't think counsel is doing it on purpose, but
3 I think we should ask -- encourage him not to.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I also don't think counsel is doing it on purpose,
5 but I think he now understands. He has got to follow a certain practice,
6 a certain line, and we'll try to stick to that.
7 If you want to discuss further with Mr. Ostojic, we'll give you a
8 couple of minutes.
9 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour. I will
11 Q. Madam, during that period of time or after your initial encounter
12 with the Beara family, how often did you see them?
13 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly, but I would say that it
14 was always on the occasion of some celebration, an anniversary,
15 children's birthday parties, our own birthday parties, religious
16 holidays, mostly things of that kind.
17 Q. You mentioned birthday parties. Does this mean -- or rather, did
18 you know the birthdays of Ljubisa Beara and others?
19 A. I knew that he was born on the 14th of July because I was also
20 born in July, and we would very often joke about that, and we would say
21 that we were all -- both born under the same sign of Capricorn [as
22 interpreted] who looks strong from the outside, and that's how I know
23 when he was born.
24 Q. I apologise. What is the horoscope sign of you and Ljubisa
1 A. Cancer.
2 Q. This was just for the transcript, to clarify a mistake in the
4 Did you meet every year on his birthday or not?
5 A. It depended on when he was there, whether we were invited.
6 Whenever he was and we were invited, then we would go there.
7 Q. When was it the last time that you met for his birthday?
8 A. It was the 14th of July, 1995.
9 Q. How do you remember that it was in 1995?
10 A. I remember because it was a so-called silver wedding anniversary
11 of my husband and me. That's the 25th anniversary, which is a
12 significant anniversary in our country, the 25th anniversary of wedding.
13 This is something that you remember. We got married in 1970 on the 4th
14 of January, and we wanted to mark the 25th anniversary of our marriage by
15 taking a trip on the Orient Express. When the weather got better in the
16 spring or in the summer, when we inquired about the price of that
17 journey, unfortunately we had to give up on that idea because we had
18 realised that we wouldn't be able to finance that.
19 And on the 14th of July when the Bearas -- when -- Mira and Toma
20 actually invited us because Ljubisa Beara had come to their place. They
21 invited us, their place, and on that particular evening we spoke about
22 our 25th wedding anniversary and the journey that we were supposed to
23 take on the Orient Express that did not come through.
24 Q. Can you please slow down a little, and since we are talking about
25 this birthday party, you mentioned the names of the persons who invited
1 you. Could you please repeat those.
2 A. They were Toma Bozinovic and Mira.
3 Q. Where did you meet?
4 A. We met at Toma and Mira's house in Belgrade in Sumatovacka
5 Street. There's where they lived.
6 Q. Can you please tell me, who was there?
7 A. Obviously the host, Toma and Mira were there; my husband and I;
8 Ljubisa Beara and his wife Nada; and only briefly Dr. Djordje, who was
9 Toma's mother's personal physician. He dropped by to bring some
10 medicines. He only stayed for one drink. He was in a haste on a house
11 call to another visit. That's why he had to leave so early.
12 Q. When did you arrive at the house on that day, at Mira and Toma's
14 A. It was in the evening. I had worked, and my husband, when they
15 invited us, went there around 8 o'clock, and I had some things to finish
16 because I had a complicated procedure and I could not leave earlier;
17 therefore, I left the office around 9, and that's when I went to their
19 Q. Could you please remember, given the details that you mentioned
20 around your anniversary, was your anniversary a topic of the
22 A. Yes. We talked about the Orient Express, I about our wish to
23 take a journey on that train for our 25th anniversary, but we did not
24 have enough money. Yes, we spoke about that. Toma joked and said there
25 was a nearly opened newly opened restaurant in new Belgrade that looks
1 like a carriage of the Orient Express train, so you can go there and just
2 imagine that you are sitting on the actual train. I remember that remark
3 of his very well.
4 Q. Mrs. Gavrilovic, did you know that Ljubisa had come from the
6 A. Yes, I knew that, but I did not know in what capacity. I never
7 asked him them that. I was not interested in that. I never wished to
8 know about that.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's already there but --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a classical, typical direct question, leading
12 question, that you should avoid.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, can we also have one brief moment
14 outside the presence of the witness.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Gavrilovic, do you speak English?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A bit, not well. No.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I think she needs to --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not sufficiently well enough.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a break now. You can leave the
20 courtroom. We'll reconvene in 25 minutes' time. Madam usher, if you
21 could accompany the witness first, please.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just want to give you an indication of what I
25 have on this witness in terms of a summary, that this witness knows Beara
1 family through mutual friends. Her late husband Djordje was from a
2 diplomatic family and had part of his schooling in France. Therefore, he
3 used to jokingly link Beara's birthday on July 14th to the French
4 national holiday, the Bastille Day. Witness and her husband received a
5 call from a friend, Mira Cekic - I'm now hearing Mira Bojanovic -
6 inviting them to come over on the evening of the 14th because Beara was
7 in town from the Republika Srpska to celebrate his birthday. She recalls
8 that occasion because there was a 25th anniversary -- was her 25th
9 anniversary, and an Orient Express trip had been planned with her
10 husband, had fallen through, which was the subject of the conversation at
11 the party.
12 That's it. There's lots of other information here relating to
13 different -- very important facts related to an alibi. I don't have it.
14 I would ask that this witness be delayed and that I be given a summary of
15 what they intend to have this witness testify to and so that I can at
16 least have that summary. I hate it to come to this point, but I don't
17 how else to do it.
18 The -- we see that she says, for example, that she is able to
19 connect this birthday with the fact that they share the same birthday and
20 the same sign. I don't see that here. I don't have that. In fact, it's
21 something else in this. So if -- clearly, they've got an outline. They
22 know what she's going to say. If they could help us with that so we have
23 that so we can be better prepared so we don't have to delay
24 cross-examination, and that's all I ask.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Nikolic or Mr. Ostojic, I don't know who
1 wishes to deal with this.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll address the Court if I can on this and maybe
3 help my learned friend. During the break we spent -- or at least all of
4 us did but I did in particular with the Prosecution trying to resolve any
5 issues they may have. With other witnesses, they asked for more
6 information. They wrote to us; we met with them; we wrote back; we
7 provided detailed information to them as we knew it. Some of the
8 information we didn't have, so we were in the field, as I was during that
10 For this particular witness, they never asked or queried as to
11 whether or not they had adequate or sufficient information. We assumed
12 as we do with other witnesses when we give them a summary that they can
13 call us if they think it's inadequate. They didn't call us. They didn't
14 mention this witness at all, so we didn't provide them anything other
15 than that which we had at the time, and I think it's --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you are answering the question or the
17 issue raised by Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McCloskey is referring to bits and
18 pieces of evidence, facts that are resulting now during her evidence as a
19 result of direct questions that are being put to her.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: The only comment I can make with respect to that
21 is, I don't know when her birthday is. I know that it's not -- I know
22 when Mr. Beara's birthday is as I do mine. We can provide that
23 information. We gave him dates and names and birth dates, places of
24 birth for all of the witnesses that they inquired. I didn't know about
25 this woman Mira Cekic, who is a witness. I didn't know about this Mira
1 Bojanovic. I'll find out. That might be her late husband's name. She
2 -- I'll find out if it's a different name. I think it's the same person.
3 I can find it out. I honestly don't know that as I sit here who Mira
4 Bojanovic is or however she spoke it, but I will inquire it, and I'll
5 find out.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I won't go over all the times we've been asking.
8 You probably remember our first time when we asked for alibi evidence and
9 there was a court order for that. It doesn't get much more than alibi
10 evidence than this stuff that we are hearing. I also have an e-mail from
11 Ms. Dzambazovic dated 25 August basically saying they had a proofing
12 session with this witness and others, and there's no further information
13 obtained. So if we could get a reasonable outline of what is to come.
14 They know it's coming. I know they know it's coming. They're -- we can
15 see how well prepared Mr. Ostojic was for his last witness. I think they
16 are well prepared for this witness, and if we could get some of that
17 information --
18 MR. OSTOJIC: No. Mr. President, I can -- we'll provide him --
19 at the break, he can sit down with us, tell us what he wants. We'll
20 provide it to him. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I do want to
21 address the issue that Mr. McCloskey keeps raising, and that's alibi. We
22 take a different view of that. He had an opportunity to raise that issue
23 either by way of a motion or before the Court. He's throwing this out
24 there, and I do take exception to it. The whereabouts of Mr. Beara are
25 relevant. I don't consider this to be alibi as I think Mr. McCloskey
1 feels that it is, and I think we can address that with the Court and
2 perhaps we should because I know other accused who are in custody,
3 recently who were brought to custody recently weren't at certain sites
4 but everyone knows where they were. It's not an alibi that someone was
5 in Pale, but we have different view given that the indictment talks about
6 the third variant Joint Criminal Enterprise. I don't know why he keeps
7 mentioning it. It's not a surprise that their evidence with respect to
8 Mr. Beara is grossly thin, in my opinion. I don't think they can
9 establish his whereabouts even from their witnesses. We tried very hard
10 to establish areas where there is no such evidence, areas where there's
11 suspect evidence. We're bringing forth experts like Professor Remetic
12 and Professor Wagenaar, witnesses that they've known about for months and
13 weeks. But I do want to address this issue of alibi, not necessarily
14 now, but I want to address it when they're prepared, and I don't think
15 that they are, with all due respect, to discuss it fully with the Court.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think the Court understands our position on
18 alibi. We haven't pushed that since the orders and the lack of substance
19 regarding legal alibi. I use it in that to remind the Court and counsel
20 that we've asked for information related to the whereabouts of Mr. Beara
21 on key times, and all we've got is this, and now we've got material
22 contradictory to that, key material related to this issue of where he is,
23 and counsel's resisting. We have -- we're frankly -- this is the first
24 of other alibi witnesses. I've already explained to you as you recall
25 the witness that provided the alibi on direct testimony of him being
1 somewhere on the 11th of July for the first time. This is a continuing
2 of that. All I ask for is what -- a better outline of this, and I would
3 ask that this witness be removed for the time being until we can get
4 something on this topic. They've got it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we've heard enough. I think we've heard
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We are clear now in our mind on this and unanimous.
9 First, I think you should utilize the next 25 minutes to meet,
10 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Nikolic, to cross the Ts and put the
11 dots on the Is and try to indicate exactly what the rest of the evidence
12 is going to be about. We will continue with the evidence, then depending
13 on whether there is an agreement between you or not or whether -- and
14 what the outcome of the rest of the testimony will be, if you have
15 problems with proceeding with your cross-examination, we will consider
16 your submissions and react accordingly.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we'll have a break now of 25 minutes. That
19 means we'll reconvene at -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I will withdraw my request. I
21 have had so many of these meetings that I don't find there's any
22 reasonable chance of it being productive. I can't get an interpreter at
23 -- this late, in the middle of lunch. This will totally disrupt my
24 ability to conduct further cross. I apologise. I know you are trying to
25 get this accomplished, but I will withdraw my request.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We'll have a break. We'll reconvene at
3 --- Recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nikolic, please try to restrict yourself
7 to questions that go to the substance of what is contained in your
9 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
11 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mrs. Gavrilovic, you mentioned in your previous answer Mira and
13 Toma Bozinovic?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Please, how long do you know these people?
16 A. Mira's father and my mother were born in the same place, so I've
17 known Mira from the time when we were teenagers. When she married Toma,
18 I also met him, so that means quite a long time.
19 Q. I conclude from your answer that these are spouses?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What was Mira's maiden name?
22 A. Her maiden name was Cekic.
23 Q. What is Mira by profession?
24 A. She finished the PTT secondary school, and she was employed with
25 Telecom Serbia
1 Q. What about her husband? Do you know that?
2 A. He was involved in distribution of flowers in Belgrade and other
3 towns around Serbia
4 horticulturist, an engineer or horticulturer, was working for a
5 Split-based flower distributor, and I know that they cooperated within
6 the business environment, and that is how they met each other.
7 Q. Let us go back now to the party that you mentioned. Can you just
8 repeat who was there?
9 A. The hosts, Toma and Mira; Nada and Ljubisa; my husband and I; and
10 I mentioned the doctor who just dropped by. His name was Djordje. He
11 was a cardiologist, and he dropped by just to leave some medicines for
12 Toma's mother.
13 Q. What was the profession of your husband?
14 A. He finished secondary school in Paris, France
15 was at the time the representative of the Yugoslav Tourist Association.
16 He finished the post-secondary school of economics in Belgrade
17 employed with a representative office of the US-based company called
18 Caterpillar, and as such he was sent to work in Iraq.
19 Q. Madam, I'm sorry to ask you, is your husband alive?
20 A. No. He died in 2001 of lung cancer.
21 Q. What about Toma Bozinovic?
22 A. He is also dead.
23 Q. Do you know when he died?
24 A. Toma Bozinovic died about a year after my husband.
25 Q. Madam, can you recall the topic of the conversation among the
1 individuals that you mentioned at the party?
2 A. Well, I told you, what I remember is -- was this unfortunate
3 Orient Express that we did not manage to travel on and the jokes that we
4 made about that. Then yes, Ljubisa, it was his birthday that evening.
5 He was smartly dressed. That's what I noticed. He had a light blue
6 shirt and a dark blue summer blazer with golden buttons, double breast,
7 rows of buttons. And I did tell him, oh, God, how handsome you look, and
8 then I said to Nada, Nada, how did you manage to keep such a handsome man
9 for yourself for so many years, and we also joked about this as well.
10 Q. How long did you stay at this birthday party?
11 A. Approximately until midnight
12 about three hours.
13 Q. Did you continue to see the Beara family later on?
14 A. Yes, yes, we did, on various occasions, or if we were walking and
15 passing by their house we would ring the bell and have a coffee with them
16 if they were in, either Nada alone or both of them or when their children
17 were with them because their son and their daughter-in-law do not live in
19 Q. After your husband's death, did you continue to see them?
20 A. Yes, I did. Since my husband was very good with his hands, I
21 never had to call any handymen to do any repairs in my home, and when
22 after he was gone, and I knew that Ljubisa was also a good handyman
23 capable of doing various things, I would call Nada and ask if Ljubisa was
24 available to come over to fix my iron or whatever.
25 Q. Madam, I'm sorry I have to go back to these sad events relating
1 to your husband. I would like to ask you whether all your friends
2 attended the funeral of your husband?
3 A. Yes, on the 5th of August, 2001.
4 Q. Was Mr. Beara there as well?
5 A. Yes, he was.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: This is where Mr. McCloskey is definitely right.
7 You obviously had prior insight into this information because otherwise
8 you wouldn't have asked the question. But this is not included in the
10 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to resolve
11 this, with this I'm going to conclude the questioning of this witness.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then conclude, please.
13 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Gavrilovic. I've finished with my questions?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Does that mean I'm free to leave?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: No, not yet. Mr. Zivanovic, do you have
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, Your Honours, thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Nothing, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no question, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krkvic.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Nothing.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Sarapa.
3 MR. SARAPA: No questions, thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Gavrilovic.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. My name is Peter McCloskey. I'm working for the Office of the
10 Prosecutor. Can you tell me when you first started thinking back about
11 this alleged birthday party?
12 A. Mr. Stanic contacted me in Belgrade
13 lawyer on the Beara Defence team, and he asked me whether I would be
14 willing if I remembered the date, the 14th of July, whether I would be
15 able to talk to him, whether I would be willing to testify about that,
16 and since that moment I've been thinking about that. This was maybe two
17 months ago or thereabouts.
18 Q. Okay. So about two months ago Mr. Stanic came up to you and
19 asked you specifically about the 14th of July?
20 A. Yes. He asked me whether I remembered the 14th of July, 1995
21 where I was, and what I did on that date, and that is when I remembered
22 precisely because of our wedding anniversary, Ljubisa's birthday, the
23 whole story. I did remember that on that evening I attended Ljubisa's
24 birthday party.
25 Q. So you told him that then and there in response to his question
1 about 14 July?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. So after about 13 years' time, a person asks you a specific date
4 and you are able without talking to anyone, referring to anything,
5 remember a birthday party?
6 A. Yes, because of my silver wedding anniversary and the Orient
7 Express, because we joked about it and we discussed our failure to go on
8 this trip.
9 Q. I understand anyone would remember their 25th wedding anniversary
10 year and date, of course, and might, of course, remember any big plans
11 they had to take that date or year, certainly. But I don't see how you
12 having those memories can go back 13 years and remember off the top of
13 your head a conversation at a birthday party about the Orient Express;
14 but you did that, no problem, huh?
15 A. Yes, because I said to Ljubisa maybe too rashly without thinking
16 how handsome he looked, and then I apologized to Nada for saying that,
17 and that is how I remember it.
18 Q. What was his hair like, Mr. Beara's?
19 A. He had grey hair. Greyish hair, but he had more grey hairs than
20 dark hairs.
21 Q. Well, was it white or grey?
22 A. Perhaps greyish white.
23 Q. And how long was it?
24 A. Short. Normal short hair. I mean, it wasn't long. He wasn't
25 bald, but he had short hair.
1 Q. Can you see anybody here who -- can you just tell us roughly, and
2 I don't know want you to worry about Mr. Beara. We know time goes on for
3 all of us, but anybody here whose hair looks roughly the same length at
4 Mr. Beara's was at the time?
5 A. This gentleman over there.
6 Q. The fellow that's smiling, Mr. Krkvic?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. And after 13 years you remember his
10 A. Yes. I am a very perceptive person.
11 Q. How do you know his birthday was on the specific date of 14 July?
12 I'm told Cancer is between June 22nd and July 22nd, but you remembered
13 that right off. Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you told that was his birthday before you said it, or did
16 you say it first?
17 A. No. I said it because the 14th of July is the date of the fall
18 of Bastille. My husband finished his secondary school in France, and he
19 always used to tell us how in France
20 14th of July I would tease him by saying, oh, this is one of your youth
21 holidays and celebrations. Probably, that's what prompted my memory.
22 Q. Well, I think -- I don't know about Serbia, but certainly
23 Bastille Day is remembered. But the 14th of July, how is it you connect
24 the 14th of July to Mr. Beara, 13 years after the fact or before?
25 A. I made a connection earlier because as I said, every 14th of July
1 ever since I married my husband I used to tease him on that day by saying
2 that that was his holiday, so we joked about this, and the coincidence
3 was that it was Ljubisa's birthday on the same date.
4 Q. And what other birthday parties had you been to about -- to
5 Mr. Beara?
6 A. That was the last one. I may have been on one occasion before
8 Q. Tell us about that one before that.
9 A. Well, it was in their house. Their children came too. We were
10 sitting and talking. We talked about various things, mostly about the
11 books we read because my husband and Mr. Beara were involved in a
12 discussion about their hobbies, about the material, where they could
13 purchase it, et cetera, so basically this is what we talked about.
14 Q. And what year was that?
15 A. It may have been in 1993.
16 Q. You don't know?
17 A. Well, we met in 1992, in late 1992, early 1993, so that was the
18 first year of our acquaintanceship.
19 Q. So you are not sure about that birthday. What date was that
20 party for that other birthday, the one previous?
21 A. Probably the 14th when his birthday was.
22 Q. So you don't know the date?
23 A. The 14th. The 14th of July. That's his birthday, on the 14th of
25 Q. Well, ma'am, you said probably the 14th of July. Now you are
1 sure it was the 14th of July?
2 A. No. What I'm saying is that his birthday is on the 14th of July.
3 Whether it was in -- whether in 1993 it was celebrated precisely on the
4 14th of July, I cannot remember exactly, but that was the reason for us
5 to get together and celebrate his birthday with a couple of drinks.
6 Q. And that's the same for 1995, isn't it? You remember getting
7 together for a birthday, but you don't remember what date in particular?
8 A. I remember exactly that in 1995 it was the 14th of July, and the
9 reason for me to remember that is my wedding anniversary, and what my
10 husband and I wanted to give to each other as a present, that is, a trip
11 on the Orient Express, and that is why I remember that it was on the 14th
12 of July in 1995.
13 Q. What was the date of your wedding anniversary?
14 A. Our wedding anniversary was on the 4th of January, but on the
15 14th of July we discussed our 25th anniversary. That evening, we talked
16 about the Orient Express and the 25th wedding anniversary.
17 Q. The fact that you had a wedding anniversary on the -- January
18 somehow makes you connect with precisely the 14th of July?
19 A. Yes, because when I noticed that Ljubisa was looking handsome and
20 well dressed, we started making jokes about that. Then we started
21 talking about marriages, about their wedding, about Ljubisa's and Nada
22 wedding. Then we moved to our wedding, and that is brought to the
23 subject of our 25th anniversary and how we had wanted to go, of course,
24 not in January. We wanted to go when the weather got better, and that is
25 how this conversation started.
1 Q. And what conversations did you have on the previous birthday, the
2 one that you think might be 1992 or 1993?
3 A. It was in 1993.
4 Q. Now, you are sure?
5 A. Well, I cannot remember any specific topic. I cannot remember
6 exactly. We talked about general topics that we always discussed. We
7 made jokes, told jokes, how life was passing, how we were getting older,
8 and just the usual stuff.
9 Q. What was Mr. Beara wearing during that first birthday?
10 A. Since it was in their house, he was casually dressed in a
11 T-shirt. It was warm. We were sitting on the balcony, and he had a
12 T-shirt and a pair of jeans or some casual trousers.
13 Q. Sleeveless T-shirt or one with sleeves?
14 A. The one with sleeves.
15 Q. What colour?
16 A. White one with some logo on it. I don't remember what it read,
17 but there was something written on it.
18 Q. And was it one of those V-necks or --
19 A. It was close to his neck.
20 Q. How about his shoes?
21 A. Slippers. Slippers. Summer slippers.
22 Q. What kind of slippers? What colour?
23 A. Dark blue.
24 Q. How about on his birthday on the 14th of July, 1995? What kind
25 of shoes was he wearing?
1 A. He had dark shoes, black shoes.
2 Q. When was the first time that Ljubisa Beara came over to your
3 house to fix something after your husband died?
4 A. I can't give you the exact date, but this may have been maybe
5 three or four months later. I don't know exactly.
6 Q. And what did he do?
7 A. He fixed my iron.
8 Q. And what was he wearing then?
9 A. He was wearing a navy coat that he took off, and then he remained
10 wearing a shirt, a sweater on top of the shirt.
11 Q. And the 1995 birthday, what day of the week was that?
12 A. I don't remember. I don't know what day it was.
13 Q. Do you work on Sunday? Did you work on Sunday in July?
14 A. Yes. Since my salon is in my house, in my apartment, I will
15 work. If I have cases that require daily therapy, then I will work even
16 on Sundays.
17 Q. So did you work on the Sunday before or after the -- well, the
18 birthday? Before, after, or on the birthday?
19 A. On the day of the birthday I did work, but I can't remember
20 whether it was Sunday or what other day, and I did work both the Sunday
21 before and the Sunday after that.
22 Q. How about Saturday?
23 A. Well, again, yes, if the therapy so requires. If you have to see
24 a person for ten consecutive days, and there are such treatments, then
1 Q. I think -- I'm told that the 14th of July, 1995, was on a Friday,
2 but you didn't know that?
3 A. No, I didn't, no. I didn't know that it was Friday. I didn't
4 know that.
5 Q. So you told us that you had a big job that day at your beauty
6 shop. How about that Saturday? Did you work in your beauty shop the
7 Saturday after the party?
8 A. Yes. Again, that was a treatment that finished on the Saturday.
9 That was a treatment that went from the previous Saturday to the Saturday
10 next week. It's a treatment with antibiotics and some other agents that
11 have to be applied every day if you want them to work.
12 Q. And where had Mr. Beara been prior to you seeing him at this
14 A. I don't know where he was. I know that on that day when Mira and
15 Toma had invited us that he was at their place. They told us he would be
16 there, and he indeed was, and I don't know about the day before.
17 Q. Well, what did Mr. Stanic tell you about that?
18 A. Mr. Stanic just asked me if I could remember the 14th of July,
19 1995, what I did on that day, and then I told him what I did. I told him
20 that in the evening of that day Mira and Toma had invited us to come to
21 their place because Nada and Ljubisa were there. It was Ljubisa's
22 birthday, and they invited us to celebrate Ljubisa birthday together with
24 Q. How long did you spend with Mr. Stanic a couple of months ago?
25 A. Maybe half an hour, 40 minutes, not more than that. He contacted
1 me first, asked me whether he could come to my place to talk to me. He
2 came. This is what he asked me. I told him what I knew, and that's all.
3 Q. When was the next time you spoke to anybody from the Beara team?
4 A. It was again Mr. Stanic who called me and asked me if I would be
5 willing to repeat my story publicly in court, everything that I had
6 previously told him, and I said that I would, why not, and that was that.
7 Q. When was that that he contacted you?
8 A. You mean the second time around when he asked me --
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. That was a month ago, roughly.
11 Q. And after speaking to him the first time a couple of months ago,
12 can you give us a date when you actually first spoke to him?
13 A. No, I can't. I can't give you the date. I can't remember. I
14 don't know the date.
15 Q. Do you know the month?
16 A. Well, it may have been in April, in the month of April, March or
17 April when I met with Mr. Stanic, thereabouts.
18 Q. What day?
19 A. I don't know. I really don't. I did not consider this date
20 worth retaining, remembering at all.
21 Q. Well, I know in answering that question you kind of looked at me
22 and smiled as if, how am I going -- supposed to remember that date,
24 A. Yes, right. I really don't remember that date.
25 Q. Did Mr. Stanic tell you what your testimony was going to be
1 about? I mean, what Mr. Beara's case was about?
2 A. No. He asked me specifically whether I remembered what I had
3 done on the 14th of July, on that day, that evening in 1995, and I told
4 him what I have just repeated to you here, and he never told me anything
5 about Mr. Beara or anything to that effect. Mr. Stanic never mentioned
6 anything to that effect. He only asked me if I remembered anything that
7 happened on the 14th of July, and if I did, what it was. And he also
8 told me that he was on Beara's defence team. That's how he introduced
9 himself, and then he asked me about the 14th of July. I told him what I
10 did, and he said, very well, then, and then he asked me whether I would
11 be willing to repeat that if necessary, and I said that I would. There
12 you go. That was that.
13 Q. What did you think he meant when he said the Beara Defence team?
14 Defence for what, as far as you knew?
15 A. I didn't know anything at all, but I assumed that that date must
16 be important for Ljubisa Beara's defence.
17 Q. Defence of what?
18 A. I don't know. I knew that Ljubisa Beara was here in The Hague
19 I knew that, so I assumed that it was to defend him against some charges,
20 and I really don't know what charges have been brought against him. I
21 don't know this to this very day.
22 Q. Mass murder, genocide? Doesn't ring a bell?
23 A. Well, I know that. I know that from the media, but I don't know
24 that Beara participated in that. I really don't know because we never
25 discussed that. Whenever we got together before the event, after the
1 event, during that time, we never talked about that, or at least this was
2 not something that came up in the presence of us women. We never spoke
3 about that.
4 Q. So this July 14th, 1995
5 Srebrenica never showed up despite it being blasted all over the
6 airwaves, all over Belgrade
7 A. No. If any of the men wanted to raise the issue, Beara would
8 always be the one to say, please, let's not discuss that; we are here to
9 party, to celebrate my birthday; don't ask me about that. So we never
10 discussed it.
11 Q. Well, who brought it up?
12 A. My husband was prone to asking questions of this sort, but
13 Ljubisa Beara never wanted to discuss that or at least not when I was
14 present. I don't know what men discussed in private, but in front of us
15 women they never brought up the issue because Ljubisa would not allow
16 anybody to bring up the matter in front of us women.
17 Q. So what was brought up about it by anybody, women to women, man
18 to women, without Beara, about Srebrenica that night?
19 A. Nothing on that particular day or on that particular evening. It
20 never came up. The issue of war never came up.
21 Q. What about having to go back to the war? Sometimes that gets
22 mentioned during these times.
23 A. You are asking me about that particular evening, the 14th of
24 July, or in general terms?
25 Q. 14th July, 1995
1 A. No, no. Nothing was said about that on that particular evening.
2 Q. So a couple of months ago, maybe March or April, Mr. Stanic comes
3 up to you and asks you about these -- this important topic; you know that
4 Mr. Beara is in The Hague
5 you cannot tell me the date of this -- that he contacted you, Stanic?
6 You can't even tell me the month?
7 A. No, I can't. I really can't.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I'm almost through, but if I could
9 review my materials and see if I have any other questions. I notice it's
10 break time.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. No, no, I was going to invite you to finish,
12 but having heard that I will give you the opportunity, obviously.
13 Madam, we haven't finished. You will need to return again
14 tomorrow. It will be for a short time, and then you will be free to go.
15 So madam usher can escort you out of the courtroom.
16 We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.00. Thank you.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
19 1.46 p.m.
20 August 2008, at 9.00 a.m.