1 Monday, 13 November 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you call the
6 case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. This
8 is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar. I'd like
10 to greet all the people present in the courtroom, the Prosecution, the
11 Defence counsel, the accused, as well as all the staff members present
12 here in the courtroom.
13 The Trial Chamber will read out two oral decisions. From what I
14 understood, Mr. Karnavas needs an extra few minutes to talk about a
15 particular subject, and then we shall address the question of witness
16 protection. Mr. Scott will then have the floor, and I hope he will not
17 exceed 15 minutes. Defence counsel will also have 15 minutes, and after
18 that, we shall bring the witness into the courtroom for this afternoon.
19 The first oral decision that has been rendered is as follows and
20 relates to those exhibits which were presented through the Witness BY.
21 The Trial Chamber has decided to admit these exhibits on the grounds that
22 they have a certain probative value and a certain relevance. I shall read
23 them slowly P 08543, P 09147, P 09149, P 09155.
24 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you that documents IC 066,
25 IC 067, IC 068 and IC 069 tendered by the Prosecution have been admitted
1 under seal on the 27th of October. Of course the IC numbers usually have
2 three zeros, so it should read IC 00066.
3 In addition, P 09151, P 09152.
4 There's a mistake on line 3.
5 P 09151, P 09152, P 09153, P 09154 and P 09163 have been admitted
6 pursuant to an oral decision on the 30th of September 2006.
7 The Trial Chamber reminds you that documents IC 00070, IC 00071
8 and IC 00072 tendered by the Defence have been admitted under seal on the
9 27th of October, 2006.
10 The document 3D 00475 also tendered by the Defence has -- was
11 admitted following an oral decision on the 2nd of November 2006.
12 Second oral decision, which is a longer decision: Oral decision
13 relating to the joint motion filed by the Defence and relating to list of
14 exhibits filed by the Prosecution before the witnesses's testimonies.
15 On the 16th October, 2006, the Defence has filed a written motion
16 relating to the exhibits which the Prosecution files before each witness
17 testimony. As a rule, the Defence counsel asks the Trial Chamber to order
18 the Prosecution to make sure that this exhibit list matches the 4th of
19 September, 2006, charts. Subsidiarily, it asks the Prosecution to file
20 its exhibit list which it intends to present through witness, 30 days
21 before the witness appears in court.
22 On the 19th of October, 2006, the Prosecution objected to this
23 request. After having reviewed the submissions by both parties, the Trial
24 Chamber renders the following decision: The Trial Chamber would like to
25 remind you, first of all, that the charts filed on the 4th of September,
1 2006 by the Prosecution were provided in order to assist the Chamber as
2 well as Defence counsel to establish a connection between the witnesses
3 and the exhibits, on the one hand, and the allegations set forth in the
4 indictment on the other hand.
5 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you, that according to the
6 decisions rendered on the 3rd and 13th of July, 2006, it has charged the
7 Prosecution to disclose to the Defence counsel all the exhibits it intends
8 to present through a witness two weeks before the witness appears in
9 court. Moreover, according to the decision rendered -- oral decision on
10 the 21st of August, 2006, the Trial Chamber has stated that the
11 Prosecution should, as a rule, submit to Defence counsel only those
12 documents which are mentioned in the 65 ter list. However, it has given
13 the Prosecution the possibility to submit the documents which are not
14 mentioned in the 65 ter list. If the Prosecution is able to justify the
15 latter, i.e., that they are essential to determining the case, the
16 Prosecution must also justify the reasons why these documents are filed at
17 such a late stage and must also tell the Defence counsel why the latter
18 were not mentioned in the 65 ter list.
19 Lastly, the Trial Chamber would like to remind you, that according
20 to the oral decision rendered on the 24th of August, 2006, it has -- it
21 realised that the proofing of a witness could produce new evidence and
22 allow the Prosecution to extend its examination-in-chief, thus enabling
23 the Defence to better prepare its cross-examination. The Trial Chamber
24 has then decided that the Prosecution should instantly disclose to Defence
25 counsel, but as well as all the legal officers of the Chamber, any new
1 piece of information that would have resulted or occurred after the
2 proofing of a witness. This measure should enable the Trial Chamber to
3 rule on any objections which are likely to be made by the Defence counsel.
4 This oral decision on the 24th of August, 2006, did not, however, settle
5 the question of the communication or disclosure of new exhibits that could
6 stem from a witness -- from the proofing of the witness. However, the
7 Trial Chamber has usually applied those principles laid out in the
8 decision when it comes to taking a decision on the exhibits.
9 Therefore, the Prosecution has told the Defence counsel and the
10 Chamber that every time a witness proofing led to a an amendment of
11 exhibits list, it would inform the latter. The Trial Chamber is therefore
12 able to take an instant decision on such an amendment of the rights of the
13 accused. The Trial Chamber feels that there is no particular reason for
14 wanting to change what has already been established in practice. It feels
15 that various work tools that have been provided to Defence counsel are
16 there to assist it in an efficient and fair manner and so as to properly
17 prepare for its cross-examination. Therefore, the Prosecution is
18 responsible for disclosing the list of exhibits relating to a particular
19 witness two weeks before this witness comes to court.
20 The proofing of a witness may call for an amendment of the list on
21 the part of the Prosecution, and this is exceptional. The implications of
22 such an amendment shall be reviewed by the Chamber on a case-by-case
23 basis. Upon reviewing the matter, the Trial Chamber will look into these
24 last-minute changes and check that the latter do not interfere with the
25 good preparation of the cross-examination by the Defence counsel, thus
1 making sure that fairness and efficiency are being abided by.
2 Consequently, the Trial Chamber rejects the application made by the
3 Defence counsel.
4 I should like to add the following comment: The question raised
5 by the Defence counsel is due to the fact that, on several occasions, the
6 Defence counsel discover documents, particularly when documents stem from
7 the proofing of the witness. I have had occasion to mention this on
8 several occasions.
9 As a rule, the Trial Chamber, and more so the Defence counsel,
10 should be able to react instantly when such documents are being presented.
11 As the Defence counsel should be familiar with all the documents presented
12 through a witness, this should be no cause for surprise.
13 I would also like to specify that the Bench sometimes discover
14 these documents when we walk into the courtroom. Sometimes these are
15 documents which are a hundred pages long, which, however, does not prevent
16 us from putting questions to the witness. So when a document comes in at
17 the last moment, any professional lawyer should be able to put questions
18 to the witness. And when the Defence counsels need to cross-examine the
19 witness, they should be able to do the same.
20 As a rule, the following procedure should be adopted: The
21 Prosecution should disclose all the exhibits before the witness enters the
22 courtroom, and we should only find ourselves in such a situation in
23 exceptional circumstances, in which case the Trial Chamber will rule on it
24 on a case-by-case basis.
25 Mr. Karnavas, I think you wanted to say a few words. But before
1 you take the floor, in order to organise the hearing for this afternoon
2 and tomorrow afternoon as far as the witness from the French -- from the
3 Spanish Battalion is concerned, I don't wish to quote any names, I think
4 initially you had -- the Prosecution had planned to hear the witness for
5 four hours. We feel that three hours is ample time. The Defence counsel
6 will also have three hours. So it's three hours for each. Three hours
7 for the Prosecution, three hours for Defence counsel.
8 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
10 Honours. Just very briefly. As you well know, on November 10th the
11 Prosecution filed a motion regarding 92 bis (A) and (B) material. Several
12 statements, I believe there are 15 of them -- the Prosecution wishes to
13 introduce on the basis that these are cumulative and/or corroborative of
14 other evidence. Now, if you look at the motion, the Prosecution does lay
15 out as to why it may be cumulative or corroborative vis-a-vis the
16 particular witness that has already appeared before us in viva voce
17 testimony. However, a close reading of the motion shows that there's
18 insufficient information to show as to why a particular witness has
19 cumulative or -- or corroborative testimony. In other words, there's no
20 details other than just saying it refers to this witness and just the
21 buzzwords cumulative and corroborative.
22 We feel that's insufficient information in order for us to
23 respond, particularly in light of the Prosecution's motion with respect to
24 paragraph 9, wherein the Prosecution says that the Defence, if it does
25 wish to cross-examine any particular witness, should specify the reasons
1 as to why they need to question a particular witness. So in order for us
2 to respond in that fashion, we need more information from the Prosecution,
3 and so we would like some sort of a oral decision today whether you just
4 wish us to respond or whether you will be requiring the Prosecutor to
5 provide more information.
6 And I don't want to get ahead of the motion itself and put our
7 response orally, but frankly, if the information is cumulative and if the
8 information is already corroborative, there's no need for it. If it's --
9 why do you need to hear cumulative information?
10 So in any event, if we could have some sort of a ruling, because
11 we do need to response, I believe, by -- by the end of this week to this
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Prosecution has filed
14 a motion which I read this morning. These are not 15 92 bis witnesses but
15 11 all in all. Whether it's 11 or 15, it all amounts to the same. But if
16 I remember correctly, those submissions filed by the Prosecution, mention
17 is made of all the viva voce witnesses. If Defence counsel wish to
18 respond in writing, you have eight days. Of course, we will look at the
19 written statements of these witnesses and compare them with the witness --
20 with the viva voce witness testimonies.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. And I understand that, Mr. President, but it
22 would appear that the Prosecution is shifting the work onto the Defence
23 and the burden onto the Defence to show why we need to cross-examine.
24 It's not sufficient, as far as we're concerned, for them to simply say
25 it's cumulative it or corroborative because it refers to a particular
1 witness. They should demonstrate exactly what is cumulative or
2 corroborative from their standpoint. And also, as I indicated earlier, if
3 indeed it is cumulative, why on earth do we need it? Normally, that's the
4 whole purpose of excluding evidence, because it's cumulative.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're not going to be spending
6 too much time on this issue. As I have mentioned to you, you have 10 days
7 and even an additional 4 days, which is two weeks, to respond in writing
8 to the 11 statements for which the Prosecution --
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the deadlines you
10 mentioned for response, it was eight and now it seems to be 14. As far as
11 I can remember, on the basis of the Rules of Evidence, I think that we
12 have 14 days for a response, and you have just said 14 days, so that's
13 fine. We have an fortnight to respond.
14 Your Honour, could we, in the course of the day today and you will
15 tell us when, put forward some of the exhibits that go with Witness Agic
16 and also for Idrizovic and a piece of information that there was an MFI
17 document as well. So when the chance arises, I'd like to do that.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will look into the matter at
19 a later stage. Now we have to address the question of protective
21 Let me remind you that the last time Defence counsel Mr. Ciocha
22 [as interpreted] and the Prosecution wanted to address the issue, as you
23 know, protective measures are governed by Rule 75 of our Rules of
24 Procedure and Evidence and that leeway is not very great. The Trial
25 Chamber does not have much room to manoeuvre. And when we are talking
1 about representatives from various governments, an example which is a
2 well-known example, General Clark had testified under protective measures.
3 After that, the -- the United States government lifted the protective
4 measures and the hearing was therefore rendered public.
5 It is important to protect the identity of some of the witnesses,
6 particularly when some women have been sexually abused. Also when some
7 witnesses are exposed to a potential danger.
8 I have asked the Witness and Victims Unit how many witnesses have
9 actually been granted protective measures. I believe that in all the
10 witnesses that have testified here, 40 per cent have been granted
11 protective measures. I know that in addition to this, in some cases,
12 fewer protective measures have been granted.
13 I looked up -- looked into the matter in the Krajisnik case. I
14 know that out of 25 witnesses that had been requested by Defence counsel,
15 only three have been granted protective measures.
16 These are measures which are take own a case-by-case basis and
17 which are decided upon by the Trial Chamber with the discretionary powers
18 they have.
19 Mr. Scott, before I give you the floor, just for a split second, I
20 would like to move into private session, please, and then I will give the
21 floor back to you. This will not take very long.
22 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are currently in open session,
14 Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Scott, you have the
16 floor for 15 minutes.
17 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President. I'm having trouble with my
18 microphone today.
19 May it please the Court, I just want to respond ever so briefly to
20 the issues raised by Mr. Karnavas because -- with the greatest of respect,
21 I don't think it's fair, appropriate for one party to get up and address
22 an issue and for the other party not to be heard at least briefly.
23 On the 92 bis submission, Your Honour, as the -- as the Chamber
24 well knows, the Prosecution has stated, since the beginning of this trial
25 and since before the beginning of the trial, that a major part of its
1 trial strategy and indeed in order -- excuse me, Judge Prandler. Indeed
2 in order to have any chance, and I emphasise the word "any chance," to
3 present our evidence in the time allowed by the Chamber will require, and
4 I say in my estimate will require, not might, not may, will require an
5 extensive use of Rule 92 bis evidence as we believe the Rules provide for,
6 that there has been a bit of a sea change in the practice of the Tribunal
7 in the last few years and the efficiencies and facilities that provided by
8 that rule should be used to the maximum extend of course consistent with
9 due process.
10 Now, we believe our submission meets all the requirements. I
11 would invite and implore the Chamber not to impose more technical
12 requirements on the Prosecution as to the types of showings and filings
13 that will be required. The situation is simply this: The Prosecution has
14 called fairly extensive viva voce and Rule 92 ter evidence with all that
15 evidence being subject to full courtroom cross-examination by both the
16 Judges and by the Defence. There is then a remaining body of evidentiary
17 witness evidence material which, because of the time limitations, et
18 cetera, cannot possibly be put before the Chamber in a viva voce or other
19 way. Therefore, we are putting it forward. All of it relates to the
20 crime base area that has preceded it. In this case, Prozor. We believe
21 our submissions make all the required showings. There is a detailed chart
22 and summary and a detailed chart showing the -- once again, the paragraphs
23 and counts of the indictment to which it relates.
24 Secondly, and again, Your Honour, very quickly. The Defence has
25 said they need more information in order to be able to respond and they
1 specifically raise that in connection with the acts and conduct of the
2 accused. Your Honour, we respectfully disagree. The witness statements
3 themselves are very clear as to what the evidence of that witness is or
4 would be. If, in the view of counsel, if in the view of counsel, they
5 implicate the acts and conduct of the accused within the meaning of the
6 Rule, within the meaning of the Rule, and the Tribunal has taken a fairly
7 narrow view of acts and conduct of the accused, then the Defence should
8 state that clearly and say, "We object to this particular evidence of this
9 particular witness coming in because we think that it unfairly implicates
10 acts and conduct of the accused." And we've set that out in our
11 submissions, our position, and we do not believe, respectfully, that the
12 Defence needs any more information in order to be able to identify those
13 parts of it which they contend go to acts and conduct of the accused.
14 Thirdly, Your Honour, Mr. Karnavas, and it doesn't entirely
15 surprise me, because we come from the same system, and in our system,
16 cumulative is generally considered a bad word and not a good word in terms
17 of what is cumulative. A better word, I submit in my humble personal
18 opinion, would be corroboration. I guess one man's accumulativeness is
19 another man's corroboration. The Rule is quite clear, in the sense in
20 which it is used, and that is in Rule 92 bis (A) (B), it says
21 this, "Factors in favour of admitting evidence" and then sub (A), "is of a
22 cumulative nature." So the Rules clearly say that a positive factor that
23 favours -- in fact favours admission is that it is cumulative in this
24 sense. And cumulative in the sense that viva voce and other evidence has
25 already been led, and that which then provides the basis for the
1 application of the Rule.
2 I apologise for taking the Chamber's time to address those points
3 but I thought that some abbreviated response was appropriate and I
4 appreciate the Court for hearing me. Thank you.
5 As to the issue of witness protection, and I will be brief on
6 this, I think the points are really rather straightforward frankly. There
7 are three interests, I suggest, that are implicated by these matters in
8 the courtroom: One is the interest of the accused; one is the interest of
9 the victim and witness -- or witness; and three, the third interest is the
10 interest of the public in seeing and hearing the evidence in these
12 As to the first, Your Honour, I submit -- we respectfully submit
13 that as to the interest of the accused, these are fully addressed and
14 virtually not implicated at all by protective measures, that is, the
15 Defence themselves -- the Defence lawyers, the accused sitting in court,
16 get full disclosure. The protective measures in fact have absolutely
17 nothing to do with the accused. They have the witness name. They have
18 the full statements. They have everything. In the courtroom, they have
19 the full opportunity to confront the witness. They have the full
20 opportunity to cross-examine the witness. And it's the Prosecution
21 position, Your Honour, that at least in the vast majority of instances, of
22 course, there can always be some exception, but in the vast majority of
23 instances, frankly, the rights and the interest of the accused are not
24 implicated at all by protective measures. They have the full right to
25 cross-examine. All these men are here. They can all see the witness in
1 the courtroom. They know exactly who the witness -- we're not talking
2 about secret witnesses in some remote courtroom. They can all see the
3 witness sitting right here. They have the real name. They have it way in
4 advance. Their interests are not implicated at all.
5 The public, of course, would like to hear as much of the evidence
6 as possible, and we understand that, but in the most -- again, in most
7 instances, the protective measures that are usually most -- most usually
8 requested, based on long years of experience and also borne out by this
9 particular trial, is for the witness to be given a pseudonym and facial
10 image distortion. Now, what are the implications of that for public
11 testimony? And again virtually none. The public gets to hear virtually
12 the entire evidence of the witness. It goes out of the courtroom
13 virtually a hundred per cent of its content unless it is something very
14 specific that would specifically identify the witness. So what are the
15 interests of the public hearing the evidence? And do they hear the
16 evidence when a witness testifies with a pseudonym and with facial image
17 distortion? Yes, they hear -- the public hears virtually every word.
18 The third interest that has to be dealt with is the -- it the
19 protection, of course, of the victim witness itself -- him or herself.
20 Now, let me start by saying one thing, which I don't think we can fully
21 address today. If the Chamber wants to get into it in a more substantial
22 way, then I submit respectfully that some additional time and resources
23 would have to be devoted to the question.
24 Various statements have been made to suggest that these concerns
25 can't be genuine. They can't be real, these concerns expressed by the
1 witness. Your Honours, these are the concerns, these are the heartfelt
2 concerns of the witnesses who bring them before the Chamber. These are
3 not the Prosecution's positions. These are not the Prosecution's
4 statements. These are what the witness themselves come for.
5 And a witness, for example, comes into court and says I haven't
6 even told anyone I'm here. My employer doesn't know, most of my family
7 doesn't know. To me, Your Honour, when a witness -- someone takes that
8 many significant steps, that's one example. That shows to me the witness
9 takes it seriously. It isn't just some afterthought. It's because the
10 witness is concerned about the situation. And with the greatest of
11 respect to the efforts of this Tribunal and the efforts of the
12 international community in Bosnia-Herzegovina over the past 13 or 14
13 years, it remains far from an ideal situation, far from an ideal
14 situation. You can look at any international report -- after any
15 international report, whether it's the European Community, whether it's
16 the OSCE, whatever, significant concerns continue. So simply -- well,
17 with respect, Your Honour, I don't think we can simply be dismissive when
18 the witnesses come in and express these concerns.
19 Finally, Your Honour, then it leads us to how do we balance out
20 the rights of the victim and witness to reasonable protective measures and
21 the interest of the public in hearing the evidence. And I submit, Your
22 Honours, that in 99 per cent of the cases, a pseudonym and facial image
23 distortion is a completely, a completely fair balance of those interests.
24 The public gets virtually a hundred per cent of the evidence and the
25 witness gets some protection. And we submit that that should be when
1 those types of measures are requested, they should be given with
2 reasonable flexibility.
3 I would invite the Chamber, if the Chamber has continuing concerns
4 about this and if the Chamber has any concerns that our position might be
5 tainted by the adversary nature or our advocacy, I invite the Chamber to
6 consult directly with the Victims and Witness Section, hear what they have
7 to say. They're not a part of the Prosecution. They're not part of the
8 Defence. And they can give the Chamber their position and their concerns
9 over witness protection.
10 Thank you very much, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott, for what
12 you've said.
13 Mr. Stewart, you asked for the floor and I'm giving it to you.
14 You have 15 minutes.
15 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. President. The -- the first point is
16 to say that the -- it's not the Defence's position, I don't believe it has
17 been and I don't believe it will be the position that we say that the
18 concerns expressed by witnesses when they come to court are not genuine.
19 That misrepresents the Defence's submission and their position. We
20 recognise that witnesses's concerns are honest and genuine. What we
21 question is whether there is a sufficient objective basis for those
22 concerns to justify interference with the basic right to a public and fair
23 trial, and that will, I'm confident, remain the Defence position
24 throughout in relation to such matters.
25 Second, and this is a point of real importance, it is absolutely
1 false to say that the accuseds' interests are not implicated at all
2 provided that he is able to -- we're talking about he's in this case, the
3 defendants -- he is able to know the identity of the witness himself and
4 have his counsel know the identity of the witness and know the facts on
5 which to cross-examine. That fundamentally undermines and contradicts the
6 basic notion of a public trial. And Your Honours are extremely familiar
7 with the Statute, but Article 22 expressly gives the accused the
8 entitlement to a fair and public hearing. So right at the highest level
9 in the Statute that right is recognised. And the reasons without
10 elaborating, the well-known reasons why all the developed open systems of
11 justice have public trials with very limited exceptions, is that it is
12 regarded as fundamentally important that when witnesses come along and say
13 what they've got to say, whether it's an accusation or implicitly an
14 accusation against the defendant or whether it's in favour of the
15 defendant or whether it's neither, that what they say is subject to
16 scrutiny and scrutiny outside the courtroom. And unless there are
17 exceptional circumstances, they should know that their neighbours, they
18 should know that their colleagues may find out and can easily find out
19 what they say, because that public scrutiny is absolutely fundamental.
20 It's a critical check on the truthfulness and veracity of evidence.
21 So the very starting point that Mr. Scott puts forward there is
22 fundamentally incorrect. It is not, and it can be very misleading, to
23 take those three elements, the accused, the victims and witness, the
24 public interest and suggest that there's some sort of balancing exercise
25 among those three especially when he almost discards the first of those
1 interests anyway.
2 The position is on analysis that you start with a strong
3 presumption that there should be a public trial. I've said that in all
4 developed systems, you start with a public trial and all developed
5 open-justice systems do allow in camera or similar restrictions in the
6 interests of justice, but we all know that a very high test is set.
7 The reason why we have frequent protective measures before this
8 Tribunal is not that the test is lower, it's that the very circumstances
9 in which cases come to trial here and the difficulties and dangers and
10 instability in the region mean that those circumstances are going to arise
11 more often and that high test will be met more often than is familiar in
12 domestic tribunals but is not a lower test.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, sir. I think the Prosecution is
14 absolutely right and what it says is completely in accordance with case
15 law if it speaks of a balancing of interests.
16 Second, the fact that the identity of witnesses is not revealed to
17 the public does not diminish the granting of the right to a fair trial
18 because -- to a public trial. It is a right of the accused. It is not a
19 right of the public, unless you can show me other case law of an
20 international body. It is not, and it is not either the purpose that the
21 public can control whether the witness says the truth or not. This is for
22 the Defence, and the Defence knows the identity. The Defence can watch
23 the witness as the witness gives his or her statement, and I think this
24 is -- this is absolutely sufficient if there are reasons for fear of the
25 witnesses, and we have concluded in several cases that it is indeed the
1 case. So I'm not convinced.
2 MR. STEWART: Well, perhaps, I can try to convince you by
3 clarifying what I'm saying, because I can see there may be a gap between
4 what I'm trying to say and what Your Honour understands I'm saying.
5 I was submitting that to talk about a balancing exercise on those
6 three elements can be misleading. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying, Your
7 Honour, that in the end, starting with a public trial, as the basic
8 principle and then looking to see whether there are sufficient
9 circumstances to justify that encroachment. I'm not saying that there is
10 no sort of balancing exercise there because, of course, there is. I
11 accept that. You balance the need for the protection of that particular
12 witness against that fundamental starting point principle of a fair trial.
13 So of course there is a weighing and a balancing and I hope that clarifies
14 what I am saying there.
15 So far as the accused concerned, it is under the Statute it is --
16 it's the accused's right to a public hearing. Inherent in the whole
17 system of justice is a strong public interest in having public hearings,
18 but the strong public interest is in having a fair trial in this context.
19 And again, Your Honour, with respect, I don't believe we're -- we differ
20 really on this. In this context, the question is whether there are
21 sufficiently strong circumstances established to encroach upon the
22 openness of the evidence being given. If there are, then that's fair.
23 That's a fair result and it doesn't impinge on the fair trial.
24 But what -- I also wish to make it clear, the Defence will not
25 oppose applications for protective measures in this case where there is
1 credible material showing substantial objective risks. None of us has any
2 interest in exposing witnesses to undue objective risks, but it is
3 important that sensibilities, and this is again a difficult submission
4 which I try to make as clear as I can in case it's misunderstood.
5 When witnesses have extreme and understandable sensibilities about
6 appearing, when victims have those sensibilities and they have suffered
7 terrible things, all human sympathy goes towards that victim and giving
8 evidence is unlikely to be anything other than a very hard experience.
9 But where there is no risk to the witness outside the courtroom, it can
10 only be in the most extreme circumstances seriously impinging upon the
11 health or stability of the witness that one is justified in saying that
12 because of those sensibilities the witness must be allowed to have
13 protective measures to give evidence anonymously. Many witnesses entirely
14 understandably would prefer that and those true in many domestic trials as
15 well, but that is not the test.
16 What -- what we do say is that responsible consideration of
17 whether protective measures are justified, case by case, requires, first
18 of all, conscientious inquiry as to the potential risks, and the objective
19 justification. And the Victims and Witnesses Unit are a -- of course, a
20 valuable source and they are enshrined in the Rules as a source, but with
21 the greatest respect to Victims and Witnesses, it's important that their
22 information is carefully examined because of course they are quite
23 naturally close to witnesses and there to protect the witnesses. So they
24 are bound to have a sympathetic view towards the witnesses and that's not
25 in any way -- that's not impugning anybody's good faith. It's just a
1 perfectly natural aspect of their work.
2 Secondly, there should be clear presentation of that material -
3 and this next point is crucially important - in time for all parties and
4 the Trial Chamber to give it proper consideration. What has happened in
5 this case is that an unsatisfactory practice has developed of the reasons
6 and the material being given at the last minute. The Defence, we are
7 after all six defendants, Your Honours quite rightly prefer us to get
8 together and try to discuss and agree our position. We can't do that when
9 the material is given to us at the very last minute. We're asked to react
10 hurriedly. The Trial Chamber doesn't have the benefit of proper
11 consideration of proper submissions in relation to the matter. So what we
12 are suggesting, as a practical course, having set out those principles, is
13 that the -- that the Trial Chamber might consider guidelines to require,
14 save in circumstances where for good reason it simply can't be done,
15 require advance notice of an application and supporting facts before a
16 witness comes to The Hague. It may be that the reaction on the Defence
17 side will then be to say, yes, we agree, we support. It may be that we
18 would say, no, the material you have produced we say is inadequate. Then
19 the Prosecution -- let's assume it's that way round. It will be the same
20 the other way round when it comes to the Defence case, if we get that
21 far. They would have the opportunity to supplement that information. We
22 will waste less time in court because it -- there will be less and less
23 need, in fact, there should be only a relatively rare need then to have to
24 explore the matter with the witness when the witness comes into court.
25 Your Honour, interestingly enough, Your Honour did mention the
1 Krajisnik case and perhaps since Your Honour mentioned, I might be
2 permitted to mention it, because, after all, I was in it throughout the
3 trial. Of course, a higher proportion of Prosecution witnesses who came
4 from the localities received protective measures because naturally
5 Prosecution witnesses tended to include more victims. But that practice
6 of advance application and that practice of the Defence being given ample
7 time by the Prosecution to consider the material was adopted very early in
8 the trial, and so one doesn't need to look at the individual decisions.
9 Some -- some were successful. Most of the Prosecution applications were
10 successful as it happens. But, Your Honours, in our submission, they were
11 responsibly made generally and they were genuine victims. We didn't
12 always agree but that's by the way. But, Your Honour, that practice does
13 help the Trial Chamber enormously, we suggest.
14 We do as part of that, and this is really my last point, Your
15 Honour, we do then have some slight concerns about the way in which this
16 matter is raised with witnesses, because we're not there and Your Honours
17 can't control and give detailed guidelines to counsel and it wouldn't be
18 proper. You trust us to do our jobs. But if a witness is asked, "Do you
19 want to give your evidence in public? Would you rather give your evidence
20 in private?" We do have a slight feeling that the question might be asked
21 in that way. You're only going to get one answer in many cases. The
22 right way, we suggest, for anybody asking a witness is to ask whether
23 there is a risk, a starting point. If you do give evidence -- explains
24 the witness, that normally speaking, they give evidence in public and ask
25 if you do give evidence in public, is that going to cause a serious risk
1 to you or your family or anybody else and then one would get much quicker
2 to the heart of the matter. Everybody would be helped, and in the cases
3 where protective measures are justified, they get given. But it stands a
4 much better chance then of having the right decision and achieving. And
5 with great respect to His Honour Judge Trechsel, I used this phrase,
6 achieving the right balance between the starting point of a public trial
7 and those cases where protective measures are genuinely justified.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, counsel.
9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Counsel Stewart, I'd like to say
10 something at this stage.
11 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Because your intervention was
13 highly interesting and we're all interested in theory here, of course, but
14 it made me a little sad because, in a way, it would seem that you have not
15 understood yet the efforts made by the Trial Chamber to establish this
16 right balance, to strike the proper balance between the interests of the
17 accused and the interests of the victims and, of course, the witnesses
18 that come here to contribute to the furtherance of justice.
19 You referred to the Statutes and to the Rules of Procedure which
20 advocate a public hearing, and we are, of course, aware of all that. But
21 at the same time, you also raise the necessity to ensure the protection of
22 witnesses pursuant to Rule 69 of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, and
23 that is precisely what the Trial Chamber is trying to do.
24 The Trial Chamber has close contacts with the witness and victims
25 unit in order to be apprised of the situation on the ground. And also,
1 you were able to following the efforts made by the Trial Chamber to ensure
2 with the OTP that if there is -- the witnesses run any risk, that
3 protective measures be taken and that the Trial Chamber rules in their
4 favour. And that is why I'm saying that your expose has made me a little
5 sad because it doesn't seem to me that you understand the efforts made by
6 the Trial Chamber to strike this balance.
7 And I also wanted to say a moment ago to the Prosecutor that they
8 should provide the Trial Chamber with all the relevant information about a
9 witness seeking protective measures and otherwise, because we have had
10 cases here where -- when the proceedings were under way, we learnt of
11 things we hadn't been told of in advance.
12 And having said that, what you said was very interesting, but I
13 should like to say that the Trial Chamber is fully aware of that, and
14 we -- rest assured that we are fully aware of the situation and that we
15 shall, of course, be asking the OTP to follow along those lines, to follow
16 suit. So I don't want -- I don't think we should take up more time on
17 that issue, or at least not more than 10 minutes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, any comments?
19 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. President, I apologise the
20 fact that your -- like restrictive viewing at a football match, I'm behind
21 the pillar here, but I would if I may like to --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stewart please speak into the
23 microphone as well.
24 MR. STEWART: I'm going to change microphones, Your Honour. I
25 hope that works.
1 Your Honour, I'm addressing His Honour Judge Mindua directly.
2 Your Honour, I'm sad to be misunderstood. Your Honour has heard a
3 criticism of the Trial Chamber which was not there in my submissions.
4 When we look at what has happened recently and the particular points
5 mentioned by the president earlier today, that in fact illustrates that
6 occasionally the Trial Chamber is faced with a difficulty and is put at a
7 disadvantage in having to make these decisions.
8 So, Your Honour, my submissions did not involve any suggestion
9 that in some wholesale way the Trial Chamber is failing in its duty. The
10 suggestion is that a different approach and a more helpful approach and a
11 more timely approach in producing the information and following the
12 President's injunction that all the information should be put -- should be
13 put before the Court will indeed help you even better to reach the right
15 And so far as the Victims and Witness Unit is concerned, of course
16 they are there to be consulted. We do suggest that it is of the utmost
17 importance that information coming to the Trial Chamber, to the
18 Prosecution, should also come to the Defence so that we all have the same
19 information at our disposal on which submissions can be made if decisions
20 can be made. But I hope Your Honour will, with those few comments, I hope
21 Your Honour will see my assurance that that criticism I hope to alleviate
22 the sadness of that criticism which Your Honour heard is not in fact
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stewart. We have
25 heard the observations made by both sides, by the Prosecution and what Mr.
1 Stewart had to say, and the others, and the Judges will deliberate. For
2 the moment, we'll go on with our regular proceedings and bear in mind all
3 the ideas put forward by you on the possibility of asking the witness,
4 before the start, to tell the witness that the proceedings are public, and
5 if they do not wish their testimony to go public that they should state
6 the reasons for that.
7 So we shall be examining all the proposals put forward, and we'll
8 give you a ruling and tell you what we think.
9 Now, as far as the next witness is concerned, there's no problem
10 with that because she has already been granted measures of that type, and
11 since she was granted protective measures, she's going to continue under
12 the same regime.
13 We're going to have the witness brought into the courtroom in a
14 few moments, but before we do that, we're going to have the blinds
15 lowered. And once the blinds have been lowered, we shall go ahead with
16 all the formalities and go back into open session with the protective
17 measures in place. So we're now going to lower the blinds.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I could just be heard for a
19 second while the witness is coming in. I just wanted to supplement what
20 was said which Mr. Stewart and by -- by the Prosecution. I think by and
21 large, we're not far apart, and we always rely on the Trial Chamber to use
22 its discretion, its wise discretion. And it has been wise in the past, so
23 I don't want there to be any misunderstanding that there had been any
24 complaints and we do take on board. I just want to make sure that no one
25 on the trial Bench or the Prosecution thinks that the Defence does not
1 recognise the particular needs of witnesses. We're not heartless, and I
2 think that's sometimes, because of the adversarial nature, Defence lawyers
3 are portrayed as being overly aggressive, mean, uncaring, and what have
4 you. I don't want that impression to be left with the Trial Chamber.
5 We're very mindful of that.
6 My main concern is when there are closed sessions. And the only
7 thing I ask is that we use the least restrictive measure, that's all.
8 Thank you.
9 [The witness enters court]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Mr.
12 For a minute, we are going into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 10001-10005 redacted. Private session
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott, proceed.
7 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
8 Q. Now, with this background in mind, Witness CA, and again we are
9 now in public session, so whatever you say will be going outside the
10 courtroom. Apart from that, can you tell the Chamber, several days prior
11 to the 17th of April, 1993, had check-points been set up around the
12 entrances and exits of the village of Doljani?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And who set those check-points up?
15 A. Croats set them up.
16 Q. And is it fair to say that Doljani is essentially divided between
17 an upper part of the village and a lower part of the village?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. As to the people in the lower part of the village, were they still
20 able to leave the village notwithstanding the existence of these
21 check-points and, if so, tell the Judges why.
22 A. Yes, they were able to but not by road. They had to go through
23 the woods. They couldn't get out by road, and they had to do it by night.
24 Q. And what about the people in the upper part of Doljani? Were they
25 able to leave the area under -- once the check-points were set up?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And why not?
3 A. Well, they couldn't pass through. They wouldn't be allowed to.
4 Q. To your knowledge, did any members of the community of Doljani try
5 to pass through and leave Doljani during this time through any of the
7 A. Yes, and they were turned back.
8 Q. Now, can you tell the Chamber that, notwithstanding that, did
9 there come a time around the 16th of April that a number of Muslims from
10 the lower part of the village were in fact able to leave the area?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell the Judges what happened in that regard?
13 A. But they were turned back. They were turned back, too, from the
14 check-point. They had set out and then they returned.
15 Q. Notwithstanding that, did there come a time that some of the
16 Muslims were successful in leaving Doljani at this time?
17 A. Yes. On the 16th, by night, they left across the hills. But
18 those who tried the real road couldn't get out.
19 Q. And the ones that -- the Muslims who were able to get out on the
20 night of the 16th of April, approximately how many?
21 A. I don't really know the number. Several. I don't know the exact
23 Q. Well, I realise this is some time ago, but assist us as much as
24 you can, please. Are we talking about five or six, or are we talking
25 about a hundred, or give us -- can you give us an estimate of the number
1 of the people?
2 A. I think there were about a hundred of them. Certainly not less.
3 Maybe more. Civilians, women, children, men.
4 Q. Now -- if we can go into private session for one moment, Your
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. For a few moments we
7 are going to go into private session.
8 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are back in open session.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. Witness CA, without saying anything more about your particular
21 location in the village, can you tell the Judges, were you and your family
22 able to get out of the Doljani area prior to the time that the conflict
23 broke out on the 17th of April?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Can you tell the Judges, please, once these approximately 100
1 Muslims had left Doljani on the night of the 16th, approximately how many
2 Muslims remained in Doljani after that?
3 A. Well, perhaps the same number that left. Around a hundred.
4 Q. Now, I'm going to direct your attention specifically to the
5 morning of the 17th of April, 1993. Can you please tell the Judges what
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, just one clarification.
8 Those people who left, I thought I understood they included civilians,
9 women and children. Among those who left, were there any armed men?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that because I didn't
11 go with them, and I don't know what any of them carried.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your village, did the
13 Territorial Defence of the BH have a presence?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in your village there were
16 only civilians, women, men, children, elderly men?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed, Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
20 Q. So going back, then, Witness CA, to the morning of the 17th of
21 April, can you just tell the Judges for a few moments in your own words
22 what happened at that time?
23 A. Well, first the shelling began. Shelling began of the upper part,
24 Sovici, and then it continued on Doljani.
25 Q. Do you recall approximately what time of the morning the shelling
2 A. 8.30, 9.00 maybe.
3 Q. And how long did the shelling continue approximately?
4 A. Until 2.00, 2.30, maybe 3.00.
5 Q. Were you able to tell - this is an area that you are very familiar
6 with in terms of your having lived there - will you able to tell from
7 where the shells, approximately, I'm not talking about specific, but
8 approximately from where the shells were coming?
9 A. Risovac.
10 Q. Were any villagers or any persons who were still in the village or
11 remained in the village at that time, was anyone injured or wounded as a
12 result of the shelling?
13 A. Yes. There was a neighbour of mine.
14 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps, Your Honour, we could go into --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness CA, how far is Risovac
16 from your village?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About 4 kilometres. Maybe a little
18 less, maybe a little more. I never measured, but it's certainly about 4
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. And before the 17th of
21 April, before 8.30 on the 17th of April, which means on the 15th and the
22 16th, did you know that there were units in Risovac that could fire at
23 your village, or was it a complete surprise to you on the 17th of April?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We've just felt it on the 17th in
25 the morning. We never knew anything before. Nobody had said anything.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I thought you wanted
2 to move into private session.
3 MR. SCOTT: I don't think it will be necessary.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's not necessary. Very well.
5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, here's the evidence and I'll let the
6 Chamber give me whatever guidance it cares to. The witness testified that
7 there was one villager in Doljani who was wounded as a result of the
8 shelling. Now, I'm not sure it's terribly important to know the name of
9 this individual, but if the Chamber feels that it does, then I would go
10 into private session and get the name.
11 Q. Now, Witness CA, the President asked you questions about whether
12 there was an ABiH force defending the village on the 17th of April, 1993,
13 or present in the village. Can you tell the Judges, was there any, as far
14 as you know from what you could see or hear, was there any resistance put
15 up by the members of the village of Doljani to the attack?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, is it correct, Witness CA, that when the shelling started,
18 approximately when the shelling started, on the morning the 17th, you
19 remained in your house and your husband and one of your sons went to the
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, why did you stay at
23 home while your family went into the woods? Why didn't you go along with
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I just stayed at home
1 because I wasn't even afraid. I didn't know what was going on. I just
2 stayed at home, as usual, thinking I'm going to make lunch. I wasn't
3 afraid for myself; I was only afraid for them. I thought they should be
4 away from home.
5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to try to keep this to a
6 minimum, but I think, for safety's sake, we should go back into private
7 session for a moment.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 10013-10014 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have got five minutes left
4 before the break, Mr. Scott.
5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
6 Q. Now, Witness CA, again, without mentioning any particular names or
7 details, you've said already that your husband and one of your sons went
8 into the woods around the time that the shelling started; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And, again, without mentioning a name - I don't think for these
11 purposes it's necessary; others can inquire if they believe that it is -
12 was there a third man who accompanied your husband and son into the woods
13 at that time?
14 A. Yes, there was another neighbour.
15 Q. Among these three men, then, were any of these men carrying a
16 weapon or firearm when they went into the woods?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. You've said that the shelling continued until approximately 3.00
19 that afternoon.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And around 3.00 that day, do you recall anything else happening in
22 terms of seeing any other movement of vehicles or anything else happening
23 that you could see from your home in Doljani?
24 A. Yes. I saw the vehicles coming, and in them HVO uniforms. They
25 carried weapons. And they started calling out through a loud-hailer to
1 the population that anybody with weapons should come out; otherwise, they
2 would shoot at civilians.
3 Q. On that afternoon, did you ever see a tank in the area?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Where did you see it, and how was it moving?
6 A. Going towards Sovici but going down from Risovac.
7 Q. When you say "going down," it was going down the hill from Risovac
8 in the direction of Sovici?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if we might break there.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we do that, there's a
12 question from the Bench.
13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, just a point of
14 clarification. On the basis of the information we have received, we know
15 that in the former Yugoslavia, the men were sometimes members of the
16 Territorial Defence, and we know that at a point in time, on the Croatian
17 side, as indeed on the Muslim side during the conflict, men from the ages
18 of 16 to 60 were encouraged, if not obliged, to join the armed forces.
19 Now, my question is as follows: Can you confirm that on the 17th of
20 April, 1993, no men from your village were carrying arms, that nobody was
21 part of the civilian defence or the armed forces?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot confirm that because I
23 don't know.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, in your village, did you
25 see neighbours going around, circulating, or locals from the village,
1 carrying weapons in their hands? Hunting rifles, perhaps, Kalashnikovs,
2 machine-guns, anything like that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't see any of that. When
4 they entered -- now, I don't know when they took to the woods. I just
5 know when my husband and son left. Now, what they had with them after
6 that, what these people had when they came in to hand them over, I don't
7 know. Perhaps somebody did have weapons. Somebody might have had a
8 pistol or hunting rifle. I wasn't with them to be able to know what they
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is almost 10 to
11 4.00. We're going to have a technical break of 20 minutes, and we're
12 going to reconvene at exactly 10 minutes past 4.00.
13 Before the witness leaves the courtroom to have a rest, I'd like
14 to ask the registrar to have the blinds lowered.
15 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.
18 Mr. Scott, you have the floor.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Scott, please.
20 MR. SCOTT: Just to clarify, we are in open session; correct?
21 Thank you.
22 Q. Witness CA, so far you've told us about the shelling that took
23 place on the 17th of April and that later that afternoon you saw vehicles,
24 HVO vehicles, coming into the village, and you saw a tank coming down the
25 hill from Risovac in the direction of Sovici. Taking -- going forward
1 from that point, what happened later that afternoon in terms of what you
2 could observe from your house?
3 A. In the afternoon, when I saw that, I saw someone come down from
4 Sovici, and the men gathered and took them to the Sovici school.
5 Q. When you same the men gathered, and perhaps one thing I didn't
6 mention and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this, did you say before the
7 break that, when the HVO vehicles came into the village they were using
8 megaphones to call out, essentially for people to come out from wherever
9 they were and essentially surrender, give themselves up, or there would be
10 firing on the civilians?
11 A. Yes. They called over the megaphone telling the men to surrender
12 or they'll -- they would fire on the civilians. But they did not fire at
13 the civilians, and the menfolk gathered together. Now, whether they would
14 have shot, I don't know.
15 Q. Yes. Where did you see, then, the men who were then -- the Muslim
16 men who were then coming out in response to this, the megaphones, where
17 did you see them gathering and what did you see?
18 A. They gathered in the centre of the village, so I was able to see
19 them, in that village of ours. I saw four or five soldiers. I recognised
20 two of them. I knew them, but not the third. But he was from the
21 village, too, although I didn't know him. He was from Sovici, actually.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. You've
23 just said that you saw four or five soldiers and that you recognised two
24 of them. Without giving us their names, did you know their names
25 actually, the two soldiers you recognised?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did know their names.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session
3 then, please.
4 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session, Mr.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. Witness CA, this was probably largely addressed by a question put
3 by the president, but just -- just so the record is clear, when you said a
4 few moments ago that when you looked out into the centre of the village
5 where these things were happening, you said there were four or five
6 soldiers. Now, I'm not asking you again to give the names, which we've
7 already dealt with in private session, but when you say there were four or
8 five soldiers, just so it's clear, four or five soldiers of which military
10 A. Well, I don't know that there was anybody else but the HVO. As
11 far as I was concerned, it was all the same, what I saw on their sleeves,
12 the insignia there. I don't know of any others.
13 Q. All right. Now, around this time, madam, when you saw these --
14 the men then coming out and then coming to this central part of the
15 village, and again without naming any names or giving any particulars at
16 this moment, did you see your husband and son coming out as part of the
17 men who were coming out of the woods?
18 A. Yes. Not my sons and my husband. Just one son, not sons. Just
19 one son was at home.
20 Q. All right. I think if there was any confusion about that, I think
21 you've clarified it.
22 Could you see from where you were -- approximately, what was the
23 distance from your location and where you saw the men being gathered
24 around these HVO -- this HVO vehicle?
25 A. Not 10 metres away from my house. Five metres, 10. I didn't
1 measure it, but thereabouts. It's almost one house next to the other.
2 Q. Could you see the types of weapons of any of the men who were
3 coming forward, going back to what we began to touch on a few minutes ago,
4 did you see that any of the men, including either your husband or son
5 turned over or surrendered any weapons?
6 A. Yes. I saw them surrender their weapons. How they did that, what
7 they turned over, I saw all that.
8 Q. And what did you see your -- well, first of all, did you see your
9 husband turn over any weapon on that day?
10 A. My husband didn't have a weapon at all, nor was he a member of any
11 unit. He was a civilian.
15 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, could I ask for a redaction on that
16 point? It might be specific enough to the weapon that it might tend to
17 identify the particular son, please.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, would you see to
19 that, please. That means we'll have a 30-minute break during our next
20 break. It will take us longer.
21 MR. SCOTT: Well, I regret that, Your Honour, but I didn't expect
22 that it might come out in that particular way, but if it was my fault,
23 then, I apologise for that.
24 Let's go into private session, then, if we can possibly avoid the
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move into
2 private session.
3 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session, Mr.
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Now, after this time, after the weapons were turned over, among
22 the group of men, were your -- did you see your husband and son being
23 taken away from this area?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And did any of the HVO soldiers that were there, did any of them
1 say anything to you about what was happening or would happen?
2 A. Nothing. I just asked him what you're going to do. They said,
3 well, if they don't come back tonight, they'll come back tomorrow. That's
4 what the neighbour said.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I'm going back to what
6 you said a moment ago, because it was the first time that I heard you say
7 it, and as far as us Judges are concerned, it might be important. You
8 said that the hunting rifle was returned because he had a permit. Does
9 that mean that the hunters from your village who had a hunting rifle were
10 obliged to have a permit to be able to carry the weapon, to have a licence
11 for it? Have you understood my question?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. My answer is no, but they took
13 them away and nobody asked to see the permit.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I want to know is this: In
15 your village, if a hunter -- if a man went hunting, if he was a hunter,
16 did he have to have a permit to carry or to possess a hunting weapon, a
17 hunting rifle?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That's what I wanted
21 MR. SCOTT:
22 Q. Madam, just going back to -- in order to go forward again, you
23 said that what you were told then by this HVO soldier is that they
24 said, "Well, if they don't come back tonight, they'll come back --" in the
25 transcript it says, "too many"?
1 A. Tomorrow.
2 Q. Did you say if they didn't come back tonight you were told they
3 would come back tomorrow, the next day?
4 A. Yes, that's what I meant. And I held him to his word, but
5 unfortunately, he only returned after 11 and a half months.
6 Q. All right. Now, before we go on to the 18th, before we leave the
7 topic of the men that were being gathered in the centre of the village,
8 approximately, how many men did you see being gathered up in this way?
9 Again, your best approximation.
10 A. You mean in my village?
11 Q. Yes. What you could see out in front of you, as you said, from
12 where you --
13 A. Well, between 15 and 20. That's how many men there were at that
14 spot as far as I was able to see. 15 to 20 roughly, but as I say, I can't
15 be specific, but thereabouts.
16 Q. All right. Can you tell the Judges, please, did -- among the
17 people that were gathered there, did you see any Muslim young men who were
18 younger than the age of 16?
19 A. Yes, three of them. Right from my village who were taken off.
20 And there were others too.
21 Q. And approximately how old were the three that were under the age
22 of 16?
23 A. Ten to 15 years old, not more. Roughly 15. I don't think any of
24 them were 16.
25 Q. Now, ma'am, you've already indicated that your husband in fact did
1 not return the next day. When he did not, what did you do?
2 A. I went to look for him.
3 Q. Where did you go?
4 A. I went to the school at Sovici.
5 Q. Approximately how far was that from your -- where you lived?
6 Again, approximately.
7 A. Well, four or five kilometres away. I don't know. I didn't
8 measure the distance, but it's certainly that much.
9 Q. When you arrived at the Sovici school, what did you see?
10 A. I saw a lot of men incarcerated there.
11 Q. Again, can you give us some estimate of the number of men you saw
13 A. Well, about a hundred if not more. Certainly a hundred.
14 Q. And from what you could see, could you tell the Judges of what
15 ethnic group these men, these approximately 100 or more men were, what the
16 ethnic group of these men was?
17 A. Muslims. They didn't lock up Croats. It was the Muslims they
19 Q. And did you see your husband at that time on this first visit to
20 the Sovici school on the 18th?
21 A. Yes, I did, both my husband and my son.
22 Q. Did you return to the Sovici school later that day, and if you
23 were with anyone else, I'm going to ask you for now not to mention any
24 names, but my first question to you is: Did you leave the school and go
25 back to the Sovici school later on the 18th?
1 A. Yes. I returned to take them some food and clothing. However,
2 when I returned, the situation had changed. I couldn't see them because
3 the soldier wouldn't even let me enter the school building.
4 Q. And without mentioning the person's name, when you went back to
5 the Sovici school the second time, were you accompanied by another Muslim
6 woman from the village?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Now, when you travelled between Doljani and the Sovici school on
9 the 18th of April, can you tell us what you could see in terms of the
10 damage or the condition of the houses in Sovici and to the extent that it
11 also included passing through Doljani? What was the condition of the
12 houses that you could see on the 18th of April?
13 A. They were all intact, in proper order.
14 Q. Did there come a time after the 18th of April where your house and
15 other Muslim houses in the vicinity were searched by HVO soldiers?
16 A. Yes. Yes. They were.
17 Q. Tell us about that.
18 A. Well, quite simply they'd come to your house and force you to open
19 the door to them so that they could search the house and do what they
20 wanted. What they were looking for, I don't know. They didn't find
21 anything. Now, what they were looking for, I really can't say.
22 Q. And can you tell the Judges approximately how many times was your
23 house - excuse me - searched in the four or five days after the attack on
24 the 17th?
25 A. Ten times. Not once, 10 times.
1 Q. Now, the Muslim men that had been held in the Sovici school that
2 you described a few moments ago, do you know approximately when these
3 Muslim men were taken from the Sovici school to another location?
4 A. Well, I know that. On the third day they took them off to
6 Q. So when you say the third day, are you including -- say, if you
7 include the 17th, are you saying on approximately the 19th?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you know at the time or did you learn later where the
10 Muslim men that were in the Sovici school as of that time, where they were
12 A. I learnt that later when I went to look for them on the third day.
13 Then a woman told me that they were dragged off during the night, but they
14 didn't know where. We didn't know where either straight away. Two days
15 later, somebody came and told us that they were at Ljubuski, Ljubusko.
16 Q. Now, continuing on about the 19th or 20th of April, did anything
17 happen to the Muslim houses in Sovici and Doljani around that time?
18 A. As soon as they took them away, they set fire to all the houses.
19 Q. When you say "all the houses," which houses?
20 A. The Muslim houses.
21 Q. To your knowledge, Witness CA, do you know if there were any Croat
22 houses that were set on fire during this time?
23 A. No.
24 Q. The houses that were set on fire, do you know what happened to the
25 occupants of those houses?
1 A. They took them to the school at Sovici. They took the men to
2 Ljubuski, and the civilians and elderly, women, and children, they were
3 put in the school.
4 Q. Were there any other group of houses in the area of Sovici and
5 Doljani that remained undamaged that were then -- excuse me, that were
6 then used for the purposes of holding Muslim civilians in that area?
7 A. Yes. In two places. Seven houses in one place and in another
8 place four houses.
9 Q. The seven houses, that was a location or a gathering of houses
10 that is sometimes referred to as the Junuzovici houses?
11 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
12 Q. And what was the name or reference for the other location, for the
13 four houses, for the grouping of four houses?
14 A. It was called Krkaca.
15 Q. Can you tell the Judges, during this time period when some of the
16 Muslim people had been taken to the Sovici school, to your knowledge, were
17 any Muslims held for a time in the Doljani mosque?
18 A. Yes. They held them in the mosque during the time they were
19 setting fire to their houses, and then they took them off to that village
21 Q. And did anything to your knowledge happen to the mosque once the
22 Muslims that had been held there were taken away?
23 A. Yes. It was blown up.
24 Q. And how do you know that?
25 A. Well, I heard the detonation, the explosion, but I didn't know
1 what was going on. And later on I heard that it had been mined, that it
2 was blown up. But the explosion was so strong that you could hear if far
3 and wide.
4 Q. Did you at some point learn from your neighbours or friends
5 that -- that in fact the explosion that you heard at that time had been
6 the Doljani mosque being destroyed?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Was there also a mosque in Sovici?
9 A. There was, yes.
10 Q. When you travelled between your house and the Sovici school on the
11 18th of April, did you pass by the mosque in Sovici or did you travel in
12 such a way that you could see the mosque in Sovici at that time?
13 A. I didn't pass by the mosque when I went to visit my husband and
14 son at the school building. Well, then I saw that it was still standing,
15 but later on it had been blown up. It didn't exist any more.
16 Q. Well -- and I was taking it step-by-step. That's why I asked you
17 on the 18th of April when you went -- when you travelled to visit your
18 husband at the Sovici school, I take it from your answer just now, that
19 you saw the mosque on that day?
20 A. Yes. That's right.
21 Q. And while you've indicated it, again, if we just make clear for
22 the record, what was the condition of the Sovici mosque when you saw it on
23 the 18th of April?
24 A. It was all right on the 18th.
25 Q. Now, you've already indicated that your house was searched a
1 number of times. Did there come a time in the four, five, or six days
2 after the 17th that you were told to leave your house, that you would
3 have -- that you would have to go to the school?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And tell the Judges about that, please.
6 A. My neighbours came and they said, "You have to go to the school.
7 We've received orders to take you all to the school," and that's what we
8 did. We had to.
9 Q. And what happened once you got to the Sovici school?
10 A. It was horrible. Crammed in two rooms there were so many women,
11 men, elderly men, children. It was pure horror.
12 Q. And what happened to those of you who were coming to the Sovici
13 school on that day, including yourself? What -- what, if anything, did
14 you have to do or was done when you arrived there?
15 A. Nothing. They just called us out, asked where we'd come from, and
16 we signed something. I wasn't there more than an hour.
17 Q. All right. When you say they asked you where you came from and
18 you signed something, is it correct, Witness CA, that they were listing
19 you or registering you, if you will, and the others?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you recall the name of any particular HVO soldier who was
22 involved in making this list or taking this registration?
23 MR. SCOTT: I believe, Your Honour, we can --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 MR. SCOTT: I believe we can take that without implicating the
2 Q. Can you give us the name of that HVO soldier, if you knew, ma'am?
3 A. Blaz Azinovic.
4 Q. Now, as you travelled around the Doljani-Sovici area at that time,
5 at approximately how many days after the 17th was it? Again, as best as
6 you can, please. How many days after the 17th, when you went to the
7 Sovici -- when you were told to go to the Sovici school for the purpose of
8 being registered?
9 A. Maybe four days, not more. Four or five days, something like
11 Q. So can we understand that it was approximately around the 21st or
12 22nd of April?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. When you travelled between your home and the Sovici school on the
15 21st or 22nd of April, did you see anything different about the Muslim
16 houses in that area, different than what you had seen on the 18th of
18 A. Yes. All were burnt down.
19 Q. After the registration at the Sovici school, were a number of the
20 Muslim women and children kept at the Junuzovici houses?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Approximately, how many would you say were altogether held in the
23 seven houses there?
24 A. I think there were about 400.
25 Q. Tell us about just the situation as to those houses. What was --
1 were you free to move about? What were the conditions? What happened
2 when you were being held in this way?
3 A. It was horrible. We didn't dare move. Nobody dared to move from
4 one house to another. And how can one feel in that situation? So little
5 room for so many people. We had no proper living conditions. There was
6 no electricity.
7 Q. Did the HVO soldiers ever fire their weapons at the house, at the
9 A. Yes, especially at night after having a few drinks.
10 Q. What would happen?
11 A. Well, what. They would shoot, knock at doors, ask for girls, all
12 sorts of things.
13 Q. When you say "ask for girls," can you tell the Judges more about
15 A. I can. They wanted the girls to come out. Nobody was taken away
16 from my house. I hid my girls day and night. They didn't go out at all.
17 But they took girls away from other houses.
18 Q. I know, Witness, you don't want to say too much about this and I'm
19 not going to ask you in any great detail, but do you know if any of the
20 girls came back to the houses --
21 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe we should go into private
24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to.
1 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
23 MR. SCOTT:
24 Q. Witness CA, we're now back in open session. You started to give
25 an answer. You said, "While we were in our houses, no. After we left, I
1 don't know what they did."
2 At any time did you lose any -- during this time period, did you
3 lose any of the vehicles or livestock that you and your family owned?
4 A. Yes. Yes. All the livestock and all the cars were taken away,
5 but nothing was taken away outside the houses when we were there.
6 Everybody's cars were driven away, and livestock as well.
7 Q. Did you have occasion to confront one of the HVO soldiers about
8 this happening and why this was happening?
9 A. They would only tell us they had orders. From whom, I don't know.
10 Whatever you asked them, they would say, "We have orders."
11 Q. Did they give you any indication in terms of these orders what was
12 supposed to be done with this property, the vehicles and livestock that
13 were seized?
14 A. No, they didn't tell us.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, you personally, did you
16 lose any livestock and one car?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did HVO soldiers give you some
19 sort of document like a receipt confirming the requisition of that
20 livestock and the vehicle, or did they give you nothing whatsoever?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no paper.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you say that when you asked
23 an HVO soldier -- soldier or soldiers, they replied they had orders.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your village, did you have
1 the impression that this HVO soldier -- that these soldiers were under
2 some sort of command? Was there anybody who looked like he was in control
3 of the soldiers, that he was their commander?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, because under whose
5 orders would they be acting then?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you think, but you have
7 nothing to confirm that there was a commander on the spot?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I cannot do. I don't know.
9 MR. SCOTT:
10 Q. In that regard, Witness CA, and I was about to ask you, during
11 this time you were being held in the houses when you saw these things
12 happening, when the property was being taken, did you hear the name Tuta,
13 or did you hear that people called Tuta's men were involved in this?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How did you hear that, and what did you hear?
16 A. Well, an occasional soldier would come and say that he was a
17 Tuta's soldier. Some others wouldn't say that. His name was mentioned,
18 and some even had his photograph on their windscreen.
19 Q. Now, moving forward, then. Around the 5th of May, 1993, what
20 happened on that day?
21 A. The 5th of May?
22 Q. Yes, please.
23 A. They drove us out of our houses, made us get into vehicles, and
24 took us to Risovac.
25 Q. All right. Can you give us a bit more detail, please, on how that
1 happened? Were you loaded on vehicles? Were you made to walk? How did
2 this happen?
3 A. They drove us by freight vehicles. Up there buses were waiting.
4 And then they loaded us onto buses and hauled us across Mount Vran up to a
5 petrol station where they unloaded us. The name of that petrol station
6 was Sicaja. That remained etched in my memory.
7 Q. This petrol station, approximately where was it located with
8 reference to the two towns of Prozor on the one hand and Gornji Vakuf on
9 the other?
10 A. Yes, it's somewhere in between, on top of a hill.
11 Q. Before we come back to that, you said a moment ago that, "They
12 drove us by freight vehicles."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that another description for trucks?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Approximately how many trucks were involved in moving these
17 approximately 400 Muslims?
18 A. Two.
19 Q. How many trips did it take for these trucks to get all of you to
20 the top of Risovac?
21 A. Four.
22 Q. When you arrived at the top of Risovac you were then transferred
23 onto buses?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Approximately how many buses were involved in this?
1 A. I'm not sure. Seven -- some people said seven, others said six,
2 but there couldn't have been less because we were so many.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, the drivers of those
4 buses, were they Muslims or Croats, soldiers? Who were they?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Soldiers. They were all dressed as
6 soldiers. In every bus there were three or four soldiers.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the driver was also dressed
8 as a soldier in a camouflage uniform?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Each of them had a weapon
10 close by.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And from what you know, where
12 did those buses come from?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where they came from to
14 Risovac. I only know they were waiting for us there. They could have
15 come from Duvno, Mostar. I don't know.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A transfer of that amount of the
17 population, because there were apparently 400 people, can you think of any
18 reason why, since you were moving from point A to point B, they would make
19 you move? Was it for your own safety? Was it for some health or sanitary
20 reason? Did they give you any reason, or did they say nothing at all?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They didn't say anything. Only that
22 they had orders to make us leave. They told us to take things that we
23 need from our houses and, "You will never come back." That's what they
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can imagine that on the
1 buses -- you said on the buses there were drivers in uniform who had a
2 weapon handy, and there were another three or four soldiers on every bus,
3 so I suppose the villagers spoke to the soldiers, asked them questions
4 like, "What's going on? Where are we going?" Were there any such
5 conversations between the soldiers and the villagers?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my bus, the one I was on, nobody
7 asked anything, nor did they dare ask. If the soldier was a bit drunk, he
8 would immediately turn on you and point his gun. Some even got angry
9 because children were crying. I don't know about the other buses. In
10 mine, nobody asked a thing.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Nobody asked anything, but you
12 suppose that if a soldier was drunk -- what made you think they were
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right. Well, I saw it. I was
15 there. Because a sober man would not be acting like that. He would not
16 have the same expression on his face. After all, there were women and
17 children on the buses. You could see. It was obvious he was drunk.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There was one who was drunk or
19 they were all drunk?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The one who was cursing and swearing
21 was certainly drunk. Those who kept silent, I don't know. They didn't
22 utter a word.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Those HVO soldiers, were they
24 from the same locality or were they from further away?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know a single one of them.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But from their accent, from
2 their conduct, their intonation, their voices, would you place them in
3 your region or some other area?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were not from our area. They
5 had a lilt in their speech.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what made you think they
7 were not from your area?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I know the dialect of my own
9 neighbours, and I know the difference between that particular speech and
10 speech of people outside. They had a different accent.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say it's the level of
12 accent, and you noticed certain differences.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you give us an example,
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. Some would say "reka"
17 instead of "reko" for the word "said," and some of our neighbours placed
18 them in an area called Zagorje. Anyway, they were not from our region.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Just to follow up on that, you said just now, ma'am, that some of
22 the neighbours placed, at least the linguistic distinctions, placed them
23 in an area called Zagorje. Can you tell the Judges, if you know, where
24 that location was?
25 A. I don't know, because I never went that way, but I heard other
1 people say, "He's speaking like a Zagorac, meaning a region
2 called "Croatian Zagorje." Where exactly it is, I don't know. I've often
3 heard tale of this Croatian Zagorje, but I don't know exactly where it is.
4 Q. All right. Now, you've said that you were driven in these buses
5 over mountain Vran, if I've heard correctly; is that right?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Did you in fact -- the group of you, did you spend the night on
8 Mount Vran?
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. And why was that?
11 A. Two buses broke down and we couldn't go on, and the people from
12 those two buses could not be crammed into the other buses because all of
13 them were full.
14 Q. And approximately what time the next day did you arrive at the
15 petrol station?
16 A. Around 9.00.
17 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the petrol station?
18 A. Nothing. They just unloaded us, and they said, "You have your
19 Alija. He'll take care of you."
20 Q. And what happened after that?
21 A. They went back, and we were left to our own devices. Some people
22 went on on foot. We didn't really know where to go and what to do, but
23 somehow we reached Gornji Vakuf.
24 Q. Did the whole group of you walk as far as Gornji Vakuf, or did at
25 some point you receive some assistance?
1 A. They got assistance. Somebody sent a message up there and people
2 came down to fetch them with cars. Some went on on foot and others were
3 taken in vehicles, so all of us made it.
4 Q. And approximately how long did you and, to the extent you know,
5 the other Muslims that were taken to Gornji Vakuf that day or toward
6 Gornji Vakuf, how long did you stay in Gornji Vakuf at that time?
7 A. I returned on the 6th of June, and the others stayed on for a
8 couple of more days. I returned to Jablanica.
9 Q. And did you return -- or excuse me. Did you live, then, in
10 Jablanica during the remainder of the war, at least through 1995?
11 A. I lived in Jablanica for 11 and a half years.
12 Q. And your husband and son, again, without going into any more
13 details, can you tell the Judges approximately when they were released?
14 A. I can.
15 Q. Please.
16 A. They were released on the 1st of March, after 11 and a half
17 months. I remember that well.
18 Q. When you say --
19 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. In the transcript,
20 there was a mistake when the witness said that I lived in Jablanica for 11
21 and a half years. Most probably it was one and a half years, I believe.
22 May we clarify this.
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I think from talking to the
24 witness, Your Honour --
25 Q. But you heard the Judge's question, Witness CA. Can you tell the
1 Judges whether it was in fact correct that you did remain in Jablanica for
2 the next 11 and a half years?
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. And can you tell us -- you said your husband and son were released
5 on the 1st of March. Just so the record is clear, when you say the 1st of
6 March, was that 1994?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. SCOTT: If we could go into private session for one moment,
9 Your Honour. Just -- partly to assist Judge Prandler.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For a few moments we are going
11 to be in private session.
12 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Witness CA, I'd like to finish your testimony by looking at four
14 documents which I can see there's a bundle of material sitting on the
15 witness stand there next to you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Usher, would you please help the
18 MR. SCOTT:
19 Q. Could I please ask the witness to first look at Exhibit 2009.
20 When you have that, Witness, can you please look at the
21 paragraph -- if you can find the paragraph that starts with "Almost all
22 the Muslim houses are set on fire in Sovici." Do you see that?
23 A. Not yet.
24 Q. All right. Continue down the page, please, until you get to that
25 paragraph after a reference to Ostrozac. Exhibit 2009. If you go down
1 the left side of the page, Witness, until you find the words "Almost all
2 the Muslim houses are set on fire." And I realise in the translation the
3 word order may be different than --
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. All right. And looking to that entire paragraph which then
6 continues on and that paragraph ends with the words "The direction of
7 Posusje and Tomislavgrad." Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And is what is stated in that paragraph, Witness, is that
10 consistent with what you saw and experienced in the second half of April,
11 1993, in Sovici-Doljani?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The next paragraph goes on to talk about European Community
14 observers. Do you recall at any time where members -- excuse me,
15 representatives of the international community attempted to enter or did
16 enter the area of Sovici-Doljani in the second half of April, 1993?
17 A. Yes. They entered and reach the Sovici school, but where the
18 civilians were, they didn't allow them to get to there and to tour that
19 area where we were. Just the old men who were in the school. They made a
20 list of them, but nobody came to see us civilians, where we were, where
21 the women and children were.
22 Q. When -- you said just now, you said "where the civilians were,
23 they didn't allow them to go." Who didn't allow them to go?
24 A. Who didn't allow them to go? I don't know. The people standing
25 guard over us hoped they would come, but who didn't allow them to come I
1 don't know. They made us all go outside and lined us up and said, "Be
2 careful what you say, because they're going to leave but you're going to
3 stay." That's what they told us. Now, why they didn't arrive and why
4 somebody didn't let them come, I really can't say. I don't know.
5 Q. Did you see UNPROFOR vehicles in the area around this time?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And when you said a moment ago that they told you to -- said, "Be
8 careful what you say," who said that? I don't necessarily mean the
9 individuals, but were these the HVO guards around the houses?
10 A. The HVO guards, but I didn't know them.
11 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look next at Exhibit 2063 in the same
12 bundle you have there.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. You said
14 a moment ago that the HVO guards hoped that the internationals would come
15 to see you and that's why they lined you up, and it turned out they didn't
16 come. Now, can you confirm that the HVO guards, at first, wanted you to
17 meet these foreigners who were coming to see what was going on?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they hoped they'd come. I
19 think they thought they would come. Now, who prevented them from coming I
20 don't know, because if they hadn't hoped they would come they wouldn't
21 have taken us out and lined us up. And they said to us, "Careful what you
22 say" because they're going to leave, but you're going to stay. That's
23 what we were told. Now, why they didn't come and who didn't let them
24 come, I don't know.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There must be -- there might be
1 a translation error in your language, because they said that they were
2 expecting them to come or they were hoping. Expecting and hoping isn't
3 the same thing. When one says one hopes then one would like something to
4 happen, but when one expects them to come, one might expect people to come
5 whom you don't want to see. So could you tell me what the HVO soldiers
6 actually said with respect to the arrival of the internationals? Was it
7 hoped or was it that they were expecting a visit from the internationals,
8 not necessarily liking it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't explain that because
10 we didn't know anything until they took us outside, and then I saw that
11 they went to Sovici. I could see that part of the road. They
12 said, "They'll come here. Be careful of what you say." Now, whether they
13 thought they would be coming or didn't think they would be coming, nobody
14 explained that. But they thought they would come, because they wouldn't
15 then line us up outside and say what they said to us. Now, why they
16 didn't turn up, I really can't say.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are the Judges then to
18 understand that you were placed on the ready and that you were told what
19 you were allowed to say to those internationals and what not?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that's it. That would
21 be it. Because they said, "Be careful what you say." So I suppose they
22 were expecting them to ask us something.
23 MR. SCOTT:
24 Q. Witness CA, if we then could go to the next exhibit, Exhibit 2063.
25 In that document, Witness, there's the statement, "We have a total
1 of 422 women and children and 25 conscripts." Is the description and the
2 number of 422 women and children, is that basically consistent with the
3 information that you had at the time or what you actually saw at the time?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then the next -- very next sentence says, "Also 94 conscripts
6 were transported to Ljubuski." Now --
7 A. Not all of them were conscripts. There were some older people
8 there too. There were even some people who were born in 1936, 1938, 1940,
9 and older. So they weren't conscripts.
10 Q. Your husband was among this group, you've told us. Did you
11 consider him to be a conscript?
12 A. No. No.
13 Q. Further down it makes the statement that, "The Muslim houses were
14 burnt -- were burnt down and two mosques were demolished." Is that
15 statement consistent with what you saw and heard in Sovici-Doljani in
16 mid-April, 1993?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This -- this document is signed or at least over the name, has
19 been prepared above the name of Marko Rozic. Do you know that name?
20 A. I know him, yes.
21 Q. And without saying anything that might tend to identify yourself,
22 Witness, do you know anything about Mr. Rozic and his involvement in these
23 matters at that time, that is, in the spring of 1993?
24 A. No, I don't. I know nothing of his involvement or any of the
25 positions he occupied or didn't occupy. I just know him personally. And
1 I assume he was in some position where people asked him about things, if
2 these documents were in his possession.
3 Q. Did you know -- did you have any basis to know what Mr. Rozic's
4 views were of the relationships between the Muslims and the Croats at that
6 A. I really don't know.
7 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you next, please, to look at Exhibit --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. The
9 Prosecutor has just asked you a question, but it requires some more
10 specific information. You said that you knew this man, Mr. Marko Rozic.
11 Now, the Judges would like to know whether this was a Croat or a Muslim.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was a Croat.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. So you said you knew
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was he one of the inhabitants of
17 your village or what? How did you come to know him?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He lived in Sovici. He was an
19 inhabitant of Sovici, and my sons used to see him a lot and socialise.
20 They would go to see him. He would come to see them. So I know him, and
21 I know the whole family, his whole family. I was born in Sovici, too,
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. There we have it.
24 Thank you for giving us that additional explanation.
25 MR. SCOTT:
1 Q. If we could then go to Exhibit 2200. It's a very short document,
2 madam, and if you could just look at that. It's really only one
3 sentence -- well, two.
4 Were you, in fact, among those who were transported on buses from
5 the area of Sovici-Doljani on approximately the 5th of May, 1993?
6 A. Yes. I was transported with those buses, yes. It wasn't
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I'm going to ask you to
9 read the paragraph out, because in the English translation, there's a word
10 that I am querying. So I'd like you to read the paragraph out in your own
11 language and the interpreters are going to interpret it. And it begins
12 with the word "Da."
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I can see this
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Read it out loud, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Are there literally five buses in
17 Sovici or Doljani? The population taken towards Jablanica. If that's not
18 correct. If there are, then that's not correct." No. It says, "If they
19 were, where did they come from?" I don't know whether they were from
20 Duvno, Mostar, Posusje. I don't know. There are roads all over the
21 place. But they didn't come from Jablanica, I know that for sure.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, there's a word in
23 brackets, "zelene." What does that word mean?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea what that means
25 there. "Taken away" perhaps, "odevzeni." With a letter missing. And
1 then it turned out to be "zelene." "Odevzeni" and then it turned out as
2 "zelene." "Zelene towards Jablanica." I think it means "odevzeni" or
3 "driven towards," "transported towards Jablanica," but that's just not
4 correct. I don't know who signed this.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because in English it
6 says "green." The word is translated as "green."
7 Mr. Scott.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Does it say here, "Petkovic,"
9 "Petrovic"? I can't make it out. I really can't make head or tail of
11 MR. SCOTT:
12 Q. Witness, before moving to the final document, can I just ask you,
13 apart from the fact that you indicated that you did not in fact, on this
14 occasion, go toward Jablanica, but instead toward Gornji Vakuf, is the
15 rest of what's said there essentially descriptive of what happened to you
16 and the others on the 5th of May?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And finally, can I ask you, please, to look at Exhibit 2191. The
19 last document in the bundle, I hope. Very briefly, I think. Looking at
20 the first paragraph of that document which starts "Today at around 9.00,
21 approximately 300 persons," do you see that?
22 A. I can't see it very well. I'm afraid these glasses aren't much
23 use. I can see far away but not close to. I can't make out the letters
25 Q. Do the best you can, please. Can you see the reference, for
1 example, to the Sicaj petrol station?
2 A. I hope I'll find it.
3 Q. In the first paragraph, ma'am.
4 A. Yes. Sicaja, yes.
5 Q. And is that consistent with the name of the petrol station that
6 you gave to the Judges a few minutes ago as to where you were taken then
7 put off the buses at that time?
8 A. Yes. That's what it was called.
9 Q. And finally on that document, Witness CA, down to the left of the
10 signature part or the name, at least, you have Uskoplje 551993. The
11 Judges have probably heard this already, but just to be clear, was
12 Uskoplje the Croat name given to Gornji Vakuf?
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. Witness CA, I want to thank you very much for coming to The Hague
15 and for assisting us this afternoon.
16 MR. SCOTT: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Registrar, could
18 you do the calculations. How much time have the Prosecution taken?
19 Unfortunately, we're going to have to have a 30-minute break for the
20 redaction to be made possible, and we'll reconvene at five to 6.00. I'd
21 like to state that the Prosecutor took up 71 minutes. So I hope the
22 Defence will be able to get through their cross-examination and not have
23 the witness return tomorrow for just a few minutes.
24 We'll reconvene at five to 6.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to start off the
4 Madam, if you have any difficulties or aren't feeling well, don't
5 hesitate to let us know. If you don't feel able to continue, tell me
6 straight away and we'll take the necessary steps.
7 Who is going to start off on the Defence side?
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, we have no questions
9 for the witness. We'd like to thank the witness for coming to give her
10 evidence. Thank you.
11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we do not have
12 any questions for this witness either.
13 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, Praljak Defence have no questions for
14 this witness, but Mr. Praljak would like to ask only one question about
15 the language since the Prosecutor was mentioning something about one
16 dialect of the Croatian languages. Just to enlighten everybody. But it
17 would be on the end or he can do it now.
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor
19 mentioned that one of the men who escorted the buses, according to what
20 the witness told us, spoke -- or, rather, they referred to him as Zagorac
21 and that he spoke the kind of language that would mean that he was from an
22 area called Hrvatsko/Croatian Zagorje. Now, in the Croatian Zagorje, the
23 language spoken there is a language which is called Kirkovski. It isn't a
24 dialect of the Croatian language, it is a separate language which is
25 completely incomprehensible to a large number of Croats not living in the
1 area. That's one point.
2 And I'm going to ask a question. But when we consider the notion
3 of Zagorac, which includes the word "gora," and "gora" means a "hill" in
4 Croatian and everything across a hill, over the hill, people say are
5 Zagorje, over the hill. So Dalmatian Zagorje is behind Mount Velebit,
6 Bjelusine and so on. So we have a lot of these Zagorjes; 20 or 30. Each
7 place has its own Zagorje or area behind the hill and beyond the hill.
8 And I'm sure the interpreters won't be able to translate what I'm saying
10 In the Croatian Zagorje, and I'm going to quote a writer, he says
11 as follows, it is from a poem: [No interpretation]
12 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:
13 Q. Madam, did you understand any of what I've just said?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Or another piece of poetry. Let me just remember how it goes. It
16 never was that -- it wasn't somehow, so in the future it will be somehow,
17 one way or another, because that's how things always were. Things were
18 always somehow established.
19 Did the man speak that kind of language?
20 A. Well, I didn't talk to him.
21 Q. Did you hear him speak?
22 A. I saw him speak in the Zagorje language. He didn't speak to me.
23 I saw him speak to others.
24 Q. Thank you. I think it is very difficult for anybody to understand
25 that language, and I don't think the interpreters could have understood it
1 either. Thank you.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, the last poem that you recited
3 seemed to be quite a witty one. One day you might do us the pleasure and
4 give us the translation.
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] It's very simple, Your
6 Honour. It says things always happen in one way or another. They always
7 happen. Because things happened in the past and things were settled in
8 the past, they -- and in the future, things will somehow work out too.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Or words to that effect.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's a quotation from
11 probably the most valuable Croatian literary work or author. His name was
12 Miroslav Krleza, and I think his works have been translated into many
13 different languages. But the fact is that this is a dialect and it's
14 difficult to translate a dialect, of course. It is a dialect of the
15 Croatian language.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you to you too. And I'm interested in
17 more, but I think it would be abusing the Chamber's time. Thank you.
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have a few
19 questions for the witness. I'd like to emphasise, so that there's no
20 misunderstanding, that I did hand in two documents to the Trial Chamber
21 which I might refer to but later on when I come to challenge the
22 authenticity of one document shown by the Prosecutor. I'm just going to
23 ask the witness a few questions. But as I am going to mention names, may
24 we go into private session, please.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to move
1 into private session for a few moments.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 10057-10058 redacted. Private session
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session, Mr.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next counsel.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, good afternoon. I'm going to ask you
13 something very briefly on behalf of General Petkovic, who is my client in
14 this trial.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
21 MR. SCOTT: I took care to be in private session on these
22 questions, Your Honour. I think we should again.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I thought that the
24 question was general enough for us not to be able to identify the witness,
25 but I have nothing against moving into private session.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move back into
2 private session. Mr. Registrar.
3 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session, Mr.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic, you have the
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. The army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did it have its -- its unit in the
11 village of Doljani?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. In the neighbouring village of Sovici, was there a BH army unit?
14 A. I don't know that either. I never asked anybody, nor did anybody
15 talk to me about that kind of thing.
16 Q. What about the Croatian Defence Council, the HVO as you put it
17 here, did the HVO exist in the village?
18 A. I didn't know about them until the day the attack was launched.
19 Whether it existed or not, I really don't know. But when the village was
20 attacked, then I knew that the HVO existed.
21 Q. How did you learn about that?
22 A. Because the soldiers came and introduced themselves, and everybody
23 had those patches on their uniforms. They had weapons as well. That's
24 how I learnt about it.
2 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, we need to be in private session again,
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please do the
5 necessary to redact the question referring to the son and we're going to
6 go back into private session.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 10063-10068 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 MR. SCOTT: I didn't want to interrupt but, because we have a
3 short pause, can I also ask for a redaction please on page 86, lines 9 to
4 13. It was right before we went into private session previously when a
5 couple of things were said. It shouldn't cause a delay because this
6 should be our last session of the day, but I would ask for that, please.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please check, Mr. Registrar.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. So you two women alone walked on that day four or five kilometres
10 one way and the same distance back. And I believe for everybody in this
11 courtroom, including the Trial Chamber, it is important to find out what
12 happened on that road. Did you see any military units stationary or
14 A. Yes. I saw their vehicles moving. Around the schoolhouse there
15 was a lot of troops.
16 Q. Witness, could you please describe the road to Sovici? And when
17 we get to Sovici, we'll deal with that description. For the moment, you
18 are walking from Doljani to Sovici. Did you see movements of any armed
19 units? Did you see any tanks, cannons? What did you see?
20 A. No. You couldn't see that when you walked, but I saw that on the
21 day of the attack, a tank coming down from Sovici.
22 Q. But what did you see on the 18th?
23 A. Not much, just their vehicles and troops on vehicles. They did
24 not intercept us. They did not provoke us in any way. They just let us
25 walk in peace.
1 Q. Do you remember the number of the vehicles or troops?
2 A. I can't tell you that.
3 Q. I'm not looking for an exact number. Was there a convoy, 50?
4 A. Yes, a number.
5 Q. Would it be correct to say that there were 10 or 15 vehicles?
6 A. Around that number.
7 Q. What kind of vehicles?
8 A. Jeeps, for the most part, or military vans.
9 Q. Do you remember, maybe, how many people there were in each of the
11 A. No.
12 Q. How large were those vehicles? What was their holding capacity?
13 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you that. I know nothing about these
15 Q. Tell me, did you hear shelling of another area? Did you hear any
16 noise that would indicate that there was fighting in the vicinity?
17 A. Yes. I even saw shells falling, although, until that day, I
18 didn't see what a -- I didn't know what a shell was.
19 Q. Where did you see shells?
20 A. At first, they fell on Sovici.
21 Q. You mean on the 18th?
22 A. No, on the 17th.
23 Q. No, no. Leave alone the 18th -- the 17th. We're talking about
24 the 18th.
25 A. Why would there be fighting on the 18th? They wouldn't be
1 fighting each other, would they?
2 Q. So on that day there was no fighting that you noticed?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I would like now to discuss with you this evacuation of the
5 residents of Doljani. Tell me, please, did there come a time when you
6 were visited by any kind of delegation, military or civilian, on behalf of
7 the Croatian army, the HVO, or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ask
8 you about your health and if you need anything?
9 A. No, never.
10 Q. Tell me, did you hear that, in the beginning of May, the main man
11 of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina came to that area, Mr. Sefer
12 Halilovic, and the commander of HVO, my client, Mr. Petkovic, accompanied
13 by foreign observers, did you hear of their presence there?
14 A. Yes, I did, but only on the bus in Vran. Those people, our
15 escorts, were talking and saying that Sefer Halilovic and this defendant
16 of yours --
17 Q. Now, tell me, Witness, did you hear what they were talking about
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you hear maybe what kind of agreement was reached between Mr.
21 Halilovic and Mr. Petkovic?
22 A. No. Why would anybody tell me?
23 Q. Well, the person who told you about their visit to Sovici could
24 have told you that.
25 A. It was a Croatian soldier on the bus in Vran.
1 Q. Did that Croatian soldier tell you on the bus at that moment
2 because that was agreed between Halilovic and Petkovic?
3 A. No, he wasn't talking to me at all in the first place. The
4 soldiers were talking amongst themselves. I was just sitting nearby and
5 overheard it.
6 Q. Could you conclude from their conversation that all of that was
7 organised because that was agreed between Halilovic and Petkovic?
8 A. No. They didn't say anything about that. They only said that
9 these men had come to the schoolhouse. Nobody mentioned any agreement.
10 One of the men interrupted the other and said, "I know," and there was no
11 more talk about it.
12 Q. Witness, I would like to remind you of a document that you have
13 seen recently. It is signed by my client, Milivoj Petkovic. It concerns
14 that group of five buses, if you remember it. If you don't remember it,
15 we can look at the document again. It's P 02200.
16 According to that document, the question is asked concerning those
17 buses that were to drive the residents of Sovici and Doljani towards
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Although I understand from your answers that you couldn't be aware
21 of the agreements, is it logical that this question about buses to
22 Jablanica was asked because there was an agreement to organise those buses
23 to Jablanica?
24 A. I have no clue. If there was an agreement, then why did they drag
25 us back?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
2 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. I think this has gone on long
3 enough. The witness has repeatedly said she doesn't know. And the same
4 question has been put over and over again, I think, and especially in the
5 interest of time, I think that we should move on to something more
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, if you are
8 producing this document, is it that you want to send a message to the
9 Trial Chamber that there was an agreement between Petkovic and Halilovic
10 whereby your client envisaged a transport for these persons? Is that the
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the course of
13 questioning Mr. Idrizovic, we produced a document from the army of Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina reflecting meetings and the visit to Sovici on the 4th of
15 May, 1993, and from that document, it clearly follows that there was an
16 agreement between Mr. Halilovic and Mr. Petkovic, that those residents of
17 Doljani and Sovici would be evacuated to Jablanica. From other documents
18 and some pending documents that will later be introduced through witnesses
19 from this locality, it will be clear that people in Doljani and Sovici
20 were asked where they wanted to go, whether some of them wanted to go
21 home, perhaps, and they said they wanted to go to Jablanica, and that's
22 why the buses were placed at their disposal.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness has answered
24 reluctantly, and let me put it once again.
25 On the 4th of May, Generals Halilovic and Petkovic met and reached
1 an agreement. According to that agreement, the residents of Doljani and
2 Sovici were to be transported to Jablanica. What do you think about that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, why didn't they comply with
4 that agreement? If I may ask a question.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. We'll try to establish that later. That's why I started with this
7 document to see --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think the Prosecutor is right. We're
9 absolutely getting nowhere, and I must tell you that I can also not see at
10 all, not from far away, how the document 2200 proves any agreement. It is
11 a question. Your client does not know where buses come from. That's what
12 it says, and it's -- it's really rather difficult to understand, frankly.
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I just said is
14 not proven by this document. I referenced another document of the army of
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is in fact a report on what happened on the
16 4th of May, 1993. This document is not here now, but it states clearly
17 that there was an agreement. It's a document we used with witness --
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could we agree that we stick to the documents
19 that we have, because it's complicated enough as it is, and to refer to
20 documents that we do not have, is not conducive to the establishment of
21 the truth, I'm sorry.
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that this
23 document has not been prepared for this witness, because I did not
24 originally intend to ask this question of her in this way, but at this
25 moment, my intention is to establish why those people were not taken to
1 Jablanica directly and why they instead went to Gornji Vakuf.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that something you're asking me?
3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. No. I'll try to proceed slowly and maybe we'll come to an answer.
5 Tell me, during your trip, did you go by the road from Doljani to
6 Jablanica at least part of the time?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Tell me, which road did the buses take immediately?
9 A. The buses were at Risovac, and we were brought to them by trucks.
10 Q. And when did the buses set off from Risovac?
11 A. They went towards Duvno. I don't know. It was night-time. We
12 were going generally towards Jablanica.
13 Q. Did anybody stop you on the road? Were there any check-points?
14 A. How would I know?
15 Q. You don't know.
16 A. Why would they stop us? There were no check-point of ours. There
17 were only Croats there. Who would stop their buses? They knew perfectly
18 well what was going on, where we were going, where we were being driven.
19 If they didn't know, why would they have left us at Sicaja.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Following up on the question
21 asked by Ms. Alaburic, she intended to prove through documents that you
22 were to go to Jablanica. Tell us, that road that you took, then, was it
23 the direct, shortest way to Jablanica or not?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say no. Why wasn't it the
1 shortest, direct way?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The shortest way is steep uphill,
3 and we didn't take that way.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you didn't take that road.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Never mind, Witness. We'll try to establish what exactly happened
8 through other witnesses.
9 Now, I would like to clarify some details concerning your house in
10 Doljani. Tell me, your house in Doljani was not damaged on the day of the
12 A. No.
13 Q. Your house was not even damaged at the moment when you were
14 leaving Doljani?
15 A. No.
16 Q. After leaving Doljani, you first saw your house again three years
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And only then did you see that it was damaged?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know what happened around Doljani in the meantime? For
22 instance, are you aware that in July, 1993, the army of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina captured Doljani?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So you're aware of that?
1 A. Yes, I am.
2 Q. On the basis of that, is it fair to conclude that your house was
3 neither damaged nor destroyed in that April or May, 1993?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Now I would like us to look at another document that was shown to
6 you by the Prosecutor earlier today. It's 2063.
7 A. 2063. I just don't understand why I have to read it.
8 Q. No, you don't have to read it. I will do that. I will read the
9 part that is relevant to my question. One passage that the Prosecutor
10 didn't show you, which is the last one in this first paragraph. It
11 says: "After the cessation of hostilities in this area, all Muslim houses
12 were set on fire and two mosques were destroyed under orders of superior
14 What I'm interested in are the words "under orders of superior
15 commanders." But before I ask my question, please bear with me while I
16 give you a brief introduction, which will also contain some information
17 relevant for the record.
18 In the closing arguments in the trial against Tuta Naletilic on
19 the 28th of October, 2002, in the transcript, page 1660 and the next page,
20 1661, the Prosecutor said the following verbatim: "Precisely with
21 reference to this document and retelling its contents," and that document
22 in that trial was Exhibit P333, he said, "The highest commander in that
23 operation was Tuta Naletilic."
24 You, madam, also mentioned the name of Tuta today apart from the
25 things you've already told us. From what you know, was Tuta some sort of
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. You cannot tell us anything about that?
4 A. No. Some soldiers did come and said they were Tuta's soldiers.
5 That's all I know.
6 Q. Did you notice any difference between your local people from the
7 HVO and the men who introduced themselves as belonging to Tuta's units?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was the difference?
10 A. They were extremely strict and harsh with us.
11 Q. Who was?
12 A. Those who said they were Tuta's soldiers. There was a big
13 difference between the neighbours who stood guard over us and the time
14 when they were replaced by Tuta's soldiers.
15 Q. Did they come on the 21st of April, like four or five days after
16 the attack?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you ever hear that Tuta's deputy got killed and that's why
19 Tuta's men were very nervous, and they wanted to go into action? Did you
20 hear anything about that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tell us.
23 A. I asked him, "Why is this going on? Why are you setting the
24 village on fire?" And he said, "Tuta's soldier got killed."
25 Q. Did they mention his name? Was it maybe Cikota?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is that the man who got killed?
3 A. I just remember that the name was mentioned. Whether it was his
4 or somebody else who got killed, I don't know.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further
6 questions, unless my client has something to add. No. Thank you,
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would just like to clarify one
9 point, Witness. You said that, at the outset, you could confirm that your
10 house was not damaged or destroyed in April or May because the ABiH took
11 over in -- July, and you said your house could not have been destroyed in
12 that period. Now, speaking of Tuta's soldiers, you say on page 105, line
13 19, that you asked a soldier, "Why are you setting the village on fire?"
14 And the soldier answered, "Well, because one of Tuta's men was killed."
15 So the conclusion is that when you're asking this question it's
16 April and the village is on fire or burnt down. So when you say that the
17 village was burnt down, was it Doljani, your village, that you're talking
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, Doljani and Sovici. I
20 asked them why they had set fire to the villages. I meant both the
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Fine. Now, the two
23 villages, Doljani and Sovici, were set on fire in what month according to
24 you? When was that? What month?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the conflict. As soon as they
1 took the men to Ljubuski, they started setting fire to the village --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, after the conflict,
4 what date would that be exactly? Would that be the 18th, 19th, 20th of
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the 19th, 20th, 21st,
7 somewhere around there. I would say that it was probably the 20th. I
8 don't remember the dates because there were a lot of awful things going
9 on, but anyway.
10 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Previous translation continues] ... take too much
11 time, but this issue can probably be clarified as follows: (redacted)
14 (redacted). Isn't it right that some
15 of the houses probably belonged to your family, relatives? They were not
16 burnt down but there in those houses about 400 -- yes, I'm sorry. I did
17 mention the name. But anyway, it is important, because as far as I
18 remember, during the first hours of the questions and answers, it was
19 mentioned that these houses were kept and about 400 people had been
20 crammed or crowded there. So it is my question, if it was one of the
21 reasons why your house has not been burnt, but it was in a way probably
22 later on when it happened. So it is my question that -- that that is the
23 issue here. Thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's it, yes, because two
25 months later -- two months after everything my house was set on fire.
1 After we had left, two months later our house was burnt down and the other
2 seven -- well, where the civilians were put up, the women, the children,
3 two months later, the houses, our houses, were set on fire.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said two months later your
5 house was burnt down. Now, as far as the Judges are concerned, we have to
6 establish who torched your house, the HVO or the BH army. According to
7 you, who was it who did that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the BH army couldn't reach my
9 house at all. Doljani hadn't been attacked then when they set fire to
10 this two months later. It couldn't have been anybody else except the HVO.
11 Now, who exactly, I can't say. I'd like to know that myself, who actually
12 set fire to them.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Madam, a while ago, questioned by counsel, you
14 have said that you left Doljani with your house intact and you never got
15 back until three years later and, that in the meantime, the ABiH had taken
16 Doljani. The implication of this was --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The implication of this, of course, is that it is
19 possible that your house was burned down by the ABiH. But right now, you
20 have said that three months after you have left, your house was burned
21 down. On what information do you base this assertion? How do you know?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that. I know who stayed on
23 in the other villages, those belonging to Prozor. They couldn't stay
24 there any more because they began to ask for them, and the people who
25 would go at night across that territory, I was told by them that our
1 houses were set fire to. So that's how I deduced that it was two months
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you -- could you tell us the names of the
4 person or persons or person who told you this, and if so, just say yes or
5 no, because we would then go into private session to hear them. Who told
6 you? Can you tell?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Then I suggest that we go into
9 private session.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private
11 session. But, Mr. Registrar, do what is necessary to redact the houses
12 and the names belonging to her family.
13 [Private session]
11 Page 10083 redacted. Private session
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Mr.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Tell me, please, you told us today that on that second occasion
16 when you went to the school at Sovici, you took with you food and
17 clothing; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And were you able to leave the food and clothing you had taken
20 over there?
21 A. Yes, but the soldier didn't allow me to enter.
22 Q. My second question is this: Tell me, please, when did the men
23 from your house go to the woods? I'm not saying which men on purpose. We
24 know who they are. Was it the day before the shelling?
25 A. No. When they went -- what would they be doing in the woods
1 before the village had been shelled?
2 Q. When they went to the woods, what happened to the weapons under
3 the bed?
4 A. They had it.
5 Q. So they took the weapons with them?
6 A. Yes, they did. They took the weapons with them.
7 Q. I'm asking you about that because previously you said you didn't
8 know whether they were armed?
9 A. They took the weapons with them but they didn't shoot.
10 Q. Were you in the woods with them?
11 A. No, I was not. But they did not shoot. And this was just 15
12 metres away from my own house.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
14 have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Scott, any
16 additional questions? No? Perhaps you have some documents to tender.
17 Can you give us the numbers, please.
18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Consistent with, I guess, the
19 developing practice, we have prepared a sheet. I have not had a chance to
20 distribute it yet, but I will. But the numbers are Exhibit P 02009,
21 P 02063, P 02191, and P 02200. And perhaps with the usher's assistance I
22 can tender this to the registry and it can be given an IC number has been
23 the practice. Excuse me for a moment. Sorry.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, give us a number,
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] That will be Exhibit number IC 77,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Does the Defence
4 wish to tender any documents? No. I understand it that they do not.
6 Now, madam, your -- yes, is there a document?
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no documents to be
8 tendered, but I have an objection to one of the exhibits, but I'd like to
9 challenge its authenticity, but my explanation would last longer than 10
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is that? What document?
12 No. Just a minute. The Judges are professionals and they'll be able to
13 understand your objections in three minutes. What document are you
14 referring to?
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, it would be difficult to do
16 that in three minutes because I have to show you two exhibits in order to
17 explain why I am objecting and it is P 02063 that I'm objecting to. It is
18 the last exhibit that we were discussing.
19 Can we have the document on e-court for a moment, P 02063.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have it in front of us. Now,
21 why are you challenging that?
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm challenging the authenticity of
23 the document because I consider that this document was not compiled by
24 Marko Rozic, and I would like to indicate some of the details which are
25 obvious, spring to view immediately.
1 If you look at the memorandum or immediately underneath the
2 number, the protocol number, it says "defence department," "department of
3 defence" and you will see that it is the representative of the department
4 of defence which assigns this and it's not the same department. That's a
5 notorious fact.
6 Now, in what was shown to the witness today, that portion, it was
7 stated that all the Muslim houses were set on fire, and this witness told
8 us today indubitably that the Junuzovici houses remained intact along with
9 four other houses where they were put up.
10 In order to show that it is an exhibit which was not authentic and
11 was not signed by Mr. Rozic, I would like, if possible, is to take a look
12 at and have placed on e-court a document that was signed by Mr. Rozic to
13 compare the two documents and you'll be able to see that the signatures
14 are different. It is document 3D 00563. Their Honours have the document
15 before them, the hard copy of the document, and by comparing the two
16 signatures, they will be able to conclude, and we can leave this Croatian
17 document with the signature on e-court and just -- and place the second
18 document on e-court with Marko Rozic's signature, so that we can compare
19 the two.
20 Furthermore, I would like to have shown another document on
21 e-court, 3D 00562. It is a report from Mostar dated the 23rd of April,
22 1993, compiled at 1800 hours. And from that document, we can see that the
23 person in question who would have been signed or, as it says in P 00263,
24 that the document was signed by Marko Rozic, the report relates to the
25 23rd of April, 1993, at 12 hours -- 1200 hours.
1 From document 3D 00562, that is to say, the report, we can see
2 that Marko Rozic, on the 23rd of April, was held up at the check-point by
3 the tobacco factory in Mostar. He was held there by the military police
4 of the BH army. They asked for his credentials, wrote down his name, and
5 detained him there for the next few hours. So that he was detained at
6 10.00. I'm trying to speed up, so I'm not going to read through this
7 whole document. You have the document in front of us.
8 He was detained at 10.30 hours. It says what procedure was
9 applied, and Marko Rozic, therefore, on the 24th or, rather, the 23rd of
10 April at 12.00 could not have been in Jablanica and could not have
11 compiled the other document.
12 I would also like to indicate that the document was the subject of
13 discussion in the Tuta and Stela trial, and I'd like to refer to the
14 transcript of the 14th of October, 2002, the page number is 16489.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel, in order to speed up,
16 you say that the document was the subject of discussion in the previous
17 trial. I understood it that it was admitted under P333, that that was the
18 number it was admitted under. So what you've said is that there was
19 already a discussion on that issue; is that right?
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right. Regardless
21 of that, I know that it was adopted and admitted into evidence under the
22 number P333. I am nonetheless highlighting these elements. It is my
23 right to do so, and all I want to say is that the witness in the Tuta and
24 Stela trial was shown this document and the witness said that it was not
25 Rozic's signature and another document was shown him [as interpreted] from
1 which they were able to see that that was an authentic signature. So I
2 wish to challenge the authenticity of this exhibit based on the documents
3 that were presented here today. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We've understood
5 your objection, and the Chamber will deliberate on the matter.
6 Thank you, madam, for coming to testify here, called by the
7 Prosecution. Thank you for testifying about the events that took place in
8 your locality. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish you all the best in
9 returning home to your country.
10 Before you leave, we have to lower the blinds once again.
11 And we adjourn for the day and start at 2.15 tomorrow with another
12 witness. There will be three hours of examination-in-chief and three
13 hours of cross-examination.
14 I wish you all a very pleasant evening and would like to tell you
15 that the Chamber has -- will have a decision on the duration of the trial
16 which we invite you to read when you have the time to do so.
17 Thank you. We reconvene tomorrow afternoon at 2.15.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day
20 of November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.