International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8854

1 Friday, 27 September 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. Please be seated. And may it be

6 a very good morning.

7 When we look at our Livenote system, normally reliable, we can

8 identify the case to be called immediately. It is the 80th day of the

9 Prosecutor's case. And I think somewhere it's correct to say enough is

10 enough. Let's proceed in this way, but first hear the case.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the

12 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances, please.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning. Nicholas Koumjian with Ruth Karper

15 for the Office of the Prosecutor.

16 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and

17 John Ostojic for the Defence.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In order to reach this goal, to finalise today,

19 I have to inform you on the decisions by the three Judges yesterday on the

20 Prosecution's seventh and eighth notice for admission of transcript

21 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.

22 The Chamber rejects Prosecutor's seventh notice for admission of

23 transcript. We know in this case to a certain extent the OTP is not

24 responsible for this late filing because one prerequisite was a decision

25 by the President of this Tribunal. And therefore, it couldn't come

Page 8855

1 earlier. But unanimously we held that it wouldn't give substantial added

2 value, and balancing this against the right of the accused to have a

3 cross-examination, we thought in the spirit of having a fair trial, it is

4 not appropriate to have this under Rule 92 bis, especially when we are

5 aware that it's not possible to have this witness here in The Hague for

6 cross-examination.

7 A little bit different is our decision on Prosecution's eighth

8 notice for admission of transcript. This is the transcript of

9 Mr. O'Donnell's testimony from the Simic case relating to the so-called

10 variant A and B document, Exhibit SK39 in our case. Here, I would ask,

11 and therefore I touch upon this point already now, that the parties may

12 confer during the break.

13 We have two options. Either, for the purposes of a fair trial, to

14 give the Defence an additional possibility to have a cross-examination of

15 Mr. O'Donnell, also as regards this special and, to a certain extent,

16 important document. But this can't, as we heard yesterday, be done

17 today. Maybe there is a movement or a change since yesterday. Otherwise,

18 we have to go to the bitter end and to cross-examine or to grant the

19 possibility of a cross-examination on Tuesday morning immediately before

20 our deliberations. So these are both options, and may the parties please

21 tell us which option they do prefer.

22 And anything else to be discussed before starting with Mr. Sebire?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just that we did confer. I don't know if the

24 Defence has a decision regarding the -- Mr. O'Donnell. But I gave them

25 some additional information this morning.

Page 8856

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Mr. Koumjian and I did

2 speak on the telephone this morning in connection with some of the issues

3 raised by the Court, however we would like to reserve our comments for

4 after Mr. Sebire's testimony so that we could present it to the Court

5 fully and after consultation with our client during the Status

6 Conference. But we do have specific objections, and are enormously

7 disappointed in the tactics that are being utilised here.

8 So instead of utilising the time this morning, I think it would be

9 more appropriate to call Mr. Sebire, to have the OTP rest their case as

10 scheduled, as ordered by the Court, and then to proceed with these other,

11 what I would consider to be, procedural and maneuverable tactics which

12 remain with the case.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't hope that you want to call the decision

14 of the Trial Chamber as -- fortunately enough, we can't read it from the

15 transcript.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: My comments were directed to the OTP, Your Honour.

17 I suggested that directly as it relates to the OTP.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the usher to escort Mr. Sebire into

19 the courtroom.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, Mr. Sebire. This is not a

22 continuation but a new start of the testimony. Therefore, may I ask you

23 once again to take the solemn declaration.

24 Will you please stand up.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

Page 8857

1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Please, does the Office of the

6 Prosecutor want to start with some questions?

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


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examined by Mr. Koumjian: [Continued]

11 Q. Mr. Sebire, during your examination on the earlier occasion, you

12 were asked to provide certain information. First, the Defence attorney

13 asked you to give him a list of individual versus mass graves. Did you

14 prepare a chart showing the number of sites that contained either one

15 body, two bodies, et cetera, for each of the exhumations that you obtained

16 information about that took place in or concerned persons from Prijedor?

17 A. Yes, I did. I prepared this chart, and we can find it in the

18 document bearing the number 01848865. We can read in this document the

19 number of sites and number of bodies presumed -- bodies, found for each

20 site. 148 bodies were exhumed.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, may this document with the ERN number

22 0188865 receive the next exhibit number?

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we, please, hear the next exhibit number.

24 THE REGISTRAR: S366, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

Page 8858

1 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, Exhibit Number S366. Is

3 it translated into a language the accused understands, or is it possible

4 for the Defence to discuss it with your client on the basis of this

5 English?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: It is not translated in the language that the

7 accused can understand, Your Honour, however we have discussed it with him

8 and he is in appreciation and understanding of it, yes.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this assistance.


11 Q. Just to be clear what this chart depicts, please tell me if I'm

12 interpreting it correctly. So for example, two sites were exhumed in

13 which no bodies were found. 148 sites were exhumed where one body was

14 found. Is that correct?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. And then 35 sites were exhumed where two bodies were found, so

17 there was a total of 70 bodies from these 2 sites. Correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: In fact, in the form I think the counsel misspoke as

20 to the number of sites. He says in 2 sites, there were 70. But, in fact,

21 the chart seems to be rather clear that's it's -- of 35 sites, 2 bodies on

22 average were found that comes up to 70. Even though the witness answered

23 it's correct, it's actually should be examined a little closer.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness come closer to the microphone,

Page 8859

1 please.


3 Q. So, Mr. Sebire, just for the record to correct my error, 35 sites

4 had 2 bodies. Is that correct?

5 A. That is correct, yes. In the middle column, we can see 35. It

6 corresponds to the numbers of sites in which for each 2 bodies were found,

7 which makes a total of 70 bodies.

8 Q. Now, you were further requested to provide a chart showing the --

9 showing for each of the individuals named in the annex to the indictment

10 whether or not these persons have been exhumed and identified, have been

11 listed in the Prijedor book of missing persons, or a Court declaration of

12 death has been issued for that individual. Is that correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I have here a document beginning with

15 the ERN number 01847970 and ending in consecutive order with 01848137.

16 May this document be marked -- given the next exhibit number?

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S367.


21 Q. Finally, Mr. Sebire, just to clarify that document, the book of

22 missing persons data that you used was from the version that's earlier

23 been produced in court. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes, that is correct.

25 Q. Have you recently received an electronic database from the authors

Page 8860

1 of the Prijedor book of missing persons updating their information?

2 A. That is correct. I did receive that database approximately ten

3 days ago.

4 Q. And by the way, does that database include witnesses' personal

5 information including addresses and telephone numbers?

6 A. Yes, it does.

7 Q. Do you know how many kilobytes that database is? I'm not sure if

8 I am using the right word for a computer, but perhaps you know the right

9 word.

10 A. Let's say that the two major charts in which the information was

11 entered contained one of the two -- contains approximately 6.000 kilobytes

12 and the second one 2.000 without counting the 15 other charts in which

13 information was entered through Excel so that we were able to make a link

14 between various charts in the database.

15 Q. Is it also correct that the database is not compatible with the

16 OTP computers except for a laptop that you were able to borrow?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Were you able to print out a list from the updated book of missing

19 persons containing the names?

20 A. Yes. For the time being, what I was able to extract from that

21 database is a list of disappeared people, but unfortunately it is still

22 not possible to indicate for these people the exact date and the place

23 when they disappeared. The printed document is 14.000 pages, and it

24 accounts for 3.200 people.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it's for technical reasons, not for the

Page 8861












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 8862

1 content, that you are not able to continue with this work and include this

2 additional information. Is this correct?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Your Honour, in

4 the various charts, the information regarding the date and the place of

5 disappearance refers to the victim through a code, so I have to go through

6 different charts in order to find the exact code that corresponds to that

7 victim and then to transfer the information.

8 For the time being, it means that I would have to go through 3.221

9 victims in order to find them, bearing in mind that the chart containing

10 the information received by the next of kin and the people who knew about

11 them, that they were also entered. So many people had testified about

12 their disappearance, and that means that it would really take some time to

13 do this work.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Please correct the previous number, 3.222

15 people. Interpreter's note.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I have a document consisting of 96

17 pages which I believe has been distributed to all parties entitled "List

18 of Missing Persons from the database Nastradali." May that 90-page

19 document -- excuse me, it has not been distributed. May that be marked

20 next in order.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the parties and the Judges first have a look

22 on it.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: It has previously been disclosed a few days ago

24 when it was printed -- excuse me, no it was not.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note. Please change the figure

Page 8863

1 3.222 and change it to 3.221. Thank you.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There have been now twice changes on the figure

3 or the number of victims you would have to go through. Could you please

4 repeat this number finally that we have undoubtedly the correct number you

5 stated.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you are talking about the names

7 that I was to check with regards to the indictment list, I counted 771

8 names. With regards to the list of disappeared people such as we can see

9 on the database of missing persons of Prijedor, I come to 3.221 entries.

10 So I have 3.221 names, if you will.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Now the transcript is no longer ambiguous.

12 Thank you.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then I have some -- what is -- could you please

15 explain what is the printout, what is database Nastradali? Why this name?

16 Can you give us some more information on the basis of this? It ends

17 with number 3.237 persons. If you could explain the history, the

18 development of this document presented now.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding the two documents of 296

20 pages that were shown to you, that was shown to you, this document

21 comprises a certain number of columns. The column to the far left is the

22 identification number given to the victim according to the database. The

23 following number is the ID number, identification number. The following

24 column contains the last name followed by the first name, followed by the

25 father's first name and the mother's first name, and also the mother's

Page 8864

1 last maiden name, if it's known. The date the when the person has

2 disappeared, the date at which the person was born, and where the person

3 was born.

4 Regarding the number of victims, the last figure that appears is

5 3.237 persons. As I said, that's in the far left column, and that

6 corresponds to the ID number given to the victim. It does not represent

7 the total amount of victims. If you look at the first page, you will see

8 that we don't have number 16 on the first page. So all together, we have

9 3.221 victims, and some of the entries are not counted -- accounted for,

10 either because the information was not entered correctly or because the

11 records or the record of that person was erased.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Until now, we don't have an idea where this

13 database comes from [inaudible] why this name. I think it's necessary to

14 give some, comments on this, towards the witness.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The database was obtained from an

16 association which published the book of disappeared people of Prijedor,

17 and all the information contained in that book was seized from a database

18 which was created for that effect. During the seizure, some verifications

19 were made regarding the list of people that were declared missing, which

20 is why there could be some changes between the present list and the list

21 in -- contained in the book which was published in April 2002.

22 With regards to the title Nastradali or victims, unfortunately I

23 could not give you any explanation about that name. I do not know what is

24 the meaning of that word myself.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You mentioned an association. Could you please

Page 8865

1 tell us precisely what association this is.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. It is the

3 association alliance which across Bosnia brings together several

4 organisations dealing with missing persons in different municipalities

5 that are missing. So the association for the missing persons in Prijedor

6 is part of this larger organisation which is call alliance. The

7 association itself brings together people whose relations disappeared in

8 the municipality of Prijedor.

9 This association has its seat in the municipality of Sanski Most.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I take it that this has nothing to do with

11 the International Red Cross?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, no. But I'd

13 rather not give you a definite answer either yes or no. I on the other

14 hand know that they cooperated with the International Commission for the

15 Tracing of Missing Persons in Sarajevo which is responsible for organising

16 the identification on the basis of the DNA for the persons. Of course,

17 they managed to identify. And the association for missing persons in

18 Prijedor also, I think, cooperates with the Commission for Missing Persons

19 which is responsible for tracing members of families on the basis of blood

20 samples to establish whether the persons exhumed come or do not come from

21 the area of Prijedor.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, opposed to ordinary courts, I

23 have to put the question to you: This association, is it composed of all

24 ethnic groups of Former Yugoslavia?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know. As far as I know,

Page 8866

1 because I do not really have the list of people who belong to this

2 association. I can only talk about people whom I met and who are members

3 of this association. From what I know, these are principally persons of

4 the Islamic faith.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And coming now to the persons included in this

6 list, is it restricted to Bosnian Muslim victims only, or are there also

7 included Serbs or Croats?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I can answer in the --

9 affirmatively, that the list includes Croats from Bosnia. As for the

10 Serbs, one would have to check it. It seems to me that there are also one

11 or two persons -- one or two Bosnian Serbs on that list.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you compare this list of missing persons

13 with the last update of the Red Cross list of missing persons?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I received that list only

15 recently. I saw it only recently. And therefore, I had no time to either

16 compare it or go through that.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Finally, is it your own printout without any

18 changes, or did you generate to a certain extent this document? For

19 example, you mentioned that on page 1 in the list of missing persons from

20 the database Nastradali, there is a gap between 15 and 17. Did you leave

21 this out, or was it already done by this association?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The list that you have is such as it

23 is in the database. I have not made any alterations.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So how come that you can comment on the question

25 why we don't have, for example, 16 and other numbers apparently missing in

Page 8867

1 this list? What's the reason for this?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you look at the information in

3 database, the database will give you an identification number. But this

4 such number appears only once in a database. If during the verification

5 you found out that this person has not been missing or, rather, that it

6 has been found or that it corresponds to another person who has already

7 been recorded, then one erases the information concerning that

8 individual. But you cannot also erase the number, as it would create big

9 confusion.

10 So it has to do with the database itself, which assigns a number,

11 a recording number, and when you modify, then you also modify the number

12 of the persons who are registered there. And that is the difference

13 between the database that I used, the information for persons declared

14 dead. In some cases, the recording was made twice. And in this case, one

15 eliminates the record, but the number remains. But it cannot be allotted

16 to another person.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it your conclusion or do you have a reliable

18 source for this that, for example, it is done for the purpose that

19 Mr. Jordan appearing as number 15 always have in this special list number

20 15, and the number is not changed when leaving out an earlier number. Is

21 it correct? And where do you have this information from?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And where can you read this or where can we read

24 this explanation?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the document with the list which

Page 8868

1 you have in front of you, there is no such explanation. Now, I believe

2 that an expert on databases will be able to explain that the

3 identification number in the database of an individual is the number which

4 was assigned to that person, and that number does not change. This

5 number, for instance, allows, when you go into the database to consult

6 information which concerns that person.

7 I was just saying that there is a second table with information

8 which was provided by family members or witnesses insofar as the missing

9 person is concerned. And in this table, for instance, the victim or the

10 missing person is indicated only by the identification number, which you

11 can find in the table that you have before you. So that is the unique

12 number attached to a person.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be the correct conclusion that we have

14 here 3.237, and from this, you deducted 16 missing numbers, and then

15 coming to the total number of 3.221. Correct?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm tempted to answer yes. But I

17 would nevertheless like to make it more precise. I did not alter the

18 database. And when I printed, this -- these numbers were already erased.

19 But I have not made any alterations, so that if you want to know what is

20 number 16, I do not have that information in the database.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, my problem is: How did you come to the

22 number 3.221 whereas it reads here 3.237?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the manner shown in the list, I

24 transferred the information from one table. And in this document, I could

25 read the number of entries that were made and which corresponds to the

Page 8869












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 8870

1 number of -- to the identification number of the victims. In this Excel

2 number, I could check the actual number of the entries, and it totals

3 3.221.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please understand that I still have some

5 problems with understanding the different lists. Would it be a correct

6 assumption that it would be necessary to compare this list of missing

7 persons from the database Nastradali with the list of missing persons

8 compiled by the International Red Cross updated in the database evidently

9 not yet totally accessible?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This could be done, but one has to

11 see first whether the systems are compatible, that is, whether the system

12 used by the Red Cross is compatible with the database in the Nastradali

13 list. It's a matter of time, of course. And unfortunately, I therefore

14 cannot tell you how long would it take to make such a comparison.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

16 Are there any further questions first from the OTP? Then the

17 Defence can cover both the remaining questions from the last taking

18 evidence as regards this witness, then from the line of questions by the

19 Judges, and then there may be additional questions by Mr. Koumjian.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just a couple.

21 Q. Mr. Sebire, the list in S368 that is entitled "The 96 pages, List

22 of Missing Persons from the Database Nastradali," this was taken from the

23 electronic database you recently received from the organisation of the

24 missing persons for Prijedor. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes, it is.

Page 8871

1 Q. Do you have access or have you ever -- do you have access to an

2 updated database from the International Committee of the Red Cross?

3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.


5 Q. Your answer was not audible.

6 A. No, I do not have access to that database.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may we finally hear the date when this List

9 of Missing Persons from the Database Nastradali was composed or published?

10 First composed, and then published.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the list that you have before

12 you, the date when we received a copy from the database is September this

13 year. I believe it was sometime around the 10th, but I would have to

14 check. When we have a database, one has to say that it is something that

15 is subject to evolution, that is, it could be updated daily. Therefore,

16 the list of information that we have at present is subject to changes.

17 Perhaps it has already been changed since the time that we received it.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But please let me know, when you open an

19 ordinary file in your computer, you can read immediately "updated as at."

20 What does it read there, the last update?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I cannot answer that

22 question for a simple reason: The database is in Serbo-Croatian. I do

23 not read it. I do not know. Thanks to the help of people, I could get

24 the translation of the information that you have before you. But

25 unfortunately, the file and everything else, I do not understand at all.

Page 8872

1 The translation does present a problem because one has to go between

2 different tables. And as far as the date regards, as far as I know, when

3 we open that database, then you cannot see a particular area where the

4 date of its updating would be indicated. So I cannot give you a definite

5 answer.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be honest, I can't understand your answer.

7 Whenever you open a file, it is possible to identify the technical

8 data of this file, how many kilobytes and so on. And there it reads "date

9 of last change." And this would be the date necessary, and no doubt it

10 can be identified immediately. And I'm not prepared to admit this weak

11 document into evidence. But please, any additional questions by the

12 Defence.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

15 Q. Mr. Sebire, along with Branko Lukic, my name is John Ostojic, we

16 represent Dr. Milomir Stakic here.

17 Sir, you note in what has been marked as S366 a comment that

18 states that the authors and scientists mainly do not agree about the

19 number of bodies that a mass gravesite may contain, to be called as such.

20 It's actually on the first full paragraph of this second addition to the

21 report, S366.

22 You provided to us, sir, the actual articles which reference the

23 authors and scientists who disagree as to how gravesites should be

24 numbered?

25 A. Yes, that is correct, and it is indicated it is very difficult to

Page 8873

1 establish finally what is in a mass grave, how to establish it on

2 individual. The scientists disagree as to how one can establish this

3 number. Whatever the case, I have indicated the results with graves

4 containing up to ten bodies or ten and more bodies.

5 Q. My question was a little different. Did you provide us with the

6 actual literature which suggests that scientists and people who work in

7 the area of exhumations actually disagree on how one would calculate

8 gravesites?

9 A. No, that is true. That is not included in the document.

10 Q. In reviewing some of your materials yesterday, both the list of

11 annexes which you provide approximately 16 as well as this addition -- my

12 question to you, sir, is if you can tell me how long it took you to

13 prepare these lists, tables, and annexes as you refer to them?

14 A. It is difficult for me to give you any time that I spent on it.

15 Q. Do you think, sir, that it would be reasonable that it would have

16 taken you approximately a hundred hours to compile the data that you did

17 in connection with the testimony that you provided here today as well as

18 the testimony that you provided previously in connection with this

19 matter? Do you think that's a reasonable estimate?

20 A. I really cannot say yes or no. I spent a certain time preparing

21 this, a new list. But how long did I spent on this list or the previous

22 one, I know that I spent a lot of time doing this but I couldn't put a

23 figure, a quantity, to it.

24 Q. Can you give me an approximation because the Defence is being, in

25 my opinion, limited as to the resources for utilising experts for

Page 8874

1 preparation of our case, and I'd like to just get an idea as to you, as an

2 individual, how many hours you have spent with respect to this particular

3 annex? Do you think you spent more than 50 hours on it?

4 A. Once again, I can only repeat what I replied before, to -- I'm

5 afraid I would be making an erroneous evaluation if I gave you any -- a

6 specific amount of time.

7 Q. That's why I said just give me an approximation, if you can.

8 A. Well, on one working day, one spends a certain time over this file

9 and sometimes over other files that I'm responsible for. It is very

10 difficult for me to tell you exactly how much time I spent doing one thing

11 and how many minutes I spent doing another thing. As for the -- no, it

12 would even be difficult for me to give you even an approximate figure. I

13 simply am not able to answer this question.

14 Q. I understand why you can't. But help me with this, Mr. Sebire:

15 Who in your department or at the OTP can help me find the answer to how

16 much time you, sir, spent in preparing these annexes? If you can't tell

17 us, name the individual for me who can.

18 A. When I said -- what I said was that I couldn't give you an

19 immediate evaluation of the time I spent doing this, and obviously the

20 only person who can answer this is myself. But I cannot give -- it is

21 very difficult for me to give you even an approximate number now.

22 Q. Thank you. Going back briefly to these articles where the

23 scientists are disputing how one should number the various gravesites, you

24 within this Exhibit S366 identified two specific sections.

25 Is it fair -- or you tell me, sir: Is this your summary analysis

Page 8875

1 of how the scientists and authors have decided to define these mass

2 gravesites, either those containing sites of five bodies or less on one

3 hand, and scientists who believe that a mass grave should be considered as

4 sites containing less than ten bodies? Is that basically your summary of

5 the literature as it relates to exhumations and identification of

6 gravesites?

7 A. As regards the first case, that is, with graves with more than six

8 bodies, yes, that corresponds to the general definition provided by the

9 science. The second one is mentioned here, and I do it to give an idea to

10 produce a general picture. Without going further into the explanation,

11 when a mass gravesite contains ten or more bodies, that can give you an

12 idea about that place and the number of bodies that were exhumed.

13 So the first number can be considered as purely information, or

14 information sake. And as you can see, we have done nine exhumations and

15 we found 144 bodies.

16 Q. Help me with this, sir: Did you make an annex or a table, since I

17 know that's something that in the department seems to be fashionable of

18 late. Did you, sir, make a table to identify the 148 sites wherein there

19 was only 1 body found in each of those sites?

20 A. Yes, I think you can find it annex 8 [as interpreted] to my first

21 report.

22 Q. Not in this report, correct? Not in this new report, it's annex 8

23 to your old report. Correct?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. Well, annex 8 in your old report lists approximately, if I'm

Page 8876

1 correct, was it 68 or 69 individuals? Let me get that. Give me one

2 second. Annex 8, page 9, lists 69 individuals, does it not?

3 A. Yes, insofar as annex 8 is concerned, that is right.

4 Q. Maybe I'm not asking an articulate question. I'll try to just

5 break it down into a simple form so I can understand. It's by no means to

6 suggest that it's a criticism. You found or your data provides that there

7 was 148 number of sites. Correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Out of those 148 sites, in each site, 1 body was found. Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That totals, based on your third column of your report, S366, 1

12 times 148 equals 148. Correct?

13 A. Absolutely, yes.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just interrupt. There is a

15 misunderstanding probably caused by translation. On page 20, line 14, it

16 reads: "Annex 8." The witness said, I think, annex 1. So may it please

17 be corrected.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Just so we get it clear, Mr. Sebire, the 148 names are listed in

21 which annex?

22 A. There is no annex that lists 148 names. You will find in annex 1

23 the sites of exhumation, the number of exhumed bodies. That's what you

24 will find there.

25 Q. I recognise that. And that's why I want to ask the question five

Page 8877












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 8878

1 minutes ago. What annex do I need to look at to find the 148 names that

2 were found in these individual gravesites that were exhumed?

3 I asked you, I think, if you did that, you pointed me to an annex,

4 which I misunderstood. You've clarified it. I appreciate it. But we

5 look at the annex now based on the clarification, and it doesn't quite get

6 me where I want to go. Did you, sir, prepare an annex listing the 148

7 individuals who were buried in these individual graves? Yes or no.

8 A. No, there is no specific list listing those 148 names.

9 Q. Why not?

10 A. The lists that were handed out were lists that were compiled per

11 incident. And those incidents were given to me by the Prosecution. And

12 after my first testimony, I was asked to go back to those lists and to

13 review them and to look only at the names of people who were reported

14 missing or who were killed during those incidents. And this is why I

15 presented to the Court those documents.

16 Q. Help me with this: In your definitional phase or process in

17 completing these reports, particularly Exhibit S366, how do you define a

18 gravesite?

19 A. I am not too certain if I understood the French translation of

20 what you just said. Would you please repeat your question.

21 Q. How do you define a gravesite?

22 A. It all depends of the number of bodies. If it's more than one

23 body, obviously it will be a gravesite. Depending on the way the person

24 was buried -- I'm not too sure that I understood your question. I'm

25 sorry.

Page 8879

1 Q. I'm trying to really make it a basic question. And I'm not asking

2 you to define for me a mass gravesite or an individual gravesite. I'm

3 looking for you to define the word "gravesite" if you know, sir. Your

4 analysis seems to contemplate it, you have it in there. You seem to

5 suggest, although I don't want to be presumptuous, but you seem to suggest

6 it would depend on the number of bodies in the actual ground, does it not?

7 A. No. Not really. If the number of bodies should be taken into

8 account, the circumstances of the burying of the body or bodies and

9 depending on the way the people were killed or the person was killed, of

10 course, all these elements would have to be taken into account when one

11 defines exhumation site.

12 Q. I couldn't agree with you more. But if we have a hole in the

13 ground -- and forgive me for being so basic about this. If we have a hole

14 in the ground, do you define it as a gravesite? Or does it have to have a

15 body in it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Which? It has to have a body in it?

18 A. I would answer yes, of course. If you don't have a body that's

19 buried, I don't see how you can possibly not call that a grave.

20 Q. I agree with you. Why, then, do you list as two gravesites with

21 no bodies in it and trying to inflate the numbers as to the number of

22 gravesites that were purportedly exhumed? If there's no body in it, as

23 you say, sir, why do you list two gravesites? Under your definition, we

24 should reduce that not only from 261 as you told us several weeks ago, but

25 it should really be reduced to 258, shouldn't it?

Page 8880

1 A. No, because if you remember while we were discussing the Kevljani

2 gravesite, the archaeologists found bodies, and they were able, through

3 various traces, to show that there was actually a body there at some

4 point. The fact that there is no body during -- at exhumation does not

5 mean that there was not a body before.

6 Well, if you ask me a question: If you necessarily have to have a

7 body in order to describe it a as a grave, I would say yes. But if the

8 grave was robbed or the body was removed, it's a different thing. You

9 could have an individual grave or a mass gravesite without one single

10 human remain. But indications can show us and experts that at some point

11 it used to be a grave. Does that answer your question?

12 Q. I think it does, but you're not an expert in that area. Correct?

13 A. That is correct. I am an investigator. I work for the Office of

14 the Prosecutor. I am not an expert. My report only summarises the work

15 of people that was done by the Bosnian commission for tracing missing

16 persons, archaeologists, and other colleagues from the OTP.

17 Q. Thank you. In connection with what you just previously said

18 moments ago that you would look to determine where the body was placed,

19 how it was buried, of the 148 individual graves that you list on

20 Exhibit S366, can you show me or point to me to the annex which would

21 identify the position, cause of death, date of death, or any of that type

22 of information with respect to those 148 individual graves?

23 A. No, you will not -- there is no annex for that. If it's -- if you

24 allow me, I would just like to say that for -- for those 148 sites, 1 body

25 was found, and we have not been able to establish a link between the

Page 8881

1 incidents that are mentioned in the indictment and that particular body.

2 If I cannot make a link and establish clearly the time of death or if

3 these people who were exhumed are in direct or have a direct link with the

4 people that are enumerated in the indictment, it's a different thing. And

5 this is why this list was not actually included.

6 Whether we're talking about a gravesite with one body or two

7 bodies, it could be done. And in that case, I would be able to give you a

8 list of 1.252 names for causes of death, whether they are known or

9 unknown.

10 Q. It would have been an interesting list, but that's not the point

11 here. With respect to these 1 --

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Excuse me, Your Honour. I don't think it's fair

13 not to indicate that we told the Defence at the beginning, and Mr. Sebire

14 and we did, that there's over 50.000 pages of documentation which is

15 available to the Defence to inspect. Mr. Sebire's report is obviously a

16 summary. But the implication that it's his fault for not including that

17 data, it is available to the Defence any time to inspect. His report is

18 obviously limited and it is not 50.000-plus pages.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, I think this should be taken into

20 account.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: If the Defence knew approximately how much time it

22 would take maybe to digest the information, we might be able to assess

23 whether or not we should or should not. But be that as it may, may I

24 proceed, Your Honour.


Page 8882

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

2 Q. Sir, in my attempt last night to reconcile the various OTP

3 witnesses that have been presented here and in trying to reconcile

4 Dr. Tabeau's listing of the number that are missing, when I look at her

5 report, she lists, and as she has testified I think consistently, 1.731

6 individual victims from the Prijedor Municipality. From your report, both

7 the prior one and this one, you seem to give a range of approximately

8 1.054 to 1.252. You both, at least from my review of it, relied upon the

9 same primary and secondary sources.

10 Can you explain to me, sir, the discrepancy, not in number, but in

11 how you can come up with a drastically different number than Dr. Tabeau?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. This witness is an expert on

13 Dr. Tabeau's report. And in fact, even the question misstates

14 Dr. Tabeau's findings as far as that number of victims because it does not

15 indicate -- she indicated she linked 1.731 victims to the 1991 census,

16 which is something Mr. Sebire has no expertise in.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, don't exchange arguments at this point

18 in time. Indeed, it's correct that it was not the remit for the witness

19 before us to compare one report with another.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.



23 Q. You list, sir, in your annex that according to the information

24 that you reviewed and you relied upon that there were 99 individuals who

25 are said to have died in combat activities. Do you see that? It's on

Page 8883

1 annex 2 of your report, S367.

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Is that something that I could rely upon as being a thorough

4 analysis that's complete, or should I rely on another OTP witness, let's

5 just pick a name, say, Mr. Brown, who said that there were 80 such persons

6 who died in combat activities?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Again, same objection.



10 Q. Let me turn to, and I tread on some thin water here, Mr. Sebire,

11 to turn to an exhibit that has not been asked to be introduced into

12 evidence, that is not yet evidence, and that is the list, but I have a

13 couple questions on it anyway.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the purposes of the transcript, let's call

15 it provisionally S368.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. This provisionally S368 which is the list of missing persons from

18 the database Nastradali, can you tell me, sir, when this list was

19 completed?

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Already asked and not answered. We expect the

21 witness to prepare this during the break.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Of the ten columns that you prepared rather exhaustively of this

24 list, can you identify for me or explain to me why you do not have a

25 column of information such as date of when this missing person was last

Page 8884

1 seen?

2 A. It's what I tried to explain at the very beginning of the day

3 today, is that this information is contained in a second chart. And that

4 unfortunately, I was not yet able to transfer that information in the

5 chart that you have before you, because the victims that -- because the

6 victims are identified by their code number. So I have to go through a

7 huge amount of documents in order to be able to transfer that information

8 in to that chart and to eliminate the information, the information with

9 regards to the people who have given that information, that is, to

10 eliminate their name, their telephone number, and their address.

11 Q. What other data are you providing in this chart that you still

12 haven't completed, other than the date of when these missing people were

13 last seen?

14 A. The level of relationship between the person that gave the

15 information and the disappeared person, the missing person, the number of

16 identification of the person that gave the information; it's all that kind

17 of data. And as I said, that chart is now available, but it was not yet

18 linked to this one because when we talk about a missing person, in the

19 chart which contains the names of the next of kin that reported the person

20 missing, we have to take into account that we have all these informations

21 to deal with.

22 Q. Is there any other data, as you sit here, that you're going to

23 include in this chart or table or annex as you call it?

24 A. As I stated earlier, I was not able yet, on the one hand because I

25 do not read the language, I do not speak the language in question, I was

Page 8885












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 8886

1 not able to go through all the charts that comprise this database.

2 Q. Is there any other -- my question was, though: Is there any other

3 data as you sit here that you are going to include or have included in

4 this additional or new annex or chart that you have not completed yet?

5 A. The information that would be, according to me, preferable to

6 indicate is the date and the place of disappearance, of course.

7 Q. I agree. Date of disappearance and place of disappearance. Will

8 you, sir, in this chart that we have provisionally marked as provisional

9 S368 include those two columns for us, both the date of the missing person

10 was last seen as well as the place the missing person was last seen?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I object because it's not evidence. I don't know

12 if he is tasking Mr. Sebire, but we plan to rest our case today. And --

13 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may respond, Your Honour. I'm not tasking him

14 to do it. I thought he was going to maybe even supplement it, but that's

15 fine. I'm not asking him to do it. I think we'll stand on that.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Totally correct. It may be for the Defence

17 later to go in more details or even the Chamber to ask for additional

18 information, if necessary. But I think once again, step by step, until

19 now, we can't even with certainty identify what we have before us. And I

20 think this is appalling.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We have no further

22 questions. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then before the break, may I kindly ask you,

24 Mr. Sebire, to try to find out. You told us that it was in B/C/S, and I

25 know on the basis of a lot of work and it was difficult for you to prepare

Page 8887

1 all these documents we wanted to be provided with. But nevertheless, do

2 us one final favour and try to find out with the help of a technician and

3 a person of, yes -- able to speak B/C/S or to read B/C/S the date of the

4 last update of this file you have received. This should be no problem.

5 And if you can confirm this immediately after the break, then we can

6 conclude your hearing and then decide on the admission of this document

7 provisionally marked S368.

8 So now it's for me, once again, to ask the parties "sine ira nec

9 studio" to try to come to an agreement on the Prosecutor's eighth notice

10 for admission of transcript. There are three possibilities indeed. One

11 could say: Why now we are dealing with the testimony in the Simic case as

12 of February 2002? And I hope it was only negligence in the entire office

13 of the Prosecutor that we were only now provided with this. But we have

14 to come to a final decision. And as mentioned before, one option is the

15 Prosecution withdraws or, insisting, we would have to continue on Tuesday

16 morning. Or taking into account that Mr. O'Donnell was already in the

17 Simic case cross-examined, and I wonder if there would be any added value

18 of a cross-examination because it's not specifically related to the

19 Municipality of Prijedor and the case against -- versus Dr. Stakic. That

20 would be of some added value to have this cross-examination. But it's for

21 you to discuss this, and please let us know immediately after the break.

22 We start again at 11.25.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.53 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

Page 8888

1 May we, Mr. Sebire, hear whether or not you were able to find out

2 the date of this document Nastradali. It seems to be a translation of the

3 word "victim."

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last time this database was

5 modified was on the 2nd of September, this year.


7 Any additional questions to this witness?

8 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour. Thank you.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is not the case. Then, I thank you for all

10 your efforts. And you're excused. And may the usher please escort the

11 witness out of the courtroom. Thank you.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the meantime, we have to discuss the

14 admission. We know now at least the date. And we are aware that the

15 value is limited to that extent that another file including additional

16 information is today not available. Under these circumstances, any

17 objections, under these reservations we are aware of?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to provisional S368,

19 we do have an objection.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please give some reason additional to that.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Our objections are three-fold. One, the document,

22 as we just learned from Mr. Sebire, was prepared well in advance of the

23 deadline that was imposed by the Chamber with respect to documents to be

24 produced and submitted for admission. It clearly falls outside the

25 deadline imposed by the Court last week.

Page 8889

1 Secondly, as the Court I believe has noted, the document is not

2 only incomplete, but by virtue of its incompleteness does not provide the

3 Defence an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on issues that might

4 be of significance.

5 Third, which is a compilation of both one and two, we believe with

6 the late filing and the fact that the Defence would be denied an

7 opportunity to cross-examine on specifically the issues relating to the

8 purported date that the individual was last seen as well as the place

9 where the individual was last seen, we believe that that would constitute

10 prejudice to the Defence and would not guarantee that the Defence would

11 have a fair trial in connection with this exhibit and these issues.

12 For these reasons, Your Honour, we ask that provisional S368 be

13 denied.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Prosecution.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we submit to the Bench the document

16 was provided because we received several communications through the

17 Court's legal officer that the Chambers wished the electronic, the latest

18 version of this book. The book, I believe, that is in evidence is, I

19 believe, a 1998 version, six years after the conflict, and does contain

20 the information that Mr. Ostojic was asking about. And there may be some

21 slight difference in names. I think, actually there's about seven fewer

22 names in the new database, so either duplicates were removed or some

23 individuals were discovered, but we submit it to the Bench.

24 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Knowing that this document is not a complete

Page 8890

1 document, as there is evidently additional file giving more insight and

2 facilitates the understanding of this document, with all these

3 reservations, and bearing in mind that it will be possible during this

4 case to have this additional information, this document is admitted into

5 evidence as S368. We are aware of the limited probative value of this

6 document.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: May I be heard, Your Honour. Based upon the Court's

8 ruling, the Defence would like, as we have previously requested and

9 inquired, that it, too, be provided with the electronic form version of

10 the material so that --

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we please come back to this point. I have

12 still on the agenda access to this file. I don't know whether it's

13 possible to print out everything or whether it's better to have access to

14 this. We should discuss this issue, please, later.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's now turn to the eighth notice on the

17 admission of evidence under Rule 92 bis. May I ask the parties: Did you

18 come to an agreement?

19 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honour, we did discuss with the OTP

20 the position of the Defence. The Defence attorneys have met and have

21 consulted with Dr. Stakic in connection with that. We have decided that

22 we will not be asking cross-examination questions to Mr. O'Donnell today

23 or Tuesday.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So in result, you don't object to the admission

25 of these transcripts under Rule 92 bis. Correct?

Page 8891

1 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour, we actually do object, as stated

2 earlier. And we would like to stand on our objection.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you please repeat.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: The objections with respect to the Prosecutor's

5 eighth provisional motion - I know I'm not identifying it by its accurate

6 name - we believe Your Honour for a number of reasons should not be

7 admitted. As the Court well knows, the burden of proof is on the OTP to

8 establish each and every element within the fourth amended complaint.

9 At the commencement of these proceedings on April 16th, they had a

10 witness who interpreted and gave some testimony in connection with the

11 document, namely, as we have called it, the variant A/B document. The

12 document at that time over our objection was admitted. At no earlier

13 point could the OTP have known specifically that the defendants were going

14 to object to this, but they certainly knew during the first week of April.

15 The OTP has made a conscious decision not to call witnesses in

16 connection with this document, despite our objections. The OTP also

17 consciously made the decision to call a witness by the name of Mr. Bernard

18 O'Donnell in this case relating to matters specifically with Dr. Stakic,

19 and yet chose not to inquire about the document identified as variant A

20 and B.

21 The OTP apparently, in hindsight has now reviewed the testimony,

22 the evidence that has been presented, and feel at the eve of the closure

23 of their case in chief that there's some necessity, despite the fact that

24 the document has been admitted over the objection of the Defence, to

25 provide the Court with what we think is some additional evidence outside

Page 8892

1 the parametres of this courtroom in connection with that document.

2 The Defence will incorporate, as we did during the presentation of

3 Dr. Donia's report, the reasons why, among others, we objected to the

4 variant A/B report -- document. We think and continue to maintain that a

5 proper foundation for that document was not laid. We believe that the

6 document is not authentic, as we have highlighted in early April of this

7 year, for a number of reasons. We believe there has been no nexus or link

8 to this document by any witnesses who came from or around the Prijedor

9 Municipality. We believe that there was a conscious effort by the

10 military analyst not to review this document, despite the fact that he

11 tried to opine under oath that there was some linking or relationship

12 between the civilian and military authorities. One can only speculate why

13 that decision was made, but given the opportunity, perhaps we can address

14 the Court specifically our view on that point.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is not the point in time to

16 exchange arguments. I see a certain ambiguity in your arguments. On the

17 one hand side, you object to the admission into evidence of this

18 transcript; on the other hand, you state that based on a discussion with

19 your own client, you don't feel it necessary, as it was suggested and

20 proposed, to cross-examine this witness also on the basis of this

21 testimony in the Simic case.

22 I think under Rule 92 bis, aiming at an expeditious trial, you

23 can't have the choice to say on the one hand side: "No, we object." And

24 on the other, at the same time, say: "But cross-examination is not

25 necessary."

Page 8893












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 8894

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

2 We believe that the OTP under the rules provided by this Chamber

3 has been given a specific deadline, that being that they must close their

4 case this week. We have made our objections with respect to the

5 document. We are confident that we want to stay on those objections, or

6 stand on those objections. We do not believe that at this late stage,

7 given an opportunity to cross-examine would relieve the fundamental rights

8 of both the accused as well as the obligation to proceed in having a fair

9 trial before this Tribunal.

10 We believe, as the Court has asked us several days ago, that the

11 OTP, in fact, has waived their right to present that testimony, that the

12 OTP, in fact, has waived their right to present that evidence. And if we

13 look at 92 bis, the questions of unavailability of witnesses, the factors

14 that constitute why a witness should or should not be brought live versus

15 a 92 bis statement, I dare say and conclude that they are not met.

16 The witnesses that the Defence has consistently throughout this

17 trial, with the direction of Dr. Stakic stipulated to, there was a clear

18 foundation that those witnesses are crime-based; that those witnesses have

19 some issues, some personal, some in other forms and nature; that did not

20 want to testify before the Court. The Defence accepted those, both

21 suggestions by the OTP and incorporated the comments by the witnesses.

22 Mr. O'Donnell does not come within those parametres. What the OTP really

23 wants to do, but don't have the courage to tell the Court, is that they

24 would like to try this case in a vacuum and that they would like to bring

25 in every document, every transcript, all the testimony from all the other

Page 8895

1 witnesses in every case that they have had since the Tribunal's

2 commencement.

3 This case should be tried on the merits of the witnesses before

4 the Court. They have not been prohibited from calling any witness. They

5 had the opportunity as seen to call Mr. O'Donnell. They had the

6 opportunity to question Mr. O'Donnell on this very document. They elected

7 not to. The Defence is electing to stand on their objections and do not

8 believe, respectfully to the Court, that it is inconsistent that we will

9 stand on our objection and advise the Court that we will not be asking any

10 questions of Mr. O'Donnell in connection with his purported testimony

11 relating to the variant A/B document.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the observations by the OTP, please.

13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Joanna Korner for the purposes of the

14 transcript. Your Honours, I'm here because I dealt with this aspect of

15 matters in the Brdjanin/Talic case.

16 Your Honours, the first to say is this: Yes, this was an issue

17 raised in the Dr. Donia, when he gave evidence. We are well aware of

18 that. But in the intervening period, there was a full hearing of the

19 matter in the Simic case and then a ruling on that issue in the Simic case

20 on the 22nd of May. And we were entitled to believe, as we did, that this

21 issue was a closed issue, that it was no longer going to be disputed

22 because it had been raised in all the Bosnian Serb cases effectively, that

23 this document was not what it purported to be.

24 Your Honour, the matter was reraised again for the first time when

25 Mr. Inayat gave his evidence. And it was at that stage that we became

Page 8896

1 aware that much to our surprise, this was still a continuing issue. Your

2 Honour, given the time aspects of this case, we can't call evidence to

3 prove every aspect that may be raised as an issue. But it became clear to

4 us that Your Honours also when I think some questions were asked by Your

5 Honours on this matter, this clearly was still an issue that needed some

6 resolution.

7 Your Honours, that's why we disclosed and made an application

8 under Rule 92 for the transcript of the evidence given by Mr. O'Donnell in

9 the Simic case to be admitted. Your Honour, one of the purposes of Rule

10 92 was to cut down on the necessity for calling evidence that was not

11 going to be a matter of dispute. And it is absolutely clear from

12 Mr. Ostojic's concession that they do not want to dispute that evidence,

13 because they don't wish to cross-examine.

14 Your Honours, therefore, it's a matter of the fairness of the

15 proceedings for Your Honours to make the decision as to whether or not

16 this evidence should be admitted, given that if it is admitted, it's not

17 disputed, and goes to an issue that has been raised in the case, which is

18 clearly a matter of some importance because I failed quite to understand

19 Mr. Ostojic's submission that we wanted to try this case in a vacuum. I

20 think he means the opposite, that what he was actually saying is that this

21 is not Prijedor in itself was not an isolated municipality, but had

22 connections with -- the leadership had connections with the leadership of

23 the SDS, and this document goes directly to that issue.

24 Now, Your Honour, we're perfectly happy to call Mr. O'Donnell if

25 that's what Your Honours or the Defence require, but it appears they

Page 8897

1 don't. In those circumstances, we would submit that it is right and

2 proper, and fair, because there's no prejudice that we can see caused to

3 Mr. Stakic by the admission of this evidence at this stage. So Your

4 Honours, we would ask you to admit this evidence under Rule 92.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Arguments in return?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I know I haven't been clear or articulate or precise

7 from time to time, but quite frankly to categorise our objection that we

8 have made consistently with respect to this document, and then to conclude

9 that we're not disputing the document is something that I cannot

10 comprehend. We do dispute the document. We do object to the document.

11 There's no question the Defence did, in a timely fashion, dispute and

12 object to the admission of that document into evidence. Over our

13 objection, over our dispute, the Court admitted the document. The

14 document is in evidence. I dare say and invite the OTP, having the

15 document in front of them, having the document admitted into evidence, why

16 is there a necessity to call Mr. O'Donnell on such an issue or point?

17 Are they really telling us that there's weight and merit to our

18 dispute and our objection? We've likewise been dismissed on numerous

19 objections. We believe we will continue to stand on those objections. We

20 continue to establish -- we hope to establish that we're correct in the

21 objections that we offered relative to certain documents.

22 Just so that I am clear, and just so that it is precise, we do

23 dispute the variant A/B document, both from a foundational standpoint as

24 well as relevancy, and clearly, as we enunciated, we object to its

25 authenticity. We will, and expect, to make those arguments both orally

Page 8898

1 and in writing when given the opportunity. And we would ask that the

2 Court, because the motion does not adequately, in my opinion, respectfully

3 comport with Rule 92 bis, and since their motion does not, in my opinion,

4 justify why a witness who was called from a document that was objected to

5 approximately six months ago, five months ago, why at the eve and at the

6 close of the OTP's case is it that necessary for them to present evidence

7 from Mr. O'Donnell in another proceeding when they were given a full and

8 complete opportunity to question him.

9 Thank you, Your Honour.

10 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Based on the discussions of the Bench composed

12 of three Judges, and now confirmed by our short discussion when

13 conferring, the Prosecution's eighth notice for admission of transcript

14 pursuant to Rule 92 bis is rejected. The reasons for this are: For the

15 Bench, it was never a question that the authenticity and the content of

16 this document was contested by the Defence. And this document was

17 available since February.

18 It is correct that we have a decision, and we also have taken into

19 account the decision of 22 May, 2002. We have admitted this document into

20 evidence. It is available for everybody. We have already twice prolonged

21 without any request from the side of the OTP their case, and there were

22 all possibilities in the world not to act here under Rule 92 bis but

23 either to include this into Mr. O'Donnell's testimony in chief or to ask

24 him to come in person a second time, but not to substitute his live

25 testimony by testimony in another case not related to Prijedor.

Page 8899

1 No doubt, this variant A and B is not specifically of a special

2 importance for the one or other municipality, but the concrete application

3 in the one or other municipality indeed is the question. And here, I

4 think it's first of all also a question of tracing the document, where was

5 it found and other issues.

6 And based under Rule 90 bis, we have to take into account that 92

7 bis was introduced in order to avoid that victims and witnesses from

8 abroad should not have to come twice and suffer twice, that they have to

9 come back to these heinous crimes they had and they still have in mind.

10 Opposed to this are the other category of witnesses available here in this

11 premises. And therefore, it would be in this case necessary to ask

12 Mr. O'Donnell to testify on this special issue. It was not done, and

13 therefore there is no other room for admission of a transcript.

14 Let's now proceed to other procedural issues. In the order that

15 we don't forget it because it's closely connected to the admitted document

16 S368, we learned about the actual situation that apparently it's difficult

17 to have access to the second part of maybe the same file or a file linked

18 to this file.

19 Is it possible for the Prosecution -- and I think the rights of

20 the Defence are not infringed. They are themselves asking for this

21 additional document, that it, as it is, for example, true for the other

22 report by the writing expert, that we ask the OTP also to prepare or to

23 print out this other part of the document. But please, in a way that

24 it's -- can be read out additional remarks as it was necessary today.

25 Would this be a possible procedure for both parties?

Page 8900

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, it's my understanding that this can't

2 be printed out. It is a database. Various lists could be printed out.

3 The information that's requested by the Defence would probably be on the

4 victim table. I'm guessing that there's a victim table in this database,

5 which would also contain personal information that we do not have --

6 haven't asked the authority of the persons who made -- who gave their

7 addresses and phone numbers, that is, the witnesses who reported the

8 persons missing, for their permission to disclose that.

9 To answer is it possible to disclose the database, certainly we

10 could copy a disk, but we don't -- we're not -- we're certainly willing to

11 comply, but we're not offering that for the following reasons: First,

12 it's not in a working language of the Tribunal. It's in B/C/S. It's a

13 huge, huge database. Second, I don't know how an appellate Court would

14 deal with the database. What is the record if there is a database into

15 evidence? And third is the problem of the personal information of

16 individuals, their individual addresses and phone numbers. But is it

17 physically possible to copy a disk, yes, but for those three reasons,

18 we're not offering it into evidence.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Having understood from

20 Mr. Koumjian the way in which the material that's compiled and held in

21 these databases, as he identifies them, and the Defence quite clearly

22 respects that it is an enormous task.

23 The Defence, including Dr. Stakic on both accounts, respects the

24 privacy of those individuals, and we do have an appreciation for the

25 magnitude of the documents and information collected within these

Page 8901

1 databases. We would formally withdraw our objection and request to

2 provide that information based upon the representations made by the OTP in

3 connection with that.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be honest, it's sometimes a little bit

5 difficult, at least for me, to find out what is the final conclusion of

6 your intervention. You formally withdraw your objection, but what's --

7 you don't want to have, as it was discussed earlier, any kind of access to

8 this database? You are satisfied with this what was provided today and

9 admitted into evidence as S368? Is it this that you want to say?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I believe so, Your Honour, yes. What we are

11 actually -- just so that perhaps I can state it formally, with respect to

12 Document S368, if we can be provided that information on a disk in its

13 limited form as such, as opposed to all the information in the database,

14 which would include, as I think Mr. Sebire offered or suggested and/or was

15 instructed, the place and time individuals were last seen. It is just

16 that working material that we would like, and I believe that that can be

17 provided to us in short order. We do not need the complete database with

18 the 50.000 documents. And with respect to our objection and attempt to

19 obtain that, we are withdrawing our position on that.

20 So once again, it's limited to just the materials that are being

21 offered by the OTP as reflected in S368, but including the supplement that

22 Mr. Sebire will provide to us in the next period of time that the Court

23 instructs him to.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we can't come to a final conclusion of

25 this. I understand that the Defence regards in part the access to these

Page 8902

1 documents as falling under Rule 68. But we have, no doubt, to take into

2 account the personal rights of the victims and witnesses as regards their

3 personal data. And there is a possibility, no doubt, that in camera there

4 could be access to this documentation if possible for Defence counsel, and

5 the Defence counsel, by doing so, can identify the necessary information

6 he mentioned in his statement, but excluding the personal data because it

7 would be for the persons to allow access to this personal data.

8 This could be one way, but it's premature to have a ruling on

9 this. There's an ongoing under Rule 68, and it's not necessary that we

10 discuss this issue definitively during the case of the Prosecutor. Can we

11 agree on this?

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. We may.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: No objection.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's turn to the other technical

15 questions. We asked earlier the Prosecutor to provide the parties and the

16 Bench with stills and of clips from the videotapes S325 and 326.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have the, as I understood this from your legal

18 officer, the clips that were shown in court have been copied. So these

19 tapes contain only the clips shown in court. These are excerpts from 325

20 and S326 -- or the actual excerpts that were shown in court to

21 Dr. Merdzanic.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the stills?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: That is not what I understood the request when I

24 got a clarification. What I was told was that you wanted the tapes

25 actually to play.

Page 8903

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we shouldn't get too sophisticated

2 today. You got the agenda in writing several days, and you can read it

3 from the transcript that it was the Chamber's request.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I asked for clarification because, for example, a

5 still of a clip, a clip is one minute long, the frames -- I don't know how

6 many frames per minute there are. I asked what the Court wanted, and what

7 I was told is the Court wanted the tape of what was actually played in

8 court.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We indicated several portions that we exactly

10 wanted to have. And I didn't believe that there was any reasonable doubt

11 what the request was on.

12 [Trial Chamber and the legal officer confer]

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As it was done earlier, it will be for the

14 Chamber to provide their own clips, and we will distribute this --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, your microphone, please.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. We will provide the clips and present

17 the clips we regard as especially of probative value to the parties that

18 they know what we are discussing.

19 Next question, and it's -- I think it was the first time I

20 mentioned this issue in June, that we asked for the last Prijedor Official

21 Gazette issued before the takeover.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: What we have is what Mr. Corin has told me was the

23 last Official Gazette in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor.

24 It's dated 15 June, 1991.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You tender this document?

Page 8904

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour. A translation request has been

2 made and is pending.


4 Objections?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S369B; and as soon as

7 the translation is available, this will be, then, S369A. No doubt,

8 Mr. Lukic, indicates you have better informations, as to the fact that you

9 live in the close neighbourhood, please let us know and provide us with

10 another Official Gazette, if you can find a later one.

11 MR. LUKIC: I will gladly, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

13 What about Mr. Inayat's check on agency for identification and

14 documentation documents in Status Conference on 19th September. It was

15 the relationship OTP to AID.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, what I instructed --

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. You promised something like an affidavit

18 on this issue, and then the correspondence should also be checked.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I believe what Your Honour requested,

20 what I understood, is that the -- Mr. Inayat check each of the documents

21 that have been admitted into evidence to see if the names of the four or

22 five individuals that the Defence presented a criminal complaint, not a

23 conviction, but a criminal complaint against, involving terrorism and --

24 allegations of terrorism and forging passports in 1995 or 1996, I believe,

25 whether they provided any of the documents that have been submitted to the

Page 8905

1 Court in this case. He did that, and we do have a declaration from him

2 regarding that.

3 I know that I did check the transcript, and Mr. Ostojic at that

4 Status Conference - I don't have the exact words in front of me - but

5 asked, he said he wanted the correspondence checked also. That was his

6 request. I'm not sure what that meant, and frankly, I did not intend to

7 comply with his request. I didn't understand that to be an order from the

8 Court.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be on the safe side, you mention a document

10 by Mr. Inayat.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. May it be distributed. We can distribute it

12 now.


14 MR. KOUMJIAN: And also, just to explain this, this would also

15 cover List 7 and 8, Mr. Inayat's declaration that he sourced List 7 and 8.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: We haven't had an opportunity, Your Honour, to

18 review this document and submission by Mr. Inayat. We would ask that the

19 Court just give us a few moments to thumb through it, and then we can make

20 our declaration.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then it will be provisionally marked as, Madam

22 Registrar, please correct me if I am wrong, S369?

23 THE REGISTRAR: S370, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. S370. Thank you.

25 What about S338? I think it was already decided that this report

Page 8906

1 was not admitted into evidence. Correct? Thank you.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence is prepared, Your Honour, to share with

3 the Court our position with respect to Document S370.


5 MR. OSTOJIC: We do not have an objection.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S370.

7 We received the fax from Witness Z related to the documents S290,

8 S292, and S293. We heard that this should be sent by express mail in an

9 original version. Has this arrived?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Ms. Karper is informing me what to say. We have

11 the originals that were received by mail, and the ERN number appears in

12 red. And we have photocopies of those to be distributed.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the originals be shown to the Defence and

14 the Judges.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: For the record, the three documents Your Honour has

16 mentioned are marked with the following ERN numbers: S290 is 0263-3868.

17 S292 is 0263-3867. And S293 is 0263-3869.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we should take care. Apparently from

19 what I can see, we now have more documents than expected and then at that

20 time admitted into evidence. Can you identify the additional documents?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Sorry. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 02633865, we are not seeking to admit that, but that's simply the

23 letter that the witness -- I don't know if I have to give the witness

24 letter, but I believe it was Witness Z -- Witness Z wrote to

25 Ms. Sutherland. I think actually it would be better not to admit that

Page 8907

1 since... And the following page, 02633866 is indicated as a receipt for

2 the cancellation of residence.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Here, we have to attach a new exhibit number.

4 Correct?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: My understanding is that that was not an exhibit.

6 THE REGISTRAR: The next number would be S371.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So the ERN number 02633866 would have the

8 Exhibit Number S371. Objections?

9 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we ask that this document be translated into

11 English.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Certainly. May we request -- it has already been

13 requested. May I also request that these three or four documents be

14 sealed since it was a protected witness whose name appears on the

15 documents.


17 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted under seal. And let us, then, take the

19 next ending with 867, we already had it. It was 263. And I think it's

20 appropriate to have this as 263-1.

21 THE REGISTRAR: I'm sorry. The ERN number ending 867, if I

22 understood correctly, is S292-1.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right, yes. Sorry.

24 868, this would be 290-1. Correct?

25 And 869 would be 293-1. Correct?

Page 8908

1 And then 870, I think once again, a new document. Correct? Is it

2 identical with 02633866?

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry. My understanding is, because I don't

4 have that in front of me, these items were both faxed and sent by mail.

5 So I think Your Honour is looking at now another set of the same

6 documents. I don't think there's any necessity to admit those.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. So I think we have also settled also

8 this small problem.

9 Anything -- no, the letter. If not, the Defence wants the letter

10 as such admitted into evidence?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

13 Now, then, the more easier exercise would be there was a request

14 by the Defence to admit into evidence 97 documents. Are they tendered?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: We have, with the assistance of the usher and the

16 Madam Registrar, we have tendered those documents, Your Honour. We have

17 not numbered them. We did not anticipate if the Court's going to place a

18 dash and did not want to be presumptuous if they are going to get a

19 different number or a number with a dash following it. So they are not

20 numbered but tendered.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask Madam Registrar to give me the letter,

22 the accompanying letter. I think it was D29 or D30. Yes.

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm just wondering why the letter which

24 I signed, which is a formal letter, is going into evidence? It's

25 absolutely no issue in this case. It's not a relevant document, other

Page 8909

1 than I was signing a letter to disclose these documents to them. Unless

2 Your Honour has a massive desire to make my letter an exhibit, I would ask

3 that it's not made an exhibit.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, yes, I don't want to quote --

5 once again, it's already admitted into evidence as D29. And my proposal

6 is that, if the parties can agree with this, that it follows D29, and then

7 the disclosure number. That would mean the first document, D29-1060, and

8 following. Then we have no other numbers on this. And concluding with

9 D29-1157.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: That would be acceptable with the Defence, Your

11 Honour.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections against this package solution to

13 have this as D29-1060 until D29-1157.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: No objection, but Ms. Korner asked me to admit that

15 I am the signator of this letter.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can read SR, or za. It's a za. Let's agree

17 on this. So thank you.

18 Then let's turn to that what I would like to call List 8, the last

19 sample of documents. This, I don't know whether or not you have the same

20 order. We have a number of documents in B/C/S only in the beginning. Can

21 we have some explanation on these documents in the beginning. Official

22 Gazette, 1/93 it starts with.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe that was a document just provided to Your

24 Honours, that Your Honour had requested -- I'm sorry, no, it's not. I'm

25 sorry.

Page 8910

1 Is this actually List 8 or list --

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Until now, we didn't call it a list. It was --

3 here it reads: "Final OTP documents." And there we have the Official

4 Gazette in Cyrillic of -- number 1 of 1993, page 28.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: We'll check to see if there is a...

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The ERN number is 00144595.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, there is a translation of that - thank you,

8 Your Honour - and Your Honours should have it. It begins -- the

9 translation has the number 03068412 and has -- begins with decisions 14

10 and 15, and then the next page includes 16 and 17. If you don't have it,

11 we can provide more copies. But it should be in your list. Again, it's

12 03068412 and 8413.


14 MR. KOUMJIAN: In a few minutes, we can have more copies brought

15 down.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't want to rely on this. Maybe indeed you

17 have provided us with a translation, but unfortunately we haven't present

18 this document. Fortunately enough, the Defence at least is able to decide

19 whether or not to object against the admission into evidence this Official

20 Gazette, page 28 of Volume 1, 1993.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then admitted into evidence. The next number

23 would be?

24 THE REGISTRAR: S372, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S372B, and the English version, A.

Page 8911

1 The next document I have before me has -- it's a compilation of

2 several documents. It starts with P0055294.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe, Your Honour, these are multiple copies

4 of other documents, other Crisis Staff decisions, beginning with those

5 that were referred to in Mr. Corin's report, or in the spreadsheets.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the last document here included is, yes,

7 from Kozarski Vjesnik. I can't identify. It's from 5 June, 1992.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. And the specific article is the one "Hapsinje

9 Plec Kasa" [phoen]. In the bottom middle, it talks about a Crisis Staff

10 decision of June 2nd, 1992. We're looking for a translation of that.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All these, I think, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pages are

12 already tendered and admitted into evidence on the basis of this Cyrillic

13 script. Unfortunately, I can't identify this.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: We would tender them now. These are -- as I

15 understand it, Mr. Corin put these particular documents together. In our

16 spreadsheets we indicate that some decisions we have multiple copies of.

17 So these are copies of decisions we already have in evidence, but a

18 different copy. They may be -- they should be in Mr. Inayat's sourcing

19 spreadsheets -- excuse me, we are not in Mr. Inayat's. They are referred

20 to in Mr. Corin's report or the Team 1 spreadsheet.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So our understanding is that these documents

22 were in another copy already admitted into evidence, and then we would

23 attach -1 or -2 or the next dash available. Correct?

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: I can give the exhibit numbers that I understand

25 these are copies of. The Document P0055294 is another copy of S84.

Page 8912

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S84. So it would be -1. Then 55289.


3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 176-1. 55287.


5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S84-1. 55292.


7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -1. 48605.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: S69, 6-9.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -1. And then 00319269.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: That has not been admitted yet, but that -- the one

11 article that we are requesting is the one referring to the June 2nd Crisis

12 Staff decision, quoting it.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Translation into English will follow

14 immediately?

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm afraid, and it may be that we have it

17 already admitted this --

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: We believe that other articles on the same page may

19 have been admitted, but not this article.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we would need the next number. This would

21 be S37...?

22 THE REGISTRAR: 373. I think there is a problem because we have

23 two documents which you mentioned at S84, but they are different. ERN

24 ending 294 and ERN ending 287, in this compilation. On the transcript it

25 says they are S84-1, both of them. But they are different documents.

Page 8913

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please follow it. I tried to -- maybe the

2 transcript is incorrect.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: It was our error. And I think we can check and

4 correct that in a moment.

5 Yes, actually S84 contained two pages, two decisions. Is it 84?

6 And these two documents are both part of S84.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then, for clarification, 55294 would be

8 indeed -1. And 55287 would be -2, if it's correct that it's the front and

9 the back side of the same document. Correct?

10 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise again. We already have -1 as a colour

11 copy. So instead of 1 and 2 today, we would have 2 and 3.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Excellent. Thank you for this.

13 So that the transcript is not ambiguous, 55294, S84-2. 55287,

14 S84-3.

15 Objections against this bundle solution?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence under the numbers

18 mentioned before.

19 Then it follows committee international de la Croix Rouge -- some

20 Red Cross documents. And may I ask for some comments on the probative

21 value of these documents for the case before us?

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I believe what we were trying to do is

23 to respond to requests from the Court regarding reports of international

24 organisations, and I thought the Court might have mentioned specifically

25 the Red Cross. These are simply a collection of the 1992 press releases,

Page 8914

1 all of them that we have, from the Red Cross. Obviously, many of them do

2 not relate to this case. Overall, they would go arguably to the

3 widespread and systematic, but looking through these, there are only a few

4 that would actually relate to even that issue.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be possible to withdraw?



8 Then the next, Kozarski Vjesnik of 14 August, 1992. We have the

9 English version, and this is in the war edition of Kozarski Vjesnik of --

10 where can we find the date here? 14th of April, 1992. The article in the

11 three first columns in the middle, in the upper part of this Kozarski

12 Vjesnik page, only this will be admitted. If there are no mandatory

13 objections?

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, we're just unclear, is it the 14th of

15 August or 14th of April, 1992? Because we did not receive the 14th of

16 April or --

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the document, it reads 14th of August, 1992.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour. Thank you.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S374A and B

20 respectively.

21 Then I have some problems with the following documents: As I

22 understood the policy of the Office of the Prosecutor until now, the

23 following documents, especially the Prijedor report prepared by Sophie

24 Hanne Greve and others, were the observed at the point of departure for

25 investigation. But I think we discussed it earlier having not only these

Page 8915

1 documents before us, but all available documents published by the United

2 Nations on these issues. And it's not -- this list of documents is not at

3 all exhaustive. But it's -- you can't really call it hearsay -- it's a

4 report that led the OTP to investigations and the result of these

5 investigations were presented in court, be it by documentary evidence, be

6 it by witnesses' testimony. So therefore, I think it is not necessary and

7 it's not of assistance, and it may reopen the case if the Defence, for

8 example, requests an examination or cross-examination of Hanne Sophie

9 Greve.

10 And therefore, may I ask in this case first the Defence, what is

11 your position on these documents?

12 MR. OSTOJIC: We do have an objection to those documents, Your

13 Honour. And in addition to those that the Court has indicated that we

14 may, we also believe that the documents that the OTP specifically with

15 Madam Sophie Hanne Greve, it falls well outside the parametres of the

16 fourth amended indictment. It, in fact, discusses specifically our client

17 Dr. Stakic in connection with dates in 1993 through 1996. We would

18 strongly object to the admission of that document and those documents into

19 evidence.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be possible for the OTP to withdraw

21 having in mind that we have now far better evidence and more direct

22 evidence than reflected in this United Nation reports?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, at least as far as the pre -- if I can

24 deal with them separately. First, it was our understanding that the

25 Chamber had requested these -- perhaps we misunderstood. The Greve

Page 8916

1 report, I certainly would agree with you, it was not our original

2 intention to present that, and although it certainly deals with factors of

3 relevance here, we think we have presented much more direct evidence

4 regarding the same events. So we have no objection to withdrawing that.

5 As for the United Nations reports, we believe that these are

6 relevant, particularly to the issue of deportations, because they do show

7 a pattern particularly in northwestern Bosnia that the United Nations was

8 trying to deal with throughout 19 -- the summer and fall of 1992 of mass

9 numbers of individuals being expelled or deported from this area. And we

10 think that the perspective of the agency that was trying to deal with this

11 mass exodus is relevant.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're referring now to the Mazowiecki reports?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, exactly, Mr. Mazowiecki's report.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Mazowiecki 1, 2, 3. I think indeed this

15 is -- it is difficult to understand this as evidence because I think it's

16 public domain, it's public knowledge, that these documents exist. And

17 yes, may I have separate observations as regards these Mazowiecki reports,

18 the three.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 With respect to the report that the OTP has suggested has some

21 relationship to the count relating to deportation, we do object. We think

22 the evidence that was called is the evidence that they should rely upon

23 and should not be supplemented by extraneous reports such as these.

24 We also believe as we have suggested earlier that if they wanted

25 to submit the report, it could have been submitted by one of their experts

Page 8917

1 who dealt with specifically population movement and demography, Madam Dr.

2 Tabeau. They chose not to. We believe they also could have submitted

3 this document as possibly 92 bis. They did not. To submit the document

4 now we believe, Your Honour, respectfully, would violate our rights to

5 confrontation with the witness and our right to cross-examine the

6 witness. We believe as a consequence of that that we would be denied our

7 right to have a fair trial, specifically relating to that count, and

8 specifically relating to those documents.

9 So for those reasons, Your Honour, we would ask that the Court not

10 admit the documents into evidence.


12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think -- can I just intervene at this

13 stage, although Mr. Koumjian has obviously been dealing with it. Your

14 Honour, I've had a look at them and I take the point that Mr. Ostojic

15 makes, although they may be useful, we haven't been able to call a

16 witness, they haven't been able to cross-examine on the source of this

17 information. So we'll withdraw those.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These three are withdrawn. And hopefully the

19 transcript reflects that I wanted to express at that point in time, I

20 think it was in June when we discussed this issue, we deliberately asked

21 the OTP whether or not it was the intention to tender these reports

22 because we envisaged already at that time the problems emanating from this

23 report.

24 So let's finally come to the Prijedor report as such, prepared by

25 Hanne Sophie Greve. Do you want to withdraw this document as well?

Page 8918

1 Because to be honest, we have seen far more direct evidence and far more

2 concrete and updated evidence than this final report dated 1992.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, that's what I was addressing earlier, and I

4 think I made the exact same points that Your Honour just made. Again, it

5 was perhaps a misunderstanding on our part but --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then we have a document, Bosnia and

7 Herzegovina, January 1997, the unindicted, reaping the rewards of ethnic

8 cleansing." May I hear -- it's apparently from Human Rights Watch

9 Helsinski. May I hear observations by the OTP and the Defence.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: The material contained within that report, it is our

11 respectful submission, goes far beyond the time parametres in the

12 indictment. It also renders certain conclusions and opinions with respect

13 to individuals that the Defence and Dr. Stakic would not have an

14 opportunity to either test the voracity or credibility and would not have

15 a right to cross-examine. We think we have heard exhaustively - although

16 I'm cautionary in using that word - evidence in connection with

17 Dr. Stakic, as well as the time period involved in the indictment.

18 This report is a summary and conclusion of a group of individuals,

19 or an individual, which we believe is not of assistance to the Court to

20 reach a decision in a criminal proceeding such as this. It is for those

21 reasons we would ask that the report not be admitted into evidence.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Our strong recommendation here would also be

23 that we do what is our mandate, and not to leave it to nongovernmental

24 organisations. Can you agree?

25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we agree.

Page 8919


2 Then the following pages, we recently discussed. These are the

3 faxes we received. Then let's come to the -- that what one could call,

4 once again, public domain. But for the purposes of this case, the Chamber

5 itself alerted the parties that they could not rely on earlier decisions,

6 especially as regards the Room 3 massacre. The only question is: Is it

7 necessary to tender these documents available even on the Internet into

8 evidence, or was it just for the purpose of that we know these

9 documents -- if I could please --

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: If I could just clarify which documents we are

11 discussing.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are discussing in the order first the

13 document from the Prosecutor versus Kolundzija.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Your Honour, it's not our intention to offer

15 those into evidence; they are clearly not evidence. The Defence raised

16 several times a point in court that we think misstated the position of the

17 Prosecution and we simply provided that to the Court, to the Chambers so

18 that the actual agreements would be available. But we agree an agreement

19 between the Prosecutor and a third party is not evidence in this case.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Any objections as regards the

21 authenticity of these nonsigned documents?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

24 I hope, and please, let me know, Madam Registrar and also

25 Ms. Karper, is there anything we left out today? Yes.

Page 8920

1 S217, the CSCE report, Mr. Ostojic wanted to present his

2 objections. This document is not admitted yet.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We objected to the

4 submission of this report because we believe that the evidence that was

5 led by the OTP specifically by the witness Mr. Bernard Mayhew -- no,

6 Mr. Mayhew should satisfy any and all issues relating to the factual

7 background of the involvement of the CSCE, their inspection.

8 We believe this report goes a bit further than the testimony of

9 Mr. Mayhew and covers issues not specifically led by the OTP. By way of

10 example, we would direct the Court's attention to page 8 of that document

11 where there is some discussion, if I can generally categorise it, as

12 identification of persons or armies in uniform dealing with what they

13 would identify as being recognised authorities. Without giving us a

14 proper basis as to who those individuals are, both from the alleged army

15 position and authorities. The Prosecutors did not lead that evidence.

16 To admit this report, we think, would be prejudicial because it

17 does involve facts such as this one which in our opinion do not and should

18 not be given without the right to cross-examine the witness who made these

19 conclusions or gave these opinions.

20 And for those reasons, we ask that Exhibit S217A not be admitted

21 into evidence.

22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I find this a slightly strange

23 objection, I have to say, because when Mr. Mayhew testified, he went

24 through great parts of this report. Your Honours, it's clearly relevant;

25 it clearly deals with the relevant period. Mr. Mayhew gave some evidence,

Page 8921

1 as I recall, though I haven't refreshed my memory from his transcript,

2 about that particular passage that's referred to and about what was seen,

3 confirmed that he had read -- although he didn't write the report, and it

4 accorded with his experiences, and he was probably the most experienced of

5 anyone on this team. And as I say, given that great parts of it were read

6 out in the transcript, I utterly without objection, Your Honour, I fail to

7 see how the document itself should not be admitted into evidence.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As to the fact that report served as a basis for

9 Mr. Mayhew's testimony, and his testimony can only be understood in the

10 context with this document, this document as such is admitted into

11 evidence. We are aware of the objections by the Defence, and no doubt,

12 the Chamber will restrict the use of this document to those parts referred

13 by Mr. Mayhew.

14 Admitted into evidence as S217A, B respectively.

15 As regards S210, the Prosecutor promised to provide an updated

16 index of photographs from 210-1 to 210-21.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: It can be distributed.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That it is quite clear what we have before us,

19 it should be marked S210-0.

20 Document S337. There was a request that at least one copy of this

21 report dated the 9th of September should be prepared in the new version

22 including the corrections specified in court.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have copies for everyone of the corrected

24 version.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And as we handled it earlier, S337-1.

Page 8922

1 There are some outstanding translations, S303-1.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: I look efficient, but I can't take credit. It's

3 available, thanks to Ms. Karper.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S254, translation of the stamp.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: It has also been done.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: D12, in part, should be translations prepared.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 We do have the translated version from B/C/S to English of D12,

9 which I think is a report, the military report, that was relied upon also

10 by Mr. Brown, of Mr. Jusuf Ramic. We are still in the process of

11 photocopying the accurate number of copies to be distributed. We hope to

12 accomplish that within the next 45 minutes or shorter. But I must admit

13 that we didn't have it personally translated. I think it was done through

14 the translating department with the assistance of Ms. Ruth Karper, I

15 believe, and we were given the English version.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Actually, it was an OTP translation, to clarify.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I see this is a coordinated cooperation.

19 S151-1, it was a transcript of video S157, the final translation.

20 The same is true for S151 and 365.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have it in the building. We'll try to locate

22 it.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's time enough to distribute it during the

24 day. And finally, S362, the 8317 Prijedor TO document. There was

25 reference made, but until now it was only a draft translation.

Page 8923

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's not ready yet, the final translation.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, but only for clarification, it's still

3 open.

4 So then, may I ask first of all again, Madam Registrar, do you

5 have any wishes to the party or the Bench? I think S61, it has been

6 shown. It's fine.

7 Ms. Karper? No objections. So please.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Two points, Your Honour. I think there was one

9 additional document that was submitted in that bundle, a single page, with

10 the ERN number 01844975 that we have not yet dealt with. It's from the

11 Internet. It's a report from the BBC, but with -- the source is the

12 Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA. Again, the ERN number is 01844975.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have the English version but not the B/C/S.

14 You have it in B/C/S?

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: It is not translated.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it will be?


18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

19 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S375A and B

21 correspondingly. Any other jewels from the OTP?

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, thank you. We do have translations of

23 Kozarski Vjesnik articles cited in Mr. Donia's report or testimony for

24 distribution.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These documents were already admitted into

Page 8924

1 evidence?

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, and I believe the two parties agreed on which

3 would be translated, and these are the agreed translations.


5 MR. OSTOJIC: We haven't had an opportunity to verify that, but if

6 we do we'll bring it to the Court's attention with respect to whether

7 what's translated is that which we have agreed to. And if the Court

8 doesn't hear from us, I guess we could presume that we would have no

9 objection to those items.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Finally, Your Honour, I believe this witness

12 testify in open session. Dr. Cehajic had -- Your Honour had asked for the

13 witness to fax us something, or the witness had faxed us a document which

14 has now been translated. So it's available to be distributed, the

15 translation.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It has already an exhibit number. Correct? May

17 I hear it.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's our understanding that that is J2 -- no.

19 Correction, correction. Perhaps it has not yet been admitted. We can

20 check with Ms. Sutherland. I'm not sure if this was -- this may have been

21 something she faxed after her testimony.

22 Ms. Sutherland has sent an email indicating it was not yet an

23 exhibit. I think the witness perhaps -- my memory is -- I'm not sure of

24 it -- had mentioned that she would fax this at the request of the Court,

25 and she did so. And now we have the document and the translation.

Page 8925

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then it would be J18, or do we have it already?

2 Objections?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Not with the document's admission into evidence, but

4 we do have, if we can, at this point at least make a preliminary comment

5 with respect to the translated version. We do believe that some of the

6 words such as in the first paragraph where it mentions the lower court,

7 that that is not an accurate interpretation because we hope in the Defence

8 case, if necessary, to present perhaps some document similar to that. So

9 we would like to have it at least consistent with what we believe is the

10 accurate interpretation. With that reservation, we have no other

11 objection, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, J18A and B respectively.

13 From your side, any further contributions?

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

16 From the Defence, the side of the Defence?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Not on these matters, Your Honour, no.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

19 Then as this concludes now the Prosecutor's case, I have to ask

20 Dr. Stakic, do you want to make any comments at this point in time?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

23 As already discussed earlier, on request of the parties, there

24 will be a 65 (i) meeting. And I think it's appropriate to have some

25 refreshment at least. Is it agreeable for the parties that we start this

Page 8926

1 meeting at 2.00 in Room M 149?

2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's acceptable.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. Agreed.


5 This concludes the Prosecutor's case at the 80th day of the case.

6 And the trial stays adjourned until further notice.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

8 at 1.17 p.m., to be followed by a

9 65 (i) meeting