Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19187

 1                           Tuesday, 14 February 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom and

 6     to those following our proceedings.

 7             Before the witness will be brought in, I would like to raise some

 8     procedural matters.  You will have noticed that the Chamber issued this

 9     morning a Scheduling Order setting dead-lines for the final briefs and

10     for end dates for the final oral submissions.  In relation to that, I

11     would like, on behalf of the Chamber, like to inform the parties that the

12     Chamber doesn't intend to call any Chamber witnesses.  Therefore, I take

13     it that this witness and the next witness, who is waiting, will be the

14     last witnesses in this trial.

15             I see Mr. Vanderpuye nodding.

16             I come to another question I would like to raise.  The Chamber

17     intends to hold a housekeeping session next week to deal with the

18     documents on the marked-for-identification list, and any other pending

19     housekeeping matters.  The Chamber hereby requests that the Court Officer

20     circulate an updated MFI list to the parties by tomorrow for purposes of

21     preparing for this housekeeping session.

22             For the housekeeping session, the Chamber requests that the

23     parties update the Chamber on the status of any pending translations; and

24     if translations are still pending, provide dates of when they can be

25     expected.  With respect to all other MFI documents - and there are quite

Page 19188

 1     some - on the list, the Chamber requests the parties to be ready to make

 2     submissions in court regarding their admission.

 3             I would like to discuss with the parties when they will be in a

 4     position to make these submissions orally in court, that means when we

 5     should schedule this housekeeping session.

 6             Mr. Gajic.

 7             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence suggests

 8     that we do this on Monday.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

10             What about the Prosecution; will you be in a position to make

11     your oral submissions on Monday?

12                           [Prosecution Counsel Confer]

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I appreciate your

15     patience.  Any time Tuesday or Wednesday would be fine for the

16     Prosecution.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.  Mr. Gajic, the Prosecutor is

18     proposing Tuesday or Wednesday.  Would that be convenient for you, too?

19             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Well, the Defence has certain

20     commitments and we have to plan our journey to Belgrade, but we would

21     welcome Tuesday.  It is acceptable to us, obviously, if the Prosecution

22     is unable to submit their submissions on Monday.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Tuesday is --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Tuesday --

Page 19189

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President, that's fine.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We are currently scheduled for 9.00 on Tuesday

 3     next week, and all other sessions will then be cancelled.

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

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But, of course, we don't know if we need this

 6     session tomorrow.

 7             And I would kindly invite the parties to make proposals for an

 8     agenda for that housekeeping session.  If there are any matters to be

 9     raised during that housekeeping session, we would welcome these proposals

10     for the agenda by tomorrow.

11             This is all what I wanted to raise before the witness will come

12     to the courtroom.

13             Mr. Vanderpuye, I see you on your feet.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I just have a bit of information for the

15     Chamber regarding Exhibit 562B.  P562B.  There was an error made, and the

16     incorrect document was uploaded, which is described as a 19 July 1995

17     intercept at 2116 hours.  In fact, it should be dated 15 July.  I have it

18     backwards.  The correct intercept is 19 July and what was uploaded was

19     the 15th of July.  And we have also replaced the document with the

20     correct -- with the correct version.

21             The document that's in e-court is 03205338 through 5340.  The

22     correct document is 03205538 through 5540.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please check the transcript.  Is a

24     correction necessary?

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, it should be 03205538 through 5540.  And we

Page 19190

 1     would like to replace the document with the Court's permission.  We

 2     haven't done that yet, but we would like to, because of the error, to

 3     correct it.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, it was already communicated

 6     yesterday to the Chamber and we appreciate this correction.  Leave is

 7     granted to change the attachment, and the Registrar will do his job to

 8     replace the document.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.

11             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, pursuant to Chamber's

12     order with regard to Exhibit D365 marked for identification, the Defence

13     has uploaded two articles from the book --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Gajic please repeat the title and the

15     author of the ...

16             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] 1D1120.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And please repeat the title of the book.

18             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The title of the book is "The

19     Srebrenica Massacre:  Evidence, Context, and Politics."

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this information.  The Chamber will

21     consider this information and take the necessary steps.

22             Anything else before the witness will enter the courtroom?

23             The witness should be brought in, please.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Skrbic.  Welcome back, again.

Page 19191

 1     Again I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth still

 2     applies today.

 3                           WITNESS:  RATKO SKRBIC [Resumed]

 4                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir is continuing his re-examination.

 6             Mr. Tolimir.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 8     Greetings to all present.  Peace be upon this house and I would like the

 9     outcome of this trial to be decided by providence and God's will and not

10     according to my wishes.

11                           Re-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]

12        Q.   [Interpretation] And I also would like to greet Mr. Skrbic and to

13     wish him a pleasant stay in our midst.

14             Mr. Skrbic, yesterday we saw a document in which we saw that one

15     individual was buried at Kazani according to the statements given by the

16     commander and the witnesses who appeared before the court to establish

17     his death.  (redacted)

18     (redacted)

19     (redacted)

20     (redacted)

21     (redacted)

22     (redacted)  Thank you.

23        A.   A DNA analysis of any individual that disappeared and it is not

24     yet known whether this person got killed or was executed can only be

25     conducted after the remains of the individual are found, samples taken to

Page 19192

 1     the laboratory, and an analysis performed.  Therefore, before doing any

 2     DNA analysis, an exhumation of the individual in question has to be

 3     carried out and a sample taken.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Can you please tell us, is it necessary

 5     to identify an individual that had already been identified and buried,

 6     and if there are witnesses who confirmed that he was killed in action and

 7     not executed and we have a confirmation of this fact from the Main Staff?

 8        A.   If a person is buried, then this person is buried under his or

 9     her full name and with other personal details.  They are also buried in

10     line with the customs of the people that this individual belonged to.  So

11     this person cannot be treated as a missing person or a person who

12     disappeared, but, rather, a person who had died in the way that was

13     proven and provided in the course of identification.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Please, since we are talking here about

15     different methods of establishing the facts, can we look at D316 now,

16     which is a judge's report.  (redacted)

17     (redacted)  Now, can you tell me this:  Can the time of death be

18     reliably established through a DNA analysis?

19        A.   I really don't know whether a DNA analysis can establish the time

20     of death as well.  But I do know that once a person is buried, there is

21     no need to conduct any DNA analysis because this person was buried under

22     his real name in accordance with the peoples' customs.  In this

23     particular instance, this was done at the request of the deceased's

24     family.  The relevant court issued a ruling declaring this person dead so

25     that his family can claim certain benefits enshrined in the law with

Page 19193

 1     regard to fallen combatants during the war.  So if there is no such

 2     request from the family, even a court cannot declare a person dead.  Once

 3     this happens, then this person is removed from the missing persons list

 4     and is no longer registered there.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have D166 in e-court,

 7     page 595.  Thank you.

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, what we see here is what Witness Jean Ruez talked

10     about, and this is a section from the transcript where his words are

11     recorded, and I'm going to read it.  I am reading from line 8 to line 17.

12             [As read] "This area has been processed in 1996 by a team of

13     expert from Finland who were operating in that area in 1996, totally

14     disconnected from our activities, they were collecting surface remains.

15     But it's important to note that 600 bodies have been collected in that

16     area.  These are bodies of victims killed in combat, in ambushes, in

17     shelling, and possibly also in other circumstances which are impossible

18     to sort out between -- I mean, for us, at least, between combat and other

19     situations."

20             My question is:  Have you perhaps heard about the information

21     that 600 individuals from the area of Bare had been executed in the way

22     described by Ruez and that their surface remains were found?  This is

23     what he stated when he gave evidence in the General Krstic's trial.

24        A.   I have not heard about this particular incident, but I have read

25     one of the statements given by Mr. Ruez.  As far as I remember, he gave

Page 19194

 1     this statement or this evidence during a hearing before the

 2     representatives of the French parliament.

 3             In addition, I can confirm that Mr. Ruez said at the time -- and

 4     I would really like to give you a verbatim quotation, because it is very

 5     difficult to repeat it without referring to the exact quote.  I'm going

 6     to quote the relevant part of Mr. Ruez's statement.

 7             "At this moment, some 20 secondary mass graves remain to be

 8     exhumed.  We know precisely the position and locations of all of those

 9     mass graves.  For each and every one of them, the contents have been

10     verified.  This means that in each and every of these mass graves we have

11     found mortal remains of several persons, their numbers ranging from 80 to

12     100 bodies.  Most probably, the total number of those persons is over

13     4.000.  We can say that they were killed in cold blood during that

14     systemic and organised process."

15             This is page 5 of Mr. Ruez's statement, number 40307456.  When I

16     read this relevant portion of his statement, I asked myself:  How is it

17     possible that somebody can claim that bodies were found in the graves

18     that were not exhumed; and if those graves were not exhumed, how is it

19     possible to see almost an exact number of bodies?

20             As regards your question, in this portion of Mr. Ruez's statement

21     I can confirm that the agency for research and documentation from Tuzla

22     described the chronology of events surrounding Srebrenica.  And in that

23     chronology, inter alia, it says that a majority of the bodies were

24     exhumed from the territory where combat had taken place during the

25     breakthrough of the 28th Division.  Several bodies from the mass graves

Page 19195

 1     -- and then they go on to list the mass graves, the same one as can be

 2     found in the indictment, Lazete, Cerska, Branjevo, and let me not go on

 3     enumerating them.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Skrbic, for the sake of the record, please

 5     can you tell us to whom this statement of Mr. Ruez was made, and when.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The statement was provided on the

 7     28th of February, 2001 --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter's correction:

 9     22nd February, 2001.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, the

11     statement was provided to the parliamentary commission of the French

12     parliament.  In any case, it was given on the 22nd of February, 2001.

13     I'm sure of that.  And I gave you the ERN number of the first page, which

14     is 40307456.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that.

16             Mr. Gajic.

17             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Relying on the ERN number provided by

18     the witness, I can say for the record that this is Exhibit D40.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

20             Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

21             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Yesterday you spoke about the victims,

23     the remains, and the Prosecutor even showed you the remains that were

24     found in those mass graves, and you have just told us that some people

25     talk about things that cannot be seen.  We asked Mr. Manning to confirm

Page 19196

 1     what Mr. Ruez said, and Dean Manning was one of the witnesses in these

 2     proceedings.  His words were recorded on page 12-- 10219.  I quote what

 3     he said.  A question put to Mr. Manning was this:

 4             "Do you know --" we can't see it yet.

 5             "Do you know where the mortal remains were buried, in which

 6     grave?"

 7             He answered:

 8             "I was not involved in the process.  I can say that the surface

 9     remains were collected and were kept for a number of years in Tuzla, in

10     the salt mine, in the tunnels that had been used as a salt mine."

11             My question is this:  Mr. Skrbic, does this point to the fact

12     that the bodies and the mortal remains were transported to the territory

13     of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  Do you know anything about?

14     Thank you.

15        A.   Yes, I came across such information.  Let me just mention the

16     article entitled "The Icon of Srebrenica."  We already quoted from that

17     article.  In this article it is mentioned inter alia that before 1998

18     thousands upon thousands of bodies were collected from all over Bosnia

19     and they were brought to Tuzla airport and that's where DNA analysis took

20     place.  What you have just read out confirms that.  I'm also aware of

21     that information.

22             Besides, I would like to say that the commission of the

23     Government of Republika Srpska in its own report stated that the

24     commission of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for missing persons is

25     only -- the only body authorised to deal with exhumation of Bosnian and

Page 19197

 1     Croatian victims and that the commission of the Government of

 2     Republika Srpska handed over all the necessary documents about mass

 3     graves to the commission of the federation.

 4             The way I see things, the exhumation commissions could not have

 5     had such a strict authority.  When I say "strict authority," what do I

 6     mean?  I mean that it was not possible that only one commission - and

 7     that was the one from the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina - to be

 8     authorised to deal with exhumations.  I believe that it is fair and it is

 9     only logical for those commissions to be of a mixed composition.  Those

10     commissions should have had representatives of all the three peoples as

11     their members, and exhumations should have been carried out in the

12     presence of international bodies in order to avoid all possible

13     speculations with regard to the exhumations.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.

15             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the last word has just

16     been corrected in the transcript.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sometimes we have to be patient.

18             Mr. Tolimir, please carry.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Yesterday, the Prosecutor asked you whether you studied Janc's

22     report, Dusan Janc's report.  The question was put to you on page 33; do

23     you remember that?  Thank you.

24        A.   I was shown a lengthy report on 7.000 exhumed and identified

25     bodies.  I don't remember that anything else was shown to me.  I already

Page 19198

 1     shared my position on that with you.  I said that I didn't see what

 2     period that list applied to.

 3        Q.   That is what the Prosecutor asked you about.  Do you know that

 4     the author of that collective report put all the victims in the report

 5     without making any distinction between those that were killed in combat

 6     and those that were possibly executed?  Do you know that?

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             If General Tolimir is referring to the report written by

10     Mr. Janc, I would appreciate it if he could give us a cite to that

11     particular point.  My recollection of that report is that it clearly

12     distinguishes between surface remains and bodies or remains recovered

13     from mass graves, several of them.  And in the methodology of that

14     report, it explains which surface remains he considers are associated

15     with the events of Srebrenica and which he considers that are not

16     associated with those events.

17             So if General Tolimir has a particular point with respect to what

18     distinction there is made, if any, between combat casualties and

19     non-combat casualties, it would be helpful if he could put that on the

20     record so that we can identify that.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, could you give a reference for your

22     statement, page 12, lines 4 through 7, which was included in your

23     question put to the witness.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  When he

25     presented his report on the 26th of May, 2011, on page 14679, Dusan Janc

Page 19199

 1     said, on lines 16 to 23, and I quote:

 2             I would say that most of the people, if not all the victims found

 3     in the mass graves were crime victims; they had been executed.  However,

 4     not all surface remains were result of combat.  We know that some of them

 5     were killed and left on the surface and that's where they were found.

 6     Some of them had comitted suicide, which means that they were not combat

 7     casualties, so we can't say that all the 688 surface victims were also

 8     combat victims.

 9             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   My question is this:  Now you have heard the position of the

11     author of that report --

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you will have realised that this is

13     quite distinct from what you put to the witness first.  I would

14     appreciate if you would put these observations or quotations literally to

15     the witness.

16             Please carry on and put your question.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   I'm reading the first sentence:

20             I would say that most of the people, if not all of them, i.e.,

21     all of the victims found in the mass graves were crime victims.  They had

22     been executed.

23             Please, how do you understand this sentence, Mr. Skrbic?  Thank

24     you.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could we please have this part of the transcript

Page 19200

 1     on the screen.  We don't have it.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I would like to call up

 3     transcript page --

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] I think the Court

 5     Officer is working on that.  In the meantime, the witness is invited to

 6     answer.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it can be claimed for

 9     all the victims that they were executed and that they were crime victims

10     only if it has been established really precisely what the cause of their

11     death was, whether the death was forcible death after they were disarmed

12     and captured or in some other way.  Before those details are revealed, in

13     my view, it is not possible to claim that crimes were comitted.

14             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you.  You will remember the Bare report that also concerned

16     the sixth person.  I'm reading the second sentence from Janc's report.

17     He says:

18             "Not all the surface remains were a result of combat."

19             How do you understand this?

20        A.   This is contained precisely in my previous answer.  This means

21     that the bodies that were found on the surface had lost their lives in

22     various ways.  Some were killed in combat, some were killed in inner

23     fighting, some may have comitted suicide.  They could have died in any

24     other way, but this has to be established with a great deal of precision.

25        Q.   My question is this, Mr. Skrbic:  If this was not established

Page 19201

 1     precisely, through exhumations, is it then proper for experts who

 2     compiled collective reports to claim the nature of death of those people,

 3     i.e., what kind of deaths they suffered?

 4        A.   Unless proper identification is carried out commensurate with the

 5     applicable standards, primarily by conducting a DNA analysis - although I

 6     said I'm not very familiar with it - it is impossible to claim that the

 7     cause of death has been established.  Only after the cause of death was

 8     established, then one can say whether the death was caused by a criminal

 9     act or some other act.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And I quote the next sentence:

11             "We know that some of them were killed and were left lying on the

12     ground where they were found."

13             My question is:  When you studied the material relating to

14     Srebrenica, did you come across anyone's statement about people being

15     killed and left lying on the ground?  Thank you.

16        A.   As you know, at the beginning of my testimony I said that I did

17     not explore the issue of victims and how they became victims.  All I

18     managed to find about this matter was of superficial nature, and I use it

19     only for the purpose of trying to prove the exact number of Muslim

20     survivors according to the methodology that I had chosen.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  And I am quoting the last sentence, which

22     says:

23             "Some of them comitted suicide, which means that not all the

24     688 persons whose remains were found on the surface were killed in

25     combat."

Page 19202

 1             Now, my question is:  How many victims were found on the surface?

 2     Is it the number that is quoted in Mr. Janc's report?

 3        A.   I would appreciate if we can define the notion of a victim, and

 4     let us be a little more precise in doing so, because it is a wide notion.

 5     In my report, I used terms such as "executed" and "killed," and I did not

 6     use the term "victims" because even a live person can be a victim.  In

 7     this specific instance that you're asking me about concerning the number

 8     of those found on the surface, it is obvious from the statement of this

 9     gentleman that it is impossible to state with any degree of accuracy how

10     many of that number were executed, how many were killed, how many

11     comitted suicide, how many killed each other, and so on and so forth, and

12     most probably this will never be established.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Skrbic, in this consolidated report, if only

14     688 individuals are considered as surface remains, does that reflect the

15     reality in view of the statements that you made reference to in your

16     report and in your testimony?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19             I'm not entirely sure what General Tolimir means when he says

20     that 688 individuals are considered as surface remains.  Mr. Janc's

21     report deals with DNA-identified individuals, and I'm not sure if that's

22     the context in which General Tolimir is putting the question.  But the

23     numbers that Mr. Janc talks about in his report specifically deal with

24     DNA-identified individuals.  So if General Tolimir is referring to the

25     total number of surface remains recovered, then that's something --

Page 19203

 1     that's a different question than what he's put to the witness.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps, Mr. Tolimir, you can rephrase your

 3     question or please give a reference where Mr. Janc is mentioning

 4     688 individuals considered as surface remains.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm

 6     going to give the reference now.  And I quote the last sentence.  He

 7     says:

 8             "Some of them comitted suicide and were not participating in

 9     combat ..."

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And was it taken from the transcript or from a

11     report, or what you are quoting from?

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am reading the evidence given by

13     Mr. Janc from the transcript which says that:

14             Therefore we cannot say that all the 688 surface remains belonged

15     to the people who were killed in combat.

16             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Now, based on this sentence, can we conclude that all the victims

18     mentioned in his report whose remains were found on the surface were

19     killed in combat?  Thank you.

20        A.   As I understand it, this gentleman is talking about the victims

21     found on the surface and that here he is talking about the number of the

22     victims found on the surface, and it is about them that he says that it

23     is impossible to reliably establish the cause of death.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  If 600 people were found at Bare alone,

25     is it possible, then, that only 88 people were found in the area near

Page 19204

 1     Srebrenica where the breakthrough was carried out as we heard of those

 2     who witnessed this breakthrough?

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I have the same objection.  And

 5     perhaps it will be of assistance to General Tolimir if he were to review

 6     P170, Annex B, paragraph 2, on page 2, and that might help him frame his

 7     questions more accurately in terms of Mr. Janc's testimony and also the

 8     conclusions in his report.  I can read that into the record if it will be

 9     of assistance, but perhaps it will be better for Mr. Gajic to assist

10     General Tolimir in this respect.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed.  It is up to the Defence how to deal with

12     these matters, but of course we all would appreciate, I assume, to have

13     the relevant parts of documents on the screen so that we can follow what

14     you are reading, Mr. Tolimir.

15             Mr. Tolimir.

16             Mr. Gajic.

17             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the portion that

18     refers to surface remains is P170, page 43, in English.  It speaks about

19     688 surface remains that were identified out of the total number of 961.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have that page in English on the screen.  We

21     need it in B/C/S, too.  What is the page in B/C/S?

22             Mr. Gajic.

23             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I'll find it shortly, Your Honour.

24             Mr. President, it's page 60, 6-0.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I take it you are now referring to

Page 19205

 1     the second paragraph in both languages.

 2             Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I was

 4     speaking about the 688 victims who were identified.  We cannot talk about

 5     those who haven't been identified.  The total number of surface remains

 6     is 961.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   My question is:  Is it possible that only 300 were found on the

 9     surface outside the area of Bare given that 600 surface remains were

10     found in Bare?

11        A.   Either I didn't understand the question correctly or, since I am

12     looking at this document for the first time, I cannot give a precise

13     answer because I was unable to fully understand it.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I am going to rephrase it.  The document relating to

15     Mr. Ruez where we read his statement that in Bare 600 people were found

16     and taken to Tuzla and that was done independently from the team lead by

17     Mr. Ruez.  Now Mr. Janc, in the report referred to by Mr. Vanderpuye,

18     Mr. Janc says that 961 surface remains were found, of which 688 were

19     identified.  My question is:  Does this figure include only those found

20     by Mr. Janc, whereas those 600 remains from Bare have not been taken into

21     account?

22        A.   To the extent that I was able to understand your question now,

23     here they are talking about 688 identified persons of which 600 were

24     found in Bare.  Eighty-eight persons had been to be found elsewhere and

25     not in Bare.

Page 19206

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Skrbic, just to understand your answer:  How

 2     do you know that 600 out of 688 are found in Bare?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, a minute ago General Tolimir

 4     said that.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But it's not your knowledge?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  I see this document for

 7     the first time.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 9             Mr. Vanderpuye.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, on the next page of this document

11     that's now in e-court, Mr. Janc has actually set out in detail

12     specifically where these identified surface remains were recovered.  It

13     would be helpful, obviously, to put that to the witness to see if it

14     conforms with his understanding of the events, as General Tolimir has

15     asked him about it, rather than for him to speculate on where these

16     particular surface remains referred to in Mr. Janc's report come from.

17     It's just a matter of flipping the page.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, would it assist you if we go to the

19     next page in both the languages?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In that case let's go to the next in both

22     languages.  If that is the correct page and you want to put a question to

23     the witness in relation to that, please carry on.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 19207

 1        Q.   Mr. Witness, we can see here the names of the locations where

 2     surface remains were found.  Can you see anywhere the name of Bare?

 3        A.   No, I haven't managed to locate it.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Does that mean that Mr. Janc did not analyse the

 5     location of Bare in his report at all since he made no reference to it?

 6        A.   Of course.  If he made no reference to it, that means that he did

 7     not analyse it.

 8        Q.   Is it yet another indicator of the fact that it is better to find

 9     how many people survived instead of using the number of deaths?

10        A.   Of course it is better to have information from various sources

11     and quarters, because they can be collated and confirmed as to their

12     accuracy, and then on that basis it is possible to conclude how many

13     people were killed in combat or in some other way and so on.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Skrbic, is it possible for -- that the OTP

15     investigation team disregarded the 600 surface remains found in Bare and

16     that they were never put to you yesterday during cross-examination?

17     Thank you.

18        A.   All the information relating to the number of people either

19     killed or executed must be presented and must be taken into consideration

20     with a view to arriving at a final number.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have in e-court D38.

23     Thank you.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Skrbic, it's an interesting statement you now

25     made.

Page 19208

 1             "All the information relating to the number of people either

 2     killed or executed must be presented and must be taken into consideration

 3     with a view to arriving at a final number."

 4             Did you do that with your report?  I mean, to take all

 5     information into account, especially about killed and found dead.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I took into account all the

 7     information regarding Muslim survivors because that was my methodology.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You just said:  All the information relating to

 9     the number of people either killed or executed must be taken into account

10     to arrive at a final number.

11             You didn't do that; correct?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whatever information I had about

13     the number of killed and executed that I found in the indictment, all

14     that I took into account when I did my calculations.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, carry on please.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             Let's look at a document that we called up before the

18     Presiding Judge put his question to the witness.

19             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] You see a document in front of you.

20     Its author is Mr. Tokaca; I'm sure you heard of him.  In the article he

21     says, We found 500 survivors who were registered as missing.  He is the

22     director of AID in Sarajevo.  He stated that in Banja Luka he appealed to

23     everybody with information about survivors, and then I am quoting:

24             [As read] "... regardless of their nationality or religious

25     affiliation who are listed as missing were called to inform all the

Page 19209

 1     relevant authorities IDC or others in order for this information to be

 2     registered if they are not reported."

 3             This is the reporting agency.  And the report was provided on the

 4     31st of March, 2010, and I quote:

 5             "The biggest problem --"

 6             I am quoting from Tokaca's words:

 7             "'The biggest problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina is a perfidious

 8     monopoly on information.'"

 9             Tokaca has said -- pointing out that the IDC wanted to break this

10     monopoly by compiling the Bosnian crime atlas.

11             My question is this:  Did you ever see Tokaca's report before?

12     And if you did, can you perhaps explain what he meant when he said

13     "perfidious monopoly on information"?

14        A.   I had an occasion to see this document before.  When it comes to

15     perfidious monopolies, I really don't know what he meant.  In this case

16     this is in quotation marks which means that Mr. Tokaca did not want to go

17     into much detail.  This is my opinion.  If he didn't -- if he wanted to

18     be very explicit, he would not have left the term under quotation marks.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Let's look at the last paragraph, where it says:

20             "'In the course of our research project on the loss of life, we

21     discovered some 500 people from Srebrenica who were still alive.  We also

22     have information that just over 7.000 persons were killed in the area,

23     but not all of them were from Srebrenica.  There were inhabitants from

24     Vlasenica, Zvornik, Bratunac, Visegrad, and Rogatica, and this is also

25     seen in the fact that we registered 70 people who were buried at the

Page 19210

 1     Potocari memorial centre but who didn't perish in Srebrenica.'"

 2             And he also said:

 3             "We also found 500 inhabitants of Srebrenica who were alive,

 4     and -- although they were listed as missing."

 5             Could this information about 500 people from Srebrenica who were

 6     found alive, could it prove that they were put on the list of missing

 7     persons as it is stated in here?  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10             We've actually seen this document a couple of times during the

11     course of the trial, and I think General Tolimir is well aware that

12     subsequent to this report that Mr. Tokaca gave a statement saying that he

13     was misquoted and that this statement was taken out of context.  It is

14     P1370.  I think it's only fair, to the extent that General Tolimir is

15     aware that Mr. Tokaca effectively retracted his statement, or the

16     statement that's attributed to him in this article, that he put that to

17     the witness in framing the question.  Otherwise it's misleading to the

18     witness and is going to result in a distortion of the record before this

19     Tribunal.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please repeat the document number, the

21     exhibit number.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I believe it's P1370, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

24             Mr. Tolimir, are you able to rephrase your question?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can rephrase.

Page 19211

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, the 500 missing people from Srebrenica, were they

 3     found alive according to Mr. Tokaca?  What do you know about that?

 4     Because you hail from the region where this piece of news circulated for

 5     a long time.

 6        A.   I can only confirm what is written here.  I am familiar with

 7     that.  I don't know anything else with regard to this document.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at D369.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's confidential and should not be broadcast.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we please look at

12     the first page of this report, which shouldn't be broadcast according to

13     the Presiding Judge, although I don't see any logic in that, but we shall

14     see.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This page can't be confidential.

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D368 is a public version of the

18     document.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic, you should use the public redacted

20     version for showing it to the witness.  It's much better.  Then there is

21     no need to prevent broadcasting.

22             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

23             Mr. Tolimir has just mentioned a number and it has been properly

24     recorded.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 19212

 1             Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   We can see a table from your expert report and it is entitled:

 4     "The Movement of Prisoners from Srebrenica."

 5             Tell us, please, did you also include the numbers available to

 6     the Prosecution about the -- of those who were killed or/and who went

 7     missing in Srebrenica?  Thank you.

 8        A.   This table shows those who were taken prisoner from the

 9     28th Division and it is based on the data and on Mr. Butler's statement.

10     He was an OTP expert witness.  It is also based on this trial, the

11     ongoing trial, and also from case IT-05-88-PT, which means that I have

12     been able to list the paragraphs from each of these documents, including

13     Mr. Butler's report as well as case IT-05-88/2-1 and this case which is

14     currently ongoing.  Nothing else has been included in the table but the

15     prisoners who are referred to in the three documents that I have just

16     mentioned.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I would like to call up

19     page 3 in the same document.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   I am reading the last sentence which begins with the number --

22     this is the fourth paragraph that starts with "the maximum taken

23     prisoner," and it starts with "... the number 3.820 equals 4.420

24     (4.820)."

25             "According to the debriefing (attachment 4, their source being

Page 19213

 1     the UNHCR 28 July 1995, page 2)."  This is your reference.

 2             "3.000 from the column were taken prisoner in total, but

 3     according to the document from the Tuzla agency for investigation and

 4     documentation (AID) a few thousand were taken prisoner from the column

 5     which was breaking through."

 6             Thank you.  My question is this:  Did you try to cover up the

 7     information available to the OTP on the number of those who were killed

 8     or went missing?  Thank you.

 9        A.   No, no, I didn't try to cover up anything.  On the contrary.  I

10     copied word for word all the information from the documents that I

11     referred to.  I didn't skip a single piece of information, a single

12     number.  And in the meantime, I came across the information from the AID

13     in Tuzla, which was the overview of prisoners and those who were killed

14     based on their information.  I wanted to do my own comparison and to see

15     that information taken from various sources that I did not skip a single

16     bit of information.  I did not attempt to cover up anything.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  If we look at the last paragraph on this

18     page, you drew Mr. Vanderpuye's attention to what is written here during

19     his examination-in-chief when you said that you established that those

20     who were killed in Konjevic Polje and Kravica were taken into account

21     twice.  Can you explain for the benefit of the Trial Chamber?

22             I apologise, Sandici and Kravica.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm not sure exactly what General Tolimir is

25     referring to in the cross-examination which gives rise to this line of

Page 19214

 1     re-direct examination.  If he can provide me with a cite, that would be

 2     helpful.  But I don't think that there was anything specific to the issue

 3     that he's just asked the witness about or, frankly, for this chart that

 4     we see in front of us which was covered on direct examination to begin

 5     with.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, can you give us a reference?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If the witness wants to answer, he

 8     may answer, otherwise --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ...

10     Mr. Tolimir --

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- I take note of Mr. Vanderpuye's

12     objection.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is not a question for the witness, if he

14     wants to answer or not.  If you put a question, he has to answer.  But

15     the Prosecutor asked you if you would be able to provide with the

16     reference to his cross-examination.  Can you give us a reference?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I could find the reference but it

18     would take time.  I would have to search all of my notes.  Maybe I will

19     do it during the break.

20             But now let's look at the last paragraph -- that's why I'm saying

21     that I'm taking notes of Mr. Vanderpuye's objection.  I accept it.

22             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   The last paragraph on the page that we have before us says:

24             "If we keep in mind the fact that the captured soldiers from the

25     28th Division of the BiH Army shown in the meadow in Sandici village

Page 19215

 1     (1.000) were in the meadow temporarily and were transferred to

 2     Novo Kasaba, then the number of prisoners shown in Novo Kasaba also

 3     includes those shown in Sandici meadow."

 4             My question is this:  Can you please tell us, Mr. Skrbic, what

 5     did you mean by this?  Are things really the way they are described here

 6     or not?  My question is this, actually:  Those who were killed or,

 7     rather, who went missing in Kasaba, were they presented together as those

 8     who were killed and went missing in Sandici?  Do they form the same

 9     group?  Thank you.

10        A.   The document that I am referring to in here is a -- listed under

11     the ERN number of the first page.  This is a document issued by the

12     2nd Corps of the BiH Army.  This is a report to the General Staff of the

13     BiH Army where they speak about information that they received from the

14     state security service in Tuzla, after the interrogation of two men who

15     had escaped from the meadow in Sandici.  During the interrogation, they

16     stated that about a thousand of them had been in the meadow, that they

17     had been there only temporarily, and that within a short space of time

18     they had been transferred first to Kravica and then, also within a short

19     space of time, to Novo Kasaba.  This sheds new light, i.e., puts things

20     in a different perspective.  This means that the two figures referring to

21     Novo Kasaba also encompass the 1.000, so they cannot be added to each

22     other because the figure of 2500 to 3000 also encompasses the number of

23     1.000 according to the statements of the witnesses who had provided their

24     statements to the state security service in Tuzla.

25             This is my explanation.

Page 19216

 1        Q.   Thank you Mr. Skrbic.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please take a look at

 3     document PD5/46.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   The document that was shown to you did day before yesterday.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  A document with this number doesn't exist.

 7     Please repeat the correct number.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I repeat the number:

 9     P95--

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Once again, please.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P95, page 46.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  Now we have it.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It can't be the right number.  Please check

15     again.  P95 is the pseudonym sheet of a ... and it's under seal.

16             Mr. Tolimir, please give the right number now.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I had

18     information that that was the number of the photograph taken in Sandici

19     and that's why I quoted it in that way.  My apologies.  And Aleksandar

20     will try to figure it out.

21             In the meantime, we can proceed with other matters.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, we should stop here.  We are just before the

23     break.  And before we have the break, I will shortly raise another

24     matter.

25             Mr. Gajic, you indicated that the -- you have uploaded parts of

Page 19217

 1     the 65 ter document 1D1103 as a separate document which contains the

 2     foreword of a book and one of the articles.  This was uploaded as 1D1120

 3     and which now can be assigned as D365.  That was your request from the

 4     beginning of today's session.

 5             We must have our first break now.  I hope that the question of

 6     correct numbers of exhibits can be resolved during the break.  We will

 7     resume quarter past 4.00.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I hope you were able to sort out the

11     reference you asked for and the right exhibit number.  You have the

12     floor.  Please continue.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I have

14     found the proper number.  It should be P94.

15             So can we please have P94 in e-court.

16             As for the reference that you asked me for, I haven't looked for

17     it because it simply slipped my mind.  But if I manage to find it, I am

18     going to quote it.

19             Can we now see page 46 in e-court.  Thank you.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, you have been shown this and then later on in a

22     document relating to Borovcanin one can see that around 1500 Muslim

23     soldiers were taken prisoner in Sandici.  Now, please, can one conclude

24     exactly how many soldiers are depicted in this photograph below the line

25     where the buses are parked?  Thank you.

Page 19218

 1        A.   I cannot give you the exact figure about how many people there

 2     are in this group, but it is obviously a small group, probably fewer

 3     than 100.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  If we look at the house across the road towards

 5     right, can we say that the size or the surface of this house is larger

 6     than the size of the group of people shown in this satellite image?

 7        A.   As far as I am able to estimate, the size of this house is

 8     slightly smaller than the area where these people are.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now hear what one of the eye-witnesses said

10     about this group of people and this location.  We have seen that this

11     picture was taken on the 13th of July at 1400 hours.  And this is what --

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now go to the closed session

13     because I'm going to quote the words of a witness who testified in a

14     closed session.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We turn into private session.

16                           [Private session]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 19219











11 Page 19219 redacted. Private session.















Page 19220

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, when showing this document to you, the Prosecutor

19     quoted the penultimate paragraph, which reads that:

20             [As read] "On the night between the 12th and 13th of July, 1500

21     men were taken prisoner and there were more than 200 dead."

22             Now, my question is:  According to this report about the number

23     of the death [as interpreted], can one say that these deaths were caused

24     by combat or by some other means?  What can one conclude on the basis of

25     this combat report?

Page 19221

 1        A.   One can conclude on the basis of such combat report that there

 2     was fighting between members of the 28th Division of the BH Army and this

 3     police unit of Republika Srpska, and that in the course of that fighting

 4     20 -- 200 members of the 28th Division were killed and that the remaining

 5     soldiers surrendered after that.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Now, please, in this Prosecution document

 7     is it clearly stated that in fighting that lasted several hours and

 8     during the attack on Konjevic Polje which continued today the enemy had

 9     more than 200 dead?  In your opinion, these 200, do they need to be

10     counted as victims or as troops killed in action?

11        A.   These men were killed in combat.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             Let us now take a look at the last paragraph, and I quote:

14             "According to all indications, the number of Muslim soldiers who

15     did not manage to break through is on the rise and is approximately

16     between 5.000 and 6.000, which means that we have intense combat ahead of

17     us.  I hope that we will successfully carry out this task also."

18             Now, please, in this last paragraph, is this commander only

19     making assumptions or does he have indication of the fact that 5- or

20     6.000 soldiers haven't been able to make a breakthrough yet?  Thank you.

21        A.   First of all, this information means that the 28th Division was

22     still in the process of breaking through and that they were to proceed

23     with it further.  Also, the information that this police commander has to

24     the effect that another 5- or 6.000 are preparing to break through must

25     have been obtained in the course of interrogation of those who had

Page 19222

 1     already been taken prisoner or in another way.  I cannot precisely

 2     confirm the source of this information.

 3        Q.   Now thank you.

 4             Is this information speaking about the 5- or 6.000 who still have

 5     to break through or were they captured or did they still have to fight

 6     this number of men?  Thank you.

 7        A.   He's talking about the soldiers who carried on with the

 8     breakthrough and he anticipates further clashes with them to take place

 9     in the forthcoming period.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, please, can we now have P1769.

12     Thank you.  Thank you.

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   This document was shown to you yesterday, and we see the

15     information about the enemy.  In paragraph 1, I quote:

16             "A large enemy group was infiltrated in the region of

17     Pobudje Brdo and the region of Konjevic Polje.  Units of the

18     5th Engineering Battalion and the MUP successfully resisted the enemy.

19     About 1.000 to 1500 enemy civilians and soldiers were arrested and

20     killed."

21             My question is this:  Could the officer in charge be able to

22     report about this situation directly or did he have to receive reports

23     and information from both locations?  Thank you.

24        A.   Pursuant to the standard military procedure and as far as I can

25     know, this is how things were done in the Army of Republika Srpska.

Page 19223

 1     Regular combat reports arrive from subordinated units.  Then they are

 2     processed.  And then executive summaries are then compiled for the

 3     superiors.  And from the Main Staff -- and then from the Main Staff they

 4     are sent to the Supreme Commander.  This is the procedure applied to

 5     regular combat reports and I know that that procedure was followed by the

 6     Army of Republika Srpska as well.

 7        Q.   The commander of the unit, the superior officer, was a witness

 8     here.  He spoke about this document, P1769.  And he said -- he answered a

 9     question, that is.  On page 9439 of the transcript, lines 10 through 16.

10     The date was 7 February 2011.  Thank you.  I quote what he said on

11     page 9439, lines 10 through 16, to the Prosecutor's question, What did

12     you learn about what was happening in the area? he answered:

13             [As read] "We learnt what is contained in the report.  A group of

14     soldiers of the BiH Army from Srebrenica was moving through the region.

15     Some of them had already been unable to walk, so we didn't know what the

16     situation was.  We tried to deal with the situation as best as we could,

17     providing support to our own barracks, bearing in mind the number of men

18     that we had at our disposal, and that number was very low at the time."

19             Did you know that he also stated that at that location that he

20     spoke about, his unit was deployed and provided support for the materiel

21     and technical equipment that the unit had at that location?  Thank you.

22     I don't want to read everything.

23        A.   No, no, I am not aware of that.  Let me explain:  All witness

24     statements that were taken here in this case were not known to me.  I was

25     not familiar with all the statements that were taken in this case.

Page 19224

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And now --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I stopped you because you were

 3     overlapping.  Now your question again, please.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Since you don't know what was stated by the witness, we are going

 6     to quote what he said on page 9467, line 21, through page 9468, line 4.

 7             "Q.  Do you believe ... that 1.000 to 1.500 people were killed,

 8     as stated in this paragraph?"

 9             And the witness answered:

10             "I can't either believe or disbelieve this.

11             [As read] "This was more of information to a -- to the superior

12     command telling them what we had learned.  And then they can go on and

13     undertake certain measures in order to check this information because we

14     didn't have an intelligence organ or any other person who would be

15     qualified to check this information.  If we had known that, then we would

16     have probably told them where they were and what they were doing."

17             My question is this:  I have just read out a part of the

18     witness's testimony - can you conclude based on what I have just read

19     that this commander compiled his document based on the information

20     available to him?

21        A.   All commanders draft their combat reports based on the

22     information they received from inferior -- subordinated units or other

23     information received from flanking units, units that act in concert.  In

24     other words, no combat report can be compiled if there is no prior

25     information.

Page 19225

 1        Q.   Now let's see what he said on page 9473, lines 15 through 24, to

 2     a question by the Presiding Judge:

 3             [As read] "Who is the author of paragraph number 1, entitled

 4     'Enemy'?"

 5             The witness answered:

 6             [As read] "I don't know.  It must have been the staff sergeant

 7     who wrote this, most probably, based on what he heard, because all of us

 8     heard about that in Konjevic Polje, you know, people were talking about

 9     that.  People were talking about certain problems.  They were saying that

10     there were some people who were killed, some captured.  And most probably

11     he wrote all that in order to draw attention to this, because there were

12     very few of us in the barracks.  We were not safe.  Things were going on

13     around us and we didn't know what was happening."

14             My question:  Is it clear from the second paragraph that this

15     report was drafted based on second-hand knowledge?  I don't want to call

16     it rumours.  How reliable is this report, then?

17        A.   Well, one would conclude that based on his statement, based on

18     the statement of this witness or this witness's testimony.  It seems that

19     a staff sergeant drafted paragraph 1 based on the information that he

20     had.  I can't confirm that because I don't know how they drafted their

21     reports - what information, what data about the enemy they used.

22        Q.   Thank you.  If we assume that what the witness said in answer to

23     the Presiding Judge's question was true, what would be the degree of the

24     reliability of the information contained in this report?  Thank you.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 19226

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

 2             There's two issues that arise from this:  The first is that

 3     obviously the witness has already answered the question in terms of his

 4     ability to assess the reliability of this report.  The second thing is

 5     that he goes well beyond the scope of the cross-examination in this case.

 6             This document, as with other documents of a similar nature, were

 7     put to this witness to determine whether or not he himself had examined

 8     these documents prior to drafting his report.  His answer on almost every

 9     single occasion was that he had not reviewed them and he was not familiar

10     with them at that time.  It does not go to the reliable of the report

11     itself; it goes to what the witness was aware of and what the witness

12     relied on in drafting his own report.

13             So to the extent that General Tolimir wants to question on -- on

14     these documents, it seems to me that for that to be responsive to the

15     cross-examination of this witness, it has to be within the context of

16     what this witness knew in relation to his report, as opposed to his

17     general impressions about the documents that he's now seeing essentially

18     for the first time.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, what is your response to that?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  What we

21     are seeing is that the document is not relevant, and the witness could

22     not take it into account when he made his calculation.  And the question

23     was whether he actually saw this document ever.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And this question was already answered during the

25     cross-examination.  He didn't see that and he didn't take it into

Page 19227

 1     account.

 2             But Mr. Vanderpuye put another objection to you, that now you are

 3     dealing with a separate issue, namely, what the interpretation of the

 4     content of this document, unknown to the witness prior to his testimony

 5     here, would be.  And he was not asked during cross-examination about

 6     that.  What is your position, Mr. Tolimir?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  The question was

 8     whether the expert was familiar with this information.  I am trying to

 9     get the answer from the witness as to the relevance of the information

10     for an expert report by any expert, including yourself.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, the witness has clearly explained

12     during his whole testimony that he didn't know these documents, that he

13     didn't take them into account because they were not relevant for that --

14     his method of calculation.  What do you want to gain from him in

15     re-examination which should relate to the content of cross-examination?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you don't allow

17     it, he doesn't have to answer the question.  My question was whether, if

18     he had known about it, whether he would have taken it into account as a

19     relevant document.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This question was already answered by the

21     witness.  Please carry on.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             And now I'd like to call up P176, page 104.  P11-- P1776,

24     page 104 in Serbian, 97 in English.  Thank you.

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 19228

 1        Q.   We now see it.  And I have to tell you that this is a table taken

 2     from Mr. Brunborg's report.  The title of the table is:  "220 cases with

 3     inconsistent date of death, disappearance between the 2005 OTP list of

 4     Srebrenica missing and ABiH records."  Thank you.

 5             My question is this:  Does this type of information call for the

 6     re-examination of the number of dead and missing during the events

 7     surrounding Srebrenica, i.e. --

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... this document

 9     shouldn't be broadcast.

10             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   -- does this type of information -- and I repeat my question --

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This document should not be broadcast.

13             Please carry on.

14             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   I repeat my question:  Does this type of documents with

16     inconsistent data about the cause of death for 220 persons, as well as

17     the date of deaths, call for the re-examination of information using the

18     methodology that you yourself used; i.e., following the number of

19     survivors?  Thank you.

20        A.   If a number of persons appears with different sets of data about

21     their cause of death or disappearance or any other such information, this

22     points to the fact that the information is not reliable and cannot be

23     used as evidence on what had happened, whether people were killed,

24     whether they died or went missing, or anything else.  So when an

25     inconsistency is established, it shows that the data is not reliable.

Page 19229

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Can you now explain:  What is the degree

 2     of reliability of records on the killed and missing army members?  And

 3     I'm calling for your experience when answering this question.

 4        A.   Yes, I can explain.  The degree of reliability is a hundred

 5     per cent.  There is precise information about every soldier who is

 6     injured, killed, or who has gone missing.  Moreover, based on such data

 7     information, administrative procedures are started by the families in

 8     order to seek proof of death in order to obtain some legal documents.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Yesterday the Prosecutor put several

10     questions to you, and he put his case to you about the removal of the

11     civilian population from Srebrenica.  Within that context, he showed you

12     an intercept, on page 19166 of the transcript.

13             Let us now see one of the so-called Srebrenica videos.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P991 is the exhibit number.  And I

15     would like to play it from 46 minutes, 24 seconds, to 48 minutes,

16     33 seconds.  Thank you.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We stopped at

19     48 minutes, 33 seconds.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Kindly tell us:  Based on this video-clip that you saw, who

22     requested that the civilian population leave Srebrenica?  Thank you.

23        A.   I heard the interpreter saying that the BH command in Sarajevo

24     requested that population to be relocated.  That's how I understood the

25     interpreter.

Page 19230

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Did you at the beginning of the conversation hear

 2     what General Mladic asked Mr. Karremans?  If not we can repeat it.

 3        A.   I must admit that I wasn't able to hear a good part of the

 4     interpretation.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we replay the start.

 6             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   And you try to make out what Mr. Mladic said.  He wasn't

 8     interpreted into Serbian because he was speaking Serbian, so probably the

 9     interpretation was into English.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see P991 again,

11     starting from 46 minutes, so that we may hear what General Mladic said to

12     Karremans.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We stopped at 46 minutes,

15     29 seconds.

16             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Did you now hear what General Mladic said to Colonel Karremans?

18        A.   I heard him ask, "What do you want?"  He asked Colonel Karremans

19     to say what he wanted.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Your microphone.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't receive interpretation.  We don't

25     receive interpretation, perhaps because the microphone is off.  Once

Page 19231

 1     again, please.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we replay it but without an

 3     overlap between what Mladic and Karremans are saying and my question.

 4     Thank you.

 5                           [Video-clip played]

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted the video-clip to be

 7     replayed from the beginning of the conversation.  Thank you.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please stop here.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was stopped at 46 --

11             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation] [Overlapping speakers]

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was stopped at 46 minutes, 36 seconds.

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   I repeat my question:  Did you hear what General Mladic said to

15     Mr. Karremans?  Thank you.

16        A.   I really heard him ask, "What do you want?  Tell me what you want

17     now."  That's really all I heard.

18        Q.   Did you hear who had asked for the meeting?  Thank you.

19        A.   No, no, I didn't hear that.

20        Q.   Well, obviously you have a problem with listening to the

21     video-clip, maybe turning up the volume or turning it down, because it

22     could clearly be heard what General Mladic said.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Usher please assist, and

24     I kindly ask the technician to return to the beginning of the clip so we

25     can replay it.  Thank you.

Page 19232

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  If General Tolimir has a

 3     particular proposition to put to the witness regarding what's on the

 4     tape, I don't see any harm in him putting the proposition to the witness.

 5     The tape speaks for itself.  It's not necessary for the witness to

 6     actually hear it if everyone else knows what's on it.  He can simply put

 7     the question to the witness and ask him, Based on this ... and represent

 8     what's on the tape, and put his question.  I think that will speed things

 9     along and it wouldn't be necessary for -- for -- it wouldn't be necessary

10     to go through the trouble of trying to sort out the technical

11     difficulties with the issue.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, did you have a problem with the

13     microphone or the interpretation?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I had problems.  I switched to

15     channel 4 instead of channel 6.  Thank you.  But I understood the last

16     part of Mr. Vanderpuye's words.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Essentially -- essentially, Mr. Vanderpuye said

18     it's not necessary to play this video again because we all know what is

19     taped and said there, if the witness is not able to hear that.

20             Just put your question to the witness.  That was the proposal of

21     Mr. Vanderpuye.  You may continue.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23             Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

24             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, if you heard the part where he said, "You requested a

Page 19233

 1     meeting," tell us who it was who requested a meeting and what was -- what

 2     were the words of Mr. Karremans when he spoke about the relocation of the

 3     population?  Thank you.

 4        A.   I know of the meetings between the commander of the Main Staff of

 5     the VRS and Colonel Karremans, the commander of DutchBat.  I know about

 6     that from documents.  And I know that they took place at Bratunac at the

 7     Fontana Hotel.  I also know that there were three such meetings.  I know

 8     about all that from documents.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you know who requested the first meeting?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I cannot provide a precise

11     answer to that question because I don't know who it was.

12             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Could we play it again so we can hear --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I -- you

15     don't -- you don't have the floor at the moment.

16             MR. TOLIMIR: [No interpretation]

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You don't have the floor at the moment,

18     Mr. Tolimir.  I help you to figure out this problem.

19             The second question:  Do you remember or do you know the words of

20     Mr. Karremans when he spoke about the relocation of the population.  Do

21     you know that, Mr. Skrbic?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I was able to catch was when

23     Colonel Karremans mentioned the BH command in Sarajevo, and as far as I

24     understood, that command wanted the population to move out.  That's what

25     I heard.  I really cannot give you a reliable answer and state with

Page 19234

 1     certainty that I heard this or that.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you got the answer.  Please carry

 3     on.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Here is my question:  Did you hear General Mladic say, "What do

 7     you want?  You requested a meeting"?  Did you hear it or didn't you?

 8     Thank you.

 9        A.   I heard the question "What do you want?" but I didn't understand

10     the rest of what he said.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Was Mladic silent, then, and did Karremans answer the

12     question "What do you want?"

13        A.   After that, Colonel Karremans continued his story, and the

14     interpreter interpreted for General Mladic.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.  The witness didn't

17     hear everything, but what can we do?  Thank you.

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   In July 1995 they signed an agreement about the relocation of the

20     Srebrenica population.  It was signed by Rajko Kusic, Hamdija Torlak,

21     Semjon Dudnjik, and Ratko Mladic.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see that agreement.

23     D51 is the exhibit number.  We saw it yesterday.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we turn the volume down?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 19235

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   We can see the agreement signed by the persons whose name I have

 3     just said.  I am interested in item 7 of the agreement, which reads - I

 4     quote:

 5             "In accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and

 6     the Additional Protocols of 1977, the civilian population of Zepa shall

 7     be given the freedom to choose their place of residence while hostilities

 8     continue."

 9             Here is my question:  Please explain what this language means,

10     "freedom to choose their place of residence while hostilities continue."

11     Thank you.

12        A.   Item 7 is very precisely phrased and cannot be misinterpreted.

13     It clearly means that the population of Zepa has the opportunity to

14     choose where they want to reside temporarily as long as the hostilities

15     are going on.  And this temporary quality is a consequence or is

16     determined by the hostilities.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see document P1434.

19     Thank you.  Thank you, e-court.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Vanderpuye yesterday read out to you a document of the 28th

22     in which -- or which said that if -- if the Muslims fail to honour the

23     agreement, do not register the refugees --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  do not -- the

25     prisoners.

Page 19236

 1             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   -- we'll keep them for an exchange.

 3             Do you remember that?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   That was written on the 29th.  And here we see a cable dated

 6     30 July.  It says, "Information about prisoners of war in Rogatica

 7     holding centre."  And we see names from 1 through 45.  We can also look

 8     at the following page.  There's a list of all prisoners of war from the

 9     Zepa area.

10             Here is my question:  In this cable, did they act as had been

11     said before?  Do you know from documents that the Muslims left that

12     territory on the 30th and did not surrender as they were supposed to

13     under the agreement that we saw a minute ago?  Thank you.

14        A.   Let me first answer your question about this telegram.  It is

15     clearly shown here that the prisoners had been registered and sent to the

16     Rogatica camp together with the list.

17             Now, as for your second question, can you please repeat this?

18        Q.   Thank you.  Do you recall that this was written in the telegram

19     dated 27th of July and that already on the 30th, after the Muslims had

20     left the area, all the prisoners had been properly recorded one day

21     later?

22        A.   It is clearly shown here that everyone who was taken prisoner was

23     registered on the 30th of July.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 3 of this

Page 19237

 1     document.  Thank you.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Here you can see, under C, the last paragraph, entitled:

 4     "Treatment of r/z," and I quote.  It's page 5 in English.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed.  We should move to the next page in

 6     English.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 5 in English.

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   I quote:

10             [As read] "Pursuant to the orders of General Tolimir and his

11     instructions, all the necessary measures are taken and in accordance with

12     the possibility they are mainly being carried out.  Among other things,

13     the following was done:

14             [As read] "Categorisation of war prisoner was done and they are

15     placed in three rooms."

16             I repeat:

17             [As read] "The categorisation of war prisoners was done and they

18     are placed in three rooms.  The healthy in one room, the wounded and the

19     sick in another room, and the member of the former leadership in the

20     third room.

21             "'Atlantida' is separated and placed at another location and has

22     better accommodation.

23             "The Effendi is allowed to pray in the room five times a day.

24             "They have food.

25             "They can use an outhouse.

Page 19238

 1             "They have medical treatment.

 2             "On the 30th of July of this year, the prisoners of war were

 3     visited and registered by the ICRC delegation office at Pale."

 4             My question is:  Were all prisoners of war in Zepa registered by

 5     the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ones that are shown in

 6     the list that you saw?

 7        A.   All the prisoners of war who were taken to the Rogatica camp were

 8     visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Pale office, and

 9     were registered at the Rogatica camp.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Are these instructions in keeping with the

11     international laws of war and other covenants that regulate and provide

12     for the treatment of prisoners of war?

13        A.   Yes, of course.  They were treated fairly, as the document shows.

14     Had it been possible to give them a better treatment, this would have

15     been probably done, but it was done according to the available

16     capabilities at the time.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please look at P122.

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   This was the document shown to you by the Prosecutor.  We see in

20     the heading that it was drafted on the 29th of July, one day prior to

21     their registration.  I am going to quote the last sentence of the third

22     paragraph, which reads:

23             "The persons taken before cease-fire should not be registered and

24     not be declared to the international organisations.  We are going to keep

25     them for an exchange in the event of the Muslims not honouring the

Page 19239

 1     agreement or if they make a breakthrough from our encirclement."

 2             My question is:  Was it possible to do anything with regard to

 3     the prisoners of war in one day only?

 4        A.   All the procedures that have to do with humanitarian situation

 5     while combat operations are in progress can be carried out only when the

 6     tactical situation allows it.  That is the view from the military

 7     doctrine.  Once the tactical situation allows this, then procedures are

 8     being initiated, including those relating to humanitarian issues and

 9     issues relating to prisoners of war.

10             Now let me add one thing:  The only officer who is authorised,

11     who has the powers and the right to assess the tactical situation and to

12     give his forecast of the future development is the commander of the unit,

13     and it is to be done on the basis of the information he receives from his

14     services.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I am reading the continuation of this same paragraph.

16             "We are going to keep them for exchange in case the Muslims do

17     not honour the agreement or they manage to break through from the

18     encirclement."

19             My question is:  Based on the documents that you reviewed, do you

20     know if the Muslims accepted the exchange all-for-all as envisaged in the

21     agreement, or did they break through from our encirclement?  Thank you.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I frankly don't see what this is

24     responsive to in the cross-examination.  Presented this document to the

25     witness during the cross-examination and asked him, quite plainly, What

Page 19240

 1     do you make of it?  And that had to do with the registration of the

 2     prisoners.  I don't see what the last question is that General Tolimir

 3     just asked has to do with the nature of that examination.  And perhaps he

 4     can provide some sort of basis for it, but I don't see any apparent

 5     connection between the nature of the cross-examination and this line of

 6     direct -- re-direct examination.

 7             The second thing is:  Since General Tolimir has represented at

 8     least twice in the last couple of minutes that all of the prisoners on

 9     the list that we saw relating to the Rogatica prison were registered, I

10     would like to know whether it's his position that Atlantida, number 45 on

11     that list, who we know in this trial to be Avdo Palic, was among those

12     prisoners that was registered.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Vanderpuye raised two questions.

14     What is your position to that?  Not two questions, two objections.

15     Please give us your position.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Mr. Vanderpuye posed a

17     question whether it was not customary to register the prisoners of war,

18     and that's what he asked the witness to answer, and that's why I put my

19     question whether an exchange of all-for-all was being carried through or

20     did they manage to break through the encirclement.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you explain that a bit further?  I don't

22     see the connection between registering prisoners of war and carrying out

23     an all-for-all exchange.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  If there

25     is an exchange all-for-all, then the numbers are irrelevant.  Every side

Page 19241

 1     will give as many prisoners as they have.  There will be no registration.

 2     However, if there is an exchange to be made, then reciprocity has to be

 3     observed.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put a question to the witness.

 5             Can you tell us if there is any legal requirement for not

 6     registering prisoners of war who were kept and prepared for an exchange

 7     of prisoners of war with the enemy side?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if there is such a

 9     legal provision.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

11             Mr. Tolimir, carry on please.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Skrbic, was the exchange to be carried out with the number

15     there of prisoners that was kept for the prisoners from the Zepa Brigade

16     that were in captivity elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

17        A.   If an exchange of prisoners is agreed on the principle

18     all-for-all, that means, number one, that the agreement should be

19     honoured; and number two, that neither side should hide the prisoners

20     that they have, but hand over all the prisoners that they have.  And that

21     applies to both sides.  They have to hand over all the prisoners that

22     they had in custody at the moment when the agreement went into force.

23        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Skrbic.  Thank you for having testified in this

24     courtroom.  Thank you for having come to The Hague.  I wish to thank you

25     on behalf of the Defence.  I wish you good health, and I wish you

Page 19242

 1     God-speed in your future life and work.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence has no

 3     further questions for this witness.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  There is only one question

 5     left.  This is the admission of four documents.  I have the -- I formed

 6     the impression that you want to raise this, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  That is one of the things

 8     I'd planned to raise.

 9             The other thing I wanted to raise, and it is a rather

10     extraordinary circumstance, is the opportunity to re-cross-examine this

11     witness on a specific issue.  And that relates to a document that he was

12     shown yesterday as concerns an individual.  I think we were in private

13     session so I won't mention his name, but it was an individual who had

14     been allegedly killed on the 7th of July, buried on the 8th of July, and

15     that his wife apparently had sought a certificate or a declaration from

16     the court in Lukavac concerning that death.

17             I do have specific -- very specific evidence on that issue, which

18     was not the subject of cross-examination, and it is a single document

19     with respect to that.  I anticipate -- and in fact I can probably do it

20     without asking the witness a question.  I would simply tender the

21     document, if that would be a better way to go about it.  But it is

22     directly responsive to that specific issue that was raised by

23     General Tolimir on his re-examination outside the scope of

24     cross-examination.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, what is the position of the Defence

Page 19243

 1     to this request for continuing cross-examination on this specific matter?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence doesn't know what the

 3     whole thing is about.  However, if this will be of help to the

 4     Trial Chamber, we do not object to the admission of any document.  And I

 5     would actually like to thank Mr. Vanderpuye for proposing to tender into

 6     evidence yet another document, with your leave of course.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, the Chamber grants your request,

 9     but only specifically to this document you referred to.  And you may put

10     a question in relation to that or not.  But after that, Mr. Tolimir will

11     have the opportunity to put a question too in relation to that specific

12     document.

13             You have the floor.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             65 ter 7620, I would be requesting leave to add it to the

16     Prosecution's exhibit list.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I take it, again, that Mr. Tolimir has no

18     objection to that, to add this document to the list.  I take it from his

19     last comment.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.  Thank you.  No.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No objection.  You may proceed, and leave is

22     granted to add it to the list.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Maybe we can have it

24     up in e-court.  I apologise, it does not have a translation in B/C/S.

25                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

Page 19244

 1        Q.   What I'm showing you, Mr. Skrbic, is the part of the autopsy

 2     report --

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can go into private session, I think I can

 4     make this a little bit easier.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Private.

 6                           [Private session]

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 19245











11 Pages 19245-19246 redacted. Private session.















Page 19247

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  We are back in open session, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The document will be received as an exhibit.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter document 7620 shall be

 8     assigned Exhibit P2877.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, if you so wish, you may put

10     questions to the witness in relation to that document we just received.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12                           Further Re-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Witness, do you remember, did I ask you

14     yesterday at the end of the day whether it was possible for the body to

15     have been transported from Kazani to Lazete, since the corps command also

16     confirmed that the body was buried in Kazani?  Do you remember that?

17        A.   Yes, I remember that.  And I also remember what I answered to

18     that.  I answered that if what you had shown me was authentic - and one

19     can tell from the document that the document is authentic - that it is

20     then possible that the gentleman who had been killed was exhumed and then

21     his body was transferred to the mass grave in Lazete, as far as I can

22     remember.

23        Q.   Thank you, witness.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have no further

25     questions for this witness.  Thank you.

Page 19248

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 2             Mr. Vanderpuye, what is your final position in relation to the

 3     two reports in confidential versions and the public redacted versions?

 4     Mr. Tolimir has tendered these reports, then your position was to receive

 5     them preliminarily, and that was the reason why we marked them for

 6     identification.  What is your position?

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I'm happy to share with you

 8     my position with respect to the admissibility of these reports.  I don't

 9     know that I -- actually, I don't know whether or not it would be

10     appropriate to do that in front of the witness.  I don't know if he will

11     have to be re-called, or not, in respect of the application.  I would

12     ask, therefore, that he be excused or dismissed --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's fine.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- as would be appropriate.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think the presence of the witness in that

16     respect is not necessary.

17             Sir, after a long time, after several days of testimony, now you

18     are released from court.  You may go home to your normal activities.  The

19     Chamber would like to thank you for your expertise you were able to

20     provide, your knowledge, and we wish you all the best.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, we have just considered a possible need to

23     call you back into the courtroom after having dealt with your expert

24     report.  There may be any reason to discuss something or to put a

25     question to you in that respect.  Please bear with us a bit and wait for

Page 19249

 1     several minutes in the waiting room.  In principle you are released, but

 2     may be re-called.  Please wait some minutes and you will give notice --

 3     you will get notice if you can go home or have you to come back to the

 4     courtroom.  Thank you very much.

 5                           [The witness withdrew]

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you again, Mr. President.

 8             With respect to the admissibility of the reports tendered by

 9     General Tolimir:  As concerns the military report, which is D366 public

10     and D367, we have no particular objection to the Court receiving that

11     report in evidence.  Mr. Skrbic was a member of the military, he was --

12     he received education in military matters and affairs, and we're

13     confident that on the record and in light of his testimony the

14     Trial Chamber will attach the appropriate weight to that report, having

15     reviewed his neutrality, or lack thereof, the reliability of that report,

16     or lack thereof, and the objectivity with which it was presented, both in

17     his testimony and as a written document.

18             However, with respect to Mr. Skrbic's report on the movement of

19     the Srebrenica population, which is D368, the public version, and D369,

20     our position is that that document is simply not admissible as expert

21     evidence in this case.  It is fundamentally and in its essence a

22     demographic study of the population of Srebrenica, and I think Mr. Skrbic

23     was quite clear in his testimony as regards to his qualifications to make

24     such an analysis.

25             First, and you will recall, Mr. President, that you questioned

Page 19250

 1     him to some extent on his CV, and it was clear from his CV not only that

 2     he did not have any substantial publications in the area or expertise --

 3     area of expertise that would be required to render an expert report, a

 4     demographic analysis of the population of Srebrenica, but it was also

 5     readily apparent from the nature and the extent of his education in that

 6     matter, whereby he indicated that he didn't have any advanced degree in

 7     statistics, demography, mathematical statistics, or any other discipline

 8     that was specifically related to the subject matter that was -- of his

 9     report.

10             There are two things that Mr. Skrbic said which I think are also

11     dispositive of the issue.  First thing he said was, obviously, that he

12     didn't have a degree that was directly related to the nature of the

13     report that he prepared concerning the Srebrenica population.  The second

14     thing that he said - and I think this is probably the most significant

15     thing - is that his report didn't require that he have any such skill,

16     knowledge, or training in order to examine those issues.  What he said,

17     in effect, was -- and I think I have it here at page 19036 of the

18     transcript -- is in response to my question:

19             "And it's the case that your expert report on the population of

20     Srebrenica actually didn't require any advanced degree or special

21     training in any of those subjects?"

22             He said:

23             "That's right.  The calculations were very simple, because I had

24     at my disposal finalised facts and information.  And anyone who knows the

25     basics of mathematics would be able to do that provided they invest some

Page 19251

 1     effort into it."

 2             This precisely undermines his expertise or purported expertise in

 3     the subject matter of that report.  What his -- his expert status

 4     requires that he be able to render assistance to the Trial Chamber in its

 5     understanding or analysis of issues in dispute in this case based upon

 6     his specific training, knowledge, or expertise in the subject matter on

 7     which those subjects arise.  And he's essentially said, Not only don't I

 8     have it, but it's not required.  In effect, General Tolimir could have

 9     simply put in the documents that this witness testified about and relied

10     on the Trial Chamber the draw the same inferences, if that be the case,

11     as this witness came up with, and it wouldn't require anything special.

12     It wouldn't require any special skills.  It wouldn't require anything but

13     a little bit of effort, which is what the witness said.  And I think on

14     that basis the report patently does not satisfy the standard for expert

15     evidence in this Tribunal.

16             I would also point out that he was questioned rather extensively

17     on the methodology that he employed in producing this population report,

18     and it's very clear from his answers that what Mr. Skrbic did in this

19     case was he essentially relied on a methodology of convenience.  He

20     relied on a methodology which was calculated to support a conclusion that

21     he had already drawn before he began the study.  And we know this because

22     he produced a paper, he produced a book, and then he incorporated the

23     paper and the book essentially as the basis, the fundamental basis, of

24     the report that he submitted here -- that General Tolimir, rather, has

25     submitted here for the Trial Chamber's analysis.  He shared with us the

Page 19252

 1     motivations that he had to produce that book, which forms the substance

 2     of the -- of the report that General Tolimir is tendering.

 3             He said first and foremost what motivated him to study this

 4     matter was that he could not accept that officers in arms with him would

 5     engage in the kinds of acts that are alleged in the indictment.  That was

 6     the first thing.  The second thing was that he said that he was

 7     essentially tired of being bombarded with this so-called official version

 8     of what happened in Srebrenica "without anybody proving it."  Mr. Skrbic

 9     prepared this report because he had a very clear agenda in mind in

10     preparing it.  This is why it's clear that he did not take into account

11     any of the prisoners - any prisoners - in this case that he knew to be in

12     VRS custody.  He said it, and General Tolimir demonstrated that he was

13     aware that there were prisoners in VRS custody in the report.  But as a

14     question of comparing the totals of the population before the fall of

15     Srebrenica and after the fall of Srebrenica, somehow that figure, however

16     it is that he came to know about it, managed to be excluded from his

17     result.  And then he reached the conclusion, therefore, that not but a

18     few hundred people could have been the potential victims of this crime,

19     when he's listed over 4.000, as alleged in the indictment, in the very

20     beginning of his paper, and he has failed to account for all of the

21     prisoners, as I demonstrated during the cross-examination, in terms of

22     tallying the total of that population.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Vanderpuye, slow down, please.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  By engaging in a pattern of systematically

25     excluding relevant evidence to determine the issue which was the subject

Page 19253

 1     matter of that report, he has rendered that report utterly worthless and

 2     unreliable as expert evidence in this -- before this Tribunal.  As any

 3     evidence before this Tribunal.

 4             Rule 89 requires that evidence meet the minimum threshold of

 5     reliability before it's even admissible.  In this case you have clear

 6     evidence that the conclusions that Mr. Skrbic arrived at, he arrived at

 7     as part of a carefully designed methodology to substantiate conclusions

 8     that he knew were in conflict with the evidence that he had at his

 9     disposal, which is the evidence of prisoners - and thousands of them, by

10     the way - in VRS custody.

11             I would suggest that to the extent that the Trial Chamber may be

12     inclined to receive his report in evidence in this case, it should not be

13     received as expert evidence because it doesn't fall within the definition

14     of the rules regarding the same.  And, frankly, to the extent that it

15     comes in at all, it should be to put in context his inexpert analysis,

16     his bias, the length to which he will go to manipulate the information he

17     has to achieve a given result, and put in context the rest of his

18     testimony in this case.  But for no other purpose.

19             To be frank, Mr. President and Your Honours, Mr. Skrbic's

20     population report that has been offered by General Tolimir in this case

21     should not have the imprimatur of this Tribunal.  It's an affront,

22     frankly.  It's an affront to the victims of these crimes and it's an

23     affront to the integrity of these proceedings.

24             On that basis, we respectfully request that it be excluded.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

Page 19254

 1             Mr. Tolimir, do you intend to respond?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.  Please.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I am not sure if we have enough time to finish

 4     this before the break, because we are now 15 minutes beyond the break

 5     time.  We will ask the Court Officer.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, if you can put that, your position,

 8     on the table -- on the record in two minutes or three minutes, because we

 9     have only five minutes left and we have to decide if we will release the

10     witness.

11             First Judge Nyambe.

12             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  Just a clarification for

13     Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             You are saying on that basis, with respect to the request that it

15     be excluded, you want it to be excluded as an expert report or you want

16     it to be excluded completely?  Thank you.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I want it to be

18     excluded completely.  And to the extent that the Trial Chamber may be

19     inclined to admit it, I would suggest that it not be admitted on the

20     basis as an expert report, certainly, and on the basis to place in

21     context, as I mentioned before, his bias, his inexpertness, so the

22     Trial Chamber can evaluate the rest of his testimony, if it's admitted at

23     all.  But I would submit that it shouldn't be admitted at all.

24             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you very much for your answer.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do the parties think that the witness can be of

Page 19255

 1     any assistance further, or should we release him?

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I don't think he can be of

 3     further assistance.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we don't mind him

 6     being released.  We will just present our position just like

 7     Mr. Vanderpuye did, but we will do it after the break.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed.  We should do that after the break.  One

 9     moment, please.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The witness should be released now.  And we must

12     have our second break.  I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir if that is a good

13     idea to release the next witness, too, and to commence the examination of

14     that witness tomorrow morning.  What do you think, after this lengthy

15     day, what is your position?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that that would be the most

17     appropriate attitude towards the witness.  He's been here all day, he's

18     been waiting.  He must be tired, himself, so he should be released.  And

19     the same happened yesterday and then again today.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We will do that in that way.

21             We must have our break now.  We will come back perhaps in

22     20 minutes, 6.25, and then we want to hear from you, your position in

23     relation to these expert reports.  And after that we will adjourn and

24     take all these arguments into consideration.

25             We adjourn and resume 5 minutes -- 25 minutes before -- I am

Page 19256

 1     tired, too.  25 minutes past 6.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 6.03 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 6.26 p.m.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor to tell us your

 5     position in relation to these reports.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             Mr. President, as far as the motives are concerned:  Although the

 8     report is based on the paper and the book - as pointed out by the

 9     Prosecutor - it does not diminish its significance.  It means that he

10     spent some time analysing this problem.  Secondly, the witness has

11     studied military documents that pertains to the movement of survivors and

12     he derived an answer based on that, or, rather, a calculation, without

13     denying the crimes.  Thirdly, this kind of analysis indicates what one

14     should focus upon when analysing the problems relating to Srebrenica

15     during the war.

16             The fact that the witness did not rely on documents relating to

17     prisoners and executions does not diminish the value of his analysis

18     because the purpose of this analysis was not to show how many people died

19     and whether the proposition about the 7.000 or more victims are

20     sustainable.  During his education, the witness studied the methodology

21     of establishing the number of losses in a war.  He doesn't have to attend

22     civilian schools to be able to do that.  Therefore, he is educated and

23     skilled enough to produce an analysis that demonstrates military losses.

24             The fact that the OTP does not accept his report cannot be the

25     reason for it not being admitted into evidence.  It is up to the

Page 19257

 1     Trial Chamber, when the time comes, to evaluate its reliability and to

 2     what extent the Chamber can rely upon it when rendering its judgement and

 3     ruling.  We are not talking about the entire analysis of those who were

 4     killed or executed after the fall of Srebrenica.  This is a partial

 5     analysis that deserves to be taken into consideration.

 6             With regard to what was said about this witness being biased, I

 7     would like to say that he said, "I do not deny that crimes were

 8     comitted," and he expressed his views without proffering any conclusions

 9     about the number of those who were killed or executed.  He also

10     underlined that he did not take into account a single fact that was not

11     established and confirmed by relevant organs and institutions as being in

12     the public domain and true.  This particularly refers to the list of

13     survivors published after the fall of Srebrenica, and that was the

14     subject of his analysis.

15             Anyway, all the answers and all the questions boil down to how

16     many people survived.  If you know how many people survived, then you

17     know who the killers are.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction: then you know the

19     number of the losses.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  The

21     Defence would just like to add that this witness cannot be qualified as

22     being biased because he relied on the document of the Army of Bosnia and

23     Herzegovina and the United Nations and he did not use at all any

24     documents from the Army of Republika Srpska and the RSK.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

Page 19258

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  First of all, the Chamber noted that the

 3     Prosecution didn't object to the admission of the report in relation to

 4     military areas.  This is D366 and D367 under seal.  This report and two

 5     versions will be received as exhibits.

 6             In relation to the other report, "Movement of the Population of

 7     Srebrenica," we have heard substantial submissions by both parties.  Many

 8     arguments were put to the Chamber.  The Chamber would like to take the

 9     liberty of considering all what was put to the Chamber, and we will

10     postpone a decision.  We have in mind to deliver a decision on that

11     during our housekeeping session next Tuesday so that we can give you,

12     then, our response to that.

13             In my view, this concludes the hearing of today.  We adjourn.

14     And we will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom to hear the

15     last witness.

16             We adjourn.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.36 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day

19                           of February, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.