1 Friday, 6 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Case Number IT-02-60-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Before we hear the witness, are there any matters that the parties
10 would like to raise?
11 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. Yesterday Mr. Manning was asked
13 some questions to which he gave some answers, one particular answer which
14 I believe may have been false. In other words, what I'm suggesting that I
15 have reasons to believe that he gave false testimony under oath yesterday
16 with respect to one particular issue. And that had to do with the aerial
17 imagery with Cerska Valley or the Cerska massacres. I'm referring to
18 yesterday's transcript page 85 and 86 where I asked him -- I wanted to
19 know the exact dates of the imagery. And I'll just read the pertinent
20 portions. So the question goes -- this is on page 85 towards the bottom,
21 I believe it's line 23. It says:
22 "Okay. Were there any aerial imageries that you are aware of or
23 examined with respect to the Cerska grave?
24 "A. Yes, there were aerial images of the Cerska grave.
25 "Q. And what were the dates of that?
1 "A. I would have to check the images, but the creation date was
2 the 11th of July, 1995 -- 13th of July, 1995, because the Cerska grave
3 was -- they were pushed down a slope and soil was taken from the other
4 side of the road."
5 And he goes on and on. Now, yesterday I was offered to look at
6 the exhibit that was -- by Ms. Issa. I chose not to because it's my
7 practice not to rely on Prosecution's work product but to check by own.
8 They mentioned Mr. Ruez. I spent literally the entire evening going over
9 the Ruez's testimony, going over all of this, and what we do have, and I
10 have the relevant transcript from Mr. Ruez because he indicates that
11 Mr. Manning will come in and talk about this and that testimony can be
12 found on pages 443, starting with line 17, all the way to 444 to about
13 line 10. Where he says: We have this aerial imagery, and he gives the
14 date, which -- the dates are 5 July, 1995. And the next date is 27 July
15 1995. And of course that was the range that I was looking at and
16 expecting to hear, and I certainly wasn't expecting to hear 13 July 1995.
17 I must admit that I was rather shocked when I heard it, thinking that
18 perhaps I was less than diligent in coming here to do cross-examination on
19 a very limited basis, which I had hoped.
20 So in light of that, I believe that in the interest of justice I
21 would like to pose the question to Mr. Manning and give him a fair
22 opportunity to answer what exactly he meant. Because we know that there
23 is one witness from the testimony that talks about the 13th. We know that
24 this has been a hotly contested issue, whether this was the 13th or the
25 14th. This is relevant to the Prosecution's case, because they believe,
1 if we read the indictment and the trial brief, that this is the beginning
2 of the plan to execute, the beginning of this genocidal enterprise. We,
3 on the other hand, contest that. And so, this is a hotly contested issue.
4 Now, Mr. Manning can say where -- there's a witness who says it was the
5 13th; I don't have a problem with that. But for Mr. Manning to come in
6 and say that there's aerial photograph -- an aerial photograph of the
7 13th, which would demonstrate that on that particular day the ground was
8 disturbed, I have a problem. Because it's not a mere embellishment;
9 that's downright deceitful information.
10 That's the first point. The second point, which is a little bit
11 on a milder side, but nonetheless, I think, equally important. Yesterday
12 he pointed to a photograph of the Kravica warehouse, a photograph that we
13 all know. It was plaintiff's [sic] Exhibit 10.11 where he said he gave
14 his opinion that he believed that those were bodies and I don't have a
15 problem with that. Then the next time he says, you can hear shooting
16 because, see, in his testimony he indicated that this indicated in the
17 afternoon. Now, if you take the sentences separately: These are bodies
18 and you can hear shooting, and you dissect them, you know, you may reach
19 two different conclusions. One is there is shooting that you can hear and
20 there are bodies over here.
21 But when -- in the manner in which the testimony was presented, in
22 my opinion, was something that I have seen quite often in front of juries,
23 because they don't get to have a final trial brief, by joining them
24 together, the inference is drawn that there are bodies here and the
25 shooting that you hear is the ongoing shooting as a result of the
1 massacres. Now, I went to the tape, I listened to the tape, Ms. Tomanovic
2 and I spent the better part of an hour going over and over again. You
3 hear two or three shots in the background. It's clear that the shooting
4 is -- has nothing to do with the warehouse or the bodies that are located
5 here, assuming that there are bodies, and we're not contesting that. But
6 this again is a critical issue both to the Prosecution and to the Defence.
7 Because the Prosecution maintains that this incident happened on the
8 afternoon of the 13th, while we maintain that it happened much later, and
9 there's conflicting evidence, some Prosecution witnesses, one saying it
10 was sometime in late afternoon, another one saying it was in the early or
11 late evening.
12 And so with respect to that, again I would like to put the
13 question to Mr. Manning, particularly since the Prosecution has repeatedly
14 insisted that the Defence somehow is not putting direct questions to the
15 Prosecution; we are not putting directly our case to them. And so these
16 are two instances where I think I'm entitled to -- in the fairness and in
17 the interest of justice of opening up my cross-examination. I've spoken
18 with counsel for Mr. Jokic; they do not object if -- assuming that I were
19 to be allowed to ask on a very limited basis those questions to
20 Mr. Manning.
21 Now, assuming the Trial Chamber says no, then I would ask for
22 obviously for cross -- re-cross. Although, I understand that that is also
23 limited at some point. So I guess if that is denied, the re-cross, that
24 is, then as a fallback position, then I would ask that Your Honours ask
25 these questions. Because I think these are critical issues. I think it's
1 very -- it's different when we have a simple witness coming in versus a
2 professional witness, and this man is a professional witness. We saw
3 him, how he turns. Your Honours, I thought I was watching an FBI agent
4 back in federal court. He understands exactly what he's doing and I
5 understand exactly what he's doing. And I'm afraid if somebody is reading
6 the transcript later on may overlook these little nuances. And I think
7 it's very critical, Your Honour, that we establish that there's no aerial
8 photography with respect -- on July 13th with respect to Cerska. I have
9 no problem with the Prosecution arguing its case based on the witness that
10 they resented. That's their -- they're entitled to that. But I do take
11 objection to somebody saying we have a photograph that demonstrates X, Y,
12 and Z.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: So I guess that is my request, Your Honour. And I
15 think it's an important request. And I would like you to give it
16 consideration, and as I understand it, Mr. Stojanovic has 15 to a maybe a
17 half an hour of cross-examination or more. So it's not a matter that
18 we're running out of time. We have plenty of time this afternoon. I
19 would surely welcome your indulgence to our need to put these questions to
20 the witness. And I apologise if I was less than prepared yesterday, but
21 again, I wanted to go back and double and triple check because I think I'm
22 making some rather strong arguments or strong assertions against
23 Mr. Manning.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, could we hear from the Prosecution on this very
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: He's right. These are rather strong assertions to
2 take a professional investigator and call him a liar before this Court on
3 such incredibly flimsy grounds. And I welcome him to cross-examine
4 Mr. Manning even more, which is probably one of the reasons why he's made
5 such a scurrilous remark. It's outrageous. Now I am, as I said, I'm used
6 to it, but an investigator lives by his reputation and it's -- it's --
7 it's -- I won't say anymore about that. But I will say: The questioning,
8 as I recall it, was related to Cerska valley. And the photographs, aerial
9 imagery, were -- helped us figure out when the grave was created. And as
10 he just read, Mr. Manning said it was created on the 13th, which is what
11 the witness has said in the Krstic trial. And so he was repeating what is
12 a known and established fact by this investigation. And he also, in
13 referring to the aerial imagery, said I have to check the dates of the
14 aerial imagery, but the grave was created on the 13th. That -- that is
15 what he just read. Now --
16 MR. KARNAVAS: There's no --
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- he didn't --
18 JUDGE LIU: No, no, no, we have to deal one by one. I'll give you
19 a chance to respond.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: He said "created the 13th," I read that as the
22 grave was created and he needed to review the photographs to figure out
23 when the photographs were done. We had the photograph there. To call
24 Mr. Manning's reputation for truthfulness on such an issue before he even
25 questioned him on it when he had a chance to question him on it is -- is
1 beyond belief, really. But I don't need to say anymore. I know the Court
2 has watched this for months.
3 Regarding Kravica, I would invite the Court to listen to the tape.
4 In my personal opinion you hear automatic gunfire at the same time you see
5 the bodies and the bus. And you hear in the back: "Da, da, da, da, da".
6 I have heard plenty of automatic gunfire; this is automatic gunfire. And
7 it could be at the over end of the warehouse, where you can't quite see
8 everything that's going on. And that's based on the witnesses. It
9 appears that people were killed on one side first that -- where we can see
10 the bodies, and were killed on the other side second. So that's actually
11 consistent with the evidence. But -- now, that's evidence, that's
12 argument, and that's fine. I have no problem with any arguments, of
13 course. I do think it's -- I mean, to get up in the middle of the
14 testimony of each witness and make a closing argument about the witness is
15 inappropriate and seems to be some kind of an inflammatory thing to do.
16 But -- the argument I have no problem with it, but I -- each side will
17 look at it differently. I invite the Court to take its own view. I don't
18 see how that goes to Mr. Manning's -- some sort of a credibility issue. I
19 see it the exact same way he does, as I think reasonable people will. But
20 I think the best way to deal with it is, yes, let's let Mr. Karnavas ask
21 his questions in a -- if he will do it in a civil manner to Mr. Manning
22 and have this be done with and give Mr. Manning a chance to respond to
23 these incredible allegations.
24 JUDGE LIU: So I interpret that you have no objections for
25 Mr. Karnavas to revisit those two issues?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I do not.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I --
4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, is there any need for you to respond?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't believe, although I do believe that the
6 Prosecutor misstated the testimony. He was interpreting it. I have the
7 exact transcript here --
8 JUDGE LIU: No, no. This is a subject matter for your
9 cross-examination later on.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I mean, He did take some personal swipes at
11 me, Your Honour, so --
12 JUDGE LIU: I don't want to deal with the personal attacks on each
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree, Your Honour. But the comment. "some
15 civilised manner," I think that's rather -- I'll just leave it at that.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the
18 beginning of today's hearing I spoke to Mr. Karnavas and when asked by him
19 whether I would agree to let him clarify these issues before I continue, I
20 told him that that would be no problem. So I'm repeating here now this
21 before you, that I fully agree with Mr. Karnavas clarifying these issues,
22 providing that you also are in accord with it.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, after hearing the statements submitted by the
1 parties and after consultations with my colleagues, we believe that we
2 will allow Mr. Karnavas to revisit those two issues. That's because,
3 first, this issue is a very important one and there are disputes between
4 the positions of the two parties. Whenever we come across this issue, we
5 believe that we should make a decision in favour of the Defence.
6 Secondly, we also believe that the cross-examination as a whole
7 has not finished yet. Although Mr. Karnavas finished his turn for the
8 cross-examination, we will give him a chance to revisit those issues.
9 However, the questions put by Mr. Karnavas should be strictly limited to
10 those two issues. You have to bear in mind that we will not give you
11 another chance to go over all the issues again. At the same time, if
12 there are any questions, Mr. Karnavas has to understand that the
13 Prosecution has the equal right to raise it during their re-direct. And
14 at this moment, I have to warn both parties to be more civilised, which
15 means that to show respect to the witness. This Trial Chamber mentioned
16 before that nobody could call a witness a liar. You may use other words,
17 maybe just for the sake of the transcript. And we don't want to see the
18 quarrel between the parties, especially in front of a witness. It is so
20 Could we have the witness, please.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE LIU: You may sit down, Mr. Manning. Well, Mr. Manning,
23 before you came to this courtroom, the Defence counsel, Mr. Karnavas,
24 raised two very limited issues that he was not quite clear yesterday. So
25 he will ask you some questions concerning of those two limited issues.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Do you agree with that?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: It will not take very long, I suppose.
5 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
7 WITNESS: DEAN PAUL MANNING [Resumed]
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
9 Q. Mr. Manning, yesterday we had an exchange with respect to aerial
10 imagery. Do you recall that?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And do you recall the line of questioning I posed to you with
13 respect to one particular site in Cerska?
14 A. The Cerska site, yes.
15 Q. All right. And do you recall me asking you specifically to tell
16 us the date of that photo imagery to see whether we could determine the
17 exact date of when that incident occurred?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you recall -- this was the -- I'll give you the question
20 and answer, and then I'm going to ask you to give us an explanation, if
21 you would. And I'm referring from page 79 -- I mean page 85, and it's
22 line 23. The question is: "Were there any aerial imageries that you are
23 aware of or examined with respect to the Cerska grave?
24 "A. Yes, there were aerial images of the Cerska grave."
25 Page 86, line 1: "And what were the dates of that?
1 "A. I would have to check the images, but the creation date was
2 the 13th of July, 1995."
3 Now, Mr. Manning, when I heard that, it was my impression that you
4 were trying to tell the Court that the creation of date of the aerial
5 imagery was the 13th of July, 1995. Is that -- am I correct in that
6 interpretation, or were you trying to suggest something else?
7 A. Your Honours, I'm not sure if I was trying to suggest anything
8 other than the aerial imagery, as I was saying, of the Cerska grave shows
9 a before and after image. It's my understanding that the Cerska grave was
10 created on the 13th of July. I don't believe that image that I'm
11 particularly familiar with for the Cerska grave indicates the 13th. I
12 think it's a range, a before and after range. I believe the Cerska grave
13 was created on the 13th of July.
14 Q. You believe that because of a witness?
15 A. That's correct, a witness statement or testimony.
16 Q. Not because of anything else, other than one witness? That's what
17 you've based your entire judgement of the 13th, because of that?
18 A. I'm not sure if it's true to say my entire judgement. I'm not
19 sure what else I would have reviewed, but, yes, it was a witness
20 statement, a witness testimony, I believe, to that effect.
21 Q. All right. Now, prior to this there was this exchange with
22 respect to aerial imagery and I was trying to get you to pinpoint the
23 exact date and get you to tell us whether there was aerial imagery that
24 would tell us the exact date of the Cerska grave. Now my question is:
25 How is it today you give us this explanation and yesterday, when you had
1 an opportunity, you chose not to. Rather, you put it in a way that one
2 might be left with the impression that you were trying to tell the Court
3 that the aerial imagery was of the 13th of July?
4 A. Your Honours, that certainly was not my intention and I don't
5 believe I did that. The imagery as I had explained and you had seen shows
6 before and after creation dates. And I believe I went to pains to explain
7 that the dates that we have are sometime before and sometime after, except
8 perhaps where we have images of the machine, perhaps at Branjevo Farm,
9 creating the grave. I believe I also explained that the Cerska grave
10 consisted of a killing site which was covered by soil from the side of the
11 road. I didn't indicate, I believe, that that image showed it being
12 created on the 13th, otherwise I would have indicated that there was a
13 machine there digging that grave on the 13th. I would also indicate that
14 I believe the Chamber has access to that image and you can certainly check
15 that image.
16 Q. Precisely. I did check the image and that's why I'm asking this
17 question. Because I was left with the impression because you didn't say
18 the grave was created. We were having a conversation about aerial
19 imagery. And you say: "I would have to check the images, but the
20 creation dates," since we're talking about imagery, one would have --
21 would assume you're talking about the imagery, the creation dates of the
22 imagery, was on the 13th of July, 1995. Now, do you think that it's
23 reasonable to be left with that assumption or with that interpretation,
24 given the way you formulated your answer?
25 A. Your Honours, Mr. Karnavas seems to have misunderstood me. I
1 believe that I said I would have to check the image and the creation date
2 of the Cerska grave, was it the 13th.
3 Q. All right.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas --
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to move on.
6 JUDGE LIU: For the sake of the record, could you please tell us
7 the number of that aerial image and show it to the witness.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
9 JUDGE LIU: So that there's no misunderstanding in the future.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
11 Q. Let me show you what had been marked as Exhibit [Realtime
12 transcript read in error "P753"] P7.3 for identification. The transcript
13 should read 7.3, not 753. Do you see it?
14 A. Yes, I see that image.
15 Q. So there's no 13 there, 13th of July?
16 A. No, there's not.
17 Q. So, based -- if we were to look at, of those two photographs, we
18 could not determine from that aerial photograph that the grave was created
19 on the 13th of July, could we?
20 A. Not looking at that image, no.
21 Q. Okay. And as I indicated, my whole line of questioning was
22 whether we could look at a photo -- imagery that was created on the 13th
23 to determine whether indeed the graves where the incident occurred on the
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes, Ms. Issa.
1 MS. ISSA: Your Honour We've been over this a number of times.
2 It's really getting argumentative --
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down.
5 MS. ISSA: And I think the witness has answered it a number of
6 times at this point.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, you promised me to move on.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm satisfied. I was invited to go to the exhibit,
9 Your Honour. I'm satisfied --
10 JUDGE LIU: Just for the sake of the record.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. I wasn't aware of that.
12 Q. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Manning.
13 Now, yesterday you also referred to an exhibit, P10.11. It was
14 from the film that was shot by Mr. Petrovic, as I believe, of the Kravica
15 warehouse. Do you recall that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Okay. And you indicated that in your belief these were bodies.
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And then you indicated that you could hear shooting in the
21 background. Correct?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Now, let me ask you this: Were you trying to create the
24 impression in the Court's mind when you stated that, that the shootings
25 were going on in the warehouse at the time that this film was capturing
1 this image, yes or no?
2 A. Your Honours, no.
3 Q. All right.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm satisfied with that.
5 Q. Thank you for that clarification.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 Mr. Stojanovic, please continue with your cross-examination.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic [Continued]
11 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Manning.
12 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Stojanovic.
13 Q. If you remember yesterday, we touched upon the issue of the
14 Rocevici site. Do you know where this is located, Rocevici?
15 A. Yes, I believe so. I believe I've been to Rocevici.
16 Q. Can you please give us more details about where it is located
18 A. Your Honours, I'm not particularly familiar with that village. I
19 believe that Rocevici school is located close to the village; it's to the
20 north of Zvornik. I've been to that location on one occasion.
21 Q. Can we agree that it is on the road between Zvornik and Bijeljina,
22 to the north of Zvornik?
23 A. I would accept that, yes.
24 Q. And to be more specific, could we agree that it is located on the
25 road between Zvornik and Branjevo?
1 A. As I've said, I've only been to that location once but I would
2 accept that that would be the general area. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. During your work, your investigation, did you get
4 acquainted with the details on any executions in the Rocevici area?
5 A. Your Honours, I have basic, general knowledge of the allegation
6 that there was some executions at -- in that location. I believe that the
7 school itself was used as a detention point for men following the fall of
9 Q. We had occasion here to hear testimony of a witness, P-130, who
10 several times mentioned the execution site at Rocevici. Do you know
11 anything about the bodies, providing that there was an execution in the
12 Rocevici area?
13 A. Your Honours, that wasn't one of the execution or exhumation sites
14 that I was dealing with or reported on.
15 Q. Let us just clarify. So based on the work that you did, you never
16 once came across the people who had been imprisoned in Rocevici. Is that
18 A. I don't think I could answer that question. I can't answer that
19 question. I don't know if you mean the bodies of people who were executed
20 there and if I could identify had they come from that location, no.
21 Q. That's precisely what I needed. Thank you.
22 Would you agree with me if I said that the battlefield and the
23 area following the conclusion of combat must be cleaned up?
24 A. Yes. I'm familiar with that concept.
25 Q. What is the purpose of these cleaning up and sanitary measures
1 after the conclusion of combat? And what is the purpose of these
2 measures, according to the international law?
3 A. Your Honours, this is perhaps outside my particular area of
4 expertise, but logically and from reading military manuals, it's an
5 attempt to remove the dead from the battlefield, to clear the field of
6 dead individuals.
7 Q. Why is that envisaged? What is the reason why the bodies of
8 people, cattle, et cetera, have to be removed from the territory?
9 A. It's normally considered essential for hygienic reasons to remove
10 the dead and bury them in appropriate burial sites.
11 Q. Do you agree that those bodies, those corpses, would create an
12 epidemiological crisis if that were not done?
13 A. Your Honours, I think that's probably too general a question. But
14 yes, I would agree that bodies not correctly buried and removed would be a
15 health hazard.
16 Q. You referred to a multi-disciplinary approach in your work and the
17 profile of experts who took part in drawing up this report. Were there
18 any epidemiologists involved who would say something about the effects of
19 nonburial, of failure to remove these bodies, considering that it was high
20 summer, the 14th and the 15th of July?
21 A. No, there were not epidemiologists employed.
22 Q. But you do agree with me that there would be an epidemiological
23 crisis in the conditions that prevailed at the time, very hot summer, if
24 that's bodies had not been buried?
25 A. Again, I think that's a general question. I will accept that
1 bodies particularly in July, in that heat, would be a source, a possible
2 source, of disease. I'm not a doctor.
3 Q. But precisely for this reason, wasn't it natural and a matter of
4 course to remove these bodies and bury them?
5 A. Your Honours, I can answer these questions generally. I'm not
6 aware that the bodies were removed and buried. I'm talking about the
7 bodies that were located in the graves. As I say, I feel these questions
8 are perhaps too general and I don't want to give general answers to
9 confuse the matters.
10 Q. Mr. Manning, I will then use the classification or the numeration
11 from the indictment. Wasn't it normal for those bodies to be buried,
12 because otherwise they could have created an epidemiological crisis?
13 A. I would ask for clarification of what bodies we're speaking about.
14 Q. We're talking about the bodies that you, among others, helped
15 exhume, the bodies that were buried at the relevant time.
16 A. Certainly, Your Honours. The people that were executed, there was
17 such a large number that there would have been a health issue, there would
18 have been a very bad smell, there would have been health issues. I
19 certainly agree with that. And that those bodies would have to be buried
20 or otherwise disposed of.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. There's just one more point I wanted to
22 come back to from your earlier testimony. You said that 40 mass graves
23 have been found, 23 of which have already been explored. Would that be
24 fair to say?
25 A. Your Honours, it's actually 43 mass graves. 23 had been exhumed,
1 20 had been handed over, and they have been exhumed or partly exhumed, I
2 believe, by the Bosnian Commission.
3 Q. Actually, I wanted to ask: Under what criteria do you classify a
4 grave as a mass grave? What does the term "mass grave" imply?
5 A. The term would generally be accepted to be a grave containing more
6 than one or two individuals. As I said, when the graves were probed or
7 tested, we would find human remains, then we would move metres away and
8 find more human remains, and then continue that process until we were
9 satisfied that there were multiple remains from multiple people. I would
10 indicate in the Srebrenica mass graves, the smallest grave is three
11 individuals, the next is nine, and then 33, and then it moves into the
12 hundreds and hundreds of bodies.
13 Q. So we agree that what is implied under the term "mass grave" is a
14 grave in which three or more bodies were buried. Is that correct?
15 A. I think that would be a general assessment. Perhaps two bodies in
16 a grave would be a mass grave. But in this case we had a grave that we
17 exhumed which I referred to as a mass grave, which had three individuals
18 in it.
19 Q. Thank you. In exhibit P552, annex 2, you indicated the personal
20 details of all persons identified for all mass graves in which -- on which
21 you worked, in whose exhumation you were involved. Is that correct?
22 A. Your Honours, I'm assuming that is the report that I prepared in
23 relation to the 1998/1996 exhumations. If that's the case, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. I have this report in my hands and I wanted to ask you
25 about one general figure. How many bodies have been identified so far,
1 including your work and the work of the Bosnian Commission for Missing
3 A. Your Honours, without checking my report from some years ago, the
4 figure then was approximately 70 individuals. Since then, indeed for most
5 of the progress of the exhumations and autopsies, that work was done by
6 either PHR, Physicians for Human Rights and/or the Bosnian Commission for
7 Missing Persons. I understand that 600 to a thousand individuals have
8 been identified by the Bosnian Commission. I am aware, after visiting a
9 memorial, that 600 were buried and were identified. But I believe that
10 figure is closer to a thousand.
11 Q. Out of that number, 70, or the other figure of 1.000 that have
12 been identified to date, how many people have been identified on the
13 basis of ID, or an official paper?
14 A. I'm afraid I don't understand that question.
15 Q. I'll try to ask it in two parts. Yesterday you spoke about
16 identification papers, such as an ID card, a health insurance card,
17 driver's license, passport, I looked at your report, birth certificates, a
18 letter from the Red Cross, and similar papers. And you enumerated cases
19 in which such documents have been found. Can you tell me - can you give
20 me a number - out of those 70 people that you identified, on how many of
21 them did you find a paper of that kind? I am not speaking of clothing, a
22 bracelet or a prosthesis or braces or objects recognised by a family
23 member, I'm talking about an identification paper, an ID. On how many of
24 these bodies did you find IDs?
25 A. I can't answer that question specifically, because in that process
1 an identification located on a body would lead or might lead to a further
2 examination of that body. If an identification listed a name and a date
3 of birth, then they might look at that body that contained that ID and see
4 if it was the right age and sex, et cetera, et cetera. That
5 identification might start the process of identifying a victim. Often it
6 was the wallet and the belongings and the clothing and the physical
7 structure and the age of the individual that was identified by, perhaps,
8 the family members. And that as a whole was taken as the basis for
9 conducting a further examination of the autopsy results and perhaps a DNA
10 examination and leading eventually to an identification. It's not simply
11 a process of finding a wallet in a pocket and then saying that that is the
12 individual; it formed part of the process. And I can't give you the
13 figure of how many individuals had identifications in their possession,
14 without searching a huge amount of data and records.
15 Q. Could we agree that it was a negligible number of people on whom
16 you found IDs, compared to the total number of victims found in those
18 A. I wouldn't say negligible. I would say that in almost all the
19 graves identification documents were located, not as many as there were
20 bodies, certainly. And as I indicated, many of those items had started to
21 deteriorate particularly. But I would accept that there was not a huge
22 number of identification documents found.
23 Q. We heard many witness testimony that those documents were taken
24 away from the owners before the executions. Are you familiar with that?
25 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that, including at Potocari.
1 Q. Do you agree with me that in the course of burial it was very
2 difficult to identify those bodies based on IDs, because there were so few
3 of them?
4 A. I'm again not sure if I understand the question. As I said
5 before, some of the identification documents led to the identification of
6 the victim. It was difficult to identify them from those documents. As I
7 say, they were deteriorated. But also the bodies were broken up and
8 separated from their identifications. And I know of occasions where
9 individuals carried more than one set of identification documents, more
10 than one wallet. I surmise that they had collected them from other people
11 who had been killed or they were collecting them for their friends. I
12 don't know if I answered your question correctly.
13 Q. Thank you. The point is: Whose duty was it to identify those
14 people before burial?
15 A. The whole basis of my evidence is that they were executed. I
16 don't think the executioners had a concept of the duty of identifying
17 them. They were executed. I can't see the question.
18 Q. Well, the question has to do with the concept of my Defence of my
19 client. And in that context, it's perfectly understandable to hear what
20 you are saying. Let me ask a few more questions. On the 15th of March,
21 2002, you examined a witness who testified here in your capacity as
22 investigator. And that witness used to be a member of an engineering
23 company and a machine operator in Orahovac. Can you remember that?
24 A. I believe so. I have interviewed quite a number of people, but I
25 do recall interviewing a member of the engineering company.
1 Q. I just looked at my notes to see if he was a protected witness,
2 and he wasn't. So we can refer to him by name. He only had visual
3 protection. His name was Cvijetin Ristanovic?
4 A. Yes, Your Honours, I recall interviewing Mr. Ristanovic.
5 Q. At one point during his examination-in-chief you asked him the
6 following: So we have Dragan Jokic, commander of the engineering unit of
7 the Zvornik. And further on, on page 23 of that interview in B/C/S you
8 say: "So the commander of that engineering unit, Dragan Jokic."
9 And to that the witness answered: "No, he was not the commander
10 of the engineering unit -- sorry. He was not the commander of the
11 engineering company; he was commander of the engineering unit."
12 And you asked him: "Who was then commander of the engineering
14 And he said: "Dragan Jevtic."
15 I'm just trying to refresh your memory as to this particular part
16 of the interview.
17 A. Your Honours, I would accept that, although I haven't refreshed my
18 memory with that statement. I -- I'll accept that.
19 Q. Thank you. And I assure you that my quotation is correct. Since
20 my line of questioning is a bit different, I didn't think it necessary to
21 give you the entire interview.
22 My question is: Do you know that the Zvornik Brigade had an
23 engineering company?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know that the commander of the engineering company at that
1 time was Dragan Jevtic?
2 A. Your Honours, I agreed with this statement previously. I would
3 have to check. As my understanding was, Mr. Jokic was the commander of
4 the unit. Mr. Jevtic's position was probably senior to Mr. Jokic. I
5 don't recall without checking the records. Clearly, when I took the
6 interview I was aware of those points. Since then, I've changed teams and
7 concentrated solely on other matters. With reference to that interview or
8 the command structure, I could tell you. But I would accept that
9 Mr. Jevtic was a member of the Zvornik engineering company and Mr. Jokic
10 was a member of the engineering company and, I believe, in charge of the
12 Q. Mr. Manning, again this answer shows that neither at the moment
13 when you examined Mr. Ristanovic, nor today, your memory leads in the
14 right direction. I'll try to remind you of the testimony of Mr. Butler so
15 you can refresh your memory of the structure of the Zvornik Brigade. And
16 you will tell me whether I'm right or not.
17 The commander of the engineering company was Dragan Jevtic.
18 Dragan Jokic did not belong to the engineering company; he was chief of
19 the arms of engineering. And as commanding officer, he belongs to the
20 staff of the Zvornik Brigade. Both today and when you were doing that
21 interview, consciously or unconsciously, you spoke of Dragan Jokic as
22 commander. Would I be write in saying that Dragan Jokic was the chief of
23 the branch of engineering in the staff of the Zvornik Brigade, whereas
24 Dragan Jevtic was the commander of the engineering company? I'm talking
25 about July 1995.
1 A. Again, Your Honours, without checking the records, I accepted that
2 Dragan Jokic was in command of the engineering company. And indeed, again
3 without referring to that interview, I recall Mr. Voijivic [sic] telling
4 me that Jokic was in command. He received orders from Jokic. I believe,
5 looking at my memory that Mr. Jokic was part of the mine staff. I can't
6 recall Mr. Jevtic's position.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, I believe that this witness has
8 testified about exhumation matters. He is not maybe familiar with all
9 structures of the Zvornik Brigade. And if you want to continue to ask
10 some questions along this line, the best way is show this witness his
11 interview with that particular person. I am afraid that you cannot get so
12 much if you continue.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My
14 questions were precisely in the context of our -- today's witness,
15 Mr. Manning, in investigating this case. And several times he made an
16 assertion to the witness he was examining, and I want to establish whether
17 that was by accident, because he seems not to have known and not to
18 realise that Dragan Jokic was not the commander of the engineering
19 company. I only wanted to clarify the issue through this witness.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, making these sorts of conclusions, I
22 think you've heard plenty of evidence on that. Mr. Butler's evidence
23 regarding the structure, Mr. Obrenovic's evidence regarding the reality,
24 the evidence regarding where Mr. Jokic worked. This is an issue that is
25 certainly at the -- at your Bench. But to make conclusions in an argument
1 at this point in questioning witnesses really is not appropriate.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any other matters to
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to get one more
5 clarification, if that's possible, through this witness.
6 Q. Do you know, Mr. Manning, what documents the head of the
7 engineering branch, as a member of the brigade staff, is responsible for
8 drawing up? What documents fall within the purview of the chief of the
9 engineering branch?
10 A. I recall questioning either that witness or other witnesses about
11 the structure of the unit and what paperwork was created and processed,
12 particularly the engineering logbook and other such documents.
13 Your Honours, without reference to those statements and having been
14 several years, I'm unable to answer that with any certainty.
15 Q. Thank you. Let me conclude the examination with this last
16 question: Do you remember examining quite a number of people who had a
17 status of witnesses and even suspects regarding this book of daily logs of
18 the company, engineering company -- a logbook of daily orders?
19 A. That was one of the exhibits that I took on interview missions,
20 particularly for members of the Zvornik Brigade and the engineering
21 company. I cannot now recall how many members of the engineering company
22 I interviewed. Again, I could check records.
23 Q. Very well. I will return to the logbook, that exhibit. Do you
24 remember that that logbook of daily orders had orders, each one of which
25 was signed by Dragan Jevtic, the commander?
1 A. Your Honours, again -- and I apologise. Due to leaving the team,
2 I've had to concentrate on a completely different country, let alone these
3 matters from Srebrenica. I -- it's my recollection that Jevtic either
4 signed the book or his name was recorded in the book. I believe other
5 people or another person was in the book. But without checking records, I
6 would not wish to mislead the Court.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. It is quite understandable. Let me just
8 try to remind you. This involved, and you were involved in it as well, it
9 has been said that this logbook of daily orders was signed subsequently by
10 Dragan Jevtic as the commander of the engineering company. I'm now
11 referring to July of 1995.
12 A. Again, Your Honours, I was even involved in part of the
13 handwriting requests to examine that book. So I'm not saying I had no
14 involvement in relation to that book and that I didn't ask questions of
15 people. I simply, at this stage, can't recall. And I wasn't prepared to
16 research that material before coming to this Chamber. That information is
17 in the statements and the interviews that I took, but I now can't recall
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no further
21 questions for this witness.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
23 Any re-direct, Ms. Issa?
24 MS. ISSA: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this stage, are there any documents to
1 tender? Ms. Issa?
2 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour. We would be tendering Exhibits P545
3 through 550; and P555 through 559; P562; P566 through P660; and lastly,
4 P749, which comprises the index to the expert reports with the
5 accompanying CD, containing the reports admitted under Rule 94 bis and
6 92 bis in the Chamber's decision of November 7th, 2003. Now, also
7 contained on that CD is Exhibit 551, which is Mr. Manning's curriculum
8 vitae, which we dealt with yesterday.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, how about document P659?
10 MS. ISSA: We actually didn't refer to that, Your Honour, with --
11 in the examination-in-chief. And consequently, we wouldn't be seeking to
12 tender it at this point.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Because you just said the documents from
14 P566 through P630 --
15 MS. ISSA: 660. I appreciate that, Your Honour. I missed number
16 659. Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, any objections,? Mr. Karnavas.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, with respect to the P562, which
19 is the Martin Ols' laboratory report, as I understand the ruling that was
20 made by the Court, this decision of 7 November 2003, the Court was going
21 to decide at this stage whether it would be admitted. I don't believe
22 that there is sufficient evidence to establish its admissibility, based on
23 what we heard from this gentleman.
24 With respect to P655, and this is a report dealing with the
25 explosives, I guess. In the decision of 7 November 2003, it's made
1 reference -- this report is referenced in footnote 2. But if we were to
2 go to the decision, the actual disposition section, there is no mentioning
3 of it, unless I've overlooked it somehow. So again, there's no -- there
4 was no decision made at any point in time. I don't believe that this
5 gentleman, albeit he did make some -- he did testify with respect to what
6 happened because he was a summary witness, he is not in a position to lay
7 any foundation as to what exactly was done, what tests were done. I guess
8 what I'm trying to say is Ms. Issa should have laid a proper foundation
9 with respect to this particular individual to show that he has at least a
10 rudimentary knowledge of forensic evidence. I suspect he does have that
11 knowledge, given his line of work and his years in the field, both in
12 Australia, which I understand has extremely good forensic experts and also
13 here. But I don't think a proper foundation was laid for us to be
14 sufficiently satisfied that his testimony in and of itself is sufficient
15 to warrant the admissibility of these two exhibits. And so with the
16 exception of those two, we have no objections, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
18 Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any objections?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have analysed these exhibits,
20 and there are really many of them. I have to say, before I state our
21 position on these exhibits, I don't think we have resolved the issue of
22 P661 bis, and that is a sketch of mass graves made by witness
23 Cvijetin Ristanovic. And the sketch 694 bis made by (redacted), also a
24 witness, which was served on us yesterday. I suppose this 661, as
25 featuring in this schedule is not actually linked with the testimony of
1 Mr. Manning. I think it is just a coincidence that it was served on us
2 now, because it is a sketch with a translation. To go with it, regardless
3 that it just explains the position of graves. I think it is related to
4 the testimony of Cvijetin Ristanovic. I think it was served on us
5 yesterday only because the translation happened to be ready.
6 As for other documents tendered by the Prosecution, we have no
7 objection. For all these sketches, models, photographs, apart from these
8 exhibits 652 and 655, for the reasons elaborated by Mr. Karnavas.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I am a little bit confused. Maybe Ms. Issa
10 could shed some light on those documents, especially on the two documents
11 mentioned by Mr. Stojanovic concerning of the P661 and P694.
12 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour. I believe, as Mr. Stojanovic
13 indicated, those are the -- those were documents that were admitted
14 pursuant to -- through another witness. They were -- I believe they were
15 diagrams that were admitted in the B/C/S language, as they were drawn by
16 the witness. And we -- the Chamber has requested the Prosecution to
17 provide English translations; we've already done so. And I am told that
18 we have provided the English translations as a courtesy as of yesterday to
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. I think there is no problem, because this
21 Bench has already made a ruling admitting those two documents into the
22 evidence already. At the same time, we request the Prosecution to furnish
23 us with the English translation. So it's only concerning with the matter
24 of translation.
25 How about the other two documents raised by Mr. Karnavas, that is
1 document P655 and P562?
2 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour. At least with respect to P652 -- or
3 562, rather, your -- in this Chamber's ruling, which is found at paragraph
4 32 of the November 7th, 2003, ruling on the issue, I believe the
5 Trial Chamber indicated that the Prosecution would be permitted to move
6 for the admission of the Martin Ols report through Mr. Manning. And if
7 there was any issues that may be raised by the Defence, they could do so
8 through the cross-examination. None were raised through the
9 cross-examination at this point. Mr. Manning clearly relied on this
10 report, as he did with the other expert reports, to -- with respect to the
11 shell casing comparisons to link the -- as a link between the primary and
12 secondary graves. So in my submission, given that there has been no real
13 challenge to the report through cross-examination and that he relied upon
14 these reports as a basis for his testimony of the shell casing issue, it
15 should go -- it should be admitted, given those circumstances. And I
16 would make the same argument with respect to the de Bruyn report. Also he
17 relied on that report with respect to the explosive residue testing.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Mr. Karnavas.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Yeah, just briefly. I have read paragraph 32 and
21 there is a mention about cross-examination, but perhaps the Prosecutor
22 doesn't recall me objecting. I don't have to wait until cross to object
23 to the admissibility of certain evidence. I objected. The objection was
24 sustained by the Bench; in other words, the -- as far as I understood it,
25 the Bench already agreed with my position, and hence the line of the
1 direct examination had to take a different course on that. So I think I
2 don't have to wait until cross. The matter was already challenged while
3 it was on direct, but through another process, which is called
4 objection -- objecting to evidence. It's a fundamental basis of trial
6 As far as the other one, again there is no foundation laid that
7 this individual spent any time with this particular expert to go over that
8 particular report. There was a line of questions with respect to that.
9 But other than -- the gentleman was able to say there was a match from
10 here to there, based on what an expert did. But he didn't tell us what
11 exactly -- what tests were done by this expert, what -- how much time he
12 spent with the expert to see what exactly the methodology was, whether
13 this particular gentleman has any experience in the past so he could say,
14 yes, I believe in my opinion, based on my experience, this was a proper
15 method. So while we didn't object to the gentleman indicating what he
16 learned from the expert, which is hearsay - but we understand that hearsay
17 is allowed - now they're trying to validate the report, somebody else's
18 work. An expert witness's work through a nonexpert. And there's where we
19 have the problem. As I indicated, had a proper foundation -- was laid,
20 perhaps I would not be objecting. Now they do have an alternative. They
21 can bring this gentleman in and this gentleman can testify. That's the
22 alternative. They chose to go this route.
23 With respect to the last report, as I indicated, there's one
24 reference in the decision, and that's in footnote 2. One would assume
25 that the Prosecution, had they been so keen in getting this particular
1 report in, they would have at some point brought it to our attention that
2 no reference was made in the disposition with respect to this report,
3 perhaps due to an oversight, and to ask for clarification or to ask for
4 some sort of a decision or even to ask for the Defence to see whether they
5 would be willing to stipulate to that. But again, as I indicated, there's
6 nothing in the disposition -- there's only a reference in footnote 2.
7 And so therefore, I think that there is insufficient basis for
8 these two reports to come in. And again, the gentleman has testified, and
9 the Court is perfectly willing to accept the testimony and give it weight,
10 whatever it wishes to give, in light of the questions that were answered
11 by the gentleman and in light of the background that he had demonstrated
12 that he has before coming to the Tribunal and the work that he has done
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultation with my colleagues, we
16 decided all the documents tendered by the Prosecution through this witness
17 are admitted into the evidence. At the same time, we also would like to
18 mention that admission into the evidence does not mean that -- how much
19 weight the Bench will attach to that piece of the evidence. We'll go over
20 the transcript, carefully examine the testimony of this witness to see how
21 relevant those documents are related to this very issue. Then during our
22 deliberations, we'll attach the proper weight to those documents or no
23 weight at all. But this is the deliberations among the Judges. It is so
25 At this stage, are there any documents from the Defence side to
2 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
4 Mr. Stojanovic?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 Well, Mr. Manning, thank you very much for your testimony. The
8 usher will show you out of the room. We wish you a happy weekend.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this stage, I just have one procedural matter
12 to ask, especially to the Prosecution. We have been approached by the
13 Registrar, informing us that at this moment this Tribunal has six trials
14 going on simultaneously, so there is a very difficult period for them to
15 arrange a courtroom. The Registrar asks us to have somehow a definite
16 indication how long those two witnesses will last, I believe on the 23rd
17 and 24th of February, so that they could make the best use of the
18 courtroom available.
19 Yes, Mr. McCloskey, would you please be kind enough to give us
20 just a rough idea of how long. Will it take the whole week or four days
21 or three days or whatever.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: These witnesses, Your Honour, are -- should not
23 take more than two sessions in direct and they're similar to the kinds of
24 witnesses we've seen before, truck drivers, this sort of witness. It's
25 difficult to always gauge cross-examination, but I would think two days,
1 two days, three days at the outside, though we're all guessing at this
2 point because I should be getting the transcripts of the interviews to
3 everyone within the next day or two. I think we have one that people have
4 seen. So I would hope three days. Mr. Karnavas may have had a chance to
5 see one of the transcripts and may be able to give us his best guess.
6 They don't really refer much to Mr. Stojanovic, so they may, they may, one
7 of them may because one of them has to do with an issue that a person from
8 Zvornik was involved in. I just wanted to alert them to that.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
10 Mr. Karnavas, can I hear from you about your length of time you
11 are going to use for the cross-examination, with the understanding that
12 it's just a preliminary ...
13 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand. It's kind of difficult without
14 having a transcript in my hand, but I would probably concur with
15 Mr. McCloskey. Usually I think two witnesses we could do in three -- in
16 three particular days. I should alert the Court that I would most
17 appreciate not scheduling this for the 23rd or the 24th because of some
18 commitments, which are out of the country that just came up, in fact, last
19 night. So barring those two days because of the travelling and what have
20 you, but that can -- we can work on that. But as I indicated, I think
21 three days should be sufficient because normally, from what I understand,
22 these are not technical witnesses, and I don't suspect it's going to be
23 that cumbersome.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
25 Mr. Stojanovic?
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] To be quite honest, Your Honour,
2 I didn't think I would need to ask anything, but now Mr. McCloskey --
3 pardon me, but I suppose it's not something to do directly with our
4 client. I hope that it will not take long -- we will not take long and we
5 will not have any problem.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 Mr. McCloskey, is it possible to change the hearing time?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: We are flexible, though, as you know, witnesses in
9 this situation really need official documents and the dates on those
10 official documents have been set, though they have not been transferred
11 yet. If we can get another date quickly that the Court is okay with, that
12 everyone's okay with, we can -- I don't mind scratching out, pencilling in
13 and initialing, or we can just retype. But if we can sort that out this
14 afternoon, it's not too late. They have not gone out into the stream of
15 commerce, so to speak, yet.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I hope the parties would reach right after this
17 session and if there is any decisions reached, or agreements reached by
18 the parties, please inform us as soon as possible. I think we are also
19 flexible concerning the specific dates.
20 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I just have one housekeeping matter, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: And this regards to what we previously had admitted
24 as D86/1A. This was a translation that was done. It originally was an
25 exhibit. In the B/C/S it was P427/B. And as you might recall, we had a
1 translation done. A word was still missing or wasn't quite accurately
2 translated, so we asked that it be translated again. It refers to a -- to
3 the command of the Drina Corps. It was an urgent request made by
4 General Zivanovic. Again, this is the last official translation from the
5 Registrar or the folks that do this. And so, we can -- believe it's a
6 critical -- the words are two that were at issue, and this came up when
7 Mr. Butler was on the stand. We believe it's critical enough that we
8 should have a -- the best of translations, and this is it. So we would
9 like to tender it at this time -- or, I mean, it's already in, we just
10 want to tender the new translation.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, I hope before you're doing that you could
12 furnish the Prosecution with it, with the new translations. If there's no
13 disagreement from their part, I think it will be no problem for the Bench.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. And again, this is done
15 by -- in-house. It wasn't done by us.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 Are there any other matters?
18 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, just briefly, Mr. President, as you know,
20 Ms. Davis is leaving us and if she could just say a word or two.
21 MS. DAVIS: I just really wanted to let you know that I wouldn't
22 be appearing in this case after today because I'm returning to the United
23 States to my legal practice there. And it's been an honour to appear
24 before this Bench and it's been a great experience and I just wanted to
25 take this opportunity to say thank you and goodbye.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, there are so many sad moments in this case. On
2 behalf of the Bench we would like to thank you very much for your
3 contributions in this case. I believe that everybody's contributions in
4 this case should be recognised. We all wish you good luck in your future.
5 MS. DAVIS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Blagojevic.
7 THE ACCUSED BLAGOJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a
8 request to make. I don't want to make any more comments, because the
9 Trial Chamber is well aware of my position regarding the forthcoming phase
10 of the trial, but I would like to kindly ask the Chamber, if that is at
11 all possible, because I cannot influence the decisions made here in any
12 other way, I was planning a visit by my family for the 28th, 29th of
13 February, the 1st of March, the 2nd and 3rd of March. And I would be
14 grateful if our scheduling would not coincide with those dates, because I
15 have already committed certain funds that I cannot withdraw. I cannot
16 cancel these arrangements. And if it's at all possible, I would be
17 grateful if you could meet my request.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. And I think this Bench will bear
19 your request in mind and we'll get in touch with the Registrar to provide
20 the possible facilities for this visit. And also, we would like to
21 request the parties, when you're discussing about the witnesses, please
22 bear this in mind. I believe the clients' interest should be above, over,
23 the counsels'.
24 Well, you may sit down, please.
25 Well, having said that, we believe that the hearing is adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.45 p.m.
2 to be resumed on Wednesday, the 25th of February.