1. 1 Tuesday, 23rd June 1998

    2 (Open session)

    3 (The accused entered court)

    4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. I'll ask the

    6 registrar to call out the case number, please.

    7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.

    8 Case number IT-95-13a-T, the Prosecutor versus Slavko

    9 Dokmanovic.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Appearances as

    11 usual, I imagine. So we do without the appearances. I

    12 suggest that we start with the -- if there are no other

    13 matters. Are there any comments or suggestions by the

    14 parties?

    15 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honours, there is a

    16 matter that I would like to raise, if I may?

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Good.

    18 MR. NIEMANN: It relates to the order of

    19 witnesses this week --

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    21 MR. NIEMANN: -- and the programme that we

    22 have, and I thought it would be useful if I indicated

    23 early in the piece that we have a difficulty in the

    24 sense that we anticipate that there will be gaps in

    25 time, and I don't know whether we can do anything to

  2. 1 fill those gaps, and I thought it would be useful to

    2 discuss it now, if we could?

    3 Let me explain, Your Honour. The position is

    4 this, that we have two witnesses for today which may

    5 not go longer than lunchtime, may go a little longer,

    6 and two witnesses for tomorrow which will take up the

    7 same time, so again going to lunchtime, and then on

    8 Thursday, we have one witness, but Mr. Fila is to call

    9 evidence on that day, so there shouldn't be a problem.

    10 One possibility -- I don't know what

    11 Mr. Fila's reaction to it would be -- that if he was

    12 able to call a witness at one of these periods of time,

    13 it may then reduce the amount of time at the end. It

    14 may not suit Mr. Fila to do that, but if you are able

    15 to do that, I think it would fill some time.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    17 MR. NIEMANN: The reason for it -- let me

    18 explain, Your Honours -- is this: A lot of these

    19 witnesses are experts. In particular, Dr. Wagenaar and

    20 Dr. Gudjonsson are both professionals. Dr. Wagenaar is

    21 the Chancellor or President of Leiden University at the

    22 moment and has a very tight schedule, and we've been in

    23 contact with him and said, could he please change his

    24 timetable because we have these gaps. He said to us,

    25 look, this is the only time he has this week and that

  3. 1 is the only time he can make available to us.

    2 The same position with respect to

    3 Dr. Gudjonsson. We've been in touch with him. He has

    4 to travel over from London, and he is involved in

    5 another case during the course, I think, of today and

    6 won't be back in London in order to come over here any

    7 earlier than the time that he's set on Thursday

    8 morning.

    9 So we're somewhat precluded in changing

    10 things around. This is always the difficulty with

    11 experts, as Your Honours will appreciate. How we had

    12 originally planned it was we thought we were going to

    13 be sitting this week with all of the witnesses, but by

    14 calling some of our witnesses early last week, it has

    15 interrupted it, and, as I say, we tried to change it

    16 but were unsuccessful.

    17 It looks as though, Your Honours, there will

    18 be time this afternoon, time on Wednesday afternoon,

    19 Thursday I don't think will be a problem because, as I

    20 say, it was for Mr. Fila and his rejoinder evidence,

    21 but I thought I should raise it. If there is anything

    22 we can do to fill that gap, we'd like to do it, but

    23 other than that, I'm afraid we're going to be left in

    24 that position.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I understand that

  4. 1 you are in a position to call two witnesses today.

    2 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: That is Mr. Herold and

    4 Mr. Corwin?

    5 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Herold and Mr. Corwin.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Today. And then --

    7 MR. NIEMANN: On Wednesday, it is

    8 Mr. Wagenaar and Witness S.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Witness S on Wednesday, and

    10 then Professor Gudjonsson on Thursday morning.

    11 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Well, I will turn to Mr. Fila

    13 because, honestly, we were hoping to suggest to the

    14 parties, without in any way, of course, limiting,

    15 restraining their rights, to try to see whether we

    16 could actually complete this case by Thursday evening

    17 instead of Friday. We don't want to rush through all

    18 these matters, but probably since we have few

    19 witnesses, and if Mr. Fila is agreeable, we could

    20 probably -- Mr. Fila could call his witnesses in the

    21 afternoon, and then on Thursday afternoon, we could

    22 hear the closing statements.

    23 But, as I say, it's for you to ...

    24 MR. FILA: Your Honour, as far as the answer

    25 of the Defence is concerned, we have a total of two

  5. 1 witnesses, as you know. One witness is an investigator

    2 at the Fila law office, and we can hear him whenever

    3 you wish. He will be here, and regardless of whether

    4 it's going to be today or tomorrow, he'll be here.

    5 It's fine.

    6 But as far as the other witness is concerned,

    7 that is an expert witness, and that is a rejoinder to

    8 this last witness that the Prosecutor is going to

    9 call. So I cannot hear her in rejoinder to something

    10 that she has not heard and that we have not heard,

    11 rather.

    12 As far as Witness Wagenaar is concerned,

    13 Expert Wagenaar, if he cannot come, I accept his

    14 statement, I am not going to put a single objection to

    15 it, and let his written statement be full testimony, if

    16 that would speed up the proceedings.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Well, Mr. Niemann, what

    18 about this idea?

    19 MR. NIEMANN: Sorry, Your Honour. Your

    20 Honours, if it could be worked in such a way, that

    21 would expedite matters. We feel that the statement

    22 would be fine, if that can be achieved. I'm not sure

    23 how that will speed things up, but certainly, Your

    24 Honours, we're happy with that.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: So, therefore, this relates

  6. 1 to Professor Wagenaar, the Rector or the President of

    2 Leiden University --

    3 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: -- who was expected to come

    5 here on Wednesday. But the other professor, the expert

    6 in clinical psychology, Gudjonsson, would be coming on

    7 Thursday morning only; and I understand from Mr. Fila

    8 then, his expert in psychology, the psychologist to be

    9 called by Mr. Fila, should come then after the first

    10 one, namely on Thursday, again on Thursday, after your

    11 expert witness.

    12 MR. NIEMANN: We can't argue with that, Your

    13 Honour. It sounded reasonable that he can't call the

    14 witness until after Dr. Gudjonsson.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, of course.

    16 MR. FILA: As far as other matters are

    17 concerned, although the court did not make it incumbent

    18 upon me to hand my closing statement over in writing, I

    19 did it nevertheless, and as soon as it is translated,

    20 you are going to receive a copy and it's going to speed

    21 up matters immensely because I shall be speaking for a

    22 very short period of time, and this goes for

    23 Mr. Niemann too, because you're going to get my closing

    24 argument in writing as soon as Mr. Bos has it

    25 translated, and this will certainly expedite the entire

  7. 1 affair.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila. We are

    3 really grateful to you. However, I would like to

    4 remind you that we had agreed that the closing

    5 statements should be provided in writing simultaneously

    6 on Thursday evening, Thursday by 5.00 p.m. Now, if we

    7 can bring forward the proceedings and ask you to

    8 provide those closing statements in writing by

    9 Wednesday p.m., then we could, on Thursday afternoon,

    10 hear the closing statements based on the text where you

    11 could simply supplement or sum up the main points.

    12 MR. FILA: Your Honour, Your Honour, I have

    13 already handed mine in, so it is not in my hands any

    14 longer, so to speak, but in Mr. Bos's. So when it is

    15 completed, then it will be fine. That is the best I

    16 could do. Thank you.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. It's most helpful

    18 of you, Mr. Fila. Thank you.

    19 Mr. Niemann?

    20 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honour, our closing

    21 statements is in two parts. The part I will deliver

    22 will be on questions of law and, yes, I can do that,

    23 comply with that on Wednesday evening.

    24 On the issue of the factual side of it, my

    25 colleague, Mr. Williamson, is going to address you on

  8. 1 the facts. I think he may be able to provide you with

    2 something in writing, but he was planning, I

    3 understand, to concentrate more on the oral

    4 presentation, whereas on the legal presentation, I was

    5 going to be rather short. But certainly Your Honours

    6 will have that side of it.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Let us hope then that

    8 we may finish by Thursday evening. So in principle,

    9 therefore, today we will hear at least two witnesses,

    10 probably only two witnesses; then tomorrow, Witness S;

    11 and then on Thursday morning, the expert witness for

    12 the Prosecution and the expert witness for the Defence,

    13 plus the investigator. The investigator could be heard

    14 this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon. Yes, whenever it

    15 suits you.

    16 MR. FILA: The investigator submitted two

    17 reports to be translated. I don't know if these

    18 translations have been completed, so as soon as they're

    19 completed, we can hear him as a witness. Perhaps

    20 tomorrow, because Witness S is going to be brief

    21 tomorrow morning, if I'm not mistaken. Tomorrow

    22 morning, both of them. And that will be it, if that is

    23 best.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I think this is a

    25 good programme. However, let us be flexible so that

  9. 1 both parties have ample opportunity to flesh out the

    2 various items which must be discussed.

    3 I wonder whether the Prosecution is in a

    4 position to call their first witness.

    5 MR. NIEMANN: Certainly, Your Honour. Just

    6 before I do that, I just need to make sure that there

    7 is no question of Dr. Wagenaar being necessary. We

    8 need to ring him and let him know out of courtesy that

    9 he won't be required, so may I do that now?

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    11 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, for this

    12 morning's proceedings, might I be excused? I have

    13 another matter in another Chamber, and my colleague,

    14 Mr. Williamson, will handle the witnesses this

    15 morning. Thank you, Your Honours.

    16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, at this time we

    17 would call Noel Herold.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    19 (The witness entered court)

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I ask you

    21 to read the solemn declaration, please?

    22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

    24 truth.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be

  10. 1 seated. Mr. Williamson?


    3 Examined by Mr. Williamson:

    4 Q. Mr. Herold, what is your educational

    5 background?

    6 A. I have a bachelor of arts degree in physics.

    7 Q. Where did you obtain your degree?

    8 A. Defiance College in Defiance, Ohio.

    9 Q. After completing your university studies, in

    10 what type of work were you engaged?

    11 A. I worked for approximately five years for the

    12 Apollo Space Programme in Kennedy Space Center,

    13 Florida.

    14 Q. At some point in time, did you go to work

    15 with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI?

    16 A. Yes, I did.

    17 Q. When was that?

    18 A. That was in January of 1970.

    19 Q. What were you doing initially with the FBI?

    20 A. Initially, I was an investigator assigned to

    21 cases in the field office of Cincinnati and New York

    22 City.

    23 Q. Did there come a time when you began doing

    24 analysis of videotape and audiotape materials?

    25 A. Yes.

  11. 1 Q. When was that?

    2 A. Approximately 1975.

    3 Q. Are you still employed with the FBI?

    4 A. Yes, I -- well, I retired from the FBI. I'm

    5 working as a contractor with the FBI now.

    6 Q. What was your rank when you retired from the

    7 FBI?

    8 A. I was a supervisory special agent.

    9 Q. You are currently working as a contractor, as

    10 a consultant?

    11 A. That's right.

    12 Q. Do you have expertise or specialisation in

    13 particular fields?

    14 A. Yes. I work, among others, in video and

    15 audio enhancement, video and audio synchronisation,

    16 video and audio authenticity.

    17 Q. Have you ever testified in court before?

    18 A. Yes, I have.

    19 Q. Have you ever been qualified as an expert

    20 witness in the field of video examination?

    21 A. Yes, I have.

    22 Q. Have you provided a list to the Prosecutor of

    23 cases in which you have been qualified as an expert

    24 witness and have testified?

    25 A. Yes, I did.

  12. 1 Q. At this time, I would like to show you a

    2 document which I will mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit 256

    3 and ask you to look at this, please. Is this your CV

    4 and the list of court cases in which you have

    5 testified?

    6 A. Yes, it is.

    7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would tender this as

    8 Prosecutor's Exhibit 256.

    9 Q. Mr. Herold, were you contacted by the Office

    10 of the Prosecutor in late May of this year and asked

    11 about conducting analysis on a videotape?

    12 A. Yes, I was.

    13 Q. Did you, in fact, do that analysis?

    14 A. Yes, I did.

    15 Q. Did you document your findings in a written

    16 report?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. At this time, I would like for you to view a

    19 document which I'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit 257

    20 and ask you if you can identify this, please? Is this

    21 the report that you prepared?

    22 A. Yes, it is.

    23 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would tender this as

    24 Prosecutor's Exhibit 257.

    25 Q. In the beginning of June of this year, did

  13. 1 you meet with an investigator from the Office of the

    2 Prosecutor, Mr. Vladimir Dzuro, at the FBI laboratory

    3 in Quantico?

    4 A. At the beginning of the month, yes.

    5 Q. Did Mr. Dzuro bring with him materials which

    6 you were asked to examine?

    7 A. Yes, he did.

    8 Q. I would like at this time for you to view

    9 Defence Exhibit 2. Does this appear to be the

    10 videotape that Mr. Dzuro delivered to you?

    11 A. Yes, it is.

    12 Q. Did you have an opportunity thereafter to

    13 conduct an examination of this videotape?

    14 A. Yes, I did.

    15 Q. What, if anything, were you able to determine

    16 as to whether this was an original tape or a copy?

    17 A. I determined that it was a copy.

    18 Q. Were you able to determine which copy it was;

    19 in other words, was this a first copy or a second copy

    20 made from an original?

    21 A. The first part of the tape was a copy of the

    22 original, and the second part of the tape was a copy

    23 from a copy.

    24 Q. Now, do you at times have terminology that

    25 you use for this, such as first generation or second

  14. 1 generation copy?

    2 A. Normally we refer to an original, a copy from

    3 the original, as a first generation, and a copy of a

    4 copy as a second generation.

    5 Q. So as I understand it, the portion which had

    6 a date display of the 20th of November was a first

    7 generation copy; in other words, a copy that was made

    8 from an original?

    9 A. That's right.

    10 Q. And then the portion with the date of the

    11 28th of November was a second generation or later copy;

    12 is that correct?

    13 A. That's right.

    14 Q. So it was made from a copy?

    15 A. That's right.

    16 Q. Is there any way for you to determine if this

    17 copy, this first generation copy, the portion from the

    18 20th of November, has the same content as the original

    19 videotape?

    20 A. There's no way.

    21 Q. Is it possible, when making a copy, to alter

    22 the sequence in which segments appear from how they

    23 appeared on the original?

    24 A. It would be possible.

    25 Q. Is it possible to add the time-date display

  15. 1 onto a copy if it wasn't present in the original?

    2 A. That would be possible, yes.

    3 Q. Is there any way for you to determine, by

    4 examining this tape, if the time-date display was

    5 recorded on the original or was added on the copy?

    6 A. There's no way to determine.

    7 Q. Even had the time-date display been present

    8 in the original, would it have been possible to omit

    9 portions of the videotape from the original when making

    10 the copy?

    11 A. Yes, that would be possible.

    12 Q. Would it also have been possible to omit

    13 additional footage which might have been at the end of

    14 a certain sequence of the videotape?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. In relation to all of these questions that

    17 I've asked you, there's no way for you to determine if

    18 this has happened or not, though, because we're dealing

    19 with a copy; correct?

    20 A. That's right.

    21 Q. On this tape, there are also two other

    22 recordings, one of which you have already mentioned

    23 which has a date display of the 28th of November, and

    24 then another portion which appears to be a recording of

    25 an American movie; correct?

  16. 1 A. That's right.

    2 Q. Did you notice anything about the break

    3 between the portion with the date display of 20th

    4 November and the portion with the date display of 28th

    5 of November which caught your attention?

    6 A. Yes. The transition between the 20th and the

    7 28th indicated that there was an over recording at that

    8 point.

    9 Q. When you say an over recording, what do you

    10 mean by that?

    11 A. A recording was initiated over a recording

    12 that was already recorded on a tape.

    13 Q. But you would not be able to say if that was

    14 a continuation of the recording from the 20th of

    15 November or was a recording of something else?

    16 A. No, I have no way of determining the origin

    17 of that recording.

    18 Q. Is there any way for you to determine when

    19 this copy was made, the copy that you have examined as

    20 Defence Exhibit 2?

    21 A. In this case, no.

    22 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, sort of in

    23 summing this up, in your expert opinion, that copies of

    24 videotapes are inherently less reliable than originals

    25 and are subject to manipulation?

  17. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Now, during the course of doing work with

    3 this videotape, did you also have occasion to make a

    4 slow-motion copy of the videotape segment with the time

    5 display of 15.42?

    6 A. Yes, I did.

    7 Q. I would like for you at this time to view

    8 Prosecutor's Exhibit 234, please.

    9 At this point, I would just like for the

    10 witness to view the videotape itself.

    11 Is this the copy that you made, or can you

    12 tell by looking at the box?

    13 A. This is not the copy.

    14 Q. Okay. At this time, then, perhaps if we can

    15 show a brief segment of this?

    16 A. This tape appears to be a copy of the one I

    17 made.

    18 Q. We won't look at the whole thing, but if you

    19 can just look at a very brief segment of it and tell us

    20 if this is, in fact, the copy that you made?

    21 (Videotape played)

    22 Q. Does this appear to be a copy of the copy

    23 that you made?

    24 A. Yes, it does.

    25 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that's fine. Thank

  18. 1 you.

    2 Q. Can you explain the process by which you made

    3 this slow-motion copy?

    4 A. The original tape was played back and

    5 recorded on a digital video, digital beta cam video

    6 cassette tape, and then the digital beta cam video

    7 cassette tape was played back in slow-motion to produce

    8 the copy.

    9 Q. How much has this segment been slowed down?

    10 A. Approximately about one frame every half a

    11 second.

    12 Q. Other than seeing the segment at a slower

    13 speed, has this process in any way affected the content

    14 of the sequence?

    15 A. No, it has not.

    16 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no further questions.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila?

    18 Cross-examined by Mr. Fila:

    19 Q. Mr. Herold, I should like to apologise in

    20 advance if I ask something too silly, I mean, if that's

    21 the right word for it, because I am a total layman in

    22 this field.

    23 My first question would be the following:

    24 You said in principle that it can be this and it can be

    25 that. Can you confirm or can you deny that this copy

  19. 1 in front of you dates back to 1991? Can you say that

    2 for sure one way or the other?

    3 A. No, I cannot.

    4 Q. Is there a possibility to ascertain how old a

    5 tape is? I mean, not the recording on it but of the

    6 tape itself? Have I made myself clear? For example,

    7 was this manufactured in 1991, this tape which you have

    8 before you? Is it seven or eight years old? I mean,

    9 not when it was recorded, if you know what I'm saying,

    10 but the tape itself.

    11 A. Oftentimes a tape shell contains nomenclature

    12 on it that would indicate who the manufacturer is. You

    13 can go to the manufacturer and provide him with the

    14 numbers, and he can normally tell you when the tape

    15 itself was manufactured. In this case, there are no

    16 numbers to do that with.

    17 Q. But these are pirate cassettes from

    18 Yugoslavia. I happen to know that because we all had

    19 them at that time, you know? But can you ascertain how

    20 old the material is, so to speak? For example, we can

    21 say how old corpses are, how old trees are. Can you

    22 ascertain this too?

    23 I apologised in advance. I said that I might

    24 be asking senseless questions but ...

    25 A. No, I have no way of knowing when this tape

  20. 1 was made.

    2 Q. If anything was forged on this tape, I mean,

    3 on the original, do you need some kind of superior

    4 technical equipment or knowledge?

    5 A. Well, being a copy, there is no way of

    6 knowing what the original tape contains.

    7 Q. If we had a copy of these copies, second

    8 generation copies, on these second generation tapes,

    9 would the numbers and the date have to be on them if

    10 they were on the original, or would they simply not be

    11 there if they were not on the original copy, if you

    12 know what I mean?

    13 A. Well, if the original tape contains the

    14 date-time display on it, they would be there. If it

    15 did not, they would not be.

    16 Q. If I were to give you two other tapes which

    17 are copies of this tape and for which I claim that

    18 they're also from 1991 and that they contain that date,

    19 the 21st of November, and the same minutes, could I

    20 conclude that everything that was done with this tape

    21 was done in 1991?

    22 A. I don't know how you can determine a date.

    23 You can make multiple copies of the same tape at the

    24 same time.

    25 Q. I understood that. But perhaps I should say

  21. 1 this more precisely. The man who was the owner of this

    2 tape that you looked at, he said that he made copies

    3 from that tape and that he gave these copies to certain

    4 persons who corroborated that before this court. That

    5 is to say that this would be the next generation of

    6 copies, if we were to call this the first generation

    7 copy, as you did. And these witnesses claim that they

    8 received this in 1991.

    9 Could one conclude then that if it is so,

    10 that everything that was done with this copy was done

    11 in 1991?

    12 A. I have no way of knowing what the date was.

    13 Q. We haven't understood each other. If this

    14 copy was made in 1991, the one you had in your hands,

    15 what you got was made in 1991, that which is in front

    16 of you. The copies that were made on that basis would

    17 have to be identical to this original tape; right?

    18 A. If a copy was made from this copy, they would

    19 be identical.

    20 Q. Yes, yes, that's it. And everything would

    21 have to be the same, all the designations, the date,

    22 and the hour and the minutes, everything like on the

    23 tape that is front of you; right?

    24 A. It should be the same content.

    25 Q. And perhaps you could assume that this was

  22. 1 recorded without these numbers on it. I call them

    2 numbers because I don't know what they are exactly

    3 called. Would it be easy to get these numbers in

    4 subsequently? Would it be easy or does it really

    5 require an extra effort to do this subsequently?

    6 A. The date-time display numbers can be added

    7 subsequently when the copy is made.

    8 MR. FILA: All right, fine, thank you. No

    9 further questions.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    11 MR. FILA: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I forgot one

    12 question. Sorry, just one question, I forgot it.

    13 Q. Can you confirm that on this copy that you

    14 saw, no display numbers were deleted and then new ones

    15 inserted subsequently?

    16 A. No, I can't say that.

    17 Q. You cannot see that on the copy itself, that

    18 something was wiped out and then new numbers were

    19 written on it? Not on other copies, but on the one in

    20 front of you, were the original numbers taken off and

    21 new ones inserted? Can you see that?

    22 A. I have no way of knowing whether they were

    23 inserted later or they were on the original tape.

    24 Q. Again, we haven't understood each other. The

    25 dates that you saw here, you don't know whether they

  23. 1 were inserted subsequently or whether they were on the

    2 original. You agreed with that, yes. But the question

    3 is something different. Was a date deleted from this

    4 copy and then a new one added on the copy that you

    5 have, not on the original, the copy that you have?

    6 A. Again, when you're dealing with a copy, you

    7 can do a lot of things with a copy that aren't on the

    8 original. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean,

    9 but if the date-time is on the original tape, it's

    10 either there or it's not there. If it's there later on

    11 on the copy, it could be added subsequently.

    12 JUDGE MUMBA: Can I just explain? I think

    13 what you mean is whether the original dates, a later

    14 date was superimposed; is that what you mean?

    15 MR. FILA: Yes, yes, was something added,

    16 yes.

    17 JUDGE MUMBA: Superimposed, not added. On

    18 the same place, you place another date.

    19 A. Okay. You cannot place a new time-date

    20 display over the original without there being

    21 noticeable artefacts.

    22 MR. FILA: That's it.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Williamson,

    24 any re-examination?

    25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Just a couple of questions

  24. 1 Re-examined by Mr. Williamson:

    2 Q. Mr. Fila put some questions to you in

    3 relation to additional videotapes that were made. If

    4 you looked at these videotapes, would there be anything

    5 about the tape itself which would indicate when it was

    6 made?

    7 A. No.

    8 Q. So this would be totally reliant on what

    9 these persons had indicated as to when the tape was

    10 made. That would be the only basis for forming this

    11 opinion that Mr. Fila has put to you?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. If a video cassette was made in 1990 or 1989,

    14 would it still be possible to record something on that

    15 in 1998, for example?

    16 A. Certainly.

    17 Q. If a copy was made of a tape in 1998 or was

    18 made in 1993 and it was made from the same tape, would

    19 the content be the same?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. I have nothing

    22 further.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. So I assume

    24 there's no objection to the witness being released?

    25 Mr. Herold, thank you so much for coming here

  25. 1 to give evidence in court. You may now be released.

    2 Thank you.

    3 (The witness withdrew)

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Waespi, are you going to

    5 bring in Mr. Corwin?

    6 MR. WAESPI: Exactly, Your Honours.

    7 (The witness entered court)

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Could you

    9 please read the solemn declaration?

    10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I shall

    11 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

    12 truth.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.


    15 Examined by Mr. Waespi:

    16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Corwin.

    17 A. Good morning.

    18 Q. Are you a US citizen?

    19 A. Yes, I am.

    20 Q. What is your profession?

    21 A. Well, right now I'm retired and I've been

    22 writing, and I'm also a political consultant.

    23 Q. Who has been your employer?

    24 A. I worked for the United Nations for 27 years.

    25 Q. Can you tell us briefly some of the overseas

  26. 1 missions you were entrusted with in the course of your

    2 career with the UN?

    3 A. Well, I was on several peacekeeping missions

    4 including the Western Sahara, Afghanistan, Haiti, and a

    5 few assignments within the former Yugoslavia.

    6 Q. So you would consider yourself as being an

    7 experienced peacekeeper?

    8 A. Yes, sir.

    9 Q. Did you serve as a United Nations civil

    10 affairs officer in the Vukovar region between 1992 and

    11 1995?

    12 A. Yes, I did.

    13 Q. And were you for the last 20 months of that

    14 period the civil affairs coordinator or chief political

    15 officer in what was then known as Sector East?

    16 A. Yes, I was.

    17 Q. An area that included Vukovar?

    18 A. Yes, sir.

    19 Q. What was the nature of the activities you

    20 made as a civil affairs coordinator?

    21 A. Well, for the most part, I maintained contact

    22 with the local officials, and I reported on

    23 developments within the area in keeping with a mandate

    24 that we had as United Nations officials.

    25 Q. Do you know who was addressee of these

  27. 1 reports that you drafted?

    2 A. Well, directly to Yasushi Akashi or Cedric

    3 Thornberry. They were the special representatives of

    4 the Secretary-General in New York.

    5 Q. Mr. Corwin, were you contacted earlier this

    6 month by the Prosecution of this Tribunal, and did you

    7 give, over the phone, a brief statement as to your

    8 contact with Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic?

    9 A. Yes, I was contacted, and I did give a

    10 statement.

    11 Q. Did you sign the statement this morning as

    12 being a correct account of what you have told the

    13 Prosecution over the phone?

    14 A. Yes, I did sign it.

    15 Q. And does this statement describe the personal

    16 impression you got during your mission in the Vukovar

    17 area?

    18 A. Yes, generally, it does.

    19 Q. I would like to show you this statement and

    20 ask you whether you recognise it.

    21 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D58.

    22 MR. WAESPI: Excuse me, D58?

    23 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, 258.

    24 MR. WAESPI: 258, yes.

    25 A. Yes, that's my statement.

  28. 1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Corwin.

    2 MR. WAESPI: I would tender that as

    3 Prosecution Exhibit 258.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: No objection, Mr. Fila? No

    5 objection. Thank you.

    6 MR. WAESPI:

    7 Q. Mr. Corwin, in your capacity as a civil

    8 affairs coordinator, did you meet with Slavko

    9 Dokmanovic on a number of occasions?

    10 A. Yes, I did.

    11 Q. In general, and without going into details,

    12 how would you describe the behaviour of Mr. Dokmanovic?

    13 A. Well, he, I think as most Serb officials, was

    14 quite nationalistic. He was cooperative insofar as it

    15 would serve the aims of the Serbian leadership. And I

    16 think that his behaviour was generally the behaviour of

    17 all the local officials. They were all hard-liners,

    18 and I doubt very much if he would have been elected to

    19 his position if he had not been a hard-liner, because

    20 it was during a war or right after a war, and moderates

    21 were not in power.

    22 Q. How was your personal relations with

    23 Mr. Dokmanovic? Was he friendly with you or did he

    24 threaten you in any way?

    25 A. He never threatened me. I only met him at

  29. 1 official functions, and there were times, I think, when

    2 he might have been difficult, but he was never

    3 threatening.

    4 Q. In your report, you mentioned that during the

    5 course of contact with Mr. Dokmanovic, you did find him

    6 to be intoxicated on several occasions?

    7 A. Well, it was my impression. You know, I

    8 never -- I mean, I didn't take a blood test or anything

    9 but, I mean, it seemed to me that he was, yes.

    10 Q. Judging from your experience in that region,

    11 do you think alcohol was a general problem? Let's talk

    12 about politicians.

    13 A. Yes, I think it was. It was a problem. If

    14 it wasn't a tradition, it was certainly a problem.

    15 Q. What was the result of such intoxication on

    16 the part of Mr. Dokmanovic? How would he behave then?

    17 A. Well, sometimes he became very loud and

    18 rather irrational or illogical, especially when he

    19 started to speak about his view of the history of the

    20 region. I have no way of knowing if he would have been

    21 that way without alcohol. I think it probably just

    22 aggravated his opinions which he held anyway. I don't

    23 think that it changed his mind. I think it made him a

    24 little less rational.

    25 Q. What do you think was the main priority of

  30. 1 Dokmanovic and the other Serb officials?

    2 A. Well, my impression was that they were mainly

    3 concerned with achieving legitimacy for what was then

    4 called the RSK, Republic of Srpska Krajina, and that

    5 they pursued that objective any way they could. And if

    6 they felt that anything would help to achieve that

    7 objective, they would be cooperative; otherwise they

    8 would, I would say, be non-cooperative.

    9 Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Dokmanovic making

    10 anti-Croatian statements or slogans?

    11 A. Yes, I did, but I have to add that I never

    12 heard any sort of admission of any acts against

    13 Croatians. To the contrary, he probably would maintain

    14 that he was equal in his treatment of every citizen of

    15 Vukovar, regardless of ethnicity. At the same time,

    16 there were not very many Croatians left in Vukovar. At

    17 that point, it was probably 90 per cent Serbian. As I

    18 say, what he said was not necessarily followed up with

    19 action, I mean, but he was rather critical or

    20 intolerant of Croatians, yes.

    21 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much. No further

    22 questions, Your Honours.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila?

    24 Cross-examined by Mr. Fila:

    25 Q. Mr. Corwin, what was Dokmanovic at the time

  31. 1 when you met him? Mr. Corwin, what was Dokmanovic at

    2 the time when you met him?

    3 A. He was the mayor of Vukovar.

    4 Q. Was he a member of the government of the

    5 Republic of Serbian Krajina, by any chance?

    6 A. Well, insofar as he was the mayor of Vukovar,

    7 and he was a -- yes, I would say so. I don't know if

    8 he was a member of the RSK government which was in

    9 Kanine (phoen). I think most of the officials of the

    10 RSK government were in Kanine.

    11 Q. I asked you whether Mr. Dokmanovic was a

    12 member of the government of the Republic of Serbian

    13 Krajina at the time that you're talking about. I don't

    14 really care whether it was in Kanine or outside

    15 Kanine.

    16 A. Yes, I believe so. Yes, he was.

    17 Q. At the same time, he was the president of the

    18 municipality?

    19 A. Yes, I believe so.

    20 Q. What sessions of the government did you see

    21 him at? On what do you base your conclusion that he

    22 was a member of the government?

    23 A. Well, I'm not quite clear about your

    24 question. He was the mayor of Vukovar. He was

    25 introduced to me as the mayor of Vukovar, and I assume

  32. 1 that's a member of the government. I don't see how he

    2 could have been mayor of Vukovar and not be a member of

    3 the government.

    4 Q. Mm-hmm, I see. So you met him -- in your

    5 statement, you stated you met him over five or six

    6 times. On what occasions?

    7 A. Well, in my capacity as the chief political

    8 officer, I had to deal with him on several occasions.

    9 Q. Where? In his office?

    10 A. Yes, in his office in Vukovar.

    11 Q. Did he then hold those historic speeches that

    12 you were talking about? Were these the occasions when

    13 he drank in front of you or whether maybe you met him

    14 at some official functions, dinners, lunches and so

    15 forth?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. Was it there at those official functions,

    18 lunches, dinners, and so forth, that he gave the

    19 impression that he was under the influence of alcohol?

    20 A. Yes, yes, he did.

    21 Q. Did he leave that impression when you met him

    22 at work, at his work?

    23 A. That's a very difficult thing to answer. I

    24 would say yes, but I have to add also that this was no

    25 evidence of any sort of criminal behaviour. I mean, a

  33. 1 lot of people are drunk, but I think there were times

    2 when he seemed to be under the influence of alcohol,

    3 yes.

    4 Q. Yes, but where was it that you saw him under

    5 the influence of alcohol?

    6 A. At various -- there were a couple of times

    7 when I met with him in his office, and there were times

    8 when I was at other official functions when he seemed

    9 to be under the influence of alcohol.

    10 Q. If I understand you correctly, in both

    11 places?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. On what did you base your conclusion that he

    14 was under the influence of alcohol at work when he was

    15 in his office?

    16 A. Well, there were times when I met him in his

    17 office when he seemed a lot calmer and a lot more

    18 reasonable. It's very hard to say how you can tell

    19 whether someone is drunk or not, but it would seem that

    20 there were times when he was drunk. Usually there was

    21 always liquor available, but some of that was simply

    22 courtesy. He would offer people drinks. So I'm not

    23 quite sure what you're after. I would say that there

    24 were times when he seemed to be much louder, much less

    25 restrained, much more irrational than at other times.

  34. 1 So in that comparison, I would say there were times

    2 when he was drunk.

    3 Q. What I'm interested in is his work. I don't

    4 care about lunches, dinners, and so forth. I'm

    5 interested in while he was working. What was the basis

    6 for your conclusion? Since you said that you did not

    7 give him a breathalyser, what did you base your

    8 conclusion on then?

    9 A. On my impressions.

    10 MR. WAESPI: I think he has answered "When I

    11 met him in his office, that was work related."

    12 MR. FILA: I have no further questions.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    14 MR. FILA: Your reaction was too late. I

    15 have no further questions. I'm finished.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

    17 Mr. Waespi, any re-examination?

    18 MR. WAESPI: No.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much,

    20 Mr. Corwin, for coming here to give evidence. Since I

    21 assume the parties have no objection to your being

    22 released, you may now be released. Thank you.

    23 (The witness withdrew)

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Now, I gather we have

    25 finished for today. Mr. Williamson, we will hear

  35. 1 tomorrow morning two witnesses, Witness S and the

    2 Defence investigator; Thursday morning, Professor

    3 Gudjonsson and then the Defence psychologist; and

    4 Thursday afternoon, closing statements. Therefore,

    5 there will be no hearings this afternoon and tomorrow

    6 afternoon. The hearing is adjourned.

    7 --- Whereupon hearing adjourned at

    8 10.26 a.m. to be reconvened on

    9 Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 1998

    10 at 9.30 a.m.