1 Thursday, 15 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.43 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Today in the absence of Judge Mindua, we sit
7 pursuant to the provision of Rule 15 bis.
8 Ms. Isailovic.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 WITNESS: WITNESS W-91 [Resumed]
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic [Continued]:
12 Q. We're going to begin with the document that we saw when we
13 finished the session yesterday. Just before we ended the session, we were
14 looking at a document.
15 Good afternoon, Witness. Would you kindly answer to the following
16 question: What happened exactly with the soldier, the UNPROFOR soldier?
17 A. I do know which UNPROFOR soldier you mean.
18 Q. You have on your screen a report. It's the statement following a
19 meeting that took place with you and Mr. Barry Hogan on the 28th of
20 February, 2007; and in this report or statement, there's mention of a
21 misunderstanding that took place with a French -- between a French officer
22 and a soldier from the UNPROFOR.
23 It starts with your name - we're not going to mention it here -
24 and it says here in B/C/S "physically stopped."
25 A. As yesterday, at the very end of the trial, I saw this document
1 for the first time. So I would ask you for two minutes only to read it,
2 and I will gladly answer a question.
3 Yes, I have read it. I can now answer your question. I
4 absolutely confirm that on the day stated I met that gentleman in my
5 office, and on that occasion I gave him all these items that were
6 stated -- that are stated here. Our conversation that followed, and that
7 lasted for about 15 minutes, I understood to be an informal conversation
8 between two fellow police officers.
9 I mentioned then, among others, that the occasion mentioned here
10 was not the first occasion when I, as -- in my official capacity as an
11 investigator, had to protect physical evidence at a -- at a crime scene.
12 When UNPROFOR representatives came to such a crime scene, these
13 citizens present would often have a negative attitude toward UNPROFOR
14 members, because many people had come to harm and many among them
15 children. Sometimes UNPROFOR personnel acted in less than a professional
16 manner at the crime scene, and that such behaviour would additionally
17 increase the tensions.
18 In that informal conversation that I mentioned, that in the given
19 situation, I mean this concrete event now, there was an attempt to remove
20 physical evidence from the scene; and in that situation, I said I had
21 prevented it, and that I was willing to prevent it because that mustn't
22 happen for two reasons: One reason being my professional duty, and the
23 other, as I said, if the UNPROFOR person, staff member had not obeyed, I'm
24 sure that guns would say have been drawn, or weapons would have been
1 I -- my reaction was directed toward the French soldier, not
2 toward the Nigerian major. If that is a what I said, then it was a slip
3 of the tongue.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness confirmed
5 to us that he effectively said what this statement reflects. I would like
6 to ask the document be put in evidence, tendered into evidence, and for
7 the transcript we're talking about the document DD00-1416.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D126, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I should have mentioned at the beginning that we
11 started late because of technical problems.
12 Mr. Waespi.
13 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. President. If the exhibit
14 could be under seal, please, because it carries the name of the witness.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, under seal.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be under seal, Your Honours.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Witness, I will ask my assistant to call up the statement of the
19 witness of the 24th of September. It's the following number 65 ter 3042.
20 In your statement of the 14th of November - correction - you were
21 talking about meetings that took place, meetings that you yourself
22 organised or your sector, the police, the Sarajevo police organised with
23 the local police. You will see the document on the screen.
24 I'm interested in page 2 of the document that you will see on the
25 screen, and the last paragraph, second sentence in both versions. So the
1 paragraph that I would like to you read would be the last paragraph,
2 second sentence. Please read it for yourself.
3 Now, I would like to ask you the following: The meeting took
4 place with police officers at a municipal level; is that right?
5 A. I can give you a precise explanation if you allow. The department
6 to which I belonged at the time was at the level of CSB Sarajevo; and for
7 the purpose of easier understanding, you can understand that to be the
8 umbrella of all Sarajevo police. So all Sarajevo police was distributed
9 into police stations and the hierarchy was top down, and this meeting was
10 proposed by the members of the department to which I belonged.
11 The reason for calling this -- this meeting was -- was mentioned
12 to the police executives, and they had mentioned that to the chiefs of
13 police stations.
14 Q. Those people in police stations, the people who worked for the
15 police stations at the lowest level, had to take the elements, had to --
16 had to monitor the scene of the crime, and were in charge of the scene of
17 the crime after a crime took place. Is that right?
18 A. We say they secure the scene until the arrival of the
19 investigative team, yes.
20 Q. Right. That is the French word that I used because the police
21 officer have to secure the area, that's the technical word. I imagine
22 that in English the word would be "secure."
23 I also imagine that during this meeting your superiors gave them
24 instructions regarding the victims that would be found on site, where a
25 crime had been committed.
1 A. As far as I remember, and it's some time -- it was some time ago,
2 what you say was not the most important point mentioned at the meeting.
3 If you want me to say what was, I'll do that gladly.
4 Q. Witness, no, it's not necessary. I will ask you questions or will
5 put questions to you, and you will tell me if it's right or not.
6 So you did not discuss securing traces of victims on the scene of
7 the crime?
8 A. As, especially when there was shelling, many victims suffered very
9 severe injuries, sometimes we would find body parts also, so that
10 forensically speaking, these body parts to a criminal investigator
11 certainly are evidence. And one of our tasks was to collect such evidence
12 and secure them -- secure it.
13 Q. Witness, would you be able to confirm to me the following: The
14 officers at the lowest level, those were the first ones to go out on the
15 crime scene; is that right?
16 A. Yes. In principle, they are the first to arrive because the
17 colleagues from the local police stations who were physically closest to
18 the scene arrived there before the others.
19 Q. Do you remember if investigations took place in which you were
20 participating, do you remember if those local police officers, at the
21 lowest level once again, if they were able to indicate where people died,
22 where people were injured? Do you remember that, if they physically
23 marked the area where people were injured and where people died?
24 A. If you mean the forensic marking of the crime scene, my answer is
25 no. But if you mean the possible securing of evidence until the arrival
1 of the investigative team, my answer is yes.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, where is this line of question
3 leading? You're questioning in relation to the propriety or impropriety
4 of procedures. What is the point you are trying to make?
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, today we have in our
6 presence a person who is able to shed some light on the way the
7 investigation took place -- or those investigations took place. I believe
8 that it is very important to ask this line of questioning because we can
9 obtain a great number of details.
10 And I will only have a few questions of this type to put to the
11 witness, and then I will talk about two incidents which we could see on
12 the indictment list, on the schedule, and this witness was a member of a
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's examine what have you said. You said we
15 have a person here who could shed light on the way the investigation took
16 place, and you think it is very important to follow this line of question
17 because we can obtain a great number of details. Why do you want these
18 details? I mean, how is it important to your case to have these details?
19 That is my question.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to ensure a
21 proper defence, all the facts are important, especially all the facts that
22 are qualified as offences which you can find in the indictment, which we
23 can all see in the indictment, especially all the elements that were part
24 of these investigations, because the Defence and I believe the Trial
25 Chamber cannot take this investigations and cannot read these reports
1 without analysing them minutiously in order to establish the fact that are
2 qualified later as being serious offences, and these offences are, of
3 course, in the indictment.
4 Up until today we have received many reports, and I found
5 instructions in a statement of this witness, instructions that he gave to
6 the police officers, the first one who would go to the crime scene,
7 because, in fact, the Prosecution is not going to call those witnesses to
8 the bar, those police officers who were the first ones to see the victims,
9 the injured, the dead bodies, to talk to us about the position of the dead
11 So this is very important to the Defence, to us, because it's part
12 of the investigation. It could indicate the direction of fire. It is
13 very important to us, especially when we talk about sniping incidents, and
14 it is very important for shelling incidents as well, to establish all
15 these facts.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: The direction of fire is, of course, important,
17 but you have not asked anything that is of relevance to that. And
18 generally, I am at a loss to see how general questioning about the local
19 procedures would be helpful to the Chamber in determining whether on the
20 basis of the evidence the crimes charge have been made out.
21 It is one thing if you are saying that the procedures are so
22 untrustworthy that the Chamber cannot place any reliance on them and that
23 the evidence as a whole should be disregarded. That's Rule, I think, 95
24 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, but I don't know understand you to
25 be going as far as that.
1 So that so far in the response to me, the only thing I see helpful
2 would be if you are able to elicit some evidence from this witness about
3 the procedures, to throw some light on the direction of fire, where the
4 shots came from. Otherwise, I don't consider it helpful to delve into
5 these procedures.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you deem that this
7 is unnecessary, I can go to another topic, but I believe still that it is
8 very important. It is, of course, you will who will have all the elements
9 at the end of the day. But if you wish, I can go to another topic.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me quite plain. If I'm stopping you, it is
11 because have you not persuaded me that the line of question is relevant to
12 any part of your case, apart from the reference you have made to the
13 direction of fire, the line of fire, and you haven't asked any questions
14 that relate to that.
15 If you're suggesting that the line of questioning is important
16 because part of your case is that the bodies were planted, then that is a
17 different matter. But your colleague had suggested that. You are not
18 suggesting that that is the purpose. If that's what you're suggesting,
19 then certainly I would allow to you continue along a line that is relevant
20 to that kind of defence.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just to summarize, we
22 only have one line of defence. It is not myself or my colleague. We both
23 share the same defence thesis, and you will see it very rapidly at the end
24 of the Prosecution case. We will present to you our arguments, and
25 according to us these are arguments that we are trying to get from the
1 witnesses that are called to the bar by the Prosecution.
2 Those witnesses were chosen by the Prosecution because they are
3 there to support the Prosecution case -- Prosecution's case, but we are
4 going to prove the contrary, of course, or we're going to try to prove the
5 contrary. But if you want me, I can finish with this line of questioning
6 and ask the witness the following.
7 Q. Witness, we talked about a specific incident, and we could maybe
8 move into private session for this question, with your leave,
9 Mr. President, because if we talk about this incident, we can't do it in
10 open court.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 3775-3786 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open Session]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I have been informed by the court
3 deputy you have used one hour. The Chamber will give you another half an
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Now, could we please -- I'm asking my case manager to please call
7 up 65 ter document number 63.
8 We have a technical problem. Could the court officer please help
9 us. So it's the 65 ter document number 63, page 5, please. In the
10 English version, it's on page 2.
11 Q. Witness, we're still in private session, so you do see your name,
12 right; and in fact --
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: What session are we in? We're in public session?
15 We're in public session, so do we need to go into private session.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour that. Would be
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 3788-3802 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
6 WITNESS: WITNESS W-46
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just say before you begin, Ms. Edgerton,
9 we'll just divide the time equally between now and 7.00. I think we'll
10 take the break somewhere in the region of 6.00, the first break.
11 Please sit.
12 You may begin, Ms. Edgerton.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, pursuant to
14 Your Honour's order of 12 March, 2007, these proceedings will be in closed
15 session, and I would ask that we move into closed session at this point.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON Yes, we will move into closed session.
17 [Closed session]
11 Pages 3804-3837 redacted. Closed session.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day of March,
2 2007, at 9.00 a.m.