1 Friday, 8 February 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Mr. Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic. Thank you.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 May we have the appearances, starting with the Prosecution.
12 Mr. Stringer.
13 MR. STRINGER: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours,
14 Douglas Stringer, Rachel Friedman, Thomas Laugel for the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 Mr. Zivanovic, for the Defence.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
18 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic, Christopher Gosnell, and our intern,
19 Mr. Alastair Livesey.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
21 Mr. Stringer, I note the Defence wants to raise something but I
22 would like to address, first, an issue with Mr. -- with the OTP. It's
23 about the 92 ter transcript that was tendered yesterday without a
24 redacted version. Is the redacted version in the meantime available?
25 That's perhaps something I should have asked Ms. Clanton.
1 MR. STRINGER: I believe it is. It was being redacted yesterday
2 morning. My understanding was that there were just four parts from
3 private session that had to be dealt with, and I believe that it's either
4 completed or can be completed within the next hour.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I would like to remind you of the
6 Trial Chamber's order of 5 December 2012, where we asked the Prosecution
7 to provide these on an ongoing basis before the witness comes or at least
8 the moment the witness comes.
9 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 MR. STRINGER: I apologise for the delay.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
13 MR. STRINGER: There is a question if I could take a quick moment
14 to raise in relation to this issue which I had intended to bring up. I
15 think it's okay in public session.
16 I think it was late last year we raised the -- the issue of
17 public access to statements of Rule 92 witnesses because the statements
18 were coming in at that time and this is why we are actually doing the
19 public redacted versions now, to make more information available to the
20 public. And I did get an inquiry from one of the media agencies that
21 reports on this trial, and it may be that because we are marking the
22 public redacted versions of the statements and actually putting them into
23 evidence as exhibits, once they have got an exhibit label on them,
24 Registry -- it may be the policy of the Chamber or the Registry in this
25 case to just hold the exhibits and not make them fully available to
1 members of the public to obtain.
2 And of course I can see if there is a specific document or
3 something, a photograph, but since it was our understanding that the
4 public redacted versions of the statements were being done in order to
5 provide greater access to the public, the question we were going to ask
6 is whether the Chamber would either be acceptable to Registry making
7 those available to the public or to the media if requested?
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: I know the problem and I see the problem. The
9 question is when these statements or transcripts are made available and,
10 indeed, it is the policy to make exhibits not publicly available before
11 the end of the trial. And as you say, statements and those transcripts
12 are considered as exhibits.
13 I think the Registrar wants to --
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: I wanted to say that we would have to look into
16 it and see what our previous position was, because I -- I don't remember
17 it exactly now, but the Registrar has obviously a better memory than I
18 have. And, indeed, what we decided was that we would not on a general
19 basis made these -- make these statements public, but that if there was a
20 request for any statement or transcript of this kind in particular, we
21 would look into it on a case-by-case basis.
22 MR. STRINGER: Very well. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll make
23 sure that the people from the media and public who have been inquiring
24 are made aware of the Chamber's position on this.
25 If I could just raise one other unrelated thing. We did hear
1 back from the Defence yesterday. This is in relation to the small
2 correction to the transcript of yesterday's witness, Mr. Berghofer, from
3 his testimony in the Mrksic case. The Trial Chamber will recall there
4 was the audio -- in reviewing the statement, the audio revealed that
5 there was a mistake it in the interpretation that appeared in the
6 official transcript from that trial. The Defence has informed us that
7 they agree, and so we will be sending this to CLSS asking that they make
8 the adjustment in the official version of that transcript.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
10 Mr. Zivanovic. Or Mr. Gosnell.
11 MR. GOSNELL: We don't have very much to say in respect of this
12 matter in terms of when -- the timing of the release of exhibits,
13 including 92 ter statements. Your Honours understand our concern that
14 producing a summary in court does potentially create a skewed impression
15 of the testimony to which, of course, the Defence doesn't have an
16 opportunity to respond in such a fashion.
17 I would just say as an aside, of course, there is nothing
18 stopping the Prosecution from, for example, redacting its witness
19 summaries and making those available to the press. So if there is a need
20 for the press to have further background on a particular witness, that
21 would be a way that they could provide that information.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Was there anything else from the Defence?
23 MR. GOSNELL: Sorry, Your Honour. I thought you were just asking
24 me about that particular issue.
25 The matter that I wanted to raise with Your Honours was twofold.
1 First - and I hope there would not be an objection from the Prosecution -
2 is to make available to you in hard copy the two statements that we will
3 be frequently referring to with the witness, and I propose also that she
4 would have that in front of her in hard copy so she can turn back and
5 forth as necessary.
6 And the second request I would have is that we make a -- and I
7 would make this proposal now. We will request Your Honours to admit both
8 of these prior statements. And we've had discussions about prior
9 statements in the past, and I entirely understand the Bench's position on
10 this. But I would suggest this is an exceptional situation because we
11 appear to have a witness on the stand who, I would suggest, is a
12 sensitive witness or is vulnerable in certain ways, and what I would not
13 like to do is toil through every inconsistency in these statements as
14 compared to her testimony, which would be both laborious and
15 potentially -- well, I don't want to use the word "traumatic," but
16 naturally, Your Honours, I am not going to shy away from going into any
17 important discrepancy, those that really must be put to the witness. But
18 I really would not wish to tax this witness more than is necessary and I
19 think we can avoid some of that simply by tendering the statements.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Gosnell, whereas your sensitivity to the
21 witness's situation is understandable and what you propose on the face of
22 it appears quite sensible, isn't there a problem -- isn't there an
23 evidential problem that would remain insofar as that if you fail to
24 challenge the witness on anything which on a reading is a clear
25 discrepancy, it leaves the Chamber in a very difficult position in that
1 the witness -- if these are admitted as exhibits, it leaves the Chamber
2 in the position of not having had a -- the witness's explanation for
3 what, on your eventual submissions would be a contradiction, an important
4 contradiction. Do you see a practical way around that?
5 MR. GOSNELL: Your Honour, I entirely agree that does pose some
6 problem, but -- in respect of Rule 90(H), of course. I would suggest
7 that Your Honours, however, are able -- in light of both the matters that
8 I will put to her and the matters that I don't put to her able to assess
9 that accordingly. Because -- and I've mentioned this before, there are
10 many other judgements where precisely the concern that you've raised has
11 arisen, and sometimes in respect of extremely important matters that were
12 not put to the witness under Rule 90(H), and nevertheless, the Chamber
13 assessed it in one way or another. Yes, probably lessening the extent to
14 which there is impeachment value in the discrepancy. So I would suggest
15 that that is what Your Honours could do when you are making that
17 The other matter, the other aspect of this, if I may, is that the
18 form of these documents is somewhat significant for your assessment as to
19 whether or not they are a reliable record of what the witness said at the
20 time. Just looking at the form of the 2000 statement, for example,
21 seeing who was present, the fact that it was in her language, the nature
22 of her attestation at the end, the nature of the attestation in the 2012
23 statement, I would suggest that these are all matters that really you
24 would need to look at in full in order to understand what the impeachment
25 value of these documents is. So on that basis as well, I would suggest
1 that it's useful for Your Honours to have that in front of you.
2 And again, Judge Hall, I entirely accept your point, but I would
3 that if there is a problem in that regard, it can be discounted in your
4 weighing of the testimony and of the impeachment value.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Stringer.
6 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, in response, if I can be heard on
7 this. It's a broader issue. It's come up before and I'd like to address
9 The Prosecution position has been, and although there are often
10 reasons to consider cutting corners, the Prosecution's position is that
11 statements of witnesses, written prior statements, are only admissible if
12 the conditions - relevant conditions - for admission have been met under
13 the Rules 92 ter, 92 bis, 92 quater. Now those conditions aren't being
14 met here. In fact, as the witness told the Chamber yesterday, the 19 --
15 sorry, the early statement from 2000 made to the Croatian authorities is
16 one that she didn't see. She signed it but she was very candid in
17 telling the Chamber that she didn't review it, and she certainly didn't
18 have an opportunity to make adjustments, to add other relevant points or
19 to correct any mistakes in it. She hasn't adopted it.
20 And so the Defence -- yes, it's a statement, it's got her
21 signature, and it's appropriate for them to cross-examine the witness on
22 it, but we're talking about impeaching a witness based on a statement
23 that there is doubt about whether it's complete, whether it's fully
24 accurate. That's number one. And so it's a bit unfair in a way to hold
25 the witness to the statement and then use it as a basis for the next
1 step, which is to compare it to a subsequent statement she made to an
2 ICTY investigator many years later and then also to compare it to her
3 testimony in these proceedings. It's about impeachment and about witness
4 credibility and as appreciative we are of the Defence's sensitivity, we
5 think that it's necessary in this situation not to cut corners but to
6 actually do it the way that it is more appropriately done which is
7 through cross-examination.
8 There is another issue which is that if both statements come in,
9 there is information in those statements that does not form a part of her
10 direct evidence. There are some statements in there that the Prosecution
11 finds somewhat useful, but they're not in evidence. And if the
12 statements come in, the Chamber's going to be left trying to wonder with
13 what are the inconsistencies that could have been raised on cross, as
14 Judge Hall has just alluded to, but then there is a question whether the
15 Chamber is going to be in a position to consider additional inculpatory
16 statements made by the witness that are found in these statements as
18 So that's another aspect, I think, that at the end in the final
19 submissions the Chamber's going to be a little bit in the dark or it's
20 going to have that additional element of uncertainty in terms of not only
21 what could she have been impeached or asked about on cross but what else
22 in here can we actually consider as evidence against the accused in the
23 case? So, yes, it's a sensitive situation, the witness is -- well, we
24 can see that she's emotional, and despite that, we think that it's
25 necessary to do this the way it ought to be done, which is to put these
1 to the witness on cross-examination, let her testimony and her responses
2 be the evidence rather than the statements themselves.
3 MR. GOSNELL: Just on the last point, Mr. President, which is a
4 new element raised by the Prosecution in terms of whether or not once
5 admitted these statements could be used for inculpatory purposes. The
6 case law at the Tribunal is clear, that when a statement is tendered, a
7 prior inconsistent statement is tendered in respect of -- to contradict
8 the witness, to impeach the witness. That is the sole purpose of its
9 admission and that is what we would suggest would be appropriate.
10 MR. STRINGER: If I could just offer one last -- there is a
11 reason why the Tribunal -- the Office of the Prosecutor does not accept
12 and use witness statements prepared by domestic authorities as 92 ter
13 statements, because of circumstances oftentimes in which those statements
14 were made and taken by local authorities many years ago.
15 The statements are a useful lead in locating witnesses, seeing in
16 general what their evidence is, but the statements themselves aren't
17 going to be the basis of -- solely the basis of the witness evidence and
18 certainly is not going to be tendered into evidence as substantive
19 evidence. That's why an ICTY statement is taken by an OTP investigator.
20 This witness hasn't even affirmed the earlier statement, and it's being
21 used now as -- the assumption from the Defence is it is her statement.
22 Yes, she signed it, but she's told the Chamber that she wasn't given an
23 opportunity to read it or to correct it, which, of course, are all
24 procedures that are required for the admission of statements under our
1 So it's not even sufficient -- I mean, it's impeachment value is
2 interesting but it's not established because the witness herself hasn't
3 even -- it's not her statement certainly the way that we treat statements
4 here in this Tribunal.
5 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
6 MR. GOSNELL: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I beg your indulgence
7 just for one minor correction to what the Prosecution has said.
8 In this very case - and I was very surprised to hear the
9 Prosecutor say that they wouldn't rely to a national statement as meeting
10 the minimum threshold for admissibility - in this very case they've
11 tendered statements pursuant to 92 ter that came through -- that were
12 based on national statements.
13 And secondly, Your Honour, this statement is not -- it's not just
14 this statement that comes out of blue. In 2012, the investigator went
15 through chapter -- paragraph by paragraph, that statement with the
16 witness, and the witness said paragraph 1 is true and correct;
17 paragraph 2, the incident mentioned took place in 1971; paragraph 3 is
18 true and correct, and so forth.
19 So, in fact, the Prosecution tendered this 2012 statement
20 pursuant to 92 ter in this very case, and only in the last ten days did
21 we learn that they weren't going to tender it.
22 So the notion that this doesn't meet the minimum reliability for
23 impeachment, it doesn't seem consistent with their previous positions.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: It would probably be unfair to the Defence to ask
1 them to continue and finish their cross-examination without knowing the
2 final decision that we would eventually take after more or less long
4 So then the most fair solution is, Mr. Gosnell, to deny your
5 request and to have you organise your cross-examination in consequence of
7 MR. GOSNELL: I appreciate that very much, Mr. President. Thank
9 May I ask that we distribute the witness's prior statements. I
10 have a copy for each member of the Bench. They are unmarked.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: I take it there is no objection from the OTP?
12 MS. FRIEDMAN: No objection, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. GOSNELL: And I have a copy in B/C/S for the witness of both
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness may be brought in.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, madam. Please sit down.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Madam, we apologise for the delay, the late start
21 of the hearing. We had some administrative and procedural matters to
22 deal with. And I remind you that you are still under oath.
23 Mr. Gosnell, please proceed.
24 WITNESS: SAMIRA BARANJEK [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Gosnell: [Continued]
2 Q. Good morning, Madam Baranjek.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. If I can just remind us where we left off yesterday, we were
5 discussing the words that you heard Mr. Hadzic speaking into the radio
6 transmitter. And what you testified yesterday was - and I'm quoting from
7 page 3108 of the transcript:
8 "Yes, he was shouting, laughing, he was shouting euphorically,
9 'Belgrade, Mladjo, send reservists over. Vukovar has fallen. I can head
10 he had for Osijek tomorrow.'"
11 Do you remember that that was your testimony yesterday?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what I was asking you about at the end of yesterday was why
14 it was your statement from the year 2000 to the Croatian police -- and by
15 the way, madam, just to tell you, sitting in front of you, you have your
16 two statements, those pieces of paper in front of you, you have your
17 statement from the year 2000 and also --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- your statement from the year 2012. In fact, looking at your
20 desk, I can see that the statement on the right is the one from 2000 and
21 the one on the left is the one from 2012. And if I could now ask you to
22 just open your statement from 2000 -- the year 2000, and go to
23 paragraph 7.
24 A. I don't know which one is number 7.
25 Q. Ma'am, do you see that the paragraphs are numbered on your
1 version there?
2 A. Yes, I only have number 6. That's the last thing.
3 MR. GOSNELL: Could I ask the usher to bring me the statement
4 that's now in the witness's possession.
5 Well, actually, now we have just discovered that the original
6 doesn't have numbering but apparently the translation does have
8 Q. Madam -- and we're going to hand it back to you now, and it's on
9 page 3 there, in the middle paragraph. And what you say there at page --
10 in this paragraph is:
11 "At the time we were being registered, Goran Hadzic strutted into
12 the room wearing camouflage uniform with an unbuttoned shirt with no rank
13 or cap and approached a radio set and contacted Novi Sad, as far as I
14 could hear. But the only thing I heard clearly was his words, 'We'll
15 speak later. It's all right.'"
16 Can you see that in your statement?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: In the version we have
18 it's on page 4, first paragraph on top of the page. Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but that was just as I was
20 entering the room. That's what he was saying over the radio set.
21 MR. GOSNELL:
22 Q. Do you recognise that what you said yesterday was significantly
23 different from what you say here? In your testimony yesterday you say
24 that he's shouting, he's apparently calling Belgrade, he's referring to
25 an individual named Mladjo, he's talking about Vukovar having fallen, and
1 then he's talking about sending reservists and going to Osijek. So my
2 question is: Do you see that all of those elements are missing from your
3 statement in the year 2000?
4 A. Yes, but that's because it wasn't written out fully. What you
5 have written here as his words was something he was saying as I was
6 entering the room. I had not yet been registered. It was later on that
7 he contacted Belgrade, Mladjo, and then he called Braco to get vehicles.
8 But this isn't recorded here.
9 Q. Well, in fact, I've looked through the rest of your statement in
10 its entirety from the year 2000 and there is no mention of any of that.
11 And feel free to take your time to look through, but do you see any
12 mention of that?
13 A. I have reviewed the statement. I know what it says. But not
14 everything has been written down here.
15 Q. Do I understand correctly that what you're saying is that during
16 this interview with the police, you did mention these elements but they
17 failed to write it down?
18 A. Well, there were many details that we were mentioning, all of us
19 women who were being interviewed at the time. They were probably
20 recording what they saw fit or I don't know.
21 Q. Ma'am, I don't think you've answered my question. Let me try to
22 put it a different way. Do you remember whether you, during this
23 interview, mentioned these additional details or, alternatively, it is
24 that you didn't mention them and that is why they are not in the
1 A. I mentioned more details than can be seen here. Not everything
2 was recorded. And later on, I gave a statement like I am giving one
4 Q. While you were giving this statement, were you -- was anyone in
5 the room taking notes or were they typing? How was the statement
6 actually recorded?
7 A. There was one policeman in plain clothes, an investigator. There
8 was a lady and another gentleman. The lady was recording my statement,
9 was noting it down.
10 Q. Was she noting it down with a pen or was she sitting at a
11 typewriter or was she sitting at some other kind of transcribing or
12 typing device, as you can recall?
13 A. No. She was noting it down with a pen. There were several of us
14 women in the room, all those who were in that school. We were all being
15 interviewed and she was using a ball-point pen to note it down.
16 Q. And how did it come about that you signed that document that you
17 have in front of you? How did that occur?
18 A. They brought the papers over to us several days later to sign
20 Q. And did you read it before you signed it?
21 A. Well, yes, I did, but I didn't see that there were some flaws in
22 there. There were some errors. And there was this other mistake that I
23 made in mentioning the name of that man who turned out not to have been
24 there, in fact.
25 Q. Did you remember looking at this paragraph or this passage and
1 saying to yourself, "Well, that's not quite what I said, but I'll sign it
2 anyway"? Or is it that you looked at it, didn't notice it, and signed it
3 thinking that in fact the statement was complete?
4 A. I don't know exactly what was on my mind at the time. I didn't
5 find it important. It didn't matter. In giving this statement, I was
6 trying to find my husband. It wasn't my intention to accuse anyone or I
7 don't know what. I was hoping that on the basis of this statement my
8 husband would be found.
9 Q. Well, I can understand that, Madam Baranjek, and that's what
10 makes it curious to my mind that 21 years after the events you can then
11 recall a detail such as the name Mladjo being mentioned during this
12 encounter. Is there any reason why you would remember that detail
13 21 years after the fact?
14 A. I said that I remember many details of that night because what
15 was uppermost in my mind was whether I and my children would survive that
16 night, and that's why I remember.
17 Q. What was Mr. Hadzic wearing on this occasion? Can you describe a
18 bit more fully what he was wearing.
19 A. He wore a pair of camouflage trousers, they were a bit large. He
20 was also wearing a shirt which was of a lighter colour than your normal
21 camouflage shirt.
22 Q. Was he wearing a jacket?
23 A. I didn't see a jacket in the school, but he must have worn it
24 outside. It was cold.
25 Q. And do you have any idea why, given that this was the
1 19th of November and Vukovar had effectively fallen the day before, and
2 this information was known worldwide, why do you think -- do you have any
3 information that could explain why Mr. Hadzic would be shouting into the
4 phone to someone on the other end that Vukovar had fallen, send
6 A. On the 19th of November, while we were in the shelter at Komerc,
7 I didn't know that Vukovar had fallen the day before at all. We had no
8 information, no radio, no TV. People said all sorts of things. In the
9 morning we found out that we were supposed to go out. We heard it over
10 the loud speaker, or what you call it, that we were being called out. We
11 were being told to come out.
12 Q. Now in both your 2000 statement and then your statement in 2012,
13 the first time you see Mr. Hadzic in both of these statements is in the
14 room with the radio transmitters. And during your testimony yesterday,
15 at pages 68 to 70 of the provisional transcript, you give a description
16 of seeing Mr. Hadzic when you first arrive at the school in the hallway.
17 Now, do you recall was it -- did you see Mr. Hadzic in the
18 hallway upstairs or did you first see him down in the room with the radio
20 A. I've already told you that I saw him on a couple of occasions in
21 the corridor and as I was passing by in the gym. That was all in
22 passing. He kept moving about.
23 Q. You gave a very vivid description of his behaviour upstairs. You
24 say that he was ordering -- that they were -- that he was basically
25 being -- interrogating people, that he was shouting. He said that
1 everyone should be questioned and whoever is not guilty would be allowed
2 to go home. And then he told the milicija that they should get out and
3 not interfere with his work.
4 Now, Madam, I've looked at your statements, whether we're talking
5 about upstairs in the hallway, downstairs in the room with the radio
6 transmitters, after that, the next day, there is no description to be
7 found in any of this -- in any of these events that accords with the
8 description you gave yesterday. Do you agree?
9 A. I did say that he was shouting in passing, telling his people to
10 do their job, telling the police not to interfere with his job. I don't
11 know whether anything -- everything should have been noted down. It's a
12 pretty broad question that you've put to me now.
13 Q. Well, why don't you take your time and look at your statement
14 from 2000 and look at your statement from 2012, and please tell us what
15 indications there are in either of those statements of any of those
16 rather specific recollections about Mr. Hadzic's behaviour.
17 A. I've already told you that I reviewed the statement and that it
18 did not record everything I said, and I remember vividly what happened
19 that night.
20 Q. And in 2012, you sat down with a Prosecution investigator. You
21 had your 2000 statement to hand. The purpose of that interview was
22 precisely for you to supplement or correct your statement in any respects
23 that you considered necessary, and you did do so in respect of a number
24 of details, and yet there is no mention of Goran Hadzic at any time
25 entering the building, telling the milicija to get out, interrogating
1 people, shouting at people, issuing orders, none of that is mentioned in
2 any of the sequences of events that you describe in your statements. How
3 do you explain that?
4 A. I really don't know how to explain this to you, but almost
5 22 years later I have no reason to lie.
6 Q. When Mr. Hadzic -- when you first caught sight of Mr. Hadzic in
7 the elementary school, did you instantly recognise him and say to
8 yourself, "This is the man who was a close friend of my husband"?
9 Correction, you've never said he was a close friend, "He is the man who
10 was an acquaintance of my husband"?
11 A. Yes, I thought he would save my husband since he knew him.
12 Q. And your husband knew him because Mr. Hadzic shared a love of
13 poetry with your husband and would visit your house where they would read
14 poetry, look at paintings; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And during your testimony yesterday, at page 61 of the
17 provisional transcript, you said:
18 "Mr. Hadzic came a few times to his studio and that's where we
19 looked at paintings, read poetry."
20 Do I understand from that when you say "we," that you were
21 present during these visits and that you, along with Mr. Hadzic and your
22 husband, read poetry and admired certain paintings?
23 MS. FRIEDMAN: I have the -- I'm looking at the transcript now,
24 which has been updated. I understand Defence counsel is using
25 yesterday's transcript. And it actually says:
1 "Mr. Hadzic came a few times to the studio and that's where they
2 looked at paintings, read poetry."
3 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, for that.
4 Q. Perhaps on the basis of that correction I can just ask you: Did
5 you ever join them?
6 A. Whenever my husband was at the studio, I would step in, bring a
7 cup of coffee or a glass of juice, whatever was needed, and went out. I
8 was never there when he was with his friends, acquaintances, or customers
9 in the studio.
10 Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Hadzic speaking or performing poetry?
11 A. No, I wasn't interested in that at all. I had my chores in the
12 house. I can't say that I did hear him. I don't know.
13 Q. But you know that your husband spoke to the director of
14 Radio Vukovar and successfully managed to get Mr. Hadzic's poetry read on
15 Radio Vukovar; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you ever hear that poetry on the radio yourself?
18 A. I listened to the radio always, but I can't tell you that I was
19 really interested in poetry. Nevertheless, it wasn't the -- it wasn't
20 Mr. Hadzic himself who read poetry over the radio. It was the presenters
21 working there.
22 Q. And you've sort of given an answer, but I would like to put
23 question precisely to you: Did you hear Mr. Hadzic's -- or poetry being
24 presented as Mr. Hadzic's being read on the radio?
25 A. Yes. Whenever a poem was about to be read, they would always
1 cite the author.
2 Q. And so they would say, "This is a poem written by Goran Hadzic"?
3 A. Yes. The same applied to other authors, either poets or
4 novelists or whatever.
5 Q. And did your husband tell you that Mr. Hadzic had ambitions to
6 become better known as a poet?
7 A. Well, yes. He did. He said that he had a lot of poetry, that he
8 was interested in that. As for ambitions, I don't know about that. What
9 I can tell you is that he loved poetry.
10 Q. Did your husband -- did your husband tell you that Mr. Hadzic had
11 any published collections of poetry?
12 A. I can't remember exactly whether he published the book shortly
13 afterwards or not. At any rate, poems were read over the radio. I
14 really am not sure about when the book came out.
15 Q. So you think there was a book of poems that did come out by
16 Mr. Hadzic?
17 A. I don't know if it was a book or -- or just a collection or what
18 they call it. I think it was called a book of poems, yes.
19 Q. Was there only one book or collection or were there -- was there
20 more than one that you heard about from your husband?
21 A. I don't know about Mr. Hadzic, if he had one or ten books
22 published. I know about my husband who, by that time, had already had
23 three books of poems published. Was it a book or just a -- in his case I
24 don't know if the poems that were intended to be published were only just
25 being put together or whether a book had already come out. I really
1 don't know.
2 Q. I know this is a difficult question, but if you could just search
3 your memory and think back: Did you ever see any of these books or
4 pamphlets or collections sitting around in your house or did perhaps your
5 husband ever show you them?
6 A. I never did see anything. I only saw my husband's books. As for
7 the rest, the papers and documents that he had in his studio, I never
8 went through them. I wasn't interested in that.
9 Q. Madam, I have to tell you I'm very perplexed by your description
10 of Mr. Hadzic being a poet because as far as my information goes, he has
11 never been a poet, never written poetry, never published poetry, never
12 been a part of a poetry circle, never discussed poetry, sculpture, or
13 painting with your husband. Is there any way that you could be -- and
14 I'm sure that you're not fabricating all this. Is there any way that you
15 could be confused about who it was who was coming and visiting your
17 A. No. I am not confused about the name or face. Whatever I said
18 is something my husband had told me. I saw the man in my husband's
19 atelier, studio.
20 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 1D332, please, which is a -- it's on
21 our list.
22 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Gosnell.
23 Witness, you have just said that you saw the man in your
24 husband's studio. Who is the man? You were talking about Mr. Hadzic,
25 weren't you?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] You had met him before the events
3 that took place in Vukovar in your husband's studio; is that right?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I saw him for the first time
5 when he arrived in the studio, although my husband had told me of him
6 before that.
7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That's very
9 MR. GOSNELL:
10 Q. Could that be the man who you saw in your husband's studio who he
11 told you was Mr. Hadzic?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you know who this man is?
14 A. I really don't. I don't remember either his first or last name
15 or his face. I really don't remember him.
16 MR. GOSNELL: Could we move the page in B/C/S, please.
17 Q. Now this appears to be a -- some kind of an invitation or a
18 pamphlet to a memorial of a poet in Pacetin. And I'm correct in saying
19 that the man who you have described as Goran Hadzic was -- you were told
20 by your husband that he was from Pacetin as well; correct?
21 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
22 Q. Your husband told you that the man who was visiting your house
23 and your husband's studio was from Pacetin; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 1D331, please.
1 Q. That man in the white suit, is it possible that that is the man
2 who was visiting your house and your studio and discussing poetry and art
3 with your husband?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know that this gentleman in the photograph worked with
6 your husband at the Vukovar hospital?
7 A. Perhaps he did, but I don't know all of the people my husband
8 worked with, including the doctors and nurses.
9 Q. Does the name Dr. Branko Kovacevic mean anything to you?
10 A. It doesn't mean anything to me. I don't know. I don't remember
11 him mentioning that man. I really don't.
12 Q. Do you remember your husband mentioning how many doctors in total
13 there were at any given time at the Vukovar hospital between 1989 and
15 A. How many doctors there were in the hospital, is that what you
17 Q. Yes. I'm asking you whether your husband ever told you how many
18 doctors there were in hospital.
19 A. He didn't mention specific figures, but he did mention some of
20 the doctors in conversations and I knew some of them. I don't see any
21 reason why he would need to tell me the number of doctors in the
23 Q. Well, there were very few, correct?
24 A. I really don't know. There may have been one, two, or five
25 doctors per department. I never counted them. I really don't know.
1 MR. GOSNELL: I'm done with that document.
2 Q. Madam, I'd like to go back now to the chronology of events that
3 you've described, and in your testimony yesterday - and working from the
4 provisional transcript it's page 73 - there was a woman with red hair who
5 brought you up from the radio room, the room with the transmitters, and
6 back up to the hallway; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, we went through the hallway to the classroom where the women
8 and children were. That's where she took us.
9 Q. And you were there guarded with about 20 other women by, as I
10 understand it, a soldier from the JNA; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. At first there was a JNA soldier.
12 Q. In your 2000 statement, you say -- you describe him as a gypsy.
13 What do you mean when you describe him as a gypsy?
14 A. He looked like a Roma person. He was of dark complexion. In any
15 case, his skin was darker than ours.
16 Q. And while you were moving from the room with the radio
17 transmitters and going to the classroom, what did you see, if anything?
18 A. There were other people in the hallway coming in from the bus and
19 entering the building. A few of them were seated in the hallway. There
20 was some people in camouflage uniforms, in civilian clothes, people moved
21 up and down. In any case, there was a crowd.
22 Q. And what you say in your statement from 2000, and it's in the
23 last sentence of paragraph 7, which is just above the paragraph -- and I
24 know you don't have numbers paragraphs, madam, but it's above the
25 paragraph that begins, "We stood in the corridor, in front of the
1 stairs ..."
2 And what you say is:
3 "After the registration was over, that woman took us back up the
4 stairs to the yard, and on the way I saw an open door on the right of the
5 foyer through which I saw my husband, Ivan, standing at a microphone at
6 the lectern in the sports hall, and behind him, the unavoidable
7 grey-haired investigator."
8 Now, first of all, this person described as the unavoidable
9 grey-haired investigator, do I understand that that's the person who was
10 wearing a white belt, which is the -- and a strap, a white strap and a
11 white belt, and therefore in the uniform, as far as you knew, of the JNA
12 military police?
13 A. Yes, that was the investigator who was present when my husband's
14 house was searched back in 1971.
15 Q. And in this paragraph, paragraph 7, you've just finished
16 describing the words of Goran Hadzic into the transmitter. There is no
17 mention here, is there, at all, of you seeing Goran Hadzic in the gym, is
19 A. I don't understand. What I said is that he entered the gym, not
20 that I saw him. I was not there. I was out in the hallway.
21 Q. But you were able to see your husband in the gym.
22 A. Yes, the door was open and he stood so that I could see him.
23 Q. And you didn't see Mr. Hadzic there?
24 A. I didn't see him but I heard his voice. One could hear
25 everything, although one couldn't see the entire gym. One could only see
1 what was visible through the door.
2 Q. So your testimony now is that you didn't see Mr. Hadzic but you
3 heard his voice on that occasion; correct?
4 A. Yes. When he drove the policeman and JNA members out of the gym,
5 telling them they shouldn't meddle in his work. That's what I heard him
7 Q. Well, madam, this is the first time that you've ever said that
8 you identify Mr. Hadzic in that gym on the basis of his voice.
9 A. Yes. He entered the gym and drove out the regular members of the
10 army and the policemen, or there may have been several policemen. I
11 didn't see him. I didn't see the policemen. But I did hear him say that
12 they should leave and not meddle in his work. He told the people who
13 were there, telling them, "You're all going to be interrogated, and if
14 there is no blame on your part, you will be allowed to go home." Those
15 were his words and I've already described it.
16 Q. And you didn't mention that in your 2000 statement, did you?
17 A. Yes, sir. In the statement you refer to, one cannot even find
18 how many doctors there were in the hospital, and yet you asked me about
20 Q. So that's a no?
21 A. Repeat the question and I'll answer.
22 Q. You didn't mention any of this, hearing Mr. Hadzic's voice
23 issuing these many instructions, yelling, shouting, ordering people out,
24 you didn't mention that in your 2000 statement? And in particular, in
25 paragraph 7, where you're describing having looked into the gymnasium or
1 the sports hall and having seen your husband.
2 A. Yes. I saw my husband and I saw Mr. Hadzic enter. Afterwards, I
3 heard his voice.
4 Q. I'm sorry, ma'am. That wasn't my question. But I'll move on.
5 A. Perhaps you could make your questions shorter.
6 Q. Let me ask you a different question. When you sat down with your
7 statement in 2012, you had this paragraph in front of you. You were
8 speaking with the investigator. You're making corrections. You didn't
9 add any of these details, even though it's quite clear that during that
10 interview the investigator was concerned to know about Mr. Hadzic's
11 actions; correct?
12 A. Generally speaking, I said what happened. Perhaps not everything
13 found its way into the statement. I don't know about that. You're
14 asking me about some other details that I can provide. Perhaps not
15 everything was written down. I said what happened in general terms, and
16 now that you're putting these questions, I'm trying to explain everything
17 that went on.
18 Q. Is it your view that you mentioned all of this during your
19 interview with the investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor and she
20 didn't write it down, or is it your recollection that you didn't mention
21 these things during that interview?
22 A. I really can't remember which details I mentioned that may not
23 have been noted down, but I know this for a fact: When you put a
24 question to me, I tell you how things were. I don't know why some things
25 were not put on paper. I really don't know. You asked me many things
1 that are not even referred to on paper and I provided answers.
2 Q. Ma'am, what I'm trying to understand is whether -- it's a simple
3 question, it's whether you remember that you mentioned these things to
4 the investigator and they were not written down or whether you didn't
5 mention these things, you forgot them, you left them out because you
6 viewed them as details.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Friedman.
8 MS. FRIEDMAN: I object because this has been asked and answered
9 in my view, not only through previous questions but her answer before
11 "I really can't remember which details I mentioned that may not
12 have been noted down."
13 And I don't think there is any further assistance by asking her
14 the question again and again.
15 MR. GOSNELL: Well, with all due respect, it's precisely the
16 ambiguity in that answer that's the problem, because it seems to give two
17 different answers.
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: The answer is that she -- just now:
19 "I really can't remember which details I mentioned that may not
20 have been noted down."
21 MR. GOSNELL: Well, Mr. President, note that that quotation seems
22 to neither exclude that she didn't mention it or she maybe did mention it
23 and it wasn't noted down. It seems that she's trying to say both and I
24 really would like to, if possible, get a clear answer, and maybe that's
25 not possible.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you try to obtain that with one simple
2 question, please.
3 MR. GOSNELL: I'll try to come at it from a different direction,
4 Mr. President, and hopefully it will help.
5 Q. Madam, you've used the word "details" a few times to describe
6 Mr. Hadzic's behaviour that you've testified now before these Judges
7 about. Is it possible that because you viewed them as details you didn't
8 mention them? Well, let me put it to you a different way. Not that it's
9 possible. Do you recall that you considered this behaviour of Mr. Hadzic
10 to be a detail that you did not mention during your interview with the
11 Office of the Prosecutor?
12 A. I don't know. You expect me to tell you something about the
13 things that took a whole night and yet you want me to put it in a single
14 sentence. I told you precisely how many times I saw Mr. Hadzic, where he
15 went, what he said, what his behaviour was like.
16 Q. At page 74 of yesterday's provisional transcript, and this, in
17 our sequence of events, appears to be situated after your move to the
18 classroom where you're detained by the JNA or guarded by the JNA officer
19 whom you describe -- or soldier whom you describe as a gypsy. And the
20 question that you were asked yesterday was:
21 "Now, did you see Hadzic at any other point during your time in
22 the elementary school?"
23 And the answer was:
24 "Yes, I saw him two or three more times. When he was passing
25 through the corridor and entering the classroom where the questioning was
1 taking place."
2 Let me just stop there. What are you referring to when you say
3 that he was entering the classroom where the questioning was taking
5 A. I've already told you that his men were there in the classroom
6 interrogating. Whoever was called out had to go there, separately, to be
7 interrogated, both men and women. He would come out and probably issued
8 orders. I don't know what he was doing inside but he kept going in and
9 out. One could hear his voice while we were in the classroom, even
10 though we were in a closed -- in an enclosed space. He was shouting at
11 his men, telling them what to do.
12 Q. Well, here's what you say in your statement from 2000. And I'm
13 leaving aside the issue of sequence or timing. Let's leave that aside.
14 Let's leave that out of the issue. But what you say is this, that:
15 "At some point the door was unlocked and a man with a large beard
16 wearing an SMB --" and this is at paragraph 9 of the 2000 statement.
17 "A man with a large beard, wearing an SNB uniform, entered the
18 classroom and shouted at us: 'Right, Ustashas, and they are children.'
19 "And he was followed by a young man of about 25 years old in
20 civilian clothing, who I later learnt had come from Switzerland, who was
21 carrying a folder with some papers in it, on which were our details and
22 our husband's details. That young man called the women out one by one
23 and took them for questioning upstairs."
24 And then you describe that some of the women returned to the
25 classroom where you were and you saw indications that they had been
2 Now, madam, are you following your statement there where I'm
4 A. I don't need to. I know it. I lived through it.
5 Q. Well, I've looked through all of your statement, both this
6 statement and the statement from 2012, and what you say is that the
7 classroom -- that these individuals were -- were taken upstairs. Do you
8 remember that that's where the individuals were taken, the women who were
9 with you?
10 A. Yes, but it was only two or three steps up, one level up from
11 where we were in the classroom. It wasn't all the way up on the upper
12 floor but there were just a few steps, two or three, although I didn't
13 count them precisely.
14 Q. And never before in any of your statements have you said, as
15 you've just said now, that Goran Hadzic -- you could hear Goran Hadzic's
16 voice during these interrogations.
17 A. One could hear Goran Hadzic's voice as well as the voice of many
18 others who passed by, including women. It's a school building with
19 classrooms and one could hear everything, even in the hallway and out in
20 the street voices can be heard.
21 Q. Ma'am, I've seen a photograph of the building. It's not small.
22 It does have at least two storeys and a basement. You're saying you
23 could hear everything in all parts of the building?
24 A. I didn't say I was in all parts of the building. I was in the
25 classroom. Not far away, where the women were, was another classroom
1 where the people were being taken in to be beaten up and to be
2 interrogated. I could hear that. I couldn't hear what was going on on
3 the upper floor but one could hear the noise, people passing by, running,
4 shouting. Of course one can hear that.
5 Q. Why have you never before now mentioned that you could hear
6 Goran Hadzic's voice during these interrogations?
7 A. I don't understand. I have not. I told everything he said that
8 I could hear.
9 Q. You realise that you've never mentioned in any of your other
10 statements even having seen Goran Hadzic in the corridor going anywhere?
11 A. What I said was that I saw him when the guard let us out to have
12 a cigarette. I saw him pass by. I heard his voice.
13 Q. Well, with the greatest respect, madam, that's not in your
14 2000 statement and nor did you make any correction to that in your 2012
16 A. I've told you already that not everything was written down. When
17 they put questions to me, I provided answers in as brief a way as
18 possible. However, I always mentioned Mr. Hadzic, and I mentioned a
19 number of corrections about people I didn't know whose names I only
20 learned later. I don't know what you expect me to do now. To repeat
21 everything that's on the paper?
22 MR. GOSNELL: I see the time, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Gosnell. Thank you.
24 Madam Baranjek, we take our first break. We'll come back at
25 11.00. The Court Usher will escort you out of the courtroom. Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Court adjourned.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
6 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, I understand I'm coming towards the
7 end of my default allotted time. I would respectfully request that I be
8 given some additional time. The witness's testimony is far more
9 incriminating than initially foreseen, and given relative to the amount
10 of time for the presentation of the direct examination, and even though
11 it doesn't go to any specific paragraph in the indictment in terms of an
12 event, it's obviously of some importance to Your Honours. So I would
13 respectfully request an additional 30 minutes.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Friedman, position on that request?
15 MS. FRIEDMAN: Only that to some extent the questions are being
16 repeated. The witness is being asked the same thing repeatedly and so
17 that should be borne in mind as well.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 How long do you think you will have in redirect?
21 MS. FRIEDMAN: I think at this point probably within 15 minutes.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
23 Your request is granted, Mr. Gosnell.
24 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed.
1 Q. Madam, do I understand that it's your testimony that this young
2 man from Switzerland was calling out names in the room where you were
3 being held and that then those women whose names were being called were
4 being taken upstairs and beaten; is that right?
5 A. Yes. The young man had a list and he read out the names. There
6 was a lady in uniform who took the women to the room where they were
7 questioned. Some of them came back beaten, others not, they didn't show
8 any traces of beatings. And still others didn't even go up for
10 Q. So was this Swiss gentleman coming in and out of the classroom
11 many times, a few times, just once? Do you remember how often he came
12 into the classroom?
13 A. He was with us in the classroom or outside of the classroom at
14 all times. He was the one who came to guard us -- who replaced that
15 other soldier. He came during the night.
16 Q. The night between the 19th and the 20th?
17 A. Well, yes. It all started late in the evening. It may have been
18 at 11.00 p.m. on the 19th, or at 1.00 a.m. of the 20th. At any rate, it
19 lasted all through the night.
20 Q. And this gentleman from Switzerland, did he have any insignia or
21 marks? Was he wearing a uniform?
22 A. He was wearing some sort of uniform. I don't know which. It
23 actually appeared to be a civilian-type of clothing because he didn't
24 have any of the insignia. It was a bit multicoloured. At any rate, he
25 had a list of all of us in the room.
1 Q. And was he of Swiss nationality or was he of Serbian nationality
2 or some other nationality, as far as you could tell?
3 A. No, he was a Serb. He spoke to us and said that he had come to
4 the village instead of his father, who had to stay behind in Switzerland
5 because he was ill.
6 Q. Now, ma'am, I want to be absolutely fair with you about what's in
7 your previous statements, and if I could just ask you now to direct your
8 attention to paragraph 8 of your 2012 statement. What you say here is
9 you describe the event where Mr. Hadzic comes into the classroom and
10 speaks to you. And what you say in your 2012 statement was that after
11 Mr. Hadzic calls out your name and asks about your husband's whereabouts,
12 you say you didn't respond:
13 "'He was here in the gym,' as is stated in my statement.
14 Actually I told him, 'He was in the gym. You saw him.'"
15 Now, is that an implicit reference to what you were describing
16 earlier when you said that you looked into the gym and you could hear
17 Mr. Hadzic's voice?
18 A. I don't understand your question again. I said that when he
19 stepped into the classroom where the women and children were, he asked,
20 "Who is Baranjek here," and I said it was me. And then he asked, "Where
21 is your husband?" And I said, "You saw him in the gym." And I meant,
22 you know, that place in the school, what you call it. And that was all
23 the conversation we had.
24 Q. And in your 2000 statement, what you said instead of that was:
25 "When he asked me where my husband was, I answered, 'He was there
1 in the yard.'"
2 That's at paragraph 9.
3 Now, ma'am, I'm just trying to be fair to you, I'm not accusing
4 you of any mistakes here, I'm just trying to understand. Are you saying
5 that in your 2012 statement when you say that he was in the gym, you saw
6 him, that was --
7 A. Not in the yard.
8 Q. All right. And when you say that: "Actually I told him he was
9 in the gym. You saw him," were you referring to the moment when you were
10 brought up from the transmitter room and taken to the classroom?
11 A. Yes. Because that was the last time I saw him, in fact.
12 Q. And when Mr. Hadzic came into the room, did you say to him:
13 "Mr. Hadzic, you're a good friend of my husband. Can you do
14 anything to secure his release"?
15 A. I didn't say that.
16 Q. In your testimony yesterday at page 75, you were describing
17 events after this occasion when Mr. Hadzic enters the classroom, and you
18 were asked the question by the Prosecutor:
19 "And other than what you saw, is there anything else that you
20 heard from the women with you about Hadzic's actions or what he said that
22 And your answer was:
23 "Yes, there was a grandmother, an elderly woman who was sitting
24 in the corridor. She said that -- in fact, all of us heard moans coming
25 from that room."
1 Now I just want to stop there and focus on that sentence, "in
2 fact all of us heard moans coming from that room." When was that?
3 A. During the night. There weren't as many people in the hallway or
4 in the corridor. People were already put up in the various classrooms or
5 in the gym. We were in the classrooms and, of course, we could hear
6 moans. You hear moaning.
7 Q. At paragraph 8 of your statement from 2000 - and in this respect,
8 you made no correction when you were speaking to the investigator of the
9 Office of the Prosecutor in 2012 - this is what you said:
10 "On 20 November 1991, immediately after 0030 hours" -- and,
11 ma'am, if you want to follow along, this is mid-way through paragraph 8
12 of your statement in 2000, and it's the paragraph that begins: "We stood
13 in the corridor in front of the stairs ..." And at about mid-way down in
14 that paragraph what you say is as follows:
15 "On 20 November 1991, immediately after 0030 hours, I heard
16 someone approach the guard and insist that he unlock the door for them
17 with the words, 'Unlock the door so we can slaughter the Ustashas,' to
18 which the soldier responded, 'Can't be done, pal. Orders."
19 "At about 0200 hours, Zorana Vitic and I asked the soldier for
20 permission to go to the toilet and have a cigarette. And the gypsy
21 soldier, who we found out was from Vaska -- Vajska, told us that we could
22 smoke a cigarette in front of the door. Since around that time until
23 dawn, since I was next to the door to the corridor, I heard people
24 screaming and yelling, the sound of shots from firearms and of
25 celebrations and of cars stopping. And I would like to say that the
1 shooting was an expression of happiness in the celebration and that all
2 these sounds came from outside the building in my estimation."
3 Now that's your description in your statement of -- in the year
4 2000. You made no correction to that in 2012. No indication there, is
5 there, that you heard moans or the sounds of beating inside the school,
6 is there?
7 A. The statement in 2012 was there to supplement the one that I gave
8 before. I don't see what it is that you want me to do now.
9 Q. All I'm putting to you, and I'm not asking you to do anything in
10 particular except to look at your statements, and taking both statements
11 together --
12 A. I know exactly what I stated and I stand by that, word for word.
13 Now, there is something on one piece of paper but it isn't on the other.
14 I don't see what it is that you want. Do you want every single thing
15 that happened during that night to be there on paper? Why am I here,
16 then? So what do you want me to do? Do you want me to just repeat what
17 is there on paper without adding a single word? I don't understand.
18 Q. Did the investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor, when you
19 met her in 2012, suggest that it was not important to be complete,
20 especially in respect of your testimony about Mr. Hadzic or about violent
21 actions going on at the school?
22 A. The statement that I gave earlier was read out to me. I was
23 asked about it and I said immediately that I had corrections to make,
24 that this was not the man's name, that this isn't the way it happened,
25 and that's what I said. I did it that way. I don't understand what it
1 is that you mean now. Do you want everything that happened that night to
2 fit into these two papers? What of my emotions? What of the emotions
3 and feelings of my children? Those are nowhere to be found on these
5 Q. Did the grandmother who informed you about the fate of your
6 husband, did she tell you that while you were at the school?
7 A. No. I didn't have an opportunity to talk to her about the
8 school. I didn't even know that she had seen anything. It was in Zagreb
9 when we met after a while, in a hotel. I did know that she was seated in
10 the corridor. I did see her. She was an elderly woman. And then that's
11 when she told me. I think that it was in mid-1992 that she told me this.
12 Q. Madam, I'm obliged under the rules of this Tribunal to put to you
13 very clearly what our position is, and our position is that Mr. Hadzic
14 was at no time at the Borovo Elementary School on 19 or 20 November 1991.
15 A. Well, I don't know. There were very many people in the school
16 and I wasn't the only one to have seen him there.
17 Q. You're testifying as a public witness. Obviously people know
18 that you're here. Has anyone spoken to you about your testimony before
19 coming here other than representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor?
20 A. I don't know who you mean. My girlfriends who were with me in
21 the school know that I am testifying. I don't know who else you mean.
22 My children? Who do you mean?
23 Q. Has any public official from Croatia contacted you about your
25 A. No. Nobody contacted me.
1 Q. The same would be true there was no public official from Serbia
2 who contacted you?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Would you say, and I ask you this as a very general question,
5 would you say that there are very strong negative feelings about
6 Mr. Hadzic amongst public opinion in Croatia today?
7 A. You know what, I talked to my girlfriends about Mr. Hadzic, as
8 I've just said. Generally I'm not interested in politics, and believe me
9 when I tell you that I don't watch the news. I only am interested in
10 knowing what the weather forecast is. I have no interest in having him
11 either convicted or acquitted. My husband is not here anymore, so...
12 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
13 MR. GOSNELL:
14 Q. Ma'am, if I could just ask for one additional clarification or
15 detail. If you can recall, you've told us how Mr. Hadzic was dressed on
16 the 19th. Do you remember how he was dressed on the 20th in the morning?
17 A. I told you how many times I saw him. The last time was, I
18 believe, past midnight on the 20th, but I'm not sure, when he went down
19 the corridor. I think he was dressed the same way. I don't know,
20 really. I just saw him go by. I don't think he had anything else on
21 him. I saw him only -- I only saw his back and heard his voice.
22 Q. Sorry, ma'am. I'm not referring to that. What I'm referring to,
23 and your statements are very clear in this regard, although your
24 testimony here has not been equally unequivocal, but in your previous
25 statements you make clear, and I refer you to paragraph 9 of your
1 2000 statement, which in this regard was not corrected in your 2012
2 statement, where you say that Goran Hadzic entered the classroom at
3 10.00 in the morning and that would be the 20th of November. Do you
4 remember that?
5 A. When he entered the classroom where we, the women and children,
6 were? Is that what you mean?
7 Q. Correct.
8 A. He was dressed the same way as he was when I saw him down there
9 by radio sets.
10 Q. Madam Witness, thank you for your patience and your answers.
11 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, I'm renewing the application to
12 admit the two prior statements. We can wait until after the redirect, if
13 you wish.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is that a request for reconsideration,
15 Mr. Gosnell?
16 MR. GOSNELL: Well, I -- I suppose I -- I wasn't sure whether
17 your previous ruling was actually a final ruling or whether you were
18 merely giving me guidance as to how I should conduct my cross-examination
19 given that time was short and it would be best to proceed, of course.
20 So -- but if Your Honours do consider it to be a final ruling, then, yes,
21 I would request reconsideration. I'm not sure ...
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
23 Ms. Friedman.
24 MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. I will proceed first with
25 re-examination, if that is what you intended rather than discussing the
1 issue of --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Unless you want to answer or intervene in
5 Mr. Gosnell's request, I was expecting you to start re-examination,
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Re-examination by Ms. Friedman:
9 Q. Ms. Baranjek, I have some questions first about your husband and
10 Mr. Hadzic's association before the day in Borovo Selo, when they
11 discussed poetry and so forth. Did your husband think that Mr. Hadzic
12 was a talented poet?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did he think he had a future in writing poetry?
15 A. No. He didn't believe that. But he appreciated when people were
16 into poetry and dealing with it, so he didn't mind.
17 Q. Why did he -- why do you believe he helped him have his poetry
18 read on the radio?
19 A. As I say, because he appreciated the fact that there were other
20 people who loved poetry like he did, and also because the poetry of all
21 sorts of people was read on the radio, and he was glad about it.
22 Q. And did you happen to -- did Hadzic continue to come to your
23 husband's studio up until the eruption of the conflict in Vukovar?
24 A. No. No. This was before.
25 Q. Do you remember approximately when he stopped coming?
1 A. It all happened before 1990. Not later. He wasn't coming later.
2 Q. When you -- when was it that you first learned that he had become
3 involved in politics?
4 A. There was stories circulating in the town, people were saying
5 these things, and that was the sort of time before the war. So it was
6 from what other people were saying, that was 1990, early 1991, the Log
7 Revolution, when it started. That's how we called it.
8 Q. Did you and your husband ever discuss between you that the man
9 who had been coming to his studio was now involved in politics?
10 A. Specifically, at that time I didn't hear anything about
11 Mr. Hadzic from my husband because he was talking about the things that
12 were happening in the hospital. There wasn't much said about Mr. Hadzic.
13 It was more the case that people in the street, neighbours, and those who
14 knew him talked about him.
15 Q. Was -- when you saw him in the Borovo Selo school, was that the
16 first time you had seen him in a camouflage uniform?
17 A. Yes. Actually, I may have seen him previously on TV. I don't
18 remember. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But I did hear that they had
19 uniforms, people were talking.
20 Q. Now when Mr. -- I just want to read to you something that the
21 Presiding Judge asked you yesterday and your answer. The question was:
22 "Ms. Baranjek, I would like to ask you one follow-up question.
23 You told us that Mr. Hadzic, I think at three different moments, in the
24 gym, in the classroom, in the room where the radio transmitters were,
25 asked for your husband, where he was. Do you know --"
1 Well, I'll pause there for a moment. Now, on one of those
2 occasions, in the classroom, you testified that he read out your name
3 from the list. He asked, "Ms. Baranjek." In the other -- I wanted to
4 know if on the other two occasions he also referred to you by name?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you believe that in the school he recognised you from the
7 earlier period when he knew your husband?
8 A. No, he didn't recognise me. It was probably because of the list
9 and because of the fact that my husband was in the gym. He probably saw
10 the list of women and children before entering the classroom. That's why
11 asked who -- whose last name was Baranjek, who was the person.
12 Q. Do you know if he found -- found your husband at some point?
13 MR. GOSNELL: Objection, this goes beyond the scope of the cross,
14 unless I have some indication otherwise.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Friedman.
16 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes. I would just ask for some latitude in that
17 regard, given that it follows up on that she didn't know why he was
18 looking for him, so the follow-up is whether she knows if he found him
19 after being in the classroom.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think Mr. Gosnell is right, Ms. Friedman.
21 Please move on.
22 MS. FRIEDMAN:
23 Q. Well, do you know if Hadzic found out that your husband had been
25 MR. GOSNELL: Same objection, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sustained.
2 MS. FRIEDMAN: Perhaps just a follow-up to that answer that she
3 did not know why he was looking for him.
4 Q. Do you know whether he did want to help him?
5 MR. GOSNELL: Same objection, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think you better leave it, Ms. Friedman.
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, okay. I will leave it here. I think it's
9 Q. Just one final question. Ms. Baranjek, did you hear any -- are
10 you aware of an article being published prior to Mr. Hadzic coming to
11 The Hague where it describes his encounter with his mother and it says
12 that he recited a poem to her or it was reported that he recited a poem
13 to her. Are you aware of that?
14 MR. GOSNELL: Objection. I have no disclosure of this.
15 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes --
16 MR. GOSNELL: I understand perfectly well that it's not being
17 tendered, but it at least ought to have foundation for the question.
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes. It can be tendered. This arises directly
19 out of cross. My learned friend put to the witness that he had no
20 information of Mr. Hadzic even liking poetry and I -- the article is not
21 yet translated. It's in B/C/S. I will seek to tender it after. For
22 now, that is the basis on which I am asking the witness if she knew of
23 the report that he read the poem, not written by himself, mind you, by a
24 Russian poet, but if she had read that.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer the question?
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: You want to say something before we rule,
5 Ms. Friedman? I don't know. I may ...
6 MS. FRIEDMAN: Just that we will be able to have the original
7 article uploaded shortly if that assists.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Objection overruled. You may ask the
9 question, Ms. Friedman.
10 MS. FRIEDMAN:
11 Q. Ms. Baranjek, were you aware of this article or of any news
12 reports about Mr. Hadzic reading poetry to his mother?
13 A. I have said already that I don't know about it. And I don't
14 watch the news, either. I learned of Mr. Hadzic's arrest from my
15 daughter only a few days later. There is really nothing I can say about
17 Q. Thank you, Ms. Baranjek.
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: I'm just going to ask Your Honours just for one
20 Yes. I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 Madam Baranjek, this brings an end to your testimony. We know
23 how difficult this is for you and we thank you very much for coming to
24 The Hague and assist the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness.
25 We wish you a safe journey home. The Court Usher will escort you out of
1 the court. Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Gosnell, your request is pending, your
5 request about the two statements, the tendering of the two statements, we
6 will come back to that.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Would you like any submissions on this now or would
8 you prefer something in writing or would you prefer no further
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Submissions in writing would perhaps be -- would
11 not be a bad idea, Mr. Gosnell. Thank you.
12 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: I suppose there is no other witness,
14 Ms. Friedman.
15 MS. FRIEDMAN: No, there is no other witness.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Court adjourned.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.40 a.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day
19 of March, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.