1 Tuesday, 28 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2:17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Today in the absence of Judge Van den Wyngaert,
7 Judge David and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.
8 Ms. Marcus please continue.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: WITNESS VG-064 [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
13 Q. Good afternoon, VG-064. Can you hear me?
14 A. Yes, I can. Good afternoon.
15 Q. I'd like to remind you of the reference sheet that is in front of
16 you with some pseudonyms of persons you may wish to refer to.
17 MS. MARCUS: Are we in open session? Yes.
18 Q. Yesterday before we completed, you read two paragraphs from your
19 statement of the year 2000.
20 MS. MARCUS: If I could ask the Court officer, please, to call up
21 Exhibit P159, but kindly not to broadcast it. And specifically page 5 in
22 the English, and page 4 in B/C/S. If you could scroll down slightly to
23 the middle of the page in the English, the two paragraphs which were read
24 begin with -- the first one is: "In the late afternoon on the same day,"
25 and the one after that. Thank you.
1 Q. VG-064, when we completed yesterday, we were talking about the
2 cars which were present during this incident, and you said, and I quote
3 from the transcript yesterday, page 112: "I saw -- well, there was
4 Behija Zukic's Passat in a burgundy colour, but it's not mentioned there,
5 and that car was driven which Milan Lukic personally." I just about to
6 ask you yesterday when we finished, how do you know whose Passat that
8 A. This was Behija Zukic's Passat. Cherry red. It was the most
9 recent type. I know this because Behija was a schoolmate of mine. We
10 were virtually in the same street and we socialized.
11 Q. You said also in this paragraph that there were some verbal
12 threats. Could you tell us what those threats included?
13 A. Milan Lukic made threats to us saying that we should not take on
14 any people from other villages in our homes and that he would kill us if
15 he saw anyone else around these parts apart from locals.
16 Q. Can you describe how the group looked?
17 A. It was like this. They were wearing all sorts of clothes, some
18 were wearing camouflage uniforms, some civilian uniforms, some had paint
19 on their faces, different colours, black stripes on their faces like
20 Milan Lukic.
21 Q. Can you describe the paint on their faces?
22 A. Milan had black stripes across his face, applied by fingers. The
23 others too, they had paint on their faces. Some red, some black, some
25 Q. Did you know Milan Lukic before the war?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us how you knew Milan Lukic?
3 A. I knew Milan Lukic because he was a schoolmate of my husband in
4 elementary school, so I knew him through my husband and also through
5 Emin Vila who was Mustafa Vila's son. He disappeared in Belgrade when
6 Belgrade was bombed and his fate is unknown. He used to work with
7 Emin Vila in the same police station. Emin Vila was his commander. He
8 would go to see Emin's father and I would see him there, so that's how I
9 knew him.
10 MS. MARCUS: Could we please go into private session.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
12 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
13 MS. MARCUS:
14 Q. Can you please tell us who Emin Vila was?
15 A. Emin Vila was Mustafa Vila's son, Jasmina's brother. Milan Lukic
16 raped her.
11 [Open session]
12 MS. MARCUS:
13 Q. Madam Witness, during the incident at your father-in-law's house
14 which you read about from your statement, how far would you say you were
15 standing from Milan Lukic as he said the things you quote him as saying?
16 A. This was a room about 12 square metres, 3 by 4. There were
17 several of us there, so we were all huddled tightly together, as it were.
18 Q. Was Milan Lukic carrying anything?
19 A. Yes, a rifle, and some grenades on his belt. He was armed, as
20 was his police.
21 Q. Do you recall the approximate date of this incident?
22 A. This was in late May. I don't remember the exact date. I'm
23 sorry now that I didn't write this down. There was no opportunity. It
24 hadn't even crossed my mind to write anything down. We did our best to
25 simply survive the affliction imposed on us by this criminal.
1 MS. MARCUS: Could I ask the court officer to please turn to page
2 6 in the English, which corresponds to the bottom of page 4 in the B/C/S.
3 Q. Madam, can you please read to us from the bottom paragraph, the
4 paragraph -- I'm sorry. The paragraph which begins: "One or two days
5 later, the same group of Serbs returned." I believe it's on the bottom
6 of page 4 in the B/C/S.
7 A. The last paragraph begins with the words "during the night."
8 Q. I see, maybe I had the wrong corresponding page in B/C/S.
9 MR. ALARID: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
11 MR. ALARID: I'm concerned with the nature of the questioning in
12 this manner as tantamount to leading. I mean the problem is -- is that
13 it's my position that the -- the Prosecution changed from viva voce to 92
14 ter. In the memorandum to the Trial Chamber and all of us on
15 October 21st, this witness was indicated as a viva voce witness. Now
16 they switched to 92 ter, of which the Court allowed that; however, the
17 manner in which the Prosecution is tendering her statements is -- simply
18 is allowing her to refresh her recollection before any questions are
19 asked which, of course, is tantamount to leading.
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, with all due respect, this witness was
21 listed as a 92 ter witness from February in our original filing for
22 92 ter witnesses under the work plan she was included. The original
23 listing of her in our 65 ter filings was also as 92 ter. In every filing
24 which referred to this witness she was listed as 92 ter.
25 Now, the practice that we are using with 92 ter is the identical
1 practice that we use with all our 92 ter witnesses; that is, we seek
2 admission of their prior statement or testimony, and then we use
3 approximately 30 minutes to highlight certain portions and perhaps add
4 additional detail that may not have been reflected in the statements.
5 That's exactly what I'm doing. It will be restricted approximately to 30
6 minutes in total, merely highlighting. And the way that we are doing it
7 is what the Chamber requested of us. Rather than telling her what she
8 said in her prior statement name and asking a question, rather asking the
9 witness to read out portions of the statement limited isolated portions,
10 and then to ask a few follow-up -- limited follow-up questions on that
11 particular portion of her evidence.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you have outlined correctly the practice
13 which is followed here, but please try not to lead the witness. Please
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. Now, Madam Witness, we were going to read from the paragraph that
17 begins: "One or two days later, the same group of Serbs returned."
18 Could you kindly read that for us?
19 A. Sure. "One or two days later, the same group of Serbs returned.
20 On that occasion, I heard them calling one of them Daidza. Daidza was a
21 nickname. Daidza ordered us to bring some lamb for them to eat. The
22 group of four women, including my cousin VG-055, Jasmina Vila, Mina Vila,
23 and Mirsada Vila, went to fetch some lamb. As they were on their way, at
24 a distance of about 300 metre from my house, Milan Lukic and his group
25 stopped them. I could see them from my house. Milan Lukic ordered one
1 of the ladies, Jasmina Vila, age 19, to take the lamb there and to go
2 back. Daidza's group got the lamb and they went to Visegrad."
3 Q. Please continue.
4 A. "Jasmina Vila went back to Milan Lukic as he had ordered.
5 Milan Lukic took Jasmina to Fikreta Hodzic's place. Fikreta lived at a
6 house where Milan Lukic stopped by. At the time, Fikreta was in her
7 second month of pregnancy," but actually it was her third month. That's
8 not what it says but that's what how it was. "He put them in the car and
9 took them to Prelovo. We could see him drive off in the direction of
11 "After two and a half hours, Milan Lukic brought Jasmina Vila
12 back alone. Jasmina Vila showed us that she was black and blue with
13 bruises all over her body. She was bleeding profusely. She was age 19
14 at the time. She said that Milan Lukic had raped her. Milan Lukic told
15 her that all -- well, the locals would be tortured and killed. She also
16 told us that Milan Lukic would be back the next day at about 10 in the
17 morning to take her away. Jasmina's mother" --
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to request a redaction of one name which
20 was read.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: What line is that?
22 MS. MARCUS: I am sorry. Just a moment. Just a moment, please,
23 Your Honours. Okay. I'm sorry, it's okay. She used the pseudonym.
24 Q. Madam Witness, how do you know what you say here, that
25 Milan Lukic ordered Jasmina Vila to return? How do you know that?
1 A. I know that because Jasmina told us in front of my house. When
2 she took the lamb meat away, she said, Milan Lukic had told me to go back
3 with him. And I said, Don't go, he will take you away, he will rape you.
4 She said, I've got to go, he will kill me unless I do. So she did. Then
5 he put her and Fikreta in the car. I saw this happen right outside my
6 home. He bundled them into that car and took them off to Prelog.
7 Q. Can you tell us what vehicle he was driving?
8 A. It was Behija's Passat, cherry red. Behija Zukic's car. He
9 drove that car all the time. He had seized that car from Behija Zukic
10 and killed her. She is no longer among us.
11 Q. Can you tell us exactly how Jasmina Vila looked when she
13 A. When she returned she was all unsettled, dirty, black and blue,
14 bleeding. I saw marks of violence and rape on her body myself. She told
15 us the entire story, what had happened to her. He didn't take her all
16 the way up to the house, he left her about 100 or 200 metres behind my
17 house. She had to walk across the meadows. She was grabbing her own
18 hair and she said, Don't allow him to kill your children. He made
19 threats to the extent that he would chop us all to pieces, that he would
20 kill us and burn us alive and god knows what else he mentioned. She was
21 screaming and crying saying, Look what he has done to me.
22 I was trying to console her but then her mother came along, took
23 her back into the house, got her a change of clothes, washed her and took
24 her over to a Serb's place, and the Serb's name was Novak, believing that
25 Novak would be willing to protect her. I don't know what happened next
1 to that girl. I'm not sure if she is alive, but somehow I don't believe
2 that she might be.
3 Q. Madam Witness --
4 A. I am sorry.
5 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. Your --
6 A. She also told me after he had raped her, If you're not innocent,
7 you'll end up the same as the women over in the woods. And we had been
8 told that there were dead bodies belonging to the women in the woods who
9 had been mangled.
10 Q. Can you tell us who you were referring to each time you say "he"?
11 A. Milan Lukic.
12 Q. Can you explain what you mean by the words "if you are not
13 innocent." You said: "She told me after he had raped her, If you are
14 not innocent, you'll end up the same," et cetera. What do you mean by
16 A. When we Muslims use the word, we are talking about virginity.
17 And a girl, for example, who has lost her virginity. Not sure how to
18 explain that. Losing virginity, that's what it's referenced to. That
19 she's no longer a virgin.
20 Q. Madam Witness, you also describe in your statement a number of
21 men being taken from your village. Did you see that incident with your
22 own eyes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you describe specifically what you saw?
25 A. There were those men who were taken from my village. Milan Lukic
1 would drive by several times. He would drive straight through the
2 village, firing. There was this first group that he took away including
3 Esad Zuban. We don't know where he took him. Then he came back for
4 Rasim Sehic and his son, Enver.
5 We learned about this from Rasim Sehic's wife. The next day she
6 told us about this. Nevertheless, the next day I saw this for myself.
7 There was this yellow Fico coming from the direction of Prelovo and
8 driving on to Visegrad. In the car there was Rasim Sehic and his son.
9 Q. Was there any incident which you saw directly yourself in which
10 men were taken from your village?
11 A. It wasn't like there was an incident. They took the men away
12 just because they belonged to a different ethnicity, because they were
13 Muslims, and because the objective was to cleanse Visegrad of its
15 Q. Did you observe the vehicles in which the men were taken?
1 Q. Sorry, Madam Witness. Just -- I remind you to please be careful.
2 MS. MARCUS: Could I request the redaction of the witness's last
3 answer from the public version, just the last -- the entirety of her last
5 Q. And Madam Witness, I'm going to move on to another question now.
6 You describe in your statement also an incident in which your husband was
7 detained. Could you tell us, please, who detained him?
8 A. Milan Lukic's group drove up in their cars. They parked in our
9 village. They parked along the road. Milan Lukic then searched all of
10 the houses individually. He drove us out of our homes and herded us all
11 into Hamed Zuban's home. So we were now all together there, including
12 about 20 children aged 6 months to 12 years. There was a woman among the
13 group, my husband --
14 Q. Madam Witness --
15 A. -- and another relative of mine.
16 Q. I'm going to interrupt you. I'd like to just remind you
17 respectfully, the Chamber has admitted your statement and all the details
18 are in there, I'd just like to ask a few particular clarifications and
19 descriptions and that will be it for the moment.
20 Now, may I request closed session.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Closed session.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in closed session.
23 [Closed session]
11 Page 2891 redacted. Closed session.
20 [Open session]
21 MS. MARCUS:
22 Q. Madam Witness, you mentioned later in your statement that you
23 were taken at one point to an elementary school. Can you identify for us
24 what that elementary school was?
25 A. It was the Hasan Veletovac primary school.
1 Q. Can you briefly describe for us what the school looked like when
2 you arrived there?
3 A. We didn't go to the school of our own free will. We were shown
4 in, ushered in by a Serb soldier who made us go in. He jumped from the
5 truck. He cursed at us, he drove us inside, and he said, Go in and we'll
6 see what we do with you. And what we saw there was horrifying. When we
7 entered the school, we saw blood on the walls and on the floor in the
8 corridors. We found about 350 women, children, and elderly inside.
9 There were about 150 more of us coming in. So that ultimately there were
10 nearly 500 of us in there.
11 I found a friend of mine inside and she told me what had happened
12 the day before our arrival. She told us that Milan Lukic had entered the
13 school, that he had slaughtered a man and played football with his head
14 among the children and women and elderly who were sitting there. That he
15 had propped the body up against the wall, the headless corpse --
16 MR. ALARID: Objection.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
18 MR. ALARID: This testimony was not disclosed in any way, shape
19 or form in the 65 ter. This was not part of her statement 2006, 1993,
20 proofing notes or supplemental statement now of 2008.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this entirely new, Ms. Marcus?
22 MS. MARCUS: Just a moment, Your Honours. Your Honours, her
23 statements include -- certainly include details, more details about the
24 school, but actually, I'd have to check on that with regard to this
25 particular incident, whether it was included in anything before.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it part of the indictment, this incident?
2 MS. MARCUS: No, it's not Your Honours. I can move on beyond it.
3 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, we would argue that none of the
4 testimony fell within the period of the indictment.
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, all the testimony falls within the
6 period of the indictment. It all relates to June of 1992. And the
7 statements include evidence about physical abuse at the school, taking
8 girls and women away, and even slaughtering them. The detail of this
9 particular incident that she's describing, the particular detail was not
10 in the previous statements.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Move beyond that.
12 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Madam Witness, was that the only person that you spoke to in the
15 A. We didn't dare talk much, but she was sitting next to me and
16 whispering to me. She told me that all this had happened there. And
17 it's all true because there are witnesses from the school and most
18 probably these people will come here to testify, and they themselves will
19 be able to tell you what they saw and what they experienced. I didn't
20 see this myself. I heard it from that woman. She also told me that
21 Milan Lukic had taken the clothes of all the people there until they were
22 naked and that he had forced them into a classroom, and that anything
23 valuable that they had on them --
24 MR. ALARID: Same objection.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't -- do you want all this detail?
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm just about to finish up. This is
2 detail -- this is greater detail than was in the statements with regard
3 to abuse that she describes in general terms in her evidence, but I'm
4 happy to move on.
5 MR. ALARID: If it had been disclosed, that would be a different
6 matter, but clearly it's all hearsay and undisclosed material.
7 MS. MARCUS: I'm moving on, Your Honour.
8 Q. Madam Witness, I'd like to ask you now to look around the
9 courtroom and tell me if there is anyone --
10 MR. ALARID: We would object to the in-court identification.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I hear the objection and also from -- I
12 take it from Mr. Cepic. Yes.
13 MS. MARCUS:
14 Q. Madam Witness, I'd like to ask you to look around the courtroom
15 please and tell me if there's anyone in this room whom you recognize in
16 this room, other than myself and my colleagues. If you would like to
17 stand up to have a look, you may do so, with the Chamber's permission, of
19 A. I recognize Sredoje and I also recognize Milan. They are sitting
20 in the back row in the middle. Sredoje is to my right and Milan is to my
22 MS. MARCUS: Could the record reflect that the witness has
23 identified the accused.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 MS. MARCUS:
1 Q. You may sit now, Madam Witness.
2 Finally, can you tell the Court how these experiences have
3 impacted you and your family.
4 A. They have impacted us in the worst possible way. My heart has
5 weakened and so has my husband's. He had to have surgery. My children
6 suffered from trauma. I myself still suffer from trauma. Sometimes I
7 can barely remember what my own name is. He destroyed our lives. He
8 destroyed our health. He destroyed everything we had, Milan Lukic did.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just remind us of your age, Witness?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was born in 1954. I am in my
11 55th year of life.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
13 MS. MARCUS:
14 Q. Thank you, Madam Witness.
15 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Alarid:
18 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. My name is Jason Alarid, and I
19 represent Milan Lukic. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Will answer
20 my questions for me?
21 A. To the best of my knowledge, I'll answer about what is in my
23 Q. Well, thank you, ma'am, but we may move a little bit outside of
24 what is exactly in your statement for purposes of this questioning.
25 First, I'd like to just kind of follow up with a couple of things you
1 said at the end of your testimony. One of them which is how -- that you
2 have been so traumatized, sometimes you can hardly remember your own
3 name. What did you mean by that?
4 A. Well, let me tell you. What I meant to say is that sometimes I
5 don't want to live. I feel like committing suicide. I want to kill
6 myself sometimes.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, you have a maximum of one hour to
8 cross-examine this witness.
9 MR. ALARID: I'll do my best, Your Honour.
10 Q. Now, following the war, you gave a statement -- well, actually
11 let me ask another question. You stood up and identified my client,
12 Milan Lukic; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. On direct testimony you gave several examples of why you knew
15 Sredoje for a long time, including the fact that he brought your husband
16 back to you; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You had several long conversations with him that didn't just
19 happen in 1992, but were over the course of many years; correct?
20 A. I didn't understand your question.
21 Q. Well, you stated that you and your husband knew Sredoje for many
22 years; correct?
23 A. We knew Sredoje. He used to work in the Visegrad SUP. That's
24 why we knew him. We knew him for the entire time of his working there.
25 Q. And so you saw him change over years and even though knowing him
1 as a grown man, you had no trouble identifying him in court today;
3 A. That's correct. The persons who socialized with us are not easy
4 to forget.
5 Q. And including the fact that you made him coffee as a reward for
6 bringing your husband home that day; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But your husband -- you were born in 1954; right?
9 A. Yes. Yes.
10 Q. And when was your husband born?
11 A. In 1956.
12 MR. ALARID: Now, I would like to have document number -- ER
13 number 0055-2477, and 0055-24 -- oh, that's -- excuse me, that's English
14 and B/C/S of the witness's 1993 statement. Page 1, please. And first
15 could we go down and match the signature.
16 Q. Ma'am, is that the bottom -- at the bottom of the page there, is
17 that your signature?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you recall giving a statement in 1993 to the Ministry of
20 Internal Affairs in Gorazde; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you gave the statement a little over a year after your exodus
23 from Visegrad; correct?
24 A. Well, I don't remember exactly when it was, but I do know I made
25 the statement. Time goes by and one forgets these details.
1 Q. Looking at the top of the page, ma'am, do you see December 30th,
3 A. Yes, I do. I do.
4 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to when this happened,
5 this interview?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And so would it be fair to say that your memory was
8 probably clearer just a little over a year after the incident than going
9 on 16 years after the incident; correct?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. But one thing that is consistent is earlier on direct testimony,
12 you indicated that Milan Lukic knew your husband from school; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, I'd like to go to the first paragraph of the bottom of the
15 page. And I'd like you to start reading, ma'am, at "a group of aggressor
16 soldiers." Would you read that paragraph including the name of
17 Milan Lukic to the Court, please.
18 A. Let me just find where it is. I can't find the passage you are
19 referring to.
20 Q. Let me read it for you and see if you can see as I start.
21 MR. IVETIC: If I can assist, actually the B/C/S starts with
22 [B/C/S/ spoken]. That might assist the witness.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR. ALARID:
25 Q. Do you see that, ma'am?
1 A. Oh, yes, I do. "Towards the end of May 1992, in the afternoon, a
2 group of aggressor soldiers carrying a black flag with a skull painted on
3 it, travelling in a few cars, arrived in my village from the direction of
4 Prelovo in the late afternoon hours, led by Milan Lukic whom I knew
5 personally from before as my husband's friend from school. There were
6 about 20 of them, among whom, apart from Milan Lukic, I recognized
7 Mitar Vasiljevic who used to work with me in the same firm. I didn't
8 know the others, but in my opinion, the persons in question were related
9 to Milan Lukic's family, who lived and worked on the territory of Serbia.
10 They had mostly automatic weapons and hand grenades."
11 Q. I'm going to ask you a few questions out of this. First things
12 first, is just a year -- a little over a year after the incident you
13 confirmed again that you knew this Milan Lukic because your husband went
14 to school with him; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So you didn't have an idea of this Milan Lukic because you had?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
19 MR. ALARID:
20 Q. You didn't have an idea of this Milan Lukic because you had --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
23 MR. ALARID:
24 Q. -- not have an idea of who this Milan Lukic because you had known
25 him from the town for several years; correct?
1 A. I didn't know him from town, I knew him because he used to come
2 and visit Emin Vila's father in my village, that's how I knew him and
3 that's why I recognized him when he came to the village to maltreat us
4 and persecute us.
5 Q. Isn't it true that Emin Vila was born in 1955?
6 A. I don't know when Emin Vila was born, but he was a neighbour
8 Q. Isn't it true that he is roughly around the age of you and your
10 A. I don't know that.
11 Q. Well, but it was your understanding that this Milan Lukic worked
12 with Emin Vila in Belgrade; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it would be that reason that he would visit Emin Vila because
15 they worked together in Belgrade; correct?
16 A. Well, let me tell you, they would come together. Milan would go
17 to his house and Emin would go to his, but he would pass by Emin's house,
18 and they would greet each other as colleagues and socialize as colleagues
19 from work.
20 Q. And if -- if -- how old is your husband today?
21 A. 50 something. 51, 52.
22 Q. Now, isn't it true that he testified in this -- in the
23 Mitar Vasiljevic case; correct?
24 A. That is not in my statement, so I won't confirm that.
25 Q. Well, ma'am, he is your husband. I would assume you knew if he
1 took a trip to The Hague to testify in a war crimes trial in 2001. Do
2 you remember that?
3 A. I told you I wouldn't discuss that. It's not in my statement,
4 and I don't want to talk about that.
5 Q. Well, ma'am --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, you have to answer the question. If
7 the question is relevant, then you are obliged to answer it to the best
8 of your ability. If it's not relevant, I will rule it irrelevant in
9 which case the question would not be allowed. But I can't see why you
10 shouldn't answer this question. So what is the answer?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MR. ALARID:
13 Q. And you are still married to your husband; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you confirmed in your statements to the ICTY that he in fact
16 had already given statements to the ICTY as well; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And he gave statements about the same things you are talking
19 about today, including his own abduction and arrest; correct?
20 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to object, but my microphone is not
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 MS. MARCUS: Sorry. Yes. I don't think it's appropriate for the
24 witness to be asked about any of the contents of what her husband
25 testified to or what he said. She can obviously confirm whether or not
1 she knows that he came to testify, but if the contents of her husband's
2 evidence are going to be put to her, I would submit that the substance,
3 the substantive matters can be put to her, factual matters, but not
4 asking her in any way to comment upon the evidence that her husband gave.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: She can't say whether he gave statements about
6 the same things, what she's talking about today.
7 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I absolutely and respectfully disagree,
8 and the reason being is, is because these are a married couple. They
9 gave statements to the ICTY a day apart in 2000. He testified at Mitar,
10 she did not. In fact, he testified about the same arrest, who did it,
11 why he knew Milan, why he knew Mitar, and the time-frames of their age
12 and the knowledge of that. I would submit that based on his testimony,
13 it's a different Milan, a different person and in fact he was abducted by
14 someone other than Milan Lukic, in fact identified as a Montenegrin in
15 his statement. We will be submitting his statements for evidence, so we
16 can, you know, put that on the record today, but otherwise, his wife
17 should have knowledge of that. And the fact that they diverge on very
18 critical issues, I think is important to cross-examine this witness.
19 Including the fact --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you asked her whether she read his
22 MR. ALARID: No, but I can ask her if she recognizes his
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. Your question was -- you asked her
25 whether her husband gave a statement about the same matters, abduction
1 and so on, as she is testifying today.
2 MR. ALARID: Yes.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm saying you haven't laid any foundation --
4 MR. ALARID: I can do that.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to establish that she has that kind of
7 MR. ALARID: That's what I was trying to do, and then the
8 Prosecutor objected.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have a seat.
10 MR. ALARID:
11 Q. And so, ma'am, isn't it true that you and your husband both gave
12 statements in May of 2000 in anticipation of possibly testifying at the
13 Mitar Vasiljevic trial; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you travelled together; correct?
16 A. I don't know where we travelled. You didn't tell me where we
17 were travelling.
18 Q. Where did you give your statements in 2000, ma'am? That would
19 maybe be easier.
20 A. In Sarajevo, to the OTP of The Hague.
21 Q. And were you separated for those statements?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And who was present for your statement?
24 A. It was the investigator, myself, and an interpreter.
25 Q. And did you give your husband -- your statement before your
1 husband, after your husband, or were you in separate rooms giving
2 statements at the same time?
3 A. No, he went first, and then I gave a statement after him, on
4 different days.
5 Q. Were you recorded while you were being interviewed?
6 A. I don't know. I didn't look to see whether they were recording,
7 but nobody told me it was being recorded.
8 Q. So -- and how long was your interview -- how long did it take
9 before they typed up what you had to say and memorialized it so you
10 could, in fact, sign it?
11 A. I went there to make a statement more than once. We couldn't
12 complete it in one go because of the interpretation, so I had to go there
13 several times, and after I had been there several times I signed it.
14 After some time.
15 Q. And isn't it true that your husband travelled to give another
16 statement in 2008, this year?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you go with him?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Why not?
21 A. It wasn't necessary for me to go too.
22 Q. Well, I know you gave another statement in 2006; correct? 2000,
23 to the ICTY, I apologise, isn't that true?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then you gave another statement in 2006; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then you re-issued that similar statement to the Association
3 of Women Victims of War of Sarajevo; correct?
4 A. Yes.
7 MS. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honours. Could that please be
8 redacted from the public version and could this matter please be dealt
9 with in private session.
10 MR. ALARID: Are we still in private session?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session. And that is to be redacted.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Page 2907 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 MR. ALARID:
8 Q. And isn't it true that your husband knew Mitar Vasiljevic because
9 his older brother went to school with him; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And his elder brother is one year older than your husband;
13 A. I don't understand this. There's no reference to my brother
14 here, is there?
15 Q. No. No, ma'am, your husband's brother. Your husband's brother
16 went to school with Mitar Vasiljevic; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And your husband's brother is one year older than your husband?
19 A. No.
20 Q. How much older is your brother's husband [sic] than he?
21 A. Does that matter?
22 Q. Well, ma'am, I'm referring to some testimony from your husband
23 testifying in Vasiljevic where he stated that his brother one year older
24 than him went to school -- and we can put the transcript on the screen
25 and we have the audio --
1 MS. MARCUS: Objection.
2 MR. ALARID: -- and we have the audio recording of her husband
3 testifying prepared for Court.
4 MS. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honours. Again, this is asking a
5 witness to comment on the credibility and the substance of an evidence of
6 another witness, rather than on the substantive matter, the factual
7 matter at hand.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question I will allow is how much older is
9 your brother's husband than he is. Can you answer that, do you know the
10 answer to that question?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My husband was born on the 30th of
12 December, 1956. But he was registered as being born on the 5th of
13 January, 1957, by the local notary in the book of birth. As for my
14 brother-in-law, I don't know when he was born.
15 MR. ALARID:
16 Q. Just from -- you've known him since you were married; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So is he about a year older, give or take a few months?
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tell us what you are trying to establish with
21 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, as a proffer in the
22 Mitar Vasiljevic trial, her husband testified that -- in reference to why
23 he knew these people, one of the reference points he did is, Well,
24 Mitar went to school with my older brother and Milan was a year behind
25 me, being a three-year gap. These are all for gentleman born in their
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. So let us hear the answer. The question
3 was: Is he about a year older give or take a few months. Are you in a
4 position to answer that, Witness?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because I'm not certain.
6 MR. ALARID: I'll move on, Your Honour.
7 Q. But as far as you knew, your husband was certain that this was a
8 Milan that was a year younger than him and went to school in the 7th
9 grade while he was in the 8th grade; correct?
10 MS. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honour. Again, asking the witness
11 to establish whether or not her husband was certain about something --
12 she has to say what she is certain about, not what her husband or anybody
13 else is certain about.
14 MR. ALARID: They lived together, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't ask any more questions like that. I will
16 get annoyed.
17 MR. ALARID: Well, I'm asking it not from --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that line of questioning,
19 Mr. Alarid.
20 MR. ALARID: Even if it's related to her personal knowledge of
21 her husband, not the statements. I'm not asking her about the
22 statements. I'm asking her about have they had conversations in their
23 household. This is a fair hearsay --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You never put the question that way.
25 MR. ALARID: Okay. Well, that's what I meant.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you want, you can put the question that way
2 and that will provide a basis for her answer.
3 MR. ALARID:
4 Q. Ma'am, in several statements you gave, you indicated that your
5 husband knew Milan Lukic that day from school because he had gone to
6 school with him; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Isn't it true that you've discussed with your husband that
10 A. No, we didn't discuss the relationship. Mitar Vasiljevic and my
11 husband were socializing. He works in a pub as a waiter. My husband
12 would go there and drink with him, and that's why he knew him.
13 Q. No, ma'am, I was vague, I apologise. What I meant was, isn't it
14 true that you and your husband had conversations regarding as to why your
15 husband knew Milan Lukic went to school with him; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And isn't it true that you and your husband had discussions that
18 put this Milan Lukic in the class beneath your husband, the year behind
19 your husband, i.e., of when your husband is in 8th grade, this
20 Milan Lukic would have been in 7th grade?
21 A. No. What my husband was saying is that they were schoolmates but
22 not classmates, that's what he was saying. I don't know when Milan went
23 to school, to which class. And I don't know that my husband and
24 Milan Lukic were classmates, because I wasn't together with my husband at
25 the time.
1 Q. Ma'am, wouldn't it be true that if Milan Lukic, in this courtroom
2 today, were born in 1967, it would be impossible for him to be a
3 schoolmate, much less a classmate with your husband? Isn't that true?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Wouldn't it be true that your husband is in a better position to
6 know who Milan Lukic was back in 1992 than when you were?
7 MS. MARCUS: Objection. Again asking the witness to assess the
8 credibility of her husband.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: She can't comment on that. Ask another
11 MR. ALARID:
12 Q. Based on your knowledge of Milan Lukic in 1992, and the fact that
13 in your 1993 statement you indicated that you knew Milan Lukic personally
14 because your husband went to school with him, isn't it true that your
15 husband would be in a better position to know who Milan Lukic was on that
16 fateful day --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the same question that I just disallowed.
18 You don't seem to understand English. I just disallowed it, so why are
19 you putting it again?
20 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I understand English very well. And
21 the fact of the matter --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Then don't put it again. I have disallowed it
23 and for a very good reason. Ask another question.
24 MR. ALARID:
25 Q. Ma'am, isn't it true that not a single statement before 2008 in
1 court yesterday, you never mentioned a Passat?
2 A. I did mention it. I just don't know whether that was recorded or
3 not. Behija's Passat. Behija Zukic. I said who it belonged to, I said
4 who took it away from her, and I said what sort of a car it was.
5 Q. But ma'am, you never identified the Passat in any previous
6 statement before court yesterday; isn't that true?
7 A. Is it the Passat that matters so much, is that so essential to
8 the Defence?
9 Q. No, ma'am. It appears to be essential to the Prosecution, and I
10 think that's why you were asked about it. Were you prompted to talk
11 about a Passat the day before yesterday, ma'am?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who told you to talk about the Passat?
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, objection.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to note that the witness several times
17 refers to a Volkswagen in her statements. The fact that she doesn't
18 specify what kind of a Volkswagen it is is a different matter, but she
19 does refer to Volkswagen in her statements.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: But is there any reference to a Passat in her
22 MS. MARCUS: A Passat is a kind of Volkswagen. I'm just asking
23 the question because in the statements it clearly says a Volkswagen.
24 There is no explicit use of the word Passat.
25 MR. ALARID: Well, she'd also just identified a Golf today, so
1 clearly she can tell the difference between make and model.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
3 MR. ALARID:
4 Q. And ma'am, before the objection happened, I asked you who told
5 you or who prompted you about the Passat?
6 A. The Prosecutor.
7 Q. Tell me about that conversation.
8 A. I explained what cars were involved, who they belonged to, and
9 that was that.
10 Q. And who told you to say it was a Passat?
11 MS. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honours. The witness didn't say
12 that someone told her to say it was a Passat.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, he did ask her who prompted her.
14 MR. ALARID: Who prompted you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'll allow the question.
16 MR. ALARID:
17 Q. Please complete your answer, ma'am.
18 A. No one told me to talk about a Passat. I said it was there. No
19 one told me. It's my statement, my evidence.
20 Q. Well, ma'am, you realise that when you wrote down the additional
21 witness statement of the 26th of October, 2008, you had been given an
22 opportunity to clarify all earlier statements; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you have -- are you a special aficionado of cars, makes
25 and models that you would know the difference between a Passat this long
1 after the incident?
2 A. I could tell Behija's Passat. There are several kinds of Passat
3 probably. I also owned one but it was an old model.
4 Q. And what would prompt you, other than the district attorney -- or
5 excuse me, the Prosecutor reminding you of that 18 -- or, excuse me, 16
6 years after the fact? And why isn't it in your 2008, October 26th
8 MS. MARCUS: Objection. Again it's a mischaracterization and he
9 hasn't actually asked her whether the Volkswagen which is mentioned, in
10 that she meant to -- that this was the kind of Volkswagen she was
11 referring to.
12 MR. ALARID: Why would I lead her to that?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: You can ask her that in re-examination, if you
14 wish. Go ahead.
15 MR. ALARID:
16 Q. And so, ma'am, I ask again, what would prompt you, other than the
17 Prosecutor reminding you, that 16 years after the fact and why isn't
18 there a mention of this vehicle, make and model --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: One question at a time.
20 MR. ALARID: You are right, Your Honour.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About the Passat, for me to
22 mention it, I mentioned it in all of my statements, the Passat that
23 belonged to Behija Zukic. I mentioned this in all of my statements. I'm
24 not sure if it was recorded or not.
25 MR. ALARID:
1 Q. No, ma'am, but what I'm asking you is, what would have you
2 identify it specifically as a Passat other than the Prosecutor telling
3 you that? What in your own recollection clarified the make and model of
4 the car?
5 A. Because Milan Lukic himself drove it. And that's why it counts.
6 It's important because he would drive up to our village in that Passat
7 and he drove it himself.
8 Q. And so, ma'am, I'm assuming that at the time in 1992 there were
9 rumours about Behija Zukic, her car, and her death; correct?
10 A. Yes
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. ALARID:
13 Q. And, ma'am, is it the Milan Lukic that went to school with your
14 husband that was driving that Passat?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, when did you first see Milan Lukic in uniform with Emin?
17 A. I don't remember that, but it was a long time ago. Whenever he
18 came, he would be wearing a uniform.
19 Q. I'd like you to use the spring of 1992 as a reference point and
20 go backwards from there. When was the last time before that, in as much
21 specificity as you can, the last time that you saw Milan Lukic with Emin?
22 A. I don't remember that either.
23 Q. Well, was it five months before, a year before, several years
24 before? I mean, please help us out. You are the only one that can
25 recall that.
1 A. I don't remember. I can't say something that I don't know. I
2 don't remember the date.
3 Q. You lived in the same neighbourhood as the Vilas, they were your
4 neighbours; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you said that Emin was a policeman in Serbia; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So using 1992, the spring, as a marker, when was the last time
9 you had seen Emin in Visegrad?
10 A. The last time, I don't know that either. Not exactly. He would
11 come to see his aunt on a holiday. I can't remember the last time he
13 Q. Well, had he visited at any time in the year --
14 A. It was before the war. I know that much.
15 Q. Okay. And so just for a point of reference, between June 1991
16 and June 1992, did you see Emin Vila at your neighbour Vila's house?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Between June 1991 and June 1990, going backwards in time, did you
19 see Emin Vila at your neighbour Vila's house?
20 A. I don't know exactly when he was, when it was that he last
21 holidayed there.
22 Q. You were very clear about remembering that the Milan Lukic that
23 went to school with your husband used to hang out with Emin Vila at their
24 house, being your neighbours. So I'm trying to pinpoint when was the
25 last time you saw them together, if you said you saw them there more than
2 A. I did see them together, but it was in peacetime, and then when
3 the war in Yugoslavia broke out, not even families had an opportunity to
4 see each other, let alone neighbours who were unrelated.
5 Q. Absolutely, ma'am. That's why I'm only asking you during
6 peacetime when you remember that, so please, help me clarify. On direct
7 examination I believe you testified that you saw Milan Lukic and
8 Emin Vila on more than one occasion, and I need to know when that was.
9 The Court needs to know when that was.
10 A. Well, let me tell you this: I just don't know exactly. The last
11 time they were there, I was working myself. Mustafa Vila was the one who
12 would tell me about his visits. I may have seen him around back in 1990
13 or thereabouts, the last time he came, 1989, perhaps 1990, thereabouts.
14 Q. Fair enough. And when you saw -- and did you see Milan at that
15 time as well, 1989 or 1990?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it was your understanding that this Milan and Emin were
18 colleagues in Belgrade; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that was colleagues at the MUP in Belgrade, correct, both
21 police officers?
22 A. That was a place near Belgrade, perhaps part of Belgrade, I'm not
23 sure what the name was of that place where they worked.
24 Q. Would that be Obrenovac?
25 A. I don't know. I don't know. I can't say, I don't know.
1 Q. And isn't it true that there's another witness, that's also a
2 family member of yours, to the incidents of which you've testified
3 besides your husband and that being your sister-in-law; correct?
4 A. Must I answer this one? Yes.
5 MR. ALARID: Private session for a moment, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 MR. ALARID:
8 Q. And that sister-in-law, her name would be --
9 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, counsel. Your Honours, we are in
10 private session.
11 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 MR. ALARID:
25 Q. And, ma'am, isn't it true that your sister-in-law gave a
1 statement on your behalf to the Women Victims Association?
2 A. Not on my behalf. She simply confirmed my statement.
3 Q. Did you request her to go there and confirm your statement?
4 A. Yes, I needed a witness myself.
5 Q. And, ma'am, just going back on something we've touched on a
6 little bit is, did Milan Lukic wear a police uniform when you saw him
7 before the war with Emin?
8 A. Yes. Both were wearing police uniforms when they came. Emin and
9 Milan Lukic.
10 MR. ALARID: No further questions, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Cepic.
12 MR. ALARID: And, Your Honour, I apologise. I just wanted to
13 enter the 1993 statement.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll admit it. And in fact, we'll take
15 the break now. Give us the number for the --
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 1D70, under seal,
17 Your Honours.
18 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: How long do you intend to be?
21 MR. CEPIC: Not more than 5 minutes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: 5 minutes, good.
23 MR. CEPIC: May I start, Your Honour?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:
1 Q. Good day, madam. My name is Djuro Cepic, Defence counsel for
2 Mr. Sredoje Lukic. I do apologise, but can you hear me? Let me just
3 introduce myself. My name is Djuro Cepic, attorney at law, and I appear
4 for Sredoje Lukic. Are you tired, madam?
5 A. No, I'm not.
6 Q. I have one question for you. Perhaps you will agree with me that
7 Sredoje Lukic is a positive personality who in those difficult times
8 exposed himself to danger in order to save your husband and his brother;
9 is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you, very much, madam. I have no further questions for
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Ms. Marcus.
14 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Re-examination by Ms. Marcus:
16 Q. Madam Witness, I'm going to quote to you a few lines from the
17 testimony just earlier today. I'm quoting from page 32, line 19.
18 Learned counsel for the Defence asked you the following question:
19 "Ma'am, isn't it true that not a single statement before 2008 in court
20 yesterday you never mentioned a Passat." Your answer was --
21 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I would object. And the reason I'm
22 objecting is simply this: When I asked that line of questioning -- what
23 the Prosecution is going to refer to, but it's why I introduced the
24 entire 1993 statement, is there is a mention of Passat later, after the
25 incident. However, what I'm referring to is specifically page 111,
1 line 10, through page 112, line 6, and it was at the questioning of
2 Ms. Marcus stating specifically that in her statements before and
3 referring to the BMW, VW, own car and a Yugo, the question was from the
4 Prosecutor Ms. Marcus: "In the section you just read, you mentioned that
5 group came from a BMW, Volkswagen" --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
8 MR. ALARID: -- own car, and a Yugo, and all those -- are those
9 the cars that you recall seeing?"
10 "Answer: I saw -- well, was Behija Zukic's Passat in a burgundy
11 colour, but it's not mentioned there and the car was driven by
12 Milan Lukic." So I was specifically relating to that time period not to
13 later in the time period, because that's what, of course, what I'm going
14 to be arguing in my submission that in fact she was prompted to inject
15 the Passat because in that same statement which was introduced into
16 evidence she specifically refers to Milan Lukic, the Milan Lukic that she
17 knew, coming, this time, in the car from Behija Zukic, after the fact
18 that she described the four vehicles. So it implies that, in fact, this
19 Milan Lukic changed cars after what she had testified to.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: So what is your point, that she -- that it
21 doesn't arise or that -- why can't she ask about the Passat since it was
22 raised in cross-examination?
23 MR. ALARID: Well, I know what they are going to imply, they are
24 going to imply that, in fact, what I was arguing in my questioning, and I
25 was arguing specifically related to the time when Milan Lukic first came
1 up in a group of cars, where she identified the VW, the BMW and a couple
2 of others.
3 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be a little premature because we haven't
5 even heard the specific question. She merely identified the passage from
6 your cross-examination. What is the question?
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'd also like to respond to that.
8 There is nothing whatsoever in that line of questioning which identified
9 to the witness which portion was related to, and counsel put two direct,
10 broad-sweeping questions to the witness. The first one was what I was
11 just about to read: "Ma'am, isn't it true that not a single statement
12 before 2008 in court yesterday you never mentioned a Passat." And her
13 response was: "I did mention it. I just don't know whether that was
14 recorded or not. Behija's Passat. Behija Zukic. I said who it belonged
15 to and I said who took it away from her and I said what kind of a car it
16 was." Immediately following that, counsel again put the question to her:
17 "But, ma'am, you never identified the Passat in any previous statement
18 before court yesterday; isn't that true?" There was no reference to any
19 particular portion of the --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: You both seem to be ready for a little fight. I
21 just want to hear the question.
22 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
23 For the question, I would like to up Exhibit 1D70. It was just
24 admitted. Perhaps the document ID number would be helpful, that would be
25 0055-2477, and its corresponding English translation. The first part I'd
1 like to go to is on the English page 2 at the bottom. On the B/C/S page
2 3 at the top.
3 Q. Madam Witness, can you see the statement on the screen in front
4 of you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Could you kindly read for us one line which at the top of the
7 page which starts with the words: "Milan Lukic came back to our village
8 again that same day."
9 A. Yes. "Milan Lukic came back the same day. This time he was
10 alone in a car taken from Behija Zukic from Visegrad. He was armed with
11 a submachine gun and" --
12 Q. Thank you. I'd like to now turn to page 5 in the English at the
13 bottom, and page 5 in the B/C/S in the middle.
14 Madam, do you see a line in the middle of the page which starts
15 with the words "during my stay at Bikavac"?
16 A. During my stay at Bikavac, I can't say exactly, 19 days on
17 several occasions, Milan Lukic, Vidoje Andric, came in a Passat car, dark
18 red in colour, and brought younger women and the girls to be raped. I
19 remember Besima from Medjudja, a schoolmate of mine.
20 Q. Thank you very much, Madam Witness. And my question is:
21 Mr. Alarid was not correct when he said that you had not made mention of
22 a Passat in your previous statements; isn't that true?
23 MR. ALARID: Cause for speculation.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: How so? Either it's there in the statement or
1 MR. ALARID: Because again, Your Honour, that was the whole point
2 of my earlier objection. I introduced the entire statement making the
3 point there was reference to the day. The fact is, is in her 2008
4 statement -- excuse me, 2006, is when she brought up describing the cars
5 that these gentlemen came to on that first day. In fact, on page 1 of
6 this exhibit, she identifies simply a bunch of cars and then creates the
7 differential of -- that when Milan Lukic comes it's in a -- almost
8 implying that it's in a different car than was there earlier. Yet at the
9 prompting of the Prosecution, the Passat now is there from the very, very
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not even certain whether the question is
12 necessary because the Judges would have seen the statement and we able to
14 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours. No further questions.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. We thank
16 you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next witness.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution now calls VG-133.
21 Mr. Cole will be handling this witness. Your Honour, this witness is the
22 same situation as we had with VG-064. It's a witness that we already put
23 forward as a 92 ter witness, but in going over the Court decisions we
24 were not able to find where the Court explicitly granted that. So our
25 application --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I checked on that. I am a now ready for this,
2 Mr. -- I am now for it. I checked with my legal officers and no
3 application was made for 92 ter. No application, that is my information
4 which I just had from the legal officers.
5 MR. GROOME: Well, then I stand corrected, Your Honour. I
6 apologise to the Chamber and would the Chamber entertain an oral 92 ter
7 submission --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I would. I would.
9 MR. GROOME: Okay. I'd ask Mr. Cole to deal with that.
10 Your Honour, I do want to say, before it gets too far away from us, I do
11 want to place on the record my very strong objection to what has just
12 happened. It's happened a few times before in the case and we all make
13 mistakes when we cite to a record and we make oversights, but I think in
14 this particular case, such a direct question that it wasn't in the
15 statement and then followed by an entire line of questions impugning the
16 integrity of Ms. Marcus, that she had somehow prompted the witness to
17 identify the car as a Passat, I can't sit by here silent as the integrity
18 of my staff, who I have the highest faith in their integrity, is called
19 into question. I would ask Mr. Alarid to please be more cautious before
20 he levels such a serious accusation impugning the integrity of a member
21 of the Office of the Prosecutor.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we don't want to have another discourse on
23 this, but Mr. Alarid. Just very quickly.
24 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, I mean I've got to say tunnel
25 vision sometimes works that way, but I was focused on the statement which
1 Ms. Marcus left at the end of the day yesterday which was acknowledging
2 that the statements had never mentioned the Passat before and was asking
3 for a clarification and making that point, I believe, and I would make
4 that point in my submissions as well.
5 Although, I would raise that the fact that these we receiving
6 multiple proofing notes in the days before these things and very simple
7 matters but yet very pointed matters such as dates and makes and models
8 of cars are coming into complete clarity after over a decade of time is
9 troubling to me because that's just not the way my understanding of human
10 memory usually works.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Alarid. The next
12 witness, Mr. Cole.
13 MR. COLE: Excuse me, Your Honour. Before the witness is brought
14 in, I have in fact two applications to make. The first one just referred
15 to by Your Honour a short time ago, the 92 ter. I've certainly prepared
16 to deal with this witness by way of 92 ter. We did make --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the estimate for the witness as viva
19 MR. COLE: Well, viva voce it would be, I don't know, maybe 2 or
20 3 hours. 92 ter, I am hoping something like three-quarters of an hour.
21 Could I just mention, sir, that when we made the application,
22 Your Honour, to include this witness amongst the Prosecution witnesses,
23 we did file a summary of the witness together with the mode of testimony
24 mentioned 92 ter at that stage, and with the evidence in chief listed at
25 .5 of an hour. I think Your Honour granted the application in relation
1 to this witness and one other witness without referring to the mode of
2 testimony at that stage.
3 So we've assumed that it would be a 92 ter, and certainly in the
4 circumstances, I would ask now that I be able to proceed with the 92 ter
5 procedure with this witness.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe Mr. Alarid has something to say about
8 MR. ALARID: Well, yes, Your Honour. I mean the problem I have
9 is is that on the October 21st memorandum to all parties, the Court
10 included, it -- the OTP listed this witness as viva voce. For one.
11 Secondarily, we've received two proofing notes. One the 28th of October,
12 2008, listing 15 changes in relation to the paragraphs, and then at 2.15
13 today we received a second proofing note with seven additional changes.
14 So how can we go 92 ter on a statement that's being modified so
15 drastically at the very tail end of the process? In other words,
16 limiting our cross based on that.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you would be able to cross-examine on the
19 MR. ALARID: Are the proofing notes allowed to come in as
20 evidence? I mean at the last witness, Witness 64, they made these
21 proofing statements into amended statement. In this particular case it
22 wasn't transcended into a statement. We made a motion for a proofing
23 note to come in at some point, and I think that it would be appropriate
24 that the proofing note come in as part of the statement under that
1 MR. GROOME: I'll leave it to Mr. Cole to -- with respect to the
2 proofing note but I don't imagine that we would object to a proofing
3 note. Just so that it's clear, when witnesses are brought here, and one
4 of virtues that I believe the -- why the rules were changed to
5 accommodate 92 ter, was that witnesses could be brought to The Hague,
6 we'd have an opportunity to look at their statement, and then could
7 advise the Chamber whether there's anything they wished to change.
8 When the witnesses arrive here, typically two days before, the
9 day before their testimony they are given an opportunity to read their
10 statement and anything that they say that is -- that they believe is a
11 correction, we are duty-bound to disclose that to the counsel, and also
12 duty-bound to raise it in the foundation of 92 ter. I can think of no
13 other way to deal with the matter.
14 As we heard with VG-064, aside from the new assault, and she gave
15 her explanation as to why that wasn't included, they were all very minor
16 inconsistencies or minor changes, none of them that had any direct
17 bearing on a material issue in this case. The change of the word from
18 "toward Visegrad" from "to Visegrad," and the change of the spelling of
19 the word Prelovo. They were minor corrections but ones that we are
20 required to deal with. So there is nothing, I believe, that prejudices
21 the Defence with respect to this. The total amount of material is less
22 than two pages. Mr. Alarid has had it shortly after the witness has said
23 it to us. I can't imagine that we can get that information to him any
24 quicker, and he has a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness on
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: And the proofing note would be tendered?
2 MR. GROOME: In this case, if Mr. Alarid feels that fairness
3 requires that, I would no objection to that. We tried to do that
4 yesterday and there was vehement objection to it. So whichever way the
5 Chamber wishes to conduct the trial, the Prosecution will be happy to
7 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, I guess my concern is, you know,
8 just given the previous objection, and I object -- you objected to
9 dumping yesterday; I object assault, if that's the case. But other than
10 that, the issue is simply this, is we need time to prepare, Your Honour.
11 And when the witnesses are changing their testimony and changing
12 statements and at this late hour and yet they are coming in 92 ter, it
13 gives us very little time to adjust for those changes in
14 cross-examination. And even the Court saying, Well, you have the
15 opportunity to cross-examine, it's what makes those mistakes like I just
16 made, that failure to clarify the separation of semantics in the earlier
17 statement is exactly what I'm talking about because before yesterday,
18 Your Honour, that client -- that witness had not mentioned Passat
19 anywhere in relation to this first encounter with Mr. Lukic and didn't
20 identify this car, and all of a sudden, it pops into the fray, not even
21 part of the proofing note. And it makes it very difficult for us to
22 adjust in a 92 ter scenario because it does change how we prepare as
23 opposed to a viva voce witness. That is the nature of our objection.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would just point out, unless there is
1 another alternative what the witness tells us we try to get that
2 information as quickly as possible to the Defence. I can think of no
3 other alternative. I'm happy to hear suggestions from either Mr. Alarid
4 or the Chamber.
5 MR. ALARID: I'm just reading the 92 ter rule, Your Honour, I
6 just can't understand how we can do it when the details of the statements
7 have now changed. And just looking at the most recent proofing note, the
8 changes include people being there and not being there, including
9 description issues. Those kinds of things are changing. If the
10 description and number of people change, how can this be 92 ter?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, the Chamber will admit the statement
12 under 92 ter. If you are in any way embarrassed by the lateness of
13 changes in these statements to the extent that they go to material
14 issues, then you can bring that to our attention, and the Chamber will
15 deal with it. Yes, Mr. Cole.
16 MR. COLE: Thank you, Your Honour. There was one further
17 application and it relates to protective measures for this witness that I
18 would ask that we deal with in private session before the witness is
19 brought in, sir.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session. Now being operated by the
21 court deputy. When we move to private session, apparently she needs a
22 little time for the -- for certain matters to be attended to.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 2933-2934 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
8 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit. And you may begin, Mr. Cole.
10 MR. COLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Could the court usher pass the pseudonym sheet to the witness.
12 WITNESS: WITNESS VG-133
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Cole:
15 Q. Yes. Good afternoon, Witness VG-133.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. You can hear me clearly?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You have been granted protective measures by the Court in the
20 form of screening from the public, facial distortion and the use of a
21 pseudonym, and your pseudonym is VG-133. Do you understand?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On the piece of paper before you, can you confirm that your name
24 and date of birth are correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you please sign that pseudonym sheet.
2 A. [Marks]
3 MR. COLE: And I ask that the pseudonym sheet be entered into
4 evidence under seal.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P160, under seal,
7 Your Honours.
8 MR. COLE: Could I now ask that the court usher provide the
9 witness with a pseudonym reference sheet. Your Honour, I note Mr. Cepic
10 is looking a bit mused. I can indicate that one of the persons on the
11 reference sheet with a pseudonym is not currently on the witness list.
12 MR. ALARID: Could the Prosecution please clarify which witness?
13 MR. COLE: VG-141.
14 Q. VG-133, this reference sheet in front you contains the names of
15 persons or may mention or be asked about in your testimony. Next to
16 their names are pseudonyms for them. I would ask if you could kindly use
17 the pseudonym instead of the name of the person if you refer to either of
18 these persons during your testimony. Do you understand this?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. VG-133, what is your ethnicity?
21 A. I'm a Muslim. A Bosniak.
22 Q. And in which municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina were you born?
23 A. Visegrad.
24 MR. COLE: And, Your Honours, as VG-133 is a 92 ter witness, I'll
25 now proceed to confirm her prior statement.
1 Q. VG-133, did you provide a written statement to an ICTY
2 investigator on the 18th and 20th of August, 2008?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was this statement typed in English at the time, read back to you
5 in the Bosnian language, and did you sign the English version?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did you have an opportunity this week to review that
8 statement in the Bosnian language?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And on reviewing the statement, did you find some items in your
11 statement which needed to be corrected?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. COLE: I wonder if the witness could be shown her statement
14 in B/C/S. The ERN number is 06382732 to 06382740. The English statement
15 has the same numbers.
16 Q. Can you see a copy of the B/C/S, of the Bosnian version of your
17 statement on the screen before you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Refer you to paragraph 6 of your statement where you describe the
20 date you finished work at the Visegrad Health Centre, and where it
21 indicates you stopped work in the middle of May of 1992. What date did
22 you actually finish work at the centre in 1992?
23 A. On the 26th of May.
24 Q. And after that date, did you return and finally finish on a later
25 date in May 1992?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was the actual final day that you worked at the Visegrad
3 Health Centre?
4 A. The 31st of May, 1992.
5 Q. Would you have a look now, please, at paragraph 9 of your
6 statement where it indicates that Dr. Vasiljevic said that you could go.
7 Can you see that passage?
8 A. In English -- oh, yes. Yes, now I see it. Yes.
9 Q. Should that in fact read that Dr. Vasiljevic took Milan Lukic out
10 of the room?
11 A. No, it says here that he said I should leave the room, but that's
12 not correct. Dr. Vasiljevic took Milan Lukic out of the room.
13 Q. Thank you. Also on paragraph 9, there is a passage that says
14 that Milan Lukic had colours on his face occasionally but very rarely.
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. So does that need to be corrected?
18 A. Yes. He never had any colours on his face that I saw.
19 Q. I'll now refer you to paragraph 17 to 20 of your statement.
20 These are paragraphs of your statement where you are describing an
21 incident where Milan Lukic visited your mother-in-law's apartment
22 building in Visegrad, took away some neighbours, and killed them on the
23 nearby bridge. Do you see those paragraphs?
24 A. I have paragraph 18 right now.
25 Q. So my question in relation to those paragraphs is: What date do
1 you now say it was that this incident occurred?
2 A. On the 10th of June, 1992.
3 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, this is -- my objection is this is
4 exactly what I'm talking about. See, and the reason being is this: In
5 the proofing note we just got today there's seven enumerated items. In
6 the proofing note we got yesterday there's 15 enumerated items. In the
7 proofing note of yesterday, in contrast to the one today, there's no
8 identification to which paragraph, what line, that the witness is in fact
9 clarifying. As opposed to the one today, which makes a minor change.
10 For instance, number 4, in relation to paragraph 20, the ERN number
11 should read 5160, not 5061. That makes perfect sense to me.
12 But in this particular case, we are going to her statement, which
13 you have before you, which gives a little description of an incident in
14 where someone supposedly abducted and then killed. There's no date in
15 reference to that whatsoever. Above it in paragraph 17, there's a
16 relationship to in June 1992, Milan Lukic. And then it goes on to a
17 little bit more description. I don't believe there's another date
18 referenced on that page until the bottom, paragraph 20, which says the
19 7th of June. And that's somehow how this witness referenced or actually
20 believed that something occurred in relation to the entry in the book.
21 In the original statement it appears, if you look to paragraph 20, she
22 relates the exact date that she can't be sure to June 7th. Well, yet in
23 the proofing note, I am assuming this is what Mr. Cole is going to refer
24 to, it specifically states that, Well, I'd previously suspected June 7th,
25 but now she knows it was June 10th because that was the day she found her
1 mother and the same day her husband told her he had seen men taken to
2 from the Varda factory and to the river and killed. Four days later, her
3 mother was expelled from Visegrad.
4 That's a great amount of detail covering days, covering Varda,
5 which wasn't even in the statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, is Varda
6 mentioned in the original statement from 2008, I didn't see it. But now
7 we are now triangulating this to now incorporate Varda? And what, is
8 this witness now become an alibi rebuttal? I mean, the fact of the
9 matter is, is that is much more substantive than the normal 92 process.
10 This involves groups of new testimony of which I can't get into but for
11 there being a statement that says it in the first place.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole.
13 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honour. We are left with the words of the
14 witness during a proofing over the last two days. There are obligations
15 that follow on from disclosures by the witness, as Mr. Groome has said.
16 Now, what I'm attempting to do here, because it's a 92 ter process, is to
17 briefly go through whether there are any matters in the paragraphs of the
18 statement that the witness needs to correct, because she's going to be
19 asked with these corrections what -- are the contents of the statement
20 true and correct. So I'm going through briefly each of the matters,
21 there aren't a lot of them, and counsel has been notified of them, and
22 going to deal with them a little bit more in a little bit more depth
23 later on. But this is for the purposes of 92 ter at the moment.
24 Now, the matters that my learned friend raises are matters that
25 he can properly put to the witness during cross-examination. If there
1 have been changes, as there have been, it's a matter for
2 cross-examination, not a matter for an objection at this stage when we
3 are validating a 92 ter statement.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: His point is that coming at this stage, he would
5 not have had sufficient time to prepare for such a substantive change.
6 MR. COLE: Well, certainly, Your Honours, some of the changes to
7 the statement and he has mentioned another one where it's a matter of a
8 number, I will be dealing with the changes. They are changes. We are
9 stuck with them and have to deal with them, and he will have the
10 opportunity to cross-examine. If he needs some time for a particular
11 change, he can make an appropriate application to the Court for some time
12 to deal with it.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have heard Mr. Alarid, and essentially the
15 whole purpose of this exercise really is to determine prejudice, if
16 there's prejudice to the Defence. And if the Defence persuades the
17 Trial Chamber that it will be prejudiced, then we'll take appropriate
18 action. But we haven't reached that stage yet. You can carry out your
19 cross-examination, and then if you wish, you can make an appropriate
20 application to the Chamber.
21 MR. ALARID: And the only -- I'd ask guidance from the Court, is
22 in the 92 ter scenario with this proofing note, which I've had my
23 assistant go get some copies of because I think the Court is entitled to
24 see, it's impossible to cross-examine this. And what the 92 ter scenario
25 is it allows him to lead the witness through very substantive issues
1 including dates and new murders and killings and knowledge of murders
2 that may not have been mentioned in other places, now they are coming in
3 through a proofing note which technically is not signed or affirmed by
4 this witness, and yet this Prosecutor gets to then lead the witness
5 through very substantive things. So it circumvents the --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: 92 ter is an abbreviated procedure. It's
7 purpose really is to advance the proceedings more quickly, but there must
8 not be any prejudice to the Defence or to the other side because the
9 Defence also has the same opportunity to make use of the procedure.
10 You speak of leading the witness. On the 92 ter the statement is
11 presented, so what the Prosecutor does or the party relying on it does is
12 simply to bring to the attention of the Chamber certain important
13 features from that statement. So it's not -- it's a statement that is in
14 lieu of examination-in-chief. So please bear that in mind, it's in lieu
15 of examination-in-chief.
16 MR. ALARID: I do, Your Honour. And all I can say is reading
17 the -- yesterday's proofing note, this is a more of a new statement than
18 a corrections of minor technical inaccuracies. This is a new statement
19 involving very new accusations and very new affirmations of which the
20 only way he is allowed under 92 ter is technically to lead. Isn't it
21 true you made this change, and yes, I made this change. And yet there's
22 not even a reference to specific paragraphs.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have a hard copy that I can look at,
24 Mr. Cole.
25 MR. COLE: Yes, I have, Your Honour. And the Court did receive a
1 copy of it, I can indicate, as part of the list that was disseminated.
2 Can I just indicate - I'll provide Your Honour with one now - that we are
3 prepared, if necessary, to ask the witness to return if some prejudice
4 can be demonstrated by my learned friend at some stage, and needs further
5 time to cross-examine the witness. That's one of the options that is
7 MR. ALARID: Other than that, Your Honour, we have no objection
8 to the statement itself coming in, because I think that's proper. So,
9 you know, from the technical side I have no objection to the statement.
10 It's really what happened in the proofing session that leaves me unable
11 to figure out how to handle the situation.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am a little troubled when I see this, is it a
14 proofing, they are proofing note. The witness related the following
15 additional information, and you have some 15 matters dealt with. Now,
16 there isn't even one that is of the same species as identified by
17 Mr. Groome earlier, changing "to" to "toward." They all seem to deal
18 with relatively substantial or material matters.
19 It seems to be something new, though, Mr. Groome, because I can't
20 remember, for example, when you appeared in Slobodan Milosevic, a trial
21 in which I participated, I don't remember our having this experience
22 where, you know, we had what virtually amounts to another statement.
23 MR. GROOME: I think there is some explanation given the unique
24 nature of this case, if I might explain. This witness is called in alibi
25 rebuttal, so the witnesses that the Prosecution had identified earlier on
1 and/or the matter of original witness list, I had sent out the lawyers to
2 meet with the witnesses in the spring and the summer, and any changes in
3 their statements was noted and disclosed to Defence counsel. As this
4 witness is one of the witnesses that -- these alibi rebuttal witnesses
5 we've primarily identified on statements and they have not been spoken to
6 for some period of time with respect from the Prosecution, although some
7 witnesses I did attempt to send Prosecution staff out to meet the
8 witness. I'm not sure whether this particular witness was one of the
9 people that was met in the field. But we are stuck with the problem,
10 Your Honour, of when the witness comes and we interview the witness, the
11 witness may provide additional information.
12 We try to present this in the balanced way. If you will note on
13 the proofing summary, this witness said during the session that on the
14 14th of June she did not see Sredoje Lukic there. Obviously a very
15 important piece of information for the Sredoje Lukic Defence. So we
16 tried to present the information to the Defence as soon as we obtain it.
17 But we really have no other option, when the witness tells us something,
18 to provide that information and to act accordingly.
19 I would, as Mr. Cole has already said, it would seem to me that
20 at the conclusion of the examination today, if the Court feels that
21 fairness requires the witness to return, I'm sure she would oblige the
22 Chamber and return for whatever additional questions that Mr. Alarid puts
23 forward as fairness requires and the Chamber might deem fairness
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We are going to proceed on the basis that
1 if the Defence feels in any way that is embarrassed or prejudiced by the
2 lateness of this information, then it may make an appropriate application
3 at the appropriate time.
4 MR. ALARID: One thing there Mr. Ivetic brought to my attention
5 was more practical but really common sensical, is that nothing is
6 provided in the language of the witness that allows us to put it to the
7 witness in any way, shape or form in this environment. So we don't have
8 a translation that we can put side by side on the screen and then allow
9 the witness to say is that really what you said yesterday in your
10 proofing statement. So it makes it very difficult and it allows for
11 things to be lost in translation here in court today because then I'm
12 forced to read from what is put in English, and then I think it's almost
13 leading because then it gives incentive to the witness to agree in some
14 way that this is what she said. And the accused also has a right to
15 receive it in its own language.
16 MR. GROOME: That's just technically not possible when a witness
17 says something in the morning they're to testify to have the translation
18 in written form. Whenever we can, we do do that, as we did with VG-064,
19 and we rely on the interpretation, interpreters in court to interpret the
20 English information as provided.
21 MR. ALARID: And the only other issue is, Your Honours, is it was
22 my understanding that this witness was brought in alibi rebuttal. And
23 specifically, I saw it as somewhat cumulative because I believe, and I
24 forget the VG so I won't say it, but the nurse that already authenticated
25 the protocol book, and so I was wondering why this wasn't going to be
1 considered cumulative, and then I notice that now it's starting to move
2 to, well, I guess it's alibi rebuttal for Varda but that's brought to us
3 in testimony technically because we received it at 2.15. And I would
4 believe that's wholly improper and the witness should be stricken.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will not, as you call it, strike the witness.
6 We'll proceed in the manner that I have outlined. Pardon?
7 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure whether you are addressing to --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I said we will not accede to the request
9 to do what Mr. Alarid has called striking the witness. We will not
10 strike the witness. We'll proceed in the manner that I have outlined.
11 MR. COLE:
12 Q. VG-133, I'm referring to the paragraphs in your statement where
13 you are describing an incident where Milan Lukic visited your
14 mother-in-law's apartment building in Visegrad and took away some
15 neighbours and killed them on the nearby bridge.
16 MR. ALARID: Objection, leading.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: But it's in the statement.
18 MR. ALARID: But in context with the proofing session, I mean, it
19 really amounts to leading, Judge. I can't think of any other way to
20 characterize it when this is brought in at this juncture.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: What paragraph is that?
22 MR. COLE: I'm asking the witness, now, Your Honour, about
23 paragraphs 17 to 20 in her statement which describes a particular
24 incident, and I'm going to ask her what date does she now say that
25 incident occurred. And as Your Honours indicated, the statement is part
1 of the evidence or will be shortly, pursuant to 92 ter and it's a matter
2 that has arisen in proofing and needs to be clarified now as part of the
3 92 ter procedure.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please answer the question. Do you want to have
5 it repeated?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 MR. COLE:
8 Q. The incident you describe in your statement in paragraphs 17 to
9 20 where you were describing an incident where Milan Lukic visited your
10 mother-in-law's apartment building in Visegrad, took away some neighbours
11 and killed them on the nearby bridge, what date do you now believe that
12 that incident occurred?
13 A. The 10th of June, 1992.
14 Q. And specifically on paragraph 17, it's about the same incident,
15 what time of the day do you now believe the killings on the bridge by
16 Milan Lukic occurred?
17 A. Between 1800 and 1900 hours in the evening.
18 Q. Moving on to paragraph 20 of your statement, the first line where
19 it refers to the protocol book entry number 5061, do you confirm that the
20 entry should in fact read 5160?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. Paragraph 24 of your statement where it says there that you were
23 warned by the wife of Dr. Uljarevic, should that in fact read you were
24 warned by Dr. Uljarevic himself?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. Finally paragraph 25, describing an incident after the burial of
2 Behija Zukic, and in this paragraph it mentions that Sredoje Lukic and
3 Milan Lukic's brother were present. Should that in fact read that you
4 did not see Sredoje Lukic?
5 A. Yes, I didn't and I don't know that man was Milan Lukic's
6 brother. That's what the passers-by said, I wasn't sure myself, I didn't
7 know him. So maybe it was or maybe it wasn't.
8 Q. Now, with the corrections that we have just dealt with, do you
9 confirm that the statement you made on the 18th and 20th of August, 2008,
10 is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. And if I were to ask you the same questions today, would your
13 answers be the same?
14 A. They would.
15 MR. COLE: At this point, Your Honour, I would tender the
16 statement of VG-133 into evidence, pursuant to Rule 92 ter under seal.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Admitted.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P161, under seal,
19 Your Honours.
20 MR. COLE:
21 Q. VG-133, where were you working in May of 1992?
22 A. The health centre in Visegrad.
23 Q. At that time had you worked there for a number of years?
24 A. 14, to be more specific.
25 Q. Are you familiar with the protocol books used to record patient
1 visits to the Visegrad Health Centre?
2 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, we would object as cumulative to
3 testimony regarding the protocol book considering it's already been
4 entered into evidence and also authenticated by another qualified
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole.
7 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honour, the book has been authenticated.
8 I'm going to be referring the witness to specific extracts, which are now
9 in electronic form, from the book. It's not a matter of authenticating
10 the book as such. In fact, the book isn't in court. The witness is
11 going to be referring to specific extracts, and as a preliminary matter,
12 I have just asked her if she's familiar with the protocol books being
13 used at the Visegrad Health Centre, which in my submission, is entirely
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.
16 MR. COLE:
17 Q. Are you familiar with the protocol books used to record patient
18 visits to the Visegrad Health Centre in 1992?
19 A. Yes, I am.
20 Q. And were you shown copies of pages from the protocol book from
21 the Visegrad Health Centre during your interview with Mr. Caine from ICTY
22 in August 2008?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And were you shown copies of certain entries in the book for May
25 and June of 1992 in particular?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And were you shown copies of pages from May and June of 1992
3 during your proofing yesterday and today?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you confirm that these were authentic copies of the pages of
6 the actual protocol book as you knew it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did you in fact identify some of your own handwriting in some
9 of the entries?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you see entries in relation to persons whom you knew who
12 attended the health centre in May and June of 1992?
13 MR. ALARID: Objection, relevance.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole.
15 MR. COLE: We are going to see that shortly when I refer the
16 witness to specific extracts from the Visegrad Health Centre protocol
17 book. And these extracts have been listed on the exhibit list that was
18 submitted, I think, last week and which counsel have copies of.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll get to that then.
20 MR. COLE: Yes. And I can indicate, Your Honour, that I'm going
21 to be showing the witness three selections of copies of pages from the
22 protocol book and asking that they be admitted into evidence and be given
23 exhibits numbers. I'm going to ask that the witness be shown an entry
24 number 4811 on the 20th of May, 1992. So if she could be shown the first
25 of two pages --
1 MR. ALARID: Objection to anything on the 20th of May, 1992, as
2 being not relevant, outside the period of the indictment, and not related
3 to alibi rebuttal.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: But the fact that is outside the period of
5 indictment doesn't by itself make it irrelevant. Let me hear Mr. Cole.
6 MR. COLE: Sir, the 20th of May, we'll hear, is an entry in the
7 health -- Visegrad Health Centre book which give details of Behija Zukic,
8 the body of Behija Zukic being brought into that centre on that day.
9 There will be further testimony about her car on that day, sir.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.
11 MR. COLE:
12 Q. I want to ask you, VG-133, about an entry 4811 on the 20th of
13 May, 1992, in relation to Behija Zukic. I'm going to be asked that you
14 be shown first -- firstly, the first of two pages, 0545, this is ERN
15 number, 2003.
16 Right. At the top of the page, entry number 4811, can you see
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And the date recorded is?
20 A. The 20th of May, 1992.
21 Q. And the address given is?
22 A. Dusce.
23 Q. Could the witness now be shown -- well, before we go there. Can
24 you confirm that the each entry in relation to a patient extends across
25 two pages in the Visegrad centre health [sic] protocol book?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If we could now have a look at 05452004. Right. Can you see
3 this page before you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you please read out the other entries relating to
6 Behija Zukic which you can see on that page?
7 A. "Brought in at 8.30 to the morgue in an ambulance.
8 Dr. Vasiljevic established death, Jamak Huso and Amir Omerovic
10 Q. Did you know the person named in this entry, Behija Zukic, before
11 this day, the 20th of May, 1992?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How well did you know her?
14 A. I knew her well. She had a private shop, a privately owned shop
15 in Visegrad near Risavski [phoen] bridge, so everybody knew her.
16 Q. Now, the entry that you've just been shown gives the date of 20
17 May 1992. Do you know what date it was that Behija Zukic was actually
19 A. I don't know on what day she was killed, but she was killed in
20 the course of that night. We were told in the morning at 7.30 by
21 telephone. I answered the phone when it rang. A male voice introduced
22 himself as calling from the municipality.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. He gave us the address and he said that there was a dead woman
25 lying across the threshold of the house.
1 Q. Now, did Behija Zukic own a car, that you were aware of, in May
2 of 1992?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What sort of car was it?
5 A. It was a Passat. Dark red colour Passat.
6 Q. And did you see her car on the day her body was brought into the
7 Visegrad Health Centre?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who was driving her car that day?
10 A. On that day our driver, Marijan Markovic from the health centre,
11 went to collect the body of this dead female person in Dusce, and when he
12 approached the health centre in the ambulance, a dark red Passat was
13 following the ambulance. And as he was parking the ambulance next to the
14 health centre, the car of Behija Zukic also parked and Milan Lukic was at
15 the wheel. He was driving it.
16 Q. Was there anyone sitting next to Milan Lukic in the car?
17 A. Next to Milan Lukic was a former policeman, Niko Vujicic. And on
18 the seat behind was Sredoje Lukic.
19 Q. Did you look at Milan Lukic himself in the driver's seat?
20 A. Yes. We all looked at him as we were taking Behija Zukic's body.
21 It was wrapped in a blanket. And as we were taking it out of the
22 ambulance, he was maybe at a distance of 1 metre away from us. He opened
23 the window of the door and he laughed cynically, looking out through the
24 window of the car.
25 Q. Yes, thank you.
1 MR. COLE: Your Honour, could I ask that the electronic copies of
2 the two pages of the protocol book for the 20th of May, just shown to the
3 witness, be tendered into evidence as an exhibit, 05452003 and 2004.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P162, under seal,
6 Your Honours.
7 MR. COLE: I don't know, Your Honour, that they need to be under
8 seal. We have blocked out the names of the patient, the patients and
9 their -- of course, Behija Zukic, her name was necessarily left
11 MR. ALARID: We would prefer an unredacted copy under seal so
12 that maybe handwriting can be compared.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll keep them under seal.
14 MR. COLE: If Your Honour pleases.
15 Q. Now, had you at any stage ever been introduced to this man
16 Milan Lukic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Who introduced you to him?
19 A. Dr. Radomir Vasiljevic.
20 Q. Could you just give us the brief circumstances of how you were
21 introduced to Milan Lukic by the doctor?
22 A. It happened in mid-May, approximately. I know it was a working
23 day, and Milan Lukic brought along a soldier for his hand to be bandaged,
24 and he was in the room where we did this all the time. I looked at the
25 wound on that soldier's arm and I called Dr. Vasiljevic to take a look at
2 Dr. Vasiljevic came in, he greeted Milan Lukic, and asked me if I
3 knew him. I said I didn't, and then he said, "This is Milan Lukic."
4 Q. Which year -- you've told us it was May, which year was this?
5 A. It was in mid-May 1992.
6 Q. And how long was Milan Lukic in your presence on that day, the
7 day of the introduction?
8 A. I can't be precise, but it might have been 10 or 15 minutes
9 because the intervention in the case of that soldier was only 5 or 6
10 minutes long. It wasn't a complicated job. And when we finished,
11 Milan Lukic turned towards me, he showed me his hands, and he asked me,
12 What about me? His hands were covered with blood. And I showed him the
13 tap where he could wash his hands and he objected to that. And then
14 Dr. Vasiljevic intervened and said he could easily do that, there was no
15 problem. He asked us to disinfect his hands, but after he had washed his
16 hands, when he had washed the blood off his hands, there were no injuries
17 to be seen on his hands.
18 I told him there was no need to do anything, and then he said,
19 It's your responsibility.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: When you say, "He asked us to disinfect his
21 hands," who is that "he"?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milan Lukic.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
24 MR. COLE:
25 Q. Now, after the death of Behija Zukic, did you ever see
1 Milan Lukic driving around town in a car?
2 MR. ALARID: Leading.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you ever see Milan Lukic driving around?
4 Did you ever see Milan Lukic driving around?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: What was he driving?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A dark red Passat belonging to
8 Behija Zukic.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Cole.
10 MR. COLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Did you ever see anyone else in the driver's seat of
12 Behija Zukic's Passat vehicle around Visegrad?
13 A. Never did I see anyone except Milan Lukic driving it.
14 Q. How many times would you have seen Milan Lukic driving that car?
15 A. There was hardly a day when we didn't see him. I couldn't tell
16 you the number of times, but it was almost daily.
17 Q. Over a period of how many days or months?
18 A. From the 20th of May until the 17th of June, 1992, when I left
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. COLE: I'm going to ask now if the witness could be shown
22 copies of four pages from the protocol book commencing with ERN 05452039.
23 Q. Can you see the page before you that contains entries numbered
24 4991 through to 5000?
25 A. Yes, but it's all black.
1 MR. ALARID: We would ask that unredacted copies be shown to the
2 witness and if privacy issues are -- we could keep it under seal.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 MR. COLE: If I could just have a moment, please, Your Honour.
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MR. COLE: If I could just have a moment. If we are going to
7 show this unredacted, it would need to be in private session,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 2958-2961 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
8 MR. COLE: Thank you, Your Honour. We just had Exhibit P163
9 under seal entered into evidence. Could I ask that the unredacted
10 version -- could I ask that the redacted version also be entered as an
11 exhibit, which is ERN 05452039 to 2042. That's the redacted version.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P164, Your Honours.
14 MR. COLE: Thank you. I'm now going to ask that the witness be
15 shown, finally, in relation to the protocol book, six pages. And if we
16 are going to do it, Your Honour, in the unredacted version, if I could
17 ask that the witness be shown the first two pages -- sorry, ERN number
18 05452071. And if I could ask if we could have side by side page 270 and
19 the following page 271.
20 In fact, I'm advised that it's the same ERN number that is on the
21 screen at the moment, but if we could go to page 270 on the left-hand
22 side and the subsequent page on the right-hand side.
23 Right, we have the right page on the left-hand side. Could we
24 have it the other way around, please, with the entry numbers 2071 on the
25 left-hand side. All right. We seem to be there now.
1 Q. Witness VG-133, can you see before you a page from the book
2 starting with entry 5151?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If we go down to entry 5156, what is the date alongside that
6 A. 7 June 1992.
7 Q. And does that appear to be the first entry for the 7th of June
8 that day, the entry 5156?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was the earliest time that that person, the first entry on
11 the 7th of June, 1992, would have been seen by staff at the emergency
13 A. 7.00 in the morning.
14 Q. And why was that?
15 A. Because the 7th of June was a Sunday and only the emergency ward
16 was operating on that day.
17 MR. COLE: Now, if we could see on the screen, please, the next
18 two consecutive pages.
19 Q. While we are waiting for the page on the right-hand side, can you
20 have a look at the page on the left-hand side. Does that show the next
21 number of patients for the 7th of June in sequence?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if we could see the very last entry on that page on the
24 left-hand side. Can you see item -- entry number 5170 at the bottom of
25 the page?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is the name that appears alongside entry 5170?
3 A. Milan Lukic.
4 Q. What is alongside the entry for Milan Lukic?
5 A. It says: "Member of the ETO, examined by a doctor, received two
7 Q. All right. Now can we look at the right-hand page. Can you see
8 the entry there relating to Milan Lukic in terms of treatment?
9 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, this is cumulative. It's already in
10 evidence and already been testified to by the other nurse witness. And
11 also personal knowledge, Your Honour, she testified that she left the
12 Visegrad Health Centre May 31st.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is the cumulative character of the evidence a
14 ground for objection?
15 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, from the perspective of personal
16 knowledge, I think it adds to the objective -- objection, but necessarily
17 we don't need more than one person to authenticate a particular document.
18 And given the fact that she wasn't at work on June 7th, I think it's not
19 the best evidence.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why do you need this evidence from her,
21 Mr. Cole?
22 MR. COLE: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that the witness read
23 out the entry of treatment for Milan Lukic, and the situation is this:
24 You will hear that it indicates there was intramuscular and/or
25 intravenous injections administered. I'm going to ask the witness, where
1 in the normal scheme of things at this health centre, such injections
2 were administered to the patients which has relevance in other areas.
3 MR. ALARID: And that's not how this witness was disclosed, and
4 otherwise, she's not been tendered as an expert.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's not clear to me that she is going to
6 give evidence as an expert, that she's giving expert evidence. Proceed.
7 MR. COLE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Could you just read out the treatment, the items on the
9 right-hand page in relation to what happened with Milan Lukic on the 7th
10 of June, 1992?
11 A. It was about bronchitis, that's what he received treatment for,
12 according to the code here. Two antibiotics were administered as well as
13 glucosis and vitamins.
14 Q. How were these things administered to the patient? Does it say?
15 A. Yes. It says medical examination and then below that
16 intramuscular in the first instance, and intravenous in the other
17 instance. These are abbreviations.
18 Q. So as of 1992 when you were working there, how was such
19 injections or where were such injections administered to the body of the
20 patient? What part of the body?
21 MR. ALARID: Objection. Calls for speculation. Lack of personal
22 knowledge and she has not been tendered as an expert.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: You'll have to lay a foundation for that,
24 Mr. Cole.
25 MR. COLE: Yes, very well. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Had you yourself experience over the years of the administration
2 of intramuscular and intravenous injections to patients at the Visegrad
3 Health Centre?
4 MR. ALARID: And, Your Honour, we will object. It was not part
5 of the Rule 65 ter summary and not -- no motion to amend was timely
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: 65 ter is only a summary. Proceed, and let us
8 hear how she would have acquired -- how and why she would have acquired
9 that knowledge.
10 MR. COLE: Yes.
11 Q. Over the years that you worked at the Visegrad Health Centre,
12 what experience did you have with the administration of intramuscular or
13 intravenous injections to patients who reported to the health centre?
14 A. That was our job. Every day.
15 Q. Did you do this yourself?
16 A. Of course I did.
17 Q. How often?
18 A. Hundreds of times a day.
19 Q. All right. Now, where were such injections administered? What
20 part of the patient's body?
21 A. For the most part with adult men the cubital vein, that was the
22 intravenous injection, the muscular to the gluteal muscle.
23 Q. So, the intravenous injections were normally administered to the
24 inside of the elbow, the arm at the inside of the elbow you indicated to
25 the Court?
1 A. Yes, that's right. Yes.
2 MR. COLE: Just ask that the witness be shown the final two pages
3 next in sequence. Right.
4 Q. Do you see before you the next two pages in sequence from the
5 protocol book?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So does this -- this page on the left-hand side show the final
8 entry for the 7th of June, 1992?
9 A. Indeed it does.
10 Q. And what is that entry number?
11 A. 5179, if my reading is correct.
12 Q. So 5179, the last entry for the 7th of June, 1992?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, can you see entry 5180 with the date the 8th of June
15 alongside it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What would be the earliest time on the 8th of June that a
18 patient -- that the patient at entry 5180 could have been attended to?
19 A. If one just worked straight on as we normally did, and there were
20 no changes, this patient could have been admitted after 1500 hours, 3.00
21 p.m. on the 8th of June.
22 Q. And finally, I'm going to ask you about two entries in
23 particular. Entries 5178 and 5179, can you see those entries on the
24 pages before you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. On the right-hand side, looking at the entries for 5178 and 5179,
2 can you see any time written alongside those entries which indicates the
3 time those persons were seen at the Visegrad Health Centre?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What time does it indicate there that these persons were seen on
6 the date that they are entered there?
7 A. 7th of June, 0030. Half past midnight.
8 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, we would object to this. And one, if
9 the witness can mark it, but other than that, we would object to the
10 tendering of this evidence as not relevant, not properly disclosed, and
11 otherwise, I mean, what is the purpose? Lack of personal knowledge, the
12 witness was not there. The document speaks for itself.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
14 MR. COLE: It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber in due
15 course, of course, Your Honour. I'm asking the witness to relate to the
16 Court what is written in the protocol book, not her interpretation of it.
17 What is written there. And the Defence will have any opportunity to
18 challenge this if they so wish. She is relating to the Court what she
19 can see on the pages before the Court as to the timing of the entry in
20 the book for the two entry numbers 5178 and 5179, which is entirely
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 MR. COLE: Now, I've just about finished with this area,
24 Your Honour.
25 Q. VG-133, although entries 5178 and 5179 are included under the 7th
1 of June, having read the times of half past midnight, what does that
2 indicate in terms of which day the entries were made?
3 MR. ALARID: Objection. Calls for speculation, and why didn't
4 the first witness that authenticated this and interpreted it -- these
5 results, touch on this?
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let her provide first a basis for her knowledge,
7 if she has any.
8 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honour.
9 Q. Looking at the items that indicate the time the patients were
10 seen was 0030 hours, what experience do you have in recording items in
11 the protocol book or reading the protocol book to be able to tell which
12 particular day the timing refers to?
13 MR. ALARID: Again, Your Honour, it calls for speculation,
14 anything after May 31st, for that question.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let her answer the question.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These patients were recorded in
17 relation to the 7th of June, 1992. The reason being at the time this was
18 the way patients were recorded. They would be recorded for that
19 particular shift. For example, this was a Sunday, it was between 7.00 in
20 the morning that Sunday and 7.00 in the morning the next day. Regardless
21 of the fact that this occurred on the 8th of June, it was past midnight
22 so it was the 8th of June already. The patient was recorded under the
23 7th of June simply because it occurred during the same shift as the
24 previous day.
25 MR. COLE:
1 Q. Yes, thank you. Have you counted up the entries for the 7th of
2 June, 1992?
3 A. I think there were a total of 24.
4 Q. Right. And the entry --
5 A. If my count is correct.
6 Q. And the entry for Milan Lukic was at what number of those
7 entries, of the 24?
8 A. I think 15.
9 Q. Right.
10 MR. COLE: I'm going to ask now, Your Honour, if the six pages
11 the witness has referred to could be tendered into evidence as an exhibit
12 under seal.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit them.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P165, under seal,
15 Your Honours.
16 MR. COLE: And could I ask that the redacted copies that are
17 contained on the Prosecution's exhibit list be tendered as an exhibit
18 also. Those are ERN 05452071-1 to 0545-2076.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P166, Your Honours.
21 MR. COLE:
1 Q. Which bridge did the killings occur on?
2 MR. ALARID: Objection, leading.
3 MR. COLE: It's not a leading question, with respect,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I'm giving some thought to these
6 objections as to the leading character of the evidence on Rule 92.
7 Rule 92 is an abbreviated procedure which is in lieu of evidence in
8 chief. So ordinarily the statement is tendered. When a statement is
9 tendered, no question arises as to whether anything is leading or not.
10 So the procedure which counsel goes through at this particular time is
11 merely to identify points of interest in that statement.
12 So it's not clear to me how leading arises, because this really
13 is a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief. And it appears to me
14 that if you have an objection, it's really to the whole procedure of Rule
15 92 ter --
16 MR. ALARID: I will admit -- I will admit --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- and you may very well be on some fair ground
19 MR. ALARID: That's been the troubling thing especially with the
20 proofing notes and the changes related to this alleged incident,
21 especially involving this witness's supposed witnessing of these deaths.
22 And it still strikes me as leading when the Prosecutor suggests, i.e.,
23 killing in a question, it does lead because it take that witness straight
24 to the point, and I guess maybe that is the point of the procedure and
25 I'm having the hardest time grasping that.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: If he had said to her, in your statement you
2 referred to a killing, so and so, I mean, that would not be objectionable
3 in terms of the procedure under Rule 92 ter. So you are either going to
4 accept 92 ter or you don't. If you don't accept it, then you can take
5 that up somewhere else.
6 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 MR. COLE:
8 Q. What did you see happened to the four men that I mentioned on the
10 A. Milan Lukic killed them.
11 Q. Where did you watch that from?
12 A. From a balcony that was in the flat of my mother-in-law.
13 Q. Which bridge are you talking about?
14 A. The old one, the old Visegrad bridge.
15 Q. What was the distance from the balcony to where you saw Milan
16 killing the men?
17 A. Perhaps between 200 and 300 metres as the crow flies. 300
18 metres. Thereabouts, if you take the road to get there.
19 Q. What date did you see this happen?
20 A. 10th of June. 1992, of course.
21 Q. What are the events, if any, that help you fix the date at the
22 10th of June, 1992?
23 A. I was able to remember the date because my mother had gone
24 missing several days before. My sister and I had no idea about her
25 whereabouts since the Sunday before. On the 10th of June, which was a
1 Wednesday as it happens, the two of us headed for my mother's village to
2 look for her. Previously, we had been informed that women had been
3 killed in that village, five or six of them, and burned alive in a house
4 that was set fire to.
5 Q. Can I just hold you there for a moment, please.
6 A. Sure.
7 Q. About what time was it on the 10th of June that you located your
9 A. We set out at about 9.00 that morning. We took a bus to Uzice,
10 which was a regular bus line, and we tracked her down at about 11, or
11 between 11 or 12.00 a.m. in a nearby forest. She was there with a couple
12 of her neighbours.
13 Q. And that same day, did you return to Visegrad?
14 A. That's right. We took the same bus back. It was a bus shuttling
15 between Visegrad and Uzice, and at 5.00 that afternoon it drove through
16 that village again on its way back.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole, how much longer will this procedure
18 take place because this, after all, is Rule 92 ter. If you are going to
19 take a very long time, then we really derive nothing from the procedure
20 which is an abbreviated one.
21 MR. COLE: Yes. There have been delays. I'll try as best I can,
22 Your Honour, to shorten the procedure from here on in.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
24 MR. CEPIC: I apologise for interrupting, but could we have the
25 mother's name and the name of that village, please. Thank you.
1 MR. COLE: Yes. I'm happy to ask the witness, Your Honour.
2 Could we go into private session for that purpose.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.
4 MR. COLE:
5 Q. Counsel has asked for the name of your mother and the village
6 that you --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
8 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 MR. COLE:
20 Q. What else -- what other event helps you establish that it was the
21 10th of June that you saw these killings?
22 A. My sister and I returned to Visegrad. I went to my
23 mother-in-law's flat because my children were there. I found my
24 mother-in-law and asked her to speak to my husband over the phone. He
25 had fled Visegrad and was hiding in Nezuci village. The distance between
1 the two being perhaps a kilometre, a kilometre and a half at the very
2 most. When I came back I spoke to my husband and he asked, Why aren't
3 you running away, why aren't you running from the house? I said, Why
4 should we be? And he said that over in Dusce, at the Varda factory,
5 there was some dreadful things going on, people being killed. He said
6 that in Dusce there was a building or a shed, something to that effect,
7 where people had been burned alive, and he said we should go and take
8 shelter somewhere.
9 During our conversation, my mother-in-law walked up to me and she
10 said to me softly to keep my husband from overhearing this, over the
11 phone, that Milan Lukic was just about parking his car in front of our
12 building. She didn't know Milan Lukic but she was simply assuming that
13 this was Milan Lukic because the car parking outside our house was a dark
14 red Passat.
15 Q. Did you go and have a look?
16 A. Yes. I put the receiver down, went over to the window and saw
17 Milan Lukic shut the door on the car and enter our building.
18 Q. And what subsequently happened in respect of Milan Lukic that
6 MR. CEPIC: I apologise, Your Honour, for interrupting. Just one
7 more clarification, if we could have the number of that house, where was
8 that apartment and number of mother-in-law apartment, please. Thank you.
9 MR. COLE: Your Honour, we are under a time pressure --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, you can ask these questions in
11 cross-examination. I mean counsel will lead the evidence that he wants.
12 If you want to get it, then you ask it in cross-examination.
13 MR. CEPIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 I just try to make shorter my cross-examination and to receive some more
15 information. Thank you.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated] And, Mr. Cole, you
18 must be coming to an end now. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this
19 as a 92 ter, you know.
20 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honour.
21 Q. Did you see Milan Lukic this day, close up, after he entered the
22 apartment building of your mother-in-law?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. For what period of time?
22 Q. I'm now going to ask you about the day that your mother left
23 Visegrad. Did you see your mother the day that she left?
24 A. The 14th of June, that's when she left Visegrad. And yes, I did
25 see her that day.
1 Q. Where was she when you saw her that day, prior to leaving?
2 A. On the bus on a square in Visegrad that we referred to as the
3 Visegrad Square, which is just next to the old bridge.
4 Q. Who else did you see in the bus in which you saw your mother?
5 A. All of my mother's neighbours from that village. I saw
6 Milan Lukic on that bus as well.
7 Q. What was Milan Lukic doing on the bus?
8 A. He was checking people. He asked some women to remove their
9 kerchiefs. He ID'd some, and then at one point, he was midway down the
10 aisle and I heard that he was looking for a young woman, I think the last
11 name was Kurspahic but I don't remember the first name of that woman he
12 was after.
13 Q. What time did the bus on which your mother departed, what time
14 did it leave Visegrad?
15 A. On the 14th of June, I can't quite remember the exact time, but
16 they were stuck in that square for a couple of hours. This might have
17 been at about noon, whereas they had arrived that morning at about 10.00.
18 Q. When was the next day after the 14th of June that you saw your
20 A. Five, six days later.
21 Q. Did she tell you the route that her bus had taken on the 14th of
23 A. Yes, she did. When we saw each other again five or six days
24 later, as I said, she described route that they had taken and it was the
25 same route that I had take on a convoy out of Visegrad on the 17th of
1 June, 1992.
2 Q. What were the towns that your convoy went through leaving
4 A. It took all sorts of country roads through Simic, Borik. We
5 didn't drive through Rogatica, we just saw it from a nearby hill. We
6 went through Sokolac, we stopped there for as much as an hour, I believe.
7 We drove through Knezine and then we arrived in a village.
8 Q. Now, talking about the 14th of June, the day your mother left on
9 the bus, did you see Milan Lukic again that day after seeing him on the
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was he walking in a car, what was he doing when you saw him next?
13 A. I saw him that afternoon. It might have been around 3 p.m., but
14 I'm not sure of the exact time. It was in the late afternoon, and a
15 large group of people was brought to the square. Some of the women were
16 standing on the steps underneath -- leading up to my building. They said
17 they had all been brought from Zupa when I went down to give them some
18 water. They were all brought there and they were told that they would be
19 put on a convoy and that they would move on. Milan Lukic was in the car,
20 he got out of the car, I saw him walking around the square, around the
21 hotel garden where these people were. I watched all this from the window
22 of my flat, of my apartment.
23 Q. Did you see these people that were in the square taken somewhere
24 or head off in a particular direction?
25 A. They were heading them off in a particular direction, yes. I saw
1 them milling around and then there were about 20 soldiers and the men in
2 civilian clothes and the men in various uniforms, and they took them down
3 the main street of Visegrad towards the Mahala neighbourhood.
4 Q. Can you remember about what time that was?
5 A. It might have been, I'm not sure, but it was before it got dark.
6 So it might have been around 5.00 p.m., maybe a little earlier or a
7 little later. I'm not sure of the exact time but there were there in
8 that square a few hours.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole, is not all of this in the statement?
10 MR. COLE: I don't think all of this is in the statement,
11 Your Honour. This is one of the incident dates in the indictment of
12 course, the 14th of June, and this is an alibi rebuttal witness who is
13 testifying that she is seen Milan Lukic on this day.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I'm really rethinking now what I said
15 earlier about 92 ter. Of course, if you are proceeding under 92 ter
16 wholly alone and you tender the statement in lieu of
17 examination-in-chief, then that is it. But it may be that once you get
18 out of that mode and you begin to question the witness, that you have
19 moved now into examination-in-chief, and then leading questions would of
20 course not be appropriate.
21 MR. ALARID: And Your Honour, I would like to point out that as
22 Mr. Cole references June 4th [sic] as being a reference date in the
23 indictment, in the original statement there was no reference to June 14th
24 whatsoever, much less this issue of the group and the square and seeing
25 Milan Lukic and all of that is new.
1 MR. COLE: Well, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us see whether we can conclude this 92 ter.
3 MR. COLE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I'll move through to the
4 very conclusion of my questions that I've prepared.
5 Q. Now, VG-133, I'm going to ask you now to please take a look
6 around the courtroom carefully and tell me whether --
7 A. I didn't hear you very well.
8 Q. Please wait a moment.
9 MR. COLE: I think we have an objection from one of my --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, yes.
11 MR. ALARID: We would object to the form of ID, especially in
12 light of the fact that this is a 92 ter witness and was not noticed as an
13 identification witness.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we note the objection. And the same for
15 Mr. Cepic, yes.
16 MR. COLE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Could you please take a look around the courtroom carefully,
18 slowly, and tell me whether you can recognize anyone in the courtroom.
19 If you want to stand up to get a better view, please feel free to do so.
20 A. I don't have to stand up. I can recognize two persons here.
21 Q. Right. If I could just hold it there. Who is the first person
22 that you can recognize in the courtroom?
23 A. The first person I recognize in the courtroom is Milan Lukic who
24 is smiling at me so nicely now.
25 Q. Now, whereabouts is Milan Lukic seated in the courtroom?
1 A. Milan Lukic is sitting -- he is the first man sitting right next
2 to the policeman on the left-hand side.
3 Q. Which row?
4 A. The last row. The last row behind the Defence.
5 Q. And what is he wearing?
6 A. A suit, a light brown shirt and a dark blue tie with some spots.
7 I can't see the dots very well from here.
8 MR. COLE: Yes. Can the record reflect that the witness has
9 identified the accused Milan Lukic, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. COLE:
12 Q. Now, have you seen Milan Lukic on television or on the internet
13 at some stage this year?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, when you saw him on television or the internet or both, did
16 you immediately recognize it was Milan Lukic or did you have some
17 difficulty recognizing him?
18 MR. ALARID: Objection, leading and relevance given the nature of
19 the identification.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
21 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you say to that?
23 MR. COLE: Well, Your Honour, this trial is very much about
24 identification, and I think out of fairness, it's the sort of question
25 the witness should be allowed to answer. If my learned friend wants to
1 preclude her from saying that, then so be it. In my submission, sir,
2 it's appropriate that she gives the Court guidance on this area of
3 identification by indicating whether she was able to recognize him
4 immediately, had difficulty or whatever else she wants to answer to the
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'll allow it.
7 MR. COLE:
8 Q. So the question was: When you saw Milan Lukic on the television
9 or the internet, did you immediately recognize him as such or did you
10 have some type of difficulty establishing that it was in fact him?
11 A. I could never have any difficulty in recognizing Milan Lukic.
12 Q. And I'll just ask you this finally: Has the viewing of
13 Milan Lukic on the internet or on television had any effect at all on
14 your identification of him in this courtroom?
15 MR. ALARID: Self-serving and leading.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that. I don't think it's
19 MR. COLE: Very well, Your Honour.
20 Q. Now, Witness VG-133, who is the other person that you recognized
21 in this courtroom?
22 A. Sredoje Lukic.
23 Q. Can you indicate where he is in the courtroom?
24 A. To the left of Milan Lukic and he is wearing glasses.
25 Q. Which row is he in?
1 A. The last row. Right next to Milan Lukic.
2 Q. And what is he wearing?
3 A. I can't see that very well. I'll have to stand up. A suit, a
4 light brown shirt, and a brown striped tie.
5 MR. COLE: Your Honour, could the record reflect that the witness
6 has correctly identified the accused Sredoje Lukic.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. COLE:
9 Q. Did you see Sredoje Lukic at some stage this year on the internet
10 or on television?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Did you have any difficulty recognizing --
13 MR. CEPIC: Objection, Your Honour. As my learned friend raised
14 the same objection about that kind of question. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.
16 MR. COLE:
17 Q. Yes. Did you have any difficulty recognizing Sredoje Lukic on
18 the internet or on television when you saw him this year or did you have
19 some difficulty?
20 A. No. I've known Sredoje Lukic for over 20 years, and I would
21 never have any problems in recognizing him.
22 Q. Yes, thank you.
23 MR. COLE: Your Honour, I don't have any further questions.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Mr. Alarid.
25 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, at the very least without waiving any
1 further objections, I would ask for a recess until the a.m. to begin
2 cross. Given the fact that we received this what I'll call as a new
3 statement this morning at 7.53 a.m., we really haven't had a chance to
4 digest it, incorporate it and cross-reference it. Normally the reason we
5 get things early is so we can -- especially when we have them in both
6 languages, is we can discuss statements such as this with the client,
7 prepare, cross-reference, run our own searches, do things of the such,
8 and we have not had a sufficient opportunity to do that with this
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will adjourn now to give Mr. Alarid the
11 benefit of the remaining 12 minutes.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, one simple matter in closed session,
13 private session, sorry. It's a very brief matter, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session?
15 MR. GROOME: Private session.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Private session.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 2986-2987 redacted. Private session.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 29th day
5 of October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.