1 Tuesday, 24 July 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.24 a.m.
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
6 Good morning. Before we bring in the second witness in the
7 session of depositions, you will perhaps allow me to say a few words by
8 way of introduction.
9 To begin with, I have to note that we are more than ten minutes
10 late, which is not my fault, but it seems -- which means that if on any
11 other occasion I am a bit late, you will not hold it against me. But I
12 think we should indeed try to keep to our hours -- Mr. Naletilic, please.
13 Thank you.
14 We should indeed try to make our best to be here in time. This is
15 important for the sake of the accused because, as you know, they have an
16 even more strict timetable than the rest of us as they have to be back in
17 the detention unit in a certain time.
18 The second thing I wish to say is that I think that yesterday was
19 a very instructive day for everybody here. Well, for me, at any rate.
20 And personally, I am very happy that we were able to conduct the testimony
21 of a witness fully. However, this testimony took longer than necessary,
22 even though we did have a certain manoeuvring room, but now we do not have
23 any more of this manoeuvring room. As we know, at least as of tomorrow,
24 there will be no more space for any manoeuvring. Therefore, I should like
25 to insist with both sides, I can insist even though I'm only a Presiding
1 Officer here, and I therefore only hope that things that happen here pass
2 from one side to the other and also to convey them on to Judges. So will
3 you please remember the depositions that -- will you please do what you
4 can so that these depositions are presented in the most efficient
5 possible, and that also that these hearings take place in as harmonious a
6 climate as possible.
7 In a criminal case it's natural to have disagreements, I believe
8 everybody agrees, and of course, we have embarked on a different
9 procedure, but the Defence reacted in various -- in a different manner,
10 but perhaps an attempt was made to negotiate some agreement, but this was
11 not the case. The agreement was not reached on various points. And
12 however, it is legitimate of course to have these disagreements, not only
13 legitimate, it is quite natural. But I also think that it is also normal
14 for us to take note that even though I'm only a Presiding Officer, that a
15 witness is in a courtroom, and that the Prosecutor asks him questions as
16 if it were indeed a trial room, and the Defence does the same thing.
17 And these discussions that you had with the Status Judge allows
18 also for the accused to be present here which is important for them and
19 for the continuation of these proceedings. But this evidently creates a
20 different kind of relationship between the witness and different people,
21 different persons present in this -- in the courtroom.
22 I should therefore like to say that I count upon you that you will
23 take care of the manner in which you will be asking -- in which you will
24 ask your questions, the pace at which you will ask your questions, the way
25 in which you will take up a witness's answer, and that in this way you
1 will give proof of being alert because -- to see to it that the answers
2 received are as clear as possible to those who should benefit from the
3 contribution of the witness to the case.
4 I see that I also do not respect what I expect of us, that is that
5 very often, I'm also too fast. This is a shortcoming that all of us have
6 when we speak our native tongues. I should therefore like to ask each one
7 of you, and I will thank the interpreters if they let us know if we indeed
8 move too fast, if we speak too fast, but I should like to ask all of you
9 to take care not to exceed a pace, a rhythm which will allow all the
10 participants in this procedure to understand well what goes on and also to
11 supply, to obtain and provide the best information, information that will
12 be the best for the continuation of these proceedings.
13 I do not know if you have any comments to make in this regard, but
14 I believe it is important that we, all together, try to agree on this
15 conduct. It must also be respectful with regard -- in relation to persons
16 who appear before us to be, and I think this is very important, not to be
17 the witnesses for the Prosecution, and tomorrow perhaps the witnesses for
18 the Defence, but witnesses for justice.
19 And finally, I do not know if the Prosecutor or the Defence met
20 yesterday at the end of the day, even though the day was very long, but I
21 should take the liberty to mention, after our yesterday's session, the
22 fact that it was important -- that it is important to have a certain
23 balance, even from the point of view of time which is used by the two
24 parties. This is not something that is within my jurisdiction entirely.
25 As a Presiding Officer, my duty is to, at 17.30 or 17.00, 17.30 perhaps if
1 interpreters are kind enough, on the 3rd of August, we shall have
2 completed the 18 depositions envisaged by our schedule. That is my duty
3 to see to.
4 If that is not possible, then we shall report to the judges and we
5 shall see or, rather, the Judges will then see what needs to be done. But
6 this is a procedure which was never used so far in this form, and I say
7 that I am perfectly happy that we are -- that we show that this is
8 possible, that this can indeed work, and that this can be an efficient
9 procedure for the parties, for the Judges and therefore for justice, which
10 needs to be -- which this Tribunal is called upon to dispense.
11 With this in mind, if Madam Registrar will help us, namely, I
12 should like very roughly, if you wish, but I should like the Prosecutor to
13 have, for instance, two hours to examine the witness, generally speaking,
14 in rough terms, and the Defence to organise themselves as they like, but
15 to envisage that their cross-examination all in all does not exceed that
16 same period of time, that is, does not go beyond two hours. Evidently it
17 can be much shorter, and evidently it also can be more than that, because
18 it is up to Defence to know what kind of information they wish to obtain
19 from the witness so as to serve the justice best.
20 However, the experience shows that in point of fact, the
21 cross-examination may last normally a little bit less than the direct
22 examination. And this is a question which I should like to suggest that
23 the two parties discuss between them so that in the days to come, we can
24 strike this balance.
25 And I am sorry. I apologise for this introduction which took
1 seven minutes, perhaps eight, but to conclude, I should like to thank both
2 sides for what we managed to accomplish yesterday, and I should like to
3 thank you even more for what we shall be able to accomplish today and in
4 the forthcoming days. Thanks for you for the better dispensation of
6 Prosecutor, can we have the witness brought in, please.
7 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. He will be brought -- the witness
8 will be brought in, and while that's happening, let me just say two things
9 very briefly.
10 First of all, I assure you, Mr. Fourmy, that is the position of
11 the Prosecution bench, that as the Hearing Officer in this case, we owe
12 you and we'll show you the same respect that we certainly owe to the
13 Chamber. That's our position on that point.
14 On the matter of delay this morning, you're of course absolutely
15 right. Our apologies for being a bit late. All -- I should say all
16 members of the Prosecution team were here in plenty of time and were robed
17 and proceeded, but there was a matter with the witness at the last minute
18 that had to be addressed, but it was absolutely something that was on our
19 side of the case, so to speak, and not the Chamber's problem. Thank you.
20 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott. I did see your
21 robes floating in the corridor before we started.
22 Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Did you want to say something? Mr. Krsnik, no?
23 Yes? Mr. Krsnik, yes please.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, needless to say, the
25 Defence treats you with the -- accords you the same respect as the
1 Chamber. It's not our fault we're starting with delay. We were at 8.00
2 in the Defence room and we were waiting for the security, because as you
3 know, without the security, we cannot enter this courtroom now here.
4 Now, the witness is here, but what I wanted to say is that our
5 yesterday's experience was indeed highly instructive. These depositions
6 are not the information for the Judges, they are the information on which
7 perhaps the Judges' decision will be based. And indeed, with all due
8 respect, I cannot promise how long may our cross-examination last, because
9 simply -- or yesterday's experience taught us that we have problems with
10 examination of the witness. Of course, we have prepared ourselves, so we
11 have prepared bearing in mind the time, but when we are mindful of time,
12 then we always really try to see that it is the shortest possible time yet
13 the most efficient, but we never know how the cross-examination with the
14 witnesses will unfold. That is the only thing which I wish to say. Thank
16 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Krsnik. When I say
17 that this is the information for the Judges, it is, of course, with a view
18 to their final decision, but as I have said, I am only an intermediary. I
19 take no decisions.
20 Yes. Good morning. Excuse me.
21 Mr. Seric, I do not know, but perhaps we should first say good
22 morning to the witness and then we'll give you the floor next.
23 All right. Good morning, sir.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Can you hear me?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, yes.
2 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Very well. You will now make a
3 deposition in a rather specific procedure, that is, this is the procedure
4 before the -- before a Presiding Officer. I'm not a Judge, but
5 nevertheless, it will unfold in the same way as if you had Judges in front
6 of you. So will you please make the solemn declaration which the usher
7 will now give you. Go ahead. I am listening.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may be
12 WITNESS: EKREM LULIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Prosecutor, I
15 believe, has explained the procedure to you. You will first answer the
16 questions from the Prosecution, then the questions from the Defence, and
17 then perhaps again new questions from the Prosecution. Please make
18 yourself comfortable. This is a procedure which takes some time and which
19 necessitates a lot of patience, especially on the part of the witness.
20 I should also like to ask you to mind that when we speak, all that
21 we are saying here is being interpreted into three languages or, that is,
22 in two languages. There is one language that is not interpreted. So it
23 takes some time. Therefore, when the Prosecutor asks a question, by
24 the -- it takes time for you to hear the question in your language and
25 then it is not a problem. When the Defence asks you questions in your
1 language, then will you please take care to make a short break before you
2 answer the question because thus you will help us to understand answers.
3 When you start answering immediately, then it makes it very difficult.
4 But make yourself comfortable, as comfortable as possible.
5 But before we give the floor to the Prosecution, Mr. Seric, was
6 there some matter that you wished to raise?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Will Mr. Fourmy also try to speak slower please.
8 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, we wish to apologise for
9 today's delay. Unfortunately, we cannot enter this courtroom as
10 courtrooms 1 and 3. We have to wait for an escort. So will please the
11 Court see to it that we are brought to the courtroom in time.
12 And I should also like to add that when the witness is subjected
13 to cross-examination, his testimony is then much more valuable and I
14 repeat that the length of the cross-examination does not depend on us.
15 Believe me, it depends on the witness and on the witness alone. Thank
17 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seric. I believe if
18 there are problems with the escort to get to this courtroom, we shall see
19 with the Registry if something can be done. Yes, of course it is
20 difficult, but not everything works properly.
21 But now, Mr. Seric, and I really speak in my own name, you showed
22 yesterday afternoon that it does not only depend -- that it doesn't depend
23 on the witness alone, that the Defence counsel can also move quicker and
24 more efficiently, and therefore I should like to thank you for that.
25 Mr. Poriouvaev, your floor.
1 MR. STRINGER: For the interpreters, my name is Stringer.
2 Mr. Poriouvaev is not present in the courtroom today.
3 Examined by Mr. Stringer:
4 Q. Good morning, sir.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Can you tell us your name, please.
7 A. My name is Ekrem Lulic.
8 Q. And Mr. Lulic, did you live in the village of Sovici in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina until April of 1993?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Lulic, I understand that you're able to speak some English. I
12 think it would be better and may I suggest that you respond to my
13 questions in your mother tongue. We have people present, you can't see
14 them, but there are people here who are going to take your testimony and
15 interpret it into English and French.
16 A. I will speak in Bosnian, then.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, did you live in the village of Sovici in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina until April of 1993?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it's my understanding that you were born in that village.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And are you a Bosnian Muslim by -- is your nationality Bosnian
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In April of 1993, were you living in Sovici with your wife and
1 your children?
2 A. I was.
3 Q. Now, in April of 1993, was the village of Sovici attacked?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. And I know it's been a long time. Can you tell us approximately
6 to the best that you can remember, what was the approximate date when
7 Sovici was attacked?
8 A. The 17th of April, 1993.
9 Q. Okay. And sometime before the 17th of April, were you asked to
10 join the local village defence or the Territorial Defence?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you have a weapon?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was it a good weapon?
15 A. Well, it was a rifle from the reservists. I was not an active
16 soldier. I was a reservist.
17 Q. Now, on the 17th of April when Sovici was attacked, where were you
18 when you first heard the attack happening?
19 A. I was -- you can translate that. I was at my mother-in-law's
20 visiting her, visiting my mother-in-law.
21 Q. And can you recall approximately what time of day the attack
23 A. It was in the morning. Let me see, between 8.00, 8.30 in the
25 Q. Now, then, where did you spend the day of the 17th after the
1 attack started?
2 A. I was in the house of my mother-in-law.
3 Q. And did you remain in that house for most of the day?
4 A. Until the evening, yes, until the evening.
5 Q. All right. Now, while you were at the house, at your
6 mother-in-law's house during that day, could you hear the attack taking
8 A. Yes. The attack was in the morning, and it went on until the
10 Q. What did you hear?
11 A. What did I hear? It was close by. The front line was not far.
12 Of course I could hear.
13 Q. Now, sometime later in the day, then, did you leave the house of
14 your mother-in-law?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And why did you leave?
17 A. Why? Because there was a commander, Ovnovic, Dzemal, he was the
18 commander in the Territorial Defence, and he sent a courier to say who did
19 not surrender should return their weapons. And the shooting stopped.
20 There was no more shooting at all.
21 Q. Okay. So then did you then leave the house in order to surrender
22 your weapon?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. Then did you join with two of your other Muslim colleagues at that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And where did the three of you then go?
3 A. We went from my village, there was another hamlet there, and we
4 went to Petar Mijic's house where we handed over our weapons. We
5 surrendered our weapons to Mato Mijic. This was a shop, a commercial
6 outlet, like a supermarket. We handed in our weapons, and we were
7 supposed to receive a receipt saying that we hadn't done anything and that
8 we could go to the school, but we didn't get that, but we went to the
10 Q. Now, you mentioned the name Mato Mijic. Was he a member of a
11 military, a military group?
12 A. Yes, he was.
13 Q. Can you tell us what that military group was?
14 A. HVO. It was -- let me see, how can I explain it to you? It was
15 the Mijat Tomic Brigade. It was a military brigade called Mijat Tomic.
16 Q. And you say that then after you surrendered your weapons at this
17 place, you then went or were instructed to go up to this school in Sovici;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. Okay. And now, on your way up to the school in Sovici -- and by
21 the way, were you walking?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And were you still with the two other colleagues who were with you
24 when you surrendered your weapons?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then as you were going up to the Sovici school, can you tell
2 us what happened?
3 A. We went along the road. This wasn't far. It was maybe three
4 kilometres away - not even that much, less - and it was in the evening.
5 We couldn't see too well, darkness had already fallen, to get this receipt
6 that we hadn't been on the front line or anything like that, and HVO
7 members were there. They blocked the road on both sides. We reached
8 Stipe Pole's house.
9 Q. And then what happened to you at Stipe Pole's house?
10 A. We were searched there, and they were still bringing in other
11 people to search them. Then maybe two or three hours later we went up to
12 the school.
13 Q. Can you tell us approximately how many people were held in this
14 house of Stipe Pole?
15 A. Well, at least 100, 200 people.
16 Q. Did these people, were they men, women? Were they Bosniaks,
17 Croats? Can you tell us --
18 A. [No translation]
19 Q. Can you describe the group for us?
20 A. How would you like me to describe them?
21 Q. By their ethnic background.
22 A. They were all Muslims. There were older men, there were minors,
23 women, children, everyone.
24 Q. These were the Muslims who lived in the area of Sovici?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, at some point, was this group of Muslims at Stipe Pole's,
2 were you all moved to a different location?
3 A. We were transferred to the school.
4 Q. Thank you. How far away was it to the school from the house of
5 Stipe Pole?
6 A. Well, I think -- I can't tell you exactly. It's less than 200
7 metres, not even 200 metres.
8 Q. Okay. And as you all were walking up to the school, how were you
9 treated by the members of the HVO?
10 A. They didn't treat us well. We had to sing Croatian songs. We had
11 to use the Croatian greetings. I didn't expect that. This was something
12 I had never experienced before.
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, I'm going to ask the witness be shown a
14 photograph that we've premarked as Exhibit 6.7. We have extra copies for
15 Defence counsel.
16 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Could you -- would you like this
17 photograph to be placed on the ELMO? Maybe that would be a good idea.
18 MR. STRINGER: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. That was my
19 intention. Yes. If it could be placed on the ELMO, please. This is
21 I apologise, Mr. Fourmy and counsel.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Never mind.
23 MR. STRINGER: I'm not seeing the photograph on my screen.
24 Q. Mr. Lulic, can you look at that photograph? Okay. It's up there
1 Can you look at the photograph, and if you're able, can you
2 perhaps take a pen or the pointer and to point to the house of Stipe Pole
3 that you just described?
4 A. [In English] Okay. One moment. Stipe -- okay. Yes, Stipe Pole.
5 This is -- this is school.
6 Q. So can you point now to the house of Stipe Pole?
7 A. Okay. This is.
8 Q. And then can you point along the road that went up to the school?
9 A. Okay. This is. Look, school.
10 Q. Okay. And now you're pointing to the middle of the photograph.
11 There is a building with the grey-coloured roof. Is that the school?
12 A. No, no.
13 Q. You're pointing to the building with the brown roof. Is that the
15 A. No. School, this is school.
16 Q. Okay. All right.
17 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, with your permission, perhaps I could
18 ask the witness to place a circle around what he's identified as the
19 school and also the house of Stipe Pole so that it is clearly reflected in
20 the record.
21 A. Okay. Okay. No problem. I can do that.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] That is regular procedure, and I hope
23 that the Defence will find no objection to it.
24 MR. STRINGER:
25 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Lulic, the place that you marked as the house
1 of Stipe Pole, next to that can you put the letters "SP" for Stipe Pole?
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. And then "SS" for the school, Sovici school.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, what time of day -- you said it was in the
6 evening, getting dark, when you were walking up to the school; is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then where did you spend the rest of that day, which was the
10 17th of April?
11 A. [Interpretation] In the school.
12 Q. Did you sleep there?
13 A. No sleeping.
14 Q. Everyone spent the night in the school?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this is all the people that had been brought up from the house
17 of Stipe Pole?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, then, the next day, the 18th of April, I want to ask you some
20 questions about that. Okay?
21 First of all, I want to ask you if at some point during that day
22 you volunteered to go around the village with some of the soldiers who
23 were present.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell us about that, please? Primarily what did you
1 actually do with these soldiers, and if you can tell us what unit or group
2 did these soldiers belong to.
3 A. [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] The next day -- these were
4 members of the Convicts Battalion, Tuta's men, Daka and Robi. They wanted
5 to volunteer. I wasn't at all afraid. I volunteered myself. I don't
6 know why. They took me with them. Maybe they needed some information
7 from a teacher who was working with a Croat. They took me with them. I
8 thought I would be doing something else, but I didn't do that.
9 So, okay. We found Ramo Lulic up there near the school. It is at
10 the top of the Sovici village. There are no more houses further up.
11 Probably because he hadn't surrendered his weapon. He had a pistol. So
12 Robi beat him up on a path. It's not really a proper road. Then they
13 took us back to the school, Ramo and myself.
14 And then Daka had told me why he had taken with me, because after
15 all, I wasn't at my house. I thought I would go to my own house, so maybe
16 I would escape. I have no idea. And then he said, "I took you." If any
17 members of the Convicts Battalion were to get killed, he would have killed
18 me. So I had a victim ready.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lulic. Now, just to go back, I want to ask
20 you a couple questions about that. You say these two soldiers were
21 members of the Kaznjenicka Bojna, the Convicts Battalion.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How do you know that?
24 A. I read the name. They had this -- they were wearing camouflage
25 uniforms with the name written on them. It said Convicts Battalion,
1 Kaznjenicka Bojna, and I could tell you lots about that.
2 This was Tuta's Convicts Battalion, because I had a neighbour of
3 mine, he was a Muslim, and he was the number three man in Tuta's unit, and
4 I was familiar with the unit even a year prior to all these events. There
5 was no war or anything then.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you mention that had they found this one person named
7 Rasim Lulic; is that correct? Ramo Lulic. I'm sorry.
8 A. Ramo. Ramo. Yes.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor. I'm sorry
10 for interrupting there. Seems to be a problem with the equipment.
11 MS. LASAN: [Interpretation] Yes. We don't have the transcript.
12 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] No transcript? Could the usher check
13 with the technical booth, please.
14 MS. LASAN: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, for the
15 interruption. [In English] We have the transcript here and so we don't
16 have the transcript here. But on this it is not in front of me.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Someone will be coming shortly to correct it.
18 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] In the meantime, may we continue?
19 Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Prosecutor.
21 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. I see Mr. Krsnik has his
22 microphone on. It may be better to turn that off.
23 Q. Okay, Mr. Lulic. Now, I just wanted to ask you if you could
24 describe in greater detail the beating of Ramo Lulic. Particularly, who
25 did the beating? How was he beaten?
1 A. I'll tell you that. When I volunteered in the school, I didn't
2 know what for. I thought perhaps because those members of Tuta's
3 Kaznjenicka Bojna were Robi and Daka, and Ramo knew them, because he was a
4 taxi driver in Mostar. So he knew them. I did not. I didn't know them,
5 but I read out their names. And we went to his house up there. That was
6 why they had taken me there.
7 Robi beat him. Not Daka but Robi did. And a hand grenade was
8 thrown, but there was no fuse on it. So they would have got killed if --
9 themselves. And then later they took us back to the school. I don't
10 know. I don't know about Daka and Robi, because we were in different
11 classrooms. I was in one and he was in another. So we didn't meet up
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. You say they threw a hand grenade. Who did
14 they throw it at?
15 A. At us. At us. I wasn't afraid, because surely he wouldn't have
16 killed the -- he wouldn't have thrown the grenade at himself because it
17 would have killed him, too, but it was faulty. It didn't have a proper
18 fuse, so it didn't go off.
19 Q. Now, you then said that after this, you went back to the school;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, later that day, did anyone else arrive at the school?
23 A. I could tell you. Yes, they did come, mostly Muslims. But not to
24 my classroom, not the classroom I was in, where I was detained --
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. -- two evenings earlier.
2 Q. What were the conditions for the Muslims who were being held in
3 the school?
4 A. Bad. There was nothing. You didn't have any water to drink, let
5 alone anything else.
6 Q. And does the school at Sovici have different classrooms?
7 A. Yes. I used to go to that school, perhaps when I was in first
8 grade. It has, let me see, two, four classrooms, basement, six.
9 Q. Can you tell me approximately, if you can, roughly how many people
10 were in the classroom you were held in?
11 A. I think -- no, I don't think. There was 105 of us in one
12 classroom. All of us had been captured, and then we went for -- to fresh
14 Q. Now, later that day, did any, did any of the HVO -- did any other
15 HVO commanders arrive?
16 A. There was the HVO commander, there was Stipe Pole, Juka Groznica,
17 he was the commander of the HVO, a battalion of theirs. I don't know what
18 it was. I know him since his birth. I begged him to let me go home
19 because, after all, I wasn't in my own house, I was at my
20 mother-in-law's. And he said he had released a kum of his, Hasan Arifagic
21 and Rados Ismet, and he said, "When they come back then you can go and
22 someone else with you." However, in the meantime, maybe in a minute or
23 two, I didn't manage -- I didn't manage to go home, and then Tuta
24 arrived. Mladen Naletilic, Tuta. I know him very well.
25 Q. Tell me, tell all of us, what happened when this Mladen Naletilic
2 A. Groznica said to me that he was no longer in charge, that I should
3 apply to Tuta to release me. I didn't dare ask, and that is why I spent a
4 whole year in a camp.
5 Q. Now, after Tuta arrived, what was done with the prisoners at the
7 A. All able-bodied men, members -- that is how they treated us, as
8 members of the BH army, but it didn't exist at the time. This was the
9 Territorial Defence. Whether they were minors or adults, no problem, we
10 were all lined up in front of the school. We were lined up by him, and
11 Tuta said that we had organised an armed rebellion against the legal
12 Croatian authorities and the legal Croatian army, and we were deprived of
13 our freedom and escorted down there to the road to get on a bus. They
14 said we would be exchanged, but there was no exchange. We went to the
15 camp in Ljubuski.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, was -- were all the prisoners brought out from the
17 school at the same time or were they brought out in groups, say, by
19 A. All of us at the same time. We were all taken out.
20 Q. Now, at the time that you were standing in front of the school,
21 again, tell us, who was making this speech that you just described?
22 A. Tuta was making the speech, but I don't know those mediators of
23 his, who were his deputies. But I do know them. But he said that we had
24 rebelled, that the Muslims had rebelled against the Croatian army and the
25 Croatian people, and it was they who had done all that.
1 Q. Now, while this was happening, in your view, based on what you
2 could see, who was the highest ranking HVO person present at the school?
3 A. The highest ranking man was a commander. I don't know his rank.
4 Tuta and Juka and Groznica, he was one of their commanders. Those were
5 the people with information. But as soon as Tuta arrived, he was the most
6 important man there.
7 Q. Now, after Tuta made the speech, what happened next?
8 A. His soldiers from the Convicts Battalion escorted us from the
9 school to the bus. They said we would be exchanged. I think there was a
10 search, if anyone had anything on him. People were beaten up, probably --
11 not probably, they were. I was not.
12 The bus was registered for about 55. There was 105 of us. We
13 were all boarded onto one bus, apparently to go to Jablanica for exchange,
14 but we didn't. We went via Risovac, Blivinje, Rakitno, and on to
15 Ljubuski. We arrived in Ljubuski sometime in the morning, about 4.00 or
16 5.00 a.m.
17 Q. Now, on this bus ride to Ljubuski, were you accompanied by any
18 soldiers and, if so, what unit did they belong to?
19 A. Yes. They were all Tuta's soldiers.
20 Q. How do you know that?
21 A. I know because they introduced themselves, and I have colleagues
22 who went to school with them. Even if I didn't know them, I did know
23 them. I didn't have much contact with them, but there were people who
24 went to school with them, and they would say this man's name is so and so
25 and this other's is so and so, and that is how I know.
1 Q. Now, how were you and the other prisoners treated during the bus
2 ride to Ljubuski?
3 A. I said, and I'm only telling the truth, nothing happened to me,
4 but to others it did. They beat up my brother's son and his lung burst.
5 And the commander, Dzemal Ovnovic, he was a kind of komandir, a commander
6 of the BH army from the village of Sovici. I wasn't close to him at all.
7 I was not a member of that circle. He, too, was beaten up at Risovac.
8 I don't know -- one, one of these Tuta's men had asked him who had
9 given him a car, who had given him a flat, who had given him a bank
10 account in Split. I don't know why. This was the first time I heard of
11 it. And then they beat him up. There victims during the operation that
12 evening when Sovici was attacked. I can't remember those names on either
13 side because I was neutral. I was not on the front line, so I don't know.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. I can't tell you that. And we travelled for quite some time to
16 get to Ljubuski.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, I've got two more photographs to show you. The
18 first one is marked as Exhibit 6.9, and the second one is marked as
19 Exhibit 6.12.
20 Okay. Now, Mr. Lulic, looking at the photo marked Exhibit 6.9,
21 again, there are two larger buildings situated in the middle of that
22 photograph. Can you point out to us, if you know, the Sovici school and
23 the place where you and the other prisoners were lined up when you got
24 this speech.
25 A. I'm going to speak Bosnian. This is the school. This is a yard
1 in front of the school. We were lined up here in front of the school.
2 And then like military men, we had to go on foot along this path to Pole's
3 house, and there was not really a parking but an area where the bus could
4 turn around near Pole's house.
5 Q. Okay. So for the record, you're talking about the schoolyard as
6 the place in between the building with the brown roof and the other
7 building with the, with the grey roof.
8 A. In front, that is the schoolyard, yes.
9 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, if you could take a look at Exhibit 6.12.
10 Now, can you identify this building, please?
11 A. [In English] This here?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. [Interpretation] I can tell you. I can show you the classroom I
14 was held in. This first one here, this is the one I was in. We were not
15 all together. But you can see how many classrooms there were. There were
16 four, and then also the basement so that makes perhaps six. I went to the
17 school when I was first or second grade.
18 Q. Now, so this is the Sovici school?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the grassy area in front of it, is that the schoolyard that
21 you've just been testifying about?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. Now, finally I'm going to ask, with the help of the registrar, to
24 go back to Exhibit 6.7, which was the original photograph, the first one,
25 very quickly. Now, this is the house or this is the photo in which you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 previously circled the house of Stipe Pole. Can you tell us now where the
2 buses were located that took you out from Ljubuski with the other
4 A. I don't know if you can see it or not, but here you have this
5 large parking lot where they can park, because the bus couldn't get to the
6 school. This is too narrow a road and go back. So the bus was parked
7 here in front of Stipe Pole's house, about five metres away. This was a
8 large parking lot.
9 Q. All right. Thank you.
10 MR. STRINGER: For the record then, the witness has indicated or
11 he's pointed to the area in front of the house previously identified as
12 the house of Stipe Pole. I think that's -- unless anyone disagrees with
13 that characterisation. Okay.
14 A. [In English] No, no. [Interpretation] Not "like." That is
15 exactly so.
16 MR. STRINGER:
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. No problem. I was born there; forty years. I know it all.
19 Q. In Sovici --
20 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Prosecutor. I think that
21 the Defence wishes to say something.
22 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My learned friend -- I have not
24 received the Exhibit 6.9, and I do not have the Exhibit 6.9. I have 6.7
25 and 6.12. Sorry.
1 MR. STRINGER:
2 Q. Mr. Lulic, you have testified about -- that there were members of
3 the HVO in Sovici. You testified also you saw members of the Convicts
4 Battalion in Sovici on that day.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you see members of any other army or military group in
8 A. Yes. There was also the Croatian army. Croatian army.
9 Q. And how were you able to identify some of those as members of the
10 Croatian army?
11 A. I could do it because they had their own patches. So that it
12 wasn't the Croat Defence Council, it was the Croatian army. And I had a
13 neighbour, a neighbour who had married a Muslim woman, and she came from
14 Zagreb. She was a tram driver in Zagreb, and she recognised her
15 neighbours who had come from Zagreb. No problem.
16 Q. Now, let's talk about the situation at Ljubuski after you arrived
17 there. Can you tell us, please, where were you kept and what were the
18 conditions generally of the place where you and the others were held in
20 A. Okay. No problem. It was a police building. A small building it
21 was, I mean. And in one room there were maybe -- well, perhaps 30 could
22 fit into one building. No, in one room.
23 The conditions were abnormal. They were not normal. There were
24 no conditions to speak of. For instance, we didn't even have any water or
25 any food for two or three days until we arrived in Ljubuski. And later
1 on, we went -- we were forced to go to work. And it looked like what --
2 labour duty. I'm not labour duty, but I went, no problem, and I managed
3 through it all.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, are you saying -- and I don't want to put words in
5 your mouth. You said that you and the other were kept in a room or in
6 rooms. Were these cells that prisoners or criminals would have been kept
7 in by the police?
8 A. Oh, yes, of course. Come on.
9 Q. And can you tell me roughly how many people were kept in a cell
10 with you?
11 A. I've just said awhile ago. You mean the small cell which is
12 perhaps less than six metres long with about metre point eighty long, and
13 there were about 30 of us. Thirty, I mean. No conditions at all. You
14 couldn't sit down, you couldn't lie down. No sleep, no nothing.
15 Q. Again, it's been a long time. Can you tell us roughly how long
16 you and the others stayed in Ljubuski before you moved to the next place?
17 A. I think -- no, I don't think. It doesn't really matter. Two or
18 three days. But we were in Ljubuski for at least two or three months, and
19 then we were transferred to the Heliodrom room.
20 Q. Now, during the time at Ljubuski, were you or any other prisoners
21 there called out and beaten by others?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. Can you tell us briefly about that? In particular, if you know,
24 who did the beating.
25 A. I can't say that, because I just don't know the name. It was at
1 night. I mean, after midnight, 2.00 or 3.00 in the morning. And it was a
2 circle of people going around cells looking for individuals. I wasn't
3 present there. I hear the first and last name of the man being called
4 out, but who was it that did the beating, that I don't know.
5 Q. Do you know whether these persons belonged to any particular
6 military unit?
7 A. They all came from a military unit, but I don't know which.
8 Q. Do you know what unit or what group of soldiers were guarding you
9 during your time at Ljubuski?
10 A. A group of soldiers, no. It was the police, the military police
11 which guarded us.
12 Q. Now, did other soldiers from a different group come from time to
14 A. They did.
15 Q. Do you know what group that was?
16 A. [In English] Yes. [Interpretation] The Convicts Battalion,
17 Tuta's. They would come there looking for those prisoners, mostly from
18 Sovici, whom Tuta -- that is, under his orders were taken to Siroki, to
19 his place, to build him a house with a swimming pool, but he finished it
21 Those men who went up there never came back. I mean, I cannot
22 give you the first and last names of those people because those men were
23 mostly from Bosnia, those had worked in Croatia.
24 One day, ten of us were also rounded up. Our names were on a
25 list. But fortunately - I don't know how it happened - we had been
1 registered by the Red Cross, and Commander Prlic, who was - How shall I
2 put it? - chief of police in there, yes, he had an argument with Tuta's
3 soldiers, and he drove us off the bus again and took only other men.
4 Those men never came back. And those who left before us, they never came
5 back. We never saw them again, or later, I mean. But he released us, and
6 we were to say bye-bye, and he said, "No, no, no. This was the last
8 And I mean, I wasn't afraid. I had no fear, because I can be a
9 bigger criminal than Tuta.
10 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Lulic, also during your time in Ljubuski,
11 were you and others taken to work on -- as forced labourers on various
12 confrontation lines?
13 A. Day and night to the lines facing the Serbs. That is where we
14 went to the lines, to the front lines, every day, digging trenches,
15 bunkers. There's nothing we didn't do. That is not natural. It's
17 Q. During that time when you were on these front-line positions, did
18 you see any members of the Croatian army?
19 A. Yes. Sure. Of course I did. Those offered to take milk home for
20 my children, because they thought I was a Croat under labour duty. So
21 they were suggesting to take things. They came directly from Zagreb,
22 Osijek, Croat Croatian force, Split, 114, 115th Split Brigade. Tuta knows
23 it well. They went to Boksevica and then there they had a raw deal up
25 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, after this time when you were held at Ljubuski,
1 were you and the others transferred to a different camp?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What was the name of that camp?
4 A. It is called Heliodrom, Rodoc Mostar Heliodrom. That is where we
5 were taken.
6 And they lied to us a lot, saying we were going for exchange, but
7 it didn't happen, because Heliodrom is a registered prison and Ljubuski --
8 no, it is not a registered prison. And it was after we had been
9 registered by the Red Cross, so they had to take us to a registered
11 Q. Now --
12 A. And that's why --
13 Q. And can you tell us if you know roughly how far is between -- what
14 is the distance between the Heliodrom place and the city of Mostar?
15 A. Let me tell you. I never measured that. I lived and worked in
16 Mostar. That's not Mostar. Heliodrom, well, make it 4 kilometres, say,
17 roughly. I mean 4 kilometres.
18 Q. It's not too far from Mostar.
19 A. No. No, it's not.
20 MR. STRINGER: Now, I'm going to ask the witness be shown Exhibit
21 20.9. If it could be placed on the ELMO.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, looking at this photograph, are you able to
23 identify the place where you were kept?
24 A. [In English] Look. [Interpretation] Can you see?
25 Q. We can't see it, but I don't think I need to see it. Okay. There
1 it is. Thank you. Yes.
2 A. [In English] No problem.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, using the pointer, can you point to the
4 building --
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Stringer.
6 Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Do you still have a problem? Does the Defence
7 have a technical problem? Or I don't know.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, it's not a technical problem, or
9 perhaps it is. I didn't want to interrupt my learned friend.
10 I think you all heard awhile ago an expression, I won't say in
11 Croatian but in Bosnian, which was not interpreted, something that the
12 witness said, and it's not in the transcript either.
13 That expression, Mr. Fourmy, is a very ugly word. It's a
14 four-letter word and expletive which was used by the witness, but it is
15 not in the transcript, nor did the interpreters interpret it. That was
16 right before this last question. And I should like to have it in the
17 transcript, and I shall later on ask the witness who was it addressed to.
18 In Bosnian, of course, it was in Bosnian.
19 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Witness, I do not want you --
20 Witness, will you please look at me, please. Witness Lulic, I am in front
21 of you.
22 I don't want you to discuss anything directly with either the
23 Defence or the Prosecutor or anybody in this courtroom. You came here to
24 answer questions that are asked of you. Now it is the turn of the
25 Prosecutor, then it will be the Defences' turn. But now will you please
1 try, I know it is difficult, but please try to answer questions that are
2 asked of you and do not make comments which have nothing to do with
3 questions that you're asked because otherwise it will become very
5 Unfortunately, I do not speak your language and I cannot really
6 know what goes on. The interpreters used two words which are not
7 particularly correct, but it will be much more simple, much better, much
8 more convenient if you think that everything that you say will be read by
9 the Judges later on.
10 So let us try to -- let us try to work efficiently. So will you
11 please answer the Prosecutor's questions, after that it will be the
12 Defences' questions, and in this manner we will be able to finish with
13 your deposition more quickly. All right?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because now I can say something to
15 what this gentleman said. Did I offend somebody? But I will not allow it
16 at all that there is a comment -- contact with those men. He doesn't know
17 who or what. He does not know who I am, and I am a doctor of sciences for
18 him. So I will answer to the Court and I will answer to others, but with
19 him, I will not have any contact. For me, it is quite normal. And why
20 should his Defence be allowed to talk and why am I not allowed to talk?
21 So I will not allow him to talk to me.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't quite -- perhaps
23 I didn't quite understand you, and don't hold it against me if I
24 misunderstand you, but it is not -- it does not mean that you are being
25 deprived of your right to speak to anyone. It is simply that things
1 should unfold in conformity with the procedure adopted for this Tribunal.
2 In other tribunals, it works in a different way. In this Tribunal, the
3 Prosecutor asks you questions, the Defence asks you questions, then
4 possibly the Prosecutor asks you some new questions, and then it is over.
5 So --
6 THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay.
7 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] -- we thank you once again for coming
8 here, but otherwise what we expect of you is to answer questions on the
9 basis of what you know in the spirit of the solemn declaration that you
10 made to tell the truth, speak the truth, and the whole truth. This is
11 what we want from you, and we can get there only if you help us. Can we
12 resume now, please?
13 THE WITNESS: [No translation]
14 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Prosecutor, can you
15 go on for another ten minutes, or do you think that it will be better to
16 make a break now, I don't know, resume later on. As you like.
17 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, I think I can finish in the next ten to
18 15 minutes, actually, if that were to assist. I'm getting close to the
19 end of my questions.
20 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Very well. Then we shall ask the
21 interpreters to give us proof of their patience, and after that we shall
22 make the break. I believe this will be a more convenient way to do it.
23 Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
24 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, just quickly, if you could take the pen, and if
1 you're able to do it, can you make a circle around the building that you
2 were held in at the Heliodrom.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. That's fine, thank you. Now I want to ask you, when were you
5 released from the Heliodrom? When were you given your freedom again?
6 A. No, no, it was exchange overall. The 1st of April, 1994.
7 Q. Okay. Now, and from the time that you arrived at the Heliodrom
8 from Ljubuski, is this the place where you were held until you were
9 exchanged in 1994?
10 A. You mean the Heliodrom?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, during the time that you were at the
14 Heliodrom, did you ever see this person that you've called Tuta?
15 A. Yes. He came to this building here. He was looking for somebody
16 from Sovici and came across me. I said I was from Doljani, and he swore
17 at me something, I don't know what, and said, "Never mind." Because his
18 second man had got killed, feature 902.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. I don't know. I mean, his interest, he wanted to find somebody.
21 Q. And are you certain that this is the same person that you saw in
22 front of the Sovici school on the 18th of April?
23 A. Of course I am. Same person, except that he was somewhat younger.
24 Q. Now, also during the time -- the months that you spent at the
25 Heliodrom, were you taken out with others to perform forced labour in
1 various locations?
2 A. Naturally, non-stop day and night, no problem. You had to go.
3 Q. Now, at any time during your forced labour, did you meet someone
4 called Vinko Martinovic or Stela?
5 A. Stela? Ha, ha. Of course, naturally.
6 Q. Can you tell us, can you tell us, please, about the time that you
7 met Stela.
8 A. I can tell you, but I can't give you the exact date. I know
9 Stela. I know his brother. I know his brother. I mean, Stela is not --
10 wasn't a dangerous man. He was a proletarian. How did he became? He
11 fought for his Croat people. But okay, never mind what he got.
12 On one occasion when we worked at the health centre, Stela lined
13 us up against the wall, and we all stood there and he fired a whole burst
14 of fire above our heads. He said that Croatia fed us, that we were eating
15 Croat food, balijas. He provoked us. But I never saw Stela again after
16 that time. I mean, I did not see him. I did not work for him. Well,
17 perhaps I did, but perhaps some other soldier came. I have no idea.
18 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Lulic, if you're able to do it, can you look
19 around the courtroom and tell us if you see either of these people that
20 you've testified about, either Tuta or Stela, either one or both? Do you
21 see either of these people in the courtroom today?
22 A. Oh, come, yes.
23 Q. All right. Can you please point them out to us and describe them
24 so that the record will show that you've identified them.
25 A. [In English] There is Tuta. This is Stela.
1 Q. Now, what part of the courtroom --
2 A. [Interpretation] See you in Mostar.
3 Q. Now, what part of the courtroom are you pointing to, Mr. Lulic?
4 You need to be more specific so that the record will reflect exactly where
5 they're sitting, who they're sitting next to, how are they dressed. Can
6 you tell us these things?
7 A. [In English] Left -- [Interpretation] come, you want me to tell
8 you, to describe it to you. You want me to talk?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. [In English] This is Tuta. [Interpretation] This one policeman
11 sitting there, Stela. Do you want me to tell you how they are dressed? I
12 am not interested in how they are dressed.
13 Q. Yes, please. If you would tell us for the record, how are each of
14 those two dressed? How is Tuta dressed today?
15 A. Well, you see what he looks like. He looks like nothing at all.
16 See the uniform. If he could see himself, he'd kill himself.
17 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, will you please look at me
18 and listen to what I have to say. The Prosecutor asked you a simple
19 question which should allow the Judges who will read the transcript of
20 your deposition to -- if and how you were able to identify in this
21 courtroom one or the other of the accused. That is all that we are asking
22 you to do. And we are certainly not asking you, Mr. Lulic, to make any
23 comments which go beyond the description that you are asked for. The
24 Prosecutor is not asking you if you find one or the other of the accused
25 poorly dressed. That is not the question.
1 So, I will ignore the comment that you made, and will you please
2 answer the Prosecutor's question simply saying to the left or to the
3 right, from left to right, from right to left, using simple means of
4 description. And please, no comments.
5 THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] I won't talk
6 much. I don't want to describe those criminals. The Prosecutor knows
7 them, I know them, so --
8 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [In English] okay.
10 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I believe I asked you to do something
11 simple. Answer questions of the Prosecutor and do not make any comments.
12 I am not a judge here, I'm a Presiding Officer. My only role is to see
13 that things unfold as well as possible and that it can be done only owing
14 to the Prosecution and the Defence who both have their role to play, and
15 everybody expects them to perform their roles in an urbane and as
16 efficient manner as possible.
17 But when a witness appears before us, even if not -- we can all
18 understand that it is difficult to recall the events that somebody has
19 gone through, and to recall it all eight years later, everybody
20 understands that it is difficult. Everybody knows what you must be going
21 through. But we all, I believe, in this courtroom must make an effort,
22 and please understand, please do refrain from making any comments. Thank
24 Mr. Prosecutor, perhaps you could ask your question, and
25 Mr. Lulic, you will answer it. You will simply answer it.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, again, if you see the person you call Tuta in the
3 courtroom, can you please tell us, give us his description. What colour
4 of hair does he have? Can you do that for me?
5 A. Oh, I really don't feel like talking or like describing him
6 because I personally know him, and that is why I won't talk about him.
7 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, I have no further questions. Thank
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. I
10 therefore propose that we make a break, and I should like to suggest that
11 we resume five minutes later than envisaged, that is, at ten minutes past
12 11.00, at 11.10.
13 Will the usher please help the witness to leave the courtroom.
14 Mr. Krsnik, do you want to say something now or after the break?
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] After the break, I'll do that after
16 the break. Let's have a break now.
17 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Seric?
18 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, after the break.
19 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Very well. Now a break, and we shall
20 be back at 11.10. This session is adjourned.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
23 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Mr. Prosecutor,
24 you have something to say before the witness is brought into the
25 courtroom, perhaps? You have the floor.
1 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. Fourmy. Thank you. I wasn't sure what
2 our learned friends across the way are intending to do on the issue that
3 was raised before the break, specifically whether the transcript should be
4 amended or changed to include something that they believe the witness
6 The only request that I had was if this is going to be raised, I
7 think it may be better to raise it now or to -- or to deal with that
8 question now, before the witness is brought back into the courtroom. I
9 don't think the witness needs to be present during any discussion as to
10 whether the transcript should or should not be modified. Thank you.
11 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. That is
12 why I thought we should wait a little before bringing in the witness, and
13 perhaps Mr. Seric or Mr. Krsnik have something to say.
14 Mr. Krsnik, you have the floor.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, we have been reviewing
16 the transcript, and I wish to refer to the situation we had in the
17 courtroom. At one point in time when the witness was pointing at the
18 ELMO, at the Heliodrom on the picture, he turned around towards this side,
19 towards the Defence bench, and he said, and I do apologise to the
20 interpreters as well, the ladies in particular, he said, "God fuck you."
21 It is a terrible swear word in our language. No. I'm sorry. I
22 apologise. I have to be obnoxious again. He said, "Fuck your mother,"
23 and I apologise again to the ladies.
24 All of use heard that. Of course, those of you who do not
25 understand Croatian probably did not pay any attention, and I would like
1 this to go into the transcript, together with the description of the
2 situation as it occurred. That is what I had to say, Mr. Fourmy.
3 And may I, with your permission? I have something to add. Could
4 the transcript reflect that the witness refused to identify the accused.
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
6 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. Just to address these two
7 questions in reverse order. On the identification, I think the record
8 speaks for itself in terms of what the witness was or was not willing to
9 do, and I think it's dangerous to then, after the fact, to insert some
10 sort of characterisation of whether or not the witness did, in fact,
11 identify the accused.
12 The record says what the record says, and I think the record is
13 quite clear as to the witness's reluctance to give any sufficient
14 description of the identification of the accused. So I think the record
15 on that should remain the way it is. I think it's clear enough how the
16 identification went.
17 Secondly, on the question of the comment, I didn't hear it, and as
18 counsel correctly states, I don't know the language and so I'm not in a
19 position to make any judgements what or what was not said or its meaning.
20 I don't know that there's -- I don't recall seeing any gestures or that
21 the witness looked over toward the Defence bar and said something either,
22 but -- so I'm reluctant to agree that the transcript should be modified
23 and -- because I'm not in a position to state whether in fact he said
24 anything, much less whether he said what counsel now claims he heard.
25 And I'm not saying that counsel is mistaken. I simply don't know,
1 and I'm not in a position, therefore, to agree as to whether the
2 transcript should be modified. I think counsel has very clearly put in
3 the record what he believes happened. It's my view that perhaps, based on
4 counsel's comments and what they believe happened, it's in the record.
5 The Prosecutor is not contesting it because we're simply not in a position
6 to know.
7 And in any event, I think that it's -- being effective counsel,
8 they'll be able to explore any -- if the witness is hostile towards the
9 Defence, they'll be able to explore that in a way that's appropriate
10 during cross-examination without actually modifying the transcript or
11 adding things which there's some -- adding things which not everyone can
12 agree were said.
13 So that would be my proposal, is that perhaps other issues going
14 more directly toward the witness's credibility, because I think that's
15 what we're talking about here, can be addressed during the
16 cross-examination. I'm not suggesting that this particular issue should
17 be revisited during cross-examination. I think it would be extremely
18 unproductive, but counsel is obviously the master of their own strategy.
19 Again, I think they can manage their cross-examination in a way as to
20 explore any bias or credibility issues which may affect this witness.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, my learned friend
24 opposite, Mr. Stringer, I would indeed appeal to you to leave the Defence
25 strategy up to us, and the way in which we will do our cross-examination
1 is also up to us. I think we have sufficient knowledge to be able to do
3 This fact was recorded, and it actually happened, and all of us
4 who understand the Croatian language or the language of this Court
5 understood and heard this. Surely you do not think that we would say
6 something in this courtroom that is not true. This is just a mere fact.
7 As to how I'm going to conduct my cross-examination, please leave that up
8 to me.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, yes, certainly regarding
10 the cross-examination, as we have said repeatedly, the Defence is the
11 master of its strategy. However, I think there were two points that you
12 raised, and the Prosecutor suggested two possible solutions, one for each
13 of those points.
14 Regarding the identification of Mr. Naletilic in the first place,
15 it seemed to me that, indeed, the record reflected clearly what happened
16 in the courtroom. I don't know whether you agree with the position of the
17 Prosecutor that the record speaks for itself, and it is up to everyone to
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, as far as that is concerned, I
20 could agree. Yes, I have followed the transcript, and I do think that it
21 speaks for itself. But I just thought maybe we could add the latest
22 comment, but I can agree with that.
23 But with this other point, I cannot agree at all. It does not
24 matter whether it is my witness or a witness of the party opposite. This
25 is something that happened in this courtroom, and we all heard it. We all
1 know that there is a recording of the proceedings, and it is easy to check
2 if we need to. Thank you.
3 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, as far as I am concerned,
4 I think that you noted that I reacted as soon as I could when I saw that
5 the witness was going beyond the proper frameworks. Unfortunately, we
6 don't speak your language, and there is nothing more that we are able to
7 do due to this lack of knowledge of the language.
8 Therefore, regarding the actual record, we -- everything that you
9 have said is very precisely noted regarding this incident that took
10 place. There are two possible avenues to take. We stop there because
11 things are clearly written, or, if you wish, but that would be another
12 procedure, and I think it goes beyond my powers, if I may say so, because
13 I have no powers, and that would be for you to request in writing, please,
14 that the various recordings be analysed to establish precisely what the
15 witness actually uttered, which words he used at the time you're referring
16 to. Because in the French language, what I heard at a certain point was
17 within the episode regarding certain prisoners who were taken with
18 Mr. Naletilic's men, and then Mr. Naletilic had a hard time, but a
19 four-letter word was used. I don't know whether that is the incident
20 you're referring to. That is what I heard in French. I don't know in
21 English. It's a bit difficult for me to listen in French and to read in
22 English, and then there's the B/C/S as well.
23 So if you agree, we either stop there and say that the incident is
24 closed, but I will certainly caution the witness that it is out of the
25 question for his -- for him to have the same attitude that he had a moment
1 ago, and then you go on with the cross-examination; or you make a motion
2 requiring the listening to the recording and the Judges will decide. I
3 don't think there's anything I can do, Mr. Krsnik.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. Having
5 mentioned this word "popusiti," that had to do with the attack on
7 You know, we're all sensitive to justice. One language spoken can
8 have quite a different meaning in translation, that is, quite a different
9 meaning to the one meant in the mother tongues.
10 So the witness said, turning to us, "At Boksevica you lost the
11 battle," but he used a word, "popusiti," which in our language which is an
12 insult, but that may not -- this may not be the moment to raise this. And
13 you are quite right in noting it, and we are aware of the shortcomings.
14 We will do our best to defend our clients as best we can so that what the
15 witnesses say can be correctly recorded in the transcript. You see how
16 these depositions are important, very important.
17 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Krsnik.
18 Mr. Seric, did you wish to say anything?
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Let me say that for me, the episode is
20 closed, and I agree with Mr. Stringer. But I must say we are all
21 sensitive when it comes to this incident, because it is indeed an incident
22 by the witness.
23 As a judge and a president of a trial chamber, I have worked at
24 all levels of the Croatian justice system. And please don't misunderstand
25 me, Mr. Fourmy. I am not making any criticism. But whenever such a
1 swearword was used, I would have the witness removed from the courtroom.
2 I am not requesting that at this stage. For me, the episode is closed.
3 But in the cross, we will try to establish his position towards the
4 accused, that for him they are criminals, that he hates them, and so on
5 and so forth. And my learned friend Mr. Stringer has already said as
7 Now, whether we will ask the Trial Chamber to take any steps in
8 that direction, we will see later on. But what colleague Krsnik said,
9 that really was said, and you saw that I reacted, too, and there is
10 absolutely no reason for us to make it up.
11 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I don't think that I ever suggested
12 that you or Mr. Krsnik made anything up. Maybe that was your impression.
13 Maybe I didn't express myself properly in French. In any event, that was
14 not my intention.
15 So we can consider the incident to be closed, unless you decide to
16 file a motion. So I would now suggest that we have the witness brought
17 in, and I thank you in advance that through your questions and the way in
18 which you will conduct proceedings, you will contribute to us avoiding a
19 repetition of the incident we had prior to the break. Thank you.
20 Mr. Usher, will you have the witness brought in.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, can you hear me properly?
23 I hope that you had a rest. It is now the turn of the Defence to ask you
24 questions. So I'm asking you for patience, to participate with us in this
25 work of justice, and I also ask you to do your very best to answer
1 precisely and as completely as possible the questions of the Defence. The
2 Defence are doing their work in asking you questions, and I will thank you
3 in advance for not making any comments whatsoever.
4 Can we begin then? Mr. Krsnik or Mr. Seric.
5 Mr. Krsnik, you have the floor. Your witness.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
7 Q. Good morning. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Kresimir
8 Krsnik representing the accused Mladen Naletilic. I have a few questions
9 for you, and I ask you kindly to answer them for me.
10 Are you feeling well today?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Are you feeling well?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are you normally quite well? Are you suffering from any disease?
15 Are you under medication of any kind?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Tell me, please, before entering the courtroom, did you have a
18 drink, perhaps?
19 A. No. I never drink. I don't use alcohol at all.
20 Q. Tell me, please, on the 15th of April, 1993, you remember that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. They asked you to join the BH army.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who asked you?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 A. It was a commander. Maybe your question is wrong. It wasn't the
2 BH army. The BH army was organised during the war. This was the
3 Territorial Defence, and I was simply -- my name was on a list of these
4 people. You understand that, what Territorial Defence means? They were
6 Q. Whether I understand something or not, leave that up to me.
7 Please concentrate on answering my questions.
8 Will you please tell me what the Territorial Defence is of which
9 you were a member?
10 A. The Territorial Defence consists of people of all ethnicity, not
11 just Muslims and Croats. We were all together. We were reservists. And
12 the regular army, you know what a regular army is, and I was not a regular
13 army member.
14 Q. And whose reservists were you?
15 A. Of the Territorial Defence of Jablanica municipality.
16 Q. Just a moment, please. You were a member of the Territorial
18 A. Of Jablanica.
19 Q. Yes, Jablanica. Fine. But whose reservist were you?
20 A. What you do you mean?
21 Q. You said you were a reservist of the Territorial Defence. That's
22 what you said.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On the 15th of April, 1993, the Croats and the Muslims and the
25 Serbs, you were all members of the Territorial Defence?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And when did you become the BH army?
3 A. On the 17th of April I was captured in the school --
4 Q. That is not my question. Please answer my question. So will you
5 please answer my question, if you can do that, of course. When did the
6 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina come into being?
7 A. Well, don't interrupt me. Will you please allow me to say.
8 Q. Please answer my question.
9 A. I will answer. I don't know when it came into being because I was
10 captured after two days, so I don't know. I don't know the date. And I
11 don't know, seeing that I spent in the camp almost a year.
12 Q. And what was the purpose of the Territorial Defence? Who was your
14 A. The enemy? Serbs were the enemy.
15 Q. Weren't you together in the Territorial Defence?
16 A. Yes. But in Jablanica you probably know what is the percentage of
17 Serbs. There were only Muslims and Croats there, and we were together
18 until about two days before.
19 Q. Two days before what?
20 A. Two days before the attack.
21 Q. You mean the 17th of April?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You mean Croats and Muslims were together, you had this joint
24 Territorial Defence?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And who was your commander of that Territorial Defence?
2 A. I can't tell you that because I wasn't always present. I mean, I
3 didn't go regularly, not regularly. I always worked somewhere. I was
4 simply on the list of the Territorial Defence, and my conditions were such
5 that I didn't have to go anywhere.
6 Q. And where did you work?
7 A. Where I worked?
8 Q. Yes, where did you work.
9 A. I worked -- I had my company from Sarajevo, and I worked in Libya,
10 in Tunisia, in Iraq, ex-Yugoslavia.
11 Q. On the 15th of April you were with the units?
12 A. Yes. I was on the list, but I wasn't a soldier. I went to visit
13 my mother-in-law --
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, you see how difficult it
15 is to conduct the examination. I think that my questions are clear when I
16 ask -- Mr. Stringer, just a moment, please.
17 When I ask a question that is very clear, "Who is your commander
18 of the Territorial Defence," I want the answer. "I don't know." "All
19 right, no." But here the talking goes on and on.
20 A. Yes. I can say I don't know. I know -- I don't know the name
21 and -- okay.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik - I'm sorry,
23 Mr. Stringer - I think that the transcript speaks for itself. We see the
24 question. We see the witness's answer. We will take note of things that
25 the witness said before, but please go on; otherwise, it will take a very
1 long time I'm afraid.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That is why I wanted you to intervene
3 so that can see it's not my fault with regard to what we discussed before
4 we entered -- before the witness entered the courtroom.
5 Q. On the 15th of April, 1993, you were in Sovici?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you had a uniform?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. What does "okay" mean?
10 A. [In English] Good.
11 Q. Did you or did you not have it?
12 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
13 Q. And what did your uniform look like?
14 A. My uniform? Oh, come on, you know what a camouflage uniform looks
16 Q. Will you please answer my question. Will you please describe it
17 to me.
18 A. To describe to you what?
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, can it please be recorded
20 that the witness is addressing -- is addressing me with "ti." He "ti,
21 ti's" me. He says, "What you want me to describe to you," that is, "you"
22 in singular.
23 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, it is one of the
24 advantages of our respective languages that the difference between "you"
25 in familiar or not familiar form, but in English it is not easily
2 So Mr. Lulic, please, Mr. Lulic.
3 THE WITNESS: [In English] Yes.
4 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I'm speaking -- I do not speak your
5 language so I do not know whether the form of address you used is a normal
6 thing between a witness and a counsel. What I can tell you that in my
7 mother tongue, in my own mother tongue, except for exceptional cases, and
8 again, a witness does not address counsel or a Prosecutor in this familiar
9 form, does not use "you" in singular. So I should like to thank you to --
10 I should like to ask you to use the word that you would otherwise use
11 according to your own custom, according to your tradition. Thank you.
12 Mr. Krsnik, you have the floor.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Okay, gentlemen. But I will
14 address people as I find -- as I like. Do you understand me?
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, will you please go on.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Right.
17 Q. So we or our question was to describe the uniform that you wore.
18 A. Gentlemen, I am not going to describe to you anything or explain
19 what camouflage uniform looks like. You cannot provoke me or prove
20 anything to me am I stupid man. But I just don't want to talk with you.
21 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, will you please look at
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay.
24 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. This is not a drawing
25 room conversation that you are invited to have with the Defence. We all
1 agree, if you had any choice, then evidently you -- then presumably you
2 would not be here with us. We agree with that. But the Prosecutor
3 thought that you had important things to tell the Judges to contribute in
4 this case, and this case is being conducted against two persons,
5 Mr. Naletilic and Mr. Martinovic.
6 From the moment when the Prosecutor made his choice and you
7 accepted to appear here, you came here to tell the Judges. It's not me.
8 I am nothing. Imagine that you have three Judges here who are listening
9 to you very attentively, who are looking at you and who are very alert,
10 and who will read very accurately, very precisely all that you say. You
11 answered the questions of the Prosecution. You do not converse. You do
12 not talk with the Prosecutor. Then you answer the questions of the
13 Defence. You are not having a conversation with the Defence. We can
14 agree on that. This is merely answering questions.
15 The question is, for the first, second, third, time, describe your
16 uniform. You already answered twice, "Yes, I agree that it is a
17 camouflage uniform."
18 Mr. Krsnik, I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed as to the
19 possibility of describing at greater length a camouflage uniform, but if
20 you have an idea how this could be done, perhaps you could help the
21 witness by specifying your question, by leading the witness if you have
22 something in mind.
23 But you, Mr. Lulic, who know what uniform you had, who know what
24 uniform you wore at the time, because the question did not allow me to
25 understand whether it is the uniform you had or you wore, if you think
1 that it was more green or more yellow or more blue or less light coloured
2 than other uniforms, then perhaps you, too, could help us by making a
3 small effort and trying to help me understand what kind of uniform you
4 wore. If you can't do it, if not, then just say, "Well, it's a uniform
5 like any other uniform, a camouflage uniform."
6 Can we try to resolve of this matter in this way, Mr. Lulic?
7 Perhaps you can help -- you, perhaps you can tell me something to help me,
8 or do you perhaps want the Defence to rephrase the question, to help you
9 again to answer your question?
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, the question is a
11 sensible one, because there were different camouflage uniforms in the
12 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There were different combinations of
13 uniforms. There were summer and winter camouflage uniforms; one-piece,
14 two-piece combinations; jackets; camouflage trousers; and so on and so
15 forth. The witness heard me. That would have been my question. But I
16 would be very unhappy if I had to lead him through my cross-examination,
17 because you see how difficult this is. But we should agree somehow.
18 A. No problem. But of course no problem. I'm not talking about
19 camouflage uniforms in a period, say -- you must know. You must know that
20 in Sovici how many of those members there were.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. No. Let's leave that aside. My question is: What was your
23 uniform? Was it camouflage, both the upper part and the lower part, or a
25 A. The same thing.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and witness please pause
2 between question and answer and refrain from speaking at the same time.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Did the Territorial Defence have some insignia? We don't know
6 A. No, no, no. There were none, because in the Territorial Defence,
7 everybody was there, both Croats and Serbs and Muslims and everybody.
8 Q. Right. But this does not mean that it cannot say "Territorial
10 A. But it did not say the "army of Herzegovina."
11 Q. That's what I'm asking you.
12 A. But I'm telling you that was later, and I didn't have an
13 opportunity to come by that.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and witness please pause
15 between question and answer.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Except for the JNA, did you have any other training?
18 A. No, no.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and the witness please pause
20 between question and answer.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Do you know who is Daidza?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. How do you know that?
25 A. I know because I saw him in Jablanica.
1 Q. And what was Daidza doing in Jablanica?
2 A. I cannot answer you directly. Perhaps he came for political
3 reasons because he was to prepare a unit or something, but he failed in
4 that in Jablanica. Nevertheless, I know everything about him. No
5 problem. I saw him as I see you.
6 Q. You did not have any training with him?
7 A. No.
8 Q. What kind of weapons were you issued with?
9 A. Who, I? I had M48.
10 Q. What is it?
11 A. Don't you know what a M48 is?
12 Q. I don't know. I'm asking you. What is a M48?
13 A. A rifle. M48 is a rifle with five bullets and -- you don't know?
14 Well, that's what the Territorial Defence had, and I turned it over
15 because I don't need that.
16 Q. When did you return it?
17 A. I -- it could have been on the 16th of April, because I was
18 visiting with my mother-in-law. I wasn't on the front line or anywhere.
19 And if you know where that is, where that house is, if you know where
20 Petar Mijic's house, and Mato Mijic was there, so I came. I have no idea
21 what was going on.
22 Q. What date are you referring to?
23 A. A day. On the eve. A day before. No, not a day. The 17th.
24 Q. But a moment ago, just a second ago, you said a date you returned
25 it before, and you said the 16th and then you started saying this. Now
1 I'm asking you: Did you return your rifle on the 16th of April?
2 A. I think it was the 17th. The attack happened in the morning, and
3 I returned it in the evening.
4 Q. In the evening of the 17th of April?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. And then you returned it? And you returned the rifle M48 to
8 A. Mato Mijic.
9 Q. In the evening hours?
10 A. In the evening hours.
11 Q. How many members of the Territorial Defence were there in Sovici?
12 A. I can't tell you that. I just don't know the exact number.
13 Q. But approximately? Can you tell us approximately?
14 A. I think if that is important for you, no problem. I can tell you
15 100 or 200. Maybe it wasn't 200. I don't know. I really don't know. I
16 don't know, because I was never interested. I never wanted to know it,
18 Q. When you say 100 or 200 members of the Territorial Defence, do you
19 mean both Muslims and Croats all together?
20 A. No, no, no. I didn't mean together, because in that case it would
21 be 300 or 400 if I meant them together.
22 Q. Whom did you mean? Whom did you mean when you said "100, 200"?
23 Did you mean Muslims?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were you a separate unit? Was there Muslim Territorial Defence
1 and a Croat Territorial Defence?
2 A. No, no, no. We were all together.
3 Q. Then why didn't you spontaneously answer when I asked you how many
4 members there were in the Territorial Defence. There was 100 and 200 and
5 you meant only Muslims.
6 A. Well, I thought that you meant only Muslims.
7 Q. Who was your enemy in Sovici?
8 A. In Sovici, the enemy of -- just as we were together in the
9 Territorial Defence, it was Serbs, because in Sovici there is no Serb and
10 there has never been any Serb.
11 Q. Well, then -- then why --
12 A. Well, I do not write history.
13 Q. Wait for my question. Why did you then establish the Territorial
14 Defence if you had no enemies?
15 A. Why did we found the Territorial Defence? Well, I am not a
16 commander. I don't command. I am not a mayor of the municipality to
17 found it. I didn't found it. That is none of my concern.
18 Q. When did you come to Sovici back from -- counting backward from
19 the 17th of April?
20 A. When? Never.
21 Q. And what does that mean?
22 A. The 17th of April, I went to the camp.
23 Q. No, no, no, no, no. We were still on the 17th of April. But
24 counting backward from the 17th, how long did you live in Sovici?
25 A. Forty years. I've lived in Sovici for 40 -- I lived in Sovici for
1 40 years before that.
2 Q. Did you have any lines around Sovici, I mean, the TO?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us where were those lines?
5 A. I can't tell you. I don't know where Sovicka Vrata. That's what
6 it's called Sovicka Vrata. Mackovica. Let me see. Bijela Gruda. What's
7 it called? I never went to those lines.
8 Q. But there were lines all the way to Jablanica, to Doljani?
9 A. No, no, no. Only up there to Risovac.
10 Q. You said feature 902 at one point. What is it?
11 A. Because his -- Tuta's deputy was killed at that feature.
12 Q. Who killed him?
13 A. The army of BH.
14 Q. On what date?
15 A. I don't know the date, because I was in the camp. And something
16 happened. There was a fray in the camp because of that, and they asked
17 us, the prisoners, "Where is feature 902?" But I don't know it either.
18 Q. But if it happened in the camp, what date was it when there was
19 this fray in the camp? And he was killed by the army of BH, was he?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you were on the TO location of the Territorial Defence?
22 A. No. How could I be on that same location if I was in the camp? I
23 don't know.
24 Q. And you -- for whom did you dig trenches on Mackovica?
25 A. Excuse me, sir. I'm trying to be polite. I never ever went up
1 there. So I just say I was only on the paper as a reservist. I never
2 ever went there. Where is it? I don't know.
3 Q. A moment ago, you said you knew.
4 A. Well, of course I know. I can see it from my house. I can see
5 all the hills and all those places. I was born there. I know all those
7 Q. You said that you knew that there was a line there.
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Who was -- who manned that line and against whom was it held?
10 A. Well, I already said that. On that line, they were all together,
11 Croats and Muslims.
12 Q. And who was your enemy there?
13 A. Well, political games. That's why I didn't want to know anything
14 about it.
15 Q. The political games in what sense?
16 A. Political games of the Croats who got it all prepared and then
18 Q. No, no, no, let's forget that. Let's leave that aside.
19 A. No, I mean to go into the topic.
20 Q. No, no, no, let me do it. I'm asking you again very precisely,
21 against whom did you make those lines on Mackovica?
22 A. Against the Serbs. But I didn't make this line.
23 Q. Right, right. You were in the trench together, Muslims and Croats
24 on Mackovica. No, I don't mean you personally, I mean the TO, the TO
25 together. Excuse me?
1 A. Yes, yes. My colleagues who went to the line, those young men,
2 18, 20 years old, they went.
3 Q. And Croats?
4 A. Yes. They went together.
5 Q. What is the population of the village of Sovici?
6 A. I won't give you the accurate figure, I mean I simply never kept
7 track of it, but Sovici would have -- the smallest figure would be 250. I
8 mean, I do not know. But I mean 250.
9 Q. You mean Muslims only?
10 A. No, no, altogether. Only Muslims?
11 Q. The place of Sovici has 250 inhabitants altogether?
12 A. I'm not saying I'm not sure if that is the correct number.
13 Q. But what would be the maximum figure?
14 A. Well, if I now said -- I don't know who lives there still.
15 Q. I'm asking you before the 17th of April, 1993.
16 A. I can't, I can't really tell you. I can't give you the exact
17 number, how many.
18 Q. But not more than 300, is it?
19 A. No, I think there are.
20 Q. But I'm asking you, then tell me. You said around 250. I'm
21 asking you what is the highest figure.
22 A. Well, I have no idea. Perhaps 400, could have been. I cannot
23 tell you exactly.
24 Q. I am not asking you down to a last man. I'm asking you to tell us
25 what you know.
1 A. Well --
2 Q. So please focus on my question, and then all this will be much
3 quicker and easier. What do you say could be the largest number of
4 inhabitants in Sovici altogether?
5 A. You mean Muslims and Croats? I've already told you.
6 Q. I'm repeating to you for the third time --
7 A. Well, now, let me say 500.
8 Q. And of those 500, what was the percentage -- what was the share of
9 Muslims and what was the share of Croats?
10 A. 50 per cent. 50 per cent Muslims, 50 per cent Croats.
11 Q. Do you know -- did you hear of the Mijat Tomic Battalion?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. When did it come into being?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Was it made only from Croats from Sovici?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what about Muslims?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What? No what?
20 A. Well, in those of late --
21 Q. Please, when was the Mijat Tomic Battalion founded? At that time,
22 what units -- where were the Muslims, in what unit?
23 A. They were in the Territorial Defence, and then nothing, and only
24 later was the army of BH established.
25 Q. At that time when Mijat Tomic came into being, was there at the
1 same time the Territorial Defence of Muslims and Croats?
2 A. No, no, no, no, no. When the attack took place. It was no
3 longer --
4 Q. I'm not talking about the defence, Witness, please.
5 A. Please let me tell you. There was a Territorial Defence while the
6 Muslims and Croats were together. As soon as they were organised -- I
7 didn't keep record of this, but as soon as the attack happened, there was
8 no more Territorial Defence. There were no other battalions because the
9 Croats went to one side. The Muslims and Croats parted ways.
10 Q. Don't tell me, don't give me -- don't tell tales, just answer my
12 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Fourmy. I apologise for the
13 interruption, but may I say that we will object to remarks from counsel
14 such as the one that was just said about, "Don't tell tales, just answer
15 my questions." I think the witness has answered repeatedly counsel's
16 questions along these lines, and I will continue to object to comments
17 from counsel in which they add comments such as, "Don't tell tales."
18 I think it's for the Judges and the finders of fact in this case
19 to determine issues concerning credibility, including issues regarding the
20 credibility of Mr. Lulic. But the questions have been asked and answered
21 repeatedly, and if counsel's not happy with the answers he's getting, it's
22 unfortunate, but it's what happens during trials, and we will object when
23 counsel makes comments to responses which are not in line with his
24 expectations or wishes. Thank you.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, I must respond to my
1 learned colleague. That is absolutely not so as Mr. Stringer is
2 presenting it. The witness refuses to answer my questions. He evades
3 answering my questions because he simply does not want to answer my
4 questions. So my learned friend, Mr. Stringer, allow me that I'm really
5 having trouble with this witness. From all the answers that we manage to
6 get out of him --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll answer all your questions.
8 Don't say that. I'm answering all your questions.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Fourmy and Mr. Krsnik were speaking in the
10 same language [sic].
11 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I think the Prosecutor has made a
12 remark regarding the repetitive nature of the questions you are asking as
13 compared to the answers you are being given. The advantage of having a
14 written transcript and a recording such as we do have is that the Judges,
15 when the time comes, can have a full insight into what happened and
16 specifically into the answers given to the questions put. But if we all
17 have to wait for each time when we ask a question to have to continue
18 asking it until we get the answer we want, I am not sure that we will ever
19 come to the end of it.
20 You have asked quite clear questions. You don't get an answer or
21 you get an answer that you don't want, all this appears in the
22 transcript. You continue with other questions that you wish to put.
23 However, Mr. Lulic, I'm asking you to be careful and to answer the
24 questions put to you, even briefly, not to forget that it seems to me that
25 we agreed that you should address the Defence counsel using the polite
1 term. Is that agreed? I'm asking you to do that. I'm requesting you to
2 do that. So please do this, at least for my sake. Make an effort. At
3 least, that will please me.
4 And one final point, Mr. Krsnik and Mr. Lulic. I know it is
5 difficult because you are speaking the same language, but you have to slow
6 down a little bit, please, because otherwise not only will you not get the
7 answers to your questions, but the record will not reflect the questions
8 and the answers in the way that they were uttered.
9 So please move on, Mr. Krsnik, or rephrase your question so as to
10 help the witness answer it.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] The Witness just said and belied the
13 Prosecutor and this did not enter the transcript. Page 62, line 3, he,
14 the witness, said to me, "You have to work hard with me. You have to have
15 a hard time with me."
16 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I'm sorry for intervening again. I
17 heard that. I don't know whether it appears in English, but let me tell
18 you, I heard it in French. And the advantage of working in two languages,
19 as we can't work in three --
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] But not in English. The witness said
21 quite clearly to counsel, "I am going to give you a hard time."
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you say you're going to have --
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, Mr. Krsnik.
1 Mr. Krsnik, if you would allow me to finish my sentence in the way
2 I am allowing you to finish yours, though we sometimes overlap due to
3 interpretation, but I'm trying to be helpful to all.
4 I think that yesterday, within a slightly different atmosphere, we
5 took into consideration the fact that each one of us has a different
6 specialty from the others. Some are more professional than others. So if
7 you allow it, I appeal to your professionalism, and I don't doubt that
8 that is the same in all the countries of the world, to take upon yourself
9 and to continue your cross-examination with the questions you wish to put
10 to the witness, if necessary, rephrasing them so as to overcome an
11 obstacle which I'm sure you're able to overcome. So Mr. Krsnik, you have
12 the floor.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The Mijat Tomic Battalion, where was it on the 17th of April?
15 A. I'm not interested in that, and I don't know.
16 Q. In the village of Sovici, were there trenches, snipers' nests?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Who was the commander of the Mijat Tomic Battalion?
19 A. I don't know that, either.
20 Q. Who was the commander of the Territorial Defence?
21 A. Dzemal Ovnovic.
22 Q. Did the TO have checkpoints in Sovici?
23 A. I'm sorry, I don't know.
24 Q. When the HVO was in Sovici, when was the first time that you saw
25 HVO on the 17th of April?
1 A. When I was captured.
2 Q. When was that?
3 A. On the 17th of April, 1993.
4 Q. Do you remember the time?
5 A. I beg your pardon?
6 Q. Do you remember at what time that was? Was it evening or --
7 A. About 9.00 or 10.00 in the evening.
8 Q. Was that the Mijat Tomic HVO or someone else?
9 A. I don't know. They were all wearing the same camouflage
10 uniforms. It was nighttime. I couldn't see, and you didn't dare look.
11 Q. You did not recognise your neighbours in uniform?
12 A. No. I would tell you if I had recognised them.
13 Q. What insignia were they wearing?
14 A. I can't tell you that. It was night-time. I couldn't see.
15 Q. Did you ever see any insignia?
16 A. I didn't have time to see. I spent one night in the school and
17 then went to the camp.
18 Q. How do you know then who they belonged to?
19 A. Of course I knew, when the attack occurred.
20 Q. Just a moment. A moment ago you said you didn't see anything and
21 you couldn't see anything. My question now is: How can you know?
22 A. I didn't say I didn't see them. I did see them. And I will not
23 allow -- I said I did not go to any front line. I was visiting my
24 mother-in-law. I wasn't at any front line. And the attack started in the
25 morning about 8.30, and it went on until the evening. That evening I went
1 to the school, I was captured, and that's it.
2 Q. That is not an answer to my question.
3 A. Well, then, okay. Don't ask me things that don't matter.
4 Q. You said half a minute ago that it was night-time and that you
5 didn't see any insignia and you didn't recognise anyone.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I'm asking you the question a second time. How did you know then
8 which units they belonged to, those soldiers?
9 A. I knew as soon as the attack occurred. Can't you understand
10 that? Those TO defence members were up there on the line, maybe some 15
11 of them, and they were attacked by the HVO, and Tuta, and his Convicts
13 Q. How do you know it was the Convicts Battalion?
14 A. I know directly. There were 15 people. He brought 300 or 500 men
15 to Risovac. That is my native place. I know everything. Tuta came. I'm
16 sorry. But after all, it's not my fault. Maybe it was not his fault,
17 maybe he got orders from someone else, but he came. We were captured
18 there. Nobody captured me. I came to see what was happening. Tuta
19 came. The gentleman came. He lined us up in front of the school. You've
20 seen the photograph.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, this is not responsive to
22 my questions. Unless my learned friend Stringer has an objection --
23 A. What do you want me to say to you?
24 MR. STRINGER: Again, Mr. Fourmy, I think the witness responded
25 properly to the question, which was: "How do you know it was the Convicts
1 Battalion?" It appears, from the English translation, I think the witness
2 is being responsive to the question.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My learned friend Mr. Stringer -- is
4 an answer, I know, because he was at Risovac. Is that an answer? And
5 then he continues to tell a story, the one he wants, regardless of my
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not going to tell you what you
8 want me to tell you. I'm not going to say "V" to you but "T". Do you
9 understand that?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Meaning he's going to use the familiar
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not afraid of truth and justice
13 anywhere in the world. You understand that? You can ask me if you wish.
14 If not, I can stop right there.
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, please.
16 Mr. Lulic, no. We need your answers for us to stop answering [as
17 interpreted] questions. So please don't stop answering questions.
18 Mr. Krsnik, I think that frequently in a courtroom we are exposed
19 to frustration. Perhaps now you're more exposed to such frustration than
20 we would want, but there's not much we can do. You put your question.
21 You get a certain answer. Please go on to your next question. Thank
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] If we were during the
24 examination-in-chief, then perhaps you would be inclined to resort some to
25 other measures, but I will say that when the witness leaves.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you won't. You'll say it while
2 I'm here.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. How do you know that the Convicts Battalion was at Risovac?
5 A. Well, you see, I don't care.
6 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Will you answer the question,
7 Mr. Lulic. Mr. Lulic, when you're answering the questions, it's not to
8 Mr. Krsnik. You're giving these answers so that the Judges should know
9 what you know. If you don't answer Mr. Krsnik's question, then the Judge
10 will not know whether you know something or you don't know anything.
11 Do you understand what I'm saying to you? You know certain
12 things. These things are what the Prosecutor would like you to describe,
13 and also the Defence wants you to describe them for the benefit of the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He understands as well as I, so why
16 does he need me to tell him about it? How can I answer the question:
17 "How come you don't know?" I was captured the next day. The next day
18 when I reached Risovac, I saw a thousand HVO and HV soldiers there.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
20 Q. How do you know?
21 A. Of course I know.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, in answer to the question
23 put to you, "How did you know that the Convicts Battalion was at Risovac?"
24 You answered, "Because" -- you just said, "Because the next day I went to
25 Risovac and I saw thousands of Croatian soldiers there." That is a simple
1 answer to a simple question. That's all we're asking of you.
2 Don't think that we're trying to trap you in any way. You are
3 telling us that you know that the Convicts Battalion was at Risovac
4 because you saw them. Perhaps the answer could be, "Because my friend X
5 told me," or, "Because I saw them on television," or, "I heard about it on
6 radio." These are stupid questions, as you are a prisoner, but that's
7 what I'm trying to tell you. We're not asking you to do anything
8 complicated. If you saw them there because you were there, then you tell
9 us that, very simply. Do we agree now?
10 Mr. Krsnik, I hope I have contributed.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Fourmy, for your
13 Q. You told us this was the next day, but in your statement, you said
14 you knew that they were there at Risovac before the attack. So my
15 question is: How did you know? The next day is the next day?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. Well, how do you know?
18 A. When the attack was in the morning and went on until the evening,
19 and I knew where the attack came from. How could I know or where could I
20 go? I was there.
21 Q. How did you know who attacked you?
22 A. Tuta's Convicts Battalion and the Croatian army, that Croatian
24 Q. What do you mean "that Croatian army"?
25 A. I mean not the Yugoslav army.
1 Q. How did you know it was Tuta's Convicts Battalion and that
2 Croatian army?
3 A. They came in the evening to Sovici in front of the school. Tuta
4 came. He lined us all up there, and he had said that we had organised a
5 armed rebellion against the legal Croatian army.
6 Q. We haven't got there yet.
7 A. Then I won't talk to you. I'm not going to -- don't ask me any
8 thing else any more then.
9 Q. What did you just say?
10 A. Don't ask me anything any more. I'm telling you what happened. I
11 will never forget him, but I wouldn't like to meet him ever again. I know
12 him. Did any one of his members, family members with his surname?
13 Q. Why? What do you mean?
14 A. He knows why I said that.
15 Q. Do you hate him?
16 A. Of course.
17 Q. Why do you hate him?
18 A. Because he's a criminal. He's no better than I am. I could be a
19 better criminal than he is. No problem.
20 Q. But you want to take your revenge on him?
21 A. Of course I would. Of course I would. No problem.
22 Q. You want to take your revenge on him?
23 A. I don't know. Maybe if I met him tomorrow, then perhaps I would
24 be in the prison here in The Hague and not he.
25 Q. And what you're saying, all that is true?
1 A. Yes. It is the sorry truth.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Did you shoot with your M48 rifle?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Who gave you permission to go and visit your mother-in-law?
7 A. Who gave me permission? I gave myself permission. Who else?
8 Q. You said that you knew that the Convicts Battalion was at Risovac,
9 so you knew there would be an attack.
10 A. No. I didn't say that I knew. I said that morning I knew when I
11 was at my mother-in-law's. I didn't know two or three or five days
13 Q. The TO had sufficient weapons?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Didn't you care about your neighbours?
16 A. I wasn't on the front line. I didn't go to the front line. I had
17 a rifle. I was a reservist. This didn't interest me.
18 Q. What do you want a rifle for when you're not going to the front
20 A. Can't you have a rifle of your own? Isn't that your right?
21 Q. You're trying to say that you had a sufficient number of weapons
22 so that in view of the danger of war, anyone who wanted to could carry a
24 A. No, no.
25 Q. What then?
1 A. I'm not telling you about what other people were doing and what
2 weapons they were carrying. I'm responsible for myself.
3 Q. I'm asking you nicely. Didn't you care about your neighbours? If
4 your neighbour didn't have a weapon and you would give it him to go to the
5 front line? Didn't somebody take care about the arming of the TO?
6 A. Gentlemen, I don't know. Nobody asked me whether I would go or
7 not. I was a big man. For me, I'm a doctor of sciences. That army or
8 anyone in it, no one interested me. I could buy whoever I wanted. I
9 could buy him up.
10 Q. And who did you buy then?
11 A. Whoever I wanted, ranging from the court, to be relieved of
12 everything. I could do whatever I wanted. But none of that is illegal.
13 Q. So you think if you buy a court that that is not illegal?
14 A. Yes. If you or me do that, it is illegal, but nobody knows about
16 Q. Did you ever buy a court or, rather, bribe a court?
17 A. No. I was never in court. I was never in prison. This was the
18 first personal defeat for me when I was in the camp, in my life as a
20 Q. What do you mean "defeat"?
21 A. Because I was defeated by this Convicts Battalion, by the Croatian
22 army, by sending me to the camp.
23 Q. And this angers you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that is why you're full of hatred?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. But what did Tuta do to you in all that?
3 A. I am not here to convict Tuta or Stela. I'm just saying what
5 Q. But you said you hate him and you would kill him.
6 A. Of course I would. I was in prison for a year without any
7 reason. Because I was a Muslim, perhaps. It would have been better for
8 him to have killed me.
9 Q. Because you're going to take your revenge on him?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. Would you take your revenge on his family?
12 A. Yes, everyone, no problem.
13 Q. So you would hurt his children, perhaps?
14 A. Yes, if he had a child of one year. That's why I'm saying I could
15 be a worse criminal than he was.
16 Q. So you would be capable of killing a year-old child?
17 A. Yes, of course, because the Croats have taught me how to be a
18 criminal. I was never a criminal.
19 Q. Do you know Marinko Zelenika?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Didn't he save your mother?
22 A. I can't tell you that, but I did hear about it because I was in
23 the camp.
24 Q. You heard that Marinko Zelenika saved your own mother?
25 A. Yes. I don't know why he saved her.
1 Q. But you heard that he had saved her?
2 A. Yes, I heard it. He was my kum.
3 Q. Do you know what happened to him?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. Do you know that close to Sovici at Stipica Livade his throat was
6 cut by members of the BH army?
7 A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry about that. I understand. But I didn't do
9 Q. No one is saying that you did.
10 A. I'm sorry for that man. I went to see my neighbours. I visited
11 them in 1996, 1997. Someone else did that. And again, it wasn't members
12 of the Sovici Territorial Defence. Somebody else did it. I was told
13 about it by my neighbours, and I'm sorry about that.
14 Q. Don't you have a bad conscience that a man who saved your mother
15 two months later, and I apologise for the expression, was slaughtered by
16 members of the BH army?
17 A. Am I to blame for that?
18 Q. But where does the hatred come from? Not all Croats are like
20 A. No, no.
21 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. --
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, you have a comment to
24 MR. STRINGER: I apologise for interrupting. I have two comments
25 or objections, if you will. The first is relevance. I don't know that
1 this testimony is relevant to these proceedings or these -- the
2 accusations against either of the accused in this case.
3 Secondly, this is something that's far beyond the scope of the
4 direct examination of the witness which I think is, under the Rules,
5 within reason serves as some sort of a limitation or measure for the scope
6 of the cross-examination. And I know that counsel wants to discuss issues
7 involving credibility of the witness, but I think that at this point we've
8 gone far beyond relevant cross-examination regarding issues of
9 credibility, and so we object and would ask if counsel could be directed
10 to move on to a different subject.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, I do apologise. Perhaps
12 I don't quite understand. What have I been doing for 20 years as an
13 attorney? I really did not manage to understand what my learned friend
14 Mr. Stringer was saying. Maybe you could assist me.
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I think you know. One always
16 learns --
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do apologise. When the witness is
18 talking on his own and answering questions from the Prosecution, then it's
19 fine; and when he's talking spontaneously and is not responsive to the
20 question, then it's not okay. So whatever he has said, he said on his
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I won't say anything if you don't
23 ask me.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Of course, if that is the agreement
25 you and I make.
1 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, if I understand what the
2 Prosecutor told you, it was that, as we mentioned yesterday, the general
3 idea is to try for the cross-examination to fit within the framework of
4 the direct examination. There is a kind of an exception in the Rules, and
5 that is the possibility for testing the credibility of a witness. And
6 what applies to the Defence today will apply for the Prosecution tomorrow.
7 Simply, it appears that the last questions that you put to the
8 witness are going along that line. They were questions that affect the
9 credibility of this witness, but clearly going far beyond what appeared in
10 the examination-in-chief and also far beyond the scope that is necessary
11 for testing the credibility of this particular witness.
12 As for the need that you had to ask these questions in view of the
13 responses of the witness and his personal comments, it is you who asked
14 the witness whether he knew a person, whose name I did not manage to take
15 note of - and I asked you yesterday to be careful about names - you
16 mentioned somebody who saved his mother. This is quite a new issue, and
17 it is normal, faced with a new area, that the witness gets into the door
18 that you have opened, so that once again, you have the advantage of
19 command of events which everyone does not have. So please focus on the
20 facts on one side and the credibility on the other, if you think that is
21 necessary, and we will somehow manage to get through this.
22 It is 12.34. Unless you think you can finish very quickly, I
23 would suggest that we have the lunch break now.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I would like a break because I should
25 like to consult with my colleagues. This doesn't mean that I will
1 continue with the cross-examination. But I would have a suggestion
2 regarding the witness, thank you, when the witness leaves.
3 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] I see. So we're now going to have an
4 hour and a half break, 90 minutes, and we will meet again after that.
5 Mr. Krsnik, very quickly, please, before the break proper.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I would like to ask my learned
7 friends opposite to assist me because they are experts. We have all come
8 to the conclusion by the way the witness speaks and behaves that the
9 witness is drunk. That is our impression. I wanted to suggest an alcohol
10 test. These are, after all, deposition statements, so I don't know, but
11 some time has gone by since the morning. Maybe he's already sobered a
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy --
14 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
15 MR. STRINGER: -- I think I can make two observations, the first
16 of which is that I recall from the decision of the Trial Chamber which
17 approved the deposition procedure which is taking place, and I recall
18 specifically the Trial Chamber's decision in which they stated that the
19 witnesses who appear in these deposition proceedings and who are therefore
20 not appearing before the full Trial Chamber are witnesses who, in terms of
21 the weight that will be given their evidence, is somewhat less than the
22 weight that would be afforded witnesses who, in fact, appear before the
23 full Trial Chamber.
24 If the Trial Chamber were here, they would, of course, have had
25 the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witness and to make
1 whatever judgments they chose as to all aspects of his testimony,
2 including his demeanour. But the Trial Chamber is not here, and it's
3 because of that that the Trial Chamber that hears this case is going to
4 afford this witness and the other deposition witnesses less weight than
5 those who appear before him. So I think that that's something that ought
6 to be considered when we talk about credibility and whether or not the
7 witness's demeanour suggests that he was in some state or not.
8 I mean, the fact is, the Trial Chamber isn't in a position to
9 judge, and the remedy for that is not an alcohol test. I think the remedy
10 for that is already found in the Trial Chamber's decision, which is that
11 this and the other witnesses are going to receive less weight than those
12 who actually appear before them during the trial.
13 Secondly, we oppose an alcohol test. I don't see any point to it.
14 The witness is here. He's testifying. His testimony is in the record.
15 Counsel's done a very effective job in bringing out the very strong
16 feelings that he has about at least one of the accused, and I just don't
17 see any point in subjecting this witness, who is, after all, a victim, to
18 some sort of a humiliating alcohol test in order to enable counsel to
19 further try to test his credibility, which is all, really, what we're
20 talking about.
21 In my view, they have very effectively tested his credibility so
22 far, and to subject him to some test would be over the objection of the
23 Prosecutor. I'm not aware of any basis in the Rules of Procedure and
24 Evidence to order such a test, and we would oppose it. Thank you.
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik or Mr. Seric, do you wish
1 to add anything?
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I know that the depositions are
3 covered only by Rule 71, and we know what your authority is and ours, but
4 this was simply our conclusion. This was our suggestion. We are going to
5 have a break now, so perhaps we can see what is to be done after the
6 break. But if I am causing any difficulties for you, the Defence will
7 withdraw that suggestion, so we won't insist on it.
8 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] As they say in French, Mr. Krsnik, I
9 think I jumped on your suggestion, and also I jump on your suggestion that
10 we break now, and we will meet again at 2.00 p.m. The hearing is
12 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.12 p.m.
2 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] This session is resumed. Please sit
4 Mr. Krsnik, Mr. Seric, can we have the witness brought in?
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes indeed. Thank you.
6 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Lulic, can you hear me? Did you
7 have some rest?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very well.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. We shall now resume. I
10 don't know. Mr. Krsnik, do you want to continue your cross-examination or
11 did you finish and is it now Mr. Seric's turn to take the floor?
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, after the analysis I
13 conducted with my colleague, I believe this is quite enough. The
14 cross-examination we've conducted so far will suffice. Thank you.
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Seric, you have the
16 floor. You can begin your cross-examination.
17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] My co-counsellor, Zelimir Par, will
18 undertake the cross-examination of this witness.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] May I begin?
20 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, please do, Mr. Par.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Par:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Lulic.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. I am Zelimir Par, a lawyer, and I shall ask you some questions on
25 behalf of the accused Vinko Martinovic. My questions relate to an event
1 that you mentioned in today's testimony and which has to do with Vinko
3 However, before we do that, I should like to ask you to tell us
4 something about yourself in just a few words, because during your
5 testimony today, you tried to say something repeatedly and were given no
6 opportunity to do that. So that I should like to ask you, since I see
7 that you speak English well, is it that you now live abroad?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell us where?
10 A. Must I say?
11 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. May we go into private session,
12 Mr. Fourmy? Is it possible?
13 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam Registrar, can we go into
14 private session? But I think there is nobody in the public gallery.
15 THE INTERPRETER: And meanwhile, will the counsel and the witness
16 please pause between question and answer.
17 [Private session]
12 Page 713 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 714 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 715 – redacted – private session.
1 [Open session]
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Right. Mr. Lulic, we can resume. I
4 apologise for this interruption. There are always some slight procedural
5 problems. We resolved something that truly wasn't a problem, and now
6 Mr. Par can begin his cross-examination, and to thank you for the answers
7 that you will give him.
8 Yes, Mr. Par.
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Lulic, we -- I asked you something, but meanwhile, we agreed
11 that you don't have to tell me what country you reside in now, because
12 that is not what I'm interested in. My question is whether you live
13 abroad at present, and you said, "Yes."
14 A. So I did.
15 Q. Can you tell us, please, what status do you enjoy in the country
16 that you now live in? Do you have an asylum? Are you a refugee?
17 A. I'm a citizen.
18 Q. Oh, I see. You are a citizen of that country.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Can you tell me -- can you tell me, when did you acquire that
22 A. I was a refugee.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and witness please break
24 between question and answer.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. And what about your family? Is your family with you? Did they
2 leave with you?
3 A. Yes, they did.
4 Q. Can you tell us the date when you left Bosnia-Herzegovina?
5 A. No. I won't tell you that.
6 Q. Can you give me a year, roughly?
7 A. It was five years ago.
8 Q. Oh, I see. Five years ago.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So it means somewhere around 1996, thereabouts, isn't it?
11 THE INTERPRETER: The witness nods.
12 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Very well. I won't bother you too much about your status. Can
14 you tell us what do you do? What is your profession or what did you do?
15 A. Must I really say this?
16 Q. You don't have to if you don't want to.
17 A. Well, then I won't tell you what I am.
18 Q. You mentioned today in your testimony an event related to Vinko
19 Martinovic, didn't you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You gave several statements related to your wartime experience and
22 all that you went through during the war. Do you remember how many
23 statements did you give about things that happened to you during the war?
24 How many times did you give some statements about it?
25 A. Well, I'd say not less than four times.
1 Q. Do you perhaps remember who was it that you gave those statements
2 to, what authorities?
3 A. Authorities. Well, I mean, The Hague Tribunal. I don't know the
4 name. I mean --
5 Q. No, no, no. I just wanted to know the authorities. So it was The
6 Hague Tribunal. Somebody else?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Very well. I have here a statement which was given us by The
9 Hague Tribunal. It is a statement that you allegedly gave at the security
10 services centre in Mostar.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I won't bother you too much with this. I will just give it to
13 show it to you and ask you if this is your signature.
14 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Will the usher please help me? And if
15 it could be put on the ELMO, please. The Prosecutor knows which statement
16 I mean.
17 MR. STRINGER: Is this dated the 30th of December, 1995.
18 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, that is the statement. I also have
19 a copy for Mr. Fourmy.
20 A. I don't think so. Nope.
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Did you have a look at the signature?
23 A. Yes. That's what I'm looking at. Nope. No.
24 Q. Would you be then ready to sign on a piece of paper so that we can
25 compare it?
1 A. No problem.
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask the usher to give
3 Mr. Lulic this sheet of paper and a pen.
4 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Par, if I may. Before we move
5 on, the first thing, I think that the Prosecutor mentioned the date, the
6 30th of December, 1995, and on the page that we have on the ELMO, we have
7 a different date. Now, I do not know whether the two pages which are
8 joined together, do they make part of one in the same document or don't
9 they? Because what I have here is the 1st March 1994. On the page-- on
10 the first document is the 30th December 1995, and I just don't know
11 whether this is one and the same document or two documents or are they two
12 different documents?
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] The -- this document contains two
14 different documents. I don't know which one was shown the witness, but
15 let us clarify. So this is the statement made on the 30th of December,
16 1995, which has two pages.
17 So on the second page there is only a short passage, and it says:
18 "Security Services Mostar, State Security Centre Mostar, 30 December
20 This is the statement which we received from the Prosecution. And
21 could my learned friend please confirm if that is the statement?
22 I do not know, Mr. Fourmy, if you have this statement before you.
23 Shall we give this statement to the witness again?
24 Q. Mr. Lulic, will you please look at this statement. Is that the
25 statement? And will you sign it, please?
1 THE INTERPRETER: The witness commented inaudibly.
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Fourmy, have we resolved the
3 problem, or is there still something which is vague?
4 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Par. I think only I must
5 admit that it is my unfamiliarity with the B/C/S so that I took one date
6 as the date of the signature on the second page. But Mr. Par, do you want
7 to tender it into evidence? Of course, the admission will be decided, we
8 agree upon that. You may tender it for the signature of the witness, is
9 that it?
10 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I wish to tender it. The witness said
11 that this was not his signature, and now I should like to ask the witness
12 to sign on the sheet of paper so that we can compare the signatures, and
13 then both the statement and this sheet of paper with the signature I
14 should like to tender into evidence as a Defence exhibit.
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. Your Honour [sic], we have
17 no objection to receiving or having the statement put into evidence.
18 Might I suggest the witness be given one -- I don't think he was given an
19 opportunity to read it, and if it's acceptable, could I ask that the
20 witness first just be given an opportunity to examine the document and,
21 again, to see whether he can recognise it as something that ...
22 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] May I say something, please? I see two
23 issues here. One is the contents of the document that my learned friend
24 is referring to, and the second issue is the signature. Now we're dealing
25 with the signature. The witness said this was not his signature, and we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 asked him to sign a piece of paper. After that, the witness, yes, can be
2 given time to read the document because the contents is not something that
3 is particularly new, really.
4 So can we please finish first the matter of the signature.
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
6 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, we're happy to proceed however you
7 decide we should proceed.
8 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. May I ask Madam Registrar
9 to give us a number for this statement dated the 30th of December, 1995,
10 bearing a signature of which the witness has said that it is not his.
11 Perhaps you could also give us the number of the document -- a number for
12 the document that the witness is going to sign at the request of the
14 THE REGISTRAR: The first document will be labelled D2/1. The
15 second document will be D2/2.
16 I'd also like to just make a quick note that these exhibits that
17 are tendered need to also be tendered in English as well.
18 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] May I respond to that immediately
19 regarding the translation into English? We are aware that we should have
20 English translations; however, due to the custom of the Registry, which we
21 fully respect, we have recently been receiving documents in the Croatian
22 documents, which suits us perfectly.
23 We hope that the Prosecutor has these reports in English as well
24 for their needs, and I would ask the Prosecution, since we do not have
25 official translations and I feel that we do need official translations,
1 could our friends from the Prosecution assist us by giving us, if they
2 have it, a copy of the English translation.
3 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
4 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. Yes, we have the English
5 translation of this statement in the courtroom, and we're happy to make it
6 available. I have only two copies of it with me, but I'm happy to furnish
7 those to whomever you direct.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. We will
10 have a copy made and provide the Registry with it.
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] May I proceed?
12 Q. We were talking about the signature. Mr. Lulic, will you be kind
13 enough to put your signature to that paper.
14 A. [Marks]
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. Mr. Lulic,
16 could you please put today's date on that document, just the date. It is
17 the 24th of July, 2001.
18 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. Could you please place that document under the ELMO so
20 that we can all see the signature. I think that obviously these two
21 signatures differ.
22 A. I would have told you that. No problem.
23 Q. Do you still have a copy of the statement with you? Would you now
24 please look at this statement briefly, and in the first place at the top
25 you will see some particulars about you. So will you just look and tell
1 us whether those particulars are correct. If anything is incorrect,
2 please let us know.
3 A. The particulars are okay.
4 Q. Could you please take this statement into your hands and read
5 through it, and then I can ask you something about it.
6 So you've had a chance to look at it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you please tell me, did you give such a statement to the
9 security services centre of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. No. All this is clear to me. All this did happen, but it says
11 that it happened in Ljubuski. But no, these are two different camps. All
12 this did happen, but I didn't make this statement.
13 Q. My question is not whether this happened. My question is whether
14 you gave that statement.
15 A. No. No, I did not.
16 Q. So you said that you remember giving about four statements to
17 representatives of The Hague Tribunal. Do you remember whether in any of
18 those statements you mentioned this incident that you told us today linked
19 to Stela?
20 A. I believe I did.
21 Q. I must tell you that in the statements that we have, you did not
22 mention this ever, that you told us this for the first time today.
23 Actually, our learned friends told us prior to today's hearing that you
24 would be mentioning this incident.
25 So my question is how come that you should have told us about this
1 for the first time today?
2 A. As I was saying, all this did happen, but I never made this
3 statement in Mostar to anyone.
4 Q. Let us now address that incident itself and try and reconstruct
5 it. You told us that you saw Stela only that once.
6 A. Only once, yes.
7 Q. On that day, as far as I was able to understand, you were taken
8 from the Heliodrom to Santiceva.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And all this was happening in Santiceva, Kantarevac, the fourth
11 gymnasium, and so on.
12 A. That was where the line was.
13 Q. Do you know which line was held by Stela's unit exactly?
14 A. No, I don't know.
15 Q. Did you know what kind of unit he had, what its name was, how many
16 men it numbered?
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. Tell me, please, you said that there was some shooting going on.
19 A. Yes. There was operation ongoing. Maybe it was the last one.
20 Q. Who was with you in that group? Can you remember?
21 A. Yes, I can remember. There were about 30 of us from the camp.
22 This used to be a civilian prison there, and when we were supposed to go
23 to the line, they took us from the prison to the separation line. We were
24 digging bunkers and trenches.
25 Q. So it was Santiceva?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you personally see Stela?
3 A. Yes, directly.
4 Q. You said that he was shooting?
5 A. Yes. No. I'm sorry for everyone. Stela lined us up against a
6 wall, a building. I don't remember the name of the building. And he
7 fired a burst above us. He wanted to kill us all.
8 Q. What do you mean kill you?
9 A. No. It's a way of speech. I'm sorry for everyone, but that's how
10 it was.
11 Q. So my question is, your back was turned when the shooting took
12 place. You heard it yes, of course you heard it, but did you hear it and
13 see it, or did you just hear it?
14 A. How could you see it when he was there five metres in front of us
15 with your --
16 Q. So you were there with your back turned?
17 A. Yes, and the plaster was falling from the facade.
18 Q. Were there other soldiers with rifles around?
19 A. Yes, there were, but I can't tell you whether they were doing
20 anything or not.
21 Q. Did any of them -- could any of them have fired the shots?
22 A. He was there. He knows very well. There's a relative of mine who
23 is his colleague.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please stop interrupting the
1 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. We are almost done. Does this mean that this incident happened in
3 Santiceva Street near the prison?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further questions.
6 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Par.
7 Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any additional questions for this
9 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. Fourmy, some brief questions.
10 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
11 Re-examined by Mr. Stringer:
12 Q. Mr. Lulic --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- now I'm going to ask you just a couple of questions and then
15 you'll be finished with your testimony, all right?
16 A. [In English] Okay.
17 Q. Now, I just want to be clear in your testimony. Mr. Par was
18 questioning you about this document which is in the B/C/S language.
19 MR. STRINGER: And Mr. Fourmy, could I ask the registrar to put
20 this back in front of the witness. It doesn't need to be on the ELMO, but
21 if I could just ask that it be given to the witness again. This is
22 Exhibit D2/1.
23 Q. And while that's happening, Mr. Lulic, let me ask you: You said
24 that you were, you said that you were exchanged and left the Heliodrom, I
25 believe in March or April of 1994; is that correct?
1 A. [Interpretation] March, not April. March. Can I show you my
3 Q. No, it's not important. The year was 1994?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Now, do you recall whether sometime after that, a year
6 or so after that, you spoke to any investigators or representatives of the
7 Bosnian Agency For Information, so-called AID, to tell them about your
8 experience that you've talked about today?
9 A. [In English] Okay, no problem. [Interpretation] In Mostar I
10 didn't give any statements. This maybe could be the statement that I gave
11 to The Hague Tribunal in Sarajevo, but not in Mostar.
12 Q. My question was, let me just ask you, do you remember -- don't
13 worry about the place. Do you remember giving a statement or telling the
14 Bosnian authorities about what had happened to you?
15 A. No. Only I had a talk, an interview, with a Hague Tribunal in
16 Sarajevo. People came to Sarajevo and called us to talk to them. This
17 was a team of experts in Sarajevo, and that is where I made my statement.
18 I never made a statement in Mostar to anyone, nor did anyone ask me to do
20 MR. STRINGER: Could I just have a moment, Mr. Fourmy.
21 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. STRINGER:
24 Q. Now, Mr. Lulic, you testified that you met with Tribunal people on
25 a number of occasions. I think you said four or so. Is that correct?
1 A. I think so.
2 Q. And was one of those occasions earlier this year when you met with
3 me and another person from the Tribunal in the place where you currently
5 A. That was this year once, and before that, maybe six years ago when
6 I was living in Sarajevo.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. I may have gone there twice or three times, I think.
9 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to focus on the last time earlier this year,
10 and my question, do you recall meeting with me and another person from the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Yes, okay. And do you remember, do you remember signing a
14 document at that time that was made? Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall there was, there was a woman in the place where you
17 work who helped you sign that?
18 A. [In English] Okay.
19 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, could I ask the witness be shown this
20 exhibit. It's not numbered. I can place a number on it or if the
21 registrar -- 57. If we could number this Exhibit 57. [Interpretation]
22 Not to put on the ELMO. Shall I proceed?
23 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, two points. The
24 number 57, does that suit you?
25 And on the other hand, Prosecutor, do you wish to have it tendered
1 under seal? Is it a confidential document?
2 MR. STRINGER: Yes, because it will disclose the current residence
3 of the witness.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy?
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Would you have a copy for the Defence
6 or is it part of the documents that you have already disclosed to Defence
7 under your obligations to disclose?
8 MR. STRINGER: I regret that I do not have a copy of it here.
9 However, this was disclosed. It's my belief and intent that, yes, this
10 was disclosed to the Defence earlier this year.
11 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] First of all, until we see the
13 document, we can't say whether it was disclosed or not. We have to see it
14 first and then be able to tell you.
15 But a more important question for me is something that we
16 discussed yesterday and agreed to deal with it in the break. That is, the
17 numbering of documents. I really can't understand this system of
18 numbering. Now why do we have 57? We have D1, D2, then Mr. Scott
19 suggested that their exhibits be marked with Z.
20 So could we, in the first break, together with the Registry staff,
21 come to a final arrangement as to how these exhibits will be entered into
22 the record, because otherwise, we'll not be able to follow, least of all
23 the Defence. And this is a very serious objection on my part. So could
24 we please deal with it before we even start tendering documents for
1 So could the gentleman from the Prosecution give us this statement
2 to look at and then we'll be able to tell you whether we are familiar with
3 it or not.
4 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Par.
5 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, I should like to object to
6 the presentation of this document in this way, because I believe that it
7 was the practice of the Tribunal for the Defence to be familiarised with a
8 document in a timely fashion. That is one reason we don't have to be too
9 strict over that point, and I am not too emphatic about it, but I do think
10 that perhaps it would be a good idea if Mr. Stringer would explain to us
11 the purpose of showing this document to the witness so that we can see
12 whether this is something we can agree with or not, since we, too, have
13 had to explain some of the procedural steps we took.
14 So would the Prosecutor please explain to us what his aim is in
15 presenting this document.
16 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Par.
17 Perhaps while Mr. Stringer is giving you an answer, we can ask the
18 usher to make a few copies of the document which the witness has before
19 him. So, Mr. Usher, could you do that, and we can continue our
21 Mr. Stringer.
22 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy. First of all, I want to
23 apologise. I've been corrected. The witness [sic] was not disclosed to
24 the Defence for reasons which -- I don't think we need to take the
25 witness's time. I'm happy to do that now if it's necessary, but the
1 Defence does not have it and, therefore, I'm happy and certainly agree
2 that the Defence should have an opportunity to look at the document now.
3 Secondly, in terms of where we're going with this, it's simply to
4 ask the witness if he identifies his signature on this document which was
5 made earlier this year. So that that can also be something that's
6 considered if others, the Judges in particular, wish to look at the
7 signature which has now been placed in issue by the Defence.
8 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, thank you for your
10 Before going further with this matter, Madam Registrar, I think
11 you will have to intervene into the way we are going to proceed
12 empirically regarding the numbering of these exhibits, please.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Fourmy, we will be discussing these exhibit
14 matters at the end of this proceeding this afternoon. It was my
15 understanding, as of yesterday, because the Prosecution had numbered --
16 pre-numbered their exhibits that we were going to move forward with their
17 pre-numbering, and they would let me know what they were going to do.
18 With regard to the Prosecution exhibits, I've explained to them
19 that all of their exhibits -- Mr. Naletilic's exhibits would begin with
20 D1, and Mr. Martinovic's exhibits would begin with D2 and then the numbers
21 proceeding after that.
22 I will meet with both parties this afternoon, and we will clarify
23 all outstanding matters and make sure we're all on the same page. I would
24 also explain to both parties about filing and the need to have both
25 languages and enough copies for all parties. Thank you.
1 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar. So will
2 the parties please contact the registrar immediately after the hearing,
3 and I don't think we should have difficulty with the numbering of the
5 Mr. Par, I think that perhaps you wish to continue your comments
6 regarding this exhibit that is being used by the Prosecutor. Mr. Par.
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I will be very brief. In view of the
8 fact that we have said that we will take a stand on this document, after
9 the explanation of the Prosecutor, we object, and we feel that it has been
10 established without any doubt the authenticity of the signature on one
11 document which was of interest to us. So we feel that there is absolutely
12 no sense in establishing the signature of a document on another document
13 which is not relevant in this debate, nor has it been disclosed to us. I
14 don't see what we could achieve by comparing signatures on another
15 document when we have unequivocally established that the signature on this
16 other document was not authentic. Surely we don't need handwriting
18 It is unacceptable for us for the witness to be given another
19 document to check his signature on that other document. Therefore, we
20 object to this procedure.
21 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Krsnik.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Mr. Fourmy, I
23 have noted an even greater problem here. At the Status Conference,
24 particularly the last one, we discussed the question of depositions and
25 the preparations for the trial itself, and we established, or at least I
1 thought that we had established, that the Defence should have had
2 disclosed all the statements that would be tendered during the
3 depositions. As I see today, this was not done, so I don't know what to
4 expect with the remaining 18 witnesses. Are we going to have the same
5 situation over again in the future? I don't think that is fair, and we're
6 all sensitive when it comes to justice.
7 I will confer with my colleagues, and when we finish with this
8 witness I think that we will have a suggestion, and that is for the
9 Chamber to ask the Prosecution whether they have anything else to disclose
10 to us as part of the deposition hearings because we cannot be placed in an
11 unequal position.
12 What can we expect for the case in chief? We don't yet even have
13 a list of witnesses. This is another problem we drew attention to at the
14 last Status Conference.
15 The Defence cannot be placed in the position it finds itself in
16 now, for the witness to be in the courtroom and for us to see for the
17 first time a document which, in the position of the Defence and according
18 to the Rules of this Tribunal, should have been disclosed, because the
19 witness is here, at least the day beforehand.
20 As we know so far, this Defence bench, at least, does not know
21 that, but we have heard that our friends from the Prosecution are prone to
22 disclose documents a day beforehand.
23 In any event, when this testimony is over, I would request that we
24 discuss this matter.
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krsnik. I think this is a
1 debate which goes beyond the question of this particular document.
2 Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any further clarifications to make or
3 to respond to what has been said?
4 MR. STRINGER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Fourmy. Just getting back to
5 the basic question that's now before us. It's clear that Mr. Par is quite
6 confident in the evidence that he elicited on cross-examination. He
7 apparently feels that it's so strong that it can't even be refuted with a
8 direct examination, a redirect examination.
9 I respectfully differ from my colleague. The Rules
10 specifically -- for a redirect examination after cross-examination, a
11 redirect that is limited in scope to issues raised on the
13 The Defence has made an issue of the AID statement and the
14 signature of the witness. They went beyond that, and they asked the
15 witness to sign on a separate piece of paper his, his name today so that
16 that signature could be compared with the one that appears on the AID
17 statement which is Defence Exhibit D2/1. Now, that's fine, that's the
18 method he chose to cross-examine the witness.
19 The method I'm choosing to explore this issue on redirect is to
20 submit a signature from this same witness made earlier this year so that
21 other signature can also be compared to the one that appears on Exhibit
22 D2/1. I think it's appropriate redirect examination, and it is really all
23 I intend to do on redirect. There's nothing beyond that that we intend to
24 ask the witness about. Thank you.
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Right. May I then suggest, so that
1 we can make some progress here, to allow the Prosecutor to continue his
2 re-examination on the basis of this document with the understanding that
3 this document, which I believe is numbered temporarily as 57, this
4 document will, perhaps, be admitted at a later date, and then the
5 Prosecutor and the Defence will be able to make their objections as to the
6 substance of this document, the manner in which it was tendered, that
7 Mr. Krsnik said that this exhibit which was not disclosed to him earlier,
8 and so on and so forth.
9 As you know I have no decision-making powers here, and I'm quite
10 sure we shall be able to resolve this, but after we release the witness,
11 and then if need be, we shall have a discussion between the parties.
12 Yes, Mr. Par, you perhaps disagree with me.
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] With all due respect for what you have
14 just said, Mr. Fourmy, and the method which my learned friend Stringer
15 tried to explain, and I understand it, but for reasons for principle, we
16 simply cannot go along with that because then it can become a precedent
17 and it will then -- may happen again and again in our case. So that is
18 why we object to presenting -- to tendering this document and to
19 continuing the re-examination on the basis of this document. Thank you.
20 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
21 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, I think there are two issues. One is
22 how to proceed or whether to proceed with this witness on the issue of the
23 signature that appears on these documents. There's another issue which is
24 the broader issue which has been raised, the one of disclosure generally,
25 precedent setting in the future, as Mr. Par just said, those sorts of
2 I don't think the two have to be resolved at this time. I agree
3 with the remarks you just made, Mr. Fourmy, suggesting that we proceed
4 along the lines you suggested and discharge the witness, and then at that
5 time we're happy to discuss with you and with the Defence the disclosure
6 issue regarding this particular document and the broader issues that
7 they've raised.
8 But again, I think that limited to the specific issue that's now
9 before us, which is the signature of the witness on the various documents,
10 it's simply a matter of a redirect. It's a matter of a redirect
11 examination in an attempt to shed additional light on the question of what
12 his signature looks like, and that's the simple, sole reason why we have
13 offered this particular exhibit into evidence.
14 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Par, Mr. Krsnik, my
15 impression is that there are indeed two very different questions. One is
16 a matter of principle that you raised, and I realise its importance and
17 the Prosecutor confirms it, by the way. There is another matter which is
18 to find out whether the signature on this document, document 57, is the
19 witness's signature or not. If you have some other proposal, I do not
20 know whether it will settle the two parties. I don't know. I'm with
21 you. I'm also exploring different avenues.
22 One thing is to ascertain whether something is the witness's
23 signature or not, or does he have some identity document with his
24 signature but -- or some other document to be communicated? I don't
25 know. But how do you think we can get out of this impasse, this blind
1 alley. And this, the problem of signature, is a problem which you raised
2 during your cross-examination, and the Prosecutor simply chose to come
3 back to this question. But it is very important to distinguish between
4 these two issues.
5 We all agree that the Prosecutor has the right to ask additional
6 questions regarding the matter of signature, and everybody noted your
7 objection. It is very clearly noted. And the procedure which the
8 Prosecutor wishes to pursue is a document which has not been disclosed to
9 you, but it raises two other matters, so the disclosure of the document in
10 the strict sense and the nature of this document, which is another
12 Mr. Par.
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] With your leave, I think that the
14 question how to proceed is very simple. Somebody has to give up. So the
15 question is whether the examination will be continued on the basis of this
16 document or without it. We are being asked to allow it. Unfortunately,
17 we cannot do that, because the Prosecutor -- I do not see that we can
18 reach a compromise without somebody yielding his position.
19 I think the Prosecutor can continue examining the witness
20 regarding his signature, even without that document. I'm quite sure that
21 he can do it. So that we shall not be deprived of witness's answers but
22 without the document, and that is our final position.
23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] May I just follow up on this,
24 Mr. Fourmy? Namely -- and it tallies with Mr. Krsnik's proposal. Had we
25 had this document before, it might have affected our cross-examination,
1 especially with regard to this fact, that is, the witness's signature.
2 That is, the authenticity of the signature or the confirmation of the
3 signature also takes us to his credibility or, rather, the authenticity of
4 his testimony. So that this matter is of major importance, and we simply
5 cannot accept any further examination along these lines, or, as Mr. Par
6 has just said, the gentlemen from the Prosecution presumably can find some
7 other way to do that.
8 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Right. Mr. Prosecutor, I suppose
9 this situation which we need to overcome, I'm not here to do that, so I
10 have to take the ball back into your court. That document, for the time
11 being, is tendered under -- in inverted brackets. It is not admitted in
12 any way. I hope that everybody agrees on that.
13 So you should resume your re-examination in the way in which you
14 wish to do but not in relation to this document. This does not mean that
15 possibly depending on a decision with the Judges perhaps will be allowed
16 to take, perhaps the witness will have to come back to answer precise
17 questions relative to the matter of his signature, perhaps.
18 Do you think that we can go on, that we can move on in this
19 manner? Because -- and we shall be -- and if we can do so, then I believe
20 we shall be able to release Mr. Lulic shortly.
21 Yes, Mr. Stringer?
22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, the procedure that you suggest is not
23 unlike the procedure that might be followed where I come from, only it's
24 the reverse. In a deposition situation, a party has an objection,
25 normally the proceeding continues and the evidence is elicited and put
1 into the record so that at a later stage of the proceedings, then the
2 fact-finder or the Judge can rule whether to accept the evidence or not,
3 and it seems to me that it would be less efficient to stop now, to
4 possibly have to recall the witness, who, as he said, lives abroad.
5 I would suggest we proceed. I think I can do this in two
6 questions or so. And then should the Trial Chamber decide that because
7 of -- for whatever reason they do not want to accept the evidence or the
8 response of the witness or the document itself, then of course it can be
9 excluded, but at least we have the record, and whatever the Trial
10 Chamber's decision would be at that future time, then it's -- I don't
11 envision that it would be necessary to then recall the witness.
12 So I would propose to go forward on the agreement or the condition
13 that, of course, any ruling from the Trial Chamber in the future might in
14 fact result in this particular evidence being stricken from the record.
15 So that would be my proposal.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, may I respond?
17 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Mr. Krsnik.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Some modest experience and practice,
19 we also have about the system that Mr. Stringer comes from. Depositions
20 in this system, in common law system, are broadly accepted, and it is done
21 in lawyers' offices, in Prosecutors' offices. They're always there before
22 the main hearing, and then if there is some objection as to the
23 depositions, then, yes, the merits of the objections are discussed, but
24 this is a different situation. This is the first time that the
25 depositions are made before this Tribunal. We are setting a precedent.
1 The Judges are in this building, and whenever there is an objection, and
2 if while observing the Rules of this Tribunal, we must stop and the
3 Chamber must immediately take a decision whenever there is an objection.
4 We shall not renounce our objection. And there is one other thing
5 that I wish to mention. You see, we had this -- had we had this
6 document -- I will now show it to you. Mr. Stringer objected to the
7 manner in which Mr. Par conducted his statement, which state, what state,
8 why, and so on, and now he quite coolly gives as a document in which we
9 see the name of the town that the witness lives in and that's it.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't give it.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] You see why and how important it is
12 to disclose documents to the Defence. And had we -- had this document
13 been disclosed, this misunderstanding would have been avoided. So this
14 responsibility is not for the Defence, and this matter has to be resolved
15 by the Chamber because of the future witnesses, and you know how many of
16 them there are, not to mention the figure in front of the witness.
17 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, I think I can propose something of a
19 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Compromises are always welcome.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. STRINGER: With your permission, I would simply ask the
22 witness whether he recalls signing a document during the meeting that he
23 referred to earlier this year. I would also ask the witness if he recalls
24 signing the OTP witness statement that he's already referred to and to
25 simply leave it at that and to not tender the document that's now in front
1 of the witness, certainly not at this time, unless we're able to provide
2 some other evidence or some other basis for offering it into evidence at a
3 later time in the proceedings.
4 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. This is agreeable to
5 us, this way to proceed.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Mladen Naletilic's Defence
7 will also accept this matter, but these matters which are at dispute
8 should be resolved at a later stage. Thank you.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stringer. Thank you
10 very much for your proposal of a compromise.
11 Thank you, Defence counsel, for your acceptance of this proposal.
12 Madam Registrar, even if it is not the practice, but now we have
13 to ask Mr. Usher to take back the copies that were distributed of the
14 document and even to suppress the reference to this document of -- 57.
15 Mr. Krsnik, I see you. Yes, I see you. I am beginning to
16 understand what your looks mean. And we shall return it to the
17 Prosecutor. It will be up to the Prosecutor to decide what he wants to
18 deal with this document later on, and we shall come back to this document
19 at this later stage.
20 Mr. Stringer, thank you very much for your proposal. Will you
21 please resume your examination. Thank you very much.
22 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fourmy.
23 Q. Mr. Lulic, a couple of minutes ago I asked you if you recalled
24 meeting with me and another person from the Tribunal earlier this year in
25 the place where you currently live.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you remember at that time a document was made and you were
3 asked to sign it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, also in your testimony during the cross-examination by
6 Mr. Par, you were asked about a statement you made to the OTP
7 investigators, that is, the investigators from the Tribunal, Office of the
8 Prosecutor. Do you recall making a statement to the Office of the
10 A. Yes. I've just said, yes, in Sarajevo. Not Konjic, not Mostar.
11 I saw it on the paper. Konjic, Mostar, no, I never did that, nor did
12 anybody ever ask me to do that there. In Sarajevo, yes, but not in
13 Mostar, though.
14 Q. So in Sarajevo you signed the Tribunal witness statement; is that
16 A. It is.
17 Q. All right. And then just, again, to be clear, earlier this year
18 you signed the other document after the meeting in your current hometown;
19 is that correct?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lulic.
22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. Fourmy, we have no further questions. No
23 further questions.
24 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor.
25 Mr. Lulic, thank you. Your testimony has come to an end now. I
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 wish to thank you for appearing before in this Tribunal in this somewhat
2 bizarre proceedings that we've just introduced. Thank you very much for
3 coming here, and we wish you a happy return to your new country of
4 residence. Thank you and good-bye.
5 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you very much.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Right. It is 25 minutes past three,
8 and I wonder if this might not be a convenient moment to make a break, 20
9 minutes long. And then if you have a witness, we shall hear the witness,
10 or if not, then we shall come back to discuss, perhaps, these procedural
11 difficulties and so gain some time.
12 Tomorrow we shall have at least two witnesses. I have already
13 said that we have 18 witnesses altogether. This was the number I think we
14 saw mentioned, then this really worries me quite a lot in view of the
15 schedule that we have.
16 Yes, Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Fourmy, just to clarify, you may recall, you may
18 not at this juncture, but the plan yesterday had been that we would only
19 be in session this morning, that we would actually have the afternoon off.
20 I think we all assumed that we would go ahead and continue into the
21 afternoon to complete this witness so the witness could be released. So
22 we would not intend or did not anticipate calling another witness this
23 afternoon. However, I do think the time can be well served by talking
24 about some of the procedural matters that have been raised, and we're
25 certainly prepared to do that.
1 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. Does the Defence agree
2 that we can resume our work and discuss various procedural matters? Will
3 that be all right? I see you nodding your heads. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, the Defence will find it
5 convenient to do it today so that we can finish it today, or after the
6 break or before the break. No, no, no, my colleagues say after the
8 Right, very well. I agree with my learned friends, and we can
9 come back then after the break and discuss some of the matters indicated
11 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes. It seems that the call of the
12 cigarette is more important than the call of procedure. Right, we shall
13 make a break of 17 minutes and we shall be back at quarter to four.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.28 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 3.50 p.m.
16 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. Please be
18 I don't know who, whether from the Prosecution side or the Defence
19 side, wishes to speak first. Perhaps we can distinguish at least two
20 questions. The first would be the general issue of the exhibits which the
21 Prosecutor intends to use, at least regarding the deposition witnesses,
22 the way in which they have been or will be communicated to the Defence.
23 Then there's another distinct issue, and that is the labelling or
24 numbering of the exhibits, whether they be exhibits of the Prosecution or
25 the Defence. And we suggested, together with Madam Registrar, that this
1 may be something that we can do outside the actual hearings, and the
2 parties can have a discussion with the registrar in a less formal
3 atmosphere rather than this robed hearing.
4 So if you agree, perhaps we could address the first question,
5 unless you have any other points to add to these two that I have referred
7 Mr. Prosecutor.
8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Fourmy, I'm happy to answer and deal with all
9 those, any number or all of those questions. I appreciate the offer to
10 perhaps go into a more informal setting, but I'm not really sure that's
11 necessary, but I'll make a few comments and perhaps we can see where we go
12 from there.
13 First off, Mr. Fourmy, I want the record to be very, very clear on
14 this: Despite what the issue raised at the conclusion of the last witness
15 about this one particular document, I want to be emphatic in this, the
16 Prosecution has met all of its disclosure obligations in this case. We
17 have been very diligent in doing so. And notwithstanding the one
18 particular document, it's our position that not only have we satisfied all
19 of our disclosure obligations, in fact in a number of ways, which have all
20 been documented in correspondence with the Defence counsel, we have gone
21 far beyond our disclosure obligations and made disclosures that the Rules
22 do not require. So I want that to be clear.
23 As to the statement that was mentioned, I want to clarify that
24 again before any further time goes by. The statement that was in issue
25 was a statement that was prepared earlier this year for the purposes of --
1 under the old Rule 94 ter of a formalised statement or what some people
2 might call affidavit. There was a time before the Rule was changed from
3 92(4) -- excuse me, from 94 ter to 92 bis that this witness, the last
4 witness, had been anticipated to be a 94 ter witness.
5 In anticipation of that, a very, very short statement - it's
6 barely over one page, and you could hardly even call it a statement - was
7 prepared in which he simply reaffirmed his prior statements. That is all
8 it says. It absolutely adds not a single new fact. It simply says, "I
9 made this prior statement. It's true. I made this prior statement. It's
10 true," et cetera, and it's signed by him.
11 After this document was prepared and signed by the witness, the
12 Rule was changed. 94 ter was abolished and the new Rule, 92 bis, was put
13 in its place. Under our analysis of Rule 92 bis, this witness no longer
14 qualified as a written statement witness under the new Rule. Therefore,
15 that is one of the reasons, which has again been explained before in
16 submissions that have been made in the Chamber in the pre-trial phase,
17 some of our witnesses were changed from being either 94 ter or 92 bis
18 witnesses to deposition witnesses. All this has been stated both in prior
19 conferences and in our papers. It is not a surprise at all.
20 When this was changed and when the last witness, Mr. Lulic, became
21 a transcript or - excuse me - a deposition witness, there was simply no
22 other reason for this document that was prepared for purposes of 94 ter,
23 which doesn't even exist any more. It says nothing other than to affirm
24 his prior statements.
25 In any event, we're happy to disclose it. It has been disclosed
1 now, but frankly, if I can characterise it this way, this has been a
2 tempest in a teapot. There's no problem here, there's no disclosure
3 violation, and we have met all our disclosure obligations.
4 In terms of the groups of witnesses that Mr. Krsnik mentioned, at
5 the Status Conference last Friday, and of course you did not have an
6 opportunity to attend because you had other obligations, it was already
7 discussed and the Prosecution has already stated its intent of providing
8 the Defence teams in the immediate future with the names of the first
9 group of trial witnesses, the first group of Prosecution witnesses. We've
10 already committed to do that, we will do that, and it's simply, again, not
11 an issue.
12 The third matter as it relates to exhibit numbering. There is
13 no -- nothing mysterious in the Prosecution position. It is simply a
14 matter of courtroom efficiency and organisation. The pre-numbering of an
15 exhibit doesn't mean -- it doesn't forejudge the issue, whether it be --
16 ultimately be admitted or not. It is simply a way of marking the
17 documents for trial so that when they are tendered for discussion, they
18 can be identified for the record. It simply saves time and allows the
19 Prosecution to organise its case ahead of time, to assign the numbers so
20 those numbers can be used in any number of documents in referring to that
21 exhibit or in preparing witnesses. It facilitates a much more efficient
22 handling of the documents and also in court. We don't have to -- with all
23 respect to the registrar, we don't have to stop, tender a particular
24 exhibit, get a number, and then proceed. The numbers can be
25 pre-numbered -- the documents can be pre-numbered. They can be put before
1 the witness much more efficiently.
2 As I said the other day, and I do not understand any difficulty --
3 that there can be any bona fide difficulty with this, if the documents are
4 organised in a particular way and they are pre-numbered in a particular
5 way, it simply means that -- for instance, many of the documents are
6 organised in a chronological fashion. You simply start with the oldest
7 document, and you put them in chronological order and you give them a
8 number. That is why we might get to the first witness and the first
9 witness, because of the nature of the issue that that witness talks about
10 or what have you, it may take us to Exhibit 58 because that's where the
11 document falls in the organised set of documents that are put in
12 chronological order. There's nothing mysterious about that. It doesn't
13 mean the document's already been admitted. It's simply a number for
14 reference purposes for the record. It will either then be admitted or
15 won't be admitted by the Trial Chamber.
16 But it's our submission, and quite frankly, Mr. Fourmy, in my
17 prior experience, and I know we all come here with our prior experience in
18 mind and systems are different, but where I come from, it is absolutely
19 standard and in fact required practice that all documents, all exhibits be
20 pre-numbered. In fact, I would not be allowed to appear in the court
21 where I used to practice the most unless -- if I had not pre-numbered the
22 exhibits. The judge, frankly, would tell me to go home, that I was not
23 prepared for trial, and when the exhibits had been marked, to come back on
24 another day. So it's quite -- I must say, and no pun intended, it's quite
25 foreign to me to have a concept, especially in a document [sic] involving
1 a large number of documents, that they wouldn't be numbered ahead of
2 time. There's nothing mysterious about it. It's simply a way of marking
3 documents for identification.
4 That's our position on that issue, and I think unless you have
5 other questions, Mr. Fourmy, that's all we have at the moment. Thank
7 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. I don't
8 have any questions at this stage. I see that Madam Registrar would like
9 to take the floor and then the Defence, of course.
10 Madam Registrar, you have the floor.
11 THE REGISTRAR: I just wanted to make a comment regarding
12 Mr. Scott's statement. We, as I've mentioned before, previously agreed
13 that we would allow for the pre-numbering of the exhibits. And I can
14 understand where he's coming from, so I have no problems with that.
15 The only outstanding issue with regard to the exhibits is where to
16 put in, for example, pseudonym witness sheets. So we just have to get
17 together and figure a system, but I think that will work. So that's
19 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, Mr. Fourmy. The registrar is perfectly
20 right, and that is one additional matter that does have to be resolved.
21 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. I hope you will
22 manage to resolve it together.
23 Mr. Krsnik or Mr. Seric.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, I fully agree that
25 there's been much ado about nothing, but it seems to me that things should
1 be positioned logically and acceptably at the beginning. It is quite
2 logical to me that all documents, for the benefit of the Prosecution and
3 ourselves, that it would be normal for these documents to be marked D for
4 deposition and that the numbers used by the Prosecution should be DP for
5 the Prosecution and the Defence should have D1 and D2 for the two
6 accused. Then there would be no problem. DP1, 2, 3, 4; and D1-1; and
7 D2-1, 2, 3. So I don't see why we are having this discussion. But I am
8 surprised to find a document marked 57, tomorrow another one with the Z.
9 I really don't see what the problem is. That is one point.
10 And the Defence does insist that that is how we should proceed,
11 especially so as these are exhibits that have not been admitted. They
12 have just been tendered. And it is normal that all exhibits from the
13 deposition hearing should be marked with D. I assume there won't be one
14 or two documents, there will a lot, and they need to be marked
15 accordingly. That is my first response.
16 Regarding the second point, we will not insist, and the Defence
17 even thinks that perhaps we might meet with the Chamber regarding the
18 disclosure of documents regarding these 18 proposed witnesses. It is
19 quite sufficient for the Defence if my learned friends from the
20 Prosecution tell us that they have disclosed all documents for these 18
21 witnesses, that will be sufficient for us. But we would not like to have
22 a repetition of what we had today. And I'm afraid I disagree with my
23 learned friend, Mr. Scott. This document, when it appeared in the
24 courtroom like any other document and when it is shown to anyone and was
25 not previously disclosed, it is not disclosed, and I think that that is
1 quite clear.
2 I do not wish to waste your time and to elaborate and to say that
3 if we had that document, our cross-examination would have been different,
4 I think that is quite clear, and I don't want to engage in any polemics
5 over it. I would just like to ask our learned friends to tell us that
6 they have disclosed everything, and then the Defence will be at rest,
7 because we're a bit disturbed. And I don't wish to offend anyone, but we
8 feel that the procedure was incorrect regarding this document which is not
9 insignificant, and it cannot be said to be insignificant.
10 And finally, Mr. Fourmy, fully respecting your work and this
11 practice which we are establishing perhaps for the first time, we all have
12 to give and take a little so as to proceed more smoothly. And I wish this
13 to be entered in the record: I would like to ask my team to be complete
14 tomorrow. We have not received any decision, though it was promised two
15 days ago, that attorney Visnja Lasan who has been designated as
16 co-counsel, and until she has this appointment she cannot be in the
17 courtroom to assist me. We see that the Prosecution always have three
18 team members, and there is a reason for that.
19 So I appeal to you that tomorrow before the beginning of the
20 deposition hearings this problem be resolved. I ask you kindly so that my
21 team can act in complete composition. That is all I have to say. I thank
22 you, and I thank you for your patience and indulgence.
23 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
24 Mr. Seric.
25 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I, too, on behalf of the Defence
1 counsel for Mr. Vinko Martinovic, I would like to say that we find
2 acceptable the numbering of exhibits as proposed by the Prosecution and
3 Madam Registrar during yesterday's discussions and today. I think there
4 is no misunderstanding over that point. Thank you.
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Seric.
6 Madam Registrar, regarding the designation of the co-counsel.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, I spoke with Ms. Lasan during the break and
8 informed her that the order for allowing her to proceed as co-counsel is
9 given -- has been given to the Registrar and is on his desk for signature.
10 So that matter has been addressed, and as soon as we receive the order, it
11 will be transmitted to everyone and you will be able to begin -- Ms. Lasan
12 will be able to begin.
13 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, in my personal capacity,
14 I would be very happy to be able to welcome your co-counsel here. She
15 already has the robes, and a great step forward has been made already.
16 Perhaps to go back to the question of the disclosure, there appear
17 to be two different issues. I hope I will not be opening a major issue.
18 There is the aspect of the disclosure of prior statements of the
19 witnesses, and then also there is the question of communication of
20 exhibits which may be used by one or another party during the testimony of
21 the person concerned. I heard the Prosecutor say that he has fulfilled
22 all his disclosure obligations. I also heard the Defence that they have
23 taken note of it, but I have the impression that we don't seem to be on
24 the same wavelength.
25 Mr. Prosecutor, have I misunderstood, or is there a slight
1 divergence of opinion with the Defence, for the Defence appears to wish to
2 have all the exhibits that will be used during the deposition testimony to
3 be communicated to them. Could you please clear up this point, and I
4 apologise in advance for asking you to do so.
5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Fourmy, no need for apology. I think that is a
6 point of some divergence, and I think it's started as just one
7 misunderstanding. I don't think there's anything sinister involved on
8 either side, not by my friends on the other side or by the Prosecution.
9 To avoid any -- hopefully to avoid any misunderstanding on the issue, let
10 me resummarise very quickly the disclosure, the status of disclosure.
11 As I indicated a few minutes ago, we have made extensive
12 disclosure in this case, in our view, far beyond what the Rules of the
13 Tribunal require. Having said that, I also want to make clear for the
14 record, again to avoid any misunderstanding on the issue, it is our
15 understanding that neither Defence team has made a request for disclosure
16 under Rule 66(B). And I'm not going to belabour that at this time. I
17 think, Mr. Fourmy, you know what that Rule is about and you know the
18 significance of the issue on that, and I think you're familiar with it on
19 other cases. But from my understandings, there has never been a request
20 for document disclosure under Rule 66(B). If I'm mistaken on that or if
21 the Defence have changed their position on that, I'm sure I'll be
23 In terms of the exhibits to be used with these particular
24 witnesses, that is, the deposition witnesses, it is our intention and has
25 been our intention to provide additional exhibits, a binder of exhibits to
1 them. And quite frankly, it has been a bit the victim of the confusion
2 over the scheduling because we had hoped to be able to finish those in the
3 last couple of half days, but we found ourselves in these court days
4 instead. Not a complaint, just an explanation. But we had hoped that we
5 would be able to put the final touches on the exhibits yesterday morning
6 and, frankly, this morning, but events have gone in a different direction,
7 which is fine. We'll deal with it.
8 I expect by sometime during the day tomorrow -- my apologies to
9 the French interpretation. I expect sometime during the day tomorrow,
10 Mr. Fourmy, we'll be in a position to tender a full binder of exhibits for
11 purposes of these deposition witnesses.
12 So on that point, I agree, there may have been some failure of a
13 meeting of the minds between what the Defence has been talking about and
14 perhaps what the Prosecution has been talking about. Whether or not
15 that's true, we do anticipate a binder of materials being available by
17 I think that's, I think that's it, Mr. Fourmy. The only comment I
18 would come back to in terms of Mr. Krsnik's position on the exhibits, on
19 the numbering. Let me just tell you, please, we have worked very -- the
20 Prosecution team has worked very hard, not expecting any pats on the back,
21 but I'm just telling you we've worked very hard to number the deposition
22 exhibits to avoid duplicate numbers and conflicting numbers at trial. So
23 that if we use -- if we show one of the deposition witnesses Exhibit
24 number 1, Exhibit number 1 will be the same for the depositions and the
25 same for trial. Instead of everyone for the next six months going, "Let's
1 see, deposition one is trial Exhibit 33, and trial Exhibit 57 was
2 deposition Exhibit 34," and we have two sets of numbers.
3 So we have tried hard in preparing for these two weeks to also
4 number -- begin to number our trial exhibits so that the numbers will be
5 exactly the same, and that's why I disagree with Mr. Krsnik's position to
6 have a different numbering system now. We could have one set of numbers
7 for all purposes, and that will be consistent, hopefully, certainly our
8 intent, throughout the trial.
9 I have nothing else. Thank you, Mr. Fourmy.
10 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor.
11 Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, regarding disclosure of
13 documents pursuant to Rule 67 and 66, things are absolutely clear. We did
14 not request disclosure, nor will we, and this applies to the trial
15 itself. And then there is reciprocity, and that is the position of the
16 Defence. And Mr. Scott is quite right, but that is not what I was talking
17 about. I was talking about the statements, because I don't know which
18 statements the Prosecution has in its hand, and we should get the
19 statements prior to the testimony, as we did.
20 Maybe that was the misunderstanding. I was not referring to
21 disclosure pursuant to 66, because we clearly stated that we do not
22 request such disclosure. I think we've cleared the matter up now. I was
23 just talking about today's document, because it is a statement, a witness
24 statement, statements which you have disclosed, and I thought you should
25 have disclosed this one as well.
1 As regards the numbering, Mr. Scott, we will see whether those
2 exhibits will be admitted, and when they are admitted, they will always be
3 given the same number. But for me to follow the exhibits, which will be
4 numerous, it's easier for me to follow during the deposition hearing, and
5 once the Trial Chamber admits them, then we will have other numbers. And
6 I think my proposition is simpler for all of us. But I won't cause a
7 storm in a teacup, the expression you used, because I think we will all
8 gain by simplifying matters as much as possible.
9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Fourmy.
10 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor.
11 MR. SCOTT: I appreciate Mr. Krsnik's last comments in terms of
12 the statements. Again to avoid any confusion, and I also appreciate,
13 frankly, his confirmation of the Defence position, at least for
14 Mr. Naletilic, on 66, because again, I think he's made it very clear what
15 the status of that matter is.
16 In terms of the statements, we fully believe that we have tendered
17 all the witness statements in this case relevant to those that should be
18 disclosed. I've already given you our explanation about the statement
19 today, about the way it was prepared and why it was adjudged as not to be
20 something, after 94 ter was abolished, that really warranted disclosure.
21 Be that as it may, I'm happy to say that it's been disclosed. Any other
22 documents like that -- I think there may be two other documents that were
23 also -- that had been prepared at one time under 94 ter --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Slow down, please, Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: My apologies. I believe there may be two other
1 documents that were at one time prepared under the old Rule, and we -- if
2 they have not already been disclosed, they will be disclosed.
3 Further, we will undertake to double-check the statements that
4 have been produced for these witnesses, 18 witnesses, and try to verify
5 again to make sure that nothing has been missed. That certainly has
6 always been our intention, to make full disclosure. If anything has not
7 been disclosed, then I can assure, Mr. Fourmy, that it was only
8 inadvertent and we are acting in absolute good faith. Thank you.
9 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Mr. Krsnik, you wish to take the
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] The Defence is satisfied with this
12 answer, and what Mr. Scott said is quite sufficient regarding the future.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Mr. Seric, do
15 you have anything to add? Perhaps you wish to indicate your position, for
16 the record, with respect to Rule 66(B) and 67 of the Rules of Procedure
17 and Evidence.
18 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Fourmy, regarding reciprocal
19 disclosure and 66(B), we abide by the position we have already expressed.
20 Regarding other documents linked to our work in the ensuing
21 period, that is, deposition testimony, and we do believe that these things
22 should be disclosed to us as soon as possible, and I appreciate
23 Mr. Scott's effort to provide this binder tomorrow.
24 May I make a joke that we add to the Rules of Procedure and
25 Evidence Shakespeare's comedy "Much Ado About Nothing."
1 MR. SCOTT: So agreed, Mr. Fourmy.
2 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] May I take the floor again? I wish
3 to thank you, but perhaps I am a bit slower in understanding than the
4 parties, and I would like to go back to the question of exhibits once
6 I understand that the Prosecutor intends to communicate a binder
7 consisting of a certain number of exhibits which may be used during the
8 deposition hearings. A complementary question on my part would be: Does
9 that binder contain all the exhibits that the Prosecutor intends to use
10 or, in accordance what usually happens, as we are not under the obligation
11 of reciprocal disclosure, could the Prosecutor reserve the right to use
12 other exhibits if it considers it necessary? Because in view of the
13 response of Mr. Krsnik, we -- I wish to make it quite clear that it seems
14 to me that the customary interpretation of the Rules is if there is no
15 reciprocal disclosure, the Prosecutor may perhaps use exhibits which were
16 not communicated previously to the Defence.
17 I don't know whether it is along those lines that I should
18 interpret what has been said by the Prosecutor.
19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Fourmy, you are once again completely accurate in
20 your assessment save this, and that is that this is -- the provision of
21 this binder, which again we hope to do tomorrow, is a perfect example of
22 what I've said I think now twice, at least twice this afternoon. In many
23 instances, the Prosecution has gone and has been prepared to go beyond
24 what the Rules require. We do not believe that we're required, frankly,
25 under the Rules and in the absence of a 66(B) request, to provide these
1 exhibits even for the purposes of these depositions before the time that
2 they are tendered and that we would be perfectly within our legal rights
3 not to disclose any exhibits until they were tendered to the witness for
4 the first time. That's what the Rules provide, in our view.
5 However, as I said, this is another situation where the
6 Prosecution is prepared to go beyond what the Rules require and ask that
7 these items, that this binder of exhibits, we are prepared to make that
8 available tomorrow, subject to -- I think it can only be fair to say
9 subject to some flexibility in the course of the depositions. If an
10 additional exhibit is identified, we may indeed seek to use it. And as
11 you just mentioned and as I just agreed with, and if we do so, it will be
12 in absolutely no violation of any Rule because the Defence is not entitled
13 to have the exhibit prior to it being tendered, but we will produce a
14 binder of exhibits tomorrow. Thank you.
15 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott.
16 Mr. Krsnik, Mr. Seric, does this explanation meet your concerns or
17 do you wish to add something else?
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. The answer was absolutely based
19 on the Rules of this Tribunal. What Mr. Scott was right, and all we're
20 asking for, the statements, my learned friends. If there are no
21 additional statements to this, and so that is all. Thank you.
22 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Seric?
23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] What Mr. Scott has just said is quite
24 agreeable to me, and I should like to thank the Prosecution for the
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Likewise, I also wish to thank.
2 Perhaps I forgot to do that. Perhaps I forgot to say that, but, yes, I
3 should also like to thank them, because this is evidently additional
4 effort they're investing, and I appreciate it.
5 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Well, listen, I thank you for all
6 those expressions of gratitude. As for the numbering -- as for the
7 numbering of exhibits, we can note -- I must note also that we have the
8 best interpreters in the world, because this little joke of mine evidently
9 pleased you. But we have to come back to the number of exhibits.
10 Of course I can speak only in my own name, Mr. Krsnik, and I will
11 see with the Judges what do they intend to do, and Madam Registrar will
12 also be notified, but my position, as regards the procedure, generally
13 speaking, I agree that 71 is a Rule which is somewhat special and perhaps
14 it will be -- however, it will be desirable that we have identical
15 numbering whatever witness comes to testify in the normal procedure or
16 now. As Madam Registrar has already insisted and as the Prosecutor has
17 explained, we should have one single reference system from beginning to
19 With pre-numbering, if we avoid the pre-numbering, then it can
20 happen that exhibits won't have the numbers, that is, some exhibits will
21 not be used because the Prosecutor may simply decide not to use them. And
22 in that case, we shall have an empty place which will then, if need be,
23 depending on our discussion, Madam Registrar perhaps will be able to use
24 it, but she will give it to you. But -- and I think that the whole --
25 that will be best for everybody to have -- whether we shall have 1, 15,
1 2.000. Do we speak about the subnumbering? And when the time comes, we
2 shall then be able to verify which exhibits have indeed been tendered, and
3 above all, which ones of them have been admitted. And by that time, we
4 shall know what has been tendered. If both, if both parties agree, then
5 one can assume they will be admitted.
6 But for the Prosecutor, I think we shall have sequential numbers,
7 and if there is no prenumbering as you have mentioned, then indeed the
8 registrar will indicate the first number which should come in whatever
9 system is used for the numbering of the Prosecution.
10 As for the Defence, we can do the same thing. If you wish to use
11 any exhibits, then I believe it is very useful for Madam Registrar to, A,
12 first have these exhibits in advance so that she can include them in her
13 filing system, that you can use them, and that in cross-examination you
14 can also use these exhibits with the number given you by Madam Registrar
15 for you to begin the -- for the Defence, that is, D1 for the Defence of
16 Mr. Naletilic and D2 for Mr. Martinovic. This is quite arbitrary. There
17 is no hierarchical order or anything like that. It is simply to organise
18 ourselves better.
19 And of course, it will depend on the discussion that you have with
20 Madam Registrar about this, but can we agree on, on this system?
21 MR. SCOTT: Agreeable to the Prosecution, Mr. Fourmy.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [In English] I agree. [Interpretation] Yes, we agree
23 with this.
24 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we likewise agree with that.
25 MR. FOURMY: [Interpretation] Right. If we agree then on this, I
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 believe we have exhausted procedural matters for this afternoon, and
2 perhaps we could make a break an hour in advance, and tomorrow we shall be
3 back to hear the deposition of the next witness.
4 This session is adjourned. Thank you.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.29 p.m., to
6 be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of July,
7 2001, at 9.15 a.m.