1 Monday, 14 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered the courtroom]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I'm sorry for the delay because
9 of the technical problems.
10 Before we have the witness, I only have one thing to inform you,
11 that this afternoon, we will start at 3.00 instead of 2.30. We will sit
12 until 4.30.
13 Could we have the witness, please?
14 Yes, Mr. Scott?
15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, before the witness is called, I had
16 indicated to the Chamber on Friday and several times in fact last week
17 that I needed it address the Chamber on the scope of his testimony so I'd
18 like to address the Chamber first on that.
19 Before I do that, again because we are closing -- coming to the
20 end of the rebuttal case, I wanted to provide it to the Chamber and
21 provide it to defence council, to the registry this morning, the Chamber
22 had previously requested some weeks ago, copies of the Washington and
23 Dayton agreements and those have now been copied and marked. The
24 Washington agreement documents, there is actually two documents, 750.02
25 and 751.3, and then there is the Dayton peace agreement which has been
1 marked as 802.101. So I'm providing formally tendering those to the
2 Chamber at this time, in it response to the Chamber's request. I also
3 want it to note before concluding the rebuttal case that in terms of other
4 outstanding exhibits, Mr. President, previously, not it in the rebuttal
5 case to be perfectly clear, but these documents have been outstanding,
6 they have been tendered and have been pending translation, they are some
7 of the miscellaneous documents that the Prosecution tendered at various
8 times during the Defence case that is were still pending translation and
9 those are 868.1, 876.06, and 876.07. Now I found this morning that those
10 have not been copied for distribution yet and they will be this morning,
11 but those are documents previously tendered for which there was not at the
12 time B/C/S translation, and so we are tendering -- we will tender the
13 translations and with that make our tender, we believe, complete.
14 Mr. President, that brings me to the rebuttal exhibits and what
15 remains in our rebuttal case. The Chamber may recall that last Monday
16 morning, a week ago, the Defence came in and went on for sometime about
17 various complaints directed at the Prosecution. We only made an
18 abbreviated response to that -- those positions late on Monday morning.
19 The Chamber will recall we didn't sit last Monday afternoon. And on
20 Tuesday morning, the Chamber made some rulings or made a ruling in terms
21 of the issues related on or arising in the rebuttal case. And I find
22 myself, Mr. President, Your Honours, in a position where as an advocate I
23 feel a bit disadvantaged because over the passage of time these issues
24 admittedly would have been better addressed last week. However, given the
25 press of other business and as I said the other day, giving the witnesses
1 the most priority, so that we had witnesses here as short as possible, I'm
2 afraid the comments and the position that the Prosecution wanted to state
3 on these matters has been delayed and probably would have been better if
4 it had not been but I take responsibility for that myself.
5 Having said that, Mr. President, I find myself in a position as
6 advocate of needing to address matters rather directly, certainly with
7 all respect to the Chamber and to its ruling and I want to preface my
8 remarks by making it very clear, that of course everything I say is
9 with the utmost respect and deference to the Chamber. Our position, the
10 Prosecution quandary or dilemma was this, Mr. President, Your Honours. A
11 concept had apparently evolved at some point, I'm not sure when, but --
12 that there was something being applied, the concept being the issues to be
13 addressed on rebuttal and the Chamber last week, I think on Tuesday
14 morning, indicated the issues, if you will, approved for rebuttal were the
15 Rados diary, the presence of Mr. Naletilic in Sovici on the 17th of April
16 and the Harmandzic killing or burial. I must say, Mr. President, that
17 that concept struck -- took us by surprise. We weren't aware that there
18 would be something called the issues limited to the issues arising in the
19 rebuttal case, that somehow there would be a ruling on that, certainly not
20 without a chance to be heard on that. The Court will recall that on the
21 29th of August, the Chamber issued its order titled "filing and scheduling
22 order." In part 1 of its order the Chamber used the phrase "lead
23 evidence." And this Prosecution team, Mr. President, understood the
24 concept of leading evidence or as presenting witnesses. I must say that
25 "lead evidence" is not a term used in the United States. I had never
1 heard the term lead evidence until I came to the Tribunal.
2 In part 1(A) of its order on the 29th of August the Chamber
3 stated, "The motion shall identify the -- --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down.
5 MR. SCOTT: My apology. "The motion shall identify the evidence
6 sought to be presented in rebuttal specifying which -- specify in which
7 way it relates to Defence evidence and the time frame estimated." Again,
8 Mr. President, the Prosecution understood this to mean a listing of fact
9 witnesses. For example, the reference to time frame estimated, being the
10 time frame necessary for direct examination. Respectfully, there has
11 never been an order in the case or any direction for the Prosecution to
12 state the issues addressed in its rebuttal, to be addressed in its
13 rebuttal case and the only direction was to identify the evidence, which
14 we again understood to mean list the witnesses that we would call. The
15 Chamber will recall that we did that and the Chamber approved some of our
16 witnesses and declined others, such as, for example, Martin Garrod. We
17 understand that and our position is not in any way related to that matter.
18 We certainly accept the Chamber's ruling on that.
19 However, at no time during these proceedings or the past 14 months
20 had the Prosecution ever been required to provide a summary concerning
21 exhibits as opposed to witnesses and the -- as opposed to the types of
22 summaries and time estimates which all parties have been required to
23 provide concerning witnesses.
24 This -- what 24 this brings me to, Mr. President, is that we feel
25 that we were and have been caught unaware of this concept of the limited
1 issues on rebuttal. We understand the concept for rebuttal but did not
2 understand that we would have to list evidence apart from the fact
3 witnesses that we intended it to call. It was always the Prosecution
4 intention to tender further exhibits in rebuttal that we believe rebutted
5 issues raised by the Defence during their Defence cases, over and above
6 the fact witnesses called, that there would be exhibits, the documents
7 themselves, that rebut Defence evidence. On the 13th of September, the
8 Prosecution filed Prosecution's filing concerning rebuttal case and as we
9 said, as I indicated last week, we thought we were being very
10 transparent and above board in stating in that filing, now a month ago,
11 on the 13th of September, that in addition to the fact witnesses listed,
12 and I'm quoting now, "The Prosecutor will tender a number of exhibits as
13 part of its rebuttal case. In connection with offering various exhibits,
14 it may be necessary or appropriate for the Prosecution to call one or more
15 witnesses concerning the provenance or background of the exhibits, or some
16 of them." We had thought, Mr. President, with all respect, that we had
17 complied with the Chamber's ruling or direction. There was no indication
18 or response from either the Chamber or from counsel that our rebuttal
19 filing had been in some way deficient so we went forward thinking that we
20 had done what we were supposed to do.
21 I think to confirm that, we look at the witnesses that the
22 Prosecution did call and the Chamber will recall the witnesses that were
23 called last week, some of them were protected and I won't use their names
24 but even in regard to those witnesses, there was no providing of a list of
25 exhibits to be used with those witnesses or a summary of what those
1 exhibits were about. No, what the Prosecution did was list the fact
2 witnesses that we intended to call and, again, the Chamber approved some
3 and declined others but it was never our understanding that exhibits would
4 have to be listed and summarised.
5 Respectfully, Your Honours, I think this is an illustration of
6 something that happens unfortunately, not surprisingly, when you think
7 about it, in this institution and that is we don't work here drawing upon
8 an established or shared jurisprudence or practice. Certainly if I was
9 practising in the United States and a judge made certain rulings, we would
10 be speaking from a -- using the common language, if you will, legal,
11 cultural language and knowing what we meant. Unfortunately that's not
12 always the case here. In my 20 years -- it's only my personal experience
13 of course, but again to explain our understanding of the Chamber's ruling,
14 in 20 years of doing this, I have never been required to make a filing
15 listing the issues to be addressed on rebuttal. This was a first time.
16 That is a new concept for me and certainly we did not have in mind that we
17 were supposed to list and prepare each document listing all the exhibits
18 that we intended it to use. Now, let me give the Court an example of this
19 to say that the practice is not established at this institution and indeed
20 it has varied from case to case. In the Kordic and Cerkez case, which the
21 Chamber knows that I was directly involved with, the vast majority of the
22 rebuttal exhibits were simply tendered from counsel table. There was no
23 witness. Simply documents were tendered to the Chamber were counsel table
24 which were believed to be in rebuttal of Defence evidence. That was my
25 prior experience in tendering exhibits on rebuttal in this institution.
1 So what this leads me it to say, Mr. President, is that, again,
2 there were certain rebuttal evidence which we have intended to lead, to
3 use that word, which we intended to offer here, which were not included in
4 relation to the fact witnesses that were called. Let me just give the
5 Chamber, so it's less abstract and a bit more concrete, let me give the
6 Chamber some specific examples. One I mentioned briefly before. For
7 example, during the testimony of Bozo Rajic, Mr. Rajic refused
8 categorically, denied categorically having made certain statements in a
9 televised interview. He directly accused, he directly testified, that the
10 tape recording showed to him, the video showed to him, to be doctored, had
11 been edited, had been fabricated in some way so that his words were not
12 accurately presented. Through a great deal of effort, the Prosecution
13 team went back to the television station in Zagreb, through the Croatian
14 government, obtained a further full copy of the broadcast as it had been
15 originally broadcast and obtained a certification from both television
16 station and the Croatian government that that was a full, complete and
17 unedited broadcast and the Prosecution would submit, Your Honour, that it
18 indeed shows Mr. Bozo Rajic saying the things that we said that he said
19 and which he denied in his testimony under oath.
20 A further example, during the Defence cases and the case in
21 general, and particularly coming from Mr. Krsnik, there has been argument
22 and the Chamber had been alerted to the fact, alleged fact, that a
23 Croatian national court or domestic court ruling had held that the
24 presidential transcripts were not legally admissible evidence. We
25 understand and agree that this Chamber is not bound by Croatian domestic
1 law in any event on this matter but it's only fair that the Chamber should
2 be properly informed about what actually happened in that case.
3 Unfortunately, the Chamber has never been told up until now that that
4 ruling cited by Mr. Krsnik, was reversed by a Croatian appellate court,
5 which said indeed that the presidential transcripts are legal, admissible
6 evidence. Now, there again, efforts were taken through the Croatian
7 government to obtain asserted copy of the Croatian appellate court ruling
8 and we have that ruling certified by the Croatian government to be a true
9 and correct copy of that ruling, which we are prepared to tender to the
10 Chamber and we think the Chamber should have, since the Defence very
11 specifically made an issue to the contrary.
12 During the Defence cases, the Defence and several witnesses,
13 including the Court may recall a witness named Ivic Pasalic, attacked the
14 presidential transcripts, their authenticity and accuracy. We have been
15 able to obtain an audio recording, not just simply a transcript, but an
16 audio recording of a later meeting in 1999, involving Mr. Pasalic and
17 others, which the Chamber can compare, the audio recording, this is one
18 where there is an audio recording and the Chamber can compare the audio
19 recording with the transcript provided and in our submission, we will
20 respectfully submit, if the Chamber were to accept that evidence, that
21 what that evidence shows is that indeed the transcripts provided are an
22 accurate recording, an accurate representation, of the meetings or
23 conversations recorded. We have the audio tape and a transcript of that
24 conversation involving President Tudjman, Ivic Pasalic and others which we
25 would tender to the Chamber.
1 Another example during the Defence cases there were times when
2 because of time constraints, exhibits were not used on cross-examination
3 and in some instances in fact the Chamber invited to us tender the
4 exhibits in rebuttal. A recent --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the interpreters.
6 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
7 A recent example concerned Mr. Davor Marijan, which the Chamber
8 will recall in fact only testified.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Scott:
10 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
11 A Defence witness, expert, which the Chamber may recall only
12 testified after the Prosecution had made its rebuttal filing. During the
13 cross-examination of Mr. Marijan and again I cite this as just simply one
14 example and with great respect to Judge Clark, Judge Clark invited me at
15 one point rather than going on with the witness, with a number of
16 exhibits, to simply tender those exhibits in rebuttal if we believed they
17 were contrary to the issue -- to the testimony presented by the witness.
18 So we have included in our rebuttal submission a number of exhibits that
19 we think are directly contrary to the testimony of Mr. Marijan. I have
20 them listed here, I don't think I'll take the time to read them to the
21 Chamber, that the numbers to the Chamber, unless we get to the point where
22 we may need to do that.
23 The last example that many I would give to the Chamber, I believe,
24 well, one or two, during the Naletilic Defence case in particular, there
25 were of course a number of witnesses and expressed -- that were called
1 that -- making express denials that the fact that the Baja Kraljevic ATG
2 had anything to do or was part of the Convicts Battalion.
3 We have gathered and would present five or six additional exhibits
4 on rebuttal that we believe are directly contrary to that position showing
5 the direct affiliation of the Baja Kraljevic ATG with the Convicts
6 Battalion, contrary to testimony given by Defence witnesses. I think that
7 is the last example I will give.
8 So that's our position, Your Honours, and we believe that those
9 exhibits should be received by the Chamber, that we would tender those
10 exhibits and that they are proper on rebuttal and that the Chamber can
11 certainly pick and choose among them, I suppose, if the Chamber wants to
12 consider the bundle, the total bundle of exhibits presented, may make
13 individual decision on that we would ask the Chamber and would hope the
14 Chamber would not make an across-the-board ruling on those matters.
15 Again, for example, we think that the Rajic videotape, we think that the
16 Croatian court ruling on the legality, the presidential transcripts as
17 evidence, we think that audio tape of Mr. Pasalic are important evidence
18 that the Chamber should receive directly contrary to evidence presented in
19 the Defence case.
20 So Mr. President, that is our position on that and I'm sorry
21 that -- I regret that it wasn't addressed earlier last week but again
22 because of taking the witnesses we didn't present it sooner.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any response? Mr. Krsnik?
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I
25 really -- I'm really surprised all the time, given what I can expect from
1 the Prosecution. When I came to this Tribunal, while -- when I observed
2 its practice, when I saw how the decisions that one expected for the
3 Prosecution, always to their advantage, and I saw that the Court's
4 practice with regard to other cases, this really surprised me and at the
5 end of these proceedings, I would have expected such a speech in the
6 pre-trial stage of the proceedings, and we've heard everything that the
7 Prosecutor has said at the end of these proceedings and he hasn't said
8 this accidentally. He wants to take advantage of the position here before
9 the Trial Chamber. You wouldn't have allowed me to make such a speech.
10 You didn't allow me in the course of cross-examination to put questions
11 which were outside the scope of your decision and the Prosecutor has been
12 speaking here for half an hour and explaining certain facts but you should
13 have interrupted him and told him that at this stage of the proceedings
14 it's not possible to address such issues and Judge Clark warned me about
15 this on several occasions and at ex parte sessions, she warned me about
16 this and said that I expected such positions in the Pre-Trial phase of the
17 proceedings and if everything that the Prosecutor has just said now is not
18 the same thing, then I really close my book that has to do with my
19 judicial knowledge, my legal knowledge. I'll take my robe off and I'll
20 leave this Tribunal. Defence counsel is now provided with this bundle of
21 documents and this was just a minute ago. This takes place all the time.
22 And now an investigator, yet again, has to come and I don't know what he
23 has it to convince the Trial Chamber of and we have to have documents
24 tendered into evidence in the rebuttal proceedings, which should have been
25 done a long time ago. The Prosecutor had the opportunity to do such
1 things. He had 60 witnesses. Defence's reply to that evidence and we
2 could continue like this all the time. But let me try to imagine a case,
3 an illusion of justice, as my colleague Seric said. Let us imagine a case
4 when we would accept this. Aren't you going to let the Defence counsel
5 refute this evidence? My learned colleague, Mr. Scott, mentioned an audio
6 tape. What kind of an audio tape? That makes me laugh. Defence won't
7 have the possibility of checking to see whether this audio tape is
8 authentic it. Don't we have the right to check with professionals, the
9 authenticity of this tape? And this occurs to him now. Well, he's in
10 very good -- on very good terms with President Mesic and he can get in
11 touch whenever he wants to with him and he can be a guest whenever he
12 wants, and they have just received this audio tape, nine months later.
13 They didn't have it before. So then how can Defence counsel check this?
14 That's why they have just received this. They thought they'd manage to
15 slide this in. Defence counsel wouldn't have the opportunity of replying
16 and then we will go on about justice and fairness yet again.
17 As far as the Trial Chamber's decision is concerned, Mr. Scott
18 should be far more familiar with the proceedings in Croatian courts. This
19 was a procedural decision, but the entire matter shall be addressed right
20 up to the Supreme Court. This is the same court. It's the zupanijski
21 court, the county court, and an investigation is being conducted. If
22 there is an appeal, if Defence or the Prosecution appeals then the
23 Chamber, consisting of three judges, decide about the proceedings at that
24 same court but everything is left for the appellate proceedings. I don't
25 want things to be misinterpreted.
1 Your Honours, I quite simply can't understand this. I can't
2 understand a single decision, apart from the one in which you will
3 consistently apply the provisions that you have presented to us and the
4 provisions that we have respected. I quite simply can't understand or
5 accept any other decision. And this means that documents can be tendered,
6 if such documents exist, about Aljoz Rados's diary and maybe about
7 Sovici and Doljani, only such documents can be tendered into evidence
8 because the Defence only has one more witness who can address this matter
9 and that's it. Everything outside of that scope, Your Honours, would
10 really have nothing to do with justice and this must not be allowed before
11 future generations and in the eyes of those who will be examining what
12 took place at this Tribunal very soon, because if this is not done, I
13 really don't know what sort of guarantees we will have in front of this
14 Court. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric?
16 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, and good
17 morning, Your Honours. In the course of these proceedings, I have always
18 known that the Prosecution does not have to be fair. Their position is
19 contrary to our position. However, when they object to our conduct they
20 must be aware of the fact that we have learned from them. We have learned
21 from their behaviour. But such behaviour, such conduct is something we
22 learned from the Prosecution. And I claim and it's not just a claim I
23 make, it's proof, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are a combination of
24 common law and civil law. Therefore, when the Prosecution talks about the
25 practice in the United States, then he's trying to throw sand in our eyes,
1 Your Honours. At this moment, I can give you a series of examples from
2 continental law. I as a president of a Trial Chamber, I saw thousands of
3 cases in front of my -- before my Trial Chamber. Thousands of cases in
4 the course of my career. This is all very fine and well what the
5 Prosecution says and what the Prosecution suggests. This is an entire new
6 series of evidence, videotapes, audio tapes, but we actually have the
7 right, to look at this, analyse it and draw certain conclusions. Allow us
8 our minimum rights so that we can explain all of these matters in our
9 final brief, in our closing brief, which has to be submitted on the 23rd
10 and our concluding brief has to be given on the 28th. So if you allow the
11 Prosecution to do this, without giving us the opportunity of examining and
12 analysing this and drawing certain conclusions, writing out our
13 conclusions. Then I would like to repeat the Prosecution doesn't have an
14 obligation to be fair but you do. You have such an obligation. Thank you
15 very much.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE LIU: After consultations of my colleagues, I have a few
18 words to say on this subject. First of all, we believe that according to
19 the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, there must be very strict criteria for
20 the admission of the evidence in this stage. Many issues raised by the
21 Prosecution could be raised at an earlier stage, and the rebuttal evidence
22 must be related to the significant issue arising directly out of the
23 Defence evidence, which could not reasonably have been anticipated. And
24 the Prosecution cannot call additional evidence merely because its case
25 has been met by certain evidence to contradict it. It is not a procedure
1 to reinforce the Prosecution's case. I think this is -- must be very
2 clear. Only highly probative evidence, on a significant issue will be
3 permitted in the rebuttal and the Chamber will have the power to reject
4 the evidence that is -- whose probative value is so low and it could not
5 possibly rebut the Defence case on the merits.
6 On the 9th of October, 2002, this Trial Chamber made a decision.
7 In this decision, the Chamber will therefore only allow for the submission
8 of the exhibits relating to the issues that three previous authorised
9 rebuttal witnesses were to testify upon, namely, the four areas. The
10 first, the events related to Sovici and Doljani. Two, the burial of
11 Mr. Harmandzic. Third, the identification of the wooden rifle. And
12 fourth, the Rados diary. We also decided that Mr. Marko Prelec may be
13 called only to the extent that his testimony is necessary to support the
14 admission of any of the exhibits on the above-mentioned four areas. Now,
15 we would like to adhere to the decision we rendered. We have spent quite
16 a long time on this issue. Of course, we agree with the Prosecution that
17 jurisprudence in the rebuttal proceedings before this Tribunal is not that
18 clear, but any way, we have made a decision in this respect and we should
19 abide by our own decisions in this matter. Yes, Mr. Scott?
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, obviously the Prosecution
21 accepts the Chamber's ruling. We felt that we needed to state our
22 position and appreciate the Chamber hearing us. Thank you for that. In
23 that regard, and accepting the Chamber's ruling, then there are four or
24 five exhibits that we would tender, then, through Mr. Prelec so we would
25 call Mr. Prelec, then, as a witness.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Could we have the witness, please, Madam
3 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, can I ask you one question arising out of
4 one of the items that was on your list of grievances, I think?
5 MR. SCOTT: Certainly.
6 JUDGE CLARK: Could you tell me the date of the decision of the
7 court of appeal in Croatia, vis-a-vis Mr. Pasalic's evidence. I think I
8 elicited from him that it was only a very minor court that had made the
9 ruling and that that ruling was subject to appeal.
10 MR. SCOTT: The date of the decision was the 18th of June, 2002
11 and certainly to respond to counsel I'm sure I don't know as much about
12 the Croatian court system as any of them do. Quite clearly, this is
13 apparently -- it's indicated on the ruling it's from the Republic of
14 Croatia, the county court in Zagreb and the case number, the ruling is
15 dated the 18th of June, 2002. Now, frankly it occurs -- seems to me that
16 this may be as much considered a legal argument as it is a factual issue
17 and I would certainly be prepared to tender a copy of the Croatian court
18 ruling to the Chamber if the Chamber were so inclined.
19 JUDGE CLARK: Well, I think that's something that we have to
20 discuss together because a ruling of a court is clearly not necessarily
21 rebuttal evidence. It's something that we should receive.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Clark and of course we are in the
23 Chamber's hands.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
1 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
2 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration, please?
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 WITNESS: MARKO PRELEC
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
7 Yes, Mr. Scott.
8 Examined by Mr. Scott:
9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Prelec. The Chamber has heard from you before
10 so, of course we won't go into any extensive background in terms of your
11 qualifications or your prior testimony in this matter. Your testimony
12 I think will be very brief. In the course of preparing to testify, is it
13 correct to say, sir, that the Prosecution asked you to include -- to
14 review a list of documents that had been produced from what's been called
15 in these proceedings, the Zagreb archive?
16 A. Yes, it is correct.
17 Q. All right. Now, because of certain rulings by the Chamber,
18 Mr. Prelec, the scope of the exhibits I'm going to ask you about now is
19 much more limited than the list that we had reviewed previously but can
20 you confirm to the Chamber, please, that what has been marked -- perhaps
21 the best thing to do, Madam usher, is if you could provide that thick
22 bundle of rebuttal exhibits to Mr. Prelec -- if I could direct your
23 attention first of all, I think we are only going to be talking about four
24 exhibits just so everyone is clear. 314.1?
25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, Your Honours these again should be
1 included in the bundle of previously prepared rebuttal exhibits which the
2 Chamber has had.
3 Q. Can you confirm, based upon your review, familiarity with the
4 Zagreb archive in general and your review of the records concerning the
5 source of this particular document, that exhibit 314.1 came from the
6 Zagreb archive?
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 Q. Just briefly just to remind the Chamber of some of these matters,
9 is there anything on the face of the original -- when I say -- the
10 Croatian-language copy of the document that, among other things, indicates
11 that to you?
12 A. Yes. There is a stamp from the Zagreb -- or from the Croatian
13 state archive in the upper right-hand corner of the original.
14 Q. All right. If you can turn to what I think would be the very next
15 exhibit in the bundle, 314.2, can you again, please, simply confirm that
16 that document also came from the Zagreb archive?
17 A. Yes, I can.
18 Q. Could you next, please, it turn to Exhibit 443.1? Can you
19 likewise please confirm -- sorry, give you a chance to find it. 443.1.
20 Can you confirm that that document also came from the Zagreb archive?
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. All right. And the last document, Mr. Prelec, and I'll ask -- not
23 in that bundle but if the -- if excuse me, if the usher could provide you
24 with the bundle that was used with the witness Idrizovic, or I'll tell you
25 what, easiest thing if I might be allowed Mr. President to conclude this
1 direct examination, I can simply tender my copy to the usher, 318.1,
2 318.1. And perhaps just so people can see what that document is, Madam
3 Usher, could you also put the English translation on the ELMO, please?
4 Are you able to confirm, sir, that this was a document that was originally
5 produced to the Office of the Prosecutor by a man named Safet Idrizovic?
6 A. I'm able to confirm that it's listed in the Office of the
7 Prosecutor's evidence tracking system as a document that was attached to
8 the statement of Safet Idrizovic, so yes, I can.
9 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Prelec. No further questions, Your
11 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination?
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Prelec. Good morning,
14 Mr. Prelec. I didn't understand your last answer about the last document,
15 that you have just been given. What did you confirm with regard to that
16 document? I didn't quite understand you. Can you repeat what your
17 confirmation was? What do you confirm about that document? What?
18 A. I checked the -- the Office of the Prosecutor has a computerised
19 index system that records the origin of all documents received by the
20 office, and I checked the entry for that last exhibit in that system and
21 confirmed that it was listed as a document attached to the statement given
22 by Safet Idrizovic to the Office of the Prosecutor.
23 Q. And the origin is something you wouldn't be able to tell us
24 anything about, the origin of the document, where it actually comes from,
25 you personally don't have any knowledge as to the origin of the document?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Kindly tell me when did they reach the Prosecutor's Office, in
3 what year was that? The last document. When did that last document
4 arrive and when did the following documents reach the Office of the
5 Prosecutor? Just a moment.
6 A. I don't understand. Is the question there on the Idrizovic
7 document or the previous three?
8 Q. The Idrizovic document and the previous three. 314.1, 314.2, and
9 443.1. So these are the three documents and the fourth one is the
10 Idrizovic document. When was it that the Office of the Prosecutor
11 received them and got them into their custody?
12 A. I don't know when the Idrizovic document was received. The
13 previous three would have been received in last year or this year but I
14 don't have a precise date.
15 Q. This is a third time you're giving your testimony in this case; is
16 that correct?
17 A. I believe it's the second time.
18 Q. Regarding the Idrizovic document, in the computer, it doesn't say
19 when he gave the statement and when he handed the document over to the
20 Prosecutor's Office; is that correct?
21 A. It does say. I just don't recall what that particular date was.
22 I simply confirmed that it did come from him. I didn't memorise the
24 Q. Mr. Prelec, can you agree with me that the previous three
25 documents were received by the Prosecutor's Office in the year 2001? That
1 is my first question. Can you agree with me on that?
2 A. It's likely but it may have been -- it may have been this year.
3 The same answer, I didn't check the precise date.
4 Q. I know, but you're here to help the Chamber. You are the witness
5 who has been called to confirm what? You are here to confirm that the
6 document arrived from somewhere and you don't know anything else or you
7 can't recall. I'm putting it to you, sir, that the -- Mr. Idrizovic's
8 document was handed over in the year 2000; is that correct?
9 A. I can't add anything. I simply don't know.
10 Q. Did you ever see the originals of any of these documents?
11 A. Well, it's possible. The Idrizovic document, no. It's possible
12 that I saw one or more of the previous three in my work in the archive,
13 but the number of documents I saw was so large that I can't say whether
14 these particular ones were among them. I think actually it's unlikely
15 that I would have seen the physical originals.
16 Q. Mr. Prelec, how long would it take you to go to your office and
17 check the date when the Office of the Prosecutor received the four
18 documents in question?
19 A. It would take about 15 minutes.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please have a
21 break to allow the witness to go to his office to check the dates and tell
22 us what the dates are?
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, do you have any other questions?
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. I wouldn't have any other
1 questions, Your Honours. I just want to -- wanted the date to be
2 recorded, the exact dates, when the Office of the Prosecutor received
3 those documents. I believe that this is important for all of us, to show
4 how things can be represented if one finds it convenient to be represented
5 in that way. If the gentleman only needs 15 minutes, we will have the
6 exact information. Maybe we could have the break now to allow the witness
7 to go to his office in that case, that would be my last question. So I'm
8 kindly asking for your indulgence and for the permission for us to have a
9 break now in order for the witness to go and check the dates.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, first of all I want to make it clear
12 because of my own familiarity with the system that Mr. Prelec has talked
13 about, I'm absolutely positive that those dates can be provided. However,
14 I object to the relevance of counsel's question. The Chamber has received
15 probably hundreds of documents from the Zagreb archive and never on any
16 occasion, on any previous occasion, have we been asked to provide the
17 specific date that a specific document was provided. I don't think
18 that's -- I don't think it's necessary, unless counsel can raise a
19 specific issue on a specific document that he has some reason to believe
20 they didn't come from Zagreb archive but now, at this late date, to
21 require that information, which again can certainly be provided, I just
22 simply think it's irrelevant.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me respond to my
24 learned friend just briefly, if you will allow me. Your Honours, I
25 thought that it would be Mr. Prelec who would testify, not my learned
1 friend, but what is important here is the fact that the Prosecutor had
2 these documents in his possession as long as a year or two or even three
3 years ago, before the Defence case, before the Prosecution case and now we
4 are being given these documents in the rebuttal, as late as the rebuttal.
5 I believe that things are clear, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE LIU: We believe that the request from the Defence counsel
7 is relevant to this issue because these four documents, in my view, are
8 quite controversial, during the proceedings of this case. And some of
9 them, I remember clearly, this Trial Chamber made decisions, denied the
10 admission of those documents previously. So maybe we could have a break
11 now and we will resume at a later stage. Yes, Judge Clark?
12 JUDGE CLARK: As you are going to go back to the archives,
13 Mr. Prelec, to -- or the computerised archives to look up the date on
14 which these documents were received, can I ask you a question which
15 puzzles me and I think appropriately. It's very difficult for the Chamber
16 to receive an incomplete document. Both the documents 314.1 and 314.2
17 refer to other documents. Is there any reason why we don't have those
18 other documents? They refer to a list of 85 men who were interrogated.
19 Are those documents in the archives? And is there any reason why we are
20 not seeing them? Now it may be that the Defence or the Prosecution may
21 want to respond to that but I don't know if you know if those documents
22 are actually available.
23 THE WITNESS: I don't know off the top of my head on the specific
24 issue. I do know that many times I noticed that a document -- I would
25 read a document and it would say, for example, "Attached please find a
1 list or a report or something like this," and it would not in fact be
2 attached. I also recall finding multiple copies of the same or very
3 similar documents in different places so my assumption was that in some
4 places, you would basically have a carbon copy without attachments. In
5 other places you would have what was received by the recipient and that
6 might be a complete set. It's very difficult to give a definitive
7 answer. I could look and see if the list is available. I'm not sure if I
8 would be successful in a short interval of time.
9 JUDGE CLARK: Can I just ask you one question? When the -- you
10 went to the archive and you examined everything, did you make a record on
11 any document? Remember you had a book the last time -- which would
12 indicate that here was a document which referred to other documents which
13 were supposed to be annexed to it and those documents were in fact
14 missing? Would it be a relatively simple thing to establish that, in
15 relation to these two documents?
16 THE WITNESS: No such record was generally made. The normal
17 practice was to photocopy the entirety, if a document had an attachment we
18 would copy the entirety of it. In some exceptional circumstances, where
19 there was a very large document that was plainly irrelevant, we would only
20 copy a portion, but that was highly exceptional and I don't believe it
21 would have been done in the case of a list like this.
22 JUDGE CLARK: But it seems it to me, therefore, that you could
23 quite quickly establish whether there was a photocopy of these documents
24 and if there wasn't, can we infer that they didn't exist in the archive.
25 THE WITNESS: I could attempt to establish that, yes.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, are you going to ask some questions
2 in cross-examination?
3 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I am happy about your decision and I
4 won't have any questions for this witness.
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether I
6 should ask my questions arising from Judge Clark's questions now or later
7 on when the witness returns after the break. Can you please advise me?
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe at a later stage.
9 Well, Witness, we have to break now but I have to warn you that
10 you are still under the oath, so do not talk to anybody and do not let
11 anybody talk to you about your testimony.
12 THE WITNESS: I understand.
13 JUDGE LIU: We will resume at 11.30.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.36 a.m.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, please continue.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Prelec, let me first ask you, documents 314.1, 314.2 and
19 443.1, when did they arrive at the Prosecutor's Office? Have you been
20 able to establish the dates when they were received?
21 A. Yes. 314.1 arrived on 23 March, 2001. 314.2 arrived on 1
22 December, 2000, and 443.1 arrived on 21 November, 2000, at the Office of
23 the Prosecutor. The -- I also have the dates that they were located in
24 the archive and information about some other copies of the same
1 Q. And the document which came through Mr. Idrizovic, when did that
2 document arrive in the OTP?
3 A. It arrived on -- on or before 19 July, 2000. Mr. Idrizovic was
4 interviewed between the 10th of May and the 12th of July of 2000. Assume
5 the document would have been tendered in that interval.
6 Q. And tell me, please, when you were working in the archive, did you
7 find these documents in the archive itself or did you -- let me put it
8 this way: Where were all these documents before they reached the
9 archive? I'm referring to the four documents?
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
11 MR. SCOTT: The Chamber has received extensive testimony about the
12 archive in general before and I'm going to object and suggest that this is
13 going beyond the scope of direct on these specific documents. There has
14 been extensive testimony about the nature of the archive and the
15 collection there.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, the witness may know or may not know where these
17 documents are before they arrived at the archive.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm just inquiring
19 about these three or four documents. I'm not concerned with anything
20 else. This is his third testimony -- not second but the third -- and I
21 asked specifically about these four documents, whether this witness knows
22 anything about the whereabouts of these documents before they reached the
23 archives, whether he saw them anywhere before. I believe this is a very
24 straightforward question. I'm referring to only three, that is four
25 documents that we are talking about.
1 JUDGE LIU: You may try your luck but I'm not sure whether it will
2 lead us to anywhere.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't intend to
4 belabour on this. I don't intend to go beyond your ruling. But this is
5 very relevant. Now we have heard when the documents arrived here. I know
6 when the archive was established in 2000 the archive didn't exist. That
7 is why I'm asking why these -- where this documents were found. The
8 archive was established only in July or August of the year 2000. It
9 was -- the date -- the time of foundation so I believe it is very
10 interesting to know where the documents were before.
11 Q. You've heard the whole discussion, Mr. Prelec. I believe you
12 understood everything. So can you please answer my question?
13 A. I did check as to where the archive recorded these documents as
14 having come from. 314.1 and 314.2 are both from the collection called the
15 military police administration, and further, from subcollection department
16 for combatting crime or rather in Croatian Odjel Za Suzbijanje
17 Kriminaliteta. However, they are from two different subsubcollections
18 within that department. 443.1 comes from, this concrete copy comes from
19 the main staff of the HVO, in the subcollection incoming mail from
20 southeast Herzegovina operational zone, 15 May, 1993 through 5 October,
22 Q. All right, then. Where were these documents before? Did you see
23 them before the archive was established? Where were these documents
24 before? Who is it who handed them over to the archive? In whose custody
25 were these documents?
1 A. I don't think I could add anything to my previous testimony. I
2 could try to summarise it from memory but beyond that, I don't recall.
3 Q. I remember your testimony and we also have it in the transcript
4 the first time when you testified about the archive. This will be my last
5 question and it arises from the questions put to you by Her Honour Judge
6 Clark. When you were searching the archive were you looking only for the
7 documents that would serve the purpose of the Prosecution or did you
8 objectively take all the documents, even the -- those that may have been
9 of some use to the Defence and relative to the period of the indictment?
10 So were you objective according to the codex that the Prosecution has to
11 adhere to, that it has to be objective and that it has to find all the
12 document that is would paint an objective picture, that is based on the
13 decision of this Tribunal.
14 A. My practice was not to look for things -- only things that were
15 specifically relevant for any given case at trial in general and the
16 instructions that I gave to others and that I tried to practice myself
17 were to look for anything that bore in some way on potential war crime,
18 whether in an inculpatory or an exculpatory fashion and whether it was a
19 case under investigation or not, and moreover also things that served to
20 establish chains of authority and chains of command. Apart from any war
21 crime. So -- and we also had some kind of practice of marking things that
22 were clearly exculpatory on our order forms. That's pretty much all I
23 could say about that.
24 Q. Did you come across this document, which is of this nature? I'm
25 going to show it to you. It's D1/437 it's the number of the document.
1 You can distribute the document to the others as well, Madam you shall in?
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott.
3 MR. SCOTT: Beyond the scope now, objection. Now we are getting
4 into completely different topics and completely different documents.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, could you tell me what is that
6 document about, D1/437? What is it?
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] D1/437. Now that we have heard
8 Mr. Prelec's testimony and we have heard Her Honour Judge Clark's
9 questions, and we know about the codex that they have to adhere to and
10 based on the answer that he has given us, I am asking him about the -- his
11 work in the archive and whether he came across this document in the
12 archive. If he did, why wasn't this document handed over to us? This is
13 one of our exculpatory documents from the archives so my question is
14 whether he came across that document and if he did, how come it wasn't
15 handed over to us.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, again we object. This is completely
18 far from the four exhibits. The Chamber was very limited and restrict the
19 Prosecution in the evidence that we could tender through this witness. We
20 are were limited to four specific documents, no more. Further, we object
21 to, Mr. President, the Chamber will understand, I hope, a number of people
22 have been involved in reviewing documents at the archive, not Mr. Prelec.
23 I suspect that possibly Mr. Krsnik can stand here probably for several
24 days and hand documents to the witness asking if he remembers seeing them.
25 It number 1, as Mr. Prelec himself has testified, he's probably reviewed
1 personally reviewed, hundreds or thousands of documents. How he would
2 recall any particular one without the chance to do what he just did a few
3 moments ago and check the OTP records would be virtually impossible.
4 Number 2, as I just indicated, a number of people have been involved in
5 reviewing documents, far beyond Mr. Prelec. So the fact a that Mr. Prelec
6 may or may not have seen a particular document frankly doesn't take us
8 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, at first glance, we did not see any
9 relevance of this document to this witness, because we limited the area to
10 four categories. I don't know what this document is about.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a document from
12 the archive and my question to the witness was how they worked with
13 documents. So my final question is as follows:
14 Q. How did you mark the exculpatory documents? How did you
15 personally mark the exculpatory documents? A little while ago, you said
16 you mark them by a specific marking. So my question to you is how you
17 mark them and what did you use? What marking did you use it to mark those
18 exculpatory documents?
19 MR. SCOTT: I again object, Mr. President. I want to make very
20 clear the Prosecution has nothing to hide in this regard. Nothing
21 whatsoever. But as a matter of principle, the Chamber has limited this
22 extremely narrowly. Mr. Krsnik would now like to have a fishing
23 expedition in general about documents at the archive and that is beyond
24 the scope of this rebuttal witness and we object entirely to it.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we believe that your question is
1 beyond the scope of your cross-examination.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] In that case, with all due respect,
3 Your Honours, I have no further questions. Thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination, Mr. Scott?
5 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, thank you.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Prelec, did you find out anything about the
8 documents which are referred to in 314.1 and 314.2?
9 A. I did, Your Honour. I found that -- well, perhaps I
10 could put it this way. 314.2, the next document that was copied from that
11 binder or box was a list of 86 persons from Sovici, which may well be the
12 reference list. It's not our internal form doesn't say -- doesn't allow
13 us to say that with certainty. But I did notice that among the people on
14 that list were the person who is Mr. -- I believe Mr. Idrizovic who was
15 mentioned in documents 314.1 and 314.2. So I think this is probably the
16 list in question. It's not entirely complete. There is some pages that
17 are illegible and there are -- appears to be out of order as well but it
18 does go up to number 86.
19 JUDGE CLARK: Well, I don't know if either of the parties wants to
20 say anything about that. I do not -- I'm always uncomfortable about an
21 incomplete document but on the other hand, I don't want to put either the
22 Prosecution or the Defence in an awkward position. You're saying that
23 these documents, which list the 86 people, are available. Is there
24 anything in relation to the interrogation process on the documents?
25 A. Well, basically it's a list with roughly -- and I'm speaking on
1 the basis of a very quick look, but it's a list with basically
2 paragraph-length descriptions. There is nothing that I saw specifically
3 about the interrogation process, but there is information that was
4 presumably gained from that process, such as date of birth, military
5 history, and some things that are represented as having been said by the
6 people in question about what was happening to them.
7 JUDGE CLARK: Well, it seems to me, Mr. Prelec, well, maybe --
8 thank you. That's really -- I can't say anything more to you. Are they
9 all in the Croatian language?
10 A. They are, Your Honour. I didn't check if there was a translation
11 or not, I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you.
13 JUDGE LIU: Any questions?
14 MR. SCOTT: I was simply going to respond and I'm sorry that I was
15 back up on my feet. I thought Judge Clark, I apologise. I thought you
16 were finished. I'm happy to tender them if the Chamber would feel more
17 comfortable having the list. The Chamber will, I hope, understand that I
18 certainly don't personally review all potential relevant documents in this
19 case, which you can expect are voluminous but based on the additional
20 information that Mr. Prelec has provided to us I'm happy to tender those
21 additional pages.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek?
23 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, the Defence has never seen these
24 documents. We are not in a position to object to the tendering of those
25 documents or stipulate to the tendering of those documents. We are in the
1 dark. So I know Mr. Prelec is in-house and we have a witness waiting.
2 Perhaps the Prosecutor could provide us with copies of those and we could
3 make a decision. Thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: So there is no questions out of the Judge's question.
5 Witness, thank you very much for coming to give your evidence. We
6 wish you to have a nice day.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 JUDGE LIU: Madam Usher will show you out of the room.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE LIU: If there is any documents to tender through this
11 witness, I hope that both parties will submit that in written form.
12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, while the witness -- I actually tried
13 to catch this before the witness left the room but he was quicker than I
14 was. Can we be allowed -- I know the witness has been excused but -- so I
15 suppose it doesn't matter but I would talk -- I assume I can talk then
16 with Mr. Prelec about identifying these additional pages for the purposes
17 of producing them to this Chamber.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Krsnik, are you ready for your rejoinder
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honour. I just
23 wanted to say this: As my learned friend said he would disclose these
24 documents for us to see them, we are very much interested in seeing them,
25 but my -- I wonder what would have happened if we had had them for our
1 cross-examination? I am coming across an increased number of documents
2 that were in the possession of the Prosecution, like for example, a
3 witness who gave her testimony under pseudonym, a lady, the documents for
4 her existed at the time we had to cross-examine but we didn't have those
5 documents. So we are very much interested in seeing all these documents
6 and to your question, Your Honour, I am ready for my first witness. Thank
8 JUDGE LIU: Are there any protective measures for that witness?
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Facial distortion
10 and a pseudonym, please.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, any objections, Mr. Scott?
12 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour. No objection.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Your request for the protective
14 measures is granted. Yes, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: While the courtroom is being prepared and I certainly
16 don't expect this information to be provided in open session but I simply
17 bring -- raise it as a reminder, we I will still have not been provided
18 the identity or further information concerning Witness X. We would ask to
19 receive that.
20 JUDGE LIU: Should we go to private session, please?
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
22 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in it private session, Mr. Krsnik.
23 [Private session]
13 Page 16448 – redacted – private session
7 [Open session]
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
11 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
12 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to you?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 WITNESS: WITNESS NX
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
17 Yes, Mr. Krsnik, did you prepare a piece of paper?
18 Examined by Mr. Krsnik:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness, first of all I apologise
20 because you had to wait for so long, I know you've been here since 9.00
21 but unfortunately there was nothing I could do about it. I only just,
22 discovered that during the pause. We will show you now a piece of paper
23 on which your name will be written out. Don't read it out, just confirm
24 that that is your name, if it really is your name.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Witness, while we are dealing with these technical
2 matters in the courtroom, I would like to inform you of certain issues in
3 order to facilitate our cross-examination. You're an educated man. You
4 can see that you have a computer in front of you. Can you see the cursor
5 on the screen? It will be best if you followed the cursor and if you
6 started answering, once you saw that the cursor had come to a halt because
7 the cursor indicates when the interpreters have finished interpreting.
8 What is said is being interpreted into French and English and it's
9 important for what we said to be correctly translated. And in order for
10 it to be correctly translated we have to take care. Let's try not it to
11 speak at the same time. When I finish with my question, wait for the
12 cursor to stop. If it's still moving, wait, and then start answering.
13 I would like to tell you that your pseudonym, which has been
14 approved by the Trial Chamber and protective measures have also been
15 granted, your pseudonym here been Witness NX. I will address you as
16 "witness" and others will probably use your pseudonym. And one other
17 thing which I would like to explain to you.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we go into private
19 session for the usual series of questions?
20 Q. Witness, this means that know one will be able to hear this
21 outside this courtroom and try and take care not to reveal your identity I
22 will do the same as will the Prosecutor but you take care not to reveal
23 your identity, too?
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
25 [Private session]
13 Page 16451 – redacted – private session
8 [Open session]
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Witness, we are in open session now so what we say here can be
11 heard outside the courtroom so we have to be careful. You have to bear in
12 mind the warning I gave you earlier on. Witness, we are only interested
13 in one period of time. This is the decision rendered by the Trial
14 Chamber. This period commences on the 14th and 15th and 16th of April,
15 1993. This is the period we are interested in. Naturally, from the 14th,
16 15th, 16th and 17th and onwards. So that is the time frame we are talking
17 about, which have to do with the regards that took place in that
18 territory. But first of all, tell me, before we start talking about the
19 date when you left Jablanica, could you tell us -- could you explain to
20 the Trial Chamber why you left? But first of all, tell us do you know
21 Safet Idrizovic and did you see him on a daily basis and could you also
22 tell this Trial Chamber who this person is?
23 A. As I said, on the 14th, I was in Jablanica for the last time on
24 the 14th of April and at about 1700 hours, I went to the municipality of
25 Prozor, Rama. My sister was there. I went there for the Easter
1 holidays. I was with her that evening, and with some other people, some
2 neighbours, Cvetkovic Rafo was one of them. He was also a neighbour from
3 Vran. I slept over there. I spent the night there. And on the following
4 day, I went to go to Jablanica again. As far as your second question is
5 concerned, which regards Mr. Idrizovic, I know that he was the Defence
6 commander for the town and that he was in charge of all the forces in the
7 municipality of Jablanica.
8 Q. Up until when was he the commander of all the forces of the BH
9 Army in the municipality of Jablanica?
10 A. As far as I know, all the time.
11 Q. Very well. Can you tell us what happened on the 15th? Could you
12 go into the details, explain the details to the Trial Chamber? What
13 happened on the 15th of April? You mentioned Prozor. What else happened
14 after that?
15 A. In the morning, on the 15th, when I left Prozor and went to
16 Jablanica, when I reached a place called Ustirama.
17 Q. You have to repeat certain names. I can see that it hasn't been
18 recorded in the transcript, the names of people or locations, as you see,
19 Ustirama has been recorded. Please try to pronounce people's names or the
20 names of locations slowly. Spell them out.
21 A. I was going from the direction of Prozor towards Jablanica. When
22 I got to Ustirama, I was warned by the HVO military police that I
23 could not go on to Jablanica because the road had been -- the road to
24 Jablanica had been closed. That was -- that was in Gornja Slatina, it had
25 been closed in Gornja Slatina by BH Army members.
1 Q. Feel free to continue. This is a good rhythm.
2 A. After that, I was there for a while. I tried to find out through
3 the military police who had contact with Prozor, I tried to find out what
4 was happening. I tried to find out what was going on. They told me that
5 they didn't know anything in particular, all they knew was that the road
6 was closed and that there was no movement. I waited there for a while,
7 perhaps an hour and a half or two hours, and during that time, I also
8 found out that the road from Doljani to Jablanica had also been blocked.
9 There was a BH Army checkpoint in the -- in it a place called Jelacici and
10 this is what I found out through the military police. This is what I was
11 told by Mr. Zaric.
12 Q. What happened then?
13 A. Afterwards, when I realised that I couldn't take that road, I
14 returned in the direction of Prozor. I went through -- over the Vrana
15 mountain and over Risovac, Sovici, Doljani and I got to Doljani taking
16 this route.
17 Q. When did you get to Doljani?
18 A. Around 1300 hours.
19 Q. On what date? Can you tell us the date?
20 A. I got there on the 15th of April.
21 Q. At about 1300 hours?
22 A. Yes, at about 1300 hours.
23 Q. This is for the sake of the transcript so that the transcript can
24 be clear. And then what happened?
25 A. Then I received other information according to which fighting had
1 already broken out between the BH Army and the HVO, both in the area of
2 the Konjic municipality and along the line towards Jablanica where the BH
3 Army had already opened fire in the direction of the HVO front. So then
4 it was already possible to see that a BH Army attack had been launched,
5 had started. We were very concerned, we were very worried about our
6 people who had remained in Jablanica, who were blocked in Jablanica, and
7 we were particularly concerned about our civilians who stayed on, who
8 remained in Jablanica in their houses in their flats.
9 Q. Do you know what happened to those civilians who remained in
11 A. Yes. We received information on a daily basis, both through radio
12 communications and by other means. They started maltreating these
13 civilians, bringing them in, they started expelling them from their
14 flats. They forced them to carry out labour. They disarmed those who had
15 weapons, et cetera, they started moving refugees into the flats of
16 Croats. They kept arriving from the eastern part of Bosnia and some of
17 them were already there. So according to the information we received, the
18 situation was very difficult.
19 Q. Let's move on to the 16th now. I can lead you but I can also let
20 you speak freely, but if I notice that you are speaking at length or that
21 it doesn't have to do with the theme, I can interrupt you but with regard
22 to the 16th, can you tell us where you were at that time and what you
23 know about this personally, on the 16th of April, 1993?
24 A. On the 16th of April, the fighting intensified between the HVO and
25 the BH Army, towards Jablanica, in the Kosna Luka place. There was
1 also sporadic shooting that could be heard in Sovici. So there was more
2 and more shooting. There was more and more fighting. And the people
3 started to panic. It was very difficult and unusual for all of us because
4 we didn't really go anywhere. We didn't fight anywhere. You could say
5 that that was the first conflict for us and it was quite awful for us.
6 Q. Tell us, how many BH Army forces were there in Doljani and Sovici
7 and what was the strength of the HVO forces and the third question would
8 be what was the strength of the forces in Jablanica?
9 A. As far as Sovici and Doljani is concerned, as far as I know, there
10 were about 300 BH Army soldiers, if you include Doljani and Sovici. As
11 far as the HVO is concerned, there were about 40 HVO soldiers in Doljani
12 and about 35 to 40 soldiers in Sovici. As far as your second question is
13 concerned, the BH Army in the municipality itself in the entire
14 municipality, had about, well, almost 10.000 soldiers.
15 Q. Who were the BH Army members and the HVO members in Doljani and
16 Sovici? Were these local people or someone else? What sort of logistics
17 did they get? Et cetera? If you have any personal knowledge about this.
18 A. Well, the BH Army members, these were local people. The HVO
19 members were local people. As far as the BH Army members are concerned,
20 they were from the outside too, especially from Prozor. And from other
21 parts of the Bosnia and Herzegovina to an extent. And logistical support
22 for the BH Army would come from the direction of Jablanica and logistical
23 support for the HVO came from Herzegovina.
24 Q. What else happened on the 16th? Do you know anything else of
25 importance apart from the -- apart from that fighting?
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 16457 to 16462.
1 A. Well, it would also be important to mention that apart from the
2 intensified shooting that I have already mentioned, almost the entire
3 population, the entire Muslim population, together with the BH Army
4 members, started leaving Doljani.
5 Q. When?
6 A. On the 16th. They started on the 16th and then on the 17th, in
7 the evening. They continued moving out.
8 Q. I forgot to ask you whether on the 15th, 16th and 17th, that is to
9 say when you arrived in Doljani, did you speak to Mr. Zaric then? Did he
10 tell you about what was happening? Did he have any problems? Did you
11 speak to him?
12 A. Yes, of course. He told me that he too had set off for Jablanica
13 on the 14th. It was usual for him to try to carry out his work and he was
14 then returned at a checkpoint in Jelacici. I think he was with a
15 colleague of his. They were sent back on that day. They couldn't get
16 through. They were told that they couldn't pass through and that
17 everything had been blocked, that everything in Jablanica had been
19 Q. Were Zajko Sihirlic or Safet Idrizovic asked why Jablanica could
20 not be entered? Did you personally ask them or Mr. Zaric or anyone else?
21 A. I personally didn't ask for the reasons but Mr. Zaric did ask
22 Mr. Sihirlic and Mr. Idrizovic why it was not possible to get through. He
23 was told that that was the situation now, and no particular explanation
24 was provided.
25 Q. Could you tell this Trial Chamber if you know who Zajko Sihirlic
2 A. Zajko Sihirlic was Safet Idrizovic's assistant. He's from
3 Doljani. He was his assistant.
4 Q. All the time?
5 A. Yes, all the time.
6 Q. Whose assistant?
7 A. He was Idrizovic's assistant, and Idrizovic was the main person in
8 the municipality of Jablanica.
9 Q. Very well. Let's move on to the 17th now. Where were you at the
10 time? What did you see? What happened then? Could you inform the Trial
11 Chamber of what you know?
12 A. On the 17th of April, I was in Doljani. On that day, fighting
13 increased all over the front and particularly in the area of Sovici.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Can we please go into private
15 session, Your Honours for the next question?
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
17 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Was there the military police of Doljani and Sovici, and who was
18 the commander? What were its tasks?
19 A. Yes, there was also a -- the military police, and the commander
20 was Jerko Zinovic at the time. It was in charge of monitoring the
21 behaviour of HV soldiers.
22 Q. We are now talking about the 17th of April. Can you describe the
23 events on that day but make sure you do not reveal your identity by
24 mentioning any of your positions or other relevant details? So what did
25 you do?
1 A. On the 17th of April, around 9.00 in the morning, combat
2 operations increased in the sector of Sovici, and also towards Jablanica,
3 in the place called Kosna Luka. In that place the Defence line was
4 manned by the local home guards, and in Sovici, there was a direct armed
5 conflict between the HVO and the BH Army.
6 Q. Were you in Sovici during that conflict?
7 A. It was in the morning and I was in Doljani.
8 Q. Did you go back to Sovici on the 17th? If you did, what did you
9 see there?
10 A. I followed closely the course of events in Sovici and around 1700
11 hours or 1600 hours, so on that day, in the afternoon, when the combat
12 operations died down a little, I went back to Sovici and that is where I
13 found quite a number of HVO troops and quite a number of ABiH troops who
14 had surrendered to the HV.
15 Q. Who surrendered to whom? Do you know? Did you contact the local
16 commander? Did you talk to them? Your personal knowledge. Now you've
17 just told us that you arrived in Sovici around 5.00 in the afternoon. How
18 long did you stay there and what is your personal knowledge about all the
19 situation there?
20 A. I saw a number of HVO -- HVO soldiers, whom I hadn't met before,
21 but the first person I contacted was the local commander, Juka Groznica,
22 who briefly explained to me that the BH Army had surrendered and they were
23 still surrendering, and that the local commander, Mr. Ovnovic, had left
24 together with his family to tell other members of the BH Army to
1 Q. Are you familiar with the fact who had Mr. Ovnovic surrendered to
2 or who had he negotiated the surrender with?
3 A. Mr. Ovnovic surrendered to Mr. Groznica. And they more or less,
4 according to Mr. Groznica, they more or less had a friendly negotiation
5 about the surrender and it was promised to him that if he surrender he
6 would suffer no consequences.
7 Q. You mentioned HVO soldiers. Do you personally know which units
8 were those? Who were these men? Who their commander was?
9 A. I didn't know the majority of these HVO soldiers. I knew the
10 local men from the village who defended their village. They were
11 scattered around the village, and I also know that there were HVO members
12 from Tomislavgrad, from Posusje, from Citluk. And then I met their
13 commanders. I believe that one of them was Mamic from Tomislavgrad.
14 There were also HOS soldiers from Tomislavgrad who were there and I also
15 met somebody from Posusje. Tuta Micika. There was also a man named
16 Primorac, I believe his first name was Mate. He was from Citluk. And
17 they also represented their respective units.
18 Q. Was there an overall commander? Did an overall commander exist?
19 And if he did exist, who was it?
20 A. No. There was no overall commander. Each of these HVO groups
21 talked to each other and coordinated their actions.
22 Q. Do you know who was it who could have given orders to all of these
23 groups? Who was it who could have sent all of them up there?
24 A. I believe that it was the operations zone Tomislavgrad or the
25 Mostar operation zone. They were the only two organisations that could
1 have sent those groups there.
2 Q. Do you personally know what happened to BH Army members and
3 civilians in Sovici?
4 A. When disarmed, BH Army members were sent to the elementary school
5 in Sovici and on the same day, late in the evening, they were transported
6 to Ljubuski, accompanied by the military police. And Muslim, Bosniak
7 civilians, they asked to be gathered in certain places for safety reasons,
8 and they gathered in settlements called Hrkaca Junuzovici.
9 Q. Can you please repeat the names of the locations slowly?
10 A. On their request, the civilians gathered in Hrkaca in Junuzovici
11 and in Sovici, and when Mr. Halilovic and when Mr. Petkovic arrived and
12 agreed on the exchange of all the civilians, on the 4th of May, they were
13 sent to Jablanica to be exchanged for the civilians of Croat and Bosniak
14 ethnicity from Konjic.
15 Q. And did the civilians left in accordance with this agreement?
16 A. Yes, they did. They went to Jablanica.
17 Q. And what about the Croats? Did the Croats arrive there?
18 A. No, the Croats didn't arrive.
19 Q. So how were civilians in Sovici treated? Can you please assist
20 the Chamber and tell the Chamber about the treatment of civilians in
22 A. I must say that we had never had a war conflict before that time,
23 and our local population, our local Croat population, was in a state of
24 shock, because of all that had happened, and the local population went to
25 visit the Bosniak civilians in the aforementioned locations and they would
1 take them food and clothes and everything that was needed. They also had
2 food organised by our logistic services.
3 Q. What about the protection by the military police, health care?
4 Did you manage to organise all that?
5 A. Yes. There were some medical interventions and we had a doctor
6 amongst us, we also had a nurse and a paramedic.
7 Q. When you mentioned Petkovic and Halilovic delegation, was UNPROFOR
8 with them as well?
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott witness.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 MR. SCOTT: I think we are at a point where some dates would be
12 helpful. Some of these events took place over a number of weeks and I
13 fear that at the moment, this is all being presented in such a fashion
14 that it sounds like it's all happening in the course of a day or two.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, would you please make that clear for
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been following the
19 transcript and it seems that everything is clear. We are talking about
20 the 17th of April and the witness replied to my question regarding the
21 soldiers, regarding the civilians, and then he said that on the 4th of
22 May, based on the Petkovic-Halilovic agreement, there was an exchange of
23 civilians. I believe that this is all clear. I'm just asking the witness
24 whether there were international community representatives accompanying
25 that Petkovic-Halilovic delegation. I'm talking about the civilians and
1 the witness answered yes, but this hasn't been recorded. So I am
2 repeating my question.
3 Q. Were representatives of the international community in Sovici on
4 the 4th of May, together with Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic?
5 A. Yes, there was UNPROFOR.
6 Q. Were there any objections on their part?
7 A. No. There were no objections, either on the part of the civilians
8 or on the part of the international community, or on the part of
9 Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic.
10 Q. Can you please assist the Chamber and tell them, on the 17th of
11 April, how long did it take one to get from Sovici to Ljubuski? Do you
12 know that personally? How long does -- would it take a bus to get from
13 Sovici to Ljubuski?
14 A. It's a very hard for me to answer that question.
15 Q. Approximately.
16 A. I believe it took four or five hours by bus, because the road was
17 in a very bad state of repairs.
18 Q. Was there a road across Risovac? Was that a normal asphalt
20 A. No. The road from Sovici to Risovac and on towards Posusje was a
21 macadam road. It wasn't very easy to travel on that road for any type of
23 Q. I'm just trying to paint a picture for the Chamber. Can you
24 please now tell me -- tell me whether you know Zijad Kladusak and if
25 you do know him, can you tell us where he was, which unit was he a
1 member of?
2 A. Yes, I know Mr. Kladusak. As far as I know, he and his brother,
3 Nijaz, were members of the HVO. He is of Bosniak ethnicity. He was a
4 member of the HVO.
5 Q. What was his duty in the HVO? Do you perhaps know?
6 A. I think he was just a foot soldier. That was all.
7 Q. His occupational duty?
8 A. No, I don't know.
9 Q. I'm going to show you document D1/412. Can you please locate his
10 name, find his name in this document, and see whether that corresponds to
11 the truth? Can you please look at the page and tell me whether you have
12 been able to find his name?
13 A. Yes. There is his name here.
14 Q. And what does it say here? What is his military occupation or
16 A. He is a shooter, a sniper-shooter.
17 Q. What kind of weapons would he have as a shooter?
18 A. I don't know exactly, because I -- I've -- I never did that, but I
19 believe he was given an automatic rifle. I believe that was the type of
20 weapon he carried.
21 Q. Tell me, please, did you ever see anybody beating or harassing or
22 maltreating the prisoners, including him?
23 A. No. Nobody harassed or ill-treated BH Army soldiers, and that
24 would apply to him as well.
25 Q. Some witnesses have said that they were harassed. For example
1 Witness AF, Witness Y. They claimed that they had been beaten and
3 A. Nobody harassed or ill-treated them in Sovici, for the brief
4 period of time that they were there. So ...
5 Q. Is there any special reason why?
6 A. That's how things were.
7 Q. What I'm saying is these were your neighbours. Where were your
8 people at the time? We have heard so many different things in this
9 courtroom. That's why I called you. You were there. I wanted to hear
10 from you. You're under oath.
11 A. The local HVO members would never muster force to ill-treat these
12 people, and to my knowledge, no other HVO soldiers ill-treated any of the
13 prisoners either.
14 Q. We heard a testimony according to which you wanted to hang a
15 prisoner whose pseudonym was Y. That's what that witness testified. That
16 you wanted to hang him. Is that correct?
17 A. That is nothing but a blunt lie and it is absolutely inconceivable
18 but -- that anybody would have as much as thought something like that, let
19 alone attempt it, to do that, so I really don't know why anybody would say
21 Q. Did you give a speech to the lined-up members of the BH Army?
22 Some witnesses claimed you delivered a speech and in that speech, you told
23 them that they were arrested for crimes against Herceg-Bosna.
24 A. I never delivered a speech. It was not possible to deliver any
25 such speeches. It was impossible. It was inconceivable. There were no
1 conditions in place for anybody to deliver any speeches like that.
2 Q. The school in Sovici, does it have a gym?
3 A. No, it doesn't have a gym. It's a very small, tiny school
4 building, very poorly built, and it doesn't have a gym.
5 Q. I am asking you that because some witnesses told us that they were
6 taken to the gym of that school and that they were ill-treated there. Are
7 there any offices on the second floor of that school building?
8 A. No.
9 Q. What is on the second floor?
10 A. As far as I know, there are just two class rooms on the second
12 Q. Thank you, because some witnesses said that there were offices on
13 the second floor?
14 A. No, there are no offices there.
15 Q. Very well, then. Can you tell us anything else about that day,
16 the 17th of April? We are coming to the break. I have a few questions
17 about Doljani. So let's finish with the Sovici story. Do you have
18 anything else to say about that day? Let me ask you. On the 17th of
19 April, in Sovici, did you see the man whose nickname is Tuta?
20 A. I didn't see anybody. I just had a man introduced to me as Tuta
21 Gmici and he was the commander of one of these units but that's a
22 customary, that's a very usual nickname. There was a guy in Doljani whose
23 last name was Tutis, his first name was Ivan and his nickname was also
24 Tuta. So Tuta is not such an unusual nickname in that neck of the woods.
25 Q. Did you see Mladen Naletilic in Sovici on the 17th of April?
1 A. No. I didn't see Mr. Naletilic on the 17th of April.
2 Q. And did you see or did you meet any members of the Convicts
3 Battalion in Sovici on the 17th of April? Are you familiar with that unit
4 at all?
5 A. I didn't see members of the Convicts Battalion on that day in
6 Sovici. I heard of them later on but that was a bit later.
7 Q. We'll come to that. We had a testimony here, according to which
8 Mr. Naletilic had introduced himself to an old man by the name of Rafo
9 Cvitkovic, in the presence of Witness Y and that's why Witness Y thought
10 that this indeed was Mr. Naletilic. You mentioned Mr. Rafo Cvitkovic in
11 your testimony today. Is there just one person by that name or are there
12 more than one?
13 A. As far as I know, there is just one Rafo Cvitkovic, and he wasn't
14 there that day, because I had bumped into him two days earlier in Prozor,
15 in a place called Gmici where he was with his son and his daughter-in-law
16 in their family house.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe the time has
18 come for a break.
19 Q. Can you please return -- repeat the name of the place where that
20 Mr. Cvitkovic was at the time?
21 A. The name of the place is Gmici.
22 Q. Can you spell that, please?
24 is where I slept on the night between the 14th and the 15th.
25 Q. Thank you, Witness. It is 1.00 this is our time for the break?
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you indeed think
2 that it is the time for the break, I will be very brief after the break.
3 Just have a few more questions, thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will adjourned until 3.00 this afternoon.
5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 3.00 p.m.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, we are informed that the Prosecutor would like
8 to address the bench.
9 Yes, Mr. Scott.
10 MR. SCOTT: Please, Mr. President -- I know we have a witness
11 pending but I'm learning that it's better not to let these things slide
12 along. So it's better for me to raise them now.
13 First of all, Mr. President, in relationship to the document
14 matter that rose before the break with Mr. Prelec, I do have obviously I
15 have not had it translated yet but I do have for the Chamber's information
16 and for Defence counsel, the list of 86 names which I'll provide to the
17 usher now and ask her assistance in it providing one to each Defence
18 team and one to each of the Judges, please. I have requested a
19 translation, Mr. President, and as soon as the translation is available,
20 certainly it will be provided to you.
21 Secondly, Mr. President, I need to raise an issue about the --
22 what has come to be called the blue ink diary. Since that is an original
23 document in the sense of being written in blue ink and a journal and not a
24 xerox copy, and because we would like to be able to verify some
25 translation matters, I need the Chamber's assistance, I think since the
1 original is now in the possession of the Registry, could the Chamber
2 please make some arrangements whereby perhaps all three parties, the
3 Prosecution and each Defence team could be provided with something that
4 would be considered an official copy or certificated copy of the journal
5 so that there could be no dispute about that? We don't it particularly
6 want to take it back because of the chain of custody issues ourselves and
7 because of the issues that have been raised about the typed version or
8 this version, we would like to have a -- what the Court considers an
9 official copy taken from the blue ink journal if we could please ask your
10 assistance on that, Mr. President, and with all respect, reasonably as
11 quickly as those arrangements can be made so that we can make further
12 verifications on that.
13 I thought, Mr. President, on that as well, I need to alert the
14 Chamber that after Mr. Idrizovic was excused last week, he had said that
15 he had previously provided a copy of his -- copy of his copy of the
16 handwritten diary and, Mr. President, it's the Prosecutor position or
17 submission that that's a mistake. We had a typed version that he had
18 given us. We have asked Mr. Idrizovic and have made arrangements, I'm
19 just telling the Chamber so that again operating in complete transparency
20 that we have asked, made arrange documents obtain that -- a copy from
21 Mr. Idrizovic of his handwritten version in Bosnia-Herzegovina this week.
22 And simply so the Chamber knows that, we are going to make those efforts
23 to do that.
24 Finally, Mr. President, there was one additional document, and
25 since we are quickly coming to the end of the evidence, in addition to the
1 documents I gave the Chamber this morning, about the translation, some
2 that were pending translation, the Prosecution is prepared, and I see that
3 I've -- unfortunately I've pulled it out and left it in another binder,
4 when we played the "Juri and Boban" song to the Chamber, the Court may
5 recall and provided -- actually we didn't provide a new transcript because
6 we had used Defence Exhibit D1/277, when that was played in court it was
7 pointed out to us by people who heard the song that the text that was
8 provided and the translation were not completely accurate. Therefore, we
9 have provided a new text and translation, which is in the bundle of
10 rebuttal documents, Mr. President, and again, if you'll allow me, -- here
11 it is. 961.1, I think there is at least one line of text that was
12 previously omitted and there were a couple of words that we submit were
13 different, and again, Mr. President, because I don't want to get caught
14 before the end of the evidence, we would like to tender that exhibit,
15 P/961.1, as a corrected text translation of that song. Thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. First of
18 all, could I be provided with a copy which is in sequence? Because I have
19 seven blank pages. This is what I have just received from the
20 Prosecutor. From number 5 to 25, page 5 to page 25. The one that has
21 just been provided with 86 names. This is Exhibit 314.3. We have just
22 been provided with it. So from page 5 to page 25, I don't have a single
23 name on these pages. I have three absolutely blank pages. You can see
24 that for yourselves.
25 And from number 34 up to number 43, another four blank pages. So
1 I would like the full document to be provided. And finally, we listened
2 to Mr. Idrizovic's testimony very carefully and I questioned him and then
3 the Judge Clark. We know what his responses were and they have been
4 recorded in the transcript.
5 If the Prosecutor think that is something is wrong, that's his
6 opinion. The witness testified here and replied to my questions and
7 those of Judge Clark, and he replied to our questions under oath, so I
8 really don't understand what it means to say to -- to provide other
9 copies, to re-examine these things. It's very easy to verify the
10 transcript and to check what he said. I think that doing anything else
11 would be quite superfluous. As far as the song is concerned, the
12 Prosecutor first claimed it was identical. He said he wasn't interested
13 in the words, because Defence counsel had provided the words and that he
14 accepted that those were the words of the song. Now I see that yet again
15 he thinks that something is not quite correct and I don't know how far
16 this will go. I fear that this may simply not end. And we have that CD
17 too. We could have played it but out much respect for your decision, we
18 don't want to raise these matters.
19 Once I've been provided with a complete document, P314.3, we will
20 make our position clear, but at the moment, given what I have just seen, I
21 have nothing against the Trial Chamber examining this and having the Trial
22 Chamber reach a decision. But I think the most important thing is to have
23 a full, a complete document.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, we were also provided a document
25 which seems to me several pages missing. Would you please give us some
1 explanation about that.
2 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honours. To avoid any allegations of
3 impropriety, we have given you exactly the document as it exists in our
4 files. And you'll see on the second page, which is empty other than the
5 fact that it has a separate ERN number and a separate Zagreb stamp at the
6 top of the page, that's exactly how the document exists in our files. So
7 we have not -- we have not removed any pages, I don't know why the empty
8 extra pages were there. If it was done when the Zagreb archive copied the
9 document and gave it to us, but we copied it exactly as it exists in the
10 records of the OTP. And it contains those pages. It's apparent,
11 Mr. President, that it goes from number 5 on the first page, the pages do
12 have to be put back into order, as best as possible, but that's the
13 document as it exists, Mr. President. I don't think it was up to the
14 Prosecutor it to rearrange the document. That's the document that
16 As to Mr. Idrizovic, Your Honour, I don't know what else to tell
17 the Chamber. I realise that there -- I know full well what the testimony
18 was at the end of his examination, at the end of his testimony, whether it
19 was a translation error or whether he was in error, I don't know. This
20 raises one of those situations. All I can do is advise the Chamber that
21 according to our records, according to the OTP's records we did not
22 receive a copy of the handwritten diary from Mr. Idrizovic. The Chamber
23 can do with that as it wants but I've now advised the Chamber so there can
24 be no question about that.
25 Thirdly, concerning the song, again, Mr. President, I'm in the
1 Chamber's hands. The Chamber is welcome to play the tape which is in
2 evidence to any of the professional translation staff. It doesn't have
3 any anyone associated with the Prosecution. In fact I would invite to you
4 have it played to one of the translation booths completely separate,
5 independent of the translation -- of the Prosecution, and I think you will
6 hear that, in fact, there was some text that had been omitted and not
7 properly translated. But again, the Chamber can deal with it as you
8 will. Thank you.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you. As for the translation of the
10 document, P314.3, we will not consider to admit it into evidence until we
11 have the translation of that document, because we have to know what this
12 document is about.
13 Secondly, I would like to entrust Madam Registrar to make
14 so-called official photocopy of that blue ink diary and distribute it to
15 both parties.
16 Thirdly as for the translation of the song, this Trial Chamber
17 will ask the official translator of this Tribunal to check the
18 translation of that song. If we want to have it admitted into the
20 Having said that, Madam Usher, could we have the witness, please?
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
24 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE LIU: Sit down, please.
2 Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Please continue.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Q. Witness, we'll just wait for this to finish.
5 Let's try and see what happened in Doljani on the 17th and 18th
6 and after that. Were there BH Army members, were there civilians there?
7 What took place there? Do you have any personal knowledge of the events
8 that took place there?
9 A. Yes. As I have already said, the civilians, the Bosniak civilians
10 and the BH Army members from Doljani, in the evening and in the course of
11 the day on the 17th, and on the 18th, they started leaving Doljani. They
12 started leaving Doljani in the night. And on the 18th, in the course of
13 the day, there was no one, as far as we knew, of Bosniak nationality in
14 Doljani. According to what people said, they went to Jablanica and
15 apparently their people ordered them to do so.
16 Q. And was there any fighting between the HVO and the BH Army? Was
17 anyone captured there, perhaps somewhere around Doljani?
18 A. No. There was no fighting in Doljani, not in the centre of the
19 place itself but on the 18th, some Bosniaks who were elderly people were
21 Q. And tell me, on the 19th or on the 20th or later on, did BH Army
22 members surrender? Were there any members in the hills?
23 A. Yes. There were various groups of Bosniaks who were found in the
24 surrounding hills. They were returned to Doljani and to Sovici.
25 Q. Do you know who brought them there, where they were taken?
1 A. I think that -- well, maybe I know two out of five or six of them,
2 Kovac was brought in, I think, and Skender, Denis, I think these two men
3 were brought in. They were taken to Doljani. They were taken to
4 the fish farm.
5 Q. And what happened to them?
6 A. They were sent -- Skender, I think he was a minor and he went up
7 to where the civilians were and the military police took charge of the
8 others -- of the other one.
9 Q. Who took -- who brought them in, those two men?
10 A. I don't know exactly but they were HVO soldiers.
11 Q. Very well. Would you be so kind to tell us, to tell this Trial
12 Chamber, whether the name Alojz Rados means anything to you. Do you know
13 this person and if you do, where do you know him from? What was he? What
14 did he do? If he was there?
15 A. Yes. I know that name. I don't know that man very well but I do
16 know him by sight. I know that he worked and that he was in the HVO. As
17 far as I know, his duties included health and the organisation of health
18 care. He was a -- I think a -- part of the medical staff. I know that he
19 worked around Jablanica and was involved in humanitarian care,
20 humanitarian protection.
21 Q. Could Madam Registrar now provide Exhibit D1/413 and could it be
22 shown to those present in the courtroom? Have a look at the Croatian
23 version now. Try and see if you can find his name on that list and if you
24 can -- what does it say at the beginning of the document? Can you tell me
1 A. It says, "Platoon, department for technical maintenance" and at
2 the end the medical department, and under number 21, it says medical
3 orderly. Alojz Rados from Jablanica.
4 Q. It hasn't entered into the transcript, what it says at the
5 beginning of the document.
6 A. It says, "Quartermaster platoon."
7 Q. Do you know what sort of work he did as a medical orderly?
8 A. Well, at the beginning, while he was in Jablanica, I think that he
9 worked for a volunteer association, the Croatian Catholic Volunteer
10 Association. I think that that was the name. He obtained medical
11 supplies and distributed them to those who needed it and later on, when he
12 was in Doljani, in that medical clinic, and when he worked there as a
13 medical orderly, he assisted there, he helped a doctor who worked there.
14 Q. Do you perhaps know the name of that doctor?
15 A. Vladtko Ljuban, I think, that was the doctor for a certain period
16 of time.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Krsnik, could
18 you furnish me with some information about this document? I mean the
19 source of this document.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber who provided me with this
22 document, please?
23 A. Yes. Mr. Salgolj, Mr. Dravko Salgolj, the Brigade commander, the
24 Herceg Stjepan Brigade commander. He did that.
25 Q. Tell me, please, you're a member of the police but someone from
1 the army or you, if you wanted to leave Sovici or Doljani, did you have to
2 have authorisation from the competent command to do so?
3 A. Yes. Anyone who moved a bit further afield, or who was leaving
4 the territory of the municipality, had to have some form of authorisation,
5 it depend on the person concerned. If it was a soldier, then the soldier
6 had to have authorisation from his commander. And if it was a civilian,
7 then he had to have authorisation from his superiors, or in my case, I, as
8 a police commander, I had permanent authorisation.
9 Q. I'll now show you document D1/438. It's a document that I was
10 given by the Prosecutor so have a look at that document. Tell me, is
11 there anything that is familiar to you in this document? Naturally, have
12 a look at the Croatian version.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I hope that you have
14 this document in front of you.
15 Q. Is this a permission, as it been issued by a commander?
16 A. Yes, yes. It's the usual kind of permission that you would
17 receive in order to travel. It was necessary to have it in order to
18 travel and so that one could know where a certain person was going.
19 Q. So did this mean that the person concerned could be absent from
20 his unit for a month or for however long it says?
21 A. Yes, with this permission it was possible.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Calls for pure speculation, Mr. President, the witness
24 has provided no foundation that he's ever even seen this document before.
25 Only thing he has said is that people have to have such a document in
1 their possession for freedom of movement purposes. There is absolutely
2 nothing on this document that would indicate that the person actually
3 travelled during that time, and unless counsel can provide some foundation
4 of personal knowledge, I object to speculation.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you may ask some questions along
6 this line, to lay some foundations.
7 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, I've been concerned for the last five
8 minutes or so, this witness said that he only knew Alojz Rados by sight
9 and yet he's purporting to give fairly detailed information about
10 Mr. Rados's movements. That's one concern I have. The other concern I
11 have is that you then stated to this witness that he was a member of the
12 police. I thought he was a Judge in the misdemeanours court and that he
13 said that the police station that he was in charge of wasn't a police
14 station as such, it just issued certificates or something. I'm a little
15 confused it's not clear to me, A, the source of this person's information
16 on Mr. Rados and secondly, how he is a policeman suddenly.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, of course.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Witness, this will all be redacted so
11 we hope we haven't caused any damage, any harm.
12 So this has been his testimony from the very start. He was quite
13 specific as to what he was during certain periods of time. I was just
14 asking a general sort of question. Nothing else. You'll draw your own
15 conclusions but all I want to know is whether such permission was
16 necessary regardless of the name that you find on the permission, on the
17 authorization. The name is interesting for me because the Prosecutor
18 provided me with this document but I'm interested in this authorisation
19 and not in the person himself.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, but Mr. Krsnik, you have to ask some questions
21 to this witness whether he personally saw this permission, this document,
22 or not.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my questions, I hope,
24 are very clear. I'm asking from this witness to tell me whether such
25 authorisations were the only valid ones for those who wanted to leave
1 their units. That is all I am asking.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Only such approvals or
3 authorisations authorised a soldier or anybody else it to travel, to
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Why? Where did he have to show such an authorisation?
7 A. Firstly he had to be recorded with the unit, and secondly, he
8 would have to show that to a police checkpoints or on the border, the
9 police control or on the border.
10 Q. I believe I was absolutely clear. Let's move on then.
11 We can go back into open session, Your Honours.
12 Can you please assist the Chamber and tell us: Did you ever, on
13 the 17th, 18th, the 19th or the 20th, did you ever see Mr. Naletilic or
14 members of the Convicts Battalion in Doljani? If the answer is yes, can
15 you tell us when, why, what did they do there?
16 A. Yes. On the 19th of April, 1993, I saw Mr. Naletilic in Doljani,
17 and I saw a few members of the Convicts Battalion, and that is all.
18 Q. How far away were you from him? Did you talk to him?
19 A. I didn't talk to him. He was across the road from the command,
20 across the road from the fish farm, from the water. I didn't talk to him
21 but I was about 3 or four metres away from him.
22 Q. How tall are you approximately?
23 A. 189, 189 centimetres.
24 Q. And can you tell us the height of Mr. Naletilic?
25 A. He is some -- by 20 centimetres shorter than me.
1 Q. And what was the colour of his hair at the time, what was the
2 colour of his beard?
3 A. At the time, he had black hair, black beard, a few grey hairs, I
5 Q. We had some witnesses saying that he had blond hair and blond
6 beard. That's why I ask you this question.
7 JUDGE CLARK: He didn't say blond, he said grey.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I studied the testimonies. The
9 witness Y said that he negotiated with a -- the man with blond hair and
10 reddish beard and the way we translate this, it transpires as a person
11 with a blond hair.
12 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, I thought, Mr. Krsnik, I thought you were
13 talking about the man who very recently gave evidence. That is why it was
14 fresh in my mind. I stand corrected. I have no idea what I said but I
15 thought you were talking about a very recent witness, sorry.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] We are drawing to an end.
17 Q. Do you know what the purpose was of Mr. Naletilic's visit to
18 Doljani? How long did he stay there and what did the Convicts Battalion
19 do in Doljani at that time?
20 A. I understand that the men came because two of the members of the
21 Convicts Battalion had died.
22 Q. How did the Convicts Battalion arrive in Doljani? Do you know
24 A. I believe that the battles were taking place in the hills from
25 Sovici to Pasje Stijene, Bacina, Pomina [phoen] and towards Tovarnica, and
1 towards Kosna Luka settlement.
2 Q. So does that mean that from the mountain of Pomina, they descended
3 to Kosna Luka?
4 A. I don't know the exact route but that would make sense, wouldn't
6 Q. Yes. How long did they stay there and how long did Mr. Naletilic
7 stay there?
8 A. I don't know exactly but for a very short period of time, until
9 they took the bodies of the fallen soldiers.
10 Q. Did they then leave and did they ever return?
11 A. Yes, they left and they never returned.
12 Q. Kindly, please, look at the document 333, Prosecution number
13 P333. Did you ever see this document before?
14 A. No. I never saw this document before.
15 Q. Do you recognise the signature?
16 A. I know this person by the name, but I don't recognise his
17 signature, this is not his signature. I know this man.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems that we don't have that document at
19 our hands. Is it possible to put this document on the ELMO?
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. Can you put the English version
21 on the ELMO? [In English] Sorry, Your Honour, excuse me, I didn't know
22 that you didn't have this document.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please put the Croatian version on the
24 ELMO as well? Because the English version does not bear the signature.
25 Q. I'm going to show you the Exhibit D1/439. I have obtained the
1 signature of this gentleman. Can you please look at the -- this
2 signature? This was a document signed before the Court in Siroki Brijeg.
3 Do you recognise this signature? Is this the person's signature, to your
5 A. Yes. To my knowledge, this is the signature, and this is the
6 person whose signature this is.
7 Q. Are you familiar with the name Cikota? Do you know what that
8 person looked like, i.e. how tall was he?
9 A. I never saw that man, but according to my knowledge, according to
10 what other people told me, he was the commander of the Convicts Battalion,
11 and I know he died.
12 Q. Did anybody tell you how tall he was?
13 A. I know that he was strongly built and rather tall. I don't know
14 how tall he was because I never saw him.
15 Q. [In English] Okay, okay, okay, okay. [Interpretation] I am just
16 checking to see whether I had forgotten to ask you something?
17 JUDGE CLARK: Good try.
18 MR. KRSNIK: Thank you, Your Honour, I really want to help
19 everyone. If I can --
20 JUDGE CLARK: That's not the way to do it but it was a good try.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I will now hand you over to my learned friend. I wanted to ask
23 you a few questions about Mr. Rados since you said you knew -- know him
24 but I will leave to my learned friend. Thank you for coming here. Thank
25 you for assisting us. I apologise for having taken so much time. I'm not
1 feeling too well. That's why it has taken me so long to examine you.
2 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination, Mr. Scott?
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott:
4 Q. Good morning -- sorry, good afternoon, sir.
5 A. [no interpretation]
9 JUDGE LIU: Well --
10 MR. SCOTT: I'm guilty. Could we please have this redacted,
12 JUDGE LIU: This is not the first day of the trial. You have to
13 bare this in mind. We will have that redacted.
14 MR. KRSNIK: You're not guilty for the first time.
15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I think everyone in this courtroom,
16 including the Judges have violated this at one time or another. My
17 apology. And the redaction, please.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, you have to remember the principle of
19 tu quoque.
20 MR. SCOTT: And Touche, Mr. President and could we go to private
21 session, please.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to private session, please.
23 [Private session]
13 Page 16492 – redacted – private session
19 [Open session]
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Sir, you said in your testimony that a man named -- sir, you said
22 that a man named Zajko Sihirlic, and excuse me if I mispronounce that, was
23 the assistant of a man named Safet Idrizovic. What do you base that on?
24 A. I base this on what I know, because Sihirlic is from Doljani and I
25 know that he helped Mr. Idrizovic in conducting his affairs.
1 Q. Sir, during what period of time, sir?
2 A. According to my knowledge, while I was still in Jablanica, and I
3 also know that Mr. Sihirlic would present himself at the checkpoint, even
4 before the open conflict. I believe that it was on the 16th that he came
5 to the checkpoint below Doljani. That may not be correct but this is what
6 I have been told.
7 Q. Can you give us some specifics, sir, as to what basis you have,
8 did you have, did you attend a meeting with the two of them where
9 Mr. Sihirlic acted as an assistant? Can you give us some specifics as to
10 why you believe that he was the assistant to Mr. Idrizovic?
11 A. I saw him at certain meetings and I also saw him in the command of
12 the municipality.
13 Q. And when was that, sir?
14 A. During 1992, early 1993.
15 Q. Well, how early in 1993?
16 A. Up to mid-March.
17 Q. Now, going to the 17th, 18th and 19th of April of 1993, sir,
18 despite your testimony so far, it's not clear to me what were you doing
19 during that time? Were you moving about among the fighting? Did you take
20 up a position somewhere? What were you doing during that time?
21 A. On the 17th of April, 1993, I was in Doljani, in the police
22 station, which is some 700 to 800 metres away from the battalion command,
23 and the name of the building is the old community centre. I was there all
24 the time up to noon or somewhat later, when I left for Sovici, as I've
25 already said in my previous testimony. So I didn't take part anywhere as
1 a soldier. I just performed my usual tasks and duties, as far as I could,
2 as best as I could.
3 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, since I've unfortunately caused a
4 problem once already, just to be very safe in this area I would prefer
5 that we go into private session, please.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
7 [Private session]
13 Pages 16496-16500 – redacted – private session
19 [Open session]
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Witness, we are returning to public session so I just caution you
22 again that when you give your answers, if you could be careful about
23 saying anything that might tend to identify you and if we need to we will
24 go back to private session. But on this document, sir, and I think there
25 is nothing about the document or the answers, I think, that would identify
1 you, if I heard you correctly you say that this -- you thought that this
2 document came from Mr. Salgolj, and I'm sure I'm probably saying that
3 wrong, S-A-L-G-O-L-J. How do you know that's where this document came
5 A. Mr. Salgolj gave this to me.
6 Q. When was that?
7 A. Seven or eight days ago when I was in Mostar.
8 Q. Sir, do you agree with me, as I've been reminded by the Defence on
9 many occasions, this document has no letterhead, no date, no author, no
10 signature, no stamp? Is that correct?
11 A. I can say that this document is a possible document but as to its
12 authenticity, that is for you to assess.
13 Q. A couple of questions. You've mentioned in reference to the first
14 page, or either in the Croatian language or in the English version, but in
15 any event, person number 18, I believe you said on direct examination,
16 that this described person 18 as a sniper. Now, isn't it correct, sir,
17 that in contrast to that, if we look at the person numbered 13, number 13
18 is described as a sniper, at least that's the translation that we've been
19 given; is that correct?
20 A. I didn't say, and I didn't confirm, that the person under number
21 18 was a sniper. I said that the person under number 18 was a shooter.
22 This -- there is an important distinction to be made here.
23 Q. Yes, indeed. Do you know what operator "PM" stands for?
24 A. I think that means a light machine-gun.
25 Q. Did I understand you to say, sir, that concerning the HVO actions
1 at Sovici-Doljani in mid-April, 1993, there was no overall HVO commander?
2 Simply had different units running around the country side with no
3 coordination? Is that your position?
4 A. As far as I know, there was not a single commander but the units
5 that were there, as far as I know, they coordinated their action.
6 Q. Well, how do you know that? You've told us what you were doing on
7 the 17th, 18th and 19th of April so how do you know that they coordinated
8 their actions?
9 A. Mr. Groznica told me that this was the case.
10 Q. You said that no one at Sovici-Doljani mistreated the Muslim
11 prisoners. Is that again just based on what you've been told?
12 A. As far as I know, no one was maltreated and to the extent that I
13 was there, I didn't see any one being maltreated and I was never told that
14 anyone had been maltreated, neither soldiers nor civilians.
15 Q. During those three days we have talked about so far, could you
16 tell the Judges, if you could add it all together, how many minutes or
17 hours were you actually at a location where Muslims prisoners were? 15
18 minutes, half an hour, 45 minutes? How long did you actually yourself
19 physically see any gathering of Muslim prisoners?
20 A. What day are you referring to?
21 Q. Any of those days. How about the 17th of April?
22 A. On the 17th, if you're asking me about a specific location, I was
23 present for half an hour. If you're talking about a specific location on
24 the road then it was half an hour but I also said that I slept there until
25 the morning, until 7.00 or 8.00 in the morning.
1 Q. Well, are you suggesting that while were you sleeping, that you
2 had your eye also on Muslim prisoners?
3 A. I think it's quite clear. I think you're able to understand what
4 I did on the 17th. But if necessary, I shall go over it again.
5 Q. Well, let's go to the 18th. How much time on the 18th of
6 April did you actually spend in the presence of any Muslim men who had
7 been taken prisoner?
8 A. On the 18th, I wasn't in the presence of any prisoner.
9 Q. How about the 19th, sir?
10 A. On the 19th, I only saw, as I have already said, a small group in
11 Doljani that set off in the direction of Sovici.
12 Q. And approximately how long did you observe this group?
13 A. Well, that was while I was there for a brief period, on the 19th.
14 It was 10 to 20 minutes at the most.
15 Q. All right. You said on your direct examination that in connection
16 with questions about whether you delivered some sort of speech around the
17 17th or April -- excuse me, 17th or 18th of April, 1993, at the Sovici
18 school, you said something -- there was no -- to the effect there was no
19 place, there was no circumstance for delivering a speech. My question,
20 sir, is what kind of a place was required in order to make a speech?
21 A. When I said that, according to the information I had, the
22 soldiers, the BH Army soldiers were in the school. That's what I meant
23 when I said there was no possibility. They were in the premises of the
25 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that the men were brought outside in front
1 of the school and a speech was made at that time?
2 A. I personally didn't give any kind of speech, and I'm not aware of
3 the fact that the men were taken outside of the school. That's quite
4 simply a lie. If this is what someone has said.
5 Q. And you say it was a lie because you've told us that on the --
6 between the 17th and the 19th of April, you spent a total of approximately
7 40 to 50 minutes in the presence of any Muslim prisoners over a 72 hour
8 period, 40 to 50 minutes and based upon that, you've expressed all the
9 opinions and said that someone would be lying if a speech was made to
10 prisoners at the school? Is that correct?
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, yes, Mr. Meek?
12 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, I object to the form of the question.
13 The question is argumentative. It assumes facts not in evidence and it in
14 fact twists the words of the witness. The witness answered he did not
15 give a speech. If someone said he gave a speech, that would be a lie.
16 Whether he was there for 40 or 50 minutes or four to five hours, the
17 witness knows whether he personally gave a speech. If the Prosecutor
18 wants to ask the question in a different way, "Are you aware if someone
19 else gave a speech?" That would be a proper question but there question
20 is argumentative, Your Honour, and I object.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, we did not see the question in your
22 way but any way, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: I'll go on, Mr. President.
24 Q. Sir, did I understand your testimony correctly to say that
25 throughout this period of time, you only saw -- well, let me not ask it
1 that way at the risk of being accused of mischaracterising. Can you
2 just tell us again how many times you saw Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, during
3 this time period?
4 A. I only saw Mr. Naletilic once during that time period.
5 Q. And how far away from him were you when you saw him?
6 A. About three to four metres away from him.
7 Q. Did you know Mr. Naletilic prior to seeing him on that day?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you know of him by reputation?
10 A. No. I knew nothing about him up until that day I knew nothing
11 about him.
12 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask the usher's assistance to show the witness
13 Exhibit P36? If I could ask that could be put, in the interests of time,
14 on the ELMO?
15 Q. If you can look at that, sir, and the Chamber will recall the
16 approximate time period of this photo. Can you look at that? Do you see
17 the man that you say you saw one time in Sovici-Doljani, the man you said
18 was Tuta? Do you see him in this photograph?
19 A. Yes. I can see him now.
20 Q. Can you take a pointer and point out the one, the man who you
21 think is Tuta?
22 A. [indicates] That's him.
23 Q. Provided that we will have to then provide a clean copy of that
24 exhibit, but perhaps you can use this extra one, can I ask the usher to
25 hand you a marker and could you please circle and mark with a number 1 the
1 person you've said is Tuta?
2 A. [marks]
3 Q. All right. Thank you, sir. Sir, in this photograph, Mr. Tuta
4 doesn't have black hair, does he?
5 A. Difficult to see in this photograph.
6 Q. Well, the man to Mr. Naletilic's right, other man with glasses,
7 his shirt collar open, what would you say is the colour of his hair?
9 A. Who are you referring to? I'm not sure.
10 Q. Do you know a man named Ivan Andabak?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you see him in this photograph?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Which one is he? Can you mark that -- circle his head, please,
15 and mark it number 2?
16 A. [marks]
17 Q. How did you know Mr. Andabak?
18 A. I met Mr. Andabak later on, after 1993. I would meet him at
19 various meetings in Mostar and so on.
20 Q. All right. I'm finished with that exhibit. Thank you?
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, should we stop here?
22 MR. SCOTT: That's fine, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll we have been advised that tomorrow
24 morning, there may be some traffic control in the centre of the city, so
25 if anybody lives in the direction of Rotterdam, you had better start your
1 journey before 6.00, otherwise you'll be prevented from entering into the
3 So we'll resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
5 4.27 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
6 the 15th day of October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.