1 Tuesday, 18 October 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Madam Registrar. Could you
6 call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am.
10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in a language that you
11 can understand?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, ladies
13 and gentlemen. Yes, I can.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Oric, and good morning -- good
15 afternoon to you, too. Please take a seat.
16 Appearances for the Prosecution.
17 MR. WUBBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honours, and also good afternoon
18 to the Defence. My name is Jan Wubben, lead counsel for the Prosecution.
19 I'm here together with co-counsel, Ms. Patricia Sellers, Mr. Gramsci
20 Di Fazio, Ms. Joanne Richardson, and our case manager, Ms. Donnica
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good afternoon to you
23 and your team.
24 Appearances for Naser Oric.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I am
1 Vasvija Vidovic. I appear for Mr. Naser Oric together with Mr. John
2 Jones. We have with us our legal assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic, and our
3 CaseMap manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Vidovic, and good afternoon to you
5 and your team.
6 Before I address matters which are leftovers from yesterday, are
7 there any preliminary matters that you would like to raise? I see none.
8 So I want to make sure that the witness is informed that it will
9 take some time before we bring him in because we need to address a
10 procedural matter which may be more than procedural which has got nothing
11 to do with him.
12 You will recall, Mr. Wubben, that yesterday Mr. Jones -- or
13 rather, the Defence gave advance notice of a Defence motion regarding
14 alleged prosecutorial non-compliance with Rule 68. And at the time we
15 were given, like you were, a courtesy copy. Eventually the -- we received
16 the formal document which had been filed in the registry, and I made it
17 known to you that first thing today we would look towards you and expect
18 your reaction on the alleged non-compliance.
19 Yes, Mr. Wubben.
20 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I requested Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio to do
21 the submission.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, Mr. Di Fazio.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours have obviously read the submission --
24 the motion -- the Defence motion. The -- I think the time-line needs to
25 be given to you so that you can assess the impact of this complaint of
1 non-disclosure. First of all, the substance of the motion that seems to
2 be concerned with Annex A, that's the article "to live together, to live
3 better," or "how I killed Croats and Muslims."
4 The other piece of evidence, Annex C, the headline "I keep
5 dreaming about snakes drinking blood" appears to be a vehicle to
6 demonstrate to you how we knew about this paramilitary quite some time ago
7 and that therefore we have failed to produce to you -- to the Defence the
8 Annex A although --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop there for a moment, please, Mr. Di Fazio.
10 Do you agree with the way this has been presented so far,
11 Mr. Jones, because yesterday you did start and dealt with one document
12 more than you did with the other but you did not distinguish the two as
13 regards the alleged importance. So I want your position -- I would like
14 to have your position on this before Mr. Di Fazio proceeds.
15 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, in fact, as regards non-disclosure equally
16 Annex C should have been disclosed for the same reason. Mr. Di Fazio is
17 right that the -- our compliant focuses primarily on Annex C, but I
18 wouldn't confine it to annex it. It certainly would include Annex C as
19 well. But he's right that --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Annex A, not Annex C. Annex A.
21 MR. JONES: Yes, my apologies, focuses on Annex A but Annex C
22 equally the complaint can be made. And it does establish the time-line
23 that in the sense obviously the date is 1997, and we have the spokesperson
24 of the Tribunal saying that the Office of the Prosecutor knew about the
25 confession of this very volunteer. So it goes to the fact that this is
1 something which is in the actual knowledge of the Prosecution which is
2 relevant to Rule 68(A) [sic].
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Jones.
4 Mr. Di Fazio, you have heard what Mr. Jones said.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think you can proceed, assuming that that is
7 what the complaint seeks to address.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, the failed -- alleged failed
10 disclosure covers both documents but obviously more emphasis is being laid
11 on Annex A rather than on C.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, Annex C in the Prosecution's submission
13 doesn't come within the category of documents covered by Rule 68. So I
14 will make that submission. If you just flick your eyes through it, you'll
15 see that it's a publication called Focus, which I understand is a
16 well-publicised and well-known document. The man being interviewed,
17 Misic, talks about his arrest by the Serbian secret police, or rather the
18 article does, and then it continues where he was arrested. Then it
19 continues under the heading "they had better kill me." And then describes
20 the lurid content of the document and what he's about to talk about. And
21 then he continues what I gather are the words of this man -- this man --
22 I'll call him TOP since that's his nickname and that's easier to refer to.
23 And he says that he fought for them on the Vukovar battlefield and in
24 Bosnia on the banks of the Drina.
25 Now, the fact that he fought in Drina is not exculpatory evidence,
1 cannot be exculpatory evidence, that bold fact alone. And then he goes on
2 to say he doesn't want to end up like Albanians. I'm looking at page --
3 the ERN ending 66. He -- lurid language about slaughtering pigs. He
4 talks about fighting with Croats. He talks about being a Serbian
5 volunteer. He talks about events in Vukovar, not the area that our
6 indictment is concerned with. Then he says: "In Bosnia I was on the bank
7 of the Drina, we held the corridor from Skelani to Bratunac. We had
8 everything, food, weaponry, ammunition. We fought about Muslims, poor and
9 hungry lot. We guarded Serbian villages from their intrusion and that
10 there were ambushes and that they would go to cleanse Muslim village in
11 the hills."
12 There's no indication of where these areas are in particular that
13 he's talking about, other than the general area of the Drina, and far more
14 importantly, of course, it is accepted by the Prosecution that Serb forces
15 committed bad acts in the area of the Drina and has never been contested
16 by the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I'll interrupt you again here. But it does say "we
18 held the corridor from Skelani to Bratunac."
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, well, that Serb action is engaged in --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: It does describe the Muslims as a poor and hungry
21 lot. It does state that the Serbian forces had everything, food,
22 weaponry, and ammunition, which seems to be in contrast with the situation
23 prevailing amongst the Muslims.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: But --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It does say that Serbian villages were being guarded
1 from their intrusion.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Which may, according to the Defence, at least as I
4 understood Mr. Jones yesterday, go beyond the -- the tenuous and
5 particular description of these villages being defended by village guards
6 rather than by the armed forces of the Serbs. It does acknowledge that
7 the Muslims were coming down from various places to steal food in order to
9 MR. JONES: Yes, and, Your Honour, in case the Prosecution isn't
10 aware, Bjelovac and Fakovici are between Bratunac and Skelani, so merely
11 to assist Mr. Di Fazio, because perhaps he seems not to know.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio definitely knows where Fakovici is. He
13 wasn't with us when we went there, but I don't doubt for a moment that he
14 knows exactly the topographical layout of the area.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, the Prosecution says that none of these
16 issues that are in that particular paragraph are matters that have been
17 challenged by the -- by the Defence -- by the Prosecution.
18 The guarding of villages by this particular grouping of
19 paramilitaries, if -- there's no grouping defined or outlined in this
20 particular document as far as I can see -- none of the villages that are
21 mentioned in the indictment are identified here. So the exculpatory
22 nature of this document, if it has any, is considerably diminished by
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Go ahead.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: The rest of the document, in the Prosecution's
1 submission, doesn't contain anything that could be --
2 MR. JONES: Your Honour --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: -- exculpatory. There's a reference to decapitated
4 bodies and we were the Territorial Defence and the special units coming
5 long in red berets and camouflage uniforms. It's not clear what the area
6 they are talking about. Reading it in a favourable way to the Defence,
7 one can assume that -- one can say that he's probably talking about the
8 Drina area. And I --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: But if that is the case, even if it's not clear, do
10 you have the right to say, This is not, clear even though the previous
11 paragraph mentions the Drina and the area from Skelani to Bratunac, and
12 then decide, We don't consider this as exculpatory, therefore we don't
13 disclose it? And it's not just exculpatory material that you -- which
14 would be the reason for -- for disclosure. It could also be if it gives
15 the Defence sufficient material within which to counter some of your own
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I can't --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And attack their credibility.
19 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, may I -- I'm frankly horrified from
20 what I'm hearing from the Prosecution and I'll respond in due course.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I will give you that opportunity later.
22 MR. JONES: Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: For the time being if it's --
24 MR. JONES: It's for clarification. This is an exceedingly
25 pedantic analysis, I submit. The clarification I would request is, is
1 Mr. Di Fazio saying that the Prosecution considered whether to disclose
2 this and they looked at this material and they had a meeting and they
3 thought about it and they decided not to it, or is he merely reacting
4 today, having been taken surprise by this document and now he's trying to
5 wheedle his way out by finding how maybe it's unclear. Is he saying this
6 something they've done in the past, this review, or is he doing it now for
7 the first time.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you for that observation, because
9 ultimately I was going to come up with that observation myself, depending,
10 of course, on what explanation was going to be forthcoming from the
12 So, yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: The Prosecution hasn't reviewed this document until
14 this particular motion was made, until this particular motion was
15 delivered by the Defence. So I'm now reacting to the motion that has been
16 filed yesterday and --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: When you say "the Prosecution" it means the whole
18 team basically? This is what you're saying? The whole team in this case
19 as it was in the beginning up to today?
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Because it changed composition --
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: -- from the pre-trial stage to what it is now.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If the document had been -- if we had come
25 across it, it would have been disclosed.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there an explanation why on earth such an
2 important document, particularly as Annex A --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I was going to turn to Annex A if --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Then please, because that's what we want to hear
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Annex A, if Your Honours please, is -- what you
7 have in the motion is an English translation -- I've asked for inquiries
8 to be made as to what is in the possession of the OTP. And what is, as I
9 understand it -- this is a Defence translation. What is in the possession
10 of the OTP is a document, is a magazine document, or it appears to be a
11 magazine document --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: It's this, no?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: -- or publication -- yes, that's right. And that
14 is the document that's actually in the possession of the OTP. I've been
15 unable to get anyone to bring up an English translation from our computer
16 that -- to indicate that we've translated that particular document.
17 The --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop --
19 MR. DI FAZIO: -- the documents --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop there for a moment.
21 Do you confirm that this is your own translation, not a
22 translation that was handed to you by the Prosecution, Mr. Jones?
23 MR. JONES: Yes, we had to translate it ourselves to help the
25 JUDGE AGIUS: So you have a confirmation of that.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: The B/C/S version of the document, if Your Honours
4 please, was obtained in March of 2002 from -- from Bosnia and it was
5 entered into the -- into our computer system, MIF'd, in -- again in March
6 of 2002. In fact, it may have been seized somewhat earlier than that, but
7 it was actually MIF'd or put into the system in March of 2002. So the
8 suggestion that this document has been in the possession of the
9 Prosecution for any longer than that is not correct, if that suggestion is
10 being made. In any event, the position is it's been in our possession
11 since March of 2002.
12 If Your Honours please, EDS, the Electronic Disclosure Suite, was
13 set up and functioning in November of 2003. So that's a year and some
14 months after --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's almost two years.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but it's almost two years ago.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes.
19 In this particular case, Defence counsel were appointed in --
20 around early and mid-2003 and obtained their passwords and user names and
21 were therefore in a position to access material held on EDS as from
22 November of 2003. Now, I've caused inquiries to be made to check when
23 this particular document was in fact placed on EDS. I understand from
24 what I've been told, from the number and the nature of the document, that
25 it was available -- it was probably available -- would Your Honours just
1 bear with me.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It was available, the document itself was available
4 on the 9th of the June, 2004. So that's the time that the Defence would
5 have first had access to that document. I understand that the document
6 itself contains -- it's not a -- it can be searched itself. If you type
7 in "Fakovici" and search, you should be able to locate this particular
8 document, and I don't know as I speak what title it had in any list or
9 index of documents in the EDS. So the effect of that is that since June
10 of 2004, if my information is correct, the Defence had had access to this
11 particular document.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but I wonder if you are aware of the
13 consequences of what you're saying. Because if the Defence had access to
14 that document on EDS, equally the Prosecution had access to it. And the
15 onus of disclosing material which is exculpatory or which falls within the
16 parameters of Rule 68 falls on the Prosecution and not on the Defence. So
17 if you had the equal opportunity of accessing that document way back in
18 2004, if not before, and assuming for the sake of the argument that it
19 does contain exculpatory or Rule 68 material, why didn't you disclose it?
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: So this is what we want to hear. It's not the
22 availability of it on EDS because that prescinds from the obligation -- or
23 the obligation that you have under Rule 68 prescinds over the availability
24 of the document in -- on the electronic data system.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: It can't assist the Prosecution in terms of the
1 initial -- any initial breach of Rule 68. It can't.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Excuse me. The Prosecution has got an unlimited
3 responsibility and obligation under Rule 68(i) to disclose to the Defence
4 all material that is Rule 68(i) material, that is either mitigating,
5 exculpatory, or which goes to the credibility of witnesses, and so on and
6 so forth. That carries with it a parallel obligation on our part to
7 continually check for exculpatory material or Rule 68 material. And the
8 moment you come across such material, you need to disclose it. You have a
9 sacrosanct obligation to disclose it. And it's no excuse to say, Yeah,
10 but now, you know, we've put everything on the EDS system and if they
11 want, they can find it out themselves. That's no excuse. We are not
12 going to tolerate it. We have closed a blind eye, or if not a blind eye,
13 we closed one eye, sometimes even both, when it was cases of
14 non-disclosure which did not carry that much consequence or which were not
15 that significant, although they did amount to a technical violation. And
16 we always of course took your word that if you had overlooked a document,
17 you had overlooked it, and that could happen to you, to us, to Mr. Jones,
18 Madam Vidovic, and to everyone in this Tribunal.
19 This document that we're dealing with now seems to be in a
20 category of its own. It goes to the heart of the case. It really goes to
21 the heart of the case. And it's very difficult to explain, although of
22 course we will give you all -- we'll give all due consideration to any
23 statement that you may wish to add. It's very difficult for anyone coming
24 from the Prosecution's side to explain that unfortunately we were not
25 aware of this. Because if it is as simple as you have put it that you
1 could key in the word "Fakovici" and Mr. Jones would have found it on the
2 EDS, equally it should have been so easy for you to locate it.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: That's correct.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So -- I know it's correct, otherwise I
5 wouldn't be opening my mouth, Mr. Di Fazio.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I -- if Your Honours please, if it would be easier
7 to understand my submissions, I make it clear there has been a breach of
8 Rule 68 in our failing to provide this document to the Defence. There has
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I am glad to hear that being acknowledged at
12 MR. DI FAZIO: The problem -- the issue that I was raising was
13 what pressure -- what prejudice was there to the Defence, what could have
14 been -- what could have occurred and what might have occurred in order to
15 lessen the impact of that. And I was just trying to say that it was
16 available to the Defence on EDS and searchable on that particular system.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Again, I hope -- and I hope I won't have to
18 repeat this again. There is a big difference for any Defence lawyer
19 between being told, Mr. Jones, Madam Vidovic, this is a document which we
20 are disclosing to you under Rule 68 because it falls within Rule 68
21 parameters and telling Mr. Jones and Madam Vidovic, Here I'm giving you
22 three CDs, four CDs, each containing something like 10.000, 20.000
23 documents, I don't know how many tens if not hundreds of pages, this could
24 be relevant to your case, go through it. The Defence can allow themselves
25 the luxury, if they want to, not to go through all those 30.000, 40.000,
1 50.000 documents if they think that it's too labourious or that the end
2 result would not really reflect the fruit of the labours. But I can
3 assure that it would take a very responsible and highly responsible
4 Defence lawyer to ignore a document that has been disclosed as a Rule 68
5 material. So this is the difference.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes, I understand.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So -- wait, Mr. Jones, I think you will have every
8 opportunity to deal with this as we go along. So please try to
9 understand, we don't make it more serious than it already looks.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: So I cannot --
12 MR. DI FAZIO: It's far from --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I cannot really understand or accept the submission
14 that, you know, this could have been of little consequence because the
15 Defence had it in their ED -- in their CDs, if they had it, because I
16 don't know. Or it was in the EDS, they could have looked it and they
17 could have put all the questions that they would have wished to upon
18 cross-examination when we brought all those Serbian witnesses saying
19 exactly the opposite of what you have in this document. This is very
20 serious. This is very serious.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And in fact, I mean I want to know what is your
23 position if it is accepted or it is acknowledged that as a result of the
24 non-disclosure of this as Rule 68 material, questions that could have been
25 put to the Prosecution witnesses were not put by the Defence because they
1 were not aware of this document. I mean, the existence of it in the EDS
2 system, in other words, does not mean that therefore the Defence know --
3 is aware of it or knows about it or should have been aware of it. They
4 have enough to deal with on a day-to-day basis, let alone to go through
5 tens of thousands of documents to see what is relevant and what is not
6 when they could have easily got it as a Rule 68 disclosure.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I made the submission to you that it
8 appears to be a breach of Rule 68. The -- that would not actually be
9 correct if indeed this document is -- consists of material of a public
10 nature that may be falling under Rule 68.
11 In Blaskic, the Appeals Chamber decision, page 104, paragraph 296,
12 295, 296, 297, the Appeals Chamber had this to say about documents of a
13 public nature: "Arguably the Prosecution's duty to disclose does not
14 encompass material of a public nature potentially falling under Rule 68,
15 for example," and there refers to the exhibits that were in contention
16 then. The exhibits that were in contention in that appeal were public
17 transcripts of trial proceedings.
18 And they went on to say, the Appeals Chamber said: "However, a
19 distinction should be drawn between material of a public character in the
20 public domain and material reasonably accessible to the Defence. The
21 Appeals Chamber emphasises that unless exculpatory material is reasonably
22 accessible to the accused, namely available to the Defence with the
23 exercise of due diligence, the Prosecution has a duty to disclose the
24 material itself."
25 In the Trial Chamber decision of Blagojevic, Obrenovic, Jokic, and
1 Nikolic, delivered on the 12th of December, 2002, an earlier decision, the
2 same issue, the same sort of issue, arose and there the Trial Chamber
3 said, paragraph 26, page 10: "As the Appeals Chamber has previously held,
4 if exculpatory evidence is known and the evidence is accessible, the
5 Prosecution may be relieved of its obligation to disclose the material
6 under Rule 68."
7 And then it goes on to say: "Rule 68 is not intended to serve as
8 a means through which the Prosecution is forced to replace the Defence in
9 conducting investigations or gathering material."
10 But the operative words are "if" --
11 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I can't follow this without copy. We
12 haven't been notified that authority was going to be relied on, and unless
13 the Prosecution has copies, I don't see how the rest of us are expected to
14 follow legal argument and references to paragraphs when none of us have
15 the decision in front of us. It's a matter of common courtesy to -- if
16 one's going to rely on authority to either provide copies or to give
17 advance notice. Certainly in the UK I wouldn't dream of having legal
18 argument without being told what authorities the Prosecution intends to
19 rely on or having copies in front of me. I have to take Mr. Di Fazio's
20 word for it that this is what is said.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You're 100 per cent right, Mr. Jones. But what's
22 the alternative at this point, stop and get the copies?
23 MR. JONES: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio move on to something else because
24 it's meaningless to refer to authorities which none of us -- I notice that
25 Your Honours don't have the authorities either, so how can any of us
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Last thing I would expect us to know is what
3 Mr. Di Fazio is going to come up with.
4 MR. JONES: Yes, and if I knew you were going cite authority, I
5 could have looked into it. There could be other Appeals Chamber
6 judgements saying completely other things. So it's a pointless exercise
7 in my submission.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And, in fact, I can assure you that there are
9 subsequent Appeals Chamber decisions that make it clear that with the
10 introductory of new systems, et cetera, the responsibility of the
11 Prosecution under Rule 68 is not diminished. It still remains what it is.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: If I can complete my sentence, if Your Honours
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you.
16 I was going to say to you -- I was going to say to you that I wish
17 to complete the submissions tomorrow in order that I might properly
18 research whether or not this web site, this magazine, this article could
19 conceivably come within the description that I mentioned -- the ratio that
20 I mentioned from those two cases. And it's precisely that -- I want to
21 investigate that further because I've only -- the point didn't occur to me
22 until prior to coming into court, and I want to see how well-known this
23 web site is, whether it's a web site, a magazine, what its nature is, and
24 whether it could conceivably come within that description, material within
25 the public domain, so that I might then be in a position to say to you,
1 Right, well, we're fortified in making that submission to you and we
2 persist in it or withdraw it. And that will enable my learned friend to
3 go to Blaskic or go to that particular case.
4 I'm well aware of the need to provide precedents to the other side
5 when making submissions. And I didn't intend, if Your Honours please, to
6 flummox the Defence or to catch them to unawares, and I would think that
7 sort of cheap trick doesn't have any place in this courtroom.
8 So that's why I raised the issue, that's why I mentioned it to
9 you. I have to establish to the satisfaction of the Prosecution that
10 we're in a position to say that this material is within the public domain
11 or it comes from a publication that would permit us to make the submission
12 to you, Right, it's in the public domain. And if it's not, then we have
13 to withdraw that submission and I'm not in a position to do that until
14 I've had a closer look at this publication.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: On the other hand, as Mr. Jones put it yesterday,
16 this is a matter of extreme urgency, too. And the reason is that this
17 will be the second day this witness is being examined in chief. To be
18 honest with you, I'm not that confident that we will finish with the
19 examination-in-chief today, unless I get a sign from Mr. Jones that I'm
21 MR. JONES: I was planning to, but I doubt it now.
22 I mean, if I might say in that regard, Your Honour, the
23 Prosecution appears to be intending to spend what little time they have
24 finding legal arguments to argue why they haven't violated Rule 68.
25 There's something way more important which we haven't heard anything about
1 from Mr. Di Fazio which is what about this Slobodan Misic case which in
2 1997 a spokesman of the Prosecutor said they were aware of. Did they get
3 more information from the authorities. Is there anything to disclose to
4 us. I mean, that's -- it's a typically defensive reaction of the
5 Prosecution to try and find some way of arguing that they didn't violate
6 Rule 68. What about a productive approach where they actually look and
7 see was anything obtained from the local authorities and, if so, let's get
8 it to the Defence as quickly as possible. And it's typical of the
9 Prosecution that they haven't considered that very important pressing
10 matter. Instead they're trying to find legal arguments, consulting
11 jurisprudence in the Blaskic case, spending precious time on that, rather
12 than being productive and finding the material which we're asking about.
13 I have further submissions to make, Your Honour, but --
14 MR. DI FAZIO: The spokesman, if Your Honours please, wasn't an
15 OTP spokesman.
16 MR. JONES: Well, we can see the text.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, it doesn't say who the spokesman was, but it
18 would be very bad news for you, Mr. Di Fazio, if it was the Office of the
19 Prosecutor --
20 MR. JONES: Your Honour, the spokesperson said -- and again, this
21 is nit-picking, Your Honour, in my submission. The spokesperson said
22 that "the Office of the Prosecutor in The Hague knew that the confession
23 of Serbian volunteer, Slobodan Misic, about the crimes in Croatia and
24 Bosnia had been published."
25 Now, that's the point. And he then: "The Office of the
1 Prosecutor in The Hague will contact the competent bodies of the Federal
2 Republic of Yugoslavia in order to obtain additional information."
3 That's a spokesman of the Tribunal who said that.
4 Now that's what we're interested in, what about this additional
5 information? Surely the Prosecution didn't ignore the confession of
6 someone who said he killed 70 to 80 people and slaughtered them and threw
7 their heads in the Drina. Surely they requested information. Did they
8 get anything? If so, let's see that information.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The other thing -- before you proceed any further,
10 Mr. Jones, the other thing we are interested in knowing is whether this
11 document -- it seems there's also an inclusion in that it was certainly
12 not disclosed to you under Rule 68.
13 MR. JONES: Yes.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Was it disclosed to you -- forget the EDC system,
15 because I'm not really that much interested in that for the time being at
16 least until I've heard further submissions from Mr. Di Fazio.
17 MR. JONES: It hasn't been disclosed to us in any form.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: In any form, so it's not even contained in any one
19 of the CDs that reference was made to earlier on this week and --
20 MR. JONES: No.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and last week and the week before.
22 MR. JONES: No, Your Honour. And I do have to say, I will make
23 submissions on the EDS, even though I agree with Your Honour that EDS does
24 not relieve the Prosecution of its obligations, and that's clear from
25 Rule 68(i) and (ii), one being without prejudice to the other. We checked
1 the EDS here and in Sarajevo, we check it every two weeks, and we only
2 discovered this document very recently, and we found it with the search
3 criteria we put in. So I simply do not agree with the submission of
4 Mr. Di Fazio that it's been there since 2004, but I don't want to get into
5 that because I see another possible tactic by the Prosecution to get
6 diverted into that issue, and that isn't the issue.
7 The issue isn't even really -- it's disclosure of these documents
8 but it's also the Misic case. And to make that clear, it's two documents
9 and a whole case on what inquiries were made. Even though we are a small
10 team - we are essentially the team you see here today - we do check
11 thousands of documents and we were not aware of this document until two
12 weeks ago, and we check EDS religiously and regularly.
13 I have other submissions.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.
15 MR. JONES: Should I move on to those? I don't know if Mr. Di
16 Fazio is --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, I would close the debate today, as much as I
18 can, and then leave the last part --
19 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honour --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: So my suggestion or -- and we are in agreement on
23 this, is that you proceed with your submissions which may shed more light
24 on matters that Mr. Di Fazio may ultimately wish to address tomorrow --
25 MR. JONES: Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: -- then in the conclusion.
2 MR. JONES: Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: His conclusive intervention, we hope.
4 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Thank you for that opportunity, because I do think this raises
6 fundamental issues about the approach of the Prosecution in this case.
7 And I have to say I think it's a typically defensive and unrepentant
8 submission by the Prosecution which we've heard this morning. There was
9 nothing like a mea culpa until the Prosecution realised from indications
10 from Your Honour that some sort of a mea culpa might be in order. And
11 then very quickly Mr. Di Fazio said instead that it appeared to be a
12 breach, it wasn't necessarily a breach, and that he is going to see if he
13 can find legal arguments overnight to argue why it isn't a Rule 68
14 breach. I don't think that's a particularly repentant or productive
15 approach to this issue, and it's typical and it's endemic and it's why
16 we're having such problems with Rule 68, because the Prosecution has this
17 defensive attitude to Rule 68. And the moment we raise an issue like
18 this, they seek to immediately blame us, to say the Defence had access.
19 That's a typical reaction, I have to say, from their part. They haven't
20 said, We've looked into changing our procedures, we've appointed a Rule 68
21 officer, we've made urgent inquiries to see whether we have anything on
22 the Slobodan Misic case. That's what we expected, that's what we deserve,
23 frankly, in this case, that's what our client deserves, that the
24 Prosecution go off and look and see what is out on there Slobodan Misic
25 and get it to us pretty quickly. That's what all of us deserve, and we
1 didn't get it this morning from Mr. Di Fazio.
2 As to a couple of preliminary matters, in a way, arising from his
3 submissions. He's obviously seeking to suggest, Mr. Di Fazio, that this
4 article -- first of all, this publication Focus is well-known, it's like
5 Time magazine or The Guardian. Well, frankly, we've never heard of it. I
6 think it's thoroughly obscure. In any event, Focus, let's remember, is
7 Annex C. Annex A is utterly obscure. That's certainly not something
8 which -- a publication or a document which we're particularly familiar
9 with. So to try and stretch this to say this was in the public domain,
10 well, I suppose, ultimately everything is somehow in the public domain.
11 But to anticipate his argument and to perhaps fire a broadside, in a
12 sense, that it's a waste of time to seek to suggest these documents were
13 in the public domain, but if need be, we'll get into that, but as I say, I
14 think that would be thoroughly unproductive.
15 Much more fundamentally, Your Honours, I'm very worried and I
16 think Your Honours should be very worried about the Prosecution's approach
17 to Rule 68. In my submission, their response, initial response of
18 Mr. Di Fazio seeking to argue that these documents weren't exculpatory
19 shows that in fact they don't understand their case and they don't
20 understand our case, and it's very dangerous for this case that they don't
21 and it's very dangerous for Rule 68 disclosure that they don't understand
22 the case. And that's the reason why we haven't been getting much Rule 68
23 material. Not because it doesn't exist but because the Prosecution
24 doesn't know what its case is and what our defence is, and I intend to
25 illustrate that.
1 The Prosecution don't seem to be aware that their witnesses have
2 been consistently saying that there were merely village guards in these
3 villages, that there was no VRS presence, there were no volunteers, that
4 there was no necessity for attacking villages. They don't seem to be
5 aware that their case, their whole case, is based on there being a Muslim
6 army with a unified command structure and that unified command structure
7 being under Naser Oric.
8 And it's actually very rare -- and this is another point which I'm
9 going to raise separately -- it's very rare the Prosecution puts their
10 case to our witnesses, and it's a matter which I'm going to insist on at
11 some stage. It's very rare that they do, as they should do under the
12 Rules, under Rule 90(H)(ii). On one occasion Mr. Di Fazio did, and these
13 are his words: "I suggest that these groups --" This is from the
14 transcript page 10899, 13th September, 2005: "I suggest that these groups
15 all converged in places like Jagodnja and Joseva and Kravica, these
16 district groups, because there was a central command structure, a central
17 command structure of which you're aware and a central command structure
18 who was headed at the top by Mr. Oric. Would you agree or not with that
20 That's their case, and that's what Article 7(3) depends on, a
21 central command structure, with Mr. Naser Oric at its head. And here we
22 have documents saying there was no Muslim army, there were just civilians
23 in this very area, in the Fakovici area. And if the Prosecution doesn't
24 realise that that affects their case, then that's very worrying. That's
25 troubling for us and it should be troubling for Your Honours. The
1 Prosecution almost appear to think that the case is: Did Naser Oric set
2 fire to houses? Did he as an individual go around committing crimes? And
3 if they find maybe a document which says that he didn't, then maybe
4 they'll consider that exculpatory. But that's not the case. The case is
5 based on command responsibility. It's: Did Naser Oric's subordinates
6 commit these crimes? Did he know or should he have known about those
7 crimes? And in terms of whether he should have known, there's
8 jurisprudence, I'm not going to cite jurisprudence, I'll just list the
9 factors which have been mentioned: The number of illegal acts, the type
10 of illegal acts, the scope of illegal acts, the time during which the
11 illegal acts occurred, the number and type of troops involved, the
12 logistics involved, the geographical location of the acts, the widespread
13 occurrence of the acts, the tactical tempo of operations, the modus
14 operandi of similar illegal acts, the offices and staff involved, the
15 location of the commander at the time. That's from Celebici trial
17 All of that is relevant simply to knowledge. And then we have
18 under Article 7(3) necessary and reasonable measures which a commander
19 could take. And there's a great deal which is relevant to what a
20 commander can do about alleged crimes committed by his subordinates. And
21 we've been saying this is a time when there were massacres; expulsions of
22 Muslims; appalling danger from the Serbs, that they would break through
23 the lines and massacre the civilians; starvation; imminent genocide.
24 That's the picture we portrayed right from the start, and Your Honours
25 will of course remember the opening speech and those were highlighted at
1 the top as themes which we would develop. Because of course in any
2 sensible point of view, and I trust that this Tribunal and certainly this
3 Trial Chamber has enough -- has sufficient common sense to consider that
4 it's relevant to the priorities a commander is going to have if he's
5 operating in a situation of such appalling danger, whether, if he even
6 knew of these crimes, which we deny and we've said there's been no
7 evidence of our client knowing of burning and what not, but is he going to
8 investigate a possible burning of a house on some hillside when there's a
9 risk of women and children being massacred? We've made that case time
10 and again. And if the Prosecution doesn't realise that the fact of facing
11 this constant attack from a merciless enemy is relevant to that and it's
12 exculpatory if there is material which shows that there was this ruthless
13 attack from the Serbs all along the Drina in this time period.
14 But the Prosecution -- they'll see material like that and they'll
15 say, well, it's not relevant because, I don't know, it doesn't concern the
16 burning of an individual house. That's not the law, it's not customary
17 law, it's not the practice of this Tribunal. I trust, as I say, that the
18 Trial Chamber will not erect some ridiculous standard according to which a
19 commander has absolutely the same duties irrespective of the circumstances
20 under which he's operating.
21 Under military necessity, I submit that the Prosecution has
22 completely misunderstood military necessity. If you've reviewed, as we
23 have, military manuals on customary law and wanton destruction, the
24 emphasise is on military targets and whether an area is militarised,
25 because of course you can expect a lot of destruction from fierce fighting
1 in a danger -- in an area which is militarised with troops and artillery,
2 et cetera. And if you look at photographs of Stalingrad and Berlin and
3 Coventry after war, you'll see most homes have a lot of damage. That's
4 typical of a militarised zone. And that's why we're showing, in case the
5 Prosecution hasn't realised this, that there were battalions of soldiers
6 in these villages, that there was artillery, that there were volunteers
7 who had committed terrible crimes and who were very dangerous, that there
8 were minefields. That's the military necessity to attack because these
9 murderous attacks had been carried out by Serbs from these places.
10 So we turn to this article in which a volunteer based in Fakovici,
11 a village named in our indictment and portrayed as a simple hillside,
12 rustic community, according to the Prosecution, he's admitted to mass
13 murder, 70 to 80 people on his own account, and thousands of others,
14 killing women, killing people who were simply going for food, throwing
15 their bodies into the Drina, that he's assisted by units from Bratunac,
16 and that it wasn't a real Muslim army. That's why I find -- at the outset
17 I was horrified to hear the Prosecution try to wrangle out of that being
18 exculpatory. Surely any sensible Prosecutor would say this is a terrible
19 mistake, this is very exculpatory, it's a terrible error on our part and
20 we'll do everything we can to remedy this mistake. Not a word of that
21 from Mr. Di Fazio, you'll notice.
22 And so if the Prosecution doesn't realise what's exculpatory and
23 what isn't and continues to insist on their approach and then when found
24 out -- they've been found out in this instance, to be reactive and
25 defensive and try to find authority which will maybe offer them an escape
1 route, then the only solution is for Your Honours to direct them in no
2 uncertain terms that they're to disclose to us what is exculpatory, and to
3 tell them what's exculpatory because they don't seem to know, they don't
4 seem to understand what damages their case and what supports our version
5 of events.
6 So, Your Honours, those are my submissions. And I would just add,
7 Your Honour at one point said that you feared that -- or the risk that at
8 the end of this trial it would be half-baked because there would have been
9 nondisclosure of material which would then come to light after the trial.
10 Well, there is a very real risk of that in this case, and at the very
11 best, that would result in successful appeal if, in the sad event of our
12 client being convicted of any charges. But at worst, it would result in a
13 miscarriage of justice, which I hope not only the Chamber but the
14 Prosecution, the Prosecution should also be concerned to avoid a
15 miscarriage of justice.
16 I would also just note in this regard that until very recently,
17 until the Rule 98 bis, there were still charges of plunder in the
18 indictment against Naser Oric. Certainly the Prosecution wasn't about to
19 drop those charges, even though the only evidence was of civilians
20 stealing food, if it can be called stealing. They didn't disclose the
21 document to us either at that stage when those charges were still live,
22 even though the article speaks about starving Muslims who were desperate
23 for food.
24 So frankly, Your Honour, those are my submissions. There is -- as
25 I say, the motion is concerned with documents, yes, those two documents,
1 but it is concerned with the Slobodan Misic case, which we know the
2 Prosecution knew about in 1997, so I don't know what business the
3 Prosecution has trying to shift the date forward to 2002, 2003. Again,
4 very indicative, in my submission, that rather than facing the fact that
5 they knew of this in 1997, they tried to suggest they only knew of it
6 later. There must have been inquiries. The Prosecution surely would be
7 interested in a case of such gravity. There must have been inquiries. We
8 want to know what the results of those inquiries were, what information
9 was received, and we need to receive them immediately.
10 Finally, on prejudice, there is enormous prejudice, obviously, as
11 Your Honour has grasped. We've had witnesses from Fakovici who said, no,
12 we were simply the minding our own business. The Muslims left their
13 villages, they didn't want to live with us anymore, they wanted to live in
14 the woods. If we could have presented documents like this to them and
15 said, well, look, what about this chap, Slobodan Misic, does that change
16 what you say? Perhaps they would have said, well, actually, to be
17 perfectly honest, this stuff did go on and in fact here are some examples
18 which I can give, and, yes, you're right, this and this happened. They
19 might have given completely different evidence, it could have been a
20 completely different trial if we had documents like this at the beginning.
21 So again, Prosecution shouldn't try and wrangle out of that.
22 Unless I can assist further, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, I'm not going to say much more,
24 Mr. Di Fazio. I don't know if you still insist in postponing until
25 tomorrow your final submissions on what you hope to transpire by then,
1 that we're talking of a document which was in the public domain, or
2 whether you want to close your submissions today.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I would like to ascertain that, make our inquiries
4 about that, and see if that submission is to be developed or not.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: If it is capable of development and the Prosecution
7 feels that it's covered by those two cases, then we wouldn't be using any
8 escape routes. But I would like to make those inquiries.
9 MR. JONES: Your Honour, may I just say two things. I neglected
10 to mention one manner.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
12 MR. JONES: You'll recall also seeing Annex B in which you'll see
13 that we were asking specifically for documents from Fakovici. So it's not
14 just EDS issue, it's the fact that we've explicitly been putting the
15 Prosecution on notice that we want any material relating to Fakovici, any
16 material relating to killings of Muslims.
17 Secondly, just on Mr. Di Fazio's point, he can cite jurisprudence
18 if he wants, I hope it will be Appeals Chamber jurisprudence, because of
19 course there's no binding precedent from Trial Chamber jurisprudence, but
20 in my submission, the Rules control. And Rule 68 is clear and Rule 68(ii)
21 also is clear in that without prejudice to paragraph (i), the Prosecution
22 should make available to the Defence, in electronic form, the various
23 collections, but that's without prejudice to the obligation to disclose
24 material in the actual knowledge of the Prosecution. And this is in their
25 actual knowledge, so the EDS is absolutely -- is a red herring.
1 And finally, I really would regret it if Mr. Di Fazio spends time
2 on -- researching case law when there is a much more urgent, pressing
3 issue which we frankly demand to have an answer to, which is what do the
4 Prosecution know about the Misic case, what information have they
5 received? It doesn't have to be documents. Rule 68 is broad enough to
6 include any results they've had from those inquiries, and we absolutely
7 require to have an answer on that matter by tomorrow.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
9 I thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.
10 One moment, please, and we'll discuss among ourselves.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: So the discussion is adjourned until tomorrow on
13 this. In the meantime, Mr. Di Fazio, just -- and Mr. Wubben and the rest
14 of the team, the other concern that has been raised by Mr. Jones, namely,
15 his anxiety -- I wouldn't say his suspicion that you have other case
16 related to Misic -- other information related to Misic. I will be more
17 moderate in my -- in the words that I choose. His anxiety to make sure
18 that there is no further material -- Rule 68 material to be disclosed
19 arising from this Misic affair, that you use the time that you have
20 between today and tomorrow to research that, too. I mean --
21 MR. DI FAZIO: It's already underway.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We discussed a little bit whether we should require
23 you to come back with the information on whether the document's public
24 domain or not public domain, in writing, but I suggested forget that. You
25 do it orally tomorrow at quarter past 2.00, when we reconvene tomorrow,
1 and you use the time, rather than writing down formal documents, that you
2 use it to research properly the archives that you have on this area.
3 Let me finish by making an observation. You realise that
4 throughout this case, since its inception, we have had several instances
5 of complaints from the Defence, sometimes arising out of Rule 66,
6 sometimes arising out of Rule 68, and we have always dealt with them.
7 Sometimes they were dealt with in a very practical manner in the courtroom
8 itself following a kind of entente between the two parties, an
9 understanding more. And you will also understand that this kind of
10 complaints arise in every case.
11 In Brdjanin, for example, I had several instances of alleged
12 violations, some were of little momentum, like some have been also in this
13 case, without great consequences; some pretty serious. And when it was a
14 pretty serious mistake on the part of the Prosecution - and pretty serious
15 mistakes do happen - Ms. Korner, Ms. Joanna Korner, it goes to her credit,
16 one of the best counsel I have come across in my career, would stand up
17 and say, "Your Honours, I don't know how to address you, this is a gross
18 mistake that we have made. Know by faith it was just an oversight, we are
19 sorry, and we are at your disposal. Whatever needs to be done will be
20 done." But trying to take a defensive approach when it may be
21 blatantly -- not just an oversight but maybe something more than that,
22 is -- can call for very serious consequences after that.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: That's why -- if Your Honour pleases, that's why
24 I've asked for this time to go and assess whether or not we will maintain
25 that latter submission to you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: But again --
2 MR. DI FAZIO: That's why.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: -- it is defensive because until a couple of years
4 ago when you had the EDS system, et cetera, and it made changes to
5 Rule 68, including the knowledge of and without the knowledge of,
6 depending on whether those words were to be retained, et cetera, the
7 complaint on the part of the Defence -- not the Defence in this case,
8 Defence teams in every case, used to be, Listen, you, Madam Prosecutor,
9 you have rendered Rule 68(i) as a monster. Because instead of sitting
10 down and distinguish and separate what is truly Rule 68 material from what
11 is not, you're just sending us bundles and bundles and bundles of
12 documents on the pretext that they are Rule 68 material, and then we have
13 to go through the humongous exercise of identifying where the exculpatory
14 material is. That used to be the complaint. So the approach of the
15 Prosecution at the time was: When in doubt, do -- not when in doubt
16 don't, when in doubt, do. And you used to disclose everything, even if
17 the -- you had ambivalence as to whether it was exculpatory or not. But
18 the Prosecution never took the risk.
19 So it becomes a little bit -- very difficult to digest at this
20 point in time now saying -- because first -- you know, now we need to see
21 whether it was public domain or not because, you know, an Appeals Chamber
22 said that when it is public domain -- of course I hope you draw a
23 distinction between a transcript of proceedings and a newspaper or a
24 magazine somewhere. I mean, they may have written something about the war
25 in Bosnia at the time in the Maltese papers, and they are public domain.
1 Would you expect Mr. Jones -- or if they had a Maltese on that team to go
2 through the Maltese papers as well to see whether there was anything
3 exculpatory at the time. CNN news, BBC news, they are almost occurring on
4 a daily basis. I'm sure that there is, if one were to look into those, a
5 lot of exculpatory material for this case and other cases. But come on,
6 are we talking of public domain material? If you know about them, and if
7 you have them in your records, as you seem to have had this for a long
8 time, and it is Rule 68 material and it cannot but be Rule 68 material,
9 I'm not saying -- I'm not deciding now that it is definitely and by no
10 other means Rule 68 material; that will be decided later, obviously. But
11 looking -- looking at it, you shouldn't have too much doubt. And if you
12 don't -- shouldn't have too much doubt today, really you must come up with
13 some really good justification why you - when I say "you" it's not you,
14 Mr. Di Fazio, please don't misunderstand me - why you weren't aware of it
15 in 2002, 2003, 2004, and until we started the case in October 2004.
16 And it does -- I agree with Mr. Jones, it does go to the heart of
17 the case. It really goes to the heart of the case. I've never spoken so
18 openly on any issue or on any document that was contested on by the
19 Defence on Rule 66 or on Rule 68 as I am doing today. And the reason is
20 to try and avert undesirable consequences. I mean, it's -- it's
21 problematic. This document presents the Trial Chamber with a lot of
22 problems, with a lot of -- and I hope you understand what I am saying. So
23 we'll continue the discussion tomorrow.
24 Usher will now please escort the witness into the courtroom. Has
25 he been told that we would be -- all right.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Does Your Honour intend to break at 3.45?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. May I be excused at this point?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the least we see of you between today and
5 tomorrow, the better it will be, because we assume you will be researching
6 further into the -- into the archives.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: So your absence will be a good sign.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 MR. JONES: I'm glad Your Honours said "the archives" rather than
11 the case law.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: So -- by the way, because I forgot to tell you,
13 today we will be sitting like yesterday, until 7.00. So there will be two
14 breaks, one within 20 minutes from now, and the other one at quarter to
15 6.00, quarter to 6.00.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon -- good afternoon to you, Mr. Alic,
18 and welcome back.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please accept the apologies of the Trial Chamber for
21 calling you an hour and a quarter after you were supposed to start giving
22 evidence. The reason is we had serious procedural business to transact,
23 which of course doesn't have to do with you. I mean, I want to put your
24 mind at rest that you were not involved in the debate that we had here.
25 And we are now in a position to continue. Mr. Jones will continue with
1 his examination-in-chief. I don't think we will finish today, but there
2 is still hope that we will be able to finish with you by Friday -- by the
3 end of Friday. Thank you.
4 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 WITNESS: IBRO ALIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examined by Mr. Jones: [Continued]
8 Q. And apologies from me, too, Mr. Alic.
9 A. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
10 Q. Now, yesterday when we left off we were discussing the situation
11 in Jagodnja and Joseva in early October 1992. Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you told us there were daily attacks by Serb soldiers?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. I want to focus your attention now on the 4th of October, 1992.
16 You've told us there were daily attacks. Was there an attack on that day?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was this an infantry attack or an artillery attack or both?
19 A. On the 4th of October, 1992, there was shelling during the day.
20 As for the night between the 4th and the 5th, there was an incursion by a
21 group of Serb soldiers. Between the villages of Jagodnja and Josevo,
22 there was a forest-keeper's hut there which had not been torched
23 previously. There were refugees from Joseva staying there whose houses
24 had been torched. That night three Zolja missiles were fired on this
1 Q. Thank you. Now, you've mentioned an incursion by a group of Serb
2 soldiers. Do you know from which direction they came?
3 A. According to what the people who were in the area, or rather, in
4 the house told me, the group had come from the direction of Fakovici, or
5 rather, had withdrawn to the Jezero area, to sum it up, the Fakovici area.
6 Q. Right. Now, you've mentioned that three Zolja missiles were fired
7 on this building, the building of the forest-keeper.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What happened to that building?
10 A. This building was made of stone. It had a stone wall about
11 60 centimetres thick. There wasn't much damage that the Zoljas -- Zolja
12 missiles could cause. One of those - this is something that we saw later
13 on - hit the roof directly. There was a powerful explosion, but there
14 wasn't much damage to the house at the time.
15 Q. Now, what were you doing at the time of this attack -- or rather,
16 where were you, firstly?
17 A. I was in a part of the village of Hasanovici. The distance is one
18 to one and a half kilometres. I was there with the wounded who had been
19 injured over the previous days. My duty was to keep an eye on those
20 people and to dress their wounds on a daily basis and whatever else they
22 Q. And on the occasion of this attack, between the 4th and the 5th of
23 October, 1992, were there many wounded who you had to treat?
24 A. In this hut there were about three people who were wounded,
25 wounded as a result of the explosion that I mentioned, because the
1 explosion had been so powerful. People were afraid. They were trying to
2 escape. And on their way out, they were injured. These people eventually
3 made it to the village of Hasanovici. They escaped. And when they
4 arrived, I dressed their wounds. I administered first aid to the people
5 who arrived.
6 Q. Now, did help arrive at any stage from outside your village?
7 A. That evening the shelling on Josevi continued. In the early hours
8 there was an exchange of fire. There was infantry combat between Joseva
9 and Priselaca which is where the Serb soldiers, I'm talking about the next
10 morning, launched another attack against Joseva. At this point in time, a
11 man from Joseva came up to me, to where I was in Hasanovici, and told me
12 that should I so chose I was free to join him on his way to Bradva, that
13 is, Joseva and on to Priselaca. When I got there --
14 Q. Stop there for a second. I think we should mark that on the map,
15 the places you've just mentioned. If you could be shown the map, D827.
16 Yes, first you mentioned a place I think called Bredala [phoen].
17 If you could just mention the two places you said a moment ago and then
18 mark them, please.
19 A. I will show you on the map my whereabouts at the time and then
20 I'll take one thing at a time. This is Hasanovici, a village that had not
21 been torched, the dozen houses that were there. Then I headed for
22 Bradva --
23 Q. Sorry, can you please mark that with an H, Hasanovici.
24 A. [Marks].
25 Q. Thank you. Yes, and please continue.
1 A. I marked Bradva with the letter B.
2 Q. Thank you. And then Priselaca -- Priselaca I think you mentioned
3 as well.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you mark that, please.
6 A. No, that's not a village, it's just a place, Priselaca. This is
7 the location, roughly speaking.
8 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to come back to your movements in
9 second. But first you mentioned artillery was shooting I think you said
10 on Joseva. Do you know the direction from which the artillery was
12 A. According to the accounts of the people who were there, it was
13 from the direction of Fakovici and to a much lesser extent from the
14 direction of Bijeli Kamen.
15 Q. And when you say from the accounts of the people who were there,
16 what are you referring to?
17 A. People from the group who were observing the area, who were
18 carrying out reconnaissance in the Joseva area.
19 Q. So did they see that the artillery was firing from the direction
20 of Fakovici or that it was actually -- did they actually see the artillery
21 pieces in Fakovici?
22 A. One could not see anything from Priselaca that was coming from
23 Fakovici but you could hear anything that was going on. If you have a
24 mortar, a 120-millimetre or an 80-millimetre mortar, when it fires, you
25 can hear it the same way you can hear a missile. You can tell the
1 direction. But from Bijeli Kamen, if you used binoculars, you could see
2 where it was.
3 Q. Thank you. And now going back to the map and explaining your
4 movements, can you first explain why you were moving in this direction,
5 what you were doing.
6 A. As I said, a man came along and asked me to join him on his way
7 there. There had been fighting between the Serb soldiers and the group of
8 people who were there.
9 Q. So why did he ask you along?
10 A. Because I was the nurse, so that if anyone was wounded I was there
11 to help them.
12 Q. All right. Thank you. Could you say -- could you mark where you
13 went from the place you've located -- you've marked with P. Where did you
14 go from there?
15 A. When I reached Priselaca there was a group of people there that I
16 was not familiar with. I asked them why they were there, and they said
17 they were there to help us. I understood that they were from Kragljivoda
18 and other villages, too. There were plenty of civilians there moving in
19 that direction, in the vicinity of Priselaca. We headed for Radijevici.
20 Q. Thank you. Will you stop there for a minute. You mentioned
21 people from Kragljivoda who said they had come to help. Was that the
22 first time help had come from other villages or had it happened before?
23 A. Yes. This was the first time that people arrived in our village
24 in order to help us with defending or to offer help against the attacks
25 that we were being subjected to.
1 Q. Right. And before you move on to Radijevici, were there civilians
2 there in that area on that day?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How many, roughly?
5 A. Well, in my estimate - and you must understand that there was a
6 lot of confusion at the time - there were many hundreds in that area.
7 Q. And just to fix the time, you were talking about the 4th of
8 October or the 5th of October now?
9 A. The 5th.
10 Q. All right. And what were the civilians doing there?
11 A. The civilians arrived. They heard about the shelling, about the
12 firing. The civilians were going wherever there was shooting in the hope
13 that they would be able to lay their hands on some food or whatever they
14 could use to feed themselves, their family, get some clothing, perhaps,
15 that sort of thing.
16 Q. All right. And at this stage, on this day, did the Muslims in
17 Jagodnja and Joseva still only have five or six rifles or did you have
18 more at this stage?
19 A. We had more. We got more weapons, so at this time we had between
20 20 and 30 rifles.
21 Q. And can you explain some of the ways in which you got those
23 A. Yes. As I said, during the attack where we put up resistance in
24 Jagodnja we managed to seize some of the rifles that the Serb soldiers had
25 left behind. There were a lot of people coming from the neighbouring
1 villages to our village, from Visegrad, from Zepa, from Krusev Do and
2 other places, too. They would bring weapons because they had no food to
3 survive, to feed their families. So we helped those people and they
4 realised what our situation was. We had some sort of an exchange. They
5 would leave their weapons behind and we would give them food in return.
6 There were other people, too, who would come from wherever, I'm not sure
7 where they were coming from. They would stay a fortnight or so, and some
8 of these people carried rifles and wanted food.
9 Q. Thank you. And those rifles, were they given to any specific
10 single person or were they shared among the people in the village as a
12 A. No. No one in particular was given a rifle, saying this rifle is
13 for you; it was for the general purpose of defending the village.
14 Q. So it was shared among people?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I stopped you when you were going towards Radijevici. Did
17 you see anything in particular in Radijevici?
18 A. Yes. There was the so-called counter-attack on Radijevici. I
19 joined the fighters myself. And on the way to Radijevici about 100 or 200
20 metres further down the road we came across mines. There were about three
21 mines that had been laid in the forest at the point where we were supposed
22 to cross. We removed those mines -- actually, there was a person from my
23 village who was part of the group and he was successful in removing these
24 mines. After that, another group came, a group that was to our left, and
25 they ran into a minefield, the mines killing four people instantly. There
1 was a zigzag pattern to the mines. Some of them were land-mines and the
2 other mines were a kind that we refer to as cans.
3 Q. Sorry to cut you off, I have a question in that regard.
4 Secondly - and I was just waiting for the interpretation - land-mines and
5 others referred to as cans. What are those cans? How are they activated?
6 A. I didn't see those myself. I didn't see what they were like, but
7 they're activated as soon as someone steps on them and then they go off.
8 Q. Are there also trip-wire mines that are activated by someone
9 triggering a string or wire?
10 A. No, no. These are not the same kind. Trip-wire is the one where
11 you have wire, but they're visible usually, and then you have some sort of
12 a wire and someone trips over it. We had removed those, but these
13 land-mines, these mines you can't see because they're dug into the ground
14 and you can't see them.
15 Q. Thank you. Yes. There might be a slight misinterpretation there.
16 But that was the point, really, there were also these trip-wire mines in
17 the area which you mentioned that you deactivated.
18 Just one question before we break. You mentioned that you joined
19 the fighters. How many people were in this group of fighters, or how many
20 of these fighters were there?
21 A. In my group there were between 10 and 15 fighters, people from my
23 Q. Thank you?
24 MR. JONES: Yes, we can break there if that's a convenient moment.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.
1 Thank you.
2 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
4 MR. JONES: Thank you. Yes.
5 Q. Now, before the break, Mr. Alic, you mentioned these 10 to 15
6 fighters. Were any of them in uniform?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did all or any of them have weapons?
9 A. Most people had weapons except for me and two other people who
10 were with me. They were carrying stretchers and they didn't have any
12 Q. And when you say "most people," you're referring to most among
13 those 10 to 15 of the fighters?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, you were describing how you were in Radijevici. Do you know
16 a place called Radijevici Potok?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he mentioned it yesterday.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 MR. JONES:
20 Q. Did you go to or did you see Radijevici Potok?
21 A. Yes. From the place where the mines were and where those people
22 on the other side had been killed, from there you can see Radijevici Potok
23 with the naked eye.
24 Q. And did you see anything going on in that area?
25 A. Yes. At that place, Radijevici Potok, we noticed that there was a
1 lorry and Serb soldiers were getting off. And there was some extra
2 weapons there. I think it was the mortars that they were setting up
3 there. And we noticed across the river Drina there was a boat crossing
4 over from Serbia.
5 Q. Do you know what that boat was doing or could you see what that
6 boat was doing?
7 A. Yes, they were ferrying something. I wasn't able to see what
8 exactly it was, but there was some cargo. And you could also spot people
9 on the boat. And as to there was anything else, I don't know, I'm not
11 Q. And as far as this vehicle was concerned the Serb soldiers got
12 off, this lorry, what sort of a vehicle was it, what sort of a lorry?
13 A. A military one.
14 Q. Thank you. You've mentioned how there was some mines, and I think
15 you mentioned you were able to deactivate some. Now, aside from the mines
16 which the people you described stepped on, were any other mines activated?
17 A. When those four soldiers were killed, there was a great deal of
18 shooting and the shooting was coming from the village of Radijevici. You
19 could hear shooting alongside these houses which were just below the
20 forest in Radijevici. So the shooting started towards where we were and
21 where those people were killed. So mines -- certain mines that were below
22 our positions were activated as well. Those were special mines.
23 Q. Sorry. I just want to clarify that. You mentioned there was
24 shooting --
25 A. Trip-wire mines.
1 Q. Shooting alongside these houses which were just in the forest of
2 Radijevici. What village or hamlet were these houses in that you
4 A. The houses are below the forest, Novi Radijevici, and that
5 connects to Radijevici Potok.
6 Q. Is that part of Radijevici or is that some other place?
7 A. That's the Radijevici itself.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you've mentioned -- you said these houses were in
9 Radijevici and then you described shooting alongside these houses. Where
10 in fact was the shooting coming from in relation to the houses?
11 A. From the village of Radijevici, that is to say, shells were
12 landing there from the direction of Fakovici. And there was a lot of
13 shooting and shooting started from all sides. So there was so much noise
14 in that valley that it was impossible to even reach any conclusions as to
15 where the shooting was coming from.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness said "from
17 the village of Radijevici." The witness said that the shooting came from
18 the village of Radijevici, from those houses, and I don't see it in the
19 transcript, from the houses in the village of Radijevici. 16.24.00 he
20 said "from the village of Radijevici, from those houses" and then he went
21 on to talk about shells, and I didn't see the mention of houses in the
23 MR. JONES: I can clarify with the witness.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Please do. I think you better verify that. It
25 certainly doesn't show up in the transcript for sure and that does make a
2 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Alic, did you say the shooting came from the houses in the
4 village of Radijevici?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. And I think you were also saying --
7 MR. JONES: And if Your Honours will permit me to look at the
9 Q. And you seem to be suggesting that the shooting activated certain
10 mines. Is that the case?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Right. And do you know who was shooting from those houses in
14 A. Serb soldiers.
15 Q. And when these mines which they shot at were activated, was anyone
17 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, he didn't state that they shot at the
18 mines. I believe that the shooting activated the mines. That's a point
19 for clarification.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, Mr. Jones.
21 MR. JONES: Yes.
22 Q. As far as you know were the Serbs deliberately targeting the
23 mines? Were they shooting at them to activate them or was it accidental?
24 A. The Serbs knew where they had placed the mines, and when the mines
25 were activated -- I mean before, when people were killed. And since they
1 knew where the mines were, they were shooting at the other mines as well
2 in order to activate them, I mean all the other mines.
3 Q. Right. Thank you. And when they did that and the mines
4 activated, was anyone injured?
5 A. No one was injured in my group. People dispersed. I mean, this
6 group was broken up, and there was a lot of shooting from machine-guns,
7 PAMs, from the village of Radijevici. And we had no chance at all to
8 enter the village of Radijevici because we were already afraid of the
9 mines. Maybe we thought there were more mines. And so the group was
10 broken up completely and the people dispersed.
11 Q. Thank you. You also said that four soldiers were killed on
12 those -- by stepping on the mines. Is that correct, that the four people
13 who were killed --
14 A. Yes. Yes.
15 Q. Were they all men, all the people who were killed stepping on the
17 A. There was a nurse in that group of four people who were killed.
18 And as I heard later on I think she was from either the village of
19 Tokolavci [phoen] or Radovcici, something like that. I can't remember at
20 the moment which village exactly, but maybe Tokoljac.
21 Q. And the men who were killed, do you know if they were in uniform
22 or not?
23 A. No, the men had no uniforms at all and two people were killed at
24 the same time and -- or rather, two people were -- the bodies were taken
25 away and two bodies remained. Perhaps there was nobody to take them away.
1 And so together with another guy who was also unarmed, I set out in the
2 direction of Zanjevo and we came across a mine, and this guy tripped over
3 a mine. But fortunately, the mine was attached to a branch, and he
4 tripped over and the branch started swaying and I managed to draw his
5 attention to the fact that there was a mine. And so he stopped and --
6 Q. Sorry to interrupt you but I need to break it down, and I'm going
7 to come back to that in a moment. But I first want to show you
8 Exhibit D740, please, with the assistance of the usher.
9 And before we leave Radijevici you said: "And we had no chance at
10 all to enter the village of Radijevici."
11 And I want you to look at this document, and it's from the
12 Bratunac garrison command, strictly confidential, number 24312, dated
13 6th October, 1992, to the Birac Brigade command. And for the moment I'm
14 going to just go to the second paragraph. "Our forces are holding
15 Radijevici village but other villages, Fakovici, Boljevici, and
16 Grabovacka Rijeka are empty."
17 Now, does that correspond with what you were telling us now in
18 your information that in fact no one actually entered, no Muslims entered,
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. JONES: I've finished with that exhibit for the time being.
23 Q. Were any Muslims, to your knowledge, killed by Serbs who were
24 shooting from these houses in Radijevici?
25 A. At that moment when we set out towards Abdulici and Zanjevo, I
1 started describing the situation and the fact that we did -- disactivated
2 that mine and we continued towards Zanjevo. And together with this
3 neighbour of mine, I managed to get through a part of that creek where
4 Serb soldiers noticed us and they started shooting at us. At any rate, we
5 managed to enter the village of Zanjevo itself. Upon our arrival in the
6 village -- when we arrived, two people were hit by bullets coming from
7 Radijevici, and I rushed to assist them, but it was too late. They were
8 mortally wounded, and there was no chance whatsoever of any assistance
9 being provided.
10 Q. Thank you. Okay. So you've mentioned two people in any event
11 who were killed by shooting from Radijevici.
12 One thing you mentioned earlier which I want to go back to, you
13 said how your friend or another man nearly triggered a mine but it didn't
14 go off. Did you do anything with that -- with that mine which didn't
15 actually activate?
16 A. Yes. I deactivated that mine. I detached from that rope that was
17 attached to both the tree and the mine. And I disassembled it. And I put
18 it in this guy's backpack, so we carried it with us.
19 Q. So this person was wearing a rucksack. Was he armed?
20 A. Yes -- no.
21 Q. Sorry. That was the problem we were familiar with. I'll repeat
22 the question. Was he armed?
23 A. No, no.
24 Q. Thank you. At this stage you're in Zanjevo. At this time were
25 there any civilians in the area where you were?
1 A. In Zanjevo itself where those two people were killed, there were
2 hundreds of civilians with horses, backpacks, sacks, and the shelling that
3 was coming from the direction of Fakovici was accompanied by shooting from
4 the village of Radijevici. And so the entire area was under threat, and
5 the houses had been burnt beforehand. So there was no means of survival
6 there. And I myself asked people who had horses to give me a horse or two
7 so that I could carry the dead bodies and take them to a house that was
8 not completely burnt down in order to prevent the bodies being shot to
9 pieces by those shells. And the answer I got from these people is,
10 They're already dead. There's nothing to preserve anymore, and we must
11 load food that we had come for in order to feed our children who are
12 starving and they are thirsty and they don't have any clothes, et cetera.
13 Q. Thank you. And when you say that "the houses had been burnt
14 beforehand," these are houses in which village?
15 A. In the village of Zanjevo.
16 Q. And who, to your knowledge, had burnt those houses?
17 A. According to my knowledge, it was done by the Serbs, the Serb
19 Q. Now, you've referred to shelling from Fakovici. Can you tell us
20 what sort of calibre, what sort of artillery was shooting from Fakovici?
21 A. Those are mortars from Fakovici that were shelling Zanjevo at that
22 time. And later on when we carried those dead bodies into a house in
23 Zanjevo that had a roof where we could put them, I went in the direction
24 of Zanjevo creek, and there were quite a few civilians in those houses and
25 farms and they were collecting food in the village of Abdulici. And when
1 I managed to get to Radijevici Potok, I spotted a house between Fakovici
2 and Radijevici Potok, the house about which we had known all along, that
3 it had been secured with sandbags and that Serb soldiers from Fakovici
4 were stationed there, and they were using machine-guns and PAM, I believe.
5 And after a short while, the noise died down and -- and so there was no
6 more any shooting coming from that particular house.
7 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you a bit about that house. You
8 said "the house about which we had known all along." What did you mean by
10 A. Yes. Our observers, reconnaissance men who moved around the area
11 before this counter-attack at Fakovici, they would go down to the places
12 that I've marked on the map and mentioned in the period of time ranging
13 between July, August, and September. And they would go down to those
14 places. And people who used to go to Zanjevo at night in order to collect
15 food, people who were going hungry, they spotted that house, they noticed
16 it, and they realised that there were shots being fired from that house
17 even at night if they happened to notice our refugees who were going back
18 to collect food.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you know if subsequently anything was found inside
20 that house?
21 A. At a later stage, after the end of those events, people from
22 Abdulici who entered that house who -- that went close to that house,
23 well, I heard that Djoko Djokic was killed in that house and that some
24 weapons were found there, the weapons that were used in order to shoot
25 people from that house.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Yes. Do you know which -- what weapons?
2 A. Machine-guns and automatic weapons and PAMs.
3 Q. Now, you've mentioned Djoko Djokic. Is that the same Djoko Djokic
4 whom you saw in Joseva in May 1992?
5 A. Yes. According to what those people from Zanjevo said, yes.
6 MR. JONES: If the witness could please be shown D45, Defence
7 Exhibit 45. And this is a list of killed fighters, VP -- well, it's --
8 sorry, I'll start from the beginning. VRS, Army of Republika Srpska, list
9 of killed fighters, VP military post, 740 Bratunac from 1992 to 1996. And
10 if you turn to number 16 we see Djoko Djokic, father's name Nedeljko, born
11 27th of September, 1958, in Boljevici, died in Fakovici on the 5th of
12 October, 1992. Does that correspond with -- well, does the birth date and
13 the father's name appear correct for Djoko Djokic?
14 A. Yes, Djoko Djokic, yes. He is from Radijevici, yes, and that he
15 lived in Fakovici, yes. And also that he was killed on the 5th of
16 October, 1992.
17 Q. Thank you. I can clarify --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, he can perhaps also clarify one thing. He
19 seems to know a lot of information on this house in particular, and one
20 piece of information is that Djoko Djokic was killed there.
21 MR. JONES: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Inside that house. Was it Djoko Djokic's own house?
23 This is -- or was it someone else's house and Djoko Djokic happened to be
24 there at some point in time when he was killed.
25 MR. JONES: Yes.
1 Q. Can you help us with that, Mr. Alic.
2 A. Yes. It wasn't Djoko Djokic's house.
3 Q. Whose house was it?
4 A. According to my knowledge, it was a house from a village near
5 Biljeg. The name used to be Mosce. And that man built a house before the
6 war at that spot where it was, because when I was a student at school I
7 already knew that. I think that the name of the village near Mosce is
8 Grubanovici, if I'm not mistaken.
9 Q. It might not be clear. You're saying that it's a man who built
10 that house and the man is from a village near Biljeg?
11 A. Not from Biljeg, from just below Biljeg. The village was
13 Q. And he built the house where Djoko Djokic died. Is that what
14 you're saying?
15 A. Yes, yes, yes.
16 Q. And at the time that Djoko Djokic died there, do you know was it a
17 residential house or was it some other type of house or being used for
18 some other purpose?
19 A. I don't know whether anyone used to live in that house, but I do
20 know that it was surrounded by sandbags and that positions, machine-gun
21 positions, could be seen.
22 Q. All right. Thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, I think he can give us more information
24 to be able to identify this house, say the -- since he seems to be very
25 familiar with Fakovici itself --
1 MR. JONES: Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: -- whether he knows the name of the street. The
3 reason, I mean, I think it should appear very obvious.
4 MR. JONES: Yes, even on the map if the witness --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If he can identify or help us identify this house,
6 name of the street, if he knows it, any neighbouring houses that he can
7 identify to us as belonging to particular individuals. I don't know. He
8 is supposedly receiving interpretation of what I am saying, so he can
9 answer direct without your need to put the question, in other words.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this -- there was no
11 street to speak of in Fakovici. I can show you on the map where this
12 house was, approximately.
13 MR. JONES:
14 Q. Yes. If you could do that, please.
15 A. Shall I put a different mark there? I indicated it -- I put a
16 cross there.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: What I suggest is that you put another cross on that
18 cross so it will be eight-pointed rather than four-pointed and we can
19 distinguish it from the rest.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. It's six-pointed, but it doesn't really
22 make a difference.
23 So the spot where the witness suggests that this house stood on is
24 being shown, marked by him, on the map by means of a star, superimposed on
25 the circle surrounding Fakovici, on the same map, D827, D827.
1 MR. JONES:
2 Q. On this same subject, Mr. Alic, you mention shooting from houses
3 in Radijevici. I'm not going to ask you, unless it's possible, for you to
4 mark on the map all the houses where shooting was coming from Radijevici,
5 unless you think you can do that. Would you be able to mark all the
6 locations where shooting was coming from houses or not?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And if you can, then -- and you're going to mark
8 on -- put marks on the map, put S instead of the usual X.
9 MR. JONES: May I first approach it this way, Your Honour,
10 because --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Whichever way because I don't want to interfere.
12 I'm trying to help, actually.
13 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, there is one point, though, which is --
14 it's a matter perhaps I won't discuss in front of the witness.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we have a better map of Fakovici and Radijevici
16 close --
17 MR. JONES: We don't personally, Your Honour, and the point -- the
18 point which I -- which think I should make for the record is that we don't
19 propose -- we don't think it's incumbent on us to locate every location
20 where shooting was coming from houses; it's impossible.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course not. You don't have -- you don't carry
22 any burden in any case.
23 MR. JONES: Right. As long as that's clear.
24 Q. So Radijevici, if you can tell us how many houses -- from how many
25 houses shooting was coming.
1 A. It's difficult to say. At that point in time we were still in the
2 forest. There was shooting from every house in that particular area. I
3 can't say now that there was firing coming from 10 or 20 houses, but each
4 house that was there, there was firing, somebody was firing from it,
5 firing at the area in which we happened to be.
6 Q. Thank you. And then moving to Fakovici, you're not saying, are
7 you, that the only shooting on that day came from the house where Djoko
8 Djokic was found, or are you saying that?
9 A. When I approached Radijevici-Zanjevski-Potok, I saw the arrival
10 and I saw shooting from that house, from the direction of Fakovici. There
11 was an enormous amount of shooting in Fakovici, too. I didn't go any
12 further from Radijevici Potok in the direction of Fakovici, but there were
13 loud sounds of shooting in the middle of Fakovici itself.
14 Q. Right. So you're not saying that the only house from which there
15 was shooting was the house where Djoko Djokic died?
16 Sorry, if you didn't understand, I'll withdraw the question.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Judge Eser has a question.
18 JUDGE ESER: Just before we leave this map, is it correct -- you
19 made -- Fakovici you made this cross or star at the end of Fakovici toward
20 the direction of Abdulici. Now, was this house we are talking about still
21 in the area of Fakovici where you had other houses around, or was it
22 somehow an isolated house?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This house was between
24 Zanjevski Potok and Fakovici, meaning there was another small house just
25 next to it.
1 JUDGE ESER: But it was not in the centre of Fakovici, so to say?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 JUDGE ESER: Thank you.
4 MR. JONES:
5 Q. This house was in Fakovici, though, was it not?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's established, Mr. Jones. I mean, we
7 don't need to --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: -- any further.
10 MR. JONES: Yes. But I will pursue this matter, though.
11 Q. Was there shooting from other houses besides that house on that
13 A. Yes. From the direction of Fakovici there was firing.
14 Q. Thank you. From the direction of the centre of Fakovici would you
16 A. Yes, from the centre of Fakovici, too.
17 Q. Just going back to D45, we've seen Djoko Djokic there. Now, I
18 want to ask you this: Are you aware of a tradition --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are you aware of a tradition in Bosnia where military units are
21 named after their dead commanders?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So, in other words, a person, a commander of a unit, is then
24 killed in action and then the unit is renamed after the fallen commander.
25 Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I'm going to come back to that.
3 I want to direct you to number 221 where it says "Slavko
4 Jovanovic, born 4 June, 1954," and it says that he died on the 28th of
5 June, 1992, in Bradjevina. Is that the Slavko Jovanovic you testified
6 about seeing in Joseva ordering Serb soldiers to attack, kill, and burn in
7 May 1992?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then if we go to number 298 and we see the name Ognjen
10 Markovic, born 20 December, 1950, in Fakovici. Apparently he died on the
11 8th of June, 1992, in Podkorjen. Is that the Ognjen Markovic who you
12 testified about earlier?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know, if Podkorjen a Serb or a Muslim village?
15 A. Muslim village.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. JONES: And I'd also ask that the witness be shown D732. And
18 for the record, it says "notes and orders of the brigade and 5th Infantry
19 Battalion Fakovici." And the second page, "list of the killed combatants
20 from Fakovici, Boljevici, Tegare area."
21 Q. I'll just wait until you have it.
22 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I ask also if the Defence would
23 just wait a moment because it was not on their exhibit list and we'd like
24 to get our own copy.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. It is not in mine either, actually. I have
1 735 and 734 --
2 MR. JONES: My apologies. It was an addition this morning. It is
3 that exhibit there.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: When you're ready, Ms. Sellers, let me know. It's
5 also on the ELMO, although we are not seeing much.
6 Yes, can we proceed?
7 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, we'll look at the ELMO for the
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
10 Yes, Mr. Jones.
11 MR. JONES: We have a spare copy if either Your Honours or the
12 Prosecution --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We can follow you on the ELMO, but it's okay. The
14 Prosecution has found it, has located it, so let's proceed.
15 MR. JONES: Yes.
16 Q. And I just direct your attention to names at number 10, Slavko
17 Jovanovic; number 9, Ognjen Markovic; and number 32, Djoko Djokic; and
18 that this document -- and my apologies -- yes, and this document is
19 entitled, as I say, "the notes and orders of the brigade, 5th Infantry
20 Battalion Fakovici."
21 Were you aware, Mr. Alic, of a battalion, a Serb battalion, being
22 based in Fakovici?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Right. I'm going to come back to that, the question of the
25 battalion, but for the time being that's sufficient with this exhibit.
1 Now, we're on the 5th of October, 1992. You've described what
2 you've seen. You've described boats coming from the other side of the
3 Drina. Did you see any activity on the other side of the Drina, in
5 A. After the shooting from Fakovici ceased, in my recollection this
6 was at 3.00 or 4.00 in the afternoon, I was still at Radijevici Potok.
7 There was a loud noise of vehicles across the Drina towards Bacevci. A
8 short while later there was heavy artillery fire from the direction of
9 Bacevci and Bacevacko Polje. It was virtually impossible to survive in
10 the area in which I happened to be, so we ran back to the woods. But
11 artillery fire was opened across the Fakovici and Zanjevo area as far as
12 Radijevici. From the last houses in the Muslim village of Zanjevo and
13 across to Fakovici, including the centre of Fakovici, as well as the
14 forests behind Fakovici and above the village of Zanjevo.
15 Q. So if you can just clarify that last answer. From the last houses
16 in the Muslim village of Zanjevo and across to Fakovici, including the
17 centre of Fakovici, as well as the forest behind Fakovici and above the
18 village of Zanjevo, what? What were you saying about those areas?
19 A. This entire area was being shelled from Serbia.
20 Q. Right. Including the centre of Fakovici was being --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Sorry, I want to get your words correct. Yes. That area was
23 being shelled from Serbia. Can you mark on the map, please, where
24 Bacevacko Polje is.
25 A. This is Bacevci. I put a circle around it. This is
1 Bacevacko Polje.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: It needs some explanation for the record. The
3 witness encircles the village of Bacevci across the Drina on the Serbian
4 side, and then he appends a tail to that circle which he intends to denote
5 with Bacevacko Polje. All right.
6 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. And, Mr. Alic, roughly what's the distance from where the
8 artillery was firing in Bacevacko Polje over to Fakovici?
9 A. Well, it's difficult to say, but I reckon between one and a half
10 and two kilometres as the crow flies, that at least is my assessment. The
11 distance certainly wasn't greater than that.
12 Q. Can you describe for us the intensity of the firing from this
13 heavy artillery which you say was landing in the entire area, including
14 the centre of Fakovici, what was the intensity?
15 A. All the time shells were being fired every minute of the time. It
16 was no longer possible to keep track of all the shells falling or to keep
17 count or where they were falling. Those were a series, if you like, of
18 shells being fired from Bacevci and Bacevacko Polje, and there was
19 additional firing coming from semi-automatic rifles and other infantry
21 Q. And at this time were there Muslim civilians in Fakovici that you
22 could see?
23 A. Yes --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment, one moment.
25 Yes, I --
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Your Honours, the
2 witness said there was additional firing coming from automatic rifles,
3 semi-automatic rifles, PAMs, and infantry weapons. So the PAMs were not
5 MR. JONES: Right.
6 Q. Is that correct, Witness?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You did mention PAMs, in other words, as well, apart
9 from semi-automatic rifles and infantry weapons?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
12 MR. JONES:
13 Q. Now, you confirmed there were Muslim civilians in Fakovici, how
14 many again roughly -- if you can roughly estimate how many were there at
15 that time.
16 A. I wasn't in Fakovici myself, but according to what people who had
17 arrived from that area said there were thousands and hundreds of civilians
18 there or that's at least what the people said who had reached
19 Zanjevski Potok. They said there was an enormous number of civilians in
20 the area and that many people had been killed in Fakovici as a result of
21 the shelling from Bacevci. It was literally impossible to see anything
22 because of the amount of dust in the air in the Fakovici area. You
23 couldn't see what was going on on account of the dust. So many shells had
24 landed in the area.
25 Q. Thank you. You told us you were in Zanjevski Potok in this
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you told us yesterday that that's part of Fakovici. Can you
4 explain what you mean when you say "I wasn't in Fakovici myself."
5 A. The area in which I happened to be, Zanjevski Potok, is about one
6 and a half or two kilometres from Fakovici; that was the distance
8 Q. From the centre of Fakovici?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. Do you know how many Muslims were killed from the shelling on the
11 5th of October, 1992, in the Fakovici-Zanjevo area?
12 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour, could I just ask for Defence
13 counsel for the sake of clarity now that the witness has been able to use
14 the map to say where certain places where, if he could just establish
15 where he was so that we would be able to follow his testimony more
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think yesterday when he mentioned Zanjevo Potok he
18 didn't mark it on the map --
19 MR. JONES: Yes, I'll ask the witness to --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: And if it was there, I mean, I wouldn't imagine that
21 this is the size of Detroit or London. I mean, we're talking of very
22 small places.
23 MR. JONES: Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So --
25 MR. JONES: Perhaps I can ask the witness to indicate, initially
1 at least how close --
2 Q. Indicate the closest you got to Fakovici on the 5th of October,
3 1992 --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's a very good question. Yes. Because
5 the -- Ms. Sellers and Mr. Jones, the X which you see at 35 minutes to the
6 south of Fakovici is, I think, the Zanjevo Potok that he mentioned
7 yesterday, if I remember well.
8 MR. JONES: Yes, I think that's correct.
9 Q. Mr. Alic, if you can indicate where you --
10 A. [Marks].
11 Q. So you've just circled an area to the right of Fakovici. Is it
12 correct, then, you were also in that area on the 5th of October, 1992?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you mark -- answer the question first. Answer
14 the question first.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And now where you marked, put that oval mark
17 on the map, could you put AI next to it, please. That means Alic, Ibro,
18 your initials.
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks].
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.
21 MR. JONES:
22 Q. And one question which might clarify this. In your language,
23 Potok is a small creek or stream, is it not?
24 MR. JONES: It's obviously difficult to interpret that question.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: What does -- "Rijeka" means a river. Do you agree
1 to that? In your language "Rijeka" means a river, doesn't it?
2 What's happening? What's --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't speak English,
4 I'm sorry. There's a difference in our language between a river on the
5 one hand and a stream on the other.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. What is a Potok? What is a Potok? Could you
7 describe how it is different from a Rijeka, and we get there.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. A Potok is a very small place
9 where water runs, very small. And a river is a bigger thing. When you
10 have several Potoks coming together, what you get as a result is a river.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So that clears it. He is agreeing that
12 Potok for all intents and purposes is a stream.
13 MR. JONES: Yes.
14 Q. And so the Zanjevo stream, Zanjevski Potok, can you indicate on
15 the map where it runs.
16 A. I did mark it, didn't I?
17 Q. No, the flow of the stream.
18 A. Zanjevski Potok runs right here, this side, near Zanjevo itself
19 and it mouths --
20 MR. JONES: I think you said "the mouth of the Drina." It wasn't
22 Q. And so perhaps now you can help with this: The X which is marked
23 just below Fakovici which you marked yesterday, what site is that? What
24 does that represent?
25 If you put your pen on the map I'll direct you. If you point to
1 Fakovici -- Fakovici, where it says "Fakovici." Yes, now go down to the X
2 without marking anything, please. The other direction, the X. Yes.
3 That X, what does that represent, that X?
4 A. This X represents a place from which you could observe Fakovici.
5 It's called Stijena, or rock, as I said yesterday. We travelled this area
6 on our way from Fakovici when we went to school or the other way around
7 from Bratunac back to Fakovici. This was a footpath.
8 MR. JONES: Yeah, I hope everything is clear now.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, okay. I mean, let's proceed because at the
10 end of the day this is of relative importance. But anyway let's continue.
11 MR. JONES: Yes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course feel free to put any further question on
13 this, but --
14 MR. JONES: No, it's simply obviously to establish from where he
15 was observing --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly.
17 MR. JONES:
18 Q. Now, I'm not sure if you answered the question of how many Muslims
19 died from shelling, shooting, that day, on the 5th of October, 1992, in
20 Fakovici and Zanjevo.
21 A. I couldn't give you an exact figure, but what I heard from other
22 people was between 50 and 100. At least what I was told from those people
23 at Fakovici. I did see a number of people myself at Radijevici Potok, or
24 rather, Zanjevski Potok. People had been killed. It was impossible to
25 reach every single place in order to check how many people had been
1 killed. Shells were falling all over, over the forest, over the fields,
2 over the houses, and at the centre of Fakovici itself. Therefore, it was
4 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, I think you told us that shelling
5 started from the Serbian side around 3.00 or 4.00 in the afternoon.
6 Before that --
7 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I don't know whether the witness has
8 mentioned a time period. That would be helpful, if you can just confirm
9 that. He just said shelling --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I don't remember, I don't recollect either,
11 having heard that. Perhaps Mr. Jones could --
12 MR. JONES: He did. I'll find it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't bother about finding it. Just put the
14 question again and he'll confirm it.
15 MR. JONES:
16 Q. Do you recall when the firing from artillery from Serbia started?
17 A. I think I said that. Probably it wasn't interpreted. It was
18 between 3.00 and 4.00.
19 Q. And before that time, before that shelling started, did you see
20 any houses either being set on fire or which were on fire?
21 A. No. I didn't see any smoke at Fakovici. I saw nothing burning.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, were you aware that day or not of whether there
23 were any airplanes in the air?
24 A. Yes. At one point in time - it's very difficult for me to specify
25 when because the explosion was so powerful and the shelling was so
1 intense - there was a plane that arrived from the Bratunac area, a field
2 plane as we called it. Just over Fakovici, some sort of a boiler was
3 dropped from the plane which landed somewhere in Fakovici, I can't say
4 where exactly, and exploded.
5 Q. And can you tell us what a boiler is, please.
6 A. A boiler, that's at least what I believed, was a water boiler from
7 the sort you have in a bathroom that you use to heat water to run a bath.
8 And people told us that the same kind of water boilers were dropped on
9 other areas, too, and those were sometimes filled with explosives. Screws
10 and bolts, bits of iron, scraps, that sort of thing.
11 Q. And how destructive are those bombs?
12 A. I wasn't near enough to see how destructive they were, but the
13 explosion certainly resounded very far. And bits were flying all over the
14 place. That's at least what the people who actually were there said.
15 Q. Right. When you say "the people who actually were there," were
17 A. Those people were right in the middle of Fakovici. There were
18 many people there from Zanjevo. There was some people from my village who
19 were there to get food, civilians, who were there in order to find food.
20 There were people from Visegrad, from Zepa, from those other areas. The
21 people who came to Jagodnja the next day and told the story.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, do you have any knowledge of how many Serb
23 soldiers were in Fakovici on the 5th of October, 1992?
24 A. According to my knowledge, there were supposed to have been
25 between 2 and 300 people in Fakovici.
1 Q. Right. Two clarifications, firstly it's the 5th of October, 1992,
2 just for the transcript.
3 When you say 2 to 300 people, are you talking about civilians in
5 A. No.
6 Q. What are you talking about then?
7 A. About soldiers, Serb soldiers.
8 Q. Did you hear whether any weapons or ammunition were recovered in
9 Fakovici on the 5th of October, 1992?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know whether it was a small amount, a medium amount, a
12 large amount?
13 A. According to the people who had been down there and what they
14 said, apparently there was a great deal of weapons and ammunition there.
15 Q. And do you know where they were found, what locations these
16 weapons and ammunition?
17 A. I also heard that that ammunition was found at the old school and
18 also at the playground in front of the old school. I think there was a
19 kind of transport vehicle, a kind of truck or something like that. It was
20 yellow and it was found there. I don't really remember what exactly it
21 was, but it was a kind of transport vehicle. And it was found in front of
22 that old school.
23 Q. Do you know if any weapons or ammunition were found in houses in
25 A. Well, I was told that ammunition and weapons were found in every
1 single house at Fakovici and that even some medical equipment was found
2 there, single-use medical kit or whatever, things that could have been
3 used to tend the wounded.
4 Q. Right. Now, you mentioned a vehicle, a kind of truck, which was
5 yellow. Now, in your language was the word "Zuti" --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. We may have the same problem in a moment. But is it right
8 that "Zuti" means yellow in Bosnian?
9 A. You mean does yellow mean yellow? Of course it does.
10 Q. Yes. I can think of a better way of asking that question, but I
11 think we got there. Does Moja Zuca, does that mean anything to you?
12 A. I have no idea. I can only tell you that I have a son who is
13 blond, and I call him Moja Zuca, my blondie, kind of thing. It's a kind
14 of language I might use when talking to a child, baby talk.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness had
17 said "yellow" and the translation is blond, which is not exactly the same.
18 Did you mean blond in terms of blond hair or in terms of yellow
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yellow, except that it's not
21 used in English.
22 MR. JONES: Right. I think we got there.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.
24 MR. JONES: I want to show the witness D135, please, Defence
25 Exhibit 135.
1 Q. Now, I'll direct your attention to the third paragraph of this
3 A. May I just ask a question, please? I seem to have a problem with
4 my headset because I can't hear anything.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and that is a problem that we need to look into
6 straight away.
7 Are you receiving interpretation of what I am saying now? Are you
8 hearing anything?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So you are receiving interpretation now?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't hear it.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So let's start from this.
13 Usher, usher, could you please change his -- give him a new one or
14 another one.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now it seems to be all right.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I mean, it's -- Mr. Alic, if at any time
17 it recurs, if you have the same problem again, do like you did this time,
18 tell me immediately.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
21 MR. JONES:
22 Q. Right. I would ask you, Mr. Alic, to read just to yourself,
23 firstly, the third paragraph of this page. It's not necessary for you to
24 read the whole thing, just the third paragraph for context. And let me
25 know when you've finished.
1 A. I'm finished, sir.
2 Q. Thank you. And it's just that last sentence which I want to ask
3 you about. And I'll read it in Bosnian, where it says: [B/C/S spoken]
4 [Interpretation] "At the time when they were walking down the Drina, our
5 weapons were not being used anymore" --
6 THE INTERPRETER: And unfortunately the interpreters had not quite
7 understood what has just been read.
8 MR. JONES: That's fine. In fact, the purpose of the exercise was
9 for the witness to hear B/C/S being spoken rather than to have
10 translation, although I appreciate that that's important. We do have an
11 exhibit with the English translation, otherwise I can just read the
12 sentence again slowly and then we all know what --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Jones.
14 MR. JONES: Okay. I'll try again in my best B/C/S.
15 [B/C/S spoken] [Interpretation] "At the moment when they were
16 walking down the Drina, our weapons died down and my Zuca was still being
18 Q. Now, my question is: You've said how you've call your son Moja
19 Zuca, meaning my blondie or my yellow one. Do you agree that Moja Zuca
20 can mean my yellow one or my blond one?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And in the context of this paragraph which you've just read, do
23 you -- do you have any idea of what Moja Zuca might refer to and also in
24 light of what you've told us about Fakovici on the 5th of October, 1992,
25 and what was recovered there?
1 A. Yes. According to my opinion, this could have been the vehicle
2 that was yellow, and I don't know whether it had a PAM or a machine-gun
3 mounted on it. I don't know. So that vehicle at any rate was yellow.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. JONES: I'd like to show the Defence -- sorry, the witness a
6 different exhibit now. I think it's P257. Yes, P257. And for the
7 record, this is Republika Srpska Ministry of the Interior Sarajevo CSB,
8 security services centre, SNB, national security service sector, Sarajevo.
9 It's dated 15th October, 1992, and I'm going to read in fact the first two
11 Q. "Subject: Information acquired by the SNB on the attack on enemy
12 forces on villages in the Skelani and Bratunac sector. Through
13 intelligence work, we have obtained a lot of security-related information
14 about the enemy attack on the villages of Fakovici, Kutijesi, Boljevici,
15 and Radijevici in the area of Skelani and Bratunac. In this way, we were
16 informed that the attack against these villages started simultaneously
17 5 October 1992 at 1200 hours and lasted until 1600 hours. A total of 22
18 members of the Serbian army were killed while the enemy had around 40
19 dead. On this occasion, the enemy burnt down several family houses and
20 the old school in Fakovici and took away a three-barrel M-55,
21 20-millimetre, anti-aircraft gun, and a four-barrel gun, three
22 82-millimetre MB mortar, one of which was not working; three or four
23 Zoljas, 64-millimetre, M-80 hand-held rocket launcher; one M-84 PM light
24 machine-gun; ten AP, automatic rifle; a number of hand-grenades, and 1.500
25 7.62-millimetre bullets. And according to another source, in addition to
1 the above-stated, two tractors of ammunition."
2 Now, first I want to ask you about the school, the old school
3 which is mentioned there. Now, you told us earlier that as far -- well,
4 if you could repeat your evidence so I don't have to refer to the
5 transcript. What did you know about what was actually recovered in the
6 school in Fakovici?
7 A. Ammunition was found at that school and weapons.
8 Q. And you also told us yesterday about seeing soldiers as early as I
9 believe it was April or May outside the school in Fakovici. Is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know what that school was being used for?
13 A. Presumably for the training of the soldiers of the Serb army. It
14 was an old school which had a big hole, and there was another smaller room
15 on the other side.
16 Q. Right. And there's this reference to three-barrel gun and a
17 four-barrel gun. You mentioned a gun which was mounted on a yellow
18 vehicle. Do you know which of those guns it was? If not, it doesn't
19 matter, but if you can help.
20 A. Yes. According to the knowledge of those people who told me that,
21 roughly speaking, it could have been a PAM.
22 Q. Which is an anti-aircraft gun. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, this report by the Serbs says that the enemy burnt down
25 several family houses, several. Now, first of all, I want to be clear,
1 your evidence -- you've told us you didn't see any houses burned before
2 the Serb artillery attack from the other side of the Drina.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, this document is dated the 15th of October, 1992. Are you
5 aware whether or not civilians went into Fakovici in the days following
6 the 5th of October, 1992?
7 A. Yes. Civilians went looking for food on a daily basis, so they
8 did go in. And some of them even brought winter frames from Fakovici and
9 everything else they needed because our village had been burned down and
10 they even took stuff to other villages.
11 Q. Thank you. Before moving on to another document, it refers
12 further down to -- it says: "According to the sources, two black men were
13 seen in these formations, enemy formations."
14 In 1992, did you ever see or hear of black men on the Muslim side
15 in our area?
16 A. No. But I saw a black man for the first time in Srebrenica in
17 1993 when the UNPROFOR people came in.
18 Q. So would it have been a common or uncommon sight, black men in the
19 Drina valley in 1992?
20 A. No. No, I'd never seen them.
21 Q. Right. Now, just sticking with this reference to several houses,
22 and I want you to bear that in mind --
23 MR. JONES: I want to show the witness a new exhibit which doesn't
24 have an ERN. We can distribute copies. Sorry, with the usher's
25 assistance. And this is the 1991 census for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
1 Sarajevo, May 1991. I want to ask the witness first to look for Jagodnja
2 and Joseva. It says "50 households in Jagodnja and 40 in Joseva."
3 Q. Is that about right? Is that about accurate?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And for Fakovici we see 54 households and 67 flats. Does that
6 seem about right to your knowledge?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So according to the document we just saw, several houses were
9 burnt out of these 54 households and 67 flats? That's right. That's more
10 of an observation from the document. I'll move on to another question.
11 MR. JONES: May I have an exhibit number for that document.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones --
13 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, if I've understood Defence counsel
14 correctly, then his commentary on that is not a question that's put to the
15 witness as a conclusion.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he's put the question to the witness already
17 basically by reference to the document, and the witness said -- he
18 acknowledged the number of houses and flats shown in this document is
19 correct and then the rest of the question by Mr. Jones, if you can call it
20 a question, does not elicit an answer.
21 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 MR. JONES: It was axiomatic, so I withdraw it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. So I think we can leave it at that. We do
24 not have a statement from the accused on that.
25 This will be -- will become Defence Exhibit D829.
1 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Your Honour, I may be wrong but I think the witness might be a
3 little tired. Perhaps we can ask him. He was looking like he might be
4 tired. We could just have a break earlier if he is.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We can have the break now.
6 Now, incidentally while we are at this, I've been informed that
7 there is a possibility of moving tomorrow's sitting from the afternoon to
8 the morning. From our side, of course myself and Judge Brydensholt are
9 quite agreeable to this. On the part of Judge Eser, unfortunately there
10 was or there is a prior engagement that he definitely has to attend to,
11 which will keep him tied until 10.00 in the morning, let's say 10.00, and
12 then we will be flexible between 10.00 and 10.15 or 10.30, whatever.
13 My suggestion is the following, and please do come back to us
14 after the break. I have these options to propose. That we start at
15 10.00 -- when I say "10.00," it could be 10.15, as soon as Judge Eser
16 finishes with what he will be doing tomorrow morning. We could start at
17 10.00, we could start at 10.00, break at 11.30, resume at 12.00, break
18 at 1.30, resume at 2.00 and finish definitively at 2.45. That's one
19 option which would give us the entire three hours and 45 minutes.
20 Alternatively, we could start at 10.00 right through until 11.45, then one
21 break, starting again 12.15 right through to 2.00, and that would give us
22 three hours and 30 minutes.
23 I'm leaving all options open. If you prefer not to change
24 anything and stick to the afternoon schedule that we have, then of course
25 I will direct that we sit in the afternoon as scheduled.
1 MR. JONES: Yes. I can say immediately that we're happy with any
2 proposal from the Bench. We're entirely in your hands.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
4 Then the Prosecution, I know you have this problem of Mr. Di Fazio
5 trying to dig deep into the four million document archives to locate any
6 missing document that Mr. Jones is anxiously waiting for, but we can still
7 I think meet -- sit at 10.00 in the morning. But of course we want to
8 make sure that arrangements can be made to have interpreters here in the
9 morning plus the court recorders and everything.
10 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we're entirely in your hands also.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. But I need a response from the rest of the
12 technical staff, interpreters and recorders and everything. All right?
13 So we'll have a -- you think you will be okay if we give you a
14 30-minute break, Mr. Alic? If you are too tired to continue, we can call
15 it a day and you can come back tomorrow and we will continue tomorrow if
16 you are too tired. If you think you'll be feeling better after 30
17 minutes, then we will try to sit for, say, another hour and then you can
18 go back to your hotel. It's up to you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I can continue, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have a 30-minute break starting from now.
21 And then after that we'll play it by the ear.
22 Thank you.
23 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see Mr. Wubben.
2 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. With a view of the scheduling of
3 tomorrow, the Prosecution is pleased to start as well 10.00 or 10.15 as
4 you like. But we have requested the Trial Chamber with a view to the
5 preparation by the submission of my counsel, Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio, we
6 would prefer to enable him to start his submission --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: At the end --
8 MR. WUBBEN: -- at the end.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
10 MR. WUBBEN: And for that purpose, you should be informed that he
11 might need around a quarter of an hour, 15 minutes, something like that.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Is that all right with you, Mr. Jones? I
13 suppose you shouldn't have any problems with that.
14 MR. JONES: No. And if you would notify us if he intends to rely
15 on authority so we can prepare for that.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. I suppose Mr. Wubben will
17 pass on the message.
18 MR. WUBBEN: I will, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
20 So the decision is that tomorrow we'll start at 10.00 -- could be
21 a few minutes later. We'll start immediately when Judge Eser finishes
22 with the other work that he is dealing with which will be first
23 opportunity after 10.00. Thanks.
24 So --
25 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We will continue. We have more or less three
2 quarters of an hour.
3 MR. JONES: Yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Any time you notice that your client is -- sorry,
5 your witness is tired, please tell us and we'll stop.
6 MR. JONES: Yes, certainly. I'll keep a clean lookout.
7 And to make progress, I'll start immediately with the next
8 exhibit, which is D735, please. If the witness could be shown that.
9 Q. And I'm returning to the subject of Djoko Djokic, and I'll just
10 remind you of your testimony that you're aware of a tradition where a unit
11 is renamed after the fallen commander. Now, this is entitled "TO
12 Skelani" -- well, at the top it's written "TO Skelani, list of fighters
13 Djoko Djokic unit, Fakovici." The date is October 29, 1992. List of
14 fighters of Djoko Djokic unit, Fakovici, who received monetary allowance
15 for children. And it's signed by detachment commander Vukoman Simic
16 October 30, 1992. Do you know Vukoman Simic?
17 A. You mean Vukoman Simic, right?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Where is he from?
21 A. From the village of Popovici.
22 Q. Right. And we see at number 1, Djoko Djokic, and then in brackets
23 Ivana. Do you know who Ivana is?
24 A. Ivana is Djoko Djokic's daughter.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. JONES: Your Honours, actually if the witness can be
2 shown D739 quickly at this point and we'll keep the other exhibit for the
3 moment. Just for the record, this is minutes prepared by the military
4 police and Vukoman Simic on handover of objects confiscated from citizens
5 from the area of Fakovici that were collected from Muslim houses and
6 facilities. And then at the bottom we see "received by Vukoman Simic."
7 Q. Do you know of any other Vukoman Simics in the Fakovici area?
8 A. Vukoman Simic is from Popovici. He's about 40, and I know he used
9 to work at Zvornik at a construction company.
10 Q. Is Popovici close to Fakovici?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Yes, in fact, I am finished with both D735 and D739.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. JONES: Could the witness now please be shown D734. And just
15 to explain the dates and the title, it's the list of soldiers who received
16 salaries for August and half of September in Radijevici. It's signed in
17 November 1992, so evidently retroactive payment for August and half of
18 September 1992. If we turn to the last page, we see Djoko Djokic unit --
19 sorry, it's the last page in the English.
20 Q. Do you see that -- now, last page in Bosnian as well obviously.
21 You see signature Djoko Djokic, unit Fakovici, November 25, 1992,
22 detachment commander, Vukoman Simic, and it's signed that the
23 above-mentioned soldiers received salaries for August and half of
25 Now, that's just by way of background. I'm going to ask you about
1 some of the entries in this document. Firstly, can you go to number 50,
2 Radusa Jovanovic, and this is on the list of soldiers. Do you know him?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And could you tell us where he's from?
5 A. Radusa Jovanovic is from Grabovacka Rijeka.
6 Q. All right. Do you know Andrija Markovic, a number 52?
7 A. Andrija Markovic is the son of Beli from Fakovici.
8 Q. Thank you. If we go to number 67 you see the name of Bola Bozic
9 [phoen], and it says his salary was given to Nikolic, Ljubo, Top. Is that
10 name familiar to you, Bola Bozic?
11 A. Yes. Bolo -- or rather, Bola, as it says here, and Bozic as well,
12 it's a man from Fakovici.
13 Q. Right. It says that his salary was given to Nikolic, Ljubo, Top.
14 I want you to bear that name in mind for a bit. We're going to come back
15 to it.
16 At number 71, and that's 71 on that same column, it says that
17 Novica Savic's salary was given to Vidoje Maksimovic. Do you know Vidoje
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is he the person you referred to yesterday in your testimony?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The person who said that Muslims had to move 40 kilometres from
23 the Drina, that conversation?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you later hear of what rank he achieved, what became of him in
1 the military?
2 A. No.
3 Q. That's okay. And now if we look at item 86, and I think that's
4 maybe only in the Bosnian because we didn't include all the names in
5 English. We see the name Nedjo Nikolic. Do you know him?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Where is he from?
8 A. Nedjo Nikolic is from Fakovici and he attended primary school with
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. JONES: I've finished with that exhibit for the time being.
12 And now we have a new exhibit and the ERN is 04359977. And it
13 says in English "Fighters' payroll, Djoko Djokic Company, 3rd Platoon,
14 Orlica, Tegare."
15 Q. I'll wait until you have the document. Now, first I asked you
16 yesterday about how -- when you told us about how Muslims were ethnically
17 cleansed or expelled from their villages in Tegare and Orlica in May 1992.
18 Are you aware whether that was done by local Serbs or by Serbs from
19 outside the area?
20 A. According to the accounts of people who had been chased away from
21 their houses, it was perpetrated by locals.
22 Q. Right. And we see that this is -- this refers to the Djoko Djokic
23 Company, which we saw is in Fakovici, and this is apparently the
24 3rd Platoon, Orlica, Tegare. Were you aware that Serbs from Orlica and
25 Tegare were in Fakovici units?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And before the war, were those areas, Orlica and Tegare, linked to
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Yesterday you told us that Serbs had some kind of exercises in
6 Fakovici. You said that they had shooting exercises above Grabovacka
7 Rijeka and you referred to a creek called Ruljevici. Do you know whether
8 Serbs from areas such as Orlica and Tegare went to such training? Did you
9 hear that information?
10 A. According to the knowledge of people who came from Bratunac at
11 that period of time in 1992, for as long as there was free movement,
12 people used to tell me that they used to see people from Tegare in
13 Fakovici, in that area. And they were uniformed.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may we just clarify the
15 interpretation once again. The witness has said "according to the
16 knowledge of people who came from Bratunac." I don't see that it's clear
17 in the transcript. Could the witness clarify this.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know, but I don't want to contradict you,
19 Ms. Vidovic, in the least. But I think it's line -- page 81, line 2 says
20 precisely that.
21 "A. According to the knowledge of people who came from Bratunac."
22 And you want to say it in which way?
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] According to the knowledge of people
24 from Bratunac; that's what he meant.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what it says. I mean, I don't know.
1 MR. JONES: That's fine for my purposes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Can we proceed? I think that's what it says,
3 actually, in the transcript.
4 MR. JONES: Yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Or else I'm not understanding. I mean, either of
6 the two.
7 MR. JONES: I think it's fine.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move, okay.
9 MR. JONES: We can raise it again tomorrow, if need be.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
11 MR. JONES:
12 Q. We see number 15 of that list, Nedjo Nikolic, who was at 86 of the
13 document we just saw, and you've confirmed that you know him. Roughly
14 what age was he, to your knowledge? When was he born?
15 A. Nedjo Nikolic used to go to school with me. And according to my
16 knowledge, he -- I think he was born in 1971.
17 Q. Yes.
18 MR. JONES: I'll ask for an exhibit number for this document.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This document, Mr. Jones, will become Defence
20 Exhibit D830.
21 MR. JONES: Thank you. And we have another document -- we're
22 obviously going to proceed with some documents in this session.
23 The next one is again a new document. The ERN is 04359973. And
24 in the meantime, for the record, I'll read what it states. "Skelani TO,
25 Territorial Defence, Djoko Djokic unit, Fakovici. LD, personal income for
1 the volunteers for August 1992. Number 1, Slobodan Misic, signature,
2 20.000; second, Ljubo Nikolic, signature, 20.000; paid in Radijevici on
3 31 October 1992." Then we see company officer Vukoman Simic and then a
5 Q. So firstly, Witness, would you confirm this, at least on the face
6 of it, refers to Djoko Djokic unit, Fakovici, as part of Skelani TO?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And this is payment to volunteers for August 1992, and it's signed
9 by Vukoman Simic, who you've told us about. What would you understand by
10 the term "volunteers"?
11 A. Volunteers were people who used to come from Serbia to Fakovici.
12 Q. And were you aware that that was occurring, that volunteers would
13 come from Serbia to Fakovici in 1992?
14 A. After the war, when our people --
15 Q. I hate to interrupt the witness but I'm going to ask that we go
16 into closed session because I -- based on the proofing, I believe there
17 might be something which he will say which should be in closed session.
18 It's for the witness's own benefit.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection on the Prosecution's part?
20 MS. SELLERS: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session -- private session is
23 MR. JONES: Yes, private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Page 12665 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Mr. Jones.
7 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you.
8 Q. And I merely want to draw attention to the record for the two
9 names, Ljubo Nikolic, which we saw at D734 at number 67, and Slobodan
10 Misic whose name will be familiar to us, I trust, already.
11 Sorry, may I have an exhibit number?
12 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour, I once again would like to
13 ask Defence was he asking a question or making a comment or was this --
14 the question about the two names, I don't know whether you're resuming a
15 point, whether you're asking a question. I would just like that to be
16 clarified because I want to be able to distinguish between Mr. Alic's
17 testimony and commentary on the documents or the testimony.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
19 MR. JONES: It's not commentary. It's really for the benefit of
20 the Chamber that those names be borne in mind as we look at subsequent
21 documents and also in light of submissions which have been made. It's not
22 a question for the witness. It's so that we can all follow the
23 significance of names which have been mentioned, and I trust that's not
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you happy with that, Ms. Sellers?
1 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, as an explanation, I take it it's a
2 reminder or the beginning of argument. Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So this document with ERN number 04359973, two
4 pages, one in B/C/S and one in English, in the corresponding translation
5 thereof, is being marked as Defence Exhibit D831.
6 MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
7 And we move to a new exhibit and it's the one which -- has already
8 been distributed, so we don't have more copies to distribute. And it's
9 01297984 to 01297987. And for the record, first page it says "Peace
10 Bridge Danube, Odgovor, Belgrade, Bumerang, Osijek." Next page, "Dogs of
11 war, Slobodan Misic, TOP, how I killed Croats and Muslims."
12 I'm going to read a section, parts of the first section, and then
13 ask you some questions, Mr. Alic. It says: "Testimony of a killer."
14 And, actually, just for Your Honours' benefit, I should say that the
15 B/C/S -- in the B/C/S version there is a lead-in which was difficult to
16 interpret -- difficult to translate, and that's why we have three dots
17 indicating that there's a section which we're still having trouble
18 translating. For our purposes, we've translated what's relevant for our
20 Q. So the section I'm reading goes as follows: "Things started --
21 already started cooking in Bosnia. I was looking for a way to go there."
22 And if you see that, Mr. Alic, it's on the page which is 01297987,
23 and it says at the top [B/C/S spoken]. And then you'll see in the first
24 column the words [B/C/S spoken]. Do you see that section? It's the -- if
25 you see [B/C/S spoken], then you see two paragraphs, then on the left-hand
1 column you'll see [B/C/S spoken]. Then the question [B/C/S spoken].
2 Do you see that?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
5 Usher, where are you? You need to -- come, I show you, please.
6 You need to put this and focus on this part here, this paragraph here.
7 All right. Take it and bring it back afterwards. Put it on the ELMO so
8 that others can follow, too. And if we could zoom in the first -- very
9 first paragraph just at the left-hand side -- yes, that's enough. That's
11 Yes, Mr. Jones.
12 MR. JONES:
13 Q. Mr. Alic, do you see on the screen now in front of you --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: The very first paragraph below that -- beneath that
15 bold line over there at the top.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
17 MR. JONES:
18 Q. Right. I'm going to read some parts of that from that paragraph.
19 "Things already started cooking in Bosnia. I was looking for a
20 way to go there. Why? Didn't you have enough war and killing? Volunteer
21 from here, from Vranje, had some connection with Skelani. Few of us took
22 off with him and we went to Uzice and then to Bajina Basta and then across
23 Drina to Bratunac. We reported to the Territorial Defence there and they
24 deployed us in Fakovici."
25 I skip the next question.
1 "What was actually your task?
2 "15 of us, volunteers from Vranje and the surrounding area" --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Push it down now. Usher, you have to push it down,
4 please. Skip the next -- more, more. Yes. Perfect. Thank you.
5 MR. JONES: Yes.
6 Q. "What was actually your task?
7 "15 of us, volunteers from Vranje and the surrounding area, were
8 stationed in Fakovici. We undertook actions from there with local
9 inhabitants who used to come from Bratunac. Muslim villages were up in
10 the hills and we cleansed them one by one."
11 Now, do you agree, firstly, this is referring to a volunteer from
12 Serbia, as you've described?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that he was, according to this, deployed in Fakovici by the
15 Territorial Defence?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And he says how he went there when things had started cooking in
18 Bosnia. I believe that's an expression in your language. Would that
19 refer to the start of the war in Bosnia?
20 A. Can you please repeat that?
21 Q. Yes. When it says here "things already started cooking in
22 Bosnia," that's the section after -- he refers to coming back from
23 Vukovar, would that refer in your language to when things started in
24 Bosnia, the war started?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, when things heated up.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
3 MR. JONES:
4 Q. And of course we've just seen the name of Slobodan Misic in the
5 previous exhibit. You've seen the name Slobodan Misic at the start of
6 this article, have you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: By the way, perhaps we could clear this up. Has he
10 seen this document before or is it the first time that he's seeing the
11 document now?
12 MR. JONES: I'll allow the witness to answer that.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, of course. I didn't ask the question to you.
14 MR. JONES: No. No indeed.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Have you seen this document before?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 MR. JONES:
18 Q. Was that in our offices here in The Hague?
19 A. Here?
20 Q. Yes. Is that where you saw it, here in The Hague, in our offices?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: So he knows -- because otherwise I was going to tell
23 him, give him time to read the article or the interview.
24 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That would spare us having to go through it bit by
1 bit. But of course go ahead with all the questions that you have in
3 MR. JONES: Thank you.
4 Q. Now, in this interview the person refers to being stationed in
5 Fakovici and from there cleansing Muslim villages up in the hills. Now,
6 Joseva and Jagodnja are up in the hills above Fakovici. Would that be
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And those villages were attacked and people were killed in May
10 1992 by Serb soldiers coming from the direction of Fakovici. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And who were receiving orders, as you told us, from Slavko
13 Jovanovic and Djoko Djokic, both of whom are from Fakovici. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And we've seen in documents and do you confirm that those units
16 and those troops were part of Skelani TO?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Moving on to a second section. "You say that you undertook
19 actions. What do you mean by that?
20 "When we undertook actions, all volunteers that were accommodated
21 in Serb villages gathered there. Special units came from Bratunac
22 consisting of people from this area who knew the terrain. The task of
23 these people was to disable Muslim guards around the villages before the
24 attack. During that time, we surrounded them and started attacks at dawn.
25 We burned everything that was in our path, threw bombs into houses,
1 fired. We captured a number of Muslims and sent them to Bratunac. After
2 our actions, villages were completely destroyed, Zanjevo, Tegare, and
3 seven or eight other villages. According to my assessment, 4.000 to 5.000
4 Muslims were killed. More than 1.000 people were killed in the forest in
5 the village of Tegare in three to four hours only."
6 My question is: Does that correspond firstly to what you
7 experienced in Jagodnja and Joseva, this description?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does it correspond to what you heard from refugees from Zanjevo
10 and Tegare?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does it correspond to what you heard and what you were told by
13 the person who you mentioned in private session a moment ago?
14 A. Yes. That they were volunteers, yes.
15 Q. All right. And now the next section the question is: "Who did
16 you fight against? Against Muslims" --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I'll direct the usher a little bit.
18 Yes, and when I give you a sign, then please move to the next column at
19 the top. All right. Thank you.
20 We are here [B/C/S spoken].
21 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
23 MR. JONES: Well-spoken, Your Honour.
24 Q. It says there: "Who did you fight against? Against Muslim army?
25 "No, they were civilians, villagers, in most cases insufficiently
1 armed with double-barrelled guns and similar rifles."
2 Now, that's the opinion of a Serb, a volunteer from Serbia who
3 we've seen was in the Djoko Djokic unit in Fakovici, that it was not a
4 Muslim army. Do you agree or disagree with that opinion?
5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, excuse me, I do think that as Defence
6 counsel is going through this document he is adding things, like he says
7 there was not a Muslim army. It seems as if he is saying that he fought
8 against civilians.
9 Now what is not clearly on the document, I think that certainly
10 should be put to the witness. What is not clearly written on the
11 document, let's not put that to the witness unless it's in the context of
12 a separate question.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 Judge, can I borrow yours because I don't have the English
15 translation now.
16 MR. JONES: I must admit I don't see the difference, frankly, that
17 it was not a Muslim army that they were fighting against.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. This is why I wanted the translation word
19 for word.
20 The question put to the interviewee, Ms. Sellers, the question put
21 by the interviewer to Misic is: "Who did you fight against? Against a
22 Muslim army?"
23 And the answer is: "No, they were civilians, villagers, in most
24 cases insufficiently armed with double-barrelled guns and similar rifles."
25 It is true that this does not mean that the interviewed person,
1 Misic, is saying that a Muslim army did not exist. He is saying that on
2 that particular occasion they did not fight a Muslim army or a military
3 formation but they only fought civilians. So --
4 MR. JONES: I'm not sure about the occasion, though, which you're
5 referring to, Your Honour. In the previous paragraph he refers to
6 Zanjevo, Tegare, and several other villages.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: This -- throughout all this activity that is
8 mentioned. When I say "this occasion," I mean when they supposedly
9 destroyed all these villages, attacked here and attacked there.
10 MR. JONES: All these activities.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
12 MR. JONES: Right.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So what I want to ensure is that this is not taken
14 as a suggestion to the witness that the Misic, Slobodan Misic, is
15 categorically stating that there was no such thing at the time in Bosnia
16 as a Muslim army, because he's not saying that. He is just saying "we did
17 not fight against an army."
18 MR. JONES: Yes, that's fine. And I can --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Otherwise, I mean, because I read you well --
20 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour, yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I understood it. Thank you.
22 MR. JONES: Yes.
23 Q. Let me put it this way: In 1992, Mr. Alic, in your area, was
24 there a Muslim army, to your knowledge?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, further down Misic says: "We did kill
2 women." "We did kill women." It's on 01297986.
3 Now you've, confirmed that Muslim women were killed by Serb
4 soldiers coming from the direction of Fakovici, and you've said that they
5 were apparently receiving orders. Now were those people who attacked
6 you --
7 I'm sorry, I think I have to consult with my colleague. She's
8 drawing my attention to something.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. You have to go to the third column. No,
10 that's the third column, the second column. All right.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. JONES: Yes. It's simply actually a confirmation that indeed
13 in Joseva Muslim women were killed by Serb soldiers coming from the
14 direction of Fakovici who appeared to be receiving orders from Slavko
15 Jovanovic and Djoko Djokic.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't see you stand up, Ms. Sellers --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the president, please.
18 MS. SELLERS: Thank you. I wanted to look at the transcript first
19 and say is that a question that we're now asking Mr. Alic to confirm.
20 MR. JONES: Yes, it's a question.
21 MS. SELLERS: It wasn't clear by the transcript what the --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated].
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Your Honour, please.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I apologise. I apologise to the interpreters. I
25 forgot my microphone -- to switch on the microphone.
1 MR. JONES:
2 Q. Yes, Mr. Alic, can you confirm that indeed in Joseva Muslim women
3 were killed by Serb soldiers coming from the direction of Fakovici who
4 appeared to be receiving orders from Slavko Jovanovic and Djoko Djokic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Now moving on to the next section. "Why didn't you
7 capture them?"
8 I don't know if we have that on the monitor. Yes, thank you very
10 "We captured some of them. Here is what happened to me."
11 "Why didn't you capture them? We captured some of them. Here is
12 what happened to me. One morning I captured two Muslims. They watched
13 the village, and I approached them behind their back. I took them to the
14 municipality. We questioned them there and then we took them to Bratunac
15 and there they asked what are we going to do with them. What do you mean
16 what are you going to do? Give them to me. I took them to a bridge,
17 killed them, and pushed them into the Drina. Were you or some of your
18 co-fighters punished for killing prisoners? Who would punish you? You
19 could kill as many as you liked. Nobody would tell anything."
20 My question is: Does that correspond to your experience in this
21 area and at this time that Serbs did indeed kill men and women with
23 A. Yes. At the time the daily trips from Jagodnja and Joseva, the
24 people who took the road to Zanjevo and wherever they could go, there were
25 cases of people leaving and never returning. There were countless such
1 cases people leaving the area, never to return.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: But he hasn't answered the second part of the
3 question, and I don't know if he is really in a position to answer that.
4 The question by Mr. Jones was: Whether you are aware that the
5 Serbs committed all this killing and got away scot-free, that they were
6 never punished for it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have never heard of a single
8 case where a Serb was punished because he had killed Muslims who went
9 about in search of food or anything like that.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Back to you, Mr. Jones.
11 MR. JONES: Thank you.
12 Q. Have you ever heard whether Slobodan Misic has been punished,
13 either from Yugoslavia or at this Tribunal?
14 A. No. This is not something that I've heard.
15 Q. Thank you. Going on to the next paragraph: "What happened
16 between those actions, as you call them?
17 "Mostly nothing. We hung around the village, conducted
18 reconnaissance, set ambushes for Muslims who usually came down from the
19 hills on horses at night trying to get some food. They broke off stalks
20 from grains and made bread from them or they just chewed wheat. They did
21 not choose. They also ate pigs who had escaped to the forest. There was
22 an enormous hunger in Muslim villages, and they had to risk their lives or
23 starve to death. We used to wait for them in the ambush and kill them
24 when they returned. On one occasion, I captured some man, Alija from
25 Zanjevo, who is known for his crimes against Serbs. He was young, 35 to
1 36 years old. I captured him above Fakovici while he was in
2 reconnaissance. I asked him, Balija, where shall we go now? And he told
3 me, Chetnik, don't kill me. Nope, I said, I won't. I riddled him with
4 shots and decapitated him."
5 Now, there's a reference there to someone above Fakovici doing
6 reconnaissance. Is that something which people, including refugees from
7 your village, did, conducted reconnaissance above Fakovici?
8 A. Our people did go to that area above Fakovici, like I said before,
10 Q. And did some or many of them not come back?
11 A. The people who would go in search of food, especially in search of
12 food, there were many of those people who never returned. And we don't
13 know what became of them. They came from all over the place, Visegrad, to
14 Gradac, Zepa, from the surroundings of Srebrenica, and it simply wasn't
15 possible to keep all those people under control to know where they were or
16 where they were going. There were cases where we stopped people from
17 moving in that particular direction going through the fields because
18 people had been known to be killed there. We explained this to them.
19 They said, We have to go. It's either we die down there or we starve to
20 death together with our children. It was a dreadful situation and no one
21 dared tell anyone else not to go.
22 Q. Thank you. And then here the last paragraph I'm going to read
23 where it says: "What is the total number of people you killed in this
25 "I killed some 70 to 80 people. I do not know precisely."
1 Now, my question is: Do you know roughly how many people died in
2 1992 in Jagodnja and Joseva, Muslims?
3 A. In 1992 and 1993, I can tell you about that if you like. Within
4 that period of time, until March 1993, the total was 46 or 47 persons,
5 including women and children. I'm talking about those two villages.
6 Q. And those are -- that's not including refugees. That's just
7 inhabitants of Jagodnja and Joseva. Is that correct?
8 A. No. Just the inhabitants.
9 Q. Yes. So 46 or 47 persons out of those two villages were killed in
10 that period?
11 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, excuse me, that's the point I was
12 waiting -- first counsel asked how many people died and now we're saying
13 how many people were killed. And Mr. Alic might be able to tell us, is he
14 talking about persons killed within this context or persons who died
15 because we've mentioned women and children.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Fair enough. I think you can clear that
17 up --
18 MR. JONES: Yes.
19 Q. Out of the inhabitants, the original inhabitants of Jagodnja and
20 Joseva, how many died violent deaths, I'll put it that way, in 1992 and up
21 to March 1993?
22 A. I've answered that question. 46 or 47, I can't be certain.
23 Perhaps more, perhaps less, but thereabouts. These people were killed by
24 a bullet, by a shell, somebody who tripped over a mine.
25 Q. Yes, thank you.
1 MR. JONES: I think we can -- well, I would ask for an exhibit
2 number for this document and also for the other one which was distributed
3 with it. I'll cover that tomorrow, but it's probably convenient to assign
4 it an exhibit number now.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. Let me have it back. And this will
6 be 832, D832.
7 Let me describe it. This document consists of four pages in B/C/S
8 starting with ERN 01297984 right through and inclusive of 01297987. And
9 the corresponding translation into English consisting of three, four,
10 five, six pages. And this is being marked as Defence Exhibit D832.
11 And, registrar, you can have that. Registrar. Thank you.
12 Yes. Are we going to stop here?
13 MR. JONES: Yes. In fact, I will deal with the other exhibit
14 tomorrow. That's easier.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: May I ask you, please, how much longer do you -- how
16 much more time you require to finish your direct?
17 MR. JONES: I estimate about an hour. Obviously with the
18 procedural matters, I think I'm still within the six-hour overall --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. I'm seeking the information --
20 MR. JONES: Housekeeping.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: -- just to -- exactly. Because we have got
22 tomorrow, Wednesday, and Thursday, and Friday we should be able to finish
23 the witness by Friday. So --
24 MR. JONES: Let me say up to the first session tomorrow.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yeah. So we will continue tomorrow,
1 Mr. Alic, and it will be in the morning and not in the afternoon. So we
2 will be meeting at 10.00 or soon thereafter, and we will decide in the
3 morning which system to adopt, where the two-break or one-break, depending
4 on whether there is consensus from everyone. All right.
5 So 10.00 tomorrow morning. Thank you. It will be in Trial
6 Chamber II, Trial Chamber II -- sorry, Courtroom II.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of
9 October, 2005, at 10.00 a.m.