1 Thursday, 31 August 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The accused, same advisory as usual.

10 Problems with interpretation, let us know.

11 Appearances. I see no difference.

12 Any preliminaries? All right.

13 WITNESS: MEVLUDIN ORIC [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Oric, we are going to proceed and hopefully

16 conclude as early as possible, and then you can go home.

17 Madam Vidovic -- Madam Fauveau.

18 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau: [Continued]

19

20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, yesterday we were talking about the way the

21 column was created at Susnjari. Do you remember what you said on the 28th

22 of August, page 873, in the French transcript, and you said, I quote: "As

23 I said, first there were people who were in charge of de-mining the ground.

24 Then behind them we had the army. The army was armed. They were going in

25 front, and they were divided into brigades, so one brigade was following

1 another."

2 My question is the following, and it's a very simple question:

3 I would like to know if this description corresponds to the way the

4 description -- the column was created, is this an accurate description of

5 the formation of the column?

6 A. It could be. The front of the column. It could be.

7 Q. You've also stated, sir, that you were amongst the last ones in

8 the column; is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did anybody tell you where to stand or where to go or where to

11 place yourself in that column?

12 A. We were told to walk one behind the other and to follow the track

13 of the de-miners, because it was them who put papers on the path in order

14 for us to follow this track and we were told to walk one behind the other.

15 Q. But did anyone decide who was to leave before and who after. Did

16 somebody say so many people were going to be in the front and so many

17 people were going to be in the back?

18 A. No. The command went first with armed men, and then people just

19 went randomly. There were not 100 people, but 1.500 [as interpreted], and

20 those who were in the front were better off. So nobody paid any attention

21 from which brigade people -- to which brigade people belonged to.

22 The first column was able to break through, so everyone wanted

23 to be in the front lines.

24 Q. Very well. Thank you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Madam Fauveau. I recognise Mr.

1 Krgovic.

2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a correction, Your Honour.

3 On page 2, line 19, the witness said 15.000 rather than 1.500, as it has

4 been recorded in the transcript.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. That makes sense. We take it as corrected

6 to 15.000.

7 Madam Fauveau, if you could kindly proceed.

8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Sir, you've stated on the 28th of August that in 1992, Naser Oric

10 asked you to go to Tuzla. Is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did Naser Oric choose you to go to Tuzla because you knew the

13 path or the route well?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is it right to say that the route between Srebrenica and Tuzla

16 was a route or a road that you had taken on many occasions during the war?

17 A. No. This was the way from which I came to Tuzla for the first

18 time, but I didn't know it well. There was a courier with me known as

19 Nindza. I came with him from Srebrenica and back to Tuzla. I was

20 accompanied by him. So he knew the way, not myself, this Nindza person

21 from Snagovo. He knew the terrain and was leading the way.

22 Q. After this first departure from Tuzla to Srebrenica, did you go

23 through that road again? Did you take that route again on another

24 occasion?

25 A. Yes, we took the same road from which I came to Tuzla. So when I

1 went back, we took the same path. Perhaps 50 metres left or -- to the left

2 or to the right. We -- we were trying to avoid the mines.

3 Q. Sir, but my question was to know if after that first trip that

4 you made, Srebrenica/Tuzla, Tuzla/Srebrenica, did you have the occasion to

5 go and take that route again, once again, after [as interpreted] the month

6 of July, 1995?

7 A. No.

8 MS. FAVEAU: [Interpretation] There might be a mistake in the

9 transcript. The question was to know if it occurred before the month of

10 July, 1995. Page 4, line 6.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau, because I was

12 wondering how you expected the witness to do that.

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] With your permission, may I repeat

14 the question?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, if that makes it easier for you. I

16 think the witness has heard what we have to say.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Sir, since there was a mistake in the transcript, I'm not sure

19 you understood correctly in B/C/S as well, so I'm going to well, ask my

20 question again. Before the month of July 1995 and after the first trip you

21 took Srebrenica/Tuzla Tuzla/Srebrenica, did you take that road again?

22 A. No, I didn't.

23 MS. FAVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness 5D6?

24 It's the interview that was found last Monday. Could the witness be shown

25 that document, please.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the newspaper interview. Yes. Okay.

2 Thank you.

3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, sir.

4 Q. Sir, I'm interested in the second paragraph in B/C/S. And

5 furthermore, what I would like you to look at is the section -- the middle

6 of the paragraph and also send paragraph in English. The journalist wrote,

7 and I quote: "[In English] What does one ask a man who almost four years

8 ago was one of the best fighters of the Srebrenica area who during the

9 times of the biggest blockade came to Tuzla from Srebrenica four times as a

10 courier?"

11 [Interpretation] Do you recall giving this interview, sir?

12 A. No, I don't. I didn't say that I went four times.

13 Q. When you left Susnjari, and I'm talking about the entire column,

14 did someone have a map of the area?

15 A. I don't know. I didn't have one. I don't know if the command

16 had one.

17 Q. And the de-mining unit at that went ahead, did they know exactly

18 where the mines were placed?

19 A. I wouldn't know. I didn't walk together with them, so I wouldn't

20 know if they had found any mines at all. I wasn't present there.

21 Q. Sir, I have finished with that section of my questions.

22 I would like to go back in time. You said that on the 28th of

23 August you worked in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And your last employment before the war, was it in Belgrade?

1 A. No, it wasn't. My last employment was in Ruma, in a village

2 where we went through the student house in Sarajevo. We were -- we were

3 digging trenches.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Madam Fauveau, which war? Which war?

5 Because there was the Croatian one first.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I was talking about his last

7 employment, the last employment that the witness had before the war.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: But which war are you referring to, the one in

9 Bosnia or the one -- because don't forget that he was in Croatia.

10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Precisely. I was going to ask

11 that the witness be shown the statement quoted 3D8. It was the statement

12 that the witness gave to the Prosecution's office on the 24th of January,

13 1996.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Can someone check whether he has it in front of

15 him? I don't see it on mine anyway.

16 Yes. I can see the front page now, but in English.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]. Precisely, sir, Your Honour. I

18 need the first page.

19 Q. Sir, do you have this statement in B/C/S in front of you?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. Is it correct to say that it states that your previous employment

22 was as an employee in a sugar factory in Belgrade?

23 A. Yes, I worked in a sugar plant in Padinska Skela or Belgrade.

24 Q. Is this your last employment as a civilian before you started

25 work or before you became a soldier in the Croatian army [as interpreted]?

1 A. No. I was in Ruma as I stated right now.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, he never agreed with any question

3 that suggested that he was a soldier in the Croatian army.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In fact, my question was the

5 Croatian police. There must be a mistake in the transcript.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau, for agreeing to that.

7 And he has answered no, he was in Ruma. Wherever that is. Where is Ruma?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ruma is in Serbia.

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Is it correct to say that when you arrived in Croatia you

11 immediately started working for the Croatian police?

12 A. No. I was supposed to work in construction, but since the war

13 had broken out, there was no work so I joined the MUP.

14 Q. Can you tell us, sir, when did you leave for Croatia?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.

16 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, we spent a fair amount of time

17 yesterday in Croatia with Mr. Oric. I am just a little concerned that we

18 may be embarking on a similar tour, and I don't know whether the questions

19 are going to be along the same line. If they are, we would object as that

20 ground has been gone over pretty thoroughly.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: But you are coming to a conclusion. We haven't

22 come to that as yet. We're still waiting to see what the next few

23 questions will be, and then we may as well agree with what you've said,

24 come to the same conclusion, in which we will stop Madam Fauveau and ask

25 her to move to another set of questions.

1 Madam Fauveau.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I will ask very clear question.

3 Q. Is it right to say that your military training in the Croatian

4 police lasted 27 days?

5 A. That is exactly how long I had served there. Maybe even less

6 than 27 days.

7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... correct to say that

8 afterwards you joined a unit called Kralj Tomislav?

9 A. No.

10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 4D7,

11 please? It's the interview that he gave to a Croatian newspaper.

12 I would like you to look at the paragraph under the heading

13 "Dobrovoljac in the HV. So it's the second column I would like you to look

14 at, towards the middle of the second column. Thank you very much. This is

15 where it is.

16 Now, as far as the English version goes, I'm interested in the

17 paragraph right after the heading "Volunteer in the HVO."

18 Your Honour, I would like to draw your attention to a

19 translation error, since the original in Croatian is talking about the HV

20 army, whereas the English translation is talking about the HVO army. And

21 the difference is quite important. It's a big difference.

22 Q. Sir, are you able to see that in this article we can read, and

23 those are apparently your words: "[In English] In Capljina, our 1st

24 volunteer regiment Kralj Tomislav seized the barracks."

25 A. No, this is not correct. That was not my regiment nor do I have

1 any knowledge of that. I don't know what the journalist wrote, but I don't

2 remember saying this. I'm sure I didn't say this. Maybe it was the

3 journalist's regiment, not mine.

4 Q. Sir, you've testified in the Blagojevic trial before this

5 Tribunal, and during your testimony one question was asked of you and the

6 question was as follows: "[In English] And isn't it true that together

7 with the volunteer's regiment called King Tomislav took part in the

8 occupation on the JNA barracks in Capljina?"

9 [Interpretation] And you've answered: "[In English] Yes, I

10 did."

11 [Interpretation] We are talking about the transcript in the

12 Blagojevic trial of the 21st of July, 2003, page 1365.

13 Sir, can you tell us if what you said at the time was not

14 accurate, it did not reflect the truth?

15 A. I don't remember.

16 Q. Thank you very much. And I will now ask another set of

17 questions.

18 You've stated on the 28th of August, before this Tribunal, that

19 in 1994 and 1995 you were a member of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

20 is that correct?

21 THE INTERPRETER: Correction: 1992 and 1995.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

23 Q. And you were a commander of a unit composed of 10 men which was

24 part of the 283rd Brigade; is that right?

25 A. No. It was a manoeuvre squad.

1 Q. And how many people were in that unit?

2 A. I don't know if you're referring to the company or to the squad.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.

4 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, he has been asked and answered that

5 question on numerous occasions.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's correct. Yes, Madam Fauveau.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I will now go on to another topic.

8 Q. Is it correct to say that before the war in Srebrenica or before

9 actually the fall of Srebrenica, there were 14.000 soldiers in Srebrenica?

10 A. I don't know.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, before you proceed in line 25 of

12 page 9 of the transcript now we have the 283rd Brigade. It keeps changing.

13 Sometimes it's the 28th, sometimes it's the 281st, sometimes it's the

14 283rd. I've lost count.

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I mentioned the 283rd

16 Brigade, in fact. That's correct.

17 Q. Could the witness be shown the document 3D7. It is the witness's

18 statement given to the Prosecution between the 10th and the 12th of August,

19 1995.

20 We go to page 2, please. Could we zoom in on paragraph five,

21 the third paragraph from the bottom of the page. Excuse me, in fact it's

22 paragraph four, but we can see it quite well.

23 Sir, do you remember at the time you stated to the

24 representative of the OTP that: [In English] "Before the fall of

25 Srebrenica there were about 14.000 BiH soldiers in the Srebrenica region"?

1 [Interpretation] Do you remember making that statement?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Does that statement reflect the truth?

4 A. There were 14.000 of them, but not armed. They existed. There

5 were 40.000 -- 14.000 of them, but they were not all involved. They were

6 not armed.

7 Q. So what you're saying is that there were 14.000 soldiers, but

8 they were not all armed. Is that exact? Is that correct?

9 A. Yes. Most of them didn't.

10 Q. At any rate, we can draw the conclusion that in July, 1995, there

11 were soldiers in the city of Srebrenica; is that correct?

12 A. There were able-bodied men. There were around 14.000 able-bodied

13 men.

14 Q. Is it true that the headquarters of the 28th Division was in the

15 city of Srebrenica?

16 A. I suppose so.

17 Q. And the headquarters of your brigade, was it also in Srebrenica?

18 A. In 1992 when the brigade existed, my brigade that is, it wasn't.

19 Q. Would you agree that the command of a division or of a brigade is

20 a military target?

21 A. I don't know. I wouldn't know. I don't understand much about

22 brigades.

23 Q. Do you know whether the command of the 280th Brigade was in

24 Potocari?

25

1 A. I am afraid I didn't understand your question.

2 Q. Do you know that in July, 1995, the command of the brigade number

3 280 was in Potocari?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. You stated that you were a member of the army of Bosnia-

6 Herzegovina, but on the 11th of July, 1995, you were wearing civilian

7 clothes; is that correct?

8 A. Yes. I wore civilian clothes from 1992 up to 1995. At the

9 moment when I was captured I was still wearing civilian clothes.

10 Q. Were you wearing civilian clothes also when you were on the lines

11 guarded by your unit with a rifle?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What's your objection?

13 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, this was just asked and answered. She

14 -- the question was what he was wearing. He said, "I wore civilian clothes

15 from 1992 up to 1995. At the moment I was captured --"

16

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop. Let him answer the question.

18 The question is very specific as to whether you were wearing civilian

19 clothes also when you were on the line guarding -- guarded by your unit

20 with a rifle. That specific occasion.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I wore civilian clothes just

22 like my neighbours. Everybody in the villages. We did not have enough

23 camouflage uniforms to go around. We did not have a factory, a

24 manufacturing factory that would produce military clothes.

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Therefore, the men who were in age of combat could not be

2 distinguished -- you could not distinguish between civilians and members of

3 the military. Everyone wore civilian clothes; is that correct?

4 A. Predominantly everybody. A certain number did have camouflage

5 uniforms.

6 Q. Is it correct to say that before the formation of the 28th

7 Division the command of the 8th group of operations or the 8th Operational

8 Group was in Srebrenica?

9 A. I don't know. I just told you I don't know much about the

10 brigades, the command, the 8th Operational Group. I don't know much about

11 that. I don't know where the main command was, where they moved. We just

12 received orders through the courier when we were supposed to go to the

13 line. I really don't know anything about this Operative Group or where the

14 command moved. I'm not an expert in military matters. I didn't go to

15 military schools.

16 Q. Sir, do you know if the men who were of combat age, if those who

17 had been recruited in Srebrenica were prohibited from leaving the enclave?

18 A. As far as I know, they could move wherever they wanted. They

19 could go to Zepa. They could go back. The answer would be no.

20 MS. FAVEAU: [Interpretation] Sir, I would like to show you a

21 short video clip, a military -- showing a military gathering that took

22 place in May, 1994, to be specific. May we see that video clip? It lasts

23 two minutes.

24 [Videotape played]

25 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] ... assistant for affairs ... is

1 going to now going to read the order on leaving the demilitarized zone

2 would please come forward. The army of the Republic of Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina command of the 8th Operations Group Srebrenica number 130-5-

4 5/94, Srebrenica 24 May 1994. To the commanders of all units, due to

5 frequent cases of conscripts leaving the demilitarised zone, the degree of

6 danger caused by such behaviour on the part of responsible conscripts in

7 keeping with order number 02-1-784-1 dated 17 April, 1994, by the command

8 of the 2nd Corps, I hereby order: One, a general ban on all conscripts

9 leaving the demilitarised zone. 2, army members may leave the

10 demilitarised zone only at the proposal of the unit commander, and if

11 approved by the commander of the 8th Operations Group or the Chief of Staff

12 of the 8th operations group. 3, in all other cases, conscripts leaving the

13 demilitarised zone shall be treated as persons who have abandoned their

14 unit, i.e., deserters. 4, sanctions as prescribed by the laws and

15 regulations of the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall

16 apply against all conscripts who violate this order. 5, should a violator

17 of this order be wounded or killed, his social status and other

18 entitlements shall not be addressed by the military structures of the army

19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. 6, all unit commanders are to control all potential

20 crossings out of the demilitarised zone within the zone of responsibility

21 of their units and to take into custody all conscripts who disregard this

22 order. Inform all members of the 8th operations group Srebrenica of the

23 content of this order. Commander Naser Oric."

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Sir, did you attend that gathering in May, 1994?

1 A. I don't remember. I don't remember even which unit is this.

2 Q. The order that you heard that was given on that clip prohibits

3 all conscripts from leaving the enclave of Srebrenica; is that correct?

4 A. Yes. Still, people did go to Zepa, and they would bring back

5 food, salt, against the order. They would still leave.

6 Q. Do you agree that in 1993, Srebrenica was supposed to be

7 demilitarised?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And do you agree that during that whole period, from March, 1993,

10 to July, 1995, the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina still had some of its units

11 in Srebrenica?

12 A. Well, they had a certain number, but that number, those people,

13 just went to those lines where the UNPROFOR couldn't go.

14 Q. Is it not correct to say that the units of the ABiH army were

15 militarily active in Srebrenica in 1995?

16 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand your question.

17 Q. Can one say that the units of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were

18 active militarily in Srebrenica in 1995, before July, 1995?

19 A. Yes. When Srebrenica was attacked, then people were again

20 mobilised for defence.

21 Q. And is it not also true that there were active -- offensive

22 military activities taken -- carried out by the units in Srebrenica in

23 July, 1995?

24 A. No. The only thing that happened was people were defending their

25 town from attacks.

1 Q. Could we submit to the witness the Exhibit 5D3.

2 On page 1, paragraph 2. Sir, can you read on that paragraph 2:

3 "[In English] In order to prevent enemy forces from sending additional

4 forces from the Srebrenica and Zepa areas to the Sarajevo theatre, two acts

5 of sabotage were carried out near Srebrenica on 23 June, 1995, at Osmace on

6 23 June, 1995, at Bijelo Stijenje near Koprivina, and the following results

7 achieved: 7 Chetniks killed," and then it follows and follows.

8 [Interpretation] Can you read those words?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And in paragraph 3, can you also read the following: "[In

11 English] In order to divert enemy forces from the Sarajevo theatre and

12 stretch them out towards Srebrenica and Zepa, a number of successful acts

13 of sabotage were carried out on 26 June, 1995, at the following locations

14 in the area of Han Pijesak and Vlasenica municipalities."

15 [Interpretation] Is that what is written in the document?

16 A. Yes.

17 MS. FAVEAU: [Interpretation] And then if we can move on to page

18 2 of the document in Serbo-Croatian. In the English it's the very bottom

19 of the first page. In B/C/S it's at the very top.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to articulate this properly. No. Just

21 leave me the same page we had before.

22 Now, your question or these last two questions, Ms. Fauveau,

23 were consequential to a previous question or set of questions related to

24 whether the witness would agree with your proposition that in spite of

25 demilitarisation the Muslim -- Bosnian Muslim forces were pro-actively

1 involved militarily in 1995.

2 Now, my question, and forgive my ignorance, is Osmace included

3 in the Srebrenica enclave? Is Bijelo Stijenje near Koprivina included in

4 the Srebrenica enclave? And finally, is Han Pijesak and Vlasenica

5 municipalities, are they included? Because to my knowledge, they are not.

6 Osmace may be, but I'm not quite sure either.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps to clarify

8 this issue we should come back to paragraph 1 of the document to make sure

9 that everything is quite clear. May I first submit to the witness

10 paragraph 1 of the document?

11 Q. Witness, is it written on the document: "[In English] [Previous

12 translation continues] ... 28th Division located in the Srebrenica and Zepa

13 enclave although facing big problems in connection with food supplies and

14 duties in protecting the area of responsibility in the free territories

15 they control have decided to provide the largest possible contribution to

16 the ARBiH in its fight against the aggressor, and with that aim have

17 intensified their activities deep inside the territory temporarily occupied

18 by the aggressor."

19 [Interpretation] Is that what is written in the document?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is it indeed true that Osmace, Bijelo Stijenje, Koprivina, Han

22 Pijesak are places that are rather far away from Srebrenica itself?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Nonetheless, it would seem, according to this document, that the

25 armed forces of Srebrenica were going to fight or be involved in offensive

1 military activities in those places. Is that correct?

2 A. I don't know. I'm not familiar with this. I never heard of

3 this. I never participated in this, nor do I know who did all this.

4 Q. Could we show the witness page 2 of the document. At the bottom

5 of the page, the person -- the name of the person who drafted the document.

6 Somewhat lower. Page 2.

7 Sir, the name of Ramiz Becirevic is well known to you. Isn't

8 that true?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And Mr. Becirevic was the commander of the armed forces in

11 Srebrenica in the absence of Naser Oric. Is that not true?

12 A. Yes.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: If I could see the original, the B/C/S version. I

14 just want to make sure whether it's signed or unsigned, whether it's

15 stamped or unstamped. And if I could -- if I could see well, while in the

16 English version Becirevic is spelled as it should be, ending with "vic," in

17 the B/C/S version it ends with "v-i-c-h," which is very unusual. I've

18 never seen it like that.

19 I need to see the original. I -- yes it is. It is now.

20 Nacelnik staba. And Ramiz Becirevic is with "vich." Yes, proceed.

21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] This was a document that we

22 received from the Prosecutor that was disclosed to us by the Prosecutor. I

23 will not go into further details, but there is a document where there is no

24 Serbo-Croatian lettering, so you don't see "ch" or "c" anywhere. In fact,

25 there are several ways of writing the c to distinguish them from other

1 letters, z, for example.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Please proceed, Madam Fauveau.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to perhaps clear this up. We do see in

6 1995 many Muslim documents that are spelled this way. It may be because of

7 the typewriter.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And I also notice because I have encountered

9 this before, that this document also shows double letters like Scorpion

10 with a double s. Staba with a double s, and I think that is something

11 wrong. Basically it could be something wrong with -- with the type of

12 typewriter.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: You'll see that more in the future with other

14 things.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes. All right. It still does not explain

16 the "h" after the "c" in Becirevic.

17 All right. Let's continue, please.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I will now come to my last series

19 of questions.

20 Q. Yesterday, you spoke a bit about the fact that you did not have

21 weapons in Srebrenica. Is it not, however, true that between 1993 and 1995

22 you were receiving ammunition and some weapons in Srebrenica?

23 A. I don't know of any such thing. I was not present, and I didn't

24 hear about any of that happening.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: The thing is that this typewriter doesn't have any

1 -- or doesn't show any of the accents and marks that are particular to the

2 language. That's -- and the mistakes or the double prints, et cetera,

3 occur precisely where -- all right. Yes.

4 Madam Fauveau, my apologies for having interrupted you again.

5 Please proceed.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness a

7 series of documents. Perhaps we could start by 5D7. First of all, I would

8 like to apologise to the Court. I do not have a translation in English.

9 It was one of the documents we found in the general collection these past

10 two days, and we still have not received a translation.

11 Q. Witness, could we perhaps see higher up on the document so we

12 could actually see the date on the document.

13 Sir, is it a document of the headquarters or the staff of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina army of July, 1995?

15 A. I don't know. I'm not familiar with this document. I don't know

16 who signed it. I don't know who drafted the document.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Why are you saying July of 1995, Madam Fauveau?

18 Then it's February, not July. I mean, it's -- the Americans would read it

19 that way, but we haven't got that far as yet.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 7th of February.

21 Q. Sir, I would like you to confirm that at the very top of the

22 document on the left you can read, "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, staff

23 of the army," and then the date, 7th of February, 1995. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes, I can see that.

25 Q. And then could we see paragraph 6 of the document. Can you read

1 there that the cargo that arrived during the night of the 6th of February

2 was to be distributed between Zepa and Srebrenica?

3 A. Yes. This is what it stated here, but I was not present there,

4 and I don't know if they were actually distributed. Zepa is -- was far

5 from where I was. I was with my family at home. I was cultivating the

6 land. I have no idea what was happening around Zepa at the time.

7 Q. Sir, finally I would ask you to answer my questions rather

8 rapidly. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just asking you to specify

9 certain things.

10 In this document we can read automatic rifles, landmines and

11 ammunition. Is that true?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.

13 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, he's testified he's not familiar with

14 this document, he's never seen it before and he's just testified he wasn't

15 present in Srebrenica at the time and he doesn't know about the

16 distribution of any of these materials. I would object to further

17 questions based on this document.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Move to another question, Madam Fauveau.

19 Objection sustained.

20 Yes, Mr. Meek.

21 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, just for the record we'd like to note

22 our objection. This witness is in fact the cousin of Naser Oric, and by

23 looking at this, I believe Ms. Fauveau would like to refresh perhaps the

24 recollection of this witness to answer that simple question.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Which question?

1 MR. MEEK: The last question, Your Honour, about the rifles.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: But he's answered that already. He's told the

3 Trial Chamber that he doesn't know anything about that.

4 So let's proceed to the next question, Madam Fauveau, please.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have six documents

6 of the same type. Of course, if you believe that they should not be

7 submitted to the witness I will not do so, however, I would like to say

8 that on Monday, in other words, two days ago we found a large collection of

9 about 4.000 documents in the general collection of Srebrenica that are all

10 of this nature or type, and clearly they fall under Rule 68. In my

11 opinion, we had never been aware of these before. We found an interview of

12 this witness that had not been disclosed to us. We proceeded with the

13 interrogation of that witness. Certainly our cross-examination may not be

14 perfect, but we are trying to do the best we can with the means we have,

15 and I would like to ask for your permission to pursue, but of course I will

16 comply with your decision if you feel that I should not.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues] ... seen the

18 other documents. Let's see them first, see what they are, and then if it's

19 -- your question is along the same line as the previous one, we will stop

20 you, because if he has already stated that he was -- he had no knowledge of

21 such weapons at the time because he wasn't even there, what's the point of

22 putting more questions to him? Unless you can prove that he is not telling

23 us the truth.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Witness, you were a cousin of Naser Oric; is that correct?

1 A. Yes. I had another 60 relatives by the last name of Oric.

2

3 Q. Did you have contact with your cousin during the war?

4 A. Not very many, because I lived in Lehovici and not in Potocari,

5 which is an hour and a half away if you go on foot. So I didn't have many

6 contacts.

7 Q. Nonetheless, you knew that in July, 1995, Naser Oric was not in

8 Srebrenica; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And do you know where he was?

11 A. We heard that he had left for Tuzla with some other men, that

12 they had gone to have -- to undergo some training.

13 Q. Is it not true that he left for Tuzla by helicopter?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer, yes.

15 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, this is directly repetitive of the

16 testimony that was received yesterday concerning Naser Oric's absence and

17 his mode of transportation from the enclave, and this witness's knowledge

18 or lack thereof concerning that mode of transportation. That's my

19 recollection, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Your recollection is almost correct. What was put

21 to him yesterday was the reference from the article in this Croatian paper

22 in which it was stated that some commanders had been airlifted to -- to

23 Tuzla. There was an accident with one of the helicopters, and Naser stayed

24 behind, but he was not put any questions -- was not asked any questions on

25 those events.

1 So you may proceed -- yes.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Sir, would you answer my question? Is it true that ...

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau. Let me have a look at your

7 question. Yes. Because between your question -- I think you should repeat

8 your question, because we have all lost track of it basically.

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Sir, can you tell me, did you know that Naser Oric left for Tuzla

11 by helicopter?

12 A. Not at first, but later on I heard that he went to Zepa and that

13 he was transferred by helicopter. I didn't know at first. Later on,

14 everyone spoke about it publicly, that he had left for Zepa probably by

15 helicopter.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Zepa or Tuzla?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To Zepa and then on by helicopter.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Perhaps I can clear it up. It

19 will be my last question.

20 Q. Do you mean Naser Oric left from Srebrenica to Zepa by land or by

21 foot or in a vehicle and then took a helicopter in Zepa to go from Zepa to

22 Tuzla? Is that correct?

23 A. Probably, because I can see that helicopters landed in Zepa. I'm

24 sure they didn't land in Srebrenica, because the UNPROFOR would have seen

25 them. So he probably left from Zepa by helicopter. It was not possible to

1 leave by helicopter from Srebrenica.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

3 I have no other questions for the witness.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krgovic for General Gvero. Yes.

5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Oric, I will try to formulate my questions

8 so that you can give a yes or no answer and so that we can wrap up this

9 questioning.

10 Mr. Oric, in your testimony before this Court, you stated that

11 you returned to Srebrenica in mid-1992; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. When you returned, Srebrenica was surrounded, and the population

14 was organised into Territorial Defence units for defence; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. These units were organised according to a territorial principle.

17 Each village had a unit for the purpose of defending that village, and if

18 needed, they were assisted by others; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Since you are a native of Lehovici, I presume that you had joined

21 a unit from Jaglici and Susnjari.

22 A. Yes, from the surrounding villages.

23 Q. Can you confirm that some groups of villages were formed into one

24 unit, and I will now list the names of the territorial units and you can

25 say if I am -- if this is accurate: Territorial Defence Glogova?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Just a moment. He hasn't answered yes to the

3 general question first.

4 It was put to you, Witness, that some groups of villages were

5 formed into one unit. Do you agree to that?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then proceed now.

8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. So, Mr. Oric, the Territorial Defence unit of Glogova, Potocari

10 Territorial Defence unit?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Territorial Defence unit Kragljivoda?

13 A. I don't know about that area. It is quite removed from where I

14 was. I didn't go there during the war, but I presume there was a unit

15 there.

16 Q. Territorial Defence Suceska?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Territorial Defence Susnjari and Jaglici?

19 A. Susnjari, Jaglici, Babuljice, Vlahovici, Brosevici, all of them.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Were in one unit? Were grouped under one unit?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: And how was that unit known, as Jaglici-Susnjari,

23 or some other name?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There -- there was no name for

25 that Territorial Defence unit, Your Honour. We just went to the lines to

1 man them, but later on the units were formed.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Let me repeat. Susnjari, Jaglici. If you could repeat what you

5 said, the following villages, since the --

6 A. Babuljice, Vlahovici, Brosevici.

7 Q. Babuljice?

8 A. Yes, Babuljice.

9 Q. And the commander of this unit was Sedik Ademovic or Sidik

10 Ademovic?

11 A. I think so.

12 Q. Do you have any knowledge of other villages such as Biljeg,

13 Skenderivici and Osmace, that they all were formed into units?

14 A. It is possible. They probably did.

15 Q. Let's me repeat. The transcript does not -- it is not in the

16 transcript Skenderivici, Biljeg.

17 Mr. Oric, the commander of the Suceska Territorial Defence was

18 Zulfo --

19 A. I don't know the exact name. I didn't go there from my own

20 village and from Potocari. I went only once.

21 Q. But you know that Zulfo Tursunovic was the head of some of these

22 units?

23 A. Probably.

24 Q. And Ejub Golic was the head of the unit from Glogova; right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What about Cerska? Was it Semso Salihovic?

2 A. I don't know.

3 Q. Tell me, please, these men that I have just mentioned, they were

4 in Srebrenica in 1992 and 1993 when fighting was going on in the outskirts?

5 A. Yes, they were.

6 Q. And these men stayed on in Srebrenica up to 1995 together with

7 yourself?

8 A. [No interpretation].

9 Q. And also the units and the population that was involved in the TO

10 units; is that correct?

11 A. No, not all of them. Some were killed. A lot of them were

12 killed [Realtime transcript read in error "skilled"].

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, Mr. Krgovic, because line 9,

14 page 28, the transcript does not reflect the witness's answer, which was

15 "yes." Let's go. Let's proceed.

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. However, most of these people, people from these units, were in

18 Srebrenica, in the enclave at the time?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Just one correction. When I asked you about some people on page

21 28, line 12, you said that some of them were killed. And you said

22 something else as well. This -- the transcript the wording is "A lot of

23 them were skilled." Is that what you were saying?

24 A. No. Many were killed by shells in attacks.

25

1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that in Srebrenica sometime around --

2 around that time before the arrival of the UN, there was also a military

3 police unit?

4 A. I suppose that there was one in Srebrenica, but I don't know. In

5 any case, they never entered our villages where we had our TO.

6 Q. And did you ever go to Srebrenica?

7 A. Maybe once a month when I went to see my sister or on some other

8 business. I didn't have time. I had land to farm, and I had my family.

9 So I paid more attention to the land, to sold something, to have something

10 to eat than to go roam around Srebrenica.

11 Q. Are you aware of the fact that at one point in time, the

12 commander of the military police unit was Mirzet Halilovic? Are you

13 familiar with this name?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And then he was replaced, by Atif Krdzic?

16 A. I don't know this Atif.

17 Q. Mr. Oric, in the column that was formed in Susnjari, were there

18 also people from those units and the villages that I just listed?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Mr. Oric, I am going to move to another topic, and I will take

21 you back to your testimony when you spoke about the behaviour of the

22 soldiers who had captured you towards you. Before this Trial Chamber, you

23 have described them being cruel towards the detainees and all the other

24 people from Srebrenica. That people were beaten up, that some people were

25 taken out, the detainees were taken out and killed. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes, some individuals.

2 Q. Would it be an understatement to say about these people that they

3 are harden criminals?

4 A. I don't know how I should call these people.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I can anticipate what your objection is.

6 MR. THAYER: I think that question, there is no basis for this

7 witness to have any knowledge.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I answer this

10 remark?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. Of course, yes.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have asked the witness about his

13 experience with the people who behaved in that way, people who beat up the

14 detainees and killed them. Would it be a fair statement to say that they

15 were hardened criminals and slaughterers?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: It's obviously you studied criminology, Mr.

17 Krgovic. I would skip that question and move to your next question. I

18 know where you are heading, it doesn't take much to anticipate, but harden

19 criminals -- your next question.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my line of

21 questioning is based on the introductory speech by the Prosecutor, page

22 470, lines 12 and 13.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Your next question.

24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Oric, are you aware of the fact that in Srebrenica, during

1 1992 and 1993, in the police building there was a military prison under the

2 control of the police where Serb detainees, women, children, and men were

3 held, that they were beaten there, some to death. Are you aware of that

4 fact?

5 A. No, I'm not.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.

7 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, there is no relevance as far as I can

8 see to that question. I --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Relevance. It's being suggested that -- you know,

10 if you're bad, the others are bad. But -- anyway, let's -- let's cut this

11 short.

12 Yes, Mr. Krgovic. What -- the other line, approach that you had

13 in mind. In any case, he has told you that he doesn't know about this

14 maltreatment of prisoners, of Serb prisoners by the Muslim -- Bosnian

15 Muslim military police.

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me a

17 couple more questions, everything will become clear.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues] ... let's see

19 what the other questions are.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Oric, are you aware of the fact that units from Jaglici,

22 Susnjari, the ones that you spoke about and that were with you in the

23 column, from Suceska as well, and also from Potocari, in 1993 had

24 participated in the attack on the Serbian villages of Kravica and

25 Jezestica? On that occasion a war crime was committed.

1 A. No, I'm not aware of that fact.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Apart from his being aware or not aware about the

3 fact, do you expect him to say a war crime was committed on that occasion?

4 Yes, Mr. Thayer.

5 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, you've anticipated my objection. It's

6 -- the term war crimes obviously calls for legal conclusion. Among other

7 things, that is not this witness's province, why he was called.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.

9 MR. MEEK: Mr. President and Your Honours , and I don't disagree

10 with you, in fact I agree with you but we have testimony where this witness

11 this witness and the previous witness talk about genocide this and genocide

12 that. That's a legal conclusion also. So you know.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: In their mind, maybe, but I can accept it being

14 stated by -- by a witness in his or her ignorance of the correct

15 significance from a legal approach, but from a lawyer asking the witness to

16 confirm that that was a war crime? Come on. Come on. Let's move to the

17 next question. Thank you.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will rephrase.

19 Q. Witness, are you aware of the fact that on that occasion during

20 that attack, those villages were torched and that some people were killed?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Are you aware of the fact that in the Oric case, it was

23 established that the units that I have just mentioned participated in those

24 attacks?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: He doesn't know about the attacks, Mr. Krgovic, so

1 how can you -- how can you expect him to confirm what I and the other

2 Judges may have decided in the Oric case about participating units in the

3 attacks? I don't remember myself, so ...

4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, but he was a member

5 of one of those units which he confirmed previously on one of the cross-

6 examinations.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: He has -- you have to live with the consequence of

8 the questions that you put, Mr. Krgovic. You asked him whether he belonged

9 to the Jaglici, Susnjari unit. He told you yes. You have asked him

10 whether he knows about the attacks on Kravica and Jezestica, and he's told

11 you no. So there's no point in asking him any further questions about the

12 participation. I mean, the only other possibility is the units having

13 participated in those attacks and he not being present, which would explain

14 his complete ignorance about those attacks. But whether those attacks took

15 place or not is history.

16 Yes. If you can conclude on this chapter now, please do so.

17 Otherwise, we'll have a break and the break needs to be of 30 minutes this

18 time.

19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Just one -- actually, as a

20 matter of fact, Your Honours, I can conclude and then I can resume after

21 the break.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you so much. We'll have a 30-

23 minute break starting from now.

24 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Oric, let's go back to another topic. When you left Susnjari

4 --

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the question.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreter missed part of the question. What

7 we have in the transcript so far, Mr. Krgovic, is "So let's go back to

8 another topic." And if it's another topic, you don't back to it, you go

9 straight to it, but, "When you left Susnjari," and that's where we -- yes.

10 If you could please help us a little bit and tell us exactly what the rest

11 of the question was.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Oric, when you left Susnjari, together with the column, you

14 left the protected area of Srebrenica; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You went to the enemy territory; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You knew that in that territory there were units of the Bosnian

19 Serb army that were ready to resist you?

20 A. No, we did not know that that was the case on route that we took.

21 Q. But you did know that there were minefields?

22 A. We assumed that there were.

23 Q. Were you aware of the fact that free passage may have been asked

24 for from the command of the Bosnian Serbs by your command?

25 A. I was not aware of that.

1 Q. Can you please confirm that all the attacks on the column took

2 place in the enemy territory?

3 A. This was an abandoned Muslim zone, Muslim villages that had been

4 torched and destroyed between 1992 and 1995.

5 Q. Under the control of the army of Bosnian Serbs; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Where their units were stationed?

8 A. In the forest that we travelled through, those units were not

9 stationed there.

10 Q. But you did expect a possible attack; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And that's why you carried grenades, in order to protect yourself

13 from such an attack, to defend yourself?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered that question more than once and

15 gave other explanations, too, in addition to what you've suggested, so next

16 question, please.

17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Oric, let me put you this question: Will you agree with me

19 when I say that in your column, among the people who were there, there were

20 also individuals who had committed crimes against Bosnian Serbs in the

21 territory of Srebrenica?

22 A. I wouldn't know that. I am not aware of that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I suppose any objection you may have had is

24 now superseded.

25 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

1 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I have no further questions.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And we come to the last team. Who

3 is cross-examining? Mr. Haynes.

4 Mr. Haynes will be cross-examining you now, Mr. Oric, and he

5 represents Mr. Pandurevic.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:

7 Q. Mr. Oric, I'm really not going to ask you very many questions at

8 all. You've been asked an awful lot of the questions I was going to ask

9 you, and I'm going to do my very best not to repeat any questions that

10 you've been asked before. Okay?

11 If I do so --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- forgive me, it's only because I've forgotten that the

14 question's been asked before.

15 Now, firstly, you were born in 1970, a citizen of Yugoslavia.

16 That's correct, isn't it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you remained a citizen of Yugoslavia for 22 years?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. By 1992, you were living in Srebrenica, or the Srebrenica area,

21 together with your wife and daughter; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you also had parents who lived in the area?

24 A. Yes. They lived with me in the same house.

25 Q. In January of 1992, Croatia effectively became an independent

1 country from Yugoslavia, didn't it?

2 A. I don't know. I suppose so. I can't remember.

3 Q. Shortly after that date, you chose to go to Croatia and join the

4 MUP in Croatia.

5 A. No. I went to work in construction, but there was conflict

6 raging which prevented me from doing so.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.

8 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, again, this work history and time in

9 Croatia has been delved into in detail, and the question that was just

10 asked was asked and answered previously.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Haynes has obviously forgotten that that

12 question had been asked before. I let him put it again because I think I

13 know what the next question's going to be.

14 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

15 MR. HAYNES:

16 Q. I wonder if you could explain your motivation for working for

17 what was effectively a military unit for a foreign country.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put it even clearer. Let's put it even

19 clearer.

20 In early 1992, when Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet been

21 declared as an independent state, you were, strictly speaking, still a

22 citizen of Yugoslavia, which was at war with Croatia, and it's being put to

23 you to try and explain to us what your motivation was if you were then a

24 citizen Yugoslavia still, that you go to a country that was at war with

25 your country and you join the MUP, which is being suggested to you had

1 military connotations.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I went to work in

3 construction. I was a construction worker. I had worked in construction

4 before with my father. I joined because I didn't think that would be some

5 -- anything dangerous, that we would stay in town, that we would not go

6 anywhere from town. But when I realised what the situation was, I decided

7 to leave.

8 MR. HAYNES:

9 Q. Thank you very much. Can we skip over a few months now and move

10 to your membership of a military unit in Srebrenica itself? Okay?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The 28th Division in Srebrenica comprised seven brigades, didn't

13 it?

14 A. I don't know how many there were. I can't remember.

15 Q. 280th to the 286th inclusive. Those were the brigades in

16 Srebrenica.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he's already told you he doesn't know. So

18 what I suggest is that if you want to refer to any particular brigade, then

19 you put direct question relating to that brigade and ask him whether he

20 knows whether it was part of the 28th Division.

21 MR. HAYNES: I'm not going to dwell on this at all. It's an

22 introductory question.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's move to the next question, please.

24 MR. HAYNES:

25 Q. You were a commander of a Diversionary Unit. That's correct,

1 isn't it?

2 A. No, a manoeuvre unit. I was the commander of a manoeuvre squad.

3 Q. And were you the commander of that squad from the moment you

4 arrived in Srebrenica?

5 A. No. From the moment the UNPROFOR arrived.

6 Q. You were the commander of that squad for two years prior to

7 leaving Srebrenica in 1995?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was that a unit that carried out missions outside the enclave?

10 A. No. That was a squad composed of people from Babuljice and

11 Orahovici villages. We just patrolled the lines between the UNPROFOR

12 checkpoints. That was our mission. In the course of a day, we would

13 patrol the lines between these points to prevent incursion of Serb rebels

14 who sometimes entered the town and fired shots. That happened one evening

15 when they entered Srebrenica and created problems.

16 This was our task. Our manoeuvre unit had a task to patrol

17 those lines, and we didn't go anywhere else. Once we inspected a line, we

18 would go back to our homes and work on our land. That was basically our

19 task.

20 Q. Thank you. Can we move to the days prior to the 11th of July,

21 1995. You gave evidence in chief a few days ago that the town of

22 Srebrenica was shelled constantly for seven days. Is that your account of

23 events?

24 A. I said approximately. I don't know exactly how many days, but

25 approximately. In any case, this shelling lasted day in, day out.

1 Q. Thank you very much. You've answered my next question.

2 How many shells would you anticipate landed on the town centre

3 of Srebrenica? Hundreds, thousands?

4 A. It will be thousands.

5 Q. Thank you very much. Were there many dead and injured civilians

6 during the week prior to the 11th of July?

7 A. I can't tell you that. On the first day of attack, I was in

8 Srebrenica at my sister's, and after that I never returned to Srebrenica,

9 so I really wouldn't know how many people were either injured or killed in

10 Srebrenica. I really wouldn't know how many and how that happened.

11 Q. Did you notice when you returned to your sister's much

12 destruction of property as a result of this consistent shelling?

13 A. On that day, on day one of the attack, I was at my sister's, and

14 the centre of town was being shelled. The houses and buildings there were

15 being targeted. I did not have much time to observe, because I went back

16 home very quickly after that.

17 Q. Thank you. Moving on, on the 11th of July at Susnjari, and you

18 may have answered this before, you formed into brigades before leaving the

19 area, didn't you?

20 A. There was an attempt to do that, to form the brigades, but it

21 will failed because nobody knew where people were. In any case, the armed

22 troops that went at the front, they were treated as a brigade to accompany

23 the command. As for the rest, nobody knew where people were, where the

24 brigades were, where the companies were, where their commanders were.

25 Everybody was dispersed.

1 Q. I want to move on now to your being held captive in Bratunac.

2 You said that while you were held captain in Bratunac you were guarded by

3 military policemen.

4 A. I was captured in Konjevic Polje, and I spent the night in

5 Bratunac. That would be my only correction. And I would say yes to that

6 question. We were guarded by the military police.

7 Q. And you were able to identify them as military policemen in

8 reference to the insignia that they wore?

9 A. Well, yes.

10 Q. Can you describe that for me?

11 A. What do you want me to describe?

12 Q. What shape is it?

13 A. VP, the military police?

14 Q. Yes. What shape is the badge?

15 A. It was round.

16 Q. It was round. Colour?

17 A. And with an inscription at the bottom, but in any case, there

18 were capital letters, big letters, VP. I can't remember exactly. There

19 were some colours on the badge, but I can't remember what colours were

20 those.

21 Q. Any other writing that you can remember on the badge?

22 A. I can't remember. I couldn't see very well. They were at the

23 front of the bus and I was in the back, but I could spot the big letters,

24 "military police."

25 Q. Can we come now to the gymnasium where you were held. Is that a

1 building from which you say you could see out of the windows?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You couldn't see out of the windows?

4 A. No, I couldn't see out of the windows. The windows were on the

5 top of the gym.

6 Q. I want, please, to revisit very briefly your evidence about what

7 you said happened to you at the execution site. You said, I think, that

8 you and those who were with you were shot at about 1.00 in the afternoon.

9 A. No. I don't know when exactly it all started. It may have been

10 around noon or in the afternoon. I wouldn't know the exact time.

11 Q. And did you then lie there until you fainted?

12 A. Yes. I was playing dead.

13 Q. But you actually passed out at some stage? You lost

14 consciousness?

15 A. I don't know if I had fallen asleep or lost consciousness. I

16 don't exactly remember what happened.

17 Q. And when you came round from having lost consciousness, the

18 shooting had finished?

19 A. No. It was still going on. They were still bringing in people.

20 I don't know exactly how many, but they were still bringing in people and

21 executing them.

22 Q. I want to be clear that -- what you're saying here. Are you

23 saying that after you passed out and came round again the shooting was

24 still going on?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Thank you. Now, just one or two more things. Firstly, in answer

2 to a question from His Honour the Judge a couple of days ago, you said that

3 you neither -- you did not understand written English; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that is correct.

5 Q. On the 12th of August of 1995, you made a witness statement

6 together with a Prosecution investigator called Susan Castro. Do you

7 remember that?

8 A. I do remember. I think.

9 Q. What was significant about it was that you drew a number of

10 sketches for her.

11 A. Yes. I drew a sketch of the school in Bratunac.

12 Q. And other things. You drew a sketch of an excavating machine and

13 the centre -- and the school at which you were held prisoner at the end.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can I be clear what you're saying about that? Did you actually

16 make the drawings yourself?

17 A. Yes. I made the drawings myself.

18 Q. And did you --

19 A. As far as I can recall.

20 Q. And did you write upon them any writing that we see in B/C/S?

21 A. If it was written in Bosnian, then it was my handwriting

22 probably.

23 Q. But are you saying that you did not write anything on those

24 drawings that appears in English?

25 A. No.

1 Q. You didn't -- you didn't write any of the English on those

2 drawings?

3 A. No, I didn't.

4 MR. HAYNES: I wonder, through e-court, whether we could just

5 have a quick look at Prosecution release document number 26. Prosecution

6 release document number 26.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Is this the document you wanted to refer the

8 witness to?

9 MR. HAYNES: No.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I have a hunch it isn't.

11 MR. HAYNES: No.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: But it is because I got the same document on my

13 screen before it was shown by the staff here, and I got the same document

14 as they did. So I think it's a question of reference. Do you have the ERN

15 number? Maybe we can trace it from there.

16 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

18 MR. HAYNES: It's also 3D7. We can stop at that page just for a

19 moment, and if we can blow it up and look at the bottom it would be

20 helpful.

21 Q. That's your signature there at the bottom, "Oric Mevludin," isn't

22 it?

23 A. Yes, it is.

24 Q. And immediately after your signature are your initials OM?

25

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And when you append your initials to anything, that's how you put

3 them down, isn't it, "Oric" first, "Mevludin" second, OM?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You don't put MO, do you? You put OM?

6 A. It depends how I feel. I don't think this is so significant.

7 Q. Now, I'd like now to go to page 6998 in that exhibit, please.

8 It's 6981 there, so we need to move on seven pages. No, not that one.

9 That's 6995. One back. Perfect. Can we blow that up for the within,

10 please.

11 Now, this is one of the drawings that you made with Miss or Mrs.

12 Castro. Can we look at the top there, please. Underneath the moon-shaped

13 article there's some writing in your language, isn't there? Somebody will

14 help me as to what it says. Does it say "Suma faust"?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: You can read it Faust. I read it "forest."

17 MR. HAYNES: Possibly.

18 Q. But is that in your writing?

19 A. The handwriting -- my handwriting is "Suma," and the lady wrote

20 it in English.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And what does "Suma" mean? If I can have the

22 interpreter's help and translate Suma.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, "forest."

24 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, they didn't have Goethe and

25 Mephistopheles on their mind, Mr. Haynes.

1 MR. HAYNES:

2 Q. I'd like to move on down from that writing to three little pieces

3 of writing in the middle to the left. Can you is he where it says, "Me,"

4 "My line," and "Next group"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did you write that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. That was written by Ms. Castro, was it?

9 A. Probably.

10 Q. Probably? She wrote "Me," did she?

11 A. I don't remember who wrote it down.

12 Q. Okay. Do you think you might have written "Me," and "My line"?

13 I'm going to move on.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] ... because we saw the

15 same letters on another document and I think the question is legitimate,

16 and I wouldn't like any interruptions with him.

17 Now, let me try with -- without trying to interrupt you, Mr.

18 Haynes.

19 You have on that diagram there the words "Next group," and an

20 arrow pointing left. On top -- and then further to the left you have a

21 series of vertical lines. Now, on top of all that you have the words "My

22 line," again, an arrow pointing left with a series of vertical lines. And

23 Mr. Haynes' first question was: Look at those words "My line," "Next

24 group." Did you write those words or was it someone else? Let's start

25 with the words first.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't write this.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Did you write the arrow? Do you

3 remember putting the arrow yourself, or the two arrows, or either of the

4 two?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I put down the arrows

6 indicating the execution site of my group, where I was lying. So the

7 vertical lines are here to represent where we were and where we were shot.

8 This was the area where I was lying.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you put those vertical lines on the sketch

10 yourself, on the diagram yourself?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember. I don't think I

12 did, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: On -- on the right-hand side of the first set of

14 vertical lines and near that arrow that points to them, there is a

15 horizontal mark pointing to the letters "M-e," and the first question, did

16 you write those letters "M-e"?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't remember if

18 it was me. I don't know.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And that mark pointing -- the horizontal mark

20 pointing to those two letters, do you remember putting that mark yourself

21 on the sketch or not?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only drew the lines

23 indicating how we were positioned during the execution. I can't remember

24 writing anything else down when it comes to letters.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm going to leave him, give him back to you, Mr.

1 Haynes.

2 MR. HAYNES: I'm going to leave that matter there. Thank you

3 very much, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

5 MR. HAYNES: There's just one more thing, Mr. Oric.

6 And with respect, Your Honour, and out of an abundance of

7 caution, we better go into private session.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we do so, let me ask him one final

9 question.

10 Again, looking at those two letters, do they appear to you to be

11 "M-e" or "M-o"?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it looks -- it

13 appears as "M-e" to me. There was a similar case in front of the Bratunac

14 school, so I may have made a mistake. Maybe it was me who wrote it down or

15 somebody else. I don't remember.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I asked you, in fact.

17 Yes, he's back in your hands, Mr. Haynes.

18 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Your Honour. I did ask that we briefly

19 go into private session to conclude.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 1131-1132 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Haynes.

9 Is there re-examination, Mr. Thayer?

10 MR. THAYER: There is not, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have questions? I don't have any either.

12 So, Mr. Oric, your testimony finishes here. You will now be

13 assisted by our staff, and arrangements will be made for your return home.

14 On behalf of Judge Kwon, Judge Prost, and Judge Stole and on my own behalf,

15 I would like to thank you for having come over to give testimony, and I

16 wish you a safe journey back home.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we have had

20 several documents made use of or put to the witness, none tendered so far,

21 so let's start with the Prosecution.

22 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. At this time the

23 Prosecution would tender document ID 0216-4884. That is a video still.

24 Secondly, a black and white map marked by the witness. If Your Honour

25 please, I can read the items or if we want to move seriatim and rule on

1 them as I state them.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have the whole list first and then we'll ask

3 the Defence whether they have any objections. Which is the first one now

4 after the video still?

5 MR. THAYER: It is a black and white map marked by the witness.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh.

7 MR. THAYER: Which was appended to his statement.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

9 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated].

10 MR. THAYER: That's correct, Your Honour. The third item is map

11 6 from the map book which was also marked by the witness.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you.

13 MR. THAYER: Fourth item is the hand-drawn sketch by the witness

14 of Bratunac town, 65 ter number 2094.

15 The fifth exhibit is the same hand-drawn sketch except it's the

16 version that was marked by the witness on the computer screen.

17 The next item is the hand-drawn sketch by the witness of the two

18 digging machines.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: One doesn't dig, but anyway.

20 MR. THAYER: I stand corrected, Your Honour. The excavator and

21 the loader. 65 ter number 2093.

22 The last item is map 5 from the map book, which was also marked

23 by the witness.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Are there any objections from any of

25 the Defence teams regarding the admission of any of these documents?

1 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.

2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] We would object to the admission

3 of 2094 because this is a sketch that was shown to the witness and depicts

4 the area in front of the school in Bratunac. It remains unclear because

5 there is the word MO or ME for the place where the witness was supposed to

6 be, but at the very moment it is not clear who has put the writings onto

7 the sketch, whether it was the witness or somebody else. This remains

8 unclear.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Anybody else wishes to join that

10 objection?

11 Yes, Mr. Meek?

12 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, the Defence of Mr. Beara

13 would also join in that objection.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I -- for a moment I saw also Mr.

15 Krgovic.

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would like to join

17 Mrs. Nikolic's words, but I would like to add to that one more reason, and

18 that is that somebody else put the writings in that document and indicated

19 the place where that person that was killed was actually killed, which the

20 witness never stated. The witness never pointed to the place where that

21 person was killed.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, you join?

23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We'll join too.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I see no one else. I see no one else.

25 All right.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, as a matter of principle, we will join

2 too.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. There is a principle involved. I

4 thank you, Mr. Lazarevic, for pointing that out.

5 So basically this is the time when our guidelines come into

6 play, the guidelines at that we gave you in the beginning of this trial.

7 So you know what the position is as regards this document, which is

8 temporarily entered into the records and the others.

9 Now, the Defence teams, or some of the Defence teams, also made

10 use of some documents. Is it your intention to tender any of them or just

11 leave it as having been made use of? Mr. Meek.

12 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, I'm a little unclear. Are we -- did

13 Your Honours ask about the first document the Prosecution would like to

14 have admitted into evidence or objections on any of the documents?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: On any of them.

16 MR. MEEK: We have --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: The one that has been objected to is not the first

18 one.

19 MR. MEEK: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour. I was confused. We

20 have an objection to 3, the map prior to the markings, and 7, the map 5

21 from the map book after the witness had marked on it for the reason that

22 those -- that map contains evidence on it, we believe evidence, and that

23 would be the red markings placed by the Prosecution which go to allegedly

24 stating the execution sites, various execution sites. This witness didn't

25 testify about those. It shouldn't be in evidence. We were going to object

1 when the maps first came out and were brought forward, but we're doing it

2 now.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness -- it was never put to the witness

4 that the red marks on the map represent anything. I mean, no one suggested

5 that this map was being made use of to indicate the execution sites. It

6 was to explain the route taken from Bratunac up to Konjevic Polje and then

7 turning north rather than turning south, and he was asked to follow the

8 various towns and villages, and I stopped him. I said we can see them, and

9 then we can enter them for the record. The question of markings -- for

10 that matter, there is also marked the boundaries of the enclave there and

11 various other letters which I don't know what they represent, but the

12 witness did not deal with that. So the fact that on that map there are red

13 circles doesn't mean anything for the time being at least.

14 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I appreciate that and I understand that.

15 However, if you admit those maps and it becomes evidence we assume you'll

16 rely on that evidence. The red marks denote what the Prosecution believes

17 to be execution sites.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Even so, I don't know where -- we are talking of a

19 map that was used with the witness for the sole purpose of indicating the

20 route taken. I know you say it's route. Indicating the route taken. That

21 was the only purpose of the use of this map, nothing else. I mean, if you

22 still want to object to it, of course you have every right to object to it.

23 I mean, the purpose of my intervention is not to stop you from objecting,

24 but maybe to explain that your objections is without foundation. Maybe,

25 we're not deciding that.

1 MR. MEEK: I appreciate that only if you rely on the direction

2 and not what the Prosecution believe to be these alleged killing sites.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. But let me follow you up, because you

4 mentioned -- let me go back to the transcript. So -- well, actually I

5 understand now, because you started your intervention by stating that you

6 were confused, and then we have an objection to 3. The map prior to the

7 markings, and 7, the map 5 from the map book after the witness had marked

8 it for the reasons that those map contains evidence that -- so where do we

9 stand, because you objected to two maps, it seems. Actually, you said you

10 had objections to three exhibits, but drop everything, Mr. Meek?

11 MR. MEEK: No, Your Honour. You made your ruling. I don't drop

12 anything. My point is --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: We haven't made a ruling.

14 MR. MEEK: I'm sorry.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: We told you specifically -- I was interrupting you

16 and trying to explain something to you, and not in any way trying to stop

17 you from making an objection and not in any way indicating that we were

18 deciding your objections. But we did confirm to you that these documents,

19 once tendered by the Prosecution and accepted, were only going to serve the

20 sole purpose for which they were intended with this witness, namely to

21 explain the route taken by the trucks or the buses, whatever they were,

22 buses from Bratunac to wherever they stopped. That's -- and the red spots

23 there and any other indication on the map with the exception of the road

24 and the names hasn't got any -- any relevance, at least in our mind.

25 MR. MEEK: That's fine, Your Honour. Thank you very much.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: What is fine? In other words, are you standing by

2 your objection or are you withdrawing it?

3 MR. MEEK: Now you've explained your explanation of it, we would

4 withdraw the objection. However, we don't believe it's proper that the

5 Prosecution would put such maps in front of a witness and on these maps

6 have red dots on the bottom of it which say "Denoting execution sites." If

7 that has not yet been proven and it assumes facts not in evidence at this

8 point, and that's my objection. But you've clarified that, and I trust you

9 as professional Judges will just use these maps for the direction, the

10 route that the witness went.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes, yes, yes.

12 Yes. Any -- if you want to maintain your objection, we will

13 have it in the record, Mr. Meek, and I will not argue with you any further.

14 Any further objections? No. Mr. Thayer, I saw you standing.

15 MR. THAYER: Yes just two quick point. Mr. Meek had mentioned

16 the video. I don't know whether that's --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. We are coming to the Defence Exhibits

18 now, if there are any.

19 MR. THAYER: I thought he had an objection to our video. I

20 apologise.

21 The second item, Your Honour, we have just based on the

22 examination of Mr. Haynes been able to obtain the original of the sketch

23 that he finished up with the witness showing. We have the actual original.

24 We have always been using photocopies, it's just been our practice, but we

25 actually do have the original. I can offer it up to the Court just to

1 assist the Court in its examination of the evidence. We had not intended

2 to use this. It wasn't on our exhibit list, but we do have the actual

3 original. It was created in 1995 during the interview. I just offer that

4 as assistance to the Court.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: It's -- it's at the end of the statement. I mean,

7 one could see it.

8 MR. THAYER: It is the sketch of the -- of the killing site, the

9 execution site.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

11 MR. THAYER: Yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: So -- no, but you did not put any questions to the

13 witness on that so leave it at this point in time. You had the option --

14 so, now, any of the Defence teams would like to tender any documents as

15 exhibits?

16 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.

17 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. The

18 Defence would like to tender for admission document number 3D7, page 1 of

19 the statement given between 10 and 12 August, 1995, given by this witness

20 and signed by him, as well as the 11th page of that same statement, as well

21 as the clean version of document 2094, Exhibit number 65 ter 2094, because

22 we would like to contest some of the evidence given by this witness.

23 JUDGE KWON: Is this the same document, same drawing?

24 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The same

25 drawing but without the markings that the witness made in the courtroom.

1 Without the red arrows that were put subsequently on the witness's direct

2 examination.

3 JUDGE KWON: Was it not already tendered by the Prosecution?

4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] If I understand the situation

5 well, I believe that the only thing that was tendered was the version with

6 the witness's markings. I may be wrong --

7 JUDGE KWON: My understanding is both are tendered.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer. Can you confirm that?

9 JUDGE KWON: Number 4 and number 5 as you have named it.

10 MR. THAYER: That's correct.

11 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] In that case, very well. I thank

12 you. In that case, just the statement pages 1 and 11 of document 3D7.

13 That's the only thing we would like to tender, and I apologise.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you. Any further -- yes, Mr.

15 Lazarevic.

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. We got six documents that we

17 would like to tender into evidence, and I will go in order that they were

18 used by Mr. Stojanovic during his cross-examination.

19 The first document was article in the newspaper Slobodna

20 Dalmacija containing interview with the witness. It is Defence number

21 4D/7, with English translation.

22 Second is part of video with number V000/4417. And the relevant

23 part of this video is already provided to Madam Registrar, and it has

24 number 4D4/14. I believe we were informed, actually, that a surrogate

25 sheet for this sheet will appear on e-court, but we provided the registry

1 with a copy of this video.

2 Third document that we would like to tender into evidence is

3 document of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina General Staff. It's interim

4 report dated July 13, 1995. It has Defence number 4D-13. We were informed

5 by the translators that we will receive today English translation of this

6 document. So far we checked a minute ago, but it still hasn't appeared.

7 Fourth document that we would like to tender into evidence is --

8 is opening address by army commander of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rasim

9 Delic, before the Bosnia-Herzegovina Assembly and it's titled "Fall of

10 Srebrenica," and dated 13th of July, 1996. It bears Defence number 4D-5,

11 and it has English translation.

12 Next document is a statement of Ramiz Becirevic. It's dated

13 August 11, 1995. Defence number 4D-2, with English translation.

14 And the sixth document that we would like to tender is interim

15 report by the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina General Staff, dated August 4,

16 1995. Defence number 4D-10. And we are still waiting for translation. We

17 are informed that it will be tendered today.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I notice Madam Fauveau.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Chairman. The document 3

20 about Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning Ramiz Becirevic, and document 525 -

21 -

22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. One moment. I can't follow you like

23 this. Document 3? Which documents 3 about Bosnia-Herzegovina concerning

24 Ramiz Becirevic?

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It's document 5D3 in the e-court

1 system.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. This is not the same one that

3 has been -- or has been tendered by Mr. Lazarevic, is it? Is it the

4 statement of Ramiz Becirevic of 11 August, 1995? It's a different one.

5 Okay.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. It's the

7 document by the army of the Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina of June 30,

8 1995.

9 Then document 5D5, which is a video clip together with a

10 transcript of that video.

11 And then document 5D7, which is the document from the Chief of

12 Staff of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina of 7 February, 1995.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau.

14 Any further documents that you wish to tender? None? Yes, Mr.

15 Lazarevic.

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I was just informed that English

17 translation of document 4D-13 has just arrived and it will be --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: You said you were going to receive it today.

19 Mr. Thayer. One moment.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Taking the suggestion of Judge Kwon, in

22 future -- now, we try to adopt this because we are a crowd in here, so we

23 try to do it this way: In preparation of this stage, which will happen at

24 the end of each testimony, please prepare on a piece of paper the documents

25 that you wish to tender, in other words, that they will be -- they will be

1 provided to the Prosecution. You can even provide them as you go along so

2 that the Prosecution will then be ready on their feet to say no objection

3 or object.

4 Are their any objections on the part of the Prosecution to any

5 of these documents?

6 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. The -- there is no

7 objection to any of the documents even though only portions were either

8 played or shown. We have no objection to them coming in in their entirety.

9 I would note, though, with respect -- I believe it was to the

10 last document to which Madam Fauveau referred, the February 7th document, I

11 believe it was the testimony of the witness that he had absolutely --

12 that's 5D7, Your Honour, he want familiar with it, had never seen it

13 before, and I would therefore object that there's been no foundation laid

14 for it or there's no relevance to the document. He was not able to

15 authenticate it in any fashion. But other than that, Your Honour, no

16 objections at all.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: But you know the jurisprudence of this Tribunal,

18 the fact a document may not be confirmed by a witness does not render it

19 inadmissible ab initio or a priori. So we have to say that. But if you

20 wish to register an objection, please do so by all means and it will enter

21 into the records and it will be considered in due course.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: The position is that the witness has not given you

24 any comfort, Madam Fauveau, in relation to this document. For the time,

25 rather than being definitively admitted, it's being marked for

1 identification along the lines indicated in our guidelines. And then of

2 course you can seek to have it confirmed by another witness.

3 Yes.

4 MR. THAYER: Briefly, Your Honour. Given the hour of the day,

5 and I understand from --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We have still got a lot of work to do.

7 MR. THAYER: I understood, Your Honour. I have a witness

8 concern in mind. I understand from Mr. Haynes that he estimates perhaps 20

9 minutes of oral argument, and given that it may -- may take some time, I

10 was wondering if the Court was in a position to permit us to let the

11 witness go for the day. It seems that it may take a fair amount of time on

12 the issue. I just wanted to raise that issue.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think you can -- you can do that,

15 and that will give us sufficient time to deal with this outstanding motion

16 as thoroughly as upon.

17 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. However, listen, I want to make sure

19 that either Victims and Witnesses Unit explain to him and apologise to him,

20 or else if they find it uncomfortable, please get the witness in here and

21 I'll do it myself.

22 MR. THAYER: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't like a witness staying here one whole

24 afternoon here and being sent home without explaining.

25 MR. THAYER: We share that view, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I want a confirmation that will be

2 done or has been done. Thank you.

3 So the rest of the documents are admitted, of course.

4 Now, we -- we come to --

5 MR. HAYNES: Sorry, I'm behind the pillar.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I apologise to you, but I can do nothing

7 about this.

8 MR. HAYNES: I can see you or Judge Kwon but not both from back

9 here. I did put two pages of a document to Mr. Oric, they're 7D3 and the

10 pages reference numbers are 38 and 75. So that's 7D-38 and 7D-75. That's

11 the English part of his statement of the 12th of August, 1995, and the

12 drawing of the site.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. Any objection from the Prosecution?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: None, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, sir. They are so admitted and marked

16 accordingly. Sorry, I apologise to the interpreters. I shouldn't bang.

17 JUDGE KWON: This is the same witness statement used by another

18 Defence -- but pages are different.

19 MR. HAYNES: The only page technically, Judge Kwon, that needs

20 to go in is the drawing, which is page 55. I'm not going to ask that the

21 front page of a witness statement that simply bears his signature goes in

22 on behalf of two or three defendants.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

24 MR. HAYNES: That obviously makes sense.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So it's the page where the diagram is,

1 3D7, not 7D3 -- all right. I stand corrected. It's not 7D3 or it's 3D --

2 all right. Okay. Leave it then. You would make the adjustment.

3 So as I suggested yesterday, considering the urgency of

4 the matter because of the proximity of the arrival of Witness Ruez, the

5 oral submissions in the wake of the Defence motion that I referred to

6 yesterday which was filed yesterday will be heard today.

7 Now, on the part of the Defence, do you have one combined

8 submission?

9 MR. HAYNES: [Microphone not activated].

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I take it and how long do you wish to -

11 -

12 MR. HAYNES: I will abide by any restriction you wish to place

13 on me. I can do it in five, 10, or 15 minutes. I'm not going to

14 unnecessarily repeat that which you have already.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you should, and this is why I'm

16 asking you how much time you require. Or do you wish to hear what the

17 Prosecution position is?

18 MR. HAYNES: Well, I had anticipated that would be the way to do

19 it because everything we have to say is in writing.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the way I had anticipated too but then I

21 heard Mr. McCloskey say that you wished to address us for 20 minutes or so,

22 so I thought there was an agreement between you already and how you were to

23 proceed.

24 All right. So let's hear Mr. McCloskey first.

25 We should have a break now? I see. All right. Oh, yes, yes,

1 yes. I've been working since 9.00 this morning nonstop, so 20 minutes here

2 and 30 minutes there. Judge Kwon has been working with me since 9.00 this

3 morning.

4 So let's have a break of 30 minutes, please.

5 --- Recess taken at 5.41 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's do it this way: Mr. McCloskey will

8 respond orally to the Defence motion. Of course, the Defence will then

9 have an opportunity to make submissions arising out of the response, but

10 also in pursuant to what you requested in the motion itself.

11 Yes, Mr. McCloskey, it's all yours. How long do you anticipate?

12 Five minutes? Two? One?

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Two to three hours, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fine.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think your first estimate is hopefully the

16 best.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Take your time. I don't think it requires

18 much more than that from either side, before you course if you need more

19 than that we will give you. Yes, go ahead.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: That was my first point. One of the reasons

21 that I felt comfortable in responding to a 20-page motion on one day's

22 notice orally was because I'm not really sure we have a big issue here.

23 The Prosecution certainly objects to any prior ruling regarding Mr. Ruez's

24 testimony, because we really haven't reached a point where any issues have

25 ripened themselves to -- to cause the necessary ruling.

1 It appears to me that the -- the Defence -- the foundation of

2 the Defence's concerns are based on the prior testimony of Mr. Ruez in the

3 Krstic case and in the Blagojevic case. The Prosecution, as you know or

4 will so soon, are not offering the transcripts or the evidence of Mr. Ruez

5 in the Krstic case nor the Blagojevic case, and we're not offering in

6 detailed report analysing 1.800 witnesses or witness statements or, as we

7 see from the Milosevic case, Judge Kwon mentioned -- I think he was quoting

8 Mr. Nice: "An overall analysis and overview of the effect of the

9 evidence." I hope you got that in my opening statement and I hope you get

10 that in my closing statement. You will hear some analysis of the evidence

11 in that context, I hope, from Mr. Butler, but that is not point of Mr.

12 Ruez's testimony. And let me just tell you a few things that we won't be

13 doing.

14 I'm not going to ask Mr. Ruez to speculate. I'm not going to be

15 asking him to go into long narratives, and if he perhaps slips into a

16 narrative I will stop him, and I'm sure the Court will. Nor will I ask him

17 to make inappropriate conclusions that will not be helpful for the Court.

18 And I will make every effort to follow the law as it's been set down in

19 this Chamber.

20 Now, having said that, I want to just briefly go to the Krstic

21 and Blagojevic cases. I know they're not on trial here, but Mr. Ruez, with

22 Judge Rodrigues and his experience here and background from Portugal led a

23 very, very different case than other cases and preferred that the lawyers

24 be kept to a minimum and that the witness be allowed to expand, and in that

25 Chamber they encouraged Mr. Ruez to speak and they wanted his views and

1 they wanted his advice, and so he was encouraged to go on and on, and

2 that's not necessary. We know the Trial Chamber we're in front of. As you

3 know, Mr. Nicholls knows you very well, and we have seen in the last three

4 witnesses what to expect. We realise we're not in the Krstic Chamber any

5 more.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: If he does know me very well, I'm surprised that

7 he chose to appear before me.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, if you want me to tell you what he said I

9 will, but maybe we'll leave that out.

10 And in the Blagojevic Chamber, it was similar. Judge Liu and

11 the panel allowed Mr. Ruez to provide explanations, and they sought him

12 out, and Mr. Ruez is a talkative Frenchman, and very involved in this case,

13 and in that environment he will speak his mind and he will talk. That's --

14 that's not my particular style. And while I was the lead counsel in the

15 Blagojevic case, I did not lead Mr. Ruez, but we led it in the context of

16 that Trial Chamber. We're getting to know this Trial Chamber. It is not

17 our intention to get into the problems that I understand counsel are

18 concerned about.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: May I stop you here and maybe you can address this

20 issue. It has been put to you that the number of hours you are

21 anticipating Mr. Ruez will be testifying in direct in this trial basically

22 even exceed the amount of hours that he took when he testified in either

23 Blagojevic or in Krstic, and the question, therefore, arises if you're

24 going to ask him to speculate, if you're not going to give him the rope and

25 let him say what he wants to say and you're not going to put any

1 inappropriate -- ask him or let him reach any inappropriate conclusions and

2 you're following the law, how come he's going to -- or you anticipate 15

3 hours and from what we have seen so far, 15 hours become easily 20 here if

4 not more.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think that estimate included the cross-

6 examination.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: That's not what the Defence submitted.

8 The Defence submitted that the estimate of 15 hours was exclusive of cross-

9 examination.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hope that it won't take as long as it might,

11 but given the fact that this is such a big case and that there are so many

12 accused and that we just were abundantly, you know, conservative on that

13 point. Mr. Ruez has identified some 260 photographs that -- of some 24

14 crime scenes and certain maps, and it's our intention that he go over each

15 of the crime scenes and talk about them and what he saw and what he

16 observed and -- and this may be the key bone of contention, Mr. Ruez will

17 also be asked to provide information on the context of why he goes, for

18 example, to the Kravica warehouse. And so he will be providing some

19 hearsay information in order to put the places he's talking about in

20 context.

21 For example, he will -- one of his first documents is a

22 photograph of Potocari, and he will identify the various factories and

23 buildings that are relevant to your review of Potocari where he learned,

24 from the investigation, Muslims were staying. He's not going to make any

25 other conclusions, I hope, about that, but you'll need to hear that the

1 reasons these are important is these were the places he heard about that

2 people were staying.

3 The same thing with the white house, this famous white house

4 you've already seen a photograph of with the people standing on the

5 balcony. He will show you where that white house is. That will help you

6 sort it out both when the Dutch start speaking of it and when you go there.

7 He may say -- he will say he received information from the Muslims or from

8 the witness, Mr. Kingori, that people were at the white house. Then we'll

9 show a picture of the men standing at the white house.

10 So there will inevitably, as there is with any homicide

11 investigator who goes to a crime scene, you know, talk about what he

12 learned in his investigation to put it in overall context, and that is the

13 way I intend to lead Mr. Ruez. And I don't intend to have him go into a

14 summary of the case.

15 He's -- in the last two cases, he was our first witness, and so

16 we did always ask him to provide a bit of the summary, the two fundamental

17 issues, the column goes one way, the public goes the other, and just to

18 give a little background. Well, this time, as you've seen, we have chosen

19 to start with the victims who have done that. And while Mr. Ruez might

20 have a map that just points in the two directions, that's purely as an

21 exhibit to help you remember that, and I don't -- I'm not going to have him

22 go into a long discussion of a column and where these people went and where

23 that people went. I'm going to limit it to these -- these sites and why

24 things are relevant.

25 This will include, "How did you find out about a particular

1 crime scene?" And he'll be able to say, "I received information, A, B and

2 C. We went and checked it out. We found this, and here are the pictures

3 of what we found." And I think the information that he will give that is

4 hearsay will help you understand the actual evidence better.

5 If you remember from their motion, I think they're concerned

6 with his prior testimony. They have never suggested that his photos or his

7 exhibits of the prior testimony or the current ones aren't relevant and

8 appropriate. That's his evidence. They're not -- what we would like you

9 to review is the context by which it comes in and under the rules of this

10 Tribunal, that hearsay can be viewed as evidence. You can give it whatever

11 weight you'd like. In some systems we'd instruct the jury that you may

12 take this evidence not for the truth of the matter asserted but for the

13 reasons he acted or state of mind or something else. As you know, we don't

14 need to do that here. We're not trying to protect a jury. It's really up

15 to you to give it whatever weight you want to put to it.

16 If you look at the judgement in Blagojevic or Krstic you won't

17 see Mr. Ruez citing evidence. You'll see one time that Mr. Ruez -- he knew

18 of Potocari because he'd been there. He looked at a video of General

19 Krstic giving an interview in front of certain buildings, and he was able

20 to say, "I've been there. I've studied this video. General Krstic was

21 standing in X." It's one of the few things where Ruez has cited as

22 evidence. This is normal. This is I don't think will be objectionable to

23 anyone. The same thing with Lieutenant Colonel Popovic.

24 So this is the kind of thing I expect. There will be bumps in

25 the road. There will be periods where I -- I may go off the chart. He may

1 go off the chart. I know you'll catch us or we'll catch ourselves but I

2 don't think there's any need for any ruling. I don't think we have -- we

3 deserve to be ruling -- any ruling at this point. A little guidance might

4 help, though I have a pretty good feel for -- for where you're coming from

5 and we can read Judge Kwon's views on the subject. I largely share them.

6 But -- so just to finish, I don't really think we have a problem, and any

7 guidance you might want to give us is always appreciate. And I think you

8 might find I'm in the asking Mr. Ruez questions you may be interested in,

9 and so I -- you know, if you are, please ask away. There's a -- we have a

10 -- what we call a trial video that takes some two to three hours and it's a

11 compilation of actual video shot at the time and the dates, and it was --

12 most of this material was accumulated during Mr. Ruez's time frame. So

13 he's here merely to say this is the stuff I picked up. We're going to play

14 that video. The only time I really am asking him to pause it is every once

15 in awhile, we'll see an accused. You'll probably recognise the accused,

16 but they're a little younger. It's a wartime. So we'll have him identify

17 the accused, and we'll pretty much leave it at that unless comes up that I

18 think you really need some help on.

19 The Hotel Fontana footage which takes an hour or two we're not

20 going to play for Mr. Ruez. The Dutch people that were there will see

21 that. So I don't think it will be a problem, and Mr. Ruez is not meant to

22 be here as a linkage person to tie in the various units and the people we

23 see on the film, and so we're not going to get into that with him.

24 So again, I don't think there's a problem. I think we'll get

25 through it like the pros we are, and I think you'll be happy with the

1 evidence.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Haynes obviously doesn't agree with you.

3 MR. HAYNES: It's half past 6.00 on the immediate night before

4 Mr. Ruez is about to begin his testimony next Wednesday, and it's probably

5 over 10 years since he began this investigation. It's made plain in the

6 motion, and I want to underline the point now, he has never made a witness

7 statement in this case, and it is our collective experience, both within

8 the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and nationally from wherever we come

9 from, that is a wholly unique event. He is the chief investigator, and we

10 have to wait to be told by Mr. McCloskey until half an hour before he goes

11 into the witness box what he is going to say in evidence. And from what

12 I've just heard from Mr. McCloskey telling us that he's going to give a

13 summary of this and hearsay as to that, we are right to rely on the 430-odd

14 pages of transcript that we've had to read to glean what his evidence is

15 going to be before this Tribunal next Wednesday, because it sounds very

16 much from what Mr. McCloskey says that with a couple of tweaks here and

17 there, it's going to be precisely the same as it has been before.

18 You've not been addressed on one matter of law, and I take it as

19 read, really, that the -- actually, five Trial Chamber authorities and one

20 appellate decision are accepted by the Prosecution to be a correct

21 statement of the law of evidence as the admissibility of evidence from

22 Prosecution investigators. It is quite simply, beyond factual matters,

23 inadmissible.

24 Now, we have thought long and hard about this. It has been our

25 collective view for some time now that what happened in Krstic and

1 Blagojevic could not and should not happen again. And we could have left

2 this till the morning that he arrived to give evidence, as indeed Judge

3 Kwon will know happened on three or four occasions in the Milosevic case.

4 We could have spent day after day, week after week, jumping up and down

5 saying, "That's not a proper question. That's not a proper question," and

6 turned his evidence into a broken, disjointed, unpalatable event, but we

7 decided to go by this route, to ask for a ruling at this juncture, and we

8 believe that is proper. It is courteous to the Prosecution and the Trial

9 Chamber and the witness, and it is wholly appropriate. It's appropriate

10 really, for three reasons.

11 Firstly, because this is a very important decision.

12 Secondly, because it is likely that it is not the last time that

13 you will have to consider this in this case, and we feel it is important

14 that a benchmark is set down now.

15 And thirdly, because of Mr. Ruez himself. I don't know whether

16 uniquely I have studied his evidence in the sort of depth I have. You'll

17 see the summary I have prepared for you at Annex A to the motion and the

18 section that I quoted of his evidence in Blagojevic which really gives the

19 flavour of it. It's story-telling. That's what he does. But the phrase

20 was used during the opening of this case, I think by Mr. Ostojic and Mr.

21 McCloskey, "empty vessel." Mr. Ruez is quite the other end of the scale

22 from an empty vessel. He is a very full vessel. He's got a lot of

23 information and a lot of opinions, and no one can blame him. He's very

24 anxious to give them.

25 He will forgive me. I've actually met him. Mr. McCloskey

1 introduced me to him, but he'll forgive me if I describe him as a warm

2 bottle of champagne. You give him the slightest agitation and the cork

3 flies out and the contents are everywhere.

4 You will have seen in the motion that I drafted for you that in

5 response to one simple question in the Blagojevic case, namely "How far is

6 Bratunac from Potocari," he gave an answer that went on for 25 minutes, and

7 it included his views as to this, that, and the other, his assessment of

8 people he'd spoken to who this Trial Chamber are never going to hear, and

9 the like.

10 It's very kind of Mr. McCloskey to offer to let us all suck it

11 and see, but no thank you. We would like you to rule on the admissibility

12 of Mr. Ruez's evidence in this trial and to do it now.

13 There are a few more points I'd like to make. I'm going to

14 address the professional Judges point, even though I think it's been

15 raised, but I will address it. You are, of course, professional Judges,

16 which means that you have the ability to assess and deal with evidence

17 which you would normally protect a jury or a lay assessor from. You're a

18 bit like parents looking after children, but when you're on your own, you

19 can look after yourself.

20 You will forgive me giving you another little analogy, but it's

21 a bit like dealing with evidence, having fish for dinner. As adults, you

22 can choose whether you fillet it or whether you eat the bones, and that is

23 what you are capable of doing. You're capable of dealing with the bones of

24 the evidence or filleting it. But what the Prosecution want you to do in

25 this case, not as a substitution but as a supplement, is to have a side

1 order of fish fingers. It's food so heavily processed that it's lost all

2 its original flavour, but it comes nicely wrapped with instructions on the

3 packet how to cook it and with some serving suggestions. That's what, in

4 legal terms, we'd call of no probative value and wholly unnecessary.

5 That's the language of the Trial Chamber.

6 I want to address you also about questions of public perception

7 and the rules of natural justice. These are very serious charges and this

8 Tribunal is subject to worldwide scrutiny. While the public do not

9 necessarily have to have legal knowledge, lawyers and Judges have always

10 have to have regard to public perception of their process. I make this

11 submission with the greatest of trepidation, but I mean it with all

12 respect.

13 Mr. Ruez was an employee of the United Nations, as is Mr.

14 McCloskey, and as are you. We all accept and understand the concept of the

15 independence and objectivity of counsel and judiciary. The public, I fear,

16 may not see it that way, and justice has, at the end of the day, to be seen

17 to be done. A conviction based wholly or just in part on evidence of this

18 sort would shock, I fear, the public.

19 Can I move on, please, to discuss something else that was raised

20 by Mr. McCloskey, namely the question of prior practice.

21 Repeated bad practice doesn't make good practice, and this trial

22 is not a rerun of Krstic or Blagojevic. In our submission, counsel and the

23 Trial Chamber got it wrong in Blagojevic.

24 I'm bound to say I have some sympathy for those who defended

25 Krstic, because as I said to you earlier, Mr. Ruez has not, in 11 years,

1 ever made a witness statement. Quite how they were supposed to prepare for

2 his evidence when he walks through the courtroom, the door of the courtroom

3 with his maps and videos, having had no notice whatsoever of what he was

4 about to say, I simply do not know. It's perhaps unsurprising that they

5 raised no objection, but that such a thing could happen in such a serious

6 trial in the 21st century I regard as incredible.

7 Lastly -- last but one, effective trial management. It's early

8 in the trial, but this is a seminal moment, not just in terms of the

9 evidential ruling but in terms of the size and shape of the thing we're

10 trying to deal with. We've had two weeks, and we've had two witnesses, and

11 things are slipping a little bit.

12 It's very difficult to make this submission without it sounding

13 like a threat. That may in part be due to the inadequacy of my advocacy,

14 but if it's going to sound like a threat, I might as well go for it. Open

15 that door to Mr. Ruez and the sort of testimony that we know he's going to

16 give, and you are opening Pandora's box. You will be opening the door to

17 months of summary evidence, conclusive evidence, argumentative evidence,

18 theory, rumour, and speculation.

19 If I may tell you a little story. A few days ago, somebody

20 handed me a book they thought I should read. It was called "Srebrenica,

21 The Unspoken Truth," and it was remarkable but for the bibliography at the

22 back of the text was longer than the text itself. It was absolutely

23 crammed full with the names and details of people who had written articles

24 about Srebrenica. Each of them, probably all of them, have come to

25 different conclusions to Mr. Ruez, and each of them has come across what

1 passes for investigations, and each of them are doubtless as anxious as Mr.

2 Ruez to come and tell you about it.

3 Close the door to Mr. Ruez and his presentation, because that is

4 what it was called in Krstic and Blagojevic, not evidence, a presentation,

5 and you will have this case under control. And moreover, you will know

6 that you have brought it under control by applying the laws of evidence,

7 and what better way is there to get a case under control than that? Far

8 better to do it that way than to have to resort to artificial means of

9 trial management, limiting the time available to parties to present their

10 cases, restricting the time for cross and the like. One principle you

11 won't find me arguing against is that a speedier trial is a fairer trial.

12 My last point is this: The jurisprudence of this Tribunal is

13 settled and consistent. It has been so for three or four years, and the

14 Prosecution have known that. They could at any time since the Milosevic

15 decisions have caused their chief investigator to make a witness statement

16 in this case. We could have read it. We could have said we don't mind him

17 saying this, that, and the other, but we don't want all his conclusions.

18 That would have been placed before you in a proper --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Please speak into the microphone. Could

20 counsel please speak into the microphone and repeat the last few sentences.

21 MR. HAYNES: We still are more than prepared to admit every

22 plan, every map, refer I video, every photograph. What it is. What it

23 shows. That's how it's done in homicide investigations. That's how it was

24 done in Milosevic when the Trial Chamber came to the rulings that it did.

25 The rulings of this Tribunal are not only consistent and

1 monotonous, they are at a piece with the state of law in every jurisdiction

2 that we know about and the contrary view is simply untenable.

3 I have no question that as an investigator, Mr. Ruez's integrity

4 and professionalism are beyond compare and I, for one, would find it

5 fascinating to listen to him and his theories, but not here, not in a

6 criminal trial.

7 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Haynes, you would not deny that there are

8 some parts which are admissible, wouldn't you?

9 MR. HAYNES: Yes. I mean, he can -- he can quite properly say,

10 "I took this photograph. It's a photograph of the Kravica warehouse."

11 JUDGE KWON: Why do we close the door then?

12 MR. HAYNES: Because causing him to come here and say, "I took a

13 photograph," is a waste of his time. We can happily deal with that by

14 written agreed facts. And --

15 JUDGE KWON: You haven't covered specifically what you would

16 agree. In your motion, you said you can agree that nothing is offered for

17 the agreed facts.

18 MR. HAYNES: We will agree that every exhibit is what it is,

19 shows what it shows.

20 JUDGE KWON: If you could address this concrete example offered

21 by the -- by Mr. McCloskey. He offered Mr. Ruez can give evidence as to

22 the context, why he went to Kravica warehouse. What do you think about

23 that?

24 MR. HAYNES: I submit that is inadmissible evidence.

25 JUDGE KWON: Why?

1 MR. HAYNES: Because it involves his summary of other evidence

2 that leaves -- that leaves him upon that inquiry and his conclusion as to

3 why he went there.

4 Can I give you an example?

5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.

6 MR. HAYNES: Let's suppose that he is an extraordinarily

7 resourceful investigator and he went there on a hunch. Is that admissible

8 evidence? Does that have any probative value? It has no more probative

9 value if he says to you, as he will do, "I was told by several survivors

10 that they were arrested near a road by a pylon where there was a railway

11 track nearby, and I embarked upon an investigation to try and find out

12 where -- what they were talking about." You are straight away there into

13 the sort of material that the Trial Chamber in Milosevic, the Appeals

14 Chamber in Milosevic, and the Trial Chamber in Kordic said is inadmissible

15 and non-probative material from an investigator. Placing it into context

16 is just another way of saying, Let him give an explanation. Let him tell

17 his story. And so I do submit that how he came to investigate a particular

18 site is of itself offensive. It's what you should not be hearing.

19 JUDGE KWON: He's not telling how the killing had happened, but

20 he just tried to give evidence as to the location.

21 MR. HAYNES: But he is. The one follows the other.

22 JUDGE KWON: Just like the map. The map was used to identify

23 the roads in the case of the previous witness, but there was the red point

24 marking --

25 MR. HAYNES: With respect, Judge Kwon, the previous witness was

1 a witness of fact. He was in Srebrenica. This is how you prove cases like

2 this. This is how you adduce evidence. You get your witness of fact and

3 you take him to the map. You take him to the video. You say, as we've

4 seen, "Is that the gymnasium where you were held? Is that the road you

5 went down?" That's the way you do it.

6 Hearing Mr. Ruez say, "I have been told by witnesses that this

7 is the road they went down," is precisely the sort of material that is

8 probative of nothing, repetitive of what you've heard everywhere else and

9 which is inadmissible.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but what happens in domestic jurisdictions,

11 any murder case, for example, homicide case? Just take a very simple case

12 of the CID inspector or the main inspector, investigator in a murder that

13 has received information by a person whose name he cannot reveal.

14 MR. HAYNES: Certainly in my jurisdiction you wouldn't have --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: He wouldn't be able to find, locate the weapon

16 used in a murder in such-and-such a place. According to you, the

17 investigator, if summoned to give evidence cannot even say that.

18 MR. HAYNES: He can say he recovered a gun.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And if he is asked -- but if he is asked the we,

20 "How come that you went specifically to that location," you say that

21 question is inadmissible and his would-be answer is also inadmissible?

22 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

23 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Haynes, to take that position is to take the

24 position that the law of hearsay, in its strictest, form would apply. And

25 in fact, using your own example, perhaps you can respond to this, the

1 statement by the investigator as to why he went to a particular road would

2 be admissible in countries that apply a strict rule of hearsay on the basis

3 that he's not adducing it for the purpose of the statement but simply to

4 give a context of why he went to a particular point. So it would be

5 admissible in an a contextual sense. You're saying in a Tribunal where

6 hearsay is in fact admissible, that we would apply an even instructor rule

7 than in national jurisdictions where hearsay is applied quite rigidly.

8 MR. HAYNES: The difficulty is with that that you can take these

9 simple examples, but this is -- this is really a million miles away from

10 what you get from Mr. Ruez. Mr. Ruez tells a story. You've read the

11 passage in the motion. It is impossible to dissect the sources of

12 information that go into that sort of testimony.

13 You know, for my part, no, I don't suppose I have a particular

14 difficulty if he's going to say, "I went to the Kravica warehouse because

15 most of the information I received indicated it was an execution site."

16 But the difficulty I do have is when he begins to say, as he does very,

17 very often, "We found a site which we believed to be an execution site.

18 We've got no witnesses who say they were executed there, but we looked at

19 this and this made it look like it was an execution site, and then we heard

20 a rumour from some people in Germany that people were killed there, and

21 when we looked back at it --"

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to object to this point. This

23 is complete nonsense. It has no basis of fact. He's making it up, as far

24 as I can see, and he's misleading the Court. I can go into that very event

25 if you like but this is nonsense.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to go into that also because

2 we are not aware of that. But I think you've made your point.

3 Any further -- further submissions?

4 MR. HAYNES: No. Is there anything else I can help you with?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: One thing I want to make sure of. It seems that

6 you both agree with the jurisprudence that we have in this Tribunal. You

7 do not -- you do not contest --

8 MR. HAYNES: I'm very, very sorry. There is one more decision I

9 discovered which is again in the Milosevic case. It's a decision on the

10 admissibility of Morten Torkildsen's evidence dated the 22nd of March, and

11 it's the fourth consistent decision as to the admissibility on the basis of

12 ...

13 JUDGE AGIUS: You both stand by that decision? Mr. McCloskey?

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I do, Mr. President. And if I could have

15 one minute to respond.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Please go ahead.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: This appears to me the first time we've seen

18 this kind of language and the attack personally on Mr. Ruez and on the

19 Honourable Trial Chambers from the two previous cases. It's inappropriate

20 and I don't think it helps the Court.

21 And I think the issues we've talked about, that's not the law in

22 the Old Bailey which you can show a picture, and the presumptions of Mr.

23 Ruez and his presence in French courts and the courts of Europe and the

24 courts of China, these are honourable systems and I -- they're being

25 completely overlooked, not to mention most importantly our system, the ICTY

1 system, which is a combination of both, and I think you understand that,

2 and we will do our best to follow the rules of this court.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I thank you. I don't think we have --

4 go ahead Judge Prost.

5 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Haynes, I just had one point for clarification

6 based on something you said. Are you advancing the position that we should

7 adopt this what I would call a pre-emptive ruling approach in the case, the

8 specific case of Mr. Ruez, or are you suggesting that this is something

9 that we should be looking at that may be applicable in relation to other

10 witnesses produced by the Prosecution or by the Defence?

11 MR. HAYNES: I'm inviting you to make a pre-emptive ruling in

12 the case of Mr. Ruez. I think it's plain from, I think, the section in the

13 motion that's headed "Procedural matters" that in my view, in my

14 submission, if you do agree that there are limits to what he can properly

15 be examined-in-chief about, that then some time ought to be taken to

16 explain to him what the ruling is so that -- so that he knows. But it is -

17 - it is Mr. Ruez, and I generally didn't mean to be offensive to him.

18 JUDGE PROST: Thank you.

19 MR. HAYNES: If by giving the champagne analogy, I didn't mean

20 to.

21 JUDGE PROST: Thank you. You've answered my question.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can give it at that. Yes, Mr.

23 McCloskey.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: One more minute there is a point I missed and --

25 my handwriting is not so good.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: One thing very unique to all of us in this place

3 is the scope of these crimes, the 24 incredible crime scenes with thousands

4 and thousands of victims. If we were to stand by a rule as strict as this,

5 would we have to bring back every woman to back up which warehouse she went

6 to and the white house, and each of the areas. Without Mr. Ruez's ability

7 to say why he did something or where he went, we would be forced to call

8 all these people. We would be here until 2020 and that's not what this

9 institution is about, nor what any other court is about. But to think

10 about that when you're thinking of the number of crime scenes, 92 bis,

11 these things are unique to this institution. We need to be able to have

12 hearsay for this very purpose, not to speculate, not to go in areas that

13 don't help you but these are big cases and they need some flexibility.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think we've heard enough. We'll hand

15 down our decision in due course, obviously before Mr. Ruez arrives here.

16 Thank you. Have a nice evening. Yes, we will be sitting again on

17 Wednesday.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day

20 of September, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

21

22

23

24

25