1 Tuesday, 20 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, everybody. Madam Registrar, good
6 morning to you. Could you kindly call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here.
10 Defence teams are all here except for Mr. Ostojic. The Prosecution, it's
11 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Thayer.
12 All right. Is there anything wrong with Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Meek?
13 MR. MEEK: No, sir, Your Honour. He's working at the office this
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we, over the weekend, and I'll come
16 back to you because we discovered a couple of things that need to be
17 addressed, due to obviously the rhythm at which we are working, sometimes
18 this happens.
19 Yes, I understand there are some preliminaries.
20 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, good morning, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour. We just had a few exhibits. We
24 didn't -- as you know, we all ran out of time with Dr. Haglund, but I have
25 some exhibits just to offer into evidence at this time.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Those are -- they're basically annexes of detailed
3 information on his various reports that didn't make it on the 92 bis
4 motion but were on the 94 bis motion, and they are P00612, 613, 614, 615,
5 617, 618, 619, 620, 623, 624, and 625. And that's -- should do it.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objections from any of the Defence teams?
7 Mr. Meek.
8 MR. MEEK: Well, Your Honour, I, frankly, don't have that file
9 with me today; but if you give me until the first break to talk to
10 Mr. McCloskey, I'll see if I have any objections.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All right. So we'll decide on that
12 later on.
13 Any further preliminaries? Or not -- this was not a preliminary,
14 it was a -- yes, a conclusion of the Haglund testimony.
15 Yes, Ms. Condon.
16 MS. CONDON: Good morning, Your Honour. I have just a very brief
17 oral submission to make to the Chamber.
18 Your Honour, it concerns an item that appeared on the ICTY's
19 intranet last week. I'm not sure if any of the members of the Trial
20 Chamber read the item in question, but I'll indicate that it was --
21 appeared on the 14th of March, and it was headed, "ICTY spokesman
22 denounces shameful denial of the Srebrenica genocide."
23 As part of that item and at a press briefing given by an ICTY
24 spokesman, Refik Hodzic, there was a comment made in this regard. He said
1 "The ICTY wishes to condemn this as well as other recent attempts
2 to deny the genocide committed in Srebrenica where more than 7.000 men and
3 boys were killed. I strongly recommend that anyone wishing to debate
4 about the events of Srebrenica would start by reading the judgements of
5 this Court which establish facts after careful weighing of evidence
6 produced by years of investigations, thousands of exhibits, testimonies of
7 both survivors and perpetrators, all fully tested and confirmed by the
8 International Court of Justice."
9 Now, Your Honour, that may appear an innocuous comment at first
10 glance because it's certainly one that has been made on a number of
11 occasions in countless articles, books, media reports. The assertion has
12 been made that genocide was committed in Srebrenica. There's no argument
13 there. However, in -- on behalf of Mr. Popovic, the submission is that
14 there is a significant -- there's two dangers in that comment in
16 Now, firstly, that is a comment that is coming from a spokesperson
17 of the very institution where Mr. Popovic faces trial. That's the first
18 point. And, secondly, accepting that you are professional judges and that
19 your role is certainly not one where we can expect you would be swayed or
20 influenced in any manner by such comments, I'm not making that submission,
21 Your Honour. It's a slightly different submission. Because it doesn't
22 impact upon the capacity of you as professional judges to ensure that
23 Mr. Popovic receives a fair trial, it's at another level which is
24 perception as to whether or not Mr. Popovic receives a fair trial.
25 And in our submission that's equally as important as to whether or
1 not he receives a fair trial, and that one may expect that if you were to
2 suggest to somebody that a spokesperson from the very court where the
3 person -- an accused is on trial has made comments which impact upon the
4 manner in which an accused person has chosen to conduct their defence,
5 then that may well undermine the perception of a fair trial.
6 There is, in our submission, no doubt that when an accused person
7 conducts their defence in the manner in which they see fit, they should
8 not be exposed to comments such as this that -- that's condemned. Because
9 Your Honours will know what the issues are between the Defence and the
10 Prosecution in this trial, and certainly I don't need to go into that.
11 But it has amounted to a denial, certainly, of the statement made by the
12 ICTY spokesperson.
13 And, as I said from the outset, Mr. President, Mr. Popovic feels
14 aggrieved. I'm sure the Trial Chamber would appreciate that he is
15 entitled to feel aggrieved by such statements being made by the
16 spokesperson of this institution. And in that regard, I do draw your
17 attention to the provisions of Rule 77, which deals with circumstances
18 under which persons can be held to have knowingly and wilfully interfered
19 with the administration of justice.
20 Now, I simply draw the Court's attention to those comments and
21 draw the Court's attention to the provisions of Rule 77, and I should also
22 indicate to the Trial Chamber, we have, the -- the accused that are facing
23 genocide in this trial have written a joint letter to the president of
24 this Tribunal, and I say that because I don't want there to be any
25 perception that there's any underhandedness by that -- by making that
2 But that was a slightly different redress that we sought
3 there with this Tribunal's president. What we seek here is a
4 consideration by this Trial Chamber as to whether or not he considers that
5 there has been some inappropriate and improper interference with the
6 perception of whether or not Mr. Popovic receives a fair trial in this
8 They are the submissions, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Condon. Do you wish to comment,
10 Mr. McCloskey?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You are free not to if you don't wish to.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: We just put up what she's referring to, and I
14 believe it's something that was posted by the registry, Christian
15 Chartier, and a person named Refik Hodzic. I'm sorry to say I don't know
16 who that is, but it must be a registry person. We'll take a look at -- at
17 the substance of it. The -- as far as I can tell, it's -- it's making
18 reference to the previous genocide convictions, and the ICJ, which are
19 known facts. I don't see anything particular to any of the accused here,
20 which I think is important.
21 But, having said that, we will take a look at it and see what we
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey. I think I will consult
24 with my colleagues in due course, and we'll come back to you on -- on
1 Yes, Mr. Meek.
2 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, for the record, the
3 Defence for Mr. Ljubisa Beara also joins on the submission by the Popovic
4 team. We believe it is completely inappropriate.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I take it -- I don't think you all
6 need to stand up one after the other. The way I read Ms. Condon's words
7 was to the effect that this is something which -- on which you are four
9 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just wanted to say,
11 because the charge of genocide does not concern my client, but due process
12 does concern him. So in spite of the fact that this particular problem
13 does not apply to my client, I fully join Ms. Condon on this point.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. As I said, we'll come back to you. I
15 trust, however, you do remember our previous decision on adjudicated
16 facts, that was handed down after that in the case of the Rwanda Tribunal.
17 It had been decided that there won't be any further discussions on whether
18 genocide had taken place in Rwanda or not. In our case, the fact that
19 genocide had or had not been committed in Srebrenica was not one of the
20 adjudicated facts that we took.
21 But in any case, we'll come back, because it's obviously a serious
22 submission that you've made, Ms. Condon, supported by the rest, and
23 we'll -- we will need to discuss it. But I don't think it should take
24 more of our court time today. We'll certainly come back to you on it.
25 All right.
1 The other thing is this: That over the weekend, Friday and also
2 yesterday, we were going through the pending matters related to the
3 testimony of PW-101, and you will recall there is also a certification
4 motion related to that witness.
5 What happened was this: That -- I'm not going to address the
6 documents that are subject to the certification motion, I'm going to
7 address only three documents that were not objected to by Mr. Nicholls.
8 Three documents that the Defence of Mr. Nikolic tried to -- or asked to be
9 admitted, tendered into evidence, which Mr. Nicholls did not object to but
10 which, due to an oversight, we failed to decide upon.
11 I'm referring to documents number P295, Mr. Bourgon. P295, P311,
12 and 1D217. You had tendered these, together with others. Mr. Nicholls
13 objected to the admission of the two redacted statements, which you later
14 withdrew, which you later withdrew. You decided not to tender them any
15 further. But he had not objected to the tendering of these three
16 documents that I mentioned. We got engulfed in the discussion on the
17 other two documents and never decided to tender -- to accept, to admit the
18 three documents that were not objected to.
19 I suggest that you check on this, check that we are correct on
20 this, both of you, please; and when after the break we decide on the
21 documents to be tendered in relation to Professor Haglund, or Dr. Haglund,
22 we will also decide on -- on these after the break. Okay?
24 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
25 Honours. I was just wanting -- you mentioned something about that these
1 documents were subject to certification. Is that not a different matter?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. These documents -- arising out of the
3 testimony of PW-101, there are two issues pending; the certification,
4 motion for certification that you filed, the Beara team and the Nikolic
6 MR. BOURGON: That was 104, if I may, Mr. President. I believe
7 this is 104 and not 101.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm talking of 101. Okay. So it's all right. But
9 still we are talking of three documents that, as a result of the
10 discussion that we had, remained undecided upon. So please have a look at
11 those, and tell me whether we are correct or not. And we'll -- we'll
12 decide later.
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: P295 was two pages of a vehicle work log; P311, log
15 of troop presence; and 1D217, the certificate of, I think, the mother of
16 the person who was supposed to be in charge of that place, that the
17 witness spoke about. All right? And come back to us, please, after the
19 Can we start with the next witness? Before we start, may I ask
20 you to agree on the following: There are six witnesses that are due to
21 testify one after the other in the course of this week and possibly early
22 next week. These are witnesses number 156, 158, 124, 48, 168, and 16, who
23 is an expert witness. These six witnesses were amongst the 12 that were
24 included in the Prosecution submission, confidential submission to convert
25 12 viva voce witnesses to Rule 92 ter witnesses.
1 These six witnesses are not amongst the ones that are being, or
2 have been formally contested by the Defence teams. In other words, the
3 Defence teams are challenging only the conversion of witness into 92 ter
4 witnesses of witnesses number 117, 123, and 132. So these are not amongst
6 Do I take it that we have the consensus of the Defence teams to
7 grant the Prosecution motion or submission in relation to these six
8 witnesses; namely, towit to convert them into 92 ter witnesses?
9 Mr. Haynes, I think you're the one who was the spokesman on this
11 MR. HAYNES: Well, I know from speaking to others that amongst the
12 three witnesses who are due to testify today there may be some opposition
13 to the receipt into evidence of information reports. And I don't wish to
14 embarrass anyone, but that's a position I know Ms. Nikolic will take. So
15 I can relay that to you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But that is another matter, and I think
17 for the time being the matter in issue is whether this is opposition to
18 convert them into 92 ter witnesses. The documents will surface and come
19 up in turn in the course of the testimony.
20 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honours. The
22 position is the same as presented by Mr. Haynes. But I have to address
23 the Chamber concerning Witness 158. The Prosecution made a request on the
24 28th of February, but they didn't provide an accompanying 92 ter
25 statement. We are now working on the basis of an informative report,
1 which we see as a document under Rule 70. We believe that 92 ter cannot
2 be applied in this case as the basis for admitting into evidence this
3 informative report or information report created by an investigator of the
5 The position of the Defence is should 92 ter be applied in
6 relation to this witness and all other witnesses, then the OTP should have
7 provided an accompanying proper statement signed by the witness or a
8 transcript of the testimony as provided by Rule 92 ter.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Who is dealing with this on the Prosecution side?
10 Mr. Nicholls.
11 MR. NICHOLLS: I can respond to that, if I may, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Nikolic.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: And I thank my colleagues had the courtesy to tell
14 me earlier that they were going to raise this issue. They called us late
15 last night. I agree that an information report is not a witness
16 statement. It is a different animal. However, in this case, I think the
17 process that has been gone through with the witness has made it such that
18 the information report functionally within Rule 92 ter is a statement.
19 That there is no real difference.
20 And the reason for that is as follows: The 92 ter statement,
21 which we are using, the information report, reads very much like a witness
22 statement. It contains the information that the witness gave to
23 investigators during an interview.
24 Now, yesterday I met the witness for the first time, and he then
25 was given the opportunity to review the entire information report,
1 verbatim, in his own language. He had to -- it read back to him, which is
2 the only real difference between an information report and a statement, is
3 that the witness has the information read back to him and says that's
4 correct and signs it. That happened yesterday.
5 It's a short, I think, three or four-page document. He read the
6 translation. He made five minor corrections, and he said other than these
7 five corrections it is accurate. Everything that is in this information
8 report is what I said. And I explained the 92 ter process to him, that he
9 would be asked if everything in the -- what he -- in the report was
10 accurate, if it's what he was said, and if he would say the same things
11 today. And he understood that and agreed with the proviso of the five
12 minor corrections he had made.
13 So the only difference between this and a formal witness statement
14 is that it is not actually signed, although he has affirmed that it is
15 correct. He has adopted it, he affirmed it is correct, he is going to
16 swear under oath that he has read it and that his answers would be the
17 same today. And if the only difference is the signature, he can read it
18 again on stand and sign on the bottom.
19 So I think that it's really a very minor technical difference
20 between this report and a statement, and we're just trying to move things
21 a little bit more quickly by -- by putting in this information report.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls, it's an acknowledgment at the
23 same time that Ms. Nikolic's submission, legal submission is correct; and
24 as I read you, it's not something that has dawned on you today. You --
25 you were fully aware all the time that the information report is not the
1 same as a statement for the purpose of Rule 92 ter.
2 I do understand that you are trying to take a pragmatic, practical
3 approach. At the same time, this pragmatic, practical approach is causing
4 us to lose time, to waste time. Next thing I expect is someone to stand
5 up from the Defence team and says we haven't had a copy of this statement
6 now and we want time to go through it. It's -- it's procedure of inviting
7 trouble, asking for trouble.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: If I can just address that one point. The -- there
9 should be no problem with notice, because the -- the report which they've
10 read was disclosed over a year ago to -- to the Defence, and nothing has
11 changed in it. He's read it. The only different -- and it's been
12 translated. The only difference are quite minor corrections that he has
13 made and those were sent to the Defence after I met with him yesterday.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
16 point out two or three things. We are aware that an information report is
17 a product of the work of the Prosecution. It's written in the third
18 person. I can say it contains a summary of what the witness said. The
19 witness did not read it immediately after it was drafted; he read it two
20 years later.
21 A statement can be used to refresh the witness's memory in
22 cross-examination, and to confront him, but I believe that it's not fair,
23 and it would not be correct to act according to Rule 92 ter on the basis
24 of a report drafted by the Prosecution. This witness was supposed to be
25 under 92 bis, and then at the request of the Defence, Witness 158 was
1 withdrawn because there was no statement of that witness as the time.
2 So they transferred him to the viva voce witness list; but on the
3 28th of February, in the request for conversion from 92 bis to 92 ter,
4 this witness was then transferred and then we were told that we would be
5 getting his statement within a reasonable amount of time. Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me suggest we take also a practical approach,
7 pragmatic approach to this. He is not the first witness to come along,
8 anyway he is the second. So we'll start with the first one who is 156.
9 Is there any objection to the conversion of Witness 156 to a 92 ter
10 witness? There is none.
11 In the meantime, I trust that between today and tomorrow, when
12 supposedly -- he's probably going to testify today as well. Between now
13 and when 158 comes along, you will try to reach an agreement. You now do
14 have a signed statement; and perhaps if the difference is not material and
15 if it doesn't stand in the way, perhaps you can reach an agreement.
16 Are there any objections in relation to the other witnesses, 124,
17 48, 168, and 16?
18 MR. HAYNES: No.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So authorisation is being given to convert
20 these five witnesses into 92 ter witnesses. We'll hang around, and we
21 will tell you what our decision is in relation to the next witness, 158.
22 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: Can we go into private session for one moment?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's do that.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Very briefly.
1 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We appeal to you to sit down during the first break
16 and try to sort matters out in relation to Witness 158. In the meantime,
17 let's bring in Witness 156, please.
18 Yes, Mr. Meek. Wait one moment.
19 MR. MEEK: Yes. We would be happy to. I have some documents I
20 want to tender through the cross-examination of Haglund. We can do it
21 after the break. That's fine.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think we'll do that together. I mean I
23 understood there would be --
24 MR. MEEK: Okay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: -- documents, but since we haven't finished the
1 Prosecution -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just on this same subject, you may recall, when
3 Eileen Gilleece testified, we were speaking to Mr. Haynes about the
4 statement or her information report on General Pandurevic's statement.
5 Mr. Vanderpuye is handling that. He will be here after -- he'll be the
6 third person, if we could deal with that issue Mr. Vanderpuye comes
7 because we have been speaking to Mr. Haynes, and I think we'll need to
8 have -- that will probably have to take some court time to deal with it
9 because we haven't had an agreement on it. Perhaps we will by the time
10 Mr. Vanderpuye is here, but that's just another matter that's hanging out
11 there that we have to deal it.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Dr. Novakovic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You are about to
17 start giving evidence. Before you do so, Madam Usher is going to hand you
18 the text of a solemn declaration which you are required to make,
19 undertaking that you will be testifying the truth. Please read it out
20 aloud and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
22 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: RADIVOJE NOVAKOVIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter].
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Doctor. Please take a seat and make
1 yourself comfortable. I don't think you will be here for a long time
2 testifying. Mr. Thayer will go first. He will then be followed by the
3 various Defence teams on cross-examination.
4 Mr. Thayer.
5 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. Good
6 morning, everyone.
7 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
8 Q. Good morning, sir.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. Could you please state your name for the record?
11 A. Radivoje Novakovic.
12 Q. And just briefly, sir, what is your profession?
13 A. I'm a general surgeon, and I work at the surgical ward at the
14 hospital in Zvornik.
15 Q. Okay, Doctor. Do you recall giving a witness statement to OTP
16 investigators in 2003?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And, as I understand it, at the time a written translation was not
19 prepared, so it was simply translated back to you in your own language
20 from the English document. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes. And at the time I insisted that the statement be written in
22 my mother tongue, in Serbian, so that I could directly read it and sign
23 it. I believe that this was technically possible, because an interpreter
24 was present.
25 Q. Okay. Well, yesterday in my office did you, in fact, read a
1 written translation of your statement in your own language?
2 A. I had the opportunity to read my statement in Serbian for the
3 first time; meaning the translation from the English. And with minor
4 corrections, there aren't too many of them, but which I believed were
5 important, I agree with the statement, and that I gave it in 2003.
6 Q. Okay. And, Doctor, we will awe talk about some of those
7 corrections or clarifications in a moment, and I think you already
8 partially answered my next question.
9 Can you attest, Doctor, before the Trial Chamber that other than
10 the clarifications that we will talk about, that witness statement is true
11 and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you further attest that if you were asked those same
14 questions here in court, that your answers would be the same?
15 A. Absolutely, yes.
16 Q. Doctor, what I'd like to do now is simply read for the Trial
17 Chamber, a summary of your witness statement. It's not too long. And
18 then after that we'll talk about some of the clarifications. Okay?
19 The witness was born in 1959 in Kiseljak, Zvornik municipality.
20 He identifies himself as Serbian.
21 He is a surgeon at the Zvornik Medical Health Facility, where he
22 has worked since 1985.
23 In July 1995 he was working as a surgeon in the hospital's
24 surgical ward. On a date, he cannot remember, in 1995, wounded Muslim
25 males were brought from Milici by Dr. Jugoslav Gavric. He did not witness
1 their arrival, but he knows they were placed in the hospital's gynaecology
2 ward. He thinks that there were 11 Muslim patients. One of them had
3 severe facial injuries and died at their hospital. The other patients'
4 health was such that their lives were not in danger.
5 Each of the patients was identified by name and had a treatment
6 history written on his release form from the Milici hospital. They opened
7 treatment history files for these patients at the Zvornik hospital. While
8 at the Zvornik hospital, they were all provided with adequate treatment.
9 The witness does not know how long they stayed at the Zvornik hospital,
10 but he is convinced that it was more than one day. He does not know where
11 the documentation related to the treatment of these patients is located.
12 Dr. Lazarevic, Chief of Surgery, arranged around-the-clock
13 security for these patients to prevent anyone besides medical staff from
14 entering their rooms. The witness thinks they were guarded by policemen,
15 but is not sure and cannot recall their uniforms.
16 These patients were taken to the "Standard" military barracks at
17 Karakaj, which was a shoe factory before the war. He does not know who
18 gave the order to remove them from the Zvornik hospital to the "Standard"
19 base, but supposes that Dr. Lazarevic was the one who received the order
20 to do so.
21 The witness and other doctors from the Zvornik hospital continued
22 to treat the patients daily after they were transferred to "Standard." He
23 personally treated them only once at "Standard," and they were
24 accommodated in one big room separate from the wounded Serb soldiers. The
25 second time he went to "Standard" to treat these patients he entered the
1 room in which they had been accommodated but did not see them there. On
2 that occasion a soldier told him that the patients were to be exchanged
3 near Bijeljina.
4 He does not know on what day or date that these patients were
5 taken from "Standard." He did not notice any other Muslims at "Standard"
6 on those two occasions. He is quite sure that in all of 1995 there were
7 no other Muslim patients admitted and hospitalised in the surgery ward at
8 the Zvornik hospital.
9 He recalls twice providing first aid to Muslim prisoners. Both
10 times the prisoners were escorted to the hospital by VRS soldiers, but
11 none of them was admitted. After he gave the prisoners first aid, the
12 soldiers took them to "Standard."
13 The witness was shown documents bearing ERN numbers 0118-0281,
14 0118-0282, 0118-0285, 0118-0286, and 0118-0340. He recognised his
15 handwriting, signature, stamp, and description of diagnosis and treatment
16 at entry number 4582, indicating patient Azem Bajramovic. He does not
17 recall this patient. His reference to "Standard" in this entry indicates
18 that the patient was taken by the army to the "Standard" base.
19 Regarding entry 4605, indicating patient "Fahro, son of Meho," the
20 handwriting looks like Dr. Lazarevic's. The witness is sure that he did
21 not treat this patient and has no knowledge of him.
22 Finally, he recognised his handwriting and signature at entries
23 4904 and 4905, indicating patients Halid Alic and Hasan Alic. He recalls
24 these patients looking miserable and dirty and that their wounds had not
25 been treated so that the one had worms in the wound on his hand. After
1 receiving first aid at the Zvornik hospital, they were taken by the
2 military to "Standard." Although their health condition qualified them to
3 stay in the hospital, the soldiers told him that the prisoners would be
4 exchanged soon.
5 Now, Doctor, there were some corrections and clarifications that
6 you brought to my attention, so let's go through them, if we may. And
7 I'll be referring to the different numbered parts of the statement, for
8 ease of reference in the record.
9 Doctor, as to part one, you told me that you were not present when
10 the patients from the Milici hospital arrived at or left the Zvornik
11 hospital. So you did not see these events yourself. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
14 Mr. Bourgon.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. My colleague referred to
16 part one of the statement. It might be paragraph one to the notes that he
17 provided us this morning, but I believe it has to do with part two of the
18 statement. This -- once this witness will have terminated, Mr. President,
19 we will have some observations to make; because under 92 ter, we should
20 have a statement that the witness says what is there is good. Now we're
21 making corrections to the statement, but I will keep that for after.
22 Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
24 Go ahead. I'm not sure -- yes, the reply to the previous question
25 is on the record. So your next question, Mr. Thayer.
1 MR. THAYER: Yes, Your Honour. I do stand corrected with respect
2 to the citation. It is part two of the statement, which does not -- is
3 not numbered by paragraphs; it's just numbered by sections.
4 Q. So, Doctor, let me repeat the question, just so we can move along.
5 As to that part two, you told me that you were not present when the
6 patients from the Milici hospital arrived at or left the Zvornik hospital,
7 so you did not actually see those events. Is that correct?
8 A. That is correct. And I also noted -- I see my statement in
9 English here, I don't see the Serbian translation, but I recall saying
10 that I remember well that Dr. Jugoslav brought these patients and that I
11 was not present. I was not present at the time they were brought to the
12 hospital, and I was not present when they were taken away. There is no
13 logic to that. This might indicate as if I was an eye-witness or that I
14 have information from somebody. I did not see them coming to the hospital
15 and I was not there. I did not see them leaving the hospital.
16 Q. Okay. I think that's sufficiently clear now, sir.
17 Now, Doctor, you also told me as to part three of your statement,
18 that you don't know for certain if there was an order, in fact, to
19 transfer the patients from the Milici hospital to the Zvornik hospital.
20 Do you remember telling me that?
21 A. I said that, and I would like to repeat that. I didn't know then,
22 I didn't know who had decided that they should come or that they should
23 leave. I had no information about an order or a decision that these
24 patients would be brought for treatment to us.
25 As for Dr. Lazarevic, I just assumed that he would be able to know
1 more information because the conversation with me lasted several hours.
2 That interview was then made into a statement, and I said that perhaps
3 Dr. Lazarevic would know the conditions or the circumstances in which the
4 patients were brought to the hospital and taken away.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.
6 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to know
7 what -- whether my colleague is now correcting the statement or obtaining
8 further clarification. This morning we received -- or yesterday we
9 received notes concerning the proofing of this witness, with the number of
10 information and the five or six paragraphs. My colleague just asked the
11 witness to clarify whether he was there or not, when the -- they were --
12 the wounded Muslims arrived at the hospital. According to what I see in
13 the statement, he already says, "I personally did not see their arrival,
14 but I know that they were placed in a certain area."
15 And later he says, "I cannot remember what day it was, after their
16 departure, when they were taken from the hospital."
17 I'm not sure if he is correcting any specific lines in the
18 statement or whether he is filing the statement and doing as he did
19 before, obtaining further information from the witness. Because that
20 statement is going to go into evidence, so it is important to know whether
21 what is in writing stays or doesn't stay.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand what you are saying. On the other
23 hand, you need to distinguish between the question and the answer. I
24 mean, the question that was put to the witness was very specific. I
25 mean -- and I don't know whether it really fits in what you have now
1 raised. I mean, the question was: "Okay, I think that's sufficiently
2 clear now, sir. Now, Doctor, you also told me as to part three of your
3 statement, that you don't know for certain if there was an order, in fact,
4 to transfer the patients from Milici hospital to the Zvornik hospital. Do
5 you remember telling me that?"
6 That was the question, and then we have an answer that goes for
7 nine -- nine lines. So...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we rule on this, if it is a ruling at all, do
10 you wish to state anything in regard to this, Mr. Thayer?
11 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, simply that I'm really trying to address
12 very specific items that the witness brought to my attention, that he
13 wished to in no uncertain terms to have clarified in order for him to
14 attest to that statement. And I think this is a practice that we have
15 adopted in the past, and I think it's worked well. I just leave it there.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And apart from what we stated, or I stated
17 earlier on, and I thank you for your response as well, Mr. Thayer, this is
18 perfectly in line with what we decided in the first place in relation to
19 the application of Rule 92 ter. I mean, the idea is to, as much as
20 possible, streamline the procedure with the understanding that after the
21 summary of the statement, there will be questions to add, to clarify. I
22 mean, it's -- so let's move ahead, please.
23 Mr. Thayer. Again, I don't want you to lose track. Your question
24 was very specific, and it elicited a yes or a no answer. At the time the
25 witness did go into detail. I honestly don't know what -- what the next
1 question you had in mind was.
2 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. I think he sufficiently
3 answered it in those nine lines, so I'll move on to my next question.
4 Q. Now, sir, as to part four of the statement, you told me that you
5 cannot say that you are quite sure that there were no other Muslim
6 patients at the surgery ward of the hospital in 1995, as is written in
7 your statement. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what you told me is that you can say that you think that there
10 were no other Muslim patients treated there in 1995 other than the Milici
11 Hospital patients and a few Muslims who were treated in your emergency
12 room. Is that correct?
13 A. The question is not clear to me. What do you mean treated in the
14 emergency room? There is no emergency room. These were patients who were
15 brought to the urgent department, and then we would be treating these
16 patients as in-patients.
17 Q. Okay. I thank you for that clarification. So with that
18 clarification, Doctor, do you recall the question I just asked you about
19 you now say that you think that there were no other Muslim patients
20 treated in your hospital in 1995, other than the Milici patients and some
21 others who were treated in-patient?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And, finally, just two other points that you brought up.
24 As to part seven, you said that you did not remember the two patients'
25 names at first during your 2003 interview; but after reading their entries
1 in the emergency room protocol, you recalled their specific wounds and
3 A. In my statement it is not correctly stated. That's why I asked
4 that it be corrected; namely, that I remember the patients well, and their
5 names. I especially do not remember their names. However, the protocol
6 that was put to me after analysing that protocol, I was able to establish
7 that it was my handwriting, that I treated those patients. And based on
8 their diagnosis, and the findings that I wrote down, I remembered that
9 those were two patients who had been brought in as prisoners. They were
10 brought to the surgical ward, or rather, to the department for urgent
12 In addition to that, I wish to say that in the statement it says
13 that they were not treated, but that's not true. They received proper
14 treatment pursuant to the principles of war surgical rules. They were
15 treated in the same way as our wounded. They were treated as out-patient
16 clinics -- patients. And I said at the time that due to the fact that
17 their wounds were neglected and in bad shape, they needed to be
18 hospitalised, but I said -- I was told that that was not possible and that
19 they needed to be exchanged.
20 After they received surgical treatment, they were taken away by
21 two soldiers.
22 Q. And the last correction that you brought to my attention, sir, was
23 that you do not recall saying that the soldiers told you that the patients
24 would be exchanged soon, only that they would be exchanged. Is that
1 A. That they were going to be exchanged, without "soon."
2 Q. Now, sir, what I'd like to do is just spend a little bit of time
3 asking you a couple of questions to elicit some more detail that perhaps
4 was missed in your interview in 2003.
5 And, first, I just want to talk about these last patients that --
6 that you were just discussing. Do you recall whether you received any
7 information as to where those two soldiers had been captured?
8 A. No. I did not receive any information.
9 Q. Okay. And I'm not referring to a particular town, I'm just
10 asking, did you receive any information about the circumstances of -- of
11 the environment in which they were captured?
12 A. No. No information whatsoever.
13 Q. And you just referred to being told that these two patients were
14 not going to be admitted. Who told you that, that those two patients had
15 to go to be exchanged?
16 A. It is the doctors who decide on who is going to be admitted or
17 not. I was the one who suggested that they be admitted, and those who
18 escorted them there said that they were to be exchanged and could not be
20 Q. Okay. And when you refer to those who escorted, you are referring
21 just to some VRS soldiers; is that correct?
22 A. I said two soldiers, as far as I could remember. Two soldiers
23 escorted these two wounded men.
24 Q. Now, sir, you recalled in your -- in your witness statement that
25 we -- that we just heard the summary of, that 11 patients from Milici
1 arrived with treatment histories and release forms from that hospital.
2 And yesterday I showed you 11 sets of patient history and discharge
3 records. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And, sir, did you have an opportunity to examine those records?
6 A. As far as I can remember, I only had occasion to see the discharge
7 letter for all of the patients. Head of the surgical ward, Dr. Lazarevic,
8 at the morning meeting, told us that those patients from Milici had been
9 admitted, that they were going to be exchanged, and until that happened
10 they would be treated in our ward.
11 I personally saw these discharge letters, based on which we opened
12 medical histories for them, medical history files, and continued the
13 treatment that had already been initiated.
14 Q. Okay. I just want to ask you just one question about the actual
15 records. After you reviewed the 11 sets of records which I showed you
16 yesterday, were you able to draw any conclusions as to whom the 11 sets of
17 patient history and discharge records I showed you yesterday are related?
18 A. The situation is quite clear in that regard. Based on the words
19 uttered by the Chief, Dr. Lazarevic, about those people being admitted and
20 being from Milici, and based on review of discharge letters signed by the
21 doctors from the Milici Hospital, there was no doubt there. Those were
22 the patients who had been brought to our hospital from Milici.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Could my colleague
25 indicate to us which document he's talking about, give us a reference?
1 Whether it is a document that was given to us, is it a new document, is
2 it -- because I have a stack of documents. I cannot find hospital
3 discharge records.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a fair comment.
5 MR. THAYER: I'm just getting there, Mr. President, that's my next
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I understood that much.
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. With Madam Usher's assistance, I'm going to hand you copies, sir,
10 of a packet of patient histories and discharge forms. This is 65 ter
11 number 1884, and the English translation is ERN 0307-4271 through 4313,
12 that's listed on our list of exhibits.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, do you have -- do you still have a
15 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President. I have a list here of
16 exhibits that were intended for this witness. This is a number that is
17 not there. I'm told that it's a number that -- that is with another
19 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, if I may just respond briefly.
20 MR. BOURGON: I would like to see the documents so I can look at
21 them, Mr. President.
22 MR. THAYER: I furnished, first of all, an e-mail to Defence
23 counsel a couple of days ago with respect to adding this document, and it
24 is on the most recent exhibit list, which I believe has been distributed
25 via e-mail to Defence counsel. And it was also on the exhibit list for
1 the next witness, Dr. Gavric.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it clear now?
3 Yes, Mr. Meek.
4 MR. MEEK: No, it's not very clear, Your Honours. I'm looking at
5 a statement, witness -- this witness, and the description he just gave,
6 0307-4271 through 4313, or through -- yeah, it looks to me like B/C/S and
7 he says English translation so...
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I am not in a position to confirm what
9 correspondence was exchanged between the two sides. However, in the last
10 witness Prosecution exhibit list that we have been given, under 65 ter
11 number 1884, there is indeed a document dealing with 11 patient files of
12 Muslim males were treated in the surgery ward of Sveti Nikola hospital in
13 Milici on 13th, 14th, 1995, with ERN, last four digits, 4271 to 4313, and
14 indication in what I have at least is that this is the English text.
15 The corresponding B/C/S text would be -- would bear ERN numbers
16 6055 to 6133. I'm trying to help out. This is what I have. But, of
17 course, if you have other indications, then please go ahead. I can't help
18 you more than this.
19 MR. THAYER: That's exactly correct, Mr. President. Those are the
20 ERN numbers, the 65 ter numbers, and the description that was furnished to
21 Defence counsel.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it all right now, Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Meek?
23 MR. BOURGON: Probably, because we have some -- we are probably
24 confused with the number of e-mails we received and the number of lists we
25 received. I did not imagine that these documents would be used with this
1 witness. It's probably my mistake. I will need some time for
2 cross-examination. These are three very simple witnesses, and now they
3 are turning into a nightmare because we are using all kinds of different
4 procedure with witness statements, with documents, with 92 ter. I don't
5 know what -- what is happening, but there is for sure we will need time
6 for cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Thayer.
8 MR. THAYER: May I proceed, Mr. President?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
10 MR. THAYER:
11 Q. Doctor, you recalled in your statement that one of the patients
12 arrived with severe facial injuries and, in fact, died during -- during
13 his stay at your hospital. Do you recall that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And were you able to identify, from that packet of records that is
16 before you, someone whom you believed to be that patient that you referred
17 to in your witness statement?
18 MR. THAYER: And, Your Honours, I don't intend to put this up in
19 e-court and take up the time doing that. I'm just going ask him just to
20 identify, and I will provide for the record the numbers for later on for
21 the record.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think, with a great degree of
23 certainty, that this is Aziz Becirevic.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: My attention is being drawn to whether there is a
3 possibility to make it possible for the accused to be able to follow
5 MR. THAYER: In this case, Your Honour, I can provide the direct
6 cites so the document that the doctor just referred to.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we put them on the ELMO?
8 MR. THAYER: Certainly. That is page 34 and --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we have them in e-court?
10 MR. THAYER: We have them in e-court, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's bring them up.
12 MR. THAYER: That's at page -- let's begin at page 34 of the
13 English and page 60 of the B/C/S original of 65 ter 1884. And, with any
14 luck, that's going to be the document. If -- and if -- is it possible to
15 have the English posted as well, as long as we're doing it? It's page 34
16 of the English translation. It's not -- the English isn't in e-court?
17 Oh, okay.
18 Q. Doctor, having viewed this page, and I believe you answered my
19 question, but we got a little side-tracked. I just want to ask you, is
20 this one of the records which leads you to believe with a great degree of
21 certainty, as you said, that the patient who died from his facial wounds
22 is this individual, Aziz Becirevic?
23 A. Yes. We have the medical documents from Milici here. This is not
24 the documentation from our hospital. Analysing these documents, I can
25 say, with a great degree of certainty, that this is the patient in
2 Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. And we're done with that exhibit for
3 now. Thank you.
4 Now, lastly, yesterday in my office, I also showed you a -- a
5 large document, and this is 65 ter number 1891. And, again, with Madam
6 Usher's assistance I'll just hand this over to you. And I just ask you,
7 Doctor, do you recognise what that document is?
8 A. This is the protocol from the urgent medical service.
9 Q. Now, during your interview in 2003, you were shown some
10 photocopies from that document, some entries for four Muslim patients who
11 were treated at -- at your hospital in July of 1995, and I just want to
12 ask you a couple of follow-up questions.
13 MR. THAYER: And I'm sorry, again, I'll need Madam Usher's
14 assistance with the ELMO with this document. I understand it is in
15 e-court. It will probably be easier all around to work with the ELMO
16 because the graphs go from one page to the other.
17 Q. Doctor, if you would, there is a yellow tab marked tab number one,
18 and I just ask you to place that open underneath the ELMO. And let's
19 focus on the top half of that, and that's at ERN 0118-0281.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that there is a
22 problem with this exhibit because if we follow the e-court, we have a
23 document under that number that's only two pages, and the page that the
24 Prosecutor just indicated does not exist in the e-court. I don't know if
25 this is a new exhibit or is it an exhibit that obtained a new 65 ter
1 number or maybe -- maybe it's a technical omission on behalf of the
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. I can't help you there. Mr. Thayer
4 perhaps can explain.
5 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, this -- this entire -- I believe, this
6 entire exhibit has -- has been admitted. It was my understanding it was
7 uploaded into e-court. In -- in any event, if it's not in e-court -- I'm
8 being told it is in e-court, and I can -- I can provide the e-court page
9 numbers for everybody's ease of reference.
10 JUDGE KWON: I have it in front of me. 404 pages?
11 MR. THAYER: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And that would be 1891.
13 MR. THAYER: That's correct, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And we are talking only of one page -- or two pages,
15 one in English -- sorry, two pages, 0285 to 0286, at the moment for the
16 purposes of this testimony.
17 MR. THAYER: Actually, Your Honour, we will be referring to about
18 eight pages in total during the course of his -- his testimony, and I will
19 identify for the record by ERN and by e-court. And, Your Honour, I'm
20 perfectly happy to do it in e-court, if it seems to be the consensus among
21 my learned friends. And we can certainly proceed that way and perhaps
22 alleviate some --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I noticed you standing for a moment, Mr. Meek.
24 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours. Maybe my learned
25 colleague could point out the page on the English translation as well to
1 this document.
2 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, we do have English translations. One of
3 the reasons I'm proceeding in this manner is they are frankly very, very
4 poor, and what I'm going to do is ask the doctor to translate the entries
5 directly from the B/C/S. Most of the -- because it's a hospital logbook,
6 most of the entries were frankly illegible to the eyes of our translators.
7 So that is why I'm proceeding in this way, just from the B/C/S.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau, I noticed you standing for...
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, I think it's a
10 technical problem because we don't have access to this document. In fact,
11 we don't even have access to 1891. We only have access to document 1891B,
12 which is only composed of two pages.
13 THE REGISTRAR: If I may, for the record, the document is in
14 e-court. It was submitted with another witness on the 16th of February
15 as 1DP01891 under seal.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me try to direct you as much as I can. In the
17 list of exhibits, the latest one, the most recent one, there are two 1891;
18 one is 1891, and that's the second or the third document, and that's the
19 Zvornik Hospital medical logbook. I take in its entirety from 1882 to
20 1930 in English, and then from 0007 to 0410 in B/C/S.
21 That's one document. And that's in e-court and it should have
22 been -- be available to all of you. If it's available to us, I think -- I
23 suppose it's available to everyone.
24 Then you are right, we do then have 1891B, which, to me, is two
25 pages from that document only in B/C/S. What we have here indicated or
1 listed is those due pages in B/C/S. And that's, as I understand it, is
2 what Mr. Thayer is taking use of now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but --
3 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I was with you up to that very last
4 part. What I'm showing the witness now is a previous page, one of the
5 ranges that was listed at the first 1891 --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
7 MR. THAYER: -- listing there. I think everybody can see that I
8 have identified one, two, three, four, five, six page ranges that I had
9 wished to show Dr. Novakovic. That's where we are now.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Can Madam Usher bring down the document a
11 little bit so we can see the ERN number? So we are talking of 0118-0281.
12 MR. THAYER: That's exactly correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Is that clear now? All right.
14 Yes, I see both of you standing. I understand Ms. Fauveau only
15 wanted to say it's clear.
16 Mr. Meek.
17 MR. MEEK: Very briefly, could my colleague tell me what page the
18 English translation is that he's referring to the document on the screen?
19 MR. THAYER: With the Court's indulgence, I'll just pull that out.
20 That should be page 17 of the English translation, and we are focusing at
21 the moment at entry 4578. And, again, I'm afraid the English translation
22 isn't going to be much help because it's mostly listed at illegible, but
23 that's the page number in the English translation.
24 May I proceed, Mr. President?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means.
1 MR. THAYER:
2 Q. Doctor, do you see the entry 4579? I believe it's the second
3 entry from the top, on the -- on the right-hand page?
4 A. 45 -- could you please repeat the number?
5 Q. Sure. It's 4579. The second entry down from the top of that
7 A. [No Interpretation]
8 Q. Okay. Do you see a date --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- written in there, sir?
11 A. Yes, 14th of July, 1995.
12 Q. And can you just tell the Trial Chamber who was responsible for
13 recording the dates in this logbook?
14 A. The information on the left is written in by a nurse, a medical
16 Q. And was there any particular procedure that the nurses were
17 required to follow in terms of when they wrote in the date in this
18 logbook, to your knowledge?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.
20 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I have the document
21 before me in English, and I look at 4579 where my colleague is drawing the
22 attention of the witness. I try to compare the log that I have there, and
23 it has information with the date of 14 July and some kind of a name. I
24 look at the English translation, I see "Jankovic", and I see "1929." The
25 two just don't match. Either it is the wrong translation or it is a wrong
1 document, but something is not working, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think it's time for the break.
3 Mr. Thayer and his assistant will clear this up for you when we reconvene
4 in 25 minutes' time.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer. Have you sorted it out?
8 MR. THAYER: I believe we have.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's great news. I mean about the first
10 piece of good news this morning. Yes.
11 MR. THAYER: I think what we're going to do, Your Honour, is use
12 the e-court system, and I have identified the English pages for those of
13 my colleagues. I think that were having some difficulties, which, as I
14 said are understandable. The root of the problem is the legibility of the
15 translation that has created this mischief. But I think we can proceed.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: But I still see Mr. Bourgon on his feet.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I do not believe that the
18 matter is resolved in the sense -- in the following sense: My colleague
19 indicated to us previously that he was referring to page 17 in the English
20 version under a serial number that applies to an individual, and that
21 number was 4579.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You are correct.
23 MR. BOURGON: And 4579 on page 17 in English does not match what
24 we find in the B/C/S at 4579, different names and the date is not there.
25 My colleague came to us at said at the break, and said, No, you have to
1 look at page 21 which also has the number 4579. So the English version of
2 this document is incorrect. And I think my colleague would acknowledge
3 the fact that the English translation is not correct.
4 Now, the matter is that we were informed only yesterday afternoon
5 that this witness would even be questioned on this record. Plus, the
6 mistake that happens with this, the mistake in the translation, make it
7 that we have not been able to prepare appropriately for the testimony of
8 the witness. I'm willing, of course, in order to make things proceed, to
9 have the examination-in-chief to proceed today, but for sure I will be
10 asking for a delay in order for me to study these records line by line.
11 Mr. President, it must be brought into perspective here that these
12 three witnesses were non-contentious witnesses. And if the Prosecution
13 stuck with the information provided to us, either in the information
14 statement or in the witness statement, there would be no problems. But
15 just before they come, two years after -- more than two years after these
16 witnesses were met, we come and we change the complete theory of the case
17 as to what they want to do with those three witnesses.
18 We're also going way further than what was announced in the Rule
19 65 ter summary. There is a ruling in other Chambers that when you have a
20 Rule 65 ter summary, the Prosecution must stick to the Rule 65 ter
21 summary. They are not sticking to the Rule 65 ter summary, and they are
22 going beyond that.
23 So all this change of procedure all the time make it that it is
24 difficult for us to keep up and to know exactly what the Prosecution
25 intends to do with those three witnesses which appear benign and were
1 non-contentious before the last few days.
2 The last point, I would like to make, Mr. President, as I
3 indicated at the beginning, I made an objection to the questions being
4 asked by my colleague. What I was referring to was page 17 of the
5 transcript, lines 4 to 6. I had understood, maybe by mistake, but what I
6 understood was what the Prosecution was proceeding to do was to make
7 corrections to the statement and not the normal procedure that this
8 Chamber is used to of simply asking further information from the witness,
9 and we've done that with all 92 ter witnesses. That was not the problem.
10 But I understood from page 17, lines 4 to 6 that we were actually making
11 corrections to the statement.
12 Now, on this basis, of course, Mr. President, I will object to
13 that statement being entered into evidence. Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
15 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, with respect to the last point first, I
16 don't think there is anything further that needs to be argued with respect
17 to the Prosecution's position. We have adopted the practice here that we
18 make corrections and we make clarifications. I think I distinguished
19 both, and I think we have continued to follow that policy.
20 With respect to my learned friend's previous arguments with
21 respect to the 65 ter summaries, et cetera, I'll keep my comments as brief
22 as I can, but I feel compelled to respond.
23 First of all, this exhibit with which we are working now has been
24 on this witness's exhibit list from the beginning; this is Exhibit 1891.
25 This is no surprise. This is an exhibit, selections of which were
1 identified in his signed witness statement, which my colleagues have had
2 for goodness knows how long, by ERN number. This is absolutely no
3 surprise. There is no change of theory. There has never been any change
4 of theory, I would submit, at all.
5 Secondly, if one takes a look at the 65 ter summary, it is
6 eminently clear that the topic of this witness's testimony has to do with
7 these 11 Milici patients. Those are precisely the records which I showed
8 this witness and about which I did advise Defence counsel within the last
9 48 hours or so. So there is no surprise here. They -- it cannot be
10 credibly argued that anybody is being changed in terms of what their
11 expectations are of this witness's testimony. It is all in the
12 statements, it is in the summaries, it could not frankly be clearer.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I have one question on this. Earlier on I had asked
14 Madam Usher to bring down a little bit the document which we had on the
15 ELMO at the time, and you said that you were basically referring to about
16 six pages, a block of six pages from that patient log. Can you repeat
17 again the numbers, the ERN number of those six pages, please?
18 MR. THAYER: Certainly, Your Honour. Those ranges are 0118-0281
19 to 0118-0282, and then 0118-0285 to 0118-0286. I will also be showing
20 0118-0337, and then 0118-0339 to 0118-0341.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Carry on, if you have anything else to state.
22 MR. THAYER: Nothing, Mr. President. If I may continue.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So before we proceed, I think we have to draw a line
25 somewhere. We do not entertain, in the least, or agree in the least,
1 rather, with your submission that it is not regular, procedurally correct,
2 for the Prosecution to ask questions or elicit answers from a witness that
3 tend to correct the statement that he would, or she would have -- is being
4 referred to.
5 Your submission, Mr. Bourgon, would be tantamount to the following
6 argument, which is untenable: Namely, that if, in asking the witness to
7 attest that the written statement or transcript accurately reflects his
8 declaration and what the witness would say if examined, if he departs just
9 one little bit from his previous statement, then the conclusion, according
10 to you, would be that that statement would therefore not be able to be
11 tendered under Rule 92 ter.
12 It would defeat the whole purpose of the Rule 92 ter procedure.
13 The idea is it's divided into two parts. First, that the statement
14 accurately reflects the witness's declaration. Secondly, whether it would
15 also amount to what he would say if examined.
16 We made it clear that there should be, and we expect, to be
17 questions if, in being referred to his previous statement, the witness
18 notices some things that need clarification and other things that maybe
19 are not 100 per cent correct and need to be corrected. So that's number
21 As regards the difficulty that you propose, if met in preparation,
22 in being -- in preparing for the cross-examination, when you look at the
23 witness's statement that is being referred to on page 4 - that's part 5,
24 last paragraph in part 5 - is specifically being referred to the patient
25 log and specifically to the pages that the Prosecution has just repeated
1 to us on my prompt; the exception of 337 -- 8337 and 341, which are just
2 two pages. If we see that there is a justification on the basis of those
3 two pages to delay your cross-examination, we will not be unreasonable,
4 but we expect you also not to be unreasonable.
5 So let's go ahead.
6 MR. THAYER: If we may have page 275 of 65 ter 1891 displayed in
7 e-court, please. That is page 21 of the English translation, and with any
8 luck it will be ERN 0118-0281. Okay.
9 Q. Sir, I believe where we left off, I had asked you whose
10 responsibility it was to enter the date into this logbook.
11 A. To repeat, I said that a doctor is not supposed to do that. A
12 nurse or a medical technician is supposed to do that.
13 Q. And was there a particular procedure that the nurse or medical
14 technician was supposed to follow in terms of when they were supposed to
15 enter the date into the logbook?
16 A. There was the regular procedure; a nurse is supposed to enter the
17 particulars that are on the left-hand side of the protocol.
18 Q. Okay. And those particulars would include patient information,
19 place of birth, date of birth, and their name; is that correct, as we see
20 it here before us at 0281?
21 A. Yes. You can see that, at the top of the logbook, what the page
22 is supposed to contain.
23 Q. So let me ask you again, Doctor, with respect simply to entering
24 the dates into the logbook, was there a particular procedure that the
25 nurse or medical technician was supposed to follow as to when the date was
1 entered into the logbook?
2 A. The period between two dates refers to the period of 24 hours. So
3 here under 579 you have the date, the 14th of July, 1995. If then on some
4 other page it's the 15th of July, then that would refer to a 24-hour
5 period. That's how it should be.
6 Q. And, sir, if we could please just scroll down just a tad, please.
7 And do you see the entry at 4582, sir? I believe it's circled?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would you please just read what has been entered there into the
11 A. It says, "Azim Bajramovic, born in 1954." Then it's not clear
12 what it says. "Dobrok Skelani," but I'm not sure.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And then it says "11.00," if you can see it, meaning that the
15 patient was examined in the morning on the 14th of July, 1995.
16 Q. Okay. Now, this is a logbook that actually continues horizontally
17 to the subsequent page.
18 MR. THAYER: So if I could ask -- ask Madam Usher's assistance,
19 simply to scroll horizontally to the next page, and if we can maintain,
20 maybe if we can do a split screen with the following page, which would be
21 page 276, and just put them side by side, so we can...
22 Q. Now, Doctor, we're looking at ERN ending in 0282 here. Do you see
23 your handwriting anywhere for an entry? And, again, this is still page 21
24 of the English translation.
25 A. Yes. At the top the fifth one refers to patient Azim Bajramovic.
1 "Vulnus scloptarium darso-coli." That is my handwriting. I treated the
2 patient. I don't recall the particulars, but it says in Cyrillic,
3 "primarily surgical treatment of the wound" and "Standard," and there is
4 my signature in Cyrillic. So I treated that patient.
5 Q. And what does the reference to "Standard" mean there?
6 A. In order to continue his treatment, he was sent to the medical
7 ward of the Karakaj barracks.
8 Q. And, Doctor, is it fair to say that the entries that are on the
9 right-hand side of the logbook are either filled in by the doctor or
10 dictated by the doctor?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 MR THAYER: Now, if we could have page 279 of the document in
13 e-court, please, and this is page 22 of the English translation, and this
14 should appear as ERN 0118-0285. There we have it. And if we could please
15 scroll down and focus on the bottom half of the document. That's perfect.
16 Q. And do you see entry 4605, sir? Where it says, "Fahro, son of
17 Meho." Do you see that entry, sir?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you just read the rest of that entry there, please?
20 A. It's illegible. I didn't write that. I can try. It says for the
21 column for the year of birth, one nine, so the date of birth is
22 incomplete; and then it should say Srebrenica in the next column, but I'm
23 not sure. And the time, 000 hours on the 15th of July, 1995.
24 Q. And if we look directly below that entry at 4606, do you see a
25 date, in fact, has been written in, sir; and if so, can you just read what
1 that says?
2 A. The date is the 15th of July, 1995.
3 Q. Now, if we may have --
4 A. And this is under the name Momir Kresanovic. I'm not sure, born
5 in 1964; Brnjica VP; military post, 7469; Zvornik.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you, doctor.
7 MR. THAYER: If we may have page 280 of the document in e-court
8 please, and that's page 22 of the English translation. And if we could
9 scroll over -- or scroll down, I'm sorry.
10 Q. Doctor, do you see the third entry up from the bottom, which
11 should correspond with the entry at 4605? Do you see that third entry up
12 from the bottom?
13 A. I don't see the number, but I do see the column.
14 Q. Okay. Do you recognise the handwriting that is along that row
15 there, third up from the bottom? Do you think you know whose handwriting
16 that is, sir?
17 A. I can state responsibly that it's not my handwriting, but it could
18 possibly be the handwriting of Dr. Lazarevic. I'm not sure but it could
20 Q. And, Doctor, there appears to be some Latin written in there. If
21 you would, could you just translate using your medical knowledge what that
22 is, if you can read it?
23 A. "Vulnus sclopetarium brachi dex et genus sin." Translated it
24 means that the injury is inflicted with a fire-arm in the area of the left
25 upper arm -- right upper arm and left knee.
1 Q. And, Doctor, are you able to make out the rest of the entry along
2 that row?
3 A. "Cleaning, processing, bandaging," and then the bottom is
4 illegible. But I assume, since all wounds are treated in the same way,
5 according to the principles of military surgery or war-time surgery, it
6 could mean antibiotic and analgesic, and to the right it says, "AT
7 protection." That's what's there.
8 We probably did write a report. There would be a report by the
9 surgeon, which would be sent to the doctor who referred the patient or to
10 whom the patient was being sent for continued treatment.
11 Q. Doctor, you just referred to "AT" something. Can you just tell us
12 what that means? You used the abbreviation "AT". Just wondering what
13 that abbreviation means.
14 A. "Anti-tetanus protection," meaning that it's protection against
15 the wound getting infected.
16 MR. THAYER: Now, may we have page 331 --
17 MR. MEEK: May it please the Trial Chamber, could my colleague
18 just clarify that nothing in the English translation that this witness has
19 just testified from the B/C/S shows up in the English translation.
20 MR. THAYER: That's absolutely correct. It was all illegible to
21 the eyes of the translators, and that's why we proceeded the way we did.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can proceed. Thank you.
23 MR. THAYER: Great. We are at 0118-0337, if we may just focus on
24 the bottom portion of this.
25 Q. Sir, do you see entry 4895? And this is page 41 of the English
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you see a date, Doctor, that is entered next to that entry
4 for 4895?
5 A. Yes. The 24th of July, 1995.
6 MR. THAYER: Now, may we have page 333 of this document, please,
7 and that's page 42 of the document. And if we could scroll down, please.
8 Thank you. Perfect.
9 Q. And just my last set of questions, Doctor. Do you see the entries
10 at 4904 and 4905?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And would you please just read into the record the information
13 that's contained first at line 4905 and then at the entry for 4906,
14 please. I'm sorry, 4904 and 4905, I apologise. So it's 4904 and 4905.
15 A. The names are illegible, so I'm not sure, because I didn't write
16 that myself. I'm not sure if I'm going to read it correctly. Should I
17 read it? Try to read it?
18 Q. Give it a shot, Doctor, please.
19 A. Under number 4904, it's possible that it says "Alic," I can't read
20 the name. The year of birth, "1967," and this could be Srebrenica. I'm
21 not sure. It's illegible.
22 Q. And the entry below it, 4905?
23 A. "Alic Hasan," it's possible. Year of birth, "1969." And, again,
24 it's the same as the writing above, so it could be "Srebrenica."
25 MR. THAYER: Okay. And if we may move to the next page, 334 in
1 e-court, and that should be ERN 0118-0340. And if we could scroll down
2 and maintain those two rows.
3 Q. Do you see your handwriting, sir, in this portion of the document?
4 A. Third and fourth from the bottom is written in my handwriting.
5 Q. And would you just please read, and translate, the Latin to us,
6 please, for those two lines.
7 A. Yes. But before I do that, I complained about my statement
8 because I didn't have a chance to translate that. It says in my statement
9 that I was familiar with the cases and with the names. That is not true.
10 I was given this logbook to look at. I was given it by the gentleman who
11 interviewed me. And by looking at the logbook, I recognised the right
12 side of this logbook, and I can state with full responsibility that this
13 is my handwriting and that I treated these two Bosniaks.
14 Diagnosis is "vulvus explosivum antebrachii dex," and then it
15 says, "Cleaning the wound, debrievement [phoen]," and then it says,
16 "Plaster on the upper arm" and then my signature. Do I need the
17 translate the diagnosis for you.
18 Q. Whatever that Latin meant, sir, if there is a colloquial term,
19 that would be fine?
20 A. Explosive injury to the right upper arm with fracture of the bone,
21 and then the kind of treatment; and then it says that the patient was sent
22 to Standard. And then below, "vulnus explosivus femoris sin capiti dex et
23 dig II et III manus sin." "Cleaning the wound and debrievement, which is
24 to say explosive injury. The one inflicted by mines and explosives on the
25 left thigh, right knee, and the second and third finger of the left hand,
1 and then the kind of treatment received; and then it says that the patient
2 was sent to Standard.
3 These are the patients who were prisoners, who were brought as
4 prisoners, and I explained in my statement the circumstances. These
5 wounds were quite neglected. These were recently captured Bosniaks. I
6 treated them, and I said that due to their wounds they should be
7 hospitalised. But the soldiers said that they had to be exchanged, and
8 they were taken out of the surgical ward.
9 Q. And, lastly, doctor.
10 MR. THAYER: If we may have page 335 of the document in e-court,
11 please, and that's still at page 42 of the English translation. And if we
12 could just scroll down a little bit, a little bit more. That's good,
14 Q. Do you see the entry at 4912, doctor?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do you see a date next to that entry; and if so, can you just
17 read into the record what it says?
18 A. Yes. "The 25th of July, 1995."
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor. That concludes my direct. I thank you, and I
20 appreciate your patience during these technical difficulties.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Mr. Thayer.
22 Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Doctor.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. My name is Zoran Zivanovic. I defend Mr. Popovic in this case. I
3 would like to put several questions to you precisely in relation to your
5 You told us that upon giving the statement to the OTP
6 investigators, you asked to receive a written translation, if I understood
7 you well; a written translation of your statement, or rather, the
8 translation into Serbian. Did you ask that immediately upon giving the
9 statement, or was it done later?
10 A. In 2003, as I've told you, following the interview which lasted
11 for several hours, a statement was drafted in English. It was interpreted
12 to me by the interpreter, and I was offered to sign. Initially, I
13 protested. I refused to sign it. I asked that the statement be written
14 down in my native language, Serbian, so that I can read it without an
15 intermediary, and sign it then.
16 I believed this to be technically possible because there was an
17 interpreter there. However, my request was not granted; and despite that,
18 I signed the statement as it was in 2003.
19 The first time I had occasion to read that statement in my native
20 language, in Serbian, was yesterday. It was in Serbian, and it was a
21 translation from English.
22 Q. Thank you. Were you given an explanation at the time as to why
23 they didn't want to translate that statement into your native language and
24 give it to you to read in written version?
25 A. Well, the explanation that I was given was not a convincing one.
1 They said that it wasn't typically done.
2 Q. I'm going to ask you to look at the statement that you signed.
3 It's in English; 1D209, or 52408 --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 52480.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. It will come up on the screen. Would you please look at page 5 of
7 that statement, 0327-1160.
8 I'm going to ask you to look at the handwritten portion, and your
9 signature is right below it. Would you please tell me whether you wrote
10 this down?
11 A. I did not write the text, but the signature is mine.
12 Q. Do you know who wrote this text?
13 A. It's possible that it was done by an interpreter, a lady
15 Q. Was it done after you had asked that the entire statement be
16 translated to you in writing when you refused to sign it?
17 A. Following that, yes. I protested and initially I refused to sign
18 the statement, but then after this I signed it.
19 Q. On the basis of this statement we can see when it was taken, on
20 the 6th of March, 2003. However, you told us just now that you gave that
21 statement, or rather, that you were interviewed for a couple of hours. Do
22 you remember exactly how long it took?
23 A. Two or three hours. The interview took that long. They put
24 questions to me. It was of an informal nature. It was more than two
1 Q. Were you present when the English text was drafted?
2 A. Yes, I was present. The reason I signed it, ultimately, is that I
3 have some knowledge of English. I don't speak it well enough, but I was
4 able to understand the gist of the statement. I was told that the
5 statement was not translated in the native language of the person
6 interviewed, so I decided to sign it after all.
7 Q. After giving the statement, were you in touch with the OTP
8 investigators? Did they call you again or ask you about something later
10 A. The first and formal contact was yesterday when the statement was
11 put to me in the Serbian language, and that was the first time that I was
12 able to read my statement in my native language.
13 Q. And in the meantime you had no contacts with the OTP and their
14 investigators. You had no occasion to repeat your request about the
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 Who's going next? Mr. Meek.
21 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:
23 Q. Good morning, Doctor. How are you?
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I just have a few questions on your original statement, and since
1 it's already on the e-court, could we go back to page 0327-1157.
2 And, Doctor, you have just indicated you have some knowledge of
3 English, but perhaps not fluent. Is that correct?
4 MR. MEEK: That's the wrong page. No, it's the right page. Scroll
5 down so we can see number 2. Yeah, scroll up, whatever. I need to see
6 number 2. There.
7 Q. And, Doctor, while you're looking at that, and I know you don't
8 probably read English fluently. Am I correct, sir?
9 A. Can I see the translation into Serbian, so that I can compare it?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have them both concurrently on the same
11 screen? I think we can.
12 MR. MEEK:
13 Q. You see it, doctor?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In your proofing notes dated the 19th day of March, the OTP
16 attorney Nelson Thayer, who just questioned you, indicated that during the
17 proofing session, you provided some following information. Part of that
18 was you stated with respect to part 2 of your original OTP statement given
19 6 March 2003 that you did not know for certain if there was an order to
20 transfer the patients from the Milici Hospital to the Zvornik Hospital or
21 if there was an order to transfer them from the Zvornik Hospital to the
22 Standard barracks.
23 Do you recall that, sir?
24 A. Yes. I remember well.
25 Q. You then went ahead in your proofing notes to tell Mr. Thayer of
1 the OTP that you don't think it was a hospital decision to bring these
2 patients in or to transfer them out. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, would you --
5 A. That was my assumption. I wasn't an eye-witness. I wasn't a
6 participant in the decision to bring them to the Zvornik Hospital. I
7 worked there as a surgeon, and I didn't have any major competences there.
8 I had my boss there to decide.
9 Q. Okay. And then would you agree with me, Doctor, that it very well
10 could have been the hospital's decision to transfer them from Milici to
11 Zvornik Hospital and thereafter to the Standard barracks? Correct?
12 A. I don't want to speculate. There was a director there, a head of
13 the ward, and they were in the know, so to speak. I have no information
14 about that.
15 Q. All right. Well, I appreciate the fact that you don't want to
16 speculate, but didn't you just speculate with the Office of the Prosecutor
17 in your proofing session when you said that you didn't think it was the
18 hospital's decision?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, what's the objection, Mr. Thayer?
20 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, it's been asked and answered, and at
21 this point I don't see the relevance of asking this question.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
23 MR. MEEK: I don't think it's been asked and answered.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Please rephrase your question, Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: And let's proceed.
3 MR. MEEK: Thank you.
4 Q. Doctor, just very simply, when you had a proofing session with the
5 Prosecutor, Mr. Thayer there, on the 19th, yesterday, didn't you tell him
6 that you don't know whether there was an order to transfer the patients
7 from Milici to Zvornik Hospital or if there was an order to transfer them
8 from Zvornik to the Standard barracks. And you went on to say, however,
9 you don't think it was the hospital's decision to bring the patients or to
10 transfer them. Correct? That's what you told Mr. Thayer yesterday,
12 A. I would disagree with you. I protested about the order to have
13 them transferred. I didn't know at the time, and I don't know now, who
14 decided on that issue; both to bring them to the Zvornik Hospital and to
15 take them out of the hospital. As I've told you, I was a surgeon on the
16 team, and other people made the decision and I have no information about
17 it. No information whatsoever.
18 Q. Okay. And I appreciate that, Doctor. I'm just asking you simply,
19 when you told the Prosecutor yesterday that you don't think it was the
20 hospital's decision, that was speculation, correct?
21 A. An assumption.
22 MR. MEEK: Again, looking at the statement, the very last page,
23 page 5 which would be 0327-1160, which should be the signature page. I
24 think you could put it up in the English version because there's
25 handwritten B/C/S. Okay. There it is. Thank you.
1 Q. In fact, Doctor, you didn't hand write the B/C/S portion that's
2 underneath the typed, dated line of 6 March 2003, but you actually signed
3 it underneath, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And doesn't that state that this -- your statement had been read
6 to you in your own language and you understood it?
7 A. The statement was read to me by the interpreter in my language,
8 but in addition to that, since I believed it to be technically possible, I
9 asked that the statement be written to me in my own native Serbian
10 language. However, that wasn't done.
11 And the same happened with my other colleagues who gave
12 statements. They all had to sign statements in English. So I state with
13 full responsibility the signature underneath is mine and what's above it
14 is mine, but I didn't write this text.
15 Q. And did you indicate in your questions [sic] to my colleague,
16 Mr. Zivanovic here, that you in a way upset with the way the OTP did the
17 statement, took the statement from you?
18 A. The process of taking the statement did not upset me. It was a
19 very proper kind of procedure, questions and answers; and then it was made
20 into a written statement, which was in English. And when I was told to
21 sign it, it was then that I got upset and I refused to sign it and I told
22 you what I already said, namely that I wanted the statement to be provided
23 in writing in my native language.
24 Q. Yet you went ahead and signed it back in 6th of March, 2003, and
25 then it wasn't until yesterday that you realised that the English version
1 of your statement that you gave back in March of 2003 was wrong in several
2 respects. Am I correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And didn't this upset you, sir?
5 A. I simply stated that. I approved the major part of my statement,
6 and then I had some corrections. There were some details that, in my
7 view, were important and were misrepresented. Precisely because I did not
8 have the statement in my native language.
9 Q. Are you sure those portions were misrepresented because you didn't
10 have them in your native language or they were misrepresented by the OTP
11 so that your statement would look more favourable for their case?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You don't need to put an objection, raise an
14 Move to your next question, Mr. Meek.
15 MR. MEEK: Judge, I have no further questions. Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. [Microphone not activated]
17 Who is going next? I had indications that the Pandurevic team
18 wanted to cross-examine this witness. The Nikolic team too. The Miletic
19 and Gvero team also.
20 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will not have any
22 questions for this witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's take it in turns. Thank you, Madam
25 Madam -- yes, Mr. Josse.
1 MR. JOSSE: Likewise.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Madam Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I am not ready at this
4 time to proceed with my cross-examination, and I would ask for the -- the
5 indulgence of the Trial Chamber. There is some verifications I need to do
6 with the records, with the English version, compared with the B/C/S
7 versions. There is the one specific issue I would like to raise
8 concerning the people that were treated by the witness, and I need some
9 time to go over these documents.
10 I understand that you will not entertain what I suggested earlier
11 concerning the fact that these documents were not referred to in the
12 witness -- or were referred to in the witness statement; however I'm not
13 ready at this time.
14 What I suggest, Mr. President, we can proceed maybe with the other
15 co-accused in this case, and hopefully with one break I could be ready to
16 proceed; if not, I would ask the Court that the witness be recalled
17 tomorrow morning and I would proceed very quickly for -- to terminate my
18 cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: The Borovcanin team have indicated that they do not
20 wish to cross-examine this witness.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, and we stick to this. We have no
22 cross-examination for the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: That leaves also only the Pandurevic team,
24 Mr. Haynes or Mr. Sarapa.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Sarapa:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Doctor.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. I will put several questions to you. The two patients that you
4 spoke about, Alic Halim and Alic Hasan, you said about them that their
5 wounds were neglected and that they were treated at the out-patient clinic
6 and then taken to Standard. You were shown medical documentation, medical
7 logbook, or the protocol, where the nature of the wounds is indicated, as
8 well as the names of the patients.
9 Based on that logbook, would you be able to establish when they
10 were admitted?
11 A. By analysing the logbook, above the names on the left side, where
12 the second patient is recorded, it says, "14th of July, 1995." So if this
13 is entered correctly by a nurse or a medical technician, it should be the
14 14th of July, 1995.
15 Q. Based on the logbook, would you be able to establish on which day
16 they were taken to Standard?
17 A. On the same day.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
19 Mr. Thayer, yes.
20 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, just for the sake of making sure the
21 record is clear, I think the -- I notice that the witness was looking at
22 the open logbook on the ELMO, which, if I recall correctly, is open to an
23 entry that does not relate to the two patients to whom my learned friend
24 was just referring. So I just want to make that clear. And I can be
25 corrected if that's wrong, but I just don't want there to be any lack of
1 clarity in the record.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's a fair comment. I think you need to
3 address this, both of you, and the witness, so that we are clear as to
4 what he's being referred to.
5 Yes, Mr. Sarapa.
6 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
7 Q. If I may assist the witness, it says here that Alic Halid is
8 written down under 4904 and Hasan is 4905. I don't know if this is of
10 A. Could this be shown to me, please.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Exactly.
12 MR. THAYER: I have the cites for that and we can return. That's
13 page 33 -- well, if we're trying to establish the date, which I think I
14 did with the witness, I can cite the page that actually has the date. If
15 we're looking for the page which contains the entries for those two
16 individuals, that's at page 333 in e-court, and, again, that's page 42 of
17 the English. And those will be entries 4904 and 4905.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to -- yes. Okay. Scroll it down.
19 Yes. Okay. Thank you. What are we waiting for? All right.
20 Have you found the reference, doctor?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't find my way around
22 this document that is being shown to me. 4005 [as interpreted], Alic, is
23 that what it is? Can I also look at the right half of the logbook, if
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
1 JUDGE KWON: Let him scroll with the original logbook.
2 MR. THAYER: On the ELMO, Judge Kwon.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Doctor, you can refer to the original logbook,
4 which is on the ELMO.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Doctor. Doctor. Doctor.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: If it makes your life easier, what you are seeing on
8 the screen, on the monitor, is a reproduction of what you have in the
9 original patients' log to your right on the ELMO; the original book
10 itself. Perhaps if you prefer, you can consult that and we can send you
11 Madam Usher to assist you finding, locating the page. I think that will
12 make things easier.
13 Madam Usher, I think we're talking of page 333, if I remember
15 MR. THAYER: And that document isn't numbered but I've numbered it
16 as tab 6 on the yellow tabs. I think that will get us there.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think let -- let the witness familiarise himself
18 with the pages that he is being referred to first.
19 If you wish to go through the pages in the original rather than
20 concentrate on what you have on the monitor, then please do so, by all
21 means. I'm talking to you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it on the screen now. Alic
23 Halid and Alic Hasan, and I have both the left and the right side of the
24 logbook, so I can see it now. So if possible, could you please repeat
25 your question?
1 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Based on the documents here, can you be certain about the date
3 when they were taken to Standard -- when they were treated and then taken
4 to the Standard facility after being examined?
5 A. I already said that the left side of the logbook is something that
6 the nurse or medical technician take care of, and then on the other side
7 there are notes about the patients that I treated. So if there is a date,
8 it would need to be on the left-hand side. I don't see it here. I don't
9 remember the exact date when this happened. But I know, by looking at the
10 logbook, that I was the one who treated these patients.
11 Q. If you looked at this document more carefully, would you be able
12 to determine the date, looking on the left-hand side of the logbook?
13 A. If it's a correctly registered logbook, then I could be able to
14 tell. Perhaps if I saw the previous date on the left-hand side, I would
15 be able to tell. On this part, on the left-hand side that I see now, I
16 don't see any dates.
17 So I would need to look at the date before and the date after,
18 because, as I already said, this would refer to a 24-hour time period.
19 That's how it should be, if the logbook was recorded correctly. But this
20 is again something that is not part of a doctor's duties.
21 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the pages of
22 the document based on which he could see the previous date and the date
23 that is written after this? So that we could see which day it was.
24 Perhaps -- this is probably a document that has the dates entered, so
25 perhaps we can look for them.
1 MR. THAYER: I believe that's going to be at page 331 of e-court,
2 page 41 of the English, and if I could ask the doctor to flip the page.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it will be easier if Madam Usher again
4 assists the witness by referring him straight to the original that he --
5 he has on the ELMO, to page 331.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It will be easier for me to actually
7 look at the logbook. It's in front of me.
8 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
9 protocol then, the logbook.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The previous page under number 48 --
11 actually, it's the third patient from the top, the date is the 24th of
12 July, 1995. If this is correct, then it should be the 24th of July, 1995.
13 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you, thank you. That is sufficient for now.
15 I would now like to ask you to, on the page that has number 4904,
16 if we can go back to that page, 4904, where Hasan and Halid Alic are
17 registered. Would you agree with me, and you've already said that,
18 mentioning their names, but previously when you were looking at the
19 document you said that you could not be sure if it actually was Halid, if
20 that was the name.
21 Can we agree now that this is then about two persons, Hasan Alic
22 and Halid Alic, under numbers 4904 and 4905?
23 A. I didn't write that, but I assume that it could be so.
24 Q. Well, you said that you assumed that because it was not your
25 handwriting. Would you agree that under number 4904 there is the name
1 Halid there?
2 A. This H is a bit of a problem, but it's very probable that it is
4 Q. Thank you. It's not your handwriting?
5 A. Yes. And it would be highly probable that this is Hasan.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness document
8 which was handed in today. It's document -- it's a report on the decision
9 by the Chamber for Human Rights on the register of the Batkovic collection
10 centre, and could that document be placed on the ELMO, please. Let's look
11 at page 7, please.
12 Under number 6679, there is the name Alic Halid; Srebrenica; the
13 24th of July, 1995; and departure on the 12th of September, 1995; and the
14 remark is, "Exchange." Do you agree that this is what is stated in this
15 document, and Halid Alic's year of birth is marked at 1967?
16 A. In the left-hand side of the logbook there is no date of birth.
17 Q. No, no. 6679, you have the name Alic Halid?
18 A. Just one moment, please. I apologise. I'm interested in the year
19 of birth.
20 Q. It says the 1st of January, 1967. This is the fifth column after
21 the name of the father?
22 A. 1967 and 1969.
23 Q. Under number 6680, there is the name Alic Hasan, father's name is
24 Hamed; date of birth is 1969; also Srebrenica; the same date of arrival,
25 the 24th of July, 1995; and date of departure is the 12th of September,
1 1995; and there is also the note there, "Exchange."
2 A. Yes, that is what it says on the document on the ELMO.
3 Q. Can we agree that this is a document with identical first names,
4 last names, the year of birth, and the place of residence, as of those
5 persons who are in the medical logbook under protocol number 4904 and
7 A. Looking at the logbook, then your assertion is accurate.
8 Q. Thank you. There is one more question. I would like to use your
9 knowledge and the information that you have about the way people were
10 treated who were brought in. I'm thinking of prisoners brought in by the
11 Zvornik Brigade. Can you please tell me, if it was necessary to take an
12 X-ray, if a fracture was suspected, where was this carried out?
13 A. It was done at our hospital.
14 Q. At the hospital. And outside of this, and I'm generally speaking
15 about when the prisoners were brought in, so I'm not talking about
16 specifically these two persons whose names we mentioned or the other
17 names, I'm just generally speaking. If it was necessary to have an X-ray,
18 these people would be brought to your hospital; and then the X-rays, would
19 they return to wherever they came from with the X-rays?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All the persons that were brought, I'm talking about prisoners, by
22 anyone from the Zvornik Brigade for an examination or medical treatment to
23 your hospital, were they treated identically as Serb wounded persons?
24 A. Yes, I assert that is so.
25 Q. And these 11 persons, these prisoners who were taken from the
1 hospital to Standard and who were treated adequately, is that -- does that
2 apply to them?
3 A. Yes, absolutely. According to the principles of military
4 medicines -- medicine, and they were treated in exactly the same way as
5 the soldiers from our side were treated.
6 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: That basically brings --
8 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Excuse me, excuse me. Just one more
9 thing. I apologise.
10 Q. A patient who died at the hospital who was not taken to Standard,
11 would you agree that his name was Aziz Becirevic?
12 A. Looking at the medical documents that were shown to me from
13 Milici, I can say with the highest degree of certainty, or probability
14 that that is the same patient.
15 Q. I would like to ask...
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Can we have document 7D169 shown to
18 the witness, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: This document is not in the system.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Perhaps we could go on a break a
22 little earlier so that then we can find the document.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have -- we can do either of two things, either
24 have the break now. In any case, we can send the witness out, that's for
1 The second thing is we can still have the break at 12.30, as
2 scheduled. In the meantime we can dispose of the exhibit, Haglund
3 exhibits, and also of the other issue that I raised with Mr. Bourgon
4 earlier on about those three documents reminiscent of -- or of PW-101's
5 testimony. I think the witness can be escorted out, and I don't see why
6 we couldn't dispose of the Haglund exhibits issues first.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Sarapa, we will continue with your
9 cross-examination after the break.
10 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, you promised us that you would check the
12 list and inform Mr. McCloskey if you had any objection to the introduction
13 of any of those documents that he mentioned earlier on in relation to
14 Dr. Haglund's testimony.
15 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. I talked with Mr. McCloskey at the
16 break, and he indicated that the documents, additional documents he wished
17 to introduce were P00612, 613, 614, 615, 617, 618, 619, 620, 623, 624,
18 625, which he indicated to me that because of the cross-examination by
19 Mr. Haynes that these were mentioned.
20 I don't believe they were mentioned. I believe there was a
21 general question to Haglund about his record keeping but I don't believe
22 those were mentioned, and I object to that, to any of those and all of
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
25 Mr. McCloskey, can you respond to that?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think what I was referring to is I believe, and
2 Mr. Haynes can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mr. Haynes was
3 complimenting Dr. Haglund on his attachments because they were so complete
4 with all this information. It's my understanding that's the information
5 that is part of Dr. Haglund's report, that Mr. Haynes was talking about.
6 I may be wrong, but that's what I was explaining to Mr. Meek.
7 It's part of his report and part of the 94 bis application to the report.
8 It didn't get on the 92 bis part.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek. Do you wish to add anything?
10 MR. MEEK: That's where I'm a little concerned. It's either it
11 was in evidence or it's not in evidence, and now they want it to be in
12 evidence because a single question that didn't mention any of these
13 documents, so...
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think, to be honest with you. I
15 personally would like to postpone our decision because I am not informed
16 sufficiently here and now of what the position is. We will go deeper into
17 this, and I will come down with our decision later on if to admit these
18 documents or to accept your objection.
19 I'm not in a position to comment. I don't know if my colleagues
20 are. But I think we will have to check the records to see what the
21 position is before we jump. All right.
22 MR. MEEK: I will agree, Judge. And if you want to take a break
23 now, fine. Otherwise, I have five documents I would like to have tendered
24 into evidence.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can safely move to that now.
1 MR. MEEK: Later.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: No, you can tender them now.
3 MR. MEEK: All right. Document 2D70 which was the report of the
4 oversight committee of the San Antonio report, is what we referred to it
5 as; 2D73, that was a document that was shown to Haglund. He was
6 interviewed actually in that one. He was a moderator of a panel; 2D75,
7 another article, "The Science of Human Rights," that was written by Jim
8 Austin, and Dr. Haglund testified about that; 2D78, an article from the
9 Human Rights Centre: "All That Remains Identifying The Victims of The
10 Srebrenica Massacre," by Laurie Vollen, which was discussed on
11 cross-examination; and 2D80, which would be the chapter 9 of the book,
12 "The Key to My Neighbour's House," by Elizabeth Neuffer, which was
13 specifically discussed, the excavations and exhumations done by Dr.
14 Haglund back in 1995, 1996, in the area of Srebrenica.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Does any other Defence team wish to
16 tender any documents in relation to Dr. Haglund's testimony? None.
17 Mr. Bourgon, those three documents used with PW-101, have you
19 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President, we verified. With the first
20 two documents -- or sorry the last two documents, P311 and 1D217, one is a
21 death certificate of the mother of --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
23 MR. BOURGON: -- of the chief of transportation. The second one
24 was a -- an attendance record. Now, with regards to the first one, P295,
25 this is a vehicle log, and my only difficulty is I only want to introduce
1 in evidence the exact pages.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: There were two pages. They are indicated. We don't
3 have --
4 MR. BOURGON: Yes, so only those two pages, and yes, indeed, we
5 would like to have those two pages admitted, and I believe my colleague
6 did not object to those.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. Exactly.
8 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So in conclusion on this issue and in relation to
10 the testimony of PW-101, the three documents sought to be admitted by the
11 Nikolic Defence team; namely, two pages, document P295, P311, and 1D217
12 are hereby being admitted, there being no objection on the part of the
14 I think we will have the break now.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Before we go for the break and before we
17 decide, of course, on Mr. Meek's request or submission to tender his
18 documents, is there an objection?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Then we can decide it now.
21 So your documents are being admitted.
22 We will have a 25-minute break. Would that be sufficient for you,
23 Mr. Bourgon?
24 MR. BOURGON: Indeed it will, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's deal first with the issue raised by Mr. Meek,
5 responded to by Mr. McCloskey, in relation to those documents that the
6 Prosecution seeks to tender with Dr. Haglund's testimony. You seem to
7 mention, Mr. McCloskey, Rule 92 ter or Rule 94, nothing of the sort.
8 Dr. Haglund testified and his reports were introduced under Rule 92 bis,
9 and there is no other rule applicable.
10 However, our position is that these annexes are part and parcel of
11 his various reports and are necessary for a proper understanding and
12 instruction of his evidence, and therefore they are so admitted.
13 Now, have you sorted out, Mr. Sarapa, have you identified the --
14 all right. So we can proceed and conclude with your cross-examination.
15 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have. All I wanted to
16 add is that the document I used previously, which is the list of exchanged
17 persons, already in the e-court under number 3D17; both in the original,
18 in the Serbian language, and in English translation.
19 Q. Doctor, could you please tell me what procedure is applied if a
20 patient dies?
21 A. You mean a typical procedure?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Well, if there is a death on a ward, death signs have to be
24 established. EKG is performed. They need to establish that there are no
25 vital signs of life. The patient has to remain on the ward for two hours
1 and after that he is taken to the morgue.
2 Q. Who informs of the death?
3 A. Your question is not clear.
4 Q. When a patient dies in the hospital, who does the hospital inform
5 of the death?
6 A. The doctor treating the patient has to write the fact of death in
7 the medical history, then a death certificate is written and then the
8 family is informed.
9 Q. When Aziz Becirevic died, do you remember what the procedure was
10 for informing the family?
11 A. I don't remember the procedure at all in that case. I am not
12 aware of the fact when he died and where his body was taken.
13 Q. Did you have previously such cases where prisoners died at the
14 hospital due to injuries?
15 A. No, as far as I am aware that was the first and only case.
16 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] If possible, could we see document
17 7D169? 7D169.
18 Q. Here we see the date, the 16th, you can see the English
19 translation, ERN 0308-9357. You can see in this document. This is the
20 logbook of the person on duty. It says here that Aziz Becirevic died, and
21 at the hospital, Dr. Novakovic notified that the utility company should
22 take care of it. Do you remember this?
23 A. No. I don't remember this, and typically doctors are not tasked
24 with informing the utility company.
25 Q. The fact that it is not the duty of the doctor to inform the
1 utility company to arrange the funeral, is that the reason that you
3 A. I'm sorry, I did not understand your question.
4 Q. It says here that "Aziz Becirevic died at the hospital and that
5 Dr. Novakovic notified the utility company should take care of it." Since
6 it is not your duty to inform the utility company of the fact of the
7 death, is this the reason why you informed the Zvornik Brigade, because it
8 was your intention to inform the Zvornik Brigade so that they could
9 contact the utility company?
10 A. I don't remember that the Zvornik Brigade was informed. I don't
11 even know who wrote this down. This is not my handwriting.
12 Q. This is not your document, and this is not your handwriting. This
13 is a notebook belonging to the Zvornik Brigade; namely, it says there that
14 the hospital reported that Becirevic had died and that utility company had
15 been informed to arrange for the funeral?
16 A. I don't remember that I reported this.
17 Q. You don't remember?
18 A. I don't remember. It is possible, but I don't remember that
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
21 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
23 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. I would like to pick up where my colleague just left off
1 concerning the wounded prisoner, Aziz Becirevic, that you were just
2 discussing with my colleague. And I would like first to refer you to the
3 document which my -- was used by my colleague, and that is 65 ter number
5 MR. BOURGON: Now, I have here the English, if I can have side by
6 side the English and the B/C/S on the e-court. In English it is page 35,
7 and in B/C/S I do not have the page number, but the ERN ends with 6132.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer.
9 MR. THAYER: I believe that will be, depending on exactly which
10 pages, either page 60 or page 61 of the B/C/S original of that document,
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Thayer.
13 MR. BOURGON: Okay. On the right side I have the English version,
14 and I'd like to have the same thing on the left side, but in B/C/S. I'm
15 not sure we're talking about the same document. Okay.
16 Q. Witness, looking at this document, you confirmed already that this
17 is the person who died at the hospital. Is that correct?
18 A. This portion of the discharge letter is not quite legible. I see
19 Aziz Becirevic on the English version but not on the original. I can't
20 tell whether the name is the same. I don't think it is the same person.
21 Q. You are correct, it is not the right page. Perhaps my colleague
22 from the Prosecution can help us identifying the right page in the B/C/S,
23 the right original.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: I think that's page 60 or 61 of 1884 in e-court.
1 MR. BOURGON:
2 Q. Okay. I believe, Witness, we have the right page now, and I would
3 draw your attention to this document. So now the ERN number, just for the
4 record, ends with 6115.
5 So, first of all, Witness, I'm not sure you did answer the
6 question. I will say it again. You confirm that this is the person who
7 died after arriving at the Zvornik Hospital; the one of the wounded
8 prisoners that were transported there. Is that correct?
9 A. Looking at the document with a great deal of certainty, I can say
10 that this is the patient, Aziz Becirevic.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, if I look at this document in terms of the day he
12 was admitted at -- now, this is the Milici Hospital, you confirmed that
13 already. So at Milici Hospital he was admitted on the 13th and released
14 on the 14th. Is that what this document says?
15 A. Yes, that's what it says.
16 Q. So if this -- if this person was transported along with the other
17 prisoners on the 14th, that means that he would arrive at Zvornik Hospital
18 sometime in the day on the 14th. Is that correct?
19 A. I wasn't an eye-witness, and I can't confirm that.
20 Q. And do you any idea at what time of the day the group of prisoners
21 arrived on the 14th at Zvornik Hospital?
22 A. No, I don't remember. I wasn't present.
23 Q. Now, I draw your attention now to the bottom of this document,
24 where it says, just before the signature line, that "the patient was
25 transferred to Zvornik Hospital on the orders of the VRS chief of medical
1 corps." Do you confirm this?
2 A. It says here on this discharge letter.
3 Q. Now, do you know who Dr. Davidovic is?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And who is he?
6 A. He is a neurosurgeon. He worked at the war hospital in Milici.
7 Q. And if we have his signature on this document, I take it we have
8 no reason to doubt that the patients were transferred from Milici to
9 Zvornik on the orders of the VRS chief of the medical corps. Is that
11 A. The patients were transferred to the Zvornik Hospital. I wasn't
12 present when that happened, and that's what it says here. I don't have
13 any information as to why it is written here. It says here that this was
14 done pursuant to the order of the chief of medical corps.
15 Q. And my question is simple: Do you have any reason to doubt that,
16 looking at this document?
17 A. Well, there shouldn't be any, because normally people are held
18 liable for any forgeries, so this document should be correct.
19 Q. Thank you, Witness. I'd like now to move to another document,
20 which was shown to you by my colleague, and that is document 1891. That's
21 the 65 ter number, and I have page 279 in B/C/S, and page 22 in English.
22 Can we have those side by side on e-court, please.
23 Witness, I draw your attention to the left side of the screen
24 before you, and at the serial number 4605. My colleague showed you this
25 document and you identified a name, which I cannot really read, and you
1 said that he was from Srebrenica and would have been admitted at midnight
2 on the 15th of July. Is that correct?
3 A. I didn't say that; I read this out.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer.
5 MR. THAYER: Just for the sake of clarification, if we're talking
6 about midnight, it could mean different things depending on what day
7 you're talking about, that's all.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you agree to that, Mr. Bourgon?
9 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, the document says 00 on the 15th.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.
11 MR. BOURGON: To me it makes no --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
13 MR. BOURGON:
14 Q. My question to you, sir, is about this patient.
15 MR. BOURGON: And if we can move to have the remainder of the page
16 and that is, on the B/C/S side, we have to go to, I guess, page 270 --
17 page 280 so we can have the remainder of the line. And this always refers
18 to this person that would have been brought in at midnight on the 15th.
19 Q. Now, I simply suggest to you, sir, that this person, that was
20 brought in on the 15th at midnight, or at the time mentioned on this
21 document is not one of the wounded prisoners that was transferred from
22 Milici. Would you agree with me?
23 A. I'm not familiar with the names of the wounded Bosniaks from
24 Milici, thus I can't say, looking at their names, whether it is them or it
1 Q. Thank you. Let me show you a document, and maybe that can help
2 you, because I mean you were working at Zvornik Hospital so I'm sure you
3 can help us with this document here.
4 MR. BOURGON: I'd like to have on e-court, please, P2451. I think
5 we can go straight to, in the B/C/S version, is ERN number 8142, and we
6 also have the English version. Now, this is a hospital discharge form.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
8 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, just out of an abundance of caution, if
9 we could move into private session for this series of questions.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem. Let's move into private session,
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 9088-9090 redacted. Private session
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
23 MR. BOURGON:
24 Q. So, Witness, without referring to the person we were just talking
25 about, that's one example, so you agree with me that there might be
1 others. Is that correct?
2 A. This one example indicates, yes, yes, that.
3 Q. Thank you. Let me now move to the two other persons that were
4 referred to you by my colleague. And I'd like to go back to 1891, that's
5 61 ter 1891, on page 42 in English and page 333 in B/C/S.
6 Now, my colleague has already asked this question. I will just
7 ask you to confirm, again, because it is the introduction to my next
8 question. My colleague representing another of the accused in this case
9 asked you to confirm that the two individuals referred to - and I'm
10 talking about on the left side of your screen, number 4904 and 4905 - and
11 I guess they both have the name Alic, that both of these persons were
12 those that you found on the exchange list in Bijeljina. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, the fact, Witness, that these two persons are found in
15 Bijeljina on the list and that they have been exchanged simply comforts
16 you in your belief that all of these prisoners, after being taken to
17 Standard - we're talking about the Milici prisoners - were indeed
18 exchanged. Is that correct?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: I just don't see the relevance of whether he's
21 comforted or not by any particular information that he's being presented
23 MR. BOURGON: It's not for my colleague to answer this question,
24 Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We think the witness should be given the opportunity
3 to answer, but not exactly the way you put it. You need to rephrase it
4 and perhaps you can ask him whether, having seen both documents now,
5 including the one that was made use of by Mr. Sarapa, he wishes to state
6 anything as to what he -- in relation to either of them.
7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer. One moment again.
9 MR. THAYER: I apologise, Mr. President. It may save some time
10 ultimately in terms of whether I have any redirect or not. If my friend
11 has any information to suggest that these 11 Milici prisoners are, in
12 fact, on that exchange list that would we've seen today, then maybe we can
13 short-circuit that and he can represent that or direct him to the
15 Otherwise, I'll be forced to review each name and go through it.
16 But if my colleague can direct us to the location on that document
17 consistent with the question that he's asked, then that would be helpful.
18 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, of course, I have no intention of
19 doing that because the witness doesn't know any names. But now he knows
20 four names that were used by my colleague, so I'm referring to these four
21 names because we don't know the names of the other wounded prisoners.
22 That's our difficulty.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead with your rephrased question, which I
24 rephrased for you in any case.
25 MR. BOURGON:
1 Q. Doctor, my question is -- I will first do it in two parts to try
2 to satisfy my colleague on the other side. According to the information
3 that you were given at the time, it is your belief that these prisoners,
4 after being taken from the hospital, were taken to Standard and were then
6 Is that your belief from the information you had at the time?
7 A. Before I answer your question, I must say that I am not familiar
8 with any of the names. Looking at the logbook and the medical part filled
9 in by the doctor, I can recall the wounds and the injuries, but I am not
10 familiar with any of the names. I wasn't an eye-witness. I don't know
11 when they arrived or when they left.
12 What I do know was told to me at a meeting. At a morning meeting
13 of the collegium, the chief said that the patients had been brought from
14 Milici, that they are planned to be exchange, and until that happens they
15 are going to be treated at our department. When they went to Standard, I
16 specifically was entrusted with going to see them one day. Next time when
17 I went to see them, they were not there, and a soldier they had been taken
18 for exchange. This is what I know.
19 I don't know anything else other than what the chief told me. And
20 when I went to visit them the next time to examine them, they were not
21 there and a soldier said that they had been taken for an exchange. That
22 is all that I can say.
23 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, I perfectly understand that you are not
24 familiar with the names of the people who were transferred, and that's
25 just why I was focusing on these two that you have identified. By knowing
1 what injuries they suffered and what injuries were treated, you identified
2 two of those.
3 And those are the ones that are before you at 490 -- 4904 and
4 4905, and those are the two people with the name Alic. And you saw that
5 these two people are -- appear on the exchange list in -- of those who
6 were sent to Bijeljina.
7 So those two that you know and they were transferred, and that is
8 in line with the information you received at the time. Is that correct?
9 A. I objected to my statement, specifically in relation to those
10 documents. It says I recall the names well, but that is not true, and I
11 repeat that again.
12 By looking at the logbook the part where I treated the patients, I
13 recalled the patients and the type of injuries, and that I had treated the
14 patients in the way that I described.
15 Q. Let me take my question again and then we'll -- we'll leave it at
16 that. The injuries that you did identify in the logbook, you will agree
17 with me that these injuries go with the persons that we find at 4904 and
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, he's been clear and consistent on
21 direct and also on cross already, so I think this is wasting time.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I have pressure over here which I don't really need.
23 I think we've heard enough on this, Mr. Bourgon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Witness, I will ask you one last question concerning another
1 individual which my colleague -- another name which my colleague raised
2 with you.
3 MR. BOURGON and that is on 1891, that's the 65 ter number, and
4 page 275 in B/C/S, and page 21 in English. Can I have that on e-court,
6 Q. Witness, I draw your attention to the serial number. You're
7 looking at the left side of your screen, and that is 4582. And I would
8 simply like to confirm with you, if we move to page 276, so we can have a
9 complete picture of -- no, sorry. We have the information on this
11 At 4582, you confirm that this patient was treated at 11.00. Is
12 that correct, according to this information?
13 A. That is written in this part of the logbook.
14 Q. Thank you, Witness. I have no further questions.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 Is there re-examination?
18 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think we'd like Dr. Novakovic to be
19 done today. I will save the questions I referred to previously for
20 another witness with respect to the prisoner list, so nothing further.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 There are no further questions for you, Doctor, which means you
24 are free to go. Our staff will assist you. On behalf of the Tribunal, I
25 wish to thank you for having come over, and I wish you a safe journey back
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Exhibits. Mr. Thayer.
5 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, we've ---
6 THE FRENCH INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
8 MR. THAYER: -- to two items now. The first being the witness
9 statement, P02480, and the second being 65 ter 1884. The other two
10 documents we used with the doctor have already been admitted.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections?
12 Mr. Haynes.
13 MR. HAYNES: Well, I am going to object to the admission of the
14 witness statement. It seems to me that Rule 92 ter provides the Trial
15 Chamber with a discretion to admit a witness statement in the case of a
16 witness where three conditions are met. The first two, there is no
17 problem. He is present in court, and he was available for
19 But the third is that he attest the witness statement accurately
20 reflects his declaration and what he would say if examined. And it seems
21 to me in the case of this witness that's precisely what he did not do.
22 And it would be very difficult to characterise such alterations as he made
23 to his written statement as minor amendments.
24 Just to pick one example, the witness statement which the
25 Prosecution asked for you to receive into evidence says that the 11
1 wounded prisoners were not treated at the Zvornik Hospital. His account
2 here today is quite the opposite to that.
3 So my first submission is that the third condition under Rule 92
4 ter (A) is not met, and your discretion to admit the statement into
5 evidence does not arise.
6 The second point is, really, what is the purpose of it. This is a
7 witness who has now been in evidence, I know there's been a bit of
8 argument, but he's been in evidence for the best part of three hours plus.
9 There is not one word of his account that you haven't heard that is
10 relevant to these proceedings, and so the admission into evidence of his
11 statement is oteos [phoen] redundant and simply surplus to requirements.
12 Those are my objections in headline form.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
14 MR. THAYER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but briefly, if my learned
15 friend could direct us to precisely where in the witness statement it is
16 alleged that he never said that these prisoners were treated at the
17 Zvornik Hospital.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have to leave it at that.
19 MR. THAYER: We can do it tomorrow.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The time is up, and I wouldn't like it take any of
21 the other Chamber's court time. We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning
22 at 9.00. We'll finalise this exercise and will proceed with the next
23 witness, and I hope that by then you would have come to terms and
24 agreement on the problems that were raised this morning. Thank you.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of
2 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.