1 Tuesday, 4th September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar, and good morning,
7 Could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
10 Popovic et al.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
12 For the record, all the accused are here. From the Defence teams,
13 I only notice the absence of Mr. Haynes. The Prosecution, it's
14 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Thayer.
15 I understand there are some preliminaries that you wish to raise,
16 Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
19 MR. BOURGON: There is indeed a preliminary I would like to do at
20 this time, and it has to do with the next witness, but we believe that the
21 Trial Chamber should be informed at this point. And it is simply that it
22 is an application to delay the cross-examination of this witness, but only
23 until tomorrow morning. And I'd like to explain why this is so.
24 This has to do, Mr. President, with the fact that we have
25 encountered difficulties with the interview which was provided by this
1 witness on the 21st of July of 2006.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. We're talking of PW-108?
3 MR. BOURGON: PW-108, the next witness, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I just wanted to make sure, since there was some
5 change in the order in which -- okay, go ahead.
6 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 The situation is as follows: We have received a second revised
8 translation concerning Witness PW-108 on the last week after business
9 hours on Monday, the 27th of August, following which we have been working
10 to try and make up whether the second revised translation was accurate or
11 not. We have found that it was not, and we have communicated with the
12 Prosecution on Sunday afternoon to indicate that there were further
13 changes and that we wanted to work, during the cross-examination of this
14 witness, with a clean copy of the statement or the interview.
15 What I mean by "a clean copy" is that what we've been provided
16 with is where there was mistakes in translation, they've been crossed out,
17 and then there was two slashes added. The correct translation is in
18 italics, followed by two slashes. It makes the interview very difficult
19 to work with and to read, and makes it also difficult to follow if we have
20 to use it during the cross-examination. Now, this is what we indicated to
21 the Prosecution, and that was on Sunday afternoon.
22 On Monday morning, which is yesterday, I provided to my colleagues
23 from the Prosecution first a clean copy, which is having removed the
24 incorrect parts translated and crossed out in the statement, and I
25 provided them with a series of new changes which we believe, after
1 listening over and over again to this interview on tape, were needed to be
3 This prompted a meeting between the Prosecution and the Defence
4 yesterday afternoon. This was attended by two persons on behalf -- three
5 persons on behalf of the Defence of Mr. Nikolic, and this meeting lasted
6 from 2.00 in the afternoon until about 4.30 in the afternoon yesterday,
7 agreeing on most changes that should be brought to this interview. What
8 happened then is that we -- despite the fact that we were in constant
9 contact with the Prosecution, we received a third revised translation at
10 9.30 or 9.22 exactly last night.
11 And at 9.22, looking at this third translation, there are still
12 some difficulties with this translation. The following difficulties are:
13 First of all, it was provided to us, from a technical point of view, in a
14 format which could not be scanned immediately last night, but that's a
15 minor difficulty which has been, since then, sorted out. The second
16 difficulty is that there are a few more changes that we had proposed that
17 had not been agreed to by the Prosecution. We're trying to get those
18 sorted out this morning, and that's not a major difficulty, either.
19 The major difficulty, Mr. President, is that because of the
20 changes, we do not agree on the format in this interview should appear if
21 it is to be used with the witness. The Prosecution insists and we have
22 received some what they call guidance as to how to read the annotations on
23 the interview. We received this last night at, it was sent at 9.25, but
24 we only realised we had received it around 10.00. And I also received a
25 long e-mail by my colleague from the Prosecution explaining his position
1 with respect to the interview.
2 Basically, what they say is that the portions that have been
3 corrected, where the interpretation was incorrect, should remain on the
4 interview transcript and be crossed out, followed, as I've explained, by
5 the two slashes and then the correct version in italics.
6 We believe, Mr. President, that this is not a proper way to use
7 the statement, if it is to be used, because it does make -- it just
8 changes and alters the interview itself and makes it very difficult to
9 understand what the witness actually said and what is really that he said
10 during the interview that can be used during cross-examination. So that's
11 the first part that we still need to agree upon as to how it will appear,
12 if it's going to be used.
13 The other difficulty I personally had was that my
14 cross-examination is quite long for this witness, I have three hours to
15 cross-examine him. All the questions, I did not have enough time, having
16 received the last version last night, to try and incorporate the changes,
17 because every question I have, where I took lines of the transcript of the
18 interview, I have to change the image. Basically, it's to go back into
19 the statement, scan as an image those two or three lines that go with each
20 of my questions, and to insert them back into my questions. And it has
21 not been possible for me to do that at the late time we received the
22 translation yesterday.
23 For all these reasons, I simply suggest, Mr. President, that the
24 Prosecution can proceed with its examination-in-chief today, and we will
25 proceed the first time -- at the beginning of the day tomorrow with the
2 Another detail which I guess my colleague will explain to you from
3 the Beara team is they did not receive that copy of the new -- the third
4 revised translation of this interview. I provided them with -- the Beara
5 team and I was in contact with them last night from about 9.00 when I
6 started dealing with my colleague over the phone, but that's -- I guess he
7 can explain that.
8 And I understand from my colleague that this may cause for him
9 some scheduling problem. We're fully aware of that, and the idea is we
10 just want to be able to proceed on a sound basis for the cross-examination
11 of Witness PW-108.
12 Thank you, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One question, Mr. Bourgon. Which version of the
14 statement has been the subject of these alterations, the English or the
16 MR. BOURGON: Both, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Both of them.
18 MR. BOURGON: Both of them.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I see.
20 MR. BOURGON: It was a very -- the Prosecution will concede that
21 it was indeed pretty difficult work on the part of the translator who was
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
24 And my second question is: Was the interview tape-recorded, by
25 any chance?
1 MR. BOURGON: It was indeed, Mr. President. That's what we've
2 been working on is from the tape. The problem is many words on the tape
3 have been attributed to the witness, and these words were not said by
4 him. So now we have kind of an interview where half of a sentence, for
5 example, we have underlined, and beside that it says: "Not mentioned by
6 the witness." Who mentioned it in that interview room, it could be -- I
7 think there was about five persons there, or at least four, and it's not
8 known who said those words. We take the view that only the words of the
9 witness should be on the tape -- on the transcript so that we know what he
10 said. The Prosecution will argue otherwise and they will say whatever is
11 said in the room of the interview should be in the transcript, and we
12 disagree on this aspect of the interview transcript.
13 And of course we believe that -- as you know, Mr. President, the
14 Trial Chamber has seen the interview a long time ago. The final product
15 that we have today is quite different from what the Trial Chamber operated
16 with when there was a series of motions linked to that witness.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
18 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
21 I would have to say that I fully agree with my colleague,
22 Mr. Bourgon. It was, I say, after 10.00 when I received a phone call from
23 him. I checked my web mail. The Prosecution sent me no new version,
24 although they knew -- had to have known that there's only two teams that
25 are interested in cross-examining this witness. He was nice enough,
1 Mr. Bourgon, to send me a copy, which ultimately was printed out probably
2 after 10.30 last night. So now we literally have three versions that
3 we've been working with. They overlap, they're jumbled, and it's quite a
4 chore. I'm frankly still working on it. I was up late last night, early
5 this morning, and I'm still working on it. And I just don't think it's
6 fair, and I believe that it wouldn't inconvenience anybody that much to
7 let us do our cross tomorrow.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Meek.
9 Mr. Thayer.
10 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
11 Honours. Good morning, everyone.
12 I'll try to be as brief as I can, because I just frankly don't
13 want to waste further time on this issue. Let me just provide some
14 factual context to what's going on here.
15 The English and B/C/S transcripts in their original form were
16 disclosed to all Defence on 18 May, along with the tapes. Those went over
17 months ago.
18 The interpretation in the field for this interview, we all agree,
19 was poor, and that is what's creating the problems. It's a matter of the
20 interpreter alone, and it is the interpreter's voice alone which is being
21 corrected here in the transcript. So it's not a question, for example, of
22 if there is something crossed out and it's wrong, there's any question
23 that it's somebody else in the room saying it. The problem we have is in
24 some cases the interpreter ad-libbed, freelanced, as it were, and either
25 characterised by himself what he thought the person was saying, instead of
1 doing a straight interpretation, and in some cases just said things that
2 we can't find any basis for in the witness's actual answer. In some
3 cases, the interpretation was factually incorrect, and those have been
4 corrected as well.
5 The reason why we insist that these corrections be made plain is
6 that that most faithfully reflects what actually was said and heard during
7 the course of the interview.
8 We have a very simple legend or guide which we've provided. It's
9 identical to the guide that was provided with respect to the interview of
10 Mr. Borovcanin. It is helpful to all parties so that you can hear what is
11 exactly being said, whether it is right or wrong. It is imperative that
12 everybody be able to follow that if you're actually listening to the tape
13 in realtime and want to exactly know what, factually, was being said
14 during the course of the interview.
15 I understand that my colleague wants to provide some kind of a
16 clean -- so-called clean version that only has the very words that the
17 witness, himself, said so that there's sort of an uninterrupted answer,
18 but that doesn't really reflect the reality of what was going on in that
19 interview, for better or worse, and unfortunately we all agree that it was
20 a rough interview because of the interpretation.
21 This witness is an intelligent person. We are confident that with
22 some elementary explanation of how to follow the changes that we've made,
23 the sort of editorial symbols, that it will not be difficult for him to
24 follow along if he is ever refreshed or confronted with a transcript of
25 his interview. What we have simply done is if there was a word that was
1 incorrectly interpreted or a phrase incorrectly interpreted, we've drawn a
2 line through it, and then right next to that in italics we have inserted
3 what we all agree is the correct word or phrase.
4 If the witness simply didn't say what is represented to be in the
5 transcript by the interpreter, we again indicate that that is the
6 case: "Not said by witness." If there was an instance where something
7 wasn't translated to the witness or interpreted to the witness by the
8 interpreter, we have indicated that, too, by an abbreviation.
9 It's very simple, everybody can follow along. Without that,
10 however, one has no sense of what actually was going on in this interview,
11 and again it is not the case that there is something, for example, that
12 the investigator jumped in, in the middle of an answer, and was
13 misattributed, as far as I know, to the witness. It is really simply a
14 matter of trying to make heads and tails out of what the interpreter said.
15 Now, as I understand it, what we have remaining are four words or
16 phrases that, after last night's exercise, my friends have brought to our
17 attention that weren't changed in the revision. Let me make it clear:
18 When my friends approached us yesterday with numerous suggested changes,
19 we sat down with them, worked with them for two hours, and made those
20 changes, all of them. We did not dispute a single change, as far as I
21 know, that they made. As I understand it, there are four changes that
22 weren't made, but I don't believe that that is a matter of us
23 disagreeing. I think it was most likely just something that got missed
24 last night as it was being done in the evening. I will have an update in
25 a few moments, but it is simply four words or phrases that are still
2 I think we've remained very flexible throughout -- throughout, and
3 with respect to this witness, who was originally scheduled to testify in
4 mid-June, we have had a series of continuances at the Defence request,
5 none of which we've opposed, all of which we have -- thought were
6 appropriate. We have worked very hard with them to furnish any and all
7 information that they have requested, and they have suggested a tremendous
8 amount of additional information that we have gone ahead and furnished.
9 So what I don't understand is why, at this late stage, we are
10 being told that these changes, which are changes suggested by the Defence
11 and which we have made, they cannot proceed at all with the
13 Now, as for my friends on the Beara team, you know, I've got a
14 phone, everybody knows all my phones and my e-mails. Certainly the
15 Nikolic team does, so I can't speak to why I wasn't contacted about this.
16 We have been working with this team to address their concerns. I was not
17 aware that any other team had any specific concerns at all.
18 We are ready to go with this witness. We agreed to change the
19 witness order this week, I thought, so that they would be prepared to deal
20 with some new materials that they had requested from some commission
21 somewhere, and now we are being -- we are being told that they are unable
22 to proceed at all because there's a problem with the transcript.
23 Again, we have a scheduling issue with respect to the videolink
24 which is set in stone because of the location which it is being done. We
25 anticipate that will take at least Wednesday and probably part of
1 Thursday. We have asked the people on site to be prepared to sit Thursday
2 as well.
3 We have another witness scheduled who is coming from abroad to
4 begin testimony, Witness 101, on Thursday, and we have Witness 119 who has
5 his own logistical situation that has to be addressed by the DU to bring
6 him in on Friday. That, I'm less concerned about because we can have him
7 postponed, but it will create, I think, some problems in terms of
8 scheduling. We have already adjusted the schedule this week.
9 This witness is ready to go. He's been here since Sunday. I
10 don't see why we can't begin cross-examination on some topic. They've
11 estimated three hours of cross-examination, and we're ready to proceed.
12 Again, I don't think any of these issues are issues that we can't
13 resolve this morning, and we're resolving them right now, as I understand
14 it, so we should have an agreed transcript to work with.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
16 Yes, Mr. Meek, and then you, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, Mr. Thayer is missing the point
19 We're not saying that -- at least I'm not saying that we can
20 absolutely not continue with the cross-examination or do it. The fact is
21 that this is a Prosecution witness. This is a tape-recording done by the
22 Prosecution. It's their witness. They have the burden of proof. They
23 should have had this cleaned up a long time ago.
24 The clean version is not really the issue. They say the witness,
25 he's intelligent, he can follow along, but there again we have, I believe,
1 the right to adequately represent our clients. Our clients have to have
2 effective assistance of counsel, and to do that -- the client may be able
3 to follow along, but if a lawyer for the accused has these things dumped
4 on him at the 11th hour, then it's just not fair.
5 Mr. Thayer says, "Well, I don't know, everybody's got my phone
6 number." I don't have his cell phone at 10.30 at night, number one. And,
7 number two, I don't know that it's my burden to have to call every night
8 and say, "Did you send anything new to any other accused team that you
9 didn't send to me?" The obligation of the Prosecutor is to send --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
11 MR. MEEK: -- anything to everybody.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay. Thank you.
13 Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 I don't dispute the fact that we received the statement on 18
16 May. I think that's not really the point here, Mr. President.
17 I believe that there has been some good work accomplished on both
18 sides of this courtroom in dealing with this interview. It's been a very,
19 very difficult task to perform the changes, which have led to the second
20 revision that we received last week.
21 Now, there are two issues here, Mr. President. The first one is
22 the changes that appear on the transcript of the interview, and then the
23 short delay that we request in order to be ready to prepare.
24 Now, let me just use one example of what is in the interview
25 transcript to say why we insist that it be a clean copy.
1 At one point, the witness is asked, and I quote now from the
2 version I have, which is the latest third revised translation, page 9 of
3 20. The question at line 16 is:
4 "You could -- you could see the buses?"
5 And then there is something called "TTRV" and slash, which I
6 believe means not correctly interpreted from the B/C/S. And then it
7 says: "Buses and trucks." Then the answer at line 17 is: "Yes." And
8 then this is changed between slash: "Yes, from here" slash. Then it
9 says: "I could see the buses and trucks there on that main road there,"
10 followed by a slash: "Not said by RV." Slash: "But I didn't know --"
11 this is crossed out and replaced in slash by: "It wasn't known where they
12 were going and who was inside."
13 From this paragraph, if we give it to the witness, it can, for
14 one, suggest a different answer, it can be -- make it more difficult, and
15 it would be much more appropriate simply to operate with what is exactly
16 said on the tape, without any additions or subtractions or things that are
17 crossed out. I think this would make it much easier, Mr. President.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, thank you.
20 Yes, Mr. Thayer, do you wish to add anything, and that will be the
21 end of it.
22 MR. THAYER: Yes, just two brief things. (redacted)
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MR. THAYER: -- of so -- and again my friend just said it would be
1 much more appropriate simply to operate with what is exactly said on the
2 tape. That is exactly our point. If you want to know what was said on
3 the tape, you need, unfortunately, to have a key such as this so you can
4 follow what was said on the tape.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, so that we get a clear picture, how long do you
6 expect your examination-in-chief of PW-108 to last?
7 MR. THAYER: I think about 45 minutes to an hour, tops,
8 Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And then we have -- between the Beara and the
10 Nikolic team, we already have four hours, 15 minutes, four hours, 15
11 minutes. We have approximately -- we have lost half an hour already. We
12 have another 30 minutes, at least, with Simanic. That's one hour and a
13 half. Let's --
14 The most important thing, because trying to condense all the
15 debate, I think from what I have heard, you are in a position to come out
16 with a version of the interview, both in English and in B/C/S, which
17 reflects the entirety of what you have agreed upon. Now, whether that
18 should be then annotated or not, or whether the annotations should be made
19 use of -- one moment.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, in a way, without trying to diminish in any
22 way the importance of your submissions, which are extremely relevant and
23 we needed to know this, of course, before we proceeded any further, I
24 think one could condense it as follows:
25 There should be what you both consider to be the correct
1 transcript of the interview of this person, particularly in relation to
2 the witness, I would be referring to the B/C/S version because that's what
3 he will be shown if he is shown the transcript of his statement or not.
4 In relation to the English version -- in relation to the English version,
5 I think it is important that there is a clean -- what Mr. Bourgon referred
6 to as a clean copy, basically reflecting the transcript of the interview
7 that you have agreed upon, but the annotations are also very important. I
8 mean, they need not be shown to the witness, but they are important.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Look, our position is as follows, having heard your
12 Let me verify one thing first with you to make sure that I gave
13 the right information to my colleagues.
14 During the interview, was the procedure as follows: An
15 investigator from the OTP puts a question in English, it is interpreted to
16 the witness in Serbo-Croat, the witness answers in Serbo-Croat, it is
17 interpreted into English, and the statement or the purported statement of
18 the witness is drawn up in English. Then it is translated later on into
19 B/C/S. As soon -- when I say "later on," as soon as it is -- yes.
20 MR. THAYER: The procedure, Mr. President, is: When we bring the
21 tape back from the interview, it is -- a transcript is made by a B/C/S
22 language assistant who generates a version in B/C/S, and then an
23 English --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: But, Mr. Thayer, at the end of the interview, wasn't
25 a document already existing?
1 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President. In these interviews there's --
2 you mean a witness statement of some kind?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President. It's just a straight
5 question-and-answer interview, and the only thing that's left at the end
6 of this interview is a tape.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.
8 MR. THAYER: So there's no actual witness statement of any kind.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, that reinforces the rationale behind the
10 decision that we are going to give; namely:
11 As I said, there must be and there should be available for the
12 witness, if he is referred to his statement, a clean copy of his purported
13 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor in the B/C/S language, which,
14 by "clean copy," means a statement which incorporates all the corrections
15 that you have agreed upon. That's number one.
16 JUDGE KWON: In B/C/S.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: In B/C/S, yes, in B/C/S.
18 Then we will need, because of the submissions and the
19 complications that have been mentioned, then we will need, in both
20 languages, in both languages, a statement of the -- not a statement, a
21 transcript of the interview, in which all the alleged or challenged or
22 accepted or unaccepted contentions, relating to correct or incorrect
23 interpretation, need to be indicated. That's the only way we can follow
24 what happened and to what extent there was this wrong interpretation. In
25 other words, the English version would reflect all the changes made and
1 all the alleged wrong interpretations and all the alleged contentions.
2 Similarly, the B/C/S version would reflect the same.
3 We are not saying that these are going to go into the record as
4 exhibits, for the time being, unless there is a specific request,
5 obviously which I don't anticipate, but for an intelligent way of
6 following the evidence or testimony of this person, we need those to have
7 in place.
8 The second thing is the cross-examination. I think let's finish
9 with Mr. Simanic first. Then we start with PW-108 on direct. We'll see
10 where we are after you've finished the examination-in-chief, and then we
11 start with cross-examination on what is possible today. There would be
12 little time available, in any case, but we will start, and then of course
13 you will continue tomorrow. Basically, the bulk will be tomorrow, in any
15 Now, there is another thing that we need to decide today, and that
16 relates to a Prosecution motion for protective measures for Witness 88.
17 This is the person whose testimony we are going to receive via videolink.
18 There is a request to have practically the usual -- all the facial, voice
19 distortion and the use of a pseudonym.
20 I would like first to know whether there is any objection on the
21 part of the Defence teams. And, secondly, I would like to make clear one
22 thing: That since this is a videolink, there is no way that technically
23 we can provide for facial distortion and sound distortion during the
24 videolink connection itself. In other words, the testimony of this person
25 will arrive into the courtroom irrespective of whether we put the -- now,
1 I'm not assuming that we are going to give the protective measures. But
2 assuming that we do, his testimony would come here without any facial or
3 sound distortion. In other words, everyone will be able to see him in the
4 face, which begs two questions. The public, and that I think we have more
5 or less agreed already how to go about it, and we will inform you later
6 on; and, secondly, is: How can we make a voice and image distortion
7 effective if it's not being received as such?
8 So what we would do, if we put in place these, is that the
9 broadcast only of the testimony of Witness 88 would be subject to facial
10 and sound distortion. That is possible. I'm informed that technically
11 that is possible. But inside the courtroom, that would not be possible.
12 All right? I don't know if I've made -- I may have complicated it a
13 little too much, but is it clear enough?
14 Okay. So we hear no objections, so the protective measures you
15 have asked for are being granted, with this caveat: That the facial and
16 sound distortion will be applicable only, because of technical
17 restrictions, in relation to the outside broadcast of the proceedings and
18 this Trial Chamber. And then we will tell you later on how to proceed in
19 case we have members of -- persons in the public gallery, how to proceed
20 about that.
21 Okay, thank you.
22 So, Madam Usher, could you kindly bring in the witness, please.
23 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 I'd just like to indicate an error in yesterday's transcript. It
1 is on the page 56, line 5.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I have to bring it up. That's yesterday.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: In inverted commas, there is just a letter --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I won't be able to --
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Excuse me, excuse me.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: What page?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 56, line 5.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Now it's already in --
9 JUDGE KWON: Is it line starting with: "Absolutely"?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No. It is my question, and the line started with
11 the word "A" in inverted commas.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, 68, 14.668, line 5.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: There is just the letter "A" instead the
14 word "and" in inverted commas. That's all. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 Mr. Simanic, good morning to you. Welcome back.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to proceed with your testimony today.
20 WITNESS: MILE SIMANIC [Resumed]
21 [The witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
1 Q. Mr. Simanic, if we can just proceed. We started the
2 cross-examination briefly yesterday.
3 Good morning to you, sir.
4 Sir, yesterday I asked you if you remember that the Prosecutor
5 told you - and for the Prosecutor's reference, page 25, line 43. Do you
6 remember him telling you, and it was awkwardly written in the transcript,
7 as I probably said it that way that, quote, and this is from the
8 Prosecutor, quote:
9 "I don't think the 5th Engineers killed these people."
10 Do you remember him telling you that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the Prosecutor who was interviewing you in January of 2006 was
13 the gentleman here to your right, correct, the lead senior trial attorney;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, at any time -- strike that.
17 You were present with an attorney at this interview; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At any time, did you or your attorney ask the Prosecutor why you
20 were still a suspect if he told you, as he did on line 33, that he didn't
21 have any indication that the 5th Engineering Battalion murdered anybody at
22 the Kravica warehouse, and subsequently on the same page, line 43, stated
23 that he didn't think that the 5th Engineers killed these people? Did you
24 ever ask him why you were still a suspect then, if he had that opinion in
1 A. No, I didn't.
2 Q. Did he ever offer an explanation to you as to why you were still a
3 suspect, given what he told you?
4 A. He only said that there were some other matters at hand and that
5 this status would continue until those things changed.
6 Q. And did he share with you first on the record what those other
7 matters were, or was this a discussion that you had with him off the
9 A. That was when I was being prepared for my testimony on Sunday, I
11 Q. Oh, so you're talking about this past Sunday; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Well, share them with us, if you don't mind.
14 A. I'm not able to quote him exactly. He said that this would
15 continue until things changed.
16 Q. Did he give you an indication of what things would need to change
17 so that this wouldn't continue, that you would be identified as a suspect?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I'd like to talk about, briefly, with respect
20 to the exhibit that we used yesterday, and I think it's P02672, so we'll
21 have that up on the screen for you to see as well. But while that's being
22 brought up on the screen, sir: Yesterday you mentioned that there was
23 antagonism between the police MUP and the army. Do you remember that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And, sir, would you describe that antagonism as being in existence
1 in July of 1995?
2 A. I believe so, I believe it existed.
3 Q. Well, do you remember, sir, that in your statement, you said that
4 it existed, did you not? And, again, that's on page 59, lines 2 through
6 A. I don't have this before me. That's why I'm not sure.
7 Q. Okay, fair enough.
8 I'm asking him if he just remembered, Your Honour. We'll show him
9 the document in a second.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Witness, that you also qualified that
13 antagonism and identified it as being strong antagonism between the army
14 and the MUP; do you remember that?
15 A. I said there was antagonism between the army and the MUP because
16 the MUP men were better equipped, they had better uniforms, whereas the
17 army did not have such good equipment, and this was the major cause of
18 this antagonism between the two.
19 Q. And I remember that, thank you. And also do you remember saying
20 that the army and the MUP police were never together and never worked
21 together; do you remember saying that in January of 2006?
22 Page 46, Counsel.
23 A. I remember -- I would only rarely see them working together or
24 working alongside each other on certain tasks. This is what I meant.
25 Q. Well, let me ask you this, sir: Do you remember, in 1995, a
1 person by the name of Tomo Kovac?
2 A. I only heard of him.
3 Q. Well, do you remember what his position was on or about July of
5 A. I believe that he worked in the police.
6 Q. And do you know what his title specifically was at that time?
7 A. No, not really, no.
8 Q. Now, if we can look at this document that we have before us,
9 P02672, and I understand, quite respectfully, some of your testimony with
10 respect to this document, but I'd like to focus on the part where you
11 discuss the MUP police company, if we may.
12 And perhaps if the Prosecution would be kind enough to give the
13 witness the original, maybe it would help him follow quickly. And that
14 would be under section 2, Your Honours, subsection (f), as it's
16 And, Mr. Witness -- or Mr. Simanic, please tell me when you've had
17 an opportunity to look at that paragraph that's 2(f).
18 A. Yes, I've got it.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, in the first sentence, it says:
20 "MUP police company: Executing tasks as ordered by its command."
21 I'd like to just focus on that phrase. It does continue on in the
22 sentence, but for my purposes I'd like to focus on that.
23 Am I correct, sir, reading this, and given your testimony about
24 who may or may not have signed this document, "as ordered by its command,"
25 is it referring to the police command that was giving orders to these MUP
1 police company personnel?
2 A. Most probably, because we did not have any influence on them, nor
3 did we know what the police company was involved in.
4 Q. And when you say you, you're talking about the army, or the 5th
5 Engineering Battalion, or the Drina Corps?
6 A. I'm referring to the 5th Engineering Battalion, because I don't
7 know much about anybody else.
8 Q. Thank you. Sir, I'd like to -- and there was a phrase used
9 here, "to give the Court the best possible view of what the truth may be,"
10 yesterday on page 41, lines 18 through 19, Counsel.
11 Am I correct, sir, that this strong antagonism that you referenced
12 and that the orders that were given by the Command of the MUP to its
13 police officers is something that occurred either throughout the 1992-1995
14 period or is it just confined, in your view, to July of 1995?
15 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand your question.
16 Q. That's fair, and I'll restate the question.
17 Sir, am I correct that this strong antagonism that you identified,
18 as well as what's written on this document, P02672 on the 14th of July,
19 1995, that the Command of the MUP that was referenced in this document
20 related to the period of solely July 1995, that the MUP personnel followed
21 the orders of its Command, or was it for a period before that as well, in
22 your view?
23 A. I've already replied about the antagonism. As for obeying
24 commands, I meant the period when they were in Konjevic Polje, because
25 before that we did not know what they were up to, what they were doing,
1 what was their strength, or anything regarding the police.
2 Q. Thank you. Sir, I want to also show you the two -- if I -- with
3 the Court's permission, of course, because I want to and it's another
4 phrase that was used by my learned friend, although he just left, that
5 most faithful reflects what you actually said during your interview. And
6 I'd like to, if I may, use the ELMO to show, because there was a
7 discussion as to whether, during your direct examination, whether you
8 said, "Even worse, I signed it," when my learned friend asked you about
9 this document that you have before you. So I'd like to show you the B/C/S
10 version as well as the English version just so that we could compare the
11 two, of course, with the Court's permission.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Why do you want to show him the English version if
13 yesterday he said he doesn't understand English?
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Really for the Court's convenience and for all of us
15 to follow along side by side, Your Honour. I'm not asking him to read the
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We can follow. We do have the English
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour, but I'll just ask him --
20 and I've highlighted it, but I would ask the usher to show it to my
21 learned friend.
22 And we'll be looking at the English version, Your Honours --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. That needs to be brought up on the screen.
24 It's not in e-court.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Page 22, and specifically line 44 on the English
1 version, and we'll see right now that it's, I think, the same page 22 of
2 the B/C/S version, but the line is 22 and 23, if you will.
3 If I may proceed, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
5 MR. OSTOJIC:
6 Q. Witness, you don't have the English version before you, but
7 looking at the English version, there seems to be some breaks in the text
8 from that which is reflected in the Serbian version, or the B/C/S version,
9 excuse me. And if we look at your line here, 22 and 23, it would seem to
10 be the translated line in English of line 44, with your initials and then
11 a slash for the interpreter, and it says on line 44 --
12 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, but do we have an English version?
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, but I thought, and I may have misunderstood,
14 that the Court --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought it was going to be available on the
16 system, but since it doesn't have a 65 ter number, I think we need to put
17 it -- I think the original now, the B/C/S one, can be handed to the
18 witness, he can keep it in front of him, and we can put on the ELMO the
19 English version now.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I think, though, and it's quite candidly a
21 very short exercise, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I think if both are just placed on the ELMO, I think
24 we can all see it rather quickly, but I'll do it --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, okay, let's proceed in that way, then.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: And just for the record, the English version has a
2 pen mark on the right side of the text, and if the usher would be kind
3 enough to show that to the Prosecutor as well. Yes, that page. It's just
4 marked so that we could find direction on it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think -- now, Madam, I think if you put one on top
6 of the other so that we can see both highlighted texts, it will be better.
7 Yes, but it has to be brought down now.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Yeah, that would be good.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your
11 patience, Mr. Witness.
12 Q. Now, the reason we insist that these corrections be made plain is
13 that we want most faithfully for it to reflect what was actually said and
14 heard during the course of this interview, and said by my learned friend
15 this morning, in fact. And what I'd like to ask you is that the --
16 although you don't speak English, the English version reads, and I'll read
17 it for you, on line 44, it says:
18 "And furthermore, even worse, I signed it."
19 Now, would you be kind enough, although that's only seven words,
20 could you read to me what seems to be that which is reflected on lines 22
21 and 23 of the B/C/S version, again page 22 of that transcript? Can you
22 read that in for the Court, please, so they could follow it as it's
23 translated here verbatim?
24 A. Am I supposed to do that?
25 Q. Yes, sir.
1 A. "1.000 to 1.500 enemy civilians and soldiers were arrested,
2 killed, and what's even worse, I signed, didn't I?"
3 Q. Okay. Now, was that a question that you were asking the
4 Prosecutor as he was making that allegation to you, when you said "didn't
6 A. This was my comment, and I said this because at first, like I
7 stated yesterday, at first I thought that it was done by a unit of the 5th
8 Engineers Battalion. That's how it looked to me at first glance.
9 The second part was more like a question both to myself and to
11 Q. Now, and I apologise for having to ask you this, but if you look
12 even further above both the English compared to the B/C/S, there seems to
13 be either longer texts in the English version and shorter in the B/C/S,
14 and in some occasions vice versa. Do you see that?
15 A. In this specific case --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I was trying to understand your
17 question when Judge Kwon commented that he, too, doesn't really understand
18 it. What do you mean exactly, Mr. Ostojic?
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I think if you just look at this page, Your Honour,
20 you'll see it doesn't flow from the B/C/S version precisely compared to
21 the English version. The paragraphs before that are not only lengthier
22 but there's more questions, there's no interruptions. The English version
23 seems to be a somewhat modified version or a summary version, if you will,
24 of what was transcribed in the B/C/S version.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: The criticism or analysis of this should be
2 something that takes place outside of the witness, especially when there's
3 questions along this line.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, isn't it there for us to see,
5 Mr. Ostojic, and to attach to it the importance that it deserves?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Most definitely, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's proceed with your next question.
8 MR. OSTOJIC:
9 Q. Sir, you spoke about the Command of the police. Can you describe
10 the Command of the police? Can you describe their structure at all?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know, sir, in this P02672, in the section 2(f) that we were
13 referencing and in the three sections above that, when they said that they
14 would send patrols and organise ambushes, do you know how many patrols
15 were sent and how many ambushes were organised?
16 A. Where does it say "patrols"?
17 Q. Paragraph number 2, sir, subsection (b).
18 A. It doesn't say "patrols" anywhere.
19 Q. Okay. Let's look at subsection (b), and if I misspoke, sir, I'll
20 find the specific reference to it.
21 If you look at section (b), sir, I'm focusing on: "Organising
22 ambushes ..." Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know how many ambushes were organised on or before July
25 14th, 1995?
1 A. What is meant by "ambushes" at guards' posts, because they were
2 trying to reinforce their guards' posts by redeploying the men and by
3 rearranging their numbers, and a special emphasis is put on the guards'
4 posts number 5 and 6. That's why it is phrased as it is.
5 Q. The gentleman whose initials appear on the back of this page you
6 gave us, his name is Zajo, and Mirko is his first name. What was his --
7 do you remember his position with the 5th Engineering Battalion in July of
9 A. He was in charge of -- in charge of all the administration. He
10 was the only one who knew how to do that.
11 Q. But what was his title, if you remember, specifically?
12 A. I can't remember.
13 Q. Do you remember his rank in July of 1995, what his rank was?
14 A. We called him "Zajo" because he was warrant officer second class,
15 hence the nickname "Zajo."
16 Q. Did you, sir, ever go to the Kravica warehouse after July 13th,
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you know if anyone from your 5th Engineering Battalion went to
20 the Kravica warehouse on July 13th, 1995?
21 A. As far as I know, nobody went there.
22 Q. One last question. Did my learned friend tell you that your
23 status as a suspect would be changed after you testify or did he give you
24 any indication of when that status would change conveniently?
25 A. No.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, sir.
2 I have no further questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
4 Ms. Nikolic.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: And if I may just have my transcripts back.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
10 Q. Good morning, sir. My name is Jelena Nikolic, and I am Defence
11 counsel for Mr. Drago Nikolic.
12 I'd like to ask you a number of questions linked to the document
13 that we've just discussed with my learned friend. Listening to your
14 testimony yesterday and checking out certain information in the transcript
15 of your interview given to the Prosecution, if I understood it correctly,
16 document P02672, or rather it is the order of the 14th -- or combat
17 report, rather, of the 14th of April, 1995, in point 1 it contains a piece
18 of information, and you weren't sure where it came from. It says the 14th
19 of April in the transcript, whereas it's the 14th of July, 1995.
20 Do you understand my question?
21 A. Could you repeat it, please?
22 Q. The information contained in point 1, and the subtitle, which
23 is "The Enemy," which is contained in the combat report, on the basis of
24 your testimony about that, I understood it that you did not know where it
25 came from and how it came to be contained in this report.
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. You had, in your absence, I mean your 5th Engineers Battalion, you
3 had a commander and deputy commander who was on duty, he was an officer on
5 A. In the barracks, yes.
6 Q. We're talking about Konjevic Polje, are we not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I assume that he was linked in a system of communications?
9 A. He should have been. However, our communications did not function
10 at that time, not a single one.
11 Q. So on that 13th and 14th of July, the connections of --
12 communications of the 5th Engineers Battalion was severed?
13 A. I think they were severed for a longer time.
14 Q. That means that your 5th Engineering Battalion in Konjevic Polje,
15 for that period of time, did not receive any official information from the
16 ground via the communications system?
17 A. That is correct, yes.
18 Q. Can we agree, sir, that the information contained in point 1,
19 under the heading "Enemy," not to read it once again, and it is this same
20 document number, was based on stories told by people coming into Konjevic
21 Polje, and they conveyed information that hadn't been checked from the
23 A. From soldiers coming back from leave, that's where we got the
24 information from, and they were not verified, nor were they checked out.
25 Q. And you consider it to be a great mistake on your part that some
1 information that wasn't checked out, you introduced into the report to
2 your unit?
3 A. Well, I think it was my mistake, too, but it was also the mistake
4 of the person who received this piece of information for not checking it
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
7 further questions.
8 Thank you, sir.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Nikolic.
10 I have next on my list Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
12 Good morning, sir.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
14 Q. I am Defence counsel for Ljubomir Borovcanin. Together with my
15 colleagues, we represent his Defence team, and I have just a few questions
16 to ask you.
17 At one point in time yesterday, you said that you received
18 information to the effect that the Command of the 5th Engineering
19 Battalion was given some days off in June 1995. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Would you agree with me when I say that according to the documents
22 that we have, it was the period from the 9th of July until the 20th of
24 A. I can't remember when I learned about this exactly and how long
25 the period went on for.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to clear the record, there was -- it looks
3 like there's been a little translation error. I think you're talking
4 about getting time off in July, not June.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. And I think you
6 would agree to that, Mr. Simanic and Mr. Stojanovic.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Simanic, that we were talking about
9 July, July 1995?
10 A. Yes, July 1995.
11 Q. Thank you. You did not carry out any official hand-over of duty
12 when the commander of the 5th Engineering Battalion left?
13 A. No. We didn't even say goodbye. I didn't even see him when he
15 Q. Nobody told you what your duties were, if you were taking over the
16 post of the commander of the 5th Engineering Battalion; isn't that right?
17 A. Well, I didn't take over the post of the commander. I was still
18 the deputy commander, if there was no hand-over and takeover of duty.
19 Q. We agree, then, that there was no official hand-over of duty?
20 A. Not official or any other.
21 Q. Now, the next thing I wanted to ask you is this: It refers to
22 part of your testimony yesterday, where you mentioned the Konjevic Polje
23 police check-point which was near your guard post, guard post number 6. Do
24 you remember that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Will you tell me when that post was set up?
2 A. Well, I think it was in 1990 -- well, it was there when we arrived
3 in Konjevic Polje. It arrived -- it was there before we arrived in
4 Konjevic Polje, the check-point.
5 Q. Now, on page 35, line 7, it says "before 1990."
6 A. Well, I stopped. I didn't finish the year. I stopped by
7 saying "1990" and didn't add the year.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And which was the year, then?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was about to give you the year the
10 check-point was set up, and then I remembered that it was already there
11 when we arrived in Konjevic Polje. So it means that before we arrived,
12 the check-point was already there.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Would I be right in saying it was before 1994?
15 A. Of course, because that's roughly when we arrived in Konjevic
17 Q. Would I be right in saying as well that they were members of the
18 MUP, wearing blue police uniforms; isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Would I be right in saying, again, that the region of Konjevic
21 Polje belongs to the Zvornik centre?
22 A. Well, I do believe that it did belong to them, yes.
23 Q. Do you know anything about the presence of a company of special
24 police units of the centre for public security of Zvornik in that area in
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
2 Wait before you answer the question, please.
3 Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think you're talking about PJP units, and
5 there's going to be a big confusion because the word "special" was used in
6 the interpretation. And I'm sure that's not what Mr. -- I'm fairly sure
7 that's what Mr. Stojanovic meant.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what Mr. Stojanovic said because -- I
9 know what we have in the transcript.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: He used the word that gets always translated
11 as "special," but he did not mean "special." We're back to that situation
12 again. He was not asking about his client's troops at this question.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. If you know the correct name, then you
14 can use the correct name straightaway, Mr. Stojanovic, and that would --
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's one of the fallacies that's being argued
16 here today is that there's some sort of correct version always. He did
17 use the correct name, but if he would use the initials, I think there
18 might not be a problem.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then perhaps you can, if you agree to
20 that, Mr. Stojanovic, you could use the initials "PJP" or whatever they
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your
23 permission, I'd like to thank Mr. McCloskey, but I think we can continue,
24 and I'll say that I will use the initials "PJP" by which we wish to
25 differentiate from the special police brigade, and I think that we have
1 succeeded in doing that so far. So, yes, I will use the "PJP," but the
2 first question was for the benefit of my -- of the witness, because we
3 speak the same language, so we know what we mean. But, anyway, thank you
4 for your assistance.
5 Q. Sir, just to go back to my question: Do you know that in the
6 region of Konjevic Polje in July, the month of July in 1995, there was one
7 company, the PJP of the Centre for Public Security of Zvornik?
8 A. Well, the police rotated. Some would come and others would go. We
9 weren't informed which police unit was there, how many policemen were
10 there and who was actually there, who arrived and who left. So as far as
11 we were concerned, all policemen were the same to us.
12 Q. When you say "the same," do you mean that they were all wearing
13 blue uniforms?
14 A. Yes, blue uniforms, that was it.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like now to use
16 a document, or try to, but I see that we're coming up to the break time.
17 So perhaps I could do that after the break.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you for having noticed that,
19 Mr. Stojanovic.
20 We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank you.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May we take a look at Prosecution
25 Exhibit P00006 on e-court, please.
1 Q. Sir, we're going to take a look at the document together. May we
2 agree that it is an order by the president of the Republic, Radovan
3 Karadzic, dated the 21st of March, 1995? Can you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In point 1 of this order, it says the following:
6 "Regarding the relocation of the VRS unit based in Konjevic Polje,
7 immediately take the necessary measures to establish a system of security
8 and control over the uninhabited parts of the territory," mentioned there,
9 as well as two of the roads mentioned here.
10 Can you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, in point 2, it says:
13 "Considering the extreme importance of these roads, examine the
14 possibility of stationing some of the MUP units in Konjevic Polje."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, I assume that you've never seen this document before.
18 A. This is the first time I'm looking at it.
19 Q. Do you agree that it says in the heading that the document, or,
20 rather, the order of the 21st of March, 1995, that it is an order of the
21 21st of March, 1995?
22 A. That's what it says, yes.
23 Q. Now let us look at another document together. It's a Prosecution
24 exhibit, P00007.
25 Do you have the document in front of you, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you see that at the top of the document, it says it was issued
3 by the Cabinet of the Minister of the Interior on the 23rd of March,
4 1993 -- 1995?
5 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
6 Q. May we agree that it was sent to the President of Republika Srpska
7 by the then Minister of the Interior; is that right? That was Zivko
9 A. That's what it says.
10 Q. And it says that in the area mentioned there, the 2nd Company of
11 the PJP was dispatched of the Zvornik Public Security Centre. Can you see
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. I assume that you've never seen this document either.
15 A. No, never before. This is the first time.
16 Q. My question to you is as follows: From March 1995, did you know
17 at any time that in this area a company, a PJP company, was deployed of
18 the Zvornik Public Security Centre; did you have an awareness or knowledge
19 of that?
20 A. Well, I told you a moment ago and I can tell you again that I
21 don't know which one or what the composition was, what the company was,
22 how many men there were, and in the combat report, as a stereotype, they
23 repeat one and the same thing, that is to say, that a police company was
24 deployed there, that it had a check-point, and that it was functioning
25 pursuant to orders from its Command. That's all I know.
1 Q. Thank you. Now let me just ask you this in passing: Would you
2 agree with me that there was a check-point there, that the police was
3 there, even after the 20th of July, 1995?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Have you heard or do you know a man by the name of Mane Djuric who
6 at that time, that is to say in July 1995, performed the function of
7 deputy chief of the JB in Zvornik?
8 A. I know Mane Djuric from Jasanica. I don't know which post he
9 occupied at that time.
10 Q. May we agree that this man, Mane Djuric, whom you say you know and
11 who lived in Jasanica, you say you know he worked in Zvornik, but didn't
12 know which function he had?
13 A. I think he worked in Zvornik during that period, but I don't know
14 what post he occupied or what function he had.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me briefly; just because there's -- as we
17 know, there's more than one Mane Djuric. Are they saying Jasanica or
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You've read my mind, actually, because I was going
20 to put the same question. I thought I heard the witness say Jasanica.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And just to also -- well, I think counsel
22 will clear it up, but just to prevent further confusion, as you know,
23 there's a Mane Djuric of the special police and there's a Mane Djuric of
24 the CJB Zvornik.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think these are points that are -- that deserve
1 some clarification, Mr. Stojanovic, and I would start first with the town
2 from where this Mane Djuric that you referred the witness to came from.
3 You could ask him to spell the name. I think he's following what I am
5 Mr. Simanic, this Mane Djuric that you knew, where did he come
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where he was born.
8 Before the war, he resided in Vlasenica.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Vlasenica. Okay, that's clear enough. And do you
10 know which unit he formed a part of?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was a member of the police.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Back to you, Mr. Stojanovic, if you can clarify that
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Since we have
15 two men by the same name working for the MUP, I would like to clarify
17 Q. The Mane Djuric that you're talking about that you know, who
18 resided in Vlasenica, worked in the police in Zvornik; am I right in
19 saying that?
20 A. I believe that at the time, he did work in Zvornik, and after the
21 war I'm sure that he worked in the Zvornik police.
22 Q. Thank you. I believe that there are no more doubts about that,
23 and I'm asking you this for the following reason: Do you personally know
24 that at any point in time in July 1995, any kind or sort of order to the
25 PJP company or the police in Konjevic Polje, through you, was sent to
2 A. As far as I know, this didn't happen.
3 Q. The following thing I would like to ask you is this: You looked
4 at the combat report sent on the 14th of July, and you said that you did
5 not know when that was sent to the Drina Corps. Do you remember that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And as you said today, you can't tell us, with any degree of
8 certainty, at what time on the 14th of July was this combat report
9 couriered to the Drina Corps?
10 A. No, I can't tell you. I can't remember.
11 Q. If I tell you that we have not got any reports by the 5th
12 Engineers Battalion for the 13th of July and we have one for the 12th and
13 for all the subsequent days, my question is this: Is it possible that
14 you -- not you, personally, but the 5th Engineers Battalion, on the 13th
15 of July, did not send a combat report to the Drina Corps?
16 A. This should not have taken place.
17 Q. If there's none and if something like that should have happened,
18 would then the 14 July report also encompass and include all the events
19 that took place on the day when the report was sent and for the previous
20 day, when the report wasn't sent?
21 A. I've already told you that I don't know. I don't know much about
22 the military administration, and I really can't tell you whether this
23 would have been the case or not.
24 Q. In other words, we can agree that you simply don't know what is
25 the time of the events that were contained in the report drafted and sent
1 on the 14th of July; in other words, you don't know whether the events
2 took place on the 13th or on the 14th or on both dates, you simply don't
3 know because you didn't do that?
4 A. You're right, I wouldn't be able to tell you.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
6 Your Honours, we have no further questions for this witness.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
8 That leaves Mr. Josse.
9 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Josse:
11 Q. Mr. Simanic, I'm asking questions on behalf of General Gvero, and
12 it's right, because you've told us already, that you didn't witness any of
13 the fighting on the 13th of July in the Konjevic Polje area between the
14 VRS and the ABiH?
15 A. Are you referring to the wounding of the soldiers?
16 Q. Well, I was going to deal with that specifically in a moment, but
17 I was going to ask you more generally whether you viewed any of the
18 military activity that took place on that day in that place.
19 A. On that day, I could not see anything because at the time before
20 the noon I wasn't there, and for that reason I was not in a position to
21 observe anything.
22 Q. And you've told the Trial Chamber that information about the
23 fighting was brought to your attention by troops returning for home leave;
24 that's correct, isn't it?
25 A. That's correct, that was the only information.
1 Q. And then in due course, you learnt that two members of your
2 platoon were injured, Mr. Bandjur and Mr. Orasanin; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you speak to them subsequently about what had happened?
5 A. The person who took the record of -- on the wounding spoke to
7 Q. And we know that they ended up being treated in the medical centre
8 in Zvornik; correct?
9 A. I wouldn't know about that. I don't know if both of them ended up
10 being treated in Zvornik.
11 MR. JOSSE: Could we have a look at P0119, please.
12 Q. I don't think you've been shown this document in the course of
13 your testimony over the last couple of days. We can see here a report
14 dated the 13th of July of 1995 to the Command of your battalion,
15 purportedly signed by yourself. It mentions that these two men were
16 wounded at around 8.00 in the morning. And at the very end of the
17 document, it says that Orasanin was treated in the medical centre in
18 Zvornik. And in the sentence immediately above that, it says that Bandjur
19 was as well.
20 A. Yes, I can see that.
21 Q. Does that jog your memory as to the fact that these two men
22 required medical treatment in the hospital in Zvornik?
23 A. Well, judging by this document, they did.
24 Q. And did you speak to them sometime later, maybe a month, maybe two
25 months later, but did you get a chance to speak to these two men about
1 what had happened?
2 A. I didn't speak to any of the two of them after their wounding,
3 because after this, they were on sick leave.
4 Q. But it's right that at least other people told you that there had
5 been a firefight that morning in Konjevic Polje; correct?
6 A. When I returned to Konjevic Polje, I learnt about that.
7 Q. And the men of the ABiH were armed with fire-arms, weren't they?
8 A. How else would they -- the two soldiers have been wounded?
9 Q. Precisely. This wasn't a situation where the ABiH were armed with
10 a weapon like a shillelagh; isn't that correct?
11 A. It says here that they were wounded by a pistol, which is
12 certainly not a shillelagh.
13 Q. Yes. And the fact that this firefight had taken place was
14 confirmed to you? That's really what I want you to confirm, please.
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. JOSSE: Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse.
18 I just want to confirm that the Miletic and Pandurevic teams do
19 not wish to cross-examine the witness. All right.
20 Do you have a re-examination, Mr. McCloskey?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just very briefly.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.
23 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
24 Q. Sir, do you know a member of the 2nd Company of the PJP Zvornik
25 named Nenad Deronjic?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. And I'd like to show you again the 14 July document and the
3 document mentioned by counsel, a 12 July combat report from your unit as
4 well, and just ask you one or two questions about these, if I could.
5 The 14 July document we know as 2672, and the 12 July document, I
6 guess we'll come up with another number for, but it's ERN 0439-2936.
7 If I could get a little help.
8 Now, I'm not so interested in the content, but could you turn over
9 the 14 July document and look where your signature is? That's, I don't
10 know, about a third of the way down the page. And the 12 -- excuse me,
11 the -- I think that may be wrong. The 12th is a third of the way down the
12 page and the 14th is closer to the bottom. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If you were just taking blank forms or blank reports and signing
15 them, how do you know where to sign the piece of paper on the page?
16 A. I didn't say that I only signed blank documents.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, I don't want to be too involved in this,
19 but I think the translation was not correct.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you --
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I think he said, "I didn't say I always signed blank
22 documents," but we could ask him again, sir.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not the same thing, but that's not what he said
24 yesterday, anyway.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: We might have had a translation glitch. This is a
2 very tough job, being a translator.
3 Q. So let's -- I'll just ask you the question again.
4 Can you explain how you would know where to sign these things if
5 you were just signing blank pages, as you had told us before?
6 A. When a report had to be drafted, you knew approximately how long
7 the text was going to be, and that's how we did it.
8 Q. Are you now aware of the historical fact that over a thousand
9 Muslims were murdered on 13 July and buried nearby?
10 A. What do you mean when you say if I'm aware?
11 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that this is
12 beyond the scope of the cross-examination. Nothing to this effect was put
13 to the witness during the cross-examination. A question of this type was
14 never put to him.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Nikolic.
16 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: The questions concerned his knowledge at and
18 around the time of it. I'm just going a little bit further to clarify his
19 knowledge and, therefore, perhaps his credibility on a very related issue.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, please.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We are all in agreement here that it falls within
23 the parameters of the cross-examination.
24 Go ahead, Mr. McCloskey.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let me just say that again and maybe rephrase it.
1 Q. Are you aware now that a thousand or over a thousand Muslims were
2 murdered in the area between Konjevic Polje and Kravica on 13 July and
3 buried in the nearby vicinity?
4 A. You mean now, at the moment?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. I could learn that from the media.
7 Q. Do you think it's true?
8 A. It's not up to me to establish that.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
11 Judge Kwon. Judge Stole?
12 We don't have any further questions for you, Mr. Simanic, which
13 means you're free to go. Our staff will give you all the assistance you
15 On behalf of my colleagues, Judge Kwon, Judge Prost and Judge
16 Stole, I wish to thank you for having come over to give testimony, and we
17 also wish you a safe journey back home.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Documents or exhibits?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, the 14 July document is already in.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is already in.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: 2627. I don't know if you want to see the
24 original inked marks that we referred to around the diesel, but you're
25 welcome to it.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: That will always be available in case we need to see
2 it, won't it, Mr. McCloskey?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Of course, of course.
4 I also have the 12 July combat report that shows the location of
5 the signature on that last point I made on redirect. We can put that into
6 evidence. It doesn't have a 65 ter number, if you think it's necessary,
7 or we can just rely on the record. I think it's probably safer just to
8 put it in evidence, but ...
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Any comments from the Defence? Any objections?
10 Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no objections, Your
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So those two -- one is already admitted,
14 it's already on the record, and this last one will be admitted and given a
16 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: We do have a number from Ms. Stewart. It's 2882.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: 2882, okay, thank you.
19 Any of the Defence teams wish to tender any documents?
20 Mr. Zivanovic.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We would like to tender the document 1D379. It
22 was used. It's a Drina Corps collection -- overview of existing troops
23 accounted for Drina Corps in July 1995.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I take it counsel is agreeing to the authenticity
1 of that document, or at least arguing for it.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I would leave that to become a submission later on,
3 Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, without such, I would object,
5 because there has to be some point of authenticity. Counsel just can't
6 bring material in from -- and then say nothing about it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: This document was taken from the collection of the
9 Prosecution, from the EDS.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I guess I'll have to be satisfied with that.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? None, so that document is admitted.
12 Any further documents from any of the Defence teams?
13 Mr. Stojanovic.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have two documents to tender.
15 This is 4D50006 and 4D -- which is the order by Radovan Karadzic, and
16 4D0007, which is the dispatch that was sent by the Minister of the
17 Interior on the 23rd of March.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Stojanovic, let's clear this. Are you
19 tendering two or three, because the transcript may be misleading. We have
20 two documents to tender, you said, and then you have the first one, which
21 is 4D50006, and then 4D, and we have a blank, 4D, and then 4D0007. But to
22 make it clear, you're tendering only two?
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, and this is P0006
24 and 4DP00007. Those are the numbers.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
1 Any objections?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could just -- I see they have ERNs on them,
3 meaning they are Prosecution-oriented.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we just hear, just to save us some time,
6 what collection they're from, because I'm afraid I don't know.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: They're your 6 and 7.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. If that's been a Prosecution exhibit,
9 no problem.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, if it has a "P" already, I think it -- exactly.
11 All right. Any objections?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: And from the Defence, other Defence teams, no
14 objections? So those two documents are also so admitted.
15 I don't think there is anything else.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Josse.
18 MR. JOSSE: Entirely neutral about this document, Your Honour;
19 happy for it to go in, if the Trial Chamber would like it to. It's a
20 Prosecution document, but we're not pressing for it to be admitted, but we
21 certainly have no objection.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, I don't remember which document that
1 JUDGE KWON: 119.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: 119.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we might as well have it in evidence.
4 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy to arrange for it to go in with a "6D"
5 number. I suspect it will be 6DP0019 [sic]. Ms. Cmeric is confirming
6 that that's right. I'm grateful to her.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So that will be so admitted with a "6D"
8 identification number.
9 Any further documents? None. So that closes the testimony of
10 Mile Simanic.
11 We now come to PW-108. We will need to bring down the curtains.
12 I'm informed, and it is correct information, that to install the
13 voice distortion equipment will require a few minutes, so five minutes?
14 How much? I know they usually ask for 20 minutes, but I don't think they
15 will require 20 minutes, although that would be very welcome for Mr. Meek
16 and Mr. Bourgon.
17 Let's have a short break.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. The suggestion is that --
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. The suggestion is that we have the break now,
22 25 minutes, in other words, during which time they will install the
23 equipment, and then we start after that and continue until we finish.
24 All right?
25 --- Recess taken at 11.40 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.10 p.m.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer, I think Mr. Bourgon would like to tell
3 you something.
4 MR. BOURGON: I was wondering, Mr. President --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If you want to approach him, please do, by all
6 means. I think it will be easier.
7 MR. THAYER: I was expecting flowers, but ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think I overheard, more or less, what you
10 said from here, even with the headphones on.
11 Is there a need for the application of 90 E or not?
12 MR. THAYER: I do not see one, Mr. President. I'm being advised
13 that my friend disagrees so ...
14 JUDGE AGIUS: But then if there is disagreement, we give the
15 caution; agreed?
16 MR. BOURGON: That is much more simple, because my colleague was
17 suggesting to -- for me to explain why with the witness not being in the
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We will be applying 90 E, yes.
21 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning -- or good afternoon to you, sir.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome to this courtroom. You are about to start
1 giving evidence very soon. Before you do so, you're required by our Rules
2 to undertake to testify the truth. The text of this solemn declaration
3 that is required from you is going to be handed to you now. Please read it
4 out aloud, and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 WITNESS: PW-108.
8 [The witness answered through interpreter]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Is his microphone --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Is his microphone switched off? Okay.
12 Sir, it's very important that whenever you see a microphone --
13 somebody else's microphone with the red light on, that you don't speak.
14 Let me explain.
15 Please make yourself comfortable, in the first place. Have a
16 seat, and I'll explain the rest.
17 At the special request of the Prosecution, we have put in place
18 for you some protective measures. The first one is facial distortion, the
19 second is voice distortion, and the third is an application of a pseudonym
20 instead of using your real name and surname. These, I suppose, have been
21 explained to you. I just want to make sure from you that you're happy
22 with this arrangement.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So before we proceed, what's going to happen
25 is that Mr. Thayer will go first, and he will ask you some questions, and
1 then he will be followed by various members of the Defence teams.
2 Now, in the course of your testimony, it is possible, although I'm
3 not suggesting that it is going to happen, but it is possible that
4 questions might be or may be put to you which, if you answer truthfully,
5 could potentially expose you to criminal proceedings.
6 Again, I don't know if this is going to happen, but I have to work
7 on the assumption that this could happen. In case you are asked such
8 incriminatory questions, you have a right to draw our attention, the
9 Judges here, and ask that you be exempted from providing an answer to
10 those questions.
11 We have two options, and that's because your right is not
12 absolute. One option for us is to agree with you and grant you exemption
13 from answering such questions. Another option is exactly the opposite.
14 We may not agree with you at all, and we may decide to compel you to
15 answer such questions. If we do so, however, unless your answer
16 constitutes false testimony, then you have a further guarantee, a further
17 right; namely, that whatever you answer in reply to such incriminatory
18 questions will not be used against you in any possible future criminal
19 proceedings that could be instituted against you.
20 Have I made myself sufficiently clear?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. I think on that basis, we can now
23 start the examination-in-chief.
24 I remind you all of two things. One is there will not be a
25 further break now, we'll go straight to quarter to 2:00. The second thing
1 is since we have put in place the protective measure of voice distortion,
2 it is important that as soon as you finish putting your questions, you
3 switch off your microphone, and if at any time the witness speaks, even if
4 it's not in reply to any question, please make sure that all other
5 microphones are switched off.
6 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
7 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
9 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 Q. Sir, with Madam Usher's assistance, I'm going to hand you a piece
12 of paper, and I would like you just to read the piece of paper and confirm
13 that your name is on that piece of paper next to the pseudonym "PW-108."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you, sir.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That will remain sealed.
17 MR. THAYER: And for the record, Mr. President, that is P02881.
18 And while it's being distributed, if we can may go into private
19 session for a few questions, please.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 14741-14744 redacted. Private session
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now, so we proceed along the
24 lines that we have indicated.
25 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session. Sorry.
7 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
22 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Sir, in July of 1995, (redacted)
1 A. On one occasion, I did, when my friend came one morning to see me
2 and asked me to go with him to Mr. Pandurevic in Zvornik. And he also
3 asked me that I should drive him in my car. I said that we were forbidden
4 to cross into another republic, and then he said to me that he would
5 justify it, justify me going across with him, he would square it.
6 When we crossed, we went to the barracks and looked for
7 Mr. Pandurevic. He wasn't there in the barracks, except we found
8 Mr. Nikolic at one point in the barracks, and we said hello, and my friend
9 went off with Mr. Nikolic to an office and I stayed behind in the corridor
10 to wait for them to finish their talk.
11 Later on, after about some 10 to 15 minutes, my friend came out
12 with Mr. Nikolic, out of the office. We said goodbye and started off back
13 to where we had come from, across the way.
14 On our return, my friend was not in a good mood, and he said that
15 they were doing all sorts of things and that only madmen could do that
16 kind of thing, and he wasn't in a good mood. He didn't comment anymore,
17 but when we returned, he left for Belgrade.
18 While we were going back on our return, he mentioned Mr. -- my
19 friend Mr. Beara, whom I never heard of, saw, or knew. All he did was to
20 comment and say that he was involved, too.
21 Q. Okay, sir. Let me back up a little bit and ask you some follow-up
23 When your friend first approached you and asked you to accompany
24 him, can you describe what his mood or his demeanour was like when he
25 approached you and on the trip to Zvornik?
1 A. My friend was otherwise always in a good mood and smiling, but he
2 would never comment on any events. It was only at that point when we were
3 leaving that he seemed depressed and said that I should go and check out
4 what was happening over there. And he was worried the whole time.
5 Q. Did he tell you anything about why he wanted to go across and see
6 Vinko Pandurevic?
7 A. I assume in order to learn something more, to get some more
8 information from him, and that he could influence something that I don't
9 know about.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek. Please be careful, because we will
12 need to block that part of the transmission. I mean, I'm trying to keep
13 my eyes wide open all the time to watching everywhere.
14 Yes, Mr. Meek.
15 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour, and I apologise.
16 I object. That question obviously leads to speculation. This is
17 a fact witness. He's not here to assume or believe. He's here to say
18 what he saw or what he heard or what he observed. And absolutely my
19 objection is that calls for speculation, and I'd like the answer stricken
20 also, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: The question, I don't even think I need to consult
22 with my colleagues. The question did not ask for any speculation at all.
23 The question was:
24 "Did he tell you anything about why he wanted to go across and
25 see Vinko Pandurevic?"
1 And then he answered: "I assume in order to learn something more,
2 to get some more information from him, and that he will influence
3 something that I don't know about.
4 Now, what I'm going to do is I'm going to go directly to the
5 witness and ask him whether he is speculating or whether he is making this
6 statement based on some conclusion that he reached at the time. But the
7 question itself did not call for speculation.
8 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I appreciate that, but the answer was
9 non-responsive to the question, and the answer only called for a yes-or-no
10 answer. It was absolutely non-responsive.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: If the answer was to be "yes," he would have been
12 expected to amplify straightaway on that and explain what his friend might
13 have told him, so --
14 MR. MEEK: Of course.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let us handle it. I think the message is clear
17 Witness, look at me, please. Mr. Thayer, a few moments ago, put
18 to you a very straightforward question relating to your friend, and he
19 asked you:
20 "Did your friend tell you anything about why he wanted to go to
21 the place where you went to see Vinko Pandurevic?"
22 And your answer was not, "Yes, he did tell me something, this is
23 what he told me ...," your answer was:
24 "I assume in order to learn something more, to get some more
25 information from him, and that he could influence something that I don't
1 know about."
2 This statement that you have just made to Mr. Thayer's question,
3 is it a supposition, are you just speculating, or are you making a
4 statement based on the conversation that you exchanged with your friend
5 before you went to Zvornik?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I made the statement in the way that
7 I considered was proper in answering the question.
8 MR. THAYER: I can follow up, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I won't. I think I have done enough. It's your
10 baby now.
11 Yes, Mr. Meek.
12 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I would just ask you to caution the
13 witness that he's not here to assume or speculate. That's all I'm asking.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that we can do.
15 In answering your questions, Witness, please make sure that if you
16 are not sure, if you don't know, you don't try to speculate. However,
17 when you know, then you proceed and answer the question. Thank you.
18 Mr. Thayer.
19 MR. THAYER:
20 Q. Sir, you stated in your answer that you assumed that your friend
21 had wanted to learn something more, to get more information from
22 Mr. Pandurevic. Now, I want you to think very carefully about the
23 conversation that you had with your friend when he first approached you
24 and anything he told you on the trip to this place.
25 Can you tell the Trial Chamber, as best as you can remember,
1 exactly what your friend told you? You said that he was worried. If you
2 can remember what, if anything, he said about what he was worried about.
3 A. My friend said that he was worried and that something was
4 happening across over there, (redacted)
5 (redacted), so across, and that's why he was going to see Mr. Pandurevic, to
6 receive additional information as to what was going on.
7 Q. Did he communicate to you whether this something that was
8 happening was something that he considered to be good or something that he
9 considered to be bad, or did he not say?
10 A. He said that something bad was happening.
11 Q. Now, I just want to ask you a few questions before we resume
12 talking about your actual visit.
13 At this time, at the time that you made this trip, what
14 information did you have about the military situation in Srebrenica?
15 A. Well, Srebrenica was under siege, in an encirclement, and there
16 were a lot of citizens in Srebrenica who were not able to leave Srebrenica
17 and go anywhere because it was under a blockade.
18 Q. Well, what information did you have at that time about the
19 whereabouts of the Muslim men from Srebrenica?
20 A. At that time when it was under a blockade, there were men, women
21 and children in Srebrenica, and nobody could leave Srebrenica because it
22 was under a blockade.
23 Q. Okay, sir. Now, in July of 1995, when you made this trip, and
24 again I don't want you to identify any personal information, but did you
25 become aware of anyone from Srebrenica being transported anywhere?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you answer that question.
2 Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, this is a leading question. The
4 witness is here to say what he saw or what he remembers, and the question
5 should be open-ended and should not suggest to the witness, as in this
6 case where he is suggesting to the witness that people from Srebrenica
7 were being transported. That's a leading question and it suggests an
8 answer to the witness and should not be permitted, Mr. President.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer, we are all in agreement here that the
11 question is perfectly legitimate. However, we would like you to rephrase
12 it. Instead of saying, "Did you become aware," you rephrase it leaving
13 for options, because that "but" over there can be on the margin between a
14 leading question and a regular one. You need to rephrase your question,
16 MR. THAYER:
17 Q. Sir, at or about this time when you took this trip, what, if
18 anything, did you observe regarding anyone being transported from
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon. That's very vague.
21 MR. BOURGON: I mean, the same objection, Mr. President. Again,
22 he's suggesting that people are being transported. He has to ask the
23 witness what the witness saw or what the witness didn't see.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: But the thing is he can definitely ask the
25 witness, "Did you at any time become aware that people were being
1 transported?" Of course, he can ask that question.
2 MR. BOURGON: I believe, Mr. President, that this is a leading
3 question. To ask, "Did you see if people were transported," suggests that
4 people may have been transported.
5 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, he can answer that with a "yes,"
6 a "no" or a number of ways.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Please rephrase your question along the lines that I
8 indicated. Ask the question. He has the right to put the question. Go
10 JUDGE KWON: Or the witness can answer the question.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And now the witness has heard enough he's in a
12 position to know what we're talking about.
13 Mr. Meek.
14 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, that's my point. I don't know if the
15 witness speaks English. We can ask him. If he --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, he's receiving interpretation.
17 MR. MEEK: He should take his headphones off.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but he has been receiving interpretation.
19 MR. MEEK: From this point on.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. From this point on, we can ask him. Do you
21 understand English, sir?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Can I kindly ask you to remove your
24 headphones for a short while? I understand that Mr. Meek wants to make a
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek. Did you wish to add anything or not?
3 MR. MEEK: No, Your Honour, I don't wish to add anything now. I'm
4 just saying the next objection, if there is one, or continuing from this
5 point on, that's all.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I misunderstood.
7 MR. MEEK: Although I do agree with my colleague, Mr. Bourgon.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, I misunderstood you.
9 It's okay, he can put back.
10 Yes, you can put the question again, Mr. Thayer, please.
11 MR. THAYER:
12 Q. Sir, during this period of time that we're talking about in July
13 of 1995, do you recall seeing anyone being taken anywhere?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
15 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
16 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, who is "anyone"? Who is he talking
17 about? If he does mention those people -- there's a way to ask these
18 questions in a very simple manner, but right now he's not doing it
19 properly, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Why didn't you return to your previous question,
21 which had the blessing of the Trial Chamber?
22 MR. THAYER: I thought that we -- that I was going to be treading,
23 if I asked the question I thought that I had asked, but if I can ask about
24 transportation, then I will just simply repeat that question,
25 Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you already received the blessing--
2 MR. THAYER: Okay.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: -- the go-ahead, and that would eliminate objections
4 if you repeat the same question that we have already granted you.
5 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Sir, during this period of time in July of 1995, when you took
7 this trip, do you recall whether or not you saw anyone being transported
9 A. One could see a convoy of vehicles, buses and lorries that
10 transported citizens. This was at the very entrance into Zvornik from the
11 direction of Bratunac and Vlasenica.
12 MR. THAYER: If we may move into private session for one question,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Private session, please.
15 [Private session]
11 Page 14756 redacted. Private session
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. Thank you.
6 MR. THAYER:
7 Q. Sir, do you recall what time of the day it was when you set off on
8 this trip?
9 A. It was before the noon on that day.
10 Q. And do you recall where the Zvornik Brigade barracks were located,
11 in what kind of facility?
12 A. I believe it was a shoe factory called "Standard" in Zvornik.
13 Q. Now, when you arrived at Standard, to whom did you or your friend
14 speak first?
15 A. His first contact was with the soldier who was in the corridor.
16 He was on guard duty. We looked for Mr. Vinko Pandurevic, who wasn't
17 there. There were no other officers, either. That's when we came across
18 Mr. Nikolic, and this is whom we spoke to, as I've just told you.
19 Q. Now, this soldier who was on guard duty, did he appear to you to
20 be an ordinary soldier or did he appear to you to be any kind of an
22 A. He was a foot soldier.
23 Q. And after you had spent a little bit of time in these barracks,
24 did you notice anything about them?
25 A. Well, the facility was empty, there was nobody there, and we did
1 not notice anything else in addition to that.
2 Q. Were you directed anywhere in particular by this foot soldier?
3 A. At that moment, Mr. Nikolic either came out of his office or just
4 came by. We greeted him. Nikolic asked us what we were doing there. And
5 then he entered Mr. Nikolic's office and I remained standing in the
6 corridor, and I really don't know what the two were talking about in the
8 Q. Now, sir, do you recall whether -- or what floor of the barracks
9 this encounter with Mr. Nikolic occurred, ground floor or first floor?
10 A. The first floor.
11 Q. Now, when you were upstairs, do you recall -- you just mentioned
12 Mr. Nikolic's office. Do you recall whether that office was marked in any
13 way, or how is it that you identify that as Mr. Nikolic's office?
14 A. Well, I don't know whether this was his office or not. Maybe he
15 entered somebody else's office. I only know that that office was the
16 first to the left next to the landing. I'm not sure whether this was his
17 office or somebody else's.
18 Q. And this man who introduced himself as Nikolic, could you see
19 whether he had any rank?
20 A. No, he did not have any patches. He was wearing a camouflage
22 Q. And did you notice anything unusual about his uniform or the state
23 of his uniform at that time?
24 A. No. I believe that this was a work uniform, but I didn't notice
25 anything special about it.
1 MR. THAYER: May we move into private session for one or two
2 questions, please, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please, for a short
5 [Private session]
11 Page 14760 redacted. Private session
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now. Thank you.
14 MR. THAYER:
15 Q. Now, sir, you testified that your friend appeared to you to be
16 worried about something bad that might have been happening. I want you to
17 think as carefully as you can and tell the Trial Chamber, as best as you
18 can remember, what, if anything, your friend said to Mr. Nikolic before
19 they went into that office.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer the question.
21 Yes, Mr. Meek.
22 MR. MEEK: My objection, Your Honour, is this question has already
23 been asked and answered. We ploughed that ground, and now he wants to go
24 back over it again.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon?
1 MR. BOURGON: The same objection, Mr. President. There was no
2 mention of any conversation or anything that was said before going into
3 the office. In fact, the witness was quite clear in terms of what
4 happened when he met allegedly with Mr. Nikolic, that they went into the
5 office and he did not hear anything. To go back before the going into the
6 office is inappropriate, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, I think you need to address the point in a
8 different manner. First you need to ask the witness to repeat or confirm
9 whether before your friend entered into the office with Mr. Nikolic, there
10 was any conversation, and whether he overheard that conversation. I think
11 we need to start from there.
12 MR. THAYER: Very well, Mr. President.
13 Q. Sir, before Mr. Nikolic and your friend entered the office, do you
14 recall whether or not anyone, that is, Mr. Nikolic or your friend, said
15 anything to the other that you were able to hear? And if so, what was it?
16 A. Before they entered the office, after they greeted each other and
17 after I greeted Mr. Nikolic, my friend's comment was this: "What are you
18 doing? What is it that you're doing?" And then they entered the office.
19 The door closed behind them, and I did not overhear any conversation
20 coming from inside the office.
21 Q. And how long, approximately, did they remain in the office, sir?
22 A. Fifteen minutes or so. Anything between 10 and 15 minutes.
23 Q. And can you just generally describe the area in which you remained
24 during this meeting?
25 A. I remained in the corridor on the first floor, where
1 Mr. Pandurevic's office also is and where they entered the office on the
2 left-hand side. I was pacing the corridor while the two were talking.
3 The barracks where we were, the whole facility was empty.
4 Q. Did you see them come out of the office?
5 A. When they ended their conversation, I saw them. We greeted each
6 other again, and then we left the barracks.
7 Q. And did you return directly to -- in the direction in which you
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, you indicated that your friend had wanted to find some more
11 information about these bad things that might have been happening, and you
12 mentioned that he mentioned the name Beara and that this Beara had been
13 involved in some way. Now --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
15 MR. MEEK: Judge, this is very improper. All he's doing is
16 repeating the testimony. It's ridiculous.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's not ridiculous at all. Go ahead, Mr. Thayer,
18 and come straight to your question, please.
19 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. That's just where I was.
20 Q. Sir, did Mr. -- did your friend give you any indication of who
21 mentioned this name Beara, how it came up in this conversation?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
23 MR. MEEK: Judge, that question is improper because it assumes
24 facts not in evidence. There's been testimony that the friend had come
25 and picked him up in the morning and had learned some things, and now that
1 question assumes -- and again I thought we had a ruling that the witness
2 would take the headphones off, but maybe it's too late. But that assumes
3 facts not in evidence.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: What is not in evidence?
5 MR. MEEK: That anything about Mr. Beara was mentioned in that
7 JUDGE AGIUS: It's what precisely the witness stated earlier on,
8 what did his friend tell him after the meeting. But, anyway, I leave the
9 question to you.
10 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm simply trying to
11 clarify what the source of this name was.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly, and in answering that question we would
13 know whether the name of Beara was mentioned during the conversation
14 between those two individuals or from some other source.
15 MR. THAYER:
16 Q. Sir, from your conversation with your friend on the trip back, can
17 you remember what, if anything, he told you about who mentioned this name
18 Beara in the meeting?
19 A. He mentioned Beara's name in this context: His comment was that
20 it seems that Beara was also involved in all that. However, he did not
21 tell me who had told him anything to that effect and based on which he
22 mentioned this name. He did not say that Mr. Nikolic mentioned Beara's
23 name. In any case, this is what he told me on our way back, that Beara is
24 also involved.
25 Q. Now, again, please put yourself back on that trip, on that return
1 trip. What else, if anything, if you can remember in any more detail, did
2 your friend tell you was happening that was bad?
3 A. Another comment of his on our way back was that only lunatics and
4 insane minds could be doing that, but he did not go into any detail, he
5 did not explain what he meant by that.
6 Q. Did he mention any place where this -- these bad things were
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer the question.
9 Mr. Bourgon.
10 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, the witness just said, "He did not go
11 into any detail, he did not explain what he meant by that." Now my friend
12 is again leading him and through what is -- might be mentioned in the
13 interview that this witness gave to the Prosecution a long time ago, but
14 this is improper examination, Mr. President.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: The Trial Chamber decision is to allow the
17 question. The fact that he said he did not go into any detail does call
18 for further questions, such as the one that has been put, to ensure that
19 nothing and absolutely nothing else was stated.
20 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
21 MR. THAYER:
22 Q. Sir, on this trip back, think carefully. Do you recall whether
23 your friend was able to provide you with any more detail about where these
24 bad things were happening, based on that meeting he had?
25 A. He did not say what was going on. He just mentioned several
1 schools where prisoners were being kept, but he did not say what exactly
2 was going on at those schools. He mentioned Karakaj, Rocevic and another
3 name, maybe Celopek. I'm not sure what else he mentioned.
4 Q. Now, did your friend tell you whether or not he was going to try
5 to contact anyone else in connection with these bad things that he had
6 heard were happening?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
8 Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, asked and answered. He's now twice
10 said, "This is all he told me. He didn't say anything else." And it's
11 just repetitive and it's leading and suggestive.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, the previous answer proves exactly how
13 right we were when we allowed the question, because it was obvious from
14 his answer that the previous answer, namely, there was -- "He didn't give
15 me any other detail," was not a precise one.
16 So let's proceed, please, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. May I ask the witness to
18 take his ear phones off, please.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Sure. Sir, could you remove your ear phones,
21 Mr. Bourgon.
22 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, at the beginning of this trial, the
23 Trial Chamber issued some guidelines with respect to the evidence, saying
24 that the Trial Chamber would not intervene with respect to leading
25 questions unless this was raised by the parties. For most of this trial,
1 we never intervene with leading questions, do we rarely do it.
2 Mr. President, I believe it is important that when we do, that it
3 is being enforced by the Trial Chamber.
4 Leading questions are not permissible during examination-in-chief,
5 and in this case, my colleague, even though there might be something else
6 he said, there is a clear suggestion that he may have said something in
7 relation to warning someone about what was happening. This is a clear
8 suggestion -- a clear reminder to the witness to say something that exists
9 in a document that all of us here are aware and the Trial Chamber. That's
10 the part, Mr. President, that we are objecting to. He simply can
11 say, "What else you say --" he could ask the question, "You say, 'I don't
12 know what else he said,' but what else did he say? Tell me everything you
13 remember about he said," period. He's not supposed to say and to lead him
14 into every specific aspect of what he may have said.
15 What matters to us is what the witness remembers today as he
16 testifies before this Trial Chamber.
17 Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
19 Mr. Thayer, do you wish to respond to that?
20 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President, I think my position is clear, and
21 I think the Court's reasoning is clear on this.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I just need to consult my colleagues on whether the
23 question needs to be rephrased, and we'll hand down our decision.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Our position about this, Mr. Bourgon, and it's
1 unanimous, Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Thayer, it's a unanimous decision that you
2 need to rephrase the question since that -- it should be something like
3 this: "After having told you all this, did he in any way tell you whether
4 he was going to do anything about what he had heard or on the information
5 that he had received or not?"
6 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Mr. President, I'll just read your question to the witness.
8 Q. Sir, after having told you all this, did your friend in any way
9 tell you whether he was going to do anything about what he had heard, or
10 based on the information that he had received, or not?
11 A. He said he'd try to intervene with some individuals, but he didn't
12 say who he would try and contact, whether in Belgrade or Zvornik. He just
13 confirmed that he would intervene to prevent anything bad.
14 Q. And was this the only trip you and your friend took to this place?
15 A. Well, later on we went one more time looking for Vinko and
16 Obrenovic, but we didn't find either of them, so we returned. And we were
17 there once again several months later, my friend and I, when he commented
18 and said that when he went home to (redacted), since the
19 school was next to the road, that he saw a head cut off, a cut-off head,
20 and he didn't make any more comments about that.
21 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I think we need a redaction, but I see
22 you're on top of it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: As I told you, I think you should trust us with
24 doing this whenever we feel it necessary. We are redacting the words that
25 would be indicative of his origin.
1 MR. THAYER:
2 Q. Now, sir -- Mr. President, if we may go into private session for
3 one question.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please.
5 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam.
15 MR. THAYER:
16 Q. Now, sir, you mentioned a second trip in which you returned to
17 Zvornik. Do you remember approximately how much time had passed between
18 your first trip and this second trip?
19 A. After a month.
20 Q. And, sir, by the time of your second trip, what information, if
21 any, had you heard concerning the fate of the Muslim men from Srebrenica?
22 A. Well, we didn't have any information about what was happening
24 Q. Did you ever receive any information that there had been mass
25 executions of men in the Zvornik area?
1 A. We learnt of that later on in the ensuing period when the public
2 got to know about it.
3 Q. And can you tell the Trial Chamber how soon the public began to
4 learn about those mass executions in the Zvornik area?
5 A. Well, I can't remember exactly how much time went by.
6 Q. Do you recall what the purpose of this second trip was?
7 A. The same purpose; that my friend should gain more information
8 about what was happening next in the Zvornik area, but he didn't comment
9 about what.
10 Q. And what was your friend trying to do, sir, in obtaining this
11 information, based on what he told you?
12 A. I think he wanted to prevent all the bad things, and he condemned
13 any crime if it occurred.
14 Q. Sir, this meeting that your friend and Mr. Nikolic had, was that a
15 friendly, an unfriendly, or a neutral meeting?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
17 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, the witness has already testified he
18 wasn't involved in the meeting, so this question is purely speculative.
19 He said he wasn't in there. He was in the hallway and he didn't know what
20 they talked about.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think it's very easy to handle.
22 Please rephrase your question, Mr. Thayer.
23 MR. THAYER: Certainly, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And ask the witness whether, after the meeting,
25 whether his friend told him whether this was a friendly, unfriendly, or a
1 neutral meeting, if he said any words to that effect.
2 MR. MEEK: Then my --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
4 MR. MEEK: With all due respect, then my objection is: It's been
5 asked and answered. Earlier, he said he was not in a good mood, he always
6 used to smile, and on the way back he was grumpy, he wasn't in a good
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And this is precisely why the question is perfectly
9 legitimate, because of what he stated earlier.
10 Go ahead.
11 MR. THAYER:
12 Q. Sir, did you understand His Honour's question? After the meeting
13 that your friend had with Mr. Nikolic, did your friend tell you at any
14 time on the ride back or any other time whether it was a friendly, an
15 unfriendly, or a neutral meeting that they had?
16 A. He did not say any one of those things, nor did he comment, but he
17 was worried and depressed.
18 Q. Now, you mentioned another trip that you took across -- that you
19 took to the same place. What was the purpose of that trip?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
21 MR. MEEK: For clarification, is this the second --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: The second or the third, yeah.
23 MR. MEEK: Then I object. It's been asked and answered, page 87,
24 line 22 through 25 --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let Mr. Thayer tell us exactly which trip he is
1 referring to.
2 Which trip are you referring to, the last one?
3 MR. THAYER: The last one, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: The last one, okay. So, you see, you need to be
5 patient, Mr. Meek, like we are.
6 Yes. We're referring to the last trip which you took some months
7 later, and the question is whether you know what the purpose of that last
8 trip was.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With my friend -- I was with my
10 friend. I didn't go to Zvornik, I didn't travel to Zvornik, but when we
11 socialised on one occasion, he commented and said that when my friend
12 (redacted) by the road in Rocevici, you have the primary school
13 there, and in passing by, he saw a cut-off head. I wasn't travelling with
14 him at the time, but he related that event to me or, rather, what he
15 noticed when he was passing by his native village. But he did not say
16 whose head it was, I assume, nor who the perpetrator was of that act.
17 MR. THAYER:
18 Q. Did your friend indicate to you when or during what time period he
19 saw this occur at the school?
20 A. He did not say exactly when that was. I assume that it was
21 earlier on, that is, before our meeting, before we socialised, so it was
22 after the second or perhaps the first time we went to the barracks that
23 that happened.
24 Q. Okay, sir. I want to show you a photograph that you've seen
25 previously and my friends have seen.
1 If we may look at P02880.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, if it may speed things up, we're
4 ready to stipulate that the picture that you will show him, that the
5 witness will identify Mr. Nikolic in that picture. Thank you,
6 Mr. President, because I want to start today.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what picture it is, obviously.
8 MR. BOURGON: It's a picture, Mr. President, that identifies a
9 number of officers from the Zvornik Brigade. It's taken, I believe,
10 somewhere in Zvornik, and it's not on the 65 ter list, but I'm perfectly
11 willing to stipulate that -- first of all, to accept, even though it's not
12 on the 65 ter list and that he will identify Mr. Nikolic on that picture.
13 Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
15 Mr. Thayer, do you still wish to show the picture to the witness
16 or not?
17 MR. THAYER: I do, Mr. President. There are perhaps other people
18 that he will be able to identify in the photograph.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, fair enough. Let's proceed.
20 Thank you, Mr. Bourgon, in any case.
21 Mr. Meek.
22 MR. MEEK: Judge, just on that last comment of my colleague, I'm
23 going to object to him identifying any other individuals, because it would
24 go beyond the 65 ter summary of what this witness was supposed to testify
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I am not prepared to bet on that.
2 Go ahead, Mr. Thayer.
3 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Sir, do you see a photograph in front of you? I just need an
5 answer. Do you see a photograph --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is waiting for the interpretation.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. Do you recognise anyone in the photograph in front of you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you indicate, simply by indicating the position in the
12 photograph, anyone you recognise?
13 A. I recognise Mr. Nikolic. He is the fourth on the right.
14 MR. THAYER: Just to be on the safe side, if we could have some
15 assistance from Madam Usher.
16 Q. Now, sir, if you would just write the letter "N" above the head of
17 the individual you've identified as Mr. Nikolic.
18 A. Here. [Marks].
19 Q. And, sir, during this period of time, what was the first name by
20 which you knew this individual name, Nikolic?
21 A. I knew him as "Dragan" or "Drago," but more as "Dragan."
22 Q. Do you recognise anyone else in this photograph, sir?
23 A. I recognise Mr. Pandurevic in the middle, and the second from the
24 left is Mr. Obrenovic.
25 Q. If you would just write the letter "P" above the head of
1 Mr. Pandurevic and the letter "O" above the head of Mr. Obrenovic.
2 A. [Marks].
3 Q. And, sir, if you would just write "P-108" anywhere on any of the
4 corners and put today's date, which is the 4th of September, please.
5 A. [Marks].
6 MR. THAYER: I think we can save the exhibit. And, sir, I have no
7 further questions for you. Thank you.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 Mr. Bourgon.
10 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I offered to go faster. We did not
11 take this route. I think while we have the picture there, my colleague
12 should at least be -- do what he said and say does he recognise anybody
13 else in that picture, and maybe we can save some time in
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the question was:
17 "Do you recognise anyone else in this photo?"
18 And the gentleman said -- mentioned just two names.
19 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, on many occasions, he stated
20 something about a meeting and we went ten questions later to get more
21 information. I think my colleague could just ask him does he recognise
22 anybody else in the picture.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I'll ask the question myself and bring this to an
25 Do you recognise anyone else in this photo, apart from Nikolic,
1 Pandurevic and Obrenovic?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just by sight. Between Obrenovic
3 and Pandurevic, the person, I know that person, but I don't know this
4 person's name. I just know the person by sight.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: There are three persons between Pandurevic and
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Which one are you referring to?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Standing in the first row with the
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anybody else.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
14 You're finished with your in-chief. There's no point in even
15 trying to start any cross-examination at this point.
16 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask a question before cross-exam starts
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, you said today that your friend told you
20 to the effect that it seems Mr. Beara was also involved. I note in
21 particular the word "also." Does it mean that somebody else is
22 originally involved? So if you could tell me now whether you heard
23 anything from your friend or what your understanding was, whether
24 somebody was originally involved.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did not say that. At that
1 moment, he only said that it seemed that Mr. Beara was also involved in
2 all that. However, he did not mention anybody else who might have been
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 Thank you, sir. You can now withdraw. We will resume with your
7 testimony tomorrow morning. In the meantime, between now and then you
8 are not to discuss anyone or allow anyone to approach you on the subject
9 matter of your testimony.
10 It is continuing tomorrow morning. When is the videolink?
11 MR. THAYER: Tomorrow morning, Mr. President, so we'll have to
12 hold over the cross, I think as --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. I understand why Mr. Bourgon was standing
15 Yes, okay. So we'll see you again, sir.
16 We need to bring down the curtains while he exits the courtroom.
17 Mr. Bourgon, I think you just wanted to confirm that we are going
18 to proceed with the videolink tomorrow?
19 MR. BOURGON: Actually, Mr. President, I wanted to save some
20 time and begin right now with one of my questions so we can leave the
21 flavour with what's going on, but --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, we need to know what's going to happen
23 tomorrow, because we also need to prepare ourselves.
24 Tomorrow, are we having the videolink?
25 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And the cross-examination of this gentleman will
2 be postponed until after?
3 MR. THAYER: Correct.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
5 MR. THAYER: And then we will pick up with Witness 101 at the
6 conclusion of the cross-examination of this witness.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
8 MR. THAYER: And that will probably take us through Friday, I
9 would imagine, given the time estimates.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. How long do you expect your in-chief
11 tomorrow to last?
12 MR. THAYER: To be on the safe side, I better estimate two
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but then we only have -- but there is an
15 estimate of two hours, 40 minutes by the Defence.
16 MR. THAYER: Yes. We're prepared -- we've prepared with the
17 site to go into Thursday, if we need it
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
19 Okay, I thank you so much, and we will reconvene tomorrow
21 Thank you.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th of September,
24 2007, at 9.00 a.m.