1 Tuesday, 28 April 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Popovic not present]
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Mr. Registrar. Could you call the
8 case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, Your
10 Honours. Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom. This is
11 case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.,
12 thank you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. For the record today Mr. Beara's back,
14 but Mr. Popovic isn't. I recall seeing the waiver, your client's waiver,
15 Mr. Zivanovic, for yesterday. I don't recall seeing it for today.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. We will provide the waiver for today as
17 well. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And I don't recall at all having seen
19 any waiver from your client, Mr. Ostojic.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning -- or good afternoon, Mr. President,
21 Your Honours. He did execute it, but there was a little problem with it
22 and we will be filing a short motion addressing it and obviously giving
23 you his acquiescence to have proceeded yesterday in his absence. So you
24 will get that in written form tomorrow.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Representation, Prosecution it's
1 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Thayer. Defence teams are full force today. I don't
2 see any absences. Witness Momir Nikolic is present, as is his counsel,
3 Mr. Tansey.
4 Yesterday, we left off with your -- you finishing your
5 cross-examination. I just want to make sure, since you were a little bit
6 undecided, hesitant at the time, whether you have any additional
7 questions you would like to put, Ms. Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Merci, madam.
10 Mr. Josse, I confirm that you have no cross-examination for this
12 MR. JOSSE: That's correct, Your Honours. No cross-examination.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Josse.
14 Mr. Haynes, he's all yours.
15 Good afternoon to you, Mr. Nikolic.
16 WITNESS: MOMIR NIKOLIC [Resumed]
17 [Witnessed answered through interpreter]
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
20 Q. And good afternoon from me, Mr. Nikolic. You're on the last leg
21 now, and I'm going to try and be as quick as I can with you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you start, Mr. Haynes, I'm just putting this
23 to you and then you let us know via the registrar: We've just been
24 informed by the Prlic Trial Chamber that they will not be sitting
25 tomorrow morning, and therefore we have the courtroom available should
1 you prefer to sit in the morning. We are all in agreement here. It
2 would be fine with us to sit in the morning, but of course I know that
3 you have a new witness coming in. I don't know whether you need to proof
4 him. Mr. Thayer.
5 MR. THAYER: Good afternoon, Mr. Mr. President. I believe he has
6 been fully proofed. We just need to send a quick e-mail just to make
7 sure that he will be available tomorrow morning. We will be -- as far as
8 the team is concerned, we're ready to go, we just need to make sure he's
9 ready to go.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And as far as the other Defence teams,
11 if you have any problem with sitting in the morning, please let us know
12 and we'll then sit in the afternoon. Otherwise, we'll sit in the morning
13 thank you.
14 Mr. Haynes, my apologies for the interruption. I should have
15 done it before. Go ahead.
16 MR. HAYNES: Not at all.
17 Q. Before you came here, Mr. Nikolic, do you recall that together
18 with your lawyer you prepared a short document explaining what you now
19 accepted and did not accept in your original statement of facts?
20 A. Yes, I do remember.
21 Q. And during the course of preparing that document, you explained
22 that whilst you have been in prison in Finland you'd had the opportunity
23 to read and digest a book on the principles of command and control.
24 A. I wouldn't say that I had an opportunity to study this book. I
25 only focussed on one section in particular, and I can tell you which
1 section of that book I familiarised myself with. So to make things
2 clear, I never read the whole book. I read only one part, and I tried to
3 comprehend it as much as I was able to.
4 Q. Thank you. That's very helpful. Was that not a document that
5 was available to you in the preparation of your defence for your trial
6 before 2003?
7 A. I really don't know, because I haven't seen this document. It
8 may have been the case that my lawyers had this rule and the books that
9 you're referring to, but I myself did not have a chance to get myself
10 acquainted with the rule and the book all the way up until before my
11 transfer to Finland
12 Q. Thank you. Again that's very helpful. And when did you set
13 about studying this book and this rule? Was it soon after your sentence
14 or more recently?
15 A. I already told you that it was while I was in the detention unit
16 in Scheveningen. That was when I first saw the book and had it in my
17 hands. That was in the detention unit here in The Hague, maybe two or
18 three months prior to my transfer to Finland. In that period, the final
19 judgement has been pronounced already in my case. My trial had been
21 Q. Then I'm sorry for not listening to you more carefully. So in
22 any event, you had read and considered that rule before either of the
23 occasions when you gave evidence in Sarajevo?
24 A. I received translation that I gave testimony. I would like to
25 make it clear that I gave evidence twice before the court in Sarajevo
1 For the first time I was a court witness, and the following time I
2 appeared as the witness for the prosecution, but I didn't give any
3 statements. If you are referring to my testimony, then this is what
5 Q. That is what I'm referring to, and all I'm interested to know is
6 that when you gave evidence there, it was against the background of
7 having read this book and this rule that you referred to in the
8 qualification of your statement of facts.
9 A. Yes. I already told you when I read the book.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, I would be right to understand, wouldn't I, that
11 you do not pretend to be any sort of expert on military law or
13 A. Of course, you're right. I'm no expert, but I nonetheless try to
14 grasp and fathom these matters as much as I can.
15 Q. Yes. And more to the point, you knew how the system worked in
16 1995, and you knew what your job was.
17 A. Can you be more specific, please? What system are you referring
18 in particular?
19 Q. Well, I'll come to the point. In practice, officers from
20 superior command organs could give orders directly to you, couldn't they?
21 A. In principle I know perfectly well who can issue orders to whom
22 within the chain of command, and you put it well when you said that it's
23 a comprehensive system. If you are interested in any particular feature
24 of the system, I can give you an answer, but I can only tell you that in
25 principle I know who is entitled to give orders to whom and how this
1 whole process is practiced.
2 Q. Well, it might be simpler, therefore, if I remind you of
3 something you've said earlier, and really for the benefit of the
4 interpreters we'll put it in e-court so that they don't get annoyed with
5 me speaking too quickly. It's P4482, starting at page 15 in the English
6 and page 7 in the B/C/S.
7 And so that you understand this, Mr. Nikolic, this is the
8 transcript of what you said when you gave evidence in the case of Milorad
9 Trbic in Sarajevo
10 Now, the section that I'm interested begins in English with the
11 question at line 14 in English:
12 "Is it fair to say that it's only the brigade commander who could
13 order you to a task? Is that correct, sir?"
14 And you responded:
15 "Yes, in theory. So the commander was my superior as well as the
16 superior of all the others in the brigade command. However, in practice
17 there are certain deviations from this theory. So in principle, yes,
18 that's correct, but in practical life there are some situations when the
19 commander is unable to issue orders, then somebody from the brigade
20 command will issue orders in the commanders's stead. And still, you will
21 go with those rules, with those orders, and you will act upon them."
22 And the question is asked:
23 "Can you explain the circumstances of these deviations?"
24 And you said:
25 "Well, I can. In the situation when the commander is absent from
1 the place, when there are certain combat operations underway, and, for
2 example, corps commander is present but brigade commander isn't, at the
3 time the combat operations are under way in the AOR, area of
4 responsibility, of your brigade. Then, the most superior commander from
5 the highest command can issue orders in your commander's stead.
6 Following the completion of the task or the assignment in any case and in
7 every case the commander is to inform his direct superior whom he was
8 issued order from whom he received orders from, and it is his obligation
9 without exception. This is what he has to do following the execution or
10 action upon orders issued by higher authority."
11 And then you're asked:
12 "Let's just clarify that. You stayed for the occasion when the
13 brigade commander is not present but he is on other duties but within the
14 area of responsibility of the brigade, that, for example, the corps
15 commander can then issue orders for a brigade; is that correct?"
16 And you said:
17 "Not for a brigade, but he can issue orders to me personally."
18 Is that still, in your view, a correct statement of how things
19 worked in practice? And I apologise if you're squinting at the screen.
20 It needs to go one page on in the B/C/S, I understand.
21 A. I understand your question, although I didn't read the whole
22 passage, and I know what you're asking me.
23 If I were to explain this again now, although I really don't want
24 to presume to be an expert in the area of command and control and
25 knowledgeable about the relations in the command structure, I myself was
1 never a commander, and I cannot say with any degree of certainty that
2 something is 100 per cent correct or not. I would like, though, to
3 confirm that what you have read just now is how I understood the question
4 that was put to me, and I did my best to provide an explanation and an
6 I still believe that these questions relating to command and
7 control and the commander is not from the area of responsibility or is
8 and absent from the unit. I would explain it, of course, without
9 repeating the whole statement verbatim, but what I would tell you now
10 would in essence be identical.
11 So if the commander is absent, he designates someone who stands
12 in for him, and then this person issues orders in the name of the
13 commander. I know that this is how it should function, and that is how
14 it functioned.
15 As for the area of responsibility of the brigade, I believe,
16 although I'm not sure, that if the corps commander wants to issue an
17 order to one of the brigade units, then it would be most appropriate and
18 proper in military terms that he should do that through the commander of
19 that unit. However, if the situation is such that the brigade commander
20 is absent from the zone while the corps commander is present, I believe
21 that the corps commander can give orders personally if so required by the
22 current situation; although, as I said, this is not quite appropriate,
23 but if the circumstances are such that they cannot wait for the brigade
24 commander to return, then they resort to this procedure.
25 I'm not sure whether this is fully correct and in compliance with
1 the military law to the full, but in principle I think it is.
2 Q. Thank you. And just to tidy this one up, can you explain to us
3 what you meant when you said in your answer in the Trbic case, "the most
4 superior commander from the highest command"?
5 A. Yes, I can. What I meant here was a special situation that did
6 happen and can happen under such circumstances. Namely, there are combat
7 operations being carried out in a certain area, and it's not within the
8 zone of responsibility of one brigade. Let's take the Bratunac Brigade
9 as an example. If combat operations are being conducted in the area of
10 responsibility of the Bratunac Brigade and the brigade commander is not
11 accessible and reachable in that area and the situation demands that the
12 task at hand must be amended and issued to the unit engaged in the
13 operation, and you don't have the most senior officer in the brigade who
14 is entitled to amend his previously made decision, then, hypothetically
15 speaking, depending on the specific situation, it is only natural, and I
16 think it is in line with the military rules for the decisions in such
17 situations to be made by the most senior officer, both in terms of his
18 position and his rank, who is currently present in the area where the
19 combat operations are being carried out.
20 So it's only logical that if in the area of responsibility of the
21 Bratunac Brigade there is an officer from the brigade and an officer from
22 the corps command and another officer from the Main Staff and the officer
23 from the Main Staff or that from the Drina Corps, according to their
24 position and their ranks, are most senior there, then it's only logical
25 for them to issue specific orders to deal with the specific combat
2 This is how I understand it. And I think I read it somewhere
3 that this is fully in accordance with military rules. However, I always
4 want to -- to emphasise that I have reservations when I'm talking about
5 command and control, because I don't have command and control experience
6 and I'm not an expert in this field. I always have reservations when I
8 Q. I'm very grateful, Mr. Nikolic. And just to conclude this topic,
9 as you told us the other day, irrespective of the lines of command and
10 control, never in an armed force do you question an order or a request
11 from an officer of your superior command. That's what you told us on the
12 21st of April. That's correct, isn't it?
13 A. I cannot give you a blanket confirmation of your thesis or claim.
14 I can only speak for myself. I am almost convinced that I had never refused
15 to carry out an order from a superior command, although at certain points --
16 or even, sometimes these orders did not personally suit me. But, I did not
17 refuse to carry out orders, because I thought that such things had been
18 agreed at higher levels, so I never presumed to double-check or comment the
19 orders that were coming from superior commands. So generally speaking, I
20 did carry out my orders.
21 Q. Well, let's see if we can apply what you've told us to a
22 practical situation. You told us during the course of your evidence
23 about some military policemen from the Bratunac Brigade who ended up in
24 Pilica. Do you recall that?
25 A. I do, but that's not the way I put it. I said that I came to
1 know and see at a later date from a military police log-book that a
2 military police patrol between the 16th and the 17th of July had been
3 kept in Pilica. That's what I said, had been left behind.
4 Q. And Pilica is not within the brigade area of the Bratunac
5 Brigade, is it?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Applying what you've told us, if a colonel from the Drina Corps
8 or the Main Staff had issued orders to that patrol of military policemen,
9 it would have been obliged to obey them, wouldn't it?
10 A. I hope so -- or, rather, I assume so, of course.
11 Q. Thank you. We'll move on from there. I'd like you just quickly
12 to look quickly at another document, please. It's our P107, and you
13 better have a look at the front page first so we can identify it.
14 A. Yes. I have seen the document. This is an order for active
15 combat activity issued by the Drina Corps command.
16 Q. And if I understand the accounts you've given previously, you did
17 not see that order in July of 1995; is that correct?
18 A. I testified about that and said that I had not seen it.
19 Q. Thank you. I'd just like us now, please, to go to page 5 in the
20 B/C/S, page 7 in the English.
21 A. Yes, I've seen it. I wouldn't want to read the entire page.
22 Tell me the passage I'm supposed to direct my attention to. Probably the
23 one related to the security organ.
24 Q. Correct. And I'm very sorry, that's a reasonable request. The
25 section I want to direct your attention to is just four lines from the
1 top in your language, and it reads:
2 "Security organs and military police will indicate the areas for
3 gathering and securing prisoners of war and war booty."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. If I heard you correctly, you said the security organs and the
6 police. What I can see here is the security organs will send out
7 instructions to the subordinate units concerning the application of the
8 regimen in the combat activity. So the military police is not mentioned
9 here. I apologise if what I heard was wrong.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. If -- are you referring him -- I think
11 you should be referring him to the second paragraph on page 5 in the
12 Serbo-Croat language. Is that correct, Mr. Haynes or not?
13 MR. HAYNES: It's the fourth line that begins [B/C/S spoken]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: In the section -- yes, okay. Which, to my
15 knowledge --
16 MR. HAYNES: I think we can all work out is the security organ
17 and the military police.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. And this is why I'm intervening because I
19 see Vojna Policije, and I think he may have been reading some other
21 MR. HAYNES:
22 Q. Can you count four lines town from the top, Mr. Nikolic?
23 A. My apologies. I was reading the paragraph below that one. Of
24 course I'll read relevant paragraph.
25 Yes. You're right, sir. My apologies.
1 Q. Now, irrespective of whether you actually saw this document, did
2 you become aware as a security organ that it was your responsibility, in
3 relation to the operation towards Srebrenica, to indicate areas for
4 gathering and securing prisoners of war and war booty?
5 A. What I understanding was and how I worked both in times of peace
6 and war, and since I took part in countless military exercises in
7 relation to this particular duty of the security organ is as follows: At
8 the stage when the security organ takes decisions and issues orders, et
9 cetera, the security organ plays a role of a proposing party where the
10 organ will propose to the commander where the military police should be
11 deployed, et cetera, and that's the only thing that the security organ, or
12 the intelligence and security organ, does in relation to this type of order.
13 The commander, for his part, can accept or fully reject the
14 proposal, or simply accept it in part. Once the commander has heard all
15 the proposals, including the one about the status of the prisoners of
16 war, the commander will take a decision which will be a definitive
17 decision and binding upon all those who contributed with their proposals
18 and all the various matters concerning the provision of combat security,
19 which includes the matters you refer to.
20 I was aware of that, and that's the way I worked. Whenever I was
21 supposed to I proposed matters to the commander that lay within my
22 competence. However, I have to give you an additional clarification. If
23 you do not take part in the formulation of the written order or in the
24 process of giving proposals, and the commander can decide not to accept
25 proposals. If you don't know what the commander's decision was and if
1 you don't receive the order the commander has written, including -- so if
2 you're not in the -- among the addressees or among those who are supposed
3 to be copied the order to, you will not know what the commander has
4 decided, and it is his discretionary right to decide not to inform you
5 thereof. In such cases, the commander will have taken the decision on
6 his own. And since in accordance with the rules of engagement the
7 commander is entitled to take decisions on his own, independently, he
8 will likewise be taking full responsibility upon himself for the decision
9 taken. That's formulated in the rules of engagement as the commander's
10 discretionary right. That's what I know about it.
11 Q. Well, perhaps we'll approach it a different way. Did you in fact
12 indicate areas where prisoners from Srebrenica could be gathered and
14 A. If your question is whether I proposed the specific areas to my
15 commander, I did not, because my commander did not hold that sort of a
16 working meeting and did not ask my opinion. I testified about this in
17 the previous trials.
18 If you look at my commander's order, you will see that he did not
19 write in the order that I should be delivered the order. He said that
20 the commanders of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Battalions should be sent the
21 order, the Chief of Staff, the filing service, and that's all, I think.
22 The regular procedure would have been where I would have proposed to the
23 commander the various areas where the prisoners should be gathered and
24 kept. That was the regular procedure.
25 Q. So in -- in what context was it that you mentioned the Ciglana
1 brickworks and the Sase mine that you told us about the other day?
2 A. I mentioned the Sase mine and the Ciglana brickworks in the
3 context of the locations that were discussed as possible locations for
4 the execution of the prisoners in Potocari who were detained in Bratunac.
5 Q. Thank you. And the rings and necklaces --
6 A. Allow me this -- allow me to add something that I have not
7 testified about so far. At a later date, once the entire operation was
8 over, I learned that certain individuals were indeed touring the area of
9 the brickworks. As for the area of the Sase mines, none the officers
10 toured the area. For the sake of the truth, I also wish to say that
11 these locations were discussed, but not a single killing or execution was
12 ever committed in any of these locations.
13 Q. Thank you. When you were being asked questions the other day by
14 Mr. Ostojic, you discussed at some length some rings and necklaces and
15 cash that was in your safe. Would those items properly be described as
16 war booty?
17 A. Everything I had to say, and you'll be able to look at it from
18 the record, I did say in answer to Mr. Ostojic's questions. There is
19 nothing to take away or add. I can provide additional explanation if you
21 Q. It's a simple question. Were those items war booty from
23 A. Yes. That follows from the hand-over record. You can see that
24 it was war booty, and you can also see it from the minutes of the
25 briefing of the 16th of July where I briefed the commander on this and
1 asked him what was to become of the war booty.
2 In that same document, you have an earlier item, an earlier
3 paragraph, containing the order of -- of the commander where he had
4 already decided about the fate of the pecuniary funds. It is not quite
5 clear from the document that they were referring to funds, to money, but
6 I'm telling you this.
7 Q. Well, let's forget about what you told your commander allegedly
8 on the 16th of July. How did those items come to be in your safe in the
9 first place?
10 A. I told you what their provenance was. I think I explained that
11 to one of the lawyers here. And they came to be in my safe because the
12 military police didn't have a safe. Zlatan Celanovic, who was in charge
13 of the entire procedure surrounding this, did not have a safe that would
14 have been intended for keeping such items. For this reason, the items
15 were left in my safe based on a document until such time as the commander
16 issued his order.
17 THE INTERPRETER: "Issued his decision," interpreter's
19 MR. HAYNES:
20 Q. In simple terms, rings and necklaces and cash that was taken off
21 people found its way to you through the military police; is that correct?
22 A. They came to the Bratunac Brigade through the border police which
23 had received the items from the security organs from Serbia. I don't
24 know if it was the police or who, because the individuals on whom these
25 items were found were captured in Serbia. The war booty was seized from
1 them. A record was made thereof. The items were handed over to the
2 board are police, which in turn handed it over to the Bratunac Brigade
3 police. The items I'm referring to include the money, gold, jewellery,
4 everything that was present in my safe.
5 Q. Who was the first person who told you that any of the former
6 inhabitants of Srebrenica were to be murdered?
7 A. In my evidence so far, I stated quite clearly when it was that I
8 heard of this for the first time. I've already testified about this. To
9 my questions as to what was to become the fate of those who were
10 captured, I was told that all the balijas had to be killed. I don't know
11 what sort of inference you would make upon hearing something of the sort.
12 What sort of a conclusion would you have arrived at, and what would you
13 have thought had you been in my shoes and had you seen people being
14 separated who were not military-aged men, who had nothing to do with the
15 army whatsoever. And I'm stating this again. People were separated who
16 had nothing to do with the army, with combat, with crime, had nothing
17 whatsoever to do with individuals who could in any way have been held
18 responsible for crimes or war.
19 Had you been in my shoes and seen the treatment they were
20 accorded in Potocari, I put it to you that you would have arrived at the
21 same conclusion that I had upon seeing all that.
22 I had heard quite enough. I did not need to hear somebody utter
23 the words, "They will be killed," but the reaction where it was said that
24 the balijas had to be killed was quite sufficient for me to come to that
25 conclusion based on my common sense.
1 Let me underline again that I would be the happiest man had all
2 this not happened. You can tell me whatever you want. You can try and
3 persuade me that this had not indeed happened. However, my assessments and
4 the conclusions I drew, were confirmed. They were confirmed as true. You
5 will not succeed in discrediting me, because I speak the truth and the truth
6 is on my side. I have the courage to tell the truth, and believe me when I
7 say that I feel lighter, I feel better when I tell the truth and admit that
8 a horrific crime had indeed happened there.
9 Q. It may have been lost in translation or -- or perhaps you didn't
10 listen to my question carefully enough. All I asked you was who told you
11 that. It only requires a name, Mr. Nikolic.
12 A. I think I've already answered that question ten times in this
13 courtroom. The first time I had my doubts, when I felt that these were
14 things that were portending evil, that was outside Hotel Fontana when I
15 spoke to Popovic, Kosoric, and Petar Uscumlic was there as well on the
16 12th of July, 1995. That was the first time I realised that evil will
17 take place.
18 That may have been a bit earlier, even, on the evening of the
19 11th when the second meeting was being held. At that point some
20 requests, demands were put forth where the Muslim units were asked to
21 come to Potocari, to lay down their weapons. They were told that no harm
22 would come their way, that they should surrender. I know that that would
23 have only been logical and soldierly and that that's the way things
24 should have happened. However, I likewise knew having spent four years
25 there previously, I knew the extent of the hatred between the Serbs from
1 Bratunac and the Muslims in Srebrenica. I knew how much blood had been
2 spilt in the meantime and I was almost certain that things could not have
3 ended in a good way, that they had to end in a bad way.
4 I repeat, I didn't need to be said that to my face. Everyone, of
5 course, avoided saying something of the sort, but evil things have
6 happened, sir, and I find it hard to speak about it even now, but I must.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Nikolic, just to clarify the
8 transcript, page 18, line 10, we have the name that you mentioned
9 conspicuously absent in the transcript, and I'm going to read out a small
10 part of the transcript and then you repeat the name, please.
11 "The first time I had my doubts when I felt that these were
12 things that were portending evil. That was outside Hotel Fontana," I
13 suppose, not phone, "and it was when I spoke to," and here we have a name
14 missing. Who did you speak to?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat that for the record.
16 I spoke there with Colonel -- or sorry Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic and
17 Lieutenant-Colonel Kosoric.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: And you named one more individual, Mr. Nikolic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I said that on that plateau
21 just before the start of the meeting Petar Uscumlic, the interpreter, was
22 also present there.
23 MR. HAYNES: Yes. I think we can move on.
24 Q. And just moving on in the piece, who was the first person that
25 told you that the prisoners held in Bratunac were to be moved to Zvornik
1 for execution?
2 A. I testified about that, too. The first person I heard from that
3 the prisoners would have to go -- would have to be moved to Zvornik was
4 Mr. Beara [as interpreted].
5 Q. Thank you. And as I understand the position, not long after that
6 you received an order from Colonel Beara to go to Zvornik and speak to
7 Drago Nikolic, did you not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you inform your commander before going to Zvornik that
10 Colonel Beara had given you that order?
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. Even though the order involved you being out of the brigade area
13 for four or more hours?
14 A. At the time I did not inform my commander, Colonel Blagojevic,
15 that I was supposed to go to Zvornik.
16 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move on from there. Again, I'm going to
17 read something you have told us the other day when you were being asked
18 questions by Mr. Thayer. It was on the 21st of April, and if anybody
19 wants to check the transcript, it's page 32916.
20 He asked you:
21 "Again, focusing on the intelligence picture that you had going
22 into the morning of the 12th of July, had you received more information
23 about the whereabouts of the Muslim men from Srebrenica that morning?"
24 And your answer was:
25 "Yes. Already in the morning of the 12th and later on even more
1 intensely information started pouring in that elements of the Muslim
2 forces who were pulling out towards Muslim-controlled or free territories
3 were in the Jaglici and Susnjari sectors and that they are using this
4 axis for pulling out of Srebrenica."
5 Now, is that correct that during the 12th of July information as
6 to the whereabouts of the column and its intentions was pouring in?
7 A. Yes. We had information about the approximate area that they
8 were gathering as well as the direction which they were trying to move.
9 Q. And I apologise if this seems like the same question, but there's
10 a reason why I ask it. By the evening of the 12th of July you had good
11 and reliable information about where they had assembled and the direction
12 in which they were heading, didn't you?
13 A. Well, you know, sir, information is information. How reliable
14 the piece of information is is something you can't know. If on the 12th
15 you received a piece of information, you first need to follow up on it
16 and check it.
17 What we had was not information, only reports. Let me make it
18 quite clear. The extent to which the information was reliable or
19 accurate was unknown. We received information from the units that were
20 in the immediate area and in contact.
21 You will know yourself that when it comes to information, you
22 have to verify certain things. You have to investigate if they are true
23 or not.
24 What we had was just the first reports about the position of the
25 Muslim column which was present in the area. Similarly, you have to
1 understand that there were around 16.000 people there. That's the
2 information that I had. There were approximately 16.000 people present
3 in the area. You can only imagine what sort of a location can receive
4 16.000 people. They must have covered a considerable area.
5 These matters are neither precise, nor can one take any decisive
6 or important decisions on their basis.
7 Q. But during the 12th of July you were receiving intelligence --
8 [French on English channel]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Nikolic, because we are receiving
10 interpretation in French, and I know Mr. Bourgon doesn't like it. Yes.
11 I hope it's all sorted out.
12 MR. HAYNES:
13 Q. Just to, as it were, just list the sources of the information.
14 You were receiving intelligence from your own units pouring in on the
15 12th of July; is that right?
16 A. I can only confirm that intelligence was arriving from the units
17 that were able to acquire such information. Those were mainly units
18 deployed in that sector, although it seems to me, but don't hold it to
19 me -- don't hold me to it, already on the 12th there was an exchange of
20 information with the Milici Brigade, which was the adjacent brigade. I'm
21 not sure, but I think that even then they conveyed information to us
22 about the movement and information about the assessment of the intentions
23 of the Muslim forces that were there. When I say the Muslim forces and
24 the Muslim column, I say "forces" because there were lots of men, members
25 of the 28th Division, who were armed and who had set up a standard
1 formation for movement and for breakthrough in military terms.
2 Q. Thank you. You've helped me with my next question, which was
3 that you were also receiving reports from neighbouring units as to the
4 situation and movement of the column, weren't you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And during the 12th of July, prisoners were being captured from
7 the column who were being interviewed and giving you information.
8 A. As far as I can remember, I didn't have any prisoners on the
9 12th. If you are referring to the people taken prisoner from the column.
10 Q. And as you told us the other day, the information was all
11 supporting other information that the column had gathered in Jaglici and
12 Susnjari and was pulling out on a certain axis towards the free
14 A. What I said in my previous testimony is quite sufficient. I have
15 nothing to add to it. Just as I responded to the questions of other
16 counsel, I am responding in the same way to you. That is to say, we had
17 information coming from different sources. There was exchange of
18 information between Bratunac and Milici Brigades, and I think that on the
19 12th the Bratunac Brigade had no prisoners from the column, if that is
20 what your question was about.
21 Q. Very well. On the 12th of July, you were the duty officer at the
22 Bratunac Brigade, weren't you?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Your deputy or assistant duty officer was Jankovic, and you
25 called him to relieve you at 3.00 in the morning when you went to go and
1 sleep in your apartment in Bratunac. That's right, isn't it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Other than that -- sorry, Mr. Thayer --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
5 MR. THAYER: And I think we're all agreed, just so there's no
6 confusion on the record, the Jankovic to whom the witness is referring is
7 Sergeant Mirko Jankovic, the komandir of the Military Police Platoon.
8 MR. HAYNES: That's quite right, and I forgot there were two of
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you both. Let's proceed.
11 MR. HAYNES:
12 Q. Other than that, as duty officer you would have had to be present
13 in the duty operations officers' office throughout the evening, wouldn't
15 A. Yes, I was there in the evening. I may have taken a break and
16 went out to the kitchen, but generally speaking, I spent all the time in
17 the operations room where the operations duty officer performs his
19 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And any information
20 that was pouring in, you would have passed on to those who needed to know
21 about it, wouldn't you?
22 A. Yes. I testified to that. Generally speaking, I abided by the
23 procedure of writing reports, passing on information to those who might
24 find them interesting.
25 Q. Again, thank you. Can we go back one evening to the 11th of
1 July. On the 11th of July you went to the Hotel Fontana twice, didn't
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. And after the second visit you even took the Muslim
5 representative back to Potocari. Do you agree with that?
6 A. I don't think I took him as far as Potocari. I think I took him
7 as far as Zuti Most, but then again I may have taken him to Potocari.
8 Anyway, my task was actually to escort them to the territory under their
10 Q. So let's be clear about this. Your evidence is on the 11th of
11 July, as a Serbian officer you drove through Potocari.
12 A. Not through Potocari. I may have driven up to Potocari. The UN
13 base and where Mandzic was is a little bit away from the centre of
14 Potocari, which is densely populated area and where the civilians and
15 everybody else was already there.
16 Q. But in any event, nobody stopped you on the road?
17 A. I don't remember being stopped by anyone.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. Excuse me. Maybe we stopped on Zuti Most, but I don't see Zuti
20 Most as a place where somebody should stop me. If we stopped, it was
21 just pro forma to -- to greet the people or to say something about those
22 who went to the meeting in Bratunac.
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note: We had not quite
24 understood the witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Haynes --
1 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Because the interpreters have doubts as to whether
3 they have understood the witness.
4 Mr. Nikolic, you said -- excuse me, I'm reading out from the
5 transcript. Perhaps you could tell us if this is correct or whether you
6 would like to clarify anything.
7 "Excuse me. Maybe we stopped on Zuti Most, but I don't see Zuti
8 Most as a place where somebody would stop me. If we stopped, it was just
9 pro forma to --" there is something missing here, "to great the people or
10 to say something about those who went to the meeting in Bratunac."
11 Is this what you basically said or did you say something
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that's the essence of
14 what I said. Maybe I didn't phrase it properly, therefore I was
15 misunderstood. The check-point at Zuti Most was manned by a man from my
16 brigade, and of course they knew me. I just wanted to say that I was not
17 officially stopped and checked. If we did stop, that was for those
18 reasons, just to tell them that these were men who were with me are
19 coming back from the meeting. That was actually the essence of what I
20 wanted to say.
21 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. If that's satisfactory, I'll move on.
22 Q. One of the other events of the 11th of July, which you've
23 recalled to us, was that you wrote a report concerning the existence of
24 able-bodied men amongst the people at Potocari. That's right, isn't it?
25 A. Once again I want to be precise. I drafted a report in which I
1 included my assessment, and I'm constantly underlying. What pertained to
2 the number of men, to the intentions, to the composition of refugees in
3 Potocari. These were all assessments. And it is true that in this
4 information containing these assessments which I passed on to the
5 security and intelligence department of the Drina Corps, and I also
6 informed my command about my assessment, the truth is that this
7 assessment contains information that among the civilians in Potocari
8 there were able-bodied men.
9 Q. Thanks very much. I just want to clarify something you told us
10 the other day, the 21st of April. Not for your benefit, for everybody
11 else it's page 32914. You're talking about the 11th of July, and you
13 "That evening I informed members of the command who were present
14 in the Bratunac Brigade headquarters. These are staff officers who were
15 part of the corps command, and of course all this information and
16 intelligence was relayed to my commander as well, which is absolutely a
17 regular procedure, and I'm talking about my commander Vidoje Blagojevic."
18 When you said that to us the other day, what information were you
19 referring to and what officers?
20 A. You have quoted something which was either mistranslated or was a
21 slip of the tongue, or maybe I misspoke. You mentioned staff officers,
22 and then later on, according to the translation that I received, there
23 was talk and mention of corps officers. So something doesn't tally
25 I will try to give you a precise answer to your question.
1 Written information containing all the intelligence that I had on the
2 11th of July in the evening I conveyed to the security and intelligence
3 department of the Drina Corps. The information contained in the written
4 report was forwarded, or I acquainted members of the Bratunac Brigade
5 command; that is to say, the people who were with me all the time.
6 However -- actually, I -- I informed them about all the information that
7 were -- was available to me at the time. I remember office -- officer
8 Micic being there, I also remember another officer by the name of Stevic.
9 I think that Dragan Trisic was also there, but I can't guarantee that
10 these were exactly men who were present at that moment. Anyway, those
11 were men from the Bratunac Brigade command.
12 In addition to that, the information relating to Potocari and
13 everything else learned about -- or actually was found out by the
14 officers from my brigade. They knew everything, and each new piece of
15 information was discussed in the operations room. They were on duty to
16 do their job just like I was as part of the overall operation, and I can
17 say for sure that they knew everything that I, as an intelligence
18 security organ knew, or had as assessment or has had as information that
19 I was absolutely sure were -- was true.
20 Q. Well, thank you. We can -- we can check the tape to see whether
21 it was mistranslated, but we'll move on from there.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
23 MR. THAYER: I don't want to really dwell on the issue, but I
24 think, and my friend may agree with me, I think what we have is two words
25 in English which sound the same. It's been translated in the transcript
1 as corps. I think based on -- on the witness's answer that what he may
2 have said was translated into whatever the word for core, meaning the
3 central brigade command, and then it was translated as corps because
4 we're so used to hearing corps as in Drina Corps, and that explains why
5 there is this reference to the Drina
6 being present. We can try to resolve it now with a question to the
7 witness or pull the tape. I just threw out that suggestion. I think
8 it --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Your comments, Mr. Haynes?
10 MR. HAYNES: We'll look into it.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
12 MR. HAYNES: I would have thought that sort of comment should not
13 have been made in front of the witness with his headphones on, but we'll
14 move on.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, he could offer us his comments if he so
16 wishes --
17 MR. HAYNES: I think I'd prefer to look into the tape first.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's advantageous to have had him hear what
19 Mr. Thayer had to say, but anyway, let's proceed.
20 MR. HAYNES: I wonder whether we could now have in e-court,
21 please, P4472, pages -- or page 29 in the English and 30 -- I'm sorry,
22 page 31 in the English and page 30 in the B/C/S.
23 Q. And what you need to read to yourself, Mr. Nikolic, begins at
24 line 8. It's the rather long answer you gave there, and I shall read the
25 English into the record.
1 What you said is:
2 "After the meeting, which didn't last that long, the commanding
3 officers came out and they discussed about the new task. What I learned
4 is that the task, it was about the forces which participated in
5 Srebrenica were to be transferred to Zepa. That was one thing that
6 presumably I learned. The following was that they did not manage to
7 reach an agreement about that, and the reason was simply that there were
8 no intelligence. There was no reliable information regarding the
9 location of the column, I'm referring to the Muslim column, about the
10 movement, about the further targets, and that because of that, one of the
11 participants, and this is, this part I learned later, complained and that
12 they did not accept Mladic's idea to move to Zepa."
13 Now, does that remain your recollection of what you learned had
14 been the discussion at that meeting?
15 A. Yes. I still stand by what I said before, and what I stated here
16 relates to what I learned after the meeting. I was very precise there
17 when I said that there was no reliable information or intelligence about
18 the location of the column, and I still maintain that.
19 At that time, there was no reliable information about the
20 whereabouts of the column, because it changed its position by the hour,
21 and it was on the move. We also didn't have any reliable information
22 about their intentions. You have to admit that that was a huge number of
23 armed men, and in absence of accurate and reliable information, one could
24 not reach any speedy decisions about anything else. Therefore, I stand
25 by what I already said, and if you want me to elaborate on this further,
1 I can do that.
2 Q. Well, no, on the 12th, as you told us in this trial, intensely
3 information had been pouring in that the Muslim forces who were pulling
4 out towards Muslim-controlled or free territories were in the Jaglici and
5 Susnjari sectors and that they were using this axis for pulling out of
7 So this meeting that you recalled in this interview, couldn't
8 have happened on the evening of the 12th, could it, because there was
9 tons of information about where the column was and where it was going.
10 A. I spoke about this meeting, if we are referring to the same
11 meeting, that is, and I would like to confirm today that I'm not sure
12 when this meeting took place, but on the other hand, I'm absolutely sure
13 that it did take place, and in addition to the question mentioned here,
14 other things happened as well that I learned about, of course, but not
15 through being present in the meeting.
16 In my view, it is of lesser importance whether it was on the 11th
17 or the 12th. The important thing is what was discussed at the meeting
18 and the fact that it actually happened.
19 Now, 14 years later -- well, not only 14 years later but even
20 back then, to which I cannot put any time-frame and I believe that to be
21 absolutely normal.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, the passage I just read you came from an
23 interview you had with Mr. McCloskey at the end of May of 2003. You
24 recall, don't you, speaking to Bruce Bursik about a month before that
25 over the course of about three days?
1 A. Yes. I expressed my opinion about this issue, and I would really
2 like to repeat once again that I stand by what is recorded in this
3 interview, which was audio recorded, which was an official interview
4 shall, and believe me, I didn't embark on any analysis of this document
5 because those were his notes, and probably had we gone through his notes
6 and had some question been put to me, I would have tried to explain
7 things and that would be actually what I would have said. But these were
8 Mr. Bursik's notes. He noted the things as he understood -- stood them,
9 and I standby by what I said in this official interview, and it is
10 regarding both -- recorded both on tape and in -- and on paper.
11 I'm not talking about the notes, but I believe that they would be
12 of better quality and that there would have reflected -- had we gone
13 through them, they would have reflected my comments and my formulation.
14 But as it is, I do not have any objection to the context of the notes as
15 it is.
16 Q. Thank you. And we can agree, can't we, that both in April of
17 2003, when Mr. Bursik made a note, and in May of 2003, at the end of May
18 when the interview was tape recorded, you told officers from the
19 Prosecution that the meeting that we've just been talking about took
20 place on the 11th of July.
21 A. I already replied to this question. I spoke about my best
22 recollection. I allow for the possibility, and I'm not an obstinate
23 person who someone who thinks that cannot make mistakes. I agree that
24 it's possible. I'm not sure only about the timing of the meeting.
25 However, as for everything else, I confirm that the meeting to place, and
1 I confirm the substance of the meeting. The only thing that I'm not sure
2 about is the time when the meeting took place. And I think that you can
3 understand when one makes such mistake, because in those days there were
4 numerous visits and meetings in the Bratunac Brigade. Officers from the
5 command, from the corps -- corps units were coming, as well as those from
6 the Main Staff, and there was constant going in and out, and there were
7 endless meetings being held, and believe me, under such circumstances it
8 is possible that I made a mistake. But then I don't think it's relevant
9 compared to what actually happened and what was the crux of the matter.
10 What I am saying, I always try to be the reflection of what
11 happened, what I saw with my eyes, or of which I am convinced that had
12 actually happened.
13 Q. And is that you did in both of those interviews?
14 MR. HAYNES: I'd like that question answered, then we can take a
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead and answer the question, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As I said, at the time of the
18 interview, I said what I could remember.
19 Q. Thank you very much.
20 MR. HAYNES: And thank you, Your Honour, for allowing me to ask
21 the question.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: How much more time do you require?
23 MR. HAYNES: I'll try and wrap it up in 20 or 30 minutes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank you.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
3 MR. HAYNES:
4 Q. Just so that you understand my position, Mr. Nikolic, I think you
5 got it right in May 2003 when you said this meeting took place on the
6 11th of July and that you've got no reason to have any dilemma about it.
7 Did I understand your last answer before the break to be to the
8 effect that it is only the date about which you have a dilemma?
9 A. I said that I had my doubts about the date of the meeting that I
10 believe had been held. There were many meetings held in the Bratunac
11 Brigade. I was referring to that one which discussed matters contained
12 in my evidence here.
13 Q. But what I mean is you have no doubt, do you, about, as it were,
14 the circumstances of that meeting and how it fits into the chronology of
15 what you were doing around the meeting?
16 A. I don't understand the question. What does it mean how it fitted
17 the chronology of what I was doing?
18 Q. I'll show you what you said during the course of that very long
19 interview with Mr. McCloskey at the end of May 2003.
20 MR. HAYNES: Can we have a look again, please, at P4472, page 28
21 and 29 in the English, page 27 in the B/C/S.
22 A. Yes. I've read this once before, so it seems to me.
23 Q. Well, I'm going to read it again to you --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. HAYNES: Sorry.
1 Q. Mr. McCloskey said:
2 "We left off yesterday with filling in some details about the
3 Hotel Fontan meetings, and if you could just briefly outline for us what
4 you did after the first meeting at the Hotel Fontana ended?"
5 And you said:
6 "Yes, I believe we started with that part. Actually, we finished
7 with that part. After the meeting at the Hotel Fontana, I went to the
8 command of the Bratunac Brigade, and during that time after the meeting I
9 wrote a report for the superior command, a report regarding the
10 activities that took place that day."
11 And Mr. McCloskey asked you:
12 "And did that report include an estimate of the able-bodied men
13 in Potocari or had that report been done before that?"
14 "A. That, yes.
15 "Q. And did you see any commanders or officers at the Bratunac
16 command when you went there that evening?
17 "A. Yes, I saw a group of officers who came to the brigade
18 command, and according to the information I learned later that group of
19 officers was a group of commanders of the compact group which
20 participated in the operation."
21 Mr. McCloskey asked:
22 "Are you sure you saw those commanders there that night of the
23 11th and not the next night, the night of the 12th?
24 "A. As far as I can remember, it was on the 11th in the evening."
25 Does it remain your recollection that the meeting you have
1 described about going on to Zepa took place the same night you went to
2 the Hotel Fontana?
3 A. Sir, I explained and stated what I had to say. Naturally, I
4 stand by everything I said. The events and the chronology contained here
5 reflect my recollection of the events. All of this I've stated on
6 several occasions. I stand by what I said in the statement. I expressed
7 my doubts with regard to the dates and their accuracy. I repeat that
8 this is the best of my recollection.
9 Q. So I just want to be clear about this. Is it the best of your
10 recollection that the meeting you have described occurred the same night
11 that you went to the Hotel Fontana?
12 A. Everything I said and everything that is contained herein is, I
13 claim again, the best of my recollection.
14 Q. And is it your recollection that the meeting you have described
15 occurred the same night that you wrote the report about the able-bodied
16 men at Potocari?
17 A. I've already answered the question.
18 Q. Please indulge me and answer it again.
19 A. I stand by the statement I gave to Mr. McCloskey and I stand by
20 what I said at the time. I do not rule out the possibility that I made a
21 mistake by stating that the meeting was held on the 12th. I have said
22 this, I think, a dozen times now.
23 Q. What was it that caused you to develop a dilemma about this date
24 between June and September of 2003 when you gave evidence in the
25 Blagojevic case?
1 A. Not that I came to doubt it. It's just that I am not -- it's not
2 that I am stubborn that way. There is a number of documents that I read,
3 roughly grasp what they stated, and made some sort of a chronology of the
4 events. To the best of my recollection, what I believed to be true was
5 that it was on the 11th. Now, why should I be stating something for a
6 fact that I am not sure of? I don't want to state that something is a
7 certainty. If there is 1 per cent of doubt. I can't say with precision
8 that it was on the 11th since there were a number of meetings. I can't
9 be more precise than that. Despite your insistence, I will not state
10 something of the sort, simply because I am not sure of it.
11 Q. We'll move on. You have referred sometimes in your evidence to a
12 man called Trisic. Who was he in the Bratunac Brigade, and what was his
14 A. Dragoslav Trisic was Assistant Commander for Logistics in the
15 Bratunac Brigade.
16 Q. And would his responsibilities have included making sure that the
17 brigade had enough fuel?
18 A. Yes. That was within the competence of a logistics organ.
19 Q. And forgive me again if this sounds a very similar question. Did
20 he as part of that function have to monitor fuel usage and ensure that
21 fuel was properly accounted for?
22 A. I'm not sure that I fully understand the question.
23 Q. Well, did he have to keep check of how much fuel the brigade was
24 using, how much it needed, and to keep records of how fuel was being
1 A. I can only give you an answer on the basis of logic. One of the
2 obligations is to monitor the consumption of fuel, to keep track of that,
3 and to report on the matters to his commander. Whether he actually did
4 that is something I don't know. I suppose he did.
5 Q. But that wasn't your job, was it?
6 A. Regular provision of fuel, consumption of fuel, distribution of
7 fuel and everything else was within the competence of the logistics
8 organ. Part of that was the traffic service, which took care of it.
9 Q. Thank you. Now -- now, please don't be angered by this question
10 because it's similar to a couple I've asked you before, but who was who
11 first told you about the plan to dig up and rebury dead bodies in the
12 autumn of 1995?
13 A. The first time official, and I emphasise official, discussions
14 took place were in the Bratunac Brigade on the part of Lieutenant-Colonel
15 Popovic. As for what I know of the initiative, what I heard about it,
16 the initiative to carry out the reburial came from the civilian
17 authorities. That's the extent of what I know. Of course, I can't
18 either confirm or prove that that was indeed the case. My information
19 was that it was their initiative.
20 Q. And your function in all that, amongst other things, was to
21 monitor, preserve, and control the use of fuel, wasn't it?
22 A. I think that I explained to one of the counsel everything that I
23 knew in relation to the operation. One of the my tasks since the
24 military police was involved there, too, and my involvement on the basis
25 of the order of the brigade commander as a result of one of the requests
1 that was put to me was that the fuel which was supposed to arrive and to
2 be used for that operation, that the security organ should monitor and
3 account for the use of the fuel.
4 Q. Did anybody tell you why the security organ had to monitor an
5 account for fuel in relation to the reburial of bodies?
6 A. I think that I answered that question too. It was put by one of
7 the counsel, but let me state this once more. I can only assume what the
8 reason was, and that was most probably the case, which was that this
9 operation was supposed to be a secret operation. The reburial was
10 supposed to have been carried out in secret. Hence, the fuel which had
11 to be at their disposal, the distribution, and the consumption thereof,
12 all of it had to be taken care of by the security organ.
13 I explained all this to the counsel who put the question. This
14 was neither a secret operation nor did it resemble anything secret. Had
15 the intention been to keep it secret, that could not be carried out
16 because there were too many resources and individuals involved, the
17 military and political leadership, the brigade. Certain companies were
18 involved from the areas of Bratunac and Srebrenica. Under no
19 circumstances could the operation have been secret.
20 One of the reasons why it was decided that the security organs
21 should monitor the consumption of fuel was precisely that.
22 Q. Mr. Nikolic, thank you very much. I have no further questions
23 for you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
25 Further Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nikolic, I understand you must be very tired by
2 now, it's more than a week, but please bear with me for a few minutes. I
3 have three questions which transpired during the course of your
4 testimony, so I will start from -- start with minor thing.
5 During the course of your testimony you referred to Resid
6 Sinanovic as having swum across the Drina and having ended up as a
7 patient in Serbia
8 heard the -- such a story before, so could you elaborate?
9 A. Absolutely. Resid Sinanovic used to live in Bratunac before the
10 war. He was the chief of the public security station in Bratunac. When
11 the hostilities broke out, he moved into the territory of Srebrenica
12 the Srebrenica municipality. Once the enclave of Srebrenica fell, he was
13 probably part of the column moving in the direction of Kladanj and Tuzla
14 He was captured in the area of Konjevic Polje.
15 On the occasion of my first visit to Konjevic Polje on the 13th
16 of July, 1995, members of the Bratunac Public Security Station who had a
17 check-point in Konjevic Polje informed me that they held a very important
18 prisoner who, based on the information at the disposal of both the MUP
19 and the army, had been qualified as a war criminal.
20 After my stay in Konjevic Polje, I took over Resid Sinanovic with
21 another policeman, went to the Bratunac, and I handed him over to
22 Jankovic Mirko, the chief of the military police, and --
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the other name.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- who was a lawyer, who, in other
25 words, was an interrogator, one who would investigate into -- investigate
1 facts and events.
2 Once he was taken to the police, Dragan Ivanovic and other
3 individuals who used to be close to him before the war within the police.
4 They brought him cigarettes, food, gifts. I don't mean gifts exactly,
5 but whatever foodstuffs he requested.
6 Once Zlatan Celanovic interrogated him and took his statement,
7 and I don't know on the basis of whose decision this happened, because I
8 couldn't decide on these matters, I learned from my conversations with
9 him that subsequently he decided independently that he should transfer
10 him to the school together with the other prisoners because he felt that
11 there were no grounds for keeping him in custody and interrogating him
12 any further. He transferred him to the school, and whatever I'm telling
13 you now is what I heard from Zlatan Celanovic, he moved him to the Vuk
14 Karadzic elementary school, whereupon he was transferred to the area of
15 Zvornik in -- as part of the convoy that departed on the morning of the
16 14th of July.
17 To my knowledge and to the knowledge of my lawyers who
18 investigated the matter, he was probably taken out, as were all the rest.
19 He was shot at and wounded. I don't know where this took place, where
20 these people were executed.
21 He then, in an area just below Zvornik in Banja Koviljaca, just
22 next to the area of Serbia
23 to a cafe where he met some acquaintances of his who transported him from
24 the area where the cafe was to the Banja Koviljaca hospital.
25 Subsequently, according to what my lawyers learnt and told me, he was
1 transferred to Loznica or not. Don't hold me to that, but there is a
2 report produced by my lawyers to that effect.
3 He was then recognised by a doctor, a lady doctor, who used to
4 work in Bratunac but who, upon the outbreak of hostilities, moved to work
5 in that hospital, and she informed the police in Bratunac that Sinanovic
6 was in the Banja Koviljaca hospital. They then proceeded to inform their
7 services thereof.
8 Now, the subsequent information about when he was taken over from
9 the hospital, the research conducted by my lawyers indicated that he was
10 taken over by the police of the Republika Srpska and that he was
11 liquidated on the bridge at the border crossing between Serbia and
12 Republika Srpska, that's to say Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 That's the extent of what I know. The documents, the proof that
14 he was given treatment in the hospital was something that my lawyers
15 handed over to Mr. McCloskey during one of the meetings that they had.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. I wonder whether you could
17 give us the time-frame of his death.
18 A. I really can't. I think that all the relevant details are
19 contained in the document produced as a result of the investigation
20 carried out by my lawyers.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. For my next question can we bring up
22 P4480, page 3 in English, and I take it it's on page 4 in B/C/S.
23 Mr. Nikolic, this is a report or the information sheet the
24 Prosecution produced after having had a conversation with you in 2007 at
25 the place where you are serving your sentence. You remember that?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: Page 4 in B/C/S, and page 3.
3 You were asked by Mr. Ostojic, representing Mr. Beara, about this
4 passage, I will quote -- probably it's at the top of page 4:
5 "The witness also -- excuse me -- the witness also stated that
6 Beara had nothing to do with the burial of the bodies at Glogova and that
7 Dragan Mirkovic had lied about this because of his friendship with
9 As to the source of your information, you were asked by
10 Mr. Ostojic whether it was Mr. Mirkovic that told you about this, but you
11 denied, but subsequent intervention made your answer unclear. So my
12 question is what your source of knowledge, that Beara had nothing to do
13 with the burial of the bodies at Glogova, was? How did you know that?
14 A. Yes. I said what is contained in the text here. Based on
15 everything I learned in the period between the operation and today, I am
16 completely convinced that I must not claim anything with certainty, but I
17 am convinced that Colonel Beara had nothing to do with the burial at
19 JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether you could be a bit more specific as
20 to the source of your information.
21 A. I cannot tell you that I saw anything. There is information
22 to -- speaking of the activities that happened after the crime, that
23 happened on the 13th at Oka
24 activities which took place on the 13th of July in Bratunac in the public
25 security station where a meeting was held chaired by Mr. Dragomir Vasic.
1 The machinery that came from Zvornik was something that Mr. Beara, to my
2 knowledge, had nothing to do with. He had no ability to secure them, nor
3 did he secure the machinery. Based on what I know, it was Mr. Vasic who
4 provided for the machinery that was brought over to Glogova and which was
5 used to bury the bodies.
6 What I found out was that I have my doubts about the
7 participation of a member of the Bratunac Brigade. He took over
8 allegedly the machine, and I do have my doubts about him taking part in
9 the burial on that date, because the information I have, all of it points
10 to the fact that he participated in the burial at a later date, not on
11 that day.
12 Another thing that I deem very important is that Mr. -- or,
13 rather, Colonel Beara had no reason whatsoever to be occupied with the
14 burial of those killed in that area. I don't see that there's a single
15 reason why he would be doing that.
16 This is what I was guided by. I don't know what the actual truth
17 is, and I don't want to speculate. This is what I can tell you based on
18 the information I have.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. My last question is related
20 to your answer given to Mr. Thayer in the course of answering the
21 question as to the chain of command of various units that were operating
22 in Potocari on 12th and 13th.
23 For the benefit of counsel, it's page 32928, from line 8.
24 I quote:
25 "All forces that were engaged in Srebrenica operation and the
1 operation of forcible transfer from Potocari were commanded and
2 controlled by the Chief of Staff, General Krstic, and the commander of
3 the Drina
4 area of Bratunac, then of course it was well known that it was
5 General Mladic who made decisions ordered through his subordinate
6 officers, those being commanders of the corps, brigades, and all other
7 units that took part in Operation Srebrenica."
8 Do you remember having said that?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 JUDGE KWON: What interested me is the term you used, that is,
11 the "operation of forcible transfer," or just simply "forcible transfer."
12 What did you mean by saying "forcible transfer"? If you could explain it
13 to me.
14 A. Yes, I can, of course. I have to say that this is my personal
15 view and opinion. I was using the term "forcible transfer" of population
16 because I think that no one insane, and I'm talking primarily --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: No one who is sane.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I'm talking about the Muslims
19 who were in Potocari and Srebrenica, in that area, would accept
20 voluntarily or with delight or with desire to leave their homes and
21 everything that they had.
22 The situation as it was and the hatred that existed meant that
23 after everything that had had happened there was no way they would be
24 able to live together or next to each other. Therefore, each instance of
25 transfer of that kind, in my view, contains an element of force, and
1 that's my opinion. Of course, I think the same about any ethnic
2 community or groups who are forced to leave their homes and their
4 JUDGE KWON: As regards the -- your original statement of facts,
5 you once told us that the -- the formulation in the statements were those
6 of your counsel, not by your personal formulation. Am I correct in so
8 Can I be more clear -- clearer? You said it is a formulation
9 done by your lawyer and you accepted it. That's what you said.
10 A. If you are referring to the statement of facts, then I can answer
11 your question.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
13 A. Talking about the statement of facts, I can tell you that in my
14 view there was very little time for everything to be reviewed and
15 analysed. If I told you the chronology of events and how it came about
16 for the statement to be signed eventually, then you would see for
17 yourself that at the time I didn't have an opportunity to fully analyse
18 everything that was written there. Well, after all, I didn't have time
19 to understand everything that was written there. For that reason that's
20 what I said, but of course I unreservedly believed my lawyers at that
21 time, and I presumed that since they were lawyers, they were
22 well-familiar with those affairs.
23 There are some phrases contained in the statement of facts that I
24 do not agree with, because as such they do not reflect what I had been
25 doing, and in that context is why I said that they participated in
1 drafting the statement. Of course, I accepted their suggestions, and I
2 hope that you know that I was supposed to enter a plea on the 6th of May,
3 but that I had an opportunity and a very short time to discuss all these
4 documents and the statement of facts on the very same day, and if I would
5 be given an opportunity to do all -- everything all over again, I
6 wouldn't give them such an opportunity to make decisions on my behalf.
7 But we are where we are. I made a mistake. And I would just like to say
8 that when it comes to the usage of certain phrases, I didn't attach any
9 importance to them, because I thought that it was clear that I, who was
10 not accused on the basis of command responsibility, I cannot be punished
11 for something like that. That is how I understood things at the time.
12 Unfortunately, I wasn't right. And I would have done otherwise now if I
13 had had an opportunity. In other words, I would insist on everything
14 that I said to be precisely and accurately recorded in -- in the words
15 and phrases that I used.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. I understood fully, but
17 different from the original statement of facts, the -- your further
18 statement or supplementary statement you produced before this Chamber is
19 your own words. You wrote them in person yourself.
20 A. If you are referring to the supplemental statement, that is where
21 I made an attempt to clarify everything contained in the original
22 statement and to make it more precise. I also wanted to explain and
23 describe what really took place and the events in which I was involved,
24 but I wanted this to be the reflection of what I was actually involved
1 Your Honours, there is one more thing. There is a slight
2 difference between the statement and the written statement that was
3 compiled together with Mr. McCloskey's team concerning certain facts such
4 as meetings, because at the time before giving any evidence, in the
5 statement I did my best to say that when it comes to meetings I really
6 never participated in those meetings. However, in the statement of facts
7 and plea agreement read that I did take part in two meetings and nothing
8 more than that. That is what I wanted to clarify as regards my
9 participation in these affairs.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. I will put my question
11 directly. In the original statement of facts, you referred to as -- it's
12 related to forcible transfer again, and it's paragraph 1 of the statement
13 of facts. You said:
14 "During the attack and take-over of the Srebrenica enclave by VRS
15 forces in July 1995, it was the intention of the VRS forces to cause the
16 forcible removal of the entire Muslim population from Srebrenica to
17 Muslim-held territory."
18 And in your further statement, you qualify this as this:
19 "The intention of the VRS forces to cause the forcible removal of
20 the entire Muslim population from Srebrenica." You qualified this like
22 "The first intention of the VRS was to physically separate two
23 enclaves, the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica, to liberate the Zeleni
24 Jadar, Jasenova, Milici road, and in phase 2 to reduce the Srebrenica
25 enclave to the town area."
1 And you said:
2 "The forcible removal of that entire Muslim population from
3 Srebrenica was the result of the fall of this enclave and subsequent
5 So if you could elaborate on your statement which says the
6 forcible removal was the result of the fall of the enclave and subsequent
7 decisions, and how is it different from your first statement?
8 A. Yes, of course, Your Honours. According to what I know about
9 what was happening about the fall and the capture of the enclave, I know
10 precisely that the primary task was to separate, physically, these two
11 enclaves, Zepa and Srebrenica.
12 After the separation, and the separation was effected once the
13 check-point in Zeleni Jadar was captured, which is in the southern part
14 of the enclave, these two enclaves were separated and the road, Zeleni
15 Jadar-Jasenova-Milici was rendered passable. The next task, as far as I
16 know, was for the Srebrenica enclave to be reduced to the urban area or
17 the town area. And of course, during the attack and during the
18 operation, having seen that there was weak resistance instead of reducing
19 it to the urban area, the whole enclave of Srebrenica was captured.
20 What I know and what I believe, although I may be wrong, is that
21 this was one part of the operation, so to speak a combat segment of the
22 operation. Everything else that followed the capture of Srebrenica falls
23 into the second stage of this operation which is the forcible transfer
24 and departure of the population from Potocari to the Muslim-controlled
1 My intention was to describe precisely what took place, what was
2 the primary goal, what was the next intention in combat segment of the
3 operation, and of course what was the intention in the second stage of
4 the operation. Of course, after the fall of Srebrenica a whole series of
5 decisions were made, and there were meetings and agreements with the
6 gentlemen from the international community, and finally a decision was
7 made to forcibly relocate all the Muslims from Potocari; although,
8 theoretically it was possible for them to remain there. But these were
9 subsequent decisions, and they were not part of the combat operation.
10 This is how I understand it. I only wanted to clarify this
11 specific segment and to explain what actually happened.
12 As for the attack on the enclave and the separation of the two
13 enclaves started in June when UNPROFOR forces were moved from that road
14 and when this road was freed. From the military point of view, that
15 meant liberation of that area and making it accessible to become engaged
16 in the combat around and over the enclave.
17 This is how I understood it, and I tried to be as clear as
18 possible. Whether I succeeded in that or not, I don't know. That was my
19 intention. It was never my intention to dispute or deny that all the --
20 those who were in Potocari were forcibly removed from Srebrenica.
21 JUDGE KWON: I take it that you do not mean that at the phase 2,
22 as you put it, the Muslim population were forcibly evacuated despite
23 their wishes to stay in that area?
24 A. Your Honours, I really want to be quite clear. It was
25 theoretically possible, and there were verbal declarations, in the sense
1 that whoever wished to stay was allowed to stay, but now we come into the
2 field of theory.
3 As for practice, there was no possibility for them to remain
4 there because there was so much hatred, there was so much blood spilled,
5 and it made it impossible for anyone to stay there any longer.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. In your further statement, you explained
7 your role at Potocari as something of assistance or helping rather than
8 coordination or command.
9 While performing your duties, did you have the intention to
10 forcibly remove this population yourself?
11 A. First of all, I have to say I absolutely made no decisions
12 regarding this issue, and nobody asked me anything about it. If you want
13 me to be candid, all those who are still -- who are living in Bratunac
14 secretly wanted the enclave to be evacuated because of the situation that
15 was prevailing there.
16 I personally didn't suffer any casualties in my family, nor was
17 any of my property destroyed or burnt. Therefore, I personally didn't
18 feel any aversion towards those people, but nobody asked me anything or
19 given me an opportunity to state my opinion.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Before I ask Judge Prost or Judge Stole whether
22 they have any, just a question for clarification purposes. You mentioned
23 the second phase, namely when decision was taken to proceed with the
24 taking over of Srebrenica, which ended up in the forcible transfer of the
25 Muslim population thereof. Was this decision taken at the political
1 level, political authorities level, or at military level or authority, or
2 both, to your knowledge?
3 A. Your Honours, I have no knowledge about how this decision was
4 taken. I can only tell you what I think and what information reached me.
5 The decision about what was to follow and how it was going to be
6 effected was made by General Krstic until the arrival of General Mladic.
7 Once General Mladic arrived in Bratunac -- or, rather, Srebrenica, and
8 became involved in the combat operation, he was the sole decision-maker.
9 Whether these decisions were in compliance and in accordance with the
10 decision taken by the political leadership, I am sure that the
11 politicians from Bratunac were in agreement for the Srebrenica enclave to
12 be obliterated, but what the top political leadership thought, I really
13 don't know.
14 However, in the light of everything that I know, I think that
15 that was the objective, and the decision by the top political echelons to
16 eliminate or to annihilate Srebrenica as an enclave, that was their
17 decision as well.
18 Thank you, Mr. Nikolic.
19 Judge Prost? Judge Stole?
20 Okay. Mr. Nikolic, your testimony ends here. You've been with
21 us for some time. I wish to thank you on behalf of the Trial Chamber for
22 having accepted to come over and give testimony. On behalf of everyone,
23 I wish you a safe journey back to where you came from. Thank you.
24 Yes, Mr. Tansey. I thank you also for your presence here in the
1 MR. TANSEY: Your Honour, it's been a very silent role, but
2 that's maybe a blessing.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but silence is golden, as you know. Thank
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Nikolic can withdraw.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do documents. We've got several. Thank you.
9 So, Prosecution. Mr. Thayer, you had, what, six documents you
10 wish to tender?
11 MR. THAYER: That's correct, Mr. President. And if I just may
12 note one thing for the record. 65 ter number 4407, as we have noted here
13 is the same as P02930, which is the joinder indictment to which another
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's go into private session, please.
18 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back in open session. Any objections to the
24 admission of the Prosecution documents into evidence? We hear none, so
25 these are all admitted.
1 Popovic Defence team, you've got three documents. Any objections
2 from anyone? The list has been circulated. No objections. They are
4 Beara Defence team, you don't have any documents that you wish to
5 tender, do you?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: That's correct, Mr. President. We think it's
7 adequately covered in the record, so there's no need for it.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. The Nikolic Defence team, five
9 documents. I don't see any difficulties here. No objections.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. These were the
11 documents identified by the witness. And one more thing relating to the
12 documents, we would like to say after the evidence given by this witness,
13 our Defence team is considering to recall Witnesses Nebojsa Galic
14 [as interpreted] and Jeremic --
15 THE INTERPRETER: If the interpreters heard correctly.
16 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] -- but we shall give it some
17 additional thought and let you know in due course.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please do. Borovcanin Defence team,
19 documents? You have three, six -- seven documents. Any objections? No
20 objections. Admitted.
21 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Gosnell.
23 Miletic Defence team, three documents, and two of which have not
24 yet been translated.
25 Any objections? No objections from anyone. Admitted. Last two
1 will be MFI
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE PROST: If I could just get any feedback from counsel on
4 this P44 -- P4480, which is the report of the proofing session with Momir
5 Nikolic, and you used it in the course of your cross-examination,
6 Mr. Ostojic, but I take it from your position that you're satisfied what
7 you read in was sufficient for your purposes and you don't wish to have
8 it tendered?
9 MR. OSTOJIC: That is correct.
10 JUDGE PROST: And no other submission for it to be tendered by
11 any -- any of the parties? Okay. Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Just to make sure, Mr. Haynes, you
13 don't have any -- you're not tendering any documents, are you?
14 MR. HAYNES: No, thank you very much.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That concludes the Momir Nikolic chapter.
16 Now, a few housekeeping matters and also some decisions, some
17 oral decisions.
18 Mr. Thayer or Mr. -- Mr. McCloskey has disappeared. Any news
19 about tomorrow morning?
20 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I'm afraid we haven't been able to
21 contact Mr. Parsons. He is in Amsterdam
22 making presentations at some kind of a conference or gathering and they
23 go into late this evening, and we've not been able to get ahold of him,
24 and I think he may be actually staying in Amsterdam, although I'm not
25 sure about that. What -- the best solution I can suggest right now is if
1 there's anyway to remain flexible, we can hopefully reach out to him,
2 make contact sometime this evening. We may be in a position to start
3 earlier tomorrow, perhaps not 0900 but -- but perhaps later in the
4 morning or -- or midday
5 he's available to start at that time. We just don't know, but we can
6 keep trying to see if we can keep as much in the daylight as possible.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The thing is that it's not a matter that is of
8 interest only to us and to you and your colleagues on the opposite side.
9 The trial -- the Tribunal needs proper --
10 MR. THAYER: I understand we've got the security and all kinds of
11 other --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: There's security, transport, and technical
13 availability, et cetera.
14 What I would like to know is up to what time does the Tribunal --
15 up to what time can the Tribunal wait before basically a decision is
16 taken whether we are sitting in the morning or not?
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Okay. We'll sit in the
19 afternoon. Because we're -- as you can imagine on a day like tomorrow
20 where we planned to sit in the afternoon, we do exactly as we did this
21 morning. We meet early at 9.00 in the morning and we sit together in my
22 Chamber and discuss various issues like we are going to do now.
23 I think it's too late in the day now to shift to the morning
24 session because of logistic purposes, so we are sitting in the afternoon
25 tomorrow. I don't think we can leave everyone in -- hanging like that,
1 not knowing -- if instead you find a solution, but you have to have
2 everyone, including -- then let us know, but I think it's too late in the
3 day now.
4 So we are adjourning till tomorrow afternoon, but before we do
5 that, there are a few other matters. Let me just consult with my
6 colleagues on something first.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait. Wait a moment, because I don't like
9 surprises at half past 5.00 in the afternoon.
10 Mr. Registrar has just informed us that there is another witness
11 waiting, Mr. Janc. I hope he has been told that Mr. Parsons is going to
12 testify before him.
13 MR. THAYER: Well, Mr. President, we -- some of us are feeling
14 like we were just inches from a clean getaway. We have actually made
15 efforts to fill as much court time as possible. We've engaged in
16 discussions with our friends. Mr. Janc is available to present his
17 direct, I think, probably put on his direct testimony this afternoon in
18 the balance of the time.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's fine.
20 MR. THAYER: We have agreed with what we believe is a reasonable
21 request from our friends that his cross not begin until Friday after
22 Mr. Parsons has begun and completed his testimony. And that's -- that's
23 the agreement we reached.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's fine with us.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: That's -- and in fact, we thank you for trying to
2 utilise the court time to the best possible.
3 Now let's go into private session for a communication basically.
4 [Private session]
11 Page 33371 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We are in open session now.
3 We are deciding orally two motions. The first one -- I'll give
4 more details soon, but the first one is Popovic's motion to recall
5 Professor Dunjic and Professor Stojkovic, and also Popovic motion for
6 clarification of one of the decisions that we gave recently on the
7 Prosecution's motion to admit evidence in rebuttal and to reopen its
9 Now, to start with, we are advising the Prosecution that we do
10 not require a response from you to the Popovic motion for clarification,
11 which I just referred to, and we start from here.
12 The Trial Chamber is seized of Accused Popovic's request to
13 recall Professors Dunjic and Stojkovic. This motion was filed
14 confidentially on the 8th of April of this year. And we are also seized
15 of his supplemental request concerning the proposed testimony of
16 Professor Dunjic, with an annex, and this was filed on the 22nd of April.
17 In it, Popovic indicates Professor Dunjic's availability to testify.
18 And then we are also seized of Popovic's request for
19 clarification of the further decision -- a decision on the Prosecution's
20 motion to admit evidence in rebuttal and to reopen its case. This motion
21 was filed, as you are all aware, yesterday.
22 Now, the Prosecution filed a confidential response on 21st April
23 to the first of the motions I mentioned, stating that they do not object
24 to Popovic's application to recall Professor Dunjic and Stojkovic, and
25 that it would not object to the admission of their evidence pursuant to
1 Rule 92 bis without close cross-examination.
2 Yesterday, Popovic filed a confidential reply agreeing to tender
3 evidence from Dunjic and Stojkovic pursuant to Rule 92 bis. Since
4 Professor Stojkovic is being called in relation to the testimony of
5 Prosecution witness Parsons, Popovic requests permission to file the
6 Stojkovic statement at least seven days after the testimony of
7 Prosecution expert Parsons. Also, yesterday Accused Popovic filed a
8 confidential notice concerning Stojkovic's availability to testify.
9 We have deliberated on this, and considering that the Prosecution
10 does not object to recalling Professor Dunjic and Stojkovic, and bearing
11 in mind the relevant part of this Chamber's further decision on
12 Prosecution motion to admit evidence in rebuttal and to reopen its case
13 which we rendered on the 27th of March, we grant Popovic's leave to
14 reply. We grant Popovic leave to file the proposed statements from
15 Professor Dunjic and Professor Stojkovic to be considered for admission
16 under Rule 92 bis, and allows Accused Popovic no later than seven days
17 after the conclusion of the testimony of Parsons to file the Stojkovic
19 The Prosecution will have two days from the date of the filing of
20 each statement to raise any objection to their admission pursuant to
21 Rule 92 bis.
22 Given that both statements will be filed for consideration for
23 admission pursuant to Rule 92 bis, there is no need for the Trial Chamber
24 to consider Popovic's supplemental motion or comment upon the notice at
25 this stage.
1 Accused Popovic further requests that the Trial Chamber instruct
2 the Prosecution to obtain and disclose a sample of cases from ICMP which
3 have not been selected by the latter.
4 The Trial Chamber sees no merit to the argument made by Accused
5 Popovic that the ICMP selecting the samples of new identifications affect
6 the quality of the data. At the same time, the Trial Chamber reiterates
7 its instruction that the Prosecution diligently pursue disclosure of
8 samples with the ICMP and notes again that any inaccuracies or
9 inconsistencies in the ICMP evidence will affect the weight to be
10 attributed to it in light of the entire trial record and not its
12 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber holds that in light of this
13 finding, the further decision on Prosecution motion to admit evidence in
14 rebuttal and to reopen its case, which as I said earlier we rendered on
15 the 27th of March, is sufficiently clear and requires no further
16 clarification. For these reasons, we dismiss the second request made by
17 Popovic and the request to recall Professor Dunjic and Professor
18 Stojkovic and deny the request for clarification of the further decision
19 on Prosecution motion to admit evidence in rebuttal and to reopen its
21 That's it. So now we can call --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. All right. It's being suggested by my
24 colleagues, and I willingly agree, that we take the break now. It will
25 be of 25 minutes' duration. In the meantime, Professor Janc --
1 Investigator Janc, okay, will be informed that he will start testifying
2 soon after. Half an hour break. Half an hour break.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Janc, good evening to you and
7 welcome. You are about to start giving evidence as a Prosecution witness
8 pursuant to a decision that we have taken. Before you do so, you're
9 familiar with the procedure, you need to make the solemn declaration.
10 Please read it out aloud, and that will be your commitment with us.
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you and good evening, Your Honours and
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good evening.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Good evening to my colleagues.
20 Examination by Ms. Soljan:
21 Q. Good evening, Mr. Janc.
22 A. Good evening.
23 Q. Would you state your full name for the record?
24 A. My name is Dusan Janc.
25 Q. And are you currently employed with the OTP?
1 A. Yes, indeed.
2 Q. What is your title?
3 A. My title is investigator.
4 Q. And what are your duties and responsibilities as an investigator
5 for the OTP?
6 A. As investigator for the OTP, my responsibilities are -- and
7 duties are normal investigative activities such as obtaining and
8 collecting evidence. For example, interviewing witnesses, victims, and
9 suspects; reviewing, analysing documents; preparing and carrying out the
10 missions. There are also activities related to the ongoing trial, then
11 preparing the reports and witness statements. Yeah, this would be the
13 Q. When did you begin your employment with the OTP?
14 A. It was on the 1st of June, 2006. So it will be three years now.
15 Q. And could you very briefly describe for us your career in law
16 enforcement up to your employment in the OTP?
17 A. Yes. I joined the Slovenian police in July 1993 when I finished
18 my secondary police school in Ljubljana
19 officer in police station Kranj for one year. Then in September 2000 --
20 in 1994 I became criminal investigator at the same police station,
21 dealing mostly with minor criminal offences. In September 2000, I was
22 promoted to criminal investigator at the police directorate within the
23 same area, so -- and I was attached to the organised crime department.
24 So from then on I was dealing with the organised crime mostly. Most of
25 my cases were related to smuggling of elicit drugs.
1 Between 2003 and 2004, that was between June 2003 and 2004, I was
2 in Bosnia
3 investigation department of the Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. Then I
4 returned back to Slovenian police, so to the same department, same office
5 as before, dealing with organised crime.
6 Q. And during the period of time you were serving in Republika
7 Srpska, what were you duties?
8 A. The mission, European police mission, was monitoring and advising
9 mission, so we were -- we were advising and monitoring criminal
10 investigation department within the Republika Srpska entity. So these
11 were our -- our duties.
12 Q. And, Mr. Janc, during your law enforcement experience in the past
13 did you ever testify?
14 A. Yes, indeed, several times so far. I cannot -- I don't know how
15 many times so far, but several times as investigator.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. Very often.
18 Q. Now, turning to the reason you're here today, what -- what is the
19 reason you're here today?
20 A. Yes. For this trial, I prepared the report regarding the
21 exhumations and identifications of individuals which were -- which are
22 related to the fall of Srebrenica. So I have prepared the report which
23 is why I am about to testify today.
24 Q. And I take it that this -- the document you're holding in front
25 of you is your -- a copy of your report?
1 A. Yes, indeed. I have a copy of my report together with all the
2 attachments which are part of the report itself. That's all I have here
3 with me today.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Janc, what was the purpose of this report?
5 What were the main objectives of this report?
6 A. There were several objectives of this report. First one was to
7 present the most updated number of identified individuals related to the
8 fall of Srebrenica or related to the -- or to present the number of the
9 individuals which are coming out of the exhumed graves.
10 The second objective was to present the surface remains which
11 were collected during the -- this period in different areas within Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina
13 Within my report there, you will find also the section where I am
14 talking about the DNA
15 was the third objective to present to the Trial Chamber, what you can
16 find in the different data regarding these connections.
17 So -- and the last objective was also to present all the new
18 exhumations which were done between Dean Manning 's testimony here and
19 today, and these are also reflected in my report.
20 Q. Thank you. What were your main sources in preparing this report?
21 A. Our main -- my main source was indeed the ICMP March 2009 update,
22 which was provided to us at the beginning of March this year and includes
23 the identified individuals as of 31st of January, 2009. Besides that, I
24 also used -- yeah, I was also using different sources which I obtained
25 from the BiH authorities mainly, so -- and these were documents provided
1 to us by the Tuzla
2 BiH state court prosecutor, prosecution office; and the third would be
3 BiH Commission on Missing Persons. Actually, no, it's BiH Institute on
4 Missing Person. So these were main -- main sources where we obtained --
5 where I obtained the documentation.
6 Q. Okay. And have you personally visited or observed any of the
7 grave-sites cited to in your report?
8 A. Yes. That was mission conducted in -- I think by the end of
9 October 2007, when we visited all the primary and secondary mass graves
10 together with the members of the BiH commission on missing persons.
11 MS. SOLJAN: Now, could we please have an e-court exhibit, 4490.
12 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this document?
13 A. Yes. This is my report.
14 Q. And can you briefly lay out for the Trial Chamber what the basic
15 layout is of your report?
16 A. Yes, my report consists of first part which is actual report on
17 four pages, and then we have four attachments in annexes. So Annex A is
18 actual update of Dean Manning's report, and everything you can see there
19 in red text, that's in addition to Dean Manning's report.
20 Then Annex B is related to surface remains section where I
21 explained the findings regarding the surface remains section.
22 And then we have Annex C, which is related to the connections
23 between the graves. There is -- there are many tables attached to this
24 annex and also a chart.
25 And the last one is Confidential Annex D where you can find
1 individuals by name which are part of the total number which are
2 currently identified in and are in fact my report. So here you have a
3 list of all the individuals by name.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 MS. SOLJAN: And if we could briefly have on e-court Exhibit
6 4491, and if it could please not be broadcasted. If we could please go
7 to the second page.
8 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. Janc?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can we look at the third page also, please. And the fourth.
11 Thank you.
12 Can you describe for us briefly what this is, what this document
14 A. As I explained before, this is part of the Confidential Annex D,
15 and these are the individuals which were found and identified in Cerska
17 Q. Can you explain also to the Trial Chamber how Confidential
18 Annex D is laid out?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Or what portions it consists of?
21 A. Yes. Confidential Annex D has several parts. First part is
22 related to the graves. So both three types of graves which I made up,
23 mass graves, smaller graves, and individual graves. Then is a portion of
24 the other and Serbia-related graves, which is followed by surface remains
25 section, and the last part is -- just -- is, yes, there are individuals
1 related to the DNA
2 Q. And can you tell us what the difference is between the DNA
3 connections presented at Annex C and DNA connections presented in your
4 Confidential Annex D?
5 A. Yes. What you can see now on the screen and also what is also
6 part of the DNA
7 the entries which are taken from the ICMP 2009 -- March 2009 update. You
8 can see the exact entries as you can see them here in that -- in that
9 list. So what is included in Annex C is, I would say, more
10 investigative -- investigative work. So there you don't have names, but
11 you have actual connections between the graves included.
12 Q. Okay. And we will go -- we will go into that shortly, but before
13 that and before I go into some questions about the methodology you used,
14 I'd like to ask whether you received any assistance with the preparation
15 of this report?
16 A. Yes, indeed. When we are here with these connections, I can say
17 that I was assisted by our analyst Panayota Vassou, who was mainly
18 dealing with the connections regarding my report, upon my supervision and
19 upon my instructions, and she also provided the chart that is attached to
20 the Confidential Annex C. Then also during the finalisation of the
21 report I was assisted by yourself regarding grammar and language, because
22 I'm not a native speaker.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. When you say I was assisted by our analyst,
24 could you repeat her name again and what do you mean by "our"? That
25 means a member of the Office of the Prosecution or what?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. I mean the
2 member of the Prosecution, our team, her name is Panayota Vassou.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 MS. SOLJAN:
5 Q. Mr. Janc, what was the main source of information used for your
7 A. Yes, as I already explained the main source was indeed the ICMP
8 March 2009 update.
9 MS. SOLJAN: And for the record, the complete March ICMP update
10 can be found as Exhibit 4494.
11 Q. Did you use any other sources of information?
12 A. Yes. I also used the other sources, mainly exhumation records,
13 some autopsy records, also photographs, but mainly I was focusing --
14 focusing on -- on exhumation records regarding the -- regarding the
16 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have on e-court Exhibit 4493, and
17 not to be broadcast.
18 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what this page represents?
19 A. Yes. This is sample page I prepared in order to present you the
20 methodology I have used in order to get the numbers for the individuals.
21 So this is --
22 Q. What is it a sample page of?
23 A. This is a sample page of the ICMP March 2009 update. When you
24 open the file, you will get the results as you can see them here on the
25 screen. They will appear on your screen as well. So these are only
1 first 30 entries out of more than 10.000 entries which you can find on
2 that -- on that spreadsheet.
3 Q. And the colours of the rows, for example, the greys and the
4 pinks, are these yours?
5 A. No. This is -- this is everything what you can see on screen is
6 done by the ICMP, and you can see it as it was provided to us.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. So different colours are, yeah, done by -- by there side. So I
9 can explain these colours, what did they mean, what -- what kind of
10 information we have about these colours.
11 Q. Okay. Can you tell us, please.
12 A. Yes. Okay. Grey colours are not that significant, so they're
13 included all. Probably they are using this as a background. But we have
14 different slight yellow colour here. So if you see the colour, the
15 entries in this colour, that means that the relatives of this particular
16 individual -- individual have not been informed about the result of the
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Can we go to the next page, please.
19 Mr. Janc, can you tell us what the difference between this page
20 and the first page is?
21 A. Yes. Now, if I may, I will explain first these different
22 colours, because we can see here orange colours also or something, and
23 I'll explain what this represents. So the colours -- the entries which
24 are in this colour means that these are new entries in relation to the
25 last -- to the previous update they have sended to us; in November, for
1 example, was the previous one. ICMP sent us the updated list of the
2 individuals, and if you find the individuals in these new March update in
3 this colour, that means that in between these two dates these were added
4 as new identifications. So -- and that I respond to your question, this
5 is also, okay, sample page, but we are moving towards how -- how I came
6 up with the numbers which are included in my report for each in
7 particular grave-site. So what I was doing, you can see here that first
8 step was that I sorted the -- the entries or sorted the data by case ID.
9 This is first column on the left-hand side. And you can see they are
10 going alphabetically. So I have taken example from the same March 2009
11 update and to present you how it looks like when you have, you know,
12 sorted -- sorted version of the same data.
13 Q. Okay. Can we go to the next page, please. Can you describe what
14 we see here, Mr. Janc.
15 A. Yes. This is -- can we go more to the left? It's more -- no,
16 left, please. Yes. This is more important. First column is more
18 So this was next step what I was doing. In order to -- to find
19 how many individuals we have in certain grave, I had to extract or I had
20 to find particular entries related to these particular graves in this
21 spreadsheet. So you can see here, for example, if you are looking into
22 the first column, case ID is BIS
23 related to Bisina. So I have included this site because it appears the
24 first -- the first mass grave if you sort it by alphabetical order. So
25 I've used this Bisina site as an example.
1 So what I was doing with the -- with the ICMP data was that when
2 I sorted this data, I was copying each and every single entry which you
3 can see in the previous sample into special spreadsheets. So -- and
4 these special spreadsheets now relates to one and single particular grave
5 as you can see it here now on the screen. So this is the result, what
6 you get when you copy each and every single entry from that main
7 spreadsheet into separate spreadsheets.
8 Q. And is this the final step?
9 A. No. This is not the final step yet, and I can explain it why.
10 If we can move to the right a little bit. You can -- and if you look
11 into the last column where it says "Type Of Report," you have "Main
12 Cases," and then you have "Reassociations." Currently on the screen we
13 can see only one, but I think there are two more in this down there.
14 So reassociation means that one individual -- or body parts of
15 the same individual were found in different grave or different location
16 all within the same grave, you know, in different grave or in different
17 location. All within the same grave, you know, in different location.
18 So it means that these cases are reassociated to the main case. So in
19 order to get the exact number of the individuals which are coming out
20 from particular grave, that you don't count any individual twice, you can
21 take into consideration only main cases and that's what I was doing. So
22 when I got this spreadsheet, then I filtered the last column which says
23 "Type of Report" by main case.
24 Q. Okay. Can we go to the next page, please. Can you tell us what
25 you see here, Mr. Janc.
1 A. Yes. That's exactly what I was explaining before. So you can
2 see again it is grave-site related to Bisina, and if we can move to the
3 right again. So this is the final result when you have only main cases
4 included. So -- and then you just count how many of them you have on --
5 on the list, on the spreadsheet, and that means that many individuals
6 have been identified from particular grave-site.
7 Q. Thank you. Could we go to the last page of this exhibit, please,
8 page 7. Now, Mr. Janc, can you explain to us what this is or what this
10 A. You can see these are again data from the same spreadsheet, ICMP
11 update. So -- but these cases are related to the connections between the
12 graves. So in order to get this kind of spreadsheet, so you would have
13 to sort it, the spreadsheet, by "Protocol ID," which is the fourth column
14 from the -- from the right. So you can see it on the top, "Protocol ID."
15 Q. If we could maybe close in on the very top five rows, please. So
16 can you describe for us specifically --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- what you have there.
19 A. Protocol ID is important in order to find one individual. As I
20 understand this data, one protocol ID can be attributed only to one
21 individual. So -- and in case the body parts of one individual have been
22 found in different graves, you will find these connections. As you can
23 see it here, if the -- if you see the red entries -- so and just to
24 clarify that, these are my colours, so I put it that you can follow it.
25 So this red, blue, and then we have green, and at the bottom there are
1 also, I think, brown ones. So these are five connections which you can
2 find in that spreadsheet.
3 So, for example, if you look into the first one, the red one, you
4 can see from the case ID that this particular -- particular individual
5 was found or his body parts were found in Budak number 1 grave, as well
6 as Zeleni Jadar number 4 grave. Although you can see here Zeleni Jadar
7 number 8, it is actual our number 4. So it is reflected in my report,
8 because sometimes -- or very often now the BiH commission are putting
9 their own markings. So in order to be consistent with our markings, I am
10 calling it Zeleni Jadar number 4. So you have -- in order to get the
11 connection between two graves, it is important, as I explained, that you
12 have sorted by protocol ID, and then you have to consider the case ID.
13 Q. Okay. And how about the next situation, the writing in blue?
14 Can you briefly just comment on that?
15 A. Yes. It's the situation where we have two brothers, and we can
16 say that one of those brothers have been identified in three graves. So
17 why one? Because we have only -- the protocol ID is 7924, for example.
18 That means for all three entries, that means that one of those two
19 brothers have been identified. We just know -- we just don't know who of
20 those two brothers. So -- and on the left-hand side you can see that
21 body parts of this individual have been found in three different graves,
22 Budak 1, Budak 2, and again Zeleni Jadar number 4.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. And if I just can add something. If you can move to the right
25 again. More. Okay. To the end. Okay. Thank you.
1 And as you can see it here, "Type of the Report." So in order to
2 get a conclusion regarding the connections, you have to take into
3 considerations -- into consideration both main cases as well as
4 reassociations. So this is the difference between counting the
5 individuals found in particular grave or of trying to find the
6 connections between the graves.
7 Q. And Mr. Janc, can you just summarise what is the main identifier
8 you look for when you are looking for connections between graves or for
10 A. The main identifier is, as I explained before, is protocol ID.
11 Q. Okay. And if, for example, we were to take the protocol number
12 for -- right at the top of this example, protocol ID 7923-06, where could
13 we find this example in your report? Can you show us?
14 A. Yes. This can be found in Annex C.
15 Q. Okay. And if you could show us specifically.
16 MS. SOLJAN: And for that if we could go back to Exhibit 4490,
17 and it can be broadcasted.
18 Q. Yes, Mr. Janc.
19 A. Yes, I found it. It is in Annex C, so I can give you the ERN
20 number. It is X0194280.
21 Q. That will be page 50 of the report. And can you tell us where we
22 need to look, Mr. Janc?
23 A. Yes. It is -- if you look into the first column. So you will
24 find it the fifth entry from the top down. So you will see the number
25 7923/06, and this --
1 Q. What is this number?
2 A. This is protocol ID which you can see it in the previous
3 spreadsheet. Next to it are our markings, to which particular site is
4 this individual -- or where you can find the connections between the
5 graves. So between Budak 1 and Zeleni Jadar 4, as I explained before.
6 And on the right-hand side you will see the site codes which you can also
7 find in the previous spreadsheets.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. So ...
10 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Janc, you had mentioned that Annex C of your
11 report also contains a chart at the end.
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. Can we go to the last page of this exhibit, please, page 65. Can
14 you briefly explain for the Trial Chamber the meaning of this chart.
15 A. Yes. This chart was prepared, as I explained before, by our
16 analyst, and it is DNA
17 You can find all the connections between the graves which are listed in
18 the table we have just seen also in this chart. So you will find how
19 many different cases were found to be connected between different graves.
20 Q. And when you say "cases," what to does it mean, a case?
21 A. A case, it means one connection. So if there is -- if there were
22 body parts of one individual found in two different graves, that means
23 one connection, one case. If body parts of one individual were found in
24 three different graves, as we have already seen that example also, then
25 there would be three cases. I would count them three times, for example,
1 because you have connection between grave A and B, A and C, and B and C.
2 So three times would that individual be counted -- not individual, but I
3 would count three cases as three DNA
4 Q. Okay. And just briefly looking at the chart, can you just
5 looking at it tell us what kind of DNA
6 which primary and which secondary graves? Just generally speaking.
7 A. Okay. We can see here from -- from this chart it is also -- part
8 of the chart also shows the forensic evidence which were already known
9 before between these graves which connect the primary and secondary
10 graves, and also beside that on the right-hand side in -- in -- in red
11 lines you can see the connections between -- between the primary and
12 secondary graves, how many cases, how they are connected, and, yes, you
13 can see between Branjevo farm and the -- the graves which are in Cancari
14 Road, secondary graves in Cancari Road we have 20 cases, so 20
15 connections. Between Kozluk and Cancari Road we have 55 -- 52 of those
16 connection and so on. You can -- it speaks for itself.
17 Q. Okay. Do you also summarise this data anywhere in your report?
18 The data regarding specific connections between graves.
19 A. Yes, yes, indeed. It is part of the Annex A. At the end of
20 each -- each grave, you can find the explanation regarding how many
21 connections we have between this particular grave with the -- the other
23 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Janc, are all the connections that you identified
24 from the ICMP March update, are they all reflected in this chart?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Can you please explain why?
2 A. Yes. In the ICMP update we have also find -- we have also found
3 the connections which are not included here, and we -- I think the best
4 way would be to look into the spreadsheet, and I can explain why.
5 Q. Okay. If we can go two pages before this one, so page 63 of this
6 exhibit, please.
7 A. Yes. This is the -- this is the table, what I was talking about.
8 And first column you can see I've marked it as "Not counted." So it
9 means if you see "not counted," that means they're not reflected in chart
10 or in my report but I have put them here because think found them into --
11 into the spreadsheet, into the ICMP update. So -- and there were several
12 reasons why I did not include these particular cases into -- into the
13 total count.
14 Q. Okay. Can you please give us some concrete examples?
15 A. Yes. Most of them are related to connections between Ravnice 1
16 and Ravnice 2, as you can see it at the end of or from the second part of
17 this table, and also on the next -- next page you will see more
18 connection between those two graves. So I did not include Ravnice 1 and
19 Ravnice 2 because what I was including were disturbed graves. So we all
20 know that Ravnice is not disturbed grave, and I did not include into my
22 Although I did not include them, it doesn't mean that they're not
23 important. They are important and significant, because it shows that
24 actually Ravnice is most probably one grave. So because we have so many
25 connections, but it was just exhumed in two different -- in two different
1 occasions. So we have -- that's for Ravnice.
2 The second -- the second reason why I did not include some of
3 them are those which are between Glogova itself. You can see them, for
4 example, the second entry, Glogova 2 and Glogova 8, because we are
5 counting -- we are considering Glogova -- Glogova 2, sorry, as -- as a
6 grave with several sub-graves. So from -- going from 2 up to 9. And you
7 have, as you can see here, several such connections between Glogova 5 and
8 7, 5 and 9, these connections. So I did not include those either.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. And the third reason or series of these cases were the ones which
11 were, at least at the time when I was preparing the report, somehow
12 illogical. And you can see, for example, which are those cases on this
13 spreadsheet. I can -- I can tell you it's the first one --
14 Q. Maybe it's easiest if you give us the protocol number?
15 A. The protocol number 8019/06. Then --
16 Q. And can you tell us why it's illogical?
17 A. Okay. This one. This particular one it's illogical because we
18 have connection -- we can see connection here between Cerska and Hodzici.
19 So we all know that Cerska is primary undisturbed grave and Hodzici is
20 secondary grave. So it is not logical to me that there can be any
21 connection. So then if we move to the case which is the third one down,
22 protocol ID 2741/03, connection between Glogova 5 and Cancari 3. Glogova
23 1 -- Glogova 5 is actually primary grave, and Cancari 3 is again
24 secondary grave, and so far we have no evidence that these two graves are
25 connected -- connected.
1 Then if we move down, we have a connection. It is protocol ID
2 157/02 between Hodzici 5 and Zeleni Jadar 5. Again, same reason. We
3 don't have any indications that these two secondary mass graves are
5 Next one was 3122/03 between Kozluk 3, Cancari 3, and Liplje 2.
6 So here we have the same problem because there were no established
7 problems so far between Cancari and Liplje.
8 Then we have case which is protocol ID 1041/07 between Kravica
9 and Zeleni Jadar 2. That one was illogical or not that illogical. At
10 that time it was the problem with this one was that we did not have
11 enough information regarding the specific location, as well as for the
12 next one, Krke, Zeleni Jadar. I know that Krke is surface remains, and
13 I'm not presenting in my chart these surface remains connections, but we
14 have connection here.
15 And the last one which is illogical is the last one on the next
16 page, which is between Ravnice. Can you see it? Yes, indeed. It is
17 Ravnice and Hodzici 5.
18 And for all of these cases I have reviewed, because they were not
19 logical to me, the autopsy reports and photographs from the exhumations.
20 So I found in several instances, for example, that the entire body was
21 found in one of those locations and then it was connected to body parts
22 which were found in different locations. For example, Ravnice 2 and
23 Hodzici 5, I think this is the case that we have the entire body in
24 Hodzici 5 and parts of the bodies in Ravnice 2. I think this is the
25 case, but I can't be sure. But I think that I've seen those cases, or
1 you could see that for these illogical connections you can find the same
2 part of the bodies in two -- in two places.
3 Q. And what did you do, if anything, to obtain clarification beyond
4 looking at the autopsy reports?
5 A. Yes. We have sent the -- our findings to the ICMP in order to
6 get the clarification from their side.
7 Q. Now, if we could just go back one page in this exhibit, please.
8 And you were mentioning a connection that is, I believe, 11 rows down.
9 It's protocol number 1417/07 relating to or showing a reassociation
10 between the site Kravica and the site Zeleni Jadar. Can you tell us a
11 little bit more about what you know about this particular connection?
12 A. Yes. When I was writing this report, I was not aware of the
13 exact meaning of this case ID which is
14 KA01-110-BP [Realtime transcript read in error KA01-00-BP] so I was not
15 able to conclude anything. But just recently I have been reviewing
16 the -- Michael Hedley's report. He was the crime of scene officer at the
17 Kravica warehouse and he found the tooth of one individual, and you can
18 find it in his report, and that he marked that tooth with exactly the
19 same case ID as you can see it here,
20 KA01-110-BP [Realtime transcript read in error KA01-00-BP]. So that was
21 on 13 of October, 2000. And based on that we can conclude that we have
23 grave Zeleni Jadar 2. That same individual or body parts of the same
24 individual can be found also in Zeleni Jadar 2.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. For the record, because the reference
1 is reported wrongly twice, the reference that the witness referred to was
2 KA01-110-BP and not what appears on line 8 and line 13 of page 82. Thank
4 Any time, Ms. Soljan. It's 7.00.
5 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, we can stop now. I will have to
6 continue briefly.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. We are going to stop here. I take it
8 there is nothing changing in relation to Professor Parsons. Nothing. So
9 tomorrow we're sitting in the afternoon. Thank you.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 29th day
12 of April, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.