061113ED

Page 9974

1 Monday, 13 November 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you call the

6 case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. This

8 is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar. I'd like

10 to greet all the people present in the courtroom, the Prosecution, the

11 Defence counsel, the accused, as well as all the staff members present

12 here in the courtroom.

13 The Trial Chamber will read out two oral decisions. From what I

14 understood, Mr. Karnavas needs an extra few minutes to talk about a

15 particular subject, and then we shall address the question of witness

16 protection. Mr. Scott will then have the floor, and I hope he will not

17 exceed 15 minutes. Defence counsel will also have 15 minutes, and after

18 that, we shall bring the witness into the courtroom for this afternoon.

19 The first oral decision that has been rendered is as follows and

20 relates to those exhibits which were presented through the Witness BY.

21 The Trial Chamber has decided to admit these exhibits on the grounds that

22 they have a certain probative value and a certain relevance. I shall read

23 them slowly P 08543, P 09147, P 09149, P 09155.

24 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you that documents IC 066,

25 IC 067, IC 068 and IC 069 tendered by the Prosecution have been admitted

Page 9975

1 under seal on the 27th of October. Of course the IC numbers usually have

2 three zeros, so it should read IC 00066.

3 In addition, P 09151, P 09152.

4 There's a mistake on line 3.

5 P 09151, P 09152, P 09153, P 09154 and P 09163 have been admitted

6 pursuant to an oral decision on the 30th of September 2006.

7 The Trial Chamber reminds you that documents IC 00070, IC 00071

8 and IC 00072 tendered by the Defence have been admitted under seal on the

9 27th of October, 2006.

10 The document 3D 00475 also tendered by the Defence has -- was

11 admitted following an oral decision on the 2nd of November 2006.

12 Second oral decision, which is a longer decision: Oral decision

13 relating to the joint motion filed by the Defence and relating to list of

14 exhibits filed by the Prosecution before the witnesses's testimonies.

15 On the 16th October, 2006, the Defence has filed a written motion

16 relating to the exhibits which the Prosecution files before each witness

17 testimony. As a rule, the Defence counsel asks the Trial Chamber to order

18 the Prosecution to make sure that this exhibit list matches the 4th of

19 September, 2006, charts. Subsidiarily, it asks the Prosecution to file

20 its exhibit list which it intends to present through witness, 30 days

21 before the witness appears in court.

22 On the 19th of October, 2006, the Prosecution objected to this

23 request. After having reviewed the submissions by both parties, the Trial

24 Chamber renders the following decision: The Trial Chamber would like to

25 remind you, first of all, that the charts filed on the 4th of September,

Page 9976

1 2006 by the Prosecution were provided in order to assist the Chamber as

2 well as Defence counsel to establish a connection between the witnesses

3 and the exhibits, on the one hand, and the allegations set forth in the

4 indictment on the other hand.

5 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you, that according to the

6 decisions rendered on the 3rd and 13th of July, 2006, it has charged the

7 Prosecution to disclose to the Defence counsel all the exhibits it intends

8 to present through a witness two weeks before the witness appears in

9 court. Moreover, according to the decision rendered -- oral decision on

10 the 21st of August, 2006, the Trial Chamber has stated that the

11 Prosecution should, as a rule, submit to Defence counsel only those

12 documents which are mentioned in the 65 ter list. However, it has given

13 the Prosecution the possibility to submit the documents which are not

14 mentioned in the 65 ter list. If the Prosecution is able to justify the

15 latter, i.e., that they are essential to determining the case, the

16 Prosecution must also justify the reasons why these documents are filed at

17 such a late stage and must also tell the Defence counsel why the latter

18 were not mentioned in the 65 ter list.

19 Lastly, the Trial Chamber would like to remind you, that according

20 to the oral decision rendered on the 24th of August, 2006, it has -- it

21 realised that the proofing of a witness could produce new evidence and

22 allow the Prosecution to extend its examination-in-chief, thus enabling

23 the Defence to better prepare its cross-examination. The Trial Chamber

24 has then decided that the Prosecution should instantly disclose to Defence

25 counsel, but as well as all the legal officers of the Chamber, any new

Page 9977

1 piece of information that would have resulted or occurred after the

2 proofing of a witness. This measure should enable the Trial Chamber to

3 rule on any objections which are likely to be made by the Defence counsel.

4 This oral decision on the 24th of August, 2006, did not, however, settle

5 the question of the communication or disclosure of new exhibits that could

6 stem from a witness -- from the proofing of the witness. However, the

7 Trial Chamber has usually applied those principles laid out in the

8 decision when it comes to taking a decision on the exhibits.

9 Therefore, the Prosecution has told the Defence counsel and the

10 Chamber that every time a witness proofing led to a an amendment of

11 exhibits list, it would inform the latter. The Trial Chamber is therefore

12 able to take an instant decision on such an amendment of the rights of the

13 accused. The Trial Chamber feels that there is no particular reason for

14 wanting to change what has already been established in practice. It feels

15 that various work tools that have been provided to Defence counsel are

16 there to assist it in an efficient and fair manner and so as to properly

17 prepare for its cross-examination. Therefore, the Prosecution is

18 responsible for disclosing the list of exhibits relating to a particular

19 witness two weeks before this witness comes to court.

20 The proofing of a witness may call for an amendment of the list on

21 the part of the Prosecution, and this is exceptional. The implications of

22 such an amendment shall be reviewed by the Chamber on a case-by-case

23 basis. Upon reviewing the matter, the Trial Chamber will look into these

24 last-minute changes and check that the latter do not interfere with the

25 good preparation of the cross-examination by the Defence counsel, thus

Page 9978

1 making sure that fairness and efficiency are being abided by.

2 Consequently, the Trial Chamber rejects the application made by the

3 Defence counsel.

4 I should like to add the following comment: The question raised

5 by the Defence counsel is due to the fact that, on several occasions, the

6 Defence counsel discover documents, particularly when documents stem from

7 the proofing of the witness. I have had occasion to mention this on

8 several occasions.

9 As a rule, the Trial Chamber, and more so the Defence counsel,

10 should be able to react instantly when such documents are being presented.

11 As the Defence counsel should be familiar with all the documents presented

12 through a witness, this should be no cause for surprise.

13 I would also like to specify that the Bench sometimes discover

14 these documents when we walk into the courtroom. Sometimes these are

15 documents which are a hundred pages long, which, however, does not prevent

16 us from putting questions to the witness. So when a document comes in at

17 the last moment, any professional lawyer should be able to put questions

18 to the witness. And when the Defence counsels need to cross-examine the

19 witness, they should be able to do the same.

20 As a rule, the following procedure should be adopted: The

21 Prosecution should disclose all the exhibits before the witness enters the

22 courtroom, and we should only find ourselves in such a situation in

23 exceptional circumstances, in which case the Trial Chamber will rule on it

24 on a case-by-case basis.

25 Mr. Karnavas, I think you wanted to say a few words. But before

Page 9979

1 you take the floor, in order to organise the hearing for this afternoon

2 and tomorrow afternoon as far as the witness from the French -- from the

3 Spanish Battalion is concerned, I don't wish to quote any names, I think

4 initially you had -- the Prosecution had planned to hear the witness for

5 four hours. We feel that three hours is ample time. The Defence counsel

6 will also have three hours. So it's three hours for each. Three hours

7 for the Prosecution, three hours for Defence counsel.

8 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your

10 Honours. Just very briefly. As you well know, on November 10th the

11 Prosecution filed a motion regarding 92 bis (A) and (B) material. Several

12 statements, I believe there are 15 of them -- the Prosecution wishes to

13 introduce on the basis that these are cumulative and/or corroborative of

14 other evidence. Now, if you look at the motion, the Prosecution does lay

15 out as to why it may be cumulative or corroborative vis-a-vis the

16 particular witness that has already appeared before us in viva voce

17 testimony. However, a close reading of the motion shows that there's

18 insufficient information to show as to why a particular witness has

19 cumulative or -- or corroborative testimony. In other words, there's no

20 details other than just saying it refers to this witness and just the

21 buzzwords cumulative and corroborative.

22 We feel that's insufficient information in order for us to

23 respond, particularly in light of the Prosecution's motion with respect to

24 paragraph 9, wherein the Prosecution says that the Defence, if it does

25 wish to cross-examine any particular witness, should specify the reasons

Page 9980

1 as to why they need to question a particular witness. So in order for us

2 to respond in that fashion, we need more information from the Prosecution,

3 and so we would like some sort of a oral decision today whether you just

4 wish us to respond or whether you will be requiring the Prosecutor to

5 provide more information.

6 And I don't want to get ahead of the motion itself and put our

7 response orally, but frankly, if the information is cumulative and if the

8 information is already corroborative, there's no need for it. If it's --

9 why do you need to hear cumulative information?

10 So in any event, if we could have some sort of a ruling, because

11 we do need to response, I believe, by -- by the end of this week to this

12 motion.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Prosecution has filed

14 a motion which I read this morning. These are not 15 92 bis witnesses but

15 11 all in all. Whether it's 11 or 15, it all amounts to the same. But if

16 I remember correctly, those submissions filed by the Prosecution, mention

17 is made of all the viva voce witnesses. If Defence counsel wish to

18 respond in writing, you have eight days. Of course, we will look at the

19 written statements of these witnesses and compare them with the witness --

20 with the viva voce witness testimonies.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. And I understand that, Mr. President, but it

22 would appear that the Prosecution is shifting the work onto the Defence

23 and the burden onto the Defence to show why we need to cross-examine.

24 It's not sufficient, as far as we're concerned, for them to simply say

25 it's cumulative it or corroborative because it refers to a particular

Page 9981

1 witness. They should demonstrate exactly what is cumulative or

2 corroborative from their standpoint. And also, as I indicated earlier, if

3 indeed it is cumulative, why on earth do we need it? Normally, that's the

4 whole purpose of excluding evidence, because it's cumulative.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're not going to be spending

6 too much time on this issue. As I have mentioned to you, you have 10 days

7 and even an additional 4 days, which is two weeks, to respond in writing

8 to the 11 statements for which the Prosecution --

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the deadlines you

10 mentioned for response, it was eight and now it seems to be 14. As far as

11 I can remember, on the basis of the Rules of Evidence, I think that we

12 have 14 days for a response, and you have just said 14 days, so that's

13 fine. We have an fortnight to respond.

14 Your Honour, could we, in the course of the day today and you will

15 tell us when, put forward some of the exhibits that go with Witness Agic

16 and also for Idrizovic and a piece of information that there was an MFI

17 document as well. So when the chance arises, I'd like to do that.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will look into the matter at

19 a later stage. Now we have to address the question of protective

20 measures.

21 Let me remind you that the last time Defence counsel Mr. Ciocha

22 [as interpreted] and the Prosecution wanted to address the issue, as you

23 know, protective measures are governed by Rule 75 of our Rules of

24 Procedure and Evidence and that leeway is not very great. The Trial

25 Chamber does not have much room to manoeuvre. And when we are talking

Page 9982

1 about representatives from various governments, an example which is a

2 well-known example, General Clark had testified under protective measures.

3 After that, the -- the United States government lifted the protective

4 measures and the hearing was therefore rendered public.

5 It is important to protect the identity of some of the witnesses,

6 particularly when some women have been sexually abused. Also when some

7 witnesses are exposed to a potential danger.

8 I have asked the Witness and Victims Unit how many witnesses have

9 actually been granted protective measures. I believe that in all the

10 witnesses that have testified here, 40 per cent have been granted

11 protective measures. I know that in addition to this, in some cases,

12 fewer protective measures have been granted.

13 I looked up -- looked into the matter in the Krajisnik case. I

14 know that out of 25 witnesses that had been requested by Defence counsel,

15 only three have been granted protective measures.

16 These are measures which are take own a case-by-case basis and

17 which are decided upon by the Trial Chamber with the discretionary powers

18 they have.

19 Mr. Scott, before I give you the floor, just for a split second, I

20 would like to move into private session, please, and then I will give the

21 floor back to you. This will not take very long.

22 [Private session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 9984

1 trial strategy and indeed in order -- excuse me, Judge Prandler. Indeed

2 in order to have any chance, and I emphasise the word "any chance," to

3 present our evidence in the time allowed by the Chamber will require, and

4 I say in my estimate will require, not might, not may, will require an

5 extensive use of Rule 92 bis evidence as we believe the Rules provide for,

6 that there has been a bit of a sea change in the practice of the Tribunal

7 in the last few years and the efficiencies and facilities that provided by

8 that rule should be used to the maximum extend of course consistent with

9 due process.

10 Now, we believe our submission meets all the requirements. I

11 would invite and implore the Chamber not to impose more technical

12 requirements on the Prosecution as to the types of showings and filings

13 that will be required. The situation is simply this: The Prosecution has

14 called fairly extensive viva voce and Rule 92 ter evidence with all that

15 evidence being subject to full courtroom cross-examination by both the

16 Judges and by the Defence. There is then a remaining body of evidentiary

17 witness evidence material which, because of the time limitations, et

18 cetera, cannot possibly be put before the Chamber in a viva voce or other

19 way. Therefore, we are putting it forward. All of it relates to the

20 crime base area that has preceded it. In this case, Prozor. We believe

21 our submissions make all the required showings. There is a detailed chart

22 and summary and a detailed chart showing the -- once again, the paragraphs

23 and counts of the indictment to which it relates.

24 Secondly, and again, Your Honour, very quickly. The Defence has

25 said they need more information in order to be able to respond and they

Page 9985

1 specifically raise that in connection with the acts and conduct of the

2 accused. Your Honour, we respectfully disagree. The witness statements

3 themselves are very clear as to what the evidence of that witness is or

4 would be. If, in the view of counsel, if in the view of counsel, they

5 implicate the acts and conduct of the accused within the meaning of the

6 Rule, within the meaning of the Rule, and the Tribunal has taken a fairly

7 narrow view of acts and conduct of the accused, then the Defence should

8 state that clearly and say, "We object to this particular evidence of this

9 particular witness coming in because we think that it unfairly implicates

10 acts and conduct of the accused." And we've set that out in our

11 submissions, our position, and we do not believe, respectfully, that the

12 Defence needs any more information in order to be able to identify those

13 parts of it which they contend go to acts and conduct of the accused.

14 Thirdly, Your Honour, Mr. Karnavas, and it doesn't entirely

15 surprise me, because we come from the same system, and in our system,

16 cumulative is generally considered a bad word and not a good word in terms

17 of what is cumulative. A better word, I submit in my humble personal

18 opinion, would be corroboration. I guess one man's accumulativeness is

19 another man's corroboration. The Rule is quite clear, in the sense in

20 which it is used, and that is in Rule 92 bis (A) (B), it says

21 this, "Factors in favour of admitting evidence" and then sub (A), "is of a

22 cumulative nature." So the Rules clearly say that a positive factor that

23 favours -- in fact favours admission is that it is cumulative in this

24 sense. And cumulative in the sense that viva voce and other evidence has

25 already been led, and that which then provides the basis for the

Page 9986

1 application of the Rule.

2 I apologise for taking the Chamber's time to address those points

3 but I thought that some abbreviated response was appropriate and I

4 appreciate the Court for hearing me. Thank you.

5 As to the issue of witness protection, and I will be brief on

6 this, I think the points are really rather straightforward frankly. There

7 are three interests, I suggest, that are implicated by these matters in

8 the courtroom: One is the interest of the accused; one is the interest of

9 the victim and witness -- or witness; and three, the third interest is the

10 interest of the public in seeing and hearing the evidence in these

11 proceedings.

12 As to the first, Your Honour, I submit -- we respectfully submit

13 that as to the interest of the accused, these are fully addressed and

14 virtually not implicated at all by protective measures, that is, the

15 Defence themselves -- the Defence lawyers, the accused sitting in court,

16 get full disclosure. The protective measures in fact have absolutely

17 nothing to do with the accused. They have the witness name. They have

18 the full statements. They have everything. In the courtroom, they have

19 the full opportunity to confront the witness. They have the full

20 opportunity to cross-examine the witness. And it's the Prosecution

21 position, Your Honour, that at least in the vast majority of instances, of

22 course, there can always be some exception, but in the vast majority of

23 instances, frankly, the rights and the interest of the accused are not

24 implicated at all by protective measures. They have the full right to

25 cross-examine. All these men are here. They can all see the witness in

Page 9987

1 the courtroom. They know exactly who the witness -- we're not talking

2 about secret witnesses in some remote courtroom. They can all see the

3 witness sitting right here. They have the real name. They have it way in

4 advance. Their interests are not implicated at all.

5 The public, of course, would like to hear as much of the evidence

6 as possible, and we understand that, but in the most -- again, in most

7 instances, the protective measures that are usually most -- most usually

8 requested, based on long years of experience and also borne out by this

9 particular trial, is for the witness to be given a pseudonym and facial

10 image distortion. Now, what are the implications of that for public

11 testimony? And again virtually none. The public gets to hear virtually

12 the entire evidence of the witness. It goes out of the courtroom

13 virtually a hundred per cent of its content unless it is something very

14 specific that would specifically identify the witness. So what are the

15 interests of the public hearing the evidence? And do they hear the

16 evidence when a witness testifies with a pseudonym and with facial image

17 distortion? Yes, they hear -- the public hears virtually every word.

18 The third interest that has to be dealt with is the -- it the

19 protection, of course, of the victim witness itself -- him or herself.

20 Now, let me start by saying one thing, which I don't think we can fully

21 address today. If the Chamber wants to get into it in a more substantial

22 way, then I submit respectfully that some additional time and resources

23 would have to be devoted to the question.

24 Various statements have been made to suggest that these concerns

25 can't be genuine. They can't be real, these concerns expressed by the

Page 9988

1 witness. Your Honours, these are the concerns, these are the heartfelt

2 concerns of the witnesses who bring them before the Chamber. These are

3 not the Prosecution's positions. These are not the Prosecution's

4 statements. These are what the witness themselves come for.

5 And a witness, for example, comes into court and says I haven't

6 even told anyone I'm here. My employer doesn't know, most of my family

7 doesn't know. To me, Your Honour, when a witness -- someone takes that

8 many significant steps, that's one example. That shows to me the witness

9 takes it seriously. It isn't just some afterthought. It's because the

10 witness is concerned about the situation. And with the greatest of

11 respect to the efforts of this Tribunal and the efforts of the

12 international community in Bosnia-Herzegovina over the past 13 or 14

13 years, it remains far from an ideal situation, far from an ideal

14 situation. You can look at any international report -- after any

15 international report, whether it's the European Community, whether it's

16 the OSCE, whatever, significant concerns continue. So simply -- well,

17 with respect, Your Honour, I don't think we can simply be dismissive when

18 the witnesses come in and express these concerns.

19 Finally, Your Honour, then it leads us to how do we balance out

20 the rights of the victim and witness to reasonable protective measures and

21 the interest of the public in hearing the evidence. And I submit, Your

22 Honours, that in 99 per cent of the cases, a pseudonym and facial image

23 distortion is a completely, a completely fair balance of those interests.

24 The public gets virtually a hundred per cent of the evidence and the

25 witness gets some protection. And we submit that that should be when

Page 9989

1 those types of measures are requested, they should be given with

2 reasonable flexibility.

3 I would invite the Chamber, if the Chamber has continuing concerns

4 about this and if the Chamber has any concerns that our position might be

5 tainted by the adversary nature or our advocacy, I invite the Chamber to

6 consult directly with the Victims and Witness Section, hear what they have

7 to say. They're not a part of the Prosecution. They're not part of the

8 Defence. And they can give the Chamber their position and their concerns

9 over witness protection.

10 Thank you very much, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott, for what

12 you've said.

13 Mr. Stewart, you asked for the floor and I'm giving it to you.

14 You have 15 minutes.

15 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. President. The -- the first point is

16 to say that the -- it's not the Defence's position, I don't believe it has

17 been and I don't believe it will be the position that we say that the

18 concerns expressed by witnesses when they come to court are not genuine.

19 That misrepresents the Defence's submission and their position. We

20 recognise that witnesses's concerns are honest and genuine. What we

21 question is whether there is a sufficient objective basis for those

22 concerns to justify interference with the basic right to a public and fair

23 trial, and that will, I'm confident, remain the Defence position

24 throughout in relation to such matters.

25 Second, and this is a point of real importance, it is absolutely

Page 9990

1 false to say that the accuseds' interests are not implicated at all

2 provided that he is able to -- we're talking about he's in this case, the

3 defendants -- he is able to know the identity of the witness himself and

4 have his counsel know the identity of the witness and know the facts on

5 which to cross-examine. That fundamentally undermines and contradicts the

6 basic notion of a public trial. And Your Honours are extremely familiar

7 with the Statute, but Article 22 expressly gives the accused the

8 entitlement to a fair and public hearing. So right at the highest level

9 in the Statute that right is recognised. And the reasons without

10 elaborating, the well-known reasons why all the developed open systems of

11 justice have public trials with very limited exceptions, is that it is

12 regarded as fundamentally important that when witnesses come along and say

13 what they've got to say, whether it's an accusation or implicitly an

14 accusation against the defendant or whether it's in favour of the

15 defendant or whether it's neither, that what they say is subject to

16 scrutiny and scrutiny outside the courtroom. And unless there are

17 exceptional circumstances, they should know that their neighbours, they

18 should know that their colleagues may find out and can easily find out

19 what they say, because that public scrutiny is absolutely fundamental.

20 It's a critical check on the truthfulness and veracity of evidence.

21 So the very starting point that Mr. Scott puts forward there is

22 fundamentally incorrect. It is not, and it can be very misleading, to

23 take those three elements, the accused, the victims and witness, the

24 public interest and suggest that there's some sort of balancing exercise

25 among those three especially when he almost discards the first of those

Page 9991

1 interests anyway.

2 The position is on analysis that you start with a strong

3 presumption that there should be a public trial. I've said that in all

4 developed systems, you start with a public trial and all developed

5 open-justice systems do allow in camera or similar restrictions in the

6 interests of justice, but we all know that a very high test is set.

7 The reason why we have frequent protective measures before this

8 Tribunal is not that the test is lower, it's that the very circumstances

9 in which cases come to trial here and the difficulties and dangers and

10 instability in the region mean that those circumstances are going to arise

11 more often and that high test will be met more often than is familiar in

12 domestic tribunals but is not a lower test.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, sir. I think the Prosecution is

14 absolutely right and what it says is completely in accordance with case

15 law if it speaks of a balancing of interests.

16 Second, the fact that the identity of witnesses is not revealed to

17 the public does not diminish the granting of the right to a fair trial

18 because -- to a public trial. It is a right of the accused. It is not a

19 right of the public, unless you can show me other case law of an

20 international body. It is not, and it is not either the purpose that the

21 public can control whether the witness says the truth or not. This is for

22 the Defence, and the Defence knows the identity. The Defence can watch

23 the witness as the witness gives his or her statement, and I think this

24 is -- this is absolutely sufficient if there are reasons for fear of the

25 witnesses, and we have concluded in several cases that it is indeed the

Page 9992

1 case. So I'm not convinced.

2 MR. STEWART: Well, perhaps, I can try to convince you by

3 clarifying what I'm saying, because I can see there may be a gap between

4 what I'm trying to say and what Your Honour understands I'm saying.

5 I was submitting that to talk about a balancing exercise on those

6 three elements can be misleading. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying, Your

7 Honour, that in the end, starting with a public trial, as the basic

8 principle and then looking to see whether there are sufficient

9 circumstances to justify that encroachment. I'm not saying that there is

10 no sort of balancing exercise there because, of course, there is. I

11 accept that. You balance the need for the protection of that particular

12 witness against that fundamental starting point principle of a fair trial.

13 So of course there is a weighing and a balancing and I hope that clarifies

14 what I am saying there.

15 So far as the accused concerned, it is under the Statute it is --

16 it's the accused's right to a public hearing. Inherent in the whole

17 system of justice is a strong public interest in having public hearings,

18 but the strong public interest is in having a fair trial in this context.

19 And again, Your Honour, with respect, I don't believe we're -- we differ

20 really on this. In this context, the question is whether there are

21 sufficiently strong circumstances established to encroach upon the

22 openness of the evidence being given. If there are, then that's fair.

23 That's a fair result and it doesn't impinge on the fair trial.

24 But what -- I also wish to make it clear, the Defence will not

25 oppose applications for protective measures in this case where there is

Page 9993

1 credible material showing substantial objective risks. None of us has any

2 interest in exposing witnesses to undue objective risks, but it is

3 important that sensibilities, and this is again a difficult submission

4 which I try to make as clear as I can in case it's misunderstood.

5 When witnesses have extreme and understandable sensibilities about

6 appearing, when victims have those sensibilities and they have suffered

7 terrible things, all human sympathy goes towards that victim and giving

8 evidence is unlikely to be anything other than a very hard experience.

9 But where there is no risk to the witness outside the courtroom, it can

10 only be in the most extreme circumstances seriously impinging upon the

11 health or stability of the witness that one is justified in saying that

12 because of those sensibilities the witness must be allowed to have

13 protective measures to give evidence anonymously. Many witnesses entirely

14 understandably would prefer that and those true in many domestic trials as

15 well, but that is not the test.

16 What -- what we do say is that responsible consideration of

17 whether protective measures are justified, case by case, requires, first

18 of all, conscientious inquiry as to the potential risks, and the objective

19 justification. And the Victims and Witnesses Unit are a -- of course, a

20 valuable source and they are enshrined in the Rules as a source, but with

21 the greatest respect to Victims and Witnesses, it's important that their

22 information is carefully examined because of course they are quite

23 naturally close to witnesses and there to protect the witnesses. So they

24 are bound to have a sympathetic view towards the witnesses and that's not

25 in any way -- that's not impugning anybody's good faith. It's just a

Page 9994

1 perfectly natural aspect of their work.

2 Secondly, there should be clear presentation of that material -

3 and this next point is crucially important - in time for all parties and

4 the Trial Chamber to give it proper consideration. What has happened in

5 this case is that an unsatisfactory practice has developed of the reasons

6 and the material being given at the last minute. The Defence, we are

7 after all six defendants, Your Honours quite rightly prefer us to get

8 together and try to discuss and agree our position. We can't do that when

9 the material is given to us at the very last minute. We're asked to react

10 hurriedly. The Trial Chamber doesn't have the benefit of proper

11 consideration of proper submissions in relation to the matter. So what we

12 are suggesting, as a practical course, having set out those principles, is

13 that the -- that the Trial Chamber might consider guidelines to require,

14 save in circumstances where for good reason it simply can't be done,

15 require advance notice of an application and supporting facts before a

16 witness comes to The Hague. It may be that the reaction on the Defence

17 side will then be to say, yes, we agree, we support. It may be that we

18 would say, no, the material you have produced we say is inadequate. Then

19 the Prosecution -- let's assume it's that way round. It will be the same

20 the other way round when it comes to the Defence case, if we get that

21 far. They would have the opportunity to supplement that information. We

22 will waste less time in court because it -- there will be less and less

23 need, in fact, there should be only a relatively rare need then to have to

24 explore the matter with the witness when the witness comes into court.

25 Your Honour, interestingly enough, Your Honour did mention the

Page 9995

1 Krajisnik case and perhaps since Your Honour mentioned, I might be

2 permitted to mention it, because, after all, I was in it throughout the

3 trial. Of course, a higher proportion of Prosecution witnesses who came

4 from the localities received protective measures because naturally

5 Prosecution witnesses tended to include more victims. But that practice

6 of advance application and that practice of the Defence being given ample

7 time by the Prosecution to consider the material was adopted very early in

8 the trial, and so one doesn't need to look at the individual decisions.

9 Some -- some were successful. Most of the Prosecution applications were

10 successful as it happens. But, Your Honours, in our submission, they were

11 responsibly made generally and they were genuine victims. We didn't

12 always agree but that's by the way. But, Your Honour, that practice does

13 help the Trial Chamber enormously, we suggest.

14 We do as part of that, and this is really my last point, Your

15 Honour, we do then have some slight concerns about the way in which this

16 matter is raised with witnesses, because we're not there and Your Honours

17 can't control and give detailed guidelines to counsel and it wouldn't be

18 proper. You trust us to do our jobs. But if a witness is asked, "Do you

19 want to give your evidence in public? Would you rather give your evidence

20 in private?" We do have a slight feeling that the question might be asked

21 in that way. You're only going to get one answer in many cases. The

22 right way, we suggest, for anybody asking a witness is to ask whether

23 there is a risk, a starting point. If you do give evidence -- explains

24 the witness, that normally speaking, they give evidence in public and ask

25 if you do give evidence in public, is that going to cause a serious risk

Page 9996

1 to you or your family or anybody else and then one would get much quicker

2 to the heart of the matter. Everybody would be helped, and in the cases

3 where protective measures are justified, they get given. But it stands a

4 much better chance then of having the right decision and achieving. And

5 with great respect to His Honour Judge Trechsel, I used this phrase,

6 achieving the right balance between the starting point of a public trial

7 and those cases where protective measures are genuinely justified.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, counsel.

9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Counsel Stewart, I'd like to say

10 something at this stage.

11 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ...

12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Because your intervention was

13 highly interesting and we're all interested in theory here, of course, but

14 it made me a little sad because, in a way, it would seem that you have not

15 understood yet the efforts made by the Trial Chamber to establish this

16 right balance, to strike the proper balance between the interests of the

17 accused and the interests of the victims and, of course, the witnesses

18 that come here to contribute to the furtherance of justice.

19 You referred to the Statutes and to the Rules of Procedure which

20 advocate a public hearing, and we are, of course, aware of all that. But

21 at the same time, you also raise the necessity to ensure the protection of

22 witnesses pursuant to Rule 69 of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, and

23 that is precisely what the Trial Chamber is trying to do.

24 The Trial Chamber has close contacts with the witness and victims

25 unit in order to be apprised of the situation on the ground. And also,

Page 9997

1 you were able to following the efforts made by the Trial Chamber to ensure

2 with the OTP that if there is -- the witnesses run any risk, that

3 protective measures be taken and that the Trial Chamber rules in their

4 favour. And that is why I'm saying that your expose has made me a little

5 sad because it doesn't seem to me that you understand the efforts made by

6 the Trial Chamber to strike this balance.

7 And I also wanted to say a moment ago to the Prosecutor that they

8 should provide the Trial Chamber with all the relevant information about a

9 witness seeking protective measures and otherwise, because we have had

10 cases here where -- when the proceedings were under way, we learnt of

11 things we hadn't been told of in advance.

12 And having said that, what you said was very interesting, but I

13 should like to say that the Trial Chamber is fully aware of that, and

14 we -- rest assured that we are fully aware of the situation and that we

15 shall, of course, be asking the OTP to follow along those lines, to follow

16 suit. So I don't want -- I don't think we should take up more time on

17 that issue, or at least not more than 10 minutes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, any comments?

19 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. President, I apologise the

20 fact that your -- like restrictive viewing at a football match, I'm behind

21 the pillar here, but I would if I may like to --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stewart please speak into the

23 microphone as well.

24 MR. STEWART: I'm going to change microphones, Your Honour. I

25 hope that works.

Page 9998

1 Your Honour, I'm addressing His Honour Judge Mindua directly.

2 Your Honour, I'm sad to be misunderstood. Your Honour has heard a

3 criticism of the Trial Chamber which was not there in my submissions.

4 When we look at what has happened recently and the particular points

5 mentioned by the president earlier today, that in fact illustrates that

6 occasionally the Trial Chamber is faced with a difficulty and is put at a

7 disadvantage in having to make these decisions.

8 So, Your Honour, my submissions did not involve any suggestion

9 that in some wholesale way the Trial Chamber is failing in its duty. The

10 suggestion is that a different approach and a more helpful approach and a

11 more timely approach in producing the information and following the

12 President's injunction that all the information should be put -- should be

13 put before the Court will indeed help you even better to reach the right

14 decision.

15 And so far as the Victims and Witness Unit is concerned, of course

16 they are there to be consulted. We do suggest that it is of the utmost

17 importance that information coming to the Trial Chamber, to the

18 Prosecution, should also come to the Defence so that we all have the same

19 information at our disposal on which submissions can be made if decisions

20 can be made. But I hope Your Honour will, with those few comments, I hope

21 Your Honour will see my assurance that that criticism I hope to alleviate

22 the sadness of that criticism which Your Honour heard is not in fact

23 there.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stewart. We have

25 heard the observations made by both sides, by the Prosecution and what Mr.

Page 9999

1 Stewart had to say, and the others, and the Judges will deliberate. For

2 the moment, we'll go on with our regular proceedings and bear in mind all

3 the ideas put forward by you on the possibility of asking the witness,

4 before the start, to tell the witness that the proceedings are public, and

5 if they do not wish their testimony to go public that they should state

6 the reasons for that.

7 So we shall be examining all the proposals put forward, and we'll

8 give you a ruling and tell you what we think.

9 Now, as far as the next witness is concerned, there's no problem

10 with that because she has already been granted measures of that type, and

11 since she was granted protective measures, she's going to continue under

12 the same regime.

13 We're going to have the witness brought into the courtroom in a

14 few moments, but before we do that, we're going to have the blinds

15 lowered. And once the blinds have been lowered, we shall go ahead with

16 all the formalities and go back into open session with the protective

17 measures in place. So we're now going to lower the blinds.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I could just be heard for a

19 second while the witness is coming in. I just wanted to supplement what

20 was said which Mr. Stewart and by -- by the Prosecution. I think by and

21 large, we're not far apart, and we always rely on the Trial Chamber to use

22 its discretion, its wise discretion. And it has been wise in the past, so

23 I don't want there to be any misunderstanding that there had been any

24 complaints and we do take on board. I just want to make sure that no one

25 on the trial Bench or the Prosecution thinks that the Defence does not

Page 10015

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have got five minutes left

4 before the break, Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

6 Q. Now, Witness CA, again, without mentioning any particular names or

7 details, you've said already that your husband and one of your sons went

8 into the woods around the time that the shelling started; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And, again, without mentioning a name - I don't think for these

11 purposes it's necessary; others can inquire if they believe that it is -

12 was there a third man who accompanied your husband and son into the woods

13 at that time?

14 A. Yes, there was another neighbour.

15 Q. Among these three men, then, were any of these men carrying a

16 weapon or firearm when they went into the woods?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. You've said that the shelling continued until approximately 3.00

19 that afternoon.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And around 3.00 that day, do you recall anything else happening in

22 terms of seeing any other movement of vehicles or anything else happening

23 that you could see from your home in Doljani?

24 A. Yes. I saw the vehicles coming, and in them HVO uniforms. They

25 carried weapons. And they started calling out through a loud-hailer to

Page 10016

1 the population that anybody with weapons should come out; otherwise, they

2 would shoot at civilians.

3 Q. On that afternoon, did you ever see a tank in the area?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Where did you see it, and how was it moving?

6 A. Going towards Sovici but going down from Risovac.

7 Q. When you say "going down," it was going down the hill from Risovac

8 in the direction of Sovici?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if we might break there.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we do that, there's a

12 question from the Bench.

13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, just a point of

14 clarification. On the basis of the information we have received, we know

15 that in the former Yugoslavia, the men were sometimes members of the

16 Territorial Defence, and we know that at a point in time, on the Croatian

17 side, as indeed on the Muslim side during the conflict, men from the ages

18 of 16 to 60 were encouraged, if not obliged, to join the armed forces.

19 Now, my question is as follows: Can you confirm that on the 17th of

20 April, 1993, no men from your village were carrying arms, that nobody was

21 part of the civilian defence or the armed forces?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot confirm that because I

23 don't know.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, in your village, did you

25 see neighbours going around, circulating, or locals from the village,

Page 10017

1 carrying weapons in their hands? Hunting rifles, perhaps, Kalashnikovs,

2 machine-guns, anything like that?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't see any of that. When

4 they entered -- now, I don't know when they took to the woods. I just

5 know when my husband and son left. Now, what they had with them after

6 that, what these people had when they came in to hand them over, I don't

7 know. Perhaps somebody did have weapons. Somebody might have had a

8 pistol or hunting rifle. I wasn't with them to be able to know what they

9 had.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is almost 10 to

11 4.00. We're going to have a technical break of 20 minutes, and we're

12 going to reconvene at exactly 10 minutes past 4.00.

13 Before the witness leaves the courtroom to have a rest, I'd like

14 to ask the registrar to have the blinds lowered.

15 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

18 Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Scott, please.

20 MR. SCOTT: Just to clarify, we are in open session; correct?

21 Thank you.

22 Q. Witness CA, so far you've told us about the shelling that took

23 place on the 17th of April and that later that afternoon you saw vehicles,

24 HVO vehicles, coming into the village, and you saw a tank coming down the

25 hill from Risovac in the direction of Sovici. Taking -- going forward

Page 10018

1 from that point, what happened later that afternoon in terms of what you

2 could observe from your house?

3 A. In the afternoon, when I saw that, I saw someone come down from

4 Sovici, and the men gathered and took them to the Sovici school.

5 Q. When you same the men gathered, and perhaps one thing I didn't

6 mention and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this, did you say before the

7 break that, when the HVO vehicles came into the village they were using

8 megaphones to call out, essentially for people to come out from wherever

9 they were and essentially surrender, give themselves up, or there would be

10 firing on the civilians?

11 A. Yes. They called over the megaphone telling the men to surrender

12 or they'll -- they would fire on the civilians. But they did not fire at

13 the civilians, and the menfolk gathered together. Now, whether they would

14 have shot, I don't know.

15 Q. Yes. Where did you see, then, the men who were then -- the Muslim

16 men who were then coming out in response to this, the megaphones, where

17 did you see them gathering and what did you see?

18 A. They gathered in the centre of the village, so I was able to see

19 them, in that village of ours. I saw four or five soldiers. I recognised

20 two of them. I knew them, but not the third. But he was from the

21 village, too, although I didn't know him. He was from Sovici, actually.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. You've

23 just said that you saw four or five soldiers and that you recognised two

24 of them. Without giving us their names, did you know their names

25 actually, the two soldiers you recognised?

Page 10024

1 say anything to you about what was happening or would happen?

2 A. Nothing. I just asked him what you're going to do. They said,

3 well, if they don't come back tonight, they'll come back tomorrow. That's

4 what the neighbour said.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I'm going back to what

6 you said a moment ago, because it was the first time that I heard you say

7 it, and as far as us Judges are concerned, it might be important. You

8 said that the hunting rifle was returned because he had a permit. Does

9 that mean that the hunters from your village who had a hunting rifle were

10 obliged to have a permit to be able to carry the weapon, to have a licence

11 for it? Have you understood my question?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. My answer is no, but they took

13 them away and nobody asked to see the permit.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I want to know is this: In

15 your village, if a hunter -- if a man went hunting, if he was a hunter,

16 did he have to have a permit to carry or to possess a hunting weapon, a

17 hunting rifle?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That's what I wanted

20 explained.

21 MR. SCOTT:

22 Q. Madam, just going back to -- in order to go forward again, you

23 said that what you were told then by this HVO soldier is that they

24 said, "Well, if they don't come back tonight, they'll come back --" in the

25 transcript it says, "too many"?

Page 10025

1 A. Tomorrow.

2 Q. Did you say if they didn't come back tonight you were told they

3 would come back tomorrow, the next day?

4 A. Yes, that's what I meant. And I held him to his word, but

5 unfortunately, he only returned after 11 and a half months.

6 Q. All right. Now, before we go on to the 18th, before we leave the

7 topic of the men that were being gathered in the centre of the village,

8 approximately, how many men did you see being gathered up in this way?

9 Again, your best approximation.

10 A. You mean in my village?

11 Q. Yes. What you could see out in front of you, as you said, from

12 where you --

13 A. Well, between 15 and 20. That's how many men there were at that

14 spot as far as I was able to see. 15 to 20 roughly, but as I say, I can't

15 be specific, but thereabouts.

16 Q. All right. Can you tell the Judges, please, did -- among the

17 people that were gathered there, did you see any Muslim young men who were

18 younger than the age of 16?

19 A. Yes, three of them. Right from my village who were taken off.

20 And there were others too.

21 Q. And approximately how old were the three that were under the age

22 of 16?

23 A. Ten to 15 years old, not more. Roughly 15. I don't think any of

24 them were 16.

25 Q. Now, ma'am, you've already indicated that your husband in fact did

Page 10026

1 not return the next day. When he did not, what did you do?

2 A. I went to look for him.

3 Q. Where did you go?

4 A. I went to the school at Sovici.

5 Q. Approximately how far was that from your -- where you lived?

6 Again, approximately.

7 A. Well, four or five kilometres away. I don't know. I didn't

8 measure the distance, but it's certainly that much.

9 Q. When you arrived at the Sovici school, what did you see?

10 A. I saw a lot of men incarcerated there.

11 Q. Again, can you give us some estimate of the number of men you saw

12 there?

13 A. Well, about a hundred if not more. Certainly a hundred.

14 Q. And from what you could see, could you tell the Judges of what

15 ethnic group these men, these approximately 100 or more men were, what the

16 ethnic group of these men was?

17 A. Muslims. They didn't lock up Croats. It was the Muslims they

18 held.

19 Q. And did you see your husband at that time on this first visit to

20 the Sovici school on the 18th?

21 A. Yes, I did, both my husband and my son.

22 Q. Did you return to the Sovici school later that day, and if you

23 were with anyone else, I'm going to ask you for now not to mention any

24 names, but my first question to you is: Did you leave the school and go

25 back to the Sovici school later on the 18th?

Page 10027

1 A. Yes. I returned to take them some food and clothing. However,

2 when I returned, the situation had changed. I couldn't see them because

3 the soldier wouldn't even let me enter the school building.

4 Q. And without mentioning the person's name, when you went back to

5 the Sovici school the second time, were you accompanied by another Muslim

6 woman from the village?

7 A. Yes. Yes.

8 Q. Now, when you travelled between Doljani and the Sovici school on

9 the 18th of April, can you tell us what you could see in terms of the

10 damage or the condition of the houses in Sovici and to the extent that it

11 also included passing through Doljani? What was the condition of the

12 houses that you could see on the 18th of April?

13 A. They were all intact, in proper order.

14 Q. Did there come a time after the 18th of April where your house and

15 other Muslim houses in the vicinity were searched by HVO soldiers?

16 A. Yes. Yes. They were.

17 Q. Tell us about that.

18 A. Well, quite simply they'd come to your house and force you to open

19 the door to them so that they could search the house and do what they

20 wanted. What they were looking for, I don't know. They didn't find

21 anything. Now, what they were looking for, I really can't say.

22 Q. And can you tell the Judges approximately how many times was your

23 house - excuse me - searched in the four or five days after the attack on

24 the 17th?

25 A. Ten times. Not once, 10 times.

Page 10028

1 Q. Now, the Muslim men that had been held in the Sovici school that

2 you described a few moments ago, do you know approximately when these

3 Muslim men were taken from the Sovici school to another location?

4 A. Well, I know that. On the third day they took them off to

5 Ljubuski.

6 Q. So when you say the third day, are you including -- say, if you

7 include the 17th, are you saying on approximately the 19th?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And do you know at the time or did you learn later where the

10 Muslim men that were in the Sovici school as of that time, where they were

11 taken?

12 A. I learnt that later when I went to look for them on the third day.

13 Then a woman told me that they were dragged off during the night, but they

14 didn't know where. We didn't know where either straight away. Two days

15 later, somebody came and told us that they were at Ljubuski, Ljubusko.

16 Q. Now, continuing on about the 19th or 20th of April, did anything

17 happen to the Muslim houses in Sovici and Doljani around that time?

18 A. As soon as they took them away, they set fire to all the houses.

19 Q. When you say "all the houses," which houses?

20 A. The Muslim houses.

21 Q. To your knowledge, Witness CA, do you know if there were any Croat

22 houses that were set on fire during this time?

23 A. No.

24 Q. The houses that were set on fire, do you know what happened to the

25 occupants of those houses?

Page 10029

1 A. They took them to the school at Sovici. They took the men to

2 Ljubuski, and the civilians and elderly, women, and children, they were

3 put in the school.

4 Q. Were there any other group of houses in the area of Sovici and

5 Doljani that remained undamaged that were then -- excuse me, that were

6 then used for the purposes of holding Muslim civilians in that area?

7 A. Yes. In two places. Seven houses in one place and in another

8 place four houses.

9 Q. The seven houses, that was a location or a gathering of houses

10 that is sometimes referred to as the Junuzovici houses?

11 A. Yes, yes, that's right.

12 Q. And what was the name or reference for the other location, for the

13 four houses, for the grouping of four houses?

14 A. It was called Krkaca.

15 Q. Can you tell the Judges, during this time period when some of the

16 Muslim people had been taken to the Sovici school, to your knowledge, were

17 any Muslims held for a time in the Doljani mosque?

18 A. Yes. They held them in the mosque during the time they were

19 setting fire to their houses, and then they took them off to that village

20 Krkaca.

21 Q. And did anything to your knowledge happen to the mosque once the

22 Muslims that had been held there were taken away?

23 A. Yes. It was blown up.

24 Q. And how do you know that?

25 A. Well, I heard the detonation, the explosion, but I didn't know

Page 10030

1 what was going on. And later on I heard that it had been mined, that it

2 was blown up. But the explosion was so strong that you could hear if far

3 and wide.

4 Q. Did you at some point learn from your neighbours or friends

5 that -- that in fact the explosion that you heard at that time had been

6 the Doljani mosque being destroyed?

7 A. Yes. Yes.

8 Q. Was there also a mosque in Sovici?

9 A. There was, yes.

10 Q. When you travelled between your house and the Sovici school on the

11 18th of April, did you pass by the mosque in Sovici or did you travel in

12 such a way that you could see the mosque in Sovici at that time?

13 A. I didn't pass by the mosque when I went to visit my husband and

14 son at the school building. Well, then I saw that it was still standing,

15 but later on it had been blown up. It didn't exist any more.

16 Q. Well -- and I was taking it step-by-step. That's why I asked you

17 on the 18th of April when you went -- when you travelled to visit your

18 husband at the Sovici school, I take it from your answer just now, that

19 you saw the mosque on that day?

20 A. Yes. That's right.

21 Q. And while you've indicated it, again, if we just make clear for

22 the record, what was the condition of the Sovici mosque when you saw it on

23 the 18th of April?

24 A. It was all right on the 18th.

25 Q. Now, you've already indicated that your house was searched a

Page 10031

1 number of times. Did there come a time in the four, five, or six days

2 after the 17th that you were told to leave your house, that you would

3 have -- that you would have to go to the school?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And tell the Judges about that, please.

6 A. My neighbours came and they said, "You have to go to the school.

7 We've received orders to take you all to the school," and that's what we

8 did. We had to.

9 Q. And what happened once you got to the Sovici school?

10 A. It was horrible. Crammed in two rooms there were so many women,

11 men, elderly men, children. It was pure horror.

12 Q. And what happened to those of you who were coming to the Sovici

13 school on that day, including yourself? What -- what, if anything, did

14 you have to do or was done when you arrived there?

15 A. Nothing. They just called us out, asked where we'd come from, and

16 we signed something. I wasn't there more than an hour.

17 Q. All right. When you say they asked you where you came from and

18 you signed something, is it correct, Witness CA, that they were listing

19 you or registering you, if you will, and the others?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And do you recall the name of any particular HVO soldier who was

22 involved in making this list or taking this registration?

23 MR. SCOTT: I believe, Your Honour, we can --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 MR. SCOTT: I believe we can take that without implicating the

Page 10032

1 confidentiality.

2 Q. Can you give us the name of that HVO soldier, if you knew, ma'am?

3 A. Blaz Azinovic.

4 Q. Now, as you travelled around the Doljani-Sovici area at that time,

5 at approximately how many days after the 17th was it? Again, as best as

6 you can, please. How many days after the 17th, when you went to the

7 Sovici -- when you were told to go to the Sovici school for the purpose of

8 being registered?

9 A. Maybe four days, not more. Four or five days, something like

10 that.

11 Q. So can we understand that it was approximately around the 21st or

12 22nd of April?

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 Q. When you travelled between your home and the Sovici school on the

15 21st or 22nd of April, did you see anything different about the Muslim

16 houses in that area, different than what you had seen on the 18th of

17 April?

18 A. Yes. All were burnt down.

19 Q. After the registration at the Sovici school, were a number of the

20 Muslim women and children kept at the Junuzovici houses?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Approximately, how many would you say were altogether held in the

23 seven houses there?

24 A. I think there were about 400.

25 Q. Tell us about just the situation as to those houses. What was --

Page 10033

1 were you free to move about? What were the conditions? What happened

2 when you were being held in this way?

3 A. It was horrible. We didn't dare move. Nobody dared to move from

4 one house to another. And how can one feel in that situation? So little

5 room for so many people. We had no proper living conditions. There was

6 no electricity.

7 Q. Did the HVO soldiers ever fire their weapons at the house, at the

8 houses?

9 A. Yes, especially at night after having a few drinks.

10 Q. What would happen?

11 A. Well, what. They would shoot, knock at doors, ask for girls, all

12 sorts of things.

13 Q. When you say "ask for girls," can you tell the Judges more about

14 that?

15 A. I can. They wanted the girls to come out. Nobody was taken away

16 from my house. I hid my girls day and night. They didn't go out at all.

17 But they took girls away from other houses.

18 Q. I know, Witness, you don't want to say too much about this and I'm

19 not going to ask you in any great detail, but do you know if any of the

20 girls came back to the houses --

21 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe we should go into private

23 session.

24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to.

Page 10035

1 don't know what they did."

2 At any time did you lose any -- during this time period, did you

3 lose any of the vehicles or livestock that you and your family owned?

4 A. Yes. Yes. All the livestock and all the cars were taken away,

5 but nothing was taken away outside the houses when we were there.

6 Everybody's cars were driven away, and livestock as well.

7 Q. Did you have occasion to confront one of the HVO soldiers about

8 this happening and why this was happening?

9 A. They would only tell us they had orders. From whom, I don't know.

10 Whatever you asked them, they would say, "We have orders."

11 Q. Did they give you any indication in terms of these orders what was

12 supposed to be done with this property, the vehicles and livestock that

13 were seized?

14 A. No, they didn't tell us.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, you personally, did you

16 lose any livestock and one car?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did HVO soldiers give you some

19 sort of document like a receipt confirming the requisition of that

20 livestock and the vehicle, or did they give you nothing whatsoever?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no paper.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you say that when you asked

23 an HVO soldier -- soldier or soldiers, they replied they had orders.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your village, did you have

Page 10036

1 the impression that this HVO soldier -- that these soldiers were under

2 some sort of command? Was there anybody who looked like he was in control

3 of the soldiers, that he was their commander?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, because under whose

5 orders would they be acting then?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you think, but you have

7 nothing to confirm that there was a commander on the spot?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I cannot do. I don't know.

9 MR. SCOTT:

10 Q. In that regard, Witness CA, and I was about to ask you, during

11 this time you were being held in the houses when you saw these things

12 happening, when the property was being taken, did you hear the name Tuta,

13 or did you hear that people called Tuta's men were involved in this?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How did you hear that, and what did you hear?

16 A. Well, an occasional soldier would come and say that he was a

17 Tuta's soldier. Some others wouldn't say that. His name was mentioned,

18 and some even had his photograph on their windscreen.

19 Q. Now, moving forward, then. Around the 5th of May, 1993, what

20 happened on that day?

21 A. The 5th of May?

22 Q. Yes, please.

23 A. They drove us out of our houses, made us get into vehicles, and

24 took us to Risovac.

25 Q. All right. Can you give us a bit more detail, please, on how that

Page 10037

1 happened? Were you loaded on vehicles? Were you made to walk? How did

2 this happen?

3 A. They drove us by freight vehicles. Up there buses were waiting.

4 And then they loaded us onto buses and hauled us across Mount Vran up to a

5 petrol station where they unloaded us. The name of that petrol station

6 was Sicaja. That remained etched in my memory.

7 Q. This petrol station, approximately where was it located with

8 reference to the two towns of Prozor on the one hand and Gornji Vakuf on

9 the other?

10 A. Yes, it's somewhere in between, on top of a hill.

11 Q. Before we come back to that, you said a moment ago that, "They

12 drove us by freight vehicles."

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that another description for trucks?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. Approximately how many trucks were involved in moving these

17 approximately 400 Muslims?

18 A. Two.

19 Q. How many trips did it take for these trucks to get all of you to

20 the top of Risovac?

21 A. Four.

22 Q. When you arrived at the top of Risovac you were then transferred

23 onto buses?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Approximately how many buses were involved in this?

Page 10038

1 A. I'm not sure. Seven -- some people said seven, others said six,

2 but there couldn't have been less because we were so many.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, the drivers of those

4 buses, were they Muslims or Croats, soldiers? Who were they?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Soldiers. They were all dressed as

6 soldiers. In every bus there were three or four soldiers.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the driver was also dressed

8 as a soldier in a camouflage uniform?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Each of them had a weapon

10 close by.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And from what you know, where

12 did those buses come from?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where they came from to

14 Risovac. I only know they were waiting for us there. They could have

15 come from Duvno, Mostar. I don't know.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A transfer of that amount of the

17 population, because there were apparently 400 people, can you think of any

18 reason why, since you were moving from point A to point B, they would make

19 you move? Was it for your own safety? Was it for some health or sanitary

20 reason? Did they give you any reason, or did they say nothing at all?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They didn't say anything. Only that

22 they had orders to make us leave. They told us to take things that we

23 need from our houses and, "You will never come back." That's what they

24 said.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can imagine that on the

Page 10039

1 buses -- you said on the buses there were drivers in uniform who had a

2 weapon handy, and there were another three or four soldiers on every bus,

3 so I suppose the villagers spoke to the soldiers, asked them questions

4 like, "What's going on? Where are we going?" Were there any such

5 conversations between the soldiers and the villagers?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my bus, the one I was on, nobody

7 asked anything, nor did they dare ask. If the soldier was a bit drunk, he

8 would immediately turn on you and point his gun. Some even got angry

9 because children were crying. I don't know about the other buses. In

10 mine, nobody asked a thing.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Nobody asked anything, but you

12 suppose that if a soldier was drunk -- what made you think they were

13 drunk?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right. Well, I saw it. I was

15 there. Because a sober man would not be acting like that. He would not

16 have the same expression on his face. After all, there were women and

17 children on the buses. You could see. It was obvious he was drunk.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There was one who was drunk or

19 they were all drunk?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The one who was cursing and swearing

21 was certainly drunk. Those who kept silent, I don't know. They didn't

22 utter a word.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Those HVO soldiers, were they

24 from the same locality or were they from further away?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know a single one of them.

Page 10040

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But from their accent, from

2 their conduct, their intonation, their voices, would you place them in

3 your region or some other area?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were not from our area. They

5 had a lilt in their speech.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what made you think they

7 were not from your area?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I know the dialect of my own

9 neighbours, and I know the difference between that particular speech and

10 speech of people outside. They had a different accent.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say it's the level of

12 accent, and you noticed certain differences.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you give us an example,

15 maybe?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. Some would say "reka"

17 instead of "reko" for the word "said," and some of our neighbours placed

18 them in an area called Zagorje. Anyway, they were not from our region.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 Q. Just to follow up on that, you said just now, ma'am, that some of

22 the neighbours placed, at least the linguistic distinctions, placed them

23 in an area called Zagorje. Can you tell the Judges, if you know, where

24 that location was?

25 A. I don't know, because I never went that way, but I heard other

Page 10041

1 people say, "He's speaking like a Zagorac, meaning a region

2 called "Croatian Zagorje." Where exactly it is, I don't know. I've often

3 heard tale of this Croatian Zagorje, but I don't know exactly where it is.

4 Q. All right. Now, you've said that you were driven in these buses

5 over mountain Vran, if I've heard correctly; is that right?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. Did you in fact -- the group of you, did you spend the night on

8 Mount Vran?

9 A. Yes, we did.

10 Q. And why was that?

11 A. Two buses broke down and we couldn't go on, and the people from

12 those two buses could not be crammed into the other buses because all of

13 them were full.

14 Q. And approximately what time the next day did you arrive at the

15 petrol station?

16 A. Around 9.00.

17 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the petrol station?

18 A. Nothing. They just unloaded us, and they said, "You have your

19 Alija. He'll take care of you."

20 Q. And what happened after that?

21 A. They went back, and we were left to our own devices. Some people

22 went on on foot. We didn't really know where to go and what to do, but

23 somehow we reached Gornji Vakuf.

24 Q. Did the whole group of you walk as far as Gornji Vakuf, or did at

25 some point you receive some assistance?

Page 10042

1 A. They got assistance. Somebody sent a message up there and people

2 came down to fetch them with cars. Some went on on foot and others were

3 taken in vehicles, so all of us made it.

4 Q. And approximately how long did you and, to the extent you know,

5 the other Muslims that were taken to Gornji Vakuf that day or toward

6 Gornji Vakuf, how long did you stay in Gornji Vakuf at that time?

7 A. I returned on the 6th of June, and the others stayed on for a

8 couple of more days. I returned to Jablanica.

9 Q. And did you return -- or excuse me. Did you live, then, in

10 Jablanica during the remainder of the war, at least through 1995?

11 A. I lived in Jablanica for 11 and a half years.

12 Q. And your husband and son, again, without going into any more

13 details, can you tell the Judges approximately when they were released?

14 A. I can.

15 Q. Please.

16 A. They were released on the 1st of March, after 11 and a half

17 months. I remember that well.

18 Q. When you say --

19 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. In the transcript,

20 there was a mistake when the witness said that I lived in Jablanica for 11

21 and a half years. Most probably it was one and a half years, I believe.

22 May we clarify this.

23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I think from talking to the

24 witness, Your Honour --

25 Q. But you heard the Judge's question, Witness CA. Can you tell the

Page 10045

1 the left side of the page, Witness, until you find the words "Almost all

2 the Muslim houses are set on fire." And I realise in the translation the

3 word order may be different than --

4 A. Yes, yes.

5 Q. All right. And looking to that entire paragraph which then

6 continues on and that paragraph ends with the words "The direction of

7 Posusje and Tomislavgrad." Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And is what is stated in that paragraph, Witness, is that

10 consistent with what you saw and experienced in the second half of April,

11 1993, in Sovici-Doljani?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The next paragraph goes on to talk about European Community

14 observers. Do you recall at any time where members -- excuse me,

15 representatives of the international community attempted to enter or did

16 enter the area of Sovici-Doljani in the second half of April, 1993?

17 A. Yes. They entered and reach the Sovici school, but where the

18 civilians were, they didn't allow them to get to there and to tour that

19 area where we were. Just the old men who were in the school. They made a

20 list of them, but nobody came to see us civilians, where we were, where

21 the women and children were.

22 Q. When -- you said just now, you said "where the civilians were,

23 they didn't allow them to go." Who didn't allow them to go?

24 A. Who didn't allow them to go? I don't know. The people standing

25 guard over us hoped they would come, but who didn't allow them to come I

Page 10046

1 don't know. They made us all go outside and lined us up and said, "Be

2 careful what you say, because they're going to leave but you're going to

3 stay." That's what they told us. Now, why they didn't arrive and why

4 somebody didn't let them come, I really can't say. I don't know.

5 Q. Did you see UNPROFOR vehicles in the area around this time?

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. And when you said a moment ago that they told you to -- said, "Be

8 careful what you say," who said that? I don't necessarily mean the

9 individuals, but were these the HVO guards around the houses?

10 A. The HVO guards, but I didn't know them.

11 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look next at Exhibit 2063 in the same

12 bundle you have there.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. You said

14 a moment ago that the HVO guards hoped that the internationals would come

15 to see you and that's why they lined you up, and it turned out they didn't

16 come. Now, can you confirm that the HVO guards, at first, wanted you to

17 meet these foreigners who were coming to see what was going on?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they hoped they'd come. I

19 think they thought they would come. Now, who prevented them from coming I

20 don't know, because if they hadn't hoped they would come they wouldn't

21 have taken us out and lined us up. And they said to us, "Careful what you

22 say" because they're going to leave, but you're going to stay. That's

23 what we were told. Now, why they didn't come and who didn't let them

24 come, I don't know.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There must be -- there might be

Page 10047

1 a translation error in your language, because they said that they were

2 expecting them to come or they were hoping. Expecting and hoping isn't

3 the same thing. When one says one hopes then one would like something to

4 happen, but when one expects them to come, one might expect people to come

5 whom you don't want to see. So could you tell me what the HVO soldiers

6 actually said with respect to the arrival of the internationals? Was it

7 hoped or was it that they were expecting a visit from the internationals,

8 not necessarily liking it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't explain that because

10 we didn't know anything until they took us outside, and then I saw that

11 they went to Sovici. I could see that part of the road. They

12 said, "They'll come here. Be careful of what you say." Now, whether they

13 thought they would be coming or didn't think they would be coming, nobody

14 explained that. But they thought they would come, because they wouldn't

15 then line us up outside and say what they said to us. Now, why they

16 didn't turn up, I really can't say.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are the Judges then to

18 understand that you were placed on the ready and that you were told what

19 you were allowed to say to those internationals and what not?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that's it. That would

21 be it. Because they said, "Be careful what you say." So I suppose they

22 were expecting them to ask us something.

23 MR. SCOTT:

24 Q. Witness CA, if we then could go to the next exhibit, Exhibit 2063.

25 In that document, Witness, there's the statement, "We have a total

Page 10048

1 of 422 women and children and 25 conscripts." Is the description and the

2 number of 422 women and children, is that basically consistent with the

3 information that you had at the time or what you actually saw at the time?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And then the next -- very next sentence says, "Also 94 conscripts

6 were transported to Ljubuski." Now --

7 A. Not all of them were conscripts. There were some older people

8 there too. There were even some people who were born in 1936, 1938, 1940,

9 and older. So they weren't conscripts.

10 Q. Your husband was among this group, you've told us. Did you

11 consider him to be a conscript?

12 A. No. No.

13 Q. Further down it makes the statement that, "The Muslim houses were

14 burnt -- were burnt down and two mosques were demolished." Is that

15 statement consistent with what you saw and heard in Sovici-Doljani in

16 mid-April, 1993?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. This -- this document is signed or at least over the name, has

19 been prepared above the name of Marko Rozic. Do you know that name?

20 A. I know him, yes.

21 Q. And without saying anything that might tend to identify yourself,

22 Witness, do you know anything about Mr. Rozic and his involvement in these

23 matters at that time, that is, in the spring of 1993?

24 A. No, I don't. I know nothing of his involvement or any of the

25 positions he occupied or didn't occupy. I just know him personally. And

Page 10049

1 I assume he was in some position where people asked him about things, if

2 these documents were in his possession.

3 Q. Did you know -- did you have any basis to know what Mr. Rozic's

4 views were of the relationships between the Muslims and the Croats at that

5 time?

6 A. I really don't know.

7 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you next, please, to look at Exhibit --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, madam. The

9 Prosecutor has just asked you a question, but it requires some more

10 specific information. You said that you knew this man, Mr. Marko Rozic.

11 Now, the Judges would like to know whether this was a Croat or a Muslim.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was a Croat.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. So you said you knew

14 him.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was he one of the inhabitants of

17 your village or what? How did you come to know him?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He lived in Sovici. He was an

19 inhabitant of Sovici, and my sons used to see him a lot and socialise.

20 They would go to see him. He would come to see them. So I know him, and

21 I know the whole family, his whole family. I was born in Sovici, too,

22 myself.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. There we have it.

24 Thank you for giving us that additional explanation.

25 MR. SCOTT:

Page 10050

1 Q. If we could then go to Exhibit 2200. It's a very short document,

2 madam, and if you could just look at that. It's really only one

3 sentence -- well, two.

4 Were you, in fact, among those who were transported on buses from

5 the area of Sovici-Doljani on approximately the 5th of May, 1993?

6 A. Yes. I was transported with those buses, yes. It wasn't

7 Doljani-Jablanica.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I'm going to ask you to

9 read the paragraph out, because in the English translation, there's a word

10 that I am querying. So I'd like you to read the paragraph out in your own

11 language and the interpreters are going to interpret it. And it begins

12 with the word "Da."

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I can see this

14 properly.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Read it out loud, please.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Are there literally five buses in

17 Sovici or Doljani? The population taken towards Jablanica. If that's not

18 correct. If there are, then that's not correct." No. It says, "If they

19 were, where did they come from?" I don't know whether they were from

20 Duvno, Mostar, Posusje. I don't know. There are roads all over the

21 place. But they didn't come from Jablanica, I know that for sure.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, there's a word in

23 brackets, "zelene." What does that word mean?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea what that means

25 there. "Taken away" perhaps, "odevzeni." With a letter missing. And

Page 10051

1 then it turned out to be "zelene." "Odevzeni" and then it turned out as

2 "zelene." "Zelene towards Jablanica." I think it means "odevzeni" or

3 "driven towards," "transported towards Jablanica," but that's just not

4 correct. I don't know who signed this.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because in English it

6 says "green." The word is translated as "green."

7 Mr. Scott.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Does it say here, "Petkovic,"

9 "Petrovic"? I can't make it out. I really can't make head or tail of

10 this.

11 MR. SCOTT:

12 Q. Witness, before moving to the final document, can I just ask you,

13 apart from the fact that you indicated that you did not in fact, on this

14 occasion, go toward Jablanica, but instead toward Gornji Vakuf, is the

15 rest of what's said there essentially descriptive of what happened to you

16 and the others on the 5th of May?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And finally, can I ask you, please, to look at Exhibit 2191. The

19 last document in the bundle, I hope. Very briefly, I think. Looking at

20 the first paragraph of that document which starts "Today at around 9.00,

21 approximately 300 persons," do you see that?

22 A. I can't see it very well. I'm afraid these glasses aren't much

23 use. I can see far away but not close to. I can't make out the letters

24 really.

25 Q. Do the best you can, please. Can you see the reference, for

Page 10052

1 example, to the Sicaj petrol station?

2 A. I hope I'll find it.

3 Q. In the first paragraph, ma'am.

4 A. Yes. Sicaja, yes.

5 Q. And is that consistent with the name of the petrol station that

6 you gave to the Judges a few minutes ago as to where you were taken then

7 put off the buses at that time?

8 A. Yes. That's what it was called.

9 Q. And finally on that document, Witness CA, down to the left of the

10 signature part or the name, at least, you have Uskoplje 551993. The

11 Judges have probably heard this already, but just to be clear, was

12 Uskoplje the Croat name given to Gornji Vakuf?

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. Witness CA, I want to thank you very much for coming to The Hague

15 and for assisting us this afternoon.

16 MR. SCOTT: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Registrar, could

18 you do the calculations. How much time have the Prosecution taken?

19 Unfortunately, we're going to have to have a 30-minute break for the

20 redaction to be made possible, and we'll reconvene at five to 6.00. I'd

21 like to state that the Prosecutor took up 71 minutes. So I hope the

22 Defence will be able to get through their cross-examination and not have

23 the witness return tomorrow for just a few minutes.

24 We'll reconvene at five to 6.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.

Page 10053

1 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to start off the

3 cross-examination.

4 Madam, if you have any difficulties or aren't feeling well, don't

5 hesitate to let us know. If you don't feel able to continue, tell me

6 straight away and we'll take the necessary steps.

7 Who is going to start off on the Defence side?

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, we have no questions

9 for the witness. We'd like to thank the witness for coming to give her

10 evidence. Thank you.

11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we do not have

12 any questions for this witness either.

13 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, Praljak Defence have no questions for

14 this witness, but Mr. Praljak would like to ask only one question about

15 the language since the Prosecutor was mentioning something about one

16 dialect of the Croatian languages. Just to enlighten everybody. But it

17 would be on the end or he can do it now.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor

19 mentioned that one of the men who escorted the buses, according to what

20 the witness told us, spoke -- or, rather, they referred to him as Zagorac

21 and that he spoke the kind of language that would mean that he was from an

22 area called Hrvatsko/Croatian Zagorje. Now, in the Croatian Zagorje, the

23 language spoken there is a language which is called Kirkovski. It isn't a

24 dialect of the Croatian language, it is a separate language which is

25 completely incomprehensible to a large number of Croats not living in the

Page 10069

1 [Open session]

2 MR. SCOTT: I didn't want to interrupt but, because we have a

3 short pause, can I also ask for a redaction please on page 86, lines 9 to

4 13. It was right before we went into private session previously when a

5 couple of things were said. It shouldn't cause a delay because this

6 should be our last session of the day, but I would ask for that, please.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please check, Mr. Registrar.

8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. So you two women alone walked on that day four or five kilometres

10 one way and the same distance back. And I believe for everybody in this

11 courtroom, including the Trial Chamber, it is important to find out what

12 happened on that road. Did you see any military units stationary or

13 movement?

14 A. Yes. I saw their vehicles moving. Around the schoolhouse there

15 was a lot of troops.

16 Q. Witness, could you please describe the road to Sovici? And when

17 we get to Sovici, we'll deal with that description. For the moment, you

18 are walking from Doljani to Sovici. Did you see movements of any armed

19 units? Did you see any tanks, cannons? What did you see?

20 A. No. You couldn't see that when you walked, but I saw that on the

21 day of the attack, a tank coming down from Sovici.

22 Q. But what did you see on the 18th?

23 A. Not much, just their vehicles and troops on vehicles. They did

24 not intercept us. They did not provoke us in any way. They just let us

25 walk in peace.

Page 10070

1 Q. Do you remember the number of the vehicles or troops?

2 A. I can't tell you that.

3 Q. I'm not looking for an exact number. Was there a convoy, 50?

4 A. Yes, a number.

5 Q. Would it be correct to say that there were 10 or 15 vehicles?

6 A. Around that number.

7 Q. What kind of vehicles?

8 A. Jeeps, for the most part, or military vans.

9 Q. Do you remember, maybe, how many people there were in each of the

10 vehicles?

11 A. No.

12 Q. How large were those vehicles? What was their holding capacity?

13 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you that. I know nothing about these

14 things.

15 Q. Tell me, did you hear shelling of another area? Did you hear any

16 noise that would indicate that there was fighting in the vicinity?

17 A. Yes. I even saw shells falling, although, until that day, I

18 didn't see what a -- I didn't know what a shell was.

19 Q. Where did you see shells?

20 A. At first, they fell on Sovici.

21 Q. You mean on the 18th?

22 A. No, on the 17th.

23 Q. No, no. Leave alone the 18th -- the 17th. We're talking about

24 the 18th.

25 A. Why would there be fighting on the 18th? They wouldn't be

Page 10071

1 fighting each other, would they?

2 Q. So on that day there was no fighting that you noticed?

3 A. No.

4 Q. I would like now to discuss with you this evacuation of the

5 residents of Doljani. Tell me, please, did there come a time when you

6 were visited by any kind of delegation, military or civilian, on behalf of

7 the Croatian army, the HVO, or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ask

8 you about your health and if you need anything?

9 A. No, never.

10 Q. Tell me, did you hear that, in the beginning of May, the main man

11 of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina came to that area, Mr. Sefer

12 Halilovic, and the commander of HVO, my client, Mr. Petkovic, accompanied

13 by foreign observers, did you hear of their presence there?

14 A. Yes, I did, but only on the bus in Vran. Those people, our

15 escorts, were talking and saying that Sefer Halilovic and this defendant

16 of yours --

17 Q. Now, tell me, Witness, did you hear what they were talking about

18 there?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Did you hear maybe what kind of agreement was reached between Mr.

21 Halilovic and Mr. Petkovic?

22 A. No. Why would anybody tell me?

23 Q. Well, the person who told you about their visit to Sovici could

24 have told you that.

25 A. It was a Croatian soldier on the bus in Vran.

Page 10072

1 Q. Did that Croatian soldier tell you on the bus at that moment

2 because that was agreed between Halilovic and Petkovic?

3 A. No, he wasn't talking to me at all in the first place. The

4 soldiers were talking amongst themselves. I was just sitting nearby and

5 overheard it.

6 Q. Could you conclude from their conversation that all of that was

7 organised because that was agreed between Halilovic and Petkovic?

8 A. No. They didn't say anything about that. They only said that

9 these men had come to the schoolhouse. Nobody mentioned any agreement.

10 One of the men interrupted the other and said, "I know," and there was no

11 more talk about it.

12 Q. Witness, I would like to remind you of a document that you have

13 seen recently. It is signed by my client, Milivoj Petkovic. It concerns

14 that group of five buses, if you remember it. If you don't remember it,

15 we can look at the document again. It's P 02200.

16 According to that document, the question is asked concerning those

17 buses that were to drive the residents of Sovici and Doljani towards

18 Jablanica.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Although I understand from your answers that you couldn't be aware

21 of the agreements, is it logical that this question about buses to

22 Jablanica was asked because there was an agreement to organise those buses

23 to Jablanica?

24 A. I have no clue. If there was an agreement, then why did they drag

25 us back?

Page 10073

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

2 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. I think this has gone on long

3 enough. The witness has repeatedly said she doesn't know. And the same

4 question has been put over and over again, I think, and especially in the

5 interest of time, I think that we should move on to something more

6 significant.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, if you are

8 producing this document, is it that you want to send a message to the

9 Trial Chamber that there was an agreement between Petkovic and Halilovic

10 whereby your client envisaged a transport for these persons? Is that the

11 point?

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the course of

13 questioning Mr. Idrizovic, we produced a document from the army of Bosnia

14 and Herzegovina reflecting meetings and the visit to Sovici on the 4th of

15 May, 1993, and from that document, it clearly follows that there was an

16 agreement between Mr. Halilovic and Mr. Petkovic, that those residents of

17 Doljani and Sovici would be evacuated to Jablanica. From other documents

18 and some pending documents that will later be introduced through witnesses

19 from this locality, it will be clear that people in Doljani and Sovici

20 were asked where they wanted to go, whether some of them wanted to go

21 home, perhaps, and they said they wanted to go to Jablanica, and that's

22 why the buses were placed at their disposal.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness has answered

24 reluctantly, and let me put it once again.

25 On the 4th of May, Generals Halilovic and Petkovic met and reached

Page 10074

1 an agreement. According to that agreement, the residents of Doljani and

2 Sovici were to be transported to Jablanica. What do you think about that?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, why didn't they comply with

4 that agreement? If I may ask a question.

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. We'll try to establish that later. That's why I started with this

7 document to see --

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think the Prosecutor is right. We're

9 absolutely getting nowhere, and I must tell you that I can also not see at

10 all, not from far away, how the document 2200 proves any agreement. It is

11 a question. Your client does not know where buses come from. That's what

12 it says, and it's -- it's really rather difficult to understand, frankly.

13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I just said is

14 not proven by this document. I referenced another document of the army of

15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is in fact a report on what happened on the

16 4th of May, 1993. This document is not here now, but it states clearly

17 that there was an agreement. It's a document we used with witness --

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could we agree that we stick to the documents

19 that we have, because it's complicated enough as it is, and to refer to

20 documents that we do not have, is not conducive to the establishment of

21 the truth, I'm sorry.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that this

23 document has not been prepared for this witness, because I did not

24 originally intend to ask this question of her in this way, but at this

25 moment, my intention is to establish why those people were not taken to

Page 10075

1 Jablanica directly and why they instead went to Gornji Vakuf.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that something you're asking me?

3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. No. I'll try to proceed slowly and maybe we'll come to an answer.

5 Tell me, during your trip, did you go by the road from Doljani to

6 Jablanica at least part of the time?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Tell me, which road did the buses take immediately?

9 A. The buses were at Risovac, and we were brought to them by trucks.

10 Q. And when did the buses set off from Risovac?

11 A. They went towards Duvno. I don't know. It was night-time. We

12 were going generally towards Jablanica.

13 Q. Did anybody stop you on the road? Were there any check-points?

14 A. How would I know?

15 Q. You don't know.

16 A. Why would they stop us? There were no check-point of ours. There

17 were only Croats there. Who would stop their buses? They knew perfectly

18 well what was going on, where we were going, where we were being driven.

19 If they didn't know, why would they have left us at Sicaja.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Following up on the question

21 asked by Ms. Alaburic, she intended to prove through documents that you

22 were to go to Jablanica. Tell us, that road that you took, then, was it

23 the direct, shortest way to Jablanica or not?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say no. Why wasn't it the

Page 10076

1 shortest, direct way?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The shortest way is steep uphill,

3 and we didn't take that way.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you didn't take that road.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Never mind, Witness. We'll try to establish what exactly happened

8 through other witnesses.

9 Now, I would like to clarify some details concerning your house in

10 Doljani. Tell me, your house in Doljani was not damaged on the day of the

11 attack?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Your house was not even damaged at the moment when you were

14 leaving Doljani?

15 A. No.

16 Q. After leaving Doljani, you first saw your house again three years

17 later?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And only then did you see that it was damaged?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you know what happened around Doljani in the meantime? For

22 instance, are you aware that in July, 1993, the army of Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina captured Doljani?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So you're aware of that?

Page 10077

1 A. Yes, I am.

2 Q. On the basis of that, is it fair to conclude that your house was

3 neither damaged nor destroyed in that April or May, 1993?

4 A. Right.

5 Q. Now I would like us to look at another document that was shown to

6 you by the Prosecutor earlier today. It's 2063.

7 A. 2063. I just don't understand why I have to read it.

8 Q. No, you don't have to read it. I will do that. I will read the

9 part that is relevant to my question. One passage that the Prosecutor

10 didn't show you, which is the last one in this first paragraph. It

11 says: "After the cessation of hostilities in this area, all Muslim houses

12 were set on fire and two mosques were destroyed under orders of superior

13 commanders."

14 What I'm interested in are the words "under orders of superior

15 commanders." But before I ask my question, please bear with me while I

16 give you a brief introduction, which will also contain some information

17 relevant for the record.

18 In the closing arguments in the trial against Tuta Naletilic on

19 the 28th of October, 2002, in the transcript, page 1660 and the next page,

20 1661, the Prosecutor said the following verbatim: "Precisely with

21 reference to this document and retelling its contents," and that document

22 in that trial was Exhibit P333, he said, "The highest commander in that

23 operation was Tuta Naletilic."

24 You, madam, also mentioned the name of Tuta today apart from the

25 things you've already told us. From what you know, was Tuta some sort of

Page 10078

1 commander?

2 A. I don't know.

3 Q. You cannot tell us anything about that?

4 A. No. Some soldiers did come and said they were Tuta's soldiers.

5 That's all I know.

6 Q. Did you notice any difference between your local people from the

7 HVO and the men who introduced themselves as belonging to Tuta's units?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What was the difference?

10 A. They were extremely strict and harsh with us.

11 Q. Who was?

12 A. Those who said they were Tuta's soldiers. There was a big

13 difference between the neighbours who stood guard over us and the time

14 when they were replaced by Tuta's soldiers.

15 Q. Did they come on the 21st of April, like four or five days after

16 the attack?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you ever hear that Tuta's deputy got killed and that's why

19 Tuta's men were very nervous, and they wanted to go into action? Did you

20 hear anything about that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Tell us.

23 A. I asked him, "Why is this going on? Why are you setting the

24 village on fire?" And he said, "Tuta's soldier got killed."

25 Q. Did they mention his name? Was it maybe Cikota?

Page 10079

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is that the man who got killed?

3 A. I just remember that the name was mentioned. Whether it was his

4 or somebody else who got killed, I don't know.

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further

6 questions, unless my client has something to add. No. Thank you,

7 Witness.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would just like to clarify one

9 point, Witness. You said that, at the outset, you could confirm that your

10 house was not damaged or destroyed in April or May because the ABiH took

11 over in -- July, and you said your house could not have been destroyed in

12 that period. Now, speaking of Tuta's soldiers, you say on page 105, line

13 19, that you asked a soldier, "Why are you setting the village on fire?"

14 And the soldier answered, "Well, because one of Tuta's men was killed."

15 So the conclusion is that when you're asking this question it's

16 April and the village is on fire or burnt down. So when you say that the

17 village was burnt down, was it Doljani, your village, that you're talking

18 about?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, Doljani and Sovici. I

20 asked them why they had set fire to the villages. I meant both the

21 villages.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Fine. Now, the two

23 villages, Doljani and Sovici, were set on fire in what month according to

24 you? When was that? What month?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the conflict. As soon as they

Page 10080

1 took the men to Ljubuski, they started setting fire to the village --

2 villages.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, after the conflict,

4 what date would that be exactly? Would that be the 18th, 19th, 20th of

5 April.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the 19th, 20th, 21st,

7 somewhere around there. I would say that it was probably the 20th. I

8 don't remember the dates because there were a lot of awful things going

9 on, but anyway.

10 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Previous translation continues] ... take too much

11 time, but this issue can probably be clarified as follows: (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted). Isn't it right that some

15 of the houses probably belonged to your family, relatives? They were not

16 burnt down but there in those houses about 400 -- yes, I'm sorry. I did

17 mention the name. But anyway, it is important, because as far as I

18 remember, during the first hours of the questions and answers, it was

19 mentioned that these houses were kept and about 400 people had been

20 crammed or crowded there. So it is my question, if it was one of the

21 reasons why your house has not been burnt, but it was in a way probably

22 later on when it happened. So it is my question that -- that that is the

23 issue here. Thank you.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's it, yes, because two

25 months later -- two months after everything my house was set on fire.

Page 10081

1 After we had left, two months later our house was burnt down and the other

2 seven -- well, where the civilians were put up, the women, the children,

3 two months later, the houses, our houses, were set on fire.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said two months later your

5 house was burnt down. Now, as far as the Judges are concerned, we have to

6 establish who torched your house, the HVO or the BH army. According to

7 you, who was it who did that?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the BH army couldn't reach my

9 house at all. Doljani hadn't been attacked then when they set fire to

10 this two months later. It couldn't have been anybody else except the HVO.

11 Now, who exactly, I can't say. I'd like to know that myself, who actually

12 set fire to them.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Madam, a while ago, questioned by counsel, you

14 have said that you left Doljani with your house intact and you never got

15 back until three years later and, that in the meantime, the ABiH had taken

16 Doljani. The implication of this was --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The implication of this, of course, is that it is

19 possible that your house was burned down by the ABiH. But right now, you

20 have said that three months after you have left, your house was burned

21 down. On what information do you base this assertion? How do you know?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that. I know who stayed on

23 in the other villages, those belonging to Prozor. They couldn't stay

24 there any more because they began to ask for them, and the people who

25 would go at night across that territory, I was told by them that our

Page 10086

1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] That will be Exhibit number IC 77,

2 Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Does the Defence

4 wish to tender any documents? No. I understand it that they do not.

5 Fine.

6 Now, madam, your -- yes, is there a document?

7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no documents to be

8 tendered, but I have an objection to one of the exhibits, but I'd like to

9 challenge its authenticity, but my explanation would last longer than 10

10 minutes.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is that? What document?

12 No. Just a minute. The Judges are professionals and they'll be able to

13 understand your objections in three minutes. What document are you

14 referring to?

15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, it would be difficult to do

16 that in three minutes because I have to show you two exhibits in order to

17 explain why I am objecting and it is P 02063 that I'm objecting to. It is

18 the last exhibit that we were discussing.

19 Can we have the document on e-court for a moment, P 02063.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have it in front of us. Now,

21 why are you challenging that?

22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm challenging the authenticity of

23 the document because I consider that this document was not compiled by

24 Marko Rozic, and I would like to indicate some of the details which are

25 obvious, spring to view immediately.

Page 10087

1 If you look at the memorandum or immediately underneath the

2 number, the protocol number, it says "defence department," "department of

3 defence" and you will see that it is the representative of the department

4 of defence which assigns this and it's not the same department. That's a

5 notorious fact.

6 Now, in what was shown to the witness today, that portion, it was

7 stated that all the Muslim houses were set on fire, and this witness told

8 us today indubitably that the Junuzovici houses remained intact along with

9 four other houses where they were put up.

10 In order to show that it is an exhibit which was not authentic and

11 was not signed by Mr. Rozic, I would like, if possible, is to take a look

12 at and have placed on e-court a document that was signed by Mr. Rozic to

13 compare the two documents and you'll be able to see that the signatures

14 are different. It is document 3D 00563. Their Honours have the document

15 before them, the hard copy of the document, and by comparing the two

16 signatures, they will be able to conclude, and we can leave this Croatian

17 document with the signature on e-court and just -- and place the second

18 document on e-court with Marko Rozic's signature, so that we can compare

19 the two.

20 Furthermore, I would like to have shown another document on

21 e-court, 3D 00562. It is a report from Mostar dated the 23rd of April,

22 1993, compiled at 1800 hours. And from that document, we can see that the

23 person in question who would have been signed or, as it says in P 00263,

24 that the document was signed by Marko Rozic, the report relates to the

25 23rd of April, 1993, at 12 hours -- 1200 hours.

Page 10088

1 From document 3D 00562, that is to say, the report, we can see

2 that Marko Rozic, on the 23rd of April, was held up at the check-point by

3 the tobacco factory in Mostar. He was held there by the military police

4 of the BH army. They asked for his credentials, wrote down his name, and

5 detained him there for the next few hours. So that he was detained at

6 10.00. I'm trying to speed up, so I'm not going to read through this

7 whole document. You have the document in front of us.

8 He was detained at 10.30 hours. It says what procedure was

9 applied, and Marko Rozic, therefore, on the 24th or, rather, the 23rd of

10 April at 12.00 could not have been in Jablanica and could not have

11 compiled the other document.

12 I would also like to indicate that the document was the subject of

13 discussion in the Tuta and Stela trial, and I'd like to refer to the

14 transcript of the 14th of October, 2002, the page number is 16489.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel, in order to speed up,

16 you say that the document was the subject of discussion in the previous

17 trial. I understood it that it was admitted under P333, that that was the

18 number it was admitted under. So what you've said is that there was

19 already a discussion on that issue; is that right?

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right. Regardless

21 of that, I know that it was adopted and admitted into evidence under the

22 number P333. I am nonetheless highlighting these elements. It is my

23 right to do so, and all I want to say is that the witness in the Tuta and

24 Stela trial was shown this document and the witness said that it was not

25 Rozic's signature and another document was shown him [as interpreted] from

Page 10089

1 which they were able to see that that was an authentic signature. So I

2 wish to challenge the authenticity of this exhibit based on the documents

3 that were presented here today. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We've understood

5 your objection, and the Chamber will deliberate on the matter.

6 Thank you, madam, for coming to testify here, called by the

7 Prosecution. Thank you for testifying about the events that took place in

8 your locality. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish you all the best in

9 returning home to your country.

10 Before you leave, we have to lower the blinds once again.

11 And we adjourn for the day and start at 2.15 tomorrow with another

12 witness. There will be three hours of examination-in-chief and three

13 hours of cross-examination.

14 I wish you all a very pleasant evening and would like to tell you

15 that the Chamber has -- will have a decision on the duration of the trial

16 which we invite you to read when you have the time to do so.

17 Thank you. We reconvene tomorrow afternoon at 2.15.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day

20 of November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.