1 Tuesday, 18 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 8.32 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to everyone in and
9 around the courtroom.
10 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Vojislav Seselj. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today is Tuesday, November
13 18th, 2008. Good morning to the Prosecution, Mr. Mundis and
14 Mr. Dutertre. Good morning to everyone assisting us in this case. Good
15 morning to Mr. Seselj.
16 This week, we are going to have as our first witness Ms. Bilic,
17 an expert witness. Then we'll have a lady who will testify about
18 Hrtkovci, and we'll complete the week with Anna Maria Radic, our second
19 expert witness. And with respect to this last witness, Anna Maria Radic,
20 I have a number of questions to put to Mr. Seselj. I know that he has
21 requested some time to deal with a number of issues today, and my
22 question may be one of the questions he wanted to raise.
23 With respect to Witness Radic, on the 16th of June, 2008
24 Trial Chamber allowed the replacement of Ivan Grujic by Visnja Bilic and
25 Anna Maria Radic as expert witnesses called by the Prosecution to testify
1 in relation to exhumations and identification processes in Croatia
2 missing persons.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Displaced persons.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the 13th of November, 2008
5 the Trial Chamber, having allowed Visnja Bilic to be called as an expert
6 to testify on the 18th of November, 2008, the accused stated that it
7 would be ideal for both witnesses to testify one after the other:
8 "It would be easier for me," he said, "to prepare myself for my
9 cross-examination." Transcript page in French 11754.
10 Anna Maria Radic's report and the relevant documents were
11 disclosed to the accused in his own language on the 13th and 14th of
12 November, 2008, by the Prosecution.
13 On the 17th of November, 2008, the Prosecution disclosed
14 Anna Maria Radic's report pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Rules and
15 requested for this report and the relevant documents to be added to the
16 65 ter list. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, B/C/S
17 translation of this motion has not as yet been given or submitted to the
19 Anna Maria Radic, being scheduled to testify on the 20th of
20 November, 2008, and the times to respond having not -- not having been
21 complied with, the Trial Chamber has the following questions to put to
22 Mr. Seselj: Do you challenge the additions to the 65 ter lists requested
23 by the Prosecution?
24 Secondly, do you accept the expert witness report of
25 Anna Maria Radic?
1 Thirdly, do you wish to cross-examine her?
2 Fourthly, do you challenge the qualifications of Ms. Radic as an
3 expert witness?
4 And, finally, do you challenge the relevance of her report? Five
5 questions in total, and I'm sure you can give us one response for these
6 five questions.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps I misheard.
8 At one point, I understood that the Prosecution had asked for the report
9 of Anna Maria Radic to be introduced as 92 bis.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, not 92 bis. 94 bis.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, then, maybe I
12 misunderstood something or the interpreter said something wrong. I can't
13 be sure which.
14 You know my permanent handicap caused by the administrative ban
15 on communication with my associates, and it is still ongoing. This is a
16 disruption which has grown into an objective disruption, and I believe it
17 is not so great for me to ask a suspension of the proceedings. I'm
18 coping quite well with Prosecution witnesses, even without the
19 cooperation of anyone from the outside world, outside the prison and
20 outside the courtroom.
21 Of course, in the dilemma between the quality of defence in case
22 1 and case 2, the prevailing factor for me is the expedience of the trial
23 with a high-quality defence or slowing down of the trial with
24 super-quality defence. It would be better, of course, for me to have
25 communication with my advisers. But the report of Anna Maria Radic was
1 given to me, was given to me last Friday; and I have nothing against her
2 continuing as a Prosecution witness. I challenge the addition of new
3 65 ter documents, according to the motion of the Prosecution, but that's
4 because I challenge and dispute all Prosecution motions. In this case, I
5 have no particular reason to challenge this evidence proffered by the
6 Prosecution. I would challenge evidence of good weather if they
7 submitted it.
8 I challenged the expertise of Anna Maria Radic, and I will prove
9 that she is not qualified. I do not accept her report. And there again
10 I come across a very serious problem. The report has no title, just as
11 Visnja Bilic's report has no title. Neither you nor I know the topic of
12 their respective reports. It's all a bit hazy. Certain questions were
13 asked of them, as in a quiz. They answered these questions, but there is
14 no subject of the expert report. We have never come across such a case
15 again. Every expert report had a certain topic, a subject. These two
16 have none. Two women sat down and wrote down what they wanted to write.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me interrupt you,
18 Mr. Seselj.
19 If you will look at the documents we have and the documents you
20 have, we find a letter by Ms. Dahl. Ms. Dahl is not here today, but
21 Mr. Mundis can speak on her behalf. And Ms. Dahl wrote to the expert
22 witness and requested or, rather, asked a whole series of questions and
23 requested very specific answers. If you look at this letter, you will
24 realise that it's the outline of the report of the expert witness. I'm
25 sure you've received Ms. Dahl's letter in your language, because it must
1 have been translated, and I would encourage you to read through all the
2 questions raised by Ms. Dahl and put by Ms. Dahl to the expert witness,
3 asking her to provide answers to these questions.
4 I wanted to point that out to you, when I hear you say that you
5 do not quite see what the point of the expert witness report is. But
6 later on Mr. Dutertre will put questions to the expert witness, and as
7 part of the cross-examination you'll be able to deal with all this. The
8 Judges will put questions, so we'll be able to explore all this very
10 Let me give back the floor to you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, everything is
12 crystal clear to me. I do not challenge that these two expert reports
13 have a skeleton. I understand the questions asked by Christine Dahl of
14 Anna Marie Bilic [as interpreted]. There is no title in my view. An
15 expert report first of all has to have a title. There has to be a topic
16 of an expert report, and the topic has to be set out in the title. That
17 is missing. Abd that's what I wanted to point out. The skeleton does
18 exist. What kind of skeleton, we'll see in cross-examination.
19 Furthermore, I told you already I reject both reports, including
20 the Anna Maria Radic report. I insist to cross-examine her. I
21 challenged the relevance of her report, and one of the administrative
22 issues I had announced is this: I am astounded that only half an hour
23 has been given me to cross-examine an expert, Anna Maria Bilic
24 [as interpreted]. I need much more time. We are dealing with an expert.
25 How can I question an expert in half an hour? Of course I'll demonstrate
1 that she's not an expert, but until I've proven that, she stands here as
2 an expert, and of course I need more time.
3 And speaking of experts, expert reports are proffered into
4 evidence as a whole, and the Prosecution does not need as much time as
5 Defence does. The Defence needs much more time, especially since I had
6 no opportunity to respond to her expert report, as I had the opportunity
7 with Oberschall or Theunens or some others.
8 In those cases, I had engaged my own experts, who assisted me in
9 preparing my response to these expert reports. So I need more than half
10 an hour. I don't know how much you envisaged for Anna Maria Radic. I'll
11 need more than half an hour.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult my fellow Judges
13 about this.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After considering the matter,
16 the Trial Chamber rules that the Prosecutor will have three-quarters of
17 an hour to put questions to the witness. The Trial Chamber takes note of
18 the fact that we have a report, we have related documents, and that the
19 Prosecutor will be able, within 45 minutes, to present the report and to
20 highlight a number of key documents. As for you, Mr. Seselj, you will
21 have an hour and a half, one hour and a half, to cross-examine the
23 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you that we have already
24 heard evidence about exhumations, about all the steps taken to identify
25 the victims. Therefore, this expert report is in line with other
1 evidence we've heard in this trial. Within this hour and a half, thus,
2 we believe you will have ample time to cross-examine the witness, even
3 more so that on Thursday we'll have another witness who will talk about a
4 related subject. I believe that in an hour and a half, you will have all
5 the time necessary to put your questions, knowing that the Judges will
6 also put questions to the witness. I, myself, have a very relevant
7 question to put to the witness. I can immediately tell you what it is so
8 that you'll be able to prepare yourself.
9 When reading this report, I realised that in Croatia, there were
10 several detention centres and various sites where bodies were exhumed.
11 Therefore, we have many more victims than only the victims found at
12 Ovcara. And based on this question of mine, the witness may be able to
13 provide information I would like to have and that I find missing about
14 the scope and the total number of victims and identified bodies. That's
15 why this witness is so relevant.
16 Yes, Mr. Dutertre.
17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning. Good
18 morning to Mr. Seselj.
19 Let me make a few comments.
20 First of all, the report was submitted to Mr. Seselj a long time
21 ago. If he wanted to make written submissions, he would have the time to
22 do so.
23 Secondly, the report has not as yet been admitted into evidence.
24 It's up to the Prosecution to put questions to the witness and ask for
25 its submissions.
1 Thirdly, what is important is what questions the witness answered
2 to in her report.
3 With respect of the time allocated to Mr. Seselj, it's up to the
4 Chamber to decide. Then with respect to the detention centre and
5 exhumation sites, we have called the witness to talk to us about the
6 armed conflict and the victims, and that's why we are going to -- we've
7 called this witness.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm satisfied with the hour and a
10 half you've given me. That will be enough, and I hope I will get as much
11 to cross-examine Anna Maria Radic.
12 I wanted to raise another issue regarding these administrative
14 The Prosecution again submitted to me a revised sequence of
15 Prosecution witnesses through end of December. Some new names appear
16 here, and I have to protest that for Witness VS-1007, the Prosecution
17 envisaged his testifying under 92 ter. I don't know what has been
18 confirmed, that the witness will come or that he will testify under
19 92 ter. All I know is that a year ago, you decided that this witness
20 should appear viva voce. And I still insist on his testifying viva voce,
21 because he was a prominent political figure during the war, and
22 especially today he's a prominent political figure in one of the states
23 that resulted from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, and it would be
24 really scandalous for that person to just come in and out of the
25 courtroom under 92 ter, whereas I believe that such an important
1 political figure has to testify publicly in full. That's Witness 1007,
2 and out of an abundance of caution I will not mention his name.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall consider the matter.
4 I had no idea that VS-1007 was such a relevant and prominent personality.
5 We'll review the decision we took, a decision where we decided which
6 witnesses would testify viva voce and which witnesses we decide pursuant
7 to 92 ter. You state that we decided that that witness should testify
8 viva voce. You're saying that the Prosecution is challenging this
9 decision. Since the witness is not coming tomorrow, we'll have a few
10 days to re-explore the matter.
11 Mr. Mundis.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Good morning, Your Honours, Dr. Seselj, and everyone in and
14 around the courtroom.
15 On the 11th of November, 2008, the Prosecution filed a 92 ter
16 motion with respect to Witness VS-1007. This was based upon the Trial
17 Chamber's decision of 7 January 2008
18 which the Prosecution proposed to tender in written form.
19 With respect to VS-1007, in its decision of 7 January 2008, the
20 Trial Chamber did deny that application for 92 ter with respect to this
21 witness. However, he was among the category of witnesses for which the
22 Trial Chamber specifically allowed the Prosecution to reapply, and that
23 is what we have done as of the 11th of November, 2008; that is, last
24 week. We have reapplied pursuant to the Trial Chamber's specific
25 authorisation allowing us to do that in its decision of 7 January 2008.
1 I would expect and hope that CLSS would be making a translation of that
2 motion available to the accused so that he can respond to that in
3 writing, but I will indicate that a motion has been filed pursuant to the
4 Trial Chamber's decision of 7 January.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As I told you earlier, the
6 Trial Chamber will consider this motion and the relevant statement, based
7 on the factors used by the Trial Chamber. When a witness challenges a
8 the conduct of the accused, fairness dictates that the accused should be
9 able to cross-examine the witness. And since Mr. Seselj has decided not
10 to cross-examine 92 ter witnesses, we have to be extremely cautious in
11 that respect, because our guiding light in this Chamber is to establish
12 the truth, and that's what we should be all working for, to establish the
14 So I'm going to review this statement extremely carefully, and
15 we'll either decide to maintain our decision as it is or to hear the
16 witness viva voce. But it will all depend, of course, on the statement,
17 and I don't have the statement in front of me because I had no idea the
18 matter would be raised this morning.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would now like to
20 tell you something important, but first of all you should insist that the
21 Prosecutor inform you whether this witness is planned as a protected
22 witness and whether he enjoys any protective measures, because I was not
23 explicitly informed on that issue. I only know that he is listed under a
24 code name, a pseudonym.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have no idea. Are there
1 specific measures with respect to that witness? I don't have his details
2 in front of me.
3 MR. MUNDIS: Nor do I at this moment, Mr. President.
4 Perhaps if I could make a suggestion. I would anticipate that
5 during the course of this week, there will be some time available for us
6 to discuss this matter or any other pending matters. We do have a
7 witness who's waiting to testify, and with all due respect I would
8 suggest that we commence with that. Again, with three witnesses
9 scheduled this week, I do anticipate we'll have some time, perhaps
10 tomorrow or even Thursday, that we could address this or any other matter
11 that the accused would like to raise. But I would respectfully suggest
12 that we get on with the witness that's scheduled for today.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right, Mr. Mundis.
14 We are going to hear the witness now.
15 I always have my file in front of me, and I can tell you that
16 with respect to VS-107 [as interpreted], no protective measures have been
18 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for being so
20 conscientious and having all the information handy, the information that
21 the Prosecutor doesn't.
22 I can say it's Sulejman Tihic, who is the successor of Alija
23 Izetbegovic as president of the SDA party. He is a key political figure
24 for Bosniak Muslims today; and such a key figure should not appear under
25 92 ter, with the Prosecution compiling his statement and that statement
1 going directly into evidence. The Prosecution would have not put him on
2 the witness list were he not important. Since he is on the witness list,
3 he is a very important witness to me, and that's why I insist that
4 Sulejman Tihic testify viva voce.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have noted your submissions.
6 We are going to review the matter, and we'll let you know what we decide
7 very shortly. Don't worry about this.
8 Let's now have the witness brought in.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning. Could you please
11 state your first name, last name, and date of birth.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Visnja Bilic. I was
13 born on the 20th of December --
14 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear the witness. There is a lot of
15 paper shuffling in the microphone.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a professor of psychology by
19 occupation, but currently I'm working as head of department in the
20 Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons at the Ministry for
21 Inter-generational Solidarity.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your date of birth has not been
23 properly recorded. Could you please repeat it.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 20th November 1966.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Witness, have you already testified before a national or an
2 international tribunal about the events that took place in the former
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never before testified
5 before a court of law.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. What you have just
7 said has been recorded.
8 Please read out the solemn declaration. The usher is going to
9 show you the solemn declaration, and I would like you to read it out.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: VISNJA BILIC
13 [The witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may
15 be seated.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let give you some information
18 about the way we are going to proceed today. You've just stated that
19 you've never testified before, and this is probably something you will
20 remember for the rest of your life. I would like to give you all the
21 necessary information about the way we are going to proceed for your
22 testimony to run as smoothly as possible.
23 You've probably met with the Prosecutor already. Later on, he
24 will put questions to you. You've met him as part of the preparation of
25 your testimony. The Prosecutor will put questions to you and show you a
1 number of documents. This is a classical or typical phase of testimony
2 that usually runs extremely smoothly.
3 It may happen that the Judges put a number of questions to you
4 themselves, based on the questions put to you by the Prosecutor or based
5 on the documents. When the Judges put questions to the witness, there's
6 usually no problem.
7 Now, a tricky stage of the testimony is usually the
8 cross-examination. Mr. Seselj happens to be representing himself. As a
9 result, he will be putting questions to you himself. Let it be very
10 clear for you. Mr. Seselj is entitled to challenge your credibility.
11 He's entitled to put questions about your qualifications. Some of the
12 questions may be a bit disturbing, a bit embarrassing, but that's the way
13 it goes during a cross-examination. The accused is also entitled to deal
14 with matters of substance based on his case, on his Defence case; and he
15 will most probably, because he told us he will do so, he will most
16 probably challenge the substance, the content of your report. Following
17 that, the Prosecution will, if he decides to do so, put additional
18 questions to you.
19 That's the way we're going to proceed for your testimony. Rest
20 assured that the Judges are always in control, including during
21 cross-examination, and if one or the other parties oversteps the mark,
22 the Judges are here to intervene and to call every man back to order.
23 We are dealing with the concept of exhumations, identification of
24 victims. It's very technical subject matter and should not give rise to
25 diatribes and speeches, because we're dealing here with a very technical
1 topic. And since we are dealing with such a topic, please try to be
2 extremely specific when you answer the questions. If you to not
3 understand the question, ask for the question to be rephrased, even if
4 the person asking the question is a Judge.
5 We have breaks every 90 minutes. We started this morning at
6 8.30. The first break, therefore, will happen at 10.00 a.m., in one hour
7 time. And we have 20-minute breaks.
8 Of course, the Trial Chamber is always ready to listen to you.
9 If at any point in time you feel unwell, raise your hand immediately and
10 we'll adjourn for a little while to allow you to rest.
11 I think I've covered everything.
12 Mr. Dutertre, you have the floor.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [No interpretation].
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apologies. I was on the wrong
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] So we have 45 minutes to go
17 through your report, Mrs. Bilic.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.
19 MR. DUTERTRE: Shall I repeat what I said?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please do so.
21 Examination by Mr. Dutertre:
22 Q. Mrs. Bilic, we have 45 minutes to go through your report and the
23 appendix, and please make very short and very brief answers, very concise
25 You will shed light on the question of detained persons and
1 missing persons who were gone missing during the conflict in Croatia
2 between 1991 and 1995. And you will also be giving your insight on the
3 means that were implemented to find them again. This aspect, of course,
4 is very -- of great importance to the Judges, who will have to rule on
5 the Ovcara massacre.
6 There are two binders that are on your right. One is labelled in
7 blue, blue print and marked with a "1," and the other one has a red print
8 label and is marked with a "2." And to make it easier to know which
9 binder I'm talking about, I'll ask you to refer to document X in the red
10 binder or document Y in the blue binder. In these binders, you will find
11 a number of documents that can be identified with a number, and in our
12 jargon here we call it the 65 ter number.
13 So this being said, let me move to a few general questions,
14 Ms. Bilic, first on your resume and also on the Administration for
15 Missing Persons, the administration in charge of the matters we are
16 interested in today.
17 A very short question to start with, could you please tell us
18 what is the present name of the Croat state entities who today deal with
19 people that went missing during the conflict in Croatia between 1991 and
21 A. That is the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons of
22 the Ministry for Family, War Veterans and Inter-generational Solidarity,
23 as a body performing professional and administrative affairs linked to
24 the tracing of missing persons. And the other body is the Administration
25 of the government -- the Commission of the Government of Croatia
1 Detainees and Missing Persons as an independent government body of the
2 Republic of Croatia
3 Q. Thank you. Could you now take a look at the first document in
4 the blue binder, binder number 1, and look at document 7278 in the 65 ter
5 list. Ms. Bilic, is this your resume?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Three short questions. You answered a question from
8 the Presiding Judge, saying that you were head of the administrative
9 department in the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons. I'd
10 like to know exactly when you started working within this organisation in
11 charge of detainees and missing persons.
12 A. On the 3rd of October, 1993.
13 Q. Thank you. If I read your resume correctly, you were appointed
14 at the head of the Department for Detainees and Missing Persons in 1995.
15 Is that true?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. So if my math is right, you've been dealing with this issue for
18 15 years. Is that it?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
21 tender this resume. And since she's already been qualified as an expert,
22 I will not go into this.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, to speed things
24 up, you might -- you should maybe do the tendering at the end of your
25 examination, rather than having this ping-pong game where we ask the
1 Registrar for a number and then have the number, and so forth and so on.
2 It would be faster to tender everything at one time after your
3 examination. Just say, "I would like to tender documents such-and-such
4 and such-and-such" at the end of your examination. That way, if need be,
5 Mr. Seselj can raise a comprehensive objection. Otherwise, he may raise
6 objections for each document, and we will waste a lot of time.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if there's a global
8 objection, unfortunately it's very imprecise, and then we have to
9 re-discuss every document one after another. But if you want me to work
10 this way, I will make a global tendering at the end.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On your resume, I have a
12 question, Ms. Witness. In 1991, you got a psychology diploma. It's a
13 social psychology degree. So could you please tell us how psychology
14 studies are going to have a link with missing persons? Could you give us
15 the link?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1993, I started working in what
17 was then the Office of the Government of Croatia for the Victims of War
18 as an adviser and a psychologist in the Department for Missing Persons.
19 However, as this was a state administration, as time went by, I became an
20 employee in that body, that is to say, the state administration; and that
21 is how I began working in the field of detainees and missing persons
22 further afield as a broader investigation, not just a psychologist.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Ms. Bilic, at first, at the very beginning in 1991, could you
1 tell us the name given by the Croat administrative authorities to this
2 organisation that had been set up to deal with missing persons?
3 A. In 1991, in the Republic of Croatia
4 Two commissions, in fact, dealing with the question of detainees and
5 missing persons. One was the Commission for Handling Persons Detained in
6 Armed Conflicts in the Republic of Croatia
7 Commission for Tracing Persons Missing in Combat Actions in the Republic
8 of Croatia
9 Q. Thank you. So if I understand, organisations were set up
10 extremely quickly. Now, could you give us an approximative number,
11 approximative, I repeat, of administrative changes this organisation in
12 charge of tracing missing persons went through between 1991 and 2008? I
13 would just like to have the figure, because we have the whole history in
14 your report. I would just like a ballpark figure right now.
15 A. Four.
16 Q. Very well. Now, despite all these administrative changes, I
17 mean, we know this is important, but can you tell us whether, despite all
18 these changes, the information -- the archives that had been collected
19 were always transferred to the successive organisation, whatever their
20 name at the time?
21 A. Yes, that is correct. There is continuity with respect to the
22 archives, and the archive is transferred or was transferred from one body
23 to another, that is to say, bodies in charge of dealing with detainees
24 and missing persons.
25 Q. Your answer, as I heard it through the French translation, you
1 said that archives were transferred to a second organisation. Is this a
2 translation problem or do you mean that this was a transfer to all
3 organisations, one after the other? Could you please shed some light on
5 A. Yes, all the bodies took over -- or, rather, every time a new
6 body was established for detainees and missing persons, on the basis of
7 the provision of the government of Croatia, would take over the archive
8 from the previous bodies that dealt with issues of that kind.
9 Q. And was it more or less the same people working in all these
10 different organisations?
11 A. Yes, the same people, so that the archive was managed by the same
12 people and that there was continuity there, and that's what the case is
14 Q. So we have understood that archives were transferred. And could
15 you tell us whether you had the same access to this information as
16 Mr. Grujic would have?
17 A. Mostly, yes.
18 Q. Could you be more specific when you say "mostly"?
19 A. What I meant was the following: Certain documents within an
20 archive, or the archive that we have at our disposal, are classified by
21 degrees of confidentiality. Now, if those documents were not relevant
22 for my work, then I didn't have an insight into those documents.
23 Q. Then I would like to ask you a follow-up question. Did you have
24 access to all the documents you needed in order to draft your report?
25 A. Yes, that is absolutely correct.
1 Q. And this is going to bring us to the report, quite naturally.
2 Could you please take a look at the document before last in the red
3 binder, not the binder you have but the other one.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Before you go
5 to this document, I have a question for you.
6 The Prosecutor talked about Mr. Ivan Grujic. We know that
7 Mr. Seselj was challenging something in this area. The Trial Chamber
8 does not have all the elements at its disposal. Unfortunately, we sort
9 of have to go fishing for information, and sometimes -- and sometimes
10 witnesses prove very useful in that respect.
11 So as far as you know, have you heard -- have you heard about the
12 fact that Mr. Grujic would have been challenged in his work, challenged
13 according to the work he was doing? Either you were aware of this and
14 you say, "Yes," or you're not and you answer just answer by, "No."
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't hear of anything like
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Very well. If you'd answered with a "yes," I would have went on
19 with my questions. But since you were negative, I will now give the
20 floor back to Mr. Dutertre.
21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Ms. Bilic, could you please move -- could you please take a look
23 at the red binder, binder number 2, and find document at the -- the
24 document before last in this document, which is number 7413 in the 65 ter
1 This is my question, if you have the document now: Do you
2 recognise this document as the letter that the OTP wrote to you on July
3 11th, 2008, to commission a report on the issue of detained and missing
4 persons in the conflict in Croatia
5 specifically, regarding the issue of the Ovcara exhumation? In the
6 singular, "exhumation." What is the title we should give to this
7 document? The title requested by Mr. Seselj.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. I didn't understand
9 what the title could be, what the Prosecutor said, the title of what?
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This is very marginal as an issue,
11 but the report on the -- report on the missing persons and detainees in
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's find a solution to this.
14 If you had to give a title to your report, the report you were
15 asked to -- you wrote after Ms. Dahl's letter on July 11th, 2008, what
16 title would you have given to this report, because in your report you
17 gave Ms. Dahl a great number of answers to all her questions, but what
18 would be the overall title you could give to this report?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The process for tracing detainees
20 and missing persons in the Republic of Croatia
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please now take a look at the next document in the red
24 binder, 7414 in the 65 ter list.
25 Is this the report you sent to the OTP following the letter you
1 received from the OTP on July 11th, 2008
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you please go to the last page of this document in the
4 B/C/S version, and tell me whether you recognise your signature at the
5 bottom of the page.
6 A. Yes.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the Prosecutor.
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could you tell us whether the information in this report
10 corresponds to a direct and personal knowledge you may have on the issue
11 of detained and missing persons?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And could you tell us whether you were physically there during
14 the Ovcara exhumation?
15 A. Yes, I was present during the exhumation at Ovcara.
16 Q. Very well. Then in order to draft this report, did you use
17 documents that had been drafted within your office, within your
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. How long did it take you to collect all this information and
21 draft the report?
22 A. Well, I needed roughly three weeks. Roughly three weeks is what
23 I needed to compile my report and to update it with all the data and
24 information that the report contains.
25 Q. Thank you. I will tender this document at the very end of my
1 examination, but now let me turn to the way in which you collected
2 information on missing persons.
3 Could you please take a look at the blue binder, the first one,
4 and take a look at the 12th document called 7357 in the 65 ter list.
5 Have you found the document?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Could you quickly tell the Judges how you used this document?
8 What was the point of this document?
9 A. This document is used for the collection of information on
10 missing persons, persons who went missing during the war in Croatia, and
11 at the end of 199 -- [B/C/S/ on English channel]. It was developed with
12 a view to seeking information in the tracing process for each individual
14 Q. Who drafted this document?
15 A. The document was drafted at the initiative of the then Commission
16 for Detainees and Missing Persons by professionals from different areas
17 of expertise: criminologists, forensic experts, psychologists, and
18 persons versed in informatics.
19 Q. Who is supposed to fill this document?
20 A. Educated personnel in the Red Cross of Croatia for tracing
21 missing persons, on the basis of requests for tracing missing persons
22 submitted by the relatives and family of the missing persons, and that is
23 the signature you will find -- or, rather, that is what the signatures at
24 the end of the document indicate.
25 Q. Very well. So Red Cross members meet with relatives or family
1 members and fill out the questionnaire with the help of these people; is
2 that it?
3 A. In 1994, an action was put into place, an organised action, for
4 collecting up all the requests for tracing missing persons, and this was
5 announced through the media, calling upon all families with missing
6 family members that went missing connected with the war to report to the
7 Croatian Red Cross and to table a request for tracing those persons, and
8 these questionnaires were filled in at that time relating to the missing
9 persons concerned.
10 Q. Very well. This is very clear, and all this is explained in
11 paragraph 7 of your report.
12 There's one important point, as far as the issues that the Judges
13 will have to rule upon. Could you please tell us what was so important
14 in this form to have questions on the age, the nationality and the status
15 of the people, be it civilian or military?
16 A. Data about age were fairly important, and this was seen through
17 the process of identification subsequently itself. Now, facts about
18 nationality and other affiliation helped us in the tracing process.
19 However, this information is based on the statements we receive from the
20 family members, so they do not necessarily correspond to the actual state
21 of affairs, the status as was established.
22 Q. This is clear. Thank you. Could you tell us why you had to
23 include questions on this form that had to deal with the civilian or
24 military status of these missing people? What was the purpose of it?
25 A. Well, as I was saying, it's important to know this fact because
1 it can influence the tracing process and the identification of the mortal
2 remains. It can prove essential in the subsequent process of identifying
3 the mortal remains of a person.
4 Q. Fine. And it's on the basis of these questionnaires that you
5 drafted the list of missing persons, but could you provide us with some
6 more details about this particular process?
7 A. Correct. Based on these questionnaires -- well, first of all,
8 they were computerised, so in addition to this hard copy, they exist in
9 an electronic version. And based on the information provided in these
10 questionnaires, a description of the missing persons was made.
11 Q. Where have all these questionnaires been archived?
12 A. The archives of the Department for Detainees and Missing Persons.
13 Q. Fine. We've covered the issue of the collection of information
14 and the way the list of missing persons was drafted. Now let me move on
15 to the issue of exhumations. You provide detailed explanation about this
16 at paragraphs 8 to 14 of your report.
17 We know that you were physically present at Ovcara when the
18 exhumation took place, and I would like you to tell the Trial Chamber
19 more specifically what role you played, practically speaking, during
20 these exhumations on the ground.
21 A. Could you please clarify? I would be very grateful. Do you mean
22 during exhumations in general or during the exhumation at Ovcara?
23 Q. In general, what role do you play when you attend an exhumation?
24 Are you just present as an observer? Do you take an active part in the
25 process? What is the actual nature of your role?
1 A. For the most part, I had contact with the families of victims
2 that were supposed to have remains possibly in the site of the
3 exhumations, but also other participants in the exhumation process. The
4 purpose, therefore, was to collect information with a view to future
5 identification of human remains.
6 Q. Can you tell us whether you attended all the exhumations that
7 occurred on the territory of Croatia
8 attend only part of these exhumations?
9 A. I attended one part of the exhumations conducted.
10 Q. Fine. I would like you to turn, in the blue binder, the one you
11 have in front of you, to turn to the 15th document, the document marked
12 65 ter number 7360.
13 Ms. Bilic, this document is entitled "Overview of Exhumations in
14 Counties." I have the following question to put to you: Who drafted
15 this map and this table, where we have the number of bodies exhumed by
17 A. That was drafted at the Administration for Detainees and Missing
18 Persons, the map.
19 Q. Could you specify whether we are talking here about exhumations
20 that took place following the conflict and in order to find people who
21 went missing during the conflict?
22 A. Correct. These were exhumations conducted in order to find the
23 persons who went missing in the war.
24 Q. In what region was the highest number of bodies exhumed?
25 A. In the area of the Vukovar-Srem county.
1 Q. Very well. Could you tell us, and that's to be found at the
2 bottom of the document, what is the total number of bodies exhumed in
4 exhumed bodies?
5 A. Of exhumed remains at the time of the making of this report was
6 3.684, and out of these, 3.100 were identified.
7 Q. Fine. And this is for what particular date?
8 A. The 1st of July, 2008.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a very relevant
10 question to put to you, based on this document. It's a question that
11 needs to be put.
12 I read through your report, through all the annexes of your
13 report, and something struck me. At paragraph 35 of your report, you
14 stated that 2.796 war prisoners and civilians were detained in Vukovar,
15 and exchanged and released. Thanks to this, we discover that in the
16 Vukovar region, about 2.800 people were not killed, but were exchanged.
17 And according to what you're saying, they had been detained in 11
18 detention camps. In the indictment, mention is made of 200 persons from
19 the Vukovar Hospital
21 When reading this portion of your report, I realised that these
22 200 individuals make up 10 per cent of the total number of people
23 captured in Vukovar. But I also realised something else, based on your
24 report. I realised that in the overall region of Vukovar, 2.017 persons
25 were exhumed and 1.726 were identified; and there may be other mass
1 graves that have not been identified as yet, so figures might be even
3 You told the Prosecutor that you attended the exhumation at
4 Ovcara, where in that grave of seven by nine metres, 200 bodies were
5 found. Based on these figures that are supported by documentary
6 evidence, can you tell us, as of today, November 2008, can you tell us
7 whether all the victims have been listed so far or are there victims who
8 have not been listed?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the victims, all the missing
10 persons for whom families submitted requests for a search, have been
11 recorded according to standards established by the ICRC. Also recorded
12 were all exhumed and identified persons from mass and individual graves
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Following evidence we've heard
15 in this courtroom, and after having heard Mr. Seselj's defence case, I'm
16 trying to understand why this precise number of 200 persons were killed
17 at Ovcara. I'm trying to find an explanation with respect to that figure
18 of 200 people, because we know that 7 persons were spared and that 200
19 were killed. Is it just by chance that this happened or does this
20 number, this figure of 200, correspond to something very specific?
21 Based on this question of mine and based on your report, I found
22 that 184 Serbs - I don't think I'm mistaken - exactly 184 Serbs were
23 killed on the territory of the Croatian Republic
24 these --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What about these 184 recorded
2 Serb victims? Is it the definite figure or were there more Serb victims?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the report, I cited the
4 ethnicity, that is, the ethnic composition of persons who have been
5 identified to date. Among the persons identified to date and exhumed in
6 the area of Croatia
7 identification process, we cannot talk with any certainty about the
8 ethnicity of persons who have been identified. At this moment, these are
9 the exact figures, 184 identified Serbs.
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] There might be a problem with the
11 transcript. [In English] ... persons who have been identified or not
12 been identified.
13 [Interpretation] Could we ask Ms. Bilic to specify -- to clarify
14 what she just said.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What about these 184 Serbs?
16 Are these Serbs who went missing and who were later identified, or are
17 these missing Serbs who so far have not yet been identified?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are persons who have been
19 identified, whose families confirmed the identification, received the
20 remains, and buried them as they wished. They were in contact with the
21 Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons. For them, the process
22 of search is over.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I suppose that your
24 administration and all Croatian departments of the state have regular
25 contacts with their Serb counterparts. I suppose that as part of the
1 reconciliation process, you have regular contacts, there are regular
2 contacts between Serbia
3 To your knowledge, what is the figure given by the Serb
4 authorities, the figure of missing Serbs? Is it a figure provided by
5 Serb authorities? Do they, for example, say, "Well, you're telling us
6 that 184 Serbs were victims, but there were more than that"? Is there a
7 dialogue, exchanges between Serbia
8 particular issue or is that something that is not raised at all?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, between the Republic
10 of Croatia
11 established under the agreement on missing persons in 1995. Since that
12 time, there has been an exchange of information, documentation, and data
13 that can help identification, but that is behind us.
14 As for Serbian demands, the Republic of Serbia
15 for around 400 citizens of the Republic of Serbia
16 missing in the territory of Croatia
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You see that I was right to put
18 this question to you. You've just told us that as of today, the Republic
19 of Serbia
20 according to them, went missing on the territory of Croatia
21 indeed, a very relevant piece of information.
22 Let me go back to Vukovar now. This is my last question. In the
23 indictment, mention is made of what happened after the fall of Vukovar,
24 when civilian or military persons were transferred to Ovcara and where
25 200 people died. Thanks to your report, I discovered something I was not
1 aware of up until yesterday. I discovered that 2.017 individuals died in
2 the Vukovar region. This piece of information may prove to be relevant
3 as well. I assume that you studied these 2.017 people killed, the 1.726
4 people identified. What about the bodies that were exhumed, these 2.017
5 bodies; what is the number of graves -- of mass graves these bodies were
6 exhumed from?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the exhumations of remains in
8 the territory of Croatia
9 cooperation and with the coordination of the Administration for Detainees
10 and Missing Persons. Specifically, the identification of 2.017 persons
11 in the Vukovar-Srem county were of people found in two [as interpreted]
12 large mass graves and a large number of smaller graves.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 52 large mass graves
14 and a large number of small graves, of which I cannot tell you the exact
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have just stated that there
17 were 52 large mass graves and a large number of small graves, where 2.017
18 persons were found. I may be mistaken, but in your report I did not see
19 a map related to Vukovar-Srem and the exact locations of these 52 mass
20 graves. Was this done, because I couldn't find any information in that
21 respect in the documents we have.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has been made. I hope it's part
23 of the documentation. It's very difficult for me to deal with these
24 binders, but that map exists, it has been made.
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Exhibit 70 -- or document 7369 on
1 the 65 ter list in the first binder. You won't find the 52 mass graves,
2 but you will find the major graves.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In document 7369, we have a
4 list of sites, various sites, and as just stated by Mr. Dutertre, we
5 don't have 52 sites, we have about 20 of them, 20 at the most.
6 But I was wondering, Witness, whether these 52 mass graves were
7 located far away from Vukovar or not. If they are close to Vukovar, we
8 could conclude that the victims hailed from Vukovar. But if the mass
9 graves are further away, these people may be victims of other events. To
10 your knowledge, were these 52 graves close or far away from Vukovar?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This map, this specific map,
12 relates to mass graves where human remains of the victims from Vukovar
13 were found. It's not a map of all the mass graves discovered in the area
14 of the Vuk March-Srem county. It's a map of the 14 mass graves in the
15 area of both Vukovar-Srem and Osijek-Baranja counties, where victims from
16 Vukovar were found.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's continue to look at this
18 map we have in front of us.
19 Here we have 14 graves. We have a grave at Ovcara identified
20 here. We have Negoslavci and other sites. And what we can see here is
21 some of the graves are located several dozens of kilometres away from
23 To your knowledge, the victims who were exhumed at Ilok, were
24 they killed on the spot or were they killed in Vukovar, to be then buried
25 in Ilok? Can you provide an answer to that type of question or no?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the attachment to my report,
2 there are lists of persons from Vukovar who have been identified,
3 regardless of the location of the mass or individual grave where they
4 were found, so these are persons who had gone missing or forcibly taken
5 away from Vukovar.
6 In case of any doubt, with the help of the documentation
7 available to the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons, it was
8 established that these persons were killed on the banks of the Danube
9 thrown into the river, and then their remains were recovered in the area
10 of Ilok as still unidentified.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The victims found at Ilok had
12 been thrown into the Danube
13 and buried there. This is the gist of your answer.
14 Let me now take the two sites we have at the top of the map.
15 It's quite difficult to make out, but I believe that the one at the top
16 is Dalj, Balj, something like that, and underneath that, sorry for the
17 pronunciation, we have something that sounds or reads like Farma Lovas.
18 Where did the victims come from, those thirty-two were buried on those
19 two sites.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Victims found in Lovas farm and in
21 the mass grave in Dalj were people detained in Borovo Komerc on 19
22 November 1991. Borovo settlement is an integral part of Vukovar town.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How far away is Vukovar from
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot tell you exactly. Perhaps
1 ten kilometres. I really don't know.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right, about ten
4 You have five minutes before the break.
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] You mean five minutes left for my
6 direct examination? I hope not.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, five minutes before the
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Document 7362, 7362, a document
10 you will find in the blue binder, and a document we've just discussed and
11 thanks to which we were given very relevant additional information. It's
12 a document entitled [In English] "Exhumed and identified mortal remains."
13 Q. [Interpretation] You mentioned this document at paragraph 32 of
14 your own report. I have the following question to put to you: Who
15 drafted this document, Ms. Bilic?
16 A. The document was made in the Administration for Detainees and
17 Missing Persons, where I work.
18 Q. Can you confirm that it was updated on the 1st of July, 2008?
19 A. Correct, I can confirm that. It was updated on the 1st of July,
21 Q. Very well. Please turn to page 8 of the document in English.
22 For you, it's page ERN number 0642-8287 in B/C/S, page 8 in English,
23 including the cover page. Let me repeat the ERN number, 0642-8287.
24 Could you confirm that when it was possible to establish the
25 nationality of the exhumed and identified bodies, that 87 per cent of
1 them were Croats? Is that the way we should understand the document?
2 A. Out of those identified, 87 per cent are of Croat ethnicity.
3 Q. Thank you. Could you please now turn to ERN
4 number page 0642-8284, page 5 in English of the same document, page 5 in
5 English, in the English translation of the document.
6 Based on this document, can you confirm that 39 per cent of the
7 persons identified were over 60?
8 A. Correct, I can confirm that.
9 Q. And to conclude, let's move to the previous page in English. In
10 your language, ERN 0642-8283. Could you please tell us, what is the
11 percentage of women amongst identified bodies?
12 A. The percentage of women among identified human remains is
13 28 per cent.
14 Q. What is your view, generally speaking, on the impact of this
15 conflict on the civilian population?
16 A. The fact is that this data showed that a large percentage of
17 victims were persons who were especially protected by the Geneva
18 Conventions and their additional protocol.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the question put by
20 the Prosecutor is of paramount importance. If he had not put it to you,
21 I would have put it to you; and Mr. Seselj may have asked you the same as
23 Out of these 3.100 victims, we see that 30 per cent were female,
24 850 of them. This is rather a striking figure in such a conflict. How
25 come the number of females killed was so high? Talking about these
1 killed or identified females, can you tell us whether they belonged to
2 the 18 to 60-year age group or whether they are over 60.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation ][Previous translation
4 continues] ... report. This report does not show such detailed
5 information about age with respect to sex, so I can't really say with any
6 certitude. However, most of the women were women who were elderly, that
7 is to say, persons who, before the war, had not left their homes. So
8 they're mostly women who stayed on in their own homes and, unfortunately,
9 fell casualty that way.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we compare these figures
11 with the figures from the Vukovar Hospital
12 identified at the Vukovar Hospital
13 there, two females, then it seems a bit illogical. How come we have only
14 two women who were killed at Vukovar, whether -- there should have been
15 more of them, according to this percentage of 30 per cent. Can you
16 provide us with some sort of explanation or is it something that you
17 can't explain at all?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only two women were killed in
19 Vukovar. Only two women were found in the mass grave at Ovcara.
20 However, at the new cemetery, Novo Groblje in Vukovar, another mass grave
21 on the territory of Vukovar
22 I think that the share of women found in the area of the Vukovar and Srem
23 county was equal to the total share of women shown in this Powerpoint
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is very interesting. Why
1 is it that out of the group of people led from the hospital to Ovcara,
2 there were only two women, only two? Do you have an explanation for this
3 or not?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Vukovar Hospital, and taken
5 from the Vukovar Hospital
6 missing, they were people who were in the Vukovar Hospital
7 who happened to be there at that moment, at least most of them.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in a hospital, you can very
9 well expect to find a lot of women. There were children there, children
10 who had been wounded, women who had been wounded because of the shelling,
11 women who came to see their husbands who had been wounded as well. I
12 know that when you study psychology, you also study statistics; and when
13 you look at the statistics related to Vukovar, you find a lot of
14 people -- a lot of women present at the hospital in Vukovar, many more so
15 than at Ovcara. This is maybe something that has escaped everybody's
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at all events, your question
18 is a very interesting one. Now, the fact that it was mostly men who were
19 taken away from the Vukovar Hospital
20 the possibility of wounding more than women at that point in time,
21 because the women were mostly in shelters and in facilities like that;
22 whereas the men went to war, they engaged in warfare, they were members
23 of the armed forces. So that very fact means that there was greater
24 probability of the men being wounded than the women.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
1 I believe it's time for the break, Mr. Dutertre, so we will have
2 a 20-minute break. I believe you have some 20 minutes left, but
3 Mr. Registrar will keep track of this for us.
4 Thank you.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.06 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
8 Mr. Prosecutor, you have used up 32 minutes up until now, so if
9 my math is right, you have 13 minutes left.
10 Secondly, regarding Witness Anna Maria Radic, the Trial Chamber
11 will issue a written decision, because motivation is quite extensive.
12 However, I will read the disposition. So on these grounds, grants the
13 Prosecution's motions and requests that Anna Maria Radic be heard before
14 this Trial Chamber as an expert witness on November 20th, 2008; secondly,
15 that the examination-in-chief last no more than 45 minutes; thirdly, that
16 the cross-examination last no more than an hour and 30 minutes; and,
17 fourthly, the Prosecution can add to its 65 ter list Anna Maria Radic's
18 report and all relevant documents.
19 Then, finally, the Trial Chamber states that it will rule on the
20 admission of the said report and its relevant documents after having
21 heard Anna Maria Radic's testimony. This is about Anna Maria Radic's
22 testimony, but there will be a written decision that will be filed today.
23 But because it's an emergency, I read the disposition.
24 Now you have the floor, Mr. Dutertre.
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. Ms. Bilic, we know that the exhumation at Ovcara occurred in
2 September 1996. Could you tell us why it didn't happen earlier?
3 A. The mass grave at Ovcara was in an area which was temporarily
4 occupied and, thus, not accessible to the authorities of the Republic of
6 Q. Do you know whether this site was surveilled or controlled by
7 anyone before this exhumation?
8 A. As far as I know, the site of the mass grave at Ovcara was under
9 the supervision and surveillance of the United Nations.
10 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us what nationalities were the
11 people who actually conducted the exhumation on the ground?
12 A. The exhumation of the mass grave at Ovcara, on the basis of a
13 request made by the International Court, was conducted by the
14 international humanitarian organisation Doctors for Human Rights, which
15 in this specific case was led by Dr. Snow.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I believe that in French I heard
17 "the International Court of Justice." I don't know if it's the exact
18 translation. It said "the International Court," but I believe she was
19 talking about this Tribunal. I'll ask for some details.
20 Q. When you're talking about International Court, you're talking
21 about this court here?
22 A. Yes. I said the International Criminal Court.
23 Q. That's another thing. ICTY, I guess.
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Now, do you know whether Serbian observers were present during
1 the Ovcara exhumation?
2 A. The exhumation at Ovcara, during the time when I attended it as
3 observer, had the status of observer, also present were Serbs, local
4 Serbs, that is to say, of the occupied Croatian area of Podunavlje.
5 Q. Very well. How many bodies were exhumed in Ovcara?
6 A. The mortal remains of 200 persons were exhumed at Ovcara.
7 Q. And how many were identified?
8 A. 193 persons were positively identified.
9 Q. Thank you. Could you now please look at the blue binder --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question. I
11 thought that Mr. Dutertre was going to put it to you, but he didn't.
12 There was some Serbian observers. Fine. Could you tell us
13 whether there were Croat observers? I mean, I'm not talking about you.
14 You came from Zagreb
15 For example, from the Vukovar municipality, maybe former Croats
16 who used to live in the Vukovar municipality, or Croats that would have
17 lived in the Croat Krajina in Croatia
18 Mr. Goran Hadzic's movement. Were they present, yes or no?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Access to the exhumation site at
20 the mass grave at Ovcara was strictly restricted; so at the site itself,
21 at the site of mortal remains, there were no representatives of local
22 Croat authorities. However, there were representatives of local Serbs
23 from the area, and they -- or, rather, the two of them were designated as
24 observers during the exhumation process of the mass grave at Ovcara.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To your knowledge, why is it
1 that no one found it useful to ask for Croat observers to attend, you
2 know, local Croats? Why was it that there were only Serbs and no Croats?
3 If you have an answer, of course. You might not have one.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The local Croats at that point in
5 time and in that area were not numerous, and especially not in the
6 structures of power and authority. Most of the Croats in 1996 -- when
7 the exhumation took place of the mass grave at Ovcara, most of the graves
8 from that area were expelled and were in parts of the Republic of Croatia
9 that were not occupied, not under occupation.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But they could have been asked
11 to come over, since some of them were in the Republic of Croatia
12 could have been asked to come over. It wouldn't have been a problem.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of an agreement
14 between the government of the Republic of Croatia
15 Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
16 was determined that from the Republic of Croatia
17 exhumation of the mass grave at Ovcara would be attended by four
18 observers, representatives of the Administration for Detainees and
19 Missing Persons, and experts and physicians, specialists in forensic
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As you see, when we
22 put questions, we get answers.
23 This was in the framework of an agreement between the OTP and the
24 Republic of Croatia
25 organised. And Judges didn't have their say in this, obviously.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Bilic, I would be interested to know a
2 little bit more about the role of the Serb observers. They were locals;
3 is that correctly understood?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct, they were local
5 Serbs. That's what I said. In the situations when I attended the
6 exhumation process, it was the representatives of local Serbs who were
7 present, or, rather, their authorities, the Serb authorities, designated
8 them as being observers of the process of exhumation that took place in
9 the mass graves at Ovcara.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: And what exactly was their role?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They had the status of observers.
12 I don't know what their role actually was. However, they did not have an
13 active role in the process of exhumation itself of the mass grave at
14 Ovcara. Their status was that of observer.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would have thought that the Serbian authorities
16 might be interested in appointing a forensic expert, or at least a
17 medical doctor, or somebody who could verify the proper conduct of the
18 exhumation, but there was nobody else appointed but these two gentlemen
19 or persons; is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that is something that I don't
21 know about. I'm referring to two people, the two people who did attend
22 during the period of time that I was there, that I attended as observer.
23 So I don't actually know who was present and who was designated of the
24 professionals by the Serb authorities to follow the exhumation process.
25 It doesn't mean that there were no experts designated, but I'm saying
1 that I don't know about that because while I was there, there was nobody.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is very helpful clarification.
3 Last question: Did you see these two observers, the local Serbs,
4 do anything or were they just hanging around the exhumation? Did they
5 take photographs, or did they make notes, or did they talk to the
6 experts, or what did they do?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw them there while the
8 exhumation process was in progress. They did not do any photographing.
9 Nobody was allowed to take photographs. I really cannot remember now,
10 since it's been 12 years since the event, whether on that occasion they
11 communicated with the experts there who were conducting the exhumation
12 or, rather, the representatives of the International Criminal Tribunal
13 for the former Yugoslavia
14 However, the documenting and recording of the process of the exhumation
15 of the mass grave at Ovcara was not something that observers were allowed
16 to do.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With a previous expert witness,
19 we saw some photographs, and we know that the mass graves had been
20 guarded by the Russian army, who was there on behalf of an international
21 mission. We saw that some tents had been erected. Now, you were there,
22 I was not, so please tell us something. I assume that the bodies were
23 exhumed, then were taken to the tents, and that the American forensic
24 scientists, they were Americans with Dr. Snow, so that's when the
25 American forensics performed the autopsies and did all the normal work
1 done -- that is done in an exhumation. Is this the way it happened? The
2 bodies were taken out of the grave, brought to the tent, and that's where
3 the American forensic pathologists fill out their forms in performing
4 their duties?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The American forensic experts were
6 in charge -- well, not only American. I apologise. It was automatically
7 that I said "American." That's not what I mean. The Doctors for Human
8 Rights, that organisation, Physicians for Human Rights, was in charge of
9 the whole process of the exhumation of the mass graves at Ovcara, taking
10 out the mortal remains and so on, and the first preliminary examination
11 of those mortal remains. They were in charge of that.
12 Now, after that, the mortal remains were transported to Zagreb
13 to the Institute for Forensic Medicine and Criminology, attached to the
14 Faculty of Medicine in Zagreb
15 Rights, in cooperation with professions and experts from the Institute
16 for Forensic Pathology and Medicine, conducted the entire examination,
17 the full examination of the mortal remains, the autopsies.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It would have been better for
19 the on-site autopsies to be performed by these doctors from this human
20 rights organisation, but also with the help of a Croat forensic
21 pathologist as well as a Serbian forensic pathologist, so that there
22 would be a panel of experts that could not be challenged. You know,
23 experts that see the body, describe the body, photograph the body, and
24 then determine the cause of death. Why was it not performed in such a
25 way, as far as you know?
1 Maybe it would be better to put these questions to the Prosecutor
2 who was there at the time.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is true, and it's a
4 question that I can't give a proper answer to. However, the fact is that
5 the conditions for dealing and processing the mortal remains were far
6 better and more suited to the matter at the Institute for Crime Pathology
7 and Forensic Pathology than at the exhumation site itself, but that was
8 the plan. It was the OTP plan, and I can't really answer that question.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Mr. Dutertre, you have the floor.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Ms. Bilic, do you know who is Professor Delic, Dusan, of the
15 A. No, no, I don't.
16 Q. I have no follow-up question, then. Could you please now take a
17 look at document 7373 in the 65 ter list, in the blue binder, the first
18 binder. The name of this document is the following: [In English] "List
19 of identified persons whose remains were exhumed from the Ovcara mass
20 grave. [Interpretation] It is a document referred to on page 36 of this
22 Here is my question: Please tell us who made the list.
23 A. The list was compiled at the Administration for Detainees and
24 Missing Persons on the basis of official records of persons identified by
25 this administration.
1 Q. Could you tell us who gave you these elements on the
2 identification of these people?
3 A. From the scientific and medical institution which conducted the
4 process of identification for the mortal remains. In this specific case,
5 it was the Institute for Forensic Medicine and Crime at the medical
6 faculty at Zagreb
7 Q. Thank you. When was this document updated for the last time?
8 A. On the 1st of July, 2008.
9 Q. Can you tell us, where is the documentation that states the
10 identification of all these people mentioned in this list?
11 A. In conformity with the provision of the government of Croatia
12 the documentation is to be found in the Administration for Detainees and
13 Missing Persons in its entirety.
14 Q. Thank you. After having looked at this list of 193 victims, I
15 would like to move to the next document, number 7374 in the 65 ter list
16 called, [In English] "Analysis of the annex 3 of the indictment."
17 [Interpretation] You refer to this document in paragraph 37 of your
19 First question, it's a simple and straightforward question: Who
20 drafted this document?
21 A. The document was compiled in the Administration for Detainees and
22 Missing Persons.
23 Q. It was updated on July 1st, 2008
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Does this document give us information on all 265 victims that we
1 can find in appendix 3 to the indictment?
2 A. Correct, it is on the basis of appendix 3 to the indictment,
3 referring to 265 victims.
4 Q. Now, I need your help to understand a few acronyms, and I believe
5 that the Trial Chamber will also have the same problem if I don't clear
6 this up.
7 In the category column, we see an acronym, "D/NF." Could you
8 tell us exactly what this acronym stands for?
9 A. I apologise, but as it's a narrow column, the "I" went missing,
10 was lost. It's "ID/NF," which means the mortal remains went missing, ID,
11 with the DNA
12 accept the identification. So that actually means identified, not
13 accepted, so it should be "ID," it should be "ID."
14 Q. Very well. So we should read "ID/NF" instead of "D/NF." It's a
15 printing error, obviously.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're saying the family did
18 not accept the identification, but for what reason? They were
19 challenging the reliability of the DNA
20 principles that they rejected the identification?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the 193 persons whose mortal
22 remains were identified, we have 3 persons or, rather, 3 cases in which
23 the mortal remains were identified by the DNA analysis method, but their
24 families refused to accept that identification, probably for
25 psychological reasons. Probably the reasons were psychological, for the
1 fact that the family members did not wish to accept that, because they
2 couldn't accept the fact that their nearest and dearest were had been
3 killed and that that was the end of it, that they had no further hope and
4 could not expect that they might be alive somewhere. So I assume that
5 that was the reason for which they refused to accept the results of the
6 identification process.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Talking to the psychologists
8 now, as far as you know, did the authorities set up any psychological
9 support units or was nothing done?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of every process of
11 identification for the mortal remains, psychologists and psychiatrists
12 are always present; and they are there to provide assistance to families
13 in that specific situation.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But then there are
15 interviews and people are helped psychologically when they're finally
16 told that the hope they had to find their missing relative is gone. With
17 the reality of DNA
18 still be alive, and then is there interviews or is there any
19 psychological support that is provided?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, the process of
21 identification in the Republic of Croatia
22 social and psychological assistance to the families.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Mr. Dutertre.
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Now, some clarifications on your acronyms, please. In the column
2 called "Circumstances," what exactly does "MG" mean?
3 A. "Mass Grave," "Masovna Grobnica."
4 Q. Thank you. What about "PG"?
5 A. Individual grave, "Pojedinacna Grobnica."
6 Q. "PO
7 A. Mortal remains, "Posnartne [phoen] Ostaci."
8 Q. And "VNG"?
9 A. Vukovar New Cemetery, "Vukovar Novo Groblje."
10 Q. Thank you. All in all, how many people listed in appendix 3 of
11 the indictment can be found on the list of people identified in Ovcara?
12 A. 190.
13 Q. Could you please now quickly move to document 7375. It's the
14 next document in the binder.
15 Is this the list of the 190 persons you mentioned who were
16 identified and who are also in the indictment?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. We know that in Ovcara, 193 bodies were identified. You're
19 telling us that 190 people are on the annex 3 list that is joined to the
20 indictment. I infer from this that three people were identified in
21 Ovcara, but are not on the annex 3 list in the indictment. Now, could
22 you tell us whether document 7379 gives us a list of these three missing
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's be very clear about this.
2 Those three people in question, could they be the three people for which
3 the families did not want to accept the identification made through DNA
4 analysis or is it three other people?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is three completely different
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we have a person
8 called Bukvic, Bordaj [phoen]; Omerovic, Mufat [phoen]; and
9 Vazic, Mikajlo [phoen]. If I understand you well, these three are not in
10 the list in annex 3. Does this mean that the Prosecutor just neglected
11 to add them or is it three other people that ended up there for some
12 other reason?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These three people were not on the
14 list for another reason, a different reason, and that reason was this:
15 In the questionnaires, describing the circumstances of their
16 disappearance, no mention is made of the fact that they were last seen in
17 the Vukovar Hospital
18 circumstances," all that is recorded is, in general terms, that they
19 disappeared in Vukovar; and that's the reason why, when the list was
20 compiled, we did not know that it was possible that the three people
21 mentioned might be found at Ovcara.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we assume that 200 people
23 left the hospital building to be driven or taken to the execution site,
24 then these would be included in these 200 people. That's the first
25 assumption that comes to mind. However, another assumption could be
1 explored. These three would not be in the hospital building, were killed
2 or executed somewhere else, we have no idea where, and were buried there.
3 So as far as you're concerned, which one is the right assumption?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very difficult for me to
5 speculate, and I think that the proper answer would be that their
6 families, when they tabled their request for the tracing process to be
7 put into practice, did not know the specific circumstances of their
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This
10 question was very relevant indeed.
11 Q. Out of the 265 persons listed at annex 3 of the indictment, 190
12 are amongst those who were identified at Ovcara. What information do you
13 have about the 75 other persons listed at annex 3 of the indictment and
14 who are not amongst the bodies found at Ovcara?
15 A. A portion of them, that is to say, 57 of them, are still listed
16 as missing. And their fate has not been established, so they are not
17 amongst the identified persons found. The other two people, two more
18 people, Damir Kiralj [phoen] and Zvonko Mikolic were found in the
19 territory of the Republic of Serbia
20 over by the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons from the
21 Republic of Serbia
22 handed over to their families.
23 Sixteen persons who are listed in annex 3 of the indictment were
24 found and exhumed in other mass graves or individual graves on the
25 territory of Vukovar. Thirteen of them, of that number, were found at
1 the Novo Groblje, New Cemetery, in Vukovar. Two were found in individual
2 graves in the area of Velepromet in Vukovar; and one person, I think, was
3 found in a mass grave at the Lovas farm not far from Vukovar.
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Fine. I've almost completed my
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you've almost run out of
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm aware of that,
9 Your Honour.
10 Q. What about Velepromet? 65 ter number 7381. You were asked by
11 the Prosecution to analyse annex 4 of the indictment. What are your
12 conclusions about the list of victims of Velepromet to be found at annex
13 4 of the indictment?
14 A. These six persons listed in annex 4 to the indictment were buried
15 in the territory of Velepromet
16 December 1991 by the representatives of the then-authorities of the
17 occupied area; and they were transferred to Vukovar, the New Cemetery
18 where they were reburied, and then we exhumed them in 1998. All of the
19 six were identified.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But these six persons had been
21 killed in December 1991; isn't that correct?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the information about
23 the circumstances of their disappearance or forcible removal, they were
24 forcibly removed on the 19th of November, 1991. According to the
25 documentation that the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons
1 received from the Republic of Serbia
2 remains of these six persons had been found in the mass grave in
3 Velepromet and had been exhumed from there in December 1991. They were
4 examined and then reburied at the New Cemetery
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the most likely explanation
7 is the following: They were captured on the 19th of November, 1991.
8 They were executed at some point. We don't know exactly when. They were
9 buried. Once again, we don't know exactly when. They were exhumed in
10 December 1991?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Very quickly, Witness, could you please have a look at the six
15 following documents bearing 65 ter numbers 2017, 2004, 2010, 2009, 2008
16 and 2016. Could you confirm that these are missing persons
17 questionnaires relating to the six victims?
18 A. Correct, correct.
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Very quickly, Your Honour, the
20 same question about the missing persons questionnaires related to Ovcara,
21 we have two documents that were already on the 65 ter lists. All the
22 other documents in binder 2 are not -- have not been translated, except
23 for 389.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Put your question to the
1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you have a look at the last two documents of binder 1 and
3 confirm that these are, indeed, missing persons questionnaires?
4 A. Correct, these are questionnaires for missing persons.
5 Q. Could you turn to binder 2, to the red binder, and have a look at
6 all the documents except the last two documents. 7382 -- this is going
7 to be a long list, but I need to identify these documents specifically --
8 7383, 7384 --
9 THE ACCUSED: Judges, so that Mr. Dutertre doesn’t kill us by reading all
10 these figures. I have no objection to this entire binder being admitted into
11 evidence. He will kill us with these figures, my head is already spinning.
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you to Mr. Seselj for his
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's no challenge from the
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] These documents have been
18 Q. Can you confirm that these are official missing persons
19 questionnaires you're very familiar with?
20 A. Yes, these are missing person questionnaires that I am familiar
22 Q. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the last 65 ter number is 7412.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Let me conclude by asking you how many prisoners were recorded on
1 the territory of Croatia
2 A. In the Republic of Croatia
3 during the war, related to the war.
4 Q. In your first binder, is document 7363 a document analysing the
5 data related to these prisoners?
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. What is the percentage of civilians amongst these prisoners?
8 A. There was 1.865 civilians.
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Your Honour, I have no further questions. I wanted to tender all
11 the 65 ter documents I've shown to the witness: 7278, 7413, 7414, 7357,
12 7360, 7362, 7369, 7373, 7374, 7375, 7363, 7381, 7379, and all the missing
13 persons questionnaires, 2012, 2013, I'm certain about these two, 2017,
14 2004, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2016; and the rest of the questionnaires we
15 reviewed quickly, thanks to the cooperation of Mr. Seselj. They are to
16 be found in the second binder. I don't know if you want me to list all
17 of them.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Give us the first number.
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I hope they are classified in the
20 numerical order. The first number is 7382, and the last number is 7412.
21 And I'm going to make sure that the documents are to be found in
22 numerical order, but I'll do that later.
23 I would also like to ask for the admission of the other documents
24 I was not able to show to the witness. They are mentioned in the report
25 of the witness, and she submitted them as annexes to her report.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will need to
2 deliberate on these documents, but after having heard the
3 cross-examination by Mr. Seselj, of course.
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, 7389.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is there a document that has
6 not been translated yet, but that could be given an MFI number?
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] 7389.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 7389. This is a document that
9 has not as yet been translated.
10 Mr. Registrar, can we have a MFI number for 7389, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be given
12 Exhibit number P630. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Prosecutor has
14 completed his examination-in-chief. We are now going to give the floor
15 to Mr. Seselj for his cross-examination.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
17 Q. Ms. Bilic, when you were doing the statistical reviews of the
18 missing detainees, exhumed and identified persons in the territory of
20 of Croatia
21 division that existed in 1991, so that data would be easier to understand
22 and comparison would be easier?
23 A. All the information that our administration keeps are harmonised
24 with the official administrative division in the Republic of Croatia
25 It's the current one.
1 Q. Well, that's the point of my question. Why did you harmonise it
2 with the current administrative division? Why not the administrative
3 division that applied during the war in 1991?
4 A. I really don't know what to answer, except what I have already
5 said; namely, that information is harmonised and has been harmonised with
6 the current administrative borders, all the more so because data
7 concerning missing persons was collected in 1994, when, for the most
8 part, the current division into counties already applied, and data about
9 exhumations and identifications that started in 1995 were also processed
10 in keeping with the current administrative division in Croatia into
12 Q. Dalj and Ilok, were they separate municipalities in 1991?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Well, how would I know if you, as an expert, don't know?
15 A. I am not familiar with specific issues of local self-government.
16 Q. You reviewed data here about exhumed and identified persons in
17 the Vukovar-Srem county, and according to my information, and I have been
18 in prison for six years so my knowledge is limited, this county has a
19 large number of municipalities within it.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Vukovar, Ilok, Dalj and many others, newly-created
23 A. I'm sorry, but as far as I know Dalj is not in the Vukovar-Srem
24 county, it's in the Osijek-Baranja county.
25 Q. But we just had it here in -- on the map as part of the
1 Vukovar-Srem county.
2 A. That was a map of grave locations, graves where Vukovar victims
3 were found.
4 Q. Concerning the Lovas farm, you said victims from Vukovar were
5 found there, whereas we know that the victims are actually locals of
6 Lovas. And in Belgrade
7 these crimes that forced the victims into minefields.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.
9 You are speaking so fast that the interpreters don't have time to
10 complete their translation, so please wait until the interpreters have
11 completed their translation.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Ms. Lattanzi now gave you another question which is food for
14 thought. Do you know that the victims in Lovas were Croats from Lovas
15 that a paramilitary formation had forced into a minefield and they got
16 killed there? The alleged perpetrators are on trial at this moment in
18 A. I know that in Lovas, the victims are locals of Lovas, indeed,
19 and I know that as we speak, there is a trial going on in Belgrade for a
20 war crime against the inhabitants of Lovas. However, we are talking
21 about the mass grave at Lovas farm, not Lovas settlement. Lovas farm is
22 an agricultural estate between Dalj and Borovo village, and on Lovas
23 farm, in 2000 or 2001, a mass grave was found, out of which 24 victims
24 were exhumed, and the mortal remains of 20 of them have been positively
25 identified so far. All the 20 were persons who had been taken away on
1 the 19th of November, 1991, from Borovo settlement. So these are two
2 different events and two different locations, Lovas farm versus Lovas
4 Q. Do you know that in Borovo settlement, a completely different
5 military unit of the JNA operated, completely different to the one that
6 operated in Vukovar? These units were divided into Operative Group South
7 and Operative Group North; do you know that?
8 A. Nowhere in my report do I deal with persons who were responsible
9 for these crimes or who operated in certain parts of Vukovar town or in
10 other areas.
11 Q. I'm not talking about persons. We're talking about military
12 operations that had taken place, causing a certain number of casualties.
13 A. But I'm not dealing with military forces or paramilitary forces
14 which were involved in the events in the area of Vukovar in 1991.
15 Therefore, I'm not familiar with the subject, it's not the subject of my
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I fully understand
18 what you are telling us. But beyond that, killings took place; and I'm
19 discovering now that there were 24 bodies, 20 of whom were identified,
20 that came from the village of Borovo
21 about earlier. They were executed on the 19th of November, 1991, and
22 this is a key date because it's a date we've already heard mentioned in
23 relation to other locations. But beyond that, the relatives of these
24 casualties may have turned to your administration or the relevant
25 administration. Why all this happened, did that happen as part of an
1 overall plan, because, you see, relatives, families, are entitled to
2 receive answers to such questions, or is this the result of the
3 unregulated activities of units that were completely out of control? Did
4 these events take place on those dates by pure chance? Is it something
5 that is of interest to people in Croatia or is it something that no one
6 is really interested in?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report, data is shown on 14
8 mass graves in the area of the Danube Valley
9 victims were found. Part of these graves -- that is, most of those
10 graves were made at the same time as the mass grave in Ovcara. So these
11 are the facts that I can talk about at this time.
12 Specific military units that acted in specific areas are
13 something I am not familiar with. But the fact is that most of the mass
14 graves containing Vukovar victims, such as Ovcara, Dalj, Petrovci
15 Brsadin, the Lovas farm, Negoslavci, most of them were created and
16 contain victims who had been forcibly removed on the 19th of November,
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With respect to these mass
19 graves, if I, myself, had been on the spot when they were discovered and
20 when the exhumations took place, I would have asked myself the question
21 whether these graves had been dug with an excavator, with simple shovels,
22 and so on and so forth. Were inquiries conducted into these matters to
23 find out how these graves were dug? Was it done with a machine? If
24 that's the case, then this excavator had to be nearby. So any
25 investigation worth its salt would have uncovered what had really
1 happened. To your knowledge, were any investigations conducted in
2 relation to the 14 mass graves mentioned in your report, about the way
3 these mass graves were dug up?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think most of these graves --
5 this is really a technical issue; but I believe most of these 14 graves,
6 the pits where mortal remains were found, were dug up by machines.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but they had to come from
8 somewhere, these machines.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] You've just used a term that I have
12 never heard before, neither in administrative nor geographic terms. You
13 said "Croatian Podunavlje," Danube Valley
14 A. Well, the unified term encompassing Baranja, Western Srem, and
15 Eastern Slavonia
16 the Danube
17 Q. So these 14 graves relate also to graves found in Baranja?
18 A. The victims from Vukovar were not found in any of the mass graves
19 in the area of Baranja. In the table attached to the map, there is
20 indication of exact locations of all mass graves where victims from
21 Vukovar were found, so this map shows exclusively those mass graves that
22 contain victims from Vukovar.
23 Q. In that case, the least we can say is you are inadequately using
24 the term "Croatian Podunavlje." "Croatian Podunavlje" could mean an area
25 that Croatians currently hold on the banks of the Danube. But if you
1 exclude such a large, important area such as Baranja, because none of
2 these 14 graves were there, then using this term, "Croatian Podunavlje,"
3 is inadequate to say the least. You can talk about graves found in
4 Eastern Slavonia
5 A. I agree with you that in this specific case, a more accurate
6 definition would be that graves were found in the Vukovar-Srem county and
7 Osijek-Baranja county.
8 Q. But these two counties did not exist in 1991. I, therefore,
9 conclude that you deliberately used the new administrative division of
11 that all exhumed bodies could artificially be linked to the action of
12 liberation of Vukovar in 1991, in November 1991.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. There's
14 no point in all this.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the question is
16 interesting, indeed. But in November and December of 1991, there was a
17 specific administrative division in place. It was the time of the former
19 these regions, they were established after the independence of Croatia
20 As part of this work you conducted, why did you make no reference to the
21 regions as they existed, legally speaking, at the time? You're not
22 responsible for all this, but why don't you do this?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The process of exhumation of mass
24 and individual graves in the territory of the Croatian Podunavlje area
25 was intensified in 1998, after the establishment of the full sovereignty
1 of the Republic of Croatia
2 At the time when the exhumation processes began in the area, the
3 administrative setup prevailed, which is the one that I showed in my
4 data, and that is how all the data and information and records are kept,
5 on that basis. However, for each mass grave in which victims from
6 Vukovar were found, data was listed which enable its very precise
7 location, which enable us to locate it very precisely.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Now, you say here that 2.017 victims were exhumed in the
10 Vukovar-Srem county area. That's right, isn't it? Now, all these 2.017
11 victims, do you link them up to the second half of November 1991? To
12 give you a bit more manoeuvring space, let me put it that way, so not to
13 focus on one day, the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th of November. Now, all of
14 these victims, did they die in the second half of November?
15 A. No. The data on the 2.017 exhumed persons relate to the occupied
16 parts of the Vukovar-Srem county or, according to the previous system, it
17 was the former Vukovar municipality and occupied parts of the former
18 municipality of Vinkovci.
19 Q. And who occupied that area, who did the occupying?
20 A. Mr. Seselj, those areas were occupied by the Yugoslav People's
21 Army and its associated paramilitary formations.
22 Q. How could the Yugoslav People's Army occupy parts of Yugoslavia
23 itself? Tell me that.
24 A. The Croatian Sabor Assembly, on the 8th of October, 1991, passed
25 a constitutional decision on the cessation of all state legal ties to the
1 former republics which made up Yugoslavia
2 whole, and this was on the 8th of October, 1991.
3 Q. With respect to the constitutional role --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, there must be a
5 mistake. It's October 8, 1991, not 1990.
6 What you say is very important, Witness. Through its decision of
7 October 8, 1991
8 was the -- you know everything that happened. And then there was
9 international recognition that occurred with the UN and with other
10 states, which recognised, despite the fact that on October 8th, the --
11 despite that this was said by the Croatian Parliament, on October 8, you
12 know -- let me repeat my question.
13 Despite the fact that the Sabor, on October 8, 1991, declared
14 that all links with the former Yugoslavia
16 the fact, yes or no?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not an expert in this area for
18 me to be able to give a proper answer to this very complex question which
19 has its legal and historical implications, but the fact remains that the
20 Croatian Sabor or Assembly, on the basis of a decision made by the
21 citizens of the Republic of Croatia
22 October, 1991, did pass the decision to put a stop to all social and
23 legal links and connections. But unfortunately I'm not in a position to
24 answer your question, because I'm not a professional in that area.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's assume, and
1 it's just an assumption, let's assume that today in Croatia a region
2 would declare itself autonomous, that this municipality would declare
3 itself autonomous. So today, the army in force would be the Army of the
4 Republic of Croatia
5 be in that region; do you agree with this or not?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. However, I really am not
7 a lawyer, nor am I a political science specialist, and this enters the
8 realm of my own personal positions, which I don't think is suitable for
9 the subject matter that I have been called in to testify about.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Ms. Bilic, nonetheless, in my estimation, you are a
13 highly-intelligent and educated person. I can see that you are a
14 psychology graduate, so you must be fully conscious of the fact that from
15 the aspects of the constitutional role of the Yugoslav People's Army, the
16 Croatian Sabor, on the 8th of October, could have only passed a decision
17 to prevent the falling of leaves in autumn, because in autumn leaves do
18 fall; so the Croatian Sabor had no other authorisation and powers to
19 discuss the constitutional role of the Yugoslav People's Army; isn't that
20 right? So as an intelligent or educated person, I'm sure you'll realise
21 that, although you're not a lawyer by profession, but you know that full
22 well; right?
23 A. Thank you very much for your compliments. However, these
24 questions rank among the questions of personal positions being put
25 forward, and therefore, independently of my degree of education, I
1 cannot, before this august Trial Chamber and in such a serious situation,
2 present my own views and attitude on something that I'm not an expert in.
3 Q. All right. Now, when somebody engaged you as an expert, that is
4 to say, the OTP of The Hague Tribunal, I assume that they told you that
5 as an expert, in the courtroom you must be completely unbiased; so your
6 own political passions and ideological convictions must be laid aside and
7 you must only speak the language of facts. And in that respect, you
8 should not speak about parts of occupied Croatia, but on the situation as
9 it existed, the facts as they existed; that is, the existence of the RSK,
10 and in the civil war that was waged, the attempt by the Yugoslav People's
11 Army to repress the Croatian separatist rebellion, to make a long story
13 A. In this question, just like in the previous questions, we see
14 observations made which have both legal and political repercussions; so I
15 really cannot answer that question.
16 Q. Very well, fine. Now, for me not to have to oppose you and put
17 opposing thesis, that Croatia
18 1995 and that that temporary occupation is still ongoing today, and so
19 that you can avoid -- would you avoid talking about temporarily-occupied
20 territory, and let's stick to the facts in your expert report . Do you
21 agree with that; can we strike a bargain there?
22 A. Yes, I agree that I should respond to questions that relate to my
23 expert report.
24 Q. All right, fine. Now, you said that in the Vukovar-Srem county,
25 a total of 2.017 persons were exhumed or, rather, victims were exhumed?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Those were victims who had died over a longer period of time, not
3 just those several days at the end of November 1991; right?
4 A. Yes, that is right, the period is a broader one, and I think that
5 the first victims fell at the end of August or the beginning of September
6 1991. The largest number of victims took place on the 18th, the 19th and
7 20th of November, 1991, as we said. However, there were victims before,
8 that is to say at the very beginning of 1992. So from August 1991 right
9 through to the beginning of January and February of 1992.
10 Q. All right, fine. Now, among those 2.017 victims, almost 1.000
11 people were exhumed in the Vukovar grave, 900 odd, as far as I remember.
12 A. 938 individuals were exhumed at the new grave in Vukovar, to be
13 exact; so that's right.
14 Q. And they were people that were buried according to all the rules
15 and regulations and whom the Yugoslav People's Army buried, having
16 sanitised the terrain and collected up bodies temporarily buried in
17 various parts of Vukovar, and even temporary graves in town parks which
18 the Croatian soldiers set up to bury those who fell victim within their
19 own ranks; am I right in saying that?
20 A. The grave at Novo Groblje in Vukovar, the New Cemetery
21 Vukovar, is a locality where the mortal remains were buried of persons
22 who had died under different circumstances. Part of those individuals
23 really did die before the 18th or 19th or 20th of November, 1991; and
24 they were temporarily buried. Then they were exhumed and transferred to
25 the New Cemetery at Vukovar.
1 Now, some of the people lost their lives 17 years ago, before
2 those dates, but then again a portion of the people found at the New
3 Cemetery in Vukovar lost their lives after the 20th of November, and they
4 were temporarily -- or part of them were temporarily buried in what we
5 term primary grave-sites, just like the grave-site at Velepromet that we
6 spoke about earlier on, then the Petrovacki Atar [phoen] grave-site, the
7 fairground and Grbica Sesta [phoen] graveyards. So they were temporary
9 In 1991, an expert team led by Dr. Stankovic from the Medical
10 Military Academy
11 exhumed from those primary grave sites and transferred to the New
12 Cemetery in Vukovar, and the people who were buried at the New Cemetery
13 in Vukovar, it was the Commission for Tracing Missing Persons from the
14 Republic of Serbia
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, fine.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the difficulty that
17 any reasonable Judge may have when dealing with your report is the
18 following: Notably regarding this 2.017 bodies exhumed, this is the
19 following problems that a Judge may run into, and you've already answered
20 a number of these questions: We need to know when these people were
21 killed. You said that as far as you're concerned, some people were
22 killed in 1991. You mentioned July, August, so we have one first
23 difficulty here.
24 The second difficulty, Vukovar. We know that the town was
25 shelled by the JNA, that combat occurred, that Croat soldiers were killed
1 in these combats, and compounded difficulty. We need to know whether
2 these people that were killed were killed in combat and then buried later
3 on. We need to know, among those people, which ones were the civilians
4 and which ones were military.
5 And there is another difficulty, a third one. When Vukovar is
6 taken, prisoners are made; and we need to know what happens afterwards,
7 why some POWs are actually killed. This has to do with the Ovcara farm,
9 Then you seem to have said that after November 1991, other people
10 were killed, but we don't know the circumstances surrounding their death.
11 Because of all this, this figure of 2.017 for the Vukovar-Srem
12 region seems to hide very different situations, in terms of time, with --
13 in terms also of repercussions. We need to know who was in the armed
14 forces, who was a civilian, and so forth and so on. Was this dealt with
15 in the answers that you gave to the OTP?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that 2.017 persons, who
17 were exhumed in the Vukovar-Srem county area, were individuals who had
18 fallen casualty between the end of August 1991 to the beginning of 1992.
19 It is also true and correct that they lost their lives in different
20 situations and under different circumstances.
21 When I was answering a previous question, I stressed that these
22 2.017 exhumed victims were exhumed from 52 mass grave-sites and a series
23 of individual graves as well. Now, each of these mass graves, the way in
24 which they came into being, it was specific and would require an exact
25 description of the circumstances in which these people lost their lives.
1 Now, the fact remains that among the exhumed persons,
2 specifically in Vukovar at the New Cemetery
3 that Mr. Seselj brought up a moment ago, there were persons who lost
4 their lives due to shelling or were killed in other circumstances before
5 the events of the 18th, 19th and 20th of November, 1991.
6 So we have a very broad spectrum of circumstances and situations
7 there, but most of the people who were found in the mass graves were
8 individuals who were forcibly taken away, and the next fact about them
9 that we know is the point at which they were found and exhumed from the
10 mass graves.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question, please.
12 You agree that all situations are always different, and this
13 brings me back to the figure that struck me, the number of women killed
14 throughout this period. There's more than 800 women killed. That's a
15 very high number. It would have been quite interesting to know how many
16 females were killed in Vukovar, as such, in the city of Vukovar
17 are gathered with children in a cellar, for example, and that a shell
18 falls exactly there, because the Serbs saw some soldiers -- Croat
19 soldiers passing by in that area and were aiming at these soldiers, and
20 unfortunately hit the cellar where all these civilians were hiding, which
21 is what we call collateral damage, then of course a number of women die
22 in these kind of events. As you see, the situation is extremely complex.
23 Was this dealt with by all those who were working in your office
24 or those working for the Croatian organisations dealing with this?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but could you be more
1 specific in asking your question, please?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me be more specific.
3 We noted that more than 800 females were killed. So given this
4 figure, backed by documents, the following question could be raised: We
5 need to know -- we would like to know the circumstances surrounding the
6 death of these females. One assumption could be that maybe a number of
7 females were killed in Vukovar itself, in the city itself, because maybe
8 they had gathered in a place that was shelled for some reason. So a
9 shell fell, killed civilians, females, children, possibly Croat soldiers
10 that were passing by, and that the place had been shelled because the
11 Serb forces had seen Croat soldiers in that area; and that's why they
12 targeted this place. Then these people are very hastily buried during
13 the fighting, and then they are reburied in the New Cemetery
14 Now, the question that comes to mind is that the situation is
15 very complex; and what I would like to know, talking to the expert, that
16 you are, I would like to be whether at your level, at the level of all
17 your colleagues working in Croatia
18 casualties, whether people really understood the complexity of the
19 situation regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of all these
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By all means, we had in mind all
22 the time that the situations were very complex. It is true, especially
23 in the town of Vukovar
24 died as a result of shelling, destruction of their homes, houses, and
25 that is indisputable. However, it is also a fact that in Vukovar, a
1 certain number of women had been taken prisoner, and they are still
2 listed as missing, whereas some of them were found in Ilok, Novi Sad
4 remains had been taken out of the river, which shows that these women had
5 been killed and thrown into the Danube
6 Another fact is that in other parts of the Republic of Croatia
7 but also in the Vukovar-Srem and Osijek-Baranja counties, some of the
8 women were killed because they had failed to leave their homes earlier.
9 They had stayed even after the JNA entered the area.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Is it true, Ms. Bilic, that among these 936 persons exhumed from
13 the Vukovar Cemetery
14 course of war operations, died of natural causes; old age, disease
15 perhaps, maybe hunger?
16 A. As for the causes of death of persons exhumed and identified, I
17 cannot speak in any qualified way. Professor Strinovic, who was here
18 last week, was certainly more qualified to answer this question.
19 However, it is a fact, and I'm repeating this, that among the people who
20 are buried at the New Cemetery
21 documentation received from the competent commission in Belgrade and
22 other sources, some had certainly died before the events of the 18th,
23 19th and 20th November 1991.
24 Q. Since you are holding a high position in the Croatian
25 authorities, in a ministry, you must know that in the war, civilians had
1 died from natural causes at the same rate they would have died without a
2 war, and even more so because the war brings psychological and other
3 traumas that can accelerate death by natural causes; and it was not
4 possible to bury them at the cemetery because of various military
5 actions, sporadic shooting, shelling, et cetera; so they were buried in
6 improvised graves, in parks and other locations, whereas the JNA, after
7 military operations, conducted sanitization, collected bodies, exhumed
8 bodies from such improvised graves, and reburied them properly. I
9 emphasise "properly." But the competent authorities of Yugoslavia
10 over to you all the necessary documentation about that?
11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I don't -- I'm not against this
12 question, but could we please break it down into several statements,
13 because it's too complex.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you understand Mr. Seselj's
15 question? It's a very long question, long winding. He gave us a lot of
16 information in this question, but can you answer this question?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question of
18 Mr. Seselj, and I can try to answer.
19 As Mr. Seselj said, in 1991 the representatives of the Military
20 Medical Academy
21 Vukovar, a sanitization was conducted of mortal remains. On that
22 occasion, in addition to the mortal remains found on the very surface,
23 also exhumed were temporary graves Mr. Seselj referred to containing the
24 remains of persons who, because of war, could not be buried in
25 cemeteries. But also exhumed were primary graves containing the mortal
1 remains of those who had been forcibly removed or captured and then
2 killed. And all these mortal remains were transferred and reburied at
3 the New Cemetery in Vukovar. They were designated, marked at the New
4 Cemetery. However, it is a fact that among the mortal remains reburied
5 at the cemetery in Vukovar, there were also remnants of medical supplies
6 and debris; and there were cases also where mortal remains were not
7 buried individually, but one on top of another. And it's also a fact
8 that the markings on the crosses or tombs were not identical to the
9 markings on the mortal remains.
10 But to leave these details aside for the moment, the mortal
11 remains were buried at the New Cemetery
12 the competent Commission from Belgrade
13 It is also a fact that the documentation on victims buried in
14 1991 at the New Cemetery
15 in Croatia
16 turnover of protocols was a process that took the next two years; and we
17 received the last documentation on the 1st of April.
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the year.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Obviously, the question wasn't complicated for you. It was only
21 complicated for the Prosecutor, Mr. Dutertre, but let me -- he can handle
22 only questions of a simple nature containing a few words, but you can
23 handle longer and more complicated ones.
24 You dealt here with the 200 bodies from Ovcara, out of which 7
25 were not -- have not yet been identified. Isn't it a bit strange that
1 seven have still not been identified after twelve years? At least
2 concerning Ovcara, we know that those are bodies from the Vukovar
3 Hospital. A list was made, and Vesna Bosanac participated in the making
4 of that list, although I was not allowed to discuss it with her here.
5 And with all that information that you have, that these people had been
6 at the Vukovar Hospital
7 that some were bandaged up, and we know that from the post-mortems. They
8 had bandages, although below the bandage there was no trace of wounds,
9 and the Trial Chamber in Mrksic found that those were prisoners of war.
10 And now, after all this time, seven have not yet been identified. Isn't
11 that a bit odd?
12 A. As I said, when I was answering the questions of the Prosecutor,
13 and as we can see from the data attached to my report, with regard to
14 three persons, at the time of the list --
15 Q. That's the three missing from 190 to 193. I'm speaking only
16 about the last seven you haven't identified yet.
17 A. It's possible that these seven persons, for the same reasons that
18 I have given you concerning those three persons, were not included in the
19 list of persons who had been forcibly removed from the Vukovar Hospital
20 It's possible that for the seven of them, the data available was not
21 specific enough for them to be included in the list, or alternatively
22 it's possible that their family members had not provided blood samples
23 for DNA
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one thing, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we need to have a
1 break now.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I just finish this, because
3 it's logical to follow up.
4 Q. To pick up on the possibilities you mentioned, or alternatively
5 those were foreign mercenaries and adventurers who had joined the ranks
6 of the Croatian military and participated in the fighting in Vukovar and
7 were captured as such. That possibility does exist, doesn't it; they are
8 foreigners and that's why you can't identify them after so many years?
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Objection. Calling for
10 speculation. Objection. Calling for speculation, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but it can be an
12 assumption you make.
13 What do you have to answer to this?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Administration for Detainees
15 and Missing Persons, where I work, deals with searching for missing
16 persons primarily from the humanitarian point of view. If families had
17 submitted requests for a search, the Administration for Detainees and
18 Missing Persons would have taken blood samples for DNA analysis and
19 included these people in the list and tried to ascertain their fate.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we know that some
21 people went missing. We know that some families got in touch with you.
22 Seven persons remain unidentified. If you take samples of hair, blood
23 samples of people looking for a relative, and if you conduct a DNA
24 analysis, comparison, between these people and the seven unidentified
25 bodies, you should be able to ascertain whether these seven people are
1 amongst the missing persons. But since we do not know, as of today,
2 where these seven people come from, it may very well be that some of them
3 were foreigners, because, you see, when I had a look at your tables, I
4 was quite astonished to see that there were victims from various
5 nationalities. There were Germans, Ukrainians, and so on and so forth.
6 So could it be that some of these seven are foreigners?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's true and it's a fact that in
8 my report, there is information about the ethnicity of both missing
9 persons and identified persons; but it is a peculiarity of especially
10 Vukovar and the surrounding area, that is, the former municipalities of
11 Vukovar, Osijek
12 inhabited by a large number of ethnicities: Ruthenians, Hungarians,
13 Romanians, Czechs and others. So in this case, these are ethnic
14 communities living in the territory of the Republic of Croatia
15 also victimised alongside Croats. There were also among victims members
16 of these ethnic communities that were exposed to suffering. That is
17 about ethnicity.
18 Now, about these seven persons exhumed at Ovcara who have not
19 been identified yet, I repeat it is my opinion that the answer probably
20 lies in the fact that the families of these persons did not have accurate
21 data on the location where the missing persons had been seen the last
22 time. They did not know that they had last been seen precisely at the
23 Vukovar Hospital
24 enough samples have been collected to enable DNA analysis.
25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
1 Q. And maybe they are simply Kurds or similar mercenaries, because
2 there have been such cases. Who knows who they are. Germans from
4 foreigners came.
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One quick question about these
6 seven individuals. Is it the case that not a single item of clothing was
7 found? Was everything destroyed?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I'm not able to give
9 you such specific data. I don't know whether Professor Strinovic could
10 provide a better answer to the question, perhaps, than me.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We really need to break now.
12 It's 10 past 12.00.
13 We'll resume at half past 12.00 for 45 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, according to our
17 calculations, you've used 32 minutes. You have 58 minutes left. You
18 won't be able to complete your cross-examination today, since we have to
19 stop at a quarter past 1.00. We'll need to proceed with the testimony of
20 the witness tomorrow, unless you manage to complete your
21 cross-examination within the 50 minutes we have left.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll have to go on tomorrow,
23 Mr. President, because I am sure you'll have additional questions, and I
24 don't think we'll be able to get through it today. I'll need the full
25 hour that's left to us today, so that will probably take longer overall,
1 and I'm sure Ms. Bilic won't find it hard to come back tomorrow.
2 Q. Anyway, Ms. Bilic, when you, as far as I understood it, for the
3 first time in your life were given the assignment to write an expert
4 report for a court of law, that's the first time you've been asked to do
5 anything like that; right?
6 A. Yes, that is correct, this is the first time that I have written
7 a report for a court of law, the first time that I'm doing an expert
9 Q. Wasn't it a little strange that you were asked to write an expert
10 report without being provided with the title and heading of that expert
11 report, that is to say, succinctly your assignment defined? You received
12 a list of questions from Ms. Christine Dahl to which she wanted your
13 response, but you never actually got the subject of your expert report
14 formulated in the form of a heading or title. Didn't you find that a
15 little strange?
16 A. No, I didn't find it strange, to be quite frank. I didn't pay
17 any attention to the fact that this subject, specified subject, was
18 lacking, since the specific questions that I was asked and was asked to
19 incorporate in my report actually referred to my field of work and
20 expertise. And I've already said the uniform title could be the process
21 of seeking detainees and missing persons in the Republic of Croatia
22 That could be the working title.
23 Q. Well, that would then be an expert report, were it that the
24 Republic of Croatia
25 process which the authorities there were putting into practice. However,
1 the subject matter here is far broader, and for that it is indispensable
2 to address such matters as the process of determining the number of
3 missing persons in the first place during the war and the war activities
4 of 1991 up until 1995, regardless of who deals with subject matter of
5 that kind within national borders. And you only have one source, and
6 they are data and information from the corresponding ministry of the
7 Republic of Croatia
8 your report. Am I right in saying that?
9 A. The title of the report, "The process for tracing missing persons
10 in Croatia
11 information and data that I present in my report. The process in which
12 missing persons were traced includes the recording and listing of missing
13 persons; and so it begins with a portion that we call recording and
14 listing the names of missing persons.
15 Q. But you conducted that listing and those records in relations of
16 the citizens that recognise you as their authority, the Croatian powers
17 and authorities, but not with the others; right?
18 A. No, that is not right. The listing of missing persons was done,
19 and all the families, citizens of the Republic of Croatia
20 family member who is missing, and the fact that he's missing was linked
21 to the war events, did have the possibility and still do, in fact, have
22 the possibility of tabling a request for tracing that person. And the
23 Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons would be in charge of
24 that, taking in their requests and acting upon them.
25 And as I describe in my report, the information and data
1 pertaining to missing persons in the Republic of Croatia
2 in two stages, two general stages.
3 First of all, there was the activity to renew the request for
4 missing person search that was conducted in 1994; and the second stage
5 was at the initiative of the Administration for Detainees and Missing
6 Persons on the basis of bilateral agreements with the representatives of
7 the Republic of Serbia
8 International Red Cross Committee, and they collected data and
9 information pertaining to all missing persons whose families had
10 responded to the drive and formulated a request for the search process to
12 So in that data-gathering process, it was the International
13 Committee of the Red Cross that took part, and in the specific action
14 implemented on the ground, it was the National Red Cross Society and Red
15 Crescent -- or, rather, Red Cross Society, first of all of Yugoslavian --
16 Serbian and Bosnia and Herzegovina which took part.
17 Q. What about the publication of International Red Cross Committee
18 that was published on missing persons and detainees on the territory of
19 the former Yugoslavia
20 A. As far as I know, on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, no.
21 However, the International Committee of the Red Cross did publish a list
22 of missing persons on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It also
23 published a list of missing persons in Kosovo. And finally, in February
24 2007, a book was published containing a list of missing persons on the
25 territory of the Republic of Croatia
1 International Red Cross Committee.
2 Q. How far do your -- does your information differ from the facts
3 and figures found in that particular book, in that publication?
4 A. The information that the Administration for Detainees and Missing
5 Persons has have been almost totally dovetailed with the information
6 contained in the book "Missing Persons in the Territory of the Republic
7 of Croatia
9 Q. Were you able to establish how many people were killed on the
10 territory of the Republic of Yugoslavia
12 A. The Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons does not
13 keep records of persons killed or, rather, the fatalities, so that I am
14 not in a position to answer your question.
15 Q. But Ivan Grujic bandies a figure of about 11.000 fatalities;
16 right? Have you heard about that? No?
17 A. Well, yes, I certainly have heard of that. That piece of
18 information is something I'm aware of. But as an expert witness, I've
19 been called here to discuss missing persons, exhumated, and identified
20 persons and persons who were freed and then exchanged.
21 Q. Well, when you wrote your expert report, you knew that you had to
22 be unbiased and objective. Why didn't you seek information from the
23 government of the RSK in exile, whose seat is in Belgrade, and from the
24 nongovernmental organisation called Veritas, which is led by Savo Strbac,
25 because they have the number of disappeared Serbs, missing Serbs, that
1 you don't have and that were not dealt with by the International Red
2 Cross either.
3 A. As I've already said, the Administration for Detainees and
4 Missing Persons, when establishing their list of missing persons, stem
5 from --
6 Q. You're not answering my question. You're now defending the
7 administration. I'm asking you, personally, and as an expert, because
8 when you accepted to be an expert witness of the International Tribunal,
9 you should have left your function aside that you hold in the
10 administration -- Croatian Administration for Detainees and Missing
11 Persons. You're a expert witness of the International Tribunal, and you
12 must seek alternative sources of information and data which might be
13 opposed to the ones you have. So you must be unbiased and set your
14 personal feelings aside. So that's the substance of my question.
15 A. The Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons, let me
16 repeat once again, when compiling its list of missing persons and its
17 records of missing persons, not in a single case was guided by the
18 information from nongovernmental organisations, but by standards and
19 criteria applied by the International Red Cross Committee, which stem
20 from the fact that for each missing person, there must be somebody
21 seeking that person, a family member who wants to find the person; and
22 that is how the list of missing persons was set up in Croatia, regardless
23 of their origins, ethnicity, religion, or the circumstances of their
25 Q. But most of the expelled Serbs from the RSK --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj.
2 Witness, I do not want to challenge your independence. You're an
3 expert witness, and as such, you are independent. But I would like to
4 know the following: When you drafted your report, did you submit it to a
5 higher-up in your administration in Croatia or did you draft a report and
6 immediately send it to the OTP?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I compiled the report and sent it
8 directly to the OTP of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, no one
11 controlled your report; you drafted your report independently?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I compiled it fully independently,
13 and the report describes my methodology and the results on the basis of
14 official records kept by the institution in which I am employed.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I had to check this
16 with you.
17 We are dealing with the collateral issue of Serb victims. It's a
18 question I raised myself earlier. I did not wait for Mr. Seselj to do
19 so. I raised it first, when I dealt with the 184 Serbs who were killed.
20 And I have a question about this.
21 As part of the mandate that was yours, you were dealing with
22 Croats who had been killed and who had gone missing. But notwithstanding
23 that fact, as an expert, as somebody interested in everything, wouldn't
24 it have been natural for you to wonder what happened on the other side,
25 to wonder how many Serbs were taken prisoner in the Republic of Croatia
1 how many were killed, how many went missing? Wouldn't an independent
2 expert have naturally conducted such an inquiry?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, that's how I worked. I
4 worked that way personally, and that's how the institution in which I'm
5 employed works too.
6 As I've already said, in 1994 there was a drive to gather
7 information about missing persons, and the information gathered was
8 mostly information about Croatian missing persons. But in 1991 and 1992,
9 it was mostly ethnic Croats that fell casualty.
10 Now, in 1995, we had Operations Flash and Storm take place, in
11 which a certain number of citizens of the Republic of Croatia
12 missing, mostly of Serb ethnicity. It was precisely at the initiative of
13 the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons, the institution of
14 which I'm a staff member, in July 2000. At negotiations held in Zagreb
15 it was agreed and planned to have an action to gather information about
16 missing persons in the Flash and Storm operations, and all persons who
17 went missing and whose families had not put in a request for tracing the
18 missing person. This drive was, as I said, initiated by the
19 Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons on the basis of
20 bilateral negotiations, and in the process of collecting information, we
21 had the International Red Cross Committee taking part as a completely
22 unbiased organisation with the greatest possible humanitarian respect and
23 esteem, as did the Red Cross societies of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,
24 since some of the families of the missing persons had spent time and were
25 still living on the territory of those states.
1 Now, bearing in mind, therefore, the displacement of families in
2 general, this drive went on from 2002 up until 2006, and that drive at
3 that point in time came up with a number of 1.110 missing persons, of
4 which persons of Serb ethnicity made up the majority.
5 The Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons, first of
6 all through the process of identifying the mortal remains of these
7 individuals, was able to establish the fate of a portion of these people.
8 So when the report was compiled, which I sent to the OTP of the Tribunal,
9 the number of missing persons from the drives I mentioned amounted to
11 What I'd like to add is this: In order to gain a comprehensive
12 and objective picture, the criteria of data-gathering and the methodology
13 applied to data-gathering were identical in the drive conducted in 1994
14 as they were in this latest drive of information-gathering; and so on the
15 basis of that, the number established was 874 persons as of the 1st of
16 July, 2008, which I also describe in my report.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Mr. Seselj, you may proceed.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Ms. Bilic, what was the total number of camps for Serb detainees
21 in Croatia
22 A. I can't give you an answer to that question, I'm afraid. All I
23 know is that there were, I think, two accommodation premises for
24 prisoners of war, two facilities where the prisoners of war were put up.
25 As to the other persons, they were in detention and in prisons; but the
1 Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons does not keep any
2 official records of persons who were within the authorities of the
3 Croatian authorities linked to the war events, so I can't give you a
4 precise answer to that question.
5 Q. I notice that places where Croatian prisoners of war, i.e.,
6 referred to with camps, "logor," and where the Serbs were kept, you refer
7 to them as accommodation sites for spending the night. So these just
8 spend time spending the night, whereas you use the word "logor" or "camp"
9 to associate us in our minds with the German concentration camps and so
11 A. I did not succumb to any propaganda when I compiled my report.
12 In my report, there's no mention -- I don't use the word "konaciste" or
13 accommodation for the night for prisoners of war. I used terms that are
14 in official use in the Republic of Croatia
16 Q. But you introduced this word "konaciste" quite recently as being
17 "lodgings." "Konaciste" is an ancient Serb word that Croats use, too,
18 meaning "quarters," but quarters and lodging for the night, somewhere you
19 go to spend the night. That's what "konaciste" means, whereas where
20 prisoners of war are held, the term there is "camp" that is used both by
21 Serbs and Croats. And you use it, too, when you refer to places where
22 the Croatian prisoners were kept. So why the difference? I understand
23 that it's in official use, but as an expert witness, you should have
24 raised yourself above that and used the same terminology, the same
25 yardstick, for both the Croatian and Serb sides.
1 A. As I said, nowhere in the report did I mention or use that word
2 for one night lodging, but I am now using the terms officially accepted
3 in Croatia
4 Q. But you based your report exclusively on the official data of the
5 Croatian state, and the Croatian state is interested in Croat detainees
6 in Serb or Muslim hands. But what Croats are holding in their hands,
7 including Muslims whom you transported from Bosnia deep into Croatia
8 they are not interested.
9 According to the government of the Serbian Krajina in exile and
10 their prime minister, Mr. Buha, in the area of Croatia there were 221
11 camps detaining Serbs. Those are also the figures of the Veritas
12 nongovernmental organisation headed by Mr. Strbac, 221 camps holding Serb
13 prisoners. And you know nothing about that?
14 A. I cannot speak of the things that I do not know. Detention
15 centres and prisons in Croatia
16 Ministry of Justice.
17 Q. But as an expert of an international court, you shouldn't have
18 used only what is available to your ministry. You should have researched
19 the whole phenomenon. As an expert of the International Court, you
20 should be indifference whether the prisoners are Croats or Serbs. You
21 have to establish the exact figures for both ethnic groups.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think the witness
23 said what she knew and didn't know. We could keep on with this for
24 hours, but it's pointless.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand your position. I
1 discover that there is a government of the Serbian Krajina in exile in
3 to Mr. Seselj, that in Croatia
4 detention camps where Serbs were detained. Line 15, page 88. So we
5 could infer from this that there were some hundreds of Serbs detained
7 Your department is competent to deal with missing persons, so I
8 would like to know whether your department is sometimes -- sometimes gets
9 inquiries by Serbian families looking for their own relatives who
10 disappeared, or whether this is channeled through another department.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Administration for Detainees
12 and Missing Persons searches for all missing citizens of the Republic of
14 administration, requests have been made to search for 874 persons; that
15 is, 874 requests are outstanding, mainly related to Flash and Storm
16 operations, most of them Serbs; and 64 requests, again mainly Serbs, are
18 These persons, these families, through the mediation of the ICRC,
19 addressed their administration, filed their requests for such; and it is
20 precisely the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons that deals
21 with these requests and searches.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me assume a
23 very theoretical case, but we'll use this as an example.
24 Let's imagine we have a Serb who at the time was working in
1 go fight in Croatia
2 maybe German citizenship. And let's say that he goes missing and no one
3 has heard from him since then. I would like to know whether your
4 department could receive an inquiry on this person, even though he is not
5 a Croat national.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're talking about a citizen of
7 the Republic of Serbia
8 competent service of Serbia
9 they would also need to be reported to the International Committee of the
10 Red Cross.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But why go through the ICRC?
12 Why is it that the family can't directly inquire with the competent
13 authorities? Why is there a need for this to be channeled through the
14 ICRC? In my assumption, you know, this Serb who was working in Germany
15 and who went missing, I would like to know whether his relatives, maybe
16 his mother, brother, sister, you know, wouldn't just directly write to
17 your department or to the Serbian authorities in order to get information
18 on this missing person.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, they can directly
20 address the authorities. But in this specific case, if a citizen of
22 be the Commission for Missing Persons for the Government of the Republic
23 of Serbia
24 would be the Administration for Detainees and Missing Persons.
25 I mentioned the ICRC because they have a network of branch
1 offices throughout the world, and families sometimes find it easier and
2 more practical to file their requests for tracing with the ICRC, who
3 would distribute the request and send a query to the competent service.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand.
5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Are you aware that in 135 mass graves in the territory of
8 A. No, I'm not aware that Serb victims have been exhumed out of 135
9 mass graves in the territory of Croatia
10 identified persons in the organisation of our administration, mortal
11 remains of 184 Serb persons have been identified up to the date of the
12 last update of my report. Now, that number is certainly higher, but at
13 that moment the number of identified Serbs was 184.
14 Q. During the war, did you live in Zagreb --
15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Just one point.
16 Regarding these figures, it would be very useful if Mr. Seselj
17 could give us documents or could give our witness documents to know
18 exactly what she's talking about, because we're talking in a very general
19 fashion about figures.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, you are
21 stating facts, and I'm sure that this is backed by documents that you
22 have. And so in order to, you know, back your question, please tell us
23 where you obtained this information and which document it comes from.
24 Otherwise, you know, you could have made it up, and Judges could think
25 that you've made it up and the Prosecutor could think that you've made it
1 up. So please give us references.
2 Earlier, you were saying that there were 135 mass graves. You
3 must have something to back this information. Tell us where you obtained
4 this information. Tell us that the report was drafted maybe by the
5 government of the Krajina, the exiled government, published in such year,
6 talking about this. Give us some documents.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution would like to
8 have the list of the documents that Mr. Seselj is using in his
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but that's another kettle
11 of fish, if I can say so. So just to add some credibility to what you're
12 asserting, please tell us where you got this information.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, they ban all my
14 contacts with my advisers and associates, and now they want documents
15 from me. If I had contact with my associates, you would have all sorts
16 of documents on your table this morning. But I have the data from the
17 government of the Serbian Krajina in exile; and according to the data of
18 the Veritas NGO in the area of the Serbian Krajina, that is, the formal
19 Croat federal unit, a total of 6.744 Serbs were killed, and they have a
20 list of names. I would have all that here if my communication hadn't
21 been stopped. I only using, in cross-examination, the information I had
22 received before in a preliminary way.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I was hoping that we
24 would have had a document translated into English, not in Serbian.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj is stating
1 from -- and this is backed by a document that he has, and I have no
2 reason to challenge this.
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to have on the
4 transcript that the Prosecution is against the use by Mr. Seselj of
5 documents that he says he had even before he was banned from contacting
6 with his associates, because he would have been in a position to disclose
7 them in time to the Prosecution.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So this is on the
9 transcript now.
10 Mr. Seselj is stating that backed by an NGO, Veritas, that 6.044
11 Serbs were killed in Croatia
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I have already
13 expressed my reservation concerning records of missing persons, but I
14 don't have the list in front of me, that list of 6.744 persons who
15 allegedly were killed in the Republic of Croatia
16 would be frivolous of me to comment.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have to point out that
18 the Prosecution has chosen, as an expert in such a delicate issue, who is
19 a civil servant of Croatia
20 all semblance of objectiveness. I have nothing personal against
21 Ms. Bilic, but this expert report should have been done by someone who is
22 not involved in the war, and that person would have used the data
23 available to the administration where Ms. Bilic works, the data from
25 NGO, and many other NGOs. That's what an unbiased expert would have
2 We have an expert here who belongs, body and soul, to one of the
3 warring sides, so her expertise cannot be comprehensive. It is partial.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, there's something I
5 don't understand, and maybe you could shed some light on this for me.
6 This comparison that you would need and which you say should have
7 been brought here or that we should have heard of, what is its purpose?
8 How would you use it? What is the place that this comparison has in your
9 own Defence case? Does this mean that according to you, the fact that
10 there might have been thousands of Serbs who were killed in Croatia
11 would that justify killing thousands of Croats, maybe less than Serbs,
12 but thousands of Croats? So how -- what is the role played by this
13 comparison in your Defence case?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not a single crime can be
15 justified, and especially not by prior crimes. But from an expert report
16 of an objective expert, you would gain a true picture of that war. With
17 this expert report, you get the impression that only Serbs killed, that
18 only Serbs took prisoners of war, that only Serbs victimised civilians.
19 This expert has no idea what happened throughout the territory of
21 camps, et cetera. They view it as justified capture or killing; but when
22 one of ours kills or imprisons one of theirs, that is unjustified, that
23 is a crime.
24 What is important, I'm telling you, to understand is to
25 understand the true nature of this war, where crimes were committed on
1 both sides. I'm not justifying crimes on the Serbian side; but I don't
2 want crimes on the Croatian side concealed. An unbiased expert report
3 would give us objective data, so many people got killed, so many people
4 passed through camps.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have to finish.
6 I believe we'll finish tomorrow.
7 Mr. Prosecutor.
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I must say Mr. Seselj has had this
9 document for a long time. If he had asked for supplemental information
10 by the Prosecution, we could have done something.
11 Now, the fact that Ms. Bilic is a civil servant does not mean
12 she's biased. Of course not. There are Serb generals who have testified
13 here for the Defence or for Prosecution. Belonging to the control of a
14 command structure does not mean that they are biased.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's time to finish for today,
16 time to wrap it up for today. I think you have about 30 minutes left.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have my notes here. They are not
20 meant for distribution, either to the Trial Chamber or the Prosecution.
21 Those are my notes, created by six years of preparation for my Defence,
22 and created in preparation for Ivan Grujic, one of the announced
23 witnesses. I can use some of them to cross-examine Ms. Bilic. But in
24 order for me to get you documents, I should have had the opportunity to
25 contact my associates, because my associates cannot give me, in one go,
1 all the documents for all the witnesses.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Put an end to this right now.
3 It's time to stop, and I have another trial starting in less than an
4 hour. I believe that we can continue debating this tomorrow. We are
5 fully aware of the question.
6 Mr. Mundis.
7 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Again, it needs to be clearly indicated on the record there is
9 nothing stopping the accused from having contact with his associates or
10 receiving any documents from his associates, and this is simply
11 non-factual information that the accused insists upon saying for the
12 benefit of the public. It's not true, and we strenuously object to his
13 untruthful statements in the courtroom.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's on the transcript now.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
16 continues] ... Mr. President. When I am able to eavesdrop and supervise
17 the messages received by the Prosecution by fax, then I will allow them
18 to eavesdrop my conversations and supervise the messages I receive by
19 fax. Until that time, no way. Until that time, I will rather have no
20 contacts and receive no documents.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Witness, you will come
22 back tomorrow at 8.30, 8.30 a.m.
23 minutes left. Of course, with objections and some procedural issues, you
24 might have to stay for about an hour, but rest assured your testimony
25 will end tomorrow. So please be here tomorrow at 8.30 a.m. Since then,
1 of course, you're a witness of justice, you're not supposed to contact
2 the OTP. Thank you.
3 We will adjourn now until tomorrow morning.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.18 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of
6 November, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.