1 Tuesday, 24 April 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: This morning we are going to deal with the

6 application of the Prosecution for the admission of transcript evidence in

7 respect of a number of witnesses. The relevant Rule is Rule 92 bis (D),

8 which reads:

9 "The Chamber may admit a transcript of evidence given by a

10 witness in proceedings before the Tribunal which goes to proof of a matter

11 other than the acts and conduct of the accused."

12 Paragraph (E) is also important. It says in its relevant portions

13 that:

14 "The Trial Chamber shall decide, after hearing the parties,

15 whether to admit the statement or transcript in whole or in part and

16 whether to require the witness to appear for cross-examination."

17 This is a seminal exercise in that it is the first time that a

18 Chamber will be seeking to implement this Rule, which was only recently

19 adopted.

20 The procedure that we will adopt is to hear from the Prosecution

21 in respect of the six proposed transcript witnesses. We'll deal with them

22 individually. So we'll hear from the Prosecution first in respect of

23 Mr. Vulliamy, hear submissions. They need not be long. Then we'll hear

24 from the Defence.

25 So we start with the Prosecution. Mr. Ryneveld.

1 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 As you are aware, Your Honours, pursuant to 92 bis (D) and (E),

3 the Prosecution has in fact provided my friends with notice of our

4 intention to introduce these previous transcript witnesses, and we have

5 also, upon the Court's instructions, marked those passages of the

6 transcripts which the Prosecution indicates we would be relying upon.

7 Now, in regard to Mr. Vulliamy, my understanding is that

8 Mr. Vulliamy has given evidence before this Tribunal in three cases prior

9 to the case currently at bar, and that is in Tadic he testified in 1996;

10 in Blaskic, he testified in April and May of 1998; and then most recently

11 in the Kovacevic trial, in July of 1998.

12 We have provided, pursuant to what we deem to be our rules of

13 obligation of disclosure, copies of all the transcripts of the testimony

14 at this Tribunal of Mr. Vulliamy, but my understanding is that we have not

15 marked any of the passages from either the Tadic trial or the Blaskic

16 trial, but only relevant passages from the Kovacevic trial.

17 Having said that, the other portions may well be relevant by way

18 of disclosure to my friends, but the portions that we have marked begin at

19 page 727 of the 14th of July, 1998, transcript in open session.

20 It's interesting to note that it deals with the matter of almost

21 identical circumstances in the sense that Mr. Kovacevic was also an

22 accused relating to the events that occurred in Prijedor, and another

23 counsel who is at bar today, Mr. Vucicevic, in fact was counsel who had

24 the opportunity of cross-examining at that time.

25 I might say that under the circumstances, his evidence is by way

1 of background. It completely fills -- fulfils the requirements, we would

2 submit, of the Rule 92 bis (D) and (E), that it relates to background and

3 does not directly relate to the acts or conduct of the accused, but it is

4 important evidence for this Court to consider to understand the background

5 material that the Prosecution intends to introduce.

6 We submit that this is exactly the type of evidence that the

7 Rule -- that the -- that was contemplated when the Rule was enacted to

8 permit this type of evidence before the Court for the purposes of both

9 judicial economy and for the fact that counsel have had an opportunity of

10 cross-examining this particular witness before on a very similar subject

11 matter.

12 I don't believe I have much more that I wish to add, other than to

13 suggest that we would ask that the relevant portions, as marked by the

14 Prosecution, be considered for admission before this Court on this case,

15 and rather than say any more at this point, perhaps I might reserve the

16 opportunity to reply in the event my learned friends have some other

17 submissions which I feel I must respond to.

18 Those are my submissions with respect to Mr. Vulliamy.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ryneveld, may I just ask you if you look at

20 lines 809, 810, which deals with the convoy.

21 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry, pages 809 and 810?

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

23 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, thank you. In relation to the 15th of July,

24 1998 testimony.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

1 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question I wanted to ask you, this deals with

3 evidence of the convoy leaving Omarska, proceeding to the Trnopolje camp,

4 and along the way, the television crew stopped, interviewed some men who

5 were standing behind a barbed wire fence who looked emaciated and were

6 free to talk. Is this -- you say that all of this is background is it in

7 any way however, relevant to the question of genocide?

8 MR. RYNEVELD: We would submit that it is, Your Honour, in so far

9 as it provides -- in so far as the Prosecution has already led in evidence

10 a portion of the video tape where by the Court actually saw some of the

11 video referred to in this evidence. We say that it provides a background

12 and it also is available to the Court to see actual personal account of

13 someone who was present and provides the background for the taking of the

14 video and what he saw viva voce.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it only background?

16 MR. RYNEVELD: Those pages, which I think start at 809 to 817,

17 are -- it can certainly be categorised as background but it also is

18 evidence of what this Court can look at by means of genocide as alleged in

19 this particular case because it shows the interrelationship between the

20 camps from Keraterm to Trnopolje and that individuals from Keraterm went

21 to Trnopolje. So there are some names mentioned here, not actual

22 witnesses that I can recall that testified in these proceedings, but it

23 does refer to other individuals who clearly came from Keraterm.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

25 MR. RYNEVELD: As a matter of fact page 815 -- sorry, they had

1 a -- line 7, starting at line 7 on 815: "Did you ask the prisoners in

2 the camp how they had arrived at the camp?" Answer: "Yes, indeed. They

3 had arrived from various places and for various reasons. Some had, as I

4 have said, come directly from Omarska and Trnopolje, others mostly in

5 different bits of the camp had come voluntarily," et cetera. That is

6 evidence that the Court can consider about the interrelationship of the

7 three camps.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

9 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves?

11 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, in my submission you've identified an

12 important issue in relation to the admissibility under this rule of these

13 transcripts. Your Honour, the Rule 92 bis (D) refers to matters which go

14 to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused.

15 Your Honour, my client is charged with genocide. Can I remind

16 Your Honour of the passage at which the Prosecution in particular put its

17 case in relation to genocide? That was on the first day and I've looked

18 quickly at the LiveNote record of it. It's between pages 474 and 476.

19 But in particular the Prosecution put its case in this way: "As such, not

20 only is he, Sikirica, responsible for genocidal acts committed by himself

21 personally and by those under his command at Keraterm camp itself, but

22 also with his knowledge and complicity, similar genocidal acts that

23 occurred at Omarska and Trnopolje." Much of the evidence which Mr.

24 Vulliamy has given in previous cases goes to what he saw at Omarska and

25 what he saw elsewhere in the region of Prijedor.

1 There is also one of the passages relied upon by the Prosecution

2 is of conversations that the witness claims to have had with

3 Dr. Kovacevic, in particular comments made by Dr. Kovacevic to the issue

4 what was the intention between the activities of the Serbian authorities

5 in Prijedor in 1992. In our submission, those matters - and they are not

6 exhaustive - those matters are matters which go to the conduct and acts of

7 the accused.

8 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. This is the precise point at which

9 this rule is aimed. The conduct of your client is not involved. What you

10 are seeking to do is to say that any evidence involving anything in the

11 case is somehow part of his act and conduct, in my view. Now, the

12 purpose -- let me explain the purpose of this rule. It is to try and cut

13 down the lengths of these trials. It is a matter of concern to the

14 international community that these trials have been taking up six months

15 and more each. I make no comment of course about this trial or the

16 conduct of it, or the cross-examination. But a large amount of time in

17 this Tribunal has been taken up with pointless and repetitive

18 cross-examination, and this Rule is aimed at dealing with it.

19 Now, if an argument is to be run that because background material

20 involves his conduct, i.e., the conduct of the accused, it in fact means

21 that we shall never progress.

22 Now, Mr. Greaves, how do you say that the conduct of others, which

23 is what's being alleged here, is the conduct of your client? Is he

24 mentioned in this evidence, first of all?

25 MR. GREAVES: He is not mentioned by name.

1 JUDGE MAY: Is any of his conduct mentioned by any other means,

2 personal conduct or personal acts?

3 MR. GREAVES: No, not his personal conduct.

4 JUDGE MAY: Well, then, how is it his acts or conduct? I mean

5 what is the --

6 MR. GREAVES: I've read out the way in which the Prosecution put

7 his case. Maybe Your Honours see the case differently from the

8 Prosecution, but that is -- the Prosecution fix him and say he has

9 knowledge of what is going on.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. But what is at issue here in this particular

11 piece of evidence? And I'm not in any way suggesting that you may not

12 have a right to cross-examine in this particular case, but it's the

13 general principle I want to get straight.

14 MR. GREAVES: We've indicated out we don't object to the

15 admissibility of the evidence as it were evidence in chief.

16 JUDGE MAY: It's a question about whether you should be able to

17 cross-examine or not. That's the crucial -- the question is whether this

18 witness should be brought here a fourth time to give evidence when he's

19 already given exhaustive evidence and been cross-examined, I remember,

20 very well by Mr. Vucicevic on these very issues.

21 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, respectfully I have to correct. It

22 was Mr. Ostojic. Remember that colloquy on Richard II?

23 JUDGE MAY: You're right. I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's

24 important that the matter was dealt with, as it were, as a matter of

25 principle.

1 MR. GREAVES: If one wishes to deal with it as matters of

2 principle, then we would express a concern as to the lawfulness of the

3 Rule.

4 JUDGE MAY: That's a totally different matter. It's not for you

5 to comment on the lawfulness of the Rule. It's been passed by the

6 Plenary.

7 MR. GREAVES: We've raised the matter and of course we place that

8 on the record in the event of any appeal.

9 Well, I've made my observations. We say it goes to issues that

10 involve, in particular, mens rea, and that it will be appropriate to

11 permit him to be cross-examined.

12 JUDGE MAY: Forgive me. How does it go to the mens rea of your

13 client? You may have an answer, but just explain. How is it relevant to

14 the mens rea of your client that this -- taking this particular narrow

15 issue about Trnopolje and what the witness saw at Trnopolje.

16 MR. GREAVES: It's not just Trnopolje. It's Trnopolje, Omarska,

17 and conversations with senior officials that the Prosecution seek to rely

18 on to fix us with our knowledge.

19 JUDGE MAY: Is there any dispute about what the witness saw at

20 these places? He was a journalist, as I recollect. He came along, and

21 we've seen the video. So I'm not sure that we're going to be helped.

22 MR. GREAVES: There's no dispute in particular about what he is

23 saying. There is a concern that he is no more than -- it's obvious from

24 his evidence that he is hopping around Bosnia taking snapshots of events,

25 and therefore, the proposition is that it's potentially misleading and

1 that he is not seeing events in the round. In other words, he's doing his

2 journalist job. He's going to get the story, and today he's in Omarska,

3 tomorrow he's in Eastern Bosnia, the next day he's in Visegrad and there

4 he is taking little snapshots which aren't, in fact, showing you the

5 complete picture. And so the proposition is that whilst he may record and

6 relate to you that which is within his view at any particular moment, he

7 is not seeing the big picture, and therefore, in a sense, the conclusions

8 he draws are unfair conclusions.

9 JUDGE MAY: But how does it deal with the mens rea of your

10 client?

11 MR. GREAVES: That particular aspect doesn't, but it does go to

12 the reliability of his evidence. In other words, it goes to whether or

13 not it is a fair and accurate and reliable picture of the claim to

14 genocide. That goes to what the Prosecution are saying about my client.

15 It goes to the issue whether there's a genocide or not.

16 JUDGE MAY: And on the mens rea, how do you say we're going to be

17 helped by cross-examination on that or indeed is there any evidence on the

18 mens rea to be inferred from what the witness says?

19 MR. GREAVES: If we can establish what he has seen doesn't amount

20 to a genocide, that goes to the mens rea of my client. The Prosecution is

21 saying, "We know what is going on," and by inference it's, "We know what

22 the intent of these events is." We're entitled to challenge the very

23 issue, the very existence of a genocide. This issue, this witness, goes

24 to the existence of the genocide. It goes to the issue of mens rea as a

25 whole, in its broadest sense.

1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

3 Mr. Petrovic.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, very briefly on this

5 issue. I support what my colleague Mr. Greaves has said with, of course,

6 considerable difference between the charges to his and my client.

7 I should like to point out to one aspect of the testimony of

8 Mr. Vulliamy in the case of Mr. Tadic, which as I understand is not

9 indicated as the one which should be admitted as a transcript in this case

10 but as a basis for conclusions of which Vulliamy speaks very directly.

11 He describes his conversations in Trnopolje with the person Fikret

12 Alic, the man we all know very well from the recording which has already

13 been admitted before this Trial Chamber and which depicts him as a starved

14 man. And this Mr. Alic explains how he came to be so emaciated and

15 starved, and he speaks about Keraterm and the manner of 200 people, and he

16 also speaks about the dates when this was happening, and this may be very

17 important to us. He says that he is coming from Keraterm on that very

18 morning when the conversation is taking place.

19 So this is the basis for his conclusions which are here proposed

20 to be admitted as evidence; that is, he is making his own conclusions

21 which are to be admitted before this Trial Chamber as evidence. And if

22 the Trial Chamber allows us, we would like to cross-examine him on this

23 issue.

24 So the conclusions which are proposed to be admitted are

25 contestable, and if you allow us, we would like to cross-examine him on

1 those facts on which he later based his conclusions which could later be

2 admitted as evidence without us being able to contest them.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. There's a matter we want to discuss, if

5 you wouldn't mind, Mr. Petrovic.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic? I understand you are saying that

9 you want to cross-examine --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Robinson.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic, you wish to cross-examine

12 Mr. Vulliamy as to certain fact situations.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, about certain

14 facts and situations which allowed him to make conclusions about

15 phenomena, people, events which he subsumed in the general part of his

16 testimony.

17 In addition, if you allow me one more sentence, in my

18 understanding in the general part of the indictments against our clients,

19 the treatment of the events at Trnopolje and at Omarska is made to look

20 equal to the context of events at Keraterm, and that is of importance for

21 the application of various Rules of the Statute of this Tribunal, and

22 perhaps that is the reason why we should be more careful in our approach

23 to these transcripts, and that is why we have made efforts to save time

24 when examining the witnesses, and we would be happy to cross-examine these

25 witnesses only very briefly at -- regarding very restricted areas.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

2 Mr. Vucicevic?

3 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, I would stipulate to admission of

4 Mr. Vulliamy's evidence as presented in Kovacevic's case. However, I

5 would oppose admission from Tadic's and Blaskic's case.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: As I understand it, the Prosecution isn't seeking

7 to admit the transcripts from those other cases.

8 MR. RYNEVELD: That's correct. They are provided by way of

9 disclosure, but we are only relying on Kovacevic.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

11 MR. VUCICEVIC: So we have focused that point and clarified it.

12 I'm glad.

13 Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld.

14 I believe it would serve the interests of justice to cross-examine

15 on a certain points Mr. Vulliamy again because Mr. Vulliamy has made a

16 statement in Kovacevic's case that it was his mission in life to expose

17 Serbian nationalism and its plans to commit various war crimes. And then

18 he does -- he did have his own plot of how to do it, and he has pursued it

19 throughout the war and pursued it later on in his multiple appearances

20 before this Court. That has been examined, however, in Kovacevic's case.

21 He had failed - and His Honour Judge May may remember, being Presiding

22 Judge at that trial - that Mr. Vulliamy did not bring two drafts of his

23 statements that he had published on being for the first time in Omarska.

24 He could at least provide us those so that we can -- because due to the

25 time constraints, he didn't have it at that time. He had it in his office

1 in London. So at least he can provide it this time. But that would not

2 be sufficient to call him back again. But what is of paramount importance

3 is that he has made numerous writings about his motivation and about the

4 events that have taken place and about subject of his testimony.

5 Number 2, there is additional evidence that is going to refute

6 what he had said because, in Serbia now we have witnesses, we have

7 materials available which were not available to this Defence counsel - I

8 can only speak for myself - at that time because there was no cooperation

9 with this judicial body from the regime in power at that time. And

10 directly case in point is we have -- on May 3rd of 1992, there was an

11 unarmed column of military officers, including the medical personnel, that

12 was attacked by militant Muslims belonging to the Presidency where 20

13 some -- I don't remember exactly the number, but more than 20 people were

14 killed, some of them medical personnel, at point-blank range. Those are

15 the matters that have to be put, and many, many other ones, to be put to

16 Mr. Vulliamy to reconcile with his views of plan, because his testimony is

17 being proposed just to establish a plan, either for genocide or for crimes

18 against humanity, and for that matter, because of the plethora of the new

19 evidence available that is challenging his underlying basis of his

20 testimony, it would be necessary to cross-examine him again. But also, we

21 have to look at his additional writings. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Vucicevic. We turn next now to

23 Mr. -- sorry, Mr. Ryneveld, you wish to say something in reply?

24 MR. RYNEVELD: Very briefly, just in relation to Mr. Vucicevic.

25 As I understood him, he was prepared to stipulate provided we were

1 prepared to go with the Kovacevic transcript alone, but I don't know

2 whether he's -- I take it that he's now taking the view that,

3 nevertheless, he wants to cross-examine.

4 Two points. The drafts of any document that Mr. Vulliamy may have

5 prepared are, in our submission, irrelevant. What relevance is a draft?

6 I mean surely it's your final -- it's what you finally conclude that's

7 relevant, not your thinking processes. It's what eventually ended up

8 before this Court by way of evidence on the transcript that this Court is

9 going to be considering. With greatest of respect, I don't see how

10 previous drafts could in any way be relevant at all.

11 Secondly, I understand my friend wants to cross-examine, re:

12 motivation. Well, with the greatest of respect again, transcript evidence

13 does not -- is not elevated -- by virtue of the fact that it is previously

14 written in another case, doesn't elevate it to any greater status than any

15 evidence this Court receives. It's just in a different form. And the

16 Court can -- is going to have to assess its weight and its credibility and

17 to determine what weight the Court is going to give to it based on all of

18 the evidence that it hears. So if my friend says there is other evidence

19 out there that they intend to call which may somehow affect what weight

20 you ought to attach to Mr. Vulliamy's transcript evidence, then surely

21 that is something that can be dealt with during the course of the Defence

22 case, and surely that new evidence, whatever it may be, will be taken into

23 the Court -- into consideration by the Court in assessing whatever weight

24 you attach to this transcript evidence.

25 So he doesn't need to be cross-examined again, we would submit,

1 simply because my friend wants to show other evidence in the future to

2 refute what Mr. Vulliamy may have said in a previous proceeding.

3 Those are my limited comments on this matter.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Ryneveld.

5 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may briefly respond to this.

6 Couple of sentences.

7 First is, I do stipulate to admission of his transcript. However,

8 I do respectfully request that he be recalled for cross-examination. And

9 what Mr. Ryneveld said, that we only have to refer to the weight of his

10 evidence, my emphasis was on his bias. And if we have new material that

11 is going to show that his bias was of a degree that has poisoned all of

12 his testimony and his testimony is wholly unreliable, then perhaps this is

13 not adding weight to the testimony but evaluating credibility of his

14 testimony.

15 We cannot evaluate credibility of a witness presented in the

16 Prosecutor's case in-chief by simply bringing witnesses in the Defence

17 case in-chief. I believe that is the purpose of cross-examination. Thank

18 you.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Vucicevic.

20 So much for Mr. Vulliamy. The next proposed transcript which is

21 that of Mr. Osman Selak.

22 Mr. Ryneveld.

23 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 I note that Mr. Selak, has given evidence before this Tribunal in

25 the Tadic case, Kvocka and others, at various times in 1996 and as

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 recently as October 2000.

2 Mr. Selak is clearly limited to background in regard to the

3 military proceedings. He was more or less a military expert. And with

4 respect to the evidence that we have marked in this regard, it appears to

5 be very limited indeed. They are very short selected parts. Much of the

6 transcript has not been marked, so there are only very select portions of

7 his evidence that the Prosecution is relying on in particular in this

8 case.

9 Again, we would submit that it would not be necessary, given the

10 Rule, to recall Mr. Selak for yet a third occasion to give evidence of the

11 type of military structure that was in place, and his evidence, we would

12 submit, is clearly of assistance to this Court by way of background.

13 Again, I do not believe that his evidence in any way refers

14 directly to any of the three accused in these proceedings, and for that

15 reason, it is exactly the kind of witness that was, in our submission,

16 contemplated by the enactment of Rule 92 bis. Thank you.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves.

19 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, we respectfully submit that if you

20 admit this evidence without cross-examination, you'll be left with a very

21 one-sided view of the military situation in Northern Bosnia in 1992.

22 If Mr. Selak is to be believed, this was David versus Goliath in

23 circumstances where David has had his catapult or sling taking away from

24 him. And the proposition that is sought to be put is the usual one, which

25 is heavily armed JNA versus totally unarmed Muslims, and there was no

1 justification, therefore, rounding people up of military age.

2 We dispute that one-sided view of the military preparations that

3 existed in the spring of 1992, and we submit that without him being

4 cross-examined, you'll be left with an unfair and one-sided view of those

5 preparations.

6 We say the Muslims were, in fact, arming themselves extremely

7 efficiently throughout Bosnia in 1992, a fact well known to the

8 Prosecutor, and that the struggle was not the uneven struggle that is

9 represented and that there were perfectly proper and legitimate grounds,

10 therefore, for interning people of military age.

11 JUDGE MAY: But this is a different case. That is not a case in

12 which you say that even by implication the acts and the conduct of the

13 accused are involved.

14 MR. GREAVES: No.

15 JUDGE MAY: This is, as it were, a background or partially

16 background issue. But you say that it's in dispute.

17 MR. GREAVES: Yes.

18 JUDGE MAY: Which is the crucial point.

19 MR. GREAVES: Yes.

20 JUDGE MAY: Is there any reason why could you not, and I no doubt

21 you will, be calling evidence on the topic to refute what the transcript

22 witness says?

23 MR. GREAVES: It's not for us to disprove the Prosecution's case.

24 It's for the Prosecution to prove its case.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

1 MR. GREAVES: And we shouldn't be forced to call evidence.

2 JUDGE MAY: Well, it's not a question of being forced. I have no

3 doubt you will call evidence on this very topic. I shall be very

4 surprised if you don't.

5 MR. GREAVES: On the face of it, Mr. Selak's evidence then remains

6 unchallenged.

7 JUDGE MAY: You've got the opportunity to challenge it by way of

8 calling evidence.

9 MR. GREAVES: We submit that that is not a fair approach. The

10 approach is it's for the Prosecution to prove its case. We are entitled

11 to challenge the Prosecution's case, and this is part of the Prosecution's

12 case which we challenge and say is an unfair and one-sided view of the

13 situation.

14 JUDGE MAY: As I recollect, you've been cross-examining about the

15 military situation with other witnesses.

16 MR. GREAVES: Yes.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

18 Mr. Petrovic.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, very briefly about

20 this witness. I support Mr. Greaves. I don't want to repeat all he

21 said. I would only briefly point out that this picture, which

22 Colonel Selak paints through his testimony about the collapse of the

23 former state, about the withdrawal of the JNA in the first days of the

24 conflict in the Prijedor area is extremely biased, lopsided. And even

25 today from this distance in time, we have completely different

1 interpretations of these events and precisely from people who participated

2 in the conflict on the side of the Muslim forces both in the Prijedor area

3 and in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina.

4 So it would be necessary, in our opinion, to confront

5 Colonel Selak with these viewpoints and with these testimonies which are

6 very different from his testimony and which originate from the same

7 structures to which he himself belonged at the time -- at the relevant

8 time.

9 Some of these people even testified before various Trial Chambers

10 of this Tribunal and let us recall the man that Mr. Vucicevic called

11 before the Tribunal. These people paint a very different picture and

12 could be very important to our attempts to clarify the events.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

14 Mr. Vucicevic.

15 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, I wouldn't oppose admission of

16 Colonel Selak's testimony. However, I think in interest of justice, his

17 appearance for cross-examination is very essential.

18 First, attorneys defending Tadic, and I have personal contacts

19 with Mr. Wladimiroff, were not allowed even to go to Prijedor, but were

20 met with that time Drljaca who was still in charge, who put a gun on the

21 table and said, "Anything that you want to get, you will get through me,"

22 and never talked to anybody in the armed forces.

23 So limited knowledge that the attorneys had at that time at their

24 disposal made their cross-examination utterly ineffective.

25 Number one, there -- therefore, the testimony that was elicited on

1 behalf of the Prosecutor in that case is misleading. It was used to fit

2 the script. I wouldn't even call it the theory of the case, which was

3 one-sided with parroted, you know, the -- vilified of the Serbian side,

4 evidence in Tribunal that -- that existed at that time was such that even

5 learned Judge Mumba in Kovacevic's case, when I alleged that there were

6 two sides of the Muslim population, one that was fundamentalist and was

7 for armed struggle for achieving a fundamentalist state and another

8 section which is almost 50 per cent of the state was in alliance with all

9 other nationalities fighting for a secular state, stopped me and said,

10 "Mr. Vucicevic, are you sure what you're talking about?"

11 Now we have a lot more evidence. Now we have military that has

12 given us information. Now we have to cross-examine Colonel Selak: What

13 was the proper conduct of the military operations for the situation that

14 had happened at that time because that is being -- Prosecutor is asking

15 that this evidence be admitted to prove that civilians were in control of

16 the military operation. That's -- that is a highly doubtful proposition

17 for any military in the world. However, we have to show that there was no

18 effective cross-examination and this was entirely misleading, and adding

19 any weight of the evidence to misleading testimony is only going to give

20 some credence to the Prosecutor's case where no credence should be given

21 at all. I request that this witness be called so that we can

22 cross-examine.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vucicevic, could you just enumerate, one,

24 two, three, the reasons why you say the cross-examination in the previous

25 trial was ineffective?

1 MR. VUCICEVIC: I haven't reviewed this recently. I'm just going

2 based on my recollection. For example, Colonel Selak testified that he

3 attended a staff conference in General Tadic's headquarters where one of

4 the intelligence officers said that there were 800 people that were killed

5 in Kozarac, and Talic turned around and said that couldn't be possible.

6 That's 80. There was no question asked who was there, where was the

7 meeting held, because it's highly unlikely that a commanding officer of

8 the army corps would have only a meeting with logistics officer where

9 another intelligence officer would be giving a report. We want to

10 corroborate. We want to find out what was the number that was said,

11 because there is in testimony in itself, it said that the number might be

12 disputed. That's number 1.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

14 MR. VUCICEVIC: Number 2, we have to find out, because we had

15 testimony from one of the witnesses, Alifagic, that there was really

16 military confrontation, there were shoulder-launched missiles, anti-tanks

17 missiles that were fired in that confrontation in Kozarac, in village of

18 Balte. Was that military necessary to undertake artillery actions first,

19 in view that the tank approached and the light infantry was repelled? We

20 would find out was there any discussion at that time on the tactics that

21 were carried out, because documentation that was preadmitted and does

22 refer to these activities by the military commander is available to the

23 Prosecutor and us and it will enlighten to the Trial Chamber what was

24 possible under the rules of engagement that existed at that time.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. Mr. Ryneveld, anything in

1 reply?

2 MR. RYNEVELD: Other than to say that this witness was

3 cross-examined. Your Honours have the cross-examination available to you

4 as well, and the kinds of questions that I've just heard my friend

5 enumerate as being the reasons why they ought be cross-examined, with the

6 greatest of respect, I don't foresee how cross-examination might elicit

7 different answers. He's going to be stuck with the same numbers, I rather

8 suspect. I don't know. But I'm not quite sure whether he thinks that if

9 he asks it again he's going to get different answers. I'm only

10 speculating as to the purpose of what he intends to do, but I don't know

11 whether the reason given to cross-examine this witness yet again --

12 although I have heard it mentioned before that one counsel following

13 another counsel said, "Well, I'm going to be asking you the same questions

14 but I'm hoping to get different answers." Perhaps that's what

15 Mr. Vucicevic is hoping for. That is not a reason, with the greatest of

16 respect, to bring Mr. Selak back for the third time.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld. The third transcript

18 relates to Mr. Vasif Gutic, who testified in Tadic --

19 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I think there was a point here that I

20 respectfully --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vucicevic, you like to have two bites at the

22 cherry. You're really not allowed to reply to the Prosecutor's reply, so

23 please sit. We have heard your decisions.

24 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, the cherries are sweet, and I have to

25 be careful.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Ms. Baly, you're going to make the

2 submissions in relation to Mr. Gutic?

3 MS. BALY: Yes, Your Honour. Vasif Gutic testified twice

4 previously in the Tribunal, firstly in the Tadic trial on the 1st and the

5 6th of August 1996, and most recently in the Kvocka trial on the 6th of

6 October last year.

7 He gives evidence largely relevant to background material,

8 including the buildup to the conflict in general and the attack on Kozarac

9 on the 24th of May. The main thrust, and the main reliance placed by the

10 Prosecution upon his evidence, relates to his own detention in the

11 Trnopolje camp where he was detained. And, Your Honours, he is a medical

12 practitioner. While he was detained in Trnopolje, he conducted a limited

13 medical clinic in the camp. He testifies to the conditions in general in

14 the Trnopolje camp, as well as to assaults and beatings that he witnessed,

15 as well as to sexual assaults that occurred in the Trnopolje camp.

16 Importantly, he testified to observing prisoners, detainees, who arrived

17 from both the Omarska camp and the Keraterm camp at Trnopolje, and he

18 testifies as to the state of those detainees.

19 His evidence is relevant in the submission of the Prosecution. It

20 goes to establishing the similarity between the conditions in all three

21 camps and the connection between the camps, in support of the

22 Prosecution's argument that the activities in Keraterm were not isolated

23 ones and in support of the common-purpose case.

24 He was cross-examined on both occasions, and Your Honour, in the

25 Prosecution's submission, he similarly falls into the category envisioned

1 by the section 92 bis. Thank you, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Baly. Mr. Greaves?

3 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, there are a number of aspects for this

4 man. First is, he gives or has given a considerable amount of evidence

5 about the Trnopolje camp, and that plainly goes to, in particular but not

6 exclusively, to the issue of genocide.

7 Your Honour, as late as last Friday, my learned friend

8 Mr. Londrovic came into possession of a number of documents which we --

9 and they have not yet been translated into English so I haven't had an

10 opportunity of reviewing them in my language, but in the account that's

11 been given to me, they present potentially a very different picture from

12 that which is presented by the evidence which this man has formerly

13 given. We say that in the light of the obtaining of new material, it

14 would be appropriate to have that man -- some of those matters put to this

15 witness.

16 He also deals with evidence about the Kozarac attack. Again, we

17 say that that is a very one-sided and not necessarily truthful account of

18 what took place on the Muslim side during that incident.

19 He deals in evidence with some reference to the reporting of

20 offences by guards and actions taken by guards to prevent things taking

21 place. That does not appear to have been very well explored on previous

22 occasions by counsel. It is of course an important matter if there was a

23 system of, and a habit of, reporting offences and stopping of offences by

24 guards. That would cut against the proposition that there was a lack of

25 proper command responsibility.

1 He deals at Trnopolje with the issue of rape and the -- again most

2 of his account is based on hearsay which is both first, second, third and

3 sometimes fourth-hand hearsay. Again, that does not appear, in our

4 submission, to have been adequately explored. Again, one of the

5 propositions which is put by the Prosecution concerns rape as a weapon of

6 genocide, and we would seek to challenge that.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you Mr. Greaves. Mr. Petrovic?

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that what my

9 learned friend Ms. Baly said contains all the reasons why we believe these

10 witnesses should be dealt with in this way. That is to say, whether there

11 is any kind of interrelationship between Omarska, Trnopolje and Keraterm,

12 and if so, what the role of our respective clients is.

13 That is what we would like to cross-examine this person about, if

14 this person were to come here. These questions were not put to him

15 earlier on. Did he know who these persons were who organised all these

16 camps? Is there a common denominator involved for all these people? Is

17 there anything in common, in terms of the organisation of Omarska,

18 Keraterm and Trnopolje? Is there a precisely defined plan? And are our

19 clients part of this plan? Or is it something that is not a plan but a

20 reflection of the war and chaos that prevailed at that time in the

21 territory of Prijedor? We also wish to ask him whether he saw any of the

22 guards that appeared in Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje. Did he perhaps

23 see some of the men he knew and persons who we know to have been guards at

24 Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje? These are all important matters and

25 nobody put questions to that effect. So we do it briefly but we believe

1 that this should be clarified because, after all, Trnopolje is something

2 that should be part of the systematic, all-out attack against the

3 population, so that is what we wish to draw your attention to. Thank

4 you.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Vucicevic?

6 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, to be very short, I think I would

7 like to ask Dr. Gutic but this time, again a second time around, how many

8 sides of the Trnopolje camps were open up, and does he know how many

9 inmates went out throughout the night to search the routes of escape and

10 came back to Trnopolje to feed throughout the day? Would he know where

11 the Deputy Commander of the camp was killed by another extremist Serb or a

12 lunatic Serb for being good to the detainees? All of those things are

13 relevant that haven't been asked before, and if I have to ask second time,

14 perhaps I will do it.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Vucicevic.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Baly?

17 MS. BALY: Nothing in reply, Your Honours.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next transcript relates to the evidence of

20 Mr. Emsud Garibovic. Mr. Ryneveld?

21 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honours. This witness testified in

22 September of last year in the Kvocka et al case, Omarska, and it's a very,

23 very short transcript, because this witness's evidence is restricted to

24 background information about the attack on the villages around Trnopolje,

25 and subsequently after he left Trnopolje, he was part of the -- he can

1 give evidence about speaking to people who were involved in the Vlasic

2 Mountain massacre.

3 He can indicate that he left on the 21st of August by bus and that

4 bus and another bus stopped on Vlasic Mountain. He will tell us about the

5 way in -- he's already told another Court about the way the prisoners were

6 lined up at the edge of the cliff and shot and will give some further

7 evidence about the survivors of the Vlasic Mountain massacre. That is the

8 purpose of his evidence.

9 Again I do not believe that he particularly names any of the three

10 accused in these proceedings, and he has been cross-examined on that

11 particular matter. And we again submit that this is the kind of evidence

12 that the Rule contemplated and this Court invited the Prosecution to

13 determine as to whether or not there were any witnesses who would be able

14 to be dealt with in this more judicially expeditious manner without

15 impinging on the right of the accused, and we think this is a perfect

16 example of the kind of case that ought be dealt with in this way.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have other witnesses on the massacre at

18 Mount Vlasic?

19 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, to my recollection, this is the key

20 witness on this issue.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Midhat Mujkanovic, a prospective witness, number

22 44.

23 MR. RYNEVELD: Our numbering system has changed considerably as

24 we've been dropping witnesses, so perhaps I can just have a quick look at

25 where he is on our list. Bear with me just one moment, please, Your

1 Honour.

2 Yes. My understanding is that this witness is not proposed to be

3 called at this point. He's no longer a witness on our list, the witness

4 that you've referred to, number 44, on our 65 ter submission.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: You do not propose to call him.

6 MR. RYNEVELD: I do not propose to call him. We were going to be

7 relying on Emsud Garibovic.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Greaves.

9 MR. GREAVES: Two issues. He deals with the Kozorac battle. I've

10 already addressed you about the nature of that battle.

11 Secondly, there is an issue -- and this may be that this doesn't

12 go to the issue of cross-examination but I'll mention it now. There's an

13 issue as to the admissibility of and relevance of this particular massacre

14 to events which take place in the geographical area contemplated by the

15 indictment. We say this takes place in the Travnik area, not in the

16 Prijedor area. But that's a slightly different issue, but I flag it so

17 that Your Honours are aware of it.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

19 Mr. Petrovic.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have nothing to

21 add.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Vucicevic.

23 MR. VUCICEVIC: I just want to reaffirm my objection that I

24 submitted to you in writing early on. That's on relevance of this

25 witness.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic. I think we have your

2 submission.

3 Anything in reply?

4 MR. RYNEVELD: Other than the sidebar my friend suggested about

5 jurisdiction. Obviously this Tribunal has jurisdiction throughout the

6 entire former Yugoslavia, and if he's talking about the subject matter,

7 the point is that people from the Prijedor area were taken somewhere.

8 That doesn't go to the heart of the issue that the Court is now facing.

9 So I think that's all I have to say on this particular issue.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. The next transcript witness,

11 Dr. Greve. Who is taking that?

12 MR. RYNEVELD: That would be me, Your Honour. Judge Greve -

13 sorry - has testified in the Tadic trial in 1996 and again the Kovacevic

14 trial in 1998, and we have put before the Court those passages from both

15 of the transcripts that we would intend to rely on.

16 I might say that again in Kovacevic, at least one of the counsel

17 in these proceedings, Mr. Vucicevic, had an extensive cross-examination.

18 And also the issue for the basis of admission of her evidence was dealt

19 with by the Tribunal in 1998 when the argument was that this is the kind

20 of evidence which would not be admissible. And Judge May, who was then

21 presiding before that Court, at page 75 on the July 6th, 1998 proceedings,

22 indicated that:

23 "It is our view that the witness should be treated as an expert

24 in this case. An expert who has made a study of material and is therefore

25 qualified to give evidence about it, the position being analogous to that

1 of an historian."

2 The Court went on to take into account the Defence's position with

3 respect to some 400 statements that her evidence was based upon, and after

4 indicating that -- what weight and the hearsay rule, the Court concluded

5 with this comment at line 19 on page 75:

6 "With those considerations in mind, we shall admit this report,

7 but I should make it quite plain there is no question of this defendant

8 being convicted on any count on the basis of this evidence and we shall

9 require other evidence before we consider taking such course."

10 So this is background information along historical lines to paint

11 a picture from an expert who has more or less had the opportunity of doing

12 an exhaustive research of what went on in the Prijedor area and other

13 parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina which would be of extreme interest to the

14 Court in understanding the overall picture, and her evidence is being

15 submitted for that purpose. And since -- I don't wish to elevate her

16 evidence beyond the basis upon which it was admitted in the previous case

17 in 1998, the Kovacevic trial, that -- the evidence of an historian.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld.

19 Mr. Greaves.

20 MR. GREAVES: One problem, of course, is that the Kovacevic trial,

21 for reasons which the learned Judge, Judge May, will recall came to a

22 premature end, so no one has any idea of what weight was or was not going

23 to be put on the evidence in that case.

24 There is an issue as to what weight you should put on that

25 evidence, and we are certainly concerned about the methodology which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Judge Greve used in arriving at the conclusions which she drew from the

2 statements and also the manner in which the statements were taken, and we

3 would seek, amongst other things, to cross-examine her about the way in

4 which she went about her work and how she then drew her conclusions.

5 Secondly, the work which she did was carried out some considerable

6 time ago. There is a much greater amount of information in the public

7 domain which we say she should, in the meantime, have considered as to

8 whether or not her views and conclusions can now be changed in any way

9 since she originally drew those conclusions as long ago as, I think,

10 1994/1995. And again, we have other documents which we have recently

11 obtained, which we are looking at, which we would seek to put to her in

12 connection with these very issues. And I say as late as last Friday, a

13 substantial amount of information, as yet untranslated, has come into our

14 possession, which I have in my hands.

15 JUDGE MAY: It may be the efficient way of dealing with that. Of

16 course, the old way which we're familiar with is you put it to the

17 witness, but then you're criticised if you don't put it to the witness.

18 But I mean in this Tribunal, again thinking allowed, is it not in this

19 sort of instance a more efficient way for you simply to put the material

20 in? We would have to consider, if this transcript were admitted, what

21 weight we gave it on the basis that she was -- the witness was an

22 historian, the years that have elapsed, as you would point out. You would

23 be in a position to challenge her evidence, rather than by

24 cross-examination, by putting other documents in.

25 I wonder really if it helps very much for the witness to be asked

1 about it. "Would that have caused you to change your mind?" I suppose,

2 would be the question. If you could put that rhetorically to the

3 Tribunal.

4 MR. GREAVES: Yes, of course. But then, of course, the witness,

5 in all fairness to her, doesn't have then the opportunity to say, "Well,

6 I've seen this document. No, it doesn't." or, "Yes, it does. It

7 radically alters my view."

8 And of course we're left in a situation that until you come back

9 with your judgement, we don't know and can have no concept of what weight

10 you in fact will attach to her evidence. It may be substantial, in which

11 case, a potential injustice may occur. That's the danger.

12 I appreciate fully what Your Honour is saying. It may be a

13 shortcut which is a shortcut too far.

14 I hope that is of assistance. There are some issues over military

15 preparation and arms and weapons in the Bihac and Prijedor region which we

16 want to explore with her. That's one particular issue which may not have

17 been fully explored on the last occasions.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

19 Mr. Petrovic.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Counsellor Rodic will explain our

21 position in this matter.

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I subscribe

23 to everything that my colleague Mr. Greaves has said, but I would like to

24 make a few more remarks.

25 Regarding the transcript of the testimony of Mrs. Greve, I would

1 like to point out a few specific matters which explain the Defence's need

2 to cross-examine this witness. For instance, the place where she says

3 that in Europe in 1992, 1993, when she was living in Cambodia and holding

4 a similar position and was not there.

5 Second, and we see from the transcript, from the questions asked

6 of this witness by the Trial Chamber, that there is an objective problem

7 with her sources. I suggest now that even the Prosecution took this with

8 a grain of salt in view of the sources on which her testimony is based.

9 And another thing. In this transcript, in response to a question,

10 she explains the methodology of her work. She says that this was a matter

11 of interviewing 400 people. However, these interviews were conducted by

12 people selected by local authorities in Sweden, Norway, Croatia, Bosnia,

13 and she says, "We were thus placed in a position where we had to beg

14 governments to help us."

15 We believe that even the witnesses in this Tribunal and even in

16 this case denied in some instances completely the statements taken by the

17 people from the local authorities, specifically from securities --

18 security services such as the Bosnian AID or the Croatian Security

19 Service, et cetera.

20 Furthermore, regarding methodology, this witness emphasises that

21 her information is based on reports made by various journalists and the

22 media in general.

23 We all know that in all these events at the relevant time, the

24 media played an important role. And since we pointed out here the role

25 played by Serbian propaganda and Serbian media, the truthfulness of the

1 media which she quotes is questionable, let alone other reporters and

2 journalists who depicted the picture as they wished to, pursuing their own

3 or their employers' interests.

4 In any case, this Defence is of the opinion that this witness

5 needs to be cross-examined, and we should like to stress that the Defence

6 accepts the transcripts of testimonies of witnesses who testified two to

7 five years after the event -- two to five years ago. I'm sorry.

8 From the aspect of new information that has become -- that has

9 become available since, it is necessary to cross-examine this witness for

10 these reasons too.

11 Another reason why we need to cross-examine this witness is

12 that -- I would like to say this in view of the fact that the Prosecutor

13 says that he doesn't see why a witness should be called for the second or

14 third time.

15 The Prosecutor should understand the Defence's need to

16 cross-examine, although he is doing his job very well in every respect,

17 but he's not in a position to evaluate the importance of cross-examination

18 for the Defence because he is pursuing a different objective than the

19 Defence.

20 Out of all the witnesses heard in this case, witnesses who gave

21 direct testimony and were cross-examined, the Trial Chamber itself can see

22 that many facts have changed or that witnesses are testifying differently

23 compared to their previous testimonies, and the statements given by them,

24 both to the investigators of the OTP and to representatives of various

25 services of the local authorities, which are invoked here.

1 In view of the passage of time since the war itself and the

2 testimony of these witnesses and the compilation of new evidence, I

3 believe that it would considerably harm the Defence's interests if their

4 ability to cross-examine these witnesses were --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Rodic --

6 MR. RODIC: -- thwarted both Mrs. Greve.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- you mentioned a number of areas in respect of

8 which you wish to cross-examine. The question is: Wasn't she

9 cross-examined sufficiently in respect of these areas in the previous

10 trials?

11 Secondly, you mentioned new material. I would view that

12 differently, but could you tell us what is the effect of this new

13 material? I mean how would it affect the evidence which she has already

14 given and which we will be looking at in the transcript? Very briefly.

15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Specifically I can give you one

16 example. In the transcript of the 20th May of 1996, page 12, line 31, 32,

17 and 33.

18 Specifically, this witness says, "On the 30th of April, during the

19 change of authorities in Prijedor, non-Serbs became isolated. They lost

20 their jobs. For the most part, they had to stay at home. Curfew was

21 imposed and they needed special permits to travel." The majority of

22 witnesses heard until now before this Trial Chamber says something

23 different, I believe. Their testimony runs counter to the testimony of

24 this witness, that is to the statement given in 1996. The difference is

25 important. My colleague now reminds me there is evidence that regarding

1 people who were in Trnopolje, even their salaries were brought to them.

2 The companies where they worked paid their salaries at the time and there

3 is a list of people even to whom their salaries were delivered there.

4 This detail is -- seems to be the freshest in our memory in view

5 of the witnesses we have recently heard. I believe it is clear to

6 everyone that the distance in time, the passage of time, gives us the

7 benefit of a lot of new evidence and new information, and I believe that

8 in another 20, 30, or 40 years, things will become much clearer than they

9 are to us today or to Mrs. Greve. This is something that is attested by

10 the examples of previous wars, ones which took place a much longer time

11 ago.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Rodic. Mr. Vucicevic?

13 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, I would like to take -- I would like

14 to thank to my friends here for positive criticism of my work, and I do,

15 with humbleness, accept their criticism, and I think they are right. The

16 examination of Mrs. Greve was extensive but it could have been more

17 effective, and all the points that were raised are entirely valid.

18 I only would like to add two points that were not available to me

19 at that time and one is Professor Bassiouni at a conference on genocide in

20 Chicago held at John Marshall School of Law in May -- I believe the 20th

21 of May, year 2000, has discussed and has stated that he -- in one of his

22 writings that he had -- that in detail explained why he doesn't believe

23 the genocide in Bosnia has not happened. Professor Bassiouni was the

24 chairman of the commission that was -- that Judge Greve was part of, and I

25 believe that that part of his writings, since he has participated in

1 numerous excavations, interviews throughout Bosnia, and Judge Greve said

2 she never set foot in Bosnia at that time. That was in the open Court at

3 that time. I believe it's relevant whether she would change her opinion

4 on the issues of genocide because she would be testifying before here. I

5 know it's not directly related to my client but it's in the interests of

6 justice, Your Honours.

7 And secondly if we could just have a private session here for 30

8 seconds because I will mention a name of witness.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

10 [Private session]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [Open session]

12 MR. RYNEVELD: Extremely briefly, I just want to comment about

13 what Mr. Rodic said. And my learned friend, as I understand, says that

14 there is some new material about jobs and curfews, et cetera that

15 contradicts what might be contained in the transcript. Well, with the

16 greatest of respect, if the new material is the kind of evidence that this

17 Court has heard from the mouths of witnesses in this Court, surely, this

18 Trial Chamber is in a much better position to evaluate the contradictory

19 evidence, if there is any, than would the witness, because she hasn't

20 heard the supposed contradictory evidence from the mouths of the

21 witnesses. So surely that evidence is before you, and you are in the best

22 position to evaluate what parts of her transcript evidence you will accept

23 and what parts of her transcript evidence you will reject or what weight

24 you will assess. She doesn't need to be cross-examined with respect to

25 what other witnesses have said with respect to that, in my respectful

1 submission, because this Court has heard it. That is a matter for the

2 Trial Chamber.

3 Most of my friend's, Mr. Vucicevic's, comments, I won't -- I will

4 not respond to other than if he says that Mr. Bassiouni has some different

5 position, there is nothing to prevent him from calling Mr. Bassiouni to

6 give a different Defence evidence. How would putting Mr. Bassiouni to

7 this witness in cross assist him?

8 Those are my comments.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

10 We will take the break and resume at 11.35. We are

11 adjourned.

12 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 11.38 a.m.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we are at the last transcript witness,

15 Mr. Sejmenovic.

16 Mr. Ryneveld.

17 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honours. Again, Mr. Sejmenovic testified

18 in 1996 in the Tadic trial and again in the month of July on three

19 different dates in the Kovacevic trial, which, as Your Honours now know,

20 was a case that abated.

21 He was thoroughly cross-examined, again by Mr. Vucicevic. Again

22 it relates to issues unique to the subject matter before the Court.

23 He is a politician, and my understanding is that he provides

24 background information with regard to the political environment then

25 prevalent in the area in Prijedor after the 1990 election, and he

1 apparently served as a member of the republic assembly. He will tell you

2 about the attacks in the municipality of Prijedor and how he escaped --

3 personally escaped the ethnic cleansing that went on in the area. And

4 ultimately he was taken to Trnopolje and then to Omarska and then

5 transferred again to Vrbanja where he stayed until he secured an exit

6 paper in January 1993.

7 He will also -- his evidence also discloses meeting with SDS

8 officials in Banja Luka and other Serbian leaders after the war started

9 and including being present when one of those people spoke to Radovan

10 Karadzic.

11 Largely, his evidence is contained in our outline in our motion,

12 which was filed on the 23rd of February. And again we would submit that

13 to my knowledge, this witness does not specifically refer to any acts or

14 the conduct of any of the three accused and yet is extremely relevant to

15 the issue before the Court and is the kind of evidence which is

16 contemplated by the Rule, and we would seek its admission accordingly.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld.

18 Mr. Greaves.

19 MR. GREAVES: Your Honours, as well as being a background witness,

20 he's a fact witness as to events in Trnopolje, and quite an extensive

21 portion of the evidence which is available on transcript concerns that

22 particular location.

23 As I've indicated in relation to another witness, last Friday my

24 learned friend Mr. Londrovic came into possession of, and I have them

25 here, a significant number of documents which we say can put another

1 complexion on the incidents that are alleged to have taken place at

2 Trnopolje.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves, I'd intended to raise that matter

4 with you because it's the second or third time that you've mention this

5 new material which could, you say, significantly affect the

6 cross-examination and which would provide a proper basis for you to

7 cross-examine.

8 MR. GREAVES: Yes.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You say it has not yet been translated.

10 MR. GREAVES: No. My learned friend only came into possession of

11 it on Friday of last week.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You must appreciate that if we are to make a

13 decision and to take it into account, we need to know what it is.

14 MR. GREAVES: You will have to wait for the translations, I'm

15 afraid. We can't have them translated on a weekend. It's just not

16 possible.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We are not asking for it in detail. You

18 can confer with Mr. Londrovic and Mr. Londrovic can give you a general

19 idea of what it is.

20 MR. GREAVES: He's given me a general idea. Let me give you an

21 example. For example, we have lists, extensive lists, of property being

22 brought into the camp, property such as food, medicines and so forth, and

23 there are lists which are kept of that which -- those who have brought it

24 and that which has been brought in. I give an example. Lists of people

25 who have been released; release notes; and so forth.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: And this goes to what?

2 MR. GREAVES: The nature of what was going on in Trnopolje. The

3 picture that is painted by witnesses of Trnopolje is one which is

4 unremittingly miserable, and we say that it's a one-sided and slanted view

5 of Trnopolje, one which is -- a picture which is painted to an agenda,

6 such as a man who was a politician high up in the SDA might wish to paint

7 to this Tribunal for political reasons.

8 I see my learned friend Mr. Londrovic about to rise. It may be

9 he's going to give you some further information.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Londrovic, can you give us a general idea as

11 to what this new material is, in addition to what Mr. Greaves has said?

12 MR. LONDROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can only add the

13 following because I got this material only on Friday and copied it then.

14 Now, what did Mr. Greaves omit to mention? We have the list of

15 minors who were sent from Omarska to Trnopolje and then from Keraterm a

16 list from minors who were sent to Trnopolje. Then also elderly persons,

17 over the age of 55, who were sent to Trnopolje, because they were not

18 interesting from a security point of view. Then we also have many

19 messages from persons who were in Trnopolje, persons addressing the Red

20 Cross, whose office was in Trnopolje.

21 Perhaps I can read one, "Esud asks whether his daughter is still

22 in hospital. Could that please be checked out for him and could he be

23 notified thereof?"

24 Then also there is a list of persons who were in Trnopolje and who

25 were employed in a public utility organisation called the 4th of July, who

1 had received their salaries. Their salaries were brought to them by

2 persons who were in charge of that and they actually signed for the

3 receipt of these salaries. Then also there were persons who asked for

4 their salaries and pensions to be brought to them. Also, there are lists

5 of persons who received gifts, packages with food and clothing. They

6 received packages. Then also there are lists of persons who were

7 transferred from Trnopolje to a place near Prijedor called Cela and they

8 express their intention to go back to Trnopolje.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: All of this, you say, gives a more favourable

10 picture of Trnopolje?

11 MR. LONDROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, absolutely. A

12 different picture which was presented by my learned friend the Prosecutor,

13 quite different from that, actually. Then there are lists of persons who

14 were in charge of collecting food. Then also persons who were in charge

15 of cleaning certain rooms in Trnopolje, getting food that day, preparing

16 food, et cetera.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Londrovic. Mr. Greaves?

19 MR. GREAVES: Yes, in part, it goes to the credibility of the

20 witness, and therefore to the -- our ability to address you at the end of

21 the case about weight which should properly be attached, in our

22 submission, to the evidence which has been admitted in this way.

23 We're not only interested in this witness as to those facts which

24 occur at Trnopolje. He is a senior official at a republic level in the

25 SDA who we say has an agenda, as I've indicated. And for example, we

1 would want to be able to ask him about what he knew of military activity,

2 military preparation being carried out because he's responsible for the

3 Prijedor area. We believe he knows a considerable amount about the

4 preparations which were being carried out, and, for example, would want to

5 ask him about the views of Sefer Halilovic, who has been mentioned earlier

6 in this case, who in some writings of his gave a significant account, we

7 say, of the military preparations in Prijedor which were very different

8 from the David and Goliath situation which seems to be part of the agenda

9 certainly on the Muslim side and one which is followed, we say, by the

10 Prosecutor in this case.

11 So for those reasons, we say that this man is a particularly

12 germane witness to the issue not least of genocide but to the very nature

13 of this particular conflict.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

15 Mr. Petrovic.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 In relation to this witness, it seems to me actually that we are

18 treading along a very thin line in terms of treating this person according

19 to Rule 92 bis, regardless of whether the Honourable Trial Chamber will

20 decide whether there is -- whether the Defence will have the right to

21 cross-examine or not. However, any crime that our defendants are being

22 charged with does not consist only of immediate participation or

23 non-participation in mentioned events but also there is a broader context

24 which makes their actions part of deeds that are within the province of

25 work of this Tribunal.

1 The Prosecutor believes that some parts of the transcript should

2 be admitted into evidence from previous cases, and I would like to mention

3 a few cases that are very important for the preparation of the defence.

4 For example, the part that was earmarked by you, first of all speaks about

5 a Serb who is a member of the SDA committee, somebody who is organising

6 the SDA in the area of Brdo. That is something that we heard here on

7 several occasions and which is certainly challenged, and we would have a

8 lot to ask about. That is a Serb. His first name is Jovan and his last

9 name begins with an "R". We have heard quite a bit about this alleged

10 person here until now.

11 In addition to that, this person directly speaks about Keraterm,

12 about the conditions in Keraterm. He says, for example, once that he set

13 out from Trnopolje, where he was, by car and that he stopped in front of

14 Keraterm or, rather, between Keraterm and the Kozara-Putevi building which

15 is across the road, and that through the barbed wire he saw people who

16 were living skeletons, that this was a horrible sight, et cetera. And

17 this certainly has to deal with the very core of the matter we have been

18 dealing with that.

19 In addition to that, he also speaks about other circumstances that

20 our learned friend pointed to, that is, how power was taken over, how

21 Serbs were armed, et cetera. However, no mention was made of his role in

22 all of this, and as far as I know, this man was the first president of the

23 SDA for the area of Prijedor.

24 I don't want to repeat myself, but I do draw your attention to

25 what I mentioned in relation to previous witnesses. The organisation of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 centres in the territory of Prijedor is something that was not dealt with

2 sufficiently during the cross-examination of these witnesses and which is

3 of great importance for your deliberations concerning Keraterm, Trnopolje,

4 and Omarska. Thank you.

5 JUDGE MAY: If I remember right, this is a witness who actually

6 broke into the camps. Have I remembered that right?

7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour, you do.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. As my colleague

9 Mr. Vucicevic said, and perhaps I can make it easier for you, on page 1394

10 of his statement, that is in the Dusko Tadic case, he speaks directly, and

11 that part was marked as a part that should be admitted. He directly

12 speaks about what he saw in Keraterm. Also in the Kovacevic case,

13 although the Prosecutor did not mark this as something that they wanted

14 admitted, and that is also important for your view on this matter, he says

15 that he was taken to Keraterm. There is even that particular formulation

16 in the transcript, and that is page 542 from Kovacevic.

17 So that is really a borderline case as to what could be discussed

18 under 92 bis, not to mention the fact whether the Defence should have the

19 right to cross-examine a person who speaks in this way.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, could counsel please speak

21 slower.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

23 Mr. Vucicevic.

24 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I rise to oppose admission of the

25 transcript of this witness. I support fully the arguments of my learned

1 friends at the Defence counsel table. In particular, Mr. Greaves has said

2 there was an agenda, and at that time we participated in Kovacevic

3 Defence, we didn't have information which basically witness Sejmenovic has

4 used to avoid questions of why Kozorac didn't surrender, but he

5 participated in the meeting where they decided they are going to defend,

6 and here is the outline of the agenda just in dates, not in time.

7 On 24th, there was military activities on Kozarac. On 25th, there

8 was attack on Bradina, which was subject matter of a previous trial here

9 and that's Celebici trial, where several thousand Serbs were captured and

10 taken to the camp. There was OSCE meeting that was scheduled for 29th of

11 May. However, on 28th of May, there was a breadline massacre where the

12 Bosnian Presidency staged an attack on civilians to get the sympathy of

13 the world. And on the 30th of May, there was a Security Council meeting

14 where the sanctions are going to -- additional and stronger sanction to be

15 imposed on Serbia. That was scheduled on that day. And on that day,

16 actually just a day prior, there was attack on Prijedor.

17 All of those are highly relevant to his testimony when he said,

18 "We expected international community to intervene. That's why we didn't

19 want surrender, given the opportunity to surrender over much mightier

20 military force, as he and we at that time thought." We now have Sefer

21 Halilovic, so that notion of much mightier force is not there. We have

22 military people that are going to testify that was not in indeed so and he

23 has to be confronted with all of these facts of the agenda and explain his

24 previous testimony. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Vucicevic. Mr. Ryneveld?

1 MR. RYNEVELD: On more than one occasion now with respect to the

2 submissions that have been made, suggestions have been made that there is

3 new evidence and -- which has not been translated. The court has already

4 asked some questions about it. Our position is simply that if this new

5 evidence sheds light on a witness's previous testimony, then surely that

6 evidence can be presented and this Trial Chamber can take it into

7 account. Surely, the type of material that they propose to cross-examine

8 on is the kind of material which can be usefully used in argument as to

9 why it is that the transcript evidence, which has already been recorded,

10 ought be accorded less weight because of this additional evidence. In

11 other words, there is -- there are ways to use the evidence, and I doubt

12 very much whether the Prosecution would have any difficulty in having this

13 additional evidence tendered. We would take no objection to the tendering

14 of this new evidence. This evidence could be tendered and taken into

15 account by the court, and then argument could be made as to why it is that

16 this new evidence ought affect the previous testimony. As I said before,

17 there is no magic elevating this evidence to some greater or lesser height

18 than any other evidence simply because it's been admitted.

19 I don't believe I have any comments with respect to what anyone

20 else has had to say. I understand Mr. Vucicevic, having raised some

21 staged event whereby the Bosnians -- no, I won't comment any further.

22 That's it. Thank you.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld. I think that completes

25 the consideration of the transcript evidence which the Prosecution is

1 seeking to have admitted. We will consider the matter and give our

2 decision in due course.

3 Before we adjourn, Mr. Vucicevic, there is a motion before the

4 Chamber from you seeking two things: An order directing the Prosecution

5 to disclose all unedited tapes taken by the TV crew who accompanied

6 Mr. Vulliamy on his visits to the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1992

7 and 1995; and secondly the full unabridged notes and recordings, drafts

8 and articles on any discussions, conversations and interviews that

9 Mr. Vulliamy had on those visits with the Serbian authorities. Are you

10 still maintaining this motion? In particular, the second aspect of it?

11 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, that motion was granted in

12 Kovacevic's trial, and I had access to that evidence, and it was extremely

13 helpful. And I believe that -- I have returned all of those tapes and in

14 order to review them back again, it would be quite helpful to

15 cross-examine, if you would so permit, and I think it would be also fair

16 to the other counsel for the Defence to review that material. That's why

17 I maintain it.

18 I think Vulliamy has testified that he had numerous conversations

19 en route from London to Bosnia with different persons and he couldn't

20 recall all of them, and I think it would help us to prepare to

21 cross-examine on those conversations and what was said to him and wasn't,

22 because he was rather evasive on subject matter of all those

23 conversations, if I correctly remember the cross-examination. So that's

24 why I believe that it is indeed very important.

25 Concerning his notes and tapes, that matter was raised only during

1 his cross-examination, and the Trial Chamber at that time, in its wisdom,

2 has interrupted its hearing schedule and allowed the Defence to review the

3 steno notes that he had available -- that Mr. Vulliamy had available with

4 him. However, he has said that there were some drafts, that they were not

5 with him but they were on his computer. And I think they are relevant.

6 Mr. Ryneveld has objected to those in his prior statements earlier this

7 morning. However, they are relevant because this man is a newspaper

8 reporter, and if he has strongly indicated that his bias was there and his

9 participation is to punish or to help the authorities to punish the Serbs

10 for what they have done, and that he has discarded his code of newspaper

11 reporters to be impartial in these conflicts, I think his previous notes

12 are relevant, just as notes of any other witness, to show his

13 inconsistency. If he is changing --

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Vucicevic. I think we just wanted

15 to find out if you're maintaining that.

16 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour, I do, and for the reason --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's quite clear.

18 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you. There was another motion that I

19 submitted and that was basically related to the events we discussed today,

20 so I would ask that that motion just be included, but it's covered with

21 everything that was discussed today. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves?

23 MR. GREAVES: There is a practical matter I'd like to raise, if I

24 may, please. Depending on what decision you come to in relation to the

25 motion you've been dealing with this morning, if you admit the

1 transcripts, whether subject to or not subject to cross-examination, the

2 witnesses produced during the course of their transcript evidence the

3 exhibits. I assume that those exhibits will accompany those portions of

4 the transcripts which are admitted. But I haven't seen any reference to

5 what should happen to the exhibits, and there is nothing in the rules

6 about what should happen to exhibits, so it may be that's a matter that

7 Your Honours need to address.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ryneveld?

10 MR. RYNEVELD: Well, many of those exhibits, of course, are --

11 have been entered in other proceedings and the transcript actually gives

12 the witness's impression about -- formed from having seen those particular

13 exhibits. If the court deems it necessary, we can prepare a binder of

14 those exhibits from other transcripts. However, they have not been

15 included with the material that we have presented to the court. In other

16 words, these could be binders of material with respect to Mr. Vulliamy and

17 Judge Greve. I believe they made specific reference to exhibit numbers in

18 other proceedings.

19 In the event that the court requires those exhibits, then we will

20 have to tender those at a later date.

21 JUDGE MAY: Are you seeking their admission?

22 MR. RYNEVELD: I hadn't anticipated the necessity to do so.

23 However, if the court finds that the evidence relied upon by the

24 Prosecution is meaningless without reference to those, we can belatedly

25 ask to tender them.

1 JUDGE MAY: So at the moment the state of the evidence is -- the

2 state of the application is that you're not applying for admission of the

3 exhibits, you're merely applying for admission of the transcripts?

4 MR. RYNEVELD: Correct, Your Honour, yes.

5 JUDGE MAY: So if the Defence wanted at any time exhibits

6 admitted, they could no doubt ask for them?

7 MR. RYNEVELD: Correct, Your Honour. And if the court requires

8 assistance, all we need is an instruction from the court, but it's not my

9 application at this time to include those exhibits with the transcript.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ryneveld.

11 MR. GREAVES: The thought I have is this - and I'm not trying to

12 be a contentious here. You're admitting the evidence. The evidence that

13 was given at the trial is not just that which is said but it's the

14 adoption by the witness of, "I see an exhibit. It's an exhibit I

15 recognised and I have prepared and I have relied on it in drawing the

16 conclusions to which I have come." And therefore, the evidence that you

17 admit cannot be complete potentially unless you also have the exhibits

18 upon which that witness has relied.

19 It's not so much a matter of the Defence wanting things in and

20 not, it's "Is that evidence complete in the way it's being presented to

21 you?"

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You say the exhibits are concomitant with the --

23 MR. GREAVES: They're effectively part of the evidence.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll take that into consideration.

25 We will adjourn now, and we will resume next Tuesday at 9.30

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.10 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day

3 of May, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25