1 Tuesday, 24
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic. I think we have your
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
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
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
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
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
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
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 [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
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
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
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
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
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
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
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
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
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.