1 Friday, 1 June 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 10.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: EDWARD VULLIAMY
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
11 Mr. Mundis to introduce the witness.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Examined by Mr. Mundis:
14 Q. Witness, for the record, can you please state your full name,
15 spelling your last name.
16 A. My name is Edward Sebastian Vulliamy, V-u-l-l-i-a-m-y.
17 Q. Mr. Vulliamy, have you testified before the International Criminal
18 Tribunal on previous occasions?
19 A. I have.
20 Q. In which cases, please?
21 A. In three cases. As it happens, the first was that of Dusko Tadic,
22 the second was that of General Blaskic, and the third was that of Milan
24 Q. And drawing your attention specifically to the Kovacevic case, do
25 you adopt the testimony that you gave in that case for purposes of the
1 present case?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecutor has no further questions at this time,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
7 Mr. Greaves, you recall the order that was made --
8 MR. GREAVES: Yes.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- and that cross-examination is confined to
10 those aspects of the evidence that would prove intent and also facts going
11 to prove genocide. Please proceed.
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:
13 Q. Mr. Vulliamy, I want to focus first of all on your meeting in 1996
14 with Dr. Kovacevic. That was the first time that you had met him since
15 you had first met him in 1992; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, it was.
17 Q. Compared with 1992, had he changed, as far as you could see, his
18 appearance, his demeanor?
19 A. He had, yes.
20 Q. Physically, how would you describe him as having changed?
21 A. Slightly less robust and with an aura of less self-confidence, I
22 would say.
23 Q. Did he look a well man when you saw him in 1996?
24 A. Not, not unwell but not particularly well either.
25 Q. So, if I can just compare him with 1992, the man you saw in the
1 1992 was someone whom you've described in your evidence before as having
2 taken somewhat of a leading role in the meeting of the Crisis Staff which
3 you attended, a man who you described as being in charge of things; but
4 that, you would now say, in 1996, was it a striking impression that he had
5 now lost that aura of self-confidence that he'd had? Was that something
6 that struck you immediately whether you met him again?
7 A. No. He hadn't lost -- I mean, he was running a hospital, a large
8 hospital --
9 Q. Of course.
10 A. -- and seemed to be doing so. He hadn't completely lost his
11 self-confidence, no.
12 Q. Was one of the impressions which you gained of him in 1996 that he
13 had now -- by now learnt much more of what had happened in Omarska and
14 those facts were now lying heavily upon him?
15 A. I'd say he was thinking about it, but I don't know how much he had
16 learned between our meetings necessarily. He was drinking alcohol at an
17 early hour of the day.
18 Q. I was going to ask about that. How long did your meeting with him
19 last in all that day, 1996?
20 A. I would estimate - and it's an estimation - it's between one and
21 two hours.
22 Q. And throughout that period, he was drinking plum brandy?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Which you, I think, yourself also sampled?
25 A. "Sampled" would be the word, yes.
1 Q. Was it -- having been a recipient, on my visits to Bosnia,
2 numerous bottles of home-distilled brandy, was it a commercial brand or
3 out of a big bottle that looked as though it was something that had been
4 done at home?
5 A. It had been made in the region, I'd say, rather than bought in a
7 Q. The bottle disappeared pretty well during your meeting with Dr.
8 Kovacevic; is that right?
9 A. For the most part; it got towards the bottom, yes.
10 Q. You had one glass maybe out of that and one of your colleagues, I
11 think, had another glass?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. So over a period of an hour to two hours, he'd had the best part
14 of a bottle of local plum brandy?
15 A. I think he had six to eight.
16 Q. Yes. Well-poured measures?
17 A. He was drinking his brandy.
18 Q. By the time he'd finished, was -- would your assessment be that he
19 was quite unfit, for example, to drive a motor car?
20 A. I wouldn't drive a car after drinking that much, for sure. But I
21 myself -- I mean, no, he would not have been in a fit state to drive a
22 motor car. The -- but I would say that during that period, it would be a
23 -- people were drinking in a way, in various parts of the war, in
24 measures that don't necessarily stand up in a Dutch police station. The
25 parallels are slightly artificial. But he was drinking, yeah.
1 Q. Did you think it fair -- given the amount of alcohol he was
2 consuming, did you think it fair to continue to interview him in those
4 A. I'd been interviewing people who had been drinking brandy in
5 similar quantities for years.
6 Q. That wasn't quite the question which I asked. Did you think it
7 was fair to interview him --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- in those circumstances?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You made notes of the conversation, did you not?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Did you offer those notes to him for him to confirm what you
14 thought he had said?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Why not?
17 A. It's not a -- it's not a practice that I'm in my profession
18 required to do every time I take a note.
19 Q. No doubt you don't feel under obligation to do it, but this man
20 had been drinking a significant amount of alcohol and you were talking
21 with him about a topic of considerable sensitivity, were you not?
22 A. I was.
23 Q. And given his condition, did it not occur to you that there might
24 be every opportunity for dispute as to what had in fact been said?
25 A. It was very inconvenient for me to return to that area to consult
1 him over the notes.
2 Q. It would not have been inconvenient to invite him to check the
3 record of what you had -- you claimed he had said, would it?
4 A. It was not something I did.
5 Q. It would have been a matter of but a few moments to go through the
6 notes and invite him to sign them, would it not?
7 A. Well, I don't think -- I don't recall doing very many interviews
8 in which one invites people to sign the notes at the bottom. It's -- if
9 it is a common practice, it's not one that I'm aware of or have ever come
11 JUDGE MAY: It's a police practice, isn't it? If you were
12 cross-examining a police officer about an interview with somebody, that's
13 the sort of thing you would put to him.
14 But Mr. Vulliamy, have you ever done that in your journalistic
15 practice or heard of anybody else doing it?
16 A. I can't say I have, no.
17 MR. GREAVES:
18 Q. I want now to move on to the day which you present in Prijedor in
19 1992, Mr. Vulliamy. You had spent the day previous to that in or around
20 Sarajevo; is that right?
21 A. Yes. No.
22 Q. Then correct me. Where had you come from to get to Prijedor?
23 A. We were driving to Banja Luka the previous day, and then the day
24 before that, we were in and around Sarajevo.
25 Q. I'm sorry. The day before that you were in Sarajevo and you had
1 had your meeting with Dr. Karadzic?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. You'd got what you thought was authority to go to Omarska
5 A. At that level, yes.
6 Q. At that level. You arrived in Prijedor actually on the morning of
7 the 5th of August?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The first thing which attracted your attention was the line of
10 women, line of people, outside the police station?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You went to that line of people and spoke with a lot of them?
13 A. Some of them. The conversations with them were actually slightly
14 later when we were waiting outside after the meeting.
15 Q. Approximately --
16 A. But we did speak to them, yes.
17 Q. Approximately how many people did you speak with at that stage,
18 Mr. Vulliamy?
19 A. One at some length, and two, maybe three, more anecdotally at that
20 -- short lines of conversation.
21 Q. I assume that you were doing this through the offices of an
22 interpreter; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. It was ITN's interpreter.
24 Q. Now --
25 A. And the gentlemen who spoke some English. I'm sorry, excuse me.
1 Q. Yes. Prior to making this trip, you -- you had heard of two
2 places in particular: Omarska and Trnopolje?
3 A. I'd heard of Omarska and Manjaca.
4 Q. You'd heard of Omarska and Manjaca, so you hadn't heard of
5 Trnopolje. When was the first you'd heard of Trnopolje?
6 A. That was -- I mean, it was being mentioned in reports so I knew of
7 its existence, but it wasn't, as it were, high on the radar screen. I
8 would have read about it during the previous days, possibly weeks, in
9 England, but it wasn't on the list of places we particularly wanted to go
11 Q. In relation to Omarska and Manjaca, had you derived your
12 information solely from other news media reports, or was that something
13 that you had spoken to individuals about and they had told you - and by
14 individuals I mean Bosnians - they told you that you ought to pay
15 attention to this place?
16 A. Mainly media reports, but also people were coming over the border
17 -- had been coming over the border at Karlovac and talking about Omarska.
18 Q. And would people you had spoken --
19 A. I mean --
20 Q. -- to or --
21 A. That colleagues had spoken to.
22 Q. That colleagues had spoken to --
23 A. But not --
24 Q. -- and the word was going around.
25 A. Yes.
1 *** Kindly speak one at a time for the sake of the
2 record ***
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and the witness please make a
4 pause between question and answer.
5 A. I'm sorry, my apologies.
6 MR. GREAVES:
7 Q. So when you then spoke with the people in the queue at the police
8 station, you asked about -- you asked what they were doing there,
10 A. Yes, I or one of my colleagues. I don't recall who started the
12 Q. And in essence, it was a group of people who were making inquiries
13 at the police station as to where members of their family might be found?
14 A. I think were looking -- they wanted to know where their menfolk
15 had been taken to, yes.
16 Q. At that stage, apart from Omarska, was Trnopolje mentioned at that
18 A. Not that I recall. Maybe. I can't remember.
19 Q. The very first time that you heard of a place called Keraterm was
20 during your visit to Trnopolje much later that day; is that right?
21 A. That afternoon, yes.
22 Q. Nobody in the queue, for example, mentioned the name Keraterm to
23 you at all?
24 A. Not that I recall.
25 Q. Did your colleague speak with other people that you were not
1 speaking with?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. How many were in your group who were, as it were, question askers?
4 A. Three.
5 Q. Three. And what -- so you divided yourself up; you talked to a
6 few people, they talked to a few people, and --
7 A. Yes, or we overlapped because there was only one interpreter.
8 Q. Some eavesdropping going on?
9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. Yes. And when you had concluded that operation, again, none of
11 the people who were asking questions had by that stage heard anything of
12 the name Keraterm?
13 A. If they had, I hadn't spotted it. It wasn't a name I knew.
14 Q. How long did you spend with the queue, approximately?
15 A. I'd say about -- well, a matter of minutes initially, and then
16 perhaps between 15 and 20 minutes when we were waiting outside later.
17 Q. You then went to the meeting with the members of the Crisis Staff
18 from which you were seeking permission to get to Omarska?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How long did you spend with them?
21 A. It must have been approaching a couple of hours altogether.
22 Q. And that took you to what, approximately what time in the day?
23 A. Late morning.
24 Q. The route which you had followed to get to Prijedor, was that the
25 direct road from Banja Luka to Prijedor?
1 A. To get to Prijedor, yes.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. I'm pretty sure.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. If there is a more direct one, I don't know it.
6 Q. The meeting with the Crisis Staff having concluded, you then go to
7 Omarska itself.
8 A. Well, there's quite a lot of waiting around going on, actually.
9 Q. Yes. Hanging around waiting for transport?
10 A. Well, waiting for them to get over the problems they had in
11 allowing us to go there.
12 Q. When you say problems, was that getting final authority to let you
13 go there, in effect?
14 A. The meeting concluded without us having -- we had clearance from
15 Karadzic to go there --
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. -- and we had assumed that was sufficient, but the end --
18 Q. They weren't terribly impressed with his authority?
19 A. Well, they, I think -- can I give my impression?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. They were rather surprised that it had been given, and I don't
22 think they were very keen to take us there. And there was a debate going
23 on, I think, which -- or upcoming when we were asked to leave the room,
24 and we were waiting outside for that debate to conclude.
25 Q. Whilst you were waiting for that, did you have any further
1 opportunities to speak with any Bosnian people?
2 A. That's when we did most of the interviews with the women, during
3 that wait.
4 Q. So you were, effectively, able to go outside again whilst waiting
5 for this and then talked to the women?
6 A. We were told to go outside and wait.
7 Q. Told to go outside. You were then taken to Omarska itself.
8 Approximately what time did you arrive there?
9 A. It must have been around lunchtime.
10 Q. And the route which you went, the direct road from Prijedor to
12 A. No, we didn't. We -- in fact, I was rather unnerved when I saw a
13 sign to Omarska to the right past which we drove in our convoy, and we
14 went to Omarska down a long series of winding dirt tracks.
15 Q. Back roads, would that be fair?
16 A. Yes, m-hmm.
17 Q. The route you followed coming back from Omarska and Trnopolje, was
18 that the main road?
19 A. We didn't return to Prijedor after Trnopolje and we drove -- as I
20 best recall, back on to a main road that then led to Banja Luka from
21 Trnopolje. There was no return to Prijedor, unless it was just through
22 Prijedor, after Trnopolje, by which time it was late afternoon.
23 Q. At Omarska, your opportunities to speak with detainees there was
24 strictly limited?
25 A. Very.
1 Q. Were you able to speak with -- did you have a guard in the bus,
2 for example, on the way there or the transport that you were in?
3 A. Yes, we did.
4 Q. Did you speak with him?
5 A. I was speaking mostly with a Major from Banja Luka who had
6 escorted us since that morning, not to the guard himself. There were two
7 guards --
8 Q. Did --
9 A. -- as I recall.
10 Q. Did you ask the Major about any other camps which were in the
12 A. We were talking to the Major, actually, about all the burnt-out
13 houses and those from which the white sheets were hanging past which we
14 were driving.
15 Q. Then you leave Omarska. How long do you think you spent at
16 Omarska in all?
17 A. I'd say about an hour, maybe a little more, something like that.
18 Q. You then retrace your steps somewhat and go to Trnopolje?
19 A. I can't tell you which route we took, I'm afraid.
20 Q. Did it seem to be reasonably direct?
21 A. From my knowledge of the map, which I now have roughly in my head,
22 yes. And then to answer your previous question, we then, I think, to the
23 knowledge of my map, don't go back to Prijedor. We do join the main road,
24 yes. But I can't give you any, I'm afraid, specifics on the road.
25 Q. It is at Trnopolje that you first hear the name Keraterm?
1 A. Yes, as I recall.
2 Q. You spoke with how many people when you were at Trnopolje?
3 A. I don't know exactly. Quite a number of people during the whole
4 time there. But the first people I spoke to had come that day from
6 Q. Yes. And it was at that point that you first learnt anything of
7 the existence of a detention facility at Keraterm?
8 A. The first I learned of this, yes. We were interviewing some men
9 behind a fence in a bad condition, and asked who they were and what they
10 were doing, and that was the conversation in which I first heard the word
12 Q. The one thing that sticks in your memory, is it not, concerning
13 that conversation, is the allegation that a substantial number of people,
14 200 people, had been killed in one night?
15 A. That was certainly a detail one could not miss, yes. That was one
16 of the things that a man called Fikret Alic and others were talking about.
17 Q. And that particular piece of information, it's right, isn't it,
18 that that was one thing which particularly shocked you and drew your
19 attention to the existence of Keraterm; is that right?
20 A. Certainly.
21 Q. Did you go to Keraterm?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you ask to go to Keraterm?
24 A. I think a colleague from ITN asked to go to Keraterm and we were
25 told it was not possible, but I did not ask.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 Q. Did you make inquiries as to where Keraterm was?
2 A. Only from what the men said.
3 Q. What did they tell you?
4 A. It was a tile factory.
5 Q. A tile factory. Did they describe whereabouts it was physically?
6 A. Near Prijedor.
7 Q. Near Prijedor. Of whom was it that the ITN gentleman or lady
8 asked to go to Keraterm; do you know?
9 A. I don't.
10 Q. You yourself made no efforts to see Keraterm?
11 A. No. I didn't ask to go. I wanted to get on with what I was
13 Q. Bearing in mind that you had been told, as your evidence is, that
14 it was, and if I may summarise this, worse than Trnopolje but not as bad
15 as Omarska, why didn't you ask-- you personally ask to go and see it?
16 A. It was probably an oversight that I didn't. It was a strange
17 afternoon. I was doing interviews with people I wanted to talk to where I
18 was, in the condition they were in, and I continued to do that as best I
20 Q. You did in fact go past it, did you not?
21 A. I now know that we did. I did not know that at the time.
22 Q. And indeed, a short excerpt of film was taken of it; do you recall
24 A. That I do not -- did not know.
25 Q. I wonder --
1 A. If I did, I don't know. I mean this is --
2 MR. GREAVES: Perhaps if the technical booth would be kind enough
3 to play the short piece of video that I've shown them this morning,
5 Q. If you could look at the video, the monitor, and tell us if your
6 recollection would accord with us.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MR. GREAVES:
9 Q. I accept it's a very short passage, Mr. Vulliamy, but does that
10 accord with your recollection of what you saw looking out of the bus that
12 A. It's not fair for me to answer that really because, yes, I have
13 seen that film.
14 Q. You've seen the film before?
15 A. You're right, yes, but I do not remember that particular building
16 on that particular drive then.
17 Q. Yes. Did you have -- you met with somebody, I think, in Belgrade
18 and asked pertinent questions about Omarska and Trnopolje subsequent to
19 your visit there?
20 A. There were quite a few people in Belgrade.
21 Q. Did you ask of them any questions about Keraterm?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What information did you get about it?
24 A. It was during a rather strange conversation with Vice-President of
25 -- one of the Vice-Presidents of the Serbian section of Bosnia,
1 Mr. Koljevic.
2 Q. Did he know anything about Keraterm?
3 A. He said he didn't know anything about the massacre which I asked
4 him about.
5 Q. Was that all that you asked him about Keraterm?
6 A. I don't recall. I think so. I don't know. I think so. That
7 would have been the context I'd have brought it up in, yes.
8 Q. Concerning your visit to Trnopolje, the conditions under which you
9 were able to operate at Trnopolje were different from those which obtained
10 at Omarska; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At Omarska you derived the impression that they were not terribly
13 keen to let you go anywhere out of their sight?
14 A. They were determined that we would not go where we asked to go and
15 stopped us from doing so physically.
16 Q. At Trnopolje you were very quickly able to lose your minders?
17 A. Yes. I mean not automatically, but it was certainly possible. I
19 Q. You were able to identify who were the guards and who were the
20 inmates fairly easily, were you?
21 A. Very easily.
22 Q. The guards were wearing uniforms of some sort?
23 A. Yes, for the most part.
24 Q. What sort of uniforms? Are were you familiar with the different
1 A. Two sorts of uniforms as well -- actually three. Two and a half.
2 Camouflage uniforms; others wore blue uniforms of what I later found out
3 to be the military police; and there were some people in maybe half
4 fatigues and a T-shirt or something like that.
5 Q. And how many people -- how many guards of whatever variety
6 appeared to be on duty during the course of your visit?
7 A. I couldn't give a number.
8 Q. Very few?
9 A. Scores.
10 Q. Scores? Fifty or 60 or something like that?
11 A. Yes, but I wouldn't want to be held to 50 or 60.
12 Q. No. I just want to get an idea. And you were quickly able to get
13 within the confines of the camp itself?
14 A. We were taken into the confines of the camp itself around another
15 entrance to that, in another bit of the camp than that at which we were
16 having the conversations about Keraterm you asked me about earlier.
17 Q. Did you see anything of people who were obviously detainees
18 actually leaving the premises of the camp?
19 A. No, I didn't. I was told that you could.
20 Q. Told that you could. Who was it that told you that, one of the
22 A. I can't -- but they didn't want --
23 Q. I'm sorry?
24 A. But they didn't want to.
25 Q. They didn't want to because it was more dangerous outside than in?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Effectively?
3 A. That was what I -- because that was -- because of where they'd
4 come from, I think.
5 Q. Yes. In total, you spent how long talking to people out of the
6 earshot of the authorities?
7 A. Maybe 50 minutes to an hour, 45 minutes.
8 Q. Having heard of Keraterm for the first time, of that period you've
9 told us about, how much time did you spend asking about Keraterm?
10 A. I was asking about Trnopolje because that's where I was.
11 Q. That's where you were. So you didn't pursue with them even the
12 shocking news of what appeared to be a substantial massacre of
14 A. Not with the people I was talking to, no. I had that in my book
16 MR. GREAVES: If Your Honour would just give me a moment, please?
17 Q. In the conversations which you had in 1996 with various of the
18 people you'd originally spoken to, was it a common theme that Omarska was
19 something which, having been set up, they had lost control of?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Was it something which some of those people asserted at that
23 A. In 1996, there were all sorts of different descriptions of
24 Omarska. One individual, and I'm -- I think you -- if by "some" you mean
25 Dr. Kovacevic, part of his conversation was that things had got out of
1 control. Other parts of it not.
2 MR. GREAVES: Yes. I have no further questions, thank you.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Greaves. Mr. Mundis?
4 MR. MUNDIS: One moment, please.
5 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I should have asked for the short clip
6 of video to become an exhibit, if it may, please.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let it be given an exhibit number.
8 MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Defence Exhibit D30/1.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Two very brief lines of redirect for the witness,
12 Your Honour.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Mundis:
14 Q. First, Mr. Vulliamy, with respect to the meeting with
15 Dr. Kovacevic in 1996, did -- following this consumption of the plum
16 brandy, did his speech seemed slurred to you?
17 A. No, not in particular.
18 Q. Was he incoherent?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did your notes ultimately form the basis of a story which was
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. To your knowledge, did Dr. Kovacevic write any letters to the
24 editor complaining that he'd been misquoted?
25 A. No, he didn't.
1 Q. Finally now with respect to the events when you were travelling
2 from Prijedor to Omarska, you've testified that a Major was in the vehicle
3 with you and that you were having discussions with him.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You testified that you were speaking with him about burnt-out
6 houses and white sheets?
7 A. Yes. We'd been doing that on the way to Prijedor through a place
8 called Kozarac in particular, and now again on these back roads.
9 Q. Do you recall the gist of the conversation with respect to what
10 the Major told you about these houses and the white sheets?
11 A. Yes. That they belonged to -- well, with the white sheets, that
12 these were people who were waiting to be deported, and with the burnt-out
13 houses, it was "the people who cannot live with us any more."
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
17 Mr. Vulliamy, that concludes your testimony, and you are released.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ryneveld, is that your case?
21 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, those are all the witnesses that the
22 Prosecution tenders in support of its case; however, in response to the
23 issue that the Court asked me to make further inquiries, I have today
24 distributed a supplementary report. I don't know whether the Court has in
25 fact received copies of that document.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I don't think we have.
2 MR. RYNEVELD: It is a one-page document, and I trust that this
3 is, in fact, the information that the Court is seeking. With the
4 tendering of that report, that is the case for the Prosecution. Thank
5 you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll just take a minute or two to read it.
7 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would the French interpreter please come forward.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'd like to hear from the Defence on this
12 question. Mr. Greaves first.
13 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, yes. Looking at the list that has now
14 been produced, if one thinks that we've had, I think, about 30, 30-odd
15 witnesses, if you factor out of those, those who in fact live in Bosnia
16 and have lived in Bosnia throughout matters, it's a substantial proportion
17 of those who have given evidence who had letters of the kind that we've
18 been talking about written to the German authorities. On the face of it,
19 probably more than a third.
20 One is particularly interested, for example, in the first name in
21 that list, bearing in mind the reason which he gave for having put himself
22 forward to be a witness for the Prosecution. And Your Honours will
23 recall, I think, that he was the gentleman who said that he'd come, in
24 particular, having heard about the work of the Tribunal and that matters
25 were going slowly, to speed up the schedules.
1 There are two, two problems which are identified. My learned
2 friend in his report to you has dealt with the issue of inducement, but
3 also we are very concerned about what, as I think I've said before, what
4 the perception amongst the Bosnian community is about the value of giving
5 evidence. And that may be something which is wholly external to anything
6 the Prosecution does. It may simply be something which grows up over time
7 as a result of witnesses or potential witnesses, or Bosnian refugees in
8 general, talking together. But you've got the evidence concerning this
9 issue from four of the witnesses. In at least one of those cases, our
10 submission would be that there is plainly, amongst some people, a
11 perception that putting yourself forward as a witness, giving a statement,
12 giving evidence, may be -- it's perceived as being potentially beneficial
13 to the process of getting permanent papers.
14 And so whatever the good intentions of the Prosecution are, both
15 for the purposes of this trial and for other trials, one must express the
16 very gravest concern as to how this issue is and has been managed and what
17 its impact may be. And I used the word, I think, on the first occasion
18 when I raised this issue, there is the element of it being corrosive. And
19 the danger is in this trial, or in other trials, that people are advancing
20 themselves and may be giving accounts which they believe will be the sort
21 of account the Prosecution wants to hear, and it may not necessarily be a
22 truthful account because there is a motivation involved. That is our
24 I'm very loath to suggest for a moment the recall of any of those
25 who have not been cross-examined about this issue as I suspect that would
1 not be a terribly welcomed conclusion, but it is -- it may be a matter
2 that Your Honours want to consider as to whether you think it, in the
3 light of the concerns we've expressed, as being an important --
4 sufficiently important issue to require that. I'm not specifically making
5 the application, but Your Honours have -- plainly are concerned about this
6 issue, if I may be so bold, and it may be that that's a course you would
7 want to consider.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves, of the nine, how many of them gave
9 statements for the first time within the recent past?
10 MR. GREAVES: I simply don't know because I don't have the -- what
11 I do is I have an individual folder in relation to each witness, and I
12 don't bring them all to court every day, so I couldn't tell you that
13 information. It may be others of my learned friends can do that, or the
14 Prosecution can just very quickly detail that. It may also be that my
15 learned friend has this sort of information on the top of his head. I'm
16 afraid that once a witness is finished, I tend to put it on to the back
17 burner fairly quickly.
18 My learned friend says of that list, four to five he thinks have
19 given recent statements, but I stand to be corrected by almost anybody in
20 court. But I think that's all I have to say at this present time.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. We fully
23 support all that our learned friend has said.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Sir Ivan?
25 MR. LAWRENCE: There seem to be three possibilities here: Either
1 there was no inducement of any kind; or there was an improper inducement,
2 which would be a legal matter; or there was an unavoidable inducement,
3 which would be an evidential matter.
4 As far as no inducement of any kind is concerned, it's difficult
5 to conclude that that must be the situation in the light of, firstly, the
6 evidence of -- I think it was Mr. Kenjar who said, "I'd had some
7 difficulties with the visa and others said you could perhaps give a
8 statement," and then the investigation of that which took place in
9 cross-examination in front of Your Honours; and secondly, the coincidence
10 of the lateness of the statements being made and offered.
11 If there may be some doubt about whether there was no inducement,
12 the next question is: Was there an improper inducement, or was there an
13 unavoidable inducement? About that matter, I would at this stage only
14 wish to say this: That although the perception may have grown as a kind
15 of a chain reaction, that it might be helpful to either getting visas or
16 having visas extended - and that would be unavoidable, although a matter
17 for the Court to take into consideration when it considers the weight of
18 the evidence - it is very likely, is it not, that at the very start of
19 that chain of events someone - and I don't suggest, of course, the Office
20 of the Prosecutor - but someone in authority must either have suggested
21 that it might be helpful for any reluctant witness to make a statement and
22 to give evidence; or if the suggestion didn't come from an official, it is
23 likely that somebody would have asked of an official the question, "Will
24 it help me to get a visa or extend a visa," or whatever benefit might
25 follow, to which a positive answer is likely to have been given.
1 And what I say is that at the beginning of that chain of events,
2 however it developed, it is, in common sense, reasonably likely that
3 somebody in an official position gave, either initially or in response to
4 a question, an inducement, a statement which might amount to an
6 So that raises the next point. Is it going to be necessary to
7 trawl over all of the witnesses, either in front of this Court or not in
8 front of this Court, to see whether any of them can help about how the
9 chain started or not, or whether it is sufficient for the Court, using its
10 experience and wisdom, to say that we can confine this matter to the
11 evidential position? We have the evidence of Kenjar, and I think the
12 witnesses who followed, S, T, and Y. We haven't had the evidence on this
13 point from the others on the list, and I think the Court must want to
14 decide how best to deal with that issue.
15 Speaking for myself on behalf of Kolundzija, I have two views:
16 Firstly, that it's not a major matter, in as much as those witnesses don't
17 do a great deal of harm to him, as I recall; and secondly, that as far as
18 the overall picture is concerned, of course, then Kolundzija is involved,
19 if any of these statements would, on reflection, or any of the evidence
20 given, would on reflection have been inadmissible, it obviously could
21 affect the whole trial.
22 I think, having just seen this confidential supplementary report
23 only moments -- minutes before the Court saw it, I have nothing further to
24 say other than these really speaking-aloud thoughts, for which I hope the
25 court will forgive me.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Sir Ivan.
2 Mr. Ryneveld?
3 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Just one comment with respect to something
4 Mr. Greaves suggested, and that is that Mr. Greaves suggested the words
5 "permanent papers." My understanding is that if you take into account
6 our first report about the six categories of letters that are sent, there
7 is no suggestion that these witnesses receive, as a result of any letters,
8 permanent papers. At some point, if the Tribunal no longer has an
9 interest in these witnesses as potential witnesses, that is communicated
10 to the German authorities. Then it is their decision as to whether or not
11 these people continue to stay because of protective measures, or whether
12 or not they are returned. So there is no suggestion that these witnesses
13 somehow get permanent papers as a result of this process.
14 We also want to reiterate the point that we take the view that we
15 have been asked to find as to whether or not these people have been
16 induced. They have not, in our respectful submission, been induced. It
17 is impossible to say what their personal motivation may be, and unlike
18 Mr. Lawrence, we are not about to speculate as to what their motivation
19 may be.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
21 MR. GREAVES: May I just make one final observation, please, with
22 Your Honour's leave. I accept entirely what my learned friend says about
23 permanent papers. The point is this: That one knows only too well in
24 refugee situations that the longer you can hang on in the country where
25 you are a refugee, the more chance you have of getting to a situation
1 where your position is regularised and made permanent.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could we have the French interpreter, please?
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber notes that no formal request has been
7 made by any party to have any of the witnesses recalled for further
8 cross-examination on this issue. The Chamber would not of its own motion
9 take such a step. The witnesses were extensively cross-examined as to
10 this question. We do have the report from the Prosecution, which
11 concludes that the witnesses were not induced, although they concede that
12 they cannot say exactly what may have motivated a particular witness to
13 cooperate with the Tribunal.
14 The Chamber concludes that ultimately this matter will have to be
15 settled on the basis of the Chamber itself analysing the evidence, which
16 is quite extensive, to determine the credibility in respect of each
17 witness and the weight that has to be attached. We have for that purpose
18 the very extensive cross-examination that has taken place with regard to
19 these witnesses. And there the matter will end.
20 The only other matter is that the two reports should be exhibited.
21 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Could that be under seal? I have marked them
22 "confidential" but there are names and I would ask that those be marked
23 as exhibits under seal.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Exhibited under seal.
25 THE REGISTRAR: The first exhibit shall be Prosecution Exhibit 52,
1 and the second report, supplementary report, shall be Prosecution Exhibit
2 53, both under seal.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Are there any other matters to be
4 raised? Sir Ivan?
5 MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, Your Honour. Defence counsel have met
6 together to consider the future programme, and we may be able to help with
7 our thoughts about our perception of timing, roughly, because there are a
8 number of imponderables and perhaps the court might like to hear how we
9 see things progressing.
10 The court is proposing to sit again to consider oral argument on
11 the submissions of no case to answer on the 21st of June and possibly the
12 22nd, and then to sit again --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just correct that? The submissions will be
14 heard on the 21st in the morning and we will give an oral ruling in the
15 afternoon. It is only if, for some reason, we have to go over, with the
16 consideration of the decision, that we would run over to the following
18 MR. LAWRENCE: Yes.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The clear intention is to complete it on the
21 MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. I understand from my learned friend
22 Mr. Greaves for Sikirica that his case would start on the 27th of June and
23 might reasonably be expected to continue until the plenary session on the
24 11th of June -- of July. It would then follow that the case for Dosen
25 would begin on the 16th of July and may well continue until the August
1 break on the 3rd of August. The case for Kolundzija would then start on
2 the 27th of August and might continue until the week ending the 14th of
3 September. May I pause there a moment and say that every effort is being
4 made to ensure, firstly, that the minimum number of witnesses from the
5 Prijedor area are called and, secondly, that a number of the witnesses
6 might be shared.
7 There is the possibility of expert evidence being called, and
8 then, of course, there is the particular witnesses that reflect on any of
9 the defendants' cases alone. Then, of course, there is the question of
10 whether the defendants give evidence, and that would either lengthen or
11 shorten proceedings accordingly.
12 So as far as the Defence can see, it looks as though the entire
13 Defence will go on until the 14th of September, possibly a little longer,
14 possibly shorter. That may give the Court some indication as to how
15 things can proceed to that point and the Court that make its own -- come
16 to its own conclusions about how things develop with the submission
17 speeches and any rebuttal evidence, of course, that might be called by the
19 It looks as though the case will conclude well within the deadline
20 that has been fixed.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Sir Ivan. That's extremely
22 helpful, and I do hope we'll be able to keep to that schedule. And we
23 will, as a Chamber, be reviewing the schedule on the basis of the
24 information that you have just provided.
25 Mr. Ryneveld?
1 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution and the Defence
2 have been discussing matters throughout these proceedings, and I might say
3 that I have for some months now been asking the Defence to provide us with
4 the names of anticipated witnesses who they now know. Today we don't
5 have -- apart from the alibi notice from Sikirica, we do not yet have the
6 names of potential Defence witnesses.
7 And I've reiterated that request today, but I suspect I may have
8 to actually ask the Court -- there is, I believe, a seven-day rule from
9 the close of the Prosecution case within which the Defence must provide us
10 with a list of Defence witnesses. We need that access to that information
11 as soon as possible.
12 Also, Mr. Lawrence has just indicated that these estimates may
13 depend on whether or not the accused themselves will be testifying. It
14 would also be of assistance, although I realise that I may be asking for
15 something to which I'm entitled, whether my friends are prepared to share
16 at this time whether or not they anticipate whether any of the accused
17 will, in fact, be testifying. But that is a request, and I certainly
18 can't force that information.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sir Ivan, yes.
20 MR. LAWRENCE: I can assure my learned friend that, speaking on
21 behalf of Kolundzija, we will make every effort within the rules to comply
22 the time constraints and the information obligations. However, firstly,
23 we are under no obligation, and it will be obvious to the Court that we
24 should not be placed under any obligation, to say at this stage whether we
25 are intending to call our clients, and I think that matter must be left
2 Secondly, as far as Kolundzija is concerned, may I respectfully
3 remind the Court of the history of his Defence, and it simply is not
4 possible for us. We have been preoccupied with catching up, trying to
5 make sure that we are in possession of all of the information that had
6 emerged in the course of this trial before we came on to the scene, and it
7 has not been possible for us to go to Prijedor, although the matter has
8 been put entrain. There are investigators there, and as soon as it is
9 possible for us to produce a list of witnesses, we will do so.
10 It may be in breach of the seven-day rule, and I would ask the
11 Court to trust myself and my learned junior co-counsel, Mr. Ostojic, to do
12 our best to get a list of names to the Prosecution as soon as we are able
13 to do so, but it can't be done in seven days from today under any
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ryneveld, what rule provides for the seven
16 days that you mentioned?
17 MR. RYNEVELD: Oops. I don't -- excuse me, I'm going to need to
18 look that up. That is something I thought I remembered.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Under Rule 65 ter, Sir Ivan and the other members
20 of the Defence, you would be obliged to provide a list of witnesses that
21 you intend to call with the name or pseudonym of each witness; summary of
22 the facts on which each witness will testify; the points in the indictment
23 as to which each witness will testify; the total number of witnesses and
24 the number of witnesses who will testify for each accused; and (E), an
25 indication whether the witness will testify in person or pursuant to Rule
1 92 bis; and the estimated length of time required for each witness and the
2 total time estimated for presentation of the Defence case.
3 MR. LAWRENCE: Well, my application, then, would be not to tie
4 Kolundzija to that rule since it would be impossible to comply, if there
5 is a seven-day limit.
6 JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure about the seven days. We'll hear what
7 rule is relied on, but that is the Rule, 65 ter (G), that is your
8 obligation at some stage.
9 MR. LAWRENCE: Yes. I shall certainly, and I give the Court this
10 undertaking, that as soon as we have witnesses who we expect to call --
11 and of course, decisions can only be made after we've seen statements from
12 them which, to this point, I haven't seen, although we have some rough
13 indications of what certain witnesses may be able to say. And then it
14 will be a matter of deciding - I'm third on the indictment - whether those
15 witnesses are going to be called by my colleagues on behalf of their
16 clients, in which they will make the disclosure, not me.
17 So there are problems with this, and particular problems as far as
18 the Defence of Kolundzija are concerned if we're going to be tied to
19 anything. But once we have those, I will endeavour to comply with all of
20 the requirements of the Rule 65 ter, and I give that undertaking.
21 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think it's Mr. Greaves, really, and
22 Mr. Londrovic who are, in fact, in the hot seat.
23 MR. GREAVES: I've been conscious of that throughout the trial, if
24 I may say so.
25 Can I tell you what my schedule is? I'm going to Prijedor on the
1 13th of this month. I return on the 19th in order to come here on the
2 20th to deal with the issue of oral submissions. Inter alia, I shall be
3 dealing with the final decisions as to which witnesses are in fact going
4 to be called. I shall be seeing some witnesses at that point and coming
5 to my own conclusions as to which ones we can properly dispense with, if
6 that be the case, and which ones are essential witnesses. So a pretty
7 final decision will have been taken by the 20th of June.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Greaves, by what date would you be supplying
10 the information required by the rule that I just read out?
11 MR. GREAVES: What I was going to suggest is that I can give a
12 definitive answer, having, as it were, come to our conclusions, on the
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you'd be starting your case on the 27th.
15 MR. GREAVES: On the 27th. And in respect of, of course, some of
16 those, the Prosecution, as my learned friend has already pointed out, are
17 already aware of alibi witnesses in any event, information they have had
18 for a very considerable period of time.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Petrovic?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, only
22 a few words about what Mr. Dosen's Defence has to say on this subject.
23 As my learned friend Greaves has said, many witnesses will be
24 shared, and we shall do our best to see that only one of the Defence teams
25 calls individual witnesses. This will affect our list of witnesses. And
1 I should like to hear your ruling on this matter. Am I right when I say
2 that Mr. Dosen's Defence needs to submit its final list of witnesses at
3 the end of the Sikirica Defence, or are we expected to do that before the
4 beginning of the Sikirica Defence? We believe it will be better if we
5 were allowed to submit our list within a reasonable period of time prior
6 to the 16th of July. That is, of course, if Your Honours rule to that
7 effect. By that time, we shall be able to -- we shall have been able to
8 cut our list short and to be quite clear as to whom we shall be calling.
9 So could we have your instructions as to what is the deadline for
10 Mr. Dosen's Defence to submit its final list of witnesses?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We are going to give a ruling on that.
12 Mr. Ryneveld?
13 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, two things, if I may. First of all, I was
14 either mistaken that it was ever in the rule that it was seven days or it
15 has since disappeared since I last understood that. In any event, I
16 concede that I can find no reference to a seven-day rule.
17 JUDGE MAY: It's the other rule we were talking about earlier
18 which is the seven days. It's the submissions that have to be in.
19 MR. RYNEVELD: Whatever, I stand corrected and I withdraw those
21 I will ask this, however, since we are speaking about proposed
22 practice. Is it the court's intention to continue the practice that you
23 apparently found helpful of asking for summaries of witness statements
24 during the Defence case?
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, absolutely. And I intended to remind the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 Defence of that. So two matters: Firstly, on the basis of the dates that
2 were given by Sir Ivan, that is Sikirica beginning on the 27th, Dosen on
3 the 16th of July, and Kolundzija on the 27th of August, we would require
4 that the information under Rule 65 ter (G) be submitted seven days prior
5 to the beginning of the case for each accused person. And I remind the
6 Defence of the practice of preparing in advance summaries of the
7 witnesses, which we find useful. The Prosecution did it and we expect the
8 Defence to do the same, in a timely manner, so that the Prosecution can
9 have it and the Chamber can have the benefit of these summaries.
10 Is there any other matter?
11 MR. RYNEVELD: No. Those are all the issues. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: In that case, we stand adjourned until the 21st
13 of June, 9.30, to hear the oral submissions under Rule 98 bis.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
15 11.21 a.m., to be reconvened on Thursday the 21st
16 day of June, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.