1 Tuesday, 3 September 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. May we hear our case, please.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the

7 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances for the OTP.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian and

10 Ruth Karper for the Office of the Prosecutor.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the Defence.

12 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and

13 John Ostojic for the Defence.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning.

15 Anything to add before we --

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, an update on the constantly changing schedule

17 and plans. The handwriting expert, as we mentioned before, the Court and

18 counsel have had the English of that report since, I think, soon after the

19 break. The translation is not yet -- the translation was provided

20 yesterday, excuse me. The expert is prepared to testify tomorrow, to come

21 and testify tomorrow. However, he requested to testify in the Dutch

22 language. I've put in a request for that, and I haven't heard yet whether

23 that's possible for tomorrow. They are checking on whether they can

24 arrange that for tomorrow.

25 Furthermore, although I'd also point out that I think Friday would

1 be open because I spoke to Ms. Sutherland who is calling the witness on

2 Thursday, and her estimate is that that would be a one-day witness. I've

3 not yet had a chance to speak because he is not here, the person who wrote

4 the report on the documents. And Ms. Tabeau's report, as I previously

5 stated, she said would be ready by at least next Monday. However, I

6 wanted to inform the Court and Defence counsel, I just spoke to them, that

7 I would be willing on both the document report and Ms. Tabeau's updated

8 report to submit those without the need for further examination, to submit

9 the reports, if the Defence did not feel the need to cross-examine the

10 witnesses. If they do, then I will call the witnesses; they will be

11 available. That, I think, is the updates I have.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt preference should be given in case we

13 need the expert witness on handwriting probably for a second time to at

14 least start with his testimony, and everything should be done to make this

15 possible. If a party needs assistance to come to this result, please, let

16 us know.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: The one thing I did discuss with counsel, and

18 perhaps Mr. Ostojic might address it, was I had mentioned earlier that I

19 could use some time to speak to the witness and wouldn't mind starting a

20 little later tomorrow. I actually am going to meet with the witness late

21 this afternoon. But I don't think the witness is an all-day witness, so

22 if we wanted to start at a later time, I think Mr. Ostojic had a reason

23 why he would request that also.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We should come back to this no later than

25 quarter to 4.00 this afternoon when we know that it will be possible to

1 provide the necessary translation into a language we all understand.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you. That would be fine. But I'm sure the

3 translation unit would appreciate knowing the hours that the interpreter

4 is needed.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We should be flexible. No doubt about this.

6 May I ask about the witness on Thursday. You believe only one

7 day. It will a crime-based witness. And what about protection? I wasn't

8 quite clear on the basis of the summary.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's not a pure crime-based witness, as I recall.

10 I'm not calling the witness, but I believe the witness did have, if I

11 recall, some personal dealing with Dr. Stakic. But still, I think the

12 witness has provided two statements that total five pages, so we don't

13 expect it to be more than one day, the witness. Ms. Karper is checking on

14 the protective measures. I believe that she is a protected witness.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the Defence?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Pseudonym.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Pseudonym. But in open session.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Pseudonym, image, and voice distortion.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. In principle, in open session. Would you

20 be prepared to hear this witness, and what's your estimate? Can we manage

21 it in one day?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning.

23 If the OTP, Your Honour, takes a better part of the day, we would

24 need at the very least one session, so that would be an hour and a half to

25 two hours. We don't anticipate much longer from the estimate based on her

1 statement. But I'd like, if I'm permitted to address another issue raised

2 by the OTP, and respectfully to the Court, the scheduling we generally

3 obviously don't mind when the Court advises they would like to defer the

4 decision until a quarter to 4.00. It may become somewhat problematic to

5 us because we would like to meet with Dr. Stakic at the Detention Unit

6 tomorrow morning essentially to go over the handwriting expert's report

7 among other reports. Now that we received it yesterday at the close of

8 business or thereabouts.

9 In order to schedule a meeting with Dr. Stakic at the Detention

10 Unit, we would have to advise the authorities at Scheveningen at exactly

11 what time and when. So to the extent the Court would give us at least

12 some more latitude so that we could inform them and they could schedule

13 the transportation back here for Dr. Stakic, we would appreciate that.

14 But we also for other reasons, as stated by the OTP, would if possible

15 like to start later tomorrow, either at 11.30 or at any time convenient

16 for all the parties.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So on the basis of the submissions of the

18 parties, we should try to start at 11.00, that we have at least two entire

19 sessions tomorrow. And I say now to whom it may concern, if it's possible

20 to contact during this hearing the interpretation and translation unit to

21 find out whether it's possible on this short notice to hear this witness

22 speaking in Dutch from 11.00 until 4.00, with the ordinary one and a half

23 hour break. So this should be scheduled for tomorrow.

24 Is it enough to contact Dr. Stakic?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: It is, Your Honour. Thank you very much.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we only need the green light from the

2 translation and interpretation unit, and I hope it will come out of the

3 blue by fax or phone call.

4 As regards our today's witness, the parties all have this enormous

5 report. Any obstacles that we can start with this witness immediately?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May I ask, then, the usher to bring

8 in today's witness. Thank you.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning.

11 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we start immediately by hearing your solemn

13 declaration.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And it's for you to start in French,

17 Mr. Koumjian.

18 WITNESS: NICOLAS SEBIRE

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Examined by Mr. Koumjian:

21 Q. Sir, would you please state your name for the record, and tell us

22 your current employment.

23 A. My name is Nicolas Sebire. I'm an investigator for the OTP at the

24 moment.

25 Q. Thank you. And Mr. Sebire, I know that you believe you speak some

1 English. Please keep in mind that because of the interpretation, you have

2 to wait until the answer is completely translated before -- the question,

3 excuse me, is completely translated before giving your answer.

4 Sir, how long have you worked for the Office of the Prosecutor?

5 A. Since September 1999.

6 Q. Can you tell the Judges what experience, if any, you had in law

7 enforcement before joining the Office of the Prosecutor of the

8 International Tribunal.

9 A. I was a captain of the national police in France. I joined the

10 national police in 1998. In 1999, I became part of the direction in

11 Paris. I first served in the centre of the judicial police. In 1995, I

12 joined the criminal brigade in Paris.

13 Q. The criminal brigade in Paris, is it correct that that was a unit

14 handling homicides? Can you tell us, what was the subject matter of the

15 cases that you investigated in that division?

16 A. I was in a department which dealt mainly with political murders,

17 assassinations, investigators into support groups, terrorists.

18 Q. Thank you. Since joining the Office of the Prosecutor, have you

19 been assigned to Team 1 within the division of investigations?

20 A. Yes, exactly.

21 Q. In your work with Team 1, have you been working principally on one

22 Prosecution, one case? And if so, which case was that?

23 A. When I joined Team 1 in September 1999, I participated in an

24 investigation into a case concerning Mr. Radislav Brdjanin and

25 General Momir Talic.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. As part of your responsibilities on that case, were you asked to

2 do some work regarding individuals who had been exhumed or declared dead

3 by courts in Bosnia?

4 A. Yes, in fact, that's the case. I was in charge of a project which

5 concerned exhumations in the northwestern region of Bosnia, as well as the

6 analysis of declarations of death given to court municipalities in the

7 Municipality of Kljuc and in the Municipality of Sanski Most.

8 Q. We'll come back and explain those declarations in more detail in a

9 moment. Can you tell us the area of northwestern Bosnia that your work

10 has covered in this project? Is that the area that was known in the

11 period of 1992 as the Autonomous Region of Krajina?

12 A. Yes, exactly.

13 Q. How many different municipalities have you collected data for?

14 A. In the Autonomous Region of Krajina; it's composed of 25

15 municipalities. And as part of the investigation that we conducted, 16

16 municipalities were investigated. Up until now, the exhumations haven't

17 taken place, haven't been carried out in all of these municipalities.

18 Q. Okay. Going now to the actual project that you have been working

19 on, would it be correct that there were two database aspects of your

20 project, that you collected data from two separate sources of

21 information? Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And can you explain what those two different databases are?

24 A. The first database concerned exhumations, and in this database, we

25 entered information concerning both the exhumations carried out by the

1 Bosnian authorities, and the exhumations performed by the OTP. And in

2 certain cases, exhumations which were jointly performed by the Bosnian

3 authorities and the Tribunal. In the second database, there was

4 information concerning declarations of death given by courts in Sanski

5 Most and in Kljuc.

6 Q. Sir, have you written a report regarding your project entitled:

7 "Additional Report, Exhumations and Proof of Death, Municipality of

8 Prijedor"?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I don't recall the

11 procedure we have been using on previous reports. Should the report now

12 be marked as an exhibit?

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It will be marked as Exhibit S281.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Does the registry need another copy?

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections? I can't see any.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: No objections, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then admitted into evidence, S281.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN:

19 Q. Mr. Sebire, before going into further explanations of your report,

20 in reviewing your report, is it correct that you have some -- one or two

21 corrections of information in the report?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Going to page 53 of the report, do you have it in front of you,

24 sir? I see you do.

25 A. Yes, I do.

1 Q. Referring to the second case listed in that report, that of

2 Bego Salihovic, case number JK01281B, it indicates I believe that the

3 person was -- I believe that each of these cases listed, according to

4 what's stated on page 50, are people who were identified by DNA analysis.

5 Was Bego Salihovic positively identified? In other words, were the

6 remains that were found in that case number, case number 281B, positively

7 identified as Bego Salihovic?

8 A. No, they weren't. Bego Salihovic was not identified on the basis

9 of DNA analysis. The results were negative in this case.

10 Q. Is it correct that the DNA analysis showed that the remains were

11 of someone from the family Salihovic, but could not be positively

12 identified as Bego Salihovic. Is that correct?

13 A. No, that's the case for another -- for the rest -- for the remains

14 of another victim. And in fact, we know that he was part of a particular

15 family, but up until now, we have not been able to determine which member

16 of the family that person was.

17 Q. Okay. Thank you. So the case of Bego Salihovic, the remains in

18 that case. 281B, were not identified through DNA. Correct?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you.

21 Sir, going back to the two databases that you used, the

22 exhumations, can you tell us how you obtained information regarding

23 exhumations? What were the sources of information that you used in order

24 to compile the data that you use in your report?

25 A. In the course of the previous years, the OTP has received from the

1 Bosnian authorities reports concerning exhumations which were performed in

2 the northwest of Bosnia. In general, these documents comprise reports

3 established by the investigating judge in charge of the exhumations. They

4 were accompanied by post mortem reports, identification reports,

5 photograph albums made by scene of crime technicians in Bosnia, as well as

6 sketches which establish a plan of the exhumation site which was

7 excavated.

8 In addition, we received identification reports established by the

9 Bosnian authorities. In the case of the Bosnian authorities, these are

10 the documents that we received on the most part from them. And the other

11 part of the exhumation concerned exhumations carried out by the OTP, and

12 we also have reports from forensic officers and from anthropologists,

13 photographs taken during the exhumation and during the forensic

14 investigations. We have videotapes showing the state of the exhumation

15 site on a daily basis.

16 There were reports of DNA analysis when such analysis were made.

17 And in certain cases, reports concerning expert reports or analysis of

18 earth samples, which were made when the exhumations were conducted. In

19 general, these were the documents that we received in the case of

20 exhumations.

21 Q. Sir, when you talk about post mortem reports, is it correct that

22 you obtained normally a report by a pathologist as to any possible

23 information regarding the cause of death or other remarkable conditions of

24 the remains of the persons -- of the persons exhumed?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Within the Municipality of Prijedor, do you know how many

2 individual and mass gravesites were exhumed?

3 A. Yes. Up until now, in the database, we have entered 261 sites

4 which concern mass and individual gravesites in which individuals, bodies,

5 were found and which belonged or which may have belonged to the

6 Municipality of Prijedor.

7 Q. Within those 261 gravesites, your report indicates that 1394

8 bodies and body parts were exhumed. Can you explain the difference

9 between body and body parts, and what's the significance of these terms?

10 A. I could, but it's not a domain that I'm specialised in. It's not

11 really my domain. In general, these anthropologists at the exhumation

12 sites who decide whether body parts belong to -- compose one body or

13 whether they only -- the partial remains of a body, sir, I could not

14 really provide a different explanation of these two terms.

15 Q. Is it correct that when bodies are exhumed generally, and when

16 we're talking about the exhumations in this case of Prijedor, that most of

17 the remains have decomposed so much that bones or bones and teeth are all

18 that remain?

19 A. Yes. In most of the cases, the bodies are in a skeletal state.

20 In certain cases when we are talking about mass graves, big mass graves,

21 the bodies would be in the centre, and you could still find tissue on

22 these bodies. But this was not the case...

23 Q. I'm sorry, I believe we lost the interpretation after the words:

24 "But this was not the case."

25 A. Yes, in fact. That's correct. I will just read the transcript,

1 if I may.

2 What I said was that the fact that you found tissue on certain

3 bodies, this didn't happen in most of the cases. In general, we had to

4 deal with skeletons.

5 Q. Can you explain, who actually conducts the exhumations? And if

6 counsel allows me to lead a little bit, is it correct, Mr. Sebire, that

7 there are separate exhumation commissions for each of the three national

8 communities in Bosnia, the Serbian, Bosniak, and Croat communities?

9 A. Yes. Each group has its own commission for searching for missing

10 persons. These commissions are responsible for localising graves with

11 individuals belonging to their ethnic group. When these common or

12 individual graves are found, the judicial authorities, whether they be

13 Bosniak or from Republika Srpska, have to organise an exhumation and to

14 compile the reports on the basis of these investigations.

15 Q. Is it correct that most of the exhumations in Prijedor that are in

16 your report were exhumations most or all, please let us know, were

17 exhumations performed by the Bosnian commission -- Bosniak, Bosniak

18 commission of the federation?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. Did you also request, as part of your duties beyond the case of

21 Dr. Stakic information regarding exhumations conducted by the Republika

22 Srpska, by the Serbian authorities?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Koumjian. Wouldn't

25 it be helpful to work with these purposes already now with Annex 16?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Which should be marked especially Exhibit 281-1.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Would the usher please put Annex 16, 281-1, on the

4 ELMO.

5 Q. Mr. Sebire, before we go to the map, can you tell us -- you told

6 us that there were 261 mass and individual gravesites. The diagram that's

7 before us, this obviously does not depict all of the graves. Is that

8 correct, all of the gravesites?

9 A. No, it doesn't.

10 Q. Can you explain what is depicted on this diagram in Annex 16?

11 A. Annex 16 is a map of the Municipality of Prijedor. And on this

12 map, the general zones have been indicated, zones were exhumations were

13 performed. Different colours have been used, and this indicates which

14 organisations carried out certain exhumations. Blue shows the exhumations

15 performed by the Bosnian authorities. Red shows the exhumations by the

16 OTP. Green indicates exhumations performed by the Bosnian authorities,

17 but the forensic investigations were carried out by the OTP in this case.

18 And yellow indicates the exhumation sites which were exhumed by the

19 Croatian authorities.

20 Q. How were most of these gravesites located in your experience?

21 A. Two answers are possible. The first one concerns the gravesites

22 which are individual ones or small gravesites. In most cases, these

23 gravesites would be identified because people present in the villages or

24 family members buried the victims themselves. And in these cases, they

25 indicated the exact location to the Bosnian authorities.

1 In the case of mass graves such as the Jakarina Kosa, Pasinac,

2 Kevljani, human sources provided indications or gave information after

3 carrying out investigations in the field which allowed us to carry out

4 exhumations as a result of this information.

5 Q. Mr. Sebire, your report indicates on page 5, the second paragraph,

6 that "581 individuals were identified out of the 1394 cases exhumed, 573

7 were Bosnian Muslims, 7 were Bosnian Croats, and one was a Bosnian Serb."

8 Can you tell us how individuals were identified from the remains exhumed?

9 What was the procedure and criteria used to the best of your knowledge?

10 A. Once again, it's necessary to distinguish between mass graves,

11 relatively small mass graves, and individual graves. In cases when people

12 participated in the burial, they would indicate the location of the

13 gravesites. And in general, they provided the Bosnian authorities with

14 information on the identity of the victims who were buried. If they

15 didn't know the identity, they would sometimes provide information

16 according to which they said they knew the victims by sight, that these

17 victims were Muslims from Bosnia, from such and such a village, and they

18 proceeded with the burial.

19 In the case of more -- of bigger gravesites, the discovery of

20 identification papers on the body, recognition on the basis of the

21 clothes, and DNA analysis, these all are means that are used in order to

22 identify the victim.

23 Q. Is it correct that analysis of the remains determined that

24 10.000 -- I'm reading now the fourth paragraph on page 5 -- 1.039 were

25 male, 84 were female. And for 271 cases, it was not possible to determine

1 the gender. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. Your report goes on to indicate that "819 of the 1394 cases

4 examined suffered gunshot injuries, these wounds being mainly located to

5 the head and chest. 267 to the head, 234 to the head and chest, and 187

6 to the chest." First, is that correct? And secondly, can you tell us how

7 that was determined when the remains are simply skeletons in most cases?

8 A. In fact, these figures are correct. This information is based on

9 results of the post mortems that were carried out after these exhumations

10 had been performed. So they based themselves on the information in the

11 post mortem reports, and then they mentioned the number of gunshot wounds,

12 the number of gunshot wounds that could be found there in the bones

13 because there was no more tissue. So it was impossible to determine

14 whether there were any other wounds because there were no traces left in

15 tissue of any kind.

16 Q. So if a bullet had passed, for example, through the chest without

17 hitting any of the ribs, through the heart, and out the back without

18 hitting any ribs, the pathologist would not be able to see the bullet

19 strike on the bones; it was not manifest itself in the remains that were

20 exhumed. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. Your report further indicates that in 996 of these 1394 cases,

23 there were grounds to show that the victim died in the course of the year

24 1992, and that the remaining 398 cases, the time of death was not

25 determined. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, isn't it true that some people have been exhumed in Prijedor

3 in which we know or you received information that they had died in, let's

4 say, 1994, 1995, 1993? Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. In those cases, have you excluded them from your database and from

7 the information provided in your report?

8 A. These individuals are in the database, but they were excluded from

9 the report.

10 Q. So the figures that you are quoting, for example, the 1394 cases,

11 would exclude any remains that were determined to have died in a year

12 other than 1992. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes. The 1394 number concerned people for whom information shows

14 that they died in 1992, or persons about whom we have no information

15 regarding the date of their death.

16 Q. Would it be a fair statement to say that based upon all the

17 information that you have of exhumations to date in Prijedor, that the

18 vast majority came -- the vast majority of those in which there is a date

19 that can be determined died in 1992?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You use a second database, according to your report, the proof of

22 death database. And you've mentioned already that these are based on

23 court rulings, and you mentioned the two places, Sanski Most and I believe

24 Kljuc courts that are actually issuing these rulings. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can you explain how it is that the courts in Sanski Most and Kljuc

2 issue -- which court has jurisdiction over cases in Prijedor?

3 A. If I've understood your question correctly, I would answer as

4 follows: Many families from Prijedor are living in Sanski Most and Kljuc

5 today. And for that reason, they turned to the municipal courts of those

6 towns.

7 Q. Can you tell us briefly the procedure that family members would go

8 through in order to have a relative declared to be dead by one of these

9 courts?

10 A. I don't know the procedure -- that is, all the details of the

11 procedure. But what I do know is that a missing person or a person who

12 has been missing for several years, there is then a member of his family

13 which can go to the Court where he lived and make a request for that

14 person to be declared dead officially. Apparently, this procedure

15 requires that witnesses come to indicate when the person was last seen or

16 what the date was or the time was that the person died. On the basis of

17 that testimony, there is a judicial decision taken declaring the person

18 officially dead. Ordinarily, the decision also indicates the date which

19 is considered the date of death.

20 Q. Are you familiar with any procedure following the testimony of the

21 family members for some publication to be made of the person's name,

22 person who is missing?

23 A. I think that after the judgement is rendered, it's published, and

24 after a certain amount of time, I can't tell you what it is unfortunately,

25 when the person's officially declared dead because there was no response

1 to the call or in any case that no -- we did not -- or that people

2 would -- nobody would appear to say that the person who was officially

3 declared dead in fact was still alive.

4 Q. Is it correct that from this database of missing persons -- excuse

5 me, persons declared dead what you've labelled the proof of death database

6 that you had information at the time of writing this report regarding

7 1.295 court rulings declaring individuals from Prijedor as officially

8 dead, and that in 955 of these cases, it's indicated by the ruling that

9 the person was killed or went missing in the course of 1992?

10 A. Yes, but it's 955 cases.

11 Q. Thank you. Of these cases, 49 were female; 7 were under 16; and

12 72 were over the age of 60. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Now, the figures that we just mentioned solely concerned the

15 Municipality of Prijedor. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Going now just to page 7 of your report, paragraph labelled 3.2,

18 is it correct that from these courts you've received a total of 2.026

19 court rulings regarding eight separate municipalities of the former

20 Autonomous Region of Krajina?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So from these eight municipalities, well over half, 1295, came

23 from Prijedor alone. Is that correct? Almost two thirds.

24 A. Yes, that represents a little bit more than 60 per cent.

25 Q. Sir, you have a couple of charts in your report on page 14. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 I've asked you to bring, I believe you have with you, figure 1 and

2 figure 2 to put on the ELMO. Is that correct, you have those, or have you

3 given them to Ms. Karper?

4 This is on page 14, but if there are extra copies, if we could

5 have one for each of the Judges. If there is still another one -- we have

6 the report.

7 I'm sorry, Mr. Sebire, how many copies did you make of that?

8 A. I think about ten.

9 Q. Then perhaps one could be given to each of the Defence attorneys

10 and to each of the Judges, and if I could have one, please.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: And perhaps one to the registry. Perhaps we should

12 mark this as a separate exhibit, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be S281-2.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN:

15 Q. In the explanation for this diagram, figure 1, actually appears on

16 the bottom of page 13 of your report. Is it correct, Mr. Sebire, that

17 this diagram, figure 1, depicts graphically the total number of persons

18 exhumed, and then breaks it down by the female and male population, and

19 also indicates for each of these populations the age, whether the

20 individual was below 16, over 60, or within the ages of 16 to 60. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes. We're talking about nonexhumed persons, dead people, those

23 who were declared dead by the municipal courts and were not exhumed.

24 Q. Thank you. So you're dealing here with declarations of death by

25 the courts.

1 And to be clear, on your criteria, below 16 means age 15 and

2 below, and over 60 means age 61 and above. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it correct, then, that a total of 49 females were exhumed, two

5 below 15 -- 15 or below, and seven 61 or above?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. That of the males exhumed, five were 15 and below, and sixty-five

8 were 61 or above?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You have a second diagram, figure 2.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: May that be distributed now, please. Your Honour,

12 would this be marked -- would it be 281-3?

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN:

15 Q. Again, this diagram is dealing with the Court declarations of

16 death. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes, that's right.

18 Q. And in figure 2, S281-3, you've indicated for each of the

19 declarations of death in which a month or date is indicated when the

20 person disappeared or was killed, you've categorised all of those

21 declarations according to the month that the person disappeared or was

22 killed. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. Is it clear, then, that this diagram should total and does total

25 955 separate declarations of death and that of these 955 declarations of

1 death, 952 of these cases occurred between April and September 1992?

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. Mr. Sebire, in the exhumations, did you personally visit any of

4 the sites where exhumations took place?

5 A. Yes. I was involved in the exhumation in Redak, in the Ljubija

6 mine area in Prijedor. That was an exhumation which took place in June of

7 2000. I was also involved in the exhumation --

8 Q. Sorry. Perhaps if we could have the Annex 16 put back on the

9 ELMO. As you speak of each of these sites, if you could identify them on

10 the Annex 16, S281-1.

11 A. As I was saying, I was involved in the exhumation in Redak, which

12 you can see here. The one who was in Jakarina Kosa. There are two

13 exhumation sites which are in the mining zone of Ljubija. In Prijedor --

14 those are the two I was involved in, the two only ones. And I also went

15 to exhumation sites that had been exhumed in the past in order just to go

16 on site.

17 Q. Can you indicate where those are.

18 A. In the Hambarine region, Biscani, Kozarac, Kamicani. Those are

19 the major areas where I went.

20 Q. The site you indicated as Redak, is it correct that that is by the

21 Ljubija mines?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. As part of your work on this case, did you attempt to provide the

24 Court with information regarding links between specific killings charged

25 in the indictment against Dr. Stakic, the 20 specific killings, and

1 exhumations of remains or court declarations of death of individuals?

2 A. Yes. That's in the third part of my report.

3 Q. Can you explain how you went about establishing the links.

4 A. The primary information source was the use of the witness

5 statements who had been called to testify in this trial to verify in

6 respect of the victims' names mentioned whether those persons had been

7 declared dead by a court or whether those persons had been exhumed and

8 identified in Prijedor or in neighbouring municipalities.

9 Q. So I want to go through some of this with you. And we begin with

10 the exhumations regarding killings charged in paragraph 44 of the

11 indictment, those not connected to detention facilities. Is it correct --

12 and we're talking now about Kozarac. Can you just comment, Mr. Sebire,

13 upon exhumations performed in the vicinity of Kozarac.

14 A. Yes. In general, there were about -- there were about 104

15 exhumations that were performed in common or individual graves during

16 which 188 bodies were exhumed. When we went to -- spoke with the various

17 witnesses called in this trial, we were able to verify that some of the

18 victims mentioned had been exhumed, in particular, the exhumation which

19 took place in Sivci Mihtov on the 21st of October, 1998, by the Bosnian

20 authorities. That was the date a mass grave was exhumed by the Bosnian

21 authorities. And there was also -- there was an individual grave with the

22 body of a Javor Radocaj who was mentioned as well by the witnesses. That

23 body was exhumed and identified.

24 In other cases, witnesses gave the names of victims for whom we

25 still have not exhumed the body, or at least whose body has not been

1 identified. But for whom there are declarations of death saying that the

2 person was, in fact, killed in the Kozarac area during May 1992.

3 Q. Is it correct that of the 20 killings charged in the indictment in

4 which you attempted to provide links, you found no links, in other words,

5 no persons exhumed and identified, nor a court ruling of a declaration of

6 death of a person mentioned by a witness, for two of those, Hambarine and

7 Brisevo?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. Is it correct that, just to go over those, first tell us about

10 Brisevo. Did you receive information regarding exhumations conducted in

11 that area?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Who conducted those exhumations?

14 A. As far as I know, it was the Croatian branch of the federal

15 commission for missing persons.

16 Q. Have you received any information from that commission for your

17 databases?

18 A. No, not to date.

19 Q. And is it correct for Hambarine that although no individuals were

20 exhumed, you state on page 18 that 31 individuals were exhumed from 15

21 mass and individual graves? Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. 27 of these individuals, the post mortem determined that the cause

24 of death was from gunshot injuries? Is that correct?

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

1 Q. Before we go on, when we talk about -- you said you linked witness

2 statements or witness reports to exhumations and proof of deaths, what

3 group of persons did you select regarding the witnesses? Did you select

4 all statements from Prijedor in the possession of the OTP; and if not, why

5 not?

6 A. You're talking about the testimony?

7 Q. Sorry. You said in order to link -- to provide the links that are

8 in this third part of your report, you looked at your exhumation and proof

9 of death databases and compared those to the reports of witnesses as to

10 persons who had been killed or disappeared. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And is it correct that you were actually given specific

13 instructions to only use the statements of witnesses who have testified

14 live or 92 bis in the Stakic trial?

15 A. Yes, that's right.

16 Q. So you did not use all witness statements from witnesses from

17 Prijedor. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. Just tell the Court, do you know approximately how many witness

20 statements there are from Prijedor?

21 A. Well, it would be difficult to give an exact figure. But as far

22 as I know, about 1.500 statements either taken by the Office of the

23 Prosecutor or interviews that were given to us by the Bosnian authorities.

24 Q. I don't want to go over each of these because the Judges have your

25 report, and they can read the report itself. But I want to highlight a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 few of these. Let's go to page 19 of your report regarding links between

2 the killings in Biscani on or about the 20th of July. Can you tell us how

3 many bodies from how many graves were exhumed in Biscani?

4 A. As of today, 82 bodies were exhumed from 22 mass and individual

5 gravesites.

6 Q. Can you tell us how these individuals -- what information you

7 obtained regarding -- from the post mortem examinations of the remains as

8 to the -- let me try that question again.

9 Can you tell us from the information you obtained regarding the

10 post mortem autopsies of the remains any information regarding the cause

11 of death of these individuals?

12 A. In 64 cases, the cause of death was determined as having resulted

13 from gunshot injuries.

14 Q. And is it correct that these figures do not include information

15 from Jakarina Kosa, that mass grave? Is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. We'll go into a little bit more detail on that exhumation. But

18 briefly, can you tell us now where did that -- what time did the

19 exhumation take place in Jakarina Kosa, during what year and month?

20 A. The exhumation took -- well, began on the 11th of September last

21 year. And it lasted five weeks.

22 Q. Can you show us on the diagram where -- again where Jakarina Kosa

23 is.

24 A. Here.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 Now, I want to go to page 26 of your report in which you discuss

2 links regarding the killing of a number of men in the Ljubija iron ore

3 mine on or about the 25th of July. Can you tell us what exhumations took

4 place in the area of the Ljubija mine and the Ljubija football stadium?

5 A. There was an -- one exhumation in Redak. That was one that was

6 performed fully by the OTP. Redak is right here. Talking about

7 distances, it must be about 5 or 6 kilometres from the town of Ljubija.

8 Q. Okay. So just to give an example of the exercise you did with the

9 links, let's take the witness listed as P38 - I'm not going to state the

10 name in Court - on page 27 of your report. In the third paragraph under

11 his name you say: "Amongst those killed on that day, the witness recalls,

12 and you list several names. Among those names are Islam Hopovac.

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Also someone named Kadiric, someone named Kekic, and someone named

15 Kadic. Is that correct?

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. Is it correct that from the exhumations that were performed, that

18 some identification was done or made regarding, for example,

19 Islam Hopovac?

20 A. Yes. His body was identified in the Redak mass grave exhumation

21 site. It was discovered and registered as RK01203A.

22 Q. Is it also correct that for the --

23 A. B rather, sorry.

24 Q. Is it also correct that in these exhumations, identification

25 documents were found - we're now going to footnote 62, 63, and 64 of your

1 report - for someone bearing the name Kadiric, Hilmija; three

2 identification documents with the family named Kekic; and three

3 identification documents bearing the family name Kadic. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes. During the exhumation, identification documents of the name

5 Hilmija was found. Identification documents with Kekic as a family name,

6 Kekic, Nurudin; Kekic, Esad; and Kekic, Asmir, as well as identification

7 documents with the Kadic family name, that is Kadic, Armin; Kadic, Edin;

8 and Kadic, Vahidin. All names which were mentioned by Witness P38.

9 Q. The next witness I will mention by name because he testified in

10 open session. Did you receive information from Nermin Karagic?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In fact, did you speak to Nermin Karagic near the site of the

13 exhumation?

14 A. Yes, two times.

15 Q. Is it correct that one of the bodies that was exhumed was

16 identified through DNA analysis was exhumed from Redak as the father of

17 Nermin Karagic?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. That the autopsy report concluded that Ferid Karagic, the father,

20 died of gunshot injuries to the head and chest?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. Did Nermin Karagic also describe some other individuals that he

23 saw at the execution sites that day, and do you recall one description in

24 particular?

25 A. Yes. The first time that I met that witness, he went to the

1 exhumation site for which he didn't have access for reasons of preserving

2 things and for security reasons. We agreed that we would meet again after

3 the work day was over, and he gave me information of names that he

4 remembered having been there in the bus, and he specifically mentioned the

5 person of Ekrem Duratovic, telling me that that person, as far as he

6 remembered, was wearing -- the last time he saw him in the bus, he was

7 wearing blue work clothes. And he stated in detail that the -- that there

8 were buttons on the jacket, that is, blue plastic buttons on the jacket.

9 About three days later during the exhumation, there was a body

10 found which had been skeletonised. There were remains of a blue work

11 jacket with blue buttons, was discovered. In one of the pants' pockets,

12 which was in very good shape, we found an identity document bearing his

13 name, Ekrem Duratovic.

14 Q. The same name that had been given to you by Mr. Nermin Karagic.

15 Is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. From the autopsies performed of the remains exhumed from Redak,

18 did you make some -- compile some figures on page 28 of your report

19 regarding the cause of death that was determined when it could be

20 determined, and is it correct that 37 of these cases involved multiple

21 gunshot injuries?

22 A. Yes. In 37 cases, it was determined that the victims had multiple

23 gunshot injuries.

24 Q. You indicated that 64 bodies and 28 body parts were examined, and

25 that -- is it correct that the pathologist found evidence, and correct me

1 if I am wrong, I presume evidence from bones that have been hit, that 304

2 shots had been fired and struck the victims? Is that correct?

3 A. Yes. On the basis of the examination conducted on the remains of

4 the bodies exhumed from this site, a total of 304 gunshot wounds were

5 found. Traces of these wounds were found in the bones.

6 Q. Thank you. I want to move on now to killings in -- excuse me,

7 before I move on, two of the specific killings charged in the indictment,

8 one involves, not in a detention facility, was the 21st of August at

9 Vlasic mountain. To your knowledge, have any bodies been exhumed from

10 those persons executed on the 21st of August at Vlasic mountain?

11 A. Not as far as I know.

12 Q. Another killing charged in a detention facility is the Room 3

13 massacre at Keraterm. To your knowledge, have any bodies been exhumed and

14 identified from the Room 3 massacre at Keraterm?

15 A. Not as far as I know, but it's necessary to take into

16 consideration the number of bodies that were exhumed and haven't been

17 identified to date. It's possible that they have been exhumed; but to

18 date, no kind of formal identification allows us to make such a claim.

19 Q. Is it correct that very many bodies have been exhumed; but because

20 of the state of being principally skeletons, no identification has been

21 made? Is that correct?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. On page 31 of your report -- excuse me. Let's go back to page 30.

24 However, from the Keraterm camp, can you tell us if any bodies have been

25 exhumed and identified, or if court declarations of death have been sent

1 to you regarding individuals killed in the Keraterm camp?

2 Let's take those separately; first, the court declarations of

3 death.

4 A. Yes. We received 64 declarations of death concerning individuals

5 who were seen for the last time or who were killed in Keraterm in 1992.

6 Q. Now, going to bodies exhumed, can you please discuss whether any

7 individuals were exhumed that were identified as being from the Keraterm

8 camp, to your knowledge?

9 A. Yes. Once more, through the witness who was called to the present

10 trial and who mentioned victims, some of them were, in fact, exhumed.

11 Q. And you're referring to the witness identified on page 30 of your

12 report as P50. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's quite correct. He specifically mentions two

14 individuals who were exhumed at the exhumation site called Pasinac. This

15 exhumation was performed by the OTP.

16 Q. I want to ask you specifically about a person exhumed, Jovan

17 Radocaj. Was a body exhumed and identified by that name from the Pasinac

18 cemetery?

19 A. Yes. But it's a separate exhumation which was conducted by the

20 Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons. We haven't received all the

21 documents concerning this exhumation, but this individual was, in fact,

22 exhumed.

23 Q. Do you know the ethnicity of that individual?

24 A. As far as I know, that individual was of Serb ethnicity.

25 Q. In your report, you indicate that this Jovo or Jovan was a member

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 of the SDA. Where did you obtain that information?

2 A. This information was obtained when interviewing Witness P50.

3 Q. Mr. Sebire, moving on to page 31, this Court has heard testimony

4 beginning, in fact, with Witness B and also Witness A. From Witness B,

5 that on the 5th of August of 1992, two buses left the Keraterm camp.

6 After men were selected, names were read out, two buses left that camp,

7 and those individuals have not been seen. And also from Witness A that

8 certain individuals, that those buses went to Omarska where certain other

9 individuals were put on buses and they have not been seen.

10 Did you determine whether any bodies have been exhumed from

11 individuals who have been named by witnesses to have been on these buses

12 that left the Keraterm camp and stopped in the Omarska camp on the 5th of

13 August?

14 A. Yes. The Bosnian authorities exhumed a mass grave called Hrastova

15 Glavica; it's a cave. 126 bodies were found in it.

16 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. Can you indicate on the map where that

17 mass gravesite is located.

18 A. It's not on the map.

19 Q. Yes. It's in Sanski Most. Correct? Okay. I'm sorry. Please

20 continue.

21 A. Of the 126 bodies that were exhumed at Hrastova Glavica, the

22 Bosnian authorities determined that two bodies were individuals who had

23 been in the cave for many years. One of the individuals was apparently a

24 victim of someone who was killed in the Second World War.

25 As far as the 124 other bodies, we have identified a certain

1 number of them by the Bosnian authorities, 47 of them so far. And given

2 the testimony of people who have been here, there was a connection which

3 was established between the presence of these individuals in the buses

4 that left Keraterm and went to Omarska, and then disappeared.

5 Q. You didn't -- I said it, but you didn't actually state it. Where

6 was this mass gravesite located, in what municipality?

7 A. This mass gravesite is in the municipality of Sanski Most, which

8 is south of the Municipality of Prijedor.

9 Q. Can you give us an estimate of the distance from the town of

10 Prijedor to Hrastova Glavica.

11 A. Probably between 30 and 35 kilometres.

12 Q. Can you tell us, of the 124 bodies recovered whether the post

13 mortems were able to determine the cause of death in any of cases? And by

14 124, I'm excluding the two bodies that apparently came from World War II.

15 A. Yes. In 121 of the cases, the forensic experts determined that

16 the cause of death was gunshot wounds. And for the 47 individuals who

17 were identified in the course of this exhumation, the cause of death is

18 the same, gunshot wounds.

19 Q. Of the three remaining cases, were the pathologists able to give

20 an opinion as to the cause of death of any of these three remaining cases?

21 A. Yes. In one case, the cause of death was a wound caused by an

22 explosive device, a hand grenade or something like that. And in two other

23 cases, the cause of death was the result of wounds inflicted by a blunt

24 instrument.

25 Q. On those bodies where the cause of death was determined to be

1 gunshot injury, was there evidence of other blunt-trauma injuries?

2 A. In the report, it says that -- the report mentions the main cause

3 of death. Nevertheless, forensic investigations show that most bodies

4 also show signs of wounds inflicted by blunt instruments, so signs of

5 blunt trauma.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stays adjourned 11.30.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.59 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.36 a.m.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. I'm sorry to interrupt this

10 witness statement, but I learned that there are, indeed, some problems to

11 get at least two interpreters from Dutch to English. The responsible

12 section of this Tribunal will try the very best to have another person.

13 One would be available, but it could be of assistance if the witness would

14 be prepared to testify in English with the assistance of one person doing

15 the interpretation in the courtroom. That means that when the interpreter

16 would be present here in the courtroom, and if the witness needs some

17 assistance, then he could get this by a professional interpreter. This

18 would be the one available solution.

19 If you could be so kind, Mr. Koumjian, and contact the witness

20 whether or not he's prepared to do it this way. But nevertheless, until

21 the break, the section will try to find a second interpreter.

22 Now we can proceed with the hearing. Thank you.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN:

24 Q. Mr. Sebire, I want to direct your attention to page 34 of your

25 report and ask you now regarding your project to establish links regarding

1 killings of men in the Omarska camp between late May and the 6th of

2 August, 1992. Can you tell us from the Omarska camp whether individuals

3 who were detained there have been exhumed; and if so, from how many

4 different gravesites?

5 A. Persons who were seen in Omarska for the last time and who were

6 killed there were exhumed, both by the Bosnian authorities and by the

7 OTP. To date, there have been five mass gravesites. They are mentioned

8 in the report. The first one is Kozarusa Patrija 4, then we have

9 Kevljani, Jama Lisac, Hrastova Glavica, and Jakarina Kosa.

10 Q. In addition to individuals exhumed from Omarska, did you obtain

11 information regarding individuals last seen in that camp who have been

12 declared dead by the courts of Bosnia?

13 A. Yes, this concerns 145 individuals. We received declarations from

14 municipal courts indicating that 145 individuals were killed or seen for

15 the last time in the Omarska camp between the 28th of May and the 6th of

16 August, 1992.

17 Q. I want to skip ahead for a moment and talk about the Trnopolje

18 camp. Have any individuals, to your knowledge, been exhumed and

19 identified who were last seen in the Trnopolje camp or went missing from

20 there or were known to have been killed at the Trnopolje camp?

21 A. As far as I know, there haven't been any exhumations of

22 individuals from the Omarska camp -- the Trnopolje camp. Correction.

23 Q. Is it correct -- let me now ask you, how many individuals last

24 seen at that camp have been declared dead by the courts of Bosnia,

25 according to the information you have received?

1 A. To date, we have received 28 declarations of this kind for persons

2 who were seen for the last time or who were killed in Trnopolje according

3 to witnesses.

4 Q. Is it also correct that from the witness statements, you were not

5 able to make a link between those witness statements of persons missing

6 and those 28 declarations of death?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I want to go back now and talk to you a bit about some of the mass

9 gravesites, starting on page 38 of your report, with Kevljani. This is a

10 grave in the municipality of Prijedor. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Were you present during the exhumation at Kevljani?

13 A. No, I wasn't.

14 Q. Can you tell us how many bodies were recovered from that site.

15 A. 72 bodies were exhumed from 15 different graves.

16 Q. You've used that word "grave" and we've used the word "gravesite."

17 Can you tell us what is the definition you're using for a grave. So

18 Kevljani itself is a gravesite, is that correct, and you said 15

19 individual graves. What is the definition of a "grave"?

20 A. There's a difference between a mass grave and an individual

21 grave. You want me to make this distinction. Is that correct?

22 Q. No, I don't think so. Is it correct that the archeologists

23 actually determine how many graves are at a location?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. Is it correct that in one gravesite it can contain multiple

1 graves. Correct?

2 A. Yes, that's the case in Kevljani, in fact.

3 Q. And one grave can contain either one body or multiple bodies.

4 Correct?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. And I'm asking you this - I do not know the answer, but if you do,

7 please let us know - is then the definition of a grave basically a hole

8 dug in the ground, and that when we say 15 individual graves at Kevljani,

9 we mean that the archeologists determined that there were 15 separate

10 holes dug in which bodies were dumped at that gravesite?

11 A. Yes. Five individual graves in which bodies were found. If I use

12 the term "mass grave," this is because these bodies weren't buried, let's

13 say, in an appropriate way, in a way one would imagine in a normal burial.

14 Q. By the way, is there something distinctive about how the

15 practice -- the cultural practice of Bosnian Muslims in how they bury

16 their dead that would allow you to make a determination from the manner in

17 which the grave appears whether it was a burial done by Bosnian Muslims?

18 A. Yes, there is an indication when an exhumation is performed. It's

19 the position of the body in the grave. If it is -- if the head is

20 pointing towards Mecca, then one may think that someone buried the body

21 by -- that the body was buried by someone of the same faith.

22 Q. Are there any other distinctive ways in which the graves are

23 constructed in the cultural practice of Bosnian Muslims in your

24 experience?

25 A. Yes. Once the body has been placed at the bottom of the tomb,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 it's usually wrapped in a sheet and there are wood planks which are

2 installed in the tomb.

3 Q. So in other words not a casket, but the wooden planks are above

4 the body. Is that correct?

5 A. As far as I know, yes.

6 Q. At Kevljani, was there evidence that that site had been disturbed,

7 and can you explain your answer, please?

8 A. Yes. Yes. I apologise. Part of the sites which were discovered

9 by the archeologist -- well, their contents had been robbed, about 73

10 partial bodies were discovered in the pit, in pits that had been robbed.

11 Q. When you say the pits had been robbed, do you mean someone simply

12 removed jewellery or valuables that might have been buried with the

13 bodies, or that the actual remains of the deceased had been removed?

14 A. When I talk about graves that had been robbed, these are graves

15 from which the bodies that had been buried were taken. Certain elements,

16 certain remains allowed archeologists to determine more or less the number

17 of individuals who should have been present in these graves.

18 Q. Is it correct, looking at page 38 of your report, that the

19 archeologist determined that there had been 26 graves, and that several of

20 them, for example, graves 1, 3, and 26, had been completely robbed, and

21 others robbed to the base, and these are listed? Is that correct?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. You've indicated in your report that 73 -- excuse me, 72 complete

24 bodies were found, and that approximately 70 body parts were found. Is

25 that correct?

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. And that of these bodies, is it correct that a relatively small

3 percentage showed evidence of gunshot injuries, that according to page 39

4 of your report, there were 11 gunshot injuries on those bodies, according

5 to the report of Dr. John Clark?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. However, there was a lot of evidence of blunt-force trauma, and in

8 fact in 86 per cent of the 73 bodies, there was evidence of blunt-force

9 trauma to the ribs in addition to various percentages given for other

10 parts of the body. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Is it correct that of these individuals exhumed, that there were

13 12 identifications, 7 by DNA, and you list Those individual

14 identifications in your report, and that these individuals came from a

15 variety of locations, Stara Rijeka, Kozarac, Kozarusa, Ljubija? Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Of those 12 identifications, 3 were of Croat ethnicity, and the

19 remainders were Bosniaks or Bosnian Muslims. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes, that's correct also.

21 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move on to Jama Lisac gravesite. Can

22 you correct my pronunciation and tell us where that gravesite is located.

23 A. Jama Lisac is in the municipality of Krupa Na Uni.

24 Q. Is it correct that Krupa Na Uni is a post-Dayton municipality, or

25 it was created after the Dayton accords, and that it lies, I believe, is

1 it correct, to the northwest of Prijedor?

2 A. Yes. The site itself is right to the west of Prijedor, almost on

3 the border between the two municipalities.

4 Q. Thank you. Tell us what you found or what was found at the Krupa

5 Na Uni exhumation in Jama Lisac?

6 A. It was an exhumation which was performed by the Bosnian

7 authorities for -- on whom forensic tests were carried out by the OTP's

8 forensic team. 55 bodies, and 1 body part were found during that

9 exhumation.

10 Q. And can you explain what that site looks like? Were the bodies

11 buried in the earth?

12 A. I didn't go to the site itself, but apparently it was a cave. And

13 the bodies were found piled on top of one another.

14 Q. Is it correct that the archeologist determined that the minimum

15 number of bodies represented by the remains found was 51 individuals?

16 A. Yes. That is what the pathologist's report established.

17 Q. Of those 51 minimum number of bodies, 46 were determined to have

18 died from gunshot injury, 2 from blunt-force trauma, and 3 the cause of

19 death was undetermined?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. Do you know, of those persons identified, can you tell us how many

22 were identified and where those individuals came from?

23 A. In all six individuals identified on that site, there were four

24 men and two women who were identified. As regards the two women,

25 identification was done through a DNA analysis. And apparently, they

1 turned out to be -- both of them were detainees from the Omarska camp.

2 Q. Is it correct that those two women were Edna Dautovic and

3 Sureta Medunjanin, the wife of Becir Medunjanin, and the mother of

4 Adis Medunjanin?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. Is it correct that among the others, identification was -- other

7 persons identified were Ekrem Alic who was seen in the Omarska camp, and

8 Smail Alic who was also seen in the Omarska camp until taken away by a bus

9 in late August. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Is it correct that exhumations were also done in a cemetery which

12 is a place perhaps where we would expect to find deceased persons, Pasinac

13 in Prijedor. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes. In the Pasinac cemetery.

15 Q. Some of the persons exhumed had been mentioned in the statement of

16 Witness 50 who testified in this case. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Among -- your report indicates on page 45 that 45 bodies and 3

19 body parts were recovered, which included 9 females, and 3 bodies for

20 which no gender was determined. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes. The report says that 44 men, 9 women, and 3 individuals

22 whose gender could not be determined. That is correct.

23 Q. And two of the bodies exhumed, were those children?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. The pathologist's report indicates that for 26 of these bodies,

1 the cause of death was determined to be gunshot injury. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. And that in one of these cases, the cause of death was determined

4 to be strangulation by ligature. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. Two other bodies, the cause of death was blunt-force trauma, and

7 in 27 bodies, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Correct?

8 A. Yes, that's also correct.

9 Q. Is it correct that some of these bodies -- well, specifically in

10 case PC -- on page 46 of your report, the case of the body identified as

11 Safet Mesic, that according to a witness that this person had been in the

12 Keraterm camp and had died in the Keraterm camp?

13 A. Yes, we have a decision declaring that person deceased. In the

14 decision, it states that a witness testified and indicated that the victim

15 was a detainee at the Keraterm camp where he was beaten and died from the

16 consequences of the mistreatment that he was a victim of.

17 Q. There's also an identification on page 47 of your report of

18 Emsud Bahonic, and is it correct the court ruling indicates that this

19 victim died in the Keraterm camp after being tortured?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. I want to move on to the exhumation at Jakarina Kosa. Did you

22 attend this exhumation?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. Mr. Sebire, can you tell us for how long you were present during

25 this exhumation?

1 A. I was there for five weeks.

2 Q. Can you describe the location of Jakarina Kosa and the place where

3 the bodies were found.

4 A. The Jakarina Kosa site is in the mining area of Ljubija between

5 the town of Ljubija and Stari Majdan. The site itself is in an open mine

6 which one could say is no longer being used. Part of the terracing used

7 previously for mining had disappeared, and had been replaced by a slope

8 about 85 metres long. During the searches that were made in that slope,

9 we found bodies. All in all, about 373 were found during that exhumation.

10 Q. When you say 373 bodies, is it correct that as the site is being

11 dug, bodies or bones were found when the bones were believed initially to

12 belong to one person, they were put into one body bag, and that's how you

13 ended up with 373 body bags? Is that correct?

14 A. More or less. If you allow me to give you some details on that

15 subject, the exhumation itself was you could say rather difficult because

16 we were working on a slope. The climate, the weather conditions also

17 deteriorated, made the work harder. On several occasions the slope

18 collapsed on the areas that had been uncovered during the exhumations.

19 Even though there was an anthropologist on site, it was difficult

20 onsite to determine exactly what parts of a body fit with another body

21 part. This study was done subsequently during the forensic operations.

22 And the anthropologists from the OTP were able to determine that out of

23 all of the human remains taken from that mass grave we were dealing with a

24 minimum of about 288 individuals.

25 Q. Mr. Sebire, can you explain the difference in the terminology, the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 two terms, "primary" and "secondary" gravesite?

2 A. Very briefly, a primary site is one for which there is no proof

3 that -- there was an attempt to change the site, that there was no attempt

4 of theft made or attempts made to move the bodies within the site. A

5 secondary site would have the bodies that were stolen or removed from a

6 site.

7 Q. So a secondary site would be a location where the bodies were not

8 initially buried, but were moved to following their initial burial. Is

9 that correct?

10 A. Yes. A secondary site is not the place where the body was

11 initially buried.

12 Q. Was there evidence that you obtained as to when the bodies were

13 placed in the Jakarina Kosa gravesite?

14 A. There is a witness, P53, who described how in June, July 1993,

15 there was vehicle movement moving toward Jakarina Kosa which describes

16 that the area was closed to everybody for a certain amount of time. There

17 was a dreadful stench in that region. The sounds of mechanical --

18 mechanical sounds that were being made, and the witness thought that they

19 were tools used in order to dig holes in mines. And then afterwards, he

20 heard explosions.

21 Q. Is it correct --

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, may I just interrupt for one moment. I

23 want to follow the testimony in a better way. You speak sometimes about

24 Witness 50 or P50. Could it be --

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I could tell you. That's Witness O in this trial.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do we have any charts indicating who is Witness

2 50 or 53 or whatever?

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Witness 50 is a witness who testified in this trial

4 as Witness O under that pseudonym. Witness 53 --

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have a number of witnesses called now P50,

6 P53, and so on. Where can we find it?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry. The numbers that Mr. Sebire is using

8 are the 65 ter numbers. And Witness 50, as I mentioned, is Witness O who

9 has testified. Witness 53 is a 92 bis number.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 65 ter number, this is the basis. No additional

11 numeration.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Thank you. And Witness 53, just for the

13 record, Witness N, a 92 bis witness.

14 Q. Mr. Sebire, the area that Witness N or Witness 53 was speaking

15 about, did he indicate who controlled that area at the time that he heard

16 the explosions and you said the area was blocked off?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Was the area controlled at that time by the VRS, by the army of

19 the Republika Srpska?

20 A. Yes, or at least that's what the witness states.

21 Q. In the site itself, in the exhumation, did you -- can you tell us

22 if you found any evidence of military presence or involvement in the

23 burial?

24 A. Yes. Between the 18th and 21st of September, 2001, five parts of

25 an unidentified substance were discovered at that point. The analysis

1 which was done later showed that they were military explosives,

2 Pentrite-type explosives. In addition, what was also discovered was a

3 rather large number of military gas masks, gas cartridges, and plastic

4 gloves, green ones, which I would call military green or olive-drab.

5 Q. Was a helmet also discovered?

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. Now, you've mentioned that the Witness 53 discussed his

8 observations in 1995, and it appeared the bodies were buried at that

9 time. The bodies that were exhumed, were any of them identified?

10 A. Some of them were identified. The period that the witness was

11 talking about was 1993.

12 Q. Sorry. Thank you. Can you tell us, of those persons identified,

13 I believe is it correct that there were 12 identifications to date?

14 A. 11 positive identifications using DNA analysis.

15 Q. And for how many of those 11 was it determined that the person was

16 last seen in 1992?

17 A. Seven cases.

18 Q. And is it correct that in the other four cases, there is no date

19 indicated? There's no determination as to when the person died or went

20 missing. Is that correct?

21 A. To date, that's correct.

22 Q. Mr. Sebire, you've talked about the data that you do have

23 available. First of all, do you have any reason to believe that all

24 bodies buried in Prijedor have been discovered and exhumed?

25 A. I don't think so myself, no.

1 Q. In fact, you've already indicated that for probably the two

2 largest killings in our indictment, Room 3 and Vlasic mountain, no bodies

3 have been exhumed and identified. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 Q. Regarding the Court declarations of death you briefly described

6 the procedures. Is it correct that the number of reports that you have of

7 persons missing, you only get a report of a person missing and declared

8 dead if family members go to the Court and request such a ruling and

9 comply with the various requirements of the law in Bosnia to get a

10 declaration of death? Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. If the family is not interested in getting a declaration of death

13 for whatever reason, or if no family members survive, there would be no

14 declaration of death. Correct?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. Finally, on the sites, have you often dealt with family members of

17 those exhumed?

18 A. Ordinarily, when an exhumation is performed, it is not infrequent

19 that people show up on site thinking that some of the members of their

20 families might be in the site being exhumed. And so it is not unusual to

21 run into family members at the exhumation sites.

22 Q. In your experience in dealing with these family members, does it

23 appear to you that the people from Bosnia, that in their culture, it is

24 important to find the graves of family members who have been killed and

25 that they have lost during years as far back as 1992?

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you. I have no further questions.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Can we proceed immediately with the

4 cross-examination?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: We may, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

7 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

8 Q. Mr. Sebire, my name is John Ostojic, and along with Branko Lukic,

9 we represent Dr. Milomir Stakic. Good afternoon.

10 A. Yes, good afternoon.

11 Q. Can you tell me by way of your background -- I know that you're

12 involved or were involved previously in law enforcement. Can you tell me

13 where is it that you learned English?

14 A. In France.

15 Q. And the report that we have that's been identified titled

16 "Exhumations and Proof of Death, Municipality of Prijedor" was that

17 compiled by you yourself, sir?

18 A. Yes, it was.

19 Q. A couple of questions in connection with the introductory remarks

20 in your report, if I may just for purposes of clarification for myself.

21 You mention several times, at least I count four, but in the introduction

22 you mention on a number of occasions the issue of risk of double

23 counting. Can you please explain to me what that means.

24 A. Yes. This is one of the main reasons why we use two different

25 databases, one for the exhumations; the other for those persons declared

1 dead -- deceased. As you saw, many -- several bodies were exhumed and up

2 to date have not yet been identified, and it may be that the nonidentified

3 bodies be people -- are people who were declared dead by a court. But

4 When you add up both figures of people deceased and people declared

5 deceased and those who were exhumed, there is a risk of double counting

6 some of them. And that is why it seemed better.

7 Q. Can you describe for me what the level of risk is even by

8 separating the two databases and providing the analysis that you did?

9 Would the risk be high, moderate, or low for purposes of double counting

10 individuals or bodies that were recovered?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't believe that question can be answered. He

12 said that they were separated, and the question is, as I understand it --

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It may be the witness has some founded estimate

14 on this question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The risk could be that either all

16 the bodies which were exhumed and not identified were not declared

17 deceased either, and that you would add up both figures and you would give

18 you a number that would be the result of adding up the two assumptions, or

19 that all of the people exhumed and were not identified were also declared

20 deceased. And in those cases, they have got to be subtracted so that one

21 can have a total figure.

22 It is difficult to quantify double counting risks when one is

23 dealing with nonidentified bodies to date. In order to avoid that risk,

24 that's why we decided to count them separately so that they should not

25 be -- make any attempt at adding or subtracting.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. This is an eerie kind of area for me. With respect to the

3 different kind of body parts that were exhumed, did you examine whether

4 there was a risk of double counting those that were exhumed by the OTP,

5 those that were exhumed by the OTP in assistance and cooperation with the

6 Bosnian authorities, and those that were exhumed by the Bosnian

7 authorities individually of the 261 gravesites that were exhumed?

8 A. The risk of double counting does not have to do with those

9 individuals who were exhumed. The risk is if you try to get a total

10 figure by adding the persons declared deceased and the persons exhumed.

11 The problem of the number of bodies and body parts is not the same thing.

12 That relates only to the exhumations. And in this case, it was no

13 problem -- there was no risk of double counting here.

14 Q. So in your opinion, there was a low, if any, risk of double

15 counting based on your analysis. Correct?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: My objection is the question is vague as to double

17 counting what? I don't think if the witness answers we would know what

18 the answer --

19 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may reply, Your Honour, the witness in the last

20 sentence in his answer on page 49, line 8 clearly states: "There was no

21 risk of double counting here." So I think at the very least, I should

22 have an opportunity to clarify that and to determine whether or not the

23 level of risk that he believes was either low, moderate, or high, or

24 nonexistent. And all I'm doing is following up on the answer that the

25 witness gave on line 8 of that page. It's not that major of a point,

1 but...

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: My understanding of the original question, as I

3 understood it, was the risk of double counting as the witness explained of

4 exhumations and the court declarations. Because the witness has explained

5 that no attempt was made to add those two figures, then it's not relevant

6 what the risk was because it could not occur because they were not added

7 together. He has explained that you cannot add the exhumations and the

8 Court declarations together without possibly double counting some

9 individuals. And that's why he has not done it.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we ask the witness to comment on this

11 interesting discussion.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. So once more, in order

13 to avoid any problems, in order to avoid double counting, we didn't add

14 the number of persons deceased, the number of persons declared deceased by

15 municipal courts to the total number of bodies or of body parts that were

16 exhumed. The reason for this was that there was a large number of bodies

17 or body parts that were not identified.

18 Now, it seems to me that Mr. Ostojic was asking a question with

19 regard to the exhumations carried out by the Bosnian authorities and those

20 carried out by the OTP, that I'm not sure that I have understood his

21 question very well given that a body or a body part is only counted once.

22 So I don't see how double counting could be a problem, how you could

23 double count a body or a body part because they are exhumed only once.

24 MR. OSTOJIC:

25 Q. I'm not sure if you've answered my question, but if I may proceed,

1 Your Honour, is it fair to state that there was no reliance placed on this

2 book that you cite on page 15 under footnote number 14 "Ni Krivi Ni Duzni"

3 because, essentially, of the reasons that you've just outlined for us,

4 namely, there would be a risk of double counting and, in fact, if you make

5 a comparative analysis of that book, the claims offered by the OTP and

6 your tables, it would be almost impossible not to conclude, sir, that

7 double counting and the risk of double counting would be extremely high?

8 A. The book in question refers to persons who were missing. I used

9 it in certain cases in order to obtain information with regard to the

10 probable date when the person went missing. This book includes persons

11 who were exhumed, as well as persons who were declared deceased. And

12 obviously, also a number of persons who were neither exhumed nor declared

13 deceased but who are still missing.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could the interpreters please be kind enough to

15 translate the name of this book on footnote 14, page 15,

16 "Ni Crivi Ni Duzni," Knjiga nestalij opcine Prijedor, into English and

17 French. Thank you.

18 THE INTERPRETER: "Not Guilty. The Book of Missing Persons in the

19 Municipality of Prijedor."

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I don't want to interrupt

21 Mr. Ostojic's examination - I leave it up to him - but I realise now that

22 I meant to introduce this book during Mr. Sebire's testimony and briefly

23 comment on the update that we are expecting, or have him comment on that.

24 But whenever Your Honour feels that's appropriate.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Does the Defence allow this interruption of the

1 cross-examination by handing out this book? Probably it's easier for you

2 to make reference on this basis.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: That's acceptable, Your Honour.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I apologise for not doing it sooner.

5 May the book --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections against the admission into

7 evidence as S282?

8 MR. OSTOJIC: We do, Your Honour, have an objection. We have an

9 objection essentially that the book is not something that is widely

10 acceptable - hopefully we'll get that information from the witness - that

11 has not been relied on by the witness. By the witness's very own

12 testimony before us, Mr. Sebire, he states that in order to avoid the risk

13 of double counting, that only specific sources were used; namely, two:

14 The exhumations and the certificates of death or, as I think identified in

15 his report, proof of death. I think that it's not only cumulative for

16 purposes of our discussions, but also inappropriate respectfully to allow

17 a book of an author who can summarise and tell us what his opinion based

18 on, perhaps, incomplete information when certain individuals were missing

19 or were presumed dead.

20 I think Mr. Sebire's report respectfully, and without prejudice to

21 us, does a fairly adequate job and is rather impressive to identify that

22 581 specific individuals have been named and identified of the 1.294 [sic]

23 or so that have been exhumed. It is from that basis we believe that there

24 may be some proof of death, but utilising that book would be outside the

25 scope and scheme of the rules prescribed by the Tribunal.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this document is now only provisionally

2 marked as S282. We leave the admission into evidence open. I think we

3 will hear something during the cross-examination about the pros and cons

4 of this book. But may it please be distributed by the usher.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I perhaps could get from Mr. Sebire or

6 just represent to the Court that this book was compiled some years ago.

7 It's dated April 2000. And that Mr. Sebire has asked for and hopefully

8 should obtain in the next week or so an electronic version of an updated

9 book of missing persons by the same organisation.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Could we proceed now with the

11 cross-examination, please.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Sebire, to what extent did you rely on this book

14 "Ni Krivi Ni Duzni"?

15 A. I couldn't quantify that, the number of times I referred to this

16 book. The two main sources for my work were the exhumation documents, the

17 declarations of death; and in the absence of information such as witness

18 statements, testimony, or declarations of death, the use of the book that

19 has been -- using the book that has been mentioned allowed me to obtain an

20 idea of the time when a person went missing in Prijedor.

21 Q. Did you do any follow-up or background check, since you have a

22 criminal law enforcement background, to determine what the reliability of

23 that documentation was by the association that produced this book?

24 A. Check up. Do you mean interviewing witnesses, or simply do you

25 want to know whether I had access, whether I saw evidence corroborating

1 certain elements?

2 Q. Including those two that you just mentioned; but also in addition

3 to that, to know what the purpose and goals are of this organisation in

4 producing this book, specifically in setting forth a time line in

5 connection with when persons were missing and when they were allegedly

6 deceased?

7 A. As far as the purposes are concerned, the purposes of this

8 organisation, which is an association, well, their objective was to

9 compile a list of people who went missing in the Municipality of Prijedor.

10 For many people, these were family members who were searching for family

11 members who had been -- disappeared. And as far as I know, this work was

12 done in collaboration with the International Commission for Missing

13 People. And it facilitated collection of samples in order to identify

14 bodies exhumed in the Municipality of Prijedor.

15 Q. Help me with this: On page 4 of your report --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

18 Q. Help me with this, Mr. Sebire: On page 4 of your report, still on

19 the introduction section, sixth paragraph, it states: "The purpose of

20 this report is not to make an assessment on the reliability of the

21 documentation provided to the Office of the Prosecutor."

22 I know you weren't here yesterday, and interestingly enough, we

23 were -- hit an impasse on interpretation of various words including the

24 words "original" and "copy," so I don't want to be presumptuous with any

25 witness and would like to ask you what do you mean that there was no or

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 this report does not make an assessment on the reliability of

2 documentation provided by the OTP?

3 My question is actually three-fold: One, what is the

4 documentation you're referring to? Two, do you question the assessment or

5 have you assessed the reliability of any of those documents? And three,

6 why do you not make an assessment as to the reliability of the documents

7 that you utilised, sir, in reaching certain conclusions, preparing certain

8 tables, and giving certain opinions in this testimony, in this trial?

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think only the first part of this three-fold

10 question can be answered by the witness. The other two parts are not in

11 the domain of the witness before us.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I talk about -- when I refer

13 to -- when I say that the objective of the report wasn't to make an

14 assessment on the reliability of the documentation provided by the Bosnian

15 authorities and the Office of the Prosecutor, well, these are mainly

16 declarations of death by court municipalities. To carry out a complete

17 checkup would imply interviewing or meeting all those who were present

18 when these decisions were made, which means for the 955 cases that we

19 considered in Prijedor, you should take two or three persons to be

20 interviewed and to verify that they made these statements in front of the

21 court in Sanski Most such and such a date.

22 In human terms, this was quite impossible to do, almost impossible

23 to do. On the other hand, these documents were provided in an official

24 manner, and the objective of this report was to use the conclusions, these

25 conclusions.

1 Does that answer your question?

2 MR. OSTOJIC:

3 Q. In part it does, a third of the questions that I asked. In part

4 it does, Mr. Sebire.

5 You mentioned in the introduction paragraphs of your report that

6 there were different rules and procedures that were utilised by the

7 Bosnian authorities, I think as you identify them, respectfully, as well

8 as the OTP. And you also mention that the standards used in exhumations

9 and in identification presumably were different. Can you expand on that

10 for us a little bit and tell us how were they different and why were there

11 two sets of rules and procedures allowed to be implemented in the

12 exhumations of certain gravesites?

13 A. It's possible for various reasons, which are also explained in the

14 introduction, in the same paragraph that you referred to. On the one

15 hand, objectives of the Commission for Missing Persons in Bosnia, which is

16 a social and humanitarian objective, first of all; whereas the objective

17 of the OTP is to gather evidence which is to be presented in front of a

18 Trial Chamber. The other reason is that the means that each party had

19 were different in the case of carrying out exhumations. And this explains

20 that the standards used were different.

21 Q. How so?

22 A. For example, the time passed by the various commissions in the

23 field, in the case of exhumations, very rarely would an archeologist be

24 present to participate in the operations of identifying the bodies, of

25 unearthing the bodies. In the case of the OTP's operations, there would

1 always be an archeologist there, and all the bodies were -- how should I

2 say? Well, the geometrical position in the grave would be determined.

3 This kind of -- these kind of operations were not conducted by the Bosnian

4 authorities. As a result, there were different periods of time spent

5 carrying out exhumations. This is one of the differences that one can

6 observe.

7 Q. If I may just spend a little time with that difference, in fact,

8 of the 20 missions that were done to exhume the bodies, 3 were done

9 specifically by the OTP. Correct? Or representatives from the OTP,

10 correct?

11 A. You're speaking about 20 missions? I'm not sure I've understood

12 you correctly.

13 Q. Essentially in your report, you break down that there were 20

14 exhumations that were done or at 20 intervals exhumations were done. It's

15 my understanding from reading your report that 3 were done by the OTP, 2

16 were done jointly by the OTP and the Bosnian authorities, and the

17 remaining 15 were done exclusively by the Bosnian authorities. Correct?

18 A. No, not quite correct. The figures you have mentioned correspond

19 to the number of sites of mass and individual gravesites that could be

20 connected to incidents mentioned in the indictment. This does not refer

21 to the total number of mass or individual gravesites that were exhumed.

22 Q. And I understand that. I know from Section 2 of your report that

23 it's your contention, and obviously based on the information available to

24 you, that there were 261 mass and/or individual gravesites. Correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, help me with this: How many exhumation missions, if you

2 will, did -- you were involved in one. You mentioned you were there for

3 five weeks. How many were the OTP involved in? Perhaps I can --

4 A. Sorry. Please go ahead.

5 I don't know the exact number. But what is sure is that all the

6 exhumations carried out by the OTP, by the Tribunal, by investigators from

7 the OTP -- investigators from the OTP were present at these exhumations.

8 As far as the exhumations are concerned where the OTP carried out forensic

9 investigations, an investigator from the OTP was also present. And as far

10 as the other cases are concerned, unfortunately I can't tell you how many

11 times investigators from the OTP were present for other exhumations which

12 were carried out by the Bosnian authorities alone.

13 Q. Mr. Sebire, I'm almost losing the point of which I'm talking about

14 in this area, and I'm trying patiently to get to it. But if I can just

15 direct your attention to Section 4, page 10 of your report, 4.1.4. And

16 maybe I could from this discussion go on to the question I'm asking,

17 namely the standards used by the Bosnian authorities and the standards

18 used by the OTP in exhuming these gravesites. Specifically by way of

19 example, the one that you mentioned, the archeologist issue.

20 On 4.1.4 what does it mean when you quite: "The OTP forensic team

21 conducted a total of three exhumations within the territory of the

22 Prijedor Municipality." My question to you, sir, is how many exhumations

23 within the territory of the Prijedor Municipality did the OTP forensic

24 team conduct?

25 A. Three exhumations carried out entirely by the OTP.

1 Q. Right. And that's the point I'm trying to make. And if -- I"m

2 just trying to help facilitate this so we can go a little quicker. On

3 4.1.2, if I ask you the same question: How many exhumation about the OTP

4 forensic team and the Bosnian authorities conduct jointly, would the

5 answer not be, sir, as reflected in your or the on page 10 Section 4.1.2

6 that, in fact, there were two such exhumations that were performed by the

7 OTP forensic team and the Bosnian authorities jointly?

8 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. Then how many -- I was able to even understand that. I don't

10 speak French. So sorry about that for the interpreters. How many

11 exhumations were performed by the Bosnian authorities without the OTP team

12 being involved? And maybe I could help you by just pointing out the next

13 section of your report, on page 11.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, but I think the ambiguity in the answers

15 is due to this type of a question. If team means Team 1, you're going to

16 get one answer from Mr. Sebire. If team means forensic team, you're going

17 to get another answer from Mr. Sebire.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: I've read his report, Your Honour, quite frankly,

19 and he identifies 20 sites both in the footnote and in the body of his

20 report. Although it's difficult to get an answer as to whether there were

21 20 or not, it's irrelevant for our purposes. But I was trying to lay a

22 foundation so that we could ask him the issue with respect to different

23 standards utilised by the various teams specifically the archeologists.

24 This goes to the heart of an issue that the OTP asked them; namely,

25 burial, method of burial for religious faith. And those are the types of

1 question we are going to ask him because Mr. Sebire gave an opinion that I

2 would like to at least be given an opportunity to flush out and to

3 determine how credible that may or main be.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm really not objecting. I'm trying at least to

5 help because when the question was missions, if Mr. Sebire goes and

6 observes, that's a mission. If other investigator goes and observes while

7 an exhumation is done, that's a mission and that's a team being present.

8 Forensic team is separate, and his answer will be different.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, may I ask the witness to comment on

10 this once again interesting discussion.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. What I'm referring to in the

12 report is when I talk about the participation of the team from the OTP,

13 it's a forensic team, or either teams that go to the exhumation site,

14 which are composed of archeologists, of anthropologists, of screen of

15 crime technicians, of photographers, and of an investigator dealing with

16 the case in point -- also, forensic teams who work in the morgue. These

17 are the teams I refer to in my report. And in such cases, three

18 exhumations were carried out by the OTP alone, and two in which forensic

19 teams intervened when post mortem operations were being carried out. So

20 there were five cases in which we participated in exhumations by the OTP

21 Prijedor.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. May I proceed, Your Honour.

23 Q. And now there -- thank you for that, it really helped -- five that

24 the OTP participated in. How many were there that the OTP did not

25 participate in, the exhumations that were done exclusively by the Bosnian

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 authorities? 15, right?

2 A. 255, if you have a look at page 11, paragraph 4.1.3.

3 Q. Thank you. I've read it. So in total, the Bosnian authorities

4 exclusively participated in 255 such exhumations; the OTP participated

5 either exclusively or in part with the Bosnian authorities in five.

6 Correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, let's go back to the standards which is really all I was

9 trying to accomplish here. Would it be fair to conclude, then, that the

10 standards that you mentioned, such as a lack of an archeologist to detect

11 and denote specifically where the bodies were found within a grave,

12 namely, positions whether they are facing Mecca, east, or any items

13 similar to that, that that archeologist was not present, and therefore no

14 such information is available for you to determine whether or not those

15 individuals were buried by family, friends, or neighbours in an

16 appropriate Muslim burial?

17 A. Well, the absence of archeologists doesn't influence this field

18 that -- this domain that you have just referred to.

19 Q. Well, then what other standards or differences are there in the

20 rules and procedures that you've identified on page 4, Section 1, on your

21 introduction which plainly state that there were differences in how the

22 Bosnian authorities went about exhumations, those 255? They were quite

23 different from the way the OTP conducted their five.

24 A. One of the differences is that time passed in the field, the time

25 spent on the exhumation itself which in general terms can be a shorter

1 period of time when these exhumations are performed by the Bosnian

2 authorities. They will spend a shorter time than the OTP. And this is

3 explained by the presence for the OTP of archeologists, of

4 anthropologists, who take samples that are not made when the Bosnian

5 authorities perform exhumations. So the time spent in the field is

6 different.

7 Q. So is it more or less reliable if you spend less or more time in

8 the field analysing, exhuming bodies, and conducting a thorough

9 investigation in a gravesite? What do you believe, that the less time you

10 spend is more reliable, or the more time you spend, then it becomes more

11 reliable?

12 A. Unfortunately I can't just answer yes or no to your question.

13 Obviously, the more time you spend, the more details that are recorded in

14 a scientific manner, the more you reduce the risk of error, the chances of

15 identifying the bodies are greater.

16 In most cases, where Bosnian authorities performed exhumations in

17 Prijedor, these exhumations, if you look at the numbers, 255 individual or

18 mass gravesites are concerned, in most cases in the report of the

19 investigating judge dealing with the procedure of exhumation, in general,

20 it is indicated that the Bosnian authorities are aware or were informed by

21 witnesses or by people who buried the bodies of the number of the bodies

22 buried and of the identity of the victims who were buried.

23 Q. You're not the first witness from Team 1 that was unable to answer

24 affirmatively or negatively to my questions. But be that as it may, sir,

25 would you agree with me that the reports provided by the OTP are far more

1 reliable, the exhumations that were conducted, are far more reliable than

2 those conducted by the Bosnian authorities because different standards,

3 different rules, and different procedures were utilised? Correct?

4 A. As far as this point is concerned, yes, I'd have to agree with

5 that.

6 Q. Thank you. In your report -- very rarely do I get. Anyway, in

7 your report, sir, spent what seems to be an incredible and enormous time

8 gathering data and information, inputting, analysing various factors on

9 the individuals and bodies that were exhumed. Namely, you identify things

10 such as the sex and gender of the body to the extent possible. You

11 identify the age of the deceased individuals. You even go as far as to

12 identify the cause of death as well as the ethnic background of certain

13 individuals. Correct?

14 A. When it is possible to do so, yes.

15 Q. And by your background, training, education, you are a criminal

16 law enforcement investigator. Correct?

17 A. No, not -- well, I worked only in judicial matters, police dealing

18 with judicial matters.

19 Q. Are you familiar with the various levels of proof in criminal

20 proceedings such as mere possibility, probability, more probable true than

21 not, based upon a reasonable degree of certainty, beyond reasonable

22 doubt? Are you familiar with those standards of proof?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, tell me with your report, which category would you place it

25 in?

1 A. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm the one who should make that

2 judgement.

3 Q. Would you like me to make it?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I think the question is argumentative

5 and rhetorical.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it was only a rhetorical question.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay, I didn't understand that. I'm sorry.

8 Q. Sir, going back to this gathering and inputting of information and

9 factors on the individual bodies that were recovered or deceased

10 individuals, do you know, sir, having been involved in this case with

11 Team Number 1 working with the OTP and various individuals whether or not

12 the allegation and the proposition that the OTP is trying to establish,

13 that intellectuals and educated people within the Prijedor Municipality

14 were actually targeted and were a target group for both killings,

15 beatings, and deportation? I'm sure you're familiar with that having

16 worked with Team 1 for a number of years. Can you tell me, sir, why that

17 data or those tables or that information is not anywhere within your

18 report of 53 pages?

19 A. It could have appeared in the report. In light of the time that I

20 spent on the third part of the report, which is an attempt to draw

21 connections between the exhumations, the incidents mentioned in the

22 indictment, and the witnesses who were called to testify before this Trial

23 Chamber, if you remember the elements that I was to take into account, if

24 you don't have a witness who comes specifically to speak about a person

25 who was either a policeman or a judge or a physician, if nobody comes to

1 speak to say that somebody was killed for that reason, it's difficult to

2 make the connection. But if a witness comes and says that he saw that

3 this or that physician or this or that judge killed in Prijedor, and that

4 that person, in fact, was identified in an exhumation or that for that

5 person, I have a declaration of death from a municipal court, that would

6 be mentioned.

7 Q. Now -- and I understand that you don't have a law degree.

8 Correct?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. I'm not trying to misstate or to expand any opinions that you may

11 have. We as the lawyers are -- or at least I believe -- required to

12 quantify certain groups in connection with various allegations that are

13 being proposed by the OTP.

14 Since we do not have that information from you, sir, and that

15 information is not available, would you agree with me based upon a

16 reasonable degree of certainty, based on your report, the information

17 provided by you, analysed with you by your team and clerks that inputted

18 this data that no such evidence exists that indeed intellectuals of a

19 certain ethnic background were targeted for killings?

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

22 MR. OSTOJIC:

23 Q. Help me with this, sir: Having conducted and utilised various

24 sources in compiling the data that you did in this report, how difficult

25 would it have been do you think, sir, to go to an educational institution

1 and to gather information and data to determine what the educational level

2 was of citizens within Prijedor of a certain ethnic makeup?

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The question is not related to the domain our

4 expert is working in.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Let me switch, if I may, to another topic. Just one

6 last question, maybe.

7 Q. With respect to ethnic background, sir, I note on page 5 of your

8 report you reached this conclusion, paragraph 3, first sentence: "In some

9 instances, the ethnicity was determined even though the victims were not

10 identified."

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you explain to me, sir, how is that even remotely possible;

13 and secondly, just because we are running out of time, secondly if you do

14 make that assumption, clarify for me what the assumptions were that you

15 made and what the per cent of margin of error is in making those

16 presumptions or assumptions in connection with concluding that you can

17 determine ethnicity even though the victims were not identified?

18 A. In general, this is information that one gets in exhumation

19 reports prepared by the examining magistrate, that is, the Bosnian

20 authorities. As I have already said, sometimes witnesses give information

21 about people in an individual or a mass grave, saying that he knew that

22 person, was a Bosnian Muslim, couldn't give the name, but the body is

23 exhumed and identified. Through the reports which the magistrate drafts

24 referring to these nonidentified bodies, it can be said that they are

25 probably Bosnian Muslims.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we have to make the break now because

2 this is indeed a question we have to go in some more details.

3 And the trial stays adjourned until 2.30.

4 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 2.36 p.m.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

7 Before we restart with the cross-examination, I'm more than happy

8 to tell you that Madam Ruzic told me in writing that she'll be able to

9 provide Dutch/English interpretation for tomorrow. So there seems to be

10 no obstacles.

11 So please, proceed.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Sebire. I read your answer actually during

14 the break on page 66, and I unfortunately do not understand it, which

15 commences on line 1. However, let me try to approach this a different

16 way, and maybe we could accelerate this process somewhat. It states on

17 page 5 of your report in the section summary of findings in the third

18 paragraph: "In some ins, the ethnicity was determined even though the

19 victims were not identified."

20 There's no question yet, but I'll get to the question right now.

21 From that and in that context, sir, can you tell me since apparently from

22 your report 261 gravesites were found and exhumed, 1394 bodies and body

23 parts were actually exhumed, the number of individuals or the minimum

24 number of individuals as you call it were 1.252. Out of those 1.252

25 individuals, 581 were identified with certainty as being Bosnian Muslims.

1 Correct?

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. Out of those 581 who are identified with certainty as Bosnian

4 Muslims, how many, sir, how many instances were there that the ethnicity

5 was determined even though the victims were not identified?

6 A. It's 581 individuals who were identified.

7 Q. So for all those 581, we know, sir, that in fact 573 of them were

8 Bosnian Muslims. Correct?

9 A. Basing oneself on the documents that we received, yes.

10 Q. What else can we base it on other than the documents you received,

11 interpreted, and relied upon?

12 A. Well, the major source of identification that I received was the

13 one that I put into our report, that is, it came from the Bosnian

14 authorities who stated that this or that body was taken out of this or

15 that mass grave, and they then identified them. They said at the same

16 time what the ethnicity of the individual was.

17 Q. Of the remaining 760 individuals or bodies, you could not with any

18 reasonable degree of certainty identify those corpses, if you will, by way

19 of ethnicity. Correct?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. Now, you state that your next analysis under proof of death

22 database on page 5, 2.2, that 995 out of this potential 1.252, it can be

23 confirmed, based upon a reasonable degree of certainty, that they died or

24 went missing in the course of the year 1992. Correct?

25 A. Yes, that's right.

1 Q. Now, with respect to the remainder, if you take the differential

2 between 1.252 and those that with certainty that you can conclude died or

3 went missing, of 955 bodies, what should we conclude with the remainder?

4 That they died before 1992, after 1992?

5 A. I think that you're mixing up the figures relating to the people

6 who were deceased and people who were exhumed.

7 Q. Okay. Let me read it on page --

8 A. 1.255 relates to the minimum number of people who were exhumed.

9 You mention 995 for declarations of death; it's 955, as I said. And the

10 purpose of this report was not to mix the data from the two projects in

11 order to avoid confusion.

12 Q. Right. And I'm not trying to create any confusion. I'm just

13 trying to have a better appreciation for this extensive report that you

14 did. On page 5, the second portion of your summary of findings, 2.2,

15 "Proof of Death Database," you state clearly what I thought I was asking

16 you, that out of the 1.295 court rulings relating to the Municipality of

17 Prijedor declaring individuals as officially dead were received. Sir,

18 then you go on to say: "Out of those, again, 1.295 cases, 955 concern

19 individuals who were killed or went missing in the course of the year

20 1992."

21 All I'm asking you, based on your report, the analysis that you

22 made, what happened or did you conclude with any certainty when the

23 remainder 300 or so individuals, when they died?

24 A. Yes. Among those persons who were not counted in the 955, that

25 is, approximately 300, as you said, there are about 99 cases for whom the

1 decision relating to deceased persons state that that person was killed

2 during combat operations. And in those cases, those people were not

3 included in this presentation. In other cases, they were declared

4 deceased during the year 1993 and 1994, even 1995.

5 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that in your analysis in your report you

6 actually state rather affirmatively that in making a decision or to try to

7 even reconcile whether individuals deceased by virtue of combat or

8 noncombat activities is almost impossible, and that it was one of the most

9 difficult things, if not the most difficult thing, to ascertain?

10 A. When it's done by the Court as regards the deceased persons, I did

11 not include that specific case because it had already been determined that

12 they had been killed during combat -- they had been killed in combat.

13 That's when we would not include them.

14 Q. Just so I understand you, out of the 1.295 court rulings, we have

15 955 and that you are telling us and have opined and have prepared a report

16 telling us that they died, were killed, or went missing in the course of

17 the year 1992. Correct? And out of the remaining 300 or so, forgive me

18 because I don't have the exact number, out of those remaining 300, is it

19 your position that they died during combat in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and

20 1995, but you're just uncertain when?

21 A. As regards the -- we know the exact year. If you look at page 13,

22 4.2, for 1992, there were 1.054 decisions declaring people were deceased

23 appear for 1992, and those were received -- those cases were received by

24 the OTP. When one reads the decisions relating to the death of those

25 people, it turned out that 99 of those cases were mentioned as having died

1 during activity -- combat activity.

2 As regards the others, it's true, it's not stated in the report

3 whether these are people who were declared missing or killed outside of

4 1992.

5 Q. Let me try it this way, if I may: The 955 concerned individuals

6 who were killed or went missing in the course of the year 1992 versus the

7 1.295 that you put down as the minimum number of individuals from the

8 exhumation, the difference between that, can you tell us with a reasonable

9 degree of scientific certainty when they died?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. I don't think the question is

11 comprehensible, given that it's mixing exhumations again with the proof of

12 deaths. If I could expand, or does Your Honour -- the 955 bodies the

13 witness has explained were persons who were both were declarations of both

14 for persons who were listed as having died in 1992 and not having died in

15 combat. The original number in 1992 was 1.054 he said, subtracting the 99

16 cases, that left 955. He indicated that of the total 1295 declarations of

17 death, 350 subtracting the figures he has -- well, I'm sorry, I don't want

18 to expand on that any further. But the question by the counsel just now

19 concerned the minimum number of people exhumed, which has nothing to do

20 with the 955 figure of individuals who were declared dead in 1992 not in

21 combat by the courts of Bosnia.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this contribution. I think this

23 kind of resolving disputes helps. So please.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If I may proceed.

25 Q. Mr. Sebire, I'm really just trying to figure out if we could

1 quantify the number of individuals that you could confirm, based upon a

2 reasonable degree of scientific certainty, actually died in the year of

3 1992, specifically April through September of 1992. And I know you've

4 provided a table and a chart from that -- for that. However, my question

5 to you, sir, is: From that list, did you, as the OTP's trial counsel

6 contends, did you ultimately from that 800 or 760 that you identified, did

7 you ultimately conclude what percentage died in combat and what percentage

8 died in noncombat activities?

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, if I can just on the to the leadup to

10 the actual question where counsel indicated that Mr. Sebire was testifying

11 as to the number of people who were killed in 1992. Nowhere in this

12 report does Mr. Sebire make any estimate of the total number of persons

13 killed in Prijedor in 1992. He simply reports those bodies exhumed, and

14 separately those persons declared dead. And he has made very clear that

15 neither of these is likely -- it's not reasonable to believe that either

16 of these is a complete list of those who were killed in 1992.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can just briefly respond, as the Court very

18 clearly knows, there are certain allegations proposed by the OTP against

19 our client. The decisional authority in this Tribunal clearly finds that

20 there should be a qualitative and quantitative methodology that should be

21 utilised in ascertaining whether certain threshold issues, specifically

22 those relating to counts 1 and 2 of the fourth revised amended indictment,

23 how is it that we should go about that process, whether we take

24 individuals in a smaller geographic scope, namely, a municipality or a

25 town within a municipality, or do you first examine the total population

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 from the Republic in its entirety.

2 The second fold in that analysis as the Court, I believe, knows

3 and without misstating it permits us to ask questions specifically in

4 order to get and ascertain information so that we can make a reasonable

5 basis as to the percentages of those alleged that may have perished in

6 1992 and those which, with reasonable degree of certainty and beyond the

7 reasonable doubt, were of Bosnian Muslim ethnic background. For us to

8 establish that, no witness other than this gentleman here, who has

9 prepared an extensive and impressive report, would we be able to conclude

10 with any assurances what those qualitative and quantitative numbers would

11 be.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think I can be of a little help to counsel and

13 the Court on this. I'm not sure I agree that we are required to quantify

14 the total number killed, but I will say that we are attempting to do

15 that. That will be part of Ms. Tabeau's coming attraction, her report,

16 which we hope will be available on Monday. And in fact, Ms. Tabeau, and

17 Your Honours, the Defence already has, and I'm not sure if the Court does,

18 her preliminary report that was conducted and that was written to the

19 Keraterm case, which I think Mr. Ostojic was on, in which she does make

20 those figures. That's simply being updated.

21 In that report, what she is going to rely on is --

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to interrupt you. I think we shouldn't

23 take this in advance, and we should expect this report. Indeed, the

24 cross-examination is intended to contest that what has been said during

25 the examination-in-chief, and the other parts of the expertise. But it

1 would be indeed helpful if the Defence, for example, could base their

2 questions on figures indeed given in this expertise, especially Exhibit

3 Number 281-3, the numbers of declaration of deaths, not included,

4 nonexhumed persons we have before us.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.

7 MR. OSTOJIC:

8 Q. Well, sir, is it correct what the Office of the Prosecutor in

9 essence said, that you're not here to give us an opinion and you do not

10 have an opinion with any degree of certainty as to the number of

11 individuals that died in 1992, specifically April through September 1992?

12 Is that accurate?

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I just indicated that I was not really impressed

14 by the idea to anticipate the expert statement of another expert. So

15 please, refrain from this rather unhelpful expertise, upcoming expertise,

16 and base your questions on the expertise we have before us. No

17 speculations on another expert, please.

18 MR. OSTOJIC:

19 Q. Mr. Sebire, tell me so that I'm clear and so that I understand,

20 what is your expertise?

21 A. First of all, I'm not an expert. I'm an investigator, and as

22 such, the only work I have to do is to carry out investigations.

23 Q. Fair enough. With respect to this report, sir, you've just in

24 essence done, and I apologise for having to paraphrase it, but as I see it

25 what you've done is just taken from two sources, one, the individual

1 investigative aspect, i.e., the exhumations that you performed not only on

2 behalf of the OTP, not only on behalf of the OTP and the Bosnian

3 authorities, but also on behalf of the Bosnian authorities, correct, those

4 261 gravesites that we discussed. Correct?

5 And what you did, sir, in your analysis was you compared it and

6 made an analysis relying upon, as your report so indicates, relying upon

7 the Bosnian officials, namely and specifically the Court documents which

8 certify or have what you call "proof of death" certificates. Correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, help me with this: On page 11 of your report, I know you

11 want to go to page 13, but we'll start with page 11 for now. On 4.1.1,

12 you discuss a summary of forensic findings, do you not? 4.4.4 -- strike

13 that. 4.1.4. Do you see that section, sir?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay, and within that section, you were asked, and basically were

16 looking at considering four aspects. Correct? Can I have them indented?

17 There's a slash marked before each of the four.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Out of those four, the main difficulties that you had and the most

20 difficulties in assessing or making any degree of certainty included two,

21 right, out of those four? Two -- it was very difficult for you to reach

22 any conclusions. Correct?

23 A. Out of the four points that we attempted to -- how should I put

24 it, to concentrate on, there are aspects which at times were difficult --

25 it was difficult to obtain information for certain aspects at times.

1 Q. Is it not that the main difficulties you experienced out of those

2 four, and you isolated right below that were two, namely, one, cause of

3 death, that was difficult for you to make a determination based upon a

4 reasonable degree of certainty. Correct?

5 A. I would like to point out that the cause of death, I obtained this

6 on the basis of the post mortem report established by forensic

7 scientists. So from this point of view, all I can do is refer to a

8 document that has been compiled by an expert in that field.

9 Q. Why don't we do it a simpler way. Why don't we look at your

10 report and you tell me Mr. Ostojic cause of death wasn't that difficult.

11 The two difficult ones were time of death, not cause of death, right?

12 Time of death was a problem for you, and it was complicated, as well as

13 determining the "status" of the individuals exhumed. Correct? Those were

14 the two aspects you had trouble with. Right?

15 A. In fact, as you have pointed out, we have to deal with the status

16 and the time and the place where the person deceased, and this is part of

17 what we tried to establish. In order to do this, we made use of quite a

18 lot of documents. I don't want to refer to all the documents that were

19 used, but that is one of the points that we had to work on, more than on

20 others, because the cause of death being established by forensic

21 scientists, all we could do was refer to the documents. We could not

22 invent a cause of death. Only forensic scientists could do this.

23 So everything that had to do with the work of investigators, given

24 the documents that were at our disposal, well, this is what allowed us to

25 concentrate on the ethnic origin of the person, the cause of death -- I

1 apologise, the status of the person, and then to concentrate on the moment

2 and the place where the person was seen for the last time or killed.

3 Q. So going back to what I was trying to previously ascertain, out of

4 the 955 cases that you can, with a reasonable degree of certainty, tell us

5 perished in the year 1992, because you had some difficulty with it, is

6 there a margin of error plus or minus 1 or 2 - however many individuals

7 you would like - where it was difficult to determine the time of death?

8 A. I'm sorry to have to mention this again, but when you mention the

9 figure of 955, once more, we're referring to people who were declared dead

10 by courts in this particular case. We only used the contents of the Court

11 decisions. And in this case, out of the 955 mentioned in the report, as

12 far as I know none of the persons were deceased -- none of those who have

13 been said to be deceased have been found alive to this day. I don't know

14 if you want to refer to the number of people who were declared deceased or

15 to the number of people who were exhumed.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me see if I understand this correctly, in

17 this case of persons declared dead, you relied that -- on the fact that

18 the court fixed the date of death, for example, August 1992. And then you

19 put it into your report, and this is shown, then, in the table 281-3. Is

20 this correct?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the table that you have in

22 front of you, that the 955 people who were declared dead by the courts,

23 either by courts in Kljuc or in Sanski Most, witnesses who have appeared

24 before you sometimes would mention some of the victims for whom we had

25 declarations of death. These witness statements did not contradict the

1 contents of the Court decisions, according to which these persons were

2 declared dead.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So there, indeed, opposed to other forensic

4 problems when you find indeed a grave and a corpse, and you have to fix

5 the date of the death; here it was to a certain extent no problem for you

6 because first of all, you could rely, and you relied -- put it this way:

7 You relied on the date fixed by court. And in addition, you crosschecked

8 whether or not this was in line with testimony given in court or via 92

9 bis statements. Is this correct?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in fact, that's correct.

11 MR. OSTOJIC:

12 Q. Let me just follow up on the line by the Honourable Court in

13 connection with that. If I may just follow up on the question the Court

14 asked you. Did you, sir, read the witness statements from the witnesses

15 that were informed by you testified in this court, or did you actually

16 read the transcript of their actual testimony, both direct and

17 cross-examination, when you did this crosschecking?

18 A. No, not the transcripts of the examination, the cross-examination.

19 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that some of the witnesses

20 that you list as purportedly having testified either live in this

21 courtroom or pursuant to 92 bis actually did not testify in either manner

22 such as Witness P33, identified in the transcript -- in the report on page

23 15; page 16, Witness P30; on page 17, Witness P33; Witness, on page 25,

24 P23; as well as one that I specifically recall that was withdrawn as a

25 witness, both viva voce and pursuant to 92 bis, early in the beginning of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 this trial. And I know his name, I just don't want to reveal it. I'm

2 trying to find the notation for it.

3 And your response is?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I object to the question because

5 whether or not Mr. Sebire would be surprised by that is not really an

6 issue for his testimony. I think just to correct counsel, Witness 33 is

7 listed to testify next week.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just interrupt, Your Honour, if you look at

9 Witness Number 8 that they identified, it was clearly a witness that they

10 withdrew from testifying and did not submit a 92 bis report for that

11 witness.

12 Again, if this witness before us today is saying that he knows

13 they all testified, I want to know what the basis of that testimony is.

14 It's not a major point of our cross. I would like to move on in the

15 limited time that I have to other areas to try to better understand the

16 report. But it's just not accurate, quite frankly, and I'm sure the OTP

17 after reviewing what our objections are cannot confirm that all those

18 individuals that are listed on Mr. Sebire's report did testify either live

19 or pursuant to 92 bis. But I'd like to move on if possible.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, but indeed, we can't move on without

21 thinking about this issue because, indeed, to be cautious, I must say it's

22 to a certain extent misleading because until now, I myself had the

23 impression that - and this can only be the base - this crosscheck was done

24 by or with the assistance of transcripts of the examination-in-chief,

25 cross-examination, and answers to questions by the Judges. Because this

1 could be the only helpful assistance for the Court because what -- qui non

2 est ti non, qui non est ti nondo [phoen], what is not in the file is not

3 in the world.

4 And therefore, I would ask indeed the witness to crosscheck once

5 again this expertise and this documentation on the basis of the names of

6 persons named as victims, missing persons in the transcripts of our case.

7 All other figures are totally misleading, especially for the purpose of an

8 upcoming judgement.

9 Would you be able to provide this to the Court, say, within a

10 fortnight?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, can I just for the --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can I first hear the answer of the witness,

13 please.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would involve reading all the

15 transcripts. First of all, when I worked on this report, I worked on the

16 basis of a list of witnesses, and the main source of information that I

17 had. These were signed interviews produced by these witnesses in the

18 past.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt that the OTP in general has a list of

20 these names mentioned until now in court or via 92 bis available, and

21 therefore I think it should be no problem at all to bring these names

22 together and ask the witness to crosscheck whether or not this fits in

23 that what he examined on the basis of the Court ruling in the Former

24 Yugoslavia.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm not sure that we do have that list of specific

1 individuals' names. I can check. There's a possibility that someone has

2 been compiling those names, but I would mention that very rarely --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Shall we give the list to you?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sure. It would be of assistance.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, the burden of proof is with the

6 Prosecutor.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: There are 7.000 pages of the transcript to date.

8 And I would just mention, Your Honour knows, that many of the examinations

9 when we talked about people killed, for example, Room 3 massacre, we very

10 rarely asked witnesses to name those that they knew were in the room who

11 were killed. And that it would be a limitation, as opposed to the witness

12 statements which go into more detail about names of individuals. I

13 understand Your Honours' concern. I'll see if we have that, and I should

14 be able to get back to you very shortly on that.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But still, it remains the request of the

16 Bench that we ask the OTP to provide a crosscheck of those names available

17 in the transcripts. Thank you.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: For purposes of cleanup, if you will, Your Honour, I

19 found on page 41 of the report the two individuals, Witness P21 and P8

20 which are identified which in our view have not testified in either the

21 live fashion or through 92 bis. Just to that the record is clear, because

22 I was unable to find that cite earlier.

23 In any event, may I proceed, Your Honour. Yes, thank you.

24 Q. Sir, still I'm on page 11 of your report and trying to have a

25 better understanding, and with respect to the status of the individuals

1 that we were just discussing before we kind of went off on a little bit of

2 a discussion, the status of the individuals is not the status to determine

3 their ethnicity, but in fact as your report indicates, the status of those

4 individuals is to determine whether or not they were combat or noncombat

5 individuals. Correct?

6 A. Yes, on the basis of the information that we had. Yes.

7 Q. Well, the information that you had, I think you clarified for us,

8 was the Court proof of death certificates, but also the witness statements

9 that you've reviewed. Did you, sir, from reviewing any of the information

10 that you have make a determination in addition to the determination made

11 by the court as to the status of those individuals who would be considered

12 combatants or noncombatants?

13 A. In certain cases, when we based ourselves on witness statements,

14 yes.

15 Q. Can you tell me the difference in number that you found from what

16 the court identified individuals as being combatants and those that you

17 found as being combatants?

18 A. We're talking about declarations of death established by courts.

19 Q. All right, let me try it this way: One of the sources that you

20 used in reaching some of the conclusions or information provided to us

21 within your report are the court records, proof of death certificates.

22 Correct?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. And the other source that you used was the actual exhumations that

25 we discussed earlier today. Correct?

1 A. Yes, correct.

2 Q. Now, it's your testimony, if I'm correct - and please correct me

3 if I'm not - is that from the proof of death certificates from the court

4 officials, you were able to determine and find a certain number of

5 individuals who were so-called combatants. Correct?

6 A. Yes, correct.

7 Q. And that number, again, just refresh my recollection, is what?

8 A. 95.

9 Q. Now, did you, from the witness statements or from the --

10 THE INTERPRETER: 99. Correction.

11 MR. OSTOJIC:

12 Q. From the 99 that you were able to confirm, were you, other than

13 those 99, were you able to determine what the status of those individuals

14 that were exhumed or considered dead or missing in 1992, were you able to

15 determine their status as being combatants or noncombatants?

16 A. When we had testimony, according to which it was possible to

17 establish this fact, as far as I can remember with regard to this report,

18 and taking into consideration the fact that the exhumations -- taking into

19 consideration the exhumations, I don't remember exhumations in which there

20 were bodies that were identified and these were bodies were identified as

21 being those of combatants.

22 Q. That's of the five exhumations that you did, but not the 255 that

23 the Bosnian authorities did. Correct?

24 A. That concerns all the persons identified. The entire figure,

25 581 -- I'll just check the number. As I said, there were 581 persons who

1 were identified in the exhumations. To date, I haven't discovered

2 elements indicating that these people were combatants. And naturally,

3 these persons weren't just exhumed in the five exhumations which were

4 performed by the OTP.

5 Q. Of those 581 individuals that you were able with certainty to

6 identify, 573 was confirmed were Bosnian Muslims. Correct?

7 A. Yes, correct.

8 Q. What percentage of a whole of that 573, out of the number that you

9 gave us, 581, was there an assumption made that the ethnicity of the

10 corpse was a Bosnian Muslim?

11 A. In this particular case, since we're talking about bodies that

12 were identified, we have identification from authorities who identified

13 these bodies. And we know the ethnic membership of these people. Out of

14 the 581, I would say that in 73 cases -- 573 cases, persons were

15 identified as Muslims, Bosniaks. I didn't receive any elements that

16 contradicted this information provided by the Bosnian authorities.

17 Q. I'm not disputing that, Mr. Sebire. In fact, it is only this

18 number that we can actually say with honesty and integrity that can be

19 based upon a reasonable degree of certainty that there is little, if any,

20 doubt as to only those 573 individuals both being identified and being of

21 Muslim ethnic background who were killed or even last seen missing in

22 1992. Correct?

23 A. Yes, in fact that's correct.

24 Q. That's the number I want to try to use, just to try to shorten

25 this up a little bit. Out of that 573 Bosnian Muslims that were

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 identified based upon a reasonable degree of certainty from the Prijedor

2 Municipality, did you go back, sir, to determine whether any of these were

3 combatants or noncombatants by running through either the Microsoft Access

4 data search programme that you utilised in your report and compare it to

5 either reports used by team members in your team by inputting the names of

6 over approximately 5.000 individuals who were listed as being members of

7 the Territorial Defence of Kozarac, for example, to name one town within

8 that municipality?

9 A. In most cases, checkups were made. It's possible that in

10 individual cases -- that for individual cases, I didn't find all the

11 documents. That is quite possible.

12 As far as belonging to units -- Kozarac units, in certain cases,

13 victims were mentioned as being members of the TO, of the Territorial

14 Defence. But there are no elements that show whether or not the person

15 was killed in combat. Very often, for example, in declarations of death,

16 members of the Territorial Defence from such and such a village would be

17 mentioned. And they would be mentioned as being members of this defence

18 organisation. They would also mention that these persons were arrested

19 and taken to camps.

20 So as I said at the beginning, only when there was certainty with

21 regard to the fact that the person in question was killed in combat, only

22 in such cases would that person be excluded.

23 Q. All I want to know is: Did you actually run the data search bases

24 and compare by inputting the names of the individuals from a list that

25 we've identified as being the members of the Kozarac Territorial Defence,

1 and compare it to the 573 individuals in order to reach a conclusion as to

2 what the status of those individuals were, combatant or noncombatant? Did

3 you do that?

4 A. The exercise was done for all those who were declared dead. The

5 database was incorporated into the database for those exhumed, and each

6 time a person was declared deceased, we found the body of the person

7 deceased, it was indicated. And as I said, as soon as there was a

8 declaration of death and information that we had indicated that a person

9 was a combatant, in such cases, this person was systematically excluded

10 from the numbers. So the numbers I have mentioned in the report are for

11 people for whom checkups were made. It's possible, and I can't guarantee

12 this absolutely, it's possible that perhaps I didn't have a document for

13 one or two cases. I don't know. But that's possible.

14 But as far as investigations are concerned, they were done.

15 Q. Point out to me where in your report that analysis was done and

16 the results of that analysis. What table should I be looking at to find

17 that out?

18 A. First of all, you have to consider the part of the report which

19 has to do with the declarations of death where it is indicated that all of

20 the cases that fall under the category of deceased as part of military

21 activity were not included. The bodies identified were compared with the

22 data in the proof of death; and if the declaration of state said they were

23 killed in combat, then they were not mentioned. There's no specific

24 paragraph that deals with that subject in my report.

25 Q. Fair enough. Back to page 11 and the status of those exhumed at

1 the time of their death, you state: "The intent was to try to determine

2 whether the individuals exhumed were combatants or noncombatants." The

3 topic that we have been discussing. The result of your attempts or

4 intentions, what were the results, sir? Were they successful, were they a

5 failure, or were they incomplete?

6 A. I believe that the results that we obtained are complete. If we

7 take into account the limits of the documents that we used in order to

8 produce this report.

9 Q. Okay. So were they successful or were they a failure? Because

10 the only item that I see that you utilised in order to make a

11 determination of the status of those individuals was that that was

12 provided to you by the Bosnian officials, namely, the proof of death

13 certificates, the 99 or so that you've previously referenced. But I'm

14 interested to know what your intentions as listed on page 11 of your

15 report, the success of your intentions and your attempts to reach or make

16 such conclusions.

17 A. The -- those declarations are not the only source that we used.

18 We also made use of testimony in order to try to limit the -- this report

19 to those witnesses that were chosen for this case. When those witnesses

20 speak about victims, usually I did not try to contradict a witness who

21 said that such and such person died in camp and for whom the body was

22 found and identified.

23 Q. I couldn't imagine that you would question a person who's going to

24 identify an individual as being a combatant. But did you do any

25 verification to determine those whose identification as to their status of

1 being a combatant or noncombatant was accurate or not?

2 A. As regards whether a person was a combatant or not, I would have

3 to say that I did base myself on the witness statements and the other

4 documents that I had available to me.

5 Q. And those documents are all those that you cite in your report.

6 Correct? Everything you relied on in order to reach the conclusions that

7 you did, everything that you used in order to analyse and incorporate

8 within your report, that's listed expressly and specifically on these 53

9 pages somewhere. Correct?

10 A. Yes. I prepared a list of all the documents, the main documents,

11 that we based ourselves on. Yes, that's correct. And clearly, in light

12 of the quantity of documents and the people who were involved or concerned

13 by this report, it would have been difficult in any case to proceed on a

14 case by case basis and to question three or four people about -- saying

15 that people were either declared missing or were dead in order to

16 establish that they were combatants or not. I think that would be

17 something quite difficult to do.

18 Q. For example, nowhere in your report do you mention the exhibit

19 that has been admitted into evidence of the Kozarac Territorial Defence,

20 although it's your contention is that's not a main document or something

21 that you would have expressly stated in your report. It's something that

22 you nonetheless considered and incorporated in reaching your conclusions.

23 Is that what you're telling me?

24 A. I'm sorry, I didn't really understand that question. I can tell

25 you -- I'm a little bit confused with what it is you're trying to get at.

1 Q. I'm trying to give you or try to understand your answer a little

2 thoroughly. Quite frankly it's my understanding from your answer when I

3 asked you if all the documents that you relied upon and reviewed in

4 reaching your conclusions are identified expressly within your report, at

5 which time I recall that you said the "main documents" are listed.

6 Therefore, in trying to be rather clear and thorough, it's fair to

7 state that you did review the Territorial Defence documents of Kozara, but

8 you just didn't list that item as being a main document that you reviewed

9 or considered within your 53-page report. Correct?

10 A. The documents of the Territorial Defence at Kozarac, as regards my

11 report, the document was not used unless it has a different name. If you

12 could tell me what document it is that you're referring to, that would

13 help me.

14 Q. That's the only reference that I have for the time being. But

15 that's okay --

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not okay. Could the Defence please be so

17 kind and present the document you want to mention here to the witness,

18 whether or not it was included. And of course, it's not for the witness

19 to make any conclusions on the status of these persons, but it's only the

20 question whether or not the person mentioned in this document were taken

21 into account.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: That's all I'm trying to clarify.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. So please, please --

24 MR. OSTOJIC: D11, if the usher would be kind enough to show the

25 witness.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: If it would cut things short, if Your Honour would

2 accept that, I stipulate that he did not consider that document which is a

3 Defence document not in the OTP computer system that apparently was

4 submitted in the Tadic appeal. He would not have had that document.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure what the testimony is of the witness

6 quite frankly. I'm confused as to initially his responses. But be that

7 as it may, I would like in the short time at least -- we can show him the

8 document.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.

10 MR. OSTOJIC:

11 Q. Sir, did you have an opportunity to review Exhibit D11?

12 A. Briefly, yes.

13 Q. Ever so briefly having reviewed it, do you know, sir, as you sit

14 here whether or not you utilised any of the information contained within

15 D11 when making a determination or assessment as to the status of the

16 individuals that were exhumed and identified as being combatants or

17 noncombatants?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Do you think, sir, as a reasonable person, that information might

20 have at the very least assisted you in determining whether or not

21 individuals were combatants or noncombatants in order to fulfill

22 specifically the requirement and the complaint that you had with the

23 difficulty of determining what the status of those individuals were?

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. Let me turn ever so quickly to another section in your report, and

3 that's Section 5, sir, where you make this linkage between the

4 exhumations, the proof of death, and the crimes committed in the

5 Municipality of Prijedor.

6 Ready? In making that analysis, sir, I note that in some sections

7 you identify specifically a brief summary of the incidents that may have

8 occurred. In other sections when you identify the crimes that were

9 perpetrated, you do not list a brief summary of the incident. Just to

10 speed things up, I direct your attention to the very first 5.1.1 of that

11 section which appears on page 15, and then if you turn to page 26, 5.1.8

12 which expressly identifies "brief summary of incidents." Take a look at

13 those two. Let me know when you've completed your brief review of it, and

14 then I have a couple questions on that.

15 How is it in some sections you have the brief summary of the

16 incident, and in some you don't? What's the rationale for that? I'm just

17 trying to understand your report.

18 A. There's an important difference between the incident mentioned in

19 5.1.1 and 5.1.8. In 5.1.1, the title speaks of the killing of a certain

20 number of people in Kozarac and in the surrounding areas in May and June

21 1992.

22 Among the witnesses to whom I referred to speak about that

23 incident, they don't all speak about the same murder in the same

24 location. As regards the next incident, that is, 5.1.8, there were

25 witnesses who speak about a very specific incident, and a single one, and

1 for which there was an exhumation which completely fits in with that what

2 had been said in respect of that incident, which was a single one. Now in

3 Kozarac, we're talking about many incidents.

4 Q. So I understand it, is it the reason and -- strike that. You put

5 brief summary of incident when it's limited to a certain time and a

6 certain place because there's more clarity for you, whereas the other

7 instances, it would have been too wide an issue to fully summarise and put

8 down in your report essentially. Correct?

9 A. The reason why there is no summary for each incident mentioned by

10 the witnesses is that they are included in the general heading of the

11 paragraph.

12 Q. For example, on page 29, 5.2, when you discuss the killings of a

13 number of men in Room 3 at Keraterm camp on or about the 24th of July,

14 1992, with respect to that incident, there's no brief summary of the

15 incident. Correct?

16 A. That's right, there isn't.

17 Q. I'm just trying to understand your report. And the reason there

18 is in some and not in the other is why?

19 A. It was a question of, well -- how shall I put it? To go back to

20 5.1.1, for instance, as I've already said, the witnesses speak about an

21 incident that happened in Kozarac and the surrounding area. And one is

22 not going to prepare a summary for each of these witnesses on whom I based

23 myself. I considered that it was simpler to leave those incidents within

24 a general context of the information given.

25 Q. Were you able, in conducting your analysis or preparing these

1 tables that you did for us here, for the OTP, these 53 pages, were you

2 able at any time, sir, from reviewing the witnesses' statements and from

3 reading the documents that are on -- as I think on my learned friend said

4 within the OTP database, those documents that are within your control and

5 hopefully within your reach, were you able to figure out, out of each

6 specific instances of killings or death, whether they were done by the

7 police or the military? Did you do that research or analysis?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Were you ever able to, or did you make an analysis from all the

10 materials available to the OTP and to yourself being a member of Team

11 Number 1, and did you ever prepare a table to determine out of these

12 deaths that you've recited for us in this report how many were done

13 exclusively by third parties from an individual criminal intent; namely,

14 revenge, retaliation, or items similar to that?

15 A. No. The object of the report -- the object of the report was not

16 to identify or to name the people directly responsible for the murders

17 which were committed. The objective was to attempt, using the basis, when

18 there was a connection between the exhumations and the incidents mentioned

19 in the indictment, the idea was to indicate that for the victims mentioned

20 by the witnesses, that there were exhumations which allowed identification

21 of the bodies mentioned by the witnesses, or at least that some of the

22 witnesses mentioned by -- the victims mentioned by the witness were dead.

23 The objective of the report was not to identify or to name the

24 perpetrators.

25 Q. As you sit here, you can't and don't have any information in

1 connection with the identity of those perpetrators. Correct? Because you

2 have not done that analysis. Right?

3 A. As I said, that was not the intention of the report.

4 Q. So like, for example, if I look again back on 5.2, specifically

5 5.2.1, out of the witnesses that -- or the statements that you reviewed

6 from those witnesses, nowhere in that report would there be any relevant

7 data that may be found -- that there were drunken soldiers who invaded the

8 camp on the evening of July 24th, 1991, and in a wild rampage decided

9 unfortunately and tragically to execute individuals within Room Number 3.

10 Nowhere in your report does it say that, does it?

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's for the Chamber to determine these

12 issues, not for the witness. We heard what is the issue and what was the

13 task for the witness. And no doubt, it was limited to the areas, and not

14 including those mentioned in your question.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may be permitted just one more question on

16 that, Your Honour. Thank you.

17 Q. Did you, Mr. Sebire, did you review a signed document by Madam

18 Prosecutor herself which confirms unequivocally and undoubtedly that in

19 connection with the Room 3 massacre, there were "drunken soldiers"? Did

20 you review that document?

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained. Unfair. And I must say that the

23 Defence should take care, as the ruling, not to address this issue any

24 longer -- they should follow this ruling please.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. My apologies.

1 Q. Sir, I'd like to direct you in the brief time that we have to page

2 40 of your report if I may. And we are under the witness identified as

3 P50 under the subheading 5.2.2. Are you there?

4 Help me with this, sir. You identify one individual as being a

5 member of the SDA. To what extent does your analysis and preparations of

6 this report conclude whether or not other members that you've identified

7 as being deceased or exhumed or killed or missing within the period of

8 1992 were members of the SDA or not?

9 A. Up to now, it's the only time it is mentioned. The only time I

10 had this information. This morning, I said as regards the exhumation of

11 that person, it was one that was performed by the Bosnian authorities.

12 And unfortunately right now we do not have the entire documentation

13 relating to that exhumation. So I can refer only, when I put that, it's

14 something that -- and I said it this morning as well, this comes from the

15 witness.

16 Q. During the direct examination by my learned friend, Mr. Koumjian,

17 this morning, you stated that there may have been some assumptions made

18 with respect to a differential between the number of individuals

19 identified in the proof of death certificates by the Bosnian officials and

20 those individuals who have been exhumed during the exhumation process, the

21 261 gravesites that you've mentioned.

22 And I think, if I may paraphrase, one, you said, the assumption

23 was that the family may not have been interested in going to court or the

24 official courthouse to fill out and complete a death certificate. And,

25 two, I think Mr. Koumjian said, the rationale may have been in the

1 discrepancy in the numbers, that there may have been no family survivors.

2 Do you remember that general testimony?

3 A. The point was indicated that the declarations of death were

4 rendered by -- were produced by the municipal courts, and they concerned

5 only individuals for whom the steps were taken by the families. The

6 reason the other families didn't take steps is an assumption. And among

7 one of the possible explanations, it's possible that people who weren't

8 interested in obtaining such a declaration, there were such people.

9 Q. Are you familiar, sir, with the law in Bosnia that requires

10 individuals and families expressly to identify and to fill out forms so

11 that they can have an accurate count once a family member or known person

12 is dead or missing?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, objection. The witness is not a lawyer and

14 certainly not an expert in the law of Bosnia.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this question is not only related to

16 law, but more or less to facts, and the factual basis of his own work.

17 Therefore, dismissed.

18 MR. OSTOJIC:

19 Q. When you say that there's assumptions and you may --

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Pardon me, Judge.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I dismissed the objection. We are still looking

22 for the answer of the witness.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Here I am being presumptuous, Your Honour.

1 Q. I think, Mr. Witness, the Court would like you to answer that last

2 question. I just asked if you were familiar or not, if you had a law

3 degree, but if you're familiar with that.

4 A. No, I'm not an expert. I'm not a legal expert for Bosnia.

5 Q. Well, I'll take that that you're not a legal expert for Bosnia.

6 But did you ever review or consider the fact that there may be a

7 requirement in that region of persons to identify their next of kin who

8 are either missing or have perished during the years of 1991 through 1995?

9 A. I must admit that I don't know whether it's an obligation. I

10 can't answer that question unfortunately.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: To help the Trial Chamber, I think it would be fair

12 if the Defence could give me a citation to the law in question. I'm not

13 an expert, but that's not my understanding of the law on Bosnia, but I

14 have spoken to some lawyers from Bosnia regarding that.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour, or should I respond? I

16 don't know --

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

19 Q. Sir, just so that I can get a concrete figure, do you know if any

20 of the bodies that were exhumed during the 261 exhumations that were

21 performed, whether any of those individuals were from the Prijedor

22 Municipality who were involved in some fashion with the war in either

23 Slovenia or Croatia?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Help me with this: Maybe we can narrow it down. Of the 261

1 gravesites that were exhumed, how many were mass graves and how many were

2 individual graves? Surely you've done that analysis.

3 A. I don't have the figures on me unfortunately. In most of the

4 cases, they were individual gravesites or graves containing less than five

5 bodies. Of the 261, unfortunately, I can't give you an exact number. I

6 can't say that there were such and such a number of bodies in one grave.

7 It's quite easy to do. I could inform you of the number, but at the

8 moment I'm not in a position to do so.

9 Q. That would be very nice of you. I accept. But the way I tried to

10 do the analysis is I took 261 gravesites, and then from that I subtracted

11 the three that the OTP did themselves, which would then leave us with

12 358. And then I tried to do an analysis from the bodies that you've

13 identified as persons of Bosnian Muslim ethnic background -- actually,

14 when you subtract 261 from 3, you get 258. I think I misspoke and said

15 358.

16 If you take that analysis, say, from the 3 that the OTP itself has

17 exhumed, you indicate your total is 193 individuals, correct? Page 10 of

18 your report.

19 A. Yes, 193 body parts, and 188 bodies.

20 Q. Actually, I think your report is 193 individuals, and 99 body

21 parts, is it not, for the three sites that the OTP on their own conducted

22 exhumations on? We covered it a little bit this morning. Page 10, first

23 table, 4.1.1.

24 A. Yes, yes.

25 Q. If I take this figure, 191 individuals, how can I determine which

1 individuals -- if I take that number, do I subtract it from the number of

2 573 Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, that were exhumed and that were individually

3 identified, or do I place that number within the number of 996 that you

4 contend in your report died in 1992?

5 A. I haven't said that the 193 bodies exhumed by the OTP were all

6 identified.

7 Q. Well, tell me --

8 A. We must not confuse the figures that correspond to the exhumations

9 in general, the number of bodies exhumed by the OTP or the Bosnian

10 authorities. Based on the general results obtained by these two

11 organisations, the number of bodies that were identified in my report,

12 it's true that I never say that the number of bodies exhumed by the OTP

13 and that were identified and the number of bodies exhumed by the Bosnian

14 authorities who were also identified. I didn't make this difference. I

15 presented it all at the same time.

16 Q. Fair enough. And also, so we can't really take the number 996, or

17 at one point in your report you identify it as the number 995, individuals

18 that you could with a reasonable degree of certainty confirm died in 1992,

19 we can't take that figure and try to make an analysis based on the three

20 exhumations that you did as listed on page 10 of your report? In

21 addition, we would not be able to utilise the numbers from the two

22 exhumations done by the OTP and the Bosnian authorities. Correct? Can't

23 put the two together.

24 A. Once again, you mention the figure 997, I think you mean --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the number.

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. 996, 995. Oh, the witness.

3 A. Excuse me. The number of 996 refers to exhumations. That

4 corresponds to the number of persons for whom we have reason to think that

5 they were deceased in 1992.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Just a couple more questions, Your Honour, just

7 two --

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be honest, I don't think that we will come

9 through the testimony of Mr. Sebire today because there are a number of

10 questions remaining. My suggestion is to postpone the end of the

11 cross-examination and additional questions by the Judges to a later day to

12 be determined by the OTP.

13 We would ask the witness, you have given us numerous annexes to

14 your report, to provide us also with a list of persons mentioned by

15 witnesses -- by witness statements admitted under 92 bis or otherwise

16 admitted into evidence as being dead, declared dead, exhumed, missing, and

17 so on, have this list. And then to add, on the basis of your already done

18 expertise, whether or not these persons are to be found on a list of

19 missing persons, whether or not they are declared dead, or whether or not,

20 in fact, they were exhumed. This would be of additional -- of main

21 importance for the Court.

22 And in addition - probably I missed it somewhere - you provided us

23 with a number of annexes, but they don't have any headlines. And one

24 really doesn't know what it means that we have some list of names.

25 Probably you can just provide us with a list of annexes and telling us

1 what is the content of these annexes exactly. So therefore, that it can

2 be, for example, a possibility for this Chamber to find out, just to give

3 you a very simple example on a prominent person, Mr. Muhamed Cehajic,

4 there were witnesses saying this person is dead. And then We know that

5 there is still some hope of the widow, Minka Cehajic, having testified

6 before this Chamber, that is, that the husband is still alive. That we,

7 on the basis of your list, can identify whether Muhamed Cehajic was,

8 indeed, declared dead, found exhumed, or is on a list of missing persons.

9 Just this one example from a prominent person we had in our case until

10 now.

11 As mentioned, there should follow a number of questions emanating

12 from your expertise. And therefore, we want to leave it for the OTP to

13 find a next date for additional hearing of Mr. Sebire.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thursday would be an excellent time because

15 apparently I just received -- was passed a note indicating that the

16 witness that was scheduled to testify Thursday, her flight -- the

17 witness's flight was cancelled and will be arriving a day later. So at

18 least if we could start Mr. Sebire on Thursday. I don't know if the

19 witness -- the witness will be here late on I believe Wednesday, so I

20 don't know if it's possible for that witness to testify later on Thursday.

21 But cannot testify Thursday morning.

22 I would ask the Court if the Court personnel have a record of

23 individuals. We do not have a complete record of the individuals named in

24 the testimony as deceased. There are 7.000 pages of transcript.

25 Mr. Sebire, I believe, has already reviewed the 92 bis statements,

1 although he may have been given some -- we'll double check the information

2 he gave-- he was given as to the witnesses that are on the 92 bis list.

3 It may have been out of date. It may have changed since he got the list.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's try to bring the legal officers together

5 and find a way of assisting you without opening our treasuries. I think

6 this should be feasible, and let's rethink this.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, just so that the Court is aware, I'm

8 unable to proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Sebire on Thursday or

9 Friday of this week. I'm compelled to testify back home in another

10 matter. So I will not be here Thursday or Friday. So I would ask, if at

11 all convenient, that we try to schedule him any time next week. And with

12 my apologies, again, I thought we would conclude with Mr. Sebire today,

13 and tomorrow's witness as well. But I have to inform the Court, it's just

14 an impossibility for me to be present this Thursday and Friday in this

15 Chamber.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be feasible and agreeable that we

17 continue the line of questions by the Judges and receive, in the meantime,

18 the additional - if possible, additional report - and then later on we

19 come back to Mr. Sebire for your final questions?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Absolutely. I may not have any questions after the

21 Court questions the witness. So yes, that would be agreeable.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Apparently Ms. Sutherland believes that she can be

24 ready with the witness on Thursday, can speak to the witness late on

25 Wednesday.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we leave it to the OTP to schedule this date

2 in the light of Mr. Ostojic's mandatory absence. But if not, let us

3 please -- if the witness is not available Thursday in the morning, please,

4 let's start with Mr. Sebire, if it's possible for you, at 9.30 on

5 Thursday. Priority is given, no doubt, to the witness if the witness is

6 available.

7 I want to inform the parties and the participants, especially the

8 interpreters, if there are no mandatory objections, my intention is

9 tomorrow to hear the expert on handwriting from 11.00 to 12.30, from 13.00

10 to 14.00, and from 14.30 to 16.00. This is a little bit exceptional, but

11 caused by the late start.

12 Then finally, because, no doubt, this book may be of some

13 importance and may have some probative value, the document

14 "Ni Krivi Ni Duzni" is admitted into evidence as S282.

15 Any urgent matters? This is not the case.

16 The trial stays adjourned until tomorrow, 11.00.

17 [The witness stands down]

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

19 at 4.07 p.m., to be reconvened on

20 Wednesday, the 4th day of September, 2002,

21 at 11.00 a.m.

22

23

24

25