150709ED

Page 36950

1 Q. Now we see two surnames. The second one is the same as the first

2 one, and the same father's name. This person is said to have disappeared

3 in Vlasenica on the 1st of January, 1993.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at the next document to

5 see all the pages referring to this person.

6 [In English] Can we see the next page, please.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Now we see here that the Federal Commission for

8 Missing Persons made a file for the missing person with the same name,

9 same last name, same year of birth, the date of disappearance indicated

10 is 11 July 1995, the place of disappearance is indicated as Srebrenica.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, you say the same last name. But we

12 had two versions already. The previous page there was a different family

13 name.

14 MR. LUKIC: One name is going through from the first to this --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, but I just wanted to draw your attention, if

16 you say the same last name, in the previous document, or the previous

17 page, it was a different last name. That's all what I say.

18 MR. LUKIC: There was ... can we see the next page. Next page,

19 please. Next -- we saw that one. Can you rotate that one, please, yes.

20 Q. [Interpretation] We see a note made by the ICMP. It says old

21 database note: "Place of disappearance, Cerska.

22 "She was buried at the graveyard in Cerska. There is an

23 inscription, but the daughter is not sure. No more living relatives. In

24 the ICRC log-book, the missing person is listed under the last name of

25 Avdic."

Page 36951

1 And looking at the last page.

2 [Interpretation] Page 6, it's last page concerning this person.

3 Just tell us what is this document.

4 A. This also is a document kept by the ICRC. When they took down

5 this information, it's obvious we don't have any third date of

6 disappearance, and it's -- only goes to show how important it is to

7 cross-check everything. Very frequently there is a discrepancy

8 concerning the time and the place and the circumstances of disappearance,

9 and this is a good example of that. All this needs to be established

10 prior to verification based on the relevant documentation.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I -- may I -- one question for clarification.

12 How do you know that this page relates to the same person we have

13 looked at previously?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's a continuation of the

15 ICRC report, and I suppose it only straddles the next page.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We just saw another page before this one came up

17 with a totally different name. I have no idea if that is really related

18 to the person we spoke about. Have you any comment on that?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My comment is that it is necessary

20 to cross-check all these documents and establish that something really is

21 the truth.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... absolutely

23 right. I understand your comment. But how do you know that this page we

24 have on the screen now relates to the person we discussed?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's a part of the complete

Page 36952

1 case file on that person, which we have in hard copy.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, the previous page related to a different

3 person. Why do you know, how can you know that this one is related to

4 the person we discussed?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The whole time we've been talking

6 about one and the same person. It's the case file of one and the same

7 person.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go back one page.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I -- the -- and between the two we saw a

11 different page. It's disappeared -- no, I'm not interested in this one.

12 The -- between these two pages, we saw -- perhaps it was a mistake.

13 MR. LUKIC: My mistake when I called the page, I said the last

14 page, so Registrar went to the last page of the whole document. I was

15 asking actually for this page 6 which is this one. But you can go one

16 page back, so it would be maybe well understood.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: So you agree that that page was related to a

18 different person, the last page.

19 MR. LUKIC: The last page of this document, yes.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Then I have no further questions in this

21 respect.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you see, I still have questions on the same

23 topic.

24 This -- the page that Judge Fluegge was querying whether who it

25 relates to says the days of disappearance is somewhere in 1992 and I

Page 36953

1 don't see a name of a person on that page and I think the question still

2 stands how is that page related to this person, because this person is

3 said to be -- these pages keep moving away. Is said to have disappeared

4 in July 1995 and we don't see any other particular on this page that

5 relates to any of the particulars of that other person. This page

6 doesn't say anything about [Overlapping speakers] ...

7 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... if I can help. Witness

8 can maybe not see it Your Honour here on top of this page we can see ICRC

9 ID, BAZ-100950-01 as the identification number and we go to the second

10 page of the same document --

11 JUDGE ORIE: We see the name number [Overlapping speakers] ...

12 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I wished that the witness

14 would have clearly answered that which is obvious for everyone.

15 My main concern is is there any dispute about questions whether

16 it's important to cross-reference information? Do the parties agree on

17 that.

18 MR. JEREMY: Absolutely agree on that.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Absolute. You as well. That's apparently what you

20 wanted to establish.

21 MR. LUKIC: No, we want to establish that list is not correct and

22 is wrong.

23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: An ICMP list.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again, let me be very clear to you. If

Page 36954

1 two lists are different about the same persons, one must be incorrect.

2 MR. LUKIC: That's what we want to show.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if I take you back to the previous one,

4 you've shown us a document that someone died in a car accident. You've

5 also shown us document, a double DNA identification, et cetera, and

6 apparently, since you left that issue, your conclusion is that the

7 documentation saying that that person was exhumed from a grave, it's

8 wrong, because you have a document that that person died in a car

9 accident or something like that.

10 You apparently have not paid attention to the possibility that it

11 could also be that the document, just one document, no DNA, one document

12 about a car accident, that that document might be wrong. Apparently, you

13 have not paid any attention to it, and I think you left that, at least I

14 didn't hear any further questions about that. So that suggestion, I just

15 wanted to let you know, that from a logical point of view, that if two

16 documents are wrong, it still has to be established which one is wrong.

17 The same is true here.

18 MR. LUKIC: Exactly, and we want to say that those lists offered

19 by Prosecution as the evidence, into evidence in our trial are not

20 correct. Because they are not checked.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, may be.

22 MR. LUKIC: What the Defence should be doing --

23 JUDGE ORIE: We heard.

24 MR. LUKIC: I don't have to prove anything.

25 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm not asking you to prove anything. We've

Page 36955

1 heard from witnesses who dealt with those lists how everything was

2 cross-referenced. This witness tells us that he could not

3 cross-reference. He was unable to do that. Because.

4 MR. LUKIC: No no no no no.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... He said we didn't finish

7 the job.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

9 MR. LUKIC: He said we cross referenced 7.000, we did not

10 cross-reference 10.000.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I think we also indicated that it was

12 important to establish, apart from which document is the wrong one and

13 which document is the right one, then the second question arises how this

14 inconsistency affects the evidence as it is before us. If there is one

15 mistake which has not yet been clarified as to what exactly and where

16 exactly the mistake is --

17 MR. LUKIC: There is a mistake on that document and that's what

18 we are trying to prove and we'll prove there is more. Of course.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

20 MR. LUKIC: I'm moving forward.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I just thought it would be good that you

22 know what logic requires to jump To conclusions and to take every step

23 which needs to be taken in a precise manner. And you may proceed.

24 Mr. Jeremy.

25 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours just -- if it assists, these are

Page 36956

1 Srebrenica-related persons and if it assists for Mr. Lukic and for the

2 Bench, the evidence that we have heard that the single source relied for

3 disappearance information was ICRC missing persons reports. I think, to

4 a very small extent, reports on missing persons from Physicians for Human

5 Rights. Those were the sources relied on for missing persons

6 information.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And that is one of those documents which is before

8 us?

9 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we still have to establish whether this

11 document is right or wrong then.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we proceed, sir, I would like to understand

15 what all these documents mean. Are they giving us the final answer or

16 are they part of a process of verifying the correct information?

17 Could we please have a look at, for instance, at the ICRC

18 documents, that one.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Page 2 of this document.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.

21 Sir, what does this document purport to do? Is it giving us

22 information about what has happened or is it requesting information?

23 Because I see the heading says: Information request for person

24 unaccounted for on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

25 Now, my understanding of that heading is they've got some

Page 36957

1 information from somebody which they give here, the name of person and

2 date of birth and what have you, and where the information says the

3 person was -- was last seen or disappeared but it is requesting - I don't

4 know to whom it is addressed - it's requesting further information about

5 this person. Am I understanding it correctly? That it doesn't purport

6 to be a final report but, rather, an initial document, initiating the

7 investigation.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So it says up here that as an

9 information request, request for information, or request for search. I

10 have to give you a broader explanation. Through several of these

11 documents concerning one and the same person, you will see, including the

12 form of the ICRC, sometime after the war, when the circumstances of

13 disappearance should already have been known, at least approximately, we

14 find there are different documents from periods before the war and after

15 the war, and as we go further away from the war we find more and more

16 information that is discrepant.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... now about

18 documents we haven't seen yet. I just wanted to know what this document

19 is. You've answered me. It requests information, it doesn't purport to

20 be a final report. We will see those other documents when we get to

21 them. But thank you so much for answering my question.

22 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed. And I don't know whether -- before

23 you proceed, if the other documents that are not headed like this that we

24 have not seen, are they also part of investigation or are they final

25 reports?

Page 36959

1 screen now. We need page --

2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 8, I think,

3 Mr. Lukic.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. This document should not be broadcasted

5 either.

6 Q. [Interpretation] On this page, we see the same first name, the

7 same last name, the same father's name, the same date of birth. We also

8 see that it is written that the 11th or 12th of July, 1995, related to

9 what happened in Srebrenica, is the date when the person disappeared.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need -- actually, we see the next

11 page. Page 2. The English version will do. Could we just have it

12 rotated, please.

13 Q. We see ICMP, the same information. The date is the 11th of July,

14 1995. What is written there is "Suma, contested."

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And then we need the next page.

16 Q. What is written here, on page 3 -- actually, it's page 10 of the

17 document: "Went missing in Grujicici. According to the ICRC log-book,

18 the date and place of disappearance is 12th of July, 1995, Potocari. The

19 missing person's wife reported that the son lived in Milino Selo," I'm

20 not going to read out the daughter's name. She went to America. "She

21 reported 1993 as the year of his disappearance."

22 Did you deal with this person, did you carry out checks for this

23 person?

24 A. I believe that there is another document related to this person.

25 Q. There is? Let us see the next page, please. Page 11 of this

Page 36960

1 document?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, while we're waiting for that, Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

4 JUDGE ORIE: You misquoted that daughter went to America. I

5 think the daughter said that he went to America, and apparently there is

6 a contradicting evidence.

7 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry. I stand corrected. You are right.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. We see the next page as well. The Federal Commission for Missing

11 Persons and this is a missing person's file. And it also says that the

12 12th of July, 1995 is the date when this person went missing. And let us

13 take a look at what we have before us now, that is the next page, and

14 that is a certificate of death, also, the 12th of July 1995. That is

15 recorded as the day, month, year of death.

16 A. That is --

17 Q. Let me ask you: Do you know how this happens? How death

18 certificates are issued involving these dates? How do courts function?

19 Where do people go for this? Could you please explain that.

20 A. There are many cases that we're going to look at today. The

21 family has the right, on the basis of the Law on Missing person of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the moment when the institute was established

23 and according to previous laws we also had a three-year deadline and that

24 is when persons could be declared missing. Having disappeared.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down because otherwise the

Page 36961

1 interpreters would miss some of your words.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So a family member is allowed to go

3 either to the place where the person had been born, in this case, I

4 think, it's Srebrenica, or Bratunac, and in the municipal court of their

5 new place of residence, a person can also be declared missing. We see

6 that there are major deviations here within the family itself concerning

7 the time of death and thereby the place and the circumstances involved.

8 However, irregardless of that, all -- we did not complete the

9 verification process. The municipal court issues, at the request of a

10 family member and you see there are differences among the family members,

11 the court issues a certificate of death on the basis of that, the place

12 of birth of the missing person. On the basis of this decision, of the

13 municipal court, this person is registered in the death register with the

14 date that is recorded in the decision of the municipal court.

15 So that date is questionable. I repeat once again: We were

16 given the authority, we were supposed to be the ones who were supposed to

17 do that. On the basis of which document this kind of thing is done, I

18 really don't know.

19 Now, irrespective of that -- well, it's -- it's a bit of a fait

20 accompli, isn't it? We are supposed to observe the decision of the court

21 regardless of how it was made, on the basis of a document that we are not

22 certain of, we are not certain that the information contained in that

23 document is correct.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we first looked at -- in private session,

25 about the conclusions in -- I think it was the ICMP report. There no one

Page 36962

1 says that this person has died. That person is still missing. So,

2 therefore, if there are any mistakes made here or if there's any

3 unreliable court decision that someone died on a certain date, that's not

4 what the Prosecution relied on.

5 Is it, Mr. Lukic? Because the evidence - and you read it out -

6 person still missing. So apparently those who have prepared the evidence

7 presented by the Prosecution by cross-referencing as was explained to us,

8 all the data could not conclude that this person died.

9 So if a court says different, what is the effect on the evidence

10 before us? And that's again and again the question, Mr. Lukic. The fact

11 that mistakes are made, fine. This Chamber is mainly interested to see

12 how these mistakes affect the reliability of the evidence presented by

13 the Prosecution, and in this specific case, whatever a court said, you

14 read to us the evidence as presented by the Prosecution, that is, this

15 person is still missing, not that he's dead, not how he died, not that he

16 is identified in any grave. That's where we are. And that's the core of

17 what the Chamber would very much like to see because it would affect the

18 reliability of the evidence presented before it until now.

19 MR. LUKIC: My job is to show you the differences in between the

20 documents and you can find it on page 10 of this document in regard of

21 the [Overlapping speakers] ...

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

23 MR. LUKIC: 1901.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I understand it your job to cast doubt - at least if

25 you think doubt should be casted - on evidence presented by the

Page 36963

1 Prosecution where the Prosecution wants us to draw certain conclusions.

2 The question is whether this documentation can challenge a document

3 presented by the evidence that the person is still missing.

4 Please proceed. Especially because you say that this document -

5 at least that is what the witness tell us - that it is unclear whether

6 the certificate of death is a reliable source of information for the

7 death of that person.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Misic, who in Bosnia-Herzegovina has the authority to

10 establish finally? Is it ICMP, is it ICRC, it your institute where you

11 work? Who has the authority to establish that?

12 A. On the basis of the Law on Missing persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

13 we are the ones who are supposed to establish. Of course, in some cases,

14 it is impossible to establish this exactly. However, what is

15 impermissible is to make a difference or a distinction in terms of years

16 and that is why certain documents, in our view, are lacking.

17 What am I trying to say? During the war, for one and the same

18 person, there is a document stated that he went missing in 1993 or in

19 1995 and then that is stated in 1997 and --

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I think you

21 have you answered the question with your first sentence.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us briefly take a look at P1901.

23 We're going back to the same document again. We need page 36 in that

24 document. The English version will do.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And that should not be broadcast, I think.

Page 36969

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Please, let's see once again 1D5388.

5 And we need page 90.

6 Q. In this document, first of all, we see the name, the same number,

7 BAZ-102629-01 same surname, same father's name, same date of birth.

8 Below, it is stated under circumstances of disappearance that he went

9 missing on the 11th or 12th July 1995, when the VRS took control of

10 Srebrenica.

11 The next page, the same number, same name, surname, father's name

12 and date of birth.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers] ... excuse me, I see under

15 circumstances a different date of disappearance.

16 MR. LUKIC: This is page 2.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're looking at this page that's here.

18 MR. LUKIC: Before we looking at page -- can we go back one page,

19 please. Can we go back one page, please. I was reading from this page.

20 It's page 90 in this document. Can we enlarge only English version,

21 please, the right one.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now this document is -- yes.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I'm not mistaken we didn't have that on the

24 screen. That's the first time we see it.

25 MR. LUKIC: I have it in paper [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 36970

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The problem if you refer to this [Overlapping

3 speakers] ...

4 MR. LUKIC: Now I'm aware of it. I apologise.

5 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Misic, in this document with the same

6 number from the ICRC, the same name, surname, same father's name and same

7 date of birth as in the document of the Prosecution, it says this person

8 disappeared on the 11th or 12th July, 1995, when the Army of

9 Republika Srpska occupied Srebrenica. If we can now look at the next

10 page, which is 91.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

12 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Let's be careful. Were we reading from

13 what page in the document?

14 MR. LUKIC: We were reading from the page 90.

15 JUDGE ORIE: 90. Then ...

16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: That's not page 90 in e-court. In e-court, it is

18 page 89, and let's just have a look. We are now looking at 89.

19 MR. LUKIC: I don't know why.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, because that's the page number it has in

21 e-court. I can't change that, so the why is -- and you, I think,

22 presented this.

23 Now, on page 90 - and perhaps we move to that one.

24 MR. LUKIC: The next one.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- the next one is also about the same person.

Page 36971

1 MR. LUKIC: Same person.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Same person but different content as far as the

3 circumstances are --

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- concerned. Okay. So we first looked not at page

6 90 but 89 and now we are looking at page 90, which, as far as we can see,

7 at first eye, is about the same person. And --

8 MR. LUKIC: It's the same number, the same last name, the same

9 name, the same father's name. The same date of birth. Only date and

10 place of disappearance is 8th of December, 1992. Also the document

11 issued by ICRC -- ICRC.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And these are documents from different dates.

13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: One is from May 1996, that's page 89. 13th of May.

15 And page 90, is --

16 MR. LUKIC: February --

17 JUDGE ORIE: February 1996.

18 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

19 JUDGE ORIE: So apparently the information in February 1996 was

20 different from the information or at least the basis on which they asked

21 for further information in February 1996 was different from a similar

22 document requesting further information as was made in May 1996.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's where we are.

25 Please move on.

Page 36972

1 MR. LUKIC: We need -- thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. LUKIC: We need the next page. If we check the top of the

4 page, we would see the same number, identification number, which is

5 BAZ-102629-01 --

6 JUDGE ORIE: No -- no speaking aloud.

7 MR. LUKIC: Can we have B/C/S version on the left-hand side,

8 please. Page 91 in B/C/S, please.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have the B/C/S. No, it's not correct.

10 MR. LUKIC: Page 91, please. You go two pages ahead. Yes,

11 that's it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Lukic, perhaps you clarify with the

13 witness, this is section 2, information on disappearance. Now we have

14 two previous pages for -- requests for further information. Is this an

15 annex to which one or is it not an annex at all? It's section 2 of what

16 kind of document?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's part of a report. It's a

18 so-called during life case file with information taken about the person,

19 the status of the person, in the antemortem database and it's about the

20 same person. It's something that will help with the final

21 identification.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... who drafted this

23 document, which is now on our screen?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person who filled in a report

25 on a missing person. It should be a clerk of the ICRC.

Page 36973

1 JUDGE ORIE: So it stems from the ICRC, you're telling us. Could

2 you tell us what date this has been drafted? Because we have two dates

3 for requests for information, and I wonder whether this stems from

4 February 1996 or May 1996 or any other date. Could you tell us when this

5 was drafted?

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't tell you that because

8 we can't see that from the document.

9 JUDGE ORIE: So we do not know from what time this document

10 stems.

11 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. We see from the document itself, on the right-hand side, the

14 largest piece of text says he set out from Tuzla on 10 December 1992,

15 together with a medical team, towards Srebrenica. He was arrested along

16 with the whole team at Ruzina Voda and taken to Susica camp. No

17 information since then.

18 So in this second document, Ruzina Voda is mentioned and the date

19 and place of disappearance we see 12 December, 1992 at Ruzina Voda.

20 A. It says 10 December.

21 Q. Yes, but in the previous document, it was 8 December.

22 Now the next document comes from the ICMP.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page in the same

24 document, page 92; only in English.

25 Q. We see that on the list of missing persons, under the same name

Page 36974

1 and surname and father's name, the date of disappearance is 11 July 1995

2 in Potocari.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now let's look at the next page.

4 Q. This is the case file of the missing person at the Federal

5 Commission for Missing Persons. We read here that this man,

6 corresponding to the same information went missing on 13 July 1995.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And let's look at the next document,

8 an excerpt from the register of deaths.

9 Q. The date, month, and year of death are recorded as 12 July 1995.

10 Did you work on this case, if you remember?

11 A. It's questionable. You see this document from the register of

12 deaths, it was issued in Srebrenica municipality, and it was drafted -

13 look at the notes - it's a subsequent entry.

14 Q. It was made based on a final decision of the basic court.

15 A. I can't read exactly but it is not in Srebrenica. It was

16 probably entered at the place where the family filed the request to

17 declare this person dead. So I stress the facts had not been established

18 and the time and place and circumstances of his disappearance had not

19 been established for a fact at the time when the judge issued this

20 decision and a corresponding entry was made in the register of deaths.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we should like to tender

23 this document, to be marked for identification, because, at this moment,

24 we don't have a complete translation.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assign a number to start

Page 36975

1 with, and then we'll hear from Mr. Jeremy whether there are any

2 objections.

3 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D1098 under seal.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.

5 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I would say firstly that the document

6 relates to I think to 17 different people, only a few of which we've

7 actually discussed in court so I would query the relevance of the

8 additional -- of the addition of information relating to persons we

9 haven't discussed being included.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could we ask, Mr. Lukic, may I take it that

11 it's your intention that the Chamber looks at similar differences, and

12 then sees whether those differences have any relevant because that's, I

13 think what you tried to establish, that the -- I wouldn't even say

14 inconsistencies but at least the different dates of disappearance or

15 whatever, if there are any differences, that we look at that and consider

16 for ourselves what those differences, also in relation to the persons we

17 have not dealt with, what those mean for the entirety of the evidence.

18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, exactly, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, it often happened that the Prosecution

20 took a series of documents and said we have gone through three, four, or

21 five and the rest is similar.

22 Any objection?

23 MR. JEREMY: No objection to that exercise and if I can add, a

24 number of these documents don't have a date, they don't have a heading,

25 so in terms of provenance information perhaps if would be helpful for the

Page 36976

1 witness -- to provide a little additional details on -- on where all

2 these documents actually came from.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, for some of the type of the documents he has

4 answered those questions. For some of the dates he was unable to give

5 answers, but I leave it in Mr. Lukic's hands whether he wants to elicit

6 more information, being aware now that for some of them it's set, and for

7 some of them we have open questions.

8 Mr. Jeremy, no objections.

9 Mr. Registrar, therefore, the number -- the document is marked

10 for identification, under seal, because it deals with individuals that

11 should not be exposed to public eyes. And you'll tell us once the

12 translation has been updated for those portions of the document which are

13 not bilingual.

14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Misic, we see -- actually, you have heard what my colleague,

18 the Prosecutor, is concerned about regarding certain documents where we

19 cannot see the date. There are some comments and there are some excerpts

20 from the ICMP.

21 How did the Defence obtain these documents?

22 A. When the process of verification started, when I came to the

23 position that I hold now, I tried to observe the rules and to look at the

24 entire documentation before verifying the case of a particular person.

25 And then the offices sent us documentation at our request, so these are

Page 36977

1 documents that are from the institute. Since I cautioned institutions in

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina several times and the co-founders, that is to say the

3 ICMP, and the council of ministers, namely, that the process of

4 verification is not evolving in accordance with what I spoke about

5 yesterday. I looked at certain documents and I sent these documents

6 asking the government of Republika Srpska as one of the co-founders of

7 the institute or, rather, they gave agreement to have the institute

8 established through the centre for studying war crimes, I sent these

9 documents to them showing that something cannot be verified or considered

10 to be verified until the procedure has been fully observed, that is to

11 say the Law on Missing persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In several places

12 in Bosnia-Herzegovina I submitted these documents and I tried to prove

13 through these documents that something should be done from that level of

14 government as well. I assume that you received this through the centre

15 for investigating war crimes and some documents are absolutely known and

16 some I have forgotten a bit, but I think that basically that would be

17 that.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, the witness has talked about third of a

19 page. The answer to your question is in the last sentence, and that

20 answer is an assumption. The rest doesn't deal with the question you

21 raised. You realise that?

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. This documentation -- this document, Mr. Misic, could it be found

24 in the institute for missing persons?

25 A. This entire documentation is from the institute. That is to say,

Page 36978

1 it exists in the institute. Each and every one of these documents was

2 received in the central records of missing persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The first question how the Defence obtained it

5 is a question the Defence could answer itself. Mr. Lukic, tell us where

6 you got it from as we often asked parties where does it come from how did

7 you get.

8 MR. LUKIC: We get it from the office for investigation of war

9 crimes in Republika Srpska. I thought maybe the witness knows that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... But you know best.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

12 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

13 MR. LUKIC: He explained his step that he provided to that

14 office. And we obtained it from that office.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Who made the selection? I mean, you obtained

16 it. Did you spontaneously get it or did you ask for it?

17 MR. LUKIC: It wasn't me who made the selection. We asked them

18 to provide us with the files, with the documents they have in their

19 possession. How many they have and how many they provided to us, I

20 cannot tell you now.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you. Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: It was pretty open request.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

25 Q. [Interpretation] We don't have much time left. Let us now take a

Page 36979

1 look at 1D5448. We do not have a translation for these. These are

2 guide-lines for the work of the commission for verifying information from

3 the central records of missing persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The date

4 is the 27th of May, 2010.

5 Was this document in force when you came to the position that you

6 hold today?

7 A. Yes, this is the first version of these guide-lines and they were

8 in force until I arrived.

9 Q. Can we now look at 1D5447. While we're waiting for the document,

10 could you just explain to us what was wrong with the document that is

11 before us right now and what you did about it.

12 A. Well, this is what it's all about. These guide-lines violated

13 the rules and the law. That is to say, verification was carried out with

14 less information than the minimum requirement according to law. And also

15 it was carried out on the basis of documentation that is not referred to

16 in the rules and the law.

17 Q. We have before us a cleared text, a final version for the

18 guide-lines of the work of the commission of verification of information

19 from the central records of the institute for missing persons of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Only in the B/C/S.

22 MR. LUKIC: Do we have the same number 1D5447 in B/C/S in front

23 of us?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the two documents and the two versions as

25 uploaded into e-court are as we see them on the screen. So apparently

Page 36980

1 someone linked two documents which do not belong together. But perhaps

2 we could see -- no, let's see. The -- the original document exists of

3 six pages, whereas, the English version exists of only --

4 MR. LUKIC: It is different document. I can see both of them.

5 It is completely different document on the right-hand side than English

6 version.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then please -- we should have only the B/C/S on

9 the screen and you may proceed.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's proceed on the basis and try to find the

11 translation, Mr. Lukic, and then upload the right translation, attach it

12 to this document. And I take it that the Prosecution will have a look at

13 whether this document is --

14 MR. LUKIC: Can my colleague leave the court so she can arrange

15 that translation?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Meanwhile, we'll proceed.

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Misic, do tell us what you did and what was

19 changed in this version as compared to the previous one.

20 A. As briefly as possible, this is the version that ensures the

21 minimum requirement as stipulated in the law. And also the records

22 concerning missing persons that were kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that

23 are being kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is to say, we should verify

24 what we have in these records and that had not been done until then.

25 Q. Part of these guide-lines, is it also a conclusion?

Page 36981

1 A. Yes. The record of the commission and the conclusion are part of

2 the work of the verification commission that is based on the following.

3 When the commission finishes on the basis of these guide-lines, they

4 compile a record and then it is supposed to reach a conclusion. However,

5 for a variety of reason, conclusions are not being made yet.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D5449 now.

8 Q. Is that the conclusion that you spoke about?

9 A. Precisely.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, is it the same document, Mr. Lukic, I see

12 the emblem on the top is different, and I don't see on the right

13 document, the writing that is written next to the emblem on the left.

14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's just the translators probably were not

15 able to put that emblem on the right-hand side but the translation is as

16 can you see even on the left-hand side there is a text, missing persons

17 institute.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

19 MR. LUKIC: Can we see 1D5438 now, please.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do so.

21 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Sorry.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: This document in both versions has not been

23 filled. How do we get to the conclusion when we don't know when the

24 meeting of the verification was held, who signed it? It is just a form.

25 MR. LUKIC: It's just a form.

Page 36982

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

2 MR. LUKIC: This gentleman told us that that process has not been

3 started yet.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

5 MR. LUKIC: So now if we can get 1D5438, please.

6 Q. [Interpretation] We see before us a document. Could you please

7 tell us what it is about.

8 A. This is a report of the head of sector, and he indicates to us

9 certain problems in the process of verification, and he is asking us to

10 redress that. I don't know what this document exactly refers to. It's

11 probably lack of personnel or due to certain technical problems, the work

12 of the commission has been slowed down, or maybe there is a lack of

13 certain documents.

14 Q. Can we look at the next page now, please.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please don't touch the screen.

16 MR. LUKIC: But the witness touched the screen so, please, if the

17 page can be fixed. Okay.

18 And can we see the last page, please.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Who is Mr. Simun Novakovic, that is to say, the

20 person who signed this document?

21 A. Simun Novakovic is the chief of sector of the central records of

22 missing persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that is one of the sectors in

23 the institute for missing persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24 Q. We see that August 2010 is the date of the document and

25 Mr. Novakovic is indicating certain shortcomings. Could you just tell us

Page 36983

1 what Mr. Simun Novakovic's ethnic background is?

2 A. He belongs to the Croat people.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now take a look at 1D5439,

5 please.

6 Q. Are you familiar with this document?

7 A. Yes, this is also a report of the chief of sector, and it is from

8 the month of July 2010.

9 Q. Again, this is Mr. Simun Novakovic?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. What is the system of decision-making in your institute?

12 A. At all levels, where a commission operates, the system is by

13 consensus. In this case, for the verification commission, there is

14 supposed to be consensus on the part of all three members of the

15 commission or, if they are speaking about the collegium, then all three

16 members of the collegium have to reach consensus.

17 Q. I would just like to show you the law now, the Law on Missing

18 Persons. We've already looked at it. It is -- I didn't write down the D

19 number but it was 1D5450.

20 [In English] From ...

21 [Defence counsel confer]

22 MR. LUKIC: Actually, we need D1094. This one has translation.

23 I apologise.

24 We need page 3, paragraph 5. I think in both versions. No.

25 Next page, sorry. Page 4. Obviously I had a different version.

Page 36987

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Let's clear up one thing that may not be quite clear.

7 How many persons have been verified so far, contrary to the law?

8 A. It's 10.100 to 10.200.

9 Q. And how many persons have been properly verified?

10 A. Around 7.000.

11 Q. Does this finalize the process of verification?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Has the procedure been finalized for these irregularly verified

14 10.100 or 10.200?

15 A. Well, because they are irregular, it can't be finalised.

16 Q. What needs to be done?

17 A. To restart the process of verification, according to legal

18 procedures, the way it was prescribed.

19 Q. These 10.100 or 10.200, what do they have in common? Why were

20 they processed in the way they were? What's the common denominator

21 between them?

22 A. Well, there are two main common denominators. First of all, they

23 were verified only based on the minutes on identification. And, second,

24 for the most part, it's mainly persons from the PIP who were verified at

25 that stage, the Identification Project of Podrinje. And as the reports

Page 36988

1 were coming in, these persons were verified.

2 Q. Among this number of people who were verified in that way, are

3 any related to the events in Srebrenica 95?

4 A. I believe they form the majority. I mean, I don't believe; I

5 know that.

6 Q. In total, after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, how many persons

7 were reported missing?

8 A. According to the records received at the institute, around 34.000

9 names were registered. By integrating these databases, we came to a

10 clearer number, arriving at a total of around 32.000.

11 Q. Were there any cases where people were recorded as missing,

12 whereas, in reality, they were dead?

13 A. Certainly.

14 Q. What can be done in such cases? Tell me.

15 A. Unfortunately, nothing.

16 Q. Why?

17 A. Well, you've seen a minute ago, there could be perfectly fair

18 reasons. A person died, it wasn't known, et cetera. However, based on

19 certain reports that had not undergone our process, courts had, in some

20 cases, already issued their decisions and entered these persons into the

21 registers of death, and, thus, it was set in stone, so to speak.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But I'm trying to understand this in view of the --

23 one of the earlier questions. Were there any cases where people were

24 recorded as missing whereas, in reality, they were dead?

25 Were you thinking, Mr. Lukic, in terms, in reality, of the

Page 36989

1 administrative reality, that is, that they were declared dead or you were

2 referring to a reality that means, physically, they were established as

3 having died? Which of the two are we talking about?

4 MR. LUKIC: I think my question was they were considered to be

5 missing and actually they died.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Died physically.

7 MR. LUKIC: They died physically. Not killed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you are killed you die as well.

9 MR. LUKIC: Yeah but [Overlapping speakers] ...

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... not living anymore.

11 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S, when you say [B/C/S spoken], this is

12 considered that somebody died of illness or natural causes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I want to know exactly what this evidence now

14 is about and perhaps could you --

15 MR. LUKIC: Okay --

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- take it up again so that no unclarity remains.

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: But Judge Fluegge suggests that you would do that

19 after the break.

20 MR. LUKIC: Okay.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I will follow him.

22 Mr. Misic, we'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20

23 minutes.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

Page 36990

1 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the -- Mr. Tieger, you're on your feet. I was

4 about to ask the usher to escort the witness into the courtroom. How

5 would -- how much time would you need to address us.

6 MR. TIEGER: It's about one minute, I expect two minutes maybe.

7 It doesn't need to be done now if the Court is concerned but I can

8 probably do it with the [Overlapping speakers] ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... meanwhile the witness.

10 MR. TIEGER: It concerns the next witness, Mr. President,

11 Mr. Tusevljak and a scheduling issue that doesn't affect this week's

12 discussed but does have implications for further scheduling.

13 In connection with his proposed upcoming testimony the Defence

14 propose to use a 248-page document which unfortunately, through

15 administrative oversight that I know from discussions surprised even

16 Mr. Lukic, was only provided to the Prosecution Monday afternoon and with

17 no translation. Mr. Lukic agrees that under these circumstances it

18 precludes the use of the document with the witness at this time. And he

19 has advised of his intention to have the witness return to address the

20 document in due course and no earlier than 20 days after the

21 interpretation -- English translation of the document is received and has

22 been provided to the Prosecution. We have no objection to that approach.

23 I bring it to the attention the Court because we don't regard

24 such matters as being only party matters although I imagine that this

25 will meet with the Court's approval, particularly since it's highly

Page 36991

1 unlikely that the witness would conclude his testimony this week in any

2 event and would therefore have to return at a later time.

3 [The witness takes the stand]

4 MR. TIEGER: I also note that the Prosecution has expressed some

5 relevance and provenance concerns about the document but consider that

6 those should be best deferred until the translation has been received and

7 since this document ostensibly concerns Serb deaths in -- civilian deaths

8 in Sarajevo and the parties are moving increasingly close to the

9 agreement the Court asked us to pursue about the minimum, at least the

10 minimum number of Serb civilians killed in Sarajevo, it may be the case

11 that this issue is largely resolved before the witness would need to

12 return in any event.

13 That's what I wanted to advise the Court.

14 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the ongoing conversations between the

15 parties and the partly solution of the problem, the Chamber, at this

16 moment, I think, but I'm looking at my colleagues, would not intervene,

17 and just accept the commonly shared way of proceeding.

18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I just wanted to ask my

19 colleague, if they want Mr. Sasa Lukic to work in direct examination on

20 the document so they are completely prepared for cross later on or they

21 want not to have the direct examination regarding that document either.

22 MR. TIEGER: I appreciate the inquiry -- I would ask the attorney

23 handling the witness about that. I think there are pros and cons either

24 way but I grateful appreciate the inquiry and I'll get back to Mr. Lukic

25 shortly.

Page 36992

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at this moment the Chamber sees no reason to

2 intervene and it's most likely will also accept what you have agreed upon

3 in this respect.

4 Then if that was it, Mr. Tieger --

5 Mr. Misic, apologies for ignoring you entering the courtroom and

6 continuing with some administrative matters, but Mr. Lukic will now pay

7 further attention to your knowledge.

8 Please proceed.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 I know that I'm close or I already used my time.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I think you did already --

12 MR. LUKIC: I will ask you for additional -- probably half an

13 hour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber is -- if you could try to keep it

15 as short as possible, the Chamber is aware that it intervenes very often.

16 At the same time, it cannot be said that the way in which the evidence

17 was presented and the absence of some documents, et cetera, has not

18 contributed to the frequency of those interventions.

19 Please proceed.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Misic, do you personally insist on finding

22 out the reasons for disappearance?

23 A. Of course, that's our legal obligation. Not the reasons but the

24 cause of disappearance.

25 Q. What are the reasons why you insist on establishing the cause of

Page 36993

1 disappearance?

2 A. First of all, in order for the search to be successful it's

3 logical to start from where the person went missing, when, and under what

4 circumstances. If the central records, that is to say, the verification

5 had the purpose of establishing the causes of disappearance, the only way

6 is to start from these three questions. That's one.

7 And the second. How can we contribute to finding out the truth

8 for the sake of the family? To stop with manipulating these three pieces

9 of information. Until each person has a complete case file so that it's

10 no longer a missing person but a person who was once alive, who had a

11 certain course of life, and to close the file so that nobody can

12 manipulate where the facts about that person. If we cannot achieve that,

13 then we shouldn't exist in the first place.

14 Q. What, in fact, do you verify?

15 A. We verify the general details about the person and we

16 determine -- I mean, the commission determines the time, place, and

17 circumstances of disappearance. But before that, we have to determine

18 beyond any dispute that this person was once alive, that he or she was a

19 national of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that they really went missing, and then

20 the rest that I mentioned.

21 Q. In your work, did you deal with the ICMP database?

22 A. The ICMP is one of the databases that were incorporated into the

23 database of missing persons. It's very useful, but it's also incomplete

24 and it contains inaccuracies, errors, substantial errors, and another

25 reason why we had to deal with it is that we - I mean, the commission,

Page 36994

1 although they began with it even before I joined the commission - we took

2 over the ICMP database as a basis for creating our base of verified data,

3 and we frequently come across situations when you incorporate unverified

4 or inaccurate information, and all we end up with is what the ICMP has

5 managed to find out, and we have no real circumstances or dates of

6 disappearance, for instance.

7 Q. Is there a document that prescribes how the process of

8 verification should proceed?

9 A. We have three documents. First of all, the missing persons law;

10 then the rules on the verification of central records; and, third, the

11 guide-lines adopted by the collegium for the work of verification

12 commissions.

13 MR. LUKIC: Can we see 1D5442, please.

14 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for it, if you find any error in

15 the ICMP database, do you report that and together with the reasons why

16 you think that it's an error to the ICMP?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Any base can have mistakes and it

18 does.

19 JUDGE ORIE: That's the beginning of my question. That's taken.

20 Do you report any error you find in the ICMP database to the ICMP so that

21 they can consider to possibly correct -- you don't do that.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you. You've answered my question.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask a question also.

25 Sir, in your previous answer this is page 52, lines 11 to the end

Page 36995

1 you say: "We took over the ICMP database as a basis of creating our base

2 of verified data, and we frequently come across situations where you

3 incorporate unverified or inaccurate information and all we end up with

4 is what the ICMP has managed to find out and we have no real

5 circumstances or dates of disappearance, for instance."

6 Now if the ICMP is taken as the basis for your data and you get

7 to a situation where you have no real circumstances or dates does it then

8 mean, in fact, that your own data, therefore, is as incomplete as the

9 ICMP is incomplete?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our base cannot be incomplete.

11 That is to say, if we enter data about a particular person, what is

12 verified was verified. What exists in the base and has not been verified

13 does not exist for us until the verification commission establishes what

14 the situation is.

15 So if there is a discrepancy or if something cannot be proven

16 then that person is registered as unverified and is removed from the base

17 actually not physically removed from the base but not verified. So that

18 is the base. I don't know if I'm being clear. So.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... clear to me.

20 Are you saying that the data you get from ICMP that ICMP purports that

21 that data is verified? Or is it just a missing person who must still be

22 investigated? What data do you get from ICMP?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The ICMP does not have a verified

24 base. It's a working base, just like all other bases so there is no

25 verified ICMP base.

Page 36996

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm asking

2 you about and therefore because they don't have a verified data and you

3 use their data as the base and it is incomplete and if you don't have any

4 other sources of information then your data is logically going to be

5 incomplete. Am I right? Unless you're telling me that you get data from

6 elsewhere to supplement the ICMP one.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When Mr. Lukic asked whether I

8 dealt with the ICMP base earlier on I have to explain this. Our register

9 of verified persons is entered into the work base of the ICMP. Now if

10 our verification commission does not enter into that base all the

11 necessary information, and does not verify all the information, then one

12 gets a false picture, a false impression. For example, for the first

13 10.000 persons, only the name, surname and -- have been verified and --

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... you are not

15 answering my question, so let's leave it at that. I think we are at

16 cross-purposes; we probably don't understand each other.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Mr. Misic, just tell us, I don't think that you answered this

20 question actually. What are the sources on the basis of which you work.

21 Is that only the ICMP base?

22 A. We have the so-called four primary bases but then there is all

23 this other knowledge and all these other records that we may obtain. To

24 this day, it is possible to give a new base to our centre and that can be

25 use, for verification. So first of all is information that was received

Page 36997

1 from the ICRC so it's the Red Cross base. Then the base of the Federal

2 Commission for Missing Persons. Then the base of the commission for

3 Republika Srpska for missing persons and then the fourth one is the ICMP

4 base. So these are the so-called four primary bases and they are the

5 foundation for cross-referencing data in order to establish what the law

6 requires to be established for missing persons.

7 Q. Apart from these four, you say there are other sources as well.

8 Do give us some examples, briefly outside these four bases. What are

9 your other sources of information and knowledge?

10 A. Wherever there is any kind of discrepancy, we have to look at

11 official records from other institutions, from birth registers, death

12 registers, and so on. So this is information about persons in different

13 institutions. Then, also, it is possible, and I've already said that

14 this is also obligatory, to check whether the person had been registered

15 before the war and in what status it is today. For example, if a person

16 asked for a document from the war, then that person has to be alive.

17 Then also there are voters' registers from the previous period and then

18 there are also records that --

19 Q. Did you say a document from the war or after the war?

20 A. Documents that --

21 Q. Do they obtain documents after the war or before the war and then

22 you say that if somebody got a document during the war, then they must be

23 alive after the war.

24 A. No. I meant if a person was getting a personal ID after 1996

25 that means that that person is alive and, for example, that person is

Page 36998

1 registered as missing in our lists.

2 Q. What is relevant for the rules of procedure for the commission of

3 verification of information?

4 A. This procedure, to prepare all documents so that this

5 documentation is checked, as I've already explained, that all three

6 members of the commission should reach agreement that that is that, and

7 then the legal minimum should be established about that person, and then,

8 later on, a conclusion will be drawn.

9 Q. We see that that commission is part of your institute; right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Just briefly, let us take look at document 1D5453, please.

12 Could you please tell us what kind of document this is.

13 A. Well, this is a document from 2013 that I wrote because, as I've

14 already said -- well, I sent it to the International Criminal Tribunal

15 for the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, Netherlands. I wrote it, as I

16 mentioned a moment ago that there is this parallel institute where my

17 colleague Masovic is then there is documentation there and I don't know

18 about it, and as a rule, we make all our documents in three copies and

19 all members of the commission have to receive it. Then also if there is

20 a inquiry then that should be sent to the headquarters of the institute

21 and I provide the address there and it shouldn't be sent just to my

22 colleague Mr. Masovic's office. I saw that there was documentation that

23 was not reaching the headquarters of the institute. And then the

24 institute was responding to that documentation and that's not proper, you

25 see. It is impossible for any of the three of us to receive documents

Page 36999

1 without going through the required protocol, and no one can write a reply

2 without giving the draft to the other two colleagues. However, sometimes

3 this procedure was not followed. And that's why I wrote. Because I

4 found out that some documentation was reaching the wrong address.

5 Q. You say impossible. Well, obviously it's possible but is that

6 right?

7 A. Well, yes, it's possible, but it is not right, precisely.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D5436, could we briefly take a look

9 at that as well.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- apparently then documentation was sent, not

11 in the proper way by one of the members of the board. Do we know whether

12 that was in any way used? Because it only is relevant if that

13 information is both wrong and, second, then, though being wrong, being

14 used.

15 MR. LUKIC: It's the next document, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: It's the next document.

17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Jeremy.

19 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, yesterday I indicated to you that 193

20 missing persons certificates were used as a source in Ewa Tabeau's

21 municipalities proof of death report so of the certificates that were

22 sent to us, 193 of those were referenced in her report and there are an

23 additional 30 certificates that have been bar tabled and that's the

24 entirety of the certificates relied on pursuant to the correspondence

25 referred to here.

Page 37000

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which then, of course, makes it very relevant

2 to know whether these were properly verified or not properly verified

3 cases.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. JEREMY: Just to add, as I said yesterday, they were never

6 used as a single source in Ms. Tabeau's report.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] What we have before us is the first page of

10 three that I have in this set under this number, Dr. Simun Novakovic, a

11 Ph.D. holder, is writing to you.

12 A. May I repeat once again. I don't know how many documents like

13 this were written and how many requests of this kind were sent. This one

14 I came across by accident.

15 Documents had to be done in the central records of the institute,

16 and it is only within the sector's purview to prepare such documents.

17 However, if the chief of sector says that something was not done in the

18 sector, then the sector does not stand by that and how can I stand by

19 that then? I cannot say that the information there is untrue but,

20 unfortunately, that is the procedure. I don't know what was sent, what

21 was not sent. I cannot stand by such a document. The chief of sector

22 cannot stand by such a document. It's an illegal document.

23 MR. LUKIC: Can we see the next page, please.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, is there any way for you to find out

25 knowing this name, whether that was one certificate used.

Page 37001

1 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. That was one of the certificates

2 used and my understanding is that on the basis of the sources of which

3 this was one, Ms. Tabeau's conclusion was inconclusive.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Inconclusive, so it is not in way supporting the

5 Prosecution's case, in relation to this person.

6 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And I don't know if we have to go through all this.

11 Apparently --

12 MR. LUKIC: It's the last document.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. We see --

16 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... document.

17 Q. [Interpretation] We're not going to mention the name. We see

18 here the certificate is issued for the purpose of regulating, et cetera,

19 and it is for the case of General Ratko Mladic.

20 A. Well, the chief of sector disassociated himself from this

21 document -- I mean, from such documents, whether this was processed at

22 the CEN or not he is saying that it wasn't. So I'm not going to speak

23 about the content of the certificate whether it is correct or not correct

24 but it is illegal.

25 Q. Let us briefly look at the last page.

Page 37002

1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, could you tell us whether you

2 recognise the signature on this document?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is the signature of my

4 colleague, Amor Masovic, and the stamp is the stamp of our institute for

5 missing persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you've never seen the request referred to,

7 the request by the Office of the Prosecution? You've never seen that?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such a request never arrived to us.

9 I mean, I don't know about the other people, but I'm a third member of

10 the collegium, and I never saw this. I never received this. I never saw

11 the reply to that request. How do I put this? I just happened to come

12 across this by accident.

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the simple

14 answer is no.

15 Please proceed.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

17 Q. [Interpretation] In the course of your work, did you receive

18 requests from the Tribunal to have documentation provided to them in

19 relation to missing persons?

20 A. During my term, no.

21 Q. Do you believe that you would have had to see and sign whatever

22 was sent from the institute?

23 A. That's the way it should be, according to our rules and

24 regulations.

25 Q. Mr. Misic, I've already gone beyond the time allocated to me, and

Page 37003

1 I would like to thank you now for having answered our questions.

2 A. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

4 Mr. Misic, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jeremy. You find

5 Mr. Jeremy to your right. Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution.

6 MR. LUKIC: I apologise. Before my learned friend starts I would

7 just tender the documents I used or to have them MFI'd if not translated.

8 I can go through the list if it's a good idea to do it now or I can do it

9 at the end of the cross-examination.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do it now.

11 MR. LUKIC: Or maybe produce the list for the registrar.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that would be the best.

13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if would you please do that, then Mr. Jeremy

15 can start his cross-examination.

16 Mr. Jeremy.

17 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Jeremy:

19 Q. And good afternoon, Mr. Misic.

20 A. [No interpretation]

21 Q. I'd like to begin by exploring your military background in a

22 little bit more detail than has been explored. So you already mentioned

23 you completed the Military Academy of Land Forces in Belgrade and that

24 your specialty is in infantry. Now, in addition to those details, you

25 were a brigade commander during the war, yes?

Page 37004

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. And, specifically, you were the commander of the 2nd Ozren

3 Brigade; is that right?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And you held this position for the duration of the war; is that

6 correct?

7 A. For the most part.

8 Q. What was the -- what was the date that you left that position?

9 A. I was seriously wounded on 19 May 1995, and from that time on, I

10 was no longer a brigade commander but in September or the beginning of

11 October, I was still engaged in the Ozren sector but no longer as a

12 brigade commander.

13 Q. So I understand that you were out of theatre between the 19th of

14 May, 1995 and September 1995; is that correct?

15 A. Several times I had to get involved personally for moral support

16 on the front lines, and I did appear on the front line but not as brigade

17 commander.

18 Q. Okay. And what was the highest rank that you achieved during the

19 war period?

20 A. During the war, I was promoted only once, in 1994, from captain

21 first class to major. And after the war, I was promoted into

22 lieutenant-colonel before I retired.

23 Q. And before you joined the VRS, you were in the JNA; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Correct.

Page 37005

1 Q. And where were you based and what was your position in the JNA?

2 A. In the JNA, from 1980 to 1992, I occupied several positions, from

3 commanding officer, to instructor at the centre of the land forces in

4 Sarajevo. Mainly in the school for Land Forces. The Marsal Tito

5 barracks in Sarajevo.

6 Q. Now, you were -- you were formally transferred to the VRS from

7 the JNA pursuant a specific request from General Mladic; is that correct?

8 A. I don't know if it was pursuant to a request. I just happened to

9 be in Bosnia-Herzegovina when the war began, and I accepted the duties

10 given me and, at that time, I wasn't even thinking about the staffing

11 issues.

12 MR. JEREMY: Could we please take a look at P4970, please.

13 Q. Sir, we'll look at this document briefly but we see that this is

14 document from the Main Staff of the Army of the Serbian Republic of BH.

15 It's dated the 31st of May, 1992. It's sent to the Federal Secretariat

16 of National Defence, and we read below that a reference to a decision of

17 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Presidency, and it goes on to request

18 that active servicemen are urgently sent as follows.

19 MR. JEREMY: And if we can go to the second page of this

20 document, please. Sorry, the third page in English and the second page

21 in B/C/S.

22 Q. And, sir, looking at point e, to the Eastern Bosnia Corps

23 Bijeljina, number 2, we see a reference to Milutin Misic; Branko. That's

24 a reference to you; correct?

25 A. Correct.

Page 37006

1 Q. And I note on the bottom of the page we see General Mladic's name

2 and the document seems to have been signed on his behalf.

3 Now in reviewing General Mladic's military notebook during the

4 war period I noticed a number of references to you. Just approximately

5 how many times did you meet General Mladic or were you present at

6 meetings at which General Mladic was also present during the war period?

7 A. I first saw General Mladic at the Lukavica barracks in the

8 beginning of June 1992 when we, who had been under siege in the barracks,

9 that is to say, the military training grounds in Pazaric, were liberated,

10 thanks to General Mladic. After leaving Pazaric, we passed through the

11 Lukavica barracks, and I stayed behind that column of troops. They

12 continued on, and I stayed at Lukavica where I first met General Mladic.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You're giving all kind of details which you were not

14 asked for. The only thing you were asked to tell us is approximately how

15 many times did you meet General Mladic.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Four or five times, between 1992

17 and 1995.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And that includes meetings where he was present and

19 you were present.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

22 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Q. So moving to the 2nd Ozren Brigade, the brigade in which you were

24 the commander of, initially that was part of the Eastern Bosnia Corps,

25 and from July 1992, it became part of the Ozren Tactical Group within the

Page 37007

1 1st Krajina Corps; is that correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And your brigade's area of responsibility included locations on

4 Mount Ozren; is that correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Now in, 1995, your commander and the commander of the

7 Ozren Tactical Group was Lieutenant-Colonel Novak Djukic; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 MR. JEREMY: Could we take a look at 65 ter 32618, please.

11 If we could zoom in to the top of the page, which is not very

12 legible in the B/C/S.

13 Q. So, sir -- it's not very clear but it's become a little bit

14 clearer. We see this a document from the command of the Ozren

15 Tactical Group. It's dated the 21st of January, 1995, and we see that

16 it's a list of professional servicemen in the Ozren Tactical Group.

17 And if we go to the second page in each document, please.

18 And, sir, we see a reference to a Milutin Misic, major, at number

19 15. Is that a reference to yourself?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And we see that this document is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel

22 Novak Djukic.

23 Now, sir, a few months later in this year, in 1995, specifically

24 on the 25th of May, 1995, Tuzla market-place was shelled from a location

25 on Mount Ozren. And on April 2014, this man, Commander Novak Djukic was

Page 37008

1 convicted by the Bosnian State Court for this event. Are you aware of

2 that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do I understand from your earlier answer that on the 25th of

5 May, 1995 you were -- you were not in theatre. You had been injured?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Despite the fact you were not there, were you nevertheless

8 aware --

9 A. Excuse me, just let's repeat the dates. Which date in May are

10 you asking about?

11 Q. I'm ask you about the 25th of May, 1995.

12 A. I can't remember, I think it was on 19 May that I was wounded, so

13 it's possible that on 25 May I was still there, that I was not yet on

14 sick-leave.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier you testified that you were wounded on the

16 19th of May, so --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 19 May, correct. So on 25 May, if

18 I understood the Prosecutor correctly, he's asking me if I was in the

19 area. I was. Whether I was absent during those precise days, it's

20 possible, but I was still in -- in the area. I don't think I had been

21 wounded at that time yet.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

23 MR. JEREMY:

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... quite a significant event

25 and killing 71 people, according to the BH Court judgement, do you

Page 37009

1 remember the particular event occurring?

2 A. I found out about the specific event after the combat was over.

3 Before I was wounded, I didn't know about it. I learned about it when

4 people started talking about it publicly and when the indictments came.

5 That was not during the war. That was later, when I was probably already

6 retired.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please seek clarification. From what I

8 understand, the witness says, on the one hand he was wounded on the 19th

9 of May and at another moment he says that on 25th of May he was not yet

10 wounded, which is difficult for me to reconcile.

11 Witness, have you heard my observation?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I can't be certain

13 whether I was wounded on the 19th or the 25th of May. That's what's

14 confusing me a little. Perhaps there's a document about it that we could

15 look up. I know it sounds funny, but I can't be sure -- I think I was

16 wounded on the 29th of May. Perhaps I said 19th because I was wounded

17 once before that, and I confused it too.

18 JUDGE ORIE: You've given us as the options the 19th, later you

19 said perhaps the 25th of May, and now you referring to the 29th of May.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said on the 25 of May I was

21 still in the service and was not yet wounded. So I was wounded on the

22 29th, definitely. It was the 29th.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

24 Please be very well aware, Mr. Misic, that if you earlier said it

25 was the 19th, that we rely -- at least we may rely on that because you

Page 37010

1 say so. And, therefore, if you're uncertain about dates please tell us,

2 but it has now been clarified that you were wounded only after the 25th

3 of May, possibly on the 29th, on or after the 25th and possibly the 29th.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. JEREMY:

6 Q. So, Mr. Misic, it is therefore correct that on the 25th of

7 May 1995 on the day of this Tuzla market-place was shelled you were at

8 your position within the Ozren Tactical Group; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if I understand one of your earlier answers correctly,

11 despite the fact that you were at this position, at your position on this

12 day, you nevertheless only found out about the shelling after the war; is

13 that correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Now this was an incident that killed 71 people at a market-place.

16 Would that not have been an event that you would have discussed with your

17 colleagues during the war, during the day that you were actually there?

18 A. First of all, I don't know and didn't know who fired and whether

19 anyone fired from that place, nor was I able to hear from anyone where

20 the shell had fallen. It's, after all, 25 to 30 kilometres away from our

21 positions. It's not the kind of information you can receive within a

22 couple of days. You understand that?

23 Q. [Microphone not activated]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.

Page 37011

1 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Q. I'm not suggesting you necessarily received the information

3 within a couple of days, but if I understand your answer correctly you

4 only found out about this after the war, so do you recall when exactly

5 after the war you found out about this shelling?

6 A. No, I couldn't remember. Because after that event, I was wounded

7 only three or four days later. I spent several months in treatment.

8 After that, many other events occurred one after another. I didn't make

9 inquiries and all I learned, I learned haphazardly and by chance you must

10 understand that it was a very eventful time in the area and I learned

11 about that only when an indictment was issued against someone about the

12 incident and even about that, I'm not sure it was correct information.

13 Q. Okay. Let's move on. And let's move to --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud. Take off your

15 earphones if you want to consult with counsel.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

18 Q. Mr. Misic, let's move to your role within the missing persons

19 institute.

20 Now, you've already explained to the Court that you began working

21 there in September 2011; is that correct?

22 A. Yes, 1st September, 2011.

23 Q. Sorry -- and the missing persons institute was jointly founded by

24 the ICMP and by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the

25 30th of August, 2005; is that correct?

Page 37012

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And from that time onwards, the institute became an institute of

3 the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

4 A. Yes, although officially it went -- it started working in -- on

5 the 1st of January, 2008. The date you mentioned is when the agreement

6 was signed.

7 Q. Yes, so it became fully operational in January 2008.

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Now, sir, I take it you're familiar with the ICMP's 2014

10 stock-taking reports, yes?

11 JUDGE ORIE: You said 2014?

12 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. Which reports do you

15 mean?

16 MR. JEREMY:

17 Q. We'll take a look at the document I'm referring to and see if you

18 recognise it.

19 MR. JEREMY: Could we please take a look at 65 ter 32612.

20 Q. Sir, do you recognise the front page of the document that we have

21 on the screen before us.

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 11, please, in each language.

24 Q. And, sir, we see on the screen before us the executive summary of

25 the report and we read the -- in the first paragraph certain

Page 37013

1 acknowledgments within --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you avoid touching the microphone

3 with your clothing.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. JEREMY:

6 Q. So, sir, we see this executive summary and we see the

7 acknowledgments in the first sentence and we see, "This report would not

8 have been possible without the dedicated efforts of ..." and we see

9 certain names and then we see a reference to the missing persons

10 institute of BiH. So, sir, can I take it that your organisation

11 contributed to the compilation of this report?

12 A. Maybe indirectly. It was due to some of our reports that were

13 later incorporated into this one. In any case we did not provide any

14 separate particular documentation for this purpose, nor did we take part

15 as the institute in the elaboration of this report. But it's our

16 obligation to provide certain documents to the co-founder and it's

17 possible that some of the institute's documents were used in creating

18 this report, but we did not participate.

19 Q. Okay. Now, looking at the second paragraph on the screen before

20 us, we read the first sentence as follows: "In BiH, approximately 70

21 per cent of the persons reported missing as a consequence of the war have

22 been accounted for. No other post-conflict country has achieved such a

23 high rate of resolving cases of missing persons which has been one of the

24 most successful aspects of BiH's post-war recovery."

25 So I take it you would agree with that?

Page 37014

1 A. For the most part, yes.

2 Q. And you say "for the most part." What part would you not agree

3 to?

4 A. You know, when you say around or approximately, I cannot accept

5 it with a grain of salt. It's no good to talk about certain things 20

6 years later. If we say that we identified 70.000 people after the war,

7 to be more precise, we should say 69.000 ...

8 Q. Just to be clear, the 70 reference here is a reference to a

9 per cent rather than an absolute number. Just so that you're clear.

10 A. Yes, I understand that.

11 Q. Okay. I want to look at some parts of this document, and could

12 we go to page 92, please. Now, sir, the heading of this section is the

13 political discussion of missing persons numbers. I'd like you to take a

14 look at the very first paragraph which reads as follows:

15 "Following the cessation of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia,

16 painstaking efforts have been made to build law-based institutions and to

17 employ modern scientific methods to account for the missing in a

18 non-discriminatory fashion. Despite these efforts, the issue continues

19 to be misused for political ends. Newspapers in the region often contain

20 inflammatory stories, stating that the process of accounting for the

21 missing is biased against one group or the other, and politicians often

22 resort to manipulating numbers of missing persons for political gain."

23 Mr. Misic, I take it you would also agree with this part of the

24 report?

25 A. Absolutely.

Page 37015

1 Q. Now, to briefly explore your own political affiliations, in

2 August 2007, you were elected secretary of the Doboj SNSD party; yes?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And in October 2008, you stood for election as the SNSD

5 representative for the Doboj Municipal Assembly; correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And you continue to be active within the SNSD political party;

8 correct?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Are you still a member of the party?

11 A. Well, formally I think I still am, but I'm not sure. Since my

12 work has been frozen from the beginning of these election, I practically

13 haven't been active in the party or in any kind of political or party

14 work.

15 Q. And when you say your work has been frozen since the beginning of

16 these elections, which elections are you referring to?

17 A. Well, let me tell you straight away that twice I was elected

18 secretary of the Municipal Board in Doboj, and I didn't stick it out

19 longer than a few months either time. How do I put this? I'm not very

20 skilful at politics. So, truth to tell, I was on the list; but after

21 that, I didn't really deal with the party and with politics as such, at

22 all.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, could we hear when it was that you were

24 elected secretary of the Municipal Board twice. What years?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was elected secretary in 2006 and

Page 37016

1 soon later, perhaps two months later, I resigned. And then I think it

2 was 2008, there was a new composition, and they asked me to come back as

3 secretary again, so I did that, and, again, I couldn't really find my

4 way, if you will. I'm not very good at politics. So I resigned again.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was asking for the years, and you've

6 answered that question.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. JEREMY:

9 Q. So, sir, what was -- you said you're still a member of the SNSD

10 what was the most recent year in which you were politically active within

11 that party?

12 A. Well, I think 2008. And even if I have been a member since then,

13 I'm a passive member.

14 Q. And do you have any concerns that your passive membership of the

15 SNSD leaves you open to the -- some of the accusations that you've

16 levelled against certain members of the missing persons institute of

17 certain bias and so on?

18 A. I repeat, I am not active in politics or any kind of party work

19 at all, especially not from September 2011 onwards, especially not when

20 compared to the colleague that I've mentioned.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, I'm looking at the clock. It's -- we

22 are already a bit late for the break.

23 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: We'd like to see you back, Mr. Misic, in 20 minutes.

25 We take a break.

Page 37017

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at ten minutes to 2.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 1.29 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 1.51 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, it all happens here, not there.

6 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, please proceed.

9 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. And if I could actually

10 tender the document that I used with the witness, 32618, document signed

11 by Novak Djukic.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the report we last had on our screens?

13 No.

14 Mr. Registrar.

15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7457, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Q. And, sir, just before we move on, we were discussing the SNSD as

20 the political party that you were a member of. Now, I used the acronym

21 but the full title of that party is the Alliance of Independent Social

22 Democrats; correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And the president of that party is Milorad Dodik; is that

25 correct?

Page 37018

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. Now, moving back to missing persons issues, would you

3 agree that there is very little difference in the percentage of

4 identification rates between persons reported missing by the Federation

5 and persons reporting missing by the RS?

6 A. The identified?

7 Q. Yes, so the rates of identification of missing persons who have

8 been reported missing by either the Federation or reported missing by

9 entities within RS, Republika Srpska.

10 A. Well, yes.

11 Q. And if we look at the document on the screen before us in the

12 third paragraph, We read as follows:

13 "ICMP works without regard to the ethnic affiliations of missing

14 persons and does not maintain missing persons statistics by ethnic or

15 other... characteristics. However" --

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: "Group characteristics."

17 MR. JEREMY: "...or other group characteristics. However, the

18 CEN records indicate that there is no significant difference in the

19 identification rate of individuals reported missing by either the FBiH or

20 the RS. For missing persons reported by the RS, 72.18 per cent have been

21 identified, and regarding missing persons reported by the FBiH, 74.83

22 per cent have been identified."

23 So, sir, I take it that you would agree with that paragraph in

24 this ICMP report.

25 A. Well, I'll agree although I didn't have any insight into

Page 37019

1 information that would support this, but I think that it can be taken as

2 correct.

3 Q. Thank you. Let's move now to the issue of verification of the

4 central records for missing persons which you've discussed already in

5 some detail during your direct testimony.

6 Now, the central records on missing persons, or CEN, combined

7 numbered 12 separate databases of information on missing persons

8 collected from various missing persons organisations in the Federation

9 and in the RS; correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 MR. JEREMY: If we could go to page 42 of this report, ICMP

12 report.

13 Q. Sir, directing your attention to paragraph 4.4, to paraphrase we

14 see that BY February 2011, CEN combined the 12 separate databases and we

15 read that they were collected by former Federation commission on missing

16 person, the RS office for tracing missing and detained persons and the

17 state commission on tracing missing persons, as well as data from the

18 ICRC and ICMP.

19 And then we read that the CEN is a collection of individual

20 records of missing persons including physical characteristics, place and

21 circumstances of a person's disappearance, and it goes on.

22 And in the final paragraph, sentence, in this paragraph we read

23 the ICMP contributed to the establishment of the CEN through the

24 provision of purpose-specific computer software and data on missing

25 persons, including anthropological examination and field data. So, sir,

Page 37020

1 I take it you would agree with all of that?

2 A. I agree with that but it should also be noted that after 2011,

3 some other bases were included too. The federal base of the federal

4 commission did not become part of it immediately. During a certain

5 period of time it was even concealed from the central records although it

6 was supposed to be there with full capacity. It was only from 2012

7 onwards that became fully a part of the CEN.

8 Q. Okay. You've been talking -- you've touched on the numbers of

9 some of the records that have been verified and in the next paragraph we

10 read as follows: "In January 2013, ICMP launched a project 'assistance

11 in the gathering of information necessary for verification of the central

12 records of missing persons (CEN)' continues to train and assign

13 additional staff to MPI to assist with this process. The project was

14 completed on the 31st of December 2013 when MPI reported that it had

15 verified 16.300 out of a total of 34.463 records. In addition, 337

16 reported missing persons cases were added to the ICMP's database as a

17 result of the project."

18 So, sir, given your involvement in this process, I take it that

19 you agree with the accuracy of the numbers quoted here?

20 A. Not nearly accurate. In my view, the figures are inaccurate.

21 Namely, this project led to a lot of misunderstanding among us in the

22 collegium so what happened was that during 2013, I had to stop, ban any

23 kind of activity in the process of verification because it all went

24 upside down from the very outset, this project. All the guide-lines were

25 not being followed. That is one thing, and secondly, here, it is

Page 37021

1 incorrect that this number of persons had been verified. I told you what

2 the actual number of verified person was, according to our documents.

3 The ICMP believes that something has been verified and that is not in

4 accordance with the rules but that's something different. This is their

5 report, and on this occasion I wish to say, yet again, that the report on

6 the work of the institute for 2013 and 2014 was not approved either by

7 the collegium or the executive board because we could not agree on the

8 number of verified persons in the CEN of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that is

9 why that -- that is what the ICMP knows as well. Now why they included

10 this is a different matter altogether.

11 Q. So there was a very full answer. I'm going to try and just focus

12 in on certain parts of it.

13 So you referred to activity that you're engaged in during 2013.

14 Now, we read here that the report refers to completion of the project by

15 the 31st of December, 2013. So that would take into account any activity

16 you were engaged in earlier on in 2013, would it not?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. But nevertheless you continued to dispute the figures indicated

19 here, is that correct, the numbers of identified records?

20 A. Not the number of identified persons but the number of verified

21 persons.

22 I am challenging that and the ICMP is accepting this. The first

23 10.100-something I believe have not been verified. This is an ICMP

24 report. It's not our report and I repeat once again, as for 2013 and

25 2014 there is no report of the work of the institute precisely because

Page 37022

1 there has been no consensus by the collegium with regard to those

2 figures.

3 Q. Sir, at the outset my introduction to the report we looked at the

4 foreword where there was the thanks to the missing persons institute for

5 their contribution to this report. Do you recall any objections from

6 your institution to the figures that we see referenced here?

7 A. We had no chance for that. This was a report that was done

8 outside the institute, beyond the institute, without the active

9 participation of the institute. I've already said that. We have regular

10 reports vis-à-vis our co-founder and perhaps some figures were based on

11 that, but I cannot accept at all that this is that. ICMP knows that

12 there is a problem precisely in this regard. And the ICMP, I don't know

13 how else to put this, they've been trying to have this overcome but we

14 haven't managed to overcome it yet.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Repeatedly, Witness, you said this is not our

16 report, this is ICMP's report and the data you challenged them.

17 Now, there are two steps. The first is that the ICMP states in

18 this report that the MPI reported that it had verified 16.300 out of a

19 total of 34.463 records.

20 The first question, therefore is: Did the MPI ever report to the

21 ICMP on the numbers of cases they had verified? Or did they never sent a

22 report?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This kind of report as referred to

24 here with these figures, that kind of report was never sent.

25 JUDGE ORIE: What report, if not the one with these figures, was

Page 37023

1 then sent to the ICMP at the end or during or in relation to the project

2 assistance in the gathering of information necessary -- well, the project

3 described here? Was there any other report that was sent to the ICMP?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot answer that

5 question for you, how they came to these figures, I can only dissociate

6 myself from that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you can't tell us whether any report was

8 sent at all by the MPI to the ICMP in relation to this project at the end

9 of 2013.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A certain report was sent along

11 with this project, but certainly not with these figures. I say once

12 again, the ICMP was --

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, then there

14 are two possibilities. Either the ICMP inaccurately states that the MPI

15 reported the number of verified cases as said here; and the other

16 possibility is that they did sent a report but that you were not aware of

17 it. That's where we stand now.

18 Mr. Jeremy, I leave it further to you.

19 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.

20 Q. And, Mr. Misic, at the time a report -- well, during 2013 you

21 were one of the three directors of the Missing Persons Institute;

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Now just before we end for today I want to look at the next

25 paragraph in this document. We read: "MPI's rule-book on central

Page 37024

1 records on missing persons provides for the establishment of a

2 verification commission, consisting of three MPI staff members appointed

3 by the MPI Board of Directors. The verification commission assesses the

4 authenticity of reports of persons having gone missing and compares them

5 to other official records pertaining to these individuals."

6 Sir, do I take it that you were not a member of this verification

7 commission?

8 A. I'm the director. I'm not a member of any commission.

9 Verification commission is within the CEN. I'm not a member of the

10 commission I'm just a member of the collegium of directors and that

11 commission is organised by us. I take part in the organising process of

12 that commission, but I'm not a member of that commission.

13 Q. And do I take it, therefore, that you're not involved in the

14 verification process yourself?

15 A. None of the directors are actively involved in the process of

16 verification. That is done by the commission that is integral part of

17 the sector of the CEN.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I know we are nearly at the end of the

20 day. I know there was a short matter that the Prosecution wanted to

21 raise.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn for the day soon but we'll first

23 ask the witness to leave the courtroom but not until after I have

24 instructed you that you should not speak or communicate with whomever

25 about your testimony, either already given or still to be given, and we'd

Page 37025

1 like to see you back tomorrow morning, the -- at 9.30 in this -- no, not

2 at 9.30. We start at 11:30. We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning

3 at 11.30. We have a bit of a different schedule.

4 You may now follow the usher.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.

7 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.

8 Just to update the Chamber on the matter Mr. Tieger raised

9 regarding the upcoming witness of Witness Tusevljak, Mr. Lukic had

10 inquired if the witness's entire testimony about the document in

11 question, 65 ter 1D05495, should be postponed. We spoke with the

12 Defence, and we understand the parties are agreed that the witness can be

13 asked during direct examination tomorrow essentially about what the

14 document is, but not yet about what it says. So he could testify

15 tomorrow about its nature, its provenance, and its connection to him but

16 testimony about his -- its contents will be postponed along with what for

17 scheduling reasons now appear will be most of the cross-examination.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That's hereby on the record. And ... and the

19 Chamber has no problem in following the suggestion of the parties.

20 Then I put also a scheduling matter on the record already well in

21 advance of the date concerned. In the third week of September, the week

22 starting the 14th of September, the Chamber seriously considers not to

23 sit that Monday, the 14th but to start hearings on Tuesday, the 15th of

24 September but then also sit on Friday, the 18th of September. Time still

25 unknown whether we would start at the usual time, 9.30, or as we'll do

Page 37026

1 tomorrow, also have a later start at 11.30.

2 If this causes any of the parties any problem, we'd like to hear

3 as soon as possible.

4 And, Mr. Lukic, already by nodding no, hereby puts on the record

5 that he has no problems with that.

6 Well, carefully looking at what the nodding of the Prosecution

7 brings us -- I see you nodding yes. Does that mean that you have any

8 problems, Mr. Traldi, or that you have no problems?

9 MR. TRALDI: Sorry, I meant that to represent that I don't

10 anticipate any problems, but we'll have a clear answer tomorrow.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We will wait for that then.

12 We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, Friday, the 10th

13 of July, at 11.30 in the morning.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day of July,

16 2015, at 11.30 a.m.