150820IT

Page 38081

1 Thursday, 20 August 2015

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this

6 courtroom.

7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case

9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11 No preliminaries were announced. Therefore, we'll wait for the

12 witness to enter the courtroom.

13 [The witness takes the stand]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Stojkovic.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojkovic, I'd like to remind you that you're

17 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the

18 beginning of your testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole

19 truth, and nothing but the truth. And Mr. McCloskey will now continue

20 his cross-examination.

21 Mr. McCloskey.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning.

23 Good morning, everyone.

24 WITNESS: ZARKO STOJKOVIC [Resumed]

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 38082

1 Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]

2 Q. Good morning, Colonel.

3 We left off yesterday, I was asking you about your specialty. I

4 was able to see some of your military gazettes last night which for your

5 promotions noted you as an infantry officer. So that's right, isn't it,

6 you're an infantry man?

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please answer the question? Not just

8 nodding. We need it on the transcript.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY:

10 Q. So the answer out loud --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we still do not have --

12 MR. LUKIC: The translation is ongoing all the time.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I haven't replied

14 because I was waiting for the interpreter to conclude. The answer is

15 yes.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY:

17 Q. All right. Let's -- we'll go to July 1995 now, and your

18 statement which is our number D1203 notes that you were interviewed by

19 Milenko Dundjer on 12 July 2014. And did you speak to Mr. Dundjer or any

20 other member of the Defence about these events of your wedding, about the

21 material in your report, prior to 12 July 2014?

22 A. No, I did not.

23 Q. And your wife's report, D1202, shows us the date of 12 July 2014

24 for her interview with Mr. Dundjer, and -- but it also says that -- she

25 had an interview on the 10th of January, 2012. And I take it you've

Page 38083

1 for -- prior to seeing Mr. Dundjer on the 14th -- excuse me. The 12th of

2 July, 2014, you had a chance to speak to your wife to -- about the

3 subject matter that Mr. Dundjer questioned her about in 2012?

4 A. Does it have to do whether my wife had seen Mr. Dundjer before?

5 Is that what you were trying to ask?

6 Q. No. My question was did you -- well, did you have a chance to

7 talk to your wife about the subject matter that she talked to Dundjer

8 about in 2012?

9 A. There was no need, since it involved our wedding. We certainly

10 knew what the date of our wedding was, even without Mr. Dundjer.

11 JUDGE ORIE: The question was not whether there was any need to

12 discuss it. Did you discuss with your wife what she discussed in 2012

13 when being interviewed? Did you speak with her about the questions that

14 were asked to her? And whether there was a need to do that is not

15 something that is of any interest to us.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY:

17 Q. So could you answer the question?

18 A. No, we did not discuss it in this context. We only discussed the

19 possibility of both of us appearing as witnesses.

20 Q. So let me take you to the context that -- well, from my

21 perspective.

22 General Mladic has been, in 2012, arrested. He's going to soon

23 be on trial. Your wife is interviewed by a Defence investigator and

24 is -- provides information obviously about the events on the day of your

25 wedding. This was in 2012. Surely, sir, after your wife -- or before

Page 38084

1 your wife speaks to this investigator in this utmost serious topic you're

2 going to talk with your wife about what the investigator asked her and

3 about what she said. It's what husbands and wives do.

4 So you talked to your wife about what the investigator had asked

5 her about, didn't you?

6 A. I repeat: We mostly discussed the possibility of our appearing

7 as witnesses at Mr. Mladic's trial, relating to the events that we have

8 been discussing.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, the first sentence of your

10 question: "General Mladic has been, in 2012, arrested."

11 Are you sure that this date is correct?

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think I meant to say he been arrested and I

13 believe he had been arrested by that time, but I may be wrong. It was a

14 long time ago.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how I understood it, that you just

16 referred to a time-frame in which Mr. Mladic had already been arrested.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's leave it to that --

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- and -- perhaps the witness could answer the

21 question now directly. Because you said what you mostly discussed. The

22 question was whether you also discussed the questions that were put to

23 your wife and what she said in 2012.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know precisely.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

Page 38085

1 Please proceed.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask a question for clarification.

3 What triggered the discussion between your wife and yourself to

4 discuss the possibility of you becoming witnesses in this case? What was

5 the reason had you to discuss the fact that you may be called as

6 witnesses?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember precisely.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't remember. Thank you so much.

9 Carry on.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY:

11 Q. So, sir, before your statement in 2014, you did have a chance to

12 speak with your wife about some of the events at the wedding,

13 specifically when General Mladic arrived, how long he stayed, that kind

14 of thing. There's nothing wrong with that, sir. You can talk with your

15 wife to help refresh her recollection. So didn't you talk with your wife

16 to help each other refresh your recollection about when General Mladic

17 came and how long he stayed? Didn't you do that before your statement?

18 A. We both knew the sequence of events. There was no need to try to

19 harmonise things in detail or discuss the matter further.

20 Q. Sir, I didn't suggest harmonise. I said help refresh your

21 recollection. So is your answer that you didn't talk to your wife before

22 you talked to the investigator to help refresh your recollection about

23 what happened when Mladic came, how long he stayed?

24 A. For the most part, my wife and I discussed the matter with the

25 investigators.

Page 38086

1 Q. As you've mentioned before, what you did mostly or for the most

2 part is not very helpful. So can you acknowledge now that you and your

3 wife did talk about the details of when Mladic arrived, how long he

4 stayed, before you spoke to the investigator?

5 A. Yes, but not in detail.

6 Q. Okay. And when you spoke to the investigator, was your wife with

7 you?

8 A. During my interview with the investigator, she was not.

9 Q. And during her interview with the investigators, were you with

10 her?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. Let's go to the restaurant. And what time do you recall

13 General Mladic arriving at the restaurant on the 16th of July?

14 A. Please allow me to say that I already said yesterday that we left

15 our apartment together for the church. We were together at the church

16 throughout the wedding ceremony and after that, again all of us,

17 including ourselves, General Mladic and the guests --

18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... for one reason

19 or another you think we're interested in things not asked. The

20 question -- can you hear me through the interpretation? If you'd just

21 focus on what is asked -- but any problem on the B/C/S channel? Not.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine now.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please answer the question. For one

24 reason or another, you think that we're interested in things we're not

25 asking you, or Mr. McCloskey is not asking you. At what time, as far as

Page 38087

1 you remember, did Mr. Mladic arrive at the restaurant?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise if I was

3 misunderstood. That was not my intention. I simply wanted to summarise

4 something I had already said. But do allow me to provide a direct answer

5 to Mr. Prosecutor's question.

6 General Mladic, ourselves, and the guests, once the wedding

7 ceremony was over, around 2.00, we arrived at the restaurant.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY:

9 Q. And you say "around 2.00." So given that had happened almost --

10 well, when you first started -- when your wife was first asked about it

11 in 2012, it happened a long time ago before you started talking about it.

12 So when you say "around 2.00," would that give or take an hour, give or

13 take 30 minutes? What's your best "around" estimate?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So give or take an hour is fair, given the time distance and the

16 memory issues?

17 A. An hour would be too much. And I don't think it was before 2.00.

18 I don't think we arrived at the restaurant before 2.00.

19 Q. And when were you able to remember it was around 2.00? Because

20 it's not in your statement. Just now?

21 A. I was not asked about the time. I know that the wedding ceremony

22 had been scheduled to take place between noon and 2.00 p.m.

23 Q. Okay. So it's based on your memory of the wedding schedule, not

24 the actual time you arrived there? Which is fair enough. Even I

25 remember the time of my wedding.

Page 38088

1 Okay. I'm sorry, I was talking and so they probably didn't hear

2 your answer. Let me just continue then, I think. Can you tell us

3 that -- now, at the restaurant, was this a sit-down meal, or was it one

4 of these buffet affairs where people get their meals at the buffet and

5 sit around at tables, or was this a more formal, everybody sits down at

6 one table and gets served?

7 A. It was a wedding lunch, meaning the people were seated at the

8 table.

9 Q. Okay. And when you first got to the restaurant, were there --

10 was there a like a small gathering in another room where people had

11 perhaps drinks or snacks then got together before they actually sat down?

12 Or did people, were they invited into the restaurant and sat down at the

13 table?

14 A. Once they entered the restaurant, they sat down.

15 Q. And was there music played at the restaurant once people sat

16 down, or before?

17 A. Music began after they were seated.

18 Q. Can you -- do you remember roughly how long after people were

19 seated that the music started?

20 A. I can't remember precisely, but I know that the musicians stayed

21 until 8.00 p.m., for sure.

22 Q. That's how long they stayed, but my question was how long after

23 people sat down at the table did the music start playing.

24 A. I can't remember precisely.

25 Q. And were there drinks served at the restaurant?

Page 38089

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Wine?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Beer?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And did General Mladic have his share of those drinks, any of

9 those?

10 A. Only to make the toast.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, the last item on the drinking list is

12 not there because you spoke too early.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Slivovitz.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we best get the slivovitz at the wedding on

16 the record.

17 JUDGE ORIE: It's on there now.

18 Please proceed.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY:

20 Q. And what beverage did General Mladic use in his toast?

21 A. I can't remember precisely.

22 Q. And what beverage were you drinking at the restaurant?

23 A. Wine.

24 Q. Any slivovitz?

25 A. Only at the beginning, to join the toast.

Page 38090

1 Q. And I take it over this long evening of your wedding, you had a

2 few drinks and you were feeling good -- good about the day.

3 A. If you are in charge of organising things, you have to bear in

4 mind your conduct, no matter how much you drink.

5 Q. I agree, but let's get how much you did drink. Did you drink

6 enough so you could feel the alcohol?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Now, Did you have a chance to dance with your bride at the

9 restaurant?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And about what time were you able to dance with your bride?

12 A. I can't remember specifically. It depended on the music.

13 Q. And at the time you were dancing with your wife, you --

14 General Mladic could have gone up and -- and left the area to the

15 restroom for a few minutes, I take it?

16 A. Not without me noticing.

17 Q. So did General Mladic ever leave during this period of time from

18 2.00 p.m. to 5.30 and go to the restroom?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Colonel, did he get up and take a break and go outside ever to --

21 or your eyes were on him the entire time?

22 A. Yes, he was before me throughout that time.

23 Q. Now let's go to a photo that the Defence provided us of your

24 wedding. It's 32879. And if Ms. Stewart could put it in, in Sanction I

25 think we might get a clearer picture of it?

Page 38091

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While this comes up I would like to ask a

2 question for the witness.

3 Mr. Stojkovic, did anybody smoke during the long dinner or lunch?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Do you mean in the room or

5 outside?

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is my question to you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the people were smoking --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly

9 be asked to move away from the microphone. Thank you.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were asked to move a little away from the

11 microphone because it's difficult for the interpreters to listen.

12 I understand the people were smoking in the dining-room; correct?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was allowed.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you smoke?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, yes.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did General Mladic smoke?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

19 Mr. McCloskey.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, before we continue, I'd like to put a

21 few questions --

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could I correct a misstatement I made just now.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: We haven't seen it yet, but we are about to see a

25 photograph that actually was not provided by the Defence. We picked it

Page 38092

1 up ourselves so ...

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have two short questions. How did you move

3 from the apartment to the church? Did you walk? Were you in cars?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We walked.

5 JUDGE ORIE: How did you move from the church to the restaurant?

6 Did you walk?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also. We walked, all of us

8 together.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY:

12 Q. Now, let's take a look at this photograph, if we can;

13 65 ter 32879.

14 Do you see that photograph, sir?

15 A. Not yet.

16 Q. Sorry, it'll come up.

17 Do you see it now?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And for the record we see General Mladic near the centre of the

20 photograph. It appears to be a cigarette in his left hand, would you

21 agree?

22 A. Yes. But since I was a smoker myself, I didn't pay any attention

23 to one cigarette in one day.

24 Q. Yes. Well, we've seen General Mladic smoking in the

25 Hotel Fontana while speaking to people. So we know he smokes more than

Page 38093

1 just one cigarette at one wedding. Are you suggesting this was the only

2 cigarette General Mladic had at your wedding, your wedding dinner?

3 A. Probably. I'm not sure.

4 Q. It was a long time ago. You really can't be sure how many

5 cigarettes General Mladic smoked or how many times he went to the

6 restroom, can you?

7 A. As for cigarettes, I cannot be sure. As for the restroom, I do

8 know that he did not leave the room.

9 Q. Yes. And is this a picture of your wedding dinner at the

10 restaurant?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. We see your bride next to General Mladic, and then we see you as

13 a slightly younger man with your hand to your chin?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we focus in a bit on General Mladic's

16 watch.

17 Q. Now, it's not perfect, but if you look at your watch and you kind

18 of tilt it like that, what time does that look like to you?

19 A. 1500 hours.

20 Q. I thought it looked more like 1400 hours. But it is fuzzy.

21 A. It looks like 1500 to me. Rather.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The Chamber is in a position to -- to analyse

23 what the Chamber sees and we do understand that you consider it to be

24 more 1500 hours and that the witness rather thinks as that -- the witness

25 rather thinks that it's 1500 hours and you think it's rather 1400 hours.

Page 38094

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes but I don't intend --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed --

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- to take it any further, Mr. President.

4 Q. And I want to show you one thing to see if it will refresh your

5 recollection. You're a military man. General Mladic was a military man.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go, as the last exhibit,

7 Mr. President -- I would offer this into evidence and I don't know if the

8 Court wants the blow-up or wants -- I think you can probably --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Once it is in evidence, the Chamber and the Judges,

10 Mr. McCloskey, believe it or not, are able to zoom in and out. And if

11 there's any expert better matter of looking at that time, then please

12 present that, but just zooming in and out is within our competence.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think Your Honour knows I -- well, I think I

14 know you're playing with me, so I take it as that. But if you ever need

15 Ms. Stewart's and Sanction's help to do what we did in court today we're

16 always at your service.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could -- I'd offer that into evidence.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Is it uploaded into e-court. It is, Madam Registrar

20 the number would be.

21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 32879 receives Exhibit P7511,

22 Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

24 Could I ask one question for the witness. Did I understand you

25 well, that on from when you met - I think that was at 10.00 in the

Page 38095

1 morning - up to the time Mr. Mladic left the restaurant which covers a

2 time of approximately seven to eight hours that neither you nor he went

3 to the restroom. Is that ...

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean irrespective of the

5 wedding dinner? You are referring to the entire period from 10.00 a.m.

6 at the apartment onwards?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you want to split it up, that's fine.

8 If you say I saw him going to the restroom in the apartment or during the

9 ceremony in church, that's fine. But you said you didn't lose him out of

10 sight during that whole period so that's the reason why I'm asking it for

11 the whole period. But if you can be more specific, please tell us.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was not from 10.00

13 a.m. onwards. It was about the meal in the dining-room, and that's why I

14 said that we were in the dining-room all the time in the restaurant.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I'm now extending that question where your

16 statements says that you're always with him and you didn't lose him out

17 of sight from when he arrived. Could you tell us, neither you nor he did

18 go to the restroom when you were in the restaurant. Is that well

19 understood?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, from 12.00 to 2.00, you said it was the

22 ceremony in church. You walked there. You walked from there to the

23 restaurant. Did you or he go to the restroom during those two hours?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Since that is not allowed

25 during the church ceremony.

Page 38096

1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, from 10.00 to 12.00, from the moment he arrived

2 at your apartment and up to the moment where you arrived at the church,

3 Walking there, did you or he go to the restroom during those two hours?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not recall exactly. Probably.

5 Since it's a small apartment.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not know whether in a small apartment you

7 go more to the restroom and in a large apartment, so leave that aside.

8 So you say you don't know whether you or he went to the restroom

9 between 10.00 and 12.00 but from 12.00 to anywhere between 5.00 and 6.00

10 up to the moment that Mr. Mladic left the restaurant you, neither he, did

11 go to the restroom.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, that's the

13 way it was.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, are you sure about it; or do you say, Well, it

15 may have been but ...

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, that's the

17 way it was. I cannot express myself in any other way: As far as I can

18 remember, after all, there is a time-period involved.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one question.

22 Sir, at the restaurant -- I'm talking to you. At the restaurant,

23 did you -- did anybody else other than Mr. Mladic go to the restroom.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. Probably.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You say probably because you didn't observe

Page 38097

1 anybody going to the restroom. You don't remember observing anybody

2 going to the restroom?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't remember since I was

4 sitting at the head table, and there were about 80 people present all

5 together.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And quite possibly some people went to the

7 restroom without you noticing.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Except for those who sat at

9 the head table.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but there was dancing at a certain time,

11 isn't it so, and the people sitting at the head table sort of spread

12 around and started dancing. Is that not so?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... at that time,

15 you would have been dancing with your wife and concentrating on the dance

16 with your wife?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... in those

19 circumstances anybody on the dance floor could have gone to the bathroom

20 without you noticing.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the dance floor, one could see

22 the head table the most.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... there's nobody

24 at the head table. Everybody's on the dance floor. I'm asking the

25 question during that dancing anybody could have gone to the bathroom

Page 38098

1 without you noticing. You were concentrating on the dance with your

2 wife. Is that not so?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But the question had to do

4 with General Mladic, who did not dance, and he was sitting at the head

5 table.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Mladic did not dance? Is that your testimony?

7 He sat at the head table right through the dinner?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, yes.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY:

10 Q. Would it help your recollection if I told you we've seen

11 General Mladic's home videos at weddings. He's quite a dancer. Doesn't

12 that help you remember that he liked to dance at weddings and he actually

13 danced at your wedding?

14 A. I cannot remember exactly.

15 Q. Okay. Is this photo -- excuse me?

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One short question.

17 Where in this restaurant was the restroom?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Outside the dining-room.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On which floor?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the first floor.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What floor is the restaurant itself? On what

23 floor is the restaurant itself?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same one where the dining-room

25 is.

Page 38099

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... on what floor

2 is that?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First floor.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Or the floor in between.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: In between what?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the apartment building.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am completely lost now. I don't understand your

9 answer, sir. I'm not -- the floor in between the apartment building.

10 The apartment building and what?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The restaurant and its dining-room

12 are located within an apartment building, and the restaurant and its

13 dining-room are on the first floor.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the toilet, the restroom?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Likewise. Likewise.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That's what I wanted to

17 establish.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and earlier you said "or the floor in between."

19 Did you mean to say that there was a kind of a semi- or half

20 floor or halfway the stairs from one floor to another, that it could have

21 been there? If you don't remember, just tell us.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I was determining the

23 floors in relation to height, so it is definitely the first floor.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Just one last exhibit and a short

Page 38100

1 series of questions.

2 Could we go to P01338.

3 Q. Sir, you're active lieutenant-colonel in the VJ. You've

4 certainly heard of General Vinko Pandurevic?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: We need to go to the next page. Sorry, this is

7 the wrong one. P1338. Okay. Thank you. That's right.

8 Q. What was your rank on the day of your wedding?

9 A. Captain first class.

10 Q. And had you heard of -- on your wedding -- actually, I believe he

11 was a colonel, Vinko Pandurevic, at the time.

12 A. I cannot remember exactly.

13 Q. Okay. What we have in front of us here is an intercepted

14 communication by the Bosnian State Security Service on 16 July 1995 at

15 1615 hours, the time that you were at the restaurant, and we see that

16 this is between the Main Staff duty officer, and that means the

17 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska who was located, at the time,

18 in Crna Rijeka, and General Mladic. And they couldn't make out -- the

19 intercepters couldn't make out General Mladic's part of the conversation.

20 But we can see from the -- from what the duty officer is saying, he's

21 giving information about the president called a short while ago and, in

22 our view, that would be President Karadzic. He mentions Pandurevic,

23 other officials, and what I was wondering if you take a careful look at

24 this intercept, which the Prosecution believes, sir, is absolutely

25 genuine, do you remember General Mladic mentioning anything to you about

Page 38101

1 the goings-on over in Bosnia, anything about the president, anything

2 about Pandurevic? Anything like that?

3 A. No, never.

4 Q. And when General Mladic, he left the restaurant early; right?

5 A. At 1730 he said good-bye, and I saw him off at 1730.

6 Q. Yes, but that was earlier than everyone else.

7 A. No. There were people who left even earlier. They had to

8 because of transportation since there were wedding guests who were coming

9 in from outside Belgrade. There were some like that too.

10 Q. But is it fair to say he excused himself and cited official

11 duties?

12 A. He didn't mention any such thing.

13 Q. Well, when your wife testified, page 38058, starting at line 24

14 the question -- well, 20. Question says: "To the best of your

15 knowledge, do you remember when General Mladic and his wife left your

16 wedding?"

17 And what she said was: "Yes. I think I pointed out in my

18 statement it was around 5.30. I don't know whether it was a minute or

19 two before or later, but definitely around 5.30 or quarter to 6.00. That

20 is when he left the dining hall at the Dva Ribara restaurant where the

21 ceremonial lunch took place. He excused himself, citing official

22 duties."

23 And I quote your wife: "He excused himself, citing official

24 duties."

25 And then she said: "I stayed in the dining hall with my guests

Page 38102

1 while my husband escorted him to the car."

2 So you would agree with your wife, would you not, that she's

3 correct? Perhaps you didn't hear Mladic tell that to her, but she said

4 he excused himself, citing official duties. So would you support your

5 wife on that?

6 A. I'm not sure about official duties, but I am sure that he excused

7 himself and said good-bye.

8 Q. You have no reason to believe your wife is not telling the truth

9 about that statement, do you?

10 A. Of course. Since, when one leaves a wedding, one says good bye

11 to the bride and the groom. So I do not rule out the possibility that

12 that is what she was told, but I did not hear that.

13 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I have. No, I first give an opportunity -- any

15 questions arising from cross, Mr. Lukic, which you'd like to address.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, but can I consult with my client

17 for a second.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can. But, again, it's not the first time

19 that Mr. Mladic speaks at audible volume and that is the only thing he is

20 not allowed to do. So take care that nothing can be heard by others.

21 [Defence counsel confer]

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 38105

1 A. No way.

2 Q. Thank you. This would be all we had of you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I have one or two questions for you, Mr. Stojkovic.

4 Questioned by the Court:

5 A statement was taken from you and a statement was taken from

6 your wife. Those statements were signed. Did you read or see the

7 statement that was taken from your wife?

8 A. No.

9 JUDGE ORIE: To the best of your knowledge, did your wife see or

10 read your statement?

11 A. Not as far as I know.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Did you receive a copy of your own statement?

13 A. Do you mean here or before the trial?

14 JUDGE ORIE: At any time. If you did, tell us when.

15 A. I can't recall.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Not recall when or that you got a copy?

17 A. I can't recall whether I received one.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have any recollection as to giving your

19 wife access to the statement that was put on paper for you?

20 A. No. Because, as far as I remember, our statements remained with

21 the counsel to whom we had provided them.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when you were finally prepared for

23 appearing as a witness here, the statement of your wife was not shown to

24 you?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My statement was shown to me when I

Page 38106

1 arrived here during the proofing I had with Mr. Branko Lukic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Were you alone during that proofing or were you

3 together with your wife?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At times, I was together with my

5 wife, depending on the attorney-at-law's, Mr. Branko Lukic's requests.

6 JUDGE ORIE: So during the part of the proofing, you were there

7 and your wife was there as well.

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Did you -- at that time, was your statement read to

10 her or was her statement read to you, during that part of the proofing?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you this for the following reasons, and

13 I'd like you to first listen to what I'm telling you.

14 When your wife was asked at what time Mr. Mladic left the

15 restaurant, she said: "As I said already in my statement, it was at

16 5.30."

17 Now, in the statement of your wife that time is not mentioned.

18 However, in your statement that time is mentioned. So I wondered why

19 your wife said: "As you can see in my statement it was 5.30," where we

20 can only see that in your statement. Do you have any explanation as to

21 why she would have said: "As you can see in my statement, it was 5.30,"

22 where it is not in hers but it is in your statement?

23 A. I do not have a particular explanation, except for the fact that

24 my wife knew the approximate time as well.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I'm focussing not on the time. I'm

Page 38107

1 focussing on what she said, that that can be found in his statement,

2 which was not the case.

3 I have no further questions.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to make sure I heard you properly --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no --

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something.

7 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud, Mr. Mladic. Sit down. Sit down.

8 Mr. Mladic ...

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 JUDGE ORIE: I still can hear Mr. Mladic so he should really

11 speak at inaudible volume or remain silent.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President. You may want to look

13 at paragraph 9 of the wife's statement.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: While you do that, can I ask the question I wanted

15 to ask.

16 JUDGE ORIE: If I made a mistake, of course, I stand to be

17 corrected, but ...

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document should be D1202.

19 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. You said paragraph ...

20 Yes, it says "about." Where -- I do agree that I -- it -- that

21 it could be understood as mentioning 5.30 and I stand, in that respect,

22 corrected. And that's -- it's good that you point my attention to it. I

23 was looking at the figures, 5.30, is in the statement of the husband

24 whereas approximately that time is mentioned in the statement of the

25 wife. I stand corrected. I think I have not sufficiently looked at

Page 38108

1 that. And if that is what Mr. Mladic wanted to bring to the attention of

2 Mr. Stojanovic, then I better understand -- then I better understand why

3 he wanted to intervene immediately. That's on the record hereby. I

4 think Mr. Mladic wanted to convey something else. You can tell it to

5 Mr. Stojanovic if there's anything you would like to bring to our

6 attention.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's fine now, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And I also thank Mr. McCloskey for pointing at this.

10 [Defence counsel confer]

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I just wanted one question.

13 Just to make sure I heard you properly, did I hear you correctly

14 that you said when you were with Mr. Lukic together with your wife at the

15 same time, that was at Mr. Lukic's request?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

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

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given the fact that procedurally --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please finish what you started saying.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that it was at

21 Mr. Lukic's request so as to explain to us the procedure and protocols in

22 place before the Tribunal when it comes to witnesses.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, any further questions?

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojkovic, this concludes your testimony in this

Page 38109

1 court. I would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and

2 for having answered all the questions that were -- all the questions that

3 were put to you, put to you by the parties, put to you by the Bench. I

4 wish you a safe return home again.

5 You may follow the usher.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber, at least I got a note, that we had

9 received information that there were no further witnesses available.

10 MR. LUKIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we expected the problems last week and we have

12 the problems now apparently.

13 When will the next witness arrive and when --

14 MR. LUKIC: Next witness should arrive on Saturday, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: On Saturday.

16 MR. LUKIC: For Monday.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Any explanation as to why this situation arose.

18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. There was a scheduled videolink

19 from Banja Luka but Banja Luka court is not operating before the 25th of

20 August, so we were not able to organise that videolink.

21 JUDGE ORIE: We've seen that. But no other witnesses --

22 MR. LUKIC: No other witnesses were able to come before the end

23 of this week.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It's for a fact we can't go on the streets

25 and find witnesses and fill our time.

Page 38112

1 On the 22nd of April, the Defence responded, stating that it did

2 not object.

3 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the existing

4 version of P2586 with the uploaded document.

5 Next item is a remaining issue from the testimony of

6 Vinko Nikolic.

7 On the 5th of February of this year, D893, a table of concordance

8 with regard to the adjudicated facts included in Vinko Nikolic's witness

9 statement was marked for identification, pending verification of the

10 information contained in the document. This can be found at transcript

11 pages 31240 through 31243. As of today's date, the Defence has not

12 verified the information contained in D893.

13 The Chamber sets a deadline of one week from today for the

14 Defence to respond.

15 Next item is a remaining issue from the testimony of

16 Goran Krcmar, P7171.

17 On the 3rd of March of this year, P7171, an UN Security Council

18 document, was marked for identification, pending an agreement between the

19 parties as to the excerpt to be tendered.

20 On the 2nd of April, the Prosecution advised the Chamber via

21 e-mail that: 1, it had informed the Defence of its proposed selection

22 which was uploaded into e-court under 65 ter number 32099a; and, 2, the

23 Defence had not requested the tendering of additional portions.

24 On the 26th of June, the Prosecution sent the Chamber a further

25 e-mail advising that the B/C/S translation of the excerpt had been

Page 38113

1 uploaded into e-court and attached to the English investigation.

2 The question arises whether the Defence has any objections to the

3 admission of the document bearing 65 ter number 32099a.

4 If you are not in a position to respond, Mr. Lukic, and I see

5 you're nodding no, which is hereby on the record, the Chamber is hereby

6 instructing the Registry to assign P7171 to 65 ter number 32099a and

7 admits it into evidence.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: And the Defence is -- does not need to give specific

10 reasons if they want to revisit the matter by not later than next week,

11 Tuesday. If there are serious portions to be added, Mr. Lukic, then

12 we'll reconsider our decisions without requiring you to give the usual

13 reasons for reconsidering a decision.

14 Four -- number 4 on my agenda is a remaining issue from the

15 testimony of Ian Hanson. It's about D1084.

16 On the 25th of June, 2015, exhibit number D1084 was reserved for

17 two pages of a document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05491. This can be

18 found at transcript page 36339.

19 The Chamber at that time instructed the Defence to upload these

20 pages into e-court and decided these pages will be admitted once

21 uploaded.

22 On the 9th of July, the Defence advised the Chamber and the

23 Prosecution via e-mail that the pages had been uploaded under the

24 document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05491a.

25 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the extracts

Page 38114

1 to the reserved exhibit number and hereby admits D1084 into evidence.

2 Next is a remaining issue from the testimony of Milutin Misic.

3 It's about D1095.

4 During the testimony of Milutin Misic between 8 and 10 July of

5 this year, translation issues arose with regard to the documents marked

6 for identification D1095, D1096, D1105, and D1106. In the weeks after

7 his testimony, the Defence advised the Chamber and the Prosecution via

8 e-mails that the English translations had been uploaded into e-court

9 under document numbers -- document IDs 1D25-1896, 1D25-2445, 1D25-1762,

10 and 1D25-1906 respectively.

11 With regard to D1105, it concerned a revised translation. The

12 Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the corresponding

13 translations to D1095, D1096 and D1106 and hereby admits them into

14 evidence, whereby D1096 stays under seal.

15 Lastly, the Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the current

16 translation of D1105 with the revised translation and admits D1105 into

17 evidence.

18 Next on my agenda are remaining issues from the testimony from

19 the testimony of Tihomir Stevanovic.

20 I start with the admission of P7372.

21 On the 7th of May of this year, P7372 was marked for

22 identification pending English translation. This can be found at

23 transcript page 35257.

24 On the 24th of July, the Prosecution advised the Chamber via

25 e-mail that an English translation had been uploaded into e-court under

Page 38115

1 document ID 0430-3446-ET-1.

2 On the 11th of August, the Defence advised the Prosecution and

3 the Chamber via e-mail that it had no objection. The Chamber hereby

4 instructs the Registry to attach the translation and admits P7372 into

5 evidence.

6 The next is replacement of P2109.

7 On the 6th and the 7th of May of this year, during the testimony

8 of Tihomir Stevanovic, a translation issue arose with Exhibit P2109.

9 This can be found at transcript pages 35225 and 35250.

10 On the 24th of July, the Prosecution advised the Chamber via an

11 e-mail a revised English translation had been uploaded into e-court under

12 doc ID 0529-6797-ET-1.

13 On the 11th of August, the Defence advised the Prosecution and

14 the Chamber via e-mail that it had no objection.

15 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the current

16 translation of P2109 with the revised translation.

17 I now move to a remaining issue from the testimony of

18 Drasko Vujic.

19 During the testimony of Drasko Vujic on the 4th of May of this

20 year, P7368, a newspaper article from Kozarski Vjesnik dated the 17th of

21 November, 1995 was marked for identification following the Defence's

22 objection to admission. This can be found at transcript pages 35039

23 through 35040. The Defence indicated it would address the document

24 during re-examination of the witness. However, the Defence has not made

25 any further submissions on this matter. This can be found at transcript

Page 38116

1 pages 35040 and 35062.

2 The Chamber sets a deadline of one week from today for the

3 Defence to respond.

4 Perhaps it's not much of a response, but at least to make any

5 submission in relation to the admission of this document.

6 I now move to remaining issues from the testimony of

7 Bruno Franjic.

8 The first one is a revised translation of P7433. During the

9 testimony of Bruno Franjic on the 25th of June of this year, the Chamber

10 asked for a review of the English translation of the witness's CV,

11 admitted as P7433. This can be found at transcript page 36384.

12 On the 16th of July, the Prosecution informed the Chamber in an

13 e-mail that a revised English translation had been uploaded into e-court

14 under number doc ID 0687-0517-ET-1 and requested replacement of the

15 existing translation with the revised version. In this revised

16 translation, the description of the witness's occupation as "court sworn

17 criminology expert" has now been corrected to "court sworn forensic

18 criminalistics expert."

19 Does the Defence have any objections?

20 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber hereby then instructs the Registry to

22 replace the current the translation of P7433 with the revised

23 translation.

24 Next is the admission of D1085.

25 During the testimony of Franjic on the 29th of June of this year,

Page 38117

1 exhibit number D1085 was reserved for an excerpt from a brochure from

2 Unis Igman d.d. Company to be selected and uploaded by the Defence. This

3 can be found at transcript pages 36486 through -487.

4 On the 29th of July, the Defence advised the Chamber in an e-mail

5 that it had selected pages 1 and 2 of the brochure to be admitted as

6 D1085.

7 On 11 August the Defence informed the Chamber that the excerpt

8 had been uploaded into e-court under 65 ter number 1D05461a and requested

9 its admission into evidence.

10 Any objections from the Prosecution?

11 You have 48 hours to revisit the matter if you suddenly change

12 your mind and wanted to express any objections. But the Chamber hereby

13 instructs the Registry to attach the extract as uploaded to the reserved

14 exhibit number and admits D1085 into evidence.

15 And, again, a request for reconsideration doesn't need to be

16 motivated similarly as I -- was the case previous with the Defence.

17 I now to remaining issues from the testimony of Goran Dragojevic.

18 During Goran Dragojevic's testimony on the 14th of May of this

19 year, his 92 ter statement was admitted as Exhibit D1049 together with

20 three associated exhibits. Those are D1050 through D1052. This can be

21 found at transcript pages 35591 and 35619.

22 The Chamber notes that the Defence did not seek admission of the

23 other eight associated exhibits included in its 92 ter motion dated the

24 15th of September, 2014.

25 Could the Defence indicate whether it still intends to tender

Page 38118

1 these associated exhibits or whether they are withdrawn.

2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I have to revisit the issue and go

3 through the documents.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll hear from you by next week, Tuesday, and

5 if do you not make any submissions, they are considered to be withdrawn.

6 I move onto admission of P6976.

7 During the testimony of Milorad Sajic, P6976, a video of a

8 meeting in Banja Luka, was marked for identification. Subsequently the

9 Prosecution informed the Defence and the Chamber that a revised English

10 translation of the video's transcript is available. The Defence

11 indicated that it had no objections.

12 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English

13 translation of P6976 with the revised version uploaded as doc ID

14 0301-0000b-1 and admitted P6976 into evidence.

15 Next item deals with the replacement of a translation and

16 concerns Exhibit P7023.

17 On the 2nd of April of this year, the Prosecution sent an e-mail

18 informing the Defence and the Chamber that a revised English translation

19 of Exhibit P7023, an excerpt of the 49th Session of the Republika Srpska

20 Assembly, was available under Rule 65 ter number 2410b.

21 The Prosecution indicated that the revised version identifies the

22 speaker as Mr. Karadzic. However, in identifying the speaker, the

23 revised version adds ten pages of the document to the exhibit.

24 Furthermore, it is sufficiently clear from the transcript of the 18th of

25 December, 2014 in this case that the excerpt contains the words of

Page 38119

1 Mr. Karadzic.

2 Under these circumstances, the Chamber denies the Prosecution's

3 request to replace the English translation of P7023.

4 I move to the admission of D1083.

5 On the 23rd of June of this year, D1083 was reserved for an

6 extract of a document describing data and equipment used by the Ljubija

7 mining company. Subsequently, the Defence, in an e-mail, informed the

8 Chamber and the Prosecution that an excerpt had been uploaded under

9 Rule 65 ter number 1D05826.

10 The Chamber instructs the Registry to assign Rule 65 ter number

11 1D05826 to Exhibit D1083 and admits it into evidence.

12 I would now read an oral decision on the admission of P6889.

13 The Chamber as I said now delivers its decision on the admission

14 of Exhibit P6889 which was marked for identification during the testimony

15 of Nedjo Vlaski on the 4th of November, 2014. This document was further

16 used during the testimony of Tomislav Puhalac on 10th of November.

17 On the 4th of November, the Defence challenged the authenticity

18 of P6889 an undated report on meetings between the SDS Main Board and the

19 Crisis Staff between the 1st of the January and the 31st of May, 1992 and

20 objected to its admission.

21 On the 20th of January, 2015, the Prosecution stated that the

22 parties were in discussion about this document, and on the 6th of March,

23 the Prosecution informed the Chamber by e-mail that the parties had not

24 reached an agreement.

25 The Defence submits that P6889 was created by Bosnian Muslims and

Page 38120

1 not by Serb authorities as Trnovo was at one point under Muslim control.

2 I refer to transcript pages 27821, 27822, 27846 and the OTP e-mail of the

3 6th of March.

4 The Prosecution submits that the Trnovo security service created

5 this document and that the Sarajevo Agency for Investigation and

6 documentation recovered it during the reintegration process; transcript

7 pages 27821 and -822 and 27844.

8 It further submits that P6889 was created by Serbs on the basis

9 of the references and the language used in the document, as well as its

10 consistency with other documents that reflect similar records of the same

11 meetings, including P3777 and P6887 to be found at transcript pages 27844

12 and in the e-mail of the 6th of March.

13 The Prosecution noted also that Vlaski at transcript page 27807

14 confirmed his own comments in those meetings as they were recorded in

15 P6889. The applicable law governing the admission of evidence is set out

16 in Rule 89(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence which allows a

17 chamber to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative

18 value. Authenticity is a factor to be taken into consideration in

19 determining whether the tendered material has probative value. Definite

20 proof of reliability is not required. Prima facie evidence of

21 reliability on the basis of sufficient indicia is sufficient to grant

22 admission the Chamber has reviewed P6889 in light of the parties'

23 submissions and the testimonies of Vlaski and Puhalac. The Chamber notes

24 that the document bears a signatory body which states, "State Security

25 Sector, Trnovo," and that was a quote, and that the Prosecution provided

Page 38121

1 information on the origin of the document, namely, that it was recovered

2 by the Agency for Investigation and Documentation. P6889 is also largely

3 consistent with other exhibits that describe the same meetings, including

4 P3777 and P6887. Vlaski also described parts of P6889 and thereby

5 implicitly confirmed as accurate the minutes of the meeting as they are

6 recorded in the document.

7 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber finds that there are

8 sufficient indicia for prima facie proof of reliability, that P6889 is

9 relevant and of probative value pursuant to Rule 89(C) and hereby admits

10 it into evidence.

11 The Chamber, however, emphasises that the weight to be attributed

12 to P6889 will be assessed in the context of all the evidence before the

13 Chamber.

14 The Chamber now moves to translation issue that's rose with

15 regard to P6889 during Vlaski and Puhalac's testimonies. This can be

16 found at transcript pages 27863 to 27864 and 28026 to 28027.

17 On the 15th of December, 2014, the Chamber informed the Chamber

18 and the Defence by e-mail that a revised English translation had been

19 uploaded into e-court under document 0228 -- yes. It was the Prosecutor

20 that informed the Chamber on the 15th of December, 2014 that the revised

21 English translation had been uploaded under number 0228-0101-A-ET.

22 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the current

23 translation of P6889 with the revised translation.

24 Finally, the Prosecution is instructed to file notification

25 containing its e-mail dated the 6th of March, 2015 for the record.

Page 38122

1 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

2 I now move to the replacement and admission of P6865.

3 On the 29th of October, 2014, during the testimony of

4 Slavko Kralj, the Prosecution tendered in intercept bearing 65 ter number

5 25112 for which the Chamber reserved exhibit number P6865, pending the

6 uploading of a revised translation.

7 On the 24th of July of 2015 the OTP indicated in an e-mail that

8 the revised translation had been uploaded and on the 11th of August, the

9 Defence responded that it did not object to the revised translation. The

10 Chamber therefore instructs the Court Officer to replace the existing

11 translation of P6865 with the translation bearing doc ID number

12 0504-7165-ET-1 and admits P6865 into evidence.

13 I move to the admission of D649.

14 On the 19th of September, 2014, during the testimony of

15 Witness GRM246, Exhibit D649 was marked for identification pending the

16 outcome of a discussion between the parties concerning its reliability.

17 This can be found at transcript pages 25917 through 25918. However, the

18 Chamber has not received any additional submissions since that time.

19 Could the parties tell the Chamber what the result of that

20 discussion was, if there is any result? And I can imagine that you not

21 be able to do that right way; but if so, you have an opportunity do it

22 now.

23 No one stands up. Therefore, one week from today is the deadline

24 hereby set for additional submissions on the admission of D649.

25 I move to the replacement and admission of P7019.

Page 38123

1 On the 17th of December, 2014, during the testimony of

2 Boro Tadic, Exhibit P7019 was marked for identification due to its

3 illegibility. The Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and Defence on the

4 same day, stating that it had uploaded a more legible version and

5 requesting the replacement and admission of the exhibit.

6 On the 5th of March of this year, the Chamber set a deadline of

7 seven days for any additional submissions once the Registry had replaced

8 the exhibit.

9 On the 7th of March, the Registry filed a memo confirming the

10 exhibit's replacement, after which no additional submissions were made.

11 The Chamber hereby admits Exhibit P7019 into evidence.

12 Next on my list is the admission of P7209.

13 On the 12th of March, 2015, during the testimony of Miso Rodic,

14 Exhibit P7209 was marked for identification pending a English

15 translation.

16 On the 17th of March, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and

17 the Defence, indicating that the translation had been uploaded and that

18 it would request replacement of the existing translation and admission of

19 the document into evidence.

20 The question to the Defence is whether it has any objections to

21 admission?

22 I apply the same system, that is, that the Chamber instructs the

23 Court Officer to replace the existing translation of Exhibit P7209 with

24 the translation bearing doc ID number 0091-6545a and admits P7209 into

25 evidence.

Page 38124

1 Until Tuesday, Mr. Lukic, you have an opportunity, and you can do

2 that without motivation, to request the Chamber to reconsider this

3 decision, of course, then giving the reasons why you oppose the -- why

4 you object to the admission. Yes, of course, if you do.

5 I move to the next item, which is also a remaining issue from the

6 testimony of Miso Rodic.

7 On the 12th of March during his testimony, the Defence indicated

8 that the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 18387 which it had tendered

9 as an exhibit associated with Rodic's witness statement was mistakenly

10 referenced in that statement. The Chamber also notes that the document

11 is already in evidence as part of Exhibit P3271. And for these reasons,

12 the Chamber denies the admission into evidence of the document bearing

13 Rule 65 ter number 18387.

14 I move to my next item which deals with the withdrawal of 92 ter

15 motions for dropped witnesses.

16 On the 6th of February and the 25th of March, 2015, the Defence

17 filed submissions informing the Chamber that it was withdrawing several

18 witnesses who could not be called to testify. The Chamber considers, in

19 such circumstances, that the corresponding Rule 92 ter motions for such

20 witnesses are also withdrawn and hereby place this is on the record.

21 I move to a remaining issue from the testimony of

22 Bosko Kelecevic.

23 On the 15th of July of this year, P7485, an interview with

24 Bosko Kelecevic, was admitted into evidence.

25 On the 16th of July, the Prosecution requested via e-mail that

Page 38125

1 P7485 be replaced with an excerpt of the interview which has been

2 uploaded into e-court as document bearing 65 ter number 32715b.

3 The question to the Defence is whether there's any objection to

4 this replacement?

5 MR. LUKIC: It is shorter version. Probably not, but maybe we

6 should just be given some time to see if we want to include anything for

7 better understanding purposes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, would it be a problem for you if I

9 would do it in a similar way, to already instruct and if you revisit the

10 matter by next Tuesday that you don't have to give -- of course, you

11 would have to give the reason why you want to revisit it, but you don't

12 have to motivate why reconsideration is justified.

13 Then the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace P7485

14 with the document bearing 65 ter number 32715b.

15 I move to the semi-last item which is about D745.

16 On the 5th of November, 2014, during the testimony of

17 Nedjo Vlaski, the Prosecution stated it did not object to the admission

18 of D745 as long as the Defence provided information relating to the

19 source of the document and established personal knowledge foundation

20 through the witness.

21 On the 20th of May of this year, the Defence e-mailed the Chamber

22 and Prosecution and advised that Vlaski: "Confirmed that the document

23 was provided to him by the Serbian security level."

24 On the 15th of July, the Chamber asked the Prosecution for its

25 position. As at today's date the Prosecution has not responded, and the

Page 38126

1 Chamber therefore sets a deadline of one week for the Prosecution to

2 provide its submissions.

3 The very last item, D768.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Just to be sure that the record will be even more

6 perfect than it is already, page 45, line 17, reads that Vlaski had

7 confirmed that the document was provided to him by the Serbian -- let me

8 now check. "By the Serbian security service."

9 I now really move to my last item, D768.

10 During the testimony of Cedo Sipovac on 12 November 2014, D768

11 was marked for identification pending translation and use with another

12 witness. The translation issue was resolved on the 3rd and the 24th of

13 February, 2015.

14 On the 12th of March, D768 was tendered through Miso Rodic and,

15 on the same date, a new translation arose, and therefore D768 remained

16 marked for identification.

17 It was about failing translation or missing translation of

18 handwriting in that document.

19 Thereafter, the Chamber asked the Defence four times - on the

20 10th of April and the 30th of April via an e-mail, and on the 14th of

21 May and the 8th of July in court - for an update on the progress of the

22 revised translation.

23 Can the Defence inform the Chamber within one week of the

24 progress of the revised the translation.

25 MR. LUKIC: I can do that now, Your Honour.

Page 38127

1 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever I expect you --

2 MR. LUKIC: Not this one.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Not this one.

4 MR. LUKIC: I spoke with my Case Manager he sent this for revised

5 translation to CLSS and they were not able to see what we were asking

6 from them although it is partially visible on the document and I think

7 that the witness also read it on the transcript that it was instead of

8 Croatian it was Yugoslav nationality of this man. So we can accept that.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If the parties -- you'll understand that I

10 don't have it on the top of my head available at this moment. Could the

11 parties seek an agreement that on some handwriting is missing, that the

12 parties agree on what it is and most likely that would be what the

13 witness read it to be, and that the parties are satisfied that the

14 translation of what the witness read in court is correctly to be found in

15 the transcript in the English transcript.

16 If could you agree on that.

17 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President. We'll -- Mr. Lukic and I will

18 speak.

19 JUDGE ORIE: You'll speak to each other. And then we'd like to

20 hear from you by not later than next week.

21 And that would celebrate the fifth occasion on which the matter

22 was raised. I'm not going to congratulate you on that, Mr. Lukic,

23 especially because I understand that you sent it for translation but

24 there were some problems.

25 Is there anything the parties would like to raise at this very

Page 38128

1 moment?

2 MR. LUKIC: If I may be the first, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, there is a deadline for the Defence to respond

5 to P7510 and it's the map of Vlasenica in regard of elevation lines, and

6 we cannot respond today.

7 JUDGE ORIE: You cannot respond today --

8 MR. LUKIC: Because we just got the bigger map from the

9 Prosecution at the beginning of this session so we need somebody who

10 knows how to read a map.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well.

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

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's quite simple

14 elevation lines connect points which are at the same elevation and by

15 looking at them thoroughly, you can see where the hills are and where it

16 goes down. And usually the map explains what is the difference in

17 altitude between two lines and often on every 50 or 100 metres, you would

18 find somewhere on that line what altitude, what elevation, that line

19 presents.

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. But since there were some issues

21 in regard of obstacles, those obstacles could be seen on this bigger map

22 as well.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Obstacles. You mean hills.

24 MR. LUKIC: Mountains.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mountains, yes. It seems to be a very purely

Page 38129

1 technical matter. What about a cup of tea or cup of coffee together with

2 Mr. McCloskey and the map.

3 MR. LUKIC: We have a meeting after this session.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Can I order coffee or tea already

5 or ...

6 Okay. We'll hear from you not later than next week. Yes?

7 MR. LUKIC: That's fine, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter? Nothing? You don't want to

9 announce, Mr. McCloskey, that you have a meeting with Mr. Lukic after

10 this.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: No. I -- there are a couple of things I owe you

12 from questions in past witnesses and I will gather those together and let

13 you know where we are because some of them have taken a long time dealing

14 with governments and UN organisations, but I will get organised like you

15 just did and get back to you. And we may have others as well.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's promising that you may have others as

17 well.

18 One second, please.

19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: If nothing then remains, we adjourn for the day, and

22 we'll resume Monday, the 24th of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this

23 same courtroom, I.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.12 p.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Monday, the 24th day of August,

Page 38130

1 2015, at 9.30 a.m.