1 Monday, 18 September 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you call the case, please.

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

8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: My usual appeal to you. If there are problems with

10 interpretation, please let me know straight away.

11 Defence teams seem to be in full force minus Mr. Bourgon,

12 conspicuously absent. The Prosecution is minus Julian Nicholls and Mr.

13 van der Puye, if I am pronouncing his name well.

14 I take it once the witness is already in the courtroom that there

15 are no preliminaries? That's correct.

16 WITNESS: JEAN-RENE RUEZ [Resumed]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ruez, good morning to you.

18 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. We hope to finish today and then you

20 can go home to your work.

21 So who is next? Mr. Lazarevic. Mr. Lazarevic is lead counsel for

22 Borovcanin, accused Borovcanin.

23 Mr. Lazarevic, he's all yours.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, and good morning.

25 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Ruez.

2 A. Good morning.

3 Q. Mr. Ruez, in response to questions by Mr. McCloskey during the

4 examination-in-chief, when you were shown the footage which is Prosecution

5 Exhibit 2103, you said that there was some markings on some of those

6 aerial shots, whether by you or by your colleagues. Do you recall saying

7 that?

8 A. I don't see what footage you are meaning when you talk about the

9 exhibit 2103. I would need to see it, if it is in relation to this one,

10 that I indeed did some markings.

11 Q. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. We're going to come

12 to the specific shot. What I'm interested in is the methodology you used

13 when you made the markings.

14 Actually, my next question would be: When you were making these

15 markings, whether this was done by you or your colleagues from the

16 Prosecutor's office, were you guided by information that you received from

17 witnesses whom you were interviewing in the course of your investigation?

18 A. The answer would be yes and no, because to mark the bus company

19 Ekspres on the aerial imagery of Potocari didn't really need witnesses.

20 We have been enough times to this place to know what the buildings are and

21 be able to pinpoint them on an aerial imagery.

22 Q. We will look at the specific photograph that I'm interested in and

23 then you can answer my question.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: If the witness can be shown photograph number 6

25 from the set of photographs which bear number P2103.

1 Q. [Interpretation] Do you recall this photograph, Mr. Ruez?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. During your testimony on the 7th of September, 2006 - and this is

4 transcript page 1319, from line 25 to line 12 on 1320 - you said that this

5 yellow square marking one of the buildings marked by the words "UN Base,"

6 you said that this was the area where the refugees were. Do you recall

7 saying that?

8 A. I said this is the UN base in which 5.000 among a total of 25.000

9 refugees were taking shelter. The other ones are in an area that I have

10 shown on another photograph. But on this one, it is all the area Ekspres

11 bus compound and Energoinvest, zinc factory. This is the broad perimeter

12 where the other refugees took shelter. I think this is what I said.

13 Q. Similar. However, you also said that the Feros facility that we

14 can see on the photograph here and in another building, which was -- is

15 marked here as the Blue Factory, you said that the refugees were not

16 located here; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, this is correct.

18 Q. I just wanted to ask you one thing: This yellow rectangle that we

19 see on this photograph, did you draw that in or did one of your colleagues

20 do that?

21 A. On this specific picture my answer was that I did not recall if I

22 did this marking - that was done in preparation for the trial of General

23 Krstic - or if another colleague did it. I would think that it was

24 another one because I would not have personally put an arrow on the

25 electrical station, because it is not a reference point for the

1 investigation in this area. So I think it has been done by someone else.

2 But I confirm the markings for all what is on this photograph, yes.

3 Q. Thank you very much. It's not really of the utmost importance,

4 whether you marked this or whether one of your colleagues did, but I'm

5 interested in what you said in reference to the Feros building, the Blue

6 Factory. I assume that what you said is based on witness statements; is

7 that correct?

8 A. Yes, absolutely.

9 Q. Thank you. I assume that these were witnesses who were in

10 Potocari between the 11th and the 13th of July, 1995; is this correct?

11 A. Yes, this is correct.

12 Q. Amongst the people who were in Potocari at the time, there was a

13 witness. Do you have the list of witnesses here indicated by numbers? I

14 do not want to mention the name of this witness. Perhaps if you can just

15 look. This is a list you had with you during your testimony, and if you

16 would kindly look at number 42, please.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you speak with this witness? Did you take a statement from

19 him?

20 A. As I already said once, there are two survivors of Branjevo farm,

21 a young one and an old one, and I took a statement of the young one -- the

22 younger one. But I don't know if -- which one of the two is the one I'm

23 talking about. We already had that little problem, but you know.

24 Q. Yes. We're talking about witness marked 42. My question was

25 whether you spoke with witness marked here as number 42. Did you take a

1 statement from him? Did you perhaps show him some photographs? Did you

2 have any contact with this witness marked by number 42?

3 A. I have exactly the same answer. If I cannot identify number 42 as

4 being the young one, and you know who is the old one because he was here

5 some short time ago, so you just need to tell me if he's the young one.

6 Then my answer will be yes. If not, it will be no.

7 Q. It's the older one. So your position is that you did not take the

8 statement from Witness 42, the older one who testified here some time ago

9 before this Trial Chamber.

10 A. You are asking me a recollection that is now 11 years old. And if

11 I took the statement, my name and signature is on it, and I'm sure you

12 have it in your records. So if my name is on it, no doubt I took a

13 statement from him, yes. If not, I didn't; another colleague did.

14 Q. If I were to say that you couldn't recall whether you did or

15 didn't, that would then be your answer, in brief; correct?

16 A. This is correct.

17 Q. Thank you very much.

18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Could we move to private session for just a very

19 brief period? I want to make sure not to disclose the name of the

20 witness.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Number 42, you can disclose his name because he

22 testified in open session. So we have no problem then. Or I can tell you

23 that just -- while following you, of course, I was checking other things.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: I was just trying to be careful.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. You can't refer to the other one. But

1 Witness 42, you can definitely refer to by name. Do you still want to go

2 into private session or not?

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: No, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll remain in public session and we will

5 proceed. Thank you.

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Sir, I would like to show you a part of the transcript from the

8 testimony of Witness 42 in these proceedings on the 6th of September of

9 this year. I would like to quote page 1231 of the transcript, lines 20 to

10 24. It begins like this:

11 [In English] "The people were in a number of buildings. I do not

12 know exactly how many, but perhaps there were five or six of these

13 buildings, factories that are there. There is the lead factory, the Zinc

14 Factory, Akumulator, Feros, perhaps some other ones. There's some other

15 factories."

16 [Interpretation] After that, again on page 1232 of the transcript

17 of the same day, line 11, this witness states:

18 [In English] "The people were being placed in these buildings, in

19 these factories. They are quite close to each other. Some are above the

20 road; some are below the road. Maybe they are 50 to 60 metres apart, up

21 to 100 metres, depending on the factory. And there were people again in

22 between the factories because you could not fit 30.000 people into the

23 buildings, all of them. That is quite clear."

24 [Interpretation] So now you've heard this part of the testimony of

25 Witness 42, and it's evident on the basis of it that they were also in the

1 buildings which were close to the UN base, the Feros, the Blue Factory,

2 and in the area between them. So not only in the area that was marked on

3 photograph number 6.

4 A. I really don't have a clue how you are drafting this conclusion.

5 Q. Sir, if you like, I can read this part of the transcript again.

6 But the witness was recently heard before this Trial Chamber and he was

7 questioned in detail about the area where they were in Potocari as

8 refugees, and he stated here that they were in the area between the UN

9 base, also in these other buildings that are very close to it. That's how

10 I reached my conclusion.

11 But, actually, my question to you is whether this testimony as it

12 is would make you, perhaps, change your position regarding the places

13 where the refugees were from the 11th to the 13th of July, in Potocari.

14 A. Two elements in my answer. The first one is that I -- the witness

15 gives a perfectly accurate description of the situation. He absolutely

16 nowhere points to the fact that the Blue Factory, the so-called Blue

17 Factory, in between the area of all the factories he's naming and the UN

18 base, was used by refugees. The investigation concludes from the

19 testimonies of others that this place was sealed off and not accessible.

20 This can also be seen from aerial imagery that the line of refugees is

21 beyond, anyhow, this factory as an additional element.

22 So the second point is I absolutely don't change my conclusion

23 regarding the fact that the so-called Blue Factory was not accessible to

24 the refugees.

25 Q. Thank you. One more question. You will agree, of course, that

1 Witness 42, who was there at the time - there's no doubt about that -

2 knows certainly very well where he was and where the other refugees were

3 located?

4 A. Yes, absolutely. This is why I personally don't see in his

5 declaration what gives you the certainty that the Blue Factory, so-called

6 Blue Factory, was used by the refugees. But I need also to add that it

7 doesn't seem to me extremely relevant to know if it was used by the way.

8 Q. Very well, Mr. Ruez. It would be good if you answered more

9 briefly. Otherwise, the time that I allotted for this cross-examination

10 would have to be extended. So I would like to cover the material a little

11 bit more quickly. So I would appreciate it very much if you would just

12 answer briefly the questions I put to you.

13 A. Don't hesitate to take your time. I have all my time.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: You seem to be in agreement because you have enough

15 time, Mr. Ruez. It's true that when you testified back on the 7th of --

16 because I'm just checking it, on the 7th of September, you were categoric

17 as regards the Blue Factory, saying that the Blue Factory was sealed off,

18 cordoned off, by the Bosnian Serb army and there were no refugees in it.

19 But you also included the Feros in the same category. If you -- I want to

20 correct that and you need to do that.

21 Let me read to you what you said at page 1320, line 6:

22 "As we go down, as the Blue Factory, so-called Blue Factory, in

23 front of it, alongside of the road, a building named from its company

24 Feros."

25 "And then any particular significance from the investigation of

1 those two buildings?"

2 That was the question. Your answer:

3 "We -- as far as we know, these ones were not used as a shelter by

4 the refugees. This area had been cordoned off by the Bosnian Serb army."

5 And then you started referring to the White House. So when you

6 testified, you put in the same basket both the Blue Factory and the Feros

7 Factory. Now, Witness 42 -- Witness 42 -- now, let me see how I'm going

8 to do this. How do I collapse this again?

9 JUDGE KWON: It is 1231, 920.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Can I read from yours?

11 Now, Witness 42, according to Mr. Lazarevic --

12 JUDGE KWON: Shall I read it?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, if you would kindly do that, please.

14 Specifically, it refers to Feros. He does not mention the Blue Factory as

15 such, but he does mention Feros Factory as such.

16 JUDGE KWON: In answer to the question put by Stojanovic, which

17 says:

18 "Since we are familiar with the layout, can you please tell us

19 whether you're talking about one building or several buildings where the

20 people were?"

21 The answer was, line 20:

22 "The people were in large -- in a number of buildings. I don't

23 know exactly how many, but perhaps there were five or six of these

24 buildings, factories that are there. There is the lead factory, the zinc

25 factory, Akumulator, Feros, perhaps some other ones. There were some

1 other factories."

2 Is this the passage you had in mind?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And later on, Judge Kwon --

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Perhaps I can help. It's --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 6, Mr. Lazarevic is reading, of course, in

6 English.

7 "After that the witness had mentioned indeed the Feros. He

8 mentioned the lead factory, the Zinc Factory, Akumulator, Feros, perhaps

9 some other ones."

10 Now, I take it none of these would be the Blue Factory?

11 THE WITNESS: Two things also in this. Indeed Feros is a

12 building. The admin building of the Feros company is just adjacent to the

13 so-called --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: It's opposite.

15 THE WITNESS: Just next to it. They make, let's say, like one

16 block, though they are two buildings.

17 I point out that the witness is saying what the situation was, so

18 people in all the factories, and he's listing, for the sake of the

19 purpose, all the factories he knows in the area. But I do not see that it

20 was pointed out to him: Do you know whether Feros was used.

21 Again, I repeat, our information is from several witness accounts

22 that the Blue Factory was not used by the refugees. It was sealed off.

23 Their assumption was that it was used as a base for the army. We did not

24 particularly investigate this. We know that the line of refugees were

25 during July 12 at the level of the access on the road to the Ekspres

1 compound, that it moved a bit in the direction north of about 50 metres

2 during the day of the July 13. The area of this Blue Factory, with

3 "Feros" next to it is, let's say, one more -- at least one more, 50

4 metres towards the direction of the UN compound. And there were -- there

5 were no refugees in this -- in this precise location.

6 But would there be some? Again, I don't really see the point. We

7 have investigated this place. We have no reports of crimes committed

8 there. We didn't even search inside it.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So let's make it clear. Insofar as this

10 Witness 42 may have hinted in his testimony that included in the buildings

11 where the refugees were quartered were also the Blue Factory and Feros

12 Factory, he's wrong. You wouldn't agree with him.

13 THE WITNESS: Luckily he didn't mention the Blue Factory. But in

14 respect of Feros, I have to say also that I didn't show the photograph,

15 but when you are sitting on the balcony of the White House, the building

16 you have just in front of your eyes is Feros.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you very much.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ruez, I would like to move to a different

23 topic now. Let us watch one video clip that we had occasion to see on the

24 first day of your evidence here. If I understand it correctly, this is a

25 compilation of several footages. Could we just review some parts of it.

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: For the Trial Chamber and my learned colleagues

2 from the Prosecution, it's video footage V000-4458, and it bears 65 ter

3 number of the Prosecution exhibit list 1577. And we'll take a look for

4 only some very short sequence of this -- sequences of this video.

5 [Videotape played]

6 MR. LAZAREVIC: This is the part of the video that I wanted to

7 see. Okay. I believe we can stop now.

8 For the record, the part that was played starts with 03:00 and

9 lasts to 03:17.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ruez, the soldiers we see here on this still,

11 can you confirm to me that these are indeed UN soldiers? If you want me

12 to, I can have the tape played again.

13 A. No. No need to play it again. The still is good enough. They

14 are wearing blue helmets, so the assumption is indeed they are UN troops.

15 Q. Thank you. Can we please continue watching the video clips. This

16 is the same video clip, but we will look at a different sequence of it.

17 [Videotape played]

18 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go back a bit. That

19 is fine.

20 Q. Sir, do you see the two soldiers carrying weapons? This is taking

21 place in Srebrenica. Can you confirm that these two soldiers are also

22 members of the United Nations forces?

23 A. Yes. This picture is taken at the Bravo Company in Srebrenica

24 town, and the two soldiers in that location are definitely members of the

25 DutchBat.

1 Q. Thank you. I think we will take a brief look at another part of

2 the footage.

3 [Videotape played]

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Now that we are viewing this particular part, sir -- can we please

6 stop there.

7 Mr. Ruez, do you see the man pointing with his arm? And we saw

8 the text saying that he was addressing the crowd, saying that the road

9 ought to be blocked. Do you see the man?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Do you recognise him, perhaps, by any chance?

12 A. No. I know what he's doing at this moment, but I don't know his

13 name or who he is.

14 Q. Do you know the name -- by the name of Nesib Mandzic?

15 A. Yes, I absolutely know the name Nesib Mandzic, yes.

16 Q. Did you have occasion to speak to Nesib Mandzic, to see him in

17 person?

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. Do you perhaps recognise him at this still?

20 A. No, I don't.

21 Q. Thank you very much.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we stop there briefly? Thank

24 you.

25 Q. Sir, are these UN soldiers? Or, rather, the soldier we can see in

1 the middle of the footage here.

2 A. Yes, he's a UN soldier.

3 Q. Thank you very much. And the three soldiers, too?

4 A. The three soldiers, too.

5 Q. Let us see a bit more of the video.

6 [Videotape played]

7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Can you confirm that these are also UN soldiers?

9 A. All the people wearing blue helmets and camouflage uniform on this

10 footage are, yes, UN soldiers.

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. For the record, we stopped at 08:36.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you have now seen several stills where you

13 identified soldiers as UN soldiers. Tell me, is it fair to say that all

14 these stills where we saw UN soldiers, we were able to see that all of

15 them wore camouflage flak jackets?

16 A. Yes, indeed.

17 Q. Thank you very much. Is it also fair to say that none of the UN

18 soldiers we saw had light blue flak jackets? They all had camouflage flak

19 jackets; is that right?

20 A. That is right.

21 Q. Thank you. That is what I wanted to show you in the video

22 footages. I would like to move on now.

23 On the 7th of September, 2006, during your evidence here, while

24 the discussion concerned the so-called Petrovic video footage, 1320, lines

25 2 to 9, you said at that point that Petrovic's footage, which contained a

1 sequence with Kravica and the White House was something that you received

2 from your friend, a Dutch journalist. Do you remember that?

3 A. No, I didn't say that. I have no friend who is a Dutch

4 journalist. What I said is that I saw it for the first time when a Dutch

5 journalist came to visit me in order to show me these pictures.

6 Q. Perhaps I misunderstood your testimony. Maybe it was due to

7 misinterpretation. What was it precisely that you saw? Did he show this

8 to you without handing it over to you, or did this Dutch journalist

9 actually hand the tape containing the footage over to you?

10 A. I was not handed over the tape. I was shown the pictures.

11 Q. Can you tell me - of course if you recall - when this was

12 precisely? You did not tell us exactly when it was, which year, which

13 month. Perhaps the date.

14 A. No. I hardly remember, but it would be easy to find because it

15 was a very short time before the OTP had access to the tape, or at least

16 before I learned that the OTP also had had access to the tape. It's the

17 same year and most probably around the same month. But I don't recall

18 when that was. I was on my island in the Caribes, so it was after 2001,

19 that's for sure. Maybe 2002, at the end of 2002.

20 Q. Can you tell us the name of the Dutch journalist who showed you

21 the footage?

22 A. There were two of them, and I have no recollection of their names,

23 nor even of -- for what -- they were working for TV, but I don't even know

24 where -- I don't remember which one.

25 Q. Once you were shown the footage by these two journalists or,

1 rather, at the time you were shown the footage by them, you did not work

2 for the OTP; is that right?

3 A. No. I had left the Tribunal in April, 2001.

4 Q. Thank you. What did you do after you saw the footage? Did you

5 tell the journalists to notify the OTP of the existence of the footage, or

6 did you yourself inform the OTP about the footage?

7 A. It is when I informed that I learnt that the OTP also had recently

8 had access to these pictures, as far as I remember.

9 Q. If I understand you correctly, when you got in touch with the OTP,

10 the existence of the footage was no longer a surprise for them. They were

11 already in possession of it.

12 A. This is correct.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Can you tell us who it was you got in touch

14 with from the OTP?

15 A. Peter McCloskey.

16 Q. Thank you. So naturally he was the one to tell you that they

17 already had the footage?

18 A. I was disappointed I didn't bring him hot news. He already had

19 the thing.

20 Q. Did he tell you where he got it from?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, objection sustained.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: I withdraw the question.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: There's such a thing as -- I don't think you should

24 have asked that question.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Mr. Ruez, I would like us to address a different subject now which

2 has to do with your investigation concerning Srebrenica and certain

3 procedures you went through during your investigation. One of the issues

4 which came up during the investigation process was the seizing of various

5 documentation from the army and elsewhere. Did you take part in these

6 actions of seizing documentation and such like?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Thank you. I will put very specific questions to you now which

9 will have to do with specific locations where these seizures to place, and

10 I wish you to tell me whether you, as the chief investigator, took part in

11 them or not. So I only need a yes or no answer from you.

12 The public security station or centre in Zvornik.

13 A. No.

14 Q. The public security centre in Bijeljina.

15 A. No.

16 Q. Did you take part in the searching and seizing of the MUP archives

17 of Republika Srpska?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Let me put another question to you. Did you take part in the

20 searching and seizing of the documentation by the Special Police Brigade

21 of Republika Srpska?

22 A. No, I wasn't.

23 Q. Since you did take part in some other seizing actions, what was

24 the procedure like of seizing documentation? I suppose you, together with

25 investigators, enter certain premises and then you proceed to seize

1 documentation. At that point, do you make a record of the documentation

2 you seize? I mean -- and I'm referring to those centres or seizing

3 actions where you took part.

4 A. I took part in two search and seizure operations. The first one

5 was in the summer of 1996. It was a search and seizure in a container at

6 the Bratunac Brigade headquarters in which we seized a certain number of

7 blue helmets that had been taken from the Dutch Battalion at that time.

8 The second operation was the search and seizure at the Bratunac

9 Brigade. That was simultaneous, as you know, to the same operation

10 conducted at the Zvornik Brigade. So at the Zvornik Brigade, the material

11 seized was listed on a log. Only one specific situation was the search of

12 the office of the security officer, Mr. Lazar Ostojic, lieutenant or

13 captain at that time.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. I think, just to get the record

15 straight, I think we're getting the brigades -- he said Zvornik, and I

16 think he means the other brigade. Just to --

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, you're right. At the Zvornik Brigade it was

18 the same procedure. It was the logging of the material. The only

19 exception to that is at the Bratunac Brigade, the office of the security

20 officer, since at one point I conducted the search and seizure personally,

21 I did it in what I call the French way, that is we brought down a detailed

22 list with a description of all the documents seized in that office. So

23 that was the procedure.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Thank you. That was precisely what I was interested in, the

1 procedure. You describe it, that this was the French way, but was it in

2 general the procedure applied by the OTP in seizing documents?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you answer that question? Because if you don't

4 know, please don't answer that question.

5 THE WITNESS: I cannot answer. I can only answer for the

6 operations that I took part into. And the way the things were done was to

7 have the document -- I mean, to have all the material logged and signed by

8 a representative of those who are taking the material away.

9 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Thank you. That's precisely what I'm interested in. A list of

11 documents seized is drafted, which list is then presented to the

12 representative of the organisation on whose premises the seizure was

13 carried out, and they do confirm that this was in fact the documentation

14 that was seized by you from their premises. Is that the procedure?

15 A. Yes, this is correct.

16 Q. My next question will perhaps call for a somewhat hypothetical

17 answer on your part. In order to seize the documentation of the Special

18 Police Brigade, all the documents seized would be listed and the

19 representative of the organisation would have to put his signature down

20 confirming that they were in fact handed over to you.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: The witness has said he wasn't involved in any of

24 those searches, so this is not just hypothetical, it would be extremely

25 speculative.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: And the question itself premised it would be a

2 somewhat hypothetical answer. So let's go to the next question, unless

3 you're familiar with the events relating the events you're being asked

4 about, in which case you're free to answer. But please do not speculate.

5 THE WITNESS: I would not speculate. I was not at the Tribunal

6 any longer when that search occurred.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ruez.

8 Mr. Lazarevic, next question.

9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I have just a few more

10 questions for the witness.

11 Q. [Interpretation] I've already asked you about the centres in

12 Zvornik, Bijeljina, and these others. You said that you did not take part

13 in them. But can I ask you the following: Do you know who did take part

14 in it? And, of course, I'm asking you about the OTP investigators.

15 A. I was waiting for the translation delay. Sorry. No, I don't know

16 who took part in these other searches.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further

18 questions. However, I would like to retain the right to, well, ask this

19 witness again when he comes back in the presence of the attorneys of the

20 US embassy regarding aerial images. I would like to retain the right to

21 do so.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. Lazarevic. I thank you, Mr.

23 Lazarevic.

24 Ms. Fauveau. Ms. Fauveau is appearing for General Miletic.

25 Now, Madam Fauveau will be firing her questions in French, which

1 is your native tongue. So please, I exhort you both to allow a small

2 pause between question and answer, even though I assume that you will be

3 answering in English. But allow a brief interval of time. Thank you.

4 Madam Fauveau.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:

7 Q. [Interpretation] First of all, I'd like to clarify one point

8 concerning Bratunac. On several occasions you said that in Bratunac there

9 was the old school and Karadzic school. Can you confirm that there were,

10 in effect, two schools in Bratunac?

11 A. [No interpretation].

12 Q. I would like to show the witness number --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: He answered. I heard him say "oui" --

14 THE WITNESS: Sorry my answer is to be yes, but there is a problem

15 with translation.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: But neither showed up, "oui" or "yes" in English.

17 But I heard distinctly heard the witness answer yes. So the answer to

18 your first question was yes?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness

22 Exhibit 272. It's a picture which is not on the CD-ROM. It's a

23 photograph representing Bratunac.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Why don't we put it on the ELMO, please.

25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can you scroll down. No, sorry.

1 Can you move up a little, please.

2 Q. Sir, can you confirm that the old school was located alongside the

3 road which led to Serbia?

4 A. [In English] At the edge not exactly, but, yes, very close to the

5 road that goes towards Serbia through the so-called iron bridge.

6 Q. At any rate, it's much closer to the road than --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Did it have a name, that old school?

8 THE WITNESS: We know it under the acronym "old school" or

9 "technical school", but we don't know the real name of this school.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

12 Q. A while ago --

13 A. I didn't you. Yes, it is approximately 15 metres away from the

14 road you are mentioning, while the Vuk Karadzic school would be at 150

15 metres from that road, or 100 metres from that road.

16 Q. Thank you. You mentioned a while ago Witness 42, and you said

17 that you did not remember having questioned this witness. Let me remind

18 you that on the 14th of September you stated that, as far as you

19 remembered, this witness had been detained in the old school, at page 1442

20 of the 14th of September testimony.

21 A. I might mix one of the two of the Branjevo survivors, but yes, for

22 sure, one of the two says he was held in that location. And I think he

23 was taken there on 13 and left on 15 July, in that location.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness the

25 statement made by Witness 42. This is Exhibit 3D15.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: So I take it this is a Nikolic exhibit, isn't it?

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

3 Can we see the bottom of the page where we can see the signature.

4 Q. Is this your signature, sir?

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 Q. Can we now see page 3? Yes, page 3 of the statement, second

7 paragraph. Second sentence in the second paragraph, the witness stated

8 that:

9 [In English] "They stopped in front of the school that looked

10 abandoned and which is along the road in the direction of the Serbia."

11 [Interpretation] Is it correct --

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Is it correct to say that the description of the school and its

14 location perfectly matched the old school, the technical school?

15 A. Yes, because we showed him the picture. So that was making sure

16 of the situation, though -- though we didn't go and look for the petrol

17 pump, nor did we for the church, and we didn't go and look for a sawmill

18 in -- also. But, yes, the description is accurate.

19 Q. Last sentence of that paragraph, paragraph 2, the witness stated:

20 [In English] "I don't know the name of the school, but it is an

21 old one. There is another school in Bratunac which is more recent."

22 [Interpretation] Is it correct to say that at the time the witness

23 was unable to give you the name of the school?

24 A. It is true. He probably was speaking about the Vuk Karadzic

25 school, but he didn't know the name of that school.

1 Q. Sir, did he mention the old school or the Vuk Karadzic school?

2 A. Sorry, I'll speak in English. He said that he was in one school

3 and that there is a more recent one. So if we know that these two

4 schools, one is named the old school and one, the Vuk Karadzic school, I

5 bet that the most recent one is not the old one but the Vuk Karadzic

6 school. And the one we know under the name of "old school" or "technical

7 school" is the one that he recognised on a photograph. So this is why I

8 believe that the other one he's referring to should be the Vuk Karadzic

9 school, but he doesn't know the name.

10 Q. However, he was held in the old school, wasn't he?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. On the 14th of September, you stated on page 1624 of the

13 transcript, and I'm going to quote you in English:

14 [In English] "The ultimate stage of an investigation is to present

15 the evidence in a courtroom. In a courtroom we show the information that

16 is the result of leads that we have followed and that we the Prosecutor

17 leaves are positive."

18 [Interpretation] I would like to know this: Did you listen to the

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Private session]

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: My apologies to you, Madam Fauveau, but we needed to

14 do that. Please proceed with your questions.

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm sorry, because I

16 am the one who mentioned his testimony in the previous cases. However,

17 now I can't remember whether the witness remembers my question, and if I

18 have to put it again, we'll have to move to private session.

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. I must admit that this is interesting, because all the officials I

25 have interviewed in Bratunac, all of them have made a lot of efforts in

1 order to convince me that the Vuk Karadzic school had not been used at the

2 time of these events. Only Mr. Deronjic backed off a little bit and

3 conceded that one classroom had been used. And now today you tell us

4 that, in fact, yes, the Vuk Karadzic school was apparently in full use,

5 because not only one classroom was used according to that witness.

6 So I must say that for me it's a discovery that we have a survivor

7 from the Vuk Karadzic school. I mean, not from the Vuk Karadzic school

8 complex but precisely from the Vuk Karadzic school building.

9 Q. No, no, this is not my theory. He was not held. (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)That was my theory, and I was asking you whether you could

13 account for the fact that, at one point, the witness changed his statement

14 as to the place of detention.

15 A. I do not believe that this witness has changed his declaration. I

16 just think that initially he said that he was in the so-called old school,

17 because he refers to Vuk Karadzic without naming it as being a more recent

18 one, and I bet that if he testified later on by saying "Vuk Karadzic

19 school," it's because he believes that the old school has the name of Vuk

20 Karadzic. That's the only explanation I can see here, at this stage

21 anyhow.

22 Q. Your opinion is that he was held in the old school; is that

23 correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. I would like to move to another subject, the Petkovci school. On

1 the 11th of September, transcript page 1493, you stated that you first

2 identified the dam and then the school in Petkovci. Is that right?

3 A. I don't see my previous answer, "Yes, this is correct." At the

4 previous question, there is nothing on the transcript. It's only written

5 "[Previous translation continues] ..." But "Yes, this is correct" does

6 not appear on the record.

7 Q. Thank you for pointing this out. My question was: Do you

8 maintain that Witness 42 was detained in the old school?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. I would like to move to another subject, the school in Petkovci.

11 On the 11th of September, 2006, you said on page 1493 of the transcript,

12 that you first identified the Petkovci dam and then the school. Is that

13 correct?

14 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

15 Q. When you found the school, you took some photos of the school and

16 you showed them to survivors. Is that correct?

17 A. To one of them, yes, this is correct.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Photo 158 of Exhibit 2103, could it

19 be shown to the witness.

20 Mr. President, you will notice that the CD-ROM that we received

21 from the Prosecution has 262 photographs, but I think that up to there, it

22 does -- it does match with the photos the Prosecutor showed us.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I have done my best --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I have done my best to follow you, Madam Fauveau,

1 but I was following in English and I don't think that the English

2 interpretation is understandable as it is.

3 It says: "Mr. President you will notice that the CD-ROM that we

4 received from the Prosecution has 262 photographs, but I think that up to

5 there, it does -- it does not match with the photos the Prosecutor showed

6 us."

7 If I understand you well, although it doesn't say so, is that

8 before we were being shown a CD which, on the bottom of the monitor, it

9 would show a total of 271, while here now we have a total of 262.

10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Precisely the problem I was

11 mentioning. We did not receive the CD-ROM that the Prosecutor showed us,

12 but I think that here there is a perfect match with photo 258 of the

13 Prosecutor's CD-ROM.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: 158. So basically, Mr. McCloskey and your case

15 manager -- thank you for pointing that out, Madam Fauveau.

16 Basically what Madam Fauveau wants confirmation of is that 158 of

17 262 would still be 158 of 271; in other words, that we are not referring

18 to two different photos.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: It should be. And to try to clear it up, we've

20 given them two CDs, one with I think the lower number on it, and then when

21 there is a few added we gave them another CD with that on it. So she's

22 had both, but I think she's correct. It's the same -- the same school,

23 the same photo.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. If you find out that it isn't, either of

25 please, do let us know, for the record.

1 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] We have received all the photos,

3 there's no doubt about it, but we did not receive the CD-ROM with 271

4 photos on it.

5 Q. Is this the Petkovci school?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. Is it correct to say that this photo was taken from the meadow

8 that is in front of the school?

9 A. It is.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. All right. Now it says so. Yes, go

11 on. Thank you.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I believe, Mr. President, that the

13 witness's answer to my last two questions was not in the transcript.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it is. Initially it wasn't, and I got an

15 explanation why it wasn't, but then, as you will see on line 15,

16 "[Previous translation continues]..." that means there was overlapping.

17 He did not allow sufficient time. But then there is "It is," which I take

18 it is his answer to your question.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It was line 12. That's where the

20 answer is missing.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So it is -- yes. Let's go back through it.

22 You were asked whether you recognised this as the Petkovci school

23 and your answer was yes. And then you were asked whether it is correct to

24 say that this photo was taken from the meadow which is in front of the

25 school, and you answered yes as well.

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, again, this shows the importance that you allow

3 a little bit of a pause between Madam Fauveau's question and your answer,

4 because I take it that you are following her in French.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: And that's the reason why you are jumping, popping

7 in straight with your answer in English before allowing for the

8 interpreters to completely translate the question.

9 THE WITNESS: I will take care of that.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure you will. And we will have a break in six

11 minutes' time, Madam Fauveau.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Do you remember the school in Rocevic?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. It is correct to say that there's also a meadow in front of that

16 school.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It is correct to say that the Rocevic school has a parking area at

19 the back of the school.

20 A. Not a parking, a playground.

21 Q. It may be a playground, but it was used also as a parking area,

22 wasn't it?

23 A. I don't know for Rocevic school. My recollection is that on the

24 picture one can see a playground, but the playground can indeed be used,

25 if necessary, as a parking. And during these days I bet it was, in July

1 1995.

2 Q. You stated that the Petkovci school was a two-storey building; is

3 that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. It is correct to say that the school in Grabovci also has two

6 stories.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is it correct to say that the school in Rocevic is a two-storey

9 building?

10 A. There are two floors. We count the ground floor as one floor.

11 Are we on the same line on this?

12 Q. The one in Pilica also has two floors.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. I would like to show you photo 165.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, we've fallen into the same problem again. We

16 don't have in the transcript his translation.

17 The one in Pilica also has two floors. Did you agree with that

18 proposition?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: And he did put to you, Madam Fauveau, the statement

21 that the ground floor would count as one floor. You agreed to that?

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Thank you,

23 because I want to clarify this.

24 Q. With regard to the school we see now in the screen, the school in

25 Petkovci, the ground floor is a floor for you; is that so?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Indeed, it can be concluded that all these schools are two-storey

3 buildings.

4 A. Yes, because I count the ground floor.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can photo 165 be shown to the

6 witness.

7 Q. You stated on the 11th of September, 2006, page 1496 of the

8 transcript, that this shows the bullet hole in the blackboard.

9 A. This is correct.

10 Q. Did you take that photo?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. And did you find the bullet in the blackboard?

13 A. No. We didn't search for that.

14 Q. Therefore, you did not carry out any scientific analysis of the

15 bullet hole or the bullet that would have been found?

16 A. No, nothing like that was done.

17 Q. Did you find out during your investigation that the military

18 soldiers of the VRS or the army of Republika Srpska --

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I believe there is problem with the

20 previous answer again.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Indeed there is. You were asked --

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is line 15.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. You were asked, Mr. Ruez:

24 "Therefore, you did not carry out any scientific analysis of the

25 bullet hole or the bullet that would have been found?"

1 And your answer was no, wasn't it?

2 THE WITNESS: The answer was no.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Did you find out during your investigation that the military from

6 the army of Republika Srpska would regularly come to the school in 1994

7 and also in spring 1995?

8 A. We learned that, in fact, all the schools of the area were used

9 from time to time as rest places for the army.

10 Q. Did you learn during your investigation that fighting took place

11 in the village around that school in 1992?

12 A. Yes. I mean, not specifically on -- about this village, but the

13 fact is that most of the places are indeed in former war zones, let's say.

14 Q. Could it not be that the bullet holes in the blackboard sort of

15 date back to a period before the events of July 1995?

16 A. It is totally possible.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like the

18 whole answer to be in the transcript.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Again, it's -- we only have the word

20 "possible" --

21 THE WITNESS: It is --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: -- as an answer to the question.

23 THE WITNESS: The full answer was: "It is totally possible."

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

25 Whenever it's convenient for you, Madam Fauveau, we can have a

1 break.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. I think it's a good time now.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will have a 30-minute break, starting from

4 now. Thank you.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Fauveau, I take it that Mr. McCloskey

8 would like to raise a couple of issues before you proceed with the

9 cross-examination. Thank you for understanding.

10 Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Very briefly, Mr. President, I just -- I was

12 able to find the 30 August 2006 order from Judge Pocar regarding Ahmo

13 Hasic, and we did, in fact, ask for both cases and he is cleared on both

14 cases. So I don't know why I said to the contrary, but it's clear we can

15 speak about him.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for that information. Thank you.

17 No more issues to address? All right. So let's bring Mr. Ruez

18 back in.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Sir, on the 8th of September --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. On the 8th --

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Sorry. I can't see the witness from

23 where I stand.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: How come you can't see the witness from where you

25 stand? I can understand if you had a big column like we do -- oh, it's

1 Mr. Ostojic.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's proceed.

4 Mr. Ruez, we are going to proceed with Madam Fauveau's

5 cross-examination of you. Thank you.

6 Madam Fauveau.

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Sir, on the 8th of September, 2006, you mentioned the Muslim

9 population which was taken on buses to Kladanj and that then had to walk

10 through the confrontation area. This was on the 8th of September, page

11 1332.

12 Isn't it correct to say that during your investigation you

13 discovered that this confrontation area was in fact an area which could be

14 called a no-man's land?

15 A. Yes, this is correct. It was a no-man's land at that time.

16 Q. And the Muslims, alongside with the Serbs, could organise the

17 transportation in that area?

18 A. No, that was not the case because the area was mined on both

19 sides. So on the Serbs -- and the Serb side took off -- took away their

20 mines so the population could cross. The BiH army, as we can see on the

21 film, advanced in that no-man's land up to the level of a tunnel, the

22 tunnel being, in fact, the real physical separation between the two

23 warring factions at that time.

24 Q. In other words, neither party could organise transportation in

25 this area; is that right?

1 A. This is the reason why the refugees could be seen on the film

2 crossing this area on foot.

3 Q. Sir, on that same day, the 8th of September, 2006, on the same

4 page of the transcript, 1332, you said as follows:

5 [In English] "The people who were bussed out of Srebrenica, they

6 were taken towards this area, and from there they would walk by foot

7 through the confrontation zone."

8 [Interpretation] What I'm interested in is this: You discovered

9 in the course of your investigation that people were put on the buses in

10 Potocari; is that right?

11 A. This is right.

12 Q. And, in fact, nobody was taken directly from Srebrenica to

13 Kladanj; is that right?

14 A. There was no direct transportation from Srebrenica. The

15 collection point was Potocari.

16 Q. On the 15th of September, 2006, on page 40 of the transcript, you

17 talked about a Muslim man who had managed to get across to Muslim

18 territory in Kladanj because he knew a soldier who was there. Do you

19 remember having said that?

20 A. Yes, absolutely.

21 Q. Can we therefore conclude that the soldiers -- the soldier that

22 was there had the power to decide who was going to move into Muslim

23 territory and who wasn't?

24 A. I would not say so. I don't believe they had the power to decide

25 who would go or who would not go. But obviously one could have initiative

1 to let someone go through, indeed.

2 Q. As far as the man who took this initiative, you don't know whether

3 he belonged to the army of Republika Srpska, the police in Zvornik, or the

4 police in Bratunac, or whether he was a member of a paramilitary

5 formation?

6 A. This is correct, though we know what unit was on that location,

7 though I do not remember this point precisely at this moment.

8 Q. On the 12th of September, 2006, you commented on some pictures

9 taken of two mosques, the mosque in Srebrenica and the mosque that was on

10 the Zeleni Jadar road. Is it right to say that in your investigation you

11 established that on the 13th of July, 1995, the Srebrenica mosque was

12 still standing in the town of Srebrenica?

13 A. Yes, indeed.

14 Q. And as far as the Zeleni Jadar -- the mosque on the road to Zeleni

15 Jadar, it was also established that it was still standing after the

16 enclave in Srebrenica had been taken?

17 A. In the following days, no; but the day General Mladic entered the

18 town, yes, because this second mosque can be seen at a very precise moment

19 during that film.

20 Q. But you have no information whereby this mosque was destroyed on

21 the 12th, 13th, or 20th of --

22 A. We do not know the date of the start of the destruction, indeed.

23 Q. -- July.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let me draw your attention again, and please

25 do heed what I'm telling you, because I had a chat with the interpreters

1 during the break: The fact that Madam Fauveau is addressing her questions

2 in French, that you're listening in French and the way you are following

3 up with questions and answers almost immediately is creating a lot of

4 problems for them, especially because they were explaining to me how --

5 when you do this, how they need to, at least one section, wait for

6 interpretation in English before they can then proceed with interpretation

7 into B/C/S, and so on and so forth. So please do cooperate as much as you

8 can. I know it's not easy. Sometimes I make the same mistake myself.

9 But please do cooperate. Let's try and make the interpreters' job, which

10 is already heavy and difficult, a little bit lighter. Thank you.

11 And that brings me to line 15. I don't know whether, indeed,

12 there was the full answer or whether there's only a part of the answer.

13 THE WITNESS: The answer to the question at line 15 was that the

14 investigation did not come up with any date that would signal the start of

15 the destruction.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ruez.

17 Thank you, Madam Fauveau. You may proceed.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Ms. Fauveau.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I apologise.

20 Q. Did you, in the course of your investigation, discover when the

21 mosque on the road to Zeleni Jadar had been built?

22 A. No, I didn't.

23 Q. I shall now move on to the situation in Potocari. On the 15th of

24 September, on page 31 of the transcript, you stated that the number of

25 people who had assembled in Potocari amounted to 25.000 people,

1 approximately. I wanted to ask you this question: Do you feel that this

2 figure is right, i.e., 25.000 people?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it right to say that the number of people that reached Tuzla

5 also amounted to 25.000 people, approximately?

6 A. Yes. We already talked about this issue related to the fact that

7 these numbers cannot be accurate anyhow. I mean, if this intends to show

8 that 25.000 people were at the departure and 25.000 at the arrival means

9 that no one went missing in the process, this would be a wrong conclusion,

10 since we know that an unknown number of men were among this group of

11 roughly 25.000, but indeed we do not know how many of them have been

12 separated and later killed.

13 Q. Is it not right to say that the number of people that reached

14 Tuzla only amounted to 4.900 -- 24.900?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Which means that there are a hundred people that are unaccounted

17 for.

18 A. Though the number at the arrival is precise, there was no count

19 made at the departure, and there was even less of a count made of the men

20 who were separated. So I don't buy at all your conclusion that 25.000,

21 which is an unknown number, minus 24.900 could mean in any way that only

22 100 men were separated.

23 Q. But you don't know how many men were in Potocari; is that right?

24 A. I already answered that. We can see on the pictures that were

25 shown quite a number of faces that belonged to males, but no count of the

1 male refugees was made at the -- at Potocari, at the exception of the list

2 of approximately 240-something that was drafted by a member of the UN

3 battalion who started that process at the beginning of the arrival of the

4 refugees at the UN base, but this process was never completed.

5 Q. Do you have any knowledge of a document that comes from the ABiH

6 army which mentions 300 fighters in Potocari?

7 A. No.

8 Q. I would like to talk about the purpose of your investigation. On

9 the 12th of September, 2006, on page 1573 of the transcript, you stated:

10 [In English] "What we quickly explained is that we would only be

11 focusing in the first stage, the first stage that lasted very long, on

12 mass execution."

13 [Interpretation] I would like to know how much time the first

14 phase of your investigation lasted.

15 A. This phase lasted approximately three years.

16 Q. What was the purpose of the second stage of your investigation?

17 A. As I explained previously, step one was creating a very precise,

18 as precise as possible, picture of the main events. When saying "main

19 events," I'm talking about the mass executions. And then step two was

20 identification of units involved and perpetrators.

21 Q. On the 15th of September, 2006, on page 23 of the transcript, you

22 talked about the UNHCR convoy, and you said:

23 [In English] "Again, it has not been part of the investigation."

24 [Interpretation] Is it right to say that your investigation did

25 not focus on the treatment which the people in Potocari received?

1 A. No, that's not correct. It did focus on the treatment of the

2 people in Potocari. Though this aspect of the UNHCR convoy was indeed

3 certainly not the focus of the investigation, we know enough about this

4 convoy. The head of this convoy has been met by a member of the

5 investigation team, and what we know about it is that the material that

6 was brought in by the UN in order to ease the suffering of the refugees

7 never reached the refugees. So that is, indeed, an aspect that was under

8 investigation, though it was not at all the focus of -- as an important

9 aspect of the treatment received by these refugees during these two days.

10 Q. Is it right to say that your investigation did not look into the

11 root causes of the --

12 A. This is totally right --

13 Q. -- the combat in Srebrenica in July 1995?

14 A. That was not all the focus of the investigation.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Again, you're moving too fast. Please, when

16 you started answering the question, we were still halfway through the

17 interpretation process.

18 THE WITNESS: The best would be that I get the same as you all

19 have so that I could realise when the translation is over, because I don't

20 have it in the earphone.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: But we are following in English.

22 THE WITNESS: I will do the same.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. I think that will be better.

24 Just move to channel 4 and that's all. Thanks.

25 Now, that should solve the problem now, Madam Fauveau.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think it was also my fault, Your

2 Honour.

3 Q. Maybe I shall repeat my last question. Is it right to say that

4 your investigation did not focus on the root causes of the military

5 operation in Srebrenica in July 1995?

6 A. Yes, it is totally right. The events between 1992 and 1995 in

7 this area were not at all the topic of this investigation that was limited

8 to investigate criminal events that followed the fall of the Srebrenica

9 enclave, the reason why I often used to say the investigation starts on

10 events beginning the 11 July, early afternoon, not before that date.

11 Q. And therefore you did not investigate on the situation in

12 Srebrenica before the fall of the enclave?

13 A. No, I didn't, though I came across information in connection with

14 events from 1992 through 1995.

15 Q. As your investigation started, as you said just now, on the 11th

16 of July, in the beginning of the afternoon, you did not investigate on the

17 reasons why the population of Srebrenica fled to Potocari.

18 A. Listen, this is so close to the 11th, around noon, that yes,

19 indeed this was part of the investigation, since every single witness we

20 interviewed did give a piece of information related to the reason why he

21 made the choice to flee Srebrenica either to join Potocari or to join the

22 group that was -- that intended to cross the lines by walking through the

23 woods.

24 Q. Is it right to say that this information was not really the focus

25 of your interest?

1 A. Again, this is part of the surrounding events that lead later to a

2 situation that is the topic of the investigation, and this situation is a

3 large number of prisoners being under the control of the Bosnian Serb army

4 and trying to find out what happened to them.

5 Q. Have you had an opportunity during your investigation to meet the

6 people who, in 1995, were the military and political figure heads in

7 Srebrenica? What I mean are the Muslim authorities.

8 A. I met a few of them indeed, yes, in the course of the

9 investigation.

10 Q. Could you give me their names, please.

11 A. Not on top of my memory. One of them was, in bracket, the mayor

12 during the period of the siege, but I don't have his name in my head.

13 Another one is Dr. Pilav, I think. Do you want to know the topic of these

14 encounters?

15 Q. Yes, please.

16 A. In respect of the number of missing, the usual base that we are

17 using is the ICRC list of missing people. The problem is that we believe

18 that this list is incomplete, since entire families vanished. An example

19 of it could be the Nuhanovic family. The father was a negotiator. He --

20 Q. This is something you've explained already.

21 A. Okay. I believe --

22 Q. [No interpretation].

23 A. So he is the only survivor of this family because he had a UN

24 card, since he was an interpreter for the UN battalion. Had he fled

25 through the woods, the entire family would have vanished and they would

1 not have been on the missing list.

2 Therefore, the initial contacts made in 1995 with the civilian

3 representatives of the refugees in Srebrenica came up with the idea of

4 drafting their own list by going through all the refugee centres, and they

5 ended up with a list of 10.500 that we started to collect and tried to

6 check. But then two years after they had started the process, they

7 totally abandoned it because, in fact, they were facing a lot of criticism

8 from the community of refugees.

9 So that was the reason why I was in contact with these Muslim

10 civilian authorities.

11 Q. Among the people who were in the list of the Red Cross -- no, no,

12 I'll move to another question. Strike that.

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can Exhibit 5D19 be shown to the

14 witness. We have it in our system but only the B/C/S. But we obtained

15 the translation this morning, translation into English this morning. I

16 have some copies for the witness and of course for the Trial Chamber.

17 This is a newspaper article published in a Bosnian newspaper on

18 the 2nd of March, 2000. I need page 6 of the English version; in

19 Serbo-Croat, it is page 3, last column. It's the passage in the middle,

20 in bold.

21 Q. Sir, do you have the translation into English of this newspaper

22 article?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.

25 Madam Registrar, I know that the -- Madam Usher, that the B/C/S

1 version, the original, is on, but perhaps it would also help the public if

2 we put the English version, page 6, on the ELMO, please. Thank you.

3 MS. FAUVEAU:

4 Q. [In English] So it's the last paragraph, and it starts in the

5 middle of the last paragraph. In this paragraph you can read this:

6 "The greatest surprise at the Assembly was experienced by Hakija

7 Meholic, the president of the Srebrenica SDP, Social Democratic Party.

8 "They drove us in armoured personnel carriers from the airport to

9 the Holiday Inn. There we were met by President Izetbegovic, and after

10 greeting us he immediately asked: 'What do you think about exchanging

11 Srebrenica for Vogosca?' There was silence for a while, and then I spoke

12 up and said: 'Mr. President, if you brought us here for a fait accompli,

13 then you shouldn't have done that because we have to return to our

14 people...' Then he said: 'You know, in April 1993, Clinton made me an

15 offer if the Chetnik forces enter Srebrenica and massacre 5.000 Muslims,

16 then there will be military intervention.' Our delegation consisted of

17 nine people, including one from Bratunac who, sadly, is the only one who

18 is no longer alive..."

19 [Interpretation] Sir, I would like to know whether you heard of

20 this offer made by President Clinton to President Izetbegovic.

21 A. The answer is no.

22 Q. On the 2nd of March, 2000, you were still employed with the OTP,

23 weren't you?

24 A. Yes, I was.

25 Q. Nobody told you that Mr. Hakija Meholic would have made such a

1 statement regarding this fact?

2 A. No.

3 Q. So you did not investigate into this fact.

4 A. Had I known about it, I would anyhow not have investigated about

5 it. This is part of the political surroundings. This investigation was

6 not investigating the political aspect of this situation.

7 Q. But is this not a piece of information that sheds a totally

8 different light on the events in Srebrenica in July, 1995?

9 A. The answer is that during at least five years, so-called theories

10 of conspiracy were flying in all directions that many journalists have

11 followed leads in order to investigate the political aspect of all this.

12 And these theories of conspiracy have never been the topic of the

13 investigation I was in charge of. I would have read this, heard this, but

14 taken no action in terms of investigation about this.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you aware if Hakija Meholic was ever interviewed

16 by the Office of the Prosecutor, and whether he released any statements,

17 for that matter, whether he has testified in other proceedings?

18 THE WITNESS: I don't know in general for the OTP, but he was not

19 interviewed in the frame of the Srebrenica 1995 investigation.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Sir, do you know that Hakija Meholic was the chief of police in

22 July 1995 in Srebrenica?

23 A. No, I didn't?

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can Exhibit 5D27 be shown to the

25 witness. It is a newspaper article published in Le Monde, a French

1 newspaper, on the 24th of February, 2001. I would need the second page,

2 last paragraph.

3 Q. [No interpretation].

4 A. Yes, this is correct.

5 Q. This was a few days after you were heard by a parliamentary

6 commission in France.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We have the entire question missing from line

8 22, or, rather, at least part of it.

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Is it exact to say that on the 24th of February, that was a few

11 days after you were heard by a parliamentary commission in France?

12 A. Yes. My answer is this is correct.

13 Q. Did you have an opportunity to read this newspaper article before?

14 A. Yes. I read it the day following its publication.

15 Q. I'll read the last paragraph for the transcript, and then I will

16 ask a question of you.

17 "General de Lapresle, former commander of UNPROFOR, expresses a

18 feeling already expressed by his piers. He suggested that the Bosnian

19 President, Alija Izetbegovic, had abandoned the enclave maybe on the basis

20 of an agreement with the Americans. What a pity, once again, that the

21 deputies of this mission were not more pugnacious and precise in their

22 questions."

23 When you were working for the OTP, did you interview General

24 Lapresle?

25 A. No, I didn't.

1 Q. When you testified in 2001 before the parliamentary commission in

2 France -- this is Exhibit 5D15; page 16 in the French version, page 12 in

3 English -- page 16 in the French version.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm interested in Mr. Ruez's answer.

5 We were just there a minute ago. Just further down. Yes. This is the

6 paragraph in the middle, and the last sentence.

7 Q. You stated this:

8 "We did not ask France for any information. Therefore, I cannot

9 assess the quality of the cooperation we would have received from France."

10 You, therefore, never called on the help of the French Secret

11 Service during your investigation; is that right?

12 A. This is right.

13 Q. But General Janvier, wasn't he holding an important position at

14 the time of the fall of Srebrenica in Bosnia?

15 A. Yes. He was the commander of the UN protection force based in

16 Zagreb.

17 Q. In the course of your investigation, did you speak to General

18 Janvier?

19 A. No, I didn't.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Madam Fauveau. I hate to interrupt you,

21 but he premises his answer on a very important statement, stating that he

22 was not the right person to answer the question as to what sort of

23 cooperation from various governments had been forthcoming. He mentions

24 that he was just a member of the Office of the Prosecutor and is not part

25 of the structural tiers of the President of this Tribunal. And he told

1 President Rene Andre that the right person to be addressed on these

2 matters ought to be the Prosecutor.

3 Yes. Please go ahead. So, in other words, the fact that he may

4 not have interviewed, I don't know who, doesn't mean that he may not have

5 been interviewed by others.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I may clarify this

7 with the witness. Indeed, I believe that his answer had to do with two

8 different things.

9 Q. When you said that the right person to answer this question put by

10 Mr. Andre would be the Prosecutor, you probably had in mind the

11 cooperation of France with the Tribunal, didn't you?

12 A. The question I'm answering is on a previous paragraph, because the

13 president of the commission says that I did not ask -- I did not answer on

14 a question related to the collaboration of various governments, and to

15 that -- to that collaboration of various governments with the OTP, my

16 answer was that I was not a good person to be asked about this and that

17 that question would have to be addressed to the Prosecutor.

18 Q. And, indeed, the part I was interested in was whether you

19 contacted the French Secret Service, and you said you didn't.

20 A. I didn't.

21 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the OTP has an audio recording of

22 an intercept from the Zvornik Brigade on the 17th of July, 1995, and that

23 in this earlier recording you can hear French?

24 A. Yes, I am.

25 Q. Were you able to understand what was said in French in that

1 recording?

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. It assumes facts not in evidence.

3 There is, in fact, no French spoken on that recording, so that question is

4 not a proper one. If she can reword it, it shouldn't be a problem.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: The point to the previous question made by the

6 witness -- made by Madam Fauveau is whether he is aware that the OTP has

7 an audio recording of an intercept from the Zvornik Brigade on the 17th of

8 July, and that in this earlier recording - that's how we have it in

9 English - "earlier recording," you can hear French. And the witness

10 said: "Yes, I am." So very rightly Madam Fauveau is assuming that he is

11 also familiar with the content of this intercept, or at least in the

12 recording. So I see no problem at least. I stand to be corrected if

13 Judge Kwon -- but I see no problem with her following up with her next

14 question, because she rightly assumes that he's familiar.

15 If you're not familiar with this tape and you only know of its

16 existence, then you tell us so, but --

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, the question -- there's not a

18 proper foundation for the question. If the question was, "Did you hear --

19 is there a conversation in French?" That question has not been asked. I

20 think the questions will -- I will sit down, because you'll see the

21 answer. I don't want to give you the answer, but you'll see why that

22 question needs to be asked as a proper foundational question.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I know exactly what you mean, but -- yes,

24 Madam Fauveau, go ahead. Or at least the witness can -- because he was

25 interrupted before he started answering the question.

1 Can you answer the question that was put to you by Madam Fauveau,

2 and after, of course, having heard Mr. McCloskey as well.

3 THE WITNESS: The answer was yes, I am aware that some French can

4 be heard on one tape in possession of the OTP.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And have you gone through this tape or not?

6 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. I was told that it could be

7 overheard, French speaking, on this tape but not any content of what was

8 said.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].

11 Q. And in spite of all this showing, proving the presence of -- a

12 French presence in the zone in 1995, you did not ask for the help of the

13 French Secret Service?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What's your objection now, Mr. McCloskey?

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Again foundation. I don't think it's intentional,

16 but this is misleading without the proper foundation. The fact is the

17 intercept says -- a Muslim intercept operator says "French can be heard

18 being spoken in the background." That's all there is. There's no audio.

19 There's no writing in French. And so if that can be made clear, this is a

20 fine line of questioning. But that needs to be established by

21 foundational questions before we go further, in my view.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the matter can be handled without any

24 problems by the witness who ultimately has already confirmed that he never

25 listened to the tape. I mean, your question would assume that, having

1 listened to the tape, he should have found good reason why he should have

2 involved, or at least got involved, the French security services. But if

3 he had not listened to the tape, how -- where is the logic in the whole --

4 the whole -- there was French presence.

5 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry, just to clear up factually, there is no

7 audiotape of this. This is one of those handwritten note intercepts that

8 merely states, as far as I can remember, "French is heard being spoken in

9 the background," and that will help make these questions make more sense,

10 I think, if we start from that foundation.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. You obviously have much more

12 information than I have -- or, rather, I don't have any information at

13 all.

14 But yes, Mr. Ruez, can you handle this question?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Madam Fauveau is interested to know why

17 you did not feel the need to engage the services, or at least involve the

18 French security services.

19 THE WITNESS: Because, as I said at one point during my testimony,

20 we make a difference between witnesses and sources. In the course of this

21 investigation, we had various sources, including intelligence personnel

22 working for IFOR, then SFOR, and most of the intelligence collected in

23 these circumstances are not later embedded in the result of the

24 investigation, because we know we will never present some witnesses in a

25 courtroom.

1 This was, in fact, the situation for this event. Having learned

2 about this handwritten note, I made contacts at Sarajevo to learn a bit

3 more about this situation, and unofficially I could learn that indeed,

4 probably July 14 or 15, a few elements of UNPROFOR intelligence went to

5 Zvornik in order to inquire about the refugees, I mean the missing part of

6 the refugees.

7 As far as I know, but I never formally interviewed anyone about

8 this, these intelligence folks were swiftly directed from the Zvornik

9 Brigade towards Bratunac. Due to the dates, that makes sense. 14, 15,

10 they were not at the best place as far as the Bosnian Serb army could see

11 the situation.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Apart from this, but you haven't answered the other

13 part of -- the basic part of Madam Fauveau's question, namely having gone

14 through all this, why didn't you feel the necessity, the need to refer to

15 the French security services?

16 THE WITNESS: The reason is that there was no special reason to

17 believe that, in connection with the events that followed the fall of the

18 Srebrenica enclave, the French had any specific information related to

19 that, since the main area of focus for the French at that time, as General

20 Janvier and others have already said it, was the situation in Sarajevo.

21 The situation in Srebrenica at that time was not really a concern for

22 UNPROFOR.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Just to clear this up. Would it have been regular

24 and possible for you to contact directly, as an investigator, to contact

25 directly sources in the French security services? Or would you have had

1 to refer that first to your superiors who would have done it for you?

2 THE WITNESS: It would absolutely have to be done through the

3 Prosecutor, through the OTP, in an official.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: And to wind this up: Did you ever ask the Office of

5 the Prosecutor to contact the French security services in connection with

6 this intercept or what -- in connection with the findings that you

7 referred to?

8 THE WITNESS: Not about this intercept. And more generally, I

9 would not have done it because there was absolutely no lead to suppose

10 that the French had any specific information about that place at that

11 time.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

13 I think, unless this matter has been exhausted and you would like

14 to go deeper into it, please pass on to your next question, Madam Fauveau.

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have one further question in

16 connection with this topic.

17 Q. Did the OTP at any time inquire into the part played by the French

18 Secret Service in the fall of Srebrenica? Do you have any information to

19 that effect?

20 A. I heard some amazing pieces of propaganda during the years working

21 on this investigation. I, indeed, heard some fantasy in connection with

22 the fact that the massacres had been committed by French special forces in

23 order to shame the honour of the Serbs and prepare an aggressive bombing

24 campaign on Kosovo. I don't know if you refer to such articles or

25 statements. But, no, we never investigated these statements and these

1 allegations.

2 Q. Sir, you are a French official, a civil servant. Did the French

3 authorities ask you to protect the interest of France in the course of

4 your investigation?

5 A. As I said when I was talking about my links with the French

6 authorities during the six years I served at the Tribunal, I said that the

7 only connection I had with the French administration was the fact that I

8 was every six months paying my civil pension in France. Aside that, I

9 went on the 14th of July to the annual party at the embassy when I was not

10 on mission. I participated at two official dinners at the embassy. And I

11 never had any connection with any of the French ministries during these

12 six years spent at the ICTY.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Ms. Fauveau.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: You had your microphone switched off, so you need to

15 just confirm that you told me that you don't have any further questions on

16 this subject matter and that you're moving to the next topic.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness

18 Exhibit 5D20. This is a document which I see has been translated into

19 English. But, first of all, I would like the first page to be shown in

20 B/C/S to the witness. Can we scroll down the page, please.

21 Q. Sir, is this your signature?

22 A. Yes, it is.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because we owe this to the public who is

24 following. I'm informed that we do not have yet an English translation of

25 this document because it has not been provided to us. So please do attend

1 to ...

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm told that the translation into

3 English was put in our electronic system last Friday.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Someone check on that. I don't think it is there.

5 Thank you. It's not yet in the system, so let's continue.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

7 Q. I shall continue using the B/C/S version, the Serbo-Croatian

8 version, and I shall read what is on the first page of the B/C/S version

9 so that you understand what we're talking about.

10 "Pursuant to the order from the commander of the Joint Command of

11 the army of the Federation, SP, number 7-1/07-203-2, dated 16 February

12 1998, and in response to the request from the Office of the Prosecutor of

13 the ICTY from The Hague, please find herewith the reports collected RI and

14 the organisation and establishment structure of the Drina Corps of the

15 army of Republika Srpska."

16 Is this a page which the Bosnian authority handed over to you in

17 1998?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. Could we now move on to page 2 of this same document. On the top

20 left-hand side of the document, we can see:

21 "Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Army of the Federation of the Bosnia

22 and Herzegovina, VJ 5022, number 03/2-3/598, Tuzla, the 3rd of March,

23 1998."

24 And to the right-hand side, we can see:

25 "Military secret, strictly confidential."

1 In the middle we can read:

2 "Establishment formation of the Drina Corps."

3 So is this a document that comes from the army of

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

5 A. Yes, it does.

6 Q. Can we now look at page 5 of this document. You can see a list of

7 names here. Is it right to say that all these names end in "ch"?

8 A. Yes, it does.

9 Q. And "ch" was sometimes used in Bosnian documents to replace "c"

10 with an accent on the top.

11 A. Probably because --

12 Q. I don't think the answer has been recorded.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I heard him say -- probably because of the

14 typing, but we don't have the entire -- can you repeat your answer,

15 please, Mr. Ruez.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes. On the comment that it is typed "ch" instead

17 of a "c" with a diacritic, my assumption is that this is due to the fact

18 that the machine that was used maybe didn't have that diacritic. But I'm

19 waiting for the point of Ms. Fauveau, anyhow, of the question.

20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

21 Q. The question was as follows: I wanted you to confirm that in some

22 Bosnian documents you saw things spelled with a "ch" instead of a "c" with

23 a diacritic sign on top.

24 A. I never noticed that specifically before you raised the issue, but

25 yes, indeed, we can see here it is written "ch" on the names.

1 Q. And you have no reason to question the authenticity of this

2 document; is that right?

3 A. No. And anyhow, the structure of the Drina Corps received by 2nd

4 Corps was not supposed, in our eyes, to be an accurate document, since it

5 was the compilation of the --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish -- let him finish, Madam Fauveau,

7 because this is what is creating this confusion.

8 Go ahead and finish your answer, Mr. Ruez, please. Let me read

9 out to you what we have here. Answer:

10 "A. No. And anyhow, the structure of the Drina Corps received

11 by 2nd Corps was not supposed, in our eyes, to be an accurate document,

12 since it was a compilation of the --" and there we stop.

13 THE WITNESS: Of the intelligence collected by 2nd Corps about the

14 Drina Corps. This document -- I mean, this structure had been requested

15 in order to start what we call the military analysis that was a topic --

16 the subject of study of our military analyst Richard Butler. So it was

17 designed then to be crossed with additional documents.

18 So to answer the question of Madam Fauveau: No, we had no reason

19 to question the authenticity of this document because it was provided to

20 us by those who had collected this intelligence.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: One answer, maybe. You seem to be familiar with all

22 this lettering and typewriter, et cetera. If you look to -- at the

23 right-hand columns on those documents, you will notice that the -- now

24 it's all capital letters. On the left it's -- except for the titles, it's

25 small caps. On the right it's capitals. And there, "Mitrovic" doesn't

1 end with "ich," "Milanovic" doesn't end with "ich," and no other name that

2 appears ends with "ich."

3 Do you an explanation of that, since you seemed to explain the

4 previous -- what you said previously on the basis of maybe the typewriter

5 not having --

6 THE WITNESS: I have really no idea about this. As I said, I

7 discover this issue of "ch" and with or without diacritic, but I still

8 don't know what Madam Fauveau wants to ask me about this, at the final

9 stage. I have no expertise on this, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: You will see that on the right corner the "c" at the

11 end of Covic, Lakic, Mitrovic, there is a "c" with an accent there. What

12 kind of accent, I don't know what kind of accent that is because I can't

13 see it very clearly. If you were to transport that "c" to the left

14 against any one of those names, would it be enough to eliminate the need

15 to use the "h" as well, or would it be a different "c" over there?

16 THE WITNESS: Listen, I'm really not an expert in that language,

17 but I can see that on Slavko Peric -- no, it's not on this one. There is

18 another one where it has two branches on the "c". I have no idea about

19 the habits of the person who typed this document. I really don't know

20 what to tell you.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Anyway, your witness. He's back to you,

22 Madam Fauveau.

23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Just to clarify. What I'm interested in in this document is that

25 this is, in effect, a document which belongs to the army of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bosnian authorities, I mean.

2 A. Yes, it is, as it was provided to the OTP by the 2nd Corps of the

3 BiH army.

4 Q. That was the sole thing I was interested in as far as this

5 document is concerned.

6 You said on the 15th of September, page 41 of the transcript, as

7 follows:

8 [In English] "I am among the first one who would expect more truth

9 to come out of these trials."

10 [Interpretation] I would now like to know whether you feel that

11 the whole -- that the whole truth has not been said about -- has not been

12 established about Srebrenica yet.

13 A. Yes, indeed, because they are still -- there is still the

14 potential for new information. This investigation is very broad, is

15 hitting a large number of crime scenes. Each of these crime scenes could

16 be a topic of an investigation in itself. We know from previous

17 experience that, indeed, trials can add truth to this investigation

18 process. The guilty pleas of two defendants is a very good example of

19 that.

20 And I am -- I also have the belief that until all the persons are

21 indicted, and I'm thinking mainly about General Mladic, won't face their

22 Judges, we won't have a chance to indeed have the full truth on these

23 events, since some people who still could have the opportunity to express

24 themselves, General Tolimir, President Karadzic, never decided to come and

25 face the Judges. They have preferred so far to let their entire officer

1 staff to be accountable for their own actions.

2 Q. You worked for a long time for the criminal investigation

3 department of the police department in France, and you worked a number of

4 years for the OTP here in the ICTY. So you were in contact with -- have

5 you ever -- with legal affairs. Have you ever heard about legal errors

6 being committed?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer the question. Please rephrase your

8 question and be specific. At least it may be a matter of interpretation,

9 but what we have here, "So you were in contact here with," and then we

10 have a blank. "Have you ever -- with legal affairs." Again, there is a

11 blank. "Have you heard about legal errors being committed?" Where? By

12 whom? I mean, he has to be put in a position to know what question he's

13 supposed to answer. As it is, I mean, I wouldn't be able to answer any

14 question of that sort.

15 So please repeat your question or rephrase it in a manner which

16 would put the witness in a position to answer it.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

18 Q. You have worked for various legal institutions, international,

19 national and domestic institutions. Have you ever heard of a miscarriage

20 of justice?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to answer that question, Mr. Ruez?

22 Because I think we have all heard of miscarriages of justice, so it's --

23 THE WITNESS: That's what I wanted to say.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: -- it's in every statute book which -- both when it

25 comes to substantive and procedural rights of accused in every country.

1 Yes, Mr. McCloskey, do you want to --

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection on those grounds, Your Honour.

3 THE WITNESS: Same objection.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: His master's voice.

5 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].

7 Q. Is it right to say that the quality of the investigation largely

8 depends on the resources provided to the investigators?

9 A. Not only, but indeed resources are a very important element to an

10 investigation, not only for the success of an investigation but mainly for

11 the comfort in which an investigation can or cannot be conducted in the

12 long run.

13 Q. Am I right to say that you did not have enough resources

14 available?

15 A. I make no secret about that. Yes.

16 Q. On the 14th of September, 2006, sir, you said that you had

17 received all the reports provided by the UN soldiers but also the reports

18 that had been sent to their respective ministers of defence. And more

19 specifically, the transcript of the 14th of September, page 16 to 32, you

20 stated as follows:

21 [In English] "And then it was a more lengthy process with the

22 Dutch military. It took some longer time, but the requests were fulfilled

23 when they were launched."

24 [Interpretation] Is it right to say that the OTP received the

25 DutchBat reports?

1 A. Yes, the OTP received all the reports from the Dutch soldiers,

2 indeed.

3 Q. And among these DutchBat reports, there were DutchBat reports that

4 had been sent to the north-east sector of the UNPROFOR mission in Tuzla;

5 is that right?

6 A. Most probably, yes.

7 Q. Did this include the reports which DutchBat sent to the Dutch

8 Ministry of Defence?

9 A. I have no recollection of, let's say, the various origins of

10 material that we got from the Dutch Ministry of Defence. But what I meant

11 was that the process was lengthy because of the way we were organised in

12 order to conduct that process. So it was a bit a stop-and-go situation

13 that lasted for a while. And also to say that once the requests were

14 forwarded to the Dutch authorities, we received what we were asking for.

15 So if we asked for this document you're talking about or this source of

16 documents, yes, if we asked, we received.

17 Q. Sir, who would know whether you did ask to receive these

18 documents?

19 A. We would need to check into our archives among all the requests

20 that were made to Dutch authorities, and we would see everything what we

21 have requested.

22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your

23 Honour.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Madam Fauveau.

25 Mr. Krgovic.

1 MR. KRGOVIC: I have no questions for this witness.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. General Gvero would not like to put any

3 questions and dulce imfundo.

4 Mr. Haynes.

5 MR. HAYNES: I think I can finish before the next break.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. So go ahead.

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:

8 Q. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Ruez. I have very few questions for

9 you, and I hope I can keep them short and you can keep your answers short.

10 One thing I don't think you -- I believe you've told us is the

11 first occasion on which you visited the town of Srebrenica itself. When

12 was that?

13 A. The first time entering Srebrenica town was April, 1996.

14 Q. Thank you very much. You've been asked some questions, both in

15 chief and by Madam Fauveau, about the mosque in Srebrenica town. That

16 wasn't, in fact, the only place of worship in the town, was it?

17 A. I think there was a total of five mosques in Srebrenica in 1992.

18 My check was only on the obvious situation of the two mosques. But we did

19 not push the situation to check all the mosques of the town. And I don't

20 know if there was any other place for worship than these mosques, other

21 than the Orthodox church in Srebrenica.

22 Q. Thank you. There was an Orthodox church there as well, wasn't

23 there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you ever visit the Orthodox church?

1 A. No, I didn't. Since the building was standing, there was no

2 ground for further checks in this town. We were not doing tourism, if

3 this is what you mean, to visit the inside.

4 Q. Did you come into possession of videotape footage of the interior

5 of the Orthodox church and the state it was in prior to July, 1995?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You've never seen a videotape showing the interior of the Orthodox

8 church prior to 1995?

9 A. No, never seen any.

10 Q. Did you ever come into information that indicated to you that

11 prior to July, 1995, the interior of the Orthodox church had been

12 desecrated?

13 A. No. I had heard that the information that the Serbs in the area

14 had was that this Orthodox church had been destroyed during the siege of

15 the enclave. The only thing we could observe is that the church was

16 standing.

17 Q. Thank you very much. But your evidence is, is it, that you've

18 never seen video footage or never been told what the inside of the church

19 was like prior to July, 1995?

20 A. Not as far as I can remember.

21 Q. Thank you very much. Can we move on very, very briefly, please,

22 to the Kravica warehouse. You said this morning to Madam Fauveau that

23 many of the sites that you visited and inspected were, as it were, sites

24 that were part of a war zone and accordingly had damage that was

25 attributable to fighting in the area.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Does that equally apply to the Kravica warehouse?

3 A. That could also apply to the Kravica warehouse, indeed.

4 Q. I mean, for example, without going through all the photographs

5 that you took, we see a lot of damage to the exterior of that building,

6 don't we?

7 A. Yes, we do.

8 Q. And you would say, would you, that the damage to the exterior of

9 that building was all caused by bullets?

10 A. Yes, indeed.

11 Q. And some of those bullet holes are 4 or 5 metres off the ground?

12 A. You mean --

13 Q. High.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I'm not going to take that point any further.

16 I'd like now just to show you a few of the images that were part

17 of your presentation, and I'll give the 65 ter numbers and, for the

18 benefit of my operative, the numbers in the presentation.

19 Firstly, please, can we have 65 ter number 1724, and that's image

20 231.

21 I'm not going to ask you any questions about how these images came

22 into your possession but I want to establish with you that, so far as

23 you're concerned, that photograph or those two photographs establish that

24 the primary grave site at Orahovac was disturbed sometime between the 7th

25 and the 27th of September, 1995. Is that correct?

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. And can we move on to 1723. That's the next photograph. It's

3 image 232. And that's a similar photograph of Orahovac.

4 Moving on to 233, please, the Petkovci dam. Again, two

5 photographs which you would say showed disturbance of the primary grave

6 site at Petkovci sometime between the 7th and the 27th of September;

7 correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And just two more. 234, disturbed earth at Kozluk. Again, the

10 same two dates, the 7th of September and the 27th of September.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. One moment. I hate to do this, but my

12 attention is being drawn that, although we can follow you a hundred per

13 cent because we're seeing these pictures roll on our screen, Madam

14 Registrar is telling me that these would not correspond with the photos

15 that were, indeed, shown by the Prosecution. I don't know exactly what

16 the problem is, but there seems to be a problem.

17 MR. HAYNES: It's very easy for me to deal with that and I will

18 do. I can give the 65 ter number of every photograph, I can give the

19 number that it is on the disk that was disclosed to us, and I can

20 correspond it to the disk that Mr. Ruez used, which is slightly

21 differently numbered.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: If you think so.

23 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, just to be clear, it's not a

25 question of the image because it's the same images. It's the numbers

1 we're talking about and the numbers were -- one of the things that is

2 clear is the numbers that were used in court are very clear and that's

3 what we should be using.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: But which number would you -- for example, I'm

5 looking at 234 at the present moment. Forget that it says 234 of 262. In

6 reality, I take it it would be 234 of 271 or 272.

7 MR. HAYNES: It should be 243 of 271.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Why would it change? Why would it change? Because

9 I would imagine that the only change that would occur is between 263 and

10 271.

11 MR. HAYNES: No. No. Mr. Ruez added some images to his

12 presentation with a subsequent disk and he produced a composite disk, and

13 the numbers, I think, go in somewhere around 180, 190.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but we need to know. Because what we're

15 looking at, and I take it everyone else is, I can't say what the witness

16 is looking at. But what I'm looking at in sequence was 232, 233, and 234

17 of 262.

18 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Those were the three aerial images that we saw in

20 sequence.

21 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, what was used in court when he

23 first testified was 243. So if Mr. Haynes could keep with that segment, I

24 think that should get us back on track.

25 MR. HAYNES: It may be simply cured if I simply say: I'm going to

1 show Mr. Ruez on this disk images 231 to 235, which, on his disk, are

2 images 240 to 244.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we can proceed along those lines, if

4 it's not too confusing for you, Mr. Ruez.

5 THE WITNESS: I'm fine.

6 MR. HAYNES:

7 Q. You can see the photograph, at the end of the day, Mr. Ruez, can't

8 you?

9 I think lastly can we look at 235, which is 244 on your disk. And

10 this is dated the 27th of September. On this image there have been some

11 squares drawn to show what appears to be actual activity on that date. Do

12 you agree with that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, do you also agree that the sites that we have seen in those

15 aerial images are all the primary grave sites in the Zvornik municipality?

16 A. Yes. For those that you have just shown, this is the case.

17 Q. You do agree with that, that we have just seen all the primary

18 grave sites in the Zvornik municipality.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And, according to the aerial images that you have seen, all of the

21 primary grave sites in the Zvornik municipality were disturbed in a 20-day

22 period in September of 1995.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that's a maximum period. It could have been less than that,

25 of course, couldn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Can we contrast that, please, by going to photograph

3 238, which is 247 on your disk, 65 ter number 1610.

4 Now, this is a primary gave site at Glogova in the Bratunac area,

5 isn't it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And, quite separately and distinctly, we see that this is being

8 disturbed towards the end of October, 1995.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you very much. That's all I want to ask you.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. We will have 25-minute break now. Is

12 there going to be re-examination?

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: A few questions. Let me look at my notes. It

14 shouldn't be very long, I hope.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: How long do you reckon?

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: No longer than 15 minutes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Then we need to have break. I will not keep

18 everyone here. So it's another 15 to 20 minutes and then you can go.

19 A 25-minute break. Thank you.

20 I am told Mr. Nicholls has a problem.

21 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour. I was just wondering if there was

22 anticipated to be Judges' questions or if I should make the next witness

23 available.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: No, there are not going to be any Judges' questions,

25 just re-examination by the Prosecution and that will be the end of it.

1 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ruez, we are approaching and nearing the

5 end. A few questions from Mr. McCloskey and that's it.

6 Mr. McCloskey.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:

9 Q. Hello again, Mr. Ruez. If I could give you something to take a

10 look at. It's 65 ter number 1938. It's entitled "Bosnian Muslim Photo

11 Identification Book". And I'm going back to the questions, if you recall

12 them, by Mr. Ostojic when he was asking you about what effort you'd made

13 to determine whether or not some of the Muslim men in Potocari may have

14 survived.

15 If you could just take a look at that book - you will know it's

16 been a long time - and see if you remember that the -- I believe it was

17 assembled, as you can see from the dates, during your tenure.

18 A. Yes, I remember very well this album.

19 Q. Okay. Let's go to the first part of it, to directly -- I've put a

20 little yellow sticky. If you can go to that part that is entitled "Part 2

21 - Survivors," and I hope we can get it up on the -- I'm told we can get

22 it up on the screen so everyone can see it.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I notice Mr. Lazarevic.

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: That's what I wanted to propose, to put it on the

25 ELMO because our clients cannot see anything that Mr. Ruez is --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fair enough. And it's correct to say that

2 this was an exhibit in the Obrenovic proceedings?

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, it was, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: And it's something that counsel will tell you

6 they've had for a long time. I passed out an actual physical copy to

7 them, I think, a few weeks ago.

8 All right. This is page 21. Well, page 21 is the page that's

9 called "Part 2," entitled "Survivors". If you could get -- start with the

10 title page, if you could, for "Survivors". There we go.

11 Can everyone see that on the ELMO? So everyone can it on the ELMO

12 -- I'm sorry, on e-court.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: On e-court what we can see is a page which is "Part

14 2," those Bosnian Muslims identified as survivors.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY:

16 Q. Mr. Ruez, does this help refresh your recollection on the topic I

17 just mentioned and that Mr. Ostojic -- the same general topic that he was

18 talking about?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Okay. And can you go to the next page so we can see what that is,

21 and that will be -- we call this page 22. Okay. Can you tell us what

22 this photograph reflects and why it was done for the investigation and/or

23 trial?

24 A. Yes. This is a view of the -- the crowd in Potocari that was

25 extracted from a video that was shown during this trial.

1 Q. And what's the purpose of this? What's it trying to communicate?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because Mr. Lazarevic had pointed out

3 that for the benefit of the respective clients, it needed to be shown on

4 the ELMO. On the ELMO -- I'm just checking. On the ELMO I can see

5 nothing. But they can follow it on e-court. They all can now. Okay. I

6 just want to make sure that you can all follow. Okay.

7 Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. I just wanted to make

8 sure that they follow.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Q. Can you just give us a bit of a background? What was the

11 investigation looking at when they looked this particular photo and all

12 these faces, in terms of this document?

13 A. On the photo it's clear that a certain number men can be seen. So

14 these are the men who we believe were then separated before being able to

15 get onboard of buses.

16 Q. Okay. And the man with the number 1 on his shoulder there, it may

17 be a little hard to see. It's down in the right-hand corner.

18 A. As can be seen on the document, this man was identified after my

19 departure from the Tribunal --

20 Q. Can we go up to the actual written product on the -- thank you.

21 A. -- since this was an identification done in September, 2002. But,

22 indeed, we had started the process of identification of men that were

23 visible on -- on the film, mainly the video, the V550 Zoran Petrovic

24 film. We started that process in 1996.

25 Q. Okay. Can we go down again so we can see the photo and then go to

1 the next page.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, I really don't want to interrupt my

4 colleague, but I have some problem with this document that we have just

5 seen. Obviously, it is said that it is taken from the Petrovic footage,

6 and in my recollection I don't believe that this --

7 THE WITNESS: No, this is not Petrovic footage. Petrovic footage

8 is V550. This one has a different ERN number.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I don't contest what you are saying, Mr. Ruez,

10 but both in the previous photo, that's 22, on page 22, and this one on

11 page 23, which you see, at the bottom of the page it says: "Petrovic

12 Footage: Exact from video V000-3915." And the same applies to the

13 previous one. If you look at the end you find exactly the same

14 statement: "Location: Potocari, 12 July 1995. Petrovic footage:

15 Extract from video V000-3915."

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Some of these numbers tend to change with

17 different versions of different videos. So I think this is a topic for

18 cross-examination. I don't think that's really a problem, identifying

19 which of the footage it came from.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: There is the ERN on both as well, anyway, if that

21 may be helpful. But thank you for your observation, Mr. Lazarevic, and

22 your remark, Mr. Ruez.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the next page, and if we can have it

24 so we can see the information, the investigative information, on it as

25 well.

1 Q. Again, this is another man that, according to the investigation,

2 was identified as alive after this photo was taken; is that correct?

3 A. This was also done after my departure, but indeed I learned about

4 the fact that this man was alive.

5 Q. All right. And you recall this video being shot in Potocari at

6 the time?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Do you have any explanation why these men in this video -- well,

9 there's a couple more like it, so before I ask that question let's just

10 flip through them quickly. If we could go to the next page.

11 Is this the same video section from Potocari as you know it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So another man that has survived; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next one. Is this the same area in

16 Potocari?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 Q. And another man that has survived?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Let's see if there's any more. The next shot may be --

21 okay, that's the -- let's go to the next shot, then, the next picture.

22 Okay. This is another man that has been identified as surviving?

23 A. At a different location, and I don't think this one -- I mean --

24 no, March, 2000. Sorry. I have no specific recollection about this one.

25 Q. All right. Okay. Well, let me go back to the question I was at.

1 The men that were clustered in that area, Potocari, do you have any

2 explanation how it was that they all survived?

3 A. Only speculations.

4 Q. Well, do you have a conclusion based on the evidence that you can

5 share with us?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Object to the form of the question, Your Honour.

7 The witness clearly "Only speculations" and now counsel is insisting to

8 get an answer.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this area was brought up by Defence

10 counsel, and I'm not sure "speculations" in the way Mr. Ruez is always

11 referring to means the kind of speculations we're talking about. And I

12 think it would be helpful for the Court.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Provided he doesn't speculate. I mean, because he's

14 just -- when you asked him, all right, let's go back, "do you have any

15 explanation how it was that they all survived?" He said, "Only

16 speculations." So at that point in time, if he can only give you

17 speculations, how can you proceed with the next question, "Well, do you

18 have a conclusion based on evidence that you can share with us?" It would

19 still be a speculation on his part, even if it's based on some kind of

20 evidence.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, you may very well agree that his

22 answer --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Rephrase your question.

24 Why do you maintain, Mr. Ruez, that if you tried to answer Mr.

25 McCloskey's previous question you would be providing -- you can only

1 answer it by speculating? Is there no evidence that you can rely upon?

2 THE WITNESS: The reason why I say "speculations" is that I would

3 have no hard evidence to support the reason why I think these men are

4 alive. But I have no evidence that supports my personal conclusion on

5 this.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Does that mean that there is evidence, but in your

7 mind it would not be conclusive and would only allow you space to

8 speculate?

9 THE WITNESS: It would be speculation, because I interviewed no

10 one on the Bosnian Serb side who told me what the reason was. So I can

11 only imagine what the reason was, and it's an obvious reason to everyone.

12 These men have been filmed by a Bosnian Serb camera, so it would not be a

13 very wise thing to separate these men and get rid of them. That's the

14 only explanation. So speculation.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: But it is still speculation in your mind.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think it is speculation.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY:

19 Q. Mr. Ruez, you're aware of the -- do you know what date, whether it

20 be the 12th or the 13th, that that group in Potocari were filmed?

21 A. If it is the V550, Zoran Petrovic, it would be 13 July. If it is

22 the camera crew that was together with General Mladic, and I think this is

23 the case here, then it's July 12.

24 Q. It's the second -- the second case, as you thought. Now, if it

25 is, in fact, July 12th, is it in -- can you tell at what time of day or at

1 what point in the process of moving out the population this is occurring

2 at all, if you can?

3 A. This is at the very beginning of the process. The process starts

4 after General Mladic has finished to address the crowd. We know from a

5 certain number of witnesses that at the beginning of the deportation men

6 could get onboard of buses, but then the system was getting tougher and

7 tougher until no one could any more get on board of -- no men could get

8 onboard of a bus before being separated.

9 Q. So that last information you gave us, was that based on the

10 evidence in the investigation or was that pure speculation?

11 A. That -- that was coming from the interviews conducted with the

12 refugees who managed to reach Kladanj.

13 Q. Okay. And the --

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I think, Your Honours, just for brevity we

15 don't need to go through the rest of the book. We'll have another witness

16 that will talk about that.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: You certainly need to look into this question of the

18 source of these photos, because if it's -- if what the witness has

19 repeated now, namely that if it's the 12th of July, then it's not the

20 Petrovic video but it's the other one, I think you have to revise the

21 presentation of --

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Absolutely. That's another good reason to put

23 this off, because I think the witness is correct on that. So we'll look

24 into that. Thank you, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Any further questions?

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly.

2 Q. Mr. Ruez, you mentioned that there was a list of some -- I believe

3 roughly 200 Muslims, men that were taken by the Dutch, Muslim men that

4 were in Potocari; is that right?

5 A. Yes, this is right.

6 Q. And do you know if those names were compared to the missing list

7 from the ICRC?

8 A. Yes, it was compared.

9 Q. Do you have a recollection generally of the results of that

10 comparison?

11 A. My recollection is that they were all missing.

12 Q. And if we could go to one statement made by Ahmo Hasic. Now, this

13 is a comment that -- from the Krstic trial that he mentioned in answer to

14 a question:

15 "They took us to buses and to Bratunac, the old school, the one

16 that had been vacated. At the time, I didn't know what its name was, but

17 the name of the school is Vuk Karadzic, the old hero."

18 Do you recall that Mr. Hasic has made this kind of a -- this

19 statement to you or your investigators as he did in the Krstic case?

20 A. No, I don't recall that. Again, if Hasic Ahmo is the survivor of

21 Branjevo farm, the old school, it's the Vuk Karadzic school complex but

22 it's the so-called technical school, not the Vuk Karadzic school.

23 Q. He is the old person that we've been referring to, as I think has

24 been part of the record. As far as your investigation is concerned, has

25 he always been consistent about where -- what school he was at, aside from

1 this problem of whether it's the complex or the school?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And what location is that?

4 A. For me, the old school, the one we call the old school.

5 Q. And that's the one identified as the old school on the

6 photographs?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you had mentioned that you did not

9 investigate the events prior to the fall, but you did mention Mr. Butler

10 and his review of these matters. As far as you know, did Mr. Butler

11 review documents and intercepts that occurred prior to the 11th of July?

12 A. I would not be able to say today. I don't know.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have nothing further, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And I thank you for that, Mr. McCloskey.

16 Mr. Ruez, we don't have questions ourselves.

17 Mr. Ostojic, what's your problem now?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: It's not a problem at all. I would just like to

19 clarify two points that were just raised in redirect, if permitted, based

20 on a document that was not shown to a witness during his direct but

21 initially introduce now in his redirect. So they're very short and no

22 more than four or five questions.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, provided it's brief, Mr. Ostojic.

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

1 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

2 Q. Mr. Ruez, good afternoon again. With respect to this 65 ter

3 number 1938 that you have in front you now, I thought Mr. McCloskey's

4 question that I have written down, on page 71, line 14 through 15, was:

5 "What effort you'd made to determine whether or not some of the

6 Muslim men in Potocari survived."

7 We see in that photo album, if I can call it that, that those were

8 efforts that were made well after you had departed the Tribunal, such as

9 the dates showing 2002; correct?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's a misstatement of the evidence

11 which will confound the issue. There are some dates. They go both ways.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: And I understand that if my learned colleague wants

13 to testify and share that in argument with the Court. I'm limiting it to

14 the pictures that he's seen. I don't want to go beyond that unless the

15 Court wishes or permits me to do it. He's asked him, and I think he

16 answered quite candidly, although I shouldn't be testifying, that: "These

17 were not my efforts," these were efforts of someone else but --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: But I still can't follow what you're asking. For

19 example, let's take the first photo. That is the one shown on page 22.

20 You have a photo. One man is identified there with the number 1.

21 Identification is explained later on. And it's presumably -- this is what

22 is of -- "identified by himself during an interview with local authorities

23 in Tuzla as communicated to OTP by BiH on 19th September 2002. See annex

24 7."

25 Now, if you see the other one, again, as communicated -- it

1 doesn't say when the interview with Kada Omerovic was held, and it's

2 communicated on 19th September. The next one is the same, and the next

3 one is the same, and I think we can stop there.

4 But what's your problem? I mean, it's --

5 MR. OSTOJIC: The problem, it's a subtle issue. I thought Mr.

6 McCloskey's question, on page 71, lines 14 through 15, asked this witness

7 quite pointedly: "What efforts you've made to determine the survivors."

8 It's obvious even from his answer that he says that this was done in 2002;

9 he had left already. So -- well --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: But he can still answer the question as to whether

11 he himself -- I mean, when he was put -- when that question was put to

12 him, he had not yet seen these documents.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: He had seen the entire file, Your Honour, and he

14 said: "What efforts have you made? Are these the product of your

15 efforts?" I think, with all due respect to the witness and my learned

16 colleague, it is misleading. And I want to know from this witness if the

17 question is what efforts he's made, that he's made those efforts,

18 presumably, during the time that he worked at the Office of the

19 Prosecution as the lead investigator. But let's make it short, in the

20 interests of time, and I just want to cover another point. If the Court

21 believes it should be introduced, I'll accept that. I just have another

22 question on another issue.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

25 Q. Directing your attention to the questions by my learned colleague

1 regarding the Dutch list. Do you remember that?

2 A. Yes, but I would still be willing to answer very briefly the

3 previous one.

4 Q. That's okay. No.

5 A. You asked it so you have an interest in the answer.

6 Q. Okay. It's whatever the Court would like.

7 A. It's going to be very short. This identification process of

8 individuals that can be seen on film started as soon as we had access to

9 these pictures. It was run through the assistance of the police in

10 Tuzla. And then the effort that was made was to take from people who knew

11 the persons who are identified, to take from them a statement that we

12 named "Last Time Seen Alive," so that we will be sure of the fate of that

13 person before being on that picture.

14 This process continued during the years, and in fact, yes, was

15 restarted sometime later. And let's say the first five pictures of this

16 book are the only pictures where identifications were made after my

17 departure, though the request for some of them was done during my time of

18 presence here.

19 Q. Thank you for that. Now, directing your attention to the question

20 relating to the Dutch list. Do you remember that? Basically it just

21 happened.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you tell me from whom you received this Dutch list?

24 A. In fact, the Dutch list, we received it through the intervention

25 of someone whose name is Ivan Lupus, who later worked at the Tribunal but

1 who at that time was working at the Human Rights Committee of Helsinki,

2 and who investigated this specific point during the summer 1995, because

3 we had to time to deal with that.

4 And indeed the list showed up, after having been discovered more

5 or less at random, in Zagreb at the UN headquarters. It was then sent, I

6 think, to the Ministry of Defence of the Netherlands, and from there

7 transferred to Foreign Affairs who provided it to the OTP. That's my

8 recollection.

9 Q. Thank you. Based on your investigation and the interviews that

10 you've done with the DutchBat personnel, who made the list specifically

11 from the DutchBat personnel?

12 A. I'm not a hundred per cent sure of the name of the person. I

13 think it was Major Franken, but I'm not sure.

14 Q. I think you might be right. Are you aware, based on your

15 investigation, that Major Franken has previously testified and given a

16 statement that the Dutch list was lost? Are you aware of that?

17 A. Yes. This was what we were told initially in 1995, but it was

18 apparently not lost for long because we ended up getting it. But, yes, it

19 started out being lost.

20 Q. When did you get it?

21 A. I would think before the end of 1995.

22 Q. Okay.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: That's all I have. Thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think that brings us to the end of your

25 testimony, Mr. Ruez. Of course, I barely need to remind you that

1 unfortunately you will be recalled at a later stage when we have clarified

2 the matter that was raised last Friday relating to the aerial images

3 supplied by the US government. As soon as that is dealt with in a

4 definitive manner, then you will be recalled back. Of course, there will

5 be arrangements made with you which would enable you to consult your

6 superiors to fix the date.

7 I wish to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the

8 Trial Chamber, also on behalf of the Tribunal, for having been kind enough

9 to come and give evidence in this case. Of course, you will receive all

10 the assistance you require to return to Paris. And on behalf of everyone

11 here, we wish you a safe journey back.

12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I will stay on call for any

13 need of this Chamber.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Please don't go to your island in the Caribbean

15 again.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, may the Office of the Prosecutor be

17 allowed to talk with Mr. Ruez in the meantime? I don't -- about just

18 logistics, normal things, not about aerial -- well, I don't know. I don't

19 see any real problem talking about anything, but I would -- I know what

20 the normal rules are, so ...

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's easily dealt with and in the normal

23 manner. You're not to discuss with Mr. Ruez anything which relates to his

24 possible future evidence on the aerial images. As regards other matters,

25 provided they are not going to be the subject matter of further testimony

1 by him, you can, of course. But I make it clear that there are no

2 dealings in relation to his future -- what could be his future testimony.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: And the understanding is when he is recalled, he is

5 recalled only for the purpose of being cross-examined on the aerial images

6 and not on other matters. I'm making this clear to the Defence teams as

7 well. All right?

8 I thank you so much, Mr. Ruez.

9 THE WITNESS: My pleasure.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we can start with the preliminaries.

12 Yes. Let's deal with the exhibits first before we bring in the witness.

13 Mr. McCloskey, which exhibits do you wish to tender?

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, basically the -- I believe it's 272

15 photographs which came under the number P02103, along with the various

16 video shorts that came in with his evidence. And I can give those to you

17 now. They have 65 ter numbers, and the first one is -- these are all Mr.

18 Ruez's personal -- more personal to him than the general, as you recall,

19 trial video. 1514 is south to Srebrenica town; 1545, Srebrenica to

20 Potocari; 1557, Potocari to Bratunac; 1590, Kamenica to Sandici; 1575,

21 Kravica warehouse; 1686, Nova Kasaba graves; 1701, Grabovci school; 1718,

22 Orahovac; 1759, Kozluk; 1796, Branjevo farm; 1820, Pilica cultural dome or

23 centre; 1870, the exhumation of Cancari 12.

24 Now, what I have left out of that is the segment that we call the

25 trial video, which was that big compilation. There's one more segment to

1 that which we chose not to play. It's basically DutchBat at the Hotel

2 Fontana, which you will soon see. So I think after -- after you see that

3 section, we will be moving that into evidence. And if counsel's going to

4 have any objections to anything particular, please let me know so that we

5 can prepare for that.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So any objections for the admission of -- yes, Ms.

7 Nikolic.

8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This is about

9 Exhibit 02103, which was the difficulty in following the evidence of this

10 witness. I think that the most blatant difficulty we have with exhibits

11 thus marked is the photograph that Mr. Haynes wanted to show to the

12 witness. We had three types of identification. That was the 65 ter

13 number. Then numbers from 1 -- from 231 to 235, that was the material

14 that was disclosed to the Defence on the 24th of August. And the numbers

15 240 to 244, which is contained in the list delivered to us by the OTP

16 where we have the numbers from the 65 ter list.

17 The objection of the Defence is as follows: We don't wish to

18 obstruct in any way the evidence of this witness on this basis, but what

19 will be the problem - and I believe that Judge Kwon already noticed this -

20 when we come to examining the evidence and to drafting our briefs, there

21 will be certain exhibits that we will have difficulty in referring to.

22 Our proposal is as follows: All the photographs that cannot be

23 matched or are not equal to the numbering used by the Prosecutor pursuant

24 to 65 ter, that those exhibits be assigned new 65 ter numbers so that we

25 could, in our future proceedings, refer to them by those numbers.

1 So this refers only to Exhibit P2103. We don't have any other

2 objections concerning the other exhibits. Thank you.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think -- I don't know. I want to hear you first,

4 Mr. McCloskey, but I think that would make it much more confused than it

5 actually looks now, because my understanding is that 2103 is what we were

6 seeing on the screen throughout the testimony of Mr. Ruez when it had the

7 full 271 pictures. In other words, they may not correspond with what Mr.

8 Ruez himself had, but I don't think we should worry about that. What we

9 should worry about is what we have in 2103, as it was rolling on the

10 screen as we went by during his testimony. If I am not mistaken. In

11 which case, I think it is better to have 2103 as it is, but, Mr.

12 McCloskey.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I would agree with you, Mr. President. But

14 the problem with 65 ter numbers is not a problem at this stage. I think

15 the evidence, as it came in, was clear and I don't think that's the

16 problem that -- that occurred here. The problem that occurred here is

17 that we did not provide 65 ter numbers for everything, because I assumed

18 that they were all pretty much the same. That won't happen again.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: We will provide 65 ter numbers for everything.

21 But there's one legal issue here that I think we could address

22 that -- because, as you know, I've gotten in the habit of arguing with Mr.

23 Bourgon but he's not here and I know he would love to argue this issue. I

24 believe his argument was that he was looking to 65 ter as an exclusionary

25 rule, that if it's not on the 65 ter list, it should be excluded.

1 Now, we have searched for any precedent to that and we have not

2 found any. We did find a case out of a trial chamber in ICTR called

3 Prosecutor versus Simba, where this same argument came up and the court

4 said, no -- just because it's not on the 65 ter list is not a reason to

5 exclude it, that you must go back to a balancing test and determine

6 whether or not there has been prejudice and whether there has been notice.

7 I think we understand that the reason for 65 ter is to provide

8 both parties with proper notice so they're not surprised. But if we're

9 going to actually get into the admissibility of this evidence, we have to

10 go down to 89(C) and (D). And this is the balancing test. Based on Ms.

11 Nikolic's argument, I think that that's no real surprise by any of these

12 photos. It's the problem was we didn't -- we didn't have numbers for the

13 slightly different photos.

14 So that would be my position, and I think the Defence will

15 probably share that because they will have a turn, and I'm sure not all of

16 their numbers will -- all their exhibits will have 65 ter numbers.

17 Things come up. As we saw, I had asked Mr. Ruez, because one

18 witness mentioned that there was a brick wall at Orahovac and I knew a

19 photograph that would solve that problem, so I asked Mr. Ruez to show us

20 that photograph. Very similar to a 65 ter number, but it did not -- did

21 not have one. But I think it helped everyone. That will come up with the

22 Defence. And I think you yourself have said there is some flexibility.

23 So I think if we go to 89(C) and (D), that's where we -- I'm sure

24 we might have some good arguments in the future with counsel, but that's

25 where we should be, not in 65 ter. And I will not let this 65 ter issue

1 that I know Judge Kwon and others are concerned about happen again. We

2 will get ourselves more up-to-date and do what we have been doing. When

3 we find new material, we have been filing motions to get it on the 65 ter

4 list. We've done that before; we've done that after. We will continue to

5 do that and alert everyone that when we have documents or items that are

6 not part of that process, we'll get them to them as soon as possible so

7 that we can have an 89(C) and (D) argument.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: We will come to this again tomorrow, because we have

9 to stop. I would, however, like to -- and we'll finalise the tendering.

10 Madam Usher, please, if you could kindly bring in the witness so I

11 can explain to him why he has been kept waiting for these 45 minutes.

12 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I know it's late,

14 but I just wanted to inform the Chamber of the fact that we have

15 encountered a problem as far as the upcoming witnesses are concerned. The

16 DutchBat documents exist and they are in the hands of the Prosecution. As

17 far as we know, we have never seen them, and I think it's most important

18 that we read these documents before the DutchBat witness starts his

19 testimony.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Please, we are not going to discuss this

22 now. You will deal with it as soon as we finish. I'm sure Mr. McCloskey

23 will cooperate with you.

24 WITNESS: PIETER BOERING

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning -- or good afternoon to you, sir.

1 Please make yourself comfortable. I'm not going to keep you here long. I

2 just wanted to explain to you why you have been kept waiting in a room and

3 not been escorted here to start your testimony. The answer is that we had

4 some further questions to put to the previous witness. It was anticipated

5 that they would last from 5 to 10 minutes. Unfortunately, there were

6 legal issues that arose at the same time, and the whole process took the

7 whole 45 minutes.

8 So please accept our apologies for this. You will come again

9 tomorrow morning. We will resume with your testimony -- or we will start

10 with your testimony. That is all I wanted to tell you.

11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So we'll start tomorrow morning at

13 9.00. In the meantime, try to thrash this amongst you, and we will first

14 conclude the tendering. Of course, there are documents to be tendered by

15 you as well. Thanks. Good afternoon.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day

18 of September, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25