1 Wednesday, 4 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If I could remind you,

7 Colonel Doyle, of the affirmation which you took yesterday which still

8 applies.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

10 WITNESS: COLM DOYLE [Resumed]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good

13 morning.

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Doyle, can you tell me who Vera Ljubovic is,

16 what kind of contact you have with her, and why she provides you with

17 information.

18 A. Vera Ljubovic was provided by the authorities in Bosnia to assist

19 the mission, and she did that by making herself available, when she was

20 requested, for translations and as an interpreter.

21 Q. Was Vera Ljubovic on the premises where the mission's offices were

22 or was she at the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

23 A. She was at the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina for most of the

24 time. She was at the mission when she was requested to be there.

25 Q. Does that mean then, in view of the fact that she drew your

1 attention to the articles from the Oslobodjenje daily, that you were

2 perhaps criticised for the statements made in relation to your visit to

3 Trebinje, that is to say criticised by the Presidency of

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

5 A. I don't recall at any stage in the 12 months that I was in Bosnia

6 that there was criticism levelled at my performance or anything that I had

7 done, so I don't quite understand your question.

8 Q. During the meeting in Trebinje, did General Strugar perhaps

9 mention to you that he had to go to Belgrade on that day?

10 A. I was not aware of that, no, and he didn't say it to me either.

11 Q. Do you know Admiral Jokic?

12 A. I do not know Admiral Jokic. I don't recall whether I had met him

13 or not.

14 Q. Just before giving evidence here yesterday, you read a note that

15 was made last year when you talked to the Prosecution team; isn't that

16 right?

17 A. Yes, that is correct.

18 Q. Did you indicate to the Prosecution then that some corrections had

19 to be made in those notes?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. Is it correct that you did this on the 3rd of February, 2004, on

22 the day you gave evidence, that that is when you made the corrections?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the usher to place

25 the correction on the ELMO, please.

1 Q. Mr. Doyle, can you just read this sentence, the one that is a

2 correction of the sentence you gave in your previous statement.

3 A. "In the notes of the interview with Colonel Colm Doyle dated the

4 30th of July, 2003, in paragraph 10 the second sentence should be

5 corrected to read as follows: 'What he meant was that it was revenge as a

6 result of casualties General Strugar had received from unspecified

7 paramilitaries.'"

8 Q. Thank you. Is it true that although you read the contents just

9 before giving evidence, that is to say the contents of the notes dated the

10 30th of July, 2003, you did not answer my question as to when you had that

11 meeting with the Prosecution? Yesterday you said that this meeting took

12 place with the Prosecution towards the end of August, and according to

13 paragraph 4 of the notes, the meeting was held on the 30th of July at 6:00

14 p.m. in the Tribunal building.

15 A. I have been to the Tribunal on five occasions. I can't remember

16 exact dates as to -- I know the approximate dates but I don't know them

17 exactly. I can't recall them without reading them.

18 Q. Just before entering the courtroom yesterday, you read the notes

19 dated the 30th of July last year, and you made a correction with regard to

20 that note. And you said to me that you had this meeting towards the end

21 of August and that it took place sometime during the day, late in the

22 morning. Isn't that right? Could you please give me a yes or no answer.

23 A. I'm trying to assist here. I was here at the Tribunal in July

24 and I was here at the Tribunal in August. I wasn't too sure which of

25 those occasions it was that I made that statement. I didn't read the date

1 of the statement, I just read the content of it.

2 Q. In paragraph 4 in these notes, the date and the time when you

3 provided the statement is given. Do you remember that?

4 A. No, I don't remember that specifically. I know generally what I

5 -- the statement I had made. I don't know every single word without

6 reading it.

7 Q. Is it correct, then, that you do not remember what you did six

8 months ago when this meeting was held and when the notes were made?

9 A. I know in general what I did six months ago when the meeting was

10 held.

11 Q. Is it correct that you do not remember important information from

12 the notes that you read just before giving testimony?

13 A. No, I don't accept that.

14 Q. Isn't it correct that you did not give a statement to the

15 investigators in 1996, as you repeated several times yesterday, but this,

16 rather, took place in 1995? Isn't that right?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Isn't it correct that you confirmed several times in relation to

19 your meeting with General Strugar that you know that he was commander of

20 the 2nd Operative Group?

21 A. If I said that he was the commander of the 2nd Operative Group, I

22 don't think the word "Operative" is correct. He was the commander of the

23 2nd Operational Group. When I met with General Strugar, it was my

24 impression, or I had been informed or I assumed that he was the commander

25 of the 2nd Corps group. The word "Operational Group" is not in the normal

1 chain of military formations. Several corps are normally called

2 divisions. So this was not a phrase that I was totally familiar with

3 until later. I'm not too sure when I realised it was the 2nd Operational

4 Group, but for the period that I was in Bosnia, I had thought it was the

5 2nd Corps group. That's what I wrote on the back of that photograph. To

6 me, it wasn't a significant -- it wasn't a significant issue.

7 Q. Isn't it correct that in spite of that, that is not the way you

8 put it to the investigators in your statement? You told them several

9 times that General Strugar was commander of the 4th Military District.

10 Isn't that right?

11 A. I don't recall -- I don't recall stating that it was the 4th

12 Military District.

13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the usher for his

14 assistance, please, to have this document distributed.

15 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the Prosecution would object to the

16 misleading nature of the question. I'm sure as the Chamber peruses the

17 statement, there are not multiple references. It is simply incorrect. It

18 is a 16-page -- 17-page statement, and if the Chamber peruses it, the

19 thrust of it is about the role in Bosnia. There is one paragraph on page

20 6 which mentions, as a peripheral issue in the context of an investigation

21 for the events in Bosnia and Sarajevo, Strugar, and I -- and the reference

22 of one time is -- reference to the commander of the 4th Military District

23 is a one-time reference.

24 Thank you, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I propose to wait until we learn what it is that

1 Mr. Rodic wants to make of the statement before forming any view on that

2 objection.

3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Doyle, in the second paragraph -- in the second line of

5 paragraph 34, you say he was commander of the 4th Military District; isn't

6 that right?

7 A. Yes, that's what I see in the statement.

8 Q. Please take a look - and now I'm saying this for Ms. Somers'

9 benefit - look at page 5, paragraph 23. The one but last sentence: "The

10 4th Military District was in Trebinje. It consisted of Trebinje itself."

11 Isn't that right?

12 A. I can't see that extract. Can you direct me to the page again,

13 please.

14 Q. Paragraph 23 on page 5, the one but last sentence. "The 4th

15 Military District was in Trebinje, and it encompassed Trebinje itself, the

16 13th Corps in Bileca, and the 37th Corps in Nevesinje." Is that correct?

17 A. That's what I have in the statement, yes. That's what I believed

18 it to be at the time.

19 Q. Isn't it correct that you stated to the investigators in this same

20 statement several times that General Strugar was commander of the 4th

21 Military District and that the 4th Military District was in Trebinje?

22 A. If that's what is in the statement, that's what I believed it to

23 be. There seems to be very little doubt that General Strugar was in

24 command of whatever formation was down in Trebinje. That's not in

25 dispute. The title of the unit may well be and I accept that I was wrong

1 on that occasion. It has since been corrected.

2 Q. Isn't it also correct that soon after the meeting -- soon after

3 the meeting on the 6th of December you wrote down that General Strugar was

4 commander of the 2nd Corps group, and you never stated that to anyone

5 again after that? This is what was on the back of the photograph; isn't

6 that right?

7 A. That's what was written on the photograph, yes.

8 Q. Isn't it correct that already in Oslobodjenje, dated the 8th of

9 December, in the translation of the text that Vera Ljubovic sent to you,

10 reference is made to General Strugar as commander of the Operations Group?

11 Isn't that right?

12 A. I think it does state that he was the commander of the 2nd

13 Operational Group, not Operations Group.

14 Q. Isn't it also correct that the first time you said that General

15 Strugar was commander of the 2nd Operational Group only in the year 2000,

16 on the 23rd of August, and that this was done at the suggestion made by

17 the Prosecution? This has to do with what you wrote in hand underneath

18 the picture.

19 A. Yes, that may be the case.

20 Q. Is it correct that General Strugar made a reference to a number of

21 casualties related to the 6th of December, 1991? That is not correct;

22 right?

23 A. I -- sorry, could you ask that question again, please.

24 Q. Is it correct that General Strugar did not give you information

25 about 16 casualties, 16 persons who were killed, and that is what you

1 wrote on the back of the photograph on the 6th of December, 1991?

2 A. I do not recall General Strugar mentioning any numbers to me on

3 that occasion.

4 Q. It is also correct that you do not recall where you did get this

5 information from.

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. It is correct what you said yesterday, that you do not recall

8 whether you watched the TV reports about Dubrovnik, dated the 6th of

9 December, and whether you made an entry in your diary after that. And I

10 quote: "Bad in Dubrovnik."

11 A. That is correct, yes.

12 Q. It is correct that in paragraph 34, on page 6 of your statement

13 given to the Prosecution in 1995, in the last sentence of that paragraph,

14 you say: "That night, on television I saw reports on the shelling of

15 Dubrovnik, that Dubrovnik had been shelled." Is that right?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Is it correct, then, that in the -- in paragraph 10 of the notes

18 dated the 30th of July, 2003, that you know nothing about the damages

19 sustained by Dubrovnik since you never went to the city itself, but that

20 you had the impression that the actual damages were less than what the

21 Croats had depicted -- had, rather, shown, and you did not take for

22 granted everything that the Croats said because they were prone to resort

23 to propaganda? Is that right?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Is it correct that in paragraph 13 of the same notes you said that

1 you did not know anything about any persons who were killed or about the

2 units that took part in the campaign?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it correct that you did not know what General Strugar's rank

5 was? You believed that he was a three-star general because other people

6 had told you that he had three stars. Isn't that right?

7 A. I knew that General Strugar held the rank of general. How many

8 stars he had, I wasn't totally sure. I accepted what I was told, which

9 was that he was a three-star.

10 Q. You accepted and said yesterday that he was a lieutenant general

11 with three stars and that that is what others had explained to you. Isn't

12 that right?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Then it is correct also that you did not see General Strugar's

15 rank insignia at all. Rather, you did not see three stars on his uniform;

16 is that right?

17 A. I cannot recall what rank I saw on General Strugar's uniform. It

18 may have been three stars. I just don't remember. It is now 13 years

19 since I met him, or thereabouts.

20 Q. I would like to remind you. Yesterday you said that you were told

21 in relation to General Strugar that he held the rank of lieutenant

22 general, which corresponds to a three-star general, insignia involving

23 three stars, and you never mentioned the possibility of having seen

24 anything that could have resembled three stars on his uniform. Isn't that

25 right?

1 A. I'm trying to -- I'm trying to get to understand what exactly --

2 can you please -- can you please repeat that again? I don't fully

3 understand it.

4 Q. Yesterday you said that upon your arrival in Trebinje, you were

5 told that Pavle Strugar is a lieutenant general and that that rank

6 involves three stars. Also, you said yesterday that you yourself did not

7 see three stars but that you wrote this in your diary because you accepted

8 that he was a lieutenant general because you had been told that he had

9 three stars, that he was a three-star general. Is that what you said

10 yesterday?

11 A. Yes, that's what I said yesterday. I should point out that in

12 some armies it's not necessarily that a general would have three stars.

13 He may have had different sort of -- some people have various insignia

14 indicating their rank. My assumption is that a three-star general is

15 somebody who wears three stars. I do not know, and I cannot recall what

16 the format of that is on the uniform of a JNA officer.

17 I was introduced -- or General Strugar was introduced to me as

18 Lieutenant General Strugar. I accepted him as a lieutenant general, and

19 that has never been in issue since then.

20 Q. Thank you. It is true and correct that for the first time on the

21 30th of July of last year you said in a note that you saw General Strugar

22 again in February 1992 in Bileca. Is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And is it also right that in paragraph 12 of last year's note that

25 you said that when you met him then you didn't notice that his rank had

1 been put down one rung?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And is it also correct that you cannot actually know that fact

4 because you had no personal knowledge of it in the sense of you knowing

5 about it and you seeing rank insignia on General Strugar's uniform which

6 would denote in his rank in any way? Would that be right?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. And is it also correct that in your statement to the investigators

9 in 1995, in paragraph 34 you said that General -- or, rather, Strugar was

10 a lieutenant general and that you never mentioned the number of stars in

11 relation to his rank?

12 A. Yes. I referred to him as a lieutenant general because I was told

13 he was a lieutenant general. How long he was a lieutenant general for I

14 don't know, how many stars he had on his uniform I don't know. I just

15 know him -- or I was introduced to him as lieutenant general, and that's

16 what I referred to him since then as.

17 Q. Mr. Doyle, when was he introduced to you as being lieutenant

18 general?

19 A. I presume it was done when I met him first on the 6th of December,

20 1991.

21 Q. I'm not getting the interpretation. You just confirmed a moment

22 ago that it was true and correct that you were -- that he was introduced

23 to you as lieutenant general in 1991, isn't that right, and not as colonel

24 general?

25 A. I'm not too sure where the rank colonel general has come from. I

1 understood that General Strugar held the rank of lieutenant general, and I

2 haven't changed that at any stage. I don't recall ever coming across or

3 having a reference to the rank of colonel general. I don't understand

4 that phrase.

5 Q. But nonetheless, in your statement, the first one that you gave to

6 the investigators, it said that he was colonel general. That's what it

7 says in the statement; is that right? Paragraph 34, second sentence -- or

8 rather, the first sentence, I apologise. It says: "That same day before

9 meeting the mayor, I met --"

10 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel says "colonel general," "pukovnik,"

11 rather than "potpukovnik," "lieutenant general."

12 JUDGE PARKER: Could I point out, Mr. Rodic, that in the English

13 version which we have, it shows "lieutenant general."

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. Then I'm

15 reading from -- Your Honour, I'm reading the translation in Serbian. I do

16 apologise if in the English version it does indeed say "lieutenant

17 general." I apologise. I'll move on.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. And is it correct that in the first sentence of paragraph 7 of the

21 note from last year, that you say that General Strugar told the members of

22 the observer mission, monitoring mission, that he wasn't in a good mood?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And then in the third sentence of that same paragraph, paragraph

25 number 7 of the note, you say the following, that he was angry while he

1 was speaking, while he was saying that he had to resort to opening fire at

2 Dubrovnik. Is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And is it also right that in sentence four of that same paragraph,

5 number 7 of your note, that you said that you gained the impression that

6 the general's conduct was motivated by the desire to punish? Is that

7 right?

8 A. I'm -- I'm looking --

9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. We do not have the

10 actual text.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. It is the passage or, rather, paragraph 7. The last sentence in

13 that paragraph.

14 "General Strugar acknowledged that he issued the orders for the

15 action and Colonel Doyle gained the impression that under these conditions

16 the conduct of General Strugar was motivated with a desire to retaliate or

17 punish." And that is paragraph 7 of your note. Is that right?

18 A. Yes. I'm reading the note here and it states that his action had

19 been punitive, which was an indication that the action had taken place.

20 Q. Thank you. And is it also true that in the second sentence of

21 paragraph 8, on page 2 of your note, you said that you gained the

22 impression that the order was that sporadic fire at random should be

23 opened on Dubrovnik; is that right?

24 A. Would you please ask that question again.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters apologise that we do not have the

1 document so we can't read the actual words.

2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Is it true that in the second sentence of paragraph 8 of your note

4 of last year, that you said that you had the impression that the order was

5 that random fire should be opened at Dubrovnik?

6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I object and just ask, to simplify

7 it for the interpreters, that the witness simply read what's being asked

8 of him. It's in front of him and it might make less of a mess for the

9 poor interpreters.

10 JUDGE PARKER: The sentence being put to the witness is in

11 paragraph 7, document page 03340133, and it reads in the English version:

12 "General Strugar had admitted to having given the order for attack, and it

13 was Colonel Doyle's impression that, in the circumstances, General

14 Strugar's course of action had been punitive."

15 And then the next passage put to the witness was in paragraph 8 of

16 the same page, the second sentence: "Moreover, General Strugar did not

17 inform the witness of the targets (or the type of targets) being engaged

18 in Dubrovnik on that day, and it was Colonel Doyle's impression that the

19 firing on Dubrovnik had been ordered indiscriminately."

20 I think they're the sentences you are putting to the witness, are

21 they, Mr. Rodic?

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. Thank you.

23 Q. Mr. Doyle, is it true that that is indeed what you stated?

24 A. Yes, that's in the statement.

25 Q. Is it also true that in paragraph 9 of that same note that you

1 said that General Strugar was very angry during the talks?

2 A. That's what I said --

3 Q. Was very angry while speaking. And in paragraph 10, you explain

4 that General Strugar, when talking about resorting to firing, that he

5 meant that it was revenge as a result of casualties suffered by his own

6 units. Is that right?

7 A. Yes, I do. It was my impression that the general had resorted to

8 firing on Dubrovnik because he wasn't prepared.

9 Q. Thank you. That will be sufficient in view of the time we have at

10 our disposal.

11 MS. SOMERS: Objection, Your Honour. We ask that if the witness

12 is asked a question and he starts to answer, he be allowed to complete his

13 answer.

14 JUDGE PARKER: I had the impression the witness had finished. Was

15 there anything more, Colonel, you were saying?

16 THE WITNESS: No. I'm satisfied with the statement that I have in

17 front of me, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm doing my best that in

20 asking my questions to give the witness the number of the paragraph in

21 which the sentence is contained, and he has the statement before him to be

22 able to find his way around it.

23 Mr. Doyle --

24 JUDGE MAY: The only problem, Mr. Rodic, is the written transcript

25 doesn't always reveal what's there and what it is the witness is being

1 asked about, but if there is confusion, I will interrupt to make that more

2 clear for the record.

3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. However, is it also correct, Mr. Doyle, that opposed to all your

5 previous impressions, the ones we have just stated and shown through your

6 questions and the impressions you gained first of all, in paragraph 34 of

7 your statement given in 1995, you said only that the general was irritated

8 over the matters he described as having taken place in Dubrovnik? Is that

9 correct? And it is sentence three in paragraph 34. "Annoyance" is the

10 word. The general expressed his annoyance at what he expressed was

11 happening in Dubrovnik.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. May we agree, Mr. Doyle, that it is also correct that based on

14 your impressions as expressed in the note itself of 2003, that there is

15 nothing either in your diary of the 6th of December, 1991, that there is

16 nothing of this in your diary?

17 A. My diary reflects the fact that I met General Strugar and the time

18 -- the approximate time I met him at. There's nothing in my diary which

19 talks about impressions.

20 Q. Thank you. Is it true that for the first time yesterday, in fact,

21 you said that General Strugar was courteous to you and that you gained the

22 impression that he was thinking about other things, that he had other

23 things on his mind during the meeting? Would that be correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And is it also correct that you said yesterday that the translator

1 informed you that General Strugar was angry at the paramilitaries because

2 they had attacked his units? Is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And is it also right that in paragraph 7 of the note dated back to

5 last year that you said that at the beginning of the meeting, General

6 Strugar said that he was not in a good mood because his troops had

7 suffered casualties? And that's the first sentence. His troops had

8 suffered losses.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And is it also true that in that same paragraph you said that you

11 assumed that the paramilitary units from -- attacked federal army units on

12 the territory of Bosnia, or from the territory of Bosnia?

13 A. That was my assumption, yes.

14 Q. However, Mr. Doyle, it is also correct that in your 1995

15 statement, when you talked to the representatives of the OTP for the first

16 time, in paragraph 34, make no mention of the fact that the general was

17 angry at the paramilitary formations or that his units had suffered losses

18 as a result of the paramilitaries' actions; is that true?

19 A. No, but the paragraph did mention that the general was expressing

20 his annoyance.

21 Q. Is there a difference between anger and annoyance and annoyance

22 and extremely angry? What were your impressions as to the terms you used

23 in what you said last year? Would you say there was a difference between

24 the terms?

25 A. Not a significant difference, no.

1 Q. Thank you. Although in your statement of 1995, you said that

2 General Strugar told you that on that day he had shelled Dubrovnik, in the

3 2003 note that he acknowledged having issued an order that fired the open

4 -- to open fire on Dubrovnik, is it true that you did not record that in

5 your diary at the 6th of December, 1991?

6 A. I didn't record that in my diary in 1991, no.

7 Q. Is it true that you did not file a report to your mission about

8 that fact, informing them of that event?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Is it true and correct that you did not do that, that is to say

11 write the report or inform anybody although you were considerably

12 surprised by the fact that a general should acknowledge something like

13 that? And you said that that had never happened before in your entire

14 career. Would that be right?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. Usually acknowledgements of that kind by a general would be

17 recorded on film, by camera, but you did nothing to record the sentence at

18 all in any way. That would be true, wouldn't it?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. However, it is also true that in paragraph 10 of the note you say

21 -- or, rather, that your statement was, and would you have a look at it,

22 please, it is the first sentence: "Although I do not remember the actual

23 words, it was his impression that General Strugar was talking in general

24 terms about opening fire, not in specific terms." Did you say words to

25 that effect?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Mr. Doyle, may we agree then that in my previous questions I put

3 to you your statements from 1995 and from your note in 2003 as well as

4 what you said yesterday during your testimony, as well as the documents

5 that have become exhibits in this case? Is that correct? Did I do that?

6 A. You have referred to all of the documents in the course of your

7 questioning of me, yes.

8 Q. Apart from the documents, did I also put your own statements back

9 to you, what you said during yesterday's examination, what you told the

10 investigators in 1995, and the note given or compiled on the 30th of July

11 last year? That's right, isn't it?

12 A. I'm getting a little bit confused by the manner in which you are

13 -- you're making reference here. Anything -- any question you've asked

14 me, I've answered, and that's all I'm saying. I'm referring to the

15 documents that you're referring to.

16 Q. Yes, I agree, Mr. Doyle, that you have answered my questions, but

17 what I actually meant, and the substance of my own question was this: May

18 we agree that I, through my previous questions from the beginning of

19 today's day, I quoted your actual statements, what you told the

20 investigators in your statement in 1995, then I put your own note to you

21 dated the 30th of July, 2003, and also I referred to the examination

22 conducted here yesterday. So do you agree that I put your own statements

23 to you taken from those documents and from yesterday's testimony? Would

24 that be correct? It's a simple question.

25 A. It's a simple question on a very long statement. All I can say is

1 that I'm answering the questions truthfully. You are referring to these

2 documents, and you're asking me specific questions which I'm answering.

3 Q. Your 1995 statement is a long one, and do you agree with me when I

4 say that most of it refers to -- most of the questions referred to

5 paragraph 34 of that same statement and the sentences that were quoted

6 were contained in that paragraph? That's right, isn't it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And do you agree that through my questions I also indicated

9 individual quotations from 14 paragraphs, which is your July 2003

10 statement? That's what it's composed of; is that right?

11 A. Yes. You're quoting from both of those statements. I'm not sure

12 how many individual quotations you are quoting, but I accept that you are

13 dealing with issues that were -- appeared in the statement of 1995 and the

14 statement I made in '03.

15 Q. Is it true and correct that I also asked you about what your

16 responses were yesterday to the questions asked during the examination?

17 Yes or no.

18 A. Yes, you've asked me questions about the statement and what I said

19 yesterday.

20 Q. Mr. Doyle, may we agree, then, that in certain passages that I

21 quoted from your statements there are a number of differences,

22 discrepancies? Yes or no.

23 A. No, I don't accept that there are many discrepancies. There are

24 differences in words and there are differences in interpretations, but I

25 don't -- I don't believe there are many discrepancies.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Mr. Doyle, is it true and correct that three words from your

2 diary, and I quote them, "bad in Dubrovnik," and you reported those upon

3 returning to Sarajevo, are the only written evidence and traces of your

4 meeting with General Strugar? Is that correct?

5 A. They are the only words written in the diary apart from the words

6 "1200 hours, met with General Strugar," and the reference that he was a

7 three-star or a lieutenant general.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Now, is it true and correct that everything

9 you said in your statement dated 1995, except for the fact about a meeting

10 held with General Strugar, is not recorded anywhere else, not even in your

11 own diary? Would that be correct?

12 A. Yes. The statement of 1995 was an accurate reflection of

13 everything I was asked or happened to me in the year I spent in

14 Yugoslavia. That detail is not contained in any diary because it wasn't

15 meant to be contained in a diary.

16 Q. Let's clarify that point, Mr. Doyle. Eight sentences in paragraph

17 34 of your statement given to the investigators, except the fact that in

18 those eight lines you had a meeting with General Strugar, which can be

19 seen also from excerpts in your diary of the 6th of December, 1991,

20 nothing further from that paragraph has been recorded either in your diary

21 or anywhere else; is that right? Yes or no, please.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is it correct that a lengthy note on your statement from 2003 is

24 an expanded edition of paragraph 34 dated 1995?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Is it correct that in the note you mention certain things, certain

2 facts, impressions, and so on of which there is not a single word in the

3 1995 statement?

4 A. The statement I made in '03 is a -- a more comprehensive statement

5 in relation to the general content of the paragraph 34 in my statement of

6 1995.

7 Q. When I asked you at the beginning of the day today about the fact

8 that just prior to your testimony here you read the note through and that

9 you weren't able to tell me exactly when you actually conducted that

10 conversation with the OTP, at what time and what date, I gained the

11 impression that although you read through this prior to your testimony,

12 you now, after a lot of time has gone by from the meeting that you had in

13 1991 with General Strugar, that you're now expanding on your statement,

14 and you're telling us a longer story by including facts, impressions, and

15 so on.

16 MS. SOMERS: [Previous translation continues]...

17 JUDGE MAY: What was that, Ms. Somers?

18 MS. SOMERS: It is comment by the Defence, which is argument,

19 which is saved for a later point in this trial.

20 JUDGE PARKER: It's being put as a question for the witness to

21 react to. I will allow the question.

22 Carry on, Mr. Rodic.

23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Let me put it in simpler terms, Mr. Doyle. May we agree that

25 there is a noticeable difference in gradation with respect to what you

1 recorded in your diary on the 6th of December, 1991, up to what you said

2 in your 2003 note? Can we agree on that point?

3 A. I can agree when -- if you say that the note of the statement of

4 '03 is an expansion of the general content of paragraph 34 of the

5 statement I made in 1995, yes.

6 Q. Can we also agree that all of this is a general expansion in

7 reference to two sentences from the diary from the 6th of December, 1991,

8 and these two sentences read: "Meeting with General Strugar in Dubrovnik.

9 Bad in Dubrovnik." Isn't that right?

10 A. The -- the entry in my diary of the 6th of December, 1991, was not

11 done in any way to give an explanation of the content of my meeting with

12 General Strugar. The content in the diary is a record of who I met or the

13 fact that I met with General Strugar at approximately 1200 hours on the

14 6th of December, 1991, and nothing else.

15 Q. I fully understand you, Mr. Doyle, but I cannot refer to anything

16 else but that diary, because you said yourself that you did not write any

17 kind of report in relation to that meeting. Isn't that right?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. Can we agree then that your observations, impressions, new facts

20 are becoming increasingly expressed the more time goes by? For example,

21 you seem to remember more 13 years later than four years later. Can we

22 agree on that?

23 A. No, we cannot agree on that. I do not remember 13 years later

24 what I may have remembered in 1995.

25 Q. But your notes from 2003 corroborate what I said just now, because

1 it is much longer than that eight-line paragraph from the interview you

2 had with the investigators in 1995, and it challenges quite a bit of that.

3 Isn't that right?

4 A. I don't believe that it challenges. The statement I made in 1995

5 was a witness statement of a full and very busy 12 months I spent in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The statement of '03 is a more detailed statement of

7 the one meeting that I had on the 6th of December with General Strugar and

8 my impressions of that meeting.

9 Q. Can you interpret exactly now here before this Court what General

10 Strugar had said to you actually? Do you remember that now? The exact

11 sentences that he said, can you remember that?

12 A. No, I can't remember the exact sentences, word by word, of what

13 General Strugar said through his interpreter. I know the general content

14 and impressions from that time. Yes, I can relate to those. But exactly

15 what he said I'm not in a position to say. Word-for-word, I don't know.

16 Q. Mr. Doyle, can we agree that there cannot be two, three, or

17 several truths?

18 A. I'm giving -- I'm giving -- I'm answering these the best way I

19 can. It's not a question of untruths. That would give an indication to

20 me that I'm giving untruths, which I am not.

21 Q. Mr. Doyle, I am saying that for reasons known only to you, you

22 mentioned many things that were simply speculation during your statement

23 here, and many untruths in relation to General Strugar. I have pointed

24 out to you significant differences in all the evidence you have given.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to tender

1 the statement from 1995 and the note from 2003 to be admitted into

2 evidence.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Just before you do, Mr. Rodic, you put what I

4 assumed was a question to the witness just then, although it was framed

5 unclearly whether it was a statement or a question. I wonder whether the

6 colonel would like to answer that question. You put to him that he's

7 mentioned many things that were simply speculation, and many untruths, and

8 these were evident from the differences in all that he'd said.

9 Is that something that you accept, Colonel?

10 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, I do not accept it.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Rodic, we have given you very -- almost

12 extreme liberty in this cross-examination, both as to length and as to

13 content, because the Chamber has been conscious that this witness is of

14 considerable importance to your case, but I think you can take it that we

15 well and truly appreciate that there were recorded in 1991 very few words,

16 that a longer statement was made which contains much more detail in 1995,

17 and that the statement in 2003 contains material that was not recorded

18 earlier. We appreciate all of that, and we appreciate that you questioned

19 the reliability and I think the honesty of what is put in 2003 and now,

20 and we've gained a very clear impression of that from your

21 cross-examination.

22 So you now wish to tender both of the two statements that were put

23 to the witness.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for your

25 understanding in relation to the length of time allocated to me for the

1 cross-examination in view of the importance of the subject matter

2 involved, as you said.

3 I would just like to tender these statements or, rather, the

4 statement and the notes into evidence on behalf of the Defence, and I just

5 have a few more questions left that I would like to put to the witness, a

6 few brief questions. And then I would like to ask you to rule on these

7 matters that I shall refer to subsequently, by your leave.

8 JUDGE PARKER: I take it the basis upon which you tender these two

9 statements is that the content of them has been most material to the

10 cross-examination that you have made and material matters upon which the

11 Defence relies contained in these two statements have been accepted by the

12 witness as matters that he stated in 1995 and 2003.

13 Is there any objection, Ms. Somers?

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

15 MS. SOMERS: My response, Your Honour, is, as has been discussed

16 before, is the practice that clearly these are not evidence. I'm hopeful

17 that we will not go -- undertake a pattern of using this. This is not a

18 civil system.

19 If it will assist the Chamber, then on that basis and restricted

20 on that basis, I would indicate that the objection would only be limited

21 as to the practice, but in this instance it would make -- if it's helpful,

22 then we would agree to that.

23 I would also ask the Chamber please take note that there was a

24 correction made by the witness and it would be helpful if Mr. Rodic would

25 provide a copy of the paragraph in the note of, I believe, July of '03 so

1 that the Chamber has that as part as well.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Somers. Can I indicate that we

3 fully agree that it is not appropriate and that it should not be normal

4 that witness statements come into evidence in this way. In the case of

5 this particular witness, there have been detailed and material passages of

6 some length. The precise differences between them are -- have been relied

7 on by Mr. Rodic and will be relied on in the Defence. While they can

8 probably be gleaned from the record, as you yourself did indicate in your

9 objection which I haven't lost sight of but which I thought took care of

10 itself as time went on, there may not be entire clarity at times as to

11 precisely what the statement contained. It would appear useful on this

12 occasion and for that reason that the Chamber have the precise and

13 accurate statements both of 1995 and 2003. And I agree entirely with you

14 with the correcting note made this month by the witness.

15 I don't believe the Chamber has a copy of that correcting note

16 yet, Mr. Rodic. Do you have one?

17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have one copy, but

18 during the break I'll photocopy it and then the copy can be admitted into

19 evidence and I'll hand it over to the registrar.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Thank you. Now, I notice the statement of

21 1995, which I accept from the evidence of the colonel as a statement that

22 he agrees he made, in the form that has been placed before us omits

23 paragraphs 84 to 96. It does appear that it includes all the numbered

24 pages that have been given a document number, but if you notice, between

25 page 03340034 and 03340035, there appear to be omitted some pages of the

1 original document, and they would appear to include paragraphs 84 to 96.

2 They are not paragraphs to which any reference has been made in

3 the course of the evidence, so we can receive the document in this form,

4 but I draw attention to that omission in case either party thinks it may

5 be material.

6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I call to Your Honours' attention,

7 and I believe yesterday you might have gleaned this as well, the version

8 of the statement to which I was referring is not the one that was used in

9 a 92 bis format, which has actual paragraphing. It might be more helpful

10 just to have the complete 1995 statement, which bears an ERN of 00332172

11 et seq., and that goes on for 18 pages with 2189 as the final page.

12 I would leave it to the Chamber's discretion, but that is the 1995

13 signed version.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour?

15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] We gave you the statements that were

17 disclosed to us. This is the form that we received them in. We have two

18 such statements in English that have those two paragraphs missing, as you

19 noted yourself. But in the statement in the Serbian language, we realised

20 that these paragraphs are not relevant to General Strugar's case, and we

21 did not refer to them at all during our cross-examination.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Rodic. We will receive the

23 documents in the form that they've been given to us by you, and there will

24 be a third document, which will be the February 2004 further correction by

25 the witness, which will be added during the break, as soon as it is

1 available. So if the court officer would give these their exhibit number.

2 Thank you.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the statement of the witness from

4 1995 will be Defence Exhibit D20; the notes of the interview of the

5 witness Defence Exhibit D21; and the correcting note of the 3rd of

6 February, 2004, will be Defence Exhibit D22.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, Mr. Rodic --

8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I just put two or

9 three more questions, very brief ones, and then I would like to put

10 forward my proposal. Thank you.

11 Q. Mr. Doyle, can you tell me this: The text that you wrote and that

12 you explained in relation to the photograph, the 6th of December, 1991,

13 and this text that you wrote on the 23rd of August, 2003, could you please

14 tell me where this was written. Was it written on a separate piece of

15 paper or on a document, or did you perhaps write this on the back of this

16 photograph? Can you tell us a bit more about that.

17 A. As far as I recall, I wrote that on a -- on a document or on a

18 blank sheet of paper that was attached to the photograph to indicate who

19 was in the photograph, the one that I have dated that you have in your

20 hand there. I do not believe I wrote -- in fact, I'm -- I'm almost sure I

21 did not write that actually on the photograph itself.

22 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me whether, in addition to the excerpts

23 from your diary that you gave us here, did you record anything in 1992,

24 meetings and facts that were important to you, and inter alia, the fact

25 that in February 1992 you met General Strugar again?

1 A. You've asked me did -- did I record anything in 1992. Do you mean

2 1991?

3 Q. I mean did you keep the same diary in 1992? Also, in February

4 1992, if you kept such a diary, did you record that you met General

5 Strugar yet again? And also, did you refer to other meetings in your

6 diary if you still kept it?

7 A. It was my practice to record in my diary, both in 1991 and 1992,

8 the personalities that I would have met. I did not record the content of

9 any major discussion I had in those diaries, but, yes, the diary of 1992

10 would -- I cannot be certain, but I would assume that the record of the

11 ambassador who was head of the monitor mission, Ambassador Salgueiro and

12 his officials, when we met with General Strugar in February of 1992, I

13 assume that I probably would have put that fact into my diary of 1992. I

14 don't have it in front of me so I'm not too sure, but it would have been

15 my practice to do that. But it would not have been my practice to record

16 any detail of notes or conversations that were held at those meetings.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Would it be possible for you to provide

18 this photograph and this diary to the Court, to the Tribunal? Of course

19 once you've unpacked in New York.

20 A. The diary that is in my household effects on the way to New York

21 is the diary of 1991 covering this -- covering the meeting I had with

22 General Strugar, the extract of the diary for which you have in front of

23 you. The 1992 diary and the photograph are somewhere in my files which

24 are in my attic in my home in Ireland.

25 Q. Can you then do us a favour and obtain this from your attic,

1 provide this for the Court? Because on this black and white copy of the

2 photograph, some things are barely discernible, and in the view of the

3 Defence, they are of greater relevance to us.

4 First of all, the first thing we would be interested in is to

5 check where this photograph was taken, because you say that you had two

6 meetings with General Strugar. Also, you said that the photograph was a

7 colour photograph. The Prosecution provided us with a very poor photocopy

8 of this photograph, although they have sophisticated technology for

9 scanning and copying photographs. So it is quite unclear why this copy

10 was made in such a way when we already had the opportunity of receiving

11 colour photographs here before that were dealt with in a completely

12 different manner.

13 Are you prepared to provide this photograph for the Trial Chamber?

14 A. First of all, may I just say that there is absolutely no doubt

15 that that photograph was taken on the 6th of December in the location

16 where I met with General Strugar. There is no -- I can assure this Court

17 there is no way that that photograph was taken on any other time but on

18 the 6th of December.

19 In relation to the photograph itself, the only way I can get that

20 photograph is to physically go to my home and look for it, because I don't

21 know exactly where it is. It is somewhere in my files. They are in my

22 attic, and I presume it is up to the -- Your Honour to decide whether that

23 should be done or not. It's not a question of me asking someone to get

24 the photograph, because they're actually in an attic which contains so

25 many files. So it would be very difficult for me to ask somebody to get

1 the photograph. To get it, I would actually have to look for it.

2 I wanted to bring the photograph with me when I was going to the

3 States, but I actually couldn't find it. Now, I assume it is someplace in

4 my files at home, because I had it before, and it is up to Your Honour if

5 you wish that to be done.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, I see you on your feet.

7 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'd like to just remind the

8 Chamber, and I'd have to search the record on the laptop to find the

9 passage, but General Strugar acknowledged recognising himself in photo.

10 So the question is somewhat --

11 JUDGE PARKER: That's acknowledged, but not, it seems, when the

12 photograph was taken.

13 MS. SOMERS: I don't know that it would lend its -- offer anything

14 major, and I think that if the Chamber is satisfied with the explanation

15 of, I think it's a burden we would not normally impose, and if there is --

16 JUDGE PARKER: The burden would appear to require the witness to

17 travel to Ireland, which would not be, I would understand, his normal

18 travel now as he is now living in New York.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: At any time, Mr. Rodic, has the Defence called for

21 the photograph, the original, at any earlier stage in these proceedings?

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] We have not, Your Honour, because

23 during this examination, many questions surfaced, many issues relevant to

24 the defence, so this would be highly important to us. We would need to

25 take a look at the back of this photograph and ascertain in this way,

1 possibly, where the picture was taken.

2 Also, the witness's diary would be of assistance to us if in it it

3 is stated that he had yet another meeting with General Strugar in February

4 1992 in Bileca, the way he had put it.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Was that diary called for at an earlier time?

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this came up during the

7 cross-examination. Beforehand, we indeed did not ask for it, but this

8 necessity just arose now.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic. Now, do I take it that is

10 the end of your cross-examination?

11 We will have the morning break now for 20 minutes and resume, and

12 we'll give some consideration to your submission during the break. I see

13 before we go Ms. Somers has something to say.

14 MS. SOMERS: I wanted to inform the Chamber that my colleague

15 Ms. McCreath indicates that those were provided 24 of September 2003 and

16 there's been no record request at all since then.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

19 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers -- oh, I thought you were on your feet

21 for a reason. I would inquire first whether the correction note, D22, is

22 now available.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Dated the 3rd of February, 2004.

25 Now, I must ask you to come to your feet, Ms. Somers, and the

1 reason for that is to ask whether the quality of the photograph with which

2 we have been provided is the best quality that is presently available to

3 the Prosecution.

4 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour. I'll just check with my

5 colleague.

6 [Prosecution counsel confer]

7 MS. SOMERS: An inquiry can be made, Your Honours, of the evidence

8 unit to see if the copy which it possesses has any better clarity. As has

9 been explained by the witness, the original is not with the OTP. There is

10 a possibility that there is a better copy available, and with that we

11 could inquire -- of that we could inquire.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Could I indicate, Ms. Somers, that our view as a

13 Chamber is that in view of the significance which the Prosecution places

14 on the photograph, as we understand your case, for our purposes, the

15 photograph is not of good quality, and we can certainly -- sorry, I don't

16 mean the photograph, I mean the copy of it that has been provided. And we

17 can well understand that the Defence may have further forensic purposes

18 which would be assisted by a better quality. Ideally the original, but

19 certainly a better quality than the quite poor reproduction presently

20 available to us.

21 So that our position is that we would put to the Prosecution that

22 if it wishes the Chamber to rely upon this photograph, we would ask that

23 appropriate steps be taken either to provide both the Defence and the

24 Chamber with a reasonable quality copy or that whatever steps are

25 necessary be taken to obtain the original of the photograph. We put it in

1 that two-stage way in the hope that it will avoid the necessity for the

2 witness to return to Ireland, something that will incur a cost of time and

3 money and may be inconvenient, but you will appreciate that if you look at

4 the quality of that which is presently before us, that it really is

5 something that ought to be improved upon.

6 May we leave it on that basis with you for the moment?

7 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. Whichever way it -- it turns out,

8 if there is a better copy or if at some point the witness -- some point

9 during the course of the trial, of course, the witness is in a position to

10 assist with getting the original, and that will depend on his

11 circumstances. I just want to make sure I understand quickly. It is not

12 necessary that in either eventuality the witness return himself but it can

13 be -- if found, can be transmitted, or if available, the witness is not

14 necessary.

15 JUDGE PARKER: We assume that if the original is produced, it will

16 be able to be accepted by the Defence without the need for the witness to

17 attend further. And can we indicate that we have also apprehended from

18 what the witness has said that even if he does return to Ireland, there is

19 a possibility that he may not be able to put his hands upon the

20 photograph, but if that should be the case, we will in due course have to

21 weigh for ourselves what weight and reliance we can place upon it as an

22 exhibit in its present form.

23 Well, thank you for that, Ms. Somers.

24 And, Mr. Rodic, you will understand that we have put in place

25 measures now to obtain, if possible, a better quality of the photograph

1 which, if it is available, should assist you in your consideration for

2 Defence purposes.

3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I understood

4 what you have said with respect to the photograph, and I thank you for

5 that. Now, may I ask whether you have made any decisions regarding the

6 diary.

7 JUDGE PARKER: The diary we see of a different significance. If

8 it is the case that the witness must and does return to Ireland in search

9 of the photograph, we would ask that his search extend to include the

10 diary for 1992, but if it is possible to provide a satisfactory copy of

11 the photograph without the witness having to return to Ireland, we would

12 not separately suggest that the diary would justify his being required to

13 return to Ireland.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Ms. Somers, your re-examination.

16 MS. SOMERS: Just briefly. Thank you very much, Your Honour.

17 Re-examined by Ms. Somers:

18 Q. Colonel Doyle, you discussed a more -- I believe a more formal

19 visit or a second visit -- excuse me, a second time you personally saw

20 General Strugar in February of 1992. Did -- could you indicate the nature

21 of that meeting and whether it was as informal as the first contact.

22 A. The meeting with General Strugar in February 1992 was part of an

23 itinerary that I had submitted in advance when I was informed that the

24 head of the monitor mission wished to pay a formal visit to

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1 Q. And who was the head of the monitor mission?

2 A. The head of the monitor mission at the time was Ambassador

3 Salgueiro from Portugal, and he came to Bosnia with most of his senior

4 officials; the deputy head who was a general from Portugal, the head of

5 his political affairs, his official spokesperson, et cetera. And the

6 meeting that was held with General Strugar was part of an itinerary which

7 included meetings with the president, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, the

8 commander of the federal forces in Sarajevo, and it was on my suggestion

9 that we include a visit down to the area of Bileca to meet with General

10 Strugar.

11 I accompanied the ambassador on that meeting. It had a convoy of

12 about four cars. It included members of the Presidency. So that I was in

13 the company of the ambassador purely because I was his representative, as

14 it were, for Bosnia-Herzegovina. I did not take part in any of the formal

15 discussions myself, even though I was part of the delegation.

16 We were formally met by the general and his staff, treated very

17 courteously, and there were exchanges of views and positions placed. And

18 then, as far as I recall, the general treated us to -- to a meal.

19 So what I would say here is that the visit was far more formal

20 than the visit I had had in December with General Strugar which I had

21 initiated for my own benefit.

22 Q. And in the course of -- or preparatory to the visit, perhaps even

23 in the course of it, the monitors from your area of responsibility

24 prepared a briefing on the visit of the head of mission?

25 A. Yes. My understanding was that -- the practice was that the

1 monitor mission in Bosnia would prepare a general briefing for the benefit

2 of the visiting dignitaries on the up-to-date events that were taking

3 place and the personalities that they might meet with.

4 Q. And this briefing would be in a report or written form?

5 A. It would be in the form of a submission made for his

6 consideration. They took different -- they took different formats. On

7 one such occasion that somebody came, I would have made out suggested

8 questions. I don't think I did it on this occasion, but we would have put

9 a paragraph on the various -- to indicate to the head of the mission and

10 his staff who were the major players and what the general situation was in

11 the country.

12 Q. And this type of preparation is in contrast to the type of, shall

13 we say, preparation or maybe even lack thereof that characterised your

14 visit to General Strugar on December 6, 1991? How would you describe the

15 differences?

16 A. The difference was that I was on more or less an introductory

17 visit when I went to Mostar on that occasion. So it was rather informal

18 and there was no notes made out in advance, nor were there any written

19 briefings, et cetera.

20 Q. Thank you very much, Colonel.

21 MS. SOMERS: I would ask if the usher would be kind enough,

22 please, to distribute a document.

23 Q. Colonel, do you see in front of you a document? Do you recognise

24 it or are familiar with its contents?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. This document, labelled "EC Monitor Mission Regional Centre

2 Sarajevo Brief on the Visit of HOM," Head of Mission, if you could turn,

3 please, to pages 0034 at the top, 00340085 and 0086. Your screen also has

4 it if it's easier for you but I'm not sure whether it's large enough for

5 -- okay.

6 There's a section under paragraph 5 which discusses JNA, and do

7 you see a mention, a bit of a briefing on General Strugar, and then at the

8 bottom: "The following are currently the major corps units and commanders

9 in BH." And then if you turn the page to 0086 -- I have to apologise to

10 the Chamber and to all reading the document, the copy quality is not

11 brilliant, but the second -- it says "Military district, military

12 district." It says, "4th Military District, Trebinje." Is it clear?

13 Perhaps a little bit clearer.

14 Now, this lays out, does it not, the names of some of the key

15 players, as you were informed, in that area of responsibility?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, if this is how the formation with the number of the military

18 district were transmitted to you by your staff, whether correctly or

19 incorrectly, would that be the reference you'd be making to go it? In

20 other words, if it says 4th Military District --

21 A. Yes, it would.

22 Q. Okay. And would it make any deference to you whether or not it

23 was 4th Military District or some other appellation? Were you satisfied

24 that you had at least, irrespective of that or other factors, you had the

25 players in order?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Yes, it would have been -- I would have deemed it more important

2 to have the names of the players and the location as opposed to the actual

3 -- what it was called.

4 Q. And if some of the players were listed perhaps with their names if

5 at that stage even their titles were not necessarily correct, would you

6 assume that they were still sufficiently important to be listed here?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you.

9 MS. SOMERS: I'd ask to move into evidence, please, this document.

10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P49.

12 MS. SOMERS:

13 Q. Colonel Doyle, I'd like to ask you if you can just help me

14 identify some of the following names that appear -- well, some of the

15 following names.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question

17 and answer. Thank you.

18 MS. SOMERS:

19 Q. Izetbegovic, and please, what republic it applies to.

20 A. Alija Izetbegovic was the president of the Republic of

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and a member of the Presidency.

22 Q. Djurdjevac, General? Just the basic description. Where is the

23 focus? What republic is it focused on, what cities, if possible?

24 A. He was a commander of a JNA force in Sarajevo.

25 Q. Ah --

1 A. He would have --

2 Q. I beg your pardon.

3 A. May I just say that when I arrived there first, the JNA force was

4 increased in Sarajevo so they took in a higher ranking general who was

5 General Kukanjac under whose command Djurdjevac would have been.

6 Q. Ganic?

7 A. Ganic is a member of the Presidency. His first name is Ejub, and

8 he is a Bosnian, as he referred to himself.

9 Q. Koljevic?

10 A. Nikola Koljevic was a member of the Crisis Committee of the Serb

11 SDS party and was a deputy to Radovan Karadzic who was the leader of the

12 Bosnian Serbs.

13 Q. Where -- where would most of the activity, if you are in a

14 position to indicate, where would most of the activity for purposes of

15 your interview with the OTP in 1995 be focused? What was the thrust of

16 it? What was the purpose of this actual interview? Where was the accent?

17 A. I should mention here that for the second six months of my tour of

18 duty I was the personal representative to the chairman of the

19 International Peace Conference, Lord Peter Carrington, and as such I was

20 based in Sarajevo. That part of my duties were involved in following

21 mainly the political leaders in Sarajevo itself. So for the year that I

22 would have spent in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would say that 85 to 90 per cent

23 of my activities were based in and around Sarajevo.

24 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much. No further questions.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Before you sit, can I ask for some assistance for

1 the Tribunal, given the quality of the document which is now Exhibit P49.

2 On the page which is 03340086 --

3 MS. SOMERS: Uh-huh.

4 JUDGE PARKER: -- do we take it that the top line commences with

5 the number of a military district? Is it clear on any copy what that

6 number is?

7 MS. SOMERS: I had been given information, Your Honour, that a

8 clearer copy showed 4th, and I would --

9 JUDGE PARKER: No. I'm thinking of the first line --

10 MS. SOMERS: Oh, the first one.

11 JUDGE PARKER: -- at the moment.

12 MS. SOMERS: I can try to get again the clearer copy that I had

13 looked at.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Okay.

15 MS. SOMERS: And would be happy to do so.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Then there is the next underlined passage, which is

17 another military district, and General Strugar is shown as the commander,

18 and you put to the witness that was 4th, and I think that's been accepted,

19 but if that can be clarified. Then there is a naval group shown and

20 Admiral Jokic's name appears against that group. Can that number of that

21 naval group be identified?

22 MS. SOMERS: It can and should, yes.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

24 Mr. Rodic.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as my learned colleague

1 in her redirect introduced this document as an exhibit, I have an

2 objection to make. In addition to what you yourself noted and observed, I

3 would like to say something and a few extra questions, with the Court's

4 indulgence. I think it would be important.

5 JUDGE PARKER: You can make your --

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] With respect to the documents, of

7 course.

8 JUDGE PARKER: You can make your points, Mr. Rodic, but whether

9 further questions will be allowed we'll look at separately. Firstly your

10 comments.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like to join in what you

12 yourself observed with respect to the page 003340086, where we can't see

13 clearly the numbers, and we assume that they refer to military districts.

14 I should like to draw the Court's attention, and of course to express our

15 doubts as the Defence team with respect to this page, 086 are the last

16 three digits of the page number.

17 And I'd like to say that on the previous page, 03340085, 085 being

18 the last three digits, in the last paragraph which explains the JNA, it is

19 point 5 relating to the JNA, when describing the cause and the commanders

20 that are listed, and generals, so in that written section, there is not a

21 single word mentioning the 4th Military District. The 4th Military

22 District is not mentioned anywhere. So that the Defence does not know

23 whether this particular page 0334086 is a component part of the whole

24 document. So apart from it being illegible, a poor copy, because

25 previously in the written part no mention is made of the 4th Military

1 District which allegedly was taken note of in the tabular presentation on

2 the page of which the last digits are 086.

3 So once we receive a legible document, a clear copy, then I should

4 like to be allowed to state my views on it.

5 And I would like to say something with respect to

6 cross-examination, where the witness during cross-examination and during

7 the examination-in-chief denied certain facts which appear in this

8 particular report. So I would like to ask a few questions in that regard,

9 and I should like to hear the Court's ruling. Thank you.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, I'm not inclined to allow you to

11 re-examine on the document, but I propose myself to put some questions to

12 the witness at this point, and they may cover some of the territory that

13 you were concerned about, and any submissions you might have about the

14 quality of the document can be put in due course, if it's relevant to your

15 case, at the conclusion of your case.

16 Questioned by the Court:

17 JUDGE PARKER: Colonel, at the foot -- you have the document in

18 front of you, do you?

19 A. I don't, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: We will try and correct that. The page which ends

21 085 and over to 086 are the area of interest.

22 In paragraph on 085 which is numbered 5, near the bottom you speak

23 of, in the middle of the big paragraph there, a 3rd Corps and then a 2nd

24 Corps which was deployed in Trebinje from Titograd. You then refer to a

25 corps group being currently under the command of General Strugar. To what

1 were you then referring by the words "corps group"? Can you help with us

2 that?

3 A. Your Honour, the corps group I would have in mind is the

4 combination of the corps that are enumerated there, that when they were

5 put together they became a corps group under the command of General

6 Strugar.

7 JUDGE MAY: When you used the term "corps group," were you using

8 that as an established, organised unit of the JNA or in some other --

9 A. No, Your Honour, it was -- it was my -- it was the wording I used

10 for a certain amount of corps being brought together. In the normal

11 military parlance, if you put three corps together, it becomes a military

12 division. There were no divisions mentioned in the JNA; they became

13 groups. And therefore, I put this collective title as a corps group. To

14 somebody else it may have been an Operational Group, but what it was was a

15 group of corps units joined together to become a higher level, which, as I

16 have said before, in most armies would be termed a division, but divisions

17 were not used in that context, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: You then, on the last two lines of that page, say:

19 "The following are currently the major corps units and commanders in,

20 abbreviated, Bosnia and Herzegovina." And then over the page, two

21 military districts, the second perhaps including a naval group, are

22 identified.

23 Now, what was your reference to a military district, each of these

24 two military districts intended to convey?

25 A. The -- the military district would have been the location, the

1 general location where these units were deployed. In this case I refer to

2 the Military District of Sarajevo, where there were a certain amount of

3 corps, and the general Military District of the area of Trebinje, where

4 the second group of corps were generally located.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Were you -- what was the position of what you had

6 referred to as the corps group on the previous page in this reference to

7 military district?

8 A. In -- if you -- Your Honour, if I can direct you to the top of the

9 page 086, there was a distinct Military District in Sarajevo. That come

10 under the command of General Kukanjac and his deputy, General

11 Aksentijevic.

12 The 4th, 5th, 10th and 17th corps were deployed throughout other

13 portions of Bosnia. As you can see, the 4th Corps was specifically to

14 Sarajevo, the 5th Corps specifically to Banja Luka, the 10th Corps

15 specifically to Bihac, and the 17th Corps to Tuzla, and I enumerate the

16 commanding officers.

17 Similarly, in the next paragraph where I refer to the Military

18 District of Trebinje, I have down there the commander of that district,

19 which was General Strugar, a deputy, and then three of the corps that were

20 in the general area of Western Herzegovina; Trebinje, Bileca, and

21 Nevesinje, and I have given what I was informed at that time were the

22 commanding officers of those corps. The brackets would indicate what I

23 believe their status as generals were. Some of them were one-star, some

24 of them were two-star or what we refer to as two-star, in other words, the

25 second rank of general rank, the second tier of general rank.

1 And at the very bottom, then, was the reference to the group which

2 was in Bihac. And that, my understanding is, there was a -- there was an

3 air base in Bihac. These are the names that would have been given to me

4 by my monitors, and some of the names I would have been aware of myself

5 personally.

6 JUDGE PARKER: There is no reference on page 086 to the 3rd Corps

7 under General Torbica that I can identify, or is that the 37th Corps which

8 you mention?

9 A. It is my understanding that in the Military District of Trebinje

10 the deployment of the corps were - and I'm trying to read from that

11 document - the 2nd Corps in Trebinje, the 13th Corps in Bileca, and the

12 37th Corps in Nevesinje.

13 JUDGE PARKER: On page 085 you refer in that passage to which

14 we've turned earlier to the 3rd Corps under General Torbica. I don't see

15 a 3rd Corps on page 086. I do see General Torbica in charge of the 37th

16 Corps. Can you help us to understand what you were intending to convey.

17 A. There is no reference, as you say, Your Honour, to the 37th Corps

18 on the first page. I make reference to the other corps because they were

19 deployed from specific areas into the area of Trebinje. I do not and I

20 cannot explain why there is no reference to the 37th Corps on that page.

21 JUDGE PARKER: And no reference to the 3rd Corps on page 086.

22 A. That is correct, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Now, was all of this information which -- of which

24 you had been able to obtain, clear and confident information at the time

25 of this report?

1 A. No. I cannot say that it was -- it was clear and confident,

2 because it was not the practice of the monitor mission to go to a senior

3 JNA commander and ask him for the designation of his subordinate units.

4 We were very conscious of the fact that as we were in the -- in the area

5 of impartiality that we should not seek any specific military information,

6 and if that was the numbering of units, then we shouldn't do it because

7 there might have been the impression by some commanders that we were

8 looking for specific military information, and that was not part of our

9 remit.

10 And I should further add, Your Honour, that it is not necessary

11 that all of these designations are totally accurate.

12 JUDGE PARKER: The further matter has been drawn to my attention

13 on the page 085 you refer to the 2nd Corps under the command of one

14 general; on the following page, under the 4th Military District, you refer

15 to the 2nd Corps but a different commanding general.

16 A. That appears to be the case, Your Honour, yes.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Are these discrepancies something that are inherent

18 in the document and your knowledge at the time or are they something that

19 give you concern as to the reliability of this document which is now

20 before us?

21 A. The -- the -- I will admit that the degree of confidence I had in

22 the numbering of the units in relation to numbers were not as accurate as

23 one would have expected. I would have to accept that, Your Honour, yes.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Is this the form in which the report was submitted

25 by you, or this annex was prepared by you and your staff?

1 A. This would have been prepared by me and my staff, Your Honour,

2 yes.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any matter of major concern, Mr. Rodic,

4 which we have not identified?

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I should like to

6 draw your attention to page 03340088, 088 being the last three digits, and

7 the subtitle there is "Mostar." That whole portion related to Mostar up

8 until Sarajevo. And I think you will observe significant differences, and

9 that is why I wanted to raise my few questions. But if you have observed

10 the differences with respect to what the witness said during the

11 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, then I leave it in your

12 hands.

13 And the same thing relates to another portion of the document for

14 the town of Neum. I can't find the page just now.

15 Thank you.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you there, Mr. Rodic. I think you can see

17 that we have a consciousness of some of the issues about the reliability

18 of the content of some of the detail in the document.

19 Ms. Somers, is there any further re-examination that you would

20 like to put in view of the questions that have come from the Chamber?

21 Further re-examination by Ms. Somers:

22 Q. Colonel Doyle, just to clarify a point, this information was

23 gathered from sources other than yourself?

24 A. Yes. They were -- they came from either my office or from the --

25 some of the monitors.

1 Q. And what was the extent of the contact? You indicated earlier

2 that you could not just walk up to the JNA and ask, "What rank are you?"

3 What was your ability at the time, early on in your mission, to confirm

4 this? Were you working with the inherent inaccuracies that -- were there

5 any limitations that perhaps there was any possibility of inaccuracy?

6 A. I would say that as head of the monitor mission, I was very

7 concerned that there was very little contact with the federal army, and I

8 took upon it as initiative of my own that, in realising that the JNA were

9 a very strong force or entity within the Republic of Bosnia, that we

10 should speak with them. It was something which I attempted to persuade

11 the Presidency to do as well. When I arrived, there was no contact

12 between the Presidency of Bosnia and the JNA. And I persuaded the Prime

13 Minister that this should be initiated over a particular incident that

14 happened.

15 This was generally accepted. There was no contact generally

16 between the federal army and the monitor mission. Generally, Uzelac, who

17 was the first military commander I met, and his deputy Djurdjevac had very

18 little contact with the mission, so it was my initiative to try and open

19 up a basic dialogue between the Presidency and the JNA and between the JNA

20 and my office or the -- the command that I had at the time.

21 I do admit that there was a lot of inaccuracies in relation to

22 corps and divisions and operational groups and all of that, and I didn't

23 want it to be seen to be looking for specific information about specific

24 units because that was not the way we generally did business. And I was

25 conscious of the fact that even though I am a military officer, the

1 capacity I had in the appointment in Bosnia was generally as a

2 semi-diplomat; I was not there as a military officer.

3 So if I am guilty of making some mistakes, I think I would have

4 attempted to do those in the best interest of attempting to achieve the

5 overall objective -- objective of opening up dialogue between the

6 Presidency, between the federal army, and between my office, and this is

7 what I attempted to do for the entire period I served in Bosnia, both as

8 head of the mission and as Lord Carrington's personal representative.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Doyle -- thank you Colonel Doyle.

10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Colonel, that brings to an end your time as a

12 witness. We thank you for your time here and for the assistance you've

13 given us. And as you have heard, there will be continuing, I would

14 expect, liaison between the Prosecution and yourself over the question of

15 the photograph and the diary, and it may become necessary, I'm afraid, for

16 you to enjoy a little time in Ireland, but we'll see how that progresses.

17 THE WITNESS: Could I just mention, Your Honour, if I may, a point

18 of administration. My daughter who lives in the house is currently, as I

19 speak, en route to the United States to visit us, and therefore it would

20 be very hard for me to get access to the house in the next -- if this were

21 to be required in the next few days, until she would return, which might

22 be in -- I'm not too sure, maybe ten days or so. So I just thought I'd

23 mention that, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE PARKER: It may be that you will -- there's no point in the

25 Chamber attempting to enter into these arrangements. It will be something

1 between yourself and the Office of the Prosecutor, and it may be that it

2 will be at some future time that you will have to try to reach Ireland, if

3 that should become necessary.

4 THE WITNESS: I'll certainly do my best, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. It's not often that I have to

6 apologise to an Irishman to suggest that he should visit Ireland. Thank

7 you, and you are now excused, Colonel.

8 [The witness withdrew]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, is this a convenient time to return to

10 the important issue raised yesterday by the Defence, the health of the

11 accused, General Strugar? Are you now in a position to put submissions

12 about that?

13 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, we do have some oral submissions which

14 we think are preliminary to anything further, and we hope it will be -- it

15 will clarify what issues must be addressed before any other issues can be

16 addressed. So yes, if we can just switch gears, I'd be happy to do that.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

18 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, upon having had an opportunity to read

19 through, with perhaps more time, the application of the accused, first and

20 foremost, and I say this against the backdrop of Your Honour's comments

21 that this does not just affect this trial but refers to the institutional

22 issue which must be dealt with and has not been dealt with up to date.

23 The report which underlies the application to suspend the

24 proceedings, the Prosecution submits, does not make out a prima facie case

25 to justify a further full fitness hearing. Before having any such

1 hearing, there must indeed be a prima facie case supported by evidence, by

2 the facts that are contained in the report. That is not the case in this

3 report. This report does not, perhaps for a number of reasons, present

4 sufficient factual findings other than a bare conclusion, a legal

5 conclusion, I may add, about fitness to stand trial.

6 The factual findings must support enumerated criteria which need

7 to be set forth. A standard must be determined before any further action

8 can be taken. The Prosecution submits that that is not the case here.

9 The factual findings themselves are not linked to any specific enumerated

10 criteria, which in fact not set forth in accordance with most standards

11 for determination of fitness. The methodology which is used is suspect,

12 the Prosecution submits. It is flawed, the Prosecution submits. And the

13 qualifications of the individual submitting the report appear, given a

14 number of factors suggested, raised, not necessarily to be adequate to

15 come to this conclusion. Because of the broader implications for the

16 Tribunal at large and other cases, we simply wanted to address how other

17 Chambers which have been confronted with a -- nothing more than a bare

18 assertion of the status, again almost a legal conclusion presented to a

19 Bench, have dealt with it, and some of the matters that the Chambers have

20 had to take into consideration.

21 Yesterday Your Honours raised very clearly the observations of the

22 accused during the entire time of the proceedings. Indeed, that has also

23 been, if I may just get the reference -- in a previous case usually

24 referred to as Celebici but it's Prosecutor versus Delalic, it appears,

25 although the standards were not set out, opinions were given or asked to

1 be given on whether or not the accused is suffering from a psychological

2 disorder which renders him unable to understand and follow the proceedings

3 against him or to participate in his defence. And I reiterate, the

4 standard was not enunciated.

5 What is significant is when the Chamber made its finding of

6 fitness, actually, one of the considerations enumerated was that there was

7 nothing in the behaviour of the accused during proceedings that would lead

8 the Trial Chamber to infer that the accused was unfit to stand trial.

9 The date -- I'm sorry. The date is 23rd June, 1997, and the

10 Presiding Judge was Judge Karibi-Whyte.

11 The point is that what has been presented, and if allowed to stand

12 and trigger such radical responses as suspension of ongoing proceedings,

13 is nothing more than an opinion with no actual support to link it to a

14 finding of unfitness without getting into the merits, which is

15 inappropriate at this time - we are far too premature to get to any of the

16 merits - we simply suggest that this report is not relevant because it

17 does not address what this Chamber would need to know if in fact a concern

18 would exist or if a -- if a valid concern were brought to the attention of

19 the Chamber by a party.

20 Should the Chamber -- well, I think the Chamber's ability to

21 continue with proceedings is unquestionable in the absence of some proper

22 submission based on a proper evaluation, if such a thing can be done. And

23 we're not suggesting necessarily that it should be done. I think the

24 Chamber has latitude to address a number of factors, including its own

25 observations, but should it make that determination, then the Prosecution

1 would need, as would -- as would the Chamber, it would need to have a

2 proper, based on standard evaluation which convincingly addresses or

3 clearly addresses what the Chamber determines are the questions to be

4 addressed. That simply is not in anyone's hands as we stand now.

5 Should that happen and the Prosecution is in a position where it

6 must respond, then it would at that point, which is a point, we submit,

7 far down the road or down the road, be in a position to undertake its own

8 expert evaluations. But we're not there, and there is no indication that

9 anything is different or has degenerated or that this accused cannot meet

10 the normal criteria, and I say that because they are not enunciated here,

11 but the normal criteria that would be looked at about instructions to

12 counsel, et cetera, et cetera. It's simply not woven into this report.

13 Accordingly, we submit that the Chamber has nothing before it that

14 would cause it to stop the proceedings and that the Defence has

15 effectively provided a document that has no legal effect. It's simply a

16 motion unsubstantiated.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Could I ask you to assist me with some further

18 clarification of what you are putting, Ms. Somers. You say that the

19 report fails to raise a prima facie case, as I understand it. I have not

20 entirely grasped what you say is deficient about the report in that

21 regard, what you say should be presented to properly raise this issue

22 before the Chamber.

23 MS. SOMERS: There has been no evidence of the degree or if at all

24 of cognitive testing. Questions such as ability to understand the nature

25 of the charges, to plead to the charge, and to exercise the right of

1 challenge, to understand the nature of the proceeding, to follow the

2 course of the proceedings, to understand the substantial effect of any

3 evidence that may be given in support of the Prosecution, and to make a

4 defence to answer the charges.

5 These are not addressed, and certainly if alluded to, allusion is

6 insufficient. They must be dealt with squarely so that this Chamber and

7 the Prosecution, in trying to fashion its response, has the appropriate

8 factors with which to work.

9 Your Honour, I want to make clear that the points that I have just

10 enumerated are by no means the absolute, but these are typical of the

11 inquiries in various common law jurisdictions, and I wanted to make it

12 clear that this would be perhaps a core nature, a core group, but by no

13 means exclusive or by no means exactly the ones that would be addressed as

14 the standard of this Tribunal.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Were you also objecting that there is no formal

16 motion before the Tribunal or did I misunderstand what you were getting

17 at.

18 MS. SOMERS: Yesterday, Your Honour, the Defence stated that it

19 was seeking to suspend proceedings because of its -- because of a finding

20 of -- of not fit to stand trial and effectively to put everything to a

21 grinding halt. The procedural history set out in the application does

22 nothing but indicate that, based on the latitude left by the Chamber on 19

23 December, the Defence has undertaken its own evaluation. So whether

24 anything above and beyond that which was raised yesterday, and that was

25 oratenus, that was done verbally, that admitting this report -- first of

1 all, I think the relevance of it -- it should not be admitted because the

2 relevance has not necessarily been established, and I think we're beyond

3 the question of saying it only goes to weight. It's fundamentally flawed

4 in its structure, it is not a report that could be relied upon for any --

5 to determine whether or not a fitness hearing were even mandated, let

6 alone to suspend ongoing proceedings where the indications are that the

7 orderly process of trial is running.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE PARKER: I see you on your feet, Mr. Petrovic.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask

11 for your permission to briefly respond to what my learned friend

12 Ms. Somers said.

13 First of all, I would like to say that I'm surprised not to say

14 astounded by what I heard from her today. To a great extent, it is below

15 the level of the otherwise eloquent presentations we hear from her. I

16 will briefly try to respond to what she said here today.

17 I did not hear a single concrete objection to what was contained

18 in our motion. Everything that the -- my learned friend said is just by

19 the by, and she did not link it to any of the things that we presented to

20 you yesterday morning.

21 Your Honours, the report that is before you is, first of all,

22 based on a clinical psychological -- psychiatric evaluation carried out by

23 a psychiatrist. There is a clinical interview on page 9. Appropriate

24 instruments were used for this psychiatric evaluation. They have been

25 enumerated too. There are professional designations for all of this and I

1 do not give myself the right to assess what these instruments mean and

2 what the concrete result obtained in this way is.

3 So tests were also applied that are customary, and the results of

4 these tests were processed. The cognitive problems were pinpointed in the

5 case of Pavle Strugar. Three diagnoses were established in this report.

6 Very clearly, very precisely there are tests, there are analyses, there

7 are clarifications. These diagnoses are ascertained very clearly. There

8 are cognitive problems that were established quite clearly, and the

9 cognitive deficiencies in General Strugar's mental status are based on

10 fact. And all of this led to the expert's conclusion which is on the last

11 page of this expert report.

12 You will see that there are also analyses of what was shown by the

13 tests. You will see that, in addition to clinical evaluations, there are

14 other evaluations involved as well. You will also see that this makes

15 reference to other things and everything that was said in this context.

16 To say that even prima facie this does not correspond to what the

17 subject matter involved is borders on the irresponsible, Your Honours. I

18 don't know what experience my learned friend had here in the Tribunal or

19 in the jurisdiction that she came from, but I must say that this report

20 meets the requirements in this particular jurisprudence. Six cases before

21 this International Tribunal at that, and it satisfies all the criteria

22 that are set forth in such situations. Any assessments made by my learned

23 friend in terms of what the general's condition is is not something

24 serious, Your Honour. This is not done by mere observation from the other

25 side. This is done through experts, expert evaluation, clinical

1 evaluation. With all due respect to the abilities of my learned friend,

2 she is not in a position to look at my client from a 15-metre distance and

3 to reach her own conclusions as to what he can follow and to what extent.

4 That is not for her to say. That is for the expert to say. This is what

5 our expert said, and if you deem it necessary, there can be another expert

6 or this same expert can provide additional expertise.

7 Your Honour, I would briefly like to refer to another matter; the

8 importance of such a report for the proceedings. At this point, Your

9 Honours, there is only one opinion before you in terms of whether this man

10 is capable of following the proceedings or not. There is no other

11 opinion, and that is the point of departure that we must all look at. And

12 I believe that you share my view that this is customary practice in the

13 systems that you come from and the systems that we come from, and I would

14 like to ask you that you base your decision on such findings.

15 If any additional explanation is required, I stand ready to

16 provide it. Thank you, Your Honours.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE PARKER: We are not persuaded that it would be justified to

19 simply dismiss the report from Dr. Lekic and the motion upon which it is

20 based at this time. It appears to the Chamber that the report

21 sufficiently identifies the matters which are of concern to the doctor and

22 clearly identifies that, in her professional opinion, it can be said that

23 the accused is not able to participate in the trial.

24 We do not see reason to reject the report out of hand. It comes

25 from a medical practitioner of apparent standing and of appropriate

1 qualification, and the conclusions expressed are ones which we cannot and

2 should not dismiss out of hand. We would indicate, however, Mr. Petrovic,

3 that there appears little explanation of the precise basis for the

4 conclusions reached by the doctor. She canvasses the general condition,

5 psychiatric and otherwise, of your client and identifies a number of

6 health problems, mental and otherwise, but she does not then identify

7 specifically how each of those, separately or in combination, directly

8 affect the present relevant capacities of your client. Her conclusion is

9 there, but there's a gap between the general medical conditions that have

10 been identified and the conclusion.

11 Now, we mention that because it is relevant to and would adversely

12 affect the weight that this Chamber could place upon this report, and we

13 would invite you indeed to consider some further supplementation of the

14 report to try to explain in greater detail the connection which the

15 learned doctor sees between the conditions which she identifies and the

16 conclusion which she reaches. If this Chamber is to be able to form a

17 reliable conclusion, that sort of additional information would be of

18 considerable importance.

19 If I could say, Ms. Somers, that we take the view, in response to

20 your submissions, that it would not be appropriate to simply reject this

21 report as providing any adequate foundation for the motion that is before

22 us, it may be that it is open to some concern or criticism, and we have

23 indicated our own concern at an aspect of the content which appears to us

24 to be important, but given the nature of the content, the apparent

25 thoroughness of the review, both the mental and the other aspects of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 health of the accused and the statement of conclusions as to fitness to

2 stand trial, we feel it would not be appropriate simply to dismiss the

3 report out of hand as not yet raising an adequate foundation for the

4 motion.

5 As we have indicated to Mr. Petrovic that the report could well be

6 improved in some respects, we also indicate to you that in the Chamber's

7 consideration of this report and the motion, it would be of use were the

8 Prosecution to proceed with some formal examination of the accused, as you

9 foreshadowed would be the course you would like to pursue.

10 We therefore leave the report and the motion before us. We would

11 allow the material in support of the motion to be supplemented by the

12 Defence, and we would certainly allow time and proper opportunity for the

13 Prosecution to make arrangements for an appropriate examination as Ms.

14 Somers has indicated they would wish to do. Once you have had an

15 opportunity to consider whether you would want to supplement the material

16 presently before us, either of you, we would then give consideration to

17 how best formally to deal with this. Whether it will be necessary, for

18 example, for doctors to be called before us is a question which will need

19 to be addressed. But we take the matter seriously at the present time,

20 and we invite both parties to give consideration to what further material

21 they would want to put before the Chamber in respect of this question.

22 And may we suggest also to the Defence counsel, given the nature

23 of the issue and its importance, that it would be appropriate were a

24 formal written motion now to be prepared and filed, because this is a

25 matter we don't want to take lightly.

1 Ms. Somers.

2 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I ask for a point of clarification?

3 The Prosecution submits that it would want to have a clear -- and if -- if

4 it's going to be provided, an amplified examination before it undertakes

5 any recruitment of its own particular expert. It needs to have the report

6 from which it will be working. And of course then we would make the

7 appropriate motions for unfettered access and all the things that would be

8 required. But working from this would not be helpful. So if that were

9 procedurally ordered, it would be of great appreciation.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, you want to put a submission about

11 that?

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, two matters: First

13 with respect to what my learned colleague just said, I'm at a dilemma.

14 Has she understood what you wished to convey to her by your previous

15 decision? Her conduct is -- she is behaving as if nothing has been said,

16 and I'm surprised at that.

17 In view of the urgency of the matter itself, we of course are

18 ready to do everything that you instruct us to do, and we shall do so in

19 the shortest space of time possible, which means that we can do this in

20 two ways, in written form or, which is perhaps more advisable, that the

21 doctor who compiled the report should be brought into the courtroom for a

22 hearing to discuss the capabilities and capacities of the accused and then

23 the expert witness could be questioned by my learned colleague and by you

24 yourselves, Your Honours. And we could do that within a very short space

25 of time. So perhaps it would be more advisable to do this as soon as

1 possible and not to let too much time pass which a written form would

2 require. So any questions that my learned friend would have with respect

3 to the report could be dealt with on the spot specifically by asking the

4 expert witness in the chair.

5 Now, with a view to what my learned colleague said a moment ago,

6 we would be postponing the matter indefinitely. So if the Prosecutor is

7 not prepared to comply with your instructions and guidelines, then this

8 document means nothing and we enter a vacuum of sorts which will last

9 until the end of Prosecution case. Now, whom does that serve? It doesn't

10 serve any party here. It doesn't serve the client, because we're dealing

11 with justice and equal rights and an expedient trial. So I should like to

12 ask you to tell us too the deadline by which we should comply, and also a

13 deadline for the Prosecution to conduct a medical examination of its own.

14 Because if we leave matters in this way and with the Prosecutor's

15 approach, I have -- and as the Trial Chamber has not given instructions,

16 we shall be postponing matters indefinitely, whereas we have a report

17 here, which it might have its shortcomings but let's put those

18 shortcomings right and do so quickly. Let's investigate, verify, and

19 check what is correct and what perhaps is not correct.

20 Thank you, Your Honours. So what I'm actually asking you is to

21 set deadlines and we'll do everything in our power to ensure that those

22 deadlines are respected and I do believe you will give us these deadlines.

23 Thank you.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.

25 MS. SOMERS: I'm sure Your Honour realises that what Mr. Petrovic

1 was suggesting was having a full-blown one doctor hearing, which is, of

2 course, not appropriate. What we're asking the Chamber to direct is that

3 the Prosecution have a full and final report to work from before it

4 engages someone so that we don't have to go back out when we get part 2.

5 That would be an injustice to all parties and particularly to the general.

6 We'd like to have a final product to work with with firm -- with

7 deadlines, and of course no suspension whatsoever of the trial. It is not

8 mandated, it's not -- as the Chamber has set forth yesterday in its very

9 sound observations, and we will work speedily but with a proper document

10 from which to work.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE PARKER: We are of the view, Mr. Petrovic, that any further

13 material you wish to put before us from Dr. Lekic ought to be provided in

14 writing, we would suggest within seven days. If you can do it more

15 quickly, the better, but seven days would allow reasonable time for you

16 and the doctor. And that should then be provided to both the Chamber and

17 to the Prosecution.

18 In the meantime, Ms. Somers, on the assumption that you are

19 proceeding with your own independent examination, we would suggest that

20 you should make arrangements for that in the knowledge that you will have,

21 in effect, the final report within seven days from now.

22 When it is that the final or the additional written report is

23 received from the Defence, we would propose to invite submissions from the

24 parties as to the time that ought to be allowed to the Prosecution to

25 conclude its examination and be in a position to respond to the Defence

1 motion. We allow that time rather than impose a time limit now, mindful

2 that just as the Defence had to go to some lengths to find an appropriate

3 psychiatrist and to make arrangements for the examination, the Prosecution

4 may encounter some similar difficulties.

5 While we therefore would defer setting a time limit for the

6 Prosecution for the week or less that it will take for the further report

7 to arrive, we do not want it to be thought that this matter will be

8 allowed to drag on. It is a matter in which speedy but careful and

9 appropriate attention is required. Therefore, we would ask, Ms. Somers,

10 that you do all that can be done to have the preliminary arrangements in

11 place before the further material from Dr. Lekic is received so that at

12 that point you will be able with some certainty to indicate your position

13 and it can be assessed by the Chamber.

14 In the meantime, for the reasons that were indicated yesterday, we

15 would take the view that the appropriate course is for the hearing to

16 continue. We would point out that if at the conclusion of this medical

17 review the Defence position is found to be of substance and it is

18 necessary to bring the trial to a conclusion, all that is before us in the

19 report of Dr. Lekic and others would indicate that the position of the

20 accused is not one that is temporary and likely to recover. So that if

21 the trial has to be brought to a conclusion because of the accused's

22 medical condition, there's no prospect of simply a short adjournment, it

23 would have to come to an end. That being the apparent position, it would

24 appear to us that it would be appropriate for the trial to continue now,

25 because that will avoid any loss of time should the conclusion in the end

1 be that the accused is sufficiently fit to continue with the trial.

2 MS. SOMERS: Can I ask Your Honour for some guidance?

3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Somers.

4 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. The -- given the confidential nature of

5 the subject report and also of records that will be necessary, we would

6 ask either that the Chamber order that certainly our -- the persons that

7 we are communicating with are permitted to have access, but we will need

8 access to all medical records that are being factored. So we'd either ask

9 that a waiver voluntarily be given, if the Chamber would assist us with

10 that, or that it so order that all records are made available and that the

11 Prosecution will of course have unfettered access, which means literally

12 that, between its expert and the accused. But I'm particularly concerned

13 at this moment about the ability, even in recruiting, to -- you know, to

14 discuss the substance of it.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with the Court's

17 indulgence and with all due respect, I don't think you need issue any

18 instructions of that kind. All the medical data that exists has been at

19 the disposal of the OTP from day one, and we will deal with it in the

20 manner in which the Prosecution feels necessary. So if you need written

21 agreement by the accused, we shall present the Prosecution with that.

22 MS. SOMERS: I think I'd rather seek an order from the Chamber so

23 that there's nothing left to chance.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Could I say, Ms. Somers, that what we would propose

25 at this point is that the parties should discuss, if there is any

1 remaining difficulty which they are unable to resolve, would you bring

2 forward a proper request for a written order, just as we have indicated to

3 the Defence that their motion should now be in writing, for the very

4 reasons that you are concerned, it would be proper that any order made

5 with respect to the availability of medical records and the like should be

6 properly considered and set out in writing. And there will clearly be the

7 few days between now and when the additional material is provided by the

8 Defence in which you can give consideration to that if it is necessary.

9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. Your Honour, have you given a date for

10 the filing of the formal motion? I didn't -- I could go back into the

11 transcript but I wasn't clear.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I don't believe that I actually said that. I did

13 indicate within seven days for the additional medical material, and could

14 I indicate that that, too, would be the time limit for the formal written

15 motion.

16 We will break now for 20 minutes, or would you like 30 minutes to

17 enable you further discussions on the medical issues? I see some nodding.

18 30 minutes will be our break.

19 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Your next witness.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honours. Ms. Lucijana Peko, please.

23 [The witness entered court]

24 JUDGE PARKER: If the witness would take the affirmation.

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

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

2 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down.

3 WITNESS: LUCIJANA PEKO

4 [Witness answered through interpreter]

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

6 Examined by Mr. Kaufman:

7 Q. Ma'am, could you state your name for the record, please, your full

8 name.

9 A. My full name is Lucijana Peko.

10 Q. Ms. Peko, before I start, I'd like to apologise for unforeseen

11 circumstances. This is in fact the second time that you're paying a visit

12 to The Hague in the space of a week and a half. So I do apologise for

13 that, and I will attempt to make amends by being as brief as possible in

14 chief.

15 Could you give your present current address.

16 A. My address in Dubrovnik is Zlatni Potok Street, number 9.

17 Q. And your age, please?

18 A. I was born in 1946 in Dubrovnik.

19 Q. And your current occupation?

20 A. My current occupation is that of an architect. I graduated from

21 the faculty of architecture.

22 Q. Since the fact that you're an architect is in some way relevant to

23 your evidence, I will ask you when you qualified to become an architect.

24 A. I studied at the University of Zagreb, at the faculty of

25 architecture, and I graduated in 1970.

1 Q. Do you belong to a professional body?

2 A. Yes, I do. I'm a member of the Croatian Chamber of Architects,

3 and my status is that of design architect, and I have special

4 authorisation from the Ministry of Culture to work with cultural

5 monuments.

6 Q. After you qualified in 1970, where did you first find employment?

7 A. My first employment was in the Institute for the Protection of

8 Cultural Monuments in Dubrovnik, and I worked there until 1988. From 1989

9 onwards, I have been working in a project bureau called Arhitekt in

10 Dubrovnik.

11 Q. I'd like to deal, if possible, with the institute that you

12 mentioned, the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, because

13 that is a body that will figure highly in this case. Can you explain to

14 the Court, please, the function of that particular body, the Institute for

15 the Protection of Cultural Monuments.

16 A. The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments is an

17 organisation which deals with what it says, the protection of cultural

18 monuments. And it was founded in all the major towns and cities

19 throughout Croatia, its aim being that in the territory it comprises, that

20 comes under their authority, to protect the monuments in those towns and

21 cities. The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments has had

22 that name since 1998, and when the title was changed, the institute's name

23 was changed into the Administration of Cultural Heritage and the

24 conservation department in Dubrovnik, which comes directly under the

25 Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia.

1 Q. How are the activities of this institution regulated?

2 A. Its basic activities are geared towards protection, the protection

3 of monuments that have been registered as cultural monuments. For

4 something to become a cultural monument, an authorisation is issued, which

5 is a legal document, on the basis of which it is recorded into the

6 registrar of cultural monuments and into the land registry which records

7 it as being a cultural monument and enjoys protection in that way. This

8 authorisation and certificate on the protection of a monument is compiled

9 on the basis of evaluating each particular premises or monument or

10 building, and protection institutions work on the basis of a law governing

11 the protection of cultural monuments and all its provisions that have been

12 enacted. And as I say, that is the law on the protection of cultural

13 monuments.

14 Then we have the law on protection of cultural property, which was

15 enacted in 1998, I believe, which includes all the principles of

16 conservation practice and state of the art in that particular sphere. The

17 law governing cultural monuments regulates the services that provide

18 protection. It stipulates how the monuments are to be protected and cared

19 for, and it provides for any work to be done on the buildings and

20 monuments themselves.

21 For the Dubrovnik region, this protection applies to the whole

22 urban centre of Dubrovnik, and after the earthquake in 1979, this matter

23 was regulated. That is also the year when the urban centre of Dubrovnik

24 was looked at as an exceptional cultural heritage site and was recorded in

25 the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site listings. Dubrovnik, because of

1 its exceptional value, has been recognised as a World Heritage Site, and

2 all the conventions and declarations in that realm apply to Dubrovnik.

3 Everything that has been recognised in the world as a principle for the

4 protection of cultural monuments is now applied to Dubrovnik itself.

5 Now, in a concrete approach to the protection of a specific area

6 or building it is well to mention town planners, town plans. There is a

7 general town plan providing protection for certain buildings and

8 monuments, and then there are more detailed plans which come under the

9 general town plan, and these describe each building or monument,

10 explaining what they are intended for, how they are to be cared for, et

11 cetera.

12 When any work is done on a building itself or a monument itself, a

13 certificate for work to go ahead and authorising work to go ahead must be

14 provided, and this comes under the law on spatial planning and other

15 provisions. But authorisation for work on any of these buildings or

16 monuments takes two parts. First of all, the first part deals with the

17 general stipulations of the work to be done, including conservation work,

18 and then part 2 is the final authorisation issued by the service for

19 protection. And then the body in the county issues a construction permit,

20 and this opens the way for any work to be done on a building or monument

21 depending on its value category, et cetera.

22 Q. Thank, Ms. Peko. Now, you mentioned that the geographical scope

23 of responsibility of the institute was the urban centre. Could you

24 clarify what you mean by "the urban centre." If I may help you. We know

25 or have been referring to two entities throughout the course of this

1 trial; the Old Town and the wider Dubrovnik municipality. Perhaps you

2 could give us your answer with reference to that particular piece of

3 information.

4 A. Within the Dubrovnik municipality, there is the historical urban

5 entity of Dubrovnik, and that is how I refer to the protected area of

6 Dubrovnik. But of course it is also the town -- the Old Town. If you

7 look at the area covered by Dubrovnik today, then that would be the Old

8 Town.

9 Q. Now, briefly, Ms. Peko, before we move on to the substance of your

10 evidence, let's imagine just a normal day in the institute when you would

11 go in there to work. What would you do?

12 A. My job is closely linked to the work done by the institution

13 itself. I had different assignments and different jobs. One was to see

14 that agreements and authorisations were issued for a particular building

15 if any investor or the owner of a building calls for the authorisation to

16 be issued. So I would see to that. I would also look at high category

17 buildings that were to -- that required work done on them to ensure

18 restitution, the elaboration of the documents necessary for work to go

19 ahead on buildings of this kind, et cetera. That would be it in a

20 nutshell.

21 Q. Thank you. Ms. Peko, at the outbreak of hostilities, at the

22 beginning of the month of October 1991, where were you living?

23 A. I lived in Zlatni Potok, which is a district, a housing estate.

24 Q. By that I mean -- I take it you mean outside the Old Town of

25 Dubrovnik.

1 A. Yes, that's right. It's to the eastern part of town, the

2 so-called Sveti Jakov area.

3 Q. Tell the Trial Chamber what you remember of the 1st of October,

4 1991.

5 A. On the 1st of October, 1991, the attack on Dubrovnik began. We

6 were woken up very early in the morning by explosions, and from our own

7 balcony, we can see the town, and I myself saw two projectiles which

8 landed in the sea. And at that time, the target of attack was the

9 antennae system on Mount Srdj but also other parts of town as well.

10 Outside the Old Town, for example, the transmitter, main

11 transmitter station in Dubrovacka Rijeka came under attack and left

12 Dubrovnik without any electrical power or water supplies. All the

13 telephone lines were down, and we tried to do the best we could to

14 organise life in town that day, and our own protection and safety too.

15 Q. You say you saw missiles landing in the sea. From where were

16 those projectiles fired?

17 A. Yes, that's right. I heard planes flying or, rather, circling

18 overhead, but the shots didn't come from the sea but from the opposite

19 side. Of course, I couldn't see it because we are turned towards the sea

20 on the slope of Mount Srdj, but did I see those two projectiles in front

21 of the town port, the harbour.

22 Q. You say that on the 1st of October, the town of Dubrovnik was

23 deprived of electricity and water. For how long did that last?

24 A. That lasted until, I think, the 25th of December, although we

25 would get some electricity from time to time, such as -- for Christmas,

1 for example, but it took several days to put right, and of course the

2 water supply was put right too. That's the best I can tell you. So three

3 months, I would say.

4 Q. Did you continue to stay with your husband at Zlatni Potok number

5 9?

6 A. We stayed in Zlatni Potok until the 7th of October, and throughout

7 that time we were in our flat or in the shelter that had been set up in

8 our building.

9 On the 5th of October, a friend of ours was killed, and his name

10 was Milan Milisic. Just before that happened, my mother-in-law came and

11 my father-in-law. And on the 7th of October, we attended Milan's funeral

12 together. That was the day we left our own apartment and moved to town,

13 that is to say the Old Town, in a building in a street called Prijeko.

14 Q. Do you know how Milan was killed?

15 A. Milan was killed in his apartment from a mortar shell. 120

16 millimetres they told me it was. His wife came to see us, and she stayed

17 with us until the funeral itself.

18 Q. And just as a matter of interest, do you know his ethnic origin?

19 A. Milan was a Serb. He was of the Orthodox faith. He was a

20 Croatian writer and member of the Croatian pen club.

21 Q. So on the 7th of October, you told the Trial Chamber that you

22 moved to the Old Town, and I believe you mentioned the name of the street,

23 which was Prijeko Street.

24 A. Yes, that's right, Prijeko Street. It was a building owned by

25 Mrs. Danka Zuanic. She took us in. And she lived there otherwise with

1 her own family, although there were other people who took shelter there

2 and found accommodation in her house.

3 Q. Why did you move to the Old Town?

4 A. Mrs. Milisic, that is to say -- and my mother-in-law, my husband's

5 mother, were very much afraid of staying on in Zlatni Potok because we

6 were exposed there, exposed to the sea and the ships passing by. And

7 generally speaking in Dubrovnik, the inhabitants thought Dubrovnik was a

8 protected town and that it wouldn't come under attack. And that same day,

9 we made a very quick decision to move and went to the Old Town.

10 Later on, my mother-in-law and Mrs. Milisic left for Zagreb, but

11 my husband and I stayed on for the next three and a half months.

12 Q. Now, I'm going to ask for a map to be placed on the ELMO.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

14 MR. KAUFMAN: I do apologise. I'm going to ask if Mr. Usher would

15 kindly place a map on the ELMO. Thank you.

16 This is in fact I believe Exhibit P9 in Your Honours' bundles, the

17 exhibit bundle, although I -- I do apologise. I'm informed that the

18 exhibit is in fact P13, not P9.

19 Q. Now, I wonder, Ms. Peko, if you could point out Prijeko Street on

20 the map for us.

21 A. This is Prijeko Street.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. That's Prijeko Street.

24 Q. Now, if you can take the red pen which is by you and could you

25 kindly mark with an 'X' the house. I apologise. I'm told that the

1 Prosecution is meant to mark in blue, so before you put the red pen on the

2 paper, take a blue pen and mark in blue the house in which you sought

3 refuge. Thank you. Very architecturally drawn, if I may say.

4 Now, Boskoviceva Street. Could you point that out, please. Do

5 not mark it for the time being, just point at it.

6 A. [Indicates]

7 Q. Good. Now, please, Ms. Peko, tell the Court what happened on the

8 23rd of October. We will return to the map.

9 A. On the 23rd of October, we were actually staying at that house.

10 These were the premises that we later used as a shelter.

11 Sometime in the afternoon, we were taken by surprise by this

12 terrible explosion. Actually, a projectile had landed in a street that

13 followed on to Boskoviceva. Since this is the same street, actually, the

14 windows of our shelter faced that particular street. This terrible

15 explosion was accompanied by the breaking of glass, falling of stones, and

16 terrible dust that actually came into the rooms where we were staying.

17 Later on, we also found a piece of shrapnel, a piece of this

18 projectile. I think we found two little pieces, two little fragments, in

19 our room.

20 Q. Now, returning to the map, is it possible for you to point out

21 where that projectile fell? Which building was damaged by that projectile

22 on the 23rd of October? Once again, perhaps this time with a circle.

23 Perhaps you if you could make a big dot out of that in blue.

24 A. Well, you see, as the projectile fell, two buildings were actually

25 damaged. Actually, the front part of the building, the balconies, the

1 window frames, but also the neighbouring building across the street and

2 the roofs of the neighbouring houses and of the synagogue.

3 Q. Ms. Peko, could you mark the synagogue, please.

4 A. I think it was number 19.

5 Q. Could you draw that, please, and we'll allocate letters to each of

6 the items you've identified after you've drawn the synagogue.

7 Ms. Peko, if you could kindly allocate the letter 'A' to the house

8 where you sought refuge, the letter 'B' to the place where the projectile

9 fell, and the letter 'C' to the synagogue.

10 A. [Marks]?

11 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. I would ask for that map to be assigned

12 an exhibit number and for it to be moved into evidence.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, that will be received.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, do I need to give a new exhibit

15 number or can I give an additional exhibit number to the already existing

16 number for this map?

17 JUDGE PARKER: An additional number -- sorry, that's not clear.

18 13.1.

19 THE REGISTRAR: I would say 13/1, Your Honour.

20 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, if I may be of assistance in this

21 matter, I believe that the other maps that have been submitted, which are

22 in fact the identical map and been marked by various witnesses, have been

23 allocated new exhibit numbers.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Consistency at all price, Mr. Kaufman. Thank you

25 for that reminder. New number altogether, please.

1 THE REGISTRAR: The new number will be Prosecution Exhibit P50,

2 Your Honour.

3 MR. KAUFMAN:

4 Q. Ms. Peko, we're talking about the 23rd of October. For how long

5 did that particular bout of shelling continue?

6 A. I think it was about an hour or two. One hour, I think. Just a

7 few hits within the town. On that occasion, the museum was damaged, and I

8 think that in the harbour there were a few projectiles that fell there

9 too.

10 Q. When you say "the museum," which museum do you mean? There are

11 quite a few museums, I believe, in the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

12 A. The Rupe museum is in the southern part of town. This is a

13 building where wheat was stored beforehand. That's why it was named Rupe.

14 And nowadays it houses the ethnological museum.

15 Q. What function did the Rupe museum perform then?

16 A. At that time it was the ethnological museum. After the earthquake

17 of 1979, the building had been restored and the museum was opened there.

18 Q. Was there another occasion upon which Dubrovnik came under fire?

19 A. Yes. The old urban centre of Dubrovnik was targeted between the

20 8th and the 13th of November, but it was on the 6th of December that it

21 was affected the worst. It -- the Old Town was also bombed in 1992.

22 Q. Well, we won't deal with 1992, Ms. Peko, but before we get to the

23 6th of December, could you confirm just to the Trial Chamber where you

24 were living once again.

25 A. Throughout this period, we were within the Old Town itself. We

1 were living in Prijeko Street.

2 Q. And that was including the 6th of December, was it?

3 A. Yes, yes. Yes.

4 Q. How did the fire, shelling, of the month of November differ to the

5 fire and shelling of December? You said that the month of December was by

6 far the worst. Perhaps you could describe your experiences of the 8th to

7 the 13th of November.

8 A. Between the 8th and the 13th of November, the attack was launched

9 against the entire urban centre. It also involved attacks on Dubrovnik

10 itself. I think on the 10th and 11th they were the most intensive, these

11 attacks on the Old Town on Dubrovnik.

12 During those several days, there was all-out danger, and we were

13 on the alert all the time. We were in shelters all the time. It was hard

14 for us to get water. Our only link to the rest of the world was Radio

15 Dubrovnik and its news.

16 Q. Let us turn to the 6th of December. Please tell us what happened

17 to you on the 6th of December from the early hours of the morning until

18 the hours of the evening.

19 A. On the 6th of December, the most serious attack against Dubrovnik

20 was launched. Over 1.000 projectiles then allegedly fell on Dubrovnik.

21 This was an ongoing cannonade. There would be a lull every now and then.

22 Sometime between 11:00 and 12.00, our building was hit.

23 Q. The building you drew on the street.

24 A. Yes, the building in Prijeko Street had been hit. It was

25 terrible. We actually felt the building shaking. It felt like an

1 earthquake, a three-degree earthquake. Now, that was just off-the-cuff,

2 how many degrees, but anyway we were badly shaken and we thought that we

3 would not survive if it went on that way. Fortunately, none of us were

4 hurt. All the protection off our windows fell, and we were practically

5 unprotected. We were on the first floor of the building, but that was our

6 choice at the time.

7 After 13 hours, when there was a bit less shelling, we moved to

8 the neighbouring building, also in Prijeko Street. We sought shelter then

9 at a place that we considered safer at that point. We stayed there until

10 the evening.

11 Q. Ms. Peko, you say after 13 hours. I'd just like to clarify this,

12 because perhaps the transcript is a bit misleading. After 13 hours, do

13 you mean the time of day or do you mean the duration of time in which you

14 were in the apartment until you made that move across the street?

15 A. I mean 13 hours on that particular day. So I'm saying between

16 11:00 and 12.00, that's when the projectile fell, so of course we were

17 panic-stricken, and we tried to find a better shelter. So then around 13

18 hours --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note probably 1.00 p.m.

20 A. -- we moved to the neighbouring building.

21 MR. KAUFMAN:

22 Q. Yes. That's exactly what I was fishing for. 1.00 in the

23 afternoon. Why did you make the decision to move at 1.00?

24 A. I've already said: We were quite unprotected in this building of

25 ours. So we moved to the neighbouring building. It is on the northern

1 side of Prijeko Street, and it's ground floor is basically safer.

2 Q. Until what time did the shelling continue that day?

3 A. I think about 5.00 in the afternoon. It was already dark.

4 Q. Now, I imagine that you weren't looking at your watch every minute

5 of that day, but do you have any terms of reference whereby you can aid or

6 assist the Trial Chamber for that statement you've just made?

7 A. Well, you know, I wasn't looking at my watch, because it was dark

8 anyway, and it is not a usual thing I do. I mean, your mind is on other

9 things, how to organise yourself and how to protect yourself.

10 We moved to this other building. The shelling went on all the

11 time non-stop. And I know what was particularly important to us was that

12 Mr. Davorin Rudolf, from the government of Croatia, addressed us then with

13 very warm and encouraging words. I don't know what time it could have

14 been. It was in the afternoon, perhaps an hour later or something like

15 that. I can't say with any degree of certitude. We stayed on in the

16 shelter.

17 I mean, the shelling went on for another hour, whereas we stayed

18 in the shelter longer.

19 Q. Okay. So if we can clarify this. You move over the road at about

20 1.00. Approximately an hour thereafter - correct me if I'm wrong -

21 sometime thereafter, maybe an hour thereafter, Mr. Rudolf makes his speech

22 which makes you feel better, and then an hour after that the shelling

23 continues; is that correct?

24 A. He spoke over Radio Dubrovnik in the afternoon hours. That is my

25 recollection. But the shelling was still going on. I cannot say for sure

1 but I think that this went on until about 5.00, the attack.

2 Q. Okay. I thank you for answer. Please disregard what I put to you

3 and we will accept what you have said. Thank you.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman, is this a convenient time?

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour, it is. I believe that tomorrow

6 morning I could perhaps finish evidence in chief in approximately half an

7 hour to three-quarters of an hour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

9 I'm afraid, Ms. Peko, that we must ask you to return tomorrow for

10 the trial to continue at 9.00 in the morning. Thank you.

11 We will adjourn now for the day.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

14 February, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25