|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 7728 • {1/61} (1)Friday, 24 November 2000 [Open session] [The accused not present] [The witness entered court] (5) --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth, to the interpreters. Good morning to the counsel for the Prosecution, counsel for Defence. Good morning, Witness DE. How do you feel today? Are you (10)comfortable? THE WITNESS: [Int.] I'm fine, thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Let me remind you that you will continue to testify under an oath, and that you will continue answering questions that counsel for the Prosecution will be asking of you. (15)Mr. McCloskey, your witness. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.
WITNESS: WITNESS DE
[Resumed] • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued] (20) • Q.: Good morning, Witness. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness the photo, Exhibit 807, which was what he was looking at before, followed up immediately by 178.
• Q.: And Witness, this is the building that you looked at briefly
(25)yesterday and asked if you could get a wider-angle shot to help perhaps
MR. McCLOSKEY: And so if we could now show the witness 178, and if we could put that on the ELMO. • Q.: And Witness, you may know, but this photo is shot roughly in the (5)area in front of the school looking down towards the intersection, and the building in the previous exhibit should be in the middle of the screen. It's in a set of three buildings. • A.: Yes, that could be the building in question, the one that I spoke about yesterday. (10) • Q.: All right. And could you, could you take the pointer and point at the building. • A.: [Indicates] MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay, for the record, it's the building in the centre of the photograph with the red roof, and we can see a white part of (15)the wall. • Q.: And what building is that or was that in July of 1995?
• A.: I don't know what was in the building while I was on leave, but I
could tell you some history of that building. The command quarters, that
is the MUP, wanted to have a facility in that area, and they used that
(20)building, that facility, only from time to time when they carried certain
activities in the area; that is, when MUP carried such activities.
So I don't know whether in that period of time the building was
occupied or not. However, during the period of time when MUP engaged in
certain activities, it was; however, when there were only checkpoints, I
(25)don't think that the building was occupied. And I don't know what
• Q.: When you got back to Konjevic Polje after returning from Serbia, do you know what that building was used for when you got back? Because you said you spent a couple of days in Konjevic Polje. (5) • A.: I spent a couple of days in Konjevic Polje, and as to the purpose for which the building was used at the time, I didn't manage to learn, but in view of a longer period of time, I know that the building was used from time to time, occasionally; and the Banja Luka MUP had some training, some kind of training there, and they were placed in the school building that (10)we had talked about yesterday, but that had happened some time ago. At any rate, some representatives of the MUP happened to be there. • Q.: In the period before you left to Belgrade, what MUP organisation was using that building? • A.: We referred to it as a MUP building, but its use was not very well (15)defined. It all depended on the activities carried out in the area, and I don't know who decided as to who would be quartered there and when they would leave because that was the responsibility of the MUP. It probably depended on the most senior unit that was engaged in the area. That unit would probably be accommodated in that building. But mostly it was not (20)occupied, so it was occupied only from time to time in peak periods. • Q.: Now, what was the most senior MUP organisation? Was it MUP Zvornik, MUP Bratunac, Special Army MUP, MUP from Janja? What was the actual MUP organisation that you're talking about?
• A.: All the organisations that you have just numbered passed through
(25)Konjevic Polje during that period of time while I was there in one fashion
• Q.: So it could have been any of those MUPs that I've mentioned that was using that building? (5) • A.: Yes. That was quite possible. I personally don't know, because I wasn't there, so I don't know who used it. Any of the MUP organisations could use it. But there must have been a level at which a decision would be reached as to who would use the building, but I don't know about that, just as I told you yesterday when I said that I didn't know who would use (10)the school building, but there must have been someone who decided as to who would use those facilities. • Q.: Referring you back to the photograph, do you see your command and your communications building in this photograph? • A.: Yes. These are the two buildings in question. (15) MR. McCLOSKEY: For the record, the witness pointed at the buildings on the far side of the photograph with the trees in front of them. • Q.: Witness, the building with the taller roof, which one is that again? Is that command or communications? (20) • A.: The command. • Q.: Are you aware of an officer from the 65th Protection Regiment with the nickname of Cica? • A.: No.
• Q.: Do you know who the commanding officer for the 65th Protection
(25)Regiment was?
• Q.: Is it Savic or Savcic? (5) • A.: Savcic, yes. Savcic. • Q.: Does he have a nickname of Cica? • A.: I don't know about that nickname. I cannot answer your question. I never heard that the two names were linked, Cica and Savcic, but I don't know. (10) • Q.: Does he have a moustache? • A.: Savcic, you mean? • Q.: Yes. • A.: I don't think he does. I say I don't think that he does because, you know, people sometimes wear a moustache, sometimes not. I knew (15)Savcic, but not very well, and I don't remember seeing him with a moustache. • Q.: Going back to the photograph, this photograph was taken, I believe, a few years after the events. Could you look down towards the intersection? And perhaps if we could move the photograph so we can see (20)the left side. I believe this photograph shows what is now a petrol station.
• A.: No. No. That photograph doesn't show a petrol station. I told
you that I had repaired practically all facilities in Konjevic Polje.
This is one of such facilities that I had intention to repair, but the
(25)level of destruction was rather high. The petrol station you're talking
• Q.: Did there used to be a warehouse back in July of 1995 on the (5)intersection where there is now a petrol station, right on the banks of the river? • A.: No. There used to be a very old building, a very old facility there on that spot, but it didn't have any particular function; on the location where the petrol station is. It was an older building, but I (10)don't think that it had any particular purpose or function. All I know is that the right to use the building belonged to the agricultural association, to the cooperative, from Bratunac. • Q.: Is that the same agricultural cooperation that owned the Kravica warehouse? The agricultural warehouse is in Kravica? (15) • A.: I really don't know. I never discussed it with anyone. I didn't even know who the head or the chief of the agricultural cooperation was, and I really don't know whether there's any link between the two.
• Q.: All right. You've told us that you were able to talk to people
that were in this area at the period of time of July 13th. I want to --
(20)and counsel asked you about Witness S. I want to tell you a brief story,
and tell me if you have heard any parts of this particular story. It
involves Muslim prisoners.
Witness S, one particular Muslim prisoner, was taken prisoner in
the morning of July 13th near the school that we've referred to earlier in
(25)Konjevic Polje, and he was taken to the little brick building that you've
(20)
• A.: No. However, I can give it some thought in the context of what I
have already spoken about. I don't know who was in the school building.
As regards the little building that I identified at the entrance, it was a
small building that I had constructed where one of the units of the 65th
Protected Regiment was located, but prior to the events that you have
(25)described. And that is where people would come, where families of the
(15) • Q.: On 13 July from Nova Kasaba to Konjevic Polje to Kravica, thousands of Muslim prisoners were taken by forces of the VRS. And you've never heard anything about that from your colleagues in Konjevic Polje?
• A.: I told you yesterday what I heard, and I heard that in the area
between Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba there had been some fierce fighting
(20)with the view of intercepting the column, so that there must have been a
smaller blockade because one part of the column was moving towards Cerska,
and the other arm of the column went towards another location, so they
were sort of surrounding Konjevic Polje.
I told your colleague that I had learned about these events in
(25)Belgrade, and the first thing that I learned about was through a video
• Q.: Did you see any fierce fighting on that video that showed the people on the football pitch?
• A.: No. No, I didn't say that it was on the football pitch. I'm
talking about the area where the column was passing and about the attempts
(20)to deblock Konjevic Polje and to establish some kind of line towards the
depth of the territory. It is perfectly normal and logical for such a
formation to have -- to carry out a two-pronged attack.
I didn't speak about the football pitch; I only told you that I
had seen a video footage that was shown on TV, and where I saw some
(25)prisoners, and the cameraman identified that location as being a
• Q.: In around the middle of August in 1995, did you receive additional support in the way of men from the Milici, Bratunac, and Zvornik brigades for construction and engineering projects? (5) • A.: I don't remember. If you could be more specific and tell me which project you have in mind. I spoke about a number of projects. I don't know exactly which one you have in mind. But let me tell you another thing which is perhaps also -- can be also placed in that context, but I don't remember the exact time when it (10)happened. My unit was substantially reinforced sometime during that period because a major construction work had started in the meantime on the waterworks in Han Pijesak. An infantry unit abandoned a theatre of operation in Krajina out of protest, and they reached Konjevic Polje together with some other units. And that unit was forcibly stopped, and (15)they were handed over to me, and they were supposed to be used for some construction work because they were against war, or something like that. And I don't remember any other unit. And this whole company stayed in Han Pijesak all the time, and it was involved in the construction of the waterworks. I think that the strength of the unit was around 50 or 60 (20)soldiers, maybe more. I don't remember the exact figures. • Q.: Were they from the Zvornik, Milici, and Bratunac brigades?
• A.: I don't know. They may have passed through some kind of documents
before they reached me. They were infantry men, according to their
speciality, but I don't remember. And anyway, these were people from the
(25)Krajina who, together with the people who were withdrawing, were among the
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we now show the witness Exhibit 812. • Q.: Witness, this is an exhibit that's an order from the Drina Corps, (5)dated 17 August, signed by General Krstic, providing you with additional men from the Milici, Bratunac, and the Zvornik Brigades for various projects, including bricklayers, carpenters, machine operators, things like that. If you could just take a look at it. I don't -- we don't -- the subject matter is not necessarily important, but perhaps this (10)will refresh your recollection.
• A.: That's quite possible. I can comment on it immediately, but let
me look at the document first. Because I kept trying to get more people:
builders, bricklayers, carpenters. That was our constant request. Now,
whether we got them or not is another matter.
(15)This has refreshed my memory a little. There were several orders
of this kind with respect to my Engineering Unit. I told you that the
process of developing the battalion was hard and took some time, so that
certain orders had to be executed, and it was difficult to say "I cannot
carry it out" for this or that reason. But I do remember this order now.
(20)A small section of the Milici Brigade did reach me. From the Vlasenica
Brigade, I don't think I got many; one or two bricklayers, one carpenter;
and I got nothing from the Zvornik Brigade.
I must underline that there were many orders of this kind. Every
commander was trying to develop its own Engineers Unit, but without
(25)success. It says here "one construction technician, construction
(5) • Q.: It also says you were supposed to get from Zvornik three construction machinery operators and two drivers; and from the Bratunac Brigade, four construction machinery operators, labourers, bricklayers, and other things. So did you ever get those machine operators or was this order not carried out? (10) • A.: This order was partly carried out. I did receive something from the Milici Brigade. However, there were two operators among them, and I think one electrician, auto electrician - that is the first time I got one - and nothing more than that. • Q.: You said you went into Srebrenica after the -- shortly after the (15)fall of the enclave. About what month was that that you went in to take care of a problem that was in Srebrenica?
• A.: I didn't go immediately after the fall of the enclave, but upon my
return from Belgrade, I told you, I arrived at Konjevic Polje. I stayed
there for a day or two, the time it took to transfer what was available to
(20)Vis, because I said that was my major assignment. And then at Vis I
received an order through the operations officer on duty from the Corps
Commander to report in Srebrenica and to help the civilian authorities who
were cleaning up the town regarding the problem of the river and all the
facilities on it and the collector that I described yesterday. At the
(25)same time, there was an order to demine the zone of Srebrenica, primarily
• Q.: And about what month was this? • A.: And this was around -- it was the month when these events (5)occurred, so I think it was the 27th. That was the first time I went there. I think it could have been the 27th. • Q.: How many mosques were there in Srebrenica in July of 1995? • A.: Believe me, I don't know. I went to Srebrenica for the first time in my life then, though I'm born not far from there, but as a young man I (10)went to military schools and I really don't know. • Q.: Do you know who destroyed the mosques shortly after the fall of the enclave? Was it the military authorities? • A.: I don't know. • Q.: You know that the mosques from Srebrenica were destroyed after the (15)fall of the enclave, though, don't you? • A.: I do not know that. I did not give the matter much thought, nor was I in a position to do that. I carried out my orders. And believe me, I spent very little time in Srebrenica myself. I may have been there for a day or so, but we were addressing technical problems that we had to deal (20)with. And then another day I spent in the area where we had to do the demining in front of the former positions of the Skelani Battalion, so that really I don't know. I simply don't have that information.
• Q.: Today, is there any mosque standing anywhere in the former Zvornik
Brigade or Bratunac Brigade or Skelani Brigade or Milici Brigade areas of
(25)responsibility?
MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we show the witness Exhibit 646/A. • Q.: And Witness, while they're getting that, did you learn of any murders of Muslim refugees coming out of Srebrenica or murders of Muslim (5)prisoners taken from the column that left Srebrenica on July 11th, 1995? • A.: I heard through the media. I told you that I saw that TV clip of some captured soldiers in a football pitch, and that was as much as I was able to hear. • Q.: Did you hear from any Drina Corps soldiers after you returned from (10)Belgrade about the killings of Muslim prisoners from the column? • A.: No. You are asking me about the Drina Corps. I have nothing to do with the command of the Drina Corps, nor any possibility to talk to them, because the focus of the activities of the Drina Corps at the time was the Zepa operation and the battles in that area. So I went towards (15)Vis, which is in quite a different direction. So I had -- I was not in a position to have any kind of contact with people from the Drina Corps. • Q.: Have you ever heard from any VRS soldiers that Muslim people from Srebrenica were murdered by the VRS after the fall of Srebrenica? • A.: No. (20) • Q.: Do you believe Muslim soldiers were murdered by the VRS after the fall of Srebrenica as they came out and were captured and collected?
• A.: I said that I was able to hear and read quite a bit about it from
the media. And when I was invited by you for an interview, I read up a
little more than usual, and those were the sources that I had access to
(25)that claimed that something had happened. I had no other specific
• Q.: Do you believe thousands of Muslim prisoners were slaughtered by the VRS after the fall of Srebrenica? (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I think that this question has been put to the witness already - it's still on the screen - and that the witness has answered the question. If they were killed, then they were probably slaughtered. I think it's just a question of the use (10)of different words. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't believe I -- the reason I asked that again is I don't believe he answered the first question about his beliefs. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Ask him whether he knows, not (15)whether he believes. You can ask the witness whether he knows, whether he has any knowledge of it. A witness has come to tell us here what he knows, not what he believes, Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe, I believe he has told us that he learned about it from the media, so I think he's (20)answered that question. So I can go on to another area. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, please, go on to your next question.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, if we could put on this exhibit, 646A, if you
could go to the second page on that, and if we could zero in a bit on
(25)that. That's fine.
(5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: -- it says 13.5 times 20, and equals 270. Now, is the 13.5, is that the number of hours that the ULT was working? • A.: Yes. That can be seen from further up the table -- • Q.: Okay. And the 20 -- (10) • A.: -- where it says "completed." So that is the sum of what is stated up there, to get to the total. • Q.: Now, the 20 that is noted down at the bottom, is that -- does that refer to 20 litres of diesel fuel? • A.: Yes, per hour. (15) • Q.: All right. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness Exhibit 709/A. • Q.: And before we get to that next exhibit, Witness, what kind of big dump trucks did the VRS have access to in July of 1995? What were the basic sizes of the kind of a dump truck used for -- normally for carrying (20)sand and gravel, things like that? What size in cubic metres was the usual dump truck that you were able to use or others were able to use for construction purposes?
• A.: I don't know. It varied from one unit to another. I spoke
yesterday about the way in which the Engineers Unit of the Drina Corps was
(25)formed. The brigade Engineers Units were formed somewhat earlier, and
(10) • Q.: What was the largest capacity in cubic metres that a dump truck in the area would be able to carry? • A.: If you take into account that in the area there was a bauxite mine, which was a very large mine, which had very large trucks of large carrying capacity; then we had large civilian companies like Romanija (15)Road, Zvornik Putovi; then there were construction companies in each of the towns in the region; and the way in which they were engaged within the brigade or outside the brigade through some sort of representative offices at the level of municipalities that decided how they could be used for the needs of the army, so that the capacity of the area was quite considerable (20)in terms of the availability of such equipment. • Q.: For one of those big trucks, what would be the capacity in cubic metres?
• A.: The question is rather vague. I mentioned four as a minimum, and
you could go up to, shall we say, 20 cubic metres; or if one were to use
(25)the mining trucks, they even had a larger carrying capacity than that.
• Q.: Could you take a brief look at that. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Have you ever seen or heard of this order before? (5) • A.: No. • Q.: This order mentions five tonnes of D-2 diesel fuel. Is that five metric tonnes? • A.: Five tonnes. A tonne is a unit of weight. We know how much that is. (10) • Q.: Are there 1.000 litres in a tonne? • A.: Yes. MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no further questions of this witness, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. (15)Mr. Petrusic, do you have any additional questions, or Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Judge Fouad Riad, no questions? Madam Judge Wald? (20) • QUESTIONED by the Court: JUDGE WALD: You mentioned that you saw the video of the prisoners on the football pitch in Nova Kasaba while you were in Belgrade. That was the period between the 9th and the 20th; is that right? Sometime in that period you saw it on Belgrade video? (25)
• A.: No.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I apologise. I think there was an error in the interpretation, Judge Wald. You said "between the 9th and 20th of July," and the witness heard "between the 9th and the 12th," so (5)maybe that was why he said no. JUDGE WALD: Well, do you remember approximately when you saw it in Belgrade, when you saw the video? • A.: I really can't be very definite, but I think it could have been about the 15th, shall we say. (10) JUDGE WALD: That's good. That's fine. You mentioned at one point that during your absence, and when you found out what had happened when you came back, that there was one contingent or unit of soldiers - and I don't remember which one - that came in on the 13th and then left again on the 14th for Zepa; is that right? (15) • A.: Yes. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Do you know or -- do you know from having your people report to you what that -- • A.: I apologise. I do apologise. I don't know whether it was properly translated. I'm talking about my contingent which returned from (20)Vis. On the 13th, the deputy went to fetch them because he didn't have people to man the guard posts, and they were pulled out of what they were doing on the 13th. They arrived on the 14th, and they left on the 15th. That would be roughly the story.
JUDGE WALD:
[Previous translation continues] ... You may have
(25)answered it, but let me ask it again. That particular unit that was there
• A.: I said yesterday that my defence was very important, and I had six (5)guard posts, and that three were down to a minimum regarding manning. So that when units were absent, they couldn't be covered. There was only the rear platoon that covered those three posts. So I engaged the guards that I mentioned. They were not real soldiers. They came by bus and held guard duty during the night, so to provide the circular defence that I had (10)organised in the area I was in. So if 15 soldiers returned, roughly -- I can't be absolutely specific. Someone may have been on sick leave or something. But if there was about 15, then there was a possibility to cover four guard posts with them. I still didn't have enough men to cover the whole circle. (15) JUDGE WALD: My last question is: If, as you say, you saw this video of the football pitch and the captured soldiers on it around July 15th, when you came back to your post you didn't ask anybody any follow-up questions about that, what happened or what they knew about what happened to those soldiers -- or to those captured Muslim people that you had seen (20)on the video?
• A.: I didn't discuss that with anyone. Simply upon arrival in
Konjevic Polje, I made a survey of the situation and then went on to Vis.
I simply had no occasion to talk with any responsible person about the
subject. That the situation was chaotic, everyone told me that; that
(25)there were columns of buses, of vehicles passing by; that at the
JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Judge Wald. Witness D, I have a few questions -- DE, I'm sorry. You spoke to (10)us about the handing over of duty, and you told us that troops needed to be lined up to say goodbye to them. And if I understood you correctly, you added "when that was possible." Did I get you correctly? Did I understand that correctly? Is that what you said, that the line-up was made when it was possible? (15) • A.: The superior officer writes an order, and in the order he specifies how this takeover will take place. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm sorry for interrupting you. I want to know whether I understood well this particular phrase. I remember very well everything that you told us. "To line up the troops to (20)say goodbye, when that was possible." Is that what you said or did I make something up? • A.: Yes. Yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I should like to focus on this
phrase "when that was possible." What did you mean when you said that?
(25)"Line up the troops to say goodbye when possible."
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So all these requirements - lining up the troops, having all the documents, to inspect the facilities, to find the appropriate people - maybe, if somebody -- is justified if somebody is taking over who knows nothing about the unit; am I correct or not? (10) • A.: No. No, because this is a formal and legal procedure. It has a legal meaning. When I became head of the engineers - I showed you a document - the people have to know when I come on tour or on a visit who I am for me to be able to go to the command, the command of the Drina Corps, somebody has to introduce me to my colleagues. He must familiarise me (15)with the relationships within the command. I may have known all that, but the Prosecutor asked me yesterday about a document that I signed with a person who took my place. That is why we personally keep those documents, because that man may say, "No, that's not right. I haven't taken over the duty. I haven't signed the document. Show it to me." (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see. You said that this is the legal way to proceed, but when it is possible. Does that legal rule apply? Isn't there a situation when there's a force majeure due to which you cannot proceed normally? You said "when it is possible." What about when there is a contingency situation or an exceptional situation? (25)
• A.: When something like that occurs -- and it is quite possible that
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We're still talking within the frameworks of rules and procedures. But imagine a situation as follows: that someone who is in charge of a unit, and there's an urgent situation, a battle; there's a battle going on. In the meantime, this official in (10)charge of the unit falls sick or is killed in the battlefield. Is his deputy in a position to replace him without having to go through this whole procedure? • A.: This is called representation. There's a legal situation when you are representing somebody. You don't have all the rights and duties (15)stemming from a formal appointment. Even my appointment was representation. I'll tell you why: Because neither by rank nor by speciality, I hadn't completed the General Staff school, so I was not familiar with the legal procedures and other knowledge to acquire that title. So if you will look at the document, it says he "represents." (20)So I continued to receive all the benefits of a battalion commander. You could see that from the record that I signed with the person who took over from me, my successor.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, but imagine your
situation. You were responsible for a unit. You were responsible for the
(25)unit. You had a deputy who would normally replace you in your absence.
• A.: Perhaps that was the case with myself, due to the fact that I left the unit on the 9th and went to Belgrade. My deputy remained there. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Sorry to interrupt you. I am not talking about the possibility of going to Belgrade and leaving the (15)area. My hypothesis is of another nature, and I'm sorry to have to speak in hypothetical terms. Let's say that you were killed in battle and you -- it is physically impossible for you to come back. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Please continue.
• A.: There is a possibility of being automatically replaced. The
(20)commander of the 1st Platoon automatically replaces the commander of the
company. The deputy of the battalion commander automatically replaces the
battalion commander. But even if he should get killed, there must have
been some kind of procedure for that person to assume the command from
then on.
(25)There is a rule within a platoon, for example. When the platoon
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. When you spoke about the handover of duty you mentioned duties of the commander who is leaving, that is, the outgoing commander, who has the duty to transmit everything to the in-coming commander. Have I understood you correctly? (15) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So does he also have to transmit secrets and any other type of confidential information to the in-coming official?
• A.: There are certain things that even the commander is not aware of,
(20)talking about secrets. For example, on several occasions I was in a
similar position. There is a service whose duty is to protect the
military structure as a whole. And when I left Pale there was a
commission that was established for that purpose because the commander
thought, his assessment was, that I am not the kind of official who could
(25)leave without a commission having to review that procedure. And that was
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We will take care of that. You may continue, Witness DE. • A.: Whether certain things could have been mishandled, whether it was possible for an abuse to have occurred, and that can also involve the commander. (10)The commander can also erroneously carry out his assignments. You have probably read a lot about espionage during the Second World War. There are commanders who engage in activities which are prohibited to him and which can be lethal for the organisation, so there must be someone who will decide on these matters. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So if the commander has the duty to transmit everything to the in-coming commander, it means that he has to transmit to him everything that is likely to be important for that person so as to maintain the level of organisation and command and control of that particular unit? (20) • A.: Yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Witness DE, let me go back to
something that you have perhaps already answered in response to a question
to Judge Wald, but let me try to clarify something.
Do you know if that video clip that you saw in Belgrade around the
(25)15th of July involving captured soldiers on a football pitch, do you know
• A.: It would have been very difficult. The programme belonged to one (5)of the independent TV stations, and the official TV station wouldn't show that programme. And those independent TV stations were covering the area of Belgrade. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I have another question involving your travel to Srebrenica. Did you actually enter the centre of (10)the town, or not? • A.: I am not familiar with the town of Srebrenica. It would be very difficult for me to locate the centre of the town because I really don't know much about it. That was the first time that I entered the town, and I may have gone back on one other occasion, but that's it. (15)My area of activities was towards the border, and I focussed in the area towards Tuzla and Kladanj. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but I should like to know whether you actually entered the town of Srebrenica. Let us leave the word "centre" out of the question. (20) • A.: Yes, yes, I was in town, in the town of Srebrenica. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Did you see any mosques? • A.: No. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] As far as I understood, you went there on the 27th of July. (25)
• A.: Yes, thereabouts. Most probably on the 27th, but it's very
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The fall of Srebrenica, was it considered as a victory? Was it perceived as a victory by the VRS? • A.: Well, you know, any facility that is taken possession of is (5)considered as a victory, let alone the town of Srebrenica. But if you're talking about the tragedy that occurred, I must say that it was a very unfortunate event how things turned out, and I am also referring to the International Community as well, because the area was only formally protected, but it actually constituted a military facility because of the (10)problems that we had in the area. I myself, I am from the area of Milici, for example. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. Do you know what were the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica within the VRS, and what impact did it have on its soldiers? (15) • A.: I'm not sure I understand your question. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] It's a very simple question, Witness. What was the effect on the soldiers of the VRS that the fall of Srebrenica provoked? • A.: Do you mean morally speaking? (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, that's exactly what I have in mind.
• A.: I'll try and answer your question. As far as I understood things
as one of the commanders, I think that the very capture of Srebrenica, if
we put aside the fact that it was a protected area, if it had been really
(25)a protected area, if it had not constituted, militarily speaking, a
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Witness, sorry to interrupt you once again, but let us streamline the question. Did soldiers talk amongst themselves about the fall of Srebrenica? • A.: Well, I told you about my soldiers and who participated in what. I practically didn't see them, so I do not have any particular insight in (10)the fall of Srebrenica and the time that followed. But I know that Srebrenica had been a very problematic issue for us. It was a heavy burden for the corps, and we had sustained a number of losses before that. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but it would have been normal for soldiers to talk about a victory amongst themselves. (15) • A.: There must have been such talks, of course. I am sure about that. Yes, soldiers talked about a victory, and the feeling, the atmosphere was a victorious one. So militarily speaking the fall of Srebrenica was a victorious one.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Let us move to another area. We
(20)have spoken about the VRS soldiers, but I would like to know in follow-up
to your question, what was the consequence of the fall of Srebrenica for
the population that live in the surrounding area of Srebrenica? What were
the consequences of that fall?
So now I want you to talk about the population. What I asked you
(25)about soldiers I should like to know about the population that lived
• A.: You're referring to the Serbian population that lived outside the protected area or the Muslim population that lived within the area? Who (5)do you have in mind: the Serb population living around the enclave or the Muslim population living inside the enclave? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm referring to the Serb population, the population of the Republika Srpska, who lived in the vicinity of Srebrenica, around the town of Srebrenica. (10) • A.: I think that they perceived the fall of Srebrenica as a great victory and final relief of a very heavy burden for them, because there had been a lot of tension on both sides of the line. The population was terrified; both communities were terrified. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Let us try and simplify things. (15)The people, the residents of the area, talked about the fall of Srebrenica amongst themselves; right? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So was there a follow-up of the fall of Srebrenica, an interest in the follow-up of that fall? Did you (20)hear my question? • A.: Yes, but again I don't quite understand it.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Let me try to clarify my
question. You told us that the residents of the area perceived the event
as a victory and that that had been an objective of some kind. Now, I
(25)would like to know what happened with the population after those events.
• A.: Well, I assume that there must have been individuals who were interested in that and those who were not. Not many things could be said (5)publicly, in the open. What happened was really ugly, and I don't think that any normal person would take interest in them. I mean, we are all human. I don't think that they would have accepted it. So I don't think that it was really publicly discussed. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Let us go -- try and go back to (10)my question. Before the fall of Srebrenica and after the fall of Srebrenica, certain events took place. Do you think that those events, those that had taken place before the fall and those that took place after the fall, were they important for that population, for that community? • A.: I am somewhat confused as to the specificity of your question. I (15)cannot be more specific than I am, or maybe I don't quite understand your question. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Maybe you think that I have actually another question in mind, but no. I just want to know whether the events that had taken place before the fall of Srebrenica and (20)the events that took place after the fall of Srebrenica, do you think that those events were interesting for the population that lived around the area? Do you know -- do you think that they wanted to know whether they had any interest in those events? • A.: Do you mean whether those events were linked? (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] No, no, no. I'm referring to
• A.: Yes. I think I understand your question now. The misfortune of Srebrenica is a misfortune that befell both the Serbian and the Muslim population, and any war as such is a great tragedy. The people who lived (5)there, the people who were divided because of that zone, were under a very heavy burden and fear of the conflict and of war. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, I know about that. Let me ask you a specific question: What was the type of relationship between the soldiers and the population? (10) • A.: That relationship was excellent. The residents of the area were actually soldiers. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. I think that at one point you mentioned something about the cooks in your unit, and you said that they were female. (15) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Were they soldiers? Were they professional soldiers, members of the army, or civilians who were preparing food for the soldiers? • A.: No. They were civilians. They came by bus from Milici and they (20)returned home every day.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you. You told us that the
relationship between the soldiers and the population was excellent. Now I
would like to know if it was possible for the population to know what was
happening, what kind of manoeuvres were being carried out and what kind of
(25)objective the army had in mind.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm not talking about military secrets, of course, but what could be seen publicly. So there was a good (5)relationship. You said it was an excellent relationship between the army and the population, which means that the population could see and know. • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Was it possible for the population to ask the soldiers, for instance, what happened somewhere in a (10)particular place? Was it possible that the population could ask a soldier a question of that kind? • A.: Yes. Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So it was possible. I have no further questions, Witness DE. Thank you very much for (15)coming here, for coming to testify, and we wish you a safe journey home, and have a good day. The usher is going to pull down the blinds. Please don't move, so that you may leave safely. Usher, please. THE WITNESS: [Int.] Could I please ask when I mentioned (20)my name that it be somehow redacted, when I mentioned my name inadvertently? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] It's already been regulated. Don't worry. Fine. It's all right. There won't be any problems.
THE WITNESS:
[Int.] Thank you to Your Honours, and I
(25)wish you success in your work.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I don't know whether we should take advantage of the presence of the witness in order to tender some documents, or can we do that afterwards? (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think the presence of the witness is not necessary. My idea was to have a break now and then come back, as we have many things to deal with. But Mr. McCloskey, what do you think? Mr. Harmon? (10) MR. HARMON: There is one issue, Your Honours, that relates to a specific exhibit that was tendered by -- or presented by this witness, and if I can find the exhibit itself. I believe it's 142, which is an exhibit that appears to have missing from the top part of the exhibit the normal features that we have seen on every other order that has been issued by (15)representative units of the VRS. In respect of this particular exhibit, we would request that the Trial Chamber make an order that the complete document be produced. Since this witness is here and since this witness had access to it, we would ask the Court to direct the Court Order to this witness, as well as to the (20)Defence, that the complete document be submitted to the Trial Chamber and to the Prosecutor before the conclusion of the trial. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps we haven't finished after all, Witness DE. We have a minor problem to deal with. Do you have the original of this document? (25)
• A.: Yes. Yes, I do. If I may explain very briefly. The document
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So if I understand correctly, it (15)is possible to get the document of which this is a copy, and you promise to provide this document to us. Have I understood you correctly? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Defence counsel, have you any remarks to make regarding this? (20) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. Let us just take upon ourselves the obligation that if the witness provides us the original, we will hand it in to the Registrar. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Is that all right, Mr. Harmon? MR. HARMON: Thank you very much. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Fine.
(5) --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m. --- On resuming at 11.25 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think we now have to address the question of admission into evidence of a series of exhibits. There are the exhibits from the testimony of General Krstic -- I don't know (10)whether I'm wrong -- so from the Defence, as we are talking about the Defence case now, so let us hear the Defence first. Yes, Mr. Petrusic.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your
Honours, my learned friends from the Prosecution. During the examination
of General Krstic, the Defence used a whole series of documents, and over
(15)the past few days, together with the Prosecution, we have come to an
agreement which, in brief, is the following.
The documents from D25 -- no, I'm sorry, from D27 up to D73 and
pursuant to the list marked D135, which has been provided to the Registry,
the Defence and the Prosecution have come to an agreement and that is that
(20)because of the need to check the authenticity of these documents, which
will be done during the continuation of the Defence case, as these are
mostly exhibits which are exhibits coming from the army of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, orders of the 2nd Corps and the 28th Division
of the BiH army, and we have explained how we have come into the
(25)possession of those documents. And in order to remove any ambiguity, we
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Petrusic. This set of documents over which there is no dispute, the translation I received, that it concerns document D74 to 134, but we know (20)that document -- Defence document 74 was one that the Prosecution expressed reservation over because the second page is missing with his signature, et cetera, so you're going to address that separately. So it would be logical that this set of documents over which there is no dispute should begin with the number 75. That's logical. (25)
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Yes. From 76, you're quite right,
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. Please continue. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] And I have one additional observation to make, Mr. President. With regard to documents from the (5)list D135 that bear the numbers 79, 81, and 109, the Defence would like to note that those documents do not have a revised version of the English translation attached. So those would be the exhibits that the Defence has used during the testimony of General Krstic and the documents on which the parties have agreed. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] But Mr. Petrusic, with regard to document 79, 81, and 109, I see on the list document 135. If you look at 79, we have 79A, English translation of D -- 79B. The same applies to document 81A, which is the English translation, and the same to document 109. We have an English translation. So we have the English translations (15)mentioned, and you are telling us that we don't have an English version of those documents. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] That is the first English version, which did not need revisions at the time. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. I see. I (20)understand. Is that all, Mr. Petrusic? Thank you very much. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: The documents that my colleague has referred to that
has a part of the document that has been cut off, and the document to
(25)which we objected in our discussions, is not document 74 but
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, I think that the only point we need to clarify is the Defence document 96 [as interpreted] which is objected to, and not D74. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. I should like (10)to first of all thank Mr. Harmon. It is indeed document 97, for which we will provide further evidence of authenticity, and not Exhibit 74. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So it is the original version that you will produce at a future hearing? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Photocopies, a photocopy of that (15)document, yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you. Madam Registrar, on the part of the Registry, are there any difficulties or are things clear? THE REGISTRAR: [Int.] The things are clear, as far as (20)the Registry is concerned, but I would like to know whether the revised translations have been provided to the Defence. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: They certainly have.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Is that the only clarification
(25)that was necessary?
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We will deal with them now, I think. So Mr. Petrusic, or Mr. Visnjic. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, there were some Prosecution exhibits related to General Krstic which, since we're on the subject of General Krstic, we might want to deal with those also. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. You're right, Mr. McCloskey. I also mentioned it. You are very efficient, obviously, Mr. McCloskey. So please go ahead.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
We have identified those Prosecution exhibits in a three-page
(15)document which has been marked as Exhibit 837, which both the Defence and
the Registry have. And just to -- so I won't go through all the exhibits,
but to clarify one or two points: Apparently I mentioned Exhibit 367,
which was a revised or extended version of a video, and I'm told that that
was actually -- should have been 367 bis, to clarify the record.
(20)And also, we have put in a revised version of the video of General
Mladic and others coming through Srebrenica. This is Exhibit 145/1. This
is revised to include the various segments in our possession to try to
make it as complete as possible.
And on the second page of Exhibit 837 we have Exhibit 792A and B.
(25)That's the Bratunac Brigade daily combat report dated August 4th that
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well, Mr. McCloskey. Thank
(25)you very much.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, from the list 837
which contains the documents that my learned friend has referred to ending
with document 803A and B, the Defence has no objection regarding those
(5)documents. However, when it comes to the whole document 836, which is not
on this list and which my learned friend has referred to, the Defence
would like to object to this document on the following grounds.
When this document was submitted, 836/1, the Defence pointed out
that these were personal effects; therefore, things that can have nothing
(10)to do with the criminal charges, nor can they have any connection, nor can
any criminal or legal conclusions be made regarding participation, aider
or abettor, or any other role that may be attributed to General Krstic.
If the purpose of this document -- Mr. President, I do apologise
for perhaps very briefly entering into an analysis of this. This is
(15)certainly something that should be addressed in the closing argument, but
allow me to say a couple of sentences about it.
If the purpose of tendering document 836/1, that is, the telephone
notebook, was to check the credibility of some witnesses whether certain
numbers were in the phone book or not, then that aim has been fulfilled
(20)because I think there was no dispute regarding those numbers. However, it
is my submission that such a document, a personal document, cannot be used
for the purpose of verifying the credibility of a witness. Whether it was
written in 1991 or maybe dates back to the 1980s, who knows? This is
something that was confiscated in 1998. So this is a document that is
(25)constantly changed; one adds new numbers and so on. So I would like to
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, (20)Mr. Petrusic. Mr. Harmon.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, if I could first comment on the
subject of the personal phone book that counsel mentioned. That personal
phone book was not amongst the exhibits that I mentioned. It's my
(25)understanding and memory that the material from that phone book came in,
JUDGE WALD: Just to clarify: Who has the notebook now? The Registry, or who? MR. McCLOSKEY: We gave a copy of the notebook shortly after that (10)to the Defence, and -- JUDGE WALD: Who has the notebook? MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe the Evidence Unit actually has it. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Of the -- of yours, of the -- MR. McCLOSKEY: Of our Evidence Unit, yes. (15) JUDGE WALD: Do you have a problem with giving it back? I'm just asking. MR. McCLOSKEY: The actual physical notebook? JUDGE WALD: Yes. MR. McCLOSKEY: As an exhibit with people's names in it who may be (20)involved in future cases, it's the kind of thing that the Prosecution would like to keep. However, there's never been any problem with the Defence examining all of these items, as is normal, and getting any kind of copy that they may need in certain --
JUDGE WALD: But I gather, or at least I understand that it's a
(25)matter that the General wants his notebook back, I think, or -- so I guess
MR. McCLOSKEY: I see Mr. Harmon moving around next to me, so I think I'll let him address that. (5)
MR. HARMON: Judge Wald, I can address your concern. Some of the
items that were seized from General Krstic have evidential value, and it's
our -- and we expect to continue to possess the originals. Most of the
items that were seized from General Krstic have no evidential value, and
we're prepared to give back the originals of those. But a decision as to
(10)what has evidential value will have to be made by the Office of the
Prosecutor. There are some items I will not describe on the record, but
we intend to keep the originals of those items.
In respect of the other issues that were raised by my colleague,
specifically, 836/2 through 836/7, I certainly agree with Mr. Petrusic.
(15)These are matters that should have been discussed between the Registry,
between the Prosecutor's office, and between the Defence, rather than
being made part of the trial record.
The Prosecutor's office did not make the medical certificate -- or
the death certificate part of the trial record. We did not make the
(20)medical records of General Krstic part of the trial record. Indeed, that
issue was raised by General Krstic himself. And I can refer Your Honours
to the transcript of these proceedings, page 6863, lines 20 through 24, in
addition to which my colleague Mr. Petrusic raised the issue, prior to
General Krstic raising the issue, at page 6856, lines 16 through 25. Both
(25)of those transcript cites are the English version of the transcript.
(5) JUDGE WALD: I'm having problems. If they're admitted into evidence for -- even for the limited purpose you're talking about, then that means he can't get them back. MR. HARMON: These are copies, Judge Wald. What is in the record are, first of all, copies. The originals he can get back. They have been (10)retained by the Evidence Unit of the Prosecutor's office. JUDGE WALD: But you've made your statement, I think, very articulately, as to why he didn't get them back earlier, et cetera, so basically, why do we need them in the record?
MR. HARMON: Well, there is one issue that -- the Court can
(15)consider this issue, the issue of credibility of General Krstic. General
Krstic said that he would like to have returned to him his telephone book,
his medical records, including the death certificate of his mother. The
inference from that statement is that he didn't get back the medical
records or the death certificate of his mother. He did get a copy of them
(20)back. Had General Krstic said, "I'd like the original back," had he
raised that issue, that would have been one matter. He didn't say that.
And we believe that the documents that we have presented are relevant
for - and the Court can give them whatever weight it deems appropriate,
relevant to the issue of the credibility of General Krstic. Now, the
(25)Court -- if the Court does not deem them to have much weight, that's
JUDGE WALD: That takes away his right to privacy once they're in the record. MR. HARMON: I have no objection to these documents being admitted (5)under seal. JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Harmon, with regard to the notebook, the telephone book you mentioned, if I understood rightly, that it has an evidentiary value for you, not only in this case. MR. HARMON: That's correct. (10) JUDGE RIAD: So you'd like to keep it, even if he asks for it. MR. HARMON: We would like to keep the original of that document. JUDGE RIAD: And he can have the copy for his personal use? MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: That's your stand? (15) MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I think that we can all agree
that the issue cannot be decided by the Chamber. It's an issue that has
to be solved between the Prosecution and the Defence, and of course the
(20)Registry as well.
Before we finish, I think that we need to address certain new
elements that have arisen in the meantime, but I don't know whether
Mr. Petrusic wanted to add anything to this discussion. The issue of
personal effects must be resolved between the Registry, the Defence, and
(25)the Prosecution. But aside from that, is there anything that you would
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Well, nothing in particular, Mr. President, but let me just say that the parties here have difficulties in agreeing. The Prosecutor is saying, "Why not requesting those (5)documents?" and we are saying, "Well, why aren't you giving us that which is considered as personal effects?" The photocopies have been the subject of evidence here, under seal, and they're probably going to be kept as such. However, the original documents, and this is what we're talking about, is something (10)that we believe should be restored, regardless of a possible probative value for this case or for some other case. So obviously we have opposing views in this matter. We are requesting all documents -- we want all the documents to be restored. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but once again, I'm must (15)stress that the issue must be resolved by the Registry, and I hope that the Registrar will take note of our discussion today. Let us go back to the documents. Madam Registrar, is there any problem here for you as regards numbers or similar things? THE REGISTRAR: [Int.] No, Mr. President, we don't have (20)any problems with numbers. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Anything else? THE REGISTRAR: [Int.] I think that we will need to have a very urgent meeting regarding the issue that has just popped up involving personal effects. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, you will take care of that,
JUDGE WALD: Maybe the Registry and you will have to talk back and forth about the original, but we still have a legal question as to whether we admit, I mean, as to whether certain of these documents are admitted, (5)as I understand it, and the Registry can't solve that for us. So that there seems to be, I think, two debates. One, can they get back certain of the original, physical, tangible objects. That's, I understand your position, not if they're of evidentiary value, but some you don't mind if they're not of evidentiary value. Okay, that can be settled (10)between them. But your position is you want, in order for your argument on credibility, you want certain of the documents to be admitted, and do you oppose their admission? I just want to get that clarified. Leaving aside whether you get them physically back, do you oppose their admission into (15)evidence? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] As regards document 836/1 to 7, the Defence objects to the admission of that document in its entirety.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Wald,
for clarifying the issue. I was about to consult with you on this matter.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Having heard the arguments, and
having considered all of the documents that have been mentioned, the
Chamber shall order admission into evidence of several - and I hope things
will be clear for the Registrar - documents, that is to say, all of the
(25)documents except for document number 97 which will be authenticated
MR. HARMON: Mr. President, when you say you are admitting all of the documents except 97, does that mean that you are admitting all documents between Defence Exhibits 76B through the end of the list, because I don't believe the Defence has tendered Defence Exhibit D27 (10)through Defence exhibit D74. Those were going to be the subject of an additional discussion. I just want to clarify that. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. I think it will be more clear if we leave the decision for all of the documents because I think that there is a need to have another look at the documents. (15)You are quite right, Mr. Harmon, I did not consider that set of documents which remains to be authenticated, I think. So it will be better to leave the decision for next week, including -- because in the meantime, the document 77 will be authenticated, and we hope that the photocopy of the original version will be presented to the Prosecution. (20)So the document will be authenticated and the Chamber will have then an opportunity to reach a decision concerning all of the documents; otherwise, I think we risk leaving aside certain documents. Do you agree with this suggestion, Mr. Harmon? MR. HARMON: Yes. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Petrusic?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So having heard the remark of Mr. Harmon, I think we are all aware of the fact that it is necessary to have a careful look at the documents once again, and the Chamber will make (5)its ruling during the week of the 4th of December. I don't know if there's anything else that you want to be considered at this point. Mr. Harmon?
MR. HARMON: Yes, Mr. President, I have three exhibits to
regulate. One is Prosecutor's Exhibit 765. Prosecutor's Exhibit 765 was
(10)a videotape of a negotiation in Zepa that was occurring with General
Mladic, Muslim representatives, certain members of the Main Staff, and
Lieutenant Colonel Kosoric. The Defence had entered an objection to it,
the objection being they didn't know the source of the document, the date
of the document, and when we received it.
(15)Well, I have subsequently gone back and I've ascertained that
information. I've conveyed that information to my colleagues. The film
was made by Republika Srpska Television in Pale. The film was provided to
us by the Republika Srpska liaison officer on the 25th of February, 1998,
and it depicts events that occurred in Zepa on the 19th of July, 1995.
(20)I have informed my -- I have informed my colleagues of this, and I
have been informed that they have no objection. We would therefore seek
admission of the film itself which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 765, and 765A
and B which are the transcripts from that film.
I have two additional exhibits which I'd like to regulate, but
(25)perhaps my colleagues should be heard on the issue of the admission of 765
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No objection, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, did you have (5)anything else? MR. HARMON: Yes, I have two additional exhibits, Mr. President and Your Honours. One is Prosecutor's Exhibit 823, and that is an order of the Drina Corps command that is dated the 12th of May, 1995. And in the course of the examination of Witness DB on the 7th of November, he (10)said that the paragraph 3 had been translated incorrectly, and I said to the Chamber that we would submit that to -- for a revision. That has been submitted for revision, and I would like to tender now Prosecutor's Exhibit 823A bis, which is the revised translation. Similarly, Mr. President and Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit (15)830 is a -- was a document dated the 11th of July, 1995, and I had noted in the course of the examination that there was a problem in the signature block, and again I indicated that that would be revised. So that has been revised, and I'm not submitting to Your Honours and to my colleagues Prosecutor's Exhibit 838 bis, the revised translation, and I would now (20)tender to the Court the revisions that I have just described. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, Exhibits 823A bis and 830, the last exhibits that the Prosecutor has just mentioned, do you have any objection?
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, if we can just have
(25)a quick look at the exhibit, that is exhibit number 830.
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, could we perhaps leave the issue of admission of these two exhibits for our next session? (5)We would really like to have a closer look at them. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, I was just about to suggest the same thing. Because we have postponed our decision, so you can tell us your position later on. Mr. Harmon, anything else? (10) MR. HARMON: No, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No, but I see Mr. McCloskey has something to add. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we have a couple of Prosecution exhibits for the last witness. I think that the Defence has some exhibits (15)for the last witness also. The Prosecution exhibits are Exhibit 807, which was the photo of the MUP building that was identified by the witness; and then Prosecution 812, which was the August order for more men and materials for the 5th Engineering Unit. (20)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. McCloskey, it's my mistake;
I should have known that. But did you say 807A and -- 807 to 812, or only
the two of them, 807 and 812, or the documents in between as well?
No, I think that there is a problem with interpretation. Okay,
it's been corrected.
(25)So are you tendering Exhibits 807 and 812, or
[English] between
MR. McCLOSKEY: Correct, only two exhibits, 807 and 812. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Mr. Visnjic. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we do not object to these two exhibits that have been tendered by the Prosecution. However, I should like to take this opportunity and tender some of our exhibits: D137A and B, D138B, 139A and B, D140A and B, 141A and B, 143B, D144, D145, and D146. (10)As regards Exhibit number D142A and B, it is a document for which the Prosecution has requested the original to be provided by the witness, and we will tender this particular exhibit together with the original. At the same time, the translations of documents that have already been tendered, 138 and 143, which have been tendered in their B version, (15)that is, the original version, will be submitted later on, as soon as they are ready. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Have you finished, Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, I have, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, as regards the (20)exhibits that have just been tendered by Mr. Visnjic, 137 to 146, I think -- 148 is also included, but without translation. MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection, Mr. President.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] No objection, Mr. McCloskey?
Also as regards the late submission of the translation? And you don't
(25)have any problem with the original version of the document 142 being
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's correct. That's our understanding.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] We will consider all of these
documents together. We're not going to make separate rulings. I think it
(5)is perfectly possible to admit documents 807 and 812 into evidence. But
there are other things as well, so we will keep all of these documents
together and they will be the subject of one decision of the Chamber.
From the Defence, is there anything else that you would like to
bring up? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, nothing, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Prosecution? MR. HARMON: Nothing further. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. All I can do at this (15)point is to wish you a good weekend and a lot of success in your work, for those who intend to work during the weekend. And we will reconvene on the 4th of December, at the usual hour, that is, 20 minutes past 9.00. --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.24 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of December, (20)2000, at 9.20 a.m. |
