¹¹⁰⁷ Friday, 17th July, 1998

(Open session)

(The accused entered court)

(The witness entered court)

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number IT-97-24-T, the Prosecutor versus Milan Kovacevic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, good morning, Your Honours.

MR. KEEGAN: Sorry, Your Honours, if I could, before counsel begins. I apologise.

We would like to raise an objection, Your Honour. We refrained from objecting on several occasions yesterday for two primary reasons: One is, of course, we didn't believe that the conduct of the questioning would create issues with the Judges such as you might be concerned about with juries, and also because we did not know the length of the cross-examination, had it concluded yesterday, we would never have raised the issue, but because counsel has indicated that cross-examination may, in fact, even go beyond today, we do feel the need to raise an objection to the nature of the conduct of the cross-examination. ¹¹⁰⁸

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, Mr. Keegan, can you raise it quickly, please.

MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Bearing in mind that we are the Judges of facts and law, and it is for us to decide about the conduct of cross-examination. Can you put your point, as it were, in a sentence?

MR. KEEGAN: I can, Your Honour. We believe that counsel is engaged in a pattern of misstatement of evidence and facts and it is resulting in unfair questions to the witness, and we believe the witness is entitled to professional and fair questioning, and we believe that has not been the case, and it was a pattern yesterday. As I said, we would not have objected had it ended yesterday, but since it's going to continue for we don't know how long, we believe it is an appropriate objection.

JUDGE MAY: I think we will regard that as a shot across the bows. Do you follow? We won't rule on it at the moment, but they are minded to object if you misstate the evidence. But it is for us, of course, to determine whether there is misstatement. So far you haven't been stopped, Mr. Ostojic, although there has been considerable repetition. We recognise these are important issues for the Defence, therefore you have ¹¹⁰⁹ been granted some latitude. But if you could concentrate, as it were, on the particular issues, not repeat them. If there is any misstatement of the evidence, no doubt the Prosecution can point that out, but I am sure you will try and avoid it, and I think it would be in everybody's interests -- I don't want to put you under pressure -- but it would be in everybody's interests if we could complete this witness today.

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. As I stated yesterday, we certainly will endeavour to complete Mr. Vulliamy today, but I must reply, if the Court permits, to the comments, because I certainly resent counsel using the word pattern which is a sensitive issue here, and trying to impugn that on my conduct here. If he could have, if he thought that it was so inappropriate, I think he should have raised it yesterday. I think it is inappropriate for him to use that kind of language when it is not my conduct that should be called in question on my questioning. Quite frankly from the answers elicited from this witness and the timing of the statements, it's not my conduct that should be called in question but the conduct of the Prosecution.

JUDGE MAY: Well, these are matters for us to ¹¹¹⁰ rule on. Now, it would be better if we moved on.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If I may proceed.

WITNESS: EDWARD VULLIAMY

(Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic)

Q. Good morning, Mr. Vulliamy. How are you?

A. Good morning, fine.

Q. Yesterday we were discussing the meeting of August 5th, 1992, with you and various people in the municipal building. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Specifically, sir, I want to direct your attention to your testimony which was elicited through the Prosecutor's Office, and if I may be permitted to quote it so we have it in the proper context, it's at 10.09.32, and it states question by Mr. Keegan: Mr. Vulliamy: During this meeting, which is the meeting I represent to you as August 5th, 1992. Did you form an opinion who was in charge of the meeting, who was running the meeting? And you're giving the answer: We covered the control issue. It's something in the answer that I am seeking to cross-examine on, other than that issue. The answer at 10.09.42 seconds: "Well, thus far it seemed that the man doing most of the talking up until this point, if you like, ¹¹¹¹ the chairman of the meeting, or at least he was the one who was making the most pertinent remarks, and I found them interesting remarks because even before we had asked a question, we were talking about concentration camps and now he was defining what we were about to see is not a concentration camp but transit camps and talking about intelligence failure to identify the Nazi camps in the forties. I mean, I thought we were in the domain." And then you finally answer the last sentence: "Sorry. To answer your question, Mr. Kovacevic is the answer." Quote, unquote. So you answered a question that Mr. Kovacevic was in charge of the meeting. We covered that yesterday. But within this, sir, I was a little perplexed, and you state here and you seem to imply, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that before the meeting even started, Dr. Kovacevic was in denial about either the transit centres or the concentration camps, generally that issue. Is that your testimony?

A. Those were his opening remarks, and I remember finding them interesting, yes.

Q. Now, I'd like, with the Court's permission, to direct our attention to Exhibit 48(B). For the record, that is the transcript of the tape that Mr. Keegan introduced. And if I may also ask that the ¹¹¹² Exhibit be tendered to the witness?

And Mr. Vulliamy, if you can take an opportunity or a moment to look at Exhibit 48(B) and just let me know when you're complete so that I can proceed.

A. Sure. Fine.

Q. Thank you. Sir, the first four pages of Exhibit 48(B) are what purports to be a translation of the excerpt of the tape that we viewed yesterday which was identified as Exhibit 48, does it not, or 48A, it may have been, does it not?

A. It seems to be, yes, to the best of my recollection, these are the areas covered on the tape, yeah.

Q. Yesterday you were kind enough to tell us that before the tape started rolling on Dr. Kovacevic, before we actually saw him, there was an interval of five to ten minutes of that tape; do you remember that?

A. As I said, I wasn't sure exactly how long, but we had come into the building, gone up the stairs, made some introductions. I can't recall how many minutes it was before the tape started rolling.

Q. The record will bear it out. Whatever you said, you said yesterday, and we're not going to debate it here today. If you look at the first sentence here, ¹¹¹³ other than the caption, the foreign reporter in English states that the second promise was that we could see Omarska and Trnopolje. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Where's the first promise? We don't see it in these first four pages, right? Because it's cut off.

A. I don't recall what the first promise was.

Q. Right. And it was the first promise that we don't recall that's probably within that time period that I suggest you told us yesterday was five to ten minutes; correct?

A. I don't know. I expect so. I don't know.

Q. Okay. That's fair. Now, if we look through the body of page 1, and we'll try to take this one step at a time, can you tell this Court how many times the tape was cut or there wasn't full usage of the tape, footage, other than the first five to ten minutes that I believe you testified to yesterday. Just looking at this first page, can you tell us how many times?

A. Well, I'm afraid I can't. I don't know about cuts in the tape --

Q. I suggest that you look on line 5.

A. "We'd be happy to do that this afternoon."

Q. What does it say after the word "this ¹¹¹⁴ afternoon"?

A. "Tape cut."

Q. Is that significant at all?

A. I honestly don't know.

Q. It seems from reading this and I'm not a journalist or a TV reporter or producer, but when it says tape cut, what does it mean to you?

A. It means the cameraman stopped filming.

Q. Does it tell us here on this exhibit 48(B) how long he stopped filming?

A. It doesn't appear to, no.

Q. You were at the meeting. How long did he stop filming; do you know?

A. Sorry?

Q. How long did the cameraman stop filming at this point?

A. I don't know.

Q. What I need to know, though, if you can recall at this point, did Colonel Arsic speak already? Did Dr. Stakic speak already before this first cut?

A. To the best of my recollection, I don't think so. Mr. Drljaca had certainly greeted us. I don't recall whether either Mr. Arsic or Mr. Stakic had spoken, but I am certain that the bulk of their contributions followed this. ¹¹¹⁵

Q. I would think so too. Now, when's the next time that the tape was cut?

A. Well, according to this bit of paper I have in front of me, the next -- it says "Tape cut" at the end of the next line after the words "Television station, IT."

Q. It's cut again, right? It's once again cut; correct?

A. I don't know, but it says tape cut here.

Q. You prefaced your answer by according to this document. Is there any other document that you know that exists that could help us flesh this out other than Prosecutor's Exhibit 48 B?

A. As to what -- as to how the tape and when the tape was cut?

Q. Exactly.

A. I don't know. The tapes, I suppose.

Q. Was there any reason we should doubt that this was accurate, tape 48 B, that the tape was actually cut on these two specific instances?

A. I'm not ITN and I don't know when they were cutting their tapes or for how long. I wasn't following or directing the cameraman, so it's difficult for me to answer in a way that -- in a way that I can be confident of the accuracy. I've got a bit of paper ¹¹¹⁶ and it tells me where the tape is cut but I don't know for how long or why or what. That's something that is not my province.

Q. When you say province, is it fair to say that it's not within your area of expertise?

A. No. I would say that -- because I was there representing a newspaper and my job is to -- well, my job was to record the events in my book and in my memory, not to make a film. These people are making a film, and this thing tells me when the tape is cut. But I'm not in a position to give accurate information as to how long it was cut for or anything like that.

Q. Well, you were there and that's why I'm asking. You're presented as a witness. This exhibit was introduced. You discussed it. So I didn't mean to infer that you were the producer or the director or the man actually filming. What I need to know, since you testified just moments ago that after the first tape cut, it was at that point that Colonel Arsic point and that Dr. Stakic spoke, and yet there's another --

MR. KEEGAN: I will object. That is a misrepresentation of the witness's answer. He did not say that.

JUDGE MAY: He said that he didn't recall, but he thought that the bulk of the answer came later. ¹¹¹⁷ Yes. I wonder how much further we're going to get on this business about cutting the tape. Now, I recognise that there is no other witness that you can ask about it, but this witness didn't produce the tape, he wasn't the cameraman. He was there, so, of course, you can ask him about the interview and ask him about who was speaking and his recollection, but the actual technicalities are clearly not within his province.

MR. OSTOJIC: I will, Your Honour, but I do have some questions that I think it is my obligation to ask that are, I believe, are extremely important relating to the tape and the introduction of the tape and the manner that it was presented and introduced into evidence here, so if I may be permitted just a few more minutes to go into it. Thank you.

Q. Sir, if you look at the first four pages of this translated excerpt of the tape that we saw which started with Dr. Kovacevic speaking at the meeting, can you tell me how many times the tape was cut within that four-page segment? I counted six, sir. Can you count it for us? Just let me know what it is?

A. Well, I can't tell you how many times the tape was cut, but I can tell you how many times it says tape cut on these bits of paper.

Q. Just for clarification, is there any reason ¹¹¹⁸ we should doubt that, what's on this paper?

A. I haven't seen all the tapes. This is a translation of -- which, as I recall, corresponds with the tapes, although I'm not listening and reading at the same time, but what I'm going to do now, endeavouring to answer your question, is to count the number of times it says "Tape cut" and to see if we agree.

Q. Thank you.

A. Actually, I count seven on the first four pages.

Q. You just corrected me on it. It is seven, thank you. There's seven tape cuts on this four-page document; correct?

A. As I -- it says "Tape cut" seven times on the bit of paper in front of me.

Q. Now, sir, I want to talk about the issue that we raised in your testimony the other day at 10.09.32 through 10.10.20 that we introduced before we got the exhibit so that we could discuss it somewhat. If you look, sir, the first time that Kovacevic raises the issue that you claim he started to deny before the meeting even began and that he started to deny the concentration camps almost immediately, can you tell me whether or not it appears on page 2, and if I may ¹¹¹⁹ direct the witness, on the lower portion of page 2? It says Kovacevic, BCS, if I may just assist?

A. I think you're referring to the bit where it says interpreter, English article, saying they are concentration camps, not only Omarska and Trnopolje, but a list of about -- Kovacevic, BCS; "let me finish, first of all we know very well that." Is that the bit you are talking about?

Q. If you could just continue, "first of all we know very well" --

A. "We know very well what concentration camps are. Interpreter English; first of all we know very well what are the concentration camps." Yes, I see that.

Q. Immediately preceding that section where Dr. Kovacevic mentions concentration camps, and I submit to you that your testimony with Mr. Keegan seemed to suggest, and I may be wrong, that Dr. Kovacevic, in light of your testimony today, started the meeting with concentration camps and that issue. Do you see that immediately before that, there is "Tape cut"? Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do see that.

Q. So wouldn't it be fair that really, as you sit here now today, having all these people testify -- ¹¹²⁰ or the people gave their speeches, as you called them, at one point or introductory comments, we don't have that covered, but yet you recall, as you sit here six years later that Dr. Kovacevic started the meeting in denial?

A. I didn't use the term "in denial."

Q. I know you didn't.

A. That's yours. What I have testified to and what my notes contain and what I testify to again is that during these first remarks or opening remarks, whatever we're calling them, the subject of concentration camps was discussed, both in terms of what is here, article saying they are concentration camps, that I think is articles about Omarska and Trnopolje, and Dr. Kovacevic's observations about how his people had, as I recall he puts it, "passed through concentration camps," and that how, I'm quoting from the bit of paper, "We know this better than the English people."

Q. Thank you. Sir, on July 15th, 1998, a couple days ago, while Mr. Keegan was asking you at 10. -- five after ten and 23 seconds, you stated, and I quote, that the August 5th, 1992 meeting was, quote, "a very long meeting." Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes, it lasted -- ¹¹²¹

Q. Let me be permitted to ask you a following question. How long was the meeting, because I don't think we actually established that?

A. I wouldn't want to put an exact time on it, but it was long enough for us to have a lengthy debate about whether we were going to Manjaca or not, for us to insist that we wanted to go to Omarska, to watch a video, to look at a map, and to go round the houses quite a bit as regards this question of Omarska, Manjaca, our safety and security, and the places that Dr. Karadzic had promised we could see. I don't know exactly how long. It started early to mid morning, and by the time we got to Omarska, it was lunch time, but I wouldn't want to put a time on it.

Q. What is mid morning to you, sir?

A. Mid morning is half past nine, ten o'clock.

Q. What I really want to know, I don't want it exact because it's six years later, very difficult to recollect facts six years later and I'm sure we all understand that, give me your best estimate as an expert witness being a participant, if you will, at this meeting, how long was the meeting? Twenty minutes? Ten minutes? Thirty minutes?

A. Longer than any of those.

Q. Well, give me an idea since apparently you ¹¹²² know.

A. Well, I would say about -- about an hour and a half perhaps? You say my best estimate. I mean, that is an estimate. That is a guesstimate. I'm saying on oath that I don't know exactly how long that meeting lasted. It lasted long enough to have all of those round robin conversations during which we got impatient with what seemed to be filibustering, and it was long enough to get impatient.

Q. How do you define filibuster?

A. In this instance, I mean that Dr. Karadzic's promise was that we would see Omarska and this seemed to be running into some difficulties at this stage.

Q. I really truly meant somewhat, and I apologise for saying it, but the definition for the word filibuster, the exchange. I'm just asking you what your best estimate was for the meeting. You said an hour and a half, and permit me to proceed. How long was the tape that we viewed on the meeting with Dr. Kovacevic that was --

JUDGE MAY: Well, the witness hasn't estimated the length of the tape. That's a matter for us.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Sir, to the best of your recollection, did ¹¹²³ the ITN cameraman and Penny Marshall and yourself, did you note whether or not the entire meeting was being filmed, the meeting of August 5th, 1992?

A. Well, it's a subject -- it's a question better directed at them than me, but I would be surprised if they filmed the whole length of the meeting. I shouldn't think they did.

Q. Now, were you actually in this meeting -- this was an important meeting for you as a journalist; correct, or foreign correspondent?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you were paying attention throughout the entire meeting; correct?

A. Not all of it, I must admit. I was getting frustrated and quite bored by the round and round robin of whether we could or could not go to Manjaca and Omarska and our security, so, no, I have to admit, my attention drifted from time to time.

Q. Sir, do you have a recollection, on August 5th, 1992, when people were discussing at the municipal building issues with the foreign correspondents, that you lifted your chair and turned your back to the participants and folded your arms just like you're folding them now and completely ignored them for a period of time? ¹¹²⁴

A. Do I recall doing that?

Q. Yes.

A. No, but I might have done.

Q. Thank you. And, sir, isn't it true that you actually did that also during the showing of this videotape that you stated Dr. Kovacevic and others introduced to the newsmen?

A. That I turned my back --

Q. Turned your back to him, correct?

A. No, I think I -- I've got notes which are quite similar to what's on the video taken as he was talking. I was writing down what he was saying some of the time. If I turned my back on him, then -- no, I don't think I did.

Q. If we may, sir, direct your attention to your three-page note or notes of the August 5th, 1992 meeting?

I believe everyone has that, Your Honour, based upon our conversation yesterday.

JUDGE MAY: Are these the hand-written notes, Mr. Ostojic?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, they are.

JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 57; is that right?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Exhibit 57. ¹¹²⁵

MR. OSTOJIC: Fifty-seven was it, Your Honour? Thank you.

Your Honour, at this point I would like to allow us to introduce into the record that portion that was read, involving Exhibit No. 57, to us yesterday morning so that it be part of the record during the testimony of Mr. Vulliamy.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can put that.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

Q. Now, Mr. Vulliamy, a quick question: An hour and a half or so meeting, you have how many pages of notes from that meeting?

A. Only three.

Q. Why do you say "Only three." Do you expect more for an hour and a half meeting?

A. I saw no purpose in writing down the long round robin about where we should or shouldn't go, what our security was. I mean, we were repeating ourselves all over again, and I think I got down the gist of the fact that these people saw some uprising going on in their area, it was getting repetitive, and as I've said, I was getting impatient, wanted to get on, and we weren't getting on.

Q. You were becoming impatient because you were sent and you had this list that you wanted to try to ¹¹²⁶ uncover or see for yourself certain centres or camps, as you've called them; correct?

A. I was getting impatient because allegations had been published in my paper and elsewhere about Omarska, also Trnopolje, and others; and as I've already testified, Dr. Karadzic invited, challenged, asked to come and see for ourselves, and that's what we had come to do. I wanted to get on and do that.

Q. With respect to Exhibit number 57, if you could look at that, please?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, the first page on the first line, you wrote, I believe, chief of police, and after that, what do you write?

A. Komandant.

Q. Is that an English word?

A. No, I can only presume that's the word that was used.

Q. Did you ask what that meant?

A. I don't remember.

Q. If you look, sir, at this three-page document from your notes of the meeting, approximately being an hour and a half, et cetera, it looks to as that Dr. Stakic, if I have it correctly, starts to speak at the second half of page 1; correct? ¹¹²⁷

A. Yes.

Q. And he proceeds to continue and you're taking notes down for Dr. Stakic through the entirety of page 2; correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So far Dr. Stakic, a page and a half; right?

A. Yup.

Q. Now, Dr. Stakic apparently continues to have notes written by you on page 3 of 3, of Exhibit 57?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I note in the first page, if we could jump back there, when the person that you were taking notes of, you would write his name on the actual line opposed to on the side -- do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. -- so you'd write his name as a title almost, and then beneath it you would start describing for us what it was that that person may or may not have said; correct?

A. Yup.

Q. And similarly you did that for Dr. Stakic; correct?

A. Yup.

Q. And let's flip because we know Dr. Stakic is the next page and a half. Three of three. Now, do you ¹¹²⁸ see Dr. Kovacevic's name on the right-hand side or the left-hand side, I apologise, of this document, in the centre of the page?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see an arrow that follows from the line or from the name "Dr. Kovacevic" with an arrow down to the last five sentences of page 3 of Exhibit 57?

A. Yes.

Q. Are the last five lines attributed to Dr. Kovacevic or Dr. Stakic?

A. The last -- Dr. Kovacevic comes in "We are trying to stop," that's marked with a line, and he goes on down to the end.

Q. But you didn't at this point put Dr. Kovacevic on the line, you put his name on the side; would that be fair?

A. Yes, it's on the side.

Q. Now, sir, yesterday you were kind enough to clarify an issue for me, and I appreciate it, on the control, and we spent some time on it, I understand ad nauseam, or somewhat ad nauseam on that point, but then you added an interesting thing and you talked about gesture, and there was some mention of it and actually probably a great deal of attention put to a gesture ¹¹²⁹ that Dr. Kovacevic made during the August 5th, 1992 meeting. Remember that?

A. I don't remember a great deal of attention being drawn to it. There was a gesture, yes.

Q. I apologise for the interruption. Can you show me on Exhibit 57 where you make mention of the fact that Dr. Kovacevic made this gesture with his hand?

A. No, I make no mention of it, but it was talked about.

Q. Now, you've interpreted this gesture to mean something; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've shared with us what I think you believe that interpretation is; right?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Enlighten me again and tell me what you think it is?

JUDGE MAY: The witness has given evidence about that.

MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. I'm just laying the foundation, Judge, so I could proceed on that point.

JUDGE MAY: Well, go on.

MR. OSTOJIC: ¹¹³⁰

Q. Now, sir, isn't it fair to say, in light of Exhibit 48B that you have in front of you, the transcript of the tape that we saw and the fact that the beginning portion of the tape is cut and the fact that there's two cuts before Dr. Kovacevic is actually permitted to speak. That it was at that point that Dr. Kovacevic merely said, and at that point Dr. Kovacevic was following the speech and the introductory comments of Mr. Simo Drljaca, Colonel Arsic, and Dr. Stakic, after those three individuals, as the testimony has been presented by Mr. Keegan and the evidence from your prior testimony that we've established, it was at that point that Dr. Kovacevic was speaking, and it was at that point, isn't it reasonable, Mr. Vulliamy, that Dr. Kovacevic merely lifted his hand and said, "Let me finish, Dr. Stakic"?

A. I don't know what the exact translation was and I wouldn't claim to ask. My recollection is that Mr. Arsic's main remarks -- he may have said --

MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may interrupt? Merely we want an answer to the question and I know he's trying to editorialise. I believe whichever question I ask, the Prosecution will be able, if the Court permits, to either rehabilitate him or allow him to expand. We are really trying to narrow it ¹¹³¹ down. But when the witness does elaborate on his answer, it is a bit frustrating, and all I want to know is whether or not he remembers that. I apologise.

JUDGE MAY: I think the witness must be entitled to answer a question, it's an important matter, in his own way to what his recollection was. Yes, Mr. Vulliamy?

A. The answer is I don't know exactly what was said because I didn't understand the language, don't understand the language, but I remember the gesture.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Why don't we look on page 2 of Exhibit 48(B) and maybe you can understand it in English?

A. What is --

Q. The gesture and how it was interpreted what he said during the meeting where you claimed the gesture meant something totally distorted versus what the interpreter said the gesture was?

JUDGE MAY: Sorry, I don't understand that question at all.

MR. OSTOJIC: He said --

JUDGE MAY: Are you going to put to the witness that this gesture occurred at a particular point in the transcript?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. ¹¹³²

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well --

MR. OSTOJIC: I'm directing his attention to --

JUDGE MAY: Let's go to that.

MR. OSTOJIC: I'm directing his attention to page 2.

JUDGE MAY: Whereabouts.

MR. OSTOJIC: The bottom portion where Dr. Kovacevic speaks the last time on this page, BCS, and it says, "Let me finish."

JUDGE MAY: Well, we can ask the witness that. Mr. Vulliamy, do you recollect if the gesture appeared at that stage of the transcript?

A. Your Honour, I'm not even sure what page we're on on the transcript.

MR. OSTOJIC: Page 2.

JUDGE MAY: Page 2, one, two, three, four lines up.

A. I remember the gesture, I saw it on the film, and I'm reading this. I don't know whether it's exactly the same place. I would -- if we look at the film again and the words match what's written here, then I'm sure that's right. But I can't say absolutely for certain because I don't remember the exact words in the original language, nor would I understand them. ¹¹³³

JUDGE MAY: Just let me interrupt for a moment. I don't recollect this. We can see the gesture on the film, can we?

A. I think so.

JUDGE MAY: I don't remember.

MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may represent to the Court. This is exactly where the gesture and his continuation on the comment, after the tape is cut or spliced, whatever the proper word is, and then he speaks of that, and then he continues to talk about the issues raised; "that we know very well what concentration camps are," and I represent that it was Prosecutor's exhibit, I believe it's their interpreter here, it's not ours, so that's why I bring it to the Court's attention.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I don't think we're going to get much further on that, but, of course, if you want to ask any other questions about the gesture, you may.

MR. OSTOJIC: One other one possibly depending on his answer also.

Q. Sir, isn't it true, that proper etiquette, when someone is speaking that, in fact, you should let them finish before you interrupt them and engage in conversation? ¹¹³⁴

A. Yes. But if what you say is -- if this section at the bottom of page 2 of the transcript is the same as the bit that I remember and the same as the gesture that's on the film or I think is on the film, then it's a little more, shall we say, decisive than that.

Q. Now, if you can look on page 5 of Exhibit number 48(B) which is yet another interpretation, if you will, of various portions of the tape. I'm trying to go through this rather quickly, Your Honour. Are you on page 5?

A. Of the transcript?

Q. Yes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Sir, on that page, page 5, is an interpretation, if you will, of a tape, presumably the first tape, maybe another one, could be a third one, and on this one, they start first and they talk about the first thing -- do you see that? The word "first" on the first line?

A. "First, if there's anything," yeah.

Q. If you compare it to page 1 of that, page 1 as we've already, and you have been kind enough to share with us, starts with the second promise "et cetera"; correct? ¹¹³⁵

A. Yes.

Q. The beginning of the tape, on page 5, and the tape, the introduction, before Dr. Kovacevic begins to speak at the bottom of that page, two lines from the bottom, how many times was the tape cut according to Exhibit 48(B) page 5?

A. How many cuts are there -- you're asking me how many cuts there are on page 5?

Q. Well, yes, but if you know, sir, just from being at the meeting and if you could share with us how many times it was cut, you can share that with us as well. That might even be better.

A. I was at the meeting, yes, but the cameraman doing these cuts was working for somebody else. I honestly cannot tell you how many times during that meeting the tape was cut.

Q. And I understand that, and I appreciate that. So tell me, based on this, Exhibit 48(B) page 5, what, in accordance with what the Prosecutor tendered to us, how many times does it reflect the tape was cut here, before Dr. Kovacevic spoke?

A. I would say on page 5 of this transcript, and I don't know which bit of film this is, I'm just counting the words "Tape cut" on the page, there are four cuts, as I count. ¹¹³⁶

Q. Thank you. Sir, if -- and I direct your attention to the centre portion of the page 5 where it says Kovacevic BCS, and he starts to talk about, "I'd like to know," and then apparently the tape was cut?

A. I can see that written down, yeah.

Q. Do you know, sir, what it was that Dr. Kovacevic wanted to know as you sit here?

A. I have no idea. I'm afraid I don't recall.

Q. The tape is brought back to the interpreter after being cut and then Dr. Kovacevic says: "There is no," and then something was unclear, and then the interpreter again and then the tape was cut again; do you see that?

A. Yes, I can see, it says "Tape cut," yes.

Q. Do you know if this section here that Dr. Kovacevic was speaking of was the issue that you raised in your testimony on July 15th in relation to the concentration camps that Dr. Kovacevic seemingly was denying before the meeting even started?

A. I'm afraid it's impossible for me to tell just looking at this bit of paper. I don't know, honestly.

Q. I don't either. And it's doubtful that you can tell from looking at this and comparing it to the tape, wouldn't you agree? ¹¹³⁷

A. Sorry?

Q. It's doubtful that we can come up with a conclusion as to what happened in light of what Exhibit 48(B) tells us, if we compare it to the tape, as to when it is that Dr. Kovacevic, in your opinion, started the meeting out by saying there were no concentration camps, there were only detention camps?

JUDGE MAY: You know, Mr. Ostojic, I'm going to stop you. We've been through that point. The witness has given his recollection, and we have the document and also the tape, perhaps more importantly, and we'll have to make a judgement about that.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Now, page 9 of the Exhibit 48(B) -- are we there?

A. Page 9, yeah.

Q. Yes, thank you. Now, this apparently is a transcript of the excerpt regarding the meeting with Kovacevic after the visit to Trnopolje; do you see that? It's right on top in bold, actually?

A. Yes. I ought to say that I wasn't there.

Q. That was my question. Just for clarification. You weren't at that meeting at all; correct?

A. No, I -- ¹¹³⁸

Q. Where did you go -- pardon me. Go ahead, please.

A. I don't have a date for this exactly, but as I've already told the Court, I went over to try and investigate camps containing Serbian prisoners over on the other side.

Q. So it's fair to state, just so that I'm making sure I have it down, that the one time that you met Dr. Kovacevic in all of 1992 was what we have, and the notes that you have from that meeting definitively are these three pages from your notebooks; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. No meeting afterwards, no meeting in '93,'94, '95?

A. Correct.

JUDGE MAY: Let me ask something, Mr. Keegan, I notice that this interview after the meeting at Trnopolje is attached to this exhibit but it has nothing to do with this witness at all. Are you calling some other evidence about it?

MR. KEEGAN: We may, Your Honour, but we offered the exhibit and it was admitted. It was shown to the Defence, it was admitted. We believe it stands for itself.

JUDGE MAY: They may not have understood the ¹¹³⁹ point. But there we are.

MR. OSTOJIC: I can reply to that point very briefly --

JUDGE MAY: We'll take notice of this at the moment--

MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, fair enough.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's go on.

Q. Now, sir, I'd like to move along and proceed with an issue involving the camp of Trnopolje, okay?

A. Sure.

Q. Thank you. Now, in that -- during your visit at Trnopolje -- I kind of coined it as the barbed wire kind of issue, would that be fair? You stated for us that there was barbed wire there; correct?

A. Yes, there was barbed wire.

Q. Sir, what I'd like to know, and in your book on page 202, and I'll quote it. I apologise to the Court actually, I had the book and on my journey here while reading it I misplaced it on the seat, we do have accurate notes and we checked it yesterday and counsel who I believe is familiar with it, at the very least, and I can represent to the Court that these are actual quotes, so ...

On page 202 of your book which involved the Bosnian issue, you state: "With his rib cage behind ¹¹⁴⁰ the barbed wire of Trnopolje, Fikret Alic has become the symbolic figure of the war on every magazine cover and television screen in the world." Do you remember saying that in your book?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you also describe in your book his view of Trnopolje camps, or your view of the camps, I should say, and you write on page 104 that it's, quote: "Another startling calamitous sight, a camp" and then you mention a couple of words, "a camp surrounded by barbed wire fencing." Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. In your discussions with Mr. Keegan, and we saw the tape not only through your testimony but Mr. Sejmenovic's testimony several days ago, we saw Trnopolje and the camp with people walking, but I noted and I tried to read it as carefully as possible, in your testimony with Mr. Keegan did you or did you not tell us whether or not the barbed wire fencing surrounded the Trnopolje camp?

A. I don't remember whether we talked about the actual fencing. The barbed wire was separating the prisoners from us when we first arrived at the camp.

Q. Sir, those words are clear, yet in my opinion are unclear. They were separating you because you were ¹¹⁴¹ on one side of the fence and they were on the other side; correct?

A. Yeah. We were on one side of the barbed wire fence and they were on the inside of the barbed wire fence.

Q. Sir, isn't it true that you were on the inside of the fence when you took that footage?

A. No. They were the ones who were contained. We had stopped our vans and come from the road.

Q. Now, sir, isn't it true, and are you familiar with criticism that has been attributed to this barbed wire footage that, in fact, says that the unused video portion -- and if I may be permitted to say, we hope to connect this and I expect we most definitely will with our witnesses in our case in chief, but that the wire fencing around the fence -- strike that. That the barbed wire, that there was no barbed wire surrounding the Trnopolje camp?

A. The barbed wire did not go all the way around the compound, there was other forms of wire and a wall, but the barbed wire was between them and us when we arrived at the camp.

Q. Why did you say in your book, sir -- I apologise. I try not to ...

A. You asked me if I was familiar with the ¹¹⁴² criticism. Yes, I am. It's been going on a long time. It is the subject of litigation in my country, and I would be most grateful if I could perhaps give some background to the Court about this or we could proceed with questions at the Court's pleasure.

JUDGE MAY: Well, let me see the point. The issue is whether there was barbed wire around the camp at all; is that what you're suggesting? That there was no barbed wire around the camp.

MR. OSTOJIC: There was no barbed wire surrounding the camp as this man wrote in his book and there was only a section of the centre where there was a barbed wire. And what they did, in essence, according to the criticism, which we hope to connect, was that they came to an area where the wheelbarrows were kept and maintained and purposefully put the people that were within Trnopolje on the opposite side of the fence wherein they stood where the wheelbarrows were standing and taped them from a position that you could tell behind them was not the camp.

JUDGE MAY: So we have the point that this barbed wire was inside the camp and that the photograph was in some way manufactured. That's the essence.

MR. OSTOJIC: Manufactured or distorted.

JUDGE MAY: Or whatever. No doubt the ¹¹⁴³ witness can deal with that briefly.

A. Yes, I'll be as brief as I possibly can. This is a theory which was -- which I first heard about as written up by a man called Thomas Deichmann who was a Defence witness in the Tadic case, and who somehow got to view ITN material which was disclosed having been given to the Prosecution.

The gist of the thing was that, as you've just said, we -- to quote you, "put people." We didn't put people anywhere. I'll continue with that later. This claim that somehow we were inside a compound and that these prisoners were outside a compound first appeared in Britain by Mr. Deichmann in a magazine called Living Marxism which is the journal of a party called the Revolutionary Communist Party.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. We're not concerned with -- I'm going to stop you. We are not concerned with Mr. Deichmann. I think what would be most helpful, if you would just to tell us what happened when you arrived where the men were, and how the photographs came to be taken.

A. I would be delighted.

JUDGE MAY: If you would tell us that, please.

A. We were going to Trnopolje from Omarska. We ¹¹⁴⁴ were arriving at the Trnopolje camp. I was in one bus, Penny Marshall's crew was in a mini van just ahead of us, we saw this extraordinary sight of this crowd of men behind a barbed wire fence. Penny's van pulled up. She got out, understandably, she's a television reporter, very quickly and made towards the fence. I followed. Our van obviously pulled up behind. I followed.

The conversations that we had with the men, as I've described in my testimony, were through the barbed wire fence. They were in a compound which was enclosed, and there were guards guarding them in the enclosure. Suggestions to the contrary are the subject of what I said defamation proceedings in my country. That is how we came to find the men behind the barbed wire fence.

The allegations incidentally have been retracted in the high court in my country by the press agency who repeated them, with an apology and no damages paid.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Sir, in your book you state that it was surrounded by barbed wire and I move my fingers, in quotes, "surrounded by barbed wire," I want to know before we look at the tape is it your testimony that ¹¹⁴⁵ the camp was surrounded by barbed wire, sir?

A. I will testify now that the one fence through which we first encountered this group was barbed wire, some of it old, some of it brand new. The other fencing was chain-link wire of a kind that is used in prisons in the United States and patrolled by guards. As I recall, at the back there was a wall of a building. They were -- I mean, the conversation we had with them was through barbed wire.

Q. We're familiar with that conversation and I think you shared that with us and thank you for that. When you say one fence, what does that mean? That only one section of Trnopolje had a barbed wire fence near it, or are you saying one fence, that it was complete and continuous, as you state in your book on page, as I said, 104 --

JUDGE MAY: You've put that.

MR. OSTOJIC: I've put that. Thank you.

A. Sorry, could you repeat the question?

Q. When you say one fence, what do you mean by that? Was it a continuous fence?

A. There was a continuous fence around three sides of the compound. The barbed wire was certainly all along one of the sides of that fence, and that was the fence through which I was talking to Mr. Alic and ¹¹⁴⁶ other people whose testimony I read out yesterday.

Q. That's what I wanted to flesh out, and I appreciate it. So if we take the centre, Trnopolje, if we take Trnopolje, you said from your recollection that there was a fence on three sides and on one side was the barbed wire fence; is that correct?

A. Can you repeat that? Sorry. My apologies.

Q. We're talking about Trnopolje?

A. Yeah.

Q. And you said that there was a fence generally on three sides; correct?

A. The compound was fenced in on three sides, yes.

Q. Thank you. And on one of those three sides that it was fenced in, had this barbed wire where you had the initial first, purportedly, conversation with these --

A. Where I had the conversations with these people, through the barbed wire fence, yes.

Q. That's fair. Now, the other portions of the fence, what were they? They weren't barbed wire because I think you would have shared that with us, so I am curious to know. What kind of fence was it?

A. I will say now I am not sure whether the barbed wire went all the way around. There was ¹¹⁴⁷ other kinds of wire, certainly chain-link wire, and guards patrolling.

Q. We'll talk about the guards at a later point. Just talking about the fence. The other side of Trnopolje, there was no fence?

A. How do you mean the other side.

Q. Well, the fourth -- if you look at it, you said there were three sides, so I'm assuming then there's a fourth side; correct?

A. Yes. This wasn't the whole Trnopolje camp, this was a compound within it.

Q. Oh, so this fence that you're talking about was actually within the actual large area of Trnopolje; correct?

A. Yes. I talked yesterday and before about a school premises into which I went, and that is a different bit of the camp. I don't recall what the fencing or otherwise arrangements were there. The bit that we arrived at first was a compound, and that's, I think, the compound we're talking about, so when you say the fourth side of Trnopolje, that's not actually right. If you say the fourth side of that compound at Trnopolje, then I understand you, and I'm saying that that was a wall.

Q. So we have -- just so I understand, and I'm ¹¹⁴⁸ not very clear on this and it really has been frustrating for me over the last several days to understand it -- we have Trnopolje, right? Okay, right?

A. We have the complex of Trnopolje.

Q. The complex. We'll use your words so I can understand. The complex of Trnopolje. Then within the complex of Trnopolje, we have what you call the compound, quote, unquote; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So within the complex is this compound.

A. That's fair, yes.

Q. Just trying to use your words and understand it. And it is within Trnopolje's complex that there's this barbed wire fence that surrounds a portion of a compound, correct, on three sides?

A. Barbed wire and chain-link wire fence surrounding three sides of a compound in which the prisoners were that we first beheld, that's right.

Q. Do you remember as you sit here where this compound is within the complex?

A. Well, I don't know which is south and which is north, east, or west, if that's what you're asking, but if you're coming from Omarska, as we were, you get to it first and it's on the left, on a corner. ¹¹⁴⁹

Q. How large, if you recall, was the Trnopolje complex?

A. How long large? Pretty large. A school, its premises. As I recall, another building, maybe two, and the field compound or whatever it was in which the prisoners were being held. How large is large? Yes. There was a lot of people there.

Q. No, I understand that and we've covered how many people were there. I don't know what pretty large means to you. Was it a square mile? Was it ten miles, the Trnopolje complex?

A. I don't want to measure it because I don't know, but it was certainly more a square mile than a square -- than ten square miles, yes.

Q. How about the compound? How big was the compound that you're describing where there was the barbed wire fence on one side and chain-link or some type of fence on the other two sides, how big was that area within the complex, just so I can visualise it?

A. I'm really not trying to be difficult.

Q. No, I --

A. I'm trying my best to talk in terms of yards. If I said a medium-sized field, would that be helpful? I don't want to start measuring yards and ¹¹⁵⁰ feet because --

JUDGE MAY: In relation to a football field?

A. Yeah, thank you, Your Honour. Let's say two and a half football fields.

JUDGE MAY: Is that of any assistance to you, Mr. Ostojic?

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Yes. But just so I understand. Is the Trnopolje complex two and a half football fields or is the compound itself within that two and a half football fields?

A. The compound in which the prisoners to whom we first spoke through the barbed wire fence was about, as I recall, and it is a guesstimate, two and a half football fields.

Q. And using that same mode or rationale for measurement, football fields, and I do understand it and I appreciate it, can you tell us how big the complex was, now having told us that the compound was two and a half fields, just so we can have a perspective, if you will?

A. I don't really want to get into this measurement. But lets say --

Q. It doesn't surprise me, sir.

A. Let's say several more football fields. ¹¹⁵¹ Certainly bigger than the compound. I mean, there was more of it without the compound than within the compound.

Q. I figured that much out because of the way you describe the complex and the compound within, but I really need to know, sir, and I apologise for insisting on this question, but we need to know because you placed footage into this case trying to indicate that there was certain factual situations that arose within the Trnopolje compound, I need to know from you, the person who was there, how big that complex was in relation to the compound?

A. Well, I didn't place footage into the case, the Prosecution did.

Q. I stand corrected. I apologise for that.

A. The -- I'm trying to help here. The complex, the Trnopolje camp, was a complex of buildings, as I recall, the principal one of which was a school building. There was another building, if not two more buildings. There was more acreage or square footage beyond the fenced-in compound than there was within the fenced-in compound, that is to say, the fenced-in compound was the first bit that we got to, and behind it or further on into the complex, there was more space, more open ground, and buildings, principally ¹¹⁵² this school building.

JUDGE MAY: I am going to stop this cross-examination now on this particular point. It's been taken as far as it can be. It may be that the Prosecution will be able to assist in due course with further evidence about this -- or the Defence, indeed, with further evidence about the complex. There is an exhibit -- I haven't referred to it -- Exhibit 45, but that shows the village as well as the complex.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: If you would like to move on, Mr. Ostojic?

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

Q. Just to backtrack, one point that I missed regarding the meeting with Dr. Kovacevic on August 5th, 1992, and we hope after a timely break, we'll be given an opportunity to coordinate with the videographers and place a tape on this issue, if the Court permits, and others.

On Exhibit 57, going back to it, and I apologise, you write on page 1 of that three-page exhibit the word T-shirt, and you put it in a square; correct?

A. Sorry, which exhibit is this?

Q. That's your notes, I apologise? ¹¹⁵³

A. Yeah.

Q. From your August 5th, 1992, one and a half hour meeting. You're with me?

A. Yeah. I see it.

Q. Do you see the T-shirt there?

A. I do.

Q. When was that written in?

A. As we sat down, when I was writing down these names.

Q. Whose T-shirt was it? Was it the guy next, the president of the commune, Milomir Stakic that you're referring to?

A. No, it was an aide-memoire so that I wouldn't forget the T-shirt that Dr. Kovacevic was wearing, which was notable for the fact that it had U.S. marines written across it.

Q. And that is why I wanted to actually ask you that, I didn't know if you noted that or not. In the videotape there was a footage, and I think you'll recall it, when the camera zooms into the side of Dr. Kovacevic's arm and zooms into what is a patch, if you will, on that T-shirt; correct?

A. I don't remember that, actually.

Q. We'll share it with you later. But, in fact, the T-shirt that Dr. Kovacevic wore was a United States ¹¹⁵⁴ of America Marine T-shirt; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Your Honour, we would like, if we will, to take perhaps an early break now so that we could coordinate the video footage or if the Court would like, we could do it, but I want to be a little more efficient and try to wrap things up as expeditiously as possible.

JUDGE MAY: What topic would you be going on to apart from the video? What else do you want to cross-examine the witness about?

MR. OSTOJIC: I have to cross-examine the witness in enormous detail, I must add, on his notes of February 1996 and his aide-memoirs, as he calls him, which were written, and the inconsistencies that I believe are exhaustive.

JUDGE MAY: That doesn't matter. So you want to cross-examine about that interview. Apart from the video and the video of the interview, is there anything more you want to ask about the camps. It is simply that it is rather early for us to have our break, and if we can fill in the time usefully, we should.

MR. OSTOJIC: No. No, I'm not going to cover '92 any longer. I think I have covered it adequately, ¹¹⁵⁵ we hope.

JUDGE MAY: So it's only the video.

MR. OSTOJIC: Correct, Your Honour. Right. The video is about 1992, as the Court knows.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The registry has the video. Is there any reason we can't go on to it now?

MR. OSTOJIC: Not at all. I just wanted direction. I didn't want to interrupt the proceeding --

JUDGE MAY: The registrar can ...

MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I have a couple questions that I could fill the time with, if the Court permits, but if the Court feels that I've covered this area more than sufficiently, I can wait.

JUDGE MAY: I think we probably feel that you have.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I understand that we've coordinated it with the videographer, and if we may proceed, Your Honour?

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Play the part that you want to play, Mr. Ostojic.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. Mr. Videographer, would you play the part?

Just if we can pause here, please?

(Videotape played) ¹¹⁵⁶

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, do you recognise this as being a portion of the tape that we saw yesterday? Do you recognise that portion?

A. Not yet, I have to say.

Q. Just do you recognise the house that's on the other side of that street there?

A. I can't --

Q. That building, I should say?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know if it's a house or a building or part of a complex, that big complex you were talking about?

A. At the moment I don't know what it is.

Q. Now, if we could run the tape? Slowly, though.

MR. OSTOJIC: At regular speed. Stop.

Q. Sir, now looking at this guy with the wheelbarrow, do the wheelbarrows, remind you of the wheelbarrows that were in front of the barbed wire within the compound of the complex of Trnopolje?

A. I don't remember any wheelbarrows.

Q. Do you see the wheelbarrow there?

A. I can see a wheelbarrow in the picture.

Q. Do you have any independent recollection as ¹¹⁵⁷ you sit here, whether or not, during your interview with the people in Trnopolje, within that compound where the fence was, whether or not there were wheelbarrows on the side of the fence?

A. There may or may not have been. I wasn't looking for wheelbarrows at that moment.

MR. OSTOJIC: Please continue with the tape.

(Videotape played) Stop.

Q. Sir, do you have any recollection of this being at least within the complex of Trnopolje?

A. I can't really tell from this, but if it is, it is.

MR. OSTOJIC: Proceed, please.

(Videotape played)

Q. See where these people are standing?

A. It's very fuzzy, but I can see people standing there, yeah.

Q. I agree with you that it's somewhat fuzzy. This building behind these people that are standing there, what is that building; do you remember?

A. It's hard to see, but it seems to be part of the Trnopolje complex, yes.

Q. Do you recall within that complex what specifically that building was? ¹¹⁵⁸

A. I can't see from this picture, I'm afraid.

MR. OSTOJIC: Can we maybe continue to play the tape, please?

(Videotape played) Stop. Back up a little bit. May we back up a little? Let's stop. Thank you.

Q. Is the camera trying to span over to the left, I believe, and it covered -- now the building that is seen on the right-hand corner a little more clearly. Can you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I'd like for us just to go backwards a little bit more. Continue: Pause, please. Is there a fence in front of these people here?

A. I can't see on this picture, I'm afraid.

Q. Well, when you were there, do you remember whether or not the fence was this close to that building back there?

A. I don't recall this particular bit -- it's difficult to see from the picture where it is, but I don't recall whether there was a fence or not there, but, I mean, as I recall, the fence went around the compound, yes.

Q. Is this the area of the compound that you ¹¹⁵⁹ were discussing?

A. I think it's a corner of it, yeah.

MR. OSTOJIC: Can we proceed with the tape? The camera is spanning, and show me here during this picture -- pause, please -- our timing is a little off. Back up. And then if we can just slowly proceed forward again.

Q. And Mr. Vulliamy, I'm asking you the question while the tape is running: Where within this picture do you see a fence?

A. I --

Q. Pause. Pardon me.

A. I can't see the picture clear enough to identify a fence. There seems to be a fence running along sort of four-tenths of the way up but it's not very clear, but there seems to be a fence there, yes.

Q. If we can back up so we're clear on this point whether or not there's a fence on this side here. Stop. Pause, I mean.

My apologies. Back on the tape, please.

Now, this building, and if we can span it slowly again, is part of a school; do you recall that?

A. I think the whole complex was a school and its surrounding buildings, yes. ¹¹⁶⁰

Q. And the four-tenths of the way that you described. Sir, wasn't that just a fence that was an area to keep the children from going into different parts of the school complex, if you will? Stop.

A. I don't know. It was a fence within which the prisoners were being held.

Q. Now, sir, was that -- if you look -- continue forward, please? Pause. This purported fence that you see on this tape, that wasn't the barbed wire that you were discussing earlier that's on one side of the compound within the complex?

A. That isn't the barbed wire fence, no, I think it's a chain-link fence, as I recall.

Q. Back on the tape, please. And we can continue to play the tape. Please continue to play it, please.

(Videotape played)

Q. This area is obviously the barbed wire fence that you were talking about, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, while the tape is simply playing, I would just make a point for the record, this is not the tape that was put in through this witness, this is not the ITN footage, this is the Serbian camera crew footage, so the first initial ¹¹⁶¹ question was, is this the film we saw the other day? I presumed that meant through this witness, which is not the case.

MR. OSTOJIC: Pause, if you please. Pardon me Mr. Keegan.

JUDGE MAY: Let's establish what this is.

MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may have asked that question, it certainly wasn't to mislead him. I thought that the registrar was giving us the tape that counsel placed in. This is a footage of a another -- I think of a another cameraman, if I'm not mistaken, which shows a view of Mr. Vulliamy here towards the end of this fence, and I think that that was given to us, though, if I may represent that, by counsel for the Prosecution.

JUDGE MAY: Well, lets put it to the witness, if you wish. It's clearly the same scenes as we saw before.

MR. OSTOJIC: I'll ask him that.

Q. Sir, these are approximately the same scenes that we saw before; correct?

A. Yes, if that's the barbed wire fence, that's the fence through which we were talking to the prisoners.

Q. Can we come back to the tape, please? ¹¹⁶² Now, just let this portion or segment of the tape. Do you see where you are on that tape?

A. I think so, yes. Is that me holding the notebook? It's very fuzzy and the lights are right on my screen.

Q. I think so.

A. But, yeah, that looks like me.

Q. If we can -- if we can back the tape up just a few segments and then just come across it and then pause at this point again?

(Videotape played)

A. Now I can ...

Q. Do you see the post that is here in the left portion of the tape?

A. Yes, I can see a post.

Q. Do you see that post with the top wire up on top there, the first wire?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that wire extend on the left side of the post, if you can tell from this picture?

A. I can't see it extend anywhere. I can see it going to the post.

Q. It goes to the post. That's what I saw. I just don't know if my view of it is any different than yours or anyone else's. ¹¹⁶³ Doesn't it suggest, sir, this segment, that wire, the barbed wire that you were talking about, actually stops at this post, and you're actually talking to individuals at Trnopolje on the other side of the post or on the side of that post; correct?

A. At that point, that's fair. I interviewed several prisoners. The ones I interviewed through the barbed wire I've already told the Court about. Here I am interviewing some other prisoners.

As you can see, to the left and behind Penny and I is open space with no crowd of people and within the fence is a crowd of people.

Q. Now, do you see what's near your feet?

A. Yes, I do. I have to say, I don't remember them, but they are wheelbarrows. I had other things to think about at the time.

Q. And I understand that. That's why I direct your attention to it because you didn't recall it and you shared that with us. And, in fact, you seem to have squeezed in between two wheelbarrows, there seems to have been three or four, I don't know how many the tape reflects, I think actually six, but whatever the number is, and you just kind of scooted right in between those wheelbarrows; correct?

A. I don't remember the wheelbarrows, but that's ¹¹⁶⁴ what seems to be in the picture.

Q. Sir, do you remember that the wheelbarrows were in an area and this particular area where the wheelbarrows and items were kept for storage?

A. I don't remember that, know.

Q. Do you remember that this area where the fence is is an area where that complex was keeping actual materials for use within the complex, such as the wheelbarrows?

A. I've already said: No, I don't remember that. The van pulled up and we saw the extraordinary sight of these men imprisoned behind the barbed wire and I walked towards them. I wasn't looking around me, and I hope the Court will understand that I was not trying to inspect what wasn't or was being kept in terms of wheelbarrows. I don't remember the wheelbarrows. I'm not at all contesting that they're there. They obviously are there. I didn't notice the wheelbarrows. I was looking at the prisoners.

Q. Sir, can you reconcile for this Court and for me how you can, on page 104 of your book, state that the Trnopolje camp was surrounded by barbed wire in light of your testimony and in light of the tape that we've just seen?

JUDGE MAY: I think the witness has dealt ¹¹⁶⁵ with that. Any further questions would be by way of comment. You can comment on it in due course and you can call evidence. But I think as far as this witness is concerned, the matter is exhausted.

MR. OSTOJIC: Very well, Your Honour. May I have one moment?

Your Honour, we do have one next segment on the tape that I need to cover with Mr. Vulliamy, if I may?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. The next tape, I believe, and this, Your Honour, is Defence Exhibit -- the next number, which I believe is 7 or 8, and that is a tape that was given to us by the Office of the Prosecutor which shows a different perspective again of the visit by Mr. Vulliamy at Trnopolje complex.

JUDGE MAY: Well, if this isn't ready, it may be a convenient time --

MR. OSTOJIC: It is, Your Honour. We try to be efficient. Sorry.

This tape right here, if we can stop -- I mean, you have paused. Thank you.

(Videotape played)

Q. Do you see, Mr. Vulliamy, those wheelbarrows again? ¹¹⁶⁶

A. I can see the wheelbarrows, yes.

Q. So we're pretty much in the same area; correct, that we were in the prior tape, right, with the wheelbarrows being there?

A. I imagine so, yes.

Q. Any reason to doubt it?

A. I know it looks like the same crowd of people to me.

Q. Do you see that house in the background?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with that house at all?

A. Not especially from this picture, no.

Q. Do you remember that I showed you a house on the prior tape?

A. Was that the very -- the opening shot?

Q. Yes.

A. I can remember you showing me a picture with a house on it.

Q. I tried to direct your attention to the house. Is that or is that not the house that we saw that was outside the camp or outside the Trnopolje complex that we showed you on the first video?

A. I don't know. I'm afraid I can't remember.

Q. I want you to -- you're an expert witness, I understand the Prosecution is calling you as such. I ¹¹⁶⁷ want to presume this --

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I'm going to object to that. At no time was this witness represented as an expert witness.

JUDGE MAY: . The witness in this case, whatever may have been said in other cases, he is clearly a witness as to fact. You mean, I imagine, that since he was there, you want to ask him about the layout.

MR. OSTOJIC: I do --

JUDGE MAY: He's said that he can't recognise the house.

MR. OSTOJIC: And I have just a follow-up question on that. But I must reply. If counsel is designating Mr. Vulliamy as a fact witness, I have to move, and I'm not sure if this is appropriate but I'm doing it to preserve the record, to strike the opinion testimony which Mr. Keegan elicited which at the commencement of proceedings this morning I specifically pointed out that Mr. Keegan's questions started with the fact, sir, do you have an opinion, and he gave an opinion on certain items of that. I will take his representation that this witness is not an expert witness, and I agree most definitely with Mr. Keegan that he is not an expert witness to show any type of ¹¹⁶⁸ pattern or any other issues relating to that. With that in mind, if I may proceed?

JUDGE MAY: Except for this, that although you're right that, of course, normally witnesses can't give their opinion if they're not experts, nonetheless, a witness is entitled to give his impression of events, and it's probably in that light that the questions were asked and should be understood.

What weight we give to those impressions, of course, will be for us to determine, because essentially we've got to decide the case.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Now, if we can please go back to the tape and the footage we were discussing. Sir, these houses that we see in the background, are those houses that are within the complex of Trnopolje?

A. I don't know, actually. I would imagine they're across the road, but from this picture, I'm afraid I can't tell.

Q. Is it fair to say, sir, that the houses -- strike that. Is it fair to say that there were houses outside of the Trnopolje complex?

A. Yes, there were houses around, yes. Some houses.

Q. Can you talk a little bit about the houses. ¹¹⁶⁹ And, sir, if this is a house that is outside the Trnopolje complex -- are you following me? You know where I'm going almost. If this house is on the outside of the Trnopolje complex, shouldn't the real video footage be reversed and that these people should be looking at the house if they're in the camp looking at the houses as opposed to with their backs to the houses?

JUDGE MAY: Well, I suspect that's a matter of comment, and I don't know -- I shall ask the witness -- if he can answer it if he understood it?

A. I didn't actually understand the question.

JUDGE MAY: I think this is by way of comment really.

MR. OSTOJIC: Fine. If we may just go back to this footage?

(Videotape played)

MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed two more minutes on this issue? I apologise, Your Honour, and to the Prosecutor and Mr. Vulliamy.

Q. Sir, on -- we're on that video footage. Thank you.

If we look at this post here, sir, and there seems to be wires going to the right of the post, do you see that? ¹¹⁷⁰

A. Yes, I can see -- the post about a third of the way across from the left, do you mean?

Q. Right.

A. Would it trouble the Court if I would ask the lights be dimmed a little? It makes the picture so much clearer. I'm sorry.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

A. Sorry to trouble you. Thank you. Yes. I can see a wire extending in both directions from the post, new wire and old wire.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Now, do you see the gentleman to the left of the post, sir, with the blue pants or shorts without a shirt?

A. Yes.

Q. Are his hands up onto a wire, or what are they up -- do you see them?

A. I can't quite see, but he seems to be holding onto a bit of the fence, yes.

Q. Well, do you know if he's holding that portion of the fence that's barbed wire with both hands clutched up against that fence?

A. The barbed wire seems to be going underneath the bit of wire that he's holding onto.

Q. You can tell that from -- where underneath, ¹¹⁷¹ if we use his body or torso as a point of reference?

A. Sorry? Where's the barbed wire going?

Q. Yeah. You said it was below him?

A. It's going, it sort of enters the frame of his torso around his shoulder and seems to lower a little and then exit at the other shoulder.

Q. And is that you that we can barely see on the left-hand side of there, the blue shirt and the --

A. Yeah, that looks like me. That is me.

Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Videographer?

JUDGE MAY: Is that a convenient moment?

MR. OSTOJIC: It is, Your Honour. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Twenty minutes, please.

--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. We are nearing an end, Your Honour, so I think we're excited, and I appreciate the Court's patience with us and the tapes that were presented and the patience of the Office of the Prosecutor as well as Mr. Vulliamy on that issue.

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, in 1996, we covered briefly, and I think generally areas, and how it was part personal, part professional, that you came to see Dr. Kovacevic four years after the 1992, August 5th, 1992 meeting, and you came there, but I think you told ¹¹⁷² us that you didn't have a cameraman with you and you didn't have any sort of tape recorder. Do you remember that testimony?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, this meeting that you were going to have with Dr. Kovacevic, was it for another book that you were writing?

A. No. It was as part of a series of articles which had been commissioned by my foreign editor at The Guardian just before Christmas the previous year, 1995, and the idea was to write a series of articles in which we would revisit people and themes important during the war. Military people, diplomatic people, and, among the people we thought it would be interesting to talk to, were those on whose authority we had gone to the camps in 1992.

Q. And we covered authority, if you recall, a little bit yesterday when I pointed out to you, with respect to Exhibits number 55 and 56, those were your aide-memoires, as you call them, that you wrote relating to Dr. Kovacevic and Dr. Stakic and how you used the word chairman for Dr. Stakic. Do you remember that discussion?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Sir, is it fair to state that in light -- ¹¹⁷³ despite your testimony, and I say this most respectfully, despite your testimony during direct examination by the Office of the Prosecutor, when he was asking you questions about the meetings and conversations you had with Dr. Kovacevic, you didn't have your notebook with you; correct?

A. I don't actually recall. To the best of my recollection, we got the notebooks out when the Court asked me to read them to you, but I don't think I had them or anything when we were talking about the testimony. I was working from memory at that point.

Q. I agree. And it has been a long week and it's been a couple days ago, it's hard to remember a couple days, much less four years later; wouldn't you agree with me on that?

A. It depends on what you're remembering. No, I don't agree with you.

Q. Now, with respect to the notes, just -- let's assume for the moment that the notes that you have before you now, those two books that you kept and the one containing Dr. Kovacevic's interview that you had in 1996, that actually you didn't have them during your direct examination that Mr. Keegan elicited from you. Is it fair to say that the testimony there is more reliable than your notes or less reliable than your ¹¹⁷⁴ notes?

A. I would say the notes were more reliable and the aide-memoire which incorporates the questions and organises the notes. The testimony was given on memory of papers I hadn't seen for a while.

Q. So I'm asking you, prior to the testimony that Mr. Keegan elicited from you, were you given an opportunity to review those notes?

A. Yes, but I didn't go over them in great detail.

Q. Now, the third part of this is actually your aide-memoires, and I'll try to go slow so we can follow it because there are a couple of different concepts. We have your hand-written notes that you testified were taken contemporaneous during your meeting with Dr. Kovacevic, then we have your testimony elicited through Mr. Keegan, and then we have this third document, if you will -- can I call it that? -- which were your aide-memoires; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with respect to the aide-memoires and your hand-written contemporaneous notes taken during your conversation with Dr. Kovacevic, which would you say were more reliable?

A. I'd say that the notes were taken from the ¹¹⁷⁵ conversation, they are not the entire conversation, and what we're calling the aide-memoire is, if you like, the following night on a friend's computer in Zagreb, I'm trying to organise the conversation with a view to writing an article.

JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt to see if I understand this. Were the notes taken actually during the meeting as you were sitting there?

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: That was in February?

A. February '96, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Do we actually have a date for it?

A. I'm afraid I don't have an exact date but I can easily get it for you.

JUDGE MAY: No, it's of no significance. Just help us with the time. What sort of time of day was it?

A. In the morning, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: And then the aide-memoire, which is Exhibit 55, was made the next day, so --

A. The following evening.

JUDGE MAY: The following evening. And I think you said, correct me if I'm wrong, that it was for the purpose of an article? ¹¹⁷⁶

A. Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Just to follow up on the Court's question. Do you have that article that was published after this meeting with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. I don't, I'm afraid.

Q. When was the article published, if at all?

A. It would have been shortly after the interview.

Q. Now, going back to these three documents, your testimony, the aide-memoires, and your hand-written contemporaneous notes. Sir, which would be most reliable of the three?

A. The contemporaneous notes, obviously, but they do not contain the questions that would explain what it is Dr. Kovacevic was answering in the notes.

Q. Now, if you recall your testimony through Mr. Keegan during his questioning, at 16.07.23, you stated that you said -- and you're discussing this area and I'm going to the centre of it, that's why I give you the specific second portion, and you're talking to us, as you have during the last couple of days, you say: "Doctor, were you part of it." And then you said he said -- you're referring to Dr. Kovacevic; right? ¹¹⁷⁷

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. And then you say, quote: "If I was to be acquitted of being a part of this collective madness, that would not be right, but I would want to ask myself what my part in it was." And then you say "end quote." Do you remember giving that testimony?

A. Yes, I do. It's to the best of my recollection what I had written in the notes.

Q. The word "collective madness," sir, does it or does it not appear in your book that was published in late 1993, 1994?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Sir, let me ask you this: If you look at your aide-memoires on that particular section, Exhibit 55, page 3, and I'm not sure that they're numbered, but it should be the third page of Exhibit 53 (sic), the first question that's asked: "Were you part of this collective madness or outside it?" And then there's the text that appears there -- you don't have that text. If I could have someone tender Exhibit 55 or the registrar tender Exhibit 55 to the witness. And while we're doing that, Your Honour, I'd like to ask leave that the closed session evidence and testimony that was presented in reading, and I believe he read it and we're verifying that, where he read his ¹¹⁷⁸ notes on this '96 meeting, be introduced and incorporated as part within this portion so the Court can review it at their leisure.

JUDGE MAY: It is part of the record, all that interview, and, in fact, all that evidence.

MR. OSTOJIC: And if I may just inquire of the Court. Would it be fair to say that you need not my assistance to go through each and every inconsistency, if you will, or expansion or, we've called it distortion, and I recognise the word is strong, of the comparison between his notes and the aide-memoire and his testimony, or would the Court --

JUDGE MAY: You may take that point, and if you wish to deal with the witness by putting the matter generally, putting some particular points, you won't be subject to any criticism, and you can then take us through what you say are any inconsistencies in due course.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Clearly -- I'm sorry. Clearly any major inconsistencies you should point out so the witness has a chance of dealing with them.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, we're now in the section -- in your notes and in your testimony -- strike that. In ¹¹⁷⁹ your testimony, I noted significantly that when Mr. Keegan asked you questions, he didn't put the question to you: "Mr. Vulliamy, did you ask Dr. Kovacevic, were you part of the collective madness or were you outside it?" Right?

A. I don't remember.

Q. I know it's been a long week. In fact, you had asked Dr. Kovacevic the question, and it was you, sir, who inserted the words "collective madness," did you not?

A. In the testimony or in the interview?

Q. In the interview, sir.

A. In the interview, yes, I remember -- I think it was my colleague actually said -- we were talking about the fight that the Serbs in the area had been engaged in, and, yes, my colleague asked him, "Was it a necessary fight or was it madness, a moment of madness?" I don't remember "collective madness," but I remember the term coming up in the conversation, I remember Dr. Kovacevic using it, and I remember us using it, to the best of my recollection and looking at this now, yes. I'm not trying to say that the word madness wasn't first used by us and not him.

Q. That's fair. And not only was the word "madness" used but "collective madness", do you see ¹¹⁸⁰ that appearing on the question itself where you state on page 3 of Exhibit 55, quote: "Were you part of this, under scored, collective madness, et cetera?"

A. Yes, I'm sure one of us asked that question.

Q. Can we tell by looking at Exhibit 55 whether these were your questions or your colleague's questions?

A. No, I'm afraid not. By and large, the first part of the conversation would have been mostly my colleague's, and the latter part mostly mine. But I'm not going to say whose is whose question because I can't now remember.

Q. During the conversation that you had with Dr. Kovacevic on February of 1996, did you have any drinks with him?

A. Yes.

Q. And what type of drinks were they, if you could share it with the Court?

A. Plum brandy.

Q. Did you yourself, sir, have a plum brandy with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. I had a glass of plum brandy, yes.

Q. Did your colleague have a glass of plum brandy with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. Yes, he did. ¹¹⁸¹

Q. How many did he have?

A. Quite a few.

Q. Your colleague?

A. My colleague had a glass. I can't speak for him, actually, but not much.

Q. Well, you were there. I'm asking you just about your colleague at the moment. We know what you've written and we'll get to that in a second. Your colleague, I'm interested to know how many glasses of brandy did your colleague have?

A. I don't know. I mean enough to be able to drive competently afterwards.

Q. So he was the one who was driving you or not?

A. We both drove.

Q. I just want to know either way. Just help me out here.

A. At some point in the journey that followed the interview we both drove.

Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you had one glass of brandy at the outset of the meeting?

A. One glass of brandy and there was a refill about two-thirds of the way through of about a third of the glass.

Q. Can you show us where it states in your hand-written notes that were taken contemporaneous with ¹¹⁸² that that, in fact, you also engaged with having a drink with Dr. Kovacevic? Can you point that out to the Court?

A. I don't know if there is a reference. There's a reference to grapes and brandy, and there's a reference to him having some drinks, but, sorry, I don't remember. I don't think there is a reference of me having one.

Q. I'm familiar with the references that you made about Dr. Kovacevic, and him having drinks. Having the inability of deciphering your T-line, I just don't know if there is any reference there with respect to you having drinks?

A. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't. And it wasn't drinks, I had a drink, and a small bit of a glass later on.

Q. I stand corrected. A drink and then a refill of whatever two-thirds you said, or whatever?

A. About a third, I think.

Q. Can you show the Court where on Exhibit 55, when you were doing the aide-memoires, where it indicates that you also engaged in a drink with Dr. Kovacevic during this interview?

A. Sorry? On the aide-memoire where does it say that I was having a drink? ¹¹⁸³

Q. I know you mention about Dr. Kovacevic. I just want to know how thorough and complete this is and how thorough and complete your notes are, and I just couldn't find it so if you could help us out?

A. Oh, the consumption of drinks is from my memory.

Q. So is it fair to say that it doesn't appear on your hand-written contemporaneous notes on February 1996 and it doesn't appear anywhere on Exhibit 55 which is your aide-memoires; correct?

A. No, I can remember when -- I can remember -- I can remember the bottle emptying.

Q. Now, you do state, however, interestingly enough, and Exhibit 55 I think was attached to the indictment, if I think the Prosecutor has indicated that to us, it does reflect that Dr. Kovacevic had some drinks; correct?

A. Indeed. He had a few drinks.

Q. Now, before we get into how many and all that, was this interview with Dr. Kovacevic an important interview for you?

A. It was reasonably important, yes. I would say it was.

Q. In fact, sir, isn't it true that it was critical, for purposes of your professional duties, in ¹¹⁸⁴ terms of writing the article?

A. It was one of four or five interviews I was anxious to do with a view to fulfilling the assignment. That one part of the twelve articles, yes.

Q. Those four or five interviews then, and we'll expand it, those four or five interviews that you had in February of 1996, were they of critical importance to you?

A. They were important to me. Critical is your word, not mine.

Q. Nonetheless important, and that's fair.

A. All interviews are important.

Q. Of course. But you didn't have a cameraman with you and you didn't have a video cassette player with you; correct?

A. I never use a cameraman or a video cassette. I'm a newspaper reporter, not a television reporter.

Q. I understand that. I just want to know how important it was. Was it not, sir, in your opinion, important enough, this meeting with these four or five individuals, to come and meet with them, and we covered the time frame when you met with the Prosecutor but I'm asking you in this context as well: Wasn't it, sir, important enough for you for this critical interview, when you did your aide-memoires to at least have with ¹¹⁸⁵ you and consult after having a brandy and a third to be able to recollect and have that tape recorder play so we could determine what it is exactly that Dr. Kovacevic said to you and what it is you said to Dr. Kovacevic?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic, this is all by way of comment. The witness has dealt with that matter. He said that he didn't have any of this and he's giving his evidence from the notes which he made and the aide-memoire.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Going back and I want to direct your attention again to page 3 of Exhibit 55 where we were talking about this collective madness. Sir, you mentioned Gutman (sic) a little bit about his Marxist principles and the Court inquired a little bit, and are you familiar at all with the Communist teachings at all about collective responsibility?

A. Could I just perhaps say that I think you don't mean Gutman, who is a colleague of mine who works for the News Day newspaper of New York and Mr. Deichmann who is the man that thinks that we fabricated the camps.

Q. Thank you. I stand corrected. With respect to Mr. Deichmann, there was a discussion about, and you ¹¹⁸⁶ were going to elicit Marxism, or whatever was in your answer will stand on the record. When we talk about collective madness here, and I think it's a relevant point, are you familiar with what collective responsibility is within the Communist principles at all?

A. I'm familiar with the term as used in Communist and other societies, including Western countries.

Q. Share with us that which you know about that.

A. Collective responsibility, as I understand it, means, for instance, that in the Cabinet of my country, a Minister has -- is collectively responsible for the activities of the Cabinet. In the Communist system, as I understand it, it's a long time since I was a student, but as I understand it, in the Communist system, that idea of collective responsibility is more entrenched, the collectivity closer-bonded than in a Western political system.

Q. Now, directing your attention again to 16.07.23, when you said Dr. Kovacevic stated, quote. And you're at this time as a point of reference quoting Dr. Kovacevic and stating that he purportedly said: "If I was to be acquitted of being part of this collective madness, that would not be right, but I ¹¹⁸⁷ would want to ask myself what my part in it was." And then I'd like for you to compare it to the page 3 of Exhibit 55 where he discusses with the word "if someone acquitted me." Can you read that, keeping in mind that we're looking at the screen as to what he said?

A. Yes. My testimony from the other day is, as I recalled it, from memory, reading from this paper in front of me, which I do recognise, it says: "If someone acquitted me, saying that I was not a member of that collective madness, then I would have to admit that this was not true." And then he continues: "But I would want to think about how much I was part of it." And the rest you can read.

Q. Now, if you could go to your contemporaneous notes taken of the February -- of the February '96 meeting with Dr. Kovacevic? Can you just let me know when you get to the point that we're discussing here?

A. It will take some -- if the Court could give me leave just to find it in the notes?

Yes, I've found it.

Q. And just for the record, if you could read for us the portion immediately preceding that just so we make sure we're at the right page?

JUDGE MAY: Which page are we on, for a ¹¹⁸⁸ start? Which page of the interview?

MR. OSTOJIC: I don't know from his notes which page it is.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vulliamy, could you help us which page that is?

A. Yes, indeed. One, two, it's the fourth page at the top of which is the T-line word "Perhaps" which is a vertical, a diagonal, another vertical, and a little circle.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Now, where does it appear that we start to discuss --

A. It's the -- well, in fact, the word is, it's about two-thirds of the way down, and it's a long hand word "If."

Q. Can you read that into the record for us again, please?

A. Yes. "If someone said I was not a member of the collective madness, I would say that is not true, but then I would like to think about how much. It's a fact. I was a member of the municipal government," and so on.

Q. So this "if" starts by saying, "If someone said I was not a member of the collective madness," right? ¹¹⁸⁹

A. Yes.

Q. Now, look at your aide-memoires. How did you start it there?

A. "If someone acquitted me ...."

Q. You put "If someone acquitted me" on the document that was attached to the indictment, but it's not in this specific section that parallels your contemporaneous notes; correct?

A. I didn't attach this to any indictment.

Q. I know you may think you didn't --

MR. KEEGAN: I'm going to object, Your Honour. That is extremely argumentative.

JUDGE MAY: I agree.

MR. OSTOJIC: I withdraw the comment, Your Honour.

Q. Looking at your aide-memoires, sir, and specifically in this sentence here: "If someone said," and then if you compare the original contemporaneous notes and those that were supplied to us as Exhibit 55 by the office of the Prosecution, sir, it says, and you added -- I think you added because I think -- Exhibit 55 is your document; right?

A. It is, yes.

Q. Okay. So you added the words "acquitted me"; correct? ¹¹⁹⁰

A. Yes. I think given the nature of the question, that's the sense of what he was trying to say.

Q. And that's your interpretation; correct?

A. That's my impression, yes.

Q. Well, I want you to tell the Tribunal if you could point out for us where else did you place on Exhibit 55 your own interpretations, as you call them, of the conversation that you had with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. Sorry? Where did I put my interpretations?

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I'm going to object.

JUDGE MAY: There's no need to object. He can't deal with that. If there is a particular point you want to put to the witness, do, but it's far too wide a question.

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

Q. If you continue on, sir, on this section, can you point for the Court, point out to the Court, where you talk about this Communist mistake?

A. Yes. Which document do you want me to read from?

Q. I'd like you to read the contemporaneous notes or as we've identified them as the contemporaneous notes? ¹¹⁹¹

A. The bit about Tadic -- "We lived in 50 years of collective responsibility. That was the Communist mistake. If everything is okay in this hospital, then clearly I am responsible. If things do not -- if things are not good in this hospital, then I am guilty."

Q. Continue to read that portion, if you don't mind?

A. "I learned that all Germans are killers. Then I went to Germany and found it was not true. Every man has his good side and its bad side. Where he is is the important thing."

Q. Now, I'd like for you, sir, to flip to the next page of your contemporaneous notes. Excuse me. If we may have just one moment? A point came up for clarification.

If I may? Just direct Mr. Vulliamy -- and I apologise for this -- to go back one page because I want to cover this area with respect to this collective madness that we were just talking about where the acquittal issue came up?

A. Certainly.

Q. So we're going back to page 3 now, just trying to help everyone along, due to my error. Now, if you recall your testimony with ¹¹⁹² Mr. Keegan, nowhere in your testimony specifically the hour 16.07.28 through 16.08.38 do you discuss, when you're talking about this issue, that particular phrase, "We lived for 50 years in a society of collective responsibility, and that was the Communist mistake." It's not mentioned during your testimony. Is it, sir, because you just didn't recall it; would that be fair?

A. I didn't, no.

Q. Now, if we can skip to page 4? If you could skip to midway portion of page 4. Do you see it with the little -- it says "I think you earlier testified ash something his sweater"?

JUDGE MAY: It's page 5, in fact?

A. I think I've got different pages than you, sir.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

Q. It's the fifth page.

A. This is a bit -- sorry, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: It's the notes.

A. It's the notes, sorry. Yes.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Now, are you there where we talk about the ash fell his sweater?

A. Yes. ¹¹⁹³

Q. I just want to try to find it on the aide-memoires where they are in this section. It says Bosnia something something. Can you read that into the record?

A. Bosnia was not a State.

Q. Now, where is that in relation to Exhibit 55?

A. The cigarette ash is mentioned on page 3 when he's talking about The Hague. That's just at the top of -- yes, the reference in the typewritten document is just -- well, is actually just a paragraph above where it appears in the notes. You can see the top of that page starts "This institution at the H," which is The Hague.

Q. Why don't we read that section, if you don't -- sorry.

A. That's where this -- to answer your question, that's where the cigarette ash reference comes in the aide-memoire.

Q. I see it and we'll get to that. Why don't we read that section and from your contemporaneous notes, if you don't mind?

A. "This institution at the H is a new institution. They have to show if they are serious. I think it's more of a political game than anything else. It's more a game than a serious (something). He ¹¹⁹⁴ is (something) man, Clinton and Milosevic."

Q. Let me stop you there. If you look at your aide-memoires, when you say he is an old man, who is he referring to? Himself? That Kovacevic is an old man?

A. No. Well, I've read the shorthand note and the aide-memoire, as I've said, was compiled after a conversation with my colleague, and I'm -- it would be cheating because I can see from here that he's talking about Richard Goldstone who was then the Prosecutor. There's presumably a question in there or he mentions Goldstone or Roger mentions Goldstone and I don't have it in the shorthand note.

Q. That was my question. It's not anywhere in the shorthand note; correct?

A. No.

Q. Now, what does it say immediately after that, after Milosevic is cited and Clinton.

A. In which document?

Q. On your contemporaneous notes.

A. Tito was a ruler, and it continues on. Then it says --

Q. Let me just stop you, if I may? I don't see that contemporaneous with your note there, the aide-memoires. Do you see it coming right after Clinton and Milosevic? ¹¹⁹⁵

A. No, I don't. This isn't meant to be a transcript. If it's been described as one by somebody else other than me, that is incorrect. This is an organisation of the material. Here he goes, he's talking about Tito, I stop writing down what he's saying. These notes are not a transcript of the conversation, of every word that is said, and this is not an exact transcript. The notes resume at the following line, "But the establishment of Bosnia. Bosnia was established," da na na.

Q. Continue to read that for us, please?

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt on a point. An aide-memoire is a lawyer's term and I think described first of all by Mr. Ostojic in that way. It's the way that lawyers would look at it. How would you describe, Mr. Vulliamy, this document?

A. This document?

JUDGE MAY: The typewritten one which we've called an aide-memoire. How would you describe it?

A. I'd describe it as notes that I make that organise the rather haphazard -- I mean, the conversation, like any conversation, goes round and round, the themes come and go, they appear and reappear. There is discussion, there are questions that illuminate what is in the notes. Otherwise, you ¹¹⁹⁶ can have a paragraph that starts "It" something. It doesn't make any sense on its own. As soon as I could get to a computer, what I did was typed up what I thought were the pertinent sections of the conversation and tried to organise them thematically in such a way that I could use to write with.

Aide-memoire, it was -- I didn't realise that it was a legal term. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a reporter. It's an attempt to organise, for my benefit, the material in a way that contains what are -- seem to be the important passages, organised thematically so I could write an article based on the conversation. If that's helpful, Your Honour.

MR. OSTOJIC: May I address the Court for a moment? Your Honour, I believe that the aide-memoire's comment was attributed to me in my inquiry. I believe the Office of the Prosecutor may stipulate to this. It is not my word and it was not used by me. Mr. Vulliamy, I think the record will definitively show that he described the document initially as being an aide-memoire, and I'm merely using his words and I'm stumbling through using them because I'm not familiar necessarily with that word, and respectfully, I know it's been a long week, I just wanted to point that out.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic, I did not intend any ¹¹⁹⁷ criticism, I merely wanted to try and get perhaps a more accurate description. We are calling it an aide-memoire. It is a simple way to describe it. It describes it partly but not wholly. An aide-memoire is something which is written particularly for the purpose of recollecting a conversation. This also had another purpose, it appears, which was to organise the material. It's so that we could better follow the cross-examination. But no criticism of you at all.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

Q. Now, I just want to point this out, sir, that where you talk about the cigarette on the sweater, it's the sweater of Dr. Kovacevic you're talking about there; right?

A. Yes.

Q. It might be a minor point, but I'd like to address it. Did you, in fact, add this section where you talk about the ash on the sweater, and I think you have three brandy. Did you add that after you left Dr. Kovacevic?

A. No. That would be contemporaneous. It's a way of working, you put anything that isn't in quotations, observations, descriptions, and so on, in a margin.

Q. Now, when you were doing the, if I may be ¹¹⁹⁸ permitted to use the word aide-memoires, the next day in the evening, did you, as you were doing the aide-memoires, did you consult with and utilise your contemporaneous notes of the meeting?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when you were doing your aide-memoires, sir, how is it that the aide-memoire says "Fourth slivovic, cigar ash all over sweater and doesn't have a time but the contemporaneous notes has something different and does have a time. I'm perplexed by it. It's not a major point. And I apologise for inquiring on it?

A. No, I agree with you it's not a major point.

Q. How is it, though? Can you reconcile it for me?

A. Maybe there was one slivovic at the beginning that isn't counted here. I'm afraid I can't answer that.

Q. What I'm curious to know is if you had this document with you and you were typing up or putting in these aide-memoires, as we've called them, in here, how could it be that you've made that mistake?

A. Well, I don't think it's a mistake. He's had three before 10.30, there's a fourth here, I don't know how many he'd had at any point on this page, and, ¹¹⁹⁹ actually, I don't know at what point while writing that page I'd have written that note in the margin. I've put it at the top of what is that page of shorthand note having come to it first turning the page. But three or four during that page and maybe the one opposite, I don't know.

Q. And you don't have the time there either as a point of reference to note on your aide-memoires whether it was in the morning, late morning, afternoon, evening, do you?

A. Well, no. It was all in the morning.

Q. But I note that in your contemporaneous notes on the side added from the text placed there -- I don't mean to give too much significance to the word "added" at this time -- but placed on the side there you have the time; correct?

A. Placed on the side it says three brandies before 10.30. That is to say I don't know at which point during that page, those notes, I would have put that observation in the margin.

Q. Now, sir, can you flip to page 8 of your contemporaneous notes. Last page for the record. And if you could flip to the fifth page of the aide-memoires? Now, the last page of the aide-memoires that you're looking at which is page 6, so the entirety ¹²⁰⁰ of page 6 and the bottom portion of page 5 of the aide-memoires, Exhibit 55, on this page 8, on the bottom portion, where does that section begin, if you could point that out on your contemporaneous notes?

A. Sorry. Where does the ...

Q. Where does the bottom portion of page 6 -- strike that. Where does the bottom portion of page 5 of the aide-memoires and the entirety of page 6 on the aide-memoires, where does it appear since apparently it's on the last page of the aide-memoires, I'm assuming it's on the last page here, where on the last page do you see that near the bottom? Point it out.

A. It doesn't appear in the notes. This was a conversation between my colleague and Dr. Kovacevic as we prepared to leave.

Q. So is it fair to state that that entire section on the bottom portion of page 5 and the entire portion of page 6 doesn't appear anywhere on those reliable notes that you took that were contemporaneous with the conversation that you had with Dr. Kovacevic in February of 1996?

A. That is correct. That section from "Do you know the prisoners -- did you know the prisoners in Omarska" is from memory the day after and in consultation with my colleague. ¹²⁰¹

Q. Knowing that, what else can you share with us with respect to the aide-memoires that were in consultation with your colleague as you sit here? Any other glaring sections, sir? And take a moment, if you will, just to peruse the document?

A. Well, I'd need some time to look through it all.

Q. If I may make that suggestion?

A. Yeah, I mean, there's one certainly, which is the bit about, at the beginning, Roger is doing most of the talking, and he's talking about why the Serbs were fighting, what they were scared of, being afraid of the Muslims, Dr. Kovacevic is talking about the Muslims who have left the municipality, where they are, why he's afraid of them, and he comes up with this, I think rather astute remark about snakes and lizards. That is in Roger's -- during a conversation at the beginning that he was having with the doctor and which I then place in the aide-memoire during the conversation that I was having with him about Jasenovac. That's one that comes to mind but that's just me looking at the top. As I say, this -- I'm calling it the

aide-memoire -- these typewritten notes are a composite. That's one. And there may be others.

Q. There may be other what? Other notes? ¹²⁰²

A. No, no. Other occasions on which, in consultation with my colleague, I was able to type a document that made more sense thematically than the notes which were obviously taken in the order that the conversation was had.

Q. If we just could note for the record, although it might be somewhat obvious, none of the questions that appear or none of the questions that you asked Dr. Kovacevic, they do not appear on your contemporaneous notes; right?

A. No, they don't.

Q. And the introductory passages that we read yesterday from Exhibits 55 and 56, they likewise don't appear on the contemporaneous notes, do they?

A. Sorry, the ...

Q. Introductory language that you have on Exhibit 55.

A. Forgive me, Your Honour. Which is Exhibit 55?

Q. It's to your right, if I may direct the witness.

A. Oh, this?

Q. Yes.

A. The ...

Q. Introductory paragraphs. ¹²⁰³

A. No, this is a recollection and this is setting it in context.

Q. You testified and we were unclear when I reviewed the transcript from yesterday, and forgive me for going back to this issue, the disk that you had, that you used to type up what was ultimately provided to the office of the Prosecution, and then you used the word in that discussion, the original. Were you talking about the original or original summary of your conversation with Dr. Kovacevic that would have been on that disk?

A. Original summary? I'm talking about --

Q. Original aide-memoire, sorry.

A. I'm talking about this document, yes.

Q. Is this the only -- is this the document -- if I were to one day obtain that disk, and I know you promised -- or you mentioned that you are going to endeavour to find it for us, if you find that disk, is it your testimony that that disk will be exactly like this document appears?

A. When the disk left me, it would have had this and the conversation with Dr. Stakic and two other conversations on it.

Q. And the two other conversations were with Major Milutinovic; correct? ¹²⁰⁴

A. Correct.

Q. And the fourth one was with whom?

A. Nikola Koljevic.

Q. And you had those two conversations with those two individuals before you actually met with Dr. Kovacevic; correct?

A. No. As I recall, that with Major Milutinovic was the day before, and that with Professor Koljevic was the morning after -- sorry that with Professor Koljevic was two days after on a different visit to Banja Luka.

Q. Two days after your conversation with Dr. Kovacevic; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you look through your contemporaneous notes for me, the couple of pages before Dr. Kovacevic's contemporaneous notes?

A. Two pages before Dr. Kovacevic's --

Q. A couple.

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, we're now going into material that is beyond the scope of direct, and this is of course was material that was -- issues that were raised in closed. I'm just concerned where we're going here with this.

MR. OSTOJIC: As a point of reference, I want ¹²⁰⁵ to verify, Your Honour, exactly whether or not there were notes taken -- and I'm tipping my hand, which is fair, and that's fine -- with respect to Professor Koljevic's meeting, whether he has notes of that meeting before the notes that he took now of Dr. Kovacevic or after or the notes of -- because we had seen one thing at a private session that we had with the office, so that's why I'm inquiring.

JUDGE MAY: You can ask if the notes were taken.

A. Yes, and I'm happy to answer. The two pages before the interview with Dr. Kovacevic are headed "Milutinovic," and they're with Major Milutinovic. The pages that follow Dr. Kovacevic are the interview with Mr. Stakic, then again -- oh, then early next morning, there's an interview with another gentleman, and then sometime later, Professor Nikola Koljevic.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. If I may direct the witness to go to the materials immediately prior to where he mentioned the two pages of his conversation with Major Milutinovic, and if he could identify -- and I ask him to keep in mind the Court's ruling on the limitations of this, so I don't want him to blurt anything out that's inappropriate or something, but I want to know if ¹²⁰⁶ there's any mention, prior to Major Milutinovic, of Professor Koljevic's.

A. Any mention of Mr. -- let me --

JUDGE MAY: What is it that you want so we can follow?

MR. OSTOJIC: Any summary of notes relating to Dr. Koljevic that may appear prior to Major Milutinovic's meeting. Thank you.

A. If it helps the Court, what I could do is work backwards from the beginning of the Kovacevic interview, and using my discretion, tell you what's on which page.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could help me. What's the point of all this?

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I think it really, to be honest -- to be candid with the Court, as I think we all have been here, when we were at the conference, we believe several of those pages were noted. His testimony now, in our opinion, Your Honour, was somewhat inconsistent. I could move along if the Court wishes me to move along --

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we are going to be helped by this.

MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour.

Q. Sir, if I were to tell you that we attempted ¹²⁰⁷ to examine your specific contemporaneous notes with your aide-memoires, which is Exhibit 55, and if I tell you that we found approximately -- or, actually, over 50 inconsistencies, some minor -- and we noted the very big paragraph and we noted the word "acquittal," would you find that to be surprising?

A. No, I wouldn't. There are a number of considerations. One is the need to organise things thematically. The other consideration is this, that Dr. Kovacevic is an articulate man, and quotations of articulate people should not always be left with the grammar of the translator, so that if -- you know, if the translator says, as it does in the shorthand notes, "Every man has its good side and its bad side," you turn that into "his good side and his bad side." So this is not intended to be an exact transcript of the shorthand.

Q. A couple more questions, if I may? You discussed a little bit with Mr. Keegan this snake-lizard analogy, if you will; do you recall that?

A. Yes, I thought it was astute --

Q. If I could introduce for just one moment, and if you could find it for us in your contemporaneous notes, and I'll direct the Court and your attention that that section seems to appear on page 3, bottom ¹²⁰⁸ portion. Can you tell us, Mr. Vulliamy, where the lizard-snake discussion appears on the contemporaneous notes?

A. Yes. I think I already have, actually. It's in the first bit of the conversation which is mostly between my colleague and Dr. Kovacevic, of which I took some notes but by no means complete, and they're talking about the -- why the Serbs went to war, they are talking about the Serbian fear, the Second World War, and Mr. Kovacevic's own background, and I thought the point he made about snakes and lizards was particularly astute. The conversation that I am having with him later on about his background comes in later, as you can see, and I put it down there in my reorganisation of the material because I didn't want to lose it. I thought it was a rather astute point.

Q. And, sir, I just wanted an answer to my question. I'll try to rephrase it a little better. On page 3 of Exhibit 55, this issue with the cigarette ash over the sweater, we know that that appears on page 5 of your contemporaneous notes, right? "Cigarette ash on sweater"?

A. Yes.

Q. "Three brandies," you note the time, and then here you have four Slivovic; do you see that? ¹²⁰⁹

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the three of your were -- you, your colleague, and Dr. Kovacevic -- were there; correct?

A. And the translator.

Q. Who is that translator?

A. It's a man called -- actually, I'd rather not use his name, if that's okay? He came from Bijeljina and was an experienced man.

Q. Sir, if I may just inquire, on the translator, a question or two. Was that the same translator that accompanied you in 1992?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. In fact, just so my question doesn't later -- or a claim doesn't be made on my question that it wasn't extensive. You had two translators in 1992. Was the translator that you had in February of 1996 any of the two that you had in '92?

A. No, neither of them.

Q. Now, we're looking on page 5 of your contemporaneous notes, and respectfully, on page 3 of Exhibit 55, where we're talking about "fourth Slivovic, cig. ash all over sweater." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Show me here where, immediately thereafter or so you discuss -- strike that. Why don't you be kind ¹²¹⁰ enough, because when I asked you the question what page it was, you gave us your answer, but I didn't catch the page number. Just tell me what page number on your contemporaneous notes does the snake-lizard analogy appear?

A. At the beginning.

Q. Okay. I know the beginning.

A. Page 1.

Q. Page 1. Where on page 1?

A. In the first -- the second paragraph, the first big paragraph.

Q. It's underscored, isn't it?

A. It's underlined, yeah.

Q. Now as a word --

A. Some of it is.

Q. Can you read the words that appear right immediately before "snake" that I see in the middle right-hand portion of page 1 of your contemporaneous notes?

A. "When you are unlikely or unlucky."

Q. Then you may proceed to read that, please?

A. "When a snake bites you, you are afraid of little lizards, but a lizard is" -- sorry. "A lizard is still a lizard but a snake is a snake. I am worried about the future." ¹²¹¹

Q. You testified through questioning by Mr. Keegan, would it be fair to say, a little broader on that discussion, and you put quotes around certain things on the snake. Would it be fair to say, sir, that that was your interpretation during that testimony of Mr. Keegan (sic) wherein you described what it was that Dr. Kovacevic purportedly meant when he was discussing with you the lizard-snake?

A. Well, he was discussing it with my colleague, actually, who was opening the conversation, and they were talking about the fact that the Serbs had been persecuted by the Croats and that he feared the Muslims, and the gist was -- and he was talking about the Serbian experience around the area and in the camps -- I wasn't paying much heed to that -- well, I was listening -- and they were talking about the fact that -- I mean the gist was, my interpretation was, and I think it's an accurate one, that the Serbs had been bitten by, if you'll pardon me for putting it this way, "the Croatian snake," but that once you're bitten by a snake, you're afraid of a lizard. And Roger asked him, "So are the Muslims the lizards? Are you scared of the Muslim lizards?" And he said "Yes."

Q. Where does it say that in your contemporaneous notes or in your notes that you ¹²¹² prepared the night after this meeting where he states, "I am scared of the Muslims"?

A. That was one of Roger's questions, that he's scared of the Muslims. He's talking about that and, I, actually, before you asked me about this section, volunteered it, as the example that came first to mind of the -- how this document was reordered after a conversation with Roger who was having that -- during whose exchange with Dr. Kovacevic this, I think, rather illuminating line about snakes and lizards came up.

Q. I couldn't disagree with you more. I could not disagree with you more, and here's why: We went through your closed session testimony on the time, and if I told you this, Mr. Vulliamy, that the only section that seems to be taken out of context is specifically this section, and that's the only section -- everything else follows with respect to the time frames, and I invite, obviously the Tribunal, as well as the Office of the Prosecution, to go through that closed session carefully and to examine that.

What else, as you sit here, do you know was taken in different parts other than this section on the snakes?

A. I don't know. I haven't been through it all.

Q. Now, was this your question on the snakes or ¹²¹³ was it the question of your colleague?

JUDGE MAY: He said it was the colleague.

MR. OSTOJIC: That's my point. I just wanted to recollect on that, didn't want to try to distort it.

Q. Can you decipher for us, looking on Exhibit 55, which questions you asked and which questions your colleagues asked -- or your colleague asked?

A. No. I'd have recalled it at the time, now I'm afraid I don't. By and large, towards the beginning of the conversation, the majority of the questions are those of my colleague; towards the end, the majority are mine. And as I've already testified, this very last section is a conversation between him and Dr. Kovacevic after we had stood up and made to leave.

Q. I want to point out one last thing, if I may? On page 4 of the aide-memoires, the bottom portion where there's a discussion about hurricane, do you see that, five or six lines from the bottom?

A. I'm not sure that I'm on the right page. Could you give me the page again, sir, sorry?

Q. On the aide-memoires, Exhibit 55, it would be page 4. Are you there with me?

A. Yeah.

Q. The word "hurricane" is what we're focusing ¹²¹⁴ on here. Do you see that?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you see that? I'm sorry?

A. Yeah.

Q. Thank you. Can you just find this section first on your contemporaneous notes?

A. Yes. Got it.

Q. Can you direct us to the page of the contemporaneous notes, please?

A. It's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Q. So it would be page 7; correct?

A. Yeah, the penultimate.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. The penultimate page.

Q. Where on the page?

A. The penultimate page.

Q. Can you direct us to that section where you mention the word "hurricane blowing to and fro"?

A. Yes, it's just after he's giving the numbers of people "killed" in Omarska as opposed to "died" in Omarska, and you can see a sign, which is like a diagonal, then straight, and then a little circle meaning "its" and the words "wind tunnel," indeed in longhand.

Q. Very well. I'm looking for the word ¹²¹⁵ "hurricane" at the moment, but we'll get to wind tunnel in a second. So where is the "hurricane"? Does it appear there?

A. "Hurricane" isn't there, actually. I shall read what I've written in shorthand --

Q. That's all I want to know, whether it appeared there or not.

A. Yes. Dr. Kovacevic used two different words, and the second with considerable emphasis, and I spoke to the translator afterwards and thought that "hurricane" would do credit both to the point he was making and to his own command of language. The repetition of "wind" -- he didn't repeat the same word, and I consulted with the translator about that. We were talking in the car that little bit about the wind blowing to and fro, and the translator filled us in.

Q. So it was the translator who said, "Really, this 'wind tunnel' is 'a hurricane'"?

A. Yes, he did. I mean -- please understand, this conversation was fairly surprising, and we talked about it on the way from Prijedor, and the -- that line stuck in my mind particularly, and the translator said he had used a different word.

MR. OSTOJIC: May I have a moment, Your Honour? ¹²¹⁶ Thank you for your patience.

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, in looking at your testimony and consulting here, what else did the translator or interpreter assist you with on the car ride home?

A. I think that was the only main point.

Q. Well, what other minor points, if you could share with us?

A. I don't remember, I'm afraid.

Q. But you do remember there were some minor points; correct?

A. Well, I don't, actually, but I remember us talking about --

Q. Who else did you consult with after the meeting with Dr. Kovacevic? You mentioned the interpreter, you mentioned your colleague. Anyone else before you wrote the aide-memoires?

A. No. I got back to Zagreb and told a friend about what a surprise it was, and, of course, I consulted with my office as soon as I got to a telephone.

Q. Now, with respect to Dr. Kovacevic's sobriety, and we're talking about this page 8, how would you have described it -- page 7 where we're at, how would you have described it at this point?

A. I'll be guided by the Court on that answer. ¹²¹⁷ I mean, the bottle of brandy was empty.

JUDGE MAY: What impression did he make on you?

A. He was not sober.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. And at this point, sir, in the meeting, page 7, where you're telling us that he was not sober, isn't that the first time you actually put in quotes -- and you were kind enough to share it with us in your prior answer -- where you said "killed" not "died"; do you see that?

A. Yes. I don't see it at the moment, but I know exactly where you mean, yeah.

Q. I'm inviting you to look.

A. I've got it here.

Q. So was it at that point that your testimony is that he was not sober?

A. He's not sober by this point, no.

Q. Can you cut it off for me anywhere and show me where you think, based on these eight pages, that you believe he was not sober?

A. No, I can't draw a line between sobriety and non-sobriety, no.

Q. Can you tell me approximately where it appears, if at all? ¹²¹⁸

A. No, I can't really. I can only say courteously that he was becoming progressively less sober.

Q. Do you record that anywhere, sir, on your contemporaneous notes, that your impression of Dr. Kovacevic at that point was that he was not sober?

A. No, I don't on the contemporaneous notes, apart from this reference to the third glass, to the best of my knowledge, no. I'm relying, I think justifiably, on my memory there.

Q. In your aide-memoires, do you record anywhere that you felt that Dr. Kovacevic was not sober?

A. On the aide-memoire?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I'm putting in various glasses of brandy. I don't, at any point, I don't think say "He is drunk," but my recollection and my testimony is that he was by the end.

Q. Now, you talk about this empty bottle at the end of the meeting. Was the bottle full when you started the meeting?

A. I don't recall, but if it wasn't full, it was nearly full.

Q. With respect to your aide-memoires -- strike that. With respect to the article that you wrote ¹²¹⁹ subsequent to your conversation with Dr. Kovacevic, do you state in that article that Dr. Kovacevic was not sober during the meeting?

A. I don't recall, actually, but I think so.

Q. When was the article written, in terms of time frame, from your contemporaneous notes, from your aide-memoires and again, of course, the article?

A. To the best of my recollection, about two or three days later. I sat down and wrote the article containing the interviews with Drs. Kovacevic, Stakic, and Professor Koljevic, perhaps two days.

Q. Did Dr. Kovacevic have an attorney with him present during the conversation that you had with him in February 1996?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Now, you also told us that Dr. Stakic was interviewed by you in February 1996. He was interviewed before or after Dr. Kovacevic?

A. After.

Q. Now, did Dr. Stakic have with him anyone during your conversations in February 1996?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And, sir, we'll look at Exhibit 56, if you will, which I believe is the aide-memoires of Dr. Stakic. Thank you. ¹²²⁰ Do you have that before you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, in there, does it mention that Dr. Stakic at all had anyone present during the meeting with him?

A. Could I just have a look, please?

Q. By all means.

A. Yes. There's a reference here to that man. His name is Kondic. He was variously introduced during the conversation with a number of titles.

Q. Was one of his titles that he was an attorney?

A. Yes, as I recall, it was.

Q. Did you find that odd that there was an attorney there with Dr. Stakic?

A. Well, no, because by then the conversation was getting pretty strange, and he was initially introduced as the assistant in the health centre. Perhaps he was both. I really don't know.

Q. So to this day, you don't know what he was, whether he was an attorney, an assistant to the health centre, or anything else; correct?

A. No.

MR. OSTOJIC: Now, just if I may be given a bit of latitude to return to the bottle of brandy that ¹²²¹ was discussed with Dr. Kovacevic, and I have four, possibly less questions on that.

Q. Sir, how big was the bottle?

A. The size of a wine bottle.

Q. And you said it was near the top. Do you know how many shot glasses, if you will, are contained within that bottle?

A. I don't, actually. But I should say ten or so.

Q. Do you know, sir, how big the glass -- do you recall how large the glasses were that you and Dr. Kovacevic drank from?

A. I don't very well, but if I could, again a guesstimate, and that's all I'm prepared to give the Court, that sort of height, a short drink glass. A cocktail glass, if you like.

Q. It's fair to state that Dr. Kovacevic had the same-sized cocktail as you did; correct?

A. Same sized glass.

Q. Same sized glass. Thank you. Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. In your aide-memoires with respect to Dr. Kovacevic, how many do you say, how many shots did he have or how many drinks?

A. I've given it back, actually, but I think he ¹²²² had seven or eight.

Q. Can you point out to me -- and forgive me for having the registrar share with him that document again.

Your memory is quite good, but I'll direct your attention to page 5 of your aide-memoires.

A. Yeah.

Q. You want to tell us it's seven or eight. On page 5, how many does it say in the middle of the page?

A. Six.

Q. Show the Court where you think your aide-memoires say that it was seven or eight?

JUDGE MAY: It doesn't.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. I want to ask a question here relating to the lizard-snake, if you will. Two questions. Have you ever heard the phrase -- have you ever heard the phrase "Once bitten, twice shy"?

A. Yes, I've heard that, yeah.

Q. Can you explain what that means?

A. I think it means that -- well, I'm not sure, actually. I think it means once you get stung, you're going to be reticent twice.

Q. Is that what Dr. Kovacevic was talking about when he discussed the lizard-snake, in your words? ¹²²³

A. No. As I understand it, we were talking about the fact that once you get bitten by a snake, you're afraid of little lizards, and the context of the conversation, as I've said, was the experience of the Serbs and their persecution at the hands of the Croats and that that was making them scared of lizards, and we talked about Muslim lizards.

Q. I know that's what you want to say. But I want you to go back to page 1 of Exhibit --

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I'm going to object again. This is argumentative again. He's asking questions, he's getting answers.

JUDGE MAY: No. You can ask the question, but we have been through this, you know? If there's any new point you can make --

MR. OSTOJIC: I do. One last point.

Q. If we can go to page 1 of that eight-page contemporaneous note, please?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you attribute that comment at all with quotation marks, because I note in the closed session, if I may be permitted, that -- well, the closed session will speak for itself. Let me ask you now: Do you attribute any quotation marks around that comment?

A. Yes. It starts off with a quotation before ¹²²⁴ the word "When," I close the quote after "lizards," but then cross out the closing of the quote because he still appears to be quoting.

Q. When does he end the quote?

A. It doesn't say.

Q. Does there seem to be a line going after the word "snake" on the right-hand portion, a faint line on my copy; it may just be a photocopy error?

A. You mean this little line going down the side of the page?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Where is that directing us to?

A. I have no idea.

Q. If I may ask you, sir, for purposes -- and we discussed earlier in your testimony distortion and things that are distorted or things that are misrepresented, et cetera. Would it be fair to say, sir, that when you added the word before -- or "if I am acquitted," that that would be a misrepresentation, a distortion, or how would you describe it for us?

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we've been through all that, and that's a matter of comment. Yes. Anything new?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. ¹²²⁵

Q. Did you ever at any time, sir, study Shakespeare?

A. No, I never studied Shakespeare since school, but I've read Shakespeare ...

Q. Do you recall a phrase that people attribute to lawyers within writing of Shakespeare where he says: "The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers?"

JUDGE MAY: No, I think we're going a very long way from the subject of this case.

MR. OSTOJIC: I'm going to connect it up, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: That sounds like a comment.

MR. OSTOJIC: No, I am going to connect it up, Your Honour. I just want to know him if he's familiar with it and ask for his understanding in this context.

A. I don't know that line from Shakespeare. I don't recognise it from any Shakespeare play that I've read.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. I'm just telling you and I'm representing that that comment, having been used, and if you look at that comment right there, "The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers," seems to suggest one thing, ¹²²⁶ but, in fact, when I was a young lawyer and someone made that comment and we researched it and we found that within -- I think it was Hamlet, but it may have been McBeth - forgive me for not being accurate - the phrase attributed to Shakespeare was that "If we want anarchy, the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." Can you tell how different those two things can be and how they can be taken out of context?

JUDGE MAY: I'm not going to allow this. I think it's Richard the II, but it's totally irrelevant. Let's go on. Have you got anything else for this witness?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Sir, you mentioned -- Your Honour, at this time, I need to have a moment to find an exhibit regarding the International Red Cross, and it's not at my fingertips and I may have left it --

JUDGE MAY: Let's see if we can find it. Which one is it?

MR. OSTOJIC: It's an exhibit that was attached, and I'm going to mispronounce the name, Mazowiecki was the --

A. Mazowiecki. Tadeusz Mazowiecki.

MR. OSTOJIC: I have it. It's Exhibit 52. ¹²²⁷ Thank you. But before we begin with Exhibit 52, I would ask the Court's permission, with this group of documents, to know whether we have been provided the date of the first exhibit that I believe Judge Cassese respectfully asked counsel to provide us with. I just need to know the date and I will need to inquire possibly depending on the date.

MR. KEEGAN: I must confess, Your Honour, that over the course of the days, it slipped my mind to pull that. I remember it came up in Tadic and it was found -- I think it may even be in the record of the Tadic case, but I did neglect to pull it out. I apologise for that.

JUDGE MAY: It can be provided in due course.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Now, returning to Exhibit 52, that was an article written on or about October 23rd, 1992; correct? And I'll wait for you to get the document. Are you with me, Mr. Vulliamy?

A. I'm getting there.

MR. OSTOJIC: I'm just merely waiting for Mr. Vulliamy.

Q. Sir, the question was: This article appeared on or about October 23rd, 1992; correct?

A. As I've testified, I recall the report. I ¹²²⁸ recall several reports by Mr. Mazowiecki. This is an Agence France Presse report of the report, so I don't recall this actual report, but I do know what they're talking about.

Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, of Mr. Mazowiecki at all that you've formulated over the years?

A. What? Do I think he's a good man?

Q. Do you think he's a good man? Do you think, when he reports, he reports accurately?

JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure this is a matter for the witness.

MR. OSTOJIC: I want to know if he's formulated that opinion. I just don't know if he has or hasn't.

JUDGE MAY: You can ask the witness about the report, by all means, but not about the reporter.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. From the bottom -- thank you -- the third paragraph from the bottom one, it says: "Mazowiecki said that in Trnopolje ..." Are you with me?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Does he say in that paragraph that the Bosnian Muslim homes were destroyed or burned, or does he use the word "all"? ¹²²⁹

A. In this AFP report of what he said, it says "all." It's not in quotes.

Q. If you look at the last paragraph, do you know who Paul Henri Morad is?

A. I know who he is, but I've never met him.

Q. Who he is?

A. He's an official of the ICRC.

Q. And, sir, do you see there, on the last sentence of paragraph 3, how the ICRC, in October 23rd, 1998 (sic), describes this Trnopolje and the people that were in it; do you see the last two words? How does he describe them?

A. Sorry. Which --

Q. The very last two words, sir, on that article, Exhibit 52.

A. "Detention camps."

MR. OSTOJIC: I may have misspoken and said '98. I think the record's rather clear that Exhibit 52 is October 23rd, 1992.

Your Honour, at this point, I believe that it would be convenient to take a short recess so that I can consult to ensure that all the areas -- and consult with Dr. Kovacevic, if permitted -- to ensure that all the areas are covered -- as well as with my colleagues here -- are covered with respect to Mr. Vulliamy. ¹²³⁰ Maybe ten or fifteen, Your Honour, if I may? Because they're going to have to take him and ...

JUDGE MAY: You can have ten minutes, but this examination of the witness must finish today and, of course, there's re-examination, and the Trial Chamber has some questions itself. So would you bear that in mind?

MR. OSTOJIC: I will, and I am labouring forward, Your Honour. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Ten minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. Your Honour, I just want to -- so that you know where I'm going. I'm almost done. Maybe two or three questions on follow-up.

I have to insist -- I have to request that I be permitted just to revisit for those two or three questions the proverb that was put in quotes of the lizard and the snake, and we hope to put it in context, but we just want to be clear on that. May I?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If possible, you can confine your questions to ten minutes?

MR. OSTOJIC: I will. No longer than that. Thank you. ¹²³¹

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, was this a proverb, that you put in quotes, about the snakes and the lizards?

A. I don't know, actually.

Q. Did the interpreter that was with you, did she tell you at any time that it was a proverb?

A. He, actually. I don't recall.

Q. It's my understanding that the proverb was, and I'm going to read it in the record in the language that was given by Dr. Kovacevic, if I may? (Interpretation follows) "Whoever was bitten by a snake ends up being afraid of lizards too."

JUDGE MAY: Could that be repeated, please, for the witness?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Are you asking me, Your Honour? (Interpretation follows) "Whoever was bitten by a snake ends up being afraid of lizards."

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, would you agree with me, sir, someone who has an understanding of a couple different languages or knows a couple different languages, that proverbs interpreted from one language to possibly English -- let's take Italian, I believe that you said you're familiar with and have an understanding of. If take an Italian proverb and interpret it into English, it may lose some, all of its meaning; correct?

A. That could happen, but this remark went on a ¹²³² bit longer than the translation I got here.

Q. And the remark that went on a little longer we covered in your contemporaneous notes where, in fact, it ends right after that, does it not?

A. Well, I don't remember, actually. On the translation, I just heard the words "ends up being afraid of lizards," or something. I didn't actually get the first half. But it's something like that.

Q. Could it be that the proverb may mean: Once bitten, second time shy?

JUDGE MAY: You've asked that.

MR. OSTOJIC: I have? Your Honour, at this time, with Mr. Vulliamy, and in light of our discussions with his contemporaneous notes, and we haven't deciphered them completely, we are working very methodically to obtain that, but at this time we do not believe we have any further questions of Mr. Vulliamy, and we will introduce as an exhibit his book and other items that we shared with the court today. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Keegan, any re-examination?

MR. KEEGAN: Very brief, Your Honour. Re-examined by Mr. Keegan:

MR. KEEGAN: First I would like to play the video marked Prosecution Exhibit 46, Your Honour. I did manage to get -- I hopefully got it sufficiently ¹²³³ cued during this short recess to clear up the issue of the fences and where this compound is. If you could run the tape, please?

(Videotape played) If you could pause the tape, please?

Q. Now, Mr. Vulliamy, you spoke first, in relation to the questions on cross-examination, about your approach to the top of the camp, the view that you saw, and what prompted you to head to that area. In relation to the footage you just saw, and I'm going to ask them to continue, and it's a very brief section here, could you indicate to the Court whether that is a representation of the view that first greeted you?

Could you roll the tape at normal speed, please?

A. It's a rather close shot.

(Videotape played)

MR. KEEGAN: Stop the film, please.

Q. Would you like me to replay it?

A. It's all right. There's some people with a camera, but I'm not sure who that is, walking towards it. This would seem to be a part of the compound. Yes. If you're asking what made us stop, it was, as I've said before, it was the sight of a crowd of men, ¹²³⁴ some of them in skeletal condition, behind a barbed wire fence, which is enough to make anyone stop.

MR. KEEGAN: Could you run the tape all the way back to the beginning there and start it again?

Q. And, please, if you'd note closely, the initial frames here, Mr. Vulliamy?

(Videotape played) Stop the film, please.

A. That's the -- yeah, that's the area that we were approaching, yes.

MR. KEEGAN: If you could fast-forward to one minute two seconds, please.

This goes to the issue of the question regarding the fences, Mr. Vulliamy.

If you could back it up just a few frames, perhaps to, say, one minute? Thank you. Play from there, normal speed.

(Videotape played) Stop the film there, please?

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, can you describe what you see in that frame, please?

A. I can see what appears to be the or a corner of the compound at which the barbed wire fence, which caught our attention, obviously, you can see old barbed wire reinforced by new, cleaner barbed wire, and that ¹²³⁵ fence behind which this man is standing then joins another fence at the corner, which appears to be what I call chain-link fencing of the kind used in gaols in the United States and, I believe, in Ulster.

MR. KEEGAN: Run the tape at normal speed, please.

(Videotape played) If you could now fast-forward the tape, please, to 1.24? We may actually be there. If you could pause the tape there?

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, you were asked earlier questions about the length of the compound in which this was in. Does that assist you at all?

A. Yes. Well, there we can see from the fence through which we were talking to the prisoners to the back of that compound within Trnopolje, the wall. I gave the Court my guesstimate of two and a half football fields, and it seems to be roughly corroborated here.

MR. KEEGAN: If you could fast-forward the tape to 5 minutes, please, on the tape? And play at normal speed, please?

(Videotape played) Now, does this perspective -- hold it right there, please. ¹²³⁶

Q. Does this perspective help you complete the description of your compound?

A. Well, it assists me, yes. This is another corner. We've seen this post from another view during cross-examination, I think. This would be where another bit of the barbed wire fence meets another run of chain-link fencing in another part of the compound in which the prisoners are held.

MR. KEEGAN: If you could play the tape at normal speed, please?

(Videotape played)

Q. Does that reflect the back side, if you will, of that compound?

A. Yes. It's the side of the compound.

Q. If you could go back now to just about the five-minute mark, five minutes, five seconds? That's it. Just back a bit, please? Okay. Play at normal speed.

(Videotape played) And if you could pause there? Thank you.

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, does that image again give you a better perspective of the house which the Defence asked you about and where it would be located in relation to the compound?

A. Well, I think it would be outside the ¹²³⁷ compound, and I expect it's on the other side of the road.

MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. We're finished with the tape, thank you.

Q. Mr. Vulliamy, did the fact that you interviewed the accused in February of 1996, did that fact have any relation to the fact that you had been contacted by the Office of the Prosecutor with respect to the case of Dusko Tadic?

A. No, it was an assignment from my newspaper. I've said this. I was assigned to retrace the war and to interview some of the major players in it. Others on the list included people like General Morillon. There were a large number of people. It ended up as a series of twelve articles of which this interview was part of one.

Q. Before the interview actually occurred on that morning in February of 1996, did you have a guarantee that you were going to have an interview with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. No.

Q. If he had said no to the interview, would that have terminated your project, or would you have gone on to interview other people for the series?

A. I'd have gone on to seek out Dr. Stakic and ¹²³⁸ Professor Koljevic. We had already that morning endeavoured to -- sorry, the previous day, forgive me -- endeavoured to make contact with Mr. Drljaca but without success.

Q. Does the witness still have Exhibit 55, which is the typed notes of the interview with Dr. Kovacevic?

A. Yes.

Q. I would refer you to the heading section on the first page. Questions were raised about the issue of the brandy, the time of day that the interview took place, and the fact that you had a specific time in your notes which wasn't referenced directly in the notes. Can you begin with the paragraph saying "He is now director ..."

A. "He is now director of the city hospital. He is an anaesthetist by training. Atmosphere is genial. Gets a bottle out of the cupboard. 10.00 a.m."

MR. KEEGAN: We have no further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE CASSESE: I have, first of all, a request. I wonder whether I could ask either the witness or the parties to provide us with a copy, a photocopy, of the articles you eventually published as a result of your interviews? Is it possible? It may not be considered as evidence, but I think they might ¹²³⁹ assist the Court.

MR. KEEGAN: Certainly, Your Honour. I think the Office of the Prosecutor would undertake to provide -- obtain copies and provide that --

JUDGE CASSESE: Which will also be passed on, of course, to the Defence. Thank you.

I have two questions. One question is about your trip to Belgrade. You said that after Dr. Karadzic went to London, you decided to go and visit the Omarska camp. Why did you go to Belgrade first before going to Pale?

A. Your Honour, that was the stipulation of those in whose hands we are, namely Dr. Karadzic, that we would have to make our way to Belgrade and to be appropriately met and accredited with the authorities -- the press agency in Belgrade and that that is where they wanted to meet us.

Our, if I may say, hostess was a woman called Mandic, and it was there that we first met Professor Koljevic and were taken from there to Pale later on, as I explained.

Belgrade was their choice. Also, that was the nearest plane you could get to Belgrade, was to Hungary and that's -- so we went from there. Belgrade was where they told us to go. ¹²⁴⁰

JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. So you got there your accreditation through the SRNA, the Yugoslav Serbian News Agency, but the accreditation was valid in Bosnia-Herzegovina, so you got it in Belgrade for Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. I can only presume so, yes. Our first instructions from the authorities in Belgrade were that to pursue this trip, to pursue this acceptance of the invitation to inspect the camps, we would first have to accredit ourselves with the SRNA. That was our very first move, our very first appointment the morning after we arrived.

JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. And by and large did you -- at some point you said that the helicopter you used to go from Belgrade to Pale was provided by the JNA. Is that correct or ...

A. Yes, that's certainly my recollection. The helicopter left from a premises that was very obviously a depot of some kind of the JNA. It may have been the Yugoslav air force, but I don't think it was. I think it was the JNA.

JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Generally speaking, while you were there in that period, in August '92, did you have the opportunity to observe the relations between Bosnian Serb authorities and the ¹²⁴¹ Serbian authorities, the Belgrade authorities? Were there any occasions where you saw members of the JNA talking or discussing matters with members of the army of what later became Republika Srpska, namely the Bosnian Serbian army?

A. My direct experience of military cooperation during that visit was this fact of the helicopter ride which was, if you like, seamless between the JNA base, or whatever it was from whence we left, to the Pale area where we landed.

Militarily, my own personal experience is limited to the, if you like, the non-frontier at Loznica, and I described the garrison atmosphere on the Serbian side with the soldiers criss-crossing the border, but I have to say that most of my experience during that trip of entwinement between the two was more the politicians, that is to say, Professor Koljevic in Belgrade and so on.

So far as I know, the soldiers who escorted us from Pale to Banja Luka were members of the Bosnian Serb army. I don't know whether those who came with us on the helicopter, of whom there were a number, were members of the JNA or the Bosnian Serb army. They seemed indistinguishable.

JUDGE CASSESE: And when you, after August ¹²⁴² '92, went back to Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you have an opportunity again to observe the relations, if any, between the JNA and the Bosnian Serb army, or did you --

A. Forgive me, Your Honour. Could I just ask you the date again?

JUDGE CASSESE: '92. Let us stick to '92. I don't know whether you had an opportunity when you went back in '92, after August '92, to Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether you were also in that area, in the area under the control of the Bosnian Serbs?

A. No, I wasn't during 1992, which was the scope of our discussion, I think. No.

JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. If I can move to a different matter? While you were commenting on your contemporaneous notes, you, at one point -- you spoke about the so-called "road bit," the bit regarding -- you gave a sort of heading, "The road bit."

A. Yes.

JUDGE CASSESE: You said that you saw Muslim houses where the Muslim inhabitants had put up a white flag, and I think you asked somebody a question "Why?" And the answer was, "They are waiting to leave." Now, can you elaborate on this point? Were there particular families, groups of Muslims, who had decided to put up ¹²⁴³ a white flag and why, for what purposes? Apparently there were various groups of Muslims. Some of them had decided to put up this white flag and then therefore to leave, probably undisturbed, first question; and secondly, do you know whether they were allowed to leave the territory by themselves in convoys or escorted or just to go abroad?

A. The question of the white flags, and there were sheets and pillowcases or whatever, was raised with Major Milutinovic twice: once on the way to Prijedor, and that was when he said they had accepted the new order, to the best of my recollection. On the back roads between Prijedor and Omarska, there were also these flags and pillowcases being hung, and I remember asking again, and this time the explanation had changed slightly, and it was that they were waiting to leave.

In my own experience, the only way to leave was either in a convoy, either directly or via Trnopolje, over the mountain roads that I described in my evidence, or along a similar route about which I have no direct, as it were, inside experience, through Karlovac into Croatia up until the date that the border was sealed, as I explained. I imagine there might have been other people who left in different circumstances. ¹²⁴⁴ There was the girl in Bihac who seemed to have been part of a smaller column being, according to her, violently pushed over the river Una into Bihac, I've testified about her, and so I can't really answer your question, but my impression is that the overwhelming majority of those who left, left in the organised convoys either directly or through Trnopolje.

JUDGE CASSESE: My point was, did you ask why some Muslims were taken to centres, detention centres, transit centres -- let us leave aside the proper label -- in three centres or areas or camps which have been mentioned, and others were allowed to stay in their houses, put up a white flag, and then were allowed to leave the territory probably in convoys? Were there particular criteria? On basically what particular criteria?

A. If there were, I'm afraid I was unable to discern them.

JUDGE CASSESE: Again, a small point. At one point, you mentioned official decrees, the passing by the Bosnian Serbian authorities, official decrees deciding whether or not Muslims were allowed to stay in villages near Prijedor. Am I correct in saying that you, at one point, mentioned these decrees about categories of Muslims which were allowed and some other ¹²⁴⁵ categories which were not allowed to stay there but were asked to leave or forced to leave?

A. I think so, yes. Again, I don't know what qualified you to be allowed to stay.

JUDGE CASSESE: But did you see any of those decrees?

A. There was a decree which a colleague of mine on The Guardian got in a village called Selinac about which he wrote and showed me the document, and that was the document that specifies that Muslims are not allowed to meet in groups of three -- groups of more than three, et cetera, which I alluded to earlier. But I don't know, I really can't answer you, as to what qualified a Muslim to stay or to leave. All I do know is that in -- if I may just mention another date? In 1995, at the crossing point near Travnik through which I had passed three years earlier, there were still trickles coming through. I would be going outside my ambit to talk about what they were saying, but they had stayed on in circumstances which I think we've seen described in some of the Red Cross exhibits, difficult ones, but I don't know what qualified them to say. I'm afraid I can't help you --

JUDGE CASSESE: I see from your answer that -- yes, you are right. Actually, my notes were ¹²⁴⁶ wrong. What you said about these official decrees were, you said that those decrees specified what Muslims were allowed to do and what they were not allowed to do in those villages near Prijedor, so categories of behaviour or conduct -- so this is one of those decrees?

A. Yes, that's right. This is just one village.

JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether we could be provided by the parties or by the witness copies of those decrees because they might be of some assistance to the Trial Chamber?

MR. KEEGAN: We have a witness, Your Honour, who will be testifying during the next session, who will be able to introduce the specific document that Mr. Vulliamy is referring to.

JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I am through with my questions.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may just address the Court to follow up just a couple of minor clarifications after Judge Cassese addressed the witness. It's basically SRNA, and I think there was a misquotation what does it mean, and it seems by implication it could suggest that it was a Yugoslav agency, and if either Judge would like to clarify what the words mean and what that acronym is supposed to ¹²⁴⁷ mean, who did he see in Belgrade, and why Dr. Karadzic went via Belgrade and why did he invite them to go via Belgrade, were there any other routes that were at that time open, because it seems that kind of does not elucidate all the points that Judge Cassese wanted to examine on.

JUDGE CASSESE: I didn't understand you, sorry. Were you asking me to ask questions to the witness? I agree -- I agree with you that it's a matter if the witness could clarify this point. First of all, the acronym. The acronym, this SRNA. The witness said, when he was examined in chief, that this meant Yugoslav Serbian News Agency. Do you know what --

A. So far as I know, Your Honour, it's CRNA, and I don't know what it stands for.

MR. VUCICEVIC: It's S-R-N-A, SRNA.

JUDGE MAY: It may be that we'll get some evidence about what that means in due course.

MR. VUCICEVIC: Could I just give him a hypothetical? If I were to tell you that that stands for Serbian Republic News Agency, would you agree with me?

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I object to this. This is improper questioning of the witness. ¹²⁴⁸

JUDGE MAY: We'll find out in due course. We'll find out in due course. If that's right ...

JUDGE CASSESE: Probably the witness could be so kind as to add a few comments about the persons he met while in Belgrade.

THE WITNESS: Yes. The first person who met us at the hotel which, as I recall, was chosen by us, the Hyatt Hotel, was called Klara Mandic. She said she represented something called the Serbian Jewish Friendship Society. I don't know why that in particular.

She then made the introductions to Professor Koljevic that evening, I think, and some other officials and a television producer, as I recall. It was at her request that we went to register at the SRNA -- I'm not in a position to either agree or disagree with counsel on what that stands for. To this day, I don't know. But whatever it is, they had an office in Belgrade, and we went down there and filled in various forms, I think paid a very small fee for registration of some kind, tiny amount, and apart from that, we -- well, we had this one meeting at the Hyatt. Then we were waiting around, actually, to go, making these various trips to -- day trips to Loznica, another place nearby called Subotica as part of our ¹²⁴⁹ inspections of the names on the list the Bosnian government had put out, and I've already talked about those places.

But apart from that, I'd say that the people we -- yes, the people we met in Belgrade, those were the main ones. I don't recall the names of any others. And then the morning came when Mrs. Mandic came to instruct us to go to the helicopter pad, which I don't think belonged to the Serbian Jewish Friendship Society, and that was our experience of Belgrade. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. Vulliamy. Thank you for coming. You are released, free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

(The witness withdrew)

JUDGE MAY: That concludes our proceedings today. We shall -- is there any matter you want to raise, Mr. Keegan?

MR. KEEGAN: Just one brief one, Your Honour, consistent with the Trial Chamber's orders. At the conclusion of the evidence, we would like to retrieve the copies of the notes, please.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The Defence, of course, should give those back, as ordered.

MR. KEEGAN: And if the accused has any ¹²⁵⁰ copies. Any copies that they've made other than the two we gave them, yes, Your Honour.

MR. OSTOJIC: We'll endeavour. We're going to have to take some time to do that, but we will comply, obviously, with the order and produce that. That are some notes written on it, on the actual copies. If we can merely have it destroyed with our presence as well, if that would be okay?

MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, we're happy if they give them to Mr. Bos and he can shred them. It's just that they're returned and destroyed, is all we're concerned about.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, hand them back to the registrar, and there should be no difficulty about them.

As far as the future scheduling of the case is concerned, the next hearing will be on the 21st of September. There will be a hearing for three weeks. We have now completed our plans for the autumn. We have borne in mind everything that's said about this case and, of course, the importance of finishing it. However, we have to try another matter and so we have to fit both in, and the upshot is that after the 9th of October, the next hearings will be the 23rd of November and the 11th of December. ¹²⁵¹ And if I could add this for the Prosecution, that, of course, it's not possible always to time these things accurately, but in line with your earlier estimates, we would hope that the Prosecution case is concluded by that date in December, the Prosecution would have that in mind.

Then we will adjourn until the 21st of September.

--- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 1.06 p.m., to be reconvened on

Monday, the 21st day of September, 1998, at 9.00 a.m.