445 Tuesday, 31st August, 1999
[The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 10.15 a.m.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
Registrar, have the accused brought in, please.
[The accused entered court]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I suggest -- well, first, does everybody hear me? I hope that everybody can hear me, the interpreters, everybody else as well. I don't know which interpreter is in which booth here -- oh, the French booth is on the left; yes, all right. I was looking to the right, but I would also like to say good morning to the Prosecution and the Defence and to Witness F, and of course to the accused.
Witness F, have you rested up a bit? Do you feel all right?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. When you speak, please turn your microphone on, and try to speak a little louder, because I think that the interpreters are having some difficulty in hearing 446 you. We can resume now with Mr. Greaves. Please proceed.
Witness F, please get closer to the microphone. Witness F, the Presiding Judge is speaking to you. Please get closer to the microphone, turn it on, and try to speak a little louder so that the interpreters can hear you better.
MR. GREAVES: Thank you.
WITNESS: F (Resumed) Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:
[Witness answers through interpreter]
Q. Mr. F, can I remind you this morning, please, of what I asked you yesterday, which is this: If you don't understand my question, please don't be shy. Stop me and tell me that you haven't understood it and ask me to either rephrase it or repeat it. Can you do that for me?
Q. Mr. F, yesterday afternoon we concluded by discussing some of the political developments that took place in Brcko in the immediate period before the commencement of fighting, and I'd like just to briefly fill in -- put a bit of flesh onto the bones of that conversation that we had. 447 You told us that three political parties were engaged in discussions, meetings, with a view to the division of the town of Brcko in some way; is that right? Three parties were involved in that discussion?
A. It is, yes.
Q. And did you become aware of that because of what you heard on the media, on the radio or television, or through word of mouth, or how did you become aware of that?
A. Through the media. I heard it on the radio, and there was also local television in Brcko.
Q. And so that we may understand the context in which this is taking place, can you tell us, please, what were the three parties that were involved in these negotiations? Were they parties that represented the three principal ethnic groups or what? How was it done?
A. Quite. Those were three parties which represented the most numerous ethnic groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Serb, Bosnian Muslim, and Croat people.
Q. And would the Serb party, would that be the SDS, and the Muslim party the SDA? Is that right?
Q. And so that again this may be clear, by 448 division of the town, do you mean the physical division of the town into areas reserved for or principally reserved for particular ethnic groups?
A. Yes. There was talk about the type of physical partitioning of the town. The Serb side was the only one which insisted on the partitioning of the town, and the other two sides thought that such a division would be impossible and that it would preclude any kind of normal life in the town.
Q. Of course that may be right, but nevertheless, despite their reluctance, they were engaged in talks about that issue?
Q. And does it come to this, that by the 7th of May, those talks had not reached any sort of resolution? For whatever reason, they had not been resolved?
A. Yes, quite. With the beginning of the war, and it broke out on the 1st of May, it became impossible by the outbreak of war, because such meetings became impossible, because meanwhile, that is on the 1st of May, the army and paramilitary formations had taken over the whole town and all the important institutions in the town, such as the municipal authority, post office, television, radio, police. 449 They simply brought the army into the town. Without any fighting, they took over control of the town, over a major part of the town.
Q. And is it right that those meetings continued at least until May the 5th?
A. No, as far as I know, those meetings were never resumed, because it was impossible. I've just explained why.
Q. The reason I ask you about that date, Mr. F, is that in the statement which you made to the Office of the Prosecutor, you said, in relation to those meetings, that they continued until May the 5th. Does that refresh your memory?
A. Yes, but on the 30th of May, and the 1st of May, that is, until the commencement of fighting, until the fire, the gunfire started, it was agreed, because of the 1st of May holidays, and it was a major popular holiday in Bosnia, it was agreed that a meeting would be resumed on the 5th of May, but the negotiations were never resumed because of the circumstances which arose meanwhile, as I have just said.
Q. Can you help me, please, about this: Who were the principal political leaders of the parties? Can you remember them by name?
A. Yes. The main political leader of the Party 450 for Democratic Action, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic. The president --
Q. Can I stop you there? I meant at a local level, not at a national level. I do apologise. I didn't ask that correctly. At a local level in Brcko. Sorry.
A. Yes. The president of the Party for Democratic Action in Brcko was Mr. Ramic. The president of the Serb Democratic Party was Dr., I think, Beli. That's what everybody called him. I can't remember his real name. The president of the Croat party, that is, of the Croat Democratic Community, that is, the party of the Croat people, I cannot recall his name. It was a long time ago.
Q. I want to turn now to the outbreak of fighting in the Brcko area. You were first aware of that on the 1st of May or later than the 1st of May?
A. Well, I was at home, when the war broke out, with my family, with my girl friend at the time, now my wife.
I have just explained that under normal circumstances, it was always a big holiday in Bosnia and everybody marked it, but because of what happened, because things were blown up and because of the tension that pervaded everything, we usually went for an outing 451 on that day, but that particular day, we stayed at home. We went out into our yard of our house and made a barbecue or something, and sometime between 4.00 and 5.00 in the afternoon, gunfire started; first infantry weapons, and after that we could hear shelling. But at that time, we could not really distinguish, because it was something quite new to me.
Then we went back into the house, but we did not feel safe because of those shells and the house simply did not offer us sufficient protection, and we spent there a very fearful night. All we could hear was gunfire and some voices. We did not come out. It went on until the 2nd of May in the morning, and we were very frightened. We did not know who was there outside.
Across from my house, there was a very tall building, and we could see Serb soldiers firing, so that it was very dangerous to be there. Then we were fortunate enough that an old neighbour of ours who lived -- who was our next-door, she knocked on our door to see if there was anyone there and said that it would be better for us to move to a safer place. We lived about -- well, it was about 100 metres away from us, and I went to my friend because he had a flat in a tall -- there's a building, in the 452 basement, and that of course was a very good shelter from combat operations and shells, so that we moved over to that basement, to our friends', and we stayed there until the 7th of May without going out. Then I don't know really what to call the formations. There were all sorts of formations of the Serb forces, and under the threat of weapons, they evacuated us to the barracks. They immediately singled out Serbs who were still there, and all the non-Serbs, that is, the Muslims, Croats, Romany, and all other ethnic groups were evacuated to the barracks Veljko Lukic Kurjak, which was in the centre of the town.
Q. I just want to ask you a little about the 1st of May. Just a small amount of detail, please, Mr. F. A couple of days prior to that, you had been given some advice by a friend about what was likely to happen or what he thought was likely to happen; is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I don't want to know who he was or anything about him, but I think he was Serbian by background. Is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Was that essentially advice that it might be a good idea to leave town for the time being because 453 fighting was likely to break out?
A. I believe that it would be best if I quoted his words, and then you can draw your own conclusions. We were very close friends, and he simply came by for a few moments, and he just said, "Don't ask me anything, but if you can, anyhow," because I lived with two sisters there, "leave the town," and he did not explain anything. It was a very brief comment, and we all felt that the life in the circumstances were not like before.
We were asking ourselves how were we going to fight, with whom, our own friends, neighbours. We thought that in general there could be some awkward situations, some unpleasant moments, but we thought that everybody would be over very fast and that we would go back to our former way of living. But the subsequent events showed that we were very much mistaken, and this is why we experienced later what we did.
Q. So it comes to this: The advice was, "Get out of town," but no specific reason why you should do that was given, it was just advice to leave?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Can I ask you next, during the course of the 7th of May, is this right, that obviously at some 454 stage, you, as it were, went to ground, but during the course of the day you had been out and about in the town of Brcko itself and had seen some of the activity taking place?
A. Excuse me. May I ask you what date you're exactly referring to?
Q. I'm sorry. I had realised, as soon as I had said it, that it was not the 7th of May. The 1st of May. I do apologise, Mr. F.
A. Yes, I'll try to be concise. My (redacted), (redacted), lived on the bank of the Sava River very close to the bridge which on the 30th of April was blown up in the morning, and these circumstances affected me very much because she was very close to that, about 100 metres away from the explosion. It is a miracle that she survived, but she suffered a great shock, so I had to take her to the hospital. She was treated in a hospital. She received shots. This took a lot of my time, and as I was very concerned for her, I was distracted and I could not see to perhaps evacuate myself and her.
Later on, I moved (redacted) to my place, and along with my two sisters, this is where we were when the war broke out.
On May 1st, since my (redacted) was taken to 455 the hospital by the police officers, they called me to let me know this, so we first went to bring her belongings from this place near the bridge. We had to pass through the city. My neighbourhood was on the other side of town, so we pretty much had to cross the entire town to pick up her belongings and then bring it back to where I lived. This would explain what happened on the 1st of May.
Let's say between 11.00 and 12.00, I had crossed the town and I could see that the entire town had been taken over and controlled by the Serbian army, by their formations, and I don't know how to call them, and you could see -- this happened as I was coming back. When I went to pick up the belongings, you could still pass freely, but on the way back, every 10 to 15 minutes there were armed soldiers and we were not allowed to pass. So by the set of circumstances, we found a young man whom my sister knew very well, and so he gave us an armed escort, and in this way we were able to move back to my house.
Q. Can I just ask you, please, this: The forces that you saw, those were JNA forces, were they?
A. At that time, the majority of soldiers that I could see were wearing uniforms of the former JNA, and you could see the vehicles. Since I served in the JNA, 456 there were the Zastava model R110, so the soldiers were jumping out of these vehicles and taking up positions. I saw them surrounding the post office, the SUP building, and I didn't see them much around the barracks, at least not at that time. So that means that the centre of town was entirely under their control.
Q. You, having been in the former JNA, were you able to identify the particular kind of troops that were there? Were they just conventional, regular infantry troops, or were they special forces of any kind, or what were they?
A. The former JNA uniforms were the same, but I can say that they only had just light, small arms; automatic rifles, grenades, some radio communication devices. This is what I was able to notice, in terms of their equipment, when I passed through the town.
Q. The reason that I ask you that, Mr. F, is that in the statement that you gave to the Office of the Prosecution, you said that you were able to identify the troops you saw as a special unit because of the somewhat different camouflage uniform they were wearing. Does that refresh your memory?
A. Yes, yes, very much so, and thank you. This statement referred to the area around the Ministry of 457 Internal Affairs building which were in the very centre of town, and as I passed by, I noticed men who were of Serbian ethnic background whom I had known very well before the war. They were sort of bodyguards. They were providing security for some important locations and important buildings, and this is what I noticed.
MR. GREAVES: Would Your Honour just give me a moment whilst I confer with my fellow counsel, please.
Thank you very much, Your Honour.
Q. Mr. F, so that we can be clear about this, the building you describe as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, does that also contain the police station or the principal police station in Brcko?
A. Yes, that is where the main police station in Brcko was, but also their administrative service. This is where you could get your personal identification cards and such.
Q. I want now to turn, please, to May the 7th and just ask you a little bit about the events of that day.
On that day, is it right that you were, in fact, evacuated from the area in which you were staying?
A. Yes. I think that I had described that 458 clearly. We were forcibly evacuated under the threat of weapons. We were evacuated from my neighbourhood and escorted to the Veljko Lukic Kurjak barracks, which was also downtown.
Q. Yes. That's the main barracks which is pretty well right in the centre of Brcko?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. During the course of that evacuation, did you see a number of different military units carrying out activities in the area?
A. Yes. I could only judge that by their look. They were wearing different uniforms, the former JNA uniforms, camouflage uniforms, some black overalls, and there were some reservists too. They were from Brcko and I knew them. But I inferred from the accent they have, I inferred they were from Bijeljina, because they have a particular accent, like people from any other part of Bosnia.
Q. Well, I'll come back to that in a moment. How many people were gathered during the course of the evacuation from your district, not in exact figures but in round terms, Mr. F?
A. The column was quite long, and the part that I could see and the part of the column which I was part of, it contained about, oh, 1.000 people, no more than 459 that.
Q. Was there just one column in the town, or when you eventually got to the barracks, is this the case, that there were other areas that were also evacuated that day?
A. It was one uninterrupted column which went from that neighbourhood to the barracks, and as we were entering the barracks, I did not notice any other civilians who were being assembled there. Later on, we were separated, so those who were fit for military service, 18 to 60 on one side, and women and children and elderly on the other side. Those who were fit for military service were taken to the former cinema hall in the compound, and the women and children and the elderly were immediately put on buses and were taken to Brezovo Polje and Razljevo. These are the villages downstream from Brcko towards Bijeljina.
Q. I want to ask you about your assessment that these people must have come from Bijeljina. First of all, my instructions are that there is no significant difference between the accent of a person from Bijeljina and one who comes from Brcko. What do you say to that, Mr. F?
A. Sir, as far as I know, there is. We locals could sense the difference. And also I made that 460 inference because I did not know these people, and I would have known them, because this was not a big town. So I inferred that they were not from Brcko. And again, by their accent -- and this is my own opinion. This is not an assertion, but it is my opinion that that is where they came from.
Q. These were, for the most part, JNA troops, were they?
A. No. No. Most of them were -- to us, at least, they looked dressed very strangely. Some black overalls, some wore some hats, some had their heads shaven, they had some gloves, then there were some camouflage uniforms. So there were some in the SMB uniforms, the olive-drab uniforms of the former JNA. So they were dressed in very different types of uniforms and clothes.
Q. During the course of that day, is it right that you witnessed two men being beaten by the soldiers?
A. Yes. Yes, because I know these people very well. They were my neighbours. (redacted); of him they said that they had found in his apartment a camouflage uniform. And there was another young man who was beaten very badly. He had -- his face was bloody and his teeth were knocked out. (redacted) 461 (redacted), and he was -- I noticed the two of them, and I happened to know their names because I knew them in person.
Q. So the reason for the beating of the first man that you mentioned, that was to do with a military uniform having been found in his possession?
A. I don't know if it was found, but they said that they had found it. We did not see it.
Q. Was any reason given for the beating of the second man?
A. No, I don't know the reason. I just saw him being beaten, and I saw how he looked afterwards, and I just described that.
Q. The Serbian residents of Novo Brcko, were they separated before you were taken in a column to the barracks?
Q. And so when you give us the figure of about a thousand people, does that include or exclude the Serbs who were separated off beforehand?
A. My apologies. The interpretation is not reaching me right now.
MR. GREAVES: I'm not getting any interpretation either right now.
A. Could you repeat it, please? 462
Q. The question was this, Mr. F: When you give us the figure of about a thousand people in the column, does that include or exclude the Serbs who were separated off beforehand?
A. No, that does not include --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, please, I would like to remind you, the provisions of Rules 90(H) and (G), we have to avoid useless waste of time. I would like you not to have the witness repeat what he has already said. I would like you to concentrate on what is necessary. After Witness F, I will no longer accept so much indefinite amount of time be taken for which we have no perspectives. In the future, I'm going to ask how long the
examination-in-chief is going to take and then how long the cross-examination will take. So I'm asking you to focus your questions on what was done in respect of the examination-in-chief, as 90(G) says.
That is -- and I'm authorised to say this under (H) -- "The Trial Chamber shall exercise control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth."
MR. GREAVES: With respect, the issue here is 463 how many people were detained, how many were released, how many were killed. That, in our submission, goes to the central issue of genocide. It is an important question. It is germane to the issues that you have to try, in our respectful submission, and in my submission, it is proper to ask about the numbers of people who are --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I accept the respect that you've expressed for the Tribunal, Mr. Greaves. You don't have to repeat that. That is self-evident. But with all the respect that I owe to the Defence and to the Prosecution, the texts give us a certain number of important provisions which will allow us to avoid a waste of time, and I would like this to be repeated: They are avoiding needless consumption of time. That is Rule 90(G), which I will reread to you: "The Trial Chamber shall exercise control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence."
So as well as the order, so that the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth will be effective, as I say, will be effective, and then to avoid needless consumption of time.
(H): "Cross-examination shall be limited" 464 -- "limited," I repeat -- "to the subject matter of the direct examination ..." I'm going to make a personal comment about this -- "to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness."
You have the right to question the credibility of the witness. "The Trial Chamber may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit enquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination." Let me ask you to reread this. I would like to make a comment, however. Adapting the cross-examination to the direct examination is a measure which the Judges in this Tribunal apply with a certain degree of nuance. I will explain what I mean. We must, of course, prevent either of the parties or too much skill on the part of one of the parties which would limit the direct examination to questions only, and then to hide or to conceal 25 others that might be important, and then, for example, to sanction the Defence because it had strayed from the direct examination. We have been faced with this type of manoeuvring, and this is why I say that with nuances and moderation that we are applying this provision. I have not interrupted you up to this point. I didn't when, at great length, you interrogated and 465 cross-examined the witness about the political situation prevailing at that time. Why is that? Because on the one hand, you were referring to the principal statements of the witness; and in the second place, it appeared that it was clear for the proper interpretation of the facts, which is the Judges' ultimate mission. We assumed that you considered that this was important.
However, I do not forget that we must respect a certain time limit beyond which we would no longer be able to control what was going on in this courtroom. This is a caution that I am giving to you, and I patiently wait for the next witnesses to be sure that what I've just said is carried out. And I say this together and in concurrence with my colleagues, Judge Rodrigues and Judge Riad. Please proceed.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, please, I would like to address you, please, about this issue, if I may. I am well mindful of the rule that Your Honour has quoted. Can I remind Your Honour that yesterday, at pages 48 and 49, direct examination was conducted by the Prosecution concerning the evacuation of this witness and other people from the place where they resided to the place where -- the barracks in the centre of town. 466 In my respectful submission, first of all, the questions that I am now asking arise out of that direction examination. I am attempting to clarify and put more detail on that.
Secondly, as I have indicated, there is a proper relevance to those questions, the issue of how many people are involved in being detained at, in due course, the Luka facility. What we have here at the present time is a number of people being detained at the barracks, then others are taken from there to Luka. I am simply trying to establish numbers. In my submission, the questions which I have asked fall well within the parameters of the Rule, and I respectfully submit that I should be permitted to continue asking those questions.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I was simply cautioning you. You can continue to ask your questions, but I don't want to have to make this caution too frequently. Proceed, but try to move forward quickly.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, if I can just remind you that the final answer he gave was that figure, he said, did not include them.
Q. Having been taken, Mr. F, to the barracks, further separations took place at the barracks, and 467 that was of women, persons under the age of 18 years, and persons who were sufficiently elderly to be not of military value?
Q. What percentage of the total of the people detained at the barracks did that group represent who were separated off?
A. It's hard to say, but -- well, it could have been some -- I don't know, 40 per cent of people, of able-bodied men, and the rest were women and children. But that is only what I think. It's really difficult to say.
Q. And is it right that they were bused out later that day to a village or a town called Brezovo Polje?
A. Yes, Brezovo Polje, as far as I know, and some were also taken to Razljevo.
Q. Is this right, that you told the Office of the Prosecutor that-- the estimate you gave was one to two thousand people being bused away from Brcko?
A. I said that in my judgement, at least one thousand -- well, that between one thousand and two thousand were evacuated from the area where I lived to the barracks. How many women, children, and elderly men were taken out of the barracks, I can hardly say, 468 because I was separated from them and locked in the former cinema hall of the Yugoslav People's Army, in the barracks, that is. We were inside, we were locked in there, and we simply could not establish any contacts. We only knew that they took women and children by buses, that they were saying they would take them to Brezovo Polje, and we also know that they did take some to Razljevo too.
Q. The reason I ask you about your estimate, Mr. F, is that that's the estimate -- and I quote from what you told the OTP -- "I estimate they bused about one to two thousand people."
Does that refresh your memory?
A. No, I did not say -- well, I don't know how many people, how many women, children, and elderly men they took by buses away from the barracks. What I said was that between one or two thousand were evacuated from the area of the town where I lived on the whole, in toto. That was the -- altogether, and I remember that the gentleman from the Prosecution formulated his question in that way, and that was how I answered it.
Q. The town or village of Brezovo Polje, is it right that that was, before the war almost completely a Muslim community?
A. The majority is Muslim, as far as I know, 469 yes.
Q. And did that community, that town, remain outside the area of Serb control throughout the fighting and subsequently?
A. No. That part was also controlled by Serb troops.
Q. Did you know persons amongst those who were sent to Brezovo Polje and elsewhere?
Q. Have you seen them or heard of them since the war?
A. I've heard about some of them; about others, no. The fate of some is not known, and some were allowed to go between the front lines, through minefields and everything else. And I'm telling you what we were told by people, that is mostly women and children who survived it all. Some were fortunate enough to be taken to the lines of separation, but others were made to go on foot, because they could not come back. And they were also told that if they came back, that they would perish then.
I do not really know whether I should now talk about what I had heard and how terrible the fate of other people was. I simply want to be very specific. What I'm saying now is what I heard from 470 people who experienced that. So, concretely, some of these persons managed to cross over into the free territory or, rather, the territory controlled by the BH army, and some did not. And the fate of others is not known, and I suppose it is rather clear what's happened to them. I mean, nobody's heard about them for the past eight years, so it's rather clear what could have happened to them.
Q. I would like to ask you now about the night of the 7th of May. Is it right that at some stage during that, before you were evacuated further to Luka, a man came to the barracks, called "Kosta"?
A. Yes. Should I explain that?
Q. Well, listen to the questions, please, and help me, if you will. Will you describe the man, Kosta, please; what sort of age was he at that time?
A. Yes. I'd like to begin by saying that I did not know that man personally, but I learned that later, after he had left, after the situation had come down, some people who had been locked up with me in the cinema hall knew him, and I heard from them that his name was Kosta and that he came from Ugljevik. That is a place near Bijeljina. And that is all that I said and that I know about it.
Q. But did you see him on the night of the 7th 471 of May, so that you can give us a description of the man?
A. Yes, yes, yes. We all saw him very well. It is difficult to say what time it was, what time of the day it was, but it was already dark, so it could have been around 9.00 or 10.00 in the evening. Yes, and he was 40ish, I should say. He was 40, he was -- he had a rather dark complexion, very skinny, straight black hair. Average height, I'd say; a metre 80. Yes, yes, thereabouts. He wasn't too tall, but he wasn't short either, so I should say normally. But very dark complexion, unshaven. His eyes were bloodshot, and his hair was black, and he came in the company of two or three men, soldiers; I don't remember how many. I know that there were several soldiers with him. And he was very angry. He said that he was just back from the combat action in the part of the town called Kolobara, and he was very angry indeed. He called us Ustasha, which was rather ridiculous. I mean, it was an offensive name for Croats, and we were, by and large, all Muslims there. And he said that five young Serb lads had been killed, five Falcons, and that for them he would take out 50 of us and put us before a firing squad.
And he told -- there was a man with him -- to 472 take out groups of ten people, but we were fortunate enough that the security there was provided by guys who were still wearing former JNA uniforms, and they came back with a tall officer -- I believe he was a major, because I served that army, so I knew the ranks -- and they somehow managed to calm down those men and take them out, and that was the end of that particular incident.
Q. Mr. F, first of all, I'm going to ask the Court usher to show what I'm about to ask you to look at firstly to the Prosecutor and then to the learned Judges, and then I'm going to ask you if you can identify the person whose photograph or copy of a photograph you see.
MR. GREAVES: That needs to be given a exhibit number before it goes to the witness.
THE REGISTRAR: This is Defence Exhibit D4.
Q. Mr. F, if I might just ask you to take that piece of paper and look at it, please, and study it for a moment, if you would be so kind.
Is that the man, Kosta, whom you've described to us? Does that look like him?
A. I don't think so. I'm not sure. I think he was older than this. 473 May I ask something? When was this
photograph made? Is it a recent one, or does it date back to 1992, or when?
MR. GREAVES: If Your Honours could give me a moment, please.
Q. Yes, it's believed that this dates from the early or mid-1980s, this photograph. If you can't identify him, I'm not going to press you, and if you're not sure, you're not sure, Mr. F.
A. I shall be very clear: That is not the man. First, to begin with, he was older. He weighed less, his complexion was much darker, as far as I can judge from this. And he had shortly-cut hair, and quite straight. So I don't think this is the person. Besides, as far as I know, "Kosta" is quite a frequent name among the Serbs, so that this is not the man.
Q. Perhaps I can just try and suggest a surname to you. Can I suggest to you that the man's name, the "Kosta" that you saw on the night of the 7th of May, was Kosta Kostic?
A. [In English] I don't know -- sorry. [Interpretation] I do not know that man. I have never seen him before. And his name, I'm saying only what I heard from other people who said that they knew him. They said his name was Kosta and he came from 474 Ugljevik. That is what I heard from them, and I cannot say anything else about him. I'm sorry.
Q. Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr. F.
A. It lasted very briefly, really. It did not take more than two or three minutes. When he came in very angry, tried to take out people to shoot them, those other men came and that was the end of it.
Q. I want to turn now to your arrival at Luka, please, Mr. F. A total of something like 800 people were taken there with you and arrived at about 2.30 in the afternoon?
A. Between 2.30 and 3.00. From what I remember, we left the barracks and we were told that we were going under labour obligations, under labour duty, and that is how we went.
Q. Is this right, that you were the first group of detainees to arrive there?
A. Yes, I can explain that quite clearly. In the barracks, there came five, six or seven, I could not see more, and there was a column of buses going through the town and I simply happened to be on the first bus. When that bus arrived in Luka, in the first hangar, that is, the arrival to Luka where the petrol pumps are, so as you come from the town, and they put 475 us in that first hangar.
Since my bus was the first one, I was among the first to enter the hangar. There was no one else there, and that is why I conclude that we were the first one to enter that hangar, that is, from that first bus. But whether there was somebody in those other hangars, I do not know and have no way of knowing, because we could not communicate with them.
Q. If I can again just refresh your memory briefly, Mr. F, so that we can clarify that, you told the District Court at Tuzla, the State Security Bureau sector, that you were the first detainees at Luka, and that's why I asked you to confirm that. Does that refresh your memory?
A. Yes. Well, that's what I just repeated.
Q. There were some people who were waiting for you upon your arrival at Luka; is that right?
A. It is.
Q. Had you ever seen any of those people before?
Q. Were they people who were in uniforms or in civilian clothes?
A. They wore uniforms, by and large, even though, you know, I mean various vehicles kept coming and going. But there was this group of about five 476 soldiers, five men, wearing rather strange clothes. Some were wearing camouflage uniforms, others were wearing black coveralls, some had gloves and hats.
Q. Were you put straight into the hangar upon your arrival?
A. Yes. Yes, but they took us into the hangar one by one. They would search us. They took away our effects, if we had anything, and all our personal documents we also had to deposit in a large box at the entrance into the hangar.
Q. I wonder if you might have a look, please, at the sketch plan which you drew and which you looked at yesterday, please. I'm sorry, I've forgotten immediately what the exhibit number was.
THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] It was Prosecution Exhibit 11.
MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much.
A. Yes. I drew this sketch myself, drawing on my memory.
Q. Mr. F, I just want to clarify one thing in particular about the writing that's on that. Is all the writing on there your writing?
A. Yes, things in Bosnian, words in Bosnian. But as far as I can see, there are also translations I 477 mean of these words that was written down by a gentleman of the investigating team.
Q. I just want to clarify that, because very briefly you spoke in English a moment or two ago, and I wondered whether you had written on in English your own translations of those words. But as far as you can recall, somebody else translated what you had written down and put it on in English?
A. No, this was done by investigators. They translated it in the presence of an interpreter. When the document was drawn which fully tallied with my statement, that is when I signed it.
Q. I would like you to --
A. May I just clarify? I don't know if it's important or not, but my English is not all that good. I did learn it at school and I know it fairly well. But it is not really all that good for me to do it myself, so all that was done in English was done by investigators, with the help of interpreters.
Q. I suspect your English is rather better than any Bosnian or Serbian that I might be able to manage, Mr. F, so don't worry about that. I'm not interested in whether you can speak English or not. I just wanted to clarify it. All right?
A. Possibly. 478
Q. Please, if the usher would now put the document onto the ELMO, please.
If, as yesterday, if you need to point at the plan, use the pointer rather than leaning forward, and if you need to draw your chair up a bit closer, you better do that now.
Q. I would just like to explore a little bit the layout of the site. If you would look at what I suspect is the left-hand side of the plan as you look at it, please, Mr. F, we can see, at the extreme left, reference to a gate, and in brackets in English is, "This is the road I entered Luka." You see that on the left-hand side of the plan? If you can point to the plan rather than the television screen.
A. It says here [indicating], what I wrote here, it is the road to the PO Luka Brcko. But this is the road that you can use to come from town directly into the port authority where you have the petrol pumps and administrative building, but there is also another route. That is which we took and where I said was the route which I took to get to Luka.
When we got to what is called Srpska Varos, a Serb town, it was this particular road that we used, and the buses stopped here in front of this hangar 479 [indicating]. So it is the first from this entrance here, the first to the left from the main gate, this one [indicating]. This entrance here [indicating] was only for heavy trucks and for heavy cargo, and as any other inhabitant of Brcko, we always used this particular route [indicating]. This was the controlled gate [indicating]. This was actually the cashier [indicating]. They used to sell building materials, all sorts of things, because that is what this particular work organisation engaged in, so that I normally used this road.
But when we arrived in Luka, we took this particular route [indicating], and that is how we entered and got to this hangar here. So looking from this side is where we came. Then it would be the last one to the right. But if you look at it from the other way around, then of course it is the first to the left.
Q. I don't think there's any controversy about which hangar. When we talk about the first hangar, we talk about the one at the right-hand end of the hangars marked on the plan. That's right, isn't it?
A. It is.
Q. May we take it that from what you've just said, you knew the site from before the war, you had been there or had visited it before the war? 480
A. A couple, a couple of times. I wasn't particularly familiar with the compound, because there was the industrial area and the administrative building, because that was the cashiers, as I've said, and the office where you paid for whatever, and this is where they kept all those goods [indicating], that is, concrete elements, other building materials if you wanted to build a house, and all sorts of goods of that kind.
Q. Just so we can get a slightly better picture of the site, could you look, please, at the photograph which I think is Exhibit 12? 9, I'm sorry. It's this photograph.
So that we can just relate accurately the map to the photograph, Mr. F, if you look at the top right-hand corner, is that the road which leads down to where you entered Luka on this occasion, leads to the heavy trucks entrance, as it were? Do you see where I mean? If you look to the top right-hand corner, the road disappears off the photograph. Can you see that?
Q. Just so you can relate the photograph to the plan, is that the road that leads down towards the gate which is marked on the left-hand side of the plan, in other words, the gate where you've marked, "This is the 481 road where I entered Luka"?
A. We came from this side [indicating], that is, from the right-hand corner, and were put in this hangar here [indicating].
Q. If I can just now ask you this, please, about the photograph: You see where what we have been calling the first hangar is. To the left-hand side and slightly down, as it were in the context of the photograph, down below it, right next-door to the hangars, there's a large open space and a building at the bottom of what looks like a square. Do you see that? Perhaps if you put your pointer --
A. You mean this [indicating]?
Q. No. Down to the left, Mr. F. You see where the first hangar is where you were detained? Put your pointer on there.
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Now move slightly to the left, please, and to an open space which looks like it's concrete or tarmac.
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Yes, that open space. Thank you. Do you see that at the small building on the corner?
Q. I just want you to help me with this. You've 482 marked on your plan, if you would just like to look at your plan now, please --
Q. You've marked a gas station, petrol station. Is that petrol station beyond the fence or is it that small building that's on the corner of the square we've just looked at?
A. As far as I remember, this is the gate [indicating], and the petrol station is before the entrance. And this was the receptionist [indicating]. I mean that is where the security people were who controlled the entrance and things like that. As far as I remember, I put here [indicating] the gate. I might also mention I don't have a
photographic memory, you know, so in my sketch which I drew, I marked the most important facilities, as far as I could draw my memory to put things and to clarify how the events unfolded. I do not think I could really draw a very accurate sketch. That's as much as I can say.
Q. No criticism of your artistic skills, Mr. F. I just want you to help us as far as you can. Looking again at the plan, please, you have marked at the very top of it a series of houses on both sides of a road which looks as though it's called 483 Srpska Varos. Is that right?
Q. Is that the road, looking, if you will, at the photograph, marrying it up with the photograph, is that the road that we can see at the bottom right of the photograph leading diagonally across the corner?
A. Well, you can't really see, but this must be the road leading to Luka [indicating] because on this side there is nowhere, it's the river.
Q. It's not the top of the photograph, Mr. F. Can you look at the bottom of photograph? Do you see, running between the houses, there is a road with a --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] What are you trying to demonstrate here, Mr. Greaves? I'm trying to find out what it is that you're looking for. Obviously, you want to show that there's a contradiction in the drawing that the witness made and the photograph. Let's move clearly, and say exactly what it is you're looking for.
I can't agree for us going round and round this way. Otherwise, I'm going to ask the questions. What are you looking for? Are you trying to say there's a contradiction between the drawing and the photograph? If that's the case, say so and ask the question of the witness. After that, we'll have a 484 break. Then I'm going to ask you how much more time you're going to need, and if it's too long, we're going to limit you.
Two questions. What are you looking for? What are you trying to show? Are you trying to show a contradiction between the photograph and the drawing? Of course, that's your right, but please go right to the question. Afterwards, tell me how much more time you need for the questions on this, and I'll ask the Registrar to tell us how long the examination in chief lasted. Then after that, we're going to take a break.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'm not trying to contradict this witness. I'm trying to be as kind to him as possible. I want to make sure we know exactly the layout of this place. I have some questions to ask him about what could and could not be seen from it. I just want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to him and trying to catch him up or anything like that. I'm not trying to do that. I just want to make sure that he is able to relate the photograph to his plan.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] But the Judges more or less understood this. Excuse me, Mr. Greaves. I ask the witness, how did you come in? What part of the hangar were you in? Obviously, you did not ask -- you didn't put that house in the corner, so tell 485 us again where you came in from. Did you come in through a road which you ordinarily used? Perhaps you came in from the other side. Could you repeat this for the Tribunal, please, Witness F? Please focus and answer the Judges. The Judges are going to ask questions. Try to focus, please, Witness F. Please proceed.
A. I shall try to be clear and to the point. The road which the buses took to take us to Luka was the road which I never used before, and I already explained that it was used only for industrial purposes, that is, it was only used by heavy trucks bringing in gravel, building materials, and things like that, so that it is difficult for me to be very accurate. I hope you understand that.
We took this gate which those heavy trucks used. We did not take the road that we normally used, that is, that the civilian people used to come to Luka. And there is the gate, there is the security and all that, and --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] How did you come in? Show us, with the pointer on the photograph, where you came in.
A. Well, I'd have to -- to be quite honest, I can only distinguish I mean if I can see the petrol 486 station before the gate, you know, because there was a gate like this on both sides and it makes it very difficult for me to find my way. I repeat, I had never before seen that road, and even on that particular occasion I did not see it because we were already very afraid and we did not know.
You must bear this in mind. I wasn't really looking around. I wasn't admiring the landscape. We were all very frightened and thinking what would happen to us, so that I think that that is true because that's how it was.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
A. I never saw Luka from the air, so I know the entrance which we used as civilians and which I used on a couple of occasions before and what I knew was there, and that is how I drew it. I think it tallies the river, the railroad tracks, then hangars, the administrative building, the storage space and houses around, and that is what I know and that is what I could see with my own eyes.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Greaves, please ask your question again.
MR. GREAVES: I think Your Honour mentioned that you wished to take a break at this stage.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] No. I would 487 like to finish with this point, and then we'll take the break.
MR. GREAVES: I'm sorry. I misunderstood Your Honour, and I apologise.
Q. The final question I have to ask you concerning the photograph and the layout of Luka, Mr. F, is the houses. Would you accept this, that the houses which you can see on the bottom right-hand side of the plan are at a level of height raised well above the Luka facility, enabling anybody in those houses to look down from them onto what was going on in the area that we can see depicted in the photograph?
A. Frankly, I could not give you a precise answer to this question. As far as my memory serves me, the entrance to Luka is a slight decline so Luka is close to the river, and the houses there are most likely at a slightly higher elevation.
As we were between the hangars and the other structures on the other side, it was very close to each other. When you have a structure in front of you, it is very limited to what you can see beyond that. Perhaps you could see something, but I do not recall. I do not remember it.
I don't know how else to explain this. I'm telling you as best as I can. I didn't see it. 488
MR. NICE: I had a photograph taken of exactly this point, and the Defence have been invited to come and consider photographs of the area they may find helpful. If they come along, we can probably take a look, but my recollection is the houses are indeed elevated and probably visible.
MR. GREAVES: It may be that my learned friend and I can agree to a form of words as to what you can and cannot see from those houses, and that would be helpful and we could perhaps deal with that. Your Honour, that's the end of the questions I have on that point.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We're going to take a 20-minute break. We will resume at noon. Let me remind you that the direct examination lasted for two hours. You're going to work together with Mr. Londrovic, Mr. Greaves, and so you can tell us how much more time you're going to need in order to finish your cross-examination. Thank you. We will resume at noon.
--- Recess taken at 11.40 a.m.
--- On resuming at 12.05 p.m.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now resume the hearing. Please be seated. Have the accused brought in. 489 Mr. Greaves?
MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
Q. Mr. F, I would like to turn now, please, to a number of specific incidents --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Greaves. I wanted to know how much time you need to complete your cross-examination and whether you think you will do it by 1.00.
MR. GREAVES: No, I don't anticipate concluding by 1.00, but I would anticipate concluding about an hour after the resumption for lunch.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I want to consult with my colleagues.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, after checking the time that's been used -- you've used about one hour and 20 minutes for your
cross-examination so far -- the Judges would like to say two things to you. First of all, Witness F, according to the Prosecutor, was not the witness whom we can use a simplified method with for the cross-examination and the examination-in-chief. Under those conditions, for this witness, we're going to grant you the time that you are asking for, that is, 490 you will finish by 3.30. But this will be the only exception.
In addition, in a more general way, we are asking that you adapt both the time and length of your cross-examination in respect of the
examination-in-chief. Of course, the rule will be flexible, for the reasons that I've indicated this morning; but for this one time, and exceptionally, the Trial Chamber grants you the right to go until 3.30, and 1.00 this morning, since you weren't informed before that. But now you know what the rule will be that's going to be applied before this Trial Chamber, and we are not going to waste any further time, so please continue now with your cross-examination of Witness F. Thank you very much.
Q. Mr. F, I was asking you a moment or two ago about an incident concerning a man known to you, I think, as Sarajka. Do you recall such an incident?
A. Incident? I don't think that I would call it an incident, but you perhaps are -- you're probably referring to when the Serbian soldiers who were in the hangar, they were sitting around a table in the hangar, and at one point they approached us and asked us whether we knew a person whose nickname was Sarajka. 491 Is this what you're referring to, sir?
Q. Yes, and does it come to this, that they were looking for him for a particular reason?
A. Yes. They asked us whether we knew Sarajka, and we sort of said yes, for the most part, because people from the centre of town, by and large, knew this person by the nickname of Sarajka. I don't know this person's real name, but I know who they were referring to when they said Sarajka.
Q. Can I just clarify this: As well as asking about him, were they looking to see whether he was amongst your number in the hangar?
A. I believe that they knew that he wasn't there; they just asked us, "Do you know Sarajka?" And the majority said yes, and then they asked, "Do you know that he raped a Serbian young girl," I believe of 7, and we said that we didn't know that, that we knew nothing about it.
Q. If I suggested to you that the man's proper name was Safet Sahrimanovic, would that refresh your memory in any way and help you as to the identity of this man?
A. As I said, I really do not know his real name, but I believe that there was only one person in town who was known under the nickname of Sarajka, so I 492 believe that there can be no confusion about it. I believe that we knew very well what person these soldiers were asking about.
Q. And the specific reason that they were looking for him, as you said, was that he had allegedly raped somebody. Was he known as someone who had previously raped people? Was that part of his reputation?
A. Frankly, I don't know whether he had specifically raped someone before, but he was known in town as a person prone to violence. He would go into -- he would get involved in fights, and he was also a petty thief, and people basically avoided him.
Q. I want to turn now, please, to the person from the village of Janja about whom you spoke yesterday. He was picked out from his identification card as being a resident of Janja; is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And is this correct, that the nature of the hostility towards people from Janja was because it was said that the Muslim community in that village was continuing to fight and engage with Serb forces?
A. Yes, but I'd like to amend that. Janja was the only Muslim village around Bijelina, but they did not fight Serbs; they just refused to turn in the 493 weapons, to surrender the weapons which they possessed. And I wouldn't go further into it. I believe that this may have been the reason why he was called out, and after that, he was taken out. And I clarified the rest when asked by the Prosecutor.
Q. Was he, amongst other things, accused by them of being in contact with resistance groups in Brko?
A. Yes, this is the story we heard from those soldiers, the soldiers who were in the hangar and who were checking the documents. And on the basis of his address, in fact, they accused him; they asked how come he was in Brcko. Then he said that he had a sister and a brother-in-law there, that he came to visit them, so they would spend the May Day holiday together. They did not give any arguments; they just -- on the basis of the fact that he was from Janja, they tried to force him to admit that he had come to Brcko to liaise with the units there who were going to resist in town. Then they beat him, they took him out of the hangar, and then we don't know anything about his fate. I just know that while I was there, he never came back.
Q. As well as accusing him of being in contact with resistance groups, is it also correct that they accused him of being a Green Beret? And by "Green Beret," would you understand special forces attached to 494 the Muslim forces?
A. I would like to try to explain this. They were mentioning some Green Berets, some thousands of Green Berets, but the truth of the matter was that these Green Berets did not exist at all. There were local inhabitants in certain parts of town which had self-organised, and they had some small amounts of weapons. But they were just looking for an excuse to create this. But I don't think that they had any reasons. It was enough for them that he was from Janja, and this is why he was guilty, and the fact that he was a Muslim.
Q. Well, please, can you answer the question: Did they accuse him of being a Green Beret?
A. Yes. They were saying that because he was from Janja, that this is certainly why he had come here.
Q. And whether the people questioning him were right or not, the focus of their hostility towards him was the place from which he had come and what they suspected him of doing; that's right, isn't it?
A. Yes. This is how they presented it.
Q. When you gave evidence yesterday, and indeed you've just repeated it now, you claimed that the soldiers had beaten him in the hangar before taking him 495 out. What I suggest to you is that when you gave your account of this matter to the Office of the Prosecutor, what you said was that he was beaten after he had been taken out.
A. As far as I can recall -- in fact, I cannot recall what I said, but he was hit with a rifle butt several times while he was leaving the hangar, and after that we couldn't see what was going on with him, except we could hear screams, which would have been caused by pain, and then some noises. But the only thing that we could make out were these human screams. And let me point out that from the vantage point in the hangar where we were, we could not see where he was taken and what happened to him, but we could hear this, and we could hear it clearly.
Q. So to summarise, he was taken out by Serbian soldiers, and whatever took place was outside your vision subsequently, and all you could do was hear what was going on?
Q. And what time was this?
A. This could have been sometime between 4.00, 4.30, 5.00. We arrived there at around 3.00, so maybe around 5.00, but I don't know that I can establish it with any precision. 496
Q. And according to your evidence yesterday, this was before the arrival at the hangar of the man who subsequently described himself to you as the Serb Adolf; do you accept that?
A. Yes. Yes, this happened before. The soldiers who were there before -- I don't know how much the Chamber is aware of the situation, but there was a table in the hangar throughout, and several soldiers sat around it and some stood around, so five or six were always present there.
MR. GREAVES: I want to interrupt the witness. Your Honour has chided me about taking too much time. Unfortunately, there is no control of the witness's answers, which is a task for Your Honour, with respect. I'm only here to ask questions. If I badger him about not answering the question, it then becomes an accusation that I am harassing him. It would be helpful if the witness was chided, like I was chided, to answer the question which has been asked instead of entering into a lengthy discourse as to some explanation which frequently is not on the subject at all, and that would assist us equally to get on.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree absolutely with you, Mr. Greaves.
I ask Witness F, although I realise that 497 these are painful events that we're speaking about and it's difficult not to go into greater length, but since this is a judicial debate and the fate of an individual is hanging in the balance, I would nonetheless ask you to focus on the questions that you're asked and to try to answer them precisely. If you need to make a comment, you can, of course, but generally try to focus on the specific and precise answer that you have to provide for the answer, because as you heard, both Defence and Prosecution time is relatively limited. Thank you, Witness F.
Please continue, Mr. Greaves.
MR. GREAVES: I want to turn now to the arrival of the person you had described as calling himself the Serb Adolf.
Q. Is it right that a number of people had arrived at the same time as him?
A. I'm sorry, I did not quite understand the question. Specifically, what group of people?
Q. Well, were you able to see the person who described himself as the Serb Adolf? Were you able to see him arriving on the premises at Luka, onto the site at Luka?
A. No, we just heard. We could hear the sounds of several vehicles arriving, and from what I can 498 recall, what we could see from the hangar, there was a Zastava vehicle 101 model. This was a popular vehicle in Bosnia. We could hear the noise of several vehicles, you could hear that some vehicles were coming and going, but it was not clear whether they were coming or going. But then the person who had introduced himself as the Serb Adolf entered with another person.
Q. If I can just focus for a moment on that other person, was he, unlike the one who described himself as the Serb Adolf, was that other person in civilian dress?
A. Yes. As far as I can recall, this person was in civilian clothes.
Q. What sort of age was the person who was in civilian clothes? Was he older than the Serb Adolf?
A. No. As far as I can recall, it was a younger person. Would you like me to try to describe him as far as I can recall?
Q. You did very well, if I may say so, on the previous occasion. If you can give a description as to height and age and hair and so on, that would be most helpful, please, Mr. F.
A. As far as my memory serves me and from what I saw, this is what I can say: This person was rather 499 young, in my estimate somewhere between 18 and 20 years of age, not very -- fairly short, sort of plump, not really fat but roundish. The hair was a bit longer. I think it was sort of light hair. It was the same young man who later on signed off on our passes.
Q. Apart from those two people, were you able to see -- you've described a Zastava car, I think. There were other people in the Zastava car who had arrived?
A. I cannot really say "Yes" or "No." We could hear some movement outside and some noise, and there were vehicles coming and going from time to time. As I said, from the hangar we really could not see anything outside. Only the door of the hangar was only slightly ajar.
Q. The reason I ask you, Mr. F, and again this may assist your memory, was that you described to the OTP in your statement that through the door you could see a car full of people. Does that -- do you recall that?
A. Well, I've just said that what one could see was -- in passing, I did say that, but I cannot really claim it with any certainty. I think it was a car, a green car, and I believe it was a Zastava 101 because it was a very popular car with us, and in it there were quite a number of people. How many, I don't know. 500 All I know is that after that, the hangar was entered by a person who introduced himself as Serb Adolf, accompanied by the person whom I have just tried to describe.
Q. I would like to turn now, please, to that person who you say described himself as the Serb Adolf. In the same way that you have described others, please, will you give a description of that person?
A. I only wish to describe to the Court a very important thing just to explain why my testimony is as it is, and the testimony of other people. It was the 8th of May already, the 8th of May of living in fear --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Witness F. I would ask you to answer Mr. Greaves' question and then make your comment afterwards. Excuse me, but things must be done according to a certain order. After that, you can make your comment. The Judges will allow you to do so. But for the time being, Mr. Greaves asked you to try to describe the Serbian Adolf. Please do that.
A. Yes, thank you. He was in the former civilian police uniform, that is, the light blue shirt, light blue or even slightly darker trousers, and he was armed with an automatic gun, a Scorpion, and had a long 501 police baton. He was, as far as I could judge, about 180 or 185 tall. Perhaps that is an average height, neither too tall nor too short. Medium build. His hair was fair to brown, fair to chestnut, as far as one could see in the hangar because it was rather dark there.
I think what struck one's eye was his eyes. He had very high cheekbones too, and his eyes were somehow unnaturally expressive, like turbid water or something like that. He seemed to have been using some stimulants or something like that. Whoever met his eye, I think, would avoid looking at him again. I think he instilled a kind of a fear, his look, especially after he would introduce himself. I don't really know how to put it. He simply -- I mean our fear, which was already very great, I think, tripled after the look we received from him. That is perhaps how I could put it best.
But I should like to ask the Court to bear in mind, in my case and in the case of all other witnesses, that it was eight days since the beginning of the war, that we were really put in very bad conditions, that we could not sleep practically because of the shelling and gunfire all the time, and that we were really at the end of the tether, both of our 502 physical and mental forces. Particularly since we were brought to Luka, most of us had somehow reconciled with the thought that we would die. Under those circumstances, we all avoided looking anyone straight in the eye, especially a person who introduced himself in this manner, because for such people it was enough for them to draw their attention in whatever way and then be subjected to something that we really would rather avoid.
I'm simply trying to explain how we felt at that time.
Q. Mr. F, when you made your statement to the OTP, would you accept that this is the description that you gave of the man who described himself as the Serb Adolf? "Short, flat, blonde hair, about 175 centimetres tall, very skinny, prominent cheekbones, wearing a light blue uniform of shirt and pants"? Do you accept that that's the description that you gave of this man?
A. Yes, that is how I remembered him, that is how I saw him, except that I think the colour of his hair, I think it was light brown, rather fair to chestnut. But it was rather difficult to say because of the lack of light in the hangar. The hangar was a building with very few windows, and one must bear in mind that one couldn't really see very much, not see -- 503 or, rather, not see the colour enough.
I should like to add once again that we avoided looking at him, fearing --
THE INTERPRETER: Could, please, the witness speak up a little bit? We can barely hear him at times.
Q. Forgive me, Mr. F. Your evidence yesterday was that not only did you see him inside the building but that you witnessed him outside, carrying out a number of murders, and had a significant opportunity outside to view this man. What I suggest to you is that the description which you gave to the Office of the Prosecutor was of a completely different person, wasn't it, a blonde, skinny man, not a fair to chestnut medium build, 180 to 185 man? Do you accept that there is a complete difference between those two descriptions and that you had a proper opportunity to view him?
A. I do not accept that I gave a different description. But referring to some standards, I said it was something about 175 tall, and one can check it. As I have said, it was an average height. One cannot really say with any accuracy. I said he was normally built, but he perhaps looked more skinny or something. Perhaps he was wearing a uniform which was a size too 504 large and that is why he looked that way. But I also said that we avoided looking at him, fearing him, because we realised what kind of a person he was, that perhaps it was enough to look at him and then have your fate sealed. I believe that our fear was quite understandable.
Q. Mr. F, the person that you say introduced himself as the Serbian Adolf, before that occasion you had never seen him before?
A. No, never.
Q. Throughout your time as a detainee at Luka, you never learned his name, his true name?
A. Yes, true.
Q. The way in which you say you're able to associate the name Goran Jelisic with the Serbian Adolf is only because of speaking to others at some later date who also had been detained?
Q. So that we may just examine a little bit the circumstances of that, how long was it after your release from Luka did you return to the (redacted)?
A. About seven days.
Q. How long after that were you able to speak with other people who had been detained?
A. Immediately after I came for my labour 505 obligation to my former work organisation. If you want me to explain it, I think I can do it in a very few words, how I came to the conclusion that it was one and the same person.
Q. Well, so as to be fair to you, you tell us, Mr. F.
A. The day when we were released from Luka, we were taken by persons who were then again found at home or with their neighbours and taken back to Luka once again. One of those persons who was taken back to Luka, because he had a very specific occupation, he came to the work organisation, (redacted) (redacted), and we talked and had contact or, rather, I mean two persons, and two persons confirmed that that man who had been doing that and who had the main say in Luka, or that is at least how they saw it, that his name was Goran Jelisic. That is how I explained my conviction that it is one and the same person, because those people, at the moment when he was doing that in Luka, they were there. And then they were taken back to Luka, and that was then that I learned his identity or, rather, his true name. So that is how I explain why I believe that it is one and the same person.
Q. Of course, what you learned was what they believed to be his name. Do you accept that? 506
A. Yes, I do. I already mentioned that I knew this person only as the Serb Adolf, or that is how he introduced himself. I never knew his true identity. I think it was quite clear, and I really do not want to say anything that I'm not certain about.
Q. Fair enough. I don't want you to. You don't know anything, yourself, of your own knowledge, of the circumstances in which they, your informants, came by the name?
A. While they were in Luka, since they were taken back there and they spent again a number of days there during their second stay there, they learned that that person's name was Goran Jelisic. I didn't have the slightest idea as to what his name was, but through talking to these people and thinking about the events and associating them with other events, I realised that that person who had introduced himself as the Serb Adolf, that that person's true name was Goran Jelisic. I am not claiming -- I'm not asserting anything in my own name, but all the things seem to point out that it is one and the same person. I think that all the circumstances are pointing in that direction, and that is what I said.
Q. My final question on this point, Mr. F, and so that you have an opportunity to deal with it, you 507 cannot say anything of the circumstances in which those people -- whether the information they were given was correct or not; you simply are relying on what they said to you?
Q. Thank you. I would like to ask you now, please, about the documents that were collected. Essentially, documents were collected at Luka which were identification documents of one sort or another; is that right?
A. It is.
Q. Whilst those documents were being examined, would this be correct, that it was made clear by those examining the documents that they were interested in, for example, members of the SDA or criminals or those who had been engaged in some form of military activity?
A. No, that was not the impression I gained, simply because they were very hostile. They showed a very hostile attitude towards all of us. An incredible amount of hate emanated from those men, and we did not know why, especially since they knew -- when the military police had brought us to the barracks, they had been told that we were brought from our homes, that we were refugees, that we had nothing to do with fighting or anything. But from the way they treated 508 all of us, it was not my impression that -- I think they were only looking for some reason, for a cause, for a pretext to do certain things. That is what I think.
Q. If I can just assist you again, Mr. F, is it not right that you were told that the people checking the documents had the complete records of the Ministry of the Interior and complete lists of members of the SDA?
A. Quite. That is what they told us. They said they had all these personal files taken over from the Ministry of the Interior, and that they also had lists of SDA members.
Q. And that they knew who did and who did not have a criminal record?
A. Yes. The very fact they had the files, every person had his file with all the characteristics, especially, of course, those who were having some problems with the law, as we usually put it; they had complete documentation in the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. Is it not right that they approached individuals inquiring of them whether in fact they were members of the SDA?
A. I believe I have to explain this, because it seems it is not quite clear enough. When it was said 509 that some people could be released provided a Serb guaranteed for them, they placed themselves in the position of God, if I can put it that way, that is, that a Serb could guarantee for a Muslim, and that Muslim would be released, but that Serb was guaranteeing for that particular Muslim with his own life. And if this Muslim did anything -- that is, got involved in the war or anything -- that Serb would first pay with his life.
I do not want to underestimate honourable members of these people. I think I made it quite clear that there were quite honourable people among them, and I am saying this because I want to tell the truth and I want the truth to be known. And at that particular time, and I wrote it quite clearly in my statement, that members of the military police, and that was quite fortunate as far as I'm concerned, were my neighbours, were my very good friends. And from what I could see, what I could read from their faces, they were also very excited, very surprised --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Continue.
Q. Mr. F, you haven't answered the question which I asked. Is it not right that those checking the documents approached individuals and asked them, "Are 510 you members of the SDA?" Isn't that right?
A. Well, that is why I started saying what I said. That is not quite true, not those who were looking through documents. It was not they who asked us. But when it was said that a prisoner could be released if guaranteed by a Serb, then those people who wanted to be released, of course, had to hand over their identification documents, to give it over at the desk there. But those people who were guaranteeing for some people, including me, they were the ones who asked us, "Are you members of the SDA?" They did not ask me, presumably because we were friends and neighbours. So I believe that now it is clear why I wanted to say certain things.
Q. Mr. F, I'm going to put to you a passage from the account that you gave to the OTP so that you can deal with it properly. What you said was this: "They said they had the complete records from the Ministry of Interior and complete lists of members of the SDA. They said if we come forward now, we would have less problems. As I already mentioned, I knew these policemen very well. When they went to the office and got the passes, those persons were eventually allowed to leave. They would approach the persons they knew quite well and knew didn't have criminal records and 511 asked if they were members of the SDA. This gave me the impression that they did not have a complete list of the SDA members. They, the police, guaranteed our co-operation with their lives."
So what you are saying, I suggest, is that there were direct enquiries of individuals as to their personal membership of the SDA, and that's what you were telling the OTP; do you accept that?
A. Well, yes.
Q. Thank you.
A. But you insist on this, and I must say something: They said they had complete SDA lists, but when those people came, they asked us whether we were SDA members. And that is an important distinction. No, the question is whether they did have full documentation or not, because had they had it, they wouldn't have been asking us if we were members of the SDA. I think that is an important distinction.
Q. Precisely. What they were doing, Mr. F, was looking for members of the SDA. That's what they were doing, weren't they? No more and no less than that?
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You had the answer to the question. The witness was able to make his comments. Let's try to move forward. Please ask a different question. 512
Q. I would like now to move, please, to the issuing of passes. You've told us, I think, that they were issued by Djordje Ristanic; is that right?
Q. Did you know of this person before coming across his name on these passes?
A. Let me see. That same person, at the time, was the self-appointed president of the municipality of Brcko. That is how I know him; that is how I know his name. I believe it is quite clear. And these passes, yes, were signed with his name.
Q. And did he also become president of -- whether self-appointed or not -- president of the crisis staff on the Serbian side?
A. I don't know how -- in the war, they used to call former organisations very strange and curious names, so I really do not know what they called that new organisation. But I know that that particular gentleman, throughout the war, held the post which I used to know, and that was the president of the municipality of Brcko, so it was the supreme civilian authority. And his signature figured on those passes.
Q. It may be that you know the answer to this question, or it may be that you don't, but help us if 513 you can: In time of war, does the president of a municipality become converted into the president of a crisis staff, so that there's a special procedure which takes place at the beginning of conflict?
A. I don't know what is the wartime procedure, but it's possible. For instance, to help you, in my company, the manager was the principal authority, and during the war he was called "wartime manager." Now, what is the difference, I really don't know. I'm simply saying that sometimes they used some names which were not familiar, and I really do not know what are the differences between them.
Q. All right.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'm about to move on to a different area. I see that it is shortly before 1.00; I wonder if that is a convenient moment for Your Honour.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. I think it would be appropriate to take our break now. Let me remind you that we will resume at 2.30.
The Court stands adjourned.
--- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m. 514
--- On resuming at 2.38 p.m.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now resume the hearing. Please have the accused brought in.
[The accused entered court]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves?
Q. Witness F, during the course of the evening of the 8th of May, you became aware that it was possible to get passes for release from the camp. Can you be any more specific as to the time at which you became aware that passes were being given out?
A. About 6.00 in the afternoon.
Q. And --
A. Maybe a bit before, a bit later. I cannot be precise.
Q. Can you help Their Honours as to how many people were given passes at that time?
A. In my estimate, about 80. Between 80 and 100, somewhere within that range.
Q. Were all of those to whom a pass had been issued, were all of you outside the hangar in the manner that you've described underneath the covered or partly-covered entrance?
A. No, because it depended on the way in which 515 people were being given these identity cards to go there and get a pass. So at first it was a few people, and then as people were being released, as passes were being filled out, so the number grew. That depended on whom they identified as somebody they could guarantee for them, and then they went over there to say so, and then this person would be then brought out, and then the passes would be filled out. Then I think that at first the number of people who left Luka were between 50 and 100, so this number varied at first, and then later on when people were ready to leave Luka, it ended up being between 80 and 100.
Q. Can I get this clear? All of those who were issued passes that day, all were released, is that what you're saying, or were some of them held over to the following day?
A. I just want to say that the process of release started sometime around 6.00 p.m., and it ended around 8.00, 8.15, when we left Luka. So in that interval, this is the period when all this process took place.
Q. I understand that. What I wanted just to clarify, and if I can get back to it, please, those who were given passes on the 8th of May were all released or were some detained further? Were all released that 516 day and left with you at about 8.25 or so?
A. Yes. As far as I know, those who did get passes. The time was between 8.15 to 8.20. The curfew was at 9.00, so we requested that we be released so that we would reach our homes by 9.00, that we reach wherever we needed to go.
Q. Whilst you were standing outside the hangar opposite to the administration offices, were you able to see into the offices themselves?
A. No. The door was closed and there was some kind of screens over there, so you could not see inside from outside. You could only hear certain noises.
Q. Apart from the man you have described as the Serb who called himself the Serb Adolf, was there anyone else with him?
A. Yes. Outside by the door, where the table was set and where the passes were being issued, four or five metres away from that table, there was a group of soldiers, and occasionally there were one or two of them, or two or three, sometimes four and five, but there were always a certain number of soldiers present there.
Q. I want to ask you now about the killings that you say that you witnessed whilst you were waiting outside the hangar. When the first one, you say, was 517 committed, how many people were standing outside the hangar at that time?
A. In my estimate, it was around 5.00 p.m. -- sorry, about 7.00 p.m., and I think at that time there were about 30 people. The procedure of issuing of these passes started around 6.00, but then it lasted for a while because they were looking for the documents, and then they had to come back, and then they were looking for people they wanted to release. Then they had to wait for the passes to be filled out for them.
Q. In relation to the first of those incidents, is this right, that the first person who came out of the building, one thing that that person was saying was something along the lines of, "I am not a Green Beret"?
Q. Saying it to the person you've described as calling himself the Serb Adolf?
A. Yes. While he was being escorted, he was swearing that he was not -- on his children that he was not a Green Beret, and he begged not to be killed.
Q. The person you say who was shot or was killed, was he saying that immediately he came from the offices?
A. Yes, immediately upon leaving. And I would 518 like to make a correction. I did not say of this person that he was killed, nor did I say that I saw him being killed. I just saw him leaving the building, and then when they left my field of vision, I heard two muffled shots, and the self-proclaimed Serb Adolf came back by himself. So I just simply describe what I saw and what I heard.
Q. I stand corrected, and I apologise for putting the question in a bad way. But the first person about whom you had spoken, and we're talking about the same person.
In respect of the third person that you described to Their Honours yesterday, is this right, that that victim was pushed out of the building by two people in civilian clothing? Did you see any people in civilian clothing pushing that person or someone out of the offices?
A. Yes, that is correct. As far as I recall, this person was pushed out by two persons dressed in civilian clothes; in leather jackets, in fact.
Q. Help us with this. What sort of people were they? Were they a similar age to the man who was calling himself Adolf or older than him? What type of people were they? Did you know them?
A. No, they were of younger age. But it was a 519 split second when I could see them, so it was a very superficial glance. I just noticed them wearing leather jackets. It was a bit unusual to see people in civilian clothes, and they were younger men. Other than that, I couldn't tell you anything. It was a brief moment, and I could not give you a better description of these men.
Q. I'd like now to ask you about someone who I think you described yesterday as Branko. Can I help you with this? Do you know if his name was actually Enver, also known or nicknamed as Sok, the second person outside the building?
A. Answering the Prosecutor's question yesterday, I clearly pointed out that I did not recall and that I could not say the real name. But I know that he introduced himself as Branko, but I am not saying that that was his real name. And I described other things. He was shortish. He was a bit heavy set. But I remember what he said. He had this leather band with a bullet pendant, and I said what he said. But I don't know what his real name was, but I seem to remember it as Branko.
Q. Apart from the five people you claim to have seen killed that day -- sorry, let me just deal with this: The five people that you claim to have seen 520 killed that day, were they all Muslims?
A. I couldn't tell you that because I could not recognise the people. I may not have known them even before, and -- but perhaps I couldn't recognise them due to the shape that they were in coming out. I just don't know their identity.
Q. Were you aware during the course of that day that a man, a Serb called Djoko, from Dubravica village, was killed at the camp?
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. I'd like now just to turn briefly to another person, somebody called Danijel, who was interrogated. Do you recall that?
Q. And is this right, that Danijel was being interrogated about a pistol that he had in his possession?
Q. And was that all that he was being interrogated about?
A. Yes. We were not able to hear this, but I assume, regarding Danijel, that somebody had left the door open so that these noises were coming to us louder than usual. He was being accused of a pistol having been found with him, and I think that he admitted to 521 that. Then they asked him how he came into its possession, and he said that he had bought it before the war to protect himself and his family in case something happened.
Q. Witness F, I want to return very briefly to something that I asked you about this morning, and it's an additional question: The person you've described as calling himself the Serb Adolf, the first time that you saw that person was at Luka?
Q. And so you had not seen him at the barracks the previous day or during your stay at the barracks?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were all the people who were at the barracks kept together in the same place? I think we may have heard some evidence about it being the movie hall.
A. As far as I know, yes.
Q. Thank you. I want to ask you this about the killings which you say that you witnessed: In the statement which you made to the district court at Tuzla, the state security bureau, you told that organ that you had witnessed three murders: somebody at around 5 p.m., somebody at around 6.00 p.m., and a third person -- I'm sorry, a total of four, I think it is, in fact, now that I recount it, four in all. Can 522 you explain why it is that you told them only about four murders and not five?
A. Yes. I gave this statement to the organ of the state security of the BH army in May 1993, immediately upon having been exchanged, and I gave the statement to the public security service. And I reread the statement, and I was surprised myself that certain events and certain numbers were sort of criss-crossed, so to speak; they were not in the right time line, the right sequence. I tried to correct this typed-up record I did not read, but given the circumstances, I did not have the time. They just told me that it was ready.
And this interview also only took an hour, hour and a half. These people worked under very tough circumstances. It was wartime. It was -- this report was written in bullet points and then was put together as a narrative and then was given to me to sign. And when I was released, when I was exchanged, I lived very far away; I was living far away. There was no fuel, there were no vehicles, there was no transportation available, there was shelling coming from both sides, so I would have risked my life if I were to set out on foot.
So when I finally made it there, I had just 523 barely enough time to come in, to sign it, and then turn around and go back home, for my own safety. So I have to point out that I did not have the time. The conditions were not such that -- I could not really read carefully the statement but just glanced through it. And this is how I can explain these discrepancies or differences that have occurred.
Q. You accept that you signed the statement. Do you also accept this, that at the conclusion of the statement, you signed this: "I have nothing further to add. The integral statement" -- by which I think it means the whole statement -- "has been read aloud to me, and I have had part in editing the statement. All that I have said so far I am prepared to confirm in court and to an international organisation, should any be interested, and I shall confirm this with my signature."
What you signed to there was having had the statement read aloud to you, and you took part in its editing. So what you've said just now isn't strictly true, is it, Mr. F?
A. I've just told the truth and explained why. If somebody has to take the blame, that I'm ready to assume that part of responsibility for not having read it. Yesterday I explained the circumstances under all 524 this happened. Secondly, I told you that I knew personally people who did all that, and I was quite convinced that it would be done fairly and correctly, and I don't know whence the differences that happened afterwards.
And I mentioned the same figure always, except, as far as I can remember, in the Bosnian version, it I think says that I saw five persons shot, which is not true, because I saw two men being killed. I didn't see three men being killed. And I read that. I'm really sorry about this misunderstanding, but it was wartime, and that is how it happened.
Q. Mr. F, I want to turn now, please, to the people on the two lists about whom you were asked yesterday. First of all, Stipo Glavocevic.
Q. From whom did you hear details about his killing?
A. From people who worked with me, in the same company, who knew him as well as I did. And they said about him that they knew the details of what he had gone through. And I should like to mention that I always pointed out very clearly what I had heard or what I had seen personally on which -- what I can swear to. I hope I was clear about that. 525
Q. I'm not complaining. I just want to establish a little more detail so that we can test the reliability of what you heard. You've described him as a lawyer; wasn't he in fact a policeman?
A. He was both those things. At the time when I knew him, he worked for Bimeks company as a lawyer. That is quite certain. And I have heard also that he had been a policeman beforehand. That is that before he became a lawyer, he was a policeman too. But I knew him as a lawyer and as a fellow worker.
Q. And so just to make it plain, all the detail which you have is derived from having been told by others, and that's an amalgamation of all that has been told to you by different people?
A. Yes, I heard about what had happened to him and about his occupation in wartime. I know because we worked together in the same company.
Q. And the second man about whom you were asked, called Glimac, Mehmed Glimac, although he was at Luka, you know nothing at all of what happened to him after -- either at Luka, or whether he was released, or what?
A. No, I really don't. I don't know even -- I mean, I haven't even heard anything. I really do not know either what happened to him or where he might be. 526 I know that he was in Luka, but that is all I know.
Q. I next want to ask you about two brothers called Kartal, Kasim and Rasim. Are you related to them in any way, whether by blood or by marriage?
A. No, but I knew them, like most people in Brcko, because they played football. And besides, my parents were friends of their parents, very close friends, so that we knew one another.
Q. Have you seen or met with any of your mutual friends since those days?
A. You mean brothers Kartal?
Q. Yes. If you have mutual friends with the Kartal brothers, have you met any of the mutual friends; in other words, those who were friends with both you and with the Kartal brothers?
A. I didn't say we had any mutual friends. I said I knew them because our parents were close friends, and I know those gentlemen. But during the war and after the war, I never saw them, and I just don't know what happened to them.
Q. Did you hear anything about them being killed but not being killed at Luka, perhaps?
A. No, I could not say anything, or I simply don't remember because there were so many stories about so many people that I really cannot say. 527
Q. I turn now briefly to -- well, Mr. Kevric you said you do not know, Sead Kevric you know nothing about. The brothers Tursic, they were at Luka with you?
A. I don't remember seeing them there.
Q. If you recall and so that it's clear, there were two sets of brothers, Tursic and Terzic that we talked about yesterday, and I want to be entirely fair to you, Mr. F. When you were first asked about Tursic, the name Tursic, you say, "I saw them at Luka." Which of the two? Was it Tursic or Terzic? Forgive my bad pronunciation?
A. Tursic, Tursic, yes. Yes, I said that I heard very many stories about brothers Tursic, something that all three brothers had been killed and it was a major family tragedy, and so that must be the same thing or about the same thing that I said yesterday when asked about it.
Q. The three brothers being killed, did you, when you heard about them being killed and it being a family tragedy, was there any further information as to where and how they had been killed given to you?
A. No, I don't think that I would remember any detail about that, but there was this story about those three brothers being killed. But who, when, how, those 528 circumstances, I don't remember that.
Q. Can you recall, so that you can help us, who it was who told you about that?
A. No, because moving around the territory in contact with people who were at Luka and then in Batkovic, so contacts with people who survived in the Public Security Station in Brcko and elsewhere where people were killed, somebody always survived, and after they would be exchanged, of course those people would naturally talk about what they had gone through during the detention. This information reached me from those stories, from people who survived those place.
Q. I turn now, if I may, please, to Ahmed Hodzic, also known as Papa, someone you've known from the Kolobara district. You said to the Court yesterday, "I know that he too was killed, I know that he was killed." What did you hear about that death?
A. As far as I know, Papa was one of -- how shall I put it -- one of the organisers and participants in the resistance which the Kolobara residents put up against the Serb troops, and from what I heard, that was how he was killed, or was he perhaps captured, but it was such a long time ago that I'm really not sure. Whether he died or was killed, I really can't say. But again from what I heard, he 529 participated in the resistance at Kolobara. But whether he was killed in combat or whether he was in detention --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Greaves. I want to consult with my colleagues.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, you can remain standing. I have a question for you. With my colleagues, we were wondering.
Certain facts were acknowledged because the accused pleaded guilty. I have the indictment in front of me, and this Kartal is not mentioned. However, it seems to us that as regards Ahmed Hodzic, alias Papa, that he is covered under paragraphs 19 of the indictment and counts 11 and 12. The accused pleaded guilty to those counts.
I understand that you're trying to prove that genocide was committed, Mr. Nice, but the questions have to be directed in a different manner then. The fact in and of itself seems to me to have been acknowledged by the accused. The fact that around the 7th of May, Goran Jelisic took the Muslim detainee Ahmed Hodzic, aka Papa, a leader of the Brezovo SDA, et cetera. What explanations can you give us, Mr. Nice? First I would like to hear what Mr. Nice has 530 to say and then give the floor to Mr. Greaves. Mr. Nice, would you comment on what I've just said, please?
MR. NICE: Yes. The position about Papa will be made clear by the next witness, to some degree, and indeed the evidence of the next witness on Papa will provide a helpful link, probably, of a particular kind which I will refer to in the absence of the witness. But Your Honour is quite right. In the
agreed factual basis for the guilty plea to be entered by Goran Jelisic, a document I think of September of last year, and unless I've got a document that is in some way not agreed, it's at paragraph 7 of that document that the defendant admitted that he took Ahmed Hodzic, also known as Papa, a leader of the Brcko SDA, outside the police station and shot and killed him, so that that fact is, amongst other facts, a fact for the Chamber to act upon and not a fact that it has to decide about.
Accordingly, there does seem to be very little point at the moment in any questions directed at minimising the value, even by second-hand sources, of the evidence that this witness can give. The Chamber will recall that I've invited this witness to deal with the lists, the longer list 531 and the shorter list, not only without complaint but indeed with the agreement of my learned friends simply because of something that they raised, and it seemed a good idea for the witness to have a look at the list in advance and to tell us what he could say about those people. But that doesn't make this line of questioning of any value, in light of the agreed fact that this defendant killed that man.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves?
MR. GREAVES: With respect to my learned friend and Your Honour, I'm afraid the point has been missed, and it's this: It's two points. One is a general point and one is a particular point. It's quite right that the defendant has
pleaded guilty to that matter, and there are likely to be other evidence about that matter and you will hear about it in due course, but it demonstrates these two things: The general point is this. It demonstrates the dangers inherent in hearsay evidence. Your Honours may be familiar with the
expression "Chinese whispers." The danger is that hearsay evidence is inherently unreliable, and this is a classic example of why hearsay evidence can be deeply unreliable.
Secondly, and a particular point, and I don't 532 want to indulge in a speech, as it were, in terms of closing, but this enables the Defence to make the comment in due course that this particular witness is also an unreliable witness who is recording and recounting things to you which are both hearsay and unreliable hearsay. That's the point. It's not suggested that we are trying to go back in any way on any plea of guilty that has been made so far.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I'm not sure whether you're responding to the Prosecutor, but you're not responding to the Judges' concerns, the Judges of this Tribunal.
The Judges have called you to illustrate paragraph 14 of the indictment, not the others, only 14. That is count 1 on genocide. As wise a legal specialist you are, you also have to respond to the fact that the Prosecutor said that you have to show that the accused had the intention of destroying a substantial and significant part of the Bosnian Muslim people, which is why the Prosecutor has just spoken about a list.
But the fact that the witness, in your eyes, is not particularly reliable, which is your opinion and it remains your opinion, does not avoid the question that in order to speed up the proceedings, the Judges 533 would not like to go back to the factual acknowledgement of the events. If you want to go back to the case of Ahmed Hodzic, why not, but you can go back to it only in respect of the connection that might exist between that murder and the genocidal intention or the constituent elements of genocide.
For example, I can't tell you how to work, but the fact that he was a Muslim, I could understand that, but you cannot go back on the pretext that today you find the witness to be unreliable, which is, as I've said, your opinion. You cannot go back to paragraph 19, in which it says that Goran Jelisic, as he acknowledged, on the 7th of May, 1992, took the Muslim detainee Ahmed Hodzic, alias Papa, a leader of the Brcko SDA, a Muslim political party, outside the Brcko station, took him to that same place where he had killed a young detainee from Sinteraj earlier that day, and after reaching the area, Goran Jelisic shot and killed Ahmed Hodzic. To this, the accused pleaded guilty.
In a subsequent hearing, during the sentencing hearings, we will see what the Judges should draw from this, but I don't think it's appropriate to go back to this right now unless your questions are focused on the very specific point of genocide. For 534 the time being, you cannot act any differently. As regards the witness's reliability or lack of reliability, you can call his credibility into question pursuant to Rule 90(H). That's your right and even your duty perhaps, but I must say that this is the first time, and I have to render homage to you, I will look through the indictment quickly, I haven't yet found any crossovers or cross-references between facts.
This is what the Judges, and I say "the Judges" because I've consulted with my colleagues on this important fact, believe would be a way of speeding things up and not to go back to asking questions about something to which the accused has already pleaded guilty just because it might suit your needs at that particular time.
You may continue, Mr. Greaves.
MR. GREAVES: I wonder if you'll constraint just to add this: I'm not suggesting and not trying to go back on any plea of guilty. The only point, and the proper point, in my submission, because it deals with the credibility of the witness, is to demonstrate not, and I've not suggested it, not that Goran Jelisic was uninvolved in that murder but to demonstrate the dangers of hearsay evidence and to enable the Defence, 535 in due course, to comment on the reliability and credibility of this witness. That's the only point. I have not, and I specifically draw your attention to the record, not suggested in any way that Mr. Jelisic is going back or we're going back in any way on those pleas.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] As regards hearsay, Mr. Greaves, I invite you, if you haven't already, to consult several decisions that were rendered by this Tribunal, by this Trial Chamber, which I had the honour of presiding, and others as well in respect of hearsay evidence.
Q. You were asked yesterday about Mr. Sulejmanovic, Josef [sic] Sulejmanovic, and you said he was also killed later. Were you aware that he was found dead on the 30th of May, 1993, some ten months after the events at Luka in May of 1992?
A. No. What did you say his name was, Josef Sulejmanovic? I don't know this gentleman, and I did not say anything in relation to that name.
Q. Vasif. Yes, Vasif Sulejmanovic, I'm sorry.
A. Vasif Sulejmanovic, yes. Yesterday, when asked about that, my answer was very much to the 536 point. I knew that gentleman from Brcko Television, and I said that to my knowledge, he had been killed. But I never mentioned the date, and I wasn't asked about the date. I was asked what I knew about him, and I said that I knew that he had been killed in Brcko. He had even taken a Serb name, and he still was killed. But no dates were mentioned. I was asked about the name of that person and if I knew anything about him, whether he was killed or not. And I always try to explain what I saw myself and what I heard. If you think that this is not a proper source of information, that it's not reliable, if you're questioning my credibility, then don't ask me such questions. I'm really sorry. I'm trying to behave correctly.
Q. [Inaudible] about your behaviour, Mr. F, and please understand that. I'm just trying to test to see the source of your information and whether they are reliable sources.
Can you answer the question? Were you aware or not that this man had been found dead at the end of March of 1993? If the answer is, "No," say, "No."
A. I knew the gentleman, and as I was isolated in the company where I worked, I also slept there, so therefore I wasn't moving around the town, I couldn't 537 see anything with my own eyes, and the sources of information were limited, so I heard that this gentleman was killed, and what I said was that I had heard about his death. I never said that I knew it or that I witnessed it, and I never mentioned any dates.
Q. Help us about this, if you can. When was it that you heard about his death?
A. Well, that was roughly sometime in 1993, sometime in 1993.
Q. I want to turn now to Izudin Brodlic. Amongst the things that you heard about him, you heard that he had been killed in his house. Is it right that that was sometime after the 13th of September, 1992, that you heard that?
A. As I have said, I knew the gentleman, and I just heard that he had been killed. As for dates and everything else, I really can't remember.
Q. As far as the lawyer, Mr. Vatic, is concerned, you heard, as you described to Their Honours, about his fate. Did the things which you heard about him include this, that he had been detained at Batkovic camp and had subsequently been exchanged for Serbian people?
A. No, I did not hear that. What I did hear was -- how shall I put it -- that he was detained for a 538 long time, and that he was killed in the end. Most of the stories really came down to that. That gentleman was a well-known lawyer and a very wealthy gentleman. The story went that he had been tortured, and he turned over to them all his money, all his valuables and his Mercedes car. That is all that I heard.
MR. GREAVES: Would Your Honours give me a moment so that I can confer with leading counsel, please.
Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further questions.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Greaves. I would like to pay tribute to you for having tried to complete your work within the time that was given to you, and the Tribunal is very sensitive to that.
I see Mr. Nice has gotten up, and I assume that he wants to use a small right of redirect. How much time are you going to need, Mr. Nice?
MR. NICE: I've got about six questions, but I'm concerned, before I ask any of them, just to know whether it's being challenged that specifically with this witness, that these killings are to be associated with him. It's not entirely clear to me whether the evidence that it was this man who committed those 539 killings is challenged or not, and it might help the Chamber to know how issues are joined. The Chamber is, of course, in a position to require explanation of the line of questioning, if it decides to do so. I can't do it, but it's a matter for the Chamber.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves? Are you contesting?
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, the position is this: The defendant has pleaded guilty to certain murders, and only those murders are accepted. Let me make it plain that unless it can be demonstrated that the person being described as being killed can be demonstrated to be one of those, none is admitted other than those which are demonstrably linkable to those which are on the indictment.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I think you have gotten the answer, Mr. Nice, from Mr. Greaves. I think the summary can be made as follows: This is part of a genocide trial, genocide which has not been acknowledged by Goran Jelisic. Under the counts which are already acknowledged, you must make a connection which shows that these murders have a genocidal connotation. If you want to add others, I think, Mr. Nice, that you will have to prove that. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Greaves? 540 Have I summarised more or less what you are saying?
MR. GREAVES: Just give me a moment whilst the translation comes up.
No, what I've just said has nothing to do with the issue of mens rea or the issue of genocide; it's simply to do with the existence or not of a killing. The defendant has admitted certain killings. The Prosecution has to prove -- I'm sorry. Let me start again.
The defendant has pleaded guilty to certain killings. If it can be demonstrated that the evidence given by a witness can be linked to one of those murders, those murders are plainly accepted. But if it cannot be demonstrated that a murder which is recounted by a witness is one of those on the indictment, each and every one of those is not admitted, and the Prosecution must prove -- unless they can demonstrate that it is one of the ones admitted -- must prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, that assists me, both in the conduct of the examination of this witness and future witnesses, and indeed the witnesses that I shall seek to call.
Q. The questions, Mr. F, are very limited, however. One, before the blowing-up of the bridges, 541 how did the ethnic groups get on in Brcko? You may deal very briefly with that in your answer.
A. The ethnic structure in the town of Brcko, to be specific, in terms of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, even the Romany, were -- all these people, to a large extent, got along well, and it was reflected in the workplace, friendships, even mixed marriages, and I believe that it was -- had the will of the local people from Brcko been respected, war would never have come there.
Q. The second question. You were asked whether you were still in the army. Don't say where you are presently living. Tell the Tribunal, do you live in or indeed anywhere near Bosnia now?
A. Is it necessary to answer that question? I would prefer not to.
Q. If you would prefer not to answer, I will move on.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Protect your witness.
Q. Next question. This has to do with the challenge of proof of identity; I explain that for the benefits of the Chamber. I dealt, when I was asking you questions, very briefly with the particular route 542 that took you from your home to Luka. Others may have taken different routes. Please just tell us, having been rounded up, where did you go first?
A. After we were evacuated from our homes?
A. They first took us to the barracks of the former JNA.
Q. And you went from the barracks to Luka; did you at any time go either to the Laser Bus Company --
Q. When? At what stage did you go to the Laser Bus Company?
A. We never went there, but we were told that we were going to go for work duty to the Laser. But they instead took us directly to Luka.
Q. Did you ever go and were you ever detained at a mosque, or the mosque, in Brcko?
A. No. That was in another section of town, not where I lived.
Q. Thank you. You've been asked certain questions about statements that you made. You gave a detailed explanation of why there may have been errors and misunderstandings in the statement that you made to the Bosnian authorities, but it was suggested to you that in that statement, you had not said or spoken of 543 five deaths.
Will you have, please -- and I don't seek to make this an exhibit unless Mr. Greaves wishes me to -- the original of the Bosnian statement, if the usher would be so good, which I would like you to look at generally and also where my thumb is, or where the usher's thumb is when he brings it across to you.
MR. NICE: If you could just show that to the witness, please.
Q. And you might like to look also at the last page, which has a signature on it, and confirm whether it is or is not your signature; and the statement that you made, or the statement that you signed, is that indeed the Bosnian statement that you signed?
A. Yes, this is my signature. But these sheets are photocopies.
Q. Yes, but are they photocopies of, as far as you remember, the original?
A. [In English] Yeah.
Q. If you look to the paragraph where the usher's thumb was, can you read out just the first sentence of that paragraph which begins with the date in May? Just read out that paragraph, please.
THE INTERPRETER: Can the English copy be put on the ELMO, please? 544
MR. NICE: Yes, I'll do my very best. Sorry.
Q. Just one moment, please, Mr. F. The English copy is --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Don't show the signature on the ELMO.
MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Your Honour. I think that there is no signature on this page, and it's just the -- two-thirds of the way down.
Q. Can you read in the original, please, the same day?
A. "That same day, which was 8th of May, 1992, around 5.00 p.m., Goran Jelisic entered the hangar along with two Chetniks. They took out five prisoners from the hangar, among whom I recognised Jasmin Curmurovic, who worked for the Bimeks, and none of them came back."
Q. Pause there. You've explained already, both in answer to me and to Mr. Greaves, how there was the error about Jasmin Curmurovic, but that apart, is it clear that in that statement, you did indeed mention five people who were taken out and who never came back?
A. Yes, I always mentioned the same number, but certain technical matters occurred, and --
Q. I needn't trouble you with that; you've dealt 545 with that fully with Mr. Greaves.
MR. NICE: Unless anybody wants these to be exhibited, I'll take the statements back, please.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, before my learned friend does that, the answer is I object to the way in which he's done that. It's quite right that at that point in the statement, it says, "They took five prisoners from the warehouse, amongst whom I recognised Jasmin Curmurovic." What he has not gone on to point out, and it would be fair and proper to do so, is that the death of Jasmin Curmurovic is one of the four only that are mentioned. This witness, in that statement, then goes on to list only three other killings, and those, on any analysis, different from -- people being taken out from the warehouse is different from people being pushed out of the office.
So with the greatest respect to my learned friend, that is somewhat misleading, the way in which that has been done. The witness ought to be given the opportunity to deal with the full statement, which actually sets out only three other murders, the way that I've described.
MR. NICE: I'm afraid I disagree. The proper way to cross-examine the witness on a prior statement is to ensure that he has a copy of the original with 546 him at the time; that wasn't done. I'm quite happy for the documents to become exhibits, and then they can be the subject of whatever comments Mr. Greaves wishes to make in his closing arguments, but I don't desire to take time to go over the statement at length now. But I'm very happy for them to become exhibits, if that's what he would prefer.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] The Judges have been sufficiently informed. Please continue.
Q. You have been asked questions about your evidence of the man Adolf at the back of the barracks and about how you came to know his name. Was there one or more than one person at the barracks -- at Luka; I beg your pardon -- using the name "Adolf"?
A. [No translation]
MR. NICE: Your Honour, the witness answered, but I don't think the interpreters caught it.
Q. Can you answer again, please?
A. Only one person introduced himself as the Serb Adolf.
Q. In the evening that you were there, before your release, was there one or more than one person taking people from the office opposite with a gun and either shooting them in your sight or taking them 547 behind a building from which they did not return? Was that done by one person or by more than one persons?
A. Only one person.
Q. Just answer this question "Yes" or "No." Do you understand me? And please don't go any further than to say either "Yes" or "No."
Before I ask the question, do you understand the limitations on your answer?
A. Yes, I fully understand.
Q. And so to this question, just "Yes" or "No." Would you feel able, at this period of time, to identify the person who gave the name "Adolf" if you were to see him again, or not, or don't you know? I'm sorry, I'm afraid it's my fault. You can't answer that "Yes" or "No." You can only answer "Yes," "No," or "I don't know." But those are the three possibilities.
A. I would have to see this person in order to be able to specifically answer your question.
MR. NICE: I don't think I can take that further with this witness.
Q. Finally, you were asked questions about Papa, and just at the stage of an interruption, you said, "Whether he was killed in combat or whether he was in detention, I didn't know." Is that the 548 position, that you didn't know where he was, from the information coming to you, what happened to him?
A. Yes. I clearly stated that I had heard that he was killed, but I cannot recall exactly, because he was known to have offered resistance. Whether he was killed during fighting or after he was captured, that, I cannot recall.
Q. I beg your pardon. There is one last question, and it's this. It's again to do with one of the issues raised with you. The next witness to be called is a man with whom you have, of necessity, been sitting in the waiting room or seen him outside. Did you see that man on the night at Luka, or not, or don't you know?
A. You mean on the evening of the 8th?
A. I do not recall that. There were a lot of people there. It was packed. We were all very afraid, and it was impossible to remember. There were seven to eight hundred of us there, so it was impossible to recall all persons there.
MR. NICE: Those are the only questions I ask.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Let me turn to 549 my colleagues to ask whether they have any questions to ask, either of the Prosecution or the Defence or anyone else.
JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
[In English] Mr. Nice, I have a question. I wonder whether it is addressed to you or to the witness. It concerns Exhibit 13. Exhibit 13 suggests that the criterion on which the killing was based was the fact that the people were prominent. I can call, for instance, you have -- the very first one was the president of the local executive of Kolobara, a very prominent person. Another is a senior member of the executive board. Another is the imam, which is the head of the religious community. Sometimes they say "prominent," without telling why, and this remains to be discovered, and the others were prominent because their function was prominent.
From the witness's testimony and the questions of the Defence counsel, I gathered also that sometimes you can wonder if some of these people were engaged in any fighting, or were they called the Green Berets and so on. So would these people also be, some of them, Green Berets, or a president would be a Green 550 Beret too? Were they killed because they were only prominent? Perhaps, even if this exhibit is not completely relevant, I would like to know, what was the basis of this killing? Thank you.
MR. NICE: Can I assist Your Honour, first, in this respect: Both these lists will be produced by other witnesses in due course who will explain their origin and what their significance may be. In showing them to this witness and to any other witness, the witnesses will not be informed of what those producing witnesses will say, for that might, of course, affect or infect their evidence, and that would be wrong. They were simply shown the statement, the lists, because of the inquiry made by the Defence, and it's far more helpful for the Chamber and for the Defence to have the witness look at the list in advance, outside, when he's got time, rather than to have to do it under the microscope of court procedure. But therefore the witness doesn't know, one way or another, what these lists mean and whether they purport to be the list of people who have been killed, or people who are missing, or whatever it is.
Having said that, I'll ask what I hope is a helpful question of this witness and see if that will assist Your Honour. 551
JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
Q. You remember the lists that you've been asked to look at, Mr. F, the longer list and then the shorter list of some 39-odd names; do you remember those two lists?
Q. On the shorter list, as His Honour, Judge Riad says, were the names of people of some prominence in the local community, and you recognised some of those names. Can you help us with this: To your knowledge, were any of those people in armed forces, Green Beret or otherwise?
A. No, no. Not at all. Otherwise they would not be in their homes and waiting to be picked up. That is not logical at all.
Q. Well, forget the logic, and just think, if you will, of the names and the positions they held. And I'll break the question into two parts. Was there anything about their positions, as imam or president and so on, that was inconsistent with their holding military rank? So that's the first part of the question: anything about their position or rank that made it inconsistent for them also to hold military position? 552
A. I'm sorry, but the question is not clear to me.
Q. My mistake. Would it have been possible for these people -- for example, the imam or the president, and so on, of the community -- would it have been possible for them to have been in military units?
MR. GREAVES: Well, with respect, I think he can only speak about those of whom he knows on the list, and I would object to him asking a general question about everybody on the list with this witness who only knows particular people.
Q. Those of whom you knew, was it possible for them to be in armed units?
A. I wouldn't know how to answer that question. The very fact that they were in their homes, I think, says that they were not involved in the armed resistance, otherwise they wouldn't be home. And I don't think that I could give you an answer that is more precise than that.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have done my best. I hope that helps.
JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Nice.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I would like to consult with my colleagues for a moment. 553
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We've completed the questions, Witness F. The Judges have no further questions. The Tribunal thanks you very much for having come and for having recalled all these tragic events which you lived through, and we hope that in your country, you will find the calm to which you are entitled, and to find inner peace, and to resume your life under the best conditions possible. Thank you very much.
Please do not move, because we're going to take a break. I think that the registrar will be in charge of your departure and be sure that all of your protective measures taken for you will be taken care of.
The interpreters should be tired, so I suppose we should take a 30-minute break, and we'll resume at 4.30.
I would like to say that starting now, if I've understood you correctly, Mr. Nice, the summary that you're going to use to conduct your examination is one that you've agreed on with the Defence. Is that correct?
MR. NICE: First of all, the summaries for the next witness are available in their final revised 554 form in English, French, and B/C/S. They've just arrived, so I might take the liberty of distributing them to you and your colleagues now as you leave. Second, as to whether they are going to be agreed or not, that's a matter entirely for the Defence. It may be that Mr. Greaves won't be agreeing on anything. But the summary still serves, unless the Chamber decides otherwise, a very valuable purpose in that it identifies for the Chamber what matters the witness can cover, and I'll either cover them or not, because the Chamber may say to itself, for example, when it looks at the summary that's about to come for the next witness who I hope will be Witness G, may decide, "Well, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, we've already heard about those. Let's move on to paragraph 4," knowing that if an issue arises about topics 1 to 3, we can go back to them. So if Mr. Greaves is unable, for whatever reason, to agree, as it were, even that Wednesday follows Tuesday, then we will nevertheless be in a position to make use of these documents, I hope, as handy tools.
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, can I say this? I haven't seen these summaries, and I'm not happy that you should have a document presented to you which has not been the subject of scrutiny by counsel before 555 being handed to the Tribunal. I'm sorry that that may cause you inconvenience so that you are taken by surprise in due course. There may be an issue which arises out of these summaries, in any event, which I wish to take after the adjournment.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
All right. Rest assured that if you don't have the summaries, we don't have them either. You know that the Judges simply are trying to move quickly, not for the sake of moving quickly, sometimes one has to be slow, but for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency.
I think that we need a 30-minute break, and I wish Godspeed to Witness F. Please don't move until the Judges have left the Chamber.
--- Recess taken at 4.05 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.42 p.m.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now resume the hearing. Have the accused brought in, please. Please be seated.
[The accused entered court]
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] First of all, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Nice, but only to introduce the witness to us quickly and to allow the 556 witness to take his oath, since he's standing. Mr. Nice?
MR. NICE: This witness did attend on the last occasion but was not, I think, specifically subject to identification by any letter, seeks the same level of protection and for the same reasons, and would, if such protection is granted, become Witness G. There is, I believe, no objection to his being dealt with on that basis, and I ask leave for him to be dealt with accordingly.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] All right. We will grant these protective measures.
We're going to call you Witness G. This is a convenient way of protecting your anonymity. First of all, I'm going to ask you to remain standing for a few more moments, as long as it takes to read your oath. That is the statement which the usher is going to give you.
THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated. Please be seated. Thank you for having come at the request of the Prosecutor.
Mr. Greaves, did you want to say something? 557 I was speaking to the witness. Let me finish first.
MR. GREAVES: [Previous interpretation continues] ... speaking to the witness and I apologise for rising, but there is a matter I would like to raise before he gives evidence, please, if I may.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You know, witnesses, these are either Defence or Prosecution witnesses, but once they come to this courtroom, they become the Court's witness, and the best way to work is first to greet them, because if we didn't have the witnesses, there would be no possible justice, whether it be national or international, and we would not be able to operate without witnesses. Though I will say this again at another time, I express to the witness all of our gratitude.
The protective measures, Witness G, that you've asked for have been granted to you, and they guarantee you'll be able to speak in this courtroom in calm and in serenity. Please feel at ease. If you have any kind of physical or emotional difficulties or psychological difficulties, please don't hesitate to point them out, and if necessary, we will suspend the hearing if that should prove necessary.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Greaves, who wanted to make an intervention, but only in respect of 558 the problem of the statement. Go ahead, please.
MR. GREAVES: It's a matter that I would like to raise in the absence of the witness. I do not wish the witness to hear this particular piece of legal argument, please.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] But does it have to do with the points that we brought up before the break?
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'm going to raise matters which I think it would be wrong to give the witness an alert as to what may be in the cross-examination. That would not be fair to the defendant, in my submission. I want to raise matters that will cover those issues, and it's for that reason that I ask that he withdraw.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, could we have your opinion or any comments that you would like to make? Perhaps you haven't any.
MR. NICE: I'm concerned about the passage of time with witnesses available, but I'm not going to stand in the way of the witness being invited to withdraw if that's what Mr. Greaves judges.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Witness G, we're going to ask you to leave the courtroom for a few moments. We're going to draw the shades. I think that 559 would be the best thing to do.
THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Please don't move yet. We're going to lower the blinds and then be sure that you are properly protected in a room next-door.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We'll see one another in a few minutes. I hope it's not going to take too long.
[The witness withdrew]
MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
Your Honour, the matter that I wish to raise with you is the manner in which examination in chief was conducted yesterday.
Your Honour will recall that there was some discussion as to the provision to you of a summary and the means by which or the means to which that summary would be put, and initially, and I think probably through a misconception as to what was intended, I indicated to Your Honour that we did not object to that procedure.
Your Honour, the position is this, that at that stage I had only very recently been given the 560 summary that was placed before you, and so I hadn't had an opportunity to properly scrutinise it and to see what its effect was. A version in the B/C/S group of languages was not provided to my learned friend until after we had started, in fact.
Having considered, first of all, the nature of the summary and, second of all, the nature of the questions or the way in which the questions were asked, the Defence cannot agree that the appropriate way in which to examine, in chief, witnesses is the manner in which the witness who has just given evidence and gone was examined. Let me explain what our objections are. The first is this: The summary with which you were provided of Witness F is a compilation of items from two statements that he made, two statements about which you have heard, one made to the Bosnian authorities, one made to the Office of the Prosecutor. It is upon that document that Your Honour is invited to exercise your powers under Rule 90 for control of questioning. What I say --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Let me interrupt you immediately here. I'm going to stop you, Mr. Greaves. You were able to conduct your cross-examination. Perhaps those are comments that should have been made before the cross-examination of 561 Witness F. Why wait until Witness G comes in to raise this issue again? That is, the problems that you would have had in your cross-examination, that's the part I don't understand. Speak to us about the next method, speak about Witness G, but we can't go back to Witness F.
MR. GREAVES: I'm not wanting to go back to Witness F. I'm simply using it as an example. Will Your Honour please bear with me, because I want to explain this clearly.
It was only last night that I was able to go back and have a thorough look at the summary and analyse the way in which it was put together, and that, of course, was after the witness had completed his examination in chief. It is for that reason that I raise it at this stage, because we've now, both myself and my leading counsel who has had the Bosnian version, have been able to think about it and consider it. That summary contains only the choice bits. It presents itself as if the two statements are consistent in every respect, and it effectively produces the choice bits the Prosecution say are the evidence.
Your Honour has heard today about some of the inconsistencies which in fact exist, we say, as between 562 those two statements. Your Honour is being presented with a summary. It is a summary we say that is misleading because it doesn't, in fact, illuminate to Your Honours the contradictory parts of the statement, so you are being asked to control the questioning of a witness under Rule 90 or under Rule 89 --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me for interrupting you again, Mr. Greaves. Excuse me for interrupting you. You received the summary last night. I'm sorry, last night there was a cross-examination for ten minutes only. This morning, you should have brought out your objections, and you did not point out the contradictions that were in the statement. That's what worries me, and I shall go back to what you've been doing since this morning. I just don't understand. Excuse me. I don't understand.
MR. GREAVES: Sorry, but with respect, I have been pointing out all afternoon to Witness F the contradictions between his statements and, indeed, between the statements and his evidence, so with respect, I have been doing that.
By the time examination in chief has come to an end, there is little point in raising these objections, but I want to raise them now because we say that in fact the way in which the procedure is 563 developing is one which is unfair, and I would like Your Honour to hear me on why we say it is unfair. I have described, first of all, that if the document which is provided to you as a summary is misleading, as we say it is, then you are being invited to use it as a tool to control questioning of witnesses under Rule 90, and you are basing your decisions on a document which is not fair to the defendant, in essence, if it is derived from two documents which are in important respects mutually contradictory or inconsistent.
Secondly, there is this: These summaries are being provided to us almost immediately before the witness has had an opportunity -- sorry -- is actually called. It gives us very little opportunity to consider whether it's a document that can properly be placed in front of you.
I think you have asked for and have received a French draft of the summary in respect of the witness who is about to give evidence. I'm going to pick out an example from that. It states at one point that you're going to hear evidence which is plainly in one of the statements that it's alleged --
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I don't have it in front of me here. I don't have it, Mr. Greaves. 564 I think that we're moving far away from the subject. I'll give the floor to the Prosecutor. It seems to me that you want to go back to an agreement that you made, and I think that's your right. But, excuse me, I myself don't have the summary.
MR. GREAVES: Sorry, I had understood you had asked for and had been given the summaries in French, and I must have misunderstood that.
Can I draw your attention to paragraph 18? Perhaps Your Honours would indicate when you've read that paragraph.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] All right, I've read it, but I'm not really in the habit of answering the parties' questions. But I'll try to be like the witness and train myself to do so.
MR. GREAVES: I'm trying to move along quickly so we can use time effectively.
The first sentence of that paragraph is correct. There is, in one of the statements, such an allegation.
As to the second sentence and the third sentence, both my learned friend and I have looked very carefully at both the OTP statement and the statement to the Bosnian authorities. We cannot see any such assertion being made by the witness, and yet it's said 565 to be, if you look at the top of the summary, based on -- the summary is based on the two statements. So that is one example, and there are others, of how this is a misleading and unfair document.
Secondly, if a document is to be provided to Your Honour, it should be a document which has been seen and agreed by counsel. And the reason I say that is precisely for the reason that I raise arising out of paragraph 18. We say that those two sentences do not exist in the statement.
Thirdly, I at least would like to see the French copies as well, because although my French is not perfect, I have some, as Your Honour may recall, and I would like to see the French version as well so that I can compare it with the English version. Thirdly, examination-in-chief can be by way of a leading question. A leading question is one that suggests the answer to the witness. That's perfectly proper if, and only if, we submit, the Defence agrees that such a question should be asked. In the absence of such agreement, examination-in-chief should be in the ordinary course of events, by the way of asking a nonleading question.
There may well be some issues which are wholly uncontroversial, for example, if someone 566 said, "Where is Brcko?", and the answer is perfectly obvious: "Well, it's in the north part of Bosnia-Herzegovina." There's no objection to that sort of thing, but there are plainly -- and we object to a large part of the way in which leading questions are, we suspect, going to be asked.
We would respectfully submit that this procedure is flawed, for the reasons that I have set out, and we would invite Your Honour not to permit it. Of course one wants to get on; of course one wants to make the experience of a witness as quick as possible. There is another side to the coin which I would invite Your Honours to remember, which is this: This man is on trial. He faces the most serious charge which can be laid before this Tribunal, and it is a charge which carries, as all offences before this Tribunal do, a potential sentence of life imprisonment. And Your Honour waxed lyrical yesterday about protecting the defendant's rights. I would remind Your Honour that there is the defendant to consider as well, and the risks to him.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, I will give the floor to the Prosecutor. I have understood that you are giving some lessons to us how this trial should be conducted. Let me call your 567 attention back to Rule 90(G): "The Trial Chamber shall exercise control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to, (i), make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth." Not only, the Judges take liberty to point this out to you, and also to avoid needless consumption of time. I would also take the liberty of reminding you of this: I agree to our discussing the best ways of going beyond this, but I am sorry that you didn't make these comments this morning before you started your cross-examination, now, to go back now to what it would appear you had already accepted.
Let me turn to the Prosecutor, and then we will make a decision. But I'd like to point out, Mr. Greaves, I think that you must learn, before the International Criminal Tribunal, not always to have the reflexes of your own internal domestic legal system. All of us, all of us must shed our old clothes, our old national clothes. These are proceedings which are more governed by common law but which are also directed by other types of procedures, and in the end, this is neither common or civil law, but rather these are proceedings which try to reach the truth. Mr. Nice, I give you the floor to answer. 568 Where are you in respect of the discussions that you've had with the defence? Please clarify that for the Judges.
MR. NICE: So far as where I am is, in relation to the discussions with Mr. Greaves, has been explained by him. He is now objecting to this document, but it may help the Tribunal if I say that of course this document is designed to help everyone, and it is not designed to harm the Defence, and indeed, rather, the contrary.
Interestingly enough, since I've been at this institution, trying to cut through procedures that it seemed to me take time and achieve little good, I frequently find that I propose things that meet the ire and irritation of my own colleagues in the OTP because they think I'm being too generous to the Defence. And that's frequently the view that's been held about this category of document, which actually serves a very useful purpose.
Of course, the document doesn't become evidence; it's the evidence that is the evidence. The document is simply a guide. And it's not just the synthesis of one or two statements; it is, as I explained yesterday, a synthesis prepared in advance of all that's available and then added to by the witness 569 when he comes here.
What, of course, happens in other cases, as I've been shocked to discover, is that witnesses arrive, they announce new things that they are likely to say, perhaps to the Prosecutor the night before, and the Defence are taken by surprise in an entirely old-fashioned way, which was something that came as surprise and a shock to me.
What happens here is, broadly speaking, everything that we know the witness is likely to say, culled from whatever material is available, is presented in a helpful form for the Defence and for the Chamber. It's -- I know that some of Your Honours' Chambers, fellow Chambers, other Chambers, actually take the original witness statements themselves and read them.
That's a very time-consuming exercise, and this is, it seemed to me, like that, but preferable. It reflects the desire of a Chamber to have summaries, which is reflected in the Rules, although it's not yet known from different Chambers what summaries are required. Some Chambers require longer summaries, some require shorter ones, and it simply seemed to me that since, in order the prepare a witness for us to lead that witness in evidence, we have to go through the 570 exercise of preparing this summary rather than do that which would I expect be acceptable to my North American colleagues, namely, to retain as much as you possible can and hand out as little as is necessary, I say, "Well, this is what we've got as a guide to what this witness is going to say. Let everybody else have it."
And it is ridiculous to suggest that the Defence is in any way inconvenienced or prejudiced. On the contrary, it's in a wonderful position, frequently, of being able to say, "Well, you didn't say this in the summary and now you do," and this witness, I think, will add one thing to what's in the summary, to my knowledge, because it didn't get done in time. But they can say that, or they can say, alternatively, that something is in the summary and he didn't give it in evidence, all of which shows further inconsistencies. I don't mind that. I'm not afraid of my case. I'm not frightened of my witnesses.
THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, please.
MR. NICE: Yes, of course, my apologies. When I get carried away, there it is. I'll slow down. This simply presents, in a summary form, as a guide, what we forecast the witness can say. And it 571 must meet the requirements of a summary that the Chamber already has in its Rules. It helps the Defence because they can look ahead and know what they are going to object to. It provides every known form of inconsistency, and if they want to show inconsistency and prior inconsistent statements by drawing the Court's attention to witness statements, they are in a position to do so.
But I have to say, in my, of course, very limited experience of this Tribunal, and substantially in another Chamber, this is a technique that has proved to be extremely helpful, and it is helpful because, where Defence counsel is not as maybe Mr. Greaves' unfortunate position of having to challenge everything for whatever reason, why, then, counsel can say, "Well, if we just look at Witness G, there's nothing in paragraphs 1 to 4," for example, "that harms Jelisic. There's no reason known to me, counsel, or to Jelisic, to challenge that part of the witness's account. There's no benefit to me in forcing him laboriously to relate things that are noncontentious. We can go straight over to paragraph 5."
It may even be, although paragraph 5 relates to Papa, that that wouldn't be contested, and we go straight to paragraph 6. And of course, in 572 well-ordered legal systems -- and I'm no fan of the common-law system and interested in all that I'm learning here -- but in all well-ordered systems, modern systems, where material is noncontroversial and noncontentious, the best thing is to lay it before the Tribunal as quickly as possible and to do so once. This, as a tool, does all of that, but I accept that once it's served its purpose as a tool, what is left is the evidence from the witness box, and that's what the Chamber will be making its mind up on.
I've taken a few minutes, but that's my thinking that's developed over the last few months and has led to my taking this course, with or without the approval of all my colleagues, who might prefer me to be more retentive.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice. Concretely speaking, how do you plan to move forward? Do you want to do this without the witnesses being here, so that the Judges hear about the agreement that you've had with the Defence, or do you want to recall the questions, turning toward the Defence or turning toward us? What procedure do you intend to adopt? What would you do in front of another Chamber?
MR. NICE: Well, if Mr. Greaves was in any position to agree matters, he would probably tell me by 573 expressly saying so before the Court convened, "Well, topic -- paragraphs 1 to 4 are noncontentious, and you can just lead those, or read them, or summarise them," if that was the case, and he might then say, "At paragraph 5 or paragraph 6, perhaps you'll deal with that on a conventional basis?" I would then deal with it on a conventional basis, asking questions in a nonleading form.
It might then be that he would say, when he gets to a later stage of the evidence, that passage -- we come, for example, to paragraph 20, or 19, where the matters at hand are reflected by pleas of guilty already tendered, he might say, "You can lead those." And the Chamber, of course, is in the position of being able to supervise, as it has a duty to do, the giving of evidence.
One of the problems of some advocates is that they haven't had the opportunity of sitting in the judicial chair; some have. And it's helpful for us to put ourselves in your position. If you're being offered an uncertain menu, an uncertain diet, you don't know when to say, "I don't want the next course. I don't need the next course. I've already had enough of that. We've had that from another witness," or to extend the metaphor, and I hope not 574 overlightheartedly, "Sorry, I don't want that; I had that for lunch." But you see what I mean. You can say, "We can see these next two paragraphs aren't going to help us, so you, Mr. Prosecutor, can move forward." And that's the way this tool has been
valuable. If Chambers decided, as I say other Chambers have done, to take all the witness statements and read them, which they can do, and, what's more, to analyse themselves, mentally or on paper, what those statements contain, they'd be in the same position to direct proceedings as they would be having this document. This document does the work for you, and in that way enables you to supervise us and enables me and Mr. Greaves, I would hope, to be able to agree various paragraphs and then move straight to the central issues.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice.
What do you agree with here, Mr. Greaves? What has been said seems to be reasonable to me. It's responding to some of your comments. This is not leading you into any kind of errors, because during your cross-examination, you could point out the flaws in the summary. You certainly did that with Witness F, and what prevents you from doing that here? What 575 bothers you here?
MR. GREAVES: There are a number of things, and I want to answer them because Your Honour's raised them. First of all, if I was thought to be lecturing the Tribunal, I did not intend that, and I certainly didn't intend any discourtesy. If it was discourteous, then I ask you to forgive me, and I apologise. Why didn't I mention it at the beginning of the day? Well, I can well imagine that Your Honour, if I had got up and said, "I have a motion to present to you at this stage," with the witness waiting to complete his evidence, I can imagine that Your Honour might have been somewhat tetchy that I was raising it at that stage.
If the fault was mine, then fault it is, but I took the view that the proper time to raise it was immediately before the procedure was resumed, and not interfere with the giving of evidence by Witness F. If I erred in favour of letting Witness F get his evidence over and done with, as against raising this matter in legal argument, then I apologise.
Your Honour raised the issue of being wedded to one's own legal system. I'm not in the least bit, like my learned friend, wedded to the common-law system. There are advantages and disadvantages to all 576 our legal systems. The fact of the matter is, the Rules of this Tribunal say that the presentation of evidence should be by examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. That is a concept which is, as I understand it, not one which would be familiar to the average civil lawyer, but one which is very familiar --
THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, please.
MR. GREAVES: I apologise. I have been trying very hard, and I have forgotten.
That is a system which is known to the common-law system, and all common lawyers would immediately recognise the contents of that rule. And it was for that reason that I said, "Well, in examination-in-chief, the proper way to do it is not to ask leading questions." So let me explain that. That, in fact, is the system that is here.
The problem is this: I have to deal with my client. I have to explain to him, "This is what is proposed." The timing of these things means that it is almost impossible for us, firstly, to read the summary and to see whether it is a fair and proper document that can be placed before the Court. Secondly, the defendant is entitled to know what the contents of that 577 summary are before he hears the evidence being given, and we are entitled to discuss with him those parts which could, because they are uncontroversial or unobjectionable, or which he accepts, could be agreed to. But the way in which it has thus far been done is by the summary being given to us -- in the present instance, I received it, I think, at about 4.10, which gives one almost no opportunity to read it, assimilate it, and then take instructions upon it, with the constraints that exist in this Court.
Of course one wants to assist the process as far as possible. And of course Rule 90 exists and is there to control the -- or to enable Your Honour to have a wide ambit of control over the nature of questioning. But Rule 90 cannot be used, with great respect, at the price of the rights of the defendant as well, and I would respectfully remind you of that. The defendant is on trial; he has rights. Rule 90 cannot simply be used as a bludgeon to hurry things along in circumstances where potentially the defendant may be prejudiced. And that has to be borne in mind. That balance has to be borne in mind at all times, in our submission.
The final point I would raise with Your Honours is that in his address to you, my learned 578 friend for the Prosecution has not, we submit, properly dealt with or addressed Your Honours on the essential unfairness of presenting you with what purports to be a summary of evidence which picks out the choice bits. There are examples -- I don't want to detain you, but there are examples in this present summary where the summary which is presented to you is the bit which is favourable to the Prosecution and is not the inconsistency, doesn't contain any hint of the inconsistency which exists in one or another of the statements, and you are being asked to use that as a tool and to use it in order to implement Rule 90. And if it is based on that element of unfairness, it is unfair. It's as simple as that. My learned friend hasn't addressed that issue, I submit. The reason he hasn't addressed it is because it is an element of unfairness.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I would like us to move forward now. On what point do you not agree in the statement, Mr. Greaves?
MR. GREAVES: I'm sorry, my client is feeling unwell. Please, could we adjourn? I think he's about to be sick.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. 579 All right, we'll take care of you properly, Mr. Jelisic. You will be taken care of medically. You can withdraw.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
[The accused left court]
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, perhaps my interpreter could go and ask him if we have his permission to continue in his absence, because of course I can't agree to continue unless he has given me his permission.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I don't think that he realised we are going to interrupt the session, but I don't want to prejudice the accused's rights. But we're not speaking about something which directly concerns the accused; it's more methodological. The interpreter can go see him, but we can continue our discussion even if he doesn't agree. We can have the interpreter ask him how he feels, there's no problem doing that, but we can continue.
MR. GREAVES: He has been most anxious about this matter and has given quite a lot of thought to it, and it does concern him, the nuts and bolts of it concern him, because if I'm right --
[Trial Chamber confers] 580
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] As my colleague has just pointed out to me, correctly, Mr. Londrovic, could you go see how your client is doing? I repeat this -- yes, all right, you've understood. All right. We can continue now. You can
continue, Mr. Greaves.
MR. GREAVES: I think I've said all that I needed to say.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Oh, I thought that you weren't feeling well yourself. I was getting worried. I thought you were not feeling well yourself.
MR. GREAVES: If I'm ill, you'll be the first to know.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I have a question to ask you. What points do you agree with in this statement? There were 22 points that were raised -- well, I'm not really familiar with them, but hypothetically speaking, I see that these were points -- if they weren't directed in a specific way, they obviously were prepared as carefully and as -- with the best intentions. What points do you agree with or want to ask questions about?
MR. GREAVES: I don't want to be thought to be obstructive, but I have not been through this document with my client, and I have not received his 581 agreement to agree anything, and until I receive such instructions, I cannot properly or professionally answer Your Honour's question one way or the other, and I would ask that Your Honour don't press me.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. I understand that this should not really change our methodology. It seems that the Prosecutor will recall the questions and be sure that the witness has read the question. He'll answer "Yes" or "No," and then you have all the time necessary for your cross-examination to proceed as you like.
Let me simply remind you that I will limit the time of the cross-examination and the direct in respect of the examination in chief in order to maintain this balance that you frequently allude to and about which the Judges must always be sensitive. I suggest that once the accused returns, Mr. Prosecutor, you can take your summary. You will make sure that the witness has read the first question, and if he has, you can summarise it quickly. But we'll start with the idea that Mr. Greaves is not agreeing with anything. At least you agree with this. You don't agree with anything, but at least you agree with that. Well, it's better to start fully understanding one another. 582
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, give me a moment, please.
Your Honour, can I deal with the first point, that the position is that in the absence of instructions from my client, I'm not in a position to agree to anything, and that's correct.
The second thing is although he's given permission for me to continue in his absence, he is plainly unwell. I know that in the past, he has suffered from problems with his stomach, and he has apparently developed a rather unpleasant rash on his stomach and I'm somewhat concerned about him and whether or not his permission has been given, as it were, with proper thought.
If I may, I'll just remind Your Honours that of course he's entitled to be tried in his presence. If he gives a waiver, of course, that is a proper waiver, but it should be one that's a waiver given that's properly thought out and not at a moment of distress. That's what I'm concerned about.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, we agree. You may be seated.
I would like to know whether the Prosecutor would agree, and after that I'll consult my colleagues, would agree, Mr. Nice, because to a great extent 583 speeding up the proceedings depends on you. Apparently, we're not going to take the
Defence into account at the moment because it can conduct its cross-examination as it wishes to do and it will have the opportunity to do so. I want this to be indicated in the transcript, there is no question at all of limiting you in respect of the rights of the Defence that you represent.
Now I'll turn to the Prosecutor. Can you be sure that in front of us, that once the witness is here, that he has fully understood the contents and meaning of the statement, and tell us about point 1, "Do you remember whether the bridges over the River Sava were destroyed on the 30th of April, 1992? Did you arrange to have your family stay with relatives in Moaca while you were home helping to organise [indiscernible], and do you confirm this in front of the Judges?" And he's going to answer, "Yes," or at least I hope he's going to answer, "Yes," and then he will bring in some more details, and then move on to the second point. When it's time for the cross-examination, I hope that under those conditions, in any case, things will go more smoothly. It is, of course, understood that I will give time for the cross-examination, and that time will be 584 exactly the same as for the examination in chief. But as I always do, I want to consult with my colleagues, but first we'll give the floor to Mr. Nice and ask him whether he intends to proceed in that manner or whether Mr. Greaves' comments have led you to change your position.
MR. NICE: No, if Mr. Greaves says that he is not prepared to agree to anything, then it makes it much more difficult for me. But what I would probably do and what I, indeed, I think, did yesterday, and I think quite properly, is in relation -- if we look at this example, paragraphs 1 to 4, I will probably take those matters very shortly and either summarise them to the witness in the way that Your Honour suggested or summarise parts of them and get his confirmation, but get him to speak himself of anything that's important. For example, in his case, the fact, paragraph 3, that he was kept in a mosque, which is different from the place where the others were kept, is something I would probably get him to tell you himself. Once you turn to page 2 and paragraph 6, where Jelisic appears, I would, I fear, feel obliged to deal with the evidence in the traditional way, again dealing with it paragraph by paragraph so as not to harm the Defence, if they perceive themselves to be 585 harmed.
I see I don't have the attention of my Defence colleagues.
Having dealt with those potentially contentious matters in a traditional way, when we come to matters like 19, 20, and 21, where the defendant has already pleaded guilty in respect of these matters alleged against him, I would probably seek to revert to a more truncated form of questioning.
But perhaps we'll see how we go. If that's acceptable to the Chamber, we'll see how we go tomorrow, and I think my evidence in chief, my direct evidence as it's sometimes called, of this witness, it will last less than an hour, probably 40 minutes, and then on top of that, and really at the Defence request, I will get the witness to tell us what he knows, if anything, of certain names on the two lists simply because it's better that we have that out straightaway and then Mr. Greaves is in a position to prepare for it over one of the breaks. That might take us to about an hour, but that would be about it, a quarter an hour, and that would really be doing their work for them.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice.
How is Mr. Jelisic feeling? 586
MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, an ambulance has been summoned for him, and my colleagues tell me that he appears to be in considerable pain and that there is a physical manifestation. There's this large and substantial rash on his stomach.
Your Honour, I can't be satisfied that although he gave his consent, that he gave it at a moment when he was giving proper thought to the consequences of giving that consent. I would respectfully invite Your Honours to say that in the absence of a proper informed consent, you should suspend the hearing until he's fit and available to come and attend court again.
I'm sorry this has happened, but sometimes these things do happen in the ordinary course of events.
JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. We will wait for him to feel better.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.35 p.m., to be reconvened on
Wednesday, the 1st day of September, 1999 at 2.00 p.m.