10836 Tuesday, 1 February 2011
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon, everyone. This is case number IT-03-69-T. The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic. Thank you, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I usually leave the reading of decisions until the end but that goes until the moment where we really have to find time. Therefore, I'd like to start with giving the reasons for the Chamber's decision on protective measures for Witness JF-027.
The Chamber has not yet communicated the reasons for its decision granting trial-related protective measures for Witness JF-027 which was delivered prior to the commencement of the witness's testimony on the 9th of November 2010 in private session and can be found at transcript page 8872. The Chamber will now give its reasons.
On the 26th of October, 2004, Witness JF-027 was granted a pseudonym in this case. On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecution requested that the witness be granted the additional protective measures of image and voice distortion. On the 25th of November, 2009, the Stanisic Defence opposed the request, the Simatovic did not respond. On the 8th of November, 2010, the Prosecution filed a supplemental motion 10837 for protective measures requesting closed session testimony for Witness JF-027. On the 9th of November of that same year, the Stanisic Defence indicated that it did not object the request. The Simatovic Defence expressed a general concern with regard to the granting of protective measures but deferred to the Chamber's assessment. All of this can be found at transcript pages 8870 and 8871. The Chamber has set out in previous decisions the test it applies when considering whether to grant protective measures. In this respect, the Chamber refers the parties to the reasons for the decision to grant protective measures to Witness C-1118, which can be found at transcript pages 3690 through 3692.
Witness JF-027 fears for his safety and that of his family if it were to become known that he is a witness in the current case. The evidence provided by the witness concerns operations and attacks of Arkan's Tigers, as well as the co-operation between Arkan's tiger, the Red Berets, the Serbian MUP and the VRS. His evidence implicates several former members of these units. The witness argues that he has received threats in the past, which could be renewed if it became known that he testified in this case.
The witness moved abroad as a result of the threats. However, his family currently still resides in Republika Srpska. The Chamber found that the fact the witness would give evidence to the Tribunal might antagonise persons living in or with access to the area where his family resides. The Chamber considered the 37th report of the high representative for implementation of the peace agreement on Bosnia and 10838 Herzegovina report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the 19th of May, 2010, which reports the existence of an unstable security situation in the territory of the Republika Srpska, particularly unfavourable to witnesses who co-operate with the Tribunal. The Chamber also considered that the nature of Witness JF-027's testimony makes him easily identifiable for those familiar with the events about which he would testify.
Considering all the above circumstances and balancing the risks that the witness and his family may face after testifying before the Tribunal and the accuseds' right to a public trial, the Chamber granted the requested protective measures.
And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision. The Prosecution has filed a request for leave to reply to the Defence responses to the Prosecution's second bar table motion, that is a request of the 1st of February. Is there any objection against granting it?
MR. JORDASH: No, Your Honour.
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Then leave is granted to reply. The reply to be filed by Monday, the 7th of February.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, we will do that.
JUDGE ORIE: Having said that, is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness? And the next witness will testify with pseudonym and image distortion, these are the protective measures granted. 10839
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution calls JF-064 and Ms. Grace Harbour will be the attorney who examines the witness.
JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom. The witness was originally presented as a 92 bis witness but in the Chamber's decision of the 7th of October, 2010, we gave the reasons why the witness should be called so that he can be cross-examined.
Did I understand well that the Prosecution needs less than half an hour?
MS. HARBOUR: No, Your Honour, I believe we need the full half-hour.
JUDGE ORIE: Full half-hour. Full half-hour. Stanisic Defence would need one hour?
MR. JORDASH: Much less. Maybe 15 minutes.
JUDGE ORIE: 15 minutes. Simatovic Defence?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 15 minutes, Your Honours.
[The witness entered court]
JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-064, because that's how we will call you, before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration. I see that the text has already been handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 10840
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Witness JF-064. Witness JF-064, the protective measures in place are face distortion which means that no one outside this courtroom can see your face, and pseudonym which means that we'll not address you by your own name, but as Witness JF-064. If there's any question which you fear that answering that question would reveal your identity, we could go into private session. Please keep an eye on that yourself as well. You'll first be examined by Ms. Harbour. Ms. Harbour is counsel for the Prosecution.
MR. GROOME: Can I ask the Court Officer to call up the witness's pseudonym sheet but not to broadcast it to the public. This is 65 ter 6143.
Examination by Ms. Harbour:
Q. Witness JF-064, I ask you to take a look at the pseudonym sheet and direct your attention to where it says "witness name." Is that your name?
Q. Now directing your attention to where it says "date of birth," is that your date of birth?
A. Yes, it is.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I tender this pseudonym sheet into evidence under seal. 10841
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02110 under seal, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: One second. Let me just see whether I have the number correctly, it was P2110.
THE REGISTRAR: Zero, Your Honour, that's correct.
JUDGE ORIE: P2110 is admitted into evidence under seal. Please proceed.
Q. Witness JF-064, did you testify in the case of Slobodan Milosevic here at the Tribunal on the 16th of June, 2003?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Have you recently had the opportunity to review an audio recording of your testimony in that case in your own language?
Q. Did that recording accurately reflect the evidence that you gave in that case?
Q. Is there anything that you wish to change to this testimony?
Q. If you were asked the same questions here today that you were asked during that testimony, would you give the same answers in substance aside -- would you give the same answers in substance?
Q. Do you affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of that prior testimony? 10842
A. I do.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders the witness's prior testimony. The transcript of this testimony can be found at 65 ter 5429. The witness testified in open session in that case so the transcript does not need to be under seal.
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02111, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: P2111 is admitted into evidence.
Q. JF-064, do you recall giving a statement to someone from the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal in 1996 on the 25th and 26th of November, and the 2nd of December?
A. Yes, I remember.
Q. Did you have an opportunity prior to testifying today to review a translation of this statement in your own language?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall later meeting with someone from the Office of the Prosecutor to give another statement on the 9th and 10th of June, 2003?
Q. In that second statement, did you clarify certain aspects of the statement from 1996?
A. I didn't understand your question. Could you please repeat it?
Q. Of course. In the statement that you gave to the Prosecutor or someone from the Office of the Prosecutor on the 9th and 10th of June, 10843 2003, did you clarify certain aspects of your statement that you gave in 1996?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Did you have an opportunity prior to testifying today to review a translation of the statement that you gave in June 2003 in your own language?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is there anything that you wish to change to either of these statements?
A. No, I wouldn't change anything.
Q. If you were asked the same questions here today, would you give the same answers in substance as the information contained in those statements?
A. My answers would be the same.
Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the accuracy and the truthfulness of your 1996 statement and your 2003 statement?
A. I do.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 5426, which is the statement of this witness taken on the 25th and 26th of November, and the 2nd of December, 1996. And the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 5428, which is the statement of this witness dated 9 and 10 June, 2003. And we would tender these under seal.
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 5426 would be? 10844
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02112, Your Honour, under seal.
JUDGE ORIE: P2112 is admitted into evidence under seal. And 65 ter 5428 would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02113, under seal, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2113 is admitted into evidence under seal. Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, the Prosecution now tenders nine 92 ter associated exhibits from the witness's Milosevic testimony, which is now in evidence as P2111. I have prepared a list of the documents that we seek to tender, pursuant to Rule 92 ter, indicating which exhibits are tendered under seal. I handed those out to the Defence and the Court Officer prior to today's session.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber has received a copy of it. Could I first ask whether there any objections against admission of any of these documents? I hear of no objections.
Mr. Registrar, we start, 65 ter 2844 would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit P02114, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted under seal under that number. 65 ter 0047.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02115, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence. 65 ter 3236.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02116, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2116 is admitted into evidence under seal. 65 ter 0048.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02117, Your Honours. 10845
JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under that number. Next one, 65 ter 2845.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02118, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2118 is admitted into evidence under seal. 65 ter 3237.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02119, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2119 is admitted into evidence under seal. 65 ter 0100.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02120, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2120 is admitted into evidence. 65 ter 0616.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02121, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2121 is admitted into evidence. 65 ter 5427.
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02122, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: P2122 is admitted into evidence under seal. Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Please proceed.
MS. HARBOUR: Pursuant to the Trial Chamber's instructions of the 18th of February, 2010, at this time I will present a public summary of the evidence of Witness JF-064. The witness has reviewed this summary and verified its contents.
In April 1992, Serb forces took over Kljuc municipality and forced the witness and other Bosniaks in the municipality to perform work for the Serb forces, including at the front line. In May 1995, the Bosnian Serb military police picked up the witness and several other men from his village, took them to the front line, and forced them to carry out such dangerous tasks as trench digging and pulling the wounded from 10846 the battle-fields.
After the Bosnian army had broken through the Serb forces line, on 19 September 1995, the witness and four of his neighbours were forced to go to Sanski Most with the VRS unit from Kljuc that they had been assigned to work for. When they got there, one of Arkan's Men required them to assist in the transfer of ammunition and equipment from the Veleprom warehouse to Hotel Sanus in Sanski Most. Witness JF-064 and his neighbours were taken into the Hotel Sanus where Arkan asked them for their names. Arkan then sent them into a narrow corridor where Arkan's Men verbally abused them, called them "Turks," and forced them to sit cross-legged with their heads to the ground for hours. At around 2.30 in the morning, Witness JF-064 and 11 others were handcuffed two-by-two and transported by some of Arkan's Men on a truck away from Hotel S anus to a place that the witness later learned was Trnova. The men were taken out two-by-two and the witness heard shots. All four of the neighbours from Kljuc exited the truck before the witness.
When the witness came off the truck, Arkan's Men removed the handcuffs that bound him to another man that he did not know. They were ordered by one of Arkan's Men to enter a small room where the witness could already see bodies and pools of blood.
As they entered the room, shots were fired. A bullet hit the witness and he fell to the ground. He remained lying still as Arkan's Men brought in the remaining men from the truck and shot them in the room. Arkan's Men slit the throat of one and the blood sprayed over 10847 the witness's face. The witness received two more non-fatal shots, a total of three shots.
Once Arkan's Men had left him for dead, he escaped. JF-064 is the only surviving victim of the Trnova massacre which is discussed in paragraph 56 of the indictment.
Q. JF-064, I'm now going to ask you some questions to clarify aspects of your prior testimony and statements. During your prior testimony, you testified on page 22481 of the transcript that after Kljuc municipality was taken over, the Serb authorities forced a work obligation on the Bosniaks. You then stated at page 22482 that in May 1995 you were sent to the front line for your work obligation. Can you please clarify which Serb forces detained you and put you to forced labour in May 1995?
A. In May 1995, the military police of the Republika Srpska picked us up and took us directly to the front line. We had to do the most difficult work there, cut trenches, and so on. We carried ammunition, food, water and we were exposed to fire, both rapid fire or mortar fire daily.
Q. You stated that the military police of the Republika Srpska picked you up and took you directly to the front line. At the front line, which Serb forces were you forced to work for?
A. It was the Army of Republika Srpska.
Q. In performing forced labour for the Army of the Republika Srpska, did you become familiar with their uniforms?
A. Well, their uniforms didn't look good, I must say. They weren't 10848 all the same. Some were camouflage uniforms, other were just olive-drab without a pattern. Some of them even wore parts of civilian clothing. So it was pretty disorderly.
Q. When you say that they weren't all the same, within a unit were they all the same?
A. Arkan's Men were all dressed the same way when we met them at Sanski Most. They recognised each other by the good and clean uniforms that they wore and they were all the same type.
MS. HARBOUR: Could I ask the Court Officer to prepare Exhibit P255, page 104, but please don't bring it to the monitors just yet.
Q. Witness JF-064, on page 22484 of your prior testimony, referring to when you were in Poljak which is near Sanski Most, you stated that: "A soldier arrived with a nice clean uniform on him, a camouflage uniform. Whereas the other Serb soldiers that we belonged to under work obligation were not so nicely dressed."
Could you please clarify whether this soldier was wearing anything on his head?
A. Yes, that soldier wore a black knitted cap on his head.
Q. Did his camouflage uniform have any insignia on it?
A. It had a patch on the sleeve.
Q. Could you please describe that patch?
A. It was a white eagle with two heads and three letters S around it, and there was also the inscription around this motif saying "Serb Volunteer Guard." 10849
MS. HARBOUR: Could the Court Officer please now bring Exhibit P255, page 104, to the monitor.
Q. JF-064, do you recognise this patch?
A. Yes. That's the very patch I've just described.
MS. HARBOUR: I'm finished with this exhibit, thank you.
Q. In your prior testimony at page 22486, you testified that you went in a truck to the Veleprom factory with this "Arkan's soldier" and a local Bosnian Serb soldier from Kljuc where you were ordered by five or six other "Arkan's soldiers" to load ammunition and mortar barrels into the military truck.
What were these other five or six Arkan's soldiers wearing?
A. They were also wearing camouflage uniforms and knitted caps on their heads.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, could we please move into private session.
JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
(8 lines redacted) 10850
(page redacted) 10851
(5 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
MS. HARBOUR: At this time I would like to ask the Court Officer to prepare 65 ter 4270.11, but please don't bring it up on the monitors just yet.
Q. In your previous testimony, you stated at page 22498 to -99 that inside Hotel Sanus you saw Arkan wearing a red beret with "four Cyrillic S's, and the letters saying Serbian Volunteer Guard were in a circle." You were then asked what the other men with Arkan were wearing on their heads and you responded:
"Some wore black berets, others had black woolen caps, while the ones who were closer to Arkan, I think, all had red berets." Can I ask you to clarify what led you to believe that the people in red berets were closer to Arkan?
A. They were the ones who communicated more with Arkan and if somebody was brought in, they spoke to Arkan; while the others wearing black caps, they were simply passing by one behind the other and they didn't talk to anybody, whereas these behaved more freely and spoke to Arkan freely and, yeah, that's it. 10852
Q. What uniforms did the Arkan's Men in red berets wear?
A. They wore camouflage uniforms.
Q. Did you notice any insignia on their uniforms?
A. Those who wore knitted black caps didn't have any insignia on their caps, but they did have the same patches that I mentioned on their sleeves. It was the white eagle with the four Cyrillic S's and the inscription "Serbian Volunteer Guard." Whereas those who wore berets also had such insignia on their head gear.
MS. HARBOUR: Would the Court Officer please bring 65 ter 4270.11 to the screen. This is a still from a video which is in e-court as 65 ter 4270, and several clips of the video are already in evidence.
Q. JF-064, do you recognise the uniforms worn by the two individuals in this photo?
A. Yes. This is Arkan and one of his men. And these are the uniforms they wore on that night.
Q. Just to be clear, you have told us that the Arkan's Men wearing red berets who you observed at Hotel Sanus seemed closer to Arkan than those who wore the black caps. Can you compare the uniforms in this photo to the evidence you've given us about the berets and the hats worn by Arkan's Men?
A. Well, I've just said it. These are the uniforms they were wearing on that evening; black knitted cap or a red beret, patches on the sleeves, camouflage uniforms.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I would like to tender 65 ter 4270.11 into evidence. 10853
JUDGE ORIE: No objections? Mr. Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P02124, Your Honours, under seal.
JUDGE ORIE: P2124 is admitted into evidence under seal.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I don't believe that it needs to be under seal.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, the under-seal status is removed. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Is -- to the extent it was there, it's lifted. Please proceed.
MS. HARBOUR: Could I ask the Court Officer to please bring up 65 ter 4270.10 on the monitor. This is a still that is taken from the video that is in evidence as Exhibit P286.
Q. Witness JF-064, do you recognise what group these men in this photo are affiliated with?
A. Well, this is Arkan with his men, but I must point out that on that night I didn't notice such uniform hats at most of these soldiers are wearing. I personally thought then that the people with such hats may have been on the front line, whereas the others may have been somewhere in town.
Q. Witness JF-064, you stated that that night you didn't notice such uniform hats as most of these soldiers are wearing. Could you tell us how then you are able to recognise this group as Arkan's Men?
A. I recognise Arkan at the head of the column. 10854
Q. Do you recognise anything else about the uniforms that these men are wearing?
A. They wore exactly the same uniforms on that night, camouflage uniforms, all the same, modern, clean. That's it.
Q. Do you recognise the caps that some of the men are wearing which are not the green caps?
MR. JORDASH: That -- objection to the leading nature of the question.
JUDGE ORIE: It's not entirely clear whether it's limiting what the witness is asked, that is, whether he recognise any headwear which is not the green caps which would not make it leading but would limit the question.
MR. JORDASH: In following open questions where the witness is asked whether he recognises and gives a firm answer and a clear answer as to what he recognises and then my learned friend points him to what evidence she would like him to give.
JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ... the objection is denied. The uniforms and headwear are not necessarily the same, so the question could be put to the witness.
Could you -- perhaps you repeat the question or rephrase it.
Q. Witness JF-064, do you recognise anything else about the uniforms that these men are wearing?
A. Well, I can say that on that night such a knitted black caps were worn as Arkan is wearing in this still, and another soldier in the rear. 10855 Whereas this other kind of caps I didn't see on that night.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I would like to tender this exhibit into evidence.
JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Mr. Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this would be Exhibit P02125.
JUDGE ORIE: P2125 is admitted into evidence.
Q. Witness JF-064, when you testified previously, you were asked at page 22504:
"How many men were led off the truck and shot in that room that night?"
To which you responded at page T-22505: "Twelve men were taken, 11 were killed."
You were then asked: "And of those 12 men, how many of them whose names did you know?" To which you responded:
"Four of them." You were asked if any were "close friends of yours." And you named Mehmed Sehic.
MS. HARBOUR: I would now like to ask Mr. Laugel to play an excerpt from Exhibit P170 beginning at the time stamp 3:30 and ending at 3:53. Please play this excerpt without sound and leave the final screen shot on the monitor for questions.
MS. HARBOUR: 10856
Q. Witness JF-064, do you recognise where this video was filmed?
A. This video was filmed in the garage, the one where I survived the execution in Trnova in Sanski Most.
Q. Are there any features visible from this video that would allow you to identify any of the individuals?
A. I recognise my good friend, Mehmed Sehic. I recognise his top. I remember what he was wearing on that day.
Q. You've testified that you were also shot here. Is the place where you fell visible on the screen?
JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, is there any dispute about that it was left corner or the the right corner? I mean, is there any dispute at all about the, if I could say so, execution of a number of people which were detained?
MR. JORDASH: No, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Then before we go into any further details, I mean, I didn't want to stop you, but we've seen that pictures are taken from the scene of where this horrible event happened, but to go into further detail if there's no dispute about it, might be unnecessary. And I'm also, of course, looking at the clock. You said you would need your half an hour, well, you took already more than half an hour.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, may I just show the witness a still of this last screen shot and allow him to mark on it which man he identified as his friend and also where he fell?
JUDGE ORIE: Well, is there any dispute about that there was a friend of him among them and to know exactly which of the dead bodies was 10857 his friend seems, of course it's for the witness very important, but for the Chamber it doesn't make a lot of difference. And this is not a lack of interest in the Chamber, but these are details which are irrelevant for the determinations the Chamber has to make. Apparently, the Defence and the Chamber accepts that amongst the dead bodies seen on this photograph, which, of course, is a picture which one does not easily forget, that the friend of the witness is among them. Unless there's any specific reason why you would like to do it.
MS. HARBOUR: In that case, I'll leave it to the Chamber.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness, I hope you do understand that where everyone accepts the event that take place, that details as in which corner or you were, et cetera, for the Chamber it is -- these are not the details that are important, but that this event happened, that is important. You were there, your friend was there as well. Yes.
MS. HARBOUR: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: No further questions. I've one issue I'd like to take you back to and we should -- it should not be shown on the screen. That is 2123. Could we have a look at it. Again both original and translation, second page in the ... Could we have the original next to it. Last page. Could we zoom in on the last line of the text and the stamp below it. No, the other stamp, the stamp. There are three stamps, the middle one, and the text just above it. Yes. Could we zoom in even more.
If I look at the translation, it says number 11 is the last one. 10858 What I see clearly on that line above the stamp is a number 3, which does not appear in any way in the translation. I also see a stamp being described as being of the lower court of Sanski Most. Now, my eyes hardly can read what it says. Apart from that, I read the word Bihac which is not in the translation and it's one of the few legible parts, so I was a bit surprised by this translation together with this original.
MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, we will look into this at the break and report back, and, if necessary, we could have it -- the translation submitted for -- to be verified.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it -- of course, it suggests this number 11 was the last one, that it's a more extensive document. But let's -- we'd like to hear from you.
Who is going to be the first to cross-examine the witness? It will be you. Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock, wouldn't it be a better idea if you would start cross-examination after the break?
MR. JORDASH: I'm happy with that, Your Honour. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: I might then use a couple of minutes for another matter but not necessarily in the presence of the witness. We'll take a break, witness. If you could perhaps already follow the usher and we'd like to see you back in approximately half an hour where you will be cross-examined.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
[The witness stands down]
JUDGE ORIE: There's one matter I would like to briefly raise with you, Mr. Jordash. The Chamber has received a submission in which 10859 you were asking to -- well, to deal with the -- I would say, the financial matter with the Registry, that's one. But also to suspend all the proceedings apart from the examination of the remaining Prosecution witnesses. It's not entirely clear what you mean by suspend all the proceedings, whether that, for example, would also include any time-limits already set or that we, in your view, are supposed not to set any further time-limits. That's not entirely clear to us. That's one. Second, the Chamber has received a copy of a letter which is not yet considered in your submission and, of course, the Chamber would like to know to what extent that letter changes anything, if only the urgency of the requests you have made. The Chamber would like, not necessarily at this moment, but if you could say something about it either now or tomorrow or --
MR. JORDASH: At the moment, I'm not sure what letter Your Honour is referring to.
JUDGE ORIE: About additional funding.
MR. JORDASH: Was that from the Registry to ...
JUDGE ORIE: To all counsel, I think. To all Defence counsel, or am I mistaken?
MR. JORDASH: Could I ask when it's dated, please.
JUDGE ORIE: We have seen until now a rather lengthy explanation, whereas I'm referring to, let me see, 28th of January, 2011.
MR. JORDASH: Oh, the 28th of January, 2011, letter is dealt with in the --
JUDGE ORIE: But that's the long one. Is that the same date? 10860
MR. JORDASH: Yes.
JUDGE ORIE: This is a one-and-a-half page letter.
MR. JORDASH: This is something different then.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I read one line to you so then "therefore in order to ensure continued funding during trial proceedings, and in light of the expected end of the Prosecution phase of trial in mid-February," and then I leave out a few words between brackets, "the Registry proposes to make available the regular monthly stipend to your respective teams" so that's both for you and Simatovic, "for the month of February 2011."
MR. JORDASH: That, I think, is a letter which --
JUDGE ORIE: It's for the both teams. It's addressed "all lead counsel Stanisic and Simatovic."
MR. JORDASH: I haven't seen this.
JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps you read it first and then --
MR. JORDASH: Yes, I haven't seen this.
JUDGE ORIE: You haven't seen that. It might be relevant, perhaps from only the part, as I said whether it changes anything, if only the immediate urgency. Please have a look at it and please think about both suspension, what it exactly means in this context, and whether this changes, perhaps not on a long term, but perhaps on the short term anything.
We'll have a break and resume at 4.00.
--- Recess taken at 3.27 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.07 p.m. 10861
JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought into the courtroom. Mr. Jordash, there may have been some confusion about the 28th of January letters and to what extent it was included in submissions. It certainly was not in your oral submissions. Now, I didn't go in detail through the submissions and all the annexes, but rather roughly, and it may be, I do understand that there was some confusion about what was annexed in that later submission and I do understand that even the short 28th of January letter was also an annex to your last submission.
MR. JORDASH: And it wasn't intended to be. The only 28th of January letter I had seen, has now, I hope, been sent to Your Honours. That was -- it's --
JUDGE ORIE: The long one.
MR. JORDASH: It's the long one.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
MR. JORDASH: This one I hadn't seen.
JUDGE ORIE: You hadn't seen that?
MR. JORDASH: No.
JUDGE ORIE: Then the confusion is complete but look at everything.
MR. JORDASH: I've seen it, I'm in a position when Your Honours wish for me to address you on it.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
[The witness takes the stand]
JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-064, you'll now be cross-examined by Defence counsel Mr. Jordash, counsel for Mr. Stanisic. He is the Defence 10862 lawyer who will first cross-examine you.
Please proceed. Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I only have a very few questions for you. May I start by expressing my and my client's sympathy for your terrible experience. I'm not seeking to challenge the truthfulness of your account. We accept it happened and we accept it was horrific. But I do want to ask you some few details just to clarify a few points.
Now, you've spoken about Arkan's Men, some wearing black caps, some wearing red berets. The men who were wearing red berets, were those red berets the same as Arkan's red beret?
Q. Indicating that they were members of the SDG?
A. What is SDG? What do you mean by that?
Q. Well, did they have the same insignia as Arkan's beret?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And their role when you saw them was to bring in those who were being engaged in work conscription such as yourself; is that correct?
A. They didn't bring in just us, but also all other non-Serbs from Sanski Most. They had a local Serb with them and they praise him to Arkan as somebody who was very familiar with the area who was familiar with every house, every step, every road. In other words, they brought in all non-Serb citizens of Sanski Most. 10863
Q. And the men wearing black caps, what were they doing?
A. I don't know what they were doing but while we were standing in the corridor of the hotel, I saw them on a number of occasions, either coming up or down the stairs. In any case, they always seemed to respect very strict discipline. They walked in a single file very fast.
Q. The local Serbs who were assisting Arkan's Men, were they members of a military force, from what you could see?
A. There was just that one man who wore a uniform of the reserve police. I am familiar with the appearance of that uniform because before the war I was also a member of the reserve police.
Q. And this was a uniform of the reserve police from where?
A. The reserve police of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Q. Thank you. Now, just moving forward a little. When you were taken towards the site that became the execution site, were you under the impression you were being taken in the usual way to work?
A. No, that was not my impression because we had been handcuffed. Had we not have been handcuffed, maybe that would have been my impression.
Q. And at what point were you handcuffed? Were you handcuffed at the hotel or sometime after that?
A. In front of the hotel before we were loaded on to the truck, and then in Trnova when we got off the truck and when we reached that little room where we would eventually be executed, that's where they took our handcuffs off.
Q. And when you were handcuffed, were other civilians being taken 10864 off to work from the hotel?
A. I don't know what work are you referring to. We were handcuffed and we were taken to be executed. What happened next, I don't know.
Q. Do you know where Arkan was when you were handcuffed?
A. We were standing there with heads cast down, behind us there was a soldier who cocked his rifle and he had been ordered to shoot if any one of us moved, so we really could not observe the situation to see who was where in that part of the corridor. But before that, Arkan was at the very entrance to the hotel. There was a door to the left, he had just come out of the room behind that door the first time we saw him.
Q. And do you know if he would have been able to see you being handcuffed?
A. I believe that nothing could happen among his army, if I may call it that, without his knowledge.
Q. But do you think he saw you being handcuffed? What I'm trying to get at, Mr. Witness, before you answer, is whether you have any information as to whether this was ordered by Arkan or was the men involved going on a frolic of their own?
A. Not only did he see it, but he also ordered it a hundred per cent. I repeat, nothing happened unbeknownst to him without his approval. We had been known to wait for hours to unload ammunition or equipment until the moment he came back from the front line. Then you will understand what kind of discipline they observed. And also I overheard soldiers talking about awful things that happened to them if they did something of their own accord and how terribly they suffered. I 10865 can give you an example to illustrate what I've just said. They are ordered to do physical exercise while the others were ordered to beat them on the back with wooden sticks. I never said that before in any of my statements.
Q. Okay. So what you've just described is what you recall happening over a number of days and weeks; is that correct?
A. I am speaking about what happened that evening, that night, what I personally experienced and saw.
Q. So you said, "We had been known to wait for hours to unload ammunition or equipment," so you were referring to that particular day?
MR. JORDASH: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE ORIE: I only have one follow-up question in this respect. You earlier when Mr. Jordash asked you whether you had any information as to whether this was ordered by Arkan or whether they may have done it on their own, you said:
"Not only did he see it, but he ordered it as well." Now, the first: When you were handcuffed, did you observe Arkan was nearby as to see that you were handcuffed?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The room where he was had a large window through which he could see the area where the truck was that we were loaded on to with our hands handcuffed. I can't state with a hundred per cent certainty that he saw us, but judging by everything I experienced that day and that night, I'm certain that nothing could be done without his approval. 10866
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear. You would say they wouldn't do anything unless he would have approved or ordered it. Now, did you hear him order you to be handcuffed or is it a conclusion, rather, that it could not be anything else then that he ordered it?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's my assumption. I didn't hear it. I didn't see it. I assume that that was the case.
JUDGE ORIE: Now, finally, I think part of your testimony was also that the soldiers said that if you would pay 5.000 Deutschemarks that you would be released. Did they specifically at that moment say Arkan will release you if you pay 5.000? It didn't happen, but did they mention Arkan specifically in this context?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They said, You are lucky that you have been captured by Arkan's Soldiers. Tell us where your houses are, we'll get on to the truck and we'll get the money. Those were the words that they used.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but they did not say that Arkan had decided that if you would come up with the money, that you would be released?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
JUDGE ORIE: You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
Q. [Interpretation] Witness, first of all, on behalf of my Defence team and my client, I would like to express my sympathy for the ordeal that you went through. I will not dwell on upon that. I just have a few 10867 brief questions about some other parts of your statement and your testimony so far.
In your statement provided in 1996, which is P2112, in paragraph 6 you describe your arrival at the front line near Bihac in 1995, and you say in that part of your statement:
"I noticed that all the equipment and weapons that were used by the Serbs belonged to the JNA."
Could you please be more specific, what equipment and what weapons did you see in that part of the front line near Bihac on that occasion when you were taken there to work?
A. All sorts of weapons. To be more specific, military trucks, Pinzgauers, things like that.
Q. All the equipment that you saw, as far as you know, had belonged to the JNA; right?
Q. In your statement, you also mentioned that you saw Arkan on TV?
Q. Could you remember, as you sit here today, during the war what TV channel did you see him on and what did you see? Can we just concentrate on the war period, please.
A. I watched often footage from some of the Croatian theatres of war where he was and apart from the war I was watching his electoral campaign spots because he had some sort of political party. And before the war he was the leader of the supporters of the Red Star football club, and I was also one of his supporters. 10868
Q. So you knew about Arkan even before the war began in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see P2125.
Q. Witness, we saw this still a short while ago. Could you please tell us how you can tell that this is a unit led by Arkan based on this still because I suppose you were not able to see this live?
A. No, I didn't see this live, but I am convinced that the man at the head of the column is Arkan.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the usher to hand you a pen so you can circle the face of the person you suppose is Arkan.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, is there any reason to doubt that the witness earlier said in the front the man with the black? There's only one in the front, isn't it. Of course we could ask him, but could you circle it, the man you think. Yes.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Marks]
JUDGE ORIE: That appears on the record clearly from his previous testimony.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
Q. Could you show us anything on the uniforms of these people that would show that they are members of that unit? Can you see any insignia that would help us make this conclusion? If you do, please circle it.
A. I don't know what to circle because if I recognise Arkan in front, what is left for me to do? 10869
Q. So apart from Arkan's face and there's nothing else to point to the identity of the unit?
A. I don't know who -- which other unit it could be led by him if not Arkan's tigers.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender this marked photograph into evidence.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00220. Thank you, Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: One second. You said D00220, but that -- yes, it's a Defence exhibit. Yes, D220 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
Q. Witness, this terrible event happened at Trnova?
Q. Do you have an estimate of the distance between Trnova and Sanski Most in kilometres?
A. I think it's about a kilometre or one and a half kilometres, thereabouts.
Q. The place where the Kljuc unit of the VRS was, Poljak, how far is it from Sanski Most?
A. I think that the distance is about the same, only in a different direction, of course.
Q. So the distance between Trnova and Poljak is about 3 kilometres?
A. Yes, thereabouts.
Q. On that day before the event you described while you were in 10870 Sanski Most, were there times when you were under nobody's control when you could move about Sanski Most freely?
A. The only time when we were under nobody's control was from the entry point to Sanski Most toward -- until the passage to Poljak. That was the only time because we were not supposed to be without anybody to guard us and escort us at any time.
Q. Witness, after this event that you described, do you know when the BH Army entered Sanski Most?
A. At the time I was in Tuzla already, but I think that it was in late October.
Q. Late October 1995?
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no more questions for this witness.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Any -- could we ask you one thing: You referred to paragraph 6 of -- I think it was 2112 -- no, 2012. I have no paragraph numbers in that.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the B/C/S version of statement 2112, the paragraphs are marked by hand, but now I see that they are not marked in the same way in the English versions, but the paragraph I'm referring to is the last one on the first page in English, and it ends on the following page.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know how the numbering is but that's the page going over from the first page with content to the second page. 10871
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
[Trial Chamber confers]
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
JUDGE ORIE: I'm trying to find -- I see in the previous paragraph that the witness noticed that all the equipment and weapons were used by the Serbs. That's in -- but then, let me see ...
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
JUDGE ORIE: I'm trying to find the reference to Bihac.
MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, Bihac -- or first of all, this is the last but one paragraph on the first page right there, and Bihac is mentioned halfway through the paragraph, after the names of persons and the following sentence Bihac is mentioned.
JUDGE ORIE: Just above Bihac. No, I had difficulties in finding it in the paragraph you earlier referred to, but it's clear to me now. Ms. Harbour, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
MS. HARBOUR: No, Your Honours
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has no further questions for you, which means that this concludes your testimony, Witness 64. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench, questions about an experience which as all the parties have expressed, must have been a horrific experience for you. I thank you for coming and I wish you a safe return home again.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for calling me. 10872
[The witness withdrew]
JUDGE ORIE: The next witness will testify with voice distortion which requires 10 minutes preparation. Therefore, we'll have a break of 10 minutes and then perhaps before the next break I do understand that you have -- that there are, Mr. Weber, half an hour is the estimate, isn't it? Examination-in-chief? No, no, it's only cross-examination, yes, I'd forgotten about that. Then we'll have a short break first but this is not the -- I take it it's still on the same tape so we'll have -- relatively soon after that we'll have another break. We'll resume in 10 minutes from now, but before we do so, I first have to put on the record what the basis is for what we are doing.
On the 17th of December of last year, the Stanisic Defence filed a motion in which they requested a recall of Witness JF-047. On the 28th of December, the Prosecution filed its response in which it did not oppose the motion. The Chamber then decided to grant the request which was informally communicated to the parties in an e-mail dated January the 12th of this year, 2011, and the Chamber in that respect gave some further instructions to the parties such in relation to contact with the witness, for the witness not to speak or otherwise communicate with anyone else about his testimony, and a corresponding instruction for the Victims and Witness Section. In that e-mail, it is said that the decision will be put on the record at a later stage which is hereby done. We'll have a short break of 10 minutes.
--- Break taken at 4.40 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.55 p.m. 10873
JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought into the courtroom. The witness will testify with pseudonym, face, and voice distortion.
[The witness takes the stand]
JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Witness JF-047. Before you will give further evidence, I'd like to invite you to make again the solemn declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony when you were here earlier, that is that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I read it? I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-047, there were reasons for the Defence to ask this Chamber to be allowed to put further questions to you. The Chamber granted that request, and that's the reason why we asked you to come back to The Hague, as well have been communicated with you by the Victims and Witness Section.
Mr. Jordash, are you ready to further cross-examine the witness?
MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: You will be further cross-examined by Mr. Jordash. As you may remember, Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic. Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued] 10874
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. Can you hear me?
MR. JORDASH: Can we have, please, on the screen, 65 ter 6144.
Q. I'd like to have you have a look at a document.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we just ask the document not be broadcast to the public. It's the witness's personal information.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not to be broadcasted.
Q. Now, this is the front first page of a document, and I would like to you read it and see if you recognise it just by looking at this page.
Q. You do recognise it?
A. Yes, I recognise it.
Q. And what is it?
A. This is my personal information. This is probably from either my military booklet or from my military personnel file.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because it says here "technical service."
Q. Could you explain what that means and what connections you are making?
A. The connection I make is that the address mentioned here is that of my mother, and I lived there in 1978 or 1979 when I served in my compulsory military service in the SFRY.
Q. But what is the significance, if anything, of the words 10875 "technical service," and why does that make you think that this probably came from your military booklet or military personnel file?
A. Because in Ljubljana I was in the technical service, in 1978.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next page and have a look at not -- what it says. Please read through the document.
A. Can you enlarge it a bit, if possible. Thank you. Could you please scroll down. Thank you. Yes, this is my statement.
Q. And that's your signature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And when did you provide this statement and to whom?
A. I don't remember. I don't remember that either.
Q. Well, we can see, can we not, that it's sometime after August of 1992 because there's reference to a date at the bottom which is August -- 27th of August, 1992?
A. I don't remember when I gave this statement or to who, but probably there is an indication of that on the statement itself, to who it was given.
Q. You really have no recollection whatsoever of who you gave this statement to?
Q. Do you in any way recall signing this statement, even if you don't recall anything else about it?
A. No, you can believe me, I don't remember. I can see that some dates were changed, but I don't remember to who I gave this statement.
Q. Let's have a look at its content. Looking two-thirds of the way 10876 down the statement, it says:
"I stayed in Mlaka --"
MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we should go into private session, please.
JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
(20 lines redacted) 10877
(11 pages redacted) 10888
(20 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session. Thank you.
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Witness JF-047, we'll take a break of again half an hour, and then some more questions will be 10889 put to you by the Prosecution, perhaps by the Defence and by the Bench as well, we'll see. We resume at five minutes past 6.00.
--- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
--- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-047, you'll now be further examined by Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber, as you may also remember, is counsel for the Prosecution.
Mr. Weber, please proceed.
MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour. Re-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
Q. JF-047, before you now is still Prosecution 6144, the first page of the exhibit. I'd like to direct your attention to the handwriting on this page. Is this your handwriting?
A. No, sir. Could I add something about this document, please.
Q. Sir, if I could ask you just another question.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecution, please.
Q. Do you recall or do you know whose handwriting appears on this page?
A. No, I wouldn't be able to say that.
Q. JF-047, is there something additional that you wish to add with respect to this document?
A. Yes. Only now have I noticed an error in my year of birth in English. It says that I was born in 1955, and that's not true.
JUDGE ORIE: In the original it's not any different. You see 10890 also in your own language, the handwriting is 1955, but that's a mistake, you say.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. The date is correct, but the year when I was born is 1959. My eyesight is not very good anyway, I thought that this was a 9. Now that I have looked more carefully, I see that there is a mistake. I don't know where this document comes from. It's certainly not from the military department.
Q. Since you've raised that matter, could you please review the rest of the personal information on here and indicate whether or not it is correct.
A. The rest is correct. I don't know my mother's a birth date, believe me, but the rest is correct. My specialty, my blood type. The rest is correct.
Q. With respect to the telephone number that appears in the entry for your mother, where does that telephone number belong to? What republic?
A. The telephone number is correct, and it is in the Republic of Serbia. There was a time when the Republic of Serbia did have that telephone number.
MR. WEBER: Could I please have page 2 of 65 ter 6144.
Q. JF-047, the document that appears before you now is entitled "Biography." Before asking you some questions about the contents of this document, I'd like to ask you a very simple question: Do you know how to type? 10891
A. I cannot use a mechanical typewriter, I've never had one, but I can use a computer keyboard.
Q. Do you recall who typed this biography?
A. I do if this is the statement that I think it is.
Q. I will come back to that later on. I'd like you to review the first three paragraphs of this biography. It discusses your personal information and background. Is it correct that aside from your compulsory military service, that you resided and worked in Serbia prior to 1991 as stated in these first three paragraphs? If I could ask you to please refrain from referring to any particular locations since this document is not being broadcast.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Directing your attention to the eighth line from the bottom of this note which references the training centre in Lezimir, is this training centre located in Serbia also?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. The end of this note references two individuals. The names that are present are Crnog and Zivorad Ivanovic. Are these individuals the commanders that you were subordinated to as a member of the special purpose unit of the MUP Serbia, which you previously testified to?
Q. With respect to the reference to Crnog, is this the same individual that you previously testified is Dragan Djordjevic, also known as Crni?
A. Yes. 10892
Q. Is this reference to Zivorad Ivanovic a reference to the same person that you previously testified to as being known as Zika Crnogorac?
Q. In the sixth line from the bottom, this biography indicates you had a serial number. Do you recall what this serial number represents?
A. We got these serial numbers on plaques that were distributed to us before we left for Bosanski Samac.
Q. When you say "we got these serial numbers on plaques" that were distributed to you, who did you receive these serial numbers from?
A. Well, the uniforms, serial numbers, and all that were things we received at a Pajzos before leaving for Bosanski Samac.
Q. And while you were at Pajzos, who provided with you the serial numbers?
A. I cannot say who it was individually, but it was the unit commander who distributed them to us. But of course, I don't know who -- I can't say who manufactured those plaques.
Q. When you say the unit commander, what unit are you referring to that you were part of at that time in Pajzos? I believe you previously testified to this.
A. Srecko Radovanovic.
Q. At the time in Pajzos, is that when you were a member of the special purpose unit of the MUP Serbia?
A. Yes, that was a few days before we were transferred from Lezimir to Pajzos.
Q. You've just referred to plaques. Could you please describe to us 10893 what plaques you are referring to?
A. Those are actually two plaques. They are the same kind as worn by American soldiers with the personal information. On ours there was the first name and the last name as well as a serial number. I can't remember if there was anything else on them. I don't think so.
Q. On page 7626 of your previous testimony on the 4th of October, 2010, between lines 16 and 18, you stated:
"We were told that we should leave all our identification papers behind, whoever had their IDs on them or military booklets. We had been given tags a couple of days before."
JF-047, my question to you is: Was this serial number used or present on your tags or any of your IDs while you were a member of the special purpose unit of the MUP Serbia?
A. It was on the tag.
Q. With respect to the two documents that you've shown -- been shown here today, have you seen these documents -- with respect to the second one, apologise. With respect to the second document, have you seen this document since you signed it?
Q. Do you recall when you signed this document?
A. Well, I'm not sure. Last year or the year before, if we are talking about the statement that I gave to the Radical Party.
Q. Sir, you were previously shown two statements by the Serbian -- or involving members of the Serbian Radical Party when you were previously here. These were Exhibits D122 and D123 marked for 10894 identification. Are those the only two statements that you provided to the Serbian Radical Party?
A. Well, I gave a couple of statements. This last one, if I may explain, the one that you've just showed, I can explain how it came about.
Q. Before you do that, I'd like to ask you, you were brought back here today and shown these documents. You are indicating that you have not seen these documents since you signed it. Do you have any clear recollection about when or to whom this biography was provided to?
A. Well, I tell you, I'm not sure. Last year or the year before, and before that I gave a biography but that was merely a biography and I gave it to Ljubisa Petrovic.
MR. WEBER: Your Honour, can I just have one moment.
[Prosecution counsel confer]
MR. WEBER: No further questions.
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I may have --
MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I did though, just from -- although I have no further questions, the Prosecution would like to tender this exhibit into evidence, 65 ter 6144, and we'd also like to tender the RFA that was received pursuant which we've uploaded as 65 ter 6145.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac is nodding yes already. Mr. Jordash, any objections.
MR. JORDASH: No objections of the statement, but there is an objection to the tendering of the RFA. The RFA -- well, I don't know if 10895 we can --
JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we discuss that because I take it that the RFA is not a matter on which anyone would like to ask questions and hear the answers of this witness on the RFA, is it?
MR. WEBER: That's correct, we just wanted to alert the Chamber to the fact that [Overlapping speakers] ...
JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll consider that we'll mark it for identification.
MR. WEBER: If we could, please --
JUDGE ORIE: First, we have 6144, which is the -- as a matter of fact, the April and undated result of the result of the RFA.
MR. WEBER: Correct.
JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02126, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: P2126 is admitted under seal. The other one, that is the RFA, 65 ter 6145, should be marked for identification under seal, or is there no need for that?
MR. WEBER: Under seal.
JUDGE ORIE: Also under seal. Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P02127 marked for identification, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being. Questioned by the Court:
JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-047, in the biography, it says that since 10896 you went to Bosnia -- let me find. Since you left from Bosnia you served as a special purpose unit member of the MUP Krajina combat group Bosanski Samac with that serial number. Did you ever apply for a job with the MUP Krajina? Did you -- when you left for Bosnia, did you ever apply for being a member of the MUP Krajina?
A. No, I didn't.
JUDGE ORIE: From earlier answers you gave when you were here in October, it sounded as if it should be hidden, more or less, who you were and where you came from. Was that the case when you left for Bosnia?
A. Yes, it was.
JUDGE ORIE: Are you aware of any moment that you received information that you were supposed to present yourself as a member of the MUP Krajina?
JUDGE ORIE: Because let me be quite clear with you, of course it is puzzling why in that biography it is said that you served as a member of the MUP Krajina where you here say that you did not.
A. That statement, if I may explain, the statement that was shown here, was given to a member of the Serb Radical Party for a monograph that was supposedly going to be written about the participation of volunteers, and so on. And, yes, it just occurred to me that this statement has neither a signature nor a stamp. There's only my signature on it. I'm not saying that I didn't give the statement, but much has been altered here. Well, not much, but this thing about Krajina, never in my life did I state ever anywhere that I was a member of the Krajina 10897 MUP.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you give some details about giving this statement, whereas earlier when Mr. Jordash asked you questions about it, you didn't remember anything at all. What makes it that you are now suddenly able to tell us that it was given to a member of the Serb Radical Party, and as you add now, for a mono-graph?
A. I was trying to remember how a statement on a single page could have appeared without a signature or a stamp but saying in the letterhead that it was the Krajina MUP. I did give it a thought, and I concluded that this was the only possible explanation. Up there it says that it's the Krajina MUP, but where is the stamp of that MUP? I've never been to the Krajina.
JUDGE ORIE: When you were examined in October, quite a lot was said about the payments you had received, the two payments you said that were brought in. Do you have any recollection as to payments coming from the MUP Krajina?
A. No. The only money that I received later was money from the Republika Srpska, but that was in late 1992. That was not in the period while I was a member of this unit.
JUDGE ORIE: And you said you received it from the Republika Srpska. For what reason did you receive money from the Republika Srpska?
A. The money that I received in May and June and in August, actually, in June and August, was money from the Republic of Serbia. Later, when I returned to the Republika Srpska, then as a member their 10898 unit, I received money from Republika Srpska. They gave us some money for cigarettes and the like.
JUDGE ORIE: And their unit, could you be a bit more specific what you exactly refer to when you said "as a member of their unit"?
A. I was referring to the brigade or special purposes brigade of the MUP of Serbia. That was until I was wounded and later in the period after my injury.
JUDGE ORIE: But you said you received money from the Republika Srpska as a member of their unit. In your answer, you are referring to a brigade or a special purposes brigade of the MUP of Serbia which is not the same, is it?
A. I'm talking about the latter half of 1992. Actually, the third -- third of 1992. Then I was a member of the VRS. I was a volunteer. Then I had no longer anything to do with the unit from Serbia. That's the period after my wounding and the period after Zivorad Ivanovic.
JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have no further questions for you. Any further questions, Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac?
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave and given the fact that we have time, I have two or three questions that stem from the examination by Mr. Weber and your questions, so I have two or three questions.
JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. 10899 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
Q. [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Weber asked you whether you had left all your personal ID at Pajzos before you left for Bosnia and you answered that you did; correct?
Q. What was the reason why you left all your personal ID at Pajzos and went to Bosnia only with these tags?
A. One reason was that if we should get killed or taken prisoner, that our personal ID shouldn't become known and that the fact that the unit had come from Serbia wouldn't become known.
Q. Very good. We are now in open session, and --
THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the document number.
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
Q. The first document we showed to you was dated 10 April, 1992. And you said that it was drafted at Batkusa; correct?
A. No, I didn't say that.
Q. My colleague will check that. Where were you on 10th of April, 1992?
A. At Batkusa, but I didn't say that the document was drafted there. I was at Batkusa on the 10th of April, 1992, but the document wasn't drafted there.
Q. Do you know where it was drafted?
A. I don't know. I said that I supposed it was drafted in the draft department. I have just checked now and seen that my date of birth is 10900 indicated as 1955.
Q. You said that you had to be completely incognito, but here we see your full personal ID with your mother's name and phone number and the date 10th of April, 1992. So my question is: Where were you on that date?
A. I was at Batkusa.
Q. Is Batkusa in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and is the 10th of April a date after your departure from Pajzos?
Q. Thank you, witness. And another question. I've already asked you, but I must ask you some more. Mr. Srecko Radovanovic at the time was one of the more prominent member of the Serb Radical Party?
A. You could say that.
Q. If you gave this statement for a mono-graph of the Serb Radical Party, wouldn't Srecko Radovanovic, who knows your military past very well, wouldn't he be able to establish that you are the -- the information in your biography is false?
A. I didn't say that Srecko Radovanovic took it. He may have never seen this statement.
Q. Do you you think that somebody, while compiling a mono-graph of the Serbian Radical Party, would take your biography but leave out that of the Srecko Radovanovic? What do you think?
A. I never thought about that.
MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I have no more questions, Your Honours. 10901
JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac. Have the questions of the bench for the new questions from Mr. Bakrac triggered any need for further questions?
MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
JUDGE ORIE: Then we came at a point where we can establish that this concludes your testimony. I hope, Witness JF-047, that we'll not be in another round after this one. I'd like to thank you very much for coming again and for having answered the questions that were put to you by the parties. And I wish you a safe return home again.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
[The witness withdrew]
JUDGE ORIE: We have a couple of minutes left. Mr. Jordash, you earlier indicated that you could say a few words about the matter I raised earlier, I think. If that's the case, we could hear that now.
MR. JORDASH: Having read the second letter dated the 28th of January, 2011, our position remains the same. The letter appears to say two things. One, that the Registry is prepared to look at the recess periods having consulted with the Chamber, and we in the Defence are grateful for Your Honours' information that has been passed to OLAD, but OLAD's position is once again, in our submission, extremely conditional. A promise to consider one of the issues which we've raised in the motion, but no firm commitment concerning what that actually means in real terms. And whether that will alter the position that we are in which is a co-counsel short.
And the second part of the letter is again what we referred to in 10902 the motion as effectively taking what already belongs to us and handing it back to us and representing it as somehow new funding. It's this end-of-stage payment which is 20 per cent taken off our remuneration, moved to the end of the phase, and what OLAD are saying is, Well, we are going to take that money which you have already earned and we are going to give it to you a bit earlier than you would have got it anyway. That, in our submission, is a completely unacceptable and unhelpful mechanism for solving this problem.
So our position remains the same.
JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that this letter doesn't save the problem as a whole for you. That's clear. Does it have any effect on when the suspension should start, or ...
MR. JORDASH: Well, I spoke to Mr. Groome during the break and after having spoken to him, I initially thought that we could soften our position in relation to the request of a suspension, because we obviously don't want to put anyone in any inconvenience and we want the Prosecution to close their case. But the problem is that we don't have the money to hire the adequate staff to complete the tasks that remain without putting myself and the rest of the team in what we find to be unreasonable working conditions. There is obviously a reason why Defence teams have two counsel, and looking at the tasks which remain in and of themselves we could probably do them, and I am referring to the various dead-lines in terms of motions that are outstanding, and alongside preparation for the remaining witnesses. And that's what we had in mind when we asked for a suspension of the trial, other than the remaining witnesses. The 10903 procedural issues which remain, namely the motions. And the reason why we considered that -- well, I considered why we might be able to soften our position after having spoken to Mr. Groome is that we could technically manage to do those things. The problem we've got is that there are two things which we want to get on with to assist the Defence but to assist Your Honours. That's, one, to be preparing for 98 bis submissions and it to start to review the case that we can provide, well, for tomorrow a useful estimate as to what we want, but also in due course proper submissions. And the second thing is that we are still someway behind being able to analyse the Mladic diaries and the audiotapes. Whilst we were grateful for the two weeks Your Honours gave us, two weeks to analyse the audiotapes is simply -- even if we sat and listened to them without going to bed, we wouldn't get through them in two weeks. So what I'm nervous about is closing -- having the Prosecution case closed, having not considered the Mladic diaries in the depth that I would like, which might then prevents us from applying for recall of witness, if that need arises, and also in relation to the 98 bis submissions, I'm nervous that having closed the Prosecution case, Your Honours then set a deadline for the 98 bis submissions which is impossible given that we have not had the opportunity to do the type of review we would like to be doing now, which we would do if we had two counsel. So that's the dilemma we are in, we'd like to assist and close the Prosecution case and nobody more than I, but they are the problems which we can foresee.
JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said the 10904 procedural issues which remain, namely the motions. No, let me see. No, I have to take another line. You told us that you didn't have the money to hire adequate staff to complete the tasks, unreasonable working conditions, and then you said:
"There's obviously a reason why Defence teams have two counsel and looking at the tasks which remain in and of themselves we could probably do them, and I'm referring to the various dead-lines in terms of motions that are outstanding, and alongside preparation for the remaining witnesses. And that's what we had in mind when we asked for a suspension of the trial other than the remaining witnesses."
Now, it's not entirely clear to me, did you mean to say we had in mind that we could deal with those dead-lines alongside preparation for the remaining witnesses, or did you want to say that without second counsel we could not? It's not entirely clear to me.
MR. JORDASH: Well, it amounts to this, Your Honour: That if we stop all other work, we can do -- we can complete the motions. Ms. Verwiel, the principal legal assistant, is working on issues which are really important for our investigation. I've promised our investigator that we will get to her a analysis of what has happened in the courtroom because she hasn't followed all of it, and she needs to continue interviewing witnesses. If I pull Ms. Verwiel off that task then she will do the first draft of the motions then I will, while I'm preparing and cross-examining the remaining witness, find some time to finalise those responses. What won't get done is any preparation for our Defence case. 10905
JUDGE ORIE: It's clear what you meant. I was just seeking clarification of your words. When I say that we have no further questions for you it doesn't mean that the matter has been entirely resolved, but we'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow the 2nd of February, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in this same Courtroom II.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.49 p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of
February, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.