8867 Tuesday, 14 December 2010
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody. As the Chamber decided and indicated last week already, we are sitting with two judges pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
The next witness should be brought in, please. And for the purpose of getting in the witness, we go for a short moment into closed session. Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey, for your assistance.
(4 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, we are back in open session. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Please be patient. We wait for a moment so that the screens are opened.
Good afternoon, sir, again. Welcome to the Tribunal. Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card, the solemn declaration which is shown to you now.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 8868
WITNESS: WITNESS PW-008
[Witness answered through Interpreter]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down. The protective measures are still in place for you. That means the use of a pseudonym, nobody will address you with your real name in the courtroom, and your face will not be visible on the broadcast. Mr. McCloskey has questions for you. Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, everyone.
Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
Q. And Witness, good, you're getting your glasses on. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. And as you know, we have some protective measures in place. Could we bring up 65 ter 6670 and, of course, not broadcast this so it's not seen.
And has that come up on the screen, sir, and is your name in front of you on the screen?
A. Yes. That is my name.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Could we offer that into evidence?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received. Please wait a moment.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit P01447 under seal. Thank you, Your Honours.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. 8869
Q. And, sir, did you testify in the case of the Prosecutor versus Blagojevic and the Prosecutor versus Popovic?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And have you had a chance to listen to your testimony in those two cases?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And aside from some corrections that I think you made on the record in the last case, was everything true and correct, to the best of your knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And if you were asked those same questions again that you were asked in those cases, would your answers be the same?
MR. McCLOSKEY: And so, at this time, Mr. President, I would offer into evidence 65 ter 666 and 667, the Popovic transcripts.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you missed one 6.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I did. Four 6s in the first one, and 6667 in the second one.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received, the first under seal.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And I will wait patiently for the numbers to be delivered.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the first, which is 65 ter 666 -- 6666 shall be given Exhibit P01448. And the second, which is 65 ter 6667, shall be given Exhibit P01449, thank you, Your Honours. 8870
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The first one under seal.
THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, the first one, which is 65 ter 6666, shall be admitted as Exhibit P01446 under seal, thank you, Your Honours.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you misspoke. It must be P1448 under seal.
THE REGISTRAR: That's right, Your Honour, thank you very much.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And while we are on numbers, let me just finish that up. The Blagojevic testimony from 2003 is 65 ter number 1622. And if we could get a number for that, then I'll list the exhibits as well.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask what is the reason for tendering both transcripts? The transcripts in both cases? Is that really necessary?
MR. McCLOSKEY: He was a 92 bis witness for Popovic, so he wasn't asked very many questions and we basically relied on his testimony in Blagojevic, so that's -- with all these trials, I think that gives you -- not a repetitive situation, Mr. President.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification. It will be received.
THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P014450, thank you, Your Honours.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And then the exhibits as listed on the associated exhibits that were admitted through this witness in the prior proceedings, I would offer all of those in and I will try to go through those numbers as we have them: 6668, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1174, 1176, 1343, 1345.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: They will be received but we will give exhibit 8871 numbers, P numbers, by a memo from the Registrar. It's the most practical way, because of the amount of exhibits.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. All right.
Q. Now, Witness, I will read a summary, and I'm not going to ask you very many questions after that summary, but I will -- so listen to the summary, and if I've made any mistakes or errors, please let me know. The first paragraph of the summary I think it would be a good idea, Mr. President, if we could go in closed session for that. Private session.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: We turn into private session.
(7 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
MR. McCLOSKEY: From about the beginning of July 1995, there was shelling every day in the area around Srebrenica where the witness lived, and on 11 July, the witness, his father, his mother, and three sisters decided they had to leave their home as it was no longer safe to be 8872 there. They set off together to the village of Suceska, where they split up. The witness and his father went through the woods to the village of Jaglici and his mother and sisters went to the UN base in Potocari. On the 11th of July, in the afternoon, about 10.000 to 15.000 people, mostly men but including some young males and some women, gathered in this area around Jaglici and Susnjari. The witness heard at the time that there had been an order from the BiH army command that the men gather in that area. The witness was not in the BiH army at the time, but his father was. A column of people was formed. During the organisation of the column, the witness got separated from his father, whom he has not seen since.
The witness found his uncle, and on the morning of the 12th of July, set off with him in the column. There were armed soldiers, BiH soldiers, at the front of the column, and some armed BiH soldiers at the back of the column. The witness was positioned towards the end of the column with the majority of civilians.
The shelling began when the column entered the woods and continued throughout the day and into the night. General chaos had broken out and there were increasingly more injured people who were crying for help. He estimates he saw about 300 to 500 dead people in the woods.
At about 10 a.m. on the 13th, Serb soldiers spoke over loudspeakers and said that the Muslims should surrender and that they would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The Serb soldiers threatened to kill anyone who did not surrender. Some people 8873 started surrendering, some committed suicide, some argued with each other, and others fled. The witness walked down to an asphalt road where he saw five or six soldiers telling people to surrender and to give up their belongings.
Soon thereafter, Serb soldiers started to mistreat the people after they had surrendered. They cursed at them and asked for and took their money. As the group was taken to a meadow, the witness saw a dead body in civilian clothes and buses containing Muslim women and children. The witness estimates that there were about 1.000 to 2.000 Muslims present at the meadow, which was located not far from the village of Kravica. While at the meadow, the group was asked to repeat slogans like, "Long live Serbia, long live the king." Later that evening, a soldier at the meadow told everyone they would be taken to hangars in Bratunac and exchanged. Some of those who were born in 1980 or after were permitted to leave.
The witness and others were then instructed to lay on their stomachs with their hands behind their necks. After about three hours, several large trucks arrived from the direction of Konjevic Polje and the witness and others were loaded onto them. It was hot inside, people were so jammed together they could not sit down. At around dusk, the truck drove to Bratunac and parked there overnight. The witness and the others remained on the truck in unbearable conditions.
On the morning of the 14th, the truck set off and stopped just outside Bratunac where the witness and others were given a small amount of water. People on the witness's truck said they saw an UNPROFOR APC, 8874 but the witness did not see it. After approximately two hours, the trucks moved in the direction of Konjevic Polje and then towards Zvornik and Karakaj. After Karakaj, the trucks took a left and stopped at a building a while later.
After about one hour, the witness and the others were taken off the truck and were directed to walk down the steps and into the building. Soldiers were standing on both sides of the steps, hitting and cursing at the people as they walked by. Once inside, the group was ordered up some stairs and told to repeat various chants or songs as they were taken up. At the top of the stairs, they turned left and were taken to a classroom. The witness recognised that he was in a school building at this point. The witness heard noises of people coming from the other classrooms. The witness estimated that there were approximately 200 people in the cramped classroom he was in. They were given a small amount of water, but everyone remained very thirsty. It was very stuffy, and when someone tried to open a window, shots were fired, breaking windows and wounding five or six men. The soldiers who were guarding them also threatened to kill two young men because of the noise that the group was making. While in the classroom, the witness heard beating and moaning coming from the hallway. Men were taken out of his classroom and they never returned.
At about midnight, someone said the people in the classroom -- a Serb soldier said that the people in the classroom would be going out for an examination of some kind and exchanged. At that time, the witness and the others were led from the classroom and ordered to remove their shoes 8875 and shirts. After having their hands tied behind their backs, the people ordered down the stairs and onto a truck. The witness could feel something sticky on his feet as he walked by dead people in the front of the school.
The truck the witness was in drove to a location about ten minutes away. When the truck stopped, the witness heard bursts of fire next to the truck. One man in his truck tried to run away and was shot. When the victim got off the truck, he was told by the Serb soldiers there to find a spot and lie down among the rows of people, all of whom were dead. As the witness fell forward, shots were fired and he felt pain at his elbow and the right side of his chest. The witness stayed still on the ground as the firing continued around him. He was hit with something in the foot. The soldier called out that anyone who was still warm will get a bullet in his head. A man lying next to the witness was then shot in the head at close range.
Eventually, the soldiers left and the witness and another survivor were able to partially untie each other and escape the area just as another truck was approaching. The witness and his companion hid in a concrete canal or ditch while the killing continued. At daybreak, the witness and his companion discovered that there was a dam above the plateau where the killing had occurred. They also saw a loader that was picking up dead bodies.
The witness and his companion wandered for several days before they made it to Muslim territory. The witness's uncle did not survive. 8876
Q. Now, witness, was that a correct summary of your experiences on those days?
A. There is only at the beginning, when we arrived in Susnjari and Jaglici, you said that I wasn't a soldier at the time, but, in fact, I was -- I have never been a soldier. I was never a soldier either before or after or ever.
Q. Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we go into private session for a second?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
(8 lines redacted)
MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, Witness --
THE REGISTRAR: One moment. Your Honours, we are back in open session. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me.
Q. Now, Witness, I just want to ask you a couple of questions. You 8877 have testified many times that you left or were taken from that school building about midnight. Can you tell us how long the drive was from the school building to the execution site, as best as you can recall?
A. Around midnight we were taken out of the school building and loaded -- we actually climbed onto the truck. There were some boards placed there so we could walk up, and people kept on filling the truck. And the ride took about ten minutes to the place where they started taking us out of the trucks and killing us.
Q. Can you describe for us roughly the space that the people that you saw that were dead took up, or any kind of rough estimate you can give us for when you got off the truck, what did you see, in terms of your dead friends and relatives and fellow Muslims?
A. We were trying not to get off the truck. Nobody wanted to get out of the truck. One among us was trying to hide behind everybody, trying to prolong his life for a few minutes, but then you had to come out, everybody had to come out, so I did that as well, when I couldn't hide anymore, and when I jumped in front, to the left of the truck -- actually, to the right side of the truck, as we came off the truck, we went to the other side, they told us to find a place. I didn't know what they were talking about. When we got a little closer, you could see the lines of dead people. I don't know, it's difficult to make an estimate at a time like that, but perhaps some 20 metres, as far as you could see in the dark, it was night. The other person who survived, he was some two or three lines in front of me and there were other people to the left and to the right of him. Later, when I was crawling, I was crawling for 8878 a very long time until I left this plateau, until I could get into the trench, the ditch. In any case, there were more people there than the number of people who got off the truck. There was probably killing and wounding before. The next day as well. When we looked from the -- down the hill, a large area of the plateau was covered with the dead, and the loader was loading them into some kind of transport vehicle to be driven away somewhere. I really cannot tell how many there were. The truck was coming after as well, after we escaped. When we passed through the dead, when we got down into the ditch, another truck arrived, the shooting continued, the banging on the truck, but it was of a lesser intensity than before. Perhaps it was the last truck, because our classroom was the last one.
Q. How far did your uncle make it with you that day?
A. He was in the classroom with me, and when we were ordered to leave, to come out two by two into the corridor, I asked him, "Are we going to go out together?" He said that we were not going to come out together.
Q. Have you received information about your uncle?
A. Yes. I came out first and he stayed behind. But recently I was called because they had found him in one of the mass graves. The body wasn't whole. They called me to make the identification. They found him at the grave in Liplje, and this is a settlement between Zvornik and Konjevic Polje. It's quite far from this place. They told me what clothing he had, and it was the pair of trousers that he was wearing at the time. 8879
Q. Did you receive any information about the fate of your father, who you were separated from on the 11th?
A. Yes. He was identified too. He was in the Nova Kasaba mass grave. With all his clothes. I went to identify the clothes. He was wearing all the clothes that he had on him when I lost him. He had been shot in the head. He was probably executed. And I know where he's buried.
Q. Did you have any cousins that you lost from those days?
A. Yes, I did. My two cousins who lived in the same refugee settlement there. One lived in the same house with us and the other one didn't. When we were going in the direction of Suceska and when I went to Susnjari, they decided to go to Potocari. One has the same name as my father, except that he's older than my father. They were never soldiers. They went to Potocari. One was found in Pilica and the other one was found in another place.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go into private session for a moment?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
(7 lines redacted) 8880
(4 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session. Thank you.
Q. Witness, thank you very much for coming for the -- I can't even count how many times it is now. You know better than I do, perhaps. Thank you very much. I have nothing further.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much as well. Sir, whenever you need a break during the examination, please tell us and we will break.
Now Mr. Tolimir has the right to put questions to you. Mr. Tolimir.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would like for peace to reign in this house and I would like today's day and these proceedings to end as God wills it and not as I will it. I would like the witness to have a comfortable stay, and I wish peace in his house.
Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you are emotional after these questions because Mr. McCloskey put a series of questions to you. I'm not going to put questions like that to you because you answered in detail. I'm going 8881 to ask you about something that happened before these events and that is required in order to clarify some circumstances relevant to this trial. I would be very grateful if you could give some answers to these questions.
During the examination-in-chief, line 14 -- actually, in your summary, after line 24, in line 24 on page 4 you said that you had gone to Jaglici with your father and that your mother and your sister went to Potocari. Do you remember that? Thank you.
A. I do.
Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether you and your father and your mother and your sister agreed about the way how you could survive that situation in which you found yourself?
A. Actually, it's not one sister. I had three sisters. My father told me to decide if I wanted to go to Potocari or to go with him. I felt that I should go with him, through the woods, in view of all the events in the war and before. I thought I could try to save myself, because my fears were justified, keeping in mind all my cousins who had gone to Potocari, including my neighbours who stayed behind in the settlement for the refugees or those who went to Potocari. They all died. So my fears were justified.
Q. All right. Thank you. Since you decided to go, you have just described how you decided. Did you and your father give your mother and your sister some suggestions? I apologise, I said sister but you say you have -- you had three sisters. Did you give them some kind of suggestions, advice, instructions? Did you deliberately make the 8882 decision to separate?
A. I don't remember that we gave any suggestions.
Q. Thank you. Did others also separate, men and -- able-bodied men from other men and from women and children?
A. There was no rule. Those who wanted to could go to Potocari. Those who felt they would survive, they could go to Potocari. Those who didn't, they could go through the woods. Some could stay -- some stayed behind, and they are no longer among us. A man and a woman stayed behind in the settlement and their bones were found recently, all charred. There wasn't really that much difference, but people could choose where they wanted to go.
Q. Well, just to make it clear, it was everybody's personal decision. But let us now go back to the period before you set off that night. In line 21 to 23 of your testimony -- can we show to the witness his statement 65 ter 6624. Can we look at page 3 of your statement so that the witness could see what I'm asking him about. This is a statement -- let me say it for the transcript -- that you provided --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast because it's under seal.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Let it stay under seal. I'm going to put questions on the basis of it. I didn't want to speak out loud all the geographic information and things that would help to identify the witness. Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] 8883
Q. I'm looking at your statement now. We can all see it. I'm looking at the 21st, 22nd, and the 23rd row -- line.
A. Can you start reading a sentence? It's very hard for me to count.
Q. I'm going to read the sentence to you: "That is when we heard that members of our army or, actually, that the Chetniks were turned back to their starting positions, and soon after that you could hear explosions and we could hear the Muslim village near Srebrenica." Have you found it?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. It's very closely typed. It says, "We heard there ..." It is line 21.
A. Could you please tell me the word in line 21?
Q. Line 21, the sentence begins --
A. Just tell me the words, the words.
Q. "We heard here that members of our army turned the Chetniks back to their starting positions."
A. I really cannot find my way around. Perhaps somebody can show me where you are. Just tell me one word. You don't have to show me the whole sentence.
Q. I'm sorry, we have been looking at the wrong page. We needed page 3. Now, this is page 3. Now I'm going to indicate with the cursor that you can see on your left-hand side what sentence that is. We need to go to the next page in the English as well. Lines 21, 22, 23. I'm going to mark those lines. "We heard there that members of our army --" 8884 Can we show the lines 21, 22, and 23 in e-court?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be easier if you --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is correct.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you just start reading the relevant sentence.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Let's start from line 20. You said, "That is where we were for one day." And then the sentence begins at 22:
"We heard there that members of our army returned the Chetniks to their starting positions and soon after that that ours had withdrawn, that our people -- soldiers were returned to their starting positions." This is how the words end on 23.
A. I really cannot see that.
Q. All right. You cannot see it, I see it on the screen.
A. You will have to show it to me.
Q. Well, I will show it to you. Now perhaps we can see it in the e-court. I'm not able to show you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: It also should be in the English e-court page 2. It's the wrong page there. And in English, if you look down the left and start with the word "Suceska" you can find the part he's talking about in English, anyway.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This version in the English, which I can understand, talks about the school, when we came to the school. Perhaps it's the correct page now. 8885
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Now that we see the page in the e-court, now the marker is marking, the cursor is marking it. "We were there ..." You can see it. "That's where we heard ..."
And it's in English.
A. Well, let me read a few sentences before that in the English.
Q. It's not necessary. The important thing is for you to see that: "That's where we were for one day. We spent a day there. Then we first heard that members of our army had pushed the Chetniks back to their initial positions."
A. Just one moment, please.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to know the line in the English version. Thank you very much. "We spent a day there," yes.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It's the same line; 20, 21, 22, and 23 in English as well. It's very closely typed, so it's difficult.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
(7 lines redacted) 8886
(2 lines redacted)
Q. And you heard that your army had returned or retreated to their starting, to their initial positions. And before that they had pushed back the Serbian army back to their positions, but then they lost those positions. Can you please tell me, who did you hear this from? Were these rumours? Was this information that was confirmed and checked?
A. There were many people there. Women, children, lots of people. I heard it from someone. I don't know who I heard it from.
Q. Thank you. Now we are going to line 29, seven lines down from this sentence, where it says:
"In the morning, we heard from the soldiers that NATO aeroplanes were expected to bomb the Serbian army."
A. We heard it in the morning from the soldiers.
Q. That's right. "... that NATO aeroplanes were expected to bomb the Serbian army and tanks. And that our forces were planning, if this should happen, to execute a counteraction in order to retake the lost positions." Full stop.
A. Yes, that's what we heard. That's how it was.
Q. All right. Very well. Thank you. Are you able to tell us, who did you hear this from about the expected NATO bombing and that your army would then retake their positions? Who did you hear that from?
A. Well, we heard it from someone. I don't know -- I don't remember who we heard it from. 8887
Q. Could this information have been a product of somebody's something or did you really hear this information from somebody who could have had such information?
A. Well, I don't know who could have had such information, who was authorised for that. We just heard it.
Q. So did the NATO bombing really happen? Was that correct information?
A. The planes were flying over and from there you could see that part where the Serbian army was going towards Srebrenica. I'm familiar with that area. We were going to a refugee camp there, but I think that I remember - I cannot be sure - that we saw smoke from these explosions and so on. I don't know whether these were bombs from aeroplanes or something else. I cannot remember.
Q. Please, are you able to tell us where you were at that point in time? Were you on the hill or the mountain with the letter V or were you in some other place? Thank you.
A. You mean that day?
Q. When you saw this aviation, this bombing.
A. Vijogor is a large area. It's like an elevation.
Q. So the population that was at Vijogor, was it receiving information from the army about what was happening at the front?
A. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe some were getting this information. I was just saying in my statement all the things that I had heard.
Q. Would you have been able to hear that without any of the senior 8888 officers saying that? Did it really happen that you were bombed by the planes?
A. Could you please repeat the question?
Q. Was this hearsay or is it really true that NATO aeroplanes bombed positions of Republika Srpska? Did you see that?
A. Well, there were some portions that we could not see. We did not stay in the same spot all the time. For a while, we were in one part of Vijogor and we had one view, and then three or four hours later we were elsewhere and we could see smoke coming up.
Q. Thank you. So you could see smoke, plumes of smoke. Can you recall what day that was in relation to the day when you left your home, when you said goodbye to your sisters?
A. Well, I can't be sure. It could have been the morning of the 11th; I'm not sure.
Q. Well, let me point you to line 35 of your statement. There, you say the following:
"In the evening, the army command ordered all able-bodied men to go to Susnjari." Did you see that?
A. What do you mean did I see that?
Q. Well, did you see that portion? Could you find it on the monitor? You can see there it says previously: "I saw the NATO aeroplanes flying over, dropping bombs but they -- they were expected to bomb the Serbian forces," and then it says, "The army command --" the next line: "In the evening, the army command ordered all able-bodied men ..." Can you see, the cursor is showing you where to go. 8889
A. Well, yes, I can find it now.
Q. So it reads there: "In the evening, the army command ordered all able-bodied men to go to Susnjari from Suceska too where there was a large number of men while all the women and children were supposed to go towards Potocari." So have you seen and read it?
Q. Now, my question: How did you learn that there was an order issued that all able-bodied men should go to Susnjari whereas women --
A. Well, we probably heard it from others.
Q. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down a bit. You're using the same language as the witness and both speakers should pause between question and answer. It's otherwise very difficult for the interpreters. Please continue.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Witness, please look at the transcript that you can see before you, and once there is no more typing, once the typist stops, then you can answer my question.
Now I will repeat my question: Did the army command really issue that order in the evening, relating to the separation of women and children and men, and ordering one group to go to Susnjari and the other to Potocari?
A. Well, it is probable, it's probably so, they may have, but that's 8890 all I can say.
Q. Thank you. Now, was that actually put in place?
A. Well, a large number of men was leaving that camp, and leaving other villages in the Vijogor area, so men spent some time going up a mountain, which is before Susnjari, and then some separated, went to Potocari and Susnjari, because at the time it was impossible to go to Srebrenica directly, by a direct route.
Q. Thank you.
A. Whether that was implemented, that order, I really can't say, but they were headed in that direction.
Q. Thank you. But could you please wait for my question. Did the families really get separated? Did the women -- or, rather, did the men go one way, in the direction of Susnjari, and the women the other way, to Potocari? Did that really happen, that separation? Thank you.
A. Well, I can tell you about my case, or my family's case, and some other families. These relatives of mine, they took the same decision, but nobody came and ordered them and said, "You line up there and you are going to go that way." It was just that we all went together, and then before Susnjari, in that village, people just decided, some, to go to Potocari, mainly the women and the children. Some went to Susnjari. But I never saw a soldier directing people where to go. I never saw anything of that sort.
Q. Would you please listen to a portion of your statement, in lines 35, 36, and 37. I quote your words. You said: 8891 "In the evening, the army command ordered all able-bodied men to go to Susnjari from Suceska to where there was a large number of men, while all the women and children were supposed to go to Potocari." Now, my question is this: When you provided this statement, and this was right after the event, was your recollection of the events better than it is today?
A. I think I've already answered this question, but I will answer it again. We probably heard - that's what I said then, and I'm saying it again - we heard from someone, from some people or some women, I don't know, that the men would go to Susnjari and the women and children to Potocari. That's how it was. Whether this order came from the army command or not, I don't know, but we heard that it had. That's my answer. We heard it somehow, but how, exactly, I don't know.
Q. Thank you. I heard your answer. Now, my next question is: Right after this line, where it says that women and children were supposed to go towards Potocari, there is another sentence, and I will read it out to you and then I will put a question to you. "That night, below Susnjari, all members of the army and able-bodied men born after 1980 were lined up. I had not been a member of the army before. That evening, when the lineup took place, I was in the same company as my father Alija, who did not survive this exodus. That is, I've heard no news of him whatsoever."
So my question, based on what you said there, is: You mention here the lineup below Susnjari of all able-bodied men. And this was done by the army. Can you recall that? And just a moment, I just want to 8892 finish my question. Now, do you remember that this -- these are your words, this is what you said in your statement?
A. Yes, I do. When I got there, my father was away. He had gone to fetch something from a house of some relatives. So when I got there, and my father, who was a member of that unit, although that's really a big question what to call it because he had neither a uniform nor any weapons, he never went to the front line, he spent all the time with us at home. Now, he was a member of some unit, I can't recall the number. There was a lineup there, I got there, and I just stayed around him. I stayed with him. And because these men were the army, they were armed, I thought that by going with him, I would save my skin. But when the shelling began, people started moving around, milling around, running, they wanted to get into the woods as soon as possible, and there I lost my father, I couldn't find him anymore, and although I tried to follow a soldier or be around a soldier nearby, actually I fell back and I stayed behind like everybody else while father went forward.
Q. Thank you. Now, do you remember, in the beginning, when Mr. McCloskey was putting questions to you, on page 6 of today's transcript, in line 2, he said that you were -- that the BH Army had ordered a column to be formed and that you went to the back part of the column whereas your father was in the front part of the column. Do you recall that?
A. Well, I think I've already said before, I tried to stay with my father, but when the situation became chaotic it was just impossible to do that. All the civilians were trying to follow the troops. The 8893 soldiers didn't want to allow them because they were afraid they would step on a mine and get killed, and so the civilians fell back, and basically, that's my explanation. My father just went forward and I stayed behind.
Q. Thank you. In today's transcript, in line 12, Mr. McCloskey talks about a column of armed BH soldiers and that there were also some armed soldiers at the end of the column. They were -- armed soldiers were at the head of the column and some were in the back of the column. So is that what the column looked like? Is that how it was lined up? Thank you.
A. Well, it was dark so you couldn't really see well. I tried to be as close to my father as I could. The column was moving forward, we were walking, and people were just saying the column is ahead of us. There were some 15.000 men there, it's a large number of men, and we walked like that some two or three kilometres, all the way to the morning. And when we reached the woods and when the shelling started, everyone started moving quickly forward. The civilians tried to push forward, but they stopped them. A unit remained behind and they said, "You stay behind. You will be at the end of the column." And that's how it happened. We remained in the back and that's how we continued walking. But until the shelling began, we kept moving in a line, but once the shelling started, all these soldiers moved past us. We were just standing there, we couldn't move or anything, we were afraid. They just passed us by and moved forward and we stayed behind.
Q. Thank you. We will come to that, but would you please just 8894 answer my questions and then we will come to the points that you're trying to make which aren't really part of my question. So was your father in the forward part of the column and were you in the back of the column? And were there armed soldiers in front of the column and in the back of it? Just answer that question, please. Thank you.
A. Well, I've already said it: When chaos broke out, people just lost their way and he just moved forward and I stayed behind.
Q. Thank you. I tried to be short with this questioning of mine, and I was just trying to put some questions to you, but I will be forced to read out the words that -- from your statement that you've said before. I was just asking you whether your father was in the front and you stayed behind, because that's what it says in your statement. And your father was in the front because he was a soldier.
A. Well, you mentioned weapons. Where did I say that?
Q. Well, he was a soldier, he --
A. Where did I say that he had a weapon? Where did I say that?
Q. Well, I'll read it to you in just a moment.
A. But where did I say that?
Q. Well, it's in your statement that you have on the screen before you.
A. Well, read it out to me.
Q. Well, yes, I can do that, but it's very difficult to go from line to line, so please answer my questions. As you can see, this is very closely typed, and it's hard to go from line to line. 8895
A. Well, I will tell you this: My father was a soldier, but when he came back to Srebrenica, he never -- after the mobilisation, he -- after the demilitarisation, he stayed with us all the time. He never went to the front line, he never took part in combat. I never said -- I don't recall saying that he had a weapon, so don't impute things that I didn't say.
Q. Thank you, but did your father have a weapon?
A. Well, I think I've answered that question several times.
Q. But you just said that he didn't have a weapon and that he wasn't a soldier.
A. Well, he was a soldier, but he didn't have a weapon. Had he been -- had he been armed, he might have survived.
Q. Thank you.
THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please sit closer to the microphone. Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Now let us go to the part of the statement that you were talking about.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... ask you to move a little bit closer to the microphone. The Court Usher will assist you with the chair. There is something wrong with it, I think. It should be fixed. Now it's fixed, and when it happens again, please let us know.
Mr. Tolimir, may I remind both speakers not to overlap again. It's very difficult for the interpreters to catch everything. 8896 Mr. Tolimir.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could request that General Tolimir try not ask four-part questions. That's what got us into that last exchange, and if he does have some place in the document where he -- the witness has said his father had a gun, I think he should show it to the witness, because that also is obviously a sensitive point and if he's going to have things like that, I think he should show it to the witness or tell him he made a mistake, but that would be helpful.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would agree with the Prosecution to the last point. The witness has pointed out very clearly that his father was a soldier but he didn't have a weapon. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you. Now, if that is the case, why is it, then, that your father was separated from you and why did he go to the forward part of the column whereas you stayed behind?
A. He was -- he wasn't separated. He didn't get separated. But when the shelling started of this large crowd of people, some 15.000 men, we just lost track of each other. He went one way, I went the other, and we just couldn't find each other anymore. I cried out his name, I tried to find him, I called out his name. I was crying. I just tried to keep track, I tried to find him. No one separated us, it was just that in the chaos of the shelling, we just lost our way. That's my answer. 8897
Q. Thank you. Because this statement is so closely typed and there are no paragraphs and there are many lines on a page, I can't really find the portion that I would like to point you to, but I will try to do it. So if you please bear with me, I will point out the part where I meant that.
A. Well, you can find that spot, but it should not be in my statement. If need be, we can read the whole statement. I don't know how long it is. It's not too long.
Q. That's right. So we can do it that way, but now, for now, please just answer my questions.
Please look at line 48 on this same page that we have before us. Can you see it, where it says:
"The column -- before we got to Kamenica we ran into a Chetnik ambush and the column got cut off there. I was toward the end of the column, almost at the very end because, in my estimate, there were some 1.000 people behind me. Everybody else was in front. The Chetniks were shelling, they were shooting from all sides, and so on."
A. Well, because I couldn't see where that is, could you please read it one more time?
Q. Thank you. I will show it to you. From the bottom, it's line 11.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please look at the cursor, it's from the bottom, line 11 where you see the cursor there, the relevant portion is in the statement to be found.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "At the entrance to Kamenica we ran 8898 into a Chetnik ambush, and there --" My apologies:
"At the entrance to Kamenica we ran into a Chetnik ambush and the column was cut. I was near the end of the column because behind me there were about 1.000 men, I would say, while all the others were in front." So what is your question?
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you, you've just read that portion. Now, do you recall that? Would you please wait for my answer. You read out the sentence, whereas I didn't ask you to do that. So, now that you've read it, what can you tell us about the ambush that you ran into? What was happening from the moment you hit the ambush up until the moment you were out of it? What was -- what transpired there? Thank you.
A. As the last part of the column was entering the woods, it was still relatively peaceful. There was no shelling at that point. However, when we started going downhill, along that wood, there was a column ahead of me and behind me. Suddenly, firing started and there was a stream -- I later realised that there was a stream at the foot of that hill. There was shooting, shooting broke out, people started crying out, things they were saying, that the Serbs had probably cut the column, and those who had weapons at that point moved forward. There was a lot of shooting. I don't know how long it was, but I believe we stayed -- the back -- we stayed there for about an hour or so, and then the shelling started. All kinds of fire could be heard. Smaller branches fell off trees because they were cut off by all the shooting. And then, after a while, the column moved forward again. When I reached the stream, I saw 8899 a lot of wounded and three or four dead people, and then the shelling continued, and it went on until nightfall. And then at times it would stop and then resume, and it went on all night until the morning, I believe. I don't know what time it was.
Q. Thank you. I didn't want to interrupt you, but in answering my question you did not mention the number of dead, whereas in your statement in line 6, you say -- and that's line 6 on page 2 of your statement. Could we please have the next page, and then you will see in line 6. Here, we see it now. In line 6 from the top, it says, "300 to 500 were killed." This is line 7 in the English, also, where it says 300 to 500.
A. So since the attack was ongoing, the whole time, when the ambush began, there was shelling and shooting the whole time, the wounded were falling constantly, moaning, there were dead people. After the shelling stopped in the morning, after that night, I could see five or six people dead around me. Some of them I knew by name. We were below one hill. When we crossed that hill during the day, after we began to surrender, then going past the dead I could see how many there were, because we were passing by dead people. There was some 300 [Realtime transcript read in error "500"] to 500, in my estimate.
Q. Thank you. I did want to hear your estimate because you were an eyewitness. Can you now look at this other page that we are looking at, page 2, if you can look at line 18. The cursor will indicate where that is, and I'm going to read that.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you do that, Mr. Tolimir, on page 33, line 8900 8, the last sentence of the answer of the witness reads, "There was some 500 to 500 in my estimate." I heard "some 300 to 500, in my estimate." Just for the sake of the record.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is an error. From 300 to 500.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Tolimir, please continue -- before you continue, Judge Mindua has a question.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness -- and thank you, Judge Fluegge. This is not really a question because I'm comparing the statement of the witness. Witness, in your statement, you talked about a 300 to 500 civilians. You say that 300 to 500 civilians were killed, whereas in the transcript it is not clear. You only say that there were 300 to 500 people who were killed. So I would like to know if those were civilians or those were soldiers or is it altogether?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see anyone with arms -- weapons or in uniform among the dead. These two or three people that I knew, that were dead, were civilians.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were mostly civilians in that part of the column and that part of the column was mostly exposed to the shelling. Maybe there were some soldiers, but I'm just talking about things that I saw.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] 8901
Q. And these civilians, as you say, were they able to serve and were they of an age that could be considered the age for people who were able-bodied?
A. Yes, they could have been considered able-bodied and well enough to serve. I don't know if they actually did. I'm just saying what I saw.
Q. And did you know these people? Did you know if they were members of the army or not?
A. I think that that question doesn't make much sense. "Did you know 300 to 500 people?" Well, I knew some of those people. As for if I knew all of those people, well ...
Q. Thank you. Can you now look at line 18. "As I was running, I could see buses where there were women."
Perhaps this could be indicated by the cursor. "As we were running, we could see buses where there were women."
A. I can see that.
Q. "They were crying, they were being transported and the buses were moving towards Konjevic Polje."
On the basis of what I read to you just now, my question is: Were you running along the same road and going in the same direction that the buses were travelling on with the women and children?
A. We were going on the same -- we were on the same road but we were going in different directions. The buses were going towards Kladanj, Zvornik and Konjevic Polje. They were going towards Konjevic Polje. They couldn't pass by us, and then we were ordered to run towards 8902 Bratunac, so we and the buses passed each other.
Q. Thank you. Can you now please tell us whether you and the others who were there, was it illogical for you for your mothers, sisters, and so on to be riding in buses while you were being mistreated in such a way running next to those buses while they were inside, crying? Did you ask yourself why that happened that the army would treat brothers and sisters differently?
A. What do you mean "differently"? Could you clarify?
Q. Thank you. I will clarify. You were seeing buses in which there were mothers and women crying.
A. Buses and trucks.
Q. All right. Can you please wait for me to finish so that we don't overlap.
They were crying because they saw you as you were running, and because you were captured?
Q. Can you now tell the Trial Chamber, how is it that the same army, the Serbian army, that captured you was transporting these women and children and was taking you to a different side in a different direction as prisoners? Thank you. Can you explain that to the Trial Chamber?
A. I don't see any difference, because we were later loaded up on the same trucks that they were on. I don't see any difference. Later, when we were coming back from Bratunac, I could see buses going behind us, so the same people were there who were being transported from Potocari, they were behind us, and they ended up in front of the same 8903 school. What is the difference? Perhaps these trucks were more comfortable as they were being driven on them. Is that what you're trying to say?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I have an objection to such questions as asking for the motivations of the VRS in this kind of context. How would this witness begin to know the motivations of the VRS? This is an invitation to an argument, which, at this stage, I don't think is appropriate.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have received an answer from the witness, from his point of view, and from his observations he could make. Mr. Tolimir, go ahead, please, for some minutes before the break.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you for your answer. Whether it's logical or illogical, I did ask you and you did answer. The Trial Chamber appreciates the answer, the objection.
My following question is: Were these buses stopped? Did you see them stopping in that section of the road that you were going along in the opposite direction? Thank you.
A. They couldn't pass next to us, so then when we started running, these trucks and buses were going behind us. But I can tell you my aunt saw me and later she told my mother:
"I saw him. I saw him standing on the asphalt with his hands in the air. He will probably survive. He will be in a camp somewhere or something like that. But many who were in Potocari were taken away and 8904 they are gone. They are not here anymore. He perhaps will survive." So my mother waited. She thought I was captured somewhere.
Q. Thank you. Well, please answer my question and we will come to that later. Can you please tell me, did you see in that sector where you were running, were buses stopped and why? Thank you.
A. Because they couldn't pass by us. If you're thinking specifically in that place where we were, Sandici, where we were out on the asphalt, is that what you're thinking of?
Q. Thank you. Did any of those people who were with you got into a -- get into a bus? Were they put onto a bus, anybody who was below 18 in the Sandici area?
A. When we got to the meadow in Sandici, a Serbian soldier who was giving a speech and explaining where we would be going, that we would be exchanged, that we would be going to Bratunac to a hangar, that we will not have dinner and then, when our authorities looked for us, we would be exchanged. There were many of my peers there, people of my age, younger men, there were wounded among us. They asked is there anybody there who is younger, who was born after 1980 or later? These were boys, and they went. I didn't see if they got into buses or trucks, but they left the crowd. Also, a boy replied he was 11, and they said, "No." I also wanted to say something, but this boy who was told, "No, you can't come with us," then I changed my mind. I could see that some of my peers weren't allowed to leave, so I decided not to draw attention to myself.
Q. Thank you. This is what the Prosecutor spoke about.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we have to break now. We will have 8905 our first break and we will resume quarter past 4.00. The Court Usher will assist you during the break.
--- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please carry on. Bear in mind, please, not to overlap, and we would appreciate if you could put short questions to the witness. It would help the examination.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Witness, before the break, we talked about how, on the road near Sandici, the Serbian army allowed those people who were born before 1980 -- after 1980, to get on the buses.
A. I told you what the soldier said, how many boys entered, and that this was not something that was permitted to everyone.
Q. All right. You said what you've said. The Prosecutor, Mr. McCloskey, on page 7, line 13, said that those who were born after 1980 were permitted to leave.
A. Yes. That is what the soldier said. That's what the soldier said. Three boys left. One of them later, who was much younger than the others, also put his hand up, but he couldn't leave.
Q. Thank you. Do you know the name of this younger boy? Do you know anything about him? Since you spent one day with him, do you know anything about him?
A. No, I don't.
Q. All right. Thank you. Can we now look at this page now, please. 8906 Page 2 of your statement. Can we look at line 12, from the top. Six lines from below -- down from where it says, "300 to 500," where it says 100 metres. Do you see 100 metres in that line? "They lined us up on that asphalt road in five rows." I'm quoting:
"They lined us up on that asphalt road about five rows, each about 100 metres in length. Anybody who had anything put it down beside the tank, and so on and so forth."
Do you see this part that I'm reading out?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Please, if you were lined up in five rows, was it possible that those five lines that were 100 metres long numbered 5.000 people? They didn't count you, they didn't place you in rows, one next to each other. Is this possible?
A. I'm speaking about the asphalt where we were lined up. It's about 100 to 150 metres long, that part, so there were some five rows on one lane. The wounded were lying in front of us, in front of those rows. I'm taking into account the wounded as well.
Q. Thank you. My question is: In your estimate, how many people were there in Sandici? Thank you.
A. First in Kamenica and then later we ran to Sandici, it was approximately 1.000 to 2.000 people. This is an estimate.
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] can we now look at the statement in e-court, 65 ter 06671.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is all sealed so it shouldn't be broadcast. 8907
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You don't have to broadcast it, thank you. Thank you. This first statement that we looked at, I would like to tender that.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00139, Your Honours.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Under seal.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Now we are looking at your second statement, that you gave after the events in August 1995. The statement shouldn't be broadcast. Let's look at page 2 of this statement, thank you, so that you can follow what I'm saying. First of all, we are going to look at paragraph 5. Can you please read it? This is something that I was supposed to tell you, about the forming of the column:
"A very long column was formed, and around 11 July in the evening, we started moving. 11 July in the evening. I was toward the end of the column with all the civilians. B and H soldiers guided us at the front of the column. Since my father was in the army, he was toward the front. This was the last time I saw my father. Today I do not know where he is."
My question is, since I said that he was with a rifle, I made a mistake, was your father placed at the front because he was a soldier? Thank you.
A. When I lost him, probably he went to the front. That's probably when he went to the front. 8908
Q. Thank you. Is this statement of yours accurate, since you say "probably" or can it be questioned as to its accuracy since now you are denying that? Thank you.
A. What am I denying?
Q. I repeat: When the column was formed, you said, "Since my father was in the army, he was at the front." You were not talking about getting lost, losing each other here. And you say, "That is the last time that I saw my father," but at the top you said: "I was towards the end of the column with the other civilians. B and H soldiers guided us at the front of the column." My question was: Was your father at the front of the column because you had lost each other or because he was a soldier? Thank you.
A. When I lost him, since the soldiers were going to the front, 99 per cent was that he went to the front, and the rest of us civilians ended up where we ended up. He was found in Nova Kasaba, however. So definitely he had gone to the front.
Q. Thank you. My question is: Why did you get separated from you -- from your father? Are you able to answer that question? Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this question was put to the witness several times already and he explained it in detail. There is no need to repeat that again. Please move to another topic and put another question to the witness.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Witness, please, are you able to explain the difference between 8909 what you have just said and what is stated in this statement? Are the facts entered into the statement erroneously? Who wrote this statement that we are reading on the screen right now? Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you should be more precise. You just say a difference. The difference between what you have just said and the -- and what is stated in the statement. If you see a difference, you should be very precise and put that to the question -- put that to the witness.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to put a shorten and clear question.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Is there a difference between what you have just said now about you getting separated from your father and what is stated in paragraph 5 of the statement that you gave in August 1995? Thank you.
A. I don't see any essential difference there, no.
Q. Thank you. In paragraph 6 -- or my apologies, paragraph 5, in line 1, you say that around 16 or 1700 hours on the 12th of July, Chetniks started shooting and shelling at some point in the forest. My question is: Was it the Chetniks who were at some point in the forest or was it you that were there at the time indicated on the 12th of July?
A. Well, the question is a bit long. Could you please just repeat it?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is, in fact, paragraph 6 and not paragraph 5. Please repeat your question in a short way. 8910
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Witness, the first two lines of paragraph 6, in them it is unclear who was in the forest when the shooting started around 16 or 1700 hours, and if you can tell us where the shooting was coming from and where you were as opposed to those who were shooting, thank you.
A. On the 12th of July, when the shooting started, the column stopped for about an hour or so. There was shooting and there were shells landing. They were probably fired from the hill, and we could hear Serbs shouting, "Where are you heading, Balijas? Come back, where are you going?" There were -- the bullets were whizzing past us. We could hear them, and we could also hear the sound of the shells landing, but where it was fired from we couldn't really see it from the forest because we were inside the forest.
Q. Thank you. That's precisely what I wanted to hear from you. So in other words, you couldn't really see the place from which the fire was coming.
A. Well, we were in the woods but we heard the Serbs calling each others out, and bullets were flying around, branches were falling off trees, they were cut down by bullets, and I assume that the shooting was coming from uphill because of the lie of the land there. We were near a stream and there were hills around and I assumed they were shooting from up there, from the higher ground. And those who were calling out, I think they were also calling out from the hills, the surrounding hills, so it wasn't close by, it was a bit farther off. 8911
Q. Thank you. The situation that you described a moment ago, that was around 16 or 1700 hours on the 12th of July. When was it that you surrendered?
A. We surrendered on the 13th of July. So after the 12th of July, we spent the night in the forest, during that shelling, and then in the morning, when we heard Serb soldiers calling out, using loudspeakers, that was the 13th, so we came out on the 13th. It was probably sometime in the afternoon. We were -- we spent some five to six hours -- or we came to the meadow around 5.00 or 6.00.
Q. Thank you. Now, on page 5, paragraph 2, line 1, you say the following in lines 1 and 2:
"He said that they were from Serbia and that they would transport us to hangars in Bratunac until ours [as interpreted] (and I assumed that he meant the BH government) asks for you -- ask for you." Now, my question is this: Is this individual who said these words, did you see that person?
Q. Was he wearing a uniform?
A. Yes. He had overalls and a black bandana around his head, tied in the back of the head.
Q. Thank you. Can you tell us -- can you describe the uniform? Thank you.
A. It was a camouflage uniform, one-piece uniform.
Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, did those soldiers have any insignia on their uniforms showing that they were members of the army or anything 8912 else?
A. Yes. I understand your question, but I didn't see that.
Q. Thank you. You go on to say, and I quote: "I could not hear him that clearly. I have never heard anyone from Serbia talk, and I'm not familiar with any particular dialect. I clearly heard him say, 'We are from Serbia.' He said they would continue to search for people and, if found, those people would be killed. I stopped listening to him," and so on and so forth. You go on, I end the quote there. So my question is this: In view of this paragraph and based on his words, him saying that he was from Serbia, you concluded that they were all from Serbia; is that correct? So were they all from Serbia because he said that he was?
A. Well, what I said in my statement was what I had heard. Now, whether they were from Serbia or not, I don't know. I was just saying there what he said, what he had said.
Q. Thank you. In your statement, you go on to say that you had never seen those people who had held you there in custody in the area, but that you were familiar with them. Is that correct?
A. I did not recognise a single soldier anywhere, which doesn't mean that they weren't there. Maybe there were some, but I did not recognise anyone. Not only there, but also later on, I never recognised any face, but there were people who recognised some of those people.
Q. Thank you. For the record, would you please take a look at paragraph 5, the first two sentences:
"As I sat in the meadow, I saw a house burning nearby with some 8913 Chetniks on the balcony. The soldier wearing the black bandana ordered us to lie face down on our stomachs. Shooting started about 100 to 200 metres from where I lay."
Please tell us, did the shooting started while you were in Sandici or are you talking about something else there? Thank you.
A. When we were ordered -- while we were in the meadow, when we were ordered to lie down on our stomachs and not to raise our heads and look around, that we should put our arms behind our heads and clap our hands and that we should say -- call out, "Long live the king, long live Serbia," and we spent some five hours there. There was shooting all around us, I could not see who was shooting, what they were shooting at, but you could hear the echo of the shooting in that valley there. When we were ordered to stand up, I saw soldiers shooting into a house which was not far from where we were, and that was a Muslim house. It had been burned down and he was shooting into the house. I don't know whether there was anyone there, who was there, but an uncle of mine told me that a neighbour of ours who lived nearby, that he was sitting in the house and that he couldn't see him sitting anymore, so most probably they took the wounded there to kill them, to finish them off.
Q. Is that your assumption, your conclusion, or your knowledge, based on what you saw?
A. Well, what is certain is that there were no wounded there, so I assumed that they were killed off there.
Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, please look at paragraph 3 on page 5 that we have before us. I quote: 8914 "I'm familiar with this area because it was nearby. I did not recognise any of the soldiers come -- as coming from this area, and if they were the Bosnian Serb army, I believe I would have recognised some of them."
Now, my question is this: How would you recognise soldiers if they were -- if they were members of the Serb army, Bosnian Serb army? Thank you.
A. Well, that unit, maybe they were Serbs, maybe not, maybe they were Bosnian Serbs, maybe not, but I didn't recognise a single face. Now, if one of them had been a neighbour from around where we were, I would have recognised him, but I did not recognise anyone. However, later on, outside the school, there were people who recognised some of those soldiers. As we were getting off the bus outside the school, and as they were beating people one after another, one of those soldiers, Serb soldiers, asked a man whether -- "Do you recognise me?" And the man answered, "Yes, I do, brother." And then this soldier started beating him and asked him, "What do you mean you know me?" implying that he shouldn't really acknowledge that he knew him. And they beat him badly. They beat him up. They beat him with rifle butts, with their feet, kicked him, they beat him up really badly. I did not get any beating but they beat everyone who passed through there. And then later on, when we were in the classroom, one of them was saying that there was a neighbour of his there, or maybe a co-worker, I don't recall whether he was from Zvornik or so, but I believe -- but the man who was beaten up, he was from Zvornik and that was his neighbour, a 8915 soldier from that area.
Q. Thank you. Based on this, the fact that this person recognised this other soldier, was it based on that that you concluded that these were soldiers of the VRS?
A. Well, I think I've already answered this question. I myself did not recognise any of the soldiers, but that should not mean that they were or weren't members of the VRS. I just know of the story where this other man recognised one of the soldiers, and that's my answer.
Q. Thank you. Now, do you know that people who had been expelled from other parts of Bosnia had come there, for instance from Kladanj, Tuzla, Olovo, those people were expelled to the territory of Republika Srpska and then they became soldiers of the VRS? Could it be that that was the reason why you didn't recognise them, because they had come from those areas?
A. Well, I don't know. I cannot do guesswork here, I can only tell you what I saw. Now, whether these people came from Kladanj or Sarajevo or Serbia, I don't know. I just told you about what I had occasion to see. I did not see anyone I knew, which doesn't mean that there weren't any people from that area.
Q. Thank you. The reason I asked you is that we have your statement, and if we leave it as it is, it can lead us to a faulty conclusion, and we are here in trial, and I just wanted to clear some things up with you and ask you to clear them up. And my apologies if I was too insistent, and I will not put any more questions about that.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey. 8916
MR. McCLOSKEY: I would object to statements that are not questions, especially ones that are just critical of the witness for I don't know why. That just is argumentative and is not appropriate. There's been several.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness, and my apologies personally to you because maybe somebody else could have cleared that up as to where these people were from, but let's not go there now.
Now, I want -- I won't ask -- I won't put any questions about what Mr. McCloskey had asked you about.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, again and again you are putting statements on the record. I have to remind you that it is up to the Chamber to give weight to all evidence before the Chamber, to the testimony of witnesses, to documents, and so on. It's not, at this point in time, not your duty to do that. Please put questions to the witness and wait for the answer. Please continue.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My apologies to you and to the Prosecutor for being irritated by my manner of questioning because I'm not a lawyer, but I just wanted -- also my apologies to the witness but I just wanted to tell the witness that I was not going to put any questions about those parts where the witness was emotional.
And I thank you, Witness, and my apologies for having to put 8917 questions to you to clarify the situation. Thank you and may God bless you and have a safe trip home.
Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further questions for this witness and I thank everyone.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. McCloskey, do you have re-examination?
MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question for the witness.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you were very clear and, in fact, I don't really have any questions for you but I would just like to check one thing. On the transcript, at page 6, line 24, of the transcript of today, you talked about people who were with you in the column and who killed themselves, who would have committed suicide. Can you please tell me, how did these people commit suicide?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a clarification on the record? That was part of the summary of the previous statements and testimony of the witness given by the Prosecutor. But nevertheless, the question is clear: How did these people commit suicide? Can you give us an answer?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The situation in the forest was unbearable. It was very difficult. And I saw a man who actually -- who put a hand grenade and set it off and blew himself up. Now, why he did that, when one thinks in retrospect of what was to happen later on, then perhaps it's something we can understand. He probably did not want to surrender, because some other people who had their wits about them, maybe more, or were more cool-headed, they had fled and they actually survived. 8918 I know some people like that.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness. I understand, of course, that those were very difficult times. But I would like to know the following: Would it have been possible for the people who were in the column to bury those who had committed suicide, or was it not possible at all at the time of the events?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were so many wounded people that nobody really paid attention to the -- those who were dead. People who knew other people who were wounded -- for instance, I helped carry a man who had -- whose leg was broken, and all the time while I was there with my uncle, I wasn't really afraid of getting killed. I was afraid of getting wounded and being left behind, because -- and suffering there, because in that situation, when there was all that shooting, so no one was thinking. People just tried, those who were wounded, they just tried to find someone who could help carry them because if there was no one you knew when you were wounded, you would just be left behind, and that was my greatest fear, getting wounded.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, the Chamber would like to thank you that you came to The Hague again. It was a very tough day for you. You went through all the emotions again of the events you have been in. Thank you very much that you came to The Hague, that you assisted us to find out the truth, and now you are free to return to your normal activities. The court officer will assist you leaving the courtroom, but first we have to go into closed session to enable you to leave the courtroom without 8919 lifting your identity. Thank you very much again, sir.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
(4 lines redacted)
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are now in open session. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to tender 65 ter 06671, that's the second statement that we saw, into evidence. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This document will be received under seal.
THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00140, under seal, Your Honours.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I take it that you are going to call Witness Gallagher now; is that correct?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, it is. As you know from the motion that you ruled on last week, she should be here, coming through the door momentarily. She may be in the witness room, waiting, and we -- it's hard to tell how long this is going to take because I'm going to go through some of this book, but we, as you know, we have Colonel Boering set for tomorrow because of the Dutch interpreters but, yes, she should be here, ready to go. 8920
JUDGE FLUEGGE: You please can give me information. Are we still in examination-in-chief with this witness in this portion of her testimony?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this is a new area that -- and I thank the general and Mr. Gajic for agreeing to allow us to discuss the -- and have her testify beginning in direct. This is a -- as you'll recall from the motion, there is an exhibit that is already in evidence, and it's what we refer to as "the duty officer notebook." It's 361. It's the duty officer notebook from the Zvornik Brigade that you have seen references from this book from the key dates in question. Witnesses were questioned about it and you had questions about it, and so we have accelerated our presentation so that you can -- well, we can fill the gap and that you can see an exhibit that we had created, much like Mr. Blaszczyk's road book, which is a portion of the duty officer logbook where the investigation has identified the various dates the investigation believes that pages in the logbook refer to, which is of course crucial, and some of the entries, the investigation has identified who wrote those entries, as well as some other information in that. And we think that this exhibit is -- would be very helpful as more witnesses talk about these events, and you will hopefully have that -- this booklet to refer to, especially during some rather key witnesses. And so she is beginning to talk about that. She's basically here just to give us a -- the briefest of background on this document, since there will be other VRS officers that really know much more about the document, but -- and then to just tell us what the investigation determined about what dates 8921 pages are on and what people were there. I don't wish, nor will I ask her to analyse or evaluate or provide any opinion about the substance of the material in that. That is not her mandate in this situation but just to help guide us on what -- how the investigation determined the dates and ID'd the people in it, which are key to understanding this document as more witnesses testify about it.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this update, and now I'm back. And that happens sometimes with the OTP witnesses, the investigators of the OTP, that we are not very clear in which part of the testimony we are. Now we are commencing a new examination-in-chief, if I understood you correctly, in relation to the new witness summary we have received from the OTP.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And I believe the -- it was agreed that we -- this would be direct -- direct testimony only and so that the general would have time prepare for any cross-examination at a later date because, as I said, they were -- we were very happy that they were agreed to us that, within this relatively short time frame, to help fill this gap with this important document.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. The witness should be brought in, please.
[The witness entered court]
MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to assist in the record, Mr. President, the -- what we refer to as the Zvornik Brigade duty officer logbook is -- the 8922 full copy of that, or the actual original, and we have the original here for you to look at, is P14. We have given this portion of this -- of the logbook the number 65 ter 361A. And, Mr. President, we have -- the general and Mr. Gajic have hard copies. If we could provide you hard copies as well, I think it will be -- it will be helpful because this works -- it works with the computer but it's a bit more helpful to have actually a hard copy.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Surprisingly, I just received one from the Bench before me but it would be helpful to give these, with the Court Usher's assistance, to all participants.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we provided one to your attorney, so we have two for -- two more now.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Ms. Gallagher, welcome back to the courtroom. May I remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the beginning of your testimony in September still applies.
WITNESS: ERIN GALLAGHER [Resumed]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey has more questions for you. Mr. McCloskey, please commence your examination.
Examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
Q. Good evening, Ms. Gallagher.
A. Good evening.
Q. Can you -- I think you probably caught the last end of what I had just explained, but can you first just tell us, briefly, what P14 is, what we call the duty officer notebook of the Zvornik Brigade?
A. The original duty officer notebook, which is what I'm holding 8923 before me, is a notebook that was used by the Zvornik Brigade and written in by the duty officer or the assistant duty officer, and this particular notebook was written in between the dates of May 29th, 1995, and July 27th, 1995. And as you'll see, it will be notes, contemporaneous notes, reminders, messages, anything that's coming in through the brigade that needs to be communicated to the commander, to the Chief of Staff, to other battalions, reports that the duty officer has to write himself. So it's basically -- it's a notebook.
Q. And can you give us just the briefest description of what you've learned a duty officer for the brigade is. What is just his basic job?
A. The duty officer is always a member of the brigade command, so it's an officer who is posted 24 hours at the brigade headquarters and they are -- they keep an eye on what's happening in the field, what's happening with the battalions, with other brigades, with the units. They pass information on to -- back and forth up and down to the -- to the commanders, to the Chief of Staff, and lower to the battalions themselves, and basically keeping everybody informed of what's happening, and they also can transmit and relay orders and reports.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey and Ms. Gallagher, as it happens sometimes with B/C/S-speaking witnesses, please slow down while speaking. We understand you but, on the other hand, there is interpretation in different languages, and please pause between question and answer. Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Now, Ms. Gallagher, you mentioned the dates of the duty officer 8924 notebook that you have before you. Before I get into that, can you tell us where the investigation received this original book that you have before you, this -- which -- if you could hold that up so they can just get an idea of this green book. Can you explain where -- how we got -- how the investigation received this?
A. We received it from Dragan Obrenovic himself, who was Chief of Staff of the Zvornik Brigade, and he had -- his attorney had provided it to the OTP at the time of his plea agreement in June 2003.
Q. Okay. Now, the actual demonstrative exhibit which has the number of 65 ter 361A, what dates does this demonstrative exhibit cover, from the actual duty officer notebook? Is it the whole notebook, a portion thereof; can you just give us that?
A. No. It's only a portion of the original notebook. It is only the dates from July 11th to through July 24th, and as I mentioned, the original notebook is from May 29th to July 27th, 1995.
Q. All right. Well, let's start with that 361A, this product. How is this sort of colloquially referred to on the investigative team?
A. Usually it's "the duty officer notebook." It has had a number of different names over the years but, as you see from the title, duty officer notebook. Sometimes you hear "duty officer logbook."
Q. But this is just a title provided by the office of the Prosecutor; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. So this particular first page, that's the title that was given to it by the Office of the Prosecutor, so let's go to the 8925 second page, which should be page 3 in the e-court.
A. I'm sorry, if I can add something, it also gets referred to as "the teacher's edition of the notebook."
Q. Why do we call this -- this exhibit the teacher's edition?
A. As you will see, it's not exclusively just the original notebook that has been colour copied onto here. There is an English translation and some explanations of the notebook itself; who has written in it, what dates, and sometimes some explanations of abbreviations.
Q. All right. Let's just -- before we get to the foreword, let's just give an example of what it looks like. Perhaps let's go to -- should be page 9 in the e-court, and I don't know if e-court will show the B/C/S and the English. If we can try to do that so we can see how the book lays out. It would be page 8 in the -- in the B/C/S.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I was told that we have only the English version in e-court.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. Then we all have the B/C/S in front of us, and the book, it's a combination of English and B/C/S, so you don't go to another one. It's page 8 in this exhibit. I don't know if you can put page 8 and page 9 in e-court next to each other.
Yes, that's page 8, and, I don't know, can you put page 9 next to it? That you're basically recreating the book as we have it in front of us. And the purpose of these questions, it's not so important to be able to read it, just to show how the book works for someone that's using it. That's a good start. If you go to page 8 and 9, you'll get exactly what we want. Right. And we see that the ERNs are both matching, so those 8926 pages match.
Q. All right. So can you tell us what is on the left and what is on the right in -- which is up on the screen now?
A. So on the left side is a colour copy of the original duty officer notebook. Nothing has been touched on it, it is as you see it in its original that I have with me. On the right side you see the English translation of that same page, and you'll notice that there are some of the numbers and some notations are in colour. That means that that's what has been added by the -- our team, by the OTP, and is not on the original version. Such as the date, and you'll see the notations in both red and green.
Q. Okay. Let's now go back to page 3, the foreword, which describes how this works, and we'll go over that carefully so it -- so you can get some explanations on it now. But if everyone could keep the book open and perhaps on the pages we just were, it will help make more sense. Okay. So in the foreword, we can read it, that:
"The exhibit provides an English translation of the duty officer notebook of the Zvornik Brigade from 11 July 1995 through 23 July 1995. The exhibit presents the B/C/S colour copy of the original on the left-hand side and the corresponding translation of that page in English on the right-hand side."
So I take it this is what we've just seen?
Q. Okay. "Prosecution made every attempt to replicate the layout and appearance of the original notebook in the English translation." 8927 What did we mean by that and how will we see that?
A. You'll see that the lines and the spacing replicate what is in the original. If anything has been underlined, if anything has been circled, that also has been done in the English version. Any particular marks, dashes, that sort of thing, punctuation, has also been replicated in the right side, so it's made to look exactly, as much as possible, as it is on the -- in the original so it's easier to follow.
Q. Okay. And then it goes on to say that: "In addition, the Prosecution has provided additional markings on the English translation, indicating the author of the notations, the date of the notations, and other information."
So when we say the author of the notations in this book, what are we referring to or who are we referring to?
A. It will be the notations that are made by the duty officers themselves or else by the assistant duty officers, so anyone who has written in the book.
Q. You say duty officers and assistant duty officers. How, roughly, have you learned that worked in the Zvornik Brigade?
A. It was largely the duty officer that did the main work and, as I mentioned, who was a brigade command officer. The assistant duty officer was lower-ranking and usually they spelled the duty officer while he slept or rested or was away from the headquarters.
Q. Okay. So that's the author of the notations. And then the date of the notations, how was this book organised by chronology and date? If it was. 8928
A. The book is organised and written as like a date book, as chronologically, and the duty officers and assistant duty officers usually wrote the date in the notebook themselves. There are some places where we have, as you'll see, in red, we have put in a date when we thought the date has changed or, as you'll learn soon, when Dragan Obrenovic believed a date had changed and added that in.
Q. Okay. So let's -- and then it says, "The date of the notations and other information below," then it says, in red text, ERN numbers. Okay, we all know what ERN numbers are at this point. The author, which you've explained, the date.
And it says, "And markings by Dragan Obrenovic," with a star, and then we look down at the star, and the star says, "Dragan Obrenovic made certain markings in pencil in preparation for his trial in 2003." Can you explain that, these pencil markings of Dragan Obrenovic that are referenced here?
A. Before he turned the original notebook over to the OTP, he had it in his possession for a while from when the Drina Corps archives were -- Drina Corps collection was being moved and it had been moved in Mali Zvornik, and at that time he had obtained this notebook in 1999 and he had, in preparation for his trial here, he had gone through the notebook and made some -- some markings, some small markings in pencil. They were almost exclusively the date and then, in a couple of places, who he knew the duty officer to be at that time. So you'll see in here and we have notated in the book any time that he has written in pencil in the book.
Q. And is that pencil, does that stand out very well in this colour 8929 photocopy?
A. Sometimes it's not easy to tell when -- in the original, in the colour copy that we have in the exhibit, that it's pencil or pen. We've notated it on the English side so that you're not mistaken at all. In the original duty officer notebook, itself, it's quite obvious that it's in pencil because everything else is written in pen, so that's very obvious.
Q. All right. And when we get to one of those sections we can hand the book up.
All right. Then it goes on to say that: "Dates noted in red on the left margin of the page indicate the place in the notebook where the date changed from one day to another. However, due to insufficient information, the precise date change could not always be ascertained and in this case we have noted the date in red italics."
So you've said this is a chronological book, but how do you explain that there is not dates? What are you doing with these red italics?
A. For the most part, you will see dates written in on the original notebook. But they don't always write in when the date changes, from let's say, July 12th to the 13th. You'll see the times on the 12th might go up to 11.00, 11.30 at night, and then the next entries will be at 3.30 in the morning, 4.30 in the morning, and the duty officer or assistant has not notated that now we are talking July 13th, so what we've done is added that date change in ourselves on the English version in red italics 8930 on the left side of the margin.
Q. And is that an approximation or is it, in your view, exact, when we put it in there?
A. It's an approximation. You'll see as we go through it, you won't be able to know exactly when it changed, so you'll see that it's now 3.30 in the morning the next day, and so at that point, when we know that it has changed to the next day, we've made a notation in the red italics.
Q. Now you have mentioned that there are dates written down, or sorry, times -- excuse me, times written down in this book, and before we get and actually see some examples, can you give us just generally what -- why -- how is it that times are written down in this book?
A. Oftentimes late in the evening or early in the morning, the battalions and different units will report in as to their situation out in the field. So you will see those early morning times often each day. Other times, there will be when somebody or a unit needs a wake-up call, so oftentimes you'll see a 0430 wake-up call for someone. If somebody is going to be coming to the brigade headquarters, they will make a note of it, if something is going to be delivered at a certain time, they will make a note of it. So a variety of reasons you'll see times written down.
Q. So were some of the times that you were -- just referred to able -- were you able to evaluate whether those times were actually of the present when they were writing it down as opposed to future time, something to be done in the future?
A. Right. It's fairly evident in the notebook, when you see it, 8931 that -- where it will say, you know, a wake-up call at 0430 to somebody and that will have been written at 2 in the morning, versus something that is past tense that something was done at 8 p.m., so it's fairly obvious.
Q. And I know you'll get to this as well but can you tell us generally what sources of information from the investigation were -- did the investigation use to determine the author and the date in some situations? Just generally.
A. For the most part, it's from the duty officers themselves that have identified when they were the duty officer, when they wrote in the notebook in their own handwriting, other witnesses' statements and testimony as well, and then in some cases it has been from a handwriting expert. In addition, just to assist in corroborating who had written in the notebook, we also cite, in the back of the book, combat reports, any reports and intercepts that confirm when someone wrote in the book or who the duty officer was at that time.
Q. Okay. I think we'll go over a few pages to get examples of this, so let's go to the next page, which should be -- well, there is another page, page 5, in the exhibit, on e-court.
I apologise, if we could go back to page 3, and I know it's not in B/C/S, so I will read out that last section so the general is fully apprised of this English page. The one part I left out was that noted in green text, where it says, "Green text" in green ink: "Illegibles and additional explanations from the translator have been written in green ink to highlight that they are not part of the 8932 original notebook."
Can you explain that a bit?
A. Right. Since it's a handwritten notebook, there will be in a few places a word that was illegible, either due to handwriting or perhaps faintness, so that has been notated in the English version. Also, there is a couple of places where an abbreviation or something has been explained, such as "PB," it will show in the English version "light infantry brigade," or "VMA" will be a medical academy.
Q. Okay, now we can go to page 5 in the e-court. And again, in English in red, at the top, we see Glossary of Terms. On the left side we will see the Serbian abbreviations; is that correct?
Q. And then the English meaning of those abbreviations, I take it.
Q. And where did this information regarding the abbreviations come from?
A. This is something that CLSS has put together and has given to us.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next page, page 7 in e-court. This is an ERN ending 5619. And what's this?
A. This is the cover of the original duty officer notebook.
Q. All right. And if you look very closely at this, I'm not sure it shows up very well but is there some kind of writing on the front of that original?
A. Yeah. It is difficult to see, and I think almost impossible on the screen, but it shows in pen it's written, "29 of May, 1995" and 8933 I think it should be "27 of July, 1995."
Q. All right. So let's now go to -- well, where we were, at page -- page 8 and 9 up on the screen, if we could. And I think we should all open our books to that -- to that page. And the first thing we see in the -- if we could switch that to the left and right so it's identical to the book. I'm not sure, after 5.30, it's probably better to have it the same as it is in the actual book. Thank you. Okay. Perfect. So now in looking at the right side, page 9 in e-court, we see in red, 10/11 July 1995. What's the significance of that? What does that mean?
A. It means on this page you'll have some notation that's from July 10th as well as July 11th. So it's the switchover of dates.
Q. All right. And then we see down in the left-hand side of the same page, in italics, 11 July, and can you explain, just remind us what that means, that italics, 11 July?
A. That means it's something that has been added by the OTP, it's not in the original, and it is our estimate of the date at that time.
Q. And how were -- how were you able to determine that that was the changeover time, or the approximate changeover time, as you've said?
A. Well, you'll see to the right side where it does say, 11 July 1995, so that was already written in in the original notebook. And then just above it, the line above it, you see the 0400 hours. If you go up another six lines or so, you'll see some times of 2300 hours and 2310 hours. And we know that earlier it's 10 July, so that's 2300 hours, 2310 hours on the 10th, and then at 0400 hours we are now into the 11th of 8934 July.
Q. Okay. Now looking at the number -- the Serbian version on the left side, we can all see 11.07.95. Can you look in the original book on that, just to double check for us. It's ERN 5728, and can you describe for us what you see there, in terms of ink and pencil?
A. You do see it written in in blue ink; however, it's underlined in pencil.
Q. Okay. And then if we switch over and look at the English again, there has been an OTP indication, "Underlines in pencil by Dragan Obrenovic." So can you explain that?
A. In -- as he told us in his statement, he had underlined some of the dates or written in some dates when -- as he was preparing for his trial, so he told us at that time that he had underlined in pencil this date.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, if we could show that, perhaps, to the Defence, if they would like to see that. This is the only way to see it, and there will be more pencil marks, so I think it's a good thing to see, and if the Court would like to see it as well and perhaps hold onto it because there will be a couple more pencil marks that we would like to show you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you want to see that at this point in time?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to know right now what it is that is written down above the date 11th July 1995, because it's a different handwriting. So who was it who added that and 8935 how are we to know that it wasn't added by somebody else subsequently and that the purpose of it wasn't that they should actually exonerate themselves thereby?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey may deliver that during his examination-in-chief, but the question was different: Do you want to see the original notebook now?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Well, if I can't know the difference -- if I cannot have the explanation that I asked for, then I really can't add anything else. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The original notebook should be given to the Defence by the Court Usher, please, and then later to the Bench.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And if you could hold it open to where it is, I think Mr. Gajic should be able to see the pencil marks. And the general, if he wishes.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: You may continue, Mr. McCloskey.
Q. Based on -- well, in part on what the general said, let me ask you this: Did -- did the investigation determine all of the various entries in this and where -- who wrote them?
A. No. As you'll see, there is a -- quite a number of places where we don't know who wrote in the book.
Q. And in the particular point that the general was interested in, the term above 11 July, and I think we can look over at the English and see that that says, "Strbac, 0400 hours." Did -- are you aware if the investigation has identified who wrote that and when? 8936
A. No. We haven't identified who wrote that.
Q. Okay. All right. Well, let's just continue and go to the next page. If we could put up 10 and 11 the same way you've very nicely done that before. If we could get English on the right and Serbian on the left again would be nice. Or number 10 e-court on the left and number 11 on the right. Okay. Thank you. Now, we -- first thing we see as we look at the top of this English translation, 11 July 1995, and how was that determined?
A. From the -- from the page before. It had been written in 11 July, and then if you follow the times, then you'll see 0600 hours or 10.00 a.m., so we are still on the same date of 11 July.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The original notebook should be given back to the witness.
Q. Okay. And then the next thing we see is date in pencil by Dragan Obrenovic, and actually, if we -- if we blow up that B/C/S or the Serbian side up in the right-hand corner, it may help us identify that, but can you just briefly explain that? Yeah, that's a nice blowup, so it looks --
A. Dragan Obrenovic himself told us that he had written in the date of 11 July 1995, when he was reviewing the notebook and just making a note of when a date was or a date changed in the notebook.
Q. Okay. And as we look down this English page, we see an entry in green, and before that entry we see the abbreviations "KPVT" and then a little note, "heavy machine-gun." Can you remind us why there is green 8937 in here?
A. Once again, it's an explanation of an abbreviation or something that needs further explanation or if there is anything illegible.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next page in the hard copy, and that's number 12 and number 13 in e-court. And we have the English and they are both up there now. So we now see, as we are doing the same thing, we see 11/12 July. So what does this mean?
A. It includes both the 11th and the 12th of July.
Q. And then we go over, down the page to the left, we see this italics 12 July, and how is it that you determined that that was the approximate date change -- or excuse me, yeah, date changeover?
A. Right. That's an estimate of when it became July 12th. If you look further down at the bottom, you'll see the times of 0345, 0346, so we know for sure it's the 12th of July then. And the estimate as to why it may have changed to the 12th earlier than that is that generally the orders and the requests from the units happen very late in the evening or early in the morning of the next day. And if you go above that, then you see that it's 1900 hours and 1910 hours, from the 11th of July.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Let's turn the page again and now go to 14 on the left side and 15 on the right side in e-court. And we see 12 July, so in your view are we still on 12 July, based on that red?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And we can see, over in the B/C/S, and of course in the English, 12 July 1995 written with a partial box underneath it. And does that help you indicate the date as well? 8938
Q. And is there any indication that Obrenovic had anything to do with that date?
A. No, not at all. There is nothing written in pencil in the original on this.
Q. All right. So -- well, like the general said, unless someone has come in and added material or added things into this book since it was used, what would that date represent?
A. It represents that that is on the 12th of July.
Q. All right. And now for the first time, as we go down the English side, we see red brackets and the name Milan Maric, and it's around just a small portion, and what can you tell us about that? How was that determined?
A. That means that we believe it was Milan Maric who wrote that section. He told the OTP that he was the duty officer starting at 0800 hours on the morning of the 12th. Other people have also confirmed that he was the duty officer at that time, including Dragan Obrenovic and his -- the duty officer that relieved him later, Sreten Milosevic. And he also had written a -- there is another logbook, it's an operational diary that the duty officers write in each day, and it's more formal and it's more of what happened during the day, including the handing over to the next duty officer. So he signs his name, and that handwriting which he had told us -- just below that passage that he had told us that he had written in that day was used to compare to the handwriting in this section. And so the two were believed to be the same and that he wrote 8939 that particular section.
Q. Okay. Let's turn the page, 16 and 17 in e-court. And what date are we on here?
A. So we are still on the 12th of July.
Q. And again we see everything on that page, according to the bracket, was written by Milan Maric, based on what the investigation has uncovered?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is Milan Maric alive?
A. No, he's dead.
Q. When did he die, if you recall?
A. It was in 2007.
Q. All right. Let's turn the next page, 18 and 19 in e-court. And again we see 12 July and Milan Maric. Anything different in the analysis?
A. No. It's the same.
Q. And how can you base that? How do you know they haven't switched to another date, or why do you think that?
A. You'll see that the times still are going chronologically, you know, by time. You have 1350 hours and then 1440 hours, so there has been no indication that the time has changed to past midnight, so we are still on the 12th.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next one, number 20 and 21. Again we see same as the 12th, and Milan Maric, and again how do you know that this is the same date? 8940
A. For the same reason; the times are still going sequentially, getting later and later in the day.
Q. And we see some green written here, the illegibles that you referred to and some of the abbreviations; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, I see it's break time and just so you knew, my plan was to go through each page up until the 14th to give you a feel for some of those important days, and then skip to each day as they switched and why she feels that's the day that it switched, so it should be -- it should go much quicker after we get up to the 14th. It shouldn't take very long, now that I think we are all familiar with how this fairly basic document works.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. We should have our second break now and resume quarter past 6.00.
--- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.
--- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey. Go ahead, please.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President.
Q. Okay. Can we now -- we are just, as a reminder, we are on 12 July, Milan Maric is writing everything, but now let's just -- let's skip on e-court to page 26 and page 27, but I think the hard copy we can just flip through the pages slowly and I think you'll see that it's still the 12th of July, Milan Maric, as we go through the pages leading up to e-court 26 and 27, where we now see 12 and 13 July. So how is it that 8941 you concluded that we now are getting into the 13th?
A. And once again, from the prior page, you'll see that's where the last time entries was, were 2310, 2324, and then we get to 0430 hours, so that would be the morning of the 13th then.
Q. All right.
A. Excuse me, that's a wake-up call. If you go further down, then you'll see the actual times that will be 0352, 0417, 0420, so those are the reports coming in from the field. So those are the actual times.
Q. All right. Let's go to the next page, page 28 and 29 in e-court. We see that you've concluded that this is the 13th of July and we have what -- on this 13, 7, 95, that's another Obrenovic entry in preparation?
A. Correct, you'll see in the original notebook the date is written in pencil and underlined.
Q. All right. And now we have a new name here, Sreten Milosevic. What was -- what does this signify?
A. So, he has written this entry. He has become the duty officer on the 13th, as he indicated to us in an interview in 2006 as well as in his testimony in the Popovic trial.
Q. All right. And in the back of this book, we'll get to it right at the end, but what information is noted in the back of the book regarding dates?
A. There is a table in the back of the book that tracks each date and who wrote each excerpt from that date, the person that was identified, and it indicates how we believe that it was that person, and as I mentioned before, that may be from a statement they made, it may be 8942 from testimony, it may be from a handwriting expert, also corroborated by reports and intercepts.
Q. All right. And is that called the Appendix by the OTP in the back of the book?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Let's go to the next page. Actually, I think we can just flip through those for a while because we can see that it's basically all Sreten Milosevic and a few green illegibles, and we get to 36 and 37 in e-court. And just in looking at this page, we see the portion at the top under Sreten Milosevic but was the Office of the Prosecutor able to determine, as far as you know, who wrote the bottom part of this that we don't have in red?
A. No. Sreten Milosevic only identified his handwriting to the part where it says Lovac 1 and 2. We don't know who wrote the remainder of this page.
Q. Okay. Let's now go to 38 and 39 in e-court, the next page. And we see now Sreten Milosevic's name again with the red marks, and how do you know that?
A. He stated to us what was his handwriting in the -- in the notebook. He told us in his initial interview in 2006.
Q. All right. Let's go now to number 40 and 41 in e-court. We have a date change, according to you. And tell us about this. Why have you concluded that we've gone now from the 13th to the 14th?
A. From a few different reasons. One, Sretan Milosevic said he turned over the duty officer notebook or the duty to Dragan Jokic on the 8943 14th and Dragan Jokic also confirmed in an early interview that he was the duty officer on the 14th. We also have it confirmed by our handwriting expert, Dr. Kate Barr, who conclusively confirmed that it was Dragan Jokic's handwriting. Because we know that he took over the duty on the 14th and that's his handwriting starting where you see the red notations, we have estimated that it indeed was on the 14th when he wrote this excerpt.
Q. All right. And then we see written in large numbering on the original Serbian, 14.07, and then it's hard to make out but you can see that Jokic has written, and again is that correct, have you double checked that, that is, as it says here, was the pencil work of Dragan Obrenovic?
A. Correct. He had written that in in pencil.
Q. All right. Let's go to the next page, 42 and 43. And how is it that you've determined this is still the 14th of July?
A. Once again, nothing has changed time-wise and you'll see in upcoming pages that we still are on the same date of the 14th.
Q. And Dragan Jokic's entries, again, how do we know that that's Dragan Jokic for this page?
A. Once again we know that he was the duty officer as he himself told us, on the 14th, and also confirmed by Sreten Milosevic as well as Dragan Obrenovic, and also by Dr. Kate Barr when she did the handwriting analysis also concluded that it was Dragan Jokic.
Q. Let's go to the next page, 44 and 45. You concluded that this is 14 July and we now see some times: 1000 hours, palma 1, situation 8944 battalions is regular, 1024 hours, Osmaci informed Lieutenant-Colonel Djurcic about the movements. Do these times help you determine dates at all, the actual date and time?
A. Right. As we see, it's moving along chronologically during the day, they are taking notes of what's happening throughout the day.
Q. All right. Now, as I said, can you -- let's just skip ahead to each date change so you can give us your opinion why it is you've determined that this be the date change, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I -- I see the first date change from the 14th on at e-court 58 and 59, ERN 5753. And do you know why we see -- we see the 14/15 July up in the right, and then we see the now well-remembered italics, meaning approximately the change over. Do you know why you've concluded that this was the approximate changeover from the 14th to the 15th?
A. You have to look at the pages before this, but you'll see that the times are, once again, moving along chronologically. 2000 hours, something has been noted, something else at 2020 hours, and then the next time notated here is on this July 15th italics on the left, next to that is 0353 hours where the different battalions are reporting in on their situations, so because now it has moved to 0353 hours, we determined it was the next morning.
Q. Okay. Now let's jump ahead to 74 and 75 in e-court, where we see a changeover from the 15th to the 16th. And just -- Your Honours, you may recall this entry was shown to you in a prior witness, especially the notation of the Turk lawyer that escaped to Loznica hospital, wounded, treated. Sinisa. If you remember the evidence about the hospital 8945 records and Resid Sinanovic. Just to put this in context, if -- and the dates of those incidents but, again, can you tell us how is it that determined that we have a 16 July to the left here, it's not in italics?
A. And similar to before, the dates have been moving, the times have been moving chronologically in order. On the 15th of July throughout the day, a number of times noted: 1200 hours, 13, 14, 1500 hours, and then where you see the 16 July "I informed the IKM about that" at 0145 hours, so we've now moved into the 16th of July.
Q. Okay. Now let's go ahead where it goes from 16th to the 17th, which is page 96 and 97 in e-court. Okay. And how did you determine that the changeover occurred where it's noted on the left?
A. Once again, as you track the 16th of July, you'll see the times going up becoming later; 2330 hours, and then you'll see on the same page, at 2340 hours, Obrenovic reported that there is a tank, so something has been reported at 2340 hours, and then where we have notated 17 July, it's at 0005 hours, just after midnight now on the 17th.
Q. All right. And we can see here that the -- it's gone from Milorad Trbic to Milanko Jovicic, and I won't go into detail about that but is the evidence or information by which this was based, is that noted in the appendix at the end?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So now let's jump to e-court 106 and 107, which is 5777 ERN, where we go from the 17th to the 18th, and how is it that you've determined that?
A. In the same way on the 17th: You'll see there is a notation at 8946 2030 hours and then at 2100 hours, and then the next notation is at 0400 hours, from palma 2 that the situation is normal.
Q. Now let's go from the 18th to the 19th, which is 110 and 111 in e-court and 5779 ERN. And what do you see here that gives you an indication?
A. Once again we have been moving along on the day of the 18th, at 1554 -- 1545 hours, 1655 hours, and then where you see the 19 July just a few lines down, it says, at 0430 hours, "the enemy fired with infantry weapons." So now we've moved into the next morning.
Q. All right. And does sometimes -- and I think you can tell from the colour version, does the handwriting and the -- and/or the colour of the inked entries change?
A. Correct. You'll see in the original notebook that sometimes it's blue pen or black pen.
Q. And is that something that the investigation would consider in determining the possible change of shifts or time?
A. It's one consideration.
Q. All right. And has there been -- I think you may have mentioned this briefly, but has there been a review of the substance that is noted down in this -- in the notebook as to what may have been established by history or documentation on the same time or date?
A. Certainly there has been, as part of the investigation, and you'll see in the appendix, in the back, some of the supporting documents -- not all of them but some of the supporting ones that help confirm some of the events or at least who is the duty officer at that 8947 time.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask a question in between?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Please.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just on this page, where you see the entry 19th of July, then right to that it is, "LPA ammunition for Praga 30 millimetres." How did you establish that this belongs to the 19th and not to the entries above related to the 18th?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yeah, I think that actually is a very good question, because many times, as I mentioned before, the requests are often the next day, so my belief is that it may have been on the 19th earlier, the requests, but we know that for sure at 0430 hours it is the 19th. I don't know if this is a misplacement or just a general estimate of that time period.
Q. Can you look in the original? It's a little hard to tell if there is a difference in handwriting and ink colour from -- I mean it looks like there is in our colour photocopies, but maybe we could get your view on that, whether or not that is any possible indication that there is a -- a new person has come on.
A. Actually, in the original in this, it looks like it is the same blue ink. It's not discernable that a different pen is used.
Q. All right. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The same as what? As above or below this?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. All the ink on that page looks like the same blue ink. 8948
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
Q. All right. Let's go now to the 19th and 20th changeover, which I have at e-court 116 and 117, and ERN 5782. And how is it that you determined that this was the changeover date?
A. Well, certainly as you'll see in the original it's written 20 July 1995, and if you look above that boxed-in date, you'll see some times of 2210, 2239, and then immediately after the 20 July 1995 that has been written in, then you see the 0030 hours, so also helping to confirm it's the 20th.
Q. All right. Let's go now to e-court 124 and 125. This is the changeover between the 20th and 21st of July. Again we had that italics up there next to 2400. What -- can you give us your analysis on that?
A. Once again, the 2400 would indicate that it's midnight, and now it's on the 21st that Captain Vukotic called from the IKM. And just to confirm that, if you go down a little bit more, you see some of the early morning times, such as 0420, 0437.
Q. Okay. And now let's get to the 22nd. E-court 136 and 137. Looks like the 21st ended on the previous page, on e-court 135, and it starts up 22nd on that page, ERN 5792. How do you determine that?
A. Just as you said, the page before you see the times of 2330 hours mentioned twice, and then it jumps to 0400 hours the next day, on the 22nd.
Q. Okay. Let's now go to 140 and 141, if we have a 22/23 break.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And Your Honours, in going over this, we 8949 identified that the new print-outs, the new books we made for you were missing a page here. You may not have the English translation that's up there right now. So I'm afraid we are going to have to ask you to give the books back and we'll put that in so you have a complete set. It is complete in e-court, it's just the printing missed it somehow.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The missing page solely could be delivered to the Bench and the Defence. It's not necessary to produce a new book.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. And I tried to figure out a way to put a page in this binding. It's a real test in fine motor skills, but we can -- yeah, we'll get that to you.
Q. And can you tell us on this, on page e-court 141, 22/23, how you came up with that?
A. As you'll see on the page before, there is quite a few times on the 22nd, starting from 0930 hours to 2137 hours, and then the next time that you see after the requests is 12 -- excuse me, 0400 hours. And you'll also see the 23 July written down below.
Q. All right. Do you recall, was there a mistake that you came across in preparing -- in one of the translations, I believe?
A. There was numerical mistake on a time. It was written in English as 2430, when the original said 0430, and I can find the page.
Q. Yeah, if you -- if that won't take you too much time. I think we can just write in the correction on the English. Sorry, I should have noted that.
A. I can give you the ERN number. It's 5735.
Q. Okay. 5735 is -- 8950
A. It's 12 July.
Q. Number 22 and number 23. If we could put that up on e-court, e-court number 22 and 23.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I withdraw my proposal just to deliver a page. I realise that the last two pages have the B/C/S version on one side, and on the back side, the translation, the English translation. This is quite confusing in comparison to the whole book, only these two or three last pages have this problem. Perhaps that can be changed.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I think that's a good idea. A lot of effort went into this so we should get it right for the Chamber, and these are important dates so, yeah, I think that's a good idea. And we'll also correct this error as well.
Q. Can you point out to us where this error is?
A. It's right at the bottom. The last time that you see is 2430.
Q. And what should that be, according to the original?
A. Right, and if you look to the left side it's clearly a 0. It should be 0430.
Q. Okay. Now, just to finish up, let's -- where you go from 23 to 24, it's e-court 144 and 145. How do you come up with that?
A. And once again the page before, you'll see the times going up to 2025. And then underneath where you see Strbac, the wake-up at 0430 hours, you then see it says -- it says 00 hours palma 2 reported that the 4th and 7th infantry battalions have been provoked.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And I -- that's the last -- pretty 8951 much the last section that this exhibit has used, and then after that we have the appendix, which you've already spoke of, so on -- that's fundamentally all my questions, Mr. President and Your Honours, and we will provide everyone with a better book, and of course General Tolimir will be able to cross-examine at a later date, when I speak with Mr. Gajic and they are ready to do that.
We'll also -- we are also in the process of identifying for all of us where we are with Dusan Janc, Mr. Blaszczyk, and Ms. Gallagher so we are all clear on that. I'm not exactly clear myself. But in any event, I don't have any further questions.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I think you shouldn't produce a whole new book. We should -- we shouldn't waste paper and woods. We should save some woods, especially after the conference in Mexico, and therefore I am inclined to give it back to you so that only the last pages should be changed, and then perhaps after the recess, we can get the new one in the right order.
MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll try to do that, and I'm not sure if we need to print out a few new pages or not. Somehow I got one that didn't have those problems but we'll get on that before we forget what this book is. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: You will be able to check that with your team. Is there anything else to raise for the moment?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I could offer into evidence now or we could wait until cross-examination, but I would like this to be part of the evidence, so ... 8952
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is again which 65 ter number?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, this is 65 ter 361A, which is based on the original 65 ter number of the book that it comes from, which is --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: P14.
MR. McCLOSKEY: P14, yes.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any objection. Mr. Gajic?
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President. I see in my e-court that this has already been tendered as P5361A. No, no. I'm sorry, I apologise. I'm seeing something else. I'm sorry. Excuse me.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: No problem. This document -- Mr. Tolimir?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. So that Ms. Gallagher doesn't have to wait, can we put some questions right now that the Defence can put to her and then we can resolve this cross-examination?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: No problem. First we should receive this book with 65 ter number 361A as an exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the document shall be given Exhibit P01459. Thank you, Your Honours.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. McCloskey?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. By the agreement that we had, this was going to be direct only but there is only ten minutes left, I'm sure Ms. Gallagher can take on some questions, though it was her understanding from me that this would be direct only, so -- and she has endeavoured to come up to speed, as you can see, but I think a few questions by the general shouldn't be a problem. 8953
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think so too. And after the recess, the witness will not be prepared in a better way than today because she will not be allowed to discuss with you during the break about the content of her testimony.
Mr. Tolimir, you may commence your cross-examination, just start with it for the last ten minutes of today's hearing. Go ahead, please.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to greet Ms. Gallagher who joined us late. I'm not going to be putting too many questions to her.
Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
Q. [Interpretation] My question that I put during the cross-examination already is already familiar to you. I would like to repeat it: Was it possible for somebody to take this notebook and to enter additional data about the time, the persons, about themselves, about activities, and did the Prosecution establish if there were some cases like that in relation to the critical dates?
A. From the dates that a witness, a duty officer, has confirmed that it is his handwriting, that certainly hasn't been an issue. They have confirmed that everything that is in their portion is their own handwriting and that no one else has tampered with it or added anything to it. And that also is confirmed by the handwriting expert when she has looked at the portions written by, for example, Dragan Jokic, or Drago Nikolic and various people. That's part of their expertise is determining that it's not written by any other people, so in the sections that we've determined to be written by a person, that's -- would not be 8954 possible.
In the other sections, where we don't know who has written, I guess theoretically that's always a possibility. You'll see as you look at the notebook, however, that you don't see that there are pages torn out, you don't see things that are crossed out or whited out. You'll see that things are spaced as though they were writing contemporaneously throughout the notebook.
And if I can add, that it has been a notebook that has been used not only by the witnesses themselves who wrote in the book but many other people from the Zvornik Brigade, commanders on down, who have relied upon the book for its accuracy, and at no time has it been determined that the book has been tampered with.
Q. Thank you. I asked you if the OTP established if anything was added later. Perhaps you can just help me with this so that I can use the ten minutes that I was granted by His Honour the Presiding Judge. Thank you.
A. The only thing that the OTP has determined that has been added later has been the parts in pencil. It's been the dates in pencil and a couple of the notations of the duty officer that Dragan Obrenovic had stated to us that he had added in.
Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor asked you on page 6924 who changed the date of the 12th of July, and you replied, on page 70, that this was changed and estimated -- and the change was estimated to be on the basis of a change. This is ERN number 0293-5731. If it's hard to find your way around, perhaps everybody can look in the e-court. That will be 8955 easier for everybody. If you can look at pages 12, 13 in the e-court, thank you.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Those, the ERN pages would be 14 and 15 in e-court.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would you kindly show pages 12 and 13 in the e-court because it will be obvious to all of us who are looking at that. In a short time I will show what I would like to show. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: However, this is a different ERN number than you indicated earlier. But it's on the screen now. You may put the question to the witness.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I mentioned the number deliberately because it's difficult to see the difference in the dates on page 530 that we are looking at now -- actually, 730, we can see the first entry, and underneath that we can see that it says "Order" using the same ink, and then we see what the measures are that are ordered.
But then if we look at the contents, Ms. Gallagher, of this first thing at 1910 hours, it says, "Enemy radio activated," and so on and so forth. And then there is an order that follows: "Take all measures of combat security." And then in the same ink, it says: "Absence of the commander is still not permitted."
This entry was made, according to this, before the 12th, allegedly, it was entered on the 11th and you can see the time, 19:19:19, and then later you can see 330 under those two paragraphs, and then at 8956 the bottom you can see the 12th of July.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should put a question to the witness.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. My question is: Ms. Gallagher, why is the break between this information about enemy activity and the order that relates to the same event, to the same ink, and to the same person, and it was written at such and such a time but it was transferred to this other side where it says 1900 hours? I'm sorry, actually it's not 1200 hours, it says the 12th of July.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The short question is: Why?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right. As I mentioned before, I am assuming that it was determined that the -- that it became the 12th of July at the point of these orders only because it has been the pattern that the orders and requests have happened later in the evening, past midnight, sometime before usually 5.00 in the morning. I do think, however, it's -- it would not be inappropriate to also have it down closer to the 0345 hours, but I think that is why it was determined that it was on -- that the time had already moved into the 12th of July because of the pattern of when orders have usually been issued, and the requests as well.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you, Ms. Gallagher. This information that is written at the beginning where enemy activity is discussed require the urgent issuance of measures by the person who received it, or is it necessary to wait a whole night before anything can happen? Wouldn't it be more 8957 logical that the same person noted this down at the same time because it was a matter of urgency? And it's the same handwriting, the dates are not different.
A. No, I do agree with you; I think that is a possibility.
Q. Thank you. My next question is: Were all the entries authorised by the duty officers for the critical dates? Thank you.
A. And if I can ask, what do you mean by "authorised by the duty officers"?
Q. Thank you. It means that they signed it, that they handed over their duty that day and that they verified that they made the entries on that day so that they would not be ascribed to someone else. Thank you.
A. You -- as you see from the duty officer notebook that they are not signing in that, so it's not being authorised in the notebook itself with their signatures or the time that they turned it over. We have relied upon their statements and testimony, usually, for when they have turned the duty over to the next duty officer or to an assistant duty officer.
Q. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question, if it's possible.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. The last one.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask Ms. Gallagher if she knew if any handwriting analysis was done on the parts of the handwritings for the critical dates, for the 8958 critical times, and for the critical entries. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It might be a bit subjective as to which are the critical dates and times and entries but certainly you'll see from the notebook and from the -- from Dr. Kate Barr's reports that many of the key dates of times or dates when we didn't know who the duty officer was or were unsure or wanted that confirmation, those dates and those -- that handwriting was analysed.
Q. Thank you. Could you please answer with a yes or a no because we are out of time. Thank you.
A. Well, the handwriting -- it's a difficult "yes" or "no" question. The handwriting analysis was done on those critical dates and times where the duty officer -- where we didn't know or were not sure who the -- who had written it. Where we did know who had written it, then the handwriting analysis was not necessary because they told us that they -- they identified it as their own handwriting, so it's both yes and no.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think now is an appropriate time to adjourn. You have put the first questions to the witness in cross-examination and sometime next year it should be continued and the parties will agree on the appropriate time. We adjourn, but --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. There is no need. We have finished our cross-examination. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir. Mr. McCloskey, do you have re-examination?
MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, Ms. Gallagher, you are free to 8959 return to your normal activities, work for the OTP, and I wish you a good break time during Christmas and New Year's Eve. You are free now to leave the courtroom. We all do that now, we adjourn and resume tomorrow in the afternoon at 2.15 in this courtroom.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of
December 2010, at 2.15 p.m.