¹⁴⁶⁵⁶ Thursday, 26 May 2011

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom. My apologies for the delayed start. I was involved in another meeting and couldn't be here in time.

The witness should be brought in, please.

[The witness takes the stand]

WITNESS: DUSAN JANC [Resumed]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Janc.

THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome back to the courtroom. I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth still applies.

Mr. Tolimir is continuing his cross-examination. Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. May peace reign in this house, and I wish that today's court proceedings end as God wills and not as I do.

I would like to wish a good afternoon to Mr. Janc, and we will continue where we left off yesterday.

Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. We saw a photograph yesterday of Tolimir in a civilian suit and ¹⁴⁶⁵⁷ civilian clothing. Can you please tell us if that was broadcast, published, a year after the Zepa events, and are there any electronic records of that on a tape or anything like that? Thank you.

A. Actually, I don't know exactly when it was broadcasted, but my understanding is that it was broadcasted immediately after these Zepa events. So I would say around July 1995.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P2240 so that we can see if there is an electronic record there of when this footage was created.

[Video-clip played]

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. And have you heard the anchor of Television Sarajevo saying that this happened last year in July? Did you hear that part of the translation or did you see the quote? Thank you.

A. Yes, you're right, that's correct, I heard that.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you hear it in the Serbian language or in English?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I heard that in B/C/S language, so it was said like that, yes.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

[Video-clip played]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have finished with this segment of the footage, since the witness has seen that it was created a year after the events in Zepa. ¹⁴⁶⁵⁸

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is: You, as an investigator, did you perhaps find out where the Bosnia and Herzegovina Radio and Television obtained the footage P2240, and was the camera able to film it live on the 24th of July, 1995, at Boksanica, that particular segment showing Tolimir in civilian clothing? Thank you.

A. I would like to clarify first your quote that I said that it was created a year after the events of Zepa. I think I didn't say that. But from the video, itself, we can see that this portion -- this segment was broadcasted a year later. I'm still sure that the actual footage was created at the time when this event took place. That was on 24 of July, 1995. When it was first broadcasted, I don't know. This particular footage, yes, it was broadcasted a year later, but I'm sure that some other -- some other segments of this same footage were broadcasted already before.

And to answer your second part of the question, no, we have no information, and I think we haven't obtained from the Bosnia and Herzegovina Radio and Television when it was first broadcasted. This information was not on there letter, nor was there information about how they obtained this video included in it.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.

JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. Do you know the date on which it was broadcast?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this particular footage, I would assume, around July 1996, because it says a year -- one year ago, this ¹⁴⁶⁵⁹ and this happened at this point. So this particular footage was broadcasted at that time on BH Television.

JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Are you able to answer whether the Muslim television was able to film the events at the time they took place on the 24th of July, 1995, at Boksanica, at which occasion Tolimir was shown to be wearing civilian clothing? Were they able to come and to record this footage?

A. I don't know why -- to which Muslim television you're referring to. But if you mean BH Television, at that time I'm certain they were not able to film this event. There must have been some Serbian television involved in it, because we have evidence and we have other footages from Zepa from that point in time which were filmed by SRT, which is Radio/Television of Serbia, and also from the Television of the Republika Srpska at that time. Also, there is one footage from CNN from 25th of July, when that journalist from CNN was allowed to enter this area and interview General Mladic.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. And in this footage, did you at any time see General Tolimir in the suit that was shown in this footage of Exhibit P2204 [as interpreted]?

A. If you are now talking about the footage we have been just watching a few minutes ago, yes, we can see you there in a suit.

Q. Thank you. Did you see me in any other segment, other than that ¹⁴⁶⁶⁰ one? Did you see me on any other footage? Did you see Tolimir in civilian clothing in any other recordings, other than what we have seen in P2204 [as interpreted]? Thank you.

A. The only other one would be, I think, the one when you participated in Dayton Agreement. On that, I think, that video, we can see you in a suit. But apart from those two, I don't have any recollection that you are wearing suits. You're always in uniform.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: One clarification for the record. Mr. Tolimir, are you referring to P2204 or P2240?

I see Mr. Gajic on his feet. Mr. Gajic.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, good afternoon to all. It's a mistake in the transcript. We were thinking of P2240.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was not a problem of the transcript. We heard the interpretation. Thank you.

Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Q. Mr. Janc, was this footage, P2240 that we just looked at, submitted to any kind of expertise or any kind of check as to whether it's authentic material or whether the material is not authentic, whether it was perhaps edited and the image of Tolimir in the civilian suit was inserted into the material? Thank you.

A. No, the answer would be, no, we haven't asked any expert for this expertise to be done.

Q. Thank you. Could you please state for the transcript whether you personally checked the authenticity of this footage, P2240? ¹⁴⁶⁶¹

A. Yes, I would say yes, because authenticity can be checked through different means, and there are different ways to check it. One of those would be asking the witnesses who participated in this event if this is real footage of what was going on, and I think we have about -- the confirmation from Mr. Hamdija Torlak, who participated at this meeting, that this footage is authentic. The other way would be, you know, what you can see on video, on what you can hear there. And so we can see Mladic signing a piece of paper, and we were able to locate that agreement from 24th of July, 1995, agreement on disarmament of able-bodied men from Zepa, and this is actually the paper which was signed there. So there are different ways of authentication, and this is what we have done in respect to this video.

[Defence counsel confers]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should switch off your microphone if you have an internal discussion.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Mr. Janc, was Mr. Torlak asked, during his testimony, whether Tolimir is shown in the image and whether this footage was authentic? I think you testified yesterday that no one was asked that question. Thank you.

A. I think he was asked for both things. Actually, he was explaining the meeting on 24 of July, and then he was presented this video, and he confirmed that this is, indeed, the video or the meeting which took place on the 24 of July.

Q. Mr. Janc, there is no incrimination here. All I'm asking you to ¹⁴⁶⁶² do is to tell us the truth as to what happened so we don't have to speculate.

I'm going to ask now to show an insert of the footage on Avdo Palic, and that is the number --

THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask the accused to repeat the number.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the testimony of Mr. Torlak is in our transcript of our hearing. The witness was not present, but you were present, and the Chamber, and representatives of the OTP. Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon to you.

In addition to the objection that I would raise to the manner in when he put the question to Mr. Janc, saying something about whether or not it's incriminating or for Mr. Janc to tell the truth, I would object to that because I think Mr. Janc's reputation is clear in front of this Tribunal as having told the truth with respect to everything he's testified about. But I would add and reiterate my objection to the extent that I believe that General Tolimir is obligated, under Rule 90(H)(2), to the extent that he is insinuating or asserting that the footage in question is -- has been doctored or has been manipulated in some sense, if that's his position, to put that to the witness, to make that claim. To the extent that he has a good-faith basis to do it, it's appropriate for him to do that, but he is obligated to do that to the extent that he asserts, he contradicts the position of this witness under ¹⁴⁶⁶³ our Rules of Procedure.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were asked by the Prosecutor to put your position to the witness before you put -- ask such a question. What is your position?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I also thank the Prosecutor.

I'm saying -- what I meant to say is that it wasn't incriminating, as far as I was concerned. It can be incriminating only in relation to somebody who's shown in the footage. It does not refer to the witness at all, so the objection is not grounded. I did not mean to imply any kind of incrimination of Mr. Janc. I just did mention to the witness to speak the truth, and this is also something that you asked the witness to do. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time, just to clarify the legal background, I would like to read into the record the Rule Mr. Vanderpuye has mentioned. This is Rule 90(H)(2). I quote:

"In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel," and in that case you are counsel, Mr. Tolimir, "shall put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom that counsel appears which is in contradiction to the evidence given by the witness." Taking that into account, the Prosecutor asked you to tell the witness first if you are saying that this video is fabricated and your appearance in the video was inserted.

You may consult your legal assistant. ¹⁴⁶⁶⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. There is no need. The Defence believes that the footage is not authentic, that the footage in which Tolimir appears in civilian clothing at the meeting with representatives of Zepa. I would just kindly ask for answers to my questions, and I have now stated the position of the Defence.

May I now continue with my questions, because I have a lot of other questions that are more important than this irrelevant question. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: If this is an irrelevant question, you shouldn't put it to the witness, Mr. Tolimir. That would be a waste of court time. Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. There are actually two aspects to this issue. One is if it's the Defence position that General Tolimir is not wearing the blue suit, as we can see in the video, and the second is whether General Tolimir is asserting that he's not present in the video, blue suit or not, which goes both to the issue of alibi as well as to the issues raised under Rule 90(H)(2). It would be helpful to know what the Defence position is in respect of that.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir is counsel to explain the position. I think this is not a question you should address the Court, Mr. Gajic, at least not without an application of your client.

[Defence counsel confers] ¹⁴⁶⁶⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. When I said that earlier, what I meant was the question that was being put to me by the Prosecutor, because that was not relevant. What we're talking about here is only the authenticity of the footage, and not the topic of the role of Tolimir at the meeting or the role he had at a meeting with representatives of the Muslims. All I'm speaking about at this point is the authenticity of the footage, not about the authenticity of the events or the participants and so on and so forth. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we are all talking about the authenticity of this footage, if it was fabricated or if it is recording a real scene which happened. The Prosecutor asked you if it is your position that this was fabricated and your appearance was inserted. That was the question of the Prosecutor. I don't think, in light of the Rules, that this is irrelevant.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure I understand what is it that you're insisting on, but I clearly said the footage of myself in civilian clothes is not authentic. I don't want to discuss the issue of editing or not editing. I'm just saying it's not an authentic film. Allow me please to put the question, and the Chamber will have an opportunity to reach its decision. We can speak about it for three hours, otherwise.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And may I can make it a bit clearer for General Tolimir, and that is: If he's asserting that the film, which shows him in a blue suit, is ¹⁴⁶⁶⁶ fabricated, there are two issues that arise from this. Is the nature of the fabrication that he alleges the fact that it's a blue suit that he appears in or is the nature of the fabrication the fact that he appears in the video at all? And the reason why that's important is: one, that it's mandated under the Rules to the extent that it contradicts this witness's testimony, that he put to the witness that that is his position as to one, or the other, or both, or something else altogether; and the second reason why it's important is because, to the extent that he may intend to assert an alibi defence concerning his presence as depicted in the video, that is something that he's also required to disclose to the Prosecution in advance of raising such a defence under our Rules. So it's important for General Tolimir to put to this witness what his position is, either, I'm not there, or, I'm not wearing a blue suit, or, This isn't the 24th of July in Boksanica, whatever his case may be, but it is essential and required under the Rules that he put this to the witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Please, if it's necessary to waste time on objections, I can understand that, but Tolimir clearly stated that the footage is not authentic, the footage of him being shown at that meeting in civilian clothes. I don't know what is it that the Prosecutor wants from me. I also asked the witness whether he had checked all the films, had he seen it earlier in some footage, because he wasn't there. I must ask him about these things because he was not the participant of the events. ¹⁴⁶⁶⁷ He's telling us that Torlak confirmed it. We will go through Torlak's transcript, and we will see whether Torlak said that this was authentic footage or did he only say, This is Tolimir, after he was shown this person. Please allow me to do that. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think you don't understand the position of the Prosecution because you are not responding to that. I would like to refer you to page 5, lines 18 through 21, of today's transcript. I quote:

"Was this footage submitted to any kind of expertise or any kind of check as to whether it's authentic material or whether the material is not authentic, whether it was perhaps edited and the image of Tolimir in the civilian suit was inserted into the material?"

That was the question. And in relation to that part, Mr. Vanderpuye raised his concern.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Vanderpuye?

MR. VANDERPUYE: I think you've got it correct, Mr. President. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, is it your position that your appearance in the video was inserted?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I still don't understand what is it that you insist upon. I asked a question whether Tolimir, in civilian clothes, was inserted into the footage. You're asking me to elaborate my question. Maybe then it would be better for me to go and testify than the witness, who wasn't present or an eye-witness to the events. I thought I clearly asked what is it that I would like to ¹⁴⁶⁶⁸ hear.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should consult your legal adviser. He is assisting you in legal matters. This is a legal matter. We are dealing here with Rule 90 of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and it is not just a question of going on with the examination of the witness, but it's a legal matter if you are conducting your cross-examination according to the Rules. You should consult with your legal adviser.

[Defence counsel confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we are saying that the footage is not authentic, the footage of myself in a blue suit. We are not entering into any other issues there, whether someone was or was not there, because this witness was not an eye-witness to the event. I just put the question that you read to me a moment ago, had he seen Tolimir in other footage wearing the same clothes, the clothes that we can see in P2440 [as interpreted]. I don't understand what I'm supposed to be doing now; answering the questions put by the Prosecutor?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you're in a difficult situation because you're not a lawyer. This is understandable. You are representing yourself, but you have a legal adviser. If he doesn't or is not able to assist you in this matter, I would like to put a question to the witness to resolve the situation.

Mr. Janc, have you ever checked if those who were in the possession of the video, this specific part of the footage was edited in a way that persons were inserted or deleted from this footage? Do you have any knowledge about that? ¹⁴⁶⁶⁹

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I can -- I can say that we, as testified, obtained this same footage from three different sources, one in 2000 already, the second one in 2009 or 2010, and the last one just recently. The only source for checking that would be the last one which we obtained from BH Radio/Television, so I'm not sure if on that letter which they provided to us it is specified anything about the authenticity. But other than that, no, we haven't checked the issue of the editing. And as regard to the authenticity, I think I was -- I made myself clear before, how we can assess the authenticity of the video, itself.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: What kind of material did you receive, as the OTP? Was it a CD, a DVD, was it a video-tape, VHC cassette? I'm referring to all the material you have received.

THE WITNESS: Yes. For the first time which we received in 2000, this is documentary on Avdo Palic story, that one was on VHS tape. The second source was YouTube, so I downloaded it electronically from that source. So the third source, the BiH Television provided it to us on a CD as well, I think.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: The so-called documentary on the Avdo Palic story, as you called it, you mentioned it already yesterday, can you tell us about the producer of this documentary, who made that, who broadcasted it, where was it broadcast? What is your knowledge about that?

THE WITNESS: The author of this documentary is Swiss Television, and the person -- the director of this documentary was Beltrami, Marco, I believe. And we contacted him through e-mail in order to clarify this ¹⁴⁶⁷⁰ specific segment. And as I testified, inside -- within the documentary, when you are watching it, there is this segment going on on a television, and this is commented by Dr. Mehmed Heljic during the documentary. So this segment of Tolimir being in a blue suit is going on on a television, and the camera is filming this portion of video. And what I asked Mr. Beltrami, or my colleague asked him, was if he is in possession of the VHS tape which is going on -- which is rolling on on a television, and his answer was, no, he's not in a possession of this video-tape, and his recollection was that at the time when they were filming this portion of the documentary together with Mr. Mehmed Heljic, that he was in possession of this VHS tape.

I contacted Mr. Heljic, I think, two years ago or a year ago in order to ask him this question, if he is in possession of this VHS tape, and his answer was no, and also he was having no recollection, either, who was the originator of the tape at the time when the documentary was made.

So I've got no independent information, nor from the director of the documentary, nor from Mr. Mehmed Heljic, where this tape which was broadcasted on the TV might have been at the time, so we didn't get that tape. And what we have used for these proceedings here was then just the segment which we can see on the documentary, itself.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you, or somebody on your behalf, check this video-tape physically if there were any manipulations?

THE WITNESS: I was having this tape of -- on documentary on Avdo Palic in my hand. It's not a normal VHS tape. It's a smaller ¹⁴⁶⁷¹ format of this tape. But we haven't -- we haven't sent this tape to any experts, because according to the director of the film, that's the documentary which they have made. And it was at that time publicly available, so I'm not sure where exactly it was broadcasted, but it was publicly available.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification. Mr. Tolimir, continue your questioning, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Janc.

Could we please now see a sequence from the film about Avdo Palic, 65 ter 365.

[Video-clip played]

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Mr. Janc, can you please tell us whether the footage of Tolimir in a blue suit was something taken from the show on Avdo Palic? And I'm talking about the segment that was recorded in the house of the former war president of Zepa, the footage that we just saw on our screens. And could you also tell us whether this was included into the compilation P740?

A. So this is the footage I was talking a few minutes ago on the questions by -- on the question by Judge, so this is actually the documentary on Avdo Palic, and the segment, when we can see that Dr. Mehmed Heljic is watching television and is commenting on this video. Next to a TV, you can see that the light is blinking, and I assume that this is VHS recorder. And, yes, we have taken exactly this segment to ¹⁴⁶⁷² put it into our trial compilation video.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the number, 65 ter 365, is wrong. It is not this document, this film we have seen on the screen just now. Please give us the right number.

Mr. Gajic.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a 65 ter 3465.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this correction. Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Janc.

Could we please now see P2239 in e-court.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are you tendering the last video we have seen on the screen?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 3465 shall be assigned Exhibit D267. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the video was received by the Chamber, but the Registry needs a CD of it. It's not in the possession of it yet, and, therefore, at the moment it's only marked for identification, until you will give a CD of it.

Mr. Gajic.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we will submit it either today or, at the latest, tomorrow, and then this issue will be settled. Thank you. ¹⁴⁶⁷³

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Tolimir.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is off.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. Mr. Janc, would you please look at the document on the screen. This is a document by their Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina, sent on the 11th of March this year. And then we see, under "Subject," your reference, "03/1-05-4-26/11 of 2 February 2011." So this is a response to a request put by the OTP. And it is stated here clearly, and I will read:

"Referring to your paper as noted above, and the request for all video footage relating to Zepa in July 1995, please note that the State Investigative and Protection Agency sent relevant papers to ..." And then we have a number of shortened names of various institutions:

"... and TV Sarajevo with the request for their archives to be searched for the requested video footage, and for such video footage to be provided if possible."

And then they submitted the materials. And this is my question: Did the OTP ask this from the TV of Bosnia and Herzegovina after Mr. Torlak testified or not? And Mr. Torlak testified on the 25th of August until the 6th of September, 2010.

A. So my answer would be, yes, it's self-evident that this was after he testified. ¹⁴⁶⁷⁴

Q. Does that mean that the OTP had in its possession the footage of a person in a blue suit even before Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted the video materials referred to in the document on the screen?

A. The OTP had in its possession the video of Avdo Palic's story, the documentary, which it obtained in 2000, and also the two segments from YouTube before Hamdija Torlak testified here in The Hague in this Tribunal -- in these proceedings.

Q. Thank you. Can you please explain what YouTube is, and who can put footage on YouTube?

A. Yes. YouTube is publicly-available source on internet where everybody can put their videos on it, so everybody can put their videos on this source, and also then download it -- download them from this source.

Q. Thank you. The footage taken from YouTube, can they be described as proof of authenticity of an event or could they be anything else?

A. I would say they can be anything. But in this case, I downloaded them just to corroborate the other video from 2000 and to compare those two if they are -- they are the same.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to interrupt you again. I'm sorry about that. But in relation to the video from the Avdo Palic documentary, there are more administrative problems. First, there was no transcript up-loaded into e-court. That should be done by the Defence and forwarded to the Registry. And the surrogate sheet the Registry received has the wrong number. It indicates that it should relate to an Exhibit P3465, but this is the 65 ter number. ¹⁴⁶⁷⁵ This is a mixture of two different numbers. We need a clear record of that. Please help the Registry to have a record of all documents and videos in an appropriate way. It must remain MFI'd until this problem is solved.

Mr. Gajic.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since we identified the segment of the video footage only last night, we will do it today, and I believe by Monday everything will be cleared up. And the 65 ter number is an OTP 65 ter number, so maybe there was just a typo in their document. I assume that is the cause of it, and nothing else. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not quite sure if this is correct.

[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It seems to be a typo, indeed, made by the Prosecution. Thank you very much. I hope that will be resolved just in order to have a clear record which document we are referring to when we are dealing with it.

Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Janc. I apologise to you again. The Prosecutor believed that I'm questioning your credibility, but I was really discussing only the authenticity of the footage, and I also believe that this is not very important either for the case or for myself.

And I would like to continue now, or we can do it after the break and to discuss your report. ¹⁴⁶⁷⁶ Could we please have P170. It's a report drafted by Mr. Janc of the 21st of April, 2010. Thank you. It's entitled "Summary of Forensic Evidence, Exhumation of Mass Graves, April 2010."

Mr. President, I just wanted to ask whether the Prosecution want to conduct its re-examination now, but then you told me that it's not time for a break now before we move to a different topic. But still maybe the Prosecutor would like to state its position on this.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you want to move to the other part of your cross-examination? Is that your intention?

Thank you very much. Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have understood General Tolimir's position. We have no redirect examination concerning the video material.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that both parties agree that this concludes the testimony of Mr. Janc in relation to the authenticity of video footage.

MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this is also the position of the Defence, I take it.

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. We have nearly half an hour left before the first break. You should continue with your cross-examination in relation to exhumations. Mr. Tolimir. ¹⁴⁶⁷⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We can see on the screen the front page of this report. It's Exhibit P170. Can we please see the contents so that the witness could use it to refresh his recollection.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. This is my question: You used the term "victims," referring both to those people who were buried in mass graves and to those whose remains were found on the surface. In relation to this, could you please describe what did you refer to when you used the term "victims"?

A. Yes, I will repeat what I think I already described in relation to my testimony on this issue.

The victim was the person who was killed or died in other circumstances after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa enclave.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Does your report -- or is your report neutral in the sense of description whether a person was killed in combat or was killed in an unlawful way?

A. My report, itself, presents the numbers of the individuals so far identified from the graves which are mass graves, then individual graves, and also those who were found on a surface, and both categories of these victims are included in my report. I testified, and I was clear, I think, during my testimony so far, that we can find the combat casualties within the category of surface remains.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc, but I think you didn't answer my question. Is your position neutral; namely, that these people could either be victims or casualties of combat? How can we reconcile this? And did you ¹⁴⁶⁷⁸ devote specific attention to this issue in your report so that one can see it clearly? Thank you.

A. I will try to respond, but it's not easy, of course, and that's why it wasn't easy to say in my report, yes, that many victims was killed in combat and that many victims are victims of a crime, and that's why I'm making distinction between those who are found in those mass graves and those found on a surface. And I think I was quite neutral in -- when deciding about this issue. Although we have in total, I think, around 700 victims found on a surface, and we can clearly conclude that most of them were victims of combat, we will never know the exact number how many of them were, indeed, victims of the combat, how many of the crimes, and how many of some other acts like suicides or other different causes of death.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. During the examination-in-chief, you presented the position that all the persons who were buried in mass graves were victims of unlawful actions. On page 2027 of the transcript, line 21, to page 2028, line 2, in response to:

"Q. What's the number of people who were killed in combat and what's the number of people who died as a result of unlawful activities?" You said:

"I'd say most of them were killed as a result of unlawful activities. They were executed by shooting, and those who were found in mass graves are part of that category. Those who were found on surface, for the majority of them we were not able to determine what really happened to those people. We will consider them casualties that fell in ¹⁴⁶⁷⁹ combat."

And this is my question: Do you only consider the 688 persons that you found in surface graves as casualties of combat or do you also consider that there are people in mass graves who were also victims or casualties caused by combat?

A. I would say that most of the people, if not all of them -- or, rather, the victims found in mass graves were victims of the crime; they were executed. And not all of those which were found on the surface were casualties of combat, either. We know that some of them were executed, killed, and left on a surface, and that's where they were found. Some of them committed suicides and were not killed in combat, so we can't say that all of these 688 persons which are found on a surface were all killed in combat. The number would be lower for those killed in combat, based on what we have -- what we know now, based on how many identified individuals we have right now. Of course, this number will raise for a few more victims in the future, but proportionally speaking, it will be the same. Most of them we can consider they're combat, although we'll never know how many, exactly, were killed in combat. But I'm talking about those found on surface. But when we are speaking about those found in mass graves, so we have a lot of evidence talking and proving that they were executed, killed.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. As an investigator, did you separate the evidence concerning those who were killed or executed and those who were killed in combat so that the trier of fact would be able to take a position on the basis of your report instead of seeing it as a neutral ¹⁴⁶⁸⁰ category, namely, somebody can be victim of combat or victim of execution? Did you do that on purpose, maybe?

A. No, nothing was on purpose, but in order to stay neutral on this thing. And when I'm saying that it's not possible, it wasn't possible, and that most probably it won't be possible never to say exactly how many of those found on a surface were killed in combat. I couldn't put the exact number in my report, and then I just put the section of surface remains. I am clarifying it right now, and I clarified during my examination-in-chief and with cross-examination, what those people found on a surface represent.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Please tell us whether you can tell us about three or five persons -- at least can you tell us whether you actually have witnesses who would testify to how these people had gotten killed, or did you just mix all that up in your report without being able to clearly show which ones died in combat and which were executed?

A. We have many statements of those people, and not only statements. Some of those individuals also testified here in this trial in relation to how they survived certain executions and how their colleagues were killed. And when they named these individuals, I was able to identify them. Actually, not me, personally, but the ICMP identified them, and I was able to locate them in their report, and I put their names into my -- into my report. So there are statements which were reviewed by me, and not only statements, also other documents, evidence, have been taken into consideration in order to conclude certain -- certain things.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Now we're going to look at some of your ¹⁴⁶⁸¹ documents, some evidence. In your statement, you say that a total of 688 persons' surface remains were identified.

Can we please look at page 60 in the B/C/S version and page 43 in the English version, please.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Of the document P170, I take it. Correct?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you. Can you please now look at that? In the report, it's not clear that you separated or distinguished between the victims of combat and other types of victims.

Can we now look at D168, please. This is the testimony of Mr. Butler in the Popovic case. He was a Prosecution expert witness. In response to a question:

"Do you know that there are witnesses who say that there were, in fact, 1.000 to 2.000 people from the column who died as a result of these combat engagements? Are you aware of that?"

Mr. Butler replied: "As a gross period from 12 to 18 July?

"Q. Correct. "A. I'm not. I'm not aware of the specific number, but that particular number sounds reasonable, given the context of the combat that I'm aware of."

And if you see that that Prosecution expert witness agreed that there were people who died in combat, and that he considers that number to be a reasonable number, isn't that number greater than 688 that you ¹⁴⁶⁸² cited in your report as the total number of remains of persons found?

A. I was shown this exact portion of Mr. Butler's testimony during cross-examination when I testified in Popovic case, and my answer now will be the same as it was in that case: that according to my analysis and my report, where we can see that so far 688 individuals is identified, which were found on a surface, that we can say that the total number, because we know that this is not the last number yet, the number will grow, and in total, when sometime in the future the whole exhumation and the identification process will be finished in Bosnia, will be closer to 1.000, not to 2.000. So I will say that more -- that my numbers here included in my report are more correct than just estimate which was given by Mr. Butler, because in my report you have actual names and we can count these individuals by names. We can see in Butler's report is just a rough estimate. So my response would be that the total number, it will be final, it will be closer to 1.000, not 2.000 individuals.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: You need your microphone, Mr. Tolimir.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. I apologise. That number, was it calculated only on the basis of the documents that you wanted to take into account or was it done on the basis of all existing information at the disposal of the Prosecutor about the number of the victims and the manner and place of their execution? Thank you.

A. I've tried to take into consideration as many information, as many documents, as many evidence I was able to find, read, and I was ¹⁴⁶⁸³ trying to put everything together in order to come to this conclusion. And so far, I will repeat, on the surface there have been found around -- I will consult my report on page 6014, the ERN number is ending with this number. We have, in total, 961 surface remains cases collected from the ground until January 2010. So nowadays, we have a few more, so I would say around a thousand. And out of these 961 cases, 688 individuals have been identified so far, and these were a kind of leading information for me to conclude how many of them have been, indeed, found on surface and to come to a conclusion how many of them might be find [sic] also in the future. I would say not many more, because we don't have that many unidentified cases anymore which were collected from the ground.

Q. Mr. Janc, these 688 persons that were identified, did you place them in the graves -- in lists and in your records as victims of executions or did you record them separately in your reports? Thank you.

A. They were recorded separately. In addition to 688 individuals which were found on the surface, we have - and I will again consult my report, page 5 - we have 5.777 individuals which were identified in graves. Then we have also one category which I put under "Others," where we have 76 individuals. So all those together would be the total number so far identified.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. And all those 5.777 that were buried in graves, do you consider all of them as having been killed outside of combat? Thank you.

A. Yes, I think that I already answered that most of them, if not all of them, were, indeed, killed or executed. Why I'm saying "most, if ¹⁴⁶⁸⁴ not at all," I can explain, because here, Glogova is the big issue, because we know that most of them there, again, are the victims from Kravica execution. Apart from that, we also know that some bodies were taken from other locations which were picked up along the road, the Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road. I think a victim testified here about this procedure going on. And so those were also brought into the same grave. And for those victims which were, according to this individual, around 15 or 30 of them in total, we can't say if they were killed in combat or were executed. That's why I'm saying most of them, if not all of them, are victims of the execution in these mass graves.

Q. Mr. Janc, are you thinking of Protected Witness PW-064 when you say this? Thank you.

A. It's difficult for me to say because I don't -- I don't know the individual witnesses by these numbers. But I believe you are right, so -- but I would rather check the name of the individual, if possible.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you would like to give the real name of that person, we could go into private session, Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. There is no need, Mr. President. Perhaps he can just look at the transcript page of the 28th of April, 2011. This is page 13445. And the question and the answer of that witness, page 13445, lines 6 to 12. The question is:

"Based on all the information available to you, do you know whether there was a total of 400 to 500 people from Kravica buried there and 50 from Konjevic Polje?" ¹⁴⁶⁸⁵ And he replied, this is PW-064, his answer:

"I said that in my estimate, between 400 and 500 persons were buried while I was there. If there were 50 there from Konjevic Polje from the school, that would mean that there were between 400 and 450 from Kravica."

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that the witness you are thinking of, and his testimony, and is that what you referred to just now in your answer? Thank you.

A. Yes, exactly.

Q. And have you just seen that the witness is not talking about 20, but a higher number of bodies that were brought and buried together with those who died in Kravica? Thank you.

A. If I remember correctly, this witness was not quite sure how many victims, exactly, was picked up on the road, but what he was sure, that there was one truck of victims brought back to Kravica, and they were picked up along the road, also in Konjevic Polje, and brought back to Glogova and buried there. When I was talking about that I'm not certain about how many of those, 30 to 50, if he put it that number, was casualties of combat, I was thinking particularly on those who were picked up along the road. Because I think that also this witness was quite clear that the victims found in Konjevic Polje, they were killed there. So we cannot talk about those being killed in combat, so my concern was just about those who were picked up along the road. So not the whole truck which was -- which brought the victims back to Glogova grave were victims of combat, if any at all. ¹⁴⁶⁸⁶

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think now it's time for our first break.

We adjourn, and we'll resume quarter past 4.00.

--- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

--- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please show D166 in e-court. This is the testimony of Jean-Rene Ruez in the Krstic case, dated the 14th of March, 2000, page 595, which says that in the Bare village sector, as we can see in the first line, the Finnish pathologist team found five bodies.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is this: The number which Mr. Ruez mentions is smaller for 80 than the one you mentioned in your report as the number of those 688, so the number is smaller for 80. My question is this: Did these persons whose mortal remains were found in the Bare village identified by DNA analysis? Thank you.

A. I'll just correct the transcript, because you asked about 600 bodies, and in the transcript we see five bodies. Then we discussed this same issue already before, but if you want, I can clarify once more. The Bare area is the area behind Kravica warehouse. It is part of the area which, in my report, is referred as Pobudje area in surface remains section of my report. And in that area, so far 558 individuals have been identified. The number you referred to as 688 is the total number of surface remains, but as I discussed in my report, I emphasised ¹⁴⁶⁸⁷ that I categorised surface remains in three different areas. Actually four, sorry. And in Pobudje area, there is, so far, 558 individuals identified as being found on the surface, and, yes, they were all identified through DNA. And when Mr. Ruez was referring here to 600 bodies, and the Finnish team, actually, I still don't -- I'm still not sure when did he get this number, from which report or from which source. But I was able to review this Finnish report, and inside that report we have a number of 30, so 3-0, bodies which were collected by their team in 1996. In addition to that, they have examined, according to their report, 250 to 300 victims or bodies which were collected by the BiH authorities at that time from this same area. So in total, what they examined at that time, according to their report, would be around 300 victims or bodies. So this would be the correct number which I can find from the documents, from the reports, so I'm not quite sure when Mr. Ruez found the number of 600 bodies.

Q. Thank you. After this, I'm not sure at all what is in your report and what in Mr. Ruez's report. Can you please tell us, in one sentence, whether these 600 bodies were found, and if not, how many of the bodies examined by the Finnish team were found? Can you please tell us the exact number? Thank you.

A. Okay. By Finnish team, 30 bodies have been picked up, collected, from the ground in 1996. In addition, that same year around 250 bodies have been collected by the BH. So we have 300 bodies, or body parts, or whatever, so 300. Throughout the years, so it means from 1996 up until the end of 2009, additional surface remains were collected from this ¹⁴⁶⁸⁸ area, and that's why, in my report, the total number is 558 so far identified. So it means the bodies which were collected from this area, from 1996 up until the end of 2009. When the Finnish team was there in 1996, only about 300 bodies were collected at that time. So in addition now we have double number, so because I already emphasised several times that this number is growing over the years. So I hope I made myself much clearer now.

Q. Mr. Janc, this reviewing of information which Mr. Ruez presented, was it reviewed information which he presented when he said that 600 bodies had been found? Thank you.

A. I won't say it's a revision of his number, but I would say that the number we have right now, it's much more accurate because we have the actual names. So when Mr. Ruez testified back in -- I don't see here when it was, but somewhere around 2002, 2003, I --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact, in the year 2000, as Mr. Tolimir indicated at the beginning with this document, the 14th of March, 2000.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Back then, you know, he was not having the exact information for sure how many bodies have been collected from the ground. I assume this was just an estimate. Why? Because the actual DNA identification of these individuals started in November of 2001, and my report includes the individuals which were identified by the DNA, so which was done later, after 2000, when he testified. And I think that he referred here to 600 bodies as an estimate, as a rough number of how many bodies have been collected up until that time, and we know that up until that time, many bodies have been collected from this area. ¹⁴⁶⁸⁹ We can perhaps take a look into the spreadsheet which was provided to us by the BiH Commission on Missing Persons, and which is having an ERN number and is listed in my report as 0 -- X0189696, and we'll see the actual table how many bodies have been collected every year, or I would say pieces of bodies. So we can calculate, based on that number, how many bodies have been collected up until 2000.

Q. Mr. Janc, can you please look at what is in front of you now and what Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez stated as a witness. He said at the time that: "This area has been processed in 1996 by a team of experts from Finland who were operating in that area in 1996, totally disconnected from our activities, they were collecting surface remains. But it's important to note that 600 bodies have been collected in that area." So he says precisely that, and he said that this has been processed:

"These are bodies of victims killed in combat, in ambushes, in shelling, and possibly also in other circumstances which are impossible to sort out between ..."

And then there's a dash, something not clear. "... I mean, for us, at least, between combat and other situations."

My question to you is the following: Where were you in 1996, and were you working for the OTP when Jean-Rene Ruez worked as an investigator for this Tribunal and this Prosecutor's Office in the field? Thank you.

A. Back then in 1996, I was not employed here, but I worked for the ¹⁴⁶⁹⁰ police in Republic of Slovenia.

Q. Thank you. On the basis of what are you then denying and saying that these are estimates which Mr. Ruez mentioned, and he says that these have been processed? Have you read Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez's reports on these activities and the way how these 600 victims who were found at the time in 1996 were processed?

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been looking rather carefully at the transcript that General Tolimir has put to the witness, but I do not see in the transcript that Mr. Ruez has said that the 600 bodies he refers to were recovered in 1996. He's testifying in 2000, and he says: "It's important to note that 600 bodies have been collected in that area."

But it is not clear, from this passage, at least, that these bodies were recovered in 1996 or between 1996 and 2000, which is when he was testifying. So if General Tolimir has some other information to clarify that issue, I think it would be appropriate before he puts the question to the witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think you have a reason to rephrase your question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in line 8 in both the English and the Serbian versions, there is a sentence which says: "This area has been processed in 1996 by a team of experts from Finland ..." ¹⁴⁶⁹¹ And in line 12 in both English and Serbian, it says: "But it's important to note that 600 bodies have been collected in that area."

So he's talking about the year 1996. I'm asking Mr. Janc where he was in 1996. I don't know why this is inappropriate. He answered that he was not working for the Tribunal at that time. I'm just quoting what Mr. Ruez testified as a witness.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the objection of Mr. Vanderpuye was not in relation to the occupation of Mr. Janc in 1996, but the way you put this information from Mr. Ruez' testimony in 2000 to the witness. And now you read out a part of it, but you left out a certain portion. And for a better understanding for that, you should read that. And I quote:

"This area has been processed in 1996 by a team of experts from Finland who were operating in that area in 1996, totally disconnected from our activities, they were collecting surface remains. But it's important to note that 600 bodies have been collected in that area." Whatever that means, but I think there's no need to discuss that any further.

Put your question in a slightly different way and take into account this specific formulation of Mr. Ruez.

Go ahead, please.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janc, did I quote to you from beginning to end what is noted here and what Mr. Ruez wrote, and did you have an occasion, as an ¹⁴⁶⁹² investigator, to read any notes about what he left to OTP when he left the OTP and concerning this event? Thank you.

A. Yes, I read this portion of his statement carefully several times, also now, and for me it's not clear, like it was emphasised by Mr. Vanderpuye. I'm not certain what he was actually having in mind. We would need to ask Mr. Ruez again if he was referring here to 1996 or to all bodies collected from 1996 up until the moment he testified. And also, yes, I was trying to locate any kind of report, information, internal memo, whatever would be on this 600 bodies from Mr. Ruez, so -- and I couldn't locate any of such official note, memo, or document. What I was able to find, though, was this report from a Finnish team, which I discussed a little bit earlier.

Q. Mr. Janc, does Mr. Ruez limit the 600 bodies to the location of Bare in his testimony? Can this be seen from the first two sentences which I quoted and which Presiding Judge Fluegge also quoted, or does this relate to the entire area, as you say?

A. Yes, I agree that he's referring to the Bare region, so again we would need a closer look into what he meant by "Bare," because I think you can -- it's not easy to find this place on a map. But I was able to locate it somehow, and I think it is behind the Kravica warehouse in this Kamenica area which is part of the Pobudje area, where we have the biggest number of surface remains collected.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Let us have a look at what another OTP investigator had to say about the very same event. This is the transcript of the 22nd of February, 2011, from this case, and the witness ¹⁴⁶⁹³ was Dean Manning. Let us look at page 10218, lines from 12 to 16. And before that, please tell us whether you know who Dean Manning was and what he used to do, in terms of work, for the OTP. Thank you.

A. Yes, I can repeat once more, because I explained during my testimony before that Dean Manning was investigator within the OTP, and he has been dealing also with the exhumations of the victims related to Srebrenica events. And he, for different trials, drafted -- prepared several reports in relation to these exhumations. And also he testified in several -- on several occasions in different trials, also for this trial. And he left the Tribunal, I think, in 2004. And then in 2006, when I joined the Tribunal, I took over the -- these activities.

Q. Thank you. Is it credible, what an investigator who was working directly in the field says? Does it have its measure of reliability and weight? Can you say that, as an investigator, or should more weight be given to what is expressed on the basis of documents?

A. In different circumstances, different facts will be important, so it depends what you are asking. I can't give you a specific answer, because for some facts it's more important what can be obtained/seen on the field. For some other facts, it's more important what we can find later on from the expertise which are done. So it's not an answer, one way or another, to say, This is the right way. So both those segments are really important, so -- but it depends what kind of question you would like to put to someone.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Thank you, Mr. Janc. I have no time for discussion. ¹⁴⁶⁹⁴ Please look at the page 10218, about what Mr. Manning said and how he answered to my question concerning the victims from Bare. This is what he says:

"A. I was aware that surface remains were being collected. From my memory, I didn't realise it was the Finns. I was not involved in that process. It was two years before I started. I was generally aware of it, but it was not part of my investigation."

On page 10219, lines 19 to 25, and 10 --

THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please slow down when quoting numbers. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. ... Mr. Manning --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it was a problem for the interpreters to catch the numbers. "Page 10219, lines 19 to 25, and --," and then it stopped. Please repeat the number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So after that came page 10220, lines 1 to 25, and 10221, lines 1 to 10. The question was: "Mr. Manning, do you know where the surface remains were buried, in which grave?"

His answer is: "Considering that I was not involved in the process, I can say that the surface remains collected were stored for --"

JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you. You gave three references, and you should indicate from which of these three you are reading now. Mr. Gajic. ¹⁴⁶⁹⁵

MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the first reference which is just being read out is 10219, lines 19 to 25.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Aleksandar. I think that this was visible in the text. It is marked with the yellow colour, line 19.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead, please.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. "The surface remains collected were stored for many years in Tuzla in salt mines, in the tunnels that previously were used as salt mines. I saw many of those body-bags and collections of bodies. They were not reburied in that process. They were examined and eventually returned to the families, those that could be, and then buried in individual graves, I assume. To my knowledge, the bodies collected as surface remains were stored in Tuzla by the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons."

My question is this: Considering that the bodies from the location that Mr. Ruez is talking about, the 600 bodies, were transported to Tuzla, and that they were identified and then handed over to the families, can you tell us whether there is a list of these identified bodies and whether there is information about who the bodies were handed over to, as Mr. Manning says? Thank you. Are you aware of that? Have you seen such documents? Thank you.

A. I would say that part of those 600 bodies are included in my report which are found on a surface in Pobudje area, and I'm sure some of those bodies, if not most of them, are the bodies we are talking about ¹⁴⁶⁹⁶ right now. In order to get information on this issue, when and how and to whom those bodies were returned back, we would need the documents which is kept by the BiH judicial authorities, so, namely, exhumation records, autopsy records, authentication records. For some of them, we have documentation here in-house for some of the surface remains, but for most of them, we don't have.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. If the bodies, at the time that Mr. Manning was working before your time, were in the salt mine, and he said he saw them there and were buried in a mass grave, rather than individual graves, instead of being returned to the families, were you able to find them later, at later stages, in Pobudje, as you said here and as you mention in your report? Thank you.

A. No, those bodies which were collected from the ground from 1996 onwards, they were transported to Tuzla, to the morgue there. And once identified, they were returned back to the families, and families buried them in different places, I assume most of them in the Potocari Memorial Centre. So they were not reburied or placed into these mass graves, because we know from evidence we collected, from aerial images, that when those mass graves were created, then the secondary graves, they were created, and all these facts. And some of the exhumations of these mass graves were already underway in 1996 by the ICTY.

Q. Thank you, thank you for this answer. Could you tell me this, please: Those bodies from the salt mine, did you include them again in the reports on Bare that were presented to us here? Thank you.

A. I don't think I understand what you actually are asking me. But ¹⁴⁶⁹⁷ what is in my report under surface remains section is based on data on surface remains which was provided to us by the BiH Commission on Missing Persons. This data included all the exhumations of surface remains conducted throughout the years, their code-names, when those exhumations took place, where, in which area and which place exactly. And when I compared these data against the ICMP data, the identification list of the victims, I found the individuals which were identified, and I could attribute these individuals to the -- to these surface remains. So it means individuals found on a surface in this Bare area were transported to Tuzla, where they were examined, and then they were later identified through DNA by the ICMP. And when that was done, they were returned back to the families, and families buried those bodies.

Q. Thank you. Did you then write down in your report as if they were found in Bare in 1996? You stated this in your answers here. I wrote down what your testimony was here, but I don't want to lose time on that right now. You said that the bodies were searched for from 1996 to 1999 and that this came to a total of 558. Then you said that 13 bodies were identified by the Finnish team, that 250 bodies were found by Bosnian organs, and that from 1996 on, a total of 558 bodies were identified. Does that mean that these 600 bodies were not found and gathered immediately, the bodies that are referred to by Mr. Ruez and by Mr. Manning in their reports? Thank you.

A. These 558 bodies which are found -- or which are referred in my report as found in Pobudje area are found in the area which spread from the Bratunac up to Konjevic Polje, this hilly area along this road, and ¹⁴⁶⁹⁸ part of this area -- bigger area is also Bare, as I understand it, and most of them were found around there. And how I referred to these bodies is not actually "Bare," but I referred to them, as to location, as they were indicated by the BiH Commission on Missing Persons. If you go into my report, section -- Annex B, section on surface remains, which ends with ERN 6015, you would see Pobudje area in my table, and left you would have the names of the locations where those surface remains were found. So you won't find "Bare" here, because I assume that Bare also covers larger area, which would, in this case, be Kamenica, like Kamenicko Brdo, Krajinovici, where most of these individuals are found.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can we now look at Exhibit P170, page 61 in the Serbian and page 44 in English. This is Mr. Janc's report from 2010. Page 61 in the Serbian and page 44 in the English. Thank you.

Let's take a look at this.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. In the 10th line from the top, you mentioned Pobudje, the Finnish team, and you say: "P.M.," and then you say: "DNA identification, 20 individuals." My question is this: Does that mean that the Finnish team identified only 20 individuals? A little bit earlier, you said 13.

A. Earlier, I said that from this Finnish team report, it's coming out that 30 bodies were collected. And, yes, so far 20 of those bodies or of those surface remains which were collected have been identified. So it's difficult, I would say, sometimes, especially from surface remains, and when the bones are scattered around the area, to assess ¹⁴⁶⁹⁹ exactly how many individuals you would collect. Sometimes it's less, sometimes it's more. In this case, I don't claim that only 20 individuals have been collected, but what we can see here is that only 20 individuals, out of those 30 cases which have been collected, have been identified so far.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. The bodies from the salt mine that Mr. Ruez referred to, as well as Mr. Manning, that they saw them in body-bags, were they all strewn about, as you say, or did they actually have concrete bodies there which they identified and then handed back to their families so that they could bury them in specific places, plots? Thank you.

A. Okay, I don't think I understand your question. If you are referring to the bodies which were collected, as I explained and emphasised several times already, it's difficult with surface remains always. And, yes, these are bones mostly which are collected from the ground. They might be in one piece, representing one individual, but for most of the times, only a few pieces or several pieces of one individual have been collected at one point in time. And later on, and especially now when we have DNA examination conducted by the ICMP, it was only possible to re-assemble one individual into one piece, and it may elapse several years until one individual is identified or assembled together into one piece again. So that's why this process might be very, very long. It might take several years, especially with those surface remains. And in some cases, it might also be that not all the pieces were put together of one individual and were already returned back to the ¹⁴⁷⁰⁰ families.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. I would kindly ask you to respond directly to my questions. I was asking about bodies that were in the salt mine. Could they have been strewn about the whole territory and identified in the manner that you described? So can you tell us clearly whether they were or they were not? When they were taken to Tuzla, were they strewn about again? Please respond to this question: Were the bodies from Tuzla again strewn all over the area? Thank you.

A. The bodies which were collected from the -- from the ground were taken to this salt mine, and there, therefore, they were assembled together and returned back to the families when they were identified. I think that I answered the question, so if not, please, yeah, you can put me another sub-question.

Q. Thank you. In your report, can you show us where you recorded those bodies that were in the Tuzla salt mine? Thank you.

A. What is part of my report is, for example, the table which we can see in front of us, and these represent how many individuals have been identified so far from certain place, certain area, or from the surface remains which were found in this area. Also, the underlying data --

Q. Please, if you can, can you be specific? Because of the time that I have, can you be specific about the bodies from the Tuzla salt mine, where they are in your report; nothing more than that. Thank you. I apologise.

A. Yeah, I can be concrete, but I need to explain a little bit more, because from my report you won't find this information, because all those ¹⁴⁷⁰¹ bodies which were identified, or surface remains, were transported to this -- to this place, to Tuzla, and from there they were returned back to the families. And more than that, I can't tell you. How many bodies have been collected, or pieces of those bodies, is not part of my report, but -- itself. You can't find it in a table, but in underlying data which I'm referring to in my report. So the page before this one, you will see what kind of information we received from the BiH Commission on Missing Persons, and there you will find how many body parts have been collected from certain areas. And from what Mr. Ruez and Mr. Manning testified, they were taken from the location, from the place where they were collected, to Tuzla. So that's all I can testify about. That's all I know about these places, about this issue.

Q. Mr. Janc, did you see the report on the identification of the bodies? Did you see a list of persons whose bodies were handed back to their families or any kind of list or record of the bodies that were referred to by Mr. Ruez and Mr. Manning? Thank you.

A. I would say that for most of them, and not only surface remains - I'm also referring here to the victims found in graves - I haven't seen those hand-over documents. What I was referring to and I was able to see were the ICMP data on identifications. For some of them, yes, we received documents from the BiH authorities, and I was able to review them, and especially for those individuals and those mass graves which were exhumed by the ICTY, I was able to review all these documents. But in relation to what you asked me, if I was able to review all the hand-over documents, I mean the hand-over of the bodies back to the ¹⁴⁷⁰² relatives, no, I wasn't, because what I am presenting in my report are actually the identified individuals so far, and it is not necessarily that all of them have been already returned back to the families. So no such record exists at all, so we are a kind of in an advanced stage with my report, because what I derived from the ICMP data are those who are already identified, so -- but it doesn't mean that they were already returned back to the families.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can you please answer briefly, without going into detail, because I really cannot understand it, to tell you sincerely. Can you please speak very succinctly so that I can understand you.

Under whose care -- in whose care were the bodies in the Tuzla salt mine? Thank you.

A. I believe it was under the -- under the authorities of the BiH Federal Commission on Missing Persons, and there was also Podrinje Identification Project going on.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. And are you able to tell us now whether there is a report in the OTP by the Finnish experts, and have you read that report?

A. Yes, there is such report, and I've read it.

Q. Thank you. And did you use any information from that report and put it in your own report about the victims found in the Tuzla salt mine? Thank you.

A. Not directly from that report, but from this page we have on the screen right now, indirectly, yes, I put the information regarding the ¹⁴⁷⁰³ Finnish team activities into my report. So far, 20 individuals identified.

Q. Are you able to provide the report to the Defence and to the Trial Chamber so that we can also see what the Finnish pathologists said, or is this a secret that the OTP is keeping? Thank you.

A. No, it's not a secret at all, and I'm sure that this report has been disclosed to Defence in this case.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just checking to see that, in fact, that is the case. The report was disclosed, and I'll give you a date in just a moment. It's the 7th of March, 2008, it was disclosed to the Defence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. We are going to check that. We don't have any more time.

I would now like to ask e-court to show 1D777, please. This is an official note about an informative talk by the Tuzla SDB Sector. We can see it on our screen. Since there is no translation, I'm going to read in the heading:

"It says, "The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Internal Affairs, State Security Service, SDB Sector Tuzla." And then there is some lines of work, numbers. In the title, it says "Official Note on Informative Talk," and then it talks about source, "Enver Avdic, son of Sado and Hamdija Halilovic, born July 7, 1997, in Gladovici, municipality of Srebrenica," where he resided. He's a farmer, completed eight-year elementary school, Muslim citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ¹⁴⁷⁰⁴ At the time of the interview, he was a refugee accommodated in Donja Dobosnica Polje [phoen].

So can we look at the last paragraph of this report or this note. Can we scroll up a little bit, please. Thank you.

And you can see -- I asked for the last paragraph on this first page.

We can see it now, thank you. You can see that there is an underlined part where it says "1.000 soldiers." We will be reading that paragraph. I don't see it on the screen right now.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's on the screen in the middle of the second paragraph. It's indicated now by the cursor.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I pressed the wrong button, and that's why I lost it on my screen. But I see it now.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. "In the course of the interview, Enver told us that during the breakthrough of the 285th and the 282nd Brigade sometime at 1000 hours of that same day, a Chetnik para-formation opened strong artillery fire at the remaining brigades and the civilian population that happened to be in Buljim, where, in his estimate, 1.000 soldiers and civilians were killed."

And then it goes on to talk about the shelling and so on and so forth.

Could you please tell us if you read this note about this interview and read the fact or the data about 1.000 soldiers and civilians who were killed in this attack at Buljim that the witness is ¹⁴⁷⁰⁵ talking about? Thank you.

A. I'm not sure if I read this particular statement. It's possible I did. But I am sure that I read similar statements where people estimated, and I emphasise here "estimated," how many people might be killed at certain places.

Q. Thank you. Based on the statements that you read, did you note down at least one or two persons, if not a thousand, on the basis of what you read? Thank you. Did you identify any of those persons as those found on the surface?

A. Based just on the number, what we see here, you can't say who are the victims, so you would need much more information. And in some statements, you could see, for example, that the individuals were referring to their friends, brothers, fathers, and by names. In that case, I was able to check against the ICMP data if those names appear on the lists, and in many instances I was able to identify such individuals as being found on a surface, some of them even in graves later. But from this number, just based on the number, you can't say anything.

Q. Thank you. Please answer my question, and my question is: On the basis of the statement by eye-witnesses in relation to the location where the people were killed or are in surface graves, did you manage to identify or record any of them in the report that you provided for the OTP?

A. Are you referring to this particular statement or any other statement in general?

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. You told us that you read several ¹⁴⁷⁰⁶ statements, and I'm asking you whether you managed to record at least one person as a surface remains victim in your report.

A. Yes, I'm sure I came across these names and I was able to link them with the surface remains. And, no, those information won't be find [sic] in my report directly.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Since I don't have much more time, let us move to page 2 in e-court, the first paragraph, lines 1 to 3 of the very same statement. So could you please just turn the page. This is what is written here, I quote:

"Further on, the source told us that while they were going through Cerska, he noticed hundreds of dead people on both sides of the road whose bodies were mutilated, and he couldn't recognise as anyone." Can one find anywhere in the report any data about these surface victims that were on both sides of the road heading to Cerska?

A. Because this is general information about where those surface remains might be located, it's possible that they are part of my report. But because we know that in Cerska, we have a mass grave, and that people were executed there and later on buried, so it's possible that this individual came across these bodies.

Q. Yes, I understand, but I'm asking you whether one can find, in your report on surface remains, any record of the hundred mentioned here and the thousand mentioned on the previous page. Can one find that in writing in your report, and if so, can you tell us on which page?

A. No, and the problem is that I can't link these individuals which are here just in number to any of the identified individuals which are in ¹⁴⁷⁰⁷ my report. That's the basic reason. I can't -- I can't link these 100 killed individuals to any specific grave or surface remains which are in my report. I would need much more information. I would need names, actually.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Let us now look at 1D778. Let's have that document on the screen. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what about the last document, 1D777?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender it. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be marked for identification, pending translation.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D777 shall be assigned Exhibit D268, marked for identification, pending translation. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Q. We can now see 1D778. It's an exhibit. In the heading, it says "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Interior, State Security Service, Sector Tuzla." This is an official note on an interview conducted with Alic, Hasan.

Since we have little time, I would like to ask the e-court to show us only the second page of the document, line 8 on this second page in the first paragraph, or, rather, 9 to 4 [as interpreted]. Let me quote:

"In the immediate vicinity, there is again a line-up of brigades. ¹⁴⁷⁰⁸ In the immediate vicinity of these people lined up, the Chetniks had a tree cut and put across the road, and when the column moved, they started firing, using all available weapons. And the Chetniks then made an incursion into the column with the purpose of breaking it up." The source tells us that about a thousand soldiers and civilians from the column were killed, so this second source confirms the claims by the first source.

Did you have the opportunity to read this statement by the second source and to obtain this additional information about the surface victims; yes or no? The name is Alic, Hasan, and he's from Srebrenica.

A. It's possible I did. I cannot recall it from the top of my head. And, again, this number is this individual's estimate, yes.

Q. Mr. Janc, have you noticed that two persons from different villages, who were at the same location, are talking about the same number of victims and are describing events in the same manner; yes or no? Thank you.

A. Yes, I agree that we can see from both of those statements that they are referring or they are giving a number of a thousand, but I would like to emphasise that this is estimate, and we would need to be very careful about assessing -- when assessing this -- the reliability of this number, because it's difficult to assess, even for trained individuals, how many people would be gathered somewhere or killed somewhere, especially under circumstances which experienced these individuals, so when they were under stress and everything. I would say, as police officer, and I know my colleagues are trained in estimating, for example, ¹⁴⁷⁰⁹ how many people gathered at certain place, that even for them it's very difficult to catch the exact number. So if you are a layperson, I think it's really, really difficult, so I wouldn't put much reliability on the number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Janc. I would like to tender this document as well.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we please see the first page again. I note that it is not included in your list of exhibits to be used with the witness, at least not in the last version, if the number is 1D778, as I noted it down. What is the date of this document? I don't see any date on the first line. The date is missing. Mr. Janc, have you ever seen this document before?

THE WITNESS: As I testified, it's possible I've seen it, so I cannot confirm it for the fact. But it's possible that I reviewed it, but I don't have any better recollection than that.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we please see the last page.

THE WITNESS: We can see from this document that it is 11 of October, 1995, the day when it is taken.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that's correct. I believe that the statement is taken on that date, although I don't see when it's actually written down, when the statement is actually written down. But I believe that's correct, in any event.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we can see from this line here [indicates] it says that the statement was taken on 11 of October, 1995. ¹⁴⁷¹⁰

JUDGE FLUEGGE: On page 1, the fifth paragraph.

THE WITNESS: Yes, correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I didn't see any signature on this document. Mr. Tolimir, do you have additional information about it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this document was handed over to the OTP by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, their Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and of -- Interior Affairs, and their State Security Service. They do not put in names on such documents; they just give some information about the so-called line of work. This will be explained when their witnesses come here.

I don't know whether the Prosecutor's Office has the names of people who were taking the statement, but these persons are duty-bound to work as professionals, and provide truthful reports, and to be ready to testify before a court, so ...

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. With this additional information, we have enough information, and it will be marked for identification, pending translation.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter document 1D778 shall be assigned Exhibit D269, marked for identification, pending translation. And just for the clarity of the record, it was 65 ter document 1D778. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Can we please have Exhibit 1D780 on our screens. Thank you. ¹⁴⁷¹¹ While we're waiting for it, let me just say for the transcript that this is a document produced by Bosnia and Herzegovina's Agency for Research and Documentation, AID Sector in Tuzla, which is just abbreviation for Agency for Research and Documentation. The document is dated 1st of February, 1996. These are minutes of a statement given by Suljo Halilovic, son of Muharem, born on the 1st of February, 1960, Bajramovic [phoen], municipality of Srebrenica.

In the second paragraph we can see the following: "In the vicinity of Kamenica, before one crosses the asphalt roads, Konjevic Polje-Kasaba, nearby Kaldrmica, fire was opened against the column from Pragas, artillery weapons and infantry weapons from all sides. Chetniks were very close to us, and I concluded that we were surrounded. We managed to organise and start resisting, making a narrow passage through their lines. Most of the people managed to get through this passage. According to my estimates, about a thousand people got killed in the Chetnik assault, and there were hundreds of wounded. Since it was already night, I could not see or recognise any one of the people who had been killed."

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. And this is my question: Can one see, from this statement made by Suljo Halilovic, that they fought their way out of the encirclement and, according to his words, during the fighting about a thousand people got killed? Thank you.

A. Yes, again, that's what he stated and what we can see from this statement. But the number is, again, the problem factor here, because we ¹⁴⁷¹² have to be very careful, especially when he added, one sentence later, that it was already dark. So it was a real estimate of something which, according to this, he wasn't that sure about because it was dark and he couldn't see precisely.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Could you please tell us whether you interviewed Suljo Halilovic, and is this your assessment of his assessment or are you presenting this as something that you know?

A. Me, personally, haven't spoken to this individual. Perhaps there are some other investigators. So regarding the number -- the assessment of the number, I think I made myself clear before that it's not easy to assess for a layperson. It's not easy to determine how clear -- how close, actually, to the real number he was when providing "1.000."

Q. Mr. Janc, because we've seen in statements of three persons that a thousand people got killed at that location, wouldn't you say that investigators should have talked to these people, the eye-witnesses, because they may have known some of the victims? There may have been people who were identified, certainly people who set off with them, maybe some of their relatives. We can see that some fathers lost their sons, and the other way around, on that location. Thank you.

A. I am sure that some of those people were approached and interviewed by the ICTY investigators as well, but not all of them, and I don't know right now who of those have been interviewed and who of those haven't been.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Tolimir, please.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone, please. ¹⁴⁷¹³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender the statement made by this third eye-witness, which includes his estimate of the number of dead people. This document is number 780. And I would like to ask for another document to be put on the screen, the fourth statement, which will confirm the previous ones.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document on the screen will be marked for identification, pending translation.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D708 [sic] shall be assigned Exhibit D270, marked for identification, pending translation. And just one correction: 65 ter document 1D780. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please have 1D782 on our screens. Thank you.

Again, a statement given to the Bosnia and Herzegovina organs, in this case Agency for Research and Documentation, Tuzla AID Sector. The statement was taken from Sado Ramic, son of Adem and Dila Malkic, born on the 5th of March, 1966, in Poznanovici, municipality of Srebrenica. Can we please scroll down, because I need the third paragraph of this statement.

In the third paragraph of the statement, which is the paragraph just above the signature, six lines above the signature we can read the following:

"The shooting lasted for about 15 minutes, after which all the sounds disappeared. According to my assessment, about a thousand people were killed there. We went back to get the wounded people out of there, but it was very hard even to move around because of the bodies. I could ¹⁴⁷¹⁴ not recognise anyone."

And we can see in the previous paragraph that it's stated: "On the following day, on the 12th of July, 1995, on the road between Buljim and Pobudje, several shells hit our column, and about 50 people got killed on that occasion."

So this statement is discussing 1.050 people killed. And on the following page, lines 3 to 7, there's mention of another 20 casualties.

Can we please scroll down on page 2, please. Further, because there is a part that I would like to quote. Thank you, yes, now we can see the paragraph that is second on the screen at the moment, and I quote:

"When we came to Kasaba, when we came to the repeater, we had to wait for the dark before we could cross the tarmac road, and we crossed it in early-evening hours. After crossing the asphalt road, we reached Udrc and then continued towards the following mountains, the first of them being Veljova Glava. There, we found the group of 10 dead bodies, and not far away from that location there was another group of 10 dead bodies, which again were people I did not know."

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janc, did you have an opportunity to read this statement, where 1.070 bodies are discussed and also locations where these bodies were found? Wasn't that something that merited the attention of the investigators; namely, to see where the surface remains caused by fighting were, according to the statement of this witness? Thank you. ¹⁴⁷¹⁵

A. I most probably did see this statement as well, and this individual is talking about three different places where they came across or they spotted these bodies on the ground. First, for the first number, a thousand, my position would be the same, especially because we can see from the statement from that part that he also said that it was already 9.00 in the evening. So it was coming to a dark, if it wasn't dark already at the time. So it's very difficult to assess how many people is there, unless you count them. For later on, we can see that the numbers are much lower, 50 and 10 and 20 people, so I would say for those, especially when he says around 10 bodies seen around this location, that he was more precise when assessing how many bodies have been there than with the number a thousand. Especially now, when we know that in the area of Pobudje where those thousand he was talking about might be seen on the ground, we have today 550 individuals identified. So when he gave this statement, and we have to emphasise in this case this statement was given half a year later after these events took place, he said that thousand people were there, so this is his estimate. And I would say, based on what we know today, that the number was some -- much higher than the real number of casualties there or dead bodies there.

Q. Mr. Janc, let me show you page 3 of this report, third paragraph on it. It is stated there, I quote:

"Sometime in November of 1995, together with Abdurahman and another 13 people, I went to Lopare where we were chopping wood for the Serbian East Bosnian Corps. We stayed in Lopare for 15 days and then we ¹⁴⁷¹⁶ were returned to the camp. We stayed in the camp until the 24th of December, 1995, when 134 of us were exchanged; Sokolac, municipality of Gracanica."

Since he arrived there on the 24th of December, it took two months before he was interviewed by the state organs. He couldn't have provided a statement earlier because he was a prisoner until then. The fact that he was exchanged later, is that something that discredits all the information contained in his statement, corroborated by statements made by other three persons, concerning the number of people?

A. No, of course not. And when I emphasised the date, that it was half a year later, it's just for, perhaps, certain details which might be -- after so many months after the events, might not be clear to the individuals anymore. But for some facts, he might be still clear very well. So I didn't mean that all what he said was wrong, no, I didn't mean that.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. We can see that he gave the statement --

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we need the second break now. You may continue after the break.

We resume quarter past 6.00.

--- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.

--- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please go ahead.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Can we please have the statement of Ramic, Sado, entered into evidence? Thank you. ¹⁴⁷¹⁷

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received, but only for identification, pending translation.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D782 shall be assigned Exhibit D271, marked for identification, pending translation. Thank you.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janc, we have seen the four statements which mentioned a bigger number of victims found on surface than 1.000. Can it be seen from these statements that those who died in combat were also buried in mass graves, as they are not to be found in other locations which are mentioned nowadays?

A. From these statements, we can't conclude that, because the number thousand I already said that it shouldn't be a reliable one, based on the possibility of these individuals to assess the correct number of the individuals which were found on -- or bodies of which were on the surface. So -- and we know -- just to respond regarding the mass graves, we know that in these mass graves are victims from the executions, and we have no evidence so far, not a single statement, which would point at the conclusion that the surface remains or the victims which were killed in these woods - I mean combat - would be taken from these areas and buried in mass graves, so they were just left behind on the surface.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Please tell us whether that means that, even now, on the surface, some mortal remains can be found in the locations described in these statements which mention the number of victims which were seen by the eye-witnesses? Are they still there on ¹⁴⁷¹⁸ the spot where they were or were they buried in mass graves? Thank you.

A. I would say most of them were collected from the ground throughout the years. And because we can see that the process is ongoing and every year they collect additional bodies from the surface, I would say they will be find [sic] also in the future; of course, not in such massive numbers as it was during first years after the fall of Srebrenica; I mean, 1996, 1997, 1998. At that time, a lot of these surface remains were found there, but nowadays a few additional bodies are found every year. So this number, the total number, will grow, but it will not grow much over 1.000, if at all.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Does that mean that the assessments of investigators are more important than the facts as presented by eye-witnesses and the events, when one is to draw conclusions? Is it more important, what you may conclude on the basis of some paper documents, that you doubt four statements? And what is more credible, your opinion or the opinion of eye-witnesses? Thank you.

A. It's not about the opinion. It's about the corroboration of the facts. It is important, what the eye-witness is saying, of course, but sometimes not everything is correct, what they were saying, but not because they would be lying, but just because our memory is such that sometimes we are wrong. And in these cases, it's better to support certain allegations with independent sources, documents, or in this case, what I'm testifying about, with the expert findings regarding how many individuals have been identified so far. So a combination of both is important, and one needs to be very careful when assessing the witness ¹⁴⁷¹⁹ statements.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can you please be brief in your answers and provide some context when you're answering a question, because this is just a general description. I'm asking you now whether it was necessary for someone of the investigators to go and interview these four persons and then make arguments on the basis of which such conclusion of yours can be drawn, or is it more important that you should state that as your assessment and your opinion? Thank you.

A. Maybe someone approached these witnesses and they were interviewed, but I'm sure that they would never change their statement and their -- the fact about the number. So it would most probably remain the same. What I'm testifying here is about how reliable this number is, how close to the real number of what they have seen this number is.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. And is our goal to change the facts and change the number or to accept them as the eye-witnesses present them? Thank you.

A. It's difficult to say, but my position is that this number is not -- is not correct, based on what we know now, so I'm sure they haven't seen that many victims on the ground.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can you please tell us whether it is possible that there may be persons buried in mass graves who were not members of the 128th Division and the column which was breaking through from Srebrenica in the direction of Nezuk, but that the records also may include persons who died during the attack from Nezuk, in the direction of Baljkovica, with the aim of opening up a corridor? Thank you. ¹⁴⁷²⁰

A. In those mass graves are the victims who were executed. They were taken prisoner and were kept in schools, and then they were executed.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Did you answer my question? Is it possible that the lists of missing persons, or persons who were killed, include fighters of the 2nd Corps of the BiH Army who were carrying out a breakthrough from Nezuk, in the direction of Baljkovica, in order to open up a corridor, as testified by numerous documents, and have you, perhaps, seen the footage which shows the column coming out to Baljkovica? It's a column that was moving from Srebrenica towards Nezuk. Thank you.

A. I'm sure on a missing persons list there are also individuals who at that time were the members of the BiH Army, because if they were killed in a combat, and some of them were most probably also killed during the execution and then put into a mass grave, of course, those people would appear on a missing list. Those who survived would not appear, would not be reported as missing and would not appear on such list.

Q. Thank you for this explanation, Mr. Janc. Can we now please see Exhibit P170. This is Mr. Janc's report from 2010. Can we please have page 63 in B/C/S and page 45 in the English version. Page 63 in the Serbian and page 45 in the English version. Thank you.

Here we can see the column, "Zepa." We still don't see it in the Serbian.

Here we can see it. As there is no translation as yet in ¹⁴⁷²¹ English, we can see, above the last table, which says "Zepa," we can see in English that you stated that in addition, 15 Zepa-related individuals have been identified so far from surface remains collected in a wider area of Zepa. Is that right?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. Can you please tell us whether, on any basis, Visegrad can be considered the wider area of Zepa, and do you know how far Visegrad is located from Zepa? Thank you.

A. I don't know how far, exactly, Visegrad is from Zepa. I know it's south of it, and that's why I put it in the wider area of Zepa. And those individuals were, indeed, missing from Zepa, so those seven individuals which we can see related to Visegrad area, that they were missing from Zepa. And we know that when Zepa fall in July 1995, that people were taking different directions in order to save their lives, and one of those directions was also south, and then that's where these individuals were found.

Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, do you know that Visegrad belongs to Herzegovina and that Zepa is part of the Podrinje area, geographically speaking, if not in terms of kilometres? Thank you.

A. No, I'm not aware of this geographical difference, but I agree with you, yes, because it is south.

Q. Thank you. And were these victims found in Visegrad, whereas you ascribed them to Zepa, on the basis of what; just their place of residence? Yes or no. Thank you.

A. No, they were on a missing list, reported missing, as being from ¹⁴⁷²² Zepa after the fall of Zepa enclave. That's why.

Q. Thank you. And do you have in your documents a report about them, how they died, where they died? Do you have the findings of pathologists or any court bodies about the cause of death of these seven or eight persons that you are talking about?

A. Yes, indeed. For all those 15 individuals, I requested the documentation from the BiH authorities, and I referred to these documents which consist of exhumation records, autopsy records, pathology records and everything. And I think if we can scroll down here in B/C/S language -- B/C/S version of it, you will see the ERN number at the end of it. You can see. Maybe in English we go to the same -- maybe the page before. You have a reference to documents where you can find information about the exhumations and everything, and we received it, as you can see, from BiH State Court and Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office.

Q. Mr. Janc, you are an investigator, so we wouldn't read the ERN numbers which you mentioned here in the footnotes. Can you tell us, where did these persons who were found in Visegrad die, as they were deemed to be the inhabitants and citizens of Zepa? Where and how did they die? Can you tell this to the Trial Chamber? Thank you.

A. I think from those records we can conclude that they were -- that they were killed, that their death was violent, and they must have died in the vicinity of those places where they were found.

Q. If they were killed in the vicinity of Visegrad, where they were found, or close to the place called Stoborani, and so on and so forth, ¹⁴⁷²³ why do you then list them in the wider area of Zepa, why? Because Visegrad does not belong to the wider area of Zepa. Is it just because of the report or because you don't know that Visegrad is a town, whereas Zepa is a village? Thank you.

A. Geographically speaking, you are correct, it might be a much better formulation to put it something differently. What I wanted to emphasise here was that they are related to Zepa events, that they are related to the fall of Zepa.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. If a refugee from Zepa dies in the United States, should he be included among the victims from Zepa? Thank you.

A. No, not in that case. But we have information from the missing list that these individuals went missing after the fall of Zepa, and they were found not close to Zepa, but in the area which is relatively close to Zepa. And it's nothing uncommon, because I just explained that people were fleeing over the territory south-west, north. We also have example of victims from Srebrenica, which I testified already before, which were found in Trnovo, which is south of Sarajevo, and we are still considering them as victims which were killed after the fall of Srebrenica.

Q. Would they be considered such only on the basis of reports and documents or according to the locations where they were killed and the manner in which they were killed? Thank you.

A. The most important for me was, indeed, the list of the missing persons, and from that list we can see that they went missing after the fall of Zepa. From this table, we can see where they were found. ¹⁴⁷²⁴

Q. Thank you. And is it most important for the Court that they are from Zepa and that they are listed as missing persons from Zepa, and it's not important where and how they died and who killed them? Thank you.

A. I think everything is important in this case. That area at that time was under control of the VRS.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can you tell us whether you investigated the grave in Vragolovi and its origins? How did it come into existence? Thank you.

A. Yes, I did review documents that we have on this grave, and also requested some additional documents.

Q. Thank you. As it is obvious from the evidence which have been presented today to the Trial Chamber, and also through other witnesses and cases, did these persons die under varying circumstances and in different periods of time, and is the grave in Vragolovi a primary or a secondary one? Thank you.

A. When reviewing documentation and also asking the individuals who were present at this spot during the exhumation, it wasn't clear to me if it is primary or secondary. Based on the Eva Klonowski's statement, it's most probably a primary grave, but she shouldn't be -- she wasn't -- during the interview, she wasn't very clear on that point. Based on how the bodies were found, so they were complete bodies, it is most probably that this is primary grave. Still, the possibility that some bodies were moved from somewhere else or placed later on into this grave cannot be excluded.

Q. Thank you. Were the bodies -- was the cause of death stated for ¹⁴⁷²⁵ these individuals by the teams working on this or by any state agencies of Bosnia and Herzegovina working on this?

A. We have autopsy records on all of these nine bodies, and the death for all of them was violent. I think for most of them, directly, shot-gun wounds in the head.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Did you place them in a mass grave on the basis of how they were killed, or how they died, or did you classify them just by the very fact that they were found together in a mass grave?

A. They were found in one grave together, and these are the victims of a crime -- of execution, and I placed those victims into my report of April 2010 for my first time because so far we have almost all of them identified already. There were nine bodies inside; so far, we have eight identifications done.

Q. Thank you. Do you know that Mrs. Palic, for example, testified here, and she said that Mr. Palic had been buried in Visoko, where she lived, that she passed by his grave without knowing that, and that only later the commission transferred the body to the Vragolovi mass grave? Thank you.

A. This must have been misinterpretation or misunderstanding, what Ms. Palic has testified about. The body of Avdo Palic was exhumed along with other eight individuals in 2001 from this Vragolovi grave. At that time, they didn't know who these individuals are, and that's why they transported them to Visoko and reburied all of them -- all of them at that place, at the cemetery there. When they were identified, they reburied them from this place again, and they were -- the bodies -- the ¹⁴⁷²⁶ remains were returned back to the families. And, again, the families then, during the funeral, buried them -- at least three of them in Sarajevo.

Q. Thank you. Does that mean, Mr. Janc, that there is no mass grave at Vragolovi, and are you able to tell the Trial Chamber if the OTP and you, as an investigator, are aware of the circumstances in which each of those individuals was killed, the ones that you referred to just now that had been returned to Visoko and buried there? Did they all die at the same time, in the same place, and in what circumstances?

A. There is mass grave -- actually, there is a grave in Vragolovi which was exhumed in 2001 and where nine bodies were found. For all of them, we have autopsy records which says that the death of these bodies was violent. It means they were executed. We have those documents, and I think I refer to them in my report as well. If they died at the same time, that's difficult to determine, based on when they were exhumed. We know for some of them, we have some statements which says that two of those individuals, and I'm referring to Mehmed Hajric and Amir Imamovic, were taken out of Rogatica, Rasadnik prison, in the middle of August and never seen again. We know from other statements, testimonies and documents that Avdo Palic was taken out of Vanikov Mlin Prison at the beginning of September, 4th to 5th or 5th to 6th of September, 1995. It's difficult to say if they were killed at the same time or not. What we can see from the exhumation records is that bodies found there were next to each other, mostly, but body of Avdo Palic was over the body of someone else, so it's possible, theoretically, that other bodies were ¹⁴⁷²⁷ buried there first and later on Avdo Palic was placed over the other bodies and buried there as well. So I can't exclude that possibility. And we have a sketch of Eva Klonowski where you can see exactly how the bodies were distributed inside the grave.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, could you please repeat the name of this prison you mentioned in Rogatica?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. It is Rasadnik Prison in Rogatica.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please check the transcript, if it's written correctly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is almost correctly, just instead of O, it should be A, the second letter.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir.

MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. You didn't answer my question. Was the case of death of all the persons found in the Vragolovi mass grave something that was the same for all the persons there? Did it occur in the same way, in the same time, and in which circumstances? Do you have any information about that?

A. No, we don't have any information about that, and I think there is no pathologist on this earth who could identify this issue, so who could say if they were killed at the same time or not. This is only possible if the actual death occurred during a certain period of time.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. You said just now that Torlak said this and ¹⁴⁷²⁸ this other person said that. Was it possible, in conversations with the prisoners who were in Rogatica, to find out who disappeared from the group of prisoners and why they didn't appear --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter kindly asks Mr. Tolimir to repeat the last word.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please repeat the last word. The interpretation stopped with --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last word was "exchange," "exchange," why they didn't appear at the exchange at the same time as the others who were with them in the Rasadnik Prison.

THE WITNESS: Yes, there are several statements. Not only of Mr. Torlak, also other individuals who were imprisoned in Rasadnik Prison and later on exchanged were testifying or talking about these individuals and then -- and when they disappeared from a prison and then never appeared back again. And some of them also testified or stated that they were maltreated and beaten badly, and they concluded that they were killed. Nobody actually has seen that, when and how they were killed, but they never appeared back again and they were never exchanged. And now we know where they were found. And from the exhumation records, we can see that they were killed, executed.

Q. Thank you. And in these witness statements, were they all taken out of the prison at the same time, the same day, and were they all killed at the same time or, according to these witness statements, were these persons taken out at different times and killed at different times?

A. From these witness statements, we can't conclude anything with a ¹⁴⁷²⁹ certain level of certainty, because even the dates when they were taken out are different from these statements. Some of them think that they were taken out at the beginning of August, some of them in the middle of August, some of them soon after they arrived, so we can't conclude exactly when they were taken out. Most of them are talking that they were taken out, and now I'm referring to Mehmed Hajric and Amir Imamovic, at around the same time, even the same day, and they never appeared again.

Q. Thank you. And does the OTP have documents on the basis of which one can reach any kind of degree of reliability as to when they were taken, by whom, in what way? It doesn't have to be a high degree of reliability.

A. There are witness statements. And I think one of the witnesses who will be talking about them is coming soon to testify here in front of this Trial Chamber, so he'll be able to explain these details more precisely than I can do because he was an eye-witness of this event.

Q. Thank you. But I wanted to ask about any documents in the OTP about that. Did you see documents of that kind? Can they be used, can they be looked at?

A. If you are now referring to any kind of documents produced by the VRS at the time or any kind of documents produced by the wardens or the personnel who was in charge of this prison, no, we don't have any such documents. Everything we have are witness statements of the prisoners who were kept in this prison.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Can you please tell us if you spoke with ¹⁴⁷³⁰ each of the prisoners who was in prison in order to gather information about persons found in the so-called mass grave at Vragolovi? Thank you.

A. No, we haven't talked to every single one of them. We have talked to some of them. But we have statements which were provided to the OTP by the BiH authorities from other prisoners who were there and were interviewed after they were exchanged.

Q. Thank you. And did you look into those statements, and did you see, on the basis of that, whether they were executed at the same time, at different times, and were the perpetrators of the executions the same persons in all the cases? Thank you.

A. Yes, I was reviewing these statements, and what I already said just a few minutes ago, their statements are not consistent. You know, they are different in the matter of when this might happen. But they are consistent in a way that they say that they disappear at one point in time on one day and that they never appear back again.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. And can you please tell us, if there isn't a high degree of reliability, is the assessment of the investigator important in that case, or should one be guided by findings of expert witnesses or experts who establish the time of death, the manner of death, and the circumstances that it occurred? Thank you.

A. I think the manner and the cause of death was established, and I testified that you can find from autopsy records that their death was violent, that they were executed; that is what was established. The exact time of death, I think it will be very difficult to establish, but we can say it might be around the time when they disappeared from the ¹⁴⁷³¹ prison in 1995. And what also can be established from this perspective is that they were under control of the VRS, and then they were last seen when they were in their hands, and later on they were found in Vragolovi grave, which is about four kilometres away only from Rasadnik Prison, so very close to where they were last seen. And this is territory of the Republika Srpska.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it is 7.00. We have to adjourn. I think you are not able to finish the whole cross-examination. We should continue it next week.

Can you give us an indication how much more time you need for the conclusion of your cross-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't have any more questions for this witness, other than to say thank you to him for the answers that he gave and to wish him success in his work. The only question I have is this: Did he make the report for the Court or did he make the report for the Prosecution? This is the only answer I would like from this witness. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, can you help us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, and -- I can help you.

I made this report for the benefit of this trial, for this Trial Chamber, so for this Court.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Defence did not get it. We thank you. We didn't receive it as a report that was drafted for the Defence. We received it as a ¹⁴⁷³² document drafted for the OTP. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it this concludes your cross-examination. Correct?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is correct, Mr. President. Thank you.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Vanderpuye, do you have re-examination?

MR. VANDERPUYE: Indeed, I do, Mr. President, and I won't be able to finish it in the time that we have.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine.

MR. VANDERPUYE: We don't have any time. So perhaps we can put it off to a more convenient date for the Court.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would only like to consider if it is helpful to continue with the re-examination just on Monday - I don't know how much time you would indicate - so that there is no interruption. That would be, for the Chamber, for a better understanding of the testimony of this witness, but even for the witness, I think, if we could conclude that on Monday.

MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks, Mr. President. I think that's a good idea.

We do have a witness who is arriving that must testify on Monday, but I think the re-direct examination won't be long and shouldn't interfere with his ability to testify to completion on Monday.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is, of course, in your hands, but you have heard my, yes, proposal how to deal with this witness further. ¹⁴⁷³³ We have to adjourn for the week. Mr. Janc, thank you very much. On Monday, we are sitting in the afternoon in this courtroom at 2.15. You are reminded again that it's not allowed to have contact on the content of your testimony with either party.

THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.

JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn.

[The witness stands down]

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 30th day of May,

2011, at 2.15 p.m.