¹⁷²⁰⁰

Monday, 3 March 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: As the court will see, Judge Robinson is not here. He is unwell, as indeed he was last week, but he has not recovered. Therefore, he will not be sitting either today or tomorrow, and the Chamber, exercising its powers under Rule 15 bis, will sit as the two remaining Judges, being satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to continue with this case as expeditiously as possible, unless there are any objections. Very well.

Mr. Nice, it does, of course, mean - and I should make it plain to all - that the Chamber can make no decisions, of course, only being two, no decisions except those which are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the case during the day. In particular, we won't be able to make any decisions on the submissions we're going to hear about Torkildsen and any other matters concerning the conduct of the case. Judge Robinson will have the opportunity, when he returns, to read the submissions, and the Trial Chamber will then make its decisions.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, no doubt if Judge Robinson has any issues he wants addressed by any parties, he will always be in a position to do that on our return.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, he can.

MR. NICE: I say that not just because the record is -- reflects the learned Judge's interest in asking me questions from time to time but ¹⁷²⁰¹ in order that the accused may know that those interactions are available at that time.

Your Honour, we were dealing -- would it be convenient if we deal with the closing -- the remaining submissions about the financial report and then separately, perhaps after the amici and the accused have said what they want to say about that, then turn to other procedural issues?

JUDGE MAY: I referred to it discourteously. I meant the financial evidence as "Torkildsen," Mr. Torkildsen.

MR. NICE: Mr. Torkildsen, who is actually sitting next door to me today, as you may have guessed.

I know that when we closed last week on this topic, the accused said he had one sentence more that he wanted to say, but unless I'm dissuaded, I'll just carry on and conclude what I say and we can perhaps return to that sentence and anything he wants to say later.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I recollect, we were hearing your submissions, and had heard part of them, and you had produced a chart for us.

MR. NICE: Yes. It's the chart that's referred to in paragraph 54 of the first report, which is the report that covers Kosovo but also part of the earlier period, and it had been amended to incorporate, in small boxes with round corners, the sources relied upon by Mr. Torkildsen for the various propositions that this chart reveals. I've taken you through the chart in short order but sufficiently for these purposes because the chart reveals a control of the movement of money by the accused. It reveals a control of the way the money was then ¹⁷²⁰² used to finance the operations which include operations at the heart of these allegations.

Your Honour, I don't need to say any more about it than that because I know that the Chamber will have considered and will be in a position further to consider the detail of the report if and when it needs to do so.

I had a piece of paper that I've now succeeded already in losing. Just give me a moment to find it.

That first report, of course, covers Kosovo but also has a slightly broader reach because it sets out the historical position, and overall, it reveals that the accused, even when president of Serbia and not president of the republic, had control of a republic body, the customs administration, which was used for the provision of money for these purposes, and that's an extremely important piece of evidence. Now, we may have had sentences of evidence to the like effect from live witnesses, but the way the matter is charted here in confirmation of that is of great value. It shows that the accused in his control of the movement and use of money was in a position to and did disregard the laws that applied to federal income and the way it should be dealt with. And of course it shows that those funds were channeled outside normal channels to the Serbian MUP at the accused's order in a way that simply matches completely with the Prosecution account that he was directly in charge of those forces, exercising control over them in a way that would not be regarded as typical of a person in his two positions, either president of Serbia or, later, of the republic. ¹⁷²⁰³ And it's interesting to note, as we can find in the summary of conclusions, I think, of this first report, that in the domestic cases against -- paragraph 13 -- that in the domestic cases certainly involving this accused and others, the accused finds himself linked to people like Sainovic, Milutinovic, Stanisic and Markovic, all names with whom he is linked in relation to the alleged crimes in this court. Now, Your Honours, the report is very detailed. It comes in its two parts, and I don't desire at the moment to go into any detail for it would take too much time, but if the Court has any concerns about matters of detail, I can deal with them, the Court being aware that there was, by the amici, a detailed schedule of issues raised which have been responded to in our response of the 16th of June in great detail, item by item. There's going to be little purpose served and a great deal of time consumed in my running over those in detail.

The hearsay point that the amici rely on is a point that can always be relied on in any expert report, and we make the point that expert reports have already been adduced, which rely on the admission of out of court observations and statements by one or other kind of individual. It's no different from that. And indeed, the amici's position that everything has to be given live would simply make of any expert topic an uncontrollably large amount of material that would have to be handled.

As I said last week, I rather hope that the issue as to whether Mr. Torkildsen is or is not an expert may now be behind us, but of course what experts do, and what all the experts we've seen so far have done, is ¹⁷²⁰⁴ to take a very large amount of material to which they apply the expertise that they bring, which includes the expertise of analysis, in order to render it valuable to the Court in a manageable way. If we turn to the second report, and I can deal with that shortly. The second report, which deals with -- specifically with the earlier period, it shows, at a time when the accused was the president of Serbia, the establishment of an economic federation, effectively, involving the republic, the RS, and the RSK, all funded by Serbia under the control of the accused. He was the decision-maker in providing the finance and providing all that came with the finance to those Serb bodies outside Serbia, and of course he made admissions which we rely on and which are produced within the report to that effect. And in our respectful submission, the very nature of the allegations made against the accused in relation to his controlling influence on events in both the RSK and the RS and in the territories of which they were organs makes it inevitable that this evidence must be admissible and must be extremely valuable to the Court. But the way the evidence is presented comes in an ideal form for those conducting inquiries - in part, notwithstanding the adversarial process, this Court is conducting an inquiry in its search for the truth - it provides for an ideal - how did I express it? - an ideal form because at all stages the Court can require of the accused to know what is challenged and why and can, as it may or not judge appropriate, further underlying material to be laid before it. Where matters are not, in truth, in issue but are simply fleshed out by this expert from consideration of an enormous amount of material -- not an enormous but a ¹⁷²⁰⁵ very large amount of material -- fleshed out over the skeleton that at most will be provided by live witnesses saying, "Yes, I was asked to carry sacks of money here and there," then the Court's in a position to do so, and to ensure that it has the correct evidence it would need. So, Your Honour, can I leave those observations there and return to them when my learned friend the amici may have said what they've said and when the accused has contributed what he may want to say.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, the Prosecution have set up the basis of their allegation on these financial matters. They have set out the evidence upon which they rely. But issue before the Court today is the admissibility of that evidence supported through Mr. Torkildsen, whether the materials that he produces are indeed admissable in the form that the Prosecution seek to present them.

If I can go firstly to the issue of expertise. With the original report, a very brief outline of the expertise of Mr. Torkildsen was filed and we sought clarification as to his expertise because that was an objection reasonably open to the accused as to his status. Since that filing, a far more detailed background of his expertise has been put before the Court. It could well be the case that the Court accepts that expertise, but of interest within the argument on this matter is the fact that it is primarily and principally a background of investigation. And I point that out because that is relevant to the submissions that flow. The Court has to be satisfied that this evidence is evidence upon which it requires an expert witness, that the materials sought to be ¹⁷²⁰⁶ produced before it fall in within that category of evidence upon which the Court, as the principal finders of fact, requires expertise. The trial process doesn't require expert witnesses to come before it to present their conclusions on a wide variety of matters that are in fact the domain of the Judges, and we have raised the issue as to whether this is a subject that truly requires expert evidence to present findings from that expert witness to the Court. It may well be detailed and complex in the sense that there is a lot of it, but being able to judge and see what there is is something that we submit this Trial Chamber is perfectly capable of doing if the evidence is presented before it. Let's now look, then, at the material itself to see what is sought to be brought before the Court through Mr. Torkildsen. The Prosecution have already referred to the schedule filed by the amici on the 16th of December, 2002, and it is that document which I'm going to be using because it makes a number of points that can be made briefly and succinctly.

JUDGE MAY: Is this the first or the second report?

MR. KAY: That's the second. The schedule does identify what I will call a number of minor matters that are contained within the report which we make observations about, such as the first one at page 5, at paragraph 9. The real context --

JUDGE MAY: That is matter of weight, isn't it?

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: About inadequate references. The next one is about a ¹⁷²⁰⁷ book.

MR. KAY: Yes. If we go to page 5, paragraph 11, attachment number R1, and I'm at part A of the schedule of objections, we have here interview notes of someone who himself is potentially a witness. Since making this filing, the Prosecution have produced further evidence in which Professor Ognjenovic confirms his interview. Those details were sadly lacking on the first filing. But what is sought to be produced is an interview by Mr. Torkildsen of Professor Ognjenovic. So it's not evidence that the expert has observed from the materials, documents, evidence, but in fact an interview conducted by him in which he then produces the statements made by that potential witness. If it is sought to rely upon this evidence, then it would be far more preferable and in the interests of justice that that professor could be called so that the accused could question him as to his point of view and allegation. And using Mr. Torkildsen in between the two, we in effect have a blocking mechanism.

Let's move now to the next point within the schedule part A, pages 6 to 15, paragraphs 12 to 26, of the Kosovo report. This is an excerpt of transcript recordings of interview with Kertes and statements made by Kertes which is produced by Mr. Torkildsen as Exhibit R2. In fact, there are only excerpts of the transcript of interview taken by the OTP. Mr. Torkildsen reviews and extracts and summarises what Mr. Kertes, a potential accused himself - or an accused - has said, and then produces it through his report. Annexed to that as R2B, C, D and E, are four witness statements taken in the domestic - and by that I mean national - criminal ^{17208 BLANK PAGE 17209} proceedings which were brought against Mr. Kertes. These are a different category of document from the previous ones. They're not OTP documents or OTP investigative material. Again, what Mr. Kertes said about the matter, if produced solely through Torkildsen, prevents the accused from questioning the maker of the statements upon which Mr. Torkildsen relies and is a blocking mechanism.

If we go to the next matter, that is what I would call - page 16, paragraph 27 - the travel records of Mr. Kertes, in the context of this argument one of the minor matters, and the Court can deal with that without extensive oral argument. I'm going to deal with the principal matters on this submission because that is probably where the heart of this debate lies.

At pages 17 to 19, domestic criminal charges against Mr. Milosevic and a statement made by him in domestic criminal proceedings on the 1st of April 2001, and a statement taken on the 2nd of April. Statements taken by people other than Torkildsen - Mr. Torkildsen, I'm very sorry - at this time and statements concerning domestic proceedings against the accused are matters upon which this case is not, in fact, based. Mr. Torkildsen reviews and summarises that, and we question what is the purpose of a financial investigator in giving a review and summary of that statement. Is that --

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but the statements themselves, you say, may be admissible as official court documents; is that right?

MR. KAY: They may be, yes. From that perspective, we haven't particularly looked at this matter. We're looking at Mr. Torkildsen's ¹⁷²¹⁰ role within it, and we'd query what is the purpose of using an expert in that form merely to review and summarise the contents of what was said. We go to page 20, paragraph 34, the next attachment, R5, the excerpt of the statement of Mr. Zebic, former Deputy Prime Minister of the FRY and Federal Minister of Finance. This was a statement that we noticed was unsigned. Whether the entire statement has been produced is unclear. The language of the statement, any translation of the statement that there may have been. No evidence of confirmation, in fact, by Mr. Zebic of what he had said. And again Mr. Torkildsen performs this role, which is central within this theme of our submissions to the Court, of reviewing, extracting portions, putting it in his report, and effectively that blocks the accused from dealing with any issues with the maker of the statement. And in our submission, this is not a true function of an expert witness. We are back into that area we were in in the Kosovo trial where there were summaries of witness statements. And so many witnesses have passed now and I've forgotten the name of the summarising officer, but we clearly dealt with that issue within that form. I think it was Mr. Curtis.

JUDGE MAY: Barney Kelly.

MR. KAY: Barney Kelly. Mr. Curtis as well. And that is, in effect, what is happening here through Mr. Torkildsen, this time not dressed as an investigator but dressed as an expert. I'm not making here any particular point as to whether an investigator cannot be an expert, but I point out to the Court that that is in essence what is happening with this material.

If we move on to the next attachment, R6, page 20, paragraph 35. ¹⁷²¹¹ This is Mr. Sainovic's interview, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And this is material that arose from his own national criminal proceedings and a statement made by him within that context. This isn't a statement taken by Mr. Torkildsen and the OTP, as has been the case in some of the previous attachments, but this is Mr. Sainovic's statement in his national investigation. Again, that evidence of what Mr. Sainovic has said in clearly a position where he would be serving his own self-interest and maybe only too happy to make statements that are untrue about someone else, and I don't know whether that's so or not, but that's the point I make. It's often preferable, if you are going to rely on statements of the co-accused, then you have the other co-accused present to say whether they take issue with that declaration or statement at the time. It makes sense.

Here, if this statement was produced through Mr. Torkildsen, again Mr. Torkildsen would only be able to say, quite truthfully, to Mr. Milosevic, "Well, that's what Mr. Sainovic said," and in effect, that would block Mr. Milosevic from ever dealing with Mr. Sainovic and his point of view, and that's why we say that this evidence is not truly the subject of expert evidence. It is really the very usual stuff and essence of trial evidence that the Judges themselves should be able to deal with in observing the questioning of witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, given the constraints of time, this is a point which you make -- or these points you make, as I understand it, in relation to a number of other witnesses or witness statements or ¹⁷²¹² interviews, over that page and over the next page, that here is effectively evidence being put in in a hearsay form, statements and the like --

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- and the right way to do it is, if they want to call the witnesses, Prosecution can do so so that they can be cross-examined.

MR. KAY: The roll call goes on: Stanisic, Markovic, Borka Vukic; notes of interview with senior officials from the MUP, Dusan Lalic, Mladen Zinkic [phoen], these are the respective governors or managers of the bank of Yugoslavia; and Mr. Slobodan Raj. And I think the Court has, from our schedule, the specific observations in relation to each of them.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And they follow the arguments which you have already put to us.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could come to B, part B. What do you say about that? We have your argument, of course, but --

MR. KAY: Yes. Part B, these are the technical side of the presentation largely, where footnotes, references are missing, which in a proper expert's report, the Court, the accused, any expert that the accused may feel inclined to instruct, would be able to check sources. And we've detailed quite a bit of those matters. I don't really want to go into those individually as that will take up too much time, and we've made the points within the schedule. Again, we have again the reports of Radmila Butisin [phoen], Ms. Ljiljana Radenkovic, further examples of statements taken from people ¹⁷²¹³ within the context of court proceedings where in effect the expert is acting as investigator, summarising evidence.

We have made a number of points which are clearly identified. And by example, if I just show that at page 38, paragraph 68, where the expert strays into the role of providing conclusions that are within the remit of the Trial Chamber. That seems to happen quite a lot within these expert reports that we have been asked to deal with in the course of this trial, and we have identified further examples of that. And so what we've done here in part B is provide again specific points where we say, "Well, if this material is to go in before the Trial Chamber, it certainly has to be in a proper form and cleaned up." And I don't mean that disrespectfully, I just mean that it should be more of an entire and full document so that those who want to take issue with it are able to more specifically identify where the sources of Mr. Torkildsen's opinion report are derived from.

Again, those are very clear as we've set them out within the table.

If we look at page 33, paragraph 60, if I take again, as an example of references and footnoting, Mr. Torkildsen didn't provide references or footnotes to support various statements made by him upon which he was providing what was sought to be relied upon as expert guidance to the Court. And this phrase, "An examination of the banking records reveals that many of the transactions conducted by these eight companies were performed following instructions of Ms. Borka Vukic." Again, if that is something that is to be put forward through the report, ¹⁷²¹⁴ those who have to challenge and contest it should be able to see from whence it came to see if in fact the Court, if this evidence does come in, is in fact being given a truly accurate picture. That recurs throughout. I think it would be tedious for me to go through every single one in part B, because I think the points are well made within our document.

Does that assist the Trial Chamber?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Do you want to say anything about the other report?

MR. KAY: Again, it comes down to this point of the investigator summarising evidence. It comes down to the same issue and whether this material is genuinely that which should be the subject of an expert giving it before the Court in this form. It's a matter for the Prosecution whether they want to treat this as a part of the evidence against the accused. If they choose to do so and go down that route into what is a very distinct area, then they must bear the consequences in relation to the time and the means by which this should be done. It seemed to the amici that the plea from the Prosecutor was, "We take the view this is essential evidence. We have a conclusion that we would seek the Trial Chamber to draw from it. There is quite a bit of material, dare I say vast amount of material in this context that would have to come within the trial process, and we're seeking this means to achieve that end." The unfairness to the accused is that it may well be that there are constraints of time, and this particular issue which is so important to them, and if it's so important to them is necessarily ¹⁷²¹⁵ important to the accused, that he should have the right to challenge, if he chooses to do so, and put his point of view and his case so that the Trial Chamber gets a full picture on the matter. But to use this kind of evidence in this way effectively breaks off and prevents the accused from being able to deal with it specifically, because the investigator, expert, is always able to say, "Well, that's what Mr. Sainovic said. That's what Ms. Vukic says." And when one multiplies that through these extensive reports - we have eight, ten files of it - it becomes a part of the trial that we submit is wholly unsatisfactory, and no one looking back at it would be able to say, "Well, that aspect of the trial was able to be properly dealt with."

It's matter for the Prosecution whether they want to rely on it, but in the same way that they stress the importance to them, the importance to the accused has its own reverse indicator. It flows from that in the opposite direction towards him.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that here, just like in many other matters, the opposite side has put things topsy-turvy. We're not dealing here with placing any kind of financial documentation in the function of proving some alleged crime and accountability which does not exist but an intentional attempt to make a confusion between what is called economic policy, the economic policy of a particular country, and in this case a country that functioned within the conditions of international sanctions imposed upon it, and the measures for implementing that policy performed by the individual state organs. And I'm going to ¹⁷²¹⁶ quote Mr. Nice here. Last time, I think he said the following -- actually, he endeavoured to sidestep the problem of sanctions which were introduced against Yugoslavia. So what?

Of course under conditions of sanctions when sanctions have been imposed which were in fact a form of a silent genocide vis-a-vis the 11 million inhabitants of Yugoslavia, another 1.2 million inhabitants in Republika Srpska, and another 300.000 of the inhabitants of Srpska Krajina, this was silent genocide. So under conditions of that kind you could proclaim, for example, that any import or expert was in fact clandestine and a case of smuggling. So what? Isn't it the role of the state organs faced with sanctions to endeavour to do what they can? In order to satisfy Mr. Nice, should they have -- or that other person guiding him -- should we have left our people to die of hunger, to die through lack of medicines, through lack of fuel or anything of that kind? Therefore, there's a confusion here between what is called and what quite obviously Mr. Nice does not know, or perhaps Mr. Torkildsen might be the only person who understands this here because he's the only qualified person in the room, what an economic policy in fact means, the economic of a policy of a country faced with economic sanctions and what mechanisms are through which the state organs implement that particular policy.

So that is the difference that cannot be seen here, or rather, intentionally a confusion has been made partially through intent and partially through an absolute lack of knowledge on the part of the matter in question by the opposing side. ^{17217 BLANK PAGE 17218} Therefore, whether the leadership of a country is striving to solve certain economic problems that it has been faced with, that is one matter and one question, and whether those questions objectively and concretely are solved by the state organs is another question. A moment ago, Mr. Nice mentioned here -- he said or, rather, he enumerated and I made a note of several individuals that he mentioned, one was the vice -- the vice-president for the economy, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, another minister, the fifth was the director of the customs administration. So these were all top functionaries doing their duties and doing their work when Yugoslavia was faced with sanctions. And look at what he says here: 100 million dinars were given to pay soldier reservists in Kosovo and Metohija. So what? Because otherwise, everything relates to 1994 onwards. Those are the dates.

And then he goes on to say the following: A large amount of medicines were supplied. Several hundred ambulances and tons of medicines, sanitary material, first aid material and food. They even delve into things like that, he says. Goods were exchanged for other goods. Barter was carried out. And then he says, for example - and this is on page 837 - for instance, he says, for example, on the 30th of April, 1983, Federal Customs Administration drew up an agreement for a compensation with the producers of fuel for the army of Yugoslavia and medicines and food which was sent out to the army of Yugoslavia. So what? Do you think that the leadership of a country, within the frameworks of its economic policy and the Federal Customs ¹⁷²¹⁹ Administration, together with the Finance Minister of the federal government, is seeking ways and means to assist the army of its own country? And the fact that we're helping our own army, the army of our own country in this particular way is something that was not done as it should have been, as -- according to the regulations when you're faced with sanctions. And that is something that is -- you are amassing as an important document here.

Mr. Kay, a moment ago, said that there was a vast quantity of material and documents, and in that vast quantity of documents and papers, I'd like Mr. Torkildsen, among those thousands of pages, to extract a single one which would indicate my management of any resources, whichever sources they are, to whoever they belong, the economy, the state, whatever. I'd like him to show me one single piece of paper. So economic policy is one thing and it is the competent organs of the state that manage them. Whether it was in keeping with the law and regulations, no, because we were faced with sanctions, so of course not. But Mr. Torkildsen will explain this best to you: In banking transactions, financial transactions, there are always records. There is never any money for which records cannot be found, and there is nobody who deals with money and issues money without receiving a chit, a receipt in return, some written evidence showing what was going on. So I say so what? So what if we helped the army of Yugoslavia? So what if we helped the Republika Srpska or Republika Srpska Krajina? Did the Vatican -- didn't the Vatican assist Croatia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, goodness knows how many countries? Didn't they help the Muslims ¹⁷²²⁰ in Bosnia-Herzegovina? And so on and so forth. The Germans helped the Croats, the Americans even. And so on and so on. So what if the Serbs assisted the Serbs? Where is there any logic in -- if we did not do so, we would be bastards if we did not help those people during the sanctions, while we were under sanctions.

But as it is not my intention to waste my own time or anybody else's time, even the public's time, those who are attending all this, I know that you will deliberate about all these matters exclusively from a formal and legal aspect. I think that the material is quite unsuitable, but, please, just like Mr. Kay emphasised - and I completely agree with him in what he was saying - we have the statement of a -- other persons, I don't want to repeat his enumeration of them, but we have statements of persons to which this evidence relies. And I find it completely unacceptable. They cannot be adopted and accepted and admitted until all those individuals are subjected to cross-examination. Because we don't know how the statements were taken, we don't know whether they were taken in their entirety, and quite obviously, we do know that they were not taken in keeping with the rules and regulations for giving statements, under what circumstances and all the rest of it. And if somebody relies on somebody else's statements, then the person giving the statement must be brought here and subjected to cross-examination and not to take anybody's story for granted, although in addition to all the efforts I have made, I have not been able to find in any of these papers anything that would hold me accountable except that I waged economic policy in the best way I knew how. And might I say that I knew how to do this much ¹⁷²²¹ better than anybody else, because quite obviously we managed to survive, faced with the sanctions. And how we managed our economy under conditions of sanction will, at a later date in history, be studied as successful defence again the genocidal intents implemented against our nations, and you will be able to see, through the material, that the greatest portion of the resources went to support the economic branches that were having a difficult time, such as the metal industry, the textile industry, and of course, the army and the police and the security of the country, and of course assistance to the Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina, but once again I say so what? This is our own affair. How we're going to spend our own money is up to us.

Is there a single document here that has been shown here and that indicates that even one cent was placed in the function of perpetrating a crime of any kind, unless you consider that care and attention to the material position of one's own army or one's own metal industry or one's own textile industry can be considered a crime. Because we found a total collapse of the country under conditions of sanction. So in resisting these measures and resisting sanctions, these are the things we did to survive.

So these are all things that have to be cleared up, and none of these statements, not by a single person, can be admitted until that person is brought here for cross-examination. And of course once we receive the final report of Mr. Torkildsen, then Mr. Torkildsen himself will have to take the chair, the witness chair, and be subjected to cross-examination. ¹⁷²²² So that is, in the briefest possible terms, what I have to say about this massive material which I think Mr. Nice has used from his total lack of knowledge. Because had he known anything about all this, he wouldn't have served up this kind of material.

JUDGE MAY: When were the sanctions imposed, Mr. Milosevic? Can you remember that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The sanctions were imposed in 1992. However, those murderous ones and the total blockade, which means when the borders were hermetically closed, that was in 1993, after the Vance-Owen Plan was rejected, even though Yugoslavia wholeheartedly sought to have that plan adopted. Sanctions were imposed upon it because the Assembly of Republika Srpska rejected the Vance-Owen Plan in 1993. And that same year, 1993, Mr. May, as you're asking me, we had soaring inflation because of these horrific sanctions, and the inflation was hundreds of millions of per cent. And then through a very elegant and simple reform, we stopped the inflation in 1994, reduced it to zero and maintained the stability of the dinar, with some minor fluctuations, up to the year 2000. And that will enter into the history of economic policy and economic science as to how we managed to achieve that under those conditions. But that is a separate issue. I am just answering your question, though it is not my duty to answer questions until I take the witness box. But so that you should know, that these sanctions were introduced -- criminal sanctions were introduced in 1993.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I said at the very outset, you are not obliged to answer any questions, as you point out, but it's sometimes ¹⁷²²³ helpful to have matters clarified as we go along, and if you can do so, so much the better.

Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position of this expert is no different from many other experts dealing with similar lines of work. Forensic accounting experts in commercial or even criminal cases have to review, with their expertise, a range of materials that may be superficially familiar in part, bank accounts and so on, but simply aren't fully understood by the layman and are understood for the purpose of tracing money by the expert. He's undoubtedly an expert and he brings those skills to this exercise. But in any event, as we've explained in our filings in this and I think in other topics, the range of expertise that can assist the Court is broad these days, from the entirely intellectual expert who speaks in entirely intellectual, academic terms, to the practical expert; and inevitably experts will find themselves, in giving evidence, doing a number of things, including exercising their skills in the analysis of documents. That's exactly what this witness has done.

A few matters of detail: The Ognjenovic interview was by an investigator called Tore Soldal and also another financial investigator called Rand Sharpe [phoen]. It's no different in form from any other of the many forms of out-of-Court statements that have been admitted in this case.

Can we have a very short closed session, please, because I want to deal with propositions in chronological order. ¹⁷²²⁴

[Private session] Page 17224 - redacted - private session

¹⁷²²⁵

[Open session]

MR. NICE: The -- sorry.

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE: The accused's out-of-court statements were a source, provided a framework or part of a framework that the expert was then able to consider by reference to the documents to see if they fit and support, to see if they go together. They do. That's why each is valuable, the one confirming the other. Zebic's statement has been signed. We've dealt with that. And there's no question of this being a summarising witness. We made it clear that all the documents are available in full when required, so it's not question of summarising their effect. It's looking at out-of-court statements and looking at what documents reveal and seeing the degree to which they match, and they do match. And the Chamber will have seen in relation to a couple of the witnesses that my learned friend Mr. Kay said were inadmissible out-of-court statements, that they don't actually feature in the little square boxes that I've had put on this chart as going to show particular sources of information. Not because they aren't valuable but because they're not critical to particular limbs of the process. So you won't find Sainovic there, and you won't find Zebic there. They provide further supportive material but they're not actually critical to any of those particular lines that we would wish to establish. And of course these are for the most part - because they're made in other jurisdictions - they are declarations against interest, therefore having about them an indicia or indicator of reliability the Chamber can ^{17226 BLANK PAGE 17227} weigh.

So far as Slobodan Raj is concerned, his statement you'll find is referred to, and he can be found -- you see where I point. It's towards the bottom left of the statement, there.

Now, in one sense his statement is an ICTY statement, I think one of only two ICTY statements referred to in this report, the other one being Ljiljana Radenkovic. His statement, though, is barely an ICTY statement, because he was interviewed and then came back with his own handwritten document which he wished to be annexed to the formal witness statement then taken from him. So it's absolutely his own statement and cannot be subject to any of the particular exclusionary jurisprudence. It's a statement that falls fairly and squarely within Rule 89 and is, in our respectful submission, absolutely appropriate for reference by this expert.

My learned friend Mr. Kay's references to footnotes have been dealt with in the Prosecution's document of the 16th of January of this year, and of course there are some ten files of material to which reference can be made and any footnote that may yet be outstanding can always be the subject of an informal request to us and will be dealt with. The suggestion by my learned friend that the accused should have the right to challenge and put his case; precisely so. In having the material assessed in this way, collectively, it is all the easier for him to put his case, or as it would appear, to acknowledge the accuracy of the case presented against him - that seems to be substantially what he was saying - and to reduce to a minimum the amount of further or any live ¹⁷²²⁸ evidence that would have to be called to present this complete picture. Mr. Kay said no one looking back would say that this was properly done. Of course he recognises that to call all the evidence live would be an unacceptable task probably for any Court and wouldn't be undertaken by any Court because it wouldn't be necessary. Without this evidence, looking back simply at the odd word of evidence or the odd line of evidence here or there without an attempt, indeed without the proper execution of the process of analysing the material, would look a dereliction of our duty and, in our respectful submission, would show as a gap on the face of this record.

So far as the accused's observations are concerned, his last observation about economic miracle of reform is one that, although there might be indeed a record of some economic turnaround, it's not one that would necessarily be accepted as being to the credit of the accused, and indeed there may yet be evidence to satisfy the Chamber that the accused was concerned -- not just willing but concerned to see the economy in distress because it lent to the power he was able to exercise. And that again shows the need to have economic analysis and expert analysis of what was going on of which this would prove a substantial part. The accused says no document goes to show his control of the money. Maybe no document, but the live evidence matches entirely with the expert analysis and goes to show that what the live evidence says in short form is consistent with what is found. The expert evidence goes to show as well, of course, that there is nobody else revealed on the documents as exercising the power to move this money in illicit ways as was plainly ¹⁷²²⁹ done.

Your Honour, the rest of the arguments are, I think, satisfactorily set out in our written pleadings. I'll see if Mr. Torkildsen thinks I've missed anything. But before I ask him that, in our latest filing to which I'm going to turn in just a minute, on witnesses, by error this witness has been recorded as one about whom we make our decision as to whether we regard him as a priority witness later. We do regard him as a priority witness. In our submission, it would be a dereliction of our duties not no to lay before you a full account, as we can present through an expert, of the financial position of this accused and of the organs with which he was associated and which he was in control at the relevant times.

Very well. Raj's -- I'm very grateful. The annexed statement of Raj was not handwritten, it was typed by him.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. The Court will consider these arguments and give our ruling in due course.

MR. NICE: Can I turn, then, to general procedural problems, a topic to which I've been anxious to get since I think before Christmas but for various reasons it hasn't been possible to do so. And if I can make some general observations first, I'll then explain the position through some charts that I've had prepared.

Your Honours, it is essential that we bring the Chamber up-to-date with where we are. I see the charts are being distributed. They're going to be I think rather more interesting than I am for the time being but if I could detain you before we turn to them with some observations which I ¹⁷²³⁰ hope will set the position clearly.

In conducting this Prosecution, we the Prosecutor have two principles that guide us: First, we must prove the indictments preferred against this accused. Second, we must do everything we can to comply fully with Court orders. It is simply inappropriate for us, or would be inappropriate for us to allow time to run out and then to say, "Well, now we need more time to do our job." That is an inappropriate way for any prosecutor to carry on.

And so in a setting where it's been apparent from the beginning that the time limits imposed were - which we of course appealed but unsuccessfully - were bound to be difficult, I have regularly brought the Trial Chamber up-to-date, most recently with confidential filings the essence of which I may touch upon in public now today. We have regularly proposed procedural reforms, and we have, we hope, alerted the Chamber to the difficulties that we collectively face, for, in our respectful submission, disposal of this trial properly is a collective responsibility, we to present our cases and of course for the Trial Chamber to manage the time that is available to this as to other cases. Now, the reality, I think, is that we will in due course have to ask for some additional time. I'm not going to make the application now for this reason: It remains my duty to fit as much evidence as possible within the available time. There remains the possibility of further reduction in our estimates. There remain the possibilities of further important witnesses becoming available whose evidence will be of a density that will mean time may be saved in respect of other witnesses. But ¹⁷²³¹ inevitably, it will appear, I will be applying for more time, and my expectation is that I will make that application in perhaps a month or so's time when we know where we are.

JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt you on one point. We said that you would have time to cover that which has been lost due to the accused's ill health and rest days. If it's of assistance to you, our calculation at the moment is that about 30 days are outstanding to you as a result of that. We haven't made a precise calculation but it's of that order.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we may have calculated it in a different way but my feeling is that that's about the same calculation that we've made. When I say we're going to need more time, it's more time beyond that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, may I say this as well: We have been concerned at all times about the difference between proving a legally sufficient case and proving a complete case, that is, a case where all the most helpful evidence is before you, evidence that we would expect an arbiter of these facts to want to hear from, even if it is not absolutely essential for the legally sufficient or the bare minimum case. I'm going to return to that distinction a little later when we look at the charts.

Because of our approach - and I can say this, I suppose, by way of one sentence of indulgence - I suppose I am probably the only person yet charged with the duty of prosecuting an individual who happens to be former head of state in respect of three wars, and you would expect me to ¹⁷²³² find this, and as indeed I do, a challenging and interesting task. In fact, the majority of my time or a great deal of my time is spent in the business of trying to fit - to convert an English phrase to its metric equivalent - a litre into a half-litre jug. The procedure has become, and the timetabling problems have become preoccupying for us. And as a result of that, of course, I have proposed to the Chamber a range of methods by which time could be saved, and it seems to us that none of them has yet found favour, although it has to be said that all of them really amount to concessions by the Prosecution from what would normally be to their advantage, because essentially we have argued in other settings, but I can mention them publicly now, that the appropriate way for getting the maximum amount of evidence into the limited amount of time that is available is by taking evidence in chief in written form in a way that of course is done now by many sophisticated jurisdictions when dealing with judge alone trials of complex civil litigation to which in many ways this litigation is most similar.

We have, in making these proposals time and again, we think, reflected, Your Honour -- His Honour Judge May's words about their being something outmoded in the practice of having examination-in-chief orally. Your Honours, can I digress for a second and invite comparison between the speed at which full examination-in-chief and full cross-examination proceeds contrasted with -- and it's not a trial, but something like television programmes that the Court may have seen in the past concerning Yugoslavia, where the proponent of one position speaks his words briefly and the opposite side or another view is given shortly ¹⁷²³³ after. Now, we cannot in trials achieve that density of information presentation, and of course although the viewer of a television programme will think at the end of it -- may only last four hours, Death of Yugoslavia only a few hours more. Although at the end of it he may think he has a balanced view, of course there are arguments that he doesn't. But it's our respectful submission to this Chamber that there must be better way of using our time than simply being able to get through witnesses at about the rate, at best, of one a day. And in our submission, the use of more written evidence for evidence in chief and focusing the accused more on what is strictly relevant in cross-examination would enable the Chamber to have more evidence in the limited time available with pointed and relevant cross-examination than is coming our way at the moment.

And so although I'm probably wearisome in the number of proposals I've made for attempting to have evidence reduced, wearisome to the Chamber because it imposes on you an obligation to think about it, wearisome to my colleagues who would all prefer, I dare say, the old-fashioned traditional ordinary criminal trial of the United States or England with the opportunities that they give public display of the dramatic and emotional sides of this evidence, despite being wearisome in those ways, what I'm pressing on the Chamber is the absolute need in a case of this kind to maximise the amount of evidence that it can consume. And those of us who, of course, have operated in an environment where evidence goes in in-chief in writing and where cross-examination follows after a limited number of words from the witness, know that the Court's ¹⁷²³⁴ minds are kept working at an optimum and maximum speed for the digestion of the material coming their way and that it is an extremely efficient way of presenting material.

My Lord -- Your Honours, we would respectfully make an obvious point about the accused, and that is that he is clearly capable of cross-examining for as long as any witness gives evidence in chief. It is obvious to all that by his doing that he ultimately reduces the amount of time available for other witnesses.

The amici generally propose no methods for getting more evidence before the Chamber in the allotted time and seem only to favour the examination rights in the form of cross-examination that reflect, in our submission, a different type of trial from that to which this can most easily be likened.

Your Honours, can we just look before the break - because I can explain them at least briefly, at these charts - and can one go on the overhead projector.

JUDGE MAY: Why does it need to go on the overhead projector?

MR. NICE: Because people are viewing it so it can then be seen --

JUDGE MAY: This is matter for us.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: If we look at -- the best one to look at first is probably the bottom right-hand chart, because it concerns what's outstanding for Bosnia, and Bosnia hasn't really started very much. On the right is our calculation of the time remaining for Bosnia. ^{17235 BLANK PAGE 17236} Now, as Your Honour will know from the lists that we provided on Friday, we have divided up witnesses at this stage, and of course provisionally, into two categories. The first category that we regard as essential, priority I witnesses, and the second category, that category of witnesses that I said we judge would make for a complete case. I can give some examples: International negotiators with the accused who, if they were in a position to give evidence publicly would be witnesses we would very much like the Court to hear from; the very senior international military figures, likewise, who could help you. But they are just some of those priority II witnesses.

So on the right-hand side, time remaining under our calculation. On the left, in blue, the priority witnesses for Bosnia. If you then go to the top of the blue column, here we we've added in those witnesses whose crime-base evidence is necessary under 92 bis (B) or (D) and on the basis that they have an hour's cross-examination each. Now, before I come to the other two elements in that column, a word about where I've got so far. We have to prove crimes. We can't prove this case simply by linkage. The Bosnia case started out with a very large number of municipalities, and within the bottom part, the 79-odd days has included live evidence for three municipalities for it is down to three municipalities that Bosnia has been reduced. The remaining municipalities that it is --

JUDGE MAY: Just pausing one moment. I think we must adjourn.

MR. NICE: Certainly, yes.

JUDGE MAY: But let me try and understand the Bosnia position. ¹⁷²³⁷ You're saying that's three municipalities but 79 days of evidence?

MR. NICE: Yes. The rest is linkage evidence. So that -- so that contains live evidence for just three municipalities, and then all the other municipalities which we would seek to lay before you are under 92 bis (B) or (D) and would occupy, even on the basis of only one hour examination or in reality cross-examination per witness, a total of 31-odd days, 32-odd days.

And before I move on, and perhaps I will move on after the break, you can take any examples of these blocks and measure them against the red block and see the consequences for us of the time limit we face. But before -- in case Chamber takes the document away and reviews it generally, the second from left block, priority II for Bosnia, is that category of witness which we think and have always argued would be very valuable for the complete picture. The middle -- the last block, priority V is dealt with in our witness list and is those witnesses whom the Chamber itself indicates it wants to hear from. A very small amount, I think none in respect to Bosnia at the moment, but you'll see in the other chart something for the others.

JUDGE MAY: You can help us perhaps after the adjournment with Sarajevo and Srebrenica, what you propose to do about those particular areas.

MR. NICE: I will indeed.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m. ¹⁷²³⁸

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, staying with the Bosnian chart and before I turn to Srebrenica and Sarajevo, the Chamber will recall that originally charged against this accused were allegations in respect of some 47 municipalities. Because of the limitations of time, the reduction has been to three to be proved live, but again on a very reduced number of witnesses, each taking about, I think, a week each or something to that -- a five-day week each. That's Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Bratunac. And in order to provide within the limited time available some appropriate geographical spread, there's only six other municipalities that we seek to prove under the provisions of 92 bis, and that's Visegrad, Foca, Brcko, Bosanski Samac, Prijedor, and Sanski Most, which, therefore, covers the territory to an extent. But this represents an enormous reduction in the case as originally formulated. And so I turn again to the charts. I know, Your Honour, that the Court was concerned that the charts shouldn't be viewed publicly. The Prosecution performance of its duties to the Chamber and to the wider community are a matter of concern and our ability to meet the constraints, our performance in meeting the constraints so far is a matter that, in our respectful submission, could be properly a matter for public consideration and I'd ask that the charts --

JUDGE MAY: No. This is a matter for us. It's matter for the Trial Chamber that has to manage this case. It's not a public relations exercise.

MR. NICE: It's not intended to be a public relations exercise ¹⁷²³⁹ either, Your Honour. I have throughout, and as the Court knows, been very concerned to help the Court confidentially about our problems, and I'm going to continue in that determination, but the Prosecutor and the Prosecution has not a public relations interest, it has a proper interest in being seen to have done its job properly.

Now, Srebrenica and Sarajevo present particular problems. They've each, of course, been the subject of indictments here in respect of other accused, one tried, one awaiting trial completion of a trial. Each of those trials has lasted a very substantial period of time, a year or more. And obviously that type of trial is clearly not possible in the setting of a case like this.

They may also be parts of the indictment against the accused that require rather more rather than less evidence, and they have to be seen separately, because, as is revealed in the chart before you, we have prepared a very reduced case that we believe to be legally sufficient against this accused in respect of each of those locations. But even on that extremely reduced basis, Sarajevo we forecast would occupy 20 days, and Srebrenica 21 days. And given that there are only, in our calculation, 70 days remaining from the overall time limit for Bosnia, and given that the priority witnesses for the balance of the Bosnia case, excluding 92 bis, would occupy 79 or 80 days, it's clear that we simply cannot fit all these items into that time. And of course, as I've already explained, if 92 bis is not dealt with in full 92 bis fashion, without cross-examination, there's another 30 days required there. So the Bosnia position before Your Honours is a stark one. It's ¹⁷²⁴⁰ not entirely surprising, for it is a very large case, arguably the largest of the three. It remains the position that I am doing everything I can - and I'll come back to this in a minute or so - to reduce further that core of 79, 80 days. And it may reduce. Witnesses may not be available. Witnesses may provide more than it was expected, freeing us of the need to call others. But the problem is there.

Can I now look back at how we've done? And the Court will recognise to some -- we're obviously doing -- we're calculating on the -- we've centred the calculations in confidential documents that reflect the Court's orders both as to time and as to number of witnesses in order to assess how much time the Court was allowing us for each segment of the trial. And in Kosovo, when the Kosovo section ended on time, it was recognised that there was some outstanding material, and the Chamber was happy with that. And the way we've analysed it, there are a further 11 days required for really category I or priority I witnesses, a couple of days for witnesses that the Chamber wanted us to call, and some seven days or thereabouts in respect of witnesses who, in a perfect world, we forecast the Chamber might want us to call.

But let it be noted - I've made this point before and I must make it again - the entire Prosecution evidence in Kosovo in chief occupied about the equivalent of five weeks of an ordinary domestic court's time, and we would urge the Chamber to accept not only the good faith efforts of this Prosecution but that the delivery, the performance to put in a case in chief under conventional, essentially common law procedures in five weeks in chief, in five weeks of court time, is extremely swift. Your ¹⁷²⁴¹ Honour will know domestic frauds or customs cases involving one defendant or a couple, in the United Kingdom and in other countries that use broadly this system, can last months. So just 11 more days of priority I witnesses for Kosovo.

Croatia, our calculation is that there are about ten more days remaining for Croatia.

JUDGE MAY: Just help us with the calculation of days. That is the original time limit plus what you estimate you're entitled to because of the time lost through illness.

MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour. If Your Honour looks at the confidential filings, what we did, in order to understand the Court's rulings and to implement them, was to take the total amount of time that had been allowed as we calculated it and on the basis that when time limits were imposed the accused's medical condition wasn't fully appreciated. We've then taken the number of witnesses the Chamber allowed for each segment of the trial in order to identify the portion or proportion of that overall period of time that the Chamber would have judged appropriate to each segment of the trial, and we have then allocated evidence called as between Kosovo, Croatia, and to the extent Bosnia, and made the appropriate deductions in order to leave us with the conclusion that there is no time left for Kosovo, of course, there are ten days left from this morning for Croatia, and that there are 70 days left remaining for Bosnia.

Again, if I may respectfully urge the Chamber to accept this, the Prosecution has, it may be thought, done very well for a conflict as large ¹⁷²⁴² and detailed as Croatia. There are, in our calculation, 22-odd days of priority witnesses left. So that's ten more days than the time available. But there would be a requirement for 16 days if 92 bis witnesses are to be cross-examined for an hour in the way the Chamber has been minded to do generally, but we respectfully remind the Chamber that in its dealings with Kosovo, it made clear that different considerations could arise as to cross-examination of crime-base witnesses in Croatia and Bosnia from the considerations that affected Kosovo where the accused was raising a particular defence associated with NATO bombing, a defence that of course has no part to play here. And there were several occasions when the Court was quite explicit about reserving its position on whether 92 bis should be full or subject to cross-examination.

Now, what we've then done, obviously, is prepared a total picture on our best calculations to date that reflect 80 or 81 days outstanding with -- for all parts of the case. In our judgement, 113 days of priority I witnesses. The same additional 41-odd days for Srebrenica and Sarajevo, with a further addition of 49-odd days for 92 bis witnesses if they are to be the subject of cross-examination.

In addition to that, there are four days of evidence, our category V, total priority V witnesses whom the Chamber wishes us to call, and then we've already identified another 33 days of evidence that falls into our priority II witnesses who would make the case complete. Now, Your Honour, this is obviously a very troubling position in which we find ourselves. I repeat, I think, for the third time: Further reductions are being pursued, and further reductions may occur. ¹⁷²⁴³ For example, I can tell Your Honour that you will be receiving today - I hope today - two applications, one public and one not public, to call witnesses who will give central evidence, different in character are the witnesses, absolutely central evidence which should save time. Each of them not being available until now to be added to the list. I can tell you I will have to deal with one of them, I'll deal with one of them at the end publicly because it will help the accused for me to do so. But those endeavours continue. The Chamber will, I'm sure, recognise that one of the consequences of a public trial, as this has been, consequences of many people finding the courage to give evidence publicly has been that more witnesses do make themselves available to us. Frequently valuable witnesses who we can assess as bringing benefit to the potential quality of the judgement and to the saving of time. And we've had a number of witnesses walking in, offering to see us as a result of evidence over the last few weeks, some of them potentially extremely important. And so that in part again explains why I'm not going to make an application for time now, I'm going to see how we go. But, Your Honour, can I press the Chamber to consider the following: The Chamber will remember as well, incidentally, that I have provided you with documents, we called it a fill-box document, it may be a document you'll want to see again, maybe not, but that assesses, as it were, how evidence to date may have met the task imposed on us of proving these counts.

JUDGE MAY: We wouldn't discourage you in producing that sort of document. ^{17244 BLANK PAGE 17245}

MR. NICE: The Chamber will recognise how I have willingly offered my decision-making, in part, to the Chamber if the Chamber ever wanted to involve itself in the decision as to which witnesses it wished to hear from. I recognise the problems with that, but nevertheless, with the case we have to deal with, it's something we'd invite the Chamber to consider perhaps doing at some stage.

As things are, the list we've prepared -- and I hope the Chamber had an opportunity to look at the list that was prepared last week, and I'll say a word about that in just a second. As it is, that list has been prepared on the basis of evidence being given in the conventional way because there's no alternative for us at the moment but to assume that that's the basis upon which we're going to proceed and thus, all the time estimates are on that conventional basis, each witness having a summary of the evidence he can give so that the Court an, if it wants to, assess for itself whether these are witnesses who really are witnesses --

JUDGE MAY: So we can follow the application, if 92 bis is to continue to play its part, effectively you would be asking us to apply that rule to all the witnesses.

MR. NICE: Yes. Save in absolutely exceptional circumstances.

JUDGE MAY: Save where it doesn't apply, acts and conduct of the accused.

MR. NICE: Yes. Because its consequences for the case as a whole on the time limits allowed are so substantial and because 92 bis was introduced as a rule to enable such evidence to be given in this way. We look -- sorry. ¹⁷²⁴⁶

JUDGE MAY: But we would be treating them as we did the two Dubrovnik witnesses last week. When that effectively happened, they were then cross-examined. General Mangan and Mr. Davies.

MR. NICE: We're obviously at cross-purposes. We're asking that crime-base evidence should be given fully 92 bis.

JUDGE MAY: I follow that.

MR. NICE: Sorry.

JUDGE MAY: I follow that, of course, but for the remainder of the witnesses.

MR. NICE: Full 92 bis. Your Honour has only to look at the overall witness testimony chart to see that 92 bis for the limited number of municipalities, six, that are not to be proved live, the three, and for other 92 bis evidence for Croatia of a crime-base nature, 49 of the remaining 81 days would be consumed.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I interrupted you.

MR. NICE: No, not at all. And, Your Honour -- so I was -- I was reminding you of the degree to which I've been prepared to surrender my discretion to the broader discretion of the Court in identifying the evidence that's helpful, because I actually -- because it can be urged that that is an appropriate course to take in inquiries of this kind. Because although they're trials, they're also inquiries. But second, or finally, can I propose this: Has the time come for the Chamber now not to be thinking so much in terms of a time bar but to be thinking more in terms of which witnesses it is really essential for the Chamber to hear? ¹⁷²⁴⁷ When the Chamber made its rulings, time and number of witnesses, it hadn't seen, and I don't think was in a position to forecast, the degree to which this accused would maximise his use of time in cross-examination. The Chamber did in any event not identify fully its reasoning process that led to either the time or the witness numbers. No complaint about that; we've simply done our best to work within those constraints. But it now is impossible.

Because our priority -- not our priority. Because principle number one is that we must prove these indictments in the same way as principle number two is that we must do our best to obey all court orders.

JUDGE MAY: One course we've suggested is reduction in the scale and size of the indictments.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Now, I don't know to what extent you followed that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we have. From 47 municipalities down to 3 live and six 92 bis to cover, in a representative way, the whole territory of Bosnia, is an enormous reduction.

JUDGE MAY: Will that be reflected in an amendment to the indictment so that we can follow it?

MR. NICE: There won't be counts that won't be covered but there will be detail within the counts that won't be proved.

JUDGE MAY: And it would be helpful for us to have that in written form at some stage.

MR. NICE: We can deal with that. ¹⁷²⁴⁸

JUDGE MAY: So we know where we are exactly.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there hasn't been -- there has been a reduction, as you'll remember, I think, in respect of sexual assaults in Croatia. Several counts have been dropped in respect to that. But in any event, as you'll see - and assuming our calculations are broadly accurate, because we've done our best on the material available to calculate what the Chamber meant by so many days and so much time - we're not actually far short on Croatia in the same way as we weren't far short of delivering in Kosovo. So it could be said, and I wouldn't counter this, that the imposition of time limits served a very useful purpose in making sure that we did get our material in in time. But for this last segment, the problem is it looks too big to solve just by efforts on our part, and particularly given the significant amounts of time that Sarajevo and Srebrenica must take, they being allegations really of a kind that simply cannot be eliminated in any way other than by proper trial and disposal. And so I wonder if the time hasn't come, and I say again I'm happy to keep -- keep battling on to reduce the time, and I'll do that. Has the time come, though, to look at the remaining part of the case in terms of the witnesses to be called rather than just the time bar? And it's for that reason, incidentally, that I've provided you with this list. I said I would say one other thing about this list: Of course the list is provisional and I'm extremely grateful to all these working on this case who put their heads together to prepare it, but it's a jolly useful document for us all to have because we can see where we're going. It will change; names will be deleted and added and the list can be ¹⁷²⁴⁹ brought up-to-date, but it is essentially a final working document, showing where we're going. It's a document that enables the Court to look ahead and to see which witnesses are coming and to say, "Well, is that witness really going to add to material? Let's see what you've already proved in your fill-box documents. Isn't this duplicative?" And sometimes a hint being -- or a wink being as good as a nod - I never know which one it is - we can take a hint and drop a witness and move on. So because the last thing in the world we want is to find ourselves in any position of irreconcilable disagreement with the Trial Chamber as to the final management of this part of the case, we hope that the tools we've provided you will enable us to plan sensibly for the conclusion of the case, to prove all the counts in an economic way without prejudicing the accused but without prejudicing the Prosecution either.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you Mr. Nice. We will consider the position in the light of this document. There can be no doubt that time limits will remain, but we will consider the difficulties which the Prosecution outline. We will consider whether any amendment to our procedures should be considered, should be unnecessary. And of course, as I said earlier, it's not a matter that we can deal with, in any event, in the absence of Judge Robinson, but he will have the opportunity of reading what you've said.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, then before I sit down and invite Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff to take the next witness, I said I'd mention one witness in particular. There's a witness we would like to call as early as next Tuesday because of problems with his timetable. We haven't been ¹⁷²⁵⁰ able to make the application until today -- he's not on the list. We haven't been able to make the application today because he hasn't been freed by the authorities that bind him to give evidence until now. It's a former Ambassador to Croatia called Peter Galbraith. You've heard him mentioned. His name's within the transcript. He can provide very valuable evidence. We should be in a position to serve a summary today, and I hope to be able to comply with all our other disclosure duties today or tomorrow.

I'm not asking for you to make a decision about that because, of course, you can't in the absence of Judge Robinson, and you can't without having, I think, a paper document before you to deal with, but I've given the earliest possible notice I can to the accused. I forecast a written application that will come I hope today, and we will be inviting a foreshortening of all the time limits to enable him to be called on next Tuesday. That application will come together with another application which I think will bear a pseudonym of an extremely important witness whose evidence will add materially to the evidence before the Chamber and also save time.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's not for you to comment on the conduct of the Prosecution case insofar as it's been related today. It's a problem for them. We are not going to deal with any application in relation to the witnesses. We will get it in writing, and we will hear from you in due course on it.

Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. No, Mr. Milosevic. There's nothing relevant for you to say. ¹⁷²⁵¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have something relevant to say. It's not a question of the technique of the presentation of so-called evidence but certain principled positions and absurd allegations that we have heard here, and I assume I'm entitled to respond to them.

JUDGE MAY: No. It's a matter for the Prosecution. It's between the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber as to how they manage their case. If there is a change in our procedures, which is proposed, such as having all the witnesses give evidence in the form of statements, before we take such a course, you will have the opportunity to address us upon it. But at the moment, we're not in a position to make such a decision and we haven't done so, so there is no application at this stage which is before the Court on which we need you to address us.

But as I say, should the time come when we intend to take up any of the suggestions or we want to consider any of the suggestions made by the Prosecution which affect the giving of evidence, we will allow you to call -- to address us on it, of course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. But would you be kind enough to give me an explanation then, please.

JUDGE MAY: Depends what it's about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We heard Mr. Nice saying that the collective task here is to prove the allegations in the indictment. I had believed that the task of any legal court in the world is to prove the truth. And even in view of the position held by the so-called Prosecution, they should be obliged to try and establish the truth rather than to prove the allegations in the indictment. Because we heard a ¹⁷²⁵² number of absurdities. A moment ago Mr. Nice even said that the sanctions of the international community suited us. That can only be compared with the -- another absurd statement --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, time is short. If there was a general point -- if there was a general point, something we were going to consider which would affect your position, we would give you the opportunity to address us, but right now we're going to go on with the evidence. Time is short, and we will hear evidence and begin with Mr. Grujic, is it?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Is he here? No, Mr. Milosevic. You are attempting to make a speech. Yes. Let's go on with Mr. Grujic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is not a speech. I am referring to what we heard with respect to this rather extensive submission of the opposing side regarding their proposal for formal acknowledgement of adjudicated facts.

JUDGE MAY: We're not going to decide on that today or indeed at any time without argument. Before we admit any evidence like that, you'll have the opportunity to address us. And I can tell you that for the moment, we're going to go on dealing with the Croatian evidence, and we've got all the 92 bis witnesses to consider first before we go on to deal with adjudicated facts.

JUDGE MAY: Senior Legal Officer.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll have the witness. ^{17253 BLANK PAGE 17254}

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: If the witness would take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you would like to sit down.

WITNESS: IVAN GRUJIC

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Please -- Mr. Grujic, please state your name for the record, your name and profession.

Can you hear me now?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. Please state your name and profession for the record.

A. [In English] Translator no.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's try again. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, will you start again.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. Can you hear me now? Can you hear translation?

A. [Interpretation] Not loud enough. I can hardly hear.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. Can you hear me now, Mr. Grujic?

A. Yes. It's okay now.

Q. Please tell us your name and your profession.

A. My name is Ivan Grujic. I'm currently working as the head of the ¹⁷²⁵⁵ department of the government of the Republic of Croatia for Detainees and Missing Persons.

Q. In your capacity as the head of this office, did you prepare an expert report on the missing people, displaced people, and killed people in the Republic of Croatia during the war years 1990, 1992?

A. I did.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to tender this expert report and its attachments as exhibits. And it's -- actually, the expert report was filed on the 5th of February, 2003 and had a few attachments related to the work of the office. But in addition to that, the witness has prepared charts related to all the issues that arose in the report. That is the figures given in the report in numbers he has also prepared in charts, and we have put the charts in a binder.

JUDGE MAY: That's a binder which we've just got, is it?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Binder 1. Binder 1 has these charts that the witness and his office prepared. Binder 1 has also the annex to the Croatian indictment, that is the killed people per crime-base and the findings of Mr. Grujic in relation to this particular schedule. That is, he has marked the schedules with particular annotations. And in addition to that, we have also prepared the underlying materials, that is missing questionnaires and exhumation reports. This is all included in the binders 2 to 10 with separate sections for each crime base.

JUDGE MAY: Would it be convenient to deal with the matter in this way: The expert report will be given one exhibit number, together with its attachments; the first binder will be a separate exhibit; and then the ¹⁷²⁵⁶ remaining binders it may be convenient to deal with in the same way that we dealt with the village binders in the Kosovo part of the case, so that would be given a separate number together, 2 to 10, and be referred to as, for instance, the Grujic binder. Would that be convenient?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: You have the remaining binders here, do you, 2 to 10? The registrar points out that she doesn't have them. We'll give them numbers now.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the expert report with the attachment will be Prosecutor's Exhibit --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Don't interrupt, please, Mr. Tapuskovic. We'll deal with what you've got to say in a moment but let the registrar finish what she's saying.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours expert report with attachment will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 401. The first binder will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 402, and the remaining separate binders beginning with 2 and ending with binder number 10 will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 403.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have much to say except the fact that these ten binders were served on us today, the amicus, and as far as I understand it, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic received them only today. So up to the present we were unable to analyse these documents in any way. So I just wanted to inform Your Honours about that. ¹⁷²⁵⁷

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, just to remark to this, everything was actually disclosed earlier on in the disclosure of the exhibits list and the attached exhibits. What you have gotten today is actually only a redisclosure of the materials, and it's now organised according to crime base, while in the exhibits list it was just put on there in a -- not in that organised fashion.

The only thing that -- things that are actually new are the charts that the witness had prepared, the charts -- and the charts are actually just reflecting what is given in his sectioned results, results in the expert reports, just reflecting that numbers in -- in just -- in chart form. So that's actually also nothing really new.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what is it?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone. We can't hear you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to correct Mr. Tapuskovic, at least as far as I am concerned. These ten binders that I have received, these ten large binders, I received them when I entered here after the break. So I don't understand. Perhaps you can explain how you can imagine that I can look through all these papers and what all this is about.

JUDGE MAY: The material is already referred to, as I understand it, in the expert's report, which you've had for some time. Is that right, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. ¹⁷²⁵⁸

JUDGE MAY: And this is also material which has already been disclosed some time ago.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Most of the material -- actually, eight of the binders are individual records for the victims of the crime bases, and they were disclosed earlier on, that is in -- on May 31st, 2002. And what you have here today is just an organised format just to -- so it's easier to find individual victims' records if at all necessary. The expert will deal with the matters in a more general way. His results are reflecting the entire results per crime base, but in case someone would like to check the records of an individual victim, then it is easy to find in the binders submitted. If that is at all necessary, that may -- it's left to the parties.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes. Let's hear the evidence.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to make an explanation to Your Honours for you to know. Possibly this was disclosed earlier on, as the Prosecutor tells us, but this is the first time that it has been disclosed in this chronological manner so that only now is it possible to compare these facts with the general conclusions provided by the expert in his report. So earlier on it was not possible to compare these documents with what the witness will be testifying about. I did come across such documents earlier on, but it was not possible to compare them with what is contained in the report of the witness you have before you.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any dispute in this case that these people are either missing or detained? Is that a subject of dispute, ¹⁷²⁵⁹ Mr. Tapuskovic?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That cannot be in dispute, absolutely not. But in order to make an assessment of the analysis provided by the expert, it should have been put in some chronological order for conclusions to be made. Otherwise, Your Honour, certainly there can be no dispute about it.

JUDGE MAY: No. We need to hear the witness's evidence. We'll hear the evidence, and then if there are any objections -- and if they're simply as to form, there is no point in them. Now, if they're of substance, if there is a real dispute about what this witness is going to say, then of course we'll consider it. But it seems to me, and of course I speak for myself, that at the moment these are not matters which are really in dispute. But let us hear the witness's evidence. Then we'll consider cross-examination and the like.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I just wish to say that as far as I am concerned it is in dispute, because one cannot accept a priori that what is contained here, that all of it has been checked and verified. It is in dispute indeed.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well. Let us go on.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. Witness, Mr. Grujic, as you have provided the written report, I will only address a few additional questions in relation to various chapters, and in relation to your professional work, you have been a police officer since 1992, and was the focus of your work throughout your career the gathering, analysing, and processing of information in ¹⁷²⁶⁰ particular in the last ten years?

A. I have been a policeman since 1972, holding various positions, but over the last ten years I have dealt with these issues of analysis and collection of information.

Q. Does your office, both the commission and later the government office, did your office deal with detainees and missing people from all sides, that is, Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and other ethnic groups?

A. Yes. The office, according to the functions it has, collects and processes information about missing persons, detained persons, exhumed persons, as well as the locations of mass graves, and all the data and activities of the office develop regardless of ethnic, religious, or other affiliation of the persons or victims that the office is dealing with.

Q. Did the commission also deal with exchanges?

A. Yes. It was also one of the main duties of the commission, and as such it was established by the government of the Republic of Croatia. So one of its activities is the exchange of prisoners of war.

Q. You have described how the office was established and the changes in your report. Can you give us an idea of how -- of the size of your office? Can you tell us about the structure?

A. The office itself is directly responsible to the government of the Republic of Croatia, and as its permanent staff, it has four full-time personnel. We have a computer engineer, two persons with secondary education engaging in analysis and keeping of records, we have also part-time associates, an operative for the field, associate in the office for the Vukovar office. So this office coordinates with other ¹⁷²⁶¹ organisational units, addressing the same issues within other ministries.

Q. You have actually listed in paragraph 5 of your report expert and advisory bodies you work with. My question is: What about cooperation with the ICRC? Does that take place as well?

A. While the commission existed and later on the office, one of the stipulations in the decree on the office is cooperation with international organisations, and that also includes a cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Q. In which way do you cooperate with them?

A. We have a direct exchange of data linked to missing persons and an indirect exchange of data through the national tracing service of the Croatian Red Cross. And also, we also obtained data from the International Red Cross through the mediation of family members, so that this cooperation is highly developed.

Q. In paragraph 4 of your report you have listed the scope of the work, and I do not want to go into details except for one. You list here in the tasks, "Organising and holding talks on detainees and missing persons with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina."

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's on page 2.

Q. And I would like to know, did you also have talks with authorities of the RSK?

A. Yes. The Republic of Serbian Krajina also had a similar commission for the exchange of detainees and prisoners, and we also talked to them to achieve the release of those prisoners. ^{17262 BLANK PAGE 17263}

Q. Your counterparts on the side of the FRY, Bosnia, and RSK, does that mean there were similar organised commissions like yours?

A. Yes. Those commissions were organisationally very similar to the commission we had in Croatia.

Q. Did the Republika Srpska have a special commission or did you meet them only in the composition of the Bosnia and Herzegovina commission?

A. They had a central commission which was composed of two parts, a part -- two military parts, the 1st Corps and the 2nd Krajina Corps, which covered different parts of the territory so that we had discussions with the central commission which was -- had competencies over these two subcommissions. Perhaps it should be noted that very frequently the commission of Republika Srpska acted together with other Serbian commissions.

Q. What does that mean? What does that refer to?

A. This means that they spoke together and acted together during negotiations on the exchange of prisoners, and this was also due to the transfer of prisoners or placing prisoners on a list for release either from Yugoslavia or Republika Srpska or the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

Q. And when you say "they," to whom do you mean? To which commissions do you refer?

A. I'm referring to commissions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and from Republika Srpska.

Q. When you had this -- since when did you have these joint commission meetings with these three bodies? ¹⁷²⁶⁴

A. These were mostly bilateral meetings, and they started in 1991, and they're virtually ongoing to this day.

Q. When you had these joint commission meetings with all three, did any commission have the lead?

A. Well, you see it was clear that the dominant commission was the one from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. How did that show? Can you explain that?

A. The commission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would invite people to those meetings, and its delegation would include members of other delegations, specifically in the -- within the delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there was a representative from the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

Q. To solve individual cases of detainees detained in Republika Srpska or Republika Srpska Krajina, could you solve matters for these people through the FRY?

A. In some cases, yes.

Q. Would detainees get transferred from facilities of the RSK to RS or to FRY?

A. We had a number of such examples that detainees were transferred from one territory to another, from the region of Yugoslavia to the territory of Bosnia and vice versa and also from occupied territories in the Republic of Croatia to Bosnia and vice versa.

Q. Do you have a list of these people that were transferred? Did you actually follow those moves?

A. In all cases where this was possible this was recorded, and I ¹⁷²⁶⁵ believe that our records were confirmed by the International Committee of the Red Cross so that individual detainees can be followed moving through several states. And for a number of cases, we have the first and last names of such persons.

Q. Do you know about the case of a priest, Josip Bogovic, and how he was transferred through camps? Just as one example.

A. I do know of the case of Mr. Bogovic, who was transferred from one camp to another, but I can't tell you exactly at this point in time which camps they were. I would need to look into my records to be able to tell you.

Q. Do you have your records with you in relation to this person or does that mean you would need to check in your office?

A. I would have to check in my office. But perhaps there are some other persons.

Q. Just so that we have an example of your findings in relation to such a transfer --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the witness has actually brought documentation from his office, and the question is is he allowed to just look into his documents?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, if it's his documentation, his official documentation, he can.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Can you give us one example or two examples of such transfers?

A. I don't have to look in my documents. I know about Vanin Zlatko. That was one particular case in point. He was in Yugoslavia and then ¹⁷²⁶⁶ afterwards was transferred. He was in the military investigating prison in Belgrade and then was later transferred to the Knin area. And he was liberated on the basis of an exchange process there.

Q. And which -- in which year did this happen? What time frame does relate to this person?

A. As to Mr. Vanin, he was captured sometime in 1993, and he was set free in mid-1994, I believe.

Q. Can you give us one more example?

A. I'll try. I'll do my best. To be specific, I've found a case, Predrag Vukusic, who was captured on the 2nd of July, 1992. He was in the Korenica camp, then in Zeljava, and afterwards in Knin. So this is the area of Croatia, and then Bosnia, and once again Croatia. We have another example, that of Mr. Slavko Rajic, who was in the Morin camp in Montenegro. Later on, he was transferred to Bosnia, to Bileca, from whence he was liberated. And also we have Tihomir Dujnovic, who on the 7th, or rather, the 12th of December 1991 was captured in Ston, Croatia. He was taken to Montenegro, to the Morin camp, and transferred to a camp in Bosnia, Bileca, where on the 2nd of July, he was exchanged in Cavtat. The year was 1992.

Q. That should be enough as examples. I would like now to move on to the missing persons, and you have described in paragraph 6 and 7 your methodology on the missing persons and the missing person questionnaires, and I do not need to go into the details. Just one question: Why was it necessary to have the -- this campaign of the renewal of requests for -- for missing persons? Why was it necessary to do that in 1993, 1994? ¹⁷²⁶⁷

A. As I have already stated, in 1993 a commission was set up, a joint commission, government commission, which confronted the fact that there were numerous missing persons. And as the individual data about the missing persons was poorly filled out, it was quite clear that there were also a large number of dead that were listed as missing persons. So we had to collect the antemortem data for their subsequent identification, and that is why we repeated our request for the missing persons search. We presented this to the media, we appealed to all the citizens of Croatia to come and report any missing persons who were family members or people they knew.

Q. We wouldn't need to go into the details of your methodology, but you, according to your findings, in 1994 you came up with 3.052 missing people, and it's your figure given in paragraph 7. That's for 1994. And in paragraph 34(f), you give another figure that is the missing persons are here given with 1.348, and that is the situation when you filed the report; is that correct?

A. Precisely. So when -- that is to say the initial state of affairs in 1994 were 3.052 people. And on the day I submitted my report, the figure was the one you quoted and to be found in the report, which means in the period in between, we found, located certain persons.

Q. And what is the figure today? Is it again reduced?

A. Yes. Today the figure is smaller. And as of today, we still have 1.283 missing persons listed. That is the figure for today.

Q. And does that mean you update your files on a regular basis?

A. We update them on a daily basis in our office, and each and every ¹⁷²⁶⁸ change is recorded at once and put into our files and records.

Q. Did you make checks with other reports, such as the ICRC, in relation to these people?

A. One of the ways in which we cooperate with the ICRC is precisely control of the missing persons lists and our missing persons list. And if we find any persons on a daily basis, we send out our reports to the ICRC. So this is one of the mechanisms of controlling our own records and aligning them.

Q. These figures, do they include missing persons from families residing in the FRY or the RS, that is related to Operations Flash and Storm, or is that separate?

A. They are separate data. All those who came in with requests, searching for missing persons and came to our office, a small number connected to that period is on that list, the 1.300 list. But for the most part, these lists are separate.

Q. If the -- if it would be necessary, if the other parties here or the Judges have questions, could you also give additional information, if so required, in relation to Operation Storm and Flash and results?

A. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I do not do that because it would be outside of the Prosecution case.

Q. You have described, in paragraph 12, your analysis of the collected data, and I would like to know -- you've given here in particular -- you start out with a reference that you first check whether the disappearance was connected to the armed conflict or not, and I would ¹⁷²⁶⁹ like to know how would you make this distinction, on what basis?

A. Our questionnaires, the ones that were filled in, we clearly ask the question of place, the place in which the person disappeared. So if it was outside any armed conflict, then it wasn't recorded as persons missing connected to armed conflicts. Also, the time of disappearance clearly indicates whether this could be linked to any armed conflict or not. And also there are additional questions as to the circumstances of the person's disappearance, the way each individual person disappeared. So these are three basic elements indicating whether a person had gone missing linked to an armed conflict or not.

Q. While you processed the data, would you -- did you check for duplicates? And if so, in which way did you do that?

A. After the data gathering process was completed, all of them were subjected to infomatic data processing, and all those double ones were rejected, any double-takes were rejected because certain members -- this had arisen because certain family members had dispersed over a large territory and then they sent in their requests for one and the same person.

And then subsequently there was another check that was conducted, and that was a check through purely individual checks that the employees of the office undertook themselves so as to avoid any double-takes.

Q. And the files related to each person, where are they stored and do they include just the questionnaire or other materials as well?

A. For each person, a questionnaire or, rather, a file or dossier was furnished which included all evidence as to that person's disappearance, ¹⁷²⁷⁰ all the material that had been collected. Sometimes they were video -- there was video footage or documents or articles that had appeared in the mass media, and also medical documents which were attached along with subsequent possible identification material. And all these dossiers are stored in the office for missing persons and there are records and files.

Q. From page 6 onwards in your report, you explain your methodology in relation to exhumations, and you also attached an organigramme in relation to all the experts that were involved in the exhumation. My question to you is: What is the role of your office in the process and your -- your own role?

A. In one of the paragraphs or, rather, the articles upon which the office was established is that the office should be in charge of all exhumations carried out in Croatia. So one of the functions of the office is to organise the implementation of all exhumations, which means that all the information coming in as to possible locations of mass murders, it is on the basis of those -- that information that the office informs all competent subjects, all the subjects taking part in the exhumation process and procedure, they inform them about the intention to carry out an exhumation, and then on the basis of an order by the investigating judge, the whole procedure is put into practice and the exhumation itself takes place.

As head of the office, I take direct part in each and every exhumation. I am present there, and I attend all the exhumations, practically all of them, in the field, and I help coordinate with all the other subjects taking part in the exhumation procedure. So it is an ^{17271 BLANK PAGE 17272} inter-institutional team, which means that several ministries take part in this process and we have to coordinate the work of all these ministries.

Q. And the documentation for the exhumation and identification, are they -- is it actually kept in your office?

A. Documentation about all exhumation carried out under the office's organisations, that is the records made and minutes of the investigating judge, all the video footage, et cetera, is stored in the office for missing persons.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I think that's a convenient time to adjourn.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Grujic, I'm sorry, I should have said don't speak to anybody, please, about your evidence until it's over. Could you be back in twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Mr. Grujic, in relation to the exhumations, you have referred in paragraph 14 of your report, last paragraph, to the organisations -- in paragraph 14 of your report, in the last paragraph you have referred to the international organisations you cooperated with, and you also make a reference saying more recently you also worked together with the FRY and Republika Srpska commissions. What does it mean "more recently"? Since when do you cooperate in this field with those two entities?

A. Well, in the process of exhumation, an agreement was reached on ¹⁷²⁷³ mutual monitoring, which means that if the exhumations are carried out for which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is interested in, or Bosnia-Herzegovina, and being implemented on the Republic of Croatia, that monitoring should be enabled so that their experts can attend the exhumations. And practice has shown in the past year that monitoring is allowed in the process of identification, and that has been implemented over the past year.

Q. And did you also take part or monitor exhumations and identifications that took place in Republika Srpska and the FRY in that last year?

A. Yes. In the last year, I did attend as the representative of the Republic of Croatia, together with our forensic experts. I attended the exhumations conducted in Novi Sad, Sabac, Sremska Mitrovica, and also in Bosnia.

Q. And these commissions from Croatia, Republika Srpska, and the FRY, do they actually apply a similar or even the same methodology when it comes to exhumations and identification?

A. The methodology is very similar as to the process of exhumation and identification. Part of the identification which relates to DNA analysis is conducted exclusively in our laboratories in Croatia, and they use international laboratories as well.

Q. And you have also explained in your report your cooperation with the ICTY, and is your procedure of exhumation and identification similar or different from the -- those applied by the ICTY?

A. Procedure for exhumation is very similar except in some small ¹⁷²⁷⁴ details where there are differences, and they relate to the procedure of transporting the bodily remains from the actual site of the exhumation to the site where the process of identification takes place.

Q. What is the difference?

A. The difference is that when exhumations are done by the international court, there are -- the vehicles are physically accompanied, the vehicles transporting the bodily remains are physically escorted, whereas it's not -- that is not the case in our country, but we inform the police department that such a vehicle is passing through its territory, and of course there's an escort in the vehicle itself.

Q. Now turning to the results of your research and first the information on persons exhumed. That's paragraph 31 in your report. And you have actually prepared charts related to these figures given there.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And it's tab 4, Your Honour, in the binder. Can the chart be given to the witness. I don't think we need to put it on the ELMO. The charts actually speak for themselves, and we would not -- it would take too much time to put it all on the ELMO.

Q. Your office -- did -- did your office prepare these charts related to the number of exhumed persons, their sex, their age?

A. Yes. That was prepared in the office for missing persons and detainees.

Q. And in relation to the status of exhumed and identified persons, maybe we could put that one, status, on the ELMO. That's the page Status. I have actually a few questions. In relation to the status of the exhumed and identified persons, you list here 1.640 civilians, 898 defenders, and ¹⁷²⁷⁵ I would like to know on which basis did you make this distinction.

A. When we ascertain the identity of the victim, checks are made as to that person's status. In the Republic of Croatia, there is a ministry of Croatian defenders which has records and files of all members of the armed conflict, members of the Republic of Croatia. So if any one of them is on that list, is on the list of that particular ministry, that means that they receive certain remuneration and enjoy the status of a Croatian defender, then that kind of victim is recorded as a victim having the status of defender.

Q. And defenders, does that include military and police or is it only one of them?

A. That is the official title for this section of the population, and it is applied and incorporates all members of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia, both the police and the army.

Q. And civilian protection, you list here 199 persons, victims or exhumed as civilian protection. What does that include?

A. That is a separate category of persons. That is to say at the point of an armed conflict, they were engaged in certain activities of civil -- civilian protection. That is to say the fire brigade, electricians, and so on. So they manned the branches and services that had to function during that time, during an armed conflict where the conflict took place.

Q. In relation to the chart dealing with the ethnic composition, my question only is in relation to the Serbs listed on -- in this chart, does that refer to the Operations Storm and Flash or to what time period does ¹⁷²⁷⁶ that refer?

A. That refers to -- that is to say, all these victims were victims from 1991 up until 1994, that period. From 1991 to 1994, so not the Operations Flash and Storm.

Q. We can turn next to the -- the next breakdown, and it's actually the displaced persons, and that's tab 1 in relation to the charts. You have listed in your report a figure of - in paragraph 34(a), Your Honour - you have listed the figure of 220.338 displaced persons. Which time period does that cover?

A. That covers 1991 and 1992 up until 1994. But the largest number of displaced persons, up until 1991, was up until mid-1991. I beg your pardon. Up until 1992.

Q. You have actually produced this chart in relation to the displaced persons, and it gives actually a figure of 168.903 as the peak for 1992. Do you have it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have also listed the displaced persons according to counties.

A. Well, this shows the period and the counties from which the persons were displaced.

Q. I think these charts also speak for themselves, so we do not need to go into the details.

The next -- the next group would be paragraph 34(b) in your report, and it refers to 11.834 killed people, and it's tab 2 of your charts. And you have again provided details in relation to whether they ¹⁷²⁷⁷ were defenders or civilians or whether they were -- their age, the counties of where the killing occurred, and the ethnic breakdown. In your written report, you make a reference to records of competent bodies on which you have actually based your results. Can you say who that -- what that means, what is behind "records of competent bodies"?

A. Well, the problems concerning the persons killed was dealt with by a number of bodies in Croatia, the Health Ministry, its information department would receive information from the field and kept records of that kind. Apart from that, for members of the armed forces, similar records used to be kept by the Ministry of Defence and those records and files were taken over by the Ministry of Croatian Defenders at present. So those two records overlap in certain aspects. Then there are records from exhumed persons from mass graves, and they too enter the category of persons killed, and this information is stored in the Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons. So there were double -- a duplication of names, but the number was 11.834 persons, a minimum of that number, and there is the name and surname and individual facts about the person killed.

Q. As you received records from different offices, did you filter out duplicates while you registered all this data?

A. Yes. All the data was checked several times, both infomatically and individually, by hand, so that there was no duplication.

Q. And you have a relatively high number listed in the ethnic breakdown, a relatively high number of 4.173 where you say unknown, ethnic ¹⁷²⁷⁸ affiliation unknown. Can you explain that?

A. We don't have the information about ethnicity, and wherever we didn't have that information that is reliable, such a person would be categorised as "unknown." Also, some members of their families did not state their ethnicity so we do not have that particular information in official documents.

Q. And in your charts in relation to the status of the killed persons, you have first this chart related to the general breakdown, and you have also a chart related to medical personnel, journalists, foreign citizens, and religious personnel. On which basis did you get this information?

A. There is a separate column in the questionnaire, in the document of each individual killed person where this is indicated, that is, persons that enjoy special protection under Geneva Conventions, such as medical personnel, religious officers. These are persons that are separately listed and recorded as such. Of course, in cases where this could be documented, where this was known.

Q. In -- now we turn to the -- paragraph 34(c), where you list 3.000 -- in your report you list 3.052 missing and forcibly abducted persons. Why do you make this distinction? What is the distinction between the two?

A. A missing person is a person about whom there's no information, whereas forcibly abducted persons, for them we have information that they were forcibly abducted from their homes. There were witnesses, and this was recorded in the questionnaires that we compiled for renewing tracing ¹⁷²⁷⁹ requests. And for each of those categories, the person responsible for witnesses of forcibly abducted persons, all these things are to be found in the questionnaires that have been attached.

Q. And these three -- this figure of 3.052 missing and -- missing and forcibly abducted, does this include the territory of Croatia and Bosnia in relation to citizens from Croatia?

A. That's right. When the listing was renewed, all missing persons were recorded. Some of those people disappeared in the territory of Bosnia. At that time, 137 persons, which means that 2.915 had gone missing within the territory of the Republic of Croatia. And at present, the figure of people who went missing in the territory of Bosnia amounts to 72.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's -- can the witness be shown the chart tab 3. That actually deals with the figures that are a little bit lower than the figure given in the report.

Q. Does this chart reflect the status and the analysis in relation to Croatian territory only?

A. Yes. This is the number of missing persons in the territory of the Republic of Croatia in the period from 2002 -- that is, from 1994, to 2002. So we can make a comparison for these two different time periods.

Q. Yes. Thank you. The charts speak for themselves. Now I would like to turn to paragraph 34(d) and (e) and actually view them together. And you have here 2.746 people exhumed and identified in relation -- and 3.356 exhumed altogether, including the unidentified. This figure of 2.746 identified bodies, does this relate to the exhumation ^{17280 BLANK PAGE 17281} work that was conducted in your office or does it include those done in the previous commissions, in 1991 and 1992?

A. No. This figure refers to exhumations carried out by my office, and the process started in 1995. And all those exhumations were carried out in areas that had previously been occupied.

Q. Does it also include the figures of those found in graves in Novi Sad or in the other places that you mentioned in the FRY?

A. No. This relates exclusively to the victims that we found in 135 mass graves and 1.200 and something individual graves.

Q. Before we go to actually the last chapter, that is the detention facilities, I would like to discuss with you specific crime scenes and the results of your offers in relation to these specific crime scenes. In preparation of your report, were you actually asked to examine your work results in relation to the persons listed in the schedules of the Croatia indictment?

A. Yes, I did review them.

Q. And when you came to The Hague to testify, did you and one of your staff members actually check the schedules of the indictment and indicate in handwriting your results on the schedules?

A. Yes. Each of those lists was checked, and the results were entered by hand on each of those lists.

Q. And did you also review documentation related to the crime scenes, in particular your missing person questionnaires and exhumation reports?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Was the documentation shown to you authentic? Was it actually ¹⁷²⁸² from your office?

A. Absolutely so.

Q. I would now like to go through the -- your findings and just refer to corrections that the witness actually made. First of all, we have not included Vocin in this -- this review. Can you explain why?

A. In Vocin itself, exhumation was not carried out, and the victims found in Vocin, they were found immediately in 1991, and they were identified on the spot, and their names are in the list of people killed, that is the list containing 11.000 something names. And that is why those names are not registered in our office under the heading of "Exhumed Persons."

Q. Now I would like to turn to Bacin. That is Annex I, paragraph 40. You have identified -- you have written next to the names an "ID." What does that mean? Does that mean exhumed and identified?

A. "ID" means identified.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's tab 6. It's tab 6.

Q. You have actually corrected one name here or, rather -- yes, one name and the date of birth of Vera Jukic.

A. That's right. In the Prosecution's list, the name was Veronika, and the real name is Vera Jukic, and she was born in 1920 and not in 1919.

Q. And you have also made a correction in relation to Ana Blinja where you found that the date of the birth was incorrect?

A. That's right. Ana Blinja, who was exhumed and identified, was born in 1923.

Q. And you have made two further corrections in relation to Mato ¹⁷²⁸³ Barunovic and Loncar Stefan, where you also detected a mistake in the names.

A. That's right. It's not Mato but Matija Barunovic, and it's not Stefan Loncar but Stjepan Loncar.

Q. Next to some of the names you made an "M". What does that indicate; that this person is still missing, according to your files?

A. Yes. It is to indicate that the person is missing.

Q. And in relation to some of the names, you have added an "ND." Does that mean -- what does that mean?

A. That means that the office doesn't have any information about that person.

Q. And in relation to this Bacin list, does that include also victims from Dubica and Cerovljani?

A. It's a list that includes victims from Cerovljani and Dubica.

Q. In how many mass graves did you find these bodies?

A. We found one mass grave here, with 56 victims, in Bacin itself. Additionally, several different victims were found who were not in the mass grave. A total of 59 persons were exhumed in Bacin, out of which 56 were in the mass grave. So there were three individual cases as well. In Cerovljani, three individual cases were found.

Q. And Dubica?

A. And in Dubica itself, six individual cases.

Q. And in relation, we now go to the next table in relation to the victims from Lipovanic, paragraph 42, it's tab 11. And you have here actually also corrected one name which was misspelled, and you have ¹⁷²⁸⁴ actually identified seven bodies; is that correct?

A. Quite so. Seven persons in Lipovanic were identified and that was the number of persons that were reported there too. On the list here, there's the name Sindric, and it's not Sindric but Cindric, the first letter being a "C." It's probably a typing error.

Q. In relation to Marija Cindric, you --

A. So the second name is Cindric, Katja.

Q. Did you have any findings on Marija Cindric? Do you know whether this person was killed?

A. No. We don't know anything about her, and I think that this was an error, that two persons with the same surname were listed, in view of the fact that we do have information that seven persons were found and identified in the mass grave. This would coincide with the -- this list without Marija Cindric.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, this person has to be struck from the list. It's a mistake, obviously.

Q. We now turn to Vukovici, and it's tab 13, and you have here corrected -- or, rather, you have added here a date of birth or, rather, a year of birth. What can you tell us about this?

A. On the list we have nine persons, out of which two have been identified. One of the identified persons, Vukovic Nikola, we have added his date of birth, which is 1938.

Q. In relation to these you did not identify, are they on the list of the 11.800 dead or -- registered as dead or can't you say anything to them -- about them? ¹⁷²⁸⁵

A. Nothing can be said about them, therefore they are not on that list of 11.000, nor are they on the list of identified persons.

Q. I would now like to continue and go to the victims of Saborsko, paragraph 44 in the indictment. And you have here annex -- tab 15, and also I would like to just refer to tab 16.

You have listed here the -- all of these listed in the paragraphs 44 were identified, but you found additional bodies in that same mass grave; is that correct?

A. That's correct. Here on the list we have 18 identified persons, but we have to say that 30 persons were exhumed in Saborsko, out of which 27 were identified. They were found in two mass graves and in ten individual graves or cases.

Q. And you have actually given a list of the additional names, and that's -- would be tab 16; is that correct?

A. Yes. It's an additional list attached to the annex and covers all identified victims.

Q. In relation to Skabrnja, we have actually two different lists, and the list for the victims of Nadin. It's actually named here in the -- in the index to the documentation, tab 19, and Skabrnja case 2 is mentioned here.

In relation to the first list, the victims from the 18th and 19th November, 1991, did you make any findings in relation to this first group of Skabrnja victims, and if not so, why not?

A. The first group, that is case 1 Skabrnja, is a case in which the remains immediately after the event, that is several days after the event, ¹⁷²⁸⁶ were delivered through the local authorities to the family members, and they were processed and all were identified, and they are on the list of persons killed, that is, the list of 11.000 names. And the office did not take part in that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this refers to paragraph 45 of the indictment, and we have not included it here in this package because the witness couldn't -- except for what he just said, he couldn't add more to this.

Q. In relation to Nadin, you also did not have any additional information; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And now in relation to Skabrnja case 2, paragraph 47 of the indictment, you have actually identified all of the people listed. In how many graves were they, and did you find additional bodies?

A. All these persons on the list were found in a mass grave in Skabrnja, and there were 27 bodies. The exhumation took place on the 6th of June, 1996, so that all the persons who are on this list for Skabrnja were identified.

Q. Now turning to Bruska. Bruska is also not in -- not in the binders, Your Honours.

Can you explain? Is that similar to your previous explanations, that you didn't deal with them?

A. Yes. Yes. We didn't deal with the question of Bruska.

Q. Are you aware of whether those listed under Bruska were actually dead? Are they in the list of 11.800 victims or don't you know that? ¹⁷²⁸⁷

A. I could not say at this point in time.

Q. Now we turn to Ovcara farm. You have now, in addition to your usual markings "ID" "M" and "ND", you have now made references to "ID" with a little star next to this "ID". What does that mean when you look at this schedule?

A. That means that that person is on the list of persons that have been identified but that it was not found in the Ovcara mass grave but in some other location.

Q. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I'm now speaking about tab 22 and tab 23.

Q. Have you -- when you went through the list, did you actually find a person who is alive, and did you point that out to the Prosecutor?

A. Yes. Reviewing this list, we found a person called Vilenica Zarko. This person is alive. On the list, it happened to be also in the office documents as a missing person, it being said he was seen for the last time at the Vukovar Hospital. The questionnaire was filled in by the mother of the mentioned person, and tracing procedures were started, upon which we discovered that the person was alive.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this person Zarko Vilenica has --

JUDGE MAY: In due course, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be right, in light of this evidence and any other that there may be which would require amendment, formally for you to serve a document amending the indictment to delete these names. ¹⁷²⁸⁸

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, but I suggest we do it by rather the end of the case. Then we have all the details clear.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But keep it in mind, if you would.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we'll do that.

Q. In relation to Vukovar, can you say in how many graves you found the victims that you identified, and what about unidentified bodies this these gave graves?

A. In the area of Vukovar, that is the town of Vukovar itself, four mass graves were found, in which 1.319 persons were exhumed in total, out of which 1.094 persons were identified, whereas the remaining number are in the process of identification, and they are being stored in specially built graves for that purpose which are in Zagreb and in Osijek.

Q. And you have also made a few corrections in the list of names beside this one person who is alive. You have corrected a few names and birth dates, and I think we do not need to repeat that here. I have one question: You have listed as identified a female person, Janja Pothorski. In the mass graves with the victims from the hospital Vukovar did you find another female victim?

A. Pothorski.

Q. Yes. That is one female person listed here. Did you also find another female person in the grave?

A. In the mass grave at Ovcara, among the victims identified so far we have found another female, Mrs. Ruzica Markobasic, who was not registered as a wounded person or a patient but who had probably sought shelter in the hospital at that time. I have to mention that she was in ^{17289 BLANK PAGE 17290} advanced stage of pregnancy.

Q. And let's now turn to Dalj, paragraph 50. In which mass grave were these bodies found?

A. These bodies were found in the mass grave at a place called Celija, and the grave was exhumed on the 23rd of February, 1998. We found 14 bodily remains in the grave.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's now -- we are now moving on to tab 25.

Q. And you have also made a note here that one of the persons on the schedule was actually found in a different place, that is Daljski Atar. What kind of a grave was there? Was that a single grave?

A. In Daljski Atar, what we found was a mass grave. It was a well, in fact, and over 20 remains were found.

Q. And did you indicate in the subsequent list related to other crime bases also that same well as a place where you found the bodies?

A. Yes. The bodily remains that are listed in cases 2 and 3 were found in the mass grave in Dalj and Celija.

Q. Yes. In relation to actually victims -- cases 2 and 3, paragraph 51, and that means tab 29 and the following two, we have here the person Vinko Oroz and Marinko Somodjvorac. Do you know where they were found?

A. Marinko Somodjvorac and Vinko Oroz were found on the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in Novi Sad, actually. And through bilateral talks, those bodily remains were given to us along with all the documentation, the post-mortem findings, et cetera. ¹⁷²⁹¹

Q. Did the documentation that you received indicate how they -- how these bodies got to Novi Sad?

A. According to the documentation that we received, you can see that the bodily remains were taken out of the Danube River. That's where they were found, across from the town of Ilok, in that region.

Q. Are you aware whether other bodies also were dumped -- other bodies from this incident here also dumped in the Danube River?

A. Yes. The other bodies were also thrown into the Danube, but we didn't find them in the mass grave at Ilok in September 1999. But we undertook the procedure of identification later on. And let me also say that according to certain witness statements and what we learnt, these bodily remains were taken out of the river, out of the Danube, and that's when they were placed in the mass grave.

Q. And you refer to a mass grave in Ilok; right?

A. Yes, and that's the one I'm talking about.

Q. Now we move on to the victims Lovas minefield, paragraph 52, and it's tab 33 and the following table.

Where were the bodies of these people found?

A. The bodies of these people, their remains, of those persons on the list were located in the mass grave at a place called Lovas, and there were 68 persons in that mass grave, and the grave was exhumed in June 1997.

Q. Moving on now to Erdut, case 1, paragraph 53, what can you tell us about the ethnicity of these victims?

A. Well, it's quite obvious that these persons were members of the ¹⁷²⁹² Hungarian ethnic minority. We have 12 persons on the list, ten of which were identified, and the bodily remains were found in the mass grave in Celija, and there were 16 victims in it.

Q. And the case 2, paragraph 53, we have listed here three more persons. Are they also Hungarians? And I'm referring now to tab 40.

A. Yes, that's right. They were three individuals found in the mass grave, in the well in Borovo Selo near Dalj. The grave was exhumed in September 2000, and all three individuals were identified. They were all members of the Hungarian ethnic minority, and they were related to one of the others found in the other mass grave.

Q. And we have actually in the previous -- in the previous schedule, we have a Franjo Pap born '34, and now we have a Franjo Pap born '60. Are these father and son?

A. Yes, that's right, they were father and son. And the wife, too. She was born in 1930, I believe.

Q. And now we move on to the next schedule, Erdut, case 7, paragraph 53. Tab 44, Your Honours.

We have here just one person. Is that another relative of the previously mentioned Hungarian victims?

A. Yes, that's right. This person was also an ethnic Hungarian from Erdut. She was found in the well in Dalj Mountain, not far from Erdut.

Q. And now moving on to the next schedule, Klisa, paragraph 54, that's tab 48 and 49.

You have identified all these victims listed here. Where were they found? ¹⁷²⁹³

A. All five of them were identified and found in the mass grave at the place called Celija. So they were in the same mass grave as the people in paragraph 53.

Q. Now we move on to victims Vukovar, paragraph 55. You have identified all of these victims, and can you tell us where they were found?

A. On the list, we have 11 persons. All 11 were identified. The first four individuals were found in the mass grave at the Lovas farm near Dalj in a grave in which otherwise there were 24 victims. The rest were found in the mass grave at the Catholic cemetery in Dalj itself, and 11 victims were uncovered in the grave.

Q. Yes. Now we move on to the Erdut cases. First the case 4. That's tab 55 and -- 54 and 55. Where were these bodies found?

A. These bodies were found in the mass grave that was called Daljski Atar, in the well where 23 victims in total were found, and they were exhumed in October 1998.

Q. And when you -- in this -- in these schedules that you mentioned, when you have "M", listed the "M", that person is in your missing persons list. And "ND", this person and all the others we mentioned before, would they be in the list of 11.800 and odd killed, or wouldn't you know anything about them?

A. The persons listed with an "M" are persons who went missing and who are on the list of missing persons, those with the lists compiled in -- of the 1.883 persons. And the "ND" denotes persons we have no knowledge about, which means that none of their family members put in a ¹⁷²⁹⁴ request to search for them, but on the other hand, they haven't been listed as dead either.

Q. Yes. And the last schedule related to Erdut, paragraph 57, you have again identified all except for one person. And were they also found in the well that you mentioned?

A. Yes, that's right. These persons too were found in that same well in the Daljski Atar.

Q. And the way how they were actually situated in the well, did that indicate to you anything in relation to when they got -- when they were put in the well? Could you find -- could you make any findings in the way how they were actually in there?

A. In view of the fact that data exists as to the time of these persons' disappearance, or most of their disappearances, and the way in which we found them, that is to say those who had disappeared earlier on were found on the bottom level of the well, whereas the ones who disappeared soonest were at the top. So we can make a reconstruction of the time on the basis of the time of disappearance, how the victims were placed in the well. Those who went missing first were at the bottom of the well, those who went missing last were at the top of the well. And it's a very small space, so the strata were not mixed, they were layer upon layer.

Q. And now going -- coming to the last grave you dealt with, the victims Grabovac, paragraph 59 of the indictment, and the tab 30 -- 63 and 64, where were they found, these bodies?

A. All five victims from the list have been identified. They were ¹⁷²⁹⁵ found in the mass grave at Beli Manastir. But according to the information we have at our disposal, and we were able to prove this later on, those victims were first of all buried in a place called Tikves. It was a hunting ground. And between 1993 and 1994, they were transferred to the mass grave in Beli Manastir, which was within the Catholic cemetery compound.

Q. And did you find in that primary grave at the hunting ground, did you find parts of the remains of these people or how could you prove that they had been removed to a secondary grave?

A. According to a witness, a man who conducted the transfer of bodies showed us the place, and then we undertook analyses. We dug up the spot, and we found minute remains of human bones and also certain parts of their clothing were found and indicated that the same clothing parts were found on the exhumed remains.

Q. And this primary grave in Tikves, is that close to Grabovac or how does this grave relate to the victims?

A. The place called Grabovac is about ten -- about ten kilometres away from that particular spot where they were discovered. I said that it was a hunting ground where the paramilitaries had been stationed while this area was under occupation.

Q. Which paramilitary do you refer to?

A. According to a statement by one of the witnesses describing the transference of the bodies, they were members of the Red Berets. That's what they were called. Probably members of Arkan's units and Captain Dragan's unit too. ¹⁷²⁹⁶

Q. That's what this person told you who directed you to the grave?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And we actually had a schedule in relation to victims in Dubrovnik. Do you -- did you have any dealings with the victims from Dubrovnik? Could you say anything to them?

A. No, I can't say anything about that except that they are on the list of persons killed of the 11.000, the list of the 11.000 that we submitted.

Q. Yes. We will now turn to the detention facilities. And you have already mentioned that you also dealt with detention facilities and exchanges, and you did actually describe your methodology in the report, and I do not need to repeat that with you.

When was the last person actually exchanged? If you'd just tell us that.

A. The last person to be exchanged was in 1996.

Q. From where? Exchanged from where?

A. That person was, according to their own testimony, detained in Erdut, and the person was exchanged along the separation line of the then-occupied area next to Lipovac.

Q. You have also prepared charts in relation to the detention, and it's tab 5.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, the witness has informed us that the first -- the first page this subject -- this first page is outdated and you should remove it, it's no more correct. This first page giving the 7.666 and mentions captured, missing, killed, that's outdated ¹⁷²⁹⁷ and it wouldn't be correct and would you please remove this.

Q. In relation to the sex and status of the prisoners, is that -- what is the source for the distinction between soldiers and civilians? Is that the same as you have described before?

A. Yes, it's the same. Official records.

Q. Yes. And I'm just -- I would like to know, you have a relatively high number of "unclear" status people here, with 3.614. Can you explain why this number is so high?

A. The number is so high because we don't have any official data. But it is clear that they are not members of the armed forces, they don't belong to that category. If they were, they would have been recorded and listed as such and then have enjoyed certain rights that that status gives them, and they would all be interested in receiving that. So we have to add them on to the civilian category.

Q. And in relation to the other charts there, actually, you have also listed again certain privilege group, like injured, medical staff, religious staff, and journalists, and I have only one more question in relation to the duration of the imprisonment that you also give in the chart, and there is also a relatively high number where you give the duration of imprisonment as unknown. How is that -- can you explain that?

A. Because the data were filled in badly. This is what it was about: A certain number of detainees who were listed as such were exchanged before the commission had been set up on local levels, that is to say, and so only very scant data and information was recorded, and it wasn't always the right kind. ^{17298 BLANK PAGE 17299}

Q. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like to discuss with the witnesses certain locations that are listed as detention facilities in the indictment, but this would take another perhaps 15 minutes, so I think it would be a good time to stop here.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Tomorrow morning, 9.00.

Would you be back then, please, Mr. Grujic, 9.00 tomorrow morning.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I have one more point in relation to the witness. As he is an expert witness, the Prosecution has the duty to bring him here and take him back to the hotel. Are we allowed to do that?

JUDGE MAY: Provided you don't talk about the case or the evidence.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Yes.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.