Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 8589

Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1411 Friday, 4 June 20042 [Open session]3 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.4 [The accused entered court]5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, would you call6 the case, please.7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case IT-01-47-T, the Prosecution8 versus General Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.10 May we have the appearances. Prosecution first, please.11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your12 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the13 Prosecution, Daryl Mundis, the case manager, Mr. Andres Vatter, Mathias14 Neuner will be joining us shortly, and sitting in with us today,15 Mr. President, is the Chief of Prosecutions, Mr. Gavin Ruxton.16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.17 May we have the appearances for the Defence.18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.19 Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of General Hadzihasanovic,20 Edina Residovic, myself, counsel; and Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel. Thank21 you.22 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.23 For the Defence of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and24 Nermin Mulalic, the legal assistant.25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1421 The Chamber would like to say good morning to all those present,2 the representatives of the Prosecution, and we'd like to take advantage of3 this occasion to greet the Chief of Prosecutions, who is here and sitting4 next to Mr. Mundis. We'd also like to greet the Defence counsel and the5 accused and all the staff in the courtroom, the court reporters and the6 interpreters, who are outside the courtroom but nevertheless with us, and7 the security staff.8 We're going to continue today with the hearing devoted to the9 videotapes, but I was given to understand that Mr. Mundis would like to10 take the floor first before we go ahead, so Mr. Mundis has the floor.11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.12 I've asked to briefly address Your Honours and the Defence with13 respect to ongoing progress concerning the issues raised in the Trial14 Chamber's oral order of 17 May 2004. We have completed several of the15 additional tasks which the Trial Chamber directed us to do. I would ask16 at this time, Mr. President, with the assistance of the usher, to17 distribute some documents. These documents, Mr. President, contain known18 and original signatures of the two accused. There are photocopies of the19 documents available and then two folders, which I understand the Trial20 Chamber wished to view, containing the original signatures. Once those21 are distributed, I will briefly explain what the material that's being22 passed out is, and there are sufficient copies for the Defence, the23 accused, the Trial Chamber, and the legal officer.24 Perhaps the usher could provide the two coloured folders to the25 Trial Chamber.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1431 Mr. President and Your Honours, you will note the photocopied2 documents are -- contain actually three different documents. There are3 sets for both of the two accused.4 The first document, the page that's in B/C/S, is the arrest5 warrant and order for the surrender of the accused. At the time that the6 two accused surrendered, they signed the bottom of the arrest warrant and7 order for surrender. The original of those documents is in the blue8 folders.9 The second page in the photocopied set is an information sheet10 which the accused fill out at the time of their surrender in this case,11 which also contains the handwriting of the accused. The original, again,12 is in the folders.13 And finally, with respect to each of the two accused,14 Mr. President, there is a Rule 68 disclosure certificate. At the request15 of the Rule 70 provider, the accused were personally required to sign for16 this material. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to disclose17 precisely what this material is; however, you will notice that both the18 accused and their counsel signed for receipt of this Rule 70 material and19 that was disclosed under Rule 68. And again, you have the original of20 those receipts attached to the front of the arrest packages.21 If there are any questions about that material, I'm happy to22 address them. Otherwise, I'll move on to the next topic.23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're providing24 us with a binder with folders and the originals bearing the signature of25 the accused, one of the accused, the arrest warrant, and the otherTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1441 document with the signature, which will allow us to verify and see that2 the photocopies with the signatures do in fact correspond to the original3 signatures. So there were two sets.4 We have two sets here for each of the accused, with the5 signatures. With the exception of General Kubura's file, the arrest6 warrant -- no. No, there is his signature here. It said "copy," but in7 fact it's the original. So we do have what we need for the two accused,8 their signatures.9 Would the Defence counsel like to take a look at the files? They10 are original documents. You have them. Fine.11 Please continue, then.12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.13 I would simply ask if in fact these documents are going to be in14 any way appended to the record as any kind of Court exhibits or any15 similar thing, that they be placed under seal, particularly with respect16 to the Rule 68/Rule 70 document, which is a very sensitive document. We17 would ask that if in fact this is made part of the record, that these two18 documents with the signatures be placed under seal.19 Mr. President, as you're aware, Ms. Benjamin is currently in20 Sarajevo. Let me take this opportunity to briefly inform you as to the21 status of future witnesses.22 The witness Judge Adamovic, as I indicated earlier, will be23 available the week of 21 June. As of yesterday, there was at least one24 and perhaps two of the archivists that Ms. Benjamin has spoken to are also25 available that week. It is at this point our intention to schedule theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1451 archivists and Judge Adamovic for the week of the 21st of June, with a2 sufficient number of witnesses to fully engage our work efforts during3 that week. Of course, once we have any additional statements from4 Mr. Adamovic or any statements from the archivists, those will be5 disclosed as quickly as possible. My understanding is that Ms. Benjamin6 has taken those statements in both English and B/C/S so as to avoid the7 need to have the documents translated once she arrives back here in8 The Hague and so that the witnesses could sign the documents in their own9 language, which should expedite matters in that respect.10 We do as of this moment, Mr. President and Your Honours, we do11 not have any witnesses available for next week.12 With respect to the information concerning the intercepts, we13 will be making that information available, I anticipate, on Monday or14 Tuesday of next week. Ms. Karper, our former case manager, is working on15 the missing documents, and my understanding is that she will be providing16 some of that material to the legal officer later today. Among the17 documents which are not yet available, of course, are those for which we18 are awaiting translation, but my understanding is those documents should19 be available one week from today.20 The final issue I need to bring to the attention of the Trial21 Chamber and the Defence concerns the order that we designate or determine22 who would be the appropriate witnesses to authenticate the documents.23 Late yesterday afternoon I received a spreadsheet based on the contested24 exhibit spreadsheet that was previously provided on the 8th -- on the 19th25 of April. Two analysts from our team have identified the likelyTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1461 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and13 English transcripts.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1471 authenticating witnesses for about 600 of the 660 contested documents. A2 number of those documents have been withdrawn, so the number is slightly3 less than 660. There are a few documents that we are still unable to4 identify an authenticating witness for.5 I regret to inform the Trial Chamber, however, that having6 analysed the names of the individuals who are listed as authenticating7 witnesses, the total number is 163 witnesses, which clearly is not8 possible or reasonable for us to bring before this Trial Chamber. I will9 also add, Mr. President, that 105 of those witnesses would be able to10 authenticate only one document.11 What we are attempting to do is formulate some ideas as to12 perhaps other means to solve this problem, whether it's calling an analyst13 or analysts from within the Office of the Prosecutor who could provide a14 document type of analysis, in terms of the context of the documents, and15 someone who has familiarity with the large number of documents in order to16 determine whether or not they are authentic. Another option, of course,17 would be to call a number of witnesses who could authenticate large18 numbers of the documents, such as, for example, one of the witnesses that19 was identified, we believe, could authenticate approximately 130 of the20 documents. But I also should bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber21 and the Defence that it appears to us that a significant number of the22 witnesses that might be necessary for authentication purposes could be23 Defence witnesses in this case, which might raise other issues pertaining24 to bringing them here for the limited purpose of authenticating25 documents. Again, we are in the process of formulating some proposedTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1481 suggestions on how to deal with this problem, particularly in light of the2 fact that as Your Honours are aware, the Prosecution was not clearly put3 on notice that authenticity would be an issue until relatively late in4 these proceedings and certainly not at the pre-trial stage of this case.5 I anticipate that we will file the spreadsheet containing the6 lists, again, either Monday or Tuesday, and I anticipate appending to that7 some proposed suggestions or ideas as to how to solve this problem, which8 the Prosecution clearly recognises is one that is a very difficult9 situation for the Trial Chamber and the parties.10 That summarises the position with respect to the ongoing projects11 pertaining to the oral order. I should also mention one final thing:12 Your Honours had asked us to, in effect, sequence the documents to13 determine whether it's possible to determine if documents were sent or14 received based on the chain of the documents. That project is ongoing,15 and I will brief you as to when that information will be available and in16 what format it will be available as soon as I have a better idea as to17 when that information will be available.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.19 I'm now going to give the floor to the Defence. There were a20 number of points that you raised and addressed. First of all, the21 question -- we've dealt with the question of signatures. Now, what22 remains are the hearings for June. You said that there was a week, from23 the 21st of June is what I heard, so I assume that's from the 21st to24 the 28th, that week, that's what you mean, that we have envisaged Judge25 Adamovic, plus an archivist and other witnesses.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1491 You told us that for the following week there is nothing that has2 been envisaged, so between the 14th and the 21st of June, what's happening3 during that week? That's what I'm wondering.4 Now, as to the following week, to next week, if we don't manage5 to complete the videotapes by the end of the day today, of course we shall6 continue on Monday, during our Monday hearing. Now, if we do get through7 all the videotapes today, then we won't be sitting from Monday to Friday,8 if you say there are no witnesses. But what happens with the week after?9 You didn't indicate anything. Theoretically speaking, it should have been10 the witnesses we mentioned yesterday, and I don't want to say anything11 about that in open session.12 So I'm going to give you the floor again with respect to planning13 and scheduling, in view of the fact that we have no hearings next week14 because there are no witnesses, unless we continue with our business on15 Monday, not having finished today. Now, the Court witnesses come the16 following week, and afterwards the archivist and Mr. Adamovic and perhaps17 some other witnesses too. Is that what we can expect and understand? And18 in the list you have not included your -- Mr. Tauru for the famous19 sketches.20 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, by our estimate, we have remaining21 between 8 and 12 witnesses to testify in total. That includes the Court22 witness, two to three archivists, Judge Adamovic, Mika Tauru, the two23 witnesses who were the subject of the videolink decision, one or perhaps24 two witnesses yet to be determined who will address the issue of orders,25 transmission of orders, delegation of authority, et cetera, which theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1501 Chamber has ordered us to produce. I failed to mention that we have2 requested the Bosnian government to assist us in that endeavour, and we3 have yet to receive a response from them.4 As Your Honour knows, we have also previously indicated that we5 will be making an application to add one witness in the form of the6 investigative team leader, who will testify about efforts undertaken to7 obtain certain records that would be of assistance or could be relevant to8 these proceedings. That witness has yet to finalise his statement9 primarily because he is currently in Bosnia undertaking efforts that will10 be the subject of his proposed testimony.11 So what we would propose, Mr. President, is that in the week12 following the Court witness, that is, the week of the 21st, we will have13 the two to three archivists, Judge Adamovic, and perhaps, if time permits,14 because he normally is here in the building, our investigative team15 leader, who of course can be called on short notice because he works here16 in the building.17 Then the following week, being the week of the 28th, we hopefully18 will be in a position to call Mr. Tauru, and hopefully by that point in19 time the issue concerning one of the videolink witnesses might be20 resolved. We will, of course, endeavour to bring those witnesses here, if21 their medical conditions permit, by the end of this month; if not, we will22 have to revisit the issue of the videolinks, and then of course the one or23 two witnesses pursuant to the Trial Chamber's order concerning the issuing24 of orders within the ABiH.25 So it is possible that with a bit of good luck, in terms ofTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1511 witness availability, and moving as expeditiously as possible, that we may2 be in a position whereby the week of the 28th of June would be the final3 witnesses for the Prosecution.4 As Your Honours are well aware, the Prosecution position is that5 we are not in a position to close our case until the issue of the6 contested documents has been resolved. I don't anticipate there being any7 change in that position. So that if we finish with witnesses by, say, the8 2nd of July, we would then be waiting a Trial Chamber decision on the9 admissibility of the contested documents, and that would be the only thing10 that would be hindering us from closing our case at that -- at that point.11 That's about as much information as I'm able to provide, Your12 Honours, at this point in time, but we are hopeful that we will be able to13 complete the oral testimony of the witnesses by the week of the 28th of14 June or perhaps into the -- the first few days of the following week.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for those16 explanations.17 You also said, as far as the telephone intercepts were concerned,18 that you would disclose the missing documents next week; that is to say,19 the missing transcripts in both languages.20 With regard to the documents, you said that you are establishing21 a spreadsheet, that you are drawing up a spreadsheet and you would provide22 us with it in the near future.23 As far as the orders are concerned, you said that you had24 contacted the BH government in order to obtain information about how25 within the BH army orders might be transmitted. To this effect, you saidTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1521 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and13 English transcripts.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1531 that the Trial Chamber had requested that a witness be called who could2 inform the Chamber about how orders were transmitted in the field and so3 that he could inform the Chamber of all technical issues. You said that4 you have examined this question. According to your calculations, with5 regard to the 600 documents -- there are about 600 documents that could be6 dealt with through this witness, if you find this witness. You said that7 there are about 163 documents too, but only certain witnesses could8 testify with regard to one document. You have, on the other hand, one9 witness who could authenticate 130 documents. That's what you said.10 But you also raised another issue, and you said that this member11 of the military, who would come to testify here, could be considered as a12 Defence witness, in your opinion. As a result, you have proposed two13 solutions: Either we should hear an analyst from the OTP, or we should14 call this witness after all. I'd like to point out that when a witness15 makes the solemn declaration, he becomes a witness for the Court and that16 changes many things. The witness we are requesting is one we would like17 not to ask him questions -- one we would like to have not to ask him18 questions about the substance but about orders. We would like to know how19 orders are made, how they are sent; we would like to know who received the20 orders; we'd like to know whether there were faxes, whether couriers were21 used to transmit orders or electronic means. There's an entire series of22 purely technical questions, and this would not make it necessary for the23 witness to side with the Defence or the Prosecution, because this witness24 would only be answering questions of a technical nature, and this is why25 the question as to whether the witness might be one for the Defence, in myTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1541 opinion, is not a question that should prevent us from calling a member of2 the military to testify about the procedure followed.3 Naturally, you will continue to work on this matter. We, the4 Judges, will discuss it and bear in mind the fact that you have suggested5 that an analyst be called rather than a witness; although in its oral6 decision the Trial Chamber wanted a member of the military to testify.7 We'll bear in mind what you have said, and the Judges will discuss the8 matter. Naturally, within the framework of the adversarial proceedings,9 the Trial Chamber would also like to hear what the Defence's position is.10 I will let the Defence take the floor, unless there is something11 that Mr. Mundis would like to add.12 Mr. Mundis.13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.14 Let me just attempt to clarify one point where perhaps earlier I15 may have misspoken or may not have made myself clear.16 There are two distinct issues that are involved with respect to17 the authentication of the documents: The first one is the ABiH commander18 or senior military officer who could testify about the orders, how they19 were transmitted, and those type of technical issues. That's who the20 Prosecution has sought the assistance of the Bosnian government, simply21 based on the outstanding protocols whereby any currently serving member of22 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or any government official, we must go23 through the Bosnian government prior to directly contacting such24 individuals. That issue is, the Prosecution would submit, a separate25 issue from the witnesses who could authenticate all of the documents, andTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1551 it's with respect to the authenticating witnesses that we have identified2 163 people, which is clearly an excessive number, and it was with respect3 to that portion that one of our proposals that we will submit next week4 might be for an analyst within the Office of the Prosecutor to discuss.5 We're not varying or seeking variation of your order that we call in6 addition to that a senior member of the ABiH to explain technical issues7 concerning orders. We clearly make a distinction between those two8 things. It's with respect to solving the problem of avoiding 1639 witnesses having to come in, of whom 105 would only be able to10 authenticate one document. That's what we clearly are not going to be11 able to do. And it's with respect to that that we will be making some12 proposals next week that will include having an analyst or analysts13 testify in court about the conclusions that they have reached based on14 their professional training as analysts in evaluating the contested15 documents and putting those documents into the context of other events16 that have happened and the evidence that's currently before Your Honours.17 So if I wasn't clear before, Mr. President, we are clearly making18 a distinction between those two different, very different types of19 evidence, one concerning authentication and one concerning the technical20 issues of how orders were transmitted, delegation authorities, et cetera,21 that was clearly set forth in the Chamber's oral order of 17 May.22 Thank you.23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis, for24 these explanations.25 I'll now turn to the Defence to hear what their position is withTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1561 regard to all the issues that Mr. Mundis has discussed.2 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Good day,3 Madam Judge. Good day, Your Honour.4 The Defence's comments will be quite brief. First of all, I'd5 like to thank my colleague from the Prosecution for all the information6 that he has just provided us with, with all the information about what the7 Trial Chamber requested that he do with regard to the admissibility of8 documents.9 The only issue I'd like to raise concerns the authentication of10 documents and the number of witnesses that the Prosecution said should be11 called to authenticate documents. The Defence doesn't want to cause any12 difficulties. We would like to facilitate the Prosecution's work. We13 suggest that we meet members of the Prosecution as soon as possible in14 order to try and find a solution so that we can facilitate the15 proceedings, and naturally in doing so we will try to defend the accused's16 rights. So we suggest that we do this as soon as possible.17 Thank you, Mr. President.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.19 And the other Defence team, Mr. Dixon.20 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.21 Your Honours, on the point of the documents that were submitted22 with the accused's signatures on, I did want to indicate for the record23 that there's no objection to those documents being formally tendered. And24 indeed, Your Honours will know when we were discussing the documents, we25 did indicate on behalf of Mr. Kubura what his signature was on one of theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1571 documents, so there's no dispute about this matter.2 Then the other matter, Your Honours, is just with regard to3 the -- the scheduling. If there are no witnesses available for next week,4 we would request that the Prosecution seek as soon as possible - and I5 know, of course, they will do this - to provide statements for the6 witnesses who are to come the week thereafter and after that, so that the7 time can be used, especially if the documents need to be translated, to8 prepare for -- for those witnesses, because these would all be new9 statements that we will be getting from the Prosecution.10 Thank you, Your Honours.11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis [sic].12 With regard to all the issues raised by the Prosecution, the13 Defence said that on the whole they were glad to receive the information14 provided by the Prosecution.15 Mr. Bourgon said that as far as the authenticity of documents are16 concerned - and naturally, he said he didn't want to obstruct the17 proceedings but would nevertheless like to defend the accused's rights -18 Mr. Bourgon said he would like to meet with the Prosecution in order to19 find a solution to the question of authenticity and the question of a20 witness who might be able to come to authenticate the documents.21 Naturally, the Trial Chamber supports this suggestion if a consensus can22 be reached by the parties.23 In addition, the Defence said that they would like to have by the24 21st of June the written statements in order to be able to prepare for the25 testimony of these witnesses. We have more or less dealt with all theseTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1581 issues.2 Mr. Mundis, would you like to take the floor again? But I should3 point out that after the break, we will render our decision on the4 question of the admissibility of the two files that relate to the5 signatures of the accused.6 Mr. Mundis, is there anything you would like to say in response7 to what Defence counsel has just said?8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with respect to witness statements,9 we of course will make those available as soon as we have them. The10 current plan is for Ms. Benjamin to return to The Hague this weekend. I11 would expect, therefore, certainly some witness statements, additional12 witness statements, will be available perhaps as early as late Monday.13 We, of course, have to enter them into our evidence system before they can14 be disclosed, but we can certainly expedite that process, and I would15 anticipate that by Tuesday of next week at the latest there should be some16 statements available pertaining to the witnesses that would be coming the17 week of the 21st.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Just -- there's just19 something else I would like to add. I forgot to mention something. This20 is something that the Defence missed.21 You suggested to have a chief of investigations come to testify.22 This witness would testify about investigations independently of23 Mr. Tauru. Naturally, this seems very suitable for the Chamber, if an24 investigator comes to say how he worked, if he says what the mission he25 had was, if he told us how the statements were taken, and if we can beTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1591 told why the documents weren't tendered with the written statements, given2 that they were original documents. There is an entire series of questions3 that could be raised in the course of such testimony.4 As far as calling a chief of investigations is concerned, what is5 the Defence's position, who will naturally be able to cross-examine this6 witness? Mr. Bourgon.7 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.8 This naturally depends on the contents of the investigator's9 statement. If we had his statement, we would know the points -- the10 issues about which he would like to testify.11 But there's the question of documents. My colleague mentioned12 that the chief of investigations was in Bosnia in order to prepare13 testimony. I don't know whether the chief of investigations is searching14 for new documents or not, but if there are new documents that might be15 produced by this witness, we would like to be informed about this as soon16 as possible. Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but the fact that he is17 in Bosnia to prepare his testimony might mean that he is searching for new18 documents.19 Thank you, Mr. President.20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon, as far as the chief21 of investigations is concerned.22 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, this may assist in clarifying the origin23 of many of these documents. But as Mr. Bourgon said, it depends entirely24 on what the investigator does know and what he's able to put in a25 statement.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1601 If such a statement is being prepared - and I understand it is2 along similar lines - it's then a matter that the Defence can review. But3 our position would remain that with regard to the documents themselves,4 especially the internal military documents, that we do need witnesses who5 can authenticate the origin of those documents, as Your Honours have6 ordered. A investigator statement might go some way to addressing that7 matter.8 Thank you, Your Honours.9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. As far as this issue is10 concerned, the Defence has mentioned two problems, which are important11 ones. First of all, would this investigator testify within the framework12 of a previous statement that he would have made? And naturally, such13 statement should be provided to the Defence so that they can examine it.14 But the second problem, which is also important, is would this15 investigator be used by the Prosecution to tender new documents? The16 Trial Chamber would like more information with regard to all these17 problems.18 Mr. Mundis.19 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, Your Honours, the investigation team20 leader is currently in Bosnia with an investigative team, again going21 through court records and district military prosecutor's records in order22 to hopefully satisfy the Chamber that steps were not taken by units of the23 3rd Corps to punish the perpetrators of the crimes that are set forth in24 the indictment. So the point is not for the investigator to return with a25 large number of documents but precisely the opposite.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1611 The team that is currently searching through, again, the court2 archives is attempting to demonstrate that there are no such records3 pertaining to the crimes that are set forth in the Third Amended4 Indictment. The subject matter of that proposed testimony would be to the5 effect that teams of investigators have again gone through the court6 records, and there are no records indicating that the crimes in the Third7 Amended Indictment were the subject of referrals by the 3rd Corps or its8 subordinate units. So it's not a question of coming back with additional9 documents; it's a question of testifying as to the lack thereof.10 Once that mission is complete, the investigative team leader will11 compile or finalise a statement that will set forth for Your Honours all12 the efforts made by the Office of the Prosecutor with respect to that13 issue, and he will then be made available to testify and answer questions14 of the Defence and the Trial Chamber with respect to those efforts.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Trial Chamber has16 understood this correctly, the investigation team leader is now in Bosnia17 and Herzegovina with his team, and he's in contact with various courts,18 military or civilian courts, from the time in order -- he's consulting19 archives in order to verify whether any procedures were followed that20 might support what is stated in the amended indictment. And having21 completed his work, the investigator would be called, and in the course of22 an examination-in-chief you'd question the witness about his work and the23 conclusions he reached. This is what you have told us.24 Having heard those explanations, I will give the floor to the25 Defence again.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1621 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.2 Naturally, the Defence isn't surprised to hear that the3 Prosecution is following this method, because not long ago they admitted4 all the measures that were taken in the 3rd Corps with regard to a5 multitude of events in 1993. So now we're looking for exceptions rather6 than the rule. So we can understand the position of the OTP.7 Nevertheless, we would like to underline the fact that by8 carrying out such searches, any documents of an exculpatory nature for the9 accused or any documents that might diminish evidence of the Prosecution10 should be provided to us in accordance with the Rule, and according to11 what the Prosecution has said, it is our understanding that a number of12 documents could be provided to us on the basis of the Rules of Procedure13 and Evidence.14 Thank you, Mr. President.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.16 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. I think there are two17 separate matters here, Your Honour. The one is the investigator looking18 at measures. And I understand there will be a statement produced along19 those lines and an application to add that witness to the witness list.20 And once that happens, then the Defence can respond to that new statement,21 and as Your Honours say, if the witness is to be called, cross-examine the22 witness on that point.23 The other matter is whether an investigator or analyst would be24 called to assist in the authentication of the documents, and on that point25 my submission earlier was that our position remains that the witnesses whoTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1631 were actually involved in the production and distribution of those2 documents should be called as the best evidence available. But an3 investigator or analyst may be able to assist, depending on what's in his4 statement with the authentication process, and we have to wait to see what5 the Prosecution proposal is before we respond to that.6 Thank you, Your Honours.7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.8 In the light of what the Defence has just said, there is one9 issue that stands out; it was mentioned by Mr. Bourgon. If this10 investigator came across documents of an exculpatory nature for the11 accused, in such a case the Prosecution should disclose these documents to12 the Defence, pursuant to Rule 68. That's what was said.13 Mr. Mundis, what could you tell the Defence about this matter?14 What could you tell them about what would happen if the investigator15 discovered material of an exculpatory nature?16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, there is -- there is no doubt such17 material would in fact be disclosed to the Defence. And I neglected to18 mention that earlier.19 Let me also say in this respect that later this morning the20 Prosecution will be seeking specific information from the Defence with21 respect to potential Rule 68 material. And I have a letter that I will be22 handing to both Defence counsel later this morning, perhaps during the23 first break, that specifically addresses this issue, which is not one that24 was unanticipated or certainly is one that we anticipated in this context.25 And so we are actually seeking some assistance from the Defence in orderTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1641 to actively search for material that might fall within Rule 68. But2 certainly anything that comes within our possession will be disclosed to3 the Defence as quickly as possible.4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for these5 submissions.6 The Defence will consult with the Prosecution about the matter.7 We've spent almost an hour on dealing with these problems. We8 could perhaps continue with the viewing of the videotapes.9 I'll give the floor to the Prosecution now. You may take the10 floor.11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.12 With your leave, Mr. Ruxton will now depart the courtroom, and I13 will once again turn over the presentation of the videos to my colleague,14 Mr. Neuner.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Neuner, you may take the16 floor. The Trial Chamber greets you.17 MR. NEUNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, Defence18 counsel and everybody in and around the courtroom.19 I want to start by distributing the -- a list containing the20 order of sequences which will be displayed. If I may ask the usher.21 We have also, I hope, enough copies for the translators.22 What Your Honours can see from this order list is the following:23 That we are continuing with showing a video which we couldn't see24 yesterday afternoon, and I want your -- I want to point your attention to25 point 5 here on the list. This is a video about which we talked with theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1651 Defence this morning again. This is the video with the ERN number2 V0003971. It is a video which is about detention facilities in3 Bosnia-Herzegovina allegedly held by -- or allegedly run by the ABiH or4 associate forces. Basically it's a compilation of footage taken on the --5 in April 2002 by Marinus Dorrestijn, who helped the Office of the6 Prosecutor in shooting footage about all of the detention facilities7 listed in the indictment; namely, relating to paragraph 28, paragraph 418 till 43 of the indictment.9 This videotape, which would have 97 minutes of footage about the10 detention facility, we agreed with the Defence that the audio of this tape11 would be removed, and therefore under the condition that we say it was12 taken in April 2002, we agreed that it is not necessary to show this video13 in its entirety in the courtroom.14 [Prosecution counsel confer]15 MR. NEUNER: I can also inform Your Honours that the stills which16 were shown to numerous witnesses by the Prosecution in the course of these17 proceedings were always taken from this video.18 On the video itself, when the individual detention facilities are19 shown, there is also a kind of display, a kind of name what detention20 facility it relates to, so that the Defence pointed that out, it is not21 necessary to have the audio, which would also explain what detention22 facility it is, and we agreed to remove the audio in order to tender it23 this way so that we don't have to screen it this morning.24 If I may move on. Under point 5.1, on the bottom of the page25 which was just distributed, this is another video which comes from theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1661 reserve list, and for the time being it is still on the reserve list.2 This is the video with the ERN number V0004306. This video carries also3 the PT number 1138, or the P number 63. This is a video shown to Nenad4 Bogeljic, the witness Nenad Bogeljic, on the 28th of January of this year,5 transcript pages 2.123 for following.6 I checked the transcript yesterday, and Mr. Bogeljic had7 identified four persons who received beatings in Motel Sretno prior to8 20th of May, 1993, so four of the numerous persons or victims shown on9 this tape have been identified already as having been in the Motel Sretno,10 and I -- or the Prosecution wishes to leave it to Your Honours whether you11 wish to see this video in its entirety, which is 62 minutes in its12 duration, or the relevant excerpt would be 62 minutes in its duration; the13 whole video would be two hours, nine minutes, but the selected relevant14 portion would be 62 minutes. However, the Prosecution wishes to state15 that the victims are also interviewed on this tape, and for this reason we16 have for the time being left it on the reserve list, because there would17 be no possibility for the Defence to cross-examine the other victims shown18 on this tape.19 If I can seek guidance from Your Honour in relation to this tape.20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will tell you after the21 break what our decision will be.22 Now, with respect to the reserve video lasting 62 minutes, you23 say, what is the position of the Defence on that particular videotape?24 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.25 With respect to your first question, I would rather cede theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1671 floor to my colleague representing Mr. Kubura. But I would like to make2 certain comments with respect to the number 5 exhibit which was mentioned,3 and we wanted to know whether that will -- exhibit will be tendered, the4 videotape concerning the places and different places in5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But we should also like to mention that it is a6 videotape which was taped in the year 2001 and that that particular7 videotape has nothing to do with the situation and state of affairs which8 existed in those facilities in 1993. The facilities were clearly9 identified on that videotape, and the Trial Chamber will be able to see,10 for example, that if a videotape is mentioned, if it was taken, that then11 the videotape shows the name of the facility as well. And my learned12 colleague mentioned the detention facilities. But we would like to speak13 about the other facilities that the witnesses mentioned during their14 testimony here possibly, and it is up to the Trial Chamber to decide how15 they're going to characterise those locations and facilities that we can16 see on the footage.17 But the essential point, Your Honours, is that the agreement18 reached between the Defence and Prosecution has to do to the audiotapes --19 or rather, the soundtrack, the comments accompanying the videotape. And20 we have proceeded in a similar fashion before when we had videotapes on21 which we were able to see the consequences of the abduction of Mr. Totic,22 and the Prosecution accepted that the soundtrack be removed. So we had23 nothing against having the images exhibited, and we did so in a similar24 case. So there have been cases of this kind when we object to the25 acceptability of certain videotapes, apart from the fact that the witnessTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1681 was already before the Trial Chamber. We were not able to cross-examine2 him about his conception of the videotapes.3 Then the comment that was heard in our opinion is usually the4 main obstacle to having the tape exhibited, tendered and accepted into5 evidence.6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon, thank you. Let's7 hear you.8 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.9 With respect to videotape number 5, Your Honours, the problem10 with the audio was that there was a lot of commentary and interpretation11 of events, and that, as Your Honour knows, is a matter that we have12 objected to, and the Prosecution have agreed to remove those -- those13 comments, and it's for that reason that there's no objection to the video14 therefore being tendered with only the images, as Mr. Bourgon has said.15 It's a matter for Your Honours whether it's necessary, therefore, to view16 it all in public or whether that could be viewed out of court, if it is17 then tendered into -- to evidence.18 Your Honours, in respect of the final video, 5.1, I understand19 that this is the entire video of which certain excerpts have already been20 admitted into evidence, without any sound, and that was done in order,21 once again, to avoid the commentary being made.22 Our position would be that the Defence had the opportunity23 then -- sorry, the Prosecution had the opportunity then, if they wanted to24 introduce any further portions of the video, to do that through that25 witness or other witnesses, and that the balance of the video should not,Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1691 therefore, now be admitted, certainly if it contains scenes of interviews2 with witnesses where we are not going to have an opportunity to -- to3 cross-examine those witnesses.4 So in our submission, the relevant portions, according to the5 Prosecution, have been admitted already through a witness, and the rest of6 the video should -- should not be admitted, and there's no need therefore7 to show it if it contains scenes with commentary and interviews that it's8 going to be impossible for the Defence to test at this stage.9 Thank you, Your Honours.10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. As concerns the reserve11 video, was this video on the list of exhibits, contested exhibits, or is12 it a video -- an additional video that was not on the original list that13 was contested? I'd like to hear your positions on that point. And if it14 was on the list, what was its number?15 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, like all the videos, also this video16 has been contested, and it has the contested number 407. The pre-trial17 number is 1138.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I did check that out just19 now, and the number is 407. That's quite right. It was PTW 1113. But20 anyway, thank you for clearing that point up.21 We still have 20 minutes left. Can we go ahead with the short22 excerpts?23 MR. NEUNER: Yes, Your Honour. The next tape -- or an excerpt24 from the next tape has been shown yesterday already, so I will reduce the25 background information on this videotape because it has been given alreadyTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1701 yesterday.2 The ERN number of the tape is V0002401. For the translators, a3 summary translation is contained in tab number 19 of the binder. 154 minutes -- we should be able to see the 15 minutes of the second excerpt,5 running from 26 minutes up to 41 minutes 20 of this tape. It shows the6 exchange of Mr. Totic, on the one hand side, and of the Mujahedin, on the7 other hand side, in Zenica, and at the beginning also some footage of the8 Mujahedin which are being brought to the exchange is being shown.9 The tape will be played now.10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We have 15 minutes, so11 that makes everything fine.12 [Videotape played]13 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] What are you going to say when you14 come to Zenica about the behaviour of these --15 Blazo, bring it over here.16 Are they going to come here again?17 You wait. Wait for a while. Don't go yet. Wait.18 Close the door.19 Did they admit --20 What?21 Did they admit they were guilty?22 Stay away from the window so that they cannot see us. Keep quiet.23 It's not on now.24 Listen, bring me a battery. Only, take it easy so they do not see25 what you're carrying.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1711 [Arabic spoken]2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The videotape --3 the impression we gain from viewing the videotape is the following: It4 would appear that we have a juxtaposition of sequences coming from5 different sources, a compilation. The first source -- in the first6 sequence, we see the Mujahedin being detained in a place with agents --7 with guards present. It says, "HVO Dom." We see that. And we see the8 individuals wearing white jogging attire coming out of their cells, so9 they are being held in a facility with cells, in a building with cells.10 And we see that they are speaking amongst themselves. They don't seem to11 be particularly anxious. And then we see the arrival of a white truck or12 vehicle.13 Then we see a sequence where they are arriving at some other14 location, and there is some Red Cross vehicles there as well as some blue15 helmets.16 After that, we see another sequence, another passage, which shows17 that it is a compilation, a collage. We see Commander Totic, embracing18 certain individuals, probably family members, and he is getting into a19 Red Cross vehicle.20 And then the third excerpt has a commentary in Arabic. And21 although we do not understand Arabic, I was able to distinguish very22 precisely the following words: "Croatia, Zenica, commander," et cetera,23 in Arabic. And we see on the sequence a logo; it says, "QP." It is the24 logo on the left, so it's probably the channel broadcasting this excerpt25 or the producer.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1721 We see a number of events taking place before our eyes. First of2 all, we see Commander Totic with some soldiers around him. Then there is3 a sequence where we see some Mujahedin -- hostages with the Mujahedin4 surrounded and they're entering a building -- or rather, the hotel5 building, and we see the hostages getting into the vehicle with Totic and6 being taken off somewhere where they'll be freed.7 Then we have another sequence, where we see the soldiers dressed8 in battle dress, and we see very distinctly a lance rocket insignia [as9 interpreted]. This is visible. And we also see UN vehicles which took10 part in the exchange. They took part in an active fashion. And we see11 the alleged freeing of the Mujahedin, and they're all displaying their12 happiness, and it is part of the sequence we saw yesterday.13 So that in the roughest of terms is what we were able to see14 viewing the videotape, and it incorporated a number of elements.15 Would the Defence like to say anything for a few minutes before16 the break, or would you prefer to do it after the break?17 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Perhaps five minutes,18 Mr. President.19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll do that after20 the break, as it is now time for our break.21 We'll have our break, and we'll resume at 11.00.22 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.23 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll now resume.25 But before we start viewing the videos, the Trial Chamber willTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1731 render a number of decisions that regard various issues.2 First of all, with regard to the videotape 5.1, the so-called3 reserve tape, the Trial Chamber believes that it is not necessary to show4 this tape. The decision concerning the viewing of this videotape will be5 taken at a later date, but we for the moment are not authorising the6 broadcasting of this tape.7 As far as tape 5 is concerned, which relates to the detention8 facilities, this was a tape made in 2001, the Trial Chamber -- in 2002.9 The Trial Chamber notes that there was an agreement reached between the10 Prosecution and the Defence, and they agreed that the tape should be11 withdrawn.12 In order to save time, the Trial Chamber believes that it would13 be best not to show this 97-minute tape. The Trial Chamber will view it14 themselves. So tape number 5 will not be shown today.15 In addition, questions about the transcripts of the Dusina and16 Vares tapes were not dealt with yesterday. These are tapes that were17 produced in other cases, and their transcripts form part of the record of18 other cases. At this point in time, the Trial Chamber is of the opinion19 that the Defence should have these transcripts in their possession, and it20 is for the Prosecution to provide the Defence with these transcripts.21 Once the Defence has these transcripts in its possession, they will inform22 the Trial Chamber of all the questions that arise as a result of an23 examination of these transcripts, and they will inform the Trial Chamber24 of the useful questions that they would have put to the witness had the25 witness been present. Once the Trial Chamber has heard the Defence'sTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1741 point of view and the point of view of the Prosecution in the light of the2 Defence's comments, the Trial Chamber will then deliberate. The Trial3 Chamber will then render a ruling.4 And the last issue I'd like to address: As far as next week is5 concerned, as we have said, no witnesses have been scheduled for next6 week, so there won't be any hearings. But given that a number of7 questions -- a number of issues have to be raised with the Trial Chamber,8 and in particular the question of the archivists and other problems, the9 Trial Chamber believes that on Wednesday at 9.00 we should have a hearing.10 So we will only have a hearing on Wednesday. During this hearing, we'll11 take stock of the situation and deal with all the issues that have not yet12 been solved.13 And finally, the last question that has to be dealt with - and14 the Trial Chamber has just deliberated about the matter - concerns the15 signatures. The Trial Chamber has decided to admit into evidence the two16 files compiled by the Prosecution, who have one file, number 1, which17 contains documents bearing the original signatures of the accused General18 Hadzihasanovic. I will now ask the registrar to give us an exhibit number19 for this document.20 And the second file contains documents bearing the original21 signatures of Mr. Kubura. So I will also ask the registrar to provide me22 with an exhibit number for the second file.23 I'm going to provide these files to the registrar now, and you24 will give me exhibit numbers for these files.25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1751 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] These documents will be given a2 P number, and in addition they will be under seal.3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the first file4 that relates to Mr. Hadzihasanovic will be number P113, under seal; and5 file number 2, which relates to the accused Kubura, the number will be6 P114, under seal.7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] These are then the decisions8 that the Trial Chamber has rendered.9 We will now continue with the viewing of the videotapes that10 remain to be seen and which are referred to in the spreadsheet provided a11 while ago.12 Before we do so, the Defence should inform us of their position13 with regard to the video that we saw before the break.14 Mr. Bourgon.15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.16 The comments concerning the last tape that we viewed -- first of17 all, my comment concerns an observation of the Trial Chamber about what18 was seen in the tape. The Trial Chamber noted that we saw Mujahedin in a19 building which seems to be a place where there were cells. I think it's20 important to point out, Mr. President, that we don't know whether the21 people we saw in the video were in fact Mujahedin. We have certain22 information and evidence concerning these persons, naturally if the23 individuals we saw are the individuals mentioned by the witnesses in the24 course of these proceedings. Those would be my preliminary remarks.25 Mr. President, although we see in the first sequence the insideTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1761 of a building and then we see the outside and a white van people are2 entering, although we see this, we don't know where the site is nor do we3 know who the people are who appear at that site. Similarly, we don't4 know, as the Trial Chamber has pointed out -- we can't see the guards in5 charge of these people, if there were any such guards; and also, the6 question is if there were any guards, the video must have been made with7 their agreement. So there's a number of questions that haven't been8 answered, and we only have a minimum of information in relation to the9 first sequence.10 As far as the second sequence is concerned, Mr. President, we can11 see a Red Cross vehicle in the sequence. Naturally, we don't know whether12 the Red Cross was actually present. We can see some blue helmets, but we13 do not know where this site is. All we can do is imagine that perhaps14 this is the site referred to as the site which was one of the meeting15 places, but we have no information about this.16 As far as the third site is concerned, naturally the Trial17 Chamber concluded that we were able to recognise a site in front of a18 hotel in Zenica. We have already had the opportunity of seeing this site19 in the past when evidence was presented. But the people we see in the20 video, yet again there is only one person among them whom we can21 recognise, and this person is Mr. Totic. Naturally, we can see two22 individuals dressed in white, which might lead us to believe that these23 individuals are EU Monitoring Mission representatives, but we do not know24 their identity.25 There is perhaps another person that we might think we know; it'sTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1771 the first person who seems to be getting out of a UN vehicle, and this2 seems to be a person who appears in a photograph that was tendered into3 evidence through the last witness. Namely -- this would be a Mujahedin.4 We might think that this person is a Mujahedin.5 These comments on the third sites in these -- on the three sites6 in these three sequences show that we don't have enough information to use7 this video in any way as evidence in these proceedings. Naturally, the8 question of the source is still one that we have to ask ourselves about.9 We don't know what the source is; we don't know when it was made; we don't10 know when the sequences were filmed; we don't know when the video was11 compiled; and we do not have any witnesses who would be able to come to12 authenticate this material or to describe at least the scenes depicted in13 the video. Even the witness Totic, who has testified before this Chamber,14 was not able to describe anything other than the site where apparently he15 met people whom he recognised, and he wasn't able to say anything, apart16 from the time when he was in Zenica. He wasn't able to say anything about17 people leaving a building to enter a vehicle.18 As far as the English text is concerned, which we were provided19 with under tab 19, when comments come from people who are actors in the20 tape, naturally the Defence can listen to what these people say and they21 can bear this in mind, but any other comments that appear in the22 transcript - and for example, in line 37.56 we have a description23 according to which an EU monitor supervises the transfer of Totic from a24 Mujahedin vehicle to a UN vehicle - this commentary, Mr. President, is a25 commentary made by someone whose identity is unknown. Was it by someoneTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1781 from the Prosecution? We do not know how this commentary was added to the2 line 37.56.3 And, Mr. President, another comment was added to the tape. It's4 not even a part of the tape. It seems that they say that there was a5 Mr. Mahmuljin and Alagic who assisted, who were present at a gathering of6 Mujahedin, and there were words spoken in Arabic. This part is not part7 of the video; it's a different sequence. And we don't know why at 48.17,8 this line, this comment appears. We do not know the source of this9 comment. And for these reasons, Mr. President, we believe that this is10 evidence that is being suggested but it does not have sufficient11 reliability to allow the Judges to draw any conclusions, and it cannot12 assist the Judges in determining matters that are in dispute in these13 proceedings.14 Thank you, Mr. President.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.16 The other Defence team.17 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.18 Apart from the comments set forth by Mr. Bourgon, there is19 nothing we would like to add.20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.21 Very well. I will give the floor to the Prosecution again, if22 the Prosecution would like to respond to what the Defence has just stated.23 The Defence has pointed out that in their opinion nothing in the24 cassette, nothing in the tape allows one to say that the people we see25 coming out of this facility, in which there are cells, and the people whoTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1791 are liberated are Mujahedin. That is the Defence's interpretation.2 Nothing allows us to claim that these individuals are Mujahedin.3 Would the Prosecution like to respond, or shall we start viewing4 the next video?5 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, I could make a brief comment.6 First of all, the Prosecution has never alleged that we would7 know the source, or we have made it quite clear from the beginning that8 this -- these excerpts just being shown, that we don't know the9 originator.10 Since these Mujahedin in the detention facility before the HVO11 Dom sign is being shown have full beards, it is practically impossible to12 make a comparison between the stills drawn from the faces when they are in13 the detention facility and later on at the exchange.14 With regard to the scene shown from Mr. Totic, the witness Totic15 has stated that this was at the prisoner exchange or at the way [sic] in16 the vehicle to the prisoner exchange, which took place in Zenica on the17 17th of May, 1993. However, during the proofing and before we realised18 that since he was just part on one side of the exchange, he certainly was19 not in a position to testify about the other side of the prisoner20 exchange, meaning the Mujahedin. He even, while the exchange was taking21 place, was not meeting this group at all. For this reason, we made, while22 the witness Totic was here in front of Your Honours, we made the decision23 not to show the full sequence.24 Finally, I want to say we fully agree with the summary made by25 Your Honours immediately after the tape has been shown, and we would nowTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1801 proceed with the next video screening.2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have taken note of what you3 have just said.4 Mr. Bourgon.5 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very briefly.6 I would just like to point out that as far as the individuals are7 concerned in the video, if these are people who appear in a photograph,8 the only witness who was heard before this Chamber was the last witness,9 who said that these were members of the mission; they weren't Mujahedin,10 he said. We can say that they appear to be foreigners in Bosnia, but the11 witness said that they were involved in a mission. He said they weren't12 Mujahedin. There's a distinction to be made.13 Mr. President, when Mr. Totic testified, as far as I can14 remember, he did not mention that before he was liberated he met people15 close to him, which is in the manner depicted in the cassette. We don't16 know whether this is the same event or another event.17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for all these18 explanations provided by both sides, by both parties.19 We should now continue with the viewing of the videos. I'll give20 the floor to the Prosecution, who will inform us about the video that we21 are now going to view.22 MR. NEUNER: The next sequence is taken from the same tape, so I23 will not give additional information on the author, the source or24 submitter of the tape, and the manner in which it was received, because25 this was done earlier.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1811 The sequence is undated, and it is short, about three minutes.2 The first 30 seconds relate to another excerpt, and basically in the3 copying process the first 30 seconds were just copied with this as a kind4 of security matter to -- in order to -- we always start to show a few5 seconds -- a few seconds before the actual sequence.6 The video as such is of bad quality. What can be seen on the7 upper left-hand side is a "QP," a symbol "QP," which is basically the8 same -- or points to a kind of TV station from the same -- which is --9 this excerpt is taken from the same excerpt like the previous one. And10 the Prosecution believes this is the video footage about the Battalion11 Jihad. There are some flags or a kind of poster shown on which the Arabic12 word and below in the letters "Battalion Jihad" are written.13 The sequence will be played now.14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.15 We'll discuss it later.16 [Videotape played]17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This tape, which18 lasts for several minutes, is the continuation of the video that we saw a19 while ago, since the logo is the same.20 There is a commentary in Arabic. It's a pity that we didn't have21 the English translation of this commentary in the Arabic language.22 We can see some soldiers who apparently don't have any insignia23 on them. And in one of the first sequences we can see three lines and24 there are eight men in each line, so there's a minimum of 24 individuals.25 I counted the number of lines.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1821 I heard the word "Mujahedin" in the Arabic language. I would2 like to draw this to the attention -- I would like to draw your attention3 to this. If you desire, if the Defence desires that we review the4 cassette, we can do so. The commentator said the word "Mujahedin."5 There are a number of benches and tables in the video. This is6 certainly a place where the people ate. They are lined up in three lines.7 In each line, there are eight individuals. There are apparently some8 officers who are observing the -- or other people who are observing them.9 Then there is a march that is not very organised. The soldiers10 are marching in all directions and they cry out, et cetera. We can see a11 sort of a large or long flag with inscriptions which we could not see or12 read. And we can also see in the background a wood -- a wooden house.13 That's what we could say about the video we have just seen. Is14 there anything the Defence would like to say?15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.16 The first remark is this: We do not know who the people are whom17 we see on the videotape. We do not know what the location is. We don't18 know whether we're in Bosnia or in another country, not even that. And19 there is a sequence where it seems that there are some superior officers20 sitting down on a bench looking at something. We can see quite clearly21 that it is a collage. Now, whether they were facing the three columns or22 whether they were somewhere else, we can't tell.23 The word "Mujahedin" was heard in the commentary in Arabic. Now,24 the word "Mujahedin" is applied almost everywhere in the world and there25 are Mujahedins everywhere, so where this was, we still don't know. It wasTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1831 no indication.2 Then there was the flag. We saw something that looked3 like "Jihad." Of course, Jihads are waged all over the world, so that4 doesn't point to the exact location either. And in the absence of a5 witness to explain to us what this is all about, the Defence really6 doesn't see how this video can be useful to the Chamber at all, to help7 you decide and reach your decisions.8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.9 What about the other Defence lawyers. Mr. Ibrisimovic?10 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.11 Mr. President, we have no further comments.12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Would the13 Prosecution like to respond to the remarks made by the Defence, with14 respect to the fact that there's no date, there's no location cited, and15 all the other incertitudes that were quoted?16 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, the Prosecution could proceed as such17 that we view the next and even the following sequence, which are more or18 less drawn from the same event. The next sequence is a little bit longer.19 This sequence was just two minutes, and the next is about five minutes.20 It's of worse condition. However, it shows, again, the flag. And the21 third sequence is also drawn from the same event. We could also make a22 comment now, but we could reserve it for later.23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if you group your24 comments in a general manner, we can hear them after the sequences.25 MR. NEUNER: So we are continuing. The next videotape isTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1841 V0001737. As I said, it's the longest sequence, running from one hour2 30 minutes till one hour 35 minutes, about five minutes from a tape which3 has a duration of two hours and 43 minutes.4 I also said it had a bad or worse image, a bad image. At the5 beginning, we have, again, the previous -- previous footage about other6 events. We see, again, these soldiers, eight soldiers standing next to7 each other, but the relevant sequence is the event, where again the flag8 is being shown.9 The submitter of -- okay, the author of this tape is also10 unknown. It was submitted to us by Bozo Pavlovic. And we will show the11 video now.12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.13 [Videotape played]14 [Arabic spoken]15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] The future is uncertain.16 People from the whole world have united.17 We are extreme. We are extremists.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This part of the tape follows on19 from the videotape that we saw a moment ago, with the same people present.20 We can see a banner where it says "Brigada Jihad," that is21 legible, "Brigada Jihad" on the banner. And then there is a speech being22 delivered by someone. We don't know who that someone is, of course. Is it23 a religious leader? Is it a military leader or somebody else? We cannot24 know that.25 Facing the soldiers who could be new recruits or young recruitsTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1851 there are other people sitting down, some of them in military uniform, and2 everybody is listening to a speech being delivered.3 As to the location, we can see that behind the location there is4 a hill and there are trees on the hill. It is not winter; that is5 obvious. Maybe it is spring and maybe it is summer, but certainly not6 winter and certainly not autumn.7 So those are basically the observations that one can make having8 viewed that excerpt.9 Mr. Bourgon, would you like to make your observations at this10 point?11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.12 Just very rapidly. What we can see having seen the videotape:13 It is a collage, once again, a compilation of different scenes, a14 juxtaposition. So that conclusion is drawn on the fact that there are a15 certain number of people in one sequence and then more people in this16 following one or less people in the following. There are certain people17 in uniform towards the end who weren't there at the beginning. So we18 don't know whether it was the same meeting or a different rally. But once19 again, we can't say who the people are or who the people are declaring20 themselves as extremists, and we don't know at what point in time the21 meeting is taking place. Is it prior to the period mentioned in the22 indictment, after it, during it, or whatever? We have no clue as to that,23 Mr. President.24 Thank you.25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1861 Just a comment I would like to make. The Prosecution said there2 were banners where it says "Jihad." We could see -- he called them flags,3 but we can see that it is just a white sheet held by two or three4 individuals and that on it it says "Jihad Brigade," as you yourself,5 Mr. President, rightly noted a moment ago.6 Thank you.7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.8 Let's continue. And the Prosecution will give us its global9 response, general -- in general terms.10 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, the next excerpt is taken from the11 videotape V0003764. This is an excerpt from the full tape called "Martyrs12 of Bosnia, Part 1." We have made additional efforts to try and identify13 the originator, or at least the distributor of this tape. We could make14 this information available if Your Honour is interested in it.15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think the best thing we can16 do is to view the excerpt first, and then we'll see later on what we --17 what needs clarifying.18 MR. NEUNER: The sequence will be played now.19 [Videotape played]20 THE NARRATOR: [In English] Wahiudeen, Mutazu Billah, and21 Husaamudeen, went to Bosnia to initiate the Jihad efforts there. Wahiudeen22 met Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz Azeez [phoen] in Bosnia. Abu Abdul Aziz gave23 Wahiudeen responsibility for the military operations of the Mujahedin, due24 to what was known of his ability and experience in this field. He began25 to think about how to undertake and carry out the Jihad in Bosnia, throughTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1871 an organisation controlled by the Sharia, and by the fact that he was one2 of those holding a position of responsibility in the Mujahedin Battalion.3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That was a very4 brief excerpt in which we could see and hear the commander, Egyptian5 commander, Wahiudeen, and he was extolling the name of a combatant, a6 martyr. We saw his photograph, his picture, and we were able to observe7 that there were certain persons sitting down on benches, and we were8 wondering whether those are the same benches we saw in the previous9 sequence. Perhaps the Prosecution will tell us about that. But as we saw10 people sitting down on benches, we felt we had seen the benches11 previously.12 The excerpt was very short. And having said that, Mr. Bourgon,13 would you like to make any comments?14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.15 First of all, the comments I would like to make would be with16 regard to the additional evidence made by my learned colleague of the17 Prosecution. We were given the information by the Prosecution this18 morning concerning the tape itself, and we think that that type of19 information comes under evidence and that it cannot just be supplied in20 that way by the Prosecution. If the Prosecution would like to discuss the21 material they handed over to us this morning, we would have other comments22 to make.23 Once again, all I can say is we don't know who the people on the24 video are, we do not know if the shots of the two people - one with the25 name Wahiudeen; the other man does not have a name - whether -- where theyTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1881 are. We do indeed see benches, and we are ready to accept that they were2 the same benches from another sequence, from the previous sequence. But3 once again, where are we? Who are these people? And what is the date?4 Thank you, Mr. President.5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The rest of the6 Defence counsel.7 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We8 have no comments.9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.10 Now, the Prosecution has indicated that since yesterday you11 engaged in some research, and it would appear that within limits, within12 certain frameworks, you are able to be more specific and give us the13 specifics about who made the video or any other useful information. So14 the Defence has just said that it would also like to present its15 viewpoint, which is quite legitimate and normal.16 But having said that, would the Prosecution like to tell us17 anything more, give us some more elements about the videotape?18 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, just a question of clarification. You19 want to have more elements about the videotape as such or about the20 potential source, originator, or distributor? I didn't understand21 correctly.22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Defence contests the23 videotapes founded upon the fact that we don't know the source, we do not24 know who produced it, et cetera, so anything that you could tell us on25 that would just help and be of assistance to the Chamber to decide whetherTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 1891 they can be tendered into evidence or not. So if you do know any of these2 elements and can tell us, please do so. The Defence will respond, and3 then we will weigh up the opinions presented by the two sides and make our4 own ruling as to admissibility.5 MR. NEUNER: So, Your Honours, I will then start with some6 general remarks and talk, then, briefly about the potential source,7 originator, or distributor of the last excerpt, the last tape which was8 shown. Did I understand this order correctly, that you want to proceed in9 this order? Thank you.10 Just generally, at this point in time the Prosecution is not in a11 position to state the exact location. The Prosecution is also not in a12 position to give the exact date. The Prosecution believes it is a13 gathering in 1993, probably in August or September 1993. The reason for14 this is that the commander, Wahiudeen, which is identified or encircled in15 the last sequence, died subsequently, as Your Honours have heard yesterday16 in the -- from the -- during the broadcasting of the tape V0003764, one --17 the same tape, it was announced that the Commander Wahiudeen died in18 combat and that his daughter would be five years old, and Your Honours19 concluded yesterday that this would be about 1998 or that it could be20 possible that the daughter -- that the video was taken in 1998.21 What the Prosecution intends to do - we have tried it, but due to22 the bad quality of the tapes; a first attempt failed - we will make23 available stills of this flag which has been shown, the flag which shows24 the Arabic on the upper part and the words "Brigada Jihad" on the lower25 part. We intend to draw stills from this section, and the ProsecutionTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Private Session) Page 1901 also intends to draw a still from the scene which was shown on all three2 tapes where Wahiudeen was sitting or encircled in the last sequence. And3 the Prosecution intends to ask witnesses who will appear about their4 knowledge, about either Wahiudeen or the person sitting on the left-hand5 side of Wahiudeen. It's the Prosecution's position that the person6 sitting on the left-hand side of Wahiudeen is General Alagic, who was at7 the time the commander of the OG Bosanska Krajina.8 With regard to the Defence position that the video could have9 been taken everywhere in the world, we just heard our translators - I10 think it was the second sequence - one of the translators translated the11 word, I think, "extremist" or something from the Bosnian to the English12 language, so this still doesn't prove that the sequence itself was taken13 in Bosnia, but it is at least an indication that this didn't happen, let's14 say, in Afghanistan or any other place in the world.15 With regard to the potential origin of the third tape, 37 --16 V0003764, which was called "The Martyrs of Bosnia, Part 1," the17 Prosecution would like to go into closed session.18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, may we go into19 private session, please.20 [Private session]21 (redacted)22 (redacted)23 (redacted)24 (redacted)25 (redacted)Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Private Session) Page 1911 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pages 8639 to 8649 redacted, private session13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Private Session) Page 2021 (redacted)2 (redacted)3 (redacted)4 (redacted)5 (redacted)6 (redacted)7 (redacted)8 (redacted)9 (redacted)10 (redacted)11 (redacted)12 (redacted)13 (redacted)14 (redacted)15 (redacted)16 (redacted)17 (redacted)18 (redacted)19 (redacted)20 (redacted)21 (redacted)22 (redacted)23 (redacted)24 (redacted)25 [Open session]Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2031 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we are in open2 session.3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I turn to the Prosecution. But4 before giving them the floor to continue with the videotapes, in looking5 at the general lists, the spreadsheet of all the videos, the Judges have6 noted that there are videotapes that have not yet been broadcast. So the7 question is: When do you expect to show them? These are the numbers:8 2898, 2414, 2911, 1468, 2629, 2781, 2895, 1676, 3270, 1440, and 1790.9 So we'd like to know how you intend to proceed. Do you intend to10 show them? That's my first question. And secondly, when? The best time11 would be to continue next week, into Monday. As I said, there will be no12 sittings next week because of the absence of witnesses, so could you13 inform me of what you intend to do. How far have you come in your14 thoughts on showing those videotapes?15 [Prosecution counsel confer]16 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, just one question for clarification:17 The numbers you have referred to, I -- do I understand this correctly that18 these are V000-numbers and then the four digits following?19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. The last20 digits, the figures on the index for the transcripts. I began with 2818,21 but it says number 6; 2414 is number 7; 2911 is 9; 1468, 11; 2629, 12; and22 the following are the numbers that followed; 2781, 2898, 1676, 1421, and23 1729 -- 22. So I think they're in the binder.24 MR. NEUNER: Thank you for this clarification, Your Honours.25 With regard to the question you asked, the Prosecution would haveTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2041 at the end of this day announced the decision or would have been prepared2 not to show these videos, but from your question I understand that Your3 Honours would like to see excerpts from these videotapes? Is this4 correct?5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Inasmuch as those videotapes6 were asked to be introduced into evidence, you asked them to be tendered,7 so if that is the case - and this was challenged by the Defence; the8 Chamber gave a ruling saying that we would make our final decision after9 having seen in open session publicly those videotapes - and there are two10 main groups, one requiring agreement between the parties - that is to say,11 we decided not to show them or show them; the others we decided need not12 be shown - but there is an outstanding number which in the Chamber's13 opinion should be viewed.14 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, this is certainly possible, and we are15 prepared at any point in time to show excerpts -- relevant excerpts from16 these sequences.17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Since we have18 another 40 minutes left approximately, we're going to continue, and we'll19 continue again on Monday. So we'll be continuing on Monday.20 Having said that, let's proceed.21 MR. NEUNER: The next video is the last one from Block 3. It is22 from the videotape V0001737. The Prosecution, based on the information23 about the video -- or from the video itself, is not in a position to give24 the exact date about this sequence; however, it is a conversation or an25 interview with two Mujahedin or two males who look like Mujahedin talkTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2051 about the incorporation of a unit sitting in a tent, and this unit can be2 the El Mujahed Unit. This sequence is four minutes of duration, running3 from 0055 minutes 06 until 0059 minutes 05. And since an excerpt from4 this tape has been shown today already, I cannot -- or I don't need to, I5 believe, to provide more information about the submitter and so on, since6 this has already been done.7 The sequence will be shown now.8 [Videotape played]9 [Arabic spoken]10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Brother, what do you think about the11 Unit Mujahedin?12 In my opinion, as far as the unit is concerned, God willing, that13 Allah will take care that this unit survives. However, communism is still14 in the Bosnian Government, is prevailing, to weaken us, to destroy us.15 However, God willing, we, the Bosnian people, to fight for the advantages16 of Islam, we might need time to establish that because we lived with17 communism for 50 years, and before that we were under Germany,18 Austro-Hungary, I don't know what else, so it was an unhealthy system to19 live in. These are all problems that are present in Bosnia and among this20 people. With other's help, the Bosnian people has come to their senses.21 With other's help, they started fighting in 1992, and to fight for this22 unit, the Mujahedin, and that the people are sympathetic towards the unit23 and that they have started to believe in this unit, in its achievements,24 as if they knew that every soldier is fighting in the name of Allah, that25 he is not fighting for this and that, that he is doing that for some-thatTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2061 he is not doing that for some personal benefit. In the name of Allah and2 the Sharia.3 [Arabic spoken]4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] To believe in Allah, the only creator5 and in his almightiness, to rely upon him. I would suggest them not to6 turn to the West and not to rely upon the West, that it's all an illusion,7 an obvious illusion of their people who have come here and who are giving8 us minimumhelp. It is obvious that they want to stir up contention among9 Muslims. I would suggest to them to be on good terms with each other, to10 look for the cognition, to look for the truth, in order to teach faith to11 those who do not know it. Thank you.12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This excerpt --13 about this excerpt, we can say the following: That it -- the scene takes14 place in a tent, that there are four individuals sitting down who are15 answering somebody, whom we cannot see a priori. Of those four, three16 wear battledress. And it is not -- it is with interest that we can note17 that one of them -- or next to him there is a machine-gun which is resting18 beside him. In the background - we see this very briefly - that there is19 a library of some kind with books in it and lots of video cassettes as20 well, a certain number of video cassettes at any rate. And it is true21 that all this could be photographed more precisely.22 Then there's a flag, a banner with an inscription on it in23 Arabic. The Chamber cannot, of course, translate the inscription on the24 banner, because it's in Arabic. And there were exchanges between the25 person asking questions and replying. The soldiers there speak aboutTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2071 matters which are either political or military, and we are able to hear at2 one given point in time one of the soldiers saying that there were3 problems but that people were beginning to have more sympathy for them.4 And one can deduce that between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian government and5 themselves there were problems to address. That was more or less what one6 could deduce from listening to the soundtrack of the tape and the7 conversation going on between the individuals speaking.8 Would the Defence like to comment?9 MR. BOURGON: [Microphone not activated]10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.12 Once again, we don't know who these people are. We do not know13 where those people are. And especially we don't know what point in time14 the conversation is taking place. The conversation in itself does not15 allow us to draw any conclusions, with the absence of a date in16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to draw any other conclusions. Anything that we17 can say is circumstantial, with respect to the links between the Bosnian18 government and one of these units.19 So, Mr. President, once again, we do not see how this exhibit can20 be used, unless we have a witness come into the courtroom to explain to us21 who those people are and the general context of the events taking place,22 the conversation taking place.23 Thank you, Mr. President.24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2081 Apart from the comments presented by Mr. Bourgon himself, we have2 nothing to add. No observations from our part.3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.4 Would the Prosecution like to respond or would you prefer to5 continue?6 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, the Prosecution would just add one7 detail to the summary just given by you. We observed also two hand8 grenades standing in this -- on the shelf of this library.9 (redacted)10 (redacted)11 (redacted)12 (redacted)13 (redacted)14 (redacted)15 (redacted)16 I just see my colleague from the Defence on his feet.17 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I think this18 particular witness testified under protective measures. We can check that19 out. So may this be stricken from the record if that is so.20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.21 Mr. Registrar, if the witness did indeed enjoy protective22 measures, then please have this struck from the record.23 We will put that right.24 MR. NEUNER: Thank you very much.25 The person handed the tape over on the 21st of February, 1997Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2091 to -- excuse me, this must be an error here. I will submit this2 information later, but -- at what date it was handed over. But it was3 handed over to an investigator of the Tribunal, Ms. Racine Manas. The4 tape has a duration of 37 minutes, and it should be shown in its entirety,5 which is not possible given the advanced time, but we will stop, with the6 permission of Your Honour, at quarter to 2.00.7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We could go on perhaps for a8 few extra minutes. That is feasible, thanks to the obliging interpreters,9 we can continue for a few minutes beyond the time limit.10 MR. NEUNER: One last information for the interpreter. The11 transcript is contained in tab number 9 of the binder, and we will -- we12 will show the sequence right now.13 [Videotape played]14 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Brajkovici, have been present in --15 the Croats have been present in these areas since the eleventh century.16 Before the Muslim-Croatian conflict broke out, exactly 5.700 Croats lived17 in these areas. They lived in eight villages with 1.128 households. The18 largest village is Grahovcici, with 276 households; then Cukle, 22519 households; Brajkovici, 180 households; the village of Susanj, 15820 households; Dolac-Bila, 65; Konjevic, 110; then there is Ovnak, with 5821 households; Misonica, with 15; Miletici, 20; then there is the village of22 Podovi, with 86 households; and the village of Orasac, 35 households.23 Right in this shot we can see the village of Donje Cukle, the24 hamlet of Alibasici. Now we can see the hamlet of Softici. This hamlet25 is inhabited by Bosniaks, Muslims. You can see that the village isTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2101 intact, it has not suffered any damage.2 Now, in this shot we can see the Hamlet of Babici, and the house3 belonging to Franjo Kolenda in the left-hand corner. In the middle, we4 can see Mirko Babic's house. Then in the lower part of the screen there5 is the little facility that has been torn down; that's Zeljo Babic's6 house. Here in this shot we can see Ante Babic's house.7 Once again, the hamlet of Softici, up above Gornje Cukle, where8 some 30 Croatian families used to live; the village of Orasac, 35 families9 lived there before the war. This large facility was built in 1993. It10 was built by Mujahedin and they used it as a barracks. Until 1994, the11 village was intact, but when Mujahedin had to leave the village, they12 destroyed it. No one lives in the village of Orasac at the moment.13 Another shot showing the village of Orasac in it. Once again, we14 can see the facility that the Mujahedin of the Muslim unit of El Mujahed15 used as a barracks. We can see that other houses have been destroyed,16 demolished.17 Donje Cukle, the hamlet of Alibasici. Now, this scene shows18 precisely the houses belonging to Franjo Stojak, Ante Stojak, Jako Stojak,19 Ilija Stojak and their sons. All the houses were destroyed during the20 first three days, on the 8th, 9th and 10th of June, 1993.21 This is the other part of the village where the family name was22 Jankovic. Drago Jankovic's house, his father Relja's house. This large23 facility here is the local school, it was also destroyed on the 8th of24 June,1993. I can't see in whose way that got.25 Zlatko Tomic's house, in the upper corner. We can see the villageTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2111 chapel, which was built in the 17th century. It meant a lot to these2 people. Masses used to be held here before establishing--before the3 Parish Church was built. Once again we can see the village school that4 was destroyed on the 8th of June,1993.5 These people have the status of refugees. They mostly live in --6 in the towns of Central Bosnia, in Vitez, in Busovaca. Many of them are7 still in Western Europe, in America and Canada, I mean, in third world8 countries, in the Republic of Croatia. They intend to come back here. A9 large number of them have registered to come back. No one lives in the10 village of Cukle at present, except for several Bosniak families, Muslim11 families from Western Krajina and Eastern Bosnia.12 Once again, this is -- we can see nobody but these are the Mrkonja13 houses, Franjo Mrkonja's house up there. We can see the slopes of Vlasic.14 Now on the screen we can see the villages of Gornje Maljine and15 Donje Maljine. Gornje Maljine were inhabited by the Croats. Maljine was16 burned and demolished on the 8th of June, 1993. In this village, on the17 slopes of this mountain, the most horrific crime was committed against18 Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on June the 8th,1993, 36 Croats were19 shot there, they were soldiers of the HVO, women and old people. The name20 of the exact location is Bikose, and their bodies have not been found to21 this day.22 Most of the families from Gornje Maljine, Croatian families, have23 emigrated all over the world. They have the status of refugees in the24 countries of Western Europe, in the Republic of Croatia, in Slovenia. A25 number of them live in the towns of Central Bosnia, in Vitez, in Busovaca,Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2121 in Novi Travnik, and they are going to come back.2 Once again we can see Bikose. The interesting thing about this3 parish is that it is situated in the territories of two municipalities.4 The villages of Konjevici and Susanj are in the municipality of Zenica;5 whereas, the other villages are in the territory of the Municipality of6 Travnik.7 Once again we can see the hamlet of Softici, where Bosniak8 families, Muslim families live. You see, the village is intact. Not a9 single house has been destroyed.10 We are going towards Ovnak. Out there in the distance you can see11 Ovnak, and the mountain of Lisac is up above.12 Now in this shot we can see Gornji Brajkovici, the houses13 belonging to Matija Matkovic and Jozo Matosevic. Behind them is Niko14 Matosevic's house that was destroyed. There is Ivica Babic's house and15 the houses of Stipe Kolenda and Vlado Babic.16 Here we can see Tomo Babic's house, as well as Marinko Suman's and17 Slavko Miskovic's houses, Novo Naselje, Ovnak, which is a part of the18 village of Grahovcici.19 Once again, we can see the village of Cukle, the parish church of20 Brajkovici, which was built in 1879. The steeple that we can see, or on21 the steeple is a cross that was torn down on the 8th of June, 1993. The22 church suffered minor damage, but it was restored last year.23 What we see right now are the foundations of a burnt-down house,24 belonging to the late Ante Klaric, an old man in his seventies, who did25 not want to leave his home as the Muslim forces attacked this parish. HeTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2131 stayed at home, and unfortunately he was killed. These are the2 foundations of the stable. Once again we can see the foundation of the3 house. The body of the late Ante Klaric was found a month after he had4 been killed, in a well, in front of a house belonging to his cousin Stipe5 Klaric. Later on we are going to give you a shot of that well too. Ante6 was buried in the local graveyard, which is called Bogus [phoen].7 These are the houses belonging to Ante's cousins. Now we can see8 the house of his younger cousin, whose name is Ante Klaric, then the9 houses of Stipe Klaric, Mate Klaric. This restored house belongs to10 Ante's cousin Drago Klaric. It was restored several days ago by a Dutch11 donation organisation El Soldateris. You see, it's all been destroyed,12 demolished. It all happened in a day.13 Once again we can see the parish church. There we cannot see the14 cross on the steeple.15 The village of Brajkovici; Zarko Viskovic's house; the house16 belonging to Zarko's brother Marjan, to his brother Nenad, to their sister17 Kata. It has also been burned. Once again, a shot showing the Viskovic18 brothers' house; Mate Klaric's house here. We can see the well that Anto19 Klaric's body was found in in front of his cousin Stipe's house. Drago20 Klaric's house.21 And deeper in there you can see the village of Grahovcici. We are22 going towards Ovnak. Gornji Brajkovici, the houses belonging to Ivica23 Babic, Vlado Babic, and Pero Babic.24 Now we can see the house of Niko Matosevic, which was demolished25 and burnt, but about a month ago it was blown up. This was reported toTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2141 Travnik MUP, but the perpetrators have not yet been found. This is one of2 many cases of a repeated devastation and destruction of houses.3 Vlado Babic's house, Frano Matosevic's house, Bozo Tustonja's4 house, and Zarko Radic's house, Zarko's brother house, and his cousin Ante5 Radic's house. Then we have Stipe Bilic's house, which he built for his6 son, Nikola. Unfortunately, Nikola was killed. Zvonko Kolenda's house,7 which he built a year or two before the war. You see, it's been8 demolished and looted. In the background are the houses belonging to the9 Barac brothers, Niko, Vinko and Frano. Tomo Babic's house, where a shop10 used to be. Here we can see once again Marinko Suman's house, where the11 Trenk cafe and bar used to be located, the place where young people12 gathered, and there was also a local supermarket. The house was looted13 and demolished.14 Slavko Miskovic's house, it was built one year before this15 terrible war. You see, the house has been looted and demolished. In the16 background, we see the houses belonging to Ivica Kolenda, Marko Pesa,17 Matija Kafadar, Ivica Pesa, Stanko, sons Niko, Bozo. the house belonging18 to Ivica Kafadar and his son Mirko, also known as Dzilda. Nikola19 Kafadar's house; you see, there it reads: "7th Muslim Brigade". Houses20 belonging to Nevenka Miskovic, Ivo Vuleta.21 The local cemetery of Ovnak. This is where they buried the old22 people from the village of Susanj who had been killed. Right here 18 old23 people from the village of Susanj were brought here and killed on the 8th24 of June, 1993. Reportedly they were supposed to be soldiers of the HVO.25 They were elderly people between the ages of 65 and 80, and their lastTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2151 names were mostly Markovic and Vidosevic.2 In the background you can see the village of Susanj. We are3 entering the new part of the village of Grahovcici, a new settlement.4 Marijan Radic's house, the house belonging to Ante Babic and his brother5 Jozo, the house belonging to Drago Radic and his brother Fabo; Zivko6 Barbic's house; Stipe Jandric's house; the house belonging to the Jandric7 brothers, Zvonko, Tomo, Franjo and Drago - Dragan; a recently restored8 house belonging to Fabijan Dzaip. Also, recently restored house of Franjo9 Filipovic, also known as Foltin.10 Now we are moving towards the central part of the village of11 Grahovcici. On the screen we can see the picture of Pero Filipovic, Anto12 Matosevic and Anto's sons. The houses have no roofs; they have been13 burned and looted. As I said, the village of Grahovcici is the largest14 village in the parish of Brajkovici and the largest village in the Travnik15 municipality.16 In this shot, we can see the hamlet of Radici and the houses of17 Vinko Radic, Jozo Radic, Marko Cuturic. In the background are the houses18 of the Musanic family, the house belonging to Tomo Perkic and his brother,19 Sarafin Perkic; Anto Matosevic's house, Ante's father's house, Drago, it20 has been demolished and burnt. Once again, we can see Marko Cuturic's21 house, Franjo Cuturic's house.22 Now we can see the local cemetery of Svib. Most of the23 gravestones have been destroyed. They were destroyed in 1993, in 1994,24 and even in 1995 cases of demolishing tombstones were registered.25 We are moving towards the centre of the village. The house withTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2161 the red roof is Tomo Cuturic's house. It was restored recently. In the2 background you can see the Grahovcici open cast mine. Then, there are the3 houses of Jozo Cuturic, Luko Jadrinic, Luko's son Franjo, and again the4 open cast mine in the background. Right next to the open cast mine, an5 underground mine was opened, a shaft mine for excavating coal, and as a6 result the village is being undermined. That is a huge problem for the7 people from the village. Massive landslides and tectonic disturbances8 were been caused, and when the time comes there are slim chances that they9 are going to be able to build anything in this village. Somebody has been10 doing it deliberately and is still doing it. People tried to stop this11 excavation any way they could, but it is difficult to solve this problem.12 In this shot, we can see the houses belonging to Tomo Cuturic,13 Sreco Cuturic, his brother Ante, the houses belonging to Tomo Cuturic and14 another man with the same name, to Drago Cuturic, Vito Palavra; the houses15 belonging to Ante Cuturic and Ivica. this part of the village was mostly16 inhabited by people whose last name is Cuturic. They were close17 relatives. We can see the local school, which was built in and was also18 burned on the 8th of June, 1993.19 Once again, we can see the house of Ante Matko, Ante Cuturic, also20 known as Antic. These red roofs, the hamlet of Barbici. These houses21 were restored a short while ago, and the repair work is still in progress.22 The work is being done by the donation organisation El Soldateris. The23 Dutch and French governments are the ones who provided donations to24 restore these houses. The house belonging to Tomo Barbic, Zarko, Silva.25 That's what we see.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2171 Here you can see the local cemetery of Vinisce, one of the oldest2 cemeteries, oldest Catholic cemeteries in Bosnia and Herzegovina.3 Now we can see most of the parish territory. Once again, the4 Parish Church of St. Peter and St. Paul in Brajkovici. Brajkovici and5 Susanj are the only villages in the Parish that have not been vandalised.6 Grahovcici fared worst; all the houses were destroyed. The extent of7 destruction of each house is 80 to 100 per cent.8 Once again, the local cemetery of Vinisce, where there is a9 Bogumil tombstone from -- dating back to 1011, and the village was named10 after it later on. It was named after Mihovil Grahovcic, who was buried11 in this cemetery.12 Drago Sikalo's house. Now we can see Pero Jandric's house, and13 beyond there is the hamlet of Babici. You see, everything has been14 demolished. The house with the red roof has been restored recently by the15 Dutch government; as well as this second one and the third one.16 The entrance to the village of Grahovcici, the hamlet of Milika17 and the house belonging to the Filipovic family.18 Then we come to the hamlet of Ovnak and the house belonging to the19 Jandric brothers and the Radic brothers.20 Now we can see from a different angle again the hamlet of Otici21 and the houses belonging to the Bilic brothers, Slavko, Karlo and Ante.22 All families with the second name Bilic lived here; the houses belonging23 to Drago Bilic, then Zorko Bilic, Vesko Bilic, Ante Bilic; they are24 brothers. The house belonging to their cousin Stipe Bilic, Stipe's son25 Nikola.Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2181 Once again, from a different angle, the houses belonging to Drago2 Bilic, Zorko, Ante. The houses belonging to Vesko Bilic, Fabo Jandric. On3 the hill we can see a house, a house again, and it belongs to Vesko Bilic,4 and another shot of the house belong to Drago and Zorko Bilic, from a5 different angle this time. The same image from a different angle.6 Restoring is going to take a lot of funds. It all has to be built from the7 foundations upwards.8 Here we see Stipe Bilic's house and in the background his son's9 house, Pavo. The large house belonging to Niko Bilic and his son. One of10 the oldest cemeteries, Catholic cemeteries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we11 can see the chapel that was destroyed and demolished. These Bogumil12 tombstones date back from the tenth and the eleventh centuries. Most of13 the tombstones have been destroyed, not only in the cemetery of Vinisce14 but also in the Sviba cemetery and the Sikalo cemetery, in all the15 cemeteries, in fact, in the Parish of Brajkovici. 80 per cent of the16 tombstones have been destroyed. The only cemetery that remained intact is17 the Ovnak cemetery, which passes right next to the Travnik-Zenica road.18 Now we can see the gravestone of the Pavlovic family, you can see19 when she was buried, when she died, in 1966. I can't see how she could20 possibly have been in the way of those who destroyed it. See Pero Barbic,21 buried in 1976, and the same thing applies to him. Once again, their22 gravestones have been demolished, a cross broken. The same thing happened23 to this gravestone.24 This is the gravestone of the Barbic family. It says, "Mijo25 Barbic, killed -- or rather died in 1962. Veronika Barbic, died in 1963."Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2191 As I have already said, this same situation is with the cemeteries in2 the parish of Brajkovici, and as I've said, the shaft mine for coal3 excavation in the village of Grahovcici. Behind the open cast mine the4 mining infrastructure stands. This shaft mine was opened with the sole5 purpose of causing tectonic disturbances there and to prevent the people6 from returning. The Croats in this region call it a "political coal7 mine". A lot has been done to stop this, but there is someone more8 powerful behind this project.9 Another shot of the central part of the village. In the background10 we see the hamlet of Radici. Stipe Sikalo's house, also destroyed; it was11 burnt on the 8th of June, 1993. Vito Palavra's house.12 We are repeating the same shot, the central part of the village,13 mostly the houses of the families with the same surname, the surname of14 Cuturic, Sreco, Tomo, Ante. All these people have registered to come back15 here and they are certainly going to return. However, the problem now is16 to solve the problem with the coal mine in Grahovcici. That has to be17 dealt with.18 This is the local school. I hope that children will attend their19 classes here again. Perhaps as early as the next year.20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to have21 to end there. Just a very quick sentence before we adjourn. The tape is22 of excellent quality. It was made in winter with sunlight, which allows23 us to see the whole very well. The general scene is a desolate landscape.24 All the villages are mentioned by the commentator. Their names are25 mentioned; Ovnak, Susanj, Grahovcici, Cukle, Maljine, and so on. And theTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2201 narrator identifies the houses one by one and gives us the names of the2 owners.3 It appears that several houses but very few have been restored;4 otherwise, all the rest are in a state of destruction and demolition on5 the -- there are no people in the videotape, and the feeling one gets in6 viewing this videotape is that all the villagers have left, because you7 can't see a single person. There's some -- one element furnished by one8 of the witnesses. He said that when you are up on one hill, you can see9 all the other hills, which means that the person filming, thanks to the10 zoom lens, can zoom in on the different villages, and they are five to ten11 kilometres, at a distance between each other of five to ten kilometres.12 As far as the Judges can see, it is a village with a Mujahedin13 barracks that we see on the screen. And as the commentator said, it was14 abandoned or destroyed, but we can actually see a building of several15 storeys which sort of sticks out from the general landscape where there16 are no other similar constructions, houses constructed that way. And17 certain houses were under recent construction.18 There were destroyed and damaged churches as well and cemeteries19 where the tombstones and crosses were destroyed.20 So that is a very brief overview of what the -- we saw on the21 videotapes and what will be recorded on the transcript.22 I'm afraid we can't go on. It's already 2.00. On Monday I will23 be giving the floor to the Defence counsel, and they'll have the whole24 weekend to prepare their observations and comments for us on Monday.25 So we reconvene on Monday when we shall see the remaining tapesTuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2211 played to us by the Prosecution. And I'm sure we're going to finish those2 on Monday.3 As I said, we won't be sitting on Tuesday; we will be sitting on4 Wednesday; and I don't think we'll be sitting either on Thursday or5 Friday, but we'll reconvene on the following Monday.6 I apologise to the staff for asking them to stay on, but we wish7 to complete this -- these documents and to express what we've seen.8 The meeting is adjourned until Monday.9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of11 June, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.1213141516171819202122232425Tuesday, 04 June 2004 Case No. IT-01-47-T

Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 8589

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support