Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3595

1 Wednesday, 12 April 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Grujic. Just to remind you that

7 you are still bound by the declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth,

8 and nothing else but the truth. Thank you very much.

9 Mr. Milovancevic.


11 [Witness answered through interpreter]


13 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Grujic.

15 A. Good morning.

16 Q. Yesterday during my cross-examination, we left off with the

17 subject of expelled persons, and we showed on the ELMO one map of expelled

18 persons broken down by counties. That is map number 6 in the addendum

19 related to expelled persons.

20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to put this

21 map on the ELMO again.

22 Q. Mr. Grujic, we see now this map on the monitor or, rather, we see

23 the territory of the Republic of Croatia with counties designated. And in

24 addition to that, we have a table showing the number of expelled persons

25 broken down by counties. We have viewed it -- reviewed it yesterday; is

Page 3596

1 that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Tell me, how many counties do we see in Croatia on this map?

4 A. Thirteen.

5 Q. Mr. Grujic, can you tell us is this the total number of counties

6 with county being the basic unit of territorial organisation in Croatia?

7 A. No. What we see here are only the counties from which a certain

8 number of expelled persons was recorded.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to replace

11 that map with this one. That is map number 3 related to Prosecution

12 Exhibit called Martic Court Binder. Excuse me.

13 Q. This map shows the territory of the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia

14 in 1991, divided into the then-existing municipalities. Are you familiar

15 with this division into municipalities, Mr. Grujic?

16 A. I know that it was divided into municipalities, but I cannot

17 confirm that it is exactly as shown on this map.

18 Q. This map was developed by the Prosecution, and according to this

19 under the territory of Croatia in 1991 there were about 110

20 municipalities.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask the usher to show us

22 map number 7.

23 Q. Mr. Grujic, this is the map of the Republic of Croatia showing the

24 municipalities that were covered by the then-existing SAO Krajina as of

25 end 1991, and red lines show the borders of the area controlled by the

Page 3597

1 then SAO Krajina, later the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Do you see the

2 municipalities that belong to the territory of the SAO Krajina as shown on

3 this map?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I wonder if you can assist the Trial Chamber by telling us how

6 many persons were expelled from the territory of these municipalities

7 bordered by the red lines which were the SAO Krajina in 1991.

8 A. I can only repeat what I said the last time. I provided you with

9 numbers that apply to the existing, current division into counties, and

10 basically it covers these municipalities as well. Counties were partly

11 occupied, and the people recorded as expelled were expelled solely from

12 these occupied territories.

13 Q. Mr. Grujic, does that mean that you cannot give us the number of

14 expelled persons broken down by municipalities bordered by this red line

15 that shows the territory of SAO Krajina, later RSK?

16 A. I told you, I don't have numbers by municipalities. I have

17 numbers by counties. But since these counties cover the same territory as

18 the former municipalities, the numbers correspond. But the current

19 prevailing division into counties is the basis of all the material I have

20 produced.

21 Q. Regarding the number of expellees, and you mention that in para

22 34a of your report, the number being 220.338 persons, with a breakdown by

23 ethnicity, do you stand by that number, even broken down by ethnicity in

24 your report?

25 A. I certainly do. This data was gathered from people who were

Page 3598

1 expelled. Each of them has their ID as an expellee. Their dossiers were

2 formed, and on the basis of this information we have obtained the picture

3 as I have presented it.

4 Q. According to item 2 of an agreement between the Defence and the

5 Prosecution, one of the stipulated facts is that according to the census

6 of 1991, there were 3.736.353; Croats -- 12 per cent of Serbs, 106.461

7 Yugoslavs, and 244.381 persons who did not declare their ethnicity. That

8 is 6.1 per cent. I didn't mention Muslims there. There were 0.5 per cent

9 of Muslims. Are you familiar with these numbers?

10 A. Could you repeat the total number of the population in 1991?

11 Q. According to this agreement between the Defence and the

12 Prosecution, on the territory of Croatia there was a total of 4.784.265

13 citizens, out of which 581.663 Serbs, or 12 per cent. Do you know these

14 numbers?

15 A. Yes. According to the numbers we have from the institute for

16 statistics, that is the exact number of the population in 1991, and the

17 breakdown by ethnicity as you mentioned. That is a general piece of

18 information, not something specific to your agreement with the

19 Prosecution.

20 Q. Thank you. In this agreement that I just mentioned, another

21 stipulated fact is that this area was covered by UNPAs, United Nations

22 Protected Areas, and that there existed three zones, Eastern Slavonia,

23 Western Slavonia, and Krajina. These zones encompassed certain

24 municipalities. Do you know that there were three zones?

25 A. Well, not exactly as you specified them. I know that certain

Page 3599

1 sectors existed that constituted UNPAs, but I don't know them as krajinas

2 or something like that.

3 Q. Mr. Grujic, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Do you know that on the

4 territory of the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia certain UNPAs were

5 established by decision of the United Nations Security Council, and there

6 were three of them?

7 A. I know that, but that's not the subject of my testimony.

8 Q. Do you know that Eastern Slavonia, as one of the zones,

9 encompassed municipalities Beli Manastir? Can you show it on the map?

10 A. [Indicates]

11 Q. Parts of Osijek lying to the east of Osijek town.

12 A. The municipality but not the town.

13 Q. Yes. Part of the municipality to the east of the town.

14 A. [Indicates]

15 Q. Vukovar and certain villages in the farthest eastern part of

16 Vinkovci. Can you show that on the map?

17 A. [Indicates]

18 Q. Thank you. As for Western Slavonia and Krajina, the

19 municipalities covered by UNPAs were enumerated according to United

20 Nations document as Grubisno Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac, Western parts of Nova

21 Gradiska and eastern parts Novska. Do you see these areas on the map?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. As for Krajina as an UNPA, it encompassed the municipalities of

24 Kostajnica, Petrinja, Dvor Na Uni, Glina, Vrginmost, Vojnic, Slunj, Titova

25 Korenica, Donji Lopac, Gracac, Obrovac, Benkovac, and Knin. Are these

Page 3600

1 bordered by the red line on the map?

2 A. Yes, that's perfectly clear.

3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. In annex 3 of the amended indictment

4 against Mr. Martic, the composition of the population in municipalities

5 covered by this indictment is as follows regarding SAO Krajina: For

6 Benkovac which had a total of 33.378 citizens, 13.353 Croats, 25 Muslims

7 and 18.986 Serbs. The population of local communes near Zadar that

8 annexed themselves to Benkovac had a total of 302 -- 500, 249 [as

9 interpreted], out of which 1.992 Serbs.

10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't follow the other

11 numbers.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you will already that this is

13 not the subject of my testimony, and I have not spoken about the ethnic

14 composition of municipalities. I spoke about the ethnic composition of

15 expelled persons by counties. And on this map I just confirmed to you

16 those borders. Let me show you again on the map. It's very clear that

17 those municipalities that you designated, Beli Manastir and eastern

18 Osijek, that comes under the Osijek-Baranja county we spoke

19 about. Vukovar and the eastern part of Vinkovci comes under the

20 Vukovar-Srem county. So all these areas are parts of the counties for

21 which I provided you with statistics.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the interpreters said they didn't

23 hear the rest of the numbers in your question. You talked about 302 to

24 549 or 500, 200, I don't know what we are saying there, and what is

25 written there is "500, 249," which is not actually intended to be 500.249.

Page 3601

1 I don't know what number it is you wanted to say.

2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I was talking about Benkovac,

3 which was part of SAO Krajina as stated in the indictment. 5.294 was the

4 total population of those municipalities that annexed themselves to

5 Benkovac and that became part of Krajina. So it's 5.294, if that's the

6 number you asked me about.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Having asked you about that, this witness has

8 repeatedly been saying to you that he didn't deal with these numbers by

9 municipality, but he dealt with them by -- what did you say? What did you

10 call them again? By counties. I'm just sitting here and trying to figure

11 out where you're going with all this cross-examination, and I really don't

12 see where you're going.

13 He's told you again, and again and again, that he has not dealt

14 with the census of the populations of the various places, that he has

15 dealt with the numbers of the expellees from the various counties. What

16 do you expect him to tell you? Just what do you want from him? Maybe we

17 can understand what you want from him.

18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my next question,

19 in order to understand why I put the previous question, was as follows --

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't tell us the next question. Tell us what you

21 want from this witness. You'll ask the next question once we've

22 understood where you're going and we allow you to ask the next question.

23 I've been trying to hold myself to say the witness will deal with you and

24 he has tried to deal with you as best he can, to tell you exactly what he

25 knows and what he doesn't know, and what it is he has prepared for this

Page 3602

1 Court. But I want to know what is it you want him to tell you so that

2 maybe we can put the question to him and he can tell you. But if he

3 doesn't have the answers, then he doesn't have the answers. What do you

4 want from him?

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll tell you

6 right away. In annex 3 of the indictment, there is a list of the

7 municipalities making up the SAO Krajina, and these were Benkovac, Knin,

8 Obrovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac, Korenica, Slunj, Vrginmost, Glina, Dvor Na

9 Uni, Kostajnica, Petrinja. These were the municipalities individually

10 listed in annex 3 of the amended indictment along with a number of

11 inhabitants in each of these municipalities.

12 On page 4 of this annex, and this is the essence of my question,

13 it says that the overall population of the SAO Krajina in 1991 was

14 286.716. Of these, there were 78.611 Croats, 1.932 Muslims, and 193.649

15 Serbs. Therefore, according to the amended indictment, there were 78.611

16 Croats living there, whereas the expert insists that the number of Croats

17 expelled was 209.000 plus an additional 220.000 people, which means that

18 more than half of the people who were expelled were Serbs. So I would

19 like to know --

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why don't you just put that to him? How is it

21 possible that 220.000 Croats are expelled when the total population was

22 78.000? You do that in one sentence, not in ten pages. You just put that

23 to him.

24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do that, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, your opposite number is on her feet.

Page 3603

1 Ms. Valabhji.

2 MS. VALABHJI: Pardon me. I think my opposite number has listed

3 the municipalities in the SAO Krajina from the annex in the indictment.

4 However, my opposite number has failed to address certain areas such as

5 Vukovar, Srem, Osijek, Baranja, Sisak, Moslavina, which are represented in

6 the charts presented by the witness. These have been omitted from what

7 Mr. Milovancevic presents in his total population figures. I just wish to

8 point that out.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.

10 May I just add, Mr. Milovancevic, that in fact what I see you

11 doing is you are arguing with the witness. What you are -- you're not

12 cross-examining the witness. What you are doing is what you should be

13 doing in argument at the end of the trial.

14 If your case is that the total number of Croats was -- in the

15 whole of the SAO Krajina was 78.000, just tell him. Tell him that it is

16 impossible to have 220.000 Croats being expelled because that is far in

17 excess of the number of the Croats that existed -- that lived in that

18 area.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I may

20 have been going there in and roundabout way, and this is due to

21 misunderstandings about the territorial division.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is a very roundabout way, and your

23 cross-examination, let me tell you, Mr. Milovancevic, is very roundabout,

24 you know. You're really not getting to the points that you need to get

25 to.

Page 3604

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Grujic, according to the indictment against Mr. Martic from

3 which he is defending himself, in annex 3 the total population of the SAO

4 Krajina in 1991 was 286.716 persons. Of that, 78.611 were Croats, 1.932

5 were Muslims --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have told us that. Just carry on, please. You

7 have told us all that. No, no, no. You have told the witness that.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Can you tell us how you explain the fact that the number of

10 expellees in your report who are of Croat ethnicity is 3 times bigger than

11 the total number of Croats inhabiting the territory covered by this

12 indictment?

13 A. I did not provide demographic information about the population

14 figures. I doubt there is any mistake in the information I have provided.

15 I doubt that it's possible, because there is a file number for each and

16 every expellee I have counted, with their first and last name, other

17 details, and the place from which they were expelled. Therefore, I have

18 provided official information from the Bureau for Expellees, and I have to

19 say that this information has been public and there have never been any

20 objections to it. Also, that it corresponds to the information of the

21 UNHCR. I have not, however, testified about the demographic situation in

22 the Republic of Croatia. That is not the subject of my expertise.

23 Q. Mr. Grujic, the Prosecution claims that often the territory

24 covered by the indictment, which is now on the map, and I have given you

25 the population figures, that non-Serbs were expelled. The Prosecution has

Page 3605

1 broken down the population by municipality, which is why I put those

2 numbers to you. I'm asking you now how what you say is possible if in

3 1991, at the time of the conflict, according to the allegations of the

4 Prosecution and according to the census of 1991, there were 78.611 Croats?

5 Can you explain how it came about that 202.000 Croats were expelled from

6 the area?

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the question has been asked and

8 answered. Can you ask the next question, please?


10 Q. When you were speaking about the number of expellees, you also

11 mentioned 250 to 300.000 persons expelled according to estimates in 1995

12 during Operations Flash and Storm. You did not put them into the category

13 of expellees. Are you aware of the fact that in that period during

14 Operation Storm and after Operation Storm, according to the information of

15 the UN, 22.000 homes of Serbs were destroyed by the end of October? And

16 can you tell us what the status of those persons is, the persons who fled

17 from the area in order to save their own lives, people whose homes have

18 been razed to the ground, who cannot come back and yet you do not count

19 them as the expellees?

20 A. There are two kinds of status, the status of an expellee and the

21 status after refugee. I do not want to enter into a discussion but, but I

22 have to say that is a big difference between the expellees from Vukovar.

23 If you looked at the images, the videos, you saw them being expelled,

24 escorted by armed men. They were threatened by weapons -- with weapons.

25 They were also made to abandon their property in writing, signing

Page 3606

1 documents. They were expelled at gunpoint.

2 When we are discussing Operation Storm, you will allow for the

3 fact that these people left in an organised manner, in columns. The Red

4 Cross and other humanitarian services made it possible for them to receive

5 food and drinks. They wanted to leave the area, and you will allow that

6 the president of the republic and the government broadcast public

7 announcements calling upon these people to remain in their homes. This

8 population are defined as refugees. Not by me but by others, and this is

9 a status that is recognised worldwide. Refugees are people who have

10 crossed an international border and gone to a different country. These

11 people have the status of refugees. These people are able to come back

12 and, as I have said, 120.000 have already returned. The return is under

13 way. There are 12.000 new applications for return which have been

14 approved.

15 Let me also to remind you, and I told you I don't want to enter

16 into discussions with you which are not the subject of my testimony, but

17 now that you ask me that, let me tell you that, yes, certainly there were

18 many houses that were destroyed in those operations. Criminal actions

19 have been tried within the Republic of Croatia, and these houses are now

20 being restored. The government of the Republic of Croatia has a programme

21 for the rebuilding of all houses destroyed, and these people are now

22 returning. They have the status of returnees, and they are coming back to

23 their homes. But that, again, is not the subject of my expert testimony.

24 Q. We are now talking about whether all expellees are included in

25 your report. According to official Croatian information, do you know that

Page 3607

1 in Operation Storm, for example, it ended officially between the 4th and

2 7th of August, 1995, whereas 22.000 houses were destroyed after that

3 period, by the end of October? You say that new houses are being built

4 for those people now, and you say that between 250 and 300.000 people left

5 and that a certain number have returned. But for 11 years these refugees

6 did not go back. Far fewer have come back than left, and the people who

7 are coming back are facing enormous problems. Do you know anything about

8 this?

9 A. I really don't know what you expect me to say. If you want to

10 enter into a discussion with me, we can have a very broad discussion, but

11 I did not testify about this, and it is not the topic of my expertise.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. Are you aware of the fact that the

13 Secretary-General of the UN presented to the General Assembly, on the 15th

14 of May, 1993, information showing that on the territory of the Republic of

15 Croatia, outside the territory of the SAO Krajina and outside the area of

16 armed conflicts, from territories under the control of the Croatian

17 government 251.000 Serbs were expelled? Do you know about this?

18 A. No, I don't know about this information. According to my

19 information, about 30.000 people changed their place of residence within

20 the Republic of Croatia.

21 Q. Are you aware --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Mr. Milovancevic, are you still going to

23 use the map that's on the ELMO?

24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Your Honours.

25 The map can be removed.

Page 3608

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.

2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. In connection with the number of expellees you mention in point

4 34a of your report, are you aware of the fact that the Presidency of

5 Yugoslavia, on the 10th of April, 1992, sent a memorandum to Mr. Boutros

6 Boutros-Ghali the Secretary-General of the UN pointing out that only in

7 1991, on the territory of Western Slavonia, 282 citizens of Serb ethnicity

8 were killed, that many villages were destroyed, and that about 70.000

9 people were forced to leave their homes because of military operations by

10 Croatian armed forces? Are you aware of this information?

11 A. That, again, is not the subject of my testimony. I am here to

12 testify about official records, not about certain political events. I am

13 speaking of the official records kept by my office and the job that I'm

14 doing, also about information that I received through official channels

15 that have to do with my job. I put forward this information during my

16 testimony, and I abide by it.

17 As for your questions referring to certain political events, I

18 really cannot testify about those. They are not the subject of my

19 expertise.

20 Q. I am not referring to political events, Witness. I am simply

21 trying to check the validity of the official information that you are

22 presenting to the Trial Chamber.

23 Prosecution witness Mr. Dzakula who testified in these

24 proceedings, when answering to questions in cross-examination confirmed

25 that in 1991 on the territory of Western Slavonia, according to

Page 3609

1 information from April 1992, 129 villages were burnt, burnt down. 4.118

2 houses were destroyed, and all the population was expelled from those

3 villages and houses.

4 Do you have this information? Because these people are not on

5 your list of expellees.

6 A. Well, I'm not absolutely sure that they don't exist. But when you

7 ask a question like that, you should come up with names and surnames and

8 ask to compare my lists with yours. I cannot tell you who was expelled by

9 name and from which area. I have numbers about people who were expelled

10 from a certain area, accompanied by statistics that are normally shown.

11 And if you allow me just one more comment. Each person who came

12 to the office for expelled persons, regardless of ethnicity, religion or

13 whatever, was recorded as an expelled person. After that, they were put

14 up in specialised camps or settlements or appropriate accommodation until

15 the moment when they were able to return to their homes. All of those

16 people, and they are, as I said, 220.338. And it's possible that they are

17 recorded among those I have recorded by county. But if you want to

18 compare my data with yours, I'll be happy to provide it. Our work is

19 completely transparent.

20 Q. Well, you didn't give me lists with names and surnames, so I

21 didn't produce any myself, but you said in report that a number of

22 expelled Serbs, in paragraph 34a, is 3 -- 3.104. Witness Dzakula,

23 however, testified that only from Eastern Slavonia 70.000 people were

24 expelled. But you have already answered my question, so I'll move on to

25 another one.

Page 3610

1 The Crisis Staff of Slavonska Pozega municipality announced on the

2 29th October, 1991, an order to evacuate all the citizens, all the

3 residents of 24 villages, and item 2 orders the populous to go to other

4 places in Slavonska Pozega municipality because of oncoming operations,

5 and the residents are told to take only personal effects, valuables and

6 money.

7 According to the testimony of Witness Dzakula, those people were

8 driven out and the villages burned. Do you have information about that?

9 A. No. It doesn't fall within the scope of my work.

10 Q. What I want to know, and I would appreciate an answer, is how is

11 it possible for the list of expelled persons from this territory to

12 include 3.104 Serbs only when a wealth of other evidence is completely

13 different?

14 A. I repeat, this is official data. It's transparent, and I produced

15 it as such. You are trying to impose something on me all the time, and

16 you neglect what I said earlier, that in addition to this number there

17 was -- there were 7.000 others who did not specify their ethnicity, and

18 there can be many Serbs among them. You stick to your numbers, and you

19 completely disregard the other number that I mentioned in my testimony.

20 You correctly quoted me as saying that there were 3.100 or so

21 Serbs among the expelled, but there are also 7.032 others who did not

22 state their ethnicity, including certainly Serbs. But I recorded them

23 only as people who did not state their ethnicity. I couldn't do

24 otherwise. But I certainly admit that they include Serbs as well.

25 Q. Well, that is the purpose of my question. Can these 7.000

Page 3611

1 accommodate the 70.000 others who have not been mentioned at all?

2 But let us move to imprisoned persons. That is paragraph 29 of

3 your report, and we'll look at chart number 10. When you speak about

4 imprisoned persons - that is paragraph 39, rather - do you mean only those

5 who were exchanged?

6 A. 7.666 persons are on record as having been detained in camps and

7 prisons on the territory of the occupied Republic of Croatia, in the

8 territory of Serbia and Montenegro, which was then FRY, and the territory

9 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it can be said that these formed a single,

10 unified system of camps.

11 Q. Thank you. Since you keep referring to the occupied territory of

12 Croatia, to avoid all misunderstanding I will put to you one fact that is

13 stipulated between us and the Prosecution, and it is mentioned in 31(a) of

14 the agreement on stipulated the facts and it says on 21st of February,

15 1992, this UN Security Council adopted Resolution 743 proclaiming a peace

16 operation of the United Nations in certain areas in Croatia designated as

17 United Nations Protected Areas. Furthermore, in this text, it is stated

18 that UNPAs shall be established in areas where Serbs form a majority or a

19 significant minority and where intra-communal tensions have led to

20 conflict in recent past.

21 Do you know that UNPAs were set up precisely in those areas where

22 Serbs formed a majority or a significant minority?

23 A. I have already answered this question. I told you that I know

24 that UNPAs were established under the aegis of the United Nations, but I

25 also said that those areas were and still are parts of the territory of

Page 3612

1 Croatia.

2 Q. In the amended indictment, we see that the number of Serbs in

3 these areas is 268.000 in total -- sorry. The total population of these

4 areas is 268.000, out of which 78.000 Croats. The rest were Serbs. Are

5 you telling me --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 268 or 286?

7 MS. VALABHJI: May I while my opposite number is searching for

8 some material?


10 MS. VALABHJI: I see that he has equated the population of

11 286.000, which he probably made a mistake and 268.000, inversed the

12 numbers. In the indictment he's equated the figure with UNPAs whereas

13 that figure pertains to the SAO Krajina. I think I mentioned this before.

14 So I would really advise my learned counsel to double-check before he

15 presents his questions.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.

17 You hear that, Mr. Milovancevic. Any response?

18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So the gist of my question was this: According to the indictment,

20 the total population of SAO Krajina was 286.000. 78.611 were Croats and

21 the rest were Serbs. Is Mr. Grujic claiming that --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have put this question so many times, and I've

23 asked you at some stage that when you have put the question, get on to the

24 next question. What do you want this witness to say, Mr. Milovancevic?

25 He's not dealing with the statistics of the SAO Krajina. He's dealing

Page 3613

1 with the people who have been reported to him as either dead, expelled,

2 deported, displaced. What do you want this witness to do?

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecution

4 does not use the term "occupied areas." United Nations referred to United

5 Nations protected areas. It is the witness who uses the term "occupied

6 areas." I want him to tell us why.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Because that's where he worked from his office. He

8 worked with occupied areas. He doesn't work with UNPAs. You can't force

9 him to use your terminology. What you have agreed with the Prosecution is

10 the agreement with the Prosecution. You have to extrapolate that he told

11 you from what is relevant to your case. Do you want him to go back to the

12 drawing-board and then start drawing his papers using the term SAO Krajina

13 instead of occupied areas? He surely can't do that.


15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And please let's get on with the case,

16 Mr. Milovancevic. You have been really going in circles around the same

17 issue, you know, this whole question of numbers, which I don't think

18 anybody else understands in this court except yourself.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Grujic, in paragraph 39 we have a list of detained persons.

21 Is your office the source of this information?

22 A. Yes, my office is the source of this information.

23 Q. Thank you. 88 per cent are males according to this information;

24 is that correct?

25 A. Allow me to have a look. 88 per cent are men, yes.

Page 3614

1 Q. Is it the case that 89 per cent out of those whose age is known is

2 between 18 and 60?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. But you say that for 1.789 persons detained the age was unknown.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How come this number is so high?

7 A. In every previous chapter we've discussed, expelled persons and so

8 on - we are now talking about camps - I provided you with the data that is

9 available to me, and on several occasions I explained, but I have to

10 repeat, obviously, that statistics are compiled based on available data.

11 In all those cases when details incomplete and could be misleading, the

12 case is placed in the category "Unknown." Either the person did not state

13 their year of birth, or in other cases they did not state their ethnicity,

14 or for some administrative reason this detail was not recorded. But very

15 clearly we have a certain number of detained persons with a specified age

16 and a certain number of people whose age has not been stated.

17 We saw on previous examples that this is a statistically valid

18 picture, because 75 per cent of it is properly recorded information,

19 complete information, and provides a representative picture. I don't know

20 if I was clear enough.

21 Q. I ask you this question for a particular reason. If we talk about

22 dead who were exhumed and it is impossible to determine their age by

23 post-mortem, I understand, but if we are dealing with living persons, I

24 didn't -- I wasn't able to understand how come their age is unknown, but

25 you've just explained.

Page 3615

1 You also say that for 47 per cent of the detained it is not

2 determined, it is not known, whether they were civilians or members of

3 armed force.

4 A. Yes, because we don't have that detail. We don't have that

5 information, and we categorise them as unknown.

6 Q. Out of those whose status is known, 52 per cent are classified

7 as -- as defenders, 2.094 members of armed forces. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In your report, you state that the ethnicity of as many as 1.878

10 detained persons is unknown?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Can you tell us why this number is so high?

13 A. As in the previous statistics, let me repeat. A person does not

14 have to tell us what their ethnic affiliation is. Those who wanted to

15 provide this information provided it. Those who didn't want to didn't,

16 and they were classified as persons of unknown ethnicity. According to

17 all international standards, you cannot coerce a person into telling you

18 what their ethnic affiliation or their religion is.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, you did give this answer yesterday,

21 didn't you, several times?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when speaking about the

23 statistics, in every chapter about which counsel has asked me questions, I

24 stated very clearly that -- where information was unknown I stated that it

25 was unknown for the sake of clarity.

Page 3616

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: And all I'm saying is you did give this answer

2 yesterday several times and today, too.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, yes.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll ask you to ask new questions,

5 Mr. Milovancevic, otherwise I'm going to have to stop you each time you a

6 question that has already been asked.


8 Q. In your report referring to length of detention, you say that as

9 many as 2.052 persons is not known for how long they were detain. Is this

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.


13 A. Yes, I can.

14 Q. Please do.

15 A. I'll try to explain. Some people were captured -- or, rather,

16 these people were captured, and when they left, when they were exchanged,

17 and you will allow that their experience was very difficult, I won't go

18 into that, they could not recall the date. And you will allow that it's

19 quite normal and human that they couldn't remember the date of their

20 capture, whether it was the 13th or the 15th. In order to have precise

21 information, we had to put these people into the category of unknown.

22 Q. According to your report, out of the persons for whom it is known

23 how long they were detained, 72 per cent were imprisoned between 30 days

24 and one year. Is this correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 3617

1 Q. This seems a very long time. Do you have -- or, rather, the span

2 is too long. The range is too long. Do you have precise information as

3 to how many were imprisoned for 30 days, six months, and so on?

4 A. No. These were statistics relevant for the provision of

5 psychosocial assistance. If necessary, of course we can go back and do

6 this kind of analysis that you're asking about.

7 Q. Can you tell us what time period and what territory this

8 information about imprisoned persons refers to?

9 A. Yes. The first imprisonments began in July 1991, and as I said,

10 the last prisoner was release the in 1996.

11 Q. Thank you. According to the information in graph 10, these

12 persons were imprisoned on the territory of Serbia, Montenegro,

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, as you say, the occupied territories of the

14 Republic of Croatia. Is this in your report?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. According to your information, a total of 2.044 persons were

17 imprisoned in these areas. As these proceedings relate to the SAO

18 Krajina, do you have information referring to the SAO Krajina or the

19 municipalities which it comprised?

20 A. Yes. It's provided in table 9, which clearly states that 2.404

21 persons were imprisoned in the previously occupied areas of the Republic

22 of Croatia.

23 Q. In paragraph 38 of your report, you talk about the reliability of

24 the information gathered on persons in detention, and there you say that

25 most of those persons were registered by the International Committee of

Page 3618

1 the Red Cross. Is this correct?

2 A. Information is provided as to the number of persons registered in

3 detention by the ICRC.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give us an exhibit number of this graph

5 that you're talking about, Mr. Milovancevic, then?

6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for

7 not having done that previously. This is the analysis of the information

8 on persons detained, and I believe that this is Exhibit 298. If my

9 learned friend can assist me.

10 MS. VALABHJI: It's ERN 04693033, and --

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you please switch off your microphone while

12 you're flipping paper, Ms. Valabhji.

13 MS. VALABHJI: My apologies, Your Honour. It's Exhibit 300.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Exhibit 300 it is.

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, my learned friend.

16 Q. Mr. Grujic, in graph 10, which you prepared, it says that 2.404

17 persons were imprisoned in the occupied territories of the Republic of

18 Croatia and that the ICRC confirmed only 499 of these, whereas they did

19 not confirm 1.905 of them; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. We will now move on to document number 11, and these are

22 statistics by settlement, referring to Bacin, Dubica, Cerovljani, and

23 Nadin. My first question in connection with these statistics referring to

24 these villages is as follows: You provide information on the population

25 in 1991, and as your source you mentioned the state bureau of statistics

Page 3619

1 and other statistics. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you tell us what your other sources are?

4 A. Information received from the present-day municipalities and

5 villages mentioned, the literature about those places, and I can list what

6 that is, but the basis is the bureau of statistics.

7 Q. You have just said that the information also comes from the

8 municipalities in which these villages are located. However, you say that

9 you mention -- you say that you only used information from counties.

10 A. In the present-day counties there are also municipalities. For

11 example, the municipality of Hrvatska Dubica which is part of the

12 Sisak-Moslavina county where these two villages are, Bacin and Cerovljani.

13 Q. So this municipality existed then and it exists today and it's

14 part of this county. Is that what you're saying?

15 A. Hrvatska Dubica did exist. I don't know whether it was a

16 municipality in 1991 or not, but it's a municipality now. And as I was

17 now working on this information, I used the information from that

18 municipality.

19 Q. Does that mean that for some categories in your report you did use

20 information from municipalities and not for others. In the case ever

21 expellees or detainees you didn't and now you did.

22 A. Well, you will allow me the right to use my sources and check my

23 sources when drawing up my expert report. I'm allowed to use different

24 sources and different kind of literature.

25 Q. Thank you. In connection with Bacin, Dubica, Cerovljani, Nadin,

Page 3620

1 you say the number killed was unknown. Is that what you say?

2 A. That's correct. We don't have the precise number of those who

3 were killed.

4 Q. In connection with the villages where it's stated that there are

5 those who were killed, I'm referring to Skabrnja, Bruska, Saborsko,

6 Lipovaca, and Poljane, the status of those who were killed is mentioned

7 for only one of those places. That is whether they were soldiers,

8 civilians, or members of the civilian protection; is that correct?

9 A. I would have to check, but let me repeat. I have provided the

10 information I had. I cannot provide information where I don't have it.

11 You can ask me about the information I have provided. You can ask me

12 whether it's correct or not. You cannot ask me that about information I

13 don't have.

14 Q. As this information is provided only in the case of Lipovaca, does

15 your reply mean that you didn't have in information for the other places?

16 A. Yes, that's correct. If I didn't have information, I didn't

17 provide it.

18 Q. With respect to Nadin, according to the information you provide,

19 the number of expellees is larger than the number of inhabitants. You

20 speak of 699 expellees, whereas Nadin had 666 inhabitants in total. How

21 do you explain this?

22 A. Evidently there has been a permutation between the population and

23 the expellees. 699 should be the number of inhabitants, and 666 should be

24 the number of expellees. So there has been a permutation of figures.

25 Q. When referring to Bacin, and that's document number 12, its ERN is

Page 3621

1 0649-3262-0469-3264, the document about Bacin represents a list of 108

2 persons from Bacin, Dubica, and Cerovljani. According to paragraph 26 of

3 the indictment these people were killed. Is this correct?

4 A. How many did you say? Would you be kind enough to repeat?

5 Q. Mr. Grujic, on the last page of this list it says that there are

6 108 persons on the list. You can check that.

7 A. Yes, that's correct. The list includes 108 names.

8 Q. Just before the break, let me put another brief question. You

9 compared this with your information; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honours, this is

13 a convenient moment.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

15 Court adjourned, and will come back at quarter to eleven.

16 Court adjourned.

17 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting. I see you are on your feet.

21 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. If I might just take

22 a moment of the Court's time to -- with regard to a scheduling matter, and

23 I raise it now because it may require certain preparations be made today.

24 As the Court is aware, we have two witnesses remaining for this

25 week. The next witness, Mr. Strinovic, is making his second appearance at

Page 3622

1 the Tribunal because he was here ready to testify during the week that was

2 cancelled after -- because of the illness of Mr. Martic. So he's here for

3 a second time ready to testify.

4 The third witness, who is a short witness -- oh, actually, if I --

5 I'm sorry, Your Honour. If I -- before I make reference to this if we

6 could move into private session.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.

8 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

Page 3623











11 Page 3623 redacted. Private session.















Page 3624

1 (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]

Page 3625


2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. May -- before we forget then,

3 we will sit in Courtroom I tomorrow morning.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.


7 Q. Mr. Grujic, before the break we left off with a list of victims in

8 Bacin. That is related to paragraph 26. That's from October 1991. Did

9 we agree that according to this list there are 108 persons on this list?

10 That was my last question before the break.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. You compared this list to your information, and that is accurate.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. I see from the document that out of those 108, 48 were exhumed and

15 identified. Is that correct?

16 A. 48 persons were identified.

17 Q. Therefore, only 48 of them have been confirmed as dead.

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Among them is Ana Tepic, of Serb ethnicity, as we can see from the

20 documentation of your office, 60R, Exhibit 373. Do you remember this

21 detail?

22 A. Ana Tepic is on the list, but I don't see the ethnicity at this

23 moment.

24 Q. Thank you. 25 persons, according to the official records of your

25 office, are registered as missing.

Page 3626

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Are they still being sought?

3 A. Yes. Those are people about whom we have no information

4 whatsoever.

5 Q. From this list of 108 persons recorded as victims in Bacin, you

6 say that we have no information about 26 persons or they are absent from

7 all of your records.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Does that mean that nobody reported them as missing?

10 A. It's possible that nobody reported their disappearance, which is

11 an evermore frequent occurrence.

12 Q. Does that mean that those 26 persons are not even on the list of

13 those 12.078 persons we have mentioned?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't turn on my microphone. We'll move on to a

16 document related to Vukovici village. You say that two persons were

17 exhumed from individual graves and that four are registered as dead?

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, Mr. Milovancevic. Could you tell us to

19 which exhibit you are referring, exhibit in terms of the admitted

20 evidence, so then we could follow.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, document 12 in

22 B/C/S. It's ERN 0469-3266.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: [Previous translation continues] ... exhibit

24 number.

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I think all this information is

Page 3627

1 contained in Exhibit 301.

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Grujic, did you process the list of 210 persons from Vukovici

5 registered as victims?

6 A. Yes, and it's contained in the annex.

7 Q. You say that 96 were exhumed -- sorry, two persons were exhumed

8 from individual graves, and four are registered as dead.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. One person is still on record as missing.

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Concerning this list of 210 people from Vukovici, you have no

13 information about three of them.

14 A. Yes. They are not in any of the official records.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Milovancevic.

16 MS. VALABHJI: I wonder if I'm on the same page here as my learned

17 colleague. 210 people? The English translation we have is 210, and if

18 I'm looking at the page from this exhibit pertaining to victims in

19 Vukovici, I don't have a list of 210.

20 THE INTERPRETER: It must be the interpreter's error. We

21 misheard, sorry.

22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I assist?

23 I'm talking about victims in Vukovici. That's list linked to paragraph

24 29, 7th November 1991, and there are 10 persons on it. And if I

25 understood Mr. Grujic correctly, he confirmed that there are 10 persons.

Page 3628

1 It's obviously a misinterpretation.


3 MS. VALABHJI: Yes. Thank you.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. You said, Mr. Grujic, that you have no information whatsoever

7 about three persons from that list. Does that mean that those three

8 persons are also absent from the list of dead?

9 A. That means they are not on the list of dead.

10 Q. Thank you. When you speak about information regarding Nadin,

11 that's document 04693269, the first case is Brus and Bruska, and Skabrnja,

12 did your commission deal with these persons from Nadin, Skabrnja, and

13 Bruska?

14 A. Can you specify what you mean when you say "deal with"? It is

15 said in the document that we performed exhumations and identifications, so

16 we were directly involved. Where it is stated that a certain victim is on

17 the list of dead, we were involved administratively. So we did deal with

18 all these persons in the way I have described throughout, if I understood

19 you correctly.

20 Q. I'll ask you one more brief question to make it completely clear.

21 The information about these victims, Nadin, in the first case, and

22 Skabrnja, did you receive this from other agencies?

23 A. Yes. Yes, that was my meaning.

24 Q. When you spoke about the number of expellees from Lipovaca, you

25 stated that accord together list of population from 1991, the total number

Page 3629

1 was 267, and expellees were 210. Can you confirm that?

2 A. Yes. Lipovaca, according to the state institute for statistics,

3 had a population of 267, and 210 were expelled as registered by the office

4 for expellees and refugees.

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this information

6 is contained in the collective exhibit 301.

7 Q. Mr. Grujic, you talk about 210 expelled persons from Lipovaca,

8 (redacted) that

9 before the arrival of the JNA at the village in end September or early

10 October, the locals left the village and only 15 elderly persons remained.

11 Are you aware of that?

12 A. Well, they probably waited -- if they had waited for the armed

13 forces to arrive, they would probably now be in a different category, not

14 in the category of the expelled.

15 Q. You refer to them as expelled, but another witness says that they

16 had left the village a day earlier. Does that mean anything to you?

17 A. No, it doesn't. I'm telling you that 210 people are registered by

18 the office for expellees, and they were accommodated as expellees in

19 appropriate camps, and they had the status of expelled persons in Croatia

20 until they returned to their homes.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a send, Mr. Milovancevic. That name -- the

22 name that you referred to of that witness, is it not a protected witness?

23 Is that witness - I don't want to repeat the name a second time - on

24 line -- page 35, line 12, was that not a protected witness? Shouldn't we

25 delete that name?

Page 3630

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are right. I

2 made a mistake inadvertently.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Can we delete that name, please.

4 Thank you very much. You may proceed. Were you rising on the

5 same issue?

6 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, Your Honour, it was the same issue.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. When you talk about the number of expellees from Cerovljani, you

10 say that the population according to the census of 1991 was 512, and

11 expellees were 203. Is that correct, Mr. Grujic?

12 A. Let me check. Yes. Would you please repeat the number?

13 Q. I asked you about Cerovljani. It is stated at the top of the

14 report that according to the census of 1991 there were 512 residents and

15 203 were expelled. Is that in your report?

16 A. Yes, it is in my report.

17 Q. Two Prosecution witnesses who appeared earlier in the proceedings

18 testified that Tomislav Mateljak, head of the Crisis Staff of Hrvatska

19 Dubica ordered the evacuation of residents of Hrvatska Dubica and

20 surrounding villages. Another witness who is from Hrvatska Dubica itself

21 also spoke about the evacuation of the population from Hrvatska Dubica and

22 the surrounding villages before the 14th of September, before those

23 villages were captured, occupied. Do you know that?

24 A. I'm not going into the circumstances under which somebody left

25 their home. I have information, and I stand by it, that those people are

Page 3631

1 categorised as expellees, and I don't want to go into the way in which

2 they left their homes. That is not the subject of my testimony. I'm

3 telling you about official records, and each person listed in those

4 records has a file behind them.

5 Q. Well, that was the thrust of my question. When you talk about

6 expellees from Cerovljani, do you dispose of information that the Crisis

7 Staff of Cerovljani, Dubica, and Nadin had ordered an evacuation of the

8 population?

9 A. No, I don't have that at my disposal nor am I supposed to.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic. The next point I wanted to raise with you

11 relates to events concerning Zagreb, document number 12. The last digits

12 of the document number in B/C/S is 3274. That's Exhibit 303.

13 On the list of dead in Zagreb on the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995,

14 which is appended to the indictment there are seven persons. However,

15 according to your records five persons were killed and there is no

16 information about two of those people. Is this correct?

17 A. According to the information I have about the persons who were

18 killed, five persons were killed.

19 Q. This then does not include Ivan Brodac and Luka Skracic who are on

20 this list of seven persons; correct?

21 A. I don't know. I have to check that. There are two persons about

22 whom I do not have information, which doesn't mean that this is not

23 correct.

24 Q. Your office deals with prisoners and missing persons. Do those

25 killed in Zagreb come under your purview?

Page 3632

1 A. Yes, of course they do. Their mortal remains were examined in the

2 Institute for Forensic Medicine, and this information has been included in

3 the information on persons who were killed.

4 Q. Yesterday, when responding to my questions, you said that in

5 Operations Flash and Storm between 250 and 300.000 persons fled. You said

6 most of them were of Serb ethnicity. Can you tell us the number of

7 persons who fled during Operation Flash from Western Slavonia in May 1995?

8 A. I said that these were estimates, estimates coming from various

9 sources. This is not official information. This is just information I

10 have, and it is an overall number. I cannot provide information about

11 particular areas or municipalities. I can only speak about returnees who

12 are registered as such because I have precise information about them.

13 Q. You say you can speak about returnees. Is that something your

14 office deals with? Because you are the Office for Expellees and Missing

15 Persons.

16 A. No. But let me explain.

17 Q. Go ahead.

18 A. More than once during your examination I stated very clearly why

19 this information is kept in my office although it is not listed in the

20 decree. I said that the administration of which I am the head also

21 negotiates with the Commission for Humanitarian Issues and Missing Persons

22 from Serbia and Montenegro. It is for this reason, as the leader of the

23 delegation, that I must have information about all the issues raised

24 during such negotiations. Therefore, this information is delivered to me

25 in an official capacity for the purposes of my work.

Page 3633

1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what number of persons were killed

2 during Operation Flash in Western Slavonia? You spoke about the number of

3 victims in Zagreb. Do you know about the number of victims on the

4 territory of Western Slavonia?

5 A. According to the information at the disposal of my office and

6 falling within its purview, 168 persons were killed whose remains were

7 found and buried in cemeteries. As I said, the international community

8 and the representatives of Serbia and Montenegro were informed about this.

9 The documentation for preliminary identification was delivered to them in

10 the case for all persons for whom we had such documentation.

11 Q. Do I understand you correctly: These were persons whose remains

12 were found and who were killed during Operation Flash?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. I have another question for you. Do you know

15 something about the victims from Paulin Dvor village near Osijek who were

16 transferred in containers or barrels to the area of Gospic where they were

17 exhumed in 1997, and are these victims included in the list of victims you

18 have presented?

19 A. Yes, I'm aware of this case. This case was tried before the

20 national court. It was my administration that carried out the exhumation

21 together with the representatives of the International Criminal Tribunal.

22 Some of these victims have already and identified. The others are still

23 in the process of are identified. I cannot tell you if they are included

24 in the updated list of those killed. If you were to give me the names, I

25 would be able to check that.

Page 3634

1 Q. Let's just check that we're talking about same case. I am

2 speaking about 19 Serbs who were killed in a house in November 1991 and

3 who in 1997 were transferred from one place under the control of the

4 Croatian authorities to another territory under Croatian control, Gospic.

5 Is that the case that you're referring to?

6 A. Yes. The International Criminal Tribunal entrusted me with

7 organising the exhumation.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Grujic.

9 A. You're welcome.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence has

11 finished its cross-examination.


13 Any re-examination, Ms. Valabhji?

14 MS. VALABHJI: Nothing from the Prosecution. Thank you,

15 Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

17 Judge?

18 Questioned by the Court:

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Grujic, may I ask you about the exhumations in

20 general terms. With what forensic experts have you been cooperating?

21 A. During the exhumation and identification, which are closely

22 linked, we cooperate with experts of forensic medicine from various areas.

23 There are forensic experts, and the whole process involves dentists,

24 forensic technicians, anthropologists, X-ray specialists, a whole spectrum

25 of forensic experts. Experts for DNA analysis are also involved in the

Page 3635

1 process. All the various segments of forensic science are involved in the

2 process of identification. On the location, the site of the exhumation,

3 there are forensic experts who work there.

4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: To what extent were international experts

5 involved?

6 A. Your Honours, we have had several different situations. There

7 have been situations where we have been assisted by forensic experts, for

8 example, from the Smithson [as interpreted] Institute in the USA. We have

9 also cooperated with experts of the ICTY.

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can you repeat the name of the institute in the

11 USA?

12 A. Smithson -- the Smithsonian institute. They were the ones who

13 gave us our first information as we had no experience. That was the

14 beginning of our work with their assistance. We have had contacts with

15 the forensic department of the human rights organisation that did

16 exhumations at Ovcara. We were there as monitors. We have also had

17 relationships with experts coming from the ICTY. There were situations

18 where we were the monitors, but it was ICTY experts who were in charge of

19 the whole procedure. We have also had situations where we worked jointly

20 on projects, and there have been situations where we were in charge of the

21 exhumation and ICTY experts were observers. Of course, different kinds of

22 experts were involved, the geologists, anthropologists, forensic

23 scientists.

24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What was the role of this expert of the European

25 Union which was to be seen in the video yesterday?

Page 3636

1 A. In the Republic of Croatia, the standpoint was that everything

2 that had to do with exchanges of prisoners of war, exhumations of mass

3 graves and individual graves, all these issues had to be fully

4 transparent. That is why we issued invitations and still issue

5 invitations to international organisations dealing with such issues. The

6 gentleman who observed the process in Bacin was part of the European

7 Community Monitoring Mission which was active on the territory of the

8 Republic of Croatia. They were always informed of our activities and

9 involved as monitors. We still deliver information about our activities

10 to the OSCE, to the ICTY, and to the International Commission for Missing

11 Persons. They participate as international monitors.

12 We are also transparent for representatives of Serbia and

13 Montenegro in case they are interested in any of our projects.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Can we now go back to this issue of

15 the expellees, the figures where the Defence counsel, Mr. Milovancevic,

16 suggested there was some clear discrepancy between your figure of over

17 220.000, expellees and the figure mentioned in the amended indictment in

18 annex 3, which is 78.000? Can you help us to clarify that in the

19 following terms: Do you know in which of the counties which you mentioned

20 in your tables these municipalities mentioned in annex 3 of the amended

21 indictment are located, to which counties these municipalities, the

22 following municipalities are related? May I cite from annex 3 of the

23 amended indictment? It gives an overall figure of 78.611 Croats as part

24 of the population in SAO Krajina, and it is divided into 13

25 municipalities. Can you maybe help us to -- to show to which regions they

Page 3637

1 are related? There is Benkovac, Knin, Obrovac, the first three. And you

2 did, in your tables these -- this computer document concerning -- in

3 English it says "displaced persons," but we clarified that it should be

4 expelled persons. Document Exhibit number 299. You had these -- you had

5 this -- can you -- on page 6 you have a map with -- of all Croatia and

6 with red figures which are then summarised in the table on the right hand,

7 starting with Vukovarska-Srijemska, 55.644. Do you see that? This is

8 page 6.

9 A. Yes.

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Could you clarify what is mentioned in the annex 3

11 of the indictment contains the following municipalities, and you can maybe

12 tell us to which of these counties these would relate. So it was first

13 Benkovac, Knin, and Obrovac, these three.

14 A. Benkovac, Knin, and Obrovac are at present, I believe, in the

15 Zadar county. I'm not absolutely sure about Knin.

16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. But Zadar county or near to that?

17 A. Yes.


19 A. Yes, it's in Zadar county.

20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Then it's Gracac -- or Gracac, Donji Lapac, these

21 two.

22 A. Gracac is either in or on the border of the Zadar county, whereas

23 Lapac might be in the Lika-Sinj county. It's very difficult for me to say

24 but I believe that's how it is.

25 A. Lika-Sinj. I understand. Then Korenica -- or Titova Korenica.

Page 3638

1 You will allow me to correct myself. Knin belongs to the Sibenik-Knin

2 county.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Sibensko-Kninska. Korenica, where is that

4 today?

5 A. Korenica should be in the Lika-Sinj, Licko-Senjska county.


7 A. Slunj ought to be in Karlovac county or on the border of the

8 Lika-Sinj county. I do believe, though, that it's in Karlovac county.


10 A. I also believe it's in Karlovac county.

11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Vrginmost?

12 A. It's possible that it's in Karlovac or maybe partly in the

13 Lika-Sinj county. I couldn't say precisely.


15 A. Glina is in the Sisak-Moslavina county.

16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And then we have three left. This is Dvor Na Uni;

17 Kostajnica, Hrvatska Kostajnica; and Petrinja. First Dvor Na Uni.

18 A. The Sisak-moss what convenient and county.

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Kostajnica?

20 A. Kostajnica is also in the Sisak-Moslavina county.

21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And Petrinja?

22 A. Petrinja, also the Sisak-Moslavina county.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. I think this kind of comparison was

24 needed and was what the Defence counsel was asking for to have a picture,

25 both in terms of the municipalities from 1991 and in the county structure

Page 3639

1 of today.

2 Thank you very much for this clarification.

3 A. I hope that I have managed to explain. We have dealt with only a

4 part of the counties in occupied Croatia.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Nothing further.

6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Grujic, I'd like to find out from you, and

7 it may seem overly simplistic, but what circumstances or what conditions

8 had to apply for a person to be designated a missing person?

9 A. According to the criteria we use to record missing persons and

10 which are almost identical to the criteria of the ICRC when registering

11 missing persons, the family reports that a person has gone missing. The

12 family has no information about that person. Subsequently, we check

13 whether the family has received any kind of information through various

14 mechanisms. The fundamental criterion is that the family has no knowledge

15 about the family member and that they report this, that they give a

16 statement, fill in a questionnaire, and sign as people searching for

17 someone.

18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Did the missing person have to be missing for

19 any particular period, a stipulated period before the designation was

20 attached?

21 A. Not in our case, but there is in the case of the ICRC, which is

22 why we are constantly comparing our lists and updating our records between

23 our office, the Croatian Red Cross, and the ICRC. These are control

24 mechanisms.

25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry. ICRC? Please tell me. I'm sorry, I

Page 3640

1 want to know what it means.

2 A. The International Committee of the Red Cross.

3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Now, concerning, for example, the

4 data analyses of persons killed, where these statistics referred to men

5 and women, would those statistics include children, or would there be a

6 separate category for children? I don't really see a separate category on

7 any of the graphs or data.

8 A. No, we did not analyse the information in this way. There are

9 several different criteria. Sometimes a person under the age of 14,

10 sometimes a person under 16, and sometimes a person under 18 is considered

11 a child. That is why we did not go into this kind of analysis, because

12 there's no clear-cut criterion.

13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So children would be included in those figures

14 or not? That's what I was trying to get from you.

15 A. Yes, that's correct. They are included in those figures.

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I'd like to turn to Exhibit 318, and

17 the first clip. If you recall, you were present and something was removed

18 from the ground, a small green object which was looking rather like a

19 vegetable to me, and it was picked up and wiped off. Can you say what

20 that was? If you cast your mind back for me, please, to that first clip,

21 Exhibit 318. I believe it was by a grave site.

22 A. Yes, I remember that now. It was a hand grenade which was found

23 when searching the terrain and attempting to establish a mass grave site.

24 The hand grenade was found in the broader area of the mass grave.

25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. And I'm now going to move on to the

Page 3641

1 third clip. About ten metres from the grave site cartridges were found.

2 I just wanted to know if you were able to say what type of cartridges

3 those were.

4 A. To the best of my recollection, there were cartridges belonging to

5 several groups. To the best of my recollection, these were from automatic

6 weapons.

7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And the next question is could you say whether

8 these cartridges were found, although 10 metres away, were they scattered

9 or were they in one area?

10 A. They were in more than one area. They were concentrated on a

11 surface of several square metres, five, six, up to 10 square metres in

12 several clusters. There were three or four such clusters, to the best of

13 my recollection. They were found in clusters, and they were marked as

14 such, and you can see that on the footage.

15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Who marked them?

16 A. They were marked by the criminal police following orders from the

17 investigating court that was in charge of the investigation there.

18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask you about the

19 handling of your report, and Defence counsel, Mr. Milovancevic, has

20 touched on this in his cross-examination, but I want to ask this question

21 directly and pointedly. Did the source of your information and data

22 affect in any way how you handled the data professionally in producing

23 your final results?

24 A. Absolutely not. Generally speaking, my position is that the

25 professional attitude comes first and is subject to no influence. All the

Page 3642

1 data that I have at my disposal I have shown in an objective manner as

2 best I could. So I provided the information in good faith as evidence

3 that I hoped would be of assistance to this Tribunal, as impartial

4 evidence. Maybe I have made some genuine errors, but none that I have

5 noticed so far. And I have acted in good faith as in all other activities

6 that I perform either before this Tribunal or in other courts or in

7 negotiations with other states. That is a clearly stated position within

8 these agencies.

9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, you had mentioned in relation, I believe to

10 an initiative that you took at a meeting with Serbia and Montenegro, and a

11 document was signed defining the question of missing persons, and you had

12 mentioned before that, I believe, in that context that you wanted the

13 abuse of the figures to be stopped. What do you mean by that?

14 A. I will try to explain in a few words. The problem of missing

15 persons is not only the problem of Croatia but also a problem shared by

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. Very often, figures of

17 missing persons were used to promote political agendas of the day and that

18 has armed the entire process. We have faced situations when some NGOs,

19 later supported by politicians, came out with figures of missing persons,

20 persons let's say Serbs in Croatia, of 4, 5, or 6.000. Even the deputy

21 Prime Minister, Mr. Lajic, came out with a number of Serbs sought by

22 Serbia and Montenegro in Croatia of 2.500. That's the information he

23 had.

24 In order to put a stop to this, I went to a meeting in Belgrade,

25 and that was confirmed at another meeting in Zagreb, where it was agreed

Page 3643

1 that the numbers of missing persons have to be agreed, and the criteria

2 have to be similar or the same as criteria used by the international

3 committee. After adopting this joint position, we came out with numbers

4 in keeping with those criteria, and it was established and recorded in the

5 paper that resulted from that meeting that territorially speaking, 1.140

6 persons are still sought for, and they are registered in the office for

7 missing persons, and 915 persons went missing in the Operations Flash and

8 Storm, whereas 500 persons are sought in Croatia by Serbia and Montenegro.

9 So on the territory of Croatia, 2.400 persons are missing.

10 We invested that effort in order to remove this whole issue out of

11 the field of politics in order to promote the process of looking for

12 missing persons, and I have presented this evidence to the Court in this

13 way.

14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I wanted to ask you, were persons displaced from

15 the territory of the SAO-K only or also from outside of the SAO-K?

16 A. When we talk about the displaced persons -- I don't know if I

17 understood your question correctly, but we have discussed three categories

18 of persons who left their homes.

19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, I'm sorry. I'm talking about specifically

20 the SAO-K. Was that the only territory from which persons were displaced

21 as far as your information disclosed?

22 A. No. I said in my presentation that according to my information,

23 around 30.000 people - that's an estimate - changed their place of

24 residence and they of moved to area not afflicted by the war. For example

25 to Osijek which was not occupied a certain amount of people went to Pula.

Page 3644

1 Some people from Pula --

2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think you have answered my question. You said

3 in answer to Defence counsel that essentially this is the substance of it.

4 Whether or not you use counties or municipalities, the numbers that you

5 have produced would come out to the same. Why did you give that answer?

6 A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your question. What exactly

7 did I say in my reply?

8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: My recollection is that you were asked -- well,

9 you were being questioned about the fact that in 1991, municipalities

10 existed, whereas now counties existed, and it was being suggested that

11 your figures might not be correct because of the fact that you didn't

12 address the issue through municipalities as opposed to counties, but you

13 answered that whether or not which one you applied the figures would be

14 the same. Why did you give that answer I want to know. Or did I

15 misunderstand your answer?

16 A. No, you did not misunderstand. Whatever principle we use,

17 whatever territorial principle we use, the numbers have to remain the

18 same. I'll try to clarify on a small example.

19 If we talk about, let's say, Beli Manastir municipality, it

20 belongs to the Osijek-Baranja county. So it is part of the county that

21 has been taken into account in my numbers, because according to the

22 territorial division, the territorial units were smaller. Several of them

23 were united into a county, and when I talk about a county, I talk about

24 the entire county. But only one small part of if was occupied, and from

25 that occupied part those 220.000 were expelled. So the numbers have to

Page 3645

1 tally.

2 I know where the confusion comes from. Distinguished Defence

3 counsel said that a certain number of people were registered as living

4 there, and it's a small number than the ones that I quoted, but it's

5 either that not all the territories were taken into account or some other

6 reason, but there is a logical explanation. If we know that one-third of

7 the territory of Croatia was occupied and there were 4 million and

8 something population, one-third of the population has to be a million or

9 something. It can't be 70.000. The population of one-third of Croatia

10 cannot be 70.000. That is what creates confusion.

11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm most grateful to you. Thank you,

12 Mr. Grujic.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, I think it was yesterday or could it be

14 day before yesterday, I'm not sure now, you said that in compiling the

15 list of the killed people you used information from the Ministry of Health

16 and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, and then you went

17 on to say these lists were unified, and the number of exhumed persons was

18 added to that list. You remember that?

19 A. I remember that.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does this then mean that the lists from the

21 minister -- from the two ministries contain the number of persons whose

22 bodies had already been found and therefore without doubt were not among

23 the persons exhumed?

24 A. I don't know if I understood your question correctly, but that

25 number includes all persons about whom we knew that they were dead. Some

Page 3646

1 we had information they were members of armed forces killed in combat, and

2 they were on the list of the Ministry of Defence. We had another list

3 from the Ministry of Health that some persons were killed in areas close

4 to the battlefield or otherwise as a result of combat, and this data

5 flowed into the Ministry of Health where it was aggregated. And the third

6 source were exhumations, persons we -- or, rather, bodies we exhumed and

7 identified.

8 So we integrated the records of soldiers from the Ministry of

9 Defence; the records of persons killed as a result of armed conflict,

10 through hospitals; and the bodies we identified. But 580 mortal remains

11 still remain identified [as interpreted], and they are still not included

12 in any lists. But we still have 580 dead people from the period 1991 to

13 1995 who are not identified.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put my question slightly differently. How

15 did you determine that the exhumed persons whom you added to the list from

16 the ministries were not already mentioned in the ministries' lists so that

17 you avoid duplication?

18 A. All records have been cross-checked several times. That was

19 precisely why the government of Croatia gave a mandate to my office to

20 integrate all the records, because the same persons were sometimes

21 recorded both on the list of Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Health.

22 Why? Because reports were sent from localities along two channels, one

23 towards the Ministry of Health and one to the Ministry of Defence. So

24 those lists included also some persons who met a violent death as a result

25 of armed conflict but could not be placed in that context because they

Page 3647

1 were killed in Bosnia, for instance. And that's why the decision was made

2 to sort of clean-out all those lists so that we have a clear picture. And

3 when we identified the bodies from exhumations, we put them only the same

4 list and verified for repetitions. So the list was checked by computer

5 cross-checking, and the second was by manual cross-checking of every name

6 and surname.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We've gone beyond the time

8 for taking the break. We will take the break and come back at half past

9 twelve. Court adjourned.

10 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Grujic, on Exhibit 300, you gave a list of

13 names of people who you said were in concentration camps. Do you remember

14 that?

15 A. That's correct, yes.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why -- why are those places called concentration

17 camps?

18 A. Those places we call in the Croatian version prisons and camps,

19 not concentration camps. This is just the translation. In the Croatian

20 version, in my report this number is said to have been kept in prisons and

21 camps.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And by "camps," I believe you mean detention

23 camps of some sort, detention units?

24 A. That's correct. Those are places which are not real prisons but

25 are, rather, places in which detainees were held. They were usually in

Page 3648

1 farm buildings such as barns.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: On Exhibit 309, I don't know whether it can be

3 found quickly, there is a question on that list and the questionnaire

4 relates to Andrija Likic. Do you remember being asked about him yesterday

5 or the other day?

6 A. Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, Andrija Likic is listed on that list as a

8 male, and yet he's given a maiden name. Could that be a mistake?

9 A. It is probably his mother's maiden name. I would have to see

10 this, but I believe this is probably a reference to the maiden name of his

11 mother. When filling in the form, this is probably what was understood.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Maybe if that exhibit can be shown, because

13 the impression that the Chamber got in looking at those lists was that the

14 particulars therein contained were the particulars of the person about

15 whom the questionnaire was, not about the person's parents. So the

16 understanding by the Chamber was that a maiden name was given to -- a

17 maiden name of the person about whom the questionnaire was. If we could

18 get it on the monitor, please.

19 We have it on the monitor.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Pardon. We have that name on the monitor. Could

22 we go to the item that talks about maiden name. I'm not able to read in

23 B/C/S which item this will be, but as we can see, at number 9 he's circled

24 as a male.

25 Now, which one is maiden name here? I'm sorry.

Page 3649

1 A. Your Honour, under number 8, it's exactly as I said in my previous

2 reply. The question under number 8 is "Mother's maiden name." The

3 previous question, number 7, is "Mother's name," and it says "Katarina."

4 Number 8 is "Mother's maiden name." That's "Krivajic." 9 is

5 "Sex," "Male."

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies. Thank you very much. Now, this

7 morning during cross-examination you were asked quite a number of

8 questions relating to some people that you said had not been included in

9 the list of the 12.078 killed, and some of those questions related to

10 missing people, to dead people. What I do want to find out from you is,

11 do you have a comprehensive number that gives all missing people,

12 irrespective of how they went missing, whether they are dead, exhumed,

13 detained. Do you have a comprehensive number of all people that according

14 to your research were affected or don't you?

15 A. Your Honour, there is no unified statistics because these are

16 different categories. Missing persons need not necessarily be dead. We

17 do believe that most of the missing persons are dead, but we cannot say

18 that until it has been confirmed. Also, persons who were imprisoned and

19 who are released are still alive. So people were victimised by being

20 imprisoned but they have been released.

21 The persons listed as dead are those persons whom we have

22 established beyond any doubt to be dead. We can think that a large number

23 of persons currently listed as missing will eventually end up on the list

24 of dead persons, but that will happen only once they are identified.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that's fine. That satisfies my query. We

Page 3650

1 shall relate it to the question that was put to you.

2 Thank you very much. That's all I wanted to ask you, Mr. Grujic.

3 Any questions arising from the questions from the Bench?

4 Ms. Valabhji.

5 MS. VALABHJI: None from the Prosecution, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Milovancevic?

7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] One question, Your Honours.

8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:

9 Q. Mr. Grujic, in connection with a question put to you with respect

10 to the municipalities mentioned in the indictment, when you were asked to

11 compare them with counties, in your view all the municipalities which

12 belonged to the SAO Krajina which are listed in the indictment and about

13 which you were asked by His Honour, they belong to the Lika-Sinj,

14 Karlovac-Sibenik, Knin-Zadar [Realtime transcript read in error "Knin"],

15 and Sisak-Moslavina counties. That was your reply.

16 A. I will repeat what I said. I said that I think that's how it is

17 but that I cannot be absolutely certain. I said that I think that those

18 towns either belonged to that municipality or border it. I said that more

19 than half of the territory that was occupied has not been included in

20 this.

21 Q. Well, a simple adding up of the figures found in graph number 6 in

22 Exhibit 299, which contains an analysis of displaced persons as it says

23 here --

24 MS. VALABHJI: Objection, Your Honour. Going back to the

25 testimony earlier, my learned colleague summarised it as follows: He said

Page 3651

1 they belonged to the Sibenik, Knin, and Moslavina counties. That was your

2 reply.

3 My learned colleague has missed out Zadar county or nearby was

4 also mentioned, and again I would emphasise that the witness has responded

5 to the best of his ability and has mentioned that he was uncertain as to

6 some of -- exactly where the lines were. Thank you.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Mr. Milovancevic.

8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't understand

9 what the objection is about. As I said, I have listed the Lika-Sinj

10 county, the Karlovac county, the Sibenik-Knin county, the Zadar county,

11 and the Sisak-Moslavina county. Those are the ones mentioned by

12 Mr. Grujic in response to Judge Hoepfel's questions.

13 When you add up the figures on page 6 listed next to these

14 counties you arrived at about 105.000 expellees, as the witness calls

15 them. That's simple arithmetic, adding up the numbers mentioned by the

16 expert in his description of the counties. What I'm interested in is

17 whether the expert can explain to us how it comes about that the number of

18 expelled persons, that is 105.000 is possible when in the census from 1991

19 that the Prosecutor relies on says that there was 78.000 Croats in the

20 population of these areas.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: These 105.000 that you refer to, are they Croats?

22 Or did the witness say these are Croats?

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I expect the

24 witness to respond to what persons at the thinks were expelled.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But then there is no basis for your question.

Page 3652

1 Until you know whether the witness has said these 105 are Croats, you

2 can't put the question that how does he come to 105 when the Croats were

3 78.000. You have made no basis for your question.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness spoke

5 about expulsions. I will rephrase my question.

6 Q. Can the witness tell us what ethnicity this figure of 105.000

7 refers to that's mentioned for these five counties?

8 A. In the addendum I provided the ethnicity of all expellees. This

9 is not, however, broken down by county. I have answered this question

10 more than once. I have nothing more to add to what I've already said.


12 have no further questions.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.

14 Mr. Grujic, thank you very much for coming to testify. This

15 brings us to the end of your testimony. You are excused. You may stand

16 down. Once again, the Chamber thank you for your time.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for your

18 patience.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

20 [The witness withdrew]

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to catch up on time. You may carry on.

22 MS. VALABHJI: Simply that my colleague Mr. Black will be

23 examining the next witness, and may I --

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to be excused.

25 MS. VALABHJI: At the present time, Your Honour.

Page 3653

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused.

2 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.

4 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, the next witness is Dr. Davor Strinovic.

5 If he could be brought in, please.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May Dr. Davor Strinovic please be brought in.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.



11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Doctor. You may be seated.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.


14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black.


17 Examination by Mr. Black:

18 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Strinovic. Thank you for coming. I know you

19 speak English very well, but you've elected to testify in your own first

20 language, Croatian; is that correct?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. Are you receiving the translation properly? Are you hearing my

23 words being translated into your language now?

24 A. Yes, thank you. All is in order.

25 Q. Even though you may understand some of my questions in English,

Page 3654

1 I'd ask you to just please wait until they're translated into your

2 language before you answer. That will allow the interpretation to

3 complete and it will make everyone's life a little easier. Do you

4 understand that?

5 A. Yes, fully.

6 Q. Thank you. And if at any time you don't understand one of my

7 questions, please just say so and I'll try to state it more clearly. Do

8 you understand?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. First a couple of questions about your professional background.

11 Where are you currently employed, Doctor?

12 A. I'm employed at the institute of forensic medicine and criminology

13 at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zagreb as an associate

14 professor.

15 Q. In December of 1991, did you become a member of the Croatian

16 Government Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Could you briefly explain the mission of that commission, please?

19 A. Initially meaning from 1991 or early 1992, the basic aim of the

20 commission was to gather information about missing persons and to

21 communicate with all other parties interested in this issue in order to

22 resolve the problems as successfully as possible. Until 1995, the

23 commission had the task of gathering information, holding meetings, and

24 preparing for the work that was to follow after 1995. From 1995 onwards,

25 work in the field began. Exhumations of graves began, both mass graves

Page 3655

1 and individual graves, followed by identification and everything else

2 connected with this job.

3 Q. What role have you yourself played in the work of the commission

4 since 1991?

5 A. From 1991 to 1995, I was a member of the commission as a doctor

6 and a forensic specialist, and as a person who was able to put questions

7 having to do with issues of missing persons, possible identifications,

8 possible grave locations, grave sites and so on. After 1995, in the

9 government commission for detainees and missing persons, I became the

10 coordinator for the medical part of the work in the field. This means

11 preparing exhumations, exhumations, identification, processing mortal

12 remains, and everything else necessary in order to complete identification

13 and establishing the cause of death of all persons found in graves.

14 Q. Did you personally participate in exhumations and examinations, or

15 did you supervise them or both?

16 A. I can say I did both. I attended a certain number of exhumations,

17 and I let other colleagues do others so that I was in charge of

18 coordinating the work even when I wasn't physically present there.

19 Q. Are you still a member of the commission today?

20 A. Yes, I am.

21 Q. Doctor, you are a forensic pathologist; is that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Could you briefly explain what it is that a forensic pathologist

24 does? Just very briefly.

25 A. A forensic pathologist -- I assume that your questioning is linked

Page 3656

1 to wartime and times following a war. Am I right in assuming that?

2 Q. Yes. Please focus on what a forensic pathologist would have done

3 since 1991 in Croatia.

4 A. Forensic specialists are experts who deal with all kinds of

5 violent death, whereas pathologists deal with diseases. Forensic doctors

6 in cases of disasters, such as air crashes, railway accidents where there

7 are large numbers of victims and identification is difficult, they process

8 the remains and identify the victims in such cases.

9 I wish to point out that forensic medical specialists are trained

10 to do this kind of work, so that from 1991 onwards they carried out

11 post-mortems on the vast majority of all those killed in the Republic of

12 Croatia who died a violent death. They also carried out exhumation and

13 identification of persons who were in graves for a certain period of time.

14 The task of a forensic medical specialist is to carry out a

15 post-mortem, to establish all the features on the body which might be of

16 importance to a court later on. For example, they can describe the

17 clothing, other objects found on the body, what was found on the body,

18 what kind of injuries or other conditions, previous illnesses, deformities

19 or injuries that might have occurred previously, all this in order to

20 later establish the cause of death and the identity of the person.

21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. You've mentioned both identification and

22 determination of cause of death. My questions will focus for the most

23 part on determining cause of death. First, how is a cause of death

24 established in a typical case if there is such a thing as a typical case?

25 A. Cause of death is one of the hardest problems that a forensic

Page 3657

1 faces on his job, bearing in mind that most of those people were in the

2 grave for a long time after death and the processing of the body is

3 usually done only after exhumation.

4 In view of the large number of fatalities, especially in 1995

5 onwards, after the exhumations began, accompanied by forensic work, the

6 focus of our work was on the identification of those bodies, and we always

7 tried, when possible, to establish the cause of death. As time went on,

8 the level of our equipment improved. More time was available to devote to

9 establishing the cause of death, certain experience had been acquired, and

10 therefore, the cases processed later, that means after 1995, have the

11 cause of death established with greater precision.

12 It is noteworthy that the sophistication of equipment available to

13 the identification team has a great importance, especially when it comes

14 to establishing the cause of death, because in those cases when the

15 beginning of the post-mortem was marked by taking X-rays that could show

16 the presence of metal objects such as projectiles or parts thereof, and

17 especially shrapnel, which are very difficult to find by post-mortem, were

18 very easy to detect in this way.

19 After this examination by radiologists, the forensic medical

20 doctor starts his work establishing damage on clothing that could be

21 significant and typical of certain injuries. For instance, regular

22 circular defects on several pieces of clothing at the same level indicate

23 a high probability of damage by projectile from a handgun, that is damage

24 by bullet. Irregularly shaped defects of varying sizes and shapes on the

25 clothing are indicative of a different mechanism of damage and are

Page 3658

1 frequently found in the use of shrapnel, blast injuries, et cetera.

2 After this, we move to the examination of skin, if the skin is

3 present, and we have to know that the skin can be preserved for five or

4 more years provided that during the processes this occur after death

5 mummification or saponification is present. Such defects on the skin also

6 indicate with a high degree of probability that these are caused by

7 bullets. Circular defects on the skin indicate injury by bullet.

8 Irregularly shaped, irregular sized defects on the skin may originate from

9 either blasts or other reasons as well, or they can be caused by the use

10 of some other ordnance.

11 After that comes the examination of bone structures and internal

12 organs if preserved. Organs are relatively rarely preserved, although in

13 some cases they exist, and in those cases we can follow the damage done to

14 the organ, and they can also provide indications of the mechanism of

15 injury, be it a gunshot wound or a blast injury, a stab wound, or similar.

16 Most frequently, though, in cases where death occurred several

17 years before exhumation, before the autopsy, the bone structure is

18 preserved. On some bones one can recognise very clearly the instrument

19 that caused damage such as, for instance, the skull. On the skull there

20 are certain regular defects that point with a great certainty to the fact

21 that it was damage by bullet, by projectile, and we see very similar

22 defects on the bones of the pelvis, the chest, the thorax, the shoulder

23 blades.

24 Other bones, depending on the intensity and/or localisation of

25 injuries, may have either regular damage or multiple damage, and in that

Page 3659

1 case it would be very difficult to determine the actual mechanism whereby

2 the damage occurred. In saying so, I mean primarily the long bones of the

3 limbs, the ribs --

4 Q. Dr. Strinovic, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have the feeling

5 that you're being very considerate of the interpreters and you're kind of

6 waiting for the interpretation to catch up with you which I'm sure they

7 appreciate. But I just want to encourage you to speak at your normal

8 rhythm. The interpreters are very able and they will keep up with you.

9 So you don't have to slow down for the interpretation too much. If you go

10 too quickly, I'll tell you.

11 A. Thank you very much. And now when we have received the

12 descriptions of all these types of damage, after all that damage has been

13 examined by an anthropologist, which is the case very frequently, the body

14 will be in the stage of putrefication. The bodies will be all mixed up.

15 They will have to be sorted out, and fractures will have to be

16 reconstructed as well as damage so that on the basis of such

17 reconstruction we could make conclusions about the mechanism of injury, be

18 it from a projectile, shrapnel, trauma, et cetera.

19 When we have collected all this data that I have enumerated,

20 together with X-rays, at that stage we can make an estimate with a high

21 degree of certainty of the mechanism of injury. And every forensic doctor

22 who is performing this autopsy will independently determine the cause of

23 death, and he will indicate that the cause of death is certain or possible

24 or probable, or he will indicate that the cause of death is not possible

25 to determine or explain by analysis. So in every -- each one of these

Page 3660

1 categories we get the cause of death as certain or possible or probable or

2 impossible to determine.

3 That would be my briefest possible answer to the question how a

4 forensic doctor determines the cause of death.

5 Q. Thank you, Doctor, I'm grateful?

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, I see you keep -- your earphones keep

7 almost falling off and they disturb you. Maybe if you bring them up to

8 over your head they might just be -- hold a little better.

9 THE WITNESS: It's short. It's short. Okay. Thank you.

10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Dr. Strinovic, thank you for that explanation. Just a very brief

12 question. Is there a difference in technique when determining the cause

13 of death of a person whose -- who died fairly recently as opposed to

14 someone who has been exhumed after several years? Is there any difference

15 in the technique that's used?

16 A. [Interpretation] I have just tried to explain the difference that

17 exists, because I was speaking about a typical case where the cause of

18 death was determined several years after death occurred, or, rather, if we

19 are autopsying a bodies just several days after death, the autopsy is much

20 simpler and you can almost always determine the cause of death with great

21 certainty because there are certain vital pre-mortal reactions on the

22 tissues, haemorrhaging, et cetera, and the mechanism of injury, the axis

23 of stabbing or injury, other injury, is very clear. And the autopsy of a

24 fresh corpse is much different in way, and the cause of death can be

25 established with much greater certainty.

Page 3661

1 Q. Thank you. And you mentioned that there are cases where a cause

2 of death cannot be ascertained. Is it possible that a person can die a

3 violent death and yet several years later the cause of death cannot be

4 determined based on a forensic examination?

5 A. To our great chagrin, it is possible. That happens. There are

6 cases when we cannot establish the cause of death, that is damage to a

7 soft tissue, damage to the throat, the neck, or to the heart where the

8 person will bleed out but there will be no damage to the bones or there

9 will be no other injury that will remain visible on some other part of the

10 body because the bones are not damaged. Then the cause of death will

11 remain unclear to us, although it will be clear that the death was

12 violent. But we could not ascertain that because we don't have the

13 necessary elements.

14 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'm going to move to a slightly different

15 topic now. Did you prepare an expert report for this Tribunal in

16 connection with the Milosevic case?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. And did you subsequently come here to The Hague to testify in the

19 trial of Mr. Milosevic?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, the witness's expert report has already

22 been admitted in this case by your decision of 13 January 2006, and it is

23 Exhibit 10. I have hard copies with me in case the Chamber would be

24 interested, but otherwise I think there's -- I do not intend to make

25 specific reference to it.

Page 3662

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It might just be helpful if you can give us the

2 copies, please.

3 MR. BLACK: Absolutely, Your Honour. That's why I brought them.

4 Let me, with the assistance of the usher, please.

5 Your Honour, I have several English copies for the Bench and a

6 copy in B/C/S for the Defence as well.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

8 MR. BLACK: Your Honours, by the same decision of 13 January 2006,

9 Dr. Strinovic's Milosevic testimony was also admitted pursuant to Rule 92

10 bis. That testimony has now been uploaded into e-court. It bears two

11 different ERNs because it covered parts of two different days. The ERNs

12 are 05045592 to 5605, and 05045606 to 5693. And, Your Honour, at this

13 point I would ask that they receive a number, please. And it's --

14 actually, I leave it to the court officer in the court as to whether it

15 should be two numbers or one number.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Court will leave it to the court officer to

17 decide.

18 Can you give us an exhibit number or numbers to that report,

19 Mr. Court officer?

20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be for exhibit -- or

21 for document number 05045592, Exhibit number 321; and for document

22 05045606, that will be Exhibit number 322.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

24 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I don't intend to

25 give a detailed summary of that testimony however I think it's appropriate

Page 3663

1 to very extremely briefly summarise it.

2 In his Milosevic testimony, Dr. Strinovic talked about his work

3 with the government Commission for Detainees and Missing Persons, as well

4 as his qualifications. In addition, a number of documents were tendered

5 into evidence in that case. Those documents prepared by Dr. Strinovic

6 summarised information about the victims at several locations relevant to

7 the Milosevic indictment, including information regarding cause of death.

8 A number of those locations are also relevant to this case, Your Honour,

9 including Skabrnja, Nadin, Bacin, and some other locations.

10 That's all I have to say directly about the Milosevic events.

11 Q. Dr. Strinovic, before you came here this week to testify in this

12 case, were you asked to prepare some updated materials related to your --

13 to your expert report?

14 A. Yes, correct.

15 Q. What specifically were you asked to prepare?

16 A. As far as I remember, I was asked to follow the list that I

17 received, the list of persons broken down by individual graves, to

18 determine the -- to list the causes of death for those people.

19 Q. And did you provide that to the material -- that material to the

20 Prosecution last week? Do you recall that?

21 A. Right.

22 Q. With the assistance of the usher, this can be done on e-court and

23 perhaps in hard copy as well, I'd like to show the witness ERN 04693958 to

24 3967. And I have some copies in English as well as in B/C/S for the

25 witness and for Defence counsel.

Page 3664

1 Dr. Strinovic, please just take a moment to look through that

2 document, the different pages, and tell me whether these are the updated

3 materials that you provided last week. Doctor, do you have a copy of

4 these in your own language? I see you're looking at the English there,

5 but do you have a copy in your own language in front of you?

6 A. Yes, I do. I do.

7 Q. Okay. And are these the materials that you provided last week?

8 A. Yes, they are.

9 Q. Did you prepare these lists yourself?

10 A. With the assistance of a colleague of mine from the institute.

11 Q. Where did you obtain the information that's shown on these lists?

12 A. This information is contain in the database of the Institute for

13 Forensic Medicine, and they were uploaded from the protocols that we keep

14 at the institute.

15 Q. You mentioned that they were uploaded from the protocols that we

16 keep. Could you be -- could you give a little more information about

17 where the information that's in the database, where that information comes

18 from?

19 A. The information that is included in the database comes from

20 protocols of the Institute for Forensic Medicine or in some cases that we

21 get from the government office for cases that were not processed by our

22 institute. We receive such data from the government when we are dealing

23 with a specific grave site.

24 Q. Doctor, what I would ask of you now is just take us briefly

25 through each of the locations in your list and just briefly summarise the

Page 3665

1 information that is there for each location, please.

2 A. All right. Can I start? According to my own sequence or do you

3 have something to suggest?

4 Q. No, please. Any sequence is fine. The way they appear in these

5 documents will be ...

6 A. I have it organised -- well, can we start with Bacin?

7 Q. Actually, so that it's easiest to follow, I think the English copy

8 I have begins with Vukovici. Do you mind beginning with Vukovici?

9 A. No problem. I can say the following about Vukovici: The

10 disappearance of persons in that place was registered on the 7th of

11 November, 1991, and the bodies were exhumed on the 13th of August, 1996.

12 Ten bodies were found. Sorry. That was the list of missing persons.

13 There were ten persons on the list of missing persons.

14 In the field, two were autopsied, Vukovic Ivan and Vukovic Nikola,

15 and both causes of death were gunshot wounds. After that, the mortal

16 remains were processed at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, and they

17 were found to belong to at least three persons, because the remains were

18 all mixed up. They were found in the site of a former large fire, and the

19 identity was not established in the cases of these three persons. The

20 cause of death was impossible to ascertain because the fragments of bones

21 were badly burned, and they were too small as they were found. That is

22 one of the cases when it is impossible to perform a positive

23 identification, because the regular methods cannot be applied, and the

24 fragments of bones are so small and so badly burned that it is difficult

25 to establish --

Page 3666

1 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Can we now turn to Lipovaca, which is the next

2 location?

3 A. The place is called Lipovaca Dreznica. The persons went missing

4 on the 28th of November, 1991. The bodies were exhumed on the 12th of

5 June, 1996. The processing and identification were carried out in the

6 field. Seven persons were found. All of them were identified. And in

7 the case of all seven persons, it was established that they had gunshot

8 wounds. The late Mirko Brozincevic was found to have no visible traces

9 that might indicate the cause of death, but according to information

10 provided by eyewitnesses who stated that he had been shot through the

11 neck, the pathologist in charge of the autopsy wrote down that the cause

12 of death was a gunshot wound.

13 These are seven persons. The cause of death has been established

14 in six of them being a gunshot wound, whereas in the case of the seventh

15 person the cause of death is based on eyewitness accounts rather than the

16 autopsy itself.

17 Q. Thank you, Doctor. In the list under cause of death for Mirko

18 Brozincevic. It says gunshot wounds. When did you determine that was

19 based on information from witnesses rather than from the forensic

20 identification -- forensic examination, excuse me?

21 A. On reading the pathologist's report, the pathologist who was

22 there. Protocols were not compiled in that time to be sent to the

23 institute but rather a record was taken in the presence of an

24 investigating Judge who dictated into the court record. And it transpired

25 from the court record that the doctor who carried out the autopsy received

Page 3667

1 information which led him to conclude that this was the cause of death. I

2 read this information and I am now conveying it to you.

3 Q. And just so it's clear, was that on Monday after you'd arrived in

4 The Hague that you had a chance to review this particular protocol?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. And did you have a chance to review protocols related to the

7 other causes of death indicated in your lists?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you find any other cases, while we're on the topic, that you

10 thought maybe there should be that kind of qualification of the cause of

11 death that's given in the lists?

12 A. Not in the case of Lipovacka Dreznica, to the best of my

13 knowledge.

14 Q. If as we go through these various locations you see any other

15 instance like that, please mention it. We'd like to have that

16 information. If you have no further comments on Lipovacka, please turn to

17 Saborsko, the next location.

18 A. In Saborsko, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded

19 on the 12th of November, 1991. The bodies were exhumed on the 30th of

20 October, 1995. 28 persons are listed, 24 were autopsied. Of the

21 remaining four, Mate Matovina is listed as dead, which is why he's not on

22 the list, and Leopold Conjar, number 5; Ivanti Cantin [as interpreted],

23 number 6; and Ivan Matovina, number 11, were autopsied in the field and no

24 record was made which is why we did not include the cause of death on this

25 list.

Page 3668

1 Of the 24 persons autopsied, ten had gunshot wounds, probable

2 trauma, one, and the cause of death unascertained in the case of 13.

3 Three unknown persons were also autopsied from the Saborsko location.

4 They were not identified. One had gunshot wounds as the cause of death

5 and the others the cause of death was unknown.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I interrupt?

7 MR. BLACK: Please.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, you said that Mate Matovina was listed as

9 dead, which is why he's not on the list. I see he's number 18 on the

10 list.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, he is on the list.

12 On the list of persons missing in Saborsko. Mate Matovina, the person we

13 are talking about now, is on the list, but he was not found or autopsied,

14 which is why the cause of death is not listed.

15 As for the three other persons I mentioned, they were autopsied.

16 But this was done in the field, which is why we don't have the

17 information.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see that number 17 is also Mate Matovina. Are

19 there two Mate Matovinas? Were there two Mate Matovinas who are distinct

20 personalities?

21 A. Yes, that's correct. Two different persons of two different ages

22 but with the same first and last name.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

24 You may proceed, Mr. Black.

25 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 3669

1 Q. Dr. Strinovic, unless you have further comments on the Saborsko

2 location, perhaps we could turn now to Bacin.

3 A. In Bacin, the persons were reported as missing in October 1991.

4 They were exhumed from the 13th through the 25th of March, 1997. These

5 are 44 persons who are on the list, and there were a further five from

6 other locations so that there were 49 persons found in Bacin. The causes

7 of death are as followings: 36 gunshot wounds, 4 probably gunshot wounds,

8 two cases explosive wounds, two cases probable explosive wounds, one case

9 of trauma, and unascertained in four cases.

10 I wish to mention that there were a further 14 unidentified

11 persons in Bacin. Of these, seven died of gunshot wounds and the others

12 the cause of death was not ascertained.

13 Q. This list has 108 people total, of which you've said now how many

14 were exhumed. What about the bodies of the other people? Have those been

15 found?

16 A. We don't know that for now. They have not been identified.

17 Whether they have been found and are listed as unidentified or whether

18 they have not been found at all is something we won't know until all the

19 bodies are identified. As I stated, we have 14 bodies not yet identified.

20 They are probably persons on this list, but we don't know who they are.

21 We autopsied them and they are probably from the Bacin list, but we

22 haven't identified them.

23 Q. Doctor, let's turn now to the Nadin location, please.

24 A. In Nadin, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded on

25 the 19th of November, 1991. Five days later, the bodies were handed over

Page 3670

1 to the Croatian side and autopsied. These were seven persons. In the

2 case of all seven, they died of gunshot wounds. In addition to this list

3 of seven persons, two other persons were autopsied, Marko Zupan, Marija

4 Drazina, in both cases they also died of gunshot wounds.

5 Q. Thank you. Perhaps we can turn to the next location, Bruska.

6 A. In Bruska, the fact that the persons went missing was recorded on

7 the 21st of December, 1991. They were exhumed on the 26th of April, 1996.

8 There are ten persons on the list, nine of whom died of gunshot wounds,

9 and one person, Svetozar Draca, was listed as killed and not autopsied.

10 Another person was exhumed in the Bruska location. That's the Josip

11 Marinovic who went missing on the 10th of June, 1992, and the cause of

12 death was trauma, contusion -- concussion, that is, and lung fracture.

13 Q. Thank you. Perhaps we can turn to Skabrnja. There are two

14 events. Let's start with the first event in Skabrnja, please.

15 A. The first event in Skabrnja, the fact that the persons went

16 missing was recorded on the 18th and 19th of November, 1991, and the

17 bodies were taken over on the 23rd of November, 1991, when they were

18 autopsied. These were fresh corpses, in other words. There were 28 --

19 or, rather, 38 persons. 23 of them had gunshot wounds, 11 explosive

20 wounds, one person had trauma, and for three persons there is no

21 information about the cause of death.

22 Q. Thank you. And the second event in Skabrnja?

23 A. The second event was that persons went missing on the 18th of

24 November, 1991, until February 1992, in this time period, and they were

25 exhumed on the 5th and 6th of June, 1996. There are 26 names on the list.

Page 3671

1 In 15 cases the cause of death were gunshot wounds; in five persons,

2 explosive wounds; trauma in four cases; and in two cases there is no

3 information about the cause of death.

4 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Your Honours, I would ask that this document

5 receive an exhibit number and be admitted into evidence, please.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is received into evidence. May it

7 please be given an exhibit number.

8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 323, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour. I realise we still have about

11 two minutes. The next short topic involves playing a video, which is

12 about two or three minutes long itself, so I'm afraid it would take us

13 past the hour, Your Honour. It might be a convenient just to stop now and

14 resume in the morning, unless you prefer, I can just push on.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you can play it --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you're going to play it, our going to ask

18 questions on it. Isn't it better just to play it tomorrow and then follow

19 on with your questions?

20 THE PROSECUTOR: I think that's the best, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unless you want to sit right through.

22 MR. BLACK: Now until tomorrow?

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, whenever.

24 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I think it's convenient time now. Thank

25 you.

Page 3672

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll then adjourn until tomorrow morning. We're

2 coming back to this courtroom at 9.00 in the morning -- I beg your pardon.

3 We're going to Courtroom I in terms of the arrangements we made this

4 morning. Yes. Courtroom I tomorrow morning at 9.00. Court adjourned.


6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day

7 of April, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.