Kravica: Defence asks for exclusion of prosecutor

The defence counsel of one of the 11 Kravica indictees has asked for prosecutor Kwai Hong Ip to be excluded from the proceedings following a dispute over the questioning of a Prosecution witness.

On July 13, 1995, Dragan Kurtuma, a former member of the First Platoon of the Second Detachment of Special Police Forces Sekovici, secured the road from Kravica to Konjevic Polje, on which the buses packed with civilians from Srebrenica were travelling.

While testifying before the War Crimes Chamber on Wednesday, Kurtuma said that the members of the Second Detachment wore green uniforms.

The prosecutor reacted to this claim, noticing differences in the witness’s testimony given during the investigation procedure and in the courtroom.

Namely, in a statement given to SIPA, Kurtuma said that the uniforms of members of the Second Detachment were blue. While being interviewed by the prosecution one month ago, and in court, he stated that they were green.

Police forces of Republika Srpska wore blue uniforms, while the army wore green uniforms. According to the Prosecution, ten of the 11 indictees were members of police forces of Republika Srpska, while one of them was a soldier.

While trying to clarify the differences in the witness’s testimony, attorney Petko Pavlovic asked Kurtuma whether the Prosecution had pressured him during the interview they had before his testimony.

“The prosecutor told me that I will not leave the room until I tell the truth about the events in Srebrenica,” Kurtuma said.

Kurtuma also claimed that the prosecutor forced him to give answers to some questions, regardless of the fact that he allegedly did not know them.

“He drew the meadow close to the storage shed to which Bosniaks who surrendered from the forest were coming and asked me to confirm. Then he was convincing me that I had to have seen Milos Stupar on July 13, 1995,” the witness claimed.

Judge Hilmo Vucinic asked Kurtuma whether during the interview he was given suggestions as to what to say in the courtroom.

“No, but the prosecutor was convincing me of things that I did not know the answer to,” Kurtuma said.

In the courtroom it was determined that there are no minutes of the conversation between prosecutor Ip and witness Kurtuma.

Judge Fisher Shireen Avis asked the witness whether he had said something in court which is not the truth, as a consequence of the conversation with the prosecutor.

The witness did not say that there are disagreements in the statements, but maintained that the prosecution had pressured him.

Zoran Kisin, indictee Branislav Medan’s defence attorney, asked for Ip to be excluded from further process.

“The defence wants prosecutor Ip to be excluded from further process because of influencing of the witness,” Kisin said.

This request will be considered at a later time. The trial will be continued on July 26, 2006.