Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39295events and fear of self-incrimination, the witness’s relationship with any of the Accused,and whether the witness would have an underlying motive which could affect thewitness’s credibility and reliability. The Trial Chamber also assessed the internalconsistency of each witness’s testimony and other features of his or her evidence, aswell as whether there was corroborating or contradicting evidence. The evidencepresented in this case relates to events which occurred in 1995. The Trial Chamber hastherefore not put a lot of weight on minor discrepancies in the evidence. 49 Some of thewitnesses that were former members of the warring factions were evasive or not entirelytruthful regarding the roles they played in the events in 1995. Although aware of this,the Trial Chamber nevertheless sometimes relied on other aspects of these witnesses’testimonies. This is consistent with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal according to whichit is not unreasonable for a Trial Chamber to accept certain parts of witness’s testimonywhile rejecting others. 50 While the Trial Chamber may not always have explicitly statedwhether it found a witness’s testimony or portions of his or her testimony credible, itconsistently took the aforementioned factors into account in making findings on theevidence. The Trial Chamber explicitly dealt with inconsistencies and other credibilityand reliability issues where these touched upon significant aspects of the testimony andwhere the parties raised these issues.32. In relation to the testimony of Witness Gojanović, a former HV soldier, the TrialChamber noted that other evidence was inconsistent with parts of the witness’stestimony, which led the Trial Chamber to treat Gojanović’s evidence with caution.However, these inconsistencies did not lead the Trial Chamber to believe that his entiretestimony was unreliable. In this context, the Trial Chamber considered that at leastparts of the witness’s testimony were corroborated by other evidence. 5133. On some occasions, the Trial Chamber noted that witnesses may have talkedwith and possibly influenced each other before giving testimony. 52 The Trial Chamberassessed the likelihood of any influence on a case-by-case basis and paid particularattention to the witnesses’ demeanour in court and to any indications that the testimonymay have been influenced. 53 On 2 and 3 June 2010, the Chamber heard the testimony of49 See Čelebići Appeal Judgement, paras 484-485, 496-498; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 31.50 Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 333; Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 82.51 See e.g. Dawes’s testimony in relation to destruction and plunder in Kistanje on 6 August 1995 inChapter 4.2.8, and exhibit P2349 in relation to plunder in Srb on 8 August 1995 in Chapter 4.2.4.52 See e.g. T. 7428-7431.53 See e.g. finding on murder of Sava ðurić in Chapter 4.1.9.20Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `