1 Thursday, 20 February 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 The start of the hearing for today has been delayed for
8 ten minutes due to the Chamber's deliberations on certain matters.
9 Yes, Mr. Harvey.
10 MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. May I
11 introduce Marije Kamp, who is studying for a master's degree at the
12 University of Utrecht. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Sutherland, please continue.
14 WITNESS: MOMCILO GRUBAN [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]
17 Q. Mr. Gruban, we left off yesterday discussing the disappearance in
18 July 1992 of Burhanudin Kapetanovic and a person by the surname of
19 Badnjevic. We have evidence in this case - and that's Exhibit P02089 -
20 that Burhanudin Kapetanovic and Asaf Kapetanovic and others were exhumed
21 from a mass grave in Stari Kevljani, a short distance from the Omarska
22 camp. And that's Exhibit P4855 at page 23, and P4853 at pages 28 to 29.
23 Were you aware of them being exhumed from this mass grave?
24 A. No, I wasn't aware of that.
25 Q. And regarding the shooting of at least 50 detainees from the
1 village of Hambarine in late July 1992, there is evidence in this case
2 regarding the shooting of dozens of detainees from the Budo [phoen] area
3 in late July. And that's Exhibits P00678, P03478, and P00705.
4 Mr. Gruban, you were also convicted in relation to over 30 other
5 killings and disappearances that occurred on other shifts; correct?
6 A. I'm not aware of having been convicted for things that happened
7 in my absence. And as for the killing of 50 people, I claim with full
8 responsibility that that could not have happened. If something of that
9 kind had happened, there are no witnesses from Omarska who wouldn't talk
10 about that event. Imagine if 50 people had been killed, how much
11 shooting should there have been? How many people should have been
12 involved with that? That fact is based on just one witness - I don't
13 want to mention his name because I don't know whether he was protected or
14 not - and in my view that witness didn't tell the truth. There are a lot
15 of arguments which can corroborate my claim that he wasn't telling the
16 truth. I don't know how much time you have. I could go along a long
17 list of facts that would prove that that witness was lying.
18 Q. Mr. Gruban, in relation to the killings of detainees directly and
19 personally committed by persons outside of your shift but in furtherance
20 of the described system of ill-treatment and persecution at the camp, in
21 June and July 1992, your trial chamber listed on page 5 and 6 of your
22 judgement, your trial chamber judgement, the names of over 30 people.
23 Now, that's correct, isn't it, that you were found guilty of things that
24 happened and of at least 30 named individuals who were killed or
25 disappeared on other people's shifts, i.e., Mr. Radic or Mr. Kosa's
1 [phoen] shifts. That's correct, isn't it?
2 A. That's not correct. Look, Mladic was not the head of shift. I
3 don't know any other Mladic but General Mladic who was not in Omarska at
4 all. Second of all --
5 Q. I said Mladen -- I said Mr. Radic, meaning Mladjo Radic, Mladen?
6 A. Oh, Mladjo Radic. What I heard in the interpretation was Mladic
7 as if Mladic was in Omarska. Let's be very precise. I don't know
8 anything about those 30 persons, and if I wasn't there, I would not
9 speculate on what had happened because many witnesses speculated and that
10 resulted in the position that I'm in. Let's stick to the facts and what
11 I know. I don't know the names of those people. You said that you had
12 names of 30 people. I don't know their names. I don't know who the
13 perpetrators are. I don't know when that happened. Again, we're talking
14 about a mass murder of 30 people, and if that had happened, I would have
15 known or at least I would have heard about that although it was on
16 somebody else's shift.
17 Q. Mr. Gruban, these are all individual incidents.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can have 65 ter number 25701, please.
19 Q. Mr. Gruban, you see in front of you the trial chamber
20 first-instance verdict against you, Mejakic, and Dusko Knezevic.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to page 5, please.
22 Q. Now, we see here the court summarising its findings in relation
23 to you and it says that you -- it mentions the killing of detainees
24 directly -- of persons committed during your shift. And then it mentions
25 the people that were killed outside -- killed or disappeared outside of
1 your shift. Do you see the second paragraph -- the third paragraph under
2 your name?
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to page 6 of the B/C/S, please.
4 Q. Now, you see all these names: Abdulah Puskar and Silvije Saric
5 beaten to death; Emir Ramic, shot and killed; Mehmedalija Sarajlic,
6 beaten to death; Velid Badnjevic, shot and killed; Slavko Ecimovic,
7 beaten to death; Amir Ceric and another man named Avdic, shot and killed;
8 Husein Crnkic sustained injuries to which he eventually succumbed;
9 Jasmin Hrnic, Enver Alic, and Emir Karabasic, beaten to death;
10 Mehmedalija Nasic, shot and killed; Safet Ramadanovic --
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Page 6 of the English, please.
12 Q. Safet Ramadanovic, beaten to death. Becir Medunjanin, beaten on
13 multiple occasions and died as a result of beating. Approximately 12
14 with the surname of Garibovic who were beaten, after which they
15 disappeared without a trace. Dalija Hrnic, beaten to death.
16 Azur Jakupovic, beaten to death and killed along with Edvin Dautovic.
17 Rizah Hadzalic, beaten to death. Miroslav Solaja died as a result of
18 beating. Dr. Osman Mahmuljin, Dr. Eniz Begic, Zijad Mahmuljin, and
19 Ago Sadikovic disappeared from the camp. Esad Mehmedagic disappeared
20 from the camp. Nedzad Seric disappeared. Gordan Kardum, beaten to
21 death. And Emsud Baltic and several men disappeared one evening in July.
22 Then it goes on to describe a killing which resulted from the
23 system of ill-treatment in which you participated in, and that is, in
24 June 1992, Ismet Hodzic died as a result of lack of medication and
25 medical treatment for his diabetes.
1 Now, you remember, do you not, reading in your judgement that you
2 were found guilty of these other crimes as well, of these other murders
3 that occurred or disappearances that occurred in the Omarska camp?
4 A. Let me put it this way: I can speak about incidents and
5 individuals that I'm aware of. Now, what happened on other people's
6 shifts, I don't know. I can only give you hearsay evidence and I can't
7 consider myself responsible for something that happened when I was not
8 there. Nowhere in the world is a person found guilty of things that
9 happened on other people's shifts, when he was absent, and things that he
10 didn't agree with. You said Safet Ramadanovic. Safet Ramadanovic died
11 of natural causes in Omarska. His body was handed over to his family; I
12 know that for a fact and I noted that down. Mehmedalija Nasic --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the answer be at least as long
14 as the question because the witness has the right to state his opinion of
15 every single name that he heard in the question.
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour --
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber discussed this issue yesterday as well.
20 Theoretically the question is whether the witness was convicted for
21 certain matters, so the answer should be either yes or no. But I don't
22 see the point of putting all these things in such a lengthy formulation.
23 It's fair enough for the witness to wish to comment upon those things.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I thought I asked the question
25 quite simply twice, on two occasions, and then the witness kept evading
1 answering yes or no and so then I went to read out all of the names --
2 JUDGE KWON: The witness never challenged his conviction at the
3 Bosnian court, but he said clearly that he did not agree with it. Then
4 you leave it and then proceed. I don't --
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Okay.
6 JUDGE KWON: -- see the point of putting every sentence of the
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE KWON: Shall we proceed?
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
11 May I have 65 ter number 10950, please.
12 Now, Your Honour, this is a document that wasn't on my 65 ter
13 list, but subsequent discussions with the Defence and they have no
14 objection to me using it.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND:
17 Q. Mr. Gruban, this is a "Kozarski Vjesnik" article dated the
18 9th of April, 1993. It's on -- the paragraph I'm interested in is on
19 page 1 of the English translation, the sixth paragraph, and on page 2 of
20 the B/C/S document on the left-hand side column, the paragraph above the
21 heading at the bottom of the page and it's the -- starts:
22 "More than 6.000 informative talks were held at the gathering
23 centres of 'Omarska,' 'Keraterm,' and 'Trnopolje.' A group of
24 1.503 Muslims and Croats were taken to the camp of 'Manjaca' with proper
25 documentation proving active participation in conflicts against the
1 Army of the Serb Republic as well as participating in genocide of the
2 Serb people. Instead of receiving their just punishment, the white-world
3 mighty men forced us to release them all from Manjaca."
4 Now, this is an interview with Simo Drljaca, the chief of the
5 SJB, and that was his answer in relation to a question put to him:
6 Recently there has been a lot of controversy about your work and that of
7 the police. How do you judge your work in the past year? And then he
8 said this, what I've just quoted to you. And that reflects, doesn't it,
9 the view that everyone alleged to be involved in conflicts against the
10 Serbs was participating in genocide?
11 A. And what is your question, please?
12 Q. Do you agree with me that that reflects the view that everyone
13 alleged to be involved in conflicts against the Serbs was participating
14 in genocide?
15 MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Mr. President. This -- he's being
16 asked to simply interpret what is written in a newspaper article. If she
17 wants to ask him about what Mr. Drljaca's views were, that's one thing,
18 but this would be complete speculation to just be commenting on some
20 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, Your Honour, I don't agree. He can -- he
22 can give his opinion as to whether that, in fact, reflects the view.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is of the view the witness cannot give
25 his opinion. Shall we continue.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. --
3 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, but just to -- I think -- I don't want there
4 to be a misunderstanding. I understand Mr. Robinson to be saying that
5 the question can be posed in a way that asks about what this witness may
6 or may not have known about the views held at the time and about the
7 views held by Drljaca and then -- that's what he was getting at and I
8 think he was trying to direct the examination toward that area. So --
9 but I fear that Ms. Sutherland may have misunderstood the Court's ruling
10 as a rejection of the inquiry in its entirety and I don't think that was
11 what the Court intended. I think obviously that was not what
12 Mr. Robinson intended.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE BAIRD: Well, Ms. Sutherland, can you assist us with the
15 answer you gave to Judge Kwon:
16 "Well, Your Honour, I don't agree. He can give his opinion as to
17 whether that, in fact, reflects the view."
18 This would be his opinion. When you say -- in the strict sense
19 of the word "opinion"?
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: No. The witness can say whether this -- this
21 was Drljaca's view that he held at the time.
22 JUDGE BAIRD: So this would not be opinion evidence --
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No --
24 JUDGE BAIRD: -- as we know it.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Robinson, anything further on that?
2 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think my point, Your Honour, was that the
3 Prosecution is asking him to comment on a news article, and then after he
4 makes the comment they're going to -- either to bootstrap it to admit the
5 article either as being consistent or inconsistent with his opinion or
6 his analysis of what Drljaca said. And if we allow that, then every
7 document in the world can somehow become admissible as either consistent
8 or inconsistent with some witness's view. So my point was that what's
9 relevant and probative is what his understanding was of Mr. Drljaca's
10 acts and conduct. Was he somebody who believed that -- or did he --
11 through his conversations with Drljaca, did he have the understanding
12 that Drljaca thought that anybody who was fighting against the Serbs was
13 committing genocide? But to comment on the news article and to ask the
14 question in that way, in my opinion, is just an effort to bootstrap the
15 admissibility of what otherwise shouldn't be admitted.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Sutherland, if you're going to ask a witness
17 as to the views of somebody else, you really need to establish a basis as
18 to how that might have come about. I mean, did they work together, did
19 they talk together, were they confidants, otherwise it's such a broad
20 question that its probative value is doubtful.
21 JUDGE KWON: Shall we continue?
22 Are you going to reformulate your question?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MS. SUTHERLAND:
1 Q. Mr. Gruban, you were in the reserve police for quite some time,
2 and as a result of that you knew Simo Drljaca, did you not?
3 A. Let me put it this way: I heard about Simo Drljaca and I met
4 him, on the 24th of November, 1992, when the police set out for the
5 theatre of war in Obudovac. He was in charge of that unit. That's when
6 I met him. Before that, while Omarska existed, I heard of his existence
7 but I never communicated with him. I never met him during that period of
8 time. During the existence of Omarska, I didn't report to Drljaca about
9 anything, I did not contact him directly; all that was done through other
10 people. I knew that he was chief, but that was all I knew about him. I
11 didn't have any personal contacts or dealings with him.
12 Q. Even if you didn't have personal contacts or dealings with him,
13 were you aware of his attitude towards people that had -- non-Serbs that
14 were alleged to have committed crimes against the Serb population?
15 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I would object to this. I think
16 this is so general and vague: Were you aware of his attitude? I think
17 that she should -- this is eliciting evidence of no probative value
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland, would you like to respond to
21 Mr. Robinson's objection or are you going to reformulate your question?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'll reformulate my question.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND:
25 Q. Mr. Gruban, people were held in Omarska because they were alleged
1 to have been involved in conflicts against the Serbs and for committing
2 genocide, alleged to have committed genocide against the Serbs; yes?
3 A. I didn't hear the word "genocide." However, people in Omarska
4 were kept for having participated in the armed rebellion. That was the
5 first category of those people when the screening was done. And the
6 second category consisted of the people who financed and assisted that
7 rebellion. And the third group were people who were not directly
8 involved in any of that, and the third group of detainees were -- was
9 released and taken to Trnopolje. No trials were conducted against them.
10 The first two groups were transferred to Manjaca and after that I don't
11 know what happened to them, whether they were put on trial or whether
12 they were released under the pressure of the international community as
13 you put it. I really don't know. This is all I know: The third group
14 was released because it was established that they had not participated in
15 the armed conflict. This was the very reason for the existence of the
16 collection centres. People were collected if they were found in the area
17 of combat activities, they were interviewed, they were categorised, and
18 then they were treated accordingly.
19 Q. And people alleged to have been involved in armed rebellion were
20 considered to be involved in genocide; correct?
21 A. I've just told you the word "genocide" has been heard here at
22 this Tribunal and in Sarajevo. Every second person tends to use the word
23 "genocide." Wherever something bad happened, it turns out to be a
24 genocide. I think that this is a bit of an overstatement. It's a big
25 word, "genocide." First of all, you have to be aware of the definition
1 of genocide and then we can use the word with authority.
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
3 You just said you -- you just said you heard the word here at the
4 Tribunal and in Sarajevo. You mean Sarajevo in Bosnia -- you mean the
5 Bosnian court.
6 Yes, I wanted to clarify because in all your answers you said you
7 didn't hear the word "genocide" at the time. Is that correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's become a common word now in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, in our part of the world. And before the court of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina there are several persons who stand accused of
11 genocide. Some of them were even found guilty. Now these decisions have
12 been overturned. They were sent --
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- back to the constitutional
15 court. It was actually the constitutional court that told the court
16 to --
17 JUDGE KWON: When you were in Omarska, did you hear the word
18 "genocide"; that was my question?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time it was not being used.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 Please continue, Ms. Sutherland.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender this document.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Mr. President. No basis to tender it
24 through this witness.
25 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think we have evidence in this
2 case to -- I don't think -- we do have evidence in this case to show that
3 this is the voice of the local authorities, the local Serb authorities.
4 JUDGE KWON: But I don't think we have a basis to admit this
5 through this witness, do we?
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, the witness -- the witness is -- has
7 spoken about people being held in Omarska that were allegedly involved in
8 the armed rebellion and the conflicts.
9 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will not admit this. Please move on,
10 Ms. Sutherland.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND:
12 Q. Mr. Gruban, in paragraph 42 of your statement in reference to
13 adjudicated fact 1191, you say that no one was targeted on the basis of
14 their education. And you say that there were testimonies in your trial
15 to the effect that some individuals, physicians, had been taken from the
16 Omarska camp but you don't know for what reason and what happened to
17 them. But it's not just physicians as an occupational group that were
18 targeted, was it, because there were leaders in the community,
19 physicians, politicians, lawyers, businessmen, and police, they were all
20 targeted in the Omarska camp?
21 A. What would you like me to say? What is your question?
22 Q. That it wasn't just physicians who were targeted. It was also
23 politicians, lawyers, police, they were all targeted in Omarska camp.
24 You must know that from -- from even the evidence in your trial.
25 A. Let me put this this way: Nobody was targeted according to
1 profession. In my case I heard the testimony of witnesses. I was not
2 present. A lady witness, I'm not going to mention her name, I don't know
3 whether she was protected, she said literally that certain physicians
4 were called out in the middle of the day, 3.00, and were taken out of the
5 camp. So that would be that.
6 As for somebody being particularly targeted due to their
7 profession, I don't think so. You also said lawyers. There were
8 different testimonies in Dr. Stakic's case. It says even in the
9 judgement that a well-known Prijedor lawyer, Ahmet Atarovic, was killed.
10 However, in 2007, reading "Oslobodjenje," a Sarajevo daily newspaper, I
11 found an article stating that Atarovic opened a law office in Prijedor.
12 So that's part of the judgement. Some witness testified - we're not
13 going to mention who it was in order not to reveal that person's
14 identity - saying that such persons were targeted and taken out, not
15 mentioning names, and then later on it turns out that - thank God - these
16 persons are alive and well. And lawyer Tatarevic has an office today
17 both in Sanski Most and Prijedor, and the judgement said what I said.
18 In such cases, quite literally, there is no opposition because
19 when you mention the name of a particular person how can we know where
20 that person is? So believe me, as far as these persons being taken out,
21 as far as that's concerned, there are some people who are still alive and
22 about today. It's hard to go into all of that, but I was not present
23 when these persons were being taken out. There is clear testimony about
24 that. Actually, there weren't any transcripts during my trial so I could
25 not refer to any particular part of the transcript.
1 Q. Well, Mohammed Cehajic, the president of the Municipal Assembly,
2 SDA member, was exhumed in Stari Kevljani. Silvije Saric, the president
3 of the HDZ Prijedor, was exhumed from Kevljani. Becir Medunjanin, the
4 secretary of the People's Defence of Prijedor, exhumed for Kevljani.
5 These are all people that were last seen in Omarska camp.
6 We have -- in relation to the teaching profession,
7 Sadeta Medunjanin, exhumed from Jama Lisac. Abdulah Puskar, a math
8 teacher in secondary school, exhumed from Stari Kevljani. Husein Crnkic,
9 exhumed from Kevljani.
10 Lawyers. We have Esad Mehmedagic exhumed from Stari Kevljani.
11 Nedzad Ceric, the president of the court, exhumed in Stari Kevljani.
12 And then the medical profession. Dr. Esad Sadikovic, exhumed in
13 Hrastova Glavica. Dr. Jusuf Pasic, exhumed in Stari Kevljani. So we do
14 know where these people are, they're dead. And you heard about many of
15 these during your trial.
16 The police. Fikret Sarajlic from Kozarac exhumed in
17 Stari Kevljani. Esad Alic from Kozarac, Stari Kevljani. Mirsad Alic
18 from Kozarac, Jakarina Kosa was where he was exhumed. And I've already
19 mentioned Ago Sadikovic who was exhumed in Stari Kevljani. There's a
20 number of other police that witnesses in this trial have testified to
21 that were last seen in Omarska and were killed.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I refer Your Honours to P02989 at transcript
23 page 19110 to 1921 --
24 JUDGE KWON: Let's pause here. So what is your question,
25 Ms. Sutherland?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Gruban said he didn't know where -- when I
2 said to him that leaders, politicians, businessmen, police, lawyers --
3 JUDGE KWON: So the question is --
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- were targeted and were, in fact, killed in
5 Omarska --
6 JUDGE KWON: So does it mean that the people without profession
7 was not targeted?
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: No.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, put your question to the witness.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. Mr. Gruban, I just read quite a number of names to you from
12 different professions, leaders in the community, and it's a fact, isn't
13 it, that those leaders were targeted?
14 A. I don't know. You could have understood from my previous answer
15 that they were not targeted, but let me say this. Sejmenovic Mevludin is
16 also one of the top people who was a member of parliament. It was called
17 the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then Mirza Mujadzic, president
18 of the SDA party for the municipality of Prijedor, he is also a community
19 leader. Thank God these people are still alive.
20 You mentioned the names of quite a few persons here who were
21 exhumed from these graves. I really do not know quite a few of these
22 people that you mentioned. However, for example, you mentioned
23 Dr. Eso Sadikovic, isn't that right? He was taken out of Omarska; that
24 is to say, he was not killed in Omarska, he was taken out with a group of
25 124 other detainees from Keraterm. It was only he who was added to that
1 group. Later on we found out from the material that I got from you that
2 Dr. Sadikovic was exhumed far away from Omarska, about 150 to
3 200 kilometres away. So he left Omarska. Unfortunately, he lost his
4 life. Now, how can this be ascribed to somebody who is in Omarska? I
5 don't understand.
6 For example, a person is sent out of Omarska, how can a guard
7 know where this person is going to be taken and what his fate is going to
8 be and so on and so forth. You also mentioned Sadeta, Medunjanin was her
9 last name, the interpretation was not exactly right. I know this is the
10 wife of Becir Medunjanin. She was also taken out in a group and also she
11 was found very far away. I don't know how many kilometres, it must have
12 been more than 150 kilometres away from Omarska.
13 What you said -- well, you spoke at length so I cannot remember
14 exactly now. I cannot record with film precision everything, but
15 certainly people found this those graves were victims of fighting, they
16 were actually casualties from combat, so not all these people are from
17 Omarska. You showed a document yesterday too.
18 Q. Mr. Gruban, we have evidence in our case, which is P4855 and
19 P4853, which shows a large number of people that were last seen in
20 Omarska having been exhumed. They weren't involved in combat. They were
21 in the camp, they were detained in the camp.
22 A. What is your question?
23 Q. Well, as I understood your last answer, you were saying that
24 these people who were found in graves were casualties from combat.
25 A. You misunderstood what I was saying. In these graves there must
1 have been people who were involved in fighting in Kozarac and the
2 surrounding area because yesterday you yourself said that there were
3 casualties on the Muslim side in that fighting. They were buried
4 somewhere. Probably they were buried in these graves too. Do you
5 understand what I'm saying?
6 Q. In fact, yesterday it was my position that there was no fighting,
7 that it was in fact shelling by the Serb forces. Okay. We will move on.
8 In paragraph 32 of your statement --
9 A. Well -- well, that is your position but it's not realistic, it's
10 not true. Who was it that the Serb army was fighting if there was no one
11 on the other side? We have to be realistic, we have to tell the truth.
12 There was fighting, it went on from the 24th until the 30th, somewhere in
13 the location of Kozarac, and there were clashes there within the Muslim
14 forces themselves. One option was led by the police commander, Didovic
15 who said that war should not be waged, that weapons should be
16 surrendered, that there shouldn't be any combat. There were also
17 extremists who wanted to put up resistance. So there were clashes
18 between them themselves. There was fighting, unfortunately, and once it
19 all happened it was too late.
20 Q. Mr. Gruban, there's documentary evidence in this case to say that
21 the fighting -- the -- in Kozarac the mopping-up was occurring on the --
22 on the 26th of May. It's your evidence that women were not called out
23 and raped or sexually assaulted on your shift and you didn't hear about
24 this happening during other shifts. Even if you didn't know at the
25 time - and I'm not saying that you didn't - you are certainly aware now
1 that many of the women detainees were raped and sexually assaulted by the
2 police guards. You heard this evidence at your trial, didn't you?
3 A. I resolutely deny that as far as I'm concerned. My shift, my
4 stay in Omarska, not a single woman was disturbed in any way by any of
5 the guards from my shift. As a matter of fact, we appointed a guard to
6 be between two rooms where women were put up, so he was there non-stop.
7 Many women witnesses testified. You have the transcripts, and I'm not
8 going to mention her name, she said that she looked forward to see me and
9 that nobody would harass them then and that they could even drink coffee
10 and tea and have a cigarette in our offices when we were on duty. That
11 was their testimony. That is the truth and nothing but the truth, as we
13 In the beginning when this Tribunal was being established, when
14 some publicity was supposed to be given to this, there was this centre
15 for training witnesses, where witnesses were being brought. So it was
16 important for somebody to speak up before the public. Again --
17 Q. Mr. Gruban --
18 A. -- I'm going to mention a woman witness, I'm not going to mention
19 her name, she said publicly that she had been raped and then you called
20 her --
21 Q. Mr. Gruban, I'm going to interrupt --
22 A. Please allow me to finish. When you asked her to come and
23 testify here --
24 Q. Mr. Gruban, I'm saying to you --
25 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, let's hear him out.
1 Please continue.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please. This woman witness was
3 called before this court to testify about that rape, and she spoke about
4 that beforehand on television. She received a decoration from
5 Franjo Tudjman and from Boutros Ghali, who was Secretary-General of the
6 UN at the time, because she spoke up; however, that testimony of hers was
7 not true so she refused to testify before this court and therefore did
8 not appear as a witness before this court.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND:
10 Q. Mr. Gruban, you're aware that women were raped on other shifts
11 other than your shift, aren't you? You heard this evidence in your
13 A. One woman witness said that she was sexually assaulted but not
14 raped. One woman said that she was raped but she didn't know when or how
15 or who raped her or in which shift, and she even tried to say that it was
16 during my shift. And then when the lawyer asked her about that, she
17 apologised and said that it wasn't during my shift. That was that
19 I'm telling you, I am only speaking about the time when I was
20 present there. During my stay there, I never heard of any such thing
21 happening. Had something like that happened, I would have condemned
22 that, any normal person would. In such moments, even if something like
23 that did actually happen, it should be condemned as such. At that time I
24 had no knowledge whatsoever. Later on I heard during some testimony I
25 told you, these two women appeared before the court and spoke about that;
1 how true it is, you can be the judge of that.
2 Q. Now, said there were no minors in the camp at least under the age
3 of 15. You said that you don't know of a single case of boys younger
4 than 15. We have evidence in this case of a 13-year-old boy whose --
5 both arms had been freshly broken; and that's at transcript page 20495.
6 You didn't see him being taken into the canteen and being fed by other
8 You're shaking your head. I take that as a "no."
9 A. I really did not see something like that. Among these detainees,
10 I did not notice any younger people. There was a group of - how do I put
11 this? - older minors. As soon as it was noticed that they were there,
12 they were released at the very outset. So on the 4th of June, a group
13 was released of 120 people. They were transferred to Trnopolje, these
14 young people. And this group included people who were interrogated at
15 the very beginning and the inspectors had established that they had not
16 participated in the armed rebellion.
17 Q. You say there was no mentally impaired persons in the camp.
18 You're aware of a mentally retarded detainee Asmir Crnalic, nicknamed
19 Vico, being in the camp, are you not?
20 A. I think that you mispronounced the name. Do you mean the jumping
21 out of the window from the white house, Crnalic Mirsad? Am I right?
22 Take a look. Are we speaking about the same person?
23 Q. Yes, we are. He was shot, and you actually made inquiries with
24 the detainees on the pista as to his name.
25 A. This is the way it was. Nothing could have been noticed, I mean
1 that the man was ill. During a previous shift he got up, he walked along
2 the piste --
3 Q. Mr. Gruban, I'm sorry to interrupt you --
4 A. -- and he was cursing --
5 Q. We don't need the details of the incident. I'm simply referring
6 you to the fact that there was a mentally impaired person in the camp.
7 Do you agree?
8 A. I do not agree, no. It can happen at a particular moment,
9 somebody's behaviour can -- well, you know, you remember the situation in
10 the restaurant, when this man got up and asked others to take part in a
11 rebellion, to rebel. So it's just a moment, but it doesn't mean that
12 that person's mentally impaired. A person can explode at a given moment
13 and then other people try to pacify him, and then you know what happened
14 between him and the guard in the restaurant. This is common knowledge.
15 Witnesses spoke about that, both witnesses for the Prosecution and
16 witnesses for the Defence.
17 Q. You said that there were no physically incapacitated persons in
18 the camp. This is at paragraph 36. Esad Mehmedagic was an almost blind
19 lawyer who worked a public defender who couldn't walk around
20 independently. You don't recall seeing him in the camp?
21 A. I did not know him personally and I never saw any such thing, but
22 I mean it's illogical what the public defender said. Well, in my view,
23 the public defender should be capable person who can read things, see
24 things. I mean, I'm trying to say that I find this illogical. I don't
25 know how you're going to understand what I'm saying.
1 Q. There were people there that were dependent on insulin therapy,
2 for example, Ismet Hodzic. There were detainees with heart conditions.
3 There were two detainees who suffered from a hearing impairment. There
4 were two deaf mutes. This evidence was led at your trial. Do you still
5 not accept that there were people that were mentally and physically
6 impaired in the camp?
7 A. As for these mentally impaired people, as you call them, I didn't
8 hear of them, I didn't see them. As for this mason from Cerik, he died a
9 natural death. His neighbours said that he was a diabetes patient and he
10 didn't have any medicine.
11 However, let me tell you this: There was a physician, an
12 ambulance, a nurse there, and at first whenever people asked for medical
13 assistance it was provided to them. I mentioned yesterday that there was
14 this major shortage, that the Krajina was cut off from everyone and
15 everything. At home we seemed to have these --
16 Q. Mr. Gruban --
17 A. -- home pharmacies, if you can call them that. I brought all the
18 medicine I had at home and I gave it to different people, and in court
19 people even got up and thanked me for that. That is what I can say to
20 you. So I am not trying to evade this and say that this man did not
21 die --
22 Q. Mr. Gruban --
23 A. -- but believe me, there is no good detention unit, even in
24 your -- let me finish. In your Detention Unit, too, people have died, so
25 a person can say that that is a lack of medical assistance and so on and
1 so forth, let alone what was happening in Omarska during war and so on.
2 Q. Mr. Gruban, please listen to my question. My question was
3 simply: Do you still not accept that there were mentally and physically
4 impaired people in the camp? And that just requires a yes or a no
6 A. Well, of course I do not accept that. I've already said that.
7 Had that happened, somebody would have told me about this, one of my
8 friends or acquaintances who were detained or I would have perceived it
9 visually myself. Even if that happened, then it would have to be
10 reported to the doctor who was at Omarska. I've already said --
11 Q. Mr. Gruban, please --
12 A. -- whenever this kind of situation was established, like in the
13 case of those older minors, these people were released.
14 Please go ahead.
15 Q. In paragraph 17 you say detainees were allowed access to water,
16 toilets, and could stay outside to wash their face, freshen up and clean
17 the rooms or get their rooms cleaned and that there were showers in the
18 rooms in which the detainees were held. It sounds like a hotel.
19 You state tens of showers and tens of toilets existed in Omarska
20 and were available to detainees. Even counting the number of toilets
21 that you mentioned yesterday, roughly a dozen or even as high as -- even
22 if we put it as high as 20, you do the maths. The number of people that
23 were detained in that camp, you say 2.500, Serb documentation says 3.334,
24 at a minimum, that's about 150 people per toilet, is it not?
25 A. If we could put this on the ELMO and then I can show you where
1 there was water, where there were toilets, and so on. As far as I know,
2 no guards did not allow people access. And you know from my case that
3 people could freely walk about when I was on duty, they could go to the
4 bathroom and so on. Also, when they went up for lunch, one group would
5 finish lunch and then stay on the field next to the white house, and then
6 there was a hose there and people could freshen up. And then there would
7 be a group of people who would clean the room, and then the people were
8 taken back to their rooms. That is the only thing I can say.
9 Also in -- Omarska was not only in that small garage, if you
10 remember at the very beginning, the ground floor of the administration
11 building and water was not in the white house, but detainees could carry
12 water in jerrycans and bottles, take water to these premises, that is.
13 As for all the other premises, there was water, and we, employees, used
14 that water before the war and also those who were detained. This was
15 drinking water, and I think that in the Kvocka case water was analysed
16 and the results were positive, establishing that it was drinking water.
17 There was water that was not drinking water - I've already mentioned this
18 hose - so the people could freshen themselves up. One was in front of
19 the white house and the other was on the eastern side towards the canal
20 where people could wash up and so on.
21 Q. There was evidence given in the Kvocka trial about -- where
22 guards used the water stream as a weapon making comments like:
23 "Increase the jet, hit the balija, let the jet of water throw
24 them on the ground."
25 Detainees were made to strip naked and wash with the fire hose
1 between the piste and the white house, which is quite a humiliating
2 experience, would you agree?
3 A. I maintain when it was my shift, that hose was used for people to
4 wash up, the jet was mild, and I heard no evidence, no testimony, that
5 somebody misused or abused that hose and turned it into a weapon against
6 the detainees.
7 Q. Just getting back to the facilities for personal hygiene.
8 Dr. Slobodan Gajic testified in the Kvocka trial that there were no
9 adequate conditions provided for sleeping, bathing, changing of clothes,
10 personal hygiene in general.
11 And Branko Starcevic from Omarska, he testified at your trial,
12 didn't he? He also gave evidence in the Kvocka trial here. He testified
13 that he was a guard assigned to the hangar building and he said:
14 "There was a stench, a bad smell, and every day I had to wash
15 myself and wash my clothes to wash the smell out."
16 And that's at Kvocka transcript page 9268.
17 So things weren't as rosy as you're putting it, that they were
18 allowed to shower and bathe and the toilet facilities were all working.
19 A. Let me tell you, in view of the large number of detainees - and
20 you saw that there was a large number of water facilities, perhaps not
21 enough, but in any case teams of epidemiologists came from Prijedor to
22 chlorinize the toilets to avoid some sort of infection or contagion, but
23 that was two months after the establishment. That group that stayed
24 until the 20th or the 21st of August got proper bedding, proper beds,
25 visits by the International Red Cross, et cetera. Conditions were much
1 better. Of course the rooms were overcrowded. There were more people
2 than should have been per room, but that was the situation and nothing
3 could be changed.
4 You saw on the sketch all the rooms we had, and whenever we could
5 empty a room and make it available to the detainees we did.
6 Q. In relation to the food, at paragraph 18 you say that the
7 detainees could eat their meal at their ease and to your knowledge nobody
8 was ill-treated during their meals. Even if there was -- if there was
9 3.000 detainees and they were sent in groups of 30, even five minutes
10 would take eight hours to feed all of these people, would it not?
11 A. Meals began very early, around 8.00, 9.00, and the distribution
12 of food was not limited. It lasted as long as there was food and as long
13 as there were people who still had to eat. The food perhaps was
14 insufficient and perhaps not of good quality; I described it yesterday.
15 But believe me, for a detainee, there is no good food. Even in your
16 Detention Unit, take the canteen lists for the detainees and you will see
17 that the food is inadequate. Although you have all the conditions that
18 you might desire, whereas we had what we had. Those were young people
19 and, of course, the meals were probably too small for them, but that's
20 the food we had. The guards had the same food just from different tin
22 Q. Mr. Gruban, the guards didn't have the same food. The guards, in
23 fact, had better-quality food and the interrogators as well than the
24 detainees. And witnesses testified in your trial that guards were given
25 steak, mashed potato, tomato, and the detainees had a bowl of brothy soup
1 with rotten cabbage and a bit of bread.
2 You, in fact, on one occasion ordered that Senad Kapetanovic be
3 given a meal and he was -- and he was given a meal of steak. Do you
4 recall that evidence in your trial?
5 A. Yes, of course I do. That was not the food that the guards ate.
6 That was the food that inspectors got, and that happened on a weekend.
7 The inspectors worked for a short while and left and that food was left
8 over. I decided to distribute it to the prisoners and that's how they
9 got that food.
10 As for the guards, the guards really did eat that food. I can
11 show you how the food was distributed and where. Perhaps the guards got
12 larger rations, but it was the same food. The guards of course had the
13 advantage of going home after work and eating better, and I and some
14 other people brought food from home to give to the detainees, but you
15 probably know that. You know the whole case file.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I've been advised that my time is
17 up. I would seek your indulgence for another 10 to 15 minutes, if I may.
18 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: I wish to play a short video-clip. This is
20 65 ter number 40424D, and the time code I wish to play is from 20.43 to
21 23.26, please.
22 Q. Mr. Gruban, this is a video taken by the foreign journalists when
23 they visited the camp on the 5th of August, 1992.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MS. SUTHERLAND:
1 Q. Now, Mr. Gruban, that doesn't look like people eating at their
2 leisure, does it?
3 A. Well, I don't see anybody forcing them to eat up and finish so
4 quickly. I just see people appearing and then eating, then leaving, and
5 the next group coming. Do you -- did you see anyone forcing them to
6 hurry-up? I did not see it in this recording.
7 Q. You say in paragraph 18 that meals were distributed in the camp
8 under the supervision of two chefs. These two chefs, as you call them,
9 didn't cook the meals. They were done in the Separacija building which,
10 as you said yesterday, was 1 and a half kilometres away; correct?
11 A. Yes, I described yesterday where the food was prepared and there
12 were two cooks there just to supervise. The food was distributed by the
13 detainees. You could see it in this video. There was one of them I
14 remember called Ago who handed out food, and these detainees, women,
15 helped with the washing of dishes. They volunteered for their work --
16 Q. Do you --
17 A. -- because they found the day was too long and they had nothing
18 to do so they offered to wash dishes, et cetera.
19 Q. You know Cedo Voluta -- Cedo Vuleta?
20 A. Maybe Cedo Vuleta. Veleta does not exist as a name where I live.
21 Q. He was a mine worker who worked in the electrical shop in the
22 hangar building. You know who I'm talking about?
23 A. Yes, yes. I know Cedo Vuleta. He was an electrician and he
24 still is an electrician.
25 Q. Now, he said that detainees -- some guards would slap and kick
1 detainees when they went to eat, and this happened on your shift, didn't
3 A. I never heard anything like that, nor did anyone claim that
4 during my trial. You know yourself that when it was my shift, all the
5 witnesses said nobody mistreated them and they could eat in peace. This
6 Cedo Vuleta was an electrician working on maintenance, and at that time
7 there was a group of mine workers who were in charge of cleaning and
8 maintenance --
9 Q. Mr. Gruban --
10 A. -- and he had no contact whatsoever with detainees.
11 Q. Well, he testified in the Kvocka case at transcript page 7474 to
12 7475 that some guards on your shift would slap and kick the detainees
13 when they went to eat, even when you told them not to.
14 A. I don't remember any such thing and I don't know how he came up
15 with that. Excuse me, did he mention a particular guard by name, so we
16 can look into it?
17 Q. Mr. Gruban, you said that in some cases -- there was some cases
18 of individual armed groups coming to the camp and ill-treating the
19 detainees. Specifically who are you referring to when you said these
20 individual armed groups?
21 A. While I was there, there were no major cases of that kind, but I
22 heard that some people came when I was absent and those were renegade
23 paramilitaries who did not belong to the Territorial Defence or the army
24 or the police. They were simply armed men who came to settle some
25 accounts from the past with certain people. That's how they barged in --
1 Q. It's right, isn't it --
2 A. -- well-armed --
3 Q. It's right, isn't it, that persons in the police or the military
4 could enter the camp at any time?
5 A. There was an external ring kept by the Territorial Defence from
6 Omarska and those were people --
7 Q. Mr. Gruban, I'm sorry to --
8 A. -- of diminished capacity and --
9 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you. My question was simply: Persons in
10 the police or the military could enter the camp and come into the Omarska
11 compound where the detainees were being kept; correct?
12 A. Early on they could. However, later passes were created and
13 there was a gate away from Omarska centre. There were two people from
14 the Territorial Defence, a receptionist, and two guards from Omarska, and
15 they did their best to stop people without passes from getting in.
16 However, not the entire complex was fenced in, so you could get in from
17 several directions. And the Territorial Defence that was supposed to
18 prevent unauthorised entry did not do their job, so it was possible to
19 get in. These people could get into Omarska. However, efforts were made
20 to stop them. There were cases when they were stopped, disarmed, turned
21 over to the military police if they were in uniform or to the civilian
22 police if they were not.
23 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, shall we continue after a break?
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break of -- for 40 minutes?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, and may I tender the
2 video-clip, please.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6686, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE KWON: You are not tendering the transcript of that video?
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just the video?
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: It was basically -- we have that footage under
9 another exhibit, I think, parts of that footage, but it was basically for
10 the visual.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 When we resume, how much more would you need, Ms. Sutherland?
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Ten minutes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll resume at ten past 11.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Gruban, in paragraph 41 of your statement in relation to
20 adjudicated fact 1190 concerning the large number of bodies frequently
21 seen in the grounds of the detention camp, there's evidence in this case
22 that dead bodies were seen on a daily basis. Now, is it your evidence
23 that even though you worked at the camp for almost three months, you
24 never saw a single dead body in the camp?
25 A. I did see some dead bodies, but certainly not the way it's
1 described here. Those were isolated cases, not large heaps of bodies as
2 is stated here. I did see some bodies, individual bodies, we can discuss
3 that, but a large number on a daily basis, no.
4 Q. Whereabouts did you see these bodies that you just referred to?
5 A. Well, for instance, that man who jumped out of the window, his
6 body was on the ground on the southern side of the white house. Then the
7 man Alija Nasic who got killed in the restaurant, his body was found by
8 the collector for filtering wastewater.
9 Q. Besides these two persons, did you ever see any other bodies in
10 the camp, dead bodies in the camp?
11 A. I saw the body of Safet Ramadanovic who died in that room that we
12 saw yesterday, A9. The body was taken out. I saw the body of -- I can't
13 remember the first name, Ganic is the last name, he also died in the same
14 room. His body was removed. I know for a fact that these two bodies
15 were given to the families and buried at the local cemetery in Prijedor.
16 Q. And again, besides people that died of natural causes, did you
17 see any other dead bodies in the camp?
18 A. It's mostly those that I just listed, but what I saw and what I
19 heard are two different things. Before my arrival, when the first
20 prisoners were brought, there was some shooting, and I believe two or
21 three detainees were killed, I was not a witness but I heard that two or
22 three men tried to escape --
23 Q. Mr. Gruban --
24 A. -- from the group of detainees and they were killed.
25 Q. The Court has heard evidence about that incident.
1 You've heard about the Tomasica site as a burial pit for Muslims
2 who had been killed; yes?
3 A. I heard that in the last month or two from the media. Before
4 that, I didn't have any information about that. I just heard on TV
5 recently that there are some bodies there, and I don't think there are
6 any bodies from Omarska there.
7 Q. So you didn't ever --
8 A. I don't think so.
9 Q. You didn't ever go to the Tomasica mine area where the mass grave
10 is that is being exhumed now, you didn't ever go there after the
11 establishment of the Omarska camp?
12 You shook your head. I take that as a "no"?
13 A. I certainly didn't and I don't know to this day where this
14 location is. The area of Tomasica is rather large, the mine is also a
15 big complex. I don't know the exact location to this day.
16 Q. Now, you know about the room 3 massacre at the Keraterm camp that
17 occurred on or about the 24th of July, 1992. Did you ever go to the
18 burial site where the victims of the room 3 massacre were taken?
19 A. Never. I only heard about it through witness evidence. I've
20 never been in Keraterm. I heard, just like you did, that this incident
21 happened, but what really happened I cannot say, it would be just
22 speculation because I wasn't there.
23 Q. And you didn't go to the burial site of the victims from this
25 A. No, really. To date I do not know where the site is. Maybe
1 local cemeteries in that area, probably.
2 Q. Were you ever interviewed by any RS MUP officials in relation to
3 investigating you or other personnel who worked at the Omarska camp about
4 crimes that had been committed against the non-Serbs in the camp?
5 A. I don't remember that anybody talked to me from the Ministry of
6 the Interior of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. Not from -- not from the headquarters or not from CSB Banja Luka?
8 A. No.
9 Q. After you left the camp on the 21st of August, 1992, you
10 continued as a reserve policeman, didn't you?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. And you were in a police battalion which was established, were
13 you not?
14 A. All the reserve policemen work or place themselves at the
15 disposal of the SJB, so they do all the tasks that they're asked to.
16 Reserve policemen cannot independently carry on internal affairs duties
17 because they are not trained and they need to be accompanied by an
18 active-duty trained policeman.
19 Q. You said earlier today at transcript page 10 that in
20 November 1992 you went to a place called Obudovac, that's how it's in the
21 transcript. I may be mispronouncing the location you went to.
22 A. Yes. The police battalion from Prijedor went there. I was its
23 member as a reserve policeman. We went to that theatre of war. We spent
24 approximately a fortnight there and then we returned.
25 Q. And you were in one of the seven companies that were part of this
1 battalion; no?
2 A. I really don't know how many companies there were, but indeed I
3 was a member of one of them.
4 Q. And did you go to the front lines at Orasje?
5 A. Actually, it was Obudovac. The exact location was Obudovac. We
6 were deployed along that road. We were on duty there for some 15 days.
7 There was no fighting to speak of. Two of our members got killed and a
8 dozen or so were wounded. Basically we were manning that line.
9 Q. In February 1993, did you go to the front lines at Orasje?
10 A. No, I didn't, no. That was the only theatre of war where I was
11 in that area. I was in Obudovac in November 1992. In the morning on the
12 24th we set out. I know that for a fact because it's my biggest
13 religious holiday and that's when we were deployed to that area.
14 Q. Mr. Gruban, finally I just want to show you one -- two -- two
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 26000, please.
17 Q. You brought along some documents which were exhibited as D04313,
18 and you hand-drew the first floor and the ground floor of the hangar
19 building, do you recall?
20 A. I drew a plan of the first floor, and then from your team - and I
21 don't know whether you were with that team at the time - I received a
22 ground-floor plan. Now, what we have on the screen now is a plan of that
23 workshop which was on the ground floor.
24 Q. Yes --
25 A. -- later on -- I apologise. And later on I realised that you
1 also have a similar plan of the first floor; however, I didn't have it at
2 the time. I only had what I just told you.
3 Q. Yes. I just want to show you that. And if we can go to -- so
4 this is the -- the first page is the ground floor, and if we can go to
5 the second page, we see the same diagram but it has the measurements on
6 it. And it's got the scale for the -- the measurements for the rooms.
7 And if we go to the following page we see -- this is the layout of the
8 first floor and that's what you were talking about a moment ago when you
9 said that --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- that this was available, which -- and so this diagram actually
12 shows pages 4 and 5 of your Exhibit D04313, where you've drawn it on
13 two pages. This is, in fact, the proper layout as it is at the Omarska
14 mine, is it not?
15 A. Yes, yes, it is.
16 Q. And if we can go to the following page, that, then, also has the
17 dimensions of each of the rooms.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender this and I can say
19 from the bar table that these diagrams as well as the ones for the
20 administration building were compiled by the OTP from plans that were
21 seized from the Ljubija iron ore mine in February 1996.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
23 MR. ROBINSON: No objection, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6687, Your Honours.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: I --
2 JUDGE KWON: Is this plan different from what we received
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the first two pages, the
5 ground-floor plan, is the same as --
6 JUDGE KWON: As D4413?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, the first page of that exhibit. It's just
8 that -- I'd simply had it all uploaded under the one number, but then
9 this page 4 and page 5 which are Mr. Gruban's hand-drawn --
10 hand-drawings, that is actually the first floor which is now page 3 in
11 this exhibit.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: I have no further questions, Your Honour, and I
14 thank you very much for your indulgence.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, please, if you will
16 allow me. Is there a difference perhaps, according to you, in what I
17 drew up and what you have shown me? Let's clarify things --
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I stand -- I stand by --
20 JUDGE KWON: If necessary, Mr. Karadzic will ask you about that.
21 Do you have any re-examination, Mr. Karadzic?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I can clarify things on the
24 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gruban, do you agree with the dimensions of
1 these rooms?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get P87 back on the screen.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it would be useful to
4 compare the two and see whether there are any differences. Even if you
5 display it, I will find it difficult to provide any comments because --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that I gave the Registrar
7 a wrong number. It should be P6687. We had it on the screen just a
8 minute ago. Can we start with page 1 or is this the whole of the
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. We can see the ERN number, Mr. Gruban. Could you please tell us
12 whether you agree -- oh, there are no dimensions here.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next page --
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I apologise. This is the ground floor. What can you tell us
16 about the ground floor?
17 A. I have already told you and I have already made changes to the
18 document that was on the screen yesterday, and I stand by it. I suppose
19 that you will go to the site. You can check and I state that my remarks
20 are reliable. There are no aberrations to what I said because I had
21 spent five or six years working in this company. I would change in this
22 workshop and I am sure that I really know it very well and that I could
23 not have made a mistake. I don't know what objections could anybody have
24 to what I drew up. If there are any objections, I'd like to hear them
25 right away. If there is anything that is not correct, then I'd like to
1 hear it. If everything's correct, why waste time?
2 Q. Thank you. In front of me I have your drawing of the ground
3 floor. This is the third page of the document that was admitted
4 yesterday --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the document
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Everything is identical. Only the ERN number is missing.
9 Everything is the same, even the mistakes are the same.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the following page.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. And here it says ground floor again. How does this differ from
13 the previous page? Here we can also see dimensions; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The page is the same only the -- the dimensions were added. Do
16 you agree with these dimensions, 5 metres, and so on and so forth?
17 A. To be honest, I can't see the figures well. However, if we
18 compare them with my own and if they're correct, of course I'll agree.
19 Maybe the Prosecutor could help us. Do they see a difference? If you
20 see a difference, please go ahead and tell me. Feel free.
21 Q. Do you agree with these diagrams? Did you check your own
22 drawings against this drawing?
23 A. Only if the figures match my own, then I can agree.
24 Q. And does this apply to all the levels?
25 A. Of course.
1 Q. Thank you. In order to avoid any confusion, just a moment ago
2 you were asked about your deployment in the theatre of war. Could you
3 please tell the Trial Chamber about the positions of Orasje and Obudovac.
4 What is their position vis-à-vis the corridor?
5 A. Obudovac is on the road from Banja Luka to Brcko. On the
6 left-hand side there is a curve and the road forks off towards Obudovac
7 and it's just before Brcko. And Orasje, on the other hand, is on the
8 Croatian side, on the other side.
9 Q. But not far away?
10 A. I don't know whether there is a river there. In any case,
11 Obudovac is on the Serbian side.
12 Q. Thank you. In the decision of the Bosnian court it says that you
13 were involved in illegal incarcerations or unlawful detentions. Who was
14 it who arrested and detained prisoners in Omarska?
15 A. Let me put it this way: None of the police officers in Omarska
16 including myself brought people to Omarska. One group were captured by
17 the army on Mount Kozara. There were all sorts of arrests on reports, on
18 official notes. For example, somebody reported to the police station a
19 person who allegedly hid weapons in the apartment or participated in an
20 attack, then the police would be sent to inspect. And if they found
21 anything suspicious, they would bring people in.
22 Q. Thank you. In the judgement that was read out to you it says
23 that all those were unlawful arrests without any grounds. We'll come
24 back to that.
25 Madam Sutherland earlier today said that there was no fighting
1 going on, but rather that there was a unilateral attack on Muslim
2 civilian areas. You denied that. But I would like to show you a
3 document now.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D26633.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do you stand by your claim that this is not correct?
7 A. I did not understand your question, what is not correct?
8 Q. That it is not correct that there were only attacks on various
9 settlements without an actual conflict?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. Can you please look at the document which was issued on the
12 30th of May, 1992, and what does it talk about?
13 A. This document was issued by the public security station in
14 Prijedor. It is a dispatch -- actually, it is an official note which was
15 sent to the security services centre in Banja Luka. It says:
16 "Please be informed that in the fighting in the town of Prijedor
17 on the 30th of May, 1992, according to the information at our disposal,
18 we suffered the following casualties.
19 "Killed ..."
20 And then there is a list of names. In any case, there were a
21 total of seven casualties, of whom three were killed and four were
23 Q. Thank you. It happened in the course of just one day. How would
24 you assess the casualties suffered by the civilian police in the course
25 of one day?
1 A. On that day 17 police officers and soldiers were killed. In any
2 case, they were killed during that attack that happened on the
3 30th of May.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D4414, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to call up
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. On the 2nd of June, Drljaca reported that that there were eight
12 wounded. How does this correspond with what you know and what you
14 A. Of course there were wounded at the time. I even know some of
15 those people who were wounded.
16 Q. Can you tell us who you know?
17 A. I know Miroslav Niksic. He is -- still works at the Tomasica
18 mine. He was my neighbour from a neighbouring village and he's still
19 disabled to this very day.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D4415, Your Honours.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Yesterday we saw a telegram sent by the state security. The
1 document was admitted under a P number. It says that on the 28th of May,
2 before the attack on Prijedor, there were five killed, a dozen wounded on
3 our side, and that from several reliable sources the enemy losses could
4 be estimated to several hundreds.
5 Do you know where the few hundred people who were killed were
7 A. I really don't know where they were buried. I wouldn't be able
8 to tell you exactly. I suppose they were buried in those villages where
9 people got killed.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The document I'm talking about is
11 P6685 and it was admitted into evidence yesterday. Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. It says here and in the judgement rendered by the court of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina that people were detained without any reason
15 whatsoever and that it was done arbitrarily or people held in high esteem
16 were selected. Can you tell us briefly about the procedure that was
17 followed when somebody ended up in the investigation centre. What
18 happened? Were they kept there just for no reason at all or did they
19 undergo a certain proceeding?
20 A. When a person was detained in a collection centre, they would be
21 accommodated in one of the rooms and they are prevented from meeting
22 anybody whom they could influence. And then the person is interviewed, a
23 statement is taken from them. That statement is typed, as I told you.
24 And then the heads of inspector teams make their assessment on the
1 I spoke about those three categories. There was this category
2 that was released, allowed to go home. At first they were releases. I
3 said in the beginning there were 120 persons and then they were released
4 immediately after the investigation was over. However, later the release
5 stopped, as far as I was informed, because some persons would be released
6 and then there were complaints that they took part in some other hostile
7 activities, whatever.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
10 1D88315. 1D8815.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Who was in charge? Who basically carried out these pre-trial
13 proceedings and are you aware of this? What is all of this about? We
14 haven't got a translation yet.
15 A. This is an official note that was written up after an interview
16 with a particular person - we're not going to refer to that person's
17 name, we shouldn't make it public, and this person is from a particular
18 village - and then there is a brief description as to what this person
19 stated, what this person participated in and so on and so forth. And
20 finally, this was not signed but it does say down here "authorised
21 official." At any rate, this is the type of document that --
22 Q. Thank you. The 23rd of June, that's when this arrived.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 3.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. When was this person questioned?
1 A. On the 30th of May, 1992.
2 Q. Thank you. Could you please take a look at this, this second
3 paragraph, the end. It says here:
4 "In a shelter with several families on the 29th of May ..."
5 And then in the third paragraph he says where he bought weapons.
6 Can you read out the last sentence.
7 A. "These positions" --
8 Q. The last sentence.
9 A. You mean the one down here?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. "Some people wanted to hand over weapons, but they didn't dare to
12 because of others."
13 This is exactly what I told you about today. There were several
14 factions, if you will. There were some who were aware of the situation,
15 that they could not cut off the road, that they were surrounded, that it
16 would be a good idea for them to hand over their weapons so that there
17 wouldn't be a conflict, fighting, and so on. However, there were people
18 who thought different. Unfortunately, there was an armed conflict in the
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be marked for
22 identification so that we don't go on looking through it. This is
23 investigation material of the public security station.
24 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the witness hasn't -- hasn't been
1 able to speak to, um, either of these documents in relation to, um, the
2 people that were either arrested.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I respond? I believe that the
4 witness did confirm not only the content but, what I find even more
5 important, the type of document that was being produced immediately after
6 an arrest.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just explain? These
8 inspectors are from three security branches: Public security, state
9 security, military security. They interviewed persons, they took
10 statements, they were handwritten. In this office where I was - I spoke
11 about that yesterday - there were two typists, two women typists, who
12 typed these statements up. They used those mechanical typewriters,
13 computers didn't exist at that time. This kind of typewritten statement
14 was returned then, and then the person was asked to come in again and
15 sign the typewritten statement.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. But this is an official note, the essence of the statement?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE KWON: Were these people detained in Omarska at the time,
20 Mr. Gruban?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE KWON: How do we know that they were Omarska?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, every day interrogations took
24 place; that is to say, whoever came to Omarska was interrogated,
25 interviewed. A statement would be --
1 JUDGE KWON: My question --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- taken from such a person and --
3 JUDGE KWON: My question is whether we can find the passage
4 referring to Omarska in this document? Because we can't read it.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have the previous page,
6 please. The last sentence in the first paragraph, and up here we see the
7 number 11-12-02-2, so it's not the station, it's another investigation
8 centre, Omarska. I believe that that can be seen.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He --
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and the -- and is that what you
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We didn't understand the
14 end of the witness's statement.
15 JUDGE KWON: You're just simply leading the witness.
16 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, that was my point, that was
18 Mr. Karadzic saying that. We have no evidence whatsoever in this case
19 that 11-12-02-2 is Omarska camp.
20 JUDGE KWON: So, Mr. Gruban, can we find the passage that tells
21 us that this document refers to Omarska?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, here this sentence that I
23 started reading out, at the end --
24 JUDGE KWON: But --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- at the end it says --
1 JUDGE KWON: -- read it very slow so that the interpreters can
2 interpret. Yes.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please be told
4 where this sentence is.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I just read the last
6 sentence, then, so that we don't waste any time. So: He and his wife
7 surrendered when there was this call to surrender, together with women,
8 old men, and children on the 29th of May, 1992, and they were sent to
9 Lamovita and from Lamovita to Omarska. So that is to say to Lamovita
10 first and then to Omarska. So there is no other place in Omarska but for
11 this collection centre.
12 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark for identification first two pages.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellency, on page 5 as well it
14 says: Is in the collection centre of Omarska. Page 5.
15 JUDGE KWON: You didn't use it. We'll mark it for -- we'll mark
16 first two pages for identification.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D4416, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm going to bar table
19 that, then.
20 1D9647, could that be shown to the witness.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. It's the same topic. Could you just take a look at the document
23 and tell us whether it is the same type of document. And also the fourth
24 line from the top of the page, does it say that they were staying in
25 Omarska? Do you find these names familiar, I mean the names he mentions,
2 A. Captain Cirkin, I heard of him. He was commander of the defence
3 in the area of Kozarac. Otherwise, he's a captain. That was his
4 profession in the former JNA. He left the former JNA as such. Let me
5 see, Besim Alic, I heard of this Becir. So I know that. The date is the
6 6th of June, 1992. It's an official note that was drawn up on the
7 30th of May, 1992, and based on an interview conducted with and then
8 there is a name referred to here - I shouldn't refer to names, should
9 I? - and then the following statement is provided.
10 Q. Could you please just speak slowly.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have the next page,
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Over here, Jakupovic, down there, it says intervention platoons
15 were formed made of special unit members and in each of the 30 companies
16 there were 20 special units members, they had better weapons, et cetera.
17 The special units members in my company were Suljo Kusuran, et cetera?
18 A. I heard of Suljo Kusuran, he was one of the leaders in Kozarac as
19 well. I don't know what rank he held, but he was often mentioned,
20 Suljo Kusuran, as one of the leading people there.
21 Q. In your opinion, such a statement made by one detainee, was that
22 sufficient for bringing in those that he mentioned?
23 A. Well, precisely. After one interview when a person would mention
24 other persons in his statement, then a signal would be sent out
25 automatically to bring in those other persons and to have them
1 interviewed as well.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this please be admitted?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, may I just add something?
5 You see the last sentence here? Very often it would happen that some
6 persons would be asked to come in for interviews several times. The
7 policeman says at the end, he presents his opinion:
8 "I believe that it is necessary to continue interviewing" this
9 person, this person who provided that statement, that is.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, again we have no evidence from the
13 witness that he knows that -- anything about this person and whether they
14 were in the Omarska camp.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban, were these people in Omarska or this
16 individual, Jakupovic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, it's hard for me to
18 remember each and every person individually. Now, there were --
19 JUDGE KWON: No, no --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- some persons who were there and
21 there were others --
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban, my question is: Can you know through
23 this document, based on this document?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 1, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this document one
1 could conclude that this person was in Omarska and was interviewed in
2 Omarska. As for the exact name, I cannot confirm that because I really
3 do not recall. I mean, it's been a long time and there were many people
4 and I really don't know.
5 JUDGE KWON: Please, let's deal with this one by one. How can
6 you conclude that this individual was in Omarska on the basis of this
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely because this is how these
9 interviews were conducted, and in this way these official notes were
10 drawn up.
11 JUDGE KWON: Interviews were conducted in various SJBs, not only
12 in Omarska?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but all the persons who were
14 detained in Omarska were interviewed in Omarska, that is to say, upstairs
15 in that administration building that we spoke about. It was in this
16 single office where the inspection teams were, 30 or 40 persons, I think
17 that they came every day except for weekends, and they conducted these
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it, but I'm not sure if the Prosecution
21 is challenging that some investigation or interviews were conducted.
22 Do you contend that interviews were investigations were taking
23 place at Omarska?
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, we don't dispute that, Your Honour, but it's
25 our case that people were just rounded up and brought in en masse without
1 any justification for their detention whatsoever.
2 JUDGE KWON: But you do not challenge there was some
3 investigations or interviews?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: That's correct, Your Honour. And there's been
5 evidence to that effect.
6 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D4417, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please keep this for a
9 minute. Could we please have the document returned in view of what
10 Ms. Sutherland said a moment ago.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Gruban, the composition of the staff is mentioned here,
13 Cirkin Alic, Paratusic, and Becir Medunjanin. What was the function of
14 Becir Medunjanin, do you remember?
15 A. Well, as far as I know, he worked in the people's defence
16 department in Prijedor after the multi-party elections, after these
17 multi-party elections were held in Prijedor. So the portfolio he had was
18 National Defence.
19 Q. And he took an oath to which state? Which army? Which ministry?
20 A. In the very beginning when the authorities were still
21 functioning, it was the JNA; but afterwards there was stratification.
22 The Muslims set up their own army and he was one of the main persons in
23 charge in that army of theirs.
24 Q. Thank you. In your view, was he brought in because he is Becir,
25 a Muslim, because he's prominent? Or were there grounds for bringing him
2 A. Well, he was brought in because he was the main activist in the
3 area of Kozarac. He, Captain Cirkin, and many others whom I cannot
4 remember now but we talked about that Kusuran, others. There are quite a
5 few of them. It's been many years and I really cannot remember all of
6 these guys, if I can put it that way.
7 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to insist on this any longer then. Or
8 rather, I'm not going to show any more documents.
9 Mr. Gruban, in your opinion, a moment ago you said that and also
10 you said that there were three different outcomes. Why were such
11 documents compiled, these interviews, what was the point?
12 A. The interviews were conducted precisely for that reason, to see
13 which persons were involved in combat and which persons were not. And
14 indeed, when it was established that some persons were not involved, they
15 were released, they were allowed to go home, they were in Trnopolje, they
16 were allowed to go home. So that is this third category that we talked
17 about, third category of persons.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D -- actually, 4645. Thank you.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Look at this, please. It's the 1st of June and the act was
22 committed on the 25th of May. Can you tell us something, for how long is
23 this person detained?
24 A. For three days. So the usual police custody, three days. After
25 that, an investigating judge must issue a decision to extend remand. The
1 police is allowed to keep a person in detention, in remand, for 72 hours
2 and it must be an authorised officer of internal affairs. After that,
3 the person is placed under the jurisdiction of an investigating judge who
4 decides what measures, if any, to apply.
5 Q. Can you tell us, if you look at the statement of reasons, what is
6 the charge? Of what is this person suspected?
7 A. Remand in prison is ordered under Article 196, paragraph 2, of
8 the criminal code because there is a danger of flight.
9 Q. Thank you. But look at the statement of reasons. On the
10 22nd of May, he's suspected of having shot, having fired at and killed
11 five soldiers together with certain persons.
12 A. Yes, with Mirza Mujadzic, Emir Mujadzic, Esef Crnkic -- oh, I'm
13 sorry, I'm speaking too fast. Do you want me to repeat? The names.
14 Together with Mirza Mujadzic, Emir Mujadzic, Esef Crnkic, and other
15 persons, he committed an armed attack on a Golf vehicle, inside which
16 there were five soldiers and one civilian, killing two soldiers on the
17 spot and seriously injuring two other soldiers, one of whom died
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. This is an incident that happened in Hambarine on the
21 22nd of May, when fire was opened at this Volkswagen Golf vehicle,
22 killing two soldiers, one other was wounded, a man called Milojica, and I
23 watched that on our local TV Banja Luka. There is evidence in this case.
24 Even Aziz Aliskovic was mentioned as having possibly participated in this
25 as well as another man called Sikiric.
1 Q. That was on the 22nd, so before the major attack and the
2 detention of many people. After the attack, was it possible to observe
3 the usual procedure of 72 hours' detention --
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm not sure where we are heading.
5 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I would ask that Mr. Karadzic
7 refrain from leading the witness and using the witness as a conduit to
8 just read documents into the record.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please use your time efficiently.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise.
11 Can this be admitted for identification? The problem is there is
12 no translation. If we had a translation, I'll go -- I would go through
13 it very fast.
14 JUDGE KWON: Given that it uses the same document number, we will
15 mark it for identification.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D4418, Your Honours.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 1D4610 is the next document I would like to show the witness to
19 see the outcome of this police work and investigations.
20 JUDGE KWON: Can you not put your question before putting the
21 document to the witness? Let's collapse it.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellencies, a moment
23 ago the witness mentioned three categories, those whose guilt was
24 established, criminal charges were filed against them. I want to show
25 the path, to show the exact procedure. Detention, first interview,
1 decision in the investigation, and criminal report.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Mr. Gruban was a reserve policeman,
4 nothing else. He -- he wasn't involved in any of this, and I don't see
5 how Mr. Karadzic can be putting these documents in through Mr. Gruban.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I respond? The Prosecution
7 suggested and put it to Gruban, including the judgement from the Bosnian
8 court, that people were arrested and detained because they were prominent
9 or arrested randomly. But there is evidence it was not so.
10 JUDGE KWON: You stated that it was the Prosecution's case that
11 people were just rounded up and brought in en masse without any
12 justification for their detention and whatsoever. So before putting the
13 question, you can ask him whether there were criminal proceedings that
14 followed with respect to the detainees in Omarska, without putting the --
15 before putting the document, whether he knows or not.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He already answered about the three
17 categories but I'll ask again.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Gruban, what followed after the first interviews? What kind
20 of resolution was found in these cases?
21 A. I've already said the third category was released to go home.
22 The first and second categories were transferred to Manjaca. Whether
23 there was some prosecution against them, I don't know, but I know that
24 some investigating judges came to Omarska and somewhere among the papers
25 I received from the Prosecution, from the OTP, I did see some criminal
1 reports that had been filed against a number of persons, although not
2 many. I got that from the OTP, they have this, and that is widely known.
3 That's all I know.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I show two documents now,
5 criminal reports?
6 JUDGE KWON: First, when putting the document, first establish
7 that the document is related to the detainees in Omarska.
8 Yes, please proceed.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I get 1D26644.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Gruban, do you know whether these persons had been detained
12 and interrogated in Omarska, Sejad Cirkin, Suljo Kusuran, et cetera, I
13 won't read all the names. And on the second page there is an indication
14 that some of them are at large, are fugitives, some are in detention and
15 some are fugitives. Where were they detained, do you remember? Where
16 was this processing done?
17 A. I can't remember exactly where they were detained, in which room.
18 You see there are quite a few people here.
19 Q. Do you remember Saban Poljak, detained; Zijad Jakupovic,
20 detained, et cetera?
21 A. I remember a lot of people with the last name Jakupovic and
22 Poljak, but it was a long time ago. It's too hard to remember, and I
23 don't want to get the names wrong. I know there were a lot of people
24 called Poljak and Jakupovic.
25 Q. Thank you. On what basis is a criminal report filed and to whom?
1 A. A criminal report is filed based on evidence gathered during
2 investigating actions, that is shown to the investigating judge, and he
3 decides whether there are enough elements to start proceedings or not.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
6 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the witness hasn't been able to
8 give any evidence in relation to these people listed on -- in this
10 JUDGE KWON: If we see the last page, it refers to the official
11 note that we have already admitted, for example, Sabahudin Jakupovic.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I can't see the last
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, last page. Which is one of the supporting
15 evidence, allegedly.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, I see that, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will admit it.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4419, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D26634, please.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Are these names familiar? Was any one of them detained in
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think this document's already in
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, these names are familiar.
1 Some of them. For instance, number 1, yes. Number 2 was not detained,
2 he escaped when all these events started and together with a group of
3 people he broke out towards Cazin Krajina. Person number 3 was not
4 detained. Number 5, yes. That's what I can remember to begin with.
5 JUDGE KWON: Do you know the exhibit number, Ms. Sutherland?
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'll just ask Mr. Reid to find it.
7 THE ACCUSED: I suppose it's not ...
8 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll admit it.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D4420, Your Honours.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think it's part of D4528.
11 JUDGE KWON: I don't think we reached that number.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: 4258.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we establish that, maybe we'll
15 save one number.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: At page 29 of this exhibit.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A different ERN number, I have a
18 different number.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the text is the same of the one
20 and the previous one.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you. You said after the criminal report what follows and
23 who makes that next step?
24 A. I don't think I am the witness who can deal with this properly,
25 but after this comes prosecution.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see 1D4610.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Can you just confirm the date, this was on the 3rd of June;
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the witness has just said that he's
8 not the witness who can properly deal with these matters.
9 JUDGE KWON: With respect to matters that followed this.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: So let's see whether the witness can confirm
12 anything with respect to this document, 1D4610.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Can you tell us what is this step taken on the 5th of June, 1992,
16 two days after the criminal report?
17 A. In the heading we see lower court in Prijedor, 5 June 1992, and
18 it says investigating judge of the lower court in Prijedor followed by a
19 name --
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
21 Mr. Karadzic, when you uploaded this document a moment ago I
22 asked you to establish first if this is related to Omarska.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, we can ask the
24 witness. He already confirmed that these people had been detained in
25 Omarska. I mean, some were fugitives but --
1 JUDGE KWON: No, I don't remember that.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- some were detained.
3 JUDGE KWON: I don't remember that, Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I can answer. For
6 instance, person number 3 was detained, number 4 was detained. I know
7 about them for sure.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next page, please, in both
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, continue, Mr. Karadzic, please.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. On this page do you see names of people who were there, Kaltak,
13 Sikiric, Popovac?
14 A. For instance, person number 10, number 11, number 12.
15 Q. It's possible this document is already in evidence as part of a
16 larger document. I only wanted to see -- so between the 1st and 5 June,
17 an investigation already started. When was Omarska established as a
18 collection centre?
19 A. 31st of May. We have a document that describes the establishment
20 of the collection centre of Omarska in 1992.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we just look at one more
23 document on the subject, 1D25947.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. How many people were prosecuted and how many people were released
1 to go home, if you know?
2 A. There is a document that says an independent commission of the
3 CSB Banja Luka toured Prijedor and made a report - you probably have that
4 report - and the report says that 1700 approximately were released
5 from -- released to go home, whereas 1300 were forwarded to Manjaca for
7 Q. So more than 50 per cent were released?
8 A. And I also mentioned the smaller groups that were released in
9 early days, 120 people, for instance, in the first group and some other
10 people were later detained, about 120 of them, people who said they had
11 health problems, et cetera, or special needs. And the policemen
12 transported people in their little minibus. Those were some details that
13 I didn't know about but I heard about it during the trial. There was one
14 person who was driven away home by the inspectors.
15 Q. What about these people, Alagic, Dokmadjic [phoen], this is a
16 criminal report, the date is 22nd June. Were these people also detained
18 A. Number 4, yes; number 5 --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next page in Serbian, please.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, the English translation isn't -- the
22 English -- right English translation for the document that's in B/C/S.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's one of the pages. In Serbian
24 it's number 1840, that's seven pages further. The translation only lists
25 people who attacked. The translation has to be completed. Could you
1 please show page 1840, that's seven pages further. This is one part of
2 the document but it seems that only the rest of it has been translated.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Look at the list and tell us whether some of them or all of them
5 were detained.
6 A. Yes, number 1, number 2, number 3. I'm sure about those. I
7 believe that there were others, but it was a long time ago so it's
8 impossible to remember every single individual. I'm sure about 21, 23 as
9 well, 17, I even read his statement he witnessed in some cases. But
10 after such a long time I really can't remember every single name, every
11 single individual with certainty. I remember some and I am telling you
12 only about those for whom I am a hundred per cent sure that they were
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the whole document be admitted
16 and marked for identification because its first half has not been
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll mark it for identification.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm -- I'd like to reserve the
20 right to comment on this once I can actually see the whole document once
21 it's been translated --
22 JUDGE KWON: That's the purpose of marking it for identification,
23 isn't it?
24 THE REGISTRAR: It will be MFI D4420, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE KWON: Did you tender the 1D4610 or was it part of the
1 already-existing exhibit?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If it's just a part, then it
3 doesn't have to be admitted; but if you find it easier, perhaps it can be
4 admitted under a separate number.
5 JUDGE KWON: No, it's for you to indicate.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If it's a part, then we don't have
7 to tender it. We have established that it is a part of a larger
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. When they were arrested and captured were some pieces of evidence
13 seized, documents or weapons, and could any of those be used as the
14 grounds of future processing?
15 A. Of course people did surrender weapons and those were those
16 photographed and even shown on local TV. And from the prosecutor team in
17 my case I received lists aggregated by platoons and companies and squads
18 which were deployed in the area at the time. I don't know how they
19 obtained that information, where their documents were seized, but that's
20 what I received from them. I don't know whether that happened when they
21 ransacked the public security station. In any case, I saw those things.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I would like to call up
24 Your Excellencies, I will need perhaps three or four more minutes
25 or perhaps five after the break time. So I would kindly ask you to grant
1 me that time in order to complete this witness's testimony. [In English]
2 Maybe it was not clear. I --
3 JUDGE KWON: You want to take a break now?
4 THE ACCUSED: No, sir, no. I would like to finish before the
5 break, so I think we can -- we can finish everything before the break.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, there are also several matters after we finish
7 this witness's evidence, but please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: Okay. Then I will tender only these and two
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. And now can you tell us, from the 20th of August -- it seems that
12 there is no translation. Read the first passage. What does it speak
14 A. Pursuant to a dispatch number and the date, we inform you that in
15 the territory of Prijedor municipality no documents were confiscated that
16 would indicate that the Republic of Croatia --
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and its armed forces
19 participated --
20 JUDGE KWON: How is this related to Omarska?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The second paragraph says that the
22 confiscated documents point to the fact that Muslim and Croatian people
23 organised themselves in the territory of the municipality in order to
24 mount a fierce attack and a show-down against the Serbs, and that was the
25 grounds for the interrogations and detentions.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland?
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, now that Mr. Karadzic has read the
3 whole document into the record -- I mean, this witness hasn't comment --
4 hasn't commented on it and is in no position to comment on the contents
5 of this document.
6 JUDGE KWON: And document numbers referred to in this document
7 are different from the one we saw earlier on.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If not the witness, I can say that
9 this was a dispatch sent from the public security station. This is not
10 part of the investigation.
11 JUDGE KWON: So how is this related to Omarska? Establish with
12 the witness first. You are not giving evidence.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked the witness whether when
14 people were arrested and brought in, some materials were found which
15 presented a grounds for their detention in Omarska, and that is a
16 question that I put before I called up the document --
17 JUDGE KWON: No --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- and the witness said "yes." And
19 in addition to weapons --
20 JUDGE KWON: Where does this document -- in this document we can
21 find the passage to Omarska?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, Omarska is not
23 mentioned but the detainees are and what was confiscated during their
24 arrests, and those who were arrested were sent either to Omarska or
25 Keraterm. There was no third place of that kind where they could be
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban, does it say that it refers to the
3 detainees in Omarska?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the last paragraph of this
5 official note, chief probably had more information than I did because I
6 was not privy to any of that. However, it seems that during the
7 investigation --
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gruban --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- he obtained information about
10 all those things and found it necessary to inform about that.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic's time is very precious. Do you know
12 this or not? You don't know whether this is related to detainees in
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really did not have such a
15 document in my hands and I suppose that the person who signed it had it.
16 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure you should have -- you should deal with
17 this document after having submitted all those documents --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 JUDGE KWON: It's up to you. But I don't think we have a basis
20 to admit this one through this witness.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You were asked and you answered about groups who were involved in
24 the commission of crimes. Were there groups who committed crimes and
25 what was the attitude of legal authorities towards that phenomenon and
1 towards those groups?
2 A. I've already spoken about that and I've said that attempts were
3 made to prevent such groups in their dealings. Sometimes it was
4 successful and sometimes it wasn't. And the goodwill existed and as much
5 as possible things were done with the available forces.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 1D26637. Thank
7 you. I'm interested in the last page.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. On the last page we can see the code-name for state security, or
10 rather, for that group used by the state security. In conclusion it says
12 "Only a strong and legal government based on democratic and
13 rational principles, to say nothing of humane principles, can guarantee
14 the prospects and the future of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
16 This is a recommendation by the state security. How does this
17 tally with your experience of the position of the official authorities?
18 A. Of course only a strong government can maintain peace and order
19 through legal institutions such as the MUP, the judiciary.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we have the previous
22 page in Serbian and the English page can remain as it is. [In English]
23 "We are under the impression ..."
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. It says:
1 "We are under the impression that the regular units and
2 commanding officers of the Army of Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina are
3 impotent to deal with these individuals and informal groups which are
4 fighting on the side of the Serbian people for their own sake and
5 profit ..."
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And then can we see the following
7 page in Serbian.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. It says:
10 "There is the serious danger that extremist individuals from our
11 side may seize power and thus prevent the legal establishment of
13 Would you say that this is an exaggeration? How do you see this?
14 And how does this tally with what you know about the position of the
15 authorities in Republika Srpska and in Prijedor municipality?
16 A. At that time during war time when everybody was armed, what
17 surfaces is everybody's ego, and you can actually tell about people and
18 what they're like. There were individuals and groups who wanted to
19 achieve material gain and they committed crimes. The military was there,
20 the police was there because they were afraid of them. In every war and
21 in every single area there are cases like that. Sometimes there were
22 successes in preventing those groups; sometimes it was impossible. In
23 1992, the police station in Omarska was taken over by a military
24 formation, or rather, a paramilitary formation - I don't know what to
25 call it. A legal police station was taken over and that paramilitary
1 group held it for some 20 days or so. And later on the situation was
3 Q. Can we agree that this was on the 29th of May, one day before the
4 attack on Prijedor?
5 A. Yes. In the left-hand side corner it says 165/92 [as
6 interpreted] which means it was sent on the 29th.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, can this be admitted
8 and I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: No objection, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D4421, Your Honours.
13 THE ACCUSED: If you don't have more than one issue, we probably
14 could have finished right now.
15 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
16 Mr. Gruban, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for your
17 coming to The Hague to give it.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.
19 JUDGE KWON: Have a safe journey back home.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I wish you a lot of
21 success in your work and thank you for granting me this provisional
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 THE ACCUSED: I don't know whether I was clear. If the only
25 matter is discussion about my testimony, we can finish it before the
1 break and save some time.
2 JUDGE KWON: We understood that way.
3 Before that, Mr. Tieger, yesterday the accused filed the bar
4 table motion related General Miletic's document. The motion contains
5 references to the fact that you do not object to the admission of the
6 document. However, the Chamber wanted to check whether you are minded to
7 file a further response.
8 MR. TIEGER: That communication did not come directly through me,
9 so -- and I understood initially that we were working on a response.
10 Perhaps I can provide the Court with an answer either before we adjourn
11 or immediately after by e-mail.
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
13 The Chamber conveyed the wish to hear in relation to the
14 communications between the accused and his legal adviser during the
15 course of his testimony to the parties through the Legal Officer of the
16 Chamber. So shall we hear from the Defence?
17 MR. ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Mr. President, we take the position that there ought to be no
19 restrictions on the communications between Dr. Karadzic and myself during
20 his testimony, and we base that on the Prlic Appeals Chamber's decision
21 on the Prosecution's appeal against the Trial Chamber's order on contact
22 between the accused and counsel during an accused's testimony pursuant to
23 Rule 85(C), which was decided on the 5th of September, 2008. And in that
24 decision, the Appeals Chamber held that the general prohibition of
25 contact between a witness and the parties doesn't prohibit, per se,
1 communications between the accused and his counsel when he's a witness.
2 And they went on to find that the order of the Chamber in Prlic was
3 correct or proper within its discretion in not prohibiting contact
4 between the accused and his counsel.
5 So that was later followed by another Trial Chamber order in the
6 Prlic case when the issue came up again in the course of
7 cross-examination, and whether once the documents were disclosed that
8 were to be used in cross-examination the -- there ought to be some
9 restriction on contact. And the Prlic Chamber said no, and that was in
10 an order of the 11th of June, 2009, clarifying the relationship between
11 counsel and an accused testifying within the meaning of Rule 85(C).
12 So it's our position that the jurisprudence is clear that there
13 need be no restriction between counsel and the accused when the accused
14 is giving testimony. It's a little bit different in this case because he
15 is self-represented and I'm his legal adviser, but you have essentially
16 imposed me as his counsel for the purpose of questioning him during his
17 examination and I don't think that difference then would change the
18 outcome. So that's our submission on this issue. Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: To be allowed to contact is one thing, and then to
20 what extent they can communicate is another thing. So could you -- do
21 you have any observation as to the second issue, whether you can discuss
22 about the substance of his testimony?
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I think that's something
24 that's, by the decisions of both the Appeals Chamber and the Prlic
25 order -- subsequent order, is left to the discretion of the counsel and
1 the accused so that there's no restriction to be placed upon the content
2 of the communication, but that issue can go to the credibility of the
3 accused as a witness and can be inquired on during the cross-examination
4 if there's some kind of suggestive nature to the content -- the contact
5 between the lawyer and the client. But both those decisions have pretty
6 much said that it's best left to the discretion of the counsel as to what
7 kind of communications he would have during the testimony with his
9 JUDGE KWON: Leaving it to the parties or the counsel and the
10 accused, the decisions, I take it, presumed a propriety or
11 appropriateness of the contact between the counsel and the accused. So
12 what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, in your observation in
13 terms of substance of the dialogue between the two?
14 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think, Mr. President, that we can look to
15 the concurring opinion of Judges Shahabuddeen and Vaz. In the
16 Appeals Chamber decision they said that counsel is not permitted to
17 advise an accused how he should reply to a question or line of
18 questioning, and I certainly agree with that. Other than that, I think
19 it would have to be on a case-by-case basis. Definitely, Dr. Karadzic is
20 not the kind of individual who has anybody put words in his mouth and I
21 don't see any reason whatsoever that I would be suggesting to him
22 something that he should say. But beyond that, there's a -- I don't
23 think there's any basis for any further restriction -- for any
24 restrictions on the content of our communication.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. To the extent it is
2 suggested here that the jurisprudence gives rise to a presumed deviation
3 from the normal practice with the witness, we would disagree. As
4 Mr. Robinson has acknowledged, the accused is self-represented. The
5 cases that Mr. Robinson has cited and the cases that we have found are
6 grounded on the right to counsel, that is, on the right that someone who
7 has counsel may possess under those circumstances. So it does not appear
8 that that issue arises here and that, therefore -- and those cases,
9 therefore, should have any impact on the Court's exercise of its
10 discretion in connection with ensuring the integrity of the evidence
11 that's elicited in this case.
12 In addition, we would note that even in a case where the accused
13 was represented, in the Popovic case the Court there decided - and that
14 was in January of 2009, on the 26th of January, 2009 - that an
15 appropriate balance was struck between the right to be represented and
16 the need to safe-guard the integrity of the proceedings by ordering that
17 any contact during cross-examination or re-direct could not involve a
18 discussion of the substance of the testimony. And I emphasise again --
19 JUDGE KWON: It was with respect to Pandurevic, Mr. Pandurevic?
20 MR. TIEGER: That's correct.
21 I would emphasise again that that was an appropriate balance in a
22 case where the accused was represented by counsel, which is not a
23 situation we have here. So the balance could be struck otherwise.
24 So in our view, Mr. President, the proper way to proceed would be
25 that contact, per se, would not be prohibited for purposes of issues
1 related to logistical matters or specific legal questions of the type
2 Mr. Robinson has dealt with throughout the course of the case, but in
3 keeping with our practice, there should not be discussion about the
4 substance of the testimony.
5 I would also note one final thing that Mr. Robinson mentioned.
6 The potential cross-examination of the discussion as a remedy for or a
7 way of addressing the possibility of deviations from the expected
8 practice, but of course that gives rise to the further question of the
9 attorney/client privilege and whether or not the invocation of any
10 alleged right to consult with the accused on the substance of the
11 testimony, therefore, is a waiver by citing those cases of the
12 attorney/client privilege. So that would be something the Court would
13 have to consider in such a circumstance; however, as noted, I -- we don't
14 believe it arises here, given that Mr. Karadzic is self-represented and
15 the proper balance should be struck simply by precluding discussion about
16 the substance of the testimony.
17 THE ACCUSED: May I? May I?
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll come to you.
19 The fact that the accused himself is a self-represented accused,
20 i.e., he's, in other words, lead counsel himself make any difference?
21 MR. TIEGER: In our submission, yes, there is a distinction. In
22 previous cases, the Court has had to consider the full range of the right
23 to counsel and its extent, its reach. Now, I don't particularly share
24 the view that stepping into the witness-stand is a stage of the
25 proceedings within the meaning of the term normally used, but that's a
1 different matter. That doesn't arise here. That -- the balance that the
2 courts have attempted to strike in those cases between the scope of the
3 right of representation and the tension between the position of a witness
4 and the need to ensure the integrity of the proceedings only arises when
5 someone is represented by counsel. The -- taking the position of a
6 self-represented accused means, as the -- as this Court pointed out in
7 its earlier decisions, for example, related to the appointment of
8 Mr. Harvey, that the accused has voluntarily undertaken those
9 responsibilities and taken on any obstacles, difficulties, that may arise
10 therefrom. So this is, I think, manifestly a different situation which
11 doesn't give rise to the same balance of considerations.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 MR. TIEGER: In short, you don't hit the trigger point for
14 striking that balance and we're back in a situation that we normally have
15 where someone takes the stand and we implement very standard safe-guards
16 simply by way of ensuring the integrity of the proceedings.
17 JUDGE KWON: While he's giving evidence in chief, can he instruct
18 Mr. Robinson to ask certain questions or not to ask certain questions?
19 MR. TIEGER: I haven't considered that specifically, but
20 obviously -- it's obvious that there will be a colloquy of sorts taking
21 place. I'm not sure that arises as a particular impediment in the course
22 of communication at that point, but I think -- in other words, whether or
23 not technically it arises as a problem, I don't think from a practical
24 point of view it does. I think there's a communication between the
25 question and the answer -- and the witness that will obviate that
2 JUDGE KWON: If there should be any restrictions, that
3 restriction should apply equally to the other members of the Defence
5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's certainly the case.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, we have only five minutes.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Excellency --
8 JUDGE KWON: I'm talking about the tape.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I believe that I will
10 finish within. I believe that over these 500 days we maintained the
11 integrity of the proceedings. On my part, I did my best for that to be
12 the cases. I am sorry I didn't manage to speak to Mr. Robinson about my
13 dilemmas and quandaries, but now I fully understand. I can communicate
14 to you that we are going to save time. I have decided not to testify.
15 JUDGE KWON: I think that's the end of the story.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE KWON: Just in case, we'll have a break. We'll come back
18 to the courtroom at 2.00.
19 MR. TIEGER: And before I forget, we will be filing something,
20 Mr. President. It's relatively imminent, I think.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.58 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 2.02 p.m.
24 JUDGE KWON: So, Mr. Robinson, will the Croatian witness be the
25 last witness for the Defence?
1 MR. ROBINSON: Depending on the rulings of the Chamber and some
2 pending motions, that seems to be the case.
3 JUDGE KWON: Pending motions being the motions related to the
4 various intercepts?
5 MR. ROBINSON: I was also thinking of the Rule 92 bis motions as
6 well as -- it seems like there's one other motion that may impact upon a
7 witness but it escapes me at the moment, but primarily Rule 92 bis
8 motions. The other one is the sentencing issues, whether we have to call
9 any witnesses on sentencing.
10 JUDGE KWON: And the date for the testimony of that Croatian
11 witness remains the same?
12 MR. ROBINSON: Well, as far as we're concerned, I sent it to the
13 Embassy of Croatia and they acknowledged having received our notice, but
14 they haven't given any further indication of the availability of the
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, a while ago the Chamber set the
17 dead-line for your rebuttal motion as 4th of March, but would there be
18 any possibility the Chamber can receive it any earlier?
19 MR. TIEGER: I'll certainly -- I mean, I'll communicate that and
20 we'll do our best. I -- that's not -- for various reasons, that's not
21 something I can assure the Court about now, but we'll obviously take the
22 Court's request on board.
23 JUDGE KWON: I have just signed the -- an order regarding the
24 close of Defence case, and I take it that it will be filed very soon, in
25 which the Chamber will -- has dealt with the dead-line for any bar table
1 motions and MFI'd documents, et cetera. When this will be done, it will
2 regard the date as the end of Defence case.
3 One thing further I wanted to inquire of the parties is the --
4 how much time they would need for the final brief? Any observation,
5 Mr. Tieger?
6 MR. TIEGER: No, except I'm pleased the Court is asking. If I
7 had at hand at the moment a specific figure that was the product of an
8 assessment with the entire team and a legitimate projection of what was
9 required, I would share it right now, but we will do so as quickly as
10 possible. Given -- I think this is a reflection of the Court's
11 acknowledgement of the scope of the case and we appreciate that, we'll
12 try to give you the best indication we can as soon as possible.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson. Yes.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence fully subscribes to
15 this same reply given by the Prosecution, so the same goes for us.
16 MR. TIEGER: It, of course, would be a joint order. It's not as
17 if the Court would consider a dead-line for one and not the other.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE KWON: Do the parties have anything to raise?
20 Then the hearing is adjourned until 3rd of March.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE KWON: 4.00 on 3rd of March. Hearing is adjourned.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.08 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day of
25 March, 2013, at 4.00 p.m.