1 Monday, 3rd May, 1999
2 (Open session)
3 (The accused entered court)
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.59 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your
6 Honours. Case number IT-95-14/2-T, the Prosecutor
7 versus Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The witness, please.
9 Mr. Kovacic, we'll go on until 4.15, if we
10 start now, take a break for a quarter of an hour then,
11 and then we'll have an hour's further hearing and
12 finish at half past 5.00.
13 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Yes, I
14 understand. But perhaps this is a good time, since
15 we're talking about that, I need to apologise to the
16 Court. When you asked me on Thursday, I said I would
17 need about an hour to complete this, but one whole
18 topic somehow was hidden among my papers, and I do
19 think that I shall need two, two and a half hours, if
20 we proceed as you just told us.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 (The witness entered court)
23 WITNESS: EDIB ZLOTRG (Resumed)
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Zlotrg.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. First of all, I would like to adduce into
3 evidence D4/2, which was not translated into English
4 last week. Meanwhile, we received the translation, so
5 that I should like to -- if I may remind you, that is
6 the record of the investigation on site. It was only
7 in Serbo-Croatian, and now we also have the English
8 translation of it.
9 Witness, let us try and save some time. On
10 Thursday, we talked at great length about disorder in
11 the town, if I may call it, quite a number of crimes,
12 et cetera, and we mentioned also other units which were
13 there, that is, men who were there. Do you remember a
14 group of Herzegovinians of the HVO who were there and
15 who were called Herzegovinians there?
16 A. It was a regular unit of the Croatian Defence
17 Council which however had marks on its shoulder of
18 unity, and they were quartered at the elementary school
19 in Dubrovica. And they took shifts, so the units took
20 shifts. It was the same unit, but other companies
21 would come.
22 Q. Right. But are you aware that that unit or
23 rather its men came from outside the municipality of
25 A. Yes, but they were members of the Croatian
1 Defence Council. Yes, right, fine.
2 Q. But tell us, "Yes" or "No", did they come
3 from outside the municipality of Vitez?
4 A. [No audible response]
5 Q. You have to say it, because on the record it
6 doesn't show when you nod your head.
7 A. I don't know if they all came from outside
8 the municipality of Vitez, but there were quite a
9 number of men that I did not know. Where they came
10 from, I do not know. I mean I really don't know where
11 they came from, because we had no access to them. We
12 did not talk to them, we had no contact with them.
13 They simply engaged in terrorising the population of
14 Muslim origin.
15 Q. Is it true that some people -- or at least
16 have you heard of the name that people call them,
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) At this point
20 in time, I should like to tender another document into
21 evidence. It was already tendered in the Blaskic
23 Unfortunately, Judge Bennouna, as again I do
24 not have the French translation, I did ask for the
25 French translation, and I thought it would be here, but
1 it was not. But I can ask for it, if you like, later
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document D10/2.
4 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
5 Q. Witness, I should first like to draw your
6 attention to the person who signed the document. Is it
7 the same person, Ivan Budimir, that we talked about so
9 A. I cannot say anything from the signature. I
10 do not know the signature of Ivan Budimir. But from
11 what is printed above, I presume it is him.
12 Q. Will you please look at item 2 of the
13 document? Does the wording of item 2 correspond with
14 the situation that was there? Does it fit into the
15 picture that you described to us?
16 A. Yes, but it was a small unit. It was
17 subordinated to a superior command. That is, it was
18 subordinated to the command commanded by -- to the
19 commander, Ivan Budimir, since it is his signature.
20 And we have the brigade commander, and the military
21 commander was responsible for suppressing it.
22 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, how do you know that that unit
23 was subordinated under the command of the same unit
24 which -- to which Mr. Cerkez also belonged to?
25 A. Well, following some military doctrine, a
1 smaller unit arriving in the territory of a larger unit
2 is to be subordinated to its command, to the command of
3 the larger unit.
4 Q. But on Thursday, you told us that you knew
5 nothing about military rules and regulations.
6 A. No, not of the HVO, but I know how it is in
7 the Armija, and I suppose that that is the case of all
8 armies. And at any rate, look at the films. You will
9 see always that when a unit comes into the territory of
10 the local unit, they'll be subordinated to it, if, of
11 course, the local unit is larger. That is my
13 JUDGE MAY: One moment. It's not working.
14 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
15 Q. So it is your assumption; you are not certain
16 about that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It's a rule. And you told us that you were
19 not conversant with the internal issue or structure?
20 "Yes" or "No", please.
21 A. No.
22 Q. Thank you. So we can proceed.
23 You also spoke, in relation to the subject
24 about the accused [indiscernible], they trained in the
25 town at the time later in '92 to late '93, and I shall
1 quote to you an example, another note by Mr. Budimir,
2 and I shall ask you if you know something about that
3 particular event. And this is another document I wish
4 to tender.
5 Will the usher please take care of that?
6 This is another document which was used in
7 the Blaskic case.
8 Judge Bennouna, you wouldn't believe it, but
9 there is a translation of this particular document.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document D --
11 JUDGE MAY: D11/2, is it?
12 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
13 Q. I should like to ask you two questions with
14 regard to this document, and please answer me only
15 "Yes" or "No" just to speed matters up. We do not
16 need any explanation.
17 First, I should like to ask you something
18 about the first part of the document, where we have
19 those items 1 and 2 with the introductory sentence, and
20 the paragraph just below. Could you read that,
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. [No interpretation]
24 A. It is a hand-held rocket.
25 Q. Such events, do they remind of you some other
1 incidents that you mentioned that had been happening
2 around the town? Could one say that this was one of
3 the incidents that happened?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Does it perhaps remind you of some of the
6 incidents that you listed among your reports, 37 or
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The answer is "evidently,
11 no." The interpreter apologises.
12 Q. So, this incident happened later?
13 A. The answer, this is not reported our station.
14 Q. Zoran Krizanovic is a Bosniak or a Croat?
15 A. Croat.
16 Q. So there were some Croats who suffered damage
17 at least in this particular case?
18 A. Yes, but if this is the time there about,
19 this is very scant information, and there were
20 eyewitnesses of when Zolja was fired, and Croat
21 eyewitnesses, and unfortunately they say it was Croats
22 who fired this Zolja.
23 Q. Just a moment, just a moment, Witness,
24 please. All I'm asking you, does this show that some
25 Croats were victimised too? I wasn't asking you where
1 the Zolja came from, nor let it imply that. Does the
2 name Zoran Krizanovic tell you that he was a Croat?
3 A. Yes, but because --
4 Q. No. Please, I mean, only "yes" without "but"
5 or anything. Does this also tell you that it is a
6 record here that the Croat [indiscernible] the damage
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I'm not talking about who attacked him. The
10 other party can ask you.
11 A. A disobedient Croat.
12 Q. And although explosive devices were thrown in
13 different places, we do not know who suffered damage, I
14 mean, who were the owners of objects that were damaged?
15 A. That is what this report says.
16 Q. In keeping with what you told us, these are
17 evidently incidents which were reported in the part of
18 the town under the control of the Croat side?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. During the examination-in-chief,
21 you said, among other things, and I shall try to quote
22 you, you said on the 8th of January, '93, in front of
23 the Public Security Station in Vitez, the Croatian flag
24 was hoisted and the flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
25 taken down. I emphasise, you said it was on the 8th of
1 January, '93, so it is the very beginning of 1993.
2 A. No, that is a mistake. On the 21st or,
3 rather, towards the end of November, we formed the
4 station in Stari Vitez, and in October, when we were
5 driven out, in '92, that is when the Croatian flag was
7 Q. So this was October, '92. All right. I
8 apologise. Tell me, please, so you are relating this
9 flag to events of October?
10 A. Yes, at the station.
11 Q. All right. So which flag of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina was taken down? Will you please
13 tell us what flag was that?
14 A. Well, it is -- this is obviously -- there was
15 either a misinterpretation or some misunderstanding.
16 There is -- at the checkpoint at the railway station, I
17 would have to go through my notes now, in 1992, it was
18 a mixed checkpoint of civilian police and military
19 police forces.
20 Then if I'm correct, Vladimir Jukic led the
21 group when members of the Croatian Defence Council and
22 the Croatian police drove away all members of the
23 Muslim nationality and took down the flag of the
24 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the white flag with
25 lilies, and left the Croatian flag. On the building of
1 the police station in Vitez, as far as I know, the flag
2 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina has never been
3 hoisted there because Croatian gentlemen were rather
4 irritated by that, and we simply did not put it up.
5 Q. Let's leave it at that. You said that a
6 white flag with lilies was taken down. That was the
7 flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 A. Excuse me.
9 Q. Yes. I'm describing it. In October 1992,
10 the flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina, white lilies. Tell us,
11 please, what decision -- why is it the official flag?
12 Why do you say it is the official flag of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who proclaimed it the flag of
15 A. I don't know. I know that I perceived it as
16 my own. I know that it was hoisted in front of the
17 United Nations buildings. I know that the whole world
18 recognised it, and that the Croats refused to recognise
19 it, well, there's nothing I can do about it.
20 Q. What about the other ethnic groups of Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina, did they consider this to be their own
22 flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina too, for example, the Serbs?
23 A. As far as I know, no.
24 Q. Tell me, please, do you know when the
25 official flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established
1 as such by the relevant decision or the relevant body
2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. You would have to ask a politician that
4 question. I really don't know.
5 Q. I beg your pardon?
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I don't think we're
7 going to be much assisted with this line of argument.
8 Can we move on, please?
9 MR. KOVACIC: No, I'm finished with that.
10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
11 Q. Among other things, when you were telling us
12 about the time when you could not work as a policeman
13 because you were driven out of the station, you hadn't
14 established the new one in Stari Vitez yet, you
15 mentioned at one point that in November 1992, you
16 carried out an on-site investigation in connection with
17 the killing of two members of the Territorial Defence,
18 and you were there as a criminology technician. You
19 were there simply to assist the military police of the
20 Territorial Defence?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Well, then I have two questions in that
23 regard. Were you paid for that work?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You did that on a voluntary basis?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was that perhaps work duty that was
4 A. No. No, I was an employee of the Ministry of
5 the Interior.
6 Q. Did the military police have a criminology
7 technician at the time, the TO military police?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
9 Q. Wasn't Mr. Ramo Vatres their criminology
11 A. Mr. Ramo Vatres was head of the criminology
12 department, and he was an inspector.
13 Q. Was he a qualified criminology technician by
14 training, though?
15 A. Well, you would have to ask him. Really, I
16 don't know. I know that he was involved in operations,
17 but whether he was a technician by training, that, I
18 really do not know.
19 Q. You did not work with him before that in the
21 A. No.
22 Q. All right. At that time, we're talking about
23 November 1992, you claim that that organisation was
24 still called the Territorial Defence?
25 A. Please, don't take my word as far as dates
1 are concerned. I really don't know when these names
2 were changed. And then, after all, it was after the
3 pressure exerted by the Croatian side that the TO
4 changed its name. They were simply seeking ways and
5 means of preventing a united army from existing.
6 Q. Please, could you just give me "Yes" or "No"
7 answers? Could you tell us at least approximately when
8 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was founded? Give us
9 the season of the year, at least.
10 A. I don't know. We were very busy in terms of
11 organising the police station. I really don't know.
12 Q. Thank you. That's an answer too. Thank
14 Now I would like to put a few questions to
15 you in relation to Mr. Cerkez, whom you mentioned. So
16 let's try to go through all of this as quickly as
17 possible. You said that Cerkez, before the JNA
18 aggression began against Bosnia and Herzegovina,
19 rather, against the Serbs, he worked in the SPS in a
20 similar job as you did in the police.
21 A. I imagine it was similar to my work. What he
22 exactly did, that, I don't know.
23 Q. Do you know perhaps whether this similar work
24 was some kind of an executive position in the SPS or
25 was he a clerk of sorts or what was he?
1 A. As far as I know, it wasn't really a
2 management job, so I don't know.
3 Q. Tell us, you even mentioned Mr. Cerkez's
4 mother. You said that she worked as a cashier in a
5 shop. Are you sure that this was in a shop?
6 A. Well, she worked at the department store.
7 Q. What was that?
8 A. At the department store.
9 Q. Are you sure it's the department store?
10 A. Well, as far as I can remember, because I've
11 known this woman since I was a young boy.
12 Q. You mentioned Cerkez's mother and father.
13 However, you didn't say more about that. Did you know
14 them better? You said that you repaired the father's
15 car, so you knew them.
16 A. Well, Cerkez worked at the post office. He
17 was a PTT mechanic, if I'm not mistaken. He was
18 involved, that is to say, in telephones.
19 Q. Did you ever have the impression that that
20 family as a family had a nationalist view of things,
21 that they treated people differently in terms of their
22 ethnic background?
23 A. No, because he wouldn't have been friends
24 with my sister-in-law who is a Serb and my
25 brother-in-law who is a Muslim.
1 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that Mario Cerkez
2 had a very good relationship with your late brother?
3 A. As far as I know, they were not family
4 friends, but they did have a good relationship.
5 Q. Were they involved in sports together?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Tell me, please, in view of the post held by
8 Mario Cerkez in the HVO command, as you said, at the
9 hotel, what do you know about that? First of all, who
10 was staying at the hotel at the time, for example, in
11 mid 1992?
12 A. We were not allowed access to the hotel, so
13 according to what I heard when I talked to Croats, I
14 imagined that he did hold a command post.
15 Q. Did you ever hear of an institution called
16 the municipal staff of the HVO?
17 A. No. No. No, I told you a few minutes ago,
18 we had many problems within the police. We were driven
19 out twice, and then there were questions of
20 organisation, et cetera, but I said that he was
21 commander of the staff. I don't know whether it was
22 the municipal staff or the staff of the brigade,
23 because I said even then that I did not know his exact
24 post, and I was not familiar with the organisational
25 structure of the HVO.
1 Q. Did you perhaps hear anything about Cerkez
2 being in Novi Travnik at a given point in time?
3 A. I know that he was a candidate. I think that
4 Zeljko Sajevic was supposed to be there, Zeljko Sajevic
5 from Vitez, and Cerkez, and I was surprised when I
6 heard that Cerkez went to the command, because Sajevic
7 was a member of the municipal staff of the Territorial
8 Defence. He was a worker, rather. And when the
9 commander of the municipal staff of the Territorial
10 Defence was away, then he would replace him, and I
11 thought that Sajevic would be in this joint command. I
12 don't know the exact period. I'm just telling you
13 about what I heard when I talked to Croats, and you can
14 probably look at the records of the HVO.
15 Q. So if I understood you correctly, you know
16 that Cerkez was in Novi Travnik, in the command there?
17 A. Well, on the basis of what I managed to hear
18 from my Croat friends, because our movement in Vitez
19 was restricted, let alone going to Travnik. I mean,
20 that would have been lunacy.
21 Q. We're talking about November 1992, the
22 beginning of that period?
23 A. Even then, even then, the members of the
24 Croatian Defence Council will take away my official
25 pass even and look at it in Nevic Polje, and it was not
1 really a good idea for Muslims to move around because a
2 lot of them ended up locked up.
3 Q. Since you mentioned Mr. Sajevic, you said
4 that he was a candidate, but you don't know what kind
5 of a candidate. Do you know that he was a member of
6 the same command in Novi Travnik with Cerkez?
7 A. No, I really don't know.
8 Q. You don't know?
9 A. I really don't know. I also don't think that
10 Cerkez knows what was going on in our command, so, I
11 mean, I was not a member of this staff, so I think it
12 is pointless to ask me anything related to their
13 establishments, and dates when persons were appointed
14 to posts there.
15 Q. Yes, they are means, but then you mentioned
16 that you knew what Cerkez did in Vitez, so perhaps you
17 also knew what he did there?
18 A. All of these are just assumptions.
19 Q. I have a few questions to put to you in
20 relation to the distinctions in terms of the HVO. You
21 keep talking about the HVO, but I want to put a
22 concrete question to you, and please be as brief as
23 possible. You mentioned explicitly the military police
24 of the HVO. Do you know anything about who the
25 commander of this unit was?
1 A. I know that at the outset, Budimir was the
2 commander. He transferred from Bila, as far as I know,
3 and he's also mentioned in the record that was made by
4 the judge when Trako Samir was murdered. If I'm not
5 mistaken, Budimir himself introduced himself as the
6 commander of the military police.
7 Q. Do you know perhaps what rank this unit of
8 the military police had? Was it a battalion? Was it a
9 company? Oh, you don't know? Well, okay, you don't
11 A. I don't know the words that you're using for
12 battalion and other things.
13 Q. All right. But you know that there was a
14 separate unit of the military police?
15 A. I know that there was a company, and I know
16 that there was a brigade, military police, but the word
17 you mentioned for battalion, I have never heard of
19 Q. Do you know perhaps during 1992 where the
20 command of the military police was?
21 A. I know when we were working on the murder of
22 those two members in Kruscica that I was taken to the
23 building across the street from the gasoline station,
24 across the street from the hotel, so I would establish
25 contact with Mr. Jukic. I imagine that that is where
1 their headquarters was. Before that, whether it was at
2 the hotel or wherever, I really don't know.
3 Q. You said that you were not very familiar with
4 their structure, and you keep insisting on that; you've
5 told us that several times. Now you mentioned brigade
6 military police. Who's that?
7 A. That is terminology that the army of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina uses, and every unit, every bigger
9 unit, like a brigade, has its own military police, and
10 I imagine that that brigade also had its military
11 police. I don't know. I'm telling you once again,
12 please, don't take my word for it. I'm not familiar
13 with the terminology either. I know there was a
14 military police, but whether it belonged to the
15 municipal staff or to the brigade or something else, I
16 really don't know. I also know that there was another
17 institution of the military police that was headed by
18 Mr. Pasko Ljubicic.
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zlotrg, I'm going to stop
21 Cross-examination of this witness about the
22 other side, as it were, I don't think is going to take
23 us much further, Mr. Kovacic.
24 MR. KOVACIC: I just got what I wanted.
25 Thank you.
1 Q. You mentioned the Vitezovi. You mentioned
2 the Vitezovi explicitly. You also mentioned that they
3 came to your house twice before you were finally
4 arrested a couple of days later. Without any further
5 comment, do you know who their commander was?
6 A. I assumed that I know.
7 Q. Could you please tell us, if you believe that
8 that's it?
9 A. Darko Kraljevic.
10 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that you saw them
11 from your window at the Cafe Benz, that they met there;
12 is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Let us not waste too much time now, but I
15 would like to remind you that in the statement you made
16 to the court in Zenica on the 3rd of October, 1994, you
17 mentioned, as a place where the Vitezovi gathered, a
18 cafe called "072" in the street of Petar Mecava. Are
19 we perhaps talking about the same cafe or are these two
20 different cafes?
21 A. No. No, 072 is just below Benz. It's a
22 different cafe.
23 Q. So if I understood you correctly, these are
24 places where the Vitezovi would gather?
25 A. They were in Benz. Slavan Kraljevic
1 continued after the war to use that shop as his own,
2 although it's not really his.
3 Q. Finally, on the 19th of April, 1994, you were
4 arrested by a member of that unit and taken to the
5 cinema where you were interned?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You told us that this was Rados Drazenko?
8 A. Rados Drazenko, yes.
9 Q. Did you know then that he belonged to the
10 Vitezovi or did you find that out later?
11 A. It said so on his arm band.
12 Q. So you knew that from the very outset, from
13 that very event?
14 A. Until then, he was a member of the civilian
15 police, as far as I know. He worked with me before we
16 were driven out. He was a communications officer.
17 Q. Just one more thing in connection with this.
18 From the 16th until the 19th of April, 1993, basically,
19 they came to your house four times, and on the fourth
20 time, you were interned and taken to the cinema. Out
21 of those four times, on two occasions, you mentioned
22 that these were specifically Vitezovi, and as far as
23 these other two occasions were concerned, you just
24 mentioned this general term "HVO." Can you identify on
25 these two other occasions, which unit of the HVO?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Tell us, who was it?
3 A. The first time, it was colleagues, policemen
4 from the Public Security Station, but they all had
5 insignia of the Croatian Defence Council, that is to
6 say, that the civilian police also had HVO insignia.
7 Marko Rajkovic, he led that group, and Bonic, they are
8 still working there at the police station as traffic
9 policemen, and then Marko Rajkovic is working together
10 with me until the present day, and I don't know about
11 the third one.
12 Q. So they were from the civilian police but it
13 was obvious that they belonged to the HVO?
14 A. Yes. Yes, because they wore those insignia,
15 that is to say, they were members of the Croatian
16 Defence Council.
17 Q. That is exactly what I said. So now we've
18 resolved the question of three of these occasions.
19 What about the fourth time? What unit was it then?
20 A. Again, it was members of the HVO, but I don't
21 know those men.
22 Q. So we're talking about this fourth occasion?
23 A. No. No, we're talking about the third one,
24 and I would like to thank them, even on this occasion,
25 for the fairness they exhibited then.
1 Q. All right. So you cannot identify the
2 persons who were there on the third occasion, so they
3 were fair or -- well, not to say "kind," but they were
5 A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, I give them all credit.
6 Q. Thank you. It was a very painful experience,
7 and I do not want to remind you of that. Please
8 understand me, I mean, as a Defence counsel, I have to
9 ask those questions.
10 A very simple question related to the killing
11 of your brother and your sister-in-law. Did I
12 understand you well that you all heard it from the
13 mother of your brother's wife?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Right. Another question: They were murdered
16 by members of the Vitezovi; is that right?
17 A. Well, a 70-year-old woman would hardly know
18 who are the Vitezovi and who are the Croatian Defence
19 Council or whatever.
20 Q. But did you then learn subsequently which
21 unit it was?
22 A. Well, had I learnt something, I suppose I
23 would have said it in my statement or written it down
24 in my documents in order to facilitate the task of the
25 gentlemen of the Tribunal to bring the murderers to
2 Q. So you do not know which HVO unit that was?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zlotrg, when, at long last,
5 you were released from the place -- from the cinema,
6 from where you were interned, you went to Zenica a
7 little later on. Is it true that in Zenica you then
8 began to work as a member of the commission for the
9 exchange and release in the territory of Zenica?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You were never a member of the commission for
13 A. In the commission, never.
14 Q. But did you try in any way whatsoever, try to
15 help the exchange, because they became quite a frequent
16 occurrence among the municipalities?
17 A. On two occasions only.
18 Q. And on one of those occasions, did you
19 intercede on behalf of Dr. Mujezinovic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Witness, we have now mentioned
22 the place where you were interned, the cinema, or the
23 Workers' University, as it was called, and you said
24 that it was on the day when you were brought to the
25 cinema, which was the 19th of April, 1993, that there
1 were about 300 or 400 people all together, and that was
2 as far as you could judge?
3 Now, if the Court would allow me, before I
4 tender this document, I should really like to read from
5 a document. This is part of the supporting material
6 and is marked with "Annex R," a page number given by
7 the Registry, 1314, and this is a survey of events.
8 This annex is a part of the report of a witness we
9 shall be hearing from in a couple of days' time,
10 Mr. McLeod. On page 5 of the report, on the 19th of
11 April, 1993, the site Vitez, he says: "The ECMM
12 visited the prison or, rather, the place of detention
13 in Vitez where there were 62 Muslim males," detainees,
14 that is.
15 The first question: Is it true that in that
16 basement, in the cellar of the Workers' University,
17 only men were kept?
18 A. When I came, yes. Before that, they also
19 brought children and women there, and then they
20 released them.
21 Q. And then they released them?
22 A. No, not immediately. They released them
23 after a day or two.
24 Q. Right. Let's leave that. But when you
25 arrived, there were only men there?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Perhaps we can save a minute or two if --
3 perhaps we can save a minute if I mention the document
4 that underlies this report, and then we shall tender
5 it. This is a statement by Hendrik Morsink, a witness
6 statement given to the Tribunal investigators between
7 the 4th to 18th of December, '96. On page 5, he writes
8 about the same visit to the Workers' University and
9 says: "We also visited Muslim detainees in the cellar
10 of the HVO headquarters, and I counted 62 of them
11 there. It seems that they were treated well. They
12 could receive visits from their family members."
13 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Now, I should
14 like to tender both these documents, of course, only
15 the first page and the relevant page, because that is
16 the document that can be found in the supporting
18 JUDGE MAY: The first statement, which comes
19 from Mr. McLeod, had better be produced when he gives
20 evidence. This witness doesn't know anything about
22 MR. KOVACIC: I entirely agree, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MAY: It seems to me that it's the same
24 with the second statement which you have. I don't
25 think it's appropriate to produce it through this
1 witness. He knows nothing about it.
2 MR. KOVACIC: Of course, I entirely agree
3 with that. I only wanted for everybody to see what I
4 was citing from. However, there might be a problem if
5 they do not appear as witnesses.
6 JUDGE MAY: Well, we will deal with that when
7 it happens.
8 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you.
9 Q. During the direct examination, you said at
10 some point that members of the Territorial Defence were
11 called to report for labour duty. I think it was when
12 you described 1992. Could you please explain, at least
13 roughly, what does this labour obligation mean? What
14 was under the then legislation? What was our duty as
15 citizens then, just briefly, just in a few words?
16 A. Well, one does know what labour obligation
17 is. It means that you have to come to work.
18 Otherwise, you lose the status of an employee in a
19 particular organisation.
20 Q. So the authorities did have some legal
21 grounds on the basis of which it could call people to
22 respond to their labour duty?
23 A. Don't ask me that, ask somebody else. I
24 don't really know whether there were legal grounds for
25 that or not. But presumably there were, because they
1 did call people.
2 Q. But did you ever get a summons to respond to
3 a labour obligation?
4 A. For Christ's sake, I was a member of the
5 police. Police works always.
6 Q. What does that mean?
7 A. Well, we set up a police station, and of
8 course we were doing our duty, and so my labour
9 obligation would be with the police.
10 Q. Yes. But does that mean that the authorities
11 begin to assign you to different places? Some are
12 assigned to military duty and some to labour duty; is
13 that so?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. So you were one of those who did
16 not have any labour duty because you were with the
17 police, and you would be with the police even in case
18 of war?
19 JUDGE MAY: That is what the witness has
20 said, at least so far as the first part is concerned.
21 Can we slow down, please?
22 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
23 Q. Tell us, please, when you told us about when
24 you were taken under custody, when they came to your
25 house for the fourth time, and you used the word in
1 Croatian, or rather in Bosniak or Serbian or Croatian,
2 whichever language was spoken there, you used the word
3 "arrested," as a police member, could you tell us,
4 what does it mean, "arrested", and what is the
5 difference between that and being taken under custody?
6 A. Persons who are taken under custody make a
7 statement and go back home, and persons who are
8 arrested, they unfortunately remain in detention; that
9 is, in gaol, so to speak.
10 Q. Is that the police definition? That is
11 police terminology?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And when a person is arrested, mustn't he
14 give a statement?
15 A. Under normal circumstances, yes.
16 Q. Have you ever heard of the word "interned"?
17 A. During my stay in Vitez, no. I mean within
18 those military operations.
19 Q. You heard it used then?
20 A. No, no, no. I was arrested. They did not
21 intern me.
22 Q. Sorry, I did not understand you. Perhaps I
23 got it wrong. The question was whether you have ever
24 heard of the term "interned".
25 A. Yes, but they did not use it when they
1 arrested us. They did not use that term.
2 Q. By "they", whom do you mean?
3 A. Members of the Croatian Defence Council.
4 Q. But you do know that in the nation -- a
5 detainee and things, have you perhaps heard it from
7 A. I don't know. I remember hearing it before,
8 but during that period of time, I never heard it.
9 Q. When you were, as you put it, arrested, you
10 were taken to a camp, you said, and the word used in
11 English is "camp". Is the place of your internment
12 which you described -- could you describe it as a camp
13 or as a place of detention?
14 JUDGE MAY: Now, which place is that? Is
15 that earlier on or at Kaonik?
16 MR. KOVACIC: No, that is as soon as they
17 came to the cinema building or Radnicki Univerzitet
18 building, also called.
19 JUDGE MAY: And you're asking whether that
20 could be called a camp?
21 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, because the witness used
22 that. It was translated correctly. He said "logor" in
23 our language, which means, in English, "camp", and I
24 don't think it is appropriate.
25 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Zlotrg, in a few words,
1 would you describe it as a camp?
2 A. That is how I perceived it.
3 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
4 Q. Let me ask you another thing.
5 In your earlier statements, again the one of
6 the 3rd of October, '94, to the court in Zenica, you
7 said then -- you say the place that all
8 militarily-abled men were taken to, collection centres?
9 A. Yes, aged between 15 to almost 70 years of
10 age. There were all men there.
11 Q. But you used the words "collection centre"
13 A. That is something that one found written
14 later, but the place where I was detained, I perceived
15 it as a camp, and to my mind, that was a camp. We had
16 no rights there, and members of the Croatian Defence
17 Council could enter the rooms we were held in at any
18 moment to tell us how they were killing, slaughtering,
19 torching balija property and nobody ever tried to stop
20 them. Had it been a collection or reception centre or
21 prison, they wouldn't have been able to do that,
22 because prison guards would have stopped them.
23 Q. But please, Witness, not in a single
24 statement that you made nor during your testimony here
25 did you say that there was any ill treatment in the
1 cinema, in the workers' building, and now you implied
2 it, although I'm not quite sure whether you are talking
3 about the cinema, or Kaonik, or the Bungalow and so on
4 and so forth. So was there any ill treatment in the
5 cinema; did you see that?
6 A. No, not physically, but Croatian
7 [indiscernible] Centre is day and night.
8 Q. No. Please tell us, did anybody physically
9 abuse you when you came to the cinema? Did you see
10 anything of that kind when you came there?
11 A. I did not say that that happened there.
12 Q. When you were taken out to the Bungalow for
13 the first time, and from there you went to Kaonik, did
14 the military who took you out have any visible
15 insignia? Could you tell us who that was?
16 A. Well, it was the military police who guarded
17 us, and I guess that it was they who took us away. But
18 to begin with, it was night-time. Secondly --
19 Q. But in [indiscernible], you also told us it
20 was military police there?
21 A. Yes. That was the command of Mr. Vladimir
23 Q. Do you know who the military police accounted
25 A. As far as I know, they were accountable -- I
1 mean that was the regional military police, as we might
2 call it.
3 Q. From Kaonik, you also said, or if I
4 understood you well, that it was the military police
5 who took you away?
6 A. I don't think that anybody else could have
7 done that, because they took us here and there all the
9 Q. All right. Now, going back to that part when
10 we talked about the digging of trenches, as an average
11 citizen with minimum military duty, when does an army
12 dig trenches, when it attacks or when it defends
14 JUDGE MAY: That's not a question for the
15 witness. It's a question for us or a military expert.
16 MR. KOVACIC: Could I rephrase?
17 JUDGE MAY: No. Something else, please.
18 MR. KOVACIC: Okay. (Interpretation)
19 Q. You told us, again in relation to those
20 trenches, that some did not come back from digging
21 them, that you did not eyewitness the death of anyone.
22 Is that true?
23 A. Yes, but we have heard.
24 Q. So you heard?
25 A. Yes, naturally. And when I came out, it was
1 all confirmed, and dead bodies were brought.
2 Q. Right. Let me ask you something else. You
3 mentioned Mehmed Sivro, your relative, and you said
4 that you had also heard that he had not come back from
5 digging; is that true?
6 A. Yes, when I was at Kaonik. The first time
7 that I was at Kaonik is when I heard this.
8 Q. But later on, you met him alive?
9 A. Also when we were exchanged. That means
10 later on.
11 Q. In other words, what you heard was only
12 rumour? You did not see, with your own eyes, those
14 A. Yes, but when I met those relatives -- I also
15 met parents of those young men who were killed, who
16 never came back from the digging of trenches, and that
17 was the confirmation of those rumours, and that is why
18 I said that in my report. Otherwise, I would have said
19 that those were rumours.
20 Q. All right. Let us then go back to your final
21 internment in the cinema; after Kaonik, when you went
22 back to the cinema again.
23 You told the court in Zenica that when you
24 came out of the cinema at long last, you came out
25 because Zjelko Sajevic put you in his car and took you
1 home, to your home?
2 A. No, it was on the 30th of April, not when I
3 was brought back from Kaonik.
4 Q. So it was when you were released once and
5 then came back?
6 A. Yes, but on that occasion.
7 Q. On that occasion, Sajevic took you from the
8 cinema and gave you a lift home? That is what you said
9 in the statement?
10 A. Yes, but before that I had to sign at so and
11 so that I was leaving free and of my own free will.
12 Q. So you signed that. He took you home?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said that the door was locked. What
15 did he do?
16 A. The gate -- the entrance door was locked, and
17 he waited until one of the residents came down to
18 unlock it. And only when I was in safely, he turned
19 back to his command.
20 Q. Did he tell you it was for your safety?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Let us go back, then, to those early days
23 before they took you to the Workers' University, and
24 then those visits home and so on and so forth. You
25 said, at some point, that to one of those who came to
1 see you, you said, "I will be safer if you took me to
2 the cinema." Is that true?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, from those two things that we just
5 mentioned, could I draw the conclusion that it was
6 dangerous for people in the town, especially if they
7 were Muslims?
8 A. Yes. In the evening, they come and just take
9 you away. And if you are locked up, they cannot reach
10 you, so they cannot harm you, they cannot kill you,
11 without knowing who that was.
12 Q. So it was safer in internment than outside?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. You told us, when you were last
15 released, that you had that conversation with Cerkez,
16 and you said how you perceived that conversation. But
17 does the fact remain that Cerkez used the following
18 words, that you were not released for the purpose of
19 your own safety?
20 A. I cannot quote him, but no, no, that they
21 were holding us there for our own safety because they
22 had to show us to this commission of the BH army, and
23 it's better for us to be safe and sound because they
24 were responsible for the 30 of us.
25 Q. Very well. Do you recall that Ivica Santic
1 was there to talk to the detainees and Skopljak
3 A. Before Cerkez came, I think that was the day
4 before Cerkez came, I know that Ivica Santic was there
5 for sure. And whether Marijan was there or not, that I
6 don't know, but if he had accompanied him, then he
7 probably was there.
8 Q. And what was the purpose of that visit?
9 JUDGE MAY: Can you allow time for the
11 MR. KOVACIC: Sorry.
12 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's been one or
13 two occasions when I think there has been a problem
14 with question and answer. There is one routine, and I
15 don't know if it's going to help at all with problems
16 of this type in this Chamber, where if there are two
17 interpreters in a booth, one can do the question and
18 one can do the answer, and that helps.
19 I was looking at a previous passage with a
20 problem about whether something was a question or an
21 answer, I think. I didn't want to interrupt, because
22 if those taking the notes are able to keep up, I didn't
23 want to interrupt. But there have been one or two
24 problems, I think, on the transcript this afternoon,
25 from the speed.
1 JUDGE MAY: The first thing is to allow
3 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. Sorry, but sometimes you
4 just have to go further. (Interpretation)
5 Q. Let us go back to this. Can you describe
6 this to us? Was it clear why Mr. Santic came,
7 regardless of whether Mr. Skopljak was there or not?
8 A. Well, I can tell you how it was.
9 Approximately, it was that there was the possibility of
10 coexistence between the Croats and the Muslims and that
11 the crimes that were committed were committed by
12 members of the armed forces and that it is not the
13 civilian government that had anything to do with it.
14 That was his interpretation of events. But we did not
15 agree to that, most of us.
16 And then Mario Cerkez came the next day to
17 continue along those lines, and I really cannot
18 remember whether somebody else came between the two of
19 them, I really can't remember.
20 Q. You and I know this, but for the sake of the
21 Court and the others who are listening, Ivica Santic
22 was a civilian; right?
23 A. Yes. If there was a civilian government at
24 the time, everybody knew where the Croatian Defence
25 Council was, and that is to say that they were supposed
1 to have a command function over the army, and we see
2 here that that did not exist.
3 Q. That is your opinion, but you do not know
4 that for a fact, do you?
5 A. Mr. Santic, himself, said that this was done
6 by members of the Croatian units, that the civilian
7 government had nothing to do with it.
8 Q. So there is a civilian government and there
9 is a military government; right?
10 A. That is what he said when he talked to us.
11 Q. Thank you. And now you said to us that
12 Cerkez continued the conversation along those lines?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. I would like to recall Z245.
15 That is the document that is actually the agreement
16 signed in Ahmici on the surrender of arms on the 22nd
17 of October, 1992.
18 Could you please tell the Court, how did this
19 agreement come about on the 22nd of October? It was
20 obviously a consequence of something.
21 A. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most
22 probably this was due to the events that took place in
23 Novi Travnik before that.
24 Q. This has nothing to do with the events that
25 occurred when the main road was blocked, the one that
1 passes by Ahmici, on the 19th of October, 1992?
2 A. Well, it is related to the events in Travnik,
3 because the units of the HVO from Kiseljak, Busovaca
4 and Kresevo went to help the HVO units in Novi Travnik.
5 Q. Do you know for sure that HVO units wanted to
6 pass to Novi Travnik?
7 A. As far as I know, and from the contact I had
8 with officers of the army, that's the way it was. But
9 I don't know it for sure. You will have to ask someone
10 from the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. You mentioned the army yourself now, so in
12 October, there was an army, wasn't there?
13 A. Please, don't take my word for this
14 terminology. When I say "army", I'm talking about the
15 forces that were loyal to the State of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the president or the presidency
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and, rather, the president of the
18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 And may I remind you that in the presidency
20 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were two
21 Croats as well, to the best of my knowledge. This is a
22 long time ago. I don't know, perhaps I'm making a
23 mistake now.
24 So whenever I say members of the army, I'm
25 actually thinking of those units that are loyal to the
1 State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Whether it was called
2 the TO then, or the army, or the military, or -- I
3 don't know. That's not important.
4 Q. Since you already mentioned this, that is to
5 say, units that were loyal to the presidency of Bosnia
6 and Herzegovina, on the basis of the decision of the
7 presidency as far back as July, the HVO was also a
8 legal organisation, one of the two components of the
9 armed forces of the republic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in '93, in April, they were also a legal
12 component, and on the 15th, they were there to
13 commemorate the holiday of the army in Stari Vitez in
14 the headquarters of the Territorial Defence. Even when
15 they committed a crime, they were a legal component.
16 And in 1993, in July, they were also a legal component
17 of the army, and also in Tuzla, in Kakanj, in Zepce?
18 A. They remained armed because the army had
19 armed them, so ...
20 Q. Witness, I asked you this because of another
21 thing. You said those who were loyal or who were not
22 loyal. Obviously, that is not a criterion, and you
23 said yourself there was this so-called Territorial
24 Defence, and later on there was the army. And you said
25 one thing, and you said that you didn't know when the
1 Territorial Defence grew into the army, and we accepted
2 that. But a few minutes ago, you said those army units
3 that were loyal and under the command of the
4 appropriate headquarters or the presidency of
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So that was the HVO, too?
8 A. Yes. Also the 16th of April, 1993, when they
9 committed the crime, they were.
10 Q. So only on the 16th of April, 1993, there was
11 this disruption?
12 A. Only with this part -- I mean where they had
13 made this entity. But take the HVO of Kiseljak before
14 they left, take the HVO of Tuzla. Throughout the war,
15 it was a component of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 And members of the Croatian Defence Council throughout
17 the war came to Zenica with the insignia of the HVO,
18 and nobody touched them.
19 Q. Very well. Let us go back to this document.
20 You said that the road was blocked to HVO
21 units, and you think that they were going to Novi
23 A. I think that the road was blocked. I think,
24 but I wasn't there.
25 Q. Do you remember at the time there was a lot
1 of fighting going on around Jajce, where the Muslims
2 and Croats together were trying to protect Jajce from
3 the Serbs and the JNA?
4 A. Yes, but I think that now we are
5 really encumbering the Trial Chamber with things that
6 don't really concern me. I'm a member of the police.
7 I don't know the army very well, but as far as I know,
8 every unit has to be announced to the units that hold
9 the territory through which they are supposed to pass.
10 If they were going to Jajce, then they were supposed to
11 know that. The TO headquarters were supposed to know
12 that they were supposed to pass to Jajce. But don't
13 ask me about these military matters. I'm not an expert
14 in military affairs, and I'm not here to give answers
15 in that connection. I'm here to talk about things
16 related to the police and those dates that I mentioned.
17 Q. I have to correct you because you're hear to
18 answer everything that you know about.
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I'm going to
21 Mr. Zlotrg, would you please answer the
22 questions you're asked, if you can. If we don't think
23 it's right that you should be asked, we will stop the
25 Mr. Kovacic, I wonder if there's much point
1 asking this witness about this particular document.
2 There will, I understand, be witnesses from Ahmici who
3 may be in a better position to deal with it and also
4 military witnesses who may be able to deal with it
6 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Certainly,
7 there will be good witnesses. I just wanted to put
8 this document into the context of events because it
9 came here just out of the blue. There was an
10 agreement, but it was obviously the result of
11 something. I just wanted to confirm that, and, of
12 course, we're going to question other witnesses about
14 Q. Just a small detail, please. When we were
15 watching that video related to the bomb planted under
16 the Salkic house, that was Z2559, do you know the
17 physician who was there? You said this was a
18 physician. Was this Mr. Gordon Peher?
19 A. I don't know him.
20 Q. All right. So you don't know.
21 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Your Honours,
22 I can take a break now. You said that you would like
23 to take a break at a quarter past four. I'll be moving
24 on to another subject, so if this is a good time for
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. How much longer do you
2 think you might be?
3 MR. KOVACIC: I'm now quite sure that I will
4 be finishing with him in 30 minutes to 45 minutes at
6 JUDGE MAY: Good. Thank you. A quarter of
7 an hour then.
8 --- Recess taken at 4.13 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.
10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation)
11 Q. Witness, let us finish the subject of
12 internment, only a couple of short questions. While
13 you were detained in the building of the Workers'
14 University, that is, the cinema, did a physician come
15 to visit?
16 A. I don't know. I know that some asked for
17 examination, but I didn't go to a doctor.
18 Q. So you did not receive the visit of any
20 A. No.
21 Q. And in the chess club?
22 A. In the chess club, nobody even knew we
23 existed there, so they surely did not bring any
24 physicians there.
25 Q. But was somebody taken out of the chess club
1 for medical help?
2 A. Not as far as I know.
3 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to another
4 subject. You said something about the television
5 station belonging to Pero Gudelj and how the HVO took
6 that station. Let us try and check some details about
7 that. Could you, generally speaking, tell me, how were
8 the citizens of the Vitez municipality informed? What
9 could you listen to? Did you get the press regularly?
10 A. The state television, the press arrived. I
11 don't know whose -- I had no time to buy any newspapers
12 because I had other duties, and I also watched private
13 television, Mr. Gudelj's television.
14 Q. So you had the television programme of TV
15 Sarajevo. There was the private television belonging
16 to Pero Gudelj. Was there some other private station?
17 A. No, not at the beginning. Later on, there
18 was the television of the war presidency, I don't know
19 what it was called, out of the town of Vitez, but it
20 worked for a very short while, and its ratings were
21 very low.
22 Q. Do you know what transmitter, what relays
23 were used to broadcast the programme? The transmitter
24 for the signal into the Lasva Valley, where was it?
25 A. As far as I know, it was on Vlasic.
1 Q. Do you know about the transmitter above Tesic
2 next to Kruscica?
3 A. Yes, but that was a small transmitter which
4 was simply used to amplify the signal.
5 Q. But in Vitez, could you watch television if
6 that transmitter was out of work?
7 A. I could not tell you that. I only know that
8 throughout the time we had the programme of the
9 radio/television of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
10 radio/television of Mr. Gudelj's. At least in the part
11 of the town where I lived, those were the only two
12 stations we could watch, the first and second channel
13 of the television of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Q. And the other one, the private one, when did
15 it begin to work? Was it the television where Suad
16 Salkic was the main man? Was that the television that
17 you had in mind?
18 A. I don't really know who was the main person
19 there, because I could not watch it because the signal
20 did not cover the part of the town where I lived. I
21 did hear that they were broadcasting some programme.
22 Q. Thank you. Yesterday or, rather, on
23 Thursday, the last working day last week, sometime
24 toward the end of your testimony, you told us about the
25 event when you met Cerkez in relation to the coffee
1 shop owned by Dragan Cickovic. Are you sure it
2 belonged to Dragan?
3 A. The coffee shop is owned by Dragan's brother,
4 Gojko, who had gone to Belgrade. Whether for reasons
5 of health, that is, his wife's, because I know that she
6 was ill for a long time, or whether he left for
7 political reasons, I wouldn't know that. But I know
8 that he left it to his brother Dragan to run it, and
9 that was that.
10 Q. So Dragan Cickovic was looking after the
11 coffee shop of his brother Gojko?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have you heard that Dragan joined the
14 Chetniks and that he called his people from the Chetnik
16 A. No, I don't know that, but I know that he
17 moves about in Vitez freely now.
18 Q. Is he the owner of the coffee shop again?
19 A. I think that last year it was returned to his
20 brother. I'm not quite sure.
21 Q. But on that occasion or subsequently, since
22 you were in the police, did you hear of any agreement
23 between the HVO and Dragan about the taking over of
24 that coffee shop?
25 A. No. I can read to you what Dragan told me.
1 Because I could not remember the date when I had this
2 conversation with Dragan, and then he told me that it
3 was, I believe, on the 18th of May, and then what I
4 stated, when Mr. Cerkez told him that the coffee shop
5 was being mobilised. That is what I knew. Dragan
6 never told me about any agreement. And even had there
7 been any agreement, I wouldn't see any reason for 10 or
8 15 soldiers to go there to take over the coffee shop by
9 agreement, by mutual consent.
10 Q. On that occasion, when you came and saw those
11 HVO soldiers, you approached an HVO policeman, your
12 former -- could you conclude from anything when you had
13 arrived at the time that something was happening, that
14 something was going on, that an event was under way?
15 A. Yes. Members of the reserve police force
16 were deployed around the coffee shop, and that was
17 that. I did not really see members of the HVO. They
18 must have been inside the coffee shop. I did not see
20 Q. But as you were there really when the event
21 was taking place, did you see that any explosive device
22 had been used or perhaps whether there was a threat
23 that it would be used?
24 A. Since at that time we worked together, that
25 is, we had one integrated police station, the station
1 received no report of that kind. That is one thing.
2 Secondly, members of the reserve police force wouldn't
3 have come out for the investigation. It would have
4 been the members of the crime investigation department
5 or the [indiscernible] activity inspector would have
6 come to remove that explosive device and authorise law
7 enforcement officers, that is, professional people,
8 rather than reserve police and Croatian Defence
9 Council. Because, I'm telling you, the police at that
10 time worked together.
11 Q. So you are assuming that had there been a
12 threat or an explosive device, that it would have been
13 done by the proper police?
14 A. Well, because it was a civilian outlet, the
15 civilian police, so the report was made to the civilian
16 police, and we would have known it, but there was
17 nothing. There was no application, no report to the
18 Public Security Station about that.
19 Q. Thank you. Only one question more, Witness,
20 and that will be it or, rather, I have several
21 questions in relation to a subject.
22 Is it true that during 1992, shifts went from
23 Vitez to Vlasic to fight against the Serbs?
24 A. Yes, not Vlasic alone, to Visoko. Members
25 went to Visoko, to Bijelo Buce, to Vlasic too.
1 Q. HVO units went to Vlasic?
2 A. Who went where, I don't know.
3 Q. Let me rephrase it. So the units of the
4 Territorial Defence and the units of the HVO went to
5 some points of defence contracting Serbs?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So that is correct. In view of this chaos in
8 the town and the various incidents that you told us
9 about, and we talked about the distribution of
10 competencies or, rather, division of competencies
11 between the civilian and military police, as a
12 policeman, how did you treat an event in which an HVO
13 soldier returning from his shift to his village, the
14 town of Vitez, what was he if he committed a crime?
15 Was he a civilian or was he a soldier?
16 A. A soldier.
17 Q. So the moment he arrived in his village from
18 his shift, he was a civilian?
19 A. Well, if he was mobilised, then it would be
20 natural for him to be a soldier.
21 Q. No. But when you had TO shifts or HVO, it
22 doesn't really matter because they belong to the same
23 force, and when those units went to those places on the
24 front against the Serbs, those soldiers were mobilised
25 for a particular shift, I don't know, seven days, ten
1 days, fourteen days; is that correct?
2 A. You will have to ask that of one of the
3 commanders or somebody in the secretariat for national
4 defence. I don't know that.
5 Q. Then didn't you face a problem to distinguish
6 between civilians and military? If you didn't know
7 that, how could you then differentiate between the
8 competencies when conducting an investigation?
9 A. Well, we maintained permanent contact with
10 the army, and if it wasn't under their jurisdiction,
11 then we worked.
12 Q. I'm referring to '92.
13 A. In '92, we also helped. In 1992, both
14 components had their military police.
15 Q. So, you would ask them, "Is this man a
16 soldier or a civilian"; is that so?
17 A. I think I already answered, that I wasn't
18 assigning any investigation team. There was the law
19 enforcement officer on duty there. So after a civilian
20 report, he would have to send a police patrol to the
21 scene of the crime to see what it was all about, and
22 then when coming back with the report, then the law
23 enforcement officer on duty would assign a team.
24 If I was assigned to that particular team,
25 then it meant that that particular incident came under
1 my jurisdiction. And if I would be called by somebody
2 from the military police, then it meant that it was
3 under their jurisdiction, but since they lacked
4 technicians, I would be simply doing a service to
5 them. But it wasn't up to me to determine to define
6 the event. There was the law enforcement officer on
7 duty who decided that.
8 Q. Tell us, is a uniform an element whereby you
9 can distinguish between a soldier and a civilian, say
10 as of mid-1992, or not?
11 A. No, anybody could wear a camouflage uniform.
12 Whoever could afford it could buy it and therefore wear
14 Q. But could we say that people wore uniforms as
15 a rule?
16 A. That is how it should be.
17 Q. So regardless of whether they did belong to
18 an army or not?
19 A. No. I think we're talking at
20 cross-purposes. I thought you were talking about
21 members of the military, if they wore uniforms.
22 Q. No, I mean all.
23 A. There were also members of the army who were
24 in civilians, because the army did not have enough
25 uniforms. So it was not a rule, really, it was his
1 military card, whether to see a document which showed
2 whether somebody was a member of a unit or not. The
3 uniform was worn by those who had them. I think that
4 is how it is today. I mean you have your identity card
5 or your military card to show whether you were a member
6 belonging to a unit or whether you were a civilian.
7 Q. So you're saying that a military person can
8 also wear civilian clothes?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. KOVACIC: (Interpretation) Mr. Zlotrg,
11 thank you very much for the answers.
12 Mr. President, I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Stein, yes.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Stein:
15 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, my name is Bob Stein. I live in
16 New Hampshire in the United States. It's my pleasure
17 and privilege to represent Dario Kordic.
18 If there's any question that I ask you that
19 you don't understand, will you let me know? And you
20 have to say "Yes" or "No" for the record. All right?
21 A. (No audible response)
22 Q. You have to say it.
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. All right. Sir, in addition to your
25 appearance in October of 1994 in the court in Zenica,
1 you also gave a series of other interviews with the
2 Prosecution; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And indeed before you gave those interviews,
5 you had prepared some notes, which we have, that you
6 prepared on June 5, 1996. Do you recall that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Actually, I think the transcriptist made a
9 mistake when she transcribed those or translated those
10 notes. Those notes were actually made or compiled by
11 you on September 5, 1996. Does that sound right?
12 A. Yes, it's the 5th of September, 1996.
13 Q. All right. And then, as I understand it, you
14 submitted to an interview on June 10, 1997, by some
15 people from the Office of the Prosecution. Do you
16 recall that?
17 A. Not by the date, but I talked to the
18 Prosecutors on several occasions.
19 Q. It could have been the summer of 1997?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And then again in the fall of 1998, on
22 September 27 and 28, again you had a discussion with
23 the Prosecution?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then you testified in the Kupreskic case
1 in October of 1998. Do you recall coming here and
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And before that testimony, you spoke again
5 with members of the Prosecution; correct?
6 A. Most probably, yes.
7 Q. Certainly, you didn't just come in to The
8 Hague and take the witness stand. You spoke with
9 members of the Prosecution team; correct?
10 A. Yes. I do not recall the date, though.
11 Q. All right. The record shows that the
12 testimony was on October 14 and October 15, 1998. So
13 the fall of 1998, you met with members of the Kupreskic
14 prosecution team; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. For several days?
17 A. Until we finished.
18 Q. How many days was that, sir?
19 A. I can't remember.
20 Q. More than one?
21 A. I had so many different conversations with
22 them that I really cannot remember how many days I
23 actually spent there.
24 Q. Fair enough. And then again on March 4,
25 1998, you testified in the Aleksovski case?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And again you spent some time with the
3 Prosecutors then; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then last, or next to last, I guess, you
6 were interviewed again in November of 1998, after your
7 testimony in Aleksovski?
8 A. I already said it, I talked to them on
9 several occasions, but I don't know the dates. I don't
10 know. If that's what it says over there, then that's
11 probably what it was.
12 Q. Fair enough. And again in February of 1999,
13 February 4?
14 A. Yes, yes, if that's what it says there.
15 Q. And on all those occasions, you told the
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And on all those occasions, you answered any
19 of the questions the Prosecutors put to you relative to
20 the events that you knew of; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. They asked you questions about all of the
23 defendants, including my client, Mr. Kordic; isn't that
25 A. Yes. I don't have much to say about Kordic,
2 Q. But you told them everything you did have to
3 say about Mr. Kordic, didn't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, do I also understand that there came a
6 period in time where you interviewed detainees at the
7 detention centre in Zenica?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that was in connection with your police
10 report, your police work?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Detainees were Croats, weren't they?
13 A. Yes, but at that time I was not a member of
14 the Ministry of the Interior. I was mobilised. I was
15 a member of the army.
16 Q. Fair enough. So as a member of the army, you
17 interviewed Croats at the detention centre in Zenica;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that was in 1993?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do I also understand that you participated in
23 helping various individuals from your community who
24 were to testify here in The Hague?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Now, let me ask you, please, sir, to take a
2 look at Exhibit number 332,1. I would like you to have
3 the Croatian version.
4 The notes before you at Exhibit Z332,1 are
5 not writings that you, yourself, made; isn't that
7 A. No, I didn't write any of this.
8 Q. They were all written by someone else?
9 A. This was taken out of the complaints book of
10 the police station at Stari Vitez, and I have the
11 original, if necessary. I have the original here with
13 Q. They were not taken out by you, were they,
15 A. I don't understand your question.
16 Q. The person who took these notes from the
17 police book was not you?
18 A. Yes, I gave this to the Office of the
19 Prosecutor to copy.
20 Q. And you got this from someone else?
21 A. Took it from the station, from the archives.
22 Q. But you didn't bring the entire book with
23 you, did you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. This is all there is in the book, these
2 A. Yes, yes, from the 23rd of December until the
3 14th of April, 1993, but only what the criminal police
4 recorded, not everything that was recorded by the
5 Public Security Station.
6 Q. So there's another set of notes recorded by
7 the Public Security Station; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You are telling us that 332,1, these
10 documents, is a complete record of the police activity;
11 is that right? Is that what you're saying?
12 A. This document records the time and location
13 of events that took place and the person who reported
14 on this, and it should also reflect who received this
15 report. And I noticed in the first two, there was no
16 signature of who had received this, and then you have
17 "Alihodza Sejo", "Alihodza Sejo" afterwards. He was
18 acting chief of the crime police in Stari Vitez. You
19 have his name here, Alihodza Sejo, Alihodza Sejo, on
20 the 23rd, for example, of December, 1992, at the
21 premises of the Public Security Station in Stari Vitez,
22 Handija Handzic [indiscernible]. That is to say, he
23 had all the particulars of the person who was reporting
24 the event; that is to say, what was done, what the
25 damages incurred were, et cetera. Then on that basis,
1 we were supposed to carry out an on-site
2 investigation. If possible, that is.
3 Q. I understand, sir, but that's not my
4 question. Are these notes all there is in that police
6 A. It's not a record, it is a book. It's a book
7 of complaints of citizens in respect of things that
8 were done to them. So it is just that they lodge a
9 complaint, and then it is up to us to see whether we
10 were in charge or not, and then that would be within
11 the domain of the crime police.
12 Q. A simple question. Is everything that's in
13 the book here today or not?
14 A. Yes, I think so. No, no. That which is not
15 of interest to this court -- sorry, sorry. The entire
16 book was photocopied. It's different in my statement,
17 though. So everything that is in the original is here,
19 Q. That is my question.
20 A. That's it. This is the original version, and
21 everything that is there has been photocopied.
22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Mr. Stein, I
23 believe that if you want to have a clear discussion, we
24 have to clarify certain things, because the further it
25 goes, the messier it becomes.
1 I believe the witness is telling us that all
2 the police records, the daily reports made by
3 individuals, are put in a document which is an
4 ordinary, usual document in which everything that
5 happens in a police station is recorded. Could you ask
6 the witness whether the document that we have in front
7 of us is a comprehensive document for a given period of
8 time, whether it covers everything that happened during
9 that specific period? Obviously enough, there is other
10 information, but that's what we need to clarify.
11 There may be other information for other
12 periods of time, but as far as this period is
13 concerned, do we have the entire document, because we
14 fail to understand so far. Thank you.
15 MR. STEIN:
16 Q. Sir, did you hear the Judge's question? For
17 the period of time between December 23, 1992, and
18 February -- well, actually, it would be April, 1993,
19 would you explain first how your police department
20 keeps records of citizens' complaints, and then,
21 second, is this the complete record? I believe that's
22 the Judge's question.
23 A. Since we had just established the police
24 station, that is to say that we did not have all the
25 original forms then, we simply established this
1 notebook which had a stamp on it, and all the citizens'
2 complaints are in there. However, when someone starts
3 working on a case on the basis of a citizen's
4 complaint, then a file is opened, then a record is
5 made, then this is typed out, and that is what is in
6 the file.
7 So this is only what the citizens reported to
8 us, in terms of what happened, and everything else that
9 was done in this connection is in the file that is for
10 each and every particular case.
11 Q. So the citizen would come in and make a
12 report, correct, and that would be put in your book?
13 A. No. They dictated orally to the person who
14 was actually writing this down.
15 Q. Yes. If that complaint was later
16 investigated by your department, those were in
17 different documents; correct?
18 A. Yes, then the file is opened.
19 Q. But these complaints during the period of
20 time I mentioned, December through April, are all the
21 complaints that exist; is that what you're telling us?
22 A. There were other reports that were filed in
23 the book that was kept by the policeman on duty,
24 because there was a policeman that was on duty around
25 the clock and we were there only for eight hours.
1 Q. Is this the book that was kept round the
3 A. No, no, this is the book that was kept by the
4 crime police, only that department within the police
5 station. That is to say when we were at work, then we
6 would receive the report directly.
7 MR. STEIN: I'm sorry, Judge Bennouna, I'm
8 afraid I haven't clarified it.
9 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Stein, I think we've
10 got it as clear as we're going to get it, if you would
11 like to move on.
12 MR. STEIN:
13 Q. What I would like to do, then, is turn your
14 attention, please, to the notes, which I would like to
15 have admitted at this point in time. And those would
16 be the notes provided by the Prosecutor from 5 June,
17 '96, about events in Vitez from 1991 until 16 May,
19 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked
21 MR. STEIN:
22 Q. Mr. Zlotrg, I would like to turn your
23 attention to the English version at page 17, and the
24 Croatian version would begin on page 3. These are
25 notes prepared by you about events in Vitez from 1991
1 until 16 May, 1993, are they not?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE MAY: At which page, Mr. Stein? We've
4 got no pagination, apart from a general pagination at
5 the top.
6 MR. STEIN: Very good, Sir. It's probably
7 cut off. The page I'm referring to would be base
8 number 607788.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we've got that.
10 MR. STEIN:
11 Q. Now, in this document you set out complaints
12 by citizens to your police department; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The same kind of complaints we just talked
16 A. Yes, but it need not be recorded in this
18 Q. These dates of the complaints, starting at
19 your version, page 3, and the English version at page
20 17, or base number 607788, are different complaints,
21 are they not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you also have a personal journal, do you
25 A. No.
1 Q. Well, I took your answer, and I went back
2 over the record. You testified earlier, "Secondly, as
3 I have said, I had my journal, and I noted down all
4 those events, and also in the archives of the police
5 department, you can find these events recorded." Is
6 there a separate journal from those which are in the
7 archives of the police department which you have in
8 your possession?
9 A. No. I had a logbook where I simply put in
10 every time I went out to the scene of the reported
11 crime. However, during military operations in Stari
12 Vitez, that logbook was destroyed, and I never laid my
13 hands again on it, because if it were still in
14 existence, there would be much more about it here, more
15 individual incidents and, of course, greater detail.
16 Q. The notes that you wrote on June 5 or
17 September 5, 1996, now Exhibit D15/1, where did those
18 notes come from?
19 A. My memory, citizens' reports, complaints,
20 military police notes, which worked in the same
21 building as the civilian police, and some other
22 documents. I cannot recall them. I do have here a
23 couple of statements. Perhaps if one of them is of
24 particular interest to you, I can show it to you.
25 Q. And you have those notes with you in The
1 Hague now?
2 A. I have -- no, the original, the one that you
3 gave me, that is not a statement which I gave to the
4 Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal. This was my official
5 memo of what happened, and it was at my insistence,
6 when the gentlemen came to me to take the statement for
7 Mr. Aleksovski, I then offered him this -- well, this
8 kind of a memo, these kinds of things that I was noting
9 from '91 to the 16th of May, '94. The gentleman who
10 came on that occasion on behalf of the Prosecution took
11 that document from me, and I signed it. So I was the
12 one who offered this document, and I made no statement
13 in this regard.
14 Q. So my question is, to be quite clear about
15 this, the notes that you had during that interview and
16 which you used during that interview, which are set out
17 at D15/1, you turned over to the Prosecutor; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And those are different notes from the
20 official police record which you had before you as
21 332,2; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. This is my version.
25 Q. Which you kept for your purposes?
1 A. No, I did not keep it. I took it later on
2 from the archives of the police station, everything I
3 thought that could be of interest and related to the
4 events that took place during that period of time. It
5 is all clear, I mean, dates and sites, and all that you
6 have in the police station in Vitez must be the
7 original document that is kept in the archives of the
8 police. I do have something here, but that is not all.
9 Q. All right. So you selectively picked certain
10 parts from the archives of the police; is that right?
11 A. Yes, because I was an active participant of
12 these events.
13 Q. And you chose what you'd give to the
14 representative from the Prosecutor's office; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Therefore --
17 A. All that I knew about that period of time,
18 and I believe you will agree with me that nobody can
19 remember all those dates. So that is why I noted it
20 down, and to write down the dates, I had to go into the
21 archives to take them out. All the events, I don't
22 have to read anything about them because I attended
23 practically all the on-site investigations, and
24 whenever citizens came with their complaints, I was
25 usually there.
1 Q. I want to ask you about your memory right
2 now. You testified earlier that you had an experience
3 with a man named Cicko, not a very pleasant one, in
4 which he was bragging. Do you recall that part of your
6 A. Yes, Miroslav Bralo, Cicko.
7 Q. You said in your testimony the other day, if
8 I'm quoting it properly and I believe I am, that there
9 was another person that was mentioned during that
10 conversation named Svabo. Do you remember Svabo, the
11 name "Svabo"?
12 A. That person was not there. Cicko told us
13 that he was vying with him who would kill more
14 balijas. That is a derogatory name for Muslims. If
15 I'm correct, Cicko mentioned 80 but perhaps less. At
16 that time, it wasn't really particularly pleasant to
17 stand before such a fiend, because he told us how he
18 had crucified a man like Jesus Christ on a door, and
19 any member of that group who dug trenches with me up
20 there could confirm that.
21 Q. Sir, you specifically said that "His name is
22 Svabo, and he is a member of the Croatian Defence
23 Council from Busovaca. I did know his name but now I
24 really can't remember it." That's what you told us
25 last week. That's a direct quote from your testimony.
1 Now, let me ask you this --
2 A. Yes. Yes.
3 Q. All right. I would like you to take a look
4 at D15/1, which is in front of you, I believe, your
5 notes. Do you have those in front of you?
6 A. Yes, but just help me what it is all about.
7 Q. Sure. Take a look at the Croatian version,
8 and it appears to be at the top of page 9, number
9 005-09-017, and the English version would be page 15.
10 MR. STEIN: If Your Honours don't have a full
11 copy, that would be 006-07-786. I'm referring in the
12 English to the second full paragraph and in the
13 Croatian to the very sentence on the top of the page.
14 Q. Do you see the sentence? The English version
15 reads as follows: "He bragged to us that he and
16 another man from Busovaca were competing in who would
17 kill the most Muslims. He said he was currently in the
18 lead and that he had killed about 80 men and women and
20 Have I read that correctly, sir?
21 A. [No interpretation]
22 Q. That statement was given again in your
23 notes. That appears in your notes, your own
24 handwritten version.
25 Now, I'd like you to take a look at Exhibit
1 332,2. The English version of what I'm referring to is
2 at page 12 and the Croatian is also at page 12. That's
3 page 12, about three-quarters of the way down the
4 Croatian version, and the English version, about
5 halfway down.
6 According to the English version, you said to
7 the judge in Zenica: "After the introduction, Cicko
8 began to brag that he and another soldier from
9 Busovaca, whose name he mentioned but I cannot recall
10 at the moment, were competing over who could kill, that
11 is, slit the throats of more balijas."
12 That's what it says there, doesn't it, sir?
13 A. Well, I cannot really quote him, what he said
14 exactly, but that is roughly what he said.
15 Q. The specific name "Svabo" does not appear in
16 either one of your statements; correct, sir?
17 A. No, not in this version. He probably didn't
18 ask me -- the judge did not ask me, because I think we
19 worked for two days so that -- but the fact is that he
20 said his name, surname, the nickname "Svabo," and
21 that's all. There were about 10 or 15 of us there who
22 were there when he taught us how to make the sign the
23 of cross, and that we were no longer Muslims but
24 Catholics. One doesn't forget that.
25 Q. Of course not. One doesn't forget that, you
1 didn't forget it, but you didn't mention his name on
2 either of the prior occasions before you came into
3 court today; correct, sir?
4 A. Well, it must be that nobody ever asked me or
5 perhaps I could not remember his nickname at the time,
6 but it says everywhere that he was competing with a
7 Croat from Busovaca.
8 Q. Now, sir, let me ask you this: You talked,
9 in your direct examination, about some fuses and Pero
10 Skopljak -- I'm not doing well on the name, I know --
11 and about a convoy. Do you remember that testimony a
12 few days ago? None of that information you saw
13 yourself; none of those events you saw with your own
14 eyes; correct?
15 A. No.
16 Q. All of those events were told to you by
17 another person; isn't that correct?
18 A. I saw drivers at the Public Security Station
19 when they came to report an armed robbery, because that
20 is nothing else but a case of armed robbery. They
21 seized two trucks by resorting to weapons. At that
22 time, I did not know Mr. Skopljak. I learnt about him
23 later from my colleague, who was with another fellow
24 policeman, and he admitted as much. You can also ask
25 Mr. Mirsad Tatarevic, because he told me in a
1 conversation that there was no need for him to come to
2 testify; otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned his name.
3 Q. Let's be clear. Your information about who
4 was the mastermind of that plot came from Mirsad
5 Tatarevic, and he got it from another person named
6 Ramljak; isn't that correct, sir?
7 A. Yes, Vlado Ramljak, a policeman who was
8 ordered to do that by Pero Skopljak. That was how I
9 always presented it. I never stated it any other way.
10 Q. And Vlado Ramljak was drinking with Mirsad
11 Tatarevic when this whole conversation happened; isn't
12 that right?
13 A. That is information that I have. I don't
14 know. I wasn't with them. That is what Mr. Tatarevic
15 told me, and that is what I'm now transmitting to you.
16 Q. We have an expression in the States called
17 "whiskey talk," so I'll make this simple. Did you
18 have any similar conversation with --
19 JUDGE MAY: The witness has given his
20 evidence about the way he received the information. It
21 will be for us to evaluate it.
22 MR. STEIN: Believe it or not, I was trying
23 to shorten the examination. I don't think it was going
24 to be successful anyhow. Judge, I have maybe 20 more
1 JUDGE MAY: Is that a convenient time?
2 MR. STEIN: Yes, it is.
3 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn.
4 Mr. Zlotrg, we're adjourning now. Could you
5 be back, please, tomorrow afternoon at half past two,
6 when your evidence will, in fact, be completed?
7 If you would like to go now.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, are there some matters
10 you want to raise with regard to housekeeping and
12 MR. NICE: Maybe one or two matters we can
13 mention very briefly when the witness is gone, nothing
14 to do with the witness's evidence.
15 (The witness withdrew)
16 MR. NICE: I think the immediately pressing
17 or potentially pressing administrative matter to deal
18 with is the timing of the search warrant argument, it
19 having been suggested through the usual channels that
20 the end of next week might be a possibility. The
21 problem there is, of course, the problem both of
22 readiness of both parties, and I understand informally
23 that the Defence, who intend to call a couple of
24 witnesses, would be ready then. I haven't finally
25 confirmed with those on our side, but I'm pretty sure
1 we will be ready to go ahead by then. But the
2 competing interest is the interest of witnesses.
3 Following this witness, there's a witness
4 whose timetable is very tight, and we very much hope to
5 start him tomorrow in order to complete him well before
6 the end of the week. The next witness is a man called
7 (redacted), who I was hoping to fit in at the end of this
8 week, beginning of next, and then to have Mujezinovic,
9 who was brought here and had to be sent back last week
10 on a pretty certain starting time, maybe Tuesday or
11 Wednesday of next week in order that he could be
12 completed within the week. That was my plan. I know
13 that these plans have to change from time to time.
14 Indeed, they have to change pretty well daily as the
15 timetable unfolds.
16 If we put the interest of getting those
17 witnesses through, then there might well not be enough
18 time for the search warrant issue to be argued at the
19 end of next week.
20 JUDGE MAY: Let me add this: We shall not be
21 sitting Friday afternoon, as usual.
22 MR. NICE: Right.
23 JUDGE MAY: If Friday the 14th is not a
24 convenient date, and I should say we are in the
25 parties' hands as far as this is concerned, another
1 possible date is Monday the 31st of May when we come
2 back to start another session.
3 MR. NICE: Yes. Two points arising from
4 that. First, when you say we shan't not be sitting on
5 Friday afternoon, is that this week as well as next
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
8 MR. NICE: So that this week, we have four
9 afternoons, and then next week, we have four and a half
10 days. I think it's pretty unlikely that we will get
11 through the witnesses I have lined up and have any time
12 for the argument. I have some considerable concerns
13 about whether we will get through Mujezinovic in the
14 present order of things, and I may have to consider
15 reversing him and (redacted) if his interests rank over
16 (redacted) his personal interests.
17 I would have thought, frankly, that the 31st
18 of May is a better option because it brings with it
19 certainty, and we can probably line up the first
20 witness thereafter for the day after the 1st of June
21 with all sorts of flexibilities available, probably to
22 bring him forward, if the argument only takes half a
24 JUDGE MAY: That sounds like a sensible
25 solution. If the Defence want to raise any matters
1 about that, of course, they can. I understand that
2 evidence will be called in the course of this argument.
3 MR. NICE: Yes. I was going to ask the Court
4 what directions it's going to give about the exchange
5 of summaries of any evidence to be called on behalf of
6 the Defence. This is an interlocutory matter. I'm not
7 sure if it's strictly governed by the terms of the
8 order that you have made or intend to make in respect
9 of Defence evidence, but I would see no reason why the
10 same principle shouldn't apply for interlocutory
11 matters, and, indeed, it's likely to help the
12 satisfactory outcome of these applications if it's
13 pretty well carved up.
14 JUDGE MAY: It's certainly within the spirit
15 of the practice here. It would assist, would it not,
16 in clarifying the issues, any issues of fact which have
17 to be decided between the parties.
18 MR. NICE: I think at the moment it's a
19 two-week order. As you will appreciate, from the
20 Prosecution's point of view, we've well exceeded two
21 weeks. We're serving witness statements and
22 notifications now months in advance, but that's not
23 necessarily going to have the same effect on the
24 Defence. But I think a reasonable time limit would be
25 very helpful and enable clarification of the issues
1 which are otherwise probably reasonably fully argued
2 or, as the phrase has it, briefed at the moment.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, because they were the
4 subject of an extensive filing, as I remember, probably
5 on both sides.
6 MR. NICE: Yes.
7 JUDGE MAY: So they are already in written
8 form. There is no need for any orders in relation to
10 MR. NICE: There was a third filing by the
11 Defence which I characterised as being effectively a
12 reply, because it was brought in under another topic
13 which didn't need an argument at all, so that it's very
14 fully argued.
15 JUDGE MAY: So if we ordered that the hearing
16 of the issue should take place on the 31st of May, you
17 have disclosed your evidence on the topic.
18 MR. NICE: No, I don't think we've
19 necessarily finally concluded that we are going to call
20 evidence, but certainly if we're going to, we will
21 disclose it as soon as we can. I'll go and discuss
22 that with others more intimately concerned with this
24 JUDGE MAY: But you would be prepared to
25 disclose any evidence two weeks beforehand, the 17th of
2 MR. NICE: Certainly.
3 JUDGE MAY: And you would like us to make a
4 similar order in relation to the Defence?
5 MR. NICE: Yes.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Stein, do you object to
8 MR. STEIN: Everything seems perfectly
9 reasonable. The 31st is a grand idea. At this present
10 time, we are not sure whether we will be calling two,
11 one, or no witnesses, and we can comply with the orders
12 just contemplated easily.
13 JUDGE MAY: The order will be that both sides
14 disclose summaries of any evidence they are going to
15 call on the issue by the 17th of May or on the 17th of
16 May. For the sake of clarity, the issue is evidence
17 arising from -- the admissibility of evidence arising
18 out of the execution of a search warrant in, was it,
19 September of last year?
20 MR. NICE: Yes, that's right.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That can no doubt be noted
22 for the purposes of drawing up an order, although I
23 doubt we need one. It's quite clear what it is.
24 Perhaps if someone would take it off the transcript,
25 that would be sufficient. We will consider whether we
1 need a scheduling order. It may be neater to have
3 MR. NICE: Yes.
4 MR. STEIN: I believe the matter is fully
5 briefed, argued. You have all the papers.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. So effectively it may not
7 take -- provided the issues are fairly narrow, the
8 issues of fact, despite calling evidence, it may not
9 take very long.
10 MR. NICE: No. That's why if we have the
11 witness normally lined up for the Tuesday but in The
12 Hague on the Sunday or even the previous Friday, then
13 we can be ready to fill a gap if a gap appears.
14 JUDGE MAY: Let us say, optimistically, a
15 time estimate of no more than half a day.
16 MR. STEIN: I think that's fair.
17 MR. NICE: Shall I just deal with one or two
18 other matters at the moment?
19 I gather that the days of the 20th and the
20 21st are likely to be occupied by matters that won't
21 involve witnesses and won't involve the Defence, and I
22 only mention this because it's been in my mind, I've
23 mentioned it to Mr. Stein and I think it's probably in
24 the Tribunal's mind, ex parte matters have somewhat
25 grown, I think, in the Tribunal over recent months and
1 years, and there are those who think that it's not a
2 bad idea if one can have the maximum possible
3 disclosure of what's going on by one party to the
4 other, even when ex parte hearings are being held. I
5 think it's probably something that the Registry is
6 thinking about itself.
7 It had occurred to me that it might be
8 sensible in this trial, which is obviously going to
9 last some time, to see if we can devise a regime of
10 being as full, in the provision of details on the other
11 side, as can be. I mention that Mr. Stein might, for
12 example, say, "Well, we're having an ex parte hearing
13 about," and then you can at least sometimes, if the
14 Chamber approves, you can at least identify the topic.
15 That makes the record that much more complete, and it
16 avoids any slipshod ex parte practices from developing
17 which one knows from other jurisdictions have sometimes
18 occurred. I only mention that now. If we can think of
19 a way of dealing with it, so much the better.
20 Having said that, in relation to those two
21 days, there may be something that we want to mention
22 simply by way of timetabling. In line with the spirit
23 of not having written motions for everything, if
24 tomorrow I'd like to raise that ex parte at the end of
25 the day, perhaps I'll be able to do it then. It will
1 only be, I think, for timetabling or for what motions
2 have to be served, but I don't want to do it now
3 because I haven't clarified the thing with
4 Ms. Featherstone and others.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It should be made plain
6 that our proceedings are inter parte. That means that
7 they take place in the presence of all and not one
8 party and that ex parte proceedings, even if permitted,
9 are to be kept to an absolute minimum. There are
10 issues in this case which have to be dealt with ex
11 parte. If at least the subject matter can be
12 identified to the other side, and this will apply to both
13 sides, so much the better because, in that way, it
14 avoids any suspicion as to what might be going on in
15 the absence of both parties.
16 Mr. Nice, I would encourage the development,
17 if possible, of a procedure which allows for as much
18 disclosure as is possible.
19 MR. NICE: Very well. Then tomorrow I may
20 find myself asking for five minutes to deal with a
21 timetabling matter on an ex parte motion, the general
22 nature of which I may be able to divulge.
23 The next thing is, again in the spirit of
24 there being no written motions or as few written
25 motions as possible, at some stage, I want to apply to
1 add to the witness list three names. They have
2 already, in fact, been included in the latest document
3 you've got in summary form. Can I take it that that's
4 something that should be done in court or would you
5 prefer that that matter be dealt with by written
7 JUDGE MAY: We will have to deal with it, but
8 you refer to it in your latest document?
9 MR. NICE: It's there, yes. It's under
10 Zepce, I think. I'm afraid I don't have the page
11 numbers at hand. I don't refer to the application. I
12 refer to the content of the witness statements. It's
13 on page 80 of the witness's -- I beg your pardon, page
15 JUDGE MAY: Why don't you make this the
16 application? What are their names or are you not in a
17 position to do so?
18 MR. NICE: Yes. I haven't prepared it as
19 fully as I would have done, which is why I'm reluctant
20 to make it right away. Page 81, and they are all
21 marked. Perhaps if you would be good enough to
22 consider the summaries overnight, then I can just deal
23 with that more fully tomorrow morning. They are the
24 three witnesses listed on page 81 and marked as
25 "Additional Subject to Application." There's one
1 other as well. It's better that I deal with it
2 tomorrow. In any event, it's better that I deal with
3 it when the Chamber has had an opportunity to consider
4 the document that I served, as I promised I would serve
5 today, or filed, as I promised I would file today,
6 because it may be that even tomorrow -- being anxious
7 not to cut into witness time, even tomorrow, the Court
8 might want me to take it through the document if it is
9 not self-explanatory, as I would hope it is.
10 JUDGE MAY: We are anxious to deal with this
11 matter and get to grips with the number of witnesses
12 and the extent of the evidence. That application should
13 perhaps better be postponed until we are going to deal
14 with that.
15 MR. NICE: Right.
16 JUDGE MAY: I can tell you that we are
17 meeting on Wednesday after the hearing to begin our
18 work upon this topic. We would wish, as soon as
19 possible thereafter, to go through the witnesses to get
20 some sort of order into the matter, from our point of
22 MR. NICE: I hope you'll find this document
23 helpful. I know you can't have any opportunity to look
24 at it.
25 JUDGE MAY: It was handed to us as we came
2 MR. NICE: Yes, I thought it probably was.
3 It's passages of text with the existing revised witness
4 summaries fitted in and characterised or categorised in
5 two ways. The document is self-explanatory, and
6 there's a discussion passage in the last three or four
7 pages of the document, which I hope you'll find all
8 provides a helpful starting point for the exercises
9 that we all have to go through. The document may
10 itself have to be subject to some revision, as is made
11 clear in the opening passage, because the mission or,
12 indeed, missions that have been underway and which I
13 told you of, aimed at discovering in more detail
14 witness availability and attitude, have only just
15 returned. So only part of their feedback, if that's
16 the right word, is included. They need to be fully
17 debriefed by me later in the week, and, indeed, those
18 taking part are entitled to contribute to the way that
19 I have, in their absence to some degree, categorised
20 the witnesses. So there may be some need for revision,
21 but I think that basically this is a document that will
22 set sails for the future.
23 I trust that the Court has also had and its
24 staff has been able to use the additional missing pages
25 from the core bundle of documents. They were provided
1 in a format that should have enabled your staff to fit
2 them in to exactly the right place in the core
3 documents, so that the core documents become if not
4 absolutely complete, document by document, very nearly
6 I think that's all the housekeeping I have.
7 JUDGE MAY: At the beginning of next week,
8 you should be in the position to be up to date,
9 presumably, having talked to the people who've come
10 back with witness availability to tell us if there's
11 any revision which can be made.
12 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly by the beginning of
13 next week. I can even give you some further
14 provisional views before Wednesday, if that would help
15 in the meeting that you're having then.
16 JUDGE MAY: If you have any further
17 information, let us know tomorrow or perhaps on
19 MR. NICE: Obviously, the whole topic has to
20 be discussed and, no doubt, argued about before any
21 decisions are made and matters of principle to arise,
22 but I have set them out in the discussion document at
23 the end.
24 Judge Bennouna, I don't know if it's in
25 French yet. I suspect not, and I'm very sorry, but it
1 was only in final form, I think, yesterday afternoon or
2 this morning.
3 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Thank you.
4 No, I didn't want to speak about the language, as
5 such. I'm now slowly learning to accept the hard
6 realities of this Tribunal being what it is, and I'm
7 learning to accept, among others, this privilege which
8 is given to one language rather than to another. We're
9 learning to live with it and possibly learning to
10 improve on our understanding of either language. This
11 is not so bad after all maybe.
12 Thank you, Mr. Kovacic, for thinking of me
13 all the time. I'm very thankful to you for that. But
14 don't worry, I'm able to follow what's happening in
15 detail, in spite of it all.
16 There was only one thing. I believe that
17 it is the contents of this document which is
18 interesting. It is good work that you've done there.
19 We're going to be able to use this document. If I
20 understand it well, you have ordered the witnesses, for
21 which we now have their summaries, you've classed them
22 or ordered them by locality and also by count in the
23 indictment. In front of each witness, we have the
24 locality, as well as the counts of the indictment; is
25 that so?
1 MR. NICE: Partly so. The categorisation is
2 slightly more detailed than that. We've listed first
3 those witnesses who can speak directly about the
4 defendants or either of them, and we then divided that
5 category of witnesses up into those who we categorise
6 as essential, and we qualify that term, but essential
7 and those who are less essential.
8 If you look at page 4 of the bundle you have,
9 you'll see the witness, numbered 2 elsewhere, named; you
10 will see a bold line to the left of the page which
11 signifies he's an essential witness, and you will see
12 his evidence is, as in the revised summary, set out,
13 although highlighted for your assistance with that
14 which is plainly critical. Then you go over the page
15 through page 5 and so on with the rest of this series
16 of witnesses who can give direct evidence about the
18 It happens that those witnesses cover a large
19 number of counts as well, and therefore it was thought
20 appropriate to mark and helpful to mark which counts
21 they cover. So if we stay on page 5, as an example,
22 and you look at the top witness, since I don't know
23 what, if any, protection may be sought, I shan't give
24 the name, but you can see the counts that are
1 If you look at the next witness, number 15,
2 you'll see again the counts that are capable of being
3 dealt with, but you'll see the word "unwilling" marked
4 there, reflecting some of the information coming to us
5 from the most recent exercises.
6 So that throughout the first section, then
7 you can go on to -- just to explain the format of the
8 document, this is the largest section -- you go on
9 until you get to page 24, and then between 23 and 24,
10 it happens to fall on the top of the page, there's a
11 thick horizontal line, and so you're now coming
12 literally to the witnesses who are below the line who
13 we categorise as less essential. They still are
14 witnesses who are capable of covering, in specific
15 terms, either Kordic or Cerkez, but they are, in our
16 judgement, less essential.
17 Now, that's the first category of witnesses,
18 and it's the biggest.
19 If you go to page 34, you find the beginning
20 of the second category of witnesses, the international
21 military personnel and monitors who had direct contact
22 with Kordic and Cerkez, a very important set of
23 witnesses. And we've pursued the same course there,
24 starting with Witness 18. The strong line on the
25 left-hand side enables you to know, even if you dip
1 into the pages and don't know which section you're in,
2 how the witness is categorised. It sets out again the
3 counts that he can cover, and it sets out, in the
4 summary of his evidence, by highlighting, what's the
5 particularly critical features.
6 The next section of witnesses begins -- and
7 so again in this section you go on from those who are
8 sidelined as important to those who are less.
9 Then you come to page 47, which is experts
10 and quasi-experts, similarly dealt with in terms of
11 whether essential or not.
12 At page 50, you come to those witnesses who
13 deal with attacks on villages, and it's broken down
14 then by localities, not by villages but by localities.
15 And you can see the localities. And again the strength
16 of the witnesses or their essential nature is
17 distinguished by whether they have a bold line beside
18 their name or not.
19 That takes us to the end of the document, all
20 but for the discussion that the Court specifically
21 referred to when inviting us to provide this document,
22 which starts at page 85 and is just really three or so
23 sides of important points to be considered.
24 I hope you'll find this a document that will
25 both set out our thinking and our approach to the
1 witnesses, and in the discussion document, identifies
2 some of the thorny issues that we've simply got to
3 grapple with.
4 JUDGE MAY: And how many essential witnesses
5 have you identified?
6 MR. NICE: It's been renumbered in my absence
7 over the weekend, and I think it comes between 100 and
8 150. Before you look at the questions of unwilling,
9 it's about 150, page 3. But as you'll see from the
10 discussion paper at the end, we're going to invite the
11 Chamber to say that there is the real need in the
12 Chamber, and the real potential in the Chamber, for
13 introducing means by which more evidence can be
14 properly received in a given time, and that that is the
15 most important next step for this Chamber to take.
16 May I simply say to Judge Bennouna, and I
17 hope I'll be forgiven this late in the afternoon, I
18 sympathise with him, and it's a matter of great regret,
19 I think for many of us here in the institution, that in
20 a bilingual institution, there aren't the facilities
21 for those who would like to either improve or even
22 those starting from scratch to become adept in both
23 languages. Having made that point, it may even sound
24 like a complaint, I say no more.
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, as to that, you must
1 make your own arrangements.
2 MR. NICE: Yes. Maybe I have.
3 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn. Half past 2.00
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
6 5.51 p.m., to be reconvened on
7 Tuesday, the 4th day of May, 1999,
8 at 2.30 p.m.