1 Wednesday, 25 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Witness D14, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the
12 solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
13 Mr. Harmon, are you ready to continue?
14 MR. HARMON: I am, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- cross-examination. Please proceed.
16 MR. HARMON: Can we go into private session, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 20397-20438 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 As far as the exhibits in relation to Witness D14 are concerned,
11 exhibits D124, D125, and D126A up to and including I are admitted under
12 seal. D127, criminal report, number 25 dated the 13th of September is
13 admitted. D128, an indictment against Bozic Stanko and others is admitted
14 into evidence. D129, indictment against Cicmanovic, Predrag, and others,
15 is also admitted.
16 Then Prosecution Exhibits P1045 up to and including -- up to and
17 including P1049 are all admitted. And I would like to mention briefly
18 1045, minutes of the war board, commission of the Vrbanci commune, 24th
19 of, September. 1046, Javnost article from Kotor Varos dated the 20th of
20 June. P1047, order to detain Anto Mandic. P1048, extract from the
21 minutes of the 100th Session of the War Presidency, held on the 16th of
22 October, 1992, which is the hundredth session of the War Presidency of
23 Kotor Varos, from what I remember. Then P1049, article from Novi Vjesnik,
24 which is to be spelled in a different way, dated the 20th of October,
25 1992, which still needs -- do we need a translation? It was the
1 photograph is there. We have the text under it. Yes, I think it should
2 be translated, as a matter of fact, although it is a very short text.
3 And then, Mr. Josse, the D127, D128, and 129, you'll understand
4 that this is a provisional admission because translations are not there.
5 And perhaps we should -- I don't think that the specific documents appear
6 in the bundle that the Prosecution provided to you, is it? We have to
7 deal with the -- with those exhibits, whether they could be admitted as
8 contextual exhibits.
9 MR. JOSSE: That's right. I -- perhaps -- well, I will check or
10 someone in our team will check with the Prosecution as to whether those
11 documents have been translated. Clearly we want to avoid duplication. I
12 mean, CLSS do that themselves in some way, but we can check.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JOSSE: And I'm aware that they require translation before
15 they're admitted.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And then the other documents the Prosecution has
17 provided which are not tendered or at least not tendered yet, but given
18 more complete picture, I would say, of the cases and the development of
19 cases and what they resulted in. Could the parties discuss whether they
20 could agree on admission of those as contextual exhibits?
21 MR. JOSSE: I'm on my feet and I just want to say in fairness to
22 Mr. Harmon, he's been attempting to do that with me, and in the last 20
23 minutes or so in between both of us having various other things to attend
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JOSSE: I would rather consider the matter a little bit more.
2 It is a matter I would like to speak to Mr. Stewart about. Your Honour
3 knows I have concerns about contextual documents in the course of the
4 Prosecution case. The matter hasn't been discussed or argued at any
5 length, and perhaps I could speak to Mr. Stewart as to the stance he
6 suggests we take.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. And at the same time, Mr. Josse, I
8 hope that it's clear to the Defence that presenting important matters such
9 as proceedings instituted against certain persons, that it's very
10 difficult for the Chamber to get a clear view on what happened if it's
11 presented with bits and pieces. And if the contextual exhibits could
12 fill-in some of the remaining questions based on the material that was
13 presented - and that's what the Chamber is seeking, for example, if one of
14 the witnesses has -- one of the accused has died and if there's a document
15 that states that, then the question on whether he was further indicted,
16 yes or no, receives an answer by such a document -- and I would say in
17 this context also, if someone dies, then of course it's difficult for the
18 Prosecution to say that that person was not prosecuted because there was a
19 policy of not prosecuting. I mean, there's a clear, legal rule that you
20 do not prosecute someone who is not alive anymore. So that clarifies some
21 issues. And the Chamber is mainly interested in getting a more complete
22 picture of the -- what is, to some extent, dealt with in the evidence.
23 MR. JOSSE: I would just like to say: I appreciate that, and I
24 mean it with the greatest respect, that of course is common sense and
25 something that the Defence, in all seriousness, can't oppose. By the same
1 token, I don't want to stand here and moan because that's going to do no
2 one any good, but I do have concerns about the imbalance between the
3 parties and access to this material. And that's really what's going
4 through my head in taking a slightly reserved stance in relation to this
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- we'll then hear from you at a later stage.
7 Mr. Harmon.
8 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, should the package of court documents be
9 given a number, provisionally at least?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we give it a number. No decision whatsoever
11 on -- I do then understand that this is a bundle of documents about court
12 cases related to -- to a number of accused which appears in the testimony.
13 It could be given a number. The clear -- the final description we should
14 clearly define that, Mr. Registrar, but provisional number would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: P1050, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P1050, and we wait for the Defence's observation
17 before we take a decision on admission, yes or no.
18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I have another observation I think
19 related to this. I think included in this -- I think included in
20 Prosecution Exhibit 202 is a Banja Luka military court register that
21 Your Honours have in that exhibit. I do not believe it has been
22 translated, and I -- because the case specifically now has been brought to
23 my attention. So what I will do is I will get a translation of this
24 because it answers the questions the Court may have what happened in that
25 case. And so I just let Your Honours know that we will be submitting to
1 the Court a translation of the untranslated part of 202, of the case that
2 was brought to the Court's attention by the Defence, in tabs 7 and 8.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then a decision on admission still to be
5 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Any further matter in relation to the exhibits?
8 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. HARMON: There is an exhibit that I have passed around -- I
11 would like to address contextual exhibits, and I --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
13 MR. HARMON: -- have two contextual exhibits I would like to bring
14 to the Court's attention. The first one which is an overview on data
15 could be disseminated. The Court is -- the Court has seen this before.
16 This is a report, an overview on data, on the number in ethnic structure
17 of population according to municipalities in the area of Banja Luka. RDB
18 state security department centre for 1991 to 1995. It's dated February of
19 1995. And, Your Honours, it is relevant with this witness's testimony if
20 Your Honours turn to page 4 where it has those populations for the years
21 1991 and 1995. And we would submit this document, Your Honour, as a
22 contextual document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
24 MR. JOSSE: In fairness to my learned friend, this was an
25 application that he made before -- some time ago in relation to another
1 witness. And we've had some time to consider it. Mr. Krajisnik does not
2 accept the veracity of this document necessarily, and he's been at pains
3 to point that out to me when I have twice discussed the matter with him,
4 again using the same expression eighteen moments ago a few moments ago.
5 By the sake token it seems to me that it would be churlish of the Defence
6 to oppose its admission, but that does not mean to say that its contents
7 are accepted 100 per cent.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand your position that you say that
9 the Defence accepts that this is a document which is -- is made by the
10 Republika Srpska authorities and admission does not mean that if at a
11 certain page it says that 13.000 Muslims are left, that that's necessarily
12 every -- every portion of it is accepted. Let me just take it, is there
13 a -- there is also a recapitulation at the very end from what I see, given
14 the gross numbers, not split up for the municipalities. And it's about --
15 of course, it's limited to the Banja Luka area. Could you please then at
16 a later moment specifically make observations as to whether this portion
17 is accepted or not. If not, then of course --
18 MR. JOSSE: If I'm given that opportunity, I'd be happy to discuss
19 that with my client.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Because I can imagine, for all of the
21 municipalities it's almost impossible to -- but whether it's accepted as
22 a -- globally. I mean, I'm not talking now of tenth of per cents or not
23 even perhaps about 2 or 3 percent, but it says, for example, the Serbs 56
24 at the beginning and 89, that mean -- what we would like to know is
25 whether the Defence accepts that there was an increase of approximately 30
1 per cent of the population come from Serbs, and a reduction of the
2 population -- well, let's say coming close to -- close to 80 per cent of
3 the population, whether that would be 75 or 72 or 82 is not our major
4 concern, but what is accepted is that major changes in the composition and
5 the ethnic composition in that area is accepted as a fact. That's what
6 I --
7 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. We'll take that on board, consider the
8 matter, and deal with it in due course in the row with submission about
9 contextual documents when the Chamber thinks that -- when there is an
10 appropriate moment to make submissions in relation to that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Then I think we should give a provisional number if it's not been
13 granted yet. That would be.
14 THE REGISTRAR: P1051, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 1051, decision pending, awaiting Defence
17 And the second one, Mr. Harmon.
18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the second document -- the second
19 document -- I need to go into closed session to discuss --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We go into closed session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 20446-20448 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Harmon.
6 MR. HARMON: Your Honours had requested other exemplars of the
7 document found in P35. The question I have -- those are being collected
8 as I speak. Now, would the Court wish those to be submitted in a package
9 at a later time as an exhibit? I will certainly share them with the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What the Chamber would prefer, as a matter of
12 fact, that once you have collected them that you disclose them, if not yet
13 disclosed, to the Defence. That the parties would seek an agreement on
14 whether, if you say: We found 60 similar documents, they all bear the
15 same text or they are different, that a brief description, an agreement,
16 on the existence of those documents would -- perhaps if one or two other
17 examples, especially if there's some variation, would assist the Chamber.
18 Of course the Chamber is not seeking to focus on the names of the persons,
19 et cetera. But whatever way you could agree upon with the Defence to
20 present to the Chamber a better view on to what extent this is an example
21 of something which is not frequently found or whether it's frequently
22 found and give the Chamber an impression as to the frequency of it.
23 If there are certain documents that vary in content, then of
24 course the Chamber would like to know that as well. So apart from your
25 activity and Mr. Josse's also -- and if you could assist Mr. Josse in that
1 and say: We found 50 similar but 60 which are really different, we would
2 like to be informed of that.
3 MR. HARMON: I have already made it clear to Mr. Josse that I will
4 do precisely that, I will share with them all of those.
5 The last question I have in respect of that exhibit found at P35,
6 does the Court want the research that I am conducting in our archives
7 restricted to similar documents from Kotor Varos or from the ARK? Because
8 there are -- I know we have similar documents from other municipalities in
9 the ARK.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think we received in evidence at least -- but I'm
11 now talking from my memory, that from at least one other municipality
13 MR. HARMON: I'm told, Your Honour, there are similar documents
14 from other municipalities. And my question is: Do Your Honours wish to
15 see those as well, because I can collect them.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would -- and again, of course, after
18 having disclosed and discussed the matter with the Defence, would like to
19 be informed what happened in the other municipalities, but not necessarily
20 provided with all of the documents you have. If there is a kind of a
21 standard, then we'd like to see one or two examples and be informed.
22 Perhaps the parties could agree on that, on the existence of another 20 or
23 another 100 or another 5.000 similar documents or whether there are other
24 documents which really are quite different from the ones that were
25 prevailing in your archives.
1 MR. JOSSE: Any observations in this in as far as the Defence are
2 concerned would be parse and parcel of the issues I've already alluded to
3 and invite the Court and allow to consider within the next seven days.
4 It's a similar issue. Of course, I accept that we need to pass the spade
5 openly in the task that Prosecution are carrying out, but I reserve the
6 right to argue the matter in the round as I've already alluded to.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand if there would be -- of course
8 if the Chamber asked for these documents, the Chamber also is entitled to
9 call evidence even in a documentary form, but of course if there would be
10 serious concerns about the authenticity of these documents, et cetera,
11 then of course we'd hear about it. But you'll include that in your
12 submissions in relation to contextual documents.
13 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. HARMON: That's all, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to turn into closed session for one
17 second or private session.
18 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Are you ready, Mr. Josse, to call your next witness?
4 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I am.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any protective measures, Mr. Josse?
6 MR. JOSSE: No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No protective measures. And your next witness would
9 MR. JOSSE: Name is Tomislav Savkic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Savkic into the
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Savkic. Before we give evidence in
15 this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a
16 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
17 nothing but the truth. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
18 The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Savkic. Please be seated.
22 Mr. Savkic, this Chamber has been informed that you have some
23 health concerns. If at any moment you feel that your medical condition,
24 your health, would disenable you to testify and to focus on the questions
25 that will be put to you, please inform me immediately so that we can take
1 the appropriate measures in order to secure that your testimony, which
2 will be received by the Chamber, is not in any way negatively influenced
3 by your medical condition to an unacceptable level.
4 So please, don't hesitate to raise that issue. You'll first be
5 examined by Mr. Josse, who's counsel for the Defence.
6 Mr. Josse, you may proceed.
7 WITNESS: TOMISLAV SAVKIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examined by Mr. Josse:
10 Q. Mr. Savkic, it's right that you were born and grew up in Milici in
11 the Vlasenica municipality?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Now, I can see - the Chamber may not have the -- well, don't have
14 the same view as me. You're looking in your bag. What are you looking
16 A. I would like to take some material out of the bag, some documents.
17 Q. Don't do that at the moment. What the usher will provide you
18 with, if it would provide you with, if it will help you, is a blank piece
19 of paper and a pen, if you wish to make any notes. Would you like that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I know you have some original documents. Perhaps in due course
22 you'll be asked to provide them, but not at the moment. If there is a
23 document, a specific document you wish to refer to in answer to a question
24 that anyone asks you, tell the learned Presiding Judge, and chances are he
25 will give you permission to provide the Court with that document. Do you
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You went to Tuzla to do a degree in electro-technical engineering?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At -- thereafter, you worked as a middle school teacher, teaching
6 technical subjects. And in 1984 you went to work for the bauxite Boksit
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It might be worth mentioning in passing now, the Boksit company
10 was a very large employer, certainly was at the time, in Vlasenica?
11 A. Yes. It had about 3.200 employees.
12 Q. I should have said that between 1981 and 1982 you did your
13 military service in the JNA. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It's also right that at some point in time you were a member of
16 the League of Communists, until its dissolution?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You joined the SDS, and you stood in the 1990 multi-party
19 elections for the BiH Assembly. You were not elected, but you ended up a
20 reserve, in effect?
21 A. Yes. As six candidates entered from my electoral unit, I was the
22 next-following candidate.
23 Q. Dealing with your history, continuing with your history, it's
24 right that on the 9th of May, 1992, a deputy was killed, the result of
25 which was you became a member of the Republika Srpska Assembly and you
1 took your oath in September or October of 1992 for that particular
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You were -- you remained a member of that Assembly until 1996?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in -- on the 1st of November of 1993 you became president of
7 the Municipal Assembly in Milici and remained in that job until the 30th
8 of July, 1998?
9 A. The 30th of July, 1998.
10 Q. And you became a member again of the Republika Srpska Assembly
11 between the years 2000/2002?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And again in 2004 you became a member, following the mass
14 expulsion of various members by the then-high representative?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you remain a member of that Assembly at this present time?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. At all material times from 1990 onwards, you've been a member of
19 the SDS. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Before I ask you about the foundation of the SDS, it's right - and
22 it's not in dispute, I dare say - that the war in the Vlasenica-Milici
23 region was particularly savage?
24 A. Yes. As is the case in all world wars.
25 Q. Did you say "world wars" or "civil wars"?
1 A. In the area of my municipality, two world wars were fought. And
2 one could say that in both of them in the fight against fascism there was
3 a civil war that was being fought at the same time.
4 Q. Well, that, in fact, is an issue I want to ask you about briefly.
5 Through, shall we say, the 1980s/early 1990s before the outbreak of the
6 war with which this Tribunal is dealing, what ill feeling was there among
7 the population of your municipality that had resulted from the previous
8 world wars?
9 A. Well, there were many bad memories. When Austria-Hungary attacked
10 in the first world war, it's a well-known fact that the Muslims and the
11 green unit from Schutzkore [phoen] arrested and killed the rich Serbs and
12 appropriated their property. The names of all these people were handed
13 down from one generation to the next. And everyone knew very well who had
14 been taken away by whom and who had been killed by whom.
15 In the Second World War, something similar occurred when the
16 fascist, independent state of Croatia was established. My region also
17 became part of that fascist entity. And at the same time that that entity
18 was established, all priests, all teachers, I'd say four priests, and all
19 teachers and all rich individuals were taken to what was called Kotor at
20 the time, and none of them ever returned. After a certain number of days
21 had passed, dogs arrived with a human arm in a village in the vicinity,
22 Drakulici, and we could recognise the arm of one of the four Drakulici
23 brothers. It was a very well-known family. And then it was established
24 that all these people were killed in a stream or a stream in the vicinity.
25 Unfortunately, all this was covered up in the communist system. But
1 between 167 and 200 prominent Serbs from the municipalities of Milici,
2 Vlasenica, Sekovici, and perhaps Han Pijesak were affected. Similarly, in
3 the course of that war it's a well-known fact that the Francetic division
4 and the Ustasha division had about 10.000 armed Ustashas wearing black
5 uniforms and caps with a metal "U." And they set off from the south of
6 what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. They set off from Mostar, let's say,
7 and then from the Drina to the Neretva, these 10.000 individuals
8 ethnically cleaned that area. The worst massacres took place in the
9 municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Han Pijesak, Rogatica, Visegrad,
10 and the population was driven to the Drina River. And all those who
11 didn't manage to flee to Serbia, that included women and children and the
12 elderly, all these people were killed.
13 It's no problem to study this situation with the help of maps,
14 historical maps. One can see from these maps that this area was
15 ethnically cleansed at the time. Unfortunately, when this Francetic
16 division went on the rampage, the Muslims soon joined in because there
17 were no Croats in the area. They served in that fascist entity, that
18 fascist creation. And as in the First World War, all those well-known
19 murderers were the sons of the individuals who had committed the same sort
20 of acts in the course of the First World War. Briefly the population was
21 very suspicious. There was a lack of trust. When the first incidents
22 broke out in Croatia and Slovenia, that was in 1991, but the question put
23 concerned 1990.
24 Q. And I want to take you to 1990 and ask you about the foundation of
25 the SDA in Vlasenica. Did you attend any of the founding meetings and
1 rallies of that political party?
2 A. I observed the SDA meeting in Vlasenica. I was present. I was in
3 Vlasenica, but I could not directly observe it at the location where it
4 was being held. What I can say that is -- that it was not that radical.
5 It was not as radical as the meeting held in the Bratunac municipality
6 because there are videotapes of this meeting, but the Serbs who attended
7 that meeting have told me that in certain areas inhabited by the most
8 radical Muslims, they heard slogans such as "the Serbs have to be
9 slaughtered" and "the Serbs must go to Serbia."
10 But with regard to Bajram, in 1992 there was an appeal to all
11 Muslims to come to the centre of Bratunac -- or rather, to the centre of
12 the Muslim state. This propaganda material was distributed in both Muslim
13 villages and in mixed villages, villages --
14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
16 MR. MARGETTS: The question was very specific, and it appears at
17 lines [sic] 63, 8 to 10, and that is whether or not the witness attended
18 any founding meetings and rallies of the SDA, and the answer is going well
19 beyond that question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may be that the witness made some
21 observations which would be the subject of the next question of Mr. Josse.
22 MR. JOSSE: Well, precisely. I don't know whether the objection
23 is to the evidence that's being given, but otherwise I don't understand an
24 interruption like that. Perhaps my learned friend could explain it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well -- yes, please do so, but let's not spend too
1 much time on it. If it's true that the next questions of Mr. Josse would
2 deal with the matters the witness spontaneously came up with, then of
3 course no one would expect Mr. Josse to intervene.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. Just minded as to how other
5 examinations have proceeded and in terms of ensuring that the witness is
6 listening to the questions and being responsive to them. I just wanted to
7 make that point early in the testimony and ensure that Mr. Josse is also
8 attending to it. If, of course, it seems to be the case that Mr. Josse
9 did intend to cover this ground, then we'll withdraw the objection and
10 invite Mr. Josse to proceed. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Please do so, Mr. Josse.
13 MR. JOSSE:
14 Q. You were talking, Witness, about propaganda material that was
15 distributed in both Muslim villages and mixed villages at the time of
16 Bajram in 1992. Go on, please.
17 A. Just for the sake of information, the meeting was attended by an
18 academic, a Muslim academic. He was a well-known academic in Bosnia and
19 Herzegovina at the time, Mr. Filipovic. But the reaction to his speech
20 was negative, and they wanted to know why Alija Izetbegovic hadn't come to
21 the meeting. In addition, I watched the television at the time, and there
22 was an Assembly -- or I saw parts of the Assembly that was held in Foca.
23 This was relayed by -- or broadcast by a public television channel and,
24 according to the statements heard, it was said that Foca should become an
25 Islamic centre. I'm not sure whether this was supposed to be at the level
1 of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the former Yugoslavia or of that region.
2 In other areas, with regard to these meetings, all I can do is
3 speak about what others said, but it's obvious that I should not do that.
4 Q. Do you know why the reaction to what Mr. Filipovic said was
6 A. In that period, Mr. Filipovic, as well as another well-off, quite
7 well-known gentleman - I can't remember his name I will probably remember
8 it in the course of my testimony - they were in favour of life in
9 Yugoslavia together being possible. That was their position. And it was
10 the alternative for everyone, both Muslims and Serbs, at least that's how
11 I understood it when I was viewing that tape.
12 Q. Moving on. Why was the SDS set-up in Vlasenica?
13 A. After the parties were established at the municipal level, the
14 majority of the parties, including those in Vlasenica - and as I said, we
15 didn't have the -- too many members of the Croat population in our
16 municipalities, but we knew that the Croatian Democratic Union was also
17 founded. It became obvious that the Serbian people, too, needed a
18 political organisation which would articulate the interests of the Serbian
19 people. However, we in Vlasenica were divided. Some thought that a party
20 should be established, a party of a national nature - let me put it that
21 way; however, the majority opinion of intellectuals prevailed. When I
22 say "intellectuals," I mean people who have a university education,
23 masters in art or science, those who have a doctorate, people who have a
24 lot of life experience also, they believe that democratic party should be
25 established which would also have a kind of economic programme platform.
1 However, in a couple of municipalities saying that there was an
2 appropriate number of Muslims who would accept such a party, because it
3 was obvious that the problems that were piling up can only be resolved in
4 a democratic way and primarily within that in an economic way. In a
5 couple of these municipalities they met - now I'm talking about the
6 Serbs - and they proposed a platform for the party. The party was called
7 the Party of Democratic Reforms. Unfortunately, over a period of several
8 months, not a single Muslim from these municipalities, meaning Vlasenica,
9 Sekovici, Han Pijesak, and Bratunac, did not wish to join this party. And
10 that is why once the programme fell through, we set out to establish the
11 Serbian Democratic Party. For the sake of truth - and this is very easy
12 to demonstrate - all the intellectuals, not all of them but most of them,
13 most of the Serb intellectuals, were within this system of party
15 And I would just like to note that as opposed to this part -- the
16 founding part of the Party of Democratic Action in Vlasenica, except for
17 one honest doctor who worked in the Vlasenica medical centre, the complete
18 Municipal Board was comprised of exceptionally radical people of average
19 education. And the Muslim intellectuals themselves said, alluding to a
20 number of these young men in the SDA, that the party was being led by
21 shopkeepers. And it's true that those actually who were in the party
22 leadership were people who worked in grocery stores or places that sold
23 fruit and vegetables.
24 Q. Summarising, because the Chamber will have this information
25 anyway, in the 1990 elections, the SDS won 27 seats, the SDA 26 seats.
1 There were a few seats for some smaller parties. And, in other words, it
2 reflected the reality of the situation in the municipality, which was it
3 was almost equally split between Muslims and Serbs. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it's right - and I suspect I can lead on this up to a point -
6 there was an effort at this stage to set up a new municipal government on
7 an equal 50/50 basis. Correct?
8 A. Leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina amongst the victorious
9 parties, the HDZ, the SDA, and the SDS, agreement was reached to divide
10 power according to what the actual situation was in the municipalities,
11 where the populations were mixed. As far as I can remember, in the
12 municipalities usually one people was dominant, but as a rule this didn't
13 have a apply. So this was enforced in these municipal teams, that it was
14 left up to them to assess whether somebody deserved or did not deserve
15 from the ranks of the other peoples to be appointed to the place that they
16 were being proposed for. However, sums, simple calculations, indicated
17 that there were 27 SDS mandates. I don't know how many of the other
18 mandates there were. But it was not possible to form single, national
19 authority. Nobody considered anything like that and that is why we
20 formed -- right now I cannot remember whether that was a commission or a
21 council- comprising of two parties. But we will see later that there were
22 cases of these councils being interethnic. However, in this case I think
23 it was a purely party council where we agreed that the power should be
24 divided 50/50.
25 I must say that in view of the exceptionally, let us say now as
1 far as education was concerned, we insisted that candidates have the
2 appropriate education - I'm talking on behalf of the SDS now - that we
3 would not allow people to be appointed to such high posts in accordance
4 with the practice in their municipal leadership, that we would not permit
5 any kind of light decisions being made when such high-ranking and serious
6 appointments and posts were concerned.
7 Q. To what extent did the secessionist movements in Slovenia and
8 Croatia affect the functioning of this government on an equal basis in
9 your municipality?
10 A. If I understood the question properly, and I hope that I did, as
11 soon as the secessionist movement began in Slovenia, the sides became
12 polarised. And this, first of all, was reflected in the matter of the
13 Yugoslav People's Army. When the process in Slovenia occurred, there was
14 a call-up for one of the battalions -- or actually, a unit, more precisely
15 speaking, in Han Pijesak which consisted of members of Muslims and Serbs
16 as well as other ethnic groups. However, I said that these numbers were
17 negligible. I mentioned Montenegrins, Romas, a few Croats. And during
18 the mobilisation process, the battalion was transferred in this war
19 composition, in its reserve composition, it was transferred to Banja Luka.
20 I cannot remember now exactly which place they were transferred to, but it
21 was close to Banja Luka. The then-president of the Executive Board of the
22 municipality of Vlasenica, Izit Redzic [phoen], along with, I would say,
23 the radical wing of the Municipal Board of the Party of Democratic Action,
24 and with the help of the women or the wives of the Muslims who were
25 members of the battalion -- actually, their mothers, sisters, and all
1 others, actually, who didn't have any family links, they all went to Banja
2 Luka and they put up a blockade or they staged quite radical
3 demonstrations and they broke into the municipal building, seeking that
4 all members of the -- all Muslim members be returned to Vlasenica, but
5 also advocating that Muslims no longer respond, not only to mobilisation
6 into the reserve forces, but also to the regular forces, in terms of
7 recruitment of the active members of the Yugoslav People's Army. And
8 asking the Serb representatives of the municipality to provide a bus
9 that -- that would be sent there so that they could bring back their
10 fathers, their sons, namely the members of this battalion. This request
11 was accommodated, buses were donated, amongst others, by my company as
12 well, the Boksit company as well as many others. The buses left. They
13 were almost totally -- and for the sake of truth, I really have to say
14 there was a really negligible number, but there were a couple of Muslims
15 who didn't want to go back. When I say "negligible number," perhaps it
16 was two, three, five Muslims.
17 But from that point on, practically the constitutional category,
18 the laws on the army and the laws on the Territorial Defence practically
19 were no longer in force in this municipality. Pouring more oil on the
20 fire was the decision by the Rump Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
21 which was not attended by two of its Serb members. And this decision was
22 adopted, I cannot remember when, but it was probably in this period or
23 perhaps a couple of months later. This is something that can be found in
24 the archives. And the decision was that Muslims and Croats should not
25 respond to call-ups in the JNA or the Territorial Defence; in other words,
1 this was the crash of the Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial
2 Defence conceived in accordance to the constitution and the laws in force
3 in relation to the army and the Territorial Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I'm looking at the clock. I think we
5 are -- if this would be an appropriate moment for --
6 MR. JOSSE: It would be because I'm about to show the witness the
7 first document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 I would ask Madam Usher to first escort the witness out of the
10 courtroom. We'll have a break for 20 minutes, and ...
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I was wondering, just looking at the
13 transcript, for the last seven minutes we listened to what I would
14 summarise as fundamental disagreement on mobilisation and whether or not
15 to follow any call for mobilisation. I think we've heard this kind of
16 evidence, if not 15 times, then perhaps ten or nine or 11. It goes into
17 quite some detail, whereas one or two brief questions -- and I take it
18 that there would be no problem leading on this, whether the disagreement
19 on whether or not to follow any mobilisation call had its effects on
20 tensions in Vlasenica would done, especially since you announced that we
21 would need far more time for this witness.
22 A similar thing happened. I didn't want to interrupt during the
23 first ten minutes where he, I would say, again - I don't even know whether
24 that's in dispute - told us that there were vivid memories that the Serbs
25 had -- vivid memories to atrocities committed to -- sometimes large-scale
1 atrocities committed by what they call Ustashas during the Second World
2 War and that there was a relation with the First World War. I mean, I've
3 heard that so many times and I don't even know -- I mean, I'm not -- I'm
4 not talking about whether this would justify any further direction. I'm
5 not talking about whether this was fueled by others or abused and
6 exploited, but the mere fact that people knew exactly which neighbour in
7 which village had killed which person is then in dispute.
8 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Josse, what's the need of -- to go over all
10 this ground again? It's -- it seems to me agreed upon by the parties, and
11 the Chamber, as far as I can see at this moment -- of course, we have not
12 heard the whole of the case - doesn't seem to have great difficulties in
13 accepting an agreement on these facts, even memories being very vivid.
14 MR. JOSSE: Well, I understand what's being said. I will do my
15 best not to make the same mistake again, and I may try and lead the
16 witness a little bit more. I suspect --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness tends to go very much in detail,
18 even where details seem not to be -- sometimes you may have noticed that
19 the Chamber is very much interested in details, but mainly not in major
20 details of events that are generally described and took place during the
21 Second World War.
22 We'll adjourn until five minutes to 1.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, please proceed.
2 MR. JOSSE: Could the witness have the bundle, please, and I'd
3 like to turn to tab 9 there, if we could. Can I first of all make this
4 very obvious for an important observation it says "handwritten on copy,
5 Savkic 2." This is clearly some sort of reference that a member of our
6 team who submitted this document put upon it, and that isn't on the
7 copy -- B/C/S version. So it can be crossed out and should be crossed
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Everyone is expected to do that now so no
10 further waste of paper occurs.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. JOSSE:
13 Q. Now, this is a document, Mr. Savkic, dated the 11th of July of
14 1991, sending -- from Hasan Cengic, addressed Sarajevo, on behalf of the
15 SDA, sending candidates to the Republic of Croatia for police, or MUP,
17 What's your knowledge of this, please?
18 A. In that period, meaning June and July 1991 and before that also,
19 representatives of the Party of Democratic Action always said that there
20 was inequality in the MUP in the number of those executing the tasks and
21 that it was necessary to bring down the number of the police officers to
22 some kind of inter-ethnic ratio. What was important, other than the
23 evidently obvious trainings that existed in order to train police, we're
24 talking about Bosnia and Herzegovina as well, for example Vrace. The
25 most -- or the best-known high school for training such cadres was in
1 Sremska Kamenica, in Vojvodina, however it was noticed that most of those
2 people were going to Croatia for training, although in that period already
3 the well-known events were unfolding, about which this Tribunal has
4 information already. In that period the well-known events happened in
5 Croatia, in other words the secession attempt took place. However, this
6 document that I have in front of me we received -- or rather, I saw it
7 some time in April 1992, and the document confirms the fact that the Party
8 of Democratic Action directly, in a well-known way with well-known
9 instructions, sent candidates it picked exclusively, not their expert
10 people in the police stations, which can be seen from subsequent
11 instructions. But in that time, actually, they were sending these people
12 over there for training to Croatia. Obviously at that point in time they
13 had already -- they were already saying one thing and doing another thing.
14 There was no longer any question of a multi-ethnic police force. They
15 were sending their candidates over there, and later it will be seen that
16 young men from the Croatian people -- but it's obvious that something was
17 being done in this training which members of the Serbian people were not
18 supposed to know. It can be assumed what that was.
19 Q. Can I just ask you: In what circumstances in April of 1992 did
20 you see this document?
21 A. It came out that the commander of the public security station in
22 Vlasenica, Turkovic, was one of the main means for the arming of the
23 Muslim people via the Party of Democratic Action. And when he found out
24 that an imam gave a statement in which he mentioned his name, he then
25 fled. And in the drawer of his desk, this document was found, which
1 related to Vlasenica. And, as you can see, the document was sent to all
2 the Executive Boards of the SDA in all the municipalities; that's when it
3 was found.
4 Since I am very good friends with the chief, so although we're
5 talking about Vlasenica, at the time he was the chief of the public
6 security station, that is when I saw this document for the first time and
7 found out that it existed. But this is only saying what we already knew
8 before, because when that police came back, those police officers we saw
9 that they were wearing uniforms of the Croatian police and so on and so
11 MR. JOSSE: Could the document have a number, please.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 9, Your Honours, will be D130.
13 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one additional question.
14 You said this was a secret operation, to send them to Croatia and
15 to have them trained there. At the same time you say: We knew already
16 before I found this time that they were trained because they came back in
17 Croatian uniforms. How to reconcile the secret character of the operation
18 and, at the same time, which may have caused quite some suspicion, to wear
19 Croatian uniforms?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the time there was
21 the possibility that I as a citizen could freely enroll at the Croatian
22 police training school. So there would have been another explanation that
23 those people went to Croatia of their own free will, completed the
24 training. It doesn't matter. But when we got this document, you will see
25 that there is a list there where the names of those people who were sent
1 there are mentioned. So when we saw that, then we put two and two
2 together and saw that this was done in an organised fashion through one of
3 the political parties and did not go through any of the competent organs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If I understand you well. You say that those people
5 were trained at a police academy in Croatia was not something that would
6 necessarily have to be kept secret but that it was the SDA who was behind
7 it and organised it that was supposed to remain secret. Yes. Thank you.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. JOSSE:
10 Q. I want to now --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
12 MR. JOSSE:
13 Q. -- turn to the issue of Muslim arming in 1991 in the municipality.
14 Firstly, could you have a look, please, at tab 7.
15 MR. JOSSE: Again, Your Honour, let me assist in two ways.
16 Firstly, the 4E that we see in the top right-hand corner has got nothing
17 to do with this document. I can vouch for that. It was an aid used
18 earlier for preparation. And as is clear, the translation, as goes for
19 quite a number in this bundle, is unofficial. It is a full translation.
20 I can't promise that every single word is contained within it, but it is a
21 full or [indiscernible] translation, and like all the translations done by
22 the Defence in this bundle have been done by our best translator.
23 Q. This, Mr. Savkic, is a report from a Mr. Radomir -- sorry,
24 probably, in fact, Mr. Bjelanovic, Radomir Bjelanovic, dated the 11th of
25 June, 1991. Listen to my questions carefully. Are you able to tell the
1 Court what form this report takes? In other words, who was he preparing
2 the report for? Why does it appear in this particular manner?
3 A. This is evidently a dispatch of the centre of the security
4 services of Tuzla and the public security station Milici with the MUP -- I
5 think at the time it was called the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. This is 1991. This is a system of communication using
7 devices. I cannot remember its proper name right now. I have an original
8 indicating what that what looks like. It's not a teleprompter. I'm
9 blocked. I can't recall. But anyway, it was done through devices which
10 are covered; they're not accessible. And this was the official dispatch
11 system, and it was how the organs within the MUP communicated, the MUP of
12 the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. The document, for the most part, speaks for itself. But perhaps
14 you can help in this regard: Where do you understand that these charges
15 against this individual had been laid? Which area? Which municipality?
16 Which place?
17 A. It states clearly here that the criminal charges were submitted
18 against a person named Behto Kahrimanovic. And it was -- the form was
19 taken to the authorised prosecutor's office for illegal possession of
20 firearms and explosive materials. I don't know whether there will be more
21 documents relating to this particular person, but there are a whole bunch
22 of documents there which will clearly indicate that this is about a man
23 who supplied Muslims, most often, with weapons. But it says also in a
24 part of his statement that he also supplied weapons to others. But from
25 what can be seen from the documents, it is obvious that he mostly supplied
1 members of Muslim ethnicity.
2 Q. And how did you get hold of this document?
3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just before we move to this question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. MARGETTS: It may be appropriate to note that the witness
6 hasn't answered the previous question, and if, possibly, he could be
7 referred back to that question.
8 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I accept that, Your Honour, and I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps I could try again.
11 Q. Do we know, looking at this document, Mr. Savkic, where these
12 charges had been laid against this man?
13 A. If you read through this part, since the public security station
14 in Vlasenica is concerned, it's obvious that this criminal report was
15 filed with the competent prosecutor's office in Vlasenica.
16 Q. Did reports from the public security station in Vlasenica ever go
17 to a court other than the one in Vlasenica, at least at this time?
18 A. The municipal prosecutor's office in Vlasenica was only -- only
19 had jurisdiction over the territory of the municipality of Vlasenica,
20 Sekovici, and Han Pijesak. It depended on the public security station
21 that filed a criminal report, but they all filed criminal reports with the
22 municipal prosecutor's office in Vlasenica. As the case throughout the
23 world, the jurisdiction of courts and prosecutors is well regulated.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you dealt with this matter?
25 MR. JOSSE: I haven't, Your Honour, no. I was going to go on and
1 ask some more questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JOSSE:
4 Q. How did you get hold of this document, Mr. Savkic?
5 A. I received this document from the then-chief of the public
6 security station in Vlasenica.
7 Q. Approximately when was it that this person gave you the document,
9 A. Well, given all the events that we still have not discussed yet,
10 the events prior to those bloody incidents in the municipality -- well, it
11 was at that point that I had this document before we because it's quite
12 obvious that at the time, since I worked in -- with a team of people, a
13 mixed team composed of Serbs and Muslims who had tried to deal with the
14 problems in the municipality of Vlasenica, well given the situation it was
15 possible for me to see the document. The chief was in a position to
16 provide it with me, and I've had this document or, rather, a photocopy of
17 this document for a number of years now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Savkic, the question, quite simple, was
19 when this document was given to you. You give a lot of circumstantial
20 events which seems to be of importance for you to remember when you
21 received the document. Could you give us month; year; if possible, of
22 course, day; or approximate when did you receive this document?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've had the document in my files
24 for -- or rather, a copy of the document for the last three or four years.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the conclusion is then that you received
1 that after 2000. Yes.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
3 MR. JOSSE:
4 Q. We see the date on this. What was the ethnic composition of the
5 public security station in June of 1991? In other words, was it
6 ethnically mixed?
7 A. That's absolutely correct. There's no doubt that there was Serbs,
8 Muslims. I believe that there was a Croat whose name I can't remember
9 now. I don't know how many Montenegrins there were. The composition was
10 mixed, whereas the leadership was represented by both the Serbs and
12 Q. And did the same apply to the MUP at that time?
13 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct. To be quite frank, I wouldn't
14 want to go into all the details, but yes, that's absolutely correct. This
15 can be seen when you have a look at the names.
16 Q. When did you first start to realise that there was illegal Muslim
17 arming taking place in your municipality?
18 A. I personally obtained certain information during this period, at
19 the end of 1991 and, in particular, at the beginning of 1992. So one
20 could say that it was from the month of July 1991 and, in particular, I
21 obtained such information in January and February 1992.
22 MR. JOSSE: Could tab 7 have a number, please.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D131, Your Honours.
24 MR. JOSSE: I next want to go to tab 6. Your Honour, my learned
25 friend Mr. Margetts has been good enough to inform me that he takes
1 objection to a number of these proposed exhibits. I'm not sure if it
2 includes tab 6. I'm sorry, I don't have his note in front of me.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we don't object to at this stage to
4 tab 6. We did provide a note to the Defence that we did object to tabs 2
5 and tab 8 and that we had specific grounds that were in our mind yesterday
6 that we would object to those tabs, and we just, for the record, note that
7 we may have further grounds in relation to tabs 2 and 8. As the evidence
8 is given, we may have objections to other exhibits that we haven't
9 informed my learned friend of.
10 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. I just didn't want to tread on his toes,
11 bearing in mind he had been good enough to let me know in advance. So if
12 we may, Your Honour, could we turn to tab 6 and could that have a number,
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D132, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
16 I take it that the reference to DOC 4C1 is to be stricken?
17 MR. JOSSE: It is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is done already.
19 MR. JOSSE: And, Your Honour, I should have said on tab 7 in the
20 English DOC 4C should be deleted as well.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JOSSE:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Savkic, listen carefully to the question that I'm asking
24 you. Firstly, tell us what this document is, as you understand that. By
25 that, I'm not interested in the contents for the moment, but who purports
1 to have created it? Why was it created, that type of thing?
2 A. This is a statement given by one of the best-known individuals who
3 provided the citizens of several municipalities, Zvornik, Vlasenica,
4 Srebrenica, with arms and explosives in mid-1991. The document was
5 compiled by the security -- the public security station in Vlasenica
6 because this was seized in the territory of the municipality of Vlasenica.
7 I'd just like to add that this gentleman was pursued and arrested
8 on a number of occasions. He would bring in arms from European countries,
9 from Austria and from Hungary. He was arrested on a number of occasions
10 by the MUP, and it is interesting to note that his passport was never
12 Q. How do you know all of this?
13 A. Well, even ordinary citizens were aware of the fact, and the
14 police from Vlasenica and Zvornik were also aware of the fact. But we
15 also have statements that he has given. And what we have in front of us
16 is one of those statements.
17 Q. The arms smuggling which this man admits to being involved in was
18 for what purpose?
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. MARGETTS: We object to that question. This witness is, in
22 our submission, not able to look into the mind of this accused person
23 and --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's explore -- Mr. Josse, I think it's clear to you
25 what Mr. Margetts has in mind and whether the witness has any knowledge
1 that could explain the intent Mr. Kahrimanovic may have had.
2 MR. JOSSE: I'll try this a few ways, if I may.
3 Q. First of all, Mr. Kahrimanovic, have you ever spoken to him?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Right. Secondly, had anyone ever told you what the purpose of
6 Mr. Kahrimanovic's arms smuggling was? Don't tell us what they said, but
7 has anyone ever told you?
8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MARGETTS: In our submission by trying to elicit hearsay
11 information as to what another person thought was in the mind of
12 Mr. Kahrimanovic is possibly more offensive than asking this witness
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. I don't know that's what Mr. Josse asked for.
15 Mr. Josse asked whether someone told Mr. Kahrimanovic not what he thought
16 but what he told him; and then the next question would be whether he told
17 this witness the basis of this knowledge.
18 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. In our submission -- I may not
19 be fully understanding Your Honour's comment. But in our submission, it's
20 clear that the purpose that Mr. Josse is following here is to elicit from
21 this witness evidence in relation to what Mr. Kahrimanovic's purpose was.
22 So in our submission, that is inappropriate for this witness to speculate
23 on; it's also inappropriate for him to report on the speculation of
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's not speculation. We do not know yet whether
1 it's speculation, Mr. Margetts. The first question put by Mr. Josse: Did
2 anyone ever tell you what Mr. Kahrimanovic wanted to do, what his intent
3 was? Let's first wait for that answer and then see on what basis that
4 person, if any, would have told that.
5 So could you tell us whether anyone ever told you for what purpose
6 Mr. Kahrimanovic was involved in this arms trade or ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I was told about
8 it, but my knowledge is such that I can come to conclusions myself. If
9 someone is smuggling hunting rifles or pistols --
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm not asking you to draw any conclusions at
11 this moment. Did anyone ever tell you what the purpose of
12 Mr. Kahrimanovic had been with these arms?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Who told you?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My friend and the chief of the
16 public security station in Vlasenica.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did he, your friend and chief of the public security
18 station, tell you what was the basis of his knowledge about the purpose of
19 Mr. Kahrimanovic?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He told me that he had given a
21 statement himself.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now finally, what then was that purpose, as
23 he told you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The purpose was to arm the citizens
25 with automatic weapons and other lethal weapons, and, with regard to
1 explosives, we know that the purpose of explosives was for acts of
3 JUDGE ORIE: And when you say "the citizens," which citizens did
4 you have in mind, all citizens?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, in the majority of
6 cases, these weapons were sold to the Muslims alone; but in his statement
7 he also said that he sold two pistols to Serbs from Srebrenica.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Mr. Margetts, again, there's nothing wrong exploring whether
10 someone who has taken a statement from someone, whether he conveyed the
11 content of that statement to this witness. That's not evidence which, in
12 the Rules of this Tribunal, are inadmissible.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
14 MR. JOSSE:
15 Q. What were the acts of sabotage, as you understood them?
16 A. Your Honours, these acts of sabotage were to be committed
17 subsequently. It involved blowing up important bridges; for example, a
18 bridge on the Zvornik-Sarajevo highway. There was the attempt to blow up
19 a tunnel on the Milici-Rudnik-Boksta [phoen]-Skelani road. Explosives
20 were thrown from an ambush from Zutica in the direction of the mine near
21 Tamic, and eight civilians were killed on that occasion. There are many
22 other examples that I could provide you with because this is my
23 profession, so to speak.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we're now moving from, in fact, what
2 was communicated to the witness to what may possibly have been
3 communicated to the witness --
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's not clear, and it should be fully clarified.
5 I fully agree with you.
6 MR. MARGETTS: And part of this answer appears to be drawing
7 conclusions as to what subsequently -- from what subsequently occurred as
8 opposed to what the prior purpose was.
9 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'll happily go through this process with
10 each and every piece of information I elicit from the witness. It will
11 take a great deal of time. I really don't mind. There's a lot of this
12 with this particular witness. And along with this kind of testimony, it's
13 not going to take a few minutes. But if the Court would like me to deal
14 with it piece by piece, state of information, where the information came
15 from, so on and so forth, I'm more than happy to do.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah, but it should be clear, Mr. Josse, that's most
17 important, that if in the testimony of this witness a relation is made
18 between this police report and sabotage acts, that it should at least be
19 clear for the Chamber whether the witness links the two of them or whether
20 on the basis of the material that was conveyed to him or what is in front
21 of us, whether that gives indicia for such a link. It should be clear
22 where the -- may I say the, the potential of the witness to draw his own
23 conclusions, as he said before, and where the factual information
24 contained in statements and in conversations is the basis for what he
1 MR. JOSSE: Two brief observations. I couldn't possibly argue
2 with that. The first is, of course, there is scope for that in
3 cross-examination in any event.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but at the same time I think this witness said,
5 and not very long ago, and that of course is one of the reasons which
6 causes some concern, that the witness says: "This is my profession and I
7 know how to" -- I'm not. I should quote him precisely. But -- he
8 says: "There are many other examples I could provide you with because
9 this is my profession," which of course casts some doubt on the exact
10 sources of what he tells us.
11 And then he said something about earlier -- I can't find it
12 immediately, but he said something on that one could draw one's
14 MR. JOSSE: Can I make my second point, Your Honour?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. JOSSE: Because it's important, I feel, the way I'm going to
17 proceed. Again, as long as sufficient groundwork is laid, there is
18 nothing wrong, I contend, in inviting the witness to draw his own
19 conclusions from the evidence that he effectively is presenting.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well, we're not very strict in that, where
21 usually you would elicit only facts. Very often in the circumstances, as
22 we find them in this case but perhaps in other cases as well, we listen at
23 least to what the conclusions are, whether or not the conclusions are the
24 only ones or whether they are the right ones is still for the Chamber to
1 MR. JOSSE: Of course that's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So I would not mind, but at least most importantly
3 that we know we are listening to conclusions on what basis.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. JOSSE: Now --
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could I make some observations on this
7 matter regarding this witness. From reading the extended 65 ter that we
8 received, we opened that this would be an issue, and we submit that this
9 witness must only be asked questions in relation to matters that there is
10 some basis for him to have information about. And we submit that our
11 learned -- that the Defence must establish that basis prior to asking this
12 witness about those matters. So that's the general point, and I can see
13 that that will arise in a lot of the subject matters that are expressed in
14 the 65 ter.
15 The second point is this in regard to the specific issue we're
16 dealing with at the moment, and that is that we've been referred to
17 Mr. Bjelanovic -- I presume it's Mr. Bjelanovic, it's the chief of the
18 police who was a friend of the witness. We've been referred to the
19 comments of Mr. Bjelanovic, and they are apparently based on a statement
20 that Mr. Kahrimanovic provided. The first point is this: We have a
21 statement from Mr. Kahrimanovic, and the portion of that statement that's
22 translated certainly doesn't refer to the matters that the witness has
23 referred to, doesn't refer to explosives. I don't know whether it's just
24 because the translation is inadequate or there's another statement being
25 referred to, but we would like to have that clarified as well.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well, now a few matters have been raised. I
2 think Mr. Josse is well aware that - as you may be, Mr. Margetts - that
3 the Chamber needs to know what's the basis for the testimony, perhaps not
4 for every single line, but at least not to be confused as to the source of
5 knowledge of the witness. That's one. A general ruling on a witness
6 should not testify, I mean, doesn't help very much. We'll listen to the
7 questions; we'll hear your objections. We also invite you to limit them
8 to the extent necessary. And the last hour has taught us that there is a
9 serious risk that procedural issues are becoming more important than what
10 the witness is here for, and that is to give his testimony.
11 I think it's good that it's time to break-up, anyhow, for the day
12 so that you could reflect on my last remarks, and that gives us an
13 opportunity to carefully look at the 65 ter summary again. Mr. Josse will
14 certainly look at it again as well, and you also. And then we'll continue
16 Mr. Savkic, this Chamber very much likes to hear your testimony
17 and not to get lost in procedural issues. I asked the parties to keep
18 that in mind, and we would like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00
19 in this same courtroom, where, as we hope, we'll hear your answers to the
20 questions rather than objections to the questions. May I instruct you not
21 to speak with anyone about the - even if it was little - the testimony
22 you've given today and you're about to give in the coming days. And we'd
23 like to see you back tomorrow.
24 We stand adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow morning.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of
2 January, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.