1 Tuesday, 31 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 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. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Margetts, are you ready to continue?
12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Savkic, I would like to remind you -- well,
14 you're getting used to it already, that you're still bound by the solemn
15 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
16 Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: TOMISLAV SAVKIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Margetts: [Continued]
21 Q. Mr. Savkic, on the evening of the 16th of May, 1992, did you
22 discuss with Rade Bjelanovic the cleansing operations that had been
23 conducted by the police subordinated to him during the course of that day?
24 A. Gentlemen, this is a very serious insinuation, and in order to be
25 consistent with everything that I have said so far, the answer absolutely
1 is no.
2 Q. Mr. Savkic, you referred to my question as "a very serious
3 insinuation." Why did you refer to my question in that manner?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, let's be just -- if I ask someone
5 whether he killed another person, that could be understood. There's no
6 need for an explanation of this witness that this is a serious
7 insinuation. The question, as such, leaves it entirely open that
8 Mr. Savkic would have had knowledge and would have discussed these kind of
9 matters. So please put your next question to the witness.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Then, Your Honour, I'd like to produce the next
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MARGETTS: In fact, it's two exhibits, and if they could be
14 distributed. They're not in the tabs. And they're both dated 16 May
15 1992, and they are both reports submitted to the commander of the police
16 station Milici, and they're both authored by Milan Bacic. The
17 distinguishing feature is --
18 MR. JOSSE: Can you just wait, please, until we've got a copy.
19 MR. MARGETTS: I'm informed that you do have a copy.
20 MR. JOSSE: I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was the documents
21 handed out yesterday. Apologies.
22 MR. MARGETTS: The distinguishing feature, for the purpose of the
23 registrar, is the introductory paragraph. One of these duty reports
24 refers to the author having taken over duty at 0700 hours, and the other
25 one refers to having taken over duty at 15, being a reference to 1500
1 hours. So if the one where the duty was taken over at 0700 hours could be
2 marked with the first number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P1069, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see whether I -- yes, my confusion is
5 that I've got two copies, both 1500 hours and -- yes, I'd like to --
6 MR. MARGETTS: And, Your Honour, you may see that the report for
7 the one that refers to 0700 hours commences with the item "patrols,"
8 whereas the report for 1500 hours commences with the item "parties."
9 Yes, Your Honour, and also my case manager has helpfully pointed
10 out that the 0700 hours document is marked with the B/C/S -- the stamp on
11 the B/C/S 01782489, and the original for the 1500 hours is marked with the
12 stamp 01782488.
13 Your Honour, may I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, documents so similar need a moment of
15 attention so that -- yes, please proceed.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Savkic, you'll see in the documents before you that this is a
18 report submitted by a subordinate officer to Rade Bjelanovic, and it
19 states on both of them that -- in the section referred to as "patrols,"
20 that "ciscenje terena" - in the B/C/S - was conducted by the police on the
21 16th of May, 1992. And during the course of your evidence in chief you
22 pointed out on numerous occasions your close affiliation with
23 Mr. Bjelanovic. And one -- in response to one answer -- one question, you
24 said that Mr. Bjelanovic came every evening, or in most cases, and you
25 exchanged information. It is the case, isn't it, Mr. Savkic, that on the
1 evening of the 16th of May, 1992, you discussed with Mr. Bjelanovic, these
2 "ciscenje terena" operations.
3 A. Gentlemen, the question -- the person who submitted the report is
4 a person whom I don't know. On the 16th of May, 1992 - this is already a
5 historical fact and time - fierce battles were being waged on the road
6 from Derventa towards the mine in an attempt to return hijacked or
7 kidnapped passengers from hijacked buses and trucks.
8 Q. Mr. Savkic, I must stop you there. We're not talking about those
9 incidents; we're talking about the "ciscenje" operations conducted by the
10 police. And as your evidence in chief demonstrates, the hijacking of the
11 buses took place on the 21st of May. This is a very specific day. If
12 you'd like, I can give you a very specific time that I'm interested in the
13 "ciscenje" operations. The fact, you discussed with Mr. Bjelanovic the
14 "ciscenje" operations, that took place in Zaklopaca between 1400 --
15 between 1600 and 1800 on the 16th of May, 1992, didn't you?
16 A. Gentlemen, this is a construction by the Prosecutor on the 21st.
17 I can prove it's just a construction. It's all absolutely incorrect. On
18 the 21st - we can check in our transcript. You will see that this is an
19 ambush. This has nothing to do with this date. You can conclude, based
20 on documents, that we're talking about widespread fighting from Derventa
21 towards Milici, and that it's about an attack on two Serb villages,
22 Vasiljevic [phoen] and Ervici [phoen], during which fighting there was a
23 total of five killed. This is stated in certain documents. You can find
24 it also in Ivanica's book, but it's a generally known fact and there
25 exists -- I mean, when you're talking about cleansing the terrain, we're
1 speaking about these villages that were attacked and it was an attempt to
2 re-take that territory. And when we're talking about that area towards
3 the mine, these two documents, if they are legal, actually indicate that
4 the police at that point in time -- and now that we're mentioning Mr.
5 Zaklopaca, then according to all this information, and investigations are
6 still underway, in the evening hours, then this is an absolute
7 confirmation that the public security station police officers were out in
8 the field where I said they were. And this is a historical fact.
9 Everything can be proved --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, the simple question was whether you
11 discussed this --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's an answer to the question.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
15 MR. MARGETTS:
16 Q. Mr. Savkic, you purported to be providing an accurate history of
17 events in Vlasenica to the Trial Chamber during the course of your
18 examination-in-chief; however, you didn't mention in your evidence in
19 chief that on Saturday, the 16th of May, 1992, over 60 Muslim men were
20 killed in Zaklopaca. That's the truth, isn't it?
21 MR. JOSSE: Because he wasn't asked. I didn't object to that in
22 relation to certain aspects yesterday --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Margetts, would you please point at the
24 relevant questions where you would have expected the witness -- where you
25 would have expected the witness to give a complete answer, including the
1 facts you have just mentioned.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that wouldn't -- that's a task I
3 haven't undertaken. I thought that it would be a matter understood by the
4 Trial Chamber --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can't --
6 MR. MARGETTS: -- in light of Your Honour's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can't expect the witness to give a complete
8 -- I mean, events, a couple of weeks' area, where a lot of things
9 happened during the day, you should at least be in a position to point at
10 a question where this would have -- should have been part of a complete
11 answer to the question.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I accept that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. MARGETTS: And I withdraw those comments, but I'll simply say
16 Q. On Saturday, the 16th of May, 1992, over 60 Muslim men were killed
17 in Zaklopaca. Correct?
18 A. I do have relevant information. While reading the reports of
19 survivors, and the numbers range from 60 upwards, the investigation was
20 carried out by the IPTF. There was also an investigation by the competent
21 prosecutor's office. At the moment, the cantonal prosecutor's office of
22 Tuzla is conducting an investigation. I don't know what the information
23 is that they have.
24 Q. You referred to the investigation by the IPTF. In recent years,
25 Mr. Milomir Milosevic was suspended from service at the Milici police
1 station due to the fact that the IPTF concluded he had a role in this
2 massacre in Zaklopaca. Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You also referred to the investigations of the cantonal
5 prosecutor's office in Tuzla. You are a suspect in those investigations,
6 aren't you?
7 A. Nobody ever told me that I was a suspect.
8 Q. You also referred to the reports of survivors. At least two of
9 them identify you as present, one of them identifying you as present as
10 part of the militia that conducted the killings. That's correct, isn't
12 A. That was never correct. There is a student of mine, Fikret
13 Dugalic, many other students as well, just like all the citizens who came
14 to Zaklopaca, with whom I talked. There wasn't a trace of any kind of
15 strain in the relationship at any point. Nobody ever said anything like
16 that to me. The person whose brothers, one or two brothers, were killed
17 in this crime would not speak to somebody in such a friendly way, the way
18 that person spoke. I state responsibly before this Tribunal that I found
19 out about this two or three days later, and I can now in this time, in
20 this moment, if I was connected -- if I were to be connected to a thousand
21 polygraphs, I can guarantee that not a single one would --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, whether these two people speak the truth
23 or not is not part of the question. The question is just whether at least
24 two persons identify you as being present. Right or wrong? That's the
25 question: Are you aware of two people --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm hearing about this for the first
2 time. I'm hearing it for the first time from this gentleman now.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore you say: I spoke about the
4 reports of survivors. I'm not aware of two people identifying you as
5 being present. You hear for the first time about such statements.
6 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure the Chamber will forgive the witness going
9 into it in a little bit of detail. He's just been accused of mass murder.
10 It's not altogether surprising --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, his explanation is if he starts telling us
12 there wasn't a trace of any of the persons, whose brother, et cetera, the
13 Chamber has got no idea what he's talking about, so let's just stick to
14 the questions. And of course, if you think it would be fair that these
15 matters be further clarified, you have an ample opportunity, on the basis
16 I interrupted the witness also, because he speaks about a lot of things
17 the Chamber isn't aware of. Whether this is in the report of the
18 survivors, whether these two people were the people who identified him as
19 being present, or whether he thinks that these people might have
20 identified him, the Chamber is not aware of it. So it doesn't add to it,
21 but it's certainly -- if you have good grounds for further clarifying, or
22 if you think it's important, of course you have an opportunity to do so.
23 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
25 MR. MARGETTS:
1 Q. I would like to change the topic, Mr. Savkic, and move to your --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now you have confronted the witness about two people
3 identifying him as being present, which of course has some suggestive
4 power. Is there any follow-up you're going to present to the Chamber in
5 this respect?
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the reason that that reference was
7 made in the questions was in response to the witness's answer, to clarify
8 -- he said he'd read statements of survivors.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MARGETTS: We don't intend at this stage to proceed any
11 further in relation to that issue.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course this is a -- more or less an
13 allegation, to the extent that you said: There are good reasons to
14 believe that you -- that you were present.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, if such kind of allegation is made,
17 and I'm now thinking about what I would call the Davidovic --
18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, can I please respond?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MARGETTS: He said that he'd read the statements of survivors,
21 and I then asked him whether he'd read those statements that referred to
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. MARGETTS: We did not make an allegation that there were good
25 reasons to believe he was there. What we said was --
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you think that these survivors who say this had no
2 good reasons, then we are slowly coming in the area, in the realm of what
3 I would call the Davidovic issue. It's not exactly the same, but we are
4 coming close to it, and therefore I think a warning is -- is justified.
5 And at the same time, you leave the Chamber with question marks rather
6 than with information. If you say, "Well, these two persons identifying
7 Mr. Savkic as being there are not reliable witnesses of the event," then
8 of course still the suggestion is there, and it's put to the witness and
9 he says, "I do not know about it," then of course the Chamber would like
10 to know what the good grounds -- what good grounds exist to put that to
11 the witness as people identifying him as being present.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I can assure the Trial Chamber that we
13 have good grounds for asking this witness as to whether he's read
14 statements of the survivors that refer to him --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have the report?
16 MR. MARGETTS: -- and we have both of those statements with us.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you discuss the matter during the next break
18 with the Defence to see whether by presenting -- even if these were only
19 small portions, that at least you have good grounds to put this to the
21 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's only time that prevents me from
23 putting the full allegations to the witness. If I was allowed more time,
24 I'd be more than happy to do it in open court.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. MARGETTS: It is the Prosecution's position, having read the
2 statements, that both of them appear to be highly reliable. But --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's say the following: This is a -- if there
4 is a report -- if the witness says: I've read the report, then there
5 should be a possibility, at least, to speak with Mr. Josse and to see
6 whether you could agree on -- the mere fact -- no, Mr. Savkic, I'm talking
7 to the parties at this moment. The mere fact that two people identify him
8 is in those reports, just for the purposes I just mentioned, that Mr.
9 Margetts had at least reason to put this to the witness who said that he
10 had read the survivor reports, I take it that would be possible, wouldn't
11 it, without going through the whole of the report.
12 MR. JOSSE: Well, I'd like to think about that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
14 Mr. Margetts.
15 MR. MARGETTS: And of course, it is -- Your Honour, I -- this
16 arose in the context of the witness referring to the cantonal
17 investigation and raising it himself, and me -- and I only made a further
18 inquiry in relation to that. Secondly, it arose in the context of him
19 saying he read survivors' reports.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. MARGETTS: So I'd just like to put this in that context, Your
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Savkic, you were asked about the comments of Mr. Redzic, and
1 in response to his comments regarding an alleged threat you made that
2 tanks would come to Vlasenica and draw the borders in blood, you said that
3 was nonsense. And you said: As for this attack from Milici or Zvornik,
4 it's also a fact that neither place had a tank unit at that time. The
5 relevant time being the time of the protocol, 11 April 1992. It's a fact,
6 Mr. Savkic, that the tank unit, the 336th Motorised Brigade was stationed
7 in Zvornik at that time, wasn't it?
8 A. For that brigade -- well, I've never heard about it. All I know
9 is that in Milici and in Han Pijesak, at that period of time there had
10 never been a single tank brigade there. We're talking about a tank,
11 armoured brigade that Redzic is referring to, and you are referring to
12 some kind of motorised brigade in Zvornik, apparently.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, could you please point me at the day.
14 Was it --
15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, it's -- yes, Your Honour. It's page 20.540.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got different page numbering. Do you have
17 the day?
18 MR. MARGETTS: Which I understand would have been Thursday.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thursday was the -- just let me have a look --
20 MR. MARGETTS: 26th January.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 26th January. Thank you.
22 MR. MARGETTS:
23 Q. So, Mr. Savkic, the statement that you made to the Trial Chamber
24 that there wasn't a tank unit in Zvornik, that statement's incorrect,
25 isn't it? Or, alternatively, you don't know whether there was or not, so
1 your statement to the Trial Chamber was not based on any knowledge; it was
2 just speculation on your behalf.
3 A. I did say specifically earlier on that there had never been one in
4 Milici, but you mentioned a motorised brigade, but Redzic referred to an
5 armoured brigade. And I never knew anything about a motorised brigade.
6 They would go through the area, but ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, let me just read to you exactly what you
8 said on the 26th when confronted with the allegations made by Mr. Redzic.
9 You said: "It is an obvious nonsense. At that moment in Han
10 Pijesak, there was not a single tank unit of the Yugoslav People's Army,
11 not even in the reserve forces or in the rear where the infantry battalion
12 was stationed. As for this attack from Milici or Zvornik, it's also a
13 fact that neither place had a tank unit at that time and not only at that
15 These are your literal words as they appear in the transcript.
16 Please proceed, Mr. --
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we can introduce tab 48, and if
18 that could have an exhibit number. And also my case manager reminds me
19 that the second exhibit presented this morning didn't receive the number,
20 which I assume is P1070.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the report of the duty officer dated
22 16th May, 1992, referring to the 1500 hours commencement will be given
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I think this -- I think the reference
1 to tab 48 may have been mistaken.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps come up with --
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, sorry, Your Honour. It's tab 45 I wish to
4 refer to.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then check, Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1071, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P1071, and that -- and that is a -- let me see what
8 the description is.
9 MR. MARGETTS: It's a report from Commander Major General Savo
10 Jankovic to the 17th Corps command, dated 9 April 1992.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore the description changes as well.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. Mr. Savkic, if you could look at paragraph 5 of that report, it
15 states that: "A 336th Motorised Brigade tank, T-55, slipped off the road
16 at Sapna bridge in the village of Celopek near Zvornik."
17 Now, you made the distinction between an armoured brigade and the
18 336th Motorised Brigade. It's the fact that the 336th Motorised Brigade
19 was formally known as the 4th Armoured Brigade and was a tank unit
20 commanded by Dragan Obrenovic in Zvornik as at the time that Mr. Redzic
21 alleges you said tanks were in the vicinity and could come to Vlasenica.
22 A. Your Honours, the Sapna area is on the road between Tuzla and
23 Zvornik. Therefore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Zvornik. The
24 interpretation provided by the gentleman here, according to which in a
25 motorised brigade there would be tanks and such-like, well motorised
1 brigade is one thing -- it is true that they have tanks, but a tank or an
2 armoured brigade is totally different because they only have tanks. And
3 it is quite clear here that we are not talking about Zvornik, but we are
4 talking about a totally different direction. And it has nothing to do
5 with the Zvornik-Milici line.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we could move to another topic, and
7 that is Exhibit D130.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just put the following to the witness.
9 The whole issue, Mr. Savkic, arose from the -- the words of
10 Mr. Redzic, and he said that the Serbs had tanks ready. And you say
11 that's all nonsense because there were no tank units. Now, that's not
12 what Mr. Redzic said. He didn't say "there were tank units," but "there
13 were tanks."
14 Now Mr. Margetts puts it to you that even if this would not be a
15 tank unit, that at least a tank was nearby. And to that aspect -- to that
16 extent your statement that it's all nonsense, he puts it to you that it is
17 not nonsense because there was at least, as he referred to, one tank.
18 That's the issue.
19 We're not talking about organisation of the army, about whether
20 the unit was full of tanks or -- we're just talking about an allegation
21 made by Mr. Redzic that tanks were ready. You said it's nonsense because
22 there were no tank units, suggesting that there were no tanks either. And
23 now Mr. Margetts confronts you with at least one tank at least mentioned
24 in a report.
25 Yes, could you please respond to that.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, apart from saying that it was
2 utter nonsense, I also added -- and I don't suppose that he had mentioned
3 that at all. That's my first point. And the second point is that at this
4 moment in time, due to the withdrawal of all the army units of the JNA
5 from Croatia, et cetera, what I said in my comment was that when we talk
6 about Milici, Zvornik, and the entire area, columns of JNA army soldiers
7 from Croatia were going through. This was what may have been mentioned at
8 this trial for reasons having to do with the fact that many units
9 transited through the area at the time. And it can be seen that this
10 column was coming from the direction of Tuzla. It is quite clear, it is
11 crystal clear, on the basis of this order. And that's what it says here
12 in the text.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has nothing to do with Zvornik,
15 nothing whatsoever.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
17 MR. MARGETTS:
18 Q. Mr. Savkic, you presented an exhibit to the Trial Chamber, it's
19 Exhibit D130, and it was a list of policemen who were invited for training
20 in Sarajevo. And you told the Trial Chamber that of the 448 names,
21 according to your analysis, 313 were Muslims and 135 were Croats. We have
22 taken the opportunity to review that list with an expert demographer. The
23 fact is, Mr. Savkic, that at least 55 of the people on that list are
24 certainly Serbs. Your evidence was misleading and incorrect, wasn't it?
25 A. You're misquoting me totally. Could we go back to the transcript,
1 and in that case you will see that I said specifically that on the basis
2 of the list --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Go back to the transcript. Mr. Margetts, the date
5 MR. MARGETTS: It was on the Thursday, the 26th of January.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we're talking about the list.
7 MR. MARGETTS: And the relevant portion --
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you have text, that's easier for me to get that on
9 my screen.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Okay. I can read that to you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. MARGETTS: "135 were non-Muslims --"
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think "135" would be a good thing to search for.
15 You said the following, Mr. Savkic -- you said: "On the last
16 page, it is to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates that met
17 the requirements, 135 were non-Muslims -- actually, those were all Croats.
18 The rest were all Muslims. However, I have to clarify one more thing --"
19 and -- and then the word is not -- "and do a reality check. During that
20 period - and not only during that period of time - to send Serbs to Zagreb
21 for training, given the well-known developments would have been crazy."
22 So these were your words. Now Mr. Margetts puts it to you that,
23 according to people he consulted, that there are at least 55 Serbs on that
24 list. He confronts you with that and he asks you for a comment.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But he said out
1 of those 400-something - everything on the list, that is - and on my
2 statement it says clearly out of 313 of those invited. That's what you
3 just read out. Those who went on the course, 135 were not Muslims and the
4 others were all Muslims. You've only just read it out, so the gentleman
5 is absolutely and totally wrong then.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But -- Mr. Margetts, perhaps in your next
7 question you could clarify this issue. It seems that the witness says:
8 I'm starting from 313, I did not count them all. And you started a longer
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the words that the witness spoke were
11 the following: "135 from the list were non-Muslims."
12 He says --
13 MR. JOSSE: Do it to the witness, not to the Judge, please.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, what I'm saying is this: Is that the
15 question that the Court has put to Mr. Savkic does not equate --
16 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I object. This is not an argument.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts --
18 MR. JOSSE: -- cross-examination.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Josse invites you to put to the witness what he
20 said. And by putting questions to him you'll certainly be able to further
21 clarify the matter.
22 Could I have the list in front of me. That's D130, I think, yes.
23 MR. MARGETTS:
24 Q. Mr. Savkic, you said the following --
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, first of all the registrar draws my
2 attention that where you said "D130," you most likely wanted to refer to
3 D133. Is that correct? D130 to be a -- no, no, no.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think a mistake was made by me. We are talking
6 about tab 9. Is that --
7 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour --
8 MR. JOSSE: Tab 16.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 16. Tab 16 is D133.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Apologies, Your Honour. D133 is the document I
11 wish to refer to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. Mr. Savkic, you told the Trial Chamber, reviewing the document
15 D133: "It's easy to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates that
16 met the requirements, 135 were non-Muslims -- actually, those were all
17 Croats. The rest were all Muslims."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Margetts, the issue seems to be that
19 -- that Mr. Josse asked about the list.
20 "The documents, for the purpose of translation, have been split
21 up, but as you understand it the list of 448 names was effectively
22 attached to the letter from Mr. Srebrenikovic."
23 So there we start discussing a list of 448 people. Then later on,
24 Mr. Josse asked: "But what was the result of your research through these
25 448 names? I think you've marked it, haven't you, on the very last page,
1 the very last page, of the bundle?"
2 And then the witness continued: "Yes, yes. On the last page, it
3 is to do the maths and see that out of 313 candidates --" so as a matter
4 of fact that met the requirements -- "135 were non-Muslims ..." Now, if I
5 add 313 with 135, that brings me to 448.
6 So therefore, I am a bit surprised that the 135 are now deducted
7 from the 313 instead of deducted from the 448. But most important is,
8 Mr. Savkic, that this list you seem to have analysed, and where it says at
9 the very last page 330, 135, we are talking about that list. One of the
10 things I would be inclined to do is to count them and to see whether we
11 have a list of 313 or a list of 448.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I think we are all in agreement that
13 it's a list of 448.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, are we in agreement that the list
15 is --
16 MR. JOSSE: Yes, absolutely. That's quite clear.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, secondly, may I say this: I think
18 we're all in agreement that it's the witness's handwritten annotation on
19 that list which makes the distinction between 313 and 135.
20 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now his testimony -- but let's first ask you.
22 From your answer it appears that one could not possibly -- it
23 would be very illogical - as you said, crazy - to have any Serbs on that
24 list. Now, we have a list of 448 people. You made a distinction between
25 313 on the one-hand side and 135 remaining. Please explain now to us
1 whether there were -- no, Mr. Savkic. Please, one moment. A bit
3 Explain to us, are there any Serbs on this list as you saw it,
4 where both counsel agreed that it's a list of 448 people? Are there any
5 Serbs on that list? Yes, could you please answer that question.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this list, out of 430-something
7 people, there were some Serbs; I'm not arguing with that, Mr. President.
8 But in case the translation into English is correct, what I'm referring to
9 is people who were admitted. They were surrounded by Mr. Srebrenikovic,
10 and those people who went through that medical training, this 313 who
11 passed -- or rather, their names were underlined there, and 135 Muslims.
12 I can't tell for sure on the basis of every single name, but almost all of
13 them, both this 135, are Croats, and I said that out of this 135 there may
14 be some Serbs and it would have been a lunacy to send a Serb to Zagreb at
15 that time; that's what I'm saying. You've read it out, but perhaps your
16 translation is bad or whatever. 313 admitted and 135 were non-Muslims,
17 and then I added what I added.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So your testimony is that, by coincidence, the
19 number of 135 is also the number that -- of people that were not selected.
20 But did I understand -- but I have to verify that. Did I understand you
21 well when you said that this was all a secret operation of people being
22 trained in Croatia?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From previous SDA orders, you could
24 have seen that initially it was a covert operation. On the basis of this
25 list, you can see that out of 435 individuals, those whose names are not
1 encircled, who supposedly failed that medical, you will see that they're,
2 all of them, Serbs. And let me stress once again, out of 313 whose names
3 are indicated as having gone through this training, 135 are non-Muslims,
4 mostly Croats, on the basis of their names and the geographical area of
5 provenance. Just look at the names which are not marked, not encircled.
6 Out of these 434 [as interpreted] you will see that all of those names are
7 Serb names, almost all of them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So now the present situation is that the
9 witness says that those names that are not encircled, that those are the
11 I don't know, Mr. Margetts, whether it's possible for you to seek
12 verification of this.
13 But at least, Mr. Savkic, if this was such a secret operation, why
14 would there be so many Serbs as candidates on that list? I mean, if you
15 want to keep something secret, then you would not expect quite a number of
16 Serbs to be on that list.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You should ask candidates from the
18 ranks of the Serbs whether they were even invited to that medical at all,
19 whether they went, and for what reason they failed. How come only the
20 Serbs failed? If indeed there had been a kind of medical there.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes -- well, of course, that's still to be
23 Mr. Margetts.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, a witness who has given evidence --
25 well, not given evidence, but evidence from this witness has been produced
1 as an expert report, KRAJ 618, has prepared a demographic study. We don't
2 have a B/C/S copy, so we're not in a position to put the entire document
3 to the witness; however, we would like to introduce that as an exhibit.
4 And it appears at tab 46 of the bundle, and if that could be given a
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 46 will be P1072, Your Honours.
8 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'm going to object. This is rebuttal
9 evidence, in effect. I mean, it's not an original document; it's been
10 prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. We've got no opportunity
11 to challenge this; it's rebuttal evidence in another guise, and I object
12 to it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will have to decide on whether or
14 not it will admit this evidence at this stage of the proceedings.
15 Mr. Margetts, is there any -- did you intend to confront the
16 witness with this expert report or --
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I've already confronted the witness
18 with one of the major conclusions set out in this report, which is that at
19 least 55 of the persons were certainly Serbs.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the witness now gave us his explanation
21 that -- which was certainly not clear in the beginning, that the circled
22 persons were the ones selected and the non-circled persons were Serbs not
23 selected. That at least was not clear to me.
24 MR. JOSSE: I accept, for what it's worth, I didn't bring the
25 evidence out terribly well, having looked at the transcripts, excuse me
1 making that comment.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you revisit the matter --
3 MR. JOSSE: I'm not sure I'm going to do that, Your Honour, but
4 could I say, in fairness, this bundle was handed to us yesterday, and I
5 didn't look at these particular documents overnight, but this is an expert
6 report that is served as the witness is giving evidence. I mean, the
7 Prosecution is at least under a duty to draw it to my attention and say:
8 In the bundle of exhibits is an expert report, you need to consider it.
9 This really is not the way to conduct cross-examination, I submit firmly
10 and strongly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, Mr. Josse blames you for not having
12 drawn his attention to presenting a -- well, a report which was drafted as
13 an expert report since the witness has given his testimony last week.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's self-evident that this is an
15 expert report. Mr. Josse had the opportunity to review his bundle. It
16 would have been condescending to explain to him what that was; it's
17 obvious on its face.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, does it appear on the index? Because I
19 can imagine that if I were Defence counsel, I would first have a look at
20 the index to see whether --
21 MR. JOSSE: It's described as a "Declaration on ethnic
22 distribution of selected names in BiH population census, 31 March, 1991."
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. JOSSE: Could I make this observation --
25 MR. MARGETTS: That's not a complete description. "Dated 26th
1 January, 2006."
2 MR. JOSSE: Could I make this observation, Your Honour? My
3 learned friend knows that, unusually, I actually went through the exhibit
4 up to tab 41 on Friday when they were handed out. He knows that because I
5 sent Mr. Harmon an e-mail, making various observations about that bundle.
6 42 onwards was handed out yesterday. As I've already said, I didn't look
7 at those overnight. Whether I should have done is neither here nor there.
8 Generally, the Defence can't complain about the way that these documents
9 are dealt with in cross-examination - it's perhaps a matter for another
10 day - but this is completely different, as I've already submitted, and it
11 has no part at all in the cross-examination of a witness. The assertions
12 contained in it my learned friend put boldly, I didn't object to that,
13 that an expert says X, Y, and Z. What then happened thereafter,
14 confusion, well, that's neither here nor there, but this is really a
15 radical departure from the Rules on a matter that's going to need, in my
16 submission, closer and further analysis in due course --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid the Rules are not very explicit in this
18 respect, Mr. Josse, so the Chamber will have to find its way through the
19 Rules to see how to deal with the matter.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may we say this: That we're more than
21 happy for Mr. Josse to take his time to consider that exhibit and then to
22 put his position.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The parties are -- I do see that at least --
24 and that's the first step, perhaps, we should take is to compare whether
25 -- to look at whether this report -- I'll do it over the next break and --
1 because we might not finish before the first break.
2 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.
3 MR. MARGETTS:
4 Q. Mr. Savkic, is the case in fact that nine of the Serbs who were
5 listed as being candidates for this training went on to serve in one of
6 the leading police units for the Republika Srpska, the special forces
7 attached to the Ministry of the Interior, isn't it?
8 A. I don't have the text in Serbian here; I have it in English.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you talking about the expert report?
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this information is not contained in
11 the expert report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You were asked whether -- let me first -- if
13 you said: "I have only the text in English," what document were you
14 referring to?
15 MR. MARGETTS: The witness has the declaration open before him; I
16 can see that from here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The declaration -- yes. Don't worry about that.
18 That's another matter. The question is put to you whether -- whether nine
19 of the Serbs you find on the list -- and I'm changing the question
20 slightly, Mr. Margetts, because "selected" and "selection," as the witness
21 told us, goes in two stages. That is a list of selected people, and then
22 they had to undergo a medical examination, and then the selection was
23 refined on the basis of that, if at all there was a medical examination.
24 So let's talk about Serbs on the list. Are you aware that nine of the
25 Serbs who appear on this list went on to serve in one of the -- that
1 doesn't appear on my screen.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we can --
3 JUDGE ORIE: One of the police units for the Republika Srpska.
4 That's the question. And it was specified as being the special forces
5 attached to the Ministry of the Interior.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, Mr. Savkic is again referring to the
7 declaration before him.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Mr. Savkic, put the declaration, the English text, aside; that's
10 not relevant at this moment. Are you aware that nine of the persons on
11 this list served later on in the Republika Srpska police force?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall any Serb first or
13 last name from that list right now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if we could refer now to tab 47.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 47, yes.
17 MR. MARGETTS: And that's a list of members of the special
18 detachment of the Ministry of the Interior. That's the elite special
19 force attachment.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. MARGETTS: And if that could be given an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 47 would be P1073, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Savkic, you are aware of the elite special force unit attached
1 to the Ministry of the Interior, Republika Srpska, aren't you?
2 A. Special unit, yes.
3 Q. Mr. Savkic, look at the list before you. On the first page, look
4 at number 13, Miroslav Subotic. On the second page, look at number 35,
5 Mladen Kusmuk?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would it be possible to refer to D133
7 as well so we can compare the names and see whether they actually appear
8 on the list, and of course for the Chamber also important to see whether
9 they are encircled, yes or no.
10 So first one being 13, Miroslav Subotic, and we find him on the
11 other list where?
12 MR. MARGETTS: Number 50, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Number 50. Yes, that's the first name. The second
14 one, Mr. Margetts.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Is number 35 on the Exhibit P1073, which is Mladen
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- 35, Mladen Kusmuk -- and we find him
18 on the other list at? That's D133, we find him --
19 MR. MARGETTS: And we find him -- Your Honour, I have to at this
20 stage say I haven't formed that reconciliation. I apologise for not
21 having done that prior to the next exhibit. I can tell you that number 35
22 is number 115.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, number 115. Mladen Kusmuk.
24 MR. MARGETTS: The next one is 36, Stojan Stojanovic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Number 36, Stojan Stojanovic, yes. On the other
1 list, to appear on --
2 MR. MARGETTS: -- part of the list. At number 113, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 113, top -- yes.
4 MR. MARGETTS: The next is number 49 on D1073 [sic], and that is
5 Milorad Pavlica. And he appears at number 179 on D133. The next name on
6 D1073 [sic] is Predrag Mizdrak, and that's at number 85.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you perhaps complete that during the next break
8 and at this moment focus on 179 and perhaps -- Mr. Savkic, we'll further
9 complete this matter, but you explained to us that all the Serbs were
10 eliminated from that list and you said those ones circled were the ones
11 selected, the other ones not selected. Now, if you look at the list for
12 Milorad Pavlica, he seems to be selected and he appears on the list of
13 special police forces. He, at least as you explained to us, was one of
14 the selected ones and Mr. Margetts puts it to you that he's a Serb, and
15 you said you couldn't expect a Serb to undergo this training, it would be
16 crazy. Could you explain or could you assist the Chamber in reconciling
17 this information?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, gentlemen. I said
19 when I -- at the end of my statement about that, that there were 145 [as
20 interpreted] Muslims. Judging by the names and the fact that they're
21 similar, I don't know if there are geographical things in common, but they
22 were mostly Croats. Those that were chosen, and I said that and I stand
23 by that, for a Serb to go and attend a course in Zagreb at that time was
24 absolute nonsense. In the same way, this gentleman who was in the special
25 unit in June doesn't actually mean that he did go to Zagreb and complete
1 that training. There's nothing there indicating anything like that.
2 Judging by the last names, I can tell that some people are from Romanija
3 and other places. I think that at that time there was no Serb who would
4 actually go to Zagreb. I think that the clarification is the only logical
6 JUDGE ORIE: We're rather concentrating on facts than logic,
7 Mr. Savkic, and please keep that in mind because human beings do not
8 always behave in accordance with logic.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, focussing -- sorry, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Savkic, focussing on Milorad Pavlica, you said you could
12 conclude from geographic location that people were Croats. Milorad
13 Pavlica came from Kupres. Kupres is a majority Serbian municipality, or
14 was at the time of this document, wasn't it?
15 A. I wouldn't say that the Serbs were a majority in Kupres.
16 Specifically Pavlica, that name, if you look at how many Pavlicas there
17 are in Rijeka - there's a football player - and they're all Croats. So I
18 did say it quite specifically, not Muslims.
19 Q. Well, let's then look, Mr. Savkic, at Slobodan Bogdanovic, one of
20 the people on the list. It is the case --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, please, numbers. On the one list and
22 on the other.
23 MR. MARGETTS: Number 204. And, Your Honour, I'm not sure that
24 he's a member of the special unit. I'm just referring to him on the list
25 of --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Number 204 on the list presented with D133,
3 Mr. Slobodan Bogdanovic.
4 Q. It's the case, Mr. Savkic, that in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 in 1991, there was no Croat named Slobodan Bogdanovic. Of the 14 Slobodan
6 Bogdanovics that lived in Bosnia, ten were Serbs and four were Yugoslavs.
7 But you came to this Trial Chamber and said: On the basis of the names, I
8 can conclude that 135 people who were non-Muslims were Serbs.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness meanwhile admitted, Mr. Margetts,
10 that there may have been Serbs on that list, but they were not -- you
11 remember the discussion of the 448 to start with or the 313. So I don't
12 think at this moment it's the testimony of the witness that no Serb or no
13 Serb name appears on this list.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Okay, Your Honour. If I may move on.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
16 MR. MARGETTS:
17 Q. Mr. Savkic, yesterday when I spoke to you about your service in
18 the military, you explained to me that although in your military booklet
19 it states that your service commenced on the 6th of April, in fact it
20 commenced later. You said: "I didn't say that it was from the 6th of
21 April that I was in any military unit. What I said was that our military
22 booklets had either the date 4th of April or the 6th of April written down
23 in them."
24 Now, Mr. Savkic, it's the same for the Muslim members of the
25 military as well. Their military booklets record the date that war was
1 declared, but that doesn't mean that they were serving in a military unit
2 at that time, does it?
3 A. I don't understand. Which Muslims do you mean?
4 Q. The Muslims mobilised in April of 1992 who then served in the ABiH
5 army may have a military booklet that records that their date of service
6 started, for instance, on the 5th of April, 1992, but it doesn't mean that
7 they were serving in a unit at that time; exactly the same as the
8 situation for the Serbs.
9 A. Yes, that's possible. But there are documents, and we'll see them
10 later, where you have that as recorded -- being recorded before April 1st.
11 Even in December 1991, there were Muslims who were in the military
12 formations, paramilitary formations. At that -- you have that here.
13 Q. Mr. Savkic, you came before this Court and you brought a Muslim
14 military booklet, and you represented to this Trial Chamber that the date
15 of service of 5th of April, 1992, meant that the 16th Muslim Brigade
16 existed at that time. That is a misrepresentation, and you well know that
17 the 16th Muslim Brigade did not exist until early June 1992. Correct?
18 A. In the booklet, it states clearly that this is not Territorial
19 Defence but a military unit. And these are the dates when the person was
20 mobilised into the Territorial Defence, and it's according to the law and
21 to the constitution, regulations that were valid at that time. And there
22 is a major difference there. This is what it states in the booklet, so it
23 was a combat unit, not a TO unit, which was the case with us.
24 Q. But it was not the 16th Muslim Brigade, was it?
25 A. In the booklet, it said "16th Muslim Brigade." There is an
1 original still that can be seen, and this was something that did -- was
2 not written only on the military booklet. It didn't state "Defence of
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina," but it stated "the Army of Bosnia and
5 Q. I didn't ask you what was stated in the booklet. I said: The
6 booklet does not show that the 16th Muslim Brigade existed as at the time
7 the individual's war service commenced, exactly the same as a Drina Corps
8 booklet would not show that the date that the Drina Corps existed was the
9 date that the person started their war service. Consequently, Mr. Savkic,
10 you have misrepresented that document to the Trial Chamber.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not focus that much on misrepresentation.
12 Mr. Savkic, Mr. Margetts says if in your military booklets a date
13 is entered, not because one took up active service at that moment but for
14 other reasons - for example, that was the beginning of the war - the same
15 is true for Muslims. So from that military booklet we could not conclude,
16 as you apparently did, that the 16th Muslim Brigade existed at that time.
17 And, Mr. Margetts, do we have any further information about the
18 establishment of the 16th Muslim Brigade? Because that's what the
19 Chamber, of course, would like to see then.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I don't have an exhibit prepared in
21 regard to that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, that would certainly have assisted the Chamber,
23 because even if a military booklet could have been filled in on the basis
24 of an assumption rather than on facts, at the same time one could not
25 exclude that it's filled in on the basis of facts rather than assumptions.
1 So therefore, to clarify this matter, the Chamber would like then to see
2 any further evidence about the establishment of the 16th Muslim Brigade,
3 because you said at the beginning of June.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, yes. In fact, the 8th of June,
5 1992 --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
7 MR. MARGETTS: -- is the date that we say that brigade is formed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You must have a reason for that.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, we do, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why not present that to the Chamber so that we
11 can better assess whether that reason is a reasonable reason?
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we will endeavour to do so at the
13 break, to prepare the exhibit and present it to the Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And of course you could have imagined before
15 and if want to confront the witness with a similar system, and especially
16 in relation to the 16th Muslim Brigade, of course the Chamber would very
17 much like to determine this matter on the basis of facts and documents
18 rather than on this, could I say, fluid exchange of positions in relation
19 of interpretation of documents. Please proceed.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps -- when I say, "Please proceed," I also see
22 that it's 10.30.
23 MR. MARGETTS: One short matter, Your Honour, and then I'm
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. MARGETTS:
2 Q. Mr. Savkic, you told the Trial Chamber that there was no expanded
3 Presidency, and "none of us -" and at the time you were referring to the
4 deputies - "were ever told of an expanded Presidency and it didn't exist.
5 There was no expanded Presidency at that time. I had never heard of such
6 a thing as an extended Presidency."
7 Mr. Savkic, you attended the 22nd Session of the Bosnian Serb
8 Assembly in Zvornik between the 22nd and the 24th of November, 1992,
9 didn't you?
10 A. Yes, I remember attending a session in Zvornik.
11 Q. At that session, Mr. Milan Trbojevic stated: "First of all we
12 have set up a para-system of power. The public and so-called legal war
13 state Presidency is a body that does not exist in the constitution. War
14 commissioners which are working in the field do not exist in an organ in
15 any country, according to the constitution and the law. Thus we can
16 conclude that a para-government might be existing from top of the state
17 all the way down to the level of municipalities because we have no
18 information whether it was misused."
19 Mr. Trbojevic stated quite clearly to all of the persons present
20 that -- that you had set up a para-system of power with the so-called
21 "legal" war state Presidency. Correct?
22 A. I don't know what Mr. Trbojevic is saying there when he's talking
23 about an expanded Presidency. If he considers the Presidency to be Ms.
24 Biljana Plavsic, Mr. Koljevic, and that that's extended by the president,
25 Radovan Karadzic, well in that sense, that's perhaps it. Everything else
1 that he says, to tell you the truth, I don't understand anything. War
2 commissioner never - at least, not in the units that I was in - never
3 existed. I don't even know what a war commissioner is. I know it from
4 films on the Second World War.
5 Q. The subject of the discussion at that Assembly session was the war
6 state Presidency, that is the -- a Presidency in its expanded composition,
7 as defined by the decision of June 1992 to amend the constitution to allow
8 for this expanded Presidency. Is it your evidence to this Trial Chamber
9 that during the course of that session you did not understand that the
10 subject of the matter was the expanded Presidency?
11 A. If that's the meeting we're talking about, the basic topic was the
12 resignation of the head of government, Mr. Zekic, if that's the meeting
13 we're talking about. If not, I have not the foggiest of what it is all
14 about, what Trbojevic as a legal expert was on about. I do remember a
15 meeting in Zvornik, on the occasion of which the president of the
16 government, the head of government, Mr. Djeric, handed in his resignation.
17 I know that it was the main topic, and that was when the government
18 changed. I believe that's the meeting we are talking about. I remember
19 nothing else. As far as I am concerned, as a new deputy, the way I could
20 see it, it was the crux of the matter. It was the most important thing
21 discussed there. If that's the meeting you are talking about, and that's
22 the only one I remember.
23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, subject to --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I now receive French - a nice language - on channel
25 4, but I'd prefer to have English. Could you please repeat what you just
1 said, Mr. Margetts.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that concludes the questions that I
3 intended to ask this witness; however, I note that issues have arisen
4 during the course of the cross-examination in regard to a further exhibit
5 relating to the 16th Muslimanski Brigade and also in regard to discussions
6 that we'll be having at the break with the Defence in regard to the
7 statements relating to the incidents at Zaklopaca. So subject to those
8 two issues, that concludes my cross-examination.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have a break -- unfortunately,
10 Mr. Savkic, we were not able to finish during the first session, but we
11 most likely will do in the second session, which will start at 5 minutes
12 past 11.00.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
17 MR. JOSSE: Well, I'm on my feet, Your Honour, so perhaps I could
18 deal with it. First of all, in relation to the Zaklopaca incident, if I
19 can call it that, as I understand what I've been told by the Prosecution,
20 they are prepared to accept -- the question they asked the witness was
21 whether he had seen statements which implicated him. His answer was, No.
22 And they are prepared to stop at that. I will be corrected if I am wrong.
23 If that is the position, then I -- Defence are content with the state of
24 the evidence so far as that issue is concerned.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's verify it.
1 Is Mr. Josse's understanding correct?
2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then that matter is settled.
4 MR. JOSSE: Whilst I am on my feet, so far as the demographic
5 statement is concerned, if I can call it that, Your Honour, I've had an
6 opportunity to reflect on this. Could I make it absolutely clear - and
7 I've only been able to speak briefly to Mr. Stewart - were this to happen
8 again, we'd reserve our position to take the point that I've begun to take
9 in relation to notice, whether it's the right thing to do, and so on and
10 so forth. However, the witness has accepted, in effect, what's contained
11 within the demographer's report. He said that the list has a significant
12 number of Serbian names upon it. So when it comes to discussion of
13 admission of documents, I will not object to the admission of that report.
14 I hope that's helpful.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, it may have created, but I
16 have not yet looked at it in much detail ...
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In order to fully understand the --
19 Mr. Margetts, you said something about nine Serbs. I see seven
20 combinations of names in this report, none of them being the name listed
21 under 179, Milorad Pavlica. Because if we would have to -- the witness
22 told us that the ones with the numbers encircled were the ones who were
23 selected, and the other ones were not selected, and he told us that all
24 Serbs were among the not selected. Number 179, you mentioned as a person
25 who later on, I think, served in the special police force of Republika
1 Srpska, but that name does not appear in the expert report as --
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, maybe if I could address the expert
3 report and what it seeks to set out in the table -- is it table 1 you're
4 referring to?
5 JUDGE ORIE: This expert -- I'm talking about the declaration.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, let me just have a look there. I didn't see it
8 in the full --
9 MR. MARGETTS: The expert report does not draw a distinction
10 between those names that were circled and those names that were not.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But let's just now see whether I find this --
12 this Milorad Pavlica, which you refer to as someone serving later on at
13 the Republika Srpska police forces.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is not identified by the expert or --
16 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, let me -- could you please assist me?
18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could I just address the declaration
19 for a moment.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. MARGETTS: The declaration was prepared on the basis, first of
22 all, scrutiny of the list was undertaken by persons from the region who
23 identified names --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
25 MR. MARGETTS: -- they thought looked like Serb names. That list
1 of names was referred to the expert, who then performed a demographic
2 analysis of those names. The annexure to the declaration sets out the
3 results of that demographic analysis, where it was verified those
4 individuals were Serb. And then furthermore, because of the methodology
5 that had been referred to in the witness's evidence in chief, namely in
6 circumstances of ambiguity, the region that they were from was referred
7 to, a special table was prepared listing those persons who in all of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina were either -- all of the persons by that name were
9 either only Serbs or Serbs and Yugoslavs, and that's the -- that's what
10 table 1 is, to address the issue of methodology. So the issue of the
11 names that were circled or not circled is not addressed in the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then of course in order to better understand
14 the testimony of the witness, because the witness said those names where
15 there's a circle around the number, those were selected, and the ones not
16 circled are the Serbs that were left out, so therefore, it would make
17 sense to look, to compare all the 58 names appearing in the expert report
18 and see whether there -- these names are -- and that's not a very
19 complicated job to do, as a matter of fact.
20 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour, "These names are ..." Your Honour
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whether these names are encircled - yes or no - on
23 the other list. Because the explanation of the witness was that those
24 names not circled were the people not selected. And as he said, this was
25 the way to -- one would not select Serbs on that list.
1 MR. JOSSE: Could I make it clear?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JOSSE: I've said this already.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JOSSE: This, in part, was my fault because I didn't adduce
6 the evidence terribly well when I dealt with the witness in chief; let me
7 readily accept that. And that of course has made the Prosecution tab 46
8 somewhat redundant, and that of course is not their fault, as I have
9 already conceded. I was going to ask the witness a few more questions
10 about this in re-examination. Mr. Karganovic has attempted to do a very
11 quick and rough-and-ready analysis, but a more detailed one might require
12 somewhat more time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, at least, Mr. Margetts, if you look at
14 the first ten, they're all non-circled and therefore non-selected
15 candidates, from what I understand. And also the -- let's wait and see
16 what Mr. Josse --
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I can just on this analysis --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. MARGETTS: -- in the moments that I've just had while my
20 learned friend was talking, I've identified that number 30 in the
21 declaration, Mladen Popovic, is number 264 on the list. He is both a Serb
22 and circled.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We found the 179 one as well. So it seems not
24 to be a complete explanation, but let's first -- everyone can use this
25 time to compare the 58 and look at it. Even the legal officer who is
1 assisting the Chamber might do some useful work in this if he has got the
2 relevant documents.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. MARGETTS: -- also I -- obviously I apologise again for not
6 having a reconciliation performed between Exhibit D133 and P1073. I can
7 read a reconciliation into the record that has been provided to me at the
8 break, if that's helpful. That is, the numbers that appear on D133
9 reconciled with the numbers that appear on the list of the members of the
10 special unit.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then I especially -- if you do that, how
12 many would you have on both lists?
13 MR. MARGETTS: I've got nine names, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You've got nine names. I'm mainly interested in the
15 -- if you please do that very slowly so that no mistakes appear.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Would you like to check the names on both exhibits
17 as I read, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you would -- if you have the -- yes. If you would
19 have the -- first mention the number in the special units list.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes --
21 JUDGE ORIE: That special unit list was D --
22 MR. MARGETTS: P1073, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P1073. And then second, the corresponding
24 number in the list of candidates, D133.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. The first number is number 13 on
1 P1073, and that name appears at number 50 in D133.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's Miroslav Subotic, not encircled. Please
4 MR. MARGETTS: Next is number 35 in P1073. That appears as number
5 115 on D133.
6 JUDGE ORIE: 115 being Mladen Kusmuk, not encircled.
7 MR. MARGETTS: The next number is number 36 on P1073, and number
8 113 on D133.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that's Stojan Stojanovic, not encircled.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Next is number 49 on P1073 and number 179 on D133.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's Milorad Pavlica, who is encircled.
12 MR. MARGETTS: The next is number 85 on P1073 and number 395 on
14 JUDGE ORIE: 395 being Predrag Mizdrak, not encircled.
15 MR. MARGETTS: The next number is number 98 on P1073 and number
16 297 on D133.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 297 being Dragisa Kuskuk, not encircled.
18 MR. MARGETTS: There's also a notation here that Kuskuk should be
19 Kusmuk, so there may be a typo in one of the lists --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, or it's not the same person. We'll check that
21 carefully on the basis of the evidence.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Next, Your Honour, is 113 on P1073, which is 349 on
24 JUDGE ORIE: 349 being Zoran Golijanin, not encircled.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Then we have 127 on P1073, and that corresponds
1 with 437 on D133.
2 JUDGE ORIE: 437 being Mladen Rakicc, and surprisingly with double
3 "c" at the end, not encircled.
4 MR. MARGETTS: The next is 136 on P1073, which corresponds to 301
5 on D133. That completes the list, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 30 --
7 MR. MARGETTS: 1, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: 1, you said, and that's Radomir Kovac, or Kovak, not
9 encircled. Yes.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there's one further issue not related
11 to this particular matter.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. JOSSE: Just before -- on that. In the light of that
14 analysis, for the avoidance of any doubt, I don't intend to re-examine the
15 witness in the course -- I just need to make that clear.
16 JUDGE ORIE: At least now it's clear to what extent there's
17 correspondence also to circles around the number.
18 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The unrelated issue, Mr. Margetts.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. It was before the break I
21 indicated that I would present an exhibit in respect of the date of
22 formation of the 16th --
23 JUDGE ORIE: 16th Muslim Brigade.
24 MR. MARGETTS: -- Muslim Brigade. I've had discussions in
25 relation to that, and I'd like to inform Your Honour that we don't intend
1 to present an exhibit, and the reason for this is as follows: The basis
2 that we had for the date of the formation of the brigade was on the basis
3 of, first, an expert military opinion on the formation of ABiH units and
4 the transformation of TO to units, and the material related to that
5 generally rather than any specific document relating to the 16th Muslim
7 Second, it was payment lists, whilst indicating the 8th of June as
8 the first date for the members that unit, doesn't specifically say that
9 the 8th of June is the first date that that brigade existed. But when
10 read with an expert opinion and the further document that we have -- and
11 the further document is this, it's a book which actually expressly states
12 that the 16th Muslim Brigade was formed at that date in early June with
13 the transformation of the TO. So if we were to present an exhibit, it
14 would merely be a book, although -- so we don't wish to do that. But our
15 opinion is based on a range of factors and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. All factors not being in evidence at this
17 moment. At the same time I see that you have examined the witness on the
18 issue of whether a date in the military booklet would be sufficient -- a
19 sufficient indication of the existence of the unit which is mentioned in
20 that same booklet.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And you do not take it for granted -- you thus have
23 drawn the attention of the Chamber to the fact that it's not
24 self-explanatory that if a date appears, that the unit already existed on
25 that date.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That [inaudible] the question.
2 There's just one more thing --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would have been better, as a matter of
4 fact, Mr. Margetts, if you would have left it to that and say: We put
5 questions to the witness, we had good reasons to do so, but we're not
6 going to further pursue the matter. Because now it's a bit suggestive --
7 you say that at least your interpretation would find support in a book
8 which you're not going to present, et cetera, et cetera --
9 MR. JOSSE: The reason I didn't object, Your Honour, is with
10 respect to all Your Honours, I'm sure this Court is well able to
11 distinguish matters which are in evidence and those which are in argument.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. JOSSE: So --
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's not without reason that I started saying:
15 "That's all not in evidence."
16 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely. That reassured the Defence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, Mr. Josse, you will appreciate that
18 the Chamber, by giving this gentle guidance to Mr. Margetts even would
19 like to be released from even having to consider that question in this
21 MR. JOSSE: And I suppose there may be days where I will be a
22 little less charitable.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Any further matter?
24 MR. MARGETTS: I thank my learned friend for his response.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Then, Mr. Josse, are you ready to re-examine the witness?
2 MR. JOSSE: I am. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into
4 the courtroom.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, Mr. Josse will re-examine you.
8 Mr. Josse, you may proceed.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Josse:
10 Q. Mr. Savkic, have a look, please, at tab 5 in the Prosecution
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please assist the witness.
13 MR. JOSSE:
14 Q. When this document was put to you by my learned friend
15 Mr. Margetts, you said, in terms, that it was a forgery. That's right,
16 isn't it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you at one point told the Chamber that it may have been
19 prepared by criminals that had been persecuting you all your life,
20 especially during the war. Who did you have in mind and what did you mean
21 by that answer?
22 A. I didn't say in the course of the war, but I said those that had
23 persecuted me throughout my life. What I meant specifically was this:
24 This is a forgery. There is not a signature of mine anywhere. And I also
25 explained that those were people who probably wished to cover up some kind
1 of transaction in connection with the -- with tax evasion. And I had
2 problems with them also between 1998 and 2001.
3 Q. Can you be more specific as to who these criminal elements are?
4 A. I didn't quite hear what you've just said.
5 Q. My question was: Can you be more specific as to who these
6 criminal elements are?
7 A. As to this period of time that I'm referring to as the president
8 of the Municipal Assembly, I chased away, so to say, the director of the
9 Boksit Company, but not just him, also certain other individuals from the
10 local government who, when I started getting rid of all this crime at
11 around -- I don't know, 1997, and who in an unlawful way, according to the
12 constitutional court first suspending me as president, and I can't even
13 begin to say what kind of problems I encountered over that three-year
14 period with those people, both from the government and the ones that I was
15 dealing with in relation to their crimes. I can give you their names, in
16 fact, but here we're talking about the director of the Boksit Company who,
17 in my view, even though accounts seem to be balanced at the end of the
18 year, this decision was supposedly meant to cover-up that part of the
19 taxes that should have been paid in November were not paid, in 1992.
20 Q. What is the ethnicity of the director?
21 A. Serb.
22 Q. And by producing this forgery, how do you say that would make your
23 life more difficult? In other words, what was in their minds in producing
24 this forgery? What was the purpose of it?
25 A. I suppose that in the government provisions it was indicated that
1 the only person who could do this at that specific point in time was the
2 members of the Crisis Staff. Since obviously there was no Crisis Staff at
3 that time, they typed this up in this way and they said that I was the
4 president of the Crisis Staff, even though there was no Crisis Staff. And
5 as you can see, the stamp is the stamp that we had seen in other
6 documents, and it is the stamp of the president of the Municipal Assembly.
7 And -- because there is number 1 there, so it is logical that it refers --
8 or rather, back then it was a stamp, distinctive stamp, for the president
9 of the Municipal Assembly. And I believe that it's still the case.
10 Q. The next issue I want to ask you about --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, could I just ask a few clarifications
12 because it's still not clear.
13 It's -- the decision says: "By this decision, the taxes on the
14 turnover of the goods and services has been directed to the budget of the
15 Milici municipality."
16 Could you tell us exactly what is meant by that. Is it that it
17 has to be paid to the Milici municipality or that the receipt -- the
18 authority that received the payment has directed it to the Milici
19 municipality to spend that money, or -- it's not very clear, because
20 usually by decisions you -- No, let me refrain from further comment.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this decision ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Did you say anything to me?
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, I didn't say anything. "On the basis of this
25 decision ..." you said. And please continue.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This tax on services is always paid
2 into the coffers of the government or the state. On the basis of this
3 decision it is stated clearly that instead of that tax being paid up to
4 the government, it would be paid into budget of the municipality of
5 Milici. That's quite clear. However, at the end of the year, when all the
6 taxes are looked at together, it is required for a part of that money to
7 be paid into the accounts of the state. It can be done in two ways:
8 Either by bank transfer or by providing money to the police force or the
9 armed forces or some other government agency, either to provide material
10 assistance or to give them money. I suppose that this was a period of
11 time where the payment had not been made and the government was not happy
12 with it, and apparently that must have been the only reason why they came
13 up with this decision. And it was their justification, the fact that this
14 lack of payment would be compensated for by Boksit's providing services to
15 the armed forces, the police force, and such-like. That's what they
16 needed my name for at that period of time, nothing else. As to whether
17 this was a lawful kind of act or not, I can't really tell, but I don't
18 think it is.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now it has become clear to me.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
21 MR. JOSSE:
22 Q. Have a look, please, at P1069.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be under tab --
24 MR. JOSSE: I don't think it was in the tabs, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JOSSE: It was the 16th of May, 1992, for the Court. And it's
2 the one - if I've got the right one - at 0700 hours.
3 Q. Now, you have been asked some questions about the B/C/S words that
4 we find in the section headed "patrols." And the B/C/S words are
5 "ciscenje terena." What do you understand those words to mean?
6 A. Considering the events as of the 15th and, more specifically, on
7 the 16th of May, 1992, which have been recorded, on the 15th of May there
8 was very bad case of kidnap. I think it was a bus-load of passengers.
9 The day after, considering all these events taking place on the road in
10 the direction of the mine, as I was saying, on the day after, an attempt
11 was made to organise a large-scale action and to deal with this situation;
12 that is to say, to try and free the kidnapped people. At the same time,
13 huge formations attacked two Serb villages east of Derventa --
14 Q. I'm going to stop you, Mr. Savkic, because you've completely
15 misunderstood my question. It's probably the way I asked it. I was not
16 asking you specifically about the events of May 1992. If, in order to
17 answer this question you have to refer to those events, then that is fine,
18 but I want you to understand the question. The question relates to the
19 words in your language "ciscenje terena." What do you understand those
20 two words to mean, please?
21 A. In this case in particular it means that probably the police was
22 entrusted with the task of -- and I'm talking about the villages that I've
23 just mentioned. So they were given the task to check them out, to go and
24 see whether anything remained from those formations which had attacked a
25 purely Serb area. I suppose that's what it meant. And that's it. And
1 one could also wonder, but I think 100 per cent that's what it is. And at
2 any rate, this was the blackest day in the municipality of Milici for both
4 Q. Is it suggestive to you of ethnic cleansing, those two words I'm
5 talking about?
6 A. In this particular case, certainly not. It was the clearing of
7 the area. It's specific enough in the Serb language. So the clearing of
8 the area from those who had been sent in to do what they did.
9 Q. You were anxious, in the course of your cross-examination, to draw
10 to the Chamber's attention two documents, and I see from my vantage point
11 that you still have them there. The first is a report dated the 19th of
12 July of 1992, signed by Mr. Ferid Hodzic. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, sadly, at least at the moment, we do not have an English
15 translation of these documents. But it's right that Mr. Hodzic describes
16 himself as commander of the municipality of Vlasenica, the Main Staff of
17 the BiH army. The report deals with the background to the conflict in the
18 Vlasenica municipality.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, at this stage, as we foreshadowed when
20 these documents were presented, we cannot see how this is a matter that is
21 appropriately dealt with in re-examination. We say this is evidence that
22 was related to the principal part of this witness's evidence in chief, and
23 if he'd sought to corroborate or extend that evidence in any way by the
24 production of these documents, then it should have been done in evidence
25 in chief. And it's not a matter that arose in cross-examination.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
2 MR. JOSSE: My primary response to that, Your Honour, is: I could
3 have dealt with this quite differently. The witness was anxious to refer
4 to these documents in answer to questions he was being asked. At the very
5 least, as a matter of courtesy, I would submit he should be asked why he
6 wanted to refer to them, why he says they're relevant to what is being
7 asked, and --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Unless, on the basis of the document itself, it
9 becomes apparent that it's not relevant. I mean, the witness is not the
10 one who -- of course he can point at certain documents, and say, "These
11 are relevant in the context of what I've been asked," but that doesn't
12 mean that it is.
13 I take it that both parties have had an opportunity to at least
14 superficially look at the content of the document.
15 MR. JOSSE: I had a summary prepared for me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 And I take it, Mr. Margetts, knowing you as a good professional,
18 you certainly would have found ways to get acquainted with at least the
19 core of the content of this document.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour, [inaudible] on that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from the procedural argument you invoked,
22 do you say it is -- it's irrelevant in relation to the answers the witness
24 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour. It's not -- it's not irrelevant.
25 We say it's inappropriate for it to be dealt with at this stage, and if it
1 is --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we stopped the witness in cross-examination
3 to further refer to these documents, where at least we wouldn't know what
4 it is about. So therefore -- Mr. Josse, I take it that that's your
5 position, that you say that that was part of the answer, but the witness
6 was not allowed to give --
7 MR. JOSSE: Well, that is my position, and also, for the avoidance
8 of any doubt, the witness knows far more about what went on than I do.
9 And therefore, whilst I appreciate I control his evidence, it's his
10 evidence, not my control of it, that is important, in my submission.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, can I make a practical suggestion?
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you make further submissions.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Would we be able to refer to the transcript where
15 the witness sought to introduce these documents and the question that was
16 asked and then restrict the reference to these documents to anything that
17 would further the answer to that question?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please guide me. It was on the -- it
19 was yesterday, wasn't it?
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'll have to find that myself.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I've found the reference at page 35 of
24 yesterday's session, lines 17 to 22. The question was put on page 34, is
25 the following, that's at lines 19 to 20: "It is correct, isn't it, that
1 the take-over was performed by the JNA together with the unit that was
2 coordinated by the SDS Crisis Staff." As far as these documents address
3 which units were involved in the take-over of Vlasenica and they may be
4 able to supplement the witness's answer.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think as a matter of fact what the witness
6 wanted to explain was why your assumption was not correct. So everything
7 that is relevant in that context is a matter that could be covered by
8 Mr. Josse at this time. The Chamber will consider -- so, Mr. Josse, you
9 perhaps start with your questions on the matter. Please keep in mind the
10 Chamber has not a translation in front of it.
11 MR. JOSSE: Yes. That was why I was going to attempt to summarise
12 it, first of all. It was that exact reason what I was dealing with this
13 initially in the way that I did.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JOSSE: But the objection having been taken, I will revert to
16 a different method.
17 Q. We now have in front of us, Mr. Savkic, what you were saying in
18 answer to a question from the learned Presiding Judge about this document,
19 and you said: I left -- and I paraphrase -- the document aside, precisely
20 for the cross-examination because I expected the Prosecutor to try and
21 discredit me as a person and as a witness. And I wanted to keep this in
22 store to show who exactly -- who actually perpetrated all the evil in
24 Go on with what you had in mind, please.
25 A. Yes. Your Honours, the point of this has just been made. This
1 document, coming from the commander of that famous battalion, addressed to
2 the Chief of Staff of the armed forces of BH, fully, in its own way,
3 confirms that everything I said in conjunction with the events in
4 Vlasenica is true. If you allow me, I can quote this here because
5 everything has been prepared. I -- I can tell you word for word about the
6 way in which they prepared the units which were to attack Vlasenica, when
7 this was done, in what way this was attempted at Vlasenica, and then it
8 failed, and all that. I can quote everything.
9 And in the second part of my statement I said that on the basis of
10 this report, when we talk about the linking up and expanding the free
11 territory, and I can show you on the map, I can show you in which way
12 ethnic cleansing of the Serb villages was carried out in the
13 municipalities of Vlasenica, Bratunac, and Srebrenica. You can see that
14 sabotage and partisan war was the main technique used. And it can be seen
15 on page 2 as well, point 2 on page 2. It says quite clearly that it will
16 be done on the basis of attacks from powerful operational and technical
17 positions which are extremely important for the already-planned combat
18 activity in this area. This is all clearly stated in this paper.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there.
20 Mr. Josse, would you please guide the witness through it. Because
21 I see that this document -- I see a lot of dates. It's about April, it's
22 about May. It's about, from what I see, July. The document has been
23 drafted -- at least, the date of the document seems to be the 19th of
24 July. If there's anything relevant in it, please identify those portions.
25 Ask the witness to slowly read them, and then try to create the context in
1 such a way that the Chamber can understand it.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I make a submission in regard to
3 what we would say would be admissible?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. MARGETTS: And it would be anything dealing with which units
6 performed the take-over of Vlasenica, not which units existed in other
7 parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or not which units were formed by other
8 people --
9 JUDGE ORIE: And not only -- I mean, the question you put to the
10 witness is: Who performed the take-over? That was the question, and you
11 mentioned the JNA, together with the unit that was coordinated by the SDS
12 Crisis Staff. So any different history of taking over power appears to be
13 relevant in this context.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. But we would say this: That the
15 take-over is of the Vlasenica city that we're referring to on a very
16 specific date, on the 20th of April. I don't see anything in this --
17 well, I won't comment on his evidence, but the -- that's what the issue
18 is: Which units took over the Vlasenica city --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that you interpret this in a
20 very narrow way, whereas the Chamber gives a bit broader -- a broader
21 interpretation of what one would expect the witness to deal with if
22 confronted with this question.
23 Mr. Josse, you may proceed, but please keep in mind the guidance I
24 gave you that evidence should be understandable for the Chamber.
25 MR. JOSSE:
1 Q. The Chamber may be anxious to know, Mr. Savkic, where in this
2 document it describes the military activities in the Vlasenica area in
3 April of 1992. Take us to a particular line, if you can.
4 A. Your Honours, I can. In the second phrase, it says straight away,
5 and I quote: "Until the 15th of April ..." and if we just remember, the
6 Assembly was either on the 14th or on the 16th of April, so: The
7 commander of the Territorial Defence of Vlasenica, on the basis of a
8 decision of mine, I trained zone staff of the Territorial Defence for
9 RJSTO for the area of Djile, Stedra and Vrsinje. And I appointed
10 commander of the ODTO and PDV - and every commander will tell you PDV
11 means anti-sabotage platoon - who were all trained and mobilised. So by
12 then they had already been trained and mobilised, and the first combat
13 activity with the enemy took place on the 2nd of May, 1992, until the 7th
14 of May, 1992. Thereupon they were disbanded and, in parts, they joined
15 the TO of Srebrenica and Zepa.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you say is this document explains that
17 on the 15th of April that orders were given to train units. Yes. Which
18 -- any further --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. It states here: "Which
20 were formed and mobilised." Formed and mobilised -- by the 15th of April
21 they were formed and mobilised. Mobilisation means that the people in
22 uniforms with weapons were equipped and taken out into the field, and they
23 were prepared for combat. And I can also quote other parts where then
24 this will be seen as such. The fourth word, when they're saying there the
25 10th of April when we were reaching an agreement, it states: "In the
1 meantime, from the 10th of April until the 21st of April, 1992, when the
2 Chetniks came to Vlasenica," which is not true but it's very important.
3 Chetniks are being discussed here. In the correspondence when the JNA was
4 participating, it stated JNA and Chetniks. Here it says literally
5 Chetniks, so that implies -- if we're talking about the 21st, but here it
6 says clearly from the 10th, but this is why, because in the next
7 sentence --
8 JUDGE ORIE: You are mixing up the text of this document and your
9 own comment of it. The Chamber would like to have a clear impression of
10 what the document says, and then if there are any further questions in
11 relation to that, Mr. Josse or the Chamber will ask them. So will you
12 please read the portion you were just referring to. Just read it slowly
13 without any further comments, to start with.
14 MR. JOSSE:
15 Q. Slowly, as the learned Judge said, Mr. Savkic.
16 A. "In the meantime, from the 10th of April, 1992, until the 21st of
17 April, 1992, when the Chetniks entered the town of Vlasenica, the -- all
18 the political, economic, and state officials fled, leaving the people at
19 the mercy of the occupier."
20 And now the main thing is said:
21 "Under those conditions, which were not normal conditions, I tried
22 to mobilise the people and the citizens for defence, first in the town and
23 then in the surrounding settlements, which was impossible and it was just
24 pure illusion." In other words, they all refused.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the document says that it is impossible. For
1 what reasons, at least I have not heard yet.
2 Mr. Josse, any other relevant portion to be read from this
4 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Do you --
5 Q. I just want to ask you, Mr. Savkic, what do you say about the
6 impossibility that you've just read out?
7 A. This is best stated by witnesses or eye-witnesses. People were
8 asked before the Assembly on the 15th of May -- sorry, the 15th of April,
9 to form these units, as was done in these three places above, and to take
10 over the Municipal Assembly of Vlasenica. This is what the Muslims were
11 explaining and saying, and that is why that was refused. And they were
12 then expelled to Cerska, and then it says later what happened in Cerska.
13 Q. One last passage that I want to deal with. The document deals
14 with the population in due course feeling disheartened and demoralised and
15 then leaving in a panic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you point to the relevant part and ask the
17 witness to read that, Mr. Josse.
18 MR. JOSSE: It's around where we see the date 27th April 1992, and
19 it's the bit, in fact, that's underlined in the copy we have.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please start reading -- I think the
21 line starts already quite a bit earlier, where it reads [B/C/S spoken].
22 Yes, could you please read slowly to start with those words.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In that section of Cerska, the
24 first public mobilisation was carried out on the 25th of April, 1992, for
25 the region of Cerska, Skugrici, Nova Kasaba, and Nedjeljiste. With the
1 fall of Kula, Zvornik municipality, on the 27th of April, 1992, the
2 panicked population was forcing the territorials from this area, and we
3 moved underground until the 19th of May, 1992."
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you, you said -- by reading, you
5 said: "Kula, Zvornik municipality." Does the text say: "Zvornik
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it does not, but Kula is not in
8 the Vlasenica municipality.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, but I asked you to read and not to
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Was there anything else you added?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. This was only what was
14 relating to Kula.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Mr. Josse, any further --
17 MR. JOSSE: Nothing else I want to ask about document --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- portions of this document. I think as a matter of
19 fact if you want to ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'll give an opportunity to Mr. Margetts to see
22 whether he has any portions he thinks of importance to be presented to the
23 Chamber. But, Mr. Josse, since portions of this document are read and
24 since the Chamber, of course, wants to have an opportunity to look at it
25 in the context of the whole and we left it up to you to select the
1 portions you would like to draw the attention to, the Chamber would like
2 to receive a translation of this document, and a number should already be
3 assigned to it so it is already in evidence.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D141, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D141.
7 Mr. Margetts, is there any portion -- Mr. Josse, I don't know
8 whether the other document -- Mr. Josse.
9 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether you want to pay attention to the
11 other document as well.
12 MR. JOSSE: The other document, in one sense, is easier, because
13 we on this side of the court have a pretty clear idea as to why the
14 witness wants to refer to it. If I could be permitted to ask a leading
15 question --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well --
17 MR. JOSSE: -- it might resolve that matter very quickly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you put that question, then we pause for a second
19 to see whether it's leading in such a way that Mr. Margetts would object.
20 Mr. Margetts is invited to object when there's a strong need for that,
21 yes, and not if it's -- just because it's leading.
22 Mr. Josse, please.
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. The other document, Mr. Savkic, is a report on front line
25 conditions by a Sulejman Mujcinovic [phoen], dated the 8th of December,
1 1992. He was a detachment commander to the BiH army. That's right, isn't
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And there is something very controversial, in fact, I suspect,
5 about what's contained within this document. It describes conditions,
6 equipment, numerical strength of his unit and the Serbian unit. That's
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The weapons that we see described in page 1 are Serbian weapons,
10 according to Muslim reconnaissance units.
11 A. No. These are weapons, according to their information, in the
12 possession of two battalions, my battalion and, to a certain extent, the
13 Bratunac Brigade Battalion.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Savkic, isn't that exactly what
15 Mr. Josse said, that the report -- weaponry mentioned is not the weaponry
16 belonging to the unit, it also belongs to -- but that is weaponry they
17 think the Serbians have available at that time. Yes.
18 MR. JOSSE:
19 Q. The document then goes on to describe the Serbian positions at
20 that time; military positions, trenches, and so on and so forth. All of
21 that's correct, isn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And don't answer this initially, but it's right that you want the
24 Chamber to see this because, in your opinion, it demonstrates the
25 defensive nature of the Serbian positions. Don't answer that question.
1 That is the leading question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, no objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 You may answer that question. So the question was whether you
6 wanted the Chamber to see this because, in your view, this demonstrates
7 that the Serbian positions were of a defensive nature.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. In all the
9 descriptions - that's their description - with all the units, any officer
10 in any army of any state will stay -- would say that this was a classical
11 defence position. And you will see that they're talking about mostly the
12 inhabitants of the villages being at those positions. That's what it
13 basically is.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
15 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I have nothing else to ask in relation to the
17 JUDGE ORIE: And would you prefer to have this -- because I
18 understood your questions to be that it gives a description of a moment by
19 BH forces describing the -- well, the situation at that time in a certain
20 zone of responsibility, I take it. Do you consider this of such relevance
21 that it should be in evidence?
22 MR. JOSSE: No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then unless the Prosecution will ask for it, we put
24 it aside for a second. We will not assign a number to it at this moment.
25 Any further questions, Mr. Josse?
1 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. MARGETTS: No questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Savkic, during your testimony, at a certain
8 moment you told us that it was very important to further explain the
9 situation in relation to Mr. Milenko Petkovic. You said you knew little
10 about his problems and you thought that it was very important to further
11 explain that to us. You have an opportunity to explain.
12 A. When the explanation about that document was given, my name was
13 mentioned as well as the name of Radomir Dzinkic, and it was said that we
14 were the tried and tested senior officers and fighters. Since the
15 document is from a period when I wasn't or I was, I think that I probably
16 at that time still was not the commander of the battalion, I would like to
17 suggest that that document be brought in, because there it says that I was
18 a tried and tested officer in the defence of the mine, and then in that
19 context -- I was there. I already said that I was the commander of the
20 mine defence, and with six or 23 men -- ranging from six to 23 men, we
21 defended the mine in that period.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber sees no need at this moment to have any
24 additional documents introduced, but if the parties would take a different
25 view, perhaps caused by the answer of the witness, then of course there's
1 an opportunity to make a request.
2 Then another matter on which you would like to give further
3 explanation was about the document talking about the War Presidency in
4 1995. I got the impression that you wanted to say a few more words about
5 that as well. We stopped you then. Please tell us what you had in mind
6 at that moment.
7 A. Your Honours, yes. That document had nothing to do with the
8 events from 1992 and 1993, and I said then -- that was the document that
9 was shown to me. It had the date 18th of April, and I drafted some
10 information. I said the following then: Yes, that is my document, but
11 then, with the attack of the Croatian army on Republika Srpska, it was
12 generally known that the municipalities introduced War Presidencies, and
13 the War Presidency at the time in the municipality of Milici was
14 introduced. However, I was still in the same office. I was still, as far
15 as the citizens were concerned, the president of the Municipal Assembly.
16 And I don't know how long -- how many days that period lasted; that can be
17 checked. In any case, there are records of Executive Board and Municipal
18 Assembly meetings, which both continued to function without any
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So do I understand you properly that you say
21 that the War Presidency was introduced but did not take over the functions
22 that were still exercised by the ordinary organs of the municipality?
23 A. This didn't last long; it was very brief, as I said before. But
24 as far as the citizens were concerned, it's as if nothing had really
25 happened. There were no combat operations around the town, other than
1 incursions by small terrorist groups. I cannot remember specifically. I
2 wasn't really following that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would have one other question for you, that's
4 the following: In early April the Vlasenica municipality was split up in
5 different parts, Milici municipality to be one part, then you said Serb
6 Vlasenica and Muslim Vlasenica. Now, I'm just trying to understand this
7 step taken by, as you told us, all parties interested. Vlasenica
8 municipality was a municipality, I take it, established at the state level
9 since, from my experience, the territorial separation of municipalities or
10 provinces, or whatever you call them in the different states, is usually
11 done at the central level of a state. What I do not fully understand now
12 is that you split up a territory which was created as an administrative
13 entity by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 So how at the local level you could change the boundaries of an
15 administrative entity? Would that not need the approval of authorities
16 higher up?
17 A. Your Honour, I was talking about the people who submitted the
18 proposal, a protocol, for the official Assembly. I've said who those
19 people were. At that point in time, in view of the situation, which was
20 the way I described it, and I described it in detail to a certain extent,
21 and I can repeat that if you would like me to do that now. In our
22 decision or solution, we were of a mind to either observe what was going
23 on or to take steps to make our citizens feel secure. So what prevailed
24 was exactly what I was talking about. Let us go and make this division,
25 and let me also say that everything that was important for this
1 administrative -- well, actually, it was just a pre-formulation of
2 authority into these three authorities. And then practically, things were
3 supposed to, and they did, remain in common, including the MUP, the
4 pharmacy, the elementary school, the secondary school, everything; also
5 roads had to remain passable through all the municipalities, the way taxes
6 were paid. I'm saying it again, that was absolutely our position. And
7 had it not been for these later events, Vlasenica later was taken over
8 without a single shot being fired, without any friction, without any
9 fighting. And I explained, and you can see that from this report, what
10 was done, what was carried out. When the order came for the police to
11 withdraw and to work in the Tuzla centre, that was up until that time.
12 I'm talking about the Muslim police.
13 But I would like to go back to your question again. We felt that
14 at the time it was the best solution, and it probably was for sure.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you felt it to be the
16 right solution, but you were an administrative entity, Vlasenica
17 municipality, within a state. Usually on the municipality level you do
18 not re-organise the administrative organisation of a state. So therefore,
19 again my question is: How could you do that just on the municipal, local,
20 level without any involvement of the higher-up organs who are responsible
21 for the territorial separation of the -- and territorial boundaries of the
22 administrative entities within a state? I mean, if we here would decide
23 that Belgium would be split up tomorrow in such-and-such a way, I take it
24 that the Belgian government would not accept that. So therefore I wonder
25 how this could be -- of course, the example is wrong. I should have said
1 the Netherlands because we are in the Netherlands at this moment, we are
2 not in Belgium, but I didn't want to refer to the host state.
3 But do you understand what I mean, that if on the local level you
4 re-organise organs, institutions, which are organised by the state, how
5 could you do that on your own without any involvement of the state and
6 just by trying to seek to reach agreement among the local groups or local
7 interested parties?
8 A. Sir, in that working group, I said there were lawyers - I know at
9 least two - and they were both from -- actually, three. Two were from the
10 Muslim people, one was from the Serb people. And I'm saying again: We
11 were primarily guided by the idea that we wanted to avoid the fate of
12 Brod, Modrica, Derventa, and what also in that period perhaps some other
13 municipality went through, municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 Obviously, at that time Bosnia and Herzegovina was not functioning in the
15 municipality of Vlasenica.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that. But was the Republika
17 Srpska or Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in any way
18 in this splitting up of the municipality?
19 A. No one at that meeting from the -- this group of gentlemen or from
20 the group of gentlemen from the Serb side -- I said the discussions went
21 on for quite a while, and there was a council formed before that for
22 inter-ethnic re-alignment of borders. So this was went on for a while.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It still is not an answer to my question. How
24 at the local level could you possibly re-arrange entities, administrative
25 entities, without any involvement of higher-up levels?
1 A. Obviously, it was done on our part and on the part of the Assembly
2 of -- the Municipal Assembly of Vlasenica.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That still doesn't answer my question, does it?
4 A. Between possible bloodshed and a kind of solution -- well,
5 obviously, if that was the choice, we were in favour of the option
6 preventing bloodshed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm trying to find the reference, but perhaps the
8 parties could assist me, where the decisions of the Republican Assembly on
9 decisions submitted to it, other decisions of splitting up were not yet
10 submitted. Could you -- Mr. Margetts, I think you --
11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- raised the issue, but I can't find it immediately.
13 If you would even give me the words of that document, then I take it it
14 was read.
15 MR. MARGETTS: I'll give you the exhibit number.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. MARGETTS: And the exhibit --
18 JUDGE ORIE: It was one of the complicated exhibits.
19 MR. MARGETTS: The exhibit -- oh, Your Honour, it was P64A, but if
20 you search for "24 March," then that discussion should --
21 JUDGE ORIE: 24 March. And was it yesterday or ...?
22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm asking you this because you were confronted
24 yesterday with the proceedings of the Bosnian Serb Assembly of the 24th of
25 March, 1992, in which they decided on the verification of the decisions of
1 Municipal Assemblies under proclamation of territories of the newly
2 established Serb municipalities, including Milici.
3 You -- in your testimony, it seems that you present to us a
4 picture in which on -- I think it was on the 11th of April or around the
5 10th of April, that you reached an agreement with the other parties to
6 split up the municipality, and you say that was just what we did in
7 Vlasenica, whereas Mr. Margetts confronted you with the fact that already
8 two weeks before that, that the Assembly had verified decisions on the
9 proclamation of territories of newly established Serb municipalities,
10 including Milici. So therefore, that very strongly suggests that what you
11 did in Vlasenica was rather the result of earlier activities that even had
12 reached the Republican Assembly and was verified there already. That's
13 why I'm putting these questions to you, in order to give you an
14 opportunity to explain that.
15 A. Already yesterday, Your Honour, I said -- actually, it would be
16 interesting to think of something else that I failed to remember
17 yesterday. Was there a Serb municipality of Vlasenica amongst those
18 municipalities? But I did say yesterday that formally the meeting which
19 was the meeting which set up the municipality of Milici, on the basis of
20 all the other documents, was on the 31st of March. And the document
21 presented by the Prosecution refers to the date you've just mentioned, I
22 think the 24th or 27th of March. Anyway, a bit earlier. So obviously
23 somebody up there must have reported that as happening earlier. I don't
24 know for what reason. Perhaps they thought in a different way. However,
25 I can state for certain that I did not provide this information and I
1 don't believe any of these people on the team, anyone in charge of the
2 protocol, would have done that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that Serb Vlasenica does not appear on that
4 list -- well, you're making a gesture like, Well, that's clear. But may I
5 draw your attention to the fact that the Assembly also urged those
6 municipalities that had not yet sent in their decisions, that they should
7 do that as soon as possible. So the absence can be established - I take
8 it that both parties would agree on that - which of course does not change
9 the fact that Milici is mentioned as a municipality that were proclaimed -
10 at least, the Assembly took the position that they were proclaimed - and
11 that they verified the proclamation of these new territories.
12 Any further explanation on this matter, Mr. Savkic?
13 A. No, Your Honour. Could I just make an honest statement with
14 regard to Milici and Vlasenica?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
16 A. This is something I've said before. Since 1979 this local tension
17 between Milici and Vlasenica had been going on; it is common knowledge.
18 And let me just point out the fact that it's both the Serbs and Muslims
19 from Milici and Serbs and Muslims from Vlasenica who took part in that. I
20 did say that even in 1990 we tried for the military to become a separate
21 municipality. There are documents to support that. I refer to those
22 documents, but not even then the joint Assembly of the municipality of
23 Vlasenica granted that. So it was a quite extreme local parochial
24 attitude, and it was reported in the press as well, but it had nothing to
25 do with the ethnic groups. Because we also saw the signatures of Muslims
1 from Milici who were promoting that initiative in Muslim villages. They
2 were not just the majority, but they were the main promoters of the
3 initiative. I mean some of ours, I mean some of the Serbs, went along as
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this answer, Mr. Savkic.
6 Have the questions of the Chamber raised the need to put any
7 further questions to the witness?
8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just one matter.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Margetts:
11 Q. Mr. Savkic, in March 1992, Rajko Dukic was the president of the
12 Executive Board of the SDS and a member of the Main Board of the SDS;
14 A. No. What Municipal Board do you have in mind?
15 Q. Sorry, Mr. Savkic, my question was not complete. I was referring
16 to Mr. Rajko Dukic's position in the republican level organs of the SDS
17 party, that is at the Main Board of the SDS party and of the Executive
18 Board of the SDS party. I wasn't referring to an appointment at the
19 municipality level. It is the case, isn't it, Mr. Savkic, that in March
20 1992, Rajko Dukic was a member of the Main Board and the president of the
21 Executive Board of the SDS party.
22 A. At the time I wasn't a member of any of these bodies. As to
23 whether that happened in March, I don't know at what stage the work of the
24 SDS was suspended. It could be checked, but I did not used to go to
25 Sarajevo a great deal.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savkic, the question simply was whether Mr. Dukic
2 at that time was a member of the Main Board and the president of the
3 Executive Board of the SDS party. Do you know? Please tell us; if you
4 don't know, please tell us as well.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As to that period in March, I do not
6 know. And --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 MR. MARGETTS:
10 Q. Mr. Savkic, one thing you will probably be able to help me with
11 is: You worked in the Boksit Company, and you've explained that it was an
12 enormous enterprise with 3.000 employees and it was located in Milici.
13 Now, I trust my learned friend and the Court will excuse me for using this
14 expression, but Rajko Dukic was the CEO of that company, the director of
15 that company, and he was the alpha and omega of Milici municipality.
17 A. Depending on your point of view.
18 Q. Well, I'll ask you then, what was your point of view?
19 A. It is a fact that, considering the economic power of the Boksit
20 Company, which is undisputable and we cannot argue with that, so according
21 to some kind of logic, in every municipality -- because what happens is
22 that whoever is in charge of the biggest and most powerful company is seen
23 like that so is also, de facto, the most influential person. But as to
24 this person in particular, where it is probably true that he was a member
25 of the Executive Committee and a member of the Main Board and all that, it
1 can be checked, but there are people who never considered him to be the
2 end-all and the be-all.
3 Q. Now, at the start of April -- scratch that. Not at the start of
4 April. When you were discussing the division of the Vlasenica
5 municipality and the constitution of the Milici municipality, did you or
6 any other Serb involved in the division of the municipality have contact
7 with Mr. Rajko Dukic, who you have described as de facto the most
8 influential person?
9 A. You described him as the most influential person. I don't
10 describe him as such. I don't know whether Rajko Dukic exerted any
11 influence over any of those 12 men.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that was not the question, but at the
13 same time, Mr. Margetts, isn't it true that the matter was not resulting
14 from the questions of the Judges, where the Judges only revisited the
15 matter you had raised during the cross-examination.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. Then that concludes my
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Mr. Savkic, this concludes your testimony. I know that it has
20 taken quite a bit of your time, especially where you did not feel very
21 well. The Chamber thanks you very much for coming to The Hague, and the
22 Chamber would like to thank you and wish you a safe trip home again, but
23 you're raising your hand, so I assume that there's one thing you would
24 like to tell us. Yes, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would also like to thank you for
1 fair questioning. But I need a clarification from you, or maybe I could
2 sort it out with the Defence team. I need to know whether I am still
3 under an obligation not to discuss the trial with anyone or not. As of
4 now, I mean.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that no party intends to re-call this
6 witness at any stage, so therefore that means that you are a free man, as
7 you were before, and that there's no reason not to discuss it. Whether
8 it's always wise to discuss everything in detail with everyone is another
9 matter, but you're free to do as you wish. Yes. You are not -- but I add
10 that if there would be anyone you would be aware of that would still come
11 and to testify, of course you are not expected to in any way influence
12 other people who still will come to testify in this court. But apart from
13 that, discuss it with your neighbours, your wife, as you wish.
14 Would you please follow the usher, and I wish you a safe trip home
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to the parties that we not immediately deal
19 now with the exhibits, but do that at a later moment today. Have a short
20 break. We'll deal with the exhibits to see whether there's any -- any
21 procedural issue which urgently needs our attention at this moment because
22 we'll presumably not sit during the days to come up till the 16th of
23 February, if I remember well the date on which you intended to call your
24 next witness.
25 MR. JOSSE: That's right, Your Honour. I am bound to say I would
1 rather deal with the exhibits on that day. There are quite a number in
2 this particular witness's instance that have been introduced that I am
3 probably going to object to. If I could have a few days to think about
4 it, that would help.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, a few days of thinking, you would not
6 deny that to your learned colleague, would you?
7 MR. MARGETTS: Absolutely not, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So we will not deal with the exhibits at this moment,
9 we'll further prepare the lists. Is there any other urgent matter? Not
10 that we have time at this moment to deal with it because we must --
11 supposedly are at the very end of the tape.
12 MR. JOSSE: There is none.
13 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to inform the parties that, of course
15 after consultation with the parties, the Chamber reserves the right to
16 call any additional hearing on procedural matters. We have to go through
17 a list first and see which of them are urgent and -- of course, the
18 Chamber has expressed itself last Friday and yesterday on planning and
19 scheduling of the presentation of the Defence case and expects that
20 further developments will take place, if not today then most likely
21 tomorrow. And if this would cause the Chamber to discuss the matter with
22 the parties, it will find a moment to do so. And we might not wait then
23 -- but of course it very much depends on what will be submitted to us.
24 We might not want to wait until either the 16th or the 27th of February.
25 So the parties should -- well, not remain stand-by, but should remain --
1 should -- the parties should take care that we can address the parties to
2 further discuss when, if at all, we would need any additional hearing or
3 session before the 16th or the 27th of February.
4 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure all of us of the Bar appreciate that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn, provisional new hearing to
6 take place at the -- no, not a provisional new hearing, but provisionally
7 until the day of the new hearing, the hearing which is at this moment
8 scheduled for the 16th of February.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.56 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of
11 February, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.