1 Tuesday, 1 May 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the case number
7 IT-97-25-T, the Prosecutor versus Krnojelac.
8 JUDGE HUNT: If only as a matter of formality, I think we must
9 admit that Prosecution exhibit before the Defence case starts.
10 Have you been able to agree on the particular parts,
11 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, that the Defence needs some more particulars of?
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We did not receive any reference to
13 particular persons, so we couldn't do it.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
15 Well, Mr. Bakrac, I think the time has come. It must be made an
16 exhibit, but if you need any further particulars, you should ask the
17 Prosecution for them and hopefully they'll be supplied.
18 Is there anything you want to add?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HUNT: That will now become Exhibit P452, and that formally
21 concludes the Prosecution case.
22 Now Mr. Bakrac.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours; good
24 morning, distinguished colleagues.
25 Before I start with the Defence opening statement, I would like to
1 say a few words about potential exhibits. I would like to add yet another
2 file to that, yet another group of exhibits that were being translated by
3 the translation service, and we obtained copies only towards the end of
4 last week. The OTP has received one copy, and we have prepared five
5 copies here for the Court and for the Registry.
6 All these documents have identification numbers and every binder
7 includes a list of documents contained therein as well. These are
8 primarily translations of expert opinions and also some additional
9 statements from witnesses who will be testifying this week.
10 We will not be tendering them yet, so I think that the Prosecutor
11 will have sufficient time to familiarise themselves with it.
12 May I inform the Court straight away that we are still awaiting a
13 translation of Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic's expert opinion. We are going to
14 provide that by the end of the week, together with the expert opinion
15 itself, and we believe there will be ample time for preparation because we
16 will be calling this witness perhaps towards the end of our list of
17 potential witnesses.
18 Now, by your leave, Your Honour, I should like to move on to the
19 Defence opening statement.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
21 [Defence Opening Statement]
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, distinguished
23 colleagues, Mr. Krnojelac has been indicted before this Tribunal on a
24 count of charges that -- crimes that were committed allegedly between the
25 18th of April, 1992, until August 1993. He has been indicted for crimes
1 against humanity and the violations of laws and customs of war according
2 to Article 5 and according to Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal for
3 the former Yugoslavia. The accused is charged with individual
4 responsibility in accordance with Article 7(1), and also responsibility in
5 terms of a superior officer in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Statute
6 of the ICTY.
7 As we wish to prove the innocence of the accused in terms of these
8 crimes that he has been charged with, the Defence shall present its own
9 positions in its opening statement with regard to all elements relevant
10 for ascertaining the possible criminal liability of the accused. The
11 Office of the Prosecutor has portrayed him as one of the key protagonists
12 of the planned, organised, and widespread campaign of persecutions and
13 terror against the non-Serb population in the territory of the
14 municipality of Foca.
15 In order to point to the deceptions that the Prosecution was
16 misguided by in its thinking, the Defence in its opening statement has to
17 briefly refer to the historical context of the tragic events which took
18 place from April 1992 onwards through a brief, I repeat, presentation of
19 the creation and disintegration of the Yugoslav state, the causes and
20 development of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as in the Foca
22 Furthermore, in its opening statement, the Defence will say a few
23 words about the personality of the accused, Milorad Krnojelac, his
24 curriculum vitae, the circumstances under which he was appointed warden of
25 the KP Dom Foca, and, of course, notably, his role; that is to say, the
1 role he played in this institution in the period that is relevant to the
3 The Defence intends to tender many exhibits, and that will show
4 how unfounded many of the counts in the indictment are in view of the true
5 role and position that Milorad Krnojelac had in the KP Dom Foca. This
6 role and position cannot be linked to the possible crimes against humanity
7 and violations of laws and customs of war that may have been committed.
8 Ultimately, the Defence will briefly present its legal views
9 regarding what was said in the opening statement of the Prosecutor, both
10 in terms of the justification for cumulative charges, and also in relation
11 to the allegations of criminal liability of the accused according to 7(1)
12 and 7(3), Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute.
13 The thesis of the Office of the Prosecutor about -- concerning a
14 pre-planned, systematic, and widespread attack against the non-Serb
15 population by the local Serbs with the intention of creating an ethnically
16 pure territory, as I have already said, makes it indispensable and
17 necessary for the Defence to briefly refer in its opening statement to the
18 historical context of these tragic events in order to show the absence of
19 any pre-planned, systematic, and widespread attack with a view to creating
20 an ethnically pure territory.
21 There is no doubt that the first Yugoslav state created after the
22 First World War in 1918 by uniting two then independent states, namely,
23 the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro, and the territories
24 of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy in which the Southern Slav peoples
25 lived, namely, the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
1 These territories were annexed to the new Yugoslav state, which
2 was at the very outset named the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
3 This name was later changed into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
4 The declaration of Nis from 1914, stating the decision of the
5 government and the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbia to have all
6 the Yugoslav peoples live in a common state clearly indicates the
7 readiness to sacrifice the national and state identity that was created in
8 the 19th century on behalf of the -- with a view to having the entire Serb
9 people live in the same state, which was a crown of the centuries-long
10 tendencies that existed in this record. Therefore, the Serbs embraced
11 wholeheartedly a single Southern Slav people of three -- that has three
12 names, rejecting the offer made by the Allies as defined in the London
13 agreement of 1915 to create a Greater Serbia.
14 Such a project of the Southern Slav state for which the Kingdom of
15 Serbia opted as one of the victorious states that emerged from the war
16 brought, for the first time in history, national and state emancipation to
17 the Croat and Slovenia peoples.
18 These historical facts certainly refute the thesis of a Yugoslav
19 state as a realisation of the idea of a Greater Serbia. Later on it will
20 become clear that for the Serbs, this idea represented a centuries-long
21 dream come true, whereas the Croats and Slovenes consciously used the idea
22 of Yugoslavhood as a transition period in the process of attaining state
23 and national independence of their own.
24 The beginning of the Second World War, at the same time, meant the
25 end of the first Yugoslavia and also the beginning of the great suffering
1 of the Serb people in the territory of the then independent State of
2 Croatia, which included the territory relevant to this indictment. That
3 is when massive persecutions of the Serb population started, and we can
4 say quite freely that this turned into genocide of the largest possible
6 As the Second World War came to an end, a Yugoslav state was
7 created once again. This time it was done on a federal basis. What
8 should particularly be emphasised is the fact that the Republic of Croatia
9 and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, two of the six republics that were
10 created within the Yugoslav state, were declared republics including
11 several constituent peoples: Croatia as a state of the Croat and Serb
12 people, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as the state of the Muslim, Serb, and Croat
14 However, it turned out that the then communist authorities, by
15 putting forth a universal formula about brotherhood and unity, tried to
16 suppress national tensions and leave the crimes from the Second World War
17 unpunished. Victims and executioners were reconciled through the
18 mentioned formula and placed within administrative borders between the
19 republics, and in this process, political and ethnic realities were
20 totally ignored. It is precisely such an arbitrary establishment of
21 administrative borders and the unresolved national question that were the
22 main reason for the outbreak of conflicts in these territories in 1991 and
24 The disintegration of the second Yugoslavia started precisely in
25 1991 through the anti-constitutional secession of Slovenia and Croatia,
1 anti-constitutional because according to the constitution of the Socialist
2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was still in force, it was necessary
3 to obtain the approval of all federal units in order to change borders.
4 It is not only that the constitution of the SFRY was violated, but also
5 the amendments of the constitution of the Republic of Croatia from 1990
6 made the Serbs a national minority in this area rather than a constituent
7 people, as was the case until then, which clearly showed to them that in
8 the new state, a single step will obliterate their centuries-long
9 aspirations for living together in one state which had, indeed, come true
10 in the Yugoslav state. Such a constitutional solution resulted in yet new
11 pogroms of the representatives of the Serb people. They were dismissed
12 from their jobs in state and local authorities, the judiciary, schools,
13 hospitals, and factories.
14 The frightening experience of the Serb people from the territory
15 of Croatia and the scenario which the newly formed purely nationalistic
16 party of the Bosnian Muslims, the SDA party, took over from the HDZ, must
17 necessarily serve to alarm the representatives of the Serbian people in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. In that way, after the Party of Democratic Action as
19 a purely national party, we see the formation of the Serbian Democratic
20 Party as a counterbalance to the burgeoning Muslim nationalism which,
21 according to the conviction of the Serbian people at that time,
22 necessarily led to the Islamisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina through the
23 creation of an independent state based on the principles of the Islamic
24 declaration of Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the SDA party, and that is why
25 he was convicted legally in 1983.
1 The burgeoning lack of confidence that this led to and that events
2 of this kind led to culminated first and foremost in a large rally of the
3 SDA party, and this took place precisely in the town of Foca which
4 indisputably, and this is confirmed by several of the Prosecution
5 witnesses, numbered 100.000 people, people who had come in from all parts
6 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and even from Sandzak, which for the Serbs who lived
7 in the small town, which had approximately a population of 15.000,
8 represented a frighteningly large figure, and new incitement to caution.
9 When at this same rally the Muslims and visiting Croatian leaders
10 flew the Muslim and Croatian banner together, this necessarily provoked in
11 the Serbian people recollections -- revived the recollections of the
12 independent state of Croatia and the relationship that this state had
13 towards the Muslims, whom they called the Croatian flowers, which
14 necessarily led to a feeling of being jeopardised in a situation where we
15 see secession come into play.
16 After the multi-party elections took place, it became clear that
17 the representatives of the Serbian people in parliament could be outvoted
18 by the representatives of the Muslim and Croatian people. The Serbian
19 people became afraid of having a repetition of the Croatian scenario of
20 1991, and this found its confirmation in the political steps and moves
21 that were to follow. Indeed at the meeting of parliament of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the night during the 14th and 15th of October, 1991,
23 the Muslim delegation put forward the proposal for -- in bringing in a
24 decision on the proclamation of the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina
25 following along the models set by Slovenia and Croatia, which meant that
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina would step down from Yugoslavia, contrary to the
2 will of one of the three constituent nations which in Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina was represented with a very significant proportion.
4 The members of the Serbian people clearly saw the intentions of
5 the Party of Democratic Action and the HDZ party, the party of the
6 Croatian Democratic Community. Therefore, for them, the separation of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the separation of the Serbs from their matrix
8 further led to an evocation of the suffering that they had experienced in
9 a previously constituted independent state.
10 In order to protect themselves, the representatives of the Serbian
11 people acted in keeping, nonetheless, with their constitutional authority
12 and competency and in a completely legal manner demanded that the proposal
13 be sent on further to the Council for Internationality Equality. The
14 Muslim and Croatian representatives in the parliament ignored this
15 proposal, thereby drastically violating the republican constitution, and
16 they already had a constitutional majority.
17 This flagrant violation of the constitution by the deputies of the
18 Muslim and Croatian nationalistic parties rendered worthless every effort
19 made in Bosnia-Herzegovina to resolve relations in a legal, democratic,
20 and civilised manner.
21 With these acts, the Serbs were openly told the way in which
22 decisions would be taken in future in an independent state community and
23 the position that they themselves would be placed in.
24 Faced with this flagrant violation of the constitution, the
25 representatives of the Serbian people left parliament, and the most
1 important decision of any state was made in a half-empty hall, without the
2 participation of the representatives of one of the constituent peoples
3 without which that state would not have existed.
4 The Defence will set out to prove that parallel to these perfectly
5 thought out political moves on the part of the Democratic Action Party
6 immediately after the inception and victory at the multi-party elections,
7 that it was then that the arming began of the paramilitary formations of
8 the Muslim people, and these were formed under the title of the Patriotic
9 League and the Green Beret, with a clear-cut goal in mind, which was to
10 execute a secession at any cost, even against the will of the Serbian
12 One of the main organisers of the military wing of the Democratic
13 Action Party, Halid Cengic, who was precisely from the surrounds of Foca,
14 in an interview that he gave to a magazine entitled "Ljiljan," stated
15 unambiguously and decisively that he and the well-known other man from
16 Foca, Senad Sahinpasic, Saja, had organised an SDA meeting -- the SDA
17 meeting in Foca which brought, as he states in that same article for the
18 magazine, was attended by between 100 and 150.000 people who expressed the
19 desire for a movement which would protect the interests of the Bosniaks.
20 In that same text, article, Halid Cengic, otherwise Hasan Cengic's
21 father; that is to say, a man who was convicted in 1983, together with
22 Alija Izetbegovic, for the criminal act of association for hostile
23 activity, speaks of the arming of the Muslim people which began in Foca
24 first, and from there, weapons were distributed to other Muslim
25 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 The same interview will show that Halid Cengic, as far back as the
2 1st of August, 1990, had formed the first unit of the Patriotic League in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina precisely in the Foca region. This unit, in his own
4 words, was armed with automatic weapons, a machine-gun, and a mortar, and
5 that was as far back as August 1990.
6 Furthermore, in the words of Halil Cengic, everybody had
7 camouflage uniforms, and they took the oath in the Ustikolina mosque. And
8 that is the first place you come to from Foca, on the road to Gorazde.
9 There is no need to doubt these statements, and this is confirmed
10 by the fact that Halid Cengic states the exact name of the commander of
11 the unit, and he was Cavrak Husein. He also mentions Karisik Kema, who,
12 in September 1991, toured the unit.
13 What Halid Cengic also mentions in his interview is confirmed in
14 practical terms by Senad Sahinpasic in his own interview to the same
15 journal when he states that he procured weapons for his own people when
16 this was practically impossible.
17 These activities on the part of the Muslim leaders of the
18 Democratic Action Party, and a large number of their sympathisers, could
19 not go unnoticed by the Serbian people in the Foca area; therefore,
20 burgeoning fear made it incumbent upon them to call for the restationing
21 of the JNA garrison in Foca, a garrison which had been dislocated from the
22 area as far back as 1958. However, the Yugoslav People's Army never did
23 return to Foca which led to the mobilisation of the Serbs in order to
24 organise themselves to defend their own identity and their thresholds.
25 It is quite clear, therefore, that the Serbian people, taking up
1 this position of defence of their own identity and a joint state, could
2 not be the generator of the policy of ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb
3 population, a population with which they had lived in peace up until then.
4 Applied to the Foca area to which this indictment refers, the
5 Defence will show that on the 6th of April, 1992, the Foca Brigade of the
6 Muslim army was established with a clear-cut goal, and that goal was to
7 make the Serbian people accept the secession of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which
8 had already been politically proclaimed.
9 The fact that the members of the Serbian people were ready when
10 the Muslim attack came, and that they were the victors in the Foca armed
11 conflict, cannot be a basis or grounds for them to be termed the
12 attackers, attackers working systematically and in a planned fashion, and
13 also to close one's eyes to the arming of the Muslim people as far back as
14 1990, including the formation of paramilitary formations in 1991, the
15 first barricades that were set up in Foca at the Bor Cafe put there by
16 members of the Muslim people, and the formation of a military unit which
17 had the number of men of the brigade in this town two days before the
18 conflict broke out with the clear-cut goal that I have already mentioned.
19 When we take all these facts into account and link them up, the
20 condemnation of Alija Izetbegovic, Hasan Cengic, and other Muslim leaders
21 who propagated and preached the creation of an Islamic state at all cost,
22 then it becomes quite clear who it was who actually prepared themselves
23 for attack and who prepared for defence.
24 It may be asked why the Serbian people, in light of all these
25 facts, continued to live with the Muslim ethnic group for a number of
1 years, in the same state and in the same area, as good neighbours. It is
2 clear that the Serbian people was forced to protect its national
3 interests, and that it succeeded in doing so in this area.
4 The Prosecution theory is that the conflict in the Foca area
5 should not be viewed as a local conflict but in the context of the overall
6 conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, runs counter to all these specific points
7 relating to the Foca area as well as the conclusions of Jirzi Dinsbir, the
8 special rapporteur of the United Nations on the condition of human rights
9 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Yugoslavia. In his statement to the
10 Croat media, he pointed out that in his view, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, each
11 village had its own particular civil war. We believe that the conflict in
12 the Foca area needs to be viewed separately and isolated from those of the
13 conflicts in the rest of Yugoslavia.
14 The Defence will endeavour to show that even after the combat in
15 Foca and the takeover of Foca by the Serb population, there was no plan
16 for ethnic cleansing and that the majority of Muslim population left the
17 town as it was, withdrawing along with the members of the Muslim army in
18 the direction of Gorazde and other directions.
19 From the evidence presented so far by individual witnesses who
20 have given testimony before this Trial Chamber, it is -- it shows that
21 only about three per cent of the total population of Foca municipality who
22 were of Muslim ethnic background were detained at the KP Dom in Foca. The
23 Defence does not wish to turn the Muslim and Serb victims into statistics,
24 but taking into account the number of persons of the Muslim ethnic
25 background who remained in Foca after the end of the combat operations, it
1 is clear that there was no systematic and widespread attack against the
2 Muslim population with the objective to expel it from the town of Foca.
3 It is not disputed that in the Foca municipality there were about
4 21.000 people of Muslim ethnic background, and that the highest number of
5 detained persons was around 700, even though a number of witnesses have
6 put that number between 550 and 650. In addition, it should be taken into
7 account that a certain number of Muslim detainees in KP Foca was from
8 other municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as Gorazde, Visegrad,
9 and other areas.
10 Even though the Prosecution in their opening statement very
11 generally speaks about detention of thousands of non-Serbs, on keeping
12 these persons under house arrest, on restricting their movements and
13 communication, the Defence on its part shall produce authentic documents
14 to show that these restrictions also affected Serbs who also needed to
15 obtain documents for free movement. And the Defence is also in possession
16 of evidence that the police curfew was the same for all citizens of the
17 Foca municipality, which was a usual thing in a situation of the state of
19 Even though a certain number of Prosecution witnesses also refer
20 to this point, the Defence will show that the remainder of the Muslim
21 population in the Foca municipality had persistently requested of the
22 police and military authorities permission to move the Foca municipality
23 and go to other areas. We will also show that the military and civilian
24 authorities turned down such requests and refused to allow both the Muslim
25 and Serbian civilians to leave the territory of Foca municipality. And
1 after a decision of the war authority of 18 June 1992, all persons who
2 expressed their wish to leave the Foca municipality were allowed to do so,
3 and the police and military authorities insisted on having a -- on having
4 an escort secured and transportation. It was also decided that a
5 commission would be set up which would carry out an inventory of all the
6 property that these persons would leave behind.
7 The Defence is also in possession of a document of the SDA party
8 headquarters with a special directive of the SDA, for the Trebinje SDA
9 branch, in which it directs it to carry out the necessary steps for the
10 moving of the remaining Muslim population of this municipality, and that
11 those who do not obey such directive, should be dealt with coercion.
12 We would also like to point out that one Prosecution witness
13 confirmed that in the Foca municipality, too, the SDA had recommended the
14 Muslim population to move out of their homes.
15 It is clear, and the Defence will also show this, that the SDA
16 policy was such that in the municipalities in which during the war
17 conflict they had lost power, a campaign of ethnic cleansing of their own
18 people should be staged. This is why we believe that the Prosecution
19 theory that representatives of the Serb people in the Foca municipality
20 had carried out a planned, widespread, and comprehensive process of ethnic
21 cleansing in order to create a territory with exclusively Serb population
22 is false.
23 Next in this opening statement, the Defence will address the
24 charges that Mr. Milorad Krnojelac was guilty of individual counts, the
25 counts regarding KP Dom Foca.
1 KP Dom Foca was established as early as 1950 as a correctional
2 institution of -- for individuals who had been convicted of criminal
3 acts. This function of KP Dom Foca has not changed until today and it had
4 the same function during the period relevant to this indictment.
5 The Defence will show that the assertions of the Prosecution in
6 their opening statement that the KP Dom, as a former prison, had been
7 converted into a detention centre for non-Serb men starting in April 1992
8 and continuing until October 1994.
9 And the Prosecution has tendered an exhibit which was marked P2,
10 which is a letter of the KP Srbinje to the Ministry of Justice of RS,
11 which Zoran Sekulovic, the warden of the KP Dom, addressed to the
12 Ministry. From this letter, it is clear that the -- that only part of the
13 KP Dom, and it is specifically the areas, that is, the premises that were
14 previously used for housing the convicts, including the mess area and the
15 hospital area, was turned over to the TG Foca command on their request.
16 This same letter points out that this command also assigned
17 individuals to carry out certain tasks which had nothing to do with the
18 civilians who were engaged in their own tasks set up by the rules.
19 The Defence will show the position and the role that the accused,
20 Milorad Krnojelac, was not a member of the group of individuals which the
21 military command had designated to carry out these tasks. The provisional
22 appointment by the president of the executive board to work -- to the
23 position of the provisional warden and then followed by the decision of
24 the Ministry of Justice and his appointment for the warden of this
25 institution clearly puts him in the category of a civilian person.
1 Further, on the basis of Exhibits P4 and P5, it is clear that
2 there were two contractual parties, the lessor of the premises and the
3 lessee of these premises. It is clear from this contract that this was
4 not a relationship of subordination. There is no legal system in the
5 world in which one party will contract itself for any contract.
6 The fact that Milorad Krnojelac, as provisional warden of the
7 KP Dom, would turn over part of the KP Dom to the TG Foca military command
8 clearly points that he is a member of the civilian party that is
9 contracting a military party.
10 In addition, in the heading of this decision signed by the
11 accused, it is stated: "Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
12 Serbian Municipality of Foca, KP Dom Foca." It is clear, therefore, that
13 this was civilian authority, while in the heading of the request for
14 leasing of the premises this clearly stated "TG Foca Command," in other
15 words, a military command.
16 The Defence will also prove that the KP Dom in Foca, when the
17 Republic of Srpska was established, continued as an institution for the
18 serving of sentences of persons who had been convicted. This was
19 confirmed by its establishment documents passed by the Government of
20 Republika Srpska.
21 We have already heard from some witnesses, and the Defence aims to
22 prove this, that a certain number of persons who were serving their terms
23 based on legal decisions passed before the war, had remained at the KP Dom
24 also while the war conflict was on, between the 8th and the 16th of April,
25 and that after that, they also continued serving their sentences.
1 Therefore, it is not correct that the former prison of the former
2 Yugoslavia was turned into a detention facility for detaining non-Serb
3 males. Part of the KP Dom for the imprisonment of convicted persons,
4 together with a kitchen and hospital, were made available to the military
5 command in order for them to detain prisoners of war, and that part was
6 under the factual and formal authority of the military.
7 There is clear-cut evidence that prisoners of war of Muslim
8 ethnicity, as well as detainees who had violated regulations in the army
9 of Republika Srpska, under full factual and formal control of the military
10 command and the military authorities. For this purpose, the Defence will
11 submit many documents which will unequivocally show that the accused,
12 Milorad Krnojelac, was the civilian warden and that did he not have any
13 authority, either formally or factually, over these persons.
14 The most telling example for -- of such a claim made by the
15 Defence are permits for visits to such persons that are issued by the
16 commander of the Tactical Group Foca, Colonel Marko Kovac.
17 So when the warden of the KP Dom does not have the authority even
18 to allow visits, then this leads to the following question: What kind of
19 supreme authority is the Prosecutor speaking of in their opening
20 statement? And this supreme authority was allegedly accepted by the
21 guards and the detainees and the leaders, both military and civilian. The
22 Defence will show that this claim made by the Prosecutor is not
23 well-founded in any evidence, and that this is just an arbitrary statement
24 as well.
25 In addition to the simplest possible example, and that is
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 visitation permits, the Defence also has documents such as detention
2 orders, orders on work assignments in the KP Dom, the establishment of
3 lists for the exchange of imprisoned persons, the date and place when the
4 exchange is to be carried out, and also the persons entrusted with
5 escorting such individuals, orders to release persons from detention, as
6 well as orders to release prisoners of war, Muslims. All these documents
7 were signed by the military command, primarily, Colonel Marko Kovac as the
8 commander of the Tactical Group Foca. Therefore, it is clear that the
9 Defence shall seek to prove that the -- that it was only the military
10 command that had authority over non-Serb detainees, and that it is
11 unfounded for the Prosecutor to state that Milorad Krnojelac played an
12 active role by confirming lists for beatings. Guards called out
13 prisoners' names from these lists, and it is not true that the accused
14 ordered guards to take prisoners out to be beaten by way of these lists.
15 The Defence believes that the Prosecutor did not prove such claims
16 during their case, but during its own case, the Defence shall dispel any
17 possible doubt with regard to these facts.
18 The prerogatives of the civilian warden from the peacetime period
19 were transferred to the accused from the -- from his very appointment as
20 temporary warden and later warden of the KP Dom. In relation to convicted
21 persons, there were such persons in the KP Dom in the period in question.
22 Then this also pertained to the administration of the KP Dom and the
23 economic unit of Drina.
24 The Defence shall also seek to prove that within the KP Dom Foca,
25 practically from its very inception, there was an important economic unit
1 that was operating throughout. It was called "Drina." For the
2 municipality of Foca, this was an important economic entity at all times.
3 Ever since this economic unit was established until the present day, the
4 economic unit was always headed by a director, with a single exception,
5 though, and that is the period when Milorad Krnojelac discharged the
6 duties of warden.
7 If we go back to Prosecution Exhibit P3, it can be seen quite
8 clearly that in the period from the 18th of April, 1992, until August
9 1993, there is no director of the economic unit, precisely because this
10 post was made one with the post of KP Dom warden which was held by Milorad
11 Krnojelac. This exhibit clearly shows that the person listed under number
12 72, Radojica Tesevic, became director of the economic unit Drina as of
13 August 1993.
14 The Defence shall also present evidence which will show that the
15 accused, Milorad Krnojelac, was precisely warden of the civilian part of
16 the prison and director of the economic unit Drina for the entire period
17 during which he held the post of warden in the KP Dom; that is to say,
18 that the Defence shall tender material evidence, witness statements.
19 All these facts have nothing to do with the imagination of the
20 accused, as it was put in the indictment, but it has to do with the actual
21 state of affairs. I'm sorry, this relates to the opening statement of the
23 Speaking of the position of Milorad Krnojelac in the KP Dom Foca
24 and lack of criminal liability for the crimes that he has been charged
25 with, the Defence believes it is necessary to say a few words about the
1 evidence we shall be presenting in connection with the actual personality
2 of Milorad Krnojelac and his conduct in discharging the functions we
4 The accused, Milorad Krnojelac, was born on the 25th of June,
5 1940, in the village of Birotici, municipality of Foca, in a family that
6 had for centuries lived in this area. The accused chose the profession of
7 teacher as his lifelong aspiration. He studied in order to work with
8 children, first as a teacher and then -- first as an elementary school
9 teacher and then as a high school teacher of mathematics. The accused
10 showed his love of children, both during the many years he spent working
11 with children as well as within his own family where, with his wife
12 Slavica, he raised four sons.
13 He was not encumbered by ethnic prejudice, and therefore the
14 accused chose an ethnic Croat woman as his spouse with whom he lives until
15 the present day, in spite of all the inter-ethnic conflicts and everything
16 that happened in their immediate environment. He's not burdened by ethnic
17 prejudice, and that is precisely what kept his spouse together with him,
18 even now when he is being tried in The Hague for war crimes that were
19 allegedly committed against members of other ethnic groups, Muslims and
21 He is not burdened by ethnic prejudice, and the accused showed
22 this prior to the war conflict as well. In addition to observing Orthodox
23 holidays in his home, he observed Catholic holidays as well, and
24 maintained the closest possible family links with the family that his
25 wife, Slavica, was born into. The Defence shall be presenting evidence
1 during its case which will prove this.
2 We shall also present evidence that will prove that the accused
3 had many close friends of Muslim religion. He respected their customs and
4 specific habits, and he cherished his friendships with them.
5 It is true that the accused, Milorad Krnojelac, was a reserve
6 Captain, a reserve Captain 1st Class in the Territorial Defence of the
7 municipality of Foca under the command of the Territorial Defence of the
8 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, all the way up to 1984 when
9 the unit he had belonged to was disbanded. From then onwards, he was no
10 longer registered as a military man in the Foca municipality. After 1984,
11 the accused did not have any war assignments in any wartime units. His
12 assignment was to be stationed in the school where he had worked. The
13 Defence shall seek to prove that at least from 1989 or 1990 onwards, the
14 accused, Krnojelac, was certainly not a member of the Territorial Defence
16 Therefore, the beginning of the armed conflict found the accused
17 as a mathematics professor at the primary school of Veselin Maslesa, where
18 he went to work regularly up until the 8th of April, 1992, when due to the
19 armed conflict, he was not able to continue doing this work and when the
20 school was temporarily closed.
21 The family house of the accused, which is where he lived with his
22 wife and four children, was in the part of the town of Foca which is known
23 as Donje Polje. This is where the Muslim inhabitants, inhabitants of the
24 Muslim faith, largely resided.
25 As he saw his neighbours beginning to set fire to Serbian houses
1 in Donje Polje, the accused left his family home with his family and was
2 evacuated; that is to say, he moved to the Cerezluk neighbourhood and went
3 to stay with his brother.
4 That this decision was the right decision to make was proved
5 through the indisputable fact that his Muslim neighbours, among others,
6 and that at the very start of the armed conflict, set fire to Milorad
7 Krnojelac's house itself. For that reason, the accused, and the Defence
8 will move and show that he was forced, in 1992, to live as a refugee, as a
9 displaced person, with all the other displaced persons, in the Zelengora
11 Throughout the armed conflict, which lasted from the 8th to the
12 16th of April, 1992, the accused spent in Cerezluk, at his brother's
13 house, without any active participation in the fighting, just as he had
14 never been active; that is to say, he didn't take part at all in the
15 political tribulations which led up to this conflict and to war.
16 After the end of the armed conflict and following the call to
17 general mobilisation, the accused, understanding his responsibility to
18 respond to the call-up because it was general mobilisation and all persons
19 were duty-bound to respond to the call-up, he reported to the school
20 centre, which is where the mobilisation post was set up. And Radojica
21 Mladjenovic, the then president of the executive council of the Foca
22 municipality, deployed him to a work post at the KP Dom with the
23 assignment of protecting the premises and property of the KP Dom, to put
24 right the damage that had been done to the premises, and to organise
25 production within the frameworks of the economic unit that had been
1 established and was called the Drina Economic Unit.
2 It is with tasks of this kind that the accused, on the 18th of
3 April, 1992, took up his post and work at the KP Dom, having received his
4 labour assignment. And the Defence will also seek to prove that this was
5 regulated by law and represented the wartime assignment of the individual,
6 which had to be respected.
7 The Defence will also show the certificate with respect to the
8 organisation and execution of this work assignment which was published in
9 the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, which clearly shows that
10 the labour assignment was, in fact, a wartime assignment for each and
11 every individual on the list of recruits.
12 After that, and with the formal establishment of the KP Dom in
13 Republika Srpska, Milorad Krnojelac, by the Ministry of Justice and a
14 decree signed by the Justice Minister, was put in the position of the
15 warden of the KP Dom, and he remained the warden until he was discharged
16 of that duty, once again by the Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska,
17 dated the 1st of July, 1993.
18 Your Honours, I don't know if this is an opportune moment to take
19 a break.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, it is. One thing, now that you're dealing with
21 the Drina Economic Unit, that I would be interested to know, so far as
22 your case is concerned, is this: Did that unit have any connection at all
23 with the persons who you say were detained under the control of the
24 military authorities or was it concerned only with those people within the
25 KP Dom who were there as a result of a conviction and were not under the
1 military authorities?
2 That's something you might like to deal with when you come back.
3 Two other matters. You mentioned at the opening of your address
4 that you were still waiting for the translation of a particular expert
5 witness. I thought at the time that you said Ana Najman, but the
6 translation, as it appears in the transcript, refers to somebody
8 We do, of course, have Ms. Najman's report in both English and
9 B/C/S. Did I mishear you or was the transcript correct?
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to say that
11 you heard wrongly. Perhaps I misspoke. It wasn't expert Najman but
12 Kecmanovic. Possibly I said the wrong name and misspoke. That is quite
13 possible, and I apologise if I did.
14 JUDGE HUNT: You will be happy to know that the name that appears
15 in the transcript, I think, is a rough approximation of the person you
17 The other matter I wanted to raise, you did promise us a list of
18 your witnesses for this week which was to be filed on Friday. Was it
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We handed it over
21 to the Prosecution and the Registry. One copy went to the Prosecution,
22 another copy to the Registry, with the witness's signature. The signature
23 was placed on Friday at around 1400 or 1500 hours, and subsequently we
24 learned that one of our witnesses, that is to say the second on the list
25 after Dundjer, did not arrive at the airport and has not taken off because
1 he had some problems with his wife who said -- laid conditions with
2 respect to his journey, and he gave that up. So after Milenko Dundjer, we
3 only have three witnesses for this week and not four.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Hopefully the Registry will provide us with that list
5 eventually. It certainly hasn't arrived in my room.
6 Perhaps you might make an inquiry about that, would you? Thank
8 We'll adjourn now until 11.30.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
11 JUDGE HUNT: We do have the list now for the witnesses to be
12 called in the first week. Which one was it you said was unable to come
13 because his wife wouldn't let him come?
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was witness number
15 two, Petar Ivica.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Bakrac, you proceed.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
18 We said before the break that the accused, Milorad Krnojelac, on
19 the 1st of July, 1993, and the Defence will prove this, was discharged by
20 the Ministry of Justice signed -- a decree signed by the minister,
21 discharged of his functions as the warden of the KP Dom. The accused in
22 his interview and, we hope, in his testimony will explain and talk about a
23 brief period that he spent, an additional brief period in the KP Dom
24 without any functions, and the Defence will seek to prove this, too, by
25 presenting evidence.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 When he was discharged as being warden of the KP Dom, the accused,
2 Krnojelac, spent one year out of work. In September 1994, however, he was
3 assigned to be the director of the Veselin Maslesa primary school, and
4 that is the school that he worked in before the conflicts broke out, and
5 he spent -- until his arrest in June 1998 by the SFOR, he continued to be
6 principal of that school.
7 The Defence will also show a letter from the Ministry of Justice
8 to substantiate these facts, and the Ministry of Justice itself sends to
9 the Municipal Assembly of Srbinje a letter on the 3rd of June, 1993 [as
10 interpreted], from which it is evident that the accused, Krnojelac, having
11 been discharged of his duties as warden, did not have a job, and the
12 Ministry of Justice appealed to the municipality of Foca to find the
13 accused a job of some kind in the organs of administration or in the field
14 of education.
15 I apologise, the date I mentioned was the 3rd of June, 1994. It
16 says 1993 in the transcript, so could that be corrected. And it was the
17 letter dated the 3rd of June, 1994, and not 1993 that the Defence
18 mentioned a moment ago.
19 The Defence will also seek to prove by bringing many witnesses
20 that the accused before the war broke out was well loved, not only amongst
21 his pupils, both of Muslim and Serb ethnicity, but also among all the
22 other -- of all the other inhabitants who knew him, his fellow citizens,
23 and who were also members of different ethnic groups. Therefore, we
24 cannot be surprised by the fact that the witnesses that testified in the
25 Prosecution case described the accused, for the most part, as being
1 courteous, correct and proper in his conduct, friendly in relationships
2 and in communication with other people. And all they found fault with in
3 him was that he assumed the position of the warden of the KP Dom, thereby
4 they considered that this function itself emanated to his authorities and
5 competence without looking into the contents of what it meant to hold that
7 It will be the task of the Defence, during the Defence case,
8 similarly to show that the substance of Milorad Krnojelac's position was
9 such that he could not have done more. He was not in a position to do
10 more than he did do.
11 The Defence takes a look at the position and substance of the post
12 and function that the accused performed in the KP Dom during the relevant
13 period, and in order to do so, we must cast our minds back to the
14 testimonies of individual Prosecution witnesses, which were not very
15 convincing when in describing the accused, Krnojelac, they did so speaking
16 of him as a functionary of the Serbian Democratic Party one moment, and
17 others would describe him as a member of the Crisis Staff of Foca
18 municipality, and then again he would be described as a high-ranking
19 official in the military system of the Territorial Defence of Foca.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, an opening address is not the opportunity
21 for an attack upon the evidence of the Prosecution case. You will get
22 plenty of opportunity for that later. We're interested in what is your
23 case that you're going to prove here. So may I suggest you proceed with
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. My intention was
1 not to give you an analysis of the Prosecution case. I simply thought
2 that perhaps I could draw a little parallel between what the Prosecution
3 case was and what the Defence is attempting to mount in its case, and I
4 will have no further comment to make on the case the Prosecution have
6 When the right moment comes, and as I said, the Defence will offer
7 an analysis of the evidence provided by these witnesses and show that
8 these were their impressions rather than hard knowledge.
9 In its own turn, the Defence will provide real evidence that will
10 show that the accused was not a member of the Serbian Democratic Party and
11 especially not a high official in this party. The Defence will further
12 show that the accused was not a member of the Territorial Defence staff in
13 Foca, nor a member of any Territorial Defence unit, at least from 1989
14 onward, and that he was never a member of the Crisis Staff of Foca
16 The -- this evidence and the substance of these exhibits will
17 counter the very generalised submissions on the military, political, and
18 other alleged activity of the accused in these organs provided by the
20 We will focus on evidence that Milorad Krnojelac, as a person
21 without a political -- without political views, in the period after the
22 breakup of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, was not actively involved in
23 the events that played out in early 1992 in the Foca municipality; that
24 is, up until 18 April 1992, when he was duty-bound to respond to the
25 summons for general mobilisation.
1 As he was not a member of this newly-forged ethnic party, nor any
2 other political party, and had not been involved in the political life,
3 he, as all other fellow citizens who were not involved in national
4 politics, he was hoping that the conflict would not take place and that
5 the security situation in the municipality would calm down.
6 The Defence will prove that in conversations with his friends, the
7 accused was emphasising that the war would be madness and that he hoped
8 that it would not break out.
9 The accused's plea of not guilty really points to his actual
10 position and duties within KPD. The Defence will show that when the
11 accused responded to the summons for general mobilisation and in
12 accordance with the rules in force at that time, he was told by the
13 president of the executive council of Foca municipality that his work duty
14 would be the position of provisional warden of KP Dom, and that his only
15 task would be to take care of the KP Dom property, repair of the damage
16 incurred by the combat activities, and to revive the Drina Economic Unit
18 The indisputable fact that the KP Dom in Foca was a correctional
19 facility for decades, and even as a substantial factor in the local
20 economy, and that it had not been established as an ad hoc camp for
21 non-Serbian population, point out in an ambiguous way that a person needed
22 to be appointed in order to discharge these tasks that I just mentioned,
23 especially in the light of the fact that the previous warden had left his
24 post and that during this critical period, he was not around.
25 The Defence will prove, and we can also see in Exhibit P3 of the
1 Prosecutor, that the former warden, Radojica Tesevic, was not in Foca
2 during the combat activities and immediately following this period, and
3 that he had reported to the KP Dom, to his duty, as late as 8 May 1992.
4 In other words, it was necessary to appoint a provisional warden who would
5 take care of the KP Dom property, of several convicted individuals who
6 continued to stay at the KP Dom serving out their sentences, and also to
7 take care of the business matters; that is, the economy of the KP Dom. It
8 is also indisputable that before Milorad Krnojelac arrived at the KP Dom
9 to take over this work duty, the military already had certain authority at
10 the KP Dom; that is, authority over the wartime prisoners who were already
12 The Defence will offer a number of documents that will support and
13 corroborate this character of tasks that the accused discharged and the
14 position that he held. In the report of the Ministry of Justice from
15 November 1992, it is clear what the role of the accused was at the KP Dom
16 in Foca. This report makes reference to the exact number and full
17 information of the individuals who were serving their sentences with
18 complete reference to the sentences, the convictions, and the time already
19 served for these acts. The other part of the report of the ministry
20 refers to the conditions of the Drina Economic Unit, the manner of its
21 operation, results achieved in the previous period, and also a section
22 about the repair of damage and everything else that relates to the KP Dom
23 business or economic activity.
24 Now, why did the accused send his report to the Ministry of
25 Justice? The Defence will show, without a trace of doubt, that after the
1 Republika Srpska government was established, the government adopted a
2 decision on the establishment of KP Dom Foca which continued the activity
3 of the correctional institution of the former Yugoslavia and transferred
4 its function to the Republika Srpska system. The presidency of the
5 Republika Srpska and the government of the Republika Srpska formally
6 adopted a decision, will be shown further by a decision of the 26th of
7 April, 1992, which will show that the KP Dom Foca continues to operate as
8 a correctional facility which was further confirmed by decisions of the
9 authorities of the Republika Srpska.
10 We have already mentioned that the Defence will also provide as an
11 exhibit the appointment of Milorad Krnojelac by the Ministry of Justice to
12 the position of the KP Dom warden and also a decision of -- by the
13 Ministry of Justice to relieve Milorad Krnojelac of his duty, which
14 clearly shows the civilian character of the tasks and job that the accused
15 held at the KP Dom.
16 We believe that this is a sufficient -- that this is sufficient
17 proof that will show that the accused, Milorad Krnojelac, within the
18 structure of civilian government -- was within the structure of civilian
19 government under the competence of the Ministry of Justice and was
20 answerable only to the Minister of Justice of the Republika Srpska.
21 We believe that it is not necessary to show separately that the
22 position of the warden of an institution which is under the competence of
23 the Ministry of Justice and who has been -- and who was appointed as an
24 employee of the Ministry of Justice was incompatible with any position
25 within the military structure which is under the jurisdiction of the
1 Ministry of Defence.
2 These documents that the Defence intends to tender as exhibits
3 shed additional light to the indisputable fact, further corroborated by
4 other evidence, that part of the KP Dom had been leased to the military
5 structure, institutions that used it to detain prisoners of war who were
6 under the exclusive jurisdiction of military authorities.
7 It is therefore logical that the documents relating to prisoners
8 of war, which include permits for visits, all the way down to the
9 decisions of release and exchange of prisoners of war, would be all signed
10 by a representative of the military command rather than the KP Dom warden
11 who happens to be Milorad Krnojelac.
12 Further, in order to corroborate all these facts, the Defence will
13 offer proof that the questioning prisoners of war who were non-Serbs was
14 conducted by a mixed commission composed of representatives of the
15 military command and police; that is, a commission, part of which was
16 under the military jurisdiction, and police, which was under the
17 jurisdiction of Ministry of Internal Affairs rather than the Ministry of
19 Taking all this into account, the Defence submits that the theory
20 of the Prosecution that the accused was also liable because he allowed
21 members of the military access to the detained persons cannot be
23 In addition to the indisputable fact that part of the KP Dom had
24 been leased to the military authorities, the Defence will also prove that
25 both the external and the internal security of the KP Dom was under the
1 military command, that the security was for the most part provided by the
2 former guards who were members of the army of Republika Srpska and who had
3 wartime assignments which periodically sent them to the front line or
4 brought them to serve as guards at the KP Dom.
5 The Prosecution witnesses have already stated that the guards
6 changed periodically and that they went to the front line for
7 approximately 15 days at a time, and they were also seen wearing military
9 By producing evidence from the guards and through other evidence,
10 the Defence will show that these facts are true.
11 Since these persons were appointed to guard duty by the Ministry
12 of Defence and the military command, the accused could not exert any
13 influence over these persons in terms of subordination nor could he have
14 passed any decisions in terms of preventing military persons from entering
15 the prison compound as it was leased to the military authorities.
16 The Defence shall also seek to prove that in discharging his
17 duties, the accused had customary working hours, from 7.00 in the morning
18 until 1500 hours in the afternoon, and that during weekends, he was off.
19 While discharging his duties, the accused was the superior of many
20 administrative staff workers in the KP Dom who worked in the economic unit
21 and the civilian part of the KP Dom.
22 The Defence shall also seek to produce material evidence and
23 thereby prove that the accused was often outside the premises of the
24 KP Dom as he travelled in Montenegro, Serbia, and the Republika Srpska
25 with a view to obtaining raw materials and other resources needed for the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 operation of the economic production section of the KP Dom and also with a
2 view to selling the products manufactured by the Drina Economic Unit.
3 The Prosecutor in his opening statement said that he will seek to
4 prove that the most serious incidents in the KP Dom occurred during four
5 successive nights in June and July 1992 when four groups of people were
6 taken out. The Prosecutor claimed that they would prove that these
7 persons were killed. On the other hand, the Defence has proof that should
8 show that it is precisely in that period that the accused was not at the
9 KP Dom itself or in the town of Foca. He was actually in Belgrade at the
10 time with his youngest son who was badly injured on the 22nd of June,
11 1992, and who was from -- who was transferred on the 24th of June, 1992,
12 to the military medical academy in Belgrade and was kept in Belgrade for
13 medical treatment all the way up to December 1992. Both of his legs were
14 amputated, and those were the days while the son of the accused was
15 fighting for his very own life and when the accused, together with his
16 wife, was by his son's bedside.
17 Although we had already stated that we would seek to prove the
18 absence of any responsibility on the part of the accused in relation to
19 the post that he held, the Defence has to show that even during those days
20 when, in the view of the Prosecution, the gravest crimes occurred at the
21 KP Dom, the accused was not even there. Material evidence and
22 testimonies, notably those of the injured son and the wife of the accused,
23 the Defence will seek to prove that in June and July -- the accused was in
24 Belgrade from the end of June onwards. However, even when he was in Foca,
25 the accused, due to the very nature of his work, was absent from the KP
1 Dom quite often as he toured the farm, the Maglic factory, and other
2 economic organisations that closely cooperated with the Drina Economic
4 It is correct that the accused was seen from time to time within
5 the KP Dom compound as he was walking towards the furniture factory or the
6 canteen that was used during the working hours by the administrative
7 workers in the KP Dom as well. Since the furniture factory could only
8 have been reached through the prison compound, and since the
9 administration staff also had their meals at the canteen of the KP Dom
10 that was also entered from the prison compound, it is only logical that
11 the accused, as he went to take his meals and discharge his duties related
12 to the furniture factory, had to pass through the KP Dom compound.
13 The Defence will not challenge that the accused wore a military
14 uniform every now and again in addition to civilian clothes. However, we
15 shall also prove that this was a military uniform of the former Yugoslav
16 People's Army without any insignia, a uniform that belonged to his
17 brother, and that he took from him when his house burned down, and along
18 with it, the clothes of the entire family.
19 The Defence shall seek to prove that that is the reason why the
20 accused was seen at the KP Dom both in military uniform and in civilian
21 clothes. Sometimes he wore combined clothes, a combination of military
22 and civilian clothes, which certain witnesses have confirmed. After all,
23 in the time relevant to the indictment, in the broader area of the
24 municipality of Foca, there was a war conflict that was still raging, and
25 therefore military clothing prevailed over civilian. Wearing military
1 clothes without insignia or patches cannot be used as evidence, isolated
2 evidence at that, which purports to show that the accused belonged to the
3 military hierarchy in general, or, at least, within the KP Dom.
4 Although the Defence believes that it will unequivocally prove the
5 lack of responsibility on the part of the accused for the establishment of
6 the military section of the prison in the detention of non-Serb population
7 and the possible excesses that did occur in that part of the prison, in
8 terms of the liability stipulated in Article 7(1) of the Statute and also
9 in terms of Article 7(3) of the Statute, out of an abundance of
10 precaution, the accused -- the Defence of the accused shall present
11 evidence intended to prove that there was no intentional or planned
12 starvation of detained persons; that there was no intentional or planned
13 lack of appropriate medical care; that there was no planned or intentional
14 detention of such persons in unhygienic conditions; and that the premises
15 that were used for putting up prisoners of war were not overcrowded.
16 The Defence shall produce some material evidence and an expert
17 report by an economic expert, and in this way we shall seek to prove that
18 in the municipality of Foca during this relevant period, the economic
19 situation was very difficult, and that there was a lack of supply of
20 practically any type of goods, and that there were frequent blackouts as
21 far as power is concerned, that there was a shortage of liquid fuels, and
22 that all of this had to reflect upon the conditions in which not only
23 prisoners of war lived, but all the citizens of the municipality of Foca
24 as such.
25 All these economic indicators of the major shortages that
1 prevailed in war conditions, together with the evident breakdown of the
2 heating facility in the KP Dom, made it difficult for the detainees to
3 meet their hygienic needs, which were met, nevertheless, within the scope
4 of the possibilities that existed. This certainly cannot be interpreted
5 in any way as a result of some intention to keep detained persons in
6 inadequate hygienic conditions.
7 As for medical care, the Defence shall submit evidence seeking to
8 prove that it did exist in that part of the prison where detainees were
9 kept, and that medical services were rendered to Muslim and Serb detainees
10 equally, and that this medical care was provided for by the military
12 Although we believe that the evidence produced so far has left no
13 doubts as to the unfoundedness of the accusations concerning the premises
14 where prisoners of war were kept; namely, that they were overcrowded. The
15 Defence shall nevertheless seek to tender its own evidence in this
17 We shall prove that the accused, Milorad Krnojelac, was not
18 involved in a system of repression aimed against the non-Serb population
19 in the municipality of Foca, nor was he in a position to encourage or
20 assist the possible exercise of such repression. Neither formally nor
21 factually, the accused was not in charge of military prisoners. He was
22 not a member of military formations nor was he in the chain of command of
23 that part of the KP Dom that was leased to the military command. We shall
24 prove that he could not have issued orders related to this part of the
25 prison and that he could not have exercised control over that part where
1 military authorities prevailed.
2 Therefore, we believe that the accused is not guilty of remaining
3 silent and not acting, and that he did not encourage the perpetrators in
4 this way by rendering moral support to them. We also believe that the
5 Prosecutor is wrong when they maintain that the accused had a key role in
6 determining the fate of the prisoners in KP Dom, because the Defence shall
7 produce evidence which will show that in relation to non-Serb detainees,
8 the accused not only did not play a key role but no role at all.
9 We believe that the Defence shall prove in well-founded fashion
10 that the accused was not in a position to take part in the events
11 described in the indictment in such a way so as to enter the zone of
12 responsibility according to Articles 7(1) or 7(3) of the Statute of the
13 International Tribunal.
14 As for the Drina Economic Unit and the detained persons, the
15 Defence shall not challenge the fact that a small number of these persons
16 did do work pertaining to certain sections of the economic unit. The
17 Defence shall submit evidence aimed at proving how this came about;
18 namely, that these persons came to participate in the activity of the
19 economic unit and what the accused knew in respect of voluntary agreement
20 to do such work.
21 The Defence considers that with the accused there was no mens rea
22 either, bearing in mind the fact that the accused was not a member of any
23 political party and by the same token was not a member of the Serbian
24 Democratic Party either. The work he did as a mathematics professor,
25 without any prior experience in the performance of that function, which
1 due to the war that broke out he was assigned to, and with the absence of
2 any kind of participation in any of the organs of power and authority in
3 any way, not holding any political function, and in the fact that he
4 socialised with his colleagues, professors, the accused could not have
5 known of any criminal intent as alleged to by the Prosecution in their
6 opening statement, and least of all that the accused had consciously and
7 through his own volition participated in this common criminal intent or
8 criminal purpose.
9 Although we consider that these assertions made on the part of the
10 Prosecution, that the Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt
11 any of its assertions, the Defence will for its part endeavour to supply
12 additional proof.
13 The Defence wishes in this opening statement to reiterate its
14 statement in the pre-trial brief with regard to the impossibility of
15 applying a cumulative responsibility pursuant to Articles 3 and 5 of the
16 Statute, and we will present our reasons for that more fully in our
17 closing statement.
18 As Defence counsel, I note with regret that in my opinion, the
19 former practice of this Tribunal was more useful; that is to say, by which
20 the responsibility of the accused was first determined and then the
21 presentation of evidence relevant to the determining of a sentence.
22 However, although we consider that we will show that the accused
23 is not guilty on any count of the indictment, we will be compelled to
24 offer to this august Tribunal a number of exhibits and evidence which
25 refer to and are relevant for the sentencing procedure. Within the
1 frameworks of that evidence, the Defence will offer the findings and
2 opinions of experts, a psychiatrist, a legal expert, with respect to the
3 facts that are relevant for the establishment of responsibility and
4 sentencing according to Yugoslav law and the practice of courts in the
5 former Yugoslavia for crimes cited in the indictment.
6 Furthermore, the Defence will speak about the personality and
7 character of Milorad Krnojelac, will show his views on life and his
8 relationship towards the members of other ethnic groups, and will supply
9 evidence -- it will hear the testimony of relatives and friends of the
10 accused. And also as evidence, we will show confirmation from the
11 competent authorities on the life that the accused has led so far, life
12 without any convictions or troubles, and witnesses testifying to other
13 facts and circumstances will also be able to bear that out, and who were,
14 at the same time, close friends of the accused.
15 Finally, at the end of our opening statement, Your Honours, I wish
16 to stress that the Defence will seek to prove that the victims of the
17 unfortunate conflict that took place on the territory of the former
18 Yugoslavia were all those people who found themselves in the whirlpool of
19 the age-old intolerance which had come to the fore once again: Irrational
20 chauvinistic hatred, and the fact that the flames of national passions
21 were fanned again.
22 Although you have before you the accused, Krnojelac, that same
23 upheaval made Milorad Krnojelac a man who almost overnight found himself
24 in a role that he never even dreamt possible; that is to say, he replaced
25 his teaching for the obligation to maintain the KP Dom. It was only when
1 tensions were calmed - and when the result of those tensions was his own
2 burnt down house, two sons which had suffered injury - when he got the
3 opportunity of going back to work which would enable him to fulfil his
4 sole vocational function in life, which was to convey his knowledge to the
5 younger generation, that he found himself in this predicament. We are
6 therefore of the opinion that the accused was not, at the Prosecution
7 maintained and alleged in its opening statement, chose the role -- chose
8 to serve evil, the role of serving evil, but that this was an unsavory
9 trick of fate which had affected him and his family as, in fact, it
10 affected other people living in the area, and that it left indelible
11 traces on them all.
12 We shall attempt to prove that Milorad Krnojelac is not guilty on
13 any count of the indictment as he has, indeed, pleaded. And as we have to
14 speak of guilt and innocence, we shall seek to convenience this august
15 Tribunal that Milorad Krnojelac's part was minimal, and that in view of
16 his conduct, his position, the structure, makeup of his personality, he
17 deserves a lenient sentence, although, let us repeat, that we shall seek
18 to prove that the accused is not guilty on any counts of the indictment.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, the change in the Tribunal's rules in
21 relation to having a separate hearing on sentence resulted, as I
22 understand it, from a victory on the part of the civil lawyers. You
23 should know from your own experience that that is a civil law procedure
24 and not a common-law procedure. But we are, of course, bound by the rules
25 as they presently stand, and we understand, at least those of us from a
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 common-law background understand perhaps the discomfiture you may feel,
2 but at least you've had the experience of it in the past.
3 The point you raised about the cumulative convictions under
4 Articles 3 and 5, you are aware, I assume, of this Trial Chamber's
5 decision in Kunarac which dealt with that. There was a decision of the
6 Appeals Chamber, the Celebici judgement, that's Delalic and others, and
7 that was applied by this Trial Chamber subsequently in Kunarac dealing
8 specifically with Articles 3 and 5. So you better be ready to show us
9 where we have wrongly interpreted the Celebici judgement if you want us to
10 do something different.
11 The only other matter which you've raised, and I think it's best
12 to raise it now before you start giving any of your evidence, you
13 mentioned that your client's wife would be giving evidence, and I see in
14 the original pre-trial brief there is a reference to that possibility. As
15 I understand it, your wife -- your client's wife has been here previously
16 and she was, in fact, allowed into the very small public gallery that we
17 have in this courtroom. If you are going to call her as a witness, it
18 would be very unwise, if I may say so, that she should be here at the time
19 your other witnesses give evidence. It is usual for the witnesses to be
20 kept separate, and they should never hear the evidence given by those who
21 are called before them at the time when they give their evidence.
22 Right, now --
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for
24 interrupting, but I just wish to mention that there was probably a
25 misunderstanding - and I shall consult the accused and my colleague - I
1 think that the spouse of the accused did not spend any time in the
2 courtroom during the trial. But at all events, as a witness, she will not
3 be present when the Defence presents its evidence.
4 JUDGE HUNT: The misunderstanding may well have been on my part,
5 but I was informed there were certain people who wished to use the tiny
6 little cubicle there, and that I had understood one of them to be your
7 client's wife, but if I'm wrong, that's all right. As long as you all
8 understand it would be unwise for any of your witnesses to be present in
9 court before they give their evidence.
10 Now, your first witness, it is the one we gave you leave to add to
11 your list, your former investigator. Is that so?
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. That's right,
13 Your Honour. Our first witness is Milenko Dundjer.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. He will be obtained.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may address the
17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
18 MR. BAKRAC: I should just like to clear up a technical matter.
19 Would it be better for the Defence, after showing each document, to tender
20 it into evidence and give the Prosecution a chance to state its position,
21 or would it be better to wait and have a set of documents, or at the end
22 of a testimony to see how we stand and tender the documents then? So
23 shall we do this after each document or afterwards? The Defence would
24 like to know in advance what the practice will be.
25 JUDGE HUNT: What I suggested last Thursday, and which I had
1 understood both parties to be in agreement with, was that you should ask
2 the witness about a particular document, then the Prosecution should have
3 the opportunity of cross-examining him about the authenticity of that
4 document, and then it should be tendered. This will enable everything to
5 be concentrated in relation to each document before it goes into evidence
6 rather than saving them to the very end.
7 That's what Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff had suggested. I had agreed and I
8 thought that you had agreed. Is there any problem with that?
9 [The witness entered court]
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Would you take the solemn declaration, sir, in the
12 document which is being shown to you by the court usher.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, sir.
16 WITNESS: MILENKO DUNDJER
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the counsel, please.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac.
21 Examined by Mr. Bakrac:
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dundjer.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. I will ask you, since we both speak the same language, to please
25 have the question interpreted to you. So after a question has been
1 interpreted to you, please pause before giving your answer.
2 Will you now please state your full name.
3 A. Milenko Dundjer.
4 Q. What is your occupation?
5 A. I am an attorney in Belgrade.
6 Q. Since when are you an attorney?
7 A. Since 1986.
8 Q. And since 1986 until today, you have continuously practising law?
9 A. Yes. I've been practising law continuously.
10 Q. Can you tell us when you became an investigator in the Milorad
11 Krnojelac Defence?
12 A. I became an investigator on 14 April -- 14 March 2000.
13 Q. Do you know who was the investigator in this team before
15 A. Yes, I do know. It was Jovan Simic, also an attorney.
16 Q. Did you -- were you given certain documents by him when you took
17 over as an investigator?
18 A. Yes, I did receive some documents.
19 Q. Did Mr. Simic tell you how he came into possession of these
21 A. Yes, he did tell me how he received these documents.
22 Q. Mr. Dundjer, let me now turn to the evidence that the Defence will
23 tender, and I would like you to take the document numbered as ID D2. Do
24 you have it in front of you?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Will you tell me please what document this -- what is this
3 A. This is a sentence by the District Court in Sarajevo, K 212/83,
4 dated 20 August 1983.
5 Q. Was this a sentence of this by the District Court in a criminal
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Will you please tell me, whom does this sentence concern?
9 A. This sentence concerns several individuals. First accused is
10 Alija Izetbegovic, then Hasan Cengic, Ismet Kasumagic, Edhem Bicakcic,
11 Huso Zivalj, Salih Behmen, Mustafa Spahic, Dzemal Latic, Mileka
12 Salihbegovic, Dervis Djurdjevic, and Djula Bicakcic.
13 Q. Are all these individuals of Muslim ethnic background?
14 A. Yes. All the individuals I have just mentioned are of Muslim
15 ethnic background.
16 Q. Will you now please read out to us the composition of the Trial
17 Chamber of the District Court in Sarajevo?
18 A. The Trial Chamber as composed of Rizah Hadzic as the President,
19 then Judge Asim Kanlic as a member of the Chamber, and jurors Izet
20 Hadzimehmedovic, Jezdimir Djordjevic, and Ante Bosnjak as members of the
22 Q. Will you now please tell me, out of five Judges and jurors, how
23 many were of the Muslim ethnic background?
24 A. Those who were of Muslim ethnic background include Judge Rizah
25 Hadzic, Judge Asim Kanlic, and the Judge/juror Izet Hadzimehmedovic.
1 Q. In other words, three out of five; is that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Now, will you now please tell us who was the representative of the
4 Public Prosecutor's office in this case?
5 A. The representative of the Public Prosecutor's office in Sarajevo
6 was Madam Edina Residovic.
7 Q. Is she also of Muslim ethnic background?
8 A. Yes. She, too, is of Muslim ethnic background.
9 Q. Will you please tell us very briefly what were the counts that
10 these individuals were sentenced for or convicted for?
11 A. These individuals were convicted for -- on several different
12 counts, but the criminal act that they were all convicted of was
13 Article 136, association for hostile intent.
14 Q. Mr. Dundjer, we do not have much time, so I would like to keep
15 this very short, but could you just explain to the Trial Chamber very
16 briefly what it was that these individuals were actually convicted of?
17 What is the criminal act that they were charged with?
18 A. The criminal act that they were charged with was that they engaged
19 in association for hostile activity. Alija Izetbegovic and Omer Behmen;
20 that is, Alija Izetbegovic wrote and Omer Behmen served as his advisor,
21 wrote a text called "The Islamic Declaration."
22 Q. I'm trying to approach this very reasonably. This is a very large
23 case file, and I would like to get to the point immediately, to just point
24 to what is crucial here.
25 What is the essence of this "Islamic Declaration" by Mr. Alija
2 A. The essence of this document which was entitled "The Islamic
3 Declaration," was the Islamisation of the Muslims in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina, which means the creation of an Islamic republic. It means
5 the abolishment of the lay principles which would include the profession
6 of other religions in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a proclamation
7 of an Islamic republic, and all means necessary are declared permissible
8 for that. It means the creation, and later on when I give you certain
9 quotes from this sentence --
10 Q. Mr. Dundjer, perhaps you can perhaps right away give us these
11 quotes, just a couple of quotes, so we can move on.
12 A. Page 5, first paragraph, in the final revision, the declaration
13 points out as its goal, the Islamisation of Muslims, and its motto is
14 "Believe and fight."
15 Further on, the accused are found guilty of the intent of creation
16 of a Greater Islamic Federation. On page 12, following Roman numeral
17 five, paragraph 1, "The lost freedoms should be fought for by any means
19 I also should point out a quote from page 16 relative to the
20 accused Hasan Cengic, and it is the next to last paragraph on page 16,
21 "That the goal of the Islamic revolution in our country is the creation
22 of a single Islamic state that will encompass the territory of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina, Sandzak, and Kosovo." And the last paragraph, "That Jihad
24 should be implemented until the end, and that the enemy should be
25 exterminated as well as the disbelievers, the non-believers." And the
1 quote says, "The excuse should not be waited for. Muslims must invent an
2 excuse. They must be the ones who will invent it, and the goal will come
3 by itself."
4 I would also like to point out several other things. "Do not
5 greet infidels. Infidels are all those who do in the subscribe to Islam
6 and all infidels be killed."
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dundjer, and you quoted certain paragraphs that
8 relate to Hasan Cengic.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Just before you do so, Mr. Bakrac, you are disobeying
10 your own injunction to the witness. You are not waiting for his answer
11 before you commence the next question, and the interpreter is clearly
12 having difficulty keeping up.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour, and I will
14 try to bear that in mind.
15 Q. You mentioned Hasan Cengic. Do you know what area he comes from,
16 where he was born?
17 A. Page 2 of this sentence, it states that Hasan Cengic is the son of
18 Halid and mother Mejrema, born on the 30th August 1957, in the village of
19 Odzak, Foca municipality. In other words, he was from the Foca area.
20 Q. You said his father's name was Halid. Do you know who Hasan
21 Cengic's father was, Halid Cengic?
22 A. Yes, I do. From the exhibit that I will present to the Trial
23 Chamber later, I know who Halid Cengic was. I know that name.
24 Q. Did he have any position? Did he hold any position in the SDA
25 party based on the -- this exhibit that you just referred to?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 A. Yes. He had a position in the SDA party, and during the war he
2 was in the position of authority. He was -- had auto logistic centre.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dundjer. You will have an opportunity to come back
4 to that when we get there.
5 Can you tell us what does sentence -- what Alija Izetbegovic and
6 Mr. Hasan Cengic were sentenced? What was their -- what were their
7 respective sentences?
8 A. Alija Izetbegovic received 14 years in prison, and Hasan Cengic
9 ten years in prison.
10 Q. Were the sentences carried out?
11 A. I have exhibits that I will present later. In an interview that
12 Halid Cengic gave later on, he said that his -- was in prison until 29
13 November 1987, and Alija Izetbegovic was released one year later.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dundjer. We will move on to the next document, but
15 I believe that this would be the time to break the session.
16 JUDGE HUNT: It would indeed. We'll adjourn until 2.30.
17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Dundjer. May we proceed now?
5 A. Yes, we can.
6 Q. We talked about document ID D2. Tell me, what is document
7 ID D2?
8 A. Document ID D2A is an English translation of document ID D2.
9 Q. Could you please now move on to document ID D3? Could you please
10 tell me --
11 JUDGE HUNT: Let's get ID D2 into evidence, if that's where it's
12 going to go.
13 Do you want to ask any questions, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, no questions in relation to this
15 witness. However, we wonder what the political activities of
16 Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Cengic in the 1970s and early 1980s actually have
17 to do with this case.
18 JUDGE HUNT: I'd agree with you. In fact, I've raised it several
19 times. Even more remote is what happened during the First and Second
20 World Wars. But I wonder whether it will save time to let it in and we
21 will worry about its admissibility later. Nothing that Mr. Bakrac said in
22 his opening address persuaded me it was relevant, but nevertheless, I
23 don't want to make a ruling on behalf of the Trial Chamber at this stage.
24 So if you have no objection other than relevance, we'll allow it
25 into evidence, I think.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I just wanted to mention it, and
2 we have no objection.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
4 Well, now, Mr. Bakrac, there are already four Defence exhibits,
5 and may I suggest, so that we can get the numbering straight, that the
6 next four exhibits should be D4/1, D4/2, D4/3, and D4/4 so that ID D5 can
7 come up with its number. Do you have any objection to that?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. No. No. I mean I
9 do not object. The question was: Am I in a position to follow what
10 you've been saying, and I said yes, and then I heard the rest of the
11 interpretation asking me whether I have any objections.
12 No, I do not have any objections.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Then this document, which is presently ID D2, will be
14 Exhibit D4/1, and ID D2A will be Exhibit 4/1/A. Yes.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Dundjer, the document that the Defence would like to tender
17 into evidence, that is, document ID D3, could you tell us what this is?
18 A. That is a document where it says on the first page, it says, "List
19 of fighters." That is the heading.
20 Q. This list, this list of fighters, is it handwritten or
22 A. This list of fighters is handwritten.
23 Q. Tell me, please, how many persons are on this list of fighters?
24 A. This list of fighters goes from number 1 to number 1.774.
25 Q. The names on this list from 1 to 1.774, are all these names, names
1 of persons who are ethnic Muslims?
2 A. Yes, these are names of persons of Muslim ethnicity.
3 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us in respect of these names what kind of
4 details are included in this list?
5 A. We have different types of details; however, we can just make a
6 qualified guess as to what these details pertain to. For example, from
7 number 20 to number 23, in the last column it says, "Odzak," the place of
8 Odzak. So an educated guess would be that that is the place of birth of
9 the persons mentioned from 20 to 23 inclusive, that is Cengic Husnija
10 Emir, Cengic Salko Mustafa, Cengic Hirzija Salko, and Cengic Hirzija
11 Senad. That is what I know because the Cengic family is from the place of
12 Odzak in the municipality of Foca.
13 Q. There is a surname here and two first names. What do you assume,
14 what is this name in the middle?
15 A. My assumption is that the name in the middle is the father's name.
16 Q. After the names there are dates too. Is that right?
17 A. Yes, that is right.
18 Q. Can you assume what these dates refer to?
19 A. I assume, and I believe this is an educated guess, that these
20 dates relate to the date, month, and year of birth of the persons
22 Q. And in column number 3, you said, you said -- you said, actually,
23 that there is a third column. What do you think that is?
24 A. This third column relates to the place of birth.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, I suppose you'll get there eventually,
1 but as a matter of logic, first of all we want to know what is this
2 document. What does it mean, list of fighters? Where was it found? Who
3 drew it up? It might be quicker if you sort of explained its authenticity
4 to start with, and then we can worry about the details in it.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I started doing it the
6 other way around because the Defence does not know who compiled this
7 document, so we tried to explain the document on the basis of what it
8 actually contains. And I shall put this question to the witness too.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you might at least be able to tell us where it
10 was found, and if you can't tell us who compiled it, where it was found
11 may give it some authenticity. But without that, I don't understand why
12 it's even being shown to us. It might have been somebody giving a list of
13 people who live on different streets or something, so far as we know. The
14 heading "fighters" means nothing to me.
15 So you've described it in your list of documents as a list of
16 Muslim fighters in the Foca area. That doesn't mean anything. So let's
17 see if you can tell us at least where it was found, where it came from.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Dundjer, that's precisely what I wanted to ask you just now.
20 Can you tell us how you obtained this document?
21 A. I received this document from a military man who works in the
22 command of the Foca garrison. On the occasion of the handover of this
23 document, this person said to me that the army had seized this document.
24 Q. Did this person tell you where the army had seized this document?
25 A. This person did not tell me the exact place where the document had
1 been seized, but it had been seized; that is to say, that this occurred
2 during the operations, the war operations between the army of Republika
3 Srpska and the Muslim army.
4 Q. Are all -- is that all that this military man had to say to you in
5 respect to this document?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE HUNT: I would like to know who the military man purported
8 to be. Foca Garrison what, of the JNA or of some Muslim organisation? It
9 still doesn't prove anything so far.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Dundjer, is this a military man from the army of Republika
12 Srpska or the Bosnian Muslim Federation?
13 A. This person is a military man from the army of Republika Srpska.
14 Q. Did he want to introduce himself to you or, rather, did he ask for
15 protection of his identity?
16 A. Yes. That's exactly what he asked me for.
17 Q. Did he tell you that this was taken away from the Muslim side?
18 A. Yes, that's what he told me.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps rather than giving it to us in little bits
20 and pieces, you tell us exactly what he said to you about it. Each time
21 you've been asked a question, you add a little bit, you see.
22 A. Are you asking me specifically what the military man that handed
23 this document over to me told me on that occasion? Is that your question
24 specifically, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, it is. What we want to know -- wait a minute.
1 We have to decide how authentic this document is. Now, if you can't tell
2 us where it was taken from or who drafted it, then it has no authenticity
3 at all until it can be demonstrated from the source you obtained it from,
4 and so far you have told us very little.
5 Now, I think you better tell us all that you can tell us about
6 this man. We'll leave his name to one side at the moment, but his rank
7 would help too.
8 A. Well, I got the document from a military man, an officer of
9 Republika Srpska, and on that occasion he said to me that the army of
10 Republika Srpska had, during war operations, seized this document from the
11 Muslim army.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Is that all that this person had to say to you or did this person
14 tell you something else as well?
15 A. That is the question to His Honour -- the answer to His Honour's
17 JUDGE HUNT: How did you come across this man and when was it?
18 How long after the fighting did this document suddenly appear?
19 A. As an investigator, I spent some time in the town of Foca on
20 several occasions, several times. I also went to the command of the Foca
21 Garrison several times. And Foca, nowadays, is called Srbinje.
22 In the premises of the command, no documents were given to me.
23 After these meetings that I had, I would invariably spend a few days in
24 Foca. A military man who attended part of these meetings gave me this
25 document specifically as well as a few other documents. We used to meet
1 at different places in the town of Foca for the handover of these
3 JUDGE HUNT: This is like drawing teeth, Mr. Bakrac, and I don't
4 see why I should have to do it, but it seems to me rather strange. I
5 would have thought that if this happened in the way in which the witness
6 says it happens, this officer, whose rank we still don't know, he might
7 have been of the most basic officer rank. He might have said, "We have a
8 huge pile of documents here which may assist you. We got them from a
9 particular place." But if this is all that is said, I don't understand
10 how you can make it admissible. It's got to have some authenticity.
11 I realise you don't have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt.
12 You only have to demonstrate with the evidence that there is some
13 reasonable doubt about all of this. But this document could be anything,
14 and having "fighters" on it doesn't really help us. Fighters of what
15 type? Were they part of the paramilitary or were they people who resisted
17 I'm trying to assist you in getting somewhere on this one, and I'm
18 sick of asking the witness to expand on things when we get it dribble by
19 dribble from him.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what the witness just
21 said to you is exactly what he told the Defence team. We decided to bring
22 this document in because we thought that it could inter alia serve as
23 evidence of the existence of military formations of the Muslim side.
24 I have to give an additional piece of explanation. It is very
25 difficult in the town of Foca to obtain a document, especially as far as
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 the military authorities are concerned, because everything what they have
2 seized is strictly confidential. That's what they told us. And they
3 don't want the sources to be revealed, who handed this over, et cetera.
4 So that is the only explanation that we got.
5 The Defence is not going to insist. We can move on to another
6 document. We are not going to seek to tender this document into
8 As far as I can see, the information we have available is not
9 sufficient for the possible entry into evidence of this document. The
10 Defence shall make every effort to refrain from tendering documents of a
11 similar nature because we are now familiar with the position of the Trial
12 Chamber with regard to authenticity and everything else that is required
13 for ascertaining this authenticity, actually.
14 JUDGE HUNT: I don't think that I -- anything I suggested should
15 have been a surprise to you, if I may say so, Mr. Bakrac. It's up to the
16 Prosecution, I suppose, to sort this out, but I was trying to assist. The
17 witness was being so recalcitrant in giving any information at all that I
18 thought it might speed things up, but I shall leave it, and the
19 Prosecution can take the burden of it. I'm not going to try to assist any
20 more with this witness because I don't get anywhere with him.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of what I said
22 and in view of your own suggestion, we're going to move on to another
23 document. As for ID D3, we're not even going to tender it into evidence.
24 By your leave, I'd like to move on to the next document.
25 Q. Mr. Dundjer, could you please be so kind as to look at document ID
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell me what this document pertains to?
4 A. This document is a certificate. The letterhead says "Republic of
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina," number
6 L-200-1187/92, dated the 20th of November, 1992. This document is made
7 out in the name of Rasim Halilagic, son of Salko, born on the 21st of
8 July, 1948, in the village of Hrancici, municipality of Gorazde. And this
9 document proves beyond any reasonable doubt, and that's what it says here
10 in the document itself, that the mentioned person is a member of the 1st
11 Foca Brigade and has been so from its very establishment. He joined the
12 ranks of the BiH army on the 6th of April, 1992.
13 Q. Tell us, please, at the end of this document, is there a
14 signature, and also, is the name of the person who was supposed to have
15 signed this document typed here as well?
16 A. Yes. It says commander of the 1st Foca Brigade staff, signature,
17 and then the name of Enes Becirevic typewritten.
18 Q. Did you obtain this document the same way as the previous
19 document, the one that we discussed, the one that was marked as ID D3?
20 A. Yes, I got that document the same way.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Defence would like to suggest
22 that ID D4 -- oh, sorry.
23 Q. Tell me one more thing. What is ID D4A?
24 A. ID D4A is the English translation of document ID D4.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Defence would like to propose
1 that this document be admitted into evidence.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Just to assist, can you tell us what its relevance is
3 before the Prosecution asks any questions about it?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor called a
5 great many witnesses who said that on the 8th of April, 1992, in the town
6 of Foca, there was a sudden attack by the Serb forces against the civilian
7 population which did not expect this attack, which was not armed or
8 organised in a military way. This document is supposed to show that even
9 before the war conflict broke out, a military unit had already been
10 established, the Foca Brigade.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to the source of the
13 document, we have, of course, a little bit of a problem because it's the
14 same, let's say, secret source, and we cannot get any clear information on
15 the document, and I do not see a stamp on it.
16 But I also see the problem, the problem that the Defence has in
17 obtaining documents, and we want to be cooperative. And we actually have
18 contacted Mr. Halilagic, and he confirmed that he was a member of the
19 Foca, the Foca Brigade, and he was a member of the Foca Brigade in April
20 1992, but he said he was not a member of the brigade so early. According
21 to his memory, it was in the middle of April that he joined a military
23 Now, I suggest that -- the Prosecution actually stipulates that
24 Mr. Halilagic was a member of the Foca Brigade under Mr. Becirevic, but
25 from mid, mid-April onwards. We would stipulate to this, because that is
1 actually where we got confirmation from the witness.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. That, of course, is after the 8th of April, and
3 the Prosecution is attempting to -- I'm sorry, the Defence is attempting
4 to establish that this brigade was organised before that.
5 This is slightly different from the previous document which bore
6 no signs of what it was all about, except a very equivocal heading. This
7 does demonstrate what the document is, if it is authentic.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
9 JUDGE HUNT: The fact that you have contacted the witness does
10 give it -- and what the witness has said -- I'm sorry, what the named
11 person has said --
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: -- does give it some greater authenticity, but it's
14 certainly anything but clear whether it's accurate.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: My suggestion would be that we maybe delay
16 the admission of this document and we send it to the Bosnian authorities
17 to clarify the signature of Mr. Becirevic and get their position on it.
18 That would be a way out which would facilitate both sides.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that may be a very good idea, Mr. Bakrac,
20 because then you'd have a very good authentic and well-authenticated
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I agree. Indeed, I
23 have to thank the Office of the Prosecutor for their understanding, if
24 it's not only by way of a declaration, and I know it's not. They
25 appreciate the difficulties the Defence has in collecting documents from
2 And we also heard in connection with photographs about all the
3 difficulties that the Prosecution has in terms of obtaining documents or
4 taking photographs, whatever. The Defence is not in a much better
5 position either. After the Kunarac case, Mr. Kunarac is the only person
6 who was accused from there, and I think there's no need for me to go into
7 all the reasons why we have or have not been able to get documents.
8 We have tried to shed more light on Mr. Krnojelac' responsibility,
9 and we tried to obtain such documents and we hope to tender them into
10 evidence in the belief that it is the duty of the Defence to work
11 conscientiously in terms of tendering into evidence what is relevant as
13 I do apologise to the Trial Chamber for moving perhaps a bit
14 slowly, but we think that the objective of ascertaining the truth and
15 nothing but the truth is of paramount importance. The Defence will try to
16 bring forth all these documents to tender them into evidence. It is then
17 for the Prosecutor to object or not object, but it is finally up to the
18 Trial Chamber to decide.
19 As far as we can see, this document's authenticity has been
20 checked, and I don't see why the date would be the only thing that would
21 be wrong, but the Defence does not object to this. If necessary, this
22 document can be admitted into evidence at a later stage once the date has
23 been checked.
24 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not sure that you have followed what the
25 Prosecution has said. They are prepared to stipulate, to agree to the
1 fact that this person named in the document was indeed a member of the
2 1st Foca Brigade under the command of the person who appears to have
3 signed it as at the middle of April 1992. Now, that doesn't quite prove
4 what you want to tender it for.
5 It's not a question of the date of the document that they're
6 worried about; it's the date that it asserts that he was a member of that
8 It may be just as well if the Prosecution also checked to see
9 whether the 1st Foca Brigade was in existence at some time in the
10 beginning of April, which is what you want to prove it for. That might be
11 the simplest issue.
12 Have you given a notice to the Prosecution that that is the fact
13 that you wish to prove?
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We discussed this document with the
15 Prosecution, and for us what is relevant is the date when the Foca Brigade
16 was established. And we agree that we proceed according to the proposal
17 made by the Prosecution otherwise.
18 Perhaps I wasn't -- you didn't understand me. I meant the date of
19 the formation or, rather, when -- not the date the document was compiled,
20 but when he joined the brigade.
21 JUDGE HUNT: May I suggest, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, that you seek to
22 obtain from the Bosnian authorities when they understood this 1st Foca
23 Brigade was organised. That is the real fact that they want to prove.
24 And if you can obtain that, all to the better. If you can't, then you may
25 be able to check the signature on the document. But do your best to find
1 out the more fundamental fact, I think.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we'll do that.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Bakrac, nothing I have said is intended in
4 any way as a criticism of what the Defence have been doing. I think we
5 all accept the difficulties you have in obtaining this material.
6 This document is far better than the previous one, but there is
7 still a problem with its source. If all that was said to the witness, the
8 present witness, is what he says was said, it doesn't establish it really
9 very much at all except it's a better document than the previous one. And
10 if the signature were proved, then you'd get it into evidence without a
12 So I think the best thing to do would be to put that to one side
13 as well.
14 How many of these documents were taken from this officer who said
15 that he seized them in circumstances we know nothing about? How many of
16 these documents there fall within that description?
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, quite a number of
18 documents. For the most part, documents referring to the military
19 structure; that is to say, military documents referring to the army. We
20 were not able to get that through official channels because of the
21 confidentiality of the documents, military secrets, and so on. We were
22 explained this, and the witness was explained this, but by this officer we
23 were able to come by what he himself was able to procure from the
24 garrison, or from wherever.
25 So I shall do my best to see that all similar documents, documents
1 similar to ID D3, to skip over them. I will skip those document, and
2 we'll go on to discussing only the documents with stamps and signatures by
3 which we can see the author of the document.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. I was going to add, if they've got a stamp,
5 which seems to have some magic power in Yugoslavia, everybody seems to
6 accept that anything with a rubber stamp on it is authentic. Far be it
7 from the Trial Chamber to dissuade either party from accepting that rather
8 strange proposition, but let's stick to those and ones where the
9 Prosecution can check the signatures, and that's until you get a better
10 source of the documents that we've got so far.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is what we
12 have at our disposal. Some documents we have in their original, but most
13 of them are in photocopy. That is what the Defence has. And in its best
14 attempts to present the documents, this is what we have come up with. But
15 as I say, we will skip over documents that are similar to the ID D3
17 Q. Mr. Dundjer, with the Court's indulgence, I should like to move on
18 to another area and look at document ID D6. Could you tell us what that
19 document is?
20 A. This is a copy of the military booklet or military ID of the BH
21 army for the individual stipulated, and the name is Esad Vejo, father's
22 name Hasan. So for this same individual, that is to say, for Esad Vejo, a
23 driver's licence. So we have both. And the driver's licence was issued
24 in his name. The document --
25 Q. Could you tell me, please, with respect to the military ID
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 booklet, what does that contain?
2 A. The military booklet states that the individual, Vejo Esad, father
3 Hasan, with his date of birth the 9th of September, 1959, and the place of
4 birth was Foca and the place of residence Foca, in fact, is a member of
5 the unit, the 1st Drina Brigade of the "II P", which is to say infantry, I
6 assume, battalion, and it is the 4th Infantry Company belonging to the
7 basic unit.
8 And on this document we have a signature which is illegible - it
9 is the signature of the commander of the unit - and a stamp of the armed
10 forces of the BH army.
11 Q. And what about the second document? What data does that second
12 document contain?
13 A. The second document contains data from the driver's licence. It
14 is the same individual. The surname, the last name, is Vejo. His first
15 name is Esad. The same date of birth, the 9th of September, 1959, once
16 again Foca. The personal identification number is 09 --
17 Q. No, you don't have to read out that number. Just tell us what
18 else it contains.
19 A. So that then is the driver's licence. The driver's licence has
20 its number. It is 5629. It was issued by the public security station of
21 Foca, and it has a signature.
22 Q. Did you obtain this document in the way that you obtained the
23 previous document, ID D5?
24 A. Yes. Yes, that's right, like the previous document. The same
1 Q. From the same individual?
2 A. Yes, from the same individual.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Defence propose -- would like to
4 tender this document into evidence at this point.
5 JUDGE HUNT: When you do that, Mr. Bakrac, it would be of great
6 assistance to us if you could just tell us briefly what you say its
7 relevance is - what does it establish - so we all know what we're dealing
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the relevance of this
10 document is to show the existence of military organisation of a Muslim
11 army; that is to say, and the participation of the citizens of Foca in
12 these armed -- in these military forces, at least as to one individual,
13 which would indicate that the citizens of Foca, of Muslim ethnicity, were
14 organised into military units.
15 JUDGE HUNT: But when? I'm looking for some date --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Judge.
17 JUDGE HUNT: But when? You see, I'm looking for some date to show
18 that it was prior to the 7th of April. If it was after the 7th of April,
19 I don't see that it advances your case at all.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence places this
21 document in order immediately after the previous one where it is the
22 brigade -- which testifies to the brigade's establishment. So by placing
23 it after that document, we wanted to illustrate that fact using this
24 military ID card, and the fact that the military formation, which the
25 previous document says was established on the 6th of April, existed, and
1 we bear this out by the military booklet. It means that the military
2 booklets existed. And there is no date in the booklet testifying to when
3 this particular individual joined the unit.
4 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, I may have misunderstood you, Mr. Bakrac.
5 Where does it demonstrate that this particular military unit was in
6 existence prior to the 7th of April? Or the 6th of April, I don't mind
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the assumption of
9 the Defence, and based on certain information, that the Foca Brigade grew
10 to become the Drina Brigade, and that that was when the military ID
11 booklets began to be issued. And it was the intent of the Defence to show
12 this document and to support the existence of military formations in Foca
13 prior to the outbreak of the conflict itself.
14 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not going to ask again.
15 What do you say, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I just want to mention something to
17 Mr. Bakrac. He may not remember because the witness Subasic did not
18 testify here in person, but we only handed in the transcript. And
19 according to this witness, the Drinska Brigada was formed in May, in May
20 1992. That's, at least, what this witness testified to; that he joined
21 the Drinska Brigada and it was formed in May 1992. So you may not
22 remember that because you just read it so -- but, however, we do not
23 object against this document.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, if you don't object, it will be Exhibit D6.
25 But Mr. Bakrac, I hope you understand my problem. There's nothing
1 there to demonstrate that this was in existence prior to the 7th of April.
2 It certainly demonstrates there was such a brigade at some stage, but we
3 don't know when.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, and it should be also Exhibit D6/A.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Dundjer, may we now move on to the next document which is
8 document ID D7. Can you tell us what this is?
9 A. This is a document of the republican staff of Territorial Defence
10 of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from Sarajevo. The number
11 is BD 02/9-8. The date is the 7th of April, 1992. It is sent under
12 "urgent," the general staff of the armed forces of the SFRY dash --
13 JUDGE HUNT: There's no need to read it. We've got the document
14 in front of us, and we have an English translation of it. What we want to
15 know is what its provenance is. Where did you get it, from whom, and how?
16 A. I got this document in the same way that I got the previous
17 document and from the same person.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Dundjer, this document, does it inform those concerned that
20 the president of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by its
21 decision of the 3rd of April, 1992, ordered the mobilisation of the
22 Territorial Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. Yes. Without agreement of the supreme command of the armed
24 forces, it issued an order for mobilisation.
25 Q. In this document, does it state that an armed attack was launched
1 by the Green Berets wearing police uniforms and camouflage uniforms on an
2 attack on the staff of the Territorial Defence, the municipal Territorial
3 Defence headquarters of Sarajevo?
4 A. Yes, an armed attack took place on the 7th of April, 1992, at the
5 headquarters of its peacetime premises.
6 Q. Mr. Dundjer, this document, is it signed?
7 A. Yes. The document is signed by the commander. It was sent by the
8 commander, Lieutenant Colonel General Drago Vukosavljevic.
9 Perhaps I did not express myself properly. The document, that is
10 to say, it says "Commander Lieutenant Colonel General Drago Vukosavljevic"
11 without a signature, actually.
12 Q. Is there a stamp to say that it was received?
13 A. Yes, a stamp at reception exists.
14 Q. And is the date the 7th of April, 1992?
15 A. Yes, that is correct. The date is the 7th of April, 1992.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence would like
17 to tender this document in order to demonstrate that an order for
18 mobilisation was given for the staff of Territorial Defence by the
19 presidency of the SR Bosnia-Herzegovina with Muslim and Croat forces, and
20 that attacks were effected by the Green Berets wearing police uniforms and
21 camouflage uniforms, first of all, that the attack was launched on
22 Sarajevo, and that military action started before the 8th of April, in
23 fact, when the war broke out in Foca. And we should like to tender this
24 document into evidence together with the translation of it, which is
25 ID D7A.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Its relevance is very clear once you work out who it
2 is it's speaking about. It has a problem, but I gather that this -- that
3 these are the Bosnian forces attacking Sarajevo. Is that what it is
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But the Defence,
6 immediately after this document, has another one which speaks about the
7 fact that communications were set up with other Territorial Defence staff,
8 and we considered it to be relevant that the signal for the attack in
9 Sarajevo came one day before the conflict actually broke out in Foca and
10 that that is indicative for the start of the conflict in Foca. That is
11 the position taken by the Defence.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, I can understand what you're saying, but I would
13 like a little assistance. Whoever interpreted these documents said that
14 the rubber stamp at the bottom was indecipherable. Is there a better copy
15 that you can see? Because the witness has described it as a receipt. I'm
16 not sure where that comes from or who it was received by.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the stamp it states
18 "received," and the date is the 7th of April, 1992. There are some
19 numbers and the signature of the person that received it in the lower
20 right-hand corner. It is initialed. So that is what the Defence can
21 tell you with respect to the stamp.
22 JUDGE HUNT: You obviously can determine that because there are
23 some letters showing, but which word is it which says "received"? Is it
24 the first word on the first line, or the first word on the last line?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the last word on
1 the left-hand side which is underlined, and it says -- no, no, it says,
2 predao which means "handed over by." It is the top left-hand corner, the
3 top left-hand corner where it should say primio. You can see the P with
4 the date and the number.
5 JUDGE HUNT: You understand I'm working from this without any
6 assistance from an interpretation or a translation.
7 The word which is repeated at the end of each line under the
8 initials, P-o-t-p-i-s, what is that?
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Signature, Your Honour, signed.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Yes, well, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I have a few additional questions.
12 JUDGE HUNT: You go ahead.
13 Cross-examination on exhibit by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
14 Q. Drago Vukosavljevic, that would be a Bosnian Serb soldier from the
15 name, or who would that be?
16 A. Are you asking me whether that person is a soldier, or are you
17 asking me if he's a Serb, judging by the name? Is that what you want to
18 know? Judging by the name, you want to know his ethnicity; is that your
20 I assume by looking at the name, Drago Vukosavljevic, that the
21 person is indeed a Serb.
22 Q. And it says in relation to his function, Commandant General --
23 Commander Lieutenant Colonel, of what? Is he of the JNA?
24 A. He is the commander, and he is General Lieutenant Colonel Drago
25 Vukosavljevic, the commander of the republican staff of Territorial
1 Defence. Republican Territorial Defence staff, the commander of that body
2 of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I said that at the
3 beginning. So he is the commander of the Territorial Defence staff.
4 Q. So --
5 JUDGE HUNT: I notice that the translation does not give him the
6 rank of General. Where does that come from, sir?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's due to the
8 translation. They seem to have omitted the word "General" which is --
9 which exists in the B/C/S version.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Is it the same word in both B/C/S and English, is
11 it? Mr. Vasic is nodding. Thank you.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
13 Q. And this General Drago, he was not in Foca, he was in Sarajevo, or
14 where was he?
15 A. He was in Sarajevo.
16 Q. And in this letter he actually expresses his point of view of the
17 development, and he informs Belgrade, the general staff. Is that the
18 contents of the document?
19 A. No, it is not his view. It is a report, a report in which he
20 states the facts. And those facts are, under number 1, that the
21 Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina ordered the
22 mobilisation of the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 3rd
23 of April, 1992. And it also states another fact, and that is that the
24 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina took a lawless decision on the basis
25 which the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina was attached to the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 BH MUP. And also stipulates the following fact: That seven days --
2 Q. Mr. Dundjer, we can read all this. You do not have to repeat all
4 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment.
5 Look, sir, I know you are a lawyer, but you are here to just
6 describe the documents, not to promote anybody's case. And whether
7 something is your view of it or not, or whether it proves beyond
8 reasonable doubt in your mind does not assist us. All we want to know
9 from you are the facts which give this document an authenticity.
10 So just answer the question. Don't keep reading it. We have the
11 document. If there's something missing from the translation, we will
12 ask. Please just answer counsel's questions.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
14 Q. My question was that Mr. Drago gave his view of the facts, how he
15 saw them, to Belgrade, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, then we do not have any
19 JUDGE HUNT: These documents will, therefore, be Exhibit D7 and
21 Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Further Examination by Mr. Bakrac:
24 Q. May we now go on to document ID D8, Witness, and tell us, please,
25 what that document is about?
1 A. The document is a list of Territorial Defence staffs with which
2 direct contact was established.
3 Q. Could you please tell us whether in the upper left-hand corner in
4 the heading it states who -- what is in the heading? I'll rephrase that.
5 The upper left-hand corner, what does that state and show?
6 A. The upper left-hand corner, it says, "Colonel Jovan Divljak and
7 Lieutenant Colonel Rasim Delic." That is the heading. "Technical
8 Services: Suada Hajdarevic."
9 Q. In the list of Territorial Defence staffs of the municipalities
10 with which direct contact was established, does it -- does it include the
11 town of Foca, the Territorial Defence of Foca?
12 A. Yes. And it is under number 17. Seventeen is Foca on the list.
13 Q. Do you know who Colonel Jovan Divljak and Lieutenant Colonel Rasim
14 Delic are?
15 A. They are individuals with high-ranking -- of high rank in the
16 Bosnian army. I don't know exactly at that point in time what their
17 functions were, but Rasim Delic was for a time the commander of the army
18 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Chief of Staff or the commander, I'm not
19 sure. And Jovan Divljak also for a time also held a top-ranking post.
20 The Chief of Staff, I assume.
21 Q. You said that the technical services were performed by Suada
22 Hajdarevic, as it says here in the document.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is that a Muslim name?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Can you tell us anything else about this document, any other
3 A. I assume that the term used here, "direct contact," in fact means
4 that with the Territorial Defence staffs of the municipalities, a line of
5 command was established from a centre of some kind.
6 Q. You didn't quite catch my meaning. His Honour asked you not to
7 draw your own conclusions. Just tell me if the document is signed and has
8 it got a date?
9 A. This document does not have a date. It is not dated and there is
10 no signature.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence considered
12 that the relevance of this document is linked to the previous document and
13 it demonstrates the linkage with the local Territorial Defence staffs, and
14 we therefore ask that it be tendered into evidence, barring any objections
15 from the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Meaning that the Territorial Defence of the Bosnian
17 army units, is it? Because "Territorial Defence" is a term which I've
18 seen so often so far as Republika Srpska is concerned. Are these some
19 Bosnian organisations?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This is why at the
21 beginning we identified the persons to whom it was sent. These were the
22 high-ranking officers in the Bosnian army, Jovan Divljak and Rasim Delic.
23 I think that Jovan Divljak, even though he has a Serb name, I
24 don't think that it is in dispute that he had joined the ranks of the
25 Bosnian army from the very beginning.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
2 Cross-examination on exhibit by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
3 Q. Mr. Dundjer, the source of this document is again this military
4 man that you mentioned?
5 A. Yes. Not a soldier. It was an officer.
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, in relation to the fact
7 that there is no date on the document and no signature, we for the moment
8 dispute the authenticity. However, we have sent this document last week
9 to the Bosnian government to verify it, because it may be as well possible
10 to clarify and find the original. Therefore, we would ask to delay the
11 decision until we get the information for this.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Bakrac, that seems to me to be reasonable.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
14 JUDGE HUNT: The source of these documents is, to say the least of
15 it, not great from your point of view. So the best that you can get, I
16 think, will be some sort of acknowledgment by the Bosnian authorities that
17 it is accurate.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And if I may just
19 say that -- perhaps I should say that I don't -- if I can stop apologising
20 every time we come across this document. But we would like to -- we
21 wanted to produce documents that could lead towards the -- discovering the
22 full truth, and it is copies of authentic documents.
23 Further Examination by Mr. Bakrac:
24 Q. Mr. Dundjer --
25 JUDGE HUNT: I think I should repeat, and I won't repeat it again,
1 the Trial Chamber is also very anxious to see that you get as much
2 evidence in as you can, but there must be some authenticity in relation to
3 them, and relying upon something which has obviously been stolen by some
4 renegade member of a Republika Srpska unit doesn't start at a very high
5 level of authenticity.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But this was the
7 best we could do in the given situation.
8 Q. Mr. Dundjer, will you now please move on to the document which was
9 numbered ID D12. Is this a typewritten document or is it a handwritten
11 A. This document is in handwriting.
12 Q. Does this document bearing a heading "Minutes 4"?
13 A. Yes, it is entitled "Minutes 4," and it has a date of April 30,
15 Q. This document is the minutes of what?
16 A. This is minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of the
17 Foca I Branch, held on that date I have just given you.
18 Q. In the preamble before the agenda, does it state that the meeting
19 was called to order by Sulejman Mehmedspahic?
20 A. Yes, it does say it was called to order by Sulejman Mehmedspahic,
21 who also proposed the agenda.
22 Q. And what is the agenda?
23 A. Political and security situation.
24 Q. And what were the conclusions that were adopted?
25 A. There were four conclusions. One is --
1 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment. Mr. Bakrac, don't invite him to read
2 it out to us. We do have the English translation here. We can read it
3 for ourselves. What we are anxious to know is its provenance.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Dundjer, is this -- are these minutes from the same source
6 from which we received the list of fighters and other documents?
7 A. Yes, from the same source.
8 Q. Were you explained what this document represented?
9 A. Yes. I was explained that these minutes, along with some other
10 documents which followed these minutes, were found in the town of Foca
11 during the combat operations, at the premises of the SDA party.
12 Q. This document, which has the date of 30th of April, 1991,
13 discusses issues of maintaining contact with the membership as much as
14 possible, the mutual -- exchange of mutual information, and tactics for
15 guarding the key structures?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was this document signed?
18 A. Yes, it was signed on both left and right-hand sides, but the
19 signatures are illegible.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence is tendering
21 this document along with some others which will show that this -- that
22 there was planning of armed struggle as early as 1990, and we would like
23 to tender this document in evidence.
24 JUDGE HUNT: The following document which the witness referred to
25 is on --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry. The following document which the witness
3 referred to is that numbered 13, is that right?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: May I suggest you take them together because they may
6 assist each other, bearing in mind for the first time we know from where
7 they were taken.
8 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour.
10 Cross-examination on exhibit by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
11 Q. May I pose a question to you, Mr. Dundjer. Did this source, this
12 military officer, did he tell you who found the document or the other
13 documents of similar nature? Who exactly found them?
14 A. It was found by the units.
15 Q. But he didn't tell you any person, any names that you could check
17 A. I must say something. I am an investigator in this case, and my
18 apologies to the Trial Chamber and to everybody else present in this
19 courtroom, but we've encountered enormous problems, not only in Foca, but
20 wherever we try to work in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are unable to get
21 documents, that is, officially. No institution -- the military police or
22 any other institution refuse to hand over any documents.
23 This is why the individuals who do provide assistance, who are
24 giving us documents, request that their anonymity be maintained, and this
25 is all that I can say. I cannot disclose their identity.
1 JUDGE HUNT: That's not what you're asking, as I understood,
2 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
4 JUDGE HUNT: You wanted to know if the witness could tell us who
5 picked the documents up from the SDA premises. I think he said it was a
6 unit, that was all.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: A unit and no name.
8 Your Honour, in relation to this situation, we cannot -- we have
9 to object against the authenticity of the document D12 and also D13
10 because nobody can verify the signatures, not even exactly the place where
11 it found and who found them. And I must also say in relation to the
12 Kunarac case, Mr. Prodanovic also presented these documents to us, and we
13 came to an agreement with him, not to tender them because he could not say
14 whose signature it was and what actually the circumstances were.
15 JUDGE HUNT: I don't know what the discussions were between you
16 and Mr. Prodanovic, but we now have a hearsay statement, that they were
17 picked up from the SDA premises in Foca. Admittedly, it's hearsay, but it
18 is some evidence that they were documents of what appear on their face to
19 be an official nature relating to the business of the party. And what the
20 Defence is attempting to prove here was the SDA, at least, was mobilising
21 forces well before the relevant date in April.
22 Now, the question of hearsay means less weight will be afforded to
23 them, but to get them into evidence, is that not a sufficient basis? What
24 weight they are given is a matter which will appear later.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay, we agree, Your Honour. We have no more
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 objections. It's a question of weight, then. Yes, thank you.
2 JUDGE HUNT: That's right, most certainly. Well, then, ID D12,
3 12A, 13, and 13A will be Exhibit D12, 12A, 13, and 13A.
4 Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Dundjer, regarding the documents which we just discussed, I
7 would also like you to go to the document marked ID D18 and please tell us
8 what that document is.
9 A. This is an interview by Halid Cengic to the newspaper Ljiljan,
10 that is, the magazine Ljiljan, dated 18 to 25 May.
11 Q. You said the magazine Ljiljan. Was it published in Sarajevo?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Does Mr. Cengic in this interview discuss the arming of Muslims in
14 Foca and the creation of the first military units?
15 A. Yes. In this document, Mr. Cengic in several places talks about
16 the procurement, the establishment of units, parades, and even mentions
17 particular formations which existed at particular times. He also mentions
18 names of people who were procuring weapons and who were arming people. I
19 can corroborate this statement by giving you several quotes, if necessary.
20 JUDGE HUNT: May I suggest you watch the translation as it comes
21 up on the screen, like we have told so many witnesses. Just wait for it
22 to finish.
23 But whilst you're about it, can you tell us something about this
24 magazine? Is it associated in some way with the SDA?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would not like it
1 to -- we would prefer not to be linked to the SDA. This is a magazine,
2 weekly published in the Bosnia-Croat federation in Sarajevo, and it is a
3 magazine in which on the 18th May 1998, Mr. Halid Cengic gave an
4 interview. He was discussing things that were going on in the Foca area
5 during that period, and if you will allow the witness to read a couple of
6 paragraphs, I think it will become very clear why the Defence is trying to
7 tender this document. With your permission, Your Honour, Mr. Dundjer will
8 read the part about the formation of the first unit in Foca municipality.
9 A. When asked when the first patriotically unit was established,
10 Mr. Halid Cengic says, "It was established on the 1st of August, 1990. We
11 had a platoon which was defending Focatrans. It was armed with small arms
12 weapon, a machine-gun, and a mortar."
13 THE INTERPRETER: Can we get the reference where the witness is
14 reading from, please?
15 JUDGE HUNT: Can you identify at least on the B/C/S version where
16 you're reading from? The interpreters have to be able to follow this as
17 well. I wouldn't mind knowing where it was on the English translation so
18 I can mark it.
19 A. This is in the B/C/S version, it's on page 46, and then after that
20 is Halid Cengic's response.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Just a moment, Your Honour, so we can find it in
22 the English translation, please.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I can assist, it's on
24 page 5 of the English version, the last paragraph.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
1 THE INTERPRETER: And the translation is: "At the time of
2 defending Focatrans, already on August 1, 1990, we had a platoon armed
3 with automatic weapons, a machine-gun and a mortar. They all had
4 camouflage uniforms and they pledged their allegiance in the Ustikolina
5 mosque, with their hands on the Koran. The deceased Husein Cavrk, a BH
6 Army major decorated with a Golden Lily award was the unit commander. He
7 was killed on Preljuca near Gorazde. Kemo Karisik inspected this unit
8 while it was still a company, in September 1991."
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Does Mr. Cengic mention another person from Foca who was involved
11 in arming Muslims in this article?
12 A. Yes. The person mentioned in his interview is Husein Sahinpasic,
13 called Saja.
14 Q. Very briefly, what does Mr. Hasan Cengic say in his interview in
15 that regard?
16 A. He said about him --
17 JUDGE HUNT: Page, please.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in English,
19 Mr. Sahinpasic is mentioned on page 5. That is correct, it is page 5,
20 first paragraph.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Let's expedite the matter. Does Mr. Cengic mention
24 Mr. Sahinpasic, Saja, as involved in providing weapons to the Muslims in
1 A. Yes. He did participate in the sense that he -- with the
2 assistance of certain individuals from Focatrans, was taking men,
3 providing -- procuring weapons, and delivering them with different kinds
4 of problems.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dundjer.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Defence tenders this exhibit,
7 that is, the interview by Mr. Cengic.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Exhibit ID D18 and 18A will become Exhibits D18
11 and 18A.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Dundjer, I would like you to go very briefly to ID D17 and
14 tell us very briefly what it is.
15 A. The ID D17 is an interview of Senad Sahinpasic, called Saja, also
16 published in Ljiljan magazine on 2nd August, 1999.
17 Q. Again, very briefly, does he, too, admit to the fact of providing
18 weapons to -- for the Muslims in Foca?
19 A. Yes. He says verbatim, "I did provide weapons to my people at a
20 time when it seemed nearly impossible."
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence tenders
22 this exhibit into evidence.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. ID D17 and 17A will be Exhibits D17 and
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Dundjer, would you be so kind as to look at a document ID D19.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you tell us what that document refers to?
6 A. This is a certificate issued by the Crisis Staff of the Muslims in
7 Croatia and with providing aid to Bosnia and Herzegovina in terms of war.
8 It is numbered 147/92, and dated 14 April, 1992. It was signed by the
9 President of the Crisis Staff, H. Sefko Omerbasic. It is signed and
10 stamped, and it confirms that the driver named Damir Novak be enabled to
11 drive a vehicle. It is a truck, and the registration plate number is
12 ZG732-725, and details that he's transporting equipment including weapons,
13 explosives, radio transmitter, as well as humanitarian aid including food,
14 medicine, and clothing along the route specified in the body of text, that
15 is, from Zagreb to Rijeka, Split, Posusje, Imotski, Jablanica, and
16 Konjic. That is the itinerary.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dundjer.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Defence tenders -- would like to
19 tender this document into evidence.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Can you read to us, and it will be translated then,
21 what is said in the rubber stamp?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes. The rubber says: "The Crisis
23 Staff of the Muslims in Croatia for the aid to Bosnia-Herzegovina in times
24 of war," and it says: "Zagreb," address, "Tomasiceva 12," and it has a
25 crescent moon and a star in the middle.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objection, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Those will be Exhibits D19 and D19/A.
4 It seems a good time. Very well. We'll adjourn now until 9.30 in
5 the morning.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.00 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day
8 of May, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.