1 Monday, 17 July 2000
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 a.m.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. The registrar please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case IT-96-23-T, IT-96-23/1-T,
7 Prosecutor versus Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac, and Zoran Vukovic.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is sitting with two Judges because
9 Judge Pocar is unable to sit with us this morning for urgent personal
10 reasons. So we are proceeding under Rule 15 bis. The proceedings will
12 We are continuing with the Defence case, I take it. Yes,
13 Mr. Prodanovic?
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
15 Thank you, Your Honour. At our last hearing, we took upon ourselves the
16 obligation to translate part of the video cassette that we are going to
17 have viewed. That is part of D90. We have translated this short section,
18 and we would like to ask the usher to have the translation distributed to
19 all so that we could hear what the First War Commander has to say in
20 respect of who was commander.
21 I would like to note that this is evidence that we have received
22 as exculpatory evidence from our colleagues from the Prosecution.
23 I would kindly like to ask the technical people to play the video
24 cassette concerned.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please. Yes. We can go ahead and view that
1 part of the video.
2 [Videotape played]
3 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] All their dreams will be shattered by
4 the units of Predrag Trivun, Ljubisa Dostic, Nade Radovic, Kosta
5 Kujundzic, Petar Dunjic. Stop, please. Dragan Dzurovic, Nedeljko
6 Vukadinovic, and other officers.
7 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] So that is the part of the
8 cassette that we had in mind.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like this
11 footage to be tendered into evidence as well, in addition to that part of
12 the cassette that has already been admitted.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is of the view that since
14 this is evidence, as you say, which was given to you by the Prosecution as
15 exculpatory for the Defence, the Trial Chamber would like to have the
16 whole of the tape transcribed so that we have a transcript of the whole
18 You were asking that you would like this part of the tape to be
19 admitted into evidence? I can't remember what you said.
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, because we
21 thought that this was relevant as far as the accused Kunarac is concerned,
22 command responsibility, but ...
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution, no objection?
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Could we have the formal number, please, from the
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] So this other part of the tape
3 will be D92. It will be a Defence Exhibit.
4 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before we move on to
5 the next exhibit, the Defence would like it to be stated that as we've
6 read the transcript when expert Radovan Radinovic gave his answers, on
7 page 4803, line 20, I think that a mistake was made in the interpretation,
8 and we consider this to be of utmost importance.
9 In that line, the expert said that, "A lance corporal is a
10 soldier's rank in the system of command, it is ..." et cetera, et cetera.
11 However, the English version said that it was a military rank and that
12 changes the meaning of it all completely. So instead of the word
13 "military," "military rank," we believe it should say "soldier's rank,"
14 "soldier's" rather than "military," "vojnicki" rather than "vojni."
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Is that all?
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Before we move
17 on to the next witness --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I just wanted to make sure that was the only
19 interpretation problem you're raising.
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber would like to ask the Registry to
22 check against the audio tape for the correct interpretation, please. That
23 can be done later.
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes. That will be done, Your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
13 and the French transcripts.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: We can move on. Mr. Prodanovic.
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We would
3 like this part of our hearing to be in closed session, and it has to do
4 with the witness that will come now. As you know, we have not sought
5 protective measures for the witnesses that will be coming. However, it so
6 turned out that the two witnesses that will be coming now have had certain
7 problems, and, therefore, they have required protective measures.
8 Therefore, we ask for private session so that I could clarify these
9 matters a bit more for you.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Madam Registrar, can we go into private
11 session, please.
12 [Private session]
13 page 4942 redacted – private session
13 page 4943 redacted – private session
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session now.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your
16 permission, the witness will appear both as an investigator, and after
17 that we would like to identify some documents through him. We also wanted
18 to hear him as a fact witness with regard to certain matters. We didn't
19 find anything in the rules prohibiting that, so to speak. We wrote it
21 We have his CV here, and we would like to have this distributed to
22 the Chamber, to the registry, and to the Office of the Prosecutor.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the witness sworn in, please.
24 Good morning, Witness. Please make your solemn declaration.
25 WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Please sit down.
3 Since he has got a screen, can we have some of the blinds lifted,
5 While that is going on, we can go ahead with what you were saying.
6 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to inform the
7 witness that he will be addressed as DA.
8 WITNESS: Witness DA
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the usher.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note: Could the interpreters
12 please get copies.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic, you said you have his CV also
14 written down?
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] For this witness? No, not for
16 this witness. But during his testimony --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: There will be some documents. Okay. Fine.
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. As far as the
19 CV of this witness is concerned, no. Through this witness, Your Honour,
20 we will try to put some documents into evidence. Some will be admitted,
21 others will not be admitted, but we'll try to identify them.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Could we have the number for this
23 document, please, Madam Registrar?
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will be D93, as a
25 Defence Exhibit, and it will be under seal.
1 Examined by Mr. Prodanovic:
2 Q. Witness DA, please -- yes. Witness DA, you have received a piece
3 of paper now. Could you please tell us, concerning the first line -- can
4 you hear what I'm saying?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In the first line, is this your name and surname?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In the second line, is this your date of birth?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And in line number 3, is this the place of your birth?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you please tell us whether you are familiar with the
13 Kunarac, Kovac, Vukovic case?
14 A. Yes, I am, because I worked as an investigator for the Defence,
15 for the Defence of Dragoljub Kunarac and Zoran Vukovic.
16 Q. In that capacity, did you collect evidence as well as witness
18 A. All the evidence material that I submitted to you and that was
19 submitted to the court and the Prosecution was collected by me personally,
20 and I personally also collected all the witness statements for the court.
21 Q. Since you took part in the collection and processing of certain
22 materials, can you explain each and every document to us or every
23 potential exhibit?
24 A. Yes, I can.
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have submitted
1 three binders to the Chamber, the Registry, and the Prosecutor. We will
2 start with the first binder, which bears our number 64.
3 Q. I would like to ask you to look at these documents numbered 64 and
4 tell us what they represent.
5 A. This document is a copy of the Katastar map of the settlement
6 called Prijeka Carsija in Foca, where during the combat operations in 1992
7 certain buildings were destroyed. Here you see the names of the owners of
8 these buildings which were burned.
9 Q. Please, the next document, number 65.
10 A. Document 65 is the statute of the Srbinje municipality, the
11 general act of the work organisation based on which the council of the
12 Foca municipality introduced extraordinary measures in Focatrans.
13 Q. Documents 66 and 67.
14 A. These acts are amendments to the statute of Foca municipality.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic, before you ask your witness to
16 describe or discuss a document, can you just give us the formal heading of
17 the document so that we can follow?
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I expected the
19 witness to do this, and I will ask him to do so. He will read the title
20 of the document and explain the meaning of each.
21 Q. Will you please look at document 68. Can you please tell us what
22 it is?
23 A. Document 68 is the Act of Foca Municipality Working Group of the
24 Executive Council, the Executive Board. This is the brief on the
25 situation and events in the Focatrans carrier company.
1 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Is this enough, Your Honour?
2 JUDGE HUNT: Unfortunately, Mr. Prodanovic, there are no page
3 numbers in these files. I've come across, about halfway through the file,
4 a document numbered 66, which the heading in English is Decision on the
5 Amendments and Supplements to the Statute of the Municipality of Foca.
6 Now, have you got to that part of it yet? All the rest of it seems to be
7 an English and B/C/S version of a statute.
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document
9 numbered 66, it's a decision introducing amendments to the statute of the
10 Foca municipality, dated December 1989. The next document is also the
11 decision to amend this statute of Foca municipality, dated 6 June 1991.
12 So those are the --
13 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry to interrupt, but let's get one document at
14 a time. The one that I said was numbered 66, in pencil, is a decision of
15 the joint session of the Municipality Assembly of Foca of the 30th of
16 December, 1981.
17 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The joint
18 assembly. At that time, it was still the joint assembly.
19 JUDGE HUNT: But is that the document that you're referring to?
20 Because you said December 1989. This one is the 30th of December, 1981.
21 Now, is that the one that you are taking the witness to at the moment?
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, here I have the date
23 of 29 December 1989.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we ask the Prosecution, do they have this
25 document? What date is there, please?
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the problem arises from the fact
2 that the dates in the English translation are different from the dates in
3 the B/C/S version. On the translation it says December 30, 1981, but when
4 I look into B/C/S version, I see 29 December 1989. Actually, there is a
6 JUDGE HUNT: But it's the same document, is it?
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: As I cannot read the B/C/S properly, I can
8 only assume that it's the same document, and the translation may be -- no,
9 I can't really find out.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic, these are your documents. Please,
11 can you give the Trial Chamber the correct date? There could be a typing
12 error either in the B/C/S or the English, but you should know your
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The exact date
15 in the B/C/S version is the 29th of December, 1989. We have obviously a
16 mistake in the English translation, because it says 30th of December,
17 1981. It's an evident mistake.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: So the correct date is 1989?
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. The 29 December 1989 is the
20 correct date.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we leave this document, D-66.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, from the Prosecution.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think it's actually two different documents
25 because attached to this is also a document with a completely different
1 date, so I really wonder if there is -- by mistake, if the documents were
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the last page of
4 this document, we have a date. It says 29th. But in the English version,
5 the date is mistaken; it says 30th, 1981. So it's an obvious typing
7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right, then. We'll take the date you have given
8 the Trial Chamber as the correct one.
9 Now, since the witness is referring to these documents, can we
10 have the formal numbering, for D66, Madam Registrar, just for
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 66 will have the number
13 of D94 as Defence Exhibit.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: And 67, can we have the formal number, please?
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 67 will receive the
16 number of D95 as Defence Exhibit.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Please note that these are not yet exhibits; they're
18 just numbered for identification purposes.
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what we asked for at
20 the beginning.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Document 68 has been explained.
23 Can we receive an identification number for document 68?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Madam Registrar, please.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 68 will have the number
1 of D96.
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. The next document is number 71. Can you explain to us what this
5 A. It's the act of the Veteran's Association of Republika Srpska, the
6 Municipality Veteran's Association of Foca, giving data on the number of
7 killed -- persons killed on the territory of Foca Srbinje from 1992 to
8 1995 inclusive, and the number of wounded persons for the same period.
9 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we get an identification
10 number for this document?
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will be numbered
13 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The next document, number 74, will you please look at it and
15 comment? It is an order.
16 A. I do not have a copy of this document.
17 Q. We'll go to the next document. Can you comment on the next
18 document? 77 is its number.
19 A. This document is a photocopy of the driving permit of a vehicle
20 which was used to transport some girls from Celinac to Foca. It's a
21 traffic permit, actually.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: This is the document 77. It's so dark, the copies
23 we have are so dark, I wonder whether you have a clean copy?
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we hope that we will
25 have this document in the original once the witness appears who was
1 connected to this vehicle.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] We tried to have a clean copy,
4 but it is an old document, and we didn't manage. I hope to get the
6 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have a formal number, please, for
7 identification purposes?
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 77 will be identified as
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Please look at the document 82.
12 A. This act is the final report and the work of a provisional organ
13 for the execution of measures of social protection concerning relative to
14 the Focatrans holding company, carrier company.
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we get an identification
16 number for this?
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please, Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document number 82 will be
19 numbered D99.
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Before I switch to the next
21 document, I'm not sure whether the first document, 64, got an
22 identification number. It was a copy of a Katastar plan.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I don't think so. That is D64. Can we have the
24 identification number, please?
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document, 64, will receive
1 identification number D100.
2 I think the same problem occurs with document 65. This document,
3 65, will be D101.
4 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Please go on to document 83.
6 A. This document is an excerpt from the minutes from the discussion
7 of workers of Focatrans from year 1990.
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] 30th March, 1990. Can we get an
9 identification number for this?
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have a number, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 83 will now be numbered
13 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Please comment on document 84. What is it?
15 A. This is a decision of the Associated Labour Court of the first --
16 21st of August, 1990, remanding the decisions of the Council of Associated
17 Labour introducing extraordinary measures to Focatrans Carrier Company.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] D103.
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could you please comment on document 85 for us?
21 A. This document is a decision passed by the Council of Associated
22 Labour of the Municipal Assembly of Foca on the 7th of June of 1990 in
23 order to establish the existence of conditions for taking provisional
24 measures of social protection in the Focatrans Company.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will be numbered
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. The next document is number 86. Could you please tell us what it
5 A. This is also a decision of the Council of Associated Labour of the
6 Municipal Assembly of Foca of the 16th of July, 1990, on taking temporary
7 measures of social protection vis-a-vis the carrier company of Focatrans
8 in Foca.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 86 will be numbered D105.
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could you please comment on document 88.
12 A. This document is an enactment of the Presidency of the Serb
13 republic from the 19th of August, 1992. It represents an order to carry
14 out a detailed investigation and to identify the perpetrators of the
15 five-fold killing of the civilian municipal population in the municipality
16 of the --
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the name of the
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document number 88 will be
20 numbered D106.
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. The next document is number 89.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Sorry, before you proceed, the interpreters said
24 that they did not hear the last name, "the civilian municipal population
25 in the municipality of the ...," the last part they didn't understand.
1 The interpreters did not pick it up.
2 A. Celinac.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
4 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. The next document is 89. Can you tell us what it represents?
6 A. This document is a document of the Ministry of the Interior of the
7 public security station of Srbinje of the 10th of February, 2000, in which
8 it is noted that through the records of identification cards issued by
9 this centre there are 12 persons with the name and surname of "Zoran
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 89 will be numbered
13 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The next document is number 90.
15 A. This document was issued by the Serb Democratic Party, the
16 municipal committee of the SDS of Srbinje, on the 21st of January, 2000.
17 This document certificates that Zoran Vukovic, from Srbinje, born on the
18 6th of September, 1955, in Foca, was never a member of the Serb Democratic
19 Party of Republika Srpska.
20 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 90 will be numbered
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please look at document 94 now. So now we're moving on
24 to the second binder.
25 A. This document constitutes findings, assessment, and decision of a
1 medical commission from the 24th May, 1995, mentioning that Kovac Milenka
2 Radomir is incapable of military service.
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 94 will be numbered
5 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The next document is numbered 95.
7 A. Document 95 is a document that was issued by the Regional Medical
8 Centre in the street of Proleterskih Brigada, the General Memorial
9 Hospital of Foca. This is a letter of discharge in the name of Radomir
10 Kovac. It states that the above-mentioned person was hospitalised from
11 the 25th of December until the 29th of December, 1992.
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document 95 will be numbered
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. The next document is document D96.
16 A. This document is a document of military post code 7141 from
17 September 1993. This is a certificate that Kovac Milenka Radomir, from
18 Foca, as a member of the army of Republika Srpska in the war unit of the
19 Dragan Nikolic Independent Detachment, was wounded on the 24th of
20 December, 1992, in Repetitor Oscanica.
21 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 96 will be numbered
23 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Document 97.
25 A. This document is also that document of military post code 7141.
1 It is dated the 2nd of June, 2000. This is a certificate stating that on
2 the basis of existing records, Radomir Kovac participated in military
3 operations in Foca from the 17th of April, 1992 within the independent
4 detachment of Dragan Nikolic.
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 97 will be numbered
7 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The next document is a document that is numbered 103.
9 A. This document is called a certificate, and it was issued by the
10 elementary school of Sveti Sava in Srbinje on the 21st of October, 1998.
11 In this document, it is stated that in the register of the Borisa
12 Kovacevic Elementary School in Jabuka, there is no mention of a teacher in
13 that school by the name of Dragoljub Kunarac, nicknamed Zaga.
14 Q. Could you explain why this document was important for you?
15 A. I obtained this document at the request of the Defence counsel for
16 the accused Dragoljub Kunarac in relation to the testimony of Witness 31.
17 She mentioned that the accused Dragoljub Kunarac was, before the war, a
18 teacher at this school.
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 103 will be numbered
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could you please look at document 104.
23 A. This document is a document of the executive council of the
24 municipality of Kalinovik, and this document is dated the 11th of May,
25 1992. In this way, the executive council passed a decision on the
1 establishment of a commission to take in refugees in the municipality of
2 Kalinovik. It's barely legible, this copy.
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document 104 will be numbered
5 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The next document --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we leave this document, the copy I have, that
8 is, D114, on the top it says, "On the basis of Article XIX, decision on
9 the executive board of Kalinovik community, the executive board of
10 Kalinovik community, a decision held on 11th May, 1999." Now, at the
11 bottom of the document, after Article VII, the date is 11th May, 1992,
12 which was mentioned by the witness. Can we just have an explanation,
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] An obvious mistake, Your Honour,
15 in the translation.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: So it should be 1992 at the top, is it?
17 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, just as it says on the last
18 page. It is obvious that on the last page, it says the 11th of May, 1992,
19 in the English version, I mean.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. It is important to clarify the dates,
21 because sometimes a turning point may be on the date.
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree with you.
23 Q. The next document is numbered 105.
24 A. This document is a document of the Crisis Staff of the Kalinovik
25 municipality on the programme of work of the Crisis Staff for taking in
1 and returning refugees in the territory of the municipality of Kalinovik.
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 105 will be numbered
4 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. The next document is the document numbered 108.
6 A. This document is a request to institute proceedings by the
7 prosecutor's office in Srbinje, from the 24th of August, 1994, against
8 three persons of Muslim ethnicity for war crimes committed against the
9 civilian population in the municipality of Foca.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the formal number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 105 will be number D116.
12 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Could you please comment on document 109?
14 A. This document is a certificate of military post code 7141 from
15 1995 confirming that Kunarac, Alexsa Dragoljub, born in 1960 in Foca, was
16 wounded on the 14th of June, 1995, as he took part in combat operations in
17 the region of Velika Biserna.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 109 will be numbered
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The next document is number 110. Could you please tell us what
22 this is?
23 A. This document is a statement given by Edin Mujagic, citizen Eden
24 Mujagic, to the authorised personnel of the public security station of
25 Trebinje, the public security station of Foca, concerning the arming of
1 the Muslim population in the area of Podrinje before the war conflict
2 broke out.
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 110 will be numbered
5 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The next document is document 111. Could you please tell us what
7 it is?
8 A. These documents are excerpts from the minutes on the questioning
9 of detained members of the BH army.
10 Q. I beg your pardon, 111. Are we looking at the same document?
11 A. Yes, these are excerpts from the minutes from the hearing they had
12 with the investigative judge in Bileca.
13 Q. Do you also have a request to carry out an investigation?
14 A. No, I just have excerpts from the questioning of the detained
16 Q. Are these the same persons?
17 A. Yes, these are the same persons.
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] This document is obviously
19 incomplete. We, Your Honour, have a request to carry out an
20 investigation, but our investigator doesn't have a copy of that. He only
21 has the statements annexed to this document.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: So, what do you intend to do? Just how -- which
23 means 111, your numbering -- is it 117? -- isn't complete in the documents
24 that the witness has.
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: So, what's your decision, then?
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Our decision is to have this
3 identified. The witness knows what this is about. The Chamber and the
4 Prosecutor have this document, and the witness knows what this is about,
5 because what the witness has now are the annexed statements to the
6 document that we have.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Can we have a number, please, for
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 111 will be numbered
11 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Please look at document 114.
13 A. This is the request to carry out an investigation against three
14 members of the BH army. It was instituted by the Prosecutor's Office of
15 Srbinje on the 4th of October, 1994, for war crimes against the wounded
16 and patients, under Article 143 of the penal code of Republika Srpska.
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 114 will be document
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Please comment on document 115B [Realtime transcript read in error
22 A. This document is also a request to start an investigation by the
23 Prosecutor's Office of the municipality of Srbinje on the 3rd of August,
24 1994, against 26 persons, members of the BH army, for war crimes committed
25 against the civilian population under Article 142 of the penal code of
1 Republika Srpska, Article 142, paragraph 1.
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will be D121.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Document --
5 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment. It should be document 115B, not 120
6 as the transcript has it at line 5.
7 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] For clarification, document 115B
9 will be numbered D121.
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. The next document is 115C.
12 A. This is the minutes drawn up on the 20th December 1992 by
13 operational workers of the public security centre of Trebinje of the
14 public security station of Foca, on crimes committed against the civilian
15 population in the area of the villages of the local community of Josanica.
16 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 115C will be identified
17 as D122.
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The next document is 115F.
20 A. This is a statement given by citizen Mamko Bungur to the
21 authorised officers of the public security station of Cajnice on the 18th
22 of February, 1993, and this statement refers to the arming of the Muslim
23 people in the area of Donje Podrinje.
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 115F will be identified
25 as D123.
1 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. The next document is 115G.
3 A. These are the minutes on the interrogation of a witness Mara
4 Micevic given to the investigative judge of the lower court of Srbinje
5 regarding war crimes committed in the municipality of Foca by members of
6 the BH army.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE MUMBA: We don't seem to have the translation from the
10 THE INTERPRETER: These documents -- I'm sorry, Interpreter's
11 mistake. I didn't turn on the mike.
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] These documents --
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I will repeat. Document 115G will
14 be identified as document D24 [sic].
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document was --
16 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] 115G will be identified as D124.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document was 115H.
19 A. This document is a photocopy of documents on Muslim crimes
20 committed in the area of Foca municipality in the period from the 4th of
21 May to the 20th December 1992.
22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 115H will be identified
23 as D125.
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document --
25 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment, Mr. Prodanovic. We've got a page
1 numbered 115H which has seven lines of type. I'm not sure that that
2 fulfils the description which the witness gave to it.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what we are
4 discussing is the photo indictment. These are photographs of civilians
5 killed by the BH army. That is what the witness talked about.
6 JUDGE HUNT: So it's the -- all the photostat material which
7 follows the page, including the typed in B/C/S, or just the photographs?
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are only
9 photographs here. Photos are accompanied by text which is not translated,
10 so these are only photos.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: So these seven lines we have on 115H should be
12 struck out, out of the document identified, since you are saying that they
13 are only photos?
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in addition to
15 photographs, there is also text which is -- which has not been
16 translated. The text contains the names of the persons killed, but they
17 are an integral part of this photo indictment.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Yes, you may proceed.
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The next document is 116.
21 A. This document is the request to institute an investigation by the
22 lower court in Srbinje and the prosecutor's office in Srbinje, on the
23 3rd of July, 1997, against 20 members of the BH army for crimes committed
24 against the civilian population.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 116 will be identified as
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. The next document is 118.
4 A. That is a request to start an investigation, submitted by the
5 principal Prosecutor's office in Srbinje to the lower court in Srbinje on
6 the 4th of August, 1994 against Sead Prazina, also a member of the BH
7 army, for war crimes against the civilian population.
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 118 will be identified as
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The documents that follow are 126
11 to 157. For practical purposes, shall they receive one single
12 identification number or shall we treat them as separate documents?
13 Q. Could you just tell us what these are?
14 A. These are judgements. All these documents are judgements of
15 courts from the territory of the former Yugoslavia for rapes.
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, shall we go document
17 by document or shall these judgements receive one single identification
18 number or shall we go one by one?
19 JUDGE MUMBA: We need confirmation here. The witness said that
20 these are judgements on cases of rape. All of them?
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all these judgements
22 refer to cases of rapes but from different courts from the territory of
23 the former Yugoslavia.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: For which years?
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Shall they be identified by what
1 number or not?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. We just want to see whether it's necessary to
3 have them at all, whether they are relevant. Can you just tell us for
4 which dates do they cover, and are they for different persons or one and
5 the same person?
6 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course it refers
7 to different persons. Some are from before the war and some refer to
8 cases which happened during the war.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HUNT: Are these being tendered eventually as being relevant
11 to the pattern of sentencing in Yugoslavia? Is that what it's all about?
12 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. As you are
13 aware, we have suggested to hear the testimony of an expert, Bejatovic,
14 who will talk about judgement practices concerning this crime.
15 These judgements will just support his testimony, which will be
16 proved or not. That's why we believe these judgements are relevant. They
17 go to show how the courts of the former Yugoslavia treated this particular
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Then we can have them grouped together.
20 Can we have one number, please?
21 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Documents 126 to 157 will be
22 identified as D128.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please proceed.
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. The next document is number 159.
1 A. This is a certificate issued by the Ministry of Defence section of
2 Srbinje, from the 15th of June, 2000, stating that Zoran Milojica, born in
3 1959 [As interpreted], is a member of -- is a driver, a driver in the
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document 159 will be
6 identified as D129.
7 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Document 160.
9 A. This is a certificate issued by the Municipal Veterans'
10 Association of Srbinje on the 16th of June, Year 2000, confirming that
11 Zoran Vukovic, son of Drago, born on the 8th of May, 1966 in Foca, was
12 killed in combat operations in Racici.
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 160 will be identified as
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Document 161.
17 A. This is an excerpt from the Penal Code of the Federation of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Article 4 envisages that for -- the perpetrator
19 of the crime will be subject to a law which was valid at the time the
20 crime was committed. If after the commission of the crime the law happens
21 to change once or more times, the law which is more favourable to the
22 perpetrator will apply.
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document 161 will be
24 identified as D131.
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Document 162.
2 A. This is a certificate issued by the Municipal Council of the
3 Serbian Democratic Party of Srbinje on the 20th of January, 2000,
4 confirming that Radomir Kovac, born in 1961 in Foca, has never been a
5 member of the Serbian Democratic Party.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document 161 will be
7 identified as D132.
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have only three
9 documents to tender into evidence left. Perhaps this is a good moment to
10 go to a break, and after that, we can ask a few more questions of this
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will break now and continue our proceedings
13 at 11.30 hours this morning.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.31 a.m.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic, examination-in-chief continues.
17 Yes, Ms. Lopicic?
18 MS. LOPICIC: During the break I read the transcript and I found
19 one mistake in the transcript on page 29 of my laptop, line 12 and 13, in
20 connection with a document 159. It says, "Stating the Zoran Milojica born
21 in 1959." It should be Zoran Vukovic Milojica, and Zoran Vukovic Milojica
22 is born in 1955. I guess that was an error in typing. That's line number
23 12 and number 13, page 29 of the transcript.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic, is that the correct information?
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We have
1 checked the document and it is obviously an error.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lopicic. Yes, please
4 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour We have
5 come to document number 163. Could you please say a few words about that
7 A. This is a certificate of the Serbian Radical Party of the
8 Municipal Board of Srbinje certifying that Radomir, father's name Milenko
9 Kovac is not a member of the Serbian Radical Army of the Republika Srpska.
10 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 163 will be identified as
12 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Document 164.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no translation of the registrar's numbering
14 of document 163, please.
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 163 will be identified as
17 JUDGE MUMBA: There seems to be a technical problem. We can't get
18 interpretation in English. Can the witness repeat the description of this
20 A. Yes, I can. Is it possible? Can you hear me?
21 It is a certificate. By checking the records, it has been
22 established that Radomir Kovac, father's name Milenko from Srbinje, born
23 on the 31st of March, 1961, in Foca, is not a member of the Serbian
24 Radical Party of the Republika Srpska. Srbinje, dated 11th of February,
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. You may proceed.
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Document 164.
4 A. This document is a certificate issued by the centre for public
5 security in Foca on the 13th of April, year 2000. This certifies that
6 Radomir Kovac, born on the 31st of March, 1961, in the town of Foca,
7 father's name Milenko, mother's name Stanojka, does not have a criminal
8 record in this centre. In other words, he has no previous convictions.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Document 164 will be identified as
11 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] These are all the documents that
12 we submitted to you, to the Court. In the meantime we have obtained
13 another document, and we would like this document to be identified. I
14 have a sufficient number of copies here, and I would like to ask the
15 assistance ...
16 Q. Could you please comment on this document?
17 A. Yes, I can. This document is a certificate issued by the military
18 post office, 7141, on the 4th of July, year 2000. This document certified
19 that the independent platoon Dragan Nikolic was active as part of the
20 tactical group Foca in combat operations during the year 1992. This
21 certificate furthermore certifies that Radomir Kovac is part of the Dragan
22 Nikolic independent platoon, took part in combat operations in the area of
23 Zebine Sume in the period from the 19th of December, 1992, until the 24th
24 of December, 1992, when he was wounded and sent to Foca to receive medical
25 treatment where he was until the 25th of December, 1992.
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will be marked as
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] These are all the documents that
4 I have. I have a few more questions of this witness, so with your
5 permission, I would like to ask them now.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please. You can proceed.
7 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Could you please tell us, what was the -- what is the ethnic
9 backgrounds of members of your family?
10 A. My close family members belong to various ethnic backgrounds. My
11 sister is married to a man who is not a Serb, and my brother is married to
12 a non-Serb woman.
13 Q. Before the outbreak of the war, could you please tell us, what
14 were the inter-ethnic relations in Foca like?
15 A. The inter-ethnic relations were very good. At that time the
16 slogan that was widely used was that, "We all lived together in
17 brotherhood and unity." No difference was ever made. People were not
18 distinguished on the basis of their religion or ethnic background, and I
19 can say with certainty that all people were in mixed company. And the
20 people that I associated with, these people were also of mixed ethnic
21 background. I can say that I associated more with persons of Muslim
22 ethnic background than with persons of Serbian ethnic background.
23 There were quite a few mixed marriages, and also there were a lot
24 of instances in which people of different ethnic backgrounds were sponsors
25 or godfathers to other people.
1 Q. When, in your view, did the ethnic relation -- inter-ethnic
2 relations deteriorate for the first time?
3 A. The inter-ethnic relations between Serbs and Muslims began to cool
4 off in our town two years before the outbreak of the war, in early March,
5 1990, with the big scandal that occurred in the Focatrans Company.
6 Q. At the time of the scandal, can you tell us, where were you
8 A. At that time, I was the manager of a state authority. In our
9 legal system, it was the state administration organ.
10 Q. Does that mean that you knew a lot about the scandal in Focatrans
11 because of your job?
12 A. Yes, the basic jurisdiction of the organ in which I was employed
13 was to safeguard the rights and interests of the state of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina and its organs before courts and other state organs. So I was
15 involved in the Focatrans Company scandal ex officio.
16 Q. Can you tell us, did this scandal divide the population in Foca?
17 A. Surely it did.
18 Q. Can you tell us what happened in the scandal which, as you have
19 just said, divided the people in Foca?
20 A. The scandal started in the company, and it began with an ordinary
21 strike. At that time, such strikes in the republic as a whole and in the
22 Foca municipality were quite numerous, and we all thought, when the strike
23 began, that this was just an ordinary strike action launched by the
25 Q. At the beginning, in the very first days, was this the way it
1 actually was?
2 A. I think for the first five or seven days, workers of Muslim and
3 Serbian ethnic background took part in the strike together.
4 Q. Can you tell us what demand was put forward by the workers?
5 A. The workers' demands were to increase the salary of all the
6 workers by 50 per cent; to replace the general manager, Mr. Murid, who was
7 a Muslim by nationality; to replace the manager of the financial service,
8 Momcilo Markovic, and the manager of the work unit transport Sefko
10 Q. Can you tell us, what are the ethnic backgrounds of Momcilo
11 Markovic and Sefko Curevac?
12 A. Mr. Markovic was a Serb and Mr. Curevac was a Muslim.
13 Q. You said this was a joint strike action. Can you tell us, who was
14 the leader of the strikers?
15 A. I have already told you that at the beginning it was a joint
16 strike, and after five to seven days, as I have already said, the Muslim
17 workers withdrew and Serbian workers continued to strike and 15 Muslim
18 workers also continued to strike. It lasted for three or five days, when
19 the other Muslim workers --
20 Q. You missed the point of my question. I will come to that.
21 A. I did understand what you were getting at, but I wanted to answer.
22 Q. When I asked who led the strike, I wanted to know whether there
23 was a strikers' committee there?
24 A. Yes, I understood your question, and I was just about to get to
25 that. The workers were led by the strikers' committee, which put forward
1 the demands to the competent state authorities on behalf of the workers.
2 Q. The demands that you just listed, were those the demands put
3 forward by the strikers' committee representing the workers?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. Can you please tell us, what was the composition of the strikers'
6 committee like?
7 A. The strikers' committee had eight members. Four members of the
8 strikers' committee were Serbs and four were Muslims.
9 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have
10 identified -- marked for identification an exhibit that was marked by the
11 Registry as 96. We would like to tender it into evidence because this
12 document, which was drafted by a state organ, describes the chronology of
13 events in this scandal.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Whereabouts is D96? It's not in the order of the
15 documents that were numbered.
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 68, number 68. It's
17 in the first book.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have clarification? You are saying that this
19 document describes the events regarding the strike or the events that led
20 to the strike or exactly whereabouts in the events of Focatrans?
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document
22 describes the chronology of the events in the strike, how the strike
23 developed, how it began, and how it proceeded.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution, any objection?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We would like to know what the relevance of
1 the document is. According to the trial issues, we do not see where the
2 relevance is. The witness has told us that the tension in Foca started
3 with the Focatrans affair, but I think that should be enough.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you led from a number of witnesses all about
5 this strike. I wondered what the relevance was at the time. But having
6 led it, are you not inviting the Defence to produce similarly irrelevant
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We do not object against the use of it. We
9 would like to hear the relevance.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Prodanovic, what is the relevance of all of
12 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards these
13 facts, we heard several witnesses that the Prosecution called. Some said
14 that it was the Serbs who wanted to take over Focatrans and that that was
15 the key point or the deterioration of inter-ethnic relations. In view of
16 the overall situation, when we see whether there was a systematic attack
17 on the civilian population, we think that this document is also relevant.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HUNT: Can you tell me something about the executive council
20 working group of the executive board of the Foca community assembly? Was
21 it some sort of representative organisation?
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was a working
23 group that was established by the executive council of the Municipal
24 Assembly of Foca, that is to say, the government of Foca, which at that
25 time was multi-ethnic. This affair went beyond local territory.
1 With your permission, may I say that in this way: Through these
2 documents, we want to bring into question the credibility of Prosecution
3 witnesses that spoke about the Focatrans affair.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has decided that it will be
5 admitted into evidence. The Trial Chamber will decide how much weight to
6 attach to the evidence that that document bears.
7 Madam Registrar, are we going to retain the same number?
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document will retain its
9 previous numbering, D96, as a Defence Exhibit.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
11 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you tell us how the strike proceeded?
13 A. I already answered part of your question. I said that at the
14 outset, the strike was a joint matter. After five or six days, workers
15 who were ethnic Muslims left the strike and went back to work. At that
16 time, persons who remained on strike were ethnic Serbs and 15 workers who
17 were ethnic Muslims. Those 15 workers of Muslim ethnicity remained on
18 strike with them for three or five additional days when 12 of them left
19 the strikers. So after that period, only workers of Serb ethnicity
20 remained on strike and three workers of Muslim ethnicity, who remained
21 together with the Serbs until the very end of the strike.
22 Q. Did that strike go beyond local borders in terms of its nature?
23 A. Yes. After the strikers were abandoned by workers of Muslim
24 ethnicity, the strikers tried to overcome this problem through state
25 institutions. They immediately addressed their requests to the municipal
1 authorities in charge.
2 Q. Did these municipal organs manage to resolve the problem?
3 A. No. For that reason, the entire case was brought up to the level
4 of the then republican executive council.
5 Q. So that is the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that
7 A. Yes, that is the current Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 Q. Did the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the republican
9 executive council, manage to resolve this problem?
10 A. Neither the government -- the government didn't manage to do
11 anything either. I believe that by some of their moves, they contributed
12 to having the atmosphere, which was already tense at that time in town,
13 becoming even more tense.
14 What do I wish to say to you? In my opinion, and that is what I
15 said at the time as well at meetings that I attended, the then-government
16 made two major mistakes, to my mind. First of all, the government
17 suspended the executive board of the Municipal Assembly of Foca, and the
18 president of the then executive board of the Municipal Assembly of Foca,
19 who was an ethnic Montenegrin Serb, actually, and it appointed a temporary
20 organ consisting of three members that were supposed to take over all the
21 powers and authority enjoyed by the executive board of the Municipal
22 Assembly of Foca.
23 In my opinion, the government made another mistake, because it
24 appointed as president of that body a member of the executive council of
25 Muslim ethnicity. At that time, the president of the Municipal Assembly
1 of Foca was an ethnic Muslim. Amongst the strikers and the Serb people,
2 this caused an even greater degree of revolt, and it led them to suspect
3 whether their requests would be met fairly and lawfully within state
5 Yet another move that the government made and that was wrong --
6 actually, this was a mistake made by its appropriate Ministry, the
7 Ministry of the Interior. In my opinion, it was the unnecessary use of
8 physical force and measures that were taken against the workers who were
9 on strike, workers of Serb ethnicity and their supporters.
10 After the Court of Associated Labour passed a judgement annulling
11 the interim measures introduced by the council of associated labour in the
12 Focatrans Company, I'm sure that that gathering could have been prevented
13 in a completely different way. In my opinion, tear gas should not have
14 been -- tear gas could have been used but there was no need for any other
15 measures of repression against the unarmed Serb people who were gathered
17 Q. Were these peaceful protests?
18 A. Yes. All gatherings that were held by the strikers and their
19 supporters involved no incidents whatsoever.
20 Q. Was it a problem to replace the management, the management that
21 was still multi-ethnic? How do you see this problem? How did you view it
22 at the time, and how do you see it today?
23 A. Well, look, when the strike began, I already said that it was a
24 strike just like any other strike. Had there been the will, it would have
25 been certainly resolved at the level of the Foca authorities in a lawful
1 way. However, after the war operations ended, after the Dayton Accords
2 were signed, I had the opportunity of following the media and reading the
3 press in the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Through these media, the
4 top people of the Party of Democratic Action from Foca, Mr. Senad
5 Sahinpasic and Halid Cengic, stated the importance they then attached to
6 the Focatrans Company. In my opinion, and viewing their statements about
7 this, the main thing was that at that time, the Focatrans Company was
8 supposed to be used for the transportation or distribution of arms and
9 ammunition for the local Muslim population.
10 Q. Can you tell us whether there was a deterioration in inter-ethnic
12 A. The further aggravation of inter-ethnic relations became even more
13 obvious through the establishment of ethnic parties. In my opinion, the
14 crucial turning point was when the founding assembly of the Party of
15 Democratic Action was held in Foca in the month of August 1992.
16 Q. Can you tell us when an armed conflict broke out?
17 A. The armed conflict in Foca started on the 8th of April in the
19 Q. Where were you when the conflict broke out?
20 A. I was in my apartment.
21 Q. Can you tell us what happened then? Let me reword my question.
22 The building that you lived in, was it multi-ethnic? Was there a
23 mixed ...
24 A. I shall try to be brief in answering your question, although it is
25 a very broad question. All of us who lived in that building on that day,
1 around 12.00, agreed how and in which way we would behave in case any kind
2 of armed conflict broke out. We primarily agreed how and in which way we
3 should provide security for the entrance to our building.
4 There are two entrances to our building. There is one from the
5 yard, and the other one from the roof of the building. As regards the
6 door on the roof, we locked it. We put a latch on so it couldn't be
7 opened again. As for the downstairs door, we said that everybody had to
8 lock it, and that is what we had asked all the people to do in the first
9 place. There is another thing we agreed upon. We equipped the basement
10 premises in case there might be a need for us to leave our apartments.
11 I assert that this form of organisation was applied throughout the
12 urban area. I cannot make any assertions with regard to rural areas
13 because I had not been there, and I had no knowledge of how they had
14 organised themselves.
15 Q. Do you know how the fighting progressed?
16 A. I already said the fighting began on the 8th of April between 4.00
17 and 5.00 p.m. From the 8th to the 14th of April, all the information
18 about combat operations in the city reached myself and my neighbours only
19 through a small radio receiver.
20 Q. Does that mean there was no electricity?
21 A. As far as I can remember now, we had electricity for the first two
22 days; and when the main transformer station in the city was damaged, the
23 city remained without electricity from then on for 24 days.
24 Q. Can you tell us, when did the fighting stop?
25 A. The fighting finished in the city on the 17th, perhaps the 18th of
1 April, 1992. I am speaking strictly about the territory of the city.
2 Q. What happened to you after the fighting finished?
3 A. All citizens of Foca were informed by the public address system
4 and by Radio Foca, were actually asked to report to their wartime
5 assignments given to them before the war.
6 Q. Where were you assigned?
7 A. I immediately reported to the organ where I was supposed to go,
8 but I was assigned by the executive board to become the chairman of a
9 six-member committee for the assessment of war damage in the territory of
10 the Foca municipality.
11 Q. Can you tell us, how did this assessment of war damage proceed?
12 A. We in the committee were responsible for making assessments on all
13 buildings owned by both members of the Muslim nationality and the Serb
14 nationality, as well as buildings which were socially owned.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, "owned by the state."
16 Q. Until when did you remain on that committee?
17 A. I worked on that committee up until the 31st of May, 1992, when
18 the Ministry of Defence sent me to the army where I was supposed to work
19 as a legal advisor, a lawyer. I performed this work in Foca for about 10
20 days, after which I was sent to Trebinje because people of my profession
21 were lacking there, and there I remained until the end of the war.
22 Q. Do you know, perhaps, were any houses on fire during the fighting?
23 A. Yes, I know about that. I actually live in a flat on the seventh
24 floor of my building, that is to say, I lived there then. From my flat, I
25 can observe the entire city. I think it was in the evening on the 13th or
1 14th of April in the settlement of Donje Polje, a settlement outside --
2 below a hill called Celovine, a fire broke out in residential buildings.
3 And I knew that part of the area well, both through my job and otherwise,
4 and I knew immediately it was Serbian houses on fire.
5 All the seven houses, which were in a row and owned by Serbs,
6 burned down, and the first buildings to burn on the territory of the city
7 were precisely those buildings.
8 Q. Can you please tell us, when did fires break out in the settlement
9 of Prijeka Carsija, and what is Prijeka Carsija, exactly?
10 A. Prijeka Carsija is a part of the city located in the western
11 part. It is built up in the oriental-Islamic style of architecture. You
12 asked me when buildings began to burn in that settlement. The day after
13 the first fires had swallowed the Serbian houses, it was the 14th of
14 April, 1992, there occurred armed conflicts in that sector between members
15 of the Serbian army and members of the Muslim army.
16 Q. We have had a witness here, number 33, and in her testimony she
17 said that Chetniks in 1943 arsoned Prijeka Carsija, set Prijeka Carsija on
18 fire. Can you hear me? And they said that in April 1992, Serbs again set
19 it on fire.
20 Do you know who were the owners of the buildings in the settlement
21 of Prijeka Carsija?
22 A. While presenting the documents earlier today, I also commented on
23 the Katastar plan, which shows the owners of the buildings which were then
24 burned down. Three of the buildings were state owned, and the ratio
25 between Muslim- and Serb-owned houses which burnt down is approximately
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first document
3 we had marked today is a copy of the Katastar plan, and we would like this
4 copy to be admitted as a Defence Exhibit because it shows the owners of
5 the buildings which burnt down in the settlement of Prijeka Carsija, the
6 ones which Witness 33 referred to.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: The document we have, because it's not -- it's in
8 Serbo-Croat, all of it. Yes, so what does it show? You say that it shows
9 the owners of the buildings. Can you elaborate on that further? What
10 nationalities were they?
11 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have submitted
12 the English version here, so below --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes, yes, I see it.
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] -- the drawing, the drawing shows
15 exactly who the owners were of the buildings in Prijeka Carisja. As the
16 witness said, we can see that the buildings were both Muslim owned, Serb
17 owned, and state owned. In this way, we wish to question the credibility
18 of Witness 33 who claimed that Serbs set this area of the city on fire on
19 purpose because it was owned by Muslims.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Prodanovic, if this document is being tendered to
21 support the evidence of this witness, we are still dependent upon his
22 evidence or at least your assertion from the bar table at the present time
23 that some of these are Serb and some of them are Muslim names.
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We can see
25 from the document who the owners were, and we can see that the buildings
1 were owned by both Serbs and Muslims.
2 JUDGE HUNT: You can see that. I don't see how we see it, you
3 see. You can probably recognise the names as Serb names or Muslim names.
4 We're not in the same position.
5 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour. If
6 you allow me, we will try to clarify, in a separate submission, who the
7 owners were by nationality. Please excuse us.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Prosecution?
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objections, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: I take it again it will retain the same number,
11 Madam Registrar. It is now admitted into evidence.
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This is Defence Exhibit D100.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please proceed.
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. You said power blackouts were frequent and for a long time after
16 the eruption of war operations you had no electricity. Could you tell
17 us --
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the question.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry, witness.
20 Could you repeat the question, Mr. Prodanovic? The interpreters
21 didn't get it.
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I asked the witness: Were the
23 shops supplied well at that time, was there food to be bought? That's
24 what I meant.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness can answer.
1 A. Speaking about the degree of supply available in stores, we had to
2 rely on what we had stored in our houses and flats, stocks that we made
3 ourselves. No shops were open at all until mid-May, when two small
4 supermarkets were opened in the centre of the city. But you couldn't buy
5 anything there in terms of food. You could only buy bread.
6 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. What was the situation with communications with the world, with
8 the outside world?
9 A. Communications were non-existent. The only ones we had were with
10 Montenegro with Niksic, but even that was difficult because there was the
11 possibility that mines could have been laid by members of the Muslim army,
12 who were located right along the road in that area, and I mean the Mount
13 Vucevo and Mount Tjentiste.
14 Q. Did the radio operate then?
15 A. Radio Foca worked by using a power generator. It worked for one
16 hour every 20 hours or so. In the centre of the city, there were big
17 speakers installed and the sound could reach throughout the city.
18 Later, when we got electricity again while I was still in Foca,
19 Radio Foca broadcast in the same way but throughout the day from
20 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
21 Q. If you can remember, was there ever broadcast an announcement by
22 Radio Foca that the Muslims who had fled could return?
23 A. Executive authorities of the municipality issued a unified
24 announcement stating that all workers and citizens are obligated to come
25 back to work by 1st June, 1992. This announcement referred to both Serbs
1 and Muslims.
2 Q. Do you remember this announcement, this proclamation which came
3 from the top, was it made by Republika Srpska?
4 A. The crisis headquarters of Srbinje municipality, through Radio
5 Foca, issued an order prohibiting arsons of temples and religious
6 buildings on the territory and stating that perpetrators would be
8 As for orders from the top, that is, from the authorities of the
9 then Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I know about two such
10 acts from the time when I lived in Trebinje. One was made in July and
11 another in August. These acts were promulgated by the media. The first
12 act was an enactment by the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia
13 and Herzegovina, as it was then called, stating that all villages and
14 settlements inhabited by Muslims and Croats who turn in the weapons they
15 own and who refrain from participating in combat operations against Serbs
16 shall enjoy special protection. And as far as I can remember, I think
17 that the execution of such an enactment, such an order, was the
18 responsibility of presidents of municipalities on the territory of Eastern
19 Herzegovina and Old Herzegovina.
20 Another enactment was a piece of information from the same organ
21 communicating that on the territory of Krajina, I think the Drinski
22 sector, some individuals and groups have been arrested and taken into
23 custody for arsons and plundering of houses, an act which was contrary to
24 an earlier order issued by the Presidency to the effect that all
25 individuals and groups must be placed under immediate control of the army
1 and the Ministry of the Interior.
2 I am not aware of any other orders.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask the usher
4 to show these two orders to the witness. We had these two orders as part
5 of the documents involving General Radinovic. Our marks are 49 and 50
6 respectively, and the pages were 4219 until 4216. The other document, our
7 number was 48, 4223, 4220.
8 I would like these two documents to be shown to the witness to
9 verify whether these are the two documents he has been talking about.
10 A. Yes, these are the two documents.
11 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like the usher to
12 bring those documents back to me.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: May I be clear; were these documents already
14 admitted into evidence?
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] One has been admitted. One of
16 them has been admitted. That's a document that we marked as 49.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: What is its formal number?
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have not received
19 a formal number. This was not challenged. If you remember, we stated for
20 the record the things that are not challenged by the Prosecutor. Among
21 those documents, was this one. This document --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. These are the numbers which I think you gave,
23 I think, on Wednesday last week, I think, as part of the --
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: -- [Previous translation continues] ... with the
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your
4 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution, can we have confirmation? You
5 remember on Wednesday last week we had a chain of a number of documents by
6 the Defence which they said they had discussed with yourselves and you had
7 no objection?
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And we have also the numbers that they
9 got at that time. It's D91, for the record, and the annexes. So that
10 should be D91. But I think the number here on the Defence list, the
11 document 48 was not included in this. So we would have to make a separate
12 decision for the document 48, isn't it?
13 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that is
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So we're remaining with 48 then.
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Document number 48 is a
17 communique of the presidency regarding the arrest of the rebels. That's
18 its title. It's dated 6th of August, 1992. This document states: "The
19 Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that
20 several weeks ago, it issued an order that all groups and individuals
21 should be placed under the unified command of the army and police. This
22 idea had mostly been implemented, with the exception of several groups,
23 several rebel groups in Podrinje and Kljuc. The Ministry of the Interior
24 of Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arrested groups and
25 individuals who became outlaws and who started a campaign of looting and
1 burning. This is not then a case in which politically organised units or
2 units of other names are being arrested, units that have placed themselves
3 under the unified command and who fight valiantly for the freedom of their
4 Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina and who are to be praised unreservedly.
5 The presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed
6 by Radovan Karadzic."
7 I don't know why this document has not been put in the record or
8 marked for identification, because when we tried to reach an agreement
9 regarding the documents with the Prosecution, they said that they would
10 not challenge the authenticity of any document bearing the signature and
11 the stamp. It is possible that this one has slipped through.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we -- you heard what the contents are, the
13 Prosecution. Is there any objection?
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No objection, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It is formally admitted into evidence. I
16 understand from the registrar we already have the numbering because it was
17 part of the Radinovic documents. So it is -- can we just have a repeat?
18 D48 is what?
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document is admitted as the
20 Defence Exhibit --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. Could the number
22 under which it has been admitted into evidence be repeated?
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document has been admitted as
24 number D91. D48 had number -- page number 4228. 4223, then. And
25 document 49 has been marked with a page number 4219.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: The numbering is 48 is D91. What about 49?
2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Both documents have been marked
3 with the same number.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] So this is a unified document. It
6 is the report of the expert witness, General Radinovic.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Prodanovic, the problem is going to be that D91,
9 which was the report of General Radinovic, is not all in evidence; and may
10 I suggest that what we do is leave the report as Exhibit D91, and those
11 parts, those annexures, which do get into evidence have separate
12 numbering. Then we are all aware of what parts of it are in evidence and
13 what parts are not. So that I'm going to suggest that these be given
14 separate numbers, and each other annexure to that particular D91 document
15 we should give a separate number to.
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I agree
17 absolutely with your proposal.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] All right. So this document that
19 had the number 49 [sic] can now bear the mark D91/1, and document marked
20 with 49 can now be marked as D91/2.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation].
23 Q. My last question for this witness is, do you know after the end of
24 the war how many people had died and were wounded in the course of the
25 armed conflict in the municipality of Foca?
1 A. Gathering the documents for the Defence of the accused Kunarac and
2 Vukovic, from the Veteran's Association of Srbinje I obtained a document,
3 a certificate, for the use of the Court, the Defence, and the Prosecution,
4 indicating that in the area of the Foca municipality in the course of
5 combat operations in the period from April 1992 until December 1995, 650,
6 both combatants and civilians, died, and 538 persons were wounded, as far
7 as I can remember at this moment.
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we already had this
9 document, our number was 71, and it was marked for identification as D97.
10 The Defence would like to have this document which has already been marked
11 for identification purposes to be admitted into evidence.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: What is it dealing with? Can you just explain the
13 relevance, please?
14 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] This document indicates the
15 number of persons who were killed, a total number of persons killed and
16 wounded in the territory of the Foca municipality from the beginning of
17 the war until the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords.
18 JUDGE HUNT: It's the same problem, Mr. Prodanovic. You may know,
19 but we don't know, which ones are Serbs and which ones are Muslims.
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] It talks only about persons of
21 Serbian ethnic background.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, what's the relevance of it?
23 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] We deem that this document has a
24 certain weight because when we heard the Prosecution witnesses, none of
25 the witnesses, almost none of the witnesses, ever mentioned the fact that
1 Muslims were armed, so this in a way impeaches the credibility of the
3 And in our view, we are establishing a very important fact,
4 whether the attack on the Muslim civilian population was widespread and
5 systematic, and in the mosaic of all the relevant events, we think that it
6 could also be a piece of evidence which would speak to the fact that the
7 attack against the Muslim civilian population was not systematic and
9 JUDGE HUNT: There is nothing to say that you can't have a
10 widespread attack upon both civilian populations, both Serb and Muslim.
11 There is an admission by the accused that there was an armed conflict in
12 which it was agreed that both sides were armed. So what the witnesses may
13 not have said, and they weren't asked to say, seems to me to be entirely
14 irrelevant to any issue we have to determine. So it doesn't go to their
16 There is no part of the Prosecution case to say that there was
17 only an attack upon one side. We are concerned with only one of the
18 attacks which took place. If there was an attack upon the Muslim
19 population, then we are to deal with that. The fact that there may also
20 have been an attack upon the Serb population does not seem to me, at
21 least, to have any bearing upon that fact at all.
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we hear the message
23 of the Trial Chamber, and we withdraw our proposal for the admission of
24 this exhibit into evidence. We would just like to have it marked for
25 identification purposes. And these are all --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] These are all the questions I
3 have of this witness.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Mr. Kolesar, any questions for this
6 MR. KOLESAR: [Interpretation] No, no questions, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Lopicic?
8 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not have any
9 questions for this witness. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Cross-examination by the Prosecution?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
13 Q. I would like to talk about one exhibit, the exhibit number 100.
14 Now, witness we just spoke about, this street and this area which
15 is in the Exhibit 100, this plan, Katastar plan. It's your document 64.
16 Would you please get it, because I have a specific question.
17 I am just wondering, when I look at the little sketch of the area,
18 I see a lot of houses; and when I also look into the -- listed who was
19 living or owning each building, I find only about 10 to 12 numbers, house
20 numbers listed, but there should be a lot more houses and a lot more
21 owners. Why are only those few listed in this document, Exhibit 100?
22 A. The copy of the excerpt from the plan also indicates the
23 undeveloped land, which means that not all the areas which have been built
24 up are presented here.
25 Q. But the houses -- the area with buildings are all listed here
1 underneath, or is this just a few?
2 A. All the buildings that existed at the time and the buildings that
3 have burned down in the course of the war are presented here.
4 Q. Okay, thank you.
5 I have some general questions to ask of you. You were the main
6 investigator for the Defence, weren't you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You interviewed the Defence witnesses, all of the Defence
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You are aware that Mr. Kunarac claims mistaken identity, that
12 someone might have posed as him while committing crimes. Are you aware of
14 A. I did not understand your question.
15 Q. Mr. Kunarac claims mistaken identity, that someone may have
16 committed rapes posing as Zaga. You are familiar with this, aren't you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did Mr. Kunarac report to you his suspicions that Mr. Kontic could
19 have posed as him?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Mr. Kunarac also claimed that Gaga, that is Dragutin Vukovic,
22 Mr. Kontic, and a person Ranko Radulovic took out girls from Kalinovik
23 school. Did you get this information, and did you try to verify this
25 A. Yes, we tried, but the witnesses are reluctant to appear before
1 this Tribunal because of certain fears that they have.
2 Q. Did you try to find anybody else who might know, might have known?
3 A. We tried, and we in fact have certain preliminary interviews, and
4 we had a few witnesses who were willing to come and testify as to these
5 facts; but after the interviews and when we indicated to them that they
6 would have to come to The Hague, they were reluctant to do so because they
7 are, quite simply, afraid.
8 Q. Witness, you said that you lived in apartment blocks, in an
9 apartment block with mixed, mixed neighbourhood, more or less, Serbs and
10 Muslim living there. Right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you also said that you had more Muslim friends than actually
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do these Muslim friends still live with you in the apartment block
16 and around you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. They left Foca, and they didn't return?
19 A. Yes, but they all submitted a request to be -- to return.
20 Q. And how many have returned up to now?
21 A. Well, I don't know the exact number at this time of how many
22 returned. The Ministry for Displaced Persons deals with that with the
23 international organisations. As far as I know, in the villages of Jabuka
24 and Kozja Luka and Tjentiste, Tjentiste, some people did return, and this
25 was organised by our competent ministry and international organisations.
1 I also know that the assembly passed a decision envisioning the
2 return of the Muslim population to the Foca municipality. And such a
3 decision has also been passed by the Assembly of the Foca Municipality,
4 which is currently located in Ustikolina where the Muslim population
5 lives. That was a decision regarding the return of the Serbian population
6 to the Ustikolina area. As far as I know, around maybe a dozen Serbs
7 returned to this area.
8 Q. Witness, you have mentioned that some Serb houses were burned down
9 in the area of Donje Polje, and you also mentioned Prijeka Carsija, but
10 you are aware that Muslim houses were burned down in other areas in Foca,
11 aren't you?
12 A. As far as I know, after the events involving the burning of the
13 Serbian houses, armed conflict broke out. I think it was the biggest --
14 conflict on a large scale happened in Donje Polje, and this is when the
15 burnings occurred. And the conflict between Serbs and members of the
16 Muslim army broke out, and this is when the Muslim buildings were burned
18 Q. Are you aware that Muslim villages surrounding Foca were burned
20 A. In that period while I was in Foca, Muslim villages were not
21 burned down. They were burned after I left for Trebinje.
22 Q. So you are aware that this happened, but you were not there at
23 that time; is that what you're saying?
24 A. Yes. I learned that they had been burned down, but in what way
25 and how, I do not know.
1 Q. Are you aware that Muslim houses were searched in Foca, for
2 weapons, for instance?
3 A. Yes, there were. It is quite normal that the houses were
5 Q. Serb houses were searched as well, did you want to say that?
6 A. Yes, yes, Serb houses as well as Muslim houses. They were all
8 Q. Are you aware that Muslim houses were looted and damaged during
9 these searches?
10 A. I don't know that -- of any cases of houses being damaged in the
11 course of the searches. There was no reason for that.
12 Q. Are you aware that Muslim civilians, male and female, were
13 detained in various detention facilities?
14 A. No, because during my stay in Foca, I really didn't know anything
15 about that. I already said what my function was at the time, and I
16 learned about that only when I started my work as an investigator in the
17 defence of the accused Kunarac.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, it's 1.00. We'll break for our break and
19 start in the afternoon at 1430 hours.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We are proceeding with cross-examination by
3 the Prosecution.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, I again have to refer --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry. Ms. Lopicic.
7 MS. LOPICIC: Yes. I'm sorry that I am interrupting. During the
8 lunchtime I read the transcript and I found two errors. On page 41 of my
9 laptop, row 7 and 8, the date is -- I think the typing is error. It's
10 "August 1992" but it should be "August 1990."
11 JUDGE MUMBA: What was the reference?
12 MS. LOPICIC: Establishing the assembly of SDA in Foca. That's
13 row number 7. And then row number 8, "August 1992" is in the transcript
14 and it should be "August 1990."
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Prodanovic, is that the correct date?
16 Since you are leading the evidence.
17 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In August
18 there was fighting in 1992.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you.
20 MS. LOPICIC: Page 47 of today's transcript on my laptop, row 7,
21 while the witness was answering, on the transcript it says 1 hour every 20
22 hours or so in connection with the radio, and as I can recall, it's
23 supposed to be every 5 hours, 1 hour was working. I think also it's an
24 error in typing.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: So it means the radio worked one hour in every five
2 MS. LOPICIC: That's correct, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Prodanovic, is that correct? That should
4 be the correct interpretation?
5 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what my colleague
6 Ms. Lopicic said is so, yes. Every five hours, one hour.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Thank you.
8 Thank you, Ms. Lopicic.
9 MS. LOPICIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we may continue with cross-examination.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
12 Q. I once again have to come back to the document Defence Exhibit
13 100, if you please. Do you have it at hand?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I cannot find a date on this document. When was the document
16 made? It only says the place and date, Srbinje.
17 A. Before I give an answer to your question, I would kindly ask the
18 Presiding Judge to allow me, if possible, to give a supplementary
19 explanation in response to the second question put to me by the
21 At the moment when this question was put to me, I really did not
22 understand the meaning of the question that was put to me and that is why
23 I reacted. Due to my exhaustion, it is only during the break that I
24 understood the context of Madam Prosecutor's question.
25 I think the question is an unequivocal one, and I can repeat it.
1 The question was whether Mr. Kunarac asked me to obtain some evidence for
2 him. I want to say now I answered that Mr. Kunarac did not ask me for
3 that. And what is the reason for that? I was his investigator; however,
4 I was not in contact with him. Kunarac could not have asked me for this
5 evidence. All the evidence that was sought in relation to his accusation
6 was requested from me by his lawyers. If the lawyers asked me to obtain
7 some evidence, I certainly tried to obtain such evidence. Since there is
8 a multitude of evidence, I cannot remember specifically now whether they
9 requested that particular fact from me.
10 So my understanding of the question was whether Mr. Kunarac
11 personally asked me, as his investigator, to obtain this. I was not in
12 contact with him ever, so he did not ask me for anything like that. That
13 is why I would like to clarify it.
14 If his Defence counsel asked me, well, that is something I really
15 cannot remember now. I heard so many witnesses, and I compiled such a lot
16 of material that I truly cannot recall whether I really obtained this
17 particular document.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: That's all right. That's understood. If the
19 Defence counsel for Mr. Kunarac wishes to clarify anything, he will have
20 the opportunity to do so.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
22 Q. Yes, but referring to the document that we were talking about, can
23 you tell us when it was made?
24 A. Document number 64?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. That is a copy of the Katastar plan. It was made -- well, let me
2 remember exactly. I think that I got that document just before Witness 33
3 was heard. I cannot remember exactly what the other witness was with
4 regard to the general allegations put forth by the Prosecution.
5 Q. It's not necessary to know the exact date, but this document was
6 made in this year then?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Does it show the conditions how they are this year or how they
9 were in 1992?
10 A. Well, this is a copy of the entire Katastar plan before the
11 conflict broke out. There are footnotes there on the side depicting
12 houses that were torched in April 1992. This is Sahat Kula, and it goes
13 all the way to the building marked KC135/2. So what is shown here are
14 only the names of owners of buildings that were burned during the war. It
15 is these buildings, from this building here to this building here and from
16 this building here to that building there.
17 This is a copy of the entire Katastar plan of Prijeka Carsija.
18 The other buildings were not burned, and this copy is a pre-war copy. And
19 so actually, this is the situation as it was prior to the outbreak of
21 Q. You said that it was a neighbourhood, oriental style, and from
22 the, from the plan I also see that there is a mosque on the left-hand
23 corner in this plan. Is it -- was it a Muslim neighbourhood?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Does that mean it was a Muslim neighbourhood in general?
1 A. No. The information showing the names of the owners shows that
2 this -- that there were different owners belonging to a mixed ethnic
3 background, and also in the big apartment buildings there, the state-owned
4 ones, there was a mixed population.
5 Q. You said that from your apartment block building, you had quite a
6 good overview over Foca, right?
7 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. Did you see Donje Polje burning?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it's predominantly Muslim, isn't it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you see Sukovac burning?
13 A. No, because the position of Sukovac is such that it cannot be seen
14 from my apartment, that part of that neighbourhood.
15 Q. But are you aware that Sukovac was burnt down?
16 A. I became aware of that as I worked (redacted)
18 Q. And Sukovac is a Muslim neighbourhood, isn't it?
19 A. Not all of it. Part of it, whereas the upper part was inhabited
20 by Serbs. This is a neighbourhood underneath a hill called Gradacka
21 Stijena. That's where the Filipovic and Radovic and other families are.
22 Q. And the houses destroyed, did they belong to Muslims?
23 A. Serb houses were destroyed, too. When --
24 Q. That was not my question. I asked you the houses in Sukovac that
25 were destroyed, were they Muslim houses?
1 A. Sukovac includes Gradacka Stijena, the part I mentioned. That
2 entire region is the neighbourhood of Sukovac. Sukovac includes houses of
3 Serbs, as well.
4 Q. The Aladza neighbourhood, were Muslim houses destroyed in this
5 neighbourhood near the mosque?
6 A. Yes, but in that neighbourhood, there were also four Serb houses
7 that also burned down.
8 Q. Did you see the mosque in Donje Polje burn on the 15th May 1992,
9 the mosque near the Barbor [phoen]?
10 A. No. Only when I was making this assessment did I realise that
11 mosques were burned. I really don't know whether these buildings were
12 damaged in the fighting between the Serbs and Muslims, or whether somebody
13 individually had torched that. I was not an eyewitness, and I'm not aware
14 of that, how buildings owned by Muslims burned down.
15 Q. (redacted).
16 A. (redacted)
17 (redacted) and when I went to the actual scenes.
18 Q. You have mentioned some orders which prohibited arson and damaging
19 of religious building; but despite these orders, the mosques in Foca were
20 all destroyed, weren't they?
21 A. Well, that is what the statement is now, but I don't know how
22 mosques were destroyed or burned.
23 Q. But you know that they were burned down, all of them, or blown up?
24 A. I don't know whether they were blown up and how come they were
25 destroyed. I only realised when I was assessing damage on these buildings
1 that I saw that they were destroyed. Before that, I was not aware of this
2 action at all.
3 Q. No one was ever punished for destroying any of the mosques in
4 Foca, were they?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You said that from June 1992 onwards, you were fulfilling --
7 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment, that answer is equivocal. Is he
8 agreeing with you that no one was ever punished, or is he saying that
9 there were people punished? I think you should clear it up.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
11 Q. It was my understanding that nobody ever was punished for
12 burning --
13 A. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. I do not know
14 about this. I left from Foca. I said when I left Foca and which date,
15 and what happened in Foca after that, I don't know. Whether there were
16 any court proceedings initiated, I don't know. I had no access.
17 Q. Let's move on to another issue. You said that from June 1992
18 onwards, you fulfilled functions in the army. You were a legal advisor,
20 A. I was not a legal advisor. Advisors in our situation held
21 positions with persons who were at a high post, and I did not have such a
22 treatment. I worked on general legal matters related to the question of
23 the status of members of the army of Republika Srpska.
24 Q. Were you mobilised into this position?
25 A. I already explained how come this happened. I reported according
1 to my war assignment, and in accordance with the order issued by the
2 Ministry of Defence, I was assigned to carry out these duties. This was
3 purely legal work. At that time in that part of Herzegovina, there were
4 very few such persons with that kind of training.
5 Q. I would like to know if there was a general mobilisation, that was
6 my question. Were you mobilised, or did you volunteer to make -- to do
7 such a job?
8 A. No, there was general mobilisation for all the inhabitants who
9 remained in Foca, equally for Muslims and Serbs.
10 Q. Did the Muslims respond?
11 A. I'm not aware of that. I reported according to my wartime
12 assignment, and as I said, I was sent by the authorities in charge to
13 carry out those duties that I did carry out.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to
15 show Exhibit 2, Prosecution Exhibit 2 to the witness. It's the combat
16 order dated 7 July 1992, the B/C/S version, please.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Prodanovic?
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we object. We don't
19 know what the relevance of this document is in reference to this witness.
20 We got this document from the OTP.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: But this is cross-examination. Let the witness
22 answer. If he can't, he will say so. When the question is asked and you
23 think it has nothing to do with the witness, then you can object. So
24 let's wait and hear what the questions will be.
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
2 Q. Witness, could you please look at page 4 in the B/C/S version. In
3 the English version it's page 3. There is a headline, "Command Post
4 Ustikolina," and the following line --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be placed on the ELMO
6 for the interpreters.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters would please like to have the
8 document on the ELMO.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Would you please put it on? The English
10 version on the ELMO. Oh, it's there. Okay.
11 Q. Do you see page 4, the headline "Command Post Ustikolina"? Let me
12 read a sentence to you. It says: "The 1st Independent Dragan Nikolic
13 Detachment shall take part in the liberation and mopping up of Ilovaca
14 village and, further, as part and so on. Do you have this line?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The 1st Independent Dragan Nikolic Detachment, that is a military
17 unit named after Dragan Nikolic; right?
18 A. Yes, it was named after Dragan Nikolic.
19 Q. And Dragan Nikolic was a military commander who was killed in the
20 beginning of the war; right?
21 A. I don't know what capacity he had. I don't know. I was not in
22 contact with him or anything. I just know that he got killed at the
23 beginning of the war.
24 Q. The unit bearing his name was an intervention unit led by Brane
25 Cosovic; right?
1 A. As regards these details, I mean, really, I said that I went to
2 Trebinje and I didn't spend much time in Foca. Who commanded, how he
3 commanded, what units were there, that is something I really am not aware
4 of. I would not like to answer these questions.
5 Q. But you have to answer my questions when you know the answer. If
6 you don't know the answer, you say, "I don't know."
7 JUDGE HUNT: Isn't that exactly what he's saying, he doesn't know
8 the answers?
9 A. I don't know.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I got the impression that he said he didn't
12 JUDGE HUNT: No. He said he didn't know. Now, if you want to
13 test that, you can go ahead, but at the moment, he said he doesn't know,
14 and if he doesn't know, he really cannot answer.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
16 Q. But you know Brane Cosovic, don't you?
17 A. I knew him before the war. As a young man I knew him by sight. I
18 did not have any kind of close relationship with him.
19 Q. He has a nickname Cosa. Do you know that?
20 A. I know that.
21 Q. And the Dragan Nikolic unit was also called Cosa's Guards; right?
22 A. I don't know that. I told you already that I was an ordinary
23 lawyer in the army in Trebinje at that time. What the military structure
24 was like in Foca after the Foca Tactical Group was constituted, I really
25 don't know.
1 As regards these questions related to the command and military
2 structure, I don't know about this and I cannot give you valid answers.
3 Q. When we discussed the documents that the Defence wants to enter
4 into evidence and partly had entered into evidence, we came across a
5 document saying that Radomir Kovac was a member of the Dragan Nikolic
6 unit; right? You know this document?
7 A. All information about the Dragan Nikolic unit was something I
8 learned only when I started working on the case against the accused
9 Kunarac and Vukovic.
10 Q. So the accused Vukovic was also a member of the Dragan Nikolic
11 unit; is that right?
12 A. Yes. Yes. From the documents that I had obtained, it can be seen
13 that he was a member of the Independent Detachment, both Kovac and
15 Q. Janko Janjic, Tuta, you know him, don't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was he a member of the Dragan Nikolic unit?
18 A. As for Janko Janjic, I only know him as a client of mine before
19 the war.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Prodanovic.
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we object to this
22 question. I wish to remind you of the following: In November 1998, we
23 were given guarantees by this Chamber that witnesses would not answer
24 questions related to other accused; that is to say that they would be
25 giving answers related only to the persons who would be in the courtroom
1 at that time and who would be accused at that time. We explained that,
2 and then there is also a decision thereon.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got that statement here, this undertaking
5 that you refer to?
6 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as I can
7 remember, it was November 1998. The reason why I asked that our witnesses
8 be protected from such questions is solely for security reasons. You will
9 know that Janko Janjic is indicted and that he is not accessible to the
10 Tribunal. I don't know what the sense of this question is. The witness
11 is supposed to go back to Foca where Janko Janjic may be.
12 That is the question that we raised. Had I known that there would
13 be such questions --
14 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Prodanovic, I asked you a simple question. Have
15 you got the so-called undertaking there? I find it a very surprising one
16 myself. I would not have been here at that time probably, but,
17 nevertheless, I would like to see it before we rule anything that you want
18 us to rule upon.
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I don't have it
20 here, but I do remember that it was in November 1998 at a Status
21 Conference. That is where this question was discussed.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, maybe we can help, because we
23 have the transcript of the session from the 11th of November, 1998, and on
24 page 119 and 120, those matters were in general discussed, but Defence
25 counsel was then referred to that when questions like this arise, that
1 they will be dealt with during trial.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: I do not understand. What was the decision of the
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: There was no decision. There was no
5 decision. It was only argued that it may be from day-to-day, from
6 question to question security matters may arise and then a decision will
7 be made on a case-to-case basis.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: I see. Because that brings me to the protection of
9 having those persons you would not like your witness to mention having
11 JUDGE HUNT: I've got it here. What the Prosecution says is
12 accurate and, indeed, this was a matter that was debated, as I recall,
13 some weeks ago when you sought to have pseudonyms used for people like
14 Tuta for this very reason. So if you wish to insist upon having
15 pseudonyms used, by all means go ahead, but for myself, I would certainly
16 not prevent questions of this nature being asked.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: (redacted)
19 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Trial
20 Chamber in this situation to refer to the pseudonym, please. Not only for
21 (redacted), but also for all the others.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. If the Prosecution can perhaps -- and if the
23 witness is given the list so that he knows who is referred to by which
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It would be the Prosecution Exhibit 234.
1 As the witness has voice and image alteration, I didn't think it
2 necessary to use the same sheet as for the accused, so -- but we can
3 proceed with this.
4 JUDGE HUNT: That, if I may say so, is completely illogical. It's
5 not a question of facial distortion; it's a question of the reference to
6 these people at all.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
8 JUDGE HUNT: And that was the agreement.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I didn't understand this agreement like this,
10 because the witnesses -- our witnesses also refer to the names of these
11 people. I thought this particular measure was for the accused only and
12 not for the witnesses because the witnesses are not known. Their name is
13 not known.
14 JUDGE HUNT: This was a matter that was expressly raised during
15 the course of it. During the course of the argument before, it was agreed
16 that those pseudonyms would be used. So may I suggest you do use them,
17 even for the Defence witnesses --
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
19 JUDGE HUNT: -- for the very reason that was discussed at the
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, of course. I will do that now in the
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Ms. Lopicic.
24 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would like to
25 tell you that on page 71 of the transcript of today, on row 20 it says,
1 "DP1," but above in another paragraph it says the name of the accused, so
2 if it's possible to erase that in the transcripts.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the registry will deal with that.
4 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: You're welcome.
6 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] And for the others, also. Thank
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we'll stick to the pseudonyms where the names
9 are protected.
10 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution, please proceed.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
13 Q. Would you please look at the list, and the first name on the list,
14 that's DP1. DP1 was also a member of the Dragan Nikolic unit, wasn't he?
15 A. Well, from the data that I later collected, it has been
16 established that he was a member.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I have no further questions for this
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Any reexamination, Mr. Prodanovic?
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Kolesar?
22 MR. KOLESAR: [Interpretation] No, thank you.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Lopicic or Mr. Jovanovic.
24 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no more questions, Your
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, witness, for giving evidence.
2 You are released. Just wait before you are led out.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon, Witness. Please make the solemn
7 WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the
8 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: WITNESS DC
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the Defence, please.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
12 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
13 Q. Witness, at your request and by today's decision of the Chamber in
14 favour of according you protective measures, you have received the
15 number -- you have received the code DC, and that is the way I will
16 address you.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I will now hand out to the
18 chamber, the Prosecution, and the witness a sheet of paper containing data
19 about this witness.
20 Q. Witness, you have in front of you this sheet of paper. In the
21 first column -- in the first line there is your name and surname; the
22 second line is the day, month, and year of your birth. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Line 3, your place of birth; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. (redacted)
3 A. Right.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please, of the document?
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This will be Defence Exhibit 136.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Under seal.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Under seal.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. (redacted)?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. You grew up in Foca municipality?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you live all the time in Foca, including the time of the armed
15 conflict in Foca?
16 A. (redacted)
17 Q. (redacted)
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you tell us what is your ethnicity and your religion?
21 A. I am a Serb, orthodox Christian.
22 Q. (redacted), while you were living in
23 Foca, were you politically committed?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you were not involved in the
1 political life of the municipality, that is, the city of Foca?
2 A. No, never.
3 Q. Bearing in mind that you were not politically involved, please be
4 so kind as to tell us, how did you understand the relations between
5 Muslims and Serbs at the time when you were living in Foca prior to year
7 A. Those relations were very correct, I should say. In all that
8 time, I had never observed anything bad about those relations connected
9 with ethnic background or otherwise. Even in my practice, in my medical
10 practice, those relations were okay.
11 Q. Would you agree with me that at a certain moment, these relations
13 A. Yes. I think the change started with the affair in Focatrans, and
14 that was the first sign that something is brewing in the city.
15 Q. Are you aware that at that time, national parties appeared in Foca
17 A. Yes, they were constituted at that time.
18 Q. Are you aware of what these parties were?
19 A. There was the Party of Democratic Action gathering the Muslim
20 population, and the Serbian Democratic Party, rallying around it, the
21 Serbian people.
22 Q. Between these two, which was established first?
23 A. I think SDA, the Party of Democratic Action, was the first to be
25 Q. Can you tell us when that happened?
1 A. I don't know exactly.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Pilipovic, what is the relevance of all of this?
3 Haven't we argued this one out several times during this hearing? Why are
4 we interested in the political parties?
5 We've had almost agonising details about the Focatrans problem,
6 far more than perhaps was necessary. Why do we have to go into the
7 political background of it as well?
8 There was an armed conflict; that is conceded. We are not
9 concerned with how the war started or why the war started. So what is the
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Witness DC,
12 witness for the Defence, is describing his general circumstances of life
13 in Foca and the formation of political parties in Foca. Another fact
14 which we wish to point out through this witness relates to the fact that
15 this witness was employed with the hospital in Foca. He can testify to
16 the circumstances in the hospital, relations among people, referring to
17 the same circumstances a witness testified on behalf of the Prosecution,
18 and he worked in the same institution as the witness we are hearing
20 With these questions, I am only trying to introduce the witness to
21 the essence of his testimony. My questions are very brief. And taking
22 into account that the witness for the Prosecution whom we had heard
23 before, said in his testimony before this Trial Chamber, gave a completely
24 different interpretation of the events at that time, it is the opinion of
25 the Defence that this witness can give testimony relevant precisely to
1 those circumstances, and you will have the opportunity to assess his
2 credibility at the same time as you assess the credibility of the witness
3 for the Prosecution.
4 My witness was present at the SDA rally, as well as the rally of
5 the SDS. Since Witness FSW-33 stated facts which have to be checked, in
6 the opinion of the Defence, saying that these rallies pronounced threats
7 to the Muslim people and that was the one of the reasons why there
8 occurred -- where Muslims fled the Foca municipality, precisely with this
9 witness, we, the Defence, wish to depict the situation as it was in 1990,
10 and my question as to whether he is aware of the establishment of these
11 parties, and my next question, did he attend their rallies, is aimed at
12 finding out what precisely happened at those rallies, the truth, not as it
13 was interpreted by the Prosecutor's witness.
14 JUDGE HUNT: The Prosecution's witness number 33 did indeed give
15 evidence about what happened at the hospital. At the time, I wondered
16 what the relevance was. I still do not understand it. Nevertheless, they
17 proceeded to give it without objection. And so far as this witness can
18 contradict what she said about the events at the hospital, I would not,
19 myself, reject it for that reason. But when you attempted to
20 cross-examine 33, or whoever it was who did cross-examine her, and to
21 raise these political issues, they were rejected.
22 Now, nothing should stop you from leading evidence which
23 contradicts that of 33 about what went on at the hospital, but you have
24 been prevented throughout from dealing with political issues because they
25 are totally irrelevant to this trial, and nothing that happened, when you
1 attempted to cross-examine on political issues, led to any evidence from
2 Witness 33 that is of the slightest interest to us. So may I suggest you
3 go directly to what happened at the hospital and leave the rallies out of
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. But
6 I want to emphasise once again a fact which is very important to the
7 Defence, and I believe that in this way, by presenting evidence and
8 hearing the Defence's witness will provide for a fair trial to the accused
9 and will help assess the credibility of Witness FSW-33, who, during her
10 testimony, stated that from these rallies, especially the SDS rallies,
11 threats were addressed to the Muslim people, saying that the Muslim people
12 will come to a bad end in Foca.
13 I own a tape from the SDS rally, which was attended also by the
14 witness the Defence has brought here, Witness DC-10 [sic], and I believe
15 that his testimony will help prove to the Trial Chamber that the
16 Prosecution's witness was not speaking the truth. If the Trial Chamber
17 allows, I would like to continue my examination very briefly, considering
18 that the witness with us here today attended both rallies of the SDS and
20 JUDGE HUNT: When you can produce to us the evidence from 33 that
21 was dependent in any way upon what happened at the rallies, the answer to
22 that must be no. Now, if you can produce to us the reference in the
23 transcript to where she gave evidence in her evidence in chief which was
24 based upon something that happened at the rallies, then I am prepared to
25 reconsider what my view will be, but at the moment, there is nothing in
1 her evidence, to my recollection, which was based upon such evidence.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to show
3 you the transcript from 21st March, 2000, page 449. Witness FSW-33 said
4 then that she found from the media coverage that the rally, and she means
5 the rally of SDS, pronounced threats, and she also referred to
6 Dr. Kornjaca who really attended this meeting, but didn't have a
7 pronounced threat. Referring to these circumstances, I would like us to
8 hear the witness here present and, at the same time, to show a videotape
9 to the Chamber containing the speech of Dr. Kornjaca. And we believe that
10 in this way, we would be able to check whether the witness, whom we had
11 heard previously on the 21st of March, was speaking the truth.
12 I shall try to help you further. On that same page, the witness
13 said that the rally was also attended by Biljana Plavsic, and since our
14 witness was present at the rally, the questions of the Defence refer to
15 this part.
16 I would like to especially emphasise, if that is of any help to
17 you, that this witness quoted the words that "The River Drina will again
18 be bloody." These words were allegedly pronounced by Dr. Kornjaca, with
19 whom she was working together in the same hospital.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Has the Prosecution got the transcript there? Would
21 you have a look at page 446?
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That is page 449, transcript --
23 JUDGE HUNT: I'm asking the Prosecution a question, so you sit
24 down for a moment while I get some assistance from them.
25 MS. KUO: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: At line 19, Mr. Ryneveld asked the witness to turn
2 her mind to the year 1990 or thereabouts and tell us if there was any
3 particular incident that showed there was a change, and the witness then
4 went on to talk about political parties. She was not stopped. Then on
5 page 448, she was reminded she'd referred to the two national parties and
6 then this question at page 14:
7 "Q The creation of the SDS or the founding of the SDS, do
8 you know -- do you recall an incident involving the football
9 stadium in Foca and any reports of what occurred at that
10 meeting of the SDS?"
11 And the witness went on for some pages in accordance with what
12 Ms. Pilipovic has said.
13 What is the attitude of the Prosecution to them now leading
14 evidence to deny the accuracy of that witness' discussion of something
15 which appears to be totally irrelevant but which was introduced by the
16 Prosecution and, indeed, encouraged by it?
17 MS. KUO: Your Honour, the Prosecution has not objected to this
18 line of questioning at all.
19 JUDGE HUNT: It certainly has in relation generally to the
20 question of politics, but I think the material that Ms. Pilipovic has
21 pointed out probably places a different complexion upon it. It's very
22 unfortunate, because it seems to me, in my view, wholly irrelevant to
23 anything we have to determine, but the Prosecution has bought into it, and
24 in those circumstances, I withdraw the remarks I made.
25 MS. KUO: Yes, Your Honour. We have no objection to this witness
1 answering those questions.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic, you can go ahead.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: You can ask this witness all the questions you want
5 to, but we are not going to allow the videotape of the rallies.
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
7 Q. You have told me that two ethnic political parties were formed,
8 SDA and SDS respectively. Can you please tell me whether the SDA party
9 held a rally in the Foca municipality?
10 A. Yes. It was a large rally with the participation of a large
11 number of people. I was there. The media bandied the number, the figure
12 of about 100.000 to 200.000 people, any my rough number was there was
13 about 30.000 people. The rally itself was full of religious and ethnic
14 symbols, flags, and banners, and messages that were expressed at that
15 rally, which even some of my colleagues, doctors, expressed.
16 Q. Can you remember, how long did the rally last?
17 A. I think I was there for about an hour, maybe a bit longer, and
18 then I left. I left the rally because it made me feel disappointed and
19 afraid. I was disappointed with the fact that the people who were saying
20 those things were the people who should be leading us into a new life.
21 They should be creating this new state. And the fear was caused by the
22 large number, excessive number of religious symbols. These were not
23 symbols of a state.
24 Q. Can you please tell me who established the SDA party?
25 A. I know some people who are originally from Foca, Zulfikar Pasic,
1 Muhamed Cengic. There was also Alija Izetbegovic, who used to be in
2 prison. He served a sentence in Foca. And of the locals, I knew some of
4 Q. Can you tell me who was the main founder and the leader in the
5 party in Foca?
6 A. I think it was Senad Sahinpasic, nicknamed Saja. Everybody called
7 him Saja.
8 Q. Do you have any knowledge of his occupation?
9 A. As far as I know, he was a greengrocer. He had a small shop in
10 which he sold fruit and vegetables.
11 Q. You said you were present at the rally and that you saw many
12 banners at the rally, traditional flags with Muslim emblems, the crescent
13 and the star. Did you notice at the rally something that really struck
15 A. The only flag that was not Islamic in character was the Croatian
16 flag. I noticed a Croatian flag that was tied up together with the Muslim
17 flag, and the rest were all the same kind of emblems, green, flags,
18 crescents, and other emblems, of the same kind.
19 Q. Since you were at the rally at which one of the speakers was Semso
20 Tankovic who addressed the rally with the words, I quote: "Are we Serbs?
21 No. Are we Croats? No. Are we Muslims? Yes," did you have an
22 opportunity to hear the speaker, and how did you understand the words that
23 were used as a greeting at the rally?
24 A. The words that all the speakers used on that day were not to my
25 liking. I am not a political person; I am a doctor. And anything that
1 could incite any kind of hatred or be used as an apology for the creation
2 of an ethnic state, pure or otherwise, is completely alien to me.
3 All the speakers spoke in the same vein, and people who were there
4 and people whoever saw this whole paraphernalia could only get one
5 impression, that their desire was to create a state that would be, if not
6 completely pure, then at least predominately Islamic. That was the only
7 message that you could hear. They only spoke about this topic, all the
8 speakers, every single speaker.
9 Q. You said that you were present at a rally of the SDS party?
10 A. Yes, I was there.
11 Q. The SDS party rally, was it held before or after the SDA rally?
12 A. It was held about 10 days after the SDA rally.
13 Q. Were you present all the time at this rally?
14 A. No, I did not watch the rally until the end. The messages that
15 were sent after that rally were not to my liking, either. I can explain
16 that later.
17 Q. How many people were present there at that rally?
18 A. Less people. It was held at the stadium. I think it was about 5
19 to 6.000 people. I did not try to estimate the number, but not too many
20 of them.
21 Q. Can you tell us what emblems were displayed there at that rally?
22 Were there any emblems displayed?
23 A. At the stage, at the podium where the speakers were, there was the
24 Yugoslav flag on one side with the five-point star; and there was also the
25 flag, the Serbian flag or the flag of the Serbian Democratic Party, I
1 don't remember. And the number of party flags was quite small; there
2 weren't too many of them.
3 Q. Do you remember that at that rally your colleague, Dr. Kornjaca,
4 was there?
5 A. Yes, and he addressed the rally.
6 Q. Do you remember whether he expressed any views, any messages, and
7 can you tell us what the contents were of Dr. Kornjaca, if you can
9 A. In comparison to some other speakers, his speech was more
10 conciliatory. It was not national and it was not nationalist at all. I
11 did not hear any message that would be in that vein, that -- or anything
12 to the effect that Drina would be bloody once again.
13 MS. PILIPOVIVC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your
14 permission I would like to show the witness and the Trial Chamber, of
15 course, the pseudonym is FSW33. I would like to ask the witness to
16 confirm whether this witness worked together with the Witness DC who is
17 present here in the courtroom, whether they worked together in the
18 hospital. And the Defence will have a few more questions relating to this
19 fact of this witness about the circumstances about the testimony of this
21 JUDGE MUMBA: You wanted to show the document where the name of
22 Witness 33 is?
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: We're going to find out what the Prosecution have to
1 MS. KUO: Your Honour, we're somewhat concerned that this witness
2 be given the knowledge that a particular person has testified. In other
3 words, the pseudonyms were given out so that people outside this Tribunal
4 would not know the identity of the people who testified, and it seems to
5 me that by doing this, the Defence is, in fact, telling this person the
6 identity of that --
7 JUDGE HUNT: That's certainly so, but there must be some way of
8 checking. Of course, there was no suggestion made to Witness 33 that she
9 didn't work there. There was no question asked of her whether she worked
10 with this particular witness, either, so it's really in the hands of the
11 Defence to have done it during the course of Witness 33's evidence. But
12 if it is to be suggested that she did not work there, perhaps we better
13 have that suggestion made clearly.
14 Are you going to suggest, Ms. Pilipovic, that Witness 33 did not
15 work at the hospital?
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in light of the fact
17 of the testimony presented by Witness FSW33 and the testimony that she
18 gave on the 21st of March, 2000, she said that she worked in the Foca
19 hospital, and that she lectured in -- that she was a teacher at the
20 medical high school.
21 JUDGE HUNT: But are you going to suggest that she did not do
22 those things?
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence wishes to show this
24 witness the full name of Witness FSW.
25 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, I know that you want to do that. The
1 question is whether we should vary the protection order to enable you to
2 do so, and I'm trying to find out some legitimate reason for you
3 disclosing that fact to this witness. Now, are you going to suggest that
4 this Witness FSW33 did not work at the hospital? Are you going to suggest
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, what possible, legitimate purpose can you
8 have in having that witness's identity disclosed to this witness, contrary
9 to the protection order?
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has put
11 forward this proposal and wishes to show the Witness DC the statements
12 made by Witness FSW33 precisely because she stated some facts that pertain
13 to the time that she spent in the hospital, the time that she spent
14 working at the hospital. In this way, the Defence wishes to verify the
15 credibility of a witness that has already been heard in light of the
16 statements she made.
17 If the Trial Chamber does not allow us to make the name of the
18 witness public, the Defence will rephrase its questions in such a way that
19 her name is not made known of this witness -- to this witness, and at the
20 same time, that the Defence may try to learn from this witness whether
21 there were any such circumstances and regarding the fact that the witness
22 FSW33 presented here.
23 JUDGE HUNT: There is nothing in relation to the protection order
24 that was made which would prevent you putting the matters asserted by
25 Witness 33 to this witness. There is no need from what you've put, for
1 you to disclose to this witness who that witness really is. None at all.
2 So if you've got -- you have put forward absolutely no reason to have a
3 variation of the witness protection order, so far as I can see.
4 There is nothing that stops you from putting the Defence case to
5 this witness -- I'm sorry, putting the Prosecution case to this witness to
6 have him deny it.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. You have told us that you were present at the SDS rally?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You told us that your colleague, Dr. Kornjaca, was also present
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Will you agree with me that no threats were issued at that meeting
14 to the effect that Drina will be bloody and that this was a threat to the
15 Muslim people?
16 A. No, I did not hear any such words.
17 Q. You told us today that you had worked in the hospital?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us in what ward?
20 A. At the internal diseases ward.
21 Q. Can you tell us what was the ethnic composition of the personnel
22 in the hospital?
23 A. I think that it reflected the ethnic composition of the
24 municipality itself, which means roughly 50/50. I do not have specific
25 statistical data, but I think it was roughly half and half.
1 Q. Can you tell us who was the manager?
2 A. The general manager of the centre was Dr. Reuf Tafro, and the
3 manager of one section or one part of the hospital was Dr. Stane Sekul.
4 The former is a Muslim, and the latter is a Serb.
5 Q. During your employment in the hospital, did you notice that until
6 the time when you left Foca, that in the institution you worked in, there
7 was any distinction made on the basis of ethnicity?
8 A. I deny that strenuously. My best -- the colleague that I worked
9 with most, Dr. --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises, we didn't hear the
12 A. He unfortunately died. He was a Muslim, and I cooperated him
13 better than I did with many Serbs. I can say that with certainty. The
14 relations were extremely professional, friendly, and we all worked like
15 really good colleagues.
16 Q. Did you notice --
17 MS. KUO: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Kuo?
19 MS. KUO: I note in the transcript that the name of the doctor the
20 interpreter did not hear, and we wish to have that clarified.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. The name of the doctor the witness
22 mentioned was not picked up by the interpreter. Can we please have it
24 A. Dr. Muhamed Batotic.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you notice during your work in the hospital that your
3 colleagues gathered in groups based on ethnicity, and that they claim that
4 they met behind closed doors?
5 A. I deny that strenuously. I never did see anything of the kind. I
6 think that until the time when I left the hospital was really a completely
7 normal institution in this respect. Among other things, I can say that
8 because the last two years before the outbreak of the war, (redacted)
9 (redacted) in the whole region of Foca, and I
10 know very well how we collaborated, not only in the hospital, but in the
11 field. So I can see that there were no problems among doctors, no
12 problems whatsoever.
13 Q. During your work and stay in the hospital, did you have any
14 problems with the drugs, medicines, and medical supplies?
15 A. No, I did not have any problems. In our ward, we had enough
16 supplies, medical supplies and drugs. I never encountered any problems
17 over shortage of medicine that I wanted to prescribe.
18 Q. Was there -- were there any problems involving the disappearance
19 of or lack of medical supplies from 1990 till April 1992?
20 A. I did not hear about that, I never -- but I never checked the
21 whole hospital. In the ward where I work, there were no cases like that,
22 nor had I ever heard of any cases in any other ward.
23 Q. During your work, did anyone report any theft or loss of medical
24 supplies or drugs?
25 A. No, I never heard of that.
1 Q. I will tell you that Witness FSW33 during her testimony stated
2 that medical supplies were stolen and taken away in military trucks with
3 the license plates -- Trebinje license plates. Do you have any such
4 knowledge of such incidents in the hospital?
5 A. I do not have any such knowledge. I was a doctor, I cared for my
6 patients, and I did not pay any attention to that. It was not my job to
7 look after material, but I never heard about any such incidents.
8 Q. You said that you did not like the messages from either of the
10 A. I said that, and I partly answered your question. The messages
11 were national or nationalist in tone, and I realised that in my view, that
12 these people were not my kind of people. These were not the people that
13 should be creating a new state. They shouldn't -- they were not the
14 people to lead us to a better life. I was really gravely disappointed
15 with both.
16 Q. Will you agree with me that the two parties contributed to
17 aggravating the crisis in the relations between Muslims and Serbs?
18 A. Yes, definitely.
19 Q. Can you tell us, when did the crisis culminate, come to a head?
20 A. I think that it was after the calling of the referendum. I think
21 it was in January or February 1992.
22 Q. Do you have any knowledge of Serbs taking part in the referendum?
23 A. As far as I know, they did not take part.
24 Q. Do you have any knowledge about the results of the referendum?
25 A. The results are very well known to everyone. The independent
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina was voted. I don't know what the exact wording was.
2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the response of the Muslim population
3 in Foca to those results?
4 A. One day I was present when a very ugly manifestation took place in
5 which persons, a group of taxi drivers, was celebrating the results of the
6 referendum, about 10 or 15 vehicles. They were cruising the town with
7 green flags. I was also standing on the sidewalk when two or three shots
8 were fired into the air. I think that this kind of celebration was
9 completely, was completely wrong.
10 Q. After such displays on the part of the Muslims in Foca, did you
11 respond, and if yes, in what way?
12 A. A group of, so to speak, intellectuals who shared the same views,
13 Serbs and Muslims alike, we tried to save the situation. It was clear to
14 us that there were extremists on both sides, and that this -- the outlook
15 was quite bad, and that war was looming, a war that in our view was
16 unnecessary and senseless. So we tried to set up a peace council which
17 was composed of an equal more or less number of Serbs and Muslims. My
18 colleagues were involved, including Dr. Zijad Rajanovic, a
19 neuropsychiatrist. Both from the Serbian and Muslim side there were
21 We organised a very successful panel discussion involving -- with
22 the participation of an equal number of Serbs and Muslims of all ages.
23 The oldest persons among the Serbian and Muslim communities were present
24 there, and all those who addressed the meeting, and there were quite a few
25 of them, they all reaffirmed the principles of communal life, that they
1 tried to point out to the advantages and to the necessity that we should
2 all live together. And that we should all try to fight back this
3 psychosis of war that was very obvious at the time.
4 Q. Where did you organise this panel discussion?
5 A. It was organised in the cinema, in the city centre, and maybe 250
6 to 300 people participated. After that rally, we had the impression that
7 the war will never occur. Serbs and Muslims alike, we, in a way,
8 celebrated the fact that this panel discussion was held because it created
9 this impression that none of the sides wanted the war; at least, none of
10 the people who were present in the cinema hall.
11 Q. Did the media cover the discussion?
12 A. Yes. I think that an article was published in the Sarajevo daily,
13 Oslobodjenje, and at the local radio station there was extensive coverage
14 of the panel discussion, and we were getting ready to organise another
15 panel discussion.
16 Q. Was it ever scheduled, this other panel discussion?
17 A. Unfortunately, it was never held. Because I had some previous
18 engagements at the medical school in Belgrade on the 1st of April, I left
19 Foca, and the next panel discussion was scheduled for 5th or 6th of
20 April. And after that the thing that happened, happened, and the panel
21 discussion was never held.
22 Q. Did you go back to Foca during the war?
23 A. No, I never went back to Foca. I remained in Belgrade up until a
24 year ago.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence has no
1 further questions as part of the examination-in-chief.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Mr. Kolesar, any questions?
3 MR. KOLESAR: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Lopicic?
5 MS. LOPICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have
6 questions for this witness. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution, cross-examination?
8 MS. KUO: Yes, Your Honour
9 Cross-examined by Ms. Kuo:
10 Q. Witness, when you said you were at the SDA rally, you didn't hear
11 any threats issued or made, did you?
12 A. Well, you know, every speech there, I don't know whether you
13 consider it a threat if speakers say, "We will never allow something to
14 happen to the Muslims like that which happened in the Second World War.
15 That has been done and over with. Now we're taking the fate of our people
16 into our own hands, and we're going to defend them at all costs." Whether
17 what is a threat or not is something that I cannot tell you, but those
18 were the messages that were sent, from the first to the last.
19 Q. And when you attended the SDS rally, you said you didn't stay the
20 entire time, right? You left after an hour?
21 A. That's right, that's right.
22 Q. So if someone had made the statement that the Drina River would
23 flow again with blood after you left, you wouldn't have heard it, would
25 A. Yes, while I was there, no one said it. However, Mr. Kornjaca did
1 speak and I was there when Dr. Kornjaca spoke. He's a colleague of mine.
2 He is a doctor, and I know he didn't say it. After I left, of course I
3 don't know what was said, but Dr. Kornjaca spoke while I was still there.
4 Q. I'll withdraw that.
5 You mentioned that you didn't know of any medical supplies
6 disappearing from your unit; isn't that right?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And if medical supplies were disappearing from a different unit
9 such as pediatrics, you wouldn't know about that, would you?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. Witness, among your colleagues I will give you some names:
12 Dr. Sadinlija, Dr. Karovic, Dr. Selimovic, and Dr. Torlak. Are you aware
13 that they were all taken to the KP Dom in 1992?
14 A. No, I don't know a thing. I left Foca on the 1st of April. I was
15 not in Foca after the 1st of April. I don't know a thing that happened
16 after the 1st of April because I was not there.
17 MS. KUO: No further questions.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Reexamination? Mrs. Pilipovic. Do you have
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much witness for giving evidence.
22 You are released.
23 I'm sorry, Mr. Jovanovic, you wanted to ask some questions?
24 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I do apologise
25 because of this misunderstanding between myself and my colleague. You
1 only addressed her. I didn't manage to consult her. I have one
2 question. I wanted the lady to put the question on our behalf, but since
3 it's a joint Defence, never mind, I'm going to put the question myself. I
4 would like to clarify something that my dear colleague from the
5 Prosecution brought up having to do with the disappearance of medical
6 equipment and supplies.
7 Re-examined by Mr. Jovanovic:
8 Q. If I've been following the transcript correctly, the question was,
9 if something disappeared from another ward, that is to say, medicines or
10 medical supplies, whether the witness knew about that, and the witness
11 said that he did not know about it. However, my question is the
12 following: If medical supplies were missing, bandages, medicines, et
13 cetera, in a large volume, and if the central warehouse had been
14 completely emptied, would you have known that, or were you supposed to
15 know about something like that?
16 A. Well, I certainly would have known about something like that
17 because then in my ward there would not have been any material, either. I
18 could not have worked either, then. I probably would have heard at work
19 and through the things people said about any major theft. But I say that
20 even in times that are not wartimes, people can put an injection or a
21 medicine or something in their bag. This happens in peacetime, too.
22 But if this were a serious theft, I certainly would have heard
23 about it. And after all, I would have noticed that there were some
24 materials missing at my own ward; however, I did not notice anything like
25 that, nor did I hear of any major theft.
1 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This is
2 the only question that I had.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Witness, for giving evidence.
4 You are now free. You are released, but should wait for guidance on
5 leaving the chamber.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps we can start the next witness tomorrow
8 morning. Mr. Prodanovic?
9 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We have
10 envisaged to have our witnesses heard tomorrow. They're here already, so
11 we'll start in the morning.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll adjourn now, and we'll sit tomorrow at 0930
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.59 p.m., to
15 be reconvened on Tuesday the 18th day of July, 2000,
16 at 9.30 a.m.