1 Tuesday, 13th July, 1999
2 (Open session)
3 (The accused entered court)
4 (The witness entered court)
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: This is case number
7 IT-95-16-T, the Prosecutor versus Zoran Kupreskic,
8 Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic,
9 Dragan Papic and Vladimir Santic.
10 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, I noticed that
11 there was no number given to the exhibit yesterday.
12 I'd like a number to be given, if you don't mind.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: What is the number?
14 THE REGISTRAR: It will be 374, Prosecutor's
15 Exhibit. That will be the book.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Radovic?
17 MR. RADOVIC: Mr. President, we prepared an
18 application for the appeal for one of the decisions of
19 the Trial Chamber, and I would like to tender it to the
20 Registrar at this point for your review and
22 JUDGE CASSESE: It should not be given to
23 us. If it is an appeal, you should file it with the
24 Registrar, with the Registrar or the Registry. Then it
25 probably will go to, I assume, depending on the
1applicable Rule, it will go to a panel of three Judges
2 who will decide whether or not to grant leave to
3 appeal. Thank you.
4 All right. So we continue with the
5 cross-examination by Counsel Pasaric. Counsel Pasaric,
6 before you start, may I ask you to be so kind as to put
7 your questions clearly and succinctly?
8 MR. PASARIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: TONE BRINGA (Resumed)
10 Examined by Mr. Pasaric:
11 Q. Good morning, Mrs. Bringa. Good morning,
12 Your Honours. I have really made an effort to reduce
13 my questions, and I also received a transcript of the
14 videotape yesterday. I thank the Registry for it, and
15 I prepared some questions which I believe can be
16 answered very clearly and shortly, but I would just
17 like to stay with the general remarks. This is where
18 we left off yesterday.
19 We talked about the situation in which both
20 the Muslims and the Croats were allies against the
21 Serbs at the beginning the war. Could you tell me, and
22 you refer to your book, during World War II the
23 Croatian government, which worked with the axis powers,
24 was persecuting Serbs, but you do not mention anything
25 else. Does that mean -- did you imply that the Croats
1and Muslims did not have any conflict during
2 World War II?
3 A. I'll talk about the area that I know the
4 best, which is the Central Bosnia. To my knowledge,
5 there was no fighting between Croats and Muslims in
6 that area except when Muslims or Croats found
7 themselves on --
8 MR. RADOVIC: I have no translation.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: I take it there's no
11 translation into Serbo-Croat. Can you --
12 MR. RADOVIC: Maybe it's changed.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: They have changed the
14 channel. All right. Professor Bringa, you may
15 continue. Sorry for the interruption.
16 A. Today I'll only talk about the area which I
17 know the best, which is Central Bosnia. To my
18 knowledge, there were no clashes between -- no, Muslims
19 and Croats or Bosniaks and Croats did not find
20 themselves on different sides in the Second World War
21 except when Muslims were soldiers in the -- or sided
22 with the partisans, and Croats on the opposite sided
23 with -- and vice versa, I guess. There were Croats
24 also who fought with the partisans.
25 So I know in this particular village, there
1didn't come -- there was fighting up further in the
2 hills but there was no actual clashes. There were no
3 clashes in the village.
4 Q. My question refers to a witness who explained
5 his involvement. He's siding with the HVO, based on
6 the fact that his father had sided with the Croats
7 during World War II. So there were some alliances
8 between the two parties during World War II; right?
9 A. Yes. As I stated, there were individuals who
10 were siding -- there were Muslims who were siding with
11 the so-called Croatian independent state during the
12 Second World War. There were also Muslims who were
13 with the partisans. There were Croats with the
14 partisans. So it's quite a complex picture.
15 I am aware that there were Bosniaks who were
16 mobilised in the HVO, particularly in the beginning the
17 war, because that was the army that was the most
18 organised. This was particularly the case in the
19 Mostar area and Sarajevo, the cities.
20 Q. Perhaps this is not a question, because I
21 think that there was no reason for the Croats and
22 Muslims to be allies until the very end in this war.
23 A. Is this a question? In which case, I do not
24 understand the question.
25 Q. Yes. So what I'm saying is it is not a
1question, because this could have been expected. I
2 think it just flows logically. So perhaps let's move
4 Yesterday we mentioned a referendum for the
5 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which took
6 place on 3 March, 1992. Do you know what was the
7 issue? What was the question on that referendum,
8 because perhaps yesterday it was left slightly
10 A. Could you put this question in a context,
11 because I'm not quite -- I don't quite understand what
12 the point is of the question.
13 Q. Yesterday I asked whether in this referendum
14 the Muslims and the Croats voted together for the
15 question which was asked at the referendum. So what
16 was exactly the question which was to be answered in
17 this referendum?
18 A. Well, I don't have either the statistics in
19 front of me of how many Croats and how many Bosniaks
20 voted but, yes, as I understand it, there were Croats
21 who voted for the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Q. Of course there were, yes. The math is
23 there. Otherwise, the Bosniaks themselves could not
24 have done it. I know that you do not have the exact
25 figures, but you could assume that they must have since
1the referendum passed, but can you tell us what was the
2 referendum deciding on?
3 A. ... on what people were telling me what they
4 vote. For them -- the choice that represented for them
5 was to whether to stay in a Yugoslavia, which by then
6 would be dominated by Serbs and where they would
7 feel -- dominated by Serbs and also a not very
8 democratic Serbia, or whether they would want
9 independence. This is how they presented the choice to
11 Q. If I told you that the question was for the
12 sovereign and whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. ... yes.
14 Q. So that is how it was; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Another question referring to
17 what we were talking yesterday, were there any ethnic
18 differences way before this war?
19 On page 111 in your book, you mention that
20 the Muslims and Croats, the young ones, had separate
21 dances, that they were going dancing, doesn't matter
22 where, but they went to separate places, and that the
23 youth organisation, which was an official organisation,
24 organised them separately for Muslims on the one day
25 and for Croats on another day, and that until the '70s,
1the young Croats and Muslims were not allowed to talk
2 to each other, to intermingle, which surprised me quite
3 a bit. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes. There was a tradition whereby young
5 Croats would go to the dances on Fridays, which is a
6 holy day for the Muslims, and they would go on
8 Now, this was -- again, I'm talking in my
9 book about the undesirability of mixed marriages, and I
10 assumed it had to do this fact, because at the dances,
11 of course, young people are flirting. That's where
12 they find their partner. That's where they find the
13 person they'll marry in this rural community. It used
14 to be like that.
15 Of course, more recently you have coffee
16 bars, you have cafeterias, places where they mix.
17 There wasn't that -- there was also this traditional
18 thing going on, but it was on the decline and it was
19 increasingly popular to go into the more urban centres
20 and go to modern coffee bars where they would all
22 Q. So things were developing for better, but
23 until the '70s they were not allowed to talk to each
25 A. Okay. Of course they were allowed to talk to
1each other. This is the way it was put by a young
2 woman who told me how it was for her sister. I don't
3 think it was -- some parents would say, you know, that
4 you should not -- this had to do with young people,
5 about going out with young people, and they should not
6 talk to one of the opposite sex from the opposite
7 group, and again, that had to do with the
8 undesirability of mixed marriages, which I talk about
9 quite a lot.
10 Q. What you wrote down in your book is what you
11 heard in a Muslim family?
12 A. I got it from both sides. I also heard it
13 from young Croat women. But it doesn't mean that
14 everybody followed that. Like so many prohibitions
15 when you're young, it doesn't mean that everybody
16 followed it.
17 Q. Yes. But this is a serious indication about
18 what was going on in that area at the time.
19 Also, yesterday you said something about the
20 complex causes of this conflict, and I pointed out that
21 I was surprised by the mention in your book of the
22 Vance-Owen Plan and its catastrophic consequences in
23 Central Bosnia, and in the film, this plan is also
24 mentioned. Why do you think that this plan, Vance-Owen
25 Plan, had catastrophic consequences in the area of
2 A. Well, firstly because these provinces were
3 ethnically defined and political representation was
4 ethnically defined, and this would feed into the
5 current situation whereby, again, political
6 representation was ethnic, and I think -- my view is
7 that it would undermine what they were trying to
8 preserve, a unified Bosnia-Herzegovina. Already there
9 were political aims, there were political attempts, and
10 later also military, in trying to carve out a Croatian
11 state after Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the wake, I think,
12 of the Serbian attempt, and this is no secret, that
13 there was from Zagreb a desire to carve out a Croatian
14 state in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 Now, as soon as you had a peace plan which
16 assigned an area of Bosnia-Herzegovina which then was
17 called Croatian, this was seen, in my mind, as a
18 go-ahead for the Croatian authorities in the
19 Croatian-controlled areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
20 also -- which they may have felt was then legitimate in
21 some ways, to grab that territory.
22 Now, this is -- some of these areas were, of
23 course, mixed, and the problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 with defining an area, a geographical area, as ethnic,
25 was the idea which I think originated from a lack of
1democratic political pluralist tradition whereby when
2 you are in control, again when it is defined as the
3 area of one group and when your group is in control, it
4 means total control in the way that there used to be a
5 one-party system, Communist Party, which had total
6 control. This was then transferred to the idea that if
7 it is Croatian or Serbian or whatever, that would be
8 total control by that group.
9 Q. This is the consequence of fact, that this,
10 as people called them, were the first democratic
11 elections, so the democratic traditions did not go back
12 for hundreds of years. But as the party had been
13 divided along certain lines, be it ethnic or economic,
14 so I assume that the parties which won those elections
15 had legitimacy in assuming power and control over these
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pasaric, sorry to
18 interrupt you, but instead of commenting on the answers
19 of the witness or expressing your views, why don't you
20 ask questions? This is the purpose of
22 MR. PASARIC: Yes. I was trying to do so.
23 Q. My question is: This was to be expected,
24 since they won in the elections; isn't this so?
25 A. Sorry? What was to be expected?
1Q. That the authorities in certain local
2 constituencies would be assumed by those who won, and
3 since the other parties were divided or broken down
4 along ethnic lines, I assume that it was to be expected
5 that they would organise, that they would assume power
6 there where they had won.
7 A. Well, for someone who comes from a democratic
8 tradition, I do not think that it was expected that
9 that implied excluding the other group completely and
10 expelling them from the areas that they controlled and
11 burning down their villages and houses. I do not think
12 that was to be expected. It should not have been
14 Q. Of course not, and I do not believe that this
15 is what went on in the beginning. My question -- the
16 question which I'm posing to you: In the area which
17 concerns us, this is how the authority was set up and
18 the minority party then split off, and I apologise for
19 this clarification. I think that it was just part of a
20 budding democratic tradition.
21 When we talked about the Vance-Owen Plan,
22 which was mentioned by several people in the film, does
23 that mean that people, when they were proposed
24 something by the International Community, that they
25 were more likely to accept it than when it was proposed
1on the local level? Let's say, if they said, "We
2 should break down the country into cantons," and this
3 came from the International Community, that it sort of
4 carried more weight than had it been proposed at the
5 local level within Bosnia?
6 A. Well, as transpires in the film, the people
7 were not very keen on this plan. They had hoped they
8 would be in so-called neutral Sarajevo, which would
9 mean that they could continue the kind of life that
10 they associated with living in Bosnia, which was
11 multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, because if it was
12 neutral Sarajevo, it would not be ethnically defined.
13 What they were worried about was to end up in a
14 province, a canton, which was completely run by Croats.
15 The other point about, were they more willing
16 to accept it, well, the international peace plans, they
17 were reached through negotiations. The alternative
18 which we ended up with was reached through military
19 action and through a lot of suffering, and that is the
20 difference. One was obtained by military force and the
21 other one was then negotiated over the negotiating
22 table by peaceful means.
23 Q. So they may have had more confidence. And if
24 I understood you correctly, you mentioned that the
25 children were being sent to the areas which were
1earmarked to become Muslim.
2 A. I don't understand the point of your question
3 but, yes, they did send their children away to an
4 area -- as I said yesterday, what they worried the most
5 about was not shells and bombs, which there were plenty
6 of in the Visoko area, what they were worried about was
7 the people, the foot soldiers, who would come into
8 their house and break into their houses and attack them
9 in a very personal way and commit atrocities in front
10 of, sometimes their children and sometimes in front of
11 other family members and attack their very being, their
12 very -- you know, the sense of their identity, by going
13 in and attacking them personally. It was a very
14 personalised violence, which was what they were
15 terrified of, because that was what would break down
16 their identity, the core of their identity, and that's
17 what they were worried about, not the shells and the
19 So they would send their children over to,
20 yes, this area, which was under intense bombing and
21 shelling, but at least, because it was controlled at
22 the time by the Bosnian army, they knew that there
23 wouldn't be people who would enter their homes, they
24 hoped at least; they felt more safe there. While in
25 the area where we're talking about, they had seen that
1the danger was moving closer and closer and they had
2 heard stories about what was happening and they were
3 terrified about what was going to happen if they
4 entered that particular village. This is also
5 expressed in the film.
6 Q. I must say that I did not find it in the
7 film. They just said there that the child was being
8 sent to the area controlled by the Muslims, so I
9 question your interpretation.
10 A. Sorry. I was trying to explain to you why
11 they felt that was a safe area in spite of it being
12 shelled, in spite of it being under attack now from the
13 Bosnian Serb army.
14 Q. Excuse me. You mentioned that when you were
15 first there, that there was joint guards, and then they
16 had split up while you were there. There were also
17 several further indications that while you were there
18 the first time around, which was in February, late
19 February 1993, something took place --
20 A. [Previous translation continues] ... late
21 January and the first two weeks of February.
22 Q. Right. Do you know what actually took place
23 there at that time? Not in the village itself but what
24 caused these joint guards to split up?
25 A. The only explanation I was given was that the
1Croatian members of the common guard were locals from
2 the village, had received an order from HVO command, I
3 don't know, in Kiseljak, that they should discontinue
4 these common patrols, and I cannot say the reason for
5 that. That, you would have to ask the people who gave
6 the orders.
7 Q. Tell us, at that time, you did not hear about
8 any atrocities or massacres? The name of Dusina
9 doesn't mean a thing to you?
10 A. Dusina? No. I know Dusina, I've been to
11 Dusina, but -- and I was there in '93, but this is --
12 and I know it from coverage of this case, but I did not
13 hear about that neither from the Croats nor from the
15 Q. Also, Josefina, Slavka's sister, I think, had
16 fled. That is also mentioned. She went about 10 miles
17 away, that is to say, 15 kilometres away, and you say
18 that she fled from the Muslims. When did this happen
19 and where did she flee from?
20 A. Well, this was during the fighting around
21 Busovaca-Kacuni, and she lived around what was then a
22 front line which is around Brestovsko, and actually,
23 yes, she did flee, but her house was not destroyed, the
24 houses were not destroyed, and there were people who
25 remained there -- this is in the transcript from the
1film. There are some things that aren't -- of course,
2 we have to cut -- and she went back the next day to
3 check because they were worried about their house and
4 their possessions, and some of the people remained to
5 look after their house. She also mentions and a man --
6 and one of the men who were with her mention some of
7 the Muslim neighbours who looked after their house and
8 had told them, "You should leave because it is now
9 dangerous for you here." But as I said, they did go
10 back again, and as far as I know, they all moved back
11 now. But there was fighting, and this was on the front
12 line, the fighting between the HVO and the Bosnian
14 Q. You mentioned Kacuni, that is to say, that
15 you do know something about that village, do you? For
16 example, do you know whether this was a Croat or a
17 Muslim village?
18 A. Well, I know there were Muslims living there
19 and there were Croats living there. I don't know how
20 you would then define it.
21 Q. Do you perhaps know whether there is a single
22 Croat left living in Kacuni nowadays?
23 A. No, I don't know. Whether they started to
24 move back -- I know that there has been, between
25 Fojnica and Kiseljak, there have been exchanges, so
1that both Muslims living in Croat houses in Fojnica and
2 vice versa have been able to move back to their homes.
3 Q. When you say that you don't know whether they
4 came back -- I mean, the Croats into Kacuni -- is that
5 to say that you know that they were expelled from
7 A. I have no knowledge. It was when we were
8 there the fighting was taking place. There was no way
9 we could -- I have no knowledge of exactly what
10 happened there. I know that both Muslim and Croat
11 houses were destroyed and that there was intense
12 fighting in -- well, I cannot remember right now the
13 exact dates but while we were there at the end of
14 January and February, but then that it calmed down.
15 Because of that fighting, many people left this village
16 near Kiseljak. Particularly the Muslims left. Then
17 they came back again when it calmed down, because they
18 thought that it had been resolved.
19 That was why the village was quite full when
20 it was attacked on the 18th of April by the HVO. It
21 was full of Muslims because they'd come back. That's
22 what I know.
23 I drove through -- May we drove up with the
24 U.N. escort and I did see houses. I saw houses
25 belonging to both groups that had been destroyed, but I
1do not know anything about the military picture of what
2 happened exactly and the different strength of the
3 different forces.
4 Q. When you say that you were in Dusina, that
5 you are familiar with this village, were you there at
6 the time, at that time?
7 A. I have visited it several times.
8 Q. No one mentioned a thing to you? No one
9 mentioned a massacre perhaps having taken place there?
10 A. No. Then, of course, I would have known. I
11 would have remembered and known if that had been
12 mentioned. I know that the village a very old village
13 and that there are a couple of Croatian inhabited
14 houses at the end of the village and the rest of
15 Muslims houses. I do not know anything more about that
16 village. I was not told -- and I believe that if the
17 Croats in the area where I was had known about it at
18 the time, they would have told me.
19 Q. So you talked to Croats, too, in Dusina?
20 A. No, no, no. In the village where we did the
21 film, sorry. I didn't talk to any people that time.
22 Q. Tell us, in the film we saw Bosnian soldiers
23 at the front line and at home. We saw that they wore
24 uniforms. We saw some who wore uniforms in part. Was
25 this customary? Did some of them wear full uniforms,
1and some wore partial uniforms, and others yet wore
2 civilian clothes only?
3 A. Yes, because they didn't have enough uniforms
4 for everyone. Also, at the time they fought on the
5 Serbian front line, as was mentioned in the film,
6 toward Sarajevo, because most of these men worked in
7 Sarajevo, and they were interested in trying to
8 deblockade Sarajevo to be able to go back to work and
9 also to help in trying to lift the siege of Sarajevo.
10 So they had to go in shifts. They went every
11 two weeks or so. It depended -- you know, they stayed
12 two or three days and then they'd come back home.
13 Yes. At that time they did not have uniforms,
14 everybody, that's true.
15 Q. But we saw or, rather, I did not see a single
16 person without an automatic rifle, at least not in this
17 film. We saw that they had radio stations for
18 communicating, and we saw mortar at one point. All of
19 this was early 1993.
20 A. Well, of course, there was something called
21 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and these men were
22 fighting in that army. I mean, that shouldn't be
23 unknown to you.
24 Q. That's what I wanted to hear, because we keep
25 hearing that no such thing existed.
1A. That I have not said. There was a government
2 in Sarajevo leading a country --
3 Q. You did.
4 A. Did I say that? When?
5 Q. I'm not saying that you said it. I mean, I'm
6 just saying that during this trial, we heard that the
7 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not have any weapons, et
8 cetera, et cetera. But tell me something else: Did
9 civilians sometimes wear parts of camouflage clothes?
10 A. No, certainly not. I mean, why -- I don't
12 Q. Especially among the young people. Was it
13 customary or perhaps because such clothes were
14 available or I don't know what, but was it usual that
15 people who did not belong to the military sometimes had
16 jackets or other such items?
17 A. I cannot answer that question because I do
18 not know.
19 Q. All right. If you didn't see it, you didn't
20 see it. When we saw one of these people whose house
21 you were in go out for the village patrol, if I
22 remember correctly, he wore a light blue jacket and his
23 friend wore a dark jacket, and he had a light cap and
24 the other one had a dark cap, and both of them had
25 automatic weapons. Did I see this right?
1A. Yes, they did have weapons. That was not
2 something that -- we mentioned that in the film. You
3 probably know that in Bosnia, most men did have a
4 weapon if they had been part of the reserve forces.
5 That was nothing -- I honestly don't know what you're
6 getting at because, yes, they did have weapons.
7 Q. My question was -- well, I saw there, and I
8 think that I saw this well, that they wore civilian
9 clothes and that they were leaving their houses armed.
10 A. They were not. They were guarding their
11 homes. They were not out fighting as part of the
12 Bosnian army.
13 Q. Yes. All right. All right. But what I was
14 interested in hearing is what you told me, that I saw
15 this right, that they were wearing civilian clothes and
16 that they had weapons.
17 A. You're talking about a group of two men.
18 They went out in pairs and they went throughout these
19 few houses. That's what they're talking about. They
20 would come back and stay through the night and do
21 this. This was common.
22 As we talked about yesterday, the house was
23 incredibly important for people. This is where not
24 only their whole life savings they put into it, their
25 life's work and savings, this is what they signified
1the unit, the household, which again was -- signified
2 the whole group. It was where identity was formed. It
3 was where they were socialised. It was where all
4 important rituals took place. It was the unit for
5 socialisation in the village.
6 An attack on the house was seen as an attack
7 on the very being of a person and his identity. It was
8 much more than the destruction of a physical thing, and
9 this is why the house was so important. That was
10 destroying the family unit. It was seen as an attack
11 on the group. This I've written about in my book, the
12 significance of the house for identity.
13 So it was very important to guard the house.
14 This is what they did in areas it were they felt -- you
15 know, where they saw there was a powerful army that may
16 attack, and they could not mobilise the same thing. So
17 they would protect -- they would protect their house,
18 that was all.
19 Q. When you say that their houses were important
20 to them, were they important to both ethnic groups?
21 How important were they? Because I see in the film
22 that -- well, yes, of course, houses are important
23 because they invested a lot of work into their house
24 and building their houses, et cetera.
25 I also heard them say, "Forget about your
1house. The most important thing is to stay alive,"
2 which is only to be expected; right?
3 A. Yes. This was --
4 Q. So was the situation the same with the Croats
5 and the Muslims?
6 A. I'll answer your first question. This was in
7 the context of losing your children. It was in the
8 context of rescuing your children and getting them out
9 of harm's way.
10 Now -- okay. The house -- in my analysis,
11 the house is very important for both groups because, as
12 I said, it's where you socialise your children and it's
13 the unit of social action and all that, but I do
14 believe that it also had a particular significance for
15 the Muslims and I'll tell you why.
16 This may be an academic argument, but anyway,
17 it's the argument I have, is that identity for Muslims
18 was not perceived in terms of blood. They would not
19 talk about -- they would not say, "I'm Muslim by
20 blood." Both Croats and Serbs would say that, meaning
21 it's something you're born as. It's something that is
22 almost genetic. Now, why so? Because the ethnic
23 origin, of course, of the Muslims are the same as the
24 Serbs and the Croats, or the Serbs or the Croats, we
25 don't know which.
1Now, at one point in history, this indigenous
2 population, they converted to Islam. So their identity
3 was not initially an ethnic identity, it was an
4 identity which was defined by your religion but then
5 also morally -- through religion then morally and not
6 by blood. This is often how they're -- they did talk
7 about -- they did not refer to it by blood.
8 So to me, what was important, what
9 constituted then -- if you don't have this almost
10 genetic or blood symbolism, then how do you define your
11 identity? Well, through the environment and where you
12 grow up, your moral environment. The house provided
13 that moral environment which would embody your identity
14 and so there is a slight difference.
15 It's a very academic argument, but I can go
16 into more detail if you're interested. That's why the
17 house was very important, because it provided that
18 moral environment where you acquired your identity.
19 Q. I did not understand why it would be
20 different for Muslims, and Croats, and Serbs, if you
21 wish. I mean, after all, they all have the same
22 origin. I mean, you said so yourself, that the Muslims
23 were Bogumils who converted to Islam because this was
24 more convenient to them, but then never mind.
25 A. Excuse me. I have not said what you just
1said. Don't rephrase me and say that I've said things
2 that I haven't said. This is not correct.
3 Q. I am just asking -- I mean, I said I did not
4 understand why people of the same origin would all of a
5 sudden feel -- some of them would feel that the house
6 was more important to them and others would not feel
7 that their houses were important. They'd been living
8 together for centuries, so...
9 A. Sorry, this is not what I was saying. I was
10 saying that the house was important in rural
11 communities. The houses are important for both groups,
12 because it is the unit where your children are
13 educated, socialised. It's where, you know, the
14 rituals of the family unit evolve around a house. The
15 house is the unit of interaction in the village. It's
16 not -- you don't interact, which I write about, you
17 don't interact as an individual, you interact as a
18 member of a household. This is true for all groups.
19 But then I said I'm making a very fine
20 distinction which may -- it's my analysis of it,
21 because I've been thinking about this a lot. Why this
22 attack of the house? Why when storm-troopers or foot
23 soldiers went into the house, why did they do
24 particular things inside the houses? Why wasn't it
25 just enough to shell the house? Why did they enter
1it? There must be something important here.
2 I went into several of the houses in the
3 village after they had been destroyed, and what I
4 noticed was that they'd actually taken time to
5 desecrate certain things that were central to Muslim
7 For instance, there was a dimija, which are
8 these baggy trousers that Muslim women wear. They had
9 been stuffed with hay and hung up. There were the fez
10 of the old man which had actually been shit on. There
11 was the beret, which is also a Muslim identity marker,
12 which has been tossed about and dirtied in some way.
13 I have heard this from other people and I
14 wonder why. So there must be something about the house
15 and these things that were symbolising Muslim
16 identity. Why was it necessary to destroy that?
17 That's what I'm trying -- you know, I'm trying to find
18 out why.
19 Q. Well, tell me, isn't it usual in a war that
20 armies do bad things to the symbols of the other side?
21 For example, I remember many cases when enemy flags
22 were set fire to or something. In this case there
23 weren't any flags, perhaps.
24 A. A flag --
25 Q. (No audible response)
1A. Certainly. A flag is a different symbol
2 though, because it --
3 Q. Even stronger, I should say.
4 A. -- it symbolises the whole nation. This is
5 something that you can, actually, to a certain extent
6 distance yourself from. But these attacks are on the
7 individual itself. It's their personal belonging.
8 It's something they have worn. It's something they
9 wear, each individual, to signify who they are, and a
10 flag is something different.
11 Q. Tell me, did they perhaps enter houses and
12 carry out their attacks in such a way perhaps because
13 they did not have weapons with which they could destroy
14 houses? We heard about military tactics here, about
15 entering houses. For example, that one would use a
16 tank to enter a house, not to go in through the door.
17 Would that perhaps be a simpler reason that could be an
19 A. I doubt it, because these things were done
20 after the military action. If you look at the damages
21 that were done, in many cases it was done after, that
22 could not possibly be done by hands. Some of these
23 houses have obviously been shelled and burned.
24 Say, the mosque in this particular village
25 was destroyed after the military action . It was
1destroyed back in July, so after this had happened. So
2 somebody had gone in there afterwards and done these
4 Well, you can just use your eyes and look at
5 the kind of destruction. I don't believe that that
6 kind of destruction could have been outside, if you
7 look at the house outside, could have been made just by
8 bare hands. If you go inside, it's clear that somebody
9 has been in there with their hands and done things.
10 Q. Very well. A few minutes ago you told me
11 that I would have to know that men, as JNA reservists,
12 had weapons, just as you explained to me yesterday that
13 I did not necessarily have to understand things that
14 are being said in the language that is my own.
15 So you really believe that every JNA
16 reservist had a weapon? So every man had a weapon?
17 A. I said men who were part of the reserve
18 forces. Now, I don't know which men were given weapons
19 and which weren't, but this was a gun that I know for
20 sure that at least this particular man that you saw had
21 back in 1980s.
22 Now, I don't know how, you know, the JNA
23 operated. That was not something I particularly looked
24 into at the time. I do not know the rules for handing
25 out weapons or why certain -- maybe if you were a
1member of the military police. I really don't know
2 what the criterias were, but this is really beyond my
4 Q. Well, this is mentioned in the case of
5 Nurija, that he had a weapon for 15 years, a rifle, and
6 also a general statement is made that he, like most men
7 in the village, had a rifle because he was a JNA
8 reservist, which is simply not true. I don't know
9 whether I have to prove this particularly in Court that
10 JNA reservists did not have weapons at home.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pasaric, could you
12 ask questions and stick to our problem because some of
13 your questions are really not relevant to the whole
14 issue. The witness is an expert witness and she is a
15 professor of anthropology, and she should testify on
16 the general cultural background of the various
17 communities. She is not a fact witness. Could you
18 please move on?
19 MR. PASARIC: Thank you.
20 Q. Tell me, when you were translating your
21 research, it is quite clear that in view of the subject
22 of your research, you spent time in Muslim families.
23 But tell me, when you filmed this TV programme, which
24 is supposed to imply objectivity, there seems to be
25 disproportionate time allocated to the other side, that
1is to say, to hear what happened to the other side;
2 isn't that so?
3 A. We went there, to this particular community,
4 to film the effects of war on some families. Now, as
5 you pointed out, when I did my research, for obvious
6 reasons, back in the 1980s, I lived with a Muslim
8 Now, in this sort of context, with a war
9 going on and bringing in a film crew, it was very
10 important that the people knew you well, and one was
11 entirely practical, it was a practical solution to live
12 there, and the crew then lived with a Croat family. I
13 lived with this Muslim family.
14 We did interview the Croats, as you say, in
15 the film, but I do have to say that it was often
16 difficult, and we were prevented from filming certain
17 things. Now, in Croat houses, there were people in
18 uniform, many in uniform, and I don't think they wanted
19 us to film this, but I do not know. Again, this is
20 something I can't answer. I can't answer why it was
21 more difficult to get access to some of these things
22 going on in the Croatian community.
23 But, yes, we do because -- we do film the
24 Muslims there. These other people who are -- it is a
25 combination of two things: It's the people I knew the
1best, were these particular families, and also that
2 this was the group that was under -- you know, most
3 defensive in this situation, and we also see the
4 results in April of what happened.
5 Q. If I notice correctly, in one part of your
6 report, very brief mention is made of the fact that
7 Croats were also victims of Muslim attacks, and you are
8 telling me today, although this does not exist in the
9 film, that that was not exactly the way it was, or,
10 rather, that it was easier than what the film had
11 portrayed, that people actually went back and, well ...
12 A. No. I wanted to give you the context because
13 you were asking me that -- that came out in a
14 completely different context about -- you talked about
15 Kacuni and so on.
16 No, we let the people talk. I mean, just as
17 we did with the Croats, we did with the Bosniaks. We
18 let them talk and give their version of it. We don't
19 come in and say, "But, listen, you know, they went back
20 the other day," or "Listen, it was not quite ..." But
21 this is the people's perception of what was going on
22 and it's about their lives and how they deal with the
24 Now, part of the interview says that. It
25 does tell you -- I was telling you that in the context
1of a different question, that these people went back to
2 their house, that they had not -- they were not, as
3 such, ethnically cleansed from that village. They had
4 not been all expelled and all their houses burned down
5 and destroyed. That was my point. But I am not saying
6 that this -- you know, that Croats were not victims.
7 That's not what I'm saying. Of course, there were
8 Croat victims.
9 Q. Tell me, may I ask you the following: In the
10 forward to your book, page xx in Roman numerals, you
11 mention that two readers from the Princeton University
12 Press helped you a lot. You have not identified them.
13 Would that be -- can we know what they did and who --
14 JUDGE CASSESE: What is the relevance? What
15 is the relevance of your question? These are readers.
16 In all --
17 A. They are anonymous. They are anonymous.
18 Readers are anonymous for press. I do not know who
19 they are.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Of course. Of course. Any
21 serious publishing company, Oxford University Press,
22 Princeton University Press and so on, normally resort
23 to two readers to check on the quality of the scholarly
24 contribution. We authors, we don't -- well, the
25 authors don't know the name of the readers. Besides,
1even if Professor Bringa knew the name of those two
2 readers, what is the relevance of your question, if I
3 may ask you?
4 MR. PASARIC: I simply wished to see
5 because -- well, I'm afraid -- well, I'm afraid that
6 these entire statements in the film are a bit
7 one-sided, I'm afraid, and these were important
8 influences that are being mentioned, so I wanted to
9 ascertain who these people were. And, of course, if
10 Mrs. Bringa doesn't know the identity of these persons,
11 well, then, fine.
12 Q. You said that you are familiar with the
13 subject of this trial. Also, in the forward to your
14 book, you mention, as a scholar, that in Bosnia, there
15 were many different ways in which persons from
16 different communities lived together and that their
17 ways differed from one town to another, from one family
18 to another, from one village to another.
19 Tell me, if you are familiar with the subject
20 of this trial, at least in general terms, and since a
21 lot has been written about the subject of this trial,
22 do you know of any differences that existed between the
23 village that you called Dolina and the situation in
24 Ahmici or the area of Vitez?
25 A. I do not know that area. I cannot say
1anything about it because I don't know that area.
2 Q. Sorry. You said that you knew about this
3 trial, so I had assumed that you knew a bit, perhaps
4 about these differences that might exist.
5 A. Well, you know, the only differences I may
6 think of is maybe in the composition. Now, I don't
7 know the statistics of Ahmici, I don't know how many
8 were Muslims and how many were Croats and possibly --
9 where it was situated, I don't know anything about the
10 history of the village, I don't know anything about the
11 particular relationship between particular neighbours
12 in the village, so I really can't be helpful. Sorry.
13 Q. It is hard for me to find the exact point in
14 time, but I think this was during your first visit. It
15 seems that at that time already, the Croats were
16 digging themselves in above the village and creating
17 these firing positions.
18 A. Yes, that was towards, I think, the end of
19 our stay, so it must have been in February.
20 Q. Or in early February?
21 A. [Previous translation continues] ... I left
22 the 13th. I really can't recall when that must have
23 taken place but ...
24 Q. Do you know that the Muslims in Dolina
25 undertook some military operations as early as 1992,
1that is, against the Croats, or even set up some
2 checkpoints, in the late fall of 1992?
3 A. Can you specify what you mean by "military
5 Q. For the most part, you say that things were
6 quiet in Dolina. Do you know whether there were such
7 actions, such as setting up of checkpoints by the
9 A. There were no Bosnian army checkpoints where
10 we were at that time, no.
11 Q. How about the relations between the Muslims
12 and the Croats? If I understood you correctly, they
13 became more tense and broke off during that first
14 period; right? That is, in January-February, during
15 your first visit.
16 A. Yes. This is what is described in the film,
18 Q. In other words, they no longer had contact
19 among themselves.
20 A. Not to my knowledge and not the people that
21 we were describing in the film. I don't know about
22 every single individual. There may have been people
23 who still had contact, but I would not know about that.
24 Q. Do you know -- Dolina was part of the
25 Kiseljak municipality, but does Kiseljak border
1directly on Herzegovina?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Does it have a direct link --
4 A. [Previous translation continues] ...
5 geographically. No. As far as I remember, you have to
6 cross a mountain, like you often have to do in Bosnia.
7 Q. The question is, was the communication
8 between Kiseljak and Herzegovina ever severed? Was
9 Kiseljak ever surrounded by the Bosniak forces?
10 A. You know, I did not travel in that region
11 throughout the whole war. When we were there, there
12 was access from Herzegovina, yes. There were roads
13 that were opened and kept open. I could not answer
14 your question because I do not know about military
15 formations throughout those years of war.
16 Q. But you could pass through even the second
17 time when you came.
18 A. With the convoys -- the road was kept open by
19 the U.N. and there were convoys. You had to go by
20 convoy on that main road. I don't know about other
22 Q. In the film, it is said that Muslims could
23 not gather in larger groups than three. Was that also
24 the case when you came around in January-February?
25 A. That was in January-February. I think
1we're ... Sorry?
2 Q. So the gathering of Muslims in Dolina was
3 banned in January-February.
4 A. Yes. This is described in the film. Yes,
5 that's correct.
6 Q. I also found it interesting that you mention,
7 regarding the celebration of Bajram, some Croats
8 allegedly said that if anybody wanted to celebrate
9 Bajram, that they should go to Visoko; is that what you
10 heard them say?
11 A. What I was talking about was this gradual
12 redefinition of the Kiseljak area as purely Croatian
13 where people of non-Croatian background felt that they
14 had no place or did not belong, and there were many
15 things that came together that made people feel that
16 this was not their place anymore. One of the episodes
17 was this one, where someone who worked at a
18 kindergarten where they had introduced the celebration
19 of Christmas for the children, asked, "What shall we do
20 then when Orthodox Christmas comes up and when Bajram
21 comes up? How should we organise these celebrations?"
22 And the answer she got from her superior at the
23 kindergarten was that those who want to celebrate
24 Bajram should go to Visoko, which was then seen as a
25 Muslim-controlled area or Muslim place, whatever that
1might mean; and those who want to celebrate Orthodox
2 Christmas should go, I cannot now quite remember, but
3 it was an area which was then considered Serbian.
4 This was just an example to show how
5 gradually a place which had -- a space which had
6 earlier been shared by people of different ethnic
7 backgrounds was then gradually being redefined as
8 purely Croatian, purely one thing or the other, purely
9 Croatian, whereas the others did not have a place where
10 -- their traditions, their culture had no place. If
11 they wanted to continue being Muslim or Serb, whatever
12 that was not Croatian, they should go somewhere else.
13 This is it. And --
14 Q. My question was only: When did this happen,
16 A. Well, approximately -- I believe it must have
17 been maybe '92. I couldn't tell you. '91, '92.
18 Q. I found it interesting that you mention in
19 your book that there were only three mixed marriages in
20 Dolina, and those were marriages between a Muslim and a
21 Serbian woman, and in the village itself, the
22 population mix really consisted of the Muslims and
24 A. Yes. That is interesting.
25 Q. I know that we belabour this point with folk
1groups, but this young Muslim woman, Suhreta, in the
2 tape, mentions that in the folk group, it was not
3 important who you were. It was not important who you
4 "were"; she speaks in past tense. Does that mean that
5 this folk group that she is referring to no longer
6 existed at the time when she was talking about it?
7 A. Well, if it did in some form or another, she
8 would not probably maybe be able to go there. I
9 believe it did not, no. It had stopped. She did not
10 attend it in any way.
11 Q. The book also mentions, and this is in the
12 context of mixed marriages but I would like to know
13 whether this was generally the case, that in the towns,
14 especially among the educated class, the socioeconomic
15 aspects were more important than the ethnic ones; in
16 other words, what I'm interested in is whether the
17 attitudes shifted in that direction the more urbanised
18 an environment was?
19 A. You mean --
20 Q. The more urbanised or the more educated,
21 let's say, the sub-groups were.
22 A. You mean the less they would oppose mixed
24 Q. No, I'm not so interested in mixed marriages
25 in this context but whether the people who were more
1urbanised or who lived closer to towns and cities and
2 who were better educated, that they were less inclined
3 to view everything through an ethnic filter, so to
4 speak. Was that the tendency?
5 A. That was often true, yes.
6 Q. If I understood you correctly, Dolina was the
7 last village in the Kiseljak municipality which was
8 subjected to an attack; in other words, the war had
9 raged around them and they had been spared.
10 A. I believe there were some villages further
11 south of this village, closer to Sarajevo, that then
12 were then also subject to attacks, they were a bit
13 later, but it was one of the last, yes.
14 Q. You mentioned something that I also found
15 interesting yesterday regarding the architecture. At a
16 later stage, they shared the same type, but the Croat
17 houses were different in one other way. I never
18 thought about it because that had disappeared in the
19 cities. But did they have a blessing written in chalk
20 on them? You mentioned crosses.
21 A. Yes. There were -- yes. I do not -- I had
22 not observed that in that particular village. I mean,
23 the cross, yes, yes, but not written --
24 Q. So what type of cross was it?
25 A. Well, what type of cross? I mean, the
1Catholic, Christian -- or where was it?
2 Q. Where was it, yes.
3 A. Okay. I don't know the technical term for
4 that place of the house, but if you have a house like
5 this (indicating), okay, which this is the long side,
6 the long side here, this is the short side, so it was
7 up underneath where the roof meets. Here (indicating).
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pasaric, may I ask
9 you to be so kind as to wind up?
10 MR. PASARIC: Yes. In fact, I am almost
12 Q. Did all or most of the Croat houses have
14 A. The houses in the old part of the town, all
15 the houses that were built in an old architectural form
16 that distinguishes themselves from the Muslim ones,
17 they had it, yes.
18 Q. In the village, did the newly-built houses
19 also have it?
20 A. I did not observe it in this village.
21 Q. On page 53 of the transcript, in reference to
22 the film, Mrs. Slavka, after the attack, when you asked
23 her, allegedly told you that the soldiers came early in
24 the morning and that they were going to attack another
25 village, and only later did they warn her that they
1were going to attack this village which then actually
2 took place. It would seem that the army did not have
3 confidence in the villagers, in other words, that they
4 did not reveal to them their intentions.
5 A. I am not able to answer that question. --
6 Q. It was only said that --
7 A. [Previous translation continues] ... this is
8 what she says.
9 Q. Also, when it is said that brothers of
10 Mrs. Sahida were killed and that this was done by
11 next-door neighbours, do you know whether the identity
12 of the perpetrators was revealed to her or to anybody
14 A. She says she knows the identity of the
16 Q. Yes, I understand that, that the next-door
17 neighbours did so. But since you knew these people,
18 did she tell you who these people were or identify them
19 in any other way?
20 A. No. Neither did I ask.
21 Q. Perhaps you were not interested in those
22 names, but do you know whether she informed other
23 people of the identity of those people or whether she
24 just left it at, they were the next-door neighbours?
25 A. I don't know.
1Q. Just one additional question which goes to
2 your expertise rather than to what you talked about.
3 If you were to be told that in Vitez there was a folk
4 group in existence and that after the divisions which
5 subsequently took place, that a Muslim and a Croatian
6 group were established but that some Croats still
7 maintained the original group and that Bajram and
8 Easter were celebrated alongside each other; would that
9 mean something to you, that context?
10 The question is: Was there a significant
11 difference between Dolina and Ahmici?
12 A. I don't really quite understand what you're
13 getting at. You're telling me something which is an
14 interesting piece of ethnography, but I don't know
15 anything more about the context of it. So I reserve
16 myself to say --
17 Q. If you take what I just said, if they were
18 true would that represent a significant difference
19 between Dolina and Ahmici, that is, the fact that in
20 Ahmici-Vitez, the Muslim Bajram was celebrated by
21 Croats and Muslims, and that some Croats maintained a
22 full group which united both despite the fact that
23 separate folk groups had been established around?
24 Would that, in other words, represent a significant
25 difference at the time when whatever you experienced in
1Dolina was already taking place?
2 A. The folk group that these women are referring
3 to is in Kiseljak. Now, I was not, unfortunately,
4 particularly interested in dance and music. I focused
5 on other things. I think there was an anthropologist
6 who dealt with that.
7 So I don't know what was the state of that
8 folk group. Obviously, I should have asked when I was
9 there, but there were lots of other things going on
10 then. So I don't know whether they may have had
11 something similar. So I can't tell you anything about
12 the difference because I don't know the state of that
13 folk group in Kiseljak. I don't know whether they also
14 were celebrating Bajram and Easter in the same way.
15 Q. In '93?
16 A. Well, which month are you talking about?
17 Q. Bajram in 1993 was in March.
18 A. Obviously they were not because there were no
19 Muslims left to celebrate.
20 Q. But I assume then in March 1993 --
21 A. I don't know. I really don't know. I
22 cannot -- I mean, I cannot answer your question where I
23 don't have the ethnographic information, not to context
24 what was going on. I mean, this is very bad
25 scholarship if I did.
1MR. PASARIC: Thank you. I have no further
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. We don't have any
4 questions. Yes, Counsel Slokovic-Glumac.
5 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, with
6 your permission, a single question. I needed to
7 establish a certain fact. It has not been asked and I
8 just need to specify something.
9 Examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:
10 Q. Professor, my name is Jadranka
11 Slokovic-Glumac, and I really need just to ask you one
12 question in regarding facts in relation to the tape you
13 made. I know you made a portion of it in January and
14 February '93 and then subsequently another one in April
15 of 1993.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you recollect when were the first
18 portions of the film taped, the ones that are referred
19 to in the videotape as part 1 and 2?
20 A. The whole film, except when we say, "Eight
21 weeks after." I don't know if that is on your tape,
22 that there is break and then it says, "Eight weeks
23 after." That whole first part was filmed in January
24 and February when we were there the first time for
25 three weeks. Then there's a break. I think it says --
1it should say "Eight weeks later," which starts with
2 when I come out of the car and meet the people in front
3 of the house. That was taken in May.
4 Q. Thank you. I had assumed that it was taped
5 earlier. Thank you for your clarification.
6 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you,
9 Counsel Slokovic-Glumac. So we don't have any
11 Professor Bringa, thank you so much for
12 coming to The Hague to give evidence in Court. You may
13 now be released. Thank you.
14 (The witness withdrew)
15 JUDGE CASSESE: I suggest we adjourn for half
16 an hour.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
19 (The witness entered court)
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Our witness is
21 Mr. Majstorovic. Counsel Pavkovic?
22 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I wish to
23 apologise for interrupting you, but it seems to me I
24 owe you an answer in relation to Slavko Marin's
25 testimony. I wish to state now that the Defence has
1given up on this witness altogether, and I wish to
2 confirm this officially now to my colleague the
3 Prosecutor as well.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. May I ask you
5 whether this is because Mr. Slavko Marin is not
6 prepared to come over to The Hague or because it is
7 part of your policy, I mean, your legal strategy not it
8 call him, if I may ask you? Only because the
9 Prosecutor raised this matter. If you want to refrain
10 from answering my question, of course you are entitled
11 to do so.
12 MR. PAVKOVIC: I shall answer and I shall be
13 quite brief. It is a question of the second matter
14 that you mentioned. Our assessment was that things
15 were clear enough as they stand, and we believe that in
16 this way we are contributing to shortening the
17 proceedings as well. Thank you.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much,
19 Counsel Pavkovic. No comments from the Prosecution?
20 MR. TERRIER: Not for the moment, Your
22 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much, so we can
23 move on.
24 Mr. Majstorovic, could you please make the
25 solemn declaration?
1THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
5 seated. Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
6 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you,
7 Mr. President.
8 WITNESS: DRAGAN MAJSTOROVIC
9 Examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Majstorovic.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. Could you please introduce yourself to the
13 Court? Tell us where you live, when you were born, and
14 what you do.
15 A. Thank you. My name is Dragan Majstorovic. I
16 was born on the 21st of March, 1968 in Zenica. At
17 present I live in the municipality of Vitez, Hrvatskih
18 Branitelja B/43. Since 1994 I have worked as an
19 official in the defence department of Vitez.
20 Q. Could you please tell us what your education
21 has been?
22 A. I have completed a post-secondary economic
23 school for commerce.
24 Q. You said that you work in the defence
25 department of Vitez.
2 Q. Could you tell us your exact job
4 A. In 1994, I took up a job as an expert officer
5 for structures outside the arms forces, and from 1995 I
6 have been a higher senior officer for mobilisation and
7 manning the armed forces.
8 Q. Could you explain briefly, as briefly as
9 possible, how mobilisation is carried out regularly?
10 A. Regularly. Well, in order to carry out
11 mobilisation, certain preliminary action has been
12 taken, that is to say, that every military unit has to
13 have its mobilisation documents.
14 In this case, these are mobilisation call-up
15 papers. This is the MOB 11 form, as it is known, and
16 it is sent by way of messenger in order to call up a
17 conscript for military exercise.
18 Q. Is such mobilisation customary?
19 A. This is the normal way to carry out
20 mobilisation. In addition to that there is a public
21 call to mobilisation by way of the media.
22 Q. Is mobilisation, in certain extraordinary
23 circumstances, carried out in the same way as you
24 described it just now?
25 A. Naturally mobilisation has to be carried out
1in this way in order to trace the documents that are
2 being sent, that is to say, the call-up papers, so that
3 if call-up papers are not responded to, then on the
4 basis of these mail documents, criminal proceedings can
5 be instituted against the person in question, that is
6 to say, the military conscript who does not respond to
8 Q. In order to carry out mobilisation in any
9 circumstances, even in an extraordinary situation, is
10 it necessary for some time to take place? Is it
11 possible to mobilise 1.000 men during the course of one
12 day, for example?
13 A. As the situation stands right now, it could
14 be carried out but in the times of war it was
15 impossible. Any military unit has a certain time
16 period involved for carrying out full mobilisation. At
17 present, right now, this required time is 24 hours, but
18 in '93 and '94 this was impossible.
19 Q. Why was it impossible at the time?
20 A. For a simple reason. At that time, military
21 formations did not have a well-elaborated mobilisation
22 system. Also, the system of messengers, that is to
23 say, of delivering call-up papers had not been
24 elaborated, and also because of combat action that was
25 taking place throughout the municipality.
1Q. Was there a list of reservists that existed
2 at that time as well that could have been accurate,
3 that could have included all the particulars, that is
4 say, addresses and the current addresses of a person?
5 A. Could you please repeat your question?
6 Q. At that time, did the defence department,
7 which was supposed to carry out mobilisation at that
8 time also; right?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. At that time, did it have proper lists of
11 reservists with all the particulars of the persons
12 involved and all their current addresses, et cetera?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Please tell the Court, what is the difference
15 between the reserve forces and the active forces?
16 A. The reserve forces are reserve forces as we
17 used to call them in the previous system. During war
18 and cases of immediate threat of war, there is no
19 difference. Naturally, when there is no war there is a
20 major difference.
21 The reserve force is demobilised. These
22 people normally go to work, while the active force is
23 mobilised all the time. They are in uniform non-stop
24 and they are paid appropriately for this.
25 Q. You said that during the war there is no
1difference between the reserve force and the active
2 force, and is there a difference between the reserve
3 force and the active force during the danger of war?
4 A. During the war there was no difference for a
5 simple reason, because everyone had the same task and
6 they were altogether at the front lines, the defence
7 lines, whereas after the war they had jobs. I hope you
8 understand what I'm saying.
9 Q. Who actually makes up the reserve force?
10 A. The reserve force consists of all
11 military-aged men, that is to say, from the age of 17
12 to 60, whereas in cases of war and immediate threat of
13 war, the age limit to 65 for members of the civilian
14 defence and also people who have work duty.
15 Q. How important is the oath that is taken by
16 soldiers, that is to say, by reservists or military
17 conscripts or ...
18 A. An oath is taken only once in the lifetime of
19 a military conscript, that is to say, when the oath is
20 taken for the army of that State. However, since the
21 former Yugoslavia had fallen apart into several
22 statelets, the establishment of all new formations in
23 the territory of the former Yugoslavia meant that all
24 units had to take this oath. This was a formality,
25 that is to say, that they would swear that they would
1be proper soldiers of that particular unit.
2 Q. Does this oath have any other significance
3 except for it being a ceremonial occasion?
4 A. No. It's just a ceremony.
5 Q. Can a person become a soldiers in a unit
6 without taking an oath?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. One more thing related to the status of the
9 reserve force. You said that during the war the active
10 force and the reserve force have the same status. Is
11 that right?
12 A. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. During the war and during an immediate threat
14 of war, the reserve force are actually civilians;
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And is there any difference at that stage
18 between a reservist and a military conscript,
20 A. No. Everybody is a member of the reserve
21 force and a military conscript.
22 Q. That is to say that all military-aged men and
23 military conscripts are the reserve force?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. Tell me, what is the additional job that you
1took on in 1996?
2 A. In 1996, when the parliament of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina voted on additional salaries for
4 members of the HVO, I was head of the working group for
5 calculating additional salaries for members of the HVO
6 for the time they spent in the military forces during
7 the war.
8 Q. What was the purpose of making these lists?
9 A. The purpose of making these lists was to make
10 it possible for all participants in the war to be paid,
11 at least retroactively, for the time they spent in
12 units of the MUP, the army units, that is to say, then
13 the Ministry of Interior units and to members of units
14 who had work duty, and to all other units that in some
15 way took part in carrying out defence tasks.
16 Q. On the basis of which rule was this
17 obligation of the state established?
18 A. All three peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 sooner or later worked on the elaboration of these
20 lists for additional pay. I do not know on the basis
21 of what parliament had voted on this law concerning
22 additional pay, but I also know that the military
23 component of the HVO was not the first one to start
24 this. This took place later.
25 Q. That is to say that the other two peoples in
1Bosnia-Herzegovina also did the same kind of
2 mathematics and also passed regulations allowing this
3 additional pay to be given?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On the basis of which particular
6 regulations? Would you tell us exactly on the basis of
7 which law was this obligation established in view of
8 the Croat component?
9 A. In the Official Gazette of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 16/96, from the 25th of April,
11 1996. That is when this law on additional salaries was
12 voted on.
13 Q. For the sake of precision, and since this
14 particular information is very important for us in
15 order to look into certain lists, could you tell us
16 precisely which categories of persons were included in
17 these calculations, that is to say, which categories of
18 persons were recognised the right to have this
19 additional salary paid out to them?
20 A. The right to additional pay was enjoyed by
21 all members of the active and reserve forces of the
22 HVO; officials and members of the Ministry of the
23 Interior, that is to say, the police; members of the
24 civilian defence who, during that period of time, were
25 under the competencies of the Ministry of the Interior;
1also all participants war, that is to say, invalids
2 from 20 to 100 per cent invalidity. Then also all
3 recorded military conscripts who were missing, all who
4 took part in the war for their homeland, and all other
5 participants who took part in combat activities.
6 Q. What is this referred to? Is this stated in
7 the law itself or were there separate instructions that
8 were issued?
9 A. Later, after the law on additional pay was
10 promulgated, then all the defence departments received
11 instructions as to how these additional salaries would
12 be calculated, that is to say, how these additional
13 salaries would be calculated where the protagonists of
14 this activity were specified and also the way in which
15 this could be checked and calculated.
16 Q. The lists that were made on that occasion
17 were sent to the defence department; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. This was done in the territory of your
20 municipality too; right?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. Could you tell us which list of which unit
23 was sent to you?
24 A. All units that had military conscripts in the
25 territory of the municipality of Vitez were duty-bound
1to send to their own defence department a list of all
2 persons who were engaged during a certain period of
3 time. This was supposed to be sent to the defence
4 department, except for military post code 1779 Vitez.
5 They, during the war, were called the Vitez Brigade,
6 and from 1994 they were called the 92nd Home Guard
7 Regiment. Then a list was obtained.
8 Then from military post code 1711, that is
9 the Home Guard Battalion, independent battalion of
10 Zenica. During the war, it was called the Zenica
11 Brigade. The remaining smaller units that were in the
12 territory of the municipality of Vitez, such as the
13 military police, the mixed artillery division, the
14 anti-aircraft defence, the signals company, and other
15 officers who were employed in the military district of
16 Vitez and --
17 Q. Sorry for interrupting. That is to say, that
18 these units that you mentioned, the MUP, the military
19 police, the PZO, that is to say, the anti-aircraft
20 defence, members of headquarters, these were actually
21 persons who were on a separate list?
22 A. Yes, that's right. The list was called
23 "Other Units."
24 Q. Tell me, was another list made?
25 A. Yes, yes. There is a list of work duty
1units, that is to say, this was supplied by companies
2 that had work duty during the war. Then there was a
3 list that said HDZ, and there was a later -- there was
4 a later list that was also marked HDZ, but the list of
5 HDZ that I have mentioned is the list of village
7 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: I would like to ask the
8 usher to show the witness Prosecutor's Exhibit P353.
9 Q. Mr. Majstorovic, this is the list. This is a
10 list that was issued by your office too, and this is
11 one of the lists that was submitted to you; is that
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. What is this list out of the ones that you
16 A. That is the list of the military post code
17 1711, and that is the Vitez Brigade, and then later it
18 turned into the Home Guard Regiment.
19 Q. The forms which are the contents of this
20 list, who filled them out: you or the unit?
21 A. The unit.
22 Q. The markings which are marked as "Status,"
23 could you look at them?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who was entering those?
1A. These markings had to be entered in these
2 forms. It is called PP1. They had to stick to those
3 markings, so in the instructions, "PP" means
4 "Pukovnija" and "Reserve."
5 Q. So that "P" is "Precuva" --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- which is "Reserve." And "DDO"?
8 A. That is the active military personnel.
9 Q. And the marking "RVI"?
10 A. That means the wartime disabled or invalids.
11 Q. And the marking "N"?
12 A. "N" is "missing in action."
13 Q. And "Z"?
14 A. "Z" stands for "taken prisoner."
15 Q. And "MUP"?
16 A. Those were members of the Ministry of the
18 Q. Does the marking "PS" also appear in these
20 A. Yes, it does.
21 Q. To whom did that marking refer?
22 A. It was the members of the guard and the
23 members who were there under contract; in other words,
24 they were members of the department, officials.
25 Q. So the professional members had a reference
1of that kind?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In this list, the time of engagement, the
4 date of 8 April, '92, is most referred to.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What was established on that day and what
7 happened that day so that this date figures most
8 frequently in this list?
9 A. Officially, on 8 April 1992, it was
10 considered to be the HVO day, but on that day, a state
11 of war was declared in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 Q. Did you say the HVO day or the day of the
13 establishment of the HVO?
14 A. The day of the establishment of the HVO.
15 Q. Regarding the time which is also mentioned in
16 that rubric, next to the marking 2, two dates appear
17 very frequently, one in '94 and one in '96. Could you
18 say whether there were some events referring to those
19 two dates when demobilisation of the reserves took
21 A. You mean the demobilisation of the reserves
22 in '94?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. In early 1994, the Washington Agreement was
25 signed, but as part of the implementation of this
1agreement, the HVO had to reduce its numbers, and
2 therefore demobilisation of part of the HVO forces took
3 place. They kept their wartime assignments but they
4 turned in their weapons and their equipment.
5 Q. How did it happen that the persons who
6 claimed that they were demobilised in 1994 still
7 received certain certificates claiming that they were
8 demobilised in 1996? Did you receive any explanation
9 for that?
10 A. Yes. This was a temporary demobilisation,
11 and all conscripts retained their wartime assignment
12 because the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet
13 finished. So that later on, all these military
14 conscripts were still called up to go to the front
16 Q. Some or all?
17 A. Some, depending on the needs of particular
19 Q. What then happened in 1996? Did a final
20 demobilisation take place based on those agreements?
21 A. Yes. In early 1996, the Dayton Accords were
22 implemented, and the final demobilisation --
23 demobilisation of -- the 92nd Home Guard unit was
24 demobilised and the final demobilisation was completed
25 by 22 April 1996.
1Q. So the final demobilisation in the area which
2 we're focused on, the Vitez municipality, was carried
3 out in April 1996 as part of the implementation of the
4 Dayton Accords; is that correct?
5 A. Yes. Not only in the territory of Vitez
6 municipality but throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. Can you also tell me, what did you do based
8 on the list which was given to you?
9 A. On the basis of the lists provided to us at
10 the Department of Defence, we officially received them,
11 we verified them, that is, the accuracy of all the
12 information, that is, the basic information, that is,
13 first and last name, the registration number, the
14 numbers from the registration books, the military
15 registration books, and we had to also enter all the
16 data regarding the calculation of the soldiers'
18 Q. Did your duties also include the control of
19 the information which was provided to you in these
21 A. No. Regarding the information provided us in
22 these lists, we did not have to verify the accuracy of
23 that information. Those who had signed off on these
24 duties had such duty.
25 Q. So you said that in addition to the lists
1which we saw, this was a list of the members of Vitez
2 Brigade and its reserves --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- that, at the same time, another list was
5 compiled which bears the heading of the HDZ.
6 I would like the usher to please give the
7 witness the document which is P371.
8 Mr. Majstorovic, are you familiar with this
9 list? Have you seen it before?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When was this list compiled, drafted?
12 A. At the same time as the other lists, only
13 referring to the 92nd detachment.
14 Q. So what year was that?
15 A. 1996.
16 Q. Will you please now look at the first page of
17 the list itself?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The heading of this list is "Participants of
20 the Organised Resistance to the Aggression." Can you
21 tell us, knowing what you know, what type of list was
23 A. In instructions received in 1996 for
24 additional pay to soldiers, the instructions say that
25 the additional pay could be calculated as of
118 September 1991.
2 Q. Why was that day picked? Why was it
4 A. That was the date of the initial aggression
5 against Bosnia and Herzegovina which was the attack on
6 Ravno in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina which
7 bordered on Croatia but it is located in Herzegovina.
8 Q. Who was to compile that list and who was
9 included in that list?
10 A. Since, in 1996, we needed to compile this
11 list and the instructions were that the municipal
12 council was --
13 Q. You mean Vitez?
14 A. Yes, the municipal council of Vitez was put
15 in charge of that, and that on the ground, the
16 demobilisation of the civilian protection, that is, the
17 members of the civilian protection in the areas around
18 Vitez was already carried out. The only body which was
19 able to carry out the compilation of this list in the
20 villages and in the town itself were the HDZ
21 structures. So the list which I have in front of me
22 contains all participants of the resistance against the
23 aggression since 1991 who, at that time, had initially
24 self-organised and had so-called village guards with
25 the purpose of protecting life and property in the
1areas where they were living.
2 Q. On the basis of what law did they have the
4 A. Anybody who was involved in the period
5 between 19 September 1991 and 22 April 1996 was
6 eligible, and the people who stayed in their villages
7 and did guard duties there were made eligible for this
9 Q. In the instructions which you said served as
10 a basis for compilation of this list, would it mean
11 that all other participants who in any other way
12 participated in defensive duties were also eligible for
13 such additional pay?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So the village guards would fall within that
17 A. Yes, as well as all other participants of the
18 war who, in any other way, made it possible for life to
19 go on in a normal way.
20 Q. These lists were signed by three persons.
21 Will you please look, let's say, at the bottom of that
22 page which is in front of you. Is the president of the
23 basic branches listed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the commander?
2 Q. Who was the commander?
3 A. The commander at the time when the lists were
4 compiled, in this case in 1996.
5 Q. And the coordinator?
6 A. The coordinator was the person who assisted
7 in compiling; in other words, it would be the
8 note-taker or scribe.
9 Q. So the persons listed here are the persons
10 who were involved in compiling this document in 1996
11 and their duties refer to the duties which they were
12 carrying out at the time of the compilation of these
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you then tell me whether there were any
16 additional persons involved in compiling these
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was it?
20 A. Since this list was compiled on the basis of
21 instructions and the municipal leadership was put in
22 charge, it was the president of the municipality who
23 gave his agreement. That would be the local mayor at
24 the relevant time frame.
25 Q. And this list was compiled according to
1territorial principle by a local Communist; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Tell me, are there HDZ members who are on
5 this list?
6 A. All persons who were living in these parts
7 who were engaged in defence duties are listed here.
8 Not all of them are members of the HDZ. It is
9 impossible for everyone in a village, for example, to
10 be members of a single party.
11 Q. So on this list are military conscripts from
12 a certain place; could we put it that way?
13 A. No, not only military conscripts, also
14 persons who were incapable of military duty because
15 they gave a contribution as well.
16 Q. And who were involved in certain tasks;
18 A. Yes, yes, in village guards.
19 Q. Tell us, please, why was this list compiled
20 separately from that of the Vitez Brigade that I showed
21 you a few minutes ago?
22 A. For a simple reason, because officially not a
23 single military conscript can have a certificate
24 stating that he was a member of a military formation
25 before the 8th of April, 1992.
2 A. Officially, that date was when the state of
3 war and immediate threat of war was declared.
4 Q. Before the 8th of April, was there a military
5 formation at all?
6 A. No.
7 Q. On the 8th of April, was a military formation
8 formed or was this only the beginning of the inception
9 of the HVO?
10 A. This was only the inception of the HVO.
11 Q. Please tell us, on the basis of this list and
12 the list of the Vitez Brigade, were certain resources
13 distributed and were these lists final?
14 A. No, these lists were not final. They were
15 expanded and corrected later. On the basis of these
16 lists, calculation was made of this additional pay. In
17 1997, the list was expanded and certificates were
18 issued for additional pay for members of the HVO.
19 Q. Why was the list expanded and how was this
21 A. At the end of 1997, it was realised that our
22 Federal partner had given quite a significant amount
23 for their additional salaries, so in the coming stage
24 of privatisation, the Croatian segment would not have
25 enough to buy shares in companies and in terms of real
1estate as well, so that's why the list was expanded.
2 Q. How was the list expanded?
3 A. On the basis of a document that we received.
4 The list could have been expanded so as to include all
5 members of the Civil Defence and persons who had work
6 duty, who responded to call-up, or who contributed to
7 ensuring the functioning of the living situation of the
8 population during the war. Therefore, we expanded this
9 list with military conscripts who were elderly and who
10 helped in a way or, rather, participated in defence
11 tasks, together with participants who were women who,
12 in a way through the Civil Defence, helped the
14 On the basis all of this that I have
15 mentioned, a certain amount of money was obtained. It
16 was about 3 billion Deutschmark. On that basis,
17 certificates on additional pay for the RBH were
19 Q. Was this a final list then?
20 A. This money was never actually given out.
21 This list was not a final one, because the
22 International Community had set the amount is for
23 additional salaries in Bosnia-Herzegovina, up to about
24 15 billion marks. So the federation of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina were allocated seven and a half billion,
1approximately. Mr. Westendorp, as the international
2 arbiter, gave the military component of the HVO about a
3 billion and a half marks. Because of this amount of a
4 billion and a half, there had to be a drastic reduction
5 of the additional salaries that had been calculated.
6 Q. Then after that decision yet a third list was
7 made; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. There were certain reductions; is that
11 A. In which respect?
12 Q. In respect of deductions.
13 A. In 1998, certificates were given out with the
14 initial calculations. In the beginning of 1999, there
15 were these drastic cuts. All persons above the --
16 above a certain age, that is to say, all those who were
17 older than persons born in 1930 or younger than those
18 born in 1978 were deprived of this right.
19 And 1.600 marks were given out. All members
20 of the Civil Defence received 1.200 marks, and all
21 families of persons killed in the war for the homeland
22 received 1.200 marks.
23 Q. Tell me, please, according to this third
24 list, were these additional salaries paid out?
25 A. On the basis of these decisions, the Ministry
1of Defence sent to Sarajevo, to the federal Ministry,
2 to the accounting office, they sent these lists. This
3 past month was a month for corrections and also for
4 lodging complaints, because people were not satisfied
5 and they lodged complaints in terms of the amounts
6 concerned. Therefore, these accounts have not been
7 made final yet.
8 Q. These two documents that you see in front of
9 you, that we showed to you, that is P353 and P371,
10 those are the first versions of the list; is that
12 A. No. This is only a working material.
13 Q. A working material for what?
14 A. A working material for accounts.
15 Q. But these are not the final versions, right?
16 A. No, no.
17 Q. These two lists were taken from your office;
18 is that right?
19 A. Yes. On the 23rd of September, 1998.
20 Q. Can you just say who took these documents
22 A. The investigators of The Hague Tribunal.
23 They came with a warrant issued by the Court, on the
24 morning of the 23rd of September, 1998. They were
25 accompanied by SFOR.
1Q. Was something else taken away except for this
3 A. Yes. A lot of other lists were also taken
4 away. Most of these things were working materials that
5 were used for calculating the shares concerned, and
6 hard disks were taken out of computers and quite a few
7 documents. I don't know exactly what these documents
9 Q. Did you get a list of documents that were
10 taken away by the investigators of the Tribunal?
11 A. Yes, we did. Not within the deadline
12 provided in the warrant, but we did.
13 Q. One more question. The members of SFOR, were
14 they armed as they entered your premises?
15 A. Yes, they were. Yes. They had long rifles.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Majstorovic.
17 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, we have
18 some documents here, that is to say, the law and the
19 instructions for elaborating these documents that the
20 witness brought along. However, we did not manage to
21 have them translated. Would it be necessary for these
22 documents to be recognised by the witness and then
23 perhaps tomorrow or the day after tomorrow we could
24 have these documents tendered, if the Prosecutor
25 agrees, and if you agree to that. We can read certain
1parts of these documents that we have been invoking.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: We could, yes. Maybe
3 tomorrow you could, yes, provide us with the original
4 and the translation tomorrow.
5 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you.
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Blaxill?
7 MR. BLAXILL: I presume there are no other
8 questions from other Defence counsel, Your Honour, so
9 thank you.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Blaxill:
11 Q. Mr. Majstorovic, good morning, to you, sir.
12 My name is Michael Blaxill.
13 A. Morning.
14 Q. I am one of the prosecuting counsel in this
15 case so I do have a few questions that I'd like to ask
16 you as a result of what you've said here today.
17 Now, if I can just be sure that I understand
18 the two lists that you have referred to, I believe you
19 have said that this list, which we've marked P353, is,
20 in fact, essentially a list from the Viteska Brigade or
21 was the Viteska Brigade; is that correct?
22 A. This is a list of the brigade that was during
23 the war called the Vitez Brigade, the Viteska Brigade.
24 Q. That is the brigade that subsequently became
25 the 92nd Home Guard Regiment; is that right?
2 Q. This list was compiled, I believe, if I heard
3 you correctly, by the brigade staff themselves; is that
4 right? They provided this information; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So was the information actually provided on
8 the sheets in this format so that you just put it
9 together in your office, or did they supply the
10 information and you translated it into your own forms
11 so that it results in that list?
12 A. No. The list that you have in front of you
13 came from the regiment. They compiled it and we just
14 kept it.
15 Q. So on that basis, as you had all these sheets
16 of paper added into a list, did you take any steps to
17 verify any or a proportion of signatures that are
18 appearing down the last but one column on each page of
19 the list?
20 A. No. We did not have the authority to check
21 or verify anything.
22 Q. So as far as you are personally concerned,
23 you did not gather the information for this list, did
24 not compile these pages, and you had no way of
25 verifying the contents, is that right, yourself
2 A. Persons from the defence department simply
3 put this together physically. We did not -- this
4 document that you have in front of you, we could not
5 verify it. We could not take part in the elaboration
6 of this list. I personally am on that list so I had to
7 go and sign it, that's all.
8 Q. So beyond that, if I asked you about any
9 matter of accuracy in that list, any fact represented
10 there like a name or a signature, except for your own,
11 you clearly -- that would not be within your personal
12 knowledge; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Thank you. If I can turn, sir, to the other
15 list. We've numbered this P371. You say that that
16 list was prepared by the -- let's say the party
17 administration of the HDZ. Would that be correct,
19 A. Yes. One of the protagonists of this
20 activity was chairman of the basic organisation of the
21 HDZ, and they were the only structure that could carry
22 this out at the time.
23 Q. So is it again true to say, sir, that as
24 regards your own personal experience, your own personal
25 work, you had no part in the preparation of the
1contents of this list; is that right?
2 A. Yes. Not a single official from the defence
3 department could take part in any way in the
4 elaboration of this list.
5 Q. Now, forgive me, sir, because I don't speak
6 or understand your language, but I believe at the top
7 of the pages, in this particular list we've marked 371,
8 underneath the large word in heavy type, can you just
9 tell me what that means? It looks like "Orgahizirani
10 Otpor Agresiji." Could you give me a translation of
12 I see my friend smiling, so I've said it very
13 badly. Could you give me a translation?
14 A. Yes. You translated it well. These are
15 participants in organised resistance to the aggression,
16 and in this way they only legalised their very own
17 initiative of gathering together and protecting their
18 lives and property, because in this period in 1991, the
19 former Yugoslav People's Army carried out movements of
20 its own manpower throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
21 they armed their own population, the Serb population,
22 throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. They gave them
23 weapons. Automatically the number of lootings and
24 robberies went up, and all of this created a lack of
25 security and safety among the population of Vitez.
1Therefore, these people, at their own
2 initiative, rallied together, organised themselves,
3 organised night patrols or village guards in that
5 Q. Just looking at these two lists side by side,
6 it would appear that the HDZ list ends with the date of
7 the 8th of April, 1992 and the Viteska Brigade begins
8 with the date of the 8th of April, 1992. Would you
9 agree with that, sir, on the face of those documents?
10 A. It does not necessarily mean that the
11 participants in organised resistance were only from the
12 8th of April, 1992. Also, this could have related to
13 May 1992. However, this original list had to be
14 compiled by the 8th of April because it has special
15 status. Officially, from the 8th of April, 1992, there
16 could have been a military formation on the territory
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The period before that was only
18 a question of persons who were part of the local
19 population, because you can see that this is all done
20 according to places of residence. In other words,
22 Q. But what I'm suggesting, sir, is that HDZ
23 list essentially covers all those persons who formed
24 part of the defensive efforts, or gathering together
25 for defensive purposes, prior to formation of the HVO,
1and it seems that other lists were then prepared after
2 the formation of the HVO. Would that be fair to say?
3 A. On the first list, as I mentioned, not all
4 persons of members of the HDZ, and it is -- it carries
5 the heading "HDZ," not because they were all members of
6 the HDZ, but that was the only structure that to
7 compile this list in '96, because in '91 there were
8 still lots of communists in these places where they
10 But that was the way in which persons were
11 engaged in such activities, with a view to carrying out
12 organised resistance against aggression, and they are
13 on these lists and, therefore, one cannot say these are
14 a list of members of the HDZ. This was only compiled
15 by persons who at that time were chairmen of basic
16 organisations of the HDZ.
17 Q. I accept, sir, you saying that the HDZ were
18 simply the mechanism to prepare this list and this
19 embraces a lot more people. Would it be true to say
20 though that the people in the HDZ list, and I'm not
21 suggesting they're members of it, are all Croat names?
22 Would that be true in that list, to the best of your
24 A. I don't know. In 1991 and 1992, I did not
25 live in the territory of Vitez municipality, and I
1actually am a refugee from Zenica, so I cannot confirm
2 that all the people listed here are actually Croats.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, moving forward from those
4 lists, it seems that you say that you took up duty in
5 1994 in the defence department, firstly dealing with
6 structures outside the armed forces; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What kind of structures were those that you
9 had responsibility for?
10 A. The official who works on lists of people
11 outside of the armed forces would be involved, those
12 who were on work duty, working in civil protection,
13 then worked on compiling an inventory of the available
14 motor vehicles and livestock.
15 Q. Now, I know you took up that post in 1994,
16 but would, at that time, the medical services have come
17 under that kind of non-armed forces structure, for
18 instance, volunteer ambulance drivers or people dealing
19 with medical services and supply for the HVO?
20 A. I'm not sure I understood exactly in what
21 context you put this medical services.
22 Q. Well, I am suggesting, sir, that anybody who
23 would set up, for instance, first aid supplies, the
24 provision of ambulance or ambulance driving, duties of
25 that nature, obtaining medical supplies themselves,
1would that have counted as an armed forces activity or
2 would that have been an activity in one of these
3 structures outside the armed forces?
4 A. Military formations had their own medical
5 service, so if a soldier were mobilised during the war
6 and was within a unit and carrying out such duties, he
7 would be part of the military structure, but if he were
8 in a health centre, in a hospital, then he would have
9 been on work duty.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, do you have any knowledge of
11 what the mobilisation position was, what the
12 difficulties were of mobilisation, back in, let's say,
13 the middle of or late 1992 or early 1993? Did you have
14 any contact with that world?
15 A. No, I did not. I did not live in Vitez at
16 the time. I only arrived there in the middle of 1993.
17 Q. And, in fact, prior to the middle of 1993, is
18 it correct you were, in fact, yourself a soldier; is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes. I was a member of the reserve forces of
21 the Zenica HVO.
22 Q. Were you a squad commander in that role?
23 A. I was a squad commander of a reserve, but I
24 was never deployed anywhere.
25 Q. I see. The unit you belonged to, was that,
1in fact, the Zenica Brigade? As a reservist.
2 A. Yes. The so-called Jure Francetic Zenica
4 Q. Yes, I was going to ask you that, sir, as a
5 matter of curiosity. That was the Jure Francetic
6 Brigade. Thank you.
7 So your first contact, you say now, was, in
8 fact, in 1994 and that you remained engaged in work
9 regarding the system of these additional salaries until
10 what date? Are you still involved in that kind of
12 A. I have been working in that duty since 1996
13 and I am still involved in this duty.
14 Q. All right. Now, just to go back to one date,
15 that is the very first date referred to in these lists,
16 in fact, it was the 8th of -- sorry, the 18th of
17 September, 1991. You take that as a kind of
18 outbreak-of-hostilities date. Was that, in fact, when
19 conflict developed between Croatia and the Serbs and
20 that the attack on Rovna was simply because that was
21 just over the border in Bosnia-Herzegovina; do I
22 understand that correctly?
23 A. The conflict between the Serbs and the Croats
24 broke out in April 1991, so it's not directly related
25 to that conflict, but this was an incursion of the
1former JNA into the territory of Bosnia and
3 Q. Thank you for clarifying that, sir. Sir,
4 just to recap one very brief point. The reality is
5 that as regards these lists that are in the court
6 today, you personally have no way of assisting as to
7 the accuracy of their contents? I know I'm repeating
8 myself, but just to confirm that one point. Is that
9 right, sir?
10 A. Officials of the defence department could,
11 only in cases where there were some egregious mistakes,
12 to enter any corrections on the spot if they really
13 found them but in no other ways were permitted to make
14 any additional corrections. There were instances when
15 some members, let's say by a mistake of an official who
16 was entering the data or when it was typed, somebody
17 entered the first half of 1991, but no participant of
18 the war for homeland could have had such date
19 admitted. Only as of 18 September. So only such
20 egregious mistakes could be corrected and no other
22 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you very much. Your
23 Honour, that concludes my cross-examination. Thank
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel
2 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you,
3 Mr. President.
4 Re-examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:
5 Q. Mr. Majstorovic, you said that you were a
6 squad commander; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Were you a soldier or reservist?
9 A. Reservist.
10 Q. So that was your wartime assignment?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So at that time you were not militarily
14 A. Yes. That is what I have said.
15 Q. So when were you militarily involved?
16 A. Only upon my arrival in the Vitez
18 Q. This is the time when you became a soldier?
19 A. Yes, that was the time when I became a
21 Q. The Prosecutor asked you, in reference to
22 these two lists, that he believed that the first list
23 ends -- that the second list starts where the first one
25 A. Yes. And that is normal.
1Q. Were the participants of the village guards
2 included in the second list as well?
3 A. Yes. And this is why these two lists are
5 Q. What is the title, what is the categorisation
6 which a member of the village guard got in the
7 second -- based on the instructions you received?
8 A. It would be the status "P" or "Reserves."
9 Q. So the difference between the two listings is
10 really just by the methods; they refer to different
11 periods but it refers to the same persons?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. These persons had a status of the reserves
14 until when?
15 A. Up until the date of the mobilisation.
16 Q. I apologise. When did they receive the
17 status of reserves?
18 A. They all were reserves.
19 Q. And when did they receive the status of
21 A. First it is entered when he is recruited,
22 then he is taken to training, and then he becomes a
24 Q. So not at the time of the mobilisation?
25 A. Those who are mobilised have a status of a
1soldier in reserve.
2 Q. Let me take you back to it from the
3 beginning. How do people get recruited?
4 A. A recruit is entered in the list of military
5 recruits when he reaches the age of 17.
6 Q. And at that time, is he a soldier?
7 A. At that time, he is a recruit. He is then
8 sent for a medical examination and he gets an
9 evaluation, whether he is fit or unfit for military
10 service. Then he receives a VES.
11 Q. What is a VES?
12 A. That is the military specialisation. Every
13 branch of the armed forces has their own
14 specialisations, and on the basis of that, he is then
15 called up for military duty. When he is fully 18 years
16 old, he can be called up.
17 Q. During the period when he is performing his
18 military service, is he a soldier?
19 A. He is a soldier.
20 Q. After he is finished with his military
21 service and he becomes a member of the reserves, is he
22 still a soldier?
23 A. Yes. He is a soldier who has no particular
24 assignment and awaits his military assignment.
25 Q. So according to you, everybody is a member of
2 A. Yes. They are all soldiers in reserve.
3 Q. So when a mobilisation takes place of the
4 military reserves, what happens then?
5 A. Everybody is called up. So all military
6 recruits, reservists who have no assignments, are then
7 called up by the unit.
8 Q. After the demobilisation, he again is
9 transferred back to the reserves; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know when demobilisation of the
12 military reserve forces in the Vitez municipality was
13 conducted in April 1994? Do you have that information?
14 A. Could you please repeat the question?
15 Q. When was the reserve force mobilised in the
16 territory of the Vitez municipality in April 1993? Can
17 you pinpoint the date?
18 A. No, I cannot. I was not a resident in the
19 Vitez municipality at that time.
20 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Very well. I have no
21 further questions.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel
23 Slokovic-Glumac. We don't have any questions for the
25 Mr. Majstorovic, thank you for testifying.
1You may now be released. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 (The witness withdrew)
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Slokovic-Glumac, are
5 you going to call any of the accused or any other
7 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, before
8 calling the first and the second accused, we have
9 certain problems to report.
10 The Prosecution is aware of the fact and the
11 Trial Chamber may be aware of the fact that we have
12 requested that certain documents be entered into
13 evidence. Allow me just to look up the appropriate
15 The documents referring to the Vitez Brigade,
16 these are D36/2, D37/2, and D38/2, also the document
17 D16/2, I would like to request my colleagues from the
18 Prosecution, since they know what these documents are,
19 to just say whether they accept these documents,
20 especially given the fact that they were admitted in
21 Blaskic and they were admitted there without any
22 objection on the part of the Prosecution team in that
24 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, I just need a
25 few minutes to see what kind of documents we are
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Are you speaking of some
3 orders signed by General Blaskic?
4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: That is correct.
5 Mr. President, the following is at issue: The
6 proceedings in the Blaskic case are completed, and
7 documents were admitted there which were confirmed by
8 two witnesses without any objections. It was confirmed
9 by both General Blaskic and by Slavko Marin. And the
10 fourth document, in addition to the orders of General
11 Blaskic, the fourth document was also admitted without
12 any objections.
13 What is my point? I believe that the
14 Prosecution needs to have a consistent position with
15 respect to the documents which are being submitted in
16 different cases. I believe that the Prosecution would
17 probably like to cross-examine on these documents, but
18 if they admit these documents without any objections
19 and, in our case, they object to their admission and
20 deny their authenticity, I believe that it is unethical
21 to take different positions in different cases
22 regarding the same facts.
23 The Prosecution is one and a single body.
24 They work together and they should have the same
25 position with respect to facts. So if they decide to
1admit to something in one case and not in another, we
2 will find ourselves in a situation where we will end up
3 with different results based on the same facts. I
4 would just like to know what the position of the
5 Prosecution is with respect to these documents at this
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Before I give the floor to
8 the Prosecution, let me remind you that, to the best of
9 my recollection, we already decided on those documents,
10 and I think they are signed by General Blaskic, and I
11 vividly remember that I asked you to call General
12 Blaskic to say in court whether or not he recognises
13 his signature, and there was no follow-up to my
14 suggestion, so therefore, those documents were not
15 admitted into evidence.
16 As for the position of the Prosecution, it
17 is, of course, for the Prosecution to tell us whether
18 or not they take the same stand here as in another
20 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, I was
21 just going to further clarify this. I would just like
22 to know what the position of the Prosecution is at this
24 We talked to General Blaskic's Defence team
25 regarding the question which you raised and we were
1told that he is not going to testify here because he is
2 preparing his defence and he is involved in his case.
3 We also contacted Slavko Marin, who had testified in
4 the Blaskic case, and we thought that he would come
5 here, he was actually announced last week to come and
6 testify, because we wanted to verify certain documents
7 and introduce certain documents through him and also
8 verify their authenticity. Only today we learned that
9 he is not coming at all.
10 Thirdly, during the last break between the
11 two sessions, my colleague Radovic and I were in Vitez,
12 and we searched for other people who would be able to
13 verify the authenticity of these documents. Among the
14 people who were at the Operative Zone headquarters at
15 the time, very few of them were there, and Franjo
16 Nakic, who was present, refused to come and testify
17 based on medical grounds.
18 So our position is that it is very difficult
19 for us to locate a witness. We believe that the
20 documents are very important for us, for our defence,
21 and Mr. Radovic and I are unable to complete our case
22 until these documents are admitted; and also, if the
23 position of the Prosecution does not change and if the
24 Trial Chamber does not rule based on Rule 94(B), we
25 would be forced to interrupt our case until such time
1as we are able to locate a witness who will be able to
2 authenticate our case, our documents, because we find
3 them absolutely relevant for our defence.
4 JUDGE MAY: You will not be interrupting the
5 case, Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac. You will be applying to
6 the Trial Chamber to interrupt the case. That's the
7 first thing.
8 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Yes.
9 JUDGE MAY: The second thing is this: The
10 more important the document, the more important it is
11 made authentic, that it is authenticated by a witness.
12 The third is that it is a matter for the
13 Trial Chamber to rule on the evidence in this case, not
14 on the evidence in other case, as to whether we should
15 admit the document.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Terrier?
17 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Mr. President. When these
18 documents were presented to the Court on the 13th of
19 January, 1999, we noticed that there were certain
20 grounds for suspicion, because some documents did not
21 have numbers of orders, something had been deleted, and
22 then Zvonimir Cilic, the witness who then testified,
23 was not in a position to identify them. That is why we
24 did not want these documents to be entered into
25 evidence, and we think that the Trial Chamber ruled as
2 I would have a proposal, in view of the fact
3 that I cannot change my opinion today because we have
4 not received a single new element in this respect.
5 These documents are yet to be proven authentic. I
6 listened to Mr. Pavkovic very attentively, and he said
7 that he would give up on calling Slavko Marin as a
8 witness. We did not want to extend this discussion,
9 because we thought that alibi was up.
10 I thought that Mr. Pavkovic did not know why
11 Mr. Marin decided on his own initiative to not to come
12 a witness before this Court and not to respond to the
13 Defence's invitation for him to testify.
14 So I wonder, should we not look into
15 everything? That is to say, the Prosecution and the
16 Defence, shouldn't we all look into this together?
17 Isn't it mandatory for Slavko Marin to come and
18 testify? Is it not up to the Defence to establish the
19 alibi of Vlado Santic but also reveal the truth before
20 this Trial Chamber?
21 I believe that Slavko Marin, in view of his
22 position during these events, can give some information
23 that would be indeed valuable to the Court in their
24 quest for the truth. Also, he could provide
25 information which would identify the documents that are
1under discussion today.
2 It is for that reason that I request from the
3 Trial Chamber today, in view of the information that we
4 received from Mr. Pavkovic and in view of the concerns
5 expressed by Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac, to consider whether
6 it would be a good thing to call Mr. Pavkovic (sic) as
7 a Court witness perhaps when we sit again, perhaps in
8 the month of August or whenever.
9 It was probably a slip of the tongue. I
10 think it's pretty obvious that it was a slip of the
12 I also wish to add and thus conclude that
13 this is a measure that the Court had already taken in
14 the case of a witness that was supposed to be called by
15 the Prosecution and for whom the Prosecutor decided
16 that it was not necessary to call him. So it would not
17 be the first time that the Court reached such a
18 decision, but I think that it is truly justified now.
19 JUDGE CASSESE: May I ask Counsel Pavkovic to
20 comment on this suggestion by the Prosecution?
21 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I don't really
22 know what I could say that would be new by way of a
23 comment. Mr. Slavko Marin was on our list as a witness
24 on the list of the Defence for Vladimir Santic, and he
25 was on that list for the 8th of July of this year.
1Already on the 9th I explained to the Court that I did
2 not know the real reasons for the fact that he did not
4 When I looked into the matter and when I
5 talked to my client about the situation concerning
6 documents, because two other witnesses had testified.
7 Davor Biletic and testified and Ivica Franic had
8 testified in the meantime. It was our assessment that
9 irrespective of the reasons why Slavko Marin did not
10 come, that we would give up on his testimony.
11 I wanted to say that yesterday, but I did not
12 want to interrupt witness Bringa. I don't see what
13 more I could add to this.
14 You're quite right, Mr. President. You gave
15 me the right to decide on this witness, so that was my
16 assessment and I didn't want to burden you with this
17 any longer. We had simply decided not to call him as a
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
20 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Slokovic-Glumac,
22 could you please tell me about D36/2? Is it a
23 document, an order signed by General Blaskic? So these
24 are three orders signed by --
25 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: That's right. That's
1right. These are three orders.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: And D16/2 is signed by
3 Mr. Ljubicic.
4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Pasko Ljubicic, yes.
5 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Our ruling it as follows: We
7 don't intend to call as a Court witness Mr. Slavko
8 Marin because we feel that this would not be fair to
9 the accused.
10 We do intend to call General Blaskic, only
11 for the purpose of authenticating the three orders in
12 D36/2, 37, 38. So we will issue an order to call him
13 as a Court witness for this exclusive purpose. That's
14 our ruling.
15 Yes, Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
16 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: I don't know whether
17 this is a mistake in the transcript, but
18 General Blaskic, during his testimony, did recognise
19 document D16/2. This is a report of the military
20 police, because this report was sent to him and he had
21 received it on that day, that is to say, the 16th in
22 the afternoon. At any rate, he can confirm that this
23 document was received by him on that day and that ...
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Yes, please.
25 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: May I just add one more
1thing in relation to these documents and our attitude
2 towards them? Mr. President, we would like, at any
3 rate, that Mr. Blaskic make a statement concerning the
4 authenticity of these documents before Zoran and Mirjan
5 Kupreskic present their defence. We would like, in our
6 part of the case, that their testimonies be the last
7 thing that we do and that we conclude our case with
8 their own defences.
9 So would it be possible to organise it that
10 way? You said yourself the statement he would be
11 making would be extremely brief and he would simply be
12 confirm their authenticity. So could it please precede
13 their statements?
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Sorry, yes?
15 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Radovic.
17 MR. RADOVIC: Your Honours, we have another
18 problem. We asked the Trial Chamber to give us leave
19 to lodge an appeal with regard to the documents the
20 Prosecutor can present when a witness is testifying, so
21 we agree with the witnesses who testify in Court.
22 These statements can be presented. They are admitted
23 as evidence. Then also statements of witnesses who
24 were not in Court but who were not submitted to the
25 Defence counsel in any form, they cannot be tendered.
1We agree with that too.
2 However, we do not agree with the possibility
3 to present statements of witnesses who were not heard
4 in Court and that the Prosecutor has, and they were
5 obtained in some way. For example, statements that
6 were given before an investigative Judge in Zenica or
8 We would appreciate it if when our clients
9 are heard as witnesses, we know exactly and finally
10 what is legally binding and what can they be shown
11 during their testimony on a valid basis.
12 So please, could our clients not be heard as
13 witnesses in this case until we definitely know the
14 rules under which they will be heard? Thank you.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: But you see, it will take
16 some time. First of all, your appeal will go to a
17 panel of three Judges, members of the Appeals Chamber.
18 Then they have to decide whether or not to grant leave
19 to appeal. Then there will be an appeal. There will
20 be, of course, briefs filed by yourself and the
21 Prosecution. So probably it will take one or two
22 months for the Appeals Chamber to decide on this
24 So I don't see why we should stop now and
25 reconvene in September or October only because this
1issue has not been settled by the Appeals Chamber.
2 You can, of course, stress in your appeal the
3 urgency of the matter, but it is for the President of
4 the Appeals Chamber to decide also on when to decide on
5 this matter. So it's beyond our control. As a Trial
6 Chamber, we have no say. Of course we must not
7 interfere in any way with the Appeals Chamber. We
9 So as I say, I don't see why we should wait
10 until the decision of the Appeals Chamber to call and
11 hear the two accused you mentioned before. We can't do
13 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, Counsel Radovic?
15 MR. RADOVIC: Mr. President, when
16 Mr. Terrier, as a representative of the Prosecution,
17 argued why he is asking for testimonies of persons who
18 had not testified here, it was precisely to introduce
19 witnesses whom you had not heard, that you would be
20 given an opportunity to make sure that they are
21 witnesses of truth. This is our concern too, because
22 we would have to match their testimony against the
23 testimony of somebody that you never heard.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Now, we have two
25 issues. The first issue, General Blaskic. We will now
1call General Blaskic, and we very much hope that he
2 will be able to give evidence tomorrow morning at
3 9.00. I will issue an order accordingly, as soon as
4 this hearing is over.
5 However, if he can't come tomorrow -- I know
6 that there is no hearing this week in the Blaskic case,
7 so he should be available tomorrow morning. If for any
8 reason he can't come tomorrow at 9.00 or maybe on
9 Thursday and so on, we will proceed in any case with
10 the accused, because I don't see any point in waiting
11 for General Blaskic if only because we have to see what
12 he's going too say about those three documents.
13 But as I say, of course, the order to be
14 issued will specify that the he should come here and
15 give evidence on those particular points tomorrow at
16 9.00, but if for any particular reason he can't, we
17 will go on with the witnesses to be called by Defence
19 As for the other issue, let me ask
20 Mr. Terrier of the Prosecution whether they intend to
21 use, in cross-examination, those documents to which the
22 Defence is objecting and which has filed an appeal
23 before the Appeals Chamber.
24 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, it's a little bit
25 difficult to say right now which documents we're going
1to use for the cross-examination. We could consider
2 using a certain number of statements that were given by
3 witnesses under circumstances and conditions that were
4 indicated and specified by the Trial Chamber. I'd like
5 to indicate to Mr. Radovic that in doing so, we are not
6 going to compare a written document or a written
7 statement with an oral statement of someone who was at
8 the Tribunal, but would rather compare the factual
9 situations as appear in the written statements in
10 respect of the statements given under oath.
11 This is something completely different from
12 what Mr. Radovic is saying and, once again, I do not
13 have the feeling that in doing so we are putting at
14 risk the rights which the Defence exercises and which
15 the accused exercise.
16 In order to answer your question, Your
17 Honour, today we are unable to eliminate absolutely the
18 possibility of not calling in written testimony which
19 was not disclosed to the Defence previously.
20 Nonetheless, of course, if the Trial Chamber desires,
21 in order to avoid any discussions, we will refrain from
22 acting in that manner and we will do what the Trial
23 Chamber asks us to do.
24 But in light of what was said before this
25 Trial Chamber, in light of the statements that were
1disclosed to the Defence, we have important material
2 which might be sufficient in order to move forward with
3 the cross-examination appropriately of the accused. In
4 any case, we will comply with the orders of the Trial
6 Having said that, Your Honour, I have another
7 question to raise, if this is the proper time, if you
8 will allow me to do so.
9 I understood that both the accused, who will
10 speak first, will be called by the two attorneys; that
11 is, each accused will be the witness of his own case
12 but also a Defence witness for another accused. In
13 this way, for each accused, he will have two
14 examinations in chief but two additional examinations,
15 and I was wondering -- of course, we are facing a
16 situation which is unprecedented here. I was wondering
17 whether this complied with the Rules of Procedure
18 because the accused is not a witness like the other
19 witnesses but is one -- or a person who is authorised
20 to appear as a witness for his own defence according to
21 Rule 98 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and I
22 wonder whether an accused can really appear as a
23 witness for the defence of another person, that is, a
24 person other than himself. In other words, I was
25 wondering whether it is possible and whether it is
1reasonable to allow each of the accused to be subject
2 to two examinations in chief and then to two
3 cross-examinations and additional examinations. This
4 is a problem which I wanted to raise before Your
5 Honours with full knowledge that perhaps there is
6 material here for stating a procedural position in face
7 of this new situation.
8 I have two other very short comments that I
9 would like to make. At this stage of the trial, we
10 still do not know whether the accused Vladimir Santic
11 plans to appear as a witness in his own defence. Last
12 Friday, Mr. Pavkovic told us that the situation was
13 being reviewed, and my last comment is that
14 Mr. Pavkovic submitted statements -- or affidavits,
15 rather, to the Trial Chamber about the character of the
16 accused on the basis of 94 ter. I would like to ask
17 that the admissibility of these affidavits be postponed
18 and not be admitted as evidence at this point
19 [interpretation error]. Thank you.
20 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, please,
21 with your permission, just in connection with what
22 Mr. Terrier said.
23 Mr. Radovic, a week ago in this Chamber,
24 before this Chamber, said that we would together
25 question the accused when they testify as witnesses,
1that we would do this in the following way: Certain
2 sections would be handled by one Defence attorney and
3 certain sections would be handled by the other Defence
5 You have seen from the very outset of this
6 trial that this is a joint defence for Zoran and Mirjan
7 Kupreskic. They have joint witnesses. And when the
8 second accused will be testifying, then perhaps it
9 won't even be necessary to question him on certain
10 points that will already have been taken care of by the
11 first accused. The Prosecutor did not object to that
12 solution on the very first day when we presented it,
13 and we felt that this was all right, and that is how we
14 prepared their defence.
15 We have been preparing this defence for over
16 a week now. Quite a bit of time has gone by. We are
17 supposed to start tomorrow, and now we are supposed to
18 change the methodology, which was not objected to, as I
19 said, at the time when we made that proposal. Thank
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
22 (Trial Chamber confers)
23 JUDGE CASSESE: We have decided that when the
24 two accused will be examined, will be called here,
25 there will be no cross-examination by the Prosecution
1on undisclosed material without leave of the Trial
2 Chamber. So, therefore, whenever you want to raise a
3 matter based on a statement made, signed by a person
4 who has not been called here as a witness, you will
5 have to ask leave from the Trial Chamber to do so, and
6 we will decide case by case.
7 As for the way we go about the examination of
8 the two witnesses, we feel that although our Rules
9 state that an accused may testify on his own behalf, a
10 broad and liberal interpretation should be placed on
11 this Rule; therefore, an accused may also testify on
12 behalf of another accused. I think this is in the
13 interests of the Defence and in the interests of proper
14 administration of justice.
15 In addition, we feel that Counsel
16 Slokovic-Glumac suggested a proper procedure, namely,
17 that each accused will be examined in chief by two
18 counsel, each of them will concentrate on a particular
19 area, and then he will be cross-examined by the other
20 counsel, counsel other than the one who is calling the
21 accused. So there will be examination-in-chief by two
22 counsel, who will divide up the area of concern; and
23 then, as I say, a cross-examination only by one other
24 counsel; and then the Prosecution will proceed to
1So if, say, Counsel Slokovic-Glumac is
2 calling one of the accused for examination-in-chief,
3 examination-in-chief will be undertaken by both
4 counsel, you and Counsel Radovic; but then the
5 cross-examination will be carried out by Counsel
6 Radovic and vice versa.
7 I hope this is clear.
8 Now, as for the question relating to -- the
9 question of whether or not -- yes, Counsel
11 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, my
12 apologies. This is a technical matter, but it may pose
13 a bit of a problem for us. With respect to the
14 cross-examination -- or re-examination, I should say,
15 should be left to our own decision which of the two
16 counsel will conduct it, regardless of who had examined
17 in chief.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: I would say so, because in
19 any case, we have decided that the examination-in-chief
20 will be carried out by both counsel.
21 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Okay.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: So it is for you to decide
23 who is going to re-examine the -- yes, I think it is
24 quite proper.
25 Now, moving to this question relating to
1Mr. Santic, whether or not he will testify. Again, we
2 think that it is for Counsel Pavkovic to decide, not
3 now but at a later stage, because I had a feeling -- I
4 may be wrong -- but I think Counsel Pavkovic gave a
5 hint that he would decide after the examination of the
6 first two accused or maybe the three accused, the three
7 Kupreskics, and I think it is for you to decide at a
8 later stage. We don't want to press you to decide
9 right away.
10 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, what you just
11 said is exactly what Mr. Santic just gave me as a
12 message; in other words, we have been speaking about it
13 for a while, to wait and see, and we will see what the
14 first three accused say. I believe that this will also
15 leave enough time for the Prosecution to also prepare
16 themselves should we decide to call our own client.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Let me add a footnote
18 for the Prosecution. I do understand that the
19 Prosecution is put in a rather awkward position because
20 they don't know right away. On the other hand, I think
21 the Prosecution is aware that the Defence counsel come
22 from a country where the civil law system is adopted,
23 and probably in those countries they are not familiar
24 with the examination and cross-examination of the
25 accused. So therefore, I would make allowance for this
1need by the Defence, to see how it works.
2 All right. So if there is no other
3 outstanding matter, we can adjourn now. As I say, I
4 hope that tomorrow we can start with General Blaskic.
50 If not, we will start with the first of the two
7 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, if I could ask you
8 for just one moment having to do with the affidavits of
9 Mr. Pavkovic. There was a mistake in the transcript.
10 I am not opposed to their being disclosed, and the
11 opposite had been indicated.
12 JUDGE CASSESE: I had forgotten to thank you
13 and to have said that they have been tendered as
14 evidence and admitted.
15 We will now be told the number -- well,
16 perhaps not now. You can do it tomorrow morning.
17 We will adjourn.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
19 1.00 p.m., to be reconvened on
20 Wednesday, the 14th day of July, 1999,
21 at 9.00 a.m.