1 Monday, 25 September 2000
2 [Open Session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.55 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
6 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the
7 technicians, to the interpreters; good morning, legal assistants,
8 representatives of the Registrar; good morning, Ms. Hollis, counsel for
9 the Prosecution; good morning, counsel for the Defence. I see that
10 everybody is here. Good morning to the accused.
11 We will resume our hearing with a delay. I hope that everybody
12 was aware of the reasons for this delay. I believe I had already said
13 that it is advisable to test the equipment before the beginning of the
14 hearing. We have to start at half past nine and everything has to be
15 ready. Even if we bear in mind the requirements of the budget, we have to
16 be ready. Everything has to be prepared in advance so that we do not have
17 to have similar delays in the future.
18 So I'm now going to open the hearing, and I will give the floor
19 to -- well, now I don't know. I see Mr. O'Sullivan on his feet.
20 Mr. O'Sullivan, let us hear you.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning. Before
22 the first witness is called, on behalf of the accused, we bring an oral
23 application for a stay of proceedings in this context: The Defence filed
24 a joint application for leave to appeal against the oral decision of the
25 Trial Chamber of 30 August 2000 regarding the Prosecution motion to revise
1 the witness list. This application for leave to appeal was brought under
2 Rule 73. We move for a stay of proceedings in relation to all the new
3 witnesses who are the subject of that appeal, pending a ruling of the
4 Appeals Chamber in relation to that matter.
5 For this week, based on the Prosecutor's witness list of
6 21 September, there are two witnesses who fall into that category. They
7 are Witness AQ and Husein Ganic. So we respectfully request a stay of
8 proceedings in relation to these and the other witnesses, pending a ruling
9 of the Appeals Chamber.
10 Those are my submissions.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you,
12 Mr. O'Sullivan.
13 Ms. Hollis.
14 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, it is the Prosecution's position that a
15 stay would not be a necessary nor an appropriate measure to take for three
16 reasons, basically. First of all, it is not necessary to stay these
17 proceedings in order to preserve the issue for the Defence. They've
18 already raised the issue; it is preserved for them. Going forward would
19 not impact the issue that now is before a bench of the Appeals Chamber.
20 Secondly, Prosecution submits that the Defence have had reasonable
21 time to prepare for the cross-examination of these new witnesses. If in
22 the opinion of the Defence they have not had sufficient time to
23 cross-examine the new witnesses, Prosecution submits that the appropriate
24 remedy would be to ask for an additional delay of a specified number of
25 days in order to be prepared to cross-examine the witnesses. And in order
1 to be successful on such an application, we suggest the Defence would have
2 to show good cause as to why they have not had sufficient time to prepare
3 to cross-examine the witnesses.
4 If they need additional time to prepare, a stay is not the
5 appropriate remedy, certainly not an indefinite stay. On a proper
6 showing, perhaps, a few additional days might be an appropriate remedy.
7 Finally, we have, in this Tribunal, judges who are fact finders,
8 not juries. If an Appellate Chamber were to determine that the evidence
9 of these new witnesses cannot be considered in reaching a decision in this
10 case, the Trial Judges are presumed to be able to set aside that evidence
11 in reaching your verdict. So if you hear the evidence now, there is a
12 presumption you would be able to set it aside were a determination made
13 that the evidence is not admissible against these accused.
14 Now, we would suggest to you that this is very similar to
15 proceedings in judge-alone trials where judges are faced with questions
16 about admissibility of evidence. In order to resolve those questions,
17 they must review the evidence. If they then decide the evidence is not
18 admissible, there is a presumption that the judges can set aside that
19 evidence and not consider it in reaching their decision. We suggest the
20 same scenario is set forth here.
21 We believe that the interests of justice do not require a stay,
22 that there are other remedies available if a good cause showing can be
23 shown, and we suggest that judicial economy would also warrant against an
24 indefinite stay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis, I think there is a
1 special aspect to this, and that is your motion of the 21st of September
2 for the list of witnesses for this week. You suggested some changes to
3 the list. I think you had a list dated the 18th, and after that you
4 changed the list on the 21st. Do you have any comments to make regarding
5 that point?
6 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we changed the list because of our
7 continuing difficulties with witnesses being willing to come forward and
8 their availability, and we explained that in the submission that we made.
9 One witness refused to come forward to testify, despite earlier assurances
10 that he would do so, and another witness had scheduling difficulties.
11 So again, because of continuing difficulties with witnesses, we've
12 had to revise that list, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Hollis, I just want to make one thing sure.
14 There's nobody on the new revised list, is there, that hasn't been on any
15 prior list? In other words, there's no new, new witnesses that we haven't
16 heard about before; they're all witnesses that have been on some list
18 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan, do you have any
21 additional remarks to make?
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
23 First, we're not asking you to stop the trial. The trial can
24 continue. This stay is made only in relation to the witnesses who are
25 subject to our Rule 73 application. The Prosecutor has other witnesses
1 who can be called.
2 Many of the points raised by my learned friend this morning go to
3 the merits of the appeal, and that's a matter for the Appeals Chamber, I
4 submit. We've made our submissions regarding the prejudice we feel the
5 decision incurs, and that's a matter now for the Appeals Chamber.
6 What my friend is suggesting is -- amounts to an attempt to defeat
7 the right to file an interlocutory appeal under Rule 73. We submit the
8 fact finder should not be hearing this evidence, and it's a matter that
9 the Appeals Chamber will be considering, and to proceed would defeat the
10 whole notion of the interlocutory appeal.
11 So we say the trial can continue. There are other witnesses
12 listed for this week, and presumably for later, and therefore it will not
13 disrupt the proceedings at all.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I shall confer with my
15 colleagues before we decide.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Regarding the first matter, that
18 is the stay of proceedings, the Chamber has already ruled to continue the
19 hearings. And at the time, the Chamber told the parties that if the
20 Defence has a particular reason in relation to a particular witness, the
21 Defence may communicate those reasons to the Chamber so that it may take
22 the appropriate decision. Up to this point, the Chamber has not received
23 any such motion in relation to any specific situation, and, therefore, the
24 Chamber upholds its decision to continue the proceedings within the
25 frameworks already ruled upon.
1 In relation to the changes for this week, the testimony for this
2 week, the Chamber accepts the change under the same conditions; that is to
3 say, if the Defence feels it is prejudiced because it hasn't had enough
4 time to prepare, the Defence may communicate to the Chamber its reasons
5 and the Chamber will make a ruling on pertinent measures so there should
6 be no prejudice for the Defence.
7 The Trial Chamber, therefore, takes into consideration the fact
8 that we plan to complete the Prosecution case on the 6th of October.
9 However, it is always prepared to receive Defence motions which are
10 pertinent and reasoned regarding any prejudice to the Defence, and in that
11 case, the Chamber will take appropriate measures.
12 There is also another matter regarding affidavits which we take
13 into consideration so that we can indeed complete the Prosecution case by
14 the 6th of October.
15 As you know, on the 15th of September, 2000, the Prosecutor filed
16 an opinion regarding affidavits or certified statements of ten witnesses.
17 The Defence counsel for the accused Kvocka, Radic, and Prcac submitted
18 their responses on the 21st of September, 2000, stating that such
19 statements cannot be admitted except if they are submitted in accordance
20 with the provisions of Rule 94 ter.
21 The Chamber underlines that the Appeals Chamber has just rendered
22 a ruling in this area in the Kordic case. Three points of this decision
23 need to be underlined.
24 First, according to the Appeals Chamber, the disputed fact must be
25 reasonably focused. The statements must be submitted before the witness
1 whose testimony is being confirmed have been heard.
2 The opposing party has the right to request that the witness whose
3 statement or affidavit is being used should be cross-examined, but the
4 Trial Chamber in question is not obliged to grant such a motion.
5 In this particular case, the Trial Chamber is of the opinion,
6 under the reservation of possible objections made by the Defence, that the
7 first condition has been fulfilled. The disputed facts have been
8 sufficiently well-described or focused. Regarding all statements or
9 affidavits except those of two witnesses, there are several facts on which
10 the witnesses mentioned have already testified. Bearing in mind the
11 decision of the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber cannot accept it.
12 Furthermore, regarding certain statements, the envisaged witnesses
13 have still not been called to testify, but it is not absolutely clear that
14 they will come to testify because they do not appear on the Prosecution
15 list for this week, which means that the Chamber is still not familiar
16 with the list of witnesses for the last week.
17 The Chamber, therefore, advises the Prosecutor to submit a new
18 list on which no witness who has already appeared will be named but only
19 those who will indeed be called to appear this week and the week after
21 The Prosecutor should, furthermore, for each of those witnesses
22 who are going to come to testify, submit a document indicating which
23 certified statements, or statements under oath in particular, will
24 corroborate this or that part of their testimony.
25 The opinion submitted by the Prosecutor makes it possible to find
1 that information, but in view of the fact that the Prosecutor also refers
2 to witnesses who have already testified, it would be easier for the
3 Defence and for the Chamber to have such a revised document.
4 Finally, pursuant to Rule 94 ter, the Defence has a time period of
5 seven days to request that the witness whose statement is being used
6 should appear in person.
7 In order to avoid a multiplicity of motions, the Chamber rules,
8 bearing in mind the circumstances, that the same affidavits will
9 corroborate the statements of several witnesses, that the Defence will
10 have until the 13th of October to submit any possible objections; which
11 means all the Prosecution witnesses will be called until the 6th of
12 October and then, within a period of seven days for all the witnesses and
13 all the statements, the Defence will submit a single motion indicating
14 whether they wish or not to cross-examine them.
15 The Chamber will then decide whether to summon such or other
16 witness. In that case, the Chamber will specify in due time whether the
17 witness should come and testify at the beginning of the Defence case or at
18 some other point which the Defence will consider to be appropriate, and
19 which, perhaps, we can deal with at a Status Conference.
20 Furthermore, the Chamber reminds the Prosecutor that the date of
21 the 6th of October was fixed as the date on which it should have completed
22 the presentation of evidence, bearing in mind the timetable fixed by the
23 Chamber a long time ago. The Chamber will abide by that schedule. It is
24 up to the Prosecutor to decide which witnesses they wish to call between
25 now and the 6th of October, knowing always -- and that is more or less the
1 reason why the Chamber addressed all these matters together -- we have to
2 complete the presentation of the Prosecutor case by the 6th of October.
3 All questions having to do with any possible prejudice to the
4 Defence regarding the time needed to prepare should be communicated to the
5 Chamber so that we might later organise ourselves to overcome this. I
6 think that the Chamber is ready and willing to do everything to maintain a
7 balanced and fair trial, but also an efficient one.
8 We have to complete the case. It is the right of the accused to
9 see the case completed, and the Chamber wishes the case to be completed,
10 but as a fair trial. That is why the Chamber gives the Defence the
11 possibility within the framework of this timetable to come and tell the
12 Chamber, "We haven't had enough time to prepare for this witness" for this
13 or what reason, and then the Chamber will make a ruling which will
14 preserve the balance between the two parties. That is how we must
15 organise ourselves.
16 And so, to begin now, I should like to ask the Prosecutor who will
17 be the next witness.
18 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls Ervin Ramic.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, the witness
20 cannot be brought in right away, please.
21 Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. Let us hear you.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This
23 comes somewhat as a surprise for us, but be that as it may, we are ready
24 for the following witness. However, we are faced with the following
25 problem: All that we have in relation to this witness are two proffers.
1 The last one was received sometime in the month of August and only in the
2 English language, and that proffer makes mention of two new accusatory
3 elements which were not contained in the previous proffer. As I said, we
4 received it only in the English language, and I don't think that our
5 client was able to become familiar in a proper manner with the new
6 incriminating events.
7 I can be specific, Your Honour, and tell you exactly what events
8 we are talking about if the Prosecutor has any objections or if the
9 Prosecutor disputes this fact.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, let me interrupt
11 you. Have you discussed the matter with the Prosecutor?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No, we did not.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, as you know, the
14 Chamber does not receive documents. It is a matter between -- to be dealt
15 with between the parties. I don't know what exactly you're talking about.
16 I'm not familiar with the contents of the document, so you should have
17 found an opportunity to discuss the issue with the Prosecutor.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept your
19 criticism; however, I think that the problem is with the party proposing
20 the witness and the party who has the documents and, consequently, the
21 obligation to provide us with those documents.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So what is your problem now,
23 Mr. Stojanovic?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall be specific. There is no
25 reason for me not to mention what is problematic. I do understand the
1 proffer that was submitted in English, but my client was not able to make
2 himself familiar with the document.
3 The document makes mention of events involving Samic Sistek and
4 certain brothers Jakupovic which had not been mentioned in the previous
5 proffer -- or, rather, proffers, that were received by us both in the
6 English language and in B/C/S. Those events were not mentioned initially.
7 We could have raised the objection during the testimony of the
8 witness, but I believe that it is much more advisable to resolve the issue
9 without the presence of the witness.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you for drawing our
11 attention to the problem, Mr. Stojanovic.
12 Madam Hollis?
13 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, our disclosure records indicate that
14 this material was sent to Mr. Tosic on the 18th of August by courier. We
15 have had an indication from the Defence that they did not receive some
16 materials. We have asked for them to come back to us as to specific
17 materials after we informed them that we had sent it. They did not come
18 back to us and tell us that they, after further review, that they had
19 determined they hadn't received this material.
20 We have had difficulties with the team representing the accused
21 Zigic in regard to accounting for materials that we have provided to
23 Our standing policy with all the attorneys has been that we check
24 our records to see that we have sent the material. Nonetheless, even if
25 it appears in our records we have sent the materials, we ask them to
1 search their materials to ensure they don't have it. If they come back to
2 us and say they don't have it, then it has been our policy to provide them
3 with replacement copies.
4 We were not told, upon further review, that they did not have this
5 or we would have provided them with replacement copies. But our records
6 indicate the 18th of August they were sent the B/C/S version of this
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Hollis. The
9 question of the Defence was related to the fact that they were not sent
10 the documents in B/C/S and that the Defence -- and that the witness in
11 question does not mention the events which subsequently transpired in the
12 second proffer.
13 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, it's the second proffer that I'm talking
14 about that was sent to them on the 18th of August, in the B/C/S language.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, are you
16 satisfied with the response given by the Prosecutor or not?
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have just been
18 advised by my colleague, who was the lead counsel at the time, we did not
19 receive the B/C/S version of the document. He doesn't have it. The
20 accused doesn't have it. We have everything in English. As I have told
21 you, I have had an opportunity review the document in English; however, my
22 client was unable to do so.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But how do you respond to
24 the information provided by the Prosecutor? The Prosecutor apparently
25 sent you a number of documents, and at the time, you did not notify the
1 Prosecutor that you had not received the documents that had been sent to
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not know
4 whether there is a signed certificate on the receipt of the B/C/S
5 version. If the Prosecutor is in the possession of such certificate, I am
6 going to withdraw my objection. However, if they do not have in their
7 records a signed certificate that a document was indeed received in B/C/S,
8 then I maintain my objection.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Hollis, do you have a
10 certificate of receipt?
11 MS. HOLLIS: We do not have a copy of a receipt that has been
12 signed. However, Your Honour, this has been a continuing problem for us
13 in that Defence counsel, to greater or lesser degrees, have returned
14 signed receipts. Some Defence counsel have returned them, others have
15 not, even though we have repeatedly requested that they be returned.
16 Our records do indicate that these were sent to the Defence.
17 Your Honours, we suggest that there really are two issues here.
18 Number one, has the Prosecution failed in its disclosure obligation? We
19 suggest to you that we have not. Number two, if there has been a problem
20 with disclosure, has that deprived the Defence and the accused of the
21 ability to prepare to cross-examine a witness? That, we believe, is a
22 separate matter.
23 From what the Defence counsel says, they have not been able to
24 prepare to meet these two issues even though we suggest we have to wonder
25 at the validity of that objection since the Rules of the Tribunal are that
1 at least one member of the Defence team must be able to operate in one of
2 the official languages of the Tribunal.
3 They got it, they said, in English. So why could not the counsel
4 who is able to deal in the English language have translated those portions
5 to their client? We sent the English version on the 3rd of August. So
6 they've had since then to be able to discuss it with their client.
7 So we suggest, as to the first issue, we have not failed to
8 disclose; we have disclosed. As to the second issue, it appears, from
9 what they have said, that for some reason they don't have or can't find
10 the B/C/S version. Then the question is: What is the impact on their
11 ability to proceed? In determining that, we suggest that at some point
12 the Tribunal has to enforce its rules about the ability to function in one
13 of the official languages of the Tribunal.
14 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Hollis, how long has the Defence known that
15 Mr. Ramic would be a witness today?
16 MS. HOLLIS: He was one of the new witnesses -- or one of the
17 witnesses that was listed. He's not a new witness, so he's not a surprise
19 JUDGE WALD: And you -- everybody acknowledges that they got the
20 statement, the second proffer in English sometime in August, early
22 MS. HOLLIS: That's my understanding.
23 JUDGE WALD: And you did not receive any communication from the
24 Defence since then about not receiving the B/C/S; is that right?
25 MS. HOLLIS: We received communication that they had not received
1 some materials. We asked them to check again and specify to us --
2 JUDGE WALD: Specifically the B/C/S version of this witness?
3 MS. HOLLIS: It was a general issue that was raised. We asked
4 them to specify to us what they felt they were missing, to check what they
5 had, tell us what was missing and we would supply it. They did not tell
6 us that the B/C/S for this was missing.
7 And, Your Honours, I will point out that the Prosecution is very
8 aware that there are difficulties in sending material to the offices where
9 these attorneys reside. We're very sensitive to that. When they can tell
10 us specifically what they don't have, we have been very prompt to provide
11 them with replacement materials. So there is an issue of getting
12 materials back and forth, but we have tried to be responsive to problems
13 they have specified to us.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I don't know
15 whether you wish to add anything, because we have heard some new
16 elements. If you can be brief, please. We have to start working. If
17 not, we're going to have a break.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am familiar with
19 the English language, and this proffer is no different from any other
20 proffers that we received before, but for me to translate numerous
21 documents to my client would be very difficult, both in view of time and
22 space restrictions.
23 We received over 1.000 pages from the Prosecutor in the month of
24 August, and I do not have enough time for matters that are much more
25 important. I really do not have enough time to translate to my client
1 what are elements of the accusations against him. Thank you.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. Stojanovic, I
3 understand, but could you tell us now whether you are ready or not to
4 cross-examine the witness?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have to hear,
6 first of all, what the witness is going to say, especially bearing in mind
7 the fact that we do not have his statement but only a proffer.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, but you're
9 now raising a -- you have raised a question regarding certain new
10 elements, so we have to make a distinction. The new elements contained in
11 the proffer are not new counts of the indictment. We cannot consider new
12 events if they're not incorporated in counts of the indictment, and the
13 events mentioned in the proffer do not constitute, do not represent counts
14 of the indictment.
15 In principle, the Defence has to be ready to cross-examine on the
16 basis of information that it has received. And as you know, the witness
17 does not have to come here and repeat literally what he or she has already
18 declared in a statement.
19 So this is the general outline of the examination rules. So I
20 really don't understand how come you can say now that you were not ready
21 to cross-examine the witness or that you're not ready to cross-examine the
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course I have to
24 be ready for all other questions, but I am talking about the events where
25 were not incorporated in the indictment. And I must admit that I haven't
1 had an opportunity to consult with my client regarding these issues, but I
2 am familiar with the context. Of course I am.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, once again,
4 could you please tell us whether you're ready for the cross-examination of
5 the witness or not?
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I perhaps consult with my
7 client, Your Honour?
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. We need your answer. You
9 have the documents in English. Madam Hollis has made a relevant point.
10 At least one of the Defence counsel has to be able to communicate in one
11 of the working languages of the Tribunal. And, of course, it is possible
12 for you to talk about these issues with your client simply by outlining
13 the general idea that is contained here.
14 We are going to proceed with the examination-in-chief. You will
15 be listening to the examination-in-chief. You also have a general idea of
16 what the witness is going to say, and in that way you are ready for the
17 cross-examination. If there is anything specific indeed, we will make a
18 ruling on that.
19 Does that sound agreeable to you?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it is, and I
21 believe that it would be useful also for us to have a very brief break
22 after the examination-in-chief so that we can discuss the issues with our
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will see about that, if the
25 break comes in a convenient time. So can we now bring in the witness.
1 Are there any other objections? No. Let us proceed. Not yet, it
3 Madam Hollis?
4 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour. I'm standing waiting for my witness
5 to come in. Sorry.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. I really do not wish to
7 discuss these issues in the presence of the witness, and that's why I
8 always try to clarify the issue beforehand.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, witness. Can you
11 hear me?
12 THE WITNESS [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you please tell us your
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ervin Ramic.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
17 Mr. Ramic, will you please read the solemn declaration that the usher is
18 giving you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: ERVIN RAMIC
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.
24 First of all, let me thank you for coming here to testify before the
25 Tribunal. You will first answer questions that will be put to you by the
1 Prosecutor, Madam Hollis.
2 Madam Hollis, you have the floor.
3 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Examined by Ms. Hollis:
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ramic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Sir, would you please tell us your date of birth.
8 A. I was born on the 5th of April, 1971.
9 Q. And your place of birth?
10 A. In Prijedor.
11 Q. Is that the town of Prijedor or in the opstina?
12 A. The town of Prijedor.
13 Q. What is your ethnicity?
14 A. I am a Muslim.
15 Q. And could you tell us where you were living before May of 1992.
16 A. I was living in the place called Gomjanica.
17 Q. And is Gomjanica a part of the town of Prijedor?
18 A. It is situated about four kilometres from the town of Prijedor.
19 Q. And Gomjanica, sir, is that your actual place of birth?
20 A. No. This is where I lived, but I was actually born in Prijedor,
21 at Prijedor Hospital.
22 Q. Now, after the takeover of Prijedor, did you move from Gomjanica
23 and live somewhere else?
24 A. Yes. I was in Puharska, in the area of Puharska, which is
25 situated on the outskirts of the town of Prijedor.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Q. And with whom did you live there?
2 A. I lived there with my aunt and my uncle.
3 Q. And what was your uncle's name?
4 A. His name is Emir Fazlic.
5 Q. And what was his ethnicity?
6 A. He's a Muslim, too.
7 Q. And why did you move to his home after the takeover of Prijedor?
8 A. Actually, it was not at the time of the takeover but before that
9 because I used to go to his place very often.
10 Q. And why did you begin to live there?
11 A. I was there two or three days prior to the takeover itself.
12 Q. And why did you decide to stay there?
13 A. I stayed there because there was a curfew imposed in the town of
14 Prijedor itself, so I wasn't able to move around.
15 Q. Now, I'd like to direct your attention to the 31st of May, 1992.
16 Was that the date that you were arrested?
17 A. Yes, on the 31st of May.
18 Q. And where were you at the time of your arrest?
19 A. I was staying with my aunt in Puharska, at her house.
20 Q. When you were arrested, where were you ordered to go?
21 A. Together with all other people who lived there, we had to go out.
22 We were told to do so by some soldiers, and we were told to move in the
23 direction of the main street, that is, where the mosque was located.
24 Q. And when you left your house and moved toward the main street, did
25 you observe any tanks or armoured vehicles in the area?
1 A. Yes. Near the mosque itself there was a number of tanks and
2 armoured vehicles and a lot of soldiers.
3 Q. And were you able to recognise any markings on these tanks and
4 armoured vehicles?
5 A. There were many soldiers sitting on the tanks themselves, so I
6 wasn't able to see any particular markings.
7 Q. Did you recognise any of these soldiers?
8 A. Yes. I recognised some of them who were from Gomjanica and who
9 were there with the rest of the army.
10 Q. The ones that you recognised, what was their ethnicity?
11 A. They were all Serbs.
12 Q. Were you eventually taken to a soccer field?
13 A. Before we actually reached the mosque, we gathered there, a group
14 of 20 or 30 of us. This is where we gathered before we went to the
16 Q. And while you were gathered in this area, did you recognise anyone
17 who appeared to be in charge of the soldiers?
18 A. Yes. There were between ten and 15 soldiers there, and one person
19 who was with them appeared to be the one in charge of issuing orders, and
20 everybody else would talk -- would go to that person.
21 Q. Did you learn the name of this person who appeared to be in
23 A. I didn't know the person in question personally, but other people
24 told me that his name was Cigo.
25 Q. What, if anything, did this person called Cigo say about you or
1 the other persons detained there?
2 A. The soldier who was escorting my group said that they had one
3 individual from Gomjanica there with them. And Cigo just said, "Single
4 him out and liquidate him," but the soldier never did anything about
5 that. He simply let me pass.
6 Q. Now, from this place where you were gathered, were you eventually
7 put onto buses?
8 A. Yes. There were buses waiting for us in front of the mosque, and
9 as people were coming from the street, they were being loaded onto one of
10 the buses.
11 Q. And were you taken to the military barracks in Prijedor?
12 A. Yes, we were first taken to the military barracks in Prijedor.
13 Q. From the military barracks, where were you taken?
14 A. From the military barracks, we were taken to Omarska.
15 Q. And by what route did you go to Omarska?
16 A. We went to Omarska along the Banja Luka road via Kozarac.
17 Prijedor, Kozarac, Omarska.
18 Q. And what destruction, if any, did you notice along this main road
19 through Kozarac?
20 A. On the way to Kozarac, we saw that the areas inhabited by Muslims
21 were destroyed. All the houses were destroyed, burnt down. We saw
22 corpses along the road. We saw a number of soldiers taking property from
23 those houses.
24 Q. When you were in the Omarska area, did you see similar
1 A. There was not a single destroyed or burnt-down house in Omarska
3 Q. Now, when you arrived at the Omarska camp, what happened?
4 A. When we arrived in Omarska, at the entrance to the mine complex
5 there was a kind of swing gate or a checkpoint, and one of the soldiers
6 manning the checkpoint made this gesture, and he didn't say anything.
7 Q. And the gesture you just made was your finger across your throat;
8 is that correct?
9 A. [No audible response]
10 Q. Now when you arrived in the camp complex itself, were you held
12 A. We arrived in the area in front of the complex. There was an
13 administration building and an asphalt area in front of that
14 administration building. There were very many people on that asphalt
15 area, and they were holding their hands behind their heads. We remained
16 on the bus for a while and waited, but we didn't leave the buses. We
17 remained on the buses, and then at that point we were told that we were
18 going back.
19 They drove us along a side road. We didn't take the same main
20 road on the way back. We passed through the village of Cela, Gomjanica,
21 and we finally arrived to the police building in Prijedor, and we waited
22 for half an hour or thereabouts in front of that building, and from that
23 spot we were then taken to Keraterm.
24 Q. Sir, when you arrived at Keraterm, where were you taken?
25 A. Once we arrived in Keraterm, they started taking people out of the
1 buses, bus by bus, and they put us in a very large room. There were
2 between 300 and 350 of us that were put up there.
3 Q. And how was that room referred to in Keraterm?
4 A. Room 2.
5 Q. How long were you held in that room?
6 A. I stayed there for about 20 days, until it was my turn to be
8 Q. After your interrogation, where were you taken?
9 A. After the interrogation, all those who had been interrogated were
10 taken to Room 1.
11 Q. And how long were you held in Room 1?
12 A. I was there for about 15 or 20 days in Room 1.
13 Q. And, sir, where were you taken after that?
14 A. From Room 1, I was transferred to Room 4.
15 Q. Were you held in that room until you were taken from Keraterm
17 A. Yes. I stayed in that room until the end.
18 Q. When did you first receive any food or water in Keraterm camp?
19 A. I know that we didn't receive it for the first couple of days.
20 Probably two or three days we didn't receive any food or water.
21 Q. Could you describe for the Court the conditions in Keraterm camp
22 while you were held there.
23 A. As regards the Keraterm complex itself, there was a very large
24 room, Room 2, which had mattresses on the floor, not very many but a few,
25 and those mattresses were used for us. Actually, pallets were used by us
1 for sleeping, but we didn't have any blankets or anything. We simply
2 slept on the concrete floor.
3 Q. And how often were you given food while you were in the camp?
4 A. We received food once a day, if any, if it reached the camp.
5 Q. When you received this food, how much food would you receive?
6 A. Not much. It would usually be a plate of something and a slice or
7 two of bread. It depended.
8 Q. What was the physical effect on you of the conditions in Keraterm
10 A. I lost a lot of weight when I was there. I was very weak. I
11 would faint from time to time. I felt very bad.
12 Q. Do you know how much weight you lost?
13 A. I don't know exactly how much, but between 15 and 20 kilos.
14 Q. Now, you indicated at one point you were interrogated at
15 Keraterm. During this interrogation, what kind of questions did they ask
17 A. During my interrogation, there were two men sitting in the room.
18 They asked me questions about who had had weapons, who had sold weapons,
19 organised the rebellion, who was the ringleader of those events, whether I
20 had any weapons, and where I had been during the attack on Prijedor.
21 Q. Did you have any weapons during the attack on Prijedor?
22 A. No, I didn't have weapons.
23 Q. Did you take part in the attack on Prijedor?
24 A. No, I didn't take part in the attack on Prijedor.
25 Q. What, if anything, did they ask you about your military service?
1 A. Yes, they did. They asked me where I had done my military
2 service. I told them that I was first in Banja Luka but then I was
3 transferred to Croatia and that I had fled the army.
4 Q. Did you explain why you had fled?
5 A. Yes, I did. I told them that all of the people who were with me
6 were reservists, people from Serbia, and that it was actually them who
7 told me that that was not my war and that I should leave. I was the only
8 Muslim amongst them. And that was the reason why I fled.
9 Q. Mr. Ramic, I'd like to ask you some questions now about persons
10 that you saw while you were in Keraterm camp, and I would like to direct
11 your attention to the morning after your arrival in Keraterm camp. On
12 that morning --
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Madam Hollis, do you
14 think that this would be a convenient time for a break?
15 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. This would be a good time.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Witness, we're going to have a short break now, half-hour break,
18 and I'm going to ask the usher to show you out of the courtroom first.
19 We're going to have a half-hour break at this point, and I hope
20 that Mr. Stojanovic will thus have an opportunity to talk to his client.
21 Half-hour break.
22 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.38 a.m.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
25 Madam Hollis, we're ready to continue.
1 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Sir, before the break I had indicated that I was going to ask you
3 some questions about persons that you saw at the Keraterm camp, and I had
4 asked you to direct your attention to the morning after your arrival at
5 Keraterm camp. On that morning after you had been brought to Keraterm
6 camp, did you see any camp personnel that you recognised?
7 A. Yes. The morning after arriving at the camp, I was in Room 2, and
8 from the door I saw a person who went to school with me. Last name is
9 Banovic, I don't recall the first name. My uncle and his brother -- I
10 said that I knew Banovic, and they told me to go and ask for cigarettes
11 from him. At first I didn't dare. Later, I did go out and I requested
12 several cigarettes from him.
13 Next to him, another person was sitting, and I didn't know him,
14 and my uncle told me that it was Zoran Zigic. He sat next to Banovic,
15 drinking something, and he offered me some, and I had some and went back
16 to the room.
17 Q. And who was it who offered you something to drink?
18 A. That was Zoran Zigic.
19 Q. Now, after this first occasion when you saw the man you were told
20 was Zoran Zigic, after that first occasion, how often did you see him in
21 Keraterm camp?
22 A. He was at the camp every day. I saw him there every day.
23 Q. And how often, if ever, did you see this person known to you as
24 Zoran Zigic abuse detainees in Keraterm camp?
25 A. Every day when he was there.
1 Q. Can you tell us about the first occasion you saw Zoran Zigic abuse
3 A. I remember the first time. It was a Tuesday. A green Mercedes
4 entered where I was. Four or five people stepped out. Zigic was already
5 in the camp, and they started beating up everyone without any reason.
6 They just started beating everybody.
7 Q. And these people who came in this green Mercedes, did you
8 recognise any of these people?
9 A. I did not know any of these people personally, but others who were
10 with me said that one of them was Dusan Knezevic, also known as Duca.
11 Q. Now, you said that they began to beat people. What did you see
12 Zoran Zigic do on that occasion?
13 A. Zoran Zigic participated in the beating of these people along with
14 the others.
15 Q. Now, when, if ever, did you see this man Zoran Zigic come into
16 your room and abuse prisoners?
17 A. Yes. He would often come to the room, and he beat the inmates.
18 After the incident with the car, they brought a person to the camp, and
19 this person I know under the nickname of Car. He came by himself, and he
20 was surrounded by a number of soldiers. One of the soldiers said that he
21 couldn't help him because he was found -- or there was weapons found on
22 him. And Duca then arrived and Zoran, Zoran Zigic. They entered a room,
23 and they started beating Car. They beat him for about half an hour, and
24 Car lost consciousness.
25 After that, Zoran Zigic came back on several occasion, kicking him
1 and saying, "Are you still alive, balija?" After that, they left him
2 lying there, and the next day Car died. He was taken out and left by the
4 Q. And do you recall what room you were in when this occurred?
5 A. That was in Room 2.
6 Q. When, if ever, did you see Zoran Zigic use a weapon in the room
7 when he abused people?
8 A. I saw him using weapons on several occasions. On one occasion, he
9 entered Room 2 with an automatic rifle, and he fired in the air, and the
10 bullet ricocheted and hit one of the inmates, and he simply walked out and
12 On another occasion, after I was transferred to Room 1, he entered
13 the room with a pistol, and there was a person there whom he had known
14 from before -- I think he was an auto mechanic or something like that --
15 by the name of Rizvic. He and his son were there. He went to Rizvic and
16 he said, "I have a pistol. Kill me, I don't know what else to do," and
17 then he left.
18 Then on another occasion, he entered a room and said, "Somebody
19 stole a clip, and if you don't find it for me, I'll kill you all." He was
20 standing next to me. He was sleeping there. He turned to me and he said,
21 "What are you staring at?" and he slapped me. He was holding a pistol,
22 so I was hit partly by his hand, partly by the pistol he was holding in
23 his hand, and then he left.
24 Q. When he said that somebody who stole a clip, what do you mean by
25 "clip"? What kind of clip was he referring to, if you know?
1 A. I believe that it was a clip that was for his pistol, the pistol
2 with which he walked into the room.
3 Q. During the time that you were held at Keraterm, do you recall a
4 group of prisoners being singled out for special beatings?
5 A. Yes. In Keraterm, in Room 2, there was a group of people which
6 were separated out from the rest of the detainees, and that was a group
7 that was taken out every day and beaten on a regular basis.
8 Q. And if you know, where were these people from?
9 A. Most of them were from Kozarac.
10 Q. And if you know, what was the ethnicity of these people?
11 A. All these people were Muslims.
12 Q. Were you ever able to see who was beating these people?
13 A. Yes. Zoran Zigic was involved in most of the cases, even though
14 other guards participated too.
15 Q. And when you saw Zoran Zigic involved in these beatings, what did
16 you see him do?
17 A. He would simply come and, without any reason, say, "The special
18 group, out," and he would start beating them, without giving any reasons
19 why he was doing it.
20 Q. Were you able to observe the beatings themselves?
21 A. Yes, I could see some.
22 Q. When you saw the beatings, what would you observe Zoran Zigic do?
23 A. He would beat people using hands, kicking them, without mercy. He
24 also cursed a lot and yelled a lot.
25 Q. And when he cursed at them, what would he say to them?
1 A. Mostly he would mention the mother, and he would call them
3 Q. Did you know of a man named Bahonjic who was in Keraterm?
4 A. Yes, I know the person with the last name of Bahonjic.
5 Q. Did you ever see this person beaten in Keraterm camp?
6 A. Yes. I saw Zoran Zigic beating this person.
7 Q. And how often did you see Zoran Zigic beat this person?
8 A. With Bahonjic, it went on for four or five days.
9 Q. Were you actually able to see the beatings?
10 A. I saw the first time when he beat him. The other times were
11 outside and in the evenings.
12 Q. These other times when he was beaten and you weren't the able to
13 observe the beating, were you able to see who called him out?
14 A. Yes. That was Zoran Zigic, because his was the only voice that
15 could be heard coming from outside.
16 Q. And when Bahonjic would come back into the room after these
17 beatings, what would be his condition?
18 A. He was in a terrible state. He was all black and blue.
19 Q. Do you know eventually what happened to Bahonjic?
20 A. After four or five days, he let Bahonjic be. We tried to help
21 him. One day we took him outside, and then when we brought him back in,
22 he died.
23 Q. Now, you mentioned also the beating of Car. Do you know what
24 happened to Car?
25 A. Car was beaten that night, and then he was left the next morning
1 by the wall, and he was dead. Then they took him out and left him by the
2 container. A truck then came and took him somewhere. I don't know where.
3 Q. While you were in Keraterm camp, did you see a man there called
4 Samir Sistek?
5 A. Yes, he was there.
6 Q. Did you know Samir Sistek before you were taken to Keraterm?
7 A. Yes. I personally know Samir Sistek.
8 Q. Did you ever see him beaten in Keraterm camp?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you able to see who beat him?
11 A. Yes. He was beaten by Zoran Zigic.
12 Q. And how often did you see Zoran Zigic beat Samir Sistek?
13 A. I saw him when he first took him out. I saw him beating him. All
14 other times, he would take him out at night.
15 Q. And what would be the condition of Samir Sistek when he came back
16 to the room?
17 A. When he came back to the room, he was -- he had blood on his face
18 and he was again black and blue. This is what we could see on his face
19 and body.
20 Q. And do you know what happened to Samir Sistek?
21 A. Samir Sistek is still alive. He eventually left the camp.
22 Q. When he left the camp, do you know where he went?
23 A. He went to Trnopolje, the same place where I went, and then after
24 that, went back to his home place.
25 Q. Did you learn the names of two prisoners with the last name
1 Jakupovic while you were in Keraterm camp?
2 A. Yes. I had not known those people personally, but I heard from
3 other detainees that their name was Jakupovic and that they were
5 Q. Did you ever see either of these two Jakupovic men beaten while
6 they were in Keraterm?
7 A. Yes. The two brothers were taken out together and were beaten,
8 mostly by Zoran Zigic, because he accused them of having raped a
9 12-year-old girl.
10 Q. Did you ever see any other people you recognised participating in
11 these beatings of the Jakupovic men?
12 A. Duca was also there with Zigic.
13 Q. If you know, what happened to these two Jakupovic men?
14 A. One of the brothers was taken to the Omarska camp while the other
15 remained at Keraterm.
16 Q. Now, you testified about this man Bahonjic. What, if anything,
17 did you ever hear Zigic say about why he was beating Bahonjic?
18 A. Zigic called him the Singapore man, referring to the type of
19 weapon which this man apparently had. He said that for ten days he had to
20 be in Kozarac, that he couldn't raise his head from the trench, and that
21 it is because of him that he lost a finger.
22 Q. This Singapore man referring to a type of weapon, what kind of
23 weapon is that, if you know?
24 A. I personally don't know what type of weapon it is, but they had
25 names or nicknames or abbreviations for all types of weapons. I don't
1 know what type of weapon it is.
2 Q. On any occasion when you saw, when you saw Zoran Zigic in
3 Keraterm, on any occasion did you hear him refer to Omarska camp?
4 A. Yes. One day Zigic was there, and Duca arrived in the camp. And
5 Zigic said in front of everyone that he and Duca were going to Omarska and
6 that there they would kill the prominent Muslims of Prijedor, referring to
7 Asaf, (redacted), and others whose name I forgot.
8 Q. Now, this man that was made known to you as Zoran Zigic, could you
9 describe him as you saw him in Keraterm camp in the summer of 1992?
10 A. At that time, Zoran Zigic was slender; he had dark hair; about 1
11 metre 70 high. He was wearing a uniform, boots, and he wore some kind of
12 a very thin camouflage jacket. That is what he was wearing almost always.
13 Q. And what injuries, if any, were you ever able to see on this man
14 Zoran Zigic?
15 A. On that occasion when he accused Bahonjic that he was a Singapore
16 man, his finger was bandaged. I don't know whether it was on the left
17 hand or right hand. He said he lost that finger in Kozarac.
18 Q. Do you recall about how long you had been in the camp when you saw
19 him with this bandage on a finger?
20 A. I couldn't place it in time exactly, but maybe 20 to 25 days.
21 Q. What, if anything, did you ever hear Zoran Zigic say about what he
22 was going to do because of his injured finger?
23 A. On one occasion he said that, for that finger, 20 Muslim heads
24 were going to roll.
25 Q. While you were in the Keraterm camp, did you ever see dead bodies
1 in the camp?
2 A. Yes. I saw dead bodies on several occasions.
3 Q. And did you recognise any of these people?
4 A. Some, for instance, like Car or Bahonjic, whom I personally saw
5 being beaten to death, but in addition to them, I saw others whom I did
6 not know, by the container.
7 Q. When did you leave the Keraterm camp?
8 A. I left the Keraterm camp on 5 August.
9 Q. And where were you taken from Keraterm?
10 A. We were taken in buses to Trnopolje.
11 Q. And how long were you held in Trnopolje?
12 A. I was in Trnopolje from 5th to 8th August that same year.
13 Q. While you were in Trnopolje, when, if ever, did you see this man
14 Zoran Zigic in Trnopolje?
15 A. The same day when we arrived in Trnopolje, Zoran Zigic appeared in
16 the afternoon. He was wearing civilian clothes. And when he came among
17 the detainees, he started beating upon one of them and yelling, and he
18 was -- he talked about some favour that somebody -- either he or the other
19 person was supposed to have given the other.
20 Q. And this person that he was beating, did you know this person?
21 A. No, I did not know this person, but I believe that that person had
22 come from the Omarska camp on that day, and I believe that he was from
23 Kozarac. At least, that is what people who were with me said.
24 Q. When you left the Trnopolje camp, where did you go?
25 A. I left Trnopolje camp, and I went back home to Gomjanica.
1 Q. And how was it that you were able to leave Trnopolje camp?
2 A. For me, the only way to get out of Trnopolje was for my father and
3 mother to sign, they had to sign a statement leaving their entire property
4 to the Republika Srpska. That was the only way for us to leave Prijedor.
5 Q. Now, when you went back to Gomjanica, how long did you remain in
7 A. I remained in Gomjanica until 21 September of that year.
8 Q. And what were the conditions like for you while you were in
10 A. It was like in the camp. I had to stay in the house all the
11 time. I was not allowed to move, go anywhere, so it was some sort of a
12 house arrest.
13 Q. And why did you finally leave Prijedor?
14 A. On that day, 21 September, the Serbs who lived around us started
15 shooting and torching houses, and for us, that was a signal that we had to
16 leave our house.
17 We tried to talk to the people with whom we had lived for many
18 years, and we asked why did we have to go, and they would say, "Our people
19 have to leave the towns that you control, so you have to go." So we had
20 to leave, and we became refugees in our own town.
21 Q. Sir, early this year, do you recall being interviewed by members
22 of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?
23 A. Yes. I had an interview -- I believe that was in February -- and
24 I talked to one of the representatives.
25 Q. At that time, do you recall being asked if you would look at a
1 photo array?
2 A. Yes, I did look at photographs.
3 Q. And were the procedures for viewing that photo array explained to
4 you in a language you understood?
5 A. Yes, that is correct. There was an interpreter there who
6 interpreted everything to me; that is, what I was to do.
7 Q. And did you understand the procedures for viewing that photo
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. When you were shown that photo array, did you see anyone that you
12 A. Yes. There was a number of photographs there, but the only one
13 whom I did recognise was Zoran Zigic.
14 Q. And did you sign behind the photograph of Zoran Zigic?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, the Prosecution has marked into
17 evidence 3/129A through D. Copies have been provided previously to the
18 Defence and have been provided to them again. Copies for Your Honours
19 have been provided to the registry, and I have here the original of the
21 I would ask at this time that this witness be provided with
22 3/129D. And if you will come, I will give you the originals.
23 3/129D only, please.
24 Q. First of all, would you look at the back of that sheet, and would
25 you tell us if your signature appears on the back of that sheet.
1 A. Yes, this is my signature.
2 Q. And if you would turn it over, and as you look at it, if you are
3 counting from the top row of photographs and if you are counting from your
4 left to your right, could you tell us the number of the photograph that
5 you recognised.
6 A. Photograph number 2.
7 Q. And who is that, sir?
8 A. This is Zoran Zigic.
9 MS. HOLLIS: If that could be taken from the witness, please, and
10 if the originals could be provided to the registry representative.
11 Q. Sir, since 1992, have you seen Zoran Zigic in person?
12 A. Since 1992, when I left Bosnia and Herzegovina, I never saw Zoran
13 Zigic again.
14 Q. And since that time, have you seen Zoran Zigic on television or in
15 the newspapers?
16 A. No, never.
17 Q. Sir, do you believe you would be able to recognise Zoran Zigic
19 A. I believe that I could.
20 Q. If you would please look around the courtroom and tell us if you
21 see Zoran Zigic in the courtroom.
22 A. Yes, I do see him.
23 Q. Could you please tell us what he's wearing.
24 A. Blue suit, a shirt, tie, short dark hair. He's wearing earphones.
25 Q. And could you tell us where he's seated, please.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 A. He's sitting over there, to my left.
2 Q. Now, as you're looking in that direction, could you tell us which
3 row he is seated in.
4 A. He's seated in the front row.
5 Q. And do you mean the row closest to you?
6 A. Yes. The first desk.
7 Q. And as you look at that row, looking from your left to your right,
8 is he seated on the left in that row or on the right in that row?
9 A. From the left side, he's seated in the middle, between the guard
10 and the gentleman next to him.
11 Q. And the gentleman next to him is wearing what?
12 A. Short hair, a moustache, a greyish suit and a blue tie, and shirt.
13 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, we would note a positive
14 identification. We have no further questions at this time.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
16 Madam Hollis.
17 Witness, you're now going to answer questions that will be put to
18 you by the Defence counsel.
19 Let me ask Mr. Simic, Krstan Simic: What is going to be the order
20 of the cross-examination of this witness, please?
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at this time, the
22 witness will be cross-examined only by the counsel for Mr. Zigic. The
23 remaining Defence counsel do not have questions to ask of this witness.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Simic.
25 Mr. Stojanovic, your witness.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for
2 giving me the floor.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, it would perhaps
4 be a better idea for you to put microphone on the desk and your papers
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Thank you, Your
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
9 Q. Mr. Ramic, my name is Slobodan Stojanovic, I'm a lawyer from
10 Belgrade, and together with Mr. Tosic, who is a lawyer from Banja Luka,
11 I'm representing the accused Mr. Zigic. The Court has given us the
12 permission to ask several questions of you.
13 Prior to your arrival here, did you ever give any statements to
14 the OTP of the Tribunal?
15 A. I did not give any statement, aside from our discussion yesterday
16 and apart from the statement that I had given before.
17 Q. Yes. You talked to them yesterday, but you also said that you had
18 given a statement before.
19 A. Yes, I did. It was in February of this year.
20 Q. Was that the only occasion that you gave a statement to the OTP?
21 A. Before that, we did have a conversation, maybe a year prior to
23 Q. Did you sign any statement given to the Prosecution?
24 A. I believe that I signed a statement on the second occasion, but
25 I'm not sure.
1 Q. During the interview with the Prosecution, do you remember if your
2 statement was recorded in any way, through audio means or visual means of
4 A. No. I didn't see any such thing.
5 Q. You didn't see, but were you notified of the fact that your
6 statement was being recorded in any of these two ways?
7 A. No. They didn't say anything about recording my statement, either
8 by video or audio equipment.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have to address
10 the Chamber at this point. We are not going to stop the
11 cross-examination; however, I must say that we do not dispose of any
12 signed statement of this witness. We do have a note from the Prosecution
13 to the effect that the giving of the statement was recorded by some video
14 equipment, and we did not receive the relevant video clip.
15 Our cross-examination will, therefore, be based on two proffers
16 given by the OTP which, however, are not in accordance with -- which are
17 not consistent with what the witness has said today.
18 Q. Witness, did you know Mr. Zigic before the war?
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. I'm going to read the first proffer to you. I cannot quote the
21 date because there is no date on the proffer. "Witness saw Zigic in
22 Prijedor before the war."
23 A. No, I didn't know Zoran Zigic before the war. The first time I
24 learned about him was in the camp.
25 Q. Today you explained to us in which rooms you were held in
1 Keraterm. I should like to know whether it is true that you had told the
2 Prosecutor, during your interviews, that when you arrived there, you were
3 initially put up in Room 1.
4 A. There was a misunderstanding involving room numbers. I wasn't
5 aware of the system of numbering rooms.
6 Q. Is it correct that the Prosecutor said that throughout your stay
7 in Keraterm, you were held up in Room 1?
8 A. No, that is not correct.
9 Q. We heard about an incident caused by Zigic when he fired his
10 weapon in the air in Room 2 and the bullet ricocheted from the ceiling.
11 Did you tell the Prosecutor that the accident had taken place in Room 1?
12 A. No. I told them that it had taken place in Room 2.
13 Q. Could you be more specific about the person who was injured in
14 that incident? Do you know his name or anything else?
15 A. I didn't know the person in question personally, I just saw when
16 he was carried out of the room, and he had an injury on his right leg.
17 Q. You mentioned the incident involving Bahonjic. Could you tell us
18 in which room Bahonjic was held?
19 A. In Room 2.
20 Q. Could you be more precise and tell us about the first time he was
21 beaten up?
22 A. The first time he was beaten up was on the very first day of his
23 arrival in the camp.
24 Q. In relation to the date of your arrival, when, approximately,
25 could that have been?
1 A. In relation to the day when I arrived, it would have been between
2 seven to ten days.
3 Q. After the first beating, could you situate the time of his death?
4 A. He died four or five days after that, that is, four or five days
5 after his arrival in the camp.
6 Q. You told us today that you did not receive food for the first
7 couple of days. Did you tell the Prosecutor that, at the beginning, the
8 detainees were allowed to go and get some food?
9 A. That is not correct.
10 Q. You mentioned a person nicknamed Car. Where, in which room was he
12 A. In my room, Room 2.
13 Q. Do you know approximately when Car died?
14 A. I couldn't tell you exactly when it was. It was nighttime. He
15 was lying there throughout the night.
16 Q. I didn't mean the time of the day, but in relation to your arrival
17 in the camp, when would that have been?
18 A. Well, in relation to my arrival in the camp, maybe some ten days
19 later, but I'm not sure.
20 Q. Do you remember a significant incident that took place in Keraterm
21 when a number of people were killed?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Was that the group of people in Room 3?
24 A. Yes, Room 3.
25 Q. Could you see anything?
1 A. No, I couldn't because we were ordered to close the doors and
2 windows and to get inside.
3 Q. Regarding this incident, I read from the first proffer of yours.
4 "He also says that the detainees from Room 1 were not allowed to leave
5 the room some three days after the incident, and later on they had to go
6 to the location and wash the floor of that room." It's on the first page
7 of the proffer.
8 So again, it is stated that you were in Room 1, that you were not
9 able to see anything, that you were not allowed to leave the room for
10 about three days, and that afterwards you were ordered to go to this other
11 room and wash the floor. Could you tell us now what is true from these
13 A. Everything except the room number. I was in Room 4. The
14 remaining information is correct.
15 Q. Could you be more precise as regards the time of this event?
16 Could you perhaps tell us the date?
17 A. I think it was sometime in the month of June, but it could have
18 been July as well. I'm not sure.
19 Q. How many days after your arrival in Keraterm, or perhaps how many
20 days before your departure from Keraterm?
21 A. Well, after that incident, we know -- didn't stay there very
22 long. Maybe ten to 15 days, or even less.
23 Q. While you were in Keraterm, did you meet or did you hear about a
24 person by the name of Hasan Harambasic?
25 A. Hasan, no.
1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Zigic's godfather or best man was
2 in Keraterm?
3 A. No.
4 Q. (redacted)
6 A. I personally know quite a few people by that name, surname, but I
7 don't know that particular individual.
8 Q. (redacted)
9 A. No, I don't him either. There were a lot of people that I didn't
10 know, whose names I didn't know.
11 Q. We're nearing the end of the cross-examination.
12 I'm interested in an incident that took place in Trnopolje. You
13 said that you had seen Zigic there on the day you arrived. If I remember
14 correctly, you said that he was dressed in civilian clothes.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you describe the type of clothing that he wore on that
18 A. Yes, I could. He wore a pair of Levi jeans, and he had a kind of
19 pullover or jumper that was of several colours, multicoloured, and a
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] This concludes our
22 cross-examination of the witness. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramic, and
23 thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
25 Madam Hollis, is there going to be any redirect?
1 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Riad, do you have any
3 questions for the witness?
4 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Mr. President.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Ramic, good morning. Can you hear me?
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 JUDGE RIAD: I'd just like to ask you a few questions, going
9 through your testimony. You mentioned just in passing that Mr. Zigic is
10 the one who gave -- he gave you, I think, or gave the other person,
11 cigarettes. Was that right? Did I say rightly?
12 A. The person whom I knew by the name of Banovic, who went to school
13 with me, give me some cigarettes, and Zigic gave me something to drink,
14 some kind of alcohol, alcoholic beverage.
15 JUDGE RIAD: So his relationship with you was not -- I mean, he
16 did not inflict any, any suffering on you, on you personally?
17 A. It happened on the first day after our arrival. That was the
18 first time that I saw him, and he didn't do me any harm.
19 JUDGE RIAD: When you saw him abuse the prisoners often, in
20 general, was he directing the abuse, or was he just one of the many people
21 who were abusing? What position did he have?
22 A. When a group of people was involved, he would be one of them.
23 Nobody issued any orders, but it seemed to me that everybody knew what
24 they were supposed to do. But he would also beat people on his own, that
25 is, alone.
1 JUDGE RIAD: Yes. When you spoke about Car, you said that he
2 was -- Zigic would beat him, and then come back and beat him, and come
3 back and tell him, "Are you still alive, balija?" And then at last he was
4 found beside the wall the next morning dead.
5 Do you recall who beat him the last night?
6 A. Zigic was the last one to beat him. He came to the room. He hit
7 him two times in his chest, and since Car was not conscious, he said, "You
8 still alive, balija," because Car was breathing heavily.
9 JUDGE RIAD: And nobody beat him after that?
10 A. No, nobody beat him after that because he was dead.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Now speaking of the beating of Bahonjic, if I
12 pronounce the name rightly, did you see Zigic himself beating Bahonjic?
13 A. Yes. The first time he was beaten, I saw personally it was Zigic
14 who beat him.
15 JUDGE RIAD: The first time. And the beating lasted, you said,
16 for four or five days.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Do you remember whom was he beaten by the last days
19 or the last day?
20 A. I didn't see who was beating him. I could only hear Zigic's voice
21 coming from the outside.
22 JUDGE RIAD: The last day?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Now, speaking of Zigic's declarations, and he
25 mentioned once that when his clip was stolen, he said, "If I don't find
1 it, I will kill you all," was this followed by any execution of this
2 killing or just, in your opinion, a boasting of strength? What action
4 A. After he said those words, he left, went outside, and he no longer
5 reappeared during that night in my room. The idea was probably only to
6 intimidate us, or maybe he may have found the clip. I don't know what
8 JUDGE RIAD: In any case, he was mentioning, as you said, that
9 he's going to -- for his injured finger twenty heads will have to roll.
10 Was that followed by anything, if you know, or also intimidation?
11 A. He stated that in the presence of all of us who were detained in
12 the camp. After he had made that statement, he didn't do anything. He
13 was simply trying to frighten us.
14 JUDGE RIAD: Also, when you heard him say that -- I think it was
15 with Duca -- that they will kill prominent men, prominent Muslims of
16 Prijedor, was that his talking to Duca or also intimidating the inmates?
17 What was the context of this declaration, if you remember?
18 A. He was talking to us detainees directly. Duca was simply standing
19 by. It was a kind of statement that he made.
20 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramic.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
22 Judge Riad.
23 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
24 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Ramic, you mentioned Duca and Zigic as coming in
25 from outside the camp and abusing detainees. Were there other people who
1 came regularly from outside the camp, who were not part of the camp
2 guards, who came in and abused prisoners? A lot of other people? A few
3 other people? No other people?
4 A. I heard about one incident involving one person who came in
5 civilian clothes. That was the story that I heard from other detainees.
6 Apparently, the man had come from abroad, from Germany, and had paid
7 between 100 and 200 German marks to be allowed to kill a particular
8 individual, which he allegedly did, but I'm not sure. That is the story
9 that I heard.
10 JUDGE WALD: Did anybody ever, either detainees or guards or
11 anybody, ever tell you why Duca and Zigic were allowed to come in? You
12 mentioned this other incident you heard about, that somebody paid a couple
13 of hundred marks in order for the privilege of coming in and killing
14 somebody. Did anybody ever say what the source of the authority or power
15 of Zigic and Duca was that they could come in and do this?
16 A. Duca would come to the camp when he wanted, and he would be let in
17 without any problem. We never heard of him having received any orders
18 from anyone, so I believe that he was acting on his own.
19 JUDGE WALD: Yes, but you never heard of why he and Zigic would be
20 allowed to do this? I mean, whether they had some friends or authority or
21 power that would allow them to just do whatever they wanted. You never
22 heard why they were allowed to do this?
23 A. No, I never heard why they were allowed to do this. It seems to
24 me that the guards didn't even attempt to stop them.
25 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam
2 Judge Wald.
3 Mr. Ramic, I also have a question for you. Were you ever beaten
4 by Mr. Zigic? I think that there was an incident with a pistol and I
5 believe that you were hit by him, but I would like to have the
6 confirmation from you.
7 A. Yes, that was the only incident when Zigic hit me. He no longer
8 touched me personally after that.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
10 Mr. Ramic, we have come to the end of your testimony before the
11 International Tribunal. Let me thank you for coming here and for
12 testifying. We would like to wish you a happy journey back to your place
13 of residence, and I would like to ask the usher to accompany the witness
14 out of the courtroom.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I'd like to raise a matter in
18 relation to the next witness.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I was actually going to
20 ask you if you have any problem regarding our next witness. Let us hear
21 you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour. The matter I wish to
23 raise is made in regard to the scope of the testimony of Witness AQ, whom,
24 as we know, is a new witness.
25 Can I remind Your Honour of two things? Submissions made by the
1 Prosecution in support of its motion to revise its witness list and Your
2 Honour's decision on that matter.
3 First, the submissions by the Prosecution. On the 29th of August
4 of this year, at page 4356 of the transcript, the Prosecution said this in
5 relation to Witness AQ, and I quote: "Witness AQ was added to the list
6 specifically because of the evidence which has been developed from the
7 exhumations of the Kevljani grave site. He has particular relevant
8 evidence with respect to one of the victims who has been identified
9 through DNA. Up to this point, he was considered to have been a witness
10 who didn't add anything substantial that wasn't covered by other
11 witnesses; therefore, he was never considered a witness. But because of
12 this recent development, and as the Defence knows, because the reports
13 have only recently been disclosed, the evidence only became recently
14 available to the Prosecution with respect to the forensic results of the
16 Those, Your Honour, are the submissions of the Prosecution.
17 Can I remind you of your ruling of 30 August 2000, which appears
18 at page 4469 of the transcript? Your Honours ruled as follows:
19 "Witness AQ, his testimony will apparently be correlated with the
20 elements, newly-found elements dealing with forensic medicine."
21 Your Honour, on the basis of those submissions and, in particular,
22 your ruling, we have prepared for this witness. We submit that the
23 testimony of Witness AQ is limited to those matters, the matters relating
24 to forensic evidence, as Your Honours ruled.
25 In the disclosure materials we have received since your ruling,
1 and I refer specifically to 19 September and 22 September this year, in
2 relation to Witness AQ, we have indeed received materials relating to the
3 Kevljani grave site.
4 Our objection is the following: This morning we received from the
5 Prosecution a summary outlining the proposed testimony of Witness AQ.
6 There is nothing there indicated that he will testify in relation to the
7 forensic evidence. What is more, clearly the list includes matters that
8 go well beyond forensic evidence, which is contrary to your ruling.
9 We submit that his testimony must be limited to newly-found
10 elements dealing with forensic evidence, and we request the Trial Chamber
11 to order accordingly.
12 Those are my submissions.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan, but you
14 also remember that we said in our decision that we did not investigate the
15 reasons that were provided to us by the Prosecutor. We took note of their
16 reasons and arguments.
17 Madam Hollis, let us hear your response.
18 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, we believe that
19 this witness should be allowed to testify about any relevant information.
20 The discussions in the transcript to which Defence counsel has referred
21 set forth the reason why we decided ultimately to call this witness. Now,
22 the fact that he has other relevant information which we believe was
23 covered by other people shouldn't preclude him from testifying about
24 whatever information he has.
25 If Your Honours believe you've heard so much of the same thing
1 that you no longer need it, it's unduly cumulative, then you can order us
2 not to proceed and not adduce the evidence from the witness. But we were
3 simply saying that there are a lot of factors that go into determining
4 whether we're going to call witnesses or not. Many witnesses have
5 relevant evidence. We haven't called those witnesses because we have time
6 constraints; we have called other witnesses.
7 We have added a new factor for this witness which made us revise
8 our decision, and that new factor was information relevant to results from
9 one of the grave sites that was exhumed, but we never said he had no other
10 relevant information. We simply said that once we factored in the new
11 factor, we decided to call him instead of not calling him. Once we decide
12 to call him, we believe he can testify about anything that's relevant.
13 The issue that the Defence counsel raises concerning their
14 particular accused, the accused Kos, information about Kos was contained
15 in a statement of this witness, an ICTY statement of this witness that was
16 disclosed to the Defence on the 18th of August. It was also contained in
17 a proffer of the witness. The proffer was dated 22 August, and it was
18 disclosed to the Defence on the 24th and the 25th of August. There is
19 also a photo board involved relating to their accused. That was disclosed
20 to the Defence on the 3rd of August.
21 So the Defence cannot claim surprise, and they cannot artificially
22 limit what a witness testifies to based on an argument about why we
23 ultimately decided to call the witness because, as I said, our decision
24 about who to call is based on many factors. And the thing that put us
25 over the edge and revised our decision was the information about Kevljani.
1 But having said that, the other information this witness had has always
2 been relevant and remains relevant, and we believe Your Honour should hear
4 So we would oppose the Defence application on this limitation.
5 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Hollis, is this witness going to testify about
6 the Kevljani grave site?
7 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. Not about --
8 JUDGE WALD: It isn't listed on the --
9 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, not about the grave site, but in
10 evidence that is relevant to identifications that were made based on the
11 remains that were exhumed from the grave site. Other evidence we have
12 submitted pertains to identification of Miroslav Solaja as being -- whose
13 remains were found at the grave site. This witness has evidence relevant
14 to Miroslav Solaja and the identification of Miroslav Solaja.
15 JUDGE WALD: So that this witness will be testifying under some
16 rubric about newly discovered information?
17 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE WALD: Okay, that's my first question. My second question,
19 let me make sure I understand, is that this witness's prior statements you
20 say did make reference to all of these other materials; I mean, all of
21 these other subject matters?
22 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE WALD: Kos, Kvocka?
24 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour. Your Honour, specifically
25 addressing Mr. O'Sullivan's objection pertaining to his client, the
1 witness will testify about his client. Now --
2 JUDGE WALD: And that was revealed? I mean --
3 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE WALD: That was revealed.
5 MS. HOLLIS: And his testimony would also cover other accused, and
6 that evidence has been disclosed as well.
7 JUDGE WALD: So I just want to make -- it's a little confusing.
8 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE WALD: So what you're telling me is that, in addition to
10 this new factor of the exhumation evidence, that all of these things you
11 have under summary of direct examination that you've just given us, that
12 basically they were mentioned in some statement or proffer, or whatever,
13 of this witness that was given to the other -- to the Defence counsel at
14 some time in August?
15 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. And I apologise for not being
16 clear in my submission.
17 JUDGE WALD: Well, you may have been.
18 MS. HOLLIS: But my submissions are that this witness has always
19 had relevant evidence for this case, but in making decisions to try to fit
20 our evidence within the time frame we're given, until this evidence
21 relevant to the exhumations came forward, it was our considered opinion
22 that we would forego his relevant evidence. Once the evidence about the
23 exhumations came forward, we revised our decision.
24 So the reason we ultimately ended up calling him is he could also
25 testify about evidence that was relevant to findings based on exhumations.
1 But we never said we wanted to limit him only to that, it's just that
2 that's why we decided it was worth taking up some of our limited time to
3 call him.
4 JUDGE WALD: Do you have a copy of that -- I didn't bring mine
5 with me. Do you have a copy of your original motion when you were asking
6 to revise the witness list?
7 MS. HOLLIS: I don't think -- if we could have some time. I
8 believe we might have it in our --
9 JUDGE WALD: I'd just like to take a look at it.
10 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, we'll look for that
11 right now.
12 Your Honour, I believe the reference that Defence counsel was
13 making, however, was to discussion in the transcript on this matter. We
14 will also look for our motion.
15 JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Hollis --
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think there is a problem here
17 -- I'm sorry to interrupt you -- but since you speak the same language,
18 we are sometimes delayed with the French interpretation which I follow.
19 Well, we have caught up with you, but please bear in mind the fact that
20 you speak the same language.
21 Judge Riad.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Hollis, just for my understanding, had it not
23 been for the new factor of exhumation, you would not have brought this
25 MS. HOLLIS: That's correct, Your Honour. Not because we believed
1 he had irrelevant evidence but because, given the time constraints, we
2 would not have called him.
3 JUDGE RIAD: Now that you brought him, are you doing this at the
4 expense of our witnesses whom you -- who you discarded?
5 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour. We've had other witnesses who have
6 indicated they're not available, but we haven't discarded one witness to
7 bring him. Based on the unavailability, we've been able to add him, but
8 it's based on unavailability of other witnesses, basically.
9 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm now going to
11 give the floor to Mr. O'Sullivan for his reply. And it seems that
12 Mr. Fila also wishes to speak, but let us hear Mr. O'Sullivan first for
13 the reply.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour. We are clearly in the
15 situation where at the Status Conference of the 29th of August, the
16 Prosecution made specific submissions in support of its application, and
17 Your Honours relied on those submissions in making a ruling.
18 Now, the disclosure that was made to us of this witness's
19 statement in August was of a statement that's dated from March --
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You're referring to the
21 submissions made on the 18th and 24th of August?
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, the statement that was disclosed to us in
23 August of this year is a statement dating from March 1999, a statement
24 which the Prosecution had for over a year, and that was our objection to
25 the late disclosure. We have here a Prosecution's position on August 29th
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 limiting this witness to the forensic evidence, and now here we are at the
2 end of September with a new position. That, we say, is unfair and
4 JUDGE WALD: Mr. O'Sullivan, what exactly is the limitation?
5 Again, we don't have all of these documents in front of us. What are you
6 relying on for your statement that the Prosecution's submission was
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, the Prosecution, in their motion, said that
9 after evaluation --
10 JUDGE WALD: That's what I'm looking for.
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: -- they've decided they need Witness AQ. Now, in
12 support of that statement, which is at paragraph 9 of their written
13 submission, the Prosecution made oral submissions which I quoted at length
14 to you, and part of that oral submission contains the sentence, "This
15 witness was never considered a witness." And as Judge Riad points out in
16 his question, he would not be testifying but for the evidence relevant to
17 forensic evidence.
18 That is why we say that, based on the submissions of the
19 Prosecution, which is the notice to the Defence, which was the basis for
20 your ruling, this witness should only be testifying in relation to that
21 matter. We're finding out today for the first time that the Prosecution
22 intends to go beyond that when they clearly stated they would not.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Hollis.
24 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Your Honour, I have the 21 August 2000 confidential Prosecution's
1 motion to revise witness list. I can read from that; I can give it to
2 you, whichever you would prefer, but I promise you I will read word for
3 word. I'm looking at page 5 where we are talking about Witness AQ. This
4 is --
5 JUDGE WALD: Do we have any problem with the --
6 MS. HOLLIS: What I'm talking about is not confidential.
7 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
8 MS. HOLLIS: This part is talking about these witnesses and what
9 these witnesses have which would be relevant for this case, and if I could
10 read what we put about Witness AQ, and then if you can consider that in
11 light of Defence counsel's allegation that we never said this, and that he
12 hasn't had notice.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis, do you want to
14 request a closed session to notify us of your confidential motion? No?
15 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, this part of it has nothing that is
16 confidential. It refers to the witness by pseudonym and does not give
17 away any identifying information.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please continue. Sorry to
19 interrupt you.
20 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you.
21 Your Honour, this is page 5 of our written motion, paragraph 9:
22 "Witness AQ was detained at the Omarska camp. The Prosecution
23 anticipates that Witness AQ's testimony will be relevant to Counts 1 to 3,
24 4 to 5, 8 to 10, and 14 to 17 of the amended indictment against the
25 accused Kvocka, Kos, Radic, and Zigic, and to all of the counts of the
1 indictment against the accused Prcac.
2 "After evaluating the evidence that has been admitted so far, the
3 Prosecution believes that Witness AQ's testimony will assist the Trial
4 Chamber in making its findings of fact and law. The Prosecution will
5 complete its disclosure obligations prior to seven days before the
6 testimony of Witness AQ."
7 In its written motion, the Prosecution does not limit what the
8 witness will testify about, so the Defence was not misled. Once we have
9 put that down, do we have to say the same thing every time we discuss the
11 And again, what we suggest to you is that when we had the
12 discussion on the record, it was to explain why we decided at this point
13 it would be worth some of the Prosecution's limited time to indeed call
14 this witness. And the thing that tipped the scales in favour of calling
15 the witness was the additional information that the witness could give us
16 based on identifications that had been made through exhumation at the
17 Kevljani site. We did not say it was the only evidence, but that's what
18 tipped us in favour of using some of our time to present this witness.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan, do you perhaps
20 have in front of you the decision of the Chamber? You indicated the
21 transcript page 4469. I don't have the decision of the Chamber in front
22 of me, but perhaps you can give us some information.
23 Does the decision say that the facts in relation to this witness
24 must be linked with new information which was obtained through
25 exhumations? Was that one of the reasons for the decision, or does the
1 decision state explicitly that the witness will testify only about the
2 issue of exhumations? That is, is the exhumation reason to give
3 permission, or does it constitute a basis for restricting the testimony of
4 the witness?
5 Have you understood my question, Mr. O'Sullivan?
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I believe so, Your Honour.
7 In relation to Witness AQ, at page 4469, there's one sentence, and
8 I'll repeat it. This is the part of the decision where Your Honours go
9 through all the new witnesses. In regards to Witness AQ you stated:
10 "Witness AQ, his testimony will apparently be correlated with the
11 elements, newly-found elements dealing with forensic medicine."
12 Now, Ms. Hollis wants to make light of the oral submissions made
13 by the Prosecution. I submit that oral submissions and written
14 submissions go together.
15 When a party explains its reasons for making an application, as I
16 submit the Prosecution has, they should be held to those submissions and
17 that scope of what they intended to do with Witness AQ, whom they had not
18 considered a witness until the forensic evidence related to the Kevljani
19 grave site.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But again, Mr. O'Sullivan,
21 I'm sorry I have to insist, you have assisted us greatly in reminding us
22 of the decision, but does the decision say the witness knows certain
23 information relative to new elements, that is, the elements that have been
24 recently discovered through exhumations?
25 I am mentioning this because we have to find an answer to the
1 question whether the testimony has to be focused to that area or whether
2 it will affect -- whether the decision -- the mentioned quotation will
3 affect the testimony in general.
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I submit when you look at the decision in its
5 entirety, and Your Honours can do that, you will see that for other
6 witnesses, Your Honours are specific to on the matters which they will
7 address during their testimony. I submit that Witness AQ is limited to
8 those areas of forensic evidence, and Your Honours drew that conclusion
9 based on the written and oral submissions of the Prosecution.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I saw that you were
12 about to say something. Do you have any remarks to make?
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] But, Mr. President, what you did not
14 see was that I had given up that because Judge Riad had said what I had to
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you all. It is 1.00, and
17 it is our usual time to have a break. We're going to consider the issue.
18 We will be back after half an hour with the ruling, that is, whether the
19 witness will be testifying according to the Prosecutor or according to the
20 submissions made by the Defence.
21 --- Recess taken at 1.04 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 1.52 p.m.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
24 Having reviewed the decision of the Chamber of the 30th of August
25 and bearing in mind the explanation of the motives, one can read, on
1 page 4466, and I have the transcript in English in front of me, one can
2 read the following, "Witness AQ, [in English] his testimony will
3 apparently be correlated with elements, newly-found elements, dealing with
4 forensic medicine."
5 [Interpretation] The decision of the Chamber was, therefore, [in
6 English] "Were not 12 or 9 witnesses but actually only 7 witnesses,
7 namely, Witness AQ."
8 [Interpretation] When the Chamber made its ruling whereby it was
9 permitted to the Prosecutor to modify his list of witnesses, the Chamber
10 effectively indicated that the testimony of Witness AQ would be linked to
11 the newly-found elements of the forensic medicine but only as the
12 reason -- one of the reasons for its decision. However, the Chamber never
13 limited the scope of the examination-in-chief of the said witness.
14 The Chamber notes that the documents that were submitted by the
15 Prosecutor in support of its application with the purpose to modify the
16 list of witnesses, I believe it is Annex D [sic], comprised -- consisted
17 of, as regards Witness AQ, excerpts of his testimony which indicate
18 clearly -- actually, his statement, which indicate clearly that his
19 testimony will only be dealing with issues of forensic medicine.
20 Therefore, the Chamber orders that the Witness AQ be allowed to
21 testify outside the scope of questions linked to the issue of exhumation.
22 You have just heard the ruling of the Chamber.
23 [The Trial Chamber confers]
24 Judge Wald has just drawn my attention to a problem in the
1 JUDGE WALD: In the English translation there. First of all, if
2 you go back to 18:14, I believe it is annex -- I think Annex B consisted
3 of, as regards Witness AQ, excerpts of his testimony. Now, it should not
4 read "which indicate clearly that his testimony will only be dealing with
5 issues of forensic medicine," but something like, "which indicate clearly
6 that his statement will not be limited to issues of forensic medicine or
7 will deal with more issues than forensic medicine."
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. The transcript
9 will be corrected adequately.
10 Can we now proceed, Madam Hollis.
11 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. We moved on to an issue with the
12 next witness before we had completed everything with the witness Ervin
13 Ramic. During its examination of Ervin Ramic, the Prosecution noted an
14 exhibit marked 3/129A, B, C, and D, and we showed the Witness 3/129D.
15 At this point in time, the Prosecution would like to offer into
16 evidence 3/129A through D. 3/129A is a document entitled "Witness Notice
17 For Photo Spread Procedures."
18 3/129B is a document entitled "Interpreter Certification." It is
19 signed and dated.
20 Document 3/129C is a document entitled "Photo Board Identification
21 Procedure Report." It is signed and dated.
22 Document 3/129D is a photo array with the signature of Ervin Ramic
23 on the back of that photo array, and we would offer that into evidence,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are there any objections as
1 regards the admission of the document?
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has no
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I haven't heard the translation
5 of what Mr. Krstan Simic has said.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has no
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. I read it on the
9 transcript, but I didn't hear it, but now it's fine.
10 Therefore the document, Madam Registrar, will be admitted into
11 evidence according to the application made by the Prosecutor.
12 Madam Hollis.
13 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, the next
14 witness will be Witness AQ. This witness will be testifying with a
15 pseudonym and with image distortion, and Mr. Dan Saxon will be leading the
16 evidence of this witness for the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the public,
18 let me just note that the witness will be heard in closed session. The
19 blinds will therefore be lowered.
20 Yes, this measure is only for the time the witness is being taken
21 into the courtroom, and after that, the blinds will be pulled up again.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I may, the testimony of the next
23 witness, Witness AQ, will deal with the witness's personal particulars,
24 the detention of Witness AQ at the Omarska camp, the detention of Miroslav
25 Solaja at the Omarska camp, the conduct of the accused Miroslav Kvocka at
1 the Omarska camp, the conduct of the accused Miroslav [sic] Kos at the
2 Omarska camp, the identification of the accused Milojica Kos; and although
3 I have not noted on the written summary of direct examination that I
4 believe you have in front of you, I would ask the Trial Chamber for leave
5 to also inquire into areas of victim impact with this witness.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness AQ, can you hear me?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will be referring to you as
10 Witness AQ because of the protective measures that are going to be
11 applied, so we're not going to pronounce your name.
12 Could you please read the solemn declaration that the usher is
13 giving you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
15 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: WITNESS AQ
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated now. Please
19 make yourself comfortable.
20 We will now show you a piece of paper which in principle should
21 contain your name. You will now tell us by saying simply yes or no if
22 what you see on the paper is indeed your name.
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. You will now be
25 answering questions that are going to be put to you by Mr. Saxon who is
1 standing on your right-hand side.
2 Mr. Saxon, you have the floor.
3 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour
4 Examined by Mr. Saxon:
5 Q. Witness AQ, what was your place of residence up until 1992?
6 A. (redacted)
7 Q. How far is the village of Kevljani from the Omarska mine?
8 A. Approximately four or five kilometres.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Do we need to go into private
11 MR. SAXON: Not at this time, no, thank you.
12 Q. And what is the ethnicity of the majority of the residents -- what
13 was the ethnicity of the majority of the residents of Kevljani prior to
15 A. Of Muslim ethnic background.
16 Q. And what is your ethnicity?
17 A. Muslim.
18 Q. Are you familiar with the village called Jelicka near Omarska?
19 A. Is it Jelica or Jelicka?
20 Q. Jelicka.
21 A. Yes, I do know the village of Jelicka.
22 Q. Prior to 1992, what was the ethnicity of the majority of the
23 residents of Jelicka?
24 A. Of Serbian ethnic background.
25 Q. Witness AQ, were you detained by Serb forces on the 26th of May of
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. After your detention, were you eventually taken to the Omarska
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. Approximately when did you arrive at the Omarska camp?
7 A. I arrived in the Omarska camp at the 28th of May, 1992, between
8 two and three in the morning.
9 Q. And how long did you remain at the Omarska camp?
10 A. I stayed till the 6th of August, 1992.
11 Q. Witness AQ, what part of the Omarska camp were you taken to?
12 A. I was taken to the hangar, Room 15.
13 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I have a diagram that I
14 would like the registrar to mark as Prosecution's Exhibit 3/130, and if a
15 copy of this exhibit could be placed on the ELMO and distributed to the
16 Chamber and the Defence counsel, please.
17 Q. Witness AQ, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the diagram
18 that's been placed on the machine next to you. Is that a diagram of the
19 first floor of the hangar building?
20 A. Yes. This is the sketch of the first floor of the building, of
21 the hangar.
22 Q. Can you point to the room that you refer to as Room 15, please?
23 On the machine that's next to you, so that everyone in the courtroom can
24 see it.
25 A. This is B7. This is all of the Room 15. I spent most of the time
1 in what is marked as B23.
2 Q. What was contained within that area marked as B23?
3 A. Those were shower cubicles.
4 Q. And in that area that you referred to as B23, approximately how
5 large was that area?
6 A. 3.5 by 4 metres.
7 Q. How many shower cubicles were in that shower area in B23?
8 A. There were a total of ten, five on the one side, five on the
10 Q. And which one of those shower cubicles did you sit in when you
11 were confined in that area?
12 A. Third cubicle on the right-hand side.
13 Q. Witness AQ, could you please take a pen that's in front of you and
14 draw an arrow pointing to that shower cubicle and, at the end of the
15 arrow, write the letters "AQ," please.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Thank you. Witness AQ, were there any windows in that area?
18 A. Yes, there were windows.
19 Q. Did you ever -- let me start again. Where were the windows
20 located in that area?
21 A. The windows were approximately here.
22 Q. Did you ever, on occasion, or did you ever have occasion to look
23 out of those windows during your detention at the Omarska camp?
24 A. I had several opportunities to look out the windows.
25 Q. When you looked out of those windows, what parts of the camp were
1 visible to you?
2 A. I could see the "white house" and the area in front of the "white
3 house," for the most part.
4 Q. Witness AQ, before the war began in 1992, did you know a man named
5 Miroslav Solaja?
6 A. Yes, I did know him.
7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if we may, I would ask that at this time
8 we go into private session for a few moments, please.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We will move into a
10 private session for a moment.
11 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon, we're in public
11 session. You may continue.
12 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
13 Q. Witness AQ, prior to the outbreak of the war in 1992,
14 approximately how many times did you see Miroslav Solaja?
15 A. I had a number of occasions. It was maybe three or four times
16 while we went to school, then when he was driving bus for Zagreb and
18 Q. Just so that the record is clear, how would you see Miroslav
19 Solaja when he was driving a bus to Zagreb and Croatia?
20 A. At that time, one could not take a train to Croatia. Miroslav
21 Solaja was driving a bus to Zagreb. I worked in Zagreb at that time, so I
22 travelled there, and I had a number of opportunities to see him as the
23 driver of this bus.
24 Q. What was Miroslav Solaja's ethnicity?
25 A. He was an ethnic Croat.
1 Q. Approximately how old was Miroslav Solaja in 1992?
2 A. I believe he was around 60.
3 Q. Witness AQ, did you ever see Miroslav Solaja in the Omarska camp?
4 A. Yes, I saw Miroslav Solaja in Omarska camp.
5 Q. Approximately when, if you know, did Miroslav Solaja arrive at
7 A. Approximately in the first week of June 1992.
8 Q. And in which part of the camp did you see Miroslav Solaja?
9 A. I saw him in Room 15, and then he was with me in the same shower
11 Q. Was he with you in exactly the same shower cubicle or was he in
12 the same room with shower cubicles inside it?
13 A. He was in the same room where the cubicles were.
14 Q. Witness AQ, could you pick up your pen again and mark with an
15 arrow and the letters "MS" on that diagram next to you where Miroslav
16 Solaja stayed in that shower area.
17 A. [Marks]. Miroslav Solaja was in the shower cubicle number 2. In
18 other words, he was in the shower cubicle next to me.
19 Q. Witness AQ, how was Miroslav Solaja dressed when you first saw him
20 in Room 15?
21 A. Mr. Solaja was wearing a tracksuit, the top part and the pants.
22 It was black. On the sides, both at the legs and arms, had a green
23 colour. Then he had shoes, and under the tracksuit he had a white
25 Q. What, if anything, drew your attention to the shoes that Miroslav
1 Solaja was wearing?
2 A. What drew my attention was that he had a tracksuit which looked as
3 if he was going to go jogging, but he did not have on athletic shoes which
4 you would use if you went jogging. He had shoes without laces, and it was
5 a bit unusual to see somebody wearing a tracksuit and street shoes.
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time if I could ask the usher
7 again to take the photographs that are in my hand, and if one of them
8 could be marked as Prosecution's Exhibit 3/131, and another copy placed on
9 the ELMO by the witness, and the other copies distributed to the Chamber
10 and to the Defence, please.
11 Q. Witness AQ, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the photograph
12 that's been placed on the machine next to you. Do you recognise what is
13 depicted in this photograph?
14 A. This photograph represents the tracksuit and the shoes which
15 Mr. Solaja wore had I saw him in Omarska camp.
16 Q. Witness AQ, what, if anything, did Miroslav Solaja receive from
17 outside the camp during his detention in Omarska?
18 A. Mr. Solaja received packets of food on two or three occasions from
19 a guard called Bakaj.
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time could we go back into
21 private session just for a moment, please.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, for several moments we will
23 go into private session.
24 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, can we ask why we keep going into
19 private session like this? What's the basis for going into private
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well observed,
22 Mr. O'Sullivan.
23 Mr. Saxon?
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, we have asked to go into private session
25 simply to protect the identity of the former common-law wife of the person
1 who was being discussed.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan?
3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There's been no evidence given why this person as
4 opposed to anybody else should need protection. Names are mentioned
5 throughout the trial in open session. We see no reason why we would keep
6 moving into private session for this particular person.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Then perhaps, Mr. Saxon, before
8 asking for closed [sic] session, you should state the reasons why you
9 would want to go into private session.
10 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do that. At this
11 time, we will not be asking for that during the remainder of this
12 witness's testimony.
13 Q. Witness AQ, did you and other prisoners in Room 15 ever write
14 anything down during your detention in the Omarska camp?
15 A. Yes. We wrote down mostly recipes.
16 Q. Apart from recipes, what other kinds of things were written down,
17 if any?
18 A. We wrote down some dates which were significant for someone, that
19 would be sort of written as part of a recipe so it would be somehow
20 concealed within the recipe.
21 Q. Witness AQ, do you know if prisoners ever exchange notes or
22 letters with family members outside the camp?
23 A. Yes, they did.
24 Q. For example, who?
25 A. For example, an inmate called Stjepan Maric, he exchanged notes
1 with his wife.
2 Q. And how, to your knowledge, was Stjepan Maric able to exchange
3 notes with his wife?
4 A. In such a way that he told one of the guards, presumably one of
5 his friends who were bringing food packets to Stjepan Maric from his wife
6 -- in those packets also contained ballpoint pens and papers, then
7 Stjepan Maric wrote notes on those using those implements, and then he
8 would probably send it back by the same guard to his wife.
9 Q. And where was Stjepan Maric detained at the Omarska camp?
10 A. He was detained in the same room where I was, in Room 15, in the
11 shower room where I was.
12 Q. What was the ethnicity --
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, let me remind you
14 that it is half past two. I don't know how much longer do you have, if it
15 is possible for us to break at this point. Please bear the time in mind.
16 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. If Your Honour would permit
17 me to ask three more questions, and that would be a very convenient time
18 to break.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please do so.
20 MR. SAXON:
21 Q. Witness AQ, what was Stjepan Maric's ethnicity, if you know?
22 A. Stjepan Maric was an ethnic Croat.
23 Q. How would you describe the relationship between Stjepan Maric and
24 Miroslav Solaja while they were detained at Omarska?
25 A. They were both ethnic Croats, and they were both married to ethnic
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Serbian women.
2 Q. So how would you describe their relationship?
3 A. They were best friends in the Omarska camp.
4 Q. Witness AQ, what eventually happened to Stjepan Maric in the
5 Omarska camp?
6 A. Stjepan Maric also disappeared from the Omarska camp on one
7 occasion, and I have not heard anything about his fate since.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time, this would be a convenient
9 point for the Prosecution to pause, if it would be convenient for the
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, this is indeed a convenient
12 time for a break for all of us.
13 Witness AQ, we will finish for today, and tomorrow we will
14 continue with your testimony. We will first ask the usher to lower the
15 blinds so you can leave the courtroom in full protection of the measures
16 that are applied in respect of you.
17 There is, however, something that I wish to communicate to you. I
18 don't know if there's going to be a problem for you, and I'm also going to
19 consult the registrar, if on the 6th of October, instead of sitting from
20 9.30 up to 14.30, we start with the hearing at 9.00 and finish at 2.00.
21 That means that we will have to get up half an hour earlier, but I have to
22 consult with the registrar beforehand. Perhaps you will be able to tell
23 us something tomorrow morning.
24 It seems that the Defence is ready to start earlier on. What
25 about the counsel for the Prosecution?
1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution will be prepared at any
2 time that the Court schedules the hearing.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. But we
4 will wait the final response of the registrar to see if it is indeed
5 possible to begin at 9.00 and work until 2.00. We will have the answer
6 tomorrow, and we will decide.
7 Tomorrow, 9.30.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.36 p.m., to
9 be reconvened on Tuesday the 26th day of September,
10 2000, at 9.30 a.m.