1 Wednesday, 4 October 2000
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.41 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
6 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical
7 booth, the interpreters, the legal assistants, the registrar, the office
8 of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused.
9 As we promised yesterday, we're going to render our decision
10 regarding the motion of the Prosecution to admit into evidence the
11 statement of the witness Tariq Malik. I'm going to read slowly for the
12 benefit of the interpreters.
13 On the 29th of September, 2000, the Prosecutor filed a motion for
14 the Chamber to admit the statement of witness Tariq Malik. In her motion,
15 the Prosecutor underlined that this statement should be evaluated in the
16 context of the statement of the witnesses, of the expert witnesses, White,
17 Clark, Brown, Klonowski, and Alonso.
18 The Prosecutor indicates that, for this reason, its motion is
19 based on Rule 94 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, recognising
20 that the statement of Mr. Malik does not fully fit within the context of
21 the provisions of that rule.
22 The Prosecutor finally specified that the Defence counsel were
23 contacted and that they have no objection to the admission of that
24 statement. At the hearing yesterday, the Defence first indicated that
25 they were, indeed, in agreement. However, when the Chamber started to
1 render its decision, the Defence interrupted the Chamber and notified the
2 Chamber that in fact they objected to the admission if the witness is
3 expected to appear.
4 The Chamber would like to make a few observations. By way of
5 introduction, the Chamber would like to note that the Prosecutor did not
6 file her motion simultaneously in both official languages. I'm talking
7 about the motion itself and not of the statement and the annexes. This is
8 a very brief document. In the interest of expediency, the Chamber is
9 nevertheless going to rule.
10 On the substance, the statement that the Prosecutor is requesting
11 admission of is neither dated nor signed. The witness also did not
12 initial the pages of the text. It would therefore be appropriate for the
13 Prosecutor to have the statement authenticated by the witness during the
14 witness's appearance in court. If the witness for one reason or another
15 does not appear, it would be up to the Prosecution to file with the
16 registrar an initialled, dated, and signed statement. This new document
17 would replace the previous statement.
18 In any event, the statement of Mr. Malik constitutes a relevant
19 piece of evidence, and the Chamber needs to verify that it has probative
20 value. It therefore can be admitted, in conformity with Rule 89 of the
21 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, once Mr. Malik appears and can be
22 cross-examined by the Defence.
23 That is the decision of the Chamber.
24 Mr. Prosecutor, now I think we can now call to the witness box the
25 witness to continue her testimony.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 WITNESS: WITNESS U [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness U. Can
5 you hear me?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Yes, I can hear you.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
8 I hope you feel rested today. I wish to remind you that you are
9 still testifying under oath, and you will be answering questions that
10 Mr. Saxon is going to put to you. Will you please get close to the
11 microphone, if you can, and make yourself as comfortable as possible.
12 Mr. Saxon, your witness.
13 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Witness U, yesterday you described how Mladjo Radic came to your
15 sleeping room at the Omarska camp and called out Jadranka Cigelj several
16 times. Would this occur during the evening or during the morning?
17 A. In the evening.
18 Q. Witness U, were you ever called out at night from that sleeping
20 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear anything, I'm afraid.
21 Q. How often were you called out at night?
22 A. Several times.
23 THE INTERPRETER: But I'm afraid we cannot hear. The microphone
24 is not working.
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, we're told the microphone is not
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There appears to be a problem,
3 Witness U. We cannot hear you. Let us see if we can fix it.
4 I think we're waiting for someone to come into the courtroom to
5 try and fix the microphone, as it doesn't appear to be working.
6 Witness U, I am not going to say 1, 2, 3, but can you hear me?
7 We're just trying to test the microphone.
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Is it working now or not? The
10 interpreters are hearing, so I think we can try and continue, Mr. Saxon.
11 Excuse us, Witness, for this technical problem, but we're going to
12 try and continue.
13 Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Witness U, do you know the identity of the person who called you
16 out at night?
17 THE INTERPRETER: We're very sorry, but the microphone of the
18 witness is not working. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, it's all right now. Could
19 the witness be asked to repeat her answer, please.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, no. The interpreters are
21 telling us that they can't hear the witness.
22 THE INTERPRETER: But they can now, Your Honour. The interpreters
23 can hear now.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But we have already, at the same
25 time, the indication that it's working.
1 So let's continue, Mr. Saxon. We're not accustomed to these
2 interruptions, but we can't help it. So please continue.
3 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I will repeat my last
5 Q. Witness U, do you know the identity of the person who called you
6 out at night?
7 A. No.
8 Q. When you were called out at night, where were you taken?
9 A. To a room along the corridor, at the end of the corridor. There
10 was a room there, and I was taken to that room.
11 MR. SAXON: Mr. Usher, if I could ask you to please take the
12 exhibit that was marked yesterday as Prosecution 3/150 and place that back
13 on the ELMO, please.
14 Q. Witness U, can you pick up the pointer and indicate on that
15 diagram next to you where you were taken at night.
16 A. I would go out of the room, walk along the corridor, and at the
17 end, this room here.
18 Q. And what is the number on that diagram of that room that you're
19 pointing to?
20 A. It is room B1. I think it was that room.
21 Q. Could you pick up a pen that is next to you and write the letter
22 "U" in that room where you were taken.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Witness U, what was in that room on the nights --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON: I apologise.
2 Q. Witness U, what was in that room on the nights when you were taken
4 A. The guard who would take me there would take me to that room
5 because it was dark, of course, and I could feel that there were
6 mattresses on the ground. He would rape me. Then I would stay behind in
7 the room. He would leave, and then all the time, one after another,
8 others would come in -- I don't know the exact number -- but,
9 unfortunately, I don't know who they were, and they also raped me.
10 Q. Witness U, were you ever taken out during the day at the Omarska
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How many times?
14 A. Twice.
15 Q. Where were you sitting when you were called on these two
17 A. In the restaurant.
18 Q. And where were you taken on those two occasions?
19 A. To the same room.
20 Q. Is that the room that you marked as B1 on that diagram?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What happened when you were taken to that room during the day?
23 A. The same man did it. He took me out. He took me to that room.
24 First he raped me, and then afterwards again others entered, I don't know
25 exactly, three or four men who raped me. But, unfortunately, I don't know
1 those men. I never saw them in my life. But as it was daytime, I may be
2 able to recognise them.
3 Q. Witness --
4 A. I apologise, but I'm having problems with my headphones.
5 MR. SAXON: Mr. Usher, if that diagram could be removed now,
7 Q. Witness U, when you say these men raped you at Omarska, do you
8 mean that they penetrated you with their penis?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you experience bleeding due to the multiple rapes that you
11 endured at the Omarska camp?
12 A. Yes, throughout I was there.
13 Q. Were you ever provided with any sanitary supplies?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you ever ask for any sanitary supplies?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Simply I knew where I was, and it never occurred to me to address
19 anyone and seek his assistance.
20 Q. What did you do to cope with this bleeding?
21 A. I don't know. It was so shocking that perhaps I borrowed from
22 some women who had vests -- or who borrowed their underwear -- lent me
23 their underwear. Sometimes I would put paper. Anyway, that is how I
25 Q. Witness U, I'd like to ask you to turn your attention to call-outs
1 of other persons at Omarska. Are you familiar with an area in the
2 restaurant building at the Omarska camp that was known as the "glass
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When, if ever, were prisoners called out of the "glass house"?
6 A. Yes. This could have been at the end of July.
7 Q. Where were you when the prisoners were called out of the "glass
9 A. In the restaurant.
10 Q. Did you recognise any of the prisoners who were called out of the
11 "glass house" that day?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who did you recognise?
14 A. Dr. Begic.
15 Q. How did you know Dr. Begic?
16 A. I knew Dr. Begic from before. He was a physician.
17 Q. What was Dr. Begic's ethnicity?
18 A. I cannot say with certainty whether he was a Muslim or a Croat. I
19 don't know.
20 Q. Who else did you recognise as they were called out of the "glass
21 house" that day?
22 A. That day, Dr. Kosuran was also called out, whom I knew. That is
23 what I can remember regarding the "glass house."
24 Q. Were there any teachers called out that day?
25 A. Yes, yes. My teacher, Crnkic, a mathematics teacher who was also
1 in the "glass house."
2 Q. Do you know the ethnicity of Professor Crnkic?
3 A. He was a Muslim.
4 Q. Were any relatives of yours called out that day?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Could you see where these prisoners were taken at that time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where were they taken?
9 A. They were taken out of the "glass house" and then led around the
10 building to the "red house" which was at the end of the pista, as we
11 called it, or at the edge of the compound.
12 Q. What happened that night?
13 A. That night, in my opinion, the people who were called out were
14 most probably executed. The whole night we could hear gunfire. I repeat,
15 we listened to the gunfire and the noise made by the guards who were
16 cursing, and I quote, they were cursing "Ustashas," "balijas," and that's
18 Q. Witness U, the next morning, what did you see?
19 A. The next morning, when the detainees came to the restaurant to
20 eat, it was terrible. There were quite a number of our friends -- my
21 friends and acquaintances did not come to the restaurant.
22 Q. Did you see any trucks the next morning?
23 A. Yes. Early, before dawn, one of the women, I wouldn't like to
24 name her now, went to the toilet which was across the way from our room.
25 This toilet had a window, and she saw trucks with corpses, so that two
1 other colleagues and myself went there. That was the only time that I
2 went there to look, and it was true, there were trucks there with corpses.
3 Q. Can you describe these trucks that you saw?
4 A. As far as I was able to see, since these were only seconds of time
5 that we had, that these trucks were like dumpers, that is what we called
6 these trucks, which were used to transport ore in the mine. So my opinion
7 is that they were that kind of truck.
8 Q. Did you ever see the men who were called out from the "glass
9 house" again?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You mentioned previously that there were quite a number of your
12 friends and acquaintances who did not come to the restaurant the next
13 morning. Did those friends and acquaintances ever come to the restaurant
14 again while you were detained at Omarska?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Witness U, prior to the armed conflict in 1992, did you know a man
17 named Mr. Suljic?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How did you know Mr. Suljic?
20 A. (redacted), and I knew him extremely well, both
21 him and his parents.
22 Q. What was Mr. Suljic's ethnicity?
23 A. I have to say that his father was Muslim and his mother was Serb,
24 so I don't know what to tell you in answer to your question. I think he
25 was a Muslim.
1 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Suljic at the Omarska camp?
2 A. Only on that occasion when I saw his tragic end in the camp.
3 Q. What happened to Mr. Suljic when you saw him at Omarska?
4 A. Mr. Suljic -- that is to say, a group of guards, some were in the
5 middle of the pista, hit Mr. Suljic with various objects. As far as I was
6 able to see, they beat him to death.
7 Q. And where were you at this time?
8 A. In the restaurant.
9 Q. Approximately how far from Mr. Suljic were you at this time?
10 A. As far as I'm able to judge, from where I was to where he was, it
11 might have been ten to 15 metres. That is my assessment.
12 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Suljic after that day?
13 A. No.
14 Q. When you saw Mr. Suljic being beaten on that occasion, was it
15 daytime or nighttime?
16 A. Daytime.
17 Q. Witness U, previously you described how you were transferred to
18 the Trnopolje camp on the 3rd of August, 1992. When, if ever, did you see
19 Zoran Zigic at the Trnopolje camp?
20 A. Yes, that same day. On the 3rd of August.
21 Q. About what time of day did you see Mr. Zigic?
22 A. I think it was around noon or perhaps in the afternoon.
23 Q. Where inside the Trnopolje camp were you when you first saw Zoran
24 Zigic that day?
25 A. I was in the school building in Trnopolje.
1 Q. And where was Zoran Zigic when you saw him?
2 A. We were inside, and we could see through the window. We could see
3 him arrive, Mr. Zigic arrive, and as far as I remember, there were two or
4 three other men with him.
5 Q. When you say "we," that "we could see him arrive," who was with
6 you at the time?
7 A. The women who were detained in the Omarska camp.
8 Q. How was Zoran Zigic dressed that day?
9 A. That day too Zoran was wearing a military uniform with a red
10 beret, a cap. The description is the same as I gave yesterday.
11 Q. What happened, if anything, as Zoran Zigic approached the entrance
12 to the school?
13 A. Zoran Zigic went into the courtyard, and while he was entering the
14 courtyard, the guard who was at the entrance in front of our room ordered
15 us women to lie down on the floor, and he said, "Lie down. Zoran Zigic is
17 Q. Did you lie down on the floor?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And as you lay down on the floor, what, if anything, could you
21 A. Zigic addressed the guard who was standing at the door and asked
22 him where the women were.
23 Q. What else, if anything, did Mr. Zigic say?
24 A. Yes. He repeated the question. He said, "Where are the women?"
25 So that the guard standing at the doorway told him that there were no
1 women there. I think that was an order when he said to him, "I'm
2 responsible here for these people. So please, Mr. Zigic, would you leave
3 this area."
4 Q. And during that time, were you able to recognise the voice of
5 Zoran Zigic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did Mr. Zigic say anything about work or a job?
8 A. Yes. His words afterwards were the following: "I'm going to
9 Omarska now. I have to finish off a job there."
10 Q. Witness U --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. SAXON:
13 Q. Witness U, following your detention in 1992, what efforts did you
14 make to learn the fate of your husband?
15 A. Unfortunately, as -- I know 100 per cent the end my husband came
16 to, and I registered this with the International Red Cross. I registered
17 his name and surname as somebody who had disappeared, and I'm waiting for
18 their answer.
19 Q. Very briefly, what did you learn about your husband's end?
20 A. From more than a hundred witnesses, and even that is a
21 conservative number, later on when I went (redacted), they told me that my
22 husband was beaten up, that my husband was killed in the Omarska camp in
23 broad daylight, and there were a hundred witnesses to this.
24 Q. Witness U --
25 A. Hundreds of witnesses.
1 Q. -- after you were released from detention, did you and your
2 children eventually leave Bosnia?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who lives in your apartment in Prijedor today?
5 A. A Serbian family.
6 Q. How would you describe the impact of losing your husband and your
7 own experiences in the camps on your life today?
8 A. I have to say that in 1992, my life stopped. First of all, I
9 don't feel like a woman anymore. There's no more happiness in our home.
10 We don't experience any nice moments any more, any good days. We don't
11 know when our birthdays are anymore. We're living. Sometimes I say I'm
12 just living. I have two children, and I have to live for them.
13 Q. Witness U, are you able to continue?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you describe how Zoran Zigic looked when you saw him in 1992?
16 A. I have to say that, from the aspects of a woman, Zoran Zigic was a
17 very, very handsome man and that he looked excellent in the uniform he
18 wore in 1992. That's my answer.
19 Q. About how tall was he?
20 A. I can only tell you roughly and say that he was tall. Perhaps
21 188, 1 metre 88. That's my assessment. He was slim, he had a dark
22 complexion, and let me repeat, he was very handsome.
23 Q. How would you describe Mr. Zigic's hair?
24 A. He had black hair.
25 Q. About how old would you say Mr. Zigic was in 1992?
1 A. I would say he was the same age as my husband. Perhaps not
2 exactly. One or two years difference. But he was about 38 years old,
3 possibly 40.
4 Q. Have you seen Zoran Zigic since you left the Omarska camp?
5 A. On the television screen about two years ago.
6 Q. Witness, let me rephrase that last question. Have you seen Zoran
7 Zigic since you left the Omarska and Trnopolje camps? Would your answer
8 be the same?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Since you saw Zoran Zigic in the Trnopolje camp, have you seen him
11 on television?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And approximately when was that?
14 A. About two years ago.
15 Q. Witness U, although eight years have passed since your confinement
16 in the Keraterm, Omarska, and Trnopolje camps, do you think that you could
17 identify the person you knew as Zoran Zigic today?
18 A. I can try.
19 Q. Would you please look around the courtroom to determine if you
20 could identify the person whom you referred to in your testimony as Zoran
22 A. Yes. Mr. Zigic is sitting in the first row. He is wearing a
23 white shirt, a tie, a pink or violet one, bluish, and a jacket. I can't
24 say if it's blue or black, but it's dark blue or black, anyway.
25 Q. When you say that Mr. Zigic is sitting in the first row, is that
1 the row closest to the wall or the row away from the wall?
2 A. Further away from the wall. In the first row closest to me.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if the record could reflect a positive
4 identification of the accused Zigic.
5 Your Honour, at this time I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Mr. Saxon.
7 Mr. Krstan Simic, what is the order for the cross-examination,
9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I
10 shall be putting questions to the witness; Mr. Jovanovic, and
11 Mr. Stojanovic, and it will be very brief.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just one moment, please. I'm
13 going to consult my colleagues.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness U, do you feel tired?
16 Would you like to have a rest, or do you feel up to continuing until
17 approximately 11.00?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll continue.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
20 Mr. Simic, Mr. Krstan Simic has the floor.
21 Witness, you are now going to be answering questions put to you by
22 the Defence counsels.
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm ready.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Please go ahead.
25 Your witness, Mr. Simic.
1 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Witness U, first of all, I'd like to express my
4 sincere condolences for everything you have gone through.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Q. I'm going to ask you about the time you spent in Omarska. I hope
7 that they won't be as painful as the things you've had to talk about over
8 the last few minutes.
9 You said that when you arrived in Omarska, you were put up in the
10 "white house," that you spent several hours there, and you described that
11 place. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You also testified that at one point a group of soldiers, guards
14 or something like that, moved towards that place.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you tell us or do you happen to know whether they were
17 soldiers, members of the security system, or somebody else?
18 A. I'm afraid I can't answer that question. I think they were both
19 of them, both types. But as I had never seen any of those men, I can't
20 tell you their names or what kind of uniforms they were all wearing, but I
21 think they were military uniforms and police uniforms as well.
22 Q. Thank you. You also testified that a member of the Security
23 Service issued an order and said, "Don't go up to those women."
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Could you identify that individual, the member of the Security
1 Service, perhaps his name or uniform, if you happen to know?
2 A. No. I didn't know the person, but I can state that that
3 particular individual was wearing a police uniform. I would be happy if I
4 were able to tell the Court his name.
5 Q. Witness U, my last question: Those persons obeyed the order of
6 that individual and did not disturb you; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions. And once again, I am
9 very sorry for everything that you have experienced.
10 A. Thank you, sir.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Krstan Simic.
12 Mr. Jovanovic.
13 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Jovanovic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Witness U, good morning.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. My name is Zoran Jovanovic. I'm an attorney from Belgrade and,
18 together with lawyer Toma Fila, we represent the defence of the accused
19 Mr. Mladjo Krkan. Like my colleague before me, I, too, should like to say
20 how sorry I am for everything that you have had to go through, all your
22 A. Thank you.
23 Q. I will be brief. I just need some information.
24 You stated that with Mrs. Zlata Bilajac, you were in the "white
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that you were put up in a room at the end of the corridor?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Tell me, please, between that room and the corridor, was there any
5 kind of partition, a partition wall or door or anything like that?
6 A. No, I didn't see any door. I know that I passed by, and in the
7 room there was a bench next to the window, and the two of us sat on that
9 Q. How large was the room?
10 A. The room was a narrow one but a long one, as far as I was able to
11 assess. The length -- the room ran the entire length of the "white
12 house," I would say.
13 Q. Thank you. You spoke about those unfortunate events and said that
14 twice -- you were taken out twice during the day from the restaurant and
15 taken to the large room on the first floor at the end of the corridor in
16 that building. Can you describe the situation? There were the stairs,
17 the staircase leading from the restaurant to the first floor, and the
18 corridor. Were there any guards there, any investigators, interrogators?
19 Did you hear anything?
20 A. No, not at that time.
21 Q. And one more question: Were there any guards in the corridor at
22 night in front of the rooms where you slept, where the women slept, either
23 outside or in the immediate vicinity?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Never?
1 A. I didn't see them.
2 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
4 A. Thank you, too.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
6 Mr. Jovanovic.
7 I think that it's Mr. Stojanovic's turn now.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Please proceed,
10 Mr. Stojanovic.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
12 Q. Good morning, Witness. I have to say "Witness." It's in your
13 interest that I don't say any names. My name is Slobodan Stojanovic, from
14 Belgrade, and Mr. Simo Tosic, an attorney from Banja Luka, is with me
15 here, and together we represent the Defence of Mr. Zoran Zigic.
16 We know that you have had to experience terrible suffering in
17 these camps, and I am truly and sincerely sorry for that, and we'll try
18 and keep our questions brief.
19 I should like to help you to clarify -- I should like you to help
20 us clarify certain points.
21 Before this, you had some talks with the representatives of the
22 OTP, I suppose.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you, in one of your conversations, say that Zigic was a family
25 friend of yours?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. May I add something to that?
4 Q. Well, I don't want to burden you with any lengthy answers, but if
5 you are brief.
6 A. (redacted)
8 Q. Thank you. The event in Keraterm when you saw your late husband
9 and Zigic, you said that this was at the end of June 1992.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you help us and be more specific perhaps? I don't suppose you
12 remember the exact date, but was it toward the end, the last week; a
13 little more specific?
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, were you going to
15 make an objection?
16 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour. I apologise.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting,
18 Mr. Stojanovic. Please continue.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I asked the witness to help us.
20 A. Yes, I do wish to help, and everything that I say here is the
21 truth and nothing but truth.
22 As far as I recall, it could have been the end of June, perhaps
23 the beginning of July. It was either the 1st or 2nd of July or the end of
24 June, but quite definitely it was that period.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you. I now have just a few more questions with respect to
2 the event that took place in Trnopolje. If I'm correct, you said that
3 Zigic came looking for women. Which women? Can you tell us?
4 A. The women who had arrived from Omarska that day.
5 Q. We heard that you were together with those women in Omarska. Did
6 you happen to notice, during their stay in Omarska, whether Zigic was in
7 any contact -- had any contacts with those women in any way whatsoever?
8 Did he try to approach the women?
9 A. No. No.
10 Q. I'm talking about Omarska.
11 A. Yes, in Omarska, and my answer is No.
12 Q. Just one more clarification, please. The Prosecution, in summary
13 of their conversation with you, noted that you did not see Zigic in
14 Trnopolje, and I'm going to read out the sentence. It's not your
15 statement, it is a proffer by the Prosecution about the talk with you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: And it is, for our colleagues of the Prosecution,
17 the last sentence in the proffer. "The witness did not see Zigic, but she
18 heard his voice and she heard the guard addressing that person by the name
19 of Zigic."
20 Q. So we got that information from the Prosecution, not from you. We
21 had a different answer today, that you saw Zigic, in fact. Could you tell
22 us something to clarify that dilemma?
23 A. Yes. There are no problems there. There was probably a
25 We were in the room with windows, and as you approach Trnopolje
1 from the road, we were able to see on the road -- I was able to and the
2 other women -- to see him approach. He was already there. And the guard
3 said, at that moment, "Zigic is coming." So it happened simultaneously,
4 at the same time.
5 Q. Witness U, I should like to extend our gratitude once again to
7 A. Thank you too.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And I'd like to thank Their
9 Honours as well.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
11 Mr. Stojanovic. I think no other Defence counsel wish to cross-examine,
12 according to what Mr. Krstan Simic told us.
13 So, Mr. Saxon, do you have any re-examination for this witness?
14 MR. SAXON: Just one question, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
16 MR. SAXON: Thank you
17 Re-examined by Mr. Saxon:
18 Q. Witness U, you told counsel for the Defence that on the two
19 occasions when you were taken out during the day and taken to the first
20 floor of the restaurant building, that you said that you saw no guards
21 there or interrogators. What time of day was that? In other words, what
22 was going on during that period of day when you were called out on those
23 two occasions?
24 A. I think that I answered exactly. The question was when I was
25 taken there did I meet anyone. At night, no. A man led me. I don't know
1 who he was. As it was nighttime, I didn't come across anyone. The men
2 who later entered my room and who raped me, I couldn't see them or
3 recognise them, unfortunately. Also, on two occasions when I was taken
4 out during the daytime, my answer was that, on that occasion, I didn't
5 meet anyone. I didn't come across anyone, meet anyone.
6 Q. And on those two occasions when you were taken out during the
7 daytime, what was going on in the restaurant at that time?
8 A. It was during lunchtime, when the detainees came to have lunch.
9 Q. And would the guards and interrogators also have lunch?
10 A. No.
11 MR. SAXON: I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
13 Judge Fouad Riad, do you have any questions?
14 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE RIAD: Do you hear me?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RIAD: I'd just like to put some of your testimony in
19 perspective, and I'll be very brief not to increase the strain in which
20 you are definitely.
21 Going back to what you said yesterday, I think you said that Zigic
22 took your husband by the arm to the entrance and told you, "Take a good
23 look at your husband. He will fall first for the freedom of this town."
24 What did you understand from that?
25 A. When I went back home, I was very upset. All of us here in this
1 courtroom will each have their own interpretation of this statement, but
2 the way I understood it was that my husband would disappear.
3 Unfortunately, that is what happened.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Did he do that in a defiant way, in a threatening
6 A. No. No. It seemed like a normal conversation. Of course, a
7 provocative one.
8 JUDGE RIAD: Now, I'll just try to go further with the same. You
9 said that when you were -- apparently when he came, I think, to Trnopolje,
10 you heard him say, "I'm going to Omarska to finish a job." Was that
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 JUDGE RIAD: He did not mention what job it was. Nobody ever told
14 you what happened that day?
15 A. No, no.
16 JUDGE RIAD: When you went to, when you went (redacted), you
17 said -- I'm sorry, wherever you went, you heard from witnesses that your
18 husband was killed on Omarska in broad daylight?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE RIAD: And did they tell you approximately which date it
22 A. Unfortunately, I have never managed to find out the exact date,
23 but it could have been a day or two before I was picked up to be taken to
24 the camp. That is the information I have. It could have been the 11th or
25 the 12th or the 13th of July.
1 JUDGE RIAD: And do you remember approximately which date it was
2 when Zigic came to Trnopolje to say he's going to a mission in Omarska?
3 A. The 3rd of August.
4 JUDGE RIAD: The 3rd of August. With regard to this incident when
5 he came to Trnopolje to ask about women and the guard then told him, "This
6 is my responsibility, this is my territory," did you understand what it
7 was about, why he was coming and what the guard then was defending?
8 A. I have to say what is accurate. Zigic didn't do anything. He
9 didn't try to do anything, and he went away quickly. I have no right to
10 say now or to think what he had in mind when he said that, nor what his
11 intention was.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Again, concerning the witnesses who told you about
13 your husband's death, did they more or less tell you who was present at
14 that day, the guards or the camp leaders?
15 A. I had a wide range of disparate information so that really here in
16 this Tribunal, I wouldn't like, nor have I the right, to give names of
17 people who were there because I myself did not witness it. But I do know
18 with certainty that my husband is no longer alive, and I think that 100
19 per cent the gentlemen sitting here, they all know my husband well. They
20 know his first and last name, and they know when he was killed and why. I
21 am sure of that.
22 JUDGE RIAD: But you don't know anything?
23 A. I don't.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Still concerning the killing, you mentioned that
25 prisoners were taken out of the "glass house"; you saw that from the
1 toilet window, and I want to repeat what you said about the shooting and
2 seeing the trucks collecting them. Since you were very present, do you
3 remember who was the leader of the camp at that time or the guards around
4 among those you know?
5 A. No. I don't remember.
6 JUDGE RIAD: Then I just ask you a question, a small one, before
7 going to a difficult one.
8 You said that Mr. Prcac came with a list of women the last day,
9 and you were among this list. Is this the only time you saw him, the only
10 time he was present?
11 A. Perhaps on one more occasion that I saw him in the corridor in
12 front of our room. That is all.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Does that mean that he was not often there, or it was
14 you -- you're not always accessible to see people?
15 A. I couldn't see people because I was a specific case in that camp.
16 I was a person who just sat there quietly in silence so that I couldn't
17 see much.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Now, you mentioned that the women told you that Krkan
19 was a shift leader. Did you see him often around, at night or by day?
20 A. Yes, I saw Krkan often at night, probably when he or when his duty
21 -- his shift was on duty, and I said yesterday how I saw him and where.
22 That is the truth. So in our room when he would bring us food, and when
23 he would appear at the door to call out Jadranka Cigelj to come out or to
24 come and see him for a while, that's all.
25 JUDGE RIAD: All right. If your memory can serve you, the man who
1 used to -- the guard that came to you several times at night to take you
2 to this unfortunate room, was it during the shift of Krkan?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE RIAD: It was not? It was never in the shift of Krkan?
5 A. No, no.
6 JUDGE RIAD: Do you know whose shift it was?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE RIAD: I have to thank you for the very precise testimony
9 you gave and being so fair and not trying to say anything you don't know.
10 Please know that, through this Tribunal, the whole world is sharing your
11 grief, and I wish you courage. Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
13 Judge Riad.
14 Madam Judge Wald. Thank you.
15 JUDGE WALD: Witness U, I have only two questions. One, when you
16 arrived at Omarska, is it true that you never saw your husband? He was no
17 longer there when you got to Omarska; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE WALD: Did you ask people at that time around the camp where
20 he was or whether he was still there? You mentioned that you heard later
21 on in a different place from a lot of witnesses, but at the time, did you
22 ask people at Omarska where he was or if something had happened to him?
23 A. Yes, I did ask because, throughout my stay there, I was waiting
24 for him to appear. But everyone knew, including the women and the men
25 with whom I was able to have any contact, and this was very rare. The
1 women I was with, they knew, but they probably hid it from me so that I
2 would survive more easily.
3 So they concealed it from me. They would say, he's in hospital in
4 Banja Luka, or he's here or there, so that throughout that time I lived in
5 expectation that he would appear. And it was only on that day, the 3rd of
6 August, when I left the camp and when I was in Trnopolje, a friend of ours
7 managed to have the strength to tell me, "(redacted) has been killed. You
8 must accept that and not wait for him anymore."
9 JUDGE WALD: Thank you, witness. I'm sorry to go over such sad
10 details. My last question is --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, Judge.
12 JUDGE WALD: Sorry.
13 I'm sorry to put you through that again. One last question, which
14 is an ordinary one.
15 When in the beginning the group of soldiers or -- came towards you
16 and then another guard came along and said, "Don't approach those women,"
17 was there any indication that you could tell at the time that the guard
18 that protected you by saying, "Don't approach those women," was just an
19 ordinary guard of rank, the same as other guards or soldiers in the camp,
20 or whether he held some higher position of authority, like a shift leader
21 or an official in the camp? Did he appear to be just another guard
22 telling the other guards, "Don't come near these women," or did he appear
23 to be somebody of a higher rank or position? Could you tell? If you
24 couldn't, that's okay.
25 A. Yes, it was an ordinary guard.
1 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
3 Judge Wald.
4 Witness U, I have a few small questions for you which will not
5 take too long.
6 You mentioned the incident in the "white house," and you said that
7 there were people in military uniform and the police. How do you make a
8 distinction between military uniforms and police uniforms?
9 A. Well, a military uniform was grey in colour, greyish-green, and a
10 police uniform consisted of a light blue shirt and blue trousers.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did you see those military men
12 and those policemen later on in the Omarska camp?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you tell us what were
15 their duties in the camp?
16 A. Yes. Those guards mistreated people, beat them during lunch, at
17 the pista. I'm saying what I saw. That was the work they did.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness U, when you say "those
19 guards," you're referring to the guards wearing military uniforms and
20 police uniforms that you saw before in the "white house"?
21 A. Yes. I'm referring to both.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So could you tell us how many
23 different uniforms there were in the camp?
24 A. As far as I know and as far as I was able to see, there was the
25 police uniform and the military uniform.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Were there both at the same
3 A. Not every day.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Witness U, I have no more
5 questions for you. You have answered our questions, many questions, put
6 to you by the Prosecution, the Defence, the Judges, with a great deal of
8 Is there something that you would like to say and that you have
9 not been asked? Is there something that you would like to tell us in
10 addition to what you have already said?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. I would like to address myself to this Trial
12 Chamber, the gentlemen in the Defence counsel, the gentlemen who are on
13 trial, and to say that I think this testimony of mine was so brief and
14 concise but one from which it is possible to infer the conclusion as to
15 what I lived through where I was.
16 My suffering still continues. Probably my suffering will never
17 come to an end. I have lost the man who meant a great deal for me, who
18 was a good husband, a good father. We miss him so. We need him.
19 But please let me say one more thing. I arrived at Omarska. I
20 didn't know why, because we were never part of any kind of organisation.
21 We did not engage in politics. We were honest, honourable citizens of our
22 town Prijedor. We never made any distinction between people on the basis
23 of ethnicity, be they Serbs, Croats, or Muslims. They were all the same.
24 We loved people. We socialised with them. And when I arrived at the
25 Omarska camp and went in for interrogation, I learnt there my interrogator
1 was Drago Meakic, the gentleman who was quite -- who treated me decently.
2 My charges were, "(redacted), it says here," and I read it out, because
3 Comrade Meakic knew me, and it said there, "(redacted), you gossiped about
4 the Serb army. You criticised the Serb army."
5 I appeal to you as human beings, what kind of an accusation is
6 that? What were the accusations against my husband so that he no longer
7 lives and my life is at a standstill?
8 That is all I have to say. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you too, Witness U. You
10 were expelled from life, as many other people, as you said, but we hope
11 that you will find good reasons to continue to live a full life.
12 And as you said, there are no differences between people, and I
13 think we must think once again over this issue of being a Muslim or a
14 Croat or a Serb is not a defect. It's not a fault. It contributes to the
15 diversity and beauty of the world. Imagine what kind of a world it would
16 be if we would all be the same. That would be monotonous. But if we have
17 differences among which we can establish harmony, then the world will be a
18 beautiful place. So you have this ideal and this way of thought, and that
19 in itself is a good reason to continue living in spite of the terrible
20 circumstances, your personal circumstances, and we hope that you will have
21 ahead of you some good and happy days.
22 So thank you, Witness, for coming here. We wish you a safe
23 journey back to your place of residence, and I will ask the usher to
24 accompany you out.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Now we're going to
3 have a half-hour break.
4 JUDGE RIAD: She spoke her name, the witness.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon. I know you have
6 some exhibits to tender, so please proceed. I'm sorry.
7 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. At this time the Prosecution
8 would move for the admission of the Prosecution's Exhibits 3/148 to
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic.
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You're talking on behalf of all
13 Defence counsel?
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. So the documents
16 listed by the Prosecutor will be admitted into evidence.
17 So let us now have a half-hour break.
18 --- Recess taken at 11.10 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.42 a.m.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
21 Yes, Mr. Waidyaratne.
22 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Your Honour. The Prosecution would call Witness
23 Nihad Haskic. This witness has been granted protective measures with
24 regard to only facial distortion. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good day to you, Mr. Haskic.
2 Can you hear me?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You're now going to read the
5 solemn declaration that the usher is going to hand to you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
7 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: NIHAD HASKIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Try and sit comfortably.
13 Perhaps you need to adjust your headsets.
14 Thank you for coming. You are now going to be answering questions
15 put to you by the Prosecutor, Mr. Waidyaratne, and afterwards you'll be
16 answering questions from the Defence and the Judges, but first of all it
17 is Mr. Waidyaratne.
18 Mr. Waidyaratne, your witness.
19 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. Could you state your full name, please.
22 A. Haskic, Nihad.
23 Q. What is your date of birth and place of birth?
24 A. The 25th of August, 1958, Prijedor.
25 Q. Were you born in the Prijedor town?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Where did you reside in 1992?
3 A. In 1992, I resided in Prijedor.
4 Q. Which part of Prijedor?
5 A. It's called Zagrad. Murharem Suljanovic, number 50, is the
7 Q. Were you married in 1992?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. Did you have children?
10 A. One child, yes.
11 Q. How old was she?
12 A. Eleven.
13 Q. Were you employed in 1992?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What was your employment? Could you describe as to what you did
16 in 1992?
17 A. I worked on a construction site with telephonics.
18 Q. Did you have any other business?
19 A. Yes. Before that I had a cevapcici kiosk.
20 Q. Witness, in April 1992, did you have your wife and child with you
21 at the place of residence, at your place of residence?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In May, did your wife and child go to any other place?
24 A. Yes, they went to Croatia.
25 Q. Why did they leave you?
1 A. Well, they went allegedly sort of for a holiday.
2 Q. Did they come back after that in the month of May 1992?
3 A. They have not returned to the present day.
4 Q. Why didn't they come back in May 1992?
5 A. Because the conditions weren't right.
6 Q. Could you describe more as to these conditions that you speak of?
7 A. They couldn't return because on the 30th of April, the power was
8 taken over and everything became topsy-turvy.
9 Q. Now you said on the 30th of April, power was taken. Can you
10 describe as to exactly what you mean by this?
11 A. Up until then, there were one set of authorities and, on the night
12 of the 30th, there was a takeover of power.
13 Q. By whom?
14 A. The Republika Srpska.
15 Q. Now, Witness, did you go to work after the 30th of April, 1992?
16 A. I couldn't.
17 Q. Why?
18 A. Because everything was stopped.
19 Q. Could you describe more as to what this everything -- what you
20 meant by "everything was stopped" and by whom?
21 A. Well, I couldn't. I worked for the last day in Rasavci, and when
22 I went to the post office on Friday to work, they said that there would be
23 no work until further notice.
24 Q. Who said this, that there would be no work?
25 A. The supervisory organs in the post office.
1 Q. Do you know which ethnicity or which ethnic group these people
2 belonged to?
3 A. Where?
4 Q. These people who -- the supervisory organs that you spoke of.
5 A. They were Serb Orthodox.
6 Q. Now, Witness, what was your ethnicity? What is your ethnicity?
7 A. I'm a Muslim.
8 Q. You mentioned that the power was taken in Prijedor and that it was
9 by the Serbs. Could you say as to what you observed on the 30th of
11 A. In the morning, there were lots of policemen and soldiers. There
12 were checkpoints everywhere and all movement was practically made
14 Q. By whom?
15 A. You could feel fear of all those soldiers and policemen in town.
16 Q. Did you know who these policemen and these soldiers who were in
17 town, to which ethnic group they belonged to?
18 A. I didn't know, but I assumed that they were all of the Serb
20 Q. Now, Witness, I would draw your attention to the 24th of May,
21 1992. Were you aware that, during this time, Kozarac was attacked?
22 A. In town from the refugees, the people fleeing Kozarac. I met them
23 in town, and the people said that Kozarac was burning and had been
24 attacked and that they were running away to save their lives, mostly
25 towards Prijedor.
1 Q. Who were these refugees or the people that were fleeing? What
2 ethnic group did they belong to?
3 A. They were Muslims.
4 Q. Did you learn from them as to whether the surrounding villages or
5 the areas of Kozarac, whether these villages were attacked?
6 A. Yes, they were.
7 Q. What are the areas or the villages that you got to know that were
9 A. Brdjani, Softici, Kamicani, Kozarusa.
10 Q. During this time, were you at home in Prijedor?
11 A. I was.
12 Q. Did you observe as to what happened in the surrounding areas?
13 A. Around Prijedor?
14 Q. Yes. And even in Kozarac and the other surrounding areas.
15 A. On the hill too. You could see that the hill of
16 Hambarine-Carakovo was also attacked.
17 Q. Did you see any houses or any property being damaged?
18 A. You mean in Prijedor or in the surrounding areas?
19 Q. In the areas of Kozarac and Hambarine and the surrounding areas.
20 A. As Kozarac is far off, I couldn't see, but you could see
21 Hambarine. You could see the hill from Prijedor, and you could see the
22 houses burning.
23 Q. Now, Witness, on the 30th of May, 1992, were you in Prijedor?
24 A. Yes, I was.
25 Q. Where were you?
1 A. I was in my part of town, in my house.
2 Q. Could you describe what happened on that day?
3 A. That day, in the morning, that part of the old town was attacked,
4 Zagrad, on Saturday morning, in the early-morning hours. The army --
5 there was a proclamation that white flags should be hung out and that we
6 should surrender. The army came up. The soldiers made everybody get out
7 of their houses, and they put us in a bus by the high-rise building and
8 took us off to Omarska.
9 Q. Now, Witness, you said that the army came. Did you see any of
10 these armed personnel who came into the part of your town?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. Who were they?
13 A. They were soldiers in camouflage uniforms. I didn't know them. I
14 can't say that I know them when I don't know them.
15 Q. With respect to you, when you were in the house, what did you do?
16 What were you ordered to do?
17 A. I was ordered to put a white flag out on my house.
18 Q. And thereafter, what did you do? Did you get onto the street?
19 A. We all went out into the street, and we moved spontaneously
20 towards the high-rise building, towards town.
21 Q. Now, when you got down to the street, did you see any other
22 persons, your neighbours?
23 A. Yes, I did. I saw my neighbour Fuad Nekinovic [sic], who was
24 lying there dead in the yard.
25 Q. You mentioned the name Fuad. Is it Nekinovic or Ekinovic?
1 A. Ekinovic.
2 Q. Do you know what happened to him?
3 A. Well, he was killed. He was lying in the yard.
4 Q. Who were the other people who were on the street and who were
5 taken towards the skyscraper?
6 A. They were all my neighbours.
7 Q. To which ethnic group, if you know, did they belong to?
8 A. They were all of the Muslim ethnicity.
9 Q. You said that you were taken to in front of the skyscraper and put
10 into buses. Before you got onto the buses and when you were moving
11 towards the centre, did you observe as to what has happened to the houses
12 or what was happening around?
13 A. The houses were burning.
14 Q. These houses, to whom did these belong to?
15 A. They were Muslims'.
16 Q. Now, Witness, before you got into the bus, did you see any other
17 persons, people killed on the street?
18 A. Yes. In the market in front of the kiosks, three or four people
19 were lying there, burnt to the bone.
20 Q. Did you recognise any of these persons who were around, who was
21 dead or who was --
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. Did you see any Serb soldiers or any persons, any armed personnel
25 A. There were lots of them around us, armed soldiers.
1 Q. Now, you said that you were put onto buses and taken to Omarska.
2 Before you were taken to Omarska, were you taken to the SUP building, the
3 bus that you were in?
4 A. No. I wasn't, but it stopped there for a short time in front of
5 the SUP building, and some people were taken out there. Some were
6 returned, others I don't know. And then we went off towards Omarska.
7 Q. Did you see the people who returned to the bus as to what their
8 physical condition was, and as to who took them from the buses and brought
9 them back?
10 A. The policemen took them out and the policemen brought them back.
11 Q. What was their physical -- the condition of the people who were
12 taken from the buses?
13 A. Well, they were in a good state.
14 Q. Witness, after you left the SUP building, the bus that you were
15 in, you said that the buses reached Omarska. Is it the Omarska camp?
16 A. The Omarska camp, yes. We went via Tomasica.
17 Q. When you reached Omarska, what were you ordered to do, and by
19 A. We were ordered to get out of the bus, to stand against the wall,
20 lift our hands up. We were searched and then thrown into the room by the
22 Q. Now, a room, you say. Is that a room which was in the
23 administration building, the restaurant building?
24 A. Yes, it is. The administration building, right.
25 Q. Were you taken out of that room the next day to the pista?
1 A. To the pista, yes, I was.
2 Q. Did you spend the night, the night that you arrived in the camp,
3 in the room in the restaurant building?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who were the others who was in that room in the restaurant
7 A. They were the people from Prijedor who came that night and who
8 were collected up in town during the day.
9 Q. Do you know which ethnicity they belonged to?
10 A. Non-Serb nationality.
11 Q. Now, the next day, you said that you were taken to the pista.
12 When you were in the pista, were you able to see around?
13 A. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes we had to look down onto
14 the asphalt, and at other times we would have to lie down on our stomachs,
15 our faces facing the asphalt.
16 Q. Who gave these orders? Who made them, made you all do this?
17 A. The guards made us do this.
18 Q. Now, Witness, do you know a person by the name of Miroslav Kvocka?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. Did you know him before the war?
21 A. I did, superficially.
22 Q. Did you know whom he was married to?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Please, do you know the name?
25 A. Jasminka, Jasminka Crnalic.
1 Q. How did you know her?
2 A. I knew her. She lives one house from mine, two houses away from
4 Q. Now Witness, you said that you knew Miroslav Kvocka before. Did
5 you know how he was employed?
6 A. Superficially, yes.
7 Q. How he was employed, where he was employed?
8 A. Miroslav Kvocka worked in the police station.
9 Q. Was he a policeman?
10 A. Yes, he was.
11 Q. How would you describe Miroslav Kvocka when you saw him before the
13 A. He was tall, brown, slim.
14 Q. Would you describe his hair?
15 A. Brown hair.
16 Q. Now, did you see Miroslav Kvocka when you were in the camp?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. How was he dressed when you saw him in the camp?
19 A. In a police uniform.
20 Q. What else did you observe? Did he carry a weapon?
21 A. Yes. He had a pump-action gun and gloves on his hands with the
22 fingers cut off.
23 Q. Where would you normally see him, and doing what?
24 A. I would see him when we were at the pista, passing by. He kept
25 going back and forth to the administration building. He was moving around
2 Q. Do you know what position he held or what authority he had in the
4 A. Well, as far as I know and what I heard from others, he was the
5 commander of the camp for a time.
6 Q. Did you see him giving orders to any of the guards or any other
7 personnel in the camp?
8 A. During the day, he would issue orders, but I couldn't hear what he
9 was saying.
10 Q. Issuing orders to whom?
11 A. To the guards.
12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness explicitly
15 said that he couldn't hear what Mr. Kvocka was saying to the guards, and
16 then came the question that he issued orders.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic, but the
18 witness said that he couldn't hear, but he supposedly saw, and that is why
19 the question followed. Therefore, the objection is overruled and you may
21 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. My question was, did you see as to whom he issued orders to?
23 A. To the guards. Who else?
24 Q. Thank you. Witness, while you were in the camp, detained in the
25 camp, did you see a person by the name of Slavko Ecimovic?
1 A. I did.
2 Q. Did you know him prior to the war?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. What was the first time? When did you see Slavko Ecimovic in the
6 A. I saw Slavko for the first time in the camp when he was brought to
7 the camp. He was brought to the camp, his hands were tied, and his legs
8 were tied, and he had wire around his mouth.
9 Q. Now, you said that you saw him brought to the camp. Where did you
10 see him --
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. -- brought?
13 A. They brought him to the pista, and he passed in front of us, and
14 they took him upstairs to the administration building. I was at the pista
15 at the time.
16 Q. You said that his hands were tied and his legs were tied, and a
17 wire around his mouth. Did you see what physical condition he was in?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you say how?
20 A. He was in a terrible condition.
21 Q. When Slavko Ecimovic was brought to the camp, did you see Miroslav
22 Kvocka present at that instance?
23 A. Miroslav Kvocka was there, and he said to us, "Look at Tudjman's
25 Q. Did he say anything else?
1 A. And he said, "Look at him well, because you'll all end up like
3 Q. When this was said, where was Miroslav Kvocka?
4 A. He was in front of the entrance.
5 Q. Entrance to which building?
6 A. The administration building.
7 Q. Now, when this was said, did you look up and see as to who was
8 being brought? Was it the time that you saw Slavko Ecimovic?
9 A. I saw Slavko Ecimovic as soon as he arrived at the pista. I
10 recognised him immediately.
11 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Your Honour, I will mark the next exhibit in
12 line, number 3/152, a photograph of the model, and have the assistance of
13 the usher to give this to the witness.
14 Q. Witness, please look at the photograph.
15 A. Yes, I do see it.
16 Q. Do you recognise this building?
17 A. Yes, very well.
18 Q. This is a photograph from the model which is also in front of
19 you. Could you place it on the ELMO and mark the place where Miroslav
20 Kvocka was standing.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Could you mark it with letters "MK".
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And would you mark the place where you were when you saw
25 Mr. Kvocka at this time.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Could you mark that place with the letters "NH".
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Will you be able to draw a line? You said that you saw Slavko
5 Ecimovic being brought. Draw a line to show from where he was brought.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Could you mark it with letters "SE".
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Thank you. Now, Witness, you said that you saw Slavko Ecimovic
10 being taken up to the administration building.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you see him after that?
13 A. I saw him only one other time, in the "white house," when I was
15 Q. "White house" where? In which room?
16 A. After the entrance, the first room to the left. He was lying on
17 the floor and he was in a terrible condition. He was moaning.
18 Q. Did you see any injuries on him?
19 A. He had injuries on his forehead, and he was in a pool of blood.
20 Q. Did you see afterwards what happened to him, Slavko Ecimovic?
21 A. That same night, before midnight, a military vehicle arrived with
22 a red cross on it, and two men carried Slavko inside, and after that I
23 never saw him again.
24 Q. Witness, how long did you stay in the "white house"?
25 A. Just one night I stayed in the "white house."
1 Q. Were you also detained in the hangar building?
2 A. Yes. I was detained in the hangar building upstairs, the first
3 room to the right.
4 Q. Do you recall what number it was called by the prisoners or by you
6 A. We called it, I think, the number 25, as far as I can recollect.
7 Q. When you were detained in that room, did you see a person by the
8 name of Emir Beganovic?
9 A. Emir Beganovic was with me in that same room.
10 Q. Now, Witness, before we go further, was it number 25 or 15?
11 A. Fifteen or 25. I don't know. One of the two. Anyway, it's the
12 first room to the right when you reach the top of the staircase.
13 Q. Now, did you see a prisoner or a detainee by the name of Emir
15 A. I did.
16 Q. Where was he?
17 A. He was with me in that room.
18 Q. Did you see another prisoner by the name of Senad Muslimovic?
19 A. Yes. He was also with me in that room.
20 Q. Do you recall these persons being called out and brought back to
21 the room?
22 A. Yes. One day, the two of them were called out, and when they came
23 back, they were unconscious. Beganovic had a big cut on his head. It was
24 terrible. They were in very bad shape.
25 Q. What was the condition of Mr. Senad Muslimovic?
1 A. Senad was also covered in bruises. He was black.
2 Q. Who called them out and brought them in?
3 A. He was called out by the guard, and the guard brought them back.
4 Q. During your detention, did you observe guard shifts in the camp?
5 A. Yes, we knew the shifts, there was Krkan's shift, Ckalja's shift,
6 and Krle's shift.
7 Q. Why did you name the shifts with the names of these persons?
8 A. Because they were the shift leaders.
9 Q. Did you see this person by the name of Krkan in the camp?
10 A. Yes. Yes, I did.
11 Q. Where did you see him often?
12 A. We would see him at the pista, then through the glass window in
13 the administration building; all over the camp.
14 Q. How was he dressed?
15 A. In a police uniform.
16 Q. Did he carry any arms?
17 A. He did.
18 Q. How would you describe this person when you saw him in the camp?
19 A. He was shortish. He had a thick head of hair, and he had a rather
20 big stomach. He was short in height.
21 Q. Did you know him before the camp?
22 A. Very slightly.
23 Q. Did you know as to what he did before the camp, as to what his
24 employment was?
25 A. He was also a policeman.
1 Q. Now, you mentioned a person by the name of Krle, or a shift by
2 that name. Did you see any person by that name?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Did you see that person -- what did you see? What he was doing
5 when you saw him in the camp?
6 A. He was walking, moving back and forth. I don't know what he was
7 doing, but he was on the move.
8 Q. Moving to --
9 A. Moving around the camp.
10 Q. -- to which place? Where did he go to, could you observe? Did
11 you observe?
12 A. He went to the hangar, to the administration building, the
13 restaurant, to the "white house." They went everywhere. That was their
14 job. That was their working place.
15 Q. Other than walking about, did you see them giving orders to any of
16 the guards or being engaged in any other functions?
17 A. I couldn't hear what he was saying, but it was normal that he
18 would issue orders to the guards. That's what he was meant to do.
19 Q. Now, when you saw him, how was Krle dressed?
20 A. Krle also wore a police uniform.
21 Q. Could you describe him as to how he looked when you saw him in the
23 A. He was tall, with black hair and a longish face.
24 Q. Did you know his real name?
25 A. No. I hadn't known him from before.
1 Q. Did you know the real name of Mr. -- the person whom you call as
3 A. I did. Mladjo Radic.
4 Q. You said that -- I'm going back to the persons whom you testified
5 to, about Emir Beganovic and Senad Muslimovic, you said about the
6 conditions when they were brought back, saying that it was terrible; but
7 before they left the room, what was their condition? How did they look?
8 Did you see them?
9 A. They were in a better condition, even though they had already been
10 beaten up, but they were in a better condition when they brought them
11 back. When they brought them back, they were in a terrible condition.
12 Q. Witness, did you see prisoners -- during your detention, did you
13 see prisoners being taken for interrogations?
14 A. Yes. There were interrogations every day, from eight till five.
15 Q. Where was these interrogations held or conducted?
16 A. The interrogations were conducted in the administration building,
17 in the offices upstairs.
18 Q. Do you know who conducted these interrogations?
19 A. Inspectors did.
20 Q. Do you know any names of these people?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Please.
23 A. Drago Meakic, Obrad Despotovic, Lakic, Rade Knezovic, Neso Babic
24 Neso Tomic, Zoric.
25 Q. Were they in the camp, or did they come from outside?
1 A. They came every morning in a small bus to the camp and, after the
2 interrogations, they left the camp.
3 Q. Now, when these interrogations were being conducted, were you all
4 able to hear what was taking place in these rooms?
5 A. We couldn't hear. When I was in that same building, in a room
6 below, you could hear the noise and the beating occasionally. But when I
7 was in the hangar end of the pista, I couldn't hear.
8 Q. You said that you were in the room in the same building. Did you
9 see --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- any prisoners being brought after the interrogations?
12 A. Many persons were brought after interrogations, but one person I
13 remember well. Pezo Camil passed away half an hour after he was brought
14 back from the interrogations.
15 Q. What was the condition of Pezo Camil, of the others -- or the
16 others after they were brought back from the interrogation?
17 A. Some were brought back to the same room, some were brought back in
18 a normal state, and some in a very poor state, and others were taken to
19 other rooms.
20 Q. Could you describe how -- you say poor state. Could you describe?
21 A. Many that were brought back were black and blue, beaten up,
23 Q. Now, about Pezo Camil, the person whom you referred to, were you
24 able to see him clearly?
25 A. Yes, clearly, because he was right next to me. About five metres
1 away is where he lay.
2 Q. What was his condition? You said that he passed away after 30 --
3 after a half an hour.
4 A. After half an hour, he passed away. He was in a dreadful
5 condition after interrogation. He couldn't come down on his own. They
6 carried him down in a blanket after the interrogations.
7 Q. Now, Witness, other than these interrogations, do you recall any
8 guards calling out names of prisoners in the night?
9 A. Every night. There wasn't a night when someone didn't come to
10 call out detainees in all the rooms.
11 Q. What happened after they were called out? Were they returned to
12 the rooms?
13 A. Unfortunately, many of them did not come back.
14 Q. The people who came back, did you see as to what conditions they
15 were in?
16 A. They were also in a terrible condition. I remember Nedzad Seric,
17 the president of the court, who was unconscious when he was brought back.
18 He is missing, too, today.
19 Q. To which ethnicity did this Nedzad Seric belong to?
20 A. He was of Muslim ethnicity.
21 Q. And the person whom you referred earlier, Pezo Camil, to which
22 ethnic group did he belong to?
23 A. He was also of Muslim ethnicity.
24 Q. Now, Witness, do you know in which shift these people were called
1 A. I'm afraid I couldn't say. I don't know, and I cannot claim
3 Q. Did it occur on all shifts?
4 A. In all shifts, these call-outs occurred.
5 Q. Were you interrogated when you were detained in the camp?
6 A. I was, twice.
7 Q. Who took you for interrogation, and who interrogated you?
8 A. I was taken out by a guard for interrogation. Neso Babic and Neso
9 Tomic interrogated me.
10 Q. What did they ask you about? What did they question you about?
11 A. They asked whether I was a member of a party, whether I got
12 weapons, where I was, what I did. That was the kind of thing they asked
14 Q. Did they -- what was your reply?
15 A. I said that I never delved in politics, that I did my job.
16 Q. Were you beaten during the interrogations?
17 A. They didn't beat me because I had dysentery and lost 32 kilograms
18 in the camp in barely two months. I was in a pitiful state.
19 Q. For how long were you detained in Omarska?
20 A. From the 30th of May to the 6th of August. After the 6th of
21 August, on the Thursday afternoon, I was transferred to Manjaca.
22 Q. How long did you stay in Manjaca?
23 A. I stayed there until the 17th of December, 1992.
24 Q. When you left these camps, what was your condition? What was the
25 condition of your health?
1 A. When I left Manjaca, I can say that my condition was good. We
2 were taken over by the Red Cross at Manjaca and received all the medicines
3 and food we required.
4 Q. What was the overall condition of your health? What could you
6 A. Well, my health was impaired then and my life destroyed, and that
7 is something that I can never get back, what I went through and my family
8 went through and everybody else. That cannot be made up for, repaid in
9 any way.
10 Q. What did you do with your house and property that you had in
12 A. My house was set fire to. I didn't find any of my property. My
13 catering establishment is still working in Prijedor. A Serb has it now.
14 Q. Now, before we get to -- go further, Witness, bear with me. I
15 will ask you again a question with regard to the prisoners being taken out
16 or were called out on all three shifts. When they returned -- you said
17 some were returned. Did you see their conditions after they were called
19 A. Those who returned had also been beaten up in all sorts of ways,
20 and they were brought back in a very difficult state, serious condition.
21 Q. Do you know during which shift Pezo Camil was called out for
22 interrogations and returned?
23 A. I can't claim that. I don't know that.
24 Q. You mentioned another person by the name of Nedzad Seric?
25 A. Yes, the former president of the court of Prijedor.
1 Q. You said that you saw him beaten.
2 A. I did.
3 Q. Was it after the interrogations or was it during the night that he
4 was called out?
5 A. It was during the night. Nedzad Seric, that was during the night.
6 Q. He was called out in the night and returned beaten; is that
8 A. That's right, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Witness, although eight years have passed, will you be
10 able to, if you see the person whom you referred to as Miroslav Kvocka, if
11 you see him today in court, will you be able to identify him?
12 A. I hope I would.
13 Q. After you left the Omarska camp, have you seen Mr. Kvocka in the
14 media or at any other instance?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. Will you please look around court and see whether you could
17 identify the person Miroslav Kvocka.
18 A. I can. Miroslav Kvocka is sitting in the back row. He's the
19 third from the policeman. The man next to him, and then Miroslav Kvocka.
20 He's got a blue jacket, a grey shirt, and a tie.
21 Q. If you need, you can please get up. Could you kindly say in which
22 row, please.
23 A. The back row, next to the wall. There he is, over there, in the
24 blue jacket.
25 Q. From the policeman?
1 A. From the policeman, third on the left.
2 MR. WAIDYARATNE: May the record reflect that the witness --
3 A. In the back row.
4 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you.
5 Q. You mentioned a person by the name of Krkan and Mladjo Radic. If
6 you see him, will you --
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Waidyaratne, but
8 I think that the assertion was not recorded in the LiveNote.
9 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well. Your Honour. May the record reflect
10 that the witness has identified Miroslav Kvocka. Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Witness, you spoke about a person, a shift commander, you said, by
12 the name of Krkan, and his real name Mladjo Radic. If you see him today,
13 will you be able to recognise him?
14 A. I hope I would recognise him, yes.
15 Q. Would you please look around the courtroom and see whether you
16 could recognise him. If you need, you can get up and see.
17 A. I don't have to get up. He's sitting opposite me, in a black
18 jacket, black shirt, by the wall.
19 Q. Which row? Could you kindly state in which row?
20 A. Back row, up against the wall, next to the policeman.
21 Q. You identified Mr. Kvocka. Could you say where Mr. Radic is
22 seated compared from where Mr. Kvocka is seated?
23 A. He's sitting on his right-hand side.
24 MR. WAIDYARATNE: May the record reflect that the witness has
25 positively identified Mr. Mladjo Radic.
1 Q. You also referred to a person by the name of -- a shift commander
2 by the name of Krle. If you see him today, are you in a position to
3 identify him?
4 A. I hope that I would, yes.
5 Q. Will you, if necessary, get up and see around the court and
6 identify this person by the name of Krle.
7 A. Krle's sitting next to Kvocka, on his left and next to the
8 policeman in the back row, up against the wall.
9 Q. Would you kindly tell as to what he's wearing?
10 A. He's wearing a white shirt and a grey jacket.
11 MR. WAIDYARATNE: May the record reflect that the witness has
12 positively identified Krle.
13 That concludes my examination, Your Honour. Thank you.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
15 Mr. Waidyaratne.
16 Perhaps this would be a good moment to take a break, unless the
17 Defence has very few questions to ask, and then perhaps we could go on.
18 Let's hear from Mr. Krstan Simic.
19 Have you got an order for the cross-examination?
20 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we shall be putting
21 our questions in the order of the indictment, and we have a lot of
22 questions to ask.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think it would be
24 a good idea to take a break now.
25 Mr. Usher, would you lower the blinds and escort the witness out
1 of the courtroom.
2 Witness, we're going to have a break now.
3 A half an hour break.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
7 You may be seated, Witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, your witness.
10 Mr. Haskic, you're now going to be answering questions put to you
11 by the Defence counsel.
12 Mr. Krstan Simic, your witness.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Haskic. You heard my name,
16 but I'll repeat it. My name is Krstan Simic. I am an attorney from Banja
17 Luka, and together with my colleague Mr. Branko Lukic, an attorney from
18 Doboj, we represent the Defence of Mr. Kvocka.
19 A. I am happy to know you.
20 Q. Mr. Haskic, you already have some experience with the
21 International Criminal Tribunal; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. More exactly, on the 20th of June, if you recall, 1996, under
24 oath, you testified before the Trial Chamber of the Tribunal; is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The Prosecution and the Chamber informed you on the occasion of
3 the importance of testifying, telling the truth, and the solemn
4 declaration you took on the occasion; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is it also correct if I say that before this distinguished Chamber
7 of this Tribunal, you told the truth in keeping and in respect of the
8 declaration that you took to -- the solemn declaration and oath you took
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Haskic. We'll go back to that statement later on.
12 Was Mr. Kvocka arrested?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. You never heard any news about Mr. Kvocka through the media, your
15 contacts with friends, and so on?
16 A. No.
17 Q. How did you come to be in a position to contact after testifying
18 in the Tadic case two years ago with the representatives of the office of
19 the Prosecutor?
20 A. They called me.
21 Q. What did they tell you on that occasion?
22 A. They said -- that is to say, they asked me about Kvocka.
23 Q. Was that a telephone contact in December 1998?
24 A. I can't remember when it was.
25 Q. Was it after the Tadic testimony or before?
1 A. It was after.
2 Q. How much time passed after that?
3 A. I couldn't tell you exactly.
4 Q. Mr. Haskic, about the events in Omarska, Prijedor, or in the
5 summer of 1992, did you make any statements to the media or any other
6 official organs?
7 A. No. As far as the media are concerned, as far as I remember, no.
8 Q. Do you know what the media means, the term "media"? Do you know
9 what it refers to?
10 A. I beg your pardon?
11 Q. Is it television, radio, the news?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. In addition to the OTP and the Trial Chamber in the
14 Tadic case, did you give any other official organs any kind of statement?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you remember that that was at the beginning of July in the
17 country of your present residence?
18 A. Yes. I don't know when it was, but yes.
19 Q. Was it before you testified in the Tadic trial, or afterwards?
20 A. It was before.
21 Q. I should like to ask the usher to show you your statement, which
22 is in the B/C/S language.
23 Mr. Haskic, would you take a look at the first page, the title
24 page, in fact. Is it true that it says on this page that the statement
25 was made on the 5th of July, 1994?
1 A. Yes, that's what it says.
2 Q. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Would you now turn to page 6 and look at that.
5 A. Page 6 you said?
6 Q. Yes. Does it say there that it is a continuation of the interview
7 of Mr. Haskic started on the 5th of July, and that that was on the 6th --
8 and that it was continued on the 6th of July, 1994?
9 A. Yes, after the interview on the 5th of July.
10 Q. But in the corner, it says the 6th of July, 1994, and it is a
11 continuation of the interview given on the 5th of July, 1994; is that
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Is it also correct if I say that, after two years following these
15 events, a little under two years after them, on the 5th and 6th of July,
16 1994, you had a conversation with the officials of the country in which
17 you resided at the time?
18 Look at page 1, please. You don't have to read it. We'll go back
19 to the text later on, point by point. You can close the document so that
20 you can concentrate on what I'm asking you.
21 My question is the following: Is it correct when I say that on
22 the 5th and 6th of July, 1994, that is to say, a little less than two
23 years from these unfortunate events, that you talked to the
24 representatives of an official institution? Would that be correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. We'll go back to that statement later on. I should
2 now like to go back to the events that you talked about today. You spoke
3 about your family situation and said you had a wife and that your daughter
4 was 11 years old in May 1992; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Where did your wife work?
7 A. She had a company registered in her name. Up until 1987, she
8 worked in my grille.
9 Q. And your daughter went to school?
10 A. Yes. The 16th of May Primary School was its name.
11 Q. How long does the school year last? How long did it last in
12 Prijedor, 1992, the scholastic year and all the other years?
13 A. Well, quite normally -- usually it lasted until July.
14 Q. You said a moment ago that your wife and your 11-year-old
15 daughter, while school was still on, that she went on holiday to Croatia.
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. How long were they to stay on this holiday?
18 A. Well, until the situation had changed. Perhaps a month. I don't
20 Q. Mr. Haskic, was it in fact a holiday, or the departure of your
21 wife and daughter, was it motivated by the events which did not bring
22 anything good with them?
23 A. I agree that they did not bring anything good with them.
24 Q. And do you agree that your wife and daughter left because of the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Haskic, what were your motives? Half an hour ago or an hour
3 ago, in a trivial event described to the court, a fact that was not
4 correct, that she had gone on holiday and was not able to return from that
6 A. She was not able to return.
7 Q. Mr. Haskic, that's not my question. I asked you why, for such a
8 trivial matter, a trivial point, you presented untruthfully the situation
9 to the Court, claiming that your wife had gone off on holiday with your
10 daughter. Why did you say that? Silence is an answer too.
11 Let me move on to --
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, let the
13 witness answer. Give him time.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
15 A. I have nothing to say.
16 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Simic.
19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Haskic, I would like now to go back to the day of your arrest,
21 which is the 30th of May. You testified that the Serb forces that morning
22 launched an attack on Prijedor and that the attack was concentrated on the
23 part of Prijedor called Stari Grad, or Old Town; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know what was the direct cause of such an attack on the old
1 town and some other neighbourhoods?
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. Thank you. Where were you arrested?
4 A. Where was I arrested? In my part of town.
5 Q. Yes, I know that. But I'm asking more precisely.
6 A. It's in Zagrad.
7 Q. Where were you when the Serb forces arrived?
8 A. After the announcement on the radio and the shouting, we went out
9 into the street spontaneously. All the people left their homes and came
10 out into the streets.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Witness, could you
12 get closer to the microphone, please, because the interpreters are having
13 difficulty hearing you. Thank you.
14 A. Thank you. I will.
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Regarding your arrest, the place of arrest, the method of arrest,
17 did you testify about all that in the Tadic case?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. And you said you were telling the truth at the time.
20 I should like to ask the usher to provide you with a transcript of
21 your testimony.
22 Could you please turn to page 10. At the bottom of the page, a
23 representative of the Office of the Prosecutor asks you, referring to the
24 Serb forces: "What did they do when they arrived in your part of town?"
25 Is it correct what I'm saying? Is that what it says? And your answer on
1 that occasion was: "They were shooting and they were saying, 'Come out,
2 all of you.'" Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And there was an announcement on the radio.
5 A. Yes, too.
6 Q. On that occasion, you answered: "Come out all of you. We'll kill
7 you." Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. On that occasion, did you come out spontaneously, as
10 you just told us, or is what you said during the Tadic case to the Trial
11 Chamber correct?
12 A. I don't know how to answer that, whether it was spontaneous or
13 under pressure, under coercion. I don't know how to express myself.
14 Q. Mr. Haskic, a spontaneous exit, can you describe it as spontaneous
15 if somebody is telling you to come out and shooting around and threatening
16 to kill you? Is that spontaneous?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Could you please try and remember which house you were forced out
20 A. House?
21 Q. Yes, whose?
22 A. Whose house?
23 Q. Yes, when you were arrested.
24 A. I was forced out of a house.
25 Q. Whose house?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts
1 A. My neighbour's house.
2 Q. Does that house have a garage?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Had you sought shelter in the garage together with other
5 neighbours until they came looking for you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. After your arrest -- let us go back to your testimony
8 of July 1994. You can close this transcript and take the one dated the
9 5th of July, 1994.
10 It says that you understood all the instructions and warnings, and
11 that you stated that you wished to testify. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You said here that the officials who were interviewing you had
14 provided also an interpreter whom you can understand well.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would you please look at page 4 of this statement. You stated,
17 and you were cautioned then, too, that you need to speak the truth, and
18 I'm quoting, "The Serbs arrived at my house at about 1500 hours." Next
19 page, "The Serbs rang the bell, and I opened the door. The Serbs asked me
20 to go out into the street."
21 A. That's a mistake in the translation.
22 Q. You said over there that you were in the garage, and here you're
23 saying something else.
24 A. This is a mistake in the translation.
25 Q. Let us go back to your arrest. You mentioned Mr. Fuad Ekinovic;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Tell us what happened to Mr. Fuad Ekinovic.
4 A. He was killed. He was lying in the yard when we went.
5 Q. Did you hear shots around your house?
6 A. Yes. There was shooting in the old town. There was shooting all
7 over Prijedor.
8 Q. The Office of the Prosecutor asked you questions about that event,
9 too, and if you look at page 12 of the transcript, of the transcript, this
10 thick document that Their Honours have, the question of the Prosecution
11 was: "As you went through that district, did you notice whether some of
12 your neighbours were perhaps shot on the spot?" Answer, your answer:
13 "Yes, I did. On my right, Fuad Ekinovic was killed in his yard." "Q. So
14 he was still in his yard when he was killed? A. Yes."
15 Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So now let's go back again to your statement given on the 5th and
18 6th of July, 1994. When you left your house, you said, and I quote, "I
19 could see there how a Serb soldier shot my neighbour Fuad Ekinovic in the
20 head." Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you see, yourself, a Serb soldier killing --
23 A. There was a group of soldiers shooting.
24 Q. Did you see that?
25 A. Yes, they were shooting.
1 Q. Did you see him being shot in the head?
2 A. I didn't see him shot in the head, but there was shooting and he
3 was killed there in the yard. This is 50 metres away from my house.
4 Q. Is it correct to say that, that it is incorrectly stated here when
5 it says, "I could see a Serb soldier shooting my neighbour Fuad Ekinovic
6 in the head"? Did you see it or not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. So you reached the high-riser. When did you arrive in
10 A. The bus I was in arrived in the evening. Eight, half past eight
11 in the evening, something like that.
12 Q. You were a person, a businessman, moving around Prijedor. Could
13 you tell us along which route you reached Omarska from Prijedor?
14 A. Through Tomasica.
15 Q. Does that take you through Jelicka?
16 A. No, not Jelicka. Tomasica and then the mine. I know that we
17 drove through Tomasica.
18 Q. How many buses were there when you arrived?
19 A. When we arrived in Omarska?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. I don't know how many. Six or seven, something like that. Six or
22 seven buses. There was a whole column of buses.
23 Q. You testified today that you arrived in the evening of the 30th.
24 Was there anything unusual when you arrived in Omarska?
25 A. What was unusual was that I was put in a bus like livestock and
1 being driven there.
2 Q. I agree, but my question is, was there a state of emergency, or
3 were there some events taking place in Omarska, or did you simply get off
4 the bus and were taken to your rooms?
5 A. When we got off the bus, we were taken out in fours. We had to
6 lean against the wall, and we were searched.
7 Q. And then you entered the room?
8 A. The room, yes.
9 Q. And then you were brought back to the pista; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let us try and reconstruct your detention in Omarska. You
12 testified that during the first nine or ten days in Omarska, you spent
13 them on the pista; is that correct?
14 A. Yes. We were on the pista, and then we were taken back to the
15 restaurant to have lunch, and then we were taken to the pista again.
16 Q. Is it correct to say that from the 1st of June until the 9th or
17 10th of June, during the daytime you were at the pista and at night you
18 slept in the restaurant building where food was distributed?
19 A. I couldn't tell you exactly. We spent some time at the pista and
20 we also slept sometimes in the restaurant. We also slept at the pista.
21 Q. So you spent some nights on the pista.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. After you were moved from the pista, where were you
25 A. For one night in the "white house," then brought back to the
1 pista. Then after that, I was transferred to the hangar, to room number
2 25 or 15, I don't know, but anyway, it was to the right.
3 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to show the
4 witness Prosecution Exhibit 3/130.
5 Q. [No interpretation]
6 JUDGE RIAD: We have no translation in English.
7 A. [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [No interpretation]
9 THE INTERPRETER: One, two, three.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Bearing this in mind,
11 Mr. Krstan Simic, perhaps you could repeat your question.
12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Haskic, you have in front of you a sketch of the first floor
14 of the hangar building where you were detained. So could you please show
15 us -- if you can't see well, just use the pointer -- the room you were in,
16 and we'll read it out together.
17 A. This was the entrance here. This is the entrance, and I was
19 Q. Could you read out the number of that room?
20 A. B8. B8 and B7 is all one room, and B23.
21 Q. How much time did you spend in this area that you call B7, B8, and
23 A. I couldn't tell you. I don't remember.
24 Q. When you were in these premises, how often did you go out during
25 the daytime?
1 A. Only when we went for lunch.
2 Q. How long did that take, your going and coming back from lunch?
3 A. Well, it certainly took about half an hour. We formed a line, we
4 get there, come back. There were several lines. We had to form lines as
5 we went out. Against the wall we were lined up.
6 Q. Are there any windows from these rooms, and, if so, where are they
8 A. There are windows to the left, facing the field down there.
9 Q. You didn't see the "white house"?
10 A. The "white house"?
11 Q. Through the window?
12 A. It could be seen, but you'd have to climb onto something to see
14 Q. You couldn't see the pista?
15 A. No.
16 Q. The restaurant building?
17 A. No. Not in the rooms I was in.
18 Q. Thank you. After your detention in this area, B7, B8, and B23,
19 where were you transferred?
20 A. I was taken for interrogation again, and after the interrogation,
21 I was taken to a room next to the restaurant, and that is where I stayed
22 until the end.
23 Q. Could you describe that room for us?
24 A. Well, it's a room that was annexed to the restaurant in the
25 administration building. There was a main entrance and a side entrance.
1 Q. Did that room have a name?
2 A. They called that room Mujo's room, actually.
3 Q. Does that room have any windows?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Where were they? Were they high up?
6 A. They were high up, the windows.
7 Q. Could you see anything through those windows?
8 A. You could see through the entrance because there was a glass
10 Q. When you're looking through this glass door, what could you see?
11 A. You could see people coming to the camp, to the left.
12 Q. Did you spend all day in that room? Did you come out of that
14 A. We stayed there all day. We went for lunch, and we came back.
15 Then towards the end, we were allowed to go outside on the pista.
16 Q. When you said "towards the end" --
17 A. Towards the end of my detention in Omarska.
18 Q. How long did lunch take when you went from this room?
19 A. Well, again, the lunch itself was quick, but there would be 30 of
20 us, I think, in a line. As one went in, the other had to come out. So
21 this went quickly. But the formation of lines took time, and it took us
22 sometimes half an hour. So I couldn't tell you how long.
23 Q. But roughly how long did all this take?
24 A. Maybe half an hour or 40 minutes, all in all. Something like
25 that. I can't assert with any certainty exactly how long it took.
1 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, we don't need the
2 exhibit any more.
3 Q. Mr. Haskic, allow me to go back to the period when you were at the
4 pista. As you said, this was approximately until the 10th of June. While
5 you were at the pista, did you notice Omarska being visited by any
6 important officials or functionaries, as we call them, of the authorities
7 in Prijedor?
8 A. While I was there, I didn't notice anything, but afterwards, I
9 heard that they did come.
10 Q. Do you know a person called Simo Drljaca?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. While you were at the pista, you never saw him visiting Omarska?
13 A. I did not see him, but I do know Simo Drljaca. I knew him.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to give the
15 witness Prosecution Exhibit 3/81, please.
16 Q. [No interpretation]
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 THE INTERPRETER: "Yes, I did hear that," was the answer. "I did
19 hear that."
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think we don't have your
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I'll repeat the question, Your
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please do so.
25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Haskic, did you hear from others that Simo Drljaca did visit
2 the Omarska camp?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Could you please look at the photograph on the ELMO, please.
5 A. I have looked at it.
6 Q. Do you recognise the person in the photograph with his hand
8 A. I do. That is Simo Drljaca.
9 Q. Thank you. I have to warn you, Mr. Haskic, that you were
10 testifying in the Tadic case under oath. So would you please open page 17
11 of the transcript from those proceedings, your testimony in the Tadic
13 I apologise. It is page 23, line 7. The question was by the
14 Prosecution: "Did you ever see Serb officials in Prijedor except the SUP
15 inspectors or former SUP inspectors coming to Omarska?" Your answer was,
16 and I quote: "The chief of the Prijedor SUP, Simo Drljaca, did come."
17 Then came the next question: "How frequently did they come to the Omarska
18 camp?" Your answer: "I don't know." Then the question was repeated.
19 The answer was: "I don't understand the question, I'm sorry."
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have this transcript.
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. "How frequently did Drljaca come to Omarska?" Then came your
23 answer, listen carefully: "When I was on the pista, I could see them -- I
24 could see him several times when he came to Omarska." "Q. Did you know
25 Mr. Simo Drljaca before the war?" Your answer was: "Yes."
1 And then we leave out a passage, then comes a Prosecution
2 question, line 20: "When you saw him in the Omarska camp, did he come
3 accompanied by somebody outside the camp?" Your answer was: "Yes." The
4 next Prosecution question was: "Who was it?"
5 Can you tell us now, without me reading it out, who was with Simo
7 A. My neighbour, Milovan Milutinovic, an active officer of the JNA
9 Q. Would you please look at the photograph. Is he there on the
10 photograph, Colonel Milovan Milutinovic?
11 A. I don't know whether he was a Colonel. Yes, a Colonel perhaps.
12 Yes, he is behind Simo Drljaca.
13 Q. Mr. Haskic, what is the truth; what you just told me under oath a
14 moment ago, that you never saw Simo Drljaca but that you heard about him
15 coming; or is the truth what you described and even showed on the ELMO,
16 identifying Mr. Drljaca and Mr. Milutinovic also under oath in the Tadic
18 A. I wouldn't like to answer that question.
19 Q. Very well, thank you. Since we are talking about this issue, you
20 said today that in Omarska you met the husband of your neighbour Jasminka
21 Crnalic, Miroslav Kvocka?
22 A. I didn't meet him. He was in the camp. I couldn't meet him.
23 Q. You also testified under oath today that he was the camp
24 commander; is that correct?
25 A. As far as I know and according to others, he was the camp
1 commander. I don't have any documents showing that he was the commander.
2 Q. I should now like to ask you to kindly go back to your statement
3 under oath, page 24. Please look at it. Line 1, a representative of the
4 OTP asks you: "Did you ever see Simo Drljaca with members of the camp
5 administration?" Your answer: "The commander of the camp, the warden of
6 the camp." Your answer was brief: "Yes."
7 Next question of the Prosecution: "Who was the camp warden?"
8 Answer: "Zeljko Meakic."
9 A. As far as I know, and according to the knowledge of the detainees
10 who were there.
11 [Cannot distinguish between Q and A]
12 Q. Did you say under oath in the Tadic case while you were at the
13 pista, and we've already defined when that was, that the camp warden was
14 Zeljko Meakic, as far as you knew?
15 A. [No audible response]
16 Q. Thank you. Talking about this --
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Keegan.
18 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I have to object at this
19 point. Defence counsel has several times been, in fact, injecting facts
20 into his or conclusions into his questions which don't exist anywhere in
21 the transcripts, nor has the witness in fact said. I have let the other
22 one slide, but in this instance there is nowhere in that instance that it
23 refers to, "I saw him during the time I was on the pista," which was the
25 The point of all of this, Your Honour, is we've been letting this
1 whole line of cross-examination go, but the point of all of this is
2 nowhere has he ever asked the witness, "Did you in fact say that answer?
3 Do you recall giving that specific answer?" Because in fact, as you look
4 at the English version of the transcript from the Tadic case and you look
5 at the transcript of the translation we're getting of Mr. Simic's reading,
6 they're different translations. So the point being, we don't know that
7 what is in the English language is, in fact, what the witness said. It is
8 a translation. And the witness has never been asked, first off, if he
9 actually said that. And so a number of times the witness has said, I'm
10 not answering or I can't answer that. Perhaps it's the nature of the
11 misleading questioning that's going on here.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, your response.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I must say I'm rather confused by
14 this objection. My answer is simple. I was repeating the questions that
15 were put with precision by the Office of the Prosecutor and, in my view,
16 there's no controversy there.
17 What I wish to show is that the witness in three different
18 statements about the same events gives diametrically opposed answers, and
19 I should like the Trial Chamber to judge for themselves.
20 I really see no differences in the translation. The answers are
21 so simple that I really don't see what the objection is about.
22 Let me ask the witness whether he really did testify in this way
23 in the Tadic proceedings, so then we'll have to check the transcript.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic. Ask your
25 question, and avoid making any inferences and putting words in the
1 witness's mouth, if possible. So please proceed.
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Haskic, did you in the Trial Chamber in the Tadic case state
4 that the warden of the camp was Zeljko Meakic at the time that Mr. Drljaca
5 visited the camp?
6 A. As far as I know, and according to what the detainees knew.
7 Q. Mr. Haskic --
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, I think we
9 shouldn't insist on that matter, with all due respect, because as you
10 know, it is very difficult for this person. The witness said that he had
11 no certificate that would tell him who was the camp commander. We have
12 heard many witnesses here who said there is some confusion. The people
13 are not jurists. When they say somebody was a commander, what they mean
14 very often is that they were responsible people. They had
15 responsibilities. Now you're discussing who was the commander. The
16 witness has already told you that he has no certificate to that effect,
17 but please proceed.
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
19 I have to say that the witness did not express any such doubt in the Tadic
20 proceedings. He simply said that it was Mr. Meakic.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Put your question if you need to
22 do so.
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Haskic, I'll go back once again to the document of the 5th and
25 6th of July, and in the introductory page there is your statement, and it
1 says, "Yes, I understand Mr. Bacali well, who has been brought as an
2 interpreter, because he speaks my language, and I agree to his being the
3 interpreter." Is that correct? Did you say that?
4 A. Yes. He's an Albanian.
5 Q. But you said that you understood what he was saying.
6 Mr. Haskic, I should now like to ask you to turn to page 9. It is
7 this statement before the inspector.
8 Mr. Haskic, because of the specific features of this part of the
9 examination, would you please give me yes or no answers if possible. On
10 the occasion, you were asked the following question: "Mr. Haskic, do you
11 wish to add anything to what you have said about the Omarska camp -- to
12 what you said in the Omarska camp?" "About." Sorry, "about." And you
13 answered on the occasion: "Yes. I would like to mention a list of the
14 other criminals." And you go on to enumerate 12 persons.
15 Amongst those 12 persons, the name Miroslav Kvocka is not
16 mentioned; is that correct?
17 A. I haven't found that. What page is that on?
18 Q. It's on page 9, towards the end.
19 A. I can't find it.
20 Q. At the bottom of page 9.
21 A. You mean this?
22 Q. Can I take a look at your transcript, please, your copy? That's
23 it. It's even been underlined to make things easier for you.
24 Amongst those persons, do you see the name of Mr. Kvocka?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you once again, without naming names,
2 because this is the cross-examination, whether some -- you said that some
3 other name was the warden of the camp. Just say yes or no.
4 A. According to my knowledge.
5 Q. Very well. But I say, did you quote another name as being the
6 camp warden? Yes or no.
7 A. Yes, but they changed. They weren't always the same.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting.
9 Who was the person that you indicated as commander, Witness? It is I who
10 am asking you. Who was the person whom you mentioned as being the
12 A. Zeljko Meakic -- well, there was the chief of police, the leader,
13 the police commander. I don't know, but according to my knowledge.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. But you often
15 heard that Zeljko Meakic was the camp commander; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
18 I apologise, Mr. Krstan Simic, for interrupting. Please proceed.
19 Mr. Keegan.
20 MR. KEEGAN: I don't believe that the witness actually answered
21 your question. Your question was: "Who did he name in the statement?"
22 That's not what he answered, I don't believe.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As you know, Mr. Keegan, I
24 haven't got the document. I only attempted -- that is to say, Mr. Krstan
25 Simic asked the witness whether there was another commander, without
1 saying the name, without stating his name, and the answer was to be yes or
2 no, and I think the Trial Chamber would like to know the name of that
3 person, the person that the witness mentioned.
4 Mr. Krstan Simic, can you help me to restate the question? You
5 have the papers, the document.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honour. My
7 question was the following:
8 Q. Did you, on that occasion, in this list, name Mr. Kvocka as the
9 warden of the camp? Yes or no.
10 A. No.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. That wasn't the question, I
12 don't think, Mr. Krstan Simic. We're laughing here.
13 You said to the witness, mentioning the individuals, you mentioned
14 a camp commander, and then you asked the witness, "Tell us, yes or no,
15 without giving us the name," and I'd like you now to ask for the name of
16 that person. That's what I want to know. I haven't got the document.
17 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In this conversation, who do you denote as being the commander of
19 the camp?
20 A. Zeljko Meakic and Dragan Prcac.
21 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you to move on to page 10. Turn to
22 page 10, please. And I quote: "I personally did not see any crimes
23 committed by these people nor do I know anyone who saw the crimes
24 committed by these people. However, it was generally known in the camp
25 that these people committed crimes."
1 My question now is the following: Mr. Haskic, are you testifying
2 on the basis of your direct knowledge or generally known circumstances?
3 A. No. That would appear that I wasn't in Omarska camp.
4 Q. I asked you a question concerning your decisive statement.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, I think that
6 the question should be formulated in a different way. What I heard was
7 whether the witness testifies on the basis of his personal knowledge or on
8 the basis of what was general knowledge, generally admitted.
9 Now, "if the witness heard," that's the same thing. If the
10 witness heard something, then he shares that general knowledge directly,
11 and I think what you wanted to ask is whether the witness is testifying by
12 hearsay or because he observed what happened. Is that what you wanted?
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your approach and my
14 approach differ somewhat. The witness precisely says he did not see the
15 crimes nor does he know other people who saw the crimes committed, but
16 that it was a generally-known circumstance or fact that those people
17 committed crimes. So my question is a twofold question. It has two
18 levels. First: "Are you testifying on the basis of those generally-known
19 facts which you did not see nor do you know people who saw them, and yet
20 you are testifying?"
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see. I see. Yes. Go ahead
22 now. But just a minute. Mr. Keegan is on his feet.
23 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry, but this goes back to
24 my previous objection about misleading the witness. These things are
25 being read in different translations. We're referring to different
1 documents. The statement very clearly says, at least in the translation,
2 "I did not see crimes committed by these people," meaning the people
3 specifically listed in the statement. It doesn't indicate that he didn't
4 see any crimes in the camp himself directly. He's referring in the
5 statement specifically to the people he lists. So again it is a
6 completely misleading question by this counsel.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Krstan Simic, your
9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept the
10 suggestion made, and we can limit the question to these people.
11 Q. Can you tell us in respect to these people? Can you answer the
12 question, please?
13 A. Could you repeat the question.
14 Q. The question was as follows: Did you personally see or hear or
15 know people who know that these people committed any crimes?
16 A. I cannot claim that when I don't know, but I can ask where all the
17 people disappeared to in Omarska.
18 Q. Mr. Haskic, during your testimony that we discussed a moment ago,
19 do you remember stressing, "I should once again like to stress that I will
20 state only that which I experienced myself and saw myself. I will try not
21 to mix this up with the tales told by others or information via the
22 media." Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In your testimony before the Trial Chamber in the Tadic case, did
25 you say that you personally did not see any crimes?
1 A. I didn't see any killings, but I saw people who -- who -- who were
2 beaten, coming back to the rooms.
3 Q. Let's go back to Mr. Kvocka. I want to ask you, did you ever see
4 Mr. Kvocka kill anybody?
5 A. No. No, I can't claim that.
6 Q. That he beat up anybody?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. That he abused somebody on a religious, ethnic, or other basis?
9 A. No, I did not, and I don't claim to have seen something that I
10 didn't see or hear.
11 Q. Mr. Haskic, did you personally see Mr. Kvocka at any time be
12 present personally and attend a killing, ill-treatment of someone, his
13 abuse, physical or verbal?
14 A. No, I was not present.
15 Q. Did you see him?
16 A. I saw him in the camp. I can claim that.
17 Q. I asked you whether you saw him present when a killing,
18 mistreatment, or abuse of any kind was taking place.
19 A. I did not.
20 Q. I should like now to go back to your testimony today. You said at
21 one point that you saw Mr. Kvocka issuing orders, but that you didn't hear
22 the contents of those orders, and that they issued those orders because
23 they were positioned to issue orders; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's quite normal. I didn't issue orders to the guards.
25 Q. Which order did you hear personally Mr. Kvocka issue?
1 A. Well, I couldn't hear because I wasn't standing next to him. How
2 could I hear the order?
3 Q. Who put him in a position to issue orders?
4 A. Well, I would like to know that, too.
5 Q. But did anybody appoint him?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Well, how do you know they were orders if you couldn't hear
9 A. What did you say?
10 Q. How did you know they were orders when you didn't hear what was
11 actually being said?
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, the witness
13 said that he did not hear; he saw. Ask the witness what he saw, what he
14 concluded, what made him conclude that it was an order.
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Do you know what position Kvocka held in the Omarska camp at all?
17 A. He was in some leading position.
18 Q. How do you know?
19 A. Well, how do I know? How can I explain how I know?
20 Q. Did you see him give orders to the interrogators?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. Did you see him give orders to the guards?
23 A. Well, he would tour the guards. He was there. I didn't issue
24 orders to the guards; he ordered the guards.
25 Q. But what did he order them?
1 A. Well, how could I hear?
2 Q. How do you know he was issuing orders --
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, I have to
4 interrupt you again. The witness said twice at least that he did not hear
5 the orders. Do not insist upon that point, please. Move on.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But afterwards
7 the witness said that he gave orders.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, I suggested
9 that you ask the pertinent question, but you did not ask it. The
10 suggestion that I made, Mr. Krstan Simic, was to ask the witness what he
11 saw and what led him to conclude that he was issuing orders. There we
12 have it. If you don't want to ask that question, ask another question.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. You said you knew the family of the wife of Mr. Kvocka. Who did
15 she have, what brothers and sisters?
16 A. She had a wonderful brother who died before the war, his name was
17 Celo, and she has three other brothers.
18 Q. Do you know their names?
19 A. I can't remember.
20 Q. Did you know them?
21 A. Yes, of course I knew them.
22 Q. Did you see them around while you were on the pista in Omarska?
23 A. I saw two of them in the greenhouse [sic] when we went for lunch.
24 In the "glass house."
25 Q. When was that, approximately?
1 A. I can't remember when. I couldn't give you a specific date.
2 Q. Did you see Kvocka during lunch all the time that you were in
4 A. With interruptions. I can't tell you exactly. With
6 Q. You couldn't see him every day?
7 A. No, I could not. Of course I couldn't.
8 Q. But you would see him from time to time until your departure; is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I should like now to go back to an event that you described
12 relative to Slavko Ecimovic.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you focus on this in relation to your arrival: How many days
15 later was Slavko brought to Omarska?
16 A. I couldn't say exactly. It was in June or the beginning of July,
17 but I couldn't tell you precisely.
18 Q. You testified that he was seriously injured?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You also testified that an ambulance belonging to the army brought
21 him, alive, injured from Omarska?
22 A. Yes, took him.
23 Q. Could you tell us how much time went by since his arrival in
24 Omarska and his -- when he was put into the vehicle?
25 A. I cannot.
1 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Waidyaratne.
3 MR. WAIDYARATNE: The witness didn't testify to the fact that,
4 that Slavko Ecimovic was brought to the camp in an ambulance. The
5 question, it says, "You also testified that an ambulance belonging to the
6 army brought him, alive, injured from Omarska."
7 I don't know whether the interpreter or the transcript -- the
8 witness did not testify. He said that he saw him being taken out in an
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic. There's a
11 problem with the transcript or perhaps the question. Would you like to
12 rephrase the question? I think I heard it.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness
14 testified that one day during the day -- that is to say, this morning he
15 testified that a military vehicle came with the first aid sign, and that
16 that vehicle took from Omarska Slavko Ecimovic. There's no doubt there.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] [No translation].
19 MR. WAIDYARATNE: The transcript said he was brought. The
20 transcript said Ecimovic was brought to the camp in an ambulance. That's
21 why I objected, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So with that clarification,
23 Mr. Krstan Simic, you may proceed.
24 I should like to take advantage of this interruption to ask you
25 how much longer you need, or shall we break here?
1 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I think that I'm drawing to a
2 close, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Please continue.
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Haskic, on the 5th and 6th of July, 1994, you talked at length
6 to the police inspector, and on no occasion did you mention Mr. Kvocka; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You testified here and also before the Trial Chamber in the Tadic
10 trial, and you made no mention of Mr. Kvocka there, either, at any time;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you explain to us what the reason -- or what information you
14 received that the individual under the name of Kvocka was never mentioned
15 and that somebody was -- wanted you to testify about Kvocka after his
17 A. Do you want to say that Kvocka wasn't in Omarska?
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Can I answer, Mr. President?
19 Q. No, Mr. Haskic, I don't want to say that Mr. Kvocka was not in
20 Omarska. We're talking about something else here.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, could you answer the
22 question that counsel has asked you, and the question was why in the Tadic
23 case you made no mention of Kvocka. I think the answer is a simple one,
24 so please answer.
25 A. She didn't ask me.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There you have the answer,
2 Mr. Simic; nobody asked him. So go on to the next question, please. Move
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. My next question with respect to the -- is with respect to the
6 conversation (redacted). You wanted on that occasion to state the names
7 yourself, and you enumerated them, and you did not mention Mr. Kvocka
8 then. Why?
9 A. I didn't remember to.
10 Q. It was only two years after the events.
11 A. That doesn't matter.
12 Q. Mr. Haskic, you were a rich man before, well off?
13 A. Well, I let others decide that.
14 Q. Did you lose everything in this unfortunate war?
15 A. I lost everything apart from one catering establishment. I hope
16 it's still there.
17 Q. Did your wife lose a brother in this war?
18 A. She did.
19 Q. Do you feel any bitterness in your soul because of everything that
20 you experienced and went through, all your sufferings and everything you
22 A. I have bitter disillusionment, and my life has been destroyed
23 through everything I have lived through.
24 Q. Is that a reason for you in the course of your testimonies, with
25 this bitterness that you feel, that people whom you think to be
1 responsible, that you should accuse them of things?
2 A. I'm not accusing anybody. I just say what -- I'm just saying what
3 I know. It is up to the Court to decide who is guilty and who is not.
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
5 further questions.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Krstan Simic.
7 So now we can have the break. I see that the usher has left.
8 Perhaps we have to wait for him. Ah, here he is, or maybe we need a
10 Could the usher please lower the blinds and accompany the witness
11 out of the courtroom, please.
12 So, we're going to have a break until 3.35, more or less.
13 --- Luncheon recess taken at 2.36 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 3.35 p.m.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
3 Mr. Usher, may we have the witness shown in.
4 Yes. Mr. Haskic, have you had a chance to have something to eat?
5 A. Yes -- no. No.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You haven't had anything to
10 A. I had an apple.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. But at any
12 rate, are you able to continue?
13 A. I'll try.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Fine.
15 I think that we have Mr. Nikolic now.
16 MR. NIKOLIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Yes, but this Defence
17 team and the other Defence teams will not be cross-examining this
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Does that mean it's finished?
20 You had a very good lunch, I see, very good luncheon. And you all agree
21 on that. Very well. Thank you.
22 Mr. Waidyaratne, do you have any additional questions?
23 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 Re-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
25 Q. Witness, I would first start with the cross-examination conducted
1 by the learned counsel for Mr. Kvocka when he asked you -- when he asked
2 you about your wife and child being sent in the month of May.
3 Did you send them away in the month of May?
4 A. They went at their own initiative and ...
5 Q. And were they able to return after that?
6 A. They weren't.
7 Q. Why couldn't they return?
8 A. They couldn't come back because of the situation that happened.
9 Q. And it was suggested, more or less inferred that you lied to the
10 Court. Did you lie to the Court with regard to that aspect?
11 A. No.
12 Q. The next point which I would draw your attention: Today when you
13 testified, you said ...
14 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I would, Your Honour, quote page 43, lines 19
15 and 20.
16 Q. You stated that you heard from others that Kvocka was the
17 commander of the camp for a time. What do you mean by that? What did
18 you -- could you explain as to what you meant by that?
19 A. What I meant. Well, he was some sort of higher authority than an
20 ordinary guard.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic, your
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I do have an objection, yes. My
24 learned colleague is asking something specific. He says, "You heard that
25 Mr. Kvocka was the camp commander," and what did you have in mind? He is
1 asking for a conclusion on the basis of something the witness said he
2 heard, and we know what "to hear" means. He did not conclude anything.
3 He heard. He was stating what he heard.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, your response.
5 MR. WAIDYARATNE: It was a specific. I quoted the lines in his
6 testimony in the direct examination. The witness referred to that. He
7 said that. That's what I said and quoted the lines, page 43, lines 19 and
8 20, and what I wanted was for him to explain. I put that to him.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, ask the witness
10 what were the precise terms that he heard.
11 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well.
12 Q. Witness, what did you hear of Mr. Kvocka as to what he was in the
14 A. I heard that he was a sort of commander of the police. I don't
15 know. There were several commanders there. I don't know. I had nothing
16 in writing for being able to claim exactly.
17 Q. Was it for some time that he was the commander?
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic.
20 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness said that
21 he heard that he was a police commander. He doesn't know what he was. He
22 can't claim to do so because he did not know. Then a question followed
23 which was absolutely leading: "Was he a commander?" again, while the
24 witness had explained just a moment ago that he had no knowledge about
25 that except what he heard, and he heard different things at that.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, ask the witness
2 whether, on the basis of what he heard, there was a time frame of any
4 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, from what you heard from the others --
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Microphone, please.
7 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Sorry, Your Honour.
8 Q. From what you heard from the other detainees, was there any time
9 frame or any period that he was the commander?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you explain?
12 A. I don't know the time period, but for a time he was. After that,
13 I don't know whether he was or wasn't.
14 Q. Was it at the beginning?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. WAIDYARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit 3/81 which was
17 shown by the Defence, Your Honour.
18 Q. Witness, please look at the photograph which is on the ELMO. You
19 see that there is a person in uniform in the front.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know what position he held during that time?
22 A. According to what I learnt, he was the head of SUP, the chief of
23 police. I don't know what term to use, how to express myself.
24 Q. Now, the uniform that he is wearing, a camouflage uniform, have
25 you seen that uniform?
1 A. It's a camouflage uniform.
2 Q. Is it a military uniform?
3 A. I couldn't say. I don't know. I can't claim that.
4 Q. Is it the kind of uniform which is worn by the military personnel?
5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic.
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The witness has said decisively
8 that he does not know that type of uniform, that it's a camouflage
9 uniform, but that he does not know who it belongs to.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Waidyaratne, ask the
11 witness what type of uniform that is.
12 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you.
13 Q. What type of uniform is that?
14 A. Whether it was a police or for the special units or whatever, I
15 can't say.
16 Q. Did you see the soldiers wearing that uniform?
17 A. There were uniforms like that, and there were other uniforms too,
18 so that there were different types of uniform.
19 Q. Now, Witness, you were asked about the time that you were taken
20 out when you were in the room in the restaurant building. You said that
21 you were taken out for meals. How long would you stay in the pista when
22 you go out after the meals?
23 A. We would stay on the pista until the evening.
24 Q. And in the night were you sent back, ordered back to the
25 restaurant building?
1 A. Yes. They would take us to the restaurant building from time to
3 Q. Now, Witness, you, in the direct examination, mentioned about a
4 person by the name of Slavko Ecimovic and you seeing him in the camp. To
5 what nationality did he belong to?
6 A. He was -- according to what I knew was that he was a Croat, a
8 Q. And when you saw him, what condition was he in?
9 A. When I saw him in the "white house," he was in a pitiful state.
10 Q. Before that, when you saw him for the first time when he was
11 brought into the camp, what condition was he in?
12 A. He was beaten up. His hands and legs were tied, and he had some
13 wire across his mouth, and he was only able to move very slowly 'cause his
14 feet were tied.
15 Q. You were also questioned about -- first I will deal with the
16 previous time when you gave evidence. In that trial, what was the main
17 focus in that trial and the line of questioning that you underwent in that
19 A. The first trial, you mean?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. It was the general situation; how I was in the camp, what I
22 experienced, what I went through.
23 Q. Was your testimony focused on a particular individual?
24 A. Well, I can't answer that, really.
25 Q. Do you know who was charged in that case, in that trial?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Who was that?
3 A. Dule Tadic, Dusko, Dule.
4 Q. And also, Witness, when you were questioned by another authority
5 in another country and when you gave a statement, was that also focused on
6 that investigation, the same person?
7 A. It was general --
8 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic.
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The question is a leading one
11 because the witness is being asked whether you were focused on the same
12 person, and the witness is being led in his answer. And we presented the
13 whole scan of questions about which the witness spoke.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
15 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I will rephrase my question, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Rephrase your question.
17 MR. WAIDYARATNE:
18 Q. During that investigation in another country when you gave a
19 statement, were you questioned about a particular individual?
20 A. I can't remember.
21 MR. WAIDYARATNE: If you'd bear with me, Your Honour
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. WAIDYARATNE: May I have the assistance of the usher to have
24 the transcript be given to the witness, Your Honour, from the Tadic
25 trial. I would mark it as 3/153. The translation in B/C/S would be "B"
1 and the English copy would be "A".
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, I don't know if
3 you were here yesterday or the day before when we discussed this matter of
4 exhibits marked for identification. What we decided -- the ruling was of
5 the 4th of July -- was that preliminary statements were given to the
6 Prosecutor and the transcripts should be utilised but not admitted into
7 evidence. So the question was whether or not to assign a number, whether
8 or not to assign a number to a document that won't be admitted.
9 So you can use documents in order to clarify any contradictions or
10 to test the credibility of the witness, but these documents are not going
11 to be admitted, that is to say, tendered. So you can use the document and
12 therefore we don't need it to be marked for identification as an exhibit.
13 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well, Your Honour. I will show the
14 document to the witness and only use it, but I was thinking of as Defence
15 tried to show a contradiction or a difference in a certain portion of the
16 evidence which was given by the witness in the Tadic trial, but as they
17 did not, at least in fairness to the witness and the Court, to have this
18 previous testimony admitted. That was my intention.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. You can put
20 your additional questions using the same document to clarify matters, to
21 elucidate them. You have the legitimate right to do so, but just using
22 the document.
23 And I take advantage of the occasion to say that I think that the
24 parties are fully aware of this. There are sometimes some small
25 differences that can arise in translation, and the Trial Chamber pays due
1 respect to that. There are things that are not conclusive. There can be
2 differences in translations. So we must pay attention to that and bear
3 that in mind.
4 Having said that, you can show the document and ask your
5 questions, Mr. Waidyaratne.
6 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour. May I have the
7 assistance of the usher to have the English portion to be kept on the
8 ELMO, Your Honour.
9 Q. I refer to the transcript in the Tadic trial, Your Honour, page
10 1959, on the 20th of June 1996. Under cross-examination, were you asked a
11 question to this effect:
12 "Q. When you told the court this morning about moving down
13 your own street and there you saw your house on fire, did
14 that happen?" Your answer was:
15 A. Yes."
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, this is a
17 recommendation for both you and the Defence: When you are reading a text,
18 please read slowly for us to be able to get a good interpretation. If you
19 read it too quickly, the interpreters who do not have a text can have
20 difficulties. So please read slowly and then we'll get the proper
22 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I apologise, Your Honour.
23 Q. "Q. Did you see Fuad Ecimovic being shot or did you just see
24 his body?" Your answer:
25 A. As we were walking, I heard firing, and we were passing
1 by the house. I saw him lying dead" --
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. I see an
3 objection from Mr. Krstan Simic.
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm afraid that my
5 learned colleague is leading the witness again. The Defence did not
6 contest this text at all at any moment, but it indicated the contradiction
7 between this text and the statement given by the witness to the police
8 inspector in the state in which he now resides -- in which he resides, and
9 it seems to me that he wishes to show that what was said in Tadic, that
10 there wasn't any contradiction. The contradiction refers to the previous
11 statement of 1994.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne.
13 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Your Honour, with the use of this transcript,
14 the Defence tried to show that the witness has contradicted himself with
15 the statement that he has given under cross-examination. But Defence did
16 not show that under cross-examination that this witness clarified that
17 position and cleared himself.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please proceed with the
19 question, Mr. Waidyaratne.
20 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you.
21 Q. The question to you, under cross-examination, was:
22 "Q. Did you see Fuad Ecimovic being shot or did you just see
23 his body?"
24 A. As we were walking, I heard firing and we were passing by
25 the house. I saw him lying dead by the house."
1 Do you recall giving this evidence?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. WAIDYARATNE: That's all, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned colleague
7 has broached a new subject and, with your permission, I would like to ask
8 two questions to the witness. An issue was raised which was not raised
9 during the cross-examination or the examination-in-chief.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There is nothing new here. We
11 are not going to allow you to ask the question. The issue had already
12 been mentioned during the cross-examination. I'm now going to give the
13 floor to my colleague, Judge Riad.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Haskic, good afternoon. Can you hear me?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE RIAD: I have a very limited number of questions, and you
18 will go back to your lunch quickly.
19 Now, you mentioned that --
20 A. Thank you.
21 JUDGE RIAD: -- you saw Slavko Ecimovic brought to the camp, hands
22 and feet tied and a wire across the mouth, and Kvocka told you, "Look at
23 Tudjman's fighters; you will all end up like him." That was what you
25 Good. Now, first I want to know, was Kvocka receiving the
1 detainees? Was he the one bringing in the detainees, receiving them and
2 giving them a lecture, or what?
3 A. I don't know that. As far as I know, he didn't. They would be
4 taken upstairs to the upper floor for interrogation.
5 JUDGE RIAD: So what was -- I want to know the event exactly, the
6 incident, how he came to give you this, this message that you'll end up
7 like Slavko Ecimovic?
8 A. No, not me. There were 1.000 of us on the pista. He didn't say
9 that to me directly, but to all of us. He was addressing all of us, and I
10 happened to be sitting on the pista. He simply said, "Look at this
11 Tudjman's soldier."
12 JUDGE RIAD: He was addressing almost a crowd?
13 A. Yes, not only myself.
14 JUDGE RIAD: Did all the guards address the crowds like that, or
15 only special people?
16 A. I don't quite understand you. What do you mean, if the guards
17 addressed --
18 JUDGE RIAD: Did the guards in the camp just stand up and talk to
19 the crowd and tell them to act like Kvocka?
20 A. We had to listen to the orders that were given by the guards.
21 JUDGE RIAD: I see. Now, when he told you that, you'll all end up
22 like him, did he do anything to stop this, what was happening, to untie
23 the wire around the mouth or anything; or he would just look at it and
24 show it to you?
25 A. No, he didn't try to do anything. At least, I didn't see him do
2 JUDGE RIAD: If you can remember, you said that Slavko was lying
3 after that on the floor, moaning and in a pool of blood. Was that almost
4 close by after the -- after Kvocka told you that you will end up like him,
5 or was it several days later?
6 A. I couldn't tell you exactly how long. A couple of days, but I'm
7 not sure.
8 JUDGE RIAD: Was Kvocka there then at that time?
9 A. When Slavko was in the "white house"?
10 JUDGE RIAD: When you saw him in the pool of blood.
11 A. No, I cannot say that. I don't know. I cannot claim that he was
12 there. I don't remember.
13 JUDGE RIAD: You said that every day, or every night, detainees
14 were called out and many did not come back, or some came back in terrible
15 condition, and you said that happened in all shifts.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE RIAD: Was Kvocka sometimes in there?
18 A. No, I don't know that. I cannot claim that.
19 JUDGE RIAD: I think that's all. Thank you very much.
20 A. Thank you, too.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Riad.
22 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
23 JUDGE WALD: I have just one question. In the beginning of your
24 testimony, you recounted the incident Judge Riad referred to where
25 Mr. Kvocka said at the time that Ecimovic was coming through with the
1 wires and hands and legs tied, "Look at Tudjman's fighter; you'll all end
2 up like that," and later on at the very end when you were answering
3 Mr. Simic's questions, when he said, "Did you ever see Kvocka kill or
4 abuse anybody," and you said "no" in the last -- were you, when you were
5 talking about abuse and you said you never saw him abuse anybody, what did
6 you mean by "abuse"? Did you mean just physical abuse, or did you mean
7 verbal or any other kind of abuse?
8 A. I didn't notice him physically abuse anyone, and I wasn't close
9 enough to be able to say that he also verbally abused people. I cannot
10 claim that.
11 JUDGE WALD: But my question, just to make sure you are -- by
12 saying that you never saw him engage in any abuse, you're not counting the
13 story you told us in the beginning about his saying, "Look at Tudjman's
14 fighter; you'll all end up like this"? You don't consider that to be
15 included in the question when you say that he never abused anybody; is
16 that right?
17 A. He said that.
18 JUDGE WALD: Okay, all right.
19 A. That is the way he pronounced it.
20 JUDGE WALD: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't
21 taking that back. Okay, thanks.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
23 Judge Wald.
24 Mr. Haskic, I, too, have a few questions for you. At the
25 beginning of the attack, or following the attack of the 30th of May, you
1 mentioned certain broadcasts on the radio. What is the link between the
2 fact that you heard those appeals on the radio and the fact that you left
3 your house? What is the relation between these two facts?
4 A. I don't know how to answer that question, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Well, maybe my question is not
6 clear enough.
7 Did you leave the place where you were because you had heard those
8 appeals broadcast over the radio or because you had heard Serb soldiers in
9 the street, ordering you to leave the house?
10 A. We heard them say, "Get out, all of you," but we had also heard
11 appeals broadcast over the radio for us all to leave our houses, and there
12 was a lot of shooting going on. It was terrible.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. I can now ask you
14 another question, or rephrase my previous question.
15 So you heard the appeals over the radio, and then you left the
16 house, and then you heard soldiers in the street, or was it the other way
18 A. It all happened at the same time. There were soldiers calling
19 upon us, and also there were those appeals that were broadcast over the
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me ask you another
22 question. When the Serb soldiers arrived and when they started shouting,
23 when they told you to leave your houses, was there anyone left in any of
24 those houses, or were you already all in the street?
25 A. Well, I think that some people were in the street, but some people
1 were still in their houses.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I also have a question regarding
3 something that you said in connection with your wife and son. You said
4 that they had gone on holiday. You said that they had gone on their own
5 initiative. Did you discuss that plan with her before she actually left?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What were the reasons that you
8 discussed, you and your wife? What were the reasons for her departure?
9 You said that you had discussed the plan with her before she actually
10 left, so what were the reasons that you mentioned during that discussion?
11 A. Well, the situation was already very difficult.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Did you have any problems
13 with telling other people about the reason why she left, or was it easy
14 and simple for you?
15 A. I don't know. On one hand it was easier for me, the fact that
16 they had left; but then it was also more difficult.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but when you talked about
18 that to your friends, your acquaintances, your relatives, did you tell
19 your friends that you were afraid, that the situation was complex and that
20 you were afraid that something might happen to them; or did you give them
21 some other reasons for her departure?
22 A. Well, I simply couldn't imagine that a thing like that would
23 happen in Prijedor. That is why I didn't want to leave.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, I'm not going to insist
25 any further on this.
1 You made a distinction between what you had said you had seen and
2 what you said you had heard. In all of your answers, did you always --
3 were you always mindful of that distinction, the distinction between "I
4 saw" and "I heard," or were you speaking in general terms?
5 A. I don't know what to say.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Perhaps once again I
7 wasn't clear enough. In one of your testimonies, you said that there was
8 a difference between what you had seen and what you had heard and the way
9 you told us about it. Do you agree with that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then. Let me ask you
12 my question then. So each time when a question was put to you, did you
13 bear that distinction in mind? Were you careful to emphasise that you had
14 heard something?
15 A. Well, it depends. When I heard something, I always try to explain
16 that and to mention that.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. You said
18 that you had heard from others that Kvocka was a camp commander.
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Who told you that?
21 A. Those were the stories that circulated amongst detainees.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What detainees? The people who
23 were detained where?
24 A. In the Omarska camp. I wasn't able to hear that from any
25 official. Those were the sources that circulated amongst the detainees.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But could you
2 perhaps give us a name?
3 A. Name of the people I was with?
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. Name of an individual who
5 told you that Kvocka was the commander. One individual, perhaps two?
6 A. Well, I don't know. There were many of us detainees, and we
7 talked. There was a huge number of people who were there. Zijad
8 Mahmuljin was there, Camil Pezo, Ziko Crnalic was next to me, Said Besic;
9 many of us.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you remember the
11 circumstances in which those individuals told you that? Were you at the
12 pista? Were you locked up in a room? Did you happen to be in the
13 restaurant? Where exactly were you?
14 A. Well, at the pista, in the restaurant.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have another
16 question for you. You said that you knew very well Zeljko Meakic and
17 Kvocka when you saw them in the camp. Was there any difference in conduct
18 of Zeljko Meakic and Kvocka?
19 A. I don't know. It's very difficult for me to say that.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me try again. You said that
21 you had heard that Kvocka was a kind of commander. What exactly did you
22 mean when you said that he was some kind of commander?
23 A. Well, that he was superior to the guards, that he was not a simple
24 guard. I don't know how to express myself.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So you're saying that Kvocka was
1 not a guard, that he had a superior rank in respect of the guards. Do I
2 understand you correctly?
3 A. Yes. That was my assumption.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me now ask you a question
5 that I actually wanted Mr. Krstan Simic to ask of you on at least two
6 occasions, but he failed to do that.
7 On what did you base your conclusion that Kvocka was the person
8 who issued orders?
9 A. Well, I couldn't see him directly issuing orders, but I saw that
10 he was there, that he moved around, that he was present in the area, that
11 he was in the camp.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I understand you
13 correctly, you made a distinction, and you said that you were not able to
14 hear him give any orders.
15 A. No, I wasn't able to hear that.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So what you saw was actually him
17 moving around as if he were the person in charge of giving orders?
18 A. Yes, as if he were the superior.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But you know that many
20 people -- that there are many people in the camp who walk around, who move
21 around. There may be even certain detainees who were walking around.
22 What is the difference between a person who simply walked around the camp
23 and Kvocka, who looked as if he issued orders? What was the difference?
24 What was it that set Kvocka apart?
25 A. A detainee had to stay in one and the same place. He was not
1 allowed to move without permission given by the guards. He always had to
2 ask for permission if he wanted to go to the restaurant or to the toilet;
3 and he, of course, was free to move around as he pleased.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Was there a
5 difference between Kvocka's movement around the camp and the movement of
6 the guards around the camp?
7 A. Yes, there was a difference. A guard would be assigned to one
8 particular place and his movement was restricted to the place.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness. I
10 have no further questions for you. You have answered a number of
11 questions that were put to you by both parties and the Judges. I should
12 now like to thank you for coming here to the Tribunal to testify and to
13 wish you a safe journey back to your place of residence.
14 Now I'm going to ask the usher to lower the blinds and to help you
15 out of the courtroom.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne, what's next?
18 MR. WAIDYARATNE: The Prosecution moves to tender into evidence,
19 admit into evidence Exhibit 3/152.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
21 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, is there any
24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then. Exhibit 3/152
1 will be admitted into evidence.
2 Yes, Mr. Keegan.
3 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. We heard your earlier discussion
4 with my colleague about the admissibility of transcripts. However, we
5 would like, nonetheless, to move for the admission of the transcript of
6 this witness from the Tadic case and also the statement taken by
7 authorities from another state which was used in cross-examination.
8 It is, of course, the experience of everyone here that most legal
9 rules do have exceptions and that it is for a very good reason, and that
10 is because no rule can generally envisage all possible situations.
11 It appears to us that, in this case, Mr. Simic tried to do a very
12 artful job of skirting your ruling about using the statements as
13 admissible evidence for the purpose of establishing contradictions.
14 Instead, he purposely chose not to introduce the statement, but,
15 nonetheless, the total focus of that cross-examination was to imply that
16 this witness was lying to this Chamber, and he attempted to do that by
17 citing repeatedly two supposedly contradictory answers in both the
18 transcript and in the statement, and by doing so, he has not given this
19 Chamber the opportunity to review those -- that statement and transcript
20 for itself to determine if, in fact, there is a contradiction.
21 He also, of course, tried to very artfully cover up any mention of
22 any other accused in this case which appear in those documents, and then
23 when we obviously tried to clarify by use of the transcript, stood up and
24 objected that it was an improper examination.
25 We think that this is exactly the case where transcripts and
1 statements should be admitted so that the Chamber can make its own
3 The problems in these cases is that this kind of examination,
4 while it may work extremely well in a national -- any national court where
5 you're dealing with the same language so that the witness themself has a
6 better opportunity to recall the actual question and answer which they may
7 have given, here the big problem in particular with using the transcripts
8 is we have no idea what question that witness was actually asked in his
9 own language, because both the English -- excuse me, the B/C/S transcript,
10 which counsel was using and which they use in other examinations, are
11 prepared from the English transcript of the trial. So there's absolutely
12 no way of knowing what that witness was actually asked in his own
13 language. So we actually have no way of knowing exactly what it was he
14 was answering. And that's why we think it's the totality of the
15 examination, which is the only clear indicator of whether there's truly
16 contradictions or not, because it's only by looking at the entire
17 testimony that you can tell whether there is really a continuity, that is,
18 a consistency within the testimony.
19 And the perfect example is Mr. Simic chose only to use the direct
20 examination questions with respect to the death of Ecimovic, whereas that
21 very issue was raised on cross-examination and the answers given in the
22 cross-examination are entirely consistent with exactly the way the witness
23 testified today.
24 So that is what we would call, in fact, a very misleading use of
25 that transcript and for the sole purpose of trying to raise the inference
1 of untruthfulness when, in fact, it doesn't exist at all in the whole of
2 the transcript.
3 So we think that there are times when it is appropriate for these
4 prior documents to be admitted. We are mindful of the general rule, but
5 we would respectfully request that the transcript from the Tadic case and
6 the statement taken by the other authorities be admitted so that the
7 Chamber can weigh for itself the consistency, the truthfulness of this
8 witness' testimony. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic, Krstan Simic.
10 You probably object.
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be speaking
12 only on my behalf because of certain special characteristics of the case.
13 If Mr. Krstan Simic were alone, defending only his client, he would accept
14 it. However, bearing in mind your ruling, we do oppose the admittance of
15 this exhibit.
16 It is true that I quoted only those elements which point to
17 certain inconsistencies. I think that the objection concerning the
18 translation is somewhat trivial. I don't understand my learned colleague
19 bringing up the issue of translation if we are discussing the issue of
20 commanders of -- of the commander of the camp. We do not have any problem
21 in translation there because it is a very specific term if he says Meakic
22 is a commander of the camp. Today we quoted only certain portions of the
23 transcript which refer to his allegations as regards the superior position
24 of the individuals in question.
25 I think that the Trial Chamber with their questions touched upon
1 the core issues why we heard this witness today. I wanted to point out
2 the inconsistencies, especially in relation to certain banal issues like
3 holiday, death of Mr. Ecimovic, the stories that were circulating about
4 commanders, and so on and so forth. And in the end, we heard for three
5 times -- actually, for four times the way the witness was arrested. One
6 story was given in the country in which he resides, one story was given in
7 the trial of the Tadic case, the third version was given to me, and the
8 fourth one to you, Your Honours.
9 My conclusion is, therefore, that pursuant to your ruling, the
10 exhibit should not be admitted because we had a number of documents which
11 could have been treated as an exception, and I don't think that this one
12 should be treated as an exemption to the general ruling that the Chamber
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What about other Defence
15 counsel? Do you wish to add anything to this issue? Yes, Mr. Jovan
17 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are also opposed to
18 the introduction of the statement and transcript, in keeping with the
19 ruling that we have had.
20 I should like to remind you that in the case of Witness A, we
21 already had a stand, a position, based on the decision not to introduce
22 transcripts and statements as evidence, into evidence.
23 What I'm worried about at the moment is a proper relationship
24 towards my client, for example, and our team, because with the
25 introduction of a statement, which is what the Prosecutor wants to do, our
1 Defence would be in a position of complete inequality. The equality of
2 arms would not be the same.
3 Let me explain why new witnesses are being brought in is that a
4 completely new witness should be introduced, Mr. Haskic -- that Mr. Haskic
5 would be testifying to facts regarding the Prcac case. We received
6 documents that have not been disclosed fully even to the present day, but
7 we did not choose to stress that. And in one sentence in one text, and
8 another sentence -- that is to say, two sentences, Mr. Prcac is mentioned
9 in only two sentences, and on the basis of this scant material, we try to
10 prepare our case. And when the witness was brought out, it turned out
11 that Mr. Prcac was not mentioned at all, so even in the intimations for
12 the cross or anybody here during the trial mentioned him. However, during
13 the -- and during the examination-in-chief, Prcac was not -- Mr. Prcac was
14 not mentioned.
15 Now, if statements were introduced and admitted in a position
16 where we were not able to have a cross-examination or try to do anything
17 with the witness, the Prosecution is attempting to introduce this and then
18 to refer to it later on, at some later stage.
19 I just want to stress that we have had two rulings, and we have
20 had examples, and I don't see why this should be allowed, and we are
21 opposed to it.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Simic.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, could you try not to repeat the previous
24 arguments; otherwise, we're going to overstep our time limit, and we have
25 witnesses waiting.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I just
2 have a few words to say.
3 I think in this concrete case, or we seem to feel this, the
4 Prosecution has been surprised by the newly-arisen situation with the use
5 of their documents exclusively. The Defence did not contribute to this at
6 all. The situation arose, let me repeat, it is -- the documents, it was
7 exclusively the documents that the Prosecution had in its possession
8 before which led to this situation. But I do not think that we should
9 deviate from the ruling that has been made in this instance. Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] With respect to Mr. Kos's
11 Defence, counsel does not wish to intervene, I take it? Mr. Nikolic?
12 Mr. O'Sullivan.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour, we're assuming that your ruling
14 from July is the ruling of the Chamber, that the procedure you designed
15 based on our submissions at that time was that, for impeachment purposes,
16 the relevant passages would come into the record, and that was the
17 mechanism that's been used.
18 Our whole position during oral submission was that prior
19 out-of-court statements are admissible for a limited purpose of showing
20 impeachment and not for the truth of their contents. And I believe your
21 decision was designed to achieve that, have that portion where we say the
22 contradiction exists, which is a matter for Your Honours ultimately, that
23 is read into the record and becomes a part of the record.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I don't know if my colleagues
25 are going to ask any questions. I have a question for the Defence, but
1 Mr. Fila first.
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we discussed this
3 yesterday with Ms. Hollis. In July, I don't know who we discussed it
5 If this is a question that will be on our agenda every day, I
6 should like to kindly request you that I -- you do not ask me to say
7 anything. I said something once and for all, and I think that's enough.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have a question to the
10 parties. I don't know if my colleagues have questions as well, but I
11 would like to raise an issue at this point.
12 I think, that is to say, I see that here we have a very
13 exceptional element. I don't think you were thinking along the lines of a
14 prejudgement and false testimony.
15 We have a witness here who testified before the Tribunal, and he
16 was on oath, and according to the Defence, he lied. So that is a
17 different aspect, and it is an extremely important aspect which does touch
18 upon the honour of an individual, and therefore, I think that the Chamber
19 should deal with this. And that is what I see now that is different.
20 This is different compared to situations that have gone before.
21 So I would like to introduce this question for discussion to have
22 the matter clear for all of us. And I do see this difference which is a
23 difference of substance, a truly important difference of substance.
24 I am now going to give the floor to Madam Judge Wald. I'm sure
25 you have a question, Judge.
1 JUDGE WALD: Well, I had a comment, so I'll follow up with my
2 comment rather than a question.
3 I have some problems, frankly, with distinguishing -- it seems to
4 me that every time that one seeks to contradict or one seeks to impeach a
5 witness, there's always the underlying notion of the question being
6 whether or not the witness has told the precise story before, or is
7 telling it now, and whether, if there is contradictions, there are
8 contradictions of memory or possibly contradictions of veracity. So I
9 don't think the fact that somebody accuses somebody of telling a lie makes
10 the situation different.
11 I don't find this that different from some of the earlier
12 situations that have arisen where statements from foreign countries, et
13 cetera, were attempted to be introduced. I don't think the fact that
14 somebody simply says, "Well, maybe you told a lie," that -- I think this
15 could have been handled in the regular mechanism that we set up on July
16 4th with a direct cross-examination. So I wouldn't see that as a complete
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan.
19 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. It seems to me the July
20 4th issue was also in some respects added to, to some extent, when we
21 changed from the issue of statements to transcripts, in particular; the
22 difference being many of the statements are not sworn, particularly
23 depending in various countries where they come from.
24 For example, in this case, although again that was alluded to by
25 Mr. Simic, there's nowhere in the statement does it indicate that the
1 witness was at any time enjoined to ensure that he was telling the truth.
2 The advisement he receives is that, as indicated in the statement, you
3 don't have to make a statement if you don't want to, period. So again, it
4 was a question of counsel using misleading information to confuse the
6 The question that becomes here, the Defence is trying to use a
7 document to make very clear inference the witness is lying, therefore to
8 attack their credibility. The problem is, they are then misstating the
9 document. We are then prohibited from introducing the rest of the
10 documents which would, in fact, be the only real way to rebut that
11 inference; otherwise, Judge Wald, we would really almost have to go
12 through every single question and answer covering an entire issue so that
13 the Chamber would have the ability to see the total scope of the witness's
14 answers with respect to a particular issue, and that's the difficulty
15 here. It's because the way the examinations are conducted, the witnesses
16 don't get necessarily exactly what we're saying. They're getting an
17 interpretation. And without actually having the full flavour of their
18 examination, it almost becomes impossible to select a particular question
19 and say this is a definitive answer on that topic, unless it is in the
20 most simplest terms.
21 JUDGE WALD: I guess I'm not understanding the scope of your -- at
22 one point I thought you were saying because it's a transcript and under
23 oath previously, that puts it in a special category. If you are using it
24 to impeach somebody, you should be able to put the whole transcript. But
25 then on the second point you seem to be saying, well, here it's in certain
1 cases in order to refute, in order to show the alleged inconsistency in
2 context, you would have to read so much into the redirect that it would
3 just be confusing. I don't know which one. All I know is what's sauce
4 for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, and it seems to me this
5 has arisen in other situations where we didn't let it in.
6 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I understood that, in fact -- the
7 Prosecution understood that, in fact, transcripts in a different category,
8 per the ruling of this Chamber, from statements. The transcripts are in a
9 separate category.
10 JUDGE WALD: Where did you get that impression?
11 MR. KEEGAN: From the ruling of this with respect to the admission
12 of transcripts for witnesses. For example, if they adopt them, they are
13 allowed in. And as I understood --
14 JUDGE WALD: But we're -- well, all right. Go ahead.
15 MR. KEEGAN: As I understood the Presiding Judge's comments
16 earlier on this issue today that, in fact, transcripts can be admitted to
17 establish a contradiction. And again, that's what I heard and what I saw,
18 at least in the English language, what I saw and what I heard in the
19 transcript. I believe if we go back and look in the transcript, that's
20 the way it will read.
21 But point here is the Prosecution -- the nature of these questions
22 are fundamentally unfair to these witnesses. The nature of the
23 examination is the witness is being read from a document which they don't
24 have --
25 JUDGE WALD: Are you talking about the transcript now or the -- or
1 the statement made in the foreign country?
2 MR. KEEGAN: We're talking now -- I'm focusing on the transcript.
3 But because in this particular examination they were so intertwined, we
4 think that, in fairness, they all should come in. But point is the
5 witnesses normally don't have the document in front of them; second,
6 they're not asked, "Did you make this answer?" They simply said, "You
7 said this." These witnesses now are totally confused because they're
8 being told by an officer of the court, as they see it, that they said
9 this. They have no independent memory of that.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.
11 MR. KEEGAN: So we think it's a totally misleading type of
12 examination, and we think it is a fundamental issue here to address
13 exactly the nature of the examinations and how they should be construed as
14 well as conducted, and we think that if the Chamber has the opportunity to
15 review the transcript in full, then it can come to its own determination
16 on this issue.
17 JUDGE WALD: So you think transcripts are fundamentally
18 different. So that we use one mechanism for cross-examination and trying
19 to establish contradictions for every kind of statement except a
20 transcript, and in a transcript, if the other side thinks that it's been
21 taken out of context, we put the whole transcript into the record? I
22 mean, is that your position? I'm just trying to get your position.
23 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I think it would obviously depend on the
24 nature of the issue. If it was really just one solitary issue, then you
25 could say, "We'll put in that one section of the transcript." But here,
1 for example, Mr. Simic tried to attack a number of areas. So, therefore,
2 we do think it would be the whole of the transcript of this witness'
3 testimony. I mean, obviously I think it would depend on the issue.
4 JUDGE WALD: And that's only transcripts? It's not other
5 statements under oath?
6 MR. KEEGAN: Again, it was the Prosecution's understanding that
7 transcripts did have a separate place. So we would start with that. But
8 we think, for example, that in the right circumstances, a statement could
9 be admissible, which is why the Prosecution has not objected on many
10 occasions to it when it was the Defence who wanted to put it in. I agree,
11 but that doesn't mean that those kinds of rulings can't be revisited,
12 because in this case they have gone much farther than they have in the
14 In the past, it has normally been issue maybe, perhaps two. In
15 this case, it was a very wholesale attack and, therefore, we think that in
16 particular in light of the misstatements made by counsel during the
17 cross-examination, as we see it, that it does require review of the
18 transcript in fairness both to counsel for the Defence and for the
19 witness. We think that there should be exceptions to rules. We think the
20 rule has a very good place, but when they're trying to use that rule as a
21 sword --
22 JUDGE WALD: Every cross-examiner tries to use what they've got
23 for contradictory as a sword. I see a real slippery slope in our having
24 to distinguish each case as to whether or not we'll let the impeaching
25 material go into the basic record by looking at the motives of the
1 cross-examiner, which we can't discern anyway.
2 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, but of course in many jurisdictions
3 there is, you know, a device called a rule of completeness.
4 JUDGE WALD: I know, and I would agree about that, but we tried to
5 put the rule of the completeness through in the prior ruling by having
6 people read it into the record.
7 MR. KEEGAN: But then, Your Honour, my point is in this case, for
8 example, we would have to have read half this transcript into the record,
9 and we don't think that's the most effective use of the Trial Chamber's
10 time nor the time of the parties when, by admitting the record, the Trial
11 Chamber can make its own.
12 And we also think that, quite frankly, if it was the situation
13 where these transcripts and statements were possibly going to be admitted,
14 you might see a reduced use of them -- of this kind of mechanism as a
15 sword because then the party is in peril that in fact the whole statement
16 will come in.
17 JUDGE WALD: And we also have the problem that brought up the
18 whole situation several months ago, because we have a joint trial with, as
19 Mr. Simic said, with five defendants, and the transcript may come in and
20 you may think the whole transcript is necessary to make your point for one
21 witness. It comes in there and it implicates say -- I'm not saying this
22 one, but it implicates four other witnesses.
23 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, in that case --
24 JUDGE WALD: Four other defendants, sorry.
25 MR. KEEGAN: Obviously, then, the parties have to be -- no rule is
1 perfect, obviously, Your Honour, but there are a number of ways to do
2 that. One, it can be introduced for the limited purpose only of whether
3 it is consistent or, in fact, is a contradictory statement; second, the
4 other parties would have the opportunity to cross-examine those points.
5 The fact is, for example, today, Mr. Prcac' name was mentioned in
6 response to Judge Rodrigues' question, and so counsel for Mr. Prcac could
7 have cross-examined this witness if they had chosen to do so, but they
8 didn't. So we don't see the equality of arms issue as even arising here
9 because the name did come out on the record, it's in the transcript, they
10 didn't cross-examine; that was their choice.
11 But we think that the whole tenor of this cross-examination was to
12 accuse this individual of being a liar, and it was done by misrepresenting
13 what, in fact, is actually in the transcript. And as I said, Your Honour,
14 our only choice in this kind of situation would be then to try and lay out
15 entire transcript.
16 The problem becomes, as I indicated in the first instance, this
17 witness can't automatically validate everything that's in the transcript.
18 First off, it happened a couple of years ago; second, as I said, there is
19 no actual recording of what he was asked in his own language. So we have
20 the other problem of what he was actually asked in the first instance,
21 which is why we say that it is in fact the totality or the grouping of the
22 testimony about a particular event that becomes so important.
23 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Rodrigues, please.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that we have received
1 enough information as regards this issue, but I will give the floor once
2 again to Mr. Krstan Simic to wind up the debate, because we have to
3 continue with the witnesses.
4 But before we proceed with the witness, I will quickly hear you,
5 Mr. Simic.
6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have been caught
7 with accusations by Mr. Keegan. The witness had documents in front of
8 him. The Prosecution had documents. I really did read out only those
9 portions which indicated that the witness cannot be believed, but I read
10 them very precisely, and there was no objection from the Prosecution, and
11 I didn't consider that to be in question.
12 For illustration purposes, Mr. Keegan brought up the question of
13 caution for the witness.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We all know what happened,
15 Mr. Simic. We were here; we saw; we attended your cross-examination.
16 Now, what would you like to add that is new?
17 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I would like to say that, during
18 the cross-examination, I used the methods which were allowed in order to
19 show that the witness really did not speak the truth in many details and,
20 if I was the Prosecutor, I wouldn't have brought him here.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Simic.
22 Well, Mr. Simic, you will now give an opportunity to the Prosecutor to say
23 exactly the same thing. Please try to restrain yourself when it comes to
24 such comments, because we are entering a very perilous area.
25 I think that we have heard enough comments as regards this issue.
1 We will consult amongst ourselves and we will render our ruling tomorrow
3 We really have to be mindful of the time that we spend with
4 witnesses. This again looks like a Status Conference, and we are supposed
5 to be hearing witnesses this afternoon.
6 Mr. Keegan, who is your next witness?
7 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. Given that there's only eight
8 minutes left in the session, we would prefer to simply start with
9 Mr. Malik in the morning, first thing.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. I don't know.
11 I was thinking of going perhaps until 5.30 because we really need to
12 finish on Friday, 2.00 in the afternoon.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic?
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to take
16 advantage of these few moments to broach a subject which I consider to be,
17 from the aspects of the Defence of Mr. Kvocka, very vital.
18 You spoke about this question yourself. The Prosecution tabled a
19 request for consolidation of the indictment. The Defence of Mr. Kvocka
20 tendered an objection to that consolidation because we think that it is
21 not a consolidation but an amendment of the indictment where the time of
22 the indictment, the time frame, is being changed.
23 There is still time for other objections, but as there are only
24 two more days left, I should like to ask that this question be decided so
25 that we're not faced with a position where we have not got a definite
1 indictment towards the end of the proceedings.
2 So after the position taken by the Prosecution, I should like to
3 be given an opportunity to make another statement, because by Friday --
4 well, that's what I wanted to say, that this should be done by Friday.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic. The Chamber
6 issued a ruling whereby the Defence was given an opportunity to respond
7 after the receipt of the translation. I think it was seven days after the
8 receipt of translation. I don't know whether the document has been
9 translated or not. However, there is one thing that I do know, and that
10 is that certain Defence counsel have already responded, but we do not have
11 responses of all Defence counsel as yet.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What I can -- yes. That is what
14 I can confirm.
15 Madam Judge Wald has just reminded me that we still do not have
16 responses by the Defence counsel.
17 Could you tell me if you have all submitted responses to the
18 motion for consolidation of the indictment pursuant to the conditions that
19 were made, that were indicated?
20 Mr. Fila?
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I completely agreed with Mr. Keegan,
22 that he did not change anything, and I didn't think that it was my
23 responsibility to make any objection or comment. Mr. Keegan joined two
24 indictments and, as far as I'm concerned, that is all right with respect
25 to me. I'm not going to make any objections.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Nikolic.
2 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my position is the same
3 as my colleague Mr. Fila's; we have no reason for any opposition with
4 regard to an indictment consolidated in this way.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But as you know, the
6 motion treated two separate issues. One issue was the consolidation of
7 the indictment or, rather, a joinder of two indictments, and the other
8 issue was the issue of corrections, which was raised by Mr. Simic. So we
9 have two things, the consolidation of the indictment and also corrections
10 of the terms used in the indictment, including certain names and dates.
11 I don't know what exactly you're referring to. You say you do not
12 oppose the motion of the Prosecutor to consolidate the indictment. In
13 general, if that is the case, we do not have any problem with that.
14 Yes, Mr. Fila. I will give you the floor again, but let us hear
15 the end of Mr. Nikolic's intervention.
16 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] We have no objections to make, no
17 opposition at all, either with regard to consolidation or putting right
18 anything. Everything is the same as in the previous indictment.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then.
20 Mr. Fila.
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is the following:
22 With respect to what has been added to the indictment, it is the result of
23 the testimony of a witness. I can assume that Mr. Keegan will have
24 another addition to make or amendment to make with respect to the
25 testimony of another witness.
1 I cannot prevent Mr. Keegan from writing out an indictment on the
2 basis of the evidence he has presented. The question now arises is
3 whether we should have an initial appearance or not if you increase the
4 number of counts or acts.
5 In my opinion, it does not require this, and that is why I have no
6 intention of reacting at all. Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Nikolic.
8 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I was just told that this did not --
9 was not recorded in the Livenote. I said for the accused Kos, and I
10 wanted to make that addition. It was for the accused Kos. That was not
11 recorded a moment ago.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's already on the record,
13 thank you very much.
14 Mr. Stojanovic, I think that now we have the responses. We know
15 the responses of Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Fila; that is to say, they do not
16 have any position to the motion submitted by the Prosecutor according to
17 the conditions that were set out.
18 Mr. Stojanovic.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. We shall
20 be giving a definite response tomorrow, a definite answer -- I don't think
21 that is too late -- because we have to check some things out. So you will
22 be having a definite answer from us tomorrow.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good, thank you.
24 Mr. Jovan Simic.
25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have no opposition,
1 no objection to make as the first indictment is identical to the second
2 one. We reserve the right to remain the last, as we agreed at the
4 As far as the dates and events are concerned and the corrections
5 to be made, this will be solved, as we said, during the Status Conferences
6 in the course of the proceedings.
7 And briefly, we have no objections, no oppositions to make.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I understand you correctly,
9 there are no -- the Defence of Kos, Radic, Prcac do not oppose the motion
10 for consolidation of the indictment, but the Defence counsel of the
11 accused Kvocka does oppose the motion, and tomorrow we will hear the
12 response of Mr. Stojanovic, who's representing the accused Zigic.
13 Mr. Simic, we already considered the possibility of issuing a
14 written decision. If we do not manage to do so on time, we will do it
15 after the 6th of October. That is to say, after the 6th of October, you
16 will receive the decision in writing.
17 Now I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Keegan concerning the
18 motion to consolidate the indictment. Am I correct in seeing two aspects
19 to the motion, one being the motion for consolidation of the indictment,
20 and the other motion to correct certain mistakes? As regards the
21 consolidation of the indictment, for us it's one in the same indictment,
22 and there's no need for any initial appearances.
23 MR. KEEGAN: Correct, Your Honour. That's the Prosecution's
24 position also. And yes, there are two aspects to the motion. One is the
25 consolidation of the two previous indictments into one single indictment.
1 The second issue was the motion for correction of the schedules which were
2 appended to both original indictments for the purposes of correcting some
3 errors in the dates in some of the blocks, but not all, and also the
4 spelling of a couple of names within the schedules.
5 So there are two separate aspects to it, and we, of course, as I'm
6 sure the Trial Chamber is aware, would join with Mr. Simic in indicating
7 that obviously this does need to get resolved as soon as possible. And so
8 it may be perhaps that once we have the answer from Mr. Stojanovic, we can
9 set a schedule for response by the Prosecution and a decision, whether
10 that's through oral hearing or in writing.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. I don't think we should
12 continue in discussing the merits of the issue. We have no more time left
13 this afternoon.
14 Tomorrow we will hear the final response of the counsel for the
15 accused Zigic, and thereafter we will give an opportunity to the
16 Prosecutor to reply, and afterwards we will render our decision. The
17 decision will be rendered in writing, and you will receive a copy of it.
18 So I don't think that we should have a motion hearing for that --
19 or perhaps I should ask you that question. Do you really think that it
20 would be necessary to have a motion hearing to discuss the issue orally,
21 or do you think that it is sufficient for us to consider the arguments
22 that have been heard so far and issue a decision in writing?
23 Mr. Simic, could you perhaps speak on behalf of all of the
25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The others have no objection to
1 make, so there's no need. But I have another proposal, or rather, a
2 request to make. Mr. Stojanovic will be stating his views tomorrow with
3 regard to his position.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Simic, I'm sorry
5 to interrupt you. You do not have any objection to what? To having a
6 written decision without a motion hearing, or what?
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] The other teams. No, what I wanted
8 to say was the following, Your Honour: Mr. Stojanovic will be telling
9 you --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You do not oppose the motion, is
11 that the case?
12 There seems to be a problem here, sorry. Could you please start
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection to make, and I
15 expect an answer from the Prosecution, but to speed matters up --
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, I'm sorry to
17 interrupt you, but I asked you a very specific question. My question was,
18 do you need a motion hearing to orally discuss the motion that was filed
19 by the Prosecutor?
20 You said that the other Defence counsel do not oppose. Do not
21 oppose what? I wanted to know whether the Defence needs a motion hearing,
22 a separate motion hearing to discuss orally the motion that was filed by
23 the Prosecutor. Do you understand me?
24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I do. I just wanted to say that
25 I'm not speaking on behalf of all the Defence teams because they said that
1 this wasn't a problem that they were concerned with. It is me that is in
2 the problem, and that is where the misunderstanding arose, and I wanted to
3 speed matters up.
4 If Mr. Stojanovic tomorrow presents his position, and if the Trial
5 Chamber enables me to present one more point of view with respect to the
6 transcript, I would not ask for a hearing. Three minutes would be enough
7 from the aspects of the Kvocka Defence to bring in a decision.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So you will need three minutes
9 to discuss the motion orally?
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Three minutes.
12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Three minutes.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's on the transcript. Very
14 well then, thank you.
15 So we will have a three-minute debate. The Prosecutor will be
16 here. I'm not going to ask him if he's going to need any additional time,
17 but maybe we will need five minutes altogether.
18 So this brings us to the end of our hearing today. Tomorrow,
19 9.30. See you tomorrow, and have a pleasant evening all of you.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.07 p.m., to
21 be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of October,
22 2000, at 9.30 a.m.