1 Wednesday, 18 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 8.33 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning. Madam Registrar,
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
10 Madam Registrar.
11 Today, we are Wednesday, the 18th of June, 2008. I would like to
12 greet the representatives of the Prosecution. I would also like to greet
13 Mr. Seselj, as well as all the other people who are helping us in this
15 Mr. Seselj has 25 minutes for the cross-examination. We are
16 going to now have the witness brought in.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before the witness
18 comes in, I have to tell you that what I expect is a two-minute video
19 clip. It should arrive by e-mail. There seemed to be some problems in
20 having it sent, but it is still being attempted.
21 Could the Registry please inform me when it arrives, and could
22 you tell me at the end, when there is only three minutes left. I would
23 like to show a photograph and that two-minute video clip, because I think
24 that my time will be just right.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Yes, Mr. Dutertre.
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In fact, this
3 raises an issue.
4 I received only this morning a photograph of a car. You
5 certainly have this picture as well. The first element that poses a
6 problem is that this document was disclosed to us while the
7 cross-examination had already began, and the car has to do with a witness
8 that testified a long time ago. So Mr. Seselj had ample time to collect
9 all these documents. And on this photograph, we don't see a license
10 plate. We also don't know to whom this car belonged. We also do not
11 know when the picture was taken. We have absolutely no element
12 whatsoever as to why this document would be presented. We also don't
13 know what is the reliability of this document and to whom the car
14 belonged. I imagine that it's about Mr. Vaske, but that's something I
15 don't know.
16 Now, all of a sudden we are told that a video is going to be
17 shown. The Prosecution never saw this video, did not have time to look
18 at it, so basically we are getting documents as the case is going on
19 rather than presenting us all these elements before the beginning of the
21 I understand that the accused is representing himself and he is
22 finding elements or proof that he would like to present, but it would be
23 much more useful if we could get all these documents ahead of time. And
24 so I object to the use of the photograph as well as the video that was
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, would you like to
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 On the one hand, the objection of counsel for the Prosecution is
5 senseless, and, on the other hand, it's premature. I just hinted at this
6 possibility to the Trial Chamber, that something should arrive by e-mail,
7 and I asked that I be cautioned when there is only three minutes left.
8 And then when I try to present this, that would be the right time for the
9 Prosecutor to intervene with a possible objection; not now, just for
10 having received a photograph.
11 Why did I not request that photograph earlier on? I could not
12 have dreamed of the Prosecutor finding a witness who's going to deny that
13 there was a helmet next to this plastic skull. All of Ilijas, Vogosca,
14 Ilidza, everyone, wherever Vaske moved during the course of the war, knew
15 that on this skull there was a UN helmet. And then the Prosecutor brings
16 a witness who claims that this was not a UN helmet. So something came up
17 in cross-examination that I had to react to, and it's quite justified for
18 me to react in this way.
19 This is not of crucial significance. It just has to do with the
20 witness's credibility and nothing else. After all, it can be one and the
21 same thing, whether it is with a helmet or without a helmet, except for
22 the fact that the skull had to be protected from the rain. So if nothing
23 else, that is why it was there. So I think that the Prosecutor is
24 turning all this into a problem for no reason whatsoever.
25 You will remember, when the first expert of the Prosecution,
1 Anthony Oberschall was heard, it was only in re-examination that
2 Christine Dahl put to him my book ...
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the title.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] ... and I could not react. Also
5 she quoted what Schiller and other great poets said, and then I could not
6 react to that, either. And now out of this benign affair, the Prosecutor
7 is making a problem. And it is no problem whatsoever, two minutes only.
8 You should see that I, Tomislav Nikolic, Vasilije Vidovic,
9 Nikola Poplasen around that jeep, and perhaps there was someone else too,
10 just after we were missed by a firing Maljutka from the Muslim positions,
11 when we managed to get out of the jeep to see what the damage was due to
12 the gunfire. And now the Prosecutor is turning that into a problem.
13 Isn't the truth what the Prosecutor is after, not creating
14 problems all the time on some kind of legal grounds?
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 The Trial Chamber is only interested in the truth and everything
17 that can help us to get to truth. That being said, the procedure of the
18 Tribunal allows the Prosecutor, even during the trial, to continue his
19 investigation. This is, of course, possible, and this has been
20 authorised by this Tribunal.
21 When the investigation continues, new elements may appear,
22 elements that had not been there when the indictment was drafted or at
23 the beginning of trial, so new elements can occur, and I would like to
24 remind the Prosecution that they used a cassette in the Milosevic trial,
25 for instance.
1 Secondly, the accused is defending himself. He is presenting, at
2 the very last moment, evidence as part of his cross-examination. Now,
3 this evidence can be presented to the witness in a few minutes, because
4 the witness made a description. Nothing will be easier for the witness
5 to say if, in fact, that was the car, that was the skull, and that was
6 the helmet, because now we have a picture.
7 Now, about the video, I don't know if there is a technical
8 problem. There is a two-minute video that should be arriving shortly.
9 The Registry told us that there is a technical problem that will have to
10 be solved. I don't know if the problem will be solved, indeed. Let's
11 wait and see.
12 Now, more generally, we have to go back in time somewhat. It is
13 true that if Mr. Seselj had a counsel, we would not have had a certain
14 amount of problems, but Mr. Seselj is in a quite different situation. He
15 expressed his desire not to be represented by counsel, and
16 notwithstanding this, evidence was sent to the standby lawyer with whom
17 Mr. Seselj had no contact. All this evidence was in the possession of
18 the standby lawyer, and then after that, this evidence was sent to the
19 Registry. This is why Mr. Seselj was not able to take all the necessary
20 measures in order to disclose all these documents, and since the trial
21 started he is faced to -- he has to face the situation, and he did
22 explain to us on many occasions that he has to proceed witness by
23 witness. He was only -- in fact, whenever a witness comes along, he has
24 to prepare his cross-examination. This technique obviously may bring
25 that some evidence is disclosed at the very last minute, such as
1 spontaneous testimonies of witnesses that appear on behalf of the Defence
2 of Mr. Seselj, or regarding some evidence that he could obtain at the
3 very last moment, such as yesterday, the article pertaining to the
4 presence of Mr. Karadzic during a televised interview on the night of
5 November 19, 1993.
6 So during the examination-in-chief, new elements may appear. The
7 Defence has to verify them right away, and if they wish to contradict
8 this or challenge this, they can do it during the cross-examination. And
9 this is why, also, on the other side, the same thing can happen. And
10 when the Defence will begin, when the Defence begins with the witnesses,
11 if in examination-in-chief some elements -- important elements appear for
12 the Prosecution, they will also be able to introduce documents at the
13 very last minute during their cross-examination.
14 So basically this is what I had to say on this point.
15 Yes, Mr. Dutertre.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I
17 understand very well everything you said, but I wish to say the
19 The Prosecution doesn't have any objection that a document be
20 disclosed or it be presented because all of a sudden somebody forgot it
21 and the document just appeared, but this is done in a systematic way.
22 The accused had all the weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. I don't see
23 why he could not have sent us this video or the picture on Monday, or at
24 least Tuesday morning, when the cross-examination began. I believe that
25 there was a delay of a couple of days. I don't know if this document,
1 this photograph, comes from Mr. Vaske. Mr. Vaske may have sent the
2 documents in this picture, but why didn't we receive the photograph of
3 this picture at the same time as the documents? If the documents were
4 disclosed earlier and sent earlier, this picture should have been
5 disclosed earlier as well. Knowing that this particular witness would
6 have had a couple of days before cross-examination, this should have been
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, in fact the
9 Trial Chamber quite agrees with the Prosecutor on that point. If you had
10 had this document for a few days now, you should have disclosed it before
11 the beginning of the cross-examination. Maybe you only obtained it
12 yesterday. That is something I don't know. But if you had this document
13 before, you should have disclosed it, and if something like that happens
14 in the future, you should disclose it immediately.
15 So now we agree with the Prosecutor on that point.
16 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't mind you agreeing with the
18 Prosecutor, but I received this this morning from the Registrar.
19 Last night, I said already that I could not have envisaged the
20 witness is going to deny a fact that at least 100.000 people are aware of
21 in the area where Vaske Vidovic moved about, that on the plastic skull
22 there was a UN helmet. I could not have dreamed of that. And then I
23 said last night to my associates, "Find Vaske Vidovic. Does he have any
24 photographs of the jeep?"
25 When we were there, the entire leadership of the Serb Radical
1 Party was visiting Ilijas, Vogosca, Blazuj, Ilidza. Find the photograph
2 of when we were shot at by the Maljutka and you can see the jeep and you
3 can see the helmet on that photograph. I wouldn't dream of it otherwise.
4 Why would I deal with a period that is not charged in the
5 indictment? I just want to look at this detail in order to challenge the
6 witness's credibility, because yesterday several times categorically he
7 denied that there was a UN helmet on the skull, and the skull was getting
8 caught in the rain and so on and so forth.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you very much.
10 You've explained it to us. It is quite understandable if you received
11 this document at the very last minute. I understand.
12 Now, let's go back to the video, however. I would like to raise
13 this issue for the following reason: Well, first of all, this video has
14 to, first of all, arrive, but if it does arrive, I do not know the
15 content of the video. I have absolutely no idea what the video will
17 Now, when the Prosecutor, on his 65 ter list, makes a list of
18 videos, there are these videos that enable the Trial Chamber to see -- to
19 view the video prior to its presentation, but you are -- you desire to
20 show us a video, but I cannot control it because it would arrive at the
21 very last minute. So if we take this hypothesis, if the video arrives
22 and if it's only a two-minute-long video, I propose to go into closed
23 session for two minutes. And then after we've viewed the video, then we
24 can go back into open session and then it can be shown to everybody,
25 because if that video contains an element that could be a problem, the
1 Trial Chamber has the possibility of ordering closed session or
2 redactions. Then we can do that. So even if there are people in the
3 public gallery, then we can do it that way. So this is the procedure
4 that we could use.
5 First of all, the video can be shown in closed session, then --
6 in private session. Then we see it. And then after that, we can show it
7 again in open session.
8 The Registry just informed me that the video has arrived, and the
9 video lasts 1 minute and 40 seconds.
10 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I agree that the
12 video should first be viewed in closed session and then in open session.
13 However, do not include the closed session video in my time, because
14 these are your precautionary measures, not mine, because I want the
15 public to see this.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, no problem at all.
18 I completely agree with you, and thank you for your cooperation.
19 Very well. Now, Mr. Seselj, the cross-examination can begin, and
20 you have the floor.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought that I should leave the
22 video until the end, but since it's arrived, I would like to start with
23 that, and then I will go on with the rest of my questions and then we'll
25 So first show this photograph that arrived this morning to the
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You would like this
3 picture to be shown to the witness immediately? Very well.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please put it on the ELMO.
5 WITNESS: SAFET SEJDIC [Resumed]
6 [The witness answered through interpreter]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We need to display it to the public
8 as well.
9 I still can't see it on my screen. Can you put it on this screen
10 that goes into the internet? Ah, here it is.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]
12 Q. Now, Mr. Sejdic, to the best of your recollection, is this the
13 jeep of Vasilije Vidovic?
14 A. It is similar to this jeep, but this is not the jeep. And this
15 helmet and this head -- I mean, the head is that one, but the helmet is
16 not, because that jeep had two poles on both sides where the wheels are,
17 there were two poles, and on that pole there was a flag that I already
18 described, and on the other one was the head. That is what I described
19 at Crna Rijeka Plateau.
20 Q. All right.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you show the video clip now.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's go into private session
23 first. Madam Registrar, can we go into private session, please.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Since the witness will be
1 able to see the video and there are people in the public gallery, we have
2 to lower the blinds.
3 [Closed session]
11 Pages 8375-8377 redacted. Closed session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, can I just ask you if the car on the
1 photo is indeed the car we saw on the video? And of course I'm referring
2 to the right headlight of the car, which is intact here and which seemed
3 to be destroyed on the video. So I just want to ascertain if it is,
4 indeed, the same car or if you're talking about another car.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Judges, from what I
6 know, this is the same vehicle. I don't know whether this photograph was
7 taken before or after the Maljutka. But after the Maljutka, the
8 headlight was repaired. You see there is a lot of damage on the bonnet,
9 on the sides, on the bumpers, and there are no license plates on the
10 vehicle. Maybe the vehicle itself used to belong to the United Nations
11 and that's why it was repainted, but I cannot know that for a fact. You
12 know how many vehicles and jeeps the UN lost during the war in Bosnia.
13 Therefore, it's most probably the same vehicle, but if we look at the
14 photograph, if we look at the type of the vehicle and other details, then
15 we'll know for sure. But the skull is certainly the same.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj, we are now in
17 open session, so I must say that the Chamber, as a majority, decided to
18 show a video which is shown during the cross-examination by the accused.
19 Prior to that, a photograph showing a vehicle was presented to the
20 witness. The witness said that this could very well be the same car that
21 he saw.
22 We will now watch this video, which is one hour and 49 seconds
23 long. We are asking the interpreters to do their best to translate the
24 words that they can understand being said by these people in this video,
25 and then we'll see whether there are -- whether the photo and the video
1 are alike or not.
2 Madam Registrar, can we see the video.
3 [Videotape played]
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The stars looked over you. He
5 wouldn't have had time to fill it. They say Maljutka -- no, no, it's not
6 a Maljutka. The Maljutka would have produced a greater flame. Possibly
7 it was hissing."
8 Everybody talking at the same time.
9 "When he was shooting, the road is destroyed. There is a hole in
10 the road."
11 "Well, then, it's pure coincidence. It's your luck. No, you --
12 some heard the hissing. I didn't."
13 Seselj: "It must have been an idiot who was shooting, his hand
14 was trembling. Let's go, let's go, we have to make it in good time."
15 Seselj: "They were shooting at this UNPROFOR guy of mine."
16 Another voice: "They were not going to shoot at you, were they?"
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In the translation
18 we obtained from the interpreters, let me sum up what was said. It seems
19 that there was a discussion on this Maljutka, there was a hissing.
20 Obviously, people are talking right -- are talking after a shot by a
21 Maljutka. The person shooting the video, at the very end, zooms on the
22 front right of the vehicle, where we see that part of the headlight must
23 have been broken by the shot. However, we note that the car seems to be
24 almost new, but that compared to the photograph, without advertising for
25 this brand, there is the mention of Toyota which we do not see on the
1 photograph. So it might be the same vehicle, but on the photograph the
2 mention "Toyota" might have been taken out later on, because we don't
3 have "Toyota" on the photograph, whereas it is shown on the video. We
4 can watch the video again, if need be.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I say something first,
6 Mr. President? I think those are two different vehicles, because this
7 one [indicates] reminds me of a Mercedes jeep, but I'm not 100 per cent
8 sure. You see above the central headlight, there is a sign. The other
9 one is a Toyota. However, the war lasted from 1992 until the beginning
10 of 1996. This is an older jeep that was well used, damaged, in poor
11 working order. That one is a new jeep, but the skull and the helmet are
12 the same.
13 I can check with Vaske Vidovic in the course of the day. Vaske
14 must have had to change the jeep at some point, but that's what was his
15 hallmark. He was identifiable by this jeep with the skull and the helmet
16 of the United Nations on it.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] We now have a problem. The only
18 problem is to know whether the car that was mentioned by the witness
19 yesterday is the same one as the one we see either on the video or on the
21 Mr. Seselj, could you please endeavour to elicit that from the
22 witness, and the -- or the Judges will do it.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'd rather the Judges took
24 over that task from me immediately, because that would save my time. I
25 presented the evidence that I disposed of, and you can take over the
1 examination at any point, because the witness denies that there was a
2 helmet of the United Nations on the skull, and we see two skulls and two
3 identical helmets of the same kind. That's the thing that makes it
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll take over.
6 Witness, the car that you were mentioning yesterday, you said
7 that on the right-hand side of the door, it had an emblem. Is it the
8 same one as the one we see here on the video?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's not the
10 vehicle Vaske was driving then. Maybe he used it before, when he was
11 driving him and his associates, but Vaske's hardware and Vaske's jeep
12 looked completely different. He had that sign at the front, like two
13 tubes going from the car, and above the jeep he had raised headlights,
14 nighttime headlights, yellow. And I told you there were two bars,
15 uprights, on one of them a flag and on the other one a head, and between
16 them was an old skull, I don't know from which century. It was on the
18 I indicated that at the beginning, when I had -- when he was
19 questioning me. I presented clear, accurate evidence. This car could
20 have been used when they were driving him around and when they put this
21 UN helmet on the skull so that the UN wouldn't shoot them, thinking it
22 was their own jeep. He was quite able to put it on the skull, himself.
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I am interested in the emblem
24 that we see in the video on the right-hand side, the right-hand door of
25 the vehicle. Do you remember whether, on Vaske's car, there was a
1 similar emblem?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that emblem was there, but
3 that's not the same jeep.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Was it a Mercedes or a Toyota?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know for sure. I can't
6 remember that much.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question, Witness.
9 On the video, we see almost the same helmet and the same skull.
10 The photograph shows that there is a likeness. That's what we're
11 interested in did. You saw the video with the UN helmet and the skull.
12 You confirm that this is what you saw?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I saw it.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber
17 has a question as to the relevance of this. Is there relevance, to your
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you ask me, this is just one
20 more piece of evidence that this witness is devoid of even elementary
21 credibility. If the Prosecution had investigated, they could have found
22 100.000 witnesses who could have confirmed that the skull had a helmet,
23 that only such a skull with a helmet existed on Vaske's jeep. Those
24 were -- it's complete nonsense that there was a real human head next to
25 this skull on the jeep, that a real human head couldn't have lasted hours
1 before decomposing and stinking. Plus a flag, a flag would have been
2 torn within hours at that speed. He would have had to change flags every
3 few hours every day. It's impossible. Every flag, made of fabric, at a
4 speed of 50 kilometres an hour, tears. What would it have had to be made
5 of, metal?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dutertre.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The comments on the credibility of
8 this witness should be left for the accused -- for his closing brief.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, sir. Proceed with your
10 questions, please.
11 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Sejdic, we discussed you were allegedly used as a
13 human shield, and you said at the end that the Semizovac Battalion, in
14 whose labour platoon you were until 1993, had 300, even 400 soldiers?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But the only labour platoon of the Semizovac Battalion had 25
17 men, and how then a battalion of 300- to 400-men battalion uses only 25
18 men to put forward and use as a human shield? How are you able to shield
19 300 or 400 soldiers?
20 A. As far as I know, at the frontline at that time there were not
21 enough soldiers, so not all the 300 or 400 soldiers were there all the
22 time. There were older people, not so able, who were just guarding the
23 frontline. And when an attack started from all directions, from
24 Rajlovac, Vogosca, Ilidza, all the men would gather from everywhere, and
25 that's how they went into attack.
1 Q. All right. Out of 25 of you, you said only 4 got killed?
2 A. More got killed. Seven or eight remained alive out of the
3 twenty-five. I have a list, and you see the exact numbers and names in
4 my statements. You can see how many of them stayed alive. The Court can
5 look at it and check what I said and see if it's true or not.
6 Q. Your wages while you were in the labour platoon was just
7 20 per cent less than the wages of a member of a fighting unit; correct?
8 A. Not correct.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Could you please
10 display this document given me by the Prosecution, 0200-0629, because the
11 witness denies that his wages were only 20 per cent lower in this labour
12 platoon than the wages of a fighting man. This is a document from 1992,
13 June 1992, I think. We'll see it in a moment.
14 Q. You see the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
15 Serbian Municipality of Vogosca, War Commissariat.
16 "The Wartime Presidency of the Serbian Municipality of Vogosca
17 hereby decides that all persons in the units of the Serbian Army in the
18 municipality of Vogosca and those engaged for labour for the month of
19 June 1992, monthly wages shall be paid out:
20 "1. To those engaged in fighting units, 50.000 dinars. To those
21 engaged in labour obligation, 40.000 dinars."
22 Have you seen this?
23 A. This has nothing to do with anything.
24 Q. This is evidence that your wages in the labour platoon was only
25 20 per cent lower than the wages of a soldier. When you left the labour
1 unit, you had the same wages as a soldier?
2 A. This not true. It's only towards the end of the war that I
3 received humanitarian aid, food, five kilos of flour per family, some tin
4 cans, fish and cheese.
5 Q. Towards the end of the war?
6 A. No, I said when I was engaged, and the rest that was received by
7 my wife, my mother, my father, they got humanitarian aid. How else could
8 we have made ends meet? We needed to work.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have a document
10 here. It seems reliable. We have a stamp, we have a signature. There's
11 the name of Nikola Poplasen, a person that we've mentioned many times.
12 This document seems to make a difference between those who are in the
13 combat units and the other soldiers who do not seem engaged in combat.
14 The first ones would receive 50.000 dinars, and the second category would
15 get 40.000 dinars.
16 Now, given this, if we have a document that says that you
17 received 50.000 dinars, any reasonable trier of fact could deduct from
18 this that you were a member of a fighting unit.
19 Let me add that this document is dated June 23rd, 1992. I'm
20 saying that out of memory. June 25th, 1992. It seems that the members
21 of the unit were given this amount of money.
22 So what can you say to this?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I did not receive
24 this, and I stand by what I'm saying. I was not a member of this unit,
25 either. So towards the end of the war, they could have put me on a list
1 to do with me whatever they wanted. They knew if they couldn't kill me,
2 if I stay in Muslim hands, when the Muslims come into authority, they
3 left this list in the Command so that the Muslims would kill me.
4 After the war, I applied, myself, to make statements and to
5 testify, to come here, and I'm prepared to say what exactly I was. I'm
6 not saying I was what I wasn't. I suffered a lot.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question for the
8 witness. Do you know whether, in the Serbian Army, among the normal
9 components of this Serbian Army, there was a difference made between
10 those who were engaged in fighting and those who were doing other kinds
11 of missions, as far as salary is concerned?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that for a fact. I
13 never had any insight into their lists. I was not in the Command. I did
14 not serve as a secretary. I didn't distribute wages. Their bosses
15 should know that.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But maybe you know whether they
17 were regular members of this army. Maybe they were Serbian, maybe they
18 could have also been Croats or Muslims that would have been normally
19 recruited, freely recruited, and not forced to be mobilised. So whether
20 you know if these kind of members of the army who were doing labour, but
21 who were not engaged in fighting, was there a difference between these
22 two categories or were these two types of functions totally
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was that distinction.
25 Certain labour platoons, let's say Vogosca or Ilijas, they gave them 20
1 dinars so that they could buy cigarettes. So they were in that unit,
2 these people whom they called loyal, who swore their loyalty and who
3 stayed with them, yes.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I was asking you something that
5 was slightly different. I'd like to know whether in the army, the army
6 that you were recruited in, either freely or not, but you were in this
7 army, and I'd like to know whether there were soldiers who were only
8 engaged in labour. I'm not talking about forced labour. I'm talking
9 about the regular members of this army who had been mobilised normally.
10 I'd like to know whether they were -- in this category of people, there
11 were soldiers who were maybe doing support functions for those who were
12 engaged in combat and who might have been paid less than the actual
13 fighters who went to fight.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, those who were labour units,
15 who were in the labour platoon.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So let's be very direct. There
17 were also Serbs that were in the labour platoon, but they had not been
18 forced to be in that labour platoon. They were just in that labour
19 platoon, and maybe they obtained a salary that was lower than the
20 soldiers who were engaged in combat activities?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, are you going to
23 ask for this document to be admitted?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. No, there's no need,
1 How much time have I got left?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is your point of view. I
3 might have a different one. In the interests of justice, I will first
4 consult with my fellow Judges to see whether we should admit this exhibit
5 as a Court exhibit for the following reasons: In paragraph 103 of the
6 pre-trial brief, this document is obviously relevant because it shows --
7 it proves that on June 23rd, 1992, there were soldiers, that there is a
8 difference made between combat units and other units which seem to be in
9 the rear only. Furthermore, this document also establishes, as far as
10 I'm concerned, anyway, the possibility that fighters were not volunteers,
11 quote/unquote, but that they were subjected to a command-and-control
12 system, because we have a military order with reference to the
13 Republika Srpska, with the registration number and so forth and so on.
14 I would first like to ask my fellow Judges whether they are in
15 favour or against the admission of this document, in the interests of
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, I wanted to ask you in which capacity
19 Nikola Poplasen had ordered the payment of combatants and members of the
20 work platoons. Was that in his capacity as a member of the Radical Party
21 or was it in his capacity or possible capacity as a member of the
22 government of Republika Srpska?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge Harhoff, I'm sure you
24 remember my objection in relation to what the Prosecution did, when they
25 gave me a pile of documents with Nikola Poplasen's signature when another
1 witness testified here. I attacked the Prosecution here rather sharply
2 because I thought that this was trickery in a way.
3 In that year, he was not a member of the Radical Party,
4 Nikola Poplasen. He was the war commissioner of the government of
5 Republika Srpska for Vogosca who was personally appointed by
6 Radovan Karadzic. That document was also given to me by the Prosecution.
7 In this set of documents, I have that one as well on his appointment.
8 Nikola Poplasen, at the beginning of 1993, became a member of the
9 Serb Radical Party, and then he was elected its president. Before that,
10 we had only three committees of the party in Banja Luka, Bijeljina and
11 Sarajevo respectively, whereas the party was registered by Nikodin Cavic
12 from Banja Luka in 1992. According to our then personnel policy, we
13 thought it was much better that Nikola Poplasen, as a doctor of political
14 sciences and a youngish man, should be president of the party in
15 Republika Srpska. Nikodin Cavic was a highly honourable man, a lawyer,
16 but he was already well advanced in age at the time, and he's died in the
18 So this was a personnel choice that we made in 1993.
19 In 1992, when he was war commissioner, Nikola Poplasen had
20 nothing to do whatsoever with the Serb Radical Party.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, the video we saw just a while ago,
23 when was that taken? You may have told us, but I've forgotten.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In 1995, sometime -- well, it was
25 the summer of 1995. I cannot remember exactly what the date was, but we
1 could even find that in our archives; that is to say, that it is not
2 within the period relative to the indictment, but approximately it was in
3 1995. That is when Nikola Poplasen was already president of the
4 Serb Radical Party for Republika Srpska.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me consult my
6 fellow Judges.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber
9 deliberated and decides to admit the document as a court exhibit.
10 Madam Registrar, could you please give us a number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit C7.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Mr. Seselj, the Registry informs me that you have 16 minutes
15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we were told on what
16 date the video was taken, but I would like to know if Mr. Seselj
17 remembers where the video was taken. He should remember, because he was
18 attacked on that day.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that the video was
20 shot in 1995. Do you know where it was shot?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The attack happened at Poljine, on
22 the slopes to the north of Sarajevo. Since the Serb municipalities of
23 Ilijas, Vogosca, Ilidza, and Hadzici were isolated from the rest of
24 Republika Srpska when the airport was handed over to the UN, there was no
25 direct communication. Then the Serb Army built a macadam road on the
1 slopes that are called Poljine, and on part of that road, people who
2 passed there could be within the range of fire of the Muslims.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Since you insisted on your assertion that on the very eve of the
6 attack on Niksic Plateau, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and I met up
7 there, in the meantime I received information from my friend,
8 General Ratko Mladic, who says that he cannot remember exactly where he
9 was on the 9th of November, 1993, but he is quite certain that the three
10 of us did not meet up at that point of departure, in terms of the attack
11 at Niksic Plateau, and he drew my attention to another thing. The
12 Command of the Serb Army never would have allowed three such prominent
13 Serbian military and political leaders to be exposed to enemy fire. One
14 shell could have been fired precisely and killed all three of us, and
15 that would have been a great loss for the Serb people. That is what
16 Ratko Mladic says.
17 What do you think? Is his explanation convincing?
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Mladic is at
19 large. As we all know, Mr. Seselj seems to have an easy access to
20 Mr. Mladic. In order to assess the reliability on the information that
21 he just gave us, he should tell us where, how and under which conditions
22 he obtained that information. Yesterday, I put the same question about
23 Mr. Karadzic, and the answer was more than vague, if I recall correctly.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 Mr. Seselj, the Prosecutor would like to test the reliability of
1 your information. He put a series of questions. You may answer or you
2 very well may not want to answer. It's up to you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the Prosecutor has an
4 enormous number of personnel available, and they could carry out proper
5 investigations every now and then. I'm not here to give information to
6 the Prosecution, let alone information that would harm my friends
7 Ratko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic. I'd rather die, myself, as I said
8 yesterday. So the Prosecution should not hope for anything on that
9 score, as far as I'm concerned.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, it's up to you, but
11 you also have to understand that you are not giving any elements to the
12 Trial Chamber. We cannot know if the witness is credible or not on that
13 basis. That's up to you, of course.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If you doubt the
15 reliability, then I'm going to move on to my next question, because I
16 don't have much time left. After all, what would a comment by this
17 witness mean to me with regard to information that I received from
18 General Ratko Mladic?
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, to sum up, I would
20 like to explain to you what the problem is, and this will not be taken
21 from Mr. Seselj's time.
22 This issue was talked at length, the possibility that Mr. Seselj
23 eventually has to meet Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic and other people,
24 because [indiscernible] -- I'm sorry if I'm not pronouncing correctly,
25 but you yourself were present and there were other military leaders
1 there. You also told us that at that point, you were carrying ammunition
2 because some shooting was taking place. This is what you are telling us.
3 I have absolutely no reason to doubt what you are telling us. But,
4 firstly, Mr. Seselj challenges that fact because he says that he was not
5 there, and then, through mysterious ways, Mr. Mladic would have told him
6 that technically that would have been impossible because militarily
7 speaking, it would never be authorised that at a same place, you would
8 put personalities of such a high profile in order to protect them,
9 because if a shell had fallen, everybody could have died at the same
10 time, so this could have had some consequences. So the army would have
11 never accepted that type of gathering, so Mr. Seselj withdrew his
12 question for procedural matters, but I am interested in the answer. Do
13 you challenge this fact or do you still -- or this vision, rather, or do
14 you still maintain what you're saying? Because to tell you the truth, I
15 thought carefully, and I wondered if, on the one hand, you could not
16 maybe be confusing the fact that Mr. Seselj came in 1994, he did come,
17 but he came after, not during that period, and maybe 15 years later, your
18 memory could be mistaken. There could be a confusion in your mind. This
19 can happen, because if you ask me what I did 15 years ago, I would
20 perhaps not be able to tell you exactly what I did.
21 So it is quite possible that when one is talking about an event
22 that took place 15 years ago, it's quite possible that various periods in
23 time can be mixed up. So what can you tell us on that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honour, as for
25 what I said earlier on, all of that is correct and true, that I saw him
1 up there. And what he is saying, that the Muslim forces could have fired
2 and killed them all, they were behind tanks. There were tanks in front
3 of them, firing at the village. The village was exhausted. It's not
4 that they had that many weapons. It's not that they could fire back at
5 them, because they were taking these Muslim positions. They attacked
6 Crna Rijeka all of a sudden and they took everything they had, because
7 they were firing from their tanks and none of the Muslims could have hit
9 They were there, that's where I saw them, and it doesn't have to
10 mean that since it's been 15 years or 20 years, that I don't remember.
11 My memory is good. I remember that, and that is why I am here, because I
12 remember all of that. And I pointed that out on the first day, and that
13 is what I'm saying today as well.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. How far was the distance
15 from the plateau, in your memory?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly, but I think
17 it was about two and a half kilometres from them. So the tanks were
18 firing at that village. That is right off the main road. Perhaps it was
19 about 50 metres away from the main road. It was close to the entrance
20 into Crna Rijeka.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So two kilometres
22 and a half. You should know that a very good sniper can, at that
23 distance of 2.5 kilometres, may hit a target. So seeing a civilian, or
24 seeing Karadzic or Mladic, a sniper could have very well shot them or
25 fired at them. Would you consider that or is that completely impossible,
1 to your mind?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's impossible, Your Honour.
3 When they were attacking, when there was this all-out attack, the Muslims
4 didn't have enough time to put their shoes on, let alone fire at them.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. My last set of questions has to do with the statement of
8 General Dragan Josipovic. That is document Roman numeral III.
9 General Josipovic gives me 12 points here challenging what you said
10 during your cross-examination and your statements, and in the first
11 point -- I'm going to deal with this point by point, and I'm going to ask
12 you to say what you have to say in relation to that. General Josipovic
14 "I was never commander of the Vogosca Brigade. I was commander
15 of the Ilijas Brigade, and from June 1993, I was commander of the
16 Tactical Group of Vogosca, that the Ilijas, Vogosca, Kosevo, and Rajlovac
17 Brigades belonged to. In February 1994, out of the last three brigades,
18 the Semizovac Battalion and the battalion of Srednje, the 3rd Sarajevo
19 Infantry Brigade was established, and I was its commander. The Command
20 Post of the Tactical Group of Vogosca, after the prison was disbanded,
21 was the Sonja facility."
22 Is that correct, to the best of your knowledge?
23 A. That is correct, but what is not correct is that he was not the
24 commander. He was the commander then. In Vogosca, Ilijas, Semizovac, so
25 from all sides, they addressed him.
1 Q. That is from June 1993, when he became commander of the
2 Tactical Group; right?
3 A. I don't know. I don't recall exactly.
4 Q. Further on, General Josipovic says:
5 "The prison facilities and their structure were a separate
6 organisational unit that was regulated by the Ministry of Justice. The
7 war obligation that Safet Sejdic belonged to was carried out through the
8 organs of civil authority in the Vogosca municipality."
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. "3. Reserve Lieutenant Rajko Jankovic became commander of the
12 Semizovac Battalion in December 1992, and his predecessors were
13 Mr. Torbica and Mico Colak."
14 Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. "4. The time of combat activities in which the frontline was
17 moved by --" all right, I'm going to read slower:
18 "The time of combat operations in which the frontline was moved
19 by the BH Army is related to October and November 1992."
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. "5. The category of a human shield is unknown to me, because if
23 it were effective, probably all commanders would use it for taking enemy
24 positions. I claim with full responsibility that no such thing happened
25 in the units that I commanded."
1 Is that correct?
2 A. That is not correct.
3 Q. All right. Let's move on:
4 "On the basis of the aforementioned, it is obvious that
5 Vaske Vidovic and Rajko Jankovic were in completely different structural
6 and territorial units, the Ilijas and Vogosca Brigade. Apart from that,
7 every battalion and brigade had their own mobile units. At the time,
8 most often they were called 'Intervention Units.' It is senseless to
9 link all activities and events in the area of responsibility to these two
11 Is that correct?
12 A. I don't remember that.
13 Q. All right. General Josipovic says further on:
14 "I have to say that the structure of the unit of Vaske Vidovic,
15 in terms of type of weaponry, was a support unit."
16 Is that correct?
17 A. I don't remember that, either. I didn't write this text.
18 Q. All right. But Vaske had artillery pieces, anti-aircraft guns
19 and so on?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. All right. Number 8:
22 "I don't know what led Mr. Sejdic to add yet another head in
23 addition to the skull to Vaske's jeep, but that certainly belongs to the
24 domain of fantasy."
25 Is that correct?
1 A. That is not correct. I stand by what I said.
2 Q. All right. Let's move on:
3 "9. As for fighting at the Niksic Plateau, I must, first of all,
4 explain that this was fighting that was imposed on us. The reason is
5 that after the fighting between the Muslim and Croatian forces and the
6 defeat of Croatian forces in Vares, the Muslim forces reached the
7 Niksic Plateau, where they reached the road Ilijas-Srednje-Sokolac,
8 threatening to completely cut off the northern and northeastern part of
9 the Sarajevo theatre of war. On the basis of that, an operation was
10 planned and carried out, and parts of the forces of Tactical Group
11 Vogosca, the Igman and Ilidza Brigades, took part in this."
12 Is that correct?
13 A. That is not correct, because at the Crna Rijeka Plateau, when the
14 Serbs took Crna Rijeka, after that, when the Muslims and the Croats
15 clashed, when the Muslims drove the Croats away, they crossed Crna Rijeka
16 because Jankovic, Josipovic and the rest of their guys let the Croats go
17 through their territory.
18 Q. Well, first and foremost, they probably wanted to save the
19 Croatian population from Muslim retaliation, and that's why they let them
20 cross through the Republika Srpska and reach their own people. This was
21 a humanitarian gesture, wasn't it?
22 A. I don't know, but I just know that they let them through there
23 because they held Crna Rijeka and they knew the Serbs did -- when they
24 would take Crna Rijeka and when they would attack.
25 Q. Further on:
1 "The operation started on the 9th of November by bringing the
2 unit into the area, and the immediate combat activities started in the
3 early-morning hours on the 10th of November. Enemy resistance was broken
4 down around 1430 hours, so around 1600 hours, units were stopped at the
5 line attained and they moved to defence. The unit of Rajko Jankovic, on
6 the 11th of November, was sent to the area of the village of Zubet, which
7 is about five kilometres away as the crow flies to the southeast of the
8 village of Crna Rijeka. The unit of Vaske Vidovic had the task to give
9 firing support to the forces on the left flank on the road towards
10 Crna Rijeka. Vaske's motorised platoon was taken out of combat and
11 returned to base."
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'll give you the
13 floor in a second, but the Trial Chamber has a slight problem.
14 General Josipovic wrote all that, and he said on the 9th of October,
15 there were some units that were deployed and fighting took place, but
16 what year are we talking about, 1992, 1993, 1994, what year?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is 1993. That is the attack on
18 the Niksic Plateau, Mr. President. It's the 9th of November, 1993. What
19 he is portraying for you here is the tactical situation, and it is
20 obvious that Vaske Vidovic's unit was on one side and Ranko Jankovic's
21 unit was on the completely opposite side. Since this witness belonged to
22 Rajko Jankovic's unit, he could not even see Vaske in that area, because
23 there were five kilometres between.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Objection.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I proceed?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed.
2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
3 Q. "Vaske's motorised platoon was pulled out of the fighting and
4 returned to base. The reason was that Josilo, Zoran, a member of his
5 unit, got killed from friendly fire, or, rather, when one of the -- when
6 one of the units was moving, it fired also on positions where Vaske was.
7 Both units were pulled out of the fighting and returned to base, to avoid
8 possible incidents."
9 Were you aware at all that there was considerable error in which
10 one Serb unit opened fire on another and Vaske's soldier, Zoran Josilo,
11 was killed?
12 A. That's not true.
13 Q. Did you hear of Zoran Josilo?
14 A. No, but I know it's not true.
15 Q. How do you know that if you were with Rajko Jankovic?
16 A. I'm saying that it's not true. Vaske's unit did not move. When
17 they took that territory under control, they left their weapons and
18 troops to control it, and Vaske and Jankovic would then return in their
19 jeeps to their pavilions, to their commands.
20 Q. All right. Let's go to point 10. General Josipovic says:
21 "In the course of preparation and execution of combat operations,
22 one of the most important elements is secrecy in order to achieve a
23 surprise against the enemy. To achieve this, a series of manoeuvres and
24 camouflage of movement is undertaken. I am saying this to show that
25 nobody normal would risk their own or other people's life creating an
1 atmosphere of a football match. Unfortunately, I never had the privilege
2 to perform combat activities before the gentlemen that he indicated.
3 None of those enumerated at that time was not even close to that area,
4 and I personally believe that President Karadzic and Dr. Vojislav Seselj
5 have never in their lives been in that area."
6 A. That's not true. When you were touring Sarajevo, how did you
7 come then?
8 Q. Well, I said I was in Ilijas for the first time in 1994. At
9 least that is something the Prosecution can help with. The Muslim secret
10 police can give them proof, when I was in Ilijas for the first time. Let
11 me finish with the statement.
12 A. It's not true.
13 Q. Item 11, General Josipovic says:
14 "I believe it is my duty to refresh the memory of
15 Mr. Safet Sejdic, for whom I have only respect as a member of one of the
16 units that I commanded, that in this fighting in the area of Zubeta, as a
17 member of the Semizovac Battalion, he personally liquidated one enemy
18 soldier and captured a mortar, a 60-millimetre mortar, and received
19 commendation from the commander for it. Certainly, Mr. Sejdic knows that
20 his fellow fighters from the unit can confirm his courage and his
21 soldierly conduct. Mr. Sejdic, everybody knows that as well, he knows,
22 too, that a member of the Intervention Platoon is -- you cannot become a
23 member of the Intervention Platoon by following rallies and carrying
25 A. You know full well that is not true. After what I said here, he
1 could have written whatever well he liked.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Seselj has to slow down and observe pauses
3 between question and answer. We cannot continue this way.
4 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, you're going too fast, and,
6 Mr. Sejdic, unfortunately the interpretation didn't catch your last
7 remark, so I would kindly ask you to repeat it.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am stating again, this allegation
9 that I liquidated a Muslim or captured a mortar, I have never done any
10 such thing. At that time, I was pulling out the dead and wounded, and
11 when I managed to pull out their dead and wounded, I was indeed praised
12 by their soldiers because I had the courage to pull them out. Nobody
13 else had the courage. I was the only one.
14 When a soldier got killed near Muslim trenches, nobody dared to
15 go there and get him out, and I ran to Muslim trenches, and the best I
16 could, I pulled the men out. That's why they praised me.
17 As for this writing, they can write anything. They are listening
18 to my testimony. He can send this paper to him, saying that I killed 100
19 Muslim soldiers, that they had given me weapons. If he needs this paper,
20 let him keep it.
21 I came here to tell the truth, and I'm prepared to back it with
22 my life.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. At the end, General Josipovic emphasizes that:
25 "I believe it is my duty to indicate that it is my privilege to
1 have been the commander of courageous and valiant people, and I don't
2 want anything to taint their courage."
3 This statement was signed in Belgrade.
4 I have here a statement of Nenad Kuzmanovic. You know who that
6 A. Yes, I know, it's Rajko's deputy.
7 Q. So he was the deputy commander of your battalion?
8 A. Yes.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How much time do we have? Can we
10 go through this statement?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're hardly -- you hardly
12 have any time left. You had six minutes. You have very little time now.
13 Let's put this last statement, show it, and ask your question.
14 Madam Usher, could you please help.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps just one fragment of
16 that statement.
17 I have a statement of Nadan Andric, Vaske's deputy, but I won't
18 have time to use it today.
19 Q. Here in the penultimate paragraph on the first page,
20 Nenad Kuzmanovic says:
21 "In the area of Semizovac, there was also a structure called
22 Sonja --"
23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] We haven't had any time to see the
24 number of the document. Everything is going way too fast.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Document Roman numeral IV. Roman
1 numeral IV, page 1.
2 Q. In the area of Semizovac, there was also a structure called
3 Sonja, which, as the official prison of the Ministry of Justice of
4 Republika Srpska, had its own composition and organisation of which I
5 know nothing. In the past days, I heard and saw all sorts of untruth
6 about who came to visit the Sonja Prison. Among all these unbelievable
7 stories, there is one saying that Vasilije Vidovic, whom I know
8 personally, used to come to this prison. I never saw him even close, and
9 I never even heard that he had visited any prison at all."
10 Is this true, what the deputy commander of your battalion says?
11 A. It's not true.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I'm finished with
13 the cross-examination.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Dutertre, any
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For how long?
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I will try to be short, as brief
19 as possible. I need between 15 to 20 minutes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's five after
21 10.00. We will break for 20 minutes, but let me ask the usher to escort
22 the witness out of the courtroom first.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's five after
25 10.00. We will resume at 10.25.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.05 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.27 a.m.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dutertre, you have the
5 floor for the redirect.
6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 I have four issues to address. First, the conditions under which
8 Mr. Sejdic came back to Semizovac from Korita.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Dutertre:
10 Q. On page 8239 [Realtime transcript read in error "8249"], line 21
11 to 24 in the transcript, I'm waiting for the French transcript --
12 THE INTERPRETER: For the English transcript, Interpreter's
14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You're saying that once in Korita, you were told, and I quote,
16 and I will move to English:
17 [In English] "... Semizovac and Sarajevo, there is a free place
18 down there, a free place down there."
19 [Interpretation] End of quote. Let me move further. I quote:
20 [In English] "And then my father decided that we would start out
21 towards Sarajevo because we have some family there."
22 [Interpretation] End of quote. Later, page 8240, line 2 to 3,
23 you say, and I quote:
24 [In English] "If we wanted to go to Sarajevo, we had to go to
1 [Interpretation] End of quote.
2 My first question is as follows: Could you tell us whether in
3 Korita you had a house where you could have settled and stayed?
4 A. Yes. In Korita, first of all, we had the schoolhouse where we
5 stayed as refugees, and then later they put us up in various private
6 houses to spend the night, and then four or five days later joint guards
7 were organised. However, my father and I were not called upon to
8 participate in the guard duty.
9 Q. I apologise if I interrupt you. In Korita, did you own a house
10 where you could have settled?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So you leave for Sarajevo --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor cannot
14 shape the answers of the witness as he pleases. The witness wanted to
15 say something, and the Prosecutor prevented him. The fact that they
16 didn't want to ask him and his father to participate in the village
17 guards is very important.
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] On the transcript, it's already
19 been said during the examination-in-chief, and I'm not going to look into
20 this, because this is something everyone knows.
21 Q. So you go for Sarajevo, as you told us, you leave for Sarajevo.
22 Could you give us some details as to why you finally did not go to
23 Sarajevo, but rather stayed in Semizovac that was under Serb control?
24 A. Yes. At that time, Mr. Nebojsa Spiric was in control of the
25 Semizovac Detachment. He didn't let us pass through towards Sarajevo,
1 because my brother had been in Territorial Defence, and when he was taken
2 away I've never heard of him again.
3 Q. You anticipated slightly.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. There's a
5 detail that just cropped up. You are saying that your brother belonged
6 to the Territorial Defence, and he was taken away and never seen again.
7 Does this mean that your brother disappeared completely?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. No one has ever heard of my
9 brother from 1992.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, this is
11 not a proper interpretation of the transcripts. In all the statements
12 this witness has given and in the examination-in-chief, the witness said
13 his brother had been arrested as a member of the Territorial Defence
14 because he had had a weapon earlier, and he was taken to prison to Planja
15 house; that he was released from that prison, spent two days at home, and
16 then left. The witness claimed he was arrested again. I have
17 information that he left. Nobody knows where. But here the story's
18 abbreviated. As soon as he came to Semizovac, he went missing without a
19 trace. This is not consistent with what he said in statements and in
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, despite what the accused
22 has just told us, the important question for me is the following: You
23 have never seen your brother again?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I've never seen my brother
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 Mr. Dutertre, please continue.
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, this corresponds exactly to
4 what was said during the examination-in-chief. Contrary to what the
5 accused is saying, it's page 8241, line 6 of the transcript.
6 Q. So regarding your brother and reasons why you had to stay in the
7 area, did you ever learn about -- ever know about what happened to your
9 A. Yes. I learned that my brother had been in Planja House in
10 Semizovac, village of Svrake, where that prison was located. They kept
11 around 100 people in that prison. I emphasised that already in my first
12 statement, where this Planja House was, what it was, it was a prison,
13 and at the same time their command, the command of the Svrake Platoon.
14 They stayed there as well. And from the day when my brother was taken to
15 that prison, I've never heard of him again, I've heard no news of him.
16 Later on, I learned that half of those people were executed,
17 killed, or taken no one knows where.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I call upon you not
19 to allow this subsequent revisiting of the statement of this witness.
20 Look at the page 4 of the statement given to the ICTY by this witness. I
21 have no further possibility to examine. I can only address you.
22 It says in the second paragraph of that statement on that page
23 that Spiric told the witness's family not to worry, that the brother is
24 in Sonja's Prison and he would soon be released:
25 "Soon after that, my brother was released. I heard, when he said
1 to my mother that there were a lot of prisoners there, that he was glad
2 because of the food, and two days later my brother was to report to
3 another prison. That other prison was Planja's House. He didn't want to
4 go there, so he ran away into the mountains."
5 So it's a completely different version. Why is the Prosecutor
6 trying to cover this up? There's no doubt about this. He was released
7 and he was at home two days later.
8 Later, as the witness says, he tried to escape, and he was
9 captured in some sort of forest. Whether he was or not, we have no
10 trace. He could have ran away from Semizovac, and with any luck he could
11 still be alive. He could have been close to Muslim positions.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do ask to object about this.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm thanking
14 Mr. Seselj for all these comments, but he is not referring to the 92 ter
15 statement, where what the witness is saying is mentioned, and I would
16 like to continue if I may.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed.
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Sejdic, once your brother was arrested again, he was -- he
20 disappeared after that, and did this have an influence on you? Did that
21 influence you in thinking that you should not leave Semizovac, that you
22 were not allowed to leave Semizovac?
23 A. No, that's not the only reason. The reason was that when my
24 brother came back home from Sonja's Prison, my brother said he was
25 supposed to go to the Planja House to prison, and the prisoners all knew
1 that if they go there, they'll never get out again, because Vaske's men,
2 Seselj's men, mercenaries, were in control there, the worst kind of
3 people. So he tried to escape, and that evening they caught him in the
4 forest and they took him to Planja's House. We know he was in
5 Planja's House, and from then on, we know nothing of him. He was not the
6 only one who went missing from there. At least 25 from the village of
7 Svrake, and the women reported it. Men were taken no one knows where.
8 They were killed, and no one heard of them again.
9 Q. Okay, but was this an element that might have made a strong
10 impression on you and convince you that you should not leave Semizovac
11 and the area of Semizovac?
12 A. I don't know exactly if that was the only reason, but still, in
13 view of our faith, they would have stopped us anyway, even if my brother
14 had not been in the Territorial Defence, because they stopped all of us,
15 me, my father, my brother, my uncle, everyone. My uncle was later
16 released for exchange when there was the first exchange. He was released
17 only because he had a wife in Sarajevo.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would not want any
19 doubt to exist after Mr. Seselj's objection. Let me pick up on this
20 problem with your brother so that everything is clear.
21 In your written statement, which I was scrutinising, if I'm not
22 mistaken, at first your brother goes to Sonja's Prison. Then he's
23 released and comes back home. Two days later, your brother is supposed
24 to go to another prison, Planja's Prison. At that moment, your brother's
25 going to try to escape through the woods. He is captured, brought to the
1 police station. After that, he is escorted to Planja's House. And you
2 said that after that, you never saw him again. This is what you're
3 saying in your written statement.
4 Mr. Seselj seems to be giving us another version of this, and
5 viva voce you told us that you never saw your brother again. Is this the
6 chronology of events, starting with the disappearance of your brother?
7 He was first released, came home, knew that he was supposed to go back to
8 jail, escaped, was arrested, captured, sent to the police, and then sent
9 to Planja's House, and then after which you never saw him again?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Judge.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I insisted on this fact because
12 in the indictment and the pre-trial brief, paragraph 103, there is
13 mention of Planja's House, where, in the detention centres, the prisoners
14 were beaten, raped and killed. This is written in the indictment.
15 Now, you are telling us that your brother was in detention in
16 Planja's House.
17 Mr. Dutertre, proceed.
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Second point. It will be very
19 quick, because we've been through it over and over again, but there is
20 still ambiguity. It's the problem of the salary, the wages. Page 8241
21 in the transcript, the accused is telling you, and I quote:
22 [In English] "You were given a certain sum of money which wasn't
23 a large sum of money by way of salary, and every month you would get food
24 issued to you; isn't that right?"
25 [Interpretation] That was the question, and your answer was:
1 "Yes." This is a compound question, so I don't really understand what
2 this "yes" referred to. When you say "yes," did you mean, "Yes, I was
3 given a salary," or are you saying, "Yes, I was given food," or do you
4 mean, "Yes, I got both the food and salary"?
5 A. I was only receiving my ration, enough to eat. That was a ration
6 for my whole family.
7 Q. Thank you. I now move to my third point, and there will be only
8 one left.
9 Page 8245 in the transcript, we saw a document which seemingly
10 had been signed in 1994. I'm saying "seemingly" because there's no
11 specific indication as to when you actually signed this document. This
12 being said, in this document it says that -- retroactively, that you had
13 been a member of the Army of Republika Srpska since 1992, and the
14 document --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This cannot be called back-dated or
16 retroactive. It says he was a member from to. There's nothing
17 retroactive about it. This certificate was needed in order to regulate
18 some sort of entitlement, and that's why he was issued the certificate
19 saying he was a member of the Army of Republika Srpska from such a date
20 to such a date.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The comment is on the
22 transcript, but I'm interested in the question and the answer, so please
23 wait for the Prosecutor to put his question.
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This document has been delivered,
25 so you can have your entitlements, your compensation. I have a couple of
1 questions regarding this.
2 Q. 1992, you -- let me say first that you are a Muslim, you are of
3 Roma ethnicity. During the attack on Svrake, your brother fought with
4 the Muslims. You saw this brother for the last time and sent to Planja.
5 So why is it that you would voluntarily join the Serb forces? What would
6 be the point in doing that for you, in 1992?
7 A. I did not mean that I joined voluntary, because when my brother
8 was taken away, it was their strategy towards us. My brother was on the
9 Muslim side, and he defended that village. My father and I were not
10 issued with any weapons. When the Muslims distributed weapons, we did
11 not get any. So they did it because of my brother, and that they
12 persecuted us from 1992 onwards, they put us on that list, that we were
13 there. I don't know about anything else.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Again, the Prosecution
16 is trying to cover up a very important thing. Here before you, in
17 re-examination, the witness said as soon as they returned from Korita to
18 Svrake or Semizovac, his brother was arrested, taken away, and he was
19 never seen again. And then later, after my objection, when you asked
20 him, he confirmed his statement that his brother was released after two
21 days, then arrested in the forest after trying to escape. He couldn't
22 have seen how he was arrested in the forest.
23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I'm no longer on this issue.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your objection is totally out
25 of focus. You wanted to establish the fact that the witness was a member
1 of the Republika Srpska. That was your point, obviously. This is what
2 you were trying to elicit.
3 The Prosecutor is asking him a question during the redirect. He
4 is quoting the question you asked, and he is asking him what could be his
5 reasons to join the Army of Republika Srpska, given that his brother had
6 fought on the Muslim side, he'd been arrested, detained and so forth.
7 This is the question put to the witness by Mr. Dutertre. We would like
8 to hear the witness's answer, because this might be important.
9 Witness, the Prosecutor asked a question. Could you please
10 answer this question. If you don't remember the question, Mr. Dutertre
11 will rephrase the question.
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, I will reformulate it, maybe
13 in a more simple fashion.
14 Q. In 1992, did you sign a document proving that you were freely
15 joining the Serb forces?
16 A. No, I did not voluntarily join the Serb forces, nor would I have
17 ever done that voluntarily.
18 Q. Very well. From 1992 to 1994, you said that you were part of the
19 work platoon. You said that as a member of this work platoon, you were
20 sent to the frontlines. You had to dig trenches. You had to carry
21 weapons for the soldiers. And you were also used as a human shield, so
22 you were just as exposed as any soldier would be.
23 Here's my question: Given these conditions, given the fact that
24 you were exposed just like a soldier would be, why is it that from 1992
25 to 1994, you would voluntarily decide to join the work platoon rather
1 than join a combat unit, where at least you would have been issued a
2 rifle to fight for your life?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, have you understood
4 the question? I have had a hard time following.
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I agree this was a complex
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dutertre, please
8 reformulate your question and make it simpler. You would need to be a
9 Nobel Prize of literature to understand the question.
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Maybe not a Nobel Prize, but it is
11 an important question, so I will reformulate it.
12 Q. If you had been given a choice, Witness, in 1992 to 1994, rather
13 than being on the work platoon, where you were exposed on the frontline
14 with no weapon whatsoever to defend yourself, or joining a combat unit
15 where you would have been issued weapons, what would you have chosen had
16 you been given the choice?
17 A. I would have chosen the labour platoon.
18 Q. In 1994, when you signed this document, what was your frame of
19 mind? Why did you sign this document which I mentioned earlier, a
20 document which is -- which entitles you to some compensation and
21 benefits? Why did you sign the document?
22 A. They forced me to sign their document to make me seem like a
23 member of their unit. They needed a signature. What they wrote later, I
24 don't know. I know that we had to sign that we were loyal, together with
25 our families, those of us who stayed, because there was no one but us.
1 After signing that so-called loyalty in 1994-1995, Rajko Jankovic put me
2 in his group because I was always at his beck and call. I carried his
3 weapon, I pulled out his dead and wounded, I dug. I was active, I was a
4 strong man, able-bodied, and that's why he took me to work for him. It's
5 not what I wanted. And they kept these signatures. If anything went
6 wrong, they wanted to show it in court or somewhere, that I voluntarily
7 took up their arms to voluntarily join their paramilitary unit allegedly
8 to protect my family or something. I think it is in my statement. I
9 said that at the outset. Those who stayed loyal to them, they kind of
10 protected them because they had killed everyone else. Everyone that
11 remained alive were put in work platoons.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question for the
13 witness, of course.
14 Witness, at the end of the war, did the commander of the unit in
15 which you worked in the labour platoon, did this person propose -- did
16 the people who made you sign this statement that the Prosecutor just
17 mentioned, did these people, the commander or the authorities, did they
18 ask you whether you wanted to move to the territory of Republika Srpska
19 or even move to Serbia?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. They used to tell me, this
21 commander, Rajko Jankovic, and others to accept, to be loyal to them, in
22 order to be able to stay with my family like they did. They told me,
23 "Whether you accept or not, you can't return to Sarajevo to be with your
24 own people. Either you're going to get killed here or we are going to
25 kill you." That was the only choice.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Last question on this issue, and
4 then I'll move to my final point.
5 Q. In this conflict, what was your objective? Was it to fight
6 against the Muslims, was it to survive with your family, was it to become
7 a hero? What was your objective?
8 A. Nothing was on my mind. I just wanted my family to survive and
9 for myself to survive. Had they told me to do anything, I would have had
10 to do it when they demanded that. They always made threats vis a vis my
11 family, saying that they would slaughter my son and daughter, rape my
12 wife, so I'd have to agree to anything they'd tell me to do, because I
13 could not watch with my very own eyes what they would do to my wife and
14 my family.
15 Q. Thank you for your answer. I will now move to my final point.
16 The visit made by Mr. Seselj to the Crna Rijeka Plateau, a visit
17 which you have mentioned, could you tell us how long -- how long did the
18 combat go on at that plateau? Was it for a couple days, a couple months?
19 Can you tell us how long they went on for?
20 A. As for the Crna Rijeka Plateau, when the offensive just started
21 there, for two or three hours they were attacking that village. When
22 they took the village, they went further on to the village of Olovo.
23 Along the frontline, they went to the village of Olovo; that is to say,
24 that they'd be there for months. That is where the frontline was, and
25 they maintained it that way. While this line was being attacked, it was
1 something that went on for three or four hours, this offensive. They did
2 whatever they wanted to. That's the way it was at the time.
3 Q. Could you tell us whether, when you made written statements to
4 the local authorities and whether in your first statements made to the
5 OTP and to the Tribunal investigators, could you tell us whether you were
6 questioned about Mr. Seselj or not, whether there was focus on
7 Mr. Seselj, "yes" or "no," during these early statements that you made?
8 A. No, no, they didn't ask me about Mr. Seselj then. I made my
9 statement here, and I said what I said. When I came here, I didn't know
10 what the objective was, who I would testify against. Just before I was
11 about to leave, I was told that I would be testifying against Mr. Seselj.
12 I remembered then that I saw him at the Crna Rijeka Plateau, and I said
13 that in my statement.
14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no other
15 questions, Mr. President. However, I have some information to give you,
16 if you find it useful, for the two MFI exhibits that I was going to
17 tender -- try to tender.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please tell us what
19 it is?
20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The first document was a list of
21 houses in Svrake, empty and unoccupied houses. It's document P463, MFI.
22 This document is part of what we call the integration collection. Those
23 are documents collected by AID in the Sarajevo sector, after having been
24 handed over in 1996 by the authorities of Republika Srpska. According to
25 AID, this document would have been received from the General Staff,
1 Army Security Service -- Security Service of the Army of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the OTP members collected -- went to the AID
3 premises to get these documents.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor is not
5 resolving the problem of the authenticity of the document in this way at
6 all. The re-examination is over, and this is now a procedural debate on
7 the acceptability or non-acceptability of some documents. I challenge
8 the documents because there is no signature, stamp, letterhead, nothing.
9 And now, as an argument to prove authenticity, the Prosecutor refers to
10 the AID. Well, that is the core of the matter. The AID instrumentalizes
11 witnesses who appear in The Hague Tribunal in different trials. They
12 falsify documents and so on. They are very involved in this. They
13 cannot be proof of authenticity. The document either has a signature or
14 not, it either has a stamp or not, it either has a registration number or
15 not. If we are going to refer to AID, then you can immediately find
16 evidence for anything you want to prove here. In 15 minutes' time, the
17 AID will type that up, write it up. They can even make the documents
18 look older.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's as far as
20 the first document goes.
21 The second document.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted very
23 candidly to give the background regarding this evidence. I cannot be
24 reproached for that, knowing that the witness gave us some explanation of
25 the document tells who were the -- which were the people who were in the
1 premises, and so on and so forth. So now it's a matter of weight, as far
2 as I go.
3 Now, regarding the second document, considering the list of
4 prisoners, P464 MFI, this document was seized by the OTP in July 2003 in
5 the archives of the prison KPD Butmir, or better known as the
6 Kula Prison, and more precisely this document was seized out of a green
7 folder called Daily Bulletin of the Vogosca Prison for July and August
8 1992. So, Prison of Vogosca, July and August of 1992. And you'll
9 remember that at the very end of this document, they were making
10 reference to other documents. You put -- you were wondering whether we
11 had it or not. The only document that I was able to find so far was a
12 document that regards a list of prisoners. They have it in e-court. I
13 have hard copies, if you wish to get them.
14 Now, as far as the other documents, I don't know if they were --
15 as far as the others, I don't know if they were missing in the prison or
16 other people collected these documents. I have no additional information
17 on that.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 Mr. Seselj, on the second document, do you have any comments to
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I haven't seen that document
22 yet in e-court. I have to see what this is all about.
23 Secondly, let the OTP tell me whether I've already received this
24 document and when, because I cannot remember all the documents that I've
25 received. I've already received hundreds of thousands of pages of
1 documents. And then when the Prosecution replies to that question of
2 mine, then I'm going to put forth my objection.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This document, when
4 was it given to Mr. Seselj?
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It was on the exhibit list I don't
6 know when. Probably pursuant to 66(B). But, anyhow, this document is on
7 the exhibit list.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This document was
9 on the 65 ter list documents.
10 Mr. Seselj, do you have any points? Do you challenge anything
11 about this document?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Taking prisoners out to the
13 frontline, exposing them to risks, and we see here that one person was
14 wounded, that is a crime, and I do not challenge the fact that it is a
15 crime. However, there is no proof of this document being authentic.
16 There is no signature, there is no stamp, there is no registration
17 number. And what I think of straight away is the AID wrote this up
18 themselves. They had an original document as a template, so to speak,
19 and then they just changed a few words, and that is always my suspicion
20 as far as these documents are concerned.
21 Secondly, there is also the question of relevancy, because the
22 prison warden is under the Ministry of Justice. The OTP takes a
23 statement from the then Minister of Justice, submits it to me. They
24 haven't called him as a witness yet. What do I have to do with that
25 Minister of Justice, and what do I have to do with the system of
1 prisoners? So it's the question of relevancy. If the then Minister of
2 Justice is not held accountable for this but if they plan to use his
3 statement against me in any way, I think from the point of procedure,
4 this is practically an unresolvable problem.
5 Secondly, perhaps all of this is correct, but then it raises the
6 question of the responsibility of the person who took the prisoners out
7 to the frontline to do work. That is prohibited by the International Law
8 of War. It is not prohibited to take members of the work platoon to work
9 on the frontline, because they are within the system of national defence.
10 Taking prisoners out, that is a crime punishable by law.
11 Who is this being ascribed to? Myself, personally, the Serb
12 Radical Party, our volunteers? Who? Who is being charged with this
13 crime, if this crime ever took place? First of all, what happened, and
14 secondly, who is responsible? Who is immediately responsible, who is
15 responsible at the next degree of responsibility from the point of view
16 of hierarchy, and last but not least, thirdly, what does this have to do
17 with me?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Your comments are
19 noted in the transcript. The Trial Chamber will deliberate on it and
20 will render a decision.
21 Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] At page 42, line 7, one point. I
23 mention the transcript page, but there is a mistake. I mention
24 page 8239, page 42, line 7, and not 72. Page 42, line 7, we should read
25 page of the transcript -- transcript pages 8249.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
3 On my name and on behalf of my fellow Judges, I thank you very
4 much for coming to testify before this Tribunal. I wish you a safe
5 journey back home, and I will ask Madam Usher to escort you out of this
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. In advance, thank you
8 very much to all of you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Still one problem. It's not 8249
11 but 8239 on the transcript.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Let's now move into private session. The next witness has
14 protective measures.
15 Madam Registrar, actually, I would like to ask you for a closed
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] While the blinds are going down,
18 have you admitted this document into evidence or not? I didn't quite
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Both documents are going to be
21 the subject of a deliberation. They are not admitted yet. We have to
22 deliberate on this, and we will render a decision. They are not admitted
23 into evidence yet.
24 [Closed session]
11 Pages 8425-8466 redacted. Closed session.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day
12 of June, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.