1 Thursday, 24th June, 1999
2 (Evidentiary hearing)
3 (Open session)
4 (The accused entered court)
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.35 p.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your
7 Honours. IT-95-8-PT, the Prosecutor versus Dragan
9 JUDGE MAY: The appearances, please.
10 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please, my name
11 is Niemann, and I appear with my colleague
12 Mr. Waidyaratne for the Prosecution. The case manager
13 for the Prosecutors is Ms. Reynders, Your Honours.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
15 John Ostojic on behalf of Dragan Kolundzija.
16 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
17 Can the accused hear in a language which he
19 THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
21 This hearing was ordered after an initial
22 appearance of this accused on the 14th of June. It was
23 then suggested that the accused is not the man named in
24 the indictment, and this hearing was ordered to
25 determine whether the accused is in fact the man in the
1 indictment. Written submissions were ordered, and it
2 may be helpful if I summarise the submissions which
3 have been received.
4 The Prosecution have made their written
5 submission dated the 21st of June. It contains a
6 number of affidavits and a written declaration
7 certifying that this accused has been identified by
8 three people who confirm, having seen photographs of
9 him, that he is the man in the indictment, named in the
11 The Defence have submitted a document from
12 Mr. Vucicevic dated the 22nd of June. It is a fairly
13 lengthy document, most of which deals with the merits
14 of the case, but it does include this sentence: "I
15 withdraw the request for the evidentiary hearing set up
16 for the purpose to establish the identity of the
17 accused named in the indictment as 'Dragan Kulundzija'"
18 and explaining that there had been a misunderstanding,
19 and for that reason the point had been raised. Those
20 are the written submissions which are before the
22 Mr. Ostojic, do you confirm that the
23 application for a hearing is withdrawn, or do you wish
24 to pursue the point about the identity of the accused?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honour, I have
1 two points on that. One, after reviewing the
2 Prosecution's submission, we think that, as this
3 honourable panel has probably reviewed and found, that
4 it is grossly flawed, and that by way of example, the
5 affidavits are contradictory to one and each other.
6 The point is that Mr. Kolundzija is not the
7 man who was identified in the indictment. When asked
8 with Mr. O'Sullivan, who was interviewing him earlier,
9 "Is this you," and by pointing at the paragraph in the
10 indictment, he identified himself and said, "This is
11 not the way I spell my name; it is not my birth date;
12 nor is it my place of birth." However, Mr. Kolundzija
13 did acknowledge to Mr. O'Sullivan that that was the
14 nickname that he was known by at that time, "Kole."
15 Subsequent to that, Mr. O'Sullivan appeared
16 before the Tribunal. I spoke to him briefly today, and
17 I spoke with my client as well. He was from time to
18 time at the camp; there's no denial on that. But I
19 think the Prosecution, in their submission, when they
20 informed this panel that they have the burden of proof,
21 they still have that burden of proof on this
22 indictment, and they still carry the burden of proof.
23 The only issue I disagree with is that the
24 burden of proof is not prima facie evidence; it's not
25 just on its face. But even if we were to accept their
1 point of view on the burden of proof, the affidavits in
2 and of themselves fail to adequately and appropriately
3 identify this gentleman as the person who is sought in
4 this indictment.
5 And I point out one affidavit or one
6 statement that may be -- and I say this very
7 cautiously -- that may be -- have some weight in his
8 credibility, and that is the affidavit of Mr. Dominik
9 Smyth. If we --
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic, before you go on,
11 I've already read out Mr. Vucicevic's letter, document,
12 to the Tribunal, in which he says he withdraws the
13 request. Now, he is, as I understand it, your lead
15 MR. OSTOJIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 And as I opened, I did say that we are standing by
17 that, but I'd also like to point out to the Court, in
18 the very last paragraph of that first page, he
19 continues to state that the -- and may I quote: "The
20 Prosecutor has committed a serious mistake not only in
21 identity but in failing to establish what in particular
22 Kole failed to do prevent ..." et cetera, following on
23 the second page of his brief.
24 With all due respect, Your Honour, if the
25 issue here today is whether Mr. Kolundzija was at the
1 camp at any time, we acknowledge that. We do not have
2 a dispute with that. We do have a dispute with the
3 Prosecution's affidavits, because they are flawed, and
4 we are willing to challenge those affidavits.
5 Particularly, there are exhibits there which
6 purportedly bear Mr. Kolundzija's signature. There has
7 been absolutely no authenticity or handwriting expert
8 to verify to that signature, yet, boldly, the
9 Prosecutor makes their own handwritten expert opinion
10 and renders it to the Court, when in fact, after
11 consulting with my client, at the very least one of the
12 exhibits -- one that the Prosecutor is relying on most
13 heavily -- does not bear his signature at all.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but there are other matters
15 of evidence which I've referred to in which your client
16 is said to be identified by various witnesses as being
17 the man. So even leaving aside any reference to
18 handwriting, there is other evidence on which the
19 Prosecution say they can produce a prima facie case
20 that your client is the man in the indictment; added to
21 which, on his own admission, he was in Keraterm.
22 Now, as I understand your position, what
23 you're saying is that what is alleged against him in
24 this indictment is denied, and it's denied that he
25 behaved in the way which is set out. And that, of
1 course, is an issue which has to be determined at a
2 trial, isn't it?
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, that's part of our
4 request, yes, we are going to deny all the issues. But
5 our other request is also -- it's not just the
6 signature. If this Honourable Panel were to just look
7 at the first two exhibits that the Prosecution
8 tendered, the first exhibit, by Mr. Dominik Smyth
9 clearly sets forth that Mr. Smyth never knew who the
10 identities were in the photograph that he purportedly
11 showed to two of the witnesses. In the second
12 affidavit, interestingly enough, the affidavit clearly
13 states that he knew it was Mr. Kolundzija who was in
14 the affidavit, and also there were newspaper articles,
15 as all the other affidavits seem to suggest, that were
16 contemporaneously given with these witnesses when they
17 made this purported identification.
18 So it's for that reason that we think it is
19 flawed, but the very first affidavit of Mr. Smyth, we
20 believe, if you're going to take any affidavit, that
21 one clearly doesn't even say or suggest, by the one
22 witness that identifies him, and only one did out of
23 those four, he doesn't even put him in the camp. So
24 they can't even meet their own purported burden of a
25 prima facie case, which I object to, but -- for the
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
3 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic, the Chamber want to
5 be certain as to your position now.
6 We take it that you've concluded your
7 submissions. Do you wish to call any evidence?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: We do not believe that it is
9 our burden, so we do not at this time, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MAY: Do you ask us to rule on the
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, we do, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
14 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Niemann.
16 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please, just
17 addressing some of the matters that were raised by my
19 The position with respect to the affidavits I
20 think is misunderstood. There was, in fact, two
21 photographs, a photograph which I believe was taken to
22 a witness or a number of witnesses prior to arrest, and
23 then photographs taken after arrest, the photographs
24 taken after the arrest being photos that show the
25 person who has been remanded, and in our submission
1 that process is necessary to establish that not only
2 the person prior to the arrest but after the arrest was
3 the same.
4 The confusion over the date of birth, place
5 of birth and spelling is something that the
6 Prosecution, right from the very outset, Your Honours,
7 indicated was in error, and it was something that we
8 also indicated was something that we would be seeking
9 to resolve by way of an amendment to the indictment.
10 Your Honours are no doubt aware that quite
11 often this situation occurs where you have different
12 people with the same names, and one has to go to
13 lengths such as discovering the names of parents and so
14 forth in order to differentiate between.
15 The situation is, Your Honours, that the
16 Prosecution relied upon the information supplied to it
17 by its witnesses at the time, and this information has
18 now been subsequently checked and corrected. It seems
19 that it is true that there would seem to be two persons
20 by the name of Kolundzija, with different dates of
21 birth and spelling.
22 Your Honours, I have here, which I could hand
23 to the Chamber and to the Defence, a copy of a letter
24 that we have received from the government of the
25 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in which this
1 situation is set out and the two names are mentioned.
2 If I may, Your Honour, I could hand that to you, and
3 that would clearly show the two separate names and the
4 two different persons. So if I may, Your Honour, I'll
5 hand that up.
6 This is a document that has been translated,
7 Your Honours. I give this document to Your Honours in
8 order to demonstrate that according to the records of
9 the government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
10 they have on their records two persons by the name of
11 Kolundzija, with different spellings and with different
12 birth dates.
13 The relevant Kolundzija we say, Your Honours,
14 is the gentleman referred to second in the document on
15 page 5 of the translated copy, with his father's name
16 of Milan, M-i-l-a-n; date of birth, 19th of December,
17 1959, and with the spelling K-o-l-u-n-d-z-i-j-a, and
18 that's an amendment to the indictment which we're
19 seeking to make at this moment, Your Honours.
20 In addition to that, Your Honours, the
21 Prosecution has arranged for two witnesses to be in
22 attendance here today. Should Your Honours wish to
23 hear from those witnesses, I can call those witnesses.
24 In my submission, their evidence will go further to
25 establish the identity of the person in remand as being
1 the accused in the indictment.
2 In our submission, Your Honours, the person
3 to whom the witnesses refer has the nickname Kole,
4 K-o-l-e, and indeed it is the Prosecution's case that
5 the accused person Kole is the person referred to in
6 the body of the indictment in terms of the charges.
7 So in our submission, if one corrects the
8 spelling of the name, the place and date of birth,
9 which is clearly in error, then in our submission all
10 other aspects of the indictment are correct in
11 reference to the person Kole.
12 JUDGE MAY: In Mr. Vucicevic's document,
13 there is a reference to the accused having that name,
15 MR. NIEMANN: That's correct, Your Honours,
17 JUDGE MAY: If I'm right, being at Keraterm.
18 MR. NIEMANN: That's correct, Your Honour,
20 JUDGE MAY: The dispute apparently from that
21 document is, of course, what he did at Keraterm.
22 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, of course. That would be
23 our interpretation of it, Your Honours.
24 It seems to me that -- I was a little
25 confused by the submission made this afternoon, because
1 I would have thought that really there is no dispute
2 between the Defence and the Prosecution that the person
3 in remand is, in fact and indeed, Kole, who was at
4 Keraterm and is referred to in the indictment. The
5 dispute arises over what he did there, and of course
6 that's a matter for trial. But there may be a
7 different position now, Your Honours. I'm not sure.
8 But that certainly would be the position as I would
9 interpret it, having regard to the Defence submission
10 that was filed on the 22nd of June.
11 JUDGE MAY: Now the issue is not whether Kole
12 was at Keraterm or not, it's what he did when he was
14 MR. NIEMANN: Yes. I think, into such
15 matters as to whether he had command and control and so
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's stated that he was a
18 member of the reserve police unit in Keraterm.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Indeed, Your Honour, the
20 principal charge in the indictment relates to a
21 massacre in one of the rooms, room 3 of the Keraterm
22 camp, and from my reading of the submission provided by
23 the Defence on the 22nd of June, 1999, there's not so
24 much a dispute as to whether or not the accused Kole,
25 Kolundzija, was there at the time, it's a question of
1 whether he had any authority to do or prevent anything
2 from happening at that time, if my interpretation is
3 correct on that.
4 I rely to what is referred to on the top of
5 the second page, Your Honour. It says, at the
6 second-to-last sentence, "Moreover, he is very
7 compassionate --" sorry. I think I've misstated it,
8 Your Honour. I'll just see if I can find the
10 Yes, I just can't pick it out at the moment,
11 Your Honour, but there is indeed a reference there to
12 the superior being present, I believe -- yes, here it
13 is, Your Honours. It's mentioned on the first page,
14 the second-to-last paragraph, where they say in the
15 second sentence: "Prior to the shooting Kolundzija was
16 in charge of only 12 men. Before the firing was
17 commenced, about 80 to 100 soldiers were brought in
18 indictment avers, but does not connect and never could
19 assign command to the reserve policeman of a military
20 unit. In addition, the superior police officer,
21 Commander Zivko Knezevic, brought in ten policemen from
22 a different police station to control the disturbance
23 or riots in the camp. One of the Prosecutor's
24 statements attached to the application of the amended
25 indictment corroborates this averment ..."
1 It seems to me, Your Honour, that even the
2 question of presence of the time is not necessarily in
3 dispute, it's a question of who had control and
4 command. But that, of course, is not a matter for
5 resolution today. It's a matter for the trial, and
6 certainly we're not in any way suggesting Your Honours
7 should resolve that in today's hearing.
8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
9 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Mr. Niemann,
10 the two witnesses that you suggested could be called to
11 the witness box, is it in order to testify that we are
12 indeed dealing with Dragan Kolundzija, who was the
13 commander of the camp when the alleged acts occurred?
14 Is it to testify the position of the accused in the
15 hierarchy, the position of Dragan Kolundzija? That is
16 the question that I am asking, because as the President
17 has just said, it is not a question of knowing whether
18 he was in the camp or not but rather what his
19 composition was in the hierarchy among the guards of
20 the camp.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, with respect to
22 his position in the camp, yes, the witnesses can attest
23 to that. The question of what command and control he
24 had would, I submit, be fully explored as a matter for
25 trial. But these witnesses are witnesses who were
1 brought here for the purposes of doing two things; one,
2 saying that there was, in fact, a person called
3 Kolundzija in the camp who was referred to by the
4 street name or nickname of Kole, and in our submission
5 we anticipate that these witnesses will be able to say
6 that the person in the dock is indeed that person,
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic, do you want to say
9 anything more?
10 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honours, two
12 We cannot anticipate or speculate who the
13 Prosecutor is looking to indict. In their very own
14 indictment, they suggest that 80 to 100 soldiers were
15 brought in on the one night that my client is being
16 accused of, on that one evening on July 24th; 80 to 100
18 They've established, by their very own
19 affidavits, by their very own submissions, that there
20 was, at the very least, one other Kolundzija there.
21 It's not our burden of proof.
22 But what I would like to point out to the
23 panel today is that if you just compare briefly the
24 first two affidavits, and if you look to the gentleman
25 by the name of Fikret Alukic in Mr. Dominik Jonathan
1 Pierre Smyth's affidavit, Mr. Alukic cannot identify
2 Mr. Kolundzija. He in fact, on the second page of the
3 affidavit, states he did not recognise the man on the
4 right of the photograph. We know, without looking at
5 the photograph, that the man on the right of the
6 photograph, according to their own witness above that,
7 Mr. Varmaz, was purportedly Mr. Kolundzija.
8 Compare that, Your Honours, with two days
9 later the purported sworn statement and affidavit which
10 all of a sudden Mr. Alukic recognises Mr. Kolundzija,
11 and he recognises him how? The distinguishing factors
12 are relatively clear, because it states in the first
13 paragraph, or I should say in the third paragraph, that
14 he knew who Kolundzija was. That entire process, we
15 submit, was poisoned, that newspapers were submitted to
16 these witnesses.
17 So on June 4th, a witness cannot recognise
18 Mr. Kolundzija in a photograph. The same photograph
19 and summary is presented to him two days later, and
20 apparently he can identify him with relative ease. Not
21 only can he identify him in the photograph, but in the
22 second affidavit he can now identify who he is and that
23 he saw him at the camp.
24 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry, I'm not with you on
1 I've got the affidavit of Mr. Smyth, and that
2 refers, first of all, to somebody called Suad Varmaz,
3 who looked at a photograph apparently of your client
4 and said that he was 100-per-cent sure. There is then
5 a reference to Fikret Alukic, who was not sure.
6 Now what are you referring to after that,
7 Mr. Ostojic?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: In the second affidavit that
9 was submitted, I think it's appendix B or annex B, as
10 they've identified it, is the affidavit of a Hans
11 Oelvebro, O-e-l-v-e-b-r-o. In this second affidavit
12 again, these witnesses in Sanski Most, two days later
13 apparently were asked to identify Mr. Kolundzija.
14 Before I go into that detail, remember
15 Mr. Varmaz's statement --
16 JUDGE MAY: But are you really disputing that
17 this is Kole?
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I missed the question, Your
20 JUDGE MAY: Are you disputing that the man
21 here is Kole, that that's his nickname?
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, my client's
23 nickname is Kole, as I say he was, but I would hate to
24 see any judicial system indictment or convict an
25 individual because someone has attributed a nickname to
1 him or has called him something that isn't by his right
2 and full name.
3 Respectfully, I'm submitting this to the
4 Court, and if you examine just these two affidavits,
5 you'll see conspicuously missing from the first
6 affidavit of Mr. Smyth, and I apologise if I'm
7 mispronouncing his name, he doesn't put Mr. Kolundzija
8 at the camp. Subsequent to that, according to Mr. Hans
9 Oelvebro, both witnesses clearly identify him in the
10 photograph, and then they add the additional verbiage,
11 which we think is suspect, as I mentioned before, and
12 for those reasons.
13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) Excuse me,
14 Mr. Ostojic. He also identified him as a shift
15 commander of the Keraterm camp in 1992. This is what
16 we find in the affidavit, not only as Dragan Kolundzija
17 but also as shift commander of the Keraterm camp in
19 MR. OSTOJIC: What affidavit are you
20 referring to?
21 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) The one that
22 you yourself referred to, Hans Oelvebro, signed on the
23 18th of June, 1999.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I recognise, Your Honour, that
25 the affidavit does point that out, my point being that
1 if we simply compare the two affidavits, they are
2 inconsistent. They are fraught with errors, and
3 there's flaws within those affidavits.
4 It is not logical, and common sense would
5 dictate to us, that if two days before an individual
6 cannot identify someone, and subsequent to that they
7 are offered newspapers, as we know from the subsequent
8 affidavits, and the individual who was enquiring of
9 those witnesses knows the identity of the person in the
10 photograph, that we should not in this proceeding or in
11 any criminal proceeding accept that affidavit as being
13 If you look at Mr. Smyth's affidavit, it is
14 clear and concise and very lengthy. It says, "I did
15 not know the identity of the individuals," and he gives
16 his honest statement, what Mr. Varmaz said. He does
17 not, at any time, mention Mr. Kolundzija in the camp at
18 all, and that was my point.
19 JUDGE MAY: So, Mr. Ostojic, before you sit
20 down, let me see what you're submitting.
21 You're submitting that this accused,
22 according to Mr. Vucicevic in his document, was a
23 member of the reserve police unit in Keraterm, has the
24 nickname Kole, as alleged in the indictment, but you're
25 submitting that at this stage, before a trial, we ought
1 effectively to find him not guilty and release him?
2 MR. OSTOJIC: It would please us most
3 definitely, Your Honour. However, that's not our
4 request, and I think it would be premature.
5 What I believe is that the Prosecutor
6 correctly identified their burden of proof and said,
7 "Before we can go forward," acknowledging that there
8 are at least two individuals with similar if not
9 identical names, that they carry the burden of proof,
10 not Mr. Vucicevic, not myself, nor my client, but the
11 Prosecution carries the burden of proof to establish
12 that the person they are alleging in this complaint is
13 truly this individual. And by their submissions, I'm
14 offering to this panel that they failed in their burden
15 and they did not meet that burden, by the very fact
16 that the affidavits are inconsistent, by the very fact
17 that the affidavits are flawed, by the very fact that
18 the affidavits are poisoned by the process in which the
19 affiants admit themselves they were requesting the
20 identity of the persons in the photograph.
21 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ostojic, but statements
23 on behalf of the Prosecution in cases of this kind are
24 quite often flawed and contradictory, but that doesn't
25 mean that you don't go to trial. It's at trial that you
1 settle those contradictions to a degree where you are
2 satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not at
3 that stage here.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I agree with you, Your Honour,
5 but my point, if I can clarify, is that they have the
6 burden to establish a prima facie case. From the
7 documents and submissions they've tendered to us, I do
8 not believe that they have met their burden. I simply
9 do not believe that, not because they are inconsistent
10 but because they are inconsistent, and, because of the
11 process in which the identification was made by all the
12 other affiants except for Mr. Dominik Smyth, and a
13 careful review of those affidavits clearly show us that
14 the witnesses, when asked to identify, were given
15 newspaper articles showing that there was an indictment
16 of a gentleman by the name of Kolundzija, showing and
17 identifying that this gentleman was in the camp that is
18 at issue here, so those, in and of themselves, are so
19 flawed that it should not be permitted in a criminal
20 proceeding, much less in this honourable proceeding
22 The only affidavit, as I mentioned earlier,
23 that may have some credibility is Mr. Smyth, for the
24 reasons as I indicated, but taking that affidavit alone
25 and applying it to the indictment, we cannot see
1 anywhere in the affidavit of Mr. Smyth where he or any
2 of his witnesses place Mr. Kolundzija at the camp.
3 It's silent as to that issue. But I would agree with
4 you that the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable
5 doubt at the trial, but I would also suggest
6 respectfully that it is at this level as well.
7 Thank you.
8 (Trial Chamber confers)
9 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber will
11 --- Recess taken at 3.15 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 3.25 p.m.
13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Niemann, call your evidence.
14 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please.
15 Your Honours, I call the first witness,
16 Sulejman Crnkic. And while the witness is coming to
17 the Court, might I indicate to Your Honours that in
18 respect of the second witness that I call, I wish to
19 make an application for his evidence to not be made
20 public and for the image of the witness not to be shown
21 in public, Your Honours.
22 (Trial Chamber confers)
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll grant that
25 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
4 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, if you'd like to take a
8 WITNESS: SULEJMAN CRNKIC
9 Examined by Mr. Niemann:
10 Q. Would you please state your full name?
11 A. Sulejman Crnkic.
12 Q. And where were you born, Mr. Crnkic?
13 A. In Prijedor.
14 Q. And what was your date of birth?
15 A. 1956.
16 Q. And up to the period of 1992, where did you
17 live for all of your life?
18 A. Prijedor.
19 Q. And was that in the Prijedor opstina or in
20 the city of Prijedor?
21 A. In the city of Prijedor.
22 Q. And during that period of time, did you come
23 to know a number of the people who lived in and around
24 the Prijedor city area?
25 A. I did.
1 Q. And would it be true to say that you knew a
2 lot of people in that town?
3 A. Yes, it would.
4 Q. And during the period of time that you lived
5 in Prijedor, up until 1992, did you come to know the
6 person who had a nickname, "Kole"?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. And can you tell Their Honours how it is that
9 you knew this person with that name, "Kole"?
10 A. I met him in town, as I did all other
11 colleagues, passing by. We didn't have any personal
13 Q. Perhaps, would it be fair to say that he was
14 a person you knew of, more than that you knew
16 A. Yes, it would.
17 Q. Now, during the course of 1992, in fact in
18 May of 1992, were you arrested?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. And upon your arrest, where were you taken?
21 A. I was taken to Keraterm.
22 Q. And where were you confined in Keraterm?
23 A. I was confined in room number 2.
24 Q. Now, immediately upon your arrival, was it
25 possible for you to move freely about the Keraterm
2 A. Upon my arrival, it was not possible at
3 first, freely. Only when people had to go to the
5 Q. But did that situation change some eight days
6 later? That is, your ability to move about?
7 A. Yes. After interrogation I was moved to
8 number 1, and I had greater freedom there, freedom of
10 Q. And following your interrogation, some eight
11 days later, were you then able to make observations of
12 who were people that were guards in the camp and other
13 such officials?
14 A. Yes, one could observe them. They were all
15 people we knew from Prijedor and the surroundings.
16 Q. Now, the person that you described a moment
17 ago as "Kole," did you at any stage see that person in
18 Keraterm camp?
19 A. Yes. After a certain amount of time, walking
20 around, I saw him, among others.
21 Q. And did you ever have occasion to speak to
22 him while you were in the Keraterm camp?
23 A. On a couple of occasions we exchanged a few
24 words in passing. Nothing personal.
25 Q. Now, this person, "Kole," did you know his
1 name, his proper name, prior to going into the Keraterm
3 A. No, I didn't know.
4 Q. Now, when in Keraterm camp did you
5 subsequently discover his name?
6 A. I learnt it from colleagues who were there
7 with me and who knew him.
8 Q. Did you know this person -- and what name
9 were you given for "Kole"?
10 A. His name was Dragan Kolundzija.
11 Q. And do you know what position or status he
12 had when he was in the camp at Keraterm while you were
14 A. He was the leader of a shift.
15 Q. Now, after you were subsequently released
16 from the Keraterm camp, did you ever see or meet this
17 person, Dragan Kolundzija, again?
18 A. Yes, I met him in Brcko, in the street. I
19 think he was in the communications company. It was a
20 building that was used as a command building.
21 Q. And what was he doing at the time when you
22 met him on the next occasion, in Brcko?
23 A. In Brcko was the front line, and he was
25 Q. Was he performing military duties, that you
1 know of?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Well, can you tell me what he was doing? If
4 you know; if you don't know, it doesn't matter.
5 A. I didn't have any contact with him. Perhaps
6 on one occasion only we exchanged a few words in
7 connection with the camp. In fact, afterwards, we just
8 said hello to each other when we passed each other,
9 "Are you tired or not," and that's all.
10 Q. Tell Their Honours about the time that you
11 discussed with him the camp. Can you firstly tell us
12 what date this was, approximately when it was, the year
13 and month?
14 A. This was in April in '94, I assume. A lot of
15 other things have become mixed up. I changed my
16 battalion, and I went to work in a work-duty unit.
17 Q. And this work-duty unit, did it go to Brcko?
18 A. Yes. Yes, the work unit did work in Brcko.
19 Q. And was it while you were performing duties
20 in the work unit that you'd seen the person "Kole" who
21 you now know as Dragan Kolundzija?
22 A. We met in the morning, when we went to work
23 on the division line.
24 Q. Would you tell Their Honours what he said to
25 you when you met, as best you can remember, what he
1 said to you?
2 A. He told me not to tell anybody that I was in
3 the camp, because there were a lot of guards on the
4 dividing line who were guards in the camp, so to tell
5 my colleagues not to tell that to anybody.
6 Q. And did you see this as being an offer of
7 help or assistance to you, to protect you?
8 A. In any case, it was protection for me and for
9 the others who were with me, so that we could know how
10 to behave ourselves.
11 Q. Now that person, "Kole," who you subsequently
12 knew as Dragan Kolundzija, who you saw before the war,
13 saw in the Keraterm camp, and then subsequently talked
14 to in Brcko, would you look around the courtroom and
15 see if you can see that person here today.
16 A. Yes, that person is sitting right there in
17 the middle, between those two gentlemen right there.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, the transcript should say
19 that the witness has identified the accused.
20 MR. NIEMANN: No further questions, Your
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ostojic?
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:
25 Q. Mr. Crnkic, when were you released from the
1 Keraterm camp?
2 A. On August 3rd, 1992.
3 Q. From August 3rd of 1992 up until April of
4 1994, did you have an occasion to see Mr. Kolundzija?
5 A. No, I didn't have any opportunity to see him.
6 Q. Prior to May of 1992, can you give us an idea
7 how many times you saw Mr. Kolundzija?
8 A. I can't really respond to that. It's a small
9 town, and we constantly meet when we're not doing any
11 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that it was
12 less than five occasions that you saw Mr. Kolundzija
13 prior to May of 1992?
14 A. Five, six times, seven.
15 Q. What is your best estimate, sir? Five, or
17 A. Five times, perhaps.
18 Q. So over what period of time would you say
19 that you had met Mr. Kolundzija's acquaintance in the
20 years prior to 1992 on those five occasions?
21 A. It was perhaps a couple of years, five or six
22 years before the war.
23 Q. Sir, do I understand your testimony that over
24 a five-to-six-year period, you had come across a
25 gentleman by the name of "Kole" on approximately five
1 or so occasions?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Sir, in April of 1994, you testified that you
4 had a conversation with Mr. Kolundzija; do you remember
5 that testimony? Who else was present during that
7 A. It wasn't a discussion. It was just in
9 Q. Okay. Thank you for correcting me. During
10 that passing in April of 1994, who else was present
11 when you exchanged pleasantries and some words?
12 A. No, colleagues who were with me there were
13 present. There were about nine or ten of us in Brcko
14 in 1994.
15 Q. Can you identify those nine or so
17 A. No, no, I couldn't.
18 Q. You don't remember any of those nine or ten
19 individuals as you sit here today?
20 A. There was one person from Prijedor, the
21 others from different municipalities, from Brcko, Banja
22 Luka, from Ljubija.
23 Q. Can you today, sir, identify the names of
24 those nine or ten individuals that were in the group
25 during this period when you and Mr. Kolundzija, in
1 April of 1994, purportedly exchanged a conversation?
2 JUDGE MAY: Well, the witness has said that
3 he can't.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may direct a question to
5 Your Honour. I thought the witness may have
6 misunderstood the question, because he subsequently
7 identified where the witnesses were from, and he
8 mentioned a couple of cities and villages. So I was
9 just restating it in the event that he may have
10 misunderstood it, because his response was actually not
11 responsive, so I put the question to him again for that
12 very reason. So I just needed clarification on that.
13 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think you have it. The
14 answer is, "No."
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. What, if anything, did you respond to
17 Mr. Kolundzija in April of 1994?
18 A. I just said once that I didn't know anybody
19 and that nobody knew, and that I wasn't going to tell
20 anybody about it.
21 Q. Subsequently, sir, did you tell anyone about
22 this conversation, other than here today?
23 A. The only thing that I said to those boys who
24 were with me was that if anybody is in the camp, don't
25 tell anybody about it.
1 Q. [Inaudible]
2 A. No.
3 Q. Sir, do you remember what occurred in June of
5 JUDGE MAY: What does that question mean?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I can restate it, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Make it clear.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise.
9 Q. Can you tell us, in June of 1992, what your
10 day-to-day activities were, if you recall?
11 A. I was in the camp. We were walking around,
12 sitting around. Sometimes it was interesting. Many
13 people were beaten up. We were trying to stay alive,
14 to stay out of the way.
15 Q. When you say, "We were walking around," who
16 are you referring to?
17 A. I mean all the people who were in the camp.
18 Q. [Inaudible]... 1992, I believe the Prosecutor
19 asked you approximately eight days upon your arrest,
20 that you saw Kole walking around; correct?
21 A. On May 31st, I was brought to the camp.
22 Q. [Inaudible]... days after May 31st of 1992?
23 A. Yes. I was in one room. They took me for
24 interrogation. From that room, they would take us out
25 only to go to the toilet.
1 Q. You mentioned, sir, a room, that you were
2 detained in room number 2; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. During your entire stay at the Keraterm camp,
5 were you detained in room number 2?
6 A. Only the first eight days that I was in the
8 Q. Subsequently, sir, where were you detained?
9 A. In room number 1.
10 Q. So is it fair to say, sir, from approximately
11 June of 1992, through and including the date of your
12 release August 2nd, 1992, you were detained in room
13 number 2? I mean room number 1.
14 I'm sorry, strike that. If I can repeat the
16 Sir, is it fair to state that from June 8th,
17 approximately, 1992, through August 3rd, 1992, you were
18 detained in the Keraterm camp in room number 1?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Since April of 1994, can you tell us how many
21 times you either saw, exchanged pleasantries, or had a
22 discussion with Mr. Kolundzija?
23 A. When we went to the front line, we would pass
24 by the command, by the headquarters where they were.
25 That was from the period of April 1994 up until perhaps
1 May or April '95. We would meet every time that he was
2 on the shift.
3 Q. Other than -- pardon me.
4 A. Every 15 days.
5 Q. Up until when, sir?
6 A. I worked for about six months there in that
8 Q. Sir, are you calculating six months from
9 April of '94, or if you could estimate for me, when was
10 the last time that you saw Mr. Kolundzija?
11 A. I can't really tell you when was the last
12 time that I saw him.
13 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that it's been
14 approximately three to five years since the last time
15 you saw Mr. Kolundzija?
16 A. From which period?
17 Q. If we would go back three to five years, can
18 we agree, or if you can just tell us what you recall,
19 when was the last time that you saw Mr. Kolundzija,
20 other than here today?
21 A. I didn't see him after that period at all.
22 Q. So approximately April 1994 and possibly the
23 six months thereafter, you had not seen Mr. Kolundzija;
25 A. Later, no.
1 Q. Can you explain to me, then, because I do not
2 understand when the last date was when you saw him.
3 A. This is very hard to say, because I was
4 constantly there for about six or seven months and I
5 wasn't going home, I didn't go home at all, so it's
6 very difficult to connect that time with the present.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, sir. That's all the
8 questions I have.
9 JUDGE MAY: Any re-examination?
10 MR. NIEMANN: No, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Crnkic, that concludes your
12 evidence. Thank you for coming to the International
13 Tribunal to give evidence. You are released.
14 (The witness withdrew)
15 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, with respect to
16 the next witness, I ask that his testimony not be made
18 JUDGE MAY: Are you asking for a closed
20 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
22 (Closed session)
13 pages 46-61 redacted – closed session
21 (Open session)
22 JUDGE MAY: At this stage of the proceedings,
23 we only need rule as follows: Having heard and seen
24 the witnesses called by the Prosecution, we are
25 satisfied that Dragan Kolundzija, the person remanded,
1 is the accused named in the indictment.
2 Now that we are here, although time is short,
3 Mr. Niemann, it may be helpful to consider the future
4 progress of the case.
5 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please: Your
6 Honours, on the last occasion I did indicate to you
7 that we would be seeking to amend the indictment
8 because of the errors in it, but in addition to that,
9 we would be seeking to have this indictment joined with
10 the indictment of Kvocka and others. Your Honours,
11 last Friday we filed an amendment to the indictment
12 with His Honour Judge Vohrah. His Honour is
13 considering that amendment to the indictment at this
15 Your Honours, with respect to where we go
16 from here, it seems to me that there are two courses
17 open, and I'm in Your Honours' hands as to which course
18 Your Honours prefer. If, Your Honours, the reference
19 to the date of birth, the place of birth, and the
20 spelling in the original indictment -- and that's the
21 indictment of Sikirica and others -- is not put to this
22 accused, then it seems to me that he could be read
23 those charges and could plead to that indictment, and
24 then the amendment could take its course, and if
25 confirmed by His Honour Judge Vohrah, that new
1 indictment would come back, and this accused would be
2 asked to plead to that indictment.
3 That's one course that could occur, Your
4 Honours, but I think it would be important that the
5 incorrect date of birth, place of birth, and spelling
6 of the name be not put to this accused if that plea is
8 Alternatively, Your Honours, it's hard -- I'm
9 not in a position to assist the Chamber with respect to
10 when the other indictment would be ready, if indeed it
11 is confirmed by His Honour Judge Vohrah. I can say
12 that there's not a lot of new material, so although
13 these confirmation processes can be burdensome at
14 times, this particular indictment is not on the extreme
15 end of that process in terms of material and reading
16 that has to be done, but nevertheless the process must
17 take place.
18 It seems to me that if that indictment were
19 to be ready within one or two weeks, and as I say, I
20 just can't tell Your Honours when that's going to be,
21 then the accused could be brought back, those charges
22 could be read to him from the new indictment, and he
23 can plead to it. That would obviate the necessity of
24 having two initial appearances. The Prosecution is
25 content with whichever course Your Honour chooses or
1 prefers to take.
2 JUDGE MAY: So if the indictment were
3 amended, it would seem preferable for the accused to
4 plead to the amended indictment and in correct form.
5 That should be done within 30 days of the initial
7 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, and if it's not confirmed
8 in that period, we would have to come back and present
9 the old Sikirica indictment.
10 My concern, Your Honour, is about putting to
11 this accused information which is proven incorrect and
12 the difficulty associated with that.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
14 (Trial Chamber deliberates)
15 JUDGE MAY: The date we have in mind for the
16 accused to plead to the indictment would be Tuesday,
17 the 13th of July, it being the amended indictment, it's
18 to be hoped, which will by then be ready.
19 The other matter, Mr. Niemann, is the
20 question of joinder.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MAY: I don't know what consideration
23 is being given to that at the moment.
24 JUDGE BENNOUNA: (Interpretation) There's no
1 JUDGE MAY: There's no transcript coming up
2 on the screen, but I think we can go on to deal with
3 these matters.
4 One consideration is the effect of joining
5 this case to Kvocka, the effect on that trial.
6 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honours. Under the
7 Rules, it's not, as I understand it, an application
8 that we make to Your Honours in relation to joinder, as
9 such, at this stage. As I have interpreted the Rules,
10 at this stage of the proceedings we approach the
11 confirming Judge for an amendment. Then after that,
12 the Defence presumably would make an application for
13 severance if they were unhappy with the fact that the
14 indictment is joined. I did examine this issue, Your
15 Honour, before we went down this road. Our intention
16 was to join it to the Kvocka indictment and to make the
17 amendment for that purpose.
18 As Your Honours know, we had to have an
19 amendment anyway, the indictment had to be amended,
20 which was to join it to the Kvocka indictment so we
21 could have the one trial, thus obviating the necessity
22 for two trials, and so we proceeded on the basis that
23 we would have this indictment against this accused form
24 part of the Kvocka indictment, and that's the
25 application that is now before His Honour
1 Judge Vohrah.
2 Presumably, if the Defence find that
3 objectionable, they might bring an application for
4 severance and, in so doing, would ventilate all issues
5 which concern them. And indeed the other parties to
6 the Kvocka indictment could join in that, if they so
7 wished. That would also permit ventilation of the
8 issue of whether or not the Kvocka indictment will in
9 any way be delayed.
10 In our submission, there's no reason why that
11 should happen. It's not the eve of the trial, and I
12 don't want to argue the point now, Your Honour, but
13 it's not the eve of the trial and so we, ourselves,
14 proceeded on the assumption that we wouldn't be unduly
15 delaying the trial. In the event that that would have
16 been the case, we might have taken a different view of
17 it, but that was the position we took at the time.
18 But I don't think that it can happen any
19 other way in this jurisdiction, where the application
20 is adjourned, is dealt with as an issue before the
21 trial, but I may be wrong on that, Your Honour. But
22 that was my interpretation of the Rules.
23 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Ostojic, is there
24 anything you want to say?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not sure if the time is
1 appropriate. We would strenuously object to the
2 Prosecutor's attempt to file an oral motion in joinder
3 with the other matter.
4 As this panel knows, there were two entirely
5 different camps. There is absolutely no mixture of the
6 witnesses, no commonality of any of the factors that we
7 would normally find in a motion such as this.
8 I would just request this panel, if you're
9 entertaining that, that you give us an ample
10 opportunity so that we may brief it and address it
11 fully to you.
12 JUDGE MAY: At this stage, there's no such
13 motion before the Chamber. If one comes, of course you
14 will have the opportunity to deal with it or to apply,
15 if necessary, for severance.
16 If there are no other matters, there simply
17 remains two matters for me to deal with.
18 First of all, dealing with the accused, he
19 will be detained in the detention unit until further
21 This matter will be adjourned until the 13th
22 of July, 2.30, for the accused to plead to the
24 Very well.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
1 4.30 p.m., to be reconvened on
2 Tuesday, the 13th day of July, 1999,
3 at 2.30 p.m.