1 Wednesday, 07 November 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Milan Simic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
9 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav
10 Tadic and Simo Zaric.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, cross-examination, Mr. Zecevic, continuing?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just before I start, I have another 15
13 minutes maximum of cross-examination, but one thing, the matter came up
14 yesterday, when I talked to my client. Actually, my client was asking me
15 what is the difference between the direct evidence versus indirect
16 evidence against him, and I would like guidance by this Honourable Trial
17 Chamber in this respect, because my client heard that we were talking
18 about direct and indirect evidence, and I would like to know what is the
19 position of this Honourable Trial Chamber in this respect so I can tell
20 that to my client in order that I preserve that he knowingly waives his
21 right to be here.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think that will be dealt with later, if we
23 can finish the cross-examination of Mr. Tihic, because that was not the
24 basis of his asking for rest today.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: No. I understand completely. But we were talking
1 about his absence on previous occasions, Your Honours, in that case, I
2 will have just for the record, I will have to object before I -- object on
3 this before I inform my client about the indirect versus direct
5 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I don't think you should worry about that
6 because the Trial Chamber is equally concerned about his rights.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I know, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: And about not undermining his rights in any way.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: In fact, there are so many things we are trying to
11 do with the administration.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: To try to make it possible for him to be in the
14 courtroom as much as possible.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I understand, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Because we wouldn't like his health to break down
17 because that means we can't go on.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: We neither, but at the same time we have the
19 obligation to preserve the best interests of our client.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I understand that. So we will deal with that
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 WITNESS: SULEJMAN TIHIC [Resumed]
24 (Witness answered through interpreter)
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tihic.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. Mr. Tihic, yesterday afternoon, we finished by discussing a
4 document that you were unable to identify, if you recall?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to ask the usher's
7 assistance. [In English] And I'd like D9/2 ter. If you can show the
8 original to the witness and the English version on the ELMO, please.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, do you recognise this document?
10 A. I remember the contents, roughly, of this, that although the
11 document appears to me to be a little -- there's no stamp, there's no
12 signature, but I do remember the contents and I do remember telling my
13 secretary to compile something like this. But as a rule, the document had
14 to have a letterhead, the proper letterhead, and a stamp, and usually a
15 signature. But, as I say, I called up my secretary and told her to write
16 a certificate of this kind. Although, as I say, I don't know if it's
17 authentic, because there's no logo, letterhead, and stamp, but I do recall
18 the contents and I do remember telling her to write something along those
19 lines. So what I'm saying is I can't authenticate the document, but I do
20 remember saying that something along these lines should be written.
21 Q. So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you
22 issued orders to your secretary to write a document with the following
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So as far as the contents in this document, that is not being
1 contested; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Tell me now, please, Mr. Tihic: The signatory is the SDA
4 Municipal Board, Bosanski Samac; is that right?
5 A. Well, there should have been the party emblem first and then it
6 should say "the President" usually. But yes, it does say "SDA Municipal
7 Board, Bosanski Samac." You're right.
8 Q. You know Fuad Jasenica, do you not?
9 A. Yes. It's a cousin of mine.
10 Q. And Ibrahim Salkic, you also know him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And he was a member of the SDA, was he not?
13 A. Yes, he was.
14 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Tihic: What kind of equipment are we talking
15 about here?
16 A. Well, the two of them, or one of them -- I think Fuad came and
17 said that he had a connection of some kind in Croatia and that he could
18 procure some weapons but that he would need a certificate to prove that he
19 was there on behalf of someone, that he had been sent on someone's
20 behalf. And first of all, I was a little doubtful whether I should issue
21 a certificate of this kind, because Fuad was a young man; he was a taxi
22 driver; he didn't hold a post, position of any kind. But in view of the
23 situation that prevailed in Samac at the time, everybody had weapons,
24 especially the Serbs. They had a lot. We didn't have much. But I said,
25 "Well, let me write a certificate. Perhaps something will come of it."
1 Not much time went by, perhaps a day or two, and I received
2 information that they had brought in, I think, 50 automatic rifles, and I
3 told them to take them off to the Territorial Defence headquarters in
4 Bosanski Samac, which had been set up two or three days prior to that. So
5 that those weapons were taken there straight away, and I assume that they
6 were distributed later on, in part at least. Perhaps something had
7 remained. That's as far as I remember.
8 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Tihic: If you recall, were those weapons
9 from Slavonski Brod?
10 A. From Croatia, probably Slavonski Brod or Djakovo. I can't
11 remember which.
12 Q. In your book, you write that there were 50 automatic rifles, 2
13 mortars, a few Zolja rocket launchers and some ammunition.
14 A. Later on the Chief of Staff informed me of the contents, and if I
15 wrote that down, then that's what it probably was. But it was handed over
16 to the TO, to their warehouse, and they made a list of it. They
17 registered and recorded what had been handed over to them. That's what I
18 was told, at least.
19 Q. Tell me, Mr. Tihic: You mentioned having given orders to your
20 secretary to type out a certificate with these contents. Do you allow for
21 the possibility that the document you have in front of you is actually the
22 copy that was kept in the archive, a copy of that original document which
23 was later stored in the archive?
24 A. I'm not quite sure. I can't be sure, because I would have had to
25 sign a certificate of this kind. It was a serious certificate and it
1 would have had to have been signed. Now, this isn't. This piece of paper
2 isn't signed. But as I say, I don't challenge the contents, but whether
3 that is the actual piece of paper and certificate, I don't know, because
4 they're not -- it's not logical that it doesn't have a letterhead, a logo,
5 it doesn't say "the President" at the bottom, and it hasn't got a
6 signature. So possibly, but I'm not sure.
7 Q. That's what I'm asking you: Is it possible?
8 A. Yes, it is possible.
9 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, Mr. Tihic: The original copy of that
10 certificate was, I suppose, handed over to Suad [as interpreted] Jasenica
11 and Ibrahim Salkic for them to be able to pick up the weapons; is that
13 A. Well, as I heard from them later on, they didn't actually need the
14 certificate, so they didn't hand it over.
15 Q. But it was probably given to them, handed over to them?
16 A. Yes, I assume that it was given to them, because they had asked
17 for it, but they said that it served no purpose and they didn't need it
18 after all.
19 Q. Thank you. Tell me, Mr. Tihic: Do you know why Fuad Jasenica
20 came to you to ask for a certificate and not the chief of the TO?
21 Because, as you say, the TO had been established three days prior to his
22 coming to ask you for the certificate.
23 A. Well, I don't know when he actually asked me for it.
24 Q. It says the 14th of April on the certificate.
25 A. Well, whether the TO had been established then, I'm not sure, but
1 if it was the 14th, then, yes, I think the TO had been set up. I don't
2 know why he asked me before he asked the TO headquarters. Perhaps he
3 didn't know that the TO headquarters had in fact been established at that
4 particular moment because it hadn't perhaps been publicly announced yet.
5 I don't know.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Please bear with me, Your Honours.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we would like, Your Honours, to move
9 this document into evidence, because if the Prosecutor is not objecting,
10 since the witness has certified about the contents of the document --
11 testified about the contents of the document.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me hear the Prosecution.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Yes. They had ID numbers.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, D9/2 ter. And there is an unofficial
16 translation. When the document is translated by the official translators,
17 then we will provide the registry with the English -- official English
18 translation whenever it's going to be available.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number formally pronounced, please,
20 as exhibits now.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D9/2 ter and D9/2.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Proceed.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Just one more question.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Would you please take a look at the document you
25 were looking at yesterday, with respect to Hasan Bicic.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And could we have the usher's
2 assistance to hand [In English] D3/2 ter ID, the document which was handed
3 to the witness yesterday?
4 Q. [Interpretation] Tell me, please, Mr. Tihic, the document you have
5 before you, and the document you looked at a moment ago related to Fuad
6 Jasenica and Ibrahim Salkic, they are similar in content, are they not,
7 the two documents?
8 A. They are partially similar, but the form of the two documents
9 differ considerably. Here it says, "President." There it says,
10 "Municipal Board."
11 Q. I'm asking you about the contents, not the form. Are they similar
12 in content? They are, aren't they?
13 A. Well, partially, yes.
14 Q. Tell me, Mr. Tihic, please, I assume you had somebody who replaced
15 you when you were not present yourself in Bosanski Samac, when you were
16 away somewhere, I mean within the party?
17 A. Well, I did officially have a deputy, but I was in Samac all the
19 Q. And who was that, may I ask you?
20 A. It was Izet Izetbegovic.
21 Q. I see, Izet Izetbegovic. So do you allow for the possibility that
22 somebody else from the party might have compiled this certificate for
23 Hasan Bicic, the one you're looking at now, the one you have before you?
24 A. No, I don't allow that.
25 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. He's asking for strictly
1 speculation now. "Is it possible somebody else could have done this and
2 put this document under my name?" We would object at this time.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I withdraw the question.
4 Q. [Interpretation] And tell me, please, Mr. Tihic, typing out
5 documents of this kind, the typing was done by your secretary, if I
6 understand you correctly?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you give us her name?
9 A. Her name was Hata Baraktavic.
10 Q. I see, Hata with an "H," Hata Baraktavic. Do you know where we
11 could find the lady now?
12 A. As far as I know, she lives in Zagreb somewhere. She's married
13 and lives there.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic, I have no further questions.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
17 JUDGE MUMBA: The next counsel? This is counsel for Mr. Tadic.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Krgovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tihic. My name is Dragan
21 Krgovic, and I am an attorney and Defence counsel for Mr. Tadic, and in
22 that capacity I shall be asking you a few questions. I'm going to try and
23 ask you -- put the questions to you so that you can give a yes or no
24 answer. If you're not certain or don't know, please say so. If we need
25 to get an explanation in addition to your answer to the question, then we
1 can do so, but the Prosecution can ask you again if they feel any
2 clarifications are required. So those are my instructions to you so that
3 we can move as quickly as possible.
4 Mr. Tihic, as far as I understood in the questions you have given
5 so far -- in the answers you've given so far, you lived quite near to the
6 AS Cafe; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When you went to work, you had to pass by the AS Cafe, did you
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you ever drop by into the Cafe AS?
12 A. Perhaps a couple of times.
13 Q. I'm talking about the period immediately prior to the outbreak of
14 the war.
15 A. Well, perhaps twice, yes. I would go in from time to time, once,
17 Q. Do you happen to know that the members of all ethnic groups used
18 to frequent the cafe? Are you aware of that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Which means, Mr. Omer Nalic, for example?
21 A. Well, I don't know the names, but I do know that everybody would
22 frequent the cafe and when I was there on the few occasions, yes,
23 Bosniaks, Croats.
24 Q. So it was a normal type of cafe, the kind that existed in Samac at
25 the time?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Tihic, in a statement by you a month ago, you said that you
3 met members of the JNA and 4th Detachment on a number of occasions; is
4 that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you said that you would meet them in the company of
7 Mr. Izetbegovic and other political and party functionaries, whether they
8 were alone, whether -- but you had several meetings as far as I
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Among the others, you mentioned your meetings and talks with
12 Colonel Nikolic and Colonel Djordjevic.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And with Simo Zaric, Radovan Antic.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. May we take it, then, that with those JNA representatives and 4th
17 Detachment representatives, you never had an official meeting in the Cafe
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. As far as I know, can we take it that your associates, as far as
21 you were aware, had no official meetings either with the representatives
22 of the 4th Detachment and the JNA in the AS Cafe?
23 A. No, they did not.
24 Q. Mr. Tihic, let's move on to another topic now. In your previous
25 statements before this -- and testimony before this Tribunal, you
1 mentioned that you were a member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the
2 League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You also mentioned that within the frameworks of local party,
5 Communist Party organisation, you held certain posts. Were you a member
6 of the Presidency - let me be specific - of the basic organisation of the
7 League of Communists of Samac at a given time?
8 A. I was not a member of the Presidency.
9 Q. What about some Executive Council boards, something like that?
10 A. I was in what was called the District Organisation.
11 Q. That's what I was thinking of. And it was the fourth local party
12 organisation in Samac. You previously said that you think that Miroslav
13 Tadic had been a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
14 A. Well, everybody was. Those were the times. Everybody,
15 practically everybody, was a member of the League of Communists, and
16 that's why I said that Tadic was too.
17 Q. Do you remember that within the framework of the party, the League
18 of Communists, and the functions you had, that you met Miroslav Tadic?
19 A. I don't remember. He was at the school, and I was in the local
20 party organisation. I can't quite remember.
21 Q. Do you happen to remember that earlier, before the war, legal
22 proceedings were undertaken to have him sent away from the school where he
23 was a teacher because he was not a member of the League of Communists?
24 A. I don't remember.
25 Q. Discharge him from his post at the school. Do you happen to know
1 that when the multi-party system was introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
2 when it was implemented in Samac, whether he was a member of any of the
3 parties that had been established in Bosanski Samac? I'm referring to
4 Miroslav Tadic.
5 A. No, I don't know.
6 Q. Mr. Tihic, I'm going to focus on your arrest and the time you
7 spent in detention now. You were arrested on a Saturday, which was the
8 18th of April, and you were taken to the premises of the SUP building in
9 Bosanski Samac; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. From there, you were transferred to the TO warehouse, opposite the
12 SUP building; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did I understand you correctly when you said that a whole group of
15 detainees, together with you, were transferred from the SUP building to
16 the TO warehouse?
17 A. [redacted], two Bicic brothers were transferred with me.
18 Q. And who else was there?
19 A. Just the four of us. The four of us were transferred. We were in
20 a room and we were transferred to the TO warehouse, where we encountered a
21 lot of people, 40 or 50 of them.
22 Q. And what about Mr. Ibrahim Salkic? Was he transferred with you?
23 A. No. He was just in the room with us, up on the upper floor.
24 Q. But he was in the TO?
25 A. Yes. When I arrived, Salkic was there.
1 Q. Dragan Lukac and Izet Izetbegovic were brought in later on; is
2 that right?
3 A. Yes, later on.
4 Q. And you were all put up together in the TO warehouse prior to
5 being transferred to Brcko on the 26th of April, 1992?
6 A. No. I was in the TO warehouse for two or three days and then I
7 was in a cell in the police building, police station. I was there all the
8 time. I slept in the cell. After I was taken from the TO headquarters
9 for my first interview and interrogation, they didn't take me back. They
10 put me up in a cell. There were nine of us in this cell, which was one
11 metre by a metre and a half.
12 Q. How many of you were in the cell, you say?
13 A. There were nine of us. It was a very small room.
14 Q. And when you were in the TO, there was one room?
15 A. Yes. That was a big room, a large room, 15 by 15 or 20 metres.
16 That was the size of that hall. And there were 50 or 60 of us there. I
17 don't know how many.
18 Q. Mr. Tihic, you testified on the 19th of September, 2001, before
19 this Tribunal, and you said, in response to a question from the
20 Prosecutor, although you weren't quite certain, that you think you had
21 seen Miroslav Tadic going into the TO premises where you were
22 incarcerated; is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Mr. Tihic, take a moment to recollect. The four witnesses said
25 that they did not see Miroslav Tadic, they did not see him going in. I'm
1 thinking of the brothers Bicic, Ibrahim Salkic.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, what can that question do
3 but invite this witness to speculate as to what the other witnesses said?
4 That's the whole purpose of it. There can be no other purpose. This
5 witness has got his position; they've got theirs. What's the point of
6 putting theirs to him? What's he supposed to say: "They're right,"
7 "They're wrong," "I don't know"? But he's being asked, basically, to
8 delve into their minds, explain their answers, explain their position, and
9 he can't do that. He can only explain his. And so for that reason, I
10 object to the question.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The objection is sustained.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to ask us
13 to clarify one point. In front of this same Tribunal, in this same trial,
14 on the 18th of October, during the course of the cross-examination by
15 Mr. Pantelic of Mr. Izetbegovic with respect to the trunk that was in the
16 helicopter, he wanted to show the statements of Lukac and Tihic, and my
17 colleague, Mr. di Fazio, opposed this. However, Judge Singh, on
18 page -- with respect to that request, he allowed Mr. Pantelic to be shown
19 that testimony. And when we are ascertaining facts in this Court, the
20 witnesses present their views and state the facts and we show them
21 evidence, and Mr. Zecevic showed a document to the witness. So testimony
22 by witnesses in this Court is also evidence. Now, I don't see the reason
23 why, if a witness is not certain and says he thinks, why can we not
24 present the statements of other witnesses as evidence? Because it was
25 brought out during the trial in this Court. That's what we do in my legal
1 system. And on --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. Could counsel
3 please slow down.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you slow down, please. And can one of you sit
5 down? I'm wondering what's going on.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] With respect to the same topic, the
7 same question, in the cross-examination, we were faced with a situation
8 where we could show witness testimonies of Prosecution witnesses, and it
9 was precisely Mr. Lukac and Tihic with respect to the cross-examination of
10 Mr. Izetbegovic. And now we have the same situation, and the witness has
11 said that he thinks he came. So it is witness testimony which is
12 evidence, and therefore, witness testimony of this kind, whether in a
13 direct form, by reading out the sentence, by showing the witness the
14 actual sentence or asking him in some different way, by describing what
15 the witness had said -- may I do this? We have a public trial here. All
16 the trials are on the Internet. And now we are not allowed to ascertain
17 the truth, to attempt to ascertain the truth. And it is precisely through
18 questions of this kind that we don't wish to play hide and seek. We wish
19 to place all our cards on the table. I know that the Trial Chamber will
20 see what value it's going to attach, what probative value, but we can
21 clarify a fact and not have to leave it in the air and leave it for
22 further appraisal.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Counsel, the procedure in this Tribunal, as
24 far as witnesses are concerned, whether they belong to the Defence or to
25 the Prosecution, is that you challenge the witness with his own evidence,
1 at whatever stage that evidence was taken, or the contents of a statement
2 anywhere, relevant to the issues before the Trial Chamber.
3 The other point is that when you want to challenge a witness with
4 the evidence of some other witness, you don't say to the witness: The
5 evidence of so-and-so was like this. You ask it -- you put it to him as a
6 question. So you don't -- yes. You don't make the witness describe the
7 other witness. You don't move the witness to describe the other witness
8 as perhaps having told a lie or not having observed correctly or
9 whatever. You simply say to him, "There is evidence to the effect that
10 ... What do you say to that?" All right? And then in the closing
11 arguments, that's when you now pick it up, right, the contradictions.
12 Then you use them to water down the Prosecution case.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have fully understood that. It's
14 quite clear to me, the role of the Defence and the role of all the
15 parties, notably, the role of the Trial Chamber in evaluating all evidence
16 presented. However, I thought that if the Prosecutor can be allowed to
17 show a witness statement from a previous trial or previous proceedings in
18 order to refresh someone's memory, why can't we do the same thing in order
19 to --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think that was ever done. It was
21 statements -- if I thought that was done, it must have been statements of
22 the same witness. If, at all, a transcript is shown to a witness, it must
23 be a transcript that has already been placed on record.
24 Or that is going to be placed on record. For instance, I can't
25 remember that having been done. May I ask the Prosecution?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: It was. It was the same witness's statement. I
2 wasn't providing a statement of another witness to that witness, whoever
3 it was. I can't recall which particular witness.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, that's what I recall.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: It was definitely that witness's own statement.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And like I said, you pick out what the
7 contradiction is and you put it to the witness as a question. All right?
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. We are
9 going to rephrase our question now. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can proceed.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Tihic, while you were at the TO, from the place where you
13 were, could you always see people entering the room?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you have to get up when somebody entered the room?
16 A. During the first days, when they would tell us to get up, we'd get
17 up, but I do not recall us getting up automatically.
18 Q. You described the beatings at the Territorial Defence in detail in
19 your statement, who beat who and who was beaten, that is to say that that
20 could be seen; is that right?
21 A. Yes. Of course it could be seen.
22 Q. These beatings could be seen quite clearly by the others as well,
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Like the Bicic brothers, Ibrahim Salkic, everybody else who was
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You mentioned that the local Serbs walked into the TO. I'm not
4 referring to the Serbs who beat you.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. At what time of day did they come in, these local Serbs?
7 A. All day. I don't know exactly, the morning, in the afternoon, I
8 can't say. They would walk in at any time.
9 Q. In your statement given to the OTP in September and October 1994,
10 that it seemed to you that you were forgetting things so you wrote down
11 the names and events that you remember. Are those your memories?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In these memories, recollections, you never mentioned Miroslav
14 Tadic walking into the TO; isn't that right?
15 A. I don't know whether that was important. That's probably why I
16 didn't write it down. But Miroslav did go into the TO headquarters. I
17 remember that now. I remember some of the details. I can even explain
18 that to you.
19 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what the nickname Brko means
20 in our language?
21 A. Brko is a person who wears a mustache.
22 Q. So we can agree that the nickname Brko means a person who wears a
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know that that was Tadic's nickname also, that they called
1 him Miro Brko?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. In your statement to the OTP in October, and September, 1994, when
4 you describe Miroslav Tadic, you refer to him as Miroslav Tadic and Miro
5 Brko, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours. May I
8 confer just briefly with my co-counsel?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Tihic, do you remember the time of the day when Tadic walked
13 into the TO warehouse?
14 A. I can't remember. I think it was daytime. I don't know exactly
15 which time.
16 Q. So it was daytime?
17 A. It seems to me it was daytime.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to show
19 the witness his statement now, the one given to the OTP.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] On the 22nd and 23rd of September,
22 1994, and the 31st of October, 1994.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Just --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to be clear, Defence counsel. Those
25 dates, 22nd, 23rd September and 31st of October, are for one statement?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: That's what I was about to explain. That's all the
2 one statement.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please help me?
5 Q. Could you please read slowly for the interpreters this part that
6 starts, "At 10.00 p.m.," and it ends by saying, "One man named Brko would
7 come in."
8 A. "At 10.00 p.m. they took us out of the police station to the
9 headquarters of the Territorial Defence, to a warehouse across the street
10 from the police station. There were about 50 people in the room. The
11 other men gave us some paper to put on the floor to sleep on, but they
12 forced us to sing Chetnik songs so no one could sleep. The guards forced
13 us to make a chorus and sing. Then they would take people and beat them
14 and they would make another chorus and beat people some more. One man
15 named 'Brko' came in."
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't need the statement any
17 more. Thank you.
18 Q. Do you still assert that it was daytime or was it like you put it
19 in your statement to the OTP that it was after 10.00 p.m.?
20 A. Possibly it was in the evening, and possibly it was on the next
21 day as well.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't object to the
23 direction that my learned friend is going in. It's quite proper, I
24 submit. But unless I'm wrong, the witness hasn't said that this is the
25 same Brko. It may or may not be, I don't know, but until that's
1 established and clear, we don't know if there is any sort of inconsistency
2 in the statement and his evidence. So that should be done first before we
3 proceed to this part to this final question, in my submission.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure the Defence counsel has understood what the
5 Prosecution is trying to say.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. As for this nickname Brko, it's the usual nickname for people who
8 wear a mustache; isn't that right?
9 A. It's not that everybody has this nickname but Miro Brko did.
10 Q. Was there another Brko?
11 A. No, no. I think that in that context it is Miro Brko that is
12 referred to.
13 Q. In all these statements given to the OTP and before this Trial
14 Chamber, you always say Miro Brko, and it is only this time that you said
15 Brko, in the statement you gave to the OTP?
16 A. I don't know. Well, that's the way it was written.
17 Q. Is it possible that there was another Brko, a guard, somebody else
18 who would come there?
19 A. No. I was just referring to Miro Brko.
20 Q. Did Miroslav Tadic walk in on his own then?
21 A. I think he walked in with someone else. I'll tell you why I
22 remember this particular event and I assert that it was him. I remember
23 that he walked in and that he shook hands with some people, and that after
24 he got out, those men in camouflage, whatever their name was, took -- came
25 in and took some of these people out, and we thought -- and beat them.
1 And Miro -- and we thought that this was a sign that Miro was giving to
2 these people who administered the beatings, by shaking these people's
3 hands. I don't know whether that really was a message that he was getting
4 across to these people who would then come in and beat these people, but
5 that is how I remember all of this, and that is why this event is so clear
6 in my mind.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel has to put his question again. The
8 interpreters cannot follow his speed.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, did you hear the -- the microphone is not
10 on and the interpreters did ask that the question be put to the witness
11 again, because they couldn't pick it up.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Did he walk in by himself?
14 A. He walked in with somebody else, either a member of the special
15 forces or someone.
16 Q. Thank you. What was he wearing?
17 A. As far as I can remember, as far as I can remember, he was wearing
18 civilian clothes.
19 Q. Thank you. When he showed up, did you comment the fact that he
20 appeared with Ibrahim Salkic, as far as you can remember?
21 A. I can't remember who I commented upon this with. I was sitting in
22 a corner with Gibic, Mersad, Ibrahim Salkic. We slept there together in a
23 corner. Possibly with him, but I can't really remember now.
24 Q. Hasan Bicic, maybe?
25 A. He was in another -- another side.
1 Q. Muhamed Bicic?
2 A. He was on another side.
3 Q. Dragan Lukac?
4 JUDGE SINGH: I think you're putting the interpreter in distress
5 as well. So please, there is no need to rush. Just pause after an answer
6 and we can understand you better, and your question too.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So you sat with Ibrahim Salkic, right? This is what I want to ask
9 you. In the TO premises, in that corner of yours, as you put it, who was
10 sitting with you, Ibrahim Salkic?
11 A. Ibrahim Salkic; Gibic, Mersad; [redacted]
13 Q. Tell me, please, how long did Miroslav Tadic stay there?
14 A. Briefly, perhaps five minutes, something like that.
15 Q. Who did he shake hands with?
16 A. I can't remember the names exactly but as soon as he walked in,
17 then on the left-hand side, perhaps two or three men who were standing
18 there, but I don't know.
19 Q. So you do not remember the names of the men that Miroslav Tadic
20 shook hands with and who were allegedly beaten after he had left?
21 A. I don't remember.
22 Q. You thought that wasn't important -- it wasn't an important thing
23 to remember?
24 A. To remember, no. It would have had to be over a thousand pages if
25 I recorded all these details.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Your Honours,
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Tihic, we're going to move on to a different topic now. You
6 are a member of the Main Board of the SDA; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know the name of Hasan Cengic?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know that Hasan Cengic was Secretary-General of the Party
11 of Democratic Action in one period of time?
12 A. Possibly he was, for a short while, but I'm not sure about that.
13 Q. Do you know that in February 1992, Hasan Cengic, at the meeting of
14 the head committee of the SDA, suggested that the MUP of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina should be put under control of the SDA?
16 A. I'm not aware of that.
17 Q. Do you know Nihad Halibegovic?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. He was one of the officials or, let's say, one of top people of
20 the SDA in that period?
21 A. At city level, possibly.
22 Q. Do you know that Halibegovic, together with a group of his
23 associates, established the first headquarters of the Patriotic League,
24 the regional headquarters for Sarajevo, on the 31st of March, 1991?
25 A. I don't know about that.
1 Q. Do you know Rusmir Mahmutcehajic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you know that in April 1992, together with Alija Izetbegovic
4 and Muhamed Cengic, he agreed to establish an organisation that could
5 instigate a revolt of the Muslim people, and in that sense he had
6 discussions with all generals of the JNA who were of Muslim ethnicity?
7 A. I don't know. I was not in such positions in the party then in
8 order to be able to know that. It is possible, but I don't know about
10 Q. Were you present at a meeting at the police building in Sarajevo
11 on the 10th of June, 1991, when the Council of National Defence of the
12 Muslim People was established?
13 A. I was not there. Izet Izetbegovic was.
14 Q. Do you know anything about that?
15 A. I know about what was discussed later, but I was not present.
16 Q. Do you know that on that occasion a proclamation was issued where,
17 under number 7, armed resistance was called for on the part of the entire
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know that at this same meeting a Council for National
21 Defence was established with 12 members?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you know the name of a certain Senad Memic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know that Senad Memic was given an assignment by the SDA
1 leadership to organise the transport of weapons from Ljubljana to the
2 B & H via Samac?
3 A. Yes. Yes. I know that he did go through Samac and that we met on
4 that occasion.
5 Q. Do you know when the truck with the weapons that Memic was driving
6 broke down in Bosanski Samac?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And then, when the weapons were being reloaded into the kombi van
9 of the veterinary station --
10 A. The truck.
11 Q. The truck. -- you got some of the weapons from this Memic?
12 A. We got 20 rifles.
13 Q. Do you know Sefer Halilovic?
14 A. I know him. Now I know him. I knew him before as well. Now I
15 know him more, of course.
16 Q. Did you read his book, "The Clever Strategy"?
17 A. I did not.
18 Q. Do you know that Sefer Halilovic was in charge of military affairs
19 in the Party of Democratic Action?
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
21 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honour, this is page 27, line 12.
22 The transcript said: "Did you read his book, 'The Clever Strategy'?" It
23 is not "clever." It's "The Cunning Strategy." So there's a big
24 difference. Thank you.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that so, Counsel? The counsel cross-examining,
1 is that the correct title?
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, the cunning/sly strategy.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can proceed.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Your answer was not registered. Do you know that Sefer Halilovic
6 was in charge of military affairs in the Party of Democratic Action?
7 A. I learned that later. At that time I did not know who was in
8 charge of that.
9 Q. Is it correct that together with him you took part in the meeting
10 of the Main Board of the SDA on Mount Igman in August 1991?
11 A. I was at Igman, but I don't know whether Sefer was there.
12 Q. At this meeting, was there a discussion on military matters, inter
14 A. This was not one of the main topics that was discussed. It was
15 basically under "other business," "miscellaneous." People were saying,
16 "So what are we going to do, President Izetbegovic? Should we be with
17 the Croats? Should we take weapons?" There were questions like this that
18 were raised, but then ultimately this was not one of the items on the
19 agenda. It was really under "other business."
20 Q. Was Izet Izetbegovic at this meeting?
21 A. Yes, he was. We were there together.
22 Q. Mr. Tihic, during your previous testimony you described a series
23 of meetings that start with the multi-party elections onwards until the
24 conflict broke out, and you made an effort to work for a peaceful
25 solution, to ease tensions in order to prevent an armed conflict from
1 breaking out; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. This was your strategy, to put it that way, some kind of policy of
5 A. I believe that there would not be a conflict, that nobody wanted a
7 Q. So we can agree that you all made an effort to ease tensions?
8 A. Some more, others less.
9 Q. We're talking about your party.
10 A. We were making an effort to ease tensions because we knew that we
11 were the weakest in comparison to all other parties, that we did not have
12 weapons, that this was in our interest.
13 Q. Mr. Tihic, the statement of Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, the president
14 of your party, that he gave and that reads as follows:
15 "I would sacrifice peace for sovereign B & H, and for this peace
16 in B & H, I would not sacrifice its sovereignty."
17 Can we agree that this kind of statement did not contribute to an
18 easing of tensions in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
19 A. If you take a statement and if you take it out of context, you
20 see, you can't really look at things that way. You cannot take things out
21 of an entity and then say that that is what it means. You have to know
22 what Izetbegovic said before that and what Izetbegovic said after that.
23 Izetbegovic made every effort in order to prevent war from breaking out.
24 He proposed a Federation. We Muslims, the SDA, were not bothered by
25 Yugoslavia. Our interest was to remain.
1 Q. I do apologise for interrupting you, but I just wanted to ask you
2 about this particular statement, and later on you will have an opportunity
3 to explain your own position. That's what has already been said to you.
4 So it is in this context that I mention this and the context in which I
5 put this question. Did this particular statement contribute to an easing
6 of growing tensions in Bosnia-Herzegovina? You can say, "No, it didn't,"
7 or "I don't know" or "I do not agree."
8 A. I do not agree, because you are putting things the wrong way.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: -- I think we're rapidly descending into a
12 political discussion here. I simply can't see the relevance of this. I
13 haven't objected to any of the questions leading up to the various party
14 machinations in respect of weapons and the existence of any sort of
15 preparations relating to war and so on, but this now is, A, involving a
16 dissertation on what President Izetbegovic said and is simply so distant
17 from the issues in the indictment that it becomes now irrelevant, and
18 that's the main basis of my objection to this question. What does it
19 matter and how is it going to assist you as to whether or not President
20 Izetbegovic's statements were appropriate at the time or not? And so for
21 that reason, I submit that we shouldn't go down this road of an analysis
22 of his pre-war position.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel?
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the purpose of my
25 question was that the witness, as a prominent political functionary and
1 the president of the Party of Democratic Action now, who has already in
2 previous testimonies given assessments and views of his political views,
3 that he could give his own opinions; not speculation, just his own
4 political opinion as to the tensions that existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina at
5 the time immediately prior to the conflict.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That he can do, but he cannot give -- ask the
7 consequences of a statement made at a political rally. It is -- the way
8 you asked the question is somehow asking him to speculate. You can only
9 ask him, "After such a statement was made, what happened, what did you
10 observe?" Because he is a fact witness. He is not a political analyst.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Indeed. If Your Honours look at the question, the
12 question is this: "Did this particular statement, that of President Alija
13 Izetbegovic, contribute to an easing of growing tensions in Bosnia and
15 Now --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Precisely.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: How is that going to assist you? If my learned
18 friend wants to look into tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina insofar as
19 they are linked to what happened in Bosanski Samac in the municipality,
20 fine, I've got no problem with that, but whether or not Alija
21 Izetbegovic's statement on this or that eased growing tensions is A,
22 speculative, and B, really remote from the issues that we have to deal
23 with. I don't see how it's going to assist us -- or the Chamber, rather.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, yes. Like I said, the witness is not a
25 political analyst. You can ask him as to what happened thereafter,
1 because he's a fact witness. He can tell us whether or not there was
2 peace. And there is relevance in the sense that we are trying also to
3 look at statehood, in which case we may be examining who was actually in
4 authority, was there law and order, who was in authority, who was in
5 office, who was in power. There is some relevance. It's just the way --
6 MR. DI FAZIO: In that sense, yes, of course, that topic
7 certainly. But whether or not what he said eased tensions or not doesn't
8 really go to that question. But my broad objection is on the grounds of
9 relevance, and I can see this rapidly descending into a quagmire of
10 political discussion that's not going to assist the Chamber, and so on
11 that basis, I object.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure counsel has got the gist of the matters
13 discussed by the prosecuting counsel, and we will avoid turning this into
14 a political discussion.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me reformulate that question, in
16 keeping with your guidance, Your Honours.
17 Q. Mr. Tihic, after this statement by Mr. Izetbegovic, what happened
18 in Bosanski Samac? Was there an easing of tensions? Did they cease? Did
19 the members of the Muslim ethnic group cease to arm themselves, or what?
20 A. Nothing special happened, nothing special.
21 Q. What happened with the process of arming that the Muslim ethnic
22 group undertook?
23 A. Well, that's -- it's debatable whether the Muslims did that or
24 not, because the Muslims were the ones that armed themselves least. All
25 the other sides had more weapons. You were able to see how many weapons
1 we were able to procure. So that statement did not affect arms, whether
2 they increased or decreased.
3 Q. May we then agree that after that statement, there was no easing
4 of tensions, but that they escalated, the conflict escalated?
5 A. Nothing special happened.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 [In English] Your Honour, I have finished my cross-examination.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. The next counsel?
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Lazarevic:
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good morning, Your Honours.
11 Good morning, Mr. Tihic.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, I am Aleksandar Lazarevic, an
13 attorney, and on behalf of the Defence of Mr. Simo Zaric, I shall be
14 asking questions in the cross-examination. However, before I start with
15 my questions, I should like, on behalf of my client, to express his
16 profound condolences and regrets for all the suffering and hardships and
17 difficulties that you had to go through during your period of
19 Having said that, may I now proceed with the cross-examination, if
20 you agree? Thank you.
21 Mr. Tihic, I should like to go back to the year 1990. At that
22 time, Bosnia and Herzegovina was called the Socialist Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina and it was still a component part of the Socialist
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? That's right, isn't it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. May we agree now that at that time, on the territory of the
2 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, federal -- the federal
3 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prevailed, as
4 well as federal laws? They were in force on the territory of the
5 republic, were they not?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I would now like to ask for the
8 assistance of Mr. Usher.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please go ahead.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, these are some sentences of the
11 federal constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
12 Serbia. I don't believe that it is necessary to tender them as evidence
13 because I believe that this full document will be tendered to the Court
14 through our expert witnesses.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just for cross-examination of this witness, and I
17 believe we just need some ID number, or maybe not, whatever you feel.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: It's usually safer to have an ID number for
19 identification purposes only, if the document is discussed by the
20 witness. I take it those are excerpts of the constitution which was in
21 force then in 1990?
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document D11/4 ter ID.
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Tihic, would you take a look at the document? It is the
1 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
2 A. Yes, I remember it. I remember this book and what it looked like,
3 the book of the constitution.
4 Q. Yes. Would you now, slowly, to facilitate the work of the
5 interpreters, read Article 237 of the constitution of the Socialist
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
7 A. "The inalienable right and duty of the nations and nationalities
8 of Yugoslavia, the working people and citizens, is to protect and defend
9 their independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the
10 constitution of the SFRY, and the social order of the Socialist Federal
11 Republic of Yugoslavia."
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. Do we agree that that is a constitutional
13 provision, the fundamental rights and duties of protecting the country,
14 the constitutional order and so on and so forth?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, would you read Article 240, please, which has also been
18 A. Article 240: "The armed forcers of the Socialist Federal Republic
19 of Yugoslavia defend the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity
20 and the social order ascertained by this constitution of the Socialist
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The armed forces of the Socialist Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia are -- make up one entity and are composed of the
23 Yugoslav People's Army as a joint armed force of all the nations and
24 nationalities and all the working people and citizens of the country, and
25 it is also composed of the Territorial Defence as the broadest form of
1 organisation of an armed, all people's or total national defence, every
2 citizen who, with arms, or in any other way, opposes attacks by members of
3 the armed forces of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
4 Q. Does that mean that the armed forces of the SFRY are composed of
5 the JNA and the TO and represent a whole, one unity? Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, could you read Article 241, please? It is a short one.
8 A. "The military obligation of citizens is general and all
10 Q. Does that mean that all military-able men, citizens, were
11 duty-bound to perform their military assignments and responsibilities and
12 obligations regardless of national, republican and religious affiliation?
13 A. The law provides for that and defines it more specifically but,
14 yes, that was the case. Perhaps there were some exceptions in the law
15 regarding people involved in religion, such as priests and so on.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tihic.
17 [In English] I have another document, and this is the code of All
18 People's Defence, and I would ask the usher to help me with this.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we leave the document, the excerpt from the
20 constitution, we haven't got the English translation.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, we haven't got it still, but we are
22 trying hard to get the full translation of all the relevant laws, codes
23 and constitutions, and we will definitely provide the Trial Chamber as
24 soon as we get all these.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Provided you don't forget to do that.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Lazarevic, what year was this constitution
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Basically, this is the constitution of Socialist
5 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia issued in 1974.
6 JUDGE SINGH: Any amendments thereafter to these particular
7 articles you read? Have they been in force since 1974?
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Just on this issue of translation -- now, in this
12 particular case, I don't think there will be any problems, because I don't
13 think I'm going to re-examine on this issue. I can't say, because I
14 haven't heard all of the evidence, but thus far, it doesn't look likely to
15 me that I'll be re-examining on this. But the question might arise in
16 future with the documents, where, if a document is produced, and I've got
17 no translation, I'm handicapped, I can't possibly re-examine on a document
18 if I don't know what it says. And so --
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: It's not causing a problem today, and I'm not
21 objecting or anything like that, but as I sit here, I was thinking to
22 myself, if I had wanted to, I wouldn't have been able to ask a single
23 question about these documents because I can't read them. You can see the
24 sort of problems.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: I've said this before, I think even in the Status
1 Conference before the trial actually started. I did say that Defence
2 counsel should provide the documents they are going to use in
3 cross-examination to the Prosecution beforehand so that they can look at
4 them, they can see what they can do with them. And if you can't get the
5 English translation, even in that case, you still give the Serbo-Croat
6 copies to the Prosecution, because they may try and get their own draft
7 translation for purposes of being able to re-examine the witness. This is
8 important, because even if it's in Serbo-Croat, at least it will be of
9 some help to the Prosecution to know that there is a document which is
10 going to be used in the trial.
11 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Lazarevic, I might just mention to you that I
12 did remember seeing a copy of a book called "The Constitutions of the
13 World." I think it's published in America, and I do not know whether this
14 particular constitution is there or not, but you just might want to look
15 up the library in Belgrade or somewhere, and you might just get the whole
16 constitution there in English.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you for instructing me, Your Honour. This
18 is the constitution that is not in force. So I will do my best to find
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document D12/4 ter ID.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Tihic, before we go on to discuss this document that -- or,
23 rather, the Law on Total National Defence or All People's Defence, I
24 should like to get a brief explanation from you. The constitution of the
25 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
1 it was in keeping with the federal constitution, was it not? It could not
2 regulate certain issues in a different manner, could it?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Could you now tell me, the document that you have before you, is
5 it the Law on Total National Defence or All People's Defence -- or part of
6 that law, to be more precise?
7 A. That's what it says, the Law on Total National Defence.
8 Q. Thank you. I apologise for the poor copy of the document, so
9 please, if you find it difficult to read something out that I'm going to
10 ask you to read, please tell me and I shall read it out for you, and you
11 will say whether you agree or not.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Counsel, what was the date when this one was
13 passed? And is it still in force?
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. It is from April 23, 1982.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it still in force?
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: No. We are talking about Bosnia, and definitely
17 it is not in power in Bosnia.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. When did it fall out? When did it stop being
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, by forming a Federal Republic of
22 Yugoslavia and by --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: It was in force during the Federation?
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: It was --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: When the SFRY existed?
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, and I'm referring to that period, in 1990 and
2 1991 and beginning of 1992.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Because this is another problem. You have indicated
4 that you are calling a constitutional law expert. Why don't we leave
5 these applicable laws and what have you to that expert? Because this is a
6 fact witness. I know that he's a lawyer, but he's not here as a legal
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. I have this in mind. What is
9 the issue of this? I am trying to build a base for some information that
10 this witness gave us through his testimony in regard to Yugoslav People's
11 Army, its relation to Territorial Defence, and for this reason I'm just
12 using portions of these documents.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because there is a danger in precisely using
14 the portions, because it's very easy to read a portion out of context.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: I can assure the Court that the full documents
16 will be tendered to the Court, so the Prosecution and the Court will have
17 these complete documents.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So that if this witness makes a mistake in
19 legal interpretation of the effect of this legislation, you can't hold him
20 to that, because he's not an expert. Because these are the dangers of
21 mixing, you know, fact witnesses with expert witnesses, the way you handle
22 the two. You understand what I'm saying? So I do hope that the way you
23 use this legislation will not --
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I understand. If you would just bear, just
25 for one minute, with me, I'll consult with my colleagues.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: -- conflict with the division of classification of
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I will try, then, to do it in some
5 easier way for the witness.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think so.
7 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Lazarevic, I'm sorry, but perhaps you may want
8 to enlighten us on what this witness' understanding is as to Territorial
9 Defence in respect of the whole Republic of Yugoslavia then,
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically, and the area around Bosanski Samac. What
11 is his understanding of that?
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, you heard the guidance of the Trial
14 Chamber, and so I'm going to ask you some questions along those lines and
15 in that way. I'm interested in some of the articles of this law which
16 bear upon the formation of the Territorial Defence, the position of the
17 Yugoslav People's Army, the relationship between the Yugoslav People's
18 Army and the Territorial Defence, so something in that realm.
19 Now, I just want to ask you: Does the law on All Peoples
20 Defence in the course of 1991 and, let us say, up until the proclamation
21 of the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and its recognition, was it
22 applied and in force on the Territorial Defence of BH?
23 A. I think it was, yes.
24 Q. Was it applied to the territory of the Bosanski Samac
25 municipality, by that same token?
1 A. Yes, certainly, in Bosanski Samac too.
2 Q. Thank you. Let us now perhaps look through some articles, a small
3 number, although I had planned to ask you some more questions in that
4 area. Could we first take a look at Article 95, point 1, para 1.
5 I'm going to ask you for your opinion. I am fully conscious of
6 the fact that you are not an expert on constitutional law, but in view of
7 the fact that you are a legal man yourself and a politician, a lawyer,
8 perhaps we can deduce something and reach some conclusions as to what was
9 written in the laws of the day and their provisions.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please speak up.
11 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. May we agree that on the basis of that particular article, Article
13 95, if it says so in that law, "Organisation, preparation, and leadership
14 of the Territorial Defence in the republics and autonomous provinces is
15 carried out by the competent organs in the republics and autonomous
16 provinces, in keeping with the constitution and the law"? Is that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And now just a brief question with respect to the following
19 article, Article 96. Would you take a look at that article, please. Does
20 it state in Article 96 that the armed forces are commanded by organs of
21 the Federation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Would you now please turn the page to Article 97,
24 where it states, in the first paragraph, the following -- would you read
25 it out, actually?
1 A. "Article 97. By decision of the Presidency of the SFRY, for
2 certain areas, unified commands may be established for units and
3 institutions of the Yugoslav People's Army and Territorial Defence."
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. This legal provision, as I understand it,
5 allows for the possibility of forming, establishing, for certain given
6 regions, a united, unique command of the Yugoslav People's Army and the
7 TO. Am I right? Do you understand it in that way too?
8 A. All these laws, and the constitution, resolve questions when you
9 are faced with a foreign enemy, when Yugoslavia is being attacked by an
10 outside enemy and not an internal one, not the settlement of internal
11 political questions. It refers to attack from outside, when Yugoslavia is
12 attacked from a foreign enemy.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous translation continues] ...
14 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think I got what you're saying. Oh, you're
15 talking about the time.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's 11.00.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. We'll have our break and resume at 11.30
19 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.31 a.m.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination is continuing.
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lazarevic, before you begin, I just thought
23 that I could be of some assistance to you. During the coffee break, I
24 laid my hands, for obvious reasons, on an English version of the 1974
25 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in its
1 entirety, which is in the library here at the ICTY. And maybe that might
2 save the expense of translation. It was published in Belgrade in 1974.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe the Prosecution can also get it right
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you. I'm grateful to Your Honour for
6 having assisted us in that way. We will make -- we will get ourselves a
7 permanent copy and keep it here. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Especially in case you wanted to raise anything with
9 the witness.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes.
11 JUDGE SINGH: I might just add that the other constitutions, I
12 think before and after 1992, are all on the Internet. You can access
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, may we proceed? Let me just ask you
16 then, without looking into this document further, does it say here that it
17 is the presidency of the SFRY that orders mobilisation?
18 A. In war, in case of immediate threat of war, and other
19 extraordinary circumstances, mobilisation of the armed forces is ordered
20 by the presidency of the SFRY.
21 Q. So that is what I underlined; is that right? Now I would like to
22 ask you to look at the last page of that document. That is the Official
23 Gazette of the SFRY, page 594, Friday, the 17th of May. Now I would like
24 to ask you to look at the right-hand column, the first paragraph from the
1 A. All right.
2 Q. Can you please read that?
3 A. "Commanders of the Territorial Defence of municipalities and other
4 socio-political communities in the republic, i.e., autonomous province,
5 shall be appointed by the commander of the Territorial Defence of the
6 republic, i.e., autonomous province. Paragraph 2 becomes -- hitherto
7 paragraph 2 becomes paragraph 3."
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question
9 because it overlapped the answer.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, you are overlapping the answers of the
11 witness so they didn't hear what you said after the witness completed his
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll have that in mind.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in your statement, you said that the
15 Yugoslav People's Army in Bosnia-Herzegovina took away the weapons of the
16 Territorial Defence. You said sometime in the beginning of 1990, if I
17 read this right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You put it that way: Taken away. Was -- these weapons that were
20 taken away from the warehouses of the TO, wasn't that done on the basis of
21 the decision of the presidency on the 29th of April, 1990?
22 A. There was probably some kind of a decision on the basis of which
23 this was taken away; however, it was taken away, and the reasons are well
25 Q. But there was a decision of the Presidency?
1 A. I imagine that there were legal grounds for that.
2 Q. The Presidency was the collective head of state of the SFRY; is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It consisted of eight members; is that right?
6 A. Yes, eight members.
7 Q. The Republic, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had its
8 representative there; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Let me just ask you something else in reference to a certain
11 fact. Do you know that the Presidency of the SFRY, on the 9th of January,
12 1991, passed an order to disband all armed units that were not within the
13 armed forces of the SFRY and organs of the Ministry of the Interior? Are
14 you aware of that decision, or rather, that order issued by the
16 A. I'm not sure. Probably something like that was adopted, but I
17 can't remember exactly. Perhaps in relation to the events in Croatia, as
18 far as I can remember now.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: One more document that I would like to show to
20 this witness, and it is just one page.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead. And before I forget, on the
22 documents, you still have the obligation to get it from the Internet and
23 hand it over to the Trial Chamber, because next time counsel may be
24 tempted to say, "Oh, the Trial Chamber can offer the documents on the
25 Internet." These are documents for your case, so you have the obligation
1 to do that.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Of course.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document D13/4 ter ID.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Tihic, is this the Official Gazette of the SFRY, number 75,
6 dated the 18th of October, 1991?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Please, could you read sentence 765 only.
9 A. "On the basis of Article 316, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of
10 the SFRY, and Article 6 of the law on All People's Defence, the Official
11 Gazette of the SFRY number 21/82 and 35/91, the Presidency of the
12 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has, at the session held on the
13 1st of October, 1991, when assessing the current political security
14 situation in the country, ascertained the existence of an immediate threat
15 of war in the SFRY. This enactment shall be published in the Official
16 Gazette of the SFRY."
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. Can we see from that that the Presidency of
18 the SFRY ascertained that there was an immediate threat of war in October
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Tihic, I would now like us to move on to
22 another subject. Can we agree that the then Socialist Federal Republic of
23 Yugoslavia was divided into military districts?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Part of Bosnia-Herzegovina and part of Croatia, up to the
1 Hungarian border, was that the 2nd Military District?
2 A. I think so.
3 Q. Was the command of the 2nd Military District in Sarajevo?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Within this 2nd Military District, was there the 17th Tuzla Corps
6 of the JNA?
7 A. There was the Tuzla Corps. I don't know whether it was the 17th
8 or something else.
9 Q. This 17th Tuzla Corps, did it form the 17th Tactical Group, with
10 its headquarters in Pelagicevo?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The next question, of course, would be whether the order of the
13 commander of the 17th Tactical Group established, inter alia, the 4th
15 A. I think it was precisely through that order. However, we thought
16 that that was illegal, because this is a form of territorial defence.
17 Q. You have already presented your point of view while giving
18 testimony. On the basis of all of this that we just agreed upon, can we
19 also agree that the 4th Detachment was a unit of the JNA?
20 A. In the military hierarchy, yes.
21 Q. Can we agree that, within this 17th Tactical Group, there were
22 four detachments?
23 A. Probably, since this was the 4th one, there were probably a 1st,
24 2nd and 3rd one as well.
25 Q. Now we are interested in the composition of these detachments.
1 Can we agree that they were established by the local population that had
2 been mobilised?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Specifically, I'm referring to the 4th Detachment now. Can we
5 agree that it was established in public?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. While giving evidence before this Trial Chamber, you mentioned
8 that Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues]... this point that
10 the 4th Detachment was established in public. Maybe it's the
11 interpretation. I don't seem to understand what that means. Maybe you
12 can ask the witness, because he said yes.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, through my next question, I was
14 trying to clarify that.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: All right, then.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Before this Tribunal, Mr. Tihic, in your
18 statement, you mentioned that Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic, at a meeting in
19 the Samac municipality, gave information about the establishment of the
20 4th Detachment; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can we agree that this was at the meeting of the council for
23 security of the municipality of Samac?
24 A. Most probably.
25 Q. Let us just clarify the situation regarding the council for
1 security of the municipality of Bosanski Samac. I am going to ask you now
2 certain things, one thing at a time, and just give me yes or no answers,
3 please. And my questions refer to who is on this council for security.
4 The president of the municipality?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The president of the executive council?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The head of the public security station, the chief of police?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The commander of the Territorial Defence headquarters?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The municipal secretary for all national defence?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In addition to them, the representatives of all the parties
15 represented in the municipal assembly?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Does that mean, then, that the municipal authorities, like all the
18 political parties, the parliamentary parties in the territory of the
19 municipality of Samac, were aware of the establishment of the 4th
21 A. Yes. Everybody was informed about this, and some opposed its
23 Q. I would like to ask you now about the command of the 4th
24 Detachment. Was it in the building of the Samac textile industry?
25 A. It was either in Tekstilac or Mladost, one of those two
1 factories. I think it was Mladost.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. As for the composition of the 4th
3 Detachment, there were Serbs, Muslims, Croats, Montenegrins, Albanians,
4 Bulgarians, in it? Briefly, members of all the ethnic groups that lived
5 in the territory of the municipality of Bosanski Samac; is that correct?
6 A. Predominantly it was Serbs, but there were also Muslims and Croats
7 and Montenegrins for sure. I don't know whether there were any Albanians.
8 Q. In your statement, you mentioned the arming of the 4th
9 Detachment. Was that also public?
10 A. As far as I was informed, at this meeting in Tekstilac, arms were
11 distributed, or some members of the 4th Detachment took weapons in their
12 cars to the homes of other members of the 4th Detachment. In other words,
13 it was known that these weapons were being distributed.
14 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask you something else. Can we
15 agree that in the mass media, the commander of the 17th Tactical Group
16 explained the role and the tasks of the JNA and the 4th Detachment?
17 A. I don't know about that.
18 Q. Are you perhaps aware of the fact that he spoke on Radio Samac, on
19 a certain programme?
20 A. I don't remember that.
21 Q. Can you also say whether it was highlighted on all occasions that
22 the reason for the existence of the 4th Detachment was to prevent
23 interethnic conflicts, to prevent the northern boundary of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to prevent the war from Croatia from spilling over
25 to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. That's what was said.
2 Q. The commander was Radovan Antic, Reserve Captain First Class; is
3 that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Jovo Savic, Reserve Captain First Class, was deputy commander for
6 Radovan Andic; is that correct?
7 A. I don't know. I know Radovan and I know Simo. As for the rest,
8 possibly may be correct.
9 Q. Simo Zaric was assistant commander for security, reporting morale
10 and information; is that correct?
11 A. That's the way he introduced himself.
12 Q. He was a Reserve Sergeant First Class; is that correct?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Vukovic, Mehmed, was he also in the command of the 4th Detachment?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Now I would like to move on to another subject. It has to do with
17 the situation in Bosanski Samac a few months before the conflict broke
18 out. Can you confirm to me that in that period, a number of incidents
19 occurred that caused anxiety among the citizens that made them feel
20 insecure and frightened?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You already mentioned some of these things in your statement, some
23 of these incidents. Now I'm going to ask you about some that were not
24 mentioned. I'm just going to ask you to confirm whether they did occur or
25 not. July 1991, the incident when the Croat army hit Pero Maksimovic from
1 a rifle when he was in his boat on the river?
2 A. I remember that.
3 Q. It was a fast boat, wasn't it, a speed boat?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Also the incident when there was shooting on the Sava bridge, a
6 certain Milos Miljic, and when he was wounded on that section of the
7 bridge that belongs to Bosnia-Herzegovina, that this incident occurred?
8 A. I know that Milos was wounded. I can't remember now how he was
9 wounded, but yes, he was wounded, and I know that he was taken to hospital
10 in Slavonski Brod.
11 Q. Also --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel and witness, please pause after the two of
13 you have spoken. You are using the same language, so you are forgetting
14 that the interpreter -- in fact, the interpreter is one and the same
15 person, interpreting the question and the answer, so please do pause.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Can you confirm for me that an incident occurred
18 in which a small church was mined at the Orthodox cemetery in Bosanski
19 Samac? According to my information, this was on the 27th of January,
21 A. It was not a church; it was a chapel. And I think that it was not
22 demolished. I think there was lesser damage.
23 Q. I asked whether it was mined.
24 A. It was not a church; it was a small chapel. It had been mined,
25 but it wasn't demolished altogether.
1 Q. Is it correct that during 1991 and in the beginning of 1992,
2 transmission lines in Samac and the surrounding area were mined several
4 A. Yes, there were such occasions. I don't know how many.
5 Q. Is it correct that the kiosk [redacted] that was in the
6 immediate vicinity of the police station had also been mined?
7 A. Yes, I think so.
8 Q. Also, finally, can you confirm that a slaughter took place on the
9 26th of March in the Serb village of Sijekovac that was carried out by the
10 HVO and the ZNG of Croatia?
11 A. I don't know about that.
12 Q. That was in the municipality of Bosanski Brod.
13 A. I don't know about that. I know that there was warfare in Brod,
14 but I don't know about the details.
15 Q. I shall agree with the statement that you made, namely, that none
16 of these cases has been solved. As for shedding more light on this, can
17 you tell me whether at that time the chief of police in Bosanski Samac was
18 Vinko Dragicevic, an ethnic Croat?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At the same time, was the chief of the crime prevention service
21 Dragan Lukac, also an ethnic Croat?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. At that time, the investigating judges of the municipal court in
24 Bosanski Samac, weren't they Seljic Zeljko and Stanic Zeljko -- Stanic
25 Zdenko. Both were ethnic Croats; right?
1 A. Yes, but the prosecutor was a Serb, and you seem to be skipping
2 things. Also, the commander of the police station was a Serb, the chief
3 of the uniformed police.
4 Q. Now I would like to go back to another event that you did not
5 mention in your testimony here before the Tribunal, and that is the event
6 that occurred on the 14th of February, 1992. It occurred at the Cafe
7 Valentino. Do you remember this?
8 A. You mean by the Dascara, this Valentino where the Dzakic house
10 Q. On that occasion, while playing with a bomb, a grenade, were two
11 young men killed, Enver Bobic and Mersad Hadzialijagic, ethnic Muslims?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And also a young girl of Serb ethnicity was severely wounded?
14 A. Yes, I remember that.
15 Q. These two young men that I mentioned, were they members of the
17 A. I don't know. Bobic's father was a member of the SDA.
18 Q. And what about the father of Hadzialijagic, that is to say,
19 Hasan? Was he a member?
20 A. No, Hasan wasn't.
21 Q. After this event there was unrest in town, was there not?
22 A. Yes, there was.
23 Q. And for the death of those two young men, Serbs of the JNA were
24 accused of the crime. Was it like that?
25 A. Well, that kind of rumour was spread, that one of the Serbs had
1 thrown a bomb or grenade into the cafe. But later on it turned out not to
2 be true, but public opinion flared as a result.
3 Q. Do you agree that in order to quieten tensions, a rally, citizens'
4 rally, was held of the local community of Bosanski Samac and that it was
5 held in the cinema hall, the kino hall?
6 A. Yes, I remember that.
7 Q. And at the rally you yourself spoke, as well as Mr. Simo Zaric and
8 some other citizens; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that took place on the 20th of March, 1992?
11 A. Possibly it could have been that date, yes.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: If Your Honours could bear with me for one second,
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Before we move on to another area, I should just like to discuss
18 one more incident. I have a few questions in that regard. I'm referring
19 to the arrest of Simo Krunic and a certain man called Sveta Mitrovic.
20 This was carried out by members of the Green Beret. Do you remember that?
21 A. I remember that they were disarmed on the bridge across the Sava
22 River. Now, who disarmed them, I don't know. They were the other side of
23 the Sava. Whether they were the Zengas, the Croatian National Guard
24 Corps, and I know that Lukac and Izetbegovic went to fetch the weapons, to
25 return them.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. I should like now to move on to another
2 topic, and that is the barricades.
3 According to what you said, Alija Fitozovic engaged your men from
4 the SDA patrol, and other citizens with arms, and they set up barricades
5 at two entrances into town. Is that what you said?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I should like to ask you something with respect to those two
8 entrances at which the barricades had been erected. Were they entrances
9 from the Serb villages of Pisari and Tisina?
10 A. They were entrances from the directions of those two villages, but
11 other villages as well. They were the only two roads leading into Samac.
12 And the Croatian villages go through that, have to pass through that
13 entrance too, people there.
14 Q. Can we also agree that the barricades were not set up at the
15 entrance from the direction of the Croatian village of Prud? Can we agree
16 to that?
17 A. Yes. It's the bridge across the Bosna River.
18 Q. The members of the reserve police force manned those barricades as
19 well? They were there?
20 A. No, I don't believe they were there. I don't know actually. I
21 didn't know about the barricades. But I don't think they were. But as I
22 say, I can't say with certainty because I wasn't there.
23 Q. Can we agree that it was because of those barricades in the
24 neighbouring Croatian villages that their armed forces were placed on the
1 A. Well, both in the Croatian and Serbian villages, both before and
2 after the barricades, there were Serbian guards, Serb guards, and Croatian
3 guards or watches. This is the only thing that the Muslims did. Now,
4 when the Serb forces were in Crkvina would levy a toll that had to be
5 paid, so it wasn't the result of those barricades, it wasn't because of
6 the barricades that the village watches or village guards were set up in
7 Croatian and Serb villages. So that was six months before. They had been
8 set up six months before. And the Serb police force separated in the
9 summer of 1991.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, if Your Honours please.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Sorry, I noticed you but I thought I should wait
13 until the answer was complete.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I'm not objecting so far, but there is talk of
15 armed forces and there seems to be something that's understood between the
16 witness and the counsel, Defence counsel, but it's not apparent to me what
17 these armed forces were, and the Chamber might be assisted to know what
18 exactly they are talking about when they refer -- when both the witness
19 and counsel refer to it. The question is: "Can we agree that it was
20 because of these barricades in the neighbouring Croatian villages that
21 their armed forces were placed on alert." I'm not sure if they are
22 talking about Croatian villages in Bosanski Samac, across the border, and
23 what are these armed forces anyway. So the Chamber might be assisted to
24 know that, I suggest.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Certainly. Maybe counsel can clarify that
1 with the witness.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
3 Q. [Interpretation] You heard the comments made by my learned
4 colleague of the Prosecution. Now, when I said "armed forces in Croatian
5 villages," can you confirm that in the Croatian villages - I'm asking you
6 about them now only, without wishing to imply anything - that there were
7 organised forces with weapons, that is to say armed?
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Again, I'm grateful to my learned friend, I think
9 we are getting there, and I'm grateful for his clarification, but we just
10 need to go a little further. I'm still not quite sure. Are we talking
11 about in Bosanski Samac or across the river in Croatia? That's all I want
12 to know. I think it's probably Bosanski Samac, but I'm just not certain,
13 and I think we should be clear.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think counsel can clarify that.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. That is exactly the point.
16 Q. [Interpretation] I am talking about the Croatian villages in the
17 environs of Bosanski Samac, the Bosanski Samac municipality, in fact.
18 A. I never saw those armed forces that you mention. I heard rumours
19 that the people were arming themselves in the Croatian villages, but that
20 I saw units or knew of their existence, I did not. Now, this reserve
21 police force probably was carrying arms when they set up the barricades,
22 and had the watch -- watches and so forth. I never saw a unit. I never
23 saw five people carrying arms.
24 Q. I have a few more questions regarding the barricades. First, the
25 individuals at the barricades, were they Muslims?
1 A. I think they were mostly Muslims, yes.
2 Q. From your testimony here before the Tribunal, I take it that they
3 were armed?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Automatic weapons?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Apart from Alija Fitozovic, whom you mentioned, were -- Ibrahim
8 Salkic, nicknamed Ibela, at the barricades, was he there?
9 A. Possibly Ibela was there.
10 Q. I'm going to ask you about a few others, if you can say whether
11 they were or were not. Osman Mesic, nicknamed Semso?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Srna Safet?
14 A. Possibly. I know for sure that Semso was there but this other
15 one, I'm not sure.
16 Q. Srna Hakija?
17 A. Possibly.
18 Q. Fuad Jasenica?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. May we agree that the police from the police station of Bosanski
21 Samac did not undertake anything with respect to those barricades, did not
22 do anything about them?
23 A. When the barricades were set up, the chief of police from Sarajevo
24 came and he was stationed at the unit on the bridge. He came and asked
25 that they be disbanded. And then I became included in the dismantling of
1 those barricades.
2 Q. What I meant was specifically whether any police action was taken
3 to disband the barricades.
4 A. Not police, but political. Political action was taken to disband
5 the barricades.
6 JUDGE SINGH: Can you explain the word "barricades"? What did it
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at the entrance into town, a
9 truck would be parked across the street, blocking traffic, and people
10 could pass. But basically it was a roadblock with a truck, and that was
11 the result of a JNA drive that night. And then these people went to these
12 -- to set up the barricade, this roadblock. This was stupid. But the
13 police in town had raised tensions. Tensions were high. And so the
14 barricades were set up which shouldn't have been.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: May I proceed?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Tihic, with respect to the immediate event -- the event that
19 took place immediately prior to the erection of the barricades, could we
20 clarify one point? Arms were taken from SDA patrols, is that what
22 A. Yes. Apart from the seizing of arms, they came to the Cafe Buco,
23 they stopped there with their jeep, and there was a demonstration of force
24 of some kind there. And in view of everything that had preceded, that had
25 gone before, the mining and so on, tensions were so high that it was easy
1 to rally people for this kind of endeavour.
2 Q. Now, I'm interested in this seizure of arms from the SDA patrols.
3 A. The weapons were in the vehicle belonging to the SDA. They didn't
4 have it outside. The weapons were in the car. And somebody said, whether
5 the people from the 4th Detachment or whoever, told the JNA patrol that
6 these guys had some weapons, and they came there, came to that car, and
7 confiscated the weapons that were in the trunk of the car.
8 Q. All I'm asking is whether the military police seized those
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, please pause. It's creating problems
11 because the transcript won't be clear. Do remember to pause.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Tihic, with respect to this incident, I was interested in one
14 particular point. Was it the military police who seized those weapons?
15 A. Yes, I was informed that it was the military police, but it was
16 the JNA, at all events.
17 Q. Let me now move on to another area which follows on from what
18 we've just been discussing. In your statement before this Trial Chamber,
19 you said that within the frameworks of the town of Samac, an agreement had
20 been reached, according to which the 4th Detachment would patrol the
21 embankment towards the rivers Sava and Bosna. Is that correct? Can you
22 confirm that?
23 A. Well, as the 4th Detachment feared an attack from the Croatians
24 from Croatia, then I think that from the Croatian Prud and perhaps others,
25 they said that if you're afraid, then your patrols should be positioned
1 along that embankment.
2 Q. Yes. Now, I'm interested in that particular agreement. Was it
3 reached at a meeting held in the local community?
4 A. Yes, the local community, a municipal facility.
5 Q. Were you present?
6 A. Yes, I was.
7 Q. Did the president of the local community council attend the
8 meeting, Safet Hadzialijagic?
9 A. I assume that Safet was there too.
10 Q. Thank you. That's what I wanted to learn. Mr. Tihic, let's move
11 on again to another area. Can you confirm the fact that between the SDA
12 and HDZ in Samac, within the frameworks of Samac, that there was daily
13 cooperation with respect to preparations for an armed conflict? Were they
14 holding daily preparations?
15 A. No, there wasn't daily cooperation.
16 Q. Mr. Tihic, I paraphrased something that you wrote down in your
17 memoirs and has to do with what took place after the barricades. You said
18 the following: "After that, we engaged in daily cooperation with the HDZ
19 for defence preparations." That's what you stress.
20 A. Well, perhaps that wasn't put in the best way, but especially
21 between the SDA and HDZ, as two parties, this cooperation did not exist in
22 defence preparations. There might have been between Alija Fitozovic and
23 Marko Bozanovic, who were in the TO staff and headquarters.
24 Q. Yes, we'll come to that. Thank you.
25 A. I couldn't cooperate because of my position as president of the
1 party, and I was opposed to cooperation just between two sides.
2 Q. Yes. We'll come to that topic.
3 On the 19th of March, 1992, you did attend the meeting in Prud,
4 did you not?
5 A. I arrived when the meeting was drawing to a close. I wasn't there
6 from the start of the meeting, because I didn't like the idea of this
7 meeting being held, but then I went to see what they were discussing.
8 Q. I'd like to ask you about some of the people who, according to my
9 information, attended that meeting. Was a man called Stjepan Blazanovic
10 there, nicknamed Blazo?
11 A. Yes. That's how he introduced himself.
12 Q. Was he there as the representative of the army of the Republic of
14 A. He's from Hasici or a village around there, and he came to
15 instruct. And as far as I was able to understand, he had fought in
16 Croatia. He had had some experience in fighting. But everything fell
17 through. Nothing came of it. I said, "There's absolutely no way that any
18 headquarters of that kind or staff could be formed," and Marko Bozanovic
19 supported me. Because it was absurd that people from outside could come
20 in and tell you about war. I wasn't about to accept any of that. I
21 didn't want any kind of crisis staff to be set up jointly between Croats
22 and Bosniaks. I said that the Serbs would have to be there too. I said
23 that loud and clear, publicly, and nothing came of that meeting. And half
24 of them were drunk anyway.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I wanted to ask you something with respect to the major there. He
3 was in the same capacity?
4 A. Yes. There were some strange stories, rumours, going around.
5 Q. The reason for the meeting, the purpose of the meeting, was to
6 found a joint crisis staff. That was the idea of the meeting; is that
8 A. Yes, that was the idea, but it didn't go through because I was
9 opposed to that idea, and so were the Croats. Marko Bozanovic was opposed
10 to the idea as well. And they couldn't wait for me to turn up to stand up
11 in opposition against the other two, because they were a little afraid to
12 stand up for themselves and present that view.
13 Q. The proposal was made at the meeting that the president of this
14 joint Crisis Staff should be Filip Evic, on behalf of the HDZ, and that
15 you should be the vice-president of that Crisis Staff, the other side?
16 A. Well, that was the proposal, but I didn't accept.
17 Q. The proposals for commanders were put forward of that Crisis
18 Staff, and those proposals were that they should be Marko Bozanovic, from
19 the HDZ side, and Alija Fitozovic on the SDA side; is that correct?
20 A. I don't remember, but I know that for the president and
21 vice-president, that was true, but I don't know about this. Possibly.
22 Possibly. I just can't remember.
23 Q. Mr. Tihic, another meeting was held, if I can say, discussing the
24 same subject, in the Croatian village of Grebnice; is that true?
25 A. I heard that a meeting was held later on, but I didn't attend it.
1 Q. And was another representative of the SDA at that meeting?
2 A. Well, it was probably Fitozovic, Alija Fitozovic. Later on I
3 heard people were saying that he had been there.
4 Q. Mr. Tihic, this brings me to my next question. Can you confirm
5 the fact that you yourself and Izet Izetbegovic, on behalf of the SDA
6 party, and Filip Evic and Mato Nujic, on behalf of the HDZ party, at your
7 own initiative, sent a proposal to the Ministry of Defence, to Mr. Jerko
8 Doko and the commander of the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
9 the effect that Marko Bozanovic should become commander of the TO staff in
10 Bosanski Samac and Alija Fitozovic should become the Chief of Staff? Can
11 you confirm that?
12 A. That proposal was sent by Mato Nujic, as president of the
13 municipality, or mayor, but I took part in discussing that agreement, and
14 the group, the team you mentioned.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: And was that on behalf of the HDZ party? That is
16 included in the question: on behalf of the HDZ party.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The proposal was sent by the
18 president of the municipality on behalf of the SDS, HDZ, and SDA, all of
19 them, as president of the Municipal Assembly, as the authorised person to
20 propose the agreement.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Tihic, the proposal to appoint as municipal commander of the
25 TO staff, the Chief of Staff -- now, is it the Municipal Assembly who is,
1 by virtue of its authority, in charge of putting forward the proposal?
2 A. Well, I don't know about the Municipal Assembly, but it is the
3 duty of the president of the municipality, or mayor, to oversee something
4 like that and confirm.
5 Q. With respect to this proposal, was a meeting held of the Municipal
7 A. As far as I know, it was not.
8 Q. Were the representatives of the other parliamentary parties in the
9 Municipal Assembly consulted?
10 A. You would have to ask Mato Nujic that. I don't know. He
11 consulted me.
12 Q. Can you confirm that this procedure was contrary to the
13 regulations that were in force at the time?
14 A. I cannot confirm or refute it.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I would like the evidence P13 and
17 P13 ter to be shown to --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness?
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- the witness, yes. B/C/S version to be given to
20 the witness and English version to the ELMO.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, this exhibit has already been shown to
22 you while you were examined by the Prosecution; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I looked carefully at the transcript. You said that the list
25 included 100 people. That's what it said in the transcript. Now, for
1 purposes of clarification, could you please take a look at the list once
3 A. The list? This is just a letter. I don't see a list. What
5 Q. If I remember correctly, the document was in two parts and there
6 was an attachment to it which was a list.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm wondering. Was there? It was produced by the
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Just off the top of my head, I can't assist the
10 Chamber. I'm asking my case manager to have a look and see if we can
11 locate our copy, but I can't answer that query just at the moment, if Your
12 Honours please. I'm sorry.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Do the Defence have a copy? We don't seem to --
14 because a list was discussed in the letter, as it is clearly shown. Does
15 the Defence have the list? Was that -- was that numbered or did it just
16 have one number? Does the registry assistant have it?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, only the letter was submitted,
18 according to our list. No attachment or list was submitted with that.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the usher show the list to the Prosecutor?
20 MR. DI FAZIO: This certainly looks very familiar to me, if Your
21 Honour pleases.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Because if it's not with the registry assistant,
23 maybe it wasn't attached, because it should have been inside the same
25 MR. DI FAZIO: One would think so, if the letter and list was --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe searching the transcript to see whether or
2 not --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I wonder if the Court could assist by telling
4 us how the exhibit is described, if there is an exhibit list how it is
5 described, as letter and list or simply as letter.
6 THE REGISTRAR: No. It is described as letter addressed by the
7 Party of Democratic Action to city command attention for the municipal
8 headquarter, dated 13 April, 1992.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Surprising that the list isn't mentioned either.
10 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. di Fazio -- [no microphone]
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, that might account for the absence of the
12 list. On the other hand, the letter also says a copy of the list is
13 enclosed so ...
14 JUDGE SINGH: [No microphone]
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, we are sorry, your microphone is not
16 on, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE SINGH: I'm so sorry, I was referring to the fourth
18 paragraph: "At your request, we shall deliver the list of individuals."
19 So the query I'm putting is, well, was it enclosed with this? Because it
20 could possibly have been awaiting the request.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, that might account for an absence.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: If the description of the exhibit is just a letter,
23 then it wasn't produced.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Does my learned friend have -- could he
25 quickly direct us to the portion in the transcript where Mr. Tihic --
1 where it was produced to Mr. Tihic, if he has his notes? If he has the
2 notes, we can quickly go back to the transcript and have a look at that,
3 and that might give us a clue as to whether it was more than just a letter
4 that was tendered at the time.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Maybe I can assist. The letter was submitted and
6 admitted on the 17th of September this year.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: So it would be the transcript of the 17th of
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe I could assist my learned colleague. It's
11 on page 1356. Thank you.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'm grateful to my learned friend.
13 That's of considerable assistance. As I read the transcript from that
14 day, it looks pretty clear to me that there was no list -- yes, yes. I've
15 found it. Page 1356, question: "The document refers to a list in the
16 first paragraph. What list was that, do you think? Because obviously
17 it's not attached to this document." So that explains it. There never
18 was a list and it's not part of the exhibit.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: So this exhibit is just a letter. But counsel -- if
20 counsel has a list which he thinks pertains to this letter, then he can
21 have it shown to the witness and deal with it in the way he thinks he
22 wants to deal with it.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE SINGH: Perhaps you may want to ask the witness if he can
25 remember if a request was received and if a list was given.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, you have heard the suggestions of the
3 Trial Chamber and the suggestion of the Honourable Judge Singh. Did you
4 attach a list?
5 A. I don't know whether a list was given, but our aim was to have all
6 armed persons and all weapons sent to the Territorial Defence. And Alija
7 Fitozovic was doing this, so he's probably the one who had the list. So
8 all of those who had weapons through the SDA, or with the assistance of
9 the SDA, were supposed to report to the Territorial Defence headquarters.
10 I assume that there was a list. I cannot claim that a list came with this
11 letter but Alija Fitozovic would be in a better position to say so.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, since now I don't have enough copies
13 of this list, the copy that I have given to the usher, if this could be
14 just shown to the witness.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe it can be -- maybe we can have it on the ELMO.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, on the ELMO, please.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: First he can look at it, because he has to look at
18 it at close range and then we can have it on the ELMO before you ask
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could not have been a list this
21 long, that's for sure, because there weren't that many weapons. This is a
22 list of organised citizens who are putting themselves at the disposal of
23 the TO headquarters. You see they were putting themselves to the disposal
24 -- at the disposal of the TO to go into units, but this was not a list of
25 those who had weapons. There weren't that many weapons. I remember that
1 the TO headquarters were supposed to get a list of those who wished to
2 join the Territorial Defence and this is probably that list. The list of
3 those who want to join the TO staff. As I said, it could have been about
4 100 rifles and the rest at the most, the 50 that came from Dzakovo, 20
5 from Senaid Memic, and 30 -- 30 of Senaid Memic and also when that truck
6 had broke down. So it could have had 100 -- there could have been 100 on
7 this list at the maximum, and here it is 220.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. 220?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have it numbered for identification purposes
12 only, please?
13 THE REGISTRAR: D14/4.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Ter, I think? Is it not in Serbo-Croat? The list
15 is in Serbo-Croat, I mean the title? Is it in English?
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: It is in B/C/S.
17 THE REGISTRAR: D14/4 ter ID.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There really are people here who
19 have nothing to do with weapons or any such thing, no way.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, if I have understood this correctly,
22 what you have been saying, namely, these are people who had put themselves
23 at the disposal of the TO?
24 A. Yes, the Territorial Defence headquarters.
25 Q. Then you said that perhaps there could have been about 100 of
1 those who had weapons, these illegal weapons, to term them that way?
2 A. I think that this is quite clear from what I have stated to date.
3 Q. Is it possible that people also had legal weapons, carbines,
4 pistols, other kinds of weapons, that were permitted, so to speak,
5 according to existing regulations?
6 A. Of course, there were hunters who had hunting rifles.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. That is the only thing I wish to ask you in
8 this connection.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I would like to tender the original
10 of this document that we have, and to have a number for it, not as
11 identification number but the evidence number, because we are going to use
12 this document in the future, during the trial.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: What do you want to tender it as? Because the
14 witness has said that list you have shown him, which has just been given
15 an ID, D14/4 ter ID, is a list of people who were volunteering to join the
16 TO, not a list discussed in P13 ter. I hope you understand that.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: That's exactly correct.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: May I ask the Prosecution?
19 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not sure what document my learned friend is
20 referring to. Is that the original of the document the witness now has
21 before him? May I ask that? So it's exactly the same as the photocopy
22 that was produced.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps the usher can collect the document and show
24 both what is described as original and the copy to the Prosecution so that
25 they can be sure what the document is.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you answer, is there anything on that
3 document which is in Serbo-Croat which --
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: -- you don't --
6 MR. DI FAZIO: The title, there are what I assume are nicknames,
7 and some street numbers, and there are other words that might be comments
8 or might be street names. I can't tell. But certainly there's a heading
9 that will have to be translated.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: No. The translation will come. But for purposes of
11 your re-examination?
12 MR. DI FAZIO: No. For purposes of my re-examination, I'm not
13 objecting to its provision in this form without a full translation at this
14 stage. It's only the title, and I can easily find out what that means.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: So it can be admitted into evidence?
16 MR. DI FAZIO: No. I'd ask that it would be --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps not now.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Not now, no. I mean, there's not much of a
19 foundation for the document at this stage. I'd ask that it be marked for
20 identification. And we've also heard from the witness that Alija
21 Fitozovic is the man who probably could tell the Chamber more about this
22 document than this particular witness. So I would ask that it simply be
23 marked for identification at this stage.
24 JUDGE SINGH: But you're satisfied that this is an original?
25 MR. DI FAZIO: It appears to me, if Your Honours please, to be an
1 original. It appears to me to be typed directly onto paper, yes.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We shall simply mark it for
3 identification. If you still wish to have it produced in evidence, you
4 have understood the points the Prosecution have raised.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: It may be, if Your Honours please, that after I've
6 had time to ascertain what I can about the history of this document,
7 because I think I've seen it before, the Prosecution may have information
8 about it that I don't have at any fingertips right now. That being the
9 case, I may withdraw my objection to it going -- to it being fully
10 admitted into evidence at a later point, but at this stage I would ask
11 simply that it be marked for identification.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's what I said, that it will be marked for
13 identification. If, at a later stage, you find out whatever you have to
14 find out and you are satisfied that it's okay, then you will raise it.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I will. Thank you. And can I ask, of course,
16 that the exhibit number be given to the original --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: The copy and the original.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Tihic, have you seen this document before during
21 the course of your work in 1992?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Tihic, I would like to move on to another subject now. These
25 are the events in the night between the 16th and 17th of April, 1992. In
1 your statement before this Tribunal, you said that around 2.00 in the
2 morning you heard gunshots, that you looked through the window and saw
3 some members of the 4th Detachment moving behind houses and trees with
4 rifles and that you recognised some of them. You also stated that some
5 were in uniform and others were in civilian clothes, and that they were
6 moving in the direction of the Bosna River. Is that correct, that that is
7 what you stated?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now I would like to put a few questions to you in connection with
10 these words of yours. This was going on during the night, right, around
11 2.30, 3.00 a.m.? That's the month of April. It's still dark during the
12 night, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If you remember, that day was a cloudy day. As a matter of fact,
15 at one point there was even a bit of snow.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You already said that these people were hiding between the houses
18 and the trees as they were moving along; is that correct?
19 A. Since my yard is wide and big, they were behind trees and things
20 like that. Some were crawling, others were hiding behind trees. But I
21 had a big light bulb outside, and that illuminated the yard very well.
22 Q. They were moving, weren't they?
23 A. Well, some were standing a bit, others were moving. And then
24 also, towards the bank of the Bosna River --
25 Q. I would like to ask you about something. You said that you
1 recognised some of them. Can you tell me who were the people you
2 recognised? Do you remember?
3 A. By sight I remember some of these people. I remember this
4 salesperson from the furniture place. I can't remember his name. And
5 then also a neighbour's son. I recognised him. Jelisije -- I can't
6 remember all these persons.
7 Q. I want to ask you something in this connection. Mr. Tihic, you
8 never saw an official list of the members of the 4th Detachment?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. You did not. Also, you never saw the 4th Detachment lined up in
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. You see, during the further proceedings, during your testimony,
14 you mentioned Mico Pavlovic, that you were at his home.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know that he was also a member of the 4th Detachment?
17 A. Yes, I know.
18 Q. You found him at home on the telephone and then you went home; is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, that's right. Most of the Serbs in town were in the 4th
21 Detachment, and also part of the Muslims, and thereby I assumed that they
22 were members of the 4th Detachment.
23 Q. You see, I read your recollections carefully, and at one point you
24 said that in the attack on Samac, the following took part: Arkan's units,
25 the Serb militia, the Serb TO, and finally, the JNA. Can you perhaps tell
1 me: These people that you saw, were they perhaps the Serb TO?
2 A. No. These were people from town.
3 Q. In your statement you also mentioned Safet Hadzialijagic,
4 nicknamed Pop, president of the council of the local commune, and that he
5 came to see you and proposed that you invite the JNA and the 4th
6 Detachment --
7 A. He phoned me.
8 Q. I apologise -- so that you would create a buffer zone between you
9 and the paramilitary formations. That was his idea. Was that right?
10 A. Yes. Yes, because people were saying that the paramilitaries in
11 Gornja Mahala were killing people, and he called me and said, "Well, look,
12 let's put the JNA in between." In between who? [Realtime transcript read
13 in error: Q. In between who?]
14 Q. I would like to ask you something else about the 4th Detachment
15 now. You will answer --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer wasn't given. The witness said he
17 received this call from somebody who said, "Well, let's put the JNA in
18 between." Then the counsel asked, "In between who?" And then you
19 say -- then you continue talking before the witness answered.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that the witness said, "In
21 between who?"
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Because it's recorded as a question, so ... Yes. So
23 the transcript should be -- so it is the witness who asked, "In between
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe when I posed this question that I was
3 talking about Hadzialijagic, Safet, with the nickname Pop, and that was,
4 by my view, completely clear to the witness.
5 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to ask you something related to
6 collecting weapons from citizens on the part of the 4th Detachment. Did
7 they do that?
8 A. You mean after the attack on Samac?
9 Q. Yes, afterwards.
10 A. At that time I was in an apartment, and as far as I can remember,
11 there were the members of the JNA who were there. And I saw Salkic,
12 Ibrahim, [redacted]. And now, with them, whether there were
13 those from the 4th Detachment, I don't know.
14 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to insist. I just asked you if you
16 A. No, I don't.
17 Q. Can we agree that the members of the 4th Detachment took the right
18 banks of the Sava and Bosna rivers, respectively, in order to prevent the
19 HVO from penetrating?
20 A. As far as I know, yes, and the bridge on the Drina [as
21 interpreted] -- on the Bosna.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter stands corrected.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. Now I would like to move on to other
1 After taking a statement from you, after hearing your statement,
2 can we say that Simo Zaric made quite an effort to find a way of having
3 you released?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you very much. Now I would like to move on to the subject
6 of your transfer to the military barracks in Brcko. Would it be fair to
7 say that it was precisely Simo Zaric, the person who initiated your
8 transfer, as well as of others, from the Territorial Defence in Samac to
10 A. Yes. I know he talked on the phone in front of me, and he said to
11 this Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic - I think he was talking to him - "If they
12 stay a few days longer, they will all get killed, so take them, transfer
13 them," something to that effect.
14 Q. Thank you. Can we say that he was sincerely pleased that things
15 were organised in that way? You said that he hugged you, kissed you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. According to your own statement, nobody beat you at Brcko.
18 A. Only a little bit while we were being frisked. Well, we can say
19 that nobody beat us.
20 Q. Some of the prisoners also got medical assistance; right?
21 A. Yes. [redacted]
23 Q. The food was better too, and more generous?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 Q. The army treated you considerably better?
1 A. They were fair.
2 Q. You could even go out into the compound of the barracks, to put it
3 that way?
4 A. We were allowed to clean it, sweep it. Those who wanted to clean
5 it and sweep it managed to do this.
6 Q. Can we agree that you and the other prisoners were transferred
7 from the Territorial Defence in Samac to the military barracks in Brcko,
8 and that eliminated the danger of you being killed or beaten up by the
9 paramilitaries or the police?
10 A. Yes, yes. It was considerably different there, quite different
11 there. In Samac, anybody could just come and kill you and mistreat you.
12 Over here, there was some kind of order after all.
13 Q. You see, now I would like to move on to that day when -- oh, I'm
14 sorry. When you were brought to the military barracks in Brcko, did Simo
15 Zaric escort you to Brcko? If you know that, say so, and if you don't
16 know, just say you don't know.
17 A. I don't think he did. I did not see him. Perhaps he was in
18 another vehicle, but I don't know.
19 Q. Now I would like to move on to that day when, from the military
20 barracks in Brcko, you were returned, so to speak, to Bosanski Samac for a
21 brief period of time in order to give a statement for TV Novi Sad. If I
22 understood you correctly, you were asked by the prison warden - this was a
23 bald captain with plaster on his arm - and he said that you should go to
24 Bosanski Samac and give a statement for the TV?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. Then they put you into a Pinzgauer, a military vehicle, and then
2 they drove you away?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was Simo Zaric with you then during that transfer?
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Counsel, it's 1.00 by our clock in the courtroom.
7 Today, the afternoon session will start at 1430 hours.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, Your Honour, and how long shall we have,
9 as you mentioned yesterday, this afternoon, to have a break after one and
10 a half hours and then another half an hour -- another one and a half
12 JUDGE MUMBA: When we start at 1430, we shall sit up to 1615
13 hours, one and a half hours. We shall have a break at 1615. No, not at
14 1615. We shall have a break at 1600 hours to 1615, a 15 minutes break,
15 and then continue up to 1715, just for one hour.
16 MR. PANTELIC: I understand.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: So it will be one and a half hours, a short break,
18 and then one hour.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour, thank you.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We're continuing with cross-examination.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE MUMBA: We're not having -- we're not receiving
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Tihic, I took advantage of the lunch break to look through the
9 transcript from the trial, and I have a question to ask you.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We have interpretation now.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In your testimony, you said that all the Serbs from Bosanski Samac
14 were in the 4th Detachment; is that right? I'm just quoting that
16 A. Mostly, yes.
17 Q. And during your testimony, you also mentioned the Serbian
18 Territorial Defence when you talked about the occupation of Samac.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you allow for the possibility that certain ethnic Serbs from
21 Bosanski Samac were also members of that so-called Serb Territorial
23 A. I think they were only in the 4th Detachment.
24 Q. I should like now to move to another topic, and that is a
25 television programme by TV Novi Sad. You saw an excerpt here, and I would
1 like to ask you if you recall that footage. Is it correct that at the
2 beginning of that programme, Stevan Nikolic spoke?
3 A. As far as I remember, yes. Lieutenant Colonel Stevan Nikolic.
4 Q. When you were in Samac, when you were brought from Brcko, did you
5 see him there in the SUP building?
6 A. No.
7 Q. That man, Stevan Nikolic, who was a lieutenant colonel, he was the
8 commander of the 17th Tactical Group of the JNA. That's him, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Was he the superior officer to Mr. Simo Zaric by the chain of
11 command and military hierarchy? Do you happen to know the fact that the
12 participation of Mr. Zaric in the programme was following his orders?
13 A. I don't know.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm just not clear what the
15 answer is. Is the answer an answer to the first question or the second
16 question? That's the way the transcript appears on my screen. I don't
17 know if --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There are two questions, yes, so maybe the
19 counsel can clarify that with the witness.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. We have the problem of the transcript here. There were two
22 questions. I asked you first whether the lieutenant colonel was the
23 superior officer - and I think you said yes -
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- to Simo Zaric. And your answer was yes?
1 A. That's right. I said yes.
2 Q. And you said you didn't know as far as the second question was
3 concerned; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Tihic, when you were transferred from the barracks in Brcko
6 back to Samac, were you frightened?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. When you arrived, was Simo Zaric already in the SUP offices?
9 A. I think he was. I know that Vlado Sarkijan and Kruno Sifo met me,
10 and I think he was somewhere too.
11 Q. Thank you. On that occasion, did you ask Simo Zaric to be close
12 by, next to you, for your own safety and security?
13 A. I don't know. I can't remember. Possibly, but I can't remember.
14 I know that Vlado and the others hurried things up to get it over with as
15 soon as possible.
16 Q. That brings me to my next question, yes. I wanted to ask you the
17 following: All of you who were there, did Simo Zaric hurry you up? Was
18 he hurrying you up because there was the possibility of these Sareni
19 turning up again, as they were termed?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I have one more question with respect to that event. So right
22 before -- the interview was conducted by a TV Novi Sad journalist?
23 A. Yes, that's right. He talked to me.
24 Q. Thank you. Can we now move on to a different area? And that is
25 your transfer from the barracks in Brcko to the barracks in Bijeljina.
1 You have already stated that the captain who was in charge called
2 Mr. Lukac and yourself and told you, more or less, that the war had broken
3 out in Brcko and that that was the reason why they were transferring you
4 to Bijeljina; is that right?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. May we then take it that the transfer from Brcko to Bijeljina was
7 motivated for your own safety -- was for the purposes of your own safety
8 and security?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can we now go back to the 26th of April? That was the day when
11 you were transferred from Bosanski Samac to Brcko. In your statement, you
12 said that on that particular day, Stevan Todorovic told you something
13 along the lines of, well, he's giving you another chance. Is that true?
14 A. Stevan came to where I was and he sort of said, "I'm going to give
15 you another chance. You're going to go with these others to Brcko."
16 Because I had the feeling that the ones who stayed behind would be
17 killed. That was my feeling. That was what I thought.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the actual words that were
19 uttered --
20 A. That's what he said more or less.
21 Q. Could he have said that on the 29th of April, when you gave the
22 interview, those words? Might they have been spoken then?
23 A. No. They were spoken prior to my transfer to Brcko.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. I'd like now to move on and ask you some
25 questions related to the personality of Mr. Zaric, what he was like. May
1 we agree that Simo Zaric was a respected man in Bosanski Samac?
2 A. Yes, mostly, although there were people that did not respect him,
3 but mostly he was, yes.
4 Q. Can we say that that was the prevailing opinion about him?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He was active in the Kombinat Sports Club, was he not?
7 A. I don't know that. I really don't remember. I know that he was
8 politically involved, that he was a hunter.
9 Q. I wanted to ask you whether you happened to know anything about
10 his membership in the cultural and arts society from the Croatian village
11 of Prud. He took part in folklore?
12 A. Yes, I remember he did take part in folklore meetings.
13 Q. That was in the village of Prud, was it?
14 A. Well, I don't know if that is in the village of Prud but I do know
15 that he attended and took part in these folklore performances.
16 Q. His wife is a Muslim; is that right?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. Do you know that his daughter is married to a Croat?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. One of his sisters is married to a Croat and the other is married
21 to a Muslim?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. May we then agree that Simo Zaric was truly a Yugoslav by
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And finally, was Simo ever a member of the SDS?
2 A. Up until the time I knew him, he was not. I don't think he was
3 after that either.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tihic. I have no
5 further questions.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Pantelic now?
7 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have a second just to prepare?
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tihic. I am attorney
12 Pantelic, Defence counsel for Mr. Blagoje Simic. Let me start off by
13 saying on -- in my own name, and I think in the name of all my colleagues
14 and our clients, that is to say I would like to congratulate you for your
15 appointment as president of the SDA party for Bosnia-Herzegovina, although
16 I did congratulate you on Monday when we saw each other in passing.
17 A. Thank you.
18 Q. When you were in The Hague the last time, you were the
19 vice-president and now you are the president, so The Hague seems to be
20 lucky for you.
21 A. Well, preparations for the congress were already underway, so
22 Hague didn't actually influence that.
23 Q. I didn't mean in that sense. I just meant that it was a happy
25 A. Thank you.
1 Q. Thank you, too. Mr. Tihic, I would like us to clarify a few
2 points of your testimony. They are technical matters, nothing much, but
3 as we do have a transcript, we want to have a clear one.
4 I have your witness statement, the one you gave between the 22nd
5 and 23rd of September, 1994.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: And is it the same one with the 31st of October?
7 MR. PANTELIC: And 31st October, 1994.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: I would rather have it complete.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I just waited for translation.
10 Q. [Interpretation] On page 20 of that statement, in the B/C/S
11 version --
12 MR. PANTELIC: And to help my learned friend from the Prosecution,
13 English version without ERN number but the page is 20, on the same
14 statement, English version, so they can follow.
15 Q. [Interpretation] As I was saying, on page 20 of your statement,
16 paragraph 2, you stated the following to the Prosecutor:
17 "While I was in Batajnica, I learnt that Izet Izetbegovic, Alija
18 Fitozovic, Omer Nalic, Safet Hadzialijagic, and I had all been sentenced
19 to death. This decision was announced by Vecernje Novosti and was
20 supposedly signed by Irfan Ajanovic. I knew the news was untrue, but it
21 was disturbing."
22 You remember having said that, don't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Bearing in mind the fact that you did not state those details when
25 the Prosecutor asked you, may we now agree that that was what the
1 situation was actually like, that that was what happened?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. With respect to another point, another detail: On
4 page 16 of the statement we're discussing, that is to say the 1994
5 statement -- [In English] English version is also without ERN number, but
6 it's page 16, and the other part is page 17, English version.
7 [Interpretation] In your statement to the Prosecutor, you state
8 the following:
9 "When we got onto the helicopter, which was a military helicopter,
10 there was a coffin inside, and there was somebody in the coffin with a
11 Serbian name, aged 20. Later I heard that 'Lugar' killed 20 people,
12 because this person had been killed. I think that his name was 'Vuk.'
13 Izet Izetbegovic knows the family he comes from. The family name could
14 have been Vukmirovic."
15 You remember making that statement, do you not?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. There was probably a mix-up. I don't know it is an essential
18 point, but you answered, in response to the Prosecutor, on page 1482, line
19 7 and 8, that the name of the person who had been killed and the name on
20 the coffin was Vuk Mirovic, Vuk being the first name and Mirovic being the
21 last name. So let's clarify that point. I mean, we've -- thank you.
22 A. Well, I think that the surname was Vukmirovic, one word, just the
23 last name, Vukmirovic. So it wasn't a name plus a surname. Whether it
24 was Vukmirovic, Vuksanovic, or some other.
25 Q. Very well. Thank you. They were just details from the
2 Mr. Tihic, you are an experienced lawyer. You were a judge, you
3 were a prosecutor, and an attorney; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On this day, how much working experience, professional experience,
6 do you have as of today, looking back?
7 A. Well, from July 1974 I've been working, which would make it - let
8 me see - 27 years.
9 Q. Ah, yes, 27 years. Thank you. I assume that you graduated from
10 the faculty of law in Sarajevo. Is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. From the statement that you gave on the 28th of February, 1995 to
13 the OTP, I see that you were the legal advisor, counsellor, of the embassy
14 of BH. Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What embassy was that?
17 A. I was the legal advisor, councillor, of the embassy of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Bonn.
19 Q. In Germany, you mean?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You are the vice-president of the National Assembly of Republika
22 Srpska, in fact?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. After you were released from detention, I think that I read
25 somewhere that you also were deputy minister for foreign affairs of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or some such post.
2 A. No, I wasn't. No, nothing like it. Nothing similar.
3 Q. But you were in the foreign affairs ministry of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And which post did you hold? What was your position there?
7 A. I was the head of the department for consular affairs. That is
8 the lowest level of the leadership cadres of the ministry.
9 Q. And after that post, you went to Bonn to be a legal advisor?
10 A. No. I was vice-president of the party in 1999 first.
11 Q. That was a professional post with a tenure?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. I am sure that during your student days, during your
14 studies, you studied a subject called international law.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Public law.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Public law, sorry.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In the course of your professional activities in foreign affairs,
19 you also had contact with legal affairs of the international type, with an
20 international character?
21 A. Yes, connected to consular affairs.
22 Q. Mr. Tihic, as far as I know, you became the president of the
23 Municipal Board of the SDA in Samac sometime in 1991, and before that the
24 president was Izet Izetbegovic; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. I assume that you had some other function within the SDA party at
2 the BH level, or was that the only function you had?
3 A. I was a member of the Main Board as well of the Party of
4 Democratic Action. That is a body made up of 120 people.
5 Q. Would you be so kind as to tell me when you were elected member of
6 the Main Board of the SDA party.
7 A. It was at the first congress, November 1991. I think it was
8 November, at least. Yes, November 1991. It could have been October.
9 Q. You became president of the Municipal Board of the SDA and were
10 then elected to the Main Board of the SDA?
11 A. Yes, at the first congress that was held.
12 Q. And since 1991, you have been a member of the Main Board?
13 A. Yes. I was re-elected at the second congress as well.
14 Q. Up until the latest elections, when you became party president; is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. You, Mr. Izetbegovic, can you agree with me that in
18 the period before the elections in BH in 1990, that there was a general
19 atmosphere prevailing in political circles that the communist power and
20 authority ought to be replaced?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I assume you'll agree with me when I say that the SDA party, the
23 HDZ and SDS parties had a sort of unofficial or official relationships in
24 the sense of jointly appearing with the aim of pooling their efforts and
25 appearing jointly with the aim of toppling communist rule; is that right?
1 A. Towards that end, yes.
2 Q. Thank you. In that period of time - and the Prosecutor asked you
3 about the character and nature of the parties, and I don't think that was
4 sufficiently explained - you will agree with me when I say that those
5 three parties were national parties and not nationalistic parties; is that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Bearing in mind the election results of 1990 in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the SDA, the HDZ and the SDS formed their own rule,
10 got the vote, because they won and they formed the government?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm asking you about the top level, not the local level. I'm
13 talking about the republican government.
14 A. Yes, I see.
15 Q. At that time, an inter-party arrangement was being bandied about,
16 a system by which -- a system which was called "five-four-three" -- which
17 was referred to as the "five-four-three" system or principle?
18 A. I don't know what you have in mind. I can't remember.
19 Q. Let me help you out here. As far as I understand it, it was an
20 inter-party arrangement between the SDA, SDZ and SDS that that would be
21 the ratio and division of power - I'm thinking about the posts, the
22 ministerial posts - and that that would be in the ratio of five, four,
23 three. If you don't remember, it doesn't matter.
24 A. Well, possibly it was that way but I can't really remember.
25 Q. Well, let's take it one by one. You will agree, I think, that to
1 all practical purposes, the basis of the FRY -- SFRY, was a meeting in
2 1943 in Jajce, when the future state was formed with constituent people,
3 constitutive peoples and so on and so forth; that was true, wasn't it?
4 A. Yes. That was on the 29th of November, 1943.
5 Q. And throughout the existence of this former Yugoslavia, there was
6 a principle of national tolerance, a balance that was struck? I mean it
7 in that sense. Was that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that was particularly present in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. That's where it was consistently implemented fully.
11 Q. That's right. Because of the three peoples, three religions, a
12 multitude of various interrelationships; isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The communist rule, the communist government in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, really strove against any kind of national reactions
16 from any of the three sides, and they actually tried people for that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This system of respecting the interests of all three peoples in
19 Bosnia in 1990, when the SDA, the HDZ and the SDS had a common political
20 objective, was also observed, wasn't it?
21 A. Yes. When the highest positions were being filled, that was also
22 observed. However, it was the vote, the outcome of the vote, that was
24 Q. Yes. We will agree that we were talking about proportionality.
25 Those who got the largest vote got the largest number of positions, and
2 A. Yes. Those who got the largest number of votes had the right to
3 choose the top position, and then the second-largest party would have the
4 right to get the second-most-important position, et cetera.
5 Q. Let us just help the interpreters. We speak the same language.
6 When I finish my question, perhaps you could wait for it to be interpreted
7 and then you answer.
8 A. Yes. I do tend to speed a bit.
9 Q. And also, you are very experienced. You have testified in quite a
10 few cases here in The Hague, didn't you?
11 A. Well, no, not really, only in this case and in one more.
12 Q. Very well. Let us go back to Samac. The SDA in Samac won two
13 seats in the municipal parliament; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Some other parties won more seats than the SDA in Samac?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. However, following a political agreement reached at a higher level
18 between the SDA, the HDZ and SDS at the municipal level in Bosanski Samac,
19 a coalition was set up between the HDZ, the SDS and the SDA; isn't that
21 A. Now, whether it was a coalition or whatever, it simply -- as you
22 say, this was a principle that was followed from the top downwards,
23 because for a coalition you need to have an agreement in writing, what
24 would be done, how it would be done, by what ways and means, et cetera.
25 However, some kind of alliance, informal alliance, which was hard to
1 obtain. Actually, we could agree on all other issues with the exception
2 of the future of Yugoslavia, or rather Bosnia-Herzegovina. As for these
3 vital issues, I don't think that there were really any problems there.
4 Q. Yes. So call it what we will. Let it be a political alliance, an
5 alliance that is in government at local level.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I assume that before it is established in this way, that all of
8 you communicated between and among yourselves and sought ways and means of
9 establishing some kind of alliance. I'm referring to the parties at local
11 A. There was an alliance and agreement while we were choosing people
12 for these positions, and after that, things started going wrong all over.
13 Because there was this question of the future of Yugoslavia and Bosnia
14 that cropped up, and that was a source of tensions, conflicts, and people
15 stopped doing what they were elected to do, and that is to resolve
16 municipal problems.
17 Q. We will agree that that's the way things go in politics. There
18 are difficulties on some days. That's politics. Anything is possible in
19 politics, isn't it? All kinds of alliances?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You will agree with me that there is a wise proverb that says it's
22 better to have a good divorce than a bad marriage; isn't that right? Have
23 you ever heard of that?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. Thank you. And have you heard of yet another saying: Birds of a
1 feather flock together? Have you heard of that one?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. We can agree that towards the end of October 1991
4 there was quite a bit of tension and difficulty in parliamentary life in
5 Sarajevo, in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At that time, you certainly know that, because I think that by
8 then you had already become a member of the Main Board; isn't that right?
9 You said sometime in the autumn of 1991.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At that time, there were endless parliamentary debates that went
12 on until dawn; isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm suffering from an
17 inability to see where this is going, and there's been quite a bit of
18 this, and I had hoped that the relevance of it would become apparent.
19 It's rapidly, I think, becoming a discussion of political history. Now,
20 unless it can somehow be linked to the indictment or the issues that
21 concern Mr. Blagoje Simic and Mr. Pantelic, then of course it's not
22 particularly relevant. But I've racked my brains to try and think of how
23 it could possibly be linked to an issue in the indictment, and I simply
24 can't come up with anything. Now, it's got to the point where I suggest
25 that Mr. Pantelic should outline to the Chamber and say, "Well, look, this
1 is the relevance of this material. This is what I'm hoping to elicit or
2 achieve" or "This is my objective," and then perhaps my objective will be
3 ill-founded. But at this stage I'm troubled by the fact -- the apparent
4 lack of relevance, and I don't think my objection is premature, given the
5 length of time that we've been on this topic, on these sorts of topics.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps counsel can explain the relevance of
7 the line of cross-examination.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Madam President, gladly. My aim is to defend
9 my client. That's my first thing. And also, due to the fact that this
10 indictment covers also a period in 1995 [sic], including various forms,
11 such as planning, instigating, ordering, et cetera, et cetera, I would be
12 very happy if my learned friend will drop the charges against my client
13 until the 17th of April, 1992, and then I will not pose the questions.
14 Otherwise, I think that I'm entitled to go into the relevance of the
15 political life from the, let's say, republican level up to the local
16 level, to see the connections, to see maybe - who knows? - personal role
17 or involvement of this witness in all these events. Because it's from
18 1991. So yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Just a clarification. I see, and I think I also
20 heard, you say the indictment covers also a period in 1995.
21 MR. PANTELIC: No. 1991, I said. Sorry. Maybe --
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Well, I heard, and it also came out on the words,
23 as 1995.
24 MR. PANTELIC: My mistake maybe. It's 1991, preparation of all
25 these events, and then until the end of -- maybe that was my -- I do
1 apologise, Your Honour. So in short, that's my intention: to see what is
2 the situation on that level, how the governmental functions was
3 established, and then to see how it was worked on the local level, simple
4 as that.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps we can -- yes. I think that's
6 understandable, since there is the issue of statehood here.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. It's the subject matter. And also, let me
8 add, Madam President, that this particular witness, Mr. Tihic, is not only
9 a fact witness; he is, according to the list provided from the Prosecution
10 to Defence, is also a so-called contextual witness about all these
11 events. So that's the aim of my questioning. So he's not speaking about
12 the isolated event in time framework and place, et cetera. Thank you so
13 much. I will proceed, with your --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, please proceed.
15 MR. PANTELIC: -- with your permission. Thank you.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, sometime towards the end of October
17 1991, in the republican parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a decision was
18 passed on the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina; isn't that correct?
19 A. Either in October or some other month, but yes.
20 Q. We will agree that during this decision-making in the parliament
21 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serb MPs left that session.
22 A. We can't agree fully, because part of the MPs of other parties
23 were Serbs, from the SDP, from the Reformist forces, et cetera, and they
24 did not leave the session. However, the SDS [Realtime transcript read in
25 error "SDA"] MPs did leave the session. So the larger part of Serb MPs
1 did leave the session.
2 Q. And also the MPs of the SPO, which is also a Serb party; isn't
3 that right?
4 A. Oh, yes, yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, no objection, but I just
7 wonder if there's a mistake in the transcript, line -- page 100, just a
8 few lines ago, at line 11, says: "The SDA MPs did leave the session." Is
9 that what the witness said, or did he say SDS?
10 MR. PANTELIC: SDS. SDS.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: That's what the witness said.
12 MR. PANTELIC: He said SDS.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.
14 MR. PANTELIC: I will repeat the question maybe for clarification,
15 if it's necessary, I mean this particular part.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Just so that we know which party it was that --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Good. [Interpretation] There was a problem with
20 the interpretation.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: No.
22 MR. PANTELIC:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please say that the SDS MPs left
24 parliament? Is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, as an experienced lawyer and
2 politician, that the question of sovereignty is a capital question, isn't
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Perhaps we could say that this question affects the vital
6 interests of all the three peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina; isn't that
8 A. Yes. But the declaration speaks of sovereignty of all three
10 Q. I'm sorry. I have to interrupt you. I wasn't speaking about the
11 declaration, and I have another question now. But please, when the
12 Prosecutor re-examines you, then you will be able to explain that. You
13 see, we have a principle here. When the Defence cross-examines, that is
14 rather narrow.
15 A. I do apologise. I'm sorry.
16 Q. We will agree, Mr. Tihic, that in the constitutional system of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1990 and in 1991, and of course earlier as well, the
18 principle of the protection of interests of all three constituent peoples
19 was present and built into the constitution; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We will agree that sometime during 1991 - I think that this was
22 twice, one in February and one in June - that amendments were adopted to
23 the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina; isn't that right? If you
24 remember, of course.
25 A. I think that some chambers were abolished, and the name
1 "socialist" was dropped. It was only "republic." I can't remember
2 sufficiently. There were some minor changes.
3 Q. It depends on your point of view. Within these changes, there was
4 a separate chamber of nationalities that was envisaged that would take
5 care of the balance of the rights of all three nationalities in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you remember that?
7 A. Wasn't that a commission? There was a commission for the
8 protection of vital national interests. I think that is what it was. And
9 the chamber of nationalities was at state level, wasn't it, of the SFRY?
10 Q. Whatever. You do have some recollections of that, don't you?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness is talking about a commission and not a
13 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it is hard now to go into the merit of
14 this issue, because we shall wait for the expert witnesses with the real
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.
17 MR. PANTELIC: -- amendments, et cetera. I mean, I will not --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Press.
19 MR. PANTELIC: -- to press and to go into the area where neither
20 witness nor me would be -- just in general that --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. He may not remember the details.
22 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct, because he just gave me that
23 answer, so I don't want to push anyway. Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] You probably recall that after the Serb MPs left
25 the republican parliament, on the 9th and 10th of November, 1991, a
1 plebiscite of the Serb people in Bosnia-Herzegovina was held. Do you
2 remember that?
3 A. I do.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 [In English] Your Honour, can I have a second? I have a lot of
6 papers here.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me. Yes. Thank you. I found the relevant
10 Q. [Interpretation] After this plebiscite on the 9th and 10th of
11 November, 1991 - and the subject was the establishment of some Serb
12 entity, or whatever we would call it, within Bosnia-Herzegovina - you are
13 probably aware of the fact that on the 9th of January, 1992, actually, the
14 Republika Srpska was proclaimed; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In view of the fact that you are the vice-president of the
17 parliament of Republika Srpska, you may know that the constitution of the
18 Republika Srpska was adopted on the 28th of February, 1992, if you
20 A. I don't remember.
21 Q. But nowadays, because you are vice-president of the national
22 assembly of Republika Srpska, we will agree that the Republika Srpska
23 functions from a legal point of view on the basis of its constitution that
24 was adopted in 1992; isn't that right?
25 A. No, we cannot agree on that. Republika Srpska functions --
1 Q. All right. I'm going to ask you.
2 A. I'm sorry, excuse me, I know --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness should be permitted to finish his
4 answer, surely, particularly as it's in answer to a question asked by
6 MR. PANTELIC: That's my next question.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: To allow him to explain?
8 MR. DI FAZIO: The question was: "Because you're vice-president,
9 you agree that the Republika Srpska functions from a legal point of view
10 on the basis of its constitution that was adopted; isn't that right?" The
11 witness says, "No, we can't," and starts to explain why, and is cut off.
12 Now, surely, he must be permitted to give his answer to the question.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, but let me phrase my question.
14 Q. [Interpretation] So Mr. Tihic, the present-day Republika Srpska
15 functions on the basis of the constitution that was adopted in 1992, yes
16 or no?
17 A. No.
18 Q. The present-day Republika Srpska, does it function on the basis of
19 some other constitution? Please explain this to us.
20 A. The Republika Srpska functions on the basis of the Dayton
21 Agreement, Annex 4 of the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is the
22 legal basis, and since then there has been this entity within
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina that has been recognised and that is called Republika
24 Srpska. The previous constitutions, at least the first one, was annulled
25 by the constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Socialist Republic
1 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the one from February, the one that you refer to,
2 February, 1992. Because the only thing that does have legitimacy is the
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which, as such, was admitted into the
4 United Nations, which in 1995, on the basis of the Dayton Agreement,
5 became the legal adherent, Bosnia-Herzegovina consisting of two entities,
6 the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, that is. Since
7 then, Republika Srpska has been in existence.
8 Q. In your answer, you raised a few subjects and now we have to
9 clarify them a bit. Are you aware of a doctrine in international public
10 law de facto state and de jure state? Are you aware of that?
11 A. Not sufficiently.
12 Q. Very well.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, if I could ask you for a little
14 clarification on this, it's my understanding of public international law
15 that the distinction between de jure and de facto is reserved for the
16 governments of states, not the states themselves per se.
17 MR. PANTELIC: You're absolutely right, you Honour. I will
18 rephrase my question on that line. In fact, I was referring to the issue
19 of recognition.
20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes.
21 MR. PANTELIC: But let's put this question. It might be useful.
22 Q. [Interpretation] The Honourable Judge Williams has made a certain
23 proposal and could you please tell me whether you are perhaps familiar
24 with the theory of de facto and de jure governments in international law?
25 Do you know about that subject matter?
1 A. The answer is the same. Yes, but not sufficiently in order for me
2 to be able to comment on that.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Izetbegovic -- I beg your pardon, I beg your
4 pardon. Mr. Tihic, I beg your pardon, in Article 1 of the constitution of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Annex 4 to the Dayton Agreement, paragraph 3 reads
6 that Bosnia-Herzegovina shall consist of two entities, the Federation of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. We agree on that, don't we?
8 A. [No audible answer]
9 Q. Since yesterday, I think during the cross-examination, you
10 mentioned the option that it is impossible to have a state that would be
11 called the Republic of the Serb People in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that
12 correct? You said something like that?
13 A. No. I said the Official Gazette cannot be called "The Official
14 Gazette of the Serb People." You see, an official gazette can be an
15 official gazette of an entity, of a canton, of a state, not of a people.
16 People do not publish official gazettes. Socio-political communities,
17 states, issue, publish, official gazettes, and it says over there, "The
18 Official Gazette of the Serb People." That's what I said.
19 Q. But Mr. Tihic, you probably did not notice --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] You Honour, the witness did answer the
22 previous question but very softly and it's not there, line -- there is no
23 answer after that, and perhaps the question can be repeated, because there
24 was no audible answer to that question. And we need it in the
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, you Honour. There is a problem in the
2 transcript. I will ask the question.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Again, yes.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we spoke here about Article 1 of the
6 constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Annex 1 [as interpreted] to the Dayton
7 Agreement, paragraph 3, and there are two entities, and do we agree on
8 that? And your answer was yes?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Perhaps you didn't notice yesterday in the Official
11 Gazette it says, "In BH," in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Madam President, I have with me one copy,
13 so maybe I can give it to the witness and then he can read.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: What is that document?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Well, he's, well, trying to charge --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: I just want to know the title of the document.
17 MR. PANTELIC: It's "The Official Gazette of Serbian People in B
18 and H." He said no, it cannot be Official Gazette only of Serbian
19 people. It should be some kind of state.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: We haven't had that document before.
21 MR. PANTELIC: It was admitted with ID numbers yesterday. Various
22 decisions and orders of the government of Republika Srpska.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we can search for it. What was the ID, the
24 number, for identification purposes only?
25 THE REGISTRAR: You Honour, there were seven of these documents
1 admitted yesterday.
2 MR. PANTELIC: I have one of them, you Honour, so if it's -- I
3 will not tender that into exhibits, just if you will allow me to given it
4 to Mr. Tihic to read this title, and then he will give the answer after
5 that, if it's okay.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. He can go ahead and read it.
7 MR. PANTELIC: It's rather linguistic.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: We just want to make sure the record is correct as
9 to which document is being discussed.
10 MR. PANTELIC: I would say --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: We refer to documents by -- we identify documents by
12 their numbers.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I think the number is
14 rather important given the fact that I don't have a translation. I've got
15 absolutely no idea what's in these documents, and the issue that I raised
16 earlier this morning, of course, I'm not going to seek to stop it on this
17 occasion, but the difficulty the Prosecution labours under in these
18 circumstances is apparent, and I'll just make that comment.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let's wait for the document list to be
21 MR. PANTELIC: These were the Official Gazettes tendered by Mr.
22 Zecevic during his cross-examination on behalf of Mr. Milan Simic, various
23 decrees, government decisions, et cetera, et cetera, which were published
24 in Official Gazette of Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I
25 remembered that Mr. Tihic read it very, very -- in detailed form. So you
1 can get --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Do you have it?
3 THE REGISTRAR: I can't find it, Your Honour. There were nine
4 documents and they were all in B/C/S.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can the usher collect those nine documents and
6 then show them to counsel? And then counsel should use -- should call
7 them by their number.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you. Well, now, I would like to present
9 to Mr. Tihic the D12/2 ter ID.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Just to read the heading of this document.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Tihic, just read the portion where we have the number of the
15 Official Gazette: what it is, who it is, et cetera.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Slowly.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Slowly.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Monday, the 8th of June, 1992,
19 Official Gazette of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, number 8,
20 page 317."
21 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Tihic.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: That's all with that document?
23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
24 Mr. Usher, it's okay. You can collect all the documents. It was
25 just for this proposition.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Republika Srpska, as it was formed, had different
2 titles and names. Are you aware of that fact?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that's quite a normal thing in the development of a state or
5 subject, to change names?
6 A. Well, it wasn't a state.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Do we need another microphone to be switched on for
8 the interpreters, or one is okay? I don't know.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, please.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it has to be switched on.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
12 Q. [Interpretation] From your experience as a legal man and
13 politician, could you tell us what attributes a state needs to have to be
14 called a state?
15 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I don't think the question is for this witness,
17 MR. PANTELIC: I withdraw. I withdraw.
18 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree with me, Mr. Tihic, when I say
19 that a state, amongst other attributes, must have a central government?
20 Is that true?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: We are going back through the back door.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Exactly, and --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: It's very much the back door.
1 JUDGE SINGH: Perhaps if I may seek a clarification from you,
2 Mr. Tihic. You said it wasn't a state. You see, after the plebiscite in
3 1991, plebiscite of the Serb people, you had the Republic of Srpska -- the
4 Republic of Srpska from January 1992. Now, you said that that wasn't a
5 state. Can you give us your reasons why you say that that was not a
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First, because the plebiscite was
8 not a legal one. The decision about a plebiscite was not brought by the
9 competent authorities, on the basis of the constitutional authorities that
10 were authorised to take a decision of that kind, so the existing legal
11 system in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not respected.
12 Next, the referendum that was held on the basis of this
13 unconstitutional plebiscite, which was also not recognised, either in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina or outside Bosnia-Herzegovina, by the relevant
15 international factors. A society gets together, says, "We're a state."
16 That's not enough. There must be recognition. It must be within the
17 legal system, with a legal basis and foundation, the constitution of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and somebody must recognise it as being legal. Who
19 controlled the plebiscite and referendum? How many people went out to
20 vote? On the basis of what lists? Everything was done outside all this
22 JUDGE SINGH: Did the Muslims and the Croats participate in this
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, neither the Muslims nor the
25 Croats took part, and quite a number of Serbs didn't take part either.
1 MR. PANTELIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed.
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And to follow on from what you were saying, do you know that
5 1,350,000 citizens of Serb ethnicity took part in the plebiscite? Yes or
7 A. Well, that is propaganda. That's not true.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. There weren't that many Serbs in Bosnia at all, so how could they
10 take part in the voting, that many?
11 Q. Mr. Tihic, once again, could you just limit yourself to answering
12 my questions. We don't want to make a political forum here.
13 A. But the questions are of that nature that it warrants it
14 sometimes. I apologise.
15 Q. May we agree that the present Bosnia-Herzegovina, on the basis of
16 the constitution from the Dayton Agreement, has joint functions in foreign
17 policy, does it not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Foreign trade?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Customs and tariffs policies?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Monetary policy?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And among other things, international cooperation, international
1 obligations, legal, et cetera, the control of air traffic, and so on and
2 so forth; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. At the moment in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there are two armies, are
5 there not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. One is in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the other one is in Republika Srpska; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At the moment in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have an existence of two
12 types or two groups of police forces. One group is in the Federation of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, is it not?
14 A. Well, I don't think you can divide them into types.
15 Q. Well, one police force.
16 A. There's a police force in the Federation and in Republika Srpska.
17 They are the same police force.
18 Q. But they don't have a joint command, do they?
19 A. No, but they work similarly. They have similar rules and
20 regulations governing their activity, they cooperate, and so on.
21 Q. The Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina is it composed of cantons, is
22 it not?
23 A. Yes, ten cantons.
24 Q. All these cantons have their own assemblies and constitutions,
25 don't they?
1 A. Yes, they do.
2 Q. Republika Srpska has a national assembly, doesn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It has its own government; that's true, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And only a limited portion of competences of those two entities
7 which we have enumerated have been transferred to the main organs of
9 A. They haven't been transferred. They are the source of this parent
10 authority in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, of course.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Even though I'm very interested in statehood and
14 public international law, I'm just wondering whether you could clarify me
15 whether, pursuant to our Rules on cross-examination, where this line of
16 questioning is falling. Is it limited to the -- in some way to the
17 subject matter of the evidence in chief or to matters affecting the
18 credibility of the witness? I find it very interesting, but I'm just
19 wondering where we're going with this.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, absolutely. This line of
21 questioning doesn't have any relation to the credibility of this witness,
22 absolutely not. This is a subject matter, I want to clarify with this
23 witness, the development of Republika Srpska in 1991, 1992, with regards
24 to the final form which is practically recognised by the Dayton Peace
25 Accord in 1995. So that was the line. So I can maybe go to the narrow
1 matter now. It's no problem.
2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes, because I was just wondering how -- say
3 again, how it ties in to the time period, time periods, with respect to
4 the alleged crimes contained in the indictment.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. The situation is very
6 simple. We have a process of development of one entity, no matter whether
7 it is the state or entity or maybe autonomous province from time A until
8 time B, and a part of this development is the subject matter of this case,
9 1999 -- 1991, sorry, and until the end of 1993. So I'm trying to
10 establish a, I would say, development and parallel view of these two
11 points, in fact. And with this line of questioning about the existence of
12 Republika Srpska within the framework of the Dayton Peace Accord, I'm
13 done, I'm finished. So now I'm focusing to the period of 1991 and 1992
14 with regard to the political activities where obviously this witness and
15 the other persons were involved. Thank you.
16 [Interpretation] Would you just please put your second microphone
17 on, Mr. Tihic.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: There's a couple of matters that arise. I'm going
19 to ask my learned colleague to address you very briefly on something
20 arising from the agreed facts, because I think she's better versed on
21 that, and I believe it's relevant to this issue that was raised by Your
22 Honour Judge Williams. But if we may go back to the Rule, Rule 90(H)(2),
23 cross-examination of the witness arises under three headings: credibility,
24 which is not -- doesn't give rise to this line of cross-examination. The
25 second two limbs on which you can launch upon a cross-examination are
1 clear. If it's --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: -- the subject matter of the evidence in chief --
4 and I don't recall this witness talking about these issues at all in his
5 evidence in chief. So therefore, we go back to the very last limb, and
6 that's what Mr. Pantelic, in his submission to Judge Williams' question,
7 did not answer, and that is evidence relevant to the case for the
8 cross-examining party. Now, he hasn't explained, with respect to
9 Mr. Pantelic, how this evidence is relevant to the case for the
10 cross-examining party. And, of course, and of course, don't let's forget,
11 don't let's forget, that we don't know what the case is, because none of
12 their cases -- none of these defendants are putting their cases to the
13 witness, and they're not putting it to Mr. Tihic. So we don't
14 know -- we've got no way of -- the best you can do is gaze into a crystal
15 ball and think, well -- speculate as to what the defence might be. So
16 they're not complying with (H)(2), and it becomes very difficult then to
17 justify cross-examination under (H)(1) when you don't know what the case
18 is. Now, Mr. Pantelic should, with respect, make it very clear how this
19 evidence relates directly to a defence that he is going to raise, because
20 we know that's the last limb under which he can get this sort of
21 questioning in, and it's not been explained, with respect.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because I think the problem is that the counsel
23 is dealing with the present-day situation as opposed to the period covered
24 by the indictment.
25 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: That's one of the --
2 MR. PANTELIC: I just tried to explain. But let me add a very
3 short explanation. If Mr. Tihic will be a witness in cross-examination
4 answering very simply yes or no, we would not have this kind of problem.
5 Because if in the record, in transcript, we have all his expanded answers,
6 I'm obliged to ask him on those issues.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
8 MR. PANTELIC: So if he makes some references, you know, with
9 regard to the 1991, 1992, existence of Republika Srpska, so forth and so
10 on, I am obliged to have another line of questioning. So I kindly ask
11 Mr. Tihic to give me --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. It's the time period --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: -- which is covered by your questions. That is
15 where the problem is. It is present-day -- the present-day situation and
16 not the situation between 1991 and December 1993, because that is the
17 period covered by the indictment. And we are simply saying we would like
18 the questions in cross-examination to cover that period and also to be
20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I concur, Your Honour. I will
21 proceed. Thank you so much.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in 1992, Republika Srpska had its
23 government, didn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Republika Srpska, in 1992, after January 1992, of course, had its
1 own presidency, didn't it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Republika Srpska, in 1992, had its own army, didn't it?
4 A. I wouldn't agree with you there.
5 Q. Explain, please.
6 A. In 1992, there was the Yugoslav People's Army. It wasn't the Army
7 of Republika Srpska.
8 Q. May we agree with the fact that Republika Srpska at that time had
9 its own police force, yes or no?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we agree with the fact that the commander of the Army of
12 Republika Srpska was Ratko Mladic, General Ratko Mladic, yes or no?
13 A. I don't know. The commanders changed. I don't know whether
14 Mladic was commander in 1992.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness said the Republika Srpska didn't have
16 its own army. It was the JNA.
17 MR. PANTELIC: That is what I was trying to establish, Your
18 Honour, because with this particular question, I mean, I just put to the
19 witness a question who was the -- and he said right, that was General
20 Ratko Mladic.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, you're speaking the same language.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry, we are not waiting for interpretation.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. di Fazio?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't want to interrupt. Was Your Honour about
2 to say something?
3 JUDGE MUMBA: I just wanted the witness to explain, if there was
4 an army in Republika Srpska, if there was, under whose control was that
5 army? What was --
6 MR. DI FAZIO: It's this very issue that I wanted to raise with
7 the Chamber.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: To clarify with the witness?
9 MR. DI FAZIO: And with the Chamber and with Mr. Pantelic, because
10 as my colleague, Ms. Reidy, rightly points out, there were agreed facts in
11 this case, by way of motion, that were put in some -- quite some time ago,
12 I can't recall exactly, I don't have them to hand. However, it was an
13 agreed fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state after a certain point,
14 22nd of May of 1992, and we are not, at least by that point, at least by
15 that point. Now, these questions --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: You're saying it was an agreed fact between the
17 parties. Can you just repeat that, that Bosnia and Herzegovina --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I will. Will Your Honour just give me a
19 moment to confer with my colleagues?
20 MR. PANTELIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour, it is absolutely not
21 the situation. We have an official notice of admission of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina into the UN on 22nd of --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's hear Mr. di Fazio and you will be given an
24 opportunity to respond.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm going to hand the floor from the Prosecution to
1 my colleague Ms. Reidy, who is better acquainted with the material, and
2 she can explain more clearly than I can, so I'll ask her to address the
3 Chamber on that issue.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy?
5 MS. REIDY: The point that the Prosecution would like to make is
6 that it's not -- wasn't in the joint statement of agreed facts, but
7 directly in response to a motion by Mr. Pantelic on behalf of his client,
8 it was agreed that on the 22nd of May, Bosnia-Herzegovina, would become --
9 would at least, at the very latest then, was admitted on the 22nd of May,
10 1992, as a member of the United Nations, and that his debate, dispute, is
11 before that. He's arguing that it may or may not have been a state. But
12 it's clear in the motion that it was conceded that that is the last
13 cut-off date in which they are willing to argue that Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 may not have been a state.
15 So I think that when -- what flows from that is that when
16 Mr. Pantelic is putting questions, whether it's to do with an army or a
17 police force pertaining to Republika Srpska, he is very clear in which
18 period he's talking about, January 1992, prior to 19th of May, 1992, prior
19 to the 6th of March, 1992, because we are all very well aware that there
20 are significant dates in 1992 when there is dispute as to the status which
21 entities have reached. Whether in fact it was all or part of the JNA, but
22 just given a name as a cover, which as you know has been the Prosecution
23 case throughout many, many cases in this Tribunal. So I think it is
24 misleading for the transcript, and also perhaps misleading to the witness,
25 if Mr. Pantelic is not very specific as to the time frame in 1992 he talks
1 about, as I said, takes on board the fact that we have already accepted
2 that the 22nd of May is a cut-off date for his argument about statehood.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, that was also my intention
5 when I --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: I hope the translation has been completed.
7 MS. REIDY: Sorry.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Has it? Yes.
9 MR. PANTELIC: So the -- my idea was to ask the witness about the
10 existence of the Army of Republika Srpska throughout the period -- all the
11 period, and he said no. After that, I was obliged to go to another line
12 to put him another question, and I was very keen to allow him to explain
13 us whether maybe he's thinking that JNA was from 1992 to 1995 official
14 army, or maybe it's some other army, so I was very, as I said, keen to
15 allow him to give us the answer.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. While some conclusions cannot be made by this
17 witness, some facts as to actually what was happening or what was in
18 existence then can be asked of the witness, but please do clear up the
19 period which you are talking about. You heard Ms. Reidy talking about the
20 fact that it was admitted to the UN on 22nd of May, 1992.
21 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: So if the witness can be directed to which period
23 your questions are stemming from?
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, you have heard what we have been
1 saying. We are discussing 1992. That's what we are talking about now.
2 Would you please give us your view about Republika Srpska. Was there an
3 army there in 1992?
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Was it before May or?
5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. From the 1st of January to the 31st of December, 1992.
7 A. You mean from the 1st of January, to the 31st of December; is that
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. At least for the first six months, the JNA was actually in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina officially and in actual fact. After that, after that,
12 parts of the JNA stayed on in Bosnia-Herzegovina but they put on different
13 uniforms. They were the uniforms of the Army of Republika Srpska, as it
14 was called, but the command was still in Belgrade, and throughout the war
15 it was from the General Staff of the Yugoslav army in Belgrade that the
16 influence was wielded on military operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It
17 was also financed from there, logistic support, and in all other senses,
18 cadres and so on and so forth, and it was only the other day that some of
19 the last vestiges were cleared up from the war that was financed in
20 Belgrade. So there was a portion of the Yugoslav People's Army there
21 throughout the war in actual fact. That is my opinion.
22 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. That's your opinion as a
23 layman. You are not a military expert, are you?
24 A. Well, as far as I know, as far as I am able to follow politics,
25 but no, I'm not a military expert.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Tihic, do you know the JNA was demobilised
3 sometime in May or June of 1992?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite simply, all its equipment and
5 materiel, storehouses, airports, helicopters, tanks, planes, it just
6 changed the emblems. It no longer said "JNA." It said "Army of Republika
7 Srpska." But everything else, financing, logistics, command, remained the
8 same. Everything was directed from Belgrade. Of course, a portion was
9 independent, that is to say the commanders of the Republika Srpska and the
10 army grew stronger, but Belgrade retained its influence, the influence it
11 wielded, and took part in the operations and so on and so forth.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: We will take our break or maybe --
13 JUDGE SINGH: So the arms stayed there, but the personnel stayed
14 there, the army personnel stayed there, but the uniforms were changed? Is
15 that what you're saying?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They changed the emblems and
17 insignia on their uniforms. The uniforms stayed the same. They just
18 changed the patches and emblems.
19 JUDGE SINGH: And did this new uniform army have a name?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. It was called the Army
21 of the Republika Srpska or something like that. I'm not sure what
22 Republika Srpska's name was at the time so it changed its name
24 JUDGE MUMBA: We will have a short break and continue at 1615
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you.
2 --- Break taken at 4.01 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We continue with cross-examination,
5 Mr. Pantelic.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honours.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, may we agree with the assertation that
8 at the end of October, when the Serb deputies left the BH parliament, that
9 in fact Bosnia-Herzegovina ceased to function and exist; yes or no?
10 A. No.
11 Q. May we agree, Mr. Tihic, that in the period between November to
12 January, from November 1991 to January 1992, on the territory of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that communities of the Croatian people were
14 Herceg-Bosna, Central Bosnia, and Bosanska Posavina, that those three
15 communities were formed; yes or no?
16 A. Those communities did exist, but I don't know whether that was the
17 period. I'm not sure of the period.
18 Q. Thank you. May we agree with the fact that the central government
19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the period after the 6th of April, 1992, was not
20 in a position to control -- was not capable of controlling the overall
21 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina; yes or no?
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: What does the answer mean?
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I'm sorry. You believe that it was in a position to control it;
2 A. I said no.
3 Q. Oh. No.
4 A. I said that it could not control the entire territory of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what I said. Because the Yugoslav People's
6 Army did not allow them to do so as well as various paramilitary
7 formations, et cetera.
8 Q. Thank you. Would you please be so kind as to answer the following
9 question: Which is the territory that the central government of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled in the period after the 6th of April, 1992?
11 If you know, of course.
12 A. This territory changed. I mean, it certainly controlled Sarajevo,
13 Zenica, or rather, the area of Zenica.
14 Q. Excuse me for interrupting. Excuse me, please.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have the assistance of Mr. Usher. Maybe
16 we could have the Times map here. It would be easier maybe to follow
17 these explanations, because some of us may not be so familiar with the
18 regions. With your permission, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can have the map.
20 MR. PANTELIC: I don't know what is the exhibit number, but
21 obviously the map is there. Thank you so much.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the number of the map?
23 THE REGISTRAR: The number is Prosecution Exhibit P15.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please get up, Mr. Tihic, take off your
1 headphones and take the other headphones with the microphone and use the
2 pointer, please? It's going to be easier for you because this pointer is
3 short. Please, could you move from one region to the other, one district
4 to the other? [In English] Do you hear me? Do you copy me? Ten-4.
5 Thank you. [Interpretation] Can you hear me, Mr. Tihic?
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note they can't hear the
8 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters can't hear the witness. There is
9 usually another microphone.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, there is another microphone with a cord.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: The one which is hand-held.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, so-called show microphone.
13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Tihic, let's go back to the beginning of your
14 answer. Please show us on this map which regions were held by the central
15 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the time after the 6th of April,
17 A. The size of the territory varied. First of all, Sarajevo, as a
18 city. Then here, from Visoko, Zenica.
19 Q. Approximately when? Could you give us approximately the timing?
20 A. Visoko, Zenica, Travnik, you see. Central Bosnia was always under
21 its control. Tuzla and the Tuzla area was always under their control as
22 well. Bihac and this area too also, always. Then down here Konjic,
23 Jablanica, Mostar, Eastern Mostar, that was also constantly under their
24 control. And now a certain towns changed, like Srebrenica and Zepa here.
25 And then Gorazde was also under the control of the central government,
1 over here in eastern Bosnia, things like that. Then this part of
2 Herzegovina, Herzegovina. It depended on whether it was before or after
3 the Washington Accords, the situation varied. So it's Bihac, central
4 Bosnia, Tuzla, Sarajevo, Mostar over here, Herzegovina.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 [In English] Let the record show that the witness explained on the
8 Exhibit P15 the regions under the control of the central government of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period of from mid-April 1992 and the other
10 areas. Thank you.
11 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Tihic, you referred to all these areas. Could
12 you please tell us approximately what is the percentage of territory that
13 the central government of Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled then, as against
14 not in its control?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is the way it was. As
16 for territory itself, the central government controlled -- actually, it
17 depended on whether it was at war with Herceg-Bosna or not. So from 30 to
18 40 per cent, but as far as the population is concerned, the number was
19 much larger because the largest centres, after all, were under the control
20 of the central government, Tuzla, Zenica, Sarajevo, Mostar. So it must
21 have been over 50 per cent of the population. But then, as far as
22 territory is concerned, it was between 30 and 40 per cent, something like
24 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Would you please get the other microphone closer and turn it on,
2 the one that's the same like the one you're facing here, and please turn
3 it on so the interpreters could hear you? Thank you.
4 Bearing in mind what you've just said, Mr. Tihic, you will
5 certainly agree with me when I read the words of an Australian professor
6 of international law, Professor Roland Rich in connection with the
7 recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In an essay of his, he says --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy?
9 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I have no objection to Mr. Pantelic
10 asking questions about factual matters, control of the area, things that
11 Mr. Tihic might have known about. Mr. Tihic was asked about his knowledge
12 of international law, and I think he made quite clear that while he worked
13 in a consulate, he is not an expert of international law. I don't think
14 this is an appropriate question to ask about an international law expert.
15 Whether or not Professor Rich is an expert or not is something that Mr.
16 Pantelic is of course well able to put on the record when he calls his own
17 expert. The factual problem is not the problem. It's for Mr. Pantelic to
18 use those facts within the confines of his legal argument on the status of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I do think that this question is beyond the scope
20 of Mr. Tihic. He is a lawyer but not an international lawyer.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: That's an essay of the professor so --
22 MR. PANTELIC: Actually, Madam President, this is the factual
23 issue, not legal, and not theoretical. This is exactly the factual
24 issue. If you allow me to read it to the witness and then you can see
25 whether if has any relevance or not.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: No, because you're asking the witness to comment,
2 and that's an international law essay.
3 MR. PANTELIC: This is not international law, Madam President.
4 It's a factual issue about the territory, as I said. Probably you will
5 agree with me because, as you said, with regard to the territory that it
6 was not the case that the whole territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina was under
7 the control --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I will not allow you.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Just in support of this issue.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: No, you can use it, as Ms. Reidy said, to bolster
11 your argument, but not put it to this witness.
12 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE SINGH: -- I have one more question to ask you. The Tadic
15 case, on appeal, hasn't it decided all these issues, I mean, about the JNA
16 forces, demobilising, territory under control of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian
17 government and issues of that nature which you are raising now? Is there
18 any evidence that you're presenting questions in cross-examination which
19 will take us beyond that case?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. Tadic case, and the
21 judgement in Tadic case, was rendered in the circumstances where Defence
22 were not in situation to present all proofs, and from my modest point of
23 view as a small lawyer, you know, international terms, I think that it's a
24 miscarriage of justice regarding to factual things, and we in this case
25 are trying to expand and to go beyond this. Finally, this Trial Chamber
1 [indiscernible]. Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, you know Muhamed Filipovic, or at
3 least by name?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. He is a well-respected businessman and theoretician, and an
6 intellectual, indeed; isn't that right?
7 A. He's not a businessman. That least of all. He's an academician,
8 a professor.
9 Q. We can agree that Mr. Muhamed Filipovic was one of the important
10 founders of the SDA; isn't that right?
11 A. I don't think he was a founder.
12 Q. But he was in the SDA?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We can also agree that Mr. Muhamed Filipovic was persecuted by the
15 Communist authorities after the Second World War and he had to emigrate?
16 A. No. You have confused him with Zulfikarpasic. No. No. Muhamed
17 was never persecuted, never. You are referring to Adil Begzulfikarpasic,
18 aren't you?
19 Q. However, Muhamed Filipovic was in Yugoslavia all the time, was he?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was he persecuted for his opinions by the Communist authorities?
22 A. No, he was not persecuted. There were some differences, but he
23 wasn't detained or anything like that.
24 Q. Speaking of the situation after October 1991 and about the
25 atmosphere in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the efforts of all three sides to
1 reach a peaceful agreement, in his book, Mr. Muhamed Filipovic, entitled
2 "I Was Alija's Diplomat," when speaking of this specific time and those
3 days in parliament, he says the following, and I'm asking you to say
4 whether you agree or disagree with this view. With your permission, I'd
5 like to read this.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I'm referring to the book of
7 Mr. Muhamed Filipovic, "I Was Alija's Diplomat," "Alija" meaning Alija
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.
10 MR. PANTELIC: It's published in Sarajevo, year 2000, page 130.
11 Q. [Interpretation][As read] "In such both miserable and equally
12 difficult situation, a conference was held in Brussels on the situation in
13 the former Yugoslavia. At this conference, it was said that not only
14 Slovenia and Croatia, but also the other republics of the former
15 Yugoslavia, can perhaps leave the federal state if they carry out certain
16 legal and political actions before that," [In English] constitutional and
17 legal preconditions, " [Interpretation] and reach that through appropriate
18 legal parliamentary procedure, or perhaps by way of a referendum of
20 "They brought our people and our country into a situation with no
21 way out, and these same people from the SDA opted for this second
22 solution. They knew, of course, that they could not carry through a
23 proposal on the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina through legal procedure
24 in the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina because they could not overcome
25 the obstacle of the constitutional obligation not to have any decision
1 that affects the vital interests of any of the constituent peoples of the
2 country -- can be reached by outvoting, and views on it have to be
3 accommodated in the commission for the equality of nationalities."
4 Mr. Tihic, do you agree with this view?
5 A. No, I don't.
6 Q. Thank you. In this period, from October 1991 until the 6th of
7 April, 1992, did you, as a member of the Main Board of the SDA, at certain
8 meetings discuss the subject matter involving a peaceful settlement in
10 A. Maybe we had two or three sessions at that time, and reports were
11 always presented about the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and people
12 went to Lisbon, and various delegations came from there and discussions
13 were held, and an effort was always made to try to preserve Yugoslavia.
14 Izetbegovic had advocated a graduated federation, anything but the
15 break-up of Yugoslavia. Therefore, I disagree with Filipovic. I think
16 that we made every effort to preserve Yugoslavia, and Izetbegovic
17 personally did as well. Because we simply knew that we did not have the
18 strength or the weapons and that we were not prepared for war. And there
19 were Muslims in other republics, in Sandzak and elsewhere, so we did not
20 welcome this with open arms, especially not as Filipovic presented it.
21 But we did not want to remain alone in this rump Yugoslavia without
22 Croatia and Slovenia.
23 Q. As far as I understood you, at the Main Board there were a few
24 debates about the efforts made by the International Community and the
25 participation of the delegation of the SDA in the peace process; is that
2 A. Yes. Yes.
3 Q. Did you personally attend these meetings of the Main Board?
4 A. When there were sessions of the Main Board, I was present at all
6 Q. You are probably familiar with some of the basic principles, since
7 you've mentioned this Lisbon agreement. You probably remember what this
8 was about, don't you?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Would you please be so kind as to explain to us, to the best of
11 your recollections, the things that you remember and the extent to which
12 you remember them so that we would avoid further debates.
13 A. I know that at that time Izetbegovic and Mahmut Cehajic, when they
14 came from Lisbon - I don't know who else was there --
15 Q. Excuse me, but could you please just slow down for the
17 A. They informed the Main Board about this, that proposals were being
18 put forth in which the national ethnic criterion was of paramount
19 importance in rearranging Bosnia-Herzegovina and creating these national
20 territories. At that time we at the Main Board were against this, because
21 we thought that Bosnia was so intertwined that it was difficult to create
22 ethnically pure areas. And in Lisbon, they took as a point of departure
23 that if a particular ethnic group of people was the majority in, say, a
24 municipality - they didn't call them entities or cantons - that this would
25 be the territory of that people, that population.
1 We at the Main Board were not in favour of this kind of ethnic
2 division then. We thought that the basis for reorganising
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina were supposed to be historical, geographical, and
4 economic criteria, and then ultimately the ethnic criterion as well, but
5 it could not be done only on the basis of the ethnic criterion. Well, had
6 we known that there would be a war after that, perhaps things would be
7 viewed differently.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tihic. I have before me a text of the Lisbon
9 agreement, or better known as Cutilliero's plan, and in principle what you
10 say is correct. There were three constituents within Bosnia-Herzegovina,
11 were there not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The decisions were reached with a three-quarter majority vote?
14 A. I don't remember the details.
15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 [In English] Mr. Usher, please, I need your assistance. Your
17 Honours, I have a map of this Lisbon Agreement, so maybe it will be
18 appropriate for witness just to make a short comment about the territories
19 according to that map, because we are entering in that area.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm wondering whether the Prosecution has a
22 MR. DI FAZIO: No.
23 MR. PANTELIC: You can get first -- I mean, it's not for the
24 evidence, not for ID number. It's simply just a kind of illustration.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: No. But it's being referred to, it's being shown to
1 the witness, and the witness is going to answer some questions, so it is
2 part of the evidence.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It has to be marked, I agree. We can't just have
4 documents floating about without being identified. At the very least,
5 it's got to be marked - I would insist on that - before the witness
6 comments on it.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: I wanted to find out whether the Prosecution has a
9 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got a copy now. I've never seen this before.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: That's a problem with the Defence. We have been
11 through this so many times.
12 MR. PANTELIC: No problem.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Then you withdraw.
14 MR. PANTELIC: I withdraw. It's no problem. We shall introduce
15 that during the expert -- testimony of the expert witness. It's no
16 problem, Your Honour. It's okay. Thank you, Mr. Usher.
17 Your Honour, I have with me a piece of paper which I have some
18 maybe - maybe I'm wrong - some idea that it was made by Mr. Tihic. I
19 wasn't in situation to verify that issue. I would like to show this
20 document to Mr. Tihic and simply he will say, "This is my document," or,
21 "It is not."
22 JUDGE MUMBA: What is it? What's the title?
23 MR. PANTELIC: These are, I think, minutes of the -- I cannot read
24 this handwriting. It's minutes of a session of original board of SDA in
25 Doboj, of 18 February, 1992, just for the identification to see whether he
1 recognised this or not.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no. We are back again. Does the
3 Prosecution have a copy?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: This is a criminal trial, Mr. Pantelic. This is a
6 criminal trial.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: If you want to see the witness outside the
9 proceedings, you are entitled to do that, with the permission of the Trial
10 Chamber, and in the presence of the Prosecution, if you just want him to
11 assist you in another way, but certainly this is a criminal trial.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes of course. I don't know actually from where,
13 and maybe he will say, "No it is not my" --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: He is not going to be shown that document, full
16 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: You don't even know it yourself, so the Prosecution
18 have not got a copy, and you don't seem to be willing to give it to the
20 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, because I wasn't sure that that was
21 his copy, so I didn't.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, even if you're not sure, if you have a document
23 which you think is important to your case, the case for your client, you
24 give a copy to the Prosecution. If it's in Serbo-Croat, get it
25 translated. If it's taking too long, give a copy in Serbo-Croat to the
1 Prosecution. Maybe they can have a translation. What is important is
2 that they have a document before it is shown to the witness in court, so
3 that they can make their own investigations and make a stand.
4 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct. If he will say that this is his
5 handwriting, then I will go and have a copy, nothing more.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: He is not going to be shown a document which the
7 Defence is not willing to give to the Prosecution.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I understand.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Tihic, I really don't know
10 whether this is your document or not and we can't ascertain it at this
11 point. Would you be so kind as to --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: You are asking him again.
13 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, no. I'm asking him about the events.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but show the copy to the Prosecution, please.
15 The Prosecution will have -- may need to re-examine the witness on the
16 contents of that document. How do they verify it? What is your problem?
17 Because you can just put the questions to him without referring to the
18 document, if you want, if there is a meeting you want him to discuss.
19 MR. PANTELIC: But I cannot discuss it. I don't know if he was
20 the author.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: And they are in Serbo-Croat again.
22 MR. PANTELIC: But he can read if he recognise that. That's the
23 problem. I cannot read, Your Honour, because it's illegible, absolutely
24 illegible. So you know how it works. For identification purposes --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Let me hear from the Prosecution first.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I would object to the use of this document.
2 It's -- I haven't -- I didn't object to the use of the gazettes and so on
3 and so forth.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, even though they were untranslated.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps that was a risky move, I don't know, but
6 this is an altogether different class of document. It's hand-written, I
7 don't know what it says, I've never seen it before, and even if it is
8 marked for identification, by the time it comes for me to stand up
9 tomorrow morning and start re-examining, I won't be in any more
10 enlightened position. In practical terms I'm not going to be able to do
11 that or investigate it, so from that point of view, it shouldn't even be
12 put to the witness.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: In my submission.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: It won't be shown to the witness. It won't be used
16 in the proceedings.
17 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the Defence counsel just has to comply with
20 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I agree with this approach, and I'm
21 happy to provide the Prosecution with a copy of this manuscript, and then
22 they can confer with the witness and then see.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: They have looked at it, and they say it's
24 illegible. It's in Serbo-Croat.
25 MR. PANTELIC: I agree. Mr. Usher, please, could you give this
1 copy --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it another copy?
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. It's another copy. Give me the other ones,
4 because you have one, Mr. di Fazio, and I give -- that copy also, because
5 I have enough copies for the purposes of the identification. So tomorrow
6 they will check with Mr. Tihic and they will say whether it's his writing
7 or not, and then we shall proceed on that issue.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: What about the translation?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Translation? Maybe he can read. Assuming that
10 that's his document, he can read, then our interpreters can give us the
11 exact --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Fine. In that case, then, we will postpone dealing
13 with this document until the Prosecution have got their instructions, and
14 I will allow the Prosecution leave to consult with the witness.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. Absolutely. No objection.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: And then tomorrow morning, they can tell the Chamber
17 what their stand is.
18 MR. PANTELIC: No objections from Defence. Thank you, Your
20 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour please, of course, I'm happy to do
21 that and to do our best to try and ascertain the mystery that lies behind
22 this document. But whether or not we can do that before tomorrow morning
23 and when we start re-examination is another issue. I'll do -- the
24 Prosecution will do its level best but -- I know that we face practical
25 problems with this sort of thing once we leave this courtroom. So it's
1 not impossible but there are difficulties from time to time.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I was going to deal with that towards the end
3 because I wanted to find out how long Mr. Pantelic thinks he still needs
4 to complete cross-examination.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. My rough estimation would be, Your Honours --
6 let's say, first, I was of impression that we are going to work today
7 according to the yesterday's schedule, until 6.30 p.m., something like
8 that, so I made a short conference --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Today we are adjourning at 1715, so after that
10 time --
11 MR. PANTELIC: I would say, to do my best, until lunch break
12 tomorrow. I will do my best.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: You asked for two hours.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's really a crucial issue and
15 matter. It's a unique situation to have such a nice gentleman here and
16 have him as a witness.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Fine. We shall see how far we shall go because we
18 have to allow Prosecution time to see the witness.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Of course. And that brings me to another question
20 with your permission, Your Honour, if I may.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, you arrived here on Monday, I believe?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Since Monday to the present day, have you met with any of the
24 representatives of the OTP?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Didn't you see any of them when you were here and then went to
2 Sarajevo, any of the representatives?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Well, that's interesting, because I gave some documents to the
5 Prosecution seven days ago, because I was intending to use it during your
6 cross-examination, but they didn't contact you about that, did they?
7 A. No.
8 Q. All right, then, I apologise, thank you.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Did those documents include these ones you are
10 trying to show the witness?
11 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: They are different.
13 MR. PANTELIC: These are different documents, yes, so I simply
14 thought maybe they were in contact.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, maybe you can proceed on other points and see
16 how far we go. Then we will see what time to allow the Prosecution to
17 meet with the witness.
18 MR. PANTELIC: That was my intention.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: They have to deal with that before you complete your
21 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, we are now going to talk about
23 cooperation between the SDA and the HDZ and the SDS at a local level in
24 political life. I have a text of your very fresh recollections.
25 MR. PANTELIC: With your permission, Your Honour, I have B/C/S
1 version of his work. So maybe, in order to facilitate communication with
2 the witness, when I'm referring to certain parts or gist of this work,
3 maybe I can give a copy on B/C/S language so that I can easily check with
4 the witness, like we doing with witness statements and so on.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Which document is that?
6 MR. PANTELIC: It's memoirs from --
7 Q. [Interpretation] When did you write your memoirs? What year was
8 that, 1992, was it?
9 A. Yes, 1992.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I think this is the
11 material that the Prosecution was prohibited from using in its
12 examination-in-chief of this particular witness. I think they are the
13 memoirs of Mr. Tihic, and it's quite unfair, of course, for the -- for
14 this material to be used by the Defence when the Prosecution hasn't been
15 entitled to ask any of its questions in examination-in-chief of this
17 JUDGE MUMBA: What is it?
18 MR. DI FAZIO: It's the book, I think, the memoirs.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the usher please collect the document and show
20 the Prosecution so that we can verify?
21 MR. PANTELIC: Let me clarify this, Your Honour. The Defence
22 actually got this material from the Prosecution.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I just want them to -- you've got it and see
24 whether it's the same copy.
25 MR. PANTELIC: It's the same copy. I have a B/C/S version and I
1 have an English version here.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Are they the same?
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It's the memoirs all right.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: And I'll just quote -- I'm very grateful to my
6 colleague Ms. Reidy for her use of this computer, and this is what was
7 said at the time of the objection. "Mr. Pantelic: Madam President, Your
8 Honours, we strongly object to this proposal from our learned colleagues
9 from the Prosecution on the basis that we act here according to the
10 rules. We have very precise and stringent rules. Our colleagues from the
11 Prosecution filed a list of exhibits and therefore notified the Defence
12 about the list, exact list of exhibits, and to some extent they gave us
13 information about, I would say, evidence framework for these
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Slow down.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: "And due to that fact, I think if this application
18 would be granted, then we are entering into an area of legal insecurity
19 because we have very precise rules." And the objection was -- I don't
20 need to quote any further but that -- the objection was upheld.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: These are the memoirs where it was established that
22 they weren't notes made contemporaneously.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: That's exactly right. They are classic memoirs.
24 They are memoirs written -- as one reads them, it looks like a book.
25 Whether one calls it a book or memoirs is neither here nor there, but they
1 are precisely and exactly the same material that was objected to by the
2 Defence, and from my recollection, all of the defendants joined in the
3 objection. And now, use is being sought to be made of that. Now, that's
4 unfair, in the Prosecution's submission.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's very simple. It's very simple
7 situation. First of all, I am not of intention to tender this material as
8 exhibits. Not at all. I, in order to facilitate this communication with
9 the witness, would like to have in front of him his papers and to go
10 through the questions and make some comments. So it is not a question, it
11 is not an issue here, that I am going to tender it into evidence.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Just to let you pause for breath for one second.
15 I do have the transcript in front of me dealing with this issue, pages
16 1491 and onwards for a few pages, and I see, first of all, that the
17 memoirs were actually prepared in 1995, according to our transcript, and
18 my colleague, Judge Singh, asked a couple of questions to Mr. di Fazio
19 concerning basically if there is any material contained in those memoirs,
20 he asked the Prosecution why, basically, you wouldn't put it to the
21 witness without looking at the diary. And likewise our Presiding Judge,
22 Judge Mumba, basically said that the rule is where the witness is
23 available, get the evidence from the witness viva voce, and I think that's
24 the position where we ended up.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And in addition, Your Honours, if you allow
1 me, as I said, we, in order to facilitate this communication, should have
2 certain paper, because there are many events, so this witness can maybe be
3 in good position to give some comments. That's the first thing.
4 Another thing is that the Defence is, I think, perfectly entitled
5 to use all materials and documents previously provided by the Prosecution
6 in the process of discovery. That's a bottom line. This is the general
7 principle of fairness of trial so that Defence is entitled to use all
9 Third point is that I'm acting on behalf of Mr. Blagoje Simic, and
10 we -- I, as Defence, I don't have any relation with the Prosecutor with
11 regard to the reciprocal discovery. So they, in process of discovery, are
12 entitled to give me a certain number of documents, and also me. So I am a
13 little bit, you know, aside of this general, I would say, relations
14 between Prosecutor and Defence.
15 In short, I think - and I'm speaking on behalf of my client,
16 Mr. Blagoje Simic - I think that Defence for Blagoje Simic is entitled to
17 use these notes, book, memoirs, whatever it is, during the
18 cross-examination and during the preparation of the defence of my client.
19 That would be my submission. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. di Fazio.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, with respect, the memoirs
22 are really in no different position from a statement or a writing or a
23 previous utterance by this witness, just as if the OTP had gone to him in
24 1995 and asked him to write a hundred-page book of his recollections of
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Judge Williams rightly pointed out, with respect,
3 that the preference of the Chamber is, and the rule of the Chamber is,
4 that the primary source of evidence from a witness is viva voce evidence,
5 and that's a familiar concept in many, many jurisdictions. If
6 Mr. Pantelic wants to put extracts from the memoirs to the witness in
7 order to prove that he is now making inconsistent statements, that's
8 another matter altogether. That's another matter altogether. He can use
9 the memoirs as if they were a statement, and I would have no objection.
10 If Mr. --
11 MR. PANTELIC: My situation --
12 MR. DI FAZIO: And I've got no problem with that, but tendering
13 the book into evidence is not right, in the Prosecution's submission, and
14 is not the right approach. The right approach for Mr. Pantelic would be
15 to put his proposition that he wants Mr. Tihic to agree with, and if
16 Mr. Tihic agrees with his proposition, all well and good. If Mr. Tihic
17 says something that Mr. Pantelic considers is inconsistent with what he
18 has placed in his memoirs or written in his memoirs back in 1995, then
19 Mr. Pantelic can put that part of the memoirs to the witness. But that's
20 the extent of the use of the memoirs, that should be permitted, in the
21 Prosecution's submission.
22 If Mr. Pantelic approaches these memoirs in much the same way as a
23 statement, then we won't get into this sort of difficulty, but simply
24 presenting it to the witness, and/or tendering it, is not, in the
25 Prosecution's submission, an acceptable way to approach the evidence of
1 this witness. The first and primary source is what Mr. Tihic says, and if
2 Mr. Pantelic wants to say, "Well, no. You've said something different on
3 a previous occasion," he can identify that previous occasion to the
4 witness and ask the witness to comment. And in the Prosecution's
5 submission, that is the way the matter should proceed.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. We don't have any dispute. That was
7 my -- I don't want to tender it into evidence, no. Secondly, in order to
8 facilitate communication with the witness with regard to certain events,
9 just for a clarification, nothing more, and then he will give his oral
10 answer. That's it, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So if you ask him the questions, if you put
12 the extracts --
13 MR. PANTELIC: That's right.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: -- the memoirs to him, that would be okay. So you
15 can proceed.
16 MR. PANTELIC: That was my intention. Thank you.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we can deal with that tomorrow. I wanted to
18 excuse -- to allow the witness to leave the courtroom so that we can
19 discuss a point on which we don't seem to be settled, the next witness.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the witness can be escorted out. We will
22 proceed tomorrow at 0930 hours.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I wanted to find out from the Prosecution
25 about the possible next witness. I had given instructions to the legal
1 officer to convey the Chamber's view about the witnesses dealing with
2 Mr. Simic's involvement, so we would like to know what your intentions
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. The next witness that the Prosecution
5 proposes to call is Mr. Esad Dagovic. We've been in communication with
6 him. He's arriving here this evening. My colleague, Mr. Weiner, who you
7 can see is absent, is hopefully going to proof him tonight and tomorrow
8 morning, and he should be ready to proceed as the next witness. And given
9 the fact that Mr. Pantelic is going to use part of tomorrow morning, at
10 least, for continued cross-examination, I'm hopeful that his proofing
11 process will be completed and so that matters should proceed smoothly from
13 You mentioned a witness dealing directly with Mr. Milan Simic.
14 This witness does not deal directly with Mr. Milan Simic. The remaining
15 witness who will deal with the particular factual episode, the issue in
16 the primary school, is a gentleman named Perica Misic, and --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Can we deal with the witness who is ready,
18 available, for instance, tomorrow afternoon.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Yes, Your Honour. In that case, I can
20 tell you that Esad Dagovic is going to be the next witness. The Defence
21 know about that. They've told me they agree with that. In fact, they
22 told me they preferred that to calling the expert --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: The other one.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: -- the demographics expert, Ewa Tabeau. So they've
25 been accommodated in that respect, and that's what we propose to do.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. If that is agreed with the Defence on the next
2 witness, then that's fine.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honours. Everything is fine with the
4 Defence. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: That is fine. So the other matters are these -- I
6 think I told the counsel for Mr. Simo Zaric about the offloading from the
7 Internet and also making sure that that is the correct text, because it's
8 your case. Like I said, you have the obligation to hand it in.
9 We are remaining with, I think, three matters to be decided: the
10 complaint about the witness' contact; and the document Variant B, whether
11 or not it should be admitted; and the motion to the Chamber from the
12 Defence that it should visit Bosanski Samac. Yes. The two, the first
13 two, will be decided before Friday so that the parties have the recess to
14 deal with whatever has to be dealt with, and the other one we think will
15 go halfway, maybe towards the end of the Prosecution case, to see how much
16 of the evidence may require onsite inspection.
17 I would also take this opportunity to inform the parties that
18 during the recess, please let's get the documents issue sorted out:
19 Translations; if not possible, the copies be given to the Prosecution. It
20 is very important for the trial to be fair, even to the Prosecution, in as
21 far as cross-examination is concerned, so that we don't have these
22 problems during trial time and we can use trial time as much as possible
23 to receive evidence from the witnesses.
24 We'll adjourn, unless there are any -- some other matters.
25 Because tomorrow we are going back to our schedule, 0930 hours to 1300
1 hours, and then, in the afternoon, 1530 to 1700 hours. I haven't
2 forgotten giving the Prosecution time for Mr. Tihic. Yes, we'll keep that
3 in mind. We'll see how the cross-examination will continue in the
4 morning. But I'm sure they can try to see if they can get some maybe
5 translation from your office. Not the official translation; just to
6 assist you while you are waiting for proofing, to get instructions on the
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. You mean the document that was revealed this
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the one --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Right. Yes. I don't think that will be a
12 problem. I think that if we can't do it tonight, we'll certainly be able
13 to do it early tomorrow.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I believe my colleague has a comment to make in
16 respect of the Variant A and B issue, if Your Honours please.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honours. What I've understood you to say
19 is that you would be ruling on the matter by the time the Court rises for
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MS. REIDY: And Your Honour Judge Singh had made a suggestion that
23 we submit a -- there have been inter parte steps between us and Defence on
24 this matter already, and Mr. Singh -- Your Honour Judge Singh suggested
25 that we submit a witness summary as to who we might call on that. The
1 witness summary is, as such, prepared. The person that we would consider
2 most appropriate to call is on mission and has been on mission for a
3 while, because of many other things which are going on in this Tribunal,
4 isn't due back on Sunday.
5 Before Your Honours rule on that, I don't know whether you would
6 be interested in seeing the witness summary, and if so, I can try
7 tomorrow, through secure fax, to contact the witness, have him agree or
8 not agree with the summary, and then submit it perhaps by close of
9 tomorrow or Friday morning. But I'd just -- I guess I just want to make
10 clear on the record that before you rule on that matter, there is an
11 outstanding --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Matter to be submitted by the Prosecution. All
14 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I -- Ms. Reidy has put the
16 situation to you very clearly. Just to be absolutely clear, though, the
17 Prosecution position is that it does wish to provide you with that
18 evidence as to the source of these documents.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: It's the Prosecution's submission that it's
21 crucial, really, to its -- to the admission of this document, and we would
22 go further and say rather than simply respond to an invitation from the
23 Chamber, our position is that we do wish to put this material before you.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Before the Trial Chamber. All right.
25 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, also --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before I let you speak, Ms. Baen, I was trying
2 to find also whether the document which was solicited from Trial Chamber I
3 has been released to the Defence counsel.
4 MS. BAEN: No, Your Honour, we haven't received it.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we can hear from the Registry assistant.
6 THE REGISTRAR: I have it here in the courtroom to be distributed,
7 Your Honours --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see.
9 THE REGISTRAR: -- to the counsel.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: To the --
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: So that will be done after we have risen. So we
13 will rise and we will continue our proceedings tomorrow morning at --
14 I'm sorry, Ms. Baen. I forgot about you.
15 MS. BAEN: I'm sorry, Your Honour. That tends to happen to me,
16 actually, everywhere.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: You should sit right in the witness box.
18 MS. BAEN: Well, sometimes I like to hide behind the pole, though,
19 just for strategic reasons.
20 My understanding when we had this conversation about the Variant
21 A, B document, when Judge Singh raised this issue, is that we were going
22 to receive the information from the Prosecutors as to the source of this
23 document, which is exactly what they say they have now, is this witness
24 statement, and so we sure would like to have a copy of that if --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: I see, and then you may wish to make submissions.
1 MS. BAEN: Yes, exactly, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Then we can postpone it until we get the
3 documents from the Prosecution, and they should serve them on the Defence
4 as well. Then we can deal with it perhaps after the recess.
5 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So we'll adjourn and continue tomorrow our
7 proceedings at 0930 hours.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.18 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of
10 November, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.